Talk:Bioelectromagnetics

Starting up

Hi, I'm trying to get this page off the ground, and would appreciate any help in doing so. Remember to be bold (since I'm not)!

Some things I'm looking for:

1. A good reference for the FDA approval of using pulsed magnetic fields for noninvasive treatment of nonunion bone fractures. I've seen it casually referenced in a large number of publications, but have never seen something to cite. I don't even know if the FDA puts out something to cite.

2. A discussion of the science of bioelectromagnetics. It is an active research area currently, with at least one journal published by Wiley devoted to it. However, there is some amount of stigma associated with the field since it does not have the theoretical framework of harder sciences (though studies must still have testable, falsifiable hypotheses, etc.). Many other non-scientific fields or applications use words like bioelectromagnetism or bioenergy, which may cause confusion. See, for example, the article at Bioelectromagnetic.

3. A history of some sorts. The bioelectromagnetics society published a history not too long ago, but I don't know how much of it covers the society versus the field of study. Also, for obvious reasons, we can't copy too much from it.

4. Perhaps a section in particular on the research into non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields, which may have bearings on set exposure limits.

5. Anything else that belongs here, including links to other pages, as well as links back here.

6. Anything that could possibly add to the name of science, especially when talking about the relationship of electromagnetism and life on earth----.

Potatophysics 10:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

great idea

Hi Potatophysics, just checking in from a bit of a wikivacation. I would love to help with this. I do have a large number of references on this, unfortunately the subject as a whole is not adequately handled anywhere that I know of. Let me start with a bit of a overview or possible table of contents or whatever you want to call it, and a few sources. Edit at will ;) ObsidianOrder 12:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, the references especially should go a long way while this page gets off the ground. The table of contents looked pretty daunting at first, but the structure seems very logical, and it should make researching & writing in small stages easier. Potatophysics 02:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

bioelectromagnetics vs bioelectromagnetism

The bioelectromagnetism article is a possible merge candidate. It refers to the intrinsic electromagnetic fields produced by living organisms, which could be handled in a section here. Since we are talking about the effects of fields, including intrinsic fields (possibly quite important as a mechanism for passing information within the organism), the nature and sources of those fields are a closely related subject and really should be dealt with in the same place for a more unified treatment. In any case, because of the similarity of the names we should either have clear definitions and/or merge. ObsidianOrder 18:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted a bunch of categories

Well, they looked horrible. I know I'm certainly turned off by a trillion categories with absolutely nothing on them. Besides, it's been like that since like forever. Here are the categories I deleted:

Effects of artificial fields 
Power lines 
CRTs 
Cell phones 
Radar 
Other transmitters (radio, TV, ...) 
Medical applications 
Bone fracture healing 
Low-level Laser Therapy (LLLT) 
Strong magnetic pulses for disinfection 
Other 
Noise-masking, time and space integration, cooperativity 
Intrinsic fields 
Natural fields 
Primary interaction mechanisms 
Membrane polarization 
Electro rotation 
AIDS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enceladuswrath (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 
Ion cyclotron resonance (and ion parametric resonance) 
Nonlinear kinetics 
Frohlich-style macro dipole interactions 
DNA conduction 
Microtubule waveguides 
Ferromagnetic domains 
Frequency selectivity from spatial features 
Effects on the level of a cell or below 
Calcium efflux 
Neurotransmitter systems 
DNA strand breaks and genotoxicity 
Ornithine decarboxylase 
Melatonin 
Bacterial growth and metabolism 
Effects on the level of an organ or system 
Blood-brain barrier permittivity 
EEG changes 
Wound healing, regeneration and bone growth 
Cancer promotion 
Whole-organism effects 
Electrical sensing organs (fish, etc) 
Navigation (bees, pigeons, etc) 
Effects on embryonic development 

Now, I don't know what half of this is for. Melatonin? what about it? microtubule waveguides? huh? Oh yeah, forgot to sign my name --TheAlphaWolf 17:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, agreed, they looked bad. If I had a lot more time I'd fill them in (and probably publish a goddamn monograph too), however they are a good outline for what the article should contain, organized nicely into topics and sub-topics. If you look up any of these plus "electromagnetic" in MEDLINE or any other good citation database you will get a large number of interesting articles, the problem is writing a coherent summary suitable for an encyclopedia. For example, decreased melatonin levels are one of the classic (suspected) effects of exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields, and could be a key mechanism in cancer promotion, see Reiter RJ, "Melatonin suppression by static and extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields: relationship to the reported increased incidence of cancer.", Rev Environ Health. 1994 Jul-Dec;10(3-4):171-86 [1]. A MEDLINE search for "melatonin AND magnetic" brings up 378 articles - of which probably a third say there is no effect, and the other two thirds describe everything in between a very weak and a very strong effect. Now, you write a summary for that section ;) The situation is much the same for all the rest of them. Microtubule waveguides - see Stuart Hameroff's work on Orch-OR theory - I believe he proposed the idea as part of that, and this would be a primary interaction mechanism that works somewhere in the >10GHz range. Anything else? ObsidianOrder 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I posted them here after I deleted them- they are a good outline for what should be in the article. However, as the length of time they've been there without being expanded shows, most people that come and read the article don't know what half of them mean, and the ones that do apparently don't expand the article for whatever reason. I don't know how many people read the article anyway, because people (I know I don't) don't generally trust articles that look bad. If they look neat and organized, people are more likely to read the article and maybe even contribute to it. Deleting all the categories with nothing on them makes people want to read the article more and contribute. If you want to expand certain categories then great, you can look them up here or in the history. Having empty categories only encourages contributions if there are only one or two of them. --TheAlphaWolf 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you happen to know why the page specifically discussing the human electro-magnetic field was deleted or discontinued? VerifyTruth01 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Bioelectromagnetics vs. Bioelectromagnetism

Can anyone explain why these two articles shouldn't be merged? There's only one article for magnetics and magnetism, so I'm at a complete loss as to why a far, far smaller topic needs 2 articles. Kayman1uk 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

History and origins

This field has extraordinary history and origins dated to the ancient Greeks and china and going through many phases and researchers. Seems a reasonable idea to develop a section about that which will give more essence to the article. This article was reviewed by the following member of WP:MED and WP:TRUEORIG Jennylen 09:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Audio Lecture of Dr. Robert O. Becker, MD

The peer-to-peer networking / edonkey2000 (ed2k) hyperlink (following / below) is for a 45 minute mp3 audio file. The approximately 2 minute introduction at the start was inserted by a subtle-energy medicine proponent, but the remaining presentation is that of Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. about bioelectromagnetics--the interaction of non-ionizing, non-thermal radio frequency electromagnetic radiation upon biological systems.

Robert O. Becker outlines some of the historical information about his own research and that of others.

The story starts out about the initial heavy influence of chemistry over biological living organisms determined in the late 1800s-early 1900s--the effects of microwave heating and ionizing radiation versus the supposedly non-influential subtle-energy, lower frequency electromagnetic radiation. These older theories were formulated from the initial beliefs / theories of physics / chemistry of that time, and Becker outlines the scientific pros and cons of those theories.

The story moves on to discuss US Navy proposing to install ELF submarine transmission systems in Wisconsin in the 1960s-1970s, and the studies that were mandated by the Wisconsin dairy farmers (and their congressman) not wanting the broadcasts to interfere with milk production, souring the milk, etc. The experimental results were circulated to a small group of scientists who suggested further experiments be conducted. Eventually the non-classified scientific study results were suppressed from public scrutiny so that when a New York State power company proposed installing very high voltage power lines, thereby influencing Robert Becker to suggest to them that there were negative biological implications as unearthed by the Navy's experiments, the US Navy denied anything about the scientific studies conducted. Subsequently, Becker's research grant monies disappeared (he was de-funded), and he lost his job.

Becker outlines a number of discoveries that were made in 1975. He mentions that magnetite was discovered present in a number of animal life forms: bacteria, homing pigeons, etc, and that from a theory of evolution standpoint, if this magnetic material were unneeded, its presence would have been selectively eliminated had it not been useful in some way. (It should be noted that magnetite has been found in the membrane surrounding the human brain, in specific parts of honey bees, in fish gills, etc. It is believed that this magnetite material is used for sensing the Earth's magnetic field to provide a sense of direction for homing, and for migration).

Becker outlines an early Denver Colorado study conducted by a woman investigator into geographically clustered cases of leukemia, and how no toxic chemicals were found--only higher than average power line radiation levels.

ed2k://|file|Energy%20Medicine%20-%2008%20of%2012%20-%20Robert%20Becker%20-%20Bioelectromagnetics%20and%20Energy.mp3|43122816|4952C949890759A51160B183E87504A7|h=APBQWJUDJ5L3RYML2IVT6SDX7HNU2XPS|/

Apparently some of the scientists that Becker mentions eventually became involved in secret military / CIA mind control and weapons research. A crude 8-minute home-made presentation Google video can be found by searching: >Robert Becker MKUltra<. Although Becker himself was not involved in mind control or weapons development, some of his fellow scientists were. Oldspammer (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Albert Davis

No mention of Dr. Albert Davis PhD his Biomagnetic research useing mono polar magnetic field effects.PINEAPPLEMAN (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger suggestion

See the merger suggestion here,

Talk:Bioelectromagnetism#Merger_suggestion --Dyuku (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging bioelectromagnetism and bioelectromagnetics is logical. Biofield is now a disambiguation page; These can possibly be merged, but that would take a massive amount of work and discussion: Electrophysiology, Electroreception, Magnetoception

Electric and magnetic fields are different, although they are both created with each other.

I completely disagree with any of these subjects merging with biophysics.

--Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good merge with bioelectromagnetism. Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bioelectromagnetics

The bioelectromagnetism content is a possible mix selection. It means the built-in electro-magnetic areas created by existing bacteria, which could be managed in a area here. Since we are referring to the results of areas, such as built-in areas (possibly quite important as a process for moving information within the organism), the characteristics and resources of those areas are a carefully relevant topic and really should be treated in the same place for a more specific therapy. In any situation, because of the likeness of the titles we should either have obvious descriptions and/or mix. ObsidianOrder 18:01, 29 Nov 2005

Merger proposal

Someone has proposed merging Biomagnetism into Bioelectromagnetics. I have created this section so there is somewhere to discuss it. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral leaning towards oppose. These two subjects are different, yet very close to each other. Electric and magnetic fields are closely related, but different. Its possible to merge the two, because of the relation between electric and magnetic fields. What was the original reasoning or others' reasoning for wanting to merge these two articles? Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  I told the IP editor who added the tags that I was setting up this discussion, but he/she has not provided a rationale yet. Before voting on this, I'd like to know whether the primary meaning of biomagnetism is indeed magnetic fields produced by living organisms, as the article states. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the person who proposed the merger would answer, since its not a regular user, but it could happen. My guess is, you're aware of the relation between electricity and magnetism. To the best of my knowledge, one can't exist without movement of the other. Ie powerlines cause a magnetic field, motors, generators, electric magnets; magnetic fields in bodies are caused by electrical impulses. I'm for waiting on good reasoning either way. Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I could be for it, as other pages are not even having this discussion, see Biomagnetismus on the Czech site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.44.23 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that no one has provided a rationale for this merger and there is no enthusiasm for it, I have removed the tags. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My renaming section below may address some of these issues. 137.124.161.31 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Bioelectromagnetism

Other than the first paragraph, the article focuses on Bioelectromagnetism, not Bioelectromagnetics. (Bioelectromagnetics is the study of bioelectromagnetism). Bioelectromagnetism redirects to Bioelectromagnetics. This also resolves a naming conflict with Biomagnetism (which Biomagnetics redirects to.) Thoughts?

I also believe this type of issue may be unfortunately widespread throughout the science articles of Wikipedia, although I haven't investigated it thoroughly.

137.124.161.31 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bioelectromagnetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212121108/http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu:80/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC.html to http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bioelectromagnetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929092750/http://www.icts.uci.edu/neuroimaging/Wassermann_rTMS_Safety1998.pdf to http://www.icts.uci.edu/neuroimaging/Wassermann_rTMS_Safety1998.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Useful links that could be added

MALMIVUO and PLONSEY. 1995. Bioelectromagnetism: Principles and Applications of Bioelectric and Biomagnetic Fields. Online book. http://www.bem.fi/book/00/tx.htm http://www.bem.fi/book/00/co.htm

That links to this paper: Tsoucalas et al. 2014. The “torpedo” effect in medicine. abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231328 free text: https://journals.viamedica.pl/international_maritime_health/article/view/38809

Wow! Andrew Marino Is a powerhouse! He is a serious scientist who worked with Robert Becker. https://andrewamarino.com/default.html

All of his journal articles are available on his website. https://andrewamarino.com/journalarticles.html

Pigkeeper (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring of article

I suggest a restructuring of the article and significant additions to improve its completeness. I believe that the article would be better served by a "bioeffects of electromagnetic radiation" subheading that captures the topics of discussion in the "thermal effects," "behavioral effects," and "TMS and related effects" subheadings. The "health effects" subheading could be kept but I believe should be amended to "Effects on human health." The various regulatory standards instituted for EM radiation in different localities could be discussed under that heading or given a separate subheading. I further suggest that since the article is on bioelectromagnetism in general, that we do not focus solely on the radiofrequency/microwave/millimeter wave/terahertz regions of the EM spectrum applicable to common devices, but also include information related to the rest of the EM spectrum where applicable. RobertsBiology (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Human electromagnetic field

There used to be a page specifically discussing the Human electromagnetic field. Why was it deleted? In fact, why have hundreds of pages relevant to various topics been deleted over the past four years with no adequate categorical replacements? VerifyTruth01 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)