Subject:  SARs, Strength of EMF metric "measurement"
Date:     Fri, 20 Nov 1998 155531 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 22:08:58 +0100
From: "D. S. Cvijovic" 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: SARs


I was very happy to read all the responses to my contemplation about
metrics... Thank you!

There is something I would like to make more clear. I am going to use
Bill's words as a question:

Bill said:
"...I don't understand how you can expect there to be effects of EM
radiation
upon living cells without there being absorption of energy.  Even resonance
phenomena require some absorption of energy - even though it may be very
small.  I think the SAR is a significant metric, even when you are
considering
non-thermal and non-ionizing interactions..."  


My answer:
Well, let's compare our cells with the butterflies that are told to be
reacting to extremely weak scent of their mates... Some researchers think
the butterflies are able to detect only one molecule of such scent!!! So,
when a butterfly detects (gets) that one molecule, it starts certain
(biologically preprogrammed) reaction, which doesn't differ much if he gets
three, or hundred molecules!!!!
And our cells are a kind of organisms for themselves, so they also have a
kind of "behavior", and biologically preprogrammed patterns of reactions.
It could be (just - could be!!!) that a very small energy (or a very small
momentum, either, as Marjorie said), might trigger certain (massive) cell
reactions...
So, it could be even "worse" than Marjorie proposed... 

My point here is that we have to stop seeing living matter as a (simple)
physico-chemical machine.

Drasko





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