Re: Sunlight & Cancer was: 714-X Cancer Treatment

September 6, 2006

Hi:

Plexiglass is a clear plastic that is used in place of glass. It

doesn't break as easily, and most forms of it block UV more than

glass does. You can now get both glass and Plexiglass that passes UV

or other types that block UV. I mention this because Ott used

it and mentioned it in his book, written in the 1970's.

Yes and even though many American Indians that lived long showed

major signs of wrinkling from solar exposure, it seems that few had

melanomas. I wonder if that is really true?

So much of this information is testimonial and hearsay in nature that

it totally lacks scientific validity. This information is useful and

may indicate how things work, but because no two humans are the same,

the lack of consistent data on a number of people and the lack of

careful, impartial or double blind monitoring of the reported

information, not to mention the total lack of statistical

significance because of these and other factors, it is prudent to

treat this information with great care. Ott's information was

at least very carefully gathered and his technical background lends

credence to his observations that sunlight can cure diseases of the eyes.

I'd love to see some controlled studies on the subject. The

mainstream allopaths are so convinced that UV only does damage in any

quantity that it is unlikely that they will do such a study. A study

or series of studies would let us know how much exposure is necessary

for healing various types of ailments, how much exposure is

dangerous, how long after a dangerous exposure before a palliative

exposure is indicated etc etc.

A question I would ask is " Would additional controlled exposure to

natural sunlight or simulated natural sunlight have cured my

pterygium? " My gut tells me no, but I could be wrong.

At 05:07 PM 9/6/2006, you wrote:

>:

>

>Plexiglas?

>

>I have an 80 year old friend who has the eyes of a 30 yr old. He looks

>directly into the sun to dilate his eyes every day that the sun is

>shinning... works for him.

>

>Many others now claim that sunlight cures skin cancer and sun screen

>causes it... Dr. Mercola is one. One observation is that melanomas

>most often occur in the middle of the back and bottoms of feet where the

>sun never generally goes. There is also the argument that Vit D is a

>deterrent to many cancers and the observation that dark skinned people

>get less of it from sunlight and thus show negative effects in terms of

>certain cancers and other diseases.

>

>Jim

>

>Brown wrote:

>

> > Hi

> >

> > I read a book a number of years ago

> >

>

" <<http://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981>h\

ttp://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981

>

> >

>

<http://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981>>He\

alth

>

> >

> > and Light " by Ott, the person who did Disney's time-lapse

> > pictures of fruit ripening and flowers blooming. They tried putting

> > fruit into Plexiglass boxes so that they wouldn't move as they

> > ripened and they just got bigger but never changed color to ripen

> > because they were shielded from the UV. They had to get a special

> > glass that passed UV for the fruit and flowers to blossom or

> > ripen. He later got eye problems and remembering his experience with

> > time-lapse and plants, used it to heal his eyes with natural

> > sunlight. Too much can cause problems too, in my opinion. Dr

> > , an herbalist with whom I studied, claims to have cured

> > skin cancer with sunlight.

> >

> > I have a bad experience. I had a pterygium - a red, vascular growth

> > on the surface of my eye caused by excessive exposure to the sun. Of

> > course, maybe it was because I stopped going out in the sun, but I

> > doubt it. I lived on the beach and went out to the beach

> > everyday. My skin has sun damage too, partly corrected by good

> > moisturizers. I had the pterygium surgically removed so that I could

> > wear contact lenses.

> >

> > Moderation anyone?

> >

> > At 02:18 PM 9/5/2006, you wrote:

> >

> > >I concur on the dark berries but not on the jams. I know almost zilch

> > about

> > >eye exercises. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that UV is a negative

> > >but that lack of UV may be a negative. I'm not aware that hunter gather

> > >peoples who spend a lot of time in the sun ever had problems with

> > either skin

> > >cancer or eye sight.

> > >

> > >My 3 cents.

> > >

> > >--

> > >

> > >Steve -

> > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@...

> > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>

> > >

> > > " It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. "

> > >--Voltaire

> > >

> > >On Monday 04 September 2006 11:46 am, Dave Narby wrote:

> > > > 728hz Works for me.

> > > >

> > > > AFA your eyesight is concerned, you might try bilberry and other dark

> > > > berry extracts and jams. If focusing is the problem, eye exercises

> > > > work. I also wear UV blockers whenever I go outside.

> > > >

> > > > Jim wrote:

> > > > > & Dave:

> > > > >

> > > > > is correct.. I had to go back to Tom Valone's book... you guys

> > > > > were messing with my mind. My Gingko Biloba was not kicking in. The

> > > > > actual number that Tom Valone posted in his book is 728 Hz..

> > > > >

> > > > > I could still hear 20 to 20,000 Hz when I checked my hearing at

> > age 60

> > > > > and I don't think that it has fallen since. The Dr. that checked it

> > > > > was amazed... he recalibrated his instrument just to make sure.

> > I only

> > > > > wish my vision were still as good.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards, Jim

> > > > >

> > > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > > > No, middle C in the center of the piano keyboard is 440 Hz and a

> > > > > > healthy young person can hear from about 20Hz to about 20 KHz and

> > > > > > dogs can hear to 45 KHz

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 700 MHz is more like it, almost near the 800 MHz cell phone

> > band, but

> > > > > > it is doubtful that it is a fixed or simple sine wave from a brief

> > > > > > scan of the literature it is a series of modulated RF pulses.

> > Maybe

> > > > > > the 700 Hz has something to do with the way it is modulated.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > At 05:58 PM 9/3/2006, you wrote:

> > > > > > >It wouldn't... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 700hz be

> > > > >

> > > > > sub-sonic?

> > > > >

> > > > > > >It might be a decimal point error. 700mhz seems like it would be

> > > > > > > closer to the right frequency.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > > > > > Hi:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 700 Hz?? Wow, that wavelength is about 428 kilometers in the

> > > > > > > > electromagnetic spectrum and about 40 cm (a little over a

> > foot) in

> > > > > > > > the sonic wave in water (human body) domain. How would a

> > 428 Km

> > > > > > > > wavelength resonate in the human body? All the machines

> > that I saw

> > > > > > > > were running on 27 MHz (citizen's band) frequencies - ~11

> > meters).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Do you have the U-Tube link? I'd love to watch it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > At 02:59 PM 9/4/2006, you wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >De. Tom Valone discusses this in his book,

> > " Bioelectromagnetic

> > > > > > > > >Healing. " I am not finished reading it, but so far, its a

> > very

> > > > > > > > >interesting read. Maybe I'll have an answer once it

> > finish it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also,

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >have you watched the Rife documentary in U Tube? He claimed

> > > > >

> > > > > that each

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >cell type and each microorganism has a frequency that

> > blows it

> > > > >

> > > > > apart

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >and the video even shows it happening in one segment.

> > Finally,

> > > > >

> > > > > Valone

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >mentions a universal healing frequency at 700+ Hz for humans

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >Regards, Jim

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >. For example, why is this RF good and all

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > other EMI/RFI bad? Resonance is potentially dangerous,

> > it is

> > > > > > > > > > how microwaves heat food. Why would this resonance

> > kill bad

> > > > >

> > > > > stuff and

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > not good stuff, like the brain cells that I'm fond of

> > keeping

> > > > > >

> > > > > > for a

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > while longer?

> > > > > > > > >

> > >

> >

September 6, 2006

:

In the 70' s when passive solar design was in its heyday, the report

was that acrylic (Plexiglas) and polycarbonate (Lexan) had virtually no

UV filtering ability, hence fabrics tended to fade badly when it was

used as a glazing choice. I never actually observed that myself even

though I designed several houses that were nearly 100% solar heated and

couple of those examples utilized acrylic glazing systems.

Regards, Jim

Brown wrote:

> Hi:

>

> Plexiglass is a clear plastic that is used in place of glass. It

> doesn't break as easily, and most forms of it block UV more than

> glass does. You can now get both glass and Plexiglass that passes UV

> or other types that block UV. I mention this because Ott used

> it and mentioned it in his book, written in the 1970's.

>

> Yes and even though many American Indians that lived long showed

> major signs of wrinkling from solar exposure, it seems that few had

> melanomas. I wonder if that is really true?

>

> So much of this information is testimonial and hearsay in nature that

> it totally lacks scientific validity. This information is useful and

> may indicate how things work, but because no two humans are the same,

> the lack of consistent data on a number of people and the lack of

> careful, impartial or double blind monitoring of the reported

> information, not to mention the total lack of statistical

> significance because of these and other factors, it is prudent to

> treat this information with great care. Ott's information was

> at least very carefully gathered and his technical background lends

> credence to his observations that sunlight can cure diseases of the eyes.

>

> I'd love to see some controlled studies on the subject. The

> mainstream allopaths are so convinced that UV only does damage in any

> quantity that it is unlikely that they will do such a study. A study

> or series of studies would let us know how much exposure is necessary

> for healing various types of ailments, how much exposure is

> dangerous, how long after a dangerous exposure before a palliative

> exposure is indicated etc etc.

>

> A question I would ask is " Would additional controlled exposure to

> natural sunlight or simulated natural sunlight have cured my

> pterygium? " My gut tells me no, but I could be wrong.

>

> At 05:07 PM 9/6/2006, you wrote:

>

> >:

> >

> >Plexiglas?

> >

> >I have an 80 year old friend who has the eyes of a 30 yr old. He looks

> >directly into the sun to dilate his eyes every day that the sun is

> >shinning... works for him.

> >

> >Many others now claim that sunlight cures skin cancer and sun screen

> >causes it... Dr. Mercola is one. One observation is that melanomas

> >most often occur in the middle of the back and bottoms of feet where the

> >sun never generally goes. There is also the argument that Vit D is a

> >deterrent to many cancers and the observation that dark skinned people

> >get less of it from sunlight and thus show negative effects in terms of

> >certain cancers and other diseases.

> >

> >Jim

> >

> >Brown wrote:

> >

> > > Hi

> > >

> > > I read a book a number of years ago

> > >

> >

> " <<http://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981

>

<http://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981>>ht\

tp://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981

> <http://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981>

>

> >

> > >

> >

> <http://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981

>

<http://www.amazon.com/Health-Light-Effects-Natural-Artificial/dp/0898040981>>>H\

ealth

>

> >

> > >

> > > and Light " by Ott, the person who did Disney's time-lapse

> > > pictures of fruit ripening and flowers blooming. They tried putting

> > > fruit into Plexiglass boxes so that they wouldn't move as they

> > > ripened and they just got bigger but never changed color to ripen

> > > because they were shielded from the UV. They had to get a special

> > > glass that passed UV for the fruit and flowers to blossom or

> > > ripen. He later got eye problems and remembering his experience with

> > > time-lapse and plants, used it to heal his eyes with natural

> > > sunlight. Too much can cause problems too, in my opinion. Dr

> > > , an herbalist with whom I studied, claims to have cured

> > > skin cancer with sunlight.

> > >

> > > I have a bad experience. I had a pterygium - a red, vascular growth

> > > on the surface of my eye caused by excessive exposure to the sun. Of

> > > course, maybe it was because I stopped going out in the sun, but I

> > > doubt it. I lived on the beach and went out to the beach

> > > everyday. My skin has sun damage too, partly corrected by good

> > > moisturizers. I had the pterygium surgically removed so that I could

> > > wear contact lenses.

> > >

> > > Moderation anyone?

> > >

> > > At 02:18 PM 9/5/2006, you wrote:

> > >

> > > >I concur on the dark berries but not on the jams. I know almost zilch

> > > about

> > > >eye exercises. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that UV is a

> negative

> > > >but that lack of UV may be a negative. I'm not aware that hunter

> gather

> > > >peoples who spend a lot of time in the sun ever had problems with

> > > either skin

> > > >cancer or eye sight.

> > > >

> > > >My 3 cents.

> > > >

> > > >--

> > > >

> > > >Steve -

> > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@...

> <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>

> > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>

> > > >

> > > > " It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. "

> > > >--Voltaire

> > > >

> > > >On Monday 04 September 2006 11:46 am, Dave Narby wrote:

> > > > > 728hz Works for me.

> > > > >

> > > > > AFA your eyesight is concerned, you might try bilberry and

> other dark

> > > > > berry extracts and jams. If focusing is the problem, eye exercises

> > > > > work. I also wear UV blockers whenever I go outside.

> > > > >

> > > > > Jim wrote:

> > > > > > & Dave:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > is correct.. I had to go back to Tom Valone's book...

> you guys

> > > > > > were messing with my mind. My Gingko Biloba was not kicking

> in. The

> > > > > > actual number that Tom Valone posted in his book is 728 Hz..

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I could still hear 20 to 20,000 Hz when I checked my hearing at

> > > age 60

> > > > > > and I don't think that it has fallen since. The Dr. that

> checked it

> > > > > > was amazed... he recalibrated his instrument just to make sure.

> > > I only

> > > > > > wish my vision were still as good.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards, Jim

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > > > > No, middle C in the center of the piano keyboard is 440 Hz

> and a

> > > > > > > healthy young person can hear from about 20Hz to about 20

> KHz and

> > > > > > > dogs can hear to 45 KHz

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 700 MHz is more like it, almost near the 800 MHz cell phone

> > > band, but

> > > > > > > it is doubtful that it is a fixed or simple sine wave from

> a brief

> > > > > > > scan of the literature it is a series of modulated RF pulses.

> > > Maybe

> > > > > > > the 700 Hz has something to do with the way it is modulated.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > At 05:58 PM 9/3/2006, you wrote:

> > > > > > > >It wouldn't... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 700hz be

> > > > > >

> > > > > > sub-sonic?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > >It might be a decimal point error. 700mhz seems like it

> would be

> > > > > > > > closer to the right frequency.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Brown wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Hi:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 700 Hz?? Wow, that wavelength is about 428 kilometers

> in the

> > > > > > > > > electromagnetic spectrum and about 40 cm (a little over a

> > > foot) in

> > > > > > > > > the sonic wave in water (human body) domain. How would a

> > > 428 Km

> > > > > > > > > wavelength resonate in the human body? All the machines

> > > that I saw

> > > > > > > > > were running on 27 MHz (citizen's band) frequencies - ~11

> > > meters).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Do you have the U-Tube link? I'd love to watch it.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > At 02:59 PM 9/4/2006, you wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >De. Tom Valone discusses this in his book,

> > > " Bioelectromagnetic

> > > > > > > > > >Healing. " I am not finished reading it, but so far, its a

> > > very

> > > > > > > > > >interesting read. Maybe I'll have an answer once it

> > > finish it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >have you watched the Rife documentary in U Tube? He

> claimed

> > > > > >

> > > > > > that each

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >cell type and each microorganism has a frequency that

> > > blows it

> > > > > >

> > > > > > apart

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >and the video even shows it happening in one segment.

> > > Finally,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Valone

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >mentions a universal healing frequency at 700+ Hz for

> humans

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >Regards, Jim

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >. For example, why is this RF good and all

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > other EMI/RFI bad? Resonance is potentially dangerous,

> > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > how microwaves heat food. Why would this resonance

> > > kill bad

> > > > > >

> > > > > > stuff and

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > not good stuff, like the brain cells that I'm fond of

> > > keeping

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > for a

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > while longer?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > >

September 6, 2006

Different races will have different responses to the sun depending on

how they evolved. White people should be judicious in their sun

exposure, Ask anyone of Irish descent if they are more sensitive to

sunlight!

White people probably evolved that way so they could metabolize vitamin

D more effectively. Black people probably evolved that way because they

needed better defense of the sun. Everybody else is probably somewhere

in the middle.