Summary:

           Thoughts on why you should STILL be cautious
            about the affects of EM fields

> Previous lister wrote:

> > > There would still be those who'd argue about cell phone towers
> > > next to schools and HV power lines across residential areas,

> McMahon responded:

> > Yes. I'm one of them - more particularly the latter.

& Jim asked

> Might I ask the wordy, learned one what the effects at the
> biological cellular and molecular level are purported to be?

Flattery will get you somewhere..
Even sarcasm might as well, if I can convince myself to regard it as
flattery :-)

To keep the reply at the level of brevity apparently required by the
audience: Numerous mechanisms have been proposed "in the literature" and a
web search will turn up a good cross section. I did note two specific
mechanisms for damage
for starters in the post of mine that you mention above - have another look
(Cyclotron resonance and lensing of "hard" cosmic radiation)(I feel the
first unlikely and the latter only possible but "only possible" is bad
enough for me in this context. These are only 2 possible mechanisms.)

Now, casting brevity wantonly aside -

In any device (such as Russell or Jim) which is essentially wholly dependent
on low level electrical signals for every aspect of its dynamic function,
introduction of new external fields, in addition to those which it has been
designed (by whatever mechanism) to work with is something which should be
done with EXTREME care. A browse through a good university undergraduate
level biology text would astound those electrical engineers who had never
studied the arcane biological arts. There is essentially no bodily process
which is not controlled by electrical processes, usually in conjunction with
chemical reactions. The precautionary principle applies severely.

A Google search on

            affects "electromagnetic fields" bibliography

produces 100 hits - perhaps a good place to start.

> And what about the respective field strengths from:
>
>    A) externally applied E and H 'radio' fields compared
>    B) to the E and H fields existing at the biological cellular
>       and molecular levels ...

"Natural" fields of any magnitude are often "DC"
Very definite physiologically affects have been reported from DC applied H
fields (eg cf transcranial magnetic stimulation)(which is often but not
always "AC") but the magnitudes are
significant.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation

    Google gives over 7000 matches.

    Page dedicated thereto    http://pni.unibe.ch/PNI/TMS.htm

    Intro tp              http://www.musc.edu/tmsmirror/intro/layintro.html
                            (title appears to be a Psychiatrist's pun)

    TMS bibliography
http://ee.tut.fi/laitokset/rgi/Projects/stimpub.html

________________

International Society for Bioelectromagnetism (!)

        http://www.ee.tut.fi/rgi/isbem//

Some BEM research topics

        http://butler.cc.tut.fi/~malmivuo/bem/index.htm

_______________

Also, importantly I suspect, affects from many physical phenomena are
usually (but not necessarily * ) associated with either inverse cube or
square
laws - they decrease rapidly with distance from the source. A relatively
small intensity source by cosmic standards will often
produce a very significant field in close proximity. If you go for a walk
with an H field meter around your house and around your neighbourhood (as I
noted in my previous post that I have done on occasion) you will find that,
notwithstanding the sheer scale of cosmic and terrestrial fields, the
greatest affects by far (orders of magnitude) come from man made sources.

I haven't done the same thing with an E field meter (such as the "mill"
discussed here recently) but I suggest that the relative or differential
field is most likely to be of concern. We are liable to be more concerned
with the E field  produced at our location by a particular local power line
than
whether a particular power line leaving say Grand Coulee Dam has the highest
measured E field at ground level of any power line on
earth. ie we care about  the gradient that we (and perhaps our bodies) can
measure.


                Russell McMahon

                    * I understand that Psi forces operate without
diminution
                       at any range :-)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.