I've removed the existing answers so they can be fixed to respect our standards. To the answerers: sorry! Please flag your answer once you fix it.

EE mods, please don't migrate answered questions.

@Sklivvz I hope you are "figuring out", as you wrote in the comments to the deleted answer, what's wrong with my answer. I will gladly edit it when I will know what's wrong with it.

@vlad basically it's an answer based on your model of the mat. We want third party studies of these mats.

Also the question is badly posed for this site, I'll fix it.

@Sklivvz I am sorry but I fear there is an unfillable gap between us. As per the original question there is nothing that can be discussed: no energy flow, period. Wheter standing on a grounded mat is healty or not is not something that a random web surfer can discern. The useful part was the safety digression, both in the answer and the comments, and that's not visible. I'm sorry, I do science. I'm off.

@Sklivvz May I suggest that third party studies on the existence of unspecified "energy flows" could be in order as well. There is an effect of the "no original research" policy that makes it very hard to address new pseudo-scientific claims (that is to say, usually old claims dressed up in new language). Alas, I have no suggestions what might be done about it.

@Sklivvz: I am not trying to be rude, but you and your fellow 'skeptics' contributors destroyed this question as I had originally intended it. The original question was phrased well (scientifically) and it was getting useful answers on the EE network, as desired. Now, there are no answers, and the question does not at all resemble my original question. This is not right.

@VladimirCravero: I agree with your sentiments, Vladimir. Please see my comment above. I still insist that this question (well, the original question, which no longer exists thanks to the edits) was far more appropriate for the EE network. It was getting upvotes. It was receiving useful answers, which were getting upvoted as well. It is very unfortunate what has happened, and that the StackExchange system allows this sort of thing to happen.

@dmckee it's easy to reference safety via quality standards bodies (eg IMQ). Regarding efficacy, it's hard to say, but it's possible there are studies on earthing. I see this as no different from a question on any other pseudoscientific phenomenon.

@etherice I'm sorry you are having a bad experience, this site has different standards than ee and we need to apply them. I haven't changed the meaning of your question, I've only removed the "in theory" part.

As a side note: the question was sent by ee to skeptics - this is equivalent to it being closed there. I am not sure why there's a gap between your perception of how it was working there and who migrated it, maybe you can ask them?

Removed rants. Please be nice and try to understand this community before complaining. We are not here to argue over how the site works.

@Sklivvz: I understand you have only tried to adapt this question to be more appropriate for your community. But in doing so, you essentially deleted the original question I had asked - the new "version" is useless to me, as it has no scientific emphasis. What's even more unfortunate, is that the original answers were deleted, which cheated those contributors out of their time, effort, and well-deserved upvotes. Whoever migrated this question clearly made a mistake, evidenced by the fact that it is no longer receiving responses and upvotes ... now you can practically hear crickets chirping.

You should follow up with the original mods. In any case I've asked to avoid migrating answered questions in the future.

@Sklivvz: It says the question was closed as "off topic" by Dave Tweed, and migrated by Dave Tweed ... Was he able to make this decision unilaterally? Also, what does "locked by community" mean? I'm not familiar with how SX moderation works.

@Sklivvz: It's not worth any more of my time arguing with SX moderators on this issue. I have made an edit to the question, please do not revert the changes as I think they are essential details to clarify the question being asked.

@Articuno: I made that assumption based on a previous comment of "the question is badly posed for this site" and subsequent removal of content mostly of a scientific nature (electrical physics terminology). My frustration is primarily with the EE mod who unilaterally decided to migrate this question away from EE, despite the numerous upvotes and responses it was receiving. However, I think the mods here should not have removed the existing answers which also received numerous upvotes and took time to write. In fact, I really wish I could still see the one from Vladimir Cravero, but I cannot.

@etherice a mod can migrate a question unilaterally. The question gets closed and locked on one side and opened on the other. If the question gets closed here it gets unlocked on the original side. Locking prevents any further action on the question.

@Sklivvz: Thanks for the explanation. IMO, StackExchange should have stricter requirements for migrating a question that has already received multiple answers and upvotes - as that should be a strong indication that the question is on the correct network. The fact that the question had to be "adapted" to this network is also a strong indication that it never should have been migrated in the first place. Anyway, I realize that it does little good to debate SX policy with you.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I'm not that concerned about these particular answers which where partial at best (no one answered about effectiveness and the answers about safety were in contradiction)

But in general, answers and votes do not translate well across sites.

For safety an EC Mark (or corresponding safety standard) would be a guarantee.

For effectiveness this has the current research review: iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/301/1/012024 but I don't have access

seems inconclusive IMO.

Thanks! I love how the title is "Microsoft word - IAJ..." ;-)

Basically they say there's some effect but warn to use caution, so... Certainly not groundbreaking as advertised, although not totally bogus.

The underlying research is weak, so it can't really support "it's bogus"