Natural Vs Artifical Light + Effects of Radiations + Optimal Health

[eye_of_the_storm]

Taomeow made the good example (western medical thread) of a German doctor who was put in a psychiatric ward because he believed that people should wash their hands before operations etc to reduce infection... guess they though he was "paranoid" too

haha...

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.

Semmelweis demonstrated that puerperal fever (also known as childbed fever) was contagious and that this incidence could drastically be reduced by appropriate hand washing by medical care-givers. He made this discovery in 1847 while working in the Maternity Department of the Vienna Lying-in Hospital. His failure to convince his fellow doctors led to a tragic conclusion. However, he was ultimately vindicated. While employed as assistant to the professor of the maternity clinic at the Vienna General Hospital in Austria in 1847, Semmelweis introduced hand washing with chlorinated lime solutions for interns who had performed autopsies. This immediately reduced the incidence of fatal puerperal fever from about 10% (range 5–30%) to about 1–2%. At the time, diseases were attributed to many different and unrelated causes. Each case was considered unique, just as a human person is unique. Semmelweis's hypothesis, that there was only one cause, that all that mattered was cleanliness, was extreme at the time, and was largely ignored, rejected, or ridiculed. He was dismissed from the hospital for political reasons and harassed by the medical community in Vienna, being eventually forced to move to Budapest.

Semmelweis was outraged by the indifference of the medical profession and began writing open and increasingly angry letters to prominent European obstetricians, at times denouncing them as irresponsible murderers. His contemporaries, including his wife, believed he was losing his mind, and in 1865 he was committed to an asylum. In an ironic twist of fate, he died there of septicaemia only 14 days later, possibly as the result of being severely beaten by guards. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease, offering a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis's findings. He is considered a pioneer of antiseptic procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

 

Many things are worth investigation

In my experience the truly paranoid person is the person who shuts down at information for fear of the unknown/ fear of the truth

Or plain general laziness... easier to dismiss than to investigate / don't want to take responsibility / questions dominant habits

 

cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.^[1][2]

Courageous persons such as Semmelweis, always questioning, refining, exploring, pioneers ... at times crucified by the very people they are trying to help "paranoid"

Would it be paranoia to tell a child to be careful around fire?

"Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion"

Or would such a warning be reasonable?

Edited November 21, 2014 by eye_of_the_storm

[Spotless]

Their is a enormous difference between someone who is paranoid - and someone who has understood something. If your comments regarding paranoia were directed to me in order to help me understand the implications of paranoia you are way off base.

 

Some people fixate their awareness on things and they become hyper sensitive when it is not necessary to become that way.

 

I am able to look into something very finely but I do not have to become it or hold myself there. My equilibrium allows considerable discretion.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Spotless

[eye_of_the_storm]

Something to investigate anyway... if it is killing plants/ cell damage how does that effect human health + longevity

It may be accumulative over 20+ years ...

Most people aren't going to care

 

A group of scientists and doctors in Freiburger, Germany, presented evidence at a conference in 2002 of “a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients” exposed to RF/MW. These included extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes in increasingly younger people, degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and epilepsy, leukaemia and brain tumours. They also found a rise in headaches, sleeplessness, tinnitus and other ailments that were able to be correlated with the onset of exposure to communications microwaves.

Communications frequencies use so-called non-thermal levels of radiation – i.e. they do not directly heat living tissue in the same way a microwave oven does. Well-known scientist and author Robert Becker said in 1985, “…when non-thermal dangers were originally documented in America, military and industrial spokespeople refused to acknowledge them, lying to Congress and the public. Many scientists who naturally wanted to continue working went along with the charade.”

 

"I have no doubt in my mind that, at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields."

Dr Robert O. Becker, Nobel Prize nominee1

 

Dr. G. J. Hyland of theUniversity of Warwick, UK, calls the human body “an electrochemical instrument of exquisite sensitivity,” noting that, like a radio, it can be interfered with by incoming radiation. Therefore it is misguided to think that electromagnetic radiation would not be having a negative effect on public health, and there is plenty of scientific research to show that this is the case. One scientist in particular led the charge a decade ago, trying to warn us of the dangers.

As far back as 1994 Australia’s CSIRO did a 150 page literature review on the status of health effects from EMR. The report’s author, Dr Stan Barnett, said: “whilst researching the scientific database in preparation for this report it has become evident that subtle changes in cell structure and biochemistry have been frequently reported at exposure levels where gross thermal change could not be attributed as a cause.”2

From 1996 until he died in 2003, New Zealand physicist and electromagnetic radiation (EMR) meta-analyst, Dr Neil Cherry, studied over 600 researchers worldwide. He found that EMR caused DNA breakages, chromosome aberrations, increased oncogene activity in cells, altered brain activity, altered blood pressure and increased brain cancer at very low levels – much lower than those allowed by the Australian standard. He also found that it impacts on the pineal gland in the brain, resulting in a reduction of melatonin - a vital part of many of the body’s biochemical systems, including the mediation of many hormone functions (including the control of weight) and a
major scavenger of damaging free radicals."3

These findings - in direct conflict with the interests of the multi-billion dollar telecommunications industry - have not only been replicated many times since, but have proved to be prophetic: cancer, leukaemia, cardiac disease, diabetes, sleep disturbances, dementia, weight gain or loss, weakened immune system, asthma, allergies, arthritis, nausea, memory and concentration problems, neurological conditions, and depression to name but a few – all on a sharp rise.
He was surprised to find how much published research there is to show that - across the entire EMR spectrum - damage"2 was done to cellular DNA, rendering it genotoxic and therefore likely to be implicated in the formation of tumours and other illnesses.

Since then other scientists have turned up further studies showing similar results. A study published in August 2007 indicates that mobile phone radiation causes cancer in mice"4 , and another one - published in August 2007 in New Scientist by scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel - finds that after only 5 minutes of exposure to radiation one tenth of the power of a mobile phone, rat and human cell chemicals undergo changes.

Marshall and Wetherall found an exponential increase in the USA of autism, ADHD, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Alzheimer's since 1984, the year the first commercial cell phone networks started to spread across the USA. These rates increased even further with the switchover from analog (1G) to digital (2G) in the early 1990s."5
In 2005 researchers in China found that relatively low-level RF radiation can lead to DNA breaks6, and in 2004 the REFLEX project, which summarised the work of 12 research groups in seven European countries, reported that RF radiation could increase the number of DNA breaks in exposed cells, as well as activate a stress response – the production of heat-shock proteins. The manager of the project, Franz Adlkofer, said: “…available scientific evidence of such critical events demonstrates the need for intensifying research – precautionary measures seem to be warranted.”7

Dr Peter French found that mobile phone radiation switched on heat shock proteins:

"In plain English, the point is that it has been demonstrated by several researchers that increasing the amount of heat shock proteins in cells results in the increased potential for developing tumours, increased stimulation of metastasis or spread of cancers, the direct development of cancer, de novo, and the decreased effectiveness of anti-cancer drugs." Dr Peter French"8

Cherry also found that microwaves can open the blood brain barrier allowing damaging chemicals, viruses and bacteria into the brain which could cause problems such as dementia and brain tumours."9

His findings continue to be verified by many independent scientists and doctors around the world, many of whom are signatories to large scale resolutions such as the Benevento Resolution in 2006 and Salzburg Resolution in 2000, announcing their acknowledgement of a connection between adverse health effects and exposure to microwave radiation. As a result, Salzburg has now lowered its exposure levels.

In February 2007 Swedish scientists announced in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention that they had observed a connection between the health of the population and population density, suggesting that the two factors having the strongest correlation with decreased health quality were the estimated average power output from mobile phones…and the reported coverage from the global system for mobile communication base stations in each country.”10

This has been confirmed by German company ECOLOG’s report, commissioned by telecommunications company T-Mobil in 2000. The results of this research - leaked to British group HESE in 2006 - have just been translated into English. It found that cancer, DNA damage, chromosome aberrations, changes to enzymes, changes in the brain, interruption of cell cycle and cellular communication, debilitation of the immune system and changes to the central nervous system.

Around a dozen studies were found in 2006 and 2007 demonstrating similar results, including one that found the signal from a mobile phone affecting genes and neurons in both ‘on’ and ‘off’ modes"11 and another found “some evidence of"3 nervous system structural damage after the EMR exposure."12

"Is it really wise and safe to subject ourselves to whole-body irradiation, all around the clock and wherever we are, with the same mobile radiation which laboratory studies have shown to cause serious injuries and effects?" Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Neuroscientist, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden"13 http://www.ecolibria.com.au/Resources/electromagnetic-radiation-emr-and-potential-adverse-health-affects

 

Edited November 21, 2014 by eye_of_the_storm

[eye_of_the_storm]

Their is a enormous difference between someone who is paranoid - and someone who has understood something. If your comments regarding paranoia were directed to me in order to help me understand the implications of paranoia you are way off base.

 

Some people fixate their awareness on things and they become hyper sensitive when it is not necessary to become that way.

 

I am able to look into something very finely but I do not have to become it or hold myself there. My equilibrium allows considerable discretion.

 

Well this guy understood, but was considered "extreme". "hyper sensitive" ... even crazy... now we think it crazy not to wash hands before operations etc...

 

That was new ground at the time...

 

As is this discussion today.

 

10, 20, 30 years from now people may see things differently.

 

I wonder how long it took for people to understand that smoking wasn't actually good for them.

 

Now it is understood... and people still do it... *shrugs*

Edited November 21, 2014 by eye_of_the_storm

[Spotless]

What are the simplise things we can do?

 

In our house we have full spectrum lighting.

 

We could turn off the wifi from time to time but I don't think we will do that often.

 

Suggestions?

[eye_of_the_storm]

Full spectrum lighting, nice!

turn it off at night when sleeping?

Spending time in nature.

+ Vitamin C fights free radicals.. + other fruits and vegetables/ organic vitamins to protect the body

Keeping a strong Aura and removing inorganic materials / metals from the body that would receive/conduct these energies.

From my understanding the distilled waters of life given enough volume and time will create a type of force-field around the body...

I am thinking that... vaccines and these EMFs are a combined force.

The metals and other inorganic material being injected/ consumed or applied into the body are turning human bodies into receivers of these unwanted energies.

One example people using antiperspirants with aluminum... being absorbed into the body :/

With strong physical health/ aura these things should be deflected...

not many are going to such lengths to purify the body though...

Edited November 22, 2014 by eye_of_the_storm

[cheya]

 

Thanks for the recommendation! Very interested!

 

Don't wear sunglasses

 

Yeh computers etc late at night @_@

 

Probably not what you're thinking!

Sunglasses distort the spectrum of light frequencies that get to the eyes, disregulating your entire endocrine (hormonal!) system. The only sunglasses Ott could recommend (grudgingly) in the end, were gray. They reduced the light evenly across the entire spectrum, so didn't create imbalances between the various frequencies (colors) present in natural light. Ott also connected sunglasses to cancer (this was one of his speculative theories based on a number of observations) and found his own degenerative hip disease reversed itself (confirmed by xrays) when he stopped wearing his regular glasses (block UV) and got out in the sun much more.

 

The prohibition against computers late at night is because the "janitor/nursemaid" cells (pigment epithelial cells) that protect your retina and macula go to sleep after dark, and don't start functioning again until they've had their required rest period of 8-10 hours. That means the cells you're using to read late at night have lost their backup, no food delivery, no trash removal. Not good over the long term! Of course there's also the melatonin problem, the blue light from the computer/tablet/phone, stops the production of the major sleep hormone, which also regulates our sex hormones and cortisol levels and cycles. Not good!

 

Ott also was the original researcher who discovered that radiation from the old TVs and from the ballasts of fluorescent lights were destructive. He got the ball rolling on those old TVs! Sure wish that fellow was still around today. He'd be having a field day!

 

So read Ott's books, check out that video. There's some amazing info in there. Guaranteed to change your interaction with light, and also to prepare you for the *REALLY* bad news about wifi and cell phones that's finally coming to light now.

[cheya]

Now, about that bad news about cells phones and wifi. Like you want to know.

 

But if you do want to know about it, check out the BioInitiative Report.

 

BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public ...

www.bioinitiative.org/

‎

An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on the relationship between electromagnetic fields (EMF) (associated with powerlines and wireless devices) and health..

‎Table of Contents - ‎Conclusions - ‎Research Summaries - ‎Press Release

[eye_of_the_storm]

Probably not what you're thinking!

Sunglasses distort the spectrum of light frequencies that get to the eyes, disregulating your entire endocrine (hormonal!) system. The only sunglasses Ott could recommend (grudgingly) in the end, were gray. They reduced the light evenly across the entire spectrum, so didn't create imbalances between the various frequencies (colors) present in natural light. Ott also connected sunglasses to cancer (this was one of his speculative theories based on a number of observations) and found his own degenerative hip disease reversed itself (confirmed by xrays) when he stopped wearing his regular glasses (block UV) and got out in the sun much more.

 

The prohibition against computers late at night is because the "janitor/nursemaid" cells (pigment epithelial cells) that protect your retina and macula go to sleep after dark, and don't start functioning again until they've had their required rest period of 8-10 hours. That means the cells you're using to read late at night have lost their backup, no food delivery, no trash removal. Not good over the long term! Of course there's also the melatonin problem, the blue light from the computer/tablet/phone, stops the production of the major sleep hormone, which also regulates our sex hormones and cortisol levels and cycles. Not good!

 

Ott also was the original researcher who discovered that radiation from the old TVs and from the ballasts of fluorescent lights were destructive. He got the ball rolling on those old TVs! Sure wish that fellow was still around today. He'd be having a field day!

 

So read Ott's books, check out that video. There's some amazing info in there. Guaranteed to change your interaction with light, and also to prepare you for the *REALLY* bad news about wifi and cell phones that's finally coming to light now.

 

I agree with all of this

 

There may come a point I move into the forests and go "wild" haha

 

... start over ... renew humanity ... this one is too far gone...and they are happy about it

[eye_of_the_storm]

 

Now, about that bad news about cells phones and wifi. Like you want to know.

 

But if you do want to know about it, check out the BioInitiative Report.

 

BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public ...

www.bioinitiative.org/

‎

An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on the relationship between electromagnetic fields (EMF) (associated with powerlines and wireless devices) and health..

‎Table of Contents - ‎Conclusions - ‎Research Summaries - ‎Press Release

 

Thanks!

[eye_of_the_storm]

To add to all this...you may be interested in this Cheya

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2013/R314-130828.php

Brian & Anna Maria Clement - Toxic Clothing: Synthetic vs. Natural Fibers

[cheya]

@cheya - Regarding "the implications of malillumination," how do you manuever your life around the many poor quality and all night lighting situations that plague us?

Good question, RV!

You just have to do your mindful best, getting natural light as much as possible, using full-spectrum lights (with UV!) where you can, sitting near windows when you have a choice, avoiding tinted windows in cars, especially if you drive a lot, taking glasses off when you don't need them.

 

The LAN (Light At Night) isn't so bad as I live way out in the boonies, but even out here, neighbors keep security lights on all night. Heavy drapes and a blindfold are a big help. I feel sad for the cows and wild things though, no choice but to be always lit up.