Subject: (Curry) (Townsend) RF and H2O (water)..... (fwd)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 111149 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:58:25 -0700
From: "Bill P. Curry"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: (Townsend) RF and H2O (water).....
Roy, Stan, and Jim,
I am not a bioelectromagnetics expert, but I am a physicist and
electromagnetics specialist with an EE Ph.D. Basically I think Stan's
arguments are convincing, but not quite complete. Energy can be absorbed into
internal energy storage modes of molecules - not thermal energy, and ions are
also important in the processes that occur at cell membranes.
In regard to storage in internal molecular states, note that the
(predicted, probably not yet measured) molecular absorption bands of DNA
start around 10 GHz, so that harmonics of cell phone and PCS phone
frequencies can certainly excite these frequencies - and these devices are
abundant in harmonics in the near field. Further, lab experiments (by
Henry Lai and others) have shown breakage of DNA strands by microwave
radiation and also in situations of interaction of radiation with an
environment containing chemical carcinogens.
Stan's comment on the absorption by water goes along with the
fact that there is about a factor of 5 increase in human tissue
conductivity from 100 MHz to 2 GHz in measurements of the complex
dielectric constant of tissues from cadavers carried out by the University
of London for Brooks AFB. (The report is on the web, but I have a hard
copy.) Since the absorptivity is related to the conductivity, this means
that absorption per unit mass of the tissues goes up similarly. The net
effect on the energy absorbed in the head (because of the water molecules)
is nonlinear, of course.
If one were talking about a slab of tissue, the fraction of the radiation
absorbed in a given portion of the slab would decrease exponentially with
distance into the slab, the coefficent multiplying the distance being
proportional to the conductivity of the tissue. If the conductivity were
as high as metal, the energy flow would be concentrated in the outermost
regions, but at the much lower conductivity of tissues, the energy flow
goes quite a distance into the head. Niels Kuster's group at the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology have modeled the flow of radiation into
the simulated head of a cell phone user with the phone held next to the
head and using the tissue dielectric properties that I mentioned
previously.
Their results show that, although the greatest absorption of energy is on
the side of the head nearest the phone, the radiation flow penetrates to
the opposite of the phone. Further, some types of phones cause 40-60% of
the incident radiation to be absorbed in the head, but other types allow
as much as 80% absorption. Kuster's gropup have published a number of
papers on this subject and some of their work is highlighted in an article
in the Swiss Consumer magazine Kastensturtz, that was sent to me by Chris
Reuss, to whom I am grateful.
Kuster's groups work fully considers the near field of the phone; whereas
Ghandhi's earlier studies were restricted to the far field of the phone.
I think these studies are very significant.
Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
> .......A good commentary below (sent by Jim Beal) about the effects of
> RF on (the water) in our brain when a cell phone is used.....And, how
> "out of date" is the regulatory thinking about safe standards on this.
> If this is good "science," it certainly could be powerful in court!!!
>
> Sure would like to get some feedback on this from our scientists.
> I cannot understand their silence on what (seems to me to be) the
> most obvious line of research (and "suspicion" of health damage)
> in the whole cell phone matter......
>
> 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...............
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:12:20 EST
> From: EMFEFFECTS@aol.com
> To: mdt@ozemail.com.au
> Cc: "Roy L. Beavers" , Sarah.Benson@aph.gov.au,
> emfacts@trump.net.au
> Subject: Re: C-P + Jim/Roberta visiting the Toronto Townsends
>
> Matthew Townsend, Sarah Benson, Roy Beavers: Good info below from my friend
> Stan Townsend, Ph.D., Toronto, with whom my wife Roberta and I will be staying
> mid-March.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Beal
> EMF Interface Consulting
> http://www.emfinterface.com
>
> #######
>
> Date: 3/7/99 8:54:59 PM Central Standard Time
> From: stan@genexus.on.ca (Stan Townsend, Toronto)
> To: EMFEFFECTS@aol.com
> CC: hguttman@erols.com (Helene)
>
> Hi There - Both:
> Hey - hey - Fred Soyka's Conference is next week - 17 - 18th,
> Wed/Thursday.
> Remember that you're spending some time here as our house guests - let me
> know when your plane arrives - Arrival Flt # / time - and Departure Flt# /
> time out.
> Then I can come out and pick you up.
>
> [.........Read below.......guru.....]
>
> Jim + Helene for consideration on brain chemistry.........
>
> There is little problem at all of understanding seeing where the
> greatest fraction of microwave energy from a 4-inch long, 1/4-wave,
> dipole antenna is absorbed when held 1 - 2 inches away from the
> surface of a 10-inch diameter head composed of (approximately) water.
> The answer is very simple - the greatest fraction of the 5 (or so) milliWatts
> of emf energy is deposited into the water/cell structure of the brain.
> It is probably quite misleading to calculate cell/brain effects as
> being based on any temperature rise of cells due to energy being absorbed
> into mass of tissue. This is a lousy scientific assumption - that of the
> steady-state balance of RFenergy being thermally absorbed into unit mass
> of the brain, when one considers - even as a close analogy - that microwave
> ovens in the multi-GHz range - not far from ~1 GHz cellphone transmitters -
> are known to preferentially or initially deposit their emf energy into
> electrons in the water in meat (say) analogous to the brain's molecules.
>
> Since the electrons are some 3 - 4 orders of magnitude lighter than
> organic molecules, it is the electron's 3 - 4 orders less of mass/energy
> that absorbs the emf energy. Only later, after time-relaxation does the
> lighter electrons' energy "slowly" time-equilibrate/relax
> into the heavier mass of the molecular nuclei.
>
> The regulatory gaze is steadfastly fastened upon precisely the
> wrong recipient of the cell-phone-antenna's deposited energy. And energy
> density within emf waves increases as the square of the radiating
> carrier frequency, which is why cell phones are a "worse" problem than
> in-house, walk-around radio phones.
>
> The above short description is precisely why one sees scientific
> evidence for aberrant brain chemistry appear at emf energy-deposition
> densities that are 4 orders of magnitude below the regulated threshold
> densities which have been improperly determined on the basis of energy
> densities into nuclei masses and not on the proper scientific basis of
> cell-phone antenna-radiated emf energy densities into the dis-correlation
> of electron clouds. Dis-correlation of valence electrons by absorbed emf
> energy is probably precisely the disruptor of information processes in
> brain chemistry.
>
> A major scientific mistake is being made in such poor energy
> modelling for regulatory/legistative purposes as to regulate nuclei
> temperature rise when in reality it is the electrons'
> temperature-rise/excitation-energy level rise that
> controls the information and brain-chemistry processes.
>
> The U.S. regulatory level should probably be 3 - 4 orders of
> magnitude lower than it now is for cell-phone energy density absorbed
> into not upper-body, but into brain tissue, which is precisely where the
> cell phone antenna is preferentially radiating. An antenna in the ear is
> worse than an ear-located antenna radiating into the upper body.
> Why not regulate where the effect is happening rather than remote
> from where it is happening???? i.e., regulate the cell-phone antenna's
> energy density deposition at the nearest adjacent bulk tissue structure.
>
> Anyway - Jim - just something for you to think about - I've been
> perusing on this one for a few weeks now as to where did the orders of
> magnitude difference go when science observes effects orders of
> magnitude below a "supposed" threshold level.
> Stan
>
> > > Matthew Townsend
> > > Barrister & Accredited Mediator
> > > Lecturer in Environmental Law, Victoria University of Technology
> > > ===================================================
> > > Clerk: McNaught 205 William St, MELBOURNE 3000
> > > Business: (03) 9608 7319 Fax: (03) 9608 8668
> > > Home: (03) 9826 9662 Mobile: (04) 1122 0277
> > > DX: 89 Email:
> > > ===================================================
> >
> >>
--
----
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