I'm sorry but this entire article is utter woo and babble. WUS should be ashamed. I strongly suspect that the author has just repeated what ever marketing garbage he's been fed without questioning or understanding a single word.
Some snippets:Well for starters, electromagnetic fields do not "build up". When you turn on a radio transmitter, computer or any high frequency device, it will emit electromagnetic radiation (we call 'em radio waves). The intensity of the field decreases rapidly as you move away from the source. Turn off the source and the field disappears. Leaving the source on does not lead to a increase or build up in field levels.Originally Posted by Article author, Michael Weare
Then the second half of this statement goes on to attribute health issues to the emissions. I've yet to see a single medical study that conclusively proves any such links. Perhaps the author would like to back up his claim by citing such a study.Could the author please explain exactly what this picture depicts? I don't believe there is a widely accepted definition of a biofield. Is this a plot of electromagnetic emission from the body? It looks like a meaningless marketing image to me.Originally Posted by Article author, Michael WeareNope, they don't. A very quick google turned up this: https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publicat...s_June2006.pdf . My explanatory additions to the original text in bold.Originally Posted by Article author, Michael WearePlease provide a link to the WHO statement you're quoting from.Originally Posted by World Health OrganisationWell the watch battery has a static electric field. It is barely measurable but it is there. The Earths magnetic field is also static. It doesn't have a frequency. Is the author referring to some other changing field around our planet? If so, please explain which field. If not, perhaps he could explain how you synchronise something that doesn't vary with something that doesn't vary.Originally Posted by Article author, Michael WeareOK, I'll admit it. Despite studying electronics for 7 years and working at the bleeding edge for the last 25 years, I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you please explain what "a zero-point waveform with a scalar pulse" actually is?Originally Posted by Article author, Michael WeareOh great, a proper peer reviewed scientific study. Can we have a link please?Originally Posted by Article author, Michael WeareOh, look at that! Disclaimers. I was pretty sure that the earlier part of this article claimed 300 million people were suffering from EMH, if that's not a disease what is it? And if this watch doesn't treat the disease of EMH, can we safely assume it does absolutely nothing more than tell the time?Originally Posted by Article author, Michael Weare