Is really VGCC the main mechanism for all EMF effects? – by Leendert Vriens

This post is re-blogging from the Stop UMTS site in The Netherlands. In post, published in May 2020, Dr Leendert Vriens, physicist, PhD, retired Philips Research Fellow, elaborates on VGCC hypothesis. Especially his calculations are interesting.

Also, comment #5 in the post, elaborates on who first proposed VGCC hypothesis. It is worth looking at.

************************

VGCC the main mechanism for all EMF effects?

Comment on and additions to Pall’s claim

Dr. Leendert Vriens

Summary
In his e-book from 2018 and in later publications Pall claims voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCC) to be the main target and mechanism for all biological health effects caused by the EMF from wireless communication. This claim is based on biochemical information and argumentation and on a physics calculation.

Being a physicist I cannot comment on the biochemical part which is Pall’s field of expertise. I do have comments, however, on the physics part. Basically Pall’s main argument is that “the electrical forces on the VGCC voltage sensors are extraordinarily high”. In order to substantiate this statement Pall compares these forces with those on singly charged ions in the cell plasma.

Indeed the forces on the VGCC voltage sensor are, according to Pall’s calculation, almost seven orders of magnitude larger than those on singly charged ions in the cell plasma. This does not tell much, however, because these latter forces are exceedingly small.

Using Pall’s input numbers for the material parameters I calculated the field strength over the cell membranes caused by an externally applied field of 3 V/m and compared that with the natural field strength over the cell membranes prior to activation. For this applied field of 3 V/m, on the high end of what one finds near cell towers, the natural field strength appears to be between 3600 to 6000 times larger than the field strength caused by the external field.

Direct activation of the VGCC voltage sensor by the external field thus seems to be impossible, since this requires polarity reversal. Activation involving electrical interference effects might be possible, but the statement ”that physics arguments support the claim that VGCC) are the main target and mechanism for all biological health effects” is contradicted by the present calculation.

According to Pall, VGCC activation by the EMF leads to an excess of calcium ions in cells, followed by a sequence of processes and health problems. There is, however, an alternative explanation for that excess of calcium.

Calcium ions are also present in the cell membranes and are partly responsible for the physical strength of these membranes. Due to the oscillating forces caused by the EMF, part of these calcium ions are replaced by other ions, potassium ions in particular, causing structural damage of the membranes and leakage of calcium into the cells. This alternative explanation, by Goldsworthy, does not require excessive EMF strengths and seems more realistic.

The model calculation by Dr. Vriens see from this link.

Comment #5 from Dr. Vriens in the above link:

Pall’s first publication on the role of the VGCC activation by EMF, leading to an excess of calcium ions in cells and to health problems, goes back to 2013. One year earlier, in 2012, a review paper by Goldsworthy appeared in ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311211.pdf in which he also concludes that both low-frequency as well as radio-frequency EMF lead to an excess of calcium (Ca) in cells. Goldsworthy ascribes this excess to the replacement in the cell membranes of Ca ions by other ions, potassium ions in particular, causing structural weakening of the membranes and leading to leakage of Ca into the cells. This process seems more realistic than VGCC activation.

4 thoughts on “Is really VGCC the main mechanism for all EMF effects? – by Leendert Vriens

  1. Dear Jan,
    First, we are bioelectric beiings, we all know about ECG’s, EEG’s, about our nerve system and about the voltages over our cell membranes. This is well known.
    For these latter (membrane) voltages, which I use in my calculations, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_potential .
    Similar information can be found in many papers.
    A second input parameter in my calculations is the externally applied voltage from a nearby cell tower of 3 V/m. This is about the highest value measured in practical situations.
    Furthermore I used Pall’s values for the ratios of the dielectric constants and resistivities (conductances) of cell membrane and cell plasma.
    That’s all I used in my calculations, which led to the conclusion that the natural field strength over the cell membranes is about a factor of 3600 to 6000 times larger than the field strength caused by the external (cell tower) field.
    In case the material parameters in Pall’s work are not fully correct and the cell plasma would have a much larger conductivity, so that the full external field would stand over the cell membranes, the natural field strength over the membranes would still be a factor of 2700 to 4500 larger than the field strength caused by the cell tower.
    In my note I added under Additional remarks some restrictions concerning the range of validity of my calculations, but these don’t change my comments on Pall’s work.
    What I wrote applies to cells with cell membranes. For blood vessels one can make similar calculations, might be interesting.
    Your questions should be addressed to cell biologists, but looking from my physicists point of view it seem rather difficult to me to actually measure voltages in cells, but searching with Google for measuring cell membrane potential gave me (within 15 seconds) me: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21829090/ and I did see many more links.
    About leakage, there is a lot of information about leakage of the blood-brain barrier, e.g. rather direct measurements by adding dyes to the blood stream of small animals and measuring fluorescene spectroscopy from their brains, but this is also well known.
    It is not clear to me what you mean by validitating my model calculation. I think the input parameters and the calculation are simple and fully clear. What type of validation do you have in mind? Measuring voltage changes over cell membranes, caused by externally applied fields, which are more than three orders of magnitude smaller than the natural fields?

  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. Jan Ligthart, you seem to think that Pall hypothesis is better than contradicting it opinions of scientists. How did you make your judgment? What is your education area and level and what are your scientific credentials?

  4. Dear mister Leendert Vriens,

    Happily you are aware the biological body has a electromagnetic system.

    Did anybody measure the voltages in the cells?
    Did anybody measure a leakage from cells of any kind of molecules?
    Did anybody measure the amount of leakage from cells of a certain molecule with and without EMR?
    Has your model calculation been validated?

    Kind regards, Jan Ligthart

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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