Bei der Gruppe, für die Sie eine Mitteilung verfassen, handelt es sich um eine Usenet-Gruppe. Wenn Sie in dieser Gruppe Nachrichten posten, ist Ihre E-Mail-Adresse für jeden im Internet sichtbar
At
the start of your letter you refer to the magnetic component. It is
absolutely vital that you grasp the point that the electric component
of EMFs is the bioactive agent, not the
magnetic component. Research focus only on the magnetic component is
the disgraceful deception practised by the power utilitiesfor decades, so that the true impact of
exposure has been hugely understated. You will have heard of the
electric chair, but never the magnetic chair!
That is why EPRI’s EMDEX meters never capture the electric
field. They were deliberately designed to avoid epidemiological
research into electric field effects, yet Ross Adey’s
work on calcium efflux, Bary Wilson’s work
on melatonin, and Dan Lyle’s work on lymphocyte competence, to name but
a few, as well as the early Russian studies, were all reporting electric field effects, not
magnetic. Our vital processes (heart beat rate, brain rhythms etc), are
all electric processes, not
magnetic, and through superposition (an established physical
phenomenon) any other electric field will perturb them.
Please
stop using the term magnetic when the culprit is electric. This EPRI
deception must be halted if we are to make any progress in research
evidence.
* * *
In a message dated 1/26/2008
3:09:57 P.M. Central Daylight Time, roger@cogreslab.co.uk writes:
Perhaps
I also needed to make the point that, yes of course a magnetic field
induces an electric field, but the electric component is there all the
time the appliance is connected, whereas the magnetic field is only
present when the appliance is under load. Moreover there is no fixed
correlation between the two at ELF frequencies, so magnetic field
measurements say nothing about electric field effects.
Roger
Coghill
* * *
The study copied below re
"safety of magnetic field" supports your opinions above. The implication
that mutagenic effects appear when bothstrong
magnetic fields and electric fields are present, does not, dispute what
you advised re the need to refer to the electric field as "bio-active
agent."
I would appreciate
receiving any additional comments as they pertain to the study
below. Since your explanations re importance of emphasizing the
electric field as the bio-active agent, I do conduct "investigations"
(much like "Ghostbusters") by using a gaussmeter, but always "focus" on
writing that "electric field exposures" are causing harm.
When interacting during
home evaluations or discussing gaussmeter measurements, I believe it is
essential to warn persons that they can not rely upon magnetic field
measurements. We do know a measurement of 200.0 mg on an electic
clock (on nightstand) drops off to a level of around 2.0 mg "over
pillow." Those findings are consistent with electric fields being the
bio-active agent. The need to measure the electric fields becomes
obvious when many persons report dramatic improvement in a relatively
short time once appliances are moved away from close proximity to
beds .
As you recommend,
scientific studies must report "electric fields" so that progress can
be made in all areas of electromagnetic radiation research.
Thanks for your efforts --
"Happy New Year!" Joanne
Joanne C. Mueller
Guinea Pigs "R" Us
731 - 123rd Avenue N.W.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55448-2127 USA
Phone: 763-755-6114
Email: jcmpelican@aol.com
Safety of the magnetic field generated by a neuronal
magnetic stimulator: evaluation of possible mutagenic effects
References and further reading may be available for this article. To
view references and further reading you must purchase
this article.
R. Charlet de Sauvagea,
F. Grattepancheb,
P. Cassandb,
R. Caubetb
and J. M. Moreau,
,
a
a Laboratoire
PIOM (ENSCPB), Université Bordeaux 1, 16, Avenue Pey Berland, 33607,
Pessac Cedex, France
b ISTAB, Université Bordeaux 1,
33405, Talence Cedex, France
Accepted 22 November 2002.
Available online 16
January 2003.
Abstract
Objective: The possible
mutagenicity of a magnetic stimulus was checked using the Ames test
with Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100 as tester strains.
Methods: Samples of these bacteria were exposed to
a pulsed magnetic field, on the order of 1 T. The magnetic pulses were
generated by a neuronal magnetic stimulator with a flat coil. The
magnetic stimulus was a continuous sequence of slightly damped half
sinusoids at a rate of 5 pulses/s. Exposure times were 2–5 and 15 min.
Exposure position was such as to maximise the magnetic field and
minimise the induced electric field. Room temperature was maintained at
28.5±0.5°C and the temperature was measured inside the samples.
Results: None of the exposure conditions showed any
increase in mutation in either of the two bacterial strains.
Conclusions: These results are
discussed in comparison with effects found in the literature. The
magnetic stimulation used under the conditions of this study does not
appear to have mutagenic effects. This does not apply to cases
where both strong electric and magnetic fields are present.
Author Keywords: Magnetic stimulation; Safety;
Ames test; Mutagenicity; Temperature effects
|
