Martin Pall: The debate must heat up, and call for scientific signatures

Martin Pall:The debate must heat up, and call for scientific signatures

Date: 17 novembre 2014 14:07:20 UTC−5

Cyril Smith and others:

That physics argument has been disproven by Panagopoulos and his colleagues when they published two biophysical modeling studies in 2000 and 2002.  The argument that has been made by the advocates of the current safety standards is that the low intensity, non-thermal fields produce only very weak forces on charged groups, forces of the same order of magnitude as do thermal motions at body temperature.  They argue, therefore that any effect would be no more than effects produce all the time spontaneously in the body. 

The problem with that can be seen when one looks at the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs).  The VGCCs have 8 positively charged amino acid residues each of which has a role in the opening and closing of the channels.  Each of these are pushed by weak forces, acting in the same direction when a change in the electrical potential across the plasma membrane opens the channel.  In much the same way, weak forces ACTING IN THE SAME DIRECTION produced by the EMFs should be able to open the channel as well.  Whereas thermal motions act randomly in three dimensions and will therefore only extremely rarely be all acting in the same direction, the forces produced by these fields like the forces produced by changes in PM electrical potential, do act coordinately in the same direction and can, therefore open these channels.  This was the insight that lead Panagopoulos and his colleagues to do their modeling studies and it is, in my view, a brilliant insight! 

The VGCCs also have two other charged groups, both negatively charged that may also have roles here and these two other groups are not found with the other voltage gated ion channels, which so far have not been shown to directly respond to these weak fields.

The whole basis of the heating/thermal/SARS paradigm of action of these fields is entirely based on the claim that "there is no biophysically viable mechanism for the action of these weak" non-thermal or micro-thermal fields and that claim was shown by Panagopoulos to be wrong and the empirical evidence shows that Panagopoulos is right.  In addition to that there are literally thousands of studies that falsify the heating/thermal.SARS paradigm.  This is THE best example I have seen of a clearly strongly supported paradigm shift within the last 50 years (that one was the shift in our understanding of the mechanism of energy metabolism, shifting from coupled high energy intermediates to chemiosmotic mechanisms).

The fact that heating/thermal/SARS is a house of cards does not mean that it will fall down tomorrow, but it does mean that it is time to blow on it.

Martin Pall