High cortisol levels have been proven to cause memory loss in the
hippocampus area of the brain so is presumably neurotoxic.

I have elevated cortisol from autoimmune problem (Crohn's Disease)
for which I was prescribed prednisone (cortisol in pill form).

I think this "double dose" of cortisol contributed to my ES, but to
what extent is hard to say.

John Lankes


> n Mon, 30 October, 2006 10:19 pm, Ian Kemp wrote:
> > Very interesting question Paul - it can cut both ways I suggest.
> > Stress and high cortisol definitely weaken the immune system and
so
> > can increase susceptibility to ES. But anxiety-reducing drugs can
also
> affect people.
> > In
> > Sue's case she got more and more physically ill after taking
> > antidepressants, and eventually developed ES.  Later tests have
shown
> > that  her liver chemicals were badly run down and therefore
couldn't
> > break down the drug molecules effectively, and the buildup in her
body
> > damaged the immune system further. Ian
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> > From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> > Of paulpjc@... Sent: 27 October 2006 17:56
> > To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul enquires -
> >
> >
> > Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES,
but
> > is there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have
high
> > quants of cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your
> > reaction to anxiety does this help etc..
> >
> > What do you think
> > <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?
s=97359714/grpId=11979304/grpspId=170506221
> > 5/ms gI
d=7143/stime=1161968401/nc1=3848642/nc2=3848500/nc3=4025321>
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Hi Pete

We've tried a fair number of people but over the past 2 years have mainly
been to Breakspear Hospital in Hemel Hempstead, however this is private and
not cheap.  They seem to have got at a lot of the underlying causes of MCS
etc and helped Sue a lot in that way, but it has only given a slight easing
of the ES.  The biggest help we've had on the ES side has been finding other
sufferers to compare stories with and try to battle through the tough times
together - best wishes to you in that.
Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
robbo@...
Sent: 31 October 2006 17:43
To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

ian

who has you're wife being seeing in the uk regarding es. I developed about
2 years ago sensitivity to uva, my skin burns on my face when i go outside
especially when it is sunny. Computers also effect me badly, i know that i
have problems with rf as my homeopath has had me on the quantum machine and
it said i was sensitive to radio frequencies. My skin has become very
damaged and i become very ill mentally due to all this and staying indoors
that i had to go on tranqulisers and anti-depressants and also i now have to
go outside cause if i don't its the end game for me emotionally staying
indoors.

best
pete






n Mon, 30 October, 2006 10:19 pm, Ian Kemp wrote:
> Very interesting question Paul - it can cut both ways I suggest.
> Stress and high cortisol definitely weaken the immune system and so
> can increase susceptibility to ES. But anxiety-reducing drugs can also
affect people.
> In
> Sue's case she got more and more physically ill after taking
> antidepressants, and eventually developed ES.  Later tests have shown
> that  her liver chemicals were badly run down and therefore couldn't
> break down the drug molecules effectively, and the buildup in her body
> damaged the immune system further. Ian
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of paulpjc@... Sent: 27 October 2006 17:56
> To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>
>
> Paul enquires -
>
>
> Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES, but
> is there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have high
> quants of cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your
> reaction to anxiety does this help etc..
>
> What do you think
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11979304/grpspId=170506221
> 5/ms gI d=7143/stime=1161968401/nc1=3848642/nc2=3848500/nc3=4025321>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>






Yahoo! Groups Links

Pete - regarding your sun sensitivity, have you tried antioxidants
(especially Vitamin A or maybe carrot juice?) or essential fatty
acids (especially things that contain omega-3, like fish oils
or flax oil?).  Being outside and getting sunshine is supposed
to be *good* for you, so I'm thinking you may be having problems
with excess free radical damage or excess Vitamin D (to which
essential fatty acids counteracts).  Finding ways to increase
your tolerance to the sun would be a better idea than trying
to find ways to completely avoid it.

Marc

ian

who has you're wife being seeing in the uk regarding es. I developed about
2 years ago sensitivity to uva, my skin burns on my face when i go outside
especially when it is sunny. Computers also effect me badly, i know that i
have problems with rf as my homeopath has had me on the quantum machine
and it said i was sensitive to radio frequencies. My skin has become very
damaged and i become very ill mentally due to all this and staying indoors
that i had to go on tranqulisers and anti-depressants and also i now have
to go outside cause if i don't its the end game for me emotionally staying
indoors.

best
pete






n Mon, 30 October, 2006 10:19 pm, Ian Kemp wrote:
> Very interesting question Paul - it can cut both ways I suggest.  Stress
> and high cortisol definitely weaken the immune system and so can increase
> susceptibility to ES. But anxiety-reducing drugs can also affect people.
> In
> Sue's case she got more and more physically ill after taking
> antidepressants, and eventually developed ES.  Later tests have shown that
>  her liver chemicals were badly run down and therefore couldn't break
> down the drug molecules effectively, and the buildup in her body damaged
> the immune system further. Ian
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> paulpjc@... Sent: 27 October 2006 17:56
> To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>
>
> Paul enquires -
>
>
> Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES, but is
> there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have high quants
> of cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your reaction to
> anxiety does this help etc..
>
> What do you think
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11979304/grpspId=1705062215/ms
> gI d=7143/stime=1161968401/nc1=3848642/nc2=3848500/nc3=4025321>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

Hello,

on http://www.hetbitje.nl/bitjeE2611e.pdf

the November english issue of *het bitje* can be downloaded.

This time, Olle Johansson and his publications has been placed in the
Spotlights.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus

Please do a Google search on the Basal Metabolism Test.    This is the
thing to do if you suspect low thyroid activity.    You do it yourself, for
free, and it's more accurate than blood tests.
      If your thyroid is sluggish, it is much better to take steps to heal it
than just to take hormones, which does not heal your thyroid, but shuts it
down even more.

      Regards,
      Shivani A.
      www.LifeEnergies.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This does sound like a case of a "trigger", like the microphone and
associated sound system, causing ES symptoms by acting on a weakened immune
system (after-effects of the carbon monoxide poisoning?).  My wife Sue had
her ES triggered by a few minutes' exposure to a microwave field through
headphones when she was similarly "run down" and then became sensitive to
lots of other sources, overhead fluorescent lights being one of the worst.
Her biggest symptom has been ringing in the ears (and her whole head), like
that mentioned by "richsurf77".
Ian

   _____

From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
dunn_kb
Sent: 29 October 2006 06:30
To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [eSens] Es



I'm a newbie to this site and to the world of emf hypersensitivity.
My search for info is due to a recent encounter with a microphone
while speaking in a county meeting. It seemed like the room had "bad
acoustics", then like I stepped into electricity as I approached the
podium, and the headache I've had for about 7 years immediately
intensified to the extreme that I thought I was having another
stroke. The intensity of pain changed by my proximity to the
microphone, and made me so dazed that I couldn't focus well on the
subject, and still don't know if I made any sense at all to the Board.
Since then, I went into a local pet supply store that I frequent
normally once or twice a month, and the huge, overhead lights
bothered my head & ears so much, I couldn't wait to get out of there.
I've never had any problem like this before, and though not as severe
as the "microphone episode", was more than annoying. I do already
have an environmental illness, damage from chronic carbon monoxide
exposure from my former workplace, but had no idea that I could
develop this sensitivity to electromagnetic fields.
Is there anyone that has had a very specific reaction like this who
would share their specific treatments & results?
Also, is there anyone who has received treatment from the
Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas, USA? If so, I'd like to
hear your results & opinions.
Thanks,
KBD






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I agree with Shivani in that all of us are affected by the EM
> spectrum.

Yes, but being affected without symptoms is different than
being so hypersensitive that you no longer can perform
"normal" activities.  This group is geared for that
1% of the population, not the other 99%...

Marc

Hi Everyone,
      Could everyone please make an effort to appropriately title their
emails?  We all have e.s. and it requires extra, unnecessary exposure to e.s. to
open emails that have nothing to do with what they say they are about in their
subject line.
       For instance, I wanted to read about broadband internet, and instead
have been opening posts that have to do with metal eyeglasses and underwire
bras.
       A suggestion that I would have is, if the thread started out as, say,
"broadband internet", but now it is about wearing metal on one's person,
perhaps one could do the subject line as follows:
      Subject:   Wearing Metal (was Broadband Internet).
      I've seen this done on other lists and it seems to be successful.
Thanks a lot : )
     Your fellow e.s. person,
      Stephanie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi.   In the email I just sent about using subject lines that match the
subject matter in the post, according to my own suggestion, I should have titled
the email  :   Appropriate Subject Lines (was Broadband Internet).  I apologize.
  Stephanie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Very interesting question Paul - it can cut both ways I suggest.  Stress and
high cortisol definitely weaken the immune system and so can increase
susceptibility to ES. But anxiety-reducing drugs can also affect people.  In
Sue's case she got more and more physically ill after taking
antidepressants, and eventually developed ES.  Later tests have shown that
her liver chemicals were badly run down and therefore couldn't break down
the drug molecules effectively, and the buildup in her body damaged the
immune system further.
Ian

   _____

From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
paulpjc@...
Sent: 27 October 2006 17:56
To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity


Paul enquires -

Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big player in ES, but is
there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you have high quants of
cortisol etc... If you take some drug that reduces your reaction to anxiety
does
this help etc..

What do you think
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11979304/grpspId=1705062215/msgI
d=7143/stime=1161968401/nc1=3848642/nc2=3848500/nc3=4025321>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree with Shivani in that all of us are affected by the EM
spectrum. It is a creation of our creator and we are tuned to it, some
more than others. I would be interested in the different protections
of law in the various countries, as we here in the USA are left
twisting in the wind in many states in that respect.
Peggy

> How strong a link do you think there is between ES and heavy metals
> and/ or mercury?

I think for some people, ES has *everything* to do with heavy metals
and/or mercury, while for others, it may have nothing to do with it.
(I think that I fall into *everything* category)

> Do you have to use certain types of computer
> monitors to stop you getting bad symptoms or are you OK with using
> any?

Most people here seem to do best with LCD monitors where the
AC/DC transformer is near the plug (not built-into the monitor).
However, this is not universal -- I do best with a CRT monitor
with the resolution set as low as possible (I mostly use 800x600).
In the next year or two, LCD monitors with LED backlights should
become affordable, and I will try one of these out to see if
they are any better than the fluorescent lighting, which is
what they have all used to-date.

> And do you use a screen filter or can you use a computer fine
> without one (I have found that my screen filter has made a lot of
> difference and I probably would not be able to use the computer
> without it).

I don't use a screen filter, because 5 years ago I found that
it didn't make a lot of difference.  Although someone made
a distinction here between a clear/grounded filter and
a polarizer filter, and I've never tried a polarizer filter.

> Do you/ did you get symptoms from things like fridges
> and radios?

No, even at my worst I don't recall getting symptoms near
these, although I never spent a whole lot of time near them
either.

> Do you think it is mainly the electric or the magnetic
> fields that cause ES?

I think it depends on the person.  Also the frequencies
of the field can make a difference.

> One last question, is the symptom of ringing ears due to the increase
> in blood pressure brought on by electrical devices or is it caused by
> the noise from the electrical devices which since I have become ES
> seem to buzz a lot more than they used to?

I've never researched "ringing in the ears", so I don't know!
(although my ears are ringing right now for some reason!)

Marc

--- In eSens@yahoogroups.com, Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Five years ago, after I became disabled from electrical sensitivity,
> chronic fatigue syndrome, and chemical sensitivities, one of the
> very first supplements I tried which dramatically improved my
> health was an MLM product from Royal Body Care called "Microhydrin".
> I even found that by taking large doses of it, I could dramatically
> increase my tolerance for using the computer (however, I never
> found that this was a complete solution -- just a big help).
>
> In the years since, the inventor of Microhydrin has changed the
> formula and the name a couple times (Megahydrin, Mega-H,
Megahydrate),
> and has sold it via traditional distribution channels plus a
> few other MLMs.  Meanwhile, the product that is now labelled as
> "Microhydrin" is a reverse-engineered product made without
> the original inventor's approval (there were some lawsuits
> about this a few years ago).
>
> One reason I don't recommend this supplement more is because I
> have found that the bulk powder (mixed into a glass of water)
> is far more effective than taking capsules, and the powder
> has traditionally been very expensive (over $100).  So I think
> that most people don't want to try something new that's going to
> cost them $100 (and may turn out to not help them at all).
>
> However, I see that on e3live.com, they sell a "trial size"
> of "Ultimate Mega H-" (which is the same thing sold elsewhere
> as "Megahydrate") for only US$11:
>
>    http://shop.e3live.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=11
>
> And here is their description of the product:
>
>    http://www.e3live.com/ultimate_megah.htm
>
> That would certainly be enough to see if it helps you, as
> I noticed results on the first day (and for me, that trial
> size would last me 16 days)
>
> And again, for reducing ES symptoms due to excessive EMF
> exposure, this is my #1 supplement of choice.
>
> Marc
>

Hi Marc,  I've been using this site for a while now and have found it
really useful. I would like to get your thoughts on a few things
because you probably know more than most about this condition.

How strong a link do you think there is between ES and heavy metals
and/ or mercury?  Do you have to use certain types of computer
monitors to stop you getting bad symptoms or are you OK with using
any? And do you use a screen filter or can you use a computer fine
without one (I have found that my screen filter has made a lot of
difference and I probably would not be able to use the computer
without it). Do you/ did you get symptoms from things like fridges
and radios?  Do you think it is mainly the electric or the magnetic
fields that cause ES?

One last question, is the symptom of ringing ears due to the increase
in blood pressure brought on by electrical devices or is it caused by
the noise from the electrical devices which since I have become ES
seem to buzz a lot more than they used to? I am not sure which it is
because my ears ring all the time I am in the house but I guess it
could be me hearing a buzz from the wiring or it could be from high
blood pressure because the electricity is on.

--- In eSens@yahoogroups.com, "dunn_kb" <dunn_kb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm a newbie to this site and to the world of emf hypersensitivity.
> My search for info is due to a recent encounter with a microphone
> while speaking in a county meeting. It seemed like the room
had "bad
> acoustics", then like I stepped into electricity as I approached
the
> podium, and the headache I've had for about 7 years immediately
> intensified to the extreme that I thought I was having another
> stroke. The intensity of pain changed by my proximity to the
> microphone, and made me so dazed that I couldn't focus well on the
> subject, and still don't know if I made any sense at all to the
Board.
> Since then, I went into a local pet supply store that I frequent
> normally once or twice a month, and the huge, overhead lights
> bothered my head & ears so much, I couldn't wait to get out of
there.
> I've never had any problem like this before, and though not as
severe
> as the "microphone episode", was more than annoying. I do already
> have an environmental illness, damage from chronic carbon monoxide
> exposure from my former workplace, but had no idea that I could
> develop this sensitivity to electromagnetic fields.
> Is there anyone that has had a very specific reaction like this who
> would share their specific treatments & results?
> Also, is there anyone who has received treatment from the
> Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas, USA? If so, I'd like
to
> hear your results & opinions.
> Thanks,
> KBD
>

I'm not sure that your reaction was as specific as you think. It is
likely that you will have more reactions to electrical devices
especially TVs, computer monitors, digital radios and fridges. I
think any of a number of devices could have started your sensitivity.
This site is full of suggestions for treatments and a lot of them
seem to have helped, but a lot of them have worked for some people
and not helped at all for others. There are a lot of people who think
that heavy metals and mercury are to blame and there are heavy metal
detox treatments that you can buy or clay baths that you can take
which draw toxins out of the body.

I'm a newbie to this site and to the world of emf hypersensitivity.
My search for info is due to a recent encounter with a microphone
while speaking in a county meeting. It seemed like the room had "bad
acoustics", then like I stepped into electricity as I approached the
podium, and the headache I've had for about 7 years immediately
intensified to the extreme that I thought I was having another
stroke. The intensity of pain changed by my proximity to the
microphone, and made me so dazed that I couldn't focus well on the
subject, and still don't know if I made any sense at all to the Board.
Since then, I went into a local pet supply store that I frequent
normally once or twice a month, and the huge, overhead lights
bothered my head & ears so much, I couldn't wait to get out of there.
I've never had any problem like this before, and though not as severe
as the "microphone episode", was more than annoying. I do already
have an environmental illness, damage from chronic carbon monoxide
exposure from my former workplace, but had no idea that I could
develop this sensitivity to electromagnetic fields.
Is there anyone that has had a very specific reaction like this who
would share their specific treatments & results?
Also, is there anyone who has received treatment from the
Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas, USA? If so, I'd like to
hear your results & opinions.
Thanks,
KBD

Hi all,

Five years ago, after I became disabled from electrical sensitivity,
chronic fatigue syndrome, and chemical sensitivities, one of the
very first supplements I tried which dramatically improved my
health was an MLM product from Royal Body Care called "Microhydrin".
I even found that by taking large doses of it, I could dramatically
increase my tolerance for using the computer (however, I never
found that this was a complete solution -- just a big help).

In the years since, the inventor of Microhydrin has changed the
formula and the name a couple times (Megahydrin, Mega-H, Megahydrate),
and has sold it via traditional distribution channels plus a
few other MLMs.  Meanwhile, the product that is now labelled as
"Microhydrin" is a reverse-engineered product made without
the original inventor's approval (there were some lawsuits
about this a few years ago).

One reason I don't recommend this supplement more is because I
have found that the bulk powder (mixed into a glass of water)
is far more effective than taking capsules, and the powder
has traditionally been very expensive (over $100).  So I think
that most people don't want to try something new that's going to
cost them $100 (and may turn out to not help them at all).

However, I see that on e3live.com, they sell a "trial size"
of "Ultimate Mega H-" (which is the same thing sold elsewhere
as "Megahydrate") for only US$11:

    http://shop.e3live.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=11

And here is their description of the product:

    http://www.e3live.com/ultimate_megah.htm

That would certainly be enough to see if it helps you, as
I noticed results on the first day (and for me, that trial
size would last me 16 days)

And again, for reducing ES symptoms due to excessive EMF
exposure, this is my #1 supplement of choice.

Marc

I read it on the web.  I think I googled gold and autism.  It was a story of a
person who was autistic and cured himself with gold salts.  I think it was just
a hypothesis.  Not a proven fact that the gold breaks a bond between mercury and
an enzyme.
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: kefirisgood
   To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 6:02 AM
   Subject: [eSens] Re: gold frequency


   --- In eSens@yahoogroups.com, "denom" <denom@...> wrote:
   >
   > Mercury binds to certain enzymes. Gold breaks the link and binds to
   the mercury and chelates it.

   Hello!
   Where did you get this information?
   Do you have any links (web or books)?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Worth a look some good info here - Paul


_http://members.aol.com/gotemf/emf/RFmedia.htm#tube_
(http://members.aol.com/gotemf/emf/RFmedia.htm#tube)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

I forward an interesting post by Don Maisch from another list:



A recent Australian survey of teenagers and mobile phone use has
found some disturbing addictive behaviours. The press release for the
survey is below.

The  survey of school students found the following:

   1) Many teenagers are obsessive in their use of mobiles, and could
panic and become agitated if they were parted from them.

2)  Students suffered withdrawal symptoms if they didn't receive
calls or text messages, which could lead to anxiety and self-esteem
problems.

3)  The survey found that some students suffered sleep deprivation
and even RSI as they lay awake at night texting on their mobile
phones.

4)  The survey researcher said that students who took part in a
recent focus group with her as part of her study "panicked" when she
asked them to turn off their phones during the discussion. "They were
afraid - they were quite agitated," she said. "Students were quite
relieved when the session was over and they could turn their phone
back on and check for messages."

There was also a similar  Italian survey   where students were asked
to refrain from using their cell phones for, I think,  a couple of
weeks. They had symptoms of drug withdrawal. I am trying to find out
more about this - anyone heard of it?

I think this addictive behaviour indicates that more than just a
psychological addiction is at play. Perhaps the dependency these kids
are exhibiting are evidence of a neurological disorder,  such as
altered neurotransmitter balances from cell phone microwave
exposure?As far as a possible mechanism, Frey may have hit upon it.
To quote from Frey:

" Thus, there is now a substantial body of data indicating that brain
systems, particularly the opiate-dopamine systems, are influenced by
exposure to brief, very low intensity electromagnetic fields."

Any comments?

Don Maisch


Oz-first survey measures national mobile addiction
http://www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventID\
=8133

Australians are becoming addicted to their mobile phones, according
to a researcher from the Queensland University of Technology who this
weekend will begin a national survey to measure the nation's
obsession with mobiles.

Consumer behaviour researcher Diana James from QUT said the online
questionnaire was the first Australian survey dedicated to the
emotional, psychological, financial and social impact of our
skyrocketing use of mobile phones.

The survey will run from April 1 to May 31 at www.mobilesurvey.com.au
and is open to anyone aged 16 and older who lives in Australia and
has a mobile phone.

Ms James said Australia had one of the highest mobile phone
penetration rates in the world and it was important to find ways to
measure mobile phone addiction.

"Mobile phone addiction is going to surpass internet addiction
because at least you can walk away from your computer ... our
dependency on mobiles means most people are never without them," she
said.

"Like substance abuse, excessive use of mobile phones can lead to
personal problems.

"I think it's critical that we can help people realise their level of
dependency and ultimately help them do something about it. I want to
develop a scale that can measure addiction so that people can
self-assess themselves.

"I want to find out how many people are consuming this technology in
a healthy manner, and for how many others it's become
'all-consuming'."

Ms James said danger signs included running up huge bills and having
irrational reactions to being without a phone if you forgot or lost
your mobile.

"Because they can provide immediate pleasure, if you're not careful
mobile phones can become as much of an addiction as snacking on junk
food or smoking," she said.

"And as ownership rates have increased, they've become a huge part of
people's social lives ... without their phone, people feel like they
are out of the loop."

Ms James said her preliminary research among Queensland university
students had found many were obsessive in their use of mobiles, and
could panic and become agitated if they were parted from them.

She said some students suffered withdrawal symptoms if they didn't
receive calls or text messages, which could lead to anxiety and
self-esteem problems.

"In some cases, students said they suffered sleep deprivation and
even RSI as they lay awake at night texting on their mobile phones,"
she said.

She said students who took part in a recent focus group with her as
part of her study "panicked" when she asked them to turn off their
phones during the discussion.

"They were afraid - they were quite agitated," she said.

"Students were quite relieved when the session was over and they
could turn their phone back on and check for messages."

But Ms James said not everyone who used their phone heavily had a problem.

"Not everyone who drinks heavily is considered an alcoholic," she said.

"Similarly, people who use their mobile phone very heavily may or may
not be addicted.

"It depends on the impact it has on their day-to-day life. Is their
phone costing them more than money in terms of emotional, social and
physical stress?"

Ms James's survey results will be analysed for her PhD study with
QUT's School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations.

"Essentially, this survey is about constructing a scale that will
measure 'addiction' to mobile phones," she said.

"It draws on literature from consumer behaviour (such as impulsive
and compulsive buying) and clinical addiction.

"What is different about this scale is that it will measure in
degrees ... it will go from recreational users through to impulsive,
compulsive and addictive users.

"It also seeks to extend beyond the idea of 'dependency' in defining
addiction. Just because someone is dependent on something, doesn't
determine whether the impact on their lives is not overall a
positive, rather than a negative. So the survey also investigates
consequences for individuals."

--


_______________________________
     EMFacts Consultancy
     PO Box 1403,
     Lindisfarne, 7015
     Tasmania, Australia
     Phone: (03) 62430195
     Email: dmaisch@...
     Web: http://www.emfacts.com
______________________________

Hello Ian,

I am afraid that such will not be the case.

Nut descriptions is something where somebody will have a profit from.

ES is something, when it gains credibility, that will decrease enormous
profits.

And because the government is up to its neck into this, by having shares in
the telecom industry and having obtained the 3G licence money, they are not
prone to do something that harms the milk cow.
Despite some sick people.

Our problem is, that ES is not acknowledged as a real disease.

The only thing to do at the moment is to alarm as many people as possible.

What is impressive is letting them hear the modulations of the different HF
signals.
I have special equipment for that.
It is the only argument people may get convinced.

Concerning DECT phones, I use bold statements.
When I say to women, that they may get headaches, they can imagine that.
But when I say that to men, they always deny that; it is coming from work,
from work-stress, and they waver it away.
So for men, I say, that if they do nothing, their *dick* will fall off.
Now I get their attention, and they sit on the tip of the chair.
I say that I mean that literally.
Infertility has been proven by several studies.
Overhere every sixth couple cannot have children.
In Austria a sperm company checked 600 men for good sperm; only 6% was
usable!
In Germany, when young men are checked for military service, it is reported,
that so many have testicle cancer.
Many german therapists tell on symposia, that many of their clients do have
erection problems, due to mobile phones.
Now I have real attention.

I am sorry, but for harsh situations, harsh measures are necessary.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus




----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Kemp" <ianandsue.kemp@...>
To: <eSens@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 18:43
Subject: RE: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence


> Very interesting points Charles.  On the other hand, a tiny proportion of
> people have severe nut allergy, but because it affects their lives (or
> deaths) severely, now all food in the UK has nut descriptions on it.
>
> So even a rare condition, like the severe ES, can evetually gain
> credibility
> and action.
>
> Ian
>
>  _____
>
> From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> charles
> Sent: 27 October 2006 11:55
> To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence
>
>
>
> Hello Ian,
>
> you wouldn't have a better definition of electrosensibility.
>
> As long as most physicians refuse to diagnose and admit the existance of
> electrosensibility, no reliable figures will be known.
>
> My personal estimate is 10 %.
> Dr Gerd Oberfeld as an epidemiologist came to 19 %.
> Many German doctors speak about 25 %.
>
> But if we look at the latest swiss UMTS or 3G study, they claimed, that 0
> %
> exist.
> However, I published the fact, that from the 117 participants, only 4
> persons have reported, outside the ETH Study, heavy health complaints,
> after
>
> 45 minutes of UMTS exposure.
> So, 4 people of 117 makes a 3.4 %.
>
> Calculated on the population of the Netherlands, we speak about 555000
> people!
>
> Be aware, that many people do have vague health complaints, but do not
> know
> what the source is.
>
> Now, judges in Switzerland have ruled, that the precautionay principle for
> all is not necessary.
> Only what is economically acceptable and a calculated risk inhibits is
> accepted.
>
> So your *In the Oxford area (150,000) we know of just two*, that is a
> negligible factor.
> That is not a percent, but a promille.
> That is an amount that does not count at all.
> Those two persons are *affordable risks.*
>
> So my 25 % makes more impression.
>
> But at the moment, electrosensibles do not have any credibility at all!
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Norton Antivirus
>

In a message dated 26/10/2006 21:05:05 GMT Standard Time, SArjuna@...
writes:

Shivani responds:
Then there are no 100% healthy people on this  planet, because everyone
is electrosensible.
Granted that some folks  experience more symptoms than others, that
improving general health helps  in that regard, and that some folks do not
appear to
be affected. However,  Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
and
the effects are  cumulative.
A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has  been found
to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So  far, I have
not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she  goes from an
EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those  who are
already



Paul enquires -

Well said - The issue of stress is definately a big  player in ES, but is
there some kind of chem reaction going on here when you  have high quants of
cortisol etc...  If you take some drug that reduces  your reaction to anxiety
does
this help etc..

What do you think

Paul




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Very interesting points Charles.  On the other hand, a tiny proportion of
people have severe nut allergy, but because it affects their lives (or
deaths) severely, now all food in the UK has nut descriptions on it.

So even a rare condition, like the severe ES, can evetually gain credibility
and action.

Ian

   _____

From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
charles
Sent: 27 October 2006 11:55
To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence



Hello Ian,

you wouldn't have a better definition of electrosensibility.

As long as most physicians refuse to diagnose and admit the existance of
electrosensibility, no reliable figures will be known.

My personal estimate is 10 %.
Dr Gerd Oberfeld as an epidemiologist came to 19 %.
Many German doctors speak about 25 %.

But if we look at the latest swiss UMTS or 3G study, they claimed, that 0 %
exist.
However, I published the fact, that from the 117 participants, only 4
persons have reported, outside the ETH Study, heavy health complaints, after

45 minutes of UMTS exposure.
So, 4 people of 117 makes a 3.4 %.

Calculated on the population of the Netherlands, we speak about 555000
people!

Be aware, that many people do have vague health complaints, but do not know
what the source is.

Now, judges in Switzerland have ruled, that the precautionay principle for
all is not necessary.
Only what is economically acceptable and a calculated risk inhibits is
accepted.

So your *In the Oxford area (150,000) we know of just two*, that is a
negligible factor.
That is not a percent, but a promille.
That is an amount that does not count at all.
Those two persons are *affordable risks.*

So my 25 % makes more impression.

But at the moment, electrosensibles do not have any credibility at all!

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Kemp" <ianandsue.kemp@ <mailto:ianandsue.kemp%40ukgateway.net>
ukgateway.net>
To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 00:29
Subject: RE: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence

> This correspondence emphasises again that we need a better definition of
> "electrosensible", or at any rate a categorisation of the levels of
> effect.
>
> If people read "25% of the population are electrosensible", they think,
> "Ah,
> so this is very unimportant, because that means a quarter of the people
> around me have it and evidently it is a very very minor effect, they lead
> normal lives, can do normal jobs, it's not worth bothering about - just
> another health fad".
>
> This sort of statistic completely undermines the cause of the small
> proportion who have SEVERE electrosensitivity, who can't use a computer or

> a
> normal telephone (let alone a mobile or cordless phone), can't stand for
> even a minute under a fluorescent light, have no chance at all of doing
> any
> sort of paid job, can't use public transport or most cars, and whose life
> is
> completely disrupted by it. But this is a very small percentage of the
> population. In the whole of Britain I do not think there can be more than
> 1000 people (out of 60 million) who have this level of ES. In the Oxford
> area (150,000) we know of just two, including Sue. This could be called
> "Level 3" or "severe" ES.
>
> Then there are the in-between people, who get definite effects but where
> it
> is not totally life-disrupting. These could be described as "Level 2" or
> "moderate" ES. Maybe 1% of the population, maybe more, maybe less.
> Swedish
> figures suggest higher. On the other hand among the dozens of people I've
> worked with in offices, using computers all the time, I've never met even
> one who had any significant symptoms e.g skin rashes, or was at all
> worried
> about any possible effects.
>
> Then we have the people who are mildly affected - possibly not attributing
> it to ES. The "25%" might apply to this "Level 1" or "mild" ES.
>
> People can of course move between levels as their health changes. It
> sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
> much treatment and hard work, which is a great hope for all sufferers and
> their families! Conversely, continued high exposure or a weakened immune
> system could make a Level 1 person go to Level 2 or 3. But in Sue's case,
> she went from no symptoms at all to Level 2/3 in an hour - but her very
> weak
> immune system was what made her susceptible.
>
> The big danger of quoting high prevalence figures without definition of
> the
> level of symptoms is that it undermines credibility or makes the general
> public treat the subject less seriously.
>
> Ian
>
> _____
>
> From: eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
> charles
> Sent: 26 October 2006 21:41
> To: eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>
>
> Hello Shivani,
>
> when you quote me, you should quote me correctly.
>
> I wrote that only 25 % of our population are electrosensible.
> 75 % is not, at this moment.
> The reason for that is, that they do not have the agents in their body
> that
> may react.
> So, the conclusion is, that mobile phone masts are not sickmaking in
> principle, when the RF radiation does not exceed 200-2000 uW/m2 or 0,275 -
> 0,9 V/m.
> For the 25% of the population, which do have agents in their body,
> exposures
>
> starting at 1 uW/m2 or 0,006 V/m may have desastrous health effects.
> Then the radiation may work like a catalyst, and makes everything worse.
>
> So 75 % is still not electrosensible, and is using their mobile phones,
> their DECT phones and wireless modems and laptops without any complaints.
> But be aware that the RF radiation of these things are exceeding the 2000
> uW/m2 or 0,9 V/m mark, so they are slowly eating on your immune system.
>
> So, 75 % are not affected by elektrosmog.
> The body can cope with the (limited) exposures, while 25 % cannot.
>
> As long as one does not fall dead instantly by elektrosmog exposure, the
> WHO
>
> states that there is no danger at all.
> They claim, that when you feel sick after elektrosmog exposure, the real
> reason may be that you drank a Coca Cola or eaten a Hamburger.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Norton Antivirus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SArjuna@aol. <mailto:SArjuna%40aol.com> com>
> To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:51
> Subject: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> 100 % healthy people are not electrosensible.
>>> Only people with a damaged immune system may become, or are already
>>> electrosensible.
>>>
>> Shivani responds:
>> Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
>> is electrosensible.
>> Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
>> improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not
>> appear to
>> be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
>> and
>> the effects are cumulative.
>> A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
>> to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So far, I
>> have
>> not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from
>> an
>> EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those who are
>> already
>> stressed are more affected, but if you are alive you cannot help being
>> affected. EMR is stressful.
>> When you are stressed (whether by toxins in the body, poor nutrition,
>> your relationships....), you literally have lower resistance to
>> electricity.
>> It is a vicious cycle. The more stressed you are, the less resistance
>> you
>> have to the damaging frequencies, so the more affected you are, making
>> you
>
>> more
>> stressed....
>> Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured.
>> It
>> belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
>> Regards,
>> Shivani
>> Life Energies
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In eSens@yahoogroups.com, "denom" <denom@...> wrote:
>
> Mercury binds to certain enzymes.  Gold breaks the link and binds to
the mercury and chelates it.

Hello!
Where did you get this information?
Do you have any links (web or books)?

Hello Ian,

you wouldn't have a better definition of electrosensibility.

As long as most physicians refuse to diagnose and admit the existance of
electrosensibility, no reliable figures will be known.

My personal estimate is 10 %.
Dr Gerd Oberfeld as an epidemiologist came to 19 %.
Many German doctors speak about 25 %.

But if we look at the latest swiss UMTS or 3G study, they claimed, that 0 %
exist.
However, I published the fact, that from the 117 participants, only 4
persons have reported, outside the ETH Study, heavy health complaints, after
45 minutes of UMTS exposure.
So, 4 people of 117 makes a 3.4 %.

Calculated on the population of the Netherlands, we speak about 555000
people!

Be aware, that many people do have vague health complaints, but do not know
what the source is.

Now, judges in Switzerland have ruled, that the precautionay principle for
all is not necessary.
Only what is economically acceptable and a calculated risk inhibits is
accepted.

So your *In the Oxford area (150,000) we know of just two*, that is a
negligible factor.
That is not a percent, but a promille.
That is an amount that does not count at all.
Those two persons are *affordable risks.*

So my 25 % makes more impression.

But at the moment, electrosensibles do not have any credibility at all!

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus





----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Kemp" <ianandsue.kemp@...>
To: <eSens@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 00:29
Subject: RE: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity - prevalence


> This correspondence emphasises again that we need a better definition of
> "electrosensible", or at any rate a categorisation of the levels of
> effect.
>
> If people read "25% of the population are electrosensible", they think,
> "Ah,
> so this is very unimportant, because that means a quarter of the people
> around me have it and evidently it is a very very minor effect, they lead
> normal lives, can do normal jobs, it's not worth bothering about - just
> another health fad".
>
> This sort of statistic completely undermines the cause of the small
> proportion who have SEVERE electrosensitivity, who can't use a computer or
> a
> normal telephone (let alone a mobile or cordless phone), can't stand for
> even a minute under a fluorescent light, have no chance at all of doing
> any
> sort of paid job, can't use public transport or most cars, and whose life
> is
> completely disrupted by it.  But this is a very small percentage of the
> population.  In the whole of Britain I do not think there can be more than
> 1000 people (out of 60 million) who have this level of ES. In the Oxford
> area (150,000) we know of just two, including Sue.  This could be called
> "Level 3" or "severe" ES.
>
> Then there are the in-between people, who get definite effects but where
> it
> is not totally life-disrupting.  These could be described as "Level 2" or
> "moderate" ES.  Maybe 1% of the population, maybe more, maybe less.
> Swedish
> figures suggest higher.  On the other hand among the dozens of people I've
> worked with in offices, using computers all the time, I've never met even
> one who had any significant symptoms e.g skin rashes, or was at all
> worried
> about any possible effects.
>
> Then we have the people who are mildly affected - possibly not attributing
> it to ES.  The "25%" might apply to this "Level 1" or "mild" ES.
>
> People can of course move between levels as their health changes.  It
> sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
> much treatment and hard work, which is a great hope for all sufferers and
> their families!  Conversely, continued high exposure or a weakened immune
> system could make a Level 1 person go to Level 2 or 3.  But in Sue's case,
> she went from no symptoms at all to Level 2/3 in an hour - but her very
> weak
> immune system was what made her susceptible.
>
> The big danger of quoting high prevalence figures without definition of
> the
> level of symptoms is that it undermines credibility or makes the general
> public treat the subject less seriously.
>
> Ian
>
>  _____
>
> From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> charles
> Sent: 26 October 2006 21:41
> To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>
>
> Hello Shivani,
>
> when you quote me, you should quote me correctly.
>
> I wrote that only 25 % of our population are electrosensible.
> 75 % is not, at this moment.
> The reason for that is, that they do not have the agents in their body
> that
> may react.
> So, the conclusion is, that mobile phone masts are not sickmaking in
> principle, when the RF radiation does not exceed 200-2000 uW/m2 or 0,275 -
> 0,9 V/m.
> For the 25% of the population, which do have agents in their body,
> exposures
>
> starting at 1 uW/m2 or 0,006 V/m may have desastrous health effects.
> Then the radiation may work like a catalyst, and makes everything worse.
>
> So 75 % is still not electrosensible, and is using their mobile phones,
> their DECT phones and wireless modems and laptops without any complaints.
> But be aware that the RF radiation of these things are exceeding the 2000
> uW/m2 or 0,9 V/m mark, so they are slowly eating on your immune system.
>
> So, 75 % are not affected by elektrosmog.
> The body can cope with the (limited) exposures, while 25 % cannot.
>
> As long as one does not fall dead instantly by elektrosmog exposure, the
> WHO
>
> states that there is no danger at all.
> They claim, that when you feel sick after elektrosmog exposure, the real
> reason may be that you drank a Coca Cola or eaten a Hamburger.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Norton Antivirus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SArjuna@aol. <mailto:SArjuna%40aol.com> com>
> To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:51
> Subject: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> 100 % healthy people are not electrosensible.
>>> Only people with a damaged immune system may become, or are already
>>> electrosensible.
>>>
>> Shivani responds:
>> Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
>> is electrosensible.
>> Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
>> improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not
>> appear to
>> be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
>> and
>> the effects are cumulative.
>> A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
>> to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So far, I
>> have
>> not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from
>> an
>> EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those who are
>> already
>> stressed are more affected, but if you are alive you cannot help being
>> affected. EMR is stressful.
>> When you are stressed (whether by toxins in the body, poor nutrition,
>> your relationships....), you literally have lower resistance to
>> electricity.
>> It is a vicious cycle. The more stressed you are, the less resistance
>> you
>> have to the damaging frequencies, so the more affected you are, making
>> you
>
>> more
>> stressed....
>> Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured.
>> It
>> belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
>> Regards,
>> Shivani
>> Life Energies
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

> People can of course move between levels as their health changes.  It
> sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
> much treatment and hard work

By the way, on the subject of "treatment", I should follow-up on my
report with NMT -- an allergy elimination technique that some have
reported eliminating their ES.  I had one treatment in August, and
another about a week ago.  I can say at this point that there is
no change in my ES.  I was supposedly treated for all sorts of
allergies, but about the only thing I've noticed *any* difference
is that I *seem* to be less sensitive to wheat, and possibly also
to my dog.  The therapist seemed to think that changes might
occur gradually over the next several months, so I can't
conclusively dismiss it yet.  But at this point it is not looking
good...

Marc

> People can of course move between levels as their health changes.  It
> sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
> much treatment and hard work

Well, in a sense, I am cheating -- I would still be (I think) a "level
3"
if you took away all my fancy supplements and devices... I'm still in
the process of finding a "cure", that wouldn't require me to do anything
special (and I agree with Charles that detoxification is probably the
key)

Marc

This correspondence emphasises again that we need a better definition of
"electrosensible", or at any rate a categorisation of the levels of effect.

If people read "25% of the population are electrosensible", they think, "Ah,
so this is very unimportant, because that means a quarter of the people
around me have it and evidently it is a very very minor effect, they lead
normal lives, can do normal jobs, it's not worth bothering about - just
another health fad".

This sort of statistic completely undermines the cause of the small
proportion who have SEVERE electrosensitivity, who can't use a computer or a
normal telephone (let alone a mobile or cordless phone), can't stand for
even a minute under a fluorescent light, have no chance at all of doing any
sort of paid job, can't use public transport or most cars, and whose life is
completely disrupted by it.  But this is a very small percentage of the
population.  In the whole of Britain I do not think there can be more than
1000 people (out of 60 million) who have this level of ES. In the Oxford
area (150,000) we know of just two, including Sue.  This could be called
"Level 3" or "severe" ES.

Then there are the in-between people, who get definite effects but where it
is not totally life-disrupting.  These could be described as "Level 2" or
"moderate" ES.  Maybe 1% of the population, maybe more, maybe less.  Swedish
figures suggest higher.  On the other hand among the dozens of people I've
worked with in offices, using computers all the time, I've never met even
one who had any significant symptoms e.g skin rashes, or was at all worried
about any possible effects.

Then we have the people who are mildly affected - possibly not attributing
it to ES.  The "25%" might apply to this "Level 1" or "mild" ES.

People can of course move between levels as their health changes.  It
sounds, Marc, as if you have been able to go from Level 3 to Level 2 with
much treatment and hard work, which is a great hope for all sufferers and
their families!  Conversely, continued high exposure or a weakened immune
system could make a Level 1 person go to Level 2 or 3.  But in Sue's case,
she went from no symptoms at all to Level 2/3 in an hour - but her very weak
immune system was what made her susceptible.

The big danger of quoting high prevalence figures without definition of the
level of symptoms is that it undermines credibility or makes the general
public treat the subject less seriously.

Ian

   _____

From: eSens@yahoogroups.com [mailto:eSens@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
charles
Sent: 26 October 2006 21:41
To: eSens@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity



Hello Shivani,

when you quote me, you should quote me correctly.

I wrote that only 25 % of our population are electrosensible.
75 % is not, at this moment.
The reason for that is, that they do not have the agents in their body that
may react.
So, the conclusion is, that mobile phone masts are not sickmaking in
principle, when the RF radiation does not exceed 200-2000 uW/m2 or 0,275 -
0,9 V/m.
For the 25% of the population, which do have agents in their body, exposures

starting at 1 uW/m2 or 0,006 V/m may have desastrous health effects.
Then the radiation may work like a catalyst, and makes everything worse.

So 75 % is still not electrosensible, and is using their mobile phones,
their DECT phones and wireless modems and laptops without any complaints.
But be aware that the RF radiation of these things are exceeding the 2000
uW/m2 or 0,9 V/m mark, so they are slowly eating on your immune system.

So, 75 % are not affected by elektrosmog.
The body can cope with the (limited) exposures, while 25 % cannot.

As long as one does not fall dead instantly by elektrosmog exposure, the WHO

states that there is no danger at all.
They claim, that when you feel sick after elektrosmog exposure, the real
reason may be that you drank a Coca Cola or eaten a Hamburger.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus

----- Original Message -----
From: <SArjuna@aol. <mailto:SArjuna%40aol.com> com>
To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:51
Subject: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity

> Charles wrote:
>> 100 % healthy people are not electrosensible.
>> Only people with a damaged immune system may become, or are already
>> electrosensible.
>>
> Shivani responds:
> Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
> is electrosensible.
> Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
> improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not
> appear to
> be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
> and
> the effects are cumulative.
> A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
> to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far. So far, I
> have
> not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from an
> EMR-clean environment to being exposed. It is true that those who are
> already
> stressed are more affected, but if you are alive you cannot help being
> affected. EMR is stressful.
> When you are stressed (whether by toxins in the body, poor nutrition,
> your relationships....), you literally have lower resistance to
> electricity.
> It is a vicious cycle. The more stressed you are, the less resistance
> you
> have to the damaging frequencies, so the more affected you are, making you

> more
> stressed....
> Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured.
> It
> belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
> Regards,
> Shivani
> Life Energies
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Shivani,

when you quote me, you should quote me correctly.

I wrote that only 25 % of our population are electrosensible.
75 % is not, at this moment.
The reason for that is, that they do not have the agents in their body that
may react.
So, the conclusion is, that mobile phone masts are not sickmaking in
principle, when the RF radiation does not exceed 200-2000 uW/m2 or 0,275 -
0,9 V/m.
For the 25% of the population, which do have agents in their body, exposures
starting at 1 uW/m2 or 0,006 V/m may have desastrous health effects.
Then the radiation may work like a catalyst, and makes everything worse.

So 75 % is still not electrosensible, and is using their mobile phones,
their DECT phones and wireless modems and laptops without any complaints.
But be aware that the RF radiation of these things are exceeding the 2000
uW/m2 or 0,9 V/m mark, so they are slowly eating on your immune system.

So, 75 % are not affected by elektrosmog.
The body can cope with the (limited) exposures, while 25 % cannot.

As long as one does not fall dead instantly by elektrosmog exposure, the WHO
states that there is no danger at all.
They claim, that when you feel sick after elektrosmog exposure, the real
reason may be that you drank a Coca Cola or eaten a Hamburger.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus



----- Original Message -----
From: <SArjuna@...>
To: <eSens@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 21:51
Subject: [eSens] re. immunity/electrical sensitivity


> Charles wrote:
>> 100 % healthy people are not electrosensible.
>> Only people with a damaged immune system may become, or are already
>> electrosensible.
>>
> Shivani responds:
>     Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
> is electrosensible.
>     Granted that some folks experience more symptoms than others, that
> improving general health helps in that regard, and that some folks do not
> appear to
> be affected. However, Homo sapiens who are alive are all affected by EMR,
> and
> the effects are cumulative.
>     A short exposure to electrical pollution, for instance, has been found
> to affect the blood glucose level of everyone tested so far.    So far, I
> have
> not found anyone, either, whose GSR does not drop when he/she goes from an
> EMR-clean environment to being exposed.    It is true that those who are
> already
> stressed are more affected, but if you are alive you cannot help being
> affected.   EMR is stressful.
>     When you are stressed (whether by toxins in the body, poor nutrition,
> your relationships....), you literally have lower resistance to
> electricity.
> It is a vicious cycle.   The more stressed you are, the less resistance
> you
> have to the damaging frequencies, so the more affected you are, making you
> more
> stressed....
>     Let us not place the burden of cause of ES injury on the injured.
> It
> belongs on the shoulders of the industries that create the exposure.
>     Regards,
>     Shivani
>     Life Energies
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

> Then there are no 100% healthy people on this planet, because everyone
> is electrosensible.

Hmmm, I'm surrounded by people at work who apparently have no negative
reaction to all the florescent lights and computers they sit in front
of everyday, nor the cellphones they talk on.  And since the definition
of electrical sensitivity involves some obvious and immediate negative
reaction, I'd say that all of these people are not electrically
sensitive.

What you are referring to is someone's health being negatively affected
over the long run due to continued exposure to EMF.  That is different
than ES.

Marc

>