Neuron ion channels as point contact diodes?

[wackyvorlon]

I would like, if possible, to obtain this learned groups confirmation of a suspicion I have. It is with regard this PDF:

http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdf...hone_facts.pdf

In it, the author, one Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, says some very odd things. While I am certainly no expert in the field, these things do not jive with my understanding at all.

He claims that modulated RF is more dangerous than unmodulated. This does not make sense with my understanding of the work of Fourier. My understanding is that we are really just adding harmonics, which are themselves sine wives, and I see no reason why this particular group of harmonics coming from one antenna vs. several should be significant.

He claims that the negative ions near the neuron are "attached" to it. This does not jive with my, admittedly limited, understanding of chemistry. I'm not aware of ions really attaching to anything.

Further, he claims that the ion channels in the neuron form a point contact diode, and hence a rudimentary detector. I am not aware that it is possible to have a point contact diode without the presence of a semiconductor. Nor am I aware of the presence of a semiconductor in the vicinity of the ion channels of the neuron.

Finally, for a diode to do anything would require an antenna suited to receiving the requisite signal. There are minimum lengths required, and even at cellular frequencies I am not aware of a conductor of sufficient length being present in the brain. It is, of course, entirely possible that there is a part of the theory behind this subject that I am unaware of. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

[MervinFerd]

He's full of it.

He's got a bit of theory right. Rectification is the process of demodulating an AM radio signal. The RF (MegaHertz) signal is changing strength according to the AF (KiloHertz) sound signal. Send the RF through a diode (one-way valve), filter, and you hear Rush Limbaugh blovikating.

So he's identified a --possible-- mechanism for creating low frequency voltage oscillations across membranes.

Can ion channels rectify RF? The author cites a paper on nanotubes, which aren't ion channels, and an advocacy site "Mast Sanity". Not much to inspire confidence.

Calcium ions are indeed required for membrane stability. Are they knocked loose by voltage oscillations? We're only offered speculation as evidence.

No sensible explanation is offered to explain why people become "sensitized" to RF.

The over-riding considerations would be these:

1. Your head is mostly salt water. Salt water conducts electricity. Microwaves do not penetrate into conductors. Whatever signal gets through the skull to the brain is far weaker than the signal at the scalp.

2. The voltage across neural membranes is constantly "oscillating". That's how neurons work. The voltages are small (0.1V), but because the membrane is so thin, the electrical fields are actually very high. It's hard to see how some small external signal causes permanent changes.

3. Bunches of research has been done exposing animals (and sometimes people) to electrical fields much stronger than ever would be generated by a cell phone or transmitting tower. Nobody has demonstrated any consistent effects unless the field is strong enough to heat tissue.

4. Bunches of people who actually know something about ions and channels have tried to think of mechanisms by which EM fields can have biological effects. They haven't thought of this one yet.

[wackyvorlon]

I do recall mention of tunnel diodes in past reading, and I think the mention of nanotubes refers to quantum tunneling. *but* I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen when submerged in saltwater. At least, not the way he wants.

[Dancing David]

Quote:

The body can collect the signal and turn it into electric currents just like the
antenna of a radio set or a cell phone.

they can and do but there is no system to amplify them.

Quote:

When these currents impinge on cell
membranes, which are normally electrically charged, they try to vibrate in time
with the current.

Sure, the energy levels are so high they would do that.

Quote:

However, living cell membranes are able to demodulate these modulated signals
and extract the more dangerous lower frequencies, which can now cause
significant vibration on a molecular scale. In particular, they drive the negatively
charged molecules of the membrane and the positively charged ions, which are
attached to it, in opposite directions.

Confusion between RF frequency and EM charge?

Well now it just falls apart

Quote:

Those with a double charge, such as calcium ions are lost preferentially
and replaced by others with only one charge, which are less affected. But ions
with one charge are less able to stabilise the membrane, which therefore
becomes weaker and more inclined to leak.

Quote:

This in turn can produce all sorts of
unwanted biological effects, ranging from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)
to a loss of fertility and an increased risk of getting cancer.

Petard, hoist , self.

[MervinFerd]

Originally Posted by wackyvorlon

I do recall mention of tunnel diodes in past reading, and I think the mention of nanotubes refers to quantum tunneling. *but* I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen when submerged in saltwater. At least, not the way he wants.

Many ion channels are rectifiers in their normal operation. That's due to their protein structure and doesn't have anything to do with nanotubes or tunnel diodes. The question is, Could they respond to a GHz electric field?

Even if the channels are fast enough, I don't see how the geometry works. Cells are much smaller than the wavelength of microwaves. The microwave just isn't going to generate much voltage across the membrane.

ETA: I just wasted some time looking through the Mast Sanity site. They reference some papers from reputable journals that, from the titles, claim effects of electric fields on DNA. Several use ELF (Extremely Low Frequency), not microwaves. If effects are demonstrated, there are effects; speculative mechanisms are unnecessary. I would have to read the original papers to see whether the effects are relevant to humans and cell phones.

The rest of this is just a mess--speculation intertwined with misunderstanding.


This quote shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics:

Quote:

The human body makes a good antenna since blood vessels, which are low resistance pathways filled with a highly conductive salty fluid, connect virtually all of its parts. Even cell membranes, which have a high resistance to DC, allow radio-frequencies through because of their high capacitance. So when you use a mobile phone, its signal will be transmitted to all parts of your body; nowhere is safe.

[BenBurch]

If RF were really harmful I'd be dead by now.

[MervinFerd]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If RF were really harmful I'd be dead by now.

Quite a few of us....

[Dr. Imago]

[ASIDE]

In the hospital, "Neuron" is a slang pejorative for a neurologist. When referenced on the wards, it is intended as a contraction between "neurologist" and "moron", and not as being descriptive of a discrete subunit of the human neuraxis.

[/ASIDE]

~Dr. Imago

[MervinFerd]

Originally Posted by Dr. Imago

[ASIDE]

In the hospital, "Neuron" is a slang pejorative for a neurologist. When referenced on the wards, it is intended as a contraction between "neurologist" and "moron", and not as being descriptive of a discrete subunit of the human neuraxis.

[/ASIDE]

~Dr. Imago

Hadn't heard that term before.

I've never been totally clear on the function of a neurologist, as opposed to a neurosurgeon. The neurologist can't cut anything inside the skull, so what exactly is he good for? I know that they are very good at identification of lesions from symptoms. But then what? Can they be replaced by an MRI?

Not that the neurosurgeons are all that successful with their efforts.

(This is a pretty nasty remark, which I am sure I will regret in the morning.)

[Dr. Imago]

Originally Posted by MervinFerd

I've never been totally clear on the function of a neurologist...

Essentially only these two things:

(1) To tell the patient this: "The good news is I know what's wrong with you. The bad news is that I can't do anything about it."

(2) To screw-up a perfectly good plan of care.

(I'm only half-joking.)

~Dr. Imago

[ben m]

Originally Posted by MervinFerd

I've never been totally clear on the function of a neurologist, as opposed to a neurosurgeon. The neurologist can't cut anything inside the skull, so what exactly is he good for? I know that they are very good at identification of lesions from symptoms. But then what? Can they be replaced by an MRI?

Don't imagine that the only neurological disorder is "brain tumor": migraine, epilepsy, attention and learning disorders, encephalitis, various neuromuscular problems, etc., are all neurological problems which are diagnosed by a neurologist and treated (well, "managed") using prescription drugs.

In any case, you don't go to a heart surgeon to diagnose your angina. You go to a cardiologist, who does the diagnosis and maybe refers you to the surgeon.

[MervinFerd]

Originally Posted by ben m

Don't imagine that the only neurological disorder is "brain tumor": migraine, epilepsy, attention and learning disorders, encephalitis, various neuromuscular problems, etc., are all neurological problems which are diagnosed by a neurologist and treated (well, "managed") using prescription drugs.

In any case, you don't go to a heart surgeon to diagnose your angina. You go to a cardiologist, who does the diagnosis and maybe refers you to the surgeon.

Fair enough.

I hate to leave diagnosis and decisions about treatment in the hands of -any- surgeon. If your only tool's a Scalpel, all the world's a Tumor.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally Posted by ben m

In any case, you don't go to a heart surgeon to diagnose your angina. You go to a cardiologist, who does the diagnosis and maybe refers you to the surgeon.

I have to slightly disagree...

Cardiologists perform and interpret both echocardiograms and angiographies. Many also insert stents and a variety of other deployable devices into the heart. Electrophysiologists will insert pacemakers. You don't need a cardiothoracic surgeon for these things.

I'm not sure what Neurologists do. (Again, I say that only half-jokingly.) Maybe EMG and EEG? (Which, as an anesthesiologist and critical care doc, I'm fully capable of doing and interpreting myself.)

~Dr. Imago

[MervinFerd]

Originally Posted by Dr. Imago

I'm not sure what Neurologists do.
~Dr. Imago

Isn't the real problem that there aren't many things that -can- be done for neurological conditions? Diagnose and manage.

Diagnosis of the early stages of degenerative diseases is hard enough that a specialist may be called for. (Not a clinician, myself).

I presume your grumpiness is from some bad experiences with the species. But there is a bigger question: how many very expensive specialists do we need? (Speaking as a non-clinician and always reluctant patient.)

In a large teaching hospital, you are paying specialists much money to look at a CAT scan and identify the appendix. And then, a barely paid resident who's been awake for 39 hours actually does what has to be done.

(I've got my own reasons for being grumpy.)

[Dr. Imago]

Originally Posted by MervinFerd

Isn't the real problem that there aren't many things that -can- be done for neurological conditions? Diagnose and manage.

Always remember:

(1) A chance to cut is a chance to cure.

(2) (Non-surgical) doctors basically exist to keep the patient entertained while they get better (or don't) on their own.

(3) "M"edicine (capital "m") as opposed to "S"urgery (capital "s") is still, relatively speaking, in the dark ages. I quantify Neurology along with the medicine specialties, with the exception of the interventional parts of each field.

If you are under the age of 80, the majority of the common major illnesses I see on a daily basis (> 90%) that non-surgical doctors claim to be adept at "treating" could've been averted with appropriate lifestyle modification. By the time you get to a medical doctor for care, it basically becomes like trying to pee on a forest fire to put it out. The only real "cures" I've ever seen have come from surgeons... and maybe some radiation and medical oncologists... the latter of whom's treatments, in 100 years, will be likened to blood-letting and leeches.

~Dr. Imago

[Dancing David]

I know that in mental health neurology was a way of determining if there was a process other than a mental illness at work, like temporal lobe seizures.

I ahev a friend who gets nerve conduction tests.

[MervinFerd]

Originally Posted by Dr. Imago

(1) A chance to cut is a chance to cure.

Or maybe not. The question is deciding when it is better to leave things alone or do the absolutely necessary only. I don't trust surgeons to know the difference. (Yes, I'm grumpy with surgeons.)

I've known a few surgeons I wouldn't trust to change the spark plugs in my pickup truck. They're a special breed.

Surgical treatments for tumors are positively medieval. The choice of extreme carving vs minimal surgery is not always based in science. Recall radical mastectomies vs lumpectomies.

Quote:

(2) (Non-surgical) doctors basically exist to keep the patient entertained while they get better (or don't) on their own.

Antibiotics? And what's wrong with entertainment or reducing symptoms while the body heals itself? Or managing a chronic disease through a normal lifespan.

Quote:

(3) "M"edicine (capital "m") as opposed to "S"urgery (capital "s") is still, relatively speaking, in the dark ages. I quantify Neurology along with the medicine specialties, with the exception of the interventional parts of each field.

Surgery itself is medieval. If the other fields advance, surgeons will be unemployed.

Quote:

radiation and medical oncologists... the latter of whom's treatments, in 100 years, will be likened to blood-letting and leeches.

Indeed. It's not their fault that better treatments aren't available. But increased humility would be appreciated. You'd think that having most of your patients die would cause self-reflection.