Information contained in a form or other document, usually a PDF.
At a joint meeting of IEEE and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) held at Brooks Air Force Base near San Antonio in November, Dr. John Osepchuk, chair of IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee (SCC) 28 announced that the two groups have agreed to “exchange documents,” to cooperate more fully, and to hold more joint meetings. Osepchuk expressed IEEE’s satisfaction with the new atmosphere of cooperation.
ICNIRP members, too, welcomed the opportunity to meet with officers and some members of IEEE SCC 28 in San Antonio, according to a statement issued after the meeting. Among the issues discussed was extending the review process of ICNIRP documents intended for publication. At present, the consultation process for these papers is carried out through the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and its national member bodies that represent radiation protection professionals world-wide. Now, ICNIRP is looking forward to widening its consultation by sending its documents to other international standards bodies, including IEEE.
Further, the two organizations plan to hold a joint two- or three-day workshop on thermophysiology and dosimetry sometime within the next two years, Osepchuck added. It is intended to be a “milestone conference” on what is known about biological effects of exposure to radio-frequency fields.
ICNIRP's view on exposure guidelines is that they should be based on established adverse health effects and that these should be determined by comprehensive expert assessments of the science (including medicine, epidemiology, biology, physics and engineering), commissioners reported after the San Antonio meeting.
Following such assessments, current guidelines for limiting exposure of people to radiofrequency radiation are based on limiting heating of the whole body and of parts of it, and avoiding shocks and burns. “The question of what other effects might in the future form the basis for exposure guidelines is one that must be and is currently being addressed through research efforts throughout the world. However, even within the scope of existing heating effects, there are a number of important issues related to the temporal and spatial deposition of RF energy and its effects on the body that need to be addressed,” ICNIRP members added.
Two key areas are dosimetry (that describes the spatial and temporal patterns of RF energy deposition and subsequent heating) and thermophysiology (that would provide knowledge on possible adverse health effects in people). Thus ICNIRP and IEEE agreed to jointly hold an international workshop that would bring together experts in these two fields. A tentative target date for the workshop is 2002.
“We will make every effort to expedite it,” Osepchuk replied to many who called for an early date. A shared goal between the two organizations is to put standard-setting activities on a “more scientifically defensible basis,” he added.
THE BIOELECTROMAGNETICS SOCIETY FEBRUARY WINTER WORKSHOP ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS INTERACTIONS WITH LIVING MATTER
Opening Remarks: Ewa Czerska, Food and Drug Administration
Mechanisms for the Interactions of Radio and Microwaves With Biological Systems. Frank S. Barnes, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Mechanisms of Electromagnetic Field Coupling Into Biological Systems at ELF And RF Frequencies. James C. Lin, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Electric field interactions at the extracellular matrix level: From molecular self assembly to cancer incidence. Kenneth J. McLeod, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.
Investigations of various cancer models in experimental animals exposed to ELF magnetic fields. Larry E Anderson, Batelle, PNNL, Richland, WA.
Cardiovascular Effects of ELF Magnetic Fields. Antonio Sastre, A. S. Consulting Research, Inc., Overland Park, KS.
Effects of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Human Chondrocytes In Vitro. Cadossi Ruggero1, Caruso Angelo*, De MatteiMonica*. 1Dept. of Clinical Biophysics, IGEA s.r.l. Capri (MO) Italy. 2Dept. of Morphology and Embriology, University of Ferrara, Ferrara Italy
Exposure metrics for inhomogeneous magnetic fields. Stefan Engstrom, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Human standing balance, an ideal model to study coupling and detection mechanisms by which Magnetic Fields interact with a biological system. F. S. Prato and A. W. Thomas, The Lawson Health Research Institute, Department Of Nuclear Medicine & Mr, St Joseph's Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada and The Dept. Of Medical Biophysics, Universtity of Western Ontario.
Mechanical and Electromagnetic Induction of Protection Against Oxidative Stress. A.L. Di Carlo, N.C. White, and T.A. Litovitz, Catholic University of America, Vitreous State Laboratory, Washington, DC.
Organizing Committee: Ewa Czerska and Lee Rosen
The Radisson Barceló Hotel, 2121 P Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 (202) 293-3100 (202) 331-9719, (2 blocks from the Dupont Circle Metro stop).
A benefit of BEMS, EBEA and SPRBM membership for those who choose to subscribe to the BEMS Journal is on-line access to full text of journal articles via the publisher’s Web site: www.interscience.wiley.com
Current subscribers -- those whose names have been entered in the Wiley Interscience data base -- may have access to full text for the years since 1997. Non-subscribers, including former but not current subscribers, have access only to abstracts, which go back to 1996. Abstracts starting in 1996 are open to any guest who registers at the Wiley InterScience Web site, as well.
Wiley maintains a toll-free customer service number at 1-800-825-7550, to help you with questions. Subscriptions Customer Service representative Miriam Claire Pedone may also be able to assist you. Her e-mail address is: firstname.lastname@example.org
APRIL 2-4, 2001. INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ELECTROMAGNETICS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE. UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO, JAPAN. SPONSORED BY URSI COMMISSION K: ELECTROMAGNETICS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE. A conference on biological effects of wireless communication, biomagnetic stimulation, bone growth, electromagnetic interaction with biological systems, cellular effects, implantable medical devices, dosimetry, wound healing, thermal ablation therapy, and more. For more information, contact Conference Chairman Dr. Shoogo Ueno, University of Tokyo, Department of Biomedical Engineering. Tel. +81 3 5841 3563. FAX: +81 3 5689 7215. E-mail: email@example.com
APRIL 29-MAY 3 2001. INTERNATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (IRPA) EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING. Held in conjunction with the 5th Latin American Regional Congress on Radiation Protection and Safety, Recife, BRAZIL. On the agenda are preparations for IRPA 11 in Madrid, upcoming IRPA regional meetings; and co-operation with international organisations.For more information contact the IRPA Executive Office, CEPN, Route duPanorama -BP 48 -F92263 Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex - FRANCE. Tel: +33 1 4654 76 43 - Fax: +33 1 40 84 90 34. E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
APRIL 30-MAY 4, 2001. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO) INTERNATIONAL EMF PROJECT STANDARDS HARMONIZATION MEETING. SOFIA, BULGARIA. This meeting will be an opportunity for Eastern European countries to participate in WHO’s EMF standards harmonization process. For local arrangements contact: Dr. Michel Israel, Head of Department for Physical Factors, National Centre of Hygiene, Medical Ecology and Nutrition, 15 Dimiter Nestorov Str. Sofia 1431, Bulgaria. Tel: +359 2 596154, Fax:+ 359 2 958 1277, E-mail: M.Israel@nch.aster.net At WHO, contact: Dr. Michael Repacholi, WHO, Geneva, SWITZERLAND. Fax: +41 22 791 4123. E-mail: email@example.com
MAY 23-28, 2004 IRPA INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS, MADRID, SPAIN. Congress will be organized by the Sociedad Española de Protección Radiológica (SpanishRadiation Protection Society). For more information, contact: Secretariat, Edicomplet, Sociedad Española de Protección Radiológica, Capitán Haya, 60,10, E-28020 Madrid, SPAÎN. Tel. +34 917 499 517. Fax. +34 917 499 503. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Internet: http://www.sepr.es
JUNE 8-10, 2001. IEEE SCC-28 SUBCOMMITTEE 2. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. Radisson Hotel (651) 292-1900. Contact: John Osepchuk,Full Spectrum Consulting, 248 Deacon Haynes Road, Concord, MA 01742. Tel: (978) 287-5849 Fax: (978) 318-9303, E-mail: email@example.com
JUNE 9, 2001. COMAR. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. Radisson Hotel (651) 292-1900. 7:00pm-10:00pm Contact: Howard Bassen, US FDA, CDRH, HFZ-133, 12725 Twinbrook Pkwy, TW25, Rm 159, Rockville, MD 20852. Tel: (301) 827-4950, Fax (301) 827-4947, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
JUNE 10, 2001. US AIRFORCE WORKSHOP: THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MILLIMETER WAVES. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. Radisson Hotel (651) 292-1900. 1:00pm -5:00pm Contact: Michael Murphy, US Air Force Research Lab, 8308 Hawks Road, Brooks AFB, TX, 78235-5102. Tel: (210) 536-4833, Fax: (210) 536-3977; E-mail: email@example.com
JUNE 10, 2001. EBEA COUNCIL MEETING. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. Radisson Hotel +1 (651) 292 1900. Contact: EBEA 2001 Secretariat, Solveig Borg, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topieliuksenkatu 41 aA, FIN-00250 Helsinki, FINLAND. Tel. +358 9 4747 2900; FAX: +358 9 2413 804. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
JUNE 10, 2001. BEMS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. 8:00am-5:00pm Radisson Hotel +1(651) 292 1900. Contact: Gloria Parsley, The Bioelectromagnetics Society, 2412 Cobblestone Way, Frederick, MD 21702, 301-663-4252, 301-694-4948 fax, Email: BEMSoffice@aol.com web: www.bems6519tromagnetics.org
JUNE 10-14, 2001. BIOELECTROMAGNETICS SOCIETY 23RD ANNUAL MEETING. RADISSON HOTEL, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. Room rates $94 single $101 double plus tax. +1 (651) 292 1900. Contact: Gloria Parsley, The Bioelectromagnetics Society, 2412 Cobblestone Way, Frederick, MD 21702, 301-663-4252, 301-694-4948 fax, Email: BEMSoffice@aol.com or email@example.com Web: www.bioelectromagnetics.org
JUNE 11, 2001. URSI COMMISSION K BUSINESS MEETING. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. Radisson Hotel +1 (651) 292 1900. 5:30pm Contact: Frank Barnes
JUNE 14, 2001. BEMS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. 12:30PM -4:30PM Radisson Hotel +1 (651) 292 1900. Contact: Gloria Parsley, The Bioelectromagnetics Society, 2412 Cobblestone Way, Frederick, MD 21702, 301-663-4252, 301-694-4948 fax, Email: BEMSoffice@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org Web: www.bioelectromagnetics.org
AUGUST 1-4, 2001. ASIA-PACIFIC RADIO SCIENCE CONFERENCE. TOKYO, JAPAN. Contact: AP-RASC Secretariat, c/o The Japanese URSI Committee, c/o Dr. Y. Furuhama, Communications Research Laboratory, Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, 4-2-1 Nukuikita-machi, Koganeishi, 184-8795 Tokyo, Japan. (http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ursi/)
SEPTEMBER 6-8, 2001. EUROPEAN BIO ELECTROMAGNETICS ASSOCIATION (EBEA) 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS, MARINA CONGRESS CENTER, HELSINKI, FINLAND. Topics will include dosimetry and exposure systems, biological mechanisms, in vitro, in vivo and human clinical EMF studies, epidemiology and medical applications. Contact: EBEA 2001 Secretariat, Solveig Borg, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topieliuksenkatu 41 aA, FIN-00250 Helsinki, FINLAND. Tel. +358 9 4747 2900; FAX: +358 9 2413 804. E-mail: email@example.com www.occuphealth.fi/e/project/ebea2001 or Dr Maila Hietenan, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, Helsinki, Finland Fin-00250. Tel: +358 9 4747 714, Fax: +358 9 4747 805, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
OCTOBER 2001. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO) EMF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND STANDARDS HARMONIZATION REGIONAL MEETING IN SOUTH KOREA is being finalised. This meeting will be an opportunity for Asian countries to participate in WHO’s EMF standards harmonization process. For more informaiton, contact: Dr. Michael Repacholi, WHO, Geneva. Fax: +41 22 791 4123. E-mail: email@example.com
Dr. James Lin, University of Illinois at Chicago and past president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, has edited a new book of interest to bioelectromagnetics researchers, published in late 2000 by Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing Corp. and titled “Advances In Electromagnetic Fields In Living Systems.”
Topics and chapters covered in this 302-page third volume in the series include: Mechanisms of Field Coupling into Biological Systems at ELF and RF Frequencies, James C. Lin; Principles and Horizons for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Shoogo Ueno and Norio Iriguchi; Imaging Brain Electrical Activity, Bin He, Dezhong Yao, and Dongsheng Wu, Applications and Control of High Voltage Pulse Delivery for Tumor Therapy and Gene Therapy In Vivo, Bertil R. R. Persson; The Electric Field-induced Electroconformational Coupling of Cell Membrane Proteins, Wei Chen; Biological Effects of High Peak Power Radiofrequency Pulses, Shin-Tsu Lu and John O. de Lorge; A Comprehensive Review of the Research on Biological Effects of Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation in Russia and the Former Soviet Union, Andrei G. Pakhomov and Michael R. Murphy. Cost is $95.50. More information is available at the publishers’ Web site: www.wkap.nl/
In February, Lin received mention in a New Scientist magazine story, “Cellphone signals can monitor the state of your health.” He has been working with the husband-wife team of Victor Lubecke and Olga Boric-Lubecke of Bell Laboratories/Lucent Technologies, New Jersey, to explore whether microwaves transmitted by a cellphone’s antenna might be bounced back to the phone from the user’s chest, heart and lungs.
Lin helped the reporter to understand how the slight Doppler shift might be measured from moving organs. Lucent is reportedly exploring whether trapped or unconscious earthquake survivors, for example, might be located in this way. Vital signs might also be monitored remotely in this way, Lubecke suggested in the interview.
by Yoshihisa Otaka, Ibaraki
The number of Japanese papers published in the BEMS annual meeting book has been steadily increasing. As far as I know, only one Japanese paper was published in Stamford in 1988, in contrast with 32 papers last year when we met in Munich! However, the entire scope of Japanese bioelectromagnetics research is not known, even in the U.S.
This is because there are groups who publish their work only in domestic publications or proceedings. To help open a wider view of Japanese bioelectromagnetics research efforts, I list below some of the research groups in Japan and major topics of their studies in the area of bioeffects with exposure to EMF.
Please note: I have listed groups in historical order, and “transient” members are not included. I apologize now that not all senior researchers could be named, because I do not know all of the chief researchers. However, I think you may see many of these colleagues in St. Paul and at the EBEA meeting in Helsinki in September. I hope that this list will help Society members to look for your fellow researchers from Japan at these meetings. I invite you introduce yourself and make some new connections.
The list does not mention the researchers and journalists who published only reviews or therapy studies, even though they are authorities as well. As shown in the list, Japanese research activity has the following characteristic features:
- Remarkably many studies are devoted to the static magnetic field. Japan has been developing magnetically levitated -- Maglev --technology for transportation, along with superconducting materials. Also, a magnetic particle patch is in fashion among old men and women who have shoulder stiffness.
- In the extremely-low-frequency (ELF) region, polarization is regarded as an important feature.
- Mutagenicity of the fields was not regarded as impossible, so many mutagenicity studies have been performed.
- Melatonin has been intensely investigated in Japanese tradition. Oncostatic function of the pineal gland was studied as early as 1940 by a research group at Osaka University.
- A large-scale epidemiologic survey has not yet been reported. Japan has a very large population living in very high current configuration (VHCC) areas, based on the Wertheimer-Leeper wire code, at the same time the “Not in My Back Yard” attitude is not common. Investigation of individual cases is very difficult.
- Only a few studies have been done and little discussion reported on biophysical mechanisms and specification of the fields.
|Affiliation and chief members||Main research interests|
|Hokkaido University, Hokkaido Institute of Technology M. Kato, K. Homma, G. Matsumoto, K. Shimizu, T. Shigemitsu, et al.||Electric field distribution, ELF circular magnetic fields, melatonin effects in rats, animal perception. Since 1981.|
|University of Tokushima Y. Kinouchi, H. Miyamoto, K. Isaka, H. Yamaguchi, et al.||Static magnetic field exposure and cell growth blood flow, ELF field distribution. Since 1981.|
|Kyushu University S. Ueno, M. Iwasaka, O. Hiwaki, et al.||Static magnetic field and blood flow, development, mutation. Pulsed magnetic field and nerve cell growth, gene expression, biochemistry. ELF magnetic field and biorhythm in rats. Since 1984; moved to Tokyo University in 1995.|
|Railway Technical Research Institute S. Nakagawa, T. Koana, et al.||Static magnetic field and mutation, behavior in flies and rats; also Maglev. Since 1988.|
|Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo Electric Power Co., Kansai Electric Power Co., et al.||ELF magnetic field and in vivo, in vitro, cancer-related toxicology, reproduction, mechanisms. Since 1992.|
|Jikei University School of Medicine H. Shimizu, Y. Suzuki, H. Okonogi, et al.||Static magnetic field and mutations, in vitro, in mice. Since 1992.|
|National Institute of Industrial Health Y. Nakanishi, H. Jonai.||ELF magnetic field and mutation, hematology, human exposure. since 1991.|
|Kyoto University H. Takebe, J. Miyakoshi, et al.||ELF strong magnetic field and gene expression, mutation. Since 1994.|
|Kanazawa University, Hiroshima University K. Bessho, et al.||Static, ELF magnetic field and nematodes.|
|Society of Environmental Science||Static magnetic field and blood flow, coagulation, immunology, development, cell growth, pulsed magnetic field and nerves, heart 1986-1994.|
|Health Physics Society S. Fukui, M. Ishikawa, M. Asashima, K. Kato, et al.||Shielded geomagnetism and development, ossification in sea urchin and newt. Since 1987.|
|Collaboration of Tokyo Metropolitan Univ., Nagoya City Univ., Communication Research Laboratory, Utsunomiya Univ., Tokai Univ., Tokyo Denki Univ., Tokyo Univ. of Agricultural Technology, and Tokyo University. M. Taki, T. Fuse, K. Imaida, T. Shirai, S. Watanabe, Y. Kamimura, A. Aimoto, M. Kawasumi, O. Kagaya, G. Tsurita.||ELF magnetic field dosimetry, RF dosimetry, RF and cancer, behavior, and blood-brain barrier in rats. Since 1997.|
|Tokyo Institute of Technology M. Shoda, et al.||Static magnetic field and cell growth in E. coli. Since 1996.|
|Tokyo University of Agricultural Technology Matsunaga et al.||Static magnetic field and erythrocytes. Since 1987.|
|Nagasaki University I. Yoshikawa.||Static magnetic field and mutation in flies. Since 1994.|
|Nagoya University N. Miyagi, J. Iwasawa, et al.||Pulsed magnetic field and cell growth, circular electric field torque. Since 1993.|
|Tokai University H. Furuya, F. Kayama, et al.||ELF magnetic field and reproduction, immunology. Since 1997.|
|Osaka University N. Ashida et al.||Static magnetic field and sperm. Since 1996.|
|Doshisha University Y. Yonezawa et al.||ELF magnetic field and mutation, immunology. Since 1996.|
|Yamanashi Medical College S. Iijima et al.||ELF magnetic field and mutations. Since 1996.|
|Chiba University T. Osuga, A. Yano.||Static magnetic field and nerves, also plants. Since 1999.|
|National Institute of Public Health C. Ohkubo et al.||Static magnetic field and blood flow, calcium. Since 1999.|
|Kagawa Medical University M. Ohmori et al.||ELF magnetic field and gene expression. Since 1999.|
|Utsunomiya University F. Takahashi.||Static magnetic field and cell orientation. Since 1988.|
|Nippon Medical School H. Ito, M. Iino, et al.||Pulsed magnetic field and nerves, Static magnetic field and blood coagulation. Since 1988.|
|Kyorin University O. Okai et al.||Static magnetic field and blood flow. Since 1985.|
|National Institute of Environmental Studies M. Kabuto et al.||ELF and melatonin, heart rate, respiration in vitro and in humans, epidemiology including exposure to transients and magnetic field. Since 1996.|
|Tokyo Medical & Dental University E. Yamazaki et al.||RF and mutations. Since 1993.|
In Japan, the electric and magnetic field bioeffect studies were initiated in 1986, funded by the Nissan Foundation, and by the Ministry of Education thereafter. Many studies have been performed, as well, by the Society of Environmental Sciences Group listed in the table.
An approximate total of the number of printed papers on Japanese studies is listed in the table below.
|Frequency / Type||Number|
|Static E or M field||39|
|Pulsed M field||8|
The ELF total includes 14 in vitro, 14 in vivo, 2 epidemiologic, 6 exposure system characterizations and 6 dosimetric studies.
One can notice that the number of Japanese papers presented at BEMS meetings has been increasing. As noted, there was only one in 1988, four in 1991, 16 in 1992, four in 1993, 18 in 1994, 11 in 1995, 18 in 1996, 25 in 1997, 20 in 1998, 12 in 1999 and 32 at the 2000 annual meeting in Munich. Many Japanese researchers did not take the U.S. EMF RAPID Program reports to be a final word, but instead were stimulated by them. As a result, many groups were encouraged to undertake new research projects after reading research papers that came out of the RAPID Program. I think you will see many Japanese studies presented at future BEMS and EBEA meetings.
If you have never been to the “Twin Cities,” as St. Paul and Minneapolis are referred to, you will be pleasantly surprised at the wide variety of options available. The Capital of Minnesota, St. Paul offers Old World charm, gracious hospitality, history, culture and endless entertainment options. BEMS attendees will find it easy to celebrate summer with St. Paul’s 83 lakes, 70 parks, 49 playgrounds, 20 golf courses, hundreds of public tennis courts and various festivals and events held along the mighty Mississippi River. In fact, the big river is responsible for the creation of cities throughout the heart of America, and is the reason Minneapolis and St. Paul exist today. Minnesota is where it all begins, the head of commercial navigation.
St. Paul has 29 miles of Riverfront, more than any other city along the entire length of the Mississippi. BEMS will be hosting the traditional Tuesday evening Social Event on board two old-fashioned sternwheelers. This dinner cruise will couple the Betsey Northrup and the Anson Northrup Sternwheelers together for a lovely cruise down the Mississippi River through the St. Anthony Falls Lock in downtown Minneapolis.
In the early 1800’s the Minnesota Territory was inhabited by Native Americans, soldiers, trappers, traders, explorers and lumbermen. The cities, if you could call them that, were little more than camps where these rugged individuals congregated to drink, play cards, fight and rest. Native Americans hunted and farmed in the Mississippi valley for hundreds of years before the white man arrived. The first European settlement in the Twin Cities area was Fort Snelling. In 1805 President Thomas Jefferson sent a young army lieutenant, Zebulon Pike, into the area to find a suitable site to build a military outpost. Two years earlier President Jefferson had purchased the entire central portion of the country from the Canadian boarder to the Gulf of Mexico from Napoleon Boneparte of France. That land agreement was called the Louisiana Purchase. President Jefferson wanted an army post in Minnesota to protect the country’s new land from the British and to keep peace between warring Indian nations - the Dakota and Ojibway.
Lt. Zebulon Pike
Arriving at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers in the summer of 1805 Lt. Pike met French-Canadian fur trader Jean Baptiste Faribault repairing his canoe at the lower end of the island. After exploring the area Pike determined that the bluffs overlooking the island between the two rivers would be an excellent location for the fort. That island eventually was named Pike Island, in his honor.
Col. Josiah Snelling
Fourteen years later the first contingent of soldiers arrived to begin construction of the fort. They endured extreme hardships in the first year and nearly 40 men died over the winter. A new commander, Col. Josiah Snelling, took charge in 1820 and over the next four years he supervised construction. Upon completion of the new military complex Gen. Winfield Scott came from Washington, D.C. to inspect the fort. He was so impressed with what Snelling and his men had accomplished in the wilderness that he recommended to Congress that they name the facility Fort Snelling.
A Place Called Pig’s Eye
In the 1830’s a rugged frontiersman came to the Minnesota Territory. Known as Pig’s Eye Parrant because of a battered face he had acquired as a result of too many bar room brawls, the bawdy newcomer discovered a cave on the north bank of the Mississippi River about four miles down river from Fort Snelling. In the cave was a marvelous, spring-fed stream; thus, the name of Fountain Cave. Ole Pig’s Eye, who brewed liquor, decided that Fountain Cave was a perfect place for his home and business. He quickly found many customers at Fort Snelling.
Pierre “Pig’s Eye” Parrant
Over the years a number of civilians had migrated down from Canada and settled on the government land surrounding Fort Snelling. By 1838 the new Commandant became concerned with the growing civilian population at the Fort. He told them to leave Fort property and when they refused he ordered his troops into their settlement. The soldiers forced the civilians out of the area and burned their homes. There was no other white settlement for hundreds of miles; so, 150 families wandered down the river until they came to Pig’s Eye’s Cave. Fresh water, unlimited hunting and fishing, and a ready supply of lumber made the cave a perfect place to live. The people formed a new community and they called it Pig’s Eye.
Three years later, in 1841, a Catholic priest named Father Lucien Galtier arrived and built a small log chapel about a mile downstream (near the present site of the Robert Street Bridge). Every Sunday the people of the community of Pig’s Eye traveled down river to Father Galtier’s chapel. Soon they became dissatisfied with the name of the community and decided to change it to the name of that little chapel. It was the Chapel of Saint Paul. That is how the city of Saint Paul began at Fountain Cave which was located approximately where the ADM Grain Terminal is today along Shepherd Road, just up river from the downtown area.
Over the next few years the tiny community grew slowly until the big riverboats suddenly began to venture north on the Mississippi River. Please remember, there were no cars, trucks, trains or airplanes. Travel was done through the woods by walking, riding a horse or in a wagon pulled by horse or oxen; OR, by boat. Rivers were the “freeways” of the 1800’s. Travel was faster and much more comfortable on the big riverboats than by any other means. By the 1850’s hundreds of riverboats were coming to Saint Paul bringing all types of goods and thousands of people. The entire Minnesota Territory had a non-Indian population of about 6,000 people in 1850. By the early 1860’s the population had exploded to 200,000. Almost all of those new residents arrived by riverboat. Among the new residents were: Fr. Hennepin, an early explorer who named St. Anthony Falls and Harriet Bishop, St. Paul’s first school teacher.
Riverboat traffic began modestly in 1847 with 47 vessels arriving in Saint Paul - including the riverboat Lynx with a 23-year old school teacher named Harriet Bishop. Riverboat arrivals increased each year attaining peaks of 1,027 in 1857 and 1,068 in 1858 (the year Minnesota became a state). Severe national economic depression struck in 1859 slashing riverboat arrivals to 808.
Arrivals held relatively steady into the 1860’s when the Civil War dominated national attention. During the War many riverboats transported military troops and supplies throughout the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Some were even converted to early battleships using bales of cotton stacked high around their perimeters to defend against hostile gunfire. As the war ended steel rails were being laid across the country and riverboat landings in Saint Paul plummeted almost to extinction.
So, you can see that the riverboat truly did play a vital role in the creation of Saint Paul. However, as marvelous as these big boats were they posed many serious threats. In those early days riverboats were powered by giant steam engines. Steam engines used wood that was in abundant supply along the river shores for fuel. Unfortunately, steam engines were under tremendous pressure and the boilers frequently exploded destroying the riverboat and killing many passengers and crew. Another danger was fire that could be started by hot sparks which billowed out of the riverboat’s smokestacks. If the riverboat somehow managed to avoid fire and explosion they also faced peril from rocks and snags (dead trees) under the water that could puncture the wooden hull and sink the boat.
Traveling the river was a very dangerous experience, but one that many people made in the hope of reaching this promised new land of lush woods and abundant wildlife. Just to prove that human beings are not totally without hope, we did learn from those early mistakes. Today, riverboat travel is extremely safe due to the changes that have been made in vessel construction, course plotting, river maintenance, and crew training.
RADISSON RIVERFRONT HOTEL
11 KELLOGG BOULEVARD
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
The site of the BEMS 23rd Annual Meeting, the Radisson Riverfront Hotel, is centrally located in downtown St. Paul. From the hotel you can walk to:
- the Science Museum of Minnesota;
- the Minnesota History Center;
- Rice Park;
- The Minnesota Museum of American Art; and
- the Ordway Center for the Performing Arts.
In 1997, Endless Vacation magazine crowned the Twin Cities as the “Midwest’s performance capital” with more than 30 theaters in operation including Fitzgerald Theatre and Penumbra Theater, recognized as the nation’s premier African-American theater.
One way to see the beautiful sights of other areas of St. Paul is to take a Capital City Trolley Tour from the Capital Building to the grand mansions and historic buildings on Summit and Grand Avenues, or retrace the footsteps of Gangster John Dillinger through the Wabasha Street Caves, a popular 1930’s speakeasy.
BEMS annual meeting participants also may wish to travel the seven miles from downtown St. Paul to the Mississippi River neighborhood in Minneapolis known as St. Anthony Main. This historic district with its brick streets offers fine and casual dining, theatres, and a pleasant walking loop along footpaths and across the river on two lovely bridges. Main St. in old St. Anthony runs parallel to the river at the site of the waterfall which stopped navigation further up the river 150 years ago. One can now get a good view of St. Anthony Falls (the original name of Minneapolis), the Army Corps of Engineers’ Lock and Dam, and some of the flour mills which made this town famous by strolling down St. Anthony Main and across the historic Stone Arch Bridge. Return under the shadow of the flour mills (now being restored by the National Park Service) to the Hennepin Avenue Bridge, which touches on Nicollet Island.
Also at St. Anthony Main is a small but notable attraction called “The Museum of Questionable Medical Devices.” Run by Bob McCoy, this free museum, dubbed “The Quackery Hall of Fame” by some, claims to be the world’s largest display of medical devices designed and used without the benefit of either scientific method or common sense. It includes major collections on loan from The American Medical Association, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, The St. Louis Science Center, The Bakken Library, The National Council for Reliable Health Information and is supported by the The Phrenology Company of Golden Valley, Minnesota. One gadget promised that “A few volts of electricity appropriately applied will put the sparks back into your love life!” It claimed to increase virility and cure prostate problems.
The museum is located at 201 Main St. S.E., Minneapolis and is open on Tuesday through Thursday evenings from 5-9, Friday and Saturday from noon to 9 pm, noon to 5 pm Sundays. Telephone (612) 379-4046 More information at: http://www.mtn.org/quack/
If you haven’t read about anything yet that interests you, here are a few other activities and options that you may pursue:
- the Minnesota Zoo which features indoor and outdoor exhibits of over 2,200 animals and a monorail takes you to visit dolphins at Discovery Bay, Shark Reef or the hands-on Clubhouse Cove;
- Como Park features a Victorian flower conservatory, amusement park, golf, a free zoo and boating and concerts at the Lakeside Pavilion;
- and don’t forget to visit the Mall of America, the largest shopping and entertainment complex in the United States. Located just 15 minutes from downtown St. Paul, the Mall is easily accessible via the metro Transit Express bus #54. The Mall of America offers: world class shopping along with great food and entertainment at hundreds of shops and restaurants; a wide variety of night clubs; Camp Snoopy, the largest indoor theme park in America; the NASCAR Silicon Motor Speedway; Underwater Adventures, Minnesota’s largest aquarium in a glass tunnel submerged 14 feet below the water; and the LEGO Imagination Center.
EMF THERAPEUTICS, INC. PROUDLY SPONSORS THE SECOND ANNUAL STUDENT AWARD FOR THE BEST PRESENTATION ON THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
BEMS is pleased to announce that EMF Therapeutics will also sponsor a luncheon for the BEMS Board of Directors, student presentors and their tutors on Sunday, June 10, 2001 at the Radisson Hotel, St. Paul, Minnesota. This luncheon will give the students and their advisors an opportunity to interact personally with the BEMS Board of Directors and will provide a forum for discussion of their research into the therapeutic use of electromagnetic fields.
EMF Therapeutics, Inc. is a company dedicated to the development of therapeutic applications of specific electromagnetic signals. They conduct and sponsor scientific and clinical research and are also involved in engineering and manufacturing electromagnetic devices.
US AIR FORCE WORKSHOP: THE BIOLOGICAL
EFFECTS OF MILLIMETER WAVES
SUNDAY, JUNE 10, 2001
KELLOGG SUITE, 1:00pm - 4:00pm
RADISSON HOTEL, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
The US Air Force Research Laboratory, Brooks AFB, will host an open technical forum on recent research on the biological effects of millimeter waves. This is the seventh Air Force Workshop held in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. The agenda is as follows:
INTRODUCTION BY THE ORGANIZER
Michael R. Murphy
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MMWAVES: AN OVERVIEW
James H. Merritt
LOW LEVEL EFFECTS OF MMWAVEs
Marvin C. Ziskin
SENSORY EFFECTS OF MMWAVE EXOSURE IN HUMANs
Dennis W. Blick
OCULAR EFFECTS OF MMWAVE EXPOSURE
DOES EXPOSURE TO MMWAVES PROMOTE OR CO-PROMOTE SKIN CANCER?
Patrick A. Mason
This is an open event. All are welcome.
The views expressed in this column are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial staff or the organizations served by this newsletter. We encourage contributions which will further a discussion of important issues to the Societies and assist in scientific progress in our area of interest. Your response to opinions expressed here are welcome. Letters on other matters are encouraged.
In this OPINION column, by invitation of the editors, several writers add to the discussion begun by Patrick Mason, US Air Force Research Laboratory, Brooks AFB, who said at a meeting last November that the new generation of high-resolution, computer-based ELF and SAR exposure modeling methods--intended to be more precise than the traditional ellipsoidal representations of a cell---show extreme promise but are not yet reliable enough for use in setting exposure standards
THE FIRST RESPONSE IS FROM JIANQING WANG AND OSAMU FUJIWARA, NAGOYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (NIT), JAPAN.
They have been conducting studies of new high-resolution models at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at NIT.
Wang and Fujiware write: “We agree with Dr. Mason, pointing out that not all of the anatomical human models have carefully been validated and compared.
“The present and new standards for RF exposure are defined basically in terms of the one-gram or ten-gram averaged spatial peak SAR. According to our study, a simplified anatomical head model with a skin-fat-muscle-bone-brain structure gives almost the same peak SAR value as our 17-tissue model at 900 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 2 GHz.
“A high-resolution model with very complex tissue structure seems not to be valuable to the peak SAR evaluation, although it is of course absolutely necessary to model internal organ or nervoussystem exposure. In comparison with the complex tissue structure, we think that the outward appearance of the model, for example the difference in shape between an eastern and a western human model, is more essential for the peak SAR evaluation, which should be a major reason for the substantial difference in the SAR values among various anatomical models. This is attributed mainly to the artifact in numerical algorithm such as the FDTD method. The influence is especially crucial at higher frequencies.
“We think therefore, that in the development of a high-resolution model for standard setting, more attention should be paid to the outward appearance of model. A model with a statistically-based outward appearance would be important for standard setting of RF exposure.”
NEXT, A RESPONSE BY OM P. GANDHI, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY.
“According to a report in the last BEMS newsletter, in his presentation to the IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee (SCC)28, Dr. Patrick Mason of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base is alleged to have said that high-resolution anatomically-based models “show extreme promise but are not yet reliable enough for use in setting exposure standards.”
“I am sure that the last three words “setting exposure standards” within the quotation marks are misplaced since neither the anatomically based high resolution models nor the older ellipsoidal (or prolate spheroidal) models should be used to set the safety standards but rather to test compliance with the safety standards which, as in the past, should be set on biological basis.
“In other words, be it the whole-body-average SAR or peak local (or tissue-or organ-specific) SAR at RF, or induced electric fields and current densities at ELF, limits should be set as a fraction of those needed to cause biological effects. The question then is, how to ensure compliance with such standards to avoid the possibility of deleterious biological responses. This is where the shaped, heterogeneous anatomically-based models are a considerable improvement over simplistic homogeneous models that do not allow calculation of induced electric fields, current densities or SARs in specific tissues or the organs e.g. the heart or the CNS tissue.
“Both Mason and Pat Reilly seem to have been disheartened by “substantial differences” in results “when they attempted to compare models and/or permittivity values” used by various authors. In fact, numerical procedures such as the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method and the low-frequency methods such as the impedance method and the scalar potential finite difference (SPFD) method have been thoroughly tested (as published in peer-reviewed literature) by comparison of results against analytic solutions that are available for canonical bodies such as cylinders, spheres, etc. and found to give results that are within 1-2 percent of the theoretical results.
“In the absence of a “standardized” human model, the various research groups have used anatomic models that either they developed on the basis of MRI scans of a volunteer or were available to them conveniently. Similarly, the permittivity and conductivity values for various tissues have not been standardized.
“Since there are variations in the published literature, various investigators have taken diverse values of tissue permittivities and conductivities for their calculations of induced electric fields, current densities, or SARs. Thus the reported variations of the induced parameters for various tissues and organs are a result of different model and permittivity and conductivity values having been used by various researchers rather than the inaccuracy of the numerical procedures which are on a solid footing.
“Yet a few comparisons that have been made have revealed a surprising amount of correlation of the important results various investigators. Gandhi et al.  obtained peak 1-g SARs of 2.07 and 2.10 W/kg as against Dimbylow and Mann’s data  of 2.17 and 2.02 W/kg at 900 MHz in spite of the fact that exact placements of the wireless handset vis à vis the ear was not prescribed in .
“Similarly, Stuchly and Gandhi  obtained results for induced electric fields for exposure to electric and magnetic fields at 60 Hz that were typically less than 20-50 percent different in spite of the fact that two different models and widely different conductivities had been taken for the various tissues.
“We feel that Subcommittees (SC) 3 and 4 of IEEE SCC28 should concern themselves with recommending exposure limits in terms of basic restrictions of SARs at RF and induced electric fields or current densities at ELF with recommendations of MPEs in terms of external or incident power densities or E- and H-fields and leave it to SC1 to define the procedures to use for complying with these limits proposed on biological basis. Since in real life the exposure fields are hardly ever uniform, numerical techniques would offer a tremendous advantage over simplistic homogeneous ellipsoidal models for demonstrating compliance with basic restrictions.
“It is truly the domain of SC1 to define standardized models and tissue permittivities and conductivities for computational methods or experimental phantoms to demonstrate compliance with basic restrictions.
- O. P. Gandhi, G. Lazzi, and C. M. Furse, “Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Mobile Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 44(10), pp. 1884-1897, October 1996.
- P. J. Dimbylow and S. M. Mann, “SAR Calculations in an Anatomically-Based Realistic Model of the Head for Mobile Communication Transceivers at 900 MHz and 1.8 GHz,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 39, pp. 1537-1553, 1994.
- M. A. Stuchly and O. P. Gandhi, “Inter-Laboratory Comparison of Numerical Dosimetry for Human Exposure to 60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields,” Bioelectromagnetics, Vol.. 21(3), pp. 167-174, 2000.
FINALLY, MARIA A. STUCHLY, UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, RESPONDED FOR HER RESEARCH GROUP WITH THE FOLLOWING REMARKS.
“It is with amusement that I have read this headline, “Mason to IEEE: Complex Models not ready for Prime Time,” in the November/December 2000 issue of the newsletter.
“The development of anatomically based models of the human body, and the development and application of numerical methods to compute the induced electric fields are labor- and knowledge-intensive tasks. To date, only a few of us have found these to be rewarding and interesting research pursuits. Fortunately, some granting agencies and industries have recognized the value of this research and provided support.
“Since there seems to be little controversy associated with this research; it may lack the appeal and colorful debates to make it suitable for prime time. This is actually fine with me. However, I do object, when misleading statements on the accuracy of the work are quoted without giving information on what and how different models are compared. Not all models and modeling are equal!
“At ELF, extensive evaluations of modeling methods for exposures to electric and magnetic fields have been performed. Readers interested in the subject can find numerous references in a recent review .
“It has been clearly shown, that differences in electric fields in various organs reported by three research groups, namely Dr. Gandhi’s, Dimbylow’s and mine, are typically 20-30 percent, and not more than 60 percent, for organ averages and voxel maxima . These differences are very well explained by anatomical differences of models and differences in allocated tissue conductivity.
“Physics also tells us that the differences are enhanced when one compares induced current density values. It has also been recognized that voxel models introduce significant differences in the fields in some locations on the tissue interfaces. These are well known singularities (or in plain language, locations where the field or current goes to infinity). The numerical methods work perfectly well, and reflect the change in geometry.
“On the other hand, if we compare an analytic solution for a sphere or an ellipsoid with the numerical solution for a voxelized sphere or ellipsoid there are large differences in the voxel maxima. We even know how to reduce those differences for bodies of revolution, and could do it for the human body models. But, one can also perhaps consider that body anatomy has some rather sharp boundaries.
“Alternatively, one can rely on the value not exceeded in 99% of the organ volume rather than voxel maximum as a measure to set limits, as recently proposed . Even the ICNIRP 1 cm 2 averaging largely reduces the errors due to singularities. Research on numerical techniques applied to anatomical models has been well recognized and, at times, even in the limelight in the engineering community. It one day will perhaps be accepted by standard setting organizations.
“For now, those of us who work in this area get a lot of satisfaction in contributing new algorithms to the methods that are used in other areas of electromagnetics, and are happy to see that the methods are widely accepted in medical applications. With respect to ELF standard setting, in my opinion, it would be invaluable if biophysically relevant measures were used to protect against an interaction deemed detrimental. And, if that interaction is neural stimulation, then certainly current density averaged over 1 cm 2 is not the correct measure.”