Subject: (Curry) Tucson Meeting papers (fwd)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 114751 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
The following is an extremely worthwhile discussion about some of
the papers which were presented at the recent Tucson meeting......
Bill has put in some hard work and much thought.....Try to give this the
time it deserves (a lot!)..... Heavy stuff here. Most of our EMF-L
readers will not fully appreciate the work that is here..... If you
can (as I do) "wade" through it two or three times, it will become
more understandable ... and something you may wish to file away in your
mind to bring it out at the right moment when that "utility expert" is
lieing to you (since Clinton/Lewinsky, it's called "misleading" you).
One of the papers reviewed is the latest effort by Dr. J. C. Weaver of
MIT.....Those of you who have been a part of the EMF research community
for some time ... already know what he says!!!.....The same thing he has
been saying for years......
Bill, I hope you won't spend too much of your valuable time on the likes
of him..... He is another of those "it's not possible" (according to the
'physics' theories) advocates who got themselves out on a limb some 8-10
years ago ... and are still trying to justify THEORY that has subsequently
been undermined, if not DESTROYED, by the evidence.....(Others? Adair,
Bennet, Barnes, Moulder -- Their kind of science is that: when the
evidence disputes the theory ... why of course ... you ignore the
evidence!!!)
A fair question: Is it pure chance that those folks are also regularly
listed as "expert" witnesses by industry in court cases??? (And, of
course, they are ALWAYS the ones who find their way in front of the camera
when the EMF issue is under discussion on TV.)
Outside observors (the "press") should always remember that they (the
science establishment) are defending THEORY. Theory that is consistently
being "knocked down" or "put into question" by the EMF research results
that are appearing..... As many of you know, that historical pattern is
rather common in the history of science..... The "conventional wisdom"
establishment of the entrenched "science" community does not readily admit
to the new paradigms.....
In truth, they do a lot of damage to the truth about EMF because almost
without exception they hold prestigious positions on the staffs of major
universities or institutions..... The "press" figures they must know what
they are talking about..... The press doesn't look into their sources of
income or research funding and endowments etc.....(A point which Bill
Curry appropriately raises below....)......Thanks for this good work,
Bill....guru...
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??????
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:25:00 -0600
From: "Bill P. Curry"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Tucson Meeting papers
Roy,
Thanks for indicating the source of the work on stress responses
of cells. I will quote more from the Columbia Univ. work later. I didn't
mention it by name in my previous correspondent, because I wasn't sure
whether similar work had been done by other investigators. I think there
is corroborating work.
Now I want to review two of the papers given on the first day of
the Tucson conference (Annual Review of Research on Biological Effects of
Electric and Magnetic Fields from the Generation, Delivery, and Use of
Electricity). I am slow about getting this material out - in part,
because I wanted to try to rebut one paper. When one encounters the
participants in a bioelectromagnetics conference, it quickly becomes
apparent that there is a wide range of opinions on the validity of
apparent EMF effects. My opinion is that in vitro studies (especially
cellular studies) present convincing evidence that there are substantial
EMF effects on biological systems at low level of the fields, some of this
evidence is bolstered by in vivo experiments on living organisms and
epidemiological studies, but the connection between the cellular studies
and the whole creature studies is more difficult to prove.
A-1 J.J.L. Carson and J. Walleczek, Stanford University, “Sensitivity
of the Self-Organized Peroxidase-Oxidase Oscillator to Weak Physical and
Chemical Stimuli”
The authors of this study used an enzyme system as an in vitro model to
study how biological mechanisms can amplify weak external disturbances
like EMF. They perturbed this biochemical system with red light and by
changing the chemical reduction/oxidation (redox) characteristics (by
adding manganeseions) . The results indicated that stimuli similar to
EMF could be amplified by self-organized (nonlinear) biodynamic states.
Thus, this oscillating chemical system is probably a good test bed to
demonstrate EMF effects. I think this was a very clever experiment.
A-2 J.C. Weaver, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Status of
Theoretical Assessment of Weak EMF Exposures using Biophysical Mechanism
Models and Molecular Change Criteria”
This is the paper that I have spent some effort trying to rebut. I would
like to point out that Weaver did have another paper (poster, if I
remember correctly) in which he observed an effect that required the
presence of magnetite, so he is not a total naysayer in respect to
observations of bioeffects. This paper, however, is part of his extended
effort to prove that previously reported bioeffects are not consistent
with known laws of physics and chemistry. I think this paper is flawed.
The author attempts to demonstrate that the effects of weak EMF will be
difficult to detect in living media because of the occurrence of
competing effects such as temperature variations and molecular
fluctuations. He makes a statement that I think is completely
unjustified: “Unless a human sensory system (multicellular system
integrated with the nervous system) is involved, it appears that effects
due to weak 50-60 Hz EMF will not be able to be reconciled with
established understanding of physics and chemistry, and in
this sense are implausible.”
What I think is a fatal flaw in this argument is the following: the
reaction rate for a biochemical system was assumed to follow the Arrhenius
form of temperature dependence for chemical reaction rates (see Molecular
Theory of Gases and Liquids by J.O. Hirschfelder, C.F. Curtiss, and R.B.
Bird 1964 edition, pp. 661-667, John Wiley and sons, Inc., New York).
This glosses over a number of difficulties.
To understand the implications of this statement, consider the simplest
kind of chemical reaction, a simple exchange in which a molecule of type A
collides with a molecule of type BC, where B and C denote specific
molecular fragments (which could be atoms or specific molecular units).
As a result of the collision, a different type of molecule AB may be
formed, liberating the fragment C. The reaction rate can be written as
the product of the concentrations of the reacting species with a term
called the specific reaction rate. The Arrhenius form of the specific
reaction rate is R(T) = sGexp(-B/kT), where G is a preexponential factor
which in gases or liquids would represent the collision frequency per unit
volume of the reacting molecules with weak - if any - temperature
dependence, k is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the absolute temperature (in
Kelvin), and B is the activation energy - i.e., the energy that colliding
molecules must overcome to cause a reaction.
Weaver assumes first that the Arrhenius form applies in biochemical
reactions (which might be surface reactions at cell membranes, instead of
volumetric reactions - under such circumstances an Arrhenius form is
dubious) and second that the activation energy is constant in chemical
reactions in biological systems - as it usually is in molecular physics
and chemistry. He then defines a signal-to-noise ratio, assuming that the
EMF induced change in the reaction rate is the signal, and he evaluates
the noise as being due to naturally occurring molecular fluctuations and
to thermal fluctuations, on the basis of perturbing the reaction rate
equation with respect to the temperature. If this form is used, then it
is fairly easy to show that the EMF effects will be swamped by temperature
fluctuations. This makes it very difficult to see the EMF effects, unless
the temperature fluctuations are held to unrealistically small values
during experiments. What the author neglects, however, is whether the
activation energy B is a constant or is modified by the presence of EMF.
If the EMF causes a change in B, the result of EMF will be a change in the
reaction rate at least as large as the effect of thermal fluctuation.
There is also another problem in simply assuming the Arrhenius form of
reaction rate. The term sG is called the frequency factor and it is treated
as a single constant in Weaver's paper. However, the term s is the
probability that the collision geometry and the internal molecular
arrangements are favorable for the reaction. In general, it cannot be
predicted, and the Arrhenius form breaks down if either s is required to
exceed 1.0 (in order to fit the experimental data) or if the specific
reaction rate declines with temperature. When this is so, a more
comprehensive absolute reaction rate theory developed by Henry Eyring must
be used. (This is also described in Hirschfelder, Curtiss, and Bird.)
Eyring’s theory assumes a collision complex of all the reactants occurs
and then breaks down into the final reaction products. A statistical
mechanical analysis of this complex results in there being an additional
exponential factor involving the activation entropy. The activation
energy itself is a free energy term that results from determining the
potential energy of the reaction constituents as a function of the
coordinates of all members of the reacting system. This potential surface
is a hypersurface - meaning it has more than three dimensions, depending
on how many coordinates describe the reacting molecules. There is a
reaction path over this surface from the initial reactant molecules to the
final product molecules. The potential energy of the reactants is higher
than the energy of the final products, and there is a saddle shaped ridge
on the potential surface between reactants and products. The reaction path
over this ridge is the path that represents steepest descent of the ridge.
The activation energy is the difference between the highest point on the
reaction path and the initial potential energy of the reactants. The
entropy term is where the effect of EMF on the reaction rate might enter
the equation. To evaluate the dependence of the entropy on electric or
magnetic fields, however, will require greater knowledge of the nature of
the reactions - for example, if the reaction rate depends on ion transport
across a membrane, how is this transport modified by EMF.
Some of Carl Blackman's experiments and Janie Blanchard’s theoretical
studies (ion parametric resonance) suggest that certain combinations of
both DC and AC magnetic fields can strongly affect the the rate of ion
transport across membranes - thus, in that instance, the EMF acts as a
valve - permitting or inhibiting ion transport and, hence, effectively
turning on or off chemical reactions dependent on ion transport across
membranes.
While I don't know the form of the effect of EMF on chemical reactions in
living systems, it is common to find sensitivity to electric or magnetic
fields in inorganic physical systems with characteristics similar to the
Arrhenius equation. For example, in electron emission from a heated metal
surface, the work function of the metal plays the role of “B” in an equation
very similar to the Arrhenius equation. J(T) = AT^2 Exp (-eW/kT), where
A is a constant, e is the electronic charge, and W is the work function
for the emitting surface (expressed in volts). The work function
expresses the energy required to extract an electron from the metal
surface. This energy is supplied by heating the surface. This equation
is the Richardson-Dushman equation for thermionic emission (see
Statistical Physics by Edward Desloge, pp. 57-59, Holt, Rhinehart, and
Winston, New York, 1966). It is a very useful equation for anyone who
must calculate the emission properties of filaments in vacuum tubes. (Are
any of you surprised to find that vacuum tubes are still used in
electronics?)
The Richardson-Dushman equation expresses the emission current density
(current per unit area of the emitting surface) as a function of the
absolute temperature. The higher the temperature, the more electron
current you can get out of a metal surface. The preexponential temperature
dependent factor in the equation is the square of the absolute
temperature. Even though this a fairly strong temperature dependence, it
is weak in comparison to the exponential factor. As long as there is no
external field, the work function is constant and the Richardson-Dushman
equation agrees quite well with measurements of the emitted current from a
heated metal surface. Upon application of an electric field at the
emission surface, however, the work function is effectively reduced by a
factor which depends on the electric field. (See, for example, Large Ion
Beams: Fundamentals of Generation and Propagation by A.T. Forrester,
pp. 158-161, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 1988.) This is called
the Schottky effect, after its discoverer. It results in the presence of
a multiplicative factor which takes the form Exp (139 E^1/2 /T),
provided the electric field E is stated in kV/cm. Note that the square
root of the field appears here; my suspicion is that this is also the form
that might be expected in bioelectromagnetics. Thus, if EMF sensitive
biochemical reaction rates actually assume a pseudo Arrhenius form, it
might be useful to plot experimental effects as a function of the square
root of either electric or magnetic field, instead of plotting as a
function of the field strength itself.
I think that this paper is misleading and simplistic in its implications.
Significantly, this work was supported in part by the MIT Electric Utilities
Program Consortium; however, I don't think that an investigator is
necessarily constrained to make his (or her) work fit the expectations of
sponsors.
A-3 M. Blank and L. Soo, Columbia University, "Magnetic Fields Accelerate
Enzyme Reactions"
The authors studied the effects of low level AC magnetic fields on two
different types of enzyme reactions. The first type involved a
biochemical system that was reacting by steady state kinetics; the second
was a system which was proceeding toward equilibrium - thus one of the
systems was near equilibrium and the other was far from equilibrium. In
both cases the magnetic fields accelerated the reactions, and the
threshold for an effect due to the field was below 5 milligauss. One
interesting observation was this: if the reaction was already strong, the
field had little effect, but if the reaction was weak, the field had a
large effect.
The frequency response of both these enzyme reactions was also
interesting. These two reactions were definite examples of nonmonatonic
response of reaction rates to EMF. The authors interpreted these
observations in light of the mobile charge interaction model (MCI) and
said that both electric and magnetic fields interact with the same charge
movements during enzymatic activity. They also said that the thresholds
for magnetic fields effecting enzyme reaction rates and stimulation of
transcription activity in DNA molecules are comparable with the low field
cutoff for epidemiological studies. Further, they concluded that the
magnetic fields interact with electrons moving along DNA base pairs and
that the MCI model is a rationale explanation for stimulation of
transcription by EMF. My interpretation of the latter statement is that
EMF can turn on cellular reproduction processes before they would
otherwise be activated. Readers, please correct me if I have
misinterpreted this.
A-4 R. Goodman and M. Blank, Columbia University, "Differences Between
Electomagnetically-Induced and Thermally-Induced Cellular Stress
Response" I have previously mentioned the similarities between EMF
stimulation of the cellular stress response and thermal stimulation of the
stress response in studies by the Columbia team. One such similarity is
the production of heat shock factor by both types of stimuli. This paper,
however, identified a number of differences between the responses to these
two types of stimuli.
One such difference is the dependence of cellular response on field
intensity. Cells whose stress response has been saturated at one field
strength can be re-stimulated by a different field strength. It was
suggested that this behavior could be explained on the basis that EMF of
different strengths activates different segments of DNA. In my opinion,
this is one of the most significant implications of this remarkable study.
Even though there were several more papers in the first day's session, I
will have to postpone transcribing my notes on these until later. I
recommend to any readers interested in pursuing these matters more
thoroughly that you get the book of (extended) abstracts for this meeting.
It can be obtained (probably at a nominal cost) from W/L Associates, Ltd.,
7519 Ridge Road, Frederick, MD 21702-3519.
I shall slowly release to the list the content of other papers at the Tucson
meeting as I have time to do so.
--
----
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