Subject: Proteins, possible impact of cell phone exposure (Guru)...
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 214054 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
Bill:
In a separate message you ask me about my statement concerning the
possible role of EMF in disturbing "normal" activity of cell surface
proteins???
Over the years on EMF-L, we have had a number of messages which relate
EMF exposure to possible effects on cell-surface proteins.... The
"messengers" that communicate into the cell interior and interlock with
other cells......
No, I think there is not any direct EXPERIMENT "proving" that EMF
"disturbs" cell surface protein function (that, after all, is NOT what I
wrote)...... But there has been much "talk" about it. A number of
messages on EMF-L about it. And ... there is much disappointment (I
believe) that none of the RAPID research explored the possibility of the
electric field "acting" upon the cell surface -- the cell membrane.
"In the beginning" ... when EPRI "steered" the EMF research community into
the assumption that the magnetic field was the "villain," this was partly
done in recognition of two biophysics realities: (1) that the most
sensitive (controlling) part of the cell is inside the cell membrane.
(2) The magnetic field gets inside the membrane -- the electric field does
not.....
So, the rush was on to prove that the magnetic field was the villain --
acting INSIDE the cell.... And the electric field was largely ignored.
Virtually ALL (if not ALL) of the RAPID research funds were expended
on that basis....
And, indeed, as we know, some results were achieved which tended to
suggest that may be the correct approach -- the magnetic field DOES act
on the interior of the cell as theorized!! Nobody disputes that!!
The melatonin hypothesis, for example, no longer is in dispute.
But, does that (or any of the other interior hypotheses) fully explain the
deleterious effects of EMF? Perhaps not....
Then, midway in the RAPID research process, and after virtually all money
had been commited to "magnetic field" proof, we began to learn that the
cell surface (because of the action of surface proteins) -- when exposed
to electric filed emissions -- could also have biological consequences.
And, those consequences COULD account for the deleterious effects we were
getting from our epidemiology studies....
The key was the realization that MAYBE the mechanism DID NOT HAVE TO BE
one that was within the cell!?!? MAYBE there are mechanisms that occur
on the cell surface (where it is known that the electric field is blocked
by the cell membrane) -- and the action of the "newly discovered" cell
surface proteins could account for such a mechanism or mechanisms???
But those possibilities have not been explored!!! Not "proved." Just
"talked about" ... a lot..... I'm sure that I have not found all such
messages -- and I encourage others who have knowledge in this aspect to
add what they can (Roger Coghill??).....
The following message is the first of three messages that I have found (so
far) which deal with the subject. I am using the "search" mode in the
archives.....
I have two others to send following this.... May find some more....
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
..........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST????............
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: (Kelley) BBC News - Preece cell phone study (fwd)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 164700 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
---
...Egads!!! The U.K. NRPB (National Radiation Protection Board) --
another one of those pro-industry government agencies that have to
see the "bodies in the streets" before they detect a problem...
...The Bristol people (including Dr. Allen Preece) seem to have a
balanced view of the issue, however...
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org...
...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
...PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...
--- Forwarded message ---
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 09:45:58 -0700
From: Libby Kelley
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Cc: thistle@sover.net
Subject: BBC News - Preece cell phone study
BBC News
Friday, April 9, 1999 Published at 06:54 GMT 07:54 UK
Government action over
mobile phones There are conflicting reports on the health effects of
mobile phones The government has appointed independent experts to
assess the health risks of mobile phones after the publication of the
first study to show the devices affect the brain. Public health
minister Tessa Jowell said the government had set up a panel of
experts to review all research on mobile phones. The panel will be
part of the National Radiological Protection Board, which provides
independent advice on the risks to health from radiation. She said:
"To date there has been no consistent evidence suggesting risk to
health, but there is continuing public concern about the possibility."
"I believe we need a definitive and rigorous assessment of existing
research and clear identification of areas where further research may
be needed so that the public can receive clear advice about the use of
mobile phones and a clear risk assessment from independent experts."
The government move came as the first evidence emerged that mobile
phones affect the functioning of the human brain.
Quicker reactions Government-funded research by the Bristol University
and Bristol Royal Infirmary found that mobile phones speeded up users'
reactions by about 4% when they were faced with questions requiring a
yes or no answer. This could be because they heat the brain - which
would be unlikely to have any long-term effects - or because they
cause changes associated with a threat of disease. Several previous
studies have suggested that mobile phones may be harmful to human
health, but there is not yet any consistent evidence that this is the
case. Some have suggested that the devices may cause short-term memory
loss. Exposure to signals The Bristol study of 36 healthy volunteers
found that there was no proof of any effect on short-term memory or
attention from exposures of up to 30 minutes. The 36 were exposed to
microwaves typical of analogue phones, microwaves typical of mobile
phones and no microwaves at all. However, at no time did they know to
which type of microwave they were being exposed. When exposed to
mobile phone microwave levels, they were put in a "near worst case"
scenario.
Microwave exposure from mobiles varies according to the strength of
the signal received. In areas of good reception, the microwave dose is
light. The users in the tests were given a strong dose. The volunteers
were put through a series of tests, including reaction times, spatial
memory, immediate word recall and delayed word recall. The only major
difference recorded was in reaction times to yes and no questions. The
researchers think there are two possible reasons for the variation -
that the mobile users' brains are temporarily heated leading to
increased blood flow or that a change occurs in [11]protein synthesis,
leading to the creation of heat shock proteins. These [12]proteins are
usually caused by the body's defence mechanisms and are a reaction to
a threat of disease or damage from an injury. Heat shock [13]proteins
Writing in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, the
researchers, led by Dr Alan Preece, say their study shows that mobiles
affect the brain. "Such changes may be neither harmful nor permanent,
provided any mechanism is a temperature effect
below the level for heat shock [16]protein production and no other
non-thermal response," they say. The researchers want more studies
into the long-term effects of mobile phones on heavy users. They have
begun further research into what causes the faster reaction times.
They also warn that any impact on the brain of using mobile phones may
be greater on children than adults. Dr Preece said: "The amount of
space between the skull and brain is smaller in children so they
possibly may be more at risk from using phones." The Federation of the
Electronic Industry (FEI) welcomed the publication. It said: "There is
nothing in this research which leads FEI to alter its belief that,
based on the weight of scientific evidence, the use of mobile phones
does not pose a risk to human health."
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
_________________________________________________________________
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com