Frey Ch1 On the Nature of Electromagnetic Field Interactions With Biological Systems 1996

7/30/2019 Frey Ch1 On the Nature of Electromagnetic Field Interactions With Biological Systems 1996

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/frey-ch1-on-the-nature-of-electromagnetic-field-interactions-with-biological 1/20

On the nature of electromagnetic field interactions with biological

systems.

Allan H Frey

Chapter 1

OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

Allan H. Frey

In recent years, a body of data on the interactions of exogenous

and endogenous electromagnetic fields with biological systems has been

gathered which is profoundly changing our understanding of biological

function. This book is intended to provide the reader with: 1) an

integration of many of the findings from this research that bear on the

nature of the interactions of electromagnetic fields with biological

systems, 2) a summarization of much of the cutting edge work on the

mechanisms and 3) an indication of its significance for biology.

The significance for biology can be understood if the reader

considers that if one used electromagnetic energy sensors to view the

world from space 100 years ago, the world would have looked quite

dim. Now, the world glows with electromagnetic (em) energy emissions



at most frequencies of the nonionizing portion of the spectrum. It would

be incredible and beyond belief if these electromagnetic fields did not

affect the electrochemical systems we call living organisms. And since

living organisms have only so recently found themselves immersed in

this new and increasingly ubiquitous environment, they have not had

opportunity to adapt to it. This gives us, as biologists, the opportunity to

use exogenous em fields as probes to study the functioning of living

systems. We now also have a new technology to study endogenous em

fields. This is exciting since new approaches to studying living systems

so often provides the means to make great leaps in science.

Specifically, living organisms are complex electrochemical

systems that evolved over millions of years in a world with a relatively

weak magnetic field and with few electromagnetic energy emitters. As

is characteristic of living organisms, they interacted with and adapted to

their environment of electric and magnetic fields. One example of this

adaptation is the visual system, which is exquisitely sensitive to

emissions in the very narrow portion of the em spectrum that we call

light. Organisms, including humans, also adapted by using em energy to

regulate various critical cellular systems; we see this in the complex of

circadian rhythms. Fish, birds, and higher animals developed systems to



use electromagnetic fields to sense prey and to navigate. Electromagnetic fields are also involved in neural membrane function;

even protein conformation involves the interactions of electrical fields. But as has often been the case in the history of science, though

these were interesting observations, they were disconnected bits and

pieces that made no real impact; they didn't fit the frame of reference of

the time. Further, the technology and techniques needed to do much

with the information did not exist. Thus, the very broad importance of

the interactions of electromagnetic fields with biological systems was

not really recognized. But that was yesterday. Now, as James Burke

1 might put it, is (figuratively) the day the Universe changed.

Organization of the chapters

In the next chapter, the second, I integrate many of the above

mentioned disconnected bits and pieces and show how they are

expressions of a common theme. In this way, I provide a context or

structure for viewing the information provided in the following chapters. The third chapter is a review, from the biophysical standpoint, of data

bearing on cell mechanisms. The authors of the fourth through sixth

chapters provide models for mechanisms at the cell membrane, some



data on the membrane interactions of em fields and one provides a

broader view.

The seventh chapter begins a description of the events that occur

within the cell, from the cell membrane to the nucleus; the signal

cascade. The recounting of theory and data on the signal cascade is

continued through chapter ten. Chapters eleven and twelve are

concerned, to a limited extent, with the immune system and its

interaction with electromagnetic fields. The final chapters, thirteen and

fourteen, provide information on electromagnetic field interactions with

the nervous system. In this way, a coherent and detailed picture of the

current state-of-the-art is presented.

Before beginning the chapters on the nature of the interactions of

electromagnetic fields with biological systems, I will first provide a brief

review of some of the relevant basic physics for the reader unfamiliar

with the area; then I will discuss matters of importance for all readers

bearing on this area of research; then I will briefly mention minor

matters of which the reader, who is motivated to read further in the area,

should be aware. Incidentally, the rest of the physics and the equipment

needed to do biological research in this area of research is readily



available and is no more difficult to learn than what we needed to learn

to do electrophysiology.

Nature of electromagnetic fields The earth is a magnet created by massive currents in the molten

portion of its core. These currents induce an approximately 0.5 gauss

dipolar magnetic field which varies over the surface of the earth. This is

an exogenous field to which all living organisms are essentially always

exposed. There are also a wide variety of natural and artificial

exogenous electromagnetic fields. The natural fields, such as light and

radio frequency emissions from lightning have always been in the

environment of living organisms. The artificial fields, such as

microwaves, radio waves and power line fields are a recent phenomena. The electromagnetic energy spectrum encompasses the

wavelengths from 3 x 107 meters to .003 angstroms as is indicated in Fig

1. This book is concerned with wavelengths longer than those that we

perceive as light. Electromagnetic energy is generated through a change

in the state of motion of an electrical charge. A change in state of

motion is accompanied by the emission or absorption of em energy. The

wavelength of emitted em energy is inversely proportional to the

magnitude of the energy change. As an example of emission, if



electrons are caused to move to and fro along a conductor, the conductor

acts as a transmitting antenna and emits em energy; examples of this are

radio waves. When an electric current flows in a wire at extremely low

frequency, a magnetic field forms around and extends out from the wire;

examples of this are power line fields. Another example is em energy

that is perceived as visible light. This is generated as an electron

changes energy level in moving from one orbit to another in an atom.

Electromagnetic waves vary in space and time and have

associated with them a transport of energy. The physically varying

quantity is really a set of quantities, i.e. electric and magnetic field

vectors. There is an electric (E) field, defined by the force that is exerted

on an electric charge placed in the field and a magnetic (H) field, defined

by the force exerted upon a small electric current element. These fields

vary at any given point with time.

The electric and magnetic fields in an em wave are not

independent entities. Describing the basic transverse wave, they are

perpendicular to each other, and they are both perpendicular to the

direction of propagation. As Figure 2 illustrates, the basic transverse em

wave is one in which E and H vary sinusoidally with a fixed relationship

to each other and to time and space.



There are also standing waves; these are relevant to biology. When an em wave encounters a change in the properties of a medium

such as tissue layers, a partial reflection, absorption, and transmission

occurs. The reflected wave is superimposed upon the incident wave and

gives rise to a standing or locally intensified wave. The energy can be

polarized and the orientation of a conductor, e.g. tissue or wire, can have

a significant effect on the energy distribution. The amount of current, for

example, induced in a wire by an em field is a function of the wire's

orientation with reference to the field.

A wave fluctuating at a frequency of millions of cycles per

second that is propagating through space can be used as a carrier for

various types and frequencies of modulation. This is a significant point

from the biological standpoint, both in terms of effect and measurement. For example, photic driving of the brain occurs with appropriately

modulated light, not with a constant light.

The foregoing capsule review provides the basic information

needed to understand the content of the following chapters.

Matters of importance bearing on the experimentation

As a result of this area of research having its real start because of

a concern about hazards in the 1940's, the tendency has been for people



to use a toxicology model as their frame of reference in the selection,

design and analyses of experiments. They have tended to set up

experiments to look for a "dose-response relationship" between

electromagnetic field exposure and a biological variable. But is a

toxicology model appropriate as a guide for biological research with

electromagnetic fields? It's a crucial question for, as Burke 1 and others

have made quite clear our frame of reference determines what we look at

and how we look. And as a consequence, this determines what we find . Theory and data show that this is the wrong model 2,3,4.

Electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance to living beings like

lead or cyanide. With foreign substances, the greater the dose, the

greater the effect — a dose-response relationship. Rather, living beings

are electrochemical systems that use very low frequency electromagnetic

fields in everything from protein folding through cellular communication

to nervous system function. To model how em fields affect living

beings, one might compare them to the radio we use to listen to music.

The em signal the radio picks up and transduces into the sound of

music is almost unmeasureably weak. At the same time there are, in

toto, strong em fields impinging on the radio. We don't notice the

stronger em signals because they are not the appropriate frequency or



modulation. Thus, they don't disturb the music we hear. However, if

you impose on the radio an appropriately tuned em field or harmonic,

even if it is very weak, it will interfere with the music.

Similarly, if we

impose a very weak em signal on a living being, it has the possibility of

interfering with normal function if it is properly tuned. This is the

model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a

toxicology model.

There are other matters of importance that I would like to bring

to your attention. The physiological state of the organism or specimen

and individual differences among them are of consequence. This is true

in many areas of biology but it is quite clearly true when using

electromagnetic fields as a probe to study biological processes. Some of

the authors in the following chapters provide specific examples of this

fact.

There are specific windows of effectiveness for certain carrier

frequencies and modulation frequencies of electromagnetic energy. There are also intensity windows. These also will be seen in some of the

chapters. But this is so important that it bears taking specific notice of it

here.



The nature of the geomagnetic field in the location where the

experiment is done is also of consequence as is the time of day of the

exposure. This will also become clear in the course of reading several of

the chapters in this book. It appears possible that an organism's response to a low

frequency modulated field is the same as its response to exposure to a

high frequency field which is acting as a carrier for low frequency

modulation. Thus, I have made no attempt to separate out, as different,

data from experiments using low frequency em fields, high frequency

em fields and what are conventionally termed low frequency magnetic

fields.

For the sake of clarity in my discussion, I refer to

electromagnetic fields as being generated by the organism (endogenous)

or as being generated outside of the organism (exogenous). It is

important to keep in mind that the organism does not make such a

distinction. If the exogenous field has the appropriate characteristics, it

can substitute in a biosystem for the endogenous field that normally

interacts with that biosystem. Two somewhat analogous situations will

make this clear. The nervous system doesn't care if the opioid it uses is

self-generated or if it comes as heroin from a poppy plant. The heart



responds to the signal from a man-made pacemaker as well as to a signal

from its own. The ubiquitousness of em fields is also a matter of concern to us

from another standpoint, as experimenters. It is relevant to the question

of controls needed in many biological experiments that seemingly have

nothing to do with electromagnetic fields. Look about the lab and

consider the em fields now being imposed on test specimens by all the

electrical devices in use. How do they influence the results of biological

experiments? This is incidentally touched on in a later chapter.

Minor matters of which one should be aware

Since this area of biological research had its origin in the physics

and engineering communities' concern about the hazards of their high

power equipment in the 1940's, most of the literature on em field

interactions published before the mid 1980's is irrelevant to us as

biologists. Little attention was paid to the variables that are important in

biology. But out of this history came some notions that are not seen in

other areas of biological research. If this book motivates the reader to

read more extensively on the subject, he will come across the residue of

these notions. Thus, I will briefly discuss them here.



Thermal vs non-thermal. From the 1940's through the 1970's

there was a great deal of heated discussion concerning whether

biological effects of exogenous em fields were all "thermal" or some

could be "non-thermal". This led to much fruitless experimentation. As

I noted in one of my papers 5, the thermal vs non-thermal controversy

was one of semantics, not science. There was no common definition of

the words and the proponents talked past each other. Some were

defining thermal in terms of core temperature measured with a rectal

thermometer, whereas others were talking about molecular motion. Further, since the technology did not exist to measure molecular motion,

for example, at a membrane interface during exposure to an em field,

this was a fruitless argument. In addition, the words thermal and non-

thermal are labels, not specifications of biological mechanisms.

As an interesting aside though, one implication of the dopamine-

opiate hypothesis discussed in the next chapter is that em energy

exposure would likely affect the hypothalamic set-point for body

temperature regulation. The mechanism that sets the body's temperature

is located in the hypothalamus and the dopamine-opiate systems are

believed to play an important role in the adjustment of this mechanism

6,7. With all the supporting data on em field effects that have now been



collected, it seems likely that exposure to low intensity em energy could

influence the hypothalamic set-point via the dopamine-opiate systems. The consequence would be a body temperature shift and this has been

reported 8. This is an ironic twist.

SAR. In the 1970's there was a well meaning effort to work out a

dosimetry. The desire was to be able to specify the exposure to em

energy at a relevant point within an organism. Thus, the specific

absorption rate (SAR) concept was developed. In essence, the SAR is a

calculated energy absorption in an assumed homogenous mass of tissue.

All of us are more comfortable when we can quantify in a neat

sort of way. Thus, obtaining a number for dose by use of the SAR

concept is satisfying. But does the SAR concept have any value in the

context of living breathing organisms or is it misleading in that context? If, in fact, the SAR was a point measurement within an organism of the

strength of the field at the locus of an identified biological mechanism,

then everything would be fine. But it is not that. It is a calculated value

from calorimetry or incident field measurement, resting on a foundation

of assumptions. In addition, it is assumed that an average calculated

value for a homogenous whole body mass of tissue is relevant to what



the field is at a point at the locus of a biological mechanism of an effect. But the mechanism and its locus are also unknowns.

I can see the SAR concept having value now with very simple

cell suspension systems. But it has been indiscriminately used to

provide what amounts to a very precise appearing, but pseudo-exposure

number in reports of all sorts of biological experiments - right up to

man. That is the problem and is what the reader has to be alert to. Living organisms are not a homogenous mass, a cup of tea. It matters

where the energy is deposited. One example is all that is needed to

illustrate the problem. If a bullet is fired into the calf of a person's leg,

there will be a deposition of energy and he will be most unhappy. He

might require a day of hospitalization. If the bullet was fired through his

brain, there would be the same deposition of energy, but the result would

be quite different.

Thus, might it not be best at this time to report measured incident

energy, possibly with a "tentative SAR". Then, at such time as we can

exactly specify mechanism, locus of effect, and a non-perturbing means

of making a point measurement in an organism, we can then go back and

use the reported incident energy to calculate a relevant number. For now,



the reader must be wary in reading the interpretations of experiments in

which only SARs are given. Implicit assumptions.

I can think of no better way to start this

section than with a quotation from James Burke 1

"Today we live according to the latest version of how the

universe functions. This view affects our behavior and thought, just as

previous versions affected those who lived with them. Like the people

of the past, we disregard phenomena which do not fit our view because

they are 'wrong'.... Like our ancestors, we know the real truth.

At any time in the past, people have held a view of the way the

universe works which was for them similarly definitive.... And at any

time, that view they held was sooner or later altered by changes in the

body of knowledge."

An example will illustrate his point. In 1915 a German

meteorologist named Alfred Wegener, noting the shape of the continents

and the distribution of fossils, proposed that the continents drifted apart. He suggested that they floated on a sea of heavier basaltic material.

To paraphrase Burke, the proposal was greeted with universal

scorn. The naysayers said that there was no known mechanism which

could move the continents. The soft land masses obviously could not



plow through the hard ocean floor. The problems Wegener had posed

were called pseudo-problems. The bio-geographical similarities of the

fossils were explained away as due to land bridges and blown seeds.

Since the continents did not fit exactly, his proposal had to be wrong. For thirty years Wegener's view was ignored.

In the 1950s, the newly invented magnetometers had shown that

the earth had a magnetic field which was parallel to the axis of rotation. By 1966 magnetic profiles showed that the ocean floor was spreading

outward from the mid-ocean ridges, and it was clear that this mechanism

had slowly pushed the continents apart. This was a mechanism that had

not, and until magnetometers were invented, could not have been

envisioned by the naysayers; besides, they already knew the "real truth".

Or leaving Burke, consider that it used to be a firmly held dogma

of physics that the basic laws of nature are symmetric under reflection.

The quantity conserved by virtue of reflection symmetry is called parity. Every physicist accepted the "law" that parity is conserved.

Then, some particle-collision experiments done by high-energy

physicists resulted in puzzling data for which there were only two

possible explanations: either there were two particles, or else parity was

not conserved in nature. Since violation of a "law" of physics was



considered absurd, physicists were left with the "tau-theta puzzle"; the

data was in limbo. But then an incredible proposal was made by two physicists, T.

D. Lee and C.N. Yang, they proposed that parity is in fact not conserved;

nature is not symmetric under mirror reflection.

The first reaction of most physicists to the Lee-Yang proposal was

incredulity. Wolfgang Pauli, discoverer of the neutrino, electron spin,

and the Pauli exclusion principle, ridiculed the idea of nonconservation

of parity in the weak interactions. The simple confirming experiments

were done by C. S. Wu; and Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel

Prize.

So why have I presented this brief discourse? This area of

biological research is not privileged, it also has its few naysayers who

imagine that they are the possessors of "real truth". The reader who is

motivated to venture into the literature will find them. They like to talk

about the dogma, the "laws of physics". If the data do not conform to

the dogma, then the data must be wrong.

But one does not challenge data with the current dogma. That's

upside down, its the dogma that is tested by data obtained with

constantly increasing precision of measurement and observation.



Observations improve, particularly the ability to measure more and see

more. The test of data is additional, more precise data or data obtained

with new techniques. This is the great leap in thinking that created

Science out of the thinking of the Medieval Age. It is to be expected

that theories conceived at one level of observation will have to be

modified as observational ability improves. This is what some scientists

ignore. They implicitly assume that they have reached a "fundamental"

level of understanding, which leaves no room for even more

fundamental levels of understanding.

References

1. Burke J. The day the Universe Changed. Boston: Little and Co, 1985.

2. Frey A H. Electromagnetic field interactions with biological

systems. FASEB Journal 1993; 7:272-281

3. Frey A H. Evolution and results of biological research with low-

intensity nonionizing radiation. In: A. A. Marino, ed. Modern

Bioelectricity New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc 1988: 785-837.



4. Frey A H. Biological function as influenced by low power modulated

RF energy. IEEE Trans on Microwave Theory and Techniques 1971;

MTT-19:153-164

5. Frey AH. Behavioral biophysics. Psychol Bull 1965; 63:322-337

6. Weiss J, Thompson ML, and Shuster L. Effects of naloxone and

naltrexone on drug-induced hypothermia in mice. Neuropharmacology

1984; 23(5):483-489

7. Glick SD and Guido RA. Naloxone antagonism of the

thermoregulatory effects of phencyclidine. Science 1982; 217(24):

1272-1273

8. Lai H, Horita A, and Chou C et al. The pharmacology of post

exposure hyperthermia response to acute exposure to 2450 MHz pulsed

microwaves. Bioelectromagnetics Society Sixth Annual Meeting,

Atlanta, GA, 1984.



Figure captions

Fig. 1

Electromagnetic field spectrum.

ELF refers to extremely low

frequency waves in a broad sense; this includes power line frequencies. X refers to ionizing radiation such as x-rays. This book is primarily

concerned with the portion of the spectrum from infrared through ELF.

Fig. 2 Spatial variation of E and H in a simple TEM wave.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ma-doc
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Frey Ch1 On the Nature of Electromagnetic Field Interactions With Biological Systems 1996

Documents