Bioelectromagnetics, health and well-being : discussion

Firmly at the heart of any discussion of how or whether NIEMR can affect the health of people, is our understanding of what role electricity, magnetism and electromagnetics play in physiology. Even centuries ago, this was taken for granted but hardly understood at all. Then for many decades electromagnetic processes were excluded from any understanding of biology. This was followed by a resurgence, and pulsed EM and magnetic fields are now regularly used for wound and fracture healing, or pain relief. Fundamental to many complementary approaches to medicine is an understanding of ‘energy’, often expressed in electromagnetic concepts. Some key questions are worth asking, the answers to which are in some cases very clear, to others less so.

  • Complex living organisms generate a wide range of electromagnetic fields, potentials and currents. Is this a by-product or other processes, or is it an essential part of systemic communication? (ie, is the electricity performing the task, or are chemical processes doing the task, and coincidentally producing electric currents and EM fields?) This is the argument that EM fields with informational content (ie appear to mean something) act differently from their purely energetic content.
  • Electric charge and EM fields are clearly characterised by particular frequency ranges. Are these specific to whole body processes, organ function, substructure, cellular or molecular?
  • A number of natural biological frequencies coincide with other natural rhythms: circadian, Schumann etc. Does this mean we are ‘in touch’ with these natural cycles and frequencies, and if so, how? Are our EM fields synchronised? Are subtle currents induced, or is it just coincidence?
  • Vertical electric potentials develop in any conducting body on the earth, due to potential differences between ground and atmosphere. Since we have evolved in this environment, and our sense of well-being reflects the state of natural potentials, what effect do artificial environments have on health?
  • Electric shocks and high powered NIEMR are clearly harmful, causing rapid damage and even death. But we know that extremely subtle electric and electromagnetic processes occur in the body. If big sudden impacts affect us, can very subtle external fields do so as well?
  • The human body contains a vast array of electrically resonant structures, conducting and semiconducting material, structures that can hold charge, liquid crystals, magnetite, piezo-electric minerals etc. In what ways can external fields be ‘received’ or interpreted, or are we immune to them?
  • If the body has electrically conductive streams around its entirety, can particular structures behave as antennae (ie specific frequencies cause the greatest induction of currents in parts of it)?
  • A number of researchers have claimed that ‘entrainment’ can take place, where internal bioelectromagnetic frequencies fall into synch with external NIEMR frequencies. What effects might entrainment have?
  • The principle of resonance is that tiny inputs can build up much bigger outputs. Can strong external specific frequencies disrupt internal processes at any level?
  • Given the subtlety of internal bioelectromagnetics, how might we be certain at what level or frequency external fields start to have influence?

A common theme, then, is whether external fields influence internal fields and flows.

The assumption underlying EM body scanners is that they do, at molecular or atomic level.
The assumption made by fracture surgeons with difficult cases, is that they do, at cellular level.
The assumption by midwives and chronic pain therapists, is that they do, at neurological level.
The assumption by space health experts is that they do, at whole organism level.
However:
The assumption made by international protection guidelines is that they do not.

Is it just a matter of magnitude? Do carrier wave frequencies matter? Do modulation frequencies matter? Clearly these are vital questions, and we do know quite a lot towards the answers. Living with electricity may therefore present real hazards to health, and by understanding them we can reduce them. But the position must be one of preparedness to accept aspects that are not good, as much as aspects that may be beneficial. Robert Becker and Royal Raymond Rife are two examples among many whose life’s work was enthusiastically dedicated to healing through electromagnetics. And yet both were put down by personal and vested interests, and extremely valuable advances in potential new ways of healing, probably to the detriment of generations of people.

It might appear quite reasonable then that a subgroup of every country’s population appear to be aware, feel, experience various symptoms that they attribute to external NIEMR and fields, emanating from appliances or infrastructures. Why is it so unreasonable to suppose that the EM environment we have created and continue to expand, might just be affecting vital processes over the long term?

If we were all machines, constructed and programmed with a number of subsystems, each might be tested against another machine and the specification, and faults could be detected, design errors identified, or interference understood. More to the point, most machines would behave the same way. Health and well-being is not quite so simple, however, and the assumption that NIEMR provocation (subjecting people systematically to sample radiation) is a successful method of determining certain threshold effects, is inadequate.

What then of epidemiology? We present a number of cases of epidemiological surveys that aimed to reveal patterns of health from chronic exposure to power frequency or radio/microwave radiation. Establishment sources without fail dismiss all of these as inadequate, and yet cannot be persuaded to try and do better.

Environmental EM fields is a health issue, and concerns are widespread. Our pages will help you see what science has been able to demonstrate of our bioelectromagnetic processes, and of the impact of external fields and frequencies. Hopefully, learning to live with electricity can be addressed openly, and we can work together the issues of biocompatibility.

print-friendly page print-friendly page

top of page
top of page
 

© 2008 The h.e.s.e. Project : Human Ecological Social Economic About this site