Quantum Pendants radioactive – 2 independent tests from bloggers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZxX3ZWY4nw

The Quantum Pendant

Published on Jan 13, 2013

I bought a Quantum Pendant and MY pendant turned out to be radioactive. 🙂

Please note, my analysis was only for my personal quantum pendant and not others. I make no claim about any quantum pendant beyond my own.

Radioactive quantum scalar energy pendant review

A second analysis of another pendant

bionerd23

Published on Jan 13, 2013

the atomic age’s quack cures, today!
let’s have a closer look at this radioactive pendant…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfGKJK8Zgtc

i personally would not know why this should have any beneficial effects on my body. the stuff i have read about it sounds like absolute pseudoscience; scientific words are mixed up randomly in a context that makes zero sense to the literate person (but may sound amazing to an uninformed person).
maybe i’ll still wear it for a month or so, though, “just in case there’s something i don’t know”. i did the same with homeopathy once (with zero effects, but that’s probably because i believed it was quack from the first second – but i did take my sugar beads exactly as prescribed).

January 17, 2013 - Posted by arclight2011 | Uncategorized

11 Comments »

Read the comments on the video.
The person who did this test even said the radiation from the pendant is harmless. Read the quote from the comments page below. It seems to me that the worst side affect of the pendant would be no change at all. Both tests showed radiation levels well within safe ranges. Please learn more about the topic before posting such biased information which has been spun by you to make the pendants appear much worse than they truly are.

“nope, the “real” one is quite expensive (whatever may be real, a few different looking ones claim to be the real one, and all of those are pricey), so i didnt purchase it. i would not consider this level of radiation harmful; if you have a granite counter top in your kitchen, it probably exposes you to much more radiation (granite is naturally occurring with uranium) than this pendant. however, i’d assume it to be a rather useless exposure.”-(aka the person who preformed the second test)

Comment by Read The Comments On The Video | April 15, 2013 | Reply
Please learn more about the topic before posting such biased information which has been spun by you to make the pendants appear much worse than they truly are.

worse?? than they are? so not news worthy! i wish i had met you before i posted that test on the conspiracy filled manky pendants.. in fact all the bloggers who have tested them have completley wasted their time and energy.. i feel so much better for your anonymous critique.. and of course will take your more experienced anonymity into account.. would you prefer to post on the blog perhaps?? 🙂

i am sorry for any undue fear i have caused anyone and i now recommend everyone buy these incredible fear free hormesis filled pendants

hmmm !! good enough to eat!!

Comment by arclight2011 | April 15, 2013 | Reply
- They did not waste time nor energy in testing the pendants, they simply showed their low levels of radiation. While it is difficult to verify the claims the makers of these pendants male, the radiation threats are about as serious as that of airplanes, sunlight, and wi-do. I am also unsure of whether you were being sarcastic in terms of your response. It would be clearer if you used more punctuation and language which was less ambiguous. For instance, it seemed for a moment at the end that you were saying that the pendants are safe. However, in the rest of the article you seem to mock my anonymity and at the very end say “hmmm!!! Good enough to eat!!!” which could also be taken as mockery.
  These mixed messages make it difficult to tell what you mean.
  
  Comment by In Response | April 15, 2013 | Reply
  - its 05.42 in the uk
    
    in fact there was a nuclear engineer who claimed he licked plutonium! but i did veer on the sarcastic side.. sorry..
    
    there is a slight disagreement as you are aware as to dose levels and their effects or not..
    
    even richard wakeford admits to a statistical LNT dose damage rate..
    he doesnt mention that the small statistics show a large possible number of victims..
    
    would you want your children playing with such a pendant~~? as these little mites are prone to do!
    
    ok for a consenting adult though..
    
    as to the other forms of ionising radiation, some like flying are a free choice thing.. i drive 1200 miles to see my kids and 1200 miles back again (and alot poorer) ,, i choose not to fly if other means are available… not just ionising radiation but i believe it is one of the causes of global dimming since the 1940`s (ref pan evaporation rate data)
    
    the claims of the manufacturers are just that .. claims!
    the claims of the bloggers are evidential facts (within the parameters of logical thinking anyway)
    
    hope i answered you more clearly and consise..
    
    and more respectfully too!
    
    peace
    
    Comment by arclight2011 | April 15, 2013
  - I believe you may have misunderstood what I meant when I described the lack of verification for the claims of the manufacturer. I was not defending the claims at all, I was simply saying that there is little danger to wearing one of the pendants. Few would go to such lengths to avoid such minor radiation. Both of the videos you posted your story about had authors who say that the radiation levels from the pendant are so low that there is no threat. You also continue to use childish forms of sarcasm and inside jokes along with illegible grammar and capitalization. This tends to cause you blog to be difficult to read as well as unprofessional. I can barely decipher your response due to these flaws. Even after I point out that the creators of your so called “evidence” say the pendants are perfectly fine, you have to go off on a tangent and use biased and circumstantial evidence to badly prove your point. I can find biased information fighting for the exact opposite of what you are saying. I checked out everything you pointed to and noticed you leave out everything that does not conform to your view. Perhaps this is why you have so few subscribers and also why web of trust gave your site such a low rating.
    
    Comment by Response Part Two | April 15, 2013
I was simply saying that there is little danger to wearing one of the pendants..

point made then…

You also continue to use childish forms of sarcasm and inside jokes along with illegible grammar and capitalization

interesting you knowing the subscriber count?
includes bookmarked readers?

i have adhd and dyslexia.. a hinderance to some but not all! i envy you on that front..

as to attituse..
modern bloggers are varied in their delivery and style.. if the research i do (giving links) is too one sided, i find that hard to accept as i post from the iaea site as well as greenpeace, areva etc etc

my comments are just that.. the post is of fellow bloggers, one of whom i converse from time to time.. their viewpoints stand clearly..

and so do mine..
i dont want any nuclear materials loose on the planet as it is accumulative..
thats a simple point too!

i have rinsed any trace of humour or sarcasm with just a few deletions..
but i will have to warch an episode of

just while i was in the mood (sorry adhd attack)

the blog has is also art based as both christina and i are in to colours and music and stuff.. please feel free to skip these bits and go to the area of your desire!

and also feel free to add links and qoutes filling in any corrections or additions you may wish to deliver.. i love crowd sourcing
i will try to concentrate more on posts but it is not always possible.. but i then try to point people at items for their personal digestion.. this aint the dialy mail!! 🙂

peace

Comment by arclight2011 | April 15, 2013 | Reply
I was actually going off of the lack of comments on any of the posts, besides from those who make these posts. From that I concluded that there were few readers.
My comment about the one sidedness of the posts is that everyone I have read has critisized anything involving radioactive materials. Even when you quote pro nuclear websites, it seems you only pick facts that do not contradict those of your biased sources such as the pro-environmental ones. If anything it seems you use the sites which promote nuclear to obtain background info.

Comment by . | April 16, 2013 | Reply
- Also, after checking the traffic reports to this domain, I can also see how there are only a few people visiting your site from a few different IP addresses.
  
  Comment by . | April 16, 2013 | Reply
  - ahh but we have quality here not quantity.. no ads 🙂
    
    we also have a quiet crowd of self researchers,, some pro nuke most not..
    i think i try to get the stuff the mainstream err misses.. for balance.. there is so much new scientist/ogilvy maher stuff around to drown oneself in..
    
    the stats on the web thingy shows a bit low too! 😉
    
    “…you use the sites which promote nuclear to obtain background info…”
    
    i own a gieger
    my hobby is tracing the unmentionable NORM
    ii have an engineering background
    i like reading looong pdfs..
    actualy i may actualy be pro nuke.. 🙂
    in an ma group we spent weeks defining and analylising a single word!
    i dont know what i will make of this un-nerving insight..
    🙂
    you read exskf?
    
    Comment by arclight2011 | April 16, 2013
  - I have read part of that blog. Pretty good content there.
    
    Quot homines tot sententiae, I suppose. Best of luck in your endeavors and follow your heart. Just because we don’t see eye to eye doesn’t mean we aren’t both right. The more viewpoints, the more likely mankind will do what is right. Keep on keeping on, brother.
    
    Comment by . | April 16, 2013
nice way to finish a conversation and good luck to you too! it was a pleasure!
sorry about the initial tired outburst… i hope to improve as i go along.. unless the real journos want to do some real journalicm.. we live in hope and i have time to improve my new trade i suppose.. 🙂
peace

Comment by arclight2011 | April 16, 2013 | Reply