Should anyone want to know what I think is really going on “behind the scenes”, drop me a line…

david dot addison at hotmail dot com

all of this is very confusing and i guess this is the way their craft their propaganda.

And I don’tthink it is me not explaining this correctly. Explore Exradia and see if you can find a coherent explanation anywhere. I think I make this clear that is a jumble of ontradictions.

The electromagnetics fields we are talking about are spelled EMF and not ELF. And we are not talking about radiations coming from the battery, but about a chip embedded into the battery that works to interfere with the electromagnetic radiations of the mobile phone.

I am not giving credits to Exradia’s technology, but when you write something critical, you should definitely understand what you are talking about, sorry.

http://www.welcomeangels.com/

I don’t want to go into any details here, but I think they are not claiming it’s the battery but the signals emitted by the phone. Personally, I believe there is potential (emphasis on”potential”) danger in mobile phone radiation – we know of chemicals that were certified as harmless and much later people found they got ill; because of unthought of effects or interaction of factors hard to duplicate in a laboratory. Even schientist do only have that much fantasy, in particular when future research money is waits for them. The danger is, IF any harm is done by mobile phone technology, just about everybody living in an industrial country is harmed. Even if it’s just a higher risk of getting a cold, it would be not just epidemic but a real catastrophe.
Now, having said this: The “scientific proof” for Wii-Guard is even worse than the proof for mobiles being harmless. What*s more, the theory behind is crap. What*s even more: They try to hide this crap behind a lot of words and very weak proof. So many years of research, and these few studies mostly on marginal effects is all they can come up with? Now, all the research os about theory. There’s none about the product. If they are so convinced about their technology, why don’t they give one of their products to an independent testing laboratory, maybe government run, and let them check if the product – not just the theory – works?

I know why.

I think it’s a good guess that many of the management have been drafted because they know their financials and business plans but never waisted an hour to really work through the “scientific proof”, put some thinking in it and find out it’s all crap – this would be unpaid work, after all … would they even want to know?