Panagopoulos, Dimitris J.. “Comments on Pall’s “Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics”” Reviews on Environmental Health, vol. , no. , 2021, pp. 000010151520210090. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0090
Limited preview of this publication
To the Editor, Pall  speaks of a “mechanism” by which Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) exert forces on the channel sensors of voltage-gated ion channels on cell membranes causing “activation” of these channels, and claims this is his discovery! This is already published since 2000 in multiple publications by Panagopoulos et al., and it is widely known as “ion forced-oscillation mechanism ”or “ion forced-vibration mechanism” [2–7, and more]. It describes in detail how polarized and coherent (man-made) EMFs force mobile ions in cells to oscillate on parallel lines and in phase with the applied oscillating EMF, and how the oscillating ions inside the channels exert Coulomb forces on the fixed charges of the S4 channel sensors of voltage-gated ion channels causing their irregular gating (dysfunction rather than “activation”) [2–7].
Pall referred to these publications until 2015 to explain the calcium channel findings, and the “window” effects . He had also made a public comment stating among other details:
“The whole basis of the heating/thermal/SAR paradigm of action of these fields is entirely based on the claim that there is no biophysically viable mechanism for the action of these weak non-thermal or micro-thermal fields, and that claim was shown by Panagopoulos to be wrong and the empirical evidence shows that Panagopoulos is right. This is THE best example I have seen of a clearly strongly supported paradigm shift within the last 50 years.” His comment was included in  with his consent.
Thus, Pall not only knows our mechanism, but he praised it until 2017, not claiming that it is his contribution. Then, he stopped referring to it, and now talks about a “VGCC activation mechanism” if it is his own discovery! , This. of course, is untrue, and against any ethical and scientific principle.
He refers to Panagopoulos et al.  for the effect of polarization, but not for the mechanism which he presents as his own. He speaks of “coherence of polarity” (a non-existing term) instead of polarization, and of “electronically generated EMFs” instead of man-made EMFs to differentiate from Panagopoulos et al. , and “explains” how “coherent electronically generated EMFs” are more bioactive than natural EMFs as if this is another discovery of his own! All these “new discoveries” are already thoroughly described and shown by equations in refs. [3–4, 7] where it is explained that man-made EMFs are produced by electric/electronic circuits and for this they are totally polarized and coherent.
In his effort to present our mechanism as his own under the new title “VGCC activation mechanism” he now claims that the irregular gating of the voltage channels occurs not by forces exerted by the oscillating ions on the sensors, but by direct forces from the applied EMFs which are “amplified” by the membranes . A simple calculation shows this would require electric fields on the order of∼3×106V/m (=30 mV/10 nm), like when these channels are gated physiologically by changes of∼30 mV in the voltage across the membrane (∼10 nm width) [2–7]. But it has been shown experimentally by many studies, and theoretically in [2–7], that polarized (and coherent) electric fields down to ∼10−4V/m can induce biological effects. Moreover, incident fields cannot be “amplified” in living tissue as this is against basic laws of physics.