Henry Lai: cautionary words on “calcium hypothesis” in the science of EMF

UPDATE: Read also this Compilation of blog posts on incompetence and harm caused by Martin Pall

There has been “floated around” opinion that “calcium channels are the main, possibly the sole target for EMFs”. This opinion is somewhat uncritically praised and accepted as sort of proven “dogma” by non-scientist-activists.

I think it is premature to consider calcium channels as the sole targets of all types of EMF and a sole mechanism behind the observed EMF effects. This generalization is reaching too far, without sufficient scientific basis.

As Einstein said, “who can be so sure about nature?”.

I asked Henry Lai of his opinion in this matter. Henry is, in general, supportive of the “calcium hypothesis” but has several cautionary comments about the science.

So, not everything in “calcium hypothesis” is as clear as some present it…


Cautionary comments on “calcium hypothesis” from Henry Lai

I agree with Marty Pall that “calcium channels” is an important topic of investigation on the mechanisms of EMF bio-effects. But, I am not sure that “calcium channels” is the “sole” answer to the mechanism of EMF interaction with living materials.  The idea that EMF (particularly ELF EMF) affects calcium channels is not new. But, there are some concerns on how big a role it plays.

  1. It is quite difficult to envision how alternating EMF affects calcium channels. The channels are activated when membrane potential depolarizes. That means the change that triggers the effect is spatially directional, i.e., the outer part of the cell membrane becomes “less positive” and a cell in question has to be aligned in a certain orientation with the detection of the EMF. This may be true in in vitro experiment, but not in in vivo experiments and “human exposure situations” when an animal (human) moves in the field.
  2. Temporally, it is difficult to understand how oscillating EMF affects calcium channels. The time period of change when exposed to an AC-field in the environment is probably too fast for the channels to detect, for ELF field and particularly for RF field. One has to consider that RFR may exert its effect by its low-frequency modulation-component and not the carrier frequency (see the study by Ross Adey on calcium efflux). If this was true, one would expect that modulated-RFR should be more potent that continuous-wave RFR of the same frequency and SAR. The literature does not support this.
  3. In 1992, Liburdy published a study (which I consider to be an ingenious experimental design and concept) showing that ELF-EMF affected calcium channels by “induced current” (or electric field, and not magnetic field). What it means is that to show effect on calcium channels, one has to use very low-frequency fields (< 10 Hz) and/or high intensity. In most of the recent studies on calcium channels, relatively high fields were used (1-10 mT). How could the results from “calcium channels” explain the epidemiological effects of increased cancer risk at 0.4 uT?
  4. How can “power window” and “frequency window” effects be explained by the assumption that EMF affects calcium channels?
  5. It is quite puzzling that most of the effects reported have been on the L-form of calcium channels. However, there are reports showing that ELF EMF inhibited the T-form. And, ELF had no significant effect on the N-form, but RFR activated it. If change in membrane polarization by EMF is the cause, should one expect similar effects on all forms of calcium channel? Do they use the same positively-charged polypeptide domain to open the channel?
  6. How does “cyclotron resonance” fit into this? There are many reports on calcium cyclotron resonance and EMF (probably as many as the “calcium antagonist” studies.) Much lower field intensity is needed for the cyclotron resonance effect (and 7 Hz).

12 thoughts on “Henry Lai: cautionary words on “calcium hypothesis” in the science of EMF

  1. Pingback: Martin Pall’s claims on EMF, VGCC and Alzheimer’s lack scientific evidence of proof or even likelihood | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  2. Pingback: Yet another “nail to the coffin” of the EMF non-thermal effects acting through VGCC hypothesis | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  3. Pingback: Compilation of blog posts on incompetence and harm caused by Martin Pall | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  4. Pingback: Dr Martin Pall on Wireless Technology Hazards – EMRSA

  5. Pingback: Cautionary words on Martin Pall’s claim that VGCC is the sole target and mechanism for all EMF effects | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  6. If you can not stop 5G, we have to protect ourselves: https://sites.google.com/view/stop-electro-sensibilidad/english-holistic

    Each of the 100 billion cells in our body (called cymolecules) is a small battery with positive polarization with a potential of 0.1 V, between its positive membrane and its negative cytoplasm, with a micro magnetic field of pT (peak tesla). The scheme or electrical pattern of the cell was modeled by the biophysicist of H.P. Schwan from the University of Pennsylvania:
    Each of the 100,000 million cells (also called cyto molecules) is a positive battery positively polarized with a potential of 0.1 V between its positive membrane and its negative cytoplasm with a magnetic field of 1pT (pico tesla). The electrical pattern of the cell was discovered by the biophysicist H.P. Schwan from the University of Pennsylvania. The scheme is the following:
    R1, R2 = resistance of extra cellular medium
    R1, R2 = resistance of extra cellular medium
    C1 = capacity of the extra cellular medium
    C2, C3 = membrane capacity

    “The voltage (0.1V) is weak, but the membrane is very thin (the thickness of two molecules), the voltage gradient (potential difference) on both sides of the membrane is huge, on the order of 1106 mV (HP Schwan , 1957, Electrical properties of cellular tissues and suspensions, Adv. Biol. Med. Phys., 5, 147-209).
    These very weak electric fields also produce very weak magnetic fields: the heart generates a field of 0.05 nano Tesla (nT) and the brain of 0.0001 nT.
    As humans we have these biomagnetic fields, but the contamination through GSM (Global System for mobile communications) and WiFi, interferes with very low frequency and very long radiation, called “Extremely low frequency” (ELF) and “Frequency very low “(VLF). The result of this interference leads to a static overload at the human and animal cell scale, because organisms can store this energy (Frôlich, 1980).
    Any significant electromagnetic change from the outside will cause discontinuities that can lead to metabolic changes or dysfunctions of the metabolic cycle. (Hyland, 2001).
    At a deeper level, the German physicist Fröhlich H shows that living organisms have a range of activities in the microwave spectrum, characterized by a specific frequency and intensity. (The biological effects of microwaves and related questions, advances in electronics and electronics of 1980; 53: 85-152).

    Classical medicine only takes into account the electrical properties of cells, and then only to perform cardiac (electrocardiography) or cerebral (electroencephalography) diagnoses. The alteration of this electrical balance by electromagnetic radiation, leads to the alteration of the electrostatic neutrality of the cell.

  7. These waveforms are very complex and contain many low frequency modulations.

    The low frequency components are : 8.3 Hz, 100 Hz, 115 Hz, 217 Hz, 1.83 kHz, 2.617 kHz. and are highly polarised waves.

    I believe the carrier wave is the Trojan horse for all this bio-active low frequency components. This is why we see over 85% “Effect” studies compared to “No Effect” studies from the ORSAA database when reviewing biological experiments that use real mobile phones signals compared to simulated signals.

    Dimitri’s Panagopoulos does a much better job of explaining this than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adGtb0kxsDM

    These complex wave patterns are anything but benign and safety standards need to reflect this fact that as we are exposed to this radiation 24/7. Its unethical to subject whole populations to this radiation and to use yours phrase borrowed from Donald Rumsfeld with “so many known, unknowns”.

  8. I agree with Henry.
    Your EHS response might be triggered by another mechanism and not necessarily calcium channel.
    This is the point of my posting – claims that calcium channel is the sole mechanism for EMF effects is most likely false.

  9. I’m doubtful in return about the paper of Henry Lai when he says that the polypeptide doesn’t have time enough to open the channel with Wifi or so. As an EHS I feel a quick result on my body. It may result from something else, the information maybe, but it is more difficult to show.

  10. I too have had irregular heart beat which was always diagnosed syncope, and vasal vagus until this last year. I fainted 4 times in one house and had a loop recorder installed to monitor my heart. Come to find out that I had sick sinus node syndrome requiring a pacemaker because my natural pacemaker was not working properly. Guess what the natural pacemaker does. It helps to conduct the electrical responses to make your heart beat regularly. I have had the pacemaker for one month and no more almost fainting to passing out totally to bradycardia/tachycardia and 20 second pauses. This is helping me survive and I believe that all of this is related to EHS. My doctor insures me it doesn’t, but all the fainting spells I have had which was since the late 1990’s have been in a location where either cordless phone was in use, coding twice in an ICU unit, around smart meters and in line communications utility meters. I think all the calcium channels, sodium channels and potassium channels are part of the breakdown.

  11. Greeting’s Dariusz, I’d like to know your thoughts on the recent Panagopoulos’ paper: Comparing DNA damage? Do you think this could add to or take from the ‘calcium hypothesis?’

  12. I have read about this also, in Pall’s papers, and was wondering what it means for us, humans, and for me, because I have problems with EHS (heart rhythm is galloping when I am near to an active WiFi, without knowing there is one, so my heart detects a WiFi, the best when I am asleep, as if my brains keep sensitivity for EMF in a kind of a hybernation; I wake up because of strong a-rhythmic palpations, and when checking the house there is indeed a forgotten to deactivate WiFi. It takes a half hour to recover from it. To recover from a smartmeter costs me a week from an intense high blood pressure, as a balloon that slowly lets go the air).

    I have read about minerals, the levels of the minerals in our cells, that, for instance, magnesium is very quickly diminishing when one is in an area with EMF’s like cell towers. There are more minerals affected by electromagnetic radiation. Calcium is also a mineral.

    I understand that there are many questions, at least: you started to question, and I like that, very much. It reminds me of my teacher, a long time ago, the one who taught us to become a teacher, and she taught us that we never should answer a child’s question with a lie, with a “guess”, to avoid to lose the respect of the child,to lose the power over the child; that we had the duty to be honest and say: “I do not know the answer, but I will search for the answer, thank you for asking.”

    This is what scientists should do as well. and you do. Never read before an article with questions. I know in the meantime (since I started to read about EMF) that there are “scientists” who answer with lies, who pretend they studied a subject, and even daring to create guidelines for the subject they never studied. and they even seem to believe their own lies. You write also about these “scientists”. That is courageous because they are adored and followed and respected by the entire world.
    You are the kind of an investigator, who is really searching for truth, the deepest knowledge is the absolute truth (which we are on the way to discover, but not there yet), and only that can bring us into the right direction, and it is because of this that mankind is on the edge of extinction, because there were no questions, and if, there were too often lies, or misleading remarks: creating doubt about truth is a psychological tactic, used by the industry. You dare to name, to mention, to ask. To publish.
    Thanks for that.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.