The article titled “petersen-et-al-2021-point-an-alternative-hypothesis-for-why-exposure-to-static-magnetic-and-electric-fields-treats-type” by Kitt Falk Petersen, Douglas L. Rothman, and Gerald I. Shulman proposes an alternative hypothesis to explain the findings of Carter et al. regarding the treatment of type 2 diabetes using static magnetic and electric fields (sBE).
The original study by Carter et al. found that exposure to sBE for a few days reversed glucose intolerance and insulin resistance in diabetic mouse models. They hypothesized that sBE triggers a systemic redox response, modulating insulin sensitivity, and thus could be a noninvasive treatment for type 2 diabetes. However, they could not define a specific mechanism for how sBE might alter reactive oxygen species or identify the specific proteins mediating this effect.
The Earth’s field ranges between approximately 25 and 65 μT (0.25 and 0.65 G). By comparison, a strong refrigerator magnet has a field of about 10,000 μT (100 G).
Petersen, Rothman, and Shulman propose an alternative hypothesis that involves the vestibular system, which is known to be impacted by static magnetic fields in various species, including humans and mice. They suggest that the magnetic field used in the Carter et al. study, which was 100 times higher than Earth’s magnetic field, or which is between 20 and 40% of a refrigerator magnet could induce effects in the vestibular system through a Lorentz force resulting from the interaction of the magnetic field with ionic currents in the inner ear. This force might displace the lateral semicircular canal cupula, inducing vertigo and nystagmus.
According to the alternative hypothesis, exposure to sBE might cause a temporary stress response in mice, leading to increased plasma catecholamine concentrations. While sBE-induced increases in catecholamines would typically promote glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, intermittent increases in catecholamines could also increase energy expenditure and activate AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which are known to reverse insulin resistance and hyperglycemia. The authors suggest that the effects observed in the Carter et al. study might be due to these intermittent stress responses rather than a direct effect of sBE on redox biology.
The alternative hypothesis posits that the effects of sBE exposure are due to the stress response and increased energy expenditure in the mice, rather than direct modulation of insulin sensitivity through redox changes. This hypothesis is testable by measuring plasma catecholamine concentrations, heart rate, liver and muscle triglyceride and glycogen content, and AMPK activity in mice exposed to sBE.
Overall, the alternative hypothesis suggests that the beneficial effects on type 2 diabetes observed in the Carter et al. study might be due to indirect stress responses induced by sBE exposure rather than direct modulation of cellular redox states.
A Tale of Two Hypotheses
The field of biomedical research is often marked by groundbreaking discoveries and intriguing hypotheses. One such area is the study of electromagnetic field (EMF) bioeffects, particularly in the context of managing type 2 diabetes. Recent research has opened up a fascinating debate about the underlying mechanisms of these bioeffects. Two prominent hypotheses offer different explanations: one focuses on systemic redox changes, while the other considers stress responses induced by the vestibular system. This blog delves into these hypotheses, shedding light on the complex interplay between EMFs and biological systems.
The Original Discovery: Static Magnetic and Electric Fields and Diabetes
The study led by Carter et al. made a remarkable discovery: exposure to static magnetic and electric fields (sBE) reversed symptoms of type 2 diabetes in mouse models. This non-invasive approach normalized blood sugar levels and improved the body’s response to insulin. The researchers proposed that sBE triggers a redox response in the body, altering oxidative stress and improving insulin sensitivity. This hypothesis suggested a direct interaction between EMFs and cellular redox states, potentially revolutionizing diabetes treatment.
An Alternative Perspective: The Vestibular System Hypothesis
Enter Petersen, Rothman, and Shulman with an alternative explanation. They proposed that the observed effects of sBE on diabetic symptoms might not directly stem from redox biology alterations. Instead, they suggested that the vestibular system, sensitive to magnetic fields, might be playing a key role. Their hypothesis posits that sBE exposure could induce a stress response in mice, increasing plasma catecholamine concentrations. This response might inadvertently lead to increased energy expenditure and activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), countering insulin resistance and hyperglycemia. This theory shifts the focus from direct cellular changes to an indirect systemic response triggered by sBE.
Evaluating the Hypotheses: A Scientific Conundrum
The contrasting hypotheses present a scientific conundrum, challenging researchers to think beyond traditional paradigms. The original hypothesis by Carter et al. aligns with the growing interest in electromagnetic therapy, suggesting that EMFs can have direct biological effects. On the other hand, the alternative hypothesis by Petersen and colleagues brings a new perspective, emphasizing the body’s systemic response to environmental stimuli, in this case, EMFs.
Implications for Future Research and Diabetes Treatment
These diverging theories underscore the complexity of EMF bioeffects and their potential implications for diabetes treatment. Understanding whether these effects are due to direct redox modifications or stress-induced systemic changes is crucial. This knowledge can guide the development of EMF-based therapies, ensuring they are both effective and safe. Future research should aim to test these hypotheses, possibly leading to innovative treatments for diabetes and other metabolic disorders.
The Journey Ahead
The debate between these two hypotheses represents the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry. As we venture further into understanding the effects of EMFs on health, we must remain open to multiple perspectives and possibilities. The journey to unravel the mysteries of EMF bioeffects on diabetes is not just a quest for a novel treatment method but also a broader exploration of how environmental factors interact with biological systems. As research continues, we eagerly anticipate new insights and breakthroughs in this fascinating field.
About Static B and E Field Radiation
An electromagnetic field (EMF) is generated when charged particles such as electrons are accelerated. Charged particles in motion produce magnetic fields. Electric and magnetic fields are present around any electrical circuit, whether it carries alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC) electricity. Since DC is static and AC varies in direction, fields from DC and AC sources have significant differences. Static fields, for example, do not induce currents in stationary objects, while AC fields do. Static magnetic fields do not vary over time, and thus do not have a frequency (0 hertz [Hz]).
The most familiar magnetic effects occur in ferromagnetic materials, which are strongly attracted by magnetic fields and can be magnetized to become permanent magnets, producing magnetic fields themselves. Only few substances are ferromagnetic; the most common ones are iron, nickel, cobalt, and their alloys.
The intensity of a magnetic field is usually measured in tesla (T or mT) or gauss (G). Household magnets have strengths on the order of several tens of millitesla (1 mT = 10–3 T), while the field strength of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment ranges from 1.5 T to 10 T.
Static Electric Fields
An electric field is the force field created by the attraction and repulsion of electric charges, and it is measured in volts per meter (V/m). A static electric field (also referred to as electrostatic field) is created by charges that are fixed in space. The strength of the natural static electric field in the atmosphere varies from about 100 V/m in fair weather to several thousand V/m under thunderclouds. Other source of static electric fields is the charge separation as a result of friction or static electric currents from varied technologies. In the home, charge potentials of several kilovolts can be accumulated while walking on non-conducting carpets generating local fields. High-voltage DC power lines can produce static electric fields of up to 20 kV/m and more.
Sources with field strength greater than 5 to 7 kV/m can produce a wide range of safety hazards such as startle reactions associated with spark discharges and contact currents from ungrounded conductors within the field.
Static Magnetic Fields
A magnetic field is a force field created by a magnet or charges that move in a steady flow as in direct current (DC). Static magnetic fields exert an attracting force on metallic objects containing for example, iron, nickel or cobalt. The quantity of ferrite (a form of iron) or martensitic steel (specific type of stainless steel alloy) in an object will affect its magnetic ability: the greater the quantity of these components, the greater the ferromagnetism. All types of 400 series stainless steel are magnetic. Austenitic steel is not magnetic. Most, but not all, series 300 stainless steel are austenitic and not magnetic.
Sources of static magnetic fields found at Berkeley Lab include nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) equipment, MRI systems, spectroscopy systems, ion pumps, quadrupoles and sextupoles, bend magnets, superconducting magnets, and cryostats.
Static magnetic fields can also erase data stored on magnetic media or on the strips of credit or debit cards and badges.
Time-Varying Magnetic Fields
Time-varying magnetic fields are magnetic fields that reverse their direction at a regular frequency. They can induce an electric current in a conductor present in this field as well as in a human body. Time-varying magnetic fields are produced by devices using AC such as cellular telephone antennas, microwaves, etc. A general rule of thumb is that 1 T/sec can induce about 1 microampere per square centimeter (μA/cm2) in the body.
Induced currents in the body can cause local heating and possible burns, which is the major effect from time-varying fields. The cause is the high radiofrequency time-varying field. Low-frequency fields usually do not contribute greatly to this effect.
