Out of the blue I received an email infroming me that Wellness consultancy and online health boutique Conscious Spaces is marking the Black Friday sale season with 12% off its hugely popular Qi tech EMF protection devices. Shop Black EMFriday at consciousspaces.com/collections/black-emfriday…
I must be a sucker for such stuff, so I had to have a look.
Most impressive!
The ‘Qi-Max Cell™ 5G / WIFI / EMF Protection For Home & Business’ for instance is for sale at £4,399.00 Sale Price (normally it costs £600 more!!!).
Naturally, I was fascinated and had to know more. Luckily, the email told me all I needed to know:
What are EMFs?
EMFs, or electromagnetic fields, are invisible fields of energy, or radiation waves. There are many different types of electromagnetic fields in the world around us. They come from both natural sources (like sunlight) and man-made sources (like mobile phones). Over the last century, exposure to man-made EMFs has been steadily increasing in line with the growing demand for electricity and the more recent explosion of wireless technology, including smart phones, laptops and tablets.
Where’s the harm?
Exposure to EMFs of the kind emitted by mobile technologies has been found to be harmful to health by a growing number independent, non-industry funded scientists and doctors. With thousands of papers, the extent of scientific research into the health impacts of EMF radiation exposure is too vast to list, but a cohesive body of evidence exists surrounding the damage caused to DNA, cells, organ systems, fertility, brain function, liver and memory.
How do Qi tech devices work?
WaveGuard’s Qi technology provides a sanctuary from EMFs by creating a protective shield of negatively charged electrons. These devices come in a variety of sizes to provide different size torus fields of protection, from the Qi-Me, for personal protection on the go, through to the Qi-Max, providing a protective field with a 50m radius.
The Qi-Me device uses the same technology as the larger Qi-Shield device which has been scientifically proven to provide EMF Protection tested using a double-blind study at the BION Institute. Priced at £399 (£350 during Black Friday), it provides a 1m radius (2m diameter) of EMF protection and is available in Walnut, Maple, Olive and Yew.
The Qi-Shield provides an EMF protection field of 2.5m radius (5m diameter). Perfect for your office, bedroom, vehicle or air travel, it is priced at £899 (£790 during Black Friday) and is available in walnut.
The Qi-Home provides the relief of being protected from harmful and damaging EMFs while at home, with an EMF protection field of 7.5m radius (15m diameter). It is priced at £2750 (£2,420 during Black Friday) it is available in Swiss pine, oak and beech.
The Qi-Max Cell is the largest and most powerful EMF protection device, creating an EMF protection field of 50m radius (100m diameter). Available in Swiss pine, it is priced at £4999 (£4,399 during Black Friday).
Tara Williams, founder of Conscious Spaces, says: ‘The calming effect I felt when I first held a Qi-Shield in a high EMF environment was a revelation. My heart rate is usually up in those sorts of settings, but this had an immediate positive effect. I now carry this or the Qi-Me with me wherever I go and have noticed a real improvement in my EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms.’
________________________________________
As I said, I am most impressed by the ‘Qi-Max Cell’ (it creates an EMF protection field of 50m radius (100m diameter) in width and 35m radius (70m diameter) in height, protecting your family, workplace and business against mobile phone radiation, WiFi, electrical frequencies, electro-magnetic frequencies) and, of course by the prospect of saving £600!
But seriously! Would it not be illuminating to get such a device and take it apart to see what technology it actually contains? Or does one of my readers already know?
41 Responses to Qi technology: “scientifically proven to provide EMF Protection”
Leave a Reply to Neil Shirtcliffe Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Shields up! (Sorry, I’m an old Trekker at heart).
If someone would donate one, I am sure electrical engineerBig Clive who posts on YouTube as bigclivedotcom would do a superb job of analysing the makeup of this device. Have a look at his “5G Death Beams” explanation at https://youtu.be/Du8yQeQdMBk OR SEE A ‘TEARDOWN’ AT https://youtu.be/8hvxjDa1OQ8
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X
And that that load of inconsequential 2+2=flowerpot nonsense is supposed to impress us?
I dug up the pre-print of the full article, and it is almost humorous to see how these people mess up:
– They claim that almost all laboratory experiments come up negative because they do not reflect real-life exposure scenarios, in particular neglecting ‘synergistic effects’ with (unnamed) ‘environmental toxins’ and ‘other toxic radiation’ (I have no idea what is meant by the latter – and I am what you might call an expert on the subject)(*).
– Yet ALL their claims are based on (usually one-off) laboratory experiments by others, most of which find only very weak effects, NOT on any epidemiological data at all. (This is of course not a surprise, as there is no epidemiological data supporting widespread and/or serious adverse health effects.) And a lot of that other research has already been debunked.
So this ‘paper’ indeed looks like a house of cards – with most cards at the bottom missing, at that. And the scary logo on the front page also strongly suggests that we’re dealing with a bunch of panic-mongering cranks.
*: Sure, if you expose test subjects to real toxic substances + other real-life stressors + ‘radiation’, you will find all sorts of negative health effects. But I am quite confident that you will find identical effects if the ‘radiation’ is left out of the equation.
“as there is no epidemiological data supporting widespread and/or serious adverse health effects.) And a lot of that other research has already been debunked” ???
You must be living in cloud cuckoo land!
https://youtu.be/Du8yQeQdMBk
I refer again to the excellent explanation of Big Clive, at https://youtu.be/Du8yQeQdMBk
I refer readers again to the excellent explanation by bigclivedotcom on YouTube. Search there for “5G death beams are rubbish for killing your foes”.
Who else affectionately remembers the old Ladybird books from the 1960s? (The artwork now so wonderfully re-used, under license, for a new, excellent parody series of books).
I had The Ladybird Book of Magnets, Bulbs and Batteries. More science in that than in much of today’s peddled twaddle.
This is, of course, total bollocks.
– There is no peer-reviewed literature that consistently demonstrates harmful effects of radio-frequent electromagnetic fields.
– It is absolutely impossible to create any sort of intangible ‘shielding’ emanating from whatever device; there is only one way to shield electromagnetic fields: a closed metal cage.
– That these products are 100% fraudulent is easily demonstrated: if they were to function as claimed and create an EMF shield 100 meters in diameter, cell phone reception would be blocked within that sphere. There exists no technology capable of such a feat (and I guess those thousands of people nearby who would permanently lose their cell phone reception wouldn’t be too happy either …).
Not really. From the looks of it, these ‘devices’ are simply a copper cylinder with a wooden disc on either end. They may or may not contain some ‘magical parts’ inside, e.g. more copper wire, bits of
rockcrystal, or just a lump of plain concrete to give the whole thing a bit of weight.The ludicrous pricing serves two goals: a) make certain that they only get the most gullible people as customers, as these people are easiest to separate from their money, and b) prevent somewhat smarter people like you and me from buying one, and exposing it as nonsense.
… and by using the term ‘Qi’, the manufacturer makes sure they only get the stupid customers who are too dim to look behind the swindle.
I am surprised Gweneth Paltrow has not yet thought of it.
Apart from the esoteric nonsensical meaning, Qi is an actual industry standard for wireless inductive charging for cell phones and other mobile devices.
This is another example of what I call ‘science by association’: adopting a legitimate term from science and technology to give a pseudoscientific piece of rubbish a veneer of credibility.
This false association may also be the reason for the dimensions they chose of one of their products, reinforcing the association with actual charging devices: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0247/3859/4861/products/Qi-Tech-Qi-Max-1_800x800.jpg
Given that “qi” originates in TCM (where it is of course absolute drivel) on this occasion it’s actually the other way around. File under: #MarketingGeniuses #ShouldveKnownBetter.
Wrong on both accounts.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X
The WHO classed it as class 2 carcinogen 15 years ago and a slew of studies showing toxicity have come since. It’s well overdue for review. Unless you’ve looked at science of toroidal field you know nothing that qualifies comment.
BMJ published material https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/stop-global-roll-out-of-5g-networks-until-safety-is-confirmed-urges-expert/
https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=7hQKFPQL6gI
http://www.oscillatorium.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/brainemf100618.pdf
https://emfscientist.org/
https://lenasfabulousfrequencies.com/
So cellphones won’t work in that shielded area?
only cellphones that have Qi!
It is pitch black and really cold too.
So let me get this right – it won’t be possible to receive radio or satellite TV in the home when one of these devices is either on one’s person, or working in the home?
And in fact it won’t be possible to SEE, since EM between 400-700nm will be blocked too?
WHen I was a young boy I loved the Professor Brainstawm books, about a scientist whose inventions had unintended consequences. One of his inventions, as I recall, was the ELectric Dark Bulb which when switched on, plunged a room into darkness.
I perceive that this is now a reality……
You’re not that far off the mark – effectively, the pedlars of this nonsense contribute to plunging society into intellectual darkness by poisoning real science with their pseudoscientific rubbish and outright lies.
I’m rather worried that this is a serious problem, in particular because there is so much of this nonsense out there, and because of the well-known mechanism of ‘truth by familiarity’: people will start believing things if they come across it more often.
Ah, you wax metaphorical and make a Stygian travese from the literal to the tenebrous, crepuscular, sepulchral realms of ignorance……
“Professor Brainstawm”
Woot. British nerds are the best nerds. Also everything Heath Robinson (who illustrated the Branestawm books too).
In a fit of nostalgia, and the realisation that I can no longer live without at least one, I have ordered a Professor Brainstawn book from a well-known online retailer.
I had not realised the Heath Robinson illustrated the books.
As a child I could never understand why Professor Branestawn needed five pairs of spectacles. However, I now have five pairs of spectacles myself which I use for different purposes (I once some made to wear while I was implanting prostates with radioactive iodine seeds – bifocals with the distances set to the patient’s perineum and to the ultrasound monitor). I don’t have anything quite so esoteric now, although it took some discussion with my optician before I had a pair perfect for playing the organ. Even so, I still don’t know whay the Professor had a pair with little lids.
Branestawm was a childhood hero of mine.
I always felt that genius autodidact watchmaker George Daniels rather embodied his principles. And he had some rather special pairs of glasses.
I love the idea of bifocals set for perineum and ultrasound monitor – that’s quite…. specialised…. for a pair of bifocals in an ordinary frame!
For the organ, do you need two slightly different reading distances, for sheet music and manuals, or do you need distance too, to look in a mirror at audience/congregation?
Lenny, the analogy with George Daniels is interesting. There was an excellent documentary about him years ago, I recall. Watch and clock repair used to be a hobby of mine, in a small and not very skilled way. I loved the fact that Daniels wanted his timepieces to be worn, and used, not shut way in a bank vault as an investment.
I bought a Brainstawn book, and very much enjoyed re-reading. I wonder if today he would be diagnosed as having Aspergers, or being at least somewhere on the Autism spectrum…..
David,
Church organs usually have some sort of arrangement (usually a mirror) so that the organist can see whoever is conducting the choir, and possibly also to keep an eye on where the service has got to. However, I play for my own pleasure and I have a digital simulation of a pipe organ at home. This is based around Hauptwerk software, which I have running on a fairly powerful PC (8-core i9, 128GB RAM) and control with a MIDI console with three 56-note manuals and a 30-note pedalboard. The system works by playing samples of real organs (warts and all, not idealised) so I can play Salisbury Cathedral and St. Mary-le-Bow, as well as Notre Dame de Metz, Caen and St. Ouen, Rouen (for French organs), St Bavokerk Haarlem, St. Martinikerk Groningen, St Petrikirche Freiberg and many other historic instruments dating from the time of Bach. I can compare North German organs such as those of Arp Schnitger and Gottfried Silbermann with Thuringian instruments of the type that Bach would have been more familiar with (the tonal conception was somewhat different), as well as different tuning systems (Bach transcribed some of his organ works into different keys, possibly depending on whether he expected the instrument to be tuned to a meantone temperament or one of the well temperaments that were starting to be used at that time). I have six stereo channels for surround and to reduce intermodulation distortion, as well as a large subwoofer that goes down to about 18 Hz. For added realism the room isn’t usually heated in the winter.
My music desk sits just above the third manual, and I also have a touchscreen monitor on an articulated arm that I can bring down over it to read scanned scores. I don’t generally look at my hands when I am playing (other than glimpses, e.g. to change stops) so I use single-focus glasses to give me the widest and sharpest view of the music (I also prefer single-focus for driving rather than progressive focus).
By the way, with your expertise as a piano technician and your background in physics (have I understood this correctly?) do you know anything about hearing aids for listening to music?
Hah, I am afraid I have conveyed a false impression! I don’t have a background in physics, except for high school qualifications and a bit of “lay” reading! I used to teach basic photography in a large college, and there were bits and pieces about light and lenses and colour, and I wrote a Unit on colour. Used to enjoy setting up a Red a Green and Blue projector in the darkroom, and proving that green and red wavelengths made yellow. I got some good colour filters to make slides from for use in the projectors. And Some good Cyan Magenta and Yello filters for use on a lightbox to do ‘subtractive’ colours.
Nowadays, semi-retired, I teach English in secondary schools, which is turning me into a horrible shouting person. And indeed, I tune pianos, which you can’t make a living at, here. I was once going to add a page to my website, to discuss hearing, but it’s too complex for me! I understand the response of the ear to sound pressure as being logarithmic, but not logarithmic to base ten, and that different frequencies may have different logarithmic bases, in the auditory response. I have some high frequency loss normal for my age, and don’t hear beyond 8KHz at normal levels.
I love the conceptual side of Physics, but I don’t have a mathematical brain, so that side of it lets me down. I keep re-starting Feynman’s “The Strange Theory of Light and Matter” but getting stuck when I come to the arrows on p27. And by the way, I think the worst popular science book ever, is Cox and Foreshaw’s “The Quantum Universe: Everything that Can Happen Does Happen”. Penguin marketed it at a popular science ‘layman’s’ readership, but it’s highly mathematical, and where it isn’t, there are other books with better explanations. I don’t believe for a minute that the people who gave it four stars in Amazon reviews, understood a word of it, or would have bought it if it only had Foreshow’s name on it and not Brian Cox’s. End of rant.
DavidB,
I don’t think you have given a false impression – my impression of you is of somebody with rather eclectic interests, overlapping somewhat with mine, and who is able to make interesting and relevant contributions to the discussions in this blog despite not having a medical background.
I haven’t read Cox and Foreshaw’s “The Quantum Universe…”, though I did read their book about relativity “Why does E=MC2 and why should it matter” which I found to be the only explanation of general relativity that I felt I came close to understanding – Einstein himself wrote a very good account of special relativity for the layman, but special relativity, even with its strange predictions about time etc., is much easier than general relativity, which is essentially an explanation of gravity. I enjoyed it and perhaps I will re-read it some time.
I have read Richard Feynman’s books written for the non-specialist reader, and found them very entertaining and informative. Also “Six Easy Pieces”, which covers a large chunk of the A-level physics syllabus but explained in an intuitive way which bears very little resemblance to how I was taught it. I started “Six not-so-easy pieces” but found it rather hard work and so far I haven’t got past the first section. The problem with both quantum mechanics and relativity is that understanding them properly requires a lot of maths, and although I think my brain would cope, I am not as quick as I was forty years ago and it would be a huge effort. He is one of three people that I have huge respect for, the others being the Queen and David Attenborough.
I covered auditory physiology during my medical degree at Cambridge, and it happened to be the area of specialist research of one of my tutors, though this was nearly forty years ago and I haven’t kept up with the research since then. I still find it incredible that the brain can differentiate the arrival time of sounds to each ear when they differ by 1 to 5 milliseconds and uses this for directional perception (longer than 5ms and they are heard as different sounds), despite the information passing through several sets of neurones which encode the signal as a series of spikes, the frequency of which represents the strength, not the frequency, of the signal and isn’t quite regular, and the communication between individual neurones is chemical, not electrical. It is easy to demonstrate this by setting up a system to generate clicks through headphones, with a variable delay between the two ears (I expect someone has written a smartphone app for this).
Most of our sensory perceptions are logarithmic, meaning that each time the strength of the stimulus is multiplied by a certain factor, we perceive it as though a fixed amount has been added. This is the same as saying that the perceived loudness, brightness, strength of touch or whatever is proportional to the logarithm of the strength of the stimulus, but this works the same way whether you use 10 or e or any other number as the base of your logarithms (just as you can measure height in cm or inches). The decibel scale is chosen such that an increase in the power of a sound wave by a factor of 10 is represented by adding 10 dB, but that is a matter of convention.
I learnt quite a bit about colour perception as an undergraduate, most of which doesn’t appear to be common knowledge even now, such as the absence of blue-sensitive cones in the macula and their paucity elswhere on the retina so that everyone is blue-yellow colour-blind in the centre of their vision (this requires very small targets to demonstrate as the brain fills in the centre with whatever colour surrounds it – so from a distance my wife’s eyes, which are greenish-grey, appear to be the same colour as her clothing), and blue text on a black background, or yellow text on a white background, is hard to read. Also the huge overlap in spectral sensitivity between the red and green cones, and the strange results of Edwin Land’s experiments which showed that you can perceive a wide range of colours in a scene lit with only two monochromatic lights (he was the inventor of the Polaroid camera). My main hobby is photography so I spend a lot of time thinking about colour both technically and how it affects our reaction to a picture.
I have recently started using hearing aids, and the ones I was issued with by the NHS do a lot of complex signal processing to maximise the intelligibility of speech (and would have cost £3,000 or so if I had had to buy them privately). However, they seem to have a system for preventing feedback which (on the basis of my experiments) involves a pitch-shift of about 1% if they detect a continuous signal at about 1 KHz. This mixes with the direct sound in my ear canals and generates beats, which makes pianos sound untuned, and organs sound as though there is a problem with the regulation of the wind supply. There is a setting for music, but it doesn’t disable this behaviour. It occurred to me that this might be something you had come across.
Sorry, I seem to have strayed off-topic, though arguably anything to do with light and vision by definition concerns electromagnetic radiation, and hearing aids certainly make use of electromagnetic fields when they connect to induction loops in theatres etc. And it is certainly not unusual to hear people talking about Qi in the same sentence as relativity or quantum theory…
Anyone fancy a laugh? Have a look at their “study” which “proves” the effectiveness of the device.
https://consciousspaces.com/blogs/product-studies/bion-institute-qi-shield-device-provides-emf-protection
the best is, I think, that this ‘study’ was never published in a journal; there are lots of SCAM journals that publish almost any rubbish – but not this rubbish.
Well Doctor, they may not be sophisticated enough to publish.
yes, thanks – good joke!
Lenny,
Can I warn people against clicking on your link? My browser identified that the page concerned has a fingerprinter to collect uniquely identifiable information from your computer and uses it to track anybody visiting. I know Google do this sort of thing all the time, but nevertheless I find it a bit sinister.
[insert Captain Renault GIF here]
Well, that would be a great idea – kill off all wireless signals so no TV, radio, mobile phones and wireless networks! I am assuming there that the device might work. I doubt this thing is much more than am air purifier!
I have asked the company where the study was published, and what marketing licence they have. No reply yet. Then it’s off to Trading Standards. Oh to hell with it, I’ll do it now, it’s so obviously fake.
And – wowser, hold the front page – they have a prominent monthly full-page advert in What Doctors Don’t Tell You (page 4 in the current issue – I’ve checked)
Defrauding the gullible. Classic grifters. And WDDTY are happy to take their coin. It’s how the money goes around.
Never underestimate a woo-woo peddler’s fondness for the cold hard allopathic cash.
I defy RG, Dendra, Bob, et al to make their next payment for homeochirocrystalpathic services rendered using Complementary and Alternative Currency (kitten smiles, sunbeams, a waft of air that once passed over a penny, etc). And do let us know how many steps to the door you managed to make before they flattened you to the floor.
This Qi technology is complete bullshit has.
I note that this piece of crap technology works by providing a shield of negatively charged electrons.
Well my version of the Qi max uses my new quantum dendra G string technology. This provides a shield of positive electrons to protect against EMFs. This technology has been pier reviewed by the fortune telling bloke in the caravan on my local pier. My device sends all EMF waves packing into Hilbert hyperspace.
I offer you a 99% discount @ £4398.99.
So you save money as well.
I first read Q and not Qi. But I don’t think Q would stoop to such cheap games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)
Live long and prosper!
But wait, there’s a registered clinical trial!
“Study Aims:
“To evaluate the changes in the semen parameters from the use of Qi-Shield device in sham (control) and user groups To determine the molecular changes pertaining to sperm proteins from the use of Qi-Shield device in sham (control) and user groups”
Forty subjects in two arms, so I guess they must be expecting very large effect differences between the active and placebo devices.
“Estimated Study Completion Date : April 1, 2021” (I kid you not!)