### MindNet is no longer active.

#### Back to MindNet Index

    ================================================================
       MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 82
    ================================================================
       V E R I C O M M sm         "Quid veritas est?"
    ================================================================

    The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
    views and opinions of VERICOMM or the editors, unless otherwise
    noted.

    The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
    the author.

    Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
    non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
    copy remain intact and unaltered.

    Copy formatted in ASCII. Netscape mail reader format:
    "Options/Mail & News Preferences/Appearance" = Fixed Width Font.

    ================================================================

    ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR

    By Steve Mizrach

    July 1996

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Introduction

    The question of what influence Extra-Low Frequency (ELF)
    Electromagnetic (EM) fields have on behavior of organisms can
    only be understood in light of the fledgling field of
    radiobiology. The theory that one's mind is being controlled by
    waves being beamed by some ultrasecret conspiracy is one found
    among almost every stripe of paranoid; lest we excite such
    individuals, we must tread very carefully. Since 60 Hz ELF
    fields surround almost all electrical appliances, and are
    particularly acute near power transformers, if a risk exists, it
    must be dealt with; yet our lives are extensively dependent on
    electrical power, and altering our demand for it is something
    that requires definitive proof of a health risk.

    Some history

    It was an individual named Luigi Galvani who first noted that
    the muscles of a frog's leg responded to electrical stimulation.
    Later researchers of the 18th century would discuss a great deal
    about "animal electricity," and a French philosopher named La
    Mettrie adjudged from this electrical basis of life that
    organisms could really be seen as machines. Electricity was "in
    the air," during the 18th and 19th century, so much so that the
    "spark of life" could be seen as electrical, and novels like
    Frankenstein could be written where a "modern Prometheus" gave
    life to dead matter through a stroke of lightning. A diletantte
    called Mesmer claimed to discover an "animal magnetism" through
    which he could cure his patients' ailments; that other savant of
    electricity, Benjamin Franklin, was called over to investigate
    and discovered Mesmer to be a charlatan. Yet "mesmerism" still
    exists, an unexplained phenomenon owed less to Mesmer than one
    of his disciples, a Frenchman named Charcot. (He was one of the
    first investigators to examine the psychology of "memerized"
    patient, and the physiology of the trance state.) One of the
    powerful debates of the late 19th century involved "vitalism" --
    was there some unique, vitalizing energy that made organisms
    different from dead matter? As chemists found that they could
    easily and artificially create organic substances such as urea,
    the vitalist position fell out of favor, and Joseph Needham, a
    biochemist, proclaimed in the early 1930s that "the vitalist
    position was firmly and finally refuted."

    During this time when mechanical explanations of life were
    proliferating, the world was slowly becoming electrified. Tesla
    and Edison argued back and forth, electrocuting animals with
    each other's form of current (AC or DC) for evidence, as to
    whose form of power was more dangerous; but as power lines
    slowly began to cover the globe, the question as to what effect
    they might have was largely ignored. Only recently had a clerk
    named Maxwell showed that electrical and magnetic fields were
    largely aspects of the same force, electromagnetism. And as
    Marconi made possible the transmission of radiofrequency (RF)
    waves, the human species suddenly became bathed in a sea of EM
    radiations it had never been exposed to, with the ozone layer
    filtering out many non-visible frequencies. Then in 1939, a
    genius or a crank (depending on how you look at it) named George
    Lakhovsky released a tract entitled _The Secret of Life: Cosmic
    Rays and Radiations of Living Beings_. There had been some
    discussion before his time of possible "mitogenic" rays or "N"
    rays having influences on the growth and development of
    organisms, but it had been largely ignored.

    Lakhovsky theorized that "the cell, essential organic unit in
    all living beings, is nothing but an electromagentic resonator
    capable of absorbing radiations of all frequencies." Lakhovsky
    suggested that cells were "oscillating circuits," that had
    natural frequencies of resonance. Having observed orientation in
    animals and other phenomena, Lakhovsky concluded that some of
    the semi-crystalline matter within the cell nucleus might
    exhibit electrical conductance. He coined the study of such
    properties "radiobiology." Following Lakhovsky, neovitalism had
    a raging revival. Wilhelm Reich claimed to discover a biological
    energy called orgone, closely related to but distinct from
    electrical energy. Professors Saxton and Burr at Yale used a
    supra-sensitive voltmeter to measure electrical capacitance in
    the skin and claimed to discover that it changed according to
    health and other biological changes. Professor Seymour Kirlian
    in the Soviet Union discovered a photographic technique that
    made manifest fantastic electrical displays around living
    organisms, also apparently correlated with their vital state
    and health.

    In that time of tumult and distrust of public authority, the
    1960s, many people began to become alarmed at the spreading
    growth of microwave transmission towers. Openly and aloud, they
    wondered what health effects the EM fields these towers
    generated might have on people nearby. And so many scientists,
    not just those on the fringe, began to investigate the
    relationship of EM and life, in earnest. Then, in 1977 a
    muckraker named Paul Brodeur stepped on the scene, publicizing a
    little-known study by epidemiologists Nancy Wertheimer and Ed
    Leeper made in 1975 which claimed to find a higher than normal
    incidence of childhood leukemia in those houses closest to
    secondary electrical wires (leading from transformers) where the
    highest ELF strength levels were also found. The matter bounced
    back and forth; as recently as 1989, the question of ELF fields
    radiated by electric blankets for pregnant mothers and by Video
    Display Terminals (VDTs) for office workers became an issue of
    public health concern.

    Hence we shall closely examine one question in particular: what
    role do ELF fields play in the behavior of organisms? And is
    that role significant enough to consider ELF fields a risk? And
    what can be done if they are?

    Theoretical Issues

    Scientists have usually been wary of any suggestion that
    nonionizing radiation might have biological effects. Ionizing
    radiation, which usually involves radioactive decay of unstable
    isotopes, usually generates dense alpha and beta particles
    (which are really atomic helium nuclei) which can impact on
    tissue and have significant repercussions. Nonionizing (that is,
    EM) radiation involves only massless photons, of varying energy,
    which as bosons (carriers of force) really are quanta of
    information. Up until the 1960s, it was thought that the only
    effects such energy could have would be thermal, i.e. raise the
    temperature of organisms. It is only due to the growing
    influence of cybernetics and system theory that the
    informational aspect of organisms is becoming more appreciated,
    and it is precisely from the perspective of EM radiation as a
    carrier of information in the organism that effects are being
    studied.

    EM fields present a particular problem because in the "real
    world" such fields do not spread out evenly over space. Dosimetry
    depends a great deal on how close one is to the center of the
    field, orientation, parts of the body exposed, shielding of the
    object, and other conditions. Strangely, exposure in ELF fields
    almost seems to work against typical force laws: it decreases
    near the generator, increases over a particular zone, and then
    falls off again toward the periphery of the field. Those ELF
    fields generated by various electrical carriers and devices are
    often rapidly alternating in flux and intensity. Many of these
    unpredictable conditions can be hard to take account of in the
    laboratory, which is a further obstacle to research.

    Negative findings certainly do abound in the field. There are
    many studies that report that periodic daily exposure of cats to
    PF (power-frequency) 60 Hz fields for 6 to 8 months shows little
    or no change in behavior.[1] However, the inadequacy of many of
    these results is due to the same problem that occurs with tests
    of low-level ionizing radiation. People can be exposed to such
    fields for years, not just months, and the studies of long-term
    effects over 20 or 30 years just have not been done. Likewise,
    the interaction and superposition of such artificial ELF fields
    with natural ambient EM radiation (such as occurs in the real
    world but not behind lead laboratory walls) has not been
    examined -- the possibility of a synthetic effect. And in many
    cases the researchers ignored entirely behavioral changes of a
    very subtle nature, which would have been noticed by better
    schedule-controlled procedures. Nevertheless, negative data is
    there and cannot be dismissed; however, this paper concerns
    itself with positive results, and searches for possible
    mechanisms for such results.

    Behavioral Studies

    Perhaps the longest recognized EM effects on human subjects have
    been perceptual changes. One of the earliest students of
    magnetic effects, D'Arsonval, noted that placing a changing
    magnetic fields near a subject's head caused them to see
    sparkling motes of light. These motes, known as phosphenes,
    appear when the eyes are closed tightly, and also immediately
    after one stares at a bright light. They appear to be
    fundamental "building blocks" of vision and are prominent during
    hallucinogenic states as well. Audial effects have also been
    noted; many persons report an audible clicking sound in their
    ears or a hissing noise when they are exposed to a radar beam.
    It is possible that this sound may result from small
    "shock-waves" in the fluids of the cochlea in the inner ear,
    which may also explain the occasional distortion of balance or
    orientation caused by a RF beam.[2] Apparently, even deaf people
    can hear microwaves pulsed at 300-3000 MHz as booming, hissing,
    clicking, or buzzing. In addition to auditory sensations,
    vestibular sensations were often noted as being similar to
    seasickness; the researcher suspected that temporal-lobe
    stimulation in the brain might be responsible.[3] Many Navy
    radar operators, who worked with cathode-ray screens analogous
    to modern VDTs, reported problems of perceptual fatigue: blurred
    vision, irritated, watery eyes, visually-related headaches.[4]
    The problem with the study, and others similar to it, was that
    it did not really isolate possible eyestrain and other
    stress-related factors from ones related to screen radiation.
    Other sensory changes have been noted; one scientist even claims
    that auditory hallucination can occur infrequently when one is
    exposed to an extremely strong pulse of EM radiation.[5]

    Another class of ELF EM effects include circadian rhythm
    changes, which in turn affect biological clocks.
    Visible-frequency (VF) light has long been known as an important
    zeitgeiber with biological rhythms. Strong natural light can be
    an effective treatment for seasonal depression, jet-lag, and
    other circadian disorders.[6] It may be the case that non-VF EM
    frequencies may alter those rhythms. Rabbits exposed to 2950 MHz
    microwaves showed changes in both the amplitude and phase of the
    circadian rhythm of cell division.[7] In a test of monkeys
    exposed for 2 weeks to 39 kV/m ELF fields, 75% showed
    significant changes in their circadian cycles.[8] Rhythms of
    oxidative metabolism were phase shifted in male mice after
    exposure to ELF fields; most importantly, nighttime synthesis of
    biosynthetic enzymes in the pineal gland was reduced.[9] It is
    possible that even EEG rhythms may be altered by EM induction.
    When fields are at the upper theta range (7 Hz), increased EEG
    activity in the 6-8 Hz range in the hippocampus, amygdala, and
    centrum meridianum is noted.[10] It is possible that some of
    these alterations of biological rhythms may explain complaints of
    insomnia and changed sleep habits noted in Soviet ELF
    epidemiological studies, as well as sexual dysfunction (it is
    known that sexual arousal and performance is closely tied to
    somatic rhythms as well).

    A significant category of behavioral response to EM radiation
    has been changed levels of activity or response/ reactivity. In
    many cases, an avoidance reaction to the ELF fields itself has
    been noted. Animals will, in many cases, make a deliberate
    effort to step out of the field. In a 60 Hz field at 75 to 100
    kV/m, rats and swine would avoid exposure, and during their
    inactive period would never spend time in the field.[11] (Humans
    are apparently able to detect and register 50 Hz fields in the
    0.35 kV/m to 27 kV/m range, but do not normally display an
    escape reaction.) Albino rats tested in Eastern bloc countries
    given long-term ELF exposure showed lowered reactivity to
    electric footshock and deficits of performance in the
    shuttlebox.[12] John Ott notes that hyperkinetic activity among
    schoolchildren increases considerably under the multiple
    frequencies given off by fluorescent lighting. Rabbits
    irradiated during four months with microwaves at 10 mW/cm sq. for
    60 min. daily showed an inhibition of conditioned reflexes, and
    even a lack of conditioned reflexes.[13] Rats and monkeys
    exposed to a 2450 MHz field showed disrupted performance on all
    operant schedules.[14] People exposed to 2-12 Hz fields showed
    an increase in reaction time latency. Reduced locomotion and
    exploratory behavior were noted in animals in a 40 MHz field by
    D'Andrea; sexual behavior and dopamine/opiate-related responses
    were noted by Frey and Wesler to be altered in pulsed microwave
    fields; wild mallard ducklings were shown to alter fixed-time,
    schedule-controlled behavior in 3-16 Hz fields.[15]

    Perhaps the most interesting influence of EM fields on animals
    is changes in navigational/orientational ability. Scientists
    have only become recently aware of the ability of many animals to
    navigate utilizing the geomagnetic field. Homing pigeons, for
    example, often were 45 to 180 degress off course if they had bar
    magnets attached to their heads. Birds have piezoelectric
    elements in their feathers; marine vertebrates such as rays and
    eels also apparently utilize EM emissions for navigation,
    showing extreme confusion when a ferromagnetic substance is
    introduced into their tank.[16] It has been found that
    honeybees, which rely on geomagnetism, build bizarre, misshapen
    combs in strong ELF fields. Many microbes display a
    northward-swiming behavior that is reversed upon introduction of
    a Helmholtz coil.[17] Machin noted that an electric fish,
    Gymnarchus niloticus, would respond to a magnet inducing a
    gradient of 0.15 mV/cm; the solid state properties of its bone
    fine structure may act as an oscillator.[18] The question as to
    whether an EMF receptor might exist in humans has been tested,
    and it even appears to a small degree that humans may rely on EM
    cues. Children driven out on a school bus, blindfolded, with bar
    magnets atop their heads, had much more difficulty pointing the
    way home than a control group without such magnets.[19]

    Last, but certainly not least, is the question as to how ELF
    fields may or may not cause discomfort, pain, and/or reduction in
    "quality of life." Needless to say, studies in this area have
    frequently been nonconclusive and highly controversial.
    Long-term exposure to 10 mW/cm fields produced occupational
    complaints in an Eastern bloc survey including dizziness and
    vertigo, headache, restlessness, eye pain, mood changes and
    irritability, nervous tension, memory loss, epigastric pain,
    depression, hypochondria, and fear.[20] A survey of Ed Leeper of
    electric powerline workers found that there was a statistically
    greater incidence of suicide and depression among those workers
    who actually worked near transformers or other sources of strong
    ELF fields than a control group who did not work near such ELF
    sources. (One researcher examined 438,000 deaths of workingmen
    and found that the PMR (proportionate mortality) for leukemia
    was greater in ten out of eleven occupations linked to EM field
    exposure.[21]) Yet another study by Marino found that job
    quitting rate in electrical-related professions was incredible,
    and he substantiates much of his argument by pointing out the
    extreme rates of health insurance for such occupations. The
    problem with these studies is simple; many variables impinge on
    the "quality of life" in a human subject, and also on his
    willingness to make complaints. Until good controlled studies
    arise to isolate out these uncontrolled variables, the Soviet
    studies and others need corroboration.

    Possible Mechanisms

    In order to understand behavioral changes in organisms exposed
    to ELF fields, we have to begin to grapple with some of the
    neural mechanisms involved. An EPRI study noted that electric
    fields depress in rats the synthesis of melatonin by the pineal
    gland. As melatonin production is keyed to the regulation of the
    circadian "clocks" and also the growth rate of cancer, one
    causal link may already have been found. The same study also
    found that at the cellular level, there may be altered control
    functions involving RNA.[22] The researcher W. Ross Adey thinks
    that protein strands might act as "Trojan horses" allowing weak
    electrical signals to pass through the barrier of the cell's
    membrane potential; and generating rhythmic waves travelling as
    oscillations through the fluid-filled spaces of the brain. Also,
    exposure to 8 kV/m fields has been found to show positive
    changes in catecholamine and acetylcholine neurotransmitters in
    the brain.[23] There has been much research in EM transmission
    as a form of biocommunication and/or informational transfer, and
    Adey's research suggests that the "signal-to-noise" ratio may be
    considerably distorted in the brain and elsewhere by external
    EMF sources.

    An important area of EM effects in organisms is, of course,
    thermoregulatory changes. As the ambient temperature of an
    organism increases, it will undertake behaviors to attempt to
    attain homeostasis. At a frequency of 360 MHz, significant "hot
    spots" in the tail, rectum, and brain area of rats emerged --
    the SAR of the tail reaching as much as 50 times the intensity
    of the whole-body SAR.[24] Since vasodilation in the tail is a
    primary thermoregulatory mechanism of rats, RF-induced localized
    heating of the tail could severely impair overall
    thermoregulation. Possible thermoregulatory changes might result
    in alterations of diet, avoidance of EM exposure, or other
    actions in an attempt to make up for caloric changes or
    discomfort.

    Changes in temperature may not be as important as ionization
    resulting from the attendant "charging" that occurs in an ELF
    field. Although often overemphasized, positive ionization has
    been noted to show an increase in sympathetic nervous system
    activity and attendant heart rate/energy expenditure, whereas
    negative ionization creates a relaxation response by affecting
    the parasympathetic division. (It is for this reason that
    atmospheric changes -- such as the increasing positive
    ionization before a thunderstorm -- often create behavioral
    changes.) One researcher strongly suspects that ionization
    effects may play a role in EM behavioral effects. He correlated
    response to 2400 Hz fields with blood ionization.[25]

    Yet another important factor is genetic, teratogenic (pre-natal)
    effects. It is possible that many behavioral alterations may
    result from ELF disruption of the genetic code involving
    hereditarily-linked behaviors. (Concern over ELF pre-natal
    effects has meant the release of a NIH warning for pregnant
    mothers to avoid electric blankets.) When mother rats were
    exposed to 6000 MHz fields at 35 mW/cm for 8 hours daily
    throughout their pregnancy, pups were born exhibiting
    differences in eye opening, postnatal growth, water T-maze
    performance, and activity in an open field test.[26] When
    Leghorn chicken eggs were exposed to 100 Hz, 1.2 uT fields,
    abnormalities in the cephalic and truncal nervous systems at
    high intensities were noted, and the researcher linked this to
    changes in observed glycosaminoglycans, which have electrostatic
    properties and are involved in morphogenesis and cell
    differentiation.[27] One researcher noted the
    electro-orientational nature of the formation of blastosomes in
    the developing foetus, and found that ELF fields did play some
    role in organ formation and differentiation.[28]

    Most of the cellular studies involving ELF effects suggest that
    it is the cell membrane that is involved. There has been found a
    10 to 20% alteration in calcium exchange from chick or cat brain
    tissues exposed to ELF fields. Neurons may be a type of cell
    particularly vulnerable. A transient change in the neuron firing
    rate of Aplysia neurons was noted during exposure to
    frequencies at 1 Hz and .25 V/m RMS.[29] EM fields clearly play
    a role in nerve regeneration; three mechanisms proposed for
    neurite promotion by ELF fields include redistribution of
    cytoplasmic material; alteration of membrane potential
    asymmetry; and electrophoretic redistribution of charged surface
    molecules in the plasma membrane.[30]

    Since there are specialized receptors in the retina to respond
    to VF (visible frequency) radiation, it is possible that there
    may be receptors in the brain or other parts of the nervous
    system that react to non-VF EM radiation. One researcher
    discovered that neuronal activity near the temporal lobe
    increased dramatically when the brain was exposed to
    low-frequency fields of alternating intensity, but could not
    establish a brain area specific to this activity.[31] There would
    have to be some adaptational significance for such a receptor,
    but biologists can only speculate on the survival value of an EM
    receptor in humans. Another scientist considered that such a
    receptor might have evolved to function in times when the
    atmosphere failed to block out more harmful radiation
    wavelengths, and remains as a vestigial holdover.[32] In
    general, studies in this area simply have not been done, simply
    because scientists do not see the evolutionary advantage
    conferred by such a structure, particularly in humans.

    Controversies

    Within radiobiology, as in any other field, there is a
    considerable "fringe" dealing with issues largely based on rumor,
    speculation, anecdotal evidence, and making a spectacle of
    various evidence. There is little data to support some of these
    wild controversies, and to be fair to their proponents, even
    mentioning them to "mainstream" radiobiologists is guaranteed to
    generate contention. Such issues include several questions. Does
    the EM radiation of celestial bodies such as the sun and moon
    influence behavior? (To many scientists this smacks of
    astrology.) Do human beings have a surrounding EM field? (The
    so-called Kirlian "aura.") Has electromagnetism been used during
    the Cold War as a weapon by the superpowers? (Once again, great
    fodder for paranoiacs and propagandists.) These questions are
    definitely on the "fringe," but radiobiology has little to say
    on them either way, for the moment.

    The possibility that behavior changes might be produced by EM
    radiations in the environment has led to all sorts of
    speculations. Many researchers have tried to compare outbreaks
    of wars, societal collapses, and other mass behavioral changes
    with sunspots, claiming that the changing surface of the sun
    results in increased emission of RF and other wavelengths
    reaching Earth. It is known that changes in the sun's output
    does create some biological changes, such as in tree ring
    formation, but behavioral links have not been fully established.
    Yet others claim that the moon may exert an influence on
    geomagnetism, which in turn can affect behavior, producing
    "lunacy." Studies of asylum admissions and homicide reports
    during the full moon in Dade County show, somewhat
    inconclusively, that the moon may drive us to madness after all.
    (What is known is that there are definite external EM zeitgiebers
    to many biological clocks... behavioral influences are harder to
    prove.)

    The question as to whether humans might have an electromagnetic
    sense is also rather controversial. It does appear that people
    are somewhat sensitive to the orientation of the geomagnetic
    field. However, dowsers and members of geomantic societies (such
    as the feng-shui practitioners) claim that humans are extremely
    sensitized to geomagnetism, and recently there has been some
    speculation that this may be due to the presence of an EM field
    surrounding the human body. The Kirlian "aura" photographs show
    dramatic discharges from the human body (although how much this
    has to do with an intrinsic field is in dispute) and the Soviets
    recently have devoted congresses to the topic of "bioplasma,"
    i.e. the notion of a human energy field. Acupuncturists claim
    they can identify meridians of energy flow along the body; these
    may possibly correspond to the DC current flow observed during
    limb regeneration, (just how much the Chinese ch'i corresponds
    to Western concepts is difficult to say) and may explain the
    success reported in electrifying the needles. In general, the
    reputableness of this human EM-field literature is scanty.

    Another area where there has been a great deal of speculation is
    regarding the possibility of an electromagnetic "Cold war"
    going on between the superpowers even during apparent detente.
    When it was found that the Soviets were "zapping" the U.S.
    Embassy in Moscow with low-intensity microwaves, all sorts of
    people started suggesting, in typical paranoid fashion, that
    they might be "beaming" ELF waves as an attempt at "mind
    control," or at least to make life tough for the ambassadors.
    (In all likelihood, it was all probably part of an ongoing
    "bugging" campaign by the Russians.) In any case, both countries
    do have an Electromagnetic Warfare division, and many people do
    suspect that ELF-based weapons designed to confuse, disorient,
    or weaken the morale of the enemy have been devised. However,
    the greatest EM danger is really posed by the nuclear arsenals
    of both nations: detonation of even a small aerial nuclear
    device could create an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) which might
    disrupt telecommunications and electronics severely.

    Conclusions

    Until more is known about just what role EM energies play in the
    human organism, as to whether ELF fields pose a "health hazard"
    remains unresolved. ELF fields do clearly have biobehavioral
    effects, but there is a great deal of difference between a
    minor, transient biological effect and a life-threatening health
    hazard. Some of the changes reported -- minor offset of
    circadian rhythms, change in a few somatic cells -- do not appear
    to constitute any real "hazard." And those studies that indicated
    something more serious -- influence on germ plasm, etc. --
    usually involved almost impossible levels of exposure. The data
    seem to suggest that the biggest danger from ELF fields is
    continuous, ongoing, round-the-clock exposure. Those who probably
    have the most to worry about are those who are around high-field
    appliances constantly (hairdryers?), electrical-related
    professions (such as power line workers), VDT users (such as
    computer programmers), and radar operators. Reasons for this
    include the fact that most of the EM effects seem to be more
    connected to length of exposure than intensity.

    The problem with current human behavioral studies is that it is
    hard to isolate out the causes of human behavior. Is the person
    suffering from depression from other causes, perhaps
    biochemical, or is it really only his EMF exposure which is
    responsible? Also, there has not been sufficient control of
    exposure modalities -- how much of the body is exposed, for how
    long, at what amounts, at what frequency, in what size resonance
    cavity, etc. Until there are more experiments done that attempt
    to control these factors, the precise role of ELF fields in human
    behavioral changes remains, sadly, indeterminate. But the
    position of this paper is to urge such studies be done,
    immediately and carefully, for if health hazards are detected,
    new exposure safety standards may have to be mandated. There are
    clear neuronal and other biophysical alterations that could lead
    to behavioral abnormalities. It is possible that some people may
    be more vulnerable than others, perhaps even having a genetic
    predisposition to being more affected by ambient ELF fields.

    At the most extreme, we may have to witness a partial
    de-electrification of our heavily EM-bathed world. Due to the
    fact that there is a more clear effect notable in the RF
    (radiofrequency) range, new exposure guidelines may need to be
    set soon. As far as electrically generated ELF fields, there
    simply is not enough research out there. But good, controlled,
    human-volunteer studies with adequate controls need to be done,
    over long periods of time. Then we may be able to really answer
    the question of whether or not ELF fields pose a health hazard.

    REFERENCES

    [1] Gandhi, "Biological Effects of ELF PF radiation," 1977.

    [2] Chou, Chung-Kwang; Guy, Arthur W.; Galambos, Robert.,
    "Auditory perception of radio-frequency electromagnetic
    fields," 1982.

    [3] Frey, A.H., "Auditory system response to RF energy,"
    Aerosp Med., 1961.

    [4] Smith, Prof. Karl U., "Radar Operator Fatigue," 1944.

    [5] Persinger, M., "ELF fields and Temporal-Lobe episodes,"
    1983.

    [6] Ott, John, "Light, Radiation, & You," 1981.

    [7] Baranski, S.; Czerski, P., "Biological Effects of
    Microwaves," 1971.

    [8] Sulzman; Murrish, 1987.

    [9] Duffy; Ehret; and Wilson, 1982.

    [10] Badwin, Suzanne M.; and Gavalas-Medici, J.; Rochelle,
    "Reinforcement of Transient Brain Rhythms by
    Amplitude-Modulated VHF fields," 1974.

    [11] Hjeresen; Rosenberg, 1983.

    [12] Rudnev, 1978.

    [13] Lobovna, E.A., "The use of conditioned reflexes to study
    microwave effects on the CNS," 1974.

    [14] DeLorge, 1975.

    [15] Feldstone, 1969.

    [16] Kalmijin, 1971.

    [17] Blakemore, 1978.

    [18] Becker, 1972.

    [19] Copson, 1984.

    [20] Sadcikova; Gordon, "Report of the Institute of Industrial
    Hygiene and Occupational Diseases," 1973.

    [21] Milham, Dr. Samuel J. Jr., report in New England Journal
    of Medicine, 1982.

    [22] Electric Power Research Institute, "Pursuing the Science
    of EMF," 1990.

    [23] Bawin, S.M., 1972.

    [24] D'Andrea; Shapiro, 1987.

    [25] Tansley, David V., _Subtle Energy_, 1987.

    [26] O'Connor, 1988.

    [27] Delgado, J.M., "Embryological changes produced by weak
    VLF fields," 1982.

    [28] Jaffe; Pilla, 1964.

    [29] Sheppard, "Cell surface polarization in biological ELF
    effects," 1977.

    [30] Neumann; Katchalsky, "Long lived confirmation changes
    induced by electric impulses in biopolymers," 1972.

    [31] Persinger, 1982.

    [32] Thomas, "Is there an EM specific response in the nervous
    system?," 1967.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    MindNet Journal FTP Archive Filename: [mn180.txt]
    ================================================================

    To receive the MindNet Journal via email:

    Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .

    To unsubscribe:

    Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

    Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
    FTP Archive site:  [/users/vericomm/mindnet/].

    MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt].

    Letters to editor, Mike Coyle: .

    Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
    Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
    weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
    bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
    will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
    to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
    reject for publication. The publisher disclaims all
    responsibility to return unsolicited matter. Send articles
    for submission to: , or VERICOMM, POB
    32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

    VERICOMM (sm) and its agents disclaim any and all
    responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
    guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
    merchandise, and/or services offered for sale by advertisers
    and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.

    The MindNet Journal mailing list is owned and maintained by
    VERICOMM (sm), POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

    The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM (sm) in
    cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB
    35072, Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.

    ================================================================

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXX  XXXX  X      X       X  X      X      X   X   X   X   XXXX
    XXXXX  XX  XX  XXXXX  XXX  X  X  XXXXX  XX  X  X X  X  X X  XXXX
    XXXXXX    XXX  xxxxX      XX  X  XXXXX  XX  X  XXX  X  XXX  XXXX
    XXXXXXX  XXXX      X  XXX  X  X      X      X  XXX  X  XXX  smXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX