'dirty electricity' - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2011, 11:31:12 am
content: i am not aware of the term either or his 'earths natural anti antioxidants electrical nutrition'but this guy is

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2011, 11:46:56 am
content: I could make a much more interesting video of you mate with nothing more than some current and the attached electrodes.

author: ciccio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2011, 11:49:00 am
content: I'll like to know how the probe was made..in any case, I've checked the guy's website and read this:Please Note: Although it is unlikely that you will be hit by lightning, it is recommended to follow standard lightning safety guidelines as directed by the National Weather Service and disconnect your Earthing devices during lightning and thunderstorms.Grounding Equipment plugs are only compatible with U.S. and Canadian outlets. If you are a customer outside of the U.S. or Canada, you may need to use and purchase a Grounding Rod.I think to the danger if somebody will plug the grounding wire in an mis-wired socket or in the wrong hole of the socket: hope this guy is well insured.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2011, 11:54:02 am
content: We would find nothing wrong in this video if he was in his lab and talking about circuits instead of children.OTOH can I have a house with a fireplace too if I put some information out of context and direct it on the gullible masses?

author: ciccio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2011, 12:58:11 pm
content: Quote from: HAL-42b on August 18, 2011, 11:54:02 amIf he was talking of circuits, he was talking to somebody that a minimum knowledge of the matter..he is talking to the general public, to the "gullible masses", and the title of the Youtube flick is chosen to attract a lot of gullibles: It's about Ipad vs Kindel

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2011, 01:20:57 pm
content: So I can have my house with the fireplace then

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2011, 03:00:27 pm
content: I was going to say we had this one on before,but looking back,it appears not--it probably was on QRZ.com.It's been around for a while.Utter horse faeces of course!I remember commenting on the other forum about the high power Electromagnetic wave source in the background--the wood fire!VK6ZGO

author: XynxNet
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2011, 12:06:27 pm
content: That guy will be shocked once he notices the horendoues electromagnetic radiation coming from his fireplace. You can even see and feel it!!

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2011, 12:36:22 am
content: --In the early Eighties American early morning TV was replete with concerned activists droning on and on about how "There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation" and how Three Mile Island killed thousands of head of live stock. Encountering nary a sceptical question from the nodding hosts. Now with the Web, the sky is the limit, Kattie bar the door.--I am pretty sure this guy would qualify for a chair at the University of East Anglia, or maybe he could be on the board of the UN IPCC, explaining how Chinese coal burning is causing Global Warming, while at the same time preventing it from manifesting as increased temperature. At the very worst he would make a great dead Polar Bear wrangler. He might even be the next "Bill Nye the Global Warming Guy"--After having caused the deaths of 50 million rural Africans, by denying them DDT on the pretext that it causes cancer, now the eco-luddites want to see it they can knock off a few more by denying them electricity.--Could someone please post a video of the guy that sell the bicycle wheel with the attached magnets, which can power your entire house. Best RegardsClear Ether

author: the_raptor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2011, 10:12:37 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on August 20, 2011, 12:36:22 amYes, it was a terrible conspiracy by the Interstellar Judish Banking Alliance to kill off blacks. /insert astronomically sized eye rolling emote.Oh never mind that DDT was never actually banned forvector control(killing mosquitoes etc) but only for indiscriminate agricultural uses in some countries. It is far more important to engage in blood libel against political opponents then to actually mount a rational argument.P.S. The house I am temporarily living in has dirty electricity. It wipes out the AM broadcast band for a good 10 meters around the house.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2011, 11:37:12 am
content: Dear Raptor:--I did not say anything about a Jewish conspiracy. Your remarks to me smack indiscriminate race baiting.--I submit for your perusal excerpts from the New York Times article of April 11, 2004. You will find the entire article on the Web athttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/11DDT.html:The move away from DDT in the 60's and 70's led to a resurgence of malaria in various countries -- Sri Lanka, Madagascar, Swaziland, South Africa and Belize, to cite a few; those countries that then returned to DDT saw their epidemics controlled. In Mexico in the 1980's, malaria cases rose and fell with the quantity of DDT sprayed. Donald Roberts, a professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., has argued that when Latin America stopped using DDT in the 1980's, malaria immediately rose, leading to more than a million extra cases a year. The one country that continued to beat malaria was Ecuador, the one country that kept using DDT.William Ruckelshaus, the head of the newly created Environmental Protection Agency, banned DDT in 1972. It remains one of the most controversial decisions the E.P.A. has ever taken. Ruckelshaus was under a storm of pressure to ban DDT. But Judge Edmund Sweeney, who ran the E.P.A.'s hearings on DDT, concluded that DDT was not hazardous to humans and could be used in ways that did not harm wildlife. Ruckelshaus banned it anyway, for all but emergencies.... the central reason that African nations who need DDT do not use it today. Washington is the major donor to W.H.O. and Roll Back Malaria, and most of the rest of the financing for those groups comes from Europe, where DDT is also banned. There is no law that says if America cannot use DDT then neither can Mozambique, but that's how it works. The ban in America and other wealthy countries has, first of all, turned poor nations' agricultural sectors against DDT for economic reasons....Then there are chemical companies. ''I get asked all the time -- are you being paid by chemical companies?'' said Thomas DeGregori, a professor of economics at the University of Houston and an advocate for DDT. The question is amusing, because the corporate interests in this issue are actually on the other side. DDT is no longer on patent, and it is known to be made only in India and China -- and the price has soared since the rich-country ban put manufacturers out of business, making it harder for poor countries to buy....One of the most depressing aspects of talking about malaria is that you get to hear the phrase ''the powerful AIDS lobby,'' a term no one but a malariologist would use. AIDS in the third world is still criminally underfinanced, but at least it gets some money and a lot of attention. Malaria gets AIDS's dregs. AIDS was a sudden plague, very visible in its choice of victims, and it has a vocal constituency in rich countries. Even in Africa, malaria gets nowhere near the attention of AIDS. It has always been around, and it kills not middle-class adults but rural 4-year-olds, who don't have much of a lobby."--You stated:"Oh never mind that DDT was never actually banned for vector control (killing mosquitoes etc) but only for indiscriminate agricultural uses in some countries. It is far more important to engage in blood libel against political opponents then to actually mount a rational argument."--I never said DDT is was banned in all countries. I said Africans were suffering and extra one to to million deaths a year because they were denied the use of it. You will notice that the NY Times article points out that American environmentalists exert pressure on the World Health Organization which then exerts pressure on the African countries not to use DDT. Also please note the article states that DDT is only known to be made in India and China.--I think this article pretty much supports my position. If you need more proof you can either search the Web or you can PM me and I will find it for you and PM you about it. That is unless you would also like to accuse the NY Times of being insane Jew hating fascists as well. Best RegardsClear Ether

author: the_raptor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2011, 05:50:01 pm
content: I never said anything about the Jews, "Judish" is a family name AFAICT. And the Interstellar Judish Banking Alliance remark wasMASSIVE SARCASM, just in case the astronomical eye-rolling emote didn't give it away.As your own evidence points out DDT continued to be used by lots of different countries well into the 80's so it isn't like US and European bans on agricultural use has been killing 1-2 million Africans for the last 40 years so I really doubt your over all death toll. In addition your comment clearly implied that the "neo-luddites" wanted to kill Africans (or at least didn't care if Africans died), which was why I made the comment about the IJBA because that is flat out political blood libel worthy of the best the anti-semites ever came up with.Even if the ban in the US is responsible for an increase in malaria cases in Africa it takes a lot of balls to complain that those furnishing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money are contributing negatively when without that aid money (and whatever conditions imposed on it) the death toll would be several orders of magnitude higher.Especially as those African governments could buy DDT anyway if they really cared. They can afford fighter jets and tanks they can afford DDT for vector control.And this whole argument is ignoring any negative health effects of DDT in humans and animals.P.S. IIRC DDT is still used occasionally in Australia for vector control, or at least was into the 90's.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2011, 09:18:12 pm
content: Dear Raptor:You stated:"Yes, it was a terrible conspiracy by the Interstellar Judish Banking Alliance to kill off blacks. /insert astronomically sized eye rolling emote."-- Now clearly you were trying to associate me in some way with the Jewish Banker Conspiracy Nutjobs. Your quibble that Judish is a family name and you were not referring to Jewish Bankers, is too clever by half. I do not think you are going to be able to walk that statement back, no matter how much you dance the shilly shally. The cat is out of the bag.--You also stated:"As your own evidence points out DDT continued to be used by lots of different countries well into the 80's so it isn't like US and European bans on agricultural use has been killing 1-2 million Africans for the last 40 years so I really doubt your over all death toll. In addition your comment clearly implied that the "neo-luddites" wanted to kill Africans (or at least didn't care if Africans died)"--1) I was not talking about "lots of different countries", I was talking about Africa 2) I said eco-luddites not neo-luddites 3) I did not say the eco-luddites wanted to kill 50 million Africans, I said they did kill 50 million Africans. If they cared they would have changed the policy. Unless you want to argue they were unaware Africans were dying of malaria.--From the NY time article (I already posted this earlier):'... the central reason that African nations who need DDT do not use it today. Washington is the major donor to W.H.O. and Roll Back Malaria, and most of the rest of the financing for those groups comes from Europe, where DDT is also banned. There is no law that says if America cannot use DDT then neither can Mozambique, but that's how it works."--Did you read this. If so, what say you?As to the figure for total African deaths due to Malaria since it was banned by the USA and Europe. Let take a look at the figures given in excerpts from two articles that can easily be found on the Web.Africa's Malaria Death Toll Still "Outrageously High"Afshin Molavifor National Geographic NewsJune 12, 2003Only a small proportion of malaria infections are fatal, but children under five and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable due to their weaker immune systems. Brian Greenwood, a world authority on malaria and director of the Malaria Center at the University of London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, estimates that 1 to 2 percent of cases lead to fatalities.Malaria: A Reemerging Disease in AfricaThomas C. NchindaWorld Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandIn the last decade, the prevalence of malaria has been escalating at an alarming rate, especially in Africa. An estimated 300 to 500 million cases each year cause 1.5 to 2.7 million deaths, more than 90% in children under 5 years of age in Africa (1).--Now taking the figures from both of the articles we can do the math a couple of ways to get the death toll for the last decade.1) 1 to 2% of 300 to 500 million, taking the averages that would be 1.5% of 400 million each year, or 6 million per year, or a total death toll of 60 million for the last decade.2) Lets go the conservative route, 1.5 to 2.7 million deaths each year, or taking the average we get or 2.1 million deaths each year for a death toll of 21 million for the last decade.3) So we have a death toll in the last decade somewhere between 21 an 60 million.--Do you still think I am way off and committing a "blood libel"--You stated:Even if the ban in the US is responsible for an increase in malaria cases in Africa it takes a lot of balls to complain that those furnishing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money are contributing negatively when without that aid money (and whatever conditions imposed on it) the death toll would be several orders of magnitude higher.--What I am saying is that if the WHO and the NGOs had not threatened to withhold those hundreds of millions of dollars. DDT would have been used. WHO and the NGOs should have been insisting on it use. They should have been paying for it. It would have saved them more than it cost by cutting into the 300 to 500 million cases of malaria every year. They know what has been happening for the last 4 decades.You stated:"Especially as those African governments could buy DDT anyway if they really cared. They can afford fighter jets and tanks they can afford DDT for vector control.--Let us assume for the moment arguendo the it is Africa's fault. That still does not change the facts that the WHO and the NGOs could have done as I stated above.--You stated:"And this whole argument is ignoring any negative health effects of DDT in humans and animals."--The below quote is from the NY times article and was in my previous post."Ruckelshaus was under a storm of pressure to ban DDT. But Judge Edmund Sweeney, who ran the E.P.A.'s hearings on DDT, concluded that DDT was not hazardous to humans and could be used in ways that did not harm wildlife. Ruckelshaus banned it anyway, for all but emergencies.--Did you read this?--In any case we are not talking about fogging every agricultural crop on the African continent with DDT multiple times per year. We are talking about using enough DDT to spray the walls of houses and tents where babies and pregnant women sleep at night.--If you feel there are any more points I need to address, please PM me and I will search up what ever you need in the way of documentation, I am sure we have hijacked this thread long enough.--In my next post I promise to lay off the Global Warmers and the Ecologists and address the "small time" hucksters like the guy at the beginning. Best RegardsClear Ether

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2011, 03:52:55 am
content: --Check out this demonstration for the MagniWork"--Does anybody know where this company is located or who publishes their book? I would like to talk to the principles in person.--Does anybody know anyone who has either built the device or purchased the DIY book? Among the "interesting claims":1) It is a true Perpetual Motion machine.2) It will work in every home. (I hate those greater that unity gain devices that only work in some homes, don't you?)3) It can be efficiently operated.4) It will eliminate your power bill by up to 50%.--I think they are missing some of the possible applications of this device. It should be able to power an electric car.Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poodyp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2011, 07:32:00 am
content: If it can lower your bill by 50% why not make two and lower it 100%? Or three and sell the extra energy back? Way to underthink with the free energy.