Intellectual maturity dictates that we not reject ideas simply because we do not understand them.
I know no one who has Multiple Sclerosis. My interest was piqued as I stood behind a TV camera shooting the "Good Morning with Beth Show" for KWWL TV in Waterloo, Iowa, somewhere around 1973. During this shoot, a woman used some unusual terms to describe the onset of her disease. I carried that experience with me through a number of years while my interests ran the spectrum of electro-physics and related science.
One day I was looking at some anatomy transparencies in a nursing text book that my wife acquired while at school. Viewing a transparency of the nervous system overlay, I thought, "This particular long thin membrane could be imagined to be a horizontally polarized antenna." - (Rotate 90 degrees) - "This same long thin membrane could be imagined to be a vertically polarized antenna."
In the case of neural de-myelination – Specifically - Multiple Sclerosis and/or ALS:
This is a disease of the industrialized nations. 32% of all victims reside in the United States. The argument being made here is that one common thread in the distribution of this disease is the exposure to near resonant field. It is further proposed, that this exposure is near universal to the population, understanding the fact that the industrialized nations have based their commercial and private radio frequency communications systems at frequencies that would be suspect in resonant response of the human nervous system. Environmental exposure to these specific frequencies could be a possible direct or contributive cause, either through direct affect or autoimmune response.
Information available to the layperson indicates that an autoimmune response may be involved. I suggest that this type of autoimmune response may well be triggered by damaged Myelin that is now recognized by the autoimmune system as foreign to the body. Saying MS is an "autoimmune disease" may be like saying the damage in a fire is caused by "heat and smoke."
I now ask that the reader contemplate a simple definition given in an introductory teaching text along with the universal and fundamental principle of electrical resonance.
"A nerve fiber or axon, along which an electrical impulse can travel, includes a CYLINDRICAL membrane with one CONDUCTING fluid (electrolyte) inside and another outside. By mechanisms similar to those in batteries, a potential difference of the order of .1V is maintained between these fluids."(1)
This leads to a conclusion that the nervous system is electrochemical in nature. I stressed CYLINDRICAL and CONDUCTIVE because of the resonant potential of long, thin, conductive materials, regardless of where these long, thin, conductive materials may be found.
Long, thin, conductive materials with certain properties respond similarly to exposure to near resonant field, as does a high inductance RLC circuit. The sharpness of the resonant response in a RLC circuit is a result of the inductive component being large in value.
An admitted intuitive assumption on my part is that the sharpness of the resonant response in a long, thin, conductive material is a result of the length relative to diameter of the material. Since a long thin wire will react like a high inductance RLC circuit, the resonant bandwidth of a long thin conductive material with certain properties can be modeled as a high inductance RLC circuit.
Algorithmic analysis of a basic RLC circuit could lead to the extrapolation that any resonant response of the human nervous system may be individually specific. This would explain why only a small number of people within a large population group would be affected by identical exposure to specific frequencies.
"---the human body absorbs RF energy more effectively at a frequency where body length is about .4 the wave length and the body's long axis is aligned with the incoming electric-field polarization. This condition is known as "whole-body resonance." Further - "for an average male adult weighing about 70 kilograms and about 1.75 meters tall, the maximum RF energy uptake would be at about 60 MHz, close to TV channel 2, and not far removed from the 6- meter band." (2)
The above gives the approximate values for the frequencies for "whole body resonance", which could be interpreted to mean a cylindrical object with some conductive value. However, the nervous system (or components thereof) could be viewed as a much less massive subsystem of significant different effective length and with a much higher Q value due to both structure and chemical composition. The "Q Value" being defined as the sharpness or reactivity of the system to field at or near specific resonant frequency.
Although field density is most commonly sited as the measurement of environmental exposure, frequency has a much greater impact on resonant capable systems. Again, a long thin conductor will react like a high inductance RLC circuit when exposed to near resonant frequency.
In computing values for a RLC circuit where the inductance is given as .1 Henry and solving for the capacitance to tune the circuit to an effective length of 68 inches; the tremendous effect frequency has on the induced power becomes clearly evident. First computing induced power at resonance and then changing the frequency of the exposing field by a value corresponding to just .001 inch, the induced power changes by over 8 fold. At 173 MHz this corresponds to a difference of about 2500 HZ. This is a relatively small difference in frequency, or length of the resonator, for such a significant change in induced power. Again, it is this effect (electrical resonance) that could explain why only a small number of people, out of a large population group, would be affected when exposed to the same electromagnetic environment.
The laws of physics are universal. If long thin membranes exist as part of the human nervous system, as indicated in my wife's nursing texts, then the potential for resonant effect exists.
Direct VS. In-direct Cause.
This topic is best addressed through a series of questions.
What is the oxidation potential of myelin?
Depending on the oxidation potential of the myelin, could direct induction cause damage to the Myelin?
How does the mammalian nervous system respond to exposure to near resonant field? Does the response include a "boost" in potential?
How do the results of high field/short term exposure compare to low field/long term exposure?
What is the history of de-myelination related disease?
So far, my experience in discussing this topic has resulted in the following antithetical arguments. First, that my lack of expertise in human physiology reasonably negates any opinion that I may have and second, that the neuron length is too short to be subject to resonant effect at commercial communication frequencies.
Both of these arguments would be valid points if the scale of the effect was at the neuron level, or an intimate understanding of the human nervous system was prerequisite to understanding, or would negate, the effects of rudimentary electromagnetic induction.
My understanding of human physiology is a mute point. I readily admit to my ignorance. My argument is that I do not need to know the difference between the white matter of the CNS and the ganglia of the PNS. It is however, of some value to know the action potential of a nerve impulse because this would give some indication as to what potential the myelin must withstand without oxidation. I certainly do not have a good understanding of the electrochemical processes of the nervous system, but neither is it needed to make thesis that components of the nervous system, singularly or in continuous connection, can be modeled as long thin conductors.
An example of this is the spinal cord. Beginning at the Foramen Magnum (extending from the brain stem) and continues down through the Vertebral Canal to the tapering point of the Conus Medullaris. The spinal cord alone presents a thin continuously conductive material. This component is further lengthened by the Brain Stem at one end and Cauda Equina at the other.
I suggest that certain components of the human nervous system, alone and/or in continuously connected combination, will respond to near resonant field, that the frequency of resonant response will be a function of the length of electrical continuity and that very possibly, for some components, singularly or in combination, will correspond to a bandwidth commonly found in the environment. The thesis is further defined to include argument that the length and inductance of the human nervous system is possibly individual specific, so much so, that it can be used much like a fingerprint. Further, that the "Q Value" of the nervous system, combined with the slight differences between individuals, would explain the low occurrence of detrimental effect when large population groups are exposed to the same electromagnetic environment.
In any case, the frequency of the environmental field could have far greater effect than field density and should be a primary factor when considering environmental exposure.
I have found it more bearable to be disdained as ignorant than remain silent when others are more inclined to turn their heads. Environmental impact has become merely an economic measure, where the cost of corrective action is measured in dollars per death, and which I find anathema to my nature.
I cannot imagine a topic where the dichotomy of science is more clearly evident.
I thank you for taking the time to carefully read the above and would appreciate and consider all responses.
Sincerely;
Gavilan
1. College Physics - Fourth Edition-Complete Sears-Zemansky-Young
2. The ARRL UHF/Microwave Experimenter's Manual
Affect of Resonant Response on The Human Nervous System
Re: Affect of Resonant Response on The Human Nervous System
