Subject: (Smith) An authoritative statement about ES........
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 082657 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
The message below forwards the contribution of Dr. C. W. Smith
(of the U.K.) to the NIEHS in response to their call for papers
following their release of the EMF RAPID working group study.....
Note, that he offers a number of thoughts which were not included
in the final results of RAPID. In part, this was due to the narrow
scope of the mandate for the RAPID study -- which had been set by
the Congress in authorizing the study.
But I suggest that there are also other reasons having to do with
a bias in the U.S. science community (cultivated by industry/government)
against ANY notion that EMF is (or can be) biologically active (at
levels of exposure that are a part of our environment).
Once that threshold of thought or concept is crossed, it becomes much
more difficult to defend the "conventional wisdom" scientific view
in the U.S. that the EMF health hazard is "bogus."
The following statement by an extremely qualified researcher makes it
quite clear that we are dealing with a BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE force --
perhaps akin to that of chemical activity -- with which it may be
connected in some way..... He suggests that we need to look at this
problem through the lens of "quantum physics" rather than "classical
physics."
In yesterday's message, Bert Dumpe also described the "electronic" (or
EMF) character of chemical activity..... By and large we are not seeing
in the U.S. a recognition of the similarity/compatibility of the two....
Perhaps Dr. Smith's contribution (below) will help bridge that gap.....
Cheerio....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST???????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIH Publication 98-4400
from
Cyril W. Smith,
BSc, PhD, DIC, C.Eng:FIEE, C.Phys:MInstP, Life SMIEEE, MIPEM,
Honorary Senior Lecturer,
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering
University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, England.
To whom it may concern:
1. The Writers Background
I am a retired Senior Lecturer, currently holding the status of Honorary
Senior Lecturer, at the University of Salford, Department of Electronic
and Electrical Engineering which I joined in 1964. I retired in September
1989. My work and these comments are not sponsored.
Since the early 1970s, I have been researching the effects and
interactions of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields in
biological systems. Much of this experimental research was carried out
with the theoretical physics cooperation of the late Professor Herbert
Fröhlich, FRS. At an early stage, it was clear that coherence was giving
anomalous magnetic effects analogous to those found in low-temperature
superconductivity (NAG Ahmed, JH Calderwood, H Fröhlich, CW Smith (1975)
Evidence for collective magnetic effects in an enzyme - likelihood of
room temperature superconductive regions. Phys. Lett. 53A: 129-130.).
Since 1982, I have been involved in the testing and therapy of patients
for hypersensitivity to electromagnetic (EM) fields (including
alternating electric and magnetic fields). This has been primarily in
cooperation with Dr. Jean Monro, Medical Director of the Breakspear
Hospital, Hemel Hempstead, England, and Professor W.J. Rea of the
Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas. I have also tested patients
for electromagnetic hypersensitivity in Germany. I have, in all
probability, seen and tested more electromagnetically hypersensitive
persons than anyone else in the world.
I have presented my work on electromagnetic hypersensitivity regularly
since 1986 at the International Annual Symposia held in Dallas, Texas,
on Man and His Environment in Health and Disease. I was one of the
Faculty of 24 Speakers presenting papers at: The 15th. Intl. Symp. on Man
and His Environment in Health and Disease - Focus on the environmental
aspects of EMF and bioelectricity, held in Dallas Texas, February 20-23,
1997.
I continue to lecture on electromagnetic hypersensitivity to scientific
and medical audiences world-wide. In the course of my research career
spanning more than 50 years, I have published over 100 scientific and
technical papers and book chapters and continue my writing and research
activities in retirement. I am a consultant to several organisations.
I have co-authored a book covering this and other topics connected with
the electrical environement entitled, "Electromagnetic Man: Health and
hazard in the electrical environment", Cyril W. Smith and Simon Best,
London, published in England by Dent 1989, with a paperback edition in
1990; and in New York, by St. Martin's Press, 1989. The French edition
is published as: "L'HOMME ÉLECTROMAGNÉTIQUE", Cyril W. Smith & Simon
Best, Éditions Encre/Societé Arys, Paris (1995) ISBN 2-73377-138-1; the
Italian edition is published by Andromeda, Bologna (1997). It received a
book-of-the-year award in 1990.
My presentations at a colloquium held at the European Parliament 5-6
July, 1993 on "Nuisances dues aux rayonnements non ionisants" initiated by
M. Paul Lannoye are published (in French) in a book entitled, "La
pollution électromagnétique et la santé", Paris: Éditions Frison-Roche
1994, ISBN 2-87671-164-8. On May 5th. 1994, the EU passed in Parliament a
Resolution (A3-0238/94): On combating the harmful effects of non-ionizing
radiation.
2. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
The existence of an electromagnetic sensitivity in humans has been
demonstrated in double-blind trials with 100% success at the Environmental
Health Center in Dallas, Texas, and the details have been published in a
peer-reviewed journal by: W.J. Rea, Y. Pan, E.J. Fenyves, I Sujisawa, N.
Samadi and G.H. Ross. "Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity". Journal of
Bioelectricity 10(1&2): 241-256 (1991). This work was carried out in
four phases.
Phase 1
The first phase was concerned with the testing environment. A chemically
clean, porcelained-steel room with ceramic tiled floor and daylight
illumination was chosen since electrically sensitive patients are almost
invariably highly chemically sensitive and it was essential to be certain
that any reactions were triggered electrically and not chemically. The
background fields were zero V/m electric field and 20 nT magnetic flux
density at 60 Hz.The test stimulus came from a coil connected to an
electrical oscillator giving 3000 nT at foot level and 70 nT at head
level. 21 oscillator frequencies were chosen between 100 mHz (millihertz)
and 5 MHz (megahertz).
Phase 2
A group of 100 patients were tested with a total of 2500 individual
challenges and an equal number of placebos. Of these, 25 patients gave no
reaction; that is they were not sensitive to the test conditions. A
further 25 patients gave true positive reactions to 62% of the test
frequencies, with zero false negatives. The remaining 50 patients gave
71% true positive responses to the challenges and 60% false positive
responses to the placebos. If a patients response is slow, a positive
reaction to a challenge might actually occur during a succeeding
placebo test when it would be counted as a false positive.
Phase 3
The 25 patients from Phase 2 who had zero false positives were then
re-tested double-blind. There were 53% true positive reactions to the
challenge and 7% false positive reactions to the placebos. None of the
patients reacted to all the test frequencies. The 25 control subjects did
not react to any frequency nor to any placebo.
Phase 4
Of the 25 patients in Phase 3, 16 who gave no false positives were
re-challenged double-blind but only at each individual patients most
sensitive frequency. This was repeated in a second double-blind trial
with these patients. The results in both cases were 100% positive
reaction to the double blind challenges and zero reactions to the
placebos. This represents a 100% effect in those patients who were
challenged in chemically clean conditions, at that frequency to which
they happened to be most sensitive, and whose reaction time was fast.
This work was rapporteured in the EMF-RAPID Program of the NIEHS
(Breakdown Group Reports for Clinical and In Vivo Laboratory Findings,
April 6-9, 1998 Symposium at Phoenix AZ. NIH Publ. No. 98-4400) on
pp.23-4 where it was concluded that, ...in this study, 16 EHS sensitive
patients out of 100 tested showed symptoms and signs in response to the
exposure. However, in view of the sparse details given on exposure system
it is not possible to evaluate the relation to EMF in the study. These
rapporteurs have clearly missed the whole point of the 4-Phases of these
trials by their interpreting a 100% effect in 16 patients tested under
conditions appropriate for them individually as if it was a 16% response
from 100 patients.
3. The Diagnosis and Therapy of Electrical Hypersensitivities
A decade ago, I co-authored a paper on, The Diagnosis and Therapy of
Electrical Hypersensitivities (C.W. Smith, R.Y.S. Choy and J.A. Monro,
"The Diagnosis and Therapy of Electrical Hypersensitivities", Clinical
Ecology 6(4):119-128 (1989)). This followed our previous publication on
"Electrical Sensitivities in Allergy Patients" (Clinical Ecology 4(3):
93-102 (1987)). Clinical Ecology is a peer-reviewed journal.
The patient test procedure for electromagnetic hypersensitivity that I
have evolved over the past decade involves electrically challenging a
patient in a controlled environment, free from chemicals and particulates
as well as technological electric, magnetic and radiation fields. It may
be necessary to challenge a patient with frequencies ranging from
millihertz to gigahertz. 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. I note those specific frequencies that provoke reactions in the
patients; most of them are chemically hypersensitive but, not all patients
tested react. I am primarily concerned with finding those frequencies
that stabilise (or neutralise) the patients' reactions as these
frequencies can be used therapeutically. More recently, I have
tended to use a toroidal coil which radiates primarily an alternating
magnetic vector potential with minimal alternating magnetic flux density
corresponding to the alternating current flowing in it for reasons
discussed below.
In my book Electromagnetic Man, I referred to the use of a General Health
Questionnaire. This was able to show that persons slightly affected by
their electrical environment were mildly ill in respect of general
health but, normal in respect of mental illness while, those highly
stressed by their electrical environment were severely ill in respect of
general health but still only mildly aff ected in respect of mental
stress. The problems of the effects of the electical environment on
sensitive persons are to be sought through disturbances of their
autonomic nervous system rather than in terms of mental disturbances.
There is usually an underlying body load of toxic chemicals leading to
these chemical sensitivities presaging the electrical sensitivities and
unless this body load of toxic chemicals is eliminated, their electrical
problems will remain.
More recently, I have published an invited paper on Nursing the
Electrically Sensitive Patient (Smith C.W. Nursing the Electrically
Sensitive Patient, Complementary therapies in nursing & midwifery 3,
111-116, 1997).
4. The Electromagnetic Environment
The major sources of ELF or ELF modulated electromagnetic fields in the
environment are: the electrical power distribution systems and all the
electrical and electronic equipment of modern living particularly:
televisions, mobile phones and computers. Society has become as dependent
upon these as it has on the motor vehicle. Road traffic accidents are not
seen as a reason to abandon the motor vehicle but, as unfortunate
occurrences which must be minimised. Similarly with the electrical
environment in which there are a few persons whose chemical and
subsequent hypersensitivities are not compatible with the demands of modern
technology. Their misfortune is not well served by a strident insistence
that no problem exists.
For electrically hypersensitive patients, a further set of environmental
conditions beyond the normal engineering considerations are necessary.
Since these persons have sensitivities incompatible with modern
electrical technology, the only realistic solution is to identify them
and to offer medical treatment and a safe environment. About 15% of any
given population are considered to function below their maximum
capabilities due to some form of hypersensitivity and 1% of these are
likely to include a hypersensitivity to their electromagnetic environment.
With increasing levels of man-made chemicals and man-made
electromagnetic fields in the environment, there are few, if any,
persons not potentially at risk, many more than in the past cases of
asbestos exposures. The need is to identify persons at risk and to
provide a safe environment for them. In view of the very large numbers of
persons exposed to the man-made electromagnetic environment, Risk
Analysis needs to work to a correspondingly very small risk level.
One of my criticisms of EMF RAPID is that the EMF work referred to may
be using bio-systems which are too chemically clean to be able
demonstrate what is a synergistic effect. It is most unusual to find
electromagnetic hypersensitivity in patients who do not already have a
long history of chemical sensitivities.
The frequencies of the current and hence the magnetic fields from a power
line are not only the 50/60 Hz of the generator. There are its harmonics
produced for example by non-linearities in transformers. There will be
frequencies too arising from the fluctuating loading currents being drawn
by the consumers and these may at any given time contain many frequencies
within the human brain-wave spectrum, that is frequencies of great
biological significance. Because the frequencies of current are involved,
these frequencies will appear both in the magnetic flux density (B) and
in the magnetic vector potential (A). My work with electromagnetically
hypersensitive patients has clearly shown that the coherent frequency to
which an individual is exposed is of prime importance. If the coherent
frequency is not able to trigger a reaction or instability in a persons
autonomic nervous system then, the intensity or field strength is probably
not going to be significant up to the thermal effects level.
The effects of ELF modulation on microwave frequencies are well
demonstrated by the growth on microwave induced cataracts on bovine eye
lenses in vitro. If the microwave radiation is modulated at the proton
NMR frequency in the environmental magnetic field, cataracts can be
induced subcapsularly in the posterior cortex at as little as 1-2 µW/ cm2
(microwatts per square cm.) with an 18-20 hours exposure (E Aarholt, J
Jaberansari, AH Jafary-Asl, PN Marsh, CW Smith (1988) NMR Conditions and
Biological Systems. In: AA Marino (ed.) Modern Bioelectricity, New York:
Marcel Dekker, pp.80-104).
5. The Living System as a Macroscopic Quantum System
Firstly, it must be realised that there is a duality between frequency
and chemical structure without which chemical analysis by spectroscopy
would be impossible. Secondly, the sole concern of the EMF RAPID Report
(and of most research) is directed towards classical physics aspects of
electric and magnetic fields but, there is no chemistry in classical
physics. To seek for possible bio-chemical effects of electromagnetic
fields, one must consider quantum physics.
The interchange of internal 12.06 eV radiation in water can give rise to
a long range order and domains of electromagnetic coherence 75 nm in size
as shown from Quantum Field Theory by Preparata (Preparata, G. 1995. QED
Coherence in Matter. Singapore: World Scientific) and Preparata and Del
Giudice (Del Giudice, E., Preparata, G. 1994. Coherent Dynamics in Water
as a Possible Explanation of Biological Membranes Formation. J. of
Biological Physics 20: 105-116). From this the coherence appears as a
fundamental property of water at ordinary tempe ratures and occurs
naturally in the ground or unexcited state. This is quite different from
the LASER for which the energy levels must be pumped.
One implication of a quantum physics approach is that a person, any other
living system or water, may react to the magnetic vector potential (A)
component of an alternating magnetic field at some particular frequency
thereby giving rise to the possibility of reactions or responses even at
zero electric fields (E) (excluding any electric field arising from a
changing magnetic vector potential) and zero magnetic flux densities (B).
The possibility of magnetic vector potential effects at zero magnetic
field is not envisaged in the EMF RAPID document.
The magnetic vector potential can behave like a chemical potential in its
contribution to the wave equation of the system. I discussed in some
detail the evidence for considering a living system as a macroscopic
quantum system in a seminar I gave at The Center for Frontier Sciences,
Temple University, Philadelphia in Spring 1997. This is now published in
Frontier Perspectives (ISSN-1062-4767) vol 7(1), pp 9-15, 1998.
The physical basis for the remarkable properties of living systems is to
be found in the equally remarkable properties of water. Early in my
15-years of work with patients hypersensitive to very low intensities of
coherent electromagnetic frequencies in their environment came the
finding that a sealed tube of water could produce clinical effects in
such patients after it had been exposed to an alternating magnetic field
at a certain coherent frequency and without any chemical contact.
Frequency is the important parameter and especially frequencies which are
highly coherent. In the clinical situation, one is thinking of frequencies
coherent to less than 1% although the fundamental coherence in water will
be orders of magnitude higher.
The external field strengths are a secondary consideration so long as an
individual persons threshold is exceeded. With a highly coherent system,
the constant parameter is the coherence length so that for electromagnetic
radiation interacting with such a system, frequency is proportional to
wavelength in the coherent medium and many related frequencies can be
present simultaneously including ELFs at their appropriate velocities
excited by any one of the frequencies which may not be ELF. Whether the
frequencies involved in these effects are oscillations of an electric
field, a magnetic field, a field of electromagnetic radiation, a vector
potential field or, a macroscopic quantum field remains to be established.
Experimentally, any coil will produce both a (B) field perpendicular to
the current direction and an (A) field in the direction of the current.
Effects in living systems have also been produced by the field near a
toroid which generates a predominantly the magnetic vector potential (A)
field in the surrounding space. One biologist who tried using a toroidal
coil wrote, ...The results for the toroidal coil are quite tantalizing.
Despite the fact that the magnetic field is negligible, significant
increases in abnormalities are found over matched controls, and both when
the (Drosophila) embryos are in place before or after the power supply is
switched on.... (Ho, M-W., French, A., Haffegee, J., Saunders, P.T. 1994.
Can Weak Magnetic Fields (or Potentials) Affect Pattern Formation? . In:
Ho, M-W., Popp, F-A., Warnke, U. (Eds.). Bioelectrodynamics and Biocommun
ication. Singapore: World Scientific, 195-212). Any involvement of the
magnetic vector potential in the biological effects is evidence that they
are quantum related phenomena and not classical electromagnetic field
phenomena.
6. Conclusions
1. Frequency is the important parameter for producing EM effects in
living systems, especially highly coherent frequencies. The field
strengths are a secondary consideration so long as an individual systems
threshold is exceeded.
2. One of my criticisms of EMF RAPID is that the EMF work on
laboratory bio-systems may be using bio-systems which are too chemically
clean to be able demonstrate a synergistic effect. It is most unusual to
find electromagnetic hypersensitivity in patients who do not already have
a long history of chemical sensitivities.
3. I encourage biologists to repeat their experiments involving
magnetic field exposures using a toroid instead of their usual coil. A
toroid which generates a predominantly magnetic vector potential (A)
field in the surrounding space, the magnetic flux density (B) is
contained within the magnetic material. Where the involvement of the
vector potential can be demonstrated in these effects, this is evidence
that these are quantum phenomena, not classical electromagnetic field
phenomena.
Cyril W. Smith October 8th. 1998.
á
h
h þh
Ì>
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