Home » Uncategorized » Introductory reference list for interaction between human tissue and electromagnetic energy

Introductory reference list for interaction between human tissue and electromagnetic energy

Follow World Hum Map and Database Project on WordPress.com
Follow World Hum Map and Database Project on WordPress.com

The notion that electromagnetic energy can interact with human tissue and cause sensations – including perceived sound effects – is uncontroversial. This was suspected as early as the late 1940s and established experimentally in the 1960s. A good deal of the research was in fact conducted in prestigious, federally funded mainstream laboratories. Three names in particular have been associated with this research. Alan Frey, Leif Salford, and Olle Johansson. Another term for “microwave hearing” is the “Frey Effect”. There are further and somewhat troubling experiments, by Salford in particular, that raise serious concerns about the potential overall impact of cellular and wireless energy on human systems. That is a serious but different topic, which I leave to others.

NOTE: I do not claim that microwaves play any role in the world Hum – in fact I think it’s trivial to demonstrate that is not the case. The purpose of this reference list is to demystify the topic and to establish that EM radio energy can be interpreted as sound. I am pursuing the theory that VLF radio is responsible for most of the world Hum.

Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy, Alan Frey. http://jap.physiology.org/content/17/4/689

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD INTERACTIONS WITH BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, 1993
http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/2/272.full.pdf

Mechanism for action of electromagnetic fields on cells. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Andreas Karabarbounis, and Lukas H. Margaritisa.
http://kyttariki.biol.uoa.gr/mobile_phones/article-2002.pdf
(Theoretical action of VLF radio on cells)

Elder, J. A., & Chou, C. K. (2003). Auditory response to pulsed radiofrequency energy. Bioelectromagnetics Supplement, 6, S162–S173.

There are many similar studies. Those familiar with how these journal articles work will want to refer to the reference lists in the above articles. Examining the reference lists for those articles, and so on, will generate a working list of all the formal studies that have been conducted on these topics. This can take some time, but for those who are interested in doing serious research, it’s a process that must be done.


13 Comments

  1. Simon says:

    Glen, you make compelling argument for VLF radio signals being at the root of the hum, but I have in my possession a number of quite good quality audio recordings from around the world that clearly identify the hum as sound, or a collection of sounds. It is my belief that the hum is not from one source, but many different, although similar sources. The frequency plots from analysis of these recordings is clear evidence that this is so.They are remarkably similar, but the dominant frequency band varies slightly depending on the country in which they were recorded. Despite this, a hum hearer would almost certainly confirm that they are all the hum..
    Thoughts?
    Best regards
    Simon (UK)

    • I wonder if you could forward one such example, along with detailed descriptions of the equipment used and under what conditions it was used. Also, we must come back to the question of what happened around 1970 that initiated widespread reports of the Hum in England. I agree that there may be multiple sources.

      • Dr. Jerry Gagala says:

        Dr. Glen: There is a structure in each human ear called the Sacculus. Normal hearing signals go through filtering before they are processed in the brain as normal sound. Dr. Patric Flanagan developed a device that uses a carrier frequency (around 64 KHZ.) to bypass the normal hearing path and filtering to allow the brain to process signals that modulate the carrier frequency. People that are totally deaf from birth can use the device to hear. My guess is that people that are perceiving the hum are actually hearing a real RF signal via the sacculus. I would suggest that you hook up with Dr. Flanagan and compare notes. :>) I hope this helps.
        Dr. Jerry Gagala, D.C.

    • Diana says:

      ELF, EMF, ETC IS VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR DNA AND BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS look
      Summary for the Public
      (2014 Supplement)

      http://bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2012_summary_for_public.pdf

      II. SUMMARY OF KEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
      (Also see Section 5 – Section 24)
      A. Evidence for Damage to Sperm and Reproduction
      B. Evidence that Children are More Vulnerable
      C. Evidence for Fetal and Neonatal Effects
      D. Evidence for Effects on Autism (Autism Spectrum Conditions)
      E. Evidence for Electrohypersensitivity
      F. Evidence for Effects from Cell Tower-Level RFR Exposures
      G. Evidence for Effects on the Blood-brain Barrier
      H. Evidence for Effects on Brain Tumors
      I. Evidence for Effects on Genes (Genotoxicity)
      J. Evidence for Effects on the Nervous System (Neurotoxicity)
      K. Evidence for Effects on Cancer (Childhood Leukemia, Adult Cancers
      L. Melatonin, Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease
      M. Stress, Stress Proteins and DNA as a Fractal Antenna
      N. Effects of Weak-Field Interactions on Non-Linear Biological
      Oscillators and Synchronized Neural Activity

      DNA IS FRACTAL ANTENNA’ – we are directly affected by these frequencies’

  2. Peter says:

    This post reminded me of a study published just last month which demonstrated that “radio-frequency electromagnetic fields elicit post-neurotomy pain in a tibial neuroma transposition model” (i.e. EMFs cause pain in amputees). See http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2016/2/3-31891_Study-Uncovers-How-Electromagnetic-Fields-Amplify-_story-wide.html?WT.mc_id=NewsHomePage . Basically one more study to add to Glen’s list that proves EMFs have measurable effect on human perception, in this case pain.

    Of course Glen’s Deming box experiment should prove to be a crucial step in determining whether in our case VLF waves are behind our experience (i.e. auditory perception) of the Hum phenomena.

    I read Glen’s January 19 post on his VLF theory shortly after seeing this brief video clip on the McGurk effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop . According to Wikipedia “The McGurk effect is a perceptual phenomenon that demonstrates an interaction between hearing and vision in speech perception. The illusion occurs when the auditory component of one sound is paired with the visual component of another sound, leading to the perception of a third sound.” While I don’t think vision is involved in the Hum phenomena, perhaps another sense, e.g. touch, could be involved in a type of synesthesia that is triggered by VLF waves. (Wikipedia: Synesthesia “is a neurological phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.”)

    Since the Hum appears to be relatively modern phenomena (i.e. last 40 years) that seems to occur in post-childhood (according to the latest Hum map statistics), perhaps Hum experiencers have undergone a type of reverse perceptual narrowing due to some type of environmental exposure (take your pick: increased EMF exposure, fertilizers, detergents, Dubstep music, [insert your favourite conspiracy here]…) Wikipedia: “Perceptual narrowing is a developmental process during which the brain uses environmental experiences to shape perceptual abilities. This process improves the perception of things that people experience often and causes them to experience a decline in the ability to perceive some things to which they are not often exposed.”

    The point is that we are hearing the Hum while the majority of people are not. Just like infants are seeing things that our adult brains have trained us to stop paying attention to (see for example, http://www.cell.com/pb/assets/raw/journals/research/current-biology/S200backup/yang.pdf). Finding out “why us?” is to me an even more interesting question that finding out whether the source is in fact a sound within the standard human hearing range that can be recorded versus VLF waves since I’m skeptical that we can convince whoever/whatever is causing this phenomena to finally hit the off switch once we figure out who’s been keeping us up at night.

  3. Ozone says:

    HUM is NOT acoustic – or conventional TEM – Transverse Electromagnetic Waves. They are compression waves – like sound waves – but in the EM realm – not acoustic. Project ELF is a distraction – decommissioned many years ago. Time to catch up? Cut the BS.
    Longitudinal EM will elicit responses in a few percent of humans. Aka TESLA, Scalar, Torsion waves.
    Are you able to generate these and run controlled tests?
    Only correlation on your maps is folks with phones…

    • George G. says:

      Hiya Ozone,
      Do you have any further information on Project ELF?
      Specifically; When was it commissioned? Who commissioned it? Do you have names of any project researchers? Were you or are you involved the project? What year was it decommissioned?
      Was one of the researchers a woman nuclear physicist living in the USA?

      Any information you may have to share about this project will be studied discretely and respectfully.

      Thank you,

      G.

  4. SG says:

    Would Ozone please translate what he said above into layman’s English. 😉 Is he saying that EMR/EMF is not involved in the hum (& vibrations) at all?

    On another note & in the spirit of “not all hums having the same source,” I saw a mention of this 1997 study earlier today, & I’ve only read the abstract, but as a person who gets “The Vibes” along with “The Hum,” I’m always interested when “inducing currents” in the human body is discussed by “researchers”:

    Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Dec; 105(Suppl 6): 1569–1573.
    PMCID: PMC1469914
    Radiofrequency exposure near high-voltage lines
    M Vignati and L Giuliani
    Research Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469914/
    […]
    “… the presence on an electric grid of radiofrequency currents used for communications and remote control. These currents have been detected on high- and medium-voltage lines. In some cases they are even used on the main system for remote reading of electric meters. This implies that radiofrequency (RF) magnetic fields are present near the electric network in addition to the 50/60 Hz fields. This intensity of these RF fields is low but the intensity of currents induced in the human body by exposure to magnetic fields increases with frequency. Because scientific research has not yet clarified whether the risk is related to the value of magnetic induction or to the currents this kind of exposure produces in the human body, it is reasonable to suggest that the presence of the RF magnetic fields must be considered in the context of epidemiologic studies.
    […]

    Nineteen years later, there’s enough guinea pig volunteers around now waiting for the epidemiological studies to commence.

    “Inducing Currents means Electrocution.”
    ~~Curtis Bennett, Electrician & Thermoradiation Consultant, Termoguy .com.

    • Plain English: “Certain frequencies of radio waves can hit the body and be heard as sounds”.

      • SG says:

        Thank you! So Ozone is saying it’s our entire body “feeling/hearing” vs. just the ear canals.

        Well, they say we have a “2nd Brain” in our intestines, so maybe we have a 2nd set of ears in there, too. 😉

  5. SG says:

    “…we must come back to the question of what happened around 1970 that initiated widespread reports of the Hum in England.”

    The original SCADA systems began being used in 1965 & they transmitted over pilot-wire, PLC, or Microwave RF. Some of the early SCADA companies went on to become the heavy global players in the later “Smart Grid” > such as, Moore Associates became Landis + Gyr. I wonder if during the Bristol Hum, anyone asked their utilities if they were using SCADA systems?

    Even if no Smart Grid in any given area these days, the SCADA systems are still being used more & more, for electric & water, etc., & those require all sorts of “updated” electronic equipment, such as “power meters” being put on transformers themselves.

    Below is a fascinating “educational” read re SCADA History, even if convinced “The Hum” is not Grid related. I keep having the feeling for awhile now, that wherever everyone’s hums are coming from, that they are being COMPUTER-AUTOMATED GENERATED, meaning, it’s machine & not men telling the Grid (or pipeline, VLF-machine, etc.) what to do (ramp it up, ramp it down, etc.). The hum here even sounds, sometimes, like now, not very Intense & somewhat “distant sounding,” as if it could be coming from a giant room of huge computers up the highway, & from there through the Grid distribution system. So, FWIW…

    History of SCADA by JC Russell:
    http://scadahistory.com/resources/SCADA+History.docx

    Intro/Bio: http://scadahistory.com (he worked all over the world since 1954 in the Power Grid before/after computerization + Remote Communcations business).

    –Pilot Wire Systems (1940’s and earlier)

    –Relay/Tone systems (1950 to 1965 – “…created with a ‘Vibrasender’ and received with a ‘Vibrasponder'”). Funny, a Vibrasender. I’ll say!

    –Solid State (60’s and 70’s)

    Then he backs up a little to add another layer to the story:

    –Telemetry

    –Current Balance/transducers [why those didn’t work]

    Pulse rate/Variable frequency telemetry systems [began late 1950’s] “…to transmit telemetry across other types of communication channels such as power line carrier … using pulse rate and variable frequency methods. … another pulse based system … during these years … supplied by the Bristol Company [not related to Bristol, UK, but an American inventor/company]. … This equipment was used more in gas and pipeline systems … [gas pipelines, calling Steve!] All of these systems … able to send the signal over a variety of communication media. They were typically used over pilot wire, power line carrier [PLC], and micro-wave.”

    –Selective Telemetry systems.

    –Automatic data loggers. [1958 he mentions]

    –Vendors – “The vendors of early telemetry systems included Westinghouse, General Electric, and Control Data … telemetry suppliers like Bristol, and … solid state continuous scanning … such as Pacific Telephone and Moore Associates appeared.”

    SCADA System (1965 and later) – “…came into use after the use of a computer based master station became common. By the middle 60’s there were computers that were capable of real time functions … Westinghouse PRODAC and GE processors GETAC. … Most SCADA systems worked on a continuous scan basis … A few systems, mostly in Europe, had the remote issue data continuously … ”

    –Remote Terminal Units [RTU’s, a term used by 1960’s for the “remote station of the SCADA systems”] which “needed to operate, even if the power was out at the station” … “most RTU’s operated on a continuous scan basis…” All the RTU’s communications equiptment “…were typically supplied in 90 high steel cabinets … Large SCADA systems would have several hundred RTU’s.”

    –User Interface (Man/machine Interface) – [late 1960’s, CRT’s, etc.]

    –Communication Channels – “In the early days the most common communications media was a pair of dedicated wires. These were sometimes laid by the utility, and sometimes provided by the telephone company. A modem was provided by the SCADA vendor that used audio range frequency, and was frequency modulated to connect to the channel. For a while in the late sixties, power line carrier was used. Although the limited number of frequencies limited the usage. In the later seventies and eighties the most common channel became utility owned micro-wave equipment.

    –Vendors – “The vendors for SCADA systems evolved from the vendors of supervisory control … Westinghouse, General Electric and Control Corporation. … and people from North Electric Co. In the sixties a few people from both operations split off and joined a company in Melbourne Florida, called Radiation [lovely, & that they are] to develop SCADA systems. … evolved into Harris Systems. A company in San Jose California, Moore Associates began making digital telemetry equipment evolved into a SCADA vendor during the seventies. This company later became Landis & Gyre. [And Landis + Gyr, no E on the end, of Zug, Switzerland, went on to become a huge global Smart Grid player. Toshiba bought them out in very recent years.]

    –Automatic Generation Control (AGC) – [a ittle complicated, but he’s still talking 1950’s & 1960’s here]. “Economic Dispatch was typically done at approximately three minute periods, while the other portion of AGC (typically called Load Frequency Control [LFC]) must execute as often as every few seconds.”
    — Vendors (ACG) – [through early 1970’s]

    –System Operation Computers – “By the late sixties … System Operation Computers (SOC) … combined the SCADA, and AGC functions … RTU’s capable of more sophisticated functions … local Sequence of Events Reporting (down to a few milli-seconds) … a few cases of substation computers taking over the RTU function. … Also computer based AGC became common.”

    –Forecast and scheduling functions – “The three major functions involved are system Load Forecast, Unit Scheduling or Unit Commitment, and Interchange Negotiation.” [Fascinating & long paragraph re how they used to, before computers, determine how much electricity needed to be generated on any given day so they could plan ahead for it, by comparing prior same dates, watching the weather, taking note of local activities, extra ballgames, etc., & simple lifetime experience by a few very smart guys on the job. My interest is always “Load Control/Load Forecast” since I can FEEL & hear when they “ramp up the juice.” His mention of extra ballgames caught my eye because last Summer 2015, one Saturday the Grid was in SUPER WICKED MODE, bad bad bad strong, the whole building was vibrating & humming w/a flood of EMFs everywhere, & there was either a track meet or ballgame or swim meet at the very nearby college as I could hear their loudspeakers in the near distance.]

    –Energy Management Systems [coined in the 1970’s, he says, & gives the “before & after computers” history of it]
    –Network Analysis Functions [covers from the 1940’s to computer age]
    –Covers the Configurations, Consultants, & Vendors of the EMS systems which cost $40 million & took years to complete. And that’s the end of his story!

    ~~~

  6. lysine4flu says:

    On a somewhat-related tangent, there’s actually another “ignored” subgroup of individuals worldwide whose body tissues, like myself, have been (and are continuing to be) affected VISUALLY through intense EMFs emitted by bright computer screens. I have LipiView pictures of my internal eyelids, showing convolutedly winding, damaged, Meibomian Glands. I actually FELT my eyes hurting extremely from computers, but never realized that my eyelid-glands were actually being damaged irreversibly! And this travesty is continuing, as long as people worldwide are viewing bright computer screens. Because the Establishment has not been vociferously warning the public. We’re basically a bunch of guinea pigs of hi-tech.

    Few are aware of the extent to which both Auditory and Visual EMFs can damage tissues. They can actually cause tissues to migrate, elongate, and fuse together. They can cause cancerous growths to grow at a rapid pace. And they can cause internal viruses to replicate rapidly. After I had a breast biopsy, my bright LCD-screen actually caused the biopsy-incision to “sizzle” as if on a frying pan. Need I say more? Naturally, skeptics will pooh-pooh this. That’s until it would happen to them. Most people are skeptics because most people lack imagination, and the ability to connect-dots. Such people only learn thru actual experience. Explanations never make a dent with them.

  7. Lorrie Breen says:

    I found out last night I am unable to tolerate being within 3 ft of induction burners without extreme pain even using solid cast iron. In researching this confusing effect I realized I also hear the hum for years but not sure when it started. It has not bothered me much or kept me awake as its not too loud in my head. I always just assumed I have some weird tinnitus at night. Have you heard any other hum hearers mention intolerance to induction burners? The noise is oppsite end being very high pitched but maybe the effect is related?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: