Looking for a reasonably priced electric blanket
OhioGuy
(now Big Lots) for $19.95, and used it up until last year. It had some
issues, so we threw it away.
This year, I'd like to get a new one, but we now have a King size bed, and
my wife informed me that the electric blanket at Meijer was $75!
I had no idea - I figured it might be $30 to $40.
I'd like to use it because often we lay on the bed to read, and it would
be cheaper to heat the bed for sleeping than to keep the whole room warmer,
which is what we currently do.
Can anyone recommend a place where we could get either a Queen or King
sized electric blanket for less than $75? That just seems a bit too pricey.
George Grapman
$70. Exact same was $35 at Target .
A Veteran
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
I've heard that they are not healthy for you. Maybe a down comforter?
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.
Rod Speed
There's fools that claim that about everything.
> Maybe a down comforter?
lee h
> Can anyone recommend a place where we could get either a Queen or
> King sized electric blanket for less than $75? That just seems a bit
> too pricey.
I recommend an electric matress cover rather than a blanket.
Used to use the blankets, but having the matress nice and
warm is much better.
I picked one up at the local DAV thriftshop. Fourteen
dollars for a like new queen size with dual controls.
Call your local Goodwill, Salvation Army thrift stores
and see what they have.
Anthony Matonak
> Can anyone recommend a place where we could get either a Queen or King
> sized electric blanket for less than $75? That just seems a bit too pricey.
You can get a down comforter for $50. No power required.
http://www.lnt.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2417838
Add some flannel sheets, a warm spouse, three dogs...
A quick google product search found me these electric blankets for $60.
http://www.heartlandamerica.com/browse/item.asp?PIN=57581&
Have you tried Ebay and Craigs list? I'm sure now is the time people are
willing to part with 'ol sparky for a song. :)
Anthony
Logan Shaw
> You can get a down comforter for $50. No power required.
> http://www.lnt.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2417838
>
> Add some flannel sheets, a warm spouse, three dogs...
Are you saying the best way to keep warm is to have a three dog night?
That doesn't work as well for single people like myself who have no
pets or spouse, but then again one *is* the loneliest number...
- Logan
Evelyn C. Leeper
However, you don't know what condition the electrical system is in when
you buy one used, and given that you're going to be sleeping on/under
it, maybe the piece of mind is worth a few dollars more. if not, at
least run it for a few hours while you're awake in case there are any
problems.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
He who knows only his own side of the case
knows little of that. -John Stuart Mill
Jeff
There used to be concerns about electric fields but the way they
make them now, the fields are minimal (that has to do with the wiring
pattern).
Jeff
>
Bill Rider
> lee h wrote:
>> OhioGuy wrote:
>>> Can anyone recommend a place where we could get either a Queen or
>>> King sized electric blanket for less than $75? That just seems a bit
>>> too pricey.
>>
>> I recommend an electric matress cover rather than a blanket.
>> Used to use the blankets, but having the matress nice and
>> warm is much better.
>>
>> I picked one up at the local DAV thriftshop. Fourteen
>> dollars for a like new queen size with dual controls.
>> Call your local Goodwill, Salvation Army thrift stores
>> and see what they have.
>
>
I'll give you a piece of my mind for free!
My parents once liked electric blankets. They tried an electric
mattress pad and liked it better. They also found inexpensive
non-powered mattress pads worthwhile. Insulation under you can be more
important than insulation over you. When bedrooms weren't heated at
night, sleeping on insulating material was important.
Evelyn C. Leeper
> Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>> lee h wrote:
>>> OhioGuy wrote:
>>>> Can anyone recommend a place where we could get either a Queen or
>>>> King sized electric blanket for less than $75? That just seems a bit
>>>> too pricey.
>>>
>>> I recommend an electric matress cover rather than a blanket.
>>> Used to use the blankets, but having the matress nice and
>>> warm is much better.
>>>
>>> I picked one up at the local DAV thriftshop. Fourteen
>>> dollars for a like new queen size with dual controls.
>>> Call your local Goodwill, Salvation Army thrift stores
>>> and see what they have.
>>
>> maybe the piece of mind is worth a few dollars more.
>
> I'll give you a piece of my mind for free!
I can't believe I didn't catch that typo!
Melissa
"Bill Rider" <ple...@nospa.mnet> wrote in message
news:uX2Yi.28486$N7.2...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
We use a heated mattress pad with dual controls. Our bedroom is very chilly
due to badly run duct work on an addition to our house. We warm the bed up
before going to bed, then I shut mine off. Hubby sometimes leaves his on on
low all night when it's really cold. It's cheaper and safer than running a
space heater.
We use a microfiber down comforter as well which is very light but very
warm, but prefer having the bed warmed instead of having another blanket on
top. I don't scrimp on the price for something like this. After all, we
spend 1/3 of our lives in bed.
Melissa
Mark Anderson
> I picked one up at the local DAV thriftshop. Fourteen
> dollars for a like new queen size with dual controls.
> Call your local Goodwill, Salvation Army thrift stores
> and see what they have.
Ughh. Never ever buy a mattress used. You have no idea who had that
mattress before you and what nasty germs and bugs still reside in it.
No matter how well they're cleaned, mattresses will also carry odor
residue from the last owner and the thrift store where it was stored.
Do you want your bedroom to smell like the thrift store or the last old
person who passed away in it? Yuck! I'd rather sleep on the cold
floor.
The problem with buying a new electric mattress is that the electronics
will eventually wear out far earlier than the mattress will. Also,
your good quality expensive mattresses don't usually come with electric
heaters. With an electric blanket you're not out that much money when
its electronics fails. You can turn on your electric blanket a half
hour before going to bed and it will heat up the mattress too. Electric
mattresses make no sense IMHO.
Don K
news:47300781$0$11449$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Don't feel bad, a recent study indicates that only half the spouse heaters
work as intended, anyway. If your spouse feels warm to you, then
you will feel cold to her, and vice-versa. After all, you're dealing
with relative heat flow here.
Also some spouse heaters might operate either AC or DC, which
could cause quite a shock to the unaware.
Fortunately for me, I've married a hottie, so I don't need to shop around
for a spouse heater or electric blanket anymore, and the dog can
continue to sleep downstairs on the couch.
Don
Chloe
"Mark Anderson" <m...@nospambrandylion.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.219aab8a1...@chi.news.speakeasy.net...
Anybody remember the old SNL skits with Emily Latella?
Dennis
Or perhaps in this case, the loneliest slumber.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
lee h
> The problem with buying a new electric mattress is that the
> electronics will eventually wear out far earlier than the mattress
> will. Also, your good quality expensive mattresses don't usually
> come with electric heaters. With an electric blanket you're not out
> that much money when its electronics fails. You can turn on your
> electric blanket a half hour before going to bed and it will heat up
> the mattress too. Electric mattresses make no sense IMHO.
If you re-read my post, you'll notice I wrote "electric mattress
cover", NOT electric mattress. Big difference.
lee
Shawn Hirn
Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
I had a down comforter which I use with a bed spread. This combination
is far warmer than the electric blanket I previously had, plus there's
no electric bill for it.
Jon v Leipzig
Imo, the cheapies are probably from China. They just had a recall in NZ
and Australia of Chinese blankets, tho not necessarily electric,iirc.
Seems they had very high levels of formaldehyde.
(lab rats claim it causes skin/respiratory problems, nasal cancer,
leukemia,etc, but lab rats whine about everything, it seems.)
<snipped, forgot source>
Electric Blankets and Waterbeds
Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7
inches into the body. Thus it is not surprising that an epidemiological
study has linked electric blankets with miscarriages and childhood leukemia.
This pioneering work was performed by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed
Leeper, who originally discovered that magnetic fields were linked to
childhood leukemia. Similar health effects have been noted with users of
many electric blankets and waterbed heaters will emit EMFs even when
turned off.
The devices must be unplugged to delete the EMF exposure.
--------------------
(this draft was based on analysis of 100 studies, 24 showed some
increase in cancer risk. The final report was toned down, to please
corporate/military interests)
<snipped>
In a draft report issued in March 1990, the EPA recommended that EMFs be
classified as a Class B carcinogen -- -a "probable human carcinogen and
joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs.
Rod Speed
Bare faced lie.
> This pioneering work was performed by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed
> Leeper, who originally discovered that magnetic fields were linked to
> childhood leukemia. Similar health effects have been noted with users
> of many electric blankets and waterbed heaters will emit EMFs even
> when turned off.
> The devices must be unplugged to delete the EMF exposure.
>
>
> --------------------
>
>
> (this draft was based on analysis of 100 studies, 24 showed some
> increase in cancer risk. The final report was toned down, to please
> corporate/military interests)
Mindless silly stuff.
> <snipped>
> In a draft report issued in March 1990, the EPA recommended that EMFs
> be classified as a Class B carcinogen -- -a "probable human carcinogen and joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT,
> dioxins and PCBs.
Not the levels you get with electric blankets they didnt, liar.
lee h
> <snipped, forgot source>
>
> Electric Blankets and Waterbeds
>
> Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7
> inches into the body. Thus it is not surprising that an
> epidemiological study has linked electric blankets with miscarriages
> and childhood leukemia.
Perhaps forgot source because source was suspect?
Here it is from the website of a holistic hotshot:
Bill Rider
>
> Electric Blankets and Waterbeds
>
> Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7
> inches into the body. Thus it is not surprising that an epidemiological
> study has linked electric blankets with miscarriages and childhood
> leukemia.
>
> This pioneering work was performed by Dr. Nancy Wertheimer and Ed
> Leeper, who originally discovered that magnetic fields were linked to
> childhood leukemia. Similar health effects have been noted with users of
> many electric blankets and waterbed heaters will emit EMFs even when
> turned off.
> The devices must be unplugged to delete the EMF exposure.
>
>
> --------------------
>
>
> (this draft was based on analysis of 100 studies, 24 showed some
> increase in cancer risk. The final report was toned down, to please
> corporate/military interests)
>
> <snipped>
> In a draft report issued in March 1990, the EPA recommended that EMFs be
> classified as a Class B carcinogen -- -a "probable human carcinogen and
> joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs.
Wertheimer ran a small study to see if she could find environmental
factors in childhood leukemia. She happened to notice a statistical
increase for children within two doors of a neighborhood transformer.
She saw no increase for kids with lines crossing their yards.
There were two problems with the study. First, it was small. In a
small study, one may falsely infer a statistical relationship from what
is random chance. Second, she inferred that kids living close to these
transformers were exposed to more EMFs. That sounds dubious.
In November of 1996, the National Academy of Sciences said there was no
evidence of risk. Scientists from the National Cancer Institute
collaborated in a much larger study in which they measured the EMF
exposure of kids with leukemia and a control group. Results published
in July of 1997 said EMFs were not a risk factor.
Don K
> Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7 inches into the
> body.
It only penetrates 6 or 7 inches? What is stopping the field?
The magnetic field from the earth goes straight thru your entire body.
Likewise the fields from the wiring and electric devices in your house
cut thru your entire body too.
It's time to put on the mu-metal hat.
Don
Anthony Matonak
...
> Wertheimer ran a small study to see if she could find environmental
> factors in childhood leukemia. She happened to notice a statistical
> increase for children within two doors of a neighborhood transformer.
> She saw no increase for kids with lines crossing their yards.
>
> There were two problems with the study. First, it was small. In a
> small study, one may falsely infer a statistical relationship from what
> is random chance. Second, she inferred that kids living close to these
> transformers were exposed to more EMFs. That sounds dubious.
Too bad they didn't study the toxic effects of exploding or leaking
transformers. :)
Anthony
Jon v Leipzig
Strange, none sought to examine emf effects on a cellular level.
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND YOUR HEALTH
By John Iovine, From "Popular Electronics" March 1993
{......}
Although the mechanism by which ELF fields affect biological tissue is
still not exactly known, it has been unequivocally shown that cells are
affected. The best research to date shows that a cell's membrane, or
receptor molecules in the membrane, are sensitive to extremely weak
low-frequency magnetic fields.
{.....}
the quantum energy of these fields isn't sufficient to produce any type
of chromosomal damage. Simply, that means that ELF radiation doesn't
initiate cancer. The increased incidence of cancers is due to the fact
that ELF radiation can promote the disease after the cancer has been
triggered by another agent. The cancer is promoted because ELF radiation
can suppress the body's immune system. In addition, it has been
determined that at the cellular level the ELF fields increase the
production of the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase, which has been cited
to support the promotion of cancer in the body.
{ .....}
* In 1990, David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of
North Carolina, determined through a study that pregnant woman who used
electric blankets have children who have a 30% increased risk of cancer
as compared to children whose mothers didn't use electric blankets.
Jon v Leipzig
Could be the plastic fats in your peanut butter and cookies forming an
"armour plating".
> It's time to put on the mu-metal hat.
A properly-constructed hat, resembling a Faraday cage would work.
Anthony Matonak
...
> * In 1990, David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of
> North Carolina, determined through a study that pregnant woman who used
> electric blankets have children who have a 30% increased risk of cancer
> as compared to children whose mothers didn't use electric blankets.
You have to be careful not to assume that just because two things
are happening at the same time that one causes the other.
You could just as easily jump to the conclusion that mothers who are
likely to have children with cancer are more likely to use electric
blankets as you could the reverse.
Perhaps the same kind of women who feel cold in bed and embrace
new gadgets are also likely to embrace formula and better living
through chemistry.
Anthony
Jon v Leipzig
True, but it's been known for years that emfs cause changes in the
blood. Back when I looked into this, found a BBC TV newsclip showing a
closeup of blood changes.
Frugal tip: Author of that Pop Electronics article, citing an "Ion
scientist", claims emfs also raise your serotonin levels, so dump your
Prozac. You may not sleep well under an electric blanket, but you won't
be depressed either.
Bill Rider
That's right. Wertheimer's evidence was epidemological.
>
>
>
> ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND YOUR HEALTH
>
> By John Iovine, From "Popular Electronics" March 1993
>
> {......}
> Although the mechanism by which ELF fields affect biological tissue is
> still not exactly known, it has been unequivocally shown that cells are
> affected. The best research to date shows that a cell's membrane, or
> receptor molecules in the membrane, are sensitive to extremely weak
> low-frequency magnetic fields.
>
> {.....}
> the quantum energy of these fields isn't sufficient to produce any type
> of chromosomal damage. Simply, that means that ELF radiation doesn't
> initiate cancer. The increased incidence of cancers is due to the fact
> that ELF radiation can promote the disease after the cancer has been
> triggered by another agent. The cancer is promoted because ELF radiation
> can suppress the body's immune system. In addition, it has been
> determined that at the cellular level the ELF fields increase the
> production of the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase, which has been cited
> to support the promotion of cancer in the body.
>
> { .....}
John Iovine is a fine man. He runs a shop on Long Island to supply
other electronics hobbyists.
>
> * In 1990, David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of
> North Carolina, determined through a study that pregnant woman who used
> electric blankets have children who have a 30% increased risk of cancer
> as compared to children whose mothers didn't use electric blankets.
>
>
I don't see what the * refers to. Savitz was a leader in such studies,
but his own studies contradicted each other. In 1995 he said, "I hate
to give up on epidemiology outright, but I think that it needs to evolve."
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1995/103-5/forum.html
Chloe
>>
>> * In 1990, David Savitz, an epidemiologist at the University of North
>> Carolina, determined through a study that pregnant woman who used
>> electric blankets have children who have a 30% increased risk of cancer
>> as compared to children whose mothers didn't use electric blankets.
>>
>>
> I don't see what the * refers to. Savitz was a leader in such studies,
> but his own studies contradicted each other. In 1995 he said, "I hate to
> give up on epidemiology outright, but I think that it needs to evolve."
> http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1995/103-5/forum.html
I don't know what a "30% increased risk" means, either. Apparently what it
*doesn't* mean is that there were actually 30% more cancers, or it would
just say so.
Rod Speed
Wrong, that is precisely what it means except that its talking about
getting cancer at all rather than getting more than one cancer.
Bill Rider
workers, exposed to high levels of EMFs up on power poles. 151 died of
brain cancer. Savitz and Dana Loomis published a paper saying this
meant utility workers were 2.6 times more likely than the general
population to die of brain cancer.
Researcher Philip Cole said hold on, from a control group of 138,905
from general population, one would have expected more, 159, to die of
brain cancer. Savitz said utility workers are so much healthier than
the general population that he would have expected only 58 to die of
brain cancer.
Hmmm... it sounds as if exposure to high levels of EMFs protects a
person from most diseases, but there's not much reduction in brain
cancer. It's quite a jump to say it causes brain cancer.
Rod Speed
Nope, that utility workers are nothing like average health wise
quite separately from their exposure to power line fields.
> but there's not much reduction in brain cancer. It's quite a jump to say it causes brain cancer.
Yep, not a shred of evidence that it does. And it would require a matched
group of individuals on health and sex etc to be say anything useful brain
cancer incidence wise, and it would be quite difficult to find a matched
group that werent exposed to other possibilitys like cellphones etc too.
Don K
> Chloe wrote:
> The above link shows how it works. Savitz studied 138,905 utility workers, exposed to
> high levels of EMFs up on power poles. 151 died of brain cancer. Savitz and Dana
> Loomis published a paper saying this meant utility workers were 2.6 times more likely
> than the general population to die of brain cancer.
>
> Researcher Philip Cole said hold on, from a control group of 138,905 from general
> population, one would have expected more, 159, to die of brain cancer. Savitz said
> utility workers are so much healthier than the general population that he would have
> expected only 58 to die of brain cancer.
In other words, apply whatever fudge factor is needed to get the answer you want.
Don
Jeff
> "Jon v Leipzig" <J...@myday.com> wrote in message news:47317AA2...@myday.com...
>
>
>>Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7 inches into the
>>body.
>
>
> It only penetrates 6 or 7 inches? What is stopping the field?
Not stopping the magnetic field but cancelling it. The closer the wires
are together the shorter the distance before it's field is cancelled by
an opposing field. Much as the reason why twisted pairs are used in data
lines (to prevent induced voltages from outside fields).
Newer PTC electric blankets have very low magnetic fields, but I do not
know what the actual standards are on current blankets. I had thought
reduced fields were mandated (in the US) but I can't find evidence of that.
Jeff
Don K
> Don K wrote:
>> "Jon v Leipzig" <J...@myday.com> wrote in message news:47317AA2...@myday.com...
>>
>>>Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7 inches into the
>>>body.
>>
>> It only penetrates 6 or 7 inches? What is stopping the field?
>
> Not stopping the magnetic field but cancelling it. The closer the wires are together the
> shorter the distance before it's field is cancelled by an opposing field. Much as the
> reason why twisted pairs are used in data lines (to prevent induced voltages from
> outside fields).
I understand that, but I was nit-picking over the choice of words. The field is
strongest close in , but it extends out forever. It might make sense to talk about
the distance at which the field falls below ambient intensity, but the word
"penetrate" is somewhat misleading IMO.
> Newer PTC electric blankets have very low magnetic fields, but I do not know what the
> actual standards are on current blankets. I had thought reduced fields were mandated (in
> the US) but I can't find evidence of that.
From what I read in IEEE Explorer, PTC does work well to cancel fields,
but one of the federal regulating agencies won't approve its use in blankets
because there's a potential for higher leakage current.
Don
Jeff
> "Jeff" <dont_...@all.uk> wrote in message news:13jbbcm...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Don K wrote:
>>
>>>"Jon v Leipzig" <J...@myday.com> wrote in message news:47317AA2...@myday.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Electric blankets create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6-7 inches into the
>>>>body.
>>>
>>>It only penetrates 6 or 7 inches? What is stopping the field?
>>
>>Not stopping the magnetic field but cancelling it. The closer the wires are together the
>>shorter the distance before it's field is cancelled by an opposing field. Much as the
>>reason why twisted pairs are used in data lines (to prevent induced voltages from
>>outside fields).
>
>
> I understand that, but I was nit-picking over the choice of words. The field is
> strongest close in , but it extends out forever. It might make sense to talk about
> the distance at which the field falls below ambient intensity, but the word
> "penetrate" is somewhat misleading IMO.
That makes sense. Particularly since you have a reputation to know
these things!
>
>
>>Newer PTC electric blankets have very low magnetic fields, but I do not know what the
>>actual standards are on current blankets. I had thought reduced fields were mandated (in
>>the US) but I can't find evidence of that.
>
>
> From what I read in IEEE Explorer, PTC does work well to cancel fields,
> but one of the federal regulating agencies won't approve its use in blankets
> because there's a potential for higher leakage current.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that. On the surface it sounds
like a government agency is doing it's job. But given the overall
climate of mission change these last years I wonder what the real reason is.
Jeff
>
> Don
>
>
WaterBoy
you got 8 years use out of it;
think of it as an investment;
don't be too frugal on this long term investment
over the last 35 years,
i've been through 2 electric blankets
waterboy
James
Anna's Linens have another brand for $30 but didn't have any in stock.