Subject: (Maxey) Cyril Smith is correct! (fwd)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 112656 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
......Excellent comment below from Dr. Ed Maxey.....Don't forget, Ed,
Cyril Smith favors the notion that frequency (wave-length) may be even
more important than field strength.....Of course, harmonics, transients,
etc. are still unstudied.....We have some other people who should be heard
on this, too......guru......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 10:30:17 -0500
From: Edward Maxey
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Cyril Smith is correct!
Hello Roy,
This is a thank you for providing the letter from Cyril W. Smith.
Surely, here we have an authority to whom we should pay heed.
His letter includes:
"With the apparatus available to me in Dallas, I
can test from 0.1 Hz (100millihertz) to 5 MHz (megahertz) using a
commercial laboratory oscillator (waveform generator) connected to a
small output coil placed 2-3 feet distant from the patient, which
gives a sinusoidal alternating (r.m.s.) magnetic field at the
patient of the order of 30 nT (nanotesla) This 30 nT is typical of
many environmental situations such as in the vicinity of a television
or computer...."
The "30 nT" alerted me. If memory serves this is equivalent to 30 gamma
or 0.3 milligauss. A study presented by me in 1975 includes:
"A second subject, J. W., a 42 year old white minister showed,
A. At 8 Hz, 30 gamma, synchronous activity throughout the
brain...."
(page 333 of HEW Publication (FDA)77-8010)
This was an EEG study and the synchronicity was induced by an externally
generated 30 gamma 8 Hz sine wave. The brain's response was the same at
1800 gamma.
This surely supports Prof. Smith's views and particularly the low level
at which magnetic fields may evoke biological responses.
It also raises an additional question. If a similar biological response
is evoked with both 30 nT and 1800 nT does the latter potentially
represent a greater hazard to the individual? Or does a greater hazard
from the more intense field derive from the fact that an 1800 nT field
covers a much broader physical area in which more individuals might be
exposed to fields of more than 30 nT?
Should we begin to think of 30 nT as a safe level for magnetic field
exposure?
Please do forward this to Prof. Smith. His email address did not appear
in your list emiling.
Thanks,
Ed Maxey
....[He'll get it!!!....guru.....]
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