6,486 Studies Reviewed. 85.2% of Original Studies Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.

BIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF NATURAL AND WEAK ARTIFICIAL MAGNETIC FIELDS (On the State of the Art)

Proceedings

Yu. A. Kholodov, Yu. I. Novitsky · 1971

Share:

A 1971 Soviet review argued that weak magnetic field research must include reduced-field studies and warned that mechanistic claims were unsupported.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

They identified several problem areas for the geomagnetic field's biological significance, including orientation, magnetic anomalies, ontogenesis, hypomagnetic syndrome, and sensitivity mechanisms. The authors concluded that no mechanism for weak-field perception had been demonstrated, including hypothesized membrane mechanisms or intracellular magnetic fields.

Why This Matters

The review traced the term 'weak magnetic fields' to early reports of geomagnetic bioeffects and a threshold near 10^9 oersteds cited from Pereira, Gualtirotti, and Kholodov. They emphasized that experimental requirements increase immeasurably when studying weak fields, and that procedural inequivalence between augmented and reduced field methods undermines early conclusions.

Finding

Thus, with respect to all items, the question of the mechanism of the perception of weak magnetic fields by animate objects remains an open problem. It is only possible to hope that the further conscientious and unbiased accumulation of new facts and critical evaluation of them will help shed light on the true mechanisms of this sensitivity.

In their words

“Thus, with respect to all items, the question of the mechanism of the perception of weak magnetic fields by animate objects remains an open problem. It is only possible to hope that the further conscientious and unbiased accumulation of new facts and critical evaluation of them will help shed light on the true mechanisms of this sensitivity.”
Cite This Study
Yu. A. Kholodov, Yu. I. Novitsky (1971). BIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF NATURAL AND WEAK ARTIFICIAL MAGNETIC FIELDS (On the State of the Art).
Show BibTeX
@article{biological_effect_of_natural_and_weak_artificial_magnetic_fields_on_the_state_of_g7096,
  author = {Yu. A. Kholodov and Yu. I. Novitsky},
  title = {BIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF NATURAL AND WEAK ARTIFICIAL MAGNETIC FIELDS (On the State of the Art)},
  year = {1971},
  
  
}
No DOI on file for this study.

Quick Questions About This Study

They listed orientation during movement and migration, terrestrial magnetic anomalies, ontogenetic problems, hygienic aspects including hypomagnetic syndrome, and the mechanism of sensitivity to the field.
They warned that procedural requirements increase immeasurably for weak-field experiments and that the lack of equivalent methods for creating augmented versus reduced fields leads to unjustified conclusions.
No, the authors stated that neither intracellular magnetic fields nor membrane mechanisms had been demonstrated, and the perception mechanism remained an open problem.
They cited Brown's 1967 work on geomagnetic bioeffects and threshold studies by Pereira, Gualtirotti, and Kholodov around 1963-1966 involving constant fields of about 10^9 oersteds.