Currency : £

For news, views, special offers & life-changing ideas, register here.


What causes

dirty water in footbaths?

 

In 2002 I was one lucky enough to be one of the first people in the UK to buy a Q Energy Spa.  My sister-in-law, Dr. Susan Lange in California let me try her unit out and I was impressed with what she told me.  Susan doesn’t endorse anything lightly so when I witnessed her excitement, I knew this had to be a serious piece of equipment.

At first I wasn’t sure what to make of it as I didn’t feel any different.  However after three sessions I noticed that I’d stopped biting my fingernails and I’d stopped scratching my head – and I’d done both for years.  That’s when the penny dropped.  Seven years on I use the equipment weekly and am still in awe of results we are getting within the family.

Over the past decade, a market for similar equipment based on the Q Energy Spa blueprint has flourished, many of the models making much of the water discoloration.  Knowing that water coming from a tap is anything but pure and varies from area to area,  I was never convinced that discoloured water was a result of toxins exiting the body.   I had been shown charts equating colours in the water with the specific internal organs that were supposedly detoxing.  Thankfully I was well trained and understood that this was more likely driven by marketing than fact.

At last I have received confirmation of my suspicions.  The letter below, written by an electronic engineer makes complete sense.  It was recently received at Q The Experience Ltd, Toowomba, Queensland.  In the text, ‘TGA’ is the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration; ‘B.E.F.E’ stands for Bio-Electric Field Enhancement, the original name for the Q ENERGYspa®.

At the end of the letter are independent reports on ionization.

Graeme Dinnen

  

Dear Sir/Madam

We fell over your website recently, after finding a TGA complaint resolution about your product and I personally thought to myself that I needed to contact you.

You see, this technology was invented back in 1996 as a simple biological battery charger.  It is not a detox device and it never was, it is much more than that, if done correctly.  It is not an ionic device and cannot cause detoxification through your skin, despite the numerous copies of the technology around the world claiming to do so.

I am an electronic engineer and I can easily turn water black in under a minute, especially if I add enough salt to the water.  I can then say that the black scum (and every other colour under the sun) and precipitation came out of your body, but I would be wrong.  You see the dirt in the water comes from the water itself and the water module and very little if any, from you.

Water...

Water is a very interesting substance, almost an element in it own right.  When you apply electricity to the water, then the water through a process known as electrophoresis or dielectrophoresis will eject foreign substances within its structure.  If you have ever seen your local dam, then you will have seen just how dark the water is.  Your council then filters it, but it is still dirty, so they use chemicals to hide the unwanted colours in the water so that the water comes out of your tap at home, crystal clear, giving you the impression that the water is clean.

The Water Module...

The water module consists of steel rings and some modules, fence wire coils.  The metals used in these water modules contain Iron, Silica, Cadmium, Zinc, Carbon, Manganese, Chromium, Vanadium, Tungsten and some copper, brass, aluminium and if soldered, then also Lead and Tin and many other compounds.  When you apply electricity to the water module within the water, the metals will break down causing a precipitation into the water and this is what the detoxification is based upon.  By saying that the water contains heavy metals and other compounds after a session with the technology which came from you, plain simply is a hoax.  The organic compounds in the water after a session would have also been there without the technology.  A simple warm water foot bath would leave the same.

The Human Skin...

It is common knowledge that the human skin is NOT responsible for detoxification of the body, but that it does through the process of sweating, push out anything deposited in the outer dermal layers or sweat glands. The human skin is therefore known to be responsible for less than 10% of all bodily detoxification.  What does this mean? It means that you would have to sweat continuously through your feet alone for over 200 days straight, day and night in order to detoxify as much through your feet as your would in ONE urination.  So you see, you would be better of taking a kidney tonic and take a trip to the toilet.

The Many Water Colours...

The many colours produced within the water, although interesting, is irrelevant.  Because there are far too many factors that affect the outcome in the water, such as temperature, humidity, altitude, barometric pressure and the lunar cycle, but even though the colours do not come from you, your body may also alter the outcome and depends upon other factors from your genetics, to your life’s exposures, food and even your emotions.  So it is interesting to note that the outcome in the water may change with each person, with every session and over time.  But do run a session without a person in the water and you will get almost the same outcome. Does that not ring some alarm bells for you.

The Technology...

The original technology was invented in 1995-1996 and its ONLY function was to enhance the energy already present within the water itself. Hence the title “Bio-Electric Field Enhancement” or B.E.F.E.  When your body is then exposed to the water, your body will absorb the energy much like a domino effect from cell to cell throughout the entire body like charging a battery or many batteries. It is based upon a bio-charge and has little to do with electrolysis or ionisation.

So here is the difference between the original B.E.F.E. technology and the attempted copied technologies and I am afraid that it includes most, if not all the copies.

      The B.E.F.E. technology enhances the energy within the water through what is termed a bio-charge achieved through resonance within the water.

       The copied technology alters the energy within the water, through ionisation.

If radiation and ionisation can alter food chemistry as is currently in use, what is to say that it does not alter your body, when exposed?  Can ionisation of living tissue cause cellular damage through excessive free radicals created by ionisation?

Why…

Why am I telling you this? Because I believe in helping people for the right reasons and I believe that you need to know.

We have seen normal people at expos using the copied technology and then we have seen them six months later and we are afraid that we did not like what we saw.  The people have become pale and sick looking.  One of the people with us at the time classified them as walking corpses. Sorry, it is not my intention to scare you, only to inform you that what you are currently doing is wrong and potentially damaging to the people using the copied technology. 

For more information on the Q Energy Spa (formerly the B.E.F.E.) click here.

Q The Experience Australia (Q Tech Laboratories Pty Ltd) is the founder and worldwide leader of Bio Energy Therapy technologies using water, with over a decade of refinements and experience, we can proudly say that the Q ENERGYspa® is the most efficient, trusted, proven and safe Bio-Energy product available today. With regular use, the Q ENERGYspa® has shown remarkable results and continue to do so everyday and in conjunction with a reasonable diet and exercise regime, will restore the energy to your body that it once had, allowing it to evolve past any concern, working to improve your overall wellbeing.

Online Supporting Extracts

Ionization and Cell Damage

As previously discussed, photons that interact with atomic particles can transfer their energy to the material and break chemical bonds in materials. This interaction is known as ionization and involves the dislodging of one or more electrons from an atom of a material. This creates electrons, which carry a negative charge, and atoms without electrons, which carry a positive charge. Ionization in industrial materials is usually not a big concern. In most cases, once the radiation ceases the electrons rejoin the atoms and no damage is done. However, ionization can disturb the atomic structure of some materials to a degree where the atoms enter into chemical reactions with each other. This is the reaction that takes place in the silver bromide of radiographic film to produce a latent image when the film is processed. Ionization may cause unwanted changes in some materials, such as semiconductors, so that they are no longer effective for their intended use.

Ionization in Living Tissue (Cell Damage) 
In living tissue, similar interactions occur and ionization can be very detrimental to cells. Ionization of living tissue causes molecules in the cells to be broken apart. This interaction can kill the cell or cause them to reproduce abnormally.

Damage to a cell can come from direct action or indirect action of the radiation. Cell damage due to direct action occurs when the radiation interacts directly with a cell's essential molecules (DNA). The radiation energy may damage cell components such as the cell walls or the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA is found in every cell and consists of molecules that determine the function that each cell performs. When radiation interacts with a cell wall or DNA, the cell either dies or becomes a different kind of cell, possibly even a cancerous one.

Ref: http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/theory/ionization.htm 

Does irradiation cause chemical changes in food, producing substances not known to be present in non-irradiated food?

Yes, irradiation does produce chemical changes in foods. These substances, called "radio-lytic products", may sound mysterious, but they are not. They have been scrutinized by scientists in making safety assessments of irradiated foods. Any kind of treatment causes chemical changes in food. For instance, heat treatment, or cooking, produces chemicals that could be called "thermolytic products." Scientists find the changes in food created by irradiation minor to those created by cooking. The products created by cooking are so significant that consumers can smell and taste them, whereas only a chemist with extremely sensitive lab equipment may be able to detect radiolytic products. 

Ref: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm 

Antioxidative Effects of Melatonin in Protection

Against Cellular Damage Caused by Ionizing Radiation

Magorzata Karbownik*, and Russel J. Reiter*,1

Ionizing radiation is classified as a potent carcinogen, and its injury to living cells is, to a large extent, due to oxidative stress. The molecule most often reported to be damaged by ionizing radiation is DNA. Hydroxyl radicals (OH), considered the most damaging of all free radicals generated in organisms, are often responsible for DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation. Melatonin, N-acetyl-5-methoxytryptamine, is a well-known antioxidant that protects DNA, lipids, and proteins from free-radical damage. The indoleamine manifests its antioxidative properties by stimulating the activities of antioxidant enzymes and scavenging free radicals directly or indirectly. Among known antioxidants, melatonin is a highly effective scavenger of OH. Melatonin is distributed ubiquitously in organisms and, as far as is known, in all cellular compartments, and it quickly passes through all biological membranes. The protective effects of melatonin against oxidative stress caused by ionizing radiation have been documented in in vitro and in vivo studies in different species and in in vitro experiments that used human tissues, as well as when melatonin was given to humans and then tissues collected and subjected to ionizing radiation. The radioprotective effects of melatonin against cellular damage caused by oxidative stress and its low toxicity make this molecule a potential supplement in the treatment orco-treatment in situations where the effects of ionizing radiation are to be minimized.

* Department of Cellular and Structural Biology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas 78229–3900; and

Department of Thyroidology, Institute of Endocrinology, Medical University of ód, 91–425 ód, Poland

Refhttp://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/225/1/9

Clusters of DNA Damage Induced by Ionizing Radiation: Formation of Short DNA Fragments. II. Experimental Detection

Abstract

The basic 30-nm chromatin fiber in the mammalian cell consists of an unknown (possibly helical) arrangement of nucleosomes, with about 1.2 kb of DNA per 10-nm length of fiber. Track-structure considerations suggest that interactions of single δ rays or high-LET particles with the chromatin fiber might result in the formation of multiple lesions spread over a few kilo-bases of DNA (see the accompanying paper: W. R. Holley and A. Chatterjee, Radiat. Res. 145, 188-199, 1996). In particular, multiple DNA double-strand breaks and single-strand breaks may form. To test this experimentally, primary human fibroblasts were labeled with [3 H]thymidine and exposed at 0°C to X rays or accelerated nitrogen or iron ions in the LET range of 97-440 keV/μm. DNA was isolated inside agarose plugs and subjected to agarose gel electrophoresis under conditions that allowed good separation of 0.1-2 kb size DNA. The bulk of DNA remained in the well or migrated only a small distance into the gel. It was found that DNA fragments in the expected size range were formed linearly with dose with an efficiency that increased with LET. A comparison of the yield of such fragments with the yield of total DNA double-strand breaks suggests that for the high-LET ions a substantial proportion (20-90%) of DNA double-strand breaks are accompanied within 0.1-2 kb by at least one additional DNA double-strand break. It is shown that these results are in good agreement with theoretical calculations based on treating the 30-nm chromatin fiber as the target for ionizing particles. Theoretical considerations also predict that the clusters will contain numerous single-strand breaks and base damages. It is proposed that such clusters be designated "regionally multiply damaged sites." Postirradiation incubation at 37°C resulted in a decline in the number of short DNA fragments, suggesting a repair activity. The biological significance of regionally multiply damaged sites is presently unknown.

Ref: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3579175:  Do read the link content as it has a page extract well worth the read.

 

Long-Term Impairment of Subependymal Repopulation Following Damage by Ionizing Irradiation

Abstract

In the mammalian brain, the subependyma (SE) contains stem cells capable of producing neurons and glia. In normal brain these stem cells are responsible, in part, for maintaining the morphologic and functional integrity of the SE; what role the cells of the SE play in brain injury has not yet been elucidated. The present study was designed to determine the long-term regenerative potential of the rat SE after significant depletion of stem cells. Ionizing irradiation was used to deplete cells of the SE and subsequent cellular responses were quantified using immunohistochemical analyses on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. A histomorphometric approach was used to quantify total cell number, number of proliferating cells, number of immature neurons, astrocytes, and undifferentiated components of the SE. Because there are no markers specific for stem cells, we used a repopulation assay as an indirect measure of stem cell response after injury. Our data showed clear radiation dose-dependencies in our quantitative endpoints, implying that there was progressively more stem cell damage with increasing radiation dose. Repopulation of the SE in terms of total cell number, number of proliferating cells and numbers of immature neurons was impaired in a dose-dependent fashion up to 180 days after treatment. These data suggest that after irradiation, surviving stem cells are unable to regenerate the SE. This inability to regenerate after stem cell damage/depletion could have important implications with respect to the normal function of the SE and the function of the SE after brain injury.

Ref: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFG-45JB7H9-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99878517091a6b71ccf2ee7c621f8b05 


Categories

Cart  

No products

£ 0.00 Shipping
£ 0.00 Total

Cart Checkout