|
Post Time: 23/02/2009 15:55:09 |
GilStevens
Total Forum Posts: 21 |
Team Powerwatch,
After reading over the excellent work in www.bioinitiative.org I went to the local library and started reading through current human cell microbiology. I only took 1st University classes back in the late 1970's, so I am by no means an expert. But what dawned on me is that the original premise for SAR where EMR only has a temperature effect on the human body goes back to 1970's and 1980's views. If the whole premise for SAR is that outdated to human microbiology, then the work in www.bioinitiative.org is even more important to translate to government regulators and a whole new wave (poor pun) on EMR research. If the premise for all the medical testing is fundamentally flawed, then all the research is measuring the wrong things.
Please find my findings using internet references, and my logic towards saying that the fundamental premise for EMR only have a temperature effect on our bodies is based on 1970's or 1980's understanding of microbiology.
===== Start ========
Is the fundamental premise for SAR incorrect? The fundamental premise for SAR is that EMR only effects the human body due to a temperature? Below is a set of data points that indicate the body temperature premise for SAR is most likely incorrect.
• Datapoint 1 => The premise for body temperature being the only EMR effects to the human body is based on 1980’s or 1970’s views of microbiology and EMR interactions.
• Datapoint 2 => Our bodies need minerals to process cell microbiology functions for our blood supply, nervous system, and DNA. These can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition, and the specific minerals needed can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_mineral . The specific blood processes needs can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_values . The specific DNA cell needs can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA . The specific neural system nutrition needs for cell and synapse functions can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system , and the importance of the Glial cell for nervous system functions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glial_cell .
• Datapoint 4: Taking the minerals our bodies needs and finding the electrical conductivity and magnetic on will note that many of these minerals have values that are electrically conductive and susceptible to magnetism. For electrical conductivity see: http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/electrical.html . For mineral magnetic susceptibility see CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 89th edition pg. H-145.
• Datapoint 5: The very specific minerals needs for our bodies can be found at: , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_mineral or mid page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition , look under macrominerals and trace minerals.
• Datapoint 6 => Electolysis the fundamentals of electricity changing a chemical reaction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis .
• QUESTION: Does the premise that EMR only has a temperature effect on the human body correct? If so then the SAR standards may be correct. If not, then one needs to seriously re-look at EMR and information in the www.bioinitiative.com report and re-evaluate EMR for electrical impacts to core body functions as well as magnetic effects to core body cell functions.
• LOGIC FLOW if the premise is correct.
o If the premise that EMR only has a temperature effect on the human body then:
Our bodies would be impervious to all EMR (electrical and Magnetic waves) and thus no electrolysis effects could occur in any micro-cell body function.
• Since our bodies are not impervious to electrolysis, in fact our bodies rely on electrolysis to process minerals, the fact that needed minerals can be both effected by electrical waves and magnetic waves implies that temperature effect is not the only effect of EMR on the human body.
Therefore the 1970’s and 1980’s original premise that EMR only has a temperature effect on our bodies is an outdated basis for which all testing, evaluations, and conclusions for EMR and human health effects. A complete re-look needs to be undertaken to evaluate all human cell functions in processing minerals for body functions for both electrical waves and magnetic waves.
===== End ====
If you have thoughts please let me know. If you are a microbiologist and can provide other key body functions needing minerals that might be affected by electrical or magnetic waves, please share.
Thx...
...Gil
email: gil_stevens_grs@yahoo.com |
|
Post Time: 02/03/2009 18:29:10 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
Gill, you are correct. SAR is a complete 'red-herring' as regards low level health effects of high-frequency EMFs. However, SAR does have a place to protect against gross, acute, exposure.
The limits actually come USA military limits set in the early 1950s and obtained from effectively cooking animals (especially chimps) to the point where 50% died, primarily due to internal overheating. They then arbitrarily chose a much lower level as "safe" for us to be exposed to.
Almost all of the good research since the 1970s has shown that most of the reported effects (if real - and we believe they are) cannot be due to thermal considerations. Most of the main researchers will readily admit this.
============================================================
Extracted from: (www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/emhealth.asp)
In June 1993, in an unprecedented move, a military research laboratory in the U.S.A. unilaterally declared a 100 µW/cm2 limit for 30 MHz to 100 GHz. Dr Cletus Kanavy wrote [31]:
"The biological effects of microwave radiation on living organisms have been the subject of extensive research for the past four decades. The most comprehensive programs were conducted by the Soviet and Eastern Bloc nations. The U.S. research community was aware of the Soviet findings of deleterious biological effects at exposures well below the (U.S.) ANSI standards. The Soviet findings were rejected for various reasons." "The literature published in the late 1980s is abundant with information on non-thermal effects which are produced at levels below the ANSI standards." "The principle electromagnetic biological effects of greatest concern are behavioural aberrations, neural network perturbations, fetal (embryonic) tissue damage (inducing birth defect), cataractogenesis, altered blood chemistry, metabolic changes and suppression of the endocrine and immune systems".
========================================================
One likely mechanistic route is by affecting cell-membrane potentials which (very simplistically, as you will be well aware) control cell metabolism and allow energy and minerals in and waste out. There are a considerable number of other non-thermal interactions (many involving NOS) that have been suggested and for which there is variable published evidence. There are others (like light at night) that are increasingly shown to be very damaging by disrupting hormonal and neurotransmitter levels in our blood (e.g. by affecting pineal gland synthesis processes).
The industry and most government regulators keep trying to push thermal considerations to the fore. However, almost everybody with genuine concerns has long known that SAR is only an appropriate metric from, grossly exposing yourself acutely to RF transmissions (like holding a cellphone against your head). Most reported adverse well-being effects occur at levels that are way, way, below internal living being thermal noise.
Alasdair |
|
Post Time: 04/03/2009 22:58:03 |
GilStevens
Total Forum Posts: 21 |
Hello Alasdair,
Great history lesson. So the macro #1 metric is SAR and we can't let that one go with it's importance. However what I think we both agree on is that a one number metric is not sufficient. We need to get this down to a much more refined understanding and greatly reduced exposure level as soon as possible.
Engineers are going to design and test to regulations and standards. Product Management types are going to make sure they keep it minimized and cost effective. So getting some microbiology cell impact research that will create some standards is extremely important.
I am found some good microbiology references books (lots of pictures) and have mapped out the key body mineral needs to some of the microbiology cell functions. Some of the minerals our bodies use through electrolysis for blood functions, RNA <=> DNA functions, neuron functions, and body organ functions, have a electrical conductivity and magnetic susceptibility. Has anyone started to reverse engineer growing conditions and diseases to these mineral deficiencies and then tried to see if the microbiology cell reactions for those mineral deficiencies can be influenced by electrical or magnetic waves in the frequencies we are increasingly exposed to?
For instance: (conjectures)
1) the growth of male prostate issues, is this due to a mineral microbiology non-processing of some of the key minerals needed for healthy prostate functions? And could electrical or magnetic wave exposure from text messaging be a root cause?
2) Is female HPV virus and cervical cancer increases ... same logic path as above.
3) Increase in pancreatic cancer (sorry Mr. Jobs of Apple, but your iPhone has one of the largest SAR values on record (see FCC ID records at: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=952862&native_or_pdf=pdf ). Can pancreatic cancer cell functions or reduced immunization functions that allows cancer to grow in the pancreas be due to EMR?
And I am sure there are many more we might be able to reverse engineer a microbiology cell function to a mineral deficiency that is being influenced by EMR. Is anyone doing this yet? Does this make sense?
Thx...
...Gil
email: gil_stevens_grs@yahoo.com |
|
Post Time: 10/03/2009 21:59:41 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
Gil
It makes sense, but living systems subject to long-term chronic exposures of anything can react quite differently to in-vitro lab experimental set-ups, even to in-vivo animal experiments. Also, there is now lots of evidence of environmental exposures of various sorts (and even emotional experiences!) suggesting epigenetic changes (switching on and off of various genes) have a major impact on our long-term health.
What you suggest is valid, but it would in-vivo samples from real people having real exposures. I am not at all sure in can be simplified down.
Have a look at Bruce Lipton's website:
www.brucelipton.com/
|
|
Post Time: 10/03/2009 22:31:36 |
GilStevens
Total Forum Posts: 21 |
Hello Alasdair,
Thanks for the web link. I have been very involved in biofeedback products that are on a similiar tangent to what is being talked about on the Bruce Lipton site.
For helping with blood pressure and stress, there is a great product from heartmath, www.hearthmath.com. I have also worked with a few products for neurofeedback (8Hz to 16 Hz) brain waves for emotional state analysis. I have a good friend who is working new neurofeedback protocols and is excellent at resolving BiPolar, OCD, most opiate based drug dependencies, etc.
So heart wave frequencies and brain wave frequencies are all a part of the mix to this problem and need for improved regulations.
I agree it won't be simple but we have to figure out how to move the yardsticks for regulations and testing to be more than just SAR. Somehow we have to pick a real area of concern and get at least 1 new metric as a standard through the IEEE which goes into many other country regulations.
Thanks for the great link ... will investigate more ...
Thx...
...Gil
|
|
Post Time: 10/03/2009 22:39:11 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
The UK IET (was IEE) Committee on EMFs and Health is a solid brick wall to any progress in these matters. I know all the people on it. I suspect the IEEE will be just as hard to convert. |
|
Post Time: 10/03/2009 22:54:50 |
GilStevens
Total Forum Posts: 21 |
Hello Alasdair,
Understand. Did you get to see Julia Roberts in her Movie about Erin Brokovich? If not, worth renting. If you have seen it, I am thinking we need a PHD to work up a few experiments that highlight some of the problems in a Erin Brokovich like drama (scene where she has contaminated water and which of the lawyers wants to drink it). I have some ideas on candidate experiments just need to find some PHD researchers or the graduate students to do some of the tests.
Thx...
...Gil
|
|
Post Time: 10/03/2009 23:58:08 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
Yes, an excellent book and an excellent film. We do need to highlight the issues in a media-friendly way. I did a BBC Panorama film in 2007. We were partly thwarted by the school and Govt who stopped us filmimg after the first day, so the programme wasn't as good or cohesive as it would have been. It was also jumped on from on high when it was shown, both by industry and by Govt. However, it has since made its way around the world and been seen in many countries. See:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm
It is available on the BBC website still:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm
and we have a response to the measurements and criticisms at:
www.powerwatch.org.uk/News/20070529_panorama_extra.asp
|
|
Post Time: 31/03/2009 13:44:03 |
Mikko
Total Forum Posts: 17 |
Gil, you asked about mechanisms behind ... prostate etc. cancer types.
1. One mechanism that has been suggested:
French, P. W., Penny, R., Laurence, J. A., & McKenzie, D. R. (2001). Mobile phones, heat shock proteins and cancer. Differentiation, 67(4-5), 93-97.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11683499
"Overexpression of Hsp70 family genes can initiate cancer
in normal cells. ... In prostate tumours, overexpression of Hsp70 results in inhibition of both chemical- and radiation-induced apoptosis".
Frech et al. base their findings on the following article:
Gibbons NB, Watson RW, Coffey RN, Brady HP, Fitzpatrick
JM (2000). Heat-shock proteins inhibit induction of prostate
cancer cell apoptosis. Prostate, 45:58–65.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10960843
See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076339
2. The explanation of Andrew Goldsworthy is an interesting one; EMF increases membrane permeability:
http://www.slideshare.net/staywired/andrew-goldsworthy-to-british-society-for-ecological-medicine-at-the-royal-college-of-general-practitioners-presentation
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/electrosmog_dangers.pdf
I say that it is not a complete explation, but worth testing/re-working.
Cheers
Mikko (http://beyondcreativity.blogs.com) |
|
Post Time: 31/03/2009 17:07:52 |
GilStevens
Total Forum Posts: 21 |
Hello Mikko,
Thanks for the links to some references. I have been doing a lot of online Microbiology at the human cell level research (wikipedia, most reveling is G-Protein at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-protein ) and going to the library for microbiology reference books with good pictures. It is becoming very clear that the milliwatts p;ower levels of WiFi and up to 3 watts power for Cell Phones and up to 500 Watts at The Cell Phone tower has a very high probability of altering the nano to femto power levels for human cells to communicate, process minerals, and any function (which seems to be most of them) for ION transfer to do any sort of work.
As you find other references at the human cell level and power or frequency levels for human cells to conduct their work, please send them to me in email or post them on this thread (like you did already.. thx!!).
I will also check out your blog site you have going.
Thx...
...Gil
email: gil_stevens_grs@yahoo.com |
