Subject:  (Lundquist) Re "Calcium" and "EMF in barnyard" (fwd)
Date:     Tue, 16 Jun 1998 114200 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: marjorie lundquist 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Re: "Calcium" and "EMF in barnyard"

I found Jeff Gordon's comments about calcium, magnesium and Vitamin
B-6 very interesting.  It reminds me that we must bear in mind that
one way that exposure to RF fields can cause damage to health is by
catalyzing biochemical reactions.  This means that we must keep in
mind "interaction effects" between RF and particular chemical agents
(minerals, vitamins, hormones, etc.).
It is often fairly simple to study adverse health effects that result
from exposure to a hazardous agent in the environment if that agent
causes a direct effect (in proportion to its environmental
concentration, usually) or if its absence causes a disease (deficiency
disease is also directly related to the agent's environmental
concentration).  These are simple relationships.
But when illness is caused by interactions, we are no longer dealing
with SIMPLE relationships.  Instead, the patterns can appear random,
and only if one has figured out what is happening and knows what
pattern to expect, can one make sense of the observed data.
That is very likely to be what is happening with RF fields, I think,
and it will make it difficult to prove cause and effect relationships
between RF and disease.
Too many scientists studying electromagnetic fields (at all
frequencies) develop only very simple hypotheses, as would be suitable
for chemical agents, and then when they cannot find a simple pattern,
declare that the evidence does not indicate that the EMF (RF or ELF)
is responsible for any health effects!
The real problem is probably that these scientists do not understand
the electromagnetic field and its health effects well enough to
develop the more sophisticated hypotheses that are likely to be true,
and that would give clearer answers when experiments are done!
The electromagnetic field is MUCH more complex than a chemical agent.
So I think Jeff Gordon's comments should be taken very seriously
indeed, because most of the effects that have an impact on human
health probably arise from the rather complex "interaction effects"
between fields and chemicals that I am talking about here. -- Marjorie
*********************************
Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
P. O. Box 11831
Milwaukee, WI  53211-0831  USA
*********************************
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




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