Document

Information contained in a form or other document, usually a PDF.

Harvard Biologist Takes New Job at Alma Mater

Michael Levin, who has published several articles in the Bioelectromagnetics Journal and recently gave an invited talk at a Society Annual Meeting, was mentioned in a November 18, 2008 post on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s on-line news blog (written by Caitlin Moran): The internationally recognized biologist, who previously directed the Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology at the Forsyth Institute, has left his post at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine to work as a biology professor at Tufts University, his alma mater.

The opportunity for interdisciplinary research at Tufts was a key factor in the switch for Mr. Levin, who was already working with Tufts researchers in biology and biomedical engineering. He believes interdisciplinary collaboration is becoming more important to medical research.

Mr. Levin is known for his findings on tissue growth as it relates to birth defects and cancer. He graduated from Tufts in 1992 with a degree in biology and computer science, and later received a Ph.D. from the Harvard University Medical School.

NIST to Study Electroshock Safety

Electroshock weapons—such as stun guns and other similar devices that temporarily incapacitate a person by delivering a high-voltage, low-current electric shock—have helped law enforcement officers safely subdue dangerous or violent persons for years. The use of these weapons has been challenged, however, by claims that they may have contributed to more than 150 deaths in the United States since 2001. Now, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are working toward a standard method for accurately assessing the electrical output of these devices, the results of which can be used in establishing baselines for future medical and safety studies.

Groups such as Amnesty International have called for guidelines for electroshock weapons that include “threshold exposures” (the minimum charges that would incapacitate different groups of people without putting them at risk for injury or death). One obstacle to the development of such guidelines is the fact that various reports regarding the output of electroshock weapons—the current and voltage they deliver—are inconsistent.

To address this problem, scientists in NIST’s Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) have developed methods for calibrating the high-voltage and current measurement probes used by industry so that any inherent biases in the probes are minimized. By compensating for these probe effects, voltage and current readings were obtained that reflect the energies being dispensed by the weapons.

Next steps in the characterization program for electroshock weapons include implementing a second type of high-voltage measurement to verify the probe calibration system; further refining the uncertainty analysis for the overall measurement method to better define its accuracy and reliability; and, eventually, working with government agencies and the law enforcement community to standardize the method that will facilitate establishment of use guidelines.

### Public release date: 13-Nov-2008
For more information, contact

Nicholas Paulter,
nicholas.paulter@nist.gov, (301) 975-2405
Or
Michael E. Newman,
michael.newman@nist.gov, (301) 975-3025

EMF Effects on Cardiovascular System Reviewed

The cardiovascular effects of exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields were reviewed recently by David McNamee and collegues in a recent publication in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, published online 17 February 2009. Building on an earlier conclusion by Preece et al. that the data is ‘too strong and consistent to be ignored, but if an effect exists, it is a small effect”, they conclude that “the equivocal results reported to date require clarification through further research, including both epidemiologicalepidemiological studies of cardiovascular disease and laboratory studies investigating cardiovascular parameters.” The paper makes specific recommendations for future research, and note the importance of recording the geomagnetic magnetic field parameters when performing such studies.

DA McNamee, AG Legros, DR Krewski, G Wisenberg, FS Prato, and AW Thomas. A Literature Review: the Cardiovascular Effects of Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. Springer Verlage 2009.

UMTS Effects Debated

A debate on details of research reporting possible genotoxic effects from third generation (UMTS) mobile communication devices continues in the pages of the January 2009 issue of the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. The original article by Claudia Schwarz et al. published in Vol. 81, No. 6 (May 2008) showed) in vitro genotoxic effects on human fibroblasts (but not in lymphocytes).

The Memorial Committee recently updated its web database of obituaries of deceased members and people strongly tied to Bioelectromagnetics research. During the process, they found these two memorials of people who were a key part of the early years of the Bioelectromagnetics society.

DR. CURTIS CARL JOHNSON, 1932 - 1978
Members will recognize this name from the Student Awards given each year at our Annual Meeting. This text appeared in the precursor to the BEMS newsletter, the Bioeffects Newsletter, No. 5, April 1978, just before BEMS was formed. It was written by Thomas Rozzell, who also served as an early editor of the BEMS newsletter.

The bioelectromagnetics research community and the many friends of Curt Johnson were deeply saddened to learn of his death on 25 March 1978. Curt had been severely ill for about two months.

Born in Long Beach, California on November 7, 1932, he received the BS and MS degrees in Electrical Engineering from CalTech in 1954 and 1955 respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in 1958. He first joined the faculty of the University of Utah as an Assistant Professor in 1961. In 1967, he joined the Bioengineering Center at the University of Washington and was involved in research and development of biomedical instrumentation and biological microwave effects. In 1972 he returned to the University of Utah as Professor of Biophysics and Bioengineering and Director of the Institute for Biomedical Engineering. He was appointed Chairman of the New Department of Bioengineering in 1974.

Dr. Johnson was a prolific writer. He published two textbooks in electromagnetic theory and contributed to three other books in bioengineering. He published more than 65 journal articles and made more than 70 presentations at technical meetings. He holds seven patents and filled several editorial positions for technical and scientific publications.

I first became acquainted with Curt as a contractor for the Office of Naval Research. Shortly after I came to ONR in 1971, we collaborated in the invention of the liquid crystal/optic fiber temperature probe, and he (along with Jim Lords and Carl Durney) and I hold a patent on that device. A brilliant researcher, Dr. Johnson was internationally recognized for his work in bioengineering, and in particular, for his work in bioinstrumentation and the biological effects of microwaves.

I am certain that everyone who knew Curt joins me in expressing to his widow, Wilma, and his four children our deep sense of sorrow and our great feeling of loss. We are all much better individuals because he walked amoung us and so unselfishly shared with us a part of his life.

In order that future students will continue to benefit from the research program that Curt developed, a Memorial Fellowship Fund has been established at the University of Utah. Checks may be made to the University of Utah-Dept. of Bioengineering and sent in care of the University of Utah Development Office, 306 Park Building, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.

The following obituary was originally published in BEMS NL #68, May/June 1986

HERBERT A. POHL, 1916 -1986
Professor Herbert A. Pohl passed away Saturday, 21 June, of a heart attack. Born 1916, Pohl earned his Ph.D. in chemical physics at Duke University in 1939. He was a faculty member at the Departments of Anatomy and Chemical Engineering, Johns Hopkins Medical School. He served in the Navy during World War II at the Naval Research Laboratory, and later worked for the DuPont Company on nylon, dacron, and in the atomic energy division. From 1957-1962 he taught at Princeton University. Later he joined the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, then was a Visiting Professor at the University of Uppsala, Sweden as a Wallenberg Fellow from 1963-1964. He served as Professor of Physics at Oklahoma State University from 1964-1981. As a NATO Senior Fellow, he did research at Cambridge University in 1971, and at WoodsHole, MA in 1976. His active research was on electroactive organic polymers, and on biological dielectrophoresis, a phenomena he discovered and named.

Dr. Pohl was the Editor of the Journal of Biological Physics, and Co-Editor of the IEEE Digest of Dielectrics. He was also the Director of the Pohl Cancer Research Laboratory, Stillwater, OK; and at his death was a Visiting Scientist at the Francis Bitter National Magnet Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

We recently asked Joachim Schuz how he got involved in bioelectromagnetics. His response? “Well, coincidence…”

He continued: “In 1992, the German Childhood Cancer Registry at the University of Mainz started a large comprehensive epidemiological study on causes of childhood leukemia, and we were three Ph.D.-students-to-be who were interested in finding a topic within this study. While the other two worked in the same building where all the interviewers and fieldworkers were located, my office was at the Tumor Centre, so it was decided that I would take over the add-on study to the main study that was in collaboration with an external partner anyway and required less regular contact with our own fieldworkers. Having an office 200 meters away from the main building determined my first contact with EMF, instead of working on leukemia and pesticides or leukemia and infections.

“The EMF measurements were done by the Technical University of Braunschweig, and the head of respective institute was honorable Professor Karl Brinkmann, an early member of BEMS. It was his wish that our study should be presented at BEMS, a conference neither my boss or I had ever heard of before. I first went to a BEMS meeting in 1997, to Bologna, to report our results from the leukemia study done in Berlin. I especially enjoyed meeting all the researchers active in this field at one place, and the multidisciplinary and liberal spirit of BEMS. Since then I’ve only missed the meetings in Florida and Hawaii.

“A bit embarrassing to say, but I became BEMS member only in 2005, however, immediately tried to compensate my failure by becoming a very active BEMS member and was elected to join the BOD in 2006.”

He commented on his own transition from being a student to a full researcher in this area: “During a recent EBEA meeting, a speaker from a large US manufacturers company concluded his talk with a recommendation that no one below 40 years of age should go into EMF research. Luckily I had just turned 40 few weeks earlier and I’m therefore eligible to pick up some loose ends to investigate some questions where I believe we have still quite some scientific uncertainty. Whereas some activities will be completed ‘soon’ (Interphone), others are planned to commence for several decades (Cosmos).” [Editor’s note: there is no upper or lower age limit within BEMS.]

With this auspicious start, we asked how he views the future. He responded with enthusiasm and humor that “in Davos it will be my turn now to listen to my own students, and I wish them a good start in BEMS. Maybe it will be less thrilling than my own start: in Bologna all my slides were upside-down and I had to give my first BEMS presentation freely while the chairmen were busy to turn my slides - from upside-down to mirror-inverted - but the second attempt succeeded.”

Members of the BEMS Board of Directors and officials from the European BioElectromagnetics Association (EBEA) met in Zurich February 5-7, 2009.

The meeting coordination was flawlessly done by the recently appointed scientific coordinator at the Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (IT’IS), Iris Szankowski, in conjunction with ASI, Inc.

The meeting on February 5th focused on the details and budget of the upcoming BioEM 2009 Joint Meeting. Attendees included the Executive Boards of each society.

On February 6th, members of both societies jointly met at the IT’IS, hosted by BEMS President and IT’IS Director, Niels Kuster. IT’IS was established in 1999 as a nonprofit research spin-off from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule or ETH). Key area of interest at the foundation are electromagnetic sensor technologies, computational electromagnetics, dosimetry, basic research related to health risks evaluations, MR safety of implants, health support systems, and the newest activities in computational physics for biology, physiology and medicine including cancer treatments, blood brain barrier modeling, etc.

The meeting began with two parallel brainstorming sessions on the joint futures of the BEMS and EBEA societies. At the conclusion of these sessions, the meeting progressed to a tour of the research facilities at the foundation. Presentations were made by:

Ezra Neufeld described the foundation’s work in computational physics for biology, physiology and medicine focusing on tissue and vascular simulations and studies of the use of hyperthermia to create preferential necrosis for tumor cells. Work is underway to get a better deposition of electromagnetic energy where it is needed rather than in tissues with better conductivity. This includes the ability to reoptimize the field profiles using CT/MR based patient models including feedback from the patient. Neufeld also noted the Virtual Family computational models developed at IT’IS in conjunction with FDA for scientific research that have become familiar to those attending BEMS annual meetings.

Fin Bomholt, of Schmid & Partner Engineering AG (SPEAG), a major sponsor of the research at IT’IS, demonstrated the latest time-domain sensor technologies.

Manuel Murbach provided an overview of the foundation’s specialized exposure setting ranging in size from small in vitro coils to large enclosures suitable for rodent and mammal exposure.

Myles Capstick demonstrated the largest of these exposure chambers which includes a new approach for stirring the signal reflections to create a (time averaged) homogeneous exposure (time averaged) of all animals.

Sven Kuhn described testing underway related to MRI safety of implants. By better understanding how these devices perform under MRI exposure, implants can be designed such that they will not cause internal RF burns during standard MRI scans or fail due to electromagnetic inference.

Sven Kuhn (far right) demonstrates testing equipment to Board members (L to R) Andrei Pahkomov, Ewa Czerska, and Indira Chaterjee.

Members of both societies then rode Europe’s steepest normal gauge adhesion (not cable) railway to Uetliberg, a mountain just outside of Zurich, to bring together the results of the earlier brainstorming sessions. Following this, they enjoyed some of the fondue for which Switzerland is appropriately famous.

Society presidents Niels Kuster (BEMS) and Carmela Marino (EBEA) join Gloria Parsley, BioEM2009 Meeting Organizer, Dariusz Leszczynski, BioEM2009 Co-Chair, Ewa Czerska, BEMS Past President, and Lynn Plitt, BEMS.

Minutes of the February 7th Board of Directors meeting will be published in a later issue of the newsletter.

ICNIRP is glad to inform you about its most recent publication, Risk Factors for Childhood Leukemia, Proceedings of an International Workshop, 5-7 May 2008, Berlin, Germany issued in Radiation Protection Dosimetry 132 (2). To view the papers, go to the Journal’s website http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol132/issue2/index.dtl

In virtually every society, children are valued and given high priority for protection. Using common scientific resources to address one of the major diseases of childhood is reasonable as a means to prevent the disease. The workshop made a contribution toward pursuing the causes of childhood leukemias.

Leukemia contributes about 1/3 of all cancers in children below the age of fifteen. This heterogeneous, multi-factorial disease of the hematopoietic system accounts for the largest proportion of all cancers in this age group, with acute lymphatic leukemia (ALL) being the most common subtype. Incidence rates show a slight increase with time.

There is increasing evidence that a first damaging event to the hematopoietic stem cells (1st hit) occurs during the prenatal phase and one or more postnatal hits are needed to transform the pre-leukemic clones into leukemia cells. In parallel to the body of research investigating the different indicators of molecular damage, therapeutic procedures have been continually developed andimproved. Today individually optimized therapeutic plans for childhood ALL patients are available which result in a survival rate of more than 80%.

The aim of the international workshop, jointly organized by ICNIRP, WHO and the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), was to bring together experts from different disciplines to summarize the current knowledge about the role of genetic and environmental risk factors for childhood leukemia. It became clear that, in spite of the many available epidemiological studies, knowledge about the causes of leukemia is still rather incomplete and will require large concerted efforts worldwide.

See all workshop information at http://www.icnirp.org/WChildhoodLeukemia.htm.

Board member Chiyoji Ohkubo recently assumed the position of Director of the newly established Japan EMF Information Center (JEIC) as part of the Japan Electrical Safety and Environment Technology Laboratories. This center was created to “facilitate the communication between industry, news media, and [the] general population” about risk analyses of EMF scientific information. Its founding is based on the results and recommendations of the World Health Organization’s International EMF Project as well as the Working Group of Electric Power Facility EMF Policy in Japan. The JEIC will focus on collecting, translating, and publishing EMF information published in Japan and throughout the world in an easily accessed form that allows experts to analyze the information for risk studies. They plan to promote lecture, meetings, and symposia on EMF topics, as well as developing web and print information on EMF issues. They also plan to set up a hotline for consulting on individual issues.

An earlier Working Group of Electric Power Facility EMF Policy, founded by Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, adopted the ICNIRP guidelines on field exposure (100 microTesla for 50 Hz fields and 83 microTesla for 60Hz fields). In addition, they called for “establishment of a neutral and permanent EMF information center designed to promote risk communication… to eliminate problems arising from people incorrectly understanding the possible health effects from exposure to magnetic fields.”

Chiyoji Ohkubo worked as a Scientist at the WHO project from April 2005 through March 2007, and currently serves as visiting professor at Meiji Pharmaceutical University. He chairs the Research Committee on the Possible Health Effect of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields at Japan’s Ministory of Internal Affairs and Communications, and is the former Director of the Department of Environmental Health at Japan’s National Institute of Public Health.

Dr. Vijayalaxmi, known to most members as Vijay, has been serving as the Society’s Treasurer for almost three years. She began her academic career in southern India studying the genetic effects of irradiated wheat. This work was widely reported in academic, scientific and political circles in India, leading to meetings with Mrs. Indira Gandhi, late Prime Minister of India, and invitations to testify before an Australian Parliamentary Committee. She spoke at a special session at the World Health Organization, and she appeared on Television documentaries produced in Australia, Britain, Denmark and Japan. Later she received a post doctoral fellowship for advanced training in cytogenetics from the World Health Organization in Scotland and Holland.

Since then, she has worked on a variety of studies of environmental mutagens and human inherited diseases, at the British Medical Research Council’s Human Genetics Unit (Scotland), New York Blood Center, University of Heidelberg (Germany), and the Swiss Federal Radiation Research Institute, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (New York), and a genetic toxicology testing lab in North Carolina. In 1994, she moved to the University of Texas Health Science Center to begin examining the bioeffects of non-ionizing radiation.

Someone recently said “if you’ve come prepared to defend a position, you’re not here for a discussion.” In the spirit of a continuing discussion, with a goal of productive change within the society rather than the defense of entrenched positions, I offer this response to the recent column by President Niels Kuster that was followed by an article coauthored by Former Presidents Mays Swicord and Asher Sheppard, and by Professor Quirino Balzano.

I served as President of this Society in 1991, immediately before Mays Swicord. In my address to the Annual Business Meeting during my term, and in a subsequent Presidents’ column (see BEMS NL # 98 [Jan/Feb 1991], and BEMS NL #101 [Jul/Aug 1991]), I described what I thought were two cultures in the Society, one based in biological sciences and the other in the physical sciences, that had different cultural training in scientific research. I expressed hope that scientists from both cultures would acknowledge their differences and use them synergistically to advance the science.

Since many of you may not have those back issues of the newsletter, here is the relevant text from issue #98:

“Listening to one recent discussion, I sensed an exaggerated juxtaposition of the conflicting reference frames ingrained in the physical scientists and biologists. For physical scientists, an unusual or unexpected result indicates that an artifact probably occurred, the results need to be discarded, and the experiment repeated. When repeat experiments produce the same result, a more conscious effort is placed on finding the cause of the result. In many cases, the results are never published even if no artifact can be found, unless the result can be explained in terms of current knowledge of physical mechanisms. This hesitation to publish is imposed by traditions for rules of evidence and methodological expectations of physical scientists.”

“In contrast, although biologists carefully examine possible causes of artifact when unexpected results are observed, if the results hold up upon replication and close scrutiny, there is a communal acceptance to publish. Perhaps there is no disciplinary taboo against publishing such findings because it is recognized that there are many unknowns in biological sciences; surprises are expected.”

My reference frame was established in a biophysics graduate school program in the 1960s led by Ernest Pollard that was funded by NASA to identify the environmental extremes under which life could exist. With a bachelor’s degree in physics, I was introduced to experimental biology for the first time in graduate school. My first semester microbiology course opened my eyes to the amazing sensitivity and diversity in biological responses, particularly for the role of mutations in microbial societies. This enlightenment continued as I learned more about biology. Although I studied the effects of ionizing radiation on DNA, I remember being asked in one of my oral exams to describe how microbial life could exist and thrive in the hotsprings in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, when the conditions are so detrimental to life. In preparation for that exam, I had read that week’s Science magazine that contained a lead article describing the latest findings that answered that question, namely, the microbes had increased G-C content in their DNA (three hydrogen bonds for those bases) and increased di-sulphide bonds in proteins, which made those molecules more resistant to the normally denaturing conditions in the hotsprings; there were other changes as well. This ability to adapt to harsh thermal and high salt environments was not understood before, but the evidence of the existence of living microbes in that environment had by that time been accepted.

It is this biological mindset of discovery, verification and investigation that has guided the research I’ve subsequently conducted, by being observant of unusual or unexpected biological responses, particularly patterns that give clues to as yet undiscovered mechanistic phenomena. Once repeatable responses are obtained that were not caused by obvious factors, it is necessary to characterize the treatment conditions and physiological state under which the biological response occurs. With this more complete information, it may be possible to make hypothesizes regarding possible, additional uncontrolled variables (in one case, the possible influence of the static magnetic field) that might provide more clues for theoreticians (both in physical and biological reference frames) to speculate on the underlying bases for the observed responses and ultimately to determine underlying modes of action and eventually mechanisms of action.

The value in determining all the parameters, biological and physical, that can influence a biological process is that scientists would then be guided by the need to describe and control those parameters in order to produce results that stand a chance of being reproduced by scientists in other locations using different equipment. Otherwise, without replication the scientific debate would degenerate into observations analogous to those of the proverbial 6 blind people allowed to touch an elephant on different parts of its anatomy and exclaiming to the world what an elephant “looks” like.

I read an article describing a rebellion recently launched in science education, with the support of the US National Science Foundation, to change how students learn about how science works. The article notes that traditional education holds that all scientific experimentation is required to follow the classical scientific method (typically taught as a 4 or 5 step recipe) to produce irrefutable results. Two sentences in the article caught my eye: “ … science cannot be oversimplified to make a good story. Data that get in the way of neat conclusions cannot simply be wiped away.” The website developed by this group, www.understandingscience. org, calls this approach “discovery science,” and stresses the importance, especially for scientists in training, of this iterative, dynamic process, as an essential component in scientific research. Their emphasis is on genuine awe and inspiration at observing the unexpected and on personal growth that comes with that experience.

On reflection, I’ve realized that there is now another division in the Society, beyond the one I identified in 1991, which we still see. This second division is between the culture of discovery science and the culture of classical science. This division is prevalent not just in the Society, but also more widely in scientific studies in general. For example, note the recent US National Academy Science report on future research needs in bioelectromagnetics. This report’s conclusions do not acknowledge critical clues offered by series of independent, published reports that don’t fit neat conclusions, such as weak field effects. Since this NAS report had a substantial input from European scientists, the problem is not just one that exists in the US. In fact, much in vitro and in vivo research is no longer funded in the bioelectromagnetics area in spite of intriguing published effects that practically beg to be further explored.

The outcome of this trend is to denigrate and thus deny funding to discovery science. I remember the excitement I felt in graduate school to be allowed to perform discovery discovery science, that is, to follow my intuition to explore the treatment and response spaces surrounding a process to understand them better so that I would be able to be more focused and efficient in the project I was doing. Our Society has greatly benefited from discovery-based research, as is attested to by the d’Arsonval awards given to Dr. Ross Adey and to Dr. Nancy Wertheimer for their discovery science accomplishments. The freedom to perform discovery-based research has been essentially lost in the current research funding and management paradigms.

I propose that another benefit of discovery science is that it can provide the basis to get out of this muddle we see in bioelectromagnetics research with respect to acceptance of low-intensity biological effects and perhaps in the broader scientific research enterprise as well. Once it is acknowledged that there are biological responses to EMF that cannot be explained by current modes or mechanisms of action, then there is hope that representatives from both sides can meet on an equal footing and with joint respect to devise ways to investigate the phenomena.

Dear colleagues,

The 2010 Annual Meeting of BEMS will take place in Seoul, South Korea. I have been named as the Chair of the Technical Program Committee (TPC). Members of the TPC (listed below) been approved by the BEMS Board of Directors and nearly all members have confirmed their participation:

At this time, I ask all BEMS members to send me your ideas about topics and speakers you would be interested in seeing for the:

  • Plenary sessions
  • Plenary Topic in focus sessions (designed to present two opposite views on the same problem followed by long moderated discussion)
  • Tutorial sessions that review in brief recent progress in various areas of bioelectromagnetics (non plenary sessions).

Also, any ideas to make the meeting more attractive and appealing to the broad bioelectromagnetics community are also welcome. With your proposals, please include a brief justification. The deadline is April 30, 2009. After the deadline I will compile all the ideas and send them to the TPC members so that we can discuss them at the TPC meeting in Davos in June 2009.

I hope to hear from you soon!

Dariusz Leszczynski
Chair of the TPC BEMS 2010
(dariusz.leszczynski@stuk.fi)

Site visit in Seoul by TPC members (from left) Dariusz Leszczynski, Jae-Seon Lee, Gloria Parsley and Joachim Schuz.

Dariusz Leszczynski, TPC for BEMS 2010 and Nam Kim, Local Organizing Chair for BEMS 2010.

Traditional Korean entertainment

Nam Kim is a professor at the Chungbuk National University School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, specializing in dosimetry and human hazards from EMF, with special interests in specific absorption rate (SAR) measurement and in the design of mobile phone antennae for reduced SAR. He is presently supervising four Ph.D. students and six Master’s degree students.

He and his collegues, pictured left to right below, are eager to welcome you to the 2010 Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting in Seoul, Korea.

  • Tai Young Kim, General Manager of the Construction Engineering Team in the Transmission Construction Department of Korea Electric Power Department
  • You-sil Lee, Korea Institute of Radiology and Medical Science
  • Nam Kim, Professor at Chungbuk National University
  • Yoon-Won Kim, Hallym University
  • Seok Hwan Jeon, Construction Engineering Team in the Transmission Construction Department of Korea Electric Power Corporation

Pages