Subject:  (Curry) (Scherer) (Townsend) RF and H2O (water)..... (fwd)
Date:     Tue, 9 Mar 1999 144156 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 14:16:00 -0700
From: "Bill P. Curry" 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: (Scherer) (Townsend) RF and H2O (water)..... (fwd)

Roy, 
	I have experimental data (from the Air Force report that I keep mentioning)
that show that, in the region of the spectrum of greatest interest to your
readers, conductivity - hence, absorption - increases with frequency.  This is
not theoretical.  There are regions of the spectrum in which the converse
occurs - but not in the region between say 10 MHz and 10 GHz.  If you want a
theoretical understanding of this, you have to ask what physical situations
dominate.  In this case, I think it is absorption by water molecules -
broadband resonances.  For some inorganic materials, the absorption spectrum
is dominated by plasma resonances - collective motions of a cloud of electrons
surrounding a group of molecules.  In a sphere, these resonances occur in the
UV, but if you stretch a sphere into a long spheroid you can broaden the
resonance all the way into the IR region of the spectrum.  The point that I am
making is just that the spectral variations of the absorptive properties of
matter are determined by several things: the electronic and molecular
structure, the physical state (gas, liquid, or solid) of the matter, the shape
of objects made up of this matter, and the internal structure of these
objects.  Nevertheless, there are good calculations of these properties in
finite size objects - like a human head, provided you have good basic data to
put into the models.  That basic data is mostly just now becoming available.

Roy L. Beavers wrote:
> 
> .......Wolfgang, I do not believe it is a "fact" that higher frequencies
> get absorbed more readily.....  It is theory......  It has been part of
> the "theory" since the dawn of the EMF issue.....  In his earlier writing,
> I believe that Robert Becker also accepted that assumption.....  In the
> latest version of The Body Electric, however, my recollection is that he
> has backed off of that assumption, and now leaves the question open.....
> 
> We simply do not KNOW that higher frequencies are more biologically active
> (at exposure levels we are experiencing in our everyday environments)....
> 
> They MAY be......  But it is also possible (as theorized by some who are
> working on this question ... at the various meetings [about ELF] which I
> have been attending) ... that ALL frequencies are biologically active!!!
> 
> We simply haven't noticed the effects of the lower frequencies (the ELF)
> ... BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THEM OVER SUCH A LONG TIME ... AND
> (UNTIL RECENTLY) AT SUCH A STEADY SLOW RATE OF INCREASE IN OUR ENVIRONMENT
> ... THAT THE EFFECT SIMPLY ESCAPED OUR ATTENTION ... until the likes of
> Robert Becker and Nancy Wertheimer came along to say:  "Hey, the
> Emporer has no clothes!!!  ELF (power lines) is also biologically
> active..... And we do not know that it is more or less so than RF or
> MW.....
> 
> Cheerio.....
> 
> Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
> rbeavers@llion.org................
> ...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
> .................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............
> 
> ........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST????..........
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:02:01 -6000
> From: "Wolfgang W. Scherer " 
> To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
> Subject: Re: (Townsend) RF and H2O (water).....
> 
> Hi Roy and Jim
> 
> Stans observation are correct  -  the fact that higher frequencies
> get absorbed more into the body tissue are disregarded totally.
> 
> I am wondering  - since I did the EMF table -  how ICNIRP can justify
> its doubling in exposure per higher frequency band  - instead of
> "halving"  it -  what would be more appropriate.
> 
> Unfortunately many of the environmental groups only take such
> industry data and say we need 100 000 times lower value  - proofing
> that they did not understand the basic physics Stan has pointed out.
> 
> This is what makes the industry quite sure that they can do what they
> want.
> 
> For all that do absorption test with water I would suggest to use a
> 0.5% NaCl ( = salt) solution,  its property is closer to body fluid ,
>  the absorption also seems to be higher for lower EMF densities than
> in pure water - that means it is probably non-linear  - suggesting
> some threshold effect already there at the lower intensities.........
> 
> Greetings
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfgnag W. Scherer
> 
> Sound Solutions
> W - M & A
> Picton, Ontario, Canada
> 
> http://www.reach.net/~scherer/wma/ss/

-- 
----
Bill P. Curry, Ph.D.          |Physics is fun.
EMSciTek Consulting Co.       |Trying to make a living!
22W101 McCarron Road,         |Phone: (630) 858-9377
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137          |Fax: same, but require prior notice

	Home page:  	http://www.EMSciTek.com
         ____________________________________________________
        | Analysis, experiment design & software development |
        |        for engineering and the physical sciences   |
         ----------------------------------------------------



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