Re: EMF

["John E. Moulder" <jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu>]

> From: "Björn Cedervall" <bjorn_cedervall@hotmail.com>

> > 2.  Studies have been done in which the results qualitatively and/or
> > quantitatively support models which do not involve magnetite.  E.g.:
> > Mechanism of Action of Weak Electromagnetic Field on Ionic Currents > > in Aqueous Solutions of Amino Acids; VV Novikov and A. Karnaukhov;
> > Bioelectromagnetics 18:25-27 (1997),  Resonance Effect of Millimeter
> > Waves in the Power Range from 1E-19 to 3E-3 W/cm2 on E. Coli Cells 
> > at Different Concentrations; I.Y. Belyaev et al; Bioelectromagnetics
> > 17:312-321 (1996),
> 
> I heard of these and wonder where the antenna is...
> 
> Wait a minute. W/cm2 That is power/area. For a 50 Hz field the wave
> length is 6000 kms. So in order to obtain meaningful energy (cross
> product ExB) the frequency must be very high. I would like to
> know more about that.

Right, the Beleyev et al paper has nothing to do with power-frequency
fields, its done at 51-52 GHz.  Novikov et al is not at power-frequency
either.

One of the problems of this field is people lumping all non-ionizing
fields and radiations together as though their potential biological
effects and their physical interactions are the same.

That's one good reason not to use the term "EMF", as that term is
extremely broad (not to mention that it means "electromotive force" to
many/most physicists).

> PS. Some embryonic experiments (published in a "respectable journal")
> with - to my taste unclear experimental setup and questionable
> statistics - were performed by a person I have met a lot (I had to).
> This person also does palmistry, reads astrology and eats various
> strange pills for no clear reason. I know - this is unscientific
> "guilt by association" - but I just cannot get it out of my mind. 

No question, this field (biological effects of static fields,
power-frequency fields and MW/RF) attracts some very strange people, and
some very strange theories.