EMF Exposure

LQB said:
...It does need some serious help! :P I don't know about the cloths but the materials are pretty good (based on their measurements). High freq RF will bounce right off. They will do nothing for mag fields. They might do something for dirty power - they might also make it worse. So like what Megan said, it depends on what the biggest threat is.

There is also the question of how the materials would perform after having been worn for a while, as well as how well they would work in the presence of one's body. Is there research from working with ES individuals that shows that shielding actually helps?

We are about to rearrange the furniture in the second bedroom. I may put the dresser in the space through the wall from the power meter, if it fits that spot. I don't sit at it, and hopefully the field won't affect my jewelry. I piled things on the bed so that the cats don't come too close.
 
LQB said:
...It does need some serious help! :P I don't know about the cloths but the materials are pretty good (based on their measurements). High freq RF will bounce right off. They will do nothing for mag fields. They might do something for dirty power - they might also make it worse. So like what Megan said, it depends on what the biggest threat is.

Thanks for the additional information, LQB!

Megan said:
There is also the question of how the materials would perform after having been worn for a while, as well as how well they would work in the presence of one's body. Is there research from working with ES individuals that shows that shielding actually helps?

We are about to rearrange the furniture in the second bedroom. I may put the dresser in the space through the wall from the power meter, if it fits that spot. I don't sit at it, and hopefully the field won't affect my jewelry. I piled things on the bed so that the cats don't come too close.

I recall reading one anecdotal claim (a blog post I can't find at the moment and read a while ago) that suggested improvement with CFS with, I think, a shielding hat. However I obviously wouldn't qualify that particularly solid evidence.
 
Megan said:
LQB said:
...It does need some serious help! :P I don't know about the cloths but the materials are pretty good (based on their measurements). High freq RF will bounce right off. They will do nothing for mag fields. They might do something for dirty power - they might also make it worse. So like what Megan said, it depends on what the biggest threat is.

There is also the question of how the materials would perform after having been worn for a while, as well as how well they would work in the presence of one's body. Is there research from working with ES individuals that shows that shielding actually helps?

We are about to rearrange the furniture in the second bedroom. I may put the dresser in the space through the wall from the power meter, if it fits that spot. I don't sit at it, and hopefully the field won't affect my jewelry. I piled things on the bed so that the cats don't come too close.

Some folks do get good relief using the clothes and sheets - but I would guess that they are the ones particularly effected by RF. More and more ES seem to be showing sensitivity to all three major EMFs.

Good deal on the dresser - now the bed is functional again. Put some foil on the wall behind the dresser to reflect the RF back out the house. If that thing is transmitting at 1800MHz then the wavelength is about 6" so if you can cover at least a few square feet (4) behind the meter, then you will knock a fair amount of that energy back out of the house. Make it as big as you can stand centered on the meter - hell, nake a design out of it. The bigger, the more RF energy you will direct back out.
 
You are right, if the energy is not being dissipated in the ring then it has to be transduced somehow into a harmless form of energy. If you dissipate it instead of transducing it, you end up with questions of impedance matching, and that may entail a large series of compromises. You know, I am a quick learner. I can learn something and immediately begin to apply it. It is in the intervening time that my understanding fades and I may confabulate some misunderstanding. I am trying to work this magnetic thing out.

Shorting rings are used in speaker voicecoils (speakers - another tranducer of ground noise into local EMF) to decrease the impedance of the speaker at treble so more energy can be turned to sound for the same input voltage. The critical thing is that the voicecoil is moving, and the shorting ring is not. I think if the shorting ring were attached to the voicecoil it would short out any magnetic flux and prevent the speaker cone from moving. The shorted voice coil would present a low impedance to the input, preventing voltage from appearing across the voicecoil and thus power being transduced into the magnetic field. The power instead would be dissipated in the source, rather than the speaker.

So my reasoning is that by using a ring to short out the magnetic field in a space, you prevent the power from being dissipated in the vicinity of the ring, and instead the power is diverted elsewhere.

Since currents take the path of least resistance, for the ring to be effective it needs to have a lower magnetic impedance than whatever you are shielding with it. And the question of magnetic polarization is also open - such a device with all axes covered might be pretty alienating to wear in public. But one axis of EMF shielding is perhaps better than none.

If I understand this correctly the magnetic flux would be diverted and flow around the ring instead of through it. This gives me an idea. Toroidal inductors are used because the magnetic flux is strongly contained within the core because there are no sharp corners to radiate. For this reason they are used in situations where EMF needs to be controlled and for RF filtering. I wonder if this would work in our case.
 
Hello,

Foxx said:
Megan, have you considered EMF blocking clothing? I don't think it's widely available (and it's certainly not cheap), but this place claims to have clothing that can block EM radiation:

_http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html

I've seriously considered buying some clothing from them before (and am still considering it), but haven't purchased anything from them as of yet.
Consider the following things:
- Shielding is the last choice one has if all other alternatives are not an option. Either removing the source or removing yourself from the source is the first try that should be approached. Try everything to remove the source. If it is impossible, shielding can be applied as long as necessary. But it isn't a long-term solution in many respects. It's a measure for survival.
- You have to know exactly what's your enemy. You have to know what you will shield against and how.
- Each shielding measure has to be verified by measuring the actual EMF exposure afterwards. If you are not careful, you may even worsen the situation.

For Swiss residents, consider purchasing from there if you desire so: _http://www.a-zgesund.ch
Always keep in mind that customs may apply, especially cloths will trigger those upward (so be careful and check such things out first).

Megan said:
I can see that it might be worth considering after establishing by measurement that high EMF levels exist in the environment that can't be avoided. But looking at the products at the above link, how would you even know that those things work?
They work. You have to look in detail which material is being used. Then you should obtain its specification and characteristic curve with respect to RF shielding (some do also shield against electric fields if grounded properly but not magnetic fields!).

parallel said:
There's a Danish scientist who became electro sensitive (can't find the thing right now) in a way she was totally debilitated in her life, she renavigated her research into this area and can now function with a silver shawl. Then there's also the silk tip from the C's
See my last post regarding silk there: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,11560.msg351676.html#msg351676

Megan said:
There is also the question of how the materials would perform after having been worn for a while, as well as how well they would work in the presence of one's body. Is there research from working with ES individuals that shows that shielding actually helps?
They can be usually washed several times without losing their shielding properties. The problem with shielding clothing is that you cannot measure the EMF levels inside your body, upon your skin, etc. when those cloths are worn. The most sensitive body part is your head. And this part can hardly be shielded in whole all day or for a long period of time. Clothing has usually openings where radiation may enter in. Thus your EMF exposure will actually increase rather than decrease in a worst-case scenario. For example, if you wear shielding clothing without head protection and the radiation is coming from above (like another storey), little shielding will occur. If feasible, it is better to shield vital parts of your environment such as the place you sleep and work. A precise measurement is possible as well in this case.
 
monotonic said:
You are right, if the energy is not being dissipated in the ring then it has to be transduced somehow into a harmless form of energy. If you dissipate it instead of transducing it, you end up with questions of impedance matching, and that may entail a large series of compromises. You know, I am a quick learner. I can learn something and immediately begin to apply it. It is in the intervening time that my understanding fades and I may confabulate some misunderstanding. I am trying to work this magnetic thing out.

Shorting rings are used in speaker voicecoils (speakers - another tranducer of ground noise into local EMF) to decrease the impedance of the speaker at treble so more energy can be turned to sound for the same input voltage. The critical thing is that the voicecoil is moving, and the shorting ring is not. I think if the shorting ring were attached to the voicecoil it would short out any magnetic flux and prevent the speaker cone from moving. The shorted voice coil would present a low impedance to the input, preventing voltage from appearing across the voicecoil and thus power being transduced into the magnetic field. The power instead would be dissipated in the source, rather than the speaker.

So my reasoning is that by using a ring to short out the magnetic field in a space, you prevent the power from being dissipated in the vicinity of the ring, and instead the power is diverted elsewhere.

Since currents take the path of least resistance, for the ring to be effective it needs to have a lower magnetic impedance than whatever you are shielding with it. And the question of magnetic polarization is also open - such a device with all axes covered might be pretty alienating to wear in public. But one axis of EMF shielding is perhaps better than none.

If I understand this correctly the magnetic flux would be diverted and flow around the ring instead of through it. This gives me an idea. Toroidal inductors are used because the magnetic flux is strongly contained within the core because there are no sharp corners to radiate. For this reason they are used in situations where EMF needs to be controlled and for RF filtering. I wonder if this would work in our case.

If you want to "squish" the field to appearing some other (safer) place, then pure conductors will do the job. What your previous post made me think of was a simple treatment that could fit over a wall transformer to cut the mag field down. Dissipative coils would probably help - but is it worth it? Most socket transformers look like point sources of AC mag - very high near the device and dropping off rapidly with distance. The easiest thing to do, I think, is to keep them unplugged except in use - and keep them away from living areas (especially child access). They will be a source of grid noise as long as they are plugged in.

Whole body approaches to AC mag shielding would be very messy considering the sources. And then you run the risk of shielding the natural EMF associated with the earth/sun driven earth/ionosphere modes (Schumann resonances).
 
Sirius said:
Consider the following things:
- Shielding is the last choice one has if all other alternatives are not an option. Either removing the source or removing yourself from the source is the first try that should be approached. Try everything to remove the source. If it is impossible, shielding can be applied as long as necessary. But it isn't a long-term solution in many respects. It's a measure for survival.
- You have to know exactly what's your enemy. You have to know what you will shield against and how.
- Each shielding measure has to be verified by measuring the actual EMF exposure afterwards. If you are not careful, you may even worsen the situation.

In general, yes. But to avoid confusion - for Megan's smart meter (and anyone that has one mounted on an outside wall of the house) you can attach a patch of aluminum foil (needs to be big enough) to the wall behind the meter and easily achieve an order of magnitude (10dB) reduction in the power radiated into the house in the back direction from the meter.
 
I did some tests using an old CRT coil with an oscilloscope and my CRT monitor as the source. I found the coil/ring did have an effect, but only in the immediate vicinity of the ring. For instance if the ring were 1.5 times wider than the receiving coil, there would not be much effect. This was at 62KHz. This sort of confirms my original suspicion. I will use my signal generator and make tests at other frequencies.

It seems the impedance-shorting effect only works for very well-coupled fields. Any given coil is well-coupled only to the substances in it's immediate vicinity, in this case air which is not very permeable, meaning the coupling goes only a few inches, and anything radiated or detected from further away has to be from EMF vector waves rather than direct flux lines. Anything in the coupling area sees an impedance short, but everything else seems to go right past with only field distortion occurring in the vicinity of the ring. So it seems that shorting rings work in transformers and speakers because they are wrapped right around the source, usually touching or almost.

So what we need to be shielding is not necessarily local flux, but vector waves. This is a bit puzzling because vector waves can exist only because of local coupling through the permeability and conductivity of the substance they are traveling through. However at 62KHz the wavelength is far longer than the standard household.

However if any device is able to generate such a large magnetic wave, there should be a way to eliminate it if you can only access most of the space it travels through. I know that resonant crystal radios can draw a surprising amount of energy from the radio waves. I suspect this is a question of phase. I think a passive shorting ring will have phase lead response, since immediate signals generate more current. So it would make sense that only the early part of the waveform, and therefore only the immediate flux is shorted (at frequencies as low as 62KHz anyways). By correcting the phase, the shorting area may increase; the coil response needs to be in phase with the perturbing signal. Here we face an inherent limitation; for any blocking reaction to take place, there has to be a stray field sensed. A canceling reaction therefore ensures that all of the perturbance is not neutralized. However any active circuit has it's own BW limits; I suspect that if the necessary relaxing of canceling action is made frequency dependent rather than a DC quantity, it will preserve the effectiveness at frequencies within BW while complementing the inherent BW limit.

Thoughts:

1: This doesn't help with the static part of the wave, only with the magnetic part. Dealing with the static part may be similar to the magnetic part. However, when near the source, static waves may be present without the magnetic EMF counterpart and magnetic waves may be present without the static EMF counterpart. So maybe they need dealt with separately.

2: A mistake with the active circuit may turn it into an oscillator and/or make thing worse.

3: As I said before, the one requirement for the circuit to work is that it has a lower magnetic impedance than whatever it is used on. I don't know the magnetic impedance of body tissues but I know that for the most part, metal will be more conductive.

Tentative conclusions:

1: Local EMF shorting may work significantly for sources of EMF if the shorting conductor is inside the immediate field of the source. It does help in reducing the flux leakage of power transformers and is commonly used this way. Otherwise, passive shielding is not necessarily effective and may need to take the form of a cage or box.
 
Thanks LQB and Sirius for links.

'Dirty Electricity' was rather interesting but I'm still not sure I get how these HF voltage transients work specifically, here's my current understanding (correct me if I'm wrong):

Because of the frequent and abrubt 'braking' of signal from AC to DC (or viceversa) the further distributed turbulent voltage will deliver loads of noise in the current travelling through the wires that in turn creates High Frequent harmonics which presents a detrimental EMF for biology (especially blood constitution it seems).

***

For those who are driving much, Milham presents the point to either get tires that don't have a magnetic steel wire woven in to it's belts (most tires) or get them demagnetized on a tire balancer. Since the rotating wheels otherwise are spinning magnets and create EMFs (he measured 20 mG in the drivers seat)

Milham said:
A child sitting in a baby seat over a rear tire could get a higher magnetic field exposure in an hour riding in a car than in twenty-four hours at home.
 
parallel said:
Thanks LQB and Sirius for links.

'Dirty Electricity' was rather interesting but I'm still not sure I get how these HF voltage transients work specifically, here's my current understanding (correct me if I'm wrong):

Because of the frequent and abrubt 'braking' of signal from AC to DC (or viceversa) the further distributed turbulent voltage will deliver loads of noise in the current travelling through the wires that in turn creates High Frequent harmonics which presents a detrimental EMF for biology (especially blood constitution it seems).

***

For those who are driving much, Milham presents the point to either get tires that don't have a magnetic steel wire woven in to it's belts (most tires) or get them demagnetized on a tire balancer. Since the rotating wheels otherwise are spinning magnets and create EMFs (he measured 20 mG in the drivers seat)

Milham said:
A child sitting in a baby seat over a rear tire could get a higher magnetic field exposure in an hour riding in a car than in twenty-four hours at home.

The transients in voltage/current are caused by sharp discontinuities induced by appliances (switching power supplies) and any AC-DC converters that are plugged in. The converters add noise since they take the nice smooth 50/60 Hz, chop it up and change the sign of parts of it. These discontinuities are what make the wideband noise (harmonics). A loose wire nut somewhere in the home wiring can cause the same when connection goes on/off at some rate.

Yes, 20 mG is pretty high for a long car ride - and very bad for children. The worst, though, is electric and hybrid cars (Prius). Many non-ES have had their first taste of conscious reaction to EMF in one short test drive. These electric/hybrids are a serious mistake - imo. Since the exposure is cumulative, you just need to balance high exposure with long periods of very low exposure.
 
LQB said:
The transients in voltage/current are caused by sharp discontinuities induced by appliances (switching power supplies) and any AC-DC converters that are plugged in. The converters add noise since they take the nice smooth 50/60 Hz, chop it up and change the sign of parts of it. These discontinuities are what make the wideband noise (harmonics). A loose wire nut somewhere in the home wiring can cause the same when connection goes on/off at some rate.

Thanks, I take it that I understood the process, as I'm basically reading the same in your lines as in mine regarding the basic process. My issue is mainly trying to understand the role of EMF on biology, as some frequencies are detrimental and others the reverse, what is the determining factor? You mention earlier "three major EMFs" which I assume is LF, HF & ? (MF?); How are their effects different on us - is anyone familiar with papers going into on this?
 
parallel said:
LQB said:
The transients in voltage/current are caused by sharp discontinuities induced by appliances (switching power supplies) and any AC-DC converters that are plugged in. The converters add noise since they take the nice smooth 50/60 Hz, chop it up and change the sign of parts of it. These discontinuities are what make the wideband noise (harmonics). A loose wire nut somewhere in the home wiring can cause the same when connection goes on/off at some rate.

Thanks, I take it that I understood the process, as I'm basically reading the same in your lines as in mine regarding the basic process. My issue is mainly trying to understand the role of EMF on biology, as some frequencies are detrimental and others the reverse, what is the determining factor? You mention earlier "three major EMFs" which I assume is LF, HF & ? (MF?); How are their effects different on us - is anyone familiar with papers going into on this?

Yes I think you do - I'm kind of repeating for terminology (engineering habit). Keep in mind that the switching power supply in your washer/dryer is switching the AC on and off directly so the harmonics will be different (than AC-DC converter). The result (for both) is that continuous AC now looks pulsed and this generates harmonic noise frequencies all over the place. Pulsed signals, in general are bad because of this broad noise spectrum. Cell phones, WiFi, and most all other RF wireless (even TV now) are pulsed signals - they basically look like radar - the center RF freq doesn't matter anymore because the energy is spread over the spectrum (bandwidth). The beneficial frequencies you are talking about are tones at one fixed freq - like the Rife machines put out. They are not pulsed and they have no bandwidth. These tones act very different (biologically) than the pulsed signals. I would guess that the pulsed signals are very confusing and disruptive to internal metabolic (blood sugar) and immune (reactive) functions. Specific mechanisms are not known but a lot of folks are doing research (if they can get the funding).

The three major EMFs are AC mag fields, dirty power, and wireless RF signals. Nowadays we all have exposure to all of them 24/7. We know that dirty power frequencies above about 2KHz are absorbed by the body below the skin. RF wireless penetrates deeply. AC mag fields go right through you with much negative effect. There are numerous theories out there for the bio mechanism (like the Melatonin Hypothesis). Whatever the actual mechanism(s), they must be related for these EMFs because the disease spectra overlap so closely (also overlaps with diet/toxins). There have been studies trying to get to the details of the effects - lots of mice studies. A good place to start is powerwatch.org (UK). If you sign up to their RSS, you can get study summaries once per month - you can also look at past ones.

After researching the EMF area, I've found very little tying all of this together (powerwatch is pretty good though). I'm currently writing up a large paper that attempts to do this based on what we have to date with some focus on what everyone can do to minimize exposure in the three major areas.

A good book is Jim Waugh's 2010 "Living with Electromagnetic Radiation". You can also do a search for Prof Denis Henshaw (University of Bristol) and check out some of his papers and especially ppt presentations that are at the University site (http://www.electric-fields.bris.ac.uk/HREG_front.htm)
 
parallel said:
Thanks, I take it that I understood the process, as I'm basically reading the same in your lines as in mine regarding the basic process. My issue is mainly trying to understand the role of EMF on biology, as some frequencies are detrimental and others the reverse, what is the determining factor? You mention earlier "three major EMFs" which I assume is LF, HF & ? (MF?); How are their effects different on us - is anyone familiar with papers going into on this?

Here is a quote from one of Heshaw's papers: http://www.electric-fields.bris.ac.uk/grouppublications.html

Mini-Review: Can disturbances in the atmospheric electric field created by powerline corona ions disrupt melatonin production in the pineal gland?
D L Henshaw Jonathan P Ward and James C Matthews

Journal of Pineal Research 2008, vol 45, pages 341 - 350

ABSTRACT

Recent epidemiological studies have reported an increased risk of leukaemia in adults and children near overhead high voltage powerlines at distances beyond the measured range of the direct electric and magnetic fields. Corona ions are emitted by powerlines, forming a plume that is carried away from the line by the wind. The plume generates random disturbances in the atmospheric electric field of tens to a few hundred V m-1 on time scales from seconds to minutes. Such disturbances can be seen up to several hundred metres from powerlines. It is hypothesised that these random disturbances result in the disruption of nocturnal melatonin synthesis and related circadian rhythms, in turn leading to increased risk of a number of adverse health effects including leukaemia. In support of the hypothesis it is noted that melatonin is highly protective of oxidative damage to the human haemopoietic system. A review of electric field studies provides evidence that (i) diurnal variation in the natural atmospheric electric field may itself act as a weak zeitgeber; (ii) melatonin disruption by electric fields occurs in rats; (iii) in humans, disturbances in circadian rhythms have been observed with artificial fields as low at 2.5 V m-1. Specific suggestions are made to test aspects of the hypothesis.

The high voltage lines will ionize some of the air particles, and when these waft over local neighborhoods, they cause variations in the electric field. Henshaw has done extensive field testing of this near power lines, and his theory explains why leukemia is still elevated so far away from the power lines. He also has theorized that the ions can attach to other aerosols (pollution) and these particles can then be taken into the lungs to negative health effect.
 
Here's some interesting material on RF/microwave:

Wireless RF Radiation

In his book “Living Safely with Electromagnetic Radiation18”, Jim Waugh relates the experience of Dr. George Carlo: “ The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) in 1999 withdrew funding of the research that Dr. George Carlo and 200 scientists were doing at its request to prove that cellphones were safe. The research was terminated because long-term studies were showing leakage of the blood-brain barrier and micronuclei (broken DNA) in blood cells. This meant there were adverse biological effects associated with cellphone use, something the industry did not want the public to know. Despite the withdrawal of industry funding, independent research continued and scientists all over the world have been expressing their concerns about the dangers of cellphones. Epidemiologist Bruce Armstrong and neurosurgeon Dr. Vini Khurana have both publicly stated that each has found increased risk of brain tumors after 10 years of use, on the side of the head where the cellphone is held. … In February 2006, Dr. Hardell published a paper detailing his findings of patients diagnosed with brain cancer between 2000 and 2003 and found that the increase in risk was steadily strengthening in magnitude and statistical significance as the length of cellphone usage was increasing. … Despite the volumes of independent research, the cellphone industry continues to argue that there is not enough proof that cellphones cause cancer. Professor Devra Davis of the University of Pittsburg Cancer Institute asked: ‘How many sick or dead people does it take to constitute sufficient proof?’”

“In early 2008 Dr. Ronald Herberman, tumor immunologist and director of the University Of Pittsburg Cancer Institute, sent a memo to all 3,000 members of his staff requesting that they reduce their use of cell phones and instruct their children to use cellphones only in emergencies. … Dr. George Carlo has predicted an epidemic of brain tumors in the near future because cellphones have been in general use for over 10 years and we are now entering the period of time when associated tumors will begin to appear.”

“In March 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed new guidelines for evaluating cancer risks to children on the grounds that children may be 10 times more vulnerable than adults to cancer risks from exposure to a wide range of chemicals. This proposal came as a wake-up call and underscored the evidence that children are far more vulnerable to environmental agents, be they chemical, electromagnetic frequencies or others. In 2007, the American Academy of Otolaryngology presented research that found that young people who use a cellphone for an hour or more a day will suffer significant and irreversible hearing damage by the time they reach young adulthood. Research has determined that cellphones can leave young users’ vision impaired due to eye lens opacity, which is much like cataracts. Dr. Om Gandhi of the University of Utah reported that an eye lens of a 10-year-old will absorb five times the cellphone radiation of an adult eye. Young users can become brain impaired. Brain scans illustrate clearly how deeply into a child’s brain cellphone radiation can penetrate. … Dr. Lennart Hardell, commenting on the results of a recent report by a Swedish team, said, ‘There is a 5.2 fold increased risk of malignant brain tumors in children, after one or more years of cellphone use, who start using a cellphone before the age of 20 years.’ “

I could go on and on with quotes like the above from Waugh’s book. It is amazing that after so many scientists, doctors, epidemiologists, and researchers expressed concerns, the cell phone industry (and media) has been able to maintain public doubt of the dangers of cell phones and wireless devices in general.

This general attitude towards cell phone safety has helped lead to the proliferation of wireless devices we see in homes today. All of these devices have been implicated in the health issues of both people and animals. Anecdotal accounts are useful because they describe real-life situations in the presence and absence of these devices. Here are a few from Waugh’s book18:

• An article in The Independent on Sunday, April 22, 2007, reported that the new owner of a house in Bath, England, moved in and found 30 nests of bees in the attic. The bees seemed to be everywhere, in the shower, the widows, and the light fixtures. On two separate occasions the owner solicited the help of professional exterminators, but the bees kept coming back. When the owner installed a Wi-Fi system in the home, the bees left and never returned.
• A dairy-farming couple living in the Midwest of the United States experienced considerable suffering over a period of 12 years when a cellphone tower was installed on a neighbor’s property, approximately 240 meters (800 feet) from their house. Over a period of months, the cows became emaciated and agitated, their coats rough to the touch. The couple’s children developed skin rashes and unusual raised hot spots. They also experienced recurring kidney infections. While the younger two children became dramatically hyperactive, the older children complained of foggy thinking and concentration problems. The adults began to suffer with sleep difficulties and the mother developed joint pain. Following informed advice, the couple moved away from their farm and the cellphone tower that had become a hub for the entire state. Three months after moving everyone began to feel better, including the heifers they had kept after selling the rest of the herd. For financial reasons the family subsequently returned to their farm and the suffering started all over again. The children lost weight and two of them began to lose their hair. A son born after the move was born with birth defects that did not fit any particular syndrome. Calves, too, were born with defects, such as front legs shorter than the back and deformed hooves, and some were born with huge tumors. The couple, their children and their cows are doing well after leaving their farm again and buying another in an electromagnetically safe area.

• A dog was lame in the two front legs and a hind leg. An acupuncture diagnosis revealed stress typical of radio- frequency radiation. When the cordless phone was removed from the home the lameness disappeared. The dog suffered a relapse when he was taken to a house with a cordless phone for a short time but quickly recovered when he was returned home.
• A horse suffered with lameness in the right ankle and X-rays showed no arthritis. An acupuncture examination pointed to radio-frequency radiation as a probable cause. When the cordless phone was removed from the house, the horse’s symptoms subsided within a few days and did not return.
• A young dog suffered with chronic diarrhea and dysfunction of the thyroid gland. A number of different treatments were unsuccessful. As a test, the cordless phone was removed from the home and the dog’s health returned. Blood tests were taken to confirm the normal functioning of the thyroid and the diarrhea has not returned.
• A cat was being treated for a skin disease on the outside of the ear with a variety of salves and treatments to no avail. A few days after the removal of the cordless phone from the home the skin condition began to heal, followed by a full recovery.
• A cat owner reported increasingly aggressive behavior which calmed considerably when the cordless phone was disconnected.
• For a number of years some of the animals in a stable suffered with chronic diarrhea. The usual suspects were addressed including a change in feed, a check for parasites and an analysis of the drinking water. An acupuncture analysis of the horses indicated possible radio-frequency-radiation problems. The diarrhea disappeared when the cordless telephones nearby were removed.
• In a presentation to the Beekeepers Association in Glastonbury, England, in 2008 Barrie Trower, a physicist, teacher and microwave research scientist stated, ‘It seems that this scenario follows the worldwide proliferation of the Communications Industry. I can no longer find a trouble-free country where mobile phones, Wi-Fi, TETRA, Bluetooth, etc, are being used.’
 
It is very interesting topic discussing here.
I think on top of negative EMF produced by electronic devices there are also "almost ultra-sounds" they produce.
Sometimes you can hear in the silent room very quiet sound of your electronic devices.

I am new to this forum and maybe my question is naive but are there any devices to protect your home from negative EMF?
 
Back
Top Bottom