Bioelectromagnetics

[MRC_Hans]

"1.5kV is not a measure of a field. Fields are measured in V/m, remember?"

The text regarding the Bilgin Elcin study should have read 1.5V/m, just to clear that point up. Sorry.

Well, if it was just the odd typing error, no problem, but this is not exactly the first time, Roger. For a research scientist, you are incredibly sloppy.

The subjects were 24 Sprague Dawley male adult rats. The authors concluded:

"The present study demonstrates that various rat tissues are affected by 50Hz electrical field exposure".

1.5V/m is a very weak field. If such a weak field had any profound effect on living creatures, we'd all be dead now. I have not read the report in question, but I find it very unlikely that they should have been able to maintain an environment with such low fields. That would have required the rats to be kept in faraday cages. But you don't believe in faraday cages, Roger

The work was partly carried out at the Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials Laboratory of Ankara University, and partly at the Dept of Biophysics of Adna Menderes University.

This is only one of hundreds of such studies, Tai Chi.

That is funny. Just a little while ago, you were claiming that practically all research, except yours, deliberately or non-deliberately ignored the electrical field. Now you suddenly talk about hundreds of studies. Could we ask you to make up your mind?

Keep digging, Roger .

Hans

 

[cogreslab]

Hans said:

The body is a conductive medium.

Of course but it differs fundamentally from e.g. a copper wire because:

a) there are areas within the body which self-initiate electric currents and their attendant electric fields , such as the heart and the brain.
b) individual organs and indeed individual cells maintain electrical barriers in which there are selective channels for small ions.

These characteristics alone make any comparison with a passive medium such as e.g. a closed and lifeless copper vessel impossible.

Next, re mechanisms: I have never said there is only one mechanism, indeed on several occasions I have compared the body's use of electrons as simlar to that of a large city, which has many different ways of using them. So, plausible mechansims include e.g. depolarisation of the inner mitochondrial membrane to inhibit ATP synthesis (cf the early studies reporting asthenias among powerline workers); interference with signal transduction mechanisms such as the role of ionic calcium (cf the calcium efflux studies by Suzanne Bawin and Ross Adey, and later by Carl Blackman); damage to enzymatic activity (cf the impacts on enolase and many other enzymes, possibly also on repair enzymes, leading to the kind of mutations mentioned by Lightfoot; etc.

All these are plausible biological mechanisms whereby the normal processes of multicellular creatures are being disturbed, and there are more.

 

[cogreslab]

Hans said in reponse to my remark below":

Me: "This is only one of hundreds of such studies, Tai Chi".

Hans: "That is funny. Just a little while ago, you were claiming that practically all research, except yours, deliberately or non-deliberately ignored the electrical field. Now you suddenly talk about hundreds of studies. Could we ask you to make up your mind?"

You are being deliberately obtuse, Hans. I am referring to the hundreds of cellular and live animal studies which have helped identify a number of biological mechanisms where EMF is interfering with life processes at levels too low to be thermal in effect.

My pilot 1996 epi study was virtually the only one which measured period ELF electric fields in the bedplace of children with leukaemia. At the time I asked that a larger study be done, precisely because of the dearth of similar research. It did not have anything like many flaws as you and NRPB would have people believe. Eg the criticism that it was not blinded is not correct, and the statistical analysis was performed by the now head of cancer biostats for Wales.

It is being more and more frequently quoted ( I saw a citation only last week in one of the Nature publications) and it was the only UK epi study used by Greenland et al for their major meta=-analysis of the childhood cancer/EMF literature. (The two other UK studies were rejected for various reasons to do with lack of utility collaboration or poor quality).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans said:

The body is a conductive medium.

Of course but it differs fundamentally from e.g. a copper wire because:

a) there are areas within the body which self-initiate electric currents and their attendant electric fields , such as the heart and the brain.
b) individual organs and indeed individual cells maintain electrical barriers in which there are selective channels for small ions.

Exactly what I mentioned. However, the body being a conductive medium, a "bag of saline solution" to use your own words, acts as a faraday cage to OUTSIDE fields. It does not differ fundamentally from a copper wire, it just has a somewhat lower conductivity. Electric equipment functions excellently inside a faraday cage.

These characteristics alone make any comparison with a passive medium such as e.g. a closed and lifeless copper vessel impossible.

No, it does not. There is no connection at all between the fact that the overall high condictivity of the body excludes external electrical fields, and the fact that potentials and currents are generated inside the body. Another case where you fail to understand physics.

Next, re mechanisms: I have never said there is only one mechanism, indeed on several occasions I have compared the body's use of electrons as simlar to that of a large city, which has many different ways of using them.

City??? Electrons? Electrons take part in electrical currents and chemical bonds.

So, plausible mechansims include e.g. depolarisation of the inner mitochondrial membrane to inhibit ATP synthesis (cf the early studies reporting asthenias among powerline workers); interference with signal transduction mechanisms such as the role of ionic calcium (cf the calcium efflux studies by Suzanne Bawin and Ross Adey, and later by Carl Blackman); damage to enzymatic activity (cf the impacts on enolase and many other enzymes, possibly also on repair enzymes, leading to the kind of mutations mentioned by Lightfoot; etc.

Yada, yada, yada. Electrons take part in electrical currents, and chemical bonds. What is your evidence that electrical fields can influence electrical currents and chemical bonds inside the body to any greated degree than magnetic fields? This is what our discussion is about.

All these are plausible biological mechanisms whereby the normal processes of multicellular creatures are being disturbed, and there are more.

No, these are mechanisms that could be disturbed by sufficiently large electric signals, but what we discuss here is your claim that an electric field can produce electric signals that are so much greater than other mechanisms that it invalidates research hitherto conducted.

Keep digging, Roger .

Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

First let me apologise for accidentally using the word permittivity when of course Prag is quite right to correct me : it is the physical density which is the divisor in SAR calculations. I expect Bouncer will now crow about this ad nauseam (sic).

However the point I was trying to make (and continue to make) is that the electric fields either induced or produced via contact currents are what causes the biological damage at less than thermal levels, and not the internal magnetic component, which is largely the same inside the body as outside.

This doesn't make any sense (no surprise there!). Electric fields don't DO anything on their own. Except when they cause currents. But if the current CAUSES the field, then the field is irrelevant because it's the current that is already doing the damage (if any).

What damage can a pure field cause if there is no current?

Induced currents and their associated electric fields are part of that interior environment. But the ambient electric fields also have an impact, (and with contact currents especially if the skin is not dry, as it often is when e.g. touching a watertap or bathing). A good rule of thumb I beleive is that the internal electric field (on which SAR is based) is around one third of the ambient external field. The argument that induced fields are many orders of magnitude less is not tenable in the world of the cell membrane and its exquisite sensitivity to ion movement.

O.K. a car has an engine of 3 litres. This allows the car to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in say 10 seconds. While the car is travelling at 60 mph it hits someone and kills them. If the car had been travelling at 5 mph it probably would NOT have killed that person. Now, does that mean that a car with an engine capacity of 1 litre would be less likely to kill someone if it hit them at 60 mph? Of course not. Because the POTENTIAL to accelerate to 60 mph has nothing to do with whether or not someone is actually TRAVELLING at 60 mph. Engine capacity doesn't kill, speed does.

In the same way, the POTENTIAL of a field is the potential to cause a current. It's the current (RATE OF TRAVEL) which kills/damages.

Now, if someone is hit by a car at 60 mph, the engine capacity is IRRELEVANT. O.K. a more powerful car can probably travel faster. But the engine capacity doesn't matter in the slightest. You can't say that 3 litre cars kill while 800 cc cars don't!

And as for the cell membrane and ion movement. What is ion MOVEMENT? Isn't that a CURRENT?

And SAR is NOT "based on electric field", it is based on CURRENT as I have already proved quite unambiguously with the mathematics. The fact that you don't understand that is neither here nor there. Voltage * conductivity is CURRENT! That is why the conductivity appears in the equation. If the conductivity is zero, then current is zero and the power is also zero. The ONLY reason why electric field appears in the traditional SAR equation is because it is much easier to measure the electric field ACROSS a sample, than it is to measure the current THROUGH the sample.

Roger, understanding the basics of what a potential and a current are, is the most fundamental thing in electrics. If you don't really understand what these things ARE you can't possibly talk sensibly about anything in electrics. Hmmm......!

Because there is no fixed relatiion between the electric and magnetic components at ELF frequencies it is therefore important to take into consideration the ambient electric field and not just the magnetic component when investigating internal electric fields derived from the exterior.

For the umpteenth time, the relation between the electric and magnetic components is called the IMPEDANCE. If the impedance is known, the fields are known. The EXTERNAL electric field has very little contribution to the INTERNAL electric field.

For God's sake, PLEASE go learn some basic junior school electrics!!!!

All the rest of the usual rant about epi studies, conspiracies etc., is irrelevant.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans said in reponse to my remark below":

Me: "This is only one of hundreds of such studies, Tai Chi".

Hans: "That is funny. Just a little while ago, you were claiming that practically all research, except yours, deliberately or non-deliberately ignored the electrical field. Now you suddenly talk about hundreds of studies. Could we ask you to make up your mind?"

You are being deliberately obtuse, Hans. I am referring to the hundreds of cellular and live animal studies which have helped identify a number of biological mechanisms where EMF is interfering with life processes at levels too low to be thermal in effect.

But this is not what we are discussing, Roger. We are discussing the effect of ELECTRICAL FIELDS on the body. We all know that various eletrical stimuli influences certain body processes. What we discuss is YOUR CLAIM that eletrical fields have a large and generally unexplored effect on body functions.

My pilot 1996 epi study was virtually the only one which measured period ELF electric fields in the bedplace of children with leukaemia. At the time I asked that a larger study be done, precisely because of the dearth of similar research. It did not have anything like many flaws as you and NRPB would have people believe. Eg the criticism that it was not blinded is not correct, and the statistical analysis was performed by the now head of cancer biostats for Wales.

Do you want we go over the objections against that study again ?

It is being more and more frequently quoted ( I saw a citation only last week in one of the Nature publications) and it was the only UK epi study used by Greenland et al for their major meta=-analysis of the childhood cancer/EMF literature. (The two other UK studies were rejected for various reasons to do with lack of utility collaboration or poor quality).

You seing it mentioned is hardly evidence that it is being more and more quoted. But since it is one of the only studies of its kind it is likely to be quoted. Whether it is being quoted for anything good, is another matter .

Keep digging, Roger .

Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

Hans said:

The body is a conductive medium.

Of course but it differs fundamentally from e.g. a copper wire because:

a) there are areas within the body which self-initiate electric currents and their attendant electric fields , such as the heart and the brain.
b) individual organs and indeed individual cells maintain electrical barriers in which there are selective channels for small ions.

These characteristics alone make any comparison with a passive medium such as e.g. a closed and lifeless copper vessel impossible.

"A closed and lifeless copper vessel". What, like the harmonizer you mean? Remember? The one that (allegedly) contains "imploded water" that (allegedly) generates protective "endogenous fields". So you now admit that all of that was crap. Because you can't have it both ways.

 

[BillHoyt]

"A significant association was found between childhood leukaemia and the use of some electric appliances during the conception of the child and the use by the child. However, apparent dose-response relationship was not found."

Can we use them until we need glasses?

 

[Mercutio]

"A significant association was found between childhood leukaemia and the use of some electric appliances during the conception of the child and the use by the child. However, apparent dose-response relationship was not found."

Since Roger has already introduced poetry into the thread, I must say that this quote reminds me of a classic (IOW, not my own) limerick:

There once was a man named MacLean
Who invented a ****ing machine
Concave and convex
It could please either sex--
But oh, what a b@$tard to clean!

 

[Pragmatist]

Hans said:

"THERE ARE NO INTERNAL ELECTRICAL FIELDS! If you cannot understand it, try to learn it by heart".

Well, what is your evidence for the absence of internal electric fields as a result of external E-field exposure at ELF frequencies, and how do you explain the results described in my last post?

If you cannot, perhaps Prag or even Bouncer might?

Roger, just so you understand. It's not up to us to explain anything!

YOU are making specific claims about mechanisms of harm from fields etc. None of us (as far as I am aware) are arguing that there is no possible harm. Of COURSE fields/waves of various sorts will have effects on a complex biological system.

What we're disputing is YOUR claim that it can all be conveniently explained away by an external electric field. And, YOUR claims about being able to measure a specific effect on lymphocytes, plus YOUR claims about "protective devices".

It doesn't matter how many studies you dig up to try to assert that electrical environments MAY be harmful. Anyone with a modicum of common sense should realise that electrical environments MAY be harmful under some (complex) conditions. You are trying to prove something that doesn't need proving.

But in addition to that, the evidence you offer is suspect at best. Most of the studies I have seen have not been reproduced. Or could NOT be reproduced when tried. And many of these studies are mutually contradictory in their claims about mechanisms etc. The ONLY logical conclusion any sensible person can draw from these is that the whole field is complex, that there are still widespread misunderstandings/errors in the application of electrical principles by biologists, and that fundamental mechanisms are still unknown.

Either you have to prove your specific claim about electric fields etc., or simply admit that you can't prove it and that you are wrong. It's as simple as that!

 

[cogreslab]

Hans said:

"What we're disputing is YOUR claim that it can all be conveniently explained away by an external electric field".

OK That is what I evidently need to prove to your satisfaction, and in terms of normal science, without inventing any new physics.

So what would constitute proof in your eyes? Epi studies can only show association, not causation. In any case there are few electric field epi studies around. Animal studies cannot be extrapolated to humans or at least the non primate studies are likely to raise objections on grounds of shape, metabolic processes, circadian rhythm differences etc. In vitro studies on human cells exposed to EMF are prone to large confounding influences simply because cells are so small.

But....

If we find a large number of persistent studies showing an epi association, AND if we also have a large body of evidence that animals are adversely or beneficially affected in predictable ways, AND if the in vitro evidence is consistent and plentiful, AND if studies of human subjects in laboratories also report consistent effects, AND if there are plausible biologicval mechanisms to explain the effects...

...then in the paraphrased words of Bradford Hill, we can legitimately and reasonably assume a causal relationship.

Would you agree with that?

 

[cogreslab]

The text regarding the Bilgin Elcin study should have read 1.5V/m, just to clear that point up. Sorry.

Sorry again: the field was 1.5kV/m. Must have been suffering from jet lag without using a magnet!

 

[cogreslab]

Hans said: "Either you have to prove your specific claim about electric fields etc., or simply admit that you can't prove it and that you are wrong. It's as simple as that!"

Hold on! Even if I do not "prove it" to your satisfaction does not mean the claim is wrong. A point of logic.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans said:

"What we're disputing is YOUR claim that it can all be conveniently explained away by an external electric field".

No that was Pragmatic. Do try to keep the names straight. n this particulat case it is not important, thought, as I agree.

OK That is what I evidently need to prove to your satisfaction, and in terms of normal science, without inventing any new physics.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

So what would constitute proof in your eyes? Epi studies can only show association, not causation. In any case there are few electric field epi studies around. Animal studies cannot be extrapolated to humans or at least the non primate studies are likely to raise objections on grounds of shape, metabolic processes, circadian rhythm differences etc. In vitro studies on human cells exposed to EMF are prone to large confounding influences simply because cells are so small.

How about, just for starters, to outline a plausible mechanism. In terms of normal science, without inventing new physisc. .... Or, if you invent new physics, present evidence (a Nobel prize will do).

But....

If we find a large number of persistent studies showing an epi association, AND if we also have a large body of evidence that animals are adversely or beneficially affected in predictable ways, AND if the in vitro evidence is consistent and plentiful, AND if studies of human subjects in laboratories also report consistent effects, AND if there are plausible biologicval mechanisms to explain the effects...

...then in the paraphrased words of Bradford Hill, we can legitimately and reasonably assume a causal relationship.

Would you agree with that?

Uhh, could we start with a plausible mechanism? You see, all these studies do not point to causation, since they do not test for YOUR specific theory.

Hans

 

[jj]

Hans said: "Either you have to prove your specific claim about electric fields etc., or simply admit that you can't prove it and that you are wrong. It's as simple as that!"

Hold on! Even if I do not "prove it" to your satisfaction does not mean the claim is wrong. A point of logic.

A point of scientific method. You are making a claim. The burden of proof is fully and absolutely on you. Until you prove your claim, you are not entitled to refer to it in any convincing fashion. You have done so, therefore you have stated, at least implicitly, that you have full and complete evidence.

Where is it?

Let's see it, Roger.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The text regarding the Bilgin Elcin study should have read 1.5V/m, just to clear that point up. Sorry.

Sorry again: the field was 1.5kV/m. Must have been suffering from jet lag without using a magnet!

That, on the other hand, is a quite STRONG field. So it has an effect, apparantly (I have still not read the report). But you are arguing for 70V/m, a couple of orders of magnitude from both id the figures you have just jet-lagged us. Jet-lag to Istanbul?? Come ON . More likely, it's a hang-over .

Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

Hans said: "Either you have to prove your specific claim about electric fields etc., or simply admit that you can't prove it and that you are wrong. It's as simple as that!"

Hold on! Even if I do not "prove it" to your satisfaction does not mean the claim is wrong. A point of logic.

No. Your claim, inter alia, contains accusations that various people/groups/organizations have deliberately ignored overwhelming evidence of the effect you claim. If you are then unable to prove that prior claim, it follows that there is NOT overwhelming evidence of it, and therefore you are wrong in your secondary claim about those individuals, aren't you?

And not only that, too many other things to describe, based on what you have said on here!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans said: "Either you have to prove your specific claim about electric fields etc., or simply admit that you can't prove it and that you are wrong. It's as simple as that!"

That also wasn't me, but I agree.

Hold on! Even if I do not "prove it" to your satisfaction does not mean the claim is wrong. A point of logic. [/B]

Let me introduce you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn (UPI). I claim that a UPI lives in my backyard. I cannot prove it to your satisfaction, but that does not mean my claim is wrong. A point of logic. Do you think my claim deserves further attention?

You have a theory. You present a theory. If you cannot present evidence for your theory that can at least withstand the application of basic physics, why exactly do you feel that your theory is worth further consideration?

Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

That, on the other hand, is a quite STRONG field. So it has an effect, apparantly (I have still not read the report). But you are arguing for 70V/m, a couple of orders of magnitude from both id the figures you have just jet-lagged us. Jet-lag to Istanbul?? Come ON . More likely, it's a hang-over .

Hans

I thought one could only get jet lag travelling from west to east. Does that mean that Roger travelled from Turkey to England via China and the US? Or maybe the earth spins the opposite way just for Roger - wouldn't surprise me!

 

[BillHoyt]

Hans said: "Either you have to prove your specific claim about electric fields etc., or simply admit that you can't prove it and that you are wrong. It's as simple as that!"

Hold on! Even if I do not "prove it" to your satisfaction does not mean the claim is wrong. A point of logic.

It is not a question of proving it to Hans' satisfaction. It is a basic epistemological point. Your claim is not founded in known science. If you believe it is, you should be able to point people to textbooks or collections of papers from peer-reviewed literature that support the claim.