Guest guest Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 I've been reading different responses from different people in the group and they make reference to evening and morning wood. Is this something that I should be experiencing? I get very little wood. When I do, it's not very strong. When we find the sweet spot, is this something that I should be experiencing? It would be nice to have wood like I did in my twenties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 noctural and morning erections are due to e2 fluctuations. When you have good T/e2 ratio then wood is very strong that you can hang a coat from it. If you can perform well during intercourse with no issue then I would not be concerned about it, but if you ejaculate too early then this could warrant for further investigation. If this is a case you may want to get with a your GP to check your testosterone/e2 ratio by proper testing through sensitive e2, dhea-s, total testosterone, shbg, bio T to rule these factors out. If you do not have fatigue, depression or other issue then thyroid and adrenals should be in check. > > I've been reading different responses from different people in the group and they make reference to evening and morning wood. Is this something that I should be experiencing? I get very little wood. When I do, it's not very strong. When we find the sweet spot, is this something that I should be experiencing? It would be nice to have wood like I did in my twenties. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 ratio 15-30:1 T:E is health range. With a of e2 of 20-30 with total of 450-700 is optimal providing the shbg, thyroid, adrenals, gh are in check. When one of these are out of balance the body will use more testosterone to replace their function. When gh is low more testosterone is needed to repair the body so if your testosterone is even 350-450 it may not be enough to offset symptoms. When given gh it will leave more testosterone to do its job. Since starting HRT adding in GHRT made my Testosterone work more efficently. By having optimal GH, thyroid, adrneals, e2 level then a person can be at 350-400 and still have optimal T levels. > > > > I've been reading different responses from different people in the group and they make reference to evening and morning wood. Is this something that I should be experiencing? I get very little wood. When I do, it's not very strong. When we find the sweet spot, is this something that I should be experiencing? It would be nice to have wood like I did in my twenties. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 To reiterate what phil is saying is that every one has a biological set point and when other factors are out of balance it can cause a cascade effect. I also preach lab test are only a diagnostic tool to try to help validate symptoms, but its the skill and experience of the practioner that is the most important. > > > > > > I've been reading different responses from different > > people in the group and they make reference to evening and > > morning wood. Is this something that I should be > > experiencing? I get very little wood. When I do, it's not > > very strong. When we find the sweet spot, is this > > something that I should be experiencing? It would be nice > > to have wood like I did in my twenties. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 PUK REPLIES - I have a log cabin at the end of my 80m garden its 3.5mx4m made of 28mm sweedish pine, I find the space better than the house ie no electricity just 12 volt lights and a wood burner. One thought is that the wood probably offers very little protection against rf scources so while the space offers warmth and light you are essentially sitting in the open like a sitting duck. I rekon if I sat almost anywhere for long enough in the open in one small area I would feel familiar ES symptoms. The log cabin has sprung a leak in the roof due to poor quality felt and I was slow to fix it so now I have to remediate black mold patches that set into the wood and as for the wood burner which I made from a gas cinister although a very good effort which served me well for 2 yrs I began to wonder if this was cuasing me additional problems from both the kindling I was using ie, wooden fruit boxes that are likely sprayed over with thiabendozole pesticde and also the menace of carbin minoxide in such a small space - I am now saving to buy a proper sealed wood burner and stainles steel flue. I also have the added menace that when the couple who have the menacing Plasma TV go to bed at 9pm, the man at the end of my garden behind the log cabin starts up his Ham radio ! i REMAIN OPTOMISTIC nevertheless.. puk In a message dated 23/03/2011 10:40:23 GMT Standard Time, cvijovic@... writes: Hi, Marc! Well, regarding wooden shields, I had made some years ago (myself! :-)) a totally wooden house (hut) of some 6 square meters only, walls 2 inches wood, and it did give somewhat different feeling inside but I am not positive on the final conclusion... Than last year I made a bigger hut, of twice thinner wood, and the feeling was similar... I was not very happy with it (keep old stuff and garden tools now there)... But... Maybe it was worth more trials because it does make some difference... What I found the most pronounced was some dizziness after prolonged stay, like lack of mental brightness, but I dare to say that such dizziness is sometimes for me associated with places in wilderness where there is null radiation... Drasko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Drasko, what is not well understood might be the content of water left in the wood, that is able to shield the scalar waves, which are responsible for the harmful effect of EMF. At the moment this is just a thought, that can be proven by measurements. As soon as I get the time, I will do this. But if, as charles says also the measurable waves are to a certain degree shielded through wood, I should know perhaps taking 20 mm ordinary timber wood how much this would be not in db but in percentage, so i can compare. Dietrich , I have just checked briefly that booklet, there is no such thing... You should know that wood has almost no shielding properties which can be accessed solely by objective means, i.e. measured the classic way... Wood doesn't stop EM waves. What we were talking about are possible wood properties in sense that it gives some *subjective* effect, which is still not well understood. Drasko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Hi ,  How are you? I prefer concrete, also. In NJ wood houses are the rage. They are really soft feeling, if the radiation is tolerable. In extreme conditions, the geo-stress can eat you alive. I hear that cedar is purifying. I don't know if they make cedar houses, but I want to make pillows out of cedar chips and see if that will offer any comfort.  I wonder what stone houses like the ones in Arab lands would feel like. In NYC, I do get sick, but everything in Manhattan is brick and fortified with steel, so if it weren't in the big city with all the masts and multi-WIFI units everywhere, I might love it. I don't usually feel the lower floors coming in. I don't feel the waves like I do in wooden houses in geo-stressed areas. In a wooden house, I felt emfs from every direction on that hill, even when the electricity had been temporarily turned off. Geopathic stress can wreak havoc on the environment of a wooden house.  Hope all is well,  Pam From: <@...> Subject: Re: Wood Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 5:29 PM  Previously some people here said that wood could be a good absorber, so maybe an interesting experiment is shielind material + wood inside... If I would build something new from scratch I would use concrete everywhere... I feel better in houses/buildings with a lot of concrete... > > PUK REPLIES - I have a log cabin at the end of my 80m garden its 3.5mx4m > made of 28mm sweedish pine, I find the space better than the house ie no > electricity just 12 volt lights and a wood burner. One thought is that the wood > probably offers very little protection against rf scources so while the > space offers warmth and light you are essentially sitting in the open like a > sitting duck. I rekon if I sat almost anywhere for long enough in the open > in one small area I would feel familiar ES symptoms. The log cabin has > sprung a leak in the roof due to poor quality felt and I was slow to fix it > so now I have to remediate black mold patches that set into the wood and as > for the wood burner which I made from a gas cinister although a very good > effort which served me well for 2 yrs I began to wonder if this was cuasing > me additional problems from both the kindling I was using ie, wooden fruit > boxes that are likely sprayed over with thiabendozole pesticde and also the > menace of carbin minoxide in such a small space - I am now saving to buy a > proper sealed wood burner and stainles steel flue. I also have the added > menace that when the couple who have the menacing Plasma TV go to bed at > 9pm, the man at the end of my garden behind the log cabin starts up his Ham > radio ! i REMAIN OPTOMISTIC nevertheless.. > > puk > > > In a message dated 23/03/2011 10:40:23 GMT Standard Time, > cvijovic@... writes: > > Hi, Marc! > Well, regarding wooden shields, I had made some years ago (myself! :-)) a > totally wooden house (hut) of some 6 square meters only, walls 2 inches > wood, and it did give somewhat different feeling inside but I am not positive > on the final conclusion... Than last year I made a bigger hut, of twice > thinner wood, and the feeling was similar... I was not very happy with it > (keep old stuff and garden tools now there)... > But... Maybe it was worth more trials because it does make some > difference... What I found the most pronounced was some dizziness after prolonged > stay, like lack of mental brightness, but I dare to say that such dizziness is > sometimes for me associated with places in wilderness where there is null > radiation... > > Drasko > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Dr. Gruen, You and I are more or less on same approach, but here there is an issue that thinks *wood can shield measurable waves*... Wood is practically transparent for them. Wood doesn't shield EM waves significantly, even if moist. Conversion from dB to percentage is easy, each 10 dB is 10 times (1.000 %), so 20 dB is 100 times, and 15 dB is about 32 times... Anyway, attenuation should be given in dB per a unit of thickness, so " 15 dB for wood " means nothing without stating how thick wood. But anyway, for mentioned 15 dB gain, even concrete would have to be extremely thick! Whoever stated such thing about wood is wrong, at the link sent I was unable to find the data, he might wish to send us the exact reference, but I think he misunderstood the word hochlochziegel. Drasko > > > Drasko, > > what is not well understood might be the content of water left in the > wood, that is able to shield the scalar waves, which are responsible for the > harmful effect of EMF. At the moment this is just a thought, that can be > proven by measurements. As soon as I get the time, I will do this. But if, as > charles says also the measurable waves are to a certain degree shielded > through wood, I should know perhaps taking 20 mm ordinary timber wood how much > this would be not in db but in percentage, so i can compare. > > Dietrich > > > , > I have just checked briefly that booklet, there is no such thing... You > should know that wood has almost no > shielding properties which can be accessed solely by objective means, i.e. > measured the classic way... Wood doesn't stop EM waves. > What we were talking about are possible wood properties in sense that it > gives some *subjective* effect, which is still not well understood. > > Drasko > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Hello Drasko, on 25-03 I did sent you the correct URL. I did not mention Hochlochziegel. The curves show: Laerche, Fichte-Tanne, Aussenwand mit Schutzplatte, Kiefer, Eiche. and those in different thicknesses. The book contains many other building materials like windowpanes, etc. Greetings, Claessens member Verband Baubiologie www.milieuziektes.nl www.milieuziektes.be www.hetbitje.nl checked by Norton Re: Wood Dr. Gruen, You and I are more or less on same approach, but here there is an issue that thinks *wood can shield measurable waves*... Wood is practically transparent for them. Wood doesn't shield EM waves significantly, even if moist. Conversion from dB to percentage is easy, each 10 dB is 10 times (1.000 %), so 20 dB is 100 times, and 15 dB is about 32 times... Anyway, attenuation should be given in dB per a unit of thickness, so " 15 dB for wood " means nothing without stating how thick wood. But anyway, for mentioned 15 dB gain, even concrete would have to be extremely thick! Whoever stated such thing about wood is wrong, at the link sent I was unable to find the data, he might wish to send us the exact reference, but I think he misunderstood the word hochlochziegel. Drasko > > > Drasko, > > what is not well understood might be the content of water left in the > wood, that is able to shield the scalar waves, which are responsible for the > harmful effect of EMF. At the moment this is just a thought, that can be > proven by measurements. As soon as I get the time, I will do this. But if, as > charles says also the measurable waves are to a certain degree shielded > through wood, I should know perhaps taking 20 mm ordinary timber wood how much > this would be not in db but in percentage, so i can compare. > > Dietrich > > > , > I have just checked briefly that booklet, there is no such thing... You > should know that wood has almost no > shielding properties which can be accessed solely by objective means, i.e. > measured the classic way... Wood doesn't stop EM waves. > What we were talking about are possible wood properties in sense that it > gives some *subjective* effect, which is still not well understood. > > Drasko > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 The problem here as I see it is that some people get too full of their technical words and ideas and lose track of common sense. You can read all the books and learn all the technical facts but you make the big mistake of assuming that science knows everything and has all the facts. It just isn't so. I live in a metal house and I can not receive radio signals inside that house unless I take an antenna wire and put it close to the walls. Then I can receive weak signals on some stations. Plain old ordinary common sense will tell you that there is some reflection inwards from those metal walls. Yet your going to contradict persons such as myself who simply use common sense that makes much more sense than your pseudo logic. You're just fooling yourself. There are observations that I also make with wood inside my home and here you are trying to contradict that as well. You can throw around technical terms and big words and make yourself appear to be an expert but your not conning me. > > > > > > Drasko, > > > > what is not well understood might be the content of water left in the > > wood, that is able to shield the scalar waves, which are responsible for the > > harmful effect of EMF. At the moment this is just a thought, that can be > > proven by measurements. As soon as I get the time, I will do this. But if, as > > charles says also the measurable waves are to a certain degree shielded > > through wood, I should know perhaps taking 20 mm ordinary timber wood how much > > this would be not in db but in percentage, so i can compare. > > > > Dietrich > > > > > > , > > I have just checked briefly that booklet, there is no such thing... You > > should know that wood has almost no > > shielding properties which can be accessed solely by objective means, i.e. > > measured the classic way... Wood doesn't stop EM waves. > > What we were talking about are possible wood properties in sense that it > > gives some *subjective* effect, which is still not well understood. > > > > Drasko > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 What I hear you saying is that if you can't find something in a booklet somewhere to back up something your saying then it can't be true. This is nonsense. You're making two incorrect assumptions here. First you're assuming that if you read it in a book then it is true. Second, you're assuming that science has all the data and information already and that everything is known and is in a book. You're claiming that people who can't give you a reference from a book are being subjective. This is just unclear thinking. If I put wood on my ceiling and I notice that an atomic clock that gets a signal from somewhere in Colorado stops working correctly. And I know that it is the only thing different in that room. Then I am being very objective and making an objective, not subjective, observation about wood as a shielding material. Do I know how wood blocked that signal? Absolutely not. If you can't find an explanation for it in one of your books that doesn't make it subjective. > > > > > > > > PUK REPLIES - I have a log cabin at the end of my 80m garden its 3.5mx4m > > > > made of 28mm sweedish pine, I find the space better than the house ie no > > > > electricity just 12 volt lights and a wood burner. One thought is that the wood > > > > probably offers very little protection against rf scources so while the > > > > space offers warmth and light you are essentially sitting in the open like a > > > > sitting duck. I rekon if I sat almost anywhere for long enough in the open > > > > in one small area I would feel familiar ES symptoms. The log cabin has > > > > sprung a leak in the roof due to poor quality felt and I was slow to fix it > > > > so now I have to remediate black mold patches that set into the wood and as > > > > for the wood burner which I made from a gas cinister although a very good > > > > effort which served me well for 2 yrs I began to wonder if this was cuasing > > > > me additional problems from both the kindling I was using ie, wooden fruit > > > > boxes that are likely sprayed over with thiabendozole pesticde and also the > > > > menace of carbin minoxide in such a small space - I am now saving to buy a > > > > proper sealed wood burner and stainles steel flue. I also have the added > > > > menace that when the couple who have the menacing Plasma TV go to bed at > > > > 9pm, the man at the end of my garden behind the log cabin starts up his Ham > > > > radio ! i REMAIN OPTOMISTIC nevertheless.. > > > > > > > > puk > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 23/03/2011 10:40:23 GMT Standard Time, > > > > cvijovic@ writes: > > > > > > > > Hi, Marc! > > > > Well, regarding wooden shields, I had made some years ago (myself! :-)) a > > > > totally wooden house (hut) of some 6 square meters only, walls 2 inches > > > > wood, and it did give somewhat different feeling inside but I am not positive > > > > on the final conclusion... Than last year I made a bigger hut, of twice > > > > thinner wood, and the feeling was similar... I was not very happy with it > > > > (keep old stuff and garden tools now there)... > > > > But... Maybe it was worth more trials because it does make some > > > > difference... What I found the most pronounced was some dizziness after prolonged > > > > stay, like lack of mental brightness, but I dare to say that such dizziness is > > > > sometimes for me associated with places in wilderness where there is null > > > > radiation... > > > > > > > > Drasko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Hello, ! I like that you are persistent and that you back up your statements! At the URL you sent (http://www.drmoldan.de/html/publikationen1.htm ) there are other links but at the very page there is nothing like you say... But I found something on the issue at http://www.izmf.de/download/archiv/Bayerisches_Landesamt.pdf Indeed - I have to apologize for being so assured that any wood has insignificant shielding properties, but still your 15 dB (at 900 MHz)stands for 54 cm (!!) thick pine, what is practically illusionary... They explain it by content of resins, what is acceptable. Anyway, solid pine even in 16 cm thickness (5 dB according to chart) is still extravagance for practical purposes, and 2 inches (5 cm) wood (pine!), what is still rather thick, is therefore only some 1.5 dB - what is negligible in practical measurements. Hope now we have agreement on that? Drasko > > > > > > Drasko, > > > > what is not well understood might be the content of water left in the > > wood, that is able to shield the scalar waves, which are responsible for the > > harmful effect of EMF. At the moment this is just a thought, that can be > > proven by measurements. As soon as I get the time, I will do this. But if, as > > charles says also the measurable waves are to a certain degree shielded > > through wood, I should know perhaps taking 20 mm ordinary timber wood how much > > this would be not in db but in percentage, so i can compare. > > > > Dietrich > > > > > > , > > I have just checked briefly that booklet, there is no such thing... You > > should know that wood has almost no > > shielding properties which can be accessed solely by objective means, i.e. > > measured the classic way... Wood doesn't stop EM waves. > > What we were talking about are possible wood properties in sense that it > > gives some *subjective* effect, which is still not well understood. > > > > Drasko > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Hello Drasko, sure I agree with you. In your pointed dokument, the wood is stated on page 21. Be also aware that 15 dB is not much. Chicken wire does that too. One needs at least 30 dB, where paint may give 40-50 dB, and there are tssues who would give 50 dB and other materials even 80 and 100 dB. Of course they have a price tag. But look at the HWG80 from Yshield. That does 80 dB and costs ? 12 / m². Greetings, Claessens member Verband Baubiologie www.milieuziektes.nl www.milieuziektes.be www.hetbitje.nl checked by Norton Re: Wood Hello, ! I like that you are persistent and that you back up your statements! At the URL you sent (http://www.drmoldan.de/html/publikationen1.htm ) there are other links but at the very page there is nothing like you say... But I found something on the issue at http://www.izmf.de/download/archiv/Bayerisches_Landesamt.pdf Indeed - I have to apologize for being so assured that any wood has insignificant shielding properties, but still your 15 dB (at 900 MHz)stands for 54 cm (!!) thick pine, what is practically illusionary... They explain it by content of resins, what is acceptable. Anyway, solid pine even in 16 cm thickness (5 dB according to chart) is still extravagance for practical purposes, and 2 inches (5 cm) wood (pine!), what is still rather thick, is therefore only some 1.5 dB - what is negligible in practical measurements. Hope now we have agreement on that? Drasko > > > > > > Drasko, > > > > what is not well understood might be the content of water left in the > > wood, that is able to shield the scalar waves, which are responsible for the > > harmful effect of EMF. At the moment this is just a thought, that can be > > proven by measurements. As soon as I get the time, I will do this. But if, as > > charles says also the measurable waves are to a certain degree shielded > > through wood, I should know perhaps taking 20 mm ordinary timber wood how much > > this would be not in db but in percentage, so i can compare. > > > > Dietrich > > > > > > , > > I have just checked briefly that booklet, there is no such thing... You > > should know that wood has almost no > > shielding properties which can be accessed solely by objective means, i.e. > > measured the classic way... Wood doesn't stop EM waves. > > What we were talking about are possible wood properties in sense that it > > gives some *subjective* effect, which is still not well understood. > > > > Drasko > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Hello, Â I totally agree with Drasko although, I am curious about the measurements. Â Pamela C From: Gruendg@... <Gruendg@...> Subject: Fwd:Wood Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 8:23 PM Â Drasko, what is not well understood might be the content of water left in the wood, that is able to shield the scalar waves, which are responsible for the harmful effect of EMF. At the moment this is just a thought, that can be proven by measurements. As soon as I get the time, I will do this. But if, as charles says also the measurable waves are to a certain degree shielded through wood, I should know perhaps taking 20 mm ordinary timber wood how much this would be not in db but in percentage, so i can compare. Dietrich , I have just checked briefly that booklet, there is no such thing... You should know that wood has almost no shielding properties which can be accessed solely by objective means, i.e. measured the classic way... Wood doesn't stop EM waves. What we were talking about are possible wood properties in sense that it gives some *subjective* effect, which is still not well understood. Drasko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 I agree with fantasticsam131, science will continue to evlolve and change. Here there are many gray areas. If the world is so science based then why can't they seem to figure out that the more of these radiations are poured into our natural environment, the more effects will accumulate over time. The fact that the scientific community can't seem to agree on the obvious is a sure sign that science is far from perfect or accurate for that matter.  Let's see... is it string or particle theory? Are there greenhouse gases to contribute to a global warming, or not. I'm sure many Essers like myself felt first and researched the effects later. Most of my research findings have supported my initial insights. There is obviously still much we need to understand about human bodies and proper living environments.  Pamela C From: fantasticsam131 <aliassmithandjones@...> Subject: Re: Wood Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 1:57 PM  What I hear you saying is that if you can't find something in a booklet somewhere to back up something your saying then it can't be true. This is nonsense. You're making two incorrect assumptions here. First you're assuming that if you read it in a book then it is true. Second, you're assuming that science has all the data and information already and that everything is known and is in a book. You're claiming that people who can't give you a reference from a book are being subjective. This is just unclear thinking. If I put wood on my ceiling and I notice that an atomic clock that gets a signal from somewhere in Colorado stops working correctly. And I know that it is the only thing different in that room. Then I am being very objective and making an objective, not subjective, observation about wood as a shielding material. Do I know how wood blocked that signal? Absolutely not. If you can't find an explanation for it in one of your books that doesn't make it subjective. > > > > > > > > PUK REPLIES - I have a log cabin at the end of my 80m garden its 3.5mx4m > > > > made of 28mm sweedish pine, I find the space better than the house ie no > > > > electricity just 12 volt lights and a wood burner. One thought is that the wood > > > > probably offers very little protection against rf scources so while the > > > > space offers warmth and light you are essentially sitting in the open like a > > > > sitting duck. I rekon if I sat almost anywhere for long enough in the open > > > > in one small area I would feel familiar ES symptoms. The log cabin has > > > > sprung a leak in the roof due to poor quality felt and I was slow to fix it > > > > so now I have to remediate black mold patches that set into the wood and as > > > > for the wood burner which I made from a gas cinister although a very good > > > > effort which served me well for 2 yrs I began to wonder if this was cuasing > > > > me additional problems from both the kindling I was using ie, wooden fruit > > > > boxes that are likely sprayed over with thiabendozole pesticde and also the > > > > menace of carbin minoxide in such a small space - I am now saving to buy a > > > > proper sealed wood burner and stainles steel flue. I also have the added > > > > menace that when the couple who have the menacing Plasma TV go to bed at > > > > 9pm, the man at the end of my garden behind the log cabin starts up his Ham > > > > radio ! i REMAIN OPTOMISTIC nevertheless.. > > > > > > > > puk > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 23/03/2011 10:40:23 GMT Standard Time, > > > > cvijovic@ writes: > > > > > > > > Hi, Marc! > > > > Well, regarding wooden shields, I had made some years ago (myself! :-)) a > > > > totally wooden house (hut) of some 6 square meters only, walls 2 inches > > > > wood, and it did give somewhat different feeling inside but I am not positive > > > > on the final conclusion... Than last year I made a bigger hut, of twice > > > > thinner wood, and the feeling was similar... I was not very happy with it > > > > (keep old stuff and garden tools now there)... > > > > But... Maybe it was worth more trials because it does make some > > > > difference... What I found the most pronounced was some dizziness after prolonged > > > > stay, like lack of mental brightness, but I dare to say that such dizziness is > > > > sometimes for me associated with places in wilderness where there is null > > > > radiation... > > > > > > > > Drasko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.