Subject:  Magnetics and EMFs (fwd)
Date:     Sun, 22 Mar 1998 124032 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody:

I invite your attention to the following message from Sal.  It is 
a well written piece about a very difficult subject (which, frankly,
is well over my head).  But if you can grasp the essential point:
that our cells (all living cells) are essentially "bundles" of
electromagnetic energy, then I hope you can begin to see how the
"tiniest EMF signal imaginable" "may" have an influence upon how
that cell performs its role in life.....

That influence may disturb the cell in such a way as to cause it
to be damaged, or to alter its chemical action, or, conceivably, that
disturbance "may" result in a positive effect.  Someone on this circuit
wrote, recently, that whether or not one gets a positive effect is largely
a matter of trial and error.  VERY WISE WORDS!!!

The point needs to made, of course, that when these "exogenous" 
(from outside the body, as they are called) signals are received 
in the body from sources in our environment (power lines, cell-phones
or their antennas, space based transmitters, TV transmitters, 
computer screens, microwave ovens, etc.) the victim receiving the signal
is in no way able to "control" the consequences.  He/she is simply
vulnerable to the consequences of our electrical/electronic age and its
consequent effect upon human cells, whether it be in the locus of the
neuroendicrine (hormone) system or the brain or wherever....  (At this
point in our research, it is VERY likely that we have NOT "spotted" all
the likely loci of mechanisms.)

What we are talking about here is the so-called "mechanism" by which
EMF does its "thing" with our cells and tissue -- whether the result be
good or bad.  Some scientists working on this research are prone to say,
"we really haven't 'seen' or 'proved' this bioelectromagnetic mechanism.
It is simply the hypothesis we have to explain what we think is
happening."

True, but also not true!!!  When the RESULTS you predict on something like
this (which you will NEVER 'see' because you cannot see the electrons
themselves) result in the predicted probable effects -- enough times --
then you have, in fact, "proved" the process ... even though you did it by
inference rather than direct proof....  

The 'surprising volume' of biological activity that can be induced by EMF
exposure is one of the things I have been seeing and hearing about at the
various EMF meetings I have attended over the past few years where the
scientists (particularly the cell biologists) have been reporting on the
results of their work -- and which I have been trying to report to you....

Mankind, of course, was not aware of this biological activity a century
ago when the "electrical age" began.  But slowly over the past two
generations that shroud of ignorance has been pulled back, lead initially
by the Russians.  Pushed ahead in the U.S. by the likes of Robert
Becker and Nancy Wertheimer, Ross Adey, Sam Milham and a host of other
dedicated people who have been willing to absorb the attacks by the
"establishment" vested interests and their "fellow travelers" in the
science (and media) communities.

At the same time that this "discovery" of the EMF effects on our bodies
has been occurring, a MASSIVE campaign of distortion, obfuscation, and
cover-up has been waged (within the science community as well as in the
"P.R." and lobbying channels) by those vested interests who have decided
that their interest in this matter is more important than the publics
interest.  (Americans of my generation may remember the statement by
"Engine Charlie" Wilson, then Chairman of General Motors AND Secretary
of Defense, that, "What's good for General Motors is good for America.")

Well, that is very much to the heart of what I have been trying to
open up in this EMF debate.  I do NOT believe that "What is good for
General Motors," or AT&T, or Motorola, or PACBELL, or General Electric or
your 'local' power company ... is necessarily good for America or for the
world.  Not if the health effects are as we are now discovering them to
be.  And not if there is something we CAN do about it.  Which there is!!!

This adverse EMF exposure need not be a "given" in our society.  Once
we admit the problem, I predict that many alternatives (in mitigation,
in avoidance, in redesign, of our transmission system, for example, etc.)
will be generated (a pun!) ... and that this will be possible WITHOUT
denying mankind the benefits of the electrical age.

So, please try to "get" what Sal is saying here -- it goes to the
heart of the "mechanism" issue ... which, in turn, is at the heart of
the EMF problem......

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...............................................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:49:53 EST
From: Sal La Duca 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Magnetics and EMFs

Dear Roy,

I offer this for what it's worth, perhaps little. Post it if you wish.


A proven physics phenomenon known as Cyclotron Resonance dictates that a
charged particle will orbit in a static magnetic field. Variables being
the mass of the particle, the amount of charge, and the strength of the
field.

The static field exists, and because of it, so do we. A variety of
charged particles exists within our biological systems that exhibit this
behavior. You can consider it as atomic "agitation" that aids the
chemical processes that sustain our life. A few physicists have said this
is absurd because the orbital loops are bigger than the human body.
Perhaps so for a free unbounded particle. But for a chemically bonded
particle it orbits around like a rock in a sling, well within the
confines of "normal" chemistry.

This being a given, and considering that the field is a whole-body
exposure, you can surmise that a reduction of the field will reduce
overall chemical activity, while an increase of the field will produce
the opposite effect.  [We do not know this.  We have not done the 
research.... guru]

Considering some magnetics sold as health aids, you can think of a
magnetic patch as a local field enhancer, that potentially increases the
overall chemical activity in the area of the patch. Thus when placed over
an injury, one can suppose that the healing process would be speeded up
because the chemical activity is speeded up.  [Again, we do not know this.
The research has not been done.... guru]

Granted that this may be the actual process, there is little literature
on the specific details and much goes on the word of "testimonials". Some
firms I know sell patches that are directed in one direction only, some
have alternating patterns. Obviously there is some room for snake oil
salespeople here.  [Repeat.  There is much room for "snake oil salesmen"
here.... guru]

Where EMFs come into play is that at the low frequencies a Harmonic
interaction takes place such that a very small input can cause a great
effect. And Great it is.  [The heart of the matter..... guru]

Because the influence is on "selective" chemical
processes, a small influence in the wrong area will cause devastating
whole-body effects. Part of the earlier "confounders" were researchers
producing non-reproducible results because they did not take into account
the background field. Considering that research in a lab can be
influenced by a lot of structural metal, the background field may be
significantly reduced to render results null and void. Some have recently
claimed effects in lower regions of magnetic field. That produced by
them, or the resultant? No detail there.

Knowing the identity of the most likely candidates for influence, it
seems odd that there is a void of research regarding biological
concentration of specific elements, which would streamline and focus
needed research.

At the higher frequencies there is more than likely a NMR (Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance) effect taking place, which again requires a static
background, which we have, and a changing field, the invading RF. I will
have to dust off my physics book and take a look at which frequencies the
most effects are likely to occur.

Kindest Regards

Sal

[Thanks Sal!!!  Guru]

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]






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