Living organisms are complex electrochemical systems that up until very recently have interacted with a relatively simple and weak magnetic field and few EMF energy emitters.
“A wide range of living organisms, including humans, [utilize EMF] energy to regulate various critical cellular systems; we see this in the complex of circadian rhythms.
“Thus, it is not surprising that the massive introduction of electromagnetic fields in an enormous range of new frequencies, modulations, and intensities in recent years has affected living organisms. In fact, it would be incredible and beyond belief if these electromagnetic fields did not affect the electrochemical systems we call living organisms.
“Much of the literature on electromagnetic field interactions published before the middle 1980s is irrelevant to biologists. Most of it was generated by the engineering community’s attempt to find out if their high-power equipment creates a hazard. Thus, little attention was paid to the variables that are important in biology. Instead, efforts were wasted in fruitless controversies such as whether the effects seen were thermal or non-thermal.
“In recent years, though, the convergence of a number of lines of research has led a diversity of biologists to carry out experiments using low-intensity electromagnetic fields to study the function of living cells and systems.
“The toxicology model used by investigators in earlier years was not the appropriate model on which to design experiments. It was assumed that electromagnetic fields are a foreign substance to living organisms, like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances in a toxicology model, the greater the dose, the greater the effect-a dose-response relationship. Thus, experiments tended to be designed with high doses and with little regard for other parameters such as modulation and frequency. This is one reason why those earlier studies yielded so little useful information.
“As noted [above], electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance. Living organisms are electrochemical systems that use emfs in everything from protein folding through cellular communication to nervous system function. A more appropriate model of how living organisms can be expected to respond to em fields would be to compare them to a radio receiver.
“An electromagnetic signal a radio detects (let us call it signal x) and transduces into the sound of music is almost un-measurably weak. Yet the radio is immersed in a sea of em signals from power lines, radio stations, TV stations, radars, etc. The radio doesn’t notice the sea of signals because they are not the appropriate frequency or modulation. Thus, they don’t disturb the music we hear. If we expose the radio to an appropriately tuned em signal or harmonic, however, even if it is very weak compared to signal x, it will interfere with the music. Similarly, if we expose a living system to a very weak em signal, if the signal is appropriately “tuned,” it could facilitate or interfere with normal function. This is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a toxicology model. And this is the model that is now starting to be used so fruitfully.”(1)
And yes, more researchers understand this and realize the need to use this approach in their experiments, but funding for research has been and is currently limited, as is any motivation by the controlled media to expose the results of those studies that have been done.
And currently there are nearly as many cell phones as there are people.
That’s a lot of lab rats…….