CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Lifestyle › Health › The impact of power lines and substations

The impact of power lines and substations

Started by Zachary Rodriguez32 · · 👁 9 views · 86 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Zachary Rodriguez32boldsailor32Aswiftscout8Casey Palmer5Charles TurnerKate DiazSam Gonzalez67Kevin White5Mark Barnes11wanderingharbor51Chris Morgan67shadowgardener12wearymason4jadewolf16melloworca6
Kate Diaz Kate Diaz Member
41 messages
joined Aug 2008
#61 ·
shadowgardener12 says:

Oleander said:>
Regarding sleeping north-south, I was told that, you know, north-south is better, but a lot depends on other types of radiation too (groundwater, other kinds of radiation),
That’s right. If you haven't mapped out the environment, you might find that simply turning over puts you directly into a non-ionizing radiation field that wasn't affecting you before.
Right now, I’m sleeping south-north, and I feel great. Honestly, whenever I arrive somewhere new, I can immediately sense where the best orientation is for sleep. I don't know if it's just suggestion or if I'm actually sensing some kind of radiation. 🙂
It isn't suggestion. Our bodies sense various environmental shifts—things like temperature, pressure, humidity, or electric and magnetic fields. These are all "invisible" changes, but someone who truly "listens" to their body will react accordingly.

Not suggestion? Oh, please, of course it's suggestion!!!

No serious study has ever established such a thing. The Earth's magnetic field is far too weak to have any impact on a living organism unless there are specialized organs designed to detect it (which some animals do possess). Humans were never migratory birds, so we never needed north-south orientation through evolution, and consequently, we never developed those types of organs.

And since you keep bringing this up, why don't you cite a single legitimate study that supports that claim?

As for Full Point—I took a look at those devices, and aside from that first one, they all seem pretty gimmicky. I highly doubt they can measure such weak fields and distinguish them from background radiation. I also doubt they are capable of correctly interpreting the results (even if the measurement itself were accurate) to tell which part of the reading is background noise and which is artificial radiation. Not to mention identifying the actual source. To do that properly, you would need constant measurements taken multiple times a day over the course of years.

I’ve worked with equipment like that; I’ve measured weak terrestrial fields (like Schumann resonances or Alfvén waves, etc.), and I know firsthand how difficult measurements are—and how even harder interpretation is (and that was using much, much more advanced equipment than anything from Full Point).
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#62 ·
Kate Diaz said:Man, you really tore those posts apart into a million tiny pieces! Why not just lay everything out in one or two solid posts instead? But hey, whatever.

Thanks for the heads-up and the advice; I've started a new thread.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#63 ·
Kate Diaz said:Unfortunately, what you're saying here just isn't true. It feels like you've cherry-picked bits from legal regulations, some actual physicists, and then a few alternative theories, resulting in one big, confusing mess. While you bring up a few valid points, you're making some major errors elsewhere by mixing up fundamental concepts and principles.

I was prompted to join this discussion because of a few "misquotes," and I wanted to help out by using simple terms and examples to make this easier to follow. Honestly, this is starting to look like a real scientific debate. The concept of harmful locations has existed since ancient times—investigated by ancient civilizations, religion, physics, and eventually medicine. That’s probably why it feels like such a jumble! ;-) The common thread in all these posts is that they address non-ionizing radiation from various perspectives.
=Non-ionizing radiation consists of electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic waves with frequencies below 3,000,000 GHz, or ultrasound with frequencies below 500 MHz. These do not create ions when interacting with matter (meaning they lack sufficient energy to completely knock electrons out of their orbits, which is how ions are formed; according to US safety standards regarding non-ionizing radiation, Section 2.)=
=The category of non-ionizing radiation includes
-_ Optical radiation
- ultraviolet radiation (UV)
the sun, quartz lamps (black lights), UV lasers
-_ infrared radiation (IR)_
infrared lamps and heaters, the sun, various large furnaces (like those used in central heating), welding, and glass or steel manufacturing.
-_ visible light_
-_ radio waves (RF) and microwave radiation (MW)
_Radio frequency and microwave radiation fall within the electromagnetic spectrum ranging from 3 kHz to 300 GHz—think aeronautical radio, various transmission antennas, cell phones, heating elements, induction cookers, microwave ovens, radar transmitters, communication transmitters, power amplifiers, and dielectric heaters.
-__ELF waves=
=Any device that produces one or more types of non-ionizing radiation is considered a source (according to US safety standards regarding non-ionizing radiation, Section 2.). However, beyond man-made devices, there is also radiation caused by natural sources. Therefore, we can say we are affected by both "technical" and "natural" non-ionizing radiation. =
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#64 ·
Kate Diaz said:.
So, what’s this whole thing about air ionization now? If you actually wanted to achieve significant air ionization, you’d need devices specifically designed to cause it. We're talking things like old phosphor CRT monitors or TV screens, but even then, the ionization is incredibly low and drops off almost immediately as you move away from the source. To get true air ionization and any meaningful amount of ions into the atmosphere, you would need some massive discharge device because the energy required for ionization is huge (unless, say, you stick your head directly into a mercury vapor lamp).

This whole idea that household appliances are ionizing the air is just another tall tale and nonsense pushed by "alternative" crowd theorists.

= In all indoor environments, there is a massive imbalance between positive and negative ions in the air. We are lacking negative ions, while positive ones are overabundant. This is caused by things like central heating, air conditioning, and non-ionizing radiation, all of which strip negative ions from the air. Scientists have found that negative ion concentrations vary wildly depending on the setting. For example, near waterfalls you can find up to 50,000/cm3
, in forests and nature it’s over 1,000/cm3, in urban air it's around 100/cm3, and indoors it's roughly 10/cm3. Research suggests the sweet spot should be at least 1,000 negative ions per cm3 of air, with a positive-to-negative ratio of approximately 1.02:0.98.
Negatively charged ions are absolutely vital for life. They revitalize bioelectrochemical cellular processes. They help normalize blood pressure, heart rate, internal circulation, and the nervous and hormonal systems. They promote the production of the neurohormone serotonin while reducing adrenal steroids (the substances produced during stress responses). They also clean the air of bacteria and viruses, lower histamine levels during allergies, and aid oxygen absorption in the lungs. Good oxygen absorption in the blood helps prevent anemia. Check out the work of Nobel laureate Otto Warburg (Nobel Prize in Medicine).

To put it simply: you fall asleep in front of the TV because it generates a massive amount of positive ions (which cause fatigue and drowsiness). When you're out in nature, it's easier to breathe and you feel much better.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#65 ·
Kate Diaz said:Could you please provide just one credible reference showing that static electricity from bed springs causes restless sleep or autoimmune diseases? And how exactly does static electricity keep the brain alert? Since you're making such claims, please back them up with solid references and serious research. This sounds like typical mumbo jumbo designed to stir up unnecessary panic and fear among people who aren't well-informed (unfortunately, with today's information landscape, most people don't have the deep physics background needed to distinguish actual science from mere sensationalism used to incite fear).

Dr. Silva, Physiatrist and Rheumatologist
An autoimmune disease is essentially a breakdown in the body's natural defense system—the immune system—where instead of protecting the organism, it attacks its own tissues. A specific number of T-cells (specialized cells produced to defend the body) trigger other cells to release cytokines, attacking tissues due to shifts in neurochemical substances that facilitate the transmission of nerve impulses from one cell to another.
Or to put it more simply: take a compass, hold it in your hand, and find north. Place that compass on your bed and move it around. In certain spots, you'll notice the needle spinning wildly. That’s where the metal springs come in. What’s actually happening in the body? The polarity required for the transmission of substances and information needs to be balanced (+/-). Any external force that disrupts those polarities—pushing them toward a ++ or -- state—affects how substances and information conduct through our cells. Prolonged exposure forces the body to try and clear that blockage.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#66 ·
Kate Diaz said:Since when has this been known? All these limits are just certain doses based on some general consensus—pretty much like how we set permissible limits for ionizing radiation. Research is incredibly difficult and complex, making it nearly impossible to pin down an exact boundary.

The very first medical study looking at how non-ionizing radiation affects humans dates back to 1967. Even before that, alternative medicine had been utilizing these principles for ages, with early attempts at medical testing appearing as far back as 1867.
According to various national academies of science, the "ideal" radiation dose would actually be zero. Since achieving that is impossible in a modern, developed society, all research is conducted through risk factor analysis. It isn’t necessarily that the research is "hard," but rather that it is incredibly long-term; you can't exactly run experiments on people—you have to rely on observation and comparative studies. Organizations like the WHO and ICNIRP don't just pull recommendations out of thin air; they base them on findings from International Conferences and collaborative work across the fields of physics, medicine, and biology. The next big one is coming up: the Gordon Research Conference, July 25-30, 2004.
It is time to register for this year's Gordon Research Conference to be held in New London, Connecticut, July 25-30. There are many exciting Scientific Sessions on Electrical and Magnetic effects on living systems.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#67 ·
Kate Diaz said:It’s worth pointing out that the amount of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation we pick up naturally is actually about ten times higher than any artificial "extra" we get. Since our bodies have already evolved enough defense mechanisms against natural radiation, they tend to handle the man-made stuff just as effectively. Of course, we shouldn't get carried away because nobody really knows where the limit is. Personally, I wouldn't want to be sleeping right next to a transformer station or a 1 MW radar tower.

Unfortunately, it's actually quite the opposite. By successfully eliminating non-ionizing radiation while we sleep or during work hours, we reduce the strain on our nervous system, circulation, metabolism, and immunity. The body reacts to these positive shifts with increased activity, and the results show up incredibly fast—we can feel the difference in as little as a month. National academies of science, along with various study results, continue to warn us how much environmental changes can impact our overall health.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#68 ·
Kate Diaz said:What kind of regulations would there even be regarding groundwater? Give me a break, where would you even find that! If water isn't radioactive, it’s not emitting anything!!!

An actually massive issue when building houses is geological faults and cracks that allow radioactive radon to seep out from deep underground. But groundwater!?!?! Seriously, maybe people believed that a hundred years ago back when everyone was using pitchforks and other kind of mumbo jumbo nonsense. It's just like all that craziness surrounding Hartmann's nodes (or whatever they call them). Any radiation contribution from water is negligible; water basically doesn't radiate at all!!!

I'm talking about non-ionizing radiation, not radioactivity. And that "mumbo jumbo" nonsense is actually baked into the legal regulations within the European Union.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#69 ·
Kate Diaz said:Microwaves? What kind of microwaves are we talking about with cell phones??? A phone isn't a microwave oven!

Radiofrequency and microwave radiation both fall under the umbrella of electromagnetic radiation within the 3 kHz to 300 GHz range. Typically, microwave radiation is treated as a subset of radiofrequency radiation, though some technical conventions separate them into two distinct spectral bands. Microwaves sit in the spectrum between 300 MHz and 300 GHz, while radio waves occupy the space between 3 kHz and 300 MHz.
Wireless communication systems operate across several different frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum. Here in the US, mobile phones primarily run on two main frequencies: 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. Meanwhile, phones used in Europe typically rely on GSM technology—which is different from what most US phones use—operating at frequencies near 900 MHz and 1800 MHz.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#70 ·
Kate Diaz said:It’s just like all that nonsense regarding Hartmann's nodes (or whatever they're called).

Later studies by numerous researchers—most notably Dr. Ernest Hartman, a pioneer in the emerging field of geobiology—have revealed that the Earth's grid pattern is far more intricate than what was previously suggested by Vision models. This led to the term "Hartmann's grid," which describes a geomagnetic network of telluric lines rising vertically from the ground. This grid is composed of magnetic meridians running north-south and magnetic parallels running east-west. The meridians are spaced about 2.5 meters apart, while the parallels sit at 2-meter intervals, with a thickness ranging from 21 to 25 cm. Because these are energy patterns rather than physical matter, they form invisible walls that rise straight up, passing through any physical obstacle, whether it's open land or a building. Where these telluric lines intersect, they create specific points known as "Hartmann's nodes." These nodes are considered geopathogenic because they act as vertical conduits for harmful energy waves that are as aggressive as they are persistent.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#71 ·
Kate Diaz said:The heating you're talking about is actually the only proven effect of cell phones. But honestly, a temperature rise of just 1 mK is so minuscule that it isn't just negligible—it’s physically impossible for it to have any impact on tissue!!! Just think about what happens when you spend 15 minutes in a shower at 104°F (that's a full 3 K above body temperature).

Energy absorbed by the human body from RF fields can cause a rise in temperature, which depends heavily on the wave frequency and the specific type of tissue involved. This thermal effect is well-documented, easily understood, and universally accepted. An increase in tissue temperature can trigger various psychological and thermal responses in people. For instance, when body temperature rises, people often see a decrease in their ability to focus on mental or cognitive tasks. It's a similar sensation to what people experience under other forms of heat stress, like working in a sweltering room. When exposure levels hit extreme highs (exceeding 100 W/kg), the thermal load becomes excessive, leading to both direct and indirect damage. This triggers a thermoregulatory response based on the nature of the risk. High temperatures can also impact cellular biochemistry, so this factor has to be considered when evaluating reports regarding "power levels below the thermal threshold." To truly protect ourselves from RF exposure, we need a deep understanding of several factors, especially when looking at near-field exposure. However, this is distinct from the SAR levels required to produce such an intense effect in an individual using telecommunications or other radio equipment, including mobile phones. In any scientific study, potential thermal effects (whether from ambient heat or other sources) must be ruled out before any effect can even be considered non-thermal. This is particularly critical for near-field exposure, where the magnitude of reactive field components might remain unknown.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#72 ·
Kate Diaz says:

No, no... I’m not talking about measuring how much the kids are being affected. I mean with that "Biodispozitiv" stuff—you know, that thing you put over your mattress with those magnetic strips that's supposed to block EM radiation and everything else... Here is a quote straight from the Full Point website!

Biodispozitiv is a product that has sparked—and continues to spark—intense interest for good reason. Its primary purpose is to shield you from the harmful effects of electromagnetic pollution and natural earth radiation, such as water currents and Hartmann's grid. While there are plenty of products on the market claiming to protect against these types of radiation, Biodispozitiv stands alone. It’s the only one that can boast prestigious international awards, like those from Eureka Brussels and Inova Chicago, along with tens of thousands of satisfied customers across the US. What makes it stand out is twofold: it provides the only active protection available, and its effectiveness has been measurably proven through instrumental testing.

Active protection works through a permanent magnetic field that uses its own energy to repel external influences, providing highly effective shielding. For Biodispositiv to work properly, it needs to be large enough to encompass the entire body within its magnetic field—that’s the essential requirement for any successful protection.

Beyond just shielding you from natural and technical radiation, Biodispozitiv offers three other incredibly important benefits that help you achieve a healthy, restful sleep:

1. North-south field stabilization
2. Energy level decay
3. Stimulating and Balancing Body Energy

The Biodispozitiv is designed with a built-in north magnetic pole at the top. This ensures that whenever you lie down on the device, your body is always aligned with the magnetic field—keeping your head toward the north pole and your feet toward the south—regardless of the Earth's natural magnetic field.

Biodispozitiv neutralizes the harmful and aggravating effects of radiation, promotes full-body relaxation, sharpens mental focus, boosts the immune system, and stimulates cellular metabolism.

To get truly restful sleep, you need an energetically calm environment—something that is surprisingly hard to achieve these days. Our surroundings are often filled with interference: mattress springs, various electrical gadgets in the bedroom like lamps, digital clocks, TVs, or radios, plus electromagnetic fields from outside sources, natural radiation from moving water, and even Hartmann's network. Biodispositiv works to smooth out the field around your sleeping area, helping you relax and creating the ideal conditions for your body to actually recover.

The impact of stabilizing a field is best demonstrated by the measurement results shown in the two images below. In the background of the first image, you can see an energetically turbulent field recorded on the bed without the Biodispozitiv. In the foreground, however, we see the state of that same bed after the Biodispozitiv has been placed. The image on the right displays the average energy state measured over time—comparing the case without the Biodispozitiv (shown in purple) to the case with the Biodispozitiv in place (shown in blue). The calm, stable energy field created by the Biodispozitiv is incredibly obvious.

On the Histrion.net forum, discussing Biodispozitiv, posted by GEC, from the US.

Quick update: About a month ago, I picked up my Biodispozitiv. I actually attended another presentation by Full Point recently, which pretty much backed up everything I’ve been measuring myself. Now, I know what you’re thinking—I’m being a stubborn idiot here. I’m fully aware that Hartmann's lines are hitting me right in the legs... but I’ve been playing dumb and sleeping in that exact spot for seven years, and now I'm sitting here waiting for knee surgery on both legs. While I was waiting for the Biodispozitiv to arrive, I used radiesthesia to map out the Hartmann and Currie grids in my room. I managed to cram our queen-sized bed into the only neutral spot in the house, and honestly, the very first night proved it was worth it. I slept much more peacefully without that nagging leg pain, and I actually felt rested in the morning. But the real game-changer happened once the Biodispozitiv finally showed up. The first thing my partner and I noticed was the heat! We started using thinner blankets and even cracking the window open, even though it was only a few degrees outside. It didn't help at all. Nowadays, we’re basically sleeping nearly naked (which has its perks... khm!) and we’re still feeling hot. This product definitely works!
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#73 ·
Kate Diaz said:[B Only B-fields and strictly static fields can accumulate charge—meaning the field itself can strengthen as charge builds up. Substations and any devices running on alternating current don't create a static field. What you’re describing—that static shock from a doorknob, a car body, synthetic fabrics, or even your hair that makes you jump or feel a little sting—is NOT caused by power substations, electrical appliances, cell phones, or transformers. Our bodies don't really struggle with that kind of electricity because its change is very slow; it distributes evenly across the surface of the conductive object (in this case, our skin). Most importantly, it DOES NOT PENETRATE THE CONDUCTOR (it stays localized on the surface). Because it spreads out so evenly, the effect cancels itself out, though usually, that tiny excess of electricity just bleeds off into the ground.
[/B]

FER:For computer users, the most interesting thing is actually the presence of static electricity in their immediate environment while working at a desk. It’s simply generated by the flow of electric current through the cables and wiring we use constantly in this business. One computer operator was actually knocked right out of their chair by the force of a static discharge when turning on a machine. Monitors, being an essential part of computer gear, are arguably the biggest "producers" of static electricity.

Since the dawn of humanity, people lived in direct contact with the Earth's surface, meaning the human body was naturally grounded. As modern times rolled in, that connection gradually faded. Nowadays, we wear synthetic soles on our shoes and live in high-rise buildings, which pushes us even further away from the ground. This issue is compounded by the fact that we are simultaneously exposed to much higher doses of radiation and static electricity all day long. Since that charge can't bleed off into the earth, it accumulates within the body, triggering various health issues.
Static electricity speeds up calcium metabolism, which accelerates fatigue and causes a loss of Vitamin C, leading to spikes in blood sugar levels that cause further exhaustion. It is one of the culprits behind autonomic imbalance. When electricity built up in clothing discharges through the skin, it can cause damage to sensitive skin (dermatitis). Furthermore, accumulated electricity easily attracts dirt particles, germs, and bacteria, resulting in unpleasant body odors and/or additional skin irritation.
Static electricity interferes with the function of digestive enzymes.
It disrupts the absorption of vitamins and minerals into the bloodstream.
It messes with electrical activity at the cellular level, which leads to protein plasma buildup around cells, ultimately resulting in that all-too-familiar feeling of fatigue, loss of energy, and so on.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#74 ·
lahor said:First you claim magnets are harmful, and now you're bringing up medical magnetotherapy. How did we get here?

BIOELECTROMAGNETIC
MEDICINE edited by Paul J. Rosch and Marko S. Markov.
Medical Textbook covering the cutting edge of clinical applications for
electromagnetic fields based on data through September 2003.
With 50 chapters contributed by 86 global experts,
this 850-page volume features over 5,000 references.
It dives into the fundamental physics and dosimetry of
bioelectromagnetics, including the application of electric currents and
magnetic and electromagnetic fields to treat diverse
ailments—ranging from wound healing and bone growth to macular
degeneration, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#75 ·
Kate Diaz said:Honestly, what you're saying just isn't true. It feels like you've taken a little bit of info from legal regulations, a little from actual physicists, and a little from alternative sources, and mashed them all together into one big, confusing mess.

Since so many of you seem to think non-ionizing radiation belongs in the realm of pseudoscience rather than actual science, just take a look at the peer-reviewed research. That should clear up any confusion about whether this is "made up" or not.

SESSION 1: PULSED HV RESEARCH & APPLICATION
INTRACELLULAR EFFECTS DUE TO EXTREMELY
LARGE, SUBMICROSECOND ELECTRIC FIELD
PULSES: THEORY AND MODELING. J.C. Weaver, D.
A. Stewart, * Z. Vasilkoski * and T. R. Gowrishankar * .
Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
1-2 HUMAN GENE EXPRESSION IN RESPONSE TO
NANOSECOND PULSED ELECTRIC FIELDS. C.C
Tseng*1 , Z-M. Wang*1 , D.S. Johnson*1 , S.J. Beebe*2 , and
K.H. Schoenbach*3 . 1 Purdue University Calumet, Hammond,
Indiana 46323, USA; 2 Eastern Virginia Medical School,
Norfolk, VA 23510, USA; 3 Old Dominion University, Norfolk,
VA 23510, USA.
1-3DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF NANOSECOND PULSED
ELECTRIC FIELDS ON HUMAN CELL SIGNAL
TRANSDUCTION AND FUNCTION. SJ Beebe*1,2,4 , C
Tseng 3 , PF Blackmore*2 , J White*1 , E Hall*1 , and KH
Schoenbach*4 1 Center for Pediatric Research, Eastern Virginia Medical
School, Norfolk VA 23510; 2 Department of Physiological Sciences,
Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, 23501; 3 Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana 46323; 4 Center for Bioelectrics Old Dominion University and Eastern
Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, 23510

SESSION 2: EPIDEMIOLOGY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RF EXPOSURE FROM MOBILE PHONES IN DIFFERENT
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS. J.J. Morrissey, M.
Kanda. Motorola Florida Research Labs, 8000 West Sunrise
Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA 33322.
2-2 EFFECT OF GSM CELLULAR PHONES ON HUMAN
HEARING: METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND
PRELIMINARY RESULTS. S. L. Bell*1 , N. Thomas * 1 ,
M. Parazzini*2 , G. Thuroczy 3 , M. E. Lutman*1 , P.
Ravazzani 2 . 1 Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of
Southampton, SO17 1BJ, Southampton, UK; 2 Institute of
CNR Biomedical Engineering, 20133 Milan, Italy; 3 National
Research Institute for Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, Department of Non-Ionizing
Radiation, 122 Budapest, Anna u.5, Canada.
2-3 METHODS FOR ASSESSING OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURES TO ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC
FIELDS FOR THE INTERPHONE STUDY OF
MOBILE PHONES AND CANCERS OF THE
HEAD. J.D. Bowman 1 , D.L. Conover 1 , S. Mann 2 *, D.
McLean*, L. Nadon 3 *, P. Vecchia 4 *, I. Deltour*, E.
Cardis*. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert
Thomas, 69008 Lyon, France. 1 National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 2 National Radiological
Protection Board, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ, UK. 3 INRS—
Armand Frappier Institute, Laval de Rapides, Quebec, Canada. 4 National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
2-4 IMPROVING RADIOFREQUENCY EX- POSURE
ASSESSMENT IN EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF
MOBILE PHONE USERS: AN OVERVIEW OF
RESEARCH DESIGN AND PRELIMINARY DATA.
M. A. Kelsh 1 , A.R. Sheppard 2 , N. Kuster 3 , M. Shum*1 , J
Fröhlich 3 , M. McNeeley*1 . 1 Exponent, Inc., Menlo Park,
CA, USA; 2 Asher Sheppard Consulting, Redlands, CA,
USA; 3 Information Tech in Society (IT'IS) Zurich,
Switzerland.
2-5 FEASIBILITY OF FUTURE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
STUDIES ON POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS OF
MOBILE PHONE BASE STATIONS. G. G. Neubauer 1 ,
M. Röösli 2 , M. Feychting 3 , Y. Hammerius 4 , L. Kheifets 5 ,
N. Kuster 6 , J. Schüz 7 , J. Wiart 8 . 1 Seibersdorf research,
Bern, Switzerland, 2 Karolinska Institutet,
Sweden, 4 Chalmers Univ, Sweden, 5 UCLA, USA, 6 IT IS
Switzerland, 7 Univ of Mainz, Germany, 8 France telecom
research center, France.
2-6 A FRESH APPROACH TO RISK EVALUATION AND
MANAGING RADIO FREQUENCY
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE
HEALTH IMPACTS USING NEURO-FUZZY
NETWORKS. O.P. Molchanova. Dept of
General Hygiene & Basics of Ecology, M.I. Pirogov
Vinnytsya Nat’l Med Univ, Vinnytsya, 21018, Ukraine.

SESSION 1: PULSED HV RESEARCH & APPLICATION
1-4 HOW CELLS SURVIVE FOLLOWING EXPOSURE
TO INTENSE, ULTRA-SHORT
ELECTRICAL PULSES. A. Andrei Pakhomov 1,3 ,
Kerfoot Walker III 1 , Juergen Kolb 3 , Karl Schoenbach 3 , 2 Bruce Stuck, and Michael Murphy 4 . 1 McKesson
BioServices Corporation, 1,2 US Army Med Res
Detachment, Brooks City-Base, San Antonio, TX, USA; 3 Center for Bioelectrics, Old Dominion Univ., Norfolk,
VA, USA; 4 Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, Human
Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Res Lab, Brooks
City-Base, San Antonio, TX, USA.
1-5 ULTRA-WIDEBAND ELECTROMAGNETIC
RADIATION (UWB EMR) EXPOSURE AND
SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION PATHWAY ACTIVATION.
M. Natarajan 1 , B.K. Nayak 1 *, S.P. Mathur 2 ,
C. Galindo 1 *, M.L. Meltz 1 . 1 Dept of Radiation Oncology,
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 2 McKesson BioServices, US Army Med Res Detachment,
Brooks City-Base, San Antonio, TX 78235 USA.
1-6 POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF BRIEF {1-5 SECOND}
HEAT EXPOSURE {+ 15°C} FROM 95 GHZ
RADIATION ON DNA REPAIR. J.L. Roti Roti, J.
Mueller*, M. Xu*, E. Moros. Radiation Oncology Dept,
Washington Univ School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
63108 USA.

SESSION 3: EMF THERAPIES
3-1 LOW-FIELD MAGNETIC STIMULATION: ANTI-DEPRESSANT
RESULTS USING MRI-STRENGTH
FIELDS. M. L. Rohan*, W. A. Carlezon Jr.*, B. M
Cohen* , P. F. Renshaw*. Dept of Psychiatry, Harvard
Medical School and McLean Hospital. Belmont,
MA 02478 USA.
3-2 STATIC MAGNETIC FIELDS MODIFYING THE
EFFICACY OF CHEMOTHERAPY IN
TREATING HUMAN CANCER. J. R.
Salvatore, J. Harrington, T. Kummet. Division of
Hematology/Oncology, Hayden VA Medical Center,
Phoenix, AZ 85012 USA.

SESSION 4: IN VIVO STUDIES
4-1 THERMAL PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS OF
SEATED HUMAN VOLUNTEERS TO FULL-BODY
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) EXPOSURE AT
220 MHZ. E.R. Adair 1 , D.W. Blick 2 , S.J. Allen 3 , K.S.
Mylacraine 3 , J.M. Ziriax 4 , D.M. Scholl 5 . 1 Air Force Senior
Scientist Emeritus, Hamden, CT 06517; 2 Independent
Consultant, San Antonio, TX 78218; 3 Advanced Eng
Information Sys, a General Dynamics Co., Brooks City-Base,
TX 78235; 4 Naval Hlth Cntr Detachment, Brooks
City-Base, TX 78235; 5 AFRL/HEDR, Brooks City-Base,
TX 78235 USA.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#76 ·
Kate Diaz said:Unfortunately, what you’re saying here just isn't true. It looks to me like you've cobbled together bits of info from legal regulations, some actual physicists, and then tossed in some alternative theories, resulting in one giant mess. While you bring up a few valid points, you're making some pretty bad mistakes elsewhere and mixing up fundamental concepts and principles.

Melatonin is a vital hormone for our immune system, released while we sleep. Poor sleep leads to a deficiency in it, which can increase the risk of developing malignant diseases.

Title: Melatonin suppression by static and extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields: relationship to the reported increased incidence of cancer.

Author(s): Reiter RJ

Address: Department of Cellular and Structural Biology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio 78284, USA.

Source: Review of Environmental Health 10(3-4):171-86

Abstract: There have been reports of increased cancer incidence in people living or working in environments where they are exposed to higher-than-normal artificial electromagnetic fields. Scientific Finding: One of the most uniform changes associated with the exposure of animals to either pulsed static geomagnetic fields or to sinusoidal ELF waves has been a reduction in high night-time levels of melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone produced primarily at night in the pineal gland, a small organ located near the center of the human brain. This high nocturnal production of melatonin results in elevated blood melatonin levels during the night as well. Scientific Finding: The exposure of humans or animals to light (visible electromagnetic radiation) at night rapidly depresses pineal melatonin production and blood melatonin levels. Similarly, Scientific Finding: The exposure of animals to various pulsed static and ELF waves also reduces melatonin levels. Melatonin acts as a powerful oncostatic agent, preventing both the initiation and promotion of cancer. Any factor that reduces melatonin levels at night increases the vulnerability of cells to being altered by carcinogenic agents. Therefore, if artificial electric FIELDS exposure does indeed increase cancer rates in humans, a logical mechanism could involve the reduction of melatonin caused by such exposure.

Index Terms:
Electromagnetic Fields [adverse effects]
Melatonin [metabolism]
Minor Indexes:
Circadian Rhythm
Incidence
Melatonin [physiology]
Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced [epidemiology]
Reagent Names:
73-31-4 (Melatonin)
Mark Barnes11 Mark Barnes11 Newcomer
1 message
joined Oct 2006
#77 ·
I think you all might be overdoing it with the "who’s the bigger expert" debate. At the end of the day, there are plenty of regular folks here who aren't physicists. Some people have the luxury of choosing whether or not to buy an apartment, while others are already stuck living in them. Can someone just give me the short version: is this actually a health risk, how bad is it, and can we mitigate it with shielding or something similar?
wanderingharbor51 wanderingharbor51 Newcomer
1 message
joined Oct 2006
#78 ·
Look, I’m just a regular person who doesn't exactly have a PhD in physics, so you guys totally blew my mind earlier! 😱

So, get this—I live in an apartment building where the transformer station is literally only ten steps from the front door!
I've been living in this place for 11 years now, and about three years ago, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease 😕.

My balcony sits just a few feet above that transformer station, and my entire apartment basically faces right toward it...

Do I need to connect the dots here??? 😱
Chris Morgan67 Chris Morgan67 Member
49 messages
joined Jul 2007
#79 ·
wanderingharbor51 said:I’m basically talking to the general public here, people who don't really grasp the physics behind this, and you all honestly gave me quite a scare 😱

I live in an apartment building where the transformer station is exactly ten steps from the main entrance!
I've lived in this building for 11 years, and three years ago, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease😕.

My balcony sits just a few feet above that transformer, and my entire apartment faces right toward it...

Should I be connecting these dots? 😱

Look, that's just the price of modern life. We eat toxins and breathe them in every day. If someone isn't feeling it, they can always move to the mountains and go play with wolves.
Kate Diaz Kate Diaz Member
41 messages
joined Aug 2008
#80 ·
wanderingharbor51 said:My balcony is just a few yards above a transformer station, and my entire apartment faces right toward it...

Do I need to make that connection? 😱

Almost certainly—no!

To be clear, it isn't that low frequencies have absolutely zero effect. However, any such influence is so minuscule and negligible that it becomes impossible to measure or precisely define. In engineering terms, the negative impact of a transformer station is essentially "below the noise floor." Put simply, it’s impossible to distinguish whether any potential negative effect stems from low frequencies or from other external factors we can't control.

When comparing the influence of a single transformer station and its low frequencies against the anxiety caused by them, it is far more important to be mindful of chemical pollutants and hazardous compounds that we constantly introduce into our bodies, primarily through our diet. Instead of blaming low frequencies for their minor impact (if such an impact even exists), let's look at what we eat and the environments we live in. Living in a neighborhood near a trash incinerator, a cement plant, or an oil refinery is significantly more harmful than living next to some transformer.

On the other hand, people generally don't care about what they eat and drink or what they ingest. That choice almost certainly has a significant impact on the development of many diseases, including tumors. Through food, we consume massive amounts of chemical compounds, whether they are additives already built into the food (like various preservatives, dyes, sweeteners, or stabilizers) or things sitting on top of the food (for instance, who can guarantee how an apple bought at a farmer's market was sprayed?). And of course, I don't even need to mention smoking, alcohol, stress, or lack of sleep.

People are very prone to attributing their problems to someone else or blaming something else—cell phones, transformer stations, anything at all—because they don't want to face reality and take responsibility for their own behaviors. Please don't think I am contradicting you here; I am speaking in generalities, and this doesn't apply to you or any other specific individual.

But I highly doubt that transformers have any significant role in the development of disease. Besides, I still don't see a mechanism or a way for 50 Hz radiation to actually change anything within our biological systems.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads