Can Low-Level 50/60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields Cause Biological Effects?

Author(s): P. A. Valberg, R. Kavet, C. N. Rafferty

Source: Radiation Research, Vol. 148, No. 1 (Jul., 1997), pp. 2-21
Published by: Radiation Research Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3579533
Accessed: 13/09/2010 00:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rrs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Radiation Research Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Radiation
Research.

http://www.jstor.org
RADIATION RESEARCH 148, 2-21 (1997)
0033-7587/97$5.00
?1997 by RadiationResearchSociety.
All rightsof reproductionin anyformreserved.

REVIEW

Can Low-Level50/60 Hz Electricand MagneticFields

Cause BiologicalEffects?
P. A. Valberg,*t R. Kavet* and C. N. Rafferty*

*GradientCorporation,44 BrattleStreet,Cambridge,Massachusetts02138;tHarvardSchool of Public Health,665 HuntingtonAvenue,

Boston, Massachusetts02115;and tElectricPower ResearchInstitute,3412 HillviewAvenue,Palo Alto, California94303

tions observed between 50/60 Hz EMFs and disease reflect a

P.
Valberg, A., Kavet, R. and Rafferty,C. N. Can Low-Level causal relationship is not supported by what is known about
50/60 Hz Electricand MagneticFields Cause BiologicalEffects? mechanisms. ? 1997 by Radiation Research Society
Radiat.Res. 148, 2-21 (1997).
Some epidemiologicalstudieshave suggestedthat exposureto
ambient,low-level 50/60 Hz electricand magneticfields (EMFs)
increases risk of disease. Whetherthis association has a causal
basis depends in part on whether the electrical, chemical and
mechanical "signals" induced within living cells by ambient
EMFs are detectablein the complexmilieu of voltages, currents
and forces presentwithin the living organism.Magneticrespon-
siveness has been found in some animals and bacteria;aquatic
animals(e.g. sharksand rays) can sense weak electricfields. We
outline the physics of several mechanismsby which EMFs may
interact:(1) Energytransferby accelerationof ions and charged
proteins modifies cell membranesand receptor proteins; how-
ever, EMFenergiesare far belowthose typicalof biomoleculesin
the cell. (2) Electricfields inducedinside the body exert force on
electric chargesand electric moments;however,these forces are
considerablysmallerthan typical biologicalforces.(3) The mag-
netic moments of ferromagnetic particles and free radical
molecules interact with magnetic fields, but magnetic-moment
sensory cells have not been found in humans, and modification
of radicalrecombinationrates by EMFsin a biologicalsystem is
highly problematic.(4) ResonantinteractionsinvolveEMFsdriv-
ing vibrational or orbital transitions in ion-biomolecule com-
plexes; these mechanisms conflict with accepted physics, and
many experimentaltests have not found the predictedeffects. (5)
Temporalaveragingor spatial summationcan improvethe ratio
of "signal" to "noise" in any system, but this "mechanism"
requires biological structures and neural processes having the
necessarycapabilitiesof EMF detectionand temporalaveraging
that have not been found in humans. In summary, biological
effects in humans due to extremelylow-frequencyEMFs of the
order of those found in residential environments[-2 pT (-20
mG)] are implausiblebased on currentunderstandingof physics
and biology. Biological effects in humans at higher fields [>10
pT (>100 mG)] might reach plausibilityas a resultof time-aver-
aging in combination with a magnetic-moment transduction
mechanism;but even here, neitherspecializedEMFtransduction
structures nor appropriate averaging networks have been
demonstrated.The hypothesisthat the epidemiologicalassocia-
2
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
CORRELATIONSHAVE
STIMULATEDRESEARCHINTO THE MECHANISMS
OF ELECTRICAND MAGNETICFIELDS
The widespread use of electric power results in exposure
of humans to low-level 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields
(EMFs). Interest in the health effects of EMFs has been
motivated by several epidemiological studies reporting
weak associations between surrogate measures of EMF
exposure and childhood cancers (1) and cancers in workers
(2-4). The childhood studies have primarily used "wire
codes" (utility-wire configurations outside the home) to
rank the probable contribution of nearby power lines to the
exposure of individuals to magnetic fields [ranging from
0.01 to 1.5 pT (0.1 to 15 mG)]. Occupational studies have
used job category in combination with some on-site meas-
urements of magnetic fields. Weak epidemiological associ-
ations can only raise the possibility of a causal link between
low-level EMFs and adverse health effects in humans.
Establishing causality is much more difficult and requires,
among other things, identifying mechanistic processes that
are both responsive to EMFs at levels relevant to human
exposure and consistent with known principles of physics,
chemistry and biology.
The interactions of electric and magnetic fields with
matter are governed by precise and exhaustively verified
scientific laws, with no known exceptions in biology and
medicine. Thermodynamics also provides a powerful
and verified analytical framework, with no known viola-
tions in biology and medicine. Our analysis proceeds on
the basis of these laws, one consequence of which is that
the "signal" generated by environmental EMFs in body
tissues is generally small in comparison to the electrical
"noise" produced by thermal motions of charged ions
and molecules and by endogenous processes in cells.
 MECHANISMSOF EMF:INTERACTIONSWITHBIOLOGICALSYSTEM 3

BIOLOGICAL
RESPONSE CELL
CELLSIGNAL DYSFUNCTION
TRANSDUCTION

Modifymolecule
EMF METRIC membranesoric
capacity
Sensoryeffect Transient,
Signalwithin
normalvariation reversible Disease
Neutraleffect
No amplification No functional No adverseeffects
Not perceptible
by consequences
cells
Belownoise
No transduction
FIG. 1. ConnectingEMF exposureto a disease requiresplausiblylinkingtogether a series of causalsteps. The links of the chain representthe
sequenceof eventsnecessaryif EMFexposureleads to disease;the arrowsleadingawayfromthe chainare alternativeoutcomes.The firststep, trans-
duction,has not been establishedfor typicalEMF levels. Even aftertransduction,additionalsteps are required,and reachingan adversehealtheffect
is only one of manyalternativeoutcomes.

Our quantitativecomparisonof signal and noise evalu-
ates the effectivenessof candidatemechanismsat 50/60Hz
"benchmark"levels of EMFs that are at the high end of
typicalhumanexposurelevels, namely0.1 mT (1 G) mag-
netic field1and 1 kV/m electric field. These "benchmark"
levels are usefulnot only becausethey representthe upper
levels of ambient50/60Hz EMFs,but also becausethey are
"unit" levels, simplifying the scaling of conclusions to
higheror lowerfieldlevels.
EMF "TRANSDUCTION"IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE
BIOEFFECTCAUSALCHAIN
Interactionsamongelectriccharges(on ions, molecules,
proteinsand membranes)are fundamentalto most biologi-
cal phenomena. Hence one can imagine that exposure to
environmentalEMFs,whichexertforces on fixed and mov-
ing charges,may have the potentialto modulatebiological
function.Confirmationof this possibilityrequiresquantita-
tive examinationof the forcesprovidedby EMFsrelativeto
the forcesthatmodifybiologicalfunction.
For EMFsto causeor exacerbatediseasein humans,they
wouldhave to triggera seriesof sequentialstepsthatlead to
the disease outcome. The causal chain (see Fig. 1) would
begin with exposure of humansto some particular(as yet
undefined)aspectof power-lineEMFs.To completethe first
step, EMFs must interact with biological molecules (or
structures)in sucha way as to altertheirsize, shape,charge,
chemicalstate or energy.In this energy"transduction" step,
1Although tesla (T) is the appropriate (Systeme International) survival.The visual system is an example where receptor
SI
unit of magnetic field, we occasionally use gauss (G) and milligauss cells in the retina are sensitive at the quantumlimit; they
(mG) becausethey are commonlyused units.The conversionis 10,000G
= 1 T, or, for example,1,000mG = 1 G = 10-4T = 0.1 mT = 100 pT. The respond
equationsin this paperrequireuse of SI units.In cases where a calcula-
tion requiresa specificfrequency,60 Hz has been used, althougha com- require remarkable sensitivity,but necessarilysupportedby
parable result can be calculatedfor a powerfrequencyof 50 Hz.
some absorptionof EMF energymustoccuror therecan be
no effect.As shownin Fig. 1, for observablebiological(and
possiblyadversehealth)effectsto followtransduction, a cas-
cade of sequentialevents at the molecular,cellularand tis-
sue level wouldbe required,leadingwithoutinterruptionto
the finaloutcome.Figure1 also illustratesmultiplepointsin
the causalchainwherethe signalproducedmightbe within
normalvariationsand would thereforehave no functional
consequences.The firstmechanisticor transductionstep in
thismultisteppathwayhasbeen one of the mostelusive.
Identifyingthe correct measure of EMF exposure, the
EMF metric,requiresunderstanding the biologicaleffectsat
a molecularlevel. Sincethe healthandviabilityof the human
body dependin a fundamentalway on the normalstructure
and functionof largemolecules(e.g. proteins,nucleicacids,
carbohydratesand lipids), a theory on the mechanismof
EMFsmustpredicthow EMFscouldinterferewith or mod-
ify the normalsynthesis,function or degradationof these
molecules.A theoryof the mechanismsof EMF interaction
shouldpredictthresholdsof exposureeffectivenessin terms
of EMF amplitude,frequency,onset, intermittency,coher-
ence,exposureduration,polarization,etc.
SensorySystemsDetectWeakSignalsUsingBiophysically
PlausibleProcesses
Sensorycapabilitiesincludenot only light,sound,chemi-
cals and pressure,but also acceleration,position, gravity,
heat and the passage of time. The physiologicalliterature
describesover 50 sensorymodalities(5, 6). Sensorysystems
providewell-studiedmechanismsby whichorganismstrans-
duce energyin the environmentinto informationusefulfor
to the absorptionof a singlephoton.Any influence
that weak-field EMFs have on humanhealth may likewise
a mechanisticcause-and-effect relationship.
4 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY

Sensorysystemsrepresentthe end productof manymil-
lions of years of survivalpressure. Bialek's review (5) of
the physical limits to sensation and perception provides
lessons that are useful in the context of EMFs. Bialek's
general conclusions are: (1) No "new" physics has been
necessaryto understandthe limits of performancefor sen-
sory systems. "Limitsto the detectabilityof small stimuli
are set by noise." (2) Some sensory systems operate close
to the physicallimit, but none have been found to violate
physical principles. In fact, Bialek states: "Perhaps[our]
most important [advance]has been the realization that a
sensorysystemthat reachesthe physicallimitsto its perfor-
manceis exceptional."
Bialek states in his summary that "The case studies
reviewed...provide examples of single receptor cells that
performtheir appointedtaskswith a precisionand reliabil-
ity that approaches the limits imposed by the laws of
physics."Livingsystemshave been foundto be constrained
by noise limits in the crucialarea of sensorytransduction,
and EMFs should be consideredin that context. Accurate
analysisof noise limitsis likelyto be an overridingconsider-
ationin judgingthe plausibilityof any mechanism.
sources. The relative orientation of the different fields is
important;it is the vectorsum of fieldsfromall sourcesthat
interactswith the biologicalsystemand not the individualE
andB fieldsfromeach separatesource.
Time-varyingE and B fields also can exhibit linear or
circular polarization or a combination of the two. This
term refers to the manner in which the vector varies in
time. In "linearpolarization,"the field vector remainspar-
allel to a single direction,but cyclicallychangesmagnitude
and polarityalong this line. In "circularpolarization,"the
vectorremainsconstantin size, but rotatesin direction[i.e.
traces out a circle 60 (or 50) times a second]. A combina-
tion of circularand linearpolarizationresultsin "elliptical
polarization,"whichmeans that the field vector tracesout
an ellipse. Linearlypolarizedmagneticfields are produced
by currentsin circuitsand coils where the currentsare all
in phase (rise and fall in step). Circular(or elliptical)polar-
izationrequirespresenceof currentsthat are out of phase,
e.g. orthogonal,out-of-phaselaboratorycoils, or electrical
circuits with out-of-phase currents, or nearby "three-
phase" transmissionlines. A rotating permanentmagnet
also producescircularlypolarizedmagneticfields.

THE NATURE OF EMFs PROVIDES A

Electric(E) and Magnetic(B) FieldsExertForceon
FRAMEWORK FOR MECHANISM Charged Objects
E and B fields exert force on electric charges, and the
All matter contains electricallychargedparticles(elec- total force (F) on an electricchargeof magnitudeq is com-
trons and protons), and the fundamentalunit of charge is posed of a contributionfrom the electricfield and a contri-
the coulomb (C). Separation of the charges in neutral butionfromthe magneticfield:
objects requires work, and the work-per-unit-charge
(joules per coulomb) is a unit called volts (V). Electric F = qE + q(v x B). (1)
chargesexert force on each other, and the size of the force
at a particularpoint is proportionalto the electricfield, E, The firsttermon the right-handside of Eq. (1) gives the
at that point. The size of the electric field decreases with coulomb force, the force exerted by the electric field on a
distancefrom the source.The units of the electricfield (the charge,actingin the directionof the electricfield.The unit
electricforce-per-unit-charge) can be expressedas newtons of force in the metric system is the newton (N); for exam-
per coulomb, but these units are equivalent to the more ple, the forceon a unitelectriccharge(1.6 x 10-19C) can be
commonunit for electricfield,volts per meter (V/m). expressedas:
Electric current is a movement of electric charge;the
units of electric current are coulombs per second, or 1.6 x 10-7
F (electricforce per unit charge) = {pN}, (2)
amperes(A), and electriccurrentproducesa magneticfield
(B). The size of the magnetic field is proportionalto the
amount of current, but decreases with distance from the m
electriccurrent.The unit for magneticfield (force-per-unit-
current-element)is newtonsper amp-meter,whichis equiv- wherepN is a piconewton= 10-12 N. A 10-pm-diameter cell
alent to the magnetic-fieldunit,tesla (T). Anothercommon "weighs"about 5 pN (in air), so to supportit in an electric
unit of magnetic field is the gauss (G) (1 T = 10,000 G), field of 1 V/m would requirethat it be chargedwith about
wherel/l,ooo of a gaussis a milligauss(mG). 32 millionelectrons.
The second term in Eq. (1) is the magnetic-field
Electric (E) and Magnetic (B) Fields Are Vectors (Have "Lorentz"force, and it shows that the magnitude of the
Direction and Magnitude) force exerted on an electricchargeby the magneticfield is
E and B fields are vectors,meaningthat they are speci- proportionalto the product of the size of the charge, its
fied by both a magnitude and a direction, and the vector velocity and the magneticfield. Moreover,the meaningof
natureis indicatedby an arrowover the symbols,e.g. (E) the vector cross product (x) is that the force acts at right
and (B). The moment-by-moment vector sum may be angles to both the magnetic field and the velocity. If the
largeror smaller than the fields attributableto individual velocityandmagneticfield are perpendicular,the force is at
 MECHANISMSOF EMF:INTERACTIONSWITHBIOLOGICALSYSTEM 5

a maximum,but if they are parallel, the force exerted by
the magneticfield is zero. Since no componentof the mag-
netic-fieldforce acts in the directionof the chargedparti-
cle's motion, the magnetic field cannot speed up or slow
downthe particle;thatis, a constantB fieldcannotchangea
charged particle's kinetic energy, but it can change the
directionof motion.
The electric field exerts force on chargedparticlesand
can cause them to move if they are not fixed in place. If
chargesare free to move, the materialis called "electrically
conducting,"and, in most materials,the resultingcurrent,
J, can be representedby a (currentdensity) vector that is
proportionalin size to the electricfield and parallelto it:
J = -E. (3)
External EMFs Create Fields and Currentsin Body Tissues
In a conductingbody, some electrical charges are free
to move, and these charges position themselves in
response to an external electric field so that the internal
electric field is close to zero. At zero frequency, or d.c.
(directcurrent),chargesmove to body surfacesso that the
cancellationis exact, and the internalelectric field is zero.
For a.c. (alternating current) electric fields, the charges
mustflow back and forth to maintainthe cancellation,and
a small internalelectric field drivesthis flow. Because the
electrical resistance (or "impedance")of living tissues is
very muchsmallerthan the electricalimpedanceof air, the
internalfield is quite small, with the ratio of internaland
externalelectric fields approximatelyequal to the ratio of
these impedances:

The constantof proportionality,a, is the electricalconduc-

internal E field Ei
tivityof the tissueand has unitsof siemensper meter (S/m).
external E field EOI
Conductivityis the inverseof resistivity,and S/m is equiva-
lent to 1/(fl-m) or A/(V-m); conductivityof humantissue
rangesfromabout0.05 (bone, fat, lungs)to 0.6 (blood) S/m; resistivityof tissue (1/a)
the conductivityof copperis 600,000S/m. (6)
impedanceof air (1/We)

Electric and Magnetic Fields Contain Energy Here, Eis the dielectricconstantof air, u is the conductivity
In additionto exertingforce on electriccharges,an elec- of tissue (0.05 to 0.6 S/m), and w is the EMF frequency(at
tricfieldcontainsenergy: 60 Hz, w = 377 radians/s).Equation(6) tells us that,for d.c.
fields (t = 0), there is zero internalelectricfield;at 60 Hz,
the resistivity (p = 1/r) of tissue (1.7 to 20 Q-m) is much
electricfieldenergy per unit volume e or2 2 (4) lower than the
impedanceof air (3 x 108f-m); therefore,
the interiorelectricfield is about 10-7to 10-9of the exterior
wheree is the dielectricconstant.In free space or (approxi- field.Thusan external60 Hz electricfield of 1,000V/m pro-
mately) in air, E = Eo= 8.85 x 10-12,where the units for Ecan duces a tissue field of 4 x 10-5V/m (7), whichis equivalent
be given as J/[(V/m)2.m3], C2/(N.m2)or F/m.For example,a to the field producedby connectinga 1.5-V flashlightbat-
1,000-V/melectricfieldhas energyper unitvolumeof about teryacross23 milesof tissue.
4 x 106 J/m3. At low frequencies, cell membranes are much more
Like the electricfield, the magneticfield not only exerts resistivethan eitherthe cytoplasmor the intracellularfluid,
forces on moving charges, but also stores energy. The and most of the tissue-average field appears across cell
amountof energystoredby a field,B, is givenby: membranes. The transmembranefield is approximately
3,000 times the field in the surroundingtissue, so that a
B2 1,000-V/mexternalfield resultsin a cell membranefield of
magneticfield energy per unit volume = 22, 1 (5) 0.12 V/m (8). In areasof the body wheretissueresistanceis
increaseddue to a small cross section and the presence of
low-conductivitybone (e.g. the ankle of a person standing
where t is magneticpermittivity.In free space or (approxi- on one foot), the internalelectric field will be proportion-
mately) in all non-ferrous materials, p = po = 47r x 10-7 = ately higher, maybe 100-fold, but will still be very much
1.257x 10-, wherethe unitsfor tIcan be writtenas m3.T2/J, lower than the external electric field. Equation (6) also
N/A2 or H/m. For example, a 0.1-mT magnetic field has shows that as w increases,the ratio Ei/Eoincreases;there-
energyper unitvolumeof about4 x 10-3J/m3. fore, the interior of the body is exposed to an increasing
the
By comparison, thermal, kinetic energycontent of liv- fraction of the electricfield at higherfrequencies.At a fre-
ing tissuesis about 2.2 x 108J/m3,or about 1010-fold larger. quency about 1 MHz, the internaland external E fields
of
The dimensional units of electric and magnetic fields are approximatelythe same size.
identify how EMFs exert a physical influence on matter, Fifty or 60 Hz magneticfields penetrate the body with
and any mechanism of EMFs must necessarilybe a function negligible attenuation. Moreover, time-varyingmagnetic
of EMF "force"or "energy."All effects of EMFs on bio- fieldscreatetime-varyingelectricfields,whichcauseelectric
logical systems must result from the force exerted by the currentsin a conductingobject.The currentsproducedare
electricandmagneticfieldson chargesin the system. proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic
6 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY
TABLEI
The Internal Electrical Effects due to Benchmark 50/60 Hz Electric (E) Fields
Benchmark Internal Internalcurrent
electricfield E field, V/m (7) density,mA/m2(29)
1,000V/m 4 x 10-5 Neck, 0.22
(1 kV/m) Chest,0.15
Ankle, 6.8
field (B/lat). For example, in a circular loop of radius r, ori-
ented perpendicular to a uniform magnetic field, the mag-
netic flux through the loop is given by the product of the
field magnitude times the area of the loop, arr2B.If the time
variation in B is sinusoidal with a frequency f, then B = Bo
sin 2irft. Faraday's Law states that multiplying the area of
the loop (A = rrr2)by aB/at gives the voltage induced, and
dividing the voltage by the circumference of the loop, 2rrr,
gives the electric field along all points of the loop, if the
electricalconductivityis uniform:
Eind = T dat
B impulse conveyed to cell elements is below thermal noise;
= - r =- -rr r f Bo cos(2rft).
2 at
The Faraday effect illustrates how time-varying magnetic
fields exert force on electric charges in the body. For
example, an a.c. magnetic field with a peak value of 0.1
mT (f = 60 Hz) has a aB/lt of 37.7 mT/s, and would pro-
duce an induced electric field of 0.0048 V/m around the
periphery of a (large) human of diameter 50 cm. The field
strength (Eq. 7) depends on the size of the loop involved;
in a small structure such as a spherical cell of diameter 10
pm, 0.1 mT would induce 10-7 V/m, just inside the cell
membrane. The average tissue current induced at the
periphery of the body by a 0.1-mT 60 Hz field2 is <1
mA/m2. At a more localized level, the current density may
be increased to 10 mA/m2 in pericellular spaces (9). In
more central regions of the body, the currents would be
much smaller. In contrast, endogenous pericellular cur-
rents in the vicinity of firing neurons provide a back-
ground level of about 1,000 mA/m2 (9).
Tables I and II summarize the types of induced voltages,
currents and energies produced by benchmark levels of
50/60 Hz EMFs. However, when 50/60 Hz currents are
switched on or off, the time rate of change of magnetic
fields can far exceed the value of aBlat that exists during
2If the average conductivityof the body is -0.15 S/m, and J = frE,
then we can calculatethat a field of 0.0048V/m will producea currentof
0.72 mA/m2.
Cell membrane E field,force Energydeposition
field,V/m (8) on 10 charges rate,W/kg(29)
0.12 Tissue: 5.7 x 10-10
6 x 10-l pN
Membrane:
2 X 10-7pN
steady currents. Hence transients, i.e. rapid fluctuations or
pulses in the magnetic field, can induce larger electric fields.
Values for the time variations in the range of 40,000 mT/s
have been measured in the proximity of mechanical
switches for light fixtures and other devices (10). Of course,
a steady-state aBlat of 0.1 mT/s associated with a 0.3-1iT
50/60 Hz continuous field persists for much longer times
than the 40,000-mT/s transient, which may occur over tens
of nanoseconds. Adair (11) analyzed the effect of short-
term pulses from the point of view of momentum transfer
to calcium ions, macromolecules and individual cells and
concluded that, due to the short duration of such pulses, the
Adair's analysis has been modified by Gailey and Easterly
(12), but the overall conclusions are not affected.
(7)
THE ENVIRONMENT OF LIVING CELLS IS
ELECTRICALLY NOISY
The constituents of matter are in ceaseless (Brownian)
motion, the energy of which varies with temperature. Cells
are electrically noisy because they contain randomly mov-
ing charged ions and molecules, whose fluctuating distribu-
tions give rise to non-uniform distributions of electric
charge, which produce randomly varying electric fields. This
inescapable noise, which depends only on temperature, is
called "thermal noise" ("Johnson" or "resistor noise"). The
product, kT, refers to the average kinetic energy of
molecules at the absolute temperature T (kelvin; 37?C =
310 K), where k is Boltzmann's constant (k = 1.38 x 10-23
J/K). The chaotic motions of ions generate electrical noise
over a wide range of frequencies. Hence the noise energy is
proportional to the size of the frequency band of interest.
Electrical noise due to random molecular motion can be
derived from the Johnson-Nyquist expression for the root-
mean-square noise voltage, (VkT),that would be measured
across a two-terminal resistor, R (in ohms, Df), over the fre-
quency band of interest, Af:
(VkT) = J4RkTAf. (8)
Although this expression was originally derived for a two-
terminal resistor, the result is quite general and has been
applied by Adair (8) to estimate the unavoidable electric-
field noise within the body due to thermal energy. For
 MECHANISMSOF EMF:INTERACTIONSWITHBIOLOGICALSYSTEM 7

TABLEII
The Internal Electrical Effects due to Benchmark50/60 Hz Magnetic(B) Fields
Benchmark Induced Inducedcurrent, Cell membrane E field,force Magneticforce, Energydeposition
magneticfield E field,V/m mA/m2(7, 9) field,V/m (8) on ten charges 0.2-pmparticle rate,W/kg(29)

0.1 mT Body, 4.8 x 10-3 Body, 1.2 14.4 2.3 x 10-5pN 2pN 1.3 x 10-10
(= 1,000mG Heart, 10-3 Heart,0.2 3.0 4.8 x 106 pN (basalmetabolic
-80 A/m) Cell, 2 x 10-7 Cell,0.01 6x 10-4 1.0 x 10- pN rate> 1.0W/kg)
Channel, 10-10 Pericellular,10

example,the resistorcan be a volumeof tissue,in the form
of a cube of length d on an edge, between two planes of
separationd, that form the terminalsof the resistor.Since
thermal, electrical-fieldnoise can be calculated from the
thermal noise in the voltage, (EkT) = (VkT)/d, noise levels for
the electricfield are givenby:
4RkTAf
(EkT) (9)
The resistivity,p, of tissue is relatedto the resistanceof the
cube of tissue, R by R = p x (length/area) = p/d. Thus the
electric-fieldnoise depends on the dimensionsof the vol-
ume in question:
= (10)
(EkT) 3kTAf
The appropriate size range for d in Eq. (10) is deter-
mined by the size of the structureaffected by the voltage
fluctuations,with the electric-field noise increasingwith
decreasing dimensions, as d-312.In fact, at molecular
dimensions, the field strength required to reverse the
momentaof molecules in collision is very large, about 107
V/m over dimensions of 10-10m; this represents the low-
est size range at which Eq. (10) would be valid. That is,
very large electric-fieldfluctuationscan be expected over
the molecular scale as a consequence of thermal colli-
sions among molecules.
For cells at body temperature,kT = 4.28 X 10-21 J, and
the relevant frequency range over which the cell might
respond is 100 Hz, so Af = 100 Hz (i.e. 0-100 Hz, which
encompasses50/60Hz frequencies).For the cell membrane,
R 108fl (13),3 d = 5 X 10-9m, and the electrical noise is:
= 1.3 x 10-5 V, and (EkT)memb
(VkT)memb = 2,600 V/m.
3Cellmembraneshave a resistanceper unit area thatvariesover 0.14
to 15 fl/m2.To look at minimumlevels of noise, we use the lowest resis-
tance in this range (0.14 lf/m2) and a large cell size (20 pm diameter).
The surfacearea of a sphericalcell is 'rd2, and the resistanceis 1.1 x 108
Q. Largercells or cells with moresurfaceareawill have lowertransmem-
braneresistanceandcorrespondingly lowerelectricalnoise.
If transductionis proposed to occur as a function of the
membranevoltage of a single cell, the thermalnoise limit
for single-cell effects is given in terms of membranevolt-
age fluctuations, namely 1.3 x 10-5V. Electric fields of
-0.9 V/m in the tissue fluids surroundinga sphericalcell
would translateinto 2,700 V/m in the cell membrane,just
reachingthe noise level. That is, the thermallimit for tis-
sue fields that drive cellular effects originating at the
membrane level is about 1 V/m. For sufficiently elon-
gated cells, the tissue field required is about tenfold
lower (0.1 V/m).
Equation (10) shows that the noise level is decreasedif
the bandwidth,Af, is decreased.This is analogousto being
able to hear a pure tone in the presence of a louder back-
ground hiss. However, because the bandwidthenters the
equation under the square root, it would have to be
reducedby 100 to reducethe noise by a factorof 10;i.e., Af
wouldhave to be reducedfrom 100Hz to 1 Hz to bringthe
cell membranenoise down from 1.3 x 10-5V to 1.3 x 10-6
V. This change in zf would reduce the cell membraneE-
fieldnoise to 260 V/m;this is still20-foldlargerthanthe cell
membranesignal (14.4 V/m, Table II) inducedat the body
peripheryby a 0.1-mT,50/60Hz magneticfield. Moreover,
a biologicalresponsewith a frequencydependenceas nar-
row as 60 ? 1 Hz is unknown.
"Stochastic resonance" is a process whereby noise
added to an oscillating, nonlinear system can produce
responsesthat are not seen in the absence of noise (14). If
the oscillatingsystemis close to a thresholdin the absence
of noise, the additionof a small amountof noise can have
a dramatic effect in the number of times the system
crosses the threshold (if you average over an adequate
period). However, this phenomenon is of little use in the
situationdescribedabove, where the largestsignalsby far
are the noise. The addition of a small oscillatingsignal to
the largernoise would have a marginaleffect in the transi-
tion rate over the threshold.
In summary,the environmentof living cells is electri-
cally noisy, and if externallyimposedEMFs are to present
a signal discernibleby cells, the signalsmust somehow be
distinguishablein magnitude,frequency,coherence, etc.,
from the applicablethermalnoise level, characterizedby
the energy, kT. Because of the small magnitudeof EMF-
induced signals, the process by which this can occur is
not apparent.
8 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY

Living Cells Exhibit Abundant Electrical Activity Multicellularorganismscan exhibitexquisitefield sensi-

In additionto thermalnoise, cells containother sources tivity.Sharksrespondto slowlyvaryingtissue (water)elec-
of electricalnoise such as (1) "shot"noise, (2) "llf" noise tric fields of 106 V/m (24-27). Both large numbersof cells
and (3) electrical signals from propagatingaction poten- distributedin a large organismand complexsignalamplifi-
tials in nerve and muscle cells (9, 15, 16). Shot noise cation and processingare requiredto achieve this perfor-
derives from the fact that electrical charge comes in dis- mance.The followingdiscussionof mechanismsillustrates
crete units. When a "constant" current is flowing, the why the signal-to-noise(S/N) ratiois one of the centralcon-
number of charges per second will not be constant over siderationsin evaluatingthe implicationsof the reported
short time scales, but will fluctuateup and down,governed bioeffectsof low-fieldEMFs.
by Poisson statistics,as does any processinvolvingdiscrete
events. An analogy can be drawnwith radioactivedecay, MECHANISM: DIRECT ENERGY TRANSFER
where the isotope half-life ("averagecurrent")is a precise
Power Lines "Radiate"Virtually No Energy
number, but the actual decays in a short period of time
("currentfluctuations")have a scatter to them. The elec- Unlike a radio antenna,an electric-powertransmission
trical noise due to this fluctuating charge distributionis line is a verypoor antenna,and the energythat is put into a
called shot noise. The llf noise, or flicker noise, is funda- radiative form is minuscule;it is not accurate to say that
mentalto manyprocesses,and,unlikethermalnoise, which significant"radiation"or "emissions"come from 50/60 Hz
is "white"(constantwith frequency),the magnitudeof 1lf power lines. A 100-mlength of transmissionline carrying
noise increases at lower frequencies;llf noise is not well 500 MW of 50/60 Hz electricalpower radiatesless than 10
understood, but it appears to be inherent to any process pW of energy, which would be approximately2 x 10-8
(e.g. ion flow througha channel) that evolves and changes W/m2at one meter from the line (28). Aside from electro-
with time. Finally, "action potentials" are vigorous magneticradiation,the heating effects of electric currents
changes in the membrane potential of nerve and muscle inducedwithin the body by 1-kV/mand 0.1-mTfields can
cells. Electric fields and currentsfrom normalphysiologi- be calculatedto be about 5 x 10-8W (29), which,normal-
cal functions derive from electrical activityof cells within ized to the body surfacearea, is also about 2 x 10-8W/m2.
the heart,muscles and brain,as recordedin electrocardio- In comparison,the electromagneticenergy flux from the
grams, electromyelograms and electroencephalograms, sun at noon is -1,400 W/m2;the energy flux from the full
respectively.Magneticsignalsfrom these sources also can moon is -2 X 10-3 W/m2,about 100,000-foldgreaterthan
be measured (e.g. magnetocardiograms,magnetomyelo- the energyfluxfrompowerlines.
grams and magnetoencephalograms).At low frequencies
(<1 kHz), shot noise, llf noise and noise from electrically Energy Can Appear as Accelerated Ions and Induced Ion
active tissues are manyfoldlargerthan the electricalnoise Currents
from thermaleffects (15, 17). At the molecularlevel, electricfields in tissue and 50/60
Cells varywidely in their responseto membranepertur- Hz magnetic fields can accelerate ions and charged pro-
bations by electrical fields. Steady electric-fieldgradients teins. The amount of energy that can be transferredto
can cause cells to migrateand extend processes("galvano- charged molecules is readily calculated, and Table III
taxis"),but 50/60 Hz electricfields as large as 1,200V/m in shows how far a tenfold-chargedmolecule would have to
tissuefluidshave not been foundto affectgalvanotaxis(18). be acceleratedto make a change in its energy that is com-
Depolarization of single (15-,m-diameter) heart cells in parable to thermal kinetic energies (the average kinetic
solutionrequireshighlevels of fieldin the fluid,of the order energy of each molecule is given by 3/2 k. T, which is 6.4
of 1,600V/m (19). Neithercellularmorphologynor the dis- x 10-21 J or -0.04 eV); the table shows that, even if free
tributionof charged,cell-surface,lipoproteinreceptorswas acceleration were allowed over the dimensions of the
alteredafterapplicationof 60 Hz, 2,300-V/mtissuefieldsin body, the 1,000-V/m and/or 0.1-mT fields would not be
humanfibrosarcomacells (20). Changesin the structureof able to impartenergyto chargedmolecules at a significant
artificiallipid layers,such as are characteristicof cell mem- rate. Of course,collisionswith othermoleculespreventany
branes, required 107V/m (which is much higher than the single molecule from unimpeded acceleration. The drift
thresholdof electroporationof cell membranes,namely105 velocityimposedis about 10-9of the thermalvelocity.Thus
V/m) (21). Yet synchronizationof Aplysiapacemakerneu- weak fields cannot modify the motions of individual
rons has been reported at 0.2 V/m (22), and reduction in moleculesin a mannerthat wouldbe biologicallyrelevant.
fibroblastprotein synthesishas been reportedat 0.01 V/m Electromagneticfields can transferenergy via currents
(23). The latter responsewas measuredafter 12 h of expo- inducedby inductiveand capacitivecoupling,with resultant
sure, and increasingthe field by over two ordersof magni- resistiveheating (I2Rheating) of body tissues.The energy
tude did not increasethe response.Overall,there is a vast, transfer can be calculated, and a human body exposed
five-orders-of-magnitudespan between a reported "no- simultaneouslyto 50/60Hz 0.1-mTand 1,000-V/mfieldswill
effect" level of 1,200 V/m in one cell system comparedto absorb about 5 x 10-7W of energy (29). This rate of energy
reportedeffectsat 0.01V/m in a differentcell system. absorption is 8 orders of magnitude (108) less than the
 MECHANISMSOF EMF:INTERACTIONSWITHBIOLOGICALSYSTEM 9

TABLEIII
50/60 Hz EMF Energy Transferto a Tenfold-ChargedaMolecule
Internal,induced Energyachievableb Accelerationdistancebfor
External,appliedfield tissueE field over 20-pmcell "energy - kT - 0.04 eV"

1,000V/m 4 x 10-5V/m 10-8eV 100m

0.1 mT 4.8 x 10-3V/m 10-6eV 0.8 m
aA moleculethatdepartsfromelectricalneutralitywithan excessof 10 positiveor 10 negativecharges.
bTheseenergiesare calculatedas if the ion could accelerateunimpeded,i.e. as if in a vacuum.In fact, the chargedmoleculecan accelerateonly
about10-12s beforeexperiencinga collision.Whatthis meansis that the tissue E field will add a smalldriftvelocityto the thermalvelocityof random
molecularmotions.Thermalvelocities are of the orderof 1,000mph (450 m/s), whereasthe driftvelocity imposedby 4.8 x 10-3 V/m on a tenfold-
chargedion is aboutone inchper day (3 x 10-7m/s).

body's basal metabolicrate (-100 W). Because the wave- energies is shown in Table IV, which also shows the rel-
length of 60 Hz in tissue (-5 km) is far larger than the ative position of thermal energies (kT) in comparisonto
dimensionsof the humanbody, the EMF energycannotbe the strength of chemical bonds. Since the electric field
focusedinto a smallportionof the body. produced in tissue by a 1,000-V/m external 50/60 Hz
Some inducedcurrentscan be intense enough to trans- electric field is about 4 x 10-5 V/m, the maximumenergy
fer perceptible energy. Large time-varying magnetic a tenfold-chargedion can attain across a 10-pm-diameter
fields at low frequencies can produce physiological cell (even in a vacuum, with no collisions) is 4 X 10-9
effects. A rate of change, dBldt, of about 800 mT/s stim- eV. Hence our benchmarklevels of EMFs cannot accel-
ulates magnetophosphenes. These sensations of light erate ions to energies that can disturb even the weakest
flashes in the eye, produced by changing magnetic chemical bonds.
fields, are a well-established biological effect, presum- Electromagnetic radiation, although "wave-like" in
ably caused by the induced currents depolarizing cell nature, behaves like "particles"when being absorbed or
membranes within the retina. Magnetophosphenes emittedby matter.Thatis, absorptionand emissionof radi-
require about 7 mT at 20 Hz, but 30 mT at 50/60 Hz (30); ation occursin discreteenergy units,photons,with energy
phosphenes can also be produced by electric current content E = hv, where h is Planck'sconstant and v is the
appliedby means of electrodes at the temples (31). Fields frequency.Table V lists photon energies, and these ener-
with frequenciesin excess of about 100 Hz are ineffective gies can also be comparedto the chemical bond energies
in producingmagnetophosphenes. shown in Table IV. High-frequencyradiation,e.g. X-ray
Electriccurrentsinducedby time-varyingmagneticfields photons,have highenergycontentand can ionize biological
can stimulate action potentials in neurons. Although the molecules.Photonsin the visible and UV rangecan excite
exact nature of the induced electric currents is poorly moleculesand initiatemolecularshapechangesor chemical
understood,experimentalevidence shows that a threshold reactions.Photon energies of electromagneticradiationin
power-frequencycurrentdensity of about 10-20 A/m2 is
requiredto induceactionpotentialsin nerves(30). Even for
long neuronsorientedparallelto the current-density vector, TABLEIV
currentsin excessof 1-2 A/m2are necessary.At 50/60Hz, a Chemical Bond EnergiesRelative to Light,
whole-body magnetic field of about 100 mT would be Thermaland EMF Energies
requiredto achievethis level of inducedcurrentdensity.As eV/bond
was summarizedin Table II, 50/60 Hz 0.1-mT fields pro- Bond type kcal/mol (or per molecule)
duce V/loooof this thresholdcurrentdensity.
N-N, triplecovalentbond 225 9.5
0=0, doublecovalentbond 118 5.1
60 Hz EMF EnergyCannotBreakChemicalBonds 83
C-C, singlecovalentbond 3.6
Within living cells, collisions between molecules (pro- Photonsof greenlight 57 2.5
teins, nucleic acids, etc.) moving with thermal energies ATP hydrolysisa 0.3
7.3
occur at a rate (1012per second Ligand-to-receptorbond (33)
15 0.6
high per molecule) (32). 2.4 0.1
Each collision results in electrical distortion of the col- Hydrogenbond
Isomerizationof enzyme 0.7 0.03
liding entities. Biological molecules are constructed so 3/2kT 0.9 0.04
as to withstandthese electric fields and to resist the nor- EMF-acceleratedions"' 2.0 x 10-7 10-8
mal buffeting of thermal energies (0.3 kcal/mol = 0.04 "ATP= adenosinetriphosphate.
eV). To disrupt single covalent bonds, 83 kcal/mol (3.6 bTenfold-chargedions (ions with 10 excess positive or negative
eV) is required, and even hydrogen bonds have an aver- charges)acceleratedthrough4 x 10-5V/m field acrossa 20-pmdistance
age energy of 2.4 kcal/mol (0.1 eV). A range of bond (cell diameter).
10 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY
TABLEV
Energy per Photon in Electromagnetic Waves
Descriptor Wavelength rangea
Soft Xray X = 1.2 nm
Visible light (green) X = 0.5 pm
Far infrared (body temperature) X = 30 pm
Millimeter radar X = 1.2 mm
Television/radio (e.g. 240 MHz)b = 1.2m
Power-line 60 Hz X = 5,000 km
a" = wavelength; v = frequency; c = speed of light = 3 x 108 m/s; h = Planck's constant = 6.62 x
(4.14 x 10-15eV-s) x (v) = (1.24 x 10-6 eV-m) X (l/X).
bv = Elh = 240 MHz; period of oscillation = l/v = 0.4 x 10-9 s = 0.4 ns.
the microwave region and above can excite vibrational
energy levels of molecules. Lower frequencies, including
50/60 Hz EMFs, have vanishingly small photon energies.
The photon energy of 50/60 Hz electromagnetic waves is not
relevant, however, to interactions which are not "radiative"
or in the "near field" of sources.
The characteristics of 60 Hz EMFs that are relevant to
energy interactions with biological systems are summarized
in Table VI. These include wavelength much larger than
body size, and extremely low levels of energy deposition in
the body.
MECHANISM:FORCEEXERTEDBY EMFs, COMPARED
TO BIOLOGICALFORCES
The function of proteins depends on their three-dimen-
sional configuration. If an electric field were to change the
shape of a protein anchored in the cell membrane or sus-
pended in the cytoplasm, the protein's ability to function as
an enzyme, a receptor or an ionic gate could be altered.
Large enough electric fields could cause changes in mem-
brane channels, which control fluxes of small ions and
molecules across cell membranes; enzyme conformation,
which is key to an enzyme's catalytic activity in chemical
reactions; receptor protein shape, which may alter ligand
binding to the receptor protein; membrane conformation,
which may modify biochemical reactions at the surfaces of
cell membranes; cell shape, which could alter secretion,
motility, phagocytosis or excitability; and shape of the
counterion cloud surrounding individual cells, which may
alter the electric-charge milieu of macromolecules.4 Effects
at internal cell membranes (nucleus, mitochondria, etc.)
are unlikely since the resistive outer cell membrane shields
these inner membranes. The magnitude of the electric-field
force is the critical factor in evaluating whether protein
4The counterion cloud (also called the Helmholtz-Stern layer) is a
layer (-0.8 nm thick) of mobile positive ions that become attracted to
the anionic membrane glycolipids and glycoproteins of the membrane
surface. Counterion polarization occurs above the membrane surface
and is distinct from the transmembrane potential.
Photon energya Photon effect
1,000 eV Ionize molecules
2.5 eV Excite molecules
0.04 eV Vibrate molecules
10-3eV Vibrate, rotate molecules
106 eV ?
10-12 eV
10-34 J-s; then, E = photon energy = hv = hcl/
configuration or cell structures can be altered. The force on
a charged molecule exerted by EMFs is given by Eq. (1);
only part of this force will act to distort (as opposed to
translate) the molecule. For comparison purposes, we
assumed that the total force is of biological relevance, and
we calculated the forces exerted by our benchmark EMFs
(1,000 V/m and 0.1 mT) on molecules with 10 charges
(Ca2+has only two charges, but proteins can carry a larger
number of unbalanced charges).
Because of much recent work using the "atomic force
microscope" and "optical tweezers," it is possible to com-
pare the calculated electrical forces against the forces that
biological molecules can generate and sense. These tiny
forces (Table VII) are given in piconewtons (1 pN = 10-12
N); a milliliter of water weighs 1010pN, and a single, 20-pm-
diameter cell weighs about 40 pN.s Table VII compares the
largest forces that our benchmark EMFs can exert on a
charged molecule with 10 unit charges against forces opera-
tive in biological structures which are either force genera-
tors or force transducers.
Table VII dramatically illustrates that EMF forces on
even tenfold-charged molecules are nearly 1 million-fold
smaller than typical biological forces. For example, 0.1 mT
can induce a maximum cell membrane field of about 14
V/m, which results in a force of 2 x 10-5 pN. In compari-
son, most mammalian cell membranes maintain a voltage
of 50 mV across a distance of about 5 nm, giving an elec-
tricfield of 10 millionV/m (50 x 10-3 V/5 X 10-9 m), which
yields a force of 16 pN. Hence proteins embedded in the
cell membrane normally experience million-fold larger
electric forces than can be exerted on them by external
EMFs. Molecules sufficiently robust to withstand the
endogenous forces in Table VII (-10 pN) would be
51t is important to distinguish between "weight," which is the force
exerted on something by gravity, and "mass," which is the quantity of
matter. We are accustomed to express the weight of things in terms of
the amount of mass they contain, but can do so only because, on the sur-
face of the earth, there is a strict proportionality (F = mg) between the
two. That is, a milliliter of water contains 1 g of mass, which is attracted
to the Earth by a force of about 0.01 N, which is its "weight."
 MECHANISMS OF EMF: INTERACTIONS WITH BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM 11

TABLEVI
Characteristics of 60 Hz EMFs as They Relate to the Human Body
EMF parameters Relevant biological parameters

Descriptor Value Alternate units Descriptor Value

Wavelength (in air) 5 million metersa 3,110 miles Body size 2-m length
0.5-m diameter
60 Hz EMFs Molecular kinetic energy at
Photon energy 2.5 x 10-13 eV 2.43 X 108 J/mol 37?C (3/2 kT) 0.04 eV

Energy radiated by a 100-m section 10-5W (24) 2 x 10-14of power transmitted Human basal metabolic rate -100 W (basal)
of a 500-MW power line along the lineb -800 W (exercising)
Maximum heating rate at 0.1 mT; 5 x 10-8Wb Temperature rise = 1.5 x 10-8 ?C/day
1,000 V/m of human body

aWavelength in air. In tissue, the wavelength would be shorter because the speed of wave propagation is slower. Wavespeed in nonconductors is
given by c = (Epi)-12; g is about the same in air and tissue, but since E, the dielectric constant, for muscle tissue is about 106 times that of air, the wave-
length of 60 Hz waves in muscle tissue would be 50,000 m, still much greater than the dimensions of the body.
bGandhi and Chen (29) calculate currents induced be E and B fields, and maximum power can be calculated from Power = I2R. Temperature rise
can be calculated from the fact that the heat capacity of 70-kg body is 3 x 105 J/?C, and the heat input of 0.05 liW over 24 h is 4.3 X 103 J.

deformed by weak 50/60 Hz EMF forces (-10-5 pN) to an
extremely small degree.
MECHANISM: MAGNETIC FIELDS
AND MAGNETITE PARTICLES
Normal body tissues and proteins are not ferromagnetic;
ferromagnetic crystals, however, have a permanent magne-
tization, and magnetic fields can twist (torque) these parti-
cles. Magnetic fields can also exert translational force on
ferromagnetic particles, but this would require magnetic-
field gradients far beyond what is available in environmen-
tal fields. Just like the Earth's magnetic field can physically
rotate the needle of a magnetic compass, this "magnetic-
particle" mechanism postulates a direct interaction of mag-
netic fields with microscopic magnets within the body
(46-48). The magnitude of the twisting force depends on
the magnetic-field intensity, the particle magnetic moment
and the angle between them. The torque, T, can be
expressed mathematically as:
T = m x B = mBsin0, (11)

TABLEVII
External 50/60 Hz EMF Forces Compared to Biological Forces
Force produced
(pN = 10-12 N) Reference

EMF force
a
Electric-field (1,000 V/m) force on a charged molecule(10+) 6 x 10-11pN
b
60 Hz, 0.1-mT induced force on a molecule in the cell membrane 2 x 10-5 pN
c
Force on a moving molecule(10+),due to magnetic field (0.1 mT) 1 x 10-7pN
Biological entity
Activation of a single hair cell in the inner ear 1 pN (5,34,35)
Single kinesin molecule acting against a microtubule 3 pN (36-38)
Single muscle myosin molecule pulling on an actin filament 4pN (39)
Force required to open a mechano-receptive, cell-membrane ion channel 14 pN (40)
DNA transcription (RNA polymerase force) 14 pN (41)
d
Charged molecule(10+),in cell membrane at resting potential (50 mV) 16 pN
Force required to stretch out a DNA molecule 20 pN (42)
Protein receptor to molecular ligand forces (molecular recognition) 90 pN (33,43)
DNA strand-to-strand binding force, per each complementary base pair 70 pN (44)
Force generated in flagellar motor (10-nm radius) of bacteria 100 pN (45)

aAn electric field of 1,000 V/m outside the body yields an internal E field of 4 x 10-5 V/m; if the tenfold-charged molecule is within a cell mem-
brane, the force is 3,000 times larger, i.e. 1.8 x 10-7 pN.
bThe maximum electric field induced by a 0.1-mT magnetic field is 4.8 x 103 V/m (i.e. at the body periphery); the consequent E field produced in
the cell membrane is taken to be 0.0048 x 3,000 = 14.4 V/m.
CLorentzforce on tenfold-charged ion with thermal average velocity (37?C) of calcium ions (-450 m/s).
d50 mV across a distance of about 5 nm is an electric field of 107 V/m.
12 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY
where the cross product(x) between the vectors for mag-
netic moment,m, and magneticfield,B, indicatesthe twist-
ing force is at a maximumwhen the two vectorsare perpen-
dicularto each other,and is zero when they are parallel.
Magnetic material is composed of "domains,"each of
which defines a region wherein individualmolecularmag-
nets point in the same direction.If there are more domains
oriented in one directionthan in any other, the materialis
said to be magnetized.In "single-domain"particles,all the
molecularmoments are aligned,and the particlemagnetic
momentis the productof the particlevolume and the mag-
netizationper unitvolume.For magnetite(Fe304),the satu-
ration magnetizationis 90 A-m2/kgor 4.8 x 105A-m2/m3
(49). Hence a 0.2-im-diameter sphere would have a mag-
netic moment of 2 x 10-15A-m2 and would experience a
maximumtorqueof 2 X 10-19N-m in a field of 0.1 mT. This
can be thoughtof as force of 2 pN actingon a lever armof
0.1 Mm.As can be seen from Table VII, the 2-pN twisting
force caused by a 0.1-mTfield on a 0.2-Amsphere of mag-
netic materialis comparableto biologicalforces.The prod-
uct mB also gives the energy of interaction,which in this
case is -50 kT. Thus the motion of magneticparticlespro-
duced by a 0.1-mTfield could result in a detectable trans-
ductiveevent, based on considerationsof thermalnoise and
force magnitude.
Kirschvinkand colleagues(46) reportedthe presenceof
pure, microscopicmagnetite crystalsin the human brain.
Because these "microscopicbar magnets"can interactwith
ambientmagneticfields, they proposedthat biogenicmag-
netite may accountfor a varietyof biologicaleffects of low-
frequencymagneticfields. However, a magnetite-contain-
ing "sensor cell" is yet to be identified in mammalian
species. In humans,the magnetitecrystalswere only about
33 nm in diameter (46), and since the magnetic moment
(and hence the magnetictorque) is proportionalto particle
volume,33-nmcrystalswould experiencea 223-foldsmaller
torque (and energy of interaction) than that calculated
above for a 200-nmsphere.A largenumberof Kirschvink's
single-domainmagneticcrystalsneed to act in concert for
the interaction energy with ambient magnetic fields to
exceed the randomizingeffects of thermalagitations.Also,
magnetitecrystalswould respondvigorouslyto changesin
the apparent direction of the Earth's magnetic field that
result from motion and rotation of our bodies duringnor-
mal activity,whichwould seem to swampany effect caused
by weak 50/60 Hz magnetic fields. However, Kirschvink
(50) speculatesthat some cellularprocessesmay accommo-
date to slow configurationalchanges(t > 0.1 s), yet respond
to rapid(60 Hz) field excursions.
Adair (51) has calculatedthat, for a.c. fields less than 5
pT, any a.c. fieldeffect on magneticparticleswill be masked
by thermalnoise, even given assumptionsof anomalously
largemagnetosomestructuresand anomalouslysmallcyto-
plasmicviscosities.The high viscosityof the cytoplasmwill
dramaticallyreduce the amountof responseexpected with
a.c. (60 Hz) (52, 53). Moreover,the energy transfervaries
with the squareof the a.c. field amplitude(54). For our 0.1-
mT benchmarka.c. magneticfield, viscosity7 times that of
water and 0.2-gm magnetic crystals, Adair's calculation
gives an energytransferof -50 kT, but for a field of 10 pT,
thiswouldfall below thermalnoise (to 0.5 kT). Or,if the vis-
cosity of the intracellularmatrixwere 100 times larger,the
energytransferwould also be decreasedto 0.5 kT, whichis
againbelow the thermalnoise limit, even for 0.1-mT50/60
Hz fields. In summary,benchmarka.c. magneticfields in
combinationwith biologicallycoupledmagnetosomesof 0.5
lim might give rise to a signal detectable by the cell; the
plausibilityof this mechanismis underminedwhen biologi-
callyreasonablevaluesfor particlesize and cytoplasmicvis-
cosityare assumed.Cuttingthe field size 500-fold(from100
iT to 0.2 ,iT) decreasesthe energy of interaction250,000-
fold, from50 kT to 0.0002kT;thatis, fieldlevelsreportedin
the epidemiologicalstudies(-0.2 jT) fallfarbelownoise.
MECHANISM: MAGNETIC FIELDS AND
FREE RADICAL RECOMBINATION
McLauchlan(55), Scaiano et al. (56) and others have
proposedthat 50/60Hz magneticfieldsmay extendthe life-
time of free radicals.Three characteristicsof free radical
moleculesare relevantto this mechanism:(1) A free radical
[e.g. hydroxylradical(OH') or superoxideanion (0O-)]is
very reactivechemically;but, undercertainconditions,two
free radicalscan combine with each other such that their
chemicalreactivityis canceled;(2) the reactivityis due to an
"unpairedelectron" [electrons can be thought of as tiny
spinningtops, with an arrowpointingalongthe axis of spin;
electronsin moleculesusuallycome in pairs,one with spin
"up"(t) and the other with spin "down"(1)]; and (3) the
electron spin has a magnetic moment, which can interact
withmagneticfields.
Free radicalsare often formed in pairs either with their
spinsparallel("tripletstate")or with theirspins anti-paral-
lel ("singletstate").Free radicalsmay recombineafterfor-
mation. The quantum mechanics of the formation of a
chemicalbond between two reactingradicalsrequiresthat
they be in the singlet state (i.e. t J, with the two electron
spinsanti-parallel)ratherthanthe tripletstate (i.e. t t, with
the two spins parallel). Because the electrons have mag-
netic moments,local magneticfields from other electrons
(in orbitals of the same or nearby atoms) or from atomic
nuclei in the moleculemay flip one of the electronspinsso
that the two radicalschange from singlet to triplet or vice
versa;this changesthe likelihoodof recombination.Exter-
nally applied magnetic fields tend to "hold"the electron
magneticmoments and to reduce the probabilityof a spin
flip. For free radicalscreated in the triplet state (t 1), this
decreasesthe probabilityof free radicalrecombination.On
the other hand,this increasesthe probabilityof recombina-
tion of radicalscreatedin the singletstate (t $).
In systemsof organicradicals,triplet-singlet(T-S) inter-
change is seen to occur as a result of the radicals responding
 MECHANISMSOF EMF:INTERACTIONSWITHBIOLOGICALSYSTEM
to differentmagneticfieldsin theiratomicenvironment.An
applied external magnetic field can alter the rate of T-S
transitions(57-59). The effect does not dependon the spe-
cificchemicalidentityof the radicals,but does requirefields
of the orderof hundredsof gauss(tens of mT).
If the lifetimeof free radicalswere increased,the propor-
tion reacting chemicallywith cell macromoleculeswould
increase, and potentially, adverse effects on cell function
wouldensue.Free radicalinteractionsoccurover time scales
that are extremelyshort,e.g. nanosecondsto microseconds
(56, 60), and any free radicaleffectswouldnot differentiate
between50/60Hz magneticfieldsand the Earth'smagnetic
field. That is, a mechanismbased on changingfree radical
lifetimeswould not predictthat power-linemagneticfields
are somehow more deleterious than the Earth's natural
magneticfield(or otherstaticmagneticfields).
The short time scales of free radical effects are due to
the rapid rate of collisions among molecules in aqueous
solutions(_1012 per second);afterabout 10,000or so colli-
sions, the initiallyadjacentradicalpairhave diffusedapart
and will no longerhave the opportunityto recombine,and
magneticfields can no longer have an effect on the likeli-
hood of recombination.Thus escape by diffusionoccursin
less than0.1 ps,whereasone cycle of 60 Hz is 17 ms in dura-
tion, more than 100,000times slower.That is, for free radi-
cal recombinationeffects,all magneticfieldsup to about 105
Hz "look"like d.c., and this mechanismis not in any way
specificto power-linemagneticfields.
In summary,free radical effects are not selective for
50/60 Hz power-line fields, and become effective at field
strengthsfar in excess of what is availablein the environ-
ment.Furthermore,the bioeffectsof EMFsreportedin the
literature are not obvious candidatesfor the free radical
mechanism.Althoughfree radicalsappearto play a role in
causinggeneticdamage(61), the evidencefor geneticdam-
age inducedby EMFsis generallynegative(62, 63).
MECHANISM: FREQUENCY-SELECTIVE, "RESONANCE"
RESPONSES REDUCE THE EFFECT OF NOISE
Some mechanismsare selectivefor the "information"in
EMFs. Such informationis often envisagedas alteringthe
transitionrates between quantummechanicalstates of the
system.These transitionsexhibit "resonance"in the sense
that the frequencyband is narrow,and the noise level that
needs to be exceededis reduced.However,the noise reduc-
tion comes at the price of additional requirements.One
requirementfor this mechanismto operateis that the sensi-
tivity of the biological system spans only a narrow fre-
quencyrange.If, for example,the interactionmechanismis
finelytuned to exactlythe 60 Hz (or 50 Hz) frequency(i.e.
"resonant"),then the electricfieldsinducedin the biologi-
cal system within a sufficientlynarrowband of frequency
(e.g. 59.5 to 60.5 Hz) may be greaterthan thermalnoise in
this same frequencyband.Anothernecessaryconditionfor
resonance-narrowing is that the resonantsystembe undis-
13
turbed for the required sample time. For example, to
achieve a 1 Hz bandwidthon a 60 Hz resonantmechanism
would requireat least 60 undisturbedcycles, or 1 s of per-
turbation-freeintegrationtime, whichis difficultto achieve
in a fluid environmentwhere 1012molecularcollisions are
occurringeverysecond.
Ion Cyclotron Resonance (ICR)
Mostmechanismsinvolving"resonance" predictthatonly
specific combinations of d.c. magnetic-fieldstrength (the
sourceof whichis the Earth'sfield) and a.c. magnetic-field
frequencies are biologically effective. Because magnetic
fieldsexertforceon movingchargedparticlesat rightangles
to theirdirectionof motion,a staticmagneticfieldwill cause
a chargedparticle(e.g. a Ca2+ion) to move in a circle at a
ratethatis calledthe "cyclotronfrequency."Liboffproposed
thata resonantresponsecanbe elicitedby combininga static
magneticfield with a parallel,time-varyingmagneticfield
whose frequencyis tuned to the cyclotronfrequencyof an
ion (64-67). Liboff applied the equations describingion
cyclotronmotions in a vacuumto biology. However, since
real cyclotron motion cannot take place in liquids, the
motion was postulatedto take place in transmembraneion
channels or on membrane surfaces where the ion was
assumedto be isolated from other molecularinteractions.
The 50/60Hz fieldis postulatedto alterthe movementof cal-
cium ions throughchannelsin the cell membrane;thus the
cyclotronresonancehypothesiscan be appliedto bioeffects
that show a strongdependenceon frequency.Accordingto
ICR theory, the frequency,vc,of the a.c. magneticfield is
relatedto the strengthof the d.c.magneticfield,B0,by:
qBo
vc = n rm, (12)
2 am
where n is an integer, and where the ion has mass m and
chargeq. For example,the 60 Hz resonance(n = 1) for Ca2+
ions (qlm 5 x 106C/kg)occursat a staticfieldof 78.4 J,T,
and the similarresonance(n = 1) for Mg2+ions (qlm - 8 x
106C/kg) occursat 47.5 pT. For these same ions and static
fields, resonance would also occur at 120 Hz, 180 Hz, ... (n
= 2, 3, ...). Many criticisms have been made of the ICR
hypothesis (8, 32, 68, 69) because:
1. The requirementthat ions in a cell or membranechan-
nel behave in a way comparableto ions in a vacuumis
unrealistic.
2. In the Earth'sgeomagneticfield (50 ,uT),the cyclotron
orbitalradius(for Ca2+)is over 1 m, and thusis far larger
thanthe dimensionsof a cell or even the organism.
3. Molecularcollisions(damping)occurat a rate of 1012per
second,preventing"orbital"motion.
4. The electromotiveforce providedby the oscillatingmag-
netic fieldreversesdirectioneach half cycle,averagingto
zero. But even if rectified,the possibleenergytransferis
minute [e.g., for an ion constrainedto move in an orbit
14 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY

having the diameter of an ion channel (-10 nm), the adjacentenergy levels is proportionalto Ji(x), where Ji is
time required to exchange kT of energy with the ion the ith-orderBessel functionandwherex = iB1/Bo[a recent
usinga 0.1-mT60 Hz fieldis 44,000years]. reanalysisof Lednev'sIPR theory gives this as x = 2iB1/Bo
5. Since the time that an ion spends in a transmembrane (82), althoughLednevdoes not agree(83)].
channelis less than 1 ps, it wouldseem impossiblefor the Lednev acknowledgesthat the interactionof weak mag-
ion to "resonate"to 60 Hz fields. The very term "reso- netic fieldswith biologicalsystemsis "anomalous"because
nance" requires that the ion and field interact undis- of the low energycontent of the interactingmagneticfields
turbedfor at least a few cycles(-100,000 ps). whencomparedto ion thermalenergies.However,he claims
thathis theoryshowschangesin the probabilityof transitions
In additionto these flaws,a theoreticalanalysisof an ion betweenvibrationalenergylevels withoutany energypump-
confinedto a potentialwell and exposed to a combination ing into the system.He callsit analogousto "parametric res-
of parallel a.c. and d.c. magneticfields failed to find reso- onance"or the "quantum-beats effect."Lednev(81) identi-
nant behaviorat realisticvalues of model parameters(70). fied the followingfeaturesof his IPR theory:
Recent experimentshave failed to find resonantresponses
(71-78), and the ICR model lacks validity from both the 1. Differentialtransitionprobabilitieschangesign for even
experimentalandthe theoreticalstandpoints. versusodd subharmonicsof Vp,suggestingopposite bio-
logicaleffects;e.g., cell proliferationmay be increasedby
Ion Parametric Resonance (IPR) one and inhibitedby the other.
Anotherresonancemechanismwas proposedby Lednev 2. Monovalent ions such as H+, Li+,K+ and Na+ are not
(79-81), who predictedenhancedbioeffectsfor certaincom- expected to show any resonanceeffects becauseof their
binationsof paralleld.c. and a.c. magneticfield amplitudes shortdurationof bindingto proteinligands.
and frequencies.He postulateda "3-D harmonicoscillator" 3. The widthof the frequencyresponsecan be expectedto
interactionof ions of massm and chargeq attachedby elec- be between one and several hertz of the central fre-
trostaticforces to a bindingprotein (e.g. Ca2+ions attached quency, and is related to 7, the lifetime of an ion in the
to Ca2+-binding proteins like calmodulin). The d.c. field is bindingsite.
envisionedto split the vibrationallevels into adjacentZee- 4. Failure to find IPR indicates that the system is in the
man sublevels,and a shiftin the probabilityof ion transition wrong"physiologicalstate,"meaningthat the concentra-
between differentvibrationalenergylevels is postulatedto tions of Ca2+,calmodulin,cofactorsand activatorsmay
occurwhen an a.c. magneticfield is appliedin combination not be in the correctrange.
with a d.c. field. This, in turn,is hypothesizedto affect the
interactionof the ion with the surroundingligandsand,pre- A majordifficultywith the IPR mechanismderivesfrom
the
sumably, enzymaticactivity of the calcium-bindingpro- the fact that the vibrationalenergylevels for ion bindingto
tein. The (unspecified) biological effect is postulated to the protein ligand are likely in the infraredrange of the
reach a maximum (a resonant response) when the ion spectrum.The centralfrequencyof infraredspectrallines is
cyclotronresonancefrequencyis an integermultipleof the -1013 Hz, andif Zeemansplittingof these lines by 10 to 100
a.c. field frequency[i.e. when the applieda.c. frequencyis a Hz is to be relevant,then the infraredspectrallines mustbe
subharmonic (i = 1, 2, 3, ...) of the cyclotron frequency]. The extraordinarilynarrow (Q = flAf > 1011).Lednev's IPR
frequency,vp,for the a.c. magneticfield, B1 (peak value), mechanism has been criticized (84), and the same com-
relatesto the strengthof the staticmagneticfield,Bo,by the ments, listed below, applyto the Blanchardand Blackman
same cyclotronresonancerelationshipnoted earlier,which (82) versionof the IPR mechanism.Majorcriticismsinclude:
was derivedfor ion of massm andchargeq movingin a vac-
uum,exceptthati now appearsin the denominatorto desig- 1. IPR can be relevantonly to electromagnetictransitions.
nate differentsubharmonics: The rate of energy radiation from a charged object is
proportionalto the squareof its acceleration(85). For a
vc 1 qBo chargedparticleof a given energymovingin a potential
Vp . . .... (13) well, the accelerationwill be inversely proportionalto
i i 27rm
the mass;e.g., an electron will radiateinfraredphotons
In this case, resonancefrequencyis interpretedas due to at a rate 109times faster than a calcium ion. The time
the energy differencebetween adjacentvibrationalenergy requiredfor electric-dipoleradiationfrom an object as
levels that characterizethe bindingof the ion (e.g. Ca2+)to heavy as an ion (e.g. 40Ca2+)is of the orderof 8 s, but the
nearby ligands. Lednev's theory predicts that at fixed Bo, radiativeprocesswill be interruptedby collisionsin 10-12
and at resonantconditions,the magnitudeof the biological s; that is, the resonantsystemwill not be left undisturbed
reactiondepends on the peak amplitudeof the alternating for the time necessaryto exhibitresonancenarrowing.
field, B1. That is, the optimumfor transitionsdepends not 2. The IPR effect relies on the phase relationshipbetween
only on the frequencyof B1but also on its magnituderela- the excited states and the applied oscillatingfield (B1)
tive to Bo.The probabilityof transitionsoccurringbetween being fixed. However, if Bo and B1 are not turned on
 MECHANISMS OF EMF: INTERACTIONS WITH BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM
synchronouslyrelative to each excited state, the appli-
cation of B1 at randomtimes to a pre-existingexcited-
state phase must both increase and decrease the decay
probability for equivalent numbers of ions, and there
wouldbe no net effect.
3. IPR requiresrigorousspatialsymmetryin the bindingof
the ion in its orbit for the energies of the two overlap-
ping (degenerate) states to be split only by the applied
magneticfield.Due to the characteristically complexand
asymmetricalenvironment of ions in biologicalsystems,
the perfect sphericalsymmetryof the bindingenergies
requiredby Lednev'smechanismis not possible.
Numerous experiments have failed to find resonant
responses (71-78, 86). Observation of Lednev-like reso-
nance behaviorin response to appliedmagneticfields has
been reportedin mitogen-activatedlymphocytes(87). Neu-
rite outgrowth experiments (88) have shown agreement
with Blanchard and Blackman's adaptation of Lednev's
model, but given the limitations cited above, the actual
basisof this agreementis unclear.
Larmor Precession
A Larmorprecessionmechanismhas been describedby
Edmonds(89) and has also been proposedby Male (90). In
this mechanism,an ion is envisioned to be vibratingin a
shieldedcavityunderthe influenceof a strongcentralforce.
Larmor'stheorempredictsthat applyinga magneticfield to
this ion imposesaxialsymmetryon the originalmotion and
leadsto precessionof the ion's orbitalmotionat a frequency
whichis one-halfof the cyclotronfrequency,vc.If Larmor
precessionin the Earth'sstaticfield is combinedwith appli-
cationof an alternatingmagneticfluxin parallelto the static
field,the energiesof interactionwith the ion-proteinbonds
that constrainthe ion could conceivablybe altered. How-
ever, in a generaldiscussionof resonancephenomena,Polk
(91) has shown that, for an applieda.c. field of 0.1 mT, the
time requiredto accumulateeven one-tenth of the energy
associatedwitha weakionicbond (0.1 eV) wouldbe 7 years.
Summary
The utilityof the "resonant"EMFmechanismsis compro-
mised because of serious physicsproblemsand because a
specificlink has not been establishedto the biology of the
cell. The distributionof ions amongthermalvibrationlevels,
the orientationof the ion orbitalangularmomentaand the
orientationof nuclearmagneticmomentsare not knownto
influenceproteinchemistryin the body.
MECHANISM: SPATIAL AND/OR TEMPORAL
AVERAGING REDUCE THE EFFECT OF NOISE
Biological responses can result from the integration of
multiple single-cell effects. In higher-level organisms, many
neuralpathwaysconvergeonto neuronswhere presynaptic
activity in any one of the incoming neurons is not sufficient
15
to alter activityin the postsynapticneuron,but simultane-
ous activity in a large number of incoming neurons can
markedlyincrease the firing rate of the postsynapticneu-
ron. For example,if the presynapticneuronsare firingin a
randomfashion(stochasticnoise in individualneurons),the
inputis randomover time andthereis little net effect in the
outputneuron.However,coherenteffects (e.g. of external
EMFs) may simultaneouslypush a substantialnumberof
the presynapticneurons into firing coherently and hence
give rise to an "EMF signal"in the postsynapticneuron.
Thus the single-cellanalysis,whichwould seem to disallow
detectionof low-levelEMFs,may not precludedetectionof
weakfieldsby multicellularaggregates.
Neuralintegrationhas been postulatedto be responsible
for the acuteelectrosensitivityof certaincartilaginousfishes
(25-27,92, 93). In elasmobranch as manyas
electroreceptors,
five integrating,signal-enhancing mechanismsmay operate:
(1) The canalsof the ampullaeof Lorenzinihave wallsthat
are poorly conducting,and thus allow the weak seawater
fieldoccurringacrossseveralcentimetersto be concentrated
over a singlelayerof sensorycells. (2) Tightjunctionsat the
apical face of each receptor cell concentratethe resulting
electricalcurrentover a smallportionof the cell membrane.
(3) As many as 10,000sensory cells per canal provide the
basisfor spatialaveraging,with a possible100-foldenhance-
ment of the signal-to-noiseratio.(4) The six afferentnerves
per ampullafireperiodicallyin a pacemakerfashion,so that
"phase-locking"to this signalmay increasesensitivity.(5)
Ampulla pairs may function as differentialamplifiersto
rejectelectricalnoiseendogenousto the fishitself.
In summary,two typesof strategiesmay enhancethe sig-
nal-to-noiseratio.In the first,electricallyconnectedcells or
long processessuchas those seen in sharkampullaeconcen-
trate the effect of the applied electric fields across a
restrictedportionof the cell membrane,ratherthan incre-
mentallyacross many cell membranes;Weaver and Astu-
mian (16) have shown that signal-to-noise ratios can be
expectedto go up as the 5/6powerof the numberof electri-
callyconnectedcells. In the secondstrategy,the signalitself
is integrated,rectifiedor phase-lockedso that the cumula-
tive effects of the signalcan be distinguishedfrom random
noise (94). In such a process, the nervous system may be
used to extract signal from noise by recognizing spatial
coincidenceor temporalcoherence6(94-96).
Neural systems that are postulated to sum their
responses over space and time take advantageof the fact
that, in contrast to electrical noise, external EMFs are in
step (spatiallycoherent) over a large numberof cells and
are steady in time (temporallycoherent) (97). In this case,
for N neurons, incoherent noise increases by a factor of
6F. S. Barnes, Possible mechanism by which biological systems can
separate coherent signals from noise. Presented at the First World
Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, June
1992,Orlando,FL.
16 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY
(N)12in the averageacrossthe population,while the com-
mon stimulusis additivelyenhancedby the factorN.
Extrapolation of neural integration to 50/60 Hz EMF
detectionschemes,however,is based on theoreticalmodels
and numericalsimulations,and have yet to be foundin real
organisms.There is presentlyno evidence in mammalsfor
the existenceof groupsof cells that exhibitthe correctmor-
phology (e.g. electricallyconnected loops of cells) or sen-
sory modality(e.g. narrowfrequencyresponseor rectifica-
tion) for detectinglow-level50/60Hz EMFs.
PLAUSIBILITY MUST BE TESTED REGARDING BOTH
PHYSICS AND BIOLOGY
Whatare the stepsby whichwe canjudgethe plausibility
of a mechanism? A plausible candidate must link EMF
exposureby a biophysicalmechanismto the beginningof a
cellularsignalingchain (Fig. 1). That is, the plausibilityof a
mechanismcan be judgedin two steps:
Step 1, Physics: Does the underlying physics make
sense?Do the assumptionsaboutthe physicsof the biologi-
cal systemmake sense? And how robustis the linkbetween
the EMF metricand the physicalphenomenonit produces
in the cell?
Step2, Biology:How likelyis it that,in the cell, the physi-
cal phenomenonproducedby EMFscan resultin a biologi-
callysignificantchange?Does the biologicalend pointmake
sense? And how likelyis it that the physicalphenomenonis
linkedto a cell signaling(amplification)system?
For example,body fluidsare electricallyconducting,and
Faraday's law predicts that a 0.1-mT 50/60 Hz field can
drive a flow of ions. Thus, for Step 1, there is a physically
logical link between the applied EMFs and ion flow, but,
for Step 2, the linkbetweenthis weak ion currentandpossi-
ble changes in cell function is highly uncertain.Likewise,
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a procedure that
rotatesmagneticnuclei of some moleculesin biologicaltis-
sue, so Step 1 of the transductionprocessis knownto occur.
However, nuclearspins have extremelyweak links to cell
chemistry,and thus the nuclearresonancehas no significant
effect on cell function or homeostasis, and a Step 2 effect
thatcausesdiseasevia the nuclearspinsis implausible.
Conversely,if we proposethat an EMF opens or closes a
transmembrane,voltage-sensitiveion channel,then Step 2,
the biological link to a cell signalingsystem, is unambigu-
ous. However,Step 1 is implausible;in the absenceof a spa-
tial or temporal averaging mechanism, our benchmark
EMFs produce physicalforces on cell membraneproteins
that are many orders of magnitudeweaker than the elec-
tric-fieldforces needed to modify channel proteins. Like-
wise, if we could propose a mechanism wherein EMFs
could damage DNA, Step 2, the biological link between
DNA damage and alterations in cell progeny, would be
clear, but Step 1, the physical delivery of the amount of
energythat is requiredto disruptDNA, is not possiblewith
0.1-mTor 1,000-V/mexternalEMFs.
PhysicalConsiderations
TablesI and II summarizethe fields,forces,currentsand
energytransferthat wouldbe generatedwithinthe body by
either 1,000-V/melectric fields or 0.1-mTmagneticfields.
Electric fields induced in the body are calculated,and the
strengthof the physicalside of the mechanism(Step 1) can
be assessedby comparingthese valuesto generalnoise lev-
els for each parameterunderconsideration.Canmolecules,
membranes,structures,etc. distinguishthese inducedelec-
trical effects from endogenous, random,stochastic varia-
tions? As discussedearlier,for many of the possiblephysi-
cal interactions,the electricaleffects appearto be buriedin
the noise. For example, the fields induced in tissue by the
1,000-V/m external electric field (4 x 10-5V/m) and the
largest possible electric field induced by the 0.1-mT50/60
Hz magneticfield (4.8 x 10-3 V/m) are small comparedto
thermal electric fields across the whole cell (0.02 V/m).
Using microprobetechnologyin livingrats,Millerand col-
leagues (98) have measuredendogenouselectric-fieldnoise
in the 60 Hz frequencyrange to be 0.006 to 4.5 V/m peak-
to-peak,and0.0002to 0.04V/m rms.
Biological Considerations
The biological aspect of mechanisms (Step 2) can be
evaluatedby consideringwhetherthe changesin the target
systemare known to have functionalconsequences.Living
systems are self-regulating (homeostasis), and small
changesin functionare not likelyto have a big effect. Some
ions (Na+,CI-, K+,HCO3, etc.) and some proteins (actin,
myosin, albumin, etc.) are so ubiquitous that changes in
individualmolecules are not likely to control rate-limiting
processes,and thus smallchangeswill not be amplified.On
the other hand, enzymes, receptor proteins, hormone
molecules, second-messengermolecules (e.g. Ca2+ions),
nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), membranechannels and
membranepotential all represent "controlpoints"where
smallchangesin functionmay lead to largerconsequences.
Here again, living organismsexhibit reserve capacityand
feedbackcontrol,whichact to restorenormalphysiological
functionafterperturbation.Thus transientchangesor low-
level changesmay not lead to long-termeffects. Moreover,
there is a normalvariabilityin the concentrationof biologi-
cal molecules over which physiologicalfunction does not
change. If baseline calcium currentsthrough a cell mem-
brane are increased by a few percent, or if secretion of a
given hormoneis decreasedby a few percent,neithershort-
termnor long-termmalfunctionsare likely.
In TableVIII, a summaryof this two-stepanalysisis pre-
sented for mechanisms discussed earlier in this review.
Some qualitativeassessmentsare also made regardinghow
the benchmarklevels of a.c. fields may relate to biological
consequences.Some of the field magnitudesthat mightbe
expected to be effective lie at or below our benchmark
magnetic field (0.1 mT). Yet Table VIII also shows that
each of the mechanismshas limitationsas an explanation
for the reportedbioeffects of EMFs.The most solidly sup-
 MECHANISMS OF EMF: INTERACTIONS WITH BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM
TABLE VIII
Comparison Several EMF Mechanisms
of
(Considering 50/60 Hz Fields of Magnitude either 1,000 V/m Electric or 0.1 mT Magnetic)
Mechanism Step 1, physicalinput
Energy input:radiation, Radiative flux, photon
photons, induced I, ion energy, I2Rheating,
redistribution iontophoresis,electro-
osmosis are all extremely
small;magnitudeof induced
chemical potentials is very
small
Force on ions and on Force due to E fields and B-
charged:cell proteins, induced E fields on fixed and
cell organelles,cell moving chargesreadily
membranes,cell calculated;high dielectric
glycocalyx constant of biological tissue
yields greater electric
polarizationthan for H20
Ferromagneticcrystals Magnetic fields can twist
(magnetic-fieldforce) ferromagneticparticles;twist
motion is resisted by cell
viscosity;small particles
experience random thermal,
kineticrotations, a "noisy"
competing motion
Modulationof free radical Large magneticfields can
lifetimes (magnetic-field modify free radical
spin flip) recombinationand hence
lifetime; effects not specific to
50/60 Hz frequencies;time
constantsof free radical
recombinationare extremely
short
ICR, ion cyclotron Very serious inconsistencies
resonance with basic physics are
apparentfor this mechanism
at a fundamentallevel
IPR, ion parametric Effect on transitionrates
resonance between ion-ligand
vibrationallevels as a
consequence of applied
60 Hz magnetic fields is
implausiblebecause of
collision damping,and lack
of coherence of the
quantumstates
Noise reduction Detection of signals below
(frequencyselectivity, broadbrandnoise levels
multicellintegration, clearly possible if signals have
time averaging) spatial, temporal or
frequencyfeatures that
distinguishthem from noise;
the noise-reductionsystem
must have an adequate time
span to perform the averaging
ported experimental example of a weak bioeffect of EMFs
is electroreception in fishes. Even so, many details of this
process remain unknown (25-27, 92, 93).
Step 2, biological output
The energy perturbationsare
undetectable;induced ion
currentsare below
endogenous currentsand are
not likely to depolarize cells
No established electric-force
effect on messenger proteins,
gene transcriptionproteins,
receptor proteins, membrane
pores, voltage-sensitive
channels
Behavioralevidence in some
species suggests magnetite-
based sensory systems
adapted to detect the
Earth's field
Chemical reactions with free
radicalcan damage
molecules importantto cell
function;increased free
radicaldamage has not been
a reported EMF bioeffect
Perturbationof receptor-
ligand binding or of ion-
channel flux not established;
biological function not yet
shown to respond to
predicted resonance
parameters
No demonstrated
physiologicalrelevance of
ionic thermalvibrational
levels for cation binding to
channels or to receptor
proteins
Neural networkshave the
capabilityto achieve long-
term averages of weak
signals;sensory ampullae of
Lorenzini in the shark may
be an example;for mammals,
neither EMF detection nor
plausible link to diseases is
known
For some mechanisms, consideration of higher field
levels does not resolve the problems identified, in which
case the mechanism cannot be endorsed as having useful
17
Typical "effective"
field magnitudes Summarycritique
60 Hz thermal heating Neurons, sensory cells and
electricallyactive cells are the
virtuallynil at any practical
level; magnetophosphenesat most sensitive, but EMFs at
30 mT may be due to ion benchmarklevels do not
fluxes, which are known to triggeraction potentials;
triggerneuron firingat -100 currentsin shark electro-
mT but are below noise at receptor cells may be an
-0.1 mT exception
BenchmarkEMFs produce Biologically generated forces
-14 V/m cell membranefield; between cell proteins and
naturalmembrane E field is structuresappear to be far
107V/m; so benchmarkE greater than any force
force is very weak generated by EMFs
>10 pT Bacrequiredin Plausible mechanism,but not
presence of expected 50 uT specificfor 50/60 Hz EMFs,
Bdcto be above noise, even viscous dampingof particle
with large particles and motions at 50/60 Hz a serious
low cytoplasmicviscosity problem inside cell or on
the cell membrane
-10 pT or greater (not Any effect at benchmark
expected to be specific to 50/60 Hz levels would also be
50/60 Hz fields) expected from the Earth's
magnetic field
Experiments (reportingboth Overwhelmingscientific
positive and null results) implausibilityof ions in
usually have BC,, Bd, biological solutions moving
50 uT;most experiments in cyclotron orbits effectively
negative, positive reports rules out the physical
have not been reproducible basis of this mechanism
Experimentalresults overall The problems with collision
equivocal;maximaleffects damping,quantum
- coherence time and low
expected at Bac Bdc, and
experiments have used -10- energy input point to null or
100 uT;as Ba, becomes much minimalperturbationof
larger than Bdc,theory predicts chemical bonds; link to
diminishingeffects biological function is
implausible
Averaging plausiblyenhances Stabilityrequirementson
S/N ratio in the range of 100 cells for detection of
to 1,000-fold;ampullae of temporal or spatial coherence
Lorenzini in the sharkmay very stringent;frequency
be sensitive to seawater selectivity of cells for exactly
electric fields -105 V/m; 50 or 60 Hz (or harmonics)
neural processingmay bring unexpected and without
signal out of the noise biological basis
18 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY

explanatory or predictive value. Other mechanisms can- 1. Relative to the kinetic energies of molecular thermal
not be ruled out on the basis of magnitudealone because, motions, direct EMF energy effects are very small.The
in some occupational settings, environmental fields can EMFs present in normalenvironmentsare not capable
range up to >0.5 mT and can have complex temporal of energetically altering biological structures, which
characteristicsthat encompass a frequency range from 0 remain robust in the face of buffeting by far stronger
to 100,000Hz (99). thermalimpacts.
If we considerthe magnetic-fieldvalues that have been 2. Electric-fieldforces on chargedmoleculesand cell struc-
investigatedin the epidemiologicalliterature(below 1 uT, turesare muchsmallerthanforces typicallyexperienced
albeit by surrogatemeasures), the problem of selecting a by biologicalstructures.
plausible mechanismbecomes even more difficult. All of 3. Direct force on magneticparticlescan be comparableto
the mechanismsproposedto date fall shortof being able to typicalbiologicalforces, but microscopicferromagnetic
explain 50/60 Hz-specific magnetic-fieldeffects at typical particleswouldhave to be attachedto low-viscositysens-
environmentalfields. ing structures.Magnetitehas been isolatedfrom the tis-
How might biological systems cope with the problem sues of animals and humans, but associated sensory
of detecting 50/60 Hz fields? Perhaps living systems can structureshavenot been found.
design a biological polymer of substantiallength and high 4. Magnetic-field interaction with free radical magnetic
conductivity(100), which might function as a loop of wire momentscan alterradicallifetimesand thereforemodify
that could detect induced EMF signals.Electricalnoise is their availabilityfor chemicalreaction.So far, modifica-
proportional to the square root of the resistivity of the tion of free radicalsby EMFs has not been observedin
medium, and the resistivity of tissue (2 Qf-m)is 100 mil- biologicalsystemsor shownto operateat environmental
lion times greater than the resistivity of copper (1.7 x fieldlevels.
10-8f-m). The thermalnoise in a biologicalpolymerwith 5. Resonant mechanisms, although widely analyzed and
the conductivity of copper would be reduced by 10,000 investigatedexperimentally,have not been showneither
times. Similarly,the performanceof magneticparticlesas to be theoretically valid or to be supportedby experi-
50/60 Hz magnetic-field sensors is limited if they are mentalfindingsthat are reproducibleacrosslaboratories.
embedded in viscous media, such as the cytoplasm of a 6. Spatial and temporal averaging processes provide a
living cell. A 50/60 Hz magnetic-fieldsensor using ferro- means to increasethe sensitivityof biologicaldetection
magnetic particles would operate more efficiently if by the above mechanisms.Averagingprocesses are, in
enclosed in a low-viscosity fluid or in air, with the parti- fact, used by electronicinstrumentsthat measure50/60
cles attached to a vibration-sensitive ciliary bundle, like Hz EMFs;no biological structuresin humansthat have
that of a hair cell in the fluid-filled cavities of the inner similar capabilities for measuring50/60 Hz EMFs are
ear. A sensor could consist of hair cells loaded with ferro- knownto exist.Extraordinary electrosensitivityin sharks
magnetic particles and affixed to a tectorial membrane likely occurs due to specialized sensing systems, which
tuned to give maximal amplitude response in the 50/60 use integratingand averagingprocessesthat are, to date,
Hz range. Thus the question of finding an EMF transduc- only partiallydescribed.
tion mechanism is a challenge for both the theoretical
physicistand the experimentalbiologist. The hypothesis that the epidemiological associations
observed between 50/60 Hz EMFs and disease reflect a
CONCLUSIONS causal relationship is not supported by what is known
about mechanisms. In addition to the mechanisms we
Severalepidemiologicalstudieshave posed the challenge have discussed,a numberof other theories of EMF inter-
of understandingif and how weak 50/60 Hz EMFs can actions have been proposed. Most of the available theo-
cause biological effects in humans. Interpretationof the ries do not predict a priori, specific biological effects as a
resultsrequiresthat we integrateepidemiologicaland bio- function of a well-defined EMF exposure metric, nor do
logicalobservationswith the fundamentalphysicsof EMFs. they identify specific experimentalresultsthat would rule
Some weak-fieldbiologicaleffects (at frequenciesless than out that mechanism.A good theory is amenable to direct
50/60 Hz) are reproducible,namely electro-sensitivityin experimental testing; i.e., it clearly provides the proce-
sharksand rays (25-27, 92, 93) and magnetic-fieldsensitiv- dures for its own disproof.Also, a good theory differenti-
ity in honeybees(101-103).These behavioralresponsesare ates between the influence of power-line EMF exposure
attributed to specialized neuroreceptor cells and neural and the influence of EMFs normallypresent in biological
processing,but manybiophysicaland physiologicalaspects systems.More rigorousapproachesare needed to develop
of these systemsremainto be elucidated. the theoretical basis by which "EMFmechanisms"might
We identifiedand analyzedseveralclassesof interaction provide plausible explanations for possible biological
mechanismswith respectto their abilityto explainbiologi- effects of low-levelEMFs.
cal effects at benchmark50/60Hz field levels of 0.1 mT and
1 kV/m (and below): Received: August 27, 1996; accepted: March 24, 1997
 MECHANISMS OF EMF: INTERACTIONS WITH BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM
REFERENCES
1. E. P. Washburn, M. J. Orza, J. Berlin, W. J. Nicholson, A. C. Todd,
H. Frumkin and T. C. Chalmers, Residential proximity to electricity
transmission and distribution equipment and risk of childhood
leukemia, childhood lymphoma, and childhood nervous system
tumors: systematic review, evaluation, and meta-analysis. Cancer
Causes Control 5, 299-309 (1994).
2. D. A. Savitz, Overview of occupational exposure to electric and
magnetic fields and cancer: Advancements in exposure assessment.
Environ. Health Perspect. 103 (Suppl. 2), 69-74 (1995).
3. L. I. Kheifets, A. A. Afifi, P. A. Buffler and Z. W. Zhang, Occupa-
tional electric and magnetic field exposure and brain cancer: A
meta-analysis. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 37, 1327-1341 (1995).
4. A. B. Miller, T. To, D. A. Agnew, C. Wall and L. M. Green,
Leukemia following occupational exposure to 60-Hz electric and
magnetic fields among Ontario electric utility workers. Am. J. Epi-
demiol. 144,150-160 (1996).
5. W. Bialek, Physical limits to sensation and perception. Annu. Rev.
Biophys. Chem. 16, 455-478 (1978).
6. S. M. Block, Biophysical principles of sensory transduction. Soc.
Gen. Physiol. Ser. 47, 1-17 (1992).
7. C. Polk and E. Postow, Eds., Handbook of Biological Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields, 2nd ed., p. 6. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
1996.
8. R. K. Adair, Constraints on biological effects of weak extremely-low-
frequency electromagnetic fields. Phys. Rev. A 43, 1039-1048 (1991).
9. H. Wachtel, Bioelectric background fields and their implications for
ELF dosimetry. Bioelectromagnetics Suppl. 1, 139-145 (1992).
10. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Residential Transient
Magnetic Field Research, pp. 5-13. Report Number TR-103470,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 1994.
11. R. K. Adair, Biological effects on the cellular level of electric field
pulses. Health Phys. 61, 395-399 (1991).
12. P. C. Gailey and C. E. Easterly, Response to Adair EMP health
effects paper. Health Phys. 65, 437-439 (1993). [Letter]
13. F. S. Barnes, Interaction of dc and ELF electric fields with biologi-
cal materials and systems. In Handbook of Biological Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields, 2nd ed. (C. Polk and E. Postow, Eds.), pp.
103-148. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1996.
14. B. H. Gluckman, T. I. Netoff, E. J. Neel, W. L. Ditto, M. L. Spano
and S. J. Schiff, Stochastic resonance in a neuronal network from
mammalian brain. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4098-4101 (1996).
15. H. M. Fishman, D. J. M. Poussart and L. E. Moore, Noise measure-
ments in squid axon membrane. J. Membr. Biol. 24, 281-304 (1975).
16. J. C. Weaver and R. D. Astumian, Estimates for ELF effects:
Noise-based thresholds and the number of experimental conditions
required for empirical searches. Bioelectromagnetics Suppl. 1,
119-138 (1992).
17. J. Bernhardt, The direct influence of electromagnetic fields on
nerve- and muscle cells of man within the frequency range of 1 Hz
to 30 MHz. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 16, 309-323 (1979).
18. R. Nuccitelli, Endogenous ionic currents and DC electric fields in
multicellular animal tissues. Bioelectromagnetics Suppl. 1, 147-157
(1992).
19. W. Krassowska and J. C. Neu, Response of a single cell to an exter-
nal electric field. Biophys. J. 66, 1768-1776 (1994).
20. M. R. Cho, H. S. Thatte, R. C. Lee and D. E. Golan, Induced redis-
tribution of cell surface receptors by alternating current electric
fields. FASEB J. 8, 771-776 (1994).
21. K. Y. C. Lee, J. F. Klinger and H. M. McConnell, Electric field-
induced concentration gradients in lipid monolayers. Science 263,
655-658 (1994).
22. A. R. Sheppard and W. R. Adey, Electrical models for nerve cells
exposed to ELF electric fields. In Electricity and Magnetism in
19
Biology and Medicine (M. Blank, Ed.), pp. 540-542. San Francisco
Press, San Francisco, 1993.
23. K. J. McLeod, R. C. Lee and H. P. Ehrlich, Frequency dependence
of electric field modulation of fibroblast protein synthesis. Science
236, 1465-1469 (1987).
24. R. D. Fields, T. H. Bullock and G. D. Lange, Ampullary sense
organs; Peripheral, central, and behavioral electroreception in
chimeras. Brain Behav. Evol. 41, 269-289 (1993).
25. A. J. Kalmijn, Biophysics of geomagnetic field detection. IEEE
Trans. Magn. 17, 1113-1124 (1981).
26. A. J. Kalmijn, Electric and magnetic field detection in Elasmo-
branch fishes. Science 218, 916-918 (1982).
27. A. J. Kalmijn, Detection of weak electric fields. In Sensory Biology
of Aquatic Animals (J. Atema, R. R. Fay, A. N. Popper and W. N.
Tavolga, Eds.), pp. 151-186. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
28. R. G. Olsen and P. S. Wong, Characteristics of low frequency elec-
tric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of electric power lines. IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv. 7, 2046-2055 (1992).
29. 0. P. Gandhi and J. Y. Chen, Numerical dosimetry at power-line
frequencies using anatomically based models. Bioelectomagnetics
Suppl. 1, 43-60 (1992).
30. J. P. Reilly, Electrical Stimulation and Electropathology, pp.
366-392. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992.
31. D. Seidel, M. Knoll and J. Eichmeier, Stimulation of subjective
appearance of light (phosphenes) in man by alternating magnetic
fields. Pflugers Arch. 299, 11-20 (1968).
32. J. Sandweiss, On the cyclotron resonance model of ion transport.
Bioelectromagnetics 11, 203-205 (1990).
33. V. T. Moy, E. L. Florin and H. E. Gaub, Intermolecular forces and
energies between ligands and receptors. Science 266, 257-259 (1994).
34. W. Denk, W. W. Webb and A. J. Hudspeth, Mechanical properties
of sensory hair bundles are reflected in their Brownian motion
measured with a laser differential interferometer. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 86, 5371-5375 (1989).
35. W. Denk, J. R. Holt, G. M. G. Shepherd and D. P. Corey, Calcium
imagining of single stereocilia in hair cells: Localization of transduc-
tion channels at both ends of tip links. Neuron 15, 1311-1321 (1995).
36. A. Ashkin, K. Schutze, J. M. Dziedzic, U. Euteneuer and M.
Schliwa, Force generation of organelle transport measured in vivo
by an infrared laser trap. Nature 348, 346-348 (1990).
37. S. C. Kuo and M. P. Sheetz, Force of single Kinesin molecules
measured with optical tweezers. Science 260, 232-234 (1993).
38. K. Svoboda, C. F. Schmidt, B. J. Schnapp and S. M. Block, Direct
observation of kinesin stepping by optical trapping interferometry.
Nature 365, 696-697 and 721-727 (1994).
39. J. T. Finer, R. M. Simmons and J. A. Spudich, Single myosin
molecule mechanics: piconewton forces and nanometre steps.
Nature 368, 98-99 and 113-119 (1994).
40. 0. P. Hamill and D. W. McBride, The cloning of a mechano-gated
membrane ion channel. Trends Neurosci. 17, 439-43 (1994).
41. H. Yin, M. D. Wang, K. Svoboda, R. Landick, S. M. Block and J.
Gelles, Transcription against an applied force. Science 270,
1653-1657 (1995).
42. S. B. Smith. L. Finzi and C. Bustamante, Direct mechanical meas-
urements of the elasticity of single DNA molecules by using mag-
netic beads. Science 258, 1122-1126 (1992).
43. R. C. Tan, T. N. Truong and J. A. McCammon, Acetyl-
cholinesterase: Electrostatic steering increases rate of ligand bind-
ing. Biochemistry 32, 401-403 (1993).
44. G. U. Lee, L. A. Chirisey and R. J. Colton, Direct measurement of
the forces between complementary strands of DNA. Science 266,
771-773 (1994).
45. D. F. Blair and H. C. Berg, Restoration of torque in defective flag-
ellar motors. Science 242, 1678-1681 (1988).
20 VALBERG, KAVET AND RAFFERTY
46. J. L. Kirschvink,A. Kobayashi-Kirschvinkand B. J. Woodford,
Magnetitebiomineralizationin the humanbrain.Proc. Natl.Acad.
Sci. USA89, 7683-7687(1992).
47. R. K. Adair,Effectsof ELF magneticfieldson biologicalmagnetite.
Bioelectromagnetics 14, 1-4 (1993).
48. C. Polk, Effects of extremely-low-frequency magneticfields on bio-
logicalmagnetite.Bioelectromagnetics 15, 261-270 (1994).
49. G. Bate, Recording materials. In FerromagneticMaterials(E. P.
Wohlfarth,Ed.), pp. 381-507. ElsevierNorth-Holland,New York,
1980.
50. J. L. Kirschvink,Constraintson biologicaleffectsof weak extremely
low-frequencyelectromagneticfields: Comment.Phys. Rev. A 46,
2178-2184(1992).
51. R. K. Adair,Constraintsof thermalnoise on the effects of weak 60-
Hz magneticfieldsactingon biologicalmagnetite.Proc. Natl.Acad.
Sci. USA 91, 2925-2929 (1994).
52. E. M. Purcell,Life at low Reynoldsnumber.Am. J. Phys. 45, 3-11
(1977).
53. P. A. ValbergandJ. P. Butler,Magneticparticlemotionswithinliv-
ing cells. Biophys.J. 52, 537-550 (1987).
54. R. K. Adair, Biologicalresponsesto weak 60-Hz electricand mag-
netic fieldsmustvary as the squareof the field strength.Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 91, 9422-9425 (1994).
55. K. A. McLauchlan,Are environmentalmagneticfields dangerous?
Phys. World 41-45 (1992).
56. J. C. Scaiano, F. L. Cozens, J. McLean and A. Thansandote,
Application of the radical pair mechanism to free radicals in
organized systems: can the effects of 60-Hz magnetic fields be
predictedfrom studies understatic fields? Bioelectromagnetics15,
549-554 (1994).
57. K. A. McLauchlanand U. E. Steiner, The spin-correlatedradical
pairas a reactionintermediate.Mol. Phys.73, 241-263(1991).
58. T. T. Harkins and C. B. Grissom, Magnetic field effects on B12
ethanolamineammonialyase: Evidence for a radicalmechanism.
Science263, 958-960(1994).
59. C. B. Grissom,Magnetic-fieldeffects in biology:A surveyof possi-
ble mechanismswith an emphasison radical-pairrecombination.
Chem. Rev. 95, 3-24 (1995).
60. F. L. Cozens and J. C. Scaiano,A comparativestudy of MF effects
on the dynamicsof geminate and randomradicalpair processesin
micelles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 115, 5204-5211 (1993).
61. M. Corominas,S. R. Sloan, J. Leon, H. Kamino,E. W. Newcomb
and A. Pellicer, ras activation in human tumors and in animal
model systems. Environ. Health Perspect. 93, 19-25 (1991).
62. J. C. Murphy,D. A. Kaden, J. Warrenand A. Sivak, Power fre-
quencyelectricand magneticfields:A reviewof genetictoxicology.
Mutat. Res. 296, 221-240 (1993).
63. J. McCann,F. Dietrich, C. Rafferty and A. O. Martin,A critical
review of the genotoxic potential of electric and magnetic fields.
Mutat.Res.297, 61-95 (1993).
64. A. R. Liboff,Cyclotronresonancein membranetransport.In Inter-
actions between Electromagnetic Fields and Cells (A. Chiabrera, C.
Nicolini and H. P. Schwan,Eds.), pp. 281-296. PlenumPress,Lon-
don, 1985.
65. S. D. Smith, B. R. McLeod, A. R. Liboff and K. Cooksey, Calcium
cyclotron resonance and diatom mobility. Bioelectromagnetics8,
215-227 (1987).
66. A. R. Liboff, R. J. Rozek, M. L. Sherman, B. R. McLeod and S. D.
Smith,Ca2+-45 cyclotronresonancein humanlymphocytes.J. Bio-
electr. 6, 13-22 (1987).
67. A. R. Liboff, B. R. McLeod and S. D. Smith, Ion cyclotron reso-
nance effects of ELF fieldsin biologicalsystems.In ExtremelyLow
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: The Question of Cancer (B. W.
Wilson,R. G. Stevensand L. E. Anderson,Eds.), pp. 251-289.Bat-
telle Press, Columbus, OH, 1990.
68. C. H. Durney, C. K. Rushforth and A. A. Anderson, Resonant
AC-DC magnetic fields: Calculated response. Bioelectromagnetics
9, 315-336 (1988).
69. B. Halle, On the cyclotronresonancemechanismfor magneticfield
effects on transmembrane conductivity. Bioelectromagnetics 9,
381-385 (1988).
70. S. Galt, J. Sandblom and Y. Hamnerius, Theoretical study of the
resonant behaviour of an ion confined to a potential well in a com-
bination of AC and DC magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 14,
299-314 (1993).
71. W. C. Parkinson and C. T. Hanks, Search for cyclotron resonance in
cells in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics 10, 129-145 (1989).
72. A. R. Liboff and W. C. Parkinson, Search for ion-cyclotron reso-
nance in an Na'-transportsystem. Bioelectromagnetics12, 77-83
(1991).
73. A. V. Prasad, M. W. Miller, E. L. Carstensen, C. Cox, M. Azadniv
and A. A. Brayman, Failure to reproduce increased calcium uptake
in human lymphocytes at purported cyclotron resonance exposure
conditions. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 30, 305-320 (1991).
74. C. Bruckner-Lea, C. H. Durney, J. Janata, C. Rappaport and M.
Kaminski, Calcium binding to metallochromic dyes and calmodulin
in the presence of combined, AC-DC magnetic fields. Bioelectro-
magnetics 13, 147-162 (1992).
75. C. H. Durney, M. Kaminski, A. A. Anderson, C. Bruckner-Lea, J.
Janata and C. Rappaport, Investigation of AC-DC magnetic field
effects in planar phospholipid bilayers. Bioelectromagnetics 13,
31-33 (1992).
76. W. C. Parkinson and G. L. Sulik, Diatom response to extremely
low-frequency magnetic fields. Radiat. Res. 130, 319-330 (1992).
77. S. Galt, J. Sandblom, Y. Hamnerius, P. H6jevik, E. Saalman and B.
Nord6n,Experimentalsearchfor combinedAC and DC magnetic
field effects on ion channels. Bioelectromagnetics 14, 315-327 (1993).
78. A. V. Prasad, M. W. Miller, C. Cox, E. L. Carstensen, H. Hoops and
A. A. Brayman, A test of the influence of cyclotron resonance
exposures on diatom motility. Health Phys. 66, 305-312 (1994).
79. V. V. Lednev, Possible mechanism for the influence of weak mag-
netic fields on biological systems. Bioelectromagnetics 12, 71-75
(1991).
80. V. V. Lednev,Possiblemechanismfor the effect of weak magnetic
fields on biological systems: Correction of the basic expression and
its consequences. In Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and
Medicine (M. Blank, Ed.), pp. 550-552. San Francisco Press, San
Francisco, 1993.
81. V. V. Lednev, Interference with the vibrational energy sublevels of
ions bound in calcium-binding proteins as the basis for the interac-
tion of weak magnetic fields with biological systems. In On the
Nature of Electromagnetic Field Interactions with Biological Systems
(A. H. Frey, Ed.), pp. 59-72. R. G. Landes, Austin, TX, 1994.
82. J. P. Blanchard and C. F. Blackman, Clarification and application of
an ion parametric resonance model for magnetic field interactions
with biological systems. Bioelectromagnetics 15, 217-238 (1994).
83. V. V. Lednev, Comments on "Clarification and application of ion
parametric resonance model for magnetic field interactions with
biological systems" by Blanchard and Blackman. Bioelectromagnet-
ics 16, 268-269 (1995). [Letter]
84. R. K. Adair, Criticism of Lednev's mechanism for the influence of
weak magnetic fields on biological systems. Bioelectromagnetics 13,
231-235 (1992).
85. E. M. Purcell, Electricity and Magnetism: Berkeley Physics Course,
Vol. 2, pp. 459-461. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1985.
86. S. P. Hendee, F. A. Faour, D. A. Christensen,B. Patrick, C. H. Dumey
and D. K. Blumenthal, The effects of weak ELF magnetic fields on
calcium/calmodulin interactions. Biophys. J. 70,2915-2923 (1996).
87. M. G. Yost and R. P. Liburdy, Time-varying and static magnetic
fields act in combinationto alter calciumsignaltransductionin the
lymphocyte. FEBS Lett. 296, 117-122 (1992).
 MECHANISMSOF EMF:INTERACTIONSWITHBIOLOGICALSYSTEM 21

88. C. F. Blackman,J. P. Blanchard,S. G. Benane and D. E. House,
Empiricaltestof an ion parametricresonancemodelformagneticfield
interactions withPC-12cells.Bioelectromagnetics15,239-260(1994).
89. D. T. Edmonds,Larmorprecessionas a mechanismfor the detec-
tion of staticand alternatingmagneticfields.Biochem.Bioenerg.30,
3-12 (1993).
90. J. Male, Biological effects of magnetic fields: A possible mecha-
nism?Biologist39 (3), 87-89 (1992).
91. C. Polk, Dosimetry of extremely-low-frequencymagnetic fields.
Bioelectromagnetics Suppl. 1, 209-235 (1992).
92. W. Pickard,A modelfor the acuteelectrosensitivityof cartilaginous
fishes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 35, 243-249 (1988).
93. J. Bastian,Electrosensoryorganisms.Phys. Today47, 30-37 (1994).
94. R. D. Astumian,J. C. Weaver and R. K. Adair, Rectificationand
of
signal averaging weak electric fields by biological cells. Proc. 102. J. L. Kirschvinkand A. Kobayashi-Kirschvink,
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 3740-3743 (1995).
95. T. A. Litovitz, D. Krause and J. M. Mullins, Effect of coherence
time of the appliedmagneticfield on ornithinedecarboxylaseactiv- 103. A.
ity. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 178, 862-865 (1991).
96. T. A. Litovitz,C. J. Montrose,P. Doinov,K. M. BrownandM. Barber,
Superimposingspatially coherent electromagneticnoise inhibits
field-inducedabnormalitiesin developingchick embryos.Bioelec-
tromagnetics 15, 105-113 (1994).
97. J. J. Collins, C. C. Chow and T. T. Imhoff, Stochastic resonance
withouttuning.Nature376,236-238(1995).
98. D. L. Miller, J. A. Creim and L. A. Anderson, A comparisonof
electricfieldsinducedby 60-Hz magneticfield exposureto the nor-
mal cardiacelectric field in rats. Bioelectromagnetics18, 317-323
(1997).
99. T. D. Bracken,R. S. Senior,R. F. Rankin,W. H. BaileyandR. Kavet,
Magnetic-fieldexposuresin the electricutilityindustryrelevantto
occupationallevels.Appl. Occup.Hyg. (in press).
100. C. L. Curtis,J. E. Ritchie and M. J. Sailor,Fabricationof conduct-
ing polymerinterconnects.Science262,2014-2016(1993).
101. M. M. Walkerand M. E. Bitterman,Honeybees can be trainedto
respondto very smallchangesin geomagneticfieldintensity.J. Exp.
Biol. 145, 489-494 (1989).
Is geomagneticsen-
sitivity real? Replication of the Walker-Bittermanconditioning
experimentin honeybees.Am. Zool. 31, 169-185(1991).
Kobayashiand J. L. Kirschvink,Magentoreceptionand electro-
magneticfield effects:Sensoryperceptionof the geomagneticfield
in animals and humans. In American Chemical Society Advances in
Chemistry Series 250: Electromagnetic Fields: Biological Interactions
and Mechanisms(M. Blank,Ed.), pp. 367-394. AmericalChemical
Society,New York,1995.