From: Mike Poulton
Subject: Re: Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?
Date: 27 Sep 2002 16:26:12 GMT
Organization: MTP Technologies
References: <%_wk9.52964$1C2.email@example.com> <3D9442F1.42F2FBAF@webaccess.net> <3D9467AC.9745AC66@webaccess.net> <8a%k9.56338$1C2.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 27 Sep 2002, "News2020" said:
> < Thanks for the inputs so far and the circuit diagram, etc; I am
> trying to ignore the attacks and negativity.>
> I am not really 'worried' about this spark. The question was more
> general. There is potential for a LOT of 'mischief' in this area of
> expertise. And you will never have evidence to show. The damage will
> be imperceptible. Such as tones that match with brain frequencies and
> drive you nuts, reading brainwaves by thermal imaging, using imaging
> feedback to pump in controlling brainwaves, small cancers in blood
> vessels, muscles, skin, brain, blood cells, etc, a little burnt skin
> layers, some damage to the eyesight, cataracts over a long period,
> unnoticeable loss of hearing, clots under the skin that eventually get
> infected and turn into cancers, etc..., use of power lines and home
> sheet metal fixtures and appliances to inject 'really high-energy'
> microwaves, etc.
Whoa... Just when you think the discussion is getting normal again...
> And I am not talking product design issues such as
> the shoe measuring device or monitors that one poster has mentioned.
> I am talking deliberate, planned, secret people who could do such
> things. No one would know. No evidence unless you get the right
> measuring devices.
You mean measuring devices like an old AM radio, a cellphone, a cordless
phone, a VCR extender, wireless security camera, wireless LAN card, or
even just a fluorescent lightbulb? Yeah, without one of those things,
we'd never detect strong RF fields. Without cameras and film, we'd never
catch the X-rays, either.
> The only question is, is it within the limits of
> the technology today.
> If the answer is yes, the devil is not very far.
The answer is not yes, but the devil is still close. His name is John
Ashcroft, and he is the Attorney General. He's evil, but AFAIK he prefers
publicity, spin, and political manipulation instead of impossible techno-
fantasy mind control devices. That's a different issue, though.
> This kind of stuff has been around for quite some time.
The conspiracy theory, or the technology? Surely you mean the former.
> It is only a
> matter of further refinement and miniaturization and deployment,
> target/victim selection, etc.
I think it's more a matter of insanity and boredom, myself.
Not only do I speak for my company, I AM my company!
Live free or die!