Georges Lakhovsky,
Multiple Wave Oscillator


Multiple Wave Oscillator
Lakhovsky Article
Bioelectric Pioneer
The Original Multiple Wave Oscillator
What is a Multi-Wave-Oscillator
and What can it do for me ?
Worring Times
"Curing Cancer With Ultra Radio Frequencies"
Frequency Analysis of the Lakhovsky Multiple Wave Oscillator from 20 Hz to 20 GHz
Treatment Time Protocols
Lakhovsky's central idea is this:
Using the Lakhovsky Multi-Wave Oscillator for Healing
Lakhovsky's Multi-Wave Oscillator (MWO)
Another Perspective
by Ed Wahler
The Secret of Life
The Electromagnetic Nature Of Life
Does it work
Treatment Time Protocols
living cells are batteries
Extraordinary healings
The Secret of Life: Electricity, Radiation and Your Body contents
Cells work electricaly
Lakhovsky's Discovery
Bioelectrical Universe
What is frequency technology?
The man behind the technology-Ed Skilling
Short video clip
The Waves That Heal
An interview with Royal Rife


Essiac Tea
Lung Cancer

pH Values of Various Foods
The Third Element of the Blood
L Arginine
Recommended "Schizophrenia" Nutritional and Dietary Regimen
Well-Done Meat and Smoking Make a Deadly Combo
Stupid Arrogance: So-Called "Naturopathic Physicians"...
Loose Weight
Psychic Ability


Multiple Wave Oscillator

Georges Lakhovsky, Bioelectric Pioneer


by Steve Mizrach

The question of what influence Extra-Low Frequency (ELF) Electromagnetic (EM) fields have on behavior of organisms can only be understood in light of the fledgling field of radiobiology. The theory that one's mind is being controlled by waves being beamed by some ultrasecret conspiracy is one found among almost every stripe of paranoid; lest we excite such individuals, we must tread very carefully. Since 60 Hz ELF fields surround almost all electrical appliances, and are particularly acute near power transformers, if a risk exists, it must be dealt with; yet our lives are extensively dependent on electrical power, and altering our demand for it is something that requires definitive proof of a health risk.

Some history
It was an individual named Luigi Galvani who first noted that the muscles of a frog's leg responded to electrical stimulation. Later researchers of the 18th century would discuss a great deal about 'animal electricity,' and a French philosopher named La Mettrie adjudged from this electrical basis of life that organisms could really be seen as machines. Electricity was 'in the air,' during the 18th and 19th century, so much so that the 'spark of life' could be seen as electrical, and novels like Frankenstein could be written where a 'modern Prometheus' gave life to dead matter through a stroke of lightning. A diletantte called Mesmer claimed to discover an 'animal magnetism' through which he could cure his patients' ailments; that other savant of electricity, Benjamin Franklin, was called over to investigate and discovered Mesmer to be a charlatan. Yet 'mesmerism' still exists, an unexplained phenomenon owed less to Mesmer than one of his disciples, a Frenchman named Charcot. (He was one of the first investigators to examine the psychology of 'memerized' patient, and the physiology of the trance state.) One of the powerful debates of the late 19th century involved 'vitalism'- was there some unique, vitalizing energy that made organisms different from dead matter? As chemists found that they could easily and artificially create organic substances such as urea, the vitalist position fell out of favor, and Joseph Needham, a biochemist, proclaimed in the early 1930s that "the vitalist position was firmly and finally refuted."
During this time when mechanical explanations of life were proliferating, the world was slowly becoming electrified. Tesla and Edison argued back and forth, electrocuting animals with each other's form of current (AC or DC) for evidence, as to whose form of power was more dangerous; but as power lines slowly began to cover the globe, the question as to what effect they might have was largely ignored. Only recently had a clerk named Maxwell showed that electrical and magnetic fields were largely aspects of the same force, electromagnetism. And as Marconi made possible the transmission of radiofrequency (RF) waves, the human species suddenly became bathed in a sea of EM radiations it had never been exposed to, with the ozone layer filtering out many non-visible frequencies. Then in 1939, a genius or a crank (depending on how you look at it) named George Lakhovsky released a tract entitled The Secret of Life: Cosmic Rays and Radiations of Living Beings. There had been some discussion before his time of possible 'mitogenic' rays or "N" rays having influences on the growth and development of organisms, but it had been largely ignored.

Lakhovsky theorized that "the cell, essential organic unit in all living beings, is nothing but an electromagentic resonator capable of absorbing radiations of all frequencies." Lakhovsky suggested that cells were 'oscillating circuits,' that had natural frequencies of resonance. Having observed orientation in animals and other phenomena, Lakhovsky concluded that some of the semi-crystalline matter within the cell nucleus might exhibit electrical conductance. He coined the study of such properties 'radiobiology.' Following Lakhovsky, neovitalism had a raging revival. Wilhelm Reich claimed to discover a biological energy called orgone , closely related to but distinct from electrical energy. Professors Saxton and Burr at Yale used a supra-sensitive voltmeter to measure electrical capacitance in the skin and claimed to discover that it changed according to health and other biological changes. Professor Seymour Kirlian in the Soviet Union discovered a photographic technique that made manifest fantastic electrical displays around living organisms, also apparently correlated with their vital state and health.

In that time of tumult and distrust of public authority, the 1960s, many people began to become alarmed at the spreading growth of microwave transmission towers. Openly and aloud, they wondered what health effects the EM fields these towers generated might have on people nearby. And so many scientists, not just those on the fringe, began to investigate the relationship of EM and life, in earnest. Then, in 1977 a muckraker named Paul Brodeur stepped on the scene, publicizing a little-known study by epidemiologists Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper made in 1975 which claimed to find a higher than normal incidence of childhood leukemia in those houses closest to secondary electrical wires (leading from transformers) where the highest ELF strength levels were also found. The matter bounced back and forth; as recently as 1989, the question of ELF fields radiated by electric blankets for pregnant mothers and by Video Display Terminals (VDTs) for office workers became an issue of public health concern.

Hence we shall closely examine one question in particular: what role do ELF fields play in the behavior of organisms? And is that role significant enough to consider ELF fields a risk? And what can be done if they are?

Theoretical Issues
Scientists have usually been wary of any suggestion that nonionizing radiation might have biological effects. Ionizing radiation, which usually involves radioactive decay of unstable isotopes, usually generates dense alpha and beta particles (which are really atomic helium nuclei) which can impact on tissue and have significant repercussions. Nonionizing (that is, EM) radiation involves only massless photons, of varying energy, which as bosons (carriers of force) really are quanta of information. Up until the 1960s, it was thought that the only effects such energy could have would be thermal, i.e. raise the temperature of organisms. It is only due to the growing influence of cybernetics and system theory that the informational aspect of organisms is becoming more appreciated, and it is precisely from the perspective of EM radiation as a carrier of information in the organism that effects are being studied.
EM fields present a particular problem because in the 'real world' such fields do not spread out evenly over space. Dosimetry depends a great deal on how close one is to the center of the field, orientation, parts of the body exposed, shielding of the object, and other conditions. Strangely, exposure in ELF fields almost seems to work against typical force laws: it decreases near the generator, increases over a particular zone, and then falls off again toward the periphery of the field. Those ELF fields generated by various electrical carriers and devices are often rapidly alternating in flux and intensity. Many of these unpredictable conditions can be hard to take account of in the laboratory, which is a further obstacle to research.

Negative findings certainly do abound in the field. There are many studies that report that periodic daily exposure of cats to PF (power-frequency) 60 Hz fields for 6 to 8 months shows little or no change in behavior.[1] However, the inadequacy of many of these results is due to the same problem that occurs with tests of low-level ionizing radiation. People can be exposed to such fields for years , not just months, and the studies of long-term effects over 20 or 30 years just have not been done. Likewise, the interaction and superposition of such artificial ELF fields with natural ambient EM radiation (such as occurs in the real world but not behind lead laboratory walls) has not been examined - the possibility of a synthetic effect. And in many cases the researchers ignored entirely behavioral changes of a very subtle nature, which would have been noticed by better schedulre-controlled procedures. Nevertheless, negative data is there and cannot be dismissed; however, this paper concerns itself with positive results, and searches for possible mechanisms for such results.

Behavioral Studies
Perhaps the longest recognized EM effects on human subjects have been perceptual changes. One of the earliest students of magnetic effects, D'Arsonval, noted that placing a changing magnetic fields near a subject's head caused them to see sparkling motes of light. These motes, known as phosphenes , appear when the eyes are closed tightly, and also immediately after one stares at a bright light. They appear to be fundamental 'building blocks' of vision and are prominent during hallucinogenic states as well. Audial effects have also been noted; many persons report an audible clicking sound in their ears or a hissing noise when they are exposed to a radar beam. It is possible that this sound may result from small 'shock-waves' in the fluids of the cochlea in the inner ear, which may also explain the occasional distortion of balance or orientation caused by a RF beam.[2] Apparently, even deaf people can hear microwaves pulsed at 300-3000 MHz as booming, hissing, clicking, or buzzing. In addition to auditory sensations, vestibular sensations were often noted as being similar to seasickness; the researcher suspected that temporal-lobe stimulation in the brain might be responsible.[3] Many Navy radar operators, who worked with cathode-ray screens analogous to modern VDTs, reported problems of perceptual fatigue: blurred vision, irritated, watery eyes, visually-related headaches.[4] The problem with the study, and others similar to it, was that it did not really isolate possible eyestrain and other stress-related factors from ones related to screen radiation. Other sensory changes have been noted; one scientist even claims that auditory hallucination can occur infrequently when one is exposed to an extremely strong pulse of EM radiation.[5]
Another class of ELF EM effects include circadian rhythm changes, which in turn affect biological clocks. Visible-frequency (VF) light has long been known as an important zeitgeiber with biological rhythms. Strong natural light can be an effective treatment for seasonal depression, jet-lag, and other circadian disorders. [6] It may be the case that non-VF EM frequencies may alter those rhythms. Rabbits exposed to 2950 MHz microwaves showed changes in both the amplitude and phase of the circadian rhythm of cell division.[7] In a test of monkeys exposed for 2 weeks to 39 kV/m ELF fields, 75% showed significant changes in their circadian cycles.[8] Rhythms of oxidative metabolism were phase shifted in male mice after exposure to ELF fields; most importantly, nighttime synthesis of biosynthetic enzymes in the pineal gland was reduced.[9] It is possible that even EEG rhythms may be altered by EM induction. When fields are at the upper theta range (7 Hz), increased EEG activity in the 6-8 Hz range in the hippocampus, amygdala, and centrum meridianum is noted.[10] It is possible that some of these alterations of biological rhythms may explain complaints of insomnia and changed sleep habits noted in Soviet ELF epidemiological studies, as well as sexual dysfunction (it is known that sexual arousal and performance is closely tied to somatic rhytms as well.)

A significant category of behavioral response to EM radiation has been changed levels of activity or response/ reactivity. In many cases, an avoidance reaction to the ELF fields itself has been noted. Animals will, in many cases, make a deliberate effort to step out of the field. In a 60 Hz field at 75 to 100 kV/m, rats and swine would avoid exposure, and during their inactive period would never spend time in the field.[11] (Humans are apparently able to detect and register 50 Hz fields in the 0.35 kV/m to 27 kV/m range, but do not normally display an escape reaction.) Albino rats tested in Eastern bloc countries given long-term ELF exposure showed lowered reactivity to electric footshock and deficits of performance in the shuttlebox.[12] John Ott notes that hyperkinetic activity among schoolchildren increases considerably under the multiple frequencies given off by flourescent lighting. Rabbits irradiated during four months with microwaves at 10 mW/cm sq. for 60 min. daily showed an inhibition of conditioned reflexes, and even a lack of conditioned reflexes.[13] Rats and monkeys exposed to a 2450 MHz field showed disrupted performance on all operant schedules.[14] People exposed to 2-12 Hz fields showed an increase in reaction time latency. Reduced locomotion and exploratory behavior were noted in animals in a 40 MHz field by D'Andrea; sexual behavior and dopamine/opiate-related responses were noted by Frey and Wesler to be altered in pulsed microwave fields; wild mallard ducklings were shown to alter fixed-time, schedule-controlled behavior in 3-16 Hz fields.[15]

Perhaps the most interesting influence of EM fields on animals is changes in navigational/ orientational ability. Scientists have only become recently aware of the ability of many animals to navigate utilizing the geomagnetic field. Homing pigeons, for example, often were 45 to 180 degress off course if they had bar magnets attached to their heads. Birds have piezoelectric elements in their feathers; marine vertebrates such as rays and eels also apparently utilize EM emissions for navigation, showing extreme confusion when a ferromagnetic substance is introduced into their tank.[16] It has been found that honeybees, which rely on geomagnetism, build bizarre, misshapen combs in strong ELF fields. Many microbes display a northward-swiming behavior that is reversed upon introduction of a Helmholtz coil.[17] Machin noted that an electric fish, Gymnarchus niloticus , would respond to a magnet inducing a gradient of 0.15 mV/cm; the solid state properties of its bone fine structure may act as an oscillator.[18] The question as to whether an EmF receptor might exist in humans has been tested, and it even appears to a small degree that humans may rely on EM cues. Children driven out on a school bus, blindfolded, with bar magnets atop their heads, had much more difficulty pointing the way home than a control group without such magnets.[19]

Last, but certainly not least, is the question as to how ELF fields may or may not cause discomfort, pain, and/or reduction in "quality of life." Needless to say, studies in this area have frequently been nonconclusive and highly controversial. Long-term exposure to 10 mW/cm fields produced occupational complaints in an Eastern bloc survey including dizziness and vertigo, headache, restlessness, eye pain, mood changes and irritability, nervous tension, memory loss, epigastric pain, depression, hypochondria, and fear.[20] A survey of Ed Leeper of electric powerline workers found that there was a statistically greater incidence of suicide and depression among those workers who actually worked near transformers or other sources of strong ELF fields than a control group who did not work near such ELF sources. (One researcher examined 438,000 deaths of workingmen and found that the PMR (proportionate mortality) for leukemia was greater in ten out of eleven occupations linked to EM field exposure.[21]) Yet another study by Marino found that job quitting rate in electrical-related professions was incredible, and he substantiates much of his argument by pointing out the extreme rates of health insurance for such occupations. The problem with these studies is simple; many variables impinge on the "quality of life" in a human subject, and also on his willingness to make complaints. Until good controlled studies arise to isolate out these uncontrolled variables, the Soviet studies and others need corroboration.

Possible Mechanisms
In order to understand behavioral changes in organisms exposed to ELF fields, we have to begin to grapple with some of the neural mechanisms involved. An EPRI study noted that electric fields depress in rats the synthesis of melatonin by the pineal gland. As melatonin production is keyed to the regulation of the circadian 'clocks' and also the growth rate of cancer, one causal link may already have been found. The same study also found that at the cellular level, there may be altered control functions involving RNA.[22] The researcher W. Ross Adey thinks that protein strands might act as 'Trojan horses' allowing weak electrical signals to pass through the barrier of the cell's membrane potential; and generating rhythmic waves travelling as oscillations through the fluid-filled spaces of the brain. Also, exposure to 8 kV/m fields has been found to show positive changes in catecholamine and acetylcholine neurotransmitters in the brain.[23] There has been much research in EM transmission as a form of biocommunication and/or informational transfer, and Adey's research suggests that the 'signal-to-noise' ratio may be considerably distorted in the brain and elsewhere by external EMF sources.
An important area of EM effects in organisms is, of course, thermoregulatory changes. As the ambient temperature of an organism increases, it will undertake behaviors to attempt to attain homeostasis. At a frequency of 360 MHz, significant 'hot spots' in the tail, rectum, and brain area of rats emerged - the SAR of the tail reaching as much as 50 times the intensity of the whole-body SAR.[24] Since vasodilation in the tail is a primary thermoregulatory mechanism of rats, RF-induced localized heating of the tail could severely impair overall thermoregulation. Possible thermoregulatory changes might result in alterations of diet, avoidance of EM exposure, or other actions in an attempt to make up for caloric changes or discomfort.

Changes in temperature may not be as important as ionization resulting from the attendant 'charging' that occurs in an ELF field. Although often overemphasized, positive ionization has been noted to show an increase in sympathetic nervous system activity and attendant heart rate/ energy expenditure, whereas negative ionization creates a relaxation response by affecting the parasympathetic division. (It is for this reason that atmospheric changes - such as the increasing positive ionization before a thunderstorm - often create behavioral changes.) One researcher strongly suspects that ionization effects may play a role in EM behavioral effects. He correlated response to 2400 Hz fields with blood ionization.[25]

Yet another important factor is genetic, teratogenic (pre-natal) effects. It is possible that many behavioral alterations may result from ELF disruption of the genetic code involving hereditarily-linked behaviors. (Concern over ELF pre-natal effects has meant the release of a NIH warning for pregant mothers to avoid electric blankets.) When mother rats were exposed to 6000 MHz fields at 35 mW/cm for 8 hours daily throughout their pregnancy, pups were born exhibiting differences in eye opening, postnatal growth, water T-maze performance, and activity in an open field test. [26] When Leghorn chicken eggs were exposed to 100 Hz, 1.2 uT fields, abnormalities in the cephalic and truncal nervous systems at high intensities were noted, and the researcher linked this to changes in observed glycosaminoglycans, which have electrostatic properties and are involved in morphogenesis and cell differentiation.[27] One researcher noted the electro-orientational nature of the formation of blastosomes in the developing foetus, and found that ELF fields did play some role in organ formation and differentiation.[28]

Most of the cellular studies involving ELF effects suggest that it is the cell membrane that is involved. There has been found a 10 to 20% alteration in calcium exchange from chick or cat brain tissues exposed to ELF fields. Neurons may be a type of cell particularly vulnerable. A transient change in the neuron firing rate of Aplysia neurons was noted during exposure to frequencies at 1 Hz and .25 V/m RMS.[29] EM fields clearly play a role in nerve regeneration; three mechanisms proposed for neurite promotion by ELF fields include redistribution of cytoplasmic material; alteration of membrane potential assymetry; and electrophoretic redistribution of charged surface molecules in the plasma membrane.[30]

Since there are specialized receptors in the retina to respond to VF (visible frequency) radiation, it is possible that there may be receptors in the brain or other parts of the nervous system that react to non-VF EM radiation. One researcher discovered that neuronal activity near the temporal lobe increased dramatically when the brain was exposed to low-frequency fields of alternating intensity, but could not establish a brain area specific to this activity.[31] There would have to be some adaptational significance for such a receptor, but biologists can only speculate on the survival value of an EM receptor in humans. Another scientist considered that such a receptor might have evolved to function in times when the atmosphere failed to block out more harmful radiation wavelengths, and remains as a vestigial holdover.[32] In general, studies in this area simply have not been done, simply because scientists do not see the evolutionary advantage conferred by such a structure, particularly in humans.

Within radiobiology, as in any other field, there is a considerable 'fringe' dealing with issues largely based on rumor, speculation, anecdotal evidence, and making a spectacle of various evidence. There is little data to support some of these wild controversies, and to be fair to their proponents, even mentioning them to 'mainstream' radiobiologists is guaranteed to generate contention. Such issues include several questions. Does the EM radiation of celestial bodies such as the sun and moon influence behavior? (To many scientists this smacks of astrology.) Do human beings have a surrounding EM field? (The so-called Kirlian 'aura')? Has electromagnetism been used during the Cold War as a weapon by the superpowers? (Once again, great fodder for paranoiacs and propagandists.) These questions are definitely on the 'fringe,' but radiobiology has little to say on them either way, for the moment.
The possibility that behavior changes might be produced by EM radiations in the environment has led to all sorts of speculations. Many researchers have tried to compare outbreaks of wars, societal collapses, and other mass behavioral changes with sunspots, claiming that the changing surface of the sun results in increased emission of RF and other wavelengths reaching Earth. It is known that changes in the sun's output does create some biological changes, such as in tree ring formation, but behavioral links have not been fully established. Yet others claim that the moon may exert an influence on geomagnetism, which in turn can affect behavior, producing 'lunacy.' Studies of asylum admissions and homicide reports during the full moon in Dade County show, somewhat inconclusively, that the moon may drive us to madness after all. (What is known is that there are definite external EM zeitgiebers to many biological clocks... behavioral influences are harder to prove.)

The question as to whether humans might have an electromagnetic sense is also rather controversial. It does appear that people are somewhat sensitive to the orientation of the geomagnetic field. However, dowsers and members of geomantic societies (such as the feng-shui practicioners) claim that humans are extremely sensitized to geomagnetism, and recently there has been some speculation that this may be due to the presence of an EM field surrounding the human body. The Kirlian 'aura' photgraphs show dramatic discharges from the human body (although how much this has to do with an intrinsic field is in dispute) and the Soviets recently have devoted congresses to the topic of 'bioplasma,' i.e. the notion of a human energy field. Acupuncturists claim they can identify meridians of energy flow along the body; these may possibly correspond to the DC current flow observed during limb regeneration, (just how much the Chinese ch'i corresponds to Western concepts is difficult to say) and may explain the success reported in electrifying the needles. In general, the reputableness of this human EM-field literature is scanty.

Another area where there has been a great deal of speculation is regarding the possibility of an electromagnetic 'Cold war' going on between the superpowers even during apparent detente. When it was found that the Soviets were 'zapping' the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with low-intensity microwaves, all sorts of people started suggesting, in typical paranoid fashion, that they might be 'beaming' ELF waves as an attempt at 'mind control,' or at least to make life tough for the ambassadors. (In all likelihood, it was all probably part of an ongoing 'bugging' campaign by the Russians.) In any case, both countries do have an Electromagnetic Warfare division, and many people do suspect that ELF-based weapons designed to confuse, disorient, or weaken the morale of the enemy have been devised. However, the greatest EM danger is really posed by the nuclear arsenals of both nations: detonation of even a small aerial nuclear device could create an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) which might disrupt telecommunications and electronics severely.

Until more is known about just what role EM energies play in the human organism, as to whether ELF fields pose a 'health hazard' remains unresolved. ELF fields do clearly have biobehavioral effects, but there is a great deal of difference between a minor, transient biological effect and a life-threatening health hazard. Some of the changes reported - minor offset of circadian rhythms, change in a few somatic cells - do not appear to constitute any real 'hazard.' And those studies that indicated something more serious - influence on germ plasm, etc. - usually involved almost impossible levels of exposure. The data seem to suggest that the biggest danger from ELF fields is continuous, ongoing, round-the-clock exposure. Those who probably have the most to worry about are those who are around high-field appliances constantly (hairdryers?), electrical-related professions (such as power line workers), VDT users (such as computer programmers), and radar operators. Reasons for this include the fact that most of the EM effects seem to be more connected to length of exposure than intensity.
The problem with current human behavioral studies is that it is hard to isolate out the causes of human behavior. Is the person suffering from depression from other causes, perhaps biochemical, or is it really only his EMF exposure which is responsible? Also, there has not been sufficient control of exposure modalities - how much of the body is exposed, for how long, at what amounts, at what frequency, in what size resonance cavity, etc. Until there are more experiments done that attempt to control these factors, the precise role of ELF fields in human behavioral changes remains, sadly, indeterminate. But the position of this paper is to urge such studies be done, immediately and carefully, for if health hazards are detected, new exposure safety standards may have to be mandated. There are clear neuronal and other biophysical alterations that could lead to behavioral abnormalities. It is possible that some people may be more vulnerable than others, perhaps even having a genetic predisposition to being more affected by ambient ELF fields.

At the most extreme, we may have to witness a partial de-electrification of our heavily EM-bathed world. Due to the fact that there is a more clear effect noteable in the RF (radiofrequency) range, new exposure guidelines may need to be set soon. As far as electrically generated ELF fields, there simply is not enough research out there. But good, controlled, human-volunteer studies with adequate controls need to be done, over long periods of time. Then we may be able to really answer the question of whether or not ELF fields pose a health hazard.


Gandhi, 'Biological Effects of ELF PF radiation', 1977
Chou, Chung-Kwang; Guy, Arthur W.; Galambos, Robert. 'Auditory perception of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields', 1982.
Frey, A.H. 'Auditory system response to RF energy.' Aerosp Med. , 1961.
Prof. Karl U. Smith, 'Radar Operator Fatigue', 1944.
Persinger. M. 'ELF fields and Temporal-Lobe episodes.' 1983
John Ott, Light, Radiation, & You. 1981.
S. Baranski; P. Czerski, 'Biological Effects of Microwaves'. 1971
Sulzman and Murrish, 1987
Duffy, Ehret, and Wilson, 1982.
Badwin, Suzanne M. and J. Gavalas-Medici, Rochelle. 'Reinforcement of Transient Brain Rhythms by Amplitude-Modulated VHF fields.' 1974.
Hjeresen, Rosenberg, 1983
Rudnev, 1978
E.A. Lobovna, 'The use of conditioned reflexes to study microwave effects on the CNS.', 1974
DeLorge, 1975
Feldstone, 1969
Kalmijin, 1971
Blakemore, 1978
Becker, 1972
Copson, 1984
Sadcikova and Gordon, 'Report of the Institute of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases', 1973.
Dr. Samuel J. Milham, Jr., report in New England Journal of Medicine , 1982.
Electric Power Research Institute, 'Pursuing the Science of EMF', 1990
Bawin, S.M., 1972
D'Andrea, Shapiro, 1987.
David V. Tansley, Subtle Energy , 1987.
O'Connor, 1988
Delgado, J.M. 'Embryological changes produced by weak VLF fields.', 1982
Jaffe and Pilla, 1964.
Sheppard, 'Cell surface polarization in biological ELF effects.' 1977.
Neumann and Katchalsky, 'Long lived confirmation changes induced by electric impulses in biopolymers' 1972.
Persinger, 1982
Thomas, 'Is there an EM specific response in the nervous system', 1967.




Multiple Wave Oscillator
click here to view price.




FREE Auction Site

Please send this page to a friend