EMF/EMR interaction with human biological system


29 May 2001


Forwarded below are two exchanges which took place recently on EMF-L.  The top one is Dr. Neil Cherry's response to earlier comments by the guru.

The lower exchange was initiated by Gerrit Teule (of the Netherlands).  It started the whole discussion -- which centers on the interaction-effects of EMF/EMR upon the human biological system.  The origin of the discussion was an article reporting on the possible POSITIVE health effects of "radiation".  It is also included at the very bottom below.

You may want to go down to the bottom and read that article, then author Gerrit Teule's statement.  Then work your way back up to the final response from Dr. Cherry......


Roy Beavers (EMFguru)

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Natural EMR (Cherry)..
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 15:35:33 -0500
From: Roy Beavers <>
Organization: EMF-L List
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

........FROM EMF-L........

.........Here is a good description of the electro-biological system I was struggling-with in my comments earlier...... guru....... ("My" code word for this DISTURBANCE of the intercellular communications process is: "resonance" DISTURBANCE.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Natural EMR
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:43:18 +1200
From: Neil Cherry <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Organization: Canterbury Regional Council
To: "''" <>

Dear Roy,

Nature has developed many advanced and complex biological processes in and between cells for cell-to-cell communication, intra cellular communication and regulation and brain and CNS systems. Dr Ross Adey's description of cells "whispering to each other" in this cell-to-cell caring society, check on the health of their neighbours and suggesting subtle changes to keep them health - part of biological homeostasis. Our brains and cells primarily use calcium ions for these processes and Ross's laboratory, followed by Dr Carl Blackman;s monumental work, confirms that the natural and vital processes for cellular health, are interfered with in a non-linear, non-equilibrium, resonant interaction process at the cell membrane level, of oscillating signals gently but fatally interferring with the natural signal system. Mobile phone base stations confuse and damage the cell signal system while the loud shouting of a cell phone next to your head almost drowns out the signals, altering the EEG and hormones, damaging the cells and producing acute symptoms such as headache, concentration problems, memory loss, dizziness and nausia, and long-term problems including brain tumors, Alzheimers Disease, depression and suicide.

There is strong science to document and confirm all of these effects.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Radiation as health measure? (Raunio)(Teule)..
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 11:27:35 -0500
From: Roy Beavers <>
Organization: EMF-L List
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

.............Response from EMF-L..........

In his response below, Gerrit Teule has thoughtfully described the "bioeffeffects/ evolutionary phenomenon" which a number of us have been "circling around" on this list since its origins in 1995.......  I have also heard the same thesis similarly addressed by a number of the best EMF scientists that I know, since about 1993.

With modest variations, we all seem to be becoming aware of a central and in-common hypothesis (similar in some respects to the "big bang" theory in physics) which recognizes that man is not only bioelectric in nature; man's bio-electric character has been "set" (balanced) within certain electro-biological parameters through the process of adaptation during man's evolution to the present.

Those "evolutionary parameters" are being exceeded (unbalanced) by the onset of the EMF/EMR environment that "electrification" has brought to our society.  (Sam Milham's latest study is a crucial addition to understanding this.)

It is the process of further evolution, which our biological systems (cells, tissue, organs) are undergoing to "adapt" to this new EMF/EMR environment, that is resulting in the adverse health consequences of which we are now becoming aware..........   Gerrit's explanation below is better than mine.......... guru.......

(P.S.  Clearly, the above is well understood by biologists and most epidemiologists who work in this field.  When the "physics" (and "electricians") community is considered, however,  there is a low level of understanding about the above -- in some cases a downright "bull headed" determination NOT to understand.......   I add this postscript because one of our readers asked me this weekend why the American Physics Society (headed by Robert Parke) is so adamant in its opposition to the idea that EMF/EMR can be hazardous.  This is your answer, Agnes....... guru.....)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Radiation as health measure? (Raunio)....
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 10:47:28 +0200
From: teule <>
References: <>

Hello Roy,

Reading this text about Cameron I came to the conclusion, that we are still far away from understanding the real nature of electromagnetics in living tissue. It still seems a mater of voodoo science. We may assume that in the evolution the living tissue has learned to deal with a small amount of natural radiation with specific frequencies. Visible light is one of them; too much makes us blind and burns our skin. The point is, that our world recently has been drowned with artificial electromagnetic radiation with frequencies that never came forward in the evolution. Living beings and our immune system never learned to deal with this, as they likewise did not learn to deal with thousands of brand new (carcinogenic) chemicals like DDT, dioxin, PCB, etc. Maybe somewhere in the evolution we can, but given the slow and steady pace of evolution we may have to wait a million years before that will be a fact. Nowadays it makes us sick.

We know almost for sure that our immune system is heavily dependent on the use of subtile electromagnetic radiation within our cells and between cells. Since our body is a watery environment, there is also reason to assume that within our body the lower frequencies will be used. See Benveniste, where he shows that cells communicatie with frequencies of sound: 20 -20.000 Hz. This suggests that the puls-frequency of GSM radiation (217 Hz) does a big part of the harm, even more than the high frequencie that don't penetrate very deep in the skin tissue. Also there is reason to assume that DNA communicaties with DNA, using light frequencies (see Jeremy Narby: The Cosmic Serpent, a theory about DNA communication).  Lots of frequencies in between seem to be in use by cell structures, molecules, organs, nerve cells, etc.

This taken together means that every frequency has its specific influence, depending also on the receptability of the cell, organ, DNA, at that specific moment. An example: when a cell divides itself into two cells, the DNA unwinds itself with a speed of 20.000 revolutions per minute (~ 330 Hz), a process that lasts for one hour,  and at that time the DNA is wide open and vulnerable for electrical influences from outside. That alone is already a good reason for never using a GSM in standby mode at your belly, when you are pregnant.  It even can happen, that a strong EMR does not do very much, because the cell structures just "freeze" or become insensible, while a very low EMF intensity, comparable to the internal EMF intensities as used between and inside cells, cause a lot of intervention. That's the non-linear effect of some EMR's.

This whole thing is going even further towards psycho-biology, where internal EM frequencies are also a basis for our feelings, feeling good or bad, happy, ill, etc. It's very subtile and extremely complex and up till now we are just scratching the surface! Indeed this is the basis for our immune system, a knowledge based system with a vast amount of evolution expierience, buried somewhere in our cells. I strongly believe that in this new era psycho-biology will be the most interesting story. External and artificial EMR does a lot with this internal EMR system and the system fights back in a creative and intelligent way. That's why so many EMR experiments on living tissue seems so unpredictable and unrepeatable. Science will have to rethink their methods and approaches to this problem. Even the investigator him- or herself is a part of the electrical system and has an influence on the experiment.  It is just as Neal Cheery once wrote: bio-electricity is a paradigma shift.

In this light the message of Aaron Nathans is also just scratching the surface. We encounter here a large, new and undiscovered  part of our world, just like Columbus did.  It requires a new science to really inderstand it.

Gerrit Teule

Roy Beavers wrote:

Hi folks:

You will find this interesting -- and you may want to"fight" with it.....

But hold on!!  First,  Dr. Cameron (below) does not differentiate between which form or forms of radiation he has in mind.....  There are many "kinds" (different wave lengths). After all -- sunlight is radiation, and we know that some amount of sunlight is necessary to good health.  We also know -- that in excess, it can be harmful.  (Sunlight is actually a part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.)

We already know (on the EMF-L list) that the differences between "ionizing" and "non ionizing" radiation (which "science" has assumed for a hundred years or so) may NOT be totally applicable when viewed in the "bioeffects" scenario.....   (At least the differences that may exist, do not have the sharp "black or white" distinction that were once thought to be the case.   The role of "ionization," in other words, appears NOT to be the only physical/biological process that is occurring....)

We also know that there are many (medical and other) practitioners who use various forms of electromagnetic radiation (on a controlled basis) for the "healing" or promotion of health.  What that demonstrates to me is further confirmation of the "bioeffects phenomenon."

So ... what I am suggesting is that we should read the report below in terms of its total implications......

I think that Dr. Cameron's thesis ought to be considered seriously ... and checked out!! NOT summarily dismissed.......


Frankly, I would EXPECT that to be the case -- given that: biological effects, themselves, can be positive in their consequence ... as well as negative.....

The real "trick," of course is to FIND those conditions and levels of exposure which are positive rather than negative in their consequences......


Roy Beavers (EMFguru)

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....

In two-thousand four, follow your heart ...
That's John McCain and Dick Gephardt....

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing......
...........Edmund Burke

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Radiation as health measure?
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:21:45 -0500
From: Darlene Raunio <>
To: (Recipient list suppressed)

Capital Times

Radiation as health measure?
UW emeritus prof thinks so; others not convinced
By Aaron Nathans
May 26, 2001

Eat fruit. Get your exercise. Don't stay out in the sun too long. And for heaven's sake, get some radiation.

Radiation? Not too many buy that last statement. John Cameron knows that. But he's still trying to sell the idea.

"I propose that radiation is like orange juice, it's for your good health," said Cameron, who is 79 years old. "I'm not sure people will get the analogy. But you've got to get your vitamins." Cameron, a UW-Madison emeritus professor of medical physics, radiology and physics, is credited with inventing the photon absorption method of measuring bone mineral density, the standard technique for evaluating osteoporosis.

Of course, he believes high-dose radiation isn't good for you, unless it's radiation therapy combating cancer. But he points to several studies that he believes make the case that a moderate intake of radiation is a good thing. He believes that for reasons unknown, radiation stimulates the immune system.

"It contradicts what they've been telling people about radiation," Cameron said. First, he cites a 1988 study of nuclear shipyard workers who were exposed to low doses of radiation. Although the study found no health risks associated with low-dose radiation exposure, their cancer death rate, as well as overall death rate, was significantly lower than a control group.

He also points to a British study which shows that members of a radiological society, exposed on a regular basis, had a significant decrease in mortality. Earlier radiologists, who had a higher exposure, showed increased cancer rates, Cameron noted.

An article on survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan during World War II showed that those survivors who were 2.8 kilometers from ground zero had greater longevity than those closer or farther away.

Cameron, who founded and nurtured the UW-Madison medical physics department, has many admirers, but they are also among his greatest critics when it comes to his beneficial radiation theory. One of them is Kelly Clifton, an emeritus professor of human oncology and a longtime colleague of Cameron's.

Clifton said it is impossible to know whether a little radiation is harmful, but he doesn't take the studies Cameron points to at face value.

"I don't believe it's necessary to convince people that a little radiation is good for you to help them know it ain't bad for you," Clifton said.

UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley, himself a physicist, also had mixed reviews for Cameron's theory.

"I find it interesting. I am firmly convinced there's a lot of public misunderstanding and irrational fear of radiation," Wiley said. But he added: "Small levels of anything are difficult to document scientifically."

Cameron said studies show that people who live in the Gulf states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have a 25 percent higher cancer mortality rate than those who live in the three mountain states of Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico. The radiation level is three times higher in the mountains, he added.

"All we can conclude from these studies is that for good health, we need much more radiation than most of us are getting from nature," Cameron said.

The U.S. Department of Energy funds studies on the harmful effects of radiation, but won't go near talking about the benefits of radiation, he added.

Proposing a study, Cameron suggested putting natural radioactive sources under subjects' beds that would simulate the level of radiation in the mountains. The study would be double-blind: Neither the caregivers nor the participants would know whether the box had radioactive materials or sand.

He doubts such a study will be done soon, but he'll push for one as long as he can. "I may not live to see the results of it, but I'll enjoy the fight," he said.

Published: 8:17 AM 5/26/01

Back to Top