Urgent Need for Biologically-based EMF Public Exposure Standards

Sunday, 16 December 2012

Microwaves are everywhere, aren't they?

When thinking about microwave radiation, most people with a mobile phone imagine that the microwave signals sit uniformly in the air as if they are in waiting for them to use. “It's everywhere” they say. But this simply is not true. There is a background radiation which can be measured with an EMF meter. In my experience of measuring, this is around 3.6mV. It is a steady field, generally unmoving or at least varying only by a few mV which will be a slow random movement.

When the mobile phone is switched on it will draw power to the device from the nearest Telephone Mast. This creates a microwave field around the mobile phone in the region of 1,000-2,000 mV. So the field around you has risen in an instant from 3.6mV to 2,000mV. This intense field isn't there before you switch on your phone. After the initial switch on, the voltage will lower until you begin using the Apps and will spike again on the different connections. Spikes = a power surge, or a burst. This creates, I believe, a shock to the nervous system. It certainly does with Electrohypersensitives. At least, we are able to feel this on our peripheral nerves which results in intense pain. When making a call, the mobile phone voltage peaks very rapidly to around 2,000mV. It will continue at a figure between 1-2,000mV but it will flicker rapidly at differing levels, something that your nervous system will register. This will effect the cortisol in your body.

You and your mobile phone will be in an area known as the near field. This field is calculated to be roughly within 1 meter of the device and will be more intense than in the far field – outside of this range.



Many people criticize Electrohypersensitives for not being able to reproduce the exact same pain in every situation (i.e. changing environments) with a mobile phone. But we need to think....with a mobile phone even, many people walk around their environment trying to pick up a good reception spot, why should our brains be any different? Even standing on the same spot, I hear advice to mobile users are to move 45 degrees to the left/right for better reception. So it makes sense our brain will need to be orientated when being in receipt of a good strong signal (being affected). For WIFI even – does the laptop pick up the strongest signal in exactly the same place and location? No. In the 70's, we used to have to hold an aerial in all different places to get the TV picture to work. Mostly it worked with someone holding it. It transmitted better with a human acting as an aerial. Hotspots are not uniform and are forever changing because the waves are reflected in a moving, living world - on different surfaces, especially metal, the signal bounces around converging, reforming in the space. Where waves overlap this is where the strongest fields are, this is where the signal is its most powerful. Especially where signals cross at 90 degree angles, the signal intensifies. The signals will form in layers and according to physics at this 90 degree angle it doubles.  The electrosensitive brain picks up on the hotspot, the strongest field and pain ensues at this moment.

So in this living, breathing, moving location, this hotspot (brain zap spot) is going to be in a different spot in the atmosphere, especially when you apply the test in different atmospheric locations, so it makes sense that in order to be able to feel the signal or be affected by it everytime at the exact same place, you would need to be in the same situation, eg. In your home where your neighbours' gadgets are emitting from the same place. It makes sense that a moving hotspot in the atmosphere will sometimes miss the target of your brain as you move around so that sometimes you will be “zapped” and other times not. Only when a static device is emitting to a static body will it effect be the same. However, this is missing out half the equation, as a moving body will generate extra electromagnetic fields, or rather calculations should be made on a moving body first as this is what is intrinsic to the nature of a body.

It's acknowledged that the brain is affected by waves that traverse from the side of the head, so if a particular wave is coming at you from the front, your brain will not register it with the same intensity, perhaps not at all (I will leave that for the Engineers). Again if you are moving, then this is also why exact responses cannot be moulded into a definitive experiment.

Additionally, Electrohypersensitives are usually affected by a particular frequency or a set of particular frequencies. Some will be affected by frequencies of a particular mobile phone carrier, others by WIFI, more still by DECT, TETRA or other. So to put Electrosensitives to the test, it should be established first, which frequencies we are affected by or not, otherwise there will be false results.

One test is always quoted to try to persuade the general public that Electrosensitives are not able to register the presence of microwaves. There is no link to this study, but it tells of a transmitter being switched on or off and apparently Electrohypersensitives should be able sense this immediately. Despite the fact that the transmitters will set up oscillations to the nerves which will continue even if the transmitter is turned off. Think about the time when you went to a concert or club and you came out of the doors with your ears “ringing”. Does that stop the moment you leave the club or concert. The moment? How long afterwards do your ears stop ringing? Additionally, in this Test, there is no information being transmitted with the signal from the transmitter and this is what is causing the problem, the information + the signal which overloads the senses, so this test just includes the carrier signal being switched on or off. We are Electrohypersensitives but we are not psychics or machines that go on and off.  I wonder what other disability has to undergo such deep denial and scrutiny.  Imagine the effects of alcohol going through the same process whereby hardcore drinkers were put forward as candidates, why, we would all be saying alcohol has no effect, none at all, and those of you that were inebriated would be amongst the first, shouting...it's having no effect on me.

No comments:

Post a Comment