AU2010238769B2 - Methods and apparel for attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from a person - Google Patents

Abstract

A method comprises attenuating, while involved in a given situation, one's own emanated electromagnetic field by wearing one or more articles of apparel that include an electromagnetically shielding fabric. Another method comprises (i) providing to the user the one or more articles of apparel that include an electromagnetically shielding fabric, and (ii) instructing the user to wear at least one of the articles of apparel while involved in the given situation. The shielding fabric comprises a substantially continuous system of conductive fibers combined with a non-conductive fabric. The given situation can comprise hunting, animal handling, being in or on a body of water, or an adversarial situation. The attenuating of the emanated electromagnetic field decreases the likelihood of that emanated field affecting progress or an outcome of the given situation.

Description

WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 METHODS AND APPAREL FOR ATTENUATING ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS EMANATING FROM A PERSON Inventors: Michael D. Slinkard, John M. Maupin, and Scott J. Eastman 5 PRIORITY CLAIM [0001] This application claims priority of: (i) U.S. non-provisional App. No. 12/428,763 filed 04/23/2009 in the names of Michael D. Slinkard and John M. Maupin and entitled "Methods and apparel for attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from an animal handler"; (ii) U.S. non-provisional App. No. 12/549,698 10 filed 08/28/2009 in the names of Michael D. Slinkard and John M. Maupin and entitled "Methods and apparel for attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from a person in or on a body of water"; and (iii) U.S. non-provisional App. No. 12/701,169 filed 02/05/2010 in the names of Michael D. Slinkard, John M. Maupin, and Scott J. Eastman and entitled "Methods and apparel for simultaneously 15 attenuating electromagnetic fields and odors emanating from a person." Each of said applications is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. FIELD OF THE INVENTION [0002] The field of the present invention relates to apparel worn by a person in locations or situations wherein attenuation of electromagnetic fields emanating 20 from the person would be desirable. In particular, methods and apparel are disclosed for attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from the person (i) while the person handles an animal, (ii) while the person is in or on a body of water, (iii) while the person is in an adversarial situation, or (iv) while simultaneously attenuating odors emanating from the person. 25 BACKGROUND [0003] In addition to those applications listed above in the priority claim, the subject matter disclosed or claimed herein may be related to subject matter disclosed or claimed in: (i) U.S. non-provisional App. No. 12/347,967 filed 12/31/2008 in the names of Michael D. Slinkard and John M. Maupin and entitled 30 "Methods and apparel for attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from a hunter," and (ii) U.S. non-provisional App. No. 12/347,971 filed 12/31/2008 in the 1 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 names of Michael D. Slinkard and John M. Maupin and entitled "Methods and hunting blind for attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from a hunter." Both of said applications are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. [0004] It is known that the human body generates electromagnetic fields during 5 normal body functions, and that those fields can increase in strength with increased activity, excitement, emotion, or attention. For example, brain activity, nerve activity, and muscle activity all result in electric fields that emanate from the body. Detection and characterization of such fields form the basis for the conventional clinical techniques of electrocardiography (i.e., ECG or EKG), 10 electroencephalography (i.e., EEG), and electromyelography (i.e., EMG). For the purposes of the present disclosure or claims, "electromagnetic" is intended to denote those fields that have temporal variations well below so-called optical frequencies (i.e., having frequency components no greater than about 1 gigahertz (GHz), typically no greater than about 1 megahertz (MHz), and often no greater 15 than about 1 kilohertz (kHz). [0005] It is also known that at least some animals can detect or respond to electromagnetic fields. For example, sharks detect electric fields emanating from prey by means of special sensing organs called the ampullae of Lorenzini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmpullaeofLorenzini). A shark-repelling system is 20 disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,211,980 that generates an electric field to drive away the sharks. Other animals are believed to navigate their natural migratory routes using the earth's magnetic field (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/animals.html). [0006] Fabrics exist that are adapted to attenuate or block electromagnetic fields. 25 They typically include electrically conductive fibers (e.g., metal, carbon nanotubes, or other conductive fibers) incorporated into the fabric along with more typical textile fibers. Garments constructed from such fabrics are conventionally used to shield a human wearer from surrounding electromagnetic fields. Such shielding can be usefully employed into safety equipment or apparel, can be worn by or 30 applied to a patient to provide various health or therapeutic benefits, or for other purposes. Examples of such fabrics and their uses can be found in the following references, each of which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein: 2 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 Pat. No. 7,354,877 entitled "Carbon nanotube fabrics" issued 04/08/2008 to Rosenberger et al; Pat. No. 6,868,854 entitled "Method and article for treatment of fibromyalgia" issued 03/22/2005 to Kempe; 5 Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0053780 entitled "Method for fabricating nanotube yarn" published 03/18/2004 in the names of Jiang et al; Pat. No. 6,265,466 entitled "Electromagnetic shielding composite comprising nanotubes" issued 07/24/2001 to Glatkowski et al; 10 Pat. No. 6,146,351 entitled "Method of reducing delayed onset muscle soreness" issued 11/14/2000 to Kempe; Pat. No. 5,621,188 entitled "Air permeable electromagnetic shielding medium" issued 04/15/1997 to Lee et al; Pat. No. 4,825,877 entitled "Method of pain reduction using 15 radiation-shielding textiles" issued 05/02/1989 to Kempe; and Pat. No. 4,653,473 entitled "Method and article for pain reduction using radiation-shielding textile" issued 03/31/1987 to Kempe. [0007] There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to attenuate or block electromagnetic fields emanating from a human body, or that such attenuation or 20 blocking would be desirable. 3 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 SUMMARY [0008] A method comprises attenuating, while involved in a given situation, one's own emanated electromagnetic field by wearing one or more articles of apparel that include an electromagnetically shielding fabric. Another method comprises (i) 5 providing to a user the one or more articles of apparel that include an electromagnetically shielding fabric, and (ii) instructing the user to wear at least one of the articles of apparel while involved in the given situation. The shielding fabric comprises a substantially continuous system of conductive fibers combined with a non-conductive fabric. The given situation can comprise hunting, animal handling, 10 being in or on a body of water, or an adversarial situation. The attenuating of the emanated electromagnetic field decreases the likelihood of that emanated field affecting progress or an outcome of the given situation. [0009] Objects and advantages pertaining to apparel incorporating electromagnetic shielding fabric may become apparent upon referring to the 15 exemplary embodiments illustrated in the drawings and disclosed in the following written description or appended claims. 4 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS [0010] Figs. 1A and 1 B are schematic top views illustrating the approach of a hunter toward a prey animal (or vice versa) with and without, respectively, electromagnetically shielding apparel or hunting blind. 5 [0011] Fig. 2 illustrates various exemplary articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel. [0012] Figs. 3A and 3B illustrate exemplary articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel that include exemplary visual camouflage patterns. [0013] Figs. 4A and 4B illustrate exemplary electromagnetically shielding fabrics. 10 [0014] Figs. 5A-5C illustrate experimental arrangements described in the Appendix. Fig. 5D is a legend defining the symbols used in Figs. 5A-5C. [0015] Figs. 6A and 6B are schematic top views illustrating the approach of a water-borne predator toward a person in a body of water with and without, respectively, electromagnetically shielding apparel. 15 [0016] The embodiments shown in the Figures are exemplary, and should not be construed as limiting the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims. 5 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS [0017] Attenuating or blocking electromagnetic fields emanating from a person can be advantageous while handling an animal. It has been observed frequently that animals can be affected by emotional responses or the emotional state of a 5 person nearby, e.g., a person's anxiety can cause nervous or uneasy behavior of the animal, or a person's fear can trigger an aggressive or attack response from the animal. Sensing by an animal of a person's emotional state or response might occur in a variety of ways, e.g., by detecting by smell pheromones released as a result of the person's emotional state or response, or by sensing emotion-related 10 electromagnetic fields resulting from the person's emotional state or responses. Attenuating or blocking fields emanating from the person can advantageously reduce the effect on the animal of the emotional state or an emotional response of the person. There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to attenuate or block electromagnetic fields emanating from an animal handler while handling an animal, 15 or that such attenuation or blocking would be desirable. [0018] A exemplary method comprises attenuating, while handling an animal, the electromagnetic field emanated by a handler of the animal. The electromagnetic field is attenuated by one or more articles of apparel worn by the handler while handling the animal. The articles of apparel comprise an electromagnetically 20 shielding fabric, which fabric comprises a substantially continuous system of conductive fibers combined with a non-conductive fabric. Another exemplary method can include providing one or more such articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel to a handler and instructing that handler to wear the articles while handling the animal. That method can also include constructing at least one of the 25 articles of apparel prior to providing it to the handler. [0019] "Handling" an animal shall encompass, inter alia: (i) literal handling of the animal by holding or touching the animal; (ii) handling the animal using a rope, chain, leash, muzzle, harness, saddle, reins, yoke, prod, whip, or other equipment; (iii) feeding the animal; (iv) guiding, directing, herding, capturing, or restraining the 30 animal; (v) riding the animal; (vi) using the animal to pull or push a vehicle, object, or equipment of any sort; (vii) using the animal in a performance, display, or demonstration; (viii) training the animal for any purpose, including but not limited to those listed here; (ix) conducting veterinary examination or treatment of the animal; 6 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 (x) using an animal to train another handler to perform any animal-handling task, including but not limited to those listed here; (xi) using an animal to learn from another handler to perform any animal-handling task, including but not limited to those listed here; and (xii) other activities that involve interaction between a person 5 and an animal. Examples of animals that might be "handled" include but are not limited to: dogs, e.g., owned by the handler or by another, stray, domesticated, show, police or other law enforcement, feral, or wild; cats, e.g., domestic, feral, wild, large predators in the wild or in captivity; zoo, circus, or other exhibited animals; horses, oxen, mules, donkeys, burros, llamas, or other pack or utility 10 animals; cows, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, or other livestock or herd animals. [0020] An animal handler wears the article of electromagnetically shielding apparel while handling the animal. Instead or in addition, other people likely to be near the animal (i.e., bystanders) can wear articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel; for purposes of the present disclosure or appended claims, the terms 15 "handler" and "handling" shall be construed as including both those persons interacting directly with the animal as well as bystanders that might interact with the animal indirectly (e.g., by being near enough to affect the animal via pheromones or emanated electromagnetic fields). By blocking or attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from a person near the animal, the animal is less likely to sense 20 such fields that arise from an emotional response or state of the person, and is therefore also less likely to react to that emotional state or reaction. In particular, emotional responses or states that might cause undesirable behavior of the animal (e.g., flight or aggression) are less likely to be sensed by the animal. Such emotional states or responses can arise for a variety of reasons, e.g., a handler's 25 or bystander's fear of the animal, a handler's frustration with the animal's behavior or response (or lack thereof) to its training, a handler's frustration or discomfort while being taught how to handle an animal, or an instructor's frustration at a handler trainee's response (or lack thereof) to his/her instruction. [0021] As illustrated by the examples of Fig. 2, an article of hunting apparel 30 incorporating electromagnetically shielding fabric can comprise an article of clothing (e.g., pants 18, shorts, shirt 16, undergarments, leggings, sleeves, gloves 20, mittens, jacket, coat, vest, overalls, waders, or snowsuit), footwear (e.g., shoes, 7 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 boots 24, socks 22, or boot liners), headwear (e.g., hood 12, facemask 14, or hat), or eyewear (e.g., glasses or goggles 26). [0022] Electromagnetically shielding apparel can be advantageously employed during other activities or in other situations. In another example, such 5 electromagnetic shielding can be incorporated into any suitable apparel worn while the wearer 50 is in or on a body of water 500 (e.g., river, lake, sea, ocean), as in Figs. 6A-6B. Blocking or attenuating the electromagnetic field 52 emanated by the person 50 can reduce the likelihood of detection of the wearer 50 by an aquatic or marine water-borne predator 55, e.g., a shark. Without electromagnetically 10 shielding apparel (as in Fig. 6B), the predator 55 might detect the person in the water from a larger distance D2. With electromagnetically shielding apparel (as in Fig. 6A), the predator 55 might only detect the person 50 in the water after approaching more closely (distance D1 that is smaller than distance D2). Shielding of a person's emanated electromagnetic field while in a body of water can be 15 particularly advantageous under conditions of poor underwater visibility, wherein a water-borne predator might rely more heavily on electromagnetic prey detection, and wherein a person would have more difficulty seeing or avoiding a water-borne predator. Electromagnetically shielding apparel can be provided to or worn by, e.g., bathers, waders, swimmers, surfers, boaters, sailors, personal water craft 20 users, wind surfers, para-sailors, para-surfers, snorkelers, or divers (free, scuba, or other) in a river, lake, sea, ocean, or other body of water. Examples of suitable articles of apparel can include, but are not limited to, trunks, shirts, bathing suits, wet suits, dry suits, deck apparel, and so on. Some examples are shown in Fig. 2. Electromagnetically shielding apparel can be included with other water survival 25 gear on a vessel or aircraft, or electromagnetically shielding fabric can be incorporated into conventional survival gear, e.g., a life vest, life raft, or exposure suit. There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to attenuate or block electromagnetic fields emanating from a person in or on a body of water, or that such attenuation or blocking would be desirable. 30 [0023] Attenuating or blocking electromagnetic fields emanating from a person can be advantageous while involved in an adversarial situation. A human adversary can be affected by emotional responses or the emotional state of a person nearby, e.g., a person's anxiety can alert or cue a human adversary, or a 8 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 person's fear can trigger an aggressive response from the human adversary. Sensing by a human adversary of a person's emotional state or response might occur in a variety of ways, e.g., by detecting by smell sweat or pheromones released as a result of the person's emotional state or response, or by sensing 5 emotion-related electromagnetic fields resulting from the person's emotional state or responses. Attenuating or blocking electromagnetic fields emanating from the person can advantageously reduce any alerting or cueing of a human adversary arising from an emotional state or an emotional response of the person, and thereby reduce any advantage that might have been gained from that alerting or 10 cueing. [0024] An "adversarial situation" shall include any situation in which a person involved vies with a human adversary. The nature of such situations can vary widely, and can include, inter alia: (i) a team or individual athletic contest of any sort (particularly those requiring a high degree of mental concentration); (ii) a 15 mental or verbal contest of any sort (e.g., a debate); (iii) board or card games of any sort; (iv) an interview, debriefing, or interrogation (either participant); (v) law enforcement situations; (vi) military, combat, or tactical situations; (vii) covert operations; or (viii) other adversarial situations involving interaction between a person and a human adversary. 20 [0025] Another exemplary method comprises attenuating, while a person is in an adversarial situation, the electromagnetic field emanated by the person. The electromagnetic field are attenuated by one or more articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel worn by the person while involved in the adversarial situation. As above, the article of electromagnetically shielding apparel comprises an 25 electromagnetically shielding fabric. The fabric comprises a substantially continuous system of conductive fibers combined with a non-conductive fabric. Another exemplary method can include providing one or more articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel to a person and instructing that person to wear at least one of the articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel while 30 involved in an adversarial situation. That method can also include constructing at least one of the articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel prior to providing it to the person. There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to attenuate or 9 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 block electromagnetic fields emanating from a person while involved in an adversarial situation, or that such attenuation or blocking would be desirable. [0026] A person wears the article of electromagnetically shielding apparel while involved in an adversarial situation (e.g., a poker player at the gaming table; a 5 golfer on the course; or a police detective in the interrogation room). Instead or in addition, other people likely to be near the adversarial situation (i.e., spectators or bystanders) can wear articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel; the following description applied to both a person involved in the adversarial situation as well as spectators, bystanders, or other persons nearby (e.g., near enough to affect the 10 persons or adversaries involved in the adversarial situation via emanated electromagnetic fields). By blocking or attenuating electromagnetic fields emanating from a person near a human adversary, the adversary is less likely to sense such fields that arise from an emotional response or state of the person, and is therefore also less likely to react to that emotional state or reaction. In particular, 15 emotional responses or states that might alert or cue the adversary are less likely to be sensed by the adversary. Such emotional states or responses can arise for a variety of reasons, e.g., a person's or bystander's fear of the human adversary, or a person's or bystander's frustration with the adversary's behavior or response (or lack thereof). 20 [0027] The electromagnetically shielding fabric can block or attenuate electric fields, magnetic fields, or both, and any of those alternatives shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims. It may be preferable under particular circumstances to preferentially block either electric fields or magnetic fields, and such uses are encompassed by the present disclosure or appended 25 claims. [0028] Any suitable fabric can be employed that incorporates conductive fibers of any suitable type to form a substantially continuous electrical conduction network in the fabric. The conduction network 42 can be arranged irregularly (as in the example of Fig. 4A), in a grid-like pattern (as in the example of Fig. 4B), or in any 30 other suitable, desirable, or practicable arrangement. The conductive fibers can be intermingled with non-conductive fibers 44 to form the shielding fabric 40 (in a regular, interwoven arrangement or in an irregular arrangement). Examples of suitable fibers include typical textile fibers, e.g., wool, silk, or other natural 10 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 polyamide fibers; cotton, rayon, or other cellulosic fibers; or nylon, polyester, Kevlar, or other synthetic fibers. Alternatively, the conductive fibers 42 (regularly or irregularly arranged) can be applied to a surface of a non-conducting fabric 46 to form the shielding fabric 40. In that latter case, the non-conducting fabric can 5 comprise a woven, textile fabric, or can comprise a substantially continuous sheet fabric such as a plastic sheet or polymer film. The conductive fibers can be combined with the non-conducting fabric in any suitable, desirable, or practicable way, including those described above or others not explicitly disclosed herein, and all such combinations shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure or 10 appended claims. [0029] Any suitable conductive fibers can be employed that provide sufficient conductivity for providing electromagnetic shielding and that can form fibers suitable for incorporation into a fabric. In various examples disclosed in the incorporated references, the conductive fibers comprise stainless steel, copper, 15 silver, carbon fibers or nanotubes, conductive ceramic, conductive polymer, or conductive nanotubes. Any suitable composition of the electromagnetic shielding fabric can be employed. One suitable example is Farabloc@ fabric described in incorporated Pat. Nos. 4,653,473, 4,825,877, 6,146,351, and 6,868,854. In various examples of such fabrics disclosed in the incorporated references, the 20 fabric includes between about 2% and about 35% by weight of the conductive fibers. Other exemplary fabrics can include greater than about 5%, greater than about 10%, greater than about 15%, greater than about 20%, greater than about 25%, or greater than about 30% by weight of the conductive fibers, while still other exemplary fabrics can include less than about 30%, less than about 25%, less than 25 about 20%, less than about 15%, less than about 10%, or less than about 5% by weight of the conductive fibers. Fabrics having greater than 35% by weight of conductive fibers can be employed if suitable, desirable, or practicable. Higher compositions of conductive fiber typically can provide greater electromagnetic shielding, but might also come at a higher cost or weight, or might yield a fabric 30 with other undesirable properties. Any suitably optimized composition can be used in a given situation. [0030] In addition to providing electromagnetic shielding, the article of apparel can also be adapted or arranged to decrease visual or olfactory perception of the 11 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 wearer by an animal or another person. For example, camouflage clothing, hoods or other headwear, glasses or other eyewear, or hunting blinds are conventionally used to conceal a hunter or wildlife observer from hunted or observed animals. Such visual camouflage causes the hunter to blend in with the surroundings, 5 making him or her less visible to a prey animal. In addition to visual camouflage, hunting apparel or a hunting blind can also include an odor or scent absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker, for attenuating scent or odor arising from the wearer (e.g., sweat, pheromones, or body odor) or from microbial growth in the apparel. Examples of various hunting apparel and hunting blinds incorporating 10 camouflage or odor suppression can be found in the following references, each of which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein: Pat. Pub No. 2007/0226868 entitled "Low-cost disposable odor reducing hunting clothing" published 10/04/2007 in the name of Hunt; 15 Pat. No. 7,182,091 entitled "Hunting blind and method of use thereof" issued 02/27/2007 to Maddox; Pat. Pub No. 2006/0147698 entitled "Garments preventing transmission of human body odor" published 07/06/2006 in the names of Carroll et al; and 20 Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0209051 entitled "Camouflage U.S. Marine Corps utility uniform: pattern, fabric, and design" published 10/21/2004 in the names of Santos et al; Pat. Pub No. 2004/0107474 entitled "Odor absorbing article of clothing" published 06/10/2004 in the name of Sesselmann. 25 Pat. No 6,694,995 entitled "Rapidly-opening hunting blind" issued 02/24/2004 to Ransom; Pat. No. 6,632,499 entitled "Hunter camouflage system" issued 10/14/2003 to Marks et al; Pat. No. 6,539,966 entitled "Removable cover for a hunting blind" 30 issued 04/01/2003 to Raines et al; 12 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 Pat. Pub No. 2002/0069449 entitled "Hood including three dimensional covering" published 06/13/2002 in the names of Blutstein et al; Pat. No. 6,061,828 entitled "Camouflage items and camouflage 5 material thereon" issued 05/16/2000 to Josephs; Pat. No. 5,767,933 entitled "Camouflage eyewear" issued 06/16/1998 to Hagan; Pat. No. 5,675,838 entitled "Camouflage clothing" issued 10/14/1997 to Hollinger; 10 Pat. No. 5,521,655 entitled "Camouflage eyewear" issued 05/28/1996 to Rhoad; Pat. No. Des. 350,399 entitled "Hunting blind" issued 09/06/1994 to Bodrie; Pat. No. Des. 337,366 entitled "Hunting blind" issued 07/13/1993 to 15 Baker; and Pat. No. 5,203,033 entitled "Camouflaged garment" issued 04/20/1993 to Sheppard et al. [0031] Visual camouflage and/or scent/odor reduction can serve to reduce the ability of an animal (predator or prey) or another person to perceive the presence of 20 the wearer, by sight or scent, respectively, and can be incorporated into electromagnetically shielding apparel. Scent/odor reduction, in combination with electromagnetic shielding, can also advantageously (i) reduce the effect on an animal of the emotional state or emotional response of the wearer, (ii) reduce the likelihood of detection of the wearer by an aquatic or marine water-borne predator, 25 or (iii) reduce any alerting or cueing of a human adversary arising from an emotional state or an emotional response of the wearer. [0032] Exemplary articles of electromagnetically shielding apparel 30 can include a visual camouflage pattern on at least a portion of its outer surface (as in Figs. 3A and 3B). Many examples of such visual camouflage are known, and some 30 examples are disclosed in various of the incorporated references. Any suitable visual camouflage pattern, including both two- and three-dimensional patterns, 13 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure or claims. In another example, the article of electromagnetically shielding apparel can include an odor or scent absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker. Some examples of these are disclosed in various of the incorporated references. Any suitable scent/odor 5 absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure or claims, including those that act by absorbing or masking the scent/odor or by inhibiting microbial growth. By combining electromagnetic shielding with visual camouflage and/or scent/odor control, the overall likelihood that the user's emanated electromagnetic field or emanated scent/odor will 10 affecting progress or an outcome of a given situation (including those disclosed herein) can be reduced. [0033] Conductive fibers can be employed that also attenuate a scent or odor emanating from the wearer of the apparel. Conductive fibers can be employed that attenuate the scent or odor by at least partly absorbing or masking it or by inhibiting 15 microbial growth in the apparel. Attenuating scent or odor emanating from the wearer decreases the likelihood of such emanated scent or odor affecting progress or the outcome of the given situation in which the wearer is involved (including those variously described herein). Apparel disclosed herein that attenuates both electromagnetic fields and scent or odor emanating from a wearer can be generally 20 referred to as "attenuating apparel," and that phrase shall be understood to encompass apparel constructed from fabric that incorporates conductive fibers that also attenuate scent or odor. [0034] To provide apparel that attenuates a wearer's emanated scent or odor in addition to attenuating the wearer's emanated electromagnetic field, conducting 25 fibers can be employed that provide both of those functions. In one example, copper or silver conductive fibers can be employed to attenuate emanated electromagnetic fields (due to their conductivity) and to attenuate emanated scent or odor (due to their observed antimicrobial properties). Silver or copper conductive fibers can be incorporated in to the apparel in any suitable fabric type at 30 any suitable composition. In another example, conductive carbon fibers can be employed to attenuate both emanated electromagnetic fields and emanated scent or odor. It has been observed that conductive carbon fibers incorporated into a shielding fabric appear to absorb at least a portion of emanated scent or odor. 14 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 Multifilament carbon fiber yarn has been observed to attenuate scent or odor more effectively than monofilament yarn. An exemplary fabric for constructing apparel can comprise a 20 denier, three filament carbon fiber yarn twisted with 50 denier polyester yarn and knitted or woven into a textile fabric. Any suitable yarn type or 5 density can be employed. [0035] In addition to the situations already described (animal handling, in or on a body of water, or an adversarial situation), attenuating apparel can be advantageously employed to attenuate, while hunting, the electromagnetic field emanated by a hunter and a scent or odor emanated by the hunter. Hereafter the 10 term "hunter" shall include a hunter or an observer of wildlife (unless the particular context makes it clear that that equivalence would not apply), and "hunting" shall include hunting or observing (such as by photographing, filming, recording, or merely viewing or listening to the animal). The electromagnetic field and scent/odor can be attenuated by one or more articles of apparel worn by the hunter 15 while hunting. [0036] Another exemplary method comprises attenuating, while hunting, the electromagnetic field and scent/odor emanated by a hunter, using attenuating apparel incorporating conductive fibers that also attenuate scent/odor. Another exemplary method can include providing at least one such article of attenuating 20 apparel to a hunter and instructing that hunter to wear the article while hunting. That method can also include constructing at least one said article of apparel prior to providing it to the hunter. [0037] The hunter wears the article of attenuating apparel while hunting. The attenuating fabric blocks or attenuates an electromagnetic field and a scent/odor 25 emanating from the hunter, thereby decreasing the likelihood that he or she will be detected by an animal sensitive to such electromagnetic fields or scents/odors. An electromagnetic field 12 emanated by a hunter 10 and thus attenuated can be detected by an animal 14 at a maximum distance D1 (Fig. 1A) that is smaller than the maximum detection distance D2 at which an unattenuated field 12 (Fig. 1 B) 30 can be detected by that same animal 14. Detection of the scent/odor by the animal can be similarly described. The hunter 10 can therefore approach the animal 14 more closely without detection, facilitating the kill or observation. In measurements of electromagnetic fields emanating from a human body, reductions of field 15 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 strength ranging from about 38% to about 65% have been observed, as shown illustrated in the experimental results disclosed in an Appendix attached to this specification. Any suitable, desirable, or practicable reduction of emanated electromagnetic field strength shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure or 5 appended claims. [0038] The article of attenuating apparel comprises an attenuating fabric incorporating conductive fibers that also attenuate of block the hunter's scent or odor. Such attenuation of emanated electromagnetic field and scent/odor can enable the hunter to approach more closely (without detection) an animal in its 10 habitat, thereby increasing the likelihood of a successful kill or observation. Fabric incorporating fibers that attenuate both electromagnetic fields and scent/odor can also (or instead) be employed in a hunting blind, in which a hunter or observer can remain stationary and wait for an animal to approach his/her position. [0039] It is possible in some instances of hunting that a human hunter might 15 become the prey of a predatory animal, either the animal he is hunting or another animal in the same habitat. In those circumstances, the attenuating apparel can reduce the likelihood that the predatory animal will locate the human hunter by detecting the electromagnetic field or scent/odor emanated by the hunter. [0040] There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to attenuate or block 20 (using such fabrics) electromagnetic fields and scent/odor emanating from a hunter while hunting or an observer while observing wildlife, or that attenuation or blocking using such fabrics would be desirable. There is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to incorporate attenuating fabric (incorporating conductive fibers that also attenuate scent/odor) into hunting apparel or a hunting blind, or that the 25 incorporation of such fabrics would be desirable. CASE STUDY #1 [0041] The first subject is an experienced hunter of mule deer. The subject has been hunting mule deer with bow and rifle for the last 28 years. The subject agreed to wear a garment incorporating electromagnetically shielding fabric 30 (Farabloc@ fabric) during an archery mule deer hunt. [0042] During said hunt the subject located two record book class mule deer bucks. One of these two specimens was described as a very large and difficult 16 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 trophy. The subject was able to stalk within 60 plus yards of both trophy deer, and then waited and watched for an opportunity to harvest one of the bucks with his bow. The subject was forced to wait in an area that offered very little concealment. Both deer looked in his direction several times over about a 30 minute period, 5 during which the subject was able to escape detection by either deer. After that waiting and watching period, he was able to shoot and harvest the larger of the two bucks with his bow. The subject expressed amazement that he was able to stand so close to the two animals and remain undetected by them. He indicated that previous experiences in similar hunting situations had been much different, with a 10 mature mule deer buck typically able to detect his presence at similar distances. The only difference between this hunt and previous hunts was the addition of the electromagnetically shielding garment. CASE STUDY #2 [0043] Two subjects both wearing garments incorporating electromagnetically 15 shielding fabric (Farabloc@ fabric) were stalking elk. Both subjects are very experienced hunters with experience as professional guides. The two subjects stalked into a small group of deer made up of two doe mule deer and two fawn mule deer. The mule deer, ranged from about 40 yards to about 65 yards, saw the hunters but did not display the typical, flighty behavior of mule deer when 20 threatened by a predator. They appeared unconcerned and moved off at a relaxed, leisurely pace. Both subjects had previously experienced similar incidents with very different results. Typically, when mule deer see a stalking predator at a distance between about 40 yards and about 60 yards, they quickly run away. Both subjects had experienced such behavior on previous occasions when not wearing 25 electromagnetically shielding garments. In the incident described above (with the electromagnetically shielding garments), the deer were not alarmed even though both subjects had clearly been seen by the deer. CASE STUDY #3 [0044] The subject, a bowhunter with over 40 years experienced hunting elk, wore 30 prototype electromagnetically shielding clothing (incorporating Farabloc@ fabric). During a hunt a young bull elk came within about 10 yards of his position. The elk walked past the subject without even glancing in his direction and then lingered 17 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 within 20 yards of the hunter for over 5 minutes, in spite of the fact that the hunter was positioned in an open area. The subject stated that he has been that close to elk on many previous occasions (without electromagnetically shielding garments), but has never had one be so oblivious to his presence. He stated that in previous 5 instances, even if elk did not flee immediately they would nearly always look in his direction, show signs of nervousness, and eventually flee. [0045] In addition to the case studies, a more controlled, systematic test of the effect of electromagnetically shielding fabric on animals' perception of the electromagnetic field emanating from a human body is disclosed in a manuscript 10 reproduced in an Appendix attached to this specification. [0046] Any other use of electromagnetically shielding clothing (with or without odor/scent attenuation), in a situation wherein blocking or attenuating the wearer's emanated electromagnetic field may be advantageous, shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure, whether that situation involves an animal or not. 15 [0047] It is intended that equivalents of the disclosed exemplary embodiments and methods shall fall within the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims. It is intended that the disclosed exemplary embodiments and methods, and equivalents thereof, may be modified while remaining within the scope of the present disclosure or appended claims. 20 [0048] For purposes of the present disclosure and appended claims, the conjunction "or" is to be construed inclusively (e.g., "a dog or a cat" would be interpreted as "a dog, or a cat, or both"; e.g., "a dog, a cat, or a mouse" would be interpreted as "a dog, or a cat, or a mouse, or any two, or all three"), unless: (i) it is explicitly stated otherwise, e.g., by use of "either.. .or", "only one of...", or similar 25 language; or (ii) two or more of the listed alternatives are mutually exclusive within the particular context, in which case "or" would encompass only those combinations involving non-mutually-exclusive alternatives. For purposes of the present disclosure or appended claims, all instances of the words "comprising," "including," "having," and variants thereof shall be construed as open ended 30 terminology, with the same meaning as if the phrase "at least" were appended after each instance thereof. 18 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 APPENDIX [0049] The following manuscript was prepared at the direction of the inventors in the course of testing the electromagnetically shielding articles of apparel disclosed herein, and has been included without further editing or alteration. Added Note: All 5 blocking garments used in the disclosed experiments were constructed using Farabloc@ fabric as the EMF blocking material. [0050] Title: The use of EMF (electromagnetic field) blocking garments reduces the ability of animals to detect a human subject. [0051] Author: Ted W Netter; BS General Agriculture, Oregon State University, 10 Post Graduate studies in Agriculture Education and Animal Science. [0052] Abstract: Animals have an uncanny ability to detect the proximity of humans, this study explores the hypothesis that animals sense EMF (electromagnetic field) emissions produced by the human body. The behavior of three species of animals (Cattle, Horses, and Mule Deer) was observed while 15 interacting with a human subject both with and without EMF (electromagnetic field) blocking garments. The results of this study find that the use of EMF blocking garments allow humans to approach 69 to 75 percent closer to Mule Deer than without their use. The results also show that the use of EMF blocking garments is more effective when the human subject remains motionless. Overall the study 20 finds that using EMF blocking garments makes a human significantly less detectable by animals. [0053] Introduction: I was presented with the Hypothesis that animals (specifically wild game animals) have the ability to detect some kind of electromagnetic Field (EMF) or Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) energy, that is 25 produced by the Human Body and that by blocking or attenuating this energy a person would be less detectable by wild animals. Having briefly studied the effects of High Power Transmission Lines on Animals at Oregon State University I was intrigued by the Hypothesis and initiated the following research. By breaking the hypothesis down to its root elements I found several questions I must answer. 30 First, what is EMF? Second, how is EMF measured? Third, can EMF be blocked? Fourth, do humans emit some kind of measurable EMF energy? Fifth, do animals sense or react to any type of non directed EMF signal or energy? 19 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 [0054] EMF has a broad definition; to fully understand it one must include electromagnetic field, electromagnetic radiation, and electromagnetic spectrum in the definition. [0055] The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically 5 charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. It is one of the four fundamental forces of nature (Wikipedia; NASA). [0056] Electromagnetic radiation (sometimes abbreviated EMR) takes the form of 10 self-propagating waves in a vacuum or in matter. EM radiation has an electric and magnetic field component which oscillates in phase perpendicular to each other and to the direction of energy propagation. Electromagnetic radiation is classified into types according to the frequency of the wave. EMR carries energy and momentum, which may be imparted when it interacts with matter (Wikipedia; 15 NASA). [0057] The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the range of all possible electromagnetic radiation frequencies. The electromagnetic spectrum extends from below the frequencies used for modern radio communication (at the long wavelength end) through gamma radiation (at the short-wavelength end), covering 20 wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction the size of an atom (Wikipedia; NASA). [0058] EMF is mainly characterized by its frequency and its strength. The frequency of EMF is measured in the unit hertz, which means "cycles per second". The strength of low frequency EMF (such as that produced by humans) is 25 measured in Milligauss or Microtesla (one Microtesla equals ten Milligauss) (how to measure EMF, Eriksen Andrew, MS). [0059] The most recognized method for blocking EMF is the Faraday Cage. A Faraday cage is a metallic enclosure that prevents the entry or escape of an electromagnetic field, Faraday cages can be built of solid metal shielding, metallic 30 mesh, or other material that contain conductive fibers. [0060] The human body produces, conducts, and stores electricity, and therefore EMF. The most common recognition of human produced electricity is through EKG 20 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 and EEG. The fact that humans conduct electricity is proven by simple devises such as an electric fence. A good example of humans storing electricity is building up a "static electric" charge and sharing it with a friend. EKG (electrocardiogram) is a test that measures the electrical activity of the heartbeat. With each beat, an 5 electrical impulse (or wave) travels through the heart (American Heart Association). EEG (electroencephalogram) is a test that measures and records the electrical activity of the human brain (WebMD). [0061] I found two studies that show evidence of electromagnetic radiation affecting animal behavior. W. L6scher and G. Kas; Conspicuous behavioral 10 abnormalities in a dairy cow herd near a TV and Radio transmitting antenna; Prakt. Tierarzt 79: 5, 437-444 (1998) [Practical Veterinary Surgeon 79: 5, 437-444 (1998)]. L6scher and Kas found that a cow with abnormal behavior brought to a stable in a different area resulted in normalization of the cow within five days. The symptoms returned, however, when the cow was brought back to the stable in 15 close proximity to the antenna in question. In view of the previously known effects of electromagnetic fields it may be possible that the observed abnormalities are related to the electromagnetic field exposure. [0062] The Department of Pharmacology, Silesian Academy of Medicine Katowice, Poland; Bioelectromagnetics 1993; 14(4): 287-97. They reported that 20 rats exposed to EMF (ELF) exhibited an increase or decrease in irritability depending on field strength and duration. They concluded that irritability of rats may be used as a simple behavioral indicant of mammalian sensitivity to magnetic fields. [0063] This study specifically addresses the question: Do animals sense and 25 react to human produced EMF, and does blocking human produced EMF make a person less detectable by animals? [0064] Methods: My first area of study is how much EMF does a human produce, and can it be blocked? To explore this I set up the following experiment. Experiment 1: Human EMF 30 [0065] Using a TriField Natural EM Meter, I located an area of low static EMF levels (the static level stayed between .25 and .33 microteslas or 2.5 to 3.3 milliguass). The experiment requires two people. First, the EM meter is set up on 21 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 a non-conductive platform at chest height of the experiment subject. Second, the EM meter is calibrated to read a subject passing in front of it. Third, an observation post is set up 15 feet behind and 10 feet higher than the meter, the person observing and recording the meter readings will use binoculars to ensure accurate 5 readings and no interference with the meters readings. Fourth, a subject not wearing EMF blocking material will pass by the meter at a slow walk at a distance of no greater than 6 inches, but not touching the meter or the non-conductive platform. This will be repeated 10 times at no less than a 30 second interval, the observer will record the highest reading on the meter for each pass. The subject 10 will then put on EMF blocking garments and repeat the experiment (the EMF blocking garments include undergarment pants that cover the body from the ankles to the waist, an undergarment shirt that covers from the neck to the wrists and over laps the pants, and a head net that goes under a hat and hangs down to overlap the shirt). 15 Experiment 2: Animal behavior [0066] In order to test an animal's ability to sense and therefore react to human produced EMF, I set up the following experiments to observe animal behavior while interacting with a human subject both with and without the use of EMF blocking material. For this experiment I chose the following animals: cattle, horses, and 20 wild mule deer. These animals were chosen for availability to the researcher, past history observing their behavior, and availability of research on their behavior. In order to keep this study simple and repeatable I limited human interaction with the animals to one human subject at a time. All measurements are done in either Feet or Yards and are completed by physical measurement, and or use of a laser range 25 finder, distance estimates are used when measurement during the experiment would affect results. Numbers of animals observed are exact where possible and estimated when an exact count is impossible. Efforts are made to mask means of detection by the animals other than EMF energy. Specifically, camouflage clothing is used along with natural cover to disguise the human subject. No scent 30 suppression is used other than that available in the natural environment. Experiments are designed to use wind direction to help mask the subjects scent. Experiments are designed to minimize the subject animals' prior knowledge of the location of the subject. Movement and noise during the experiment are limited to 22 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 sounds and motion required to complete the experiment. All data from the experiments were cataloged mentally by the subject and recorded at the end of the experiment session, or cataloged and recorded physically by a third party using long range observation. Experiments A-Ff will be the control experiments and will 5 be conducted without EMF blocking material. [0067] The experiments conducted with the EMF blocking material are labeled A2 Ff2. The EMF blocking material includes undergarment pants that cover the body from the ankles to the waist, an undergarment shirt that covers from the neck to the wrists and over laps the pants, and a head net that goes under a hat and hangs 10 down to overlap the shirt. This will be worn along with the same outer garments used in the control experiments. Experiment A: Cattle [0068] Cattle are observed while moving through a fixed choke point from rest to feed and water without pressure. This experiment must use an established travel 15 route that the cattle have had exposure to for at least 5 consecutive days. The choke point should be between 12 and 16 feet wide (for my experiment I used a 14 foot gateway). The human subject is positioned on the side of the opening at which the cattle are at rest 12 feet from the opening on a parallel line to the opening seated on the ground and using natural cover (leaning back against the 20 fence) See Fig. 5A and the legend in Fig. 5D. The Human subject will take up their observation point no later than one half hour before cattle are normally given access to their feed source, and only if no cattle are present at the choke point, or are near or observing the choke point. The human subject will observe the cattle and mentally catalog data from their observation point minimizing movement, 25 noise, eye contact or any other interaction with the cattle. Observation of the cattle behavior continued for one half hour after the first bovine approaches the choke point opening. Experiment B: Cattle [0069] The reaction of cattle is observed while a human subject moves directly at 30 them in an open field. Starting from a distance of no less than 150 yards the human subject will move slowly towards the cattle stopping and taking a yardage reading with a range finder when directly observed by cattle or cattle start to move 23 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 away from the human subject. The human subject will try to approach as close as possible to the cattle without them running off from the subject. Experiment C: Horse [0070] Horses are observed while moving from rest to feed without pressure 5 through an alleyway (see Fig. 5B and the legend in Fig. 5D) The human subject is positioned on the side of and halfway down a 14 ft wide by 200 ft long alleyway that connects a horse paddock to a pasture. These horses go down this particular alleyway twice a day on their way out to the pasture. There is no pressure from a herdsman on the way out; on the way in from the pasture herding pressure is used. 10 For this experiment the horses were observed while going out to pasture without herding pressure. The human subject will take up the observation post 10 min before the horses are to be turned out and will be standing up against a fence for safety reasons (preliminary studies show that the horses were often running 3 wide by the time they reached the observation point). The human subject will observe 15 the horses and mentally catalog data from their observation point minimizing movement, noise, eye contact or any other interaction with the horses. Observation will continue until the horses move to a point 50 feet beyond the observation point. Experiment D: Horse 20 [0071] The reaction of horses is observed while a human subject moves directly at them in an open field. Starting from a distance of no less than 150 yards the human subject will move slowly towards the horses stopping and taking a yardage reading with a range finder when directly observed by the horse or the horses start to move away from the human subject. The human subject will try to approach as 25 close as possible to the horses without them running off from the subject. Experiment E: Wild Mule Deer [0072] Mule Deer are observed while moving from their bed grounds (a state of rest) to feed and water. This experiment uses a known travel route of deer between a ridge where they rest, a pond where they water and a field they have 30 been actively grazing (see Fig. 5C and the legend in Fig. 5D). Preliminary studies show that small groups of deer (2-5 at a time) have been using this travel route every afternoon for at least 3 days before the study. The human subject will 24 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 position themselves 12 to 20 feet off to the side of the established deer trail, at a location that gives the subject a good view of the deer trail for at least 50 yards in the direction the deer will be coming from. The subject will use the best natural cover available and be in the seated position (to minimize movement due to 5 fatigue). The human subject will mentally catalogue data while deer are present and record data and make measurements with the range finder only when deer are not present. Experiment F: Wild Mule Deer [0073] The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while a human subject moves 10 directly at them in an open field. Starting from a distance of no less than 150 yards the human subject will move slowly towards the deer stopping and taking a yardage reading with a range finder when directly observed by the deer or the deer start to move away from the human subject. The human subject will try to approach as close as possible to the deer without them running off from the 15 subject. Experiment Ff: Mule Deer [0074] The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while being stalked by a human subject. The subject will only move or take readings when the deer have their heads down and are feeding, not observing the human subject. The human 20 subject will try to approach as close to the deer as possible up until they leave the field. Results: [0075] Experiment 1: How much EMF does a human produce, and can it be blocked? 25 [0076] All readings are expressed in microteslas, to convert readings to milligauss multiply the reading by ten. [0077] Column A represents the use of EMF blocking material (W= readings taken with EMF blocking material, WO= readings taken without EMF blocking material). [0078] Columns B-K represents individual test results (these have no direct 30 correlation to each other they are simply raw readings). [0079] The Column labeled AVG is the average reading for the test session. 25 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 A B C D E F G H I J K AVG Wa 4.2 3.7 4.8 4.8 4.3 3.9 4 4.5 4.2 4 4.24 W 1.9 2.2 2 2 2.3 1.7 1.7 2.1 2 1.9 1.98 [0080] Results of note: The data table in experiment 1 shows that the use of EMF blocking material reduces the EM field strength of the human body by 53 percent on average. Further analysis of the data shows a potential minimum of 38 percent and a maximum of 65 percent. Overall results the human body does produce 5 measurable amounts of EMF, and human produced EMF can be blocked using the proper material. [0081] Experiment A: Cattle are observed by a human subject (without EMF blocking material) moving through a fixed choke point from rest to feed and water. 52 head of weaned calves used in this experiment. 10 [0082] Column A represents the experiment session. [0083] Column B represents the number of cattle. [0084] Column C represents the distance at which the cattle first observe and react to human subject (ND= no detection). [0085] Column D represents the reaction of the cattle to the human subject (S= 15 stop and stare, MA= move around, NR= no reaction, R= retreat, A= approach). Reactions are listed in order of how they happened. [0086] Column E represents the distance from human subject when the cattle start to move to the choke point. [0087] Column F represents how the cattle move through the choke point (W= 20 walk, F= fast walk, R= run). A B C D E F 1 7 30 yds S,MA,A 20 yds F,R 1 4 37 yds S,A,MA 29 yds R 1 11 32 yds S,R,A,MA 21 yds R 2 15 35 yds S,R,MA,A 15 yds F,R 2 6 29 yds S,A,MA 18 yd F 2 23 40 yds S,A,S,MA 22 yds R 3 10 25 yds S,R,MA,A 11 yds F,R 3 13 30 yds S,A,S 20 yds F 3 8 27 yds S,MA,A 15 yds R 3 2 20 yds S,A 12 yds R AVG 9.9 30.5 yds NA 18.3 yds NA 26 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 [0088] Results of note: All groups of calves, if not every single calf in each session detected and had some reaction to the test subject. Groups of calves spent between 30 seconds and 3 minutes observing and reacting to the subject. Not all of the cattle observed in this experiment passed through the choke point 5 within the 30 minute sessions. [0089] Experiment A2: Cattle are observed by a human subject (using EMF blocking material) moving through a fixed choke point from rest to feed and water. 52 head of weaned calves used in this experiment. [0090] Column A represents the experiment session. 10 [0091] Column B represents the number of cattle. [0092] Column C represents the distance at which the cattle first observe and react to human subject (ND= no detection). [0093] Column D represents the reaction of the cattle to the human subject (S= stop and stare, MA= move around, NR= no reaction, R= retreat, A= approach). 15 Reactions are listed in order of how they happened. [0094] Column E represents the distance from human subject when the cattle start to move to the choke point. [0095] Column F represents how the cattle move through the choke point (W= walk, F= fast walk, R= run). A B C D E F 1 14 10 yds S,A 7yds W,F 1 8 ND NR NA W 1 22 7 yds S,NR 7 yds W 1 8 12 yds S,A,A,A 5 yds W,F 2 12 ND NR NA F 2 16 12 yds S,A 9 yds W 2 6 10 yds S,NR 10 yds W 2 10 7yds NR 7yds W 2 8 ND NR NA F,R 3 7 10 yds S,NR 10 yds W 3 16 7 yds NR 7 yds W 3 4 ND NR NA F 3 25 12 yds NR 12 yds W AVG 12 9.67 yds NA 8.22 yds NA 27 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 [0096] Results of note: Not all groups of calves or individual calves in the groups detected or had a reaction to the test subject. 36 percent of the groups of calves in this experiment did not detect the test subject. 64 percent of the groups of cattle had no reaction to the subject. 27 percent of the groups of calves that detected the 5 subject had no reaction other than looking at the subject. Calves that detected the subject spent no more than 45 seconds reacting to the subject. [0097] Experiment A-A2 comparative results: On average the calves in A2 came 68 percent closer to the subject before they detected the subject than the calves in A. On average the calves in A2 passed through the choke point 55 percent closer 10 to the subject than the calves in A. [0098] Experiment B: The reaction of cattle is observed while a human subject moves directly at them in an open field (without EMF blocking material). [0099] Column A represents the experiment session. [0100] Column B is the starting distance from the animals. 15 [0101] Column C is the distance at which the animals first detect the human subject. [0102] Column D is the distance at which the animals first react to the human subject. [0103] Column E is the distance at which the animals actively react to the human 20 subject. [0104] Column F is the closest distance between the human subject and the animals. [0105] The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment. A B C D E F 1 225yds 200yds 125 yds 3yds 3yds 2 180yds 160yds 130yds 3yds 3yds 3 200yds 165yds 110yds 3yds 3yds AVG 201.67yds 175 yds 121.67yds 3 yds 3 yds [0106] Results of note: The cattle in this experiment did not run away from the 25 test subject, but they would move away and around the subject if the subject got within 9-10 feet of them. Once the subject entered the group of cattle most cattle 28 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 that were farther than 15 yards from the subject went on feeding and did not react to the subject. [0107] Experiment B2: The reaction of cattle is observed while a human subject moves directly at them in an open field (using EMF blocking material). 5 [0108] Column A represents the experiment session. [0109] Column B is the starting distance from the animals. [0110] Column C is the distance at which the animals first detect the human subject. [0111] Column D is the distance at which the animals first react to the human 10 subject. [0112] Column E is the distance at which the animals actively react to the human subject. [0113] Column F is the closest distance between the human subject and the animals. 15 [0114] The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment. A B C D E F 1 185yds 150yds 100yds 40yds 20yds 2 215yds 170yds 105yds 55 yds 22yds 3 175yds 140yds 90yds 30yds 15yds AVG 191.67yds 153.33yds 98.33yds 41.67yds , 19 yds [0115] Results of note: Cattle actively avoided the test subject when the subject approached within 42 yards on average. All cattle in group reacted to the test subject when subject entered the group of cattle. [0116] Experiment B-B2 comparative results: Even though the subject in B2 was 20 able to approach closer to the cattle without being detected, the subject got closer to the cattle without them actively reacting in experiment B. [0117] Experiment C: Horses are observed while moving from rest to feed without pressure through an alleyway (without EMF blocking material). 14 horses were observed in this experiment 25 [0118] Session one: Horses enter the alleyway as a group jogging; the lead horse starts to slow down 30 yards from the subject. All horses slow to a stop and look at 29 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 the subject at 20 yards, several horses walk toward the subject, all horses follow and stop at 10 yards. Three horses move to the far side of the alleyway, passing by the subject and continuing down the alleyway, once the three horses start running the rest of the horses move past the subject and down the alleyway. 5 [0119] Session two: The horses enter the alleyway running three horses wide, at 35 yards the lead horse moves to the far side of the alley, the rest of the horses slow and move behind the lead horse. All of the horses run by the subject on the far side of the alleyway. [0120] Session three: The horses enter the alleyway in a group, at a jog. All of 10 the horses stay in a group until they are 10 feet from the subject. Four of the horses slow and stop by the subject; most of the horses go by the subject at a jog, several horses stop after passing the subject, one of these horses' snorts and runs off, the rest of the horses follow running off. [0121] Results of note: All horses in all three sessions both detected and reacted 15 to the test subject. During session three the four horses that approach the subject react to the subject for approximately 30 seconds before passing the subject. [0122] Experiment C2: Horses are observed while moving from rest to feed without pressure through an alleyway (using EMF blocking material). 14 horses were observed in this experiment 20 [0123] Session one: The horses enter the alleyway, running in a long group. The horses keep running the length of the alleyway passing 5 feet from the subject. [0124] Session two: The horses enter the alleyway in two groups jogging. The horses move the length of the alleyway at a jog, passing the subject at 5-6 feet. [0125] Session three: The horses enter the alleyway running in a tight group four 25 horses wide. The horses run the length of the alley way, one horse runs within 3 feet of the subject. [0126] Results of note: None of the horses in these sessions showed any detection of or reaction to the subject. None of these sessions lasted longer than 25 seconds. In session three the subject almost got run into by a paint horse. 30 [0127] Experiment D: The reaction of horses is observed while a human subject moves directly at them in an open field (without EMF blocking material). 30 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 [0128] Column A represents the experiment session. [0129] Column B is the starting distance from the animals. [0130] Column C is the distance at which the animals first detect the human subject. 5 [0131] Column D is the distance at which the animals first react to the human subject. [0132] Column E is the distance at which the animals actively react to the human subject. [0133] Column F is the closest distance between the human subject and the 10 animals. [0134] The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment. A B C D E F 1 165yds 140yds 120yds 90yds 15yds 2 180yds 165yds 135yds 95yds 15yds 3 155yds 135yds 115yds 80yds 10yds AVG 166.67yds 146.67yds 123.33yds 88.33yds 13.33yds [0135] Results of note: The standard reaction of the horses was to group up when approached by the subject. The horses did not continually keep track of the subjects' progress towards them. Horses appeared calm as subject approached 15 close to the group. [0136] Experiment D2: The reaction of horses is observed while a human subject moves directly at them in an open field (using EMF blocking material). [0137] Column A represents the experiment session. [0138] Column B is the starting distance from the animals. 20 [0139] Column C is the distance at which the animals first detect the human subject. [0140] Column D is the distance at which the animals first react to the human subject. [0141] Column E is the distance at which the animals actively react to the human 25 subject. 31 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 [0142] Column F is the closest distance between the human subject and the animals. [0143] The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment. A B C D E F 1 170yds 130 yds 125yds 80 yds 20yds 2 185yds 125 yds 11 5yds 75 yds 17yds 3 150yds 110yds 100yds 75yds 11 yds AVG 168.33 yds 121.67 yds 113.33 yds 76.67 yds 16 yds [0144] Results of note: Most of the horses continually kept track of the subjects' 5 progress towards them. The standard reaction of the horses was to group up when approached by the subject, however in session one, two horses moved between the group and the subject. Horses seemed alarmed when subject approached close to the group of horses. [0145] Experiment D-D2 comparative results: The largest change in results 10 between D and D2 is not represented in the data, but by the horses' attitude, without EMF blocking material they are calm, with the use of it they appeared alarmed by the subjects' presence. [0146] Experiment E: Mule Deer are observed while moving from their bed grounds (a state of rest) to feed and water (without EMF blocking material). 15 [0147] Column A represents experiment session. [0148] Column B represents the number of deer observed. [0149] Column C represents the distance at which the deer are first observed. [0150] Column D represents the distance at which the deer first detect the subject (ND= deer never detect subject). 20 [0151] Column E represents the reaction of the deer when they detect the subject (S= stop and stare, A= approach, R= retreat, MA= move around or away from, AL= makes alarm sound or movement, L = look at, NR= no reaction). [0152] Column F represents the speed at which the deer travel after detecting the subject, or the speed at which they pass by the subject (W= walk, F= fast walk, R= 25 run). [0153] Column G represents the closest the deer get to the subject. 32 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 A B C D E F G 1 3 85 yds 52 yds S,MA F 52 yds 1 1 100yds 85yds MA F 80yds 1 4 85 yds 65 yds S,AL,MA R 50 yds 1 22 deer observed in field at the close of session 2 3 70 yds 60 yds S,MA F 45 yds 2 5 68 yds 55 yds S,A,S,AL F,R 30 yds 2 2 100 yds 70 yds S,MA,AL F,R 52 yds 2 4 75 yds 50 yds S,AL,MA R 50 yds 2 17 deer observed in field at the close of session 3 1 50 yds 50 yds S,A,AL,MA R 40 yds 3 6 65 yds 47 yds S,MA,A,AL R 35 yds 3 25 deer observed in field at the close of session AVG 3.22 77.56yds 59.33yds NA NA 48.22yds [0154] Results of note: All groups of deer (if not all deer) individually detected and reacted to the test subject. In 67 percent of the groups of deer, one or more of the deer made an alarm sound or movement upon detecting the subject, 67 percent of the groups also reacted by running from or past the subject. 89 percent of the deer 5 got closer to the subject after the subject spotted the deer. 78 percent of the deer got closer to the subject after they detected the subject. [0155] Experiment E2: Mule Deer are observed while moving from their bed grounds (a state of rest) to feed and water (Using EMF blocking material). [0156] Column A represents experiment session. 10 [0157] Column B represents the number of deer observed. [0158] Column C represents the distance at which the deer are first observed. [0159] Column D represents the distance at which the deer first detect the subject (ND= deer never detect subject). [0160] Column E represents the reaction of the deer when they detect the subject 15 (S= stop and stare, A= approach, R= retreat, MA= move around or away from, AL= makes alarm sound or movement, L = look at, NR= no reaction). [0161] Column F represents the speed at which the deer travel after detecting the subject, or the speed at which they pass by the subject (W= walk, F= fast walk, R= run). 20 33 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 A B C D E F G 1 4 72 yds 6 yds L,NR W 6 yds 1 1 100 yds ND NR W 30 yds 1 3 82 yds 10 yds L,S,NR W 10 yds 1 6 60 yds ND NR FW 10 yds 1 27 deer observed in field at the close of session 2 2 90 yds ND NR W 15 yds 2 4 65 yds 9 yds L,NR W 9 yds 2 5 75 yds 15 yds L,A,S,MA W 10 yds 2 3 85 yds ND NR W 25 yds 2 1 35 yds ND NR W 15 yds 2 31 deer observed in field at the close of session 3 1 40 yds 12 yds L W 12 yds 3 7 90 yds ND NR W 20 yds 3 3 70 yds 13 yds L W 13 yds 3 3 50 yds 15 yds L,A,L W 10 yds 3 24 deer observed in field at the close of session AVG 3.31 70.31yds 11.43yds NA NA 14.23yds [0162] Results of note: 46 percent of the groups of deer did not detect the test subject. Only one of the seven groups (14%) of deer that detected the subject moved around or away from the subject. None of the deer that detected the 5 subject moved faster than a walk after detecting the subject. None of the deer made an alarm sound or movement after detecting the subject. 100 percent of the deer got closer to the subject after the subject spotted them. 29 percent of the deer that detected the subject got closer to the subject after they detected the subject. 10 [0163] Experiment E-E2 comparative results: On average the deer that detected the subject in E2 got 81 percent (47.9 yards) closer to the subject before detection than the deer that detected the subject in E. On average the closest distance to the deer in E2 was 14.23 yards, that's 33.99 yards closer than in E. 100 percent of the deer in experiment E avoided the subject by moving away from or around the 15 subject all of those deer did so at a fast walk or run, only 8 percent of the deer in experiment E2 moved away from or around the subject, and those deer did so at a walk. [0164] Experiment F: The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while a human subject moves directly at them in an open field (without EMF blocking material). 34 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 [0165] Column A represents the experiment session. [0166] Column B is the number of deer in the group being stalked [0167] Column C is the starting distance from the deer. [0168] Column D is the distance at which the deer first detect the human subject. 5 [0169] Column E is the distance at which the deer first react to the human subject. [0170] Column F is the distance at which the deer actively move away from the human subject. [0171] Column G is the closest distance between the human subject and the deer. [0172] The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment. A B C D E F G 1 7 212yds 212yds 200yds 180yds 180yds 2 9 185yds 171 yds 165yds 160yds 160yds 3 5 163yds 163yds 163yds 200yds 163yds AVG 7 186.67 yds 182 yds 176 yds 180 yds , 167.67 yds 10 [0173] Results of note: In session three the deer observed the human subject entering the field, and immediately started feeding and moving away from the subject, when the subject moved toward the deer, the deer ran out of the field after the subject had moved around 30 yards towards them. In all three sessions the deer detected the subject within the first 14 yards of the subject moving toward the 15 deer. Once the subject was detected by the deer at least one deer always kept track of the subject, even after running away. [0174] Experiment F2: The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while a human subject moves directly at them in an open field (using EMF blocking material). [0175] Column A represents the experiment session. 20 [0176] Column B is the number of deer in the group being stalked [0177] Column C is the starting distance from the deer. [0178] Column D is the distance at which the deer first detect the human subject. [0179] Column E is the distance at which the deer first react to the human subject. [0180] Column F is the distance at which the deer actively move away from the 25 human subject. 35 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 [0181] Column G is the closest distance between the human subject and the deer. [0182] The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment. A B C D E F G 1 5 185yds 160yds 125yds 71yds 60yds 2 8 230yds 190yds 130yds 75yds 50yds 3 8 160yds 160yds 105yds 70yds 47yds AVG 7 191.67 yds 170 yds 120 yds 72 yds 52.33yds [0183] Results of note: In two of the three sessions the subject progressed 25 yards or further toward the deer without being detected upon entering the field. In 5 all three sessions the deer did not continuously keep track of the subject after they first detected the subject. Individual deer in all three sessions allowed the subject to get closer to them after they had already actively moved away from the subject. [0184] Experiment F-F2 comparative results: The subject progressed over 115 yards closer to the deer on average in experiment D2 as compared to D. The 10 subject progressed 56 yards closer to the deer on average before the deer reacted to the subject in D2 as compared to D. [0185] Experiment Ff: The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while being stalked by a human subject. The subject will only move or take readings when the deer have their heads down and are feeding, not observing the human subject 15 (without EMF blocking material). [0186] Column A represents the experiment session. [0187] Column B is the number of deer in the group being stalked [0188] Column C is the starting distance from the deer. [0189] Column D is the distance at which the deer first detect the human subject. 20 [0190] Column E is the distance at which the deer first react to the human subject. [0191] Column F is the distance at which the deer actively move away from the human subject. [0192] Column G is the closest distance between the human subject and the deer. [0193] The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment. 25 36 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 A B C D E F G 1 10 200yds 155yds 125yds 120yds 120yds 2 6 170yds 160yds 155 yds 133yds 133yds 3 7 240yds 185yds 150yds 145yds 120yds AVG 7.67 203.33yds 166.67yds 143.33yds 132.67yds 124.33yds [0194] Results of note: In all three sessions the subject progressed 10 yards or farther into the field before being detected. In two of the three sessions the subject got no closer to the deer after they had started to actively move away from the 5 subject. In all three sessions the subject progressed 33 yards or farther toward the deer before they started to actively move away. [0195] Experiment Ff2: The reactions of Mule Deer are observed while being stalked by a human subject. The subject will only move or take readings when the deer have their heads down and are feeding, not observing the human subject 10 using EMF blocking material). [0196] Column A represents the experiment session. [0197] Column B is the number of deer in the group being stalked [0198] Column C is the starting distance from the deer. [0199] Column D is the distance at which the deer first detect the human subject. 15 [0200] Column E is the distance at which the deer first react to the human subject. [0201] Column F is the distance at which the deer actively move away from the human subject. [0202] Column G is the closest distance between the human subject and the deer. [0203] The row marked AVG is the average distance for the experiment. A B C D E F G 1 9 220yds 105yds 85yds 55yds 40yds 2 11 160 yds 20yds 20yds 35yds 20yds 3 5 180yds 140yds 90yds 60yds 35yds AVG 8.33 186.67yds 88.33yds 65 yds 50 yds 31.67yds 20 [0204] Results of note: In session two the subject progressed to within 50 yards of the deer. When they start to feed toward the subject, several horses in the field approach the subject to within 30 yards and snort at subject. The deer continue to feed toward the subject even though the wind direction has changed and is blowing 37 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 from the subject directly at the deer. The deer continue to feed directly at the subject and two deer close to 20 yards. The horses then stamp and blow and the deer look at the subject and start to feed away. The deer finally actively react to the subject at 35 yards. In two of the three sessions the subject progresses more 5 than 100 yards toward the deer before being detected. In all three sessions subject approaches deer to within 40 yards. [0205] Experiment Ff-Ff2 comparative results: The subject progressed over 92 yards closer to the deer on average in experiment Ff2 as compared to Ff. The subject progressed over 78 yards closer to the deer on average before the deer 10 reacted to the subject in Ff2 as compared to Ff. [0206] Discussion: Taking into consideration the results from all of the experiments I reach the following conclusions; humans do produce and emit some level of EMF, and that EMF can be reduced by the use of EMF blocking garments. Animals do sense or detect EMF produced by humans, and blocking or reducing 15 EMF emissions makes humans less detectable by animals. There are several specific examples in the previous experiments that EMF blocking has a profound effect on the ability of deer to detect and recognize humans. First in experiment E2, fifteen mule deer looked at the subject in the experiment, yet still approached the subject to within 10 yards or less (3 deer to 6 yards) and had no reaction to the 20 subject, they did not act alarmed, or run away, they simply walked off. Compare that to experiment E, and the closest a deer got to the subject was 30 yards and that deer acted alarmed and ran off. In experiment Ff2, deer feed and walked toward the subject in an open field, looked directly at the subject, watched horses react to the subjects' presence, yet still continued to feed and walk toward the 25 subject eventually coming within 20 yards of the subject. These past two examples have something in common, the subject was not moving, and looking at the data EMF blocking has the most effect on animals when the human subject is not moving. Another area of this study also needs to be discussed, the cattle and horses used in this experiment are "tame" farm animals, they are accustomed to 30 people being around them, and during the course of this experiment the subject became very familiar with the animals. During the control portion of the experiment the horses and cattle acted similar toward the subject as they do to their owners and caretakers. However, when the subject was wearing the EMF blocking 38 WO 2010/124145 PCT/US2010/032133 garments, the cattle and especially the horses acted as if they did not recognize the subject as a human when the subject was walking toward or through them. When the subject was not moving the cattle and horses rarely detected the presence of the subject. In closing the data generated by this study leads me to 5 believe that EMF blocking makes humans significantly less detectable by animals. Sources: [0207] W. L6scher and G. Kas; Conspicuous behavioral abnormalities in a dairy cow herd near a TV and Radio transmitting antenna; Prakt. Tierarzt 79: 5, 437-444 (1998) [Practical Veterinary Surgeon 79: 5, 437-444 (1998)] Schlotersche GmbH & 10 Co. KG, Verlag und Druckerei [SchlOtersche GmbH & Co. KG, Publisher and Printer] ISSN 0032-681 X [0208] Trzeciak HI, Grzesikj, Bortel M, Kuska R, Duda D, Michnik J, Malecki A; Behavioral effects of long-term exposure to magnetic fields in rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 1993;14(4):287-97 15 [0209] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic-field [0210] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic-spectrum [0211] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic-radiation [0212] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_I1/emspectrum.html [0213] http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/I magnet. html 20 [0214] http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtm?identifier=30051 72 [0215] http://www.webmd.com/epilepsy/electroencephalogram-eeg-21 508 [0216] http://www.eiwellspring.org/HowToMeasureEMF.htm [0217] http://www.farabloc.com 39

Claims (13)

1. A method including attenuating, while involved in a given situation, one's own emanated electromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1 gigahertz by wearing one or more articles of apparel that include an electromagnetically shielding fabric, which shielding fabric includes a substantially continuous system of conductive fibers combined with a non-conductive fabric and attenuates the emanated electromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1 gigahertz, wherein (i) the given situation includes hunting, non-human animal handling, being in or on a body of water, and (ii) said attenuating of one's own emanated electromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1 gigahertz decreases the likelihood of that emanated field affecting 1) detection by a non-human animal while hunting; 2) a reaction by a non-human animal to one's own emotional response or emotional state when handling the animal; or 3) being located in the body of water by a water-borne non-human animal predator.

2. A method for attenuating a user's emanated electromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1 gigahertz, the method including: providing to the user one or more articles of apparel that include an electromagnetically shielding fabric, which shielding fabric includes a substantially continuous system of conductive fibers combined with a non conductive fabric and attenuates the user's emanated electromagnetic field at frequencies less than about 1 gigahertz; and instructing the user to wear, while involved in a given situation, at least one of the articles of apparel, wherein (i) the given situation includes hunting, non-human animal handling, being in or on a body of water 40 and (ii) said attenuating of one's own emanated electromagnetic field at frequencies of less than about 1 gigahertz decreases the likelihood of that emanated field affecting 1) detection by a non-human animal while hunting, 2) a reaction by a non-human animal to one's own emotional response or emotional state when handling the animal, or 3) being located in the body of water by a water-borne non-human animal predator.

3. The method of either claim 1 or claim 2 wherein at least one of the articles of apparel includes an odor absorber, suppressant, attenuator, or blocker.

4. The method of any one of the above claims further including attenuating, while involved in the given situation, one's own emanated scent or odor by wearing the one or more articles of apparel, wherein the conductive fibers attenuate the emanated scent or odor, wherein said attenuating of one's own emanated scent or odor decreases the likelihood of that emanated scent or odor affecting progress or the outcome of the given situation.

5. The method of claim 4 wherein the given situation comprises hunting, and attenuating one's own emanated electromagnetic field and one's own emanated scent or odor decreases the likelihood of detection by a non-human animal.

6. The method of any one of the above claims wherein the conductive fibers include: a) carbon fibers; b) multifilament carbon fiber yarn; c) silver or copper; d) stainless steel fibres; e) conductive ceramic; 41 f) carbon fiber or nanotubes; g) conductive polymer; and/or h) conductive nanotubes.

7. The method of any one of the above claims wherein the conductive fibers attenuate the emanated scent or odor by at least partly absorbing or masking the scent or odor.

8. The method of any one of the above claims wherein the conductive fibers attenuate the emanated scent or odor by inhibiting microbial growth in the apparel.

9. The method of any one of the above claims wherein the conductive fibers are intermingled with non-conductive fibers that form the non-conducting fabric.

10. The method of any one of the above claims wherein the conductive fibers are applied to a surface of the non-conducting fabric.

11. The method of any one of the above claims wherein at least one of the articles of apparel is an article of clothing, footwear, headwear, or eyewear.

12. The method of any one of the above claims wherein the shielding fabric includes between about 2% and about 35% by weight of the conductive fibers.

13. The method of any one of the above claims wherein at least one of the articles of apparel includes a visual camouflage pattern on at least a portion of its outer surface. 42