[M.D. Holloway]

His questions:

Direct VS. In-direct Cause.

This topic is best addressed through a series of questions.

What is the oxidation potential of myelin?

Depending on the oxidation potential of the myelin, could direct induction cause damage to the Myelin?

How does the mammalian nervous system respond to exposure to near resonant field? Does the response include a "boost" in potential?

How do the results of high field/short term exposure compare to low field/long term exposure?

What is the history of de-myelination related disease?

So far, my experience in discussing this topic has resulted in the following antithetical arguments. First, that my lack of expertise in human physiology reasonably negates any opinion that I may have and second, that the neuron length is too short to be subject to resonant effect at commercial communication frequencies.

Both of these arguments would be valid points if the scale of the effect was at the neuron level, or an intimate understanding of the human nervous system was prerequisite to understanding, or would negate, the effects of rudimentary electromagnetic induction.

My understanding of human physiology is a mute point. I readily admit to my ignorance. My argument is that I do not need to know the difference between the white matter of the CNS and the ganglia of the PNS. It is however, of some value to know the action potential of a nerve impulse because this would give some indication as to what potential the myelin must withstand without oxidation. I certainly do not have a good understanding of the electrochemical processes of the nervous system, but neither is it needed to make thesis that components of the nervous system, singularly or in continuous connection, can be modeled as long thin conductors.

An example of this is the spinal cord. Beginning at the Foramen Magnum (extending from the brain stem) and continues down through the Vertebral Canal to the tapering point of the Conus Medullaris. The spinal cord alone presents a thin continuously conductive material. This component is further lengthened by the Brain Stem at one end and Cauda Equina at the other.

I suggest that certain components of the human nervous system, alone and/or in continuously connected combination, will respond to near resonant field, that the frequency of resonant response will be a function of the length of electrical continuity and that very possibly, for some components, singularly or in combination, will correspond to a bandwidth commonly found in the environment. The thesis is further defined to include argument that the length and inductance of the human nervous system is possibly individual specific, so much so, that it can be used much like a fingerprint. Further, that the "Q Value" of the nervous system, combined with the slight differences between individuals, would explain the low occurrence of detrimental effect when large population groups are exposed to the same electromagnetic environment.

In any case, the frequency of the environmental field could have far greater effect than field density and should be a primary factor when considering environmental exposure.

I have found it more bearable to be disdained as ignorant than remain silent when others are more inclined to turn their heads. Environmental impact has become merely an economic measure, where the cost of corrective action is measured in dollars per death, and which I find anathema to my nature.

I cannot imagine a topic where the dichotomy of science is more clearly evident.

I thank you for taking the time to carefully read the above and would appreciate and consider all responses.