|
“The possibility of nonthermal coupling of electromagnetic radiation to biological systems has been considered recently [Kirschvink, 1992]. Reiter [1993] has reviewed the literature on the possible effects of static and low frequency electromagnetic fields on the production of melatonin by the pineal gland. A study by de Seze, [1998,1999] showed no influence of microwave frequency radiation on melatonin secretion. However, Kirschvink et al. [1992] and Kirschvink [1996] have shown the presence of minute crystals of magnetite in the human brain and have suggested a mechanism for coupling of microwave radiation to them. Additional research on the nonthermal effects of microwave radiation is definitely warranted.”
“In conclusion, we believe that even a very small risk of possible nonthermal coupling of radiation to microcrystals in the pineal gland merits further detailed study. Our future research will address these questions.”
To my mind, the significant features that can be used in the current debate are:
The human pineal gland, in the centre of the brain, has been found to contain large numbers of calcite micro-crystals that “bear a striking resemblance” to calcite crystals found in the inner ear. The ones found in the inner ear have been shown to exhibit the quality of piezoelectricity. If those found in the pineal gland also have this quality then this would provide a means whereby an external electromagnetic field might directly influence the brain.
Both the Stewart Report and the NRPB Report consider at some length how it might be possible for non-thermal levels of microwave radiation to affect a living organism.
In the Stewart Report, Section 5 paragraphs 12 through to 26 detail the sort of requirements that might have to apply in order for an electromagnetic field to directly affect biological tissue – living cells. Nowhere in these paragraphs is the possibility considered of any form of crystalline deposit which might provide the ‘missing link’ between electromagnetic radiation and biological effects. It’s interesting to note, though, that paragraph 18 does refer to a suggestion by Frohlich that a biological system might behave in some way like a radio receiver, amplifying a very small signal through a process of resonance; this idea is dismissed due to the unlikelihood of biological material resonating in this way – but of course one of the earliest types of radio was the ‘crystal set’, in which a mineral crystal was made to resonate (by tuning with a ‘cats whisker’) with an incoming radio wave, which is simply an electromagnetic wave of rather lower frequency than microwaves. The conclusion of this section was that “…there is little evidence to support resonant behaviour…”. The existence in the pineal gland of crystals which may prove to exhibit piezoelectric properties puts the whole issue in a totally different light – particularly in a scenario where the absolute requirement is to ‘play it safe’ (Stewart’s ‘Precautionary Principle’). (It’s worth noting that paragraph 5.6 of this report considers the possibility of the magnetite crystals (see above) providing a causal link, and discounts this on scientific grounds. It goes on to say: “Indeed, it seems to be generally agreed that any biological effects from mobile phones are much more likely to result from electric rather than from magnetic fields.” Note that piezoelectric qualities do link electric fields to mechanical effects.) In the NRPB Report on TETRA, paragraphs 78 to 102 consider the effect of radiation, amplitude modulated (pulsed) at around 16Hz (cycles/second), on calcium efflux in the brain – the basis of the Stewart Report warning against using this pulsing frequency. Paragraphs 92-96, a substantial proportion of the latter half of this section, are devoted almost entirely to highlighting the fact that no clear mechanism has yet been identified to explain the effects observed by some researchers. The obvious inference that readers are expected to draw is that, because no clear explanation is apparent, these effects are highly questionable – indeed, one sentence in paragraph 95 almost says as much. Again, with the sort of causal link that may be provided by microcrystals interspersed among the organic matter of the brain, the perspective on this aspect of the issue is dramatically altered.
In brief, then:
Two things can be definitively stated from this research so far:
|