Surely everyone has noticed in recent weeks that a large part of our discussion has "wrestled with" a number of attempts to place the EMF problem in fairly simple terms more or less defined by the "reading" one obtains on his gauss-meter -- the mG exposure characteristics.
In credit to Clas Tegenfeldt, he alone -- virtually -- has said (paraphrased): "Hey, wait a minute. The gauss-meter measures only one small part of the spectrum that is likely to be the villain!" Moreover, it has been Clas who has emphasized that it is not the primary field, alone, that is suspect. The resultant stray voltages, transients and harmonics may be "the guilty" ones.
Finally, it was Clas who (joining with guru) has talked about the effects manifesting themselves in various ways within the various systems of the body; e.g., neuroendocrine system, and others. Once the full story is uncovered (if ever) mankind may need to allow for the possibility that virtually no 'system' of the body is entirely untouched by the EMF phenomenon ... which is, after all, terribly close to the electro-chemical "stuff" of life itself.
In other words: The EMF health problem "simply isn't" as SIMPLE as much of our discussion might lead one to believe. The answer -- even the DIMENSIONS of the answer -- is not likely to be found merely in a gauss-meter reading.
Sometime thereafter, we received a reply to that call. Guru thinks it is particularly illuminating because it focuses attention on the complexities of the EMF problem in a very understandable way. Needless to say ... the writer is highly qualified in this field. We quote it below:
"Having viewed your bulletin board for a few months, I'd like to comment to you, first, about a general set of perhaps unfounded themes I have seen.
"First is the assumption by many (most) respondents that EMF is like a single chemical, except perhaps for its pervasiveness. There are hints by some that they recognize the complexities of electric and magnetic fields, but still almost all comments consider EMF to be like that of a single chemical.
"We, and others, have shown that on the cellular level the degree of reaction of a system to fields depends on a variety of independent variables: the relative orientation of AC and DC fields, the frequency, the duration of exposure, the timing of the exposure relative to the circadian rhythm (if any) of the system, etc.
"It is simply insufficient to say "exposure to EMF" without further qualification and expect to know anything about the biological system's response. I could go on at length, but won't right now. Suffice it to say this is one of the biggest problems in this research area, and it is common to almost all investigators, whether they are governmental agencies or private citizens.
"It doesn't serve the area of research to perpetuate this 'single chemical' concept. And it is NOT an attempt to make the area more complex. It is simply a recognition that for the most part, systems (biological or otherwise) do not generally act only as gauss-meters. Most systems may be more like, as a colleague once commented in surprise, "a whole bunch of resonant circuits!" -- we won't know unless we step off this initial assumption that EMF is a single chemical.
"Tell me, Roy, if the audience keeps looking for simple answers, and the players keep coming up with complex answers, does the audience quit going to the show?"
We fervently believe that the THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW ... EVERYTHING!!! ... As guru has often written..... And that is our goal in this discussion group.
[If our government (and media!!!) ever start fulfilling their responsibility to FULLY inform the public about the EMF hazards ... then we (at EMF-L) are likely to be 'out of business.']
But -- in the meantime -- if the public is going to make use of the knowledge we are trying to gather and impart ... the public must be willing to "wrestle with" the 'complex' as well as the 'simple' dimensions of the problem.
This does not mean that we are abandoning our goal of maintaining this discussion at the non-technical level. We will hold to that principle ... in so far as possible. But we are concerned that in attempting to translate this very complex "technical" subject into "lay-men's" language, we may err on the side of oversimplification and thus provide misleading information. We hope NOT to do that!
Stick with us!!! Within the above parameters ... guru promises that we will continue doing the best we can to TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!!
And ... Let us hear from you!!!!...
It is better to light a single candle ... than to curse the darkness!!...
Cheerio,