emissions.
>
>
>
> Basically, these things are a scam.
>
>
>
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
> [mailto:
> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com
> ] *On
> Behalf Of *Bec C
> *Sent:* Friday, 19 February 2016 6:42 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet >
> *Subject:* Re
: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer
Where would I even look for the current scientific data?
Cheers
On Friday, 19 February 2016, Greg Keogh
mailto:gfke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Has any body any information about how well the Patchd radiation reducing thing
works? I can't s
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 at 17:41 Bec C wrote:
> Where would I even look for the current scientific data?
On radiation effects of mobiles or whether the device does what it says?
They're two separate things.
For the former some medical journals and research. For the latter you can
probably test it
Where would I even look for the current scientific data?
Cheers
On Friday, 19 February 2016, Greg Keogh wrote:
> Has any body any information about how well the Patchd radiation reducing
>>> thing works? I can't seem to find much info besides the main site
>>> patchd.com
>>>
>>
> It's an old sc
>
> Has any body any information about how well the Patchd radiation reducing
>> thing works? I can't seem to find much info besides the main site
>> patchd.com
>>
>
It's an old scam that feeds off fear.
*The Federal Government’s safety watchdog, the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Saf
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 at 16:51 Bec C wrote:
> Has any body any information about how well the Patchd radiation reducing
> thing works? I can't seem to find much info besides the main site
> patchd.com
>
It works on the principle of finding unsuspecting people who react strongly
to cancer scares an
