This post is re-blogging from the Stop UMTS site in The Netherlands. In post, published in May 2020, Dr Leendert Vriens, physicist, PhD, retired Philips Research Fellow, elaborates on VGCC hypothesis. Especially his calculations are interesting.
Also, comment #5 in the post, elaborates on who first proposed VGCC hypothesis. It is worth looking at.
************************
Dr. Leendert Vriens
Summary
In his e-book from 2018 and in later publications Pall claims voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCC) to be the main target and mechanism for all biological health effects caused by the EMF from wireless communication. This claim is based on biochemical information and argumentation and on a physics calculation.
Being a physicist I cannot comment on the biochemical part which is Pall’s field of expertise. I do have comments, however, on the physics part. Basically Pall’s main argument is that “the electrical forces on the VGCC voltage sensors are extraordinarily high”. In order to substantiate this statement Pall compares these forces with those on singly charged ions in the cell plasma.
Indeed the forces on the VGCC voltage sensor are, according to Pall’s calculation, almost seven orders of magnitude larger than those on singly charged ions in the cell plasma. This does not tell much, however, because these latter forces are exceedingly small.
Using Pall’s input numbers for the material parameters I calculated the field strength over the cell membranes caused by an externally applied field of 3 V/m and compared that with the natural field strength over the cell membranes prior to activation. For this applied field of 3 V/m, on the high end of what one finds near cell towers, the natural field strength appears to be between 3600 to 6000 times larger than the field strength caused by the external field.
Direct activation of the VGCC voltage sensor by the external field thus seems to be impossible, since this requires polarity reversal. Activation involving electrical interference effects might be possible, but the statement ”that physics arguments support the claim that VGCC) are the main target and mechanism for all biological health effects” is contradicted by the present calculation.
According to Pall, VGCC activation by the EMF leads to an excess of calcium ions in cells, followed by a sequence of processes and health problems. There is, however, an alternative explanation for that excess of calcium.
Calcium ions are also present in the cell membranes and are partly responsible for the physical strength of these membranes. Due to the oscillating forces caused by the EMF, part of these calcium ions are replaced by other ions, potassium ions in particular, causing structural damage of the membranes and leakage of calcium into the cells. This alternative explanation, by Goldsworthy, does not require excessive EMF strengths and seems more realistic.
The model calculation by Dr. Vriens see from this link.
Comment #5 from Dr. Vriens in the above link:
Pall’s first publication on the role of the VGCC activation by EMF, leading to an excess of calcium ions in cells and to health problems, goes back to 2013. One year earlier, in 2012, a review paper by Goldsworthy appeared in ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311211.pdf in which he also concludes that both low-frequency as well as radio-frequency EMF lead to an excess of calcium (Ca) in cells. Goldsworthy ascribes this excess to the replacement in the cell membranes of Ca ions by other ions, potassium ions in particular, causing structural weakening of the membranes and leading to leakage of Ca into the cells. This process seems more realistic than VGCC activation.
