The Grim Society

Archive for the ‘Theory’ Category

Have you ever heard a voice in your head? Seen something that you can only describe as visualized, or perhaps seen with the Mind’s eye? Many paranormal encounters are described with terms such as these- and just as many scientists discredit them as being instances of Mental Imagery.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy, Mental Imagery is quasi-perceptual experience. This means that it resembles a perceptual experience, but occurs without the appropriate triggers- scent without a source, piano music without a piano, etc.

The argument from a scientific standpoint, as it appears to me at least, rests on the heels of perception. Not everyone’s brain will interpret stimuli in the same manner; therefore, many ‘paranormal’ experiences are merely normal experiences interpreted differently.

This altered perception is often described as mistaken or illusive perceptions (such as seeing a small bush some distance away and, because it is dark and indistinguishable, perceiving it to be a bear) or as plain imagining- like seeing a shape in a cloud. As an example, check out the picture below:

What do you see?

Did you see a duck? Or was it a rabbit? Both?  It’s all in the perception, and that is why no individuals ‘mental imagery’ experiences can be credited as being scientific proof for an encounter with the paranormal.

The thing I find most interesting about this out-of-hand dismissal of so-called mental imagery can be found in the fact that scientists themselves can’t really figure out what mental imagery is; they’re not sure what causes it, they don’t know if it has a singular purpose or if it is simply a part of the ‘way we work’. There are several active theories that attempt to explain mental imagery, but each one is highly contested by other theories.

Which leads me to wonder if perhaps our inability to understand and quantify paranormal experiences is due to a lack of ‘belief’ in the experiences, or a deeper inability to understand the workings of our own minds.

As we’ve discussed in previous posts, there are many things in our everyday use which generate magnetic fields, including many items in our homes- everything from the toaster to the washing machine.  Magnetic fields from these appliances can be quite different in strength, depending on how they were designed and manufactured. Using the toaster as an example, test results show that one brand of toaster can generate a much stronger magnetic field than another.

The typical American home has a background magnetic field level that falls in the 0.5 mG to 4 mG range. Keep in mind that the strength of an electromagnetic field in a room will depend on the sources in the room- the more sources, the higher the reading might be.  It also depends on how far away those sources are and how many are running at the same time.  As we covered in the post, “The EMF Meter- Pseudoscience or Valid Tool,” walls generally do not block magnetic fields, so an electrical appliance located near a wall (or in a closet) can extend its magnetic field into the room on the other side of the wall.

What we have not delved into as of yet are the reputed side effects of exposure to these electromagnetic fields, something very important to those who have an interest in the paranormal.  While there is still a lot of debate surrounding EMFs, some people report a variety of health symptoms which they claim are related to exposure to them from sources such as power lines and household appliances. The strength of the symptoms can be minimal or life altering.

Because of the increase in cases involving this sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, the medical community has given the illness the general name “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS. The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently investigating EHS.

Symptoms of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Neurological: headaches, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, irritability, depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, weakness, tremors, muscle spasms, numbness, tingling, altered reflexes, muscle and joint paint, leg/foot pain, “Flu-like” symptoms, fever. More severe reactions can include seizures, paralysis, psychosis and stroke.

Cardiac: palpitations, arrhythmias, pain or pressure in the chest, low or high blood pressure, slow or fast heart rate, shortness of breath.

Respiratory: sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma.

Dermatological: skin rash, itching, burning, facial flushing.

Ophthalmologic: pain or burning in the eyes, pressure in/behind the eyes, deteriorating vision, floaters, cataracts.

Others: digestive problems, abdominal pain, enlarged thyroid, testicular/ovarian pain, dryness of lips, tongue, mouth, eyes, great thirst, dehydration, nosebleeds, internal bleeding, altered sugar metabolism, immune abnormalities, redistribution of metals within the body, hair loss, pain in the teeth, deteriorating fillings, impaired sense of smell, ringing in the ears.

As paranormal investigators, one of the first things we check when visiting a home with reported paranormal events is the strength of the EMFs in the home.  With side effects such as those listed above, its easy to see that many of those events can be attributed to electromagnetic fields.

A perfect example of this can be seen in the case below.

Property Information : Residential Home in Port Saint Lucie, FL Number of Residents/Occupants: 2 Adults, 1 child

Occupation of Residents: Electrical Worker and Homemaker

Religious Beliefs: None

Number and Type of Pets: 1 Dog

Year Built: 2000

Total Square Footage: 1752

The homeowner reported the following activity in the home:  Feeling of Being Watched, Cold/Hot Spots Felt, Footsteps Heard, Human Figure Seen, Non-Human Figure Seen, Orbs Seen, Unexplained Noises, Unfamiliar Smells, Voices Heard.  In addition, the homeowner was being treated medically for headaches and dizzyness.

Conclusion:

After visiting the home, it was found that there were extreamly high readings for EMFs originating from the wall shared by the kitchen and the laundry room.  Gauss readings in the laundry closet reached as high as 167, while on the kitchen side near two seperate outlets they reached 60.   According to “EMF In Your Environment,” published by the EPA 1992, the average readings for the laundry room are as follows:

LAUNDRY/UTILITY ROOM SOURCES

Distance From Source    6″    1’    2’    4’

Electric Clothes Dryers
Lowest                             2    -    -    -
Median                             3    2    -    -
Highest                             10    3    -    -

Washing Machines
Lowest                             4    1    -    -
Median                             20    7    1    -
Highest                             100    30    6    -

It is important to note that these measurements are in units of milligauss (mG), and dashes in columns mean that the magnetic field measurement at this distance from the operating appliance could not be distinguished from background measurements. A mG is 1/1000 of a gauss; the readings taken in the home’s laundry room were in gauss- thus giving a result that was 163,900 mG higher than the EPA’s highest measurement.  Armed with this information, the homeowner can now approach the problems in the home from a new viewpoint and work towards remedying the situation.

Last night we went exploring at the Old Fort. While we were there, we took this short clip to give you a little more insight into the EMF meter we use and the readings it shows.

As you can see, the meter will give off an easily read result that allows the source of a field to be traced.

While many ‘Ghost Hunting’ groups across the world rely on certain items, their use outside their intended field might seem odd to the average person. One of those items is the EMF Meter, a device that measures the electromagnetic field at a given location. There are websites out there which will tell you that using meters such as the EMF are ’shady science,’ taking an item not intended for this use and claiming scientific results from the readings. We obviously don’t agree with these critics, but wanted to share the reason for our difference of opinion.

Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant. (Extract from “Electromagnetic Fields”, published by the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe in 1999)

Electromagnetic fields are all around us. Fields are produced by the local build-up of electric charges in the atmosphere associated with thunderstorms, and the earth’s magnetic field is what causes a compass needle to find North. It is even used by birds and fish for navigation. These fields can also be discharged from power lines, home wiring, airport and military radar, substations, transformers, computers and appliances.

One of the main characteristics which defines an electromagnetic field (EMF) is its frequency or its corresponding wavelength. Fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways. One can imagine electromagnetic waves as series of very regular waves that travel at an enormous speed, the speed of light. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.

A simple analogy should help to illustrate the concept: Tie a long rope to a door handle and keep hold of the free end. Moving it up and then down slowly will generate a single big wave; more rapid motion will generate a whole series of small waves. The length of the rope remains constant, therefore, the more waves you generate (higher frequency) the smaller will be the distance between them (shorter wavelength).

Wavelength and frequency determine another important characteristic of electromagnetic fields: Electromagnetic waves are carried by particles called quanta. Quanta of higher frequency (shorter wavelength) waves carry more energy than lower frequency (longer wavelength) fields. Some electromagnetic waves carry so much energy per quantum that they have the ability to break bonds between molecules. In the electromagnetic spectrum, gamma rays given off by radioactive materials, cosmic rays and X-rays carry this property and are called ‘ionizing radiation’. Fields whose quanta are insufficient to break molecular bonds are called ‘non-ionizing radiation’. Man-made sources of electromagnetic fields that form a major part of industrialized life – electricity, microwaves and radiofrequency fields – are found at the relatively long wavelength and low frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum and their quanta are unable to break chemical bonds.

Electric fields exist whenever a positive or negative electrical charge is present. They exert forces on other charges within the field. The strength of the electric field is measured in volts per metre (V/m). Any electrical wire that is charged will produce an associated electric field. This field exists even when there is no current flowing. The higher the voltage, the stronger the electric field at a given distance from the wire.

Electric fields are strongest close to a charge or charged conductor, and their strength rapidly diminishes with distance from it. Conductors such as metal shield them very effectively. Other materials, such as building materials and trees, provide some shielding capability. Therefore, the electric fields from power lines outside the house are reduced by walls, buildings, and trees. When power lines are buried in the ground, the electric fields at the surface are hardly detectable.

Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges. The strength of the magnetic field is measured in amperes per meter (A/m); more commonly in electromagnetic field research, scientists specify a related quantity, the flux density (in microtesla, µT) instead. In contrast to electric fields, a magnetic field is only produced once a device is switched on and current flows. The higher the current, the greater the strength of the magnetic field.

Like electric fields, magnetic fields are strongest close to their origin and rapidly decrease at greater distances from the source. Magnetic fields are not blocked by common materials such as the walls of buildings.

In November 1989, the Department of Energy reported that, “It has now become generally accepted that there are, indeed, biological effects due to field exposure.” Because of this (and many other) findings, it became necessary for individuals to have access to a simple tool that would measure the electromagnetic fields they came in contact with. Thus the birth of the reasonably priced, high quality EMF meter.

The gauss, abbreviated as G, is the cgs unit of magnetic field (B), named after the German mathematician and physicist Carl Friedrich Gauss.

An EMF meter is a type of Gauss Meter. Inside an EMF meter is a coil of thin wire that usually has hundreds of turns in it. When the meter is on, the magnetic field radiates through the coil and inducing a current. The current is amplified by the circuitry inside the Gauss meter, which measures its strength. EMF meters vary in the strength of the magnetic field they can measure and vary widely in price and accuracy. Meters have either a single axis coil or a triple axis coil. Single axis meters are much simpler than triple axis meters to manufacture and thus, are less expensive.

To use a single axis meter you must point the meter’s one sensor in three directions — -the x, y and z axis. Then, you combine the three readings in a mathematical equation to calculate the combined field strength. Obviously, its far easier and more accurate to use a 3-axis meter. Triple axis Gauss meters are quite accurate, but they are also more expensive.

Here at the GRIM society we use a single axis ELF meter (ELF stands for extremely low field) with a range of 0.1mG to 199.9 milligauss and an accuracy of ±(4% + 3digits) at 50-60 Hz. Single axis meters have the advantage when attempting to trace a linear source!

Now you might find yourself wondering what all this has to do with hunting down paranormal activity, and we have the answer. It can be found in numerous scientific studies, but there is one in particular that we like to cite, a piece published in the British Journal of Psychology in May of 2003.

In his article, “An investigation into alleged ‘hauntings’,” Prof Richard Wiseman discovered an interesting phenomenon, as explained in the excerpt below:

“Thirdly, both experiments also examined whether the alleged haunting may be due, at least in part, to participants responding to environmental cues. In Expt 1, the variance of the local magnetic Žfield in the ‘haunted’ areas was significantly greater than of the ‘control’ areas. In addition, the number of unusual experiences reported by participants was higher, as correlated with magnetic variance. This was not replicated in Expt 2, which found a significant positive correlation between magnetic variance and the haunted order. These results provide some support for the controversial theory that the presence of certain types of local magnetic Žfields may impact upon a range of psychological, psychophysiological and health-related variables.”

Now, unlike many groups out there, we don’t believe that fluctuating EMF readings is proof of, well, anything other than fluctuating EMF readings. However, because there is in fact a scientific basis that shows a correlation between fluctuating EMF readings and an increase in the experience of paranormal activity, we feel that examining and recording these fluctuations are an integral part of any true exploration into the paranormal. In fact, the readings themselves can be, at times, classified as paranormal- especially in situations when there is no obvious or logical explanation for fluctuations in the field.

It is important to remember, though, that like many other things in our field of research, the correlation between EMF readings and ‘ghostly haunts’ remains speculative at this point in time.

 Paranormal posted an interesting comment on our Survey blog page (on I Am Haunted) that led me to this article:

Paranormal beliefs linked to brain chemistry 09:15 27 July 2002

“Whether or not you believe in the paranormal may depend entirely on your brain chemistry. People with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences, and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none.

Peter Brugger, a neurologist from the University Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland, has suggested before that people who believe in the paranormal often seem to be more willing to see patterns or relationships between events where sceptics perceive nothing.”

That article in turn led me to another, which was published in The New York Times. Here is a clip:

“They are eerie sensations, more common than one might think: A man describes feeling a shadowy figure standing behind him, then turning around to find no one there. A woman feels herself leaving her body and floating in space, looking down on her corporeal self.

Such experiences are often attributed by those who have them to paranormal forces.

But according to recent work by neuroscientists, they can be induced by delivering mild electric current to specific spots in the brain. In one woman, for example, a zap to a brain region called the angular gyrus resulted in a sensation that she was hanging from the ceiling, looking down at her body. In another woman, electrical current delivered to the angular gyrus produced an uncanny feeling that someone was behind her, intent on interfering with her actions.

Dr. Olaf Blanke, a neurologist at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland who carried out the procedures, said that the women had normal psychiatric histories and that they were stunned by the bizarre nature of their experiences.

The Sept. 21 issue of Nature magazine includes an account by Dr. Blanke and his colleagues of the woman who sensed a shadow person behind her. They described the out-of-body experiences in the February 2004 issue of the journal Brain.

There is nothing mystical about these ghostly experiences, said Peter Brugger, a neuroscientist at University Hospital in Zurich, who was not involved in the experiments but is an expert on phantom limbs, the sensation of still feeling a limb that has been amputated, and other mind-bending phenomena.

“The research shows that the self can be detached from the body and can live a phantom existence on its own, as in an out-of-body experience, or it can be felt outside of personal space, as in a sense of a presence,” Dr. Brugger said.”

This leads to some rather interesting questions; do these scientific discoveries make you less of a believer in the paranormal or more? Do you think that what is paranormal to some or most of the population is normal to another percentage, those whose brains act differently? Is this all ‘imaginary,’ just a byproduct of consciousness? If the consciousness can indeed separate itself, is it possible that others can see or interact with it despite its non-physical state?

In addition to the original article, I came across the book, “Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields” which was published by the National Research Council and has the following description:

“Assesses the effects of electric and magnetic fields on human health. This book examines what is known about three kinds of health effects associated with EMF: cancer, primarily childhood leukemia; reproduction and development; and neurobiological effects. It provides a discussion on hazard identification, and dose-response assessment.”

Their conclusion was that “the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects.”

**** This is where I’m going to get a little more technical…this is a bail out point for anyone not interested in the ’science stuff’! ****

In a June 2006 publication, Jan Bures of the Institute of Physiology Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague, Czech Republic reported the following:

Unlike environmental diseases due to presence of toxic or absence of vitally important substances in food, water or air, electrical and magnetic forces are indispensable for life at levels considerably exceeding the limits considered as harmful by the EHS concept.

One of the underlying misunderstandings is the assumption that EMFs are novel forces introduced by technical  development of industrial countries and that living creatures are not prepared to live with them. However, already the first unicellular organisms starting the evolution of life on our planet were marvelous examples of electrical engineering. Their lipid cell membrane is only 5nm thick but separates an electrical potential of 0.1 V, which corresponds to the electrical field of 10-1V/5×10-9m = 2×107 V/m. Electrical phenomena have played an essential role in development of animals and particularly of their brains, the function of which is impossible without electrical signals mediating transmission of information between individual neurons and neural  networks, and implementing the highest cognitive functions.

Up to 1011 neurons of the human brain generate a large amount of electrical activity, which in its diversity, intensity and ubiquity exceeds what most alleged sources can produce.”

She further explains:

“The requirement that electrical phenomena generated in the brain tissue by external sources, should not exceed the inherent level of EMF noise of biological origin seems reasonable and is generally strictly followed by hygienic regulations for the use of electrical appliances. But this is not always respected in some medical treatments, when higher stimulation intensity is deliberately used to restore a failing vital function. Thus cardiac flutter blocking blood circulation can be stopped by high intensity electrical pulse applied to the chest, which elicits cardiac arrest usually followed by recovery of normal heart beat.

A less dramatic example is the cardiac pacemaker, implanted stimulator which cures patients with atrio-ventricular blockade by replacing the irregular discharge of the cardiac sinus node by electrical stimuli activating the heart contractions at regular intervals. The same applies to stimulation of various brain centers, which may elicit in animals pleasant feelings, motivating them to press a switch administering a short (0.1 s) electric stimulus (about 40 μA) to the hypothalamic pleasure centers (Olds and Milner, 1954).

High preference of this artificial activity against other motivated behaviors e.g. (feeding, drinking) shows that the nature of the stimulus does not interfere with its further processing and does not prevent the animal to use the cognitive functions required for access to the rewarding stimulation. Similar desirable effects of brain stimulation were recently demonstrated in Parkinson patients, whose tremor, rigidity, muscle weakness and difficult walking are clearly alleviated by self-administered series of pulses applied through implanted electrodes to their thalamic nuclei (Hashimoto et al., 2003)

Electrical stimulation requires application of higher voltages and currents produced by technical devices, but biological forms of effective stimulators were introduced by the evolutionary process millions years ago. Several classes of electric fish have developed so called electric organs, in which hundreds to thousands cells are connected in series to a column in which the 0.1 V emf of individual cells may lead to the discharge amplitude of 100 V to 700 V, and by parallel connection of such columns to currents of up to 10 A (Grundfest, 1960). While the strongly electric fish (the electric eel, Electrophorus electricus), use their discharge for stunning the prey or for predator defense, the weakly electric fish use it for electrolocation.

In Gnathonemus Petersii the electric organ discharges low rate of 10 V pulses from the tail. Current flows through the electroreceptors on the anterior surface of the body, innervated by the lateral line nerves, which monitor the density of current flow through the surrounding water in the rostrocaudal direction. Any asymmetry of this density shows that the conductivity of the water was influenced by presence of some objects with high or low resistance in the vicinity of the fish. Electro-sensitivity is also used by some non-electric fish like sharks, for
detection of electric current in the environment, e.g. for finding live prey buried under a layer of sand. Sharks can detect electrocardiogram of such fish, remove the covering sand and eat the prey. The development of electrolocation demonstrates, that evolution has tried a variety of available methods to improve the animal’s capacity to locate prey, or avoid obstacles in the environment in which the animal lives, but which cannot be detected with effective use of vision or touch. Limited contact with aquatic environment did not lead to development of an analog of the lateral line system in humans. But the most important lesson we get from electric fishes, is that they were not deterred by the mysterious force and used it ingeniously to their advantage. It is obvious that they do not obey the simplistic recommendations of environmentalists, prohibiting the use of high voltage and current which would make evolution a very safe but rather ineffective process.

In an interesting side study conducted by Eugene Lyskov, Kjell Hansson Mild and Monica Sandström (from the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle, Umeå, Sweden; the National Institute for Working Life, Umeå, Sweden and the Department of Natural Science, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, respectivly) we see that certain people have a varying baseline that affects results:

“We have during several years studied people with perceived electrical hypersensitivity (EHS), both in epidemiological studies and in neurophysiological examinations.
[...]

The problem to find a causal connection between the originate of symptoms and electromagnetic fields in provocation tests, have lead us in to new line of thought. How do people with EHS respond to other physical factors in our environment? What are their physiological and neurophysiologic baseline status?

Since amplitude modulated light emitted from the video display units (VDU) was considered as a possible cause of EHS symptoms, the aim of our first study (Sandström et al. 1997) was to make an objective physiological assessment of individual sensitivity to this factor. It is known that brain and retina reactions to flickers, can be recorded far above critical fusion frequency. Therefore, amplitude of electroretinogram (ERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) during photo stimulation at frequencies below and above CFF was chosen as markers of the sensitivity. Additionally, heart rate was recorded to control possible activation due to photo stimulation session. We tested 10 people with perceived EHS and an equal number of age and sex matched healthy controls.

The results showed significantly increased amplitude of the VEP at all tested frequencies in the patient group in comparison with a healthy control group, whereas no difference in ERG were revealed. Increased mean heart rate in rest (baseline) period was also found when comparing the patient group with the control group. These preliminary findings indicated an increased sensitivity to flickering light, and possible engagement of the autonomous nervous system in the patients. That motivated further investigations of the baseline  neurophysiological characteristics of the central and autonomous regulation, and their reactivity to different functional tests in EHS. Therefore in our second study (Lyskov et al. 2001a), the arsenal of physiological methods, and tests as well as the number of patients was extended.

Twenty patients with prevalence of skin (tingling, redness) and neurasthenic (fatigue, tiredness, headache) symptoms were recruited from the University hospital, age and sex matched with twenty control subjects without health complaints. They were examined in a one day laboratory session, that included recording of electroencephalogram, steadystate visual potentials in response to stroboscope stimulation at frequencies 30-70 Hz, ECG, blood pressure, and electrodermal activity. Subjective measure of sensitivity to flickering light – critical fusion frequency was recorded in response to manually controlled matrix of the red light emitting diodes. Vision acuity and contrast sensitivity were also assessed. After acclimatization in the experimental chamber physiological processes were recorded in baseline conditions and in response to several functional tests: deep breathing test, orthostatic test, audiostimulation. The total duration of the test battery was 25 minutes, with at least 5 minutes pauses between functional tests. Differences between EHS subjects and control were found in several experimental outcomes. The patients had a higher mean value of critical fusion frequency, modest but significantly increased amplitude of the fundamental harmonics of the steady-state VEP in occipital derivations in patients in comparison with control subjects. The overall difference, was detected with all autonomous variables used in the experiments. In rest conditions mean values of heart rate was higher and heart rate variability lower in EHS persons in comparison with control. Decreased 30:15 ratio in response to orthostatic test was detected on the level of statistical trend. Sympathetic skin response to audio clicks showed increased amplitude, decreased latency and relative asymmetry of responses in patients in comparison with control.

The results of this neurophysiological study showed that patients with a perceived electrical hypersensitivity, had a tendency towards increased sympathetic activity during baseline relaxation period, hyper responsiveness to sensor stimulation such as flickering light and audio stimulation, and their physiological profile showed imbalance of autonomic regulation with a trend towards hypersympathotone and increased arousal.”

This does indeed lead one to wonder how these predisposed individuals would react to random waves under less than desirable conditions (such as when alone or in the dark). It could indeed account for the paranormal experiences.  However, it is my opinion that it does not seem to address the validity of the experience, only the origin.

Reviewing images caught by our cameras while doing an investigation can be highly subjective; however, we try to look for the obvious reasons behind anything that seems out of the ordinary. We have posted several anomaly images in the past; these are the items we simply can not say are one thing or another- their cause, while possibly something we see daily without noticing, remains unknown.

So now its your turn to interpret the evidence. How good are YOUR eyes?

Can you tell us which one is a confirmed raindrop? What do you think the other two are?