← APPENDIX PM4 - SEA/KOHN'S PROJECTS | Report index | APPENDIX PM6 - VOICE TO SKULL, 1974 SUCCESS →

APPENDIX PM5 - BIOLOGICAL AMPLIFICATION

Electromagnetic Interaction With Biological Systems
edited by Dr. James C. Lin, University of Illinois
1989 Plenum Press, New York

Proceedings of the Joint Symposium on Interactions of 
Electromagnetic Waves with Biological Systems, held as part
of the Twenty-Second General Assembly of the International 
Union of Radio Science, Aug 25 - Sept 2, 1987, in Tel Aviv,
Israel.

ISBN 0-306-43109-2
QP82.2.N64E44 1989
612.01448-dc19 88-38957
CIP

Eleanor White's comments on this posting:

This book focusses on NON-ionizing radiation, and contains 
detailed texts about NON-THERMAL effects.  In other words, 
"right up our alley".

The main use of this book is to show that it is easy for
electromagnetic signals to cause radio frequency hearing and other
effects at LOW power levels.  This in turn can be used to explain why
DETECTION is so very difficult.

I don't understand the biological jargon, however, a few of the more
plain-language paragraphs STUNNINGLY verify that with careful choice
of signal frequency and modulation, not only can the body's cells
detect the modulation envelope of an incoming radio signal (i.e.
function as a "cellular crystal set") but even AMPLIFY these
carefully formed signals.  (Amplification of other effects, such as
proneness to disease, is also covered in the book.)

"Detection", in terms of radio signal reception, means that some
portion of the reciever "rectifies", that is, turns the AC of the 
incoming signal into varying DC.  If this conversion is not done, 
voice to skull wouldn't work.

The book touches also on ways in which cells communicate, and 
shows that electromagnetic fields of relatively weak power levels 
can affect intercellular communication, which is, as I understand 
the subject, what the brain is "all about".

Bio-amplification is apparently why radio signals of very low average
power ("MICROwatts" per NASA) can still produce audio effects,
and no doubt plays a part in difficulties in detection.

When two more characteristics of voice to skull are factored in:

1. The carrier signal can be "hopped" continuously within the 
   bioeffective bandwidth, known as "spread spectrum" transmission, 
   and,

2. The voice modulation most effective for undetectable hypnosis 
   is evidently a voice shifted just above normal hearing, but still 
   audible to the brain,

...you have a recipe for incredibly difficult signals to detect.

This book is a mainstream publication, very well suited to use 
in our publicity and persuasion campaigns, and our dealings with 
authorities who claim radio signals don't affect living tissue 
except to heat it.

Finally, many thanks to Blanche Chavoustie for providing me
photocopies of this book - a saintly work!
.............................................................
Page 110:
...
At that time [1953] excitatory mechanisms in nerver fibers
and nerve cells were grouped under a common rubric of ionic
equilibrium mechanisms.  There was little interest in the
possibility that functional organization of mebranes of cell
bodies might involve threshhold sensitivities to both
oscillating EM fields and to molecular stimuli at energy
levels substantially lower than predicted by Hodgkin-
Huxley models, and substantially below typical threshholds
in nerve fibers.

Much recent research cited below has shown that imposed weak
low frequency fields (and radiofrequency fields amplitude-
modulated at ELF frequencies) that are many orders of 
magnitude weaker in the pericellular fluid [fluid between
adjacent cells] than the membrane potential gradient [voltage
across the membrane] can modulate actions of hormone, anti-
body neurotransmitter and cancer-promoter molecules at their
cell surface receptor sites.

From their electrical characteristics, these sensitivities
appear to involve nonequilibrium and highly cooperative
processes that mediate a major amplification of initial
weak triggers associated with binding of these molecules at
their specific cell surface receptor sites.

(Adey, 1983, 1986, 1987; Adey and Lawrence, 1984; Lawrence
and Adey, 1982).

Page 122:

Cooperative Modification of Calcium Binding by RF Fields
at Cell Surfaces with Amplification of Initial Signals

Initial stimuli associated with weak perpindicular EM fields
and with binding of stimulating molecules at their membrane
receptor sites elicit a HIGHLY COOPERATIVE modification of
Ca++ binding to glycoproteins along the membrane surface.

As noted above, a longitudinal spread is consistent with 
the direction of extracellular current flow associated with
physiological activity and imposed EM fields.  This cooper-
ative modification of surface Ca++ binding is an
AMPLIFYING STAGE, with evidence from concurent initial molecular 
binding events by imposed RF fields that there is a far greater
increase in Ca++ efflux than is accounted for in the events of
receptor-ligand binding (Bawin and Adey, 1976; Bawin et al, 
1975; Liu-Liu and Adey, 1982).

Page 124:
...
Enzymes are protein molecules that function as catalysts, 
initiating and enhancing chemical reactions that would not
otherwise occur at tissue temperatures.  This ability resides
in the pattern of electrical charges on the molecular surface.
In the fashion of more familiar chemical catalysts, such as
the hydrocarbon oxidation systems which function only at very
high temperatures in automotive exhaust systems, a catalyst
emerges unchanged from these reactions and is thus able to
participate indefinitely in a specific reaction.

Activation of these enzymes and the reactions in which they
participate involve energies millions of times greater than
in the cell surface cell surface triggering events initiated
by the EM fields, emphasizing the MEMBRANE AMPLIFICATION
inherent in this trans-membrane signaling sequence.

Page 131:
...
Stimulus Amplification in Cooperative Systems
...
It is therefore clear that OBSERVED EM field interactions
with cells and tissues based on oscillating ELF tissue gradients
between 10 E-7 and 10 E-1 volts per centimeter would involve
cooperativity MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER than envisaged in
the examples just cited.

In part this discrepancy appears to relate to far greater
sensitivities to low-frequency EM fields [EW: ELF, that is, the
"entrainment" frequencies] and to RF fields with low-frequency
amplitude-modulation [EW: this includes radar hearing signals]
than to imposed step functions or DC gradients [EW: common
with contact electrodes, not of interest in mind control at a
distance] used in many electrochemical experiments and models
to test levels of cooperativity in biological systems.
(Blank, 1972)

[EW: In plain language, both entrainment (ELF) fields and
pulsating radar-like (RF) fields are a hell of a lot more
influential on cells than some experimental work using DC
and electrode methods.]

Page 95:

[EW: This section is not part of the demonstration that EM
signals can be biologically amplified, as above.  It's main
interest is that a magnetophosphene "gun" was under consider-
ation by the U.S. National Institute of Justice in 1993, along
with a "fever" gun and a "convulsion" gun, both using micro-
wave technology.  As of 1999, nothing has been heard from NIJ
on this development, however, page 95 here suggests that such
a microwave weapon is feasible.]

Magnetophosphenes

An effect of time-varying magnetic fields on humans was first
described by d'Arsonval (1896) [EW: Anyone doubt there has
been some progress since 1896?] is the induction of a flicker-
ing illumination within the visual field field known as
magnetophosphenes.  This phenomenon occurs as an immediate
response to stimulation by either pulsed or sinusoidal magnetic
fields with frequencies less than 100 Hz, and the effect is
completely reversible with no apparent influence on visual
acuity.  The maximum visual sensitivity to sinusoidal magnetic
fields has been found at a frequency of 20 Hz in human subjects
with normal vision.

[EW: Radio signals are a combination of electric and magnetic
fields.  To radiate a 20 Hz signal would require such huge
antennas that it is impractical to do so.  I'd recommend that
if someone has the facilities and skills, I'd try some VHF (or
microwave) pulsing at 20 Hz on an RF carrier at, say, the 2-meter
(144-148 MHz) ham band with a duty cycle, say, of 20% pulse-ON 
time.]