how relevant is EMF to ME/CFS?

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
1,383
Likes
2,068
Going back to the issue of polarized EM energy, I forgot to mention that natural sources aren't actually unpolarized, they're randomly polarized. So, don't listen to any claims that polarized EM radiation is less safe than unpolarized, since all photons are actually polarized.
 

sb4

Senior Member
Messages
1,004
Likes
1,513
Location
United Kingdom
@Wishful Although this is a little off topic I will say this about red light, if I remember correctly there is literature involving red light being used to improve a viarity of health conditions and I think the activation of cyt c is pretty well established. It also makes sense from an evolutionairy perspective since we evolved with lots of sun, and our mitos spit out a lot of red light. I also managed to blind myself in an experiment with its effects on sleep with a faulty battery.

A general question for anyone, is the frequency of absorption of a molecule the same in the electromagnetic spectrum as it is in sound, etc? So if cyt c absorbs EM energy in 4.567x10^14 then it would absorb the same frequency in sound waves?
 

sb4

Senior Member
Messages
1,004
Likes
1,513
Location
United Kingdom
As for peer review, yes it is important but far from perfect. Wasn't PACE peer reviewed? I am sure a bunch of saturated fat slamming papers, and PUFA promoting papers have been peer reviewed as well as many other things that in time will be proven very wrong.

If your peers all accept / have contributed to the current mainstream opinion in the subject then good look getting an unbiased peer review.
 

Tally

Senior Member
Messages
367
Likes
866
As for peer review, yes it is important but far from perfect. Wasn't PACE peer reviewed?
Just because trash gets through peer review doesn't mean what's not peer-reviewed is good.

Just because planes crash sometimes doesn't mean you should jump off a cliff flapping your arms instead of boarding a plane.

The solution is to push for improvement of peer-review process (and a lot of people are working on this, even outside of ME/CFS field), not turn to material that hasn't been peer-reviewed.
 

sb4

Senior Member
Messages
1,004
Likes
1,513
Location
United Kingdom
@Tally I agree that peer review needs to be improved however I stand by being quite skeptical of it. You will notice I said in my previous post "it's important but far from perfect". Your post agrees with this but then makes it sound as if I said we should treat non peer reviewed the same as peer reviewed or something.

I think that the peer review system is set up in a way that is very much biased towards conventional dogma. We only know how BS pace is because we are caught up with it in our particular disease. How many other diseases and fields is this also true for? This doesn't mean peer review is completely bunk and we should jump off cliffs but it also means we shouldn't dismiss competing theories solely on peer review.
 

Tally

Senior Member
Messages
367
Likes
866
I think that the peer review system is set up in a way that is very much biased towards conventional dogma. We only know how BS pace is because we are caught up with it in our particular disease. How many other diseases and fields is this also true for? This doesn't mean peer review is completely bunk and we should jump off cliffs but it also means we shouldn't dismiss competing theories solely on peer review.

For every BPS peer-reviewed article like PACE that said M.E. is psychological illness we had a hundred that said it's physical. That's why when OMF looked at all the thousands of peer-reviewed articles ever published on M.E. they concluded without a doubt that M.E. is purely physical.

The truth to M.E. wasn't outside of peer-reviewed articles.

So, yes, we should dismiss competing theories if they couldn't get any peer-reviewed articles published. (Ignoring predatory journals, of course)
 

sb4

Senior Member
Messages
1,004
Likes
1,513
Location
United Kingdom
@Tally I take your point on ME in that on balance the peer review system is working, it;s a shame doctors in britain can't get on board with it though.

Although I disagree that we should disregard a theory if it has no peer reviews, for reasons I stated before, I decided to look for peer reviewed article indicating problems with EMF and came upon this site. I clicked on a bunch of the positive ones and then checked the journals to confirm they are indeed peer reviewed. Here are 3 but there seems to be many more.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885019

RESULTS:
The differences in mucociliary clearances between groups A and C, groups B and D, and groups C and D were found to be statistically significant (p = 0.005, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Although there were no histopathological abnormalities in the control groups, the exposure groups showed a number of degenerated and apoptotic cells, ciliary disorganization and ciliary loss in the epithelial cells, epithelial metaplasia, alteration of normal chromatin distribution and karyolysis in nuclei, changes in the basal cells, and lymphocytic infiltration. The histopathological changes were more severe in group D.

CONCLUSION:
Radiofrequency radiation at 2100 MHz damaged the nasal septal mucosa, and disturbed the mucociliary clearance. Ciliary disorganization and ciliary loss in the epithelial cells resulted in deterioration of nasal mucociliary clearance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749340

Abstract
The vast majority of in vitro and in vivo studies did not find cancerogenic effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), i.e. emitted by mobile phones and base stations. Previously published results from a pilot study with carcinogen-treated mice, however, suggested tumor-promoting effects of RF-EMF (Tillmann et al., 2010). We have performed a replication study using higher numbers of animals per group and including two additional exposure levels (0 (sham), 0.04, 0.4 and 2 W/kg SAR). We could confirm and extend the originally reported findings. Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure. A clear dose-response effect is absent. We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure. Since many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones, further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms. Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25738972

Quickly changing technologies and intensive uses of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF)‑emitting phones pose a challenge to public health. Mobile phone users and uses and exposures to other wireless transmitting devices (WTDs) have increased in the past few years. We consider that CERENAT, a French national study, provides an important addition to the literature evaluating the use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumors. The CERENAT finding of increased risk of glioma is consistent with studies that evaluated use of mobile phones for a decade or longer and corroborate those that have shown a risk of meningioma from mobile phone use. In CERENAT, exposure to RF‑EMF from digitally enhanced cordless telephones (DECTs), used by over half the population of France during the period of this study, was not evaluated. If exposures to DECT phones could have been taken into account, the risks of glioma from mobile phone use in CERENAT are likely to be higher than published. We conclude that radiofrequency fields should be classified as a Group 2A ̔probable̓ human carcinogen under the criteria used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Lyon, France). Additional data should be gathered on exposures to mobile and cordless phones, other WTDs, mobile phone base stations and Wi‑Fi routers to evaluate their impact on public health. We advise that the as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA) principle be adopted for uses of this technology, while a major cross‑disciplinary effort is generated to train researchers in bioelectromagnetics and provide monitoring of potential health impacts of RF‑EMF.
I have only read the abstracts so don't know the method but they are peer reviewed.

So you would have to at least consider this as a possibility. At the very least if they are all wrong then it implies further issues with peer review and why it's not perfect.
 

percyval577

Senior Member
Messages
551
Likes
701
@Wishful. Taken together I don´t want to disagree sharply with your assessment in practical respect. However:

The Mars doesn´t have a magnetic field, but he and all planets does/do have a plasma frequency. [I just remember, the sun has a huge magnetic field which shields us/the solarsystem against radiation.]
Then, at least some of these frequencies are related to each other - and it´s mathmatically almost exact.

1. Jupiter has pretty exactly in the tenth octave Venus as a "strange" minor third (617:512). You can hear the other planet´s plasma in the sound of Jupiter´s plasma, so it´s not by accident but stays the same during the time of different recording dates.
2. Saturn is to Venus - once more in the thenth octave - a "strange" fourth (675:512).

(The relationsships of "octaves" are deriveted from a dubbeling:
1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512), and then this "musical" relationship shows up.


If nature behaves like so, I wonder (of course) how much of an influence
frequencies of different origin/things might have on our health.
 
Last edited:

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
1,383
Likes
2,068
Mars does have a magnetic field and a magnetosphere; it's just much weaker. Venus' magnetosphere is even weaker. I'm not sure what is meant by a planet's plasma frequency, since there are many modes possible, and thus frequencies. If it means the primary resonance, I would expect that to vary with changes in the planet's atmosphere and magnetosphere.

Planets may have some resonance modes that match those of other planets, but that doesn't mean that there's any actual connection between plasma activity on the planets. If you have something with multiple resonances, you're going to find other things in the universe that match one or more of those frequencies, just because if you look long enough at random processes, you'll find matches somewhere.

So yes, nature behaves like a bunch of random values for frequencies which don't affect each other, so they'll affect our health by the same amount (not at all).

Looking for matching musical tones among the planets sounds like a modern version of astrology: finding imaginary mystical correlations.
 

percyval577

Senior Member
Messages
551
Likes
701
@Wishful. I don´t know how they recorded it and what for a bunch of partial frequencies would be invovlved, but they could give a main frequency or whatever. You can sing to it.

I had a look at all the relationships of plasma frequencies of all planets plus pluto. Your are somewhat right that there are very lots of close enough matches with the harmonious serie.
But looking at the most precies ones (and here the frequencies I have found might not be precies enough for an accurate caclulation) a pattern shows up -
1.
Venus has three primary frequencies in other planets frequency, as
Uranus has.

Mercury and Earth, the two planets next to venus have each one.
Saturn, Neptune, Pluto, the planets around uranus have also each one.

In betweeen there is a gap, mars and jupiter don´t serve as a partial frequency for another planet´s frequency.
(sun) - mercury - venus - earth - mars - jupiter - saturn - uranus - neptune - pluto

2.
Seven planets serve one time as a primary frequency for other planet´s frequency.
uranus doesn´t,
Mars serves [four] times as a primary frequnecy for other planets.
The natural scale derived from the first ratios to doubled numbers (1,2,4,8,16 etc) build up a lydian scale. And this is what the plasma fequencies build up in a non-precies way: It´s a (defective) lydian scale in d. Merkur as well as Saturn would be a d (both lower than the d on the piano). Saturn should be the better d than Merkur.


Nevertheless I was utterly wrong (very probably) that these frequencies would have to do with the orbits, so it may have been pointless to come up with this issue.
But now it may, nevertheless, be interesting, as it might illustrate how things orgnize (in fact - if I am remembering/interpretating right - these plasma frequencies resemble a known "undertone" serie which sometimes pops up in small things too).
---
Three of jupiter´s moons are surrounding their planets in exactly the ratio 4:2:1. Only one more time a precies resonance has been observed (according to "orbital resonance" on wikipedia).
I would think that the natural periods are close enough to this ratio, and then they go for it and reach it, or that these ideal reonances has helped to create the planets as they now are.
There are many other cases of almost resonances.

This is what I rather meant: to a small extent there might be an influence of frequncies say from artificial EMF´s on things that are considered to be autark in respect of that.
In conclusion I personally am not afraid of today´s EMF´s.
 
Last edited:

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
1,383
Likes
2,068
Orbital resonances are basic physics: the forces between the bodies do lock them into resonances. Other physical phenomena are similar. However, those are all very simple phenomena. EM energies can affect biological systems, but as far as I know, it will be in simple ways: a photon of the correct frequency will be absorbed by a chlorophyll molecule allowing a chemical reaction. That does not mean that 'frequencies' will directly affect complex systems, such as 'EM at frequency x will make cancer melt away' (okay, that's actually true if the power levels are high enough to cook them).

Scammers use this 'partial truth' method to their advantage. They say something like 'Look at how powerful frequencies are: they can move huge planets!'. Then they make a nonsense claim like 'Therefore frequencies can cure any human disease, because that's so much simple than moving planets.' You cannot simply extend one physical process to cover another, such as orbital mechanics to biological systems.

Also, there's no difference between artificial and natural EM waves. Photons do not have labels.
 

HowToEscape?

Senior Member
Messages
607
Likes
807
'Look at how powerful frequencies are: they can move huge planets!'.

Someone who eats that has problems which no rational argument can cure. If dissuaded from one scammer, they will buzz towards another. They want magic and some form of mysticism, they will seek a magician to buy it from.
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,538
Location
Ashland, Oregon
I trust quackwatch more, which states that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between EMF and symptoms.
Hi @Wishful,

I've noticed you're a firm believer in science, and as I recall, you say you're fascinated by it. So I thought of you when I watched the LATEST EPISODE of "Full Measure", a half hour weekly new program hosted by Sharyll Attkinson. This particular episode esposes some extraordinary corruption that goes on behind much of the so-called "science" we often read about today--in this case at the NIH.

You say there's no evidence of a causal relationship between EMF and symptoms, but if you watch this episode (a real eye opener), it becomes clear that corruption of science is rampant at the NIH--and likely the FDA and CDC as well. AND of course, at other large corporations who claim there is or isn't any scientific evidence for this or that. The above linked episode reveals the unholy alliance between the liquor industry and the NIH, and from my past reading, reflects other governmental agencies' relationship with the pharmaceutical and other industries as well.

Monsanto, for instance, has stressed there are over 800 scientific studies that refute the notion glyphosphate is toxic to humans. And yet a jury that was able to see internal memos from the corporation over a period of many years unanimously convicted them of knowing about the dangers of glyphosphate and failing to warn consumers. From what I can gather, a group of "non-scientists" on the jury were far more credible when it came to interpreting science than the very corporation which claims to have done the scientific research.

When I see organizations like quackwatch "towing the line", and mindlessly espousing corrupt government and corporation sponsored "scientific studies" and conclusions, I think they end up giving science a bad name. It's hard to imagine anything causing more damage to our population and our environment than governmental agencies and corporation tied at the hip, espousing all kinds of nonsense in the name of science. Their whole objective is always a pursuit of making as much money as they possibly can.
 
Last edited:

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
1,383
Likes
2,068
As someone else pointed out, peer review and other scientific quality controls aren't perfect, but they're better than nothing. Should all scientific and technological advances be held up until proven 100% safe by every organization that decides to question it? Some people might think they would like that...until they get a toothache or winter comes. After all, even a stone tool probably wouldn't pass the safety concerns of every possible group.

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that glyphosate is a serious health hazard; I only find tentative 'may be hazardous' conclusions. I haven't followed the court case you mention, but I certainly don't accept that as scientific proof. Legal courts do not determine scientific conclusions. Proper peer-reviewed science seems to be the best option we have for determining scientific conclusions. For all I know, the conviction was for legal trivia, such as how safety reports were handled, rather than what was in them.

Are all anti-science and consumer protection organizations 100% free of corruption? I don't think any human organization is guaranteed to be 100% corruption-free or error-free. We have to deal with these issues with the tools that are available. I don't believe that quackwatch is 100% perfect, but I do give it more credibility than I do to for-profit groups that profit from quackery.
 

HowToEscape?

Senior Member
Messages
607
Likes
807
Hi @Wishful,

I've noticed you're a firm believer in science, and as I recall, you say you're fascinated by it. So I thought of you when I watched the LATEST EPISODE of "Full Measure", a half hour weekly new program hosted by Sharyll Attkinson. This particular episode esposes some extraordinary corruption that goes on behind much of the so-called "science" we often read about today--in this case at the NIH.

You say there's no evidence of a causal relationship between EMF and symptoms, but if you watch this episode (a real eye opener), it becomes clear that corruption of science is rampant at the NIH--and likely the FDA and CDC as well. AND of course, at other large corporations who claim there is or isn't any scientific evidence for this or that. The above linked episode reveals the unholy alliance between the liquor industry and the NIH, and from my past reading, reflects other governmental agencies' relationship with the pharmaceutical and other industries as well.

Monsanto, for instance, has stressed there are over 800 scientific studies that refute the notion glyphosphate is toxic to humans. And yet a jury that was able to see internal memos from the corporation over a period of many years unanimously convicted them of knowing about the dangers of glyphosphate and failing to warn consumers. From what I can gather, a group of "non-scientists" on the jury were far more credible when it came to interpreting science than the very corporation which claims to have done the scientific research.

When I see organizations like quackwatch "towing the line", and mindlessly espousing corrupt government and corporation sponsored "scientific studies" and conclusions, I think they end up giving science a bad name. It's hard to imagine anything causing more damage to our population and our environment than governmental agencies and corporation tied at the hip, espousing all kinds of nonsense in the name of science. Their whole objective is always a pursuit of making as much money as they possibly can.
if you asked a jury whether a horseless carriage powered by lamp oil could drive at 100 mph, you'd have been laughed of the courtroom. If juries could decide science, we would have had modern biology 2000 years ago - just get a jury together and they could correctly decide all scientific questions. The glyphosphate trial had a sympathetic plaintiff, an unsympathetic defendant, scientific jury selection and the finest actor/lawyers an eight figure payoff can buy.

"You say there's no evidence of a causal relationship between EMF and symptoms, but if you watch this episode (a real eye opener), it becomes clear that corruption of science is rampant at the NIH"​

The conclusion "EMF causes any specific disease" does not follow from the condition "a government agency is fully or partly corrupt". There is zero, none, not a mite of connection between the two. If you believe that X government agency is corrupt, something that is possible in all human enterprise, one can at most conclude that "statements of government agency X are not, by themselves, enough to trust conclusion Y."

Regarding EMF, you don't specify what type of EMF and how much.
Do you mean that all EMF is the same, or that it is all equally harmful?
When you state EMF, do you mean the EMF from the
-- Earth's magnetic field, which we are exposed to 24/7/365?
-- UV-A?
-- UV-B?
Cosmic rays, as you can be exposed to if living above 14,000 feet or by working as airline on-board crew?
Gamma from carrying a lump of radium in your pocket?
Permanent magnets in a Prius?
Massive current used by a subway train?
or, the big one ...

standing in sight of the giant nuclear furnace we call the Sun?