New paper: 60Hz b-fields shown to damage neuronal DNA

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by William J. Beat, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. Run out and buy low-EM lcd computer monitor?

    From U. of Washinton "University Week" for Feb 12 2004

    Exposure to low-level magnetic fields causes DNA damage in rat brain cells
    http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?id=1661

    ..In a new study scheduled to be published in Environmental Health Perspectives: Journal of the
    National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, the researchers discovered that rats exposed
    to a 60-hertz field for 24 hours showed significant DNA damage, and rats exposed for 48 hours
    showed even more breaks in brain cell DNA strands. Exposure also resulted in a marked increase in
    brain cell apoptosis, or "cell suicide," a process in which a cell self-destructs because it can't
    repair itself...

    (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty
    http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ [email protected] Research Engineer [email protected] UW Chem Dept, Bagley
    Hall RM74 206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
     
    Tags:


  2. William J. Beaty wrote:
    > Run out and buy low-EM lcd computer monitor?
    >
    >
    > From U. of Washinton "University Week" for Feb 12 2004
    >
    > Exposure to low-level magnetic fields causes DNA damage in rat brain cells
    > http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?id=1661
    >
    > ..In a new study scheduled to be published in Environmental Health Perspectives: Journal of the
    > National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, the researchers discovered that rats
    > exposed to a 60-hertz field for 24 hours showed significant DNA damage, and rats exposed for 48
    > hours showed even more breaks in brain cell DNA strands. Exposure also resulted in a marked
    > increase in brain cell apoptosis, or "cell suicide," a process in which a cell self-destructs
    > because it can't repair itself...

    Whoop-de-doo. I notice field strength wasn't mentioned (lemme guess, a few Tesla?).

    New York City subway riders are subjected to horrendous
    fields and transients. Why aren't they all braindead by now?

    Uh, wait, maybe they are.

    Mark L. Fergerson
     
  3. Ejp

    Ejp Guest

    William J. Beaty wrote:

    > Run out and buy low-EM lcd computer monitor?
    >
    >
    > From U. of Washinton "University Week" for Feb 12 2004
    >
    > Exposure to low-level magnetic fields causes DNA damage in rat brain cells
    > http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?id=1661
    >
    > ..In a new study scheduled to be published in Environmental Health Perspectives: Journal of the
    > National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, the researchers discovered that rats
    > exposed to a 60-hertz field for 24 hours showed significant DNA damage, and rats exposed for 48
    > hours showed even more breaks in brain cell DNA strands. Exposure also resulted in a marked
    > increase in brain cell apoptosis, or "cell suicide," a process in which a cell self-destructs
    > because it can't repair itself...
    >
    > (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty
    > http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ [email protected] Research Engineer [email protected] UW Chem Dept, Bagley
    > Hall RM74 206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700

    That paper is not online yet, and the article had no real information in it. The same journal
    recently published a paper evaluating all the epidemiological basis of the effect of low level EMF
    which found no compelling evidence http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl-6/911-933ahlbom/ahlbom-
    full.html

    Given the fact that 20 years of research have found weak evidence at best, it seems surprising that
    one 24 hour study could find a huge effect, and the article seems to indicate, but I'll wait to read
    the paper - particularly the controls, myself.

    -E
     
  4. Rick Russell

    Rick Russell Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    William J. Beaty <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Run out and buy low-EM lcd computer monitor?

    Without field strength numbers, it's difficult to compare the information in the article to an
    actual CRT. I checked my U. library's archive of "Environmental Health Perspectives", but the latest
    issue on file (Jan 2004) does not include their paper.

    Rick R.
     
  5. Ar Fai Ve

    Ar Fai Ve Guest

    Mark Fergerson <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Whoop-de-doo. I notice field strength wasn't mentioned (lemme guess, a few Tesla?).

    And the article even quotes the investigator as saying not to get overly alarmed by the results. I
    suspect that the experiment is either playing games with peak field levels and/or wave impedances in
    order to maximize the power delivered into the subjects. We'll see once the actual paper is
    published.
     
  6. Mark Fergerson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > Whoop-de-doo. I notice field strength wasn't mentioned (lemme guess, a few Tesla?).

    Hmmmm. Sounds like weird psychological bias going on. There's two ways to damage your mind: be so
    openminded that your brain falls out, or be so closeminded that the automatic sneering and scoffing
    overrides any ability to reason. Type II errors aren't any less shameful than type I errors.

    When an article mentions "low level 60 Hz magnetic fields," should we automatically assume they're
    talking about multi-tesla? Then again, once a research paper has been filtered through a journalist,
    the end result is often hilarious. Better wait for the actual paper. But note this part:

    "Prolonged exposure to low-level magnetic fields, similar to those emitted by such common
    household devices as blow dryers, electric blankets and razors, can damage brain cell DNA,
    according to researchers in the UW's Department of Bioengineering."

    Seems obvious enough...

    > New York City subway riders are subjected to horrendous
    > fields and transients. Why aren't they all braindead by now?

    Fields at 60Hz? I thought they were DC, which would of course contain lots of impulses, but not
    so much energy at 60Hz. The electric busses in Seattle are DC but certainly have lots of hundreds-
    Hz fields, since you can hear the PWM controller noise on all AM radios anywhere near the
    overhead cables.

    Hmmm. If one data point is relatively easy to aquire, then lets see a graph of DNA damage versus b-
    field frequency. A peak at any particular frequency would be very interesting. (And if they want to
    learn anything reasonable, then they'd better be using 60Hz sine waves, not humongous 60Hz
    impulses.)

    The guys down the hall work all day in the fractional-tesla fields around NMR magnet dewars. Heh,
    they're not exposed to much 60Hz from crt deflection coils, since normal computer monitors are
    mostly useless in that environment, and they've all switched over to LCD screens.

    (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty
    http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ [email protected] Research Engineer [email protected] UW
    Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
     
  7. Ar Fai Ve

    Ar Fai Ve Guest

    [email protected] (William J. Beaty) wrote:
    > When an article mentions "low level 60 Hz magnetic fields," should we automatically assume they're
    > talking about multi-tesla? Then

    Actually, who is to know until they report the actual numbers? I have seen many people quoting
    experiments as being low power or low tesla, and then after digging in to the actual facts I see
    that the quantities weren't all that low after all.

    Science requires an open mind but also a lot of skepticism, especially in the face of such
    suspicious and contradictory claims about 60 Hz fields.
     
  8. Identity

    Identity Guest

    "William J. Beaty" wrote:

    > Run out and buy low-EM lcd computer monitor?

    Keep the monitor and computer box 100cm+ away from you, and the amount of EM you'll be exposed to
    will be reduced down to a small fraction of the amount you're exposed to from sitting next to them
    like most people do. Others may think you're very weird, but it makes it relatively safer.

    Don't automatically trust LCDs to be low EMF either, some are not. Sitting up close to an LCD is
    worse than sitting far away from a CRT monitor.
     
  9. Ejp

    Ejp Guest

    William J. Beaty wrote:

    > Run out and buy low-EM lcd computer monitor?
    >
    >
    > From U. of Washinton "University Week" for Feb 12 2004
    >
    > Exposure to low-level magnetic fields causes DNA damage in rat brain cells
    > http://admin.urel.washington.edu/uweek/archives/issue/uweek_story_small.asp?id=1661
    >
    > ..In a new study scheduled to be published in Environmental Health Perspectives: Journal of the
    > National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, the researchers discovered that rats
    > exposed to a 60-hertz field for 24 hours showed significant DNA damage, and rats exposed for 48
    > hours showed even more breaks in brain cell DNA strands. Exposure also resulted in a marked
    > increase in brain cell apoptosis, or "cell suicide," a process in which a cell self-destructs
    > because it can't repair itself...
    >

    While I'm still skeptical of this result, it occurred to me that if it is true, as stated, then it
    calls into questions a huge body of research into cancer and DNA. AFAIK, it is not common practice
    to control the background 60Hz EM fields for different groups in studies. For example, what if in
    addition to getting, say, french fries, the test rats was also placed closer to a computer monitor
    or low voltage power supply than the control group. If "typical" background EMF's really do have a
    profound effect on the DNA, then it probably renders decades of research close to worthless.

    -E

    > (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty
    > http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ [email protected] Research Engineer [email protected] UW Chem Dept, Bagley
    > Hall RM74 206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
     
  10. R5

    R5 Guest

    Identity <[email protected]> wrote:
    > LCD is worse than sitting far away from a CRT monitor.

    References to validated, peer reviewed, repeatable experiments please.
     
  11. Rick Russell

    Rick Russell Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Identity <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Keep the monitor and computer box 100cm+ away from you, and the

    That's impractical for the vast majority of computer users. And what is your evidence that it's
    necessary?

    > Don't automatically trust LCDs to be low EMF either, some are not. Sitting up close to an LCD is
    > worse than sitting far away from a CRT monitor.

    Evidence?

    Given the low-voltage operation and lack of any magnets in an LCD, I am skeptical of your claim.

    Rick R.
     
  12. Michael Gray

    Michael Gray Guest

    On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:59:41 +1300, Identity <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"William J. Beaty" wrote:
    >
    >> Run out and buy low-EM lcd computer monitor?
    >
    >Keep the monitor and computer box 100cm+ away from you, and the amount of EM you'll be exposed to
    >will be reduced down to a small fraction of the amount you're exposed to from sitting next to them
    >like most people do. Others may think you're very weird, but it makes it relatively safer.
    >
    >Don't automatically trust LCDs to be low EMF either, some are not. Sitting up close to an LCD is
    >worse than sitting far away from a CRT monitor.

    My scientific analysis of that claim:

    Bullshit!
     
  13. William J. Beaty wrote:

    > Mark Fergerson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >> Whoop-de-doo. I notice field strength wasn't mentioned (lemme guess, a few Tesla?).
    >
    > Hmmmm. Sounds like weird psychological bias going on. There's two ways to damage your mind:
    > be so openminded that your brain falls out, or be so closeminded that the automatic sneering
    > and scoffing overrides any ability to reason. Type II errors aren't any less shameful than
    > type I errors.

    By that standard, your brain fell out a long time ago, judging by what's on your webpages. ;>)

    Seriously, it isn't that black-and-white. I agree there's a "weird psychological bias" involved
    here, but not on my part. The article (I can't assess the paper as it isn't yet available) sounds
    as if it's influenced by Radical Greens' philosophy. (Who else spends so much time and other
    people's money ballyhooing the "hazards" of 60 Hz EM exposure?)

    Perfectly rigorous logic will lead to perfect nonsense if invalid assumptions are input, as you
    well know. The article (and maybe the paper) is a dandy example of a deliberate polemic.

    <Your pages are just fine IMNSHO; AFAICT you don't make bogus assumptions deliberately or
    unintentionally.>

    I claim it's a polemic because of the part of my post about NY subway riders. If there were any
    _observed_ deleterious effect upon that large a sample exposed to that kind of field strength
    over the time span involved, there'd be good reason to take the article (& paper) more seriously.
    Since none has been shown, I don't. But there's more as you point out:

    > When an article mentions "low level 60 Hz magnetic fields," should we automatically assume
    > they're talking about multi-tesla? Then again, once a research paper has been filtered through
    > a journalist, the end result is often hilarious. Better wait for the actual paper. But note
    > this part:
    >
    > "Prolonged exposure to low-level magnetic fields, similar to those emitted by such common
    > household devices as blow dryers, electric blankets and razors, can damage brain cell DNA,
    > according to researchers in the UW's Department of Bioengineering."
    >
    > Seems obvious enough...

    To me it seems meaningless without numbers to clarify what "low-level" might mean.

    >> New York City subway riders are subjected to horrendous
    >> fields and transients. Why aren't they all braindead by now?
    >
    > Fields at 60Hz? I thought they were DC, which would of course contain lots of impulses, but not
    > so much energy at 60Hz. The electric busses in Seattle are DC but certainly have lots of hundreds-
    > Hz fields, since you can hear the PWM controller noise on all AM radios anywhere near the
    > overhead cables.

    Why should 60 Hz be especially dangerous? We've all been immersed in a low-level (whatever what
    that means) 60 Hz field for generations. We've all been exposed to much stronger, local fields
    every time we use an appliance.

    > Hmmm. If one data point is relatively easy to aquire, then lets see a graph of DNA damage versus
    > b-field frequency. A peak at any particular frequency would be very interesting.

    Agreed, but I see no evidence of that kind of broad thinking in the article. The focus is on a
    specifically Radical-Green agenda point.

    > (And if they want to learn anything reasonable, then they'd better be using 60Hz sine waves, not
    > humongous 60Hz impulses.)

    Why not both? Why not the whole accessible spectrum, at
    all possible power levels, in all feasible waveforms? If the
    paper isn't a polemic, the authors should be willing to show
    that they looked for data that could falsify their thesis.

    > The guys down the hall work all day in the fractional-tesla fields around NMR magnet dewars. Heh,
    > they're not exposed to much 60Hz from crt deflection coils, since normal computer monitors are
    > mostly useless in that environment, and they've all switched over to LCD screens.

    How about generations of 60 Hz powerplant and powerline workers? Where're the supporting
    statistics to show their allegedly damaged DNA?

    How about all us amateur scientists who spend large fractions of our days "too close" to sources
    of the kinds of fields the article damns?

    If the paper claims to quantize something, there ought to be an _observed_ gross effect to
    quantize. Where is it?

    Is it closedmindedness to want to see evidence of a
    phenomenon before accepting analyses of it at face value?

    Mark L. Fergerson
     
  14. EjP <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > The same journal recently published a paper evaluating all the epidemiological basis of the effect
    > of low level EMF which found no compelling evidence http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl-6/911-933ahlbom/ahlbom-
    > full.html

    Thanks for that link!

    I searched and found the abstract of the new DNA paper on the same site:

    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2004/6355/abstract.pdf

    To detect politics, it might help to inspect the authors' personal sites and past publications:

    H. Lai http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/people/lai.shtml

    I. Singh http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/people/singh.shtml

    Aha! Here's articles about a past controversy:

    Jan 2004 http://www.microwavenews.com/jan04.html

    Jan/Feb 1998 http://www.microwavenews.com/2-98story1.html

    Google search: http://www.google.com/search?&q=%2Bsingh+%2Blai+%2Bwashington

    1997 Naltrexone blocks RFR-induced DNA double strand breaks in rat brain cells
    http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=272212&jmp=abstract&dl=GUIDE&dl=ACM

    Lai 1998 NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RF EM RADIATION http://www.electric-
    words.com/cell/research/laisingh/memory1.html

    http://www.rfsafe.com/DNA_EFFECTS.htm

    Research on Power-Frequency Fields Completed Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (1999)
    http://books.nap.edu/books/0309065437/html/index.html

    (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
    [email protected] http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci
    fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
     
  15. DOH!

    Here's the actual paper:

    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/6355/6355.pdf

    The previous paper dealt with 1 to 5 milligauss for 2 hrs, the new paper deals with 0.1
    milligauss for 24 and 48 hrs, plus treating with drugs to halt the effect by eliminating
    destructive free radicals.

    Heh. Don't rush out and buy and LCD monitor. Rush out and buy stock in companies making vitamin E !!

    (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
    [email protected] http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci
    fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
     
  16. Mark Fergerson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%[email protected]>...

    > By that standard, your brain fell out a long time ago, judging by what's on your webpages. ;>)

    Here's more evidence for that position:

    Don't touch my Disgustoscope http://amasci.com/creepy.html

    > Why should 60 Hz be especially dangerous? We've all been immersed in a low-level (whatever what
    > that means) 60 Hz field for generations. We've all been exposed to much stronger, local fields
    > every time we use an appliance.

    Maybe not 60Hz, maybe just everything above ??5Hz?? It takes AC to wiggle your biomagnetite
    crystals, or to induce small ion currents. It would be nice if the authors ran some control groups
    with DC fields having similar strength.

    "Dangerous" is the issue. Supposing that the results are supported by others (and supposing that it
    works with human neurons, not just with rats,) what macro effects are produced by DNA-breakage in
    neurons? Maybe it resembles accelerated aging. If disease isn't involved, what happens as your brain
    accumulates more decades? Memory loss? If the brains of powerline workers and CRT-exposed web
    surfers are aging prematurely, would anyone have ever noticed?

    > Is it closedmindedness to want to see evidence of a
    > phenomenon before accepting analyses of it at face value?

    Nope. Saying "I won't believe a thing until I see some numbers" is sensible (even required.) The
    problems arise if we disbelieve in advance, for example by assuming that the researchers used much
    stronger fields than are common every day.

    Suspension of premature belief is totally different than premature disbelief. Unfortunately both get
    called "skepticism."

    PSI suspect that much of the controversy arises because many insist that magnetic fields must have
    zero effect on biochem. Yet there are studies about AC magnetic fields affecting melatonin, and
    screwing up the action of Tamoxifen drug. The big fight may seem to be about disease and cancer,
    but I see that underneath it is a fight over whether fields from 60Hz coils can have any
    biological impact at all.

    http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/11_29_97/fob3.htm
    http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/1_10_98/bob1.htm
     
  17. Ar Fai Ve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > I have seen many people quoting experiments as being low power or low tesla, and then after
    > digging in to the actual facts I see that the quantities weren't all that low after all.

    FYI, there's a table of milligauss in this article:

    http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/1_10_98/bob1.htm

    It doesn't mention ballasts from fluorescent lights. As a kid I was listening to AC b-fields with an
    amp and a pickup coil from Radio shack, and the loudest 60Hz hum was in the kitchen, standing under
    the fluorescent ceiling fixture.

    (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
    [email protected] http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci
    fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
     
  18. William J. Beaty wrote:

    > Mark Fergerson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%[email protected]>...
    >
    >> By that standard, your brain fell out a long time ago, judging by what's on your webpages. ;>)
    >
    > Here's more evidence for that position:
    >
    > Don't touch my Disgustoscope http://amasci.com/creepy.html

    Doesn't play in Netscape. (And since when are you sponsored by an underwear company, even though
    it's kinda topic-appropriate?)

    But I remember the Disgustoscope well- you're definitely my kind of weird!

    BTW I've seen TV ads for handheld versions of the "vortex gun"; did you get a piece of them? You
    should have, they showed several applications you disclosed on your site (which predate any
    patents they might have).

    Frinst:

    http://www.alltvstuff.com/zero1.html

    >> Why should 60 Hz be especially dangerous? We've all been immersed in a low-level (whatever what
    >> that means) 60 Hz field for generations. We've all been exposed to much stronger, local fields
    >> every time we use an appliance.
    >
    > Maybe not 60Hz, maybe just everything above ??5Hz?? It takes AC to wiggle your biomagnetite
    > crystals, or to induce small ion currents.

    Yeah, I know. I also know that not all of us have the same crystals in the same places, or the
    same densities, etc. It may be a hereditary thing, but nobody seems to want to look closely
    enough to find out for fear of the "racism" card, methinks.

    "Above ~5 Hz"? Then consider the Schumann Resonance fields; they used to be assumed to be a
    constant environmental factor but have recently been shown to be variable over long and short
    timescales. Since we evolved in it (which is why it's considered not only beneficial but
    essential by many), it seems reasonable that every lifeform from viruses to us have adaptations
    to handle the kind of long-term exposure effects assumed in the (yet to be seen) paper.

    > It would be nice if the authors ran some control groups with DC fields having similar strength.

    I'd be less dissatisfied if they'd done anything other than the hasty, inflammatory job they did.

    > "Dangerous" is the issue. Supposing that the results are supported by others (and supposing that
    > it works with human neurons, not just with rats,) what macro effects are produced by DNA-breakage
    > in neurons? Maybe it resembles accelerated aging. If disease isn't involved, what happens as your
    > brain accumulates more decades? Memory loss? If the brains of powerline workers and CRT-exposed
    > web surfers are aging prematurely, would anyone have ever noticed?

    Insurers would have noticed right off the bat and started charging statistically high premiums
    for such people. Unions would have complained. Social Security statistics would be skewed. Memory
    loss or early retirements among electrical workers would definitely be noticed. That kind of
    thing is newsworthy.

    OTOH lab rats aren't exact analogs of humans. Higher mammals have more inbuilt repair mechanisms,
    so even if damage occurs in humans it may be routinely repaired. Have the authors already
    sacrificed all their rats? Did they do any long-term observations to see if the alleged damage
    self-repairs? I bet not.

    If self-repair is shown not to occur, we could all start wearing metglas helmets. ;>)

    >> Is it closedmindedness to want to see evidence of a
    >> phenomenon before accepting analyses of it at face value?
    >
    > Nope. Saying "I won't believe a thing until I see some numbers" is sensible (even required.) The
    > problems arise if we disbelieve in advance, for example by assuming that the researchers used much
    > stronger fields than are common every day.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Especially when said claims run counter to
    such things as the Schumann Resonance.

    > Suspension of premature belief is totally different than premature disbelief. Unfortunately both
    > get called "skepticism."

    Can't help that. Also can't help my cynicism, but agendas drive a lot of this kind of "research".

    > I suspect that much of the controversy arises because many insist that magnetic fields must have
    > zero effect on biochem. Yet there are studies about AC magnetic fields affecting melatonin, and
    > screwing up the action of Tamoxifen drug. The big fight may seem to be about disease and cancer,
    > but I see that underneath it is a fight over whether fields from 60Hz coils can have any
    > biological impact at all.
    >
    > http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/11_29_97/fob3.htm
    > http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/1_10_98/bob1.htm

    I'd like to know what mechanism is purported for these effects; AFAIK hormones have no magnetic
    properties.

    Checking the sources and references supports my cynical suspicions about P. C. bias.

    Also note that the second article mentions the increased "risk" due to transients, as I mentioned
    WRT NY subways. Graham says:

    " ...it's beginning to appear that a field's magnitude matters less than its intermittency or
    other features, such as power surges called electrical transients."

    Granted, there's a rather high density of therapists in NY, but where's the pathological
    evidence?

    Mark L. Fergerson
     
  19. Ar Fai Ve

    Ar Fai Ve Guest

    Mark Fergerson <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Also note that the second article mentions the increased "risk" due to transients, as I
    > mentioned WRT NY subways. Graham says:
    >
    > " ...it's beginning to appear that a field's magnitude matters less than its intermittency or
    > other features, such as power surges called electrical transients."

    What gets me is how all this "research" is couched in such qualitative terms as "intermittency or
    other features." If they say magnitude doesn't matter, then that means that the cosmic radiation
    from the Big Bang is killing us all right now. And none of this research is able to identify a
    process by which damage occurs. If someone says that DNA damage is happening, then they need to
    prove it using an electrochemcial model. Just saying that it happens is wrong, especially when it is
    counter to well established research repeated over the past hundred years.
     
  20. Michael Gray

    Michael Gray Guest

    On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:30:14 GMT, Ar Fai Ve <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Mark Fergerson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Also note that the second article mentions the increased "risk" due to transients, as I
    >> mentioned WRT NY subways. Graham says:
    >>
    >> " ...it's beginning to appear that a field's magnitude matters less than its intermittency or
    >> other features, such as power surges called electrical transients."
    >
    >What gets me is how all this "research" is couched in such qualitative terms as "intermittency or
    >other features." If they say magnitude doesn't matter, then that means that the cosmic radiation
    >from the Big Bang is killing us all right now. And none of this research is able to identify a
    >process by which damage occurs. If someone says that DNA damage is happening, then they need to
    >prove it using an electrochemcial model. Just saying that it happens is wrong, especially when it
    >is counter to well established research repeated over the past hundred years.

    I disagree with your proposition that an electrochemical model is required. If they can show that it
    happens, then it happens! Getting shot through the head doesn't kill you any less if a scientist can
    provide an electrochemical model for the process of having your brains blown out!

    Mind you, they *haven't* shown that anything happens, so it is a moot point.
     
Loading...