Coherent MM-wave EMFs produce penetrating effects via time-varying magnetic fields: response to Foster & Balzano.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Reviews on Environmental Health Pub Date : 2021-11-24 Print Date: 2022-12-16 DOI:10.1515/reveh-2021-0125
Martin L Pall
{"title":"Coherent MM-wave EMFs produce penetrating effects via time-varying magnetic fields: response to Foster & Balzano.","authors":"Martin L Pall","doi":"10.1515/reveh-2021-0125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drs. Foster and Balzano published ref. [1] claiming that my paper on coherent millimeter (MM)-waves producing penetrating effects [2] was flawed. My response follows. Ref. [1] claims that “The magnetic permeability of tissue is very low... and many orders of magnitude lower than that of high permeable materials such as iron,” citing Schenck [3] as their sole support. Ref. [3] is a study of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and is focused on findings that magnetic susceptibility of materials, including iron, can lead to position errors of up to several millimeters inMR-guided surgery. It says nothing about the magnetic permeability of biological materials except, as will be shown immediately below, that the ability to do MRIs tells us that biologicalmaterials are highly permeable to magnetic fields. TheWikipedia article onMRI [4] is discussed here. MRI studies properties of atomic nuclei that have odd numbers of protons and have, therefore, nuclei with opposite spins which have, in the absence of an external magnetic field identical energy levels. In the presence of an external magnetic field, the difference in energy levels of the two spins increase in proportion to the strength of external magnetic field. At a specific magnetic field strength, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) at a specific frequency absorb photons having the same energy as the difference of energy of the spin states. Ref. [4] states: “MRI requires a magnetic field that is both strong and uniform to a few parts per million across the scan volume.” This is because an EMF frequency that resonates with type of nucleus at a specific magneticfieldwill no longer resonatewith a slightly higher or lower magnetic field. Therefore magnetic field penetration must be extremely high to avoid destroying any ability to doMRI imaging in different depths of tissues. Our ability to dowhole body or whole brainMRIsmake this conclusion especially clear. It can be seen from this that the Foster/Balzano claim that “tissue magnetic permeability is very low” is complete nonsense. I stated in ref. [2] that “Electronically generated EMFs are coherent, producing much higher electrical and magnetic forces than do natural incoherent EMFs.” Foster/ Balzano respond that “coherence properties of ‘electronically generated’ microwave and MM-wave fields vary widely. The coherence of awave is defined as correlation in phase at different points in time or space as the wave propagates through a medium [5], and is not an all or none property.” There are two problems with their description of ref. [5]. The first is that Pinton et al. [5] studied effects of ultrasound (not EMFs) in tissues. Therefore, this should have been disclosed in ref. [1] as possibly limiting relevance to EMFs. Most importantly [5], study of ultrasound with reverberation clutter, with the main focus on reverberations. Reverberation greatly lowers the coherence of the ultrasound (and also of EMFs) so the variation of coherence seen in ref. [5] at different points in space is due to variation of reverberations and says nothing about coherence variation of electronically generated EMFs or of newly generated ultrasound. So here again, Drs. Foster/ Balzano make a false conclusion based on false assessments of their cited study – the study only predicts coherence variation produced by reverberation. Reverberation is important because of the use of reverberation exposure chambers in many EMF studies touted by industry linked scientists including Foster and Moulder. Reverberation in those chambers disrupts the coherence of the EMFs and therefore, greatly lowers any effects seen. Regarding the two studies on effects on neuronal firing, I quoted one of them [6] in ref. [2] as follows. Pikov et al. [6] in their abstract state that: “The applied levels of MMW power are three orders of magnitude below the existing safe limit for human exposure of 1 mW/cm. *Corresponding author: Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, 638 NE 41 Ave., Portland, OR 97232-3312, USA, E-mail: martin_pall@wsu.edu. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-87848287 Rev Environ Health 2021; aop","PeriodicalId":21165,"journal":{"name":"Reviews on Environmental Health","volume":"37 4","pages":"613-615"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews on Environmental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drs. Foster and Balzano published ref. [1] claiming that my paper on coherent millimeter (MM)-waves producing penetrating effects [2] was flawed. My response follows. Ref. [1] claims that “The magnetic permeability of tissue is very low... and many orders of magnitude lower than that of high permeable materials such as iron,” citing Schenck [3] as their sole support. Ref. [3] is a study of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and is focused on findings that magnetic susceptibility of materials, including iron, can lead to position errors of up to several millimeters inMR-guided surgery. It says nothing about the magnetic permeability of biological materials except, as will be shown immediately below, that the ability to do MRIs tells us that biologicalmaterials are highly permeable to magnetic fields. TheWikipedia article onMRI [4] is discussed here. MRI studies properties of atomic nuclei that have odd numbers of protons and have, therefore, nuclei with opposite spins which have, in the absence of an external magnetic field identical energy levels. In the presence of an external magnetic field, the difference in energy levels of the two spins increase in proportion to the strength of external magnetic field. At a specific magnetic field strength, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) at a specific frequency absorb photons having the same energy as the difference of energy of the spin states. Ref. [4] states: “MRI requires a magnetic field that is both strong and uniform to a few parts per million across the scan volume.” This is because an EMF frequency that resonates with type of nucleus at a specific magneticfieldwill no longer resonatewith a slightly higher or lower magnetic field. Therefore magnetic field penetration must be extremely high to avoid destroying any ability to doMRI imaging in different depths of tissues. Our ability to dowhole body or whole brainMRIsmake this conclusion especially clear. It can be seen from this that the Foster/Balzano claim that “tissue magnetic permeability is very low” is complete nonsense. I stated in ref. [2] that “Electronically generated EMFs are coherent, producing much higher electrical and magnetic forces than do natural incoherent EMFs.” Foster/ Balzano respond that “coherence properties of ‘electronically generated’ microwave and MM-wave fields vary widely. The coherence of awave is defined as correlation in phase at different points in time or space as the wave propagates through a medium [5], and is not an all or none property.” There are two problems with their description of ref. [5]. The first is that Pinton et al. [5] studied effects of ultrasound (not EMFs) in tissues. Therefore, this should have been disclosed in ref. [1] as possibly limiting relevance to EMFs. Most importantly [5], study of ultrasound with reverberation clutter, with the main focus on reverberations. Reverberation greatly lowers the coherence of the ultrasound (and also of EMFs) so the variation of coherence seen in ref. [5] at different points in space is due to variation of reverberations and says nothing about coherence variation of electronically generated EMFs or of newly generated ultrasound. So here again, Drs. Foster/ Balzano make a false conclusion based on false assessments of their cited study – the study only predicts coherence variation produced by reverberation. Reverberation is important because of the use of reverberation exposure chambers in many EMF studies touted by industry linked scientists including Foster and Moulder. Reverberation in those chambers disrupts the coherence of the EMFs and therefore, greatly lowers any effects seen. Regarding the two studies on effects on neuronal firing, I quoted one of them [6] in ref. [2] as follows. Pikov et al. [6] in their abstract state that: “The applied levels of MMW power are three orders of magnitude below the existing safe limit for human exposure of 1 mW/cm. *Corresponding author: Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, 638 NE 41 Ave., Portland, OR 97232-3312, USA, E-mail: martin_pall@wsu.edu. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-87848287 Rev Environ Health 2021; aop
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
相干毫米波电磁场通过时变磁场产生穿透效应:对福斯特和巴尔扎诺的响应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reviews on Environmental Health
Reviews on Environmental Health Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.60%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Reviews on Environmental Health (REVEH) is an international peer-reviewed journal that aims to fill the need for publication of review articles on hot topics in the field of environmental health. Reviews on Environmental Health aims to be an inspiring forum for scientists, environmentalists, physicians, engineers, and students who are concerned with aspects of human health, including quality of life, that are determined by physiological and psychosociological interactions between man and physical, chemical, biological, and social factors in the environment. Reviews on Environmental Health is an important niche served by no other journal, that’s being a site where thoughtful reviews can be published on a variety of subjects related to both health and environment. One challenge is to bridge the research on environmental causes of disease with the clinical practice of medicine. Reviews on Environmental Health is a source of integrated information on environment and health subjects that will be of value to the broad scientific community, whether students, junior and senior professionals, or clinicians.
期刊最新文献
The association between screen exposure and autism spectrum disorder in children: meta-analysis. A critical review on the toxicological and epidemiological evidence integration for assessing human health risks to environmental chemical exposures. Biological concentrations of DDT metabolites and breast cancer risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Evaluation of the impact of environmental pollutants on the sex ratio: a systematic review. A structured review of the associations between breast cancer and exposures to selected organic solvents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1