Re: coherent space website

August 29, 2006

Hi Marc:

Thanks for your note! Comments below!

At 01:44 AM 8/29/2006, you wrote:

>Vinny, I've been browsing through your Coherent Space website this

>evening... interesting stuff! I didn't know that the Clarus

>products were radionic....

Well, the correct terminology that I should have used is that they

are radionically-imprinted with intent, although last time I talked

to their principals, they preferred to call it " sophisticated intent

programs imprinted by 34th generation radionic technology " . Dr.

Tiller talks about this type of radionic-intent-imprinted

technology a lot in his article and books, etc., and his own device

(called sommething like IIED); he also claims that he finds that such

imprinted itents seem to fade over time.

> although like I said before, the

>Q-Link never did anything for me. I wonder if the Quantum

>Products items work this way as well?

No, the Quantum Products devices (other than their Quantum Byte

software), to my best knowledge, use an oscillator producing one or

more signals, which then seems to drive bucking (opposing) coils or

some other kind of funky antenna-but-not-an-antenna to try to

nullify any EM wave and leave only a so-called " scalar vector "

signal. This technique seems to be rather common across many brands

of hardware-based " quantum quieting " devices. And, they do also

provide a " volume control " as well on many of their devices.

>I'm not sure how else

>a software-based solution *could* work (Quantum Byte software)...

The Quantum Products QB software is interesting: it seems to try to

create an effect based on the stochastic resonance principle, and I

have actually noticed a mild beneficial effect here from playing with

the device, above and beyond the Clarus clock and the Clarus power

strip which sat only feet away from my PC. Unfortunately, I can no

longer detect any effect when I use it, because I now have three of

my CS devices running full time now in the house and lab, and one of

them is a Quantum Coherence device.

>I read that testimonial from Rick... unfortunately, I tend

>to discount any testimonial written on the first day of

>trying something out.

Rick is a funny one. He is an industrial chemist, and like me,

somewhat of a cynic abot all the claims and hype found in the

marketplace for many " alternative products " , but he is also much into

meditation and spiritual pursuits, and he has known of my work in

various fields for years, as he belongs to a number of my list

groups. He recently told me that he had been advised by angels during

a meditation that I would soon be creating several new devices and

that he should procure one of each for his own use. Now, this is

really weird, because this was weeks before I had ever mentioned my

work (on the latest generation of devices) to anyone, even my closest

friends, and a month or two before I ever created the Coherent Space

website. Very odd...

> I could have written the same testimonial

>about the " Cosmic Energy Transformers " which I bought 5 years

>ago but eventually threw away. I could feel the energy coming

>out of the box when it first arrived at the door, and they

>felt good in my hands. Then, the next few days I had fatigue

>from detox.

> *However*, once that all passed, I never noticed

>anything beneficial from them again, and they certainly

>provided no increased tolerance for my computer use.

Intrestng... sounds like the devices may have had some kind of

healing effect, but that they did not protect you against effects of EMF!

>So, I've

>learned that testimonials from people who've used items for

>an extended period of time are much more useful than people

>who've had an item for a day.

Yes, I agree! BTW, Rick reports that the extra energy and calm

continue from his quantum coherence device, over a month later.

>It sounds like you " received information " from elsewhere

>about how to build some of these devices. I've had one other such

>experience -- the Gentle Wind project makes very expensive

>devices for healing. I once went to someone's house and

>held a " healing puck " in my hand for about 5 minutes, and

>spent the rest of day feeling incredible. I kept telling

>my wife that I felt like I had been " touched by an

>angel " (that was the only way I could describe it), meanwhile

>she was upset that she didn't feel a thing! But again,

>I noted no longterm/permanent change from this one-time

>experience... perhaps I should have investigated this

>technology further, but for some reason I did not...(too

>expensive, as I recall)

Well, it may not have been as simple as money/budget alone: My own

experience is that many of us are more intuitive than we think, and

we simply " forget " to continue to investigate those tools or

modalities which we simply do not need at that time. In my case,

which is a bit more extreme, I was an amateur scientist and ham radio

operator/tinkerer from age six, got my first ham license by age ten

or so, and yet I was also fascinated by meditation and the invisible

world, and from age 13 or so onward, spent a long time every day in

meditation; this never stopped. All thru my adult life, I continued

to do well in engineering and the sciences, but also continued my

full-blown pursuit of inner freedom via meditation and opening the

heart. The net effect of this is that I am now one of those odd

people who can walk easily in the world of technology and science,

but can also walk easily and comfortably in inner deeper realms as

well. This seems to have resulted, over the past few years, in very

accurate and " tight " access to all kinds of information on the inner

level from what I call Holy Spirit and the angels.

>Also, I see that you've noticed increased gas mileage from

>your devices. I've also noticed that my car mysteriously

>gets more mpg than it should (or used to), but I have no

>idea which device caused this! According to the car's

>sticker, it should (and once did) get 25-31 mpg, but these

>days it gets up to 36 mpg. I've had items from Quantum

>Products and Springlife Polarity in my cars for years

>(plus other items on occasions), so I have no idea

>what might have caused this.

My guess, knowing the technologies involved, is that the effect is

largely due to the QP device.

BTW, the Springlife Polarity devices are one of the few other devices

in this realm which seem -- much like my devices -- to use biogenic

materials. In their case, they report that they use a special type of

dried kelp (a photosynthetic seaweed) enclosed in a fabric pillow or

in a soldered tin enclosure as the heart of their device. My devices

actually use (exotic) circuitry and several exotic biogenic materiaas

(each created by photosynthetic and other beneficial microbes in

multi-state processes) for the quantum-smoothing function.

>I was also struck by one of the items being called " Violet

>Light of Peace " . We've got someone on this list (Ellen)

>who has previously spoke of a " Violet Flame " ... I wonder

>if they are related... (?)

Aha! The term " Violet Flame " has a long and colorful history in some

corners of the spiritual world, and also in some New Age realms (I am

not into New Age stuff, but I cannot help but be aware of such

things...!) It seems that a couple of (competing) people and

organizations claiming to channel spiritual information from " The

Ascended Master Comte de Saint Germain " (apparently a 17th or 18th

century European alchemist) appeared in the early part of the 20th

century, and started disseminating this information in lectures and

books. These organizations had names such as the I AM Foundation,

various organizations with the term " Saint Germain " in the name,

Summit Foundation, Lighthouse Foundation, and a few other variants on

those names as well (and many of these organizations sued each other

for violations of " protected and proprietary " material recieved from

the Other Side...!). For some reason, prominent in their channeled

material was the assertion that one could invoke " the Violet Flame " ,

on an inner or etheric level, and that this flame is very purifying

and can be used to " cleanse " the aura or energy body, thus healing the person.

Further, many of these people and organizations also talked a bit

vaguely about a physical " Violet Flame " which they claimed had been

maintained by high priestesses in " Atlantis " (sigh!) about " thirteen

thousand years ago " (double sigh...). For some reason, the Violet

Flame (by the way, several organizations have claimed that they own

the trademark for this term) became a big hit with ocultists, and by

the later 1940s and early 1950s, a number of estoeric organizations,

New Age organizations, and alternative health movements (among them

some splinter Rosicrucian organizations, and most notably including

the fascinating esoteric healing tradition of Body Electronics

started by naturopath Ray in the late 1950s and early 1960s)

also incorporated the lore of the Violet Flame into their healing

teachings. In fact, I once even had a flaky acuptuncture professor,

while I was in a graduate program in acupuncutre, exhort all her

students (ahem, myself included) to stand up and invoke the inner

" Violet Flame " (I think I farted when I stood up, which kinda

destroyed the mood and ambiance for her... sighl... ). In fact, I

once found a book on esoteric topics, written in the late 1930s by an

occultist, wherein he claimed that he had been led by angels into an

opening in a mountain (somewhere in the USA) which led to a massive

hollow cavern filled with wondrous " technologies " from the angels,

including, of course, a REAL Violet Flame!

My own device, of course, uses the term " Violet Light " , and I do not

think that the term is necessarily connected with the New Age

fascination with the " Violet Flame " . I hope...

with care,

--Vinny

Vinny Pinto

vinny@...

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

http://www.vinnypinto.us

August 29, 2006

> No, the Quantum Products devices (other than their Quantum Byte

> software), to my best knowledge, use an oscillator producing one or

> more signals

Interesting! Note that Quantum Products does sell a power strip,

which by all appearances is a stock power strip from the hardware

store. This sounds similar to your Clarus power strip. However,

I have actually gone and purchased the stock version at the

hardware store, and can confirm that the Quantum Products version

" feels " significantly different when plugged in. I can also

confirm that the effect does not appear to wear out, as I've

been using the same strips for 5 years.

> My guess, knowing the technologies involved, is that the effect is

> largely due to the QP device.

I can test this theory, as my wife recently bought a new car,

and it is basically " untouched " by my devices (and she's

been paying close attention to the mileage already)

> BTW, the Springlife Polarity devices are one of the few other devices

> in this realm which seem -- much like my devices -- to use biogenic

> materials.

So, do you think your new prototype devices would have some sort

of additional benefit for someone who already owns and is successfully

using items from Quantum Products and Springlife Polarity? My main

problem areas are overhead florescent lights, computer monitors (both

CRT

and LCD), and TVs...

Marc

August 29, 2006

Hi Marc:

Thanks for your note. Comments below!

At 04:23 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote:

> > No, the Quantum Products devices (other than their Quantum Byte

> > software), to my best knowledge, use an oscillator producing one or

> > more signals

>

>Interesting! Note that Quantum Products does sell a power strip,

>which by all appearances is a stock power strip from the hardware

>store. This sounds similar to your Clarus power strip. However,

>I have actually gone and purchased the stock version at the

>hardware store, and can confirm that the Quantum Products version

> " feels " significantly different when plugged in. I can also

>confirm that the effect does not appear to wear out, as I've

>been using the same strips for 5 years.

Yes, judging from their (low) pricing on the power strip, plus the UL

approval issues they would hit if they modified the circuitry or

added circuitry, I suspect that their power strips may simply be

radionically imprinted with an intent program. However, my best

understanding (bsed upon my analysis and on reports from users and

from folks who have opened the devices over the years) is that their

pricier room and area treatment devices for individuals, homes and

offices do employ real hardware, plus perhaps some imprinting as well.

> > My guess, knowing the technologies involved, is that the effect is

> > largely due to the QP device.

>

>I can test this theory, as my wife recently bought a new car,

>and it is basically " untouched " by my devices (and she's

>been paying close attention to the mileage already)

Please let me know what you find!

> > BTW, the Springlife Polarity devices are one of the few other devices

> > in this realm which seem -- much like my devices -- to use biogenic

> > materials.

>

>So, do you think your new prototype devices would have some sort

>of additional benefit for someone who already owns and is successfully

>using items from Quantum Products and Springlife Polarity? My main

>problem areas are overhead florescent lights, computer monitors (both

>CRT

>and LCD), and TVs...

Since I tend to be very blunt and zero-hype, allow me to answer you

in this way:

I have no way of guaranteeing or promising that you would notice any

effect at all from one of the heftier Quantum Coherence devices --

such as the HO-09, which is the one I would pick if I were in your

shoes and had decided to purchase one of the prototypes -- and my

reluctance to offer any promises stems from several things, as follows:

1) the " fuzzy science " factor which I address on the website; the

truth is that these quantum quieting techologies are largely well

beyond the cutting edge of the concepts of modern Western science.

2) lack of (expensive) controlled scientific studies validating

effects of this or any other devices in this field.

3) the tremendous variance across people in their response to these

devices and to any devices in this realm.

4) the fact that you are ALREADY (smile!) using a number of devices....!

My intuitive sense seems to be telling me that a device such as the

model HO-09 would likely help you see perhaps another 35% improvement

in energy levels and calmness/centerednesss, but intuition can be

wrong or can be swayed by many things, so this is hardly gospel. You

also might have a few days of detox symptoms, starting within one to

two days after exposure to the device....

Sorry to be so vague, but I have no desire to offer lots of promises.

Bottom line -- and I do hate to sound so mystical here! -- would be

that I would recommend that you go to your heart and gut and check

with your intuition and see what that sense (as opposed to the

conscious mind, which is always looking for new things) says to you...

with care,

--Vinny

>

Vinny Pinto

vinny@...

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

http://www.vinnypinto.us

August 29, 2006

> However, my best

> understanding (bsed upon my analysis and on reports from users and

> from folks who have opened the devices over the years) is that their

> pricier room and area treatment devices for individuals, homes and

> offices do employ real hardware

Oh yes, the Quantum Home, Pro, Monitor, Companion, and Auto-Clear

all appear to use their own circuitry. It's just the power strips

that appear to have been " treated " somehow.

> I have no way of guaranteeing or promising that you would notice any

> effect at all from one of the heftier Quantum Coherence devices --

> such as the HO-09, which is the one I would pick if I were in your

> shoes

Fair enough. Although I would not use any of the larger, more powerful

devices in my house because my cats *always* retaliate (with urination

& pooping outside the litter box) with any whole-house system I've

tried.

So minimizing the effective radius would be a key consideration for me,

so that it affects me but not the cats. So that would leave the

IND-14, which has a very limited radius ( " several feet " ? Does

that mean 3? 5? 7?) or the AUTO-21, which seems like it may

have too large of a radius for me to keep it away from the cats

(28 ft?)

Marc

August 29, 2006

Hi Marc:

Thanks for your note.... comments below!

At 07:54 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote:

> > However, my best

> > understanding (bsed upon my analysis and on reports from users and

> > from folks who have opened the devices over the years) is that their

> > pricier room and area treatment devices for individuals, homes and

> > offices do employ real hardware

>

>Oh yes, the Quantum Home, Pro, Monitor, Companion, and Auto-Clear

>all appear to use their own circuitry. It's just the power strips

>that appear to have been " treated " somehow.

Exactly!

> > I have no way of guaranteeing or promising that you would notice any

> > effect at all from one of the heftier Quantum Coherence devices --

> > such as the HO-09, which is the one I would pick if I were in your

> > shoes

>

>Fair enough. Although I would not use any of the larger, more powerful

>devices in my house because my cats *always* retaliate (with urination

> & pooping outside the litter box) with any whole-house system I've

>tried.

Hmmmm... very odd... and kinda poses a challenge, because the HO-09

device not only has a greater radius of effect than the smaller

devices, but also has a more powerful (deeper, more effective) effect

when the Range Boost switch is turned on, and that is normally what I

would suggest for someone who is electrosensitive.

I wonder what it is with your cats? Fascinating! My own cat does

fine, as does my beagle, and several of my customers have cats, and

the only " cat report " I have heard so far is that some cats become

entranced with the devices and like being near them....

I wonder if it might be some kind of cleansing, or merely a

toxic/stressor effect...?

If I can ever find a spare HO-09 here that is NOT committted to going

out the door to a customer, I will consider sending you an HO-09

device as a sample/loaner for a week or two, so that you may play

with it and see how your cats react to it, so long as you were

willing to pay return shipping via UPS at the end of the experimental period.

>So minimizing the effective radius would be a key consideration for me,

>so that it affects me but not the cats. So that would leave the

>IND-14, which has a very limited radius ( " several feet " ? Does

>that mean 3? 5? 7?) or the AUTO-21, which seems like it may

>have too large of a radius for me to keep it away from the cats

>(28 ft?)

The radii of effect (i.e., for strong, moderately strong effect,

etc.) are (hopefully) listed on the catalog page, but, in general,

the IND device usually has a radius for strongest effect of 2 to 3

feet, and I feel it really needs to be in the near-biofield for best

effects, such as in a pants pocket. And, the effect will not be quite

as powerful as that of the HO-09 when it is turned on...

with care,

--Vinny

>

Vinny Pinto

vinny@...

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

http://www.vinnypinto.us

August 29, 2006

> I wonder what it is with your cats? Fascinating!

I don't know, but it seems that 2 of our 4 cats don't like my

experimentation. I could observe what plainly appeared to

be a miserable, detoxing cat after 3 days of using an EarthCalm

Home plug-in unit. And another cat has diabetes, so it's

pretty fragile in the first place. These cats have also

reacted to the Quantum Pro, more than 2 Quantum power

strips, Tachyon silica discs on the fusebox, Cosmic

Energy Transformers, and any of the larger Springlife

Polarizers.

Fortunately, *I* don't have much problem with my home environment,

so I can get away with using devices that all seem

to have a range of 10 feet or less.

> If I can ever find a spare HO-09 here that is NOT committted to going

> out the door to a customer, I will consider sending you an HO-09

> device as a sample/loaner for a week or two, so that you may play

> with it and see how your cats react to it, so long as you were

> willing to pay return shipping via UPS at the end of the experimental

> period.

Thanks for the (potential) offer! I'm always happy to experiment,

and quite willing to return anything via UPS.

> The radii of effect (i.e., for strong, moderately strong effect,

> etc.) are (hopefully) listed on the catalog page, but, in general,

> the IND device usually has a radius for strongest effect of 2 to 3

> feet, and I feel it really needs to be in the near-biofield for best

> effects, such as in a pants pocket. And, the effect will not be quite

> as powerful as that of the HO-09 when it is turned on...

I have a tendency to prefer the smaller, more portable items anyway,

simply from a convenience standpoint. Also, if one takes them on

vacation, I'd have a much easier time getting a key-fob through

airport security than a large, mysterious " black box " (this is

another advantage of some of the Quantum products items -- they

look like plain old pagers, power strips, etc)

Marc

August 29, 2006

> devices, but also has a more powerful (deeper, more effective) effect

> when the Range Boost switch is turned on, and that is normally what I

> would suggest for someone who is electrosensitive.

Vinny, I find it interesting that you'd recommend a stronger device

for someone who is electrosensitive, as it seems that in some cases

people with ES are so sensitive that they cannot stand a stronger

device, and there is potential that the EMF detox would be so

strong that they'd simply return the product because it makes

them feel so horrible. I'd think that the *least* powerful

device would be the safer choice, so that they can see if they

can handle the technology. I know from my own past experience

that I was glad to have started with the least powerful items

from Quantum Products and Springlife Polarity, and here I am

years later still using those same " weak " products, while the

stronger ones are stashed away and not being used...

Marc

August 30, 2006

Hello,

I would like to place my 2 cent also.

There was a time, that my wife needed all kind of *gadgets*, T-shirt and cap

with silver lined textile, in order to move outside on the streets.

Despite all that she reacted with every mobile phone mast we encountered.

She had to walk criss-crossed on the streets in order to avoid wireless DECT

phoes inside the houses, of which she felt the HF radiation in the streets

in front of the houses.

The appartment we lived in, was shielded on many sides.

Today, she does not need any gadget anymore, nor the special clothing.

She *feels* the masts, but does not have reactions in her body.

She now can go shopping without any trouble.

She is not bothered by most of the DECT phones.

Only a few do give reactions.

She is not bothered by fluoresent lamps as before.

So, for me this is prove, that a betterment for electrosensibility is quite

possible.

It is my strong conviction that there is a connection between

electrosensibility and the state of the health of the person involved.

I wrote earlier. that in the Benelux, the mobile phone masts are in

principle not sickmaking, because their radiation levels are in reality very

low. (I measure them daily, so I know what I am talking about.)

However, an estimated 25 % of the people have health complaints by

elektrosmog (which contains low- as well as high frequency fileds). Many

question why that is.

But if one reverses the question, it means that 75 % of the people are not

hindered by elektrosmog as YET, so till today.

(That can change overnight, but is not now).

Why do 75 % use their mobile phone, DECT phone and wireless modems all day

and are not troubled by it?

Look around on the streets. Everybody uses their *earwarmers*, full time!

That is a question I pondered a long time.

I think, that the reason is, that those people do not have anything in their

body that may react.

Those are very healthy people, with, at the moment, not latent agents in

their body.

Their immune system is in good condition.

On http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina114a.html , I have listed a number of

symptoms electrosensibles may experience.

So, in my opinion, electrosensibles do have latent agents in their body,

which may react to elektrosmog.

Those people are not *sick*, as many physicians you want to believe, but

their immune system is distorted and down the drain.

People between 40 and 60 years old are reflecting what they have achieved in

life.

Youth traumas have been suppressed for many years, and not dealt with.

They now come to the surface, and have a heavy impact on the immune system.

We lived many years in a city, where a motorway went right through the city,

right before our frontdoor.

In the fumes, diesel particles and lead were inhaled by manty people.

There was a period, when we drove by car, I had to maintain a large distance

to the cars in front of me, because it troubled my wife.

Of course, we used also electrical blankets at that time.

So, our body contains many poisons and heavy metals.

And those with the Apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 gene allele cannot get rid of

those heavy metals at all.

It is my opinion, that the phone masts, with their relatively low emissions

do not harm *healthy* people, but those with a damaged immune system do have

strong reactions.

I think that the phone masts are working like a catalytic agent on the

latent agents in our body.

And because those latent agents are different with everybody, everybody does

have different reactions.

With one person it is in the head, another in the chest, another in the

abdomen, and another in the legs.

And of course combinations are also possible.

A diagnosis of the flu is normally easy; for electrosensibility not, because

there is no standard list of symptoms.

And the mobile phone industry is the *holy grail* and financial *milk cow*,

so many physicians flatly refuse to look into this. And advised by the

governments and the criminals of the WHO.

Betterment is possible by:

1. living in a HF radiation poor surrounding. HF radiation free is not

possible anymore.

2. getting rid of heavy metals in the body. There are several ways in doing

this.

(see Amalgam Illness by Hall Cutler, see Literature on

http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina8.html)

We had very good results with an ionic foot spa (within two weeks).

I found a less expensive one on:

http://www.electronichealing.co.uk/products/detox_foot_spa.htm

3. living healthier. The dos and don'ts.

See Energy Flow System by Han M. Stiekema (also Literature)

This dutch physician cured himself from electrosensibility.

4. a liver cleansing according to Hulda Regehr .

5. a positive attitude. get rid of traumas. Yes Reiki or praying may help.

The Field by Lynne McTaggart is a good guidline.

(A MCS patient got recovered by reading that book)

(Chinese say, that when one gets awake between 3 and 6 at night, it is a

sign that the liver is overloaded, or not functioning well.)

So I see the *gadgets* only as a temporary means. The body must be healed

also.

As long as that does not happen, the electrosensibility remains.

I have also found that a gadget does not help with one person, is helpful

for another and for a third it is too strong and gives adverse effects. And

this for the same gadget.

Don't get me wrong.

Phone masts are damaging the health, but not in the way many people assume.

I mean below 2.000 uW/m2, which is normally the case overhere, the effect on

*normal* people is minimal.

Over 2.000 uW/m2, it attacks the body, whether it possesses agents or not,

so also *normal* people.

Between 10.000 and 30.000 uW/m2, serious health effects may occur with

everybody.

Inside houses, I generally find 200 uW/m2 from each phone mast.

But mark, electrosensibles may react starting at levels if 1 uW/m2; some

even at 0,1 uW/m2.

When they encounter 100 uW/m2, life is hell for them.

And recovery of illnesses is nearly impossible.

Recovery of cancer needs an HF radiation poor surrounding! No matter what

treatment one is following.

And electrosensibles can have strong reactions to tiny small levels of

elektrosmog.

I know of persons who get a red head by a 9V battery; red allergic reactions

by the electrical wiring in our home.

I know of persons who get strong allergic reactions on their body, when a

vistor does have a mobile phone in their pocket.

But those persons are not *normal* persons, but electrosensibles, of a heavy

caliber.

Don't forget, that elektrosmog is a very wide area, containing many facets

of dangerous fields.

Even the static magnetic DC fields on metal parts in beds can have an

enormous impact.

Not everybody has the same constitution.

I had an aunt, who died in her nineties on lung cancer but she never smoked.

I know people who smoke two packages a day, and are in perfect health!

So, by improving the body health, the level of electrosensibility goes down.

Not 100 %, but still so, that a normal life is possible.

And that is the only thing, electrosensibles are interested in.

I see the electrosensibility as having a *biological window*.

My wife had a very large open window at that time.

Everything was shining in from all directions.

Today, she has a small window.

To make it more understandable, let us say about 50 cm cross section.

Not placed directly in front of her, but a bit sideways to the left.

Only what is coming through that particular *biological window* is

perceived, and calls for a reaction from the body.

In the surroundings of this window, the elektrosmog is perceived, but

unlocks no reaction.

So phone masts do not hinder her anymore, but only certain DECT phones.

I checked, it is not the radiation level.

When she reacts, it is at lower levels, than other.

DECT phones are pulsed with 100 Hz, so that is constant.

It is not the radiation level.

The high frequency carrier waves are between 1880 and 1900 MHz, so a span of

only 20 MHz.

So I can only imagine that it is that certain frequencies (together with the

pulsrate) are the trigger.

For instance 1883.2 and 1887.6 MHz are triggereing her; the other

frequencies are not.

I have no other explanation, yet.

Sorry for the long story, but I felt in neccessary to share my viewpoints.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton Antivirus

Re: coherent space website

>> devices, but also has a more powerful (deeper, more effective) effect

>> when the Range Boost switch is turned on, and that is normally what I

>> would suggest for someone who is electrosensitive.

>

> Vinny, I find it interesting that you'd recommend a stronger device

> for someone who is electrosensitive, as it seems that in some cases

> people with ES are so sensitive that they cannot stand a stronger

> device, and there is potential that the EMF detox would be so

> strong that they'd simply return the product because it makes

> them feel so horrible. I'd think that the *least* powerful

> device would be the safer choice, so that they can see if they

> can handle the technology. I know from my own past experience

> that I was glad to have started with the least powerful items

> from Quantum Products and Springlife Polarity, and here I am

> years later still using those same " weak " products, while the

> stronger ones are stashed away and not being used...

>

> Marc

>

August 30, 2006

Hi Marc:

You raise some interesting points! All I can say is that my

recommendations were based on my own personal experience and those of

others using my devices. However, allow me to add that it is entirely

likely that none of us (i.e, myself or the other users who have

reported their observations) is strongly electrosensitive, and

rather, we each had been exhibiting only very minor

electrosensitivity, only to the degree that we experienced brief

detox symptoms (at times) followed by higher levels of energy and

well-being. In my case, I certainly know that I have never considered

myself at all electrosensitive, and, as I have recounted elsewhere, I

was therefore VERY amazed that my devices (the latest generation) had

an observable and very significant effect upon my energy and

well-being within a few hours of being activated. So, since neither I

nor any of the early users appear to be strongly electrosensitive, it

is entirely possible that the experience that we report (i.e.,

wherein we find the stronger devices to be " better " ) may not at all

be true for someone who is extremely electrosensitive. (On the other

hand, my intuition says that these observations would likely remain

true for folks who are very electrosensitive.... so who knows?)

By the way, I do realize that I have a bias here: I personally feel

that any " good " EMF protection device of what I will call the

" quantum quieting " type should ONLY remove from the local environment

some or most (or perhaps all) of any harmful signals or fields

produced by manmade electronic equipment, and should NOT exhibit any

other effects, and that thus, for any user of such a " good " device:

1) any detox or adjustment or cleansing effects should be temporary,

and should be relatively short and tranisent, perhaps lasting a few

weeks at most, with perhaps need for extra sleep lasting up to a

month or two, but no longer.

2) any effects noted due to removal of some or most of the harmful

effects of EMF should be rather similar to the effects noted from

moving to an extremely remote forested area which is very far removed

from the AC power grid and from the vast majority of radio and TV

transmitting towers and cellular and microwave towers. (i.e., as

noted in #1 above, the detox or adjustment effects should be

transient and temporary, and while there may indeed be an increased

need for sleep during initial stages as the body heals, it too should

pass within one to three months.)

To me, any persistent adverse effects beyond one month of duration

with a " quantum quieting " type device would indicate only one of two things:

1) the device is somehow not functioning ideally, and perhaps it is

emitting some underirable fields or effects as well.

OR

2) the person reporting ongoing so-called " detox " symptoms has some

imbalances, toxicities or deficiencies in their body which go well

beyond the realm of adverse effects due to quantum incoherence from

EMF, and which will never be remediated simply by removing most (or

all) of the harmful effects of EMF. In such a case, the EMF

sensitivity symptoms which had preexisted may even have been masking

deeper deficiencies, toxicities or imbalances which have little or

nothign to do with electrosensitivity, and thus, when the EMF

stressor has been removed, the deeper symptoms may then emerge and be

mistaken for detox. Some of my practitioner friends and colleagues

report that they see this cluster of " poor responder to any kind of

intervention " symptoms often with people who have what they call

" depleted deep energies " , aka " depleted deep batteries " , aka " low

battery " syndrome, and my colleague Dr. Tim Ray wrote a great article

a few years ago for Explore! magazine on detecting and addressing

such issues; he calls the syndrome " Low Battery " ; I believe that his

article was called something like " Low Battery Focus " . Briefly, what

many practitioners often seem to recommend in such " depleted deep

battery " cases is:

* start the client on a fulvic acid supplement

* get the client to ingest EM products daily as a supplement

* ensure that the client is gettting enough major minerals,

particularly calcium and magnesium, in their diet, in usable form

* ensure that the client is getting enough trace elements in their diet

with care,

--Vinny

At 01:00 AM 8/30/2006, you wrote:

> > devices, but also has a more powerful (deeper, more effective) effect

> > when the Range Boost switch is turned on, and that is normally what I

> > would suggest for someone who is electrosensitive.

>

>Vinny, I find it interesting that you'd recommend a stronger device

>for someone who is electrosensitive, as it seems that in some cases

>people with ES are so sensitive that they cannot stand a stronger

>device, and there is potential that the EMF detox would be so

>strong that they'd simply return the product because it makes

>them feel so horrible. I'd think that the *least* powerful

>device would be the safer choice, so that they can see if they

>can handle the technology. I know from my own past experience

>that I was glad to have started with the least powerful items

>from Quantum Products and Springlife Polarity, and here I am

>years later still using those same " weak " products, while the

>stronger ones are stashed away and not being used...

>

>Marc

>

Vinny Pinto

vinny@...

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

http://www.vinnypinto.us

August 30, 2006

> and my colleague Dr. Tim Ray wrote a great article

> a few years ago for Explore! magazine on detecting and addressing

> such issues; he calls the syndrome " Low Battery " ;

Oh yes, I'm quite familiar with Dr. Ray... several years ago I

went through about 15 ounces of his mercury chelation

supplement " NDF " . In fact, of all the mercury chelation

supplements I've tried (over 10), NDF seemed to do the most

good with the least amount of unnecessary side effects

(the only ones I get from NDF is headache, dehydration,

metallic-tasting mouth, and strong-smelling urine).

....and after a several year " break " from taking NDF, I've been

experimenting with it again lately, as plenty of people have

asserted that a mercury-free person is an ES-free person...

Marc

August 30, 2006

> 2) any effects noted due to removal of some or most of the harmful

> effects of EMF should be rather similar to the effects noted from

> moving to an extremely remote forested area which is very far removed

> from the AC power grid and from the vast majority of radio and TV

> transmitting towers and cellular and microwave towers.

Yes, that certainly would be nice. All of the EMF protection devices

I've ever tried seem to add their own unique energy to the environment,

which is quite different from going to " the middle of nowhere " .

However, in your description of your coherent space devices, I believe

that you said that the devices take incoherent radiation and turn

it into coherent radiation? So if I'm sitting in front of a 21 " CRT

monitor with it's elevated radiation levels, I'm now going to be

exposed to elevated levels of coherent radiation, correct? That seems

like it would be a much different experience than being in the

middle of nowhere, which would have minimal levels of incoherent

radiation.

Marc

August 30, 2006

>

> > 2) any effects noted due to removal of some or most of the harmful

> > effects of EMF should be rather similar to the effects noted from

> > moving to an extremely remote forested area which is very far removed

> > from the AC power grid and from the vast majority of radio and TV

> > transmitting towers and cellular and microwave towers.

>

> Yes, that certainly would be nice. All of the EMF protection devices

> I've ever tried seem to add their own unique energy to the environment,

> which is quite different from going to " the middle of nowhere " .

>

> However, in your description of your coherent space devices, I believe

> that you said that the devices take incoherent radiation and turn

> it into coherent radiation? So if I'm sitting in front of a 21 " CRT

> monitor with it's elevated radiation levels, I'm now going to be

> exposed to elevated levels of coherent radiation, correct? That seems

> like it would be a much different experience than being in the

> middle of nowhere, which would have minimal levels of incoherent

> radiation.

>

> Marc

>

Hi Marc,

What you're pondering here sounds a lot like what Dietrich says his

bioprotect card's action does, i.e. changes the quality of the

radiation. Myself and another person found the result too much for

our systems to handle when we tried the card almost 2 years ago.

I think your take that the results of making EMR coherent would

probably be much different than being in an EMR free zone is spot on.

While making EMR coherent might dampen effects stemming from factors

active with high levels of incoherency, it can definitely amplify

other effects the EMR might have. A simple example is laser light

which is light with very high levels of coherence.

-B

August 30, 2006

I have enjoyed the recent activity here. I have noticed some

commonality between ES symptoms and mercury poisoning symptoms. I

realize that others have pointed out the similarity as well and I just

wanted to chime in with that and a question for those who (like

yourself in some instances) have had a major detox reaction.

The question is:

Do you have amalgam fillings? If you had them removed has the

intensity ofhte detox been lessened?

The reason I ask is because when attempting to detox (through

chelation or otherwise) while still having a major supply of the toxin

mercury in your mouth will produce long term detox problems. The first

thing is to get the source of toxins out of the mouth/environment.

Then do the detox/chelation. Also as you do the detox/chelation do it

in a way that not only loosens the mercury out of the tissues but also

moves it out of your system. Loosening it alone will cause the mercury

to move elsewhere in you body and cause problems there instead. An

example of the protocol I am referring to (to get rid of the source,

loosen and move out) is to remove/replace the amalgam fillings. Then

use one substance (e.g. targeted probiotic, chelating/binging agents,

charcoal, bentonite clay, garlic paste) to move the mercury/toxins out

of the GI tract. After things are moving out well and a detox pathway

is well extablished in the GI tract, then start detoxing the tissues

throughout the body using a stronger chelator or cilantro for

instance. Also continue the GI tract supplement while doing the deeper

tissue chelation.

Quoting Marc <marc@...>:

> > and my colleague Dr. Tim Ray wrote a great article

>> a few years ago for Explore! magazine on detecting and addressing

>> such issues; he calls the syndrome " Low Battery " ;

>

> Oh yes, I'm quite familiar with Dr. Ray... several years ago I

> went through about 15 ounces of his mercury chelation

> supplement " NDF " . In fact, of all the mercury chelation

> supplements I've tried (over 10), NDF seemed to do the most

> good with the least amount of unnecessary side effects

> (the only ones I get from NDF is headache, dehydration,

> metallic-tasting mouth, and strong-smelling urine).

>

> ....and after a several year " break " from taking NDF, I've been

> experimenting with it again lately, as plenty of people have

> asserted that a mercury-free person is an ES-free person...

>

> Marc

>

August 30, 2006

> Do you have amalgam fillings? If you had them removed has the

> intensity ofhte detox been lessened?

I had twenty mercury amalgam fillings back in the 1980's.

Now I have none. After I got chronic fatigue in 2001,

I had the last of my fillings removed (5 of them). Immediately

after they were removed, I went into a huge detox for a couple

weeks. I started taking NDF shortly afterwards.

Marc

August 30, 2006

Hi Marc:

Just a brief reply, as I am facing a busy day and a busy next few

days! Comments below!

>Oh yes, I'm quite familiar with Dr. Ray... several years ago I

>went through about 15 ounces of his mercury chelation

>supplement " NDF " . In fact, of all the mercury chelation

>supplements I've tried (over 10), NDF seemed to do the most

>good with the least amount of unnecessary side effects

>(the only ones I get from NDF is headache, dehydration,

>metallic-tasting mouth, and strong-smelling urine).

Yes, NDF sems to be good stuff, and works well for many folks, for a

variety of challenges...

>...and after a several year " break " from taking NDF, I've been

>experimenting with it again lately, as plenty of people have

>asserted that a mercury-free person is an ES-free person...

Hmmm... I suspect that you really meant to say not " mercury-free

person " but rather " persons not carrying a toxic load of mercury " and

that you employed the shorthand which you did for reasons of

brevity... I know of no life form on earth, particularly humans or

mammals, which can be at all mercury-free, as mercury naturally

exists as a trace element almost everywhere on earth and in all life

forms. It only seems to become problematic when it is found in people

(or animals) above certain levels, but it is worth pointing out that

those critical threshold levels for causation of " problems " seem to

vary quite a bit across people, and while part of the variance may be

due to nutritional status, a good part of this variance seems to be

due to genetic factors. My personal bias is that mercury load does

not seem to be too much of a problem so long as the person is getting

sufficient dietary antixidants, has the right beneficial microbes in

their gut, and is ingesting sufficient levels of selenium in their

diet (and sufficient levels of Se are very rare nowadays without

supplementation!)

BTW, for some side notes: I useta (ahem, sorry for the slang term,

but I like the word....) have a very high mercury load, as (and I

have recounted this elsewhere on the web at times) I useta have 48

amalgam filings from age 20 thru age 37, and at least 30 amalgam

fillings from age 9 on up. And, being a junior scientist nutcase

while in my grossly dysfunctional but very much fun childhood, I also

played a lot with mercury as a kid, and always spilled mercury on the

bedroom floor (which hardly mattered, as a denstist had operated from

our house many years before my parents bought it, so it already had a

high Hg load...!) I had all my amalgams pulled between 1987 and 1994,

and I feel that it was very much a worthwhile endeavor; I am

extremely glad that I did it. All tests since about 2002, including

both mainstream tests and assays by intuitives who are experienced in

this type of measure seem to indicate that my total body load of Hg

is totally in the normal range nowadays, but I spent years up till

that point doing various things to help it along its way to exit my body!

And, for a bit of thought-provoking controversy: a number of raw

foodists (I mean here the kind who eat animal foods, as do I) and raw

foods gurus with whom I am in contact feel that mercury occurring in

raw fish is harmless to humans so long as the fish is eaten raw, and

as part of a largely-raw diet, and that in fact it is probably

beneficial. In fact, I know of one group of raw foodists in Hawaii

who eat largely raw fish, and, when several of them allowed

themselves to be tested for body mercury levels a few years ago

(about 2001 or 2002), their Hg levels came back as off-the-scale

(i.e., very very high...!) and yet they were each in robust health,

with no symptoms or problems of any kind! Go figure!

with care,

--Vinny

Vinny Pinto

vinny@...

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

http://www.vinnypinto.us

August 30, 2006

Hi Marc:

Regarding what you wrote below, namely:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

However, in your description of your coherent space devices, I believe

that you said that the devices take incoherent radiation and turn

it into coherent radiation? So if I'm sitting in front of a 21 " CRT

monitor with it's elevated radiation levels, I'm now going to be

exposed to elevated levels of coherent radiation, correct? That seems

like it would be a much different experience than being in the

middle of nowhere, which would have minimal levels of incoherent

radiation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, that is not literally true, and particularly not true for

classical Hertzian EMF fields. However, the full answer would take me

a few paragraphs, and am too busy right now in the lab (where my cat,

Isis, has decided that she is my Chief Scientist and thus insists on

helping me with everything that I do in there...), but will try to

write a longer and meaningful reply on this topic sometime after

Saturday afternoon, when most of my projects should be done...

with care,

--Vinny

At 10:40 AM 8/30/2006, you wrote:

> > 2) any effects noted due to removal of some or most of the harmful

> > effects of EMF should be rather similar to the effects noted from

> > moving to an extremely remote forested area which is very far removed

> > from the AC power grid and from the vast majority of radio and TV

> > transmitting towers and cellular and microwave towers.

>

>Yes, that certainly would be nice. All of the EMF protection devices

>I've ever tried seem to add their own unique energy to the environment,

>which is quite different from going to " the middle of nowhere " .

>

>However, in your description of your coherent space devices, I believe

>that you said that the devices take incoherent radiation and turn

>it into coherent radiation? So if I'm sitting in front of a 21 " CRT

>monitor with it's elevated radiation levels, I'm now going to be

>exposed to elevated levels of coherent radiation, correct? That seems

>like it would be a much different experience than being in the

>middle of nowhere, which would have minimal levels of incoherent

>radiation.

>

>Marc

>

September 4, 2006

....

>

> But mark, electrosensibles may react starting at levels if 1 uW/m2;

some

> even at 0,1 uW/m2.

> When they encounter 100 uW/m2, life is hell for them.

> And recovery of illnesses is nearly impossible.

I agree with that. I have a spectran (I know it's not that reliable).

And I ended up to the conclusion that as long as it is higher than

1uW/m2 this is a problem for me, and better if it is below 0.5uW/m2.

20 to 40 uW/m2 is already a difficult area for me.

I want to move out of this place, but not possible at the moment. And

then there are so many places with EMF smog nowadays, it's getting

difficult.

Also I read the post about memory problems. It rings a bell.

jean.

September 4, 2006

Hi and folks:

And, it might be worthwhile at this point to reiterate what I have

written before: the fact of the matter is that no so-called EMF

meter, even if it is billed as a trifield meter or portable EMF

survey spectrum analyzer, can realy measure more than a tiny

percentage of the manmade EM fields, magnetic fields, and electrical

fields present in an environment. This is not due to some kind of

conspiracy, nor is it due to deception or penny-pinching on the part

of the manufacturers and vendors, but rather due to the incredible

engineering feat it would take to sense and measure acurately even

60% of such fields, particularly in a portable meter, and, if it

could be done, such a meter would, of necessity, likely cost upwards

of $90,000 and would likely weight six pounds!

with care,

--Vinny

At 08:49 AM 9/4/2006, you wrote:

>

>...

> >

> > But mark, electrosensibles may react starting at levels if 1 uW/m2;

>some

> > even at 0,1 uW/m2.

> > When they encounter 100 uW/m2, life is hell for them.

> > And recovery of illnesses is nearly impossible.

>

>I agree with that. I have a spectran (I know it's not that reliable).

>And I ended up to the conclusion that as long as it is higher than

>1uW/m2 this is a problem for me, and better if it is below 0.5uW/m2.

>20 to 40 uW/m2 is already a difficult area for me.

>

>I want to move out of this place, but not possible at the moment. And

>then there are so many places with EMF smog nowadays, it's getting

>difficult.

>

>Also I read the post about memory problems. It rings a bell.

>

>jean.

Vinny Pinto

vinny@...

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

http://www.vinnypinto.us

September 4, 2006

Hello Vinny,

I disagree with you here.

A Trifieldmeter is a very rough meter, not suitable for building biological

surveys.

Especially the Standard baubiologische Messtechnik 2003.

(To meet those requirements, a special trifield meter was developed)

However, I do posses several meters, which can just do that, and can detect

even very small amounts of radiation of elektrosmog, which persons may harm.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton Antivirus

Re: Re: coherent space website

> Hi and folks:

>

> And, it might be worthwhile at this point to reiterate what I have

> written before: the fact of the matter is that no so-called EMF

> meter, even if it is billed as a trifield meter or portable EMF

> survey spectrum analyzer, can realy measure more than a tiny

> percentage of the manmade EM fields, magnetic fields, and electrical

> fields present in an environment. This is not due to some kind of

> conspiracy, nor is it due to deception or penny-pinching on the part

> of the manufacturers and vendors, but rather due to the incredible

> engineering feat it would take to sense and measure acurately even

> 60% of such fields, particularly in a portable meter, and, if it

> could be done, such a meter would, of necessity, likely cost upwards

> of $90,000 and would likely weight six pounds!

>

> with care,

> --Vinny

>

> At 08:49 AM 9/4/2006, you wrote:

>>

>>...

>> >

>> > But mark, electrosensibles may react starting at levels if 1 uW/m2;

>>some

>> > even at 0,1 uW/m2.

>> > When they encounter 100 uW/m2, life is hell for them.

>> > And recovery of illnesses is nearly impossible.

>>

>>I agree with that. I have a spectran (I know it's not that reliable).

>>And I ended up to the conclusion that as long as it is higher than

>>1uW/m2 this is a problem for me, and better if it is below 0.5uW/m2.

>>20 to 40 uW/m2 is already a difficult area for me.

>>

>>I want to move out of this place, but not possible at the moment. And

>>then there are so many places with EMF smog nowadays, it's getting

>>difficult.

>>

>>Also I read the post about memory problems. It rings a bell.

>>

>>jean.

>

> Vinny Pinto

> vinny@...

>

> phone 301-694-1249

>

> To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

> http://www.vinnypinto.us

>

September 4, 2006

Hi :

Thanks for your note. Briefly, the challenge to which I alluded was

largely related to frequency response, not only for EMF, but

particulalry for magnetic fields and electric fields, and

specifically, the lack of full and meaningful broaband frequency

response in most meters on the market. This does not mean that they

are " bad " meters, but rather it simply means that they can, in

reality, only display a portion of the actual EMF, magnetic and

electrical fields present. And, then there is the issue of also

needing to measure ionizing radiation (i.e., alpha, beta, gamma,

etc.) if one wants a complete picture, if one is interested in that

part of the spectrum as well!

And, as we all know, there are no meters yet which can accurately

measure and display subtle energies, aka " scalar " energies, aka

non-Hertzian fields or non-classical fields, and yet such fields are

considered by many experts to be the primary fields present in

geopathic stress zones, and area also considered by many experts to

be even present as the most harmful component of most incident EMF.

with care,

--Vinny

At 09:40 AM 9/4/2006, you wrote:

>Hello Vinny,

>

>I disagree with you here.

>

>A Trifieldmeter is a very rough meter, not suitable for building biological

>surveys.

>Especially the Standard baubiologische Messtechnik 2003.

>(To meet those requirements, a special trifield meter was developed)

>

>However, I do posses several meters, which can just do that, and can detect

>even very small amounts of radiation of elektrosmog, which persons may harm.

>

>Greetings,

> Claessens

>member Verband Baubiologie

>www.milieuziektes.nl

>www.milieuziektes.be

>www.hetbitje.nl

>checked by Norton Antivirus

>

> Re: Re: coherent space website

>

> > Hi and folks:

> >

> > And, it might be worthwhile at this point to reiterate what I have

> > written before: the fact of the matter is that no so-called EMF

> > meter, even if it is billed as a trifield meter or portable EMF

> > survey spectrum analyzer, can realy measure more than a tiny

> > percentage of the manmade EM fields, magnetic fields, and electrical

> > fields present in an environment. This is not due to some kind of

> > conspiracy, nor is it due to deception or penny-pinching on the part

> > of the manufacturers and vendors, but rather due to the incredible

> > engineering feat it would take to sense and measure acurately even

> > 60% of such fields, particularly in a portable meter, and, if it

> > could be done, such a meter would, of necessity, likely cost upwards

> > of $90,000 and would likely weight six pounds!

> >

> > with care,

> > --Vinny

> >

> > At 08:49 AM 9/4/2006, you wrote:

> >>

> >>...

> >> >

> >> > But mark, electrosensibles may react starting at levels if 1 uW/m2;

> >>some

> >> > even at 0,1 uW/m2.

> >> > When they encounter 100 uW/m2, life is hell for them.

> >> > And recovery of illnesses is nearly impossible.

> >>

> >>I agree with that. I have a spectran (I know it's not that reliable).

> >>And I ended up to the conclusion that as long as it is higher than

> >>1uW/m2 this is a problem for me, and better if it is below 0.5uW/m2.

> >>20 to 40 uW/m2 is already a difficult area for me.

> >>

> >>I want to move out of this place, but not possible at the moment. And

> >>then there are so many places with EMF smog nowadays, it's getting

> >>difficult.

> >>

> >>Also I read the post about memory problems. It rings a bell.

> >>

> >>jean.

> >

Vinny Pinto

vinny@...

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

http://www.vinnypinto.us

September 4, 2006

Hello Vinny,

if you take the trouble in reading the SBM2003 (there is even an english

version on my website), you could see, that all fields are measured,

including radioactivity (mostly gamma rays), radon gas, formaldehyde, etc.

So let us first concentrate on what is measurable.

Nowadays I also measure radio and television waves, with special antennas,

and determine *hotspots* inside houses.

Nobody can measure *skalar* waves.

Subtle energies like underground water flows are very small energies, which

are often exaggerated in effect.

The static magnetic fields in metals parts in beds, are measurable, and do

have a much higher impact on people.

By avoiding those, many symptoms disappear.

Despite water flows.

Many therapists speak about *geopathic stress*. But that is the only chapter

in their book for the widespread elektrosmog.

Their *geopathic stress* should be called *elektrosmog*.

Many people with a divining rod cannot make a difference between alternating

electrical- or magnetic fields, between static electrical- or magnetic

fields and the electromagnetic fields.

That is a big mouth full of elektrosmog.

A DECT phone or a wireless internet modem is much more devastating than an

earth beam.

So first things first.

And the tiny parts of elektrosmog are also much more devastating.

A 9V battery may have en enormous impact on certain people.

A mobile phone in your pocket may have an enormous impact on a person within

2 meters.

Those are the dangers we are confronted with everyday.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton Antivirus

Re: Re: coherent space website

> Hi :

>

> Thanks for your note. Briefly, the challenge to which I alluded was

> largely related to frequency response, not only for EMF, but

> particulalry for magnetic fields and electric fields, and

> specifically, the lack of full and meaningful broaband frequency

> response in most meters on the market. This does not mean that they

> are " bad " meters, but rather it simply means that they can, in

> reality, only display a portion of the actual EMF, magnetic and

> electrical fields present. And, then there is the issue of also

> needing to measure ionizing radiation (i.e., alpha, beta, gamma,

> etc.) if one wants a complete picture, if one is interested in that

> part of the spectrum as well!

>

> And, as we all know, there are no meters yet which can accurately

> measure and display subtle energies, aka " scalar " energies, aka

> non-Hertzian fields or non-classical fields, and yet such fields are

> considered by many experts to be the primary fields present in

> geopathic stress zones, and area also considered by many experts to

> be even present as the most harmful component of most incident EMF.

>

> with care,

> --Vinny

>

> At 09:40 AM 9/4/2006, you wrote:

>>Hello Vinny,

>>

>>I disagree with you here.

>>

>>A Trifieldmeter is a very rough meter, not suitable for building

>>biological

>>surveys.

>>Especially the Standard baubiologische Messtechnik 2003.

>>(To meet those requirements, a special trifield meter was developed)

>>

>>However, I do posses several meters, which can just do that, and can

>>detect

>>even very small amounts of radiation of elektrosmog, which persons may

>>harm.

>>

>>Greetings,

>> Claessens

>>member Verband Baubiologie

>>www.milieuziektes.nl

>>www.milieuziektes.be

>>www.hetbitje.nl

>>checked by Norton Antivirus

>>

September 4, 2006

Hi Vinny,

I understand your answer. You mean there might be more than just the

field caused by the phone mast I can measure with the spectran.

For example I think things got a bit worse when they installed metal

bareer on the roof, cause it's mandatory now. And I live on the

last floor, so there's metal rods all over the roof.

Plus reflection, etc, even electrical wires in the walls might be

like antenna.

jean.

> >...

> > >

> > > But mark, electrosensibles may react starting at levels if 1

uW/m2;

> >some

> > > even at 0,1 uW/m2.

> > > When they encounter 100 uW/m2, life is hell for them.

> > > And recovery of illnesses is nearly impossible.

> >

> >I agree with that. I have a spectran (I know it's not that

reliable).

> >And I ended up to the conclusion that as long as it is higher than

> >1uW/m2 this is a problem for me, and better if it is below

0.5uW/m2.

> >20 to 40 uW/m2 is already a difficult area for me.

> >

> >I want to move out of this place, but not possible at the moment.

And

> >then there are so many places with EMF smog nowadays, it's getting

> >difficult.

> >

> >Also I read the post about memory problems. It rings a bell.

> >

> >jean.

>

> Vinny Pinto

> vinny@...

>

> phone 301-694-1249

>

> To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go

to:

> http://www.vinnypinto.us

>

September 13, 2006

Hi Marc:

I had promised over a week ago to answer your letter more in detail

once I managed to steal some time away from my latest project in the

lab, and that time has finally arrived (in fact, I even found time

the other day to go up in a small helicopter to pull a crazy

death-defying stunt in order to finish a project for an extreme

adventure sport that I pursue), and so, here goes... Comments

inserted interlined below...

At 10:40 AM 8/30/2006, you wrote:

> > 2) any effects noted due to removal of some or most of the harmful

> > effects of EMF should be rather similar to the effects noted from

> > moving to an extremely remote forested area which is very far removed

> > from the AC power grid and from the vast majority of radio and TV

> > transmitting towers and cellular and microwave towers.

>

>Yes, that certainly would be nice. All of the EMF protection devices

>I've ever tried seem to add their own unique energy to the environment,

>which is quite different from going to " the middle of nowhere " .

Yes, and the reality seems to be that NO area treatment device can

fully yield this full effect, simply because to do so would probably

mean managing to somehow ELIMINATE all EMF fields, magnetic fields

and electric fields from ALL manmade sources from the local

environment, and as we all know, even a good room-sized Faraday cage

cannot do that!

>However, in your description of your coherent space devices, I believe

>that you said that the devices take incoherent radiation and turn

>it into coherent radiation?

Yes, to some extent this is true, but is not that the devices turn

incoherent Hertzian EMF singals (or electric fields, or magnetic

fields) into coherent fields (and the reality is that many Hertzian

EMF signals from manmade devices are quite coherent in the first

place), but rather that such devices, working on a quantum level

(some would say " subtle energy level " ) somehow smoothe chaotic noise

and " jangling " signals created on the quantum level by many manmade

devices and systems (including the AC power grid....). So, it is not

the classical Hertzian EMF signal itself, nor the classical Hertzian

electric field or magnetic field itself which is being cohered by

such devices, but rather a kind of incohrent noise created on the

quantum level by such Hertzian fields emitted by manmade sources.

And gee, if it were true that such quantum smoothing devices COULD

actually cohere classical Hertzian EMF signals, well, then I would be

rich and famous overnite, as such a device should be able to turn the

incoherent white light from an inexpensive incandescent light bulb

into a coherent laser beam! This would save humankind a lot of the

money spent in building lasers and particularly high-powered lasers!

But no, none of the quantum smoothing devices claim to cohere the

classical Hertzian component of EMF signals, but rather a quantum

" subspace " component. Some cutting-edge physicists invoke superstring

theory and spin theory, along with quantum mechanics, at about this

point, and talk a bit vaguely about such devices smoothing or

cleaning up the " spin " of certain subatomic particles which

supposedly accompany Hertzian EMF waves in the " ether " .

>So if I'm sitting in front of a 21 " CRT

>monitor with it's elevated radiation levels, I'm now going to be

>exposed to elevated levels of coherent radiation, correct?

No. See above.

>That seems

>like it would be a much different experience than being in the

>middle of nowhere, which would have minimal levels of incoherent

>radiation.

Please see above. But yes, you are correct in intuiting that none of

thes quantum coherence devices (whether my technology or other brands

and models) actually remove the classical Hertzian EMF fields nor

electric nor magnetic fields. Of course, even a large Faraday cage

cannot completely remove such things, although they can sure lower

the levels of many such classical Hertzian fields by a very large magnitude.

I will shortly contact you of-list, as I am have some spare devices

at this moment of the passive (non-DC-powered) limited area treatment

(about 14 to 18 feet) devices (I think the model number is AUTO-21),

and I would be happy to send you one as a loaner test device to allow

you to play with it for a month or two before returning it. In fact,

if you wish me to do that, please feel free to send me, via private

email, your shipping address; will likely ship by UPS Ground! You

seem to be quite sensitive -- it will be interesting to see how you

(and your cats!) react to it, and, of course, you are welcome to

share your reports of effects -- whether positive or negative -- on

the list group or wherever you wish.

with care,

--Vinny

Vinny Pinto

vinny@...

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:

http://www.vinnypinto.us

September 13, 2006

> Please see above. But yes, you are correct in intuiting that none of

> thes quantum coherence devices (whether my technology or other brands

> and models) actually remove the classical Hertzian EMF fields nor

> electric nor magnetic fields. Of course, even a large Faraday cage

> cannot completely remove such things, although they can sure lower

> the levels of many such classical Hertzian fields by a very large magnitude.

Thanks for the clarifications, Vinny. I suspect than in my own personal

case, all of my adverse reactions from being exposed to EMF are really

due to interactions between the EMF and the toxins in my body. The

Quantum devices certainly increase my tolerance for high EMF environments,

but it's still not the same thing as being in the middle of nowhere.

> I will shortly contact you of-list, as I am have some spare devices

> at this moment of the passive (non-DC-powered) limited area treatment

> (about 14 to 18 feet) devices (I think the model number is AUTO-21),

> and I would be happy to send you one as a loaner test device to allow

> you to play with it for a month or two before returning it.

Great, thanks! It seems like ages since I've played with a new EMF

protection device... :-)

Marc

September 13, 2006