Quantitative ans Qualitative Analysis of Effects of EMF Radiation

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Altering the Effects of EMF Radiations

by Michael Theroux

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their detrimental effects on humans have become a popular topic among many researchers today. On one side of the debate, we still have researchers touting the possible healing effects of certain electromagnetic devices, while on the other side, investigative inquiries suggest that the effects of all EMFs are quite harmful to the living – citing such consequences as nerve damage, cellular disequilibrium, fatigue syndromes, and more. But, the argument cannot be thoroughly approached within the confines of modern analysis which defines an effect exclusively by that which it can measure. One must begin to understand that definite qualitative differences apply to this subject as well. These qualities cannot be assumed to represent only the component characteristics of electromagnetic fields such as the magnetic, electric, and the properties of these fields such as frequency or duration.

This is where we break with tradition by suggesting that EMFs and their associated components also possess differences in qualities not measurable by standard detection equipment. While conventionally we may measure the strength or frequency of a particular field, we have in no way determined all of its qualitative characteristics. A simple analog would be to say we have two baskets of ten apples. The apples in basket A look the same as basket B; there are ten in each basket (strength), and each basket weighs the same (frequency). But, upon tasting the apples, one finds the apples in basket A are ·much better than basket B, and basket A’s apples are crisper. So, our quantitative analysis of measure and weight has done no service to our determination of these qualities. This, of course, applies to EMFs when determining their possible harmful effects on the living. The experiments provided in the following pages were initially designed to place emphasis on the understanding of their qualitative results, but as we shall see, certain quantitative tests can also reveal that a qualitative change has occurred.

Our focus in this report will be limited to those effects produced by the emissions of computer monitors and televisions. Computer monitors and televisions all possess what is known as a CRT or cathode ray tube. The front of this tube is actually the screen of the TV or VDT (computer monitors are often called “visual display terminals “J and the tube functions by firing electrons at the phosphorus-coated screen to create the image. The emissions from the screen are composed of an electric and magnetic field and are at many frequencies, including ELF (extra low frequency), UV (ultraviolet), and visible light.

MAGNETIC AND ELECTRIC FIELDS

In order to understand what we are being exposed to in front of our computers and TVs we need to break down the EMFs into their respective components. The electric part of the field is the electrical charge surrounding an object. Electric fields are present whether a device is turned on or off. They are easily shielded by many objects. The magnetic field results from the motion of electric charge (current), and disappears when a device is turned off. Magnetic fields are difficult to shield, and will pass through almost anything that does not possess a high content of iron. Electric fields are usually measured in volts per meter (vfm), or kilovolts per meter (kvfm), and magnetic fields are measured in milligauss (mG).

Because the magnetic portion of the combined field goes through the body (penetrating the cell wall), it has been considered by some to be the most dangerous. While electric fields will stop on the surface of the skin, they should not be considered harmless. Which component of the field is more biologically damaging is still debatable. Studies suggest that dangerous exposure levels to the magnetic field are generally considered to be over 3 mG. Exposure to electric fields have been considered dangerous when they exceed 10 vfm. While these measurements may be a standard for primary exposure, the real threat is the accumulated exposure one might receive over time. This fact, and others with regard to determining dangerous EMF exposure levels presents some difficulty for the researcher who only uses epidemiological studies (based on statistics), in vitro studies, and detection meters which can only relate a quantitative measure of immediate exposure.

VDTS AND TVS

Several studies have been conducted with respect to the dangers of EMF exposure from VDTs and 1Vs. These studies suggest that the effects of EMFs may cause changes in cell growth and function, increased tumor growth, central nervous system disruption, reproductive disorders, changes in blood chemistry, behavioral changes, and immune system dysfunction. For reference to these studies one should consult the list of source-material cited at the end of this article.

A catalogue of general complaints from computer users have included eyestrain, headaches, blurred vision, neck-back aches, facial neuralgia and blotchiness, etc. While these and most other symptoms had previously been associated with demanding visual work, conventional remedies by optometrists and physicians proved ineffective. It was suggested that another factor – EMF emissions from VDTs -was responsible. Personal experience with such symptoms prompted several researchers to investigate the use of devices to shield, block, cancel, or alter the EMF radiations coming from the screen. Our present examination will focus on the Ray-X technology developed by VrilTek Laboratories.

In order to confront the EMF/VDT problem effectively, the quantitative and qualitative emission components had to be individually examined. The first experiential dysfunction approached was the problem of eye-strain. The “refresh rate” of the VDT was considered the first suspect in the cause of most of the ocular fatigue. This refresh rate is the rate at which the image of the screen of the VDT changes, and is the cause for the vertical flicker one may see peripherally or through the playback of video images from a video camera. The next order of attention was the electric and magnetic fields. These fields would be considered responsible for many of the other fatigue related symptoms. The E-field static component can be as high as 6 kv jm (kilovolts per meter), but with many of the newer low-rad monitors the emissions are as low as 0.5 kv?m (still well above the suggested 10v?m limit). As for the magnetic component, measurements in the range of 5-30 mG are not uncommon. Finally, the emission of positive ions from the VDT !fV is considerable (readings of+ 1.0 kv and above are considered a health hazard by Swedish Labor Union standards), and symptoms from excessive exposure to such are identical to those complaints listed above. In this case, particles with the same polarity of the electrostatic field emissions from the screen (positive) are driven away from the screen toward the user, and seek grounding points which are provided by the user’s face and hands.

Since most of the devices on the market designed to reduce or block these fields were somewhat effective in one or two areas, but not in all, it was decided that a newer approach to the problem was necessary. Simply blocking the field was out, as many of the devices designed to block fields added to the problem of eye strain strain, and really did little for the electric and magnetic fields. Cancelling the fields is a somewhat complicated task (due to the variety of field components) and did not afford a qualitative change in the field itself. It was determined that the only effective remedy was to qualitatively alter the fields themselves. The question then arises, “Aside from direct measurements, how does one know that these alterations in the fields have been effective?”

PLANT EXPERIMENTS

The development of the Ray-X technology, designed to alter the qualities of EMFs, was in part arrived at due to the researches of French scientist Georges Lakhovsky. Lakhovsky demonstrated that a qualitative difference could be demonstrated in living tissue via the use of certain devices he arranged for experimentation, and that regenerative effects could be produced by these devices as well. While in vitro studies could reveal much information, the most valid method of testing qualitative change would be to detail experiments in vivo. Therefore, living plants became the subjects of his research, and the qualitative effects of all types of radiant energies could be confirmed. It was only natural then, to test the efficacy of the Ray-X technology on living plants.

Lakhovsky specifically used a common variety of geranium (Pelargonium zonatum) for his researches as they were a hardy plant and could endure rigorous manipulation required by the experiment. For the initial tests with the Ray-X Button, several healthy geraniums of the variety P. x domesticum were acquired, and computer monitors of identical specifications were set up. Each geranium was carefully chosen for consistency in height and overall health. Two plants were situated directly in front of each monitor at a distance of 11 inches from the screen, and two controls were maintained. The Ray-X Button was affixed to one monitor only, and each of the plant monitor stations was monitored for equal amounts of light and water for the plants. Exposure times for the plants from each monitor were regulated at 4 hrs each at the same time of day. Initially, a 30 day time limit was set for the experiment, but after only 15 days, the plants in front of the monitor without the Ray-X Button (A) showed considerable signs of stress in the form of yellowed leaves and loss of flowering. The plants in front of the monitor with the Ray-X Button (B) showed no visible signs of stress. The A plants also displayed retarded growth characteristics, while the B plants growth increased considerably -well above that of the controls (C). The C plants showed no signs of stress or substantial decreased/increased growth. These initial trials concluded that the Ray-X Button did indeed alter the quality of emissions from the monitor. The experiments have been reproduced at other locations as well.

The question at this point is how do we know that plant response will be any indication of the accumulated exposure by humans? We must tum to the pioneering researches of Jagadis Chunder Bose. In the early 1900s, Dr. Bose conducted thousands of experiments with plants using mechanical, electrical, and chemical stimuli. He was able to display that the physiological response in plants paralleled that of animals and humans – that the plants’ sense perceptions were controlled by their own neurological functions. He noted that all responses in the living and even the non-living-exhibited uniform reactions to uniform stimuli, and that when a period of rest between stimulus was shortened, all exhibited signs of fatigue. Bose also determined from the conditions of experiment that a molecular derangement was caused by the stimulus, and that recovery was brought about by molecular equilibrium. When sufficient time was not allowed for recovery, a residual molecular strain would persist, and fatigue would diminish response. Fatigue was due to this strain and its cumulative effects. This is also in keeping with Lakhovsky’s theories of disequilibrium in cellular oscillations.

Also of great interest is the interval between the incidence of the stimulus and the emergence of the response. This time is referred to as the latent period, and was found to exist among both animal and plant in Bose’s experiments. Of particular significance were Bose’s experiments with the plant’s response to electric radiations. His results indicated that these radiations produced characteristic variations in growth, depending on the intensity of the stimulus. Feeble waves produced an acceleration in the rate of growth, while very strong waves produced a retardation, the effect persisting long after the cessation of the stimulus. Waves of medium strength induced retardation in growth, but quickly recovered.

Many other notable plant researchers have been able to elicit similar responses. Cleve Backster, in the mid-1960s, showed that plants respond to a variety of stimulus by attaching his polygraph instrument to one of the plant’s leaves, and observing the sensations on a pen-recorder. The now famous philodendron even responded to his thoughts, and was able to sense the death of other organisms – in another room. Backster is to be credited with thousands of experiments, again establishing the plant as a sensitive entity capable of producing physiological response to a variety of stimuli.

Two years before Cleve Backster would begin his investigations, a researcher named Dr. John Ott began to study the effects of TV radiation on plants and humans. Prompted by an article in Time magazine which suggested that symptoms of nervousness, fatigue, and headaches (in a study on thirty children) were related to exposure from watching TV, Ott designed a simple experiment. He covered half of a TV screen with a shield of lead, and the other half with plain black photographic paper. Next, he placed. six pots of bean sprouts in front of each half of the TV screen and as a control, six more pots were placed outside. At the end of 21 days, the sprouts in front of the lead shield and the outdoor controls had grown to a height of six inches – all appearing quite healthy. The sprouts in front of the photo paper (which allowed radiations to pass through it) grew into a disfigured vine-like shape.

In the early 1970s, an electrical engineer named L. George Lawrence created an apparatus for detecting plant signals. Instead of using the entire plant, Lawrence utilized living vegetal tissues in his research instrument which were screened by a Faraday tube to shield out all electromagnetic disturbance. Irritations in the living tissue of the instrument were detected by listening to an audio tone rather than relying on the visual images of a pen-recorder. This steady tone would change into distinct pulsations upon excitation of the vegetal tissue. Lawrence’s instrument was not only directional, but could pick up disturbances of up to one mile away.

With all of this information readily available, and waiting for reproduction, it was decided that similar experiments might prove useful for determining the efficacy of the Ray-X. The first duty for the experiment was to obtain a simple biofeedback monitor to attach to the plant. The biofeedback monitor we acquired measures galvanic skin resistance via a pair of electrodes, and the output is fed directly into an audio oscillator. One element of a Wheatstone bridge balances the resistance between the electrodes so that fluctuation in the plant’s electrical potential can be measured, and this is heard as a rise or fall in pitch from the audio output. The interpretation of this rise and fall must be developed through hours of practice. Generally, a rising tone indicates a stress response, and a falling tone is indicative of a calm response. These cannot be strictly adhered to though, as it is very important to establish the quality of the rising or falling tone. Many factors must be taken into account when listening to the response such as the latent period (see above), duration of tone, fluctuation, speed of ascent or descent, and tone variation.

The variety of plant used for the experiment was the common house plant, Schefflera actinophylla, due to its large leaves to which the electrodes could easily be attached. A mixture of agar was applied to the silver electrodes to insure an excellent and stable contact with the leaf. Initial contact with the plant usually causes a “shock syndrome” to set in, and the plant needs some time to adjust to the stimulus. After about ten minutes, a baseline could be set. This involves adjusting the audio output so that a steady signal can be heard. After obtaining the baseline, a computer monitor situated behind the plant was turned on. The latent period proved between two and three seconds, and then a steady rise in the tone could be heard. This climbed to a high frequency out of the range of hearing, and the audio output had to be adjusted accordingly. When the monitor was turned off, the tone diminished, but slower than it had risen – revealing the effect to be one of strong excitation. Next, we affixed a Ray-X Button to the monitor and once again turned it on. This time there was an initial rise in the tone, but it quickly leveled off, and then plummeted slowly toward the original baseline tone. This response indicates that there is not only a latent period in the plant, but one in the function of the Ray-X as well. Also noted was a characteristic “pulsation” in the tone, which was not present before the Ray-X was attached to the monitor. This experiment has been repeated several hundred times with the same response, proving the efficacy of the Ray-X in its ability to alter the emissions of the monitor field. It should be noted that the plant requires a period of rest between tests as continuous experiment will cause cessation of all response due to excessive fatigue.

FUNCTION OF THE RAY-X

How the Ray-X functions in these manifold ways has been a matter of some debate. Although its construction is proprietary, it is quite simple in design and was arrived at by a plurality of empirical findings during experimentation. The most important factors in its functioning are its abilities of accumulation, deflection, and re-radiation. The Ray-X needs no power for operation, and derives its action directly from the emissions emanating from the front of the screen. The antennas and body of the unit function as the accumulating section, and were tuned specifically to interact with the electric field. The Ray-X body coating contains substances which act on the magnetic portion of the field. This compound has been tested and used for years in other experimental instruments, and was chosen for its considerable ability to alter electromagnetic fields.

Independent studies have recently confirmed that the positive ion emissions from the screen undergo a complete polarity reversal when the Ray-X is attached. There is much evidence to suggest that negative ions are beneficial to living organisms, and positive ions are not. It is more likely that the problem of eye-strain is associated with the user’s attraction of positive ions (as they are attracted to the the mucous membranes of the eyes) than with the visual “flicker” of the refresh rate. The transmutation of positive ions into negative ions then, is of obvious benefit to the computer user. The inaugural tests were conducted with a Simpco Model FM-300 Electrostatic field meter. After careful preparation to ensure no personal static fields were present, the screen of a standard computer monitor (VDT) was measured at a distance of 12 inches without the Ray-X attached. The digital meter registered a screen radiation of +2.1 kv (remember, + 1.0 kv and above is considered a health hazard). When the Ray-X Button was added to the screen, the meter immediately read -0.1 kv. More dramatic polarity reversals have been recorded with older, higher radiation computer monitors and 1Vs. This quantitative analysis reveals that there is a distinct qualitative change occurring due to the operation of the Ray-X Button.

While more testing should be in order, the results of the research so far indicate that the efficacy of the Ray-X Button in its ability to alter all emissions from VDTs(fVs is exceptional. Research into other areas of the EMF problem is continuing, and similar devices have been designed to alter the EMF qualities of the emissions from florescent lighting and cellular phones.

CONCLUSION

The experiments set forth in this paper demonstrate that the Ray-X technology ~ effective in altering EMF radiations from VDTs/TVs. The consequence of the qualitative experiments with plants confirm that the Ray-X Button is effectively altering the quality of the emissions we receive from VDT/TV s. The several quantitative tests performed with the Ray-X have concluded that over a short period of time there is a reduction in EMF potentials, and the various components of the fields have been altered significantly. These experiments are not completely unique, nor are they difficult to reproduce. With a minimum of time and effort one can easily set up an experiment such as the one designed to ascertain differences in plant growth rates. The weight of the information acquired from the experiments with plants lies not so much with determining the effects. of the Ray-X, but with the fact that plants may be utilized as an excellent indicator of biological response. That we may observe parallels in the reactivity of plants and animals is of enormous import to the electromagnetic researcher, and should be pursued by all who wish to investigate this phenomenon. One final note on EMFs and the Ray-X: While this technology has proven itself in several experiments, all normal precautions with EMFs should be respected. I believe it was Trevor James Constable who once said, “Keep that infernal juice away from the body!” A point worth noting. •

REFERENCES

EMFs &: Bioelectricity Dr. Glen Swartwout, Electromagnetic Pollution Solutions – What You Can Do to Keep Your Home and Workplace Safe, 1991, AERAI Publishing.
Roger Coghill, Electro Pollution, 1990, Thorsons Publishers Ltd. Laurie Tarkan, Electromagnetic Fields – What You Need to Know to Protect Your Health, 1994, Bantam Books.
Ellen Sugarman, Warning: The Electricity Around You May Be Hazardous to Your Health, 1992, Simon & Schuster. (This one has an appendix of major studies conducted on the hazards of E:MFs)
Holger Luczak, “Work With Display Units 92,” Selected Proceedings of the Third International Scientifi~ Conference on Work with Display Units, 1993, Elsevier Science Publishers.
“Electromagnetic Fields,” Consumer Reports, May, 1994.
Mary O’Connor & Richard Lovely, Electromagnetic Fields and Neurobehavioral Function, 1988, Uss.
Robert 0. Becker & Gary Seldon, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, 1985, Morrow.
Paul Brodeur, The Zapping of America, 1977, W.W. Norton.
George W. Crile, The Phenomena of Life: A Radio-electric Interpretation, 1936, W.W. Norton & Co. – Reprinted 1989, Borderland Sciences Research Foundation.
Bob DeMatteo, Terminal Shock: The Health hazards of Video Display Terminals, 1986, NC Press.
S. M. Harvey, “Characteristics of Low Frequency Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Fields Produced by Visual Display Terminals”, 1982, Ontario Hydro Research Division.
Fred Soyka, The Ion Effect, 1978, Bantam.
Bert Dumpe, X-Rayed Without Consent – Computer Health Hazards, 1989, Ergotec Assn.
George de la Warr, Biomagnetism, 1967, De 1a Warr Labs.
“Electromagnetic Measurments and the Trifield Meter”, Trifield Meter Pamphlet. “The Positive Effects of Negative Ions,” Health Freedom News, Vol. 1, No. 3, September, 1982.
LeifFloberg, The Invisible, Insidious Dangers of Magnetism, 198?, Lund Technical University.
“Biological and Human Health Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields,” Report of the Committee on Biological and Human Health Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 1985, American Institute of Biological Sciences.
“Program for Control of Electromagnetic Pollution of the Environment: The Assessment of Biological Hazards of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation,” 1973, U. S. Office of Telecommunications Policy.

Plant Research

Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, The Secret Life of Plants, 1973, Harper & Row.
Jagadis Chunder Bose, Plant Autographs and Their Revelations, 1927, MacMillan Co. Reprinted 1990, Borderland Sciences Research Foundation.

– Plant Response as a Means of Physiological Investigation, 1906, Longmans, Green & Co.- Reprinted 1995, Borderland Sciences Research Foundation.
-Comparative Electro-Physiology, 1906, Longmans, Green & Co.Reprinted 1995, Borderland Sciences Research Foundation.

Patrick Geddes, The Life and Work of Sir ]agadis C. Bose, 1920, Longmans, Green & Co. – Reprinted 1992, Borderland Sciences Research Foundation.
Bertha Mueller, Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 1952, University Press of Hawaii- Reprinted 1989, Ox Bow Press.
C.L. Kervran, Biological Transmutations, 1980, Beekman.
Edwin C. Miller, Plant Physiology, 1938, McGraw-Hill Co.
PhillipS. Callahan, Tuning In To Nature, 1975, Devin-Adair.
Georges Lakhovsky, The Secret of Life, 1936, Medical books Ltd. Reprinted 1994, Borderland Sciences Research Foundation.
“Your Plants May Be Perceptive,” 18 April, 1972, Washington Post.
Thorn Bacon, “The Man Who Reads Nature’s Secret Signals,” 1968, National Wildlife.
Arthur E. Eames, Morphology of Vascular Plants, 1936, McGraw-Hill Co.

This article was sourced from the Borderlands Research Journal Vol VII No 1, First Quarter 1996.

A copy of this journal edition can be downloaded here: http://bit.ly/2NCnA8h

A collection of the Borderlands Research Journals gifted from Thomas Joseph Brown can be downloaded here: http://bit.ly/2L5cGWo

Order Borderlands Journals and Books Here: https://borderlandsciences.org

View more Articles from Borderland: http://borderlandresearch.com/

Michael Theroux’s Main Websites: https://michaeltheroux.com/