Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer

2016-02-22 Thread Tom P
%7D,'cvml','ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com');>] *On > Behalf Of *Bec C > *Sent:* Friday, 19 February 2016 6:42 PM > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com');>> > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer > >

RE: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer

2016-02-21 Thread Ken Schaefer
To: ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> Subject: Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer Where would I even look for the current scientific data? Cheers On Friday, 19 February 2016, Greg Keogh <gfke...@gmail.com<mailto:gfke...@gmail.com>> wrote: Has any body any information about how well th

Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer

2016-02-19 Thread David Connors
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

Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer

2016-02-18 Thread Bec C
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 >>>

Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer

2016-02-18 Thread Greg Keogh
> > 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

Re: [OT] Patchd radiation reducer

2016-02-18 Thread David Connors
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