Subject: (Dr. Townsend??) Brain tissue/water and RF absorption (fwd)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 010809 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
......This is a somewhat long message, but I am sending it all because
I believe it will be of considerable interest to a number of our
researchers. It is a reply to the earlier statement by Dr. Maxey....
Be sure you read on down to include Dr. Townsend's comments on Ed
Maxey's statement....
Perhaps we can hope that some of the European Parliament readers
will take note of this line of research -- in light of the 'waffled'
resolution they just passed......
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...............
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 23:23:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Stan T."
To: "Ed M." , rbeavers@llion.org, EMFEffects@aol.com
Subject: Brain tissue/water and RF absorption
Greetings Ed:
I was interested to receive your forwarded message via Jim & Roy.
Let me give you some background to the physics behind the thinking.
Most of the new, short-antenna, cell phones operate in the 800-900 MHz band
so far as antenna transmission is concerned. Frequency and wavelength relate
such that 300 MHz is 1-m wavelength and 900 MHz is 1/3-m or ~ 1-foot wavelength.
A 900-MHz cell-phone antenna would be 1/4 wavelength or 3-inches long,
typically.
Older (lower frequency - 500 MHz) cell phones have longer "pull-out"
antennae (on butterflies??) or antennas (on cell phones!!), while newer,
nearly-GHZ cell phones have shorter ones that are semi-buried within the
volume of the phone. Ideally, older lower-frequency cell phones in cars
did it all smarter, because the old 'phones were so bulky that you carried
a satchel and a piece of cable connected to a transmitting antenna that was
glued onto the outside of the windshield or back/side window. With this
arrangement the antenna's signal power was largely radiating out to its
intended destination while the metal body of the car shielded the occupants.
Thus, the car metal shell functioned like a so-called Faraday cage shield.
Put simply, it is pretty damned stupid physics to ground out the intended
signal by shorting it out in the user's head, instead of getting the antenna
away from the body any which way!!!!!! The older ways worked - maybe
some bright 'phone designer - Motorola/Nokia/Ericsson/Qualcomm - will
design and sell the user a $9.95 antenna designed to position the antenna
away from the head and at the end of 1-metre of shielded cable.
Now - to talk about the poor old brain on the receiving end of a close-by
antenna.
The calculation that you will see done by a radio engineer on a TV interview
discusses the "bulk" of the braincase contents shorting out/grounding-out
/absorbing, some 40 - 80% of the antenna's transmitted power.Since the
antenna's radiated power density into free space decreases as the inverse
square power with distance away from the antenna, different amounts of
microwave power would be absorbed into different "unit volumes" of the
brain tissue, water and other things such as several hundred/thousand different
kinds of molecules within the affected volume of the braincase.
My earlier point was that negatively-charged and light valence electrons
within ALL of these many different types of molecules in the brain tissue,
CNS fluid, etc. are far and away the major absorbers (from the electric-field
component of the antenna's radiated EMF field) of the antenna's radiated energy.
Water is NOT selectively made toxic while other molecules are unaffected, or
even made toxi at all in this instance, for that matter.
Water happens to be the lightest and easiest molecule into whose valence
electrons power would first be absorbed, and then spread across instantly
to the heavier nuclei. This would ALSO be true for any of the thousands
of other molecules.
The main point of the physics analysis is that the ELECTRONS ALWAYS
ABSORB THE ANTENNA'S EMF ENERGY, NO MATTER WHICH TYPE
OF PARTICULAR MOLECULE THEY ARE PART OF. Water is NOT selectively
singled out to the exclusion of other tissue substances for RF
abuse of its valence electrons -- ALL TYPES OF MOLECULES CAN POTENTIALLY
GET DISRUPTED THIS WAY!!
TWO things are happening - nearly coincidentally in time - but FIRST
the Electrons absorb EMF energy, AND THEN they later pass on their
absorbed energy to the heavier (nuclei) parts of the molecules.
ANY TEMPERATURE RISE in brain tissue comes from Power/energy
that had previously first been absorbed into the electrons. The time for the
electrons to transfer their energy across is fast - orders and orders of
magnitude faster than a microsecond. But the true point is that the
molecules heavy nuclei do NOT directly absorb EMF energy in one step.
They do absorb it in two steps, but FIRST through the electrons that then
subsequently pass it on to the heavy nuclei. The primary point of the
orders-of-magnitude issue is that the electron mass is so many orders of
magnitude less than that of the heavy nuclei of brain tissue molecules,
that for "modest RF-power" input to the elctrons, the temperature rise for
the electrons can POTENTIALLY be quite disastrous, while the SAME amount
of electron energy when passed on to their associated heavy nuclei, just
does NOT raise the molecules temperature by many degrees at all.
Another accurate way of looking at the physics problem is to
understand that the low-temperature-rise heavy molecules are the component
being regulated by law, while the high-temperature-rise electron is the
(unregulated) component initially absorbing the microwave energy and
POTENTIALLY having its glue-like ability to properly hold together complex
brain molecules being disrupted whenever too much EMF power is being absorbed.
AND IT IS THE LIGHT MICROWAVE-ABSORBING ELECTRONS THAT ARE
THE TRUE HOLDERS OF THE MOLECULE'S STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY.
SEVERELY DISRUPT THE ELECTRONS AND YOU HAVE DESTROYED
THE GLUE THAT BINDS TOGETHER THE INFORMATION-CARRYING
MOLECULES FOR ALL BASIC CELL PROCESSES.
SMALL WONDER THAT CANCER RESULTS - THIS IS PRECISELY THE
IDENTICAL PROCESS WHOSE CONSEQUENCE THE EPIDEMIOLOGIST
SEES WHENEVER A DISRUPTOR MOLECULE SHOVES ITS OWN
ELECTRON STRUCTURE INTO A DOCKING BAY OR FJIORD OF A
MOLECULE THAT IS THE FIRST IN THE CHAIN OF THE CANCER
GENESIS SEQUENCE.
You know all about these IDENTICAL processes in their older form of
"radiation burns" by way of "excessive" X-ray (or EMF) therapy in days
of old, when people had cancerous holes burned into their faces with excessive
application of X-ray EMF energy (very, very short wavelength microwave
energy).
The disruption of proper electronic structures of molecules within the
structure of brain tissue can occur by either X-ray or by microwave power
disruption of the electronic structure OR by cancer-inducing molecules using
their external valence electronic structure to disrupt the target molecule.
The BioPhysics process is identical in all three cases. Any cancer
researcher will tell you what goes on at the microscopic level of
electronic structure of molecules when any excess of X-rays, microwave or
mutagenic/carcinogenic "improper receptor dockers" is applied to tissue.
Even simple biology experiments have shown cell division to be disrupted
by excessively-intense electric fields.
No - No - No - water, as such, is NOT made carcinogenic by any process,
to then travel throughout the body, thus producing "secondaries" at
remote sites - this cannot physically or chemically happen to water -
water does not behave this way - it is known NOT to behave this way!.
.
>
><< Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:45:42 -0600
> From: Edward S Maxey
> To: rbeavers@llion.org
> Subject: Brain water and RF absorption
>
> Hello Roy,
>
> There have been several thought provoking recent emailings addressing a
> possible mechanism for biological effects of RF through its effects on
> water. It does seem that physics has something to offer here.
>
> Epidemiology is beginning to associate the use of cell phones to tumors
> in certain portions of the brain. These are thought to be usually on the
> left or right side depending on whether or not the cell phone is
> habitually used with the left or right ear. This presents a problem with
> regards to the RF/water hypothesis.
>
> Clearly there is a lot of water in the skulls of living persons. It is
> in the blood, in cerebrospinal fluid, in extracellular fluid and in
> intracellular fluid. This water does not , however, stay within the
> skull. That in blood passes through the skull in seconds. That in
> cerebrospinal fluid takes longer to leave the skull and that in extra and
> intracellular spaces longer still. Thus, if RF energy inside the skull
> is causing water to become carcinogenic the cancer resulting might well
> be in sensitive organs anywhere in the body.
>
> Contrariwise, if epidemiology does eventually establish a link between
> cell phone use and tumors near the ear being used, the mechanism (if
> water is the culprit) would have to be limited to the intracellular
> water in tissues proximate to that ear.*****NO - THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.*****
>
> It seems probable that the mechanism of brain tumor production with cell
> phone use will eventually be identified as occurring through a direct,
> but subtle, RF sabotage of the normal cellular replacement of brain
> tissue.
**********YES - but of any normal cellular tissue, period.*******S.J.T.
******Your statement below, Ed - "Nature intended these new cells ***
******to be normal, but because of the RF they end up being ********
******malignant." --- is precisely correct, but RF-toxic water does not exist.
******The role is more subtle - deeper down in the electronic structure of
******molecules whose valence electronic structure has been fatally abused
******by RF power or" improper dockers into receptor sites" where they do not
******belong. Biochemists and molecular biologists have been suspicious of
******"improper dockers" for a long time. Stan T.
>Probably there is a production of new cancer cells rather than a
> degeneration of normal cells into malignancy. Nature intended these new
> cells to be normal, but because of the RF they end up being malignant.
> Intracellular water, made toxic by RF energy, could play a role here.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
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