What The Sceptics Say
This is intended as a sceptical look at the skeptics claims about magnotherapy and magnetic fuel and water conditioning. Email me if you find other sceptical articles that could benefit from comments john@sound-ideas.info
My comments are in red
Magnetic Water and Fuel Treatment: Myth, Magic, or Mainstream
Science?
Quackwatch – Magnet Therapy I.
Magnetic Therapy: Plausible Attraction? – J D Livingstone, Skeptical
inquirer
Magnet
Therapy A Billion-dollar Boondoggle by Bruce L. Flamm
Biomagnetic Pseudoscience and Nonsense Claims
Magnetic and Electromagnetic Therapy By David W.
Ramey, DVM
America's Strange Attraction - Magnet Therapy for Pain By
Robert L. Park
Magnetic Therapy- Healing with Magnets.
Skeptic's Dictionary: Inset fuel Stabilizer
Motoring Fuel-Saving Devices - Which September 1994
The Sceptics Dictionary - magnet therapy
Magnetic cure for arthritis is all in the mind - Daily Mail 14/11/2002
Magnetic water treatment and other scams.
Symptoms Of Pathological
Skepticism
The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
Magnetic Water and Fuel
Treatment: Myth, Magic, or Mainstream Science?
http://www.csicop.org/si/9801/powell.html
Skeptical Inquirer: January/February 1998
Magnetic treatment has been claimed to soften water and improve the combustibility of fuels. A literature review reveals that these claims are not well supported by data.
Mike R. Powell January/February 1998
I like this article, it is a good balanced look at the field
Magnets are not just for refrigerators any more. In fact, according to some magnet vendors, magnets can be used to improve blood circulation, cure and prevent diseases, increase automobile mileage, improve plant growth, soften water, prevent tooth decay, and even increase the strength of concrete. Some of these claims are backed by experimental evidence. Many are not. This article focuses specifically on the claimed benefits of magnetically treated fuel and water.
Most magnetic water and fuel treatment systems appear to be marketed through independent distributors who sell out of their homes. An Internet search using the keywords magnetic treatment reveals dozens of independent distributor home pages. Very few such devices are offered by national chain stores or advertised in mail-order catalogs. Possibly, the magnetic-device manufacturers sell through independent distributors to insulate themselves from some of the more exotic claimed benefits of magnetic treatment, or perhaps consumer and wholesaler skepticism has kept magnetic treatment out of mainstream retail. Regardless of the reasons, magnetic water and fuel treatment devices are not usually available at the local hardware or automobile parts supply store. This lack of wide availability has given magnetic water and fuel treatment a sort of fringe-science status in the minds of many consumers. Whether this label is deserved is the subject of this article.
Just a comment here. The inventors of the devices I distribute, by network marketing, were faced with a problem when they started. They were worried that if they went for conventional funding they could lose control of their invention and their company and that accountants could take over the business. So they went the network marketing approach and started the business with 15,000 UKP. They remained in complete control of the company as it grew and it now has a 10,000,000 UKP annual turnover. They had never been in debt to anyone and had complete control of the company and all their inventions/discoveries. I don't believe they would have been able to say that if they had used any other marketing system.
Claimed Benefits and Effects
The claimed benefits of magnetic water treatment vary depending on the manufacturer. Some claim only that magnetic treatment will prevent and eliminate limescale in pipe and heating elements; others make additional, more extravagant claims. Some of the additional claims include water softening, improved plant growth, and the prevention of some diseases in people who consume magnetically treated water. Magnetic water treatment devices consist of one or more magnets, which are clamped onto or installed inside the incoming residential water supply line. Typical costs for a residential installation range from about $100 to $600 or more.
Ours are 65 UKP and are several magnets in one module
Magnetic fuel treatment devices are constructed similarly. One or more magnets are clamped around or installed inside an automobile's engine fuel line between the gas tank and the carburetor (or fuel injectors). Claims for these devices include decreased hazardous gas emissions, more complete combustion, improved engine power, longer-lasting engine components, and a 10 percent to 20 percent increase in gas mileage. Prices for automotive fuel treatment magnets range from about $50 to $300.
Ours are 55 UKP and again a double array of magnets
The distributors of these devices rarely can cite any documented test results that validate these claims.
They are not selling to scientists, just to ordinary people
Instead, they rely on numerous testimonials, lists of corporations and municipalities that purportedly use the devices, and scientific-sounding explanations of magnetic water and fuel treatment. However, just because distributors do not cite the literature does not mean that no relevant literature exists. Published test reports and journal articles that investigate magnetic treatment are available. This article reviews the available experimental evidence for magnetic water and fuel treatment.
Magnets and Magnetism
To many people, magnets are a complete mystery. Vendors of magnet-based scams often use this ignorance to their own advantage, so a familiarity with the basics of magnetism can aid in the detection of dubious claims.
Even to scientists, magnetism is still not completely understood. An understanding of the basics will not help with the effects on water and fuel which are still not understood.
Magnetic fields are produced by the motion of charged particles. For example, electrons flowing in a wire will produce a magnetic field surrounding the wire. The magnetic fields generated by moving electrons are used in many household appliances, automobiles, and industrial machines. One basic example is the electromagnet, which is constructed from many coils of wire wrapped around a central iron core. The magnetic field is present only when electrical current is passed through the wire coils.
Permanent magnets do not use an applied electrical current. Instead, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet results from the mutual alignment of the very small magnetic fields produced by each of the atoms in the magnet. These atomic-level magnetic fields result mostly from the spin and orbital movements of electrons. While many substances undergo alignment of the atomic-level fields in response to an applied magnetic field, only ferromagnetic materials retain the atomic-level alignment when the applied field is removed. Thus, all permanent magnets are composed of ferromagnetic materials. The most commonly used ferromagnetic elements are iron, cobalt, and nickel.
Ours are strontium and neodymium
The strength of a magnet is given by its magnetic flux density, which is measured in units of gauss. The earth's magnetic field is on the order of 0.5 gauss (Marshall and Skitek 1987). Typical household refrigerator magnets have field strengths of about 1,000 gauss. According to the distributors, the magnets sold for water and fuel treatment have magnetic flux densities in the 2,000 to 4,000 gauss range, which is not unusually strong. Permanent magnets with flux densities in the 8,000 gauss range are readily available. The magnets sold for magnetic fuel and water treatment are nothing special; they are just ordinary magnets.
Ours are not ordinary magnets. We think that the important design point is the steep field gradients that our devices have. This is done using tightly packed alternating poles in a double array to maximise the field gradients in the pipe.
In any case, manufacturer’s gauss figures are suspect, some are given at the surface of the magnet and not at the point of application of the field.
Water Hardness
The phrase hard water originated when it was observed that water from some sources requires more laundry soap to produce suds than water from other sources. Waters that required more soap were considered "harder" to use for laundering.
Water "hardness" is a measure of dissolved mineral content. As water seeps through soil and aquifers, it often contacts minerals such as limestone and dolomite. Under the right conditions, small amounts of these minerals will dissolve in the ground water and the water will become "hard." Water hardness is quantified by the concentration of dissolved hardness minerals. The most common hardness minerals are carbonates and sulfates of magnesium and calcium. Water with a total hardness mineral concentration of less than about 17 parts per million (ppm) is categorized as "soft" by the Water Quality Association (Harrison 1993). "Moderately hard" water has a concentration of 60 to 120 ppm. "Very hard" water exceeds 180 ppm.
Hard water is often undesirable because the dissolved minerals can form scale. Scale is simply the solid phase of the dissolved minerals. Some hardness minerals become less soluble in water as temperature is increased. These minerals tend to form deposits on the surfaces of water heating elements, bathtubs, and inside hot water pipes. Scale deposits can shorten the useful life of appliances such as dishwashers. Hard water also increases soap consumption and the amount of "soap scum" formed on dishes.
They also act as an insulator round the heating elements and make the heater less efficient and more likely to burnout.
Many homeowners and businesses use water softeners to avoid the problems that result from hard water. Most water softeners remove problematic dissolved magnesium and calcium by passing water through a bed of "ion-exchange" beads. The beads are initially contacted with a concentrated salt (sodium chloride) solution to saturate the bead exchange sites with sodium ions. These ion-exchange sites have a greater affinity for calcium and magnesium, so when hard water is passed through the beads the calcium and magnesium ions are captured and sodium is released. The end result is that the calcium and magnesium ions in the hard water are replaced by sodium ions. Sodium salts do not readily form scale or soap scum, so the problems associated with hard water are avoided.
A 1960 survey of municipal water supplies in one hundred
One of the principal drawbacks of ion-exchange water softeners is the need to periodically recharge the ion exchange beads with sodium ions. Rock salt is added to a reservoir in the softener for this purpose.
And flushed out into the environment.
Magnetic Water Treatment
A wide variety of magnetic water treatment devices are available, but most consist of one or more permanent magnets affixed either inside or to the exterior surface of the incoming water pipe. The water is exposed to the magnetic field as it flows through the pipe between the magnets. An alternative approach is to use electrical current flowing through coils of wire wrapped around the water pipe to generate the magnetic field.
Purveyors of magnetic water treatment devices claim that exposing water to a magnetic field will decrease the water's "effective" hardness. Typical claims include the elimination of scale deposits, lower water-heating bills, extended life of water heaters and household appliances, and more efficient use of soaps and detergents. Thus, it is claimed, magnetic water treatment gives all the benefits of water softened by ion-exchange without the expense and hassle of rock-salt additions.
Note that only the "effective" or "subjective" hardness is claimed to be reduced through magnetic treatment. No magnesium or calcium is removed from the water by magnetic treatment. Instead, the claim is that the magnetic field decreases the tendency of the dissolved minerals to form scale. Even though the dissolved mineral concentration indicates the water is still hard, magnetically treated water supposedly behaves like soft water.
According to some vendors, magnetically softened water is healthier than water softened by ion exchange. Ion-exchange softeners increase the water's sodium concentration, and this, they claim, is unhealthy for people with high blood pressure. While it is true that ion-exchange softening increases the sodium concentration, the amount of sodium typically found even in softened water is too low to be of significance for the majority of people with high blood pressure. Only those who are on a severely sodium-restricted diet should be concerned about the amount of sodium in water, regardless of whether it is softened (Yarows et al. 1997). Such individuals are often advised to consume demineralized water along with low-salt foods.
In the
There is apparently no consensus among magnet vendors regarding the mechanisms by which magnetic water treatment occurs. A variety of explanations are offered, most of which involve plenty of jargon but little substance. Few vendors, if any, offer reasonable technical explanations of how magnetic water treatment is supposed to work.
If the scientists can't agree, neither will the vendors!
The important question here, though, is whether magnetic water treatment works. In an effort to find the answer, I conducted a search for relevant scientific and engineering journal articles. I describe the results of this search below.
More than one hundred relevant articles and reports are available in the open literature, so clearly magnetic water treatment has received some attention from the scientific community (e.g., see reference list in Duffy 1977). The reported effects of magnetic water treatment, however, are varied and often contradictory. In many cases, researchers report finding no significant magnetic treatment effect. In other cases, however, reasonable evidence for an effect is provided.
Liburkin et al. (1986) found that magnetic treatment affected the structure of gypsum (calcium sulfate). Gypsum particles formed in magnetically treated water were found to be larger and "more regularly oriented" than those formed in ordinary water. Similarly, Kronenberg (1985) reported that magnetic treatment changed the mode of calcium carbonate precipitation such that circular disc-shaped particles are formed rather than the dendritic (branching or tree-like) particles observed in nontreated water.
Kronenberg was the first as far as I know to mention the alternating magnetic poles that he considered necessary to produce this effect.
Others (e.g., Chechel and Annenkova 1972; Martynova et al. 1967) also have found that magnetic treatment affects the structure of subsequently precipitated solids. Because scale formation involves precipitation and crystallization, these studies imply that magnetic water treatment is likely to have an effect on the formation of scale.
Some researchers hypothesize that magnetic treatment affects the nature of hydrogen bonds between water molecules. They report changes in water properties such as light absorbance, surface tension, and pH (e.g., Joshi and Kamat 1966; Bruns et al. 1966; Klassen 1981). However, these effects have not always been found by later investigators (Mirumyants et al. 1972). Further, the characteristic relaxation time of hydrogen bonds between water molecules is estimated to be much too fast and the applied magnetic field strengths much too small for any such lasting effects, so it is unlikely that magnetic water treatment affects water molecules (Lipus et al. 1994).
Kronenberg’s explanation was that the structures ‘relaxed’ under the influence of the fields and enabled ‘CaCO3 nucleation centres’ to escape. When the bonds reformed, the nucleation centres were no longer held in the structures. I find this a bit dodgy, but I don’t know enough about the subject to criticise Dr Kronenberg.
Duffy (1977) provides experimental evidence that scale suppression in magnetic water treatment devices is due not to magnetic effects on the fluid, but to the dissolution of small amounts of iron from the magnet or surrounding pipe into the fluid. Iron ions can suppress the rate of scale formation and encourage the growth of a softer scale deposit.
Our magnets are on the outside of the pipe and iron pipes are uncommon over here. Duffy's study does not apply.
Busch et al. (1986) measured the voltages produced by fluids flowing through a commercial magnetic treatment device. Their data support the hypothesis that a chemical reaction driven by the induced electrical currents may be responsible for generating the iron ions shown by Duffy to affect scale formation.
Among those who report some type of direct magnetic-water-treatment effect, a consensus seems to be emerging that the effect results from the interaction of the applied magnetic field with surface charges of suspended particles (Donaldson 1988; Lipus et al. 1994). Krylov et al. (1985) found that the electrical charges on calcium carbonate particles are significantly affected by the application of a magnetic field. Further, the magnitude of the change in particle charge increased as the strength of the applied magnetic field increased.
Gehr et al. (1995) found that magnetic treatment affects the quantity of suspended and dissolved calcium sulfate. A very strong magnetic field (47,500 gauss) generated by a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer was used to test identical calcium sulfate suspensions with very high hardness (1,700 ppm on a CaCO3 basis). Two minutes of magnetic treatment decreased the dissolved calcium concentration by about 10 percent. The magnetic field also decreased the average particle charge by about 23 percent. These results, along with those of many others (e.g., Parsons et al. 1997; Higashitani and Oshitani 1997), imply that application of a magnetic field can affect the dissolution and crystallization of at least some compounds.
In other words, the laws of physics are not broken for water conditioning, all we are discussing is the magnitude of the effect.
Whether or not some magnetic water treatment effect actually exists, the further question, and the most important for consumers, is whether the magnetic water treatment devices perform as advertised.
Numerous anecdotal accounts of the successes and failures of magnetic water treatment devices can be found in the literature (Lin and Yotvat 1989; Raisen 1984; Wilkes and Baum 1979; Welder and Partridge 1954). However, because of the varied conditions under which these field trials are conducted it is unclear whether the positive reports are due solely to magnetic treatment or to other conditions that were not controlled during the trial.
Some commercial devices have been subjected to tests under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the results are mixed. Duffy (1977) tested a commercial device with an internal magnet and found that it had no significant effect on the precipitation of calcium carbonate scale in a heat exchanger. According to Lipus et al. (1994), however, the scale prevention capability of their ELMAG device is proven, although they do not supply much supporting test data.
Busch et al. (1997) measured the scale formed by the distillation of hard water with and without magnetic treatment. Using laboratory-prepared hard water, a 22 percent reduction in scale formation was observed when the magnetic treatment device was used instead of a straight pipe section. However, a 17 percent reduction in scaling was found when an unmagnetized, but otherwise identical, device was installed. Busch et al. (1997) speculate that fluid turbulence inside the device may be the cause of the 17 percent reduction, with the magnetic field effect responsible for the additional 5 percent. River water was subjected to similar tests, but no difference in scale formation was found with and without the magnetic treatment device installed. An explanation for this negative result was not found.
If we can't explain a positive result, we won't be able to explain a negative result either.
Another study of a commercial magnetic water treatment device was conducted by Hasson and Bramson (1985). Under the technical supervision of the device supplier, they tested the device to determine its ability to prevent the accumulation of calcium carbonate scale in a pipe. Very hard water (300 to 340 ppm) was pumped through a cast-iron pipe, and the rate of scale accumulation inside the pipe was determined by periodically inspecting the pipe's interior. Magnetic exposure was found to have no effect on either the rate of scale accumulation or on the adhesive nature of the scale deposits.
Magnetic treatment through a cast iron pipe? It does work, but you need to magnetically saturate the ironwork before you get an effect. Our figures show this can take some time. (It’s OK, our money back guarantee is for 12 months <g>)
Consumer Reports magazine (
Much of the available laboratory test data imply that magnetic water treatment devices are largely ineffective, yet reports of positive results in industrial settings persist (e.g., Spear 1992; Donaldson 1988). The contradictory reports imply that if a magnetic water treatment effect for scale prevention exists, then it only is effective under some of the conditions encountered in industry. At present, there does not seem to be a defensible guideline for determining when the desired effect can be expected and when it cannot.
This is particularly the case when we don’t know the mechanism. The inventor of our product was given a magnetic fuel conditioner and the WWII spiel and decided to test it. It didn’t work. He stripped it down, decided that it was badly designed and redesigned the device. Several prototypes later he had a device that worked. The business was formed on that fuel conditioner which is virtually unchanged today. Spin-offs for us were water treatment and magnotherapy.
One of the claims made for residential magnetic treatment devices is that less soap and detergent will be required for washing. Compared to the claim to suppress scale formation, this claim has received little direct attention in the literature. To decrease soap and detergent consumption, the concentration of dissolved hardness minerals must be decreased. The tests by Gehr et al. (1995), described earlier, demonstrated a decrease in dissolved mineral concentration of about 10 percent. If this fractional decrease in dissolved mineral concentration is representative of that obtained by magnetic treatment, then it is unlikely that soap and detergent use will be significantly reduced. For example, given a water supply with 100 ppm dissolved hardness, magnetic treatment would only be expected to reduce the hardness to 90 ppm, assuming the results of Gehr et al. can be applied at this hardness concentration.
Where have these dissolved minerals gone? Now I am confused. I could understand this if more of the minerals were deposited on pipework as scale. I think another mechanism is at work here. I can see the possibility of the Kronenberg's larger disc-shaped crystals produced by magnetic fields having less surface area than normal dentritic tree clusters and thus having less effect on soap etc.
Is there a beneficial effect of magnetic water treatment? Perhaps.
Halleluia - umm sorry about that <g>
Is there sufficient evidence of a beneficial effect to warrant spending hundreds of dollars on a residential magnetic water treatment unit? Unlikely. The understanding of magnetic water treatment must first be developed to the point where the effects of magnetic treatment can be reliably predicted and shown to be economically attractive.
Yes, quite happy with that. Our device is only 64 UKP, about $110. We sell by network marketing and the customers can see any benefits straight away in their kettles. If their particular situation is one of the ones with no effect, then they get their money back. We rely on happy customers for one product trying the others in the range.
Does magnetic water treatment perform as well as ion-exchange treatment? Definitely not. At present, the conventional water softening technologies are clearly much more reliable and effective. Further, the initial cost of an ion-exchange water softener (around $500) is comparable to that of many magnetic treatment systems.
Yes, but our devices are guaranteed to keep working for 99 years and have no ongoing costs, no salt to buy, no discharge to the environment. And cheaper than British ion exchangers which are not fitted on the drinking water supply. Given a money back guarantee, a hard water area and a kettle that needs frequent descaling, what would you try ??
Magnetic Fuel Treatment
Magnetic fuel treatment devices installed in automobiles are similar in design to magnetic water treatment devices. Hydrocarbon fuel is pumped through a canister containing one or more magnets or a magnetic device is clamped to the external surface of the fuel line. Magnetic treatment of fuel, it is claimed, results in increased horsepower, increased mileage, reduced hazardous gas emissions, and longer engine life.
Typically, vendors claim that either mileage or horsepower will be improved by about 10 to 20 percent. They also claim that if no improvement in mileage is noted, then the improvement must have come in the form of more horsepower. This, of course, makes it difficult for consumers to determine whether their magnetic fuel treatment devices really are working.
A literature search for magnetic fuel treatment studies revealed that such studies are practically nonexistent. I found a total of three references. Two of these (Daly 1995; McNeely 1994) were anecdotal accounts describing the use of a magnetic treatment device to kill microorganisms in diesel fuel, a fuel treatment application not usually mentioned by magnetic fuel treatment vendors.
Yes, diesel fuel bug. We have anecdotal evidence of this, also a similar effect in beer engines. Magnetic water conditioning devices have been used to cut down on micro-organisms in the beer lines. See Bacteria. We don’t push this area as we understand it even less than the others. <g>
The third reference (Tretyakov et al. 1985) describes tests conducted in which the electrical resistance and dielectric properties of a hydrocarbon fuel were found to change in response to an applied magnetic field. This report does not address whether the observed physical property changes might affect fuel performance in an engine, but it references two research reports that may contain performance data (Skripka et al. 1975; Tretyakov et al. 1975). Unfortunately, I could obtain neither report, and both are written in Russian.
My
literature search search found no other credible research reports pertaining to
magnetic fuel treatment. But we have a manufacturer-funded study done by the
DTI's
“When the British Government's environmental laboratory was approached to test the fuel conditioner in 1992 the laboratory initially suggested it would be a waste of time and money, the product could not work, and there was insufficient scientific research to support it. However, after seeing countless (sorry, he sometimes gets carried away) testimonials from satisfied customers the laboratory agreed to design a test that would "have an acceptable degree of accuracy and repeatability" on condition that the Department of Environment retained full rights to the results. The test was actually carried out over 12,000 road miles on a petrol engine car as well as test bed running and a diesel engine truck was tested for emissions over 10,000 miles. The results of the test fully supported the manufacturers claims for the product and despite the Department of Environment making restrictions on the reporting of the results to support the marketing of the product they did eventually agree that the following wording could be used:“
"The DTI's Environmental Technology Executive Agency Laboratory's tests on the fuel conditioner fitted to a Vauxhall Cavalier showed fuel consumption improved, power increased and emissions reduced. A Volvo F10 truck tested for particulate smoke emissions showed a decrease of 15%. "
The utter lack of published test data is revealing. According to the vendors, magnetic fuel treatment has been around for at least fifty years.
Well, yes, it is said to have come from WWII when electromagnets were used on fighter planes to stop scarf getting into the engines. They were producing the planes as fast as possible and this was a problem. The pilots are said to have noticed a difference in performance when the electromagnets were switched on and performance was literally vital to them. However permanent magnets were not strong enough to be effective until the modern magnets were produced. Strictly speaking units that work have only been around for the last 10 years.
If it actually worked as claimed, it seems likely that it would by now be commonplace. It is not.
Vendors of magnetic fuel treatment sometimes respond to this reasoning with hints that the automobile manufacturers and big oil companies are conspiring to suppress magnetic fuel treatment to maintain demand for gasoline. Such a conspiracy seems quite improbable. This supposed conspiracy has not managed to suppress other fuel-saving innovations such as fuel injection and computerized control.
No, I agree, there is no conspiracy. The main problem is that there have been a lot of devices that didn’t work so most people reject the claims and see no point in checking another, even if it did work. Ours sells by network marketing and we give a money back guarantee, but few customers believe it until they try it.
In summary, I found no test data that support the claims for improved engine performance made by vendors of magnetic fuel treatment devices. Until such data become available, considerable skepticism is justified. At present, it seems quite unlikely that any of the claimed benefits of magnetic fuel treatment are real.
The company that funded the DTI trial sees no point in funding more tests, the device sells well, they are quite happy about the way their business is going and manufacturer's trials tend to be ignored as potentially biased. If the customer is satisfied it works, fine, otherwise he gets his money back.
References
1 Bruns, S. A., V. I. Klassen, and A. K. Konshina. 1966. Change in the extinction of light by water after treatment in a magnetic field. Kolloidn. Zh. 28: 153-155.
2 Busch, K. W., M. A. Busch, D. H. Parker, R. E. Darling, and J. L. McAtee, Jr. 1986. Studies of a water treatment device that uses magnetic fields. Corrosion 42 (4): 211-221.
3 Busch, K. W., M. A. Busch, R. E. Darling, S. Maggard, and S. W. Kubala. 1997. Design of a test loop for the evaluation of magnetic water treatment devices. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 105-114.
4 Chechel, P. S., and G. V. Annenkova. 1972.
Influence of magnetic treatment on solubility of calcium sulphate. Coke Chem.
5 Daly, J. 1995. Miracle cure. Motor Boating and Sailing. October, p. 36.
6
7 Donaldson, J. D. 1988. Magnetic treatment of fluids -- preventing scale." Finishing. 12: 22-32.
8 Duffy, E. A. 1977. Investigation of Magnetic Water Treatment Devices. Ph.D. dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.
9 Gehr, R., Z. A. Zhai, J. A. Finch, and S. R. Rao. 1995. Reduction of soluble mineral concentrations in CaSO4 saturated water using a magnetic field. Wat. Res. 29 (3): 933-940.
10 Harrison, J. 1993. WQA Glossary of Terms. Water Quality Association. Lisle,
11 Hasson, D., and D. Bramson. 1985. Effectiveness
of magnetic water treatment in suppressing CaCO3 scale deposition. Ind.
12 Higashitani, K., and J. Oshitani. 1997. Measurements of magnetic effects on electrolyte solutions by atomic force microscope. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 115-119.
13 Joshi, K. M., and P. V. Kamat. 1966. Effect of magnetic field on the physical properties of water. J. Ind. Chem. Soc. 43: 620-622.
14 Klassen, V.
15 Kronenberg, K. J. 1985. Experimental evidence for effects of magnetic fields on moving water. IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. Mag-21, no. 5: 2059-2061.
16 Krylov, O. T.,
17 Liburkin, V. G., B. S. Kondratev, and T. S. Pavlyukova. 1986. Action of magnetic treatment of water on the structure formation of gypsum. Glass and Ceramics (English translation of Steklo I Keramika) 1: 101-105.
18 Lin,
19 Lipus, L., J. Krope, and L. Garbai. 1994. Magnetic water treatment for scale prevention. Hungarian J. Ind. Chem. 22: 239-242.
20 Marshall, S. V,. and G.
G. Skitek 1987. Electromagnetic Concepts and Applications.
2nd ed.
21 Martynova, O. I., E. F. Tebenekhin, and B. T. Gusev.
1967. Conditions and mechanism of deposition of the solid calcium carbonate
phase from aqeuous [sic] solutions under the influence of a magnetic field.
Colloid J.
22 McNeely, M. 1994. Magnetic fuel treatment system designed to attack fuel-borne microbes. Diesel Progress Engines and Drives. November, p. 16.
23 Mirumyants, S. O., E. A. Vandyukov, and R. S. Tukhvatullin. 1972. The effect of a constant magnetic field on the infrared absorption spectrum of liquid water. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 46: 124.
24 Parsons, S. A., S. J. Judd, T. Stephenson, S. Udol, and B.-L. Wang. 1997. Magnetically augmented water treatment. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 98-104.
25 Raisen, E. 1984. The control of scale and corrosion in water systems using magnetic fields. Corrosion 84. Conference proceedings, Nat. Assoc. of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, paper no. 117.
26 Singley, J. E. 1984. Municipal
water treatment. In Kirk-Othmer Encyl. of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed. Edited by Martin Grayson.
27 Skripka, N. I., A. A. Litvinov, and
28 Spear, M. 1992. The growing attraction of magnetic treatment. Process Engineering. May, p. 143.
29 Tretyakov,
30 Tretyakov,
31 Welder, B. Q., and E. P. Partridge. 1954.
Practical performance of water-conditioning gadgets.
32 Wilkes, J. F., and R. Baum. 1979. Water conditioning devices -- an update. Int. Water Conf.: 40th Annual Meeting, paper no. IWC-79-20.
33 Yarows, S. A., W. E. Fusilier, and A. B. Weder. 1997. Sodium concentration of water from softeners. Arch. Intern. Med. 157: 218-222.
About the Author
Mike R. Powell, P.E., is a chemical engineer for a
research and development laboratory in Richland,
http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/QA/magnet.html
Stephen Barrett, M.D. from Quackwatch
A reasonable article, but Stephen Barrett doesn't seem to be aware of the other magnotherapy studies.
Question
Salespeople in my town are selling magnetic devices for various problems -- impotence; low back pain; insomnia, etc. Any thoughts on how to evaluate their claims? I assume the method is quackery but that many of the salespeople are sincere.
Answer
I too am skeptical. The way to evaluate such claims is to ask whether scientific studies have been published. Pulsed electromagnetic fields -- which induce measurable electric fields -- have been demonstrated effective for treating slow-healing fractures and have shown promise for a few other conditions. However, few studies have been published on the effect on pain of small, static magnets marketed to consumers [1].
Quite correct, most of the studies are done on equipment only available for hospitals, or industrial magnets. Magnet manufacturers cannot afford to fund studies, the money is not refundable. You can’t copyright a magnet as you can a pill.
Explanations that magnetic fields "increase circulation," "reduce inflammation," or "speed recovery from injuries" are simplistic and are not supported by the weight of experimental evidence [2].
I have found over 700 studies on various aspects of magnotherapy, you will find references to some of them on this site. There are more studies on medline using static magnets for fractures than using pulsed fields for fractures.
Researchers at the
In this study, the magnetic insoles were home-made, not commercial insoles. The Weintraub studies used commercial insoles and showed results significantly better than placebo
Researchers at
The Weintraub study had similar results. Both have gone on to further studies.
In 1998, Magnetherapy, Inc., of
Although there are studies that show magnotherapy has these effects, there are few studies on specific products.
In 1999, the FTC obtained a consent agreement barring two companies from making making unsubstantiated claims about their magnetic products. Magnetic Therapeutic Technologies, of Irving, Texas, is barred from claiming that its magnetic sleep pads or other products: (a) are effective against cancers, diabetic ulcers, arthritis, degenerative joint conditions, or high blood pressure; (b) could stabilize or increase the T-cell count of HIV patients; (c) could reduce muscle spasms in persons with multiple sclerosis; (d) could reduce nerve spasms associated with diabetic neuropathy; (e) could increase bone density, immunity, or circulation; or (f) are comparable or superior to prescription pain medicine. Pain Stops Here! Inc., of Baiting Hollow, N.Y., may no longer claim that its "magnetized water" or other products are useful against cancer, diseases of the liver or other internal organs, gallstones, kidney stones, urinary infection, gastric ulcers, dysentery, diarrhea, skin ulcers, bed sores, arthritis, bursitis, tendinitis, sprains, strains, sciatica, heart disease, circulatory disease, arthritis, auto-immune illness, neuro-degenerative disease, and allergies, and could stimulate the growth of plants.
Studies on these conditions are on medline. The FDA requires specific tests for the manufacturer's product, not any other products or magnets in general.
I remain skeptical that small, static magnets can relieve pain or influence the course of any disease.
There are plenty of studies on Medline.
Some products are too weak to provide a magnetic field that penetrates the skin or are complete fakes that exert no magnetic force whatsoever.
Well, magnetic fields are not stopped by skin. If he means they are too weak to have any effect, then can we have a cite for the study that shows this. A complete fake or really weak product is easily detected, just check if it will pick up a bunch of keys.
If you have a chronic condition, magnotherapy is well worth trying. But find a distributor you can talk to, with a good track record for his product, and who will give you a good money back guarantee.
References
1.
2. Ramey DW. Magnetic and electromagnetic therapy. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 2(1):13-19, 1998.
3. Caselli MA and others. Evaluation of magnetic foil and PPT Insoles in the treatment of heel pain. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 87:11-16, 1997.
4. Vallbona C, Hazelwood CF, Jurida G. Response of pain to static magnetic fields in postpolio patients: A double-blind pilot study. Archives of Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine 78:1200-1203, 1997.
5. Morales halts unproven claims for magnet therapy. News release, April 9, 1998.
6. FDA warning letter, Feb 3, 1997.
QuackWatch
Magnet Therapy II
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
This version is an update of the previous article produced in February 2001. Stephen Barrett still doesn't seem to be aware of the other magnotherapy studies. Or he is deliberately ignoring them
During the past few years, magnetic devices have been claimed to relieve pain and to have therapeutic value against a large number of diseases and conditions. The way to evaluate such claims is to ask whether scientific studies have been published.
And they have, I have found over 500 published studies on Medline.
Pulsed electromagnetic fields -- which induce measurable electric fields -- have been demonstrated effective for treating slow-healing fractures and have shown promise for a few other conditions. However, few studies have been published on the effect on pain of small, static magnets marketed to consumers [1].
Quite correct, the manufacturers cannot afford to do so, they cannot recover their research costs.
Explanations that magnetic fields "increase circulation,"
Thermal camera sequences show magnets increase blood flow to hands are here on the Thermal page
"reduce inflammation”,
Studies on medline
or "speed recovery from injuries" are simplistic and are not supported by the weight of experimental evidence [2].
Here Barrett is quoting the Ramey article from 1998. He does know about later studies, just quotes the studies that suit his purpose.
The main basis for the claims is a double-blind test study, conducted
at
Although the groups were said to be selected randomly, the ratio of women to men in the experimental group was twice that of the control group. If women happen to be more responsive to placebos than men, a surplus of women in the "treatment" group would tend to improve that group's score.
But that would no longer be randomised. And is there any evidence for such a susceptibility?
The age of the placebo group was four years higher than that of the control group. If advanced age makes a person more difficult to treat, the "treatment" group would again have a scoring advantage.
Randomised trials do not pick and choose, the purpose of randomising is to eliminate researcher bias.
The investigators did not measure the exact pressure exerted by the blunt object at the trigger point before and after the study.
Quite right, he didn’t measure the ambient temperature either.
Even if the above considerations have no significance, the study should not be extrapolated to suggest that other types of pain can be relieved by magnets.
Indeed, but there are other studies on pain relief and the accumulating evidence is that other types of pain can be relieved by magnets. Barrett has ignored these other studies.
There was just one brief exposure and no systematic follow-up of patients. Thus there was no way to tell whether any improvement would be more than temporary.
This study was estimated to cost $50,000. And who cares if it is permanent or temporary. A drug free method of pain relief would be welcomed. It certainly was by the participants.
The authors themselves acknowledge that the study was a "pilot study." Pilot studies are done to determine whether it makes sense to invest in a larger more definitive study. They never provide a legitimate basis for marketing any product as effective against any symptom or health problem.
Two better-designed, longer-lasting pain studies have been negative:
Researchers at the
Home made insoles gave no relief. Weintraubs studies using commercially available magnetic insoles gave significant relief.
Chronic submaximal magnetic stimulation in peripheral neuropathy, Weintraub M (
American Journal of Pain Management. 1998;8:9-13
Magnetic biostimulation in
painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Weintraub M (
More recently, researchers at the VA
Comments from the study:
This was a pilot study and was not intended to prove or disprove the effectiveness of magnet therapy in general. Additional studies using different magnets (unipolar and bipolar), treatment times, and patient populations are needed.A stronger magnet may be necessary to penetrate to the source of chronic low back pain. Expanding the treatment time in an ambulatory setting would require manipulation of the devices by the subjects, which would increase the chances of detecting whether the magnet/sham was magnetized. If a device with opposite polarity or of a certain design was found to be ineffective, it could serve as a placebo.Our study population was small and had special requirements. The subjects had to travel to the clinic twice daily at specific times, conditions that eliminated many employed and younger individuals. Other potential subjects lived too far away or had no transportation. Since we recruited from the Veterans Affairs clinic population there were too few women. Thus, it is difficult to generalize these results to the population at large with chronic low back pain.
Here are more studies on pain relief ignored by Barrett
Effect of magnets on chronic pelvic pain, Brown CS; Parker N; Ling F; Wan J University of Tennessee, Memphis, TN, USA. Obstet Gynecol 2000 Apr 01;95 Suppl 1(4):S29 (ISSN: 0029-7844)
Magnetic Mattress Pad Use in Patients with Fibromyalgia: a Randomized Double-blind Pilot Study, Colbert A P, Markov M S, Banerji M,Pilla A A ,Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 13 (1999) 19-31 ISSN 1053-8127
Legal and Regulatory Actions
These are the same as the previous article and just mean that the manufacturers did not have specific studies for their devices and the specific conditions quoted.
In 1998, Magnetherapy, Inc., of West
Palm Beach, Florida, signed an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the State
of Texas to pay a $30,000 penalty and to stop claiming that wearing its
magnetic device near areas of pain and inflammation will relieve pain
due to arthritis, migraine headaches, sciatica or heel spurs. The
agreement also requires Magnetherapy to stop making claims that its magnets can
cure, treat, or mitigate any disease or can affect any change in the human
body, unless its devices are FDA-approved for those purposes [6]. Ads for the
company's Tectonic Magnets had featured testimonials from athletes, including
golfers from the senior pro tours. Various ads had claimed that Tectonic
Magnets would provide symptomatic relief from certain painful conditions
and could restore range of motion to muscles and joints. The company had
provided retailers with display packages that included health claims, written
testimonials, and posters of sports stars. Texas Attorney General Dan Morales
stated that some claims were false or unsubstantiated and others had rendered
the product unapproved medical devices under
In 1999, the FTC obtained a consent agreement barring two companies from making unsubstantiated claims about their magnetic products. Magnetic Therapeutic Technologies, of Irving, Texas, is barred from claiming that its magnetic sleep pads or other products: (a) are effective against cancers, diabetic ulcers, arthritis, degenerative joint conditions, or high blood pressure; (b) could stabilize or increase the T-cell count of HIV patients; (c) could reduce muscle spasms in persons with multiple sclerosis; (d) could reduce nerve spasms associated with diabetic neuropathy; (e) could increase bone density, immunity, or circulation; or (f) are comparable or superior to prescription pain medicine. Pain Stops Here! Inc., of Baiting Hollow, N.Y., may no longer claim that its "magnetized water" or other products are useful against cancer, diseases of the liver or other internal organs, gallstones, kidney stones, urinary infection, gastric ulcers, dysentery, diarrhea, skin ulcers, bed sores, arthritis, bursitis, tendinitis, sprains, strains, sciatica, heart disease, circulatory disease, arthritis, auto-immune illness, neuro-degenerative disease, and allergies, and could stimulate the growth of plants.
On August 8, 2000, the Consumer Justice Center, of Laguna Niguel, California filed suit in Orange County Superior Court charging that Florsheim and a local shoe store (Shoe Emporium) made false and fraudulent claims that their MagneForce shoes (a) correct "magnetic deficiency," (b) "generate a deep-penetrating magnetic field which increases blood circulation; reduces leg and back fatigue; and provides natural pain relief and improved energy level."; and (c) their claims are established and proven by scientific studies [8]. A few days after this suit was filed, Florsheim removed the disputed ad from its Web site.
The Bottom Line
There is no scientific basis to conclude that small, static magnets can relieve pain or influence the course of any disease. Some products are too weak to provide a magnetic field that penetrates the skin or are complete fakes that exert no magnetic force whatsoever.
500 published studies that Barrett either has not read, or has deliberately ignored.
References
Ramey DW. Magnetic and electromagnetic therapy. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 2(1):13-19, 1998.
Vallbona C, Hazelwood CF, Jurida G. Response of pain to static magnetic fields in postpolio patients: A double-blind pilot study. Archives of Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine 78:1200-1203, 1997.
Caselli MA and others. Evaluation of magnetic foil and PPT Insoles in the treatment of heel pain. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 87:11-16, 1997.
Collacott EA and others. Bipolar permanent magnets for the treatment of chronic low back pain. JAMA 283:1322-1325, 2000.
Morales halts unproven claims for magnet therapy. News release, April 9, 1998.
Gill LJ. Letter to William L. Roper, Feb 3, 1997.
Jeff Wynton
and the Consumer Justice Center v. Florsheim Group, Inc., Shoe Emporium. Superior Court of
Reader Response
From David Gessell, a design engineer from
I recently was introduced to the bizarre concept that magnetic
insoles can promote health and relieve pain. The seller promised improved
circulation, reduced pain, better oxygen uptake, weight loss, and more or
less any other positive benefit that could be imagined or requested. The
mechanism presented was: Humans evolved (or were created, for those residents
of
Magnetic fields are not blocked by concrete. Any place a compass works, the earth's magnetic fields are present.
Blood is not magnetic. If it were, one's body would explode in an MRI machine.
DC magnetic fields have no measurable effect at on the human body at levels strong enough to bend steel bars as commonly experienced by magnet and fusion researchers. These individuals are exposed to magnetic field strengths 6 to 10 orders of magnitude greater than that created by the rubberized magnetic insoles, without becoming either more or less healthful.
Assumptions not born out by published studies.
Magnetic Therapy: Plausible Attraction?
– J D Livingstone, Skeptical inquirer
http://www.csicop.org/si/9807/magnet.html
Long considered only a component of quack medicine, magnetic therapy has
received a boost from a recent study at the
James D. Livingston Skeptical Inquirer magazine : July/August 1998
This is a good article
A double-blind study at Baylor College of Medicine, published last
November in Archives of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (Vallbona
1997), concluded that permanent magnets reduce pain in post-polio
patients, and the results were heralded in The New York Times and on Bryant
Gumbel's Public Eye. PBS's Health Week and Time magazine recently reported on
the growing use of magnets by champion senior golfers and other professional
athletes to relieve pain. Magnetic pain relief products are now sold in
many golf shops, and ads for them appear in national golf and
tennis magazines. Long a significant component of the health industry in
Early History
snipped
Magnetic Therapy Today
Both ferrite and rare-earth magnets, unlike earlier magnetic materials such as steels and alnicos, have great resistance to demagnetization, allowing thin disks to be magnetized. (Earlier magnets had to be long and thin to avoid being demagnetized by the internal fields produced by the poles at the ends.) This feature allows modern magnets to be mounted in a variety of thin products that can be applied to the body with the magnetic field emanating from the surface.
Some suppliers recommend applying magnetic patches directly to your aches and pains, while others recommend applying small Band-Aid-like patches to acupuncture points. Magnetic belts containing sixteen or more magnets are purported to ease back pain, and similar magnetic wraps are offered for almost any part of the body, including hands, wrists, elbows, knees, ankles, and feet (magnetic insoles are particularly popular). For headaches you can wear magnetic headbands, magnetic earrings, or magnetic necklaces. (One company marketing magnetic necklaces provides simple instructions: the necklace should be put on as soon as the headache appears and removed as soon as it goes away. Since most headaches come and go, following these instructions precisely will clearly produce persuasive evidence of the necklace's efficacy.)
Many magnetic necklaces, bracelets, and earrings are formed from silver- and gold-rich magnetic alloys and promoted as both fashionable and therapeutic. One catalog claims magnetic earrings "stimulate nerve endings that are associated with head and neck pain," and magnetic bracelets "act upon the body's energy field" and "correct energy imbalances brought by electro-magnetic contamination or atmospheric changes." Larger items include magnetic seat cushions, magnetic pillows, and magnetic mattress pads, the last claiming to produce an "energizing sleep field." One supplier offers a PCD -- Prostate Comfort Device for older men. If properly placed while you sit watching television or driving your car, you will no longer have to get out of bed several times a night to relieve yourself!
The ones I use are magnetic wristbands with the magnets over the pulse point
To avoid trouble with the Food and Drug Administration, most suppliers
emphasize only "comfort" and usually specifically state "no
medical claims are made." Some, however, are far less careful. One company
in
Many magnetic therapy products have alternating arrays of north and south
poles facing the patient. Some have detailed explanations of why a circular
pattern of poles is optimal, while others offer poles in checkerboard or
triangular patterns. Nikken, the Japan-based firm that has used a multilevel
marketing scheme to expand from an annual business in the
I distribute for a network marketing company and we also use alternating poles. Our belief is that the resulting steep field gradients increase the effect.
One clear difference between such multipolar magnetic devices and unipolar devices (with only one pole facing the patient) is the "reach" of the magnetic field. The field from even unipolar magnets decreases very rapidly with increasing distance from the magnet, but the field from multipolar magnets decreases much more rapidly. If multipolar magnets really have any effects on the human body, they will be limited to depths of penetration of only a few millimeters. (Many refrigerator magnets are multipolar, which limits the thickness of paper they can hold to the refrigerator, but also limits the damage they can do to nearby credit and ATM cards.)
Sounds logical. Ours fit over pulse points so there is no problem with depth of field. On some units we have an extra module on the other side of the wrist to increase the depth of penetration. However, the benefit of the multipolar approach is an increase in steepness of the field gradient and we believe this is more important than the field strength.
Other suppliers offer only unipolar magnets, and some emphasize the importance of having only south-seeking poles facing the body. Contrary to common scientific usage, they call south-seeking poles north poles. Since opposite poles attract, they argue that a pole that seeks south must be a north pole. (Here practitioners of magnetic therapy are perhaps more logical than mainstream science, which calls the south-seeking pole a south pole, requiring that the earth's magnetic pole in Antarctica is, by the standard scientific terminology, a north pole.) Dr. Buryl Payne, in his book The Body Magnetic (1988), argues that south-seeking poles calm tissue but north-seeking poles stimulate tissue, and you should therefore never expose tumors or infections to north-seeking poles. .
I am sceptical about this also, but as I use bipolar modules, I can't argue.
When I suggested to one practitioner that different effects from different poles seemed to violate basic rules of symmetry, he assured me that the rules were reversed in the southern hemisphere
Wonder what happens at the equator, when they change over.
One of the most ardent advocates of magnetic therapy is Dr. William Philpott
of
The efficacy of magnetic therapy (or of any other medical treatment, mainstream or alternative) does not depend on our understanding the biological mechanism. Nevertheless most promoters of magnetic therapy recognize the need for offering some plausible explanation. The mechanism most commonly offered for various therapeutic effects of magnets is improved blood circulation, despite a lack of clear evidence for such an effect. Other suggestions include alteration of nerve impulses, increased oxygen content and increased alkalinity of bodily fluids, magnetic forces on moving ions, and decreased deposits on the walls of blood vessels.
We must be careful not to reject the device even though we reject the theory behind it. The efficacy of the device has no connection with the knowledge or understanding of the person selling it.
The broadest explanation was presented by Dr. Kyochi Nakagawa of
Magnetic therapy is also prominent in the treatment of thoroughbred racehorses. An injured racehorse represents potential loss of a substantial investment, providing considerable incentive to try "alternative medicine" to supplement mainstream veterinary treatment. Magnetic pads for a variety of leg problems, magnetic blankets, magnetic hoof pads, etc., all get ringing endorsements from many horse trainers -- and even some veterinarians. One marketer of magnetic products for humans reports that he first became convinced of their effectiveness when he used them on his ailing llama! Enthusiasts argue that the placebo effect could not be effective on horses or other animals, but forget that it may influence the human who is interpreting the effect of magnetic therapy on the animal.
There is no answer to this other than to watch the reaction of the animal. With animals, magnotherapy may be the only alternative to having the animal put down, so there is a strong incentive to try it. If the result is an animal that no longer needs to be put down, that is an excellent result.
The Baylor Study
These examples and the centuries-old connection between magnets and quackery, have led many to consider modern magnetic therapy as total hokum, with the many testimonials for the success of magnetic treatments explainable by placebo effects. But the Baylor study, seemingly a careful double-blind study, has surprised many.
The study was conducted by Dr. Carlos Vallbona on fifty post-polio patients
at Baylor's Institute for Rehabilitation Research in
For a hardened skeptic, some doubts remain. Both Dr. Vallbona and his colleague, Dr. Carlton Hazlewood, had reported the successful personal use of magnets to relieve their own knee pains prior to the study, raising doubts as to their objectivity.
Yes, I accept this and that this was a self-funded study. I believe the researchers had been told of this effect by their patients and decided to try it for themselves. It worked for them, so they organised a self-funded study. I have seen it estimated as costing $50,000 if it had been funded. However I see no other way this study would have been done.
At about the same time the Weintraub study on neuropathy pain was done with similar results.
It was also self-funded.
Conscious or unconscious biases of researchers can have very subtle and unrecognized effects on the results of their studies, and a serious difficulty of conducting any double-blind studies with magnets is the ease of distinguishing active magnets from sham magnets (although the patients were reportedly observed during the therapy period to assure that they were not surreptitiously testing their magnets).
The therapy period was only 45 minutes so this was easy to do.
Another difficulty of any studies of pain relief is the highly subjective nature of the data.
Pain is highly subjective, but there are standard tests used by doctors to evalute pain.
Despite these various reasons for caution, the results of this study have altered the views of many physicians. Dr. William Jarvis, president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, had formerly dismissed magnet therapy as "essentially quackery." He now tentatively admits that it may have value for post-polio pain.
More studies will be needed before magnetic therapy will be accepted by a majority of the medical community, and some studies are already underway. Last year the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine gave a million-dollar grant to Dr. Ann Gill Taylor of the School of Nursing of the University of Virginia to study the use of magnets to relieve pain. Among other things, she will be testing the effectiveness of magnetic sleep pads in relieving pain in patients suffering from fibromyalgia, a common disease involving joint and muscle pain. While we wait for the results of these and other studies, does what we know about magnetic fields and the human body make it plausible that magnetic therapy for pain might have a physical basis beyond mind/body effects?
Magnetic Fields and the Body
The electrochemical processes of the human body are extremely complex and incompletely understood, and physical effects of magnetic fields cannot be ruled out. Many thousands of papers have in fact been published on biological effects of electromagnetic fields, much of it focused on the effects of radio-frequency and microwave fields or, in recent years, on fields at power-line frequencies (fifty or sixty cycles per second). Studies of biological effects of steady magnetic fields (reviewed by Frankel and Liburdy 1996) have concentrated mostly on high fields of the level encountered in MRI magnets, typically of the order of 10,000 gauss (1 tesla). Unfortunately, research has been very limited at field levels typical of magnetic therapy products, most of which are limited to a few hundred gauss, even at the magnet surface. (The earth's field is a bit less than half a gauss.)
Viewed simply as inert material, the human body, like its primary constituent, water, is diamagnetic, i.e., weakly repelled by magnetic fields. In response to an applied magnetic field, the electrons in water molecules make slight adjustments in their motions, producing a net magnetic field in the opposing direction about 100,000 times smaller than the applied field. With the removal of the applied field, the electrons return to their original orbits, and the water molecules once again become nonmagnetic. (We perhaps should note that some promoters of magnetic therapy also promote "magnetized water." You can't magnetize water. Although water responds weakly to an applied field, the response disappears as soon as the field is removed.)
This is not what they mean by magnetised water. All they are saying is that as a result of the effects of the magnetic field, the water and its contents are changed in a way which is beneficial.
Although the diamagnetism of water and most living things is very weak, a high-field electromagnet producing 160,000 gauss (16 tesla) at the center of the coil has recently been used to levitate not only water drops but also flowers, grasshoppers, and small frogs (Berry and Geim 1997), the "flying frogs" drawing worldwide media coverage. Since fields of that magnitude are required to balance gravitational forces, the much lower fields of magnetic-therapy devices can only produce diamagnetic forces that are thousands of times smaller than gravity. (The repulsive force will be proportional to the product of the field and the field gradient.)
Some dubious literature suggests that magnetic fields attract blood, citing all the iron it contains. However, iron in the blood is very different from metallic iron, which is strongly magnetic because the individual atomic magnets are strongly coupled together by the phenomenon we call ferromagnetism. The remarkable properties of ferromagnetic materials are a result of the cooperative behavior of many, many magnetic atoms acting in unison. The iron in blood consists instead of isolated iron atoms within large hemoglobin molecules, located inside the red blood cells. Although each of the iron atoms is magnetic, it is not near other iron atoms, and remains magnetically independent.
The net effect of the weak paramagnetism of the isolated iron atoms in hemoglobin is only a slight decrease in the overall diamagnetism of blood. Blood, like water, is weakly repelled by magnetic fields, not attracted.
Although most components of the human body and other living things are
weakly diamagnetic, many organisms have been shown to contain small amounts of
strongly magnetic materials, usually magnetite (Fe3O4). The most extreme
case is that of magnetotactic bacteria, originally found in mud collected
from the marshes of
More likely mechanisms are those based on magnetic forces on moving charged particles, possibly including ions or charged molecules in flowing blood, moving across cell membranes, moving across synapses between nerve cells, etc., or those based on more subtle effects on biochemical reactions (Frankel and Liburdy 1996). Although no physical mechanisms for magnetic therapy have been established, the possibilities are numerous and complex. Only further clinical tests, carefully controlled to account for placebo effects, can confirm or dispute the results of the Baylor study and prove or disprove the claims of magnetic therapy.
Accepted, but that does not mean you should not try magnotherapy, just don't risk a lot of money, get a money back guarantee, and see if it works for you.
Some media reports have not sufficiently distinguished the Baylor form of magnetic therapy, based on modest static fields from permanent magnets, with a more accepted form of "magnetic therapy" based on high pulsed magnetic fields from electromagnets (Malmivuo and Plonsey 1995). Pulsed magnetic fields are very different from static magnetic fields, because, via Maxwell's equations, time-varying magnetic fields induce electric fields.
But static
fields are also time varying in the human body and
steep field gradients increase the effect. If the body is alive
there is internal movement through the field which means a time varying field
strength which means electrical fields. Thus pulsed fields cannot
be assumed to be different from static fields. However this is
irrelevant because we still do not know what the mechanism is.
There are fracture studies showing that static magnets are just as
effective as electromagnets at helping fractures to heal. See my abstracts
page.
Electric fields have pronounced biological effects, particularly on nerve and muscle cells, as we have known since the days of Galvani and his twitching frogs' legs. Many years ago the FDA approved the use of pulsed magnetic fields in "bone growth stimulators" for the treatment of fractures that were slow to heal, and research on "magnetic stimulation" -- pulsed magnetic fields applied to the brain or other components of the nervous system -- has grown rapidly in recent years. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, in which the patient receives hundreds of magnetic field pulses of 1 tesla or more, each only a millisecond in duration, has shown considerable promise as a means of treating depression. However, these forms of pulsed-field magnetic therapy are based on biological effects of induced electric fields, and are very different from the use of the static fields from permanent magnets.
See fracture stidies above, the difference may be only one of degree, and static fields can be applied 24 hours a day.
Pulsed fields cannot.
There is no acceptable theory of why magnotherapy works yet. The nearest I have seen is the pH theory from MVDr Vladislav Vaclavek, a Czech vet, who has written a book, "Magnotherapy the pHacts", ISBN 0 9535970 0 8. There is a brief summary of the main ideas put forward in the book on my magnotherapy page.
Conclusions
Claims of therapeutic effects of permanent magnets should still be regarded with considerable skepticism. Most of the many testimonials to the effectiveness of magnetic therapy devices can be attributed to placebo effects and to other effects accompanying their use. For example, the magnetic back braces used by many senior golfers may help ease their back pains through providing mechanical support, through localized warming, and through constant reminder to the aging athletes that they are no longer young and should not overexert their muscles. All these effects are helpful with or without magnets.
The units we use are wrist mounted, but affect other parts of the body. It's difficult to see how our results can fall under the 'other effects' banner. If a user finds a beneficial effect when wearing the unit, which disappears when he removes it, he is less likely to think the effect is placebo or coincidence.
One British study of pulsed-field bone-growth stimulators, which were approved decades ago by the FDA, found that they were equally successful when the devices were not activated (Barker 1984), and concluded that their effectiveness resulted from the enforced inactivity associated with their use, rather than from the pulsed magnetic fields.
The more extreme claims of magnetic therapy, such as curing cancer by hanging supermagnets around your neck, are not only nonsense but also dangerous, since they may divert patients from seeking appropriate treatment from mainstream medicine.
Magnotherapy is a complementary therapy, not an alternative therapy. It is meant to be used with conventional treatment (or alternative treatment), not to replace it, except in the case of drugs prescribed purely to relieve pain. The Experts page has an article on Neuro-Medicine suggests a use for magnotherapy in chemotherapy treatment by reducing the side effects.
Magnetic jewelry and most other magnetic-therapy products probably are harmless beyond a waste of money. Several years ago, a double-blind study found that magnetic necklaces produced no relief of neck or shoulder pain (Hong 1982).
There will inevitably be people who attempt to climb on the bandwagon with inferior products.However, we do a dress version of our wristband for ladies evening wear, so not all 'magnetic jewelry' is ineffective.
The results of the Baylor study, however, raise the possibility that at least in some cases, topical application of permanent magnets may indeed be useful in pain relief, a conclusion that should be regarded as tentative until supported by further studies.
The Weintraub study has already been published and gone on to a further multi-site study across the US
Any mechanism for such an effect remains mysterious, but an effect of static magnetic fields on the complex electrochemical processes of the human body is not impossible. My own guess is that inexpensive refrigerator magnets are as likely to provide help as the more expensive magnets marketed specifically for therapy. (But since human nature leads us to expect more from more expensive items, use of refrigerator magnets will probably decrease the placebo effect!)
Our devices work in two distinctly different ways, one through the blood stream and one with topical application over a problem. We use a patented bipolar module, which we believe is responsible for the success rate of these products.
This article really confirms our approach, try it and see, you have nothing to lose but your pain. But look for a distributor who will give you a good money back guarantee and has a good track record.
References
1 Barker, A. T. et al. 1984. Pulsed magnetic field therapy for tibial non-union. Lancet 994-996.
2
3 Buranelli, V. 1975. The Wizard
from
4 Frankel, Richard B. and Robert P. Liburdy. 1996. Biological effects of static magnetic fields (in Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, second edition, Charles Polk and Elliot Postow, eds. CRC Press).
5 Hong, C. Z. et al. 1982. Magnetic necklace: Its therapeutic effectiveness on neck and shoulder pain. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 63:162-164.
6 Livingston, James D. 1996. Driving
Force: The Natural Magic of Magnets.
7 Mackay, Charles. [1841] 1932. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Reprint, L. C. Page.
8 Macklis, Roger M. 1993. Magnetic healing, quackery, and the debate about the health effects of electromagnetic fields. Annals of Internal Medicine 118(5): 376-383.
9 Malmivuo, Jaakko and Robert Plonsey. 1995.
Bioelectromagnetism: Principles and applications of bioelectric and biomagnetic
fields.
10 Payne, Buryl. 1988. The Body Magnetic (self-published).
11 Vallbona, Carlos,
About the Author
James D. Livingston now teaches in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was for more than thirty years a physicist at General Electric's Corporate Research and Development Center. He is the author of Driving Force: The Natural Magic of Magnets (Harvard, 1996), a popular-science book on the history, legends, science, and technology of magnets.
Magnet Therapy A
Billion-dollar Boondoggle by Bruce L. Flamm
www.csicop.org/si/2006-04/magnet-therapy.html
Skeptical Inquirer Volume 30, Number 4 July/August 2006
About a billion dollars a year is now spent on "magnet therapy," which is claimed to eliminate many symptoms and diseases. Basic scientific principles indicate that all of this money is wasted.
Bruce L. Flamm
About a year ago Leonard Finegold at