Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Vishnusaran Murugan
Vishnusaran Murugan's posts

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
Must have gadget 

Post has shared content
Lightning strike captured on camera

Not something you'd expect :)
Animated Photo

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
People with skin problems. Take note!
good video explains the compact fluorescent lightbulbs emit the most UV radiation and why switching to warm white LED (2700K) is arguably a good choice for the planet and your health - because LED bulbs use less electricity and emit no UV radiation (negligible).  However, some other videos below will show that each lightbulb has its own pluses and minuses.  Incandescent bulbs cause 5-10 times more use of coal fired power than CFLs and LEDs, which in turn is very bad for human health, but incandescents generate less EMF pollution than LED and CFLs, so it's one of those funny choices... :) Yet, CFLs UV emissions become negligible if you are more than 2 feet away from the bulb.  

CFLs have a lot of mercury.  Halogen lights are much better ► in terms of UV emissions and have no mercury.  If you use CFLs, make sure you use the ones enclosed in glass as that reduces some UV.    

It's better to choose warm-white (2700K) bulbs for night use, not the daylight bulbs (6000K), because the daylight ones emit a lot of blue light which causes insomnia and eye damage when exposed to for a long time during the night (

The LEDs (some LEDs tested by the author of the video, not all LEDs) are 10 times better than fluorescent lights due to creating 10-20 times less dirty electricity, as explained in this video ►  These videos with tests of EMF pollution show that we have a long way to go to create technologies that enhance longevity, be them in light bulbs, cell phones, electric transportation, etc. High RF fields are known to cause disease.

The problem with LEDs is, according to yet other experts on dirty electricity, that they generate a strong radio frequency field, 3 feet from the bulb, that the CFLs and incandescent and halogen lights don't produce ►  So unfortunately, there isn't yet a perfect replacement for incandescent light bulbs that don't produce a lot of UV or EMF or RF radiation.  See also  By now, your head will start spinning, you can't use anything without harming yourself, might as well go back to the stone age.  LOL.  I am not an advocate of incandescent bulbs, but an advocate of using 100% renewable energy and of using safest technologies for lightbulbs.  Turns out some brands emit far more than others toxic EMF, so since there is no government regulation on EMF and dirty electricity, it's a mine field and it's impossible for the poor average person to gain the knowledge and meters to test each brand and see what happens.  :)  Just like in the 60s the rivers were red due to no EPA, everyone dumped chemical stuff in the rivers, today all big cell tower companies and everyone dumps wi-fi signals, EMF pollution everywhere in the airwaves without a second thought of what devastating effects it has on human health.  

And of course, like the big chemical companies or coal companies, the big Wi-Fi and Cell-Signal Polluters will deny it's harmful, but we all know how "healthy" coal smog is and how "healthy" electromagnetic smog is. has some meters to measure some of these fields.  It's been shown since 1960s that living near power lines or strong RF  sources can cause depression, cancer, leukemia, many diseases and/ or suicidal thoughts.  Every progress of humanity comes with its new problems, so we will have much to learn about EMF next 200 years, many laws have to be changed, many standards need be made, if we want to live to 170 years some day on average.

Profit is often first, health and safety of people often last.. :)  Unfortunately, it may be 900 million cancers later that some action will be taken to reign in EMF pollution. :)  On paper all companies care about "people", but in reality it isn't so simple, since CEOs are often people with no knowledge of physics, biophysics and how electromagnetic energy affects trillions of chemical reactions in our cells each second.  RF is just one subset of EMF.

Waves of dirty electricity are known to attack the nervous system and the immune system, while the UV is known to sicken people and even cause eye and skin damage.  So, help the planet now by switching to LED bulbs, which are more efficient than CFLs?  Hard to say.  We do need better lighting technologies though, as LEDs produce normally too much blue light and too much RF.

What certain people don't realize is that no matter how many drugs, nanobots, or "organic or very healthy foods or natural herbs, supplements" etc one takes, dirty electricity can ruin people's health.  Just like cell phones near your head cause brain cancer.  All that RF near the head is killing the brain.  Cell phones can be used to make popcorn in tandem and one can cook one's brain and generate tumors.  Using a cord is essential, so you are not close to the phone  :)  We are biophysical beings and electromagnetic beings and dirty electricity and electromagnetic fields can ruin our health instantly.  Energy influences the trillions of chemical reactions that occur in the human body each second.  Pump 4 trillion worth of nanobots into someone who has 4 trillion to spend on "wanna be immortal tech", and just some strong RF field messes everything up and the nanobots don't work as meant to and "longevity" is just a pipe dream and the poor guy dies at 100 like the peasant from some third world country.   Just shows how fast an AI can collapse. 

See more on dirty electricity at  If we go off-grid, we can remove all smart meters who produce a lot of EMF pollution and cause a lot of billions lost due to health complications.  

More ADVANTAGES OF LEDs versus CFLs (from

A) LEDs use less power A 6 watt LED produces as much light as a 50 watt traditional bulb. The figure for CFL is close to 13 watts. An LED thus uses half the amount of electricity compared to a CFL. In the era of carbon emission controls, tight budgets, and awareness about the need to preserve the earth for our children – Solid State LED based lights easily score over CFLs. An LED bulb uses 50% of the energy of a CFL and that means lower utility bills and fewer carbon emissions.

B) Unlike LEDs, a CFL may require the replacement of the expensive light fixtures CFLs are less suited to be used as retrofits in existing sockets. Given that a CFL must accommodate an electronic powering device and long tubes, they are often too large for existing light fixtures. One must either do without the beautiful light covers or else change the light fixture itself. Any cost advantage that the CFL enjoys over LED is wiped out the moment one factors in the need to replace the light sockets and fixtures.

C) LED lasts up to 10 times longer than a CFL This means lesser recurring costs to be incurred to purchase new lights, fewer trips to the market, fewer anxious moments, and almost nonexistent headache of replacing burnt out lights. This also means less solid waste to be disposed and makes this light ideal for hard to reach locations.

D) LED lighting generates less heat than a CFL This reduces the risk of burn injuries and places a smaller heat load on the air conditioner.

E) LEDs do not contain Mercury or other toxic heavy metals CFL lights contain a small amount of mercury and must be disposed off in accordance with the regulations for hazardous substances. LEDs, on the other hand, contain no heavy metal and can be safely disposed off with common waste.

The mercury poisoning due to CFL lights is often underplayed. It is true that the amount of mercury in a single CFL is only 5 mg and much more mercury is emitted by burning coal to provide electricity to operate an incandescent bulb. However, if every light fixture were to be converted to CFL light an average household would dispose close to 10 CFL lights every year. Back of the envelope calculations show that the 115 million households in the US will together release close to 5 tons of mercury in the environment every year – contaminating rivers, landfills and ground water. LED bulbs comply with ROHS regulations meaning that they do not have any of the toxic heavy metals like lead, mercury or cadmium.

F) LED does not emit UV radiation CFLs produce UV light that can damage cells, reduce folate levels in the body and may even lead to skin cancers. LED lamps on the other hand do not produce any UV light. Another disadvantage of CFLs is that the emitted UV light can damage precious art objects and paintings.

G) LEDs are not sensitive to on- off cycling CFLs are not suited to uses that involve a high rate of on- off cycling like outdoor lights, motion sensors etc. A high rate of on-off cycling drastically shortens the life span of a CFL. An LED on the other hand is unaffected by on – off cycling. This is the reason LED devices are preferred for traffic lights.

H) LED lamps produce unidirectional light Comparing LED with CFLs is like comparing oranges and apples. For starters there is no relation between the wattage and light emitted by a CFL and an LED. Moreover, LED’s produce unidirectional light – this means that it is easier to control the light. You can choose to focus it for spot lighting or use a lens for diffused lighting applications. On the other hand, light emitted by a CFL, like that from incandescent bulbs, is multidirectional and difficult to control. A lens can easily collect all the light emitted by an LED and disperse it. A CFL on the other hand relies on a reflector to achieve to spread the light and a portion of the light is always wasted. An LED lamp can thus be used to replace a CFL or incandescent lamp with a higher light output.

I) CFL lamps take inordinately long to achieve full brightness A big disadvantage of CFLs is that they take a long time to achieve full brightness. The problem is particularly accentuated in cold climate. This makes CFLs unsuitable for some applications like garage lights. An LED bulb on the other hand achieves full brightness at the flick of a button.

J) Chances of Breakage Breakage risk is much higher with a CFL than with an LED. Accidental breakage further reduces the expected lifespan of a CFL besides exposing the residents to mercury vapors and the possibility of laceration injuries.

K) LED lights are better for stage performances Light produced by an LED can be mono chromatic i.e., they can emit light of a single color. This means that multicolored papers need not be used to get the desired colors. Moreover an LED has a much lower chance of failure and is cool to touch allowing it to be safely changed.

LED light systems have a clear advantage over CFLs. It is estimated that should LED products be widely adapted, it would slash the use of electricity for lighting by 88%. The total savings over a 20 year period are estimated to be around $ 265 billion. Moreover, LED bulbs and tubes could potentially help the US avoid setting up 40 new power plants and help reduce electricity demand. These savings would go a long way in helping the US meet its commitment to the world community on the carbon emission reduction front. While the CFL was an able competitor of the light bulb and has done a great job in convincing people of the merits of modern lighting technology – The LED offers many clear advantages over the CFL. In all probability the death of the incandescent bulb shall occur at the hands of LED tubes and bulbs and not the CFL!

UV light attracts insects. If you’ve ever seen—and heard—a black-light bug zapper at work, you know the strange command UV radiation seems to hold over insects. With virtually no UV emissions, LEDs do not attract bugs, and that’s made them popular in commercial food-service applications, residential kitchens, and exterior installations where it’s important to minimize the attraction of small flying pests.

Post has attachment
Google Admits Hangouts Conversations Can Be Wiretapped

Post has attachment
Spiders Sprayed With Carbon Nanotubes Spin Superstrong Webs

Post has shared content
Terrible Insight. Amazing
Dr Kissinger talks about the new world order.  His answer on Iran is frightening starting at 31 minutes.
Wait while more posts are being loaded