References: <%_wk9.52964$1C2.email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><7vOrdMA0+9m9EwpL@jmwa.demon.co.uk><email@example.com> <1xuIaEAzyTn9EwAp@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:15:48 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:15:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
I have seen references but they were more like news reports ; they
did contain enough pointers (for example : that radiated beams were used to
dis-orient youths who were loitering near a police station in UK, high power
microwaves were routinely beamed out from the old Soviet Union into Eastern
European areas, etc.).
"John Woodgate" wrote in message
> I read in sci.electronics.design that News2020 wrote
> (in ) about
> 'Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?', on Thu, 3 Oct 2002:
> >I have to ask you and other determined nay-sayers this question.
> >Do you have a vested interest in one outcome vs. another ?
> >ie. are you already compromised in this debate by being 'dependent' in
> >way ?
> Yes, I have a vested interest. IF there is any as-yet undiscovered
> harmful effect, I want it discovered. That's why I asked you to cite
> references, which you have not done.
> >Another way to put it is, do you have an axe to grind ? >who argue vehemently are somehow already compromised in their job,
> >commitments, etc. and do not state it as part of the debate. >
> This is another 'hypothesis'? That I am dishonest? Typical! When
> challenged you fall back on thinly-veiled insults.
> I am an independent electronics consultant, self-employed. I am not
> compromised in any way.
> >No claim is made, only a hypothesis is projected based upon observed
> >phenomena and available literature.
> What is this 'available literature'? Exclude 'hypotheses'. Where's the
> >To claim safety so vehemently, you have to have counter-proof by testing
> >each and every situation of pattern, spectrum, power, etc. You have no
> You demand a task of infinite extent, which is clearly impossible to
> satisfy. OK, I demand POSITIVE PROOF that just the specific effects that
> you claim to experience are caused by the baleful influence that you
> hypothesise. That is NOT an impossible demand.
> >Therefore, you do not even have a fraction of the basis needed for a
> >vehement denial or ridiculing others.
> I have not ridiculed you. Now who is being blatantly dishonest? I have
> asked you to cite references. That is not in any way a 'vehement
> Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
> Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go
> PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!