Hi everyone,
Menna said:
I tried wearing the Q Link product ( http://www.q-linkproducts.com/Scripts/default.asp ) around my neck for some time but I was feeling off/sick more often felt like it weekend my immune system.
I read about that in a thread called "EMF Protection" or something like that. There it has been mentioned also. To keep things short, if its ascribed positive effects are merely hearsay, and that's what they are, it's not scientific, it's useless. I mean, the last thing we need is something that further distracts us from real facts and the truth of the matter. Sometimes I wonder if gems and stones and whatever for EMF protection were invented by telecommunication companies and government themselves in order to weaken those people who conduct and publish real information concerning EMF hazards. Yeah, COAMDPRO-like indeed. ;)
Menna said:
Is there anything we can wear a bracelet or neckless or something to help reduce the EMF from impacting us? Does anyone have a link to purchase such material? colloidal silver?
Everything that reflects EMF. But do you intend to look like Darth Vader? There are no magical gems that suck up radiation though!
loreta said:
I can not get rid of my wifi, I live in a remote village and without it I would be able to have Internet.
LQB said:
In your case loreta, you can sometimes (depending on system and wifi freq) get a higher gain antenna and point it at the wifi source. The antenna is connected to a modem with wired ports. Then you can run wired in your home and eliminate your own transmissions in the home. You will still have radiation from the new antenna but since it is pointed at the source (from outside), the power radiated into the home is far less. These kind of front-end transceivers appear to be common in remote areas - I ran into one in Ecuador years back.
I don't know what your setup is, loreta. Why can't you life without it? Do you use SuperWiFi or a WiMAX-like supply? There are directional antennas available. No one
really needs indoor WiFi. For example, I have network and communication cables lying around in the entire house, sometimes in thick bunches, because there are, unfortunately, no holes in the walls. I have nonetheless an Internet cable almost everywhere available. BTW, I do not even own a cellphone.
Menna said:
I looked into the technology and studies before I bought it and yes all of the studies say that it does work but at what price...Whenever I start to get sick I feel it in the back of my throat that’s my cue to start slowing down and take out the ZI Cam... I remember feeling that lump in my throat about 2-3x a month compared to the norm 2-3x a year and it wasn't worth it to me. The fabric sounds interesting might be worth buying to put over my lap when I am working on my lap top.
You call it technology? The studies in question could be simply made up. I mean, how should they sell their products otherwise? How many studies do you count? One?
LQB said:
The worst exposure from a computer will be wifi if it is transmitting. Many laptops default with wifi=on unless you disable it in the operating system.
Yes, usually. I've already mentioned it briefly in the EMF Exposure thread: Even if the WiFi is turned off, while the computer boots up, wireless cards may be turned on for a short time. This issue affects Apple laptops with a newer EFI firmware which supports boot over WiFi for recovery purposes. If you turn on the computer and it boots up, even in case of an alternative boot loader, it emits a rather strong WiFi pulse two times. I am quite unsatisfied with this behaviour and meanwhile planning to remove the airport (WiFi) card as well as the Bluetooth card or at least to defuse them. However, both components are deeply buried so that I am afraid of having to remove the entire main board first. It won't be that easy obviously because it is a complex construction which almost forbids any modification.
trendsetter3 7 said:
everyone should also take note that solely concentrating on the EMF part of the problem is a bit of a distraction. Fluoride in you system greatly increases the effects that electromagnetic radiation has on your body. If you put two and two together you will note that many cities have sworn by fluoridating the water supply in the name of healthy teeth or some other reason. Why can't they just give us the free will of taking care of our own teeth?
Now we know that fluorine is highly toxic to our entire body. For more than one reason but I will touch on that later. As I was reading through the wave series I remember the account of Ark going back to Europe. Unfortunately he was situated in front of the Max Planck institute (I believe?). Anyways they (4th Density STS) were zapping him electromagnetic waves but also he was becoming sick because the water supply was heavily fluoridated. Even 4th Density STS technology uses fluoridation in conjunction with electromagnetic waves. Hmm. With that being said some of the only ways to rid your water of fluorine are reverse osmosis and/ or using an activated alumina filter. [...]
Although this topic may focus on EMF solely, the overall focus of the forum embraces any imaginable source of hazard for human beings we hitherto encountered and got to know.
It's not fluorine alone. There are in addition heavy metals such as Hg, Pb and U which are more toxic. Being loaded with toxins may facilitate the damaging effects of EMF. But why do most people apparently not note any negative effects at present? And we can suppose that they are loaded with NaF and other toxins to the extreme. I mean, are their organisms behaving like a ballon that becomes bigger and bigger until it bursts? Only the minority is EMF-sensitive to some extent at the present time. It is similar to an allergy. But that doesn't mean it only harms sensitive people, not anywhere near as that!
The water supply wasn't fluoridated in Göttingen as far as I know (German water isn't fluoridated BTW), this was another station of his trip, France somewhere or so.
What is interesting: Some time ago I read some analyses of bottled drinking water all containing NaF (selected). They measured the amount of NaF and whether it exceeds a certain level. And the result was that they found a few exceptions which contained extremely high doses of NaF which shouldn't be (above 100 ppm). It could have been production faults. So if one gets one of those, it can be fatal for that person.
