eye_of_the_storm

Natural Vs Artifical Light + Effects of Radiations + Optimal Health

Recommended Posts

https://ehs.mit.edu/site/book/export/html/259

 

Radiation is a broad term used to describe energy emanated in the form of waves or particles. Radiation in the form of waves is referred to as electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation of sufficient energy can cause atoms to become electrically charged, or ionized, and is referred to as ionizing radiation. Lower energy electromagnetic radiation is referred to as non-ionizing radiation. All electromagnetic radiation combined can be represented in an array known as the electromagnetic spectrum.

Electromagnetic radiation emanates from both natural and man-made sources. Examples of naturally occurring electromagnetic radiation include sunlight, cosmic rays, and radioactive materials in the earth's crust. Man-made sources of ionizing electromagnetic radiation include X-rays from medical and radiographic equipment, therapeutic and diagnostic radiochemicals, and nuclear power. Man-made sources of non- ionizing radiation include lasers, radar, television and radio broadcasting, communication systems such as cordless and cellular telephone systems, household appliances, and computer monitors.

Electromagnetic Radiation Emissions

With the exception of visible light, computer monitors emit electromagnetic radiation as a consequence of their technology, and not of design intention. Specific divisions of the electromagnetic spectrum associated with monitors have been investigated for electromagnetic radiation field intensities and possible biological effects. The divisions of the electromagnetic spectrum that have been examined, in descending order of energy, are:

Ionizing Radiation

X-rays: X-rays are produced inside a monitor's cathode ray tube (CRT) when electrons flow (in a beam) towards the screen, striking the inner surface, causing it to glow. Television screens work by the same principle. The units are designed and shielded such that levels of X-ray emission do not exceed federal limits, and are most often not measurable above natural background radiation.

Non-Ionizing Radiation

Ultraviolet [uV]: The intensity of UV radiation emitted from monitors is lower than that from fluorescent lights, and much lower than that from the sun.

Visible Light: The intensity of visible light from most monitors can be controlled by the user. The highest intensity achievable cannot produce detrimental biological effects.

Infrared [iR]: IR is perceived by the body as warmth. The intensity of IR emitted from monitors is barely distinguishable above background. Radiofrequency [RF], including Microwave [MW]: Certain broadband RF electro-magnetic fields may be produced by electronic clocks and digital equipment playing host to the monitor. Measured levels are indistinguishable above background.

Very Low Frequency [VLF] and Extremely Low Frequency [ELF]: Circuits within the monitor are responsible for the horizontal (left-to-right) and vertical (top-to-bottom) movement of the electron beam. This movement occurs tens of thousands of times each second (considered VLF) for the horizontal scan, and 50-60 times each second (considered ELF) for the vertical scan. The VLF and ELF field intensities have been extensively evaluated in many different models of monitors. The measured field intensities vary greatly between manufacturers and even models of the same manufacturer.

The MIT Radiation Protection Program (RPP) has measured electromagnetic field intensities from representative models of several manufacturers of monitors in use at MIT. Information on particular models is available from the RPP at x3-EHSS.

Concerns
Computer monitor users have expressed concerns about the possible health effects from the electromagnetic radiation that monitors produce. The concerns generally center around adverse pregnancy outcome (spontaneous abortion or birth defects). It has been postulated that these effects are due to electromagnetic radiation exposure from monitors. The biological effects of exposure to VLF and ELF fields similar to those produced by monitors have been studied for many years, and the research continues today. Cancer and reproductive outcomes are the topics studied most intensively. Current available scientific information does not identify a health risk from exposure to the electromagnetic fields associated with the use of computer monitors.

Summary

Computer monitors emit electromagnetic radiation in a broad range of frequencies. Although the electromagnetic radiation field intensities are measurable, they are not substantially above background office levels. The effect on health from the use of monitors has been studied for many years, and the research continues. The present consensus of experts is that there are no data to suggest a health risk from exposure to the electromagnetic fields associated with the use of monitors.

Radiation Protection Program
Environment, Health and Safety Office
N52-496, ext. 3-EHSS

 

 

High level exposure to ELF (extremely low frequency) magnetic fields affect the function of the pineal gland and reduces production of the hormone, melatonin. Continuous exposure leads to:

  • Insomnia
  • Breast/prostate cancer
  • prostate enlargement
  • fatigue
  • depression
  • irregular menstrual cycle
  • PMS
  • Scoliosis
  • Anxiety
  • sensitivity to stress
  • cataracts
  • neurodegerative disorder (MS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, ALS, etc)
  • elevated cholesterol
  • high blood pressure
  • blood clots
  • heart attack
  • heart arrhythmias

    https://ehs.mit.edu/site/book/export/html/259

 

 

 

Edited by eye_of_the_storm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The effect on health from the use of monitors has been studied for many years, and the research continues. The present consensus of experts is that there are no data to suggest a health risk from exposure to the electromagnetic fields associated with the use of monitors.

:)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger lies in the frequency of the photons projected, not the energy of the rays them selves; in layman terms:

All of the nonsense; it also travels in waves and with much interference ...

Edited by iain
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger lies in the frequency of the photons projected, not the energy of the rays them selves; in layman terms:

 

All of the nonsense; it also travels in waves and with much interference ...

Hahaha :-) so true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little to no danger from these low-power instruments.

 

But don't build a house directly under high-voltage primary feeder lines.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps te most damaging thing is lack of natural sunlight with long office hours screen time

I agree with you here, but view it just a little differently, feel a slight change of perspective is required.

 

Belief is directly relative to sunlight, thoughts travel faster than the speed of light as if linked to mind by a quantum pairing, within electro chemical signals. Thus they are not yet definable within the standard model. The standard model can not explain white light either. I fully agree with the assertions but in a different temporal domain than the linear physical one specified.

Radiation is also comparable to entropy; to assume that the electromagnetic spectrum, is the be all and end all of the physical model, is rather out of date; best we keep clear of this terminology when defining this effect.

 

If that in which you chose to immerse your mind in front of your screen stops you from sleeping, then it will create the symptoms specified; as I have already stated, it is the wave frequency and their modulation, not the energy its self that creates the effects mentioned.

 

I agree that there is a link, but have doubt that radiation of physical energy is the cause; it is to my mind, the rate of edition which is the cause, an whole another matter. śakti as energy explains this but an Occidental definition of energy does not, so we need to tread carefully.

 

This effect happens in the space that is the short fall of the standard model; and as such is not detectable by the same methodology.

 

The emissions from your monitor are indirect sun light, so are your neurons.

It is a discordance in the integral system that causes the ill effect not the system of transmission, I think that this manifests temporally, quite probably effecting the production of melatonin.

 

So I agree with the assertions but not the resolution of its explanation.

Edited by iain
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... thoughts travel faster than the speed of light ...

In one of his stories, Chuang Tzu implied this but stopped short of saying it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of his stories, Chuang Tzu implied this but stopped short of saying it.

I hesitated before writing that, but chose to say it based upon knowledge of the pairing of particles; I have heard it said by swami Lakshman Jū also.

 

That's wonderful to discover, might I ask which one and if you could recommend a translation; perhaps even a pdf? I would love to have a read ...

 

Coincidentally, I was just pondering a story that I heard in childhood, the tale of a Chinese boy with a magic paint brush who painted things into existence; are you familiar with this story, just a random enquiry?

Edited by iain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitated before writing that, but chose to say it based upon knowledge of the pairing of particles; I have heard it said by swami Lakshman Jū also.

 

That's wonderful to discover, might I ask which one and if you could recommend a translation; perhaps even a pdf? I would love to have a read ...

 

Coincidentally, I was just pondering a story that I heard in childhood, the tale of a Chinese boy with a magic paint brush who painted things into existence; are you familiar with this story, just a random enquiry?

The best telling of this concept, IMO, is from James Legge. It is in Chapter 17 - The Floods of Autumn

 

The story is Section 8 of Chapter 17 of this link:

 

http://oaks.nvg.org/zhuangzi1-.html

 

 

Note that the story ends short and does not speak to the "eye" or the "mind" but if we take the process to conclusion the eye is faster than the wind and the mind is faster than the eye.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would like to feel the small chakra at the tip of your finder and you have a touch screen just hold the tip of your finger very close to the screen for a bit and become aware of the very specific point there.

 

Once you feel it clearly pull it away and you can stay with the awareness there for as long as youare able to maintain some attention on it.

 

Then go back to the screen and you may feel it up and inside your finger and the point may also expand and a bit.

 

If you are right handed you may find the left hand finger is more sensitive and the opposite true for lefties.

 

If you stay with this a bit you may feel the meridian and the strong connection the thumb and forefinger have.

Edited by Spotless
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best telling of this concept, IMO, is from James Legge. It is in Chapter 17 - The Floods of Autumn

 

The story is Section 8 of Chapter 17 of this link:

 

http://oaks.nvg.org/zhuangzi1-.html

 

 

Note that the story ends short and does not speak to the "eye" or the "mind" but if we take the process to conclusion the eye is faster than the wind and the mind is faster than the eye.

Thank you for directing me towards this work; it is quite beautiful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought is faster than light.

Do you mean, say with electricity some frequencies? can kill while others are harmless and even said to heighten consciousness (as per work of Tesla)?

Tesla_colorado_adjusted.jpg

Some information regarding natural and artificial light.

Doctor Alexander Wunsch, (German Lighting Engineering Society + International Society for Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine (ISSSEEM)) on biological interaction with light.

 

The eye is definitely not the only receptive organ for light. Human skin is transparent to light.Even short wave-lengths like UV radiation reach the capillary layers and the blood inside these delicate vessels. All the pigments and molecules with chromophoric groups in our body absorb and emit photons. Each single atom has the attribute we could call photonic metabolism. Photons are the language in which all matter communicates; every jump (change of energy level) of an electron is a accompanied by photonic activity. The specific composition of sunlight as well as the properties of the atmospheric layers play important roles for the life-aiding qualities of natural light. Under today’s view-point we have to suspect that every aberration from these properties make artificial lighting potentially dangerous for health.

 

The implications of Malillumination:

 

Titoff, 1999: "There was a statistically significant difference between the students who worked under old-style fluorescent lights and those who worked under full-spectrum, visually-efficient lighting." This controlled study verified that depression was lowered among those students who experienced learning under full-spectrum lighting. Depression actually increased under standard fluorescent lights among the fourth graders. As an elementary school principal William Titoff conducted research for his Ph.D. dissertation and discovered that when the project was completed teachers with the full-spectrum lighting refused to put back the old-style fluorescent bulbs.

Harmon, l938 found that over 4000 children developed observable deficiencies associated with Malillumination. In the late 1940's conditions of the learning environment (lighting, seating and decor) were instituted in schools, resulting in the following student improvements: 65% reductionin visual difficulties, 47.8% decline in nutritional problems, 43.3% reduction in chronic infections, 25.6% reduction in postural problems and, finally, 55.6% decline in chronic fatigue. (Laurence D. Martel)


Increased exposure to fluorescent light and cancer risk:

Energy saving lamps emit UV-B and traces of UV-C radiation. It is generally recognized that UV- radiation is harmful for the skin (e.g. skin cancer) and the eyes (e.g. cataract). UV-C radiation, which is normally not observed in nature because it is absorbed completely in the atmosphere,is especially harmful. Several studies have found that fluorescent lights raise the risk for skin cancer . (Lytle, 1992)

The following results were obtained in a 2 year pilot study by S.L Gabby MD, determining the relationship between artificial light and its effects on C3H mice (highly prone to tumour development, 98% of males and females normally spontaneously develop breast cancer):

Type of Light No. of pairs of C3H mice

A. Pink fluorescent 30 pairs

29 female mice developed cancer – the other died of liver problems. Females died 1 month earlier than those in Group B. 1-2 offspring per litter, instead of 6-15.

B. Daylight-white fluorescent 30 pairs

24 of 30 female mice developed cancer – 2 other females died of liver problem. Able to breed 2 months longer than A. Also had larger litters than A.

C. Daylight through windows into basement room 8 pairs (used as control)

Developed cancer 3 months after Group A, and 2 months after Group B 2 pairs of 8 pairs carcinoma free at time of report.


Source: S.L. Gabby (1961), Observations on the effects of artificial light on the health and development of mice, cited by J.N. Ott (1982), How to Stay Healthy, Devin-Adair (1982), ISBN 0-8159-61 21-9. Note: Lighting conditions were the only variable used.

In a similar study, using over 2,000 C3H mice J.N. Ott demonstrated the link between light and mortality rate from spontaneous tumour development, as below:

Type of Light Average Lifespan of C3H Mice

Pink fluorescent 7.5 months

Daylight white fluorescent 8.2 months

Full-spectrum plastic glazing 15.6 months

Natural outdoor daylight 16.1 months

 

Source: J.N. Ott (1973), Health and Light: The Extraordinary Study That Shows How Light Affects Your Health And Emotional Well-being, Ariel Press, USA, ISBN 0-89804-098-1.

At the 1967, International Committee on Illumination (C.I.E.) in Washington D.C three Russian scientists; Dantsig, Lazarev and Sokolov presented a paper stating that:

If human skin is not exposed to solar radiation (direct or scattered) for long periods of time, disturbances will occur in the physiological equilibrium of the human system. The result will be functional disorders of the nervous system and a vitamin-D deficiency, a weakening of the body's defenses, and an aggravation of chronic diseases (Ott, 1986)

It was also noted by F. Hollwich and B. Dieckhues (1980), ‘The Effect of Natural and Artificial Light Via the Eye on the Hormonal and Metabolic Balance of Animal and Man’, Opthalmologia 180, No.4, pp. 188-197, Raised levels of ACTH and cortisol (indicators of stress) were found as a result of exposure to cool-white fluorescent lights, in addition to reducing immune system functioning, and mental performance. Raised stress levels can also stunt children’s growth. Cool-white Fluorescent tubes were legally banned in some German medical institutions.

A partial listing of health problems and social problems that fluorescent light have been implicated as aggravating is given below: (H.E.S.E Project, 2012)

Aggression
ALS
Attention Deficit Disorder
Autism
CFS/ME
Cancer
Reduced concentration
Confusion
Diabetes
Dermatitis

Dental caries
Dizziness
Dyslexia
Dyspraxia
Eczema
Electro-hypersensitivity
Epilepsy
Eye irritation
Eye strain
Fatigue

Headaches
Hyperactivity
Irritability
Learning difficulties
Lupus
Reduced muscle strength
MS
Nausea
Photosensitivity
Xeroderma pigmentosum

References:

Brown, S. ( November 8, 2006). Marilyne Andersen speaks about utilizing natural light. MIT Tech Talk , 3.

H.E.S.E Project. (2012). Artificial Light in the Environment: Human Health Effects. Retrieved March 2012, from The H.E.S.E. Project: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/issues/cfl.php

F. Hollwich and B. Dieckhues (1980), ‘The Effect of Natural and Artificial Light Via the Eye on the Hormonal and Metabolic Balance of Animal and Man’, Opthalmologia 180, No.4, pp. 188-197

J.N. Ott (1973), Health and Light: The Extraordinary Study That Shows How Light Affects Your Health And Emotional Well-being, Ariel Press, USA, ISBN 0-89804-098-1.

Laurence D. Martel, P. (n.d.). LIGHT: AN ELEMENT IN THE ERGONOMICS OF LEARNING. Retrieved March 2012, from Full Spectrum Solutions: http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/lighting_for_schools.shtml

Lytle CD, Cyr WH, Beer JZ, Miller SA, James RH, Landry RJ, et al. An estimation of squamous cell carcinoma risk from ultraviolet radiation emitted by fluorescent lamps. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1992/1993; 9:268-274.

Ott, D. J. (1986, January/February). Dr. John Ott: The Light Side of Health. Retrieved March 2012, from Mother Earth News: The Original Guide to Living Wisely: http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-community/john-ott-zm0z86zhun.aspx?page=5

S.L. Gabby (1961), Observations on the effects of artificial light on the health and development of mice, cited by J.N. Ott (1982), How to Stay Healthy, Devin-Adair (1982), ISBN 0-8159-61 21-9.

Wunsch, D. A. (2006). Artificial Lighting and Health . Journal of Optometric Phototherapy , 1-5.


(Info from a paper I was doing some years ago)

Edited by eye_of_the_storm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Ott is one of my heros.

Read his pioneering book, Health and Light, and you will never think about light and color the same way as before. And you probably won't be wearing sunglasses either! Or watching TV or computing late at night, or at least not if you value your eyesight.

 

His mind-boggling video, Exploring the Spectrum, shows some of the results of his research. If you get to see it, don't get put off by the beginning 3 minutes or so, which are REALLY hokey. But this video uses time lapse photography through a microscope to show the effects of different colored light on the innards of cells! It's amazing! Ott accidentally discovered that the effect of different colored light on the eyes was actually stronger than the effects of the drugs he was being paid to test! That discovery was just the beginning of many other discoveries about light's profound effect on our health, and there's lots more to this fascinating video.

 

Ott did his stuff in the 60s and 70s, and died in the nineties. His discoveries and theoretical projections are still being verified today.

Great man, great stuff.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this was first posted and my initial responses my attention to this has been drawn to greater sensitivity and here is what I now clearly see and feel:

 

There is an energy field cloud that puffs out of my iPad about 6 inches. As my fingers begin to peck, energy from this cloud definitely moves up into my forearms and if I breath it into my space from these fingers it will definitely reach well within my chest.

 

The energy is "dry" and can be very slightly itchy. The awareness of it now is not distracting and the very subtle energy is not felt beyond my fingers and hands if I do not put my attention on it - but now as I start to use the pad with my fingers I cannot but notice as the tips of my fingers reach into the cloud.

Edited by Spotless
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this was first posted and my initial responses my attention to this has been drawn to greater sensitivity and here is what I now clearly see and feel:

 

There is an energy field cloud that puffs out of my iPad about 6 inches. As my fingers begin to peck, energy from this cloud definitely moves up into my forearms and if I breath it into my space from these fingers it will definitely reach well within my chest.

 

The energy is "dry" and can be very slightly itchy. The awareness of it now is not distracting and the very subtle energy is not felt beyond my fingers and hands if I do not put my attention on it - but now as I start to use the pad with my fingers I cannot but notice as the tips of my fingers reach into the cloud.

 

Any different with wifi on and off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wi-Fi can now be harnessed and converted into energy; the health effects of the ubiquitous signals are still a cause for concern among many.

 

A high school project threw oil on the burning international debate about the adverse health and environmental effects of Wi-Fi radiation.

 

After 12 days of Wi-Fi radiation from two routers, garden cress seeds turned out stunted, dead, or mutated (showing genetic defects not present before the trial). By contrast, a control group of 200 seeds with the same conditions but no Wi-Fi radiation flourished. The study was conducted by students at Hjallerup high school in Denmark and made headlines in May.

 

cress.jpg.jpeg

Cress on left was exposed to Wi-Fi radiation from two routers. Cress on right was not exposed to Wi-Fi. (Courtesy of Kim Horsevad, Hjallerup)

 

As the experiment was conducted by high school students and not professional scientists, it cannot be considered scientific proof, noted Hjallerup biology teacher Kim Horsevad in an email to the Epoch Times.

 

Horsevad said, “The results do, however, demonstrate a great deal of internal consistency.” He also said, “The pupils have, to the fullest extent possible with the resources available at this educational level, designed the experiment to study only one variable.”

 

A top European expert on the subject, neuroscience professor Olle Johanssen at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, will likely soon repeat the experiment, Horsevad said.

 

In 2009, Austrian Health insurance company AUVA released a study linking Wi-Fi to adverse health effects, including cancer, reduced fertility, decreased ability to concentrate, and disturbed sleep. AUVA showed radiation levels well below the standard limits could impact the central nervous system, immune system, and protein synthesis.

 

The effects mostly occur in metabolically active cells (growing cells), which means children are at a higher risk.

 

The body uses electromagnetic signals to communicate between cells, organs and tissues. The radiation overlaps and interferes with the body’s internal communication, hence the havoc.

 

Many schools worldwide have adopted anti-Wi-Fi policies, and many countries—France, Canada, and India, for example—and have adopted anti-Wi-Fi measures and laws. The European Union passed an anti-WIFI resolution in May 2011.

 

WiFi was not tested before its release in 1997, because it uses an unlicensed part of the radio spectrum. Back then, radiation safety regulations focused only on thermal radiation effects, according to electromagnetic-pollution.com. So Wi-Fi was deemed safe since it did not exceeded radiation levels that result in thermal heating.

 

In the United States, the highest level of radiation allowed for cellular phones is 1.6 watts per kilogram. The AUVA report showed, however, that damage can occur at a level of 0.1 watts per kilogram.

 

http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/356334-wi-fi-kills-plants-could-harm-kids-but-can-be-harnessed-for-energy/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read his pioneering book, Health and Light, and you will never think about light and color the same way as before. And you probably won't be wearing sunglasses either!

 

Thanks for the recommendation! Very interested!

 

Don't wear sunglasses ;)

 

Yeh computers etc late at night @[email protected]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any different with wifi on and off?

 

I pretty much always have wifi on but if I notice a difference I will post it.

 

It is interesting to note that around trolley cars and certain types of trains the vibrations are very strong and magnetic.

 

I intend to purchase a Prius V soon but I think I will test it out again.

 

I'm not one to care much about this stuff but my little ipad looks like a mini blast furnace and my hands are very sensitive now to the feeling around it - it's kind of fun and also a bit disconcerting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Spotless,

Fun stuff!

Related to BKA's question BKA, I'm particularly interested in whether you can feel/sense wifi itself... What energy changes you sense in the space when it's on. Of course you may live where neighbors' use means it's never actually off...

 

Also you wrote: "the tips of my fingers reach into the cloud."

The cloud around your iPad? or...THE cloud? Love to hear more about the latter, if that's what you mean!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Spotless,

Fun stuff!

Related to BKA's question BKA, I'm particularly interested in whether you can feel/sense wifi itself... What energy changes you sense in the space when it's on. Of course you may live where neighbors' use means it's never actually off...

 

Also you wrote: "the tips of my fingers reach into the cloud."

The cloud around your iPad? or...THE cloud? Love to hear more about the latter, if that's what you mean!

 

Regarding the cloud, I was referring to the little cloud of energy around my iPad.

Even since writing that my awareness has expanded to a much larger awareness in my body of this energy. I have enjoyed using my iPad in bed in particular and wel into the night. Now I am aware of this foreign energy and I am not sure just how much I wish to acclimate to the sensation or reduce my exposure.

 

I may switch to a mac air and use a keyboard and touch pad for awhile - but I do like the iPad even if I finger peck all this stuff but now my hands get itchy at times.

 

Anyway - this is all pretty odd for me as it is in my nature to obscure concerns of this nature and forge ahead. It always struck me as over sensitive and a bit wimpy - and many truely petty concerns overwhelm individuals.

 

I was already aware of many of the lighting problems and dropped the use of sunglasses several years ago as well, which as a sailor and on the water person I use to live with them attached to me.

 

For now I am not sure I want to ferret out the effects of wifi.

 

What is unfolding in my awareness currently is a great deal of subtlety so it may be in the cards for me to feel and see a fair amount of this stuff as well - it will be hard not to notice the different locations within the house regarding the emanations.

 

I can always change my vibration and the awareness will cease but sometimes even if just for a few weeks or months feeling seeing something like this can bring in all sorts of new vistas. I have a seven year old son so looking at this has another dimension to it though I am not about to spread paranoia into that little wild man.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites