X-GM-THRID: 1202173441387390069 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: b663b179ff84d2b57a032f3228786a68b98206bd Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.72.15 with SMTP id u15cs20075wra; Tue, 2 May 2006 23:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.17.13 with SMTP id u13mr1138935nfi; Tue, 02 May 2006 23:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id v20si986913nfc.2006.05.02.23.51.12; Tue, 02 May 2006 23:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1FbBAM-0001Ch-RN for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 07:48:54 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1FbBAM-0001CY-Ep for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 07:48:54 +0100 Received: from smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.12.142]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FbD1w-00038K-A7 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 09:48:36 +0100 Received: (qmail 64975 invoked from network); 3 May 2006 06:47:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO LAPTOP) (peter.martinez@btinternet.com@81.159.158.21 with login) by smtp800.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 May 2006 06:47:32 -0000 Message-ID: <000d01c66e7d$745913c0$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> From: "Peter Martinez" To: References: <4455EC86.2050807@wp.pl> <44567AF2.7000506@ukonline.co.uk> <011501c66d63$e1d39e90$0300a8c0@LAPTOP> <44567E97.2050205@wp.pl> <1146520170.4456826a52d9b@webmail2.kuleuven.be> <4457E7CE.9020707@wp.pl> Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 06:47:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.289 Subject: Re: LF: EMF sensitivity? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6029 >From G3PLX: Marek: My suggestion about UV was based on your description of the symptoms, and it sounds as if you agree with this, but I think it would be most useful if, before you modify the installation to remove the problem, you take some steps to make a positive verification that there is UV radiation. You have said it's not enough to show on a banknote. If you do not make a POSITIVE test for UV, it will be possible to make a wrong conclusion, and this could be important for the future. Does anyone know of a way to test for UV exposure? As Rik says, it's the total dose that will give the burning, so maybe what is needed is a scientific way to measure UV dose. How do they check UV sunbeds? Maybe there is some way the experts can test that UV suntan beds are safe to use, and you could contact these people and see if they can tell you how to check for sure. One idea that occurs to me (because I have the equipment here to try it myself) is to see if an EPROM is erased near to the possible UV source, and make some tests to see how long it takes to erase it compared to exposure to a known intensity UV lamp. But maybe it takes too long. I know it takes a long time to erase an EPROM with sunlight. In the meantime you can protect yourself from the UV simply by hiding the coil behind an opaque sheet. 73 Peter