From: Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@EMBEDINC.COM>
Subject: Re: [EE]: IEE position statement"The Possible....."


>> I've still purporting that *any* EM field mankind can produce
>> external to a biological cell is miniscule, weak and meager
>> compared to the forces at work *within* the cell as well
>> as within a molecule ... leading me to wonder *just what*
>> is the 'affectation mechanism' whereby a man-made EM field
>> affects or upsets biological organisms or their functions.


>I think the argument has more to do with larger effects on the whole
>organism than individual cells.

Yes, the bio-active signals (especialy impulses at VLF) may be well below
thermal energies. However, some nerve fibers are on the order of a meter
long. Its the bulk affect of the electric and magnetic fields across
communities of cells. 300 MHz to 3 GHz seems to be the most active range
IIRC. Also Calcium ion efflux was noted at cyclotron resonance with the
earths field and VLF electrostatic fields. EMF's have been found to speed up
and slow down conditioned responses, inhibit learning, cause release of
stress hormons, and lower the permiability of the blood-brain barrier, at
sub-thermal energies.

So perhaps EMF's may be a concomitant antagonist - another 'brick in the
wall' to exacerbate neurotoxins from pesticides, stress and other factors.

> These mechanisms are subtle, but then again so
>are the effects, if there are any.  If the effects weren't subtle we
>wouldn't be having this discussion and we'd have bodies piled high under
>power lines.  There wouldn't be any lawyers because the all died clutching
>their cell phones.  Hmm...

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body