Subject: (Lundquist) Re [Re contact with you] (fwd) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 085430 -0500 (CDT) From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org> To: emfguru@hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- .......This one may not have been intended for full distribution, but I feel that Marjorie's discussion here -- intended for Prof Cabrales -- is worthy for all......guru....... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 03:33:05 From: marjlundquist@usa.net To: bergues@cnea.uo.edu.cu Cc: rbeavers@llion.org Subject: Re: [Re: contact with you] Dear Professor Cabrales: Because of the rapidly increasing use of wireless telecommunications systems (for example, cellular telephones) I have been concerned about the health effects, both on the users of the handheld cellular telephones and on people who live near the base transmitters for these systems. The transmitters of these systems produce time-varying electromagnetic fields in the microwave (MW) frequency range. Some transmitters emit a digital signal; the older ones may emit an analog signal. In either case, this may be treated as a sum of sinusoidal signals at different frequencies; these frequencies extend over a relatively narrow range in the case of an analog signal, but over a very broad range in the case of a digital (or pulsed) signal. Controlled experiments in the laboratory (on rats and mice) show that there is a cancer risk associated with long-term exposure to fairly low intensities of digital signals at microwave frequencies. There are also epidemiological studies that show the risk of cancer in people is greater in geographic areas where there is an airport (most airports have a radar system, which is pulsed microwave radiation). Anecdotal reports suggest there may be a brain cancer hazard for the users of cellular telephones. On the basis of my theoretical studies, I believe the risk of malignant brain tumors should be higher in people who use the analog type of cellular telephone; the anecdotal reports of brain tumors in cellular telephone users do seem to be associated with analog cellular telephones, though no one has yet done a study to confirm this. Digital cellular telephones are also hazardous, but probably in a different way. There may be a cancer hazard, but the more serious hazard from using a digital cellular telephone seems to be brain dysfunction of various types (short-term memory loss, headache, and possibly Alzheimer's disease after a very long time of use). I have not studied the association between cancer and magnetic fields in the laboratory. But I can tell you that medical doctors at Vanderbilt University in Memphis, Tennessee, USA, who are studying static magnetic fields as a way to relieve pain have found that it is not the strength of the magnetic field that is important, but the spatial gradient of the magnetic field strength. This agrees with my theoretical studies, which indicate that for a static magnetic field, its "bioactivity" should depend on the spatial gradient of the field strength, not on the value of the field strength. (There will be an association, though, because it is easier to get a high value of the spatial gradient of field strength when the field strength itself is high.) I know of only one situation where there is reason to think that exposure to a static magnetic field has caused cancer in human beings; this is in the production of aluminum (Al) by the electrolytic method. A very, very strong direct current is passed through a solution, and aluminum metal forms at one electrode by electrochemical reduction. Men who work in the vicinity of this operation for many years are reported to have an elevated risk of developing cancer. I understand that the magnetic field strength at this operation is very high because the current is very large. This means that the spatial gradient (which depends on the geometry of the current flow and the magnitude of the current) will also be very high, at least in some locations in the factory. But in most laboratories where there are static magnetic fields, the magnetic field gradients are much smaller than in the aluminum reduction operation, so the cancer hazard is much smaller. The only antitumor effect I am aware of comes from the generation of heat at the site of the tumor. Microwaves have been used for this purpose; I believe there are many published papers on this topic. (I would think it best NOT to use a pulsed current for generating heat, as it may pose some hazard to health; but for a very short exposure time, it may not matter whether whether the current is pulsed or not.) Most research scientists who study the effect of magnetic fields on animal health design their experiments so that their magnetic field is spatially uniform (for example, by using Helmholtz coils) because they mistakenly believe that the magnetic field strength is the key variable. Then their experiments show no effect on health, because the true variable is the spatial gradient of the magnetic field--and where the field strength is uniform, the spatial gradient is zero! For a sinusoidally time-varying magnetic field, two variables act to determine the effect on health: the frequency, and the spatial gradient of the magnetic field strength. If one designs a spatially uniform field, the spatial gradient will be zero, so only the frequency will determine the biological effect. If one uses direct current (zero frequency) then only the spatial gradient will determine the biological effect. If both the frequency and the spatial gradient are different from zero, then these two variables will interact to produce the biological effect. Because I do not have a laboratory where I can do experiments on animals, I cannot compare results with you. All my work has been theoretical; it enables me to explain the findings of others who do experimental work. I can also help in the design of experiments to be performed in the laboratory. -- Marjorie Lundquist ********************************* Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H. Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist P. O. Box 11831 Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831 USA ********************************* ===================================== bergues@cnea.uo.edu.cu wrote: > Dear Dr Marjone > > I would first of all apologize for my using part of your precious > ime. I was contact with the Dr. Beavers and sent me your e-mail. > The research works in our laboratory is concerned with: > 1-Adverse effect of the electromagnetic field (static and variable). > 2-Antitumor effect of the electric current (direct and pulsed). > 3-Modelling interaction immune system components - cancerous cells. > 4 -I would wish to develope Impedance on tumors (in the future). > > I would great thank if you, it is possible, send me the information > about relationship Electromagnetic fields - Cancer. I would like to > have contact with you and interchange the experiences and results. > > What de you believe about of the relationship EMFL - cancer and > static magnetic - cancer ?. In our experiment, with mice, we are not > find adverse effects on health with static magnetic field. We are > see stimulation of the lymphocytes and monocytes. My friend Mijail, > in health mice, found a stimulation and reduction of the T > subpopulations CD4+ and CD8-, respectively. > > Best regards > Proffesor Luis Enrique Bergues Cabrales > Centro Nacional de Electromagnetismo Aplicado > Universidad de Oriente. G/P 4078. > Santiago de Cuba 90400. Cuba > FAX: (53)(226) 43721 > phone: 43721 > e-mail: bergues @cnea.uo.edu.cu > > ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 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