Re: Chi machine...Green

September 1, 2000

Vilik wrote:

Green,

Thanks for your personal experiment. So bottomline...do you think that your

findings are a reason not to use the machine?

=====

I think that's something for each concerned person to decide individually.

The EMF levels I measured on my own Foot Shaker -- 5 to 15 milligauss at their

strongest, where the bottoms of the

legs rest on the machine -- are not negligible. According to studies detailed in

CURRENTS OF DEATH, 60 Hz magnetic field strengths of only 2 to 5 milligauss have

been causing leukemia in children and brain cancer in adults. According to the

excerpt from CROSS CURRENTS posted by Sharon, " 60 Hz fields of 3 milligauss have

been shown to be sigificantly related to increases in rates of children's cancer

and adult's... "

As that excerpt from CROSS CURRENTS points out:

" Because our global society runs on electromagnetic energy, there is really no

place to hide... "

While this is true, an awareness of the problem, and action taken on this

awareness, can significantly reduce EMF exposure, especially in environments in

which one has some control, such as the home.

There are appliances which we generally accept in the home which produce much

stronger EMF than the Foot Shaker does. However, they are usually appliances

with which we maintain some distance (the electric blanket being a notable

exception). The chi machine or Foot Shaker or swing machine is an appliance we

place in contact with our bodies. On the other hand, our exposure to its EMF is

generally limited to less than 30 minutes per day.

The feet and lower legs are as much a part of our bodies as any other part, and

I see no reason to consider them invulnerable to extra-low-frequency

electromagnetic field damage.

=====

Will they

affect your use?

=====

Because I haven't noticed significant benefits from my use

of the Foot Shaker, I haven't used it much. Maybe because I haven't used it

much, I haven't noticed significant benefits?

In any case, my curent discovery about the EMF produced by the machine doesn't

help.

Will my discovery affect my use of the machine? In a practical sense, probably

not -- since I hardly ever use the machine anymore, anyway. However, I do NOT

consider a 10 or 20 or 30 minute exposure of the feet and lower legs to 60 Hz

EMF of 5 to 15 milligauss to be negligible, it DOES concern me, and I intend to

modify my machine somehow to eliminate this problem.

And while I doubt the machine can be modified so that it does not produce the

EMF, I feel one solution to the problem would be to extend the part of the

machine which the lower legs nest into -- the footrest part -- upward 14 inches

from the motor part. This would get one's feet and lower legs OUT of the

alternating current magnetic field.

On my Foot Shaker, two screws mount the external footrest to the internal

actuator. Taking the machine apart isn't even necessary in order to remove the

footrest from the machine. What remains is only to fashion some kind of rigid

vertical adapter 14 inches long that mounts both to the machine actuator at the

adapter's bottom and to the footrest at the adapter's top.

But this modification would produce a 22-inch high Foot Shaker, which would be

unusable unless its base were inset 14 inches below whatever surface one is

going to be lying on in order to use it, and rigidly mounted there -- because

the added height (moment of force) is going to make the machine want to tip

side-to-side as it " shakes " (I can already feel that starting to happen if I

prop one foot above the other while using the machine). The distance the

footrest is located above the machine is critical, and increasing it is going

to:

1) make a more secure mounting of the machine's base necessary,

2) increase wear on every bearing in the machine,

3) increase the load on the machine's motor,

4) slow the machine's operatiing speed,

5) stress the machine's working parts beyond their design

limits, and

6) reduce the service life of the machine.

These include some serious drawbacks, but not as serious, I think, as taking a

chance with the EMF exposure. Would you trade your health for a $350 machine?

As I think about it, a better modification -- eliminating most of the drawbacks

above -- would be a HORIZONTAL rather than a vertical distancing of the body

from the machine's motor.

This might be accomplished by a rigid horizontal rather than vertical link

between the machine's actuator and the footrest, which would slide back and

forth on its own bearings, actuated by the horizontal link.

This would be somewhat more complex to arrange, but it would eliminate most of

the stress which vertical displacement would place on the machine.

Such a modification built into a bed would provide both protection from the

machine's EMF and a degree of convenience which would make for greater ease in

use. Instead of having

to get the machine out of its storage place, plug it in, get oneself a pillow,

lie down on the floor, use the machine, perhaps fall asleep and have to get up

later to go to bed, unplug the machine and restore it to its storage place, or

tolerate it cluttering one's daytime living space --

One would simply go to bed and use the machine as part of the going-to-sleep

ritual, and/or perhaps wake in the morning and use the machine before getting

out of bed. In any case, the machine would always be ready for use by simply

lying down in bed. On that basis I think I'd use the machine a lot more, and

perhaps benefit from it.

Having the Foot Shaker encorporated thusly into my bed could turn a potentially

dangerous inconvenience I hardly ever get

to into a safe and routine part of falling asleep and/or waking up.

=====

And do you think different machines have different

electrical fields?

=====

I'd expect them to vary somewhat, but be roughly comparable.

=====

The company that makes the higher priced MLM

machine claims their motor is different than the others...

~^^V^^~

=====

That sounds worth looking into, but I think the only way to know for sure would

be to actually measure its EMF, which I rather doubt would be negligible. The

motor will be running on 60 Hz power, will be doing a certain amount of work,

and is going to produce a proportional EMF strength.

To summarize, 60 Hz EMF IS of biological concern -- that is, it has been shown

by epidemiological evidence to cause leukemia, brain cancer and other health

damage. This is not to say that everyone so exposed will contract those

maladies, but it's a certainty that a significantly higher percentage of them

will than would the general population if unexposed.

I don't think we've exhausted the subject by any means;

My Foot Shaker produces EMF in strengths known to be dangerous;

I don't think the argument that we're exposing our feet rather than our heads to

EMF by using chi machines is much of an argument;

Nor am I prepared to gamble that shorter time exposures to EMF are completely

without harmful consequences;

and I can't agree with Sharon's advice to " Shake on, Gang. "

Green

September 11, 2000

Green

Now you put a scare in me. Been using shaker 3 times a day, 15 minute

sessions. Is EMF exposure cumulative?

So far, no noticeable effects or benefits using the shaker ( 3 weeks) but

then as you said, perhaps more time is needed. Or swim like a fish.

Are you familiar with Clarus Co? They mfg EMF shielding devices. Couldn't you

hang these bracelets on the foot and shake away?

I'm a young man and concerned about the long term effect and don't want to

shake off what I have left.

Wong

In a message dated 08/31/2000 11:58:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

green1@... writes:

> There are appliances which we generally accept in the home which produce

much

> stronger EMF than the Foot Shaker does. However, they are usually

appliances

> with which we maintain some distance (the electric blanket being a notable

> exception). The chi machine or Foot Shaker or swing machine is an appliance

> we place in contact with our bodies. On the other hand, our exposure to

its

> EMF is generally limited to less than 30 minutes per day.

>

> The feet and lower legs are as much a part of our bodies as any other

part,

> and I see no reason to consider them invulnerable to extra-low-frequency

> electromagnetic field damage.

>

September 11, 2000

WONG,

Go ahead and use your foot shaker without worrying about EMF. That scare

started with a nervous nellie question that has led nowhere. Do you

drive in a car? If you do you are exposed to so much more EMF thasn the

foot shaker you ought to quit using a car first! What about the computer

you are using? Again, more EMF!

YES, we are exposed to EM of all kinds. The effect of EM is to make fast

replicating cells replicate faster. So, if you have cancer in your feet,

or your big toe is pregnant, the foot shaker might be dangerous.

jim

Wong111@... wrote:

> Green

>

> Now you put a scare in me. Been using shaker 3 times a day, 15 minute

> sessions. Is EMF exposure cumulative?

>

> So far, no noticeable effects or benefits using the shaker ( 3 weeks) but

> then as you said, perhaps more time is needed. Or swim like a fish.

>

> Are you familiar with Clarus Co? They mfg EMF shielding devices. Couldn't you

> hang these bracelets on the foot and shake away?

>

> I'm a young man and concerned about the long term effect and don't want to

> shake off what I have left.

>

>mode.

--

" Coming events cast their shadows before. " --

jlambert@... http://www.entrance.to/madscience

September 12, 2000

Green

Now you put a scare in me.

=====

Not trying to scare anyone. Am trying to share what I've

learned in the several years since I became aware of this

problem.

In a civilization where government and industry present such infrastructural

dangers as safe, and such investigations and

decisions fall to the individual, wouldn't you rather know than

not know?

=====

Been using shaker 3 times a day, 15 minute

sessions. Is EMF exposure cumulative?

=====

In a word, Wong, yes.

Here's an excerpt from page 21 of CURRENTS OF DEATH, which I checked out of

the library again yesterday in order to better answer your question and learn

more myself. A study is being described in which an investigator in Denver,

Colorado discovered the correlation there between 60 Hz EMF and cancer:

" . . . children who had lived in homes near high-current electrical wires had

died of cancer at twice the rate seen in children living in dwellings near

low-current wiring. The association was strongest among those children who had

spent their entire lives in a high-current home. "

More interesting data -- from page 23 -- pertaining to your question:

A little paraphrase here before the quote --

Although measurements have been made showing that household appliances can

produce strong 60 Hz magnetic fields (an electric drill, for example, creates a

field of 13 gauss at a distance of one centimeter), such measurements are not a

valid index of exposure because they were made very close to the appliance, and

because appliance-generated fields usually fall off rapidly with distance.

" . . . magnetic field exposure to the whole body from normal use of household

appliances rarely exceeds two milligauss (a milligauss is one thousandth of a

gauss) for any extended period, while ambient levels in a house due to nearby

distribution wires or plumbing may sometimes reach those levels, or more, for

hours or days at a time. "

" . . . the duration of continuous exposure above some minimum threshold might

be more important than the strength of the exposure per se. "

More paraphrase and quote from page 23:

Analysis of a 1950 US Public Health Service report correlating cause of death

by occupation in men between the ages of twenty and sixty-five, showed that

" . . . workers who were frequently exposed to alternating-current magnetic

fields -- among them were power station operators, telephone linemen, power

linemen, subway and elevated-railway motormewn, electricians, and welders -- had

developed cancer at a significantly higher rate than the population as a whole. "

From page 75:

A 1988 study

" . . . of men who had died of brain cancer in East Texas between 1969 and 1978

showed a significantly elevated risk for those men working in the

communications, utilities, and trucking industries. Indeed, the risk for

electric-utility workers was thirteen times that for workers who were not

[occupationally] exposed to electromagnetic fields. "

=====

So far, no noticeable effects or benefits using the shaker ( 3 weeks) but

then as you said, perhaps more time is needed.

=====

Seems like three sessions per day of 15 minutes each, for three

weeks, ought to do SOMETHING for you -- if it was gonna. I'd be interested

in hearing the rest of the story, if you keep Shakin'.

I intend to modify my 'Shaker -- just displace the footrest to the side about

a foot -- to get my feet and legs away from on top of that motor and out of the

measurable magnetic field -- 5 to 15 milligauss, depending on speed used --

strongest field at lowest speed --

interesting. It seems the power consumed is the same at all speeds, but as

speed is reduced, the lost velocity is converted into magnetic field.

=====

Or swim like a fish.

Are you familiar with Clarus Co?

=====

Nope -- are they on the net? Can you provide a URL? I'd like to check that

out, though I doubt much can be done by wearing bracelets, or anything else that

I know of, really. Magnetic fields, as opposed to electric fields, are pretty

darn pervasive.

=====

They mfg EMF shielding devices. Couldn't you

hang these bracelets on the foot and shake away?

=====

I hope so, but doubt it.

=====

I'm a young man and concerned about the long term effect and don't want to

shake off what I have left.

=====

Wise -- I thought I was was invincible in my youth.

Green

September 12, 2000

On Monday, September 11, 2000 5:54 AM, Jim wrote:

WONG,

Go ahead and use your foot shaker without worrying about EMF.

=====

Jim, don't you think Wong and the rest of us here can decide for ourselves

what to use and what to worry about?

=====

That scare started with a nervous nellie question that has led nowhere.

=====

The contrary, Sharon sey (Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:22 PM, Those chi

machines again!) -- not particularly concerned but wanting the question

authoritatively addressed -- posted information she had found on another list,

which led to discussion and education among OxyPlus members around this issue.

Why disparage inquiry and discussion on a serious health issue?

=====

Do you

drive in a car? If you do you are exposed to so much more EMF thasn the foot

shaker you ought to quit using a car first!

=====

Have you confirmed this with measurements taken in your car?

My own measurements don't bear it out. My 1983 6.2 L Diesel Suburban and my

1975 Chevy Blazer 350 V8 both produce no detectable EMF in the front seat area

of the vehicle, except momentarily when turning the key to activate the starter,

and while this field typically reaches 11 or 12 milligauss for less than 5

seconds when the meter is held close to the wiring which carries the starting

current, in the vicinity of my legs the field is typically between 1 and 2

milligauss, and decreases to undetectable levels with a few additional inches of

distance from the source.

Even more importantly, this is not an AC EMF in the ELF range, which is what

we're talking about and which is of biological concern, but a negative

electromagnetic field produced by DC, which is a different animal altogether and

not of the same concern.

=====

What about the computer

you are using? Again, more EMF!

=====

Again, more faulty reasoning :-)) -- an appliance may produce a stronger

electromagnetic field than another appliance does, yet still expose the user to

a weaker electromagnetic field due to distance the user maintains from the

source.

Although my meter registers up to 72 milligauss AC EMF when I hold it directly

against the monitor screen, that field dwindles exponentially to zero by 5.5

inches from the screen, takes on a negative component (DC field) which increases

to 0.5 (one half) milligauss by 8 inches from the screen, and then decreases

again, to undetectable levels, by 10 inches from the screen.

I sit with my head and chest 20 inches from the screen, with my hands typing 8

to 12 inches from the screen.

I wouldn't be surprised to eventually learn otherwise, but nothing I remember

reading indicates that levels under half a milligauss can be damaging.

According to my meter and my reading on the subject, my computer exposes me to

EMF at levels below those known to harm, while my Foot Shaker, with levels of 5

to 15 milligauss at the footrest, is way over the lower threshhold of level

known to cause harm.

The only argument I see that one might rightfully invoke to rationalize

exposure is the time element -- that perhaps exposure to the Foot Shaker's

radiation is of such short duration, it's insignificant. That may be true, but

then again it may not. Who are you to say? You can make that judgment for

yourself, but neither you nor I can make it for others.

=====

YES, we are exposed to EM of all kinds. The effect of EM is to make fast

replicating cells replicate faster.

=====

Jim, I'm tempted to level the same criticism at you for this gross

oversimplification and misrepresentation that you recently berated Vilik with in

the worm and parasite threads, which incidentally, you seem to have confused

with one another -- " but I still love you. " ;-))

I'm not prepared (yet) to launch into concrete specifics on the range of

effects of electromagnetic fields on biological systems, but they can be

far-reaching and vary as much or more with FREQUENCY as with strength, a point

you seem to be overlooking.

=====

So, if you have cancer in your feet,

or your big toe is pregnant, the foot shaker might be dangerous.

jim

=====

Power company linemen who develop brain cancer as a consequence of their work

are not pregnant -- in their big toe or anywhere else. Nor did a higher

percentage of them than the general population have cancer before they started

their high-risk jobs. The risk was just greater and of a different nature than

they knew or were led to believe.

Admittedly, " working out " on the Foot Shaker is not high-tension powerline

exposure, but you can't legitimately pooh-poo concerns about 60 Hz EMF levels

above the level of known biological concern.

Your arguments in this particular e-mail have been fuzzy and off the mark.

You are free, of course, to believe, say and do what you will, but so am I.

Green

PS -- My apology for a misstatement in my previous posting on this subject

(Sunday, September 10, 2000 3:44 PM, RE: EMF meters) -- I said I had read

CROSS CURRENTS a few years ago, at the same time I had read CURRENTS OF DEATH.

Actually, (I discovered this when I tried to find CROSS CURRENTS in the

library today) the book I had read in addition to CURRENTS OF DEATH was

Brodeur's *other* book, THE GREAT POWER LINE COVER UP. Of the two books, I

found the former more engaging.

I asked my library to get CROSS CURRENTS for me via interlibrary loan --

they're very good at getting books from other libraries anywhere in the country.

I look forward to reading it -- thanks for the recommendation, Jim.

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

Wong111@... wrote:

> Green

>

> Now you put a scare in me. Been using shaker 3 times a day, 15 minute

> sessions. Is EMF exposure cumulative?

> So far, no noticeable effects or benefits using the shaker ( 3 weeks) but

> then as you said, perhaps more time is needed. Or swim like a fish.

>

> Are you familiar with Clarus Co? They mfg EMF shielding devices. Couldn't

you

> hang these bracelets on the foot and shake away?

>

> I'm a young man and concerned about the long term effect and don't want to

> shake off what I have left.

>

September 12, 2000

Green,

My argument is neither fuzzy, off the mark, nor mine, but Dr. Becker's.

And, until you or any of your sources can match his credibility as well

as his credentials, I will go with his opinion, which is, to paraphrase:

There are fields all around us, and many you cannot escape. So, if you

don't want to move to Idaho & return to cave life (which won't totally

protect you), then you should consider making a risk/benefit assessment

for each field-producing device in your life.

My point was and is that 15-20 minutes on a foot shaker is a relatively

low exposure, especially compared to the benefit, which, for a person

who doesn't exercise (why else would they use one?) is, IMO, much

greater! My foot shaker's EMF drops to 2 Milligauss before my knees,

which is comparable to driving my Ford Contour. But, in my Nissan 4X4 it

doesn't drop to 2 Mg until my belt buckle, and I have long legs, being

6' tall. These readings were with an idling engine.

I can't understand your getting no reading with your meter in a

Suburban, but you have one in the footwell. And, car computers give off

an average of 2 Mg just under the passenger seat. But, not all meters

are the same. Most meters on the market are for measuring fields for

different purposes than that with which we are interested. The Tri-Field

meter is " biased " to show the effective EM on living human tissue.

That's why I picked that model. I don't know how they would " bias " a

meter for this purpose, but I do know they can. It has something to do

with living tissue absorbing EM being different with just the field in

empty air.

When you read Cross Currents you will probably understand why I put so

much faith in Dr. Becker. Not only was he one of the whistleblowers on

EM safety, but the Government agencies, most particularly NIH & the Navy

Dept., kept on using him anyway, because THEY trusted his opinions too!

Notwithstanding that, once he told them what the danger was, radar being

one example, the Navy then designed tests to prove radar safe. And

Becker joined other colleagues in denouncing that fraud too! He even

tells us why the Government lies about it: They would have to give up

all of their secret electronic toys! Fat chance! No incomprehensible

conspiracy, just absolute power absolutely corrupted!

Further, in your latest post you raised a lot of cancer issues in re EMF

as though we didn't know on this list that oxygenation is more of a

factor than EM exposure. Sure, EMF raises cancer statistics, but only in

a population unaware of their hypoxia! If we can cure virtually all

cancers with oxidative therapies, then we can prevent them too! Ergo, we

do not have to be deathly afraid of EMF because it might raise

cell-disorder disease risks, since we can prevent & remit them at will,

at home. What this says to me is that EM exposure causes stresses that

consume O2.

You make a good point that the frequency of a field is an important

factor in these radiations, but certainly not more important than field

strength!

Apparently, EMF is a hot button issue with you. It was with me too,

right after I first read Cross Currents. Just as parasites were & are

after reading Hulda 's books. I raised my dogs like children, but

became afraid to touch them when I found out about flukeworms. In both

cases, my fears subsided into a practical realism, which is the fuzzy

thinking of which you accuse me. Now, I wash my hands after petting my

dogs and keep as much EM out of my life as is practically possible.

Which is all that most people are going to do, and more than many will.

This is hardly off the mark! It is, IMO, one of the hallmarks of a

rational mind: to take sane precautions, then resume a positive attitude

and continue to be happy, trusting in the ultimate benevolence of

Creation!

namaste,

jim

green1 wrote:

> Admittedly, " working out " on the Foot Shaker is not high-tension powerline

exposure, but you can't legitimately pooh-poo concerns about 60 Hz EMF levels

above the level of known biological concern.

>

> Your arguments in this particular e-mail have been fuzzy and off the mark.

>

> You are free, of course, to believe, say and do what you will, but so am I.

>

> Green

>

--

" Coming events cast their shadows before. " --

jlambert@... http://www.entrance.to/madscience

September 30, 2000

Green

Please check out these two websites. Maybe you won't need to make

modifications at all. Note the garment and fabric shield. Wouldn't covering

the foot shaker with it neutralize the EMF? Spend a buck to save some bucks.

<A HREF= " http://lessemf.com/ " >lessemf.com</A>, <A

HREF= " http://www.clarus.com/ " >Welcome to Clarus Products International - Home

of the QLink - ClearWave - Ally</A>

Wong

In a message dated 08/31/2000 11:58:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

green1@... writes:

> On my Foot Shaker, two screws mount the external footrest to the internal

> actuator. Taking the machine apart isn't even necessary in order to remove

> the footrest from the machine. What remains is only to fashion some kind

of

> rigid vertical adapter 14 inches long that mounts both to the machine

> actuator at the adapter's bottom and to the footrest at the adapter's top.

>

> But this modification would produce a 22-inch high Foot Shaker, which

would

> be unusable unless its base were inset 14 inches below whatever surface one

> is going to be lying on in order to use it, and rigidly mounted there --

> because the added height (moment of force) is going to make the machine

want

> to tip side-to-side as it " shakes " (I can already feel that starting to

> happen if I prop one foot above the other while using the machine). The

> distance the footrest is located above the machine is critical, and

> increasing it is going to:

>

October 1, 2000

Green

Please check out these two websites. Maybe you won't need to make

modifications at all. Note the garment and fabric shield. Wouldn't covering the

foot shaker with it neutralize the EMF?

=====

Thanks Wong, I appreciate your follow-through on these EMF shielding

possibilities, and I think the magnetic shielding foil sold by the EMF Safety

Superstore http://lessemf.com/ may have some applicability in reducing an

appliance's magnetic field. The only way to know for sure would be to try the

shielding and measure the resulting magnetic field reduction, if any.

Any opinions, anyone, on how effective such foil might be in reducing an AC

appliance's 60HZ magnetic field?

As for the fabrics and garments sold on that website -- the " personal shielding

devices " -- they are clearly intended to

ground ELECTRIC fields, much less pervasive and more easily reduced than

magnetic fields, which are of most concern.

The claims for the Clarus Q-Link devices http://www.clarus.com/, while

wonderful-sounding, seem kind of nebulous and inflated and unverifiable to me.

Does anyone on-list have experience with these devices?

Part of my skepticism regarding them has to do with the possibility that they

could even fulfill their claims yet still not protect one from carcinogenic and

other health-impairing effects of EMF.

=====

Spend a buck to save some bucks.

=====

This approach may have merit, but I wonder whether a simple application of

magnetic shielding foil on the Foot Shaker's case would reduce the machine's

magnetic field below levels of concern.

Although I'm interested in this approach, I feel a surer means will be to

displace the 'Shaker's footrest about 18 inches to the side of the machine. This

can be accomplished with very little expense using mostly scrap materials, the

main items being a horizontal link connecting the machine's actuator with the

displaced footrest, and a bearing for the displaced footrest to slide back and

forth on. The rest could be done with scrap lumber.

The tradeoff, besides the effort to modify the machine, would be some loss of

ease in portability. I believe the whole job could be done in a few hours, once

the materials were on hand.

If I ever get around to doing this, I'll let you know how it turned out.

My thinking on this is that it will be easier and more effective to displace the

feet and legs from the (very localized) magnetic field than it will be to keep

the feet and legs on top of the field and try to reduce it below levels of

concern.

Green

=====

<A HREF= " http://lessemf.com/ " >lessemf.com</A>, <A

HREF= " http://www.clarus.com/ " >Welcome to Clarus Products International - Home

of the QLink - ClearWave - Ally</A>

Wong

October 1, 2000

Jim,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, other matters came up and I had to

set this aside.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my concerns.

Although for the most part I stand by the comments I made in my September 12,

2000 6:26 AM response to your September 11, 2000 5:54 AM, I find little to

disagree with in your Sept 12 11:32 AM posting.

More interspersed below:

=====

Re: Chi machine...Green

Green,

My argument is neither fuzzy, off the mark, nor mine, but Dr. Becker's.

And, until you or any of your sources can match his credibility as well

as his credentials, I will go with his opinion, which is, to paraphrase:

There are fields all around us, and many you cannot escape. So, if you

don't want to move to Idaho & return to cave life (which won't totally

protect you), then you should consider making a risk/benefit assessment

for each field-producing device in your life.

=====

Jim, I recognize what you say about the impossibility, in today's world, of

totally escaping EMF pollution, or, indeed, ANY of the many forms of pollution

which now permeate our environment.

However, a problem with risk-vs-benefit assessment is that

the information it's based on always seems to turn out to be

so hedged -- given by officialdom so grudgingly, like pulling

teeth, in reluctant stages, each of which (as unobtrusively

as possible) admits that previous standards were inadequate to protect public

health. What reason, then, have we to put much faith by present safety

standards, when ALL our prior experience indicates that future standards will

recognize present standards as inadequate?

In truth, government and industry policy decisions have long given public safety

a lower priority than expedience and profitability. In essence, our health is

being compromised by corporations to enhance their bottom line. We are being

killed by our own government in its efforts to " defend " us. Since it considers

us so expendable, might I suggest that WE are not what it's defending?

Clearly, public well-being has been subordinated to profit and power and we all

pay the price of that, whether we choose to or not.

Risk-vs-benefit assessment is fine until risk becomes damage.

Then the cancer, say, which threatens your life assumes its

true proportion beside the " benefit " you accepted, along with

the " risk, " and the bargain you previously accepted no longer seems so good.

In situations where a polluting industry knows that some illness, suffering and

premature death will result from its profitable enterprise, who is to say that

lawful commerce does not become assault and premeditated random murder?

There was a time when less was known about the true harmfulness

of globally-applied pesticides, carcinogenic cosmetic and preservative agents

added to food, or the poisonousness of the very electric power we use -- a time

when ignorance could plausibly be used in defense of the status quo. That time

has long passed.

Now we have government and industry making calculated decisions in which harmful

technologies get the go-ahead if they are profitable enough. Present knowledge

is not being taken into account in public policy decisions which affect us all.

=====

My point was and is that 15-20 minutes on a foot shaker is a relatively

low

=====

Relatively low, yes, but not necessarily safe

=====

exposure, especially compared to the benefit, which, for a person

who doesn't exercise (why else would they use one?) is, IMO, much

greater!

=====

Well, Jim, you may be right, and you have every right to your opinion and the

freedom to act on it -- but I'd sure hate to find out the hard way if you are

mistaken, and I've given my reasons why I feel you may be.

Can we really say, with certainty, that 15 to 30 minutes per day of 5 to 15

milligauss of 60 HZ EMF will NOT damage cells and cause cancer?

Can we say, with certainty, that the oxygenating and other benefits of the chi

machine will necessarily offset its cancer-causing influence, if such exposures

have such influence?

Can we even say, with certainty, that exposures below 2 milligauss of 60 HZ EMF

cannot cause harm?

=====

My foot shaker's EMF drops to 2 Milligauss before my knees,