RE: Online paper of mind-invasion - EHS and mental illness
----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Klaus,
Thank you for your work on BI Omega.
Re: Sarah Benson's comment.
I agree with Imelda's remarks below. I respect what I have
seen of the
work of Sarah in Australia. I hope she will look further into
the serious
documents on "being covertly targeted by microwave weapons".
She won't
feel more comfortable afterwards, if she does so, but she
will feel
better-informed.
1. A very good collection of documents, compiled by Allen
L Barker, is
at www.datafilter.com/mc/
2. She might like to look up the work of Cheryl Welsh who
is a
UN-recognised expert. Here is a summary of Cheryl's background
taken
from a conference programme:
Cheryl Welsh - Director of Citizens Against Human Rights
Abuse (CAHRA)
since 1996. This organization was formed by a group of victims
of
non-consensual human experimentation involving electromagnetic
and
neurological weapon testing programs by the U.S. and other
governments.
Cheryl is recognized by the United Nations as an expert on
Non-lethal
Technology (Directed Energy Weapons). Cheryl has been on a
CNN program
to explain the use of Directed Energy Weapons on U.S. citizens.
She has co-authored several books including "International
Campaign to
End Human Rights Violations Involving Classified New Weapons
of Mass
Destruction: Electromagnetic and Neurological Technologies"
Recently she
has authored two articles for the UFO Magazine Feb/March 2003
and
April/May 2003 "Cover Stories Torn Away: New Evidence
of Active Mind
Control."
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~welsh.
Welsh@dcn.davis.ca.us
Lyn L Milnes
New Zealand
--------
Published studies on the effects of basestations
Survey
Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base
Stations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
New studie :
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine , Volume 22 , (1) 41-49
Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular
Phone Base
Stations
R. Santini, P. Santini, P. Le Ruz,J. M. Danze, M. Seigne
Abstract
A survey study was conducted, using a questionnaire, on 530
people (270
men, 260 women) living or not in proximity to cellular phone
base
stations. Eighteen different symptoms (Non Specific Health
Symptoms-NSHS), described as radiofrequency sickness, were
studied by
means of the chi-square test with Yates correction. The results
that
were obtained underline that certain complaints are experienced
only in
the immediate vicinity of base stations (up to 10 m for nausea,
loss of
appetite, visual disturbances), and others at greater distances
from
base stations (up to 100 m for irritability, depressive tendencies,
lowering of libido, and up to 200 m for headaches, sleep disturbances,
feeling of discomfort). In the 200 m to 300 m zone, only the
complaint
of fatigue is experienced significantly more often when compared
with
subjects residing at more than 300 m or not exposed (reference
group).
For seven of the studied symptoms and for the distance up
to 300 m, the
frequency of reported complaints is significantly higher (P
< 0.05) for
women in comparison with men. Significant differences are
also observed
in relation to the ages of subjects, and for the location
of subjects in
relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors.
Greetings
Richard GAUTIER
www.csif-cem.org
--------
Re:
French tackle mobile phone health dangers. Are you convinced
that we
won't have to adopt a more restrictive approach?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only a dead brain would use a fake brain in a platic head
in order to
detemine whether microwave might have an effect on living
tissue. Like
testing cyanide on a plastic Robot.I have been concerned for
many years
of the method that was used by our Canadian Government Radiation
Protection Bureau,in order to set the guidelines for cellphones
and base
stations. According to information I have received from Health
Canada.
A fake brain,made of some sort of gel substance,placed in
a phantom head
made of fiberglass,was charged with EMF to a point of temperature
change.A density somewhat below was determined to be safe
for live human
brain with connecting nerve tissue.Eyes to see,ears to hear,nose
to
smell,tongue to taste,limbs that receive signals in order
to
move,thought process,sinusitis to create lubricant for
nose,eyes,ears,etc. All controlled by very low level, natural,
EMF.
If one questions or complains of being fried from EMF from
a nearby
tower, they are told that it is not possible to be effected
by EMF from
the tower, since the density of EMF is lower than that which
is set by
the Safety Code 6 Guidelines.It must be your imagination?
Most local governments trust that the Federal Government
knows what they
are doing.They will tell you that towers are safe since they
are
regulated by the Federal Health Ministry.I have yet to find
one that
questioned how the Safety Code Was Established!!
Like a herd of of buffalo heading for the cliff called Buffalo
Jump.And
We Are Supposed To Trust Them With Our Lives,I Don't Think
So!!
Regards Robert Riedlinger
and
BBC
NEWS England Gloucestershire Nickel curtains 'protect against
mast'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A woman has installed protective nickel-plated net curtains
for
protection from emissions she says are coming from a police
communications mast.
O2 Airwave, which owns the Tetra mast near Dursley, Gloucestershire,
says people are over reacting and it is operating within recognised
safety guidelines.
Suzanne Everdell says the curtains are helping her family
overcome sleep
problems which started when the mast was erected. The net
curtain is
interwoven with nickel plating and was originally designed
by the
Ministry of Defence, she says. It is used by some train companies
to
prevent the use of mobile phones in carriages.
The Tetra mast is part of the radio communications system
being trialled
by police. Some locals say it interfered with their televisions
when it
was switched on for tests in March.
Mrs Everdell, who lives several hundred yards from the mast,
told the
BBC: "Within a few days of the mast being put up, my
husband, my
daughter and myself were all woken abruptly four or five times
a night."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/3075817.stm
Published: 2003/07/17 18:29:45 GMT
© BBC MMIII
--------
Hello Klaus.
The article below is misguided and misinformed. I do not
think it is
meant to be purposely misleading, but some correction is required
to the
initial, nonsequitur, recitation of "scientific"
facts. The so-called
"physics" is oversimplified. I have explained why
I write this
below. I have truncated some of the original message.
John Michael Williams
RE:
On Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation
-------------------------------------------
Some of the Facts
...
This is ionization. X-ray and gamma ray photons have enough
energy to
cause ionization, radio waves, microwaves and visible light
waves don't
- the first two are ionizing radiation, the last three are
non-ionizing
radiation (no matter how intense their combined 'fire-power').
For this
reason microwaves (et al.) are seen as incapable of breaking
molecular
bonds.
John: However, human beings can SEE visible light; if this
light doesn't
break molecular bonds, then how does it work? The writer would
have us
all go blind!
The answer is that nonionizing radiation HAS OTHER EFFECTS
than
ionization. All organic molecules in a watery substrate are
maintained
in an active or inactive state by their relationship with
water. Their
bonds with water (hydrogen bonds, not covalent bonds, are
being broken
constantly and reformed on a picosecond time scale. The writer
represents that the only chemical bonds are covalent, evidently,
or
ionic--this is false. There is no need to supply extra energy
to "break
bonds" in water, because this happens spontaneously and
continuously.
There is no threshold for hydrogen bond breaking, but such
bonds reform
immediately in about the same conformation, as determined
by the overall
shape and average location of the molecules involved. See
http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/
for a good explanation of water chemistry.
Protein molecules that control biological activity function
by
maintaining a certain shape (conformation) relative to others
nearby.
We can see because the rhodopsin-based visual pigments in
the eye change
shape on receipt of a single photon of VISIBLE (nonionizing)
light.
Other molecules amplify the effect of the shape change, leading
eventually to signals to the brain carried by the optic nerve.
The same applies to microwave radiation. Microwave photons
can not break
a covalent or ionic bond with any probability, but they can
change
protein (enzyme) molecule conformation, leading to changes
in biological
activity which are not well understood and are not at all
necessarily
harmless.
Most significantly in the health debate, they are regarded
as
incapable of breaking bonds in DNA molecules (unlike X-rays
and gamma
rays) and thereby leading to abnormal cell growth which can
result in
cancers.
John: DNA can be activated to change the way it behaves in
regard to
messenger RNA or other molecules by a change in conformation.
Breaking
of covalent or ionic bonds is not necessary; if it were, we
all would die,
because few of the chemical reactions that occur in the body
have local
energy concentrated enough to break such bonds.
So the ICNIRP's brief is this: what harm can radiation do,
if it is
non-ionizing? One very simple answer to that, in the case
of
microwaves, is that it can cause heating effects in tissue.
John: This is true, but conformational changes can occur
because of
single microwave photons--not enough to raise temperature
by a
measurable amount.
This is quite obvious to anyone who has cooked a meat pie
in a
microwave oven. Microwave radiation causes vibration within
cell
structures, leading to localized heating. In the early days
of
microwave ovens, before safety cut-outs were standard, some
unfortunate users cooked their own kidneys by standing in
front of a
microwave oven operating with its door open.
The ICNIRP has therefore based its guidelines, quite simply,
on whether
the level of microwave radiation is more than the body's own
heat
regulating mechanisms can deal with. In simple terms, can
it cook you?
John: Yes. And this is a dangerous and in fact careless
oversimplification. I agree with the latter part of this message.
Not surprisingly, radiation levels from any mast, at anything
more than
a few metres away, are many thousands of times lower than
would be
needed to experience a heating effect. We are not, at least,
being
subjected to living in a 'microwave oven' environment.
So why are so many independent scientists still so concerned?
If it
can't break up your DNA (so they assume), and it can't overheat
you,
what is there to worry about?
John: Basic biochemistry, not oversimplified physics or radio
engineering, is causing this worry.
...
The logical conclusion from all this is that neurons in general
sense
electromagnetic radiation to some degree. Evolution has caused
bunches
of neurons to be organized (i.e. put into organs - our eyes!)
to make
beneficial use of this facility. But, up until recently at
least, the
level of microwave radiation has not been such as to prompt
specialized
receptors to be evolved for this purpose. Now - in the last
20 to 30
years - our neurons have been swamped with a massive increase
in
microwave radiation that they cannot escape from. Our eyes
have pupils
that restrict the intake of visible light to manageable levels,
eyelids
to close off that light when we don't want it. No such escape
from
microwaves: they are able to penetrate directly through the
skull,
where our neurons are bombarded with 'information' that they
have
not been educated to understand. 'Sensing' by definition means
'responding', usually by releasing chemicals that act as messengers
in
some form or another. The trial-and-error process of evolution
(with
its many failed attempts that have fallen by the wayside en
route) has
produced a system of meaningful responses to visible light.
There is
no reason that this should be so with this deluge of unfamiliar
radiation; it is totally to be expected that this should lead
to a
confused and unstructured response by the brain.
John: This is true. Microwave radiation can cause depolarization
and thus activation of neurons and muscle cells.
...
Biological effects of non-ionizing radiation at non-thermal
levels are
an established fact - they happen. This is not a subject that
is
open to dispute. Given this fact, and given both the research
findings of the Stewart Committee and the overwhelming flood
of
so-called 'anecdotal' evidence of detrimental effects of microwaves
on humans (including long-term cumulative effects), the only
rational response is to call a halt to microwave irradiation
of our
living-space until the possible consequences are better known.
The 'P' in NRPB and ICNIRP both stand for 'Protection'.
Who is it
exactly that is being protected?
John: The income and free travel pay of expensive national
science and
engineering consultants?
Microwave hearing is the best documented nonionizing, "unnatural"
effect of microwaves which occurs at subthermal levels; even
though well
studied, it is not well understood.
--------
The article on http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega259.htm
:
Total
Information Awareness as Intellectual Property Theft
was from B Gallagher
--------
O.T.
themes:
White
House releases redacted version of Constitution
http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=659
Wolfowitz
admits Iraq not involved in 9/11
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4372.htm
Ashcroft
tour to plug terror bill
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/106872p-96686c.html
Who
will rein in Ashcroft?
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/2003/08/07
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
|