Re: Reverse EEG

Safety is always relative.  Each of our cells, neurons included, die a
natural death on their own, with a certain regularity or probability.
An increased frequency or probability of death is what we might call a
"cause" of death.

Current in neurons is different.  There are no electrons exchanged in
neuron currents.  The potential difference across neuron membranes is
thanks to the well-known sodium-potassium pump.  There are several
different ions that make up neuron currents, including calcium,
potassium, sodium, magnesium, and chlorine.  The currents result from
variable conductances of each of those ions across the potential
difference.

How does electron current work in an electrolyte solution, then?
Electron currents work by handing electrons between carriers (except
in conductors where the electrons travel freely in the conduction
band).  The negative charge carriers (Hydroxide ions, Chlorine ions)
migrate towards the cathode and the positive carriers ( Sodium,
Potassium, Hydrogen ions) migrate towards the anode.

At the anode, an electron gets transferred to a positive ion, giving
it a neutral charge. Neutrally charged H atoms can bond to form
hydrogen gas H2.  If a sodium ion accepts an electron, it travels a
short distance before donating its electron to a hydrogen ion, with
the same net effect: splitting off neutral hydrogen and leaving
hydroxide ions in solution.

At the cathode, electrons are donated from the negatively charged
ions.  Neutral oxygen is produced from hydroxide ions at the cathode.
The result is electrolysis.  This produces free radicals--reactive
compounds in the cell that can react with other more important
molecules in the cell to cause cell death (or malfunction).

Back to the first point:  safety is relative.  I smoke and I have a
dark sense of humor.  When someone asks me for a cigarette, I give it
to them and tell them: "You might have saved my life.  That could be
the cigarette that kills me."  I get suspicious looks.  No amount of
smoking is actually safe.  The probability of harm does depend on the
magnitude, but even small sources carry some risk.

So, I do believe that the outcome vs risk balance is what's important,
but I also don't think we need more people experimenting with
electrical current vis a vis brain function.  It's like conducting
studies on the therapeutic effects of tobacco.

Chuck

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Raymond Chan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> A high current kills cell. A low current does not. Here is my reasoning:
>
> (1) There are currents flowing naturally in the brain anyway. There are tiny
> electrical potentials maintained across cell membranes. Each cell produces a
> tiny current that flows in its immediate region but there are also currents
> produced throughout the brain due to a phenomenon known as volume
> conduction. In fact these are exactly the sources of current that produce
> the EEG signals.
>
> (2) According to the Occupational Safety and Health Academy (OSHA), current
> intensity of 1 mA gives the human body just a faint tingle.
> (http://www.oshatrain.org/courses/mods/715m2.html. Page 2.2).
>
> I would consider a CES device that uses a treatment current of less than 1
> mA at less than 20V dc safe.
>
> Raymond Chan
>
> P/S: It is mid-night my time here. I am calling it a day.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Charles Z Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have plenty of respect for the process--the engineering, the studies
>> of patient safety, and the actual positive outcomes for patients that
>> justify FDA approval.
>>
>> But in principle, I can't support it: current can kill cells.  There
>> have been some folks (and the military) who have supposedly been
>> building electrical stimulators for enhancing learning and training,
>> which I find awful.
>>
>> There is, however, the mitigating circumstances of a non-invasive,
>> non-pharmaceutical therapy.  Like any therapy, it works for some
>> people and I would want them to be able to use it (voluntarily).
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Boštjan Barbiš <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi group,
>> >
>> > FDA acceptance or not, there are hazards connected with prolonged use of
>> > CES. Many take FDA approval as a way to go for many things, but forget
>> > about
>> > how complicated form of creations we are and try simplistically mess
>> > with
>> > everything.
>> >
>> > The fact CES is effective can be viewed as the way of statin drug being
>> > effective. I am asking at what expenses? Imo the safest rote to improve
>> > brain work is through gentle chelation and nutrition regimen, combined
>> > with
>> > mental training such as EEG biofeedback. Dealing with emotional traumas
>> > that
>> > stored some damage is imo a way to best and fastest results, meanwhile
>> > TES
>> > can be used for a fix some situations, but not cure...
>> >
>> > Hope this helps.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2014-07-23 14:17 GMT+02:00 Raymond Chan <[email protected]>:
>> >
>> >> Hi Chuck,
>> >>
>> >> I agree with you 100% that we cannot hope to simply take the kind of
>> >> reverse route that Nicolas Prat described to re-activate an EEG pattern
>> >> by
>> >> applying voltages externally. And I agree with you 100% on the
>> >> reasoning why
>> >> this reverse route is not possible.
>> >>
>> >> However, I do not agree with you that we should never apply a current
>> >> to
>> >> the head. Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulators (CES) have existed in the
>> >> market for decades. The US FDA has been evaluating this modality for
>> >> three
>> >> decades and finally agreed to classify these devices as Class II on
>> >> June 12
>> >> this year because,
>> >>
>> >> quote,
>> >>
>> >> …(FDA) has determined that there is sufficient information to establish
>> >> special controls, and that these special controls, together with
>> >> general
>> >> controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and
>> >> effectiveness
>> >> for CES devices…
>> >>
>> >> unquote.
>> >>
>> >> Refer to FDA Federal Register #33712.
>> >>
>> >> Raymond Chan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Charles Z Henry <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> See... this is dangerous.  You might spend time developing your idea,
>> >>> but it's almost certainly not worth your time.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do not apply currents to your head.  Period.  Currents in the brain
>> >>> are the flow of ions across membranes.  They are not the same as
>> >>> currents in conductors.
>> >>>
>> >>> You could not hope to re-activate a pattern by applying voltages
>> >>> externally.  The pattern of activation is essentially lost in
>> >>> transmission.  EEG voltages are the sum of small dipoles that develop
>> >>> across dendrites from billions of neurons.  You're going from a
>> >>> very-high dimensional space to a low-dimensional space.  You can't
>> >>> re-create the details of the high-dimensional space from a
>> >>> low-dimensional space. Brainwave entrainment is possible--and there
>> >>> are some safe methods.  However, you will get nowhere close to
>> >>> inducing a repeatable, recognizable pattern.  Stimulating an area of
>> >>> the brain does not re-create its activity.  The temporal and spatial
>> >>> resolution of patterns of activation is much finer than what you can
>> >>> re-create from outside of the skull.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you're really into this idea, you should study a lot of cognitive
>> >>> neuroscience papers to learn the roles of regions of the brain in
>> >>> cognition.  You can't re-create a pattern of activation externally,
>> >>> but it is possible to influence the functioning of some regions of the
>> >>> brain (stimulate or inhibit).  This is an experimental science and by
>> >>> no means completely understood.
>> >>>
>> >>> Chuck
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Nicolas Prat, PhD
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> > In fact, this is not magnetic but purely electrical. Voltage gets
>> >>> > conducted to the surface of the skull, registered by electrodes. The
>> >>> > reverse route applies voltage to the skull, which gets conducted to
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > neurons and (this is the unknown part!) triggers a pattern that
>> >>> > might
>> >>> > be
>> >>> > recognized and (re)activated.
>> >>> > Seems like active electrodes are necessary for the recording phase
>> >>> > and
>> >>> > passive for the playback part. 100mv at the skull both ways.
>>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
_______________________________________________
Openeeg-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openeeg-list
Go to the above address to change your
subscription options, e.g unsubscribe.