Subject:  EMF Thoughts from Alasdair and Clas (fwd)
Date:     Tue, 9 Dec 1997 085720 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody:
The following exchange between Alasdair (U.K.) and Clas (Sweden) is
somewhat technical, but worthwhile reading to get the "gist" of it --
even for us "laymen."  It is addressing the _basic nature_ of the EMF
exposures that one encounters in the environment.

At the root of the various views stated below is a pretty serious
challenge of much of the research that has taken place, in my opinion.
As I have previously discussed -- it is a challenge of the "MF" 
(magnetic field) "TWA" assumption (time weighted average) ... which has
"conditioned" perhaps 90% of the laboratory research and perhaps 75% of
the epidemiological research (at least in the U.S.).

I suggest that you especially notice the discussion about "pulsing"
signals......

Cheerio.......

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................

DO YOU KNOW ANYBODY ELSE WE SHOULD ADD TO THIS LIST???????

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:38:36 GMT
From: Alasdair Philips 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: EMF Thoughts from Alasdair and Clas

Dear Roy
I am copying you this for distribution.  Although it is quite long,
Clas raised some important points about my latest mailing.  Those who are
trying to follow the arguments should read the following:

At 13:03 08/12/97 +0100, Clas Tegenfeldt wrote:
>At 12:13 1997-12-07 GMT, you (Alasdair Philips) wrote:

>>The natural thermal background level at 1.8GHz is somewhere between 20 and
>>50 microvolts/metre (26 dBuV/m and 34 dBuV/m).  
>
>Referred to what bandwidth? 

Based on pW/cm2/MHz.
I erred on the high side if anything.  It is probably more like 20 to 26
dBuV/m or 10 to 20 uV/m.
These sort of values seem to go along with the practical sort of levels you
see using high quality measuring equipment (which obviously has its own
internal noise).
I HAD A HARD TIME TRYING TO GET AT THE THERMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL AT THESE
FREQUENCIES. One place, which seems to roughly agree with others, is Fig.2
of Neil Cherry's book "Potential and Actual Adverse Effects of RF and
Microwave Radiation near and below 2uW/cm2", my copy dated 28 Feb.1997
though I know there is now a slightly updated version.  It cost me about 27
Australian dollars from Don Maisch and is 122 A4 pages of useful collected
information.  Well worth buying.

>
>>The maximum (peak) levels in public places from a single operator (service
>>provider) base station mast are usually between 100 and 120 dB dBuV/m (0.1
>>to 1.0 V/m), with average levels between 90 and 110 dBuV/m. (0.03 to 0.3 V/m)
>
>The peak level in V/m shouldn't be any different when multiple operators
>are involved. The broadband power density increases but not narrow
>bandwidth field strength.
>
Correct.  My original text went on to talk about power density but I edited
it out and forgot that the start of the paragraph would now imply that
signal strength in V/m would increase.  This was misleading.

>>If fact I do not think it is an issue of power, but of information.  Our
>>bodies pick up the pulsing of these signals and this may interfere with
>>complex cellular processes.  Proving this will be difficult.
>About five years ago I decided that it could not be a matter of power, it
>doesn't
>fit, but I haven't as yet come up with any good model what really happens.
>So, I and everyone else makes measurements on power, frequency etc. that we
>already "know" cannot be the parameter of importance... There is a long way
>to go before we have learned enough to understand this.
>I do not think it is "information" if one means it literally. I doubt the
>body is fooled to think the GSM says "hey you regulate hormone
>this-and-that and retract that muscle do you!". But in lack of better
>terminology it works.
>
>I don't think we should search for a complex cellular process, the field
>must (as I see it as a physicist) interact with some molecular reaction
>directly, the complexity comes afterwards as side effects.
>

See my comments, below, on Theo ("Ted") Litovitz's work.  It looks like
regular, coherent, ELF pulsing (5 to 1500Hz probably) is a problem for some
cellular processes.  They "lock on" and become entrained to it and that
changes activity rates.

>>If we accept an unusually high "ambient" level of 0.1 volts/metre we see
>>that cell-phone base-station pulse signals can poke up to 100 times higher

>0.1 V/m x 100 = 10 V/m but you mentioned about 100-120 dBuV/m as peak_max
>for base stations...

A typing error.  Well spotted - it is good to know people are really
thinking clearly and technically about these things!  It should read
0.01 V/m (80 dBuV/m) which is unusually high for ambient levels which are
typically 10 to 20 dBuV below this.  Then my argument works!  Sorry.

>
>>If it is coherent interference from the regular 217 Hz pulsing then
>>Litovitz's work seems to show that if we introduce pseudo-random electric
>>field noise spanning the frequency to mask (say 70 to 500 Hz) at about the
>>same signal strength levels then the body will cease to "tune-in" to the
>>regular pulsing.
>>Hmmm.
>
>Also remember that the hand held phone pulsates at ELF due to the 
>pulsed power demand on the battery... It should be syncronised
>with the whole networks pulsation on 217 Hz.
>
>I have heard of some products (keyboard among others) that uses some
>random emissions to mask the "harmful" EMFs. Have you had any experience
>of those? Do you know if they work in practice?
>By making things chaotic instead of regular pulses it could be possible 
>to mask the reaction, but we should use that only if we know that 
>EMF noise of such strength isn't in itself any problem, do we know that?
>
>I think it is worthwhile to check this up. I have had a few cases where 
>things that radiate quite a lot haven't led to any ES symptoms while 
>things with little EMFs have. It may be that some "noise" things masks
>their own "harmful" signals.

See some of Litovitz and Penafiel's work at the Catholic University of
America, Washington, DC., especially:
"Role of Modulation on the Effect of Microwaves on Ornithin Decarboxylase
Activity in L929 Cells",  Bioelectromagnetics 18:132-141 (1997)
"Bioleffects Induced by Exposure to Microwaves are Mitigated by
Superposition of ELF Noise",   Bioelectromagnetics 18:422-430 (1997)
ODC is closely related to cell synthesis and cancer expression.

I will post this also to Roy for onward distribution as you raised some
important points and pointed out some errors in my original piece.
Alasdair

>
>Clas Tegenfeldt
>BEMI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Alasdair Philips    (aphilips@gn.apc.org)


.-


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html