Subject: Meet James Protsman on cognitive function (guru).
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 122347 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
........From EMF-L.......
I have been having a very interesting "off-EMF-L" conversation with a
new reader of our list: James Protsman..... He has been doing some
interesting work -- which may deserve some follow-up and investigation
by some of our scientists....... I find his work plausible....guru.....
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Litigation: Enter Peter Angelos (Slesin)..
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:44:50 -0500
From: "James Protsman"
To:
My qualifications for measuring cognitive function are varied. My career has
been in education. Years ago--as I explain in my book--I developed an
interest in reading efficiency rates (speed/comprehension) and immediately
set off on an exploration of eye-brain physiology, convinced that the key to
improving reading speed lay in this realm. This research led to the concept
of brain speed--or, to be more precise, verbalization speed. Consider this:
internal verbalization rates can be measured. The number of syllables you
can produce on a timed basis is directly related to reading speed. I devised
methods for improving the rate of internal verbalization. This is important
because in testing readers I found huge differences in brain speed. When
brain speed is improved, reading efficiency rates rise. No mystery here. But
the damnable thing was that the more I tested brain speed, the more
variability I found on an individual basis--which I could account for. Years
of axe-to-the-grindstone research led to the realization that brain speed
can dramatically rise or fall within the space of a second. Causative
factors took time to ferret out. First I looked primarily at diet. Garlic,
it turns out, increases brain speed. But ultimately I learned that brain
speed rates are highly responsive to EM exposure, and that even extremely
weak EMFs can affect brain speed. When I sit 24 inches away from my
computer, my brain speed drops below my baseline. As I inch closer to the
computer, brain speed continues to drop. No biological adaptation that I am
aware of compensates for this.
When brain speed drops, eye-movement speed drops. This is easily measured.
Tied to brain speed in significant ways are not only reading
speed/comprehension, but verbal fluency, memory retrieval, numerical skills,
creativity--in short, any skill involving language, which is just about
everything conceivable. Consciousness is never aware of brain speed
alterations, and therefore we are never alerted to even gross changes in
brain speed. Measurements must be taken to learn about brain speed
variability. These tests are simple, and they are conclusive. In addition to
this, when brain speed drops, so does muscle strength and stamina. In my
book I explain this by connecting everything to the body's EMF which is
susceptable to detection through the biological instrumentation I am
describing here. This field extends out at least 3 feet, probably as much as
6. Inasmuch as anything which contains an electric current must generate a
field, it is not difficult to accept the fact that the human body, with its
complex electrical system, must also generate a field. This field, I
believe, is part of the CNS, and anything which adversely affects the field
automatically affects every identifiiable and quantifiable performance level
within the human repertoire.
EMFs induce physiological stress; the stronger the field, the greater
stress.
My fear is that the scientifically-minded will think I have headed off into
New Age La-la Land. But I am a fierce adherent of Lord Kelvin's maxim, If
you can't measure it, you can't talk about it. My research is 98%
measurement! The rest is reasoning about the meaning of these measurements.
Because I am not trained in biophysics, I could not do experiments aimed at
learning if and how EMFs affect living tissue. My field is education.
Therefore it was natural for me to gravitate toward cognitive function. But
I am at a loss as to why the vast field of current EM research eschews the
cognitive realm. This is where the really easy answers are. My book is 304
pages long (and growing in my planed next edition) because once you have the
capacity to sensitively measure the bioeffects traceable to EM exposure,
there is a vast world to explore. In David Yarrow's RETURN OF THE DRAGON,
for example, there are lots of clues pointing to the reductive effects of
EMFs that I am doing my best to follow up.
I want to get in touch with organized groups and attorneys who are in the
front lines of the battle to reign in EM proliferation because I can give
them the kind of evidence that both scientist and nonscientist can readily
comprehend. Yes, EMFs adversely affect brain function. They make us dumber.
This had to be composed in haste because it's Friday night here and non-EMF
activities beckon. Write again.
JP
To: James Protsman
Cc: guru
Date: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Litigation: Enter Peter Angelos (Slesin)..
>James:
>
>By what method (and what are your qualifications) for measuring cognitive
function.
>My question is a serious one..... See the point of my inquiry
>below*******.......guru.....
>
>James Protsman wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the information about Peter Angelos. I would very much like
to
>> contact him. Do you know his address? Also I would like to contact other
>> attorneys or groups involved in EMF litigation. As I have mentioned in
other
>> communications, my concern has been with the reductive effects that EMFs
>> have upon cognitive function. These reductive effects can now be actually
>> measured by anybody in a matter of seconds, and they are significant. In
>> short, it is easy to prove that cell phones, with their strong EMFs,
result
>> in major cognitive degradation during the period of exposure. A cell
phone
>> does not have to be on for there to be a negative impact on cognition,
>> because its EMF, whether the phone is turned on or off, is very strong,
If
>> the phone is in a pocket, or a nearby purse, reductive cognitive effects
>> occur which can be measured. Long-term suppression of brain function
cannot
>> be healthful.
>>
>> Also, EMF researchers are working to determine how low the threshold is
for
>> magnetic field strength at which point adverse bioeffects begin to
appear.
>> 2.5 mG is way too high! Cognitive effects can be observed at much lower
>> readings than this.
>>
>> But you argue, if EMFs interfere with cognitive function, why can't I
>> observe that in my stream of consciousness? Consciousness has no way of
>> knowing about decrements in brain processes--unless measurements are
taken.
>> A woman doing housework feels quite normal, though she thinks she is
>> experiencing the symptoms of an oncoming cold or maybe the flu. She is
>> totally unaware that her brain function has undergone gross degradation
as a
>> result of colorless, odorless, deadly carbon monoixde fumes seeping into
the
>> air from a faulty furnace. Even when death is unquestionably imminent,
she
>> notices nothing. Her husband, upon returning home, is alarmed by her
slurred
>> speech and groggy movements, and saves her. Later she keeps repeating, "I
>> had no idea of what was happening. Isn't that strange?" The reductive
>> effects of EMFs can be substantial, but consciousness is oblivious to
this
>> until a measurement of some kind is taken. How many drunks have been
pulled
>> over and genuinely surprised to find out how impaired they were when
taking
>> the field sobriety test? Measurement makes the impairment picture clear.
>>
>> Consider this. We have a municipal power plant in our community that
stands
>> exactly 100 feet away from our newly-remodeled high school. Three blocks
>> away from the physical perimeter of the power plant,
>
>**********
>
>> I can measure the first
>> traces of a decline in brain function. Within a block of the plant, the
>> reductive effect is pronounced. Kids are sent to that school to learn,
>> unaware of how handicapped they are. When citizens learn how EMFs knock
down
>> mental performance levels, there will be a genuine outcry to remedy the
>> situation.
>>
>> JP
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roy Beavers
>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>> Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 9:16 PM
>> Subject: Cell Phone Litigation: Enter Peter Angelos (Slesin)..
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >.......From EMF-L......
>> >
>> >Be sure you visit Louis's site below........
>> >
>> >-------- Original Message --------
>> >Subject: Cell Phone Litigation: Enter Peter Angelos
>> >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:54:02 -0400
>> >From: mwn@pobox.com (Louis Slesin / Microwave News)
>> >To: Colleagues LS
>> >
>> >In an important new development, mega-lawyer Peter Angelos of Baltimore
has
>> >joined the cell phone/brain tumor fray. Angelos has won billions of
dollars
>> >in damages from the tobacco and asbestos industries.
>> >
>> >Read the whole story FREE on our Web Site: http://www.microwavenews.com
>> >This is an exclusive Microwave News report.
>> >It is the front page story of our November/December issue. You can
download
>> >the front page at no cost.
>> >
>> >Best,
>> >Louis Slesin
>> >Editor
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >__________________________________________________________
>> >Louis Slesin, PhD
>> >Editor, Microwave News
>> >A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation
>> >Phone: 212-517-2800; Fax: 212-734-0316
>> >E-mail: , Internet:
>> >Mail: PO Box 1799, Grand Central Station
>> >New York, NY 10163, U.S.A.
>> >
>
>--
>
>Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
>roy@emfguru.com
>
>It is better to light a single candle
> than to curse the darkness.....
>
>WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com
>
>People are more important than profit$$
>
>
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com