Is there really any truth to "Earthing"?

[PersianPaladin]

Okay, I'm sure many of you are aware that the Thunderbolts Project featured a conference talk by James L. Oschman on the apparent benefits of "earthing" the human body. At first, I was highly skeptical and was quite dismissive towards the claims when I commented on the Youtube video. However, I did some of my own research and did find a small amount of (albeit small-sized) double-blind controlled studies that did appear to show some beneficial affects of "earthing". However, a few small studies on particular people hasn't really fully satisfied me.

What I want to know is whether the scientific claims of Oschman have any real weight. His main claim is that the Earth is an "an abundant source of free electrons". Now, in this paper (http://www.earthinginstitute.net/commen ... ctrons.pdf) he tries to back up that claim of "free electrons" by referring to a 1986 publication by the Geophysics Study Committee. You can find that here:-

http://www.theplasmaverse.com/pdfs/the- ... onment.pdf

I searched the document and could find no claim that the Earth's surface is a source of "free electrons". So I am now suspicious of the science that Mr Oschman is resorting to in order to try and account for the alleged benefits of Earthing. A negative potential relative to the upper atmosphere, in terms of an electric-field; does not equate to the Earth being an "abundant source of free electrons".

Let us remind ourselves of the definition:-

free electron
n

(Physics / General Physics) any electron that is not attached to an ion, atom, or molecule and is free to move under the influence of an applied electric or magnetic field

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+electron

In one paper, Oschmann confuses the "valence electrons" in conductive metals with "free electrons" that are not attached to atoms and molecules:-

Free electrons are abundant in a metallic
wire, but also have very low mobility

http://www.earthinginstitute.net/commen ... ansfer.pdf

He needs to realise that valence electrons are bound until they are freed by some outside force or reaction. I'm wondering whether any of the apparent IEEE certified people that Mr Oschmann has published with - have understood this fact too. "Free electrons" typically only exist in the ionosphere of the Earth or during transient periods when the Earth is struck by lightning.

What I'd like to know - is how can the surface of the Earth be anywhere near conductive enough to transfer valence-electrons to the human body? Perhaps an answer might lie in the fact that a voltage difference between you and the Earth could result in some subtle charge transfer between negatively charged anions in moist soils, and positive ions in the human body. The speed in which this happens though, is an open question.

An experiment was carried out in Australia regarding electric potential voltages of the human body and different surfaces. You can watch that here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnZjY_q2WQk

You'll find some interesting bodily voltage differences depending on whether you're standing on tarmac, under electric wires, inside your home near EMF fields, on pavement, or on the grass (according to the results found by the guy in the video anyway). The voltages obtained by standing on the Earth are a lot lower than inside the home or on tarmac, for example. Still, this suggests that the very low voltage of the Earth is demonstrative that the amount of electrons that are very responsive to external electric fields are probably very low in number indeed. Of course, I could be wrong here - as the behaviour of charge movement within soil ions and anions is not the same as in space plasma or in typical human electrical engineering.

I'd like to know some more thoughts on this matter. For now, there is a criticism of the concept here, including this supposition (which may or not be true - regarding dielectric charge transfer in biology):-

Logically, the ground will always have a lower voltage than your body, which would cause you to lose electrons to the earth (assuming our skin was a good conductor).

http://barefootrunninguniversity.com/20 ... -earthing/

[Sparky]

I don't think there is any validity to this concept. But, just to be safe, I now drag a grounded 10ga cable, which is attached to my feet, around inside my house.

[PersianPaladin]

If you don't think there is any validity to the concept you need to realise that Mr Oschmann did speak at EU 2012 - let's not forget:-

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10 ... -speakers/

Regardless of the dishonesty of his "free electrons" claim, there may be some validity to the benefits of earthing.

Let us take this study which shows that long-term bodily exposure to indoor environments may be harmful to human health:-

Measurements of small air ion concentrations, electrostatic potential and AC electric field strengths were taken in an office setting to investigate the link between electric fields and charged molecule and particle concentrations in individual microenvironments. The results obtained indicate that the electromagnetic environments individuals can be exposed to whilst indoors can often bear little resemblance to those experienced outdoors in nature, and that many individuals may spend large periods of their time in “Faraday cage”-like conditions exposed to inappropriate levels and types of electric fields that can reduce localised concentrations of biologically essential and microbiocidal small air ions. Such conditions may escalate their risk of infection from airborne contaminants, including microbes, whilst increasing localised surface contamination. The degree of “electro-pollution” that individuals are exposed to was shown to be influenced by the type of microenvironment they occupy, with it being possible for very different types of microenvironment to exist within the same room.

It is suggested that adopting suitable electromagnetic hygiene/productivity guidelines that seek to replicate the beneficial effects created by natural environments may greatly mitigate such problems.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1007002774

Perhaps time-varying electric fields from dust particles and other static surfaces might cause build of electrical stress in the body, as well as electric currents. On electric fields, the WHO states:-

Low-frequency electric fields influence the human body just as they influence any other material made up of charged particles. When electric fields act on conductive materials, they influence the distribution of electric charges at their surface. They cause current to flow through the body to the ground.

So perhaps grounding will resolve such problems? Well, there is a double-blind study that found apparent benefits:-

Fifty-eight healthy adult subjects (30 controls) participated in a double blind
pilot study. Earthing was accomplished with a conductive adhesive patch placed on the sole of each
foot. An earthing cord led outdoors to a rod driven into the earth. A biofeedback system recorded
electrophysiological and physiological parameters. Upon earthing, about half the experimental
subjects showed an abrupt, almost instantaneous change in root mean square (rms) values of
electroencephalograms (EEG) from the left hemisphere (but not the right hemisphere) and all of them
presented an abrupt change in rms values of surface electromyograms (SEMGs) from right and left
upper trapezius muscles. Signal variance in rms muscle potentials also increased significantly.
Earthing decreased blood volume pulse (BVP) in 19 of 22 experimental subjects (p < 0.001) and in 8
of 30 controls (p ≅ 0.1, not significant); heart rate (HR) was not affected. From these results, it appears
that earthing the human body has significant effects on electrophysiological properties of the brain and
musculature, on the blood volume pulse, and on the noise and stability of electrophysiological
recordings. Taken together, the changes in EEG, EMG, and BVP suggest reductions in overall stress
levels and tensions, and a shift in autonomic balance upon earthing.

And another double-blind study also found benefits:-

Earthing of an electrically insulated human organism during night rest causes lowering of serum concentrations of iron, ionized calcium, inorganic phosphorus, and reduction of renal excretion of calcium and phosphorus. Earthing during night rest decreases free tri-iodothyronine and increases free thyroxine and thyroid-stimulating hormone. The continuous earthing of the human body decreases blood glucose in patients with diabetes. Earthing decreases sodium, potassium, magnesium, iron, total protein, and albumin concentrations while the levels of transferrin, ferritin, and globulins α1, α2, β, and γ increase. These results are statistically significant.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/1 ... .2010.0687

There are some more claims in this article, which may or may not be verifiable (regarding stress reduction and other benefits):-
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2012/291541/#B20

However, in the article the author makes the following claim:-

"The logical explanation for the anti-inflammatory effects is that grounding the body allows negatively charged antioxidant electrons from the Earth to enter the body and neutralize positively charged free radicals at sites of inflammation"

I'm not sure if this claim can be verified or if there have been any credible empirical studies to back this up. It remains a rather shaky hypothesis at this point.

My own explanation for the possible health benefits of grounding the body - is the fact that the excess charge is flowing out of your body, and into the Earth. It's probably not the other way round. "Free electrons" are just not proven to be available in the Earth's surface to do any significant work in the body. This is highly questionnable science. However, the reported health improvements from prolonged exposure to a grounded-environment - may well possibly be explained by the body actually repairing the damage that was done to it via exposure to electro-magnetic stress. Thus, rather than earth-electron "anti-oxidants" repairing the body, the body naturally starts returning to its actual electric potential and slowly repairs the damage that was done. This could be a possibility.

Now - of course, we need more proper and reliable studies about the benefits of prolonged grounding. In most home environments you're surrounded by EMF as well as a build-up of static electricity from different materials. Some people are also probably more electro-sensitive than others. If you spend most of the time walking on carpets, then you're probably going to build up some voltages in your body. We may well "earth" or "ground" ourselves every time we touch a metal handle of a door - but the rest of the time, we are probably building up some degree of electrical stress. What I suggest, is that there be studies done on people who walk around on concrete or earthen\cob floors vs people who walk around on floors that have carpets with wooden panels underneath. That would be a most interesting study to fund.

For now, my mind is open - but I'm still rather irritated and frustrated with Mr Oschmann's scientific clumsiness and dishonesty particularly regarding his referencing.

[Michael V]

I would argue that a "free electron" is an electron that is available to take part in "electro-magnetism". Clearly electricity has nothing to do with the actual travel of charged particles. The idea of electrons in a solid (such as a metal conductor) that are completely unbound to atoms and are able to move (or flow) through the solid is more wishful thinking on the part of those seeking a "flowing current". So, If you were looking for somewhere there are more "free electrons", then the best place to look for "electrons that are or could become available to take part in electromagnetism" is where there are most electrons, which in a terrestrial environment is the "earth" or "ground".

Until electromagnetic theory becomes the result of a rigorously logical analysis, rather than its present implausible ptolemaic belief system, we are not likely to find credible answers.

Michael V

[PersianPaladin]

I would argue that a "free electron" is an electron that is available to take part in "electro-magnetism". Clearly electricity has nothing to do with the actual travel of charged particles. The idea of electrons in a solid (such as a metal conductor) that are completely unbound to atoms and are able to move (or flow) through the solid is more wishful thinking on the part of those seeking a "flowing current". So, If you were looking for somewhere there are more "free electrons", then the best place to look for "electrons that are or could become available to take part in electromagnetism" is where there are most electrons, which in a terrestrial environment is the "earth" or "ground".

Until electromagnetic theory becomes the result of a rigorously logical analysis, rather than its present implausible ptolemaic belief system, we are not likely to find credible answers.

Michael V

Nobody is saying that electrons in solids are completely unbound to atoms. The valence electrons in conductive elements are loosely bound to the nucleus but they are very susceptible to external fields that can cause them to vibrate\oscillate or move to another location. Electromagnetic fields transmit the wave-energy to make electrons vibrate together (or move laterally - very slowly) and their response is at the speed of the wave."Free electrons" are often considered to not be bound to atoms and exist as a "sea of electrons" often within an ionized gas or as mobile electrons within the conduction band near atoms. Do as I did, and research the IEEE literature on "free electrons" and reach your own conclusions. There is NO evidence that the Earth is an abundant source of free electrons. If it was, the Earth would be consistently as conductive as the most conductive metal. Clay, for example - is not particularly conductive. Moist soil, however - is. The conductive pathways within the Earth tend to be via electrolytic processes and ion\anion transport and that's part of the biological system of life.

More on "free electrons" within the context of "conduction bands" in atoms:-

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Sco ... vechrg.htm

[Michael V]

PP,

Nobody is saying that electrons in solids are completely unbound to atoms. The valence electrons in conductive elements are loosely bound to the nucleus but they are very susceptible to external fields that can cause them to vibrate\oscillate or move to another location.

So, some electrons, especially in a solid, are bound so strongly to atoms that they can play little if any part in electromagnetic effects, such as the generation of "EM fields". Other, electrons, less strongly "bound" are able to "move" more freely such that their charge "emission" can contribute to the generation or propagation of "EM field".

Electromagnetic fields transmit the wave-energy to make electrons vibrate together (or move laterally - very slowly) and their response is at the speed of the wave.

"Electromagnetic fields" are the result of the coordinated, coherent emission and reaction to, charge. The charge comes from the electrons and the "EM field" comes from the electrons.

"Free electrons" are often considered to not be bound to atoms and exist as a "sea of electrons" often within an ionized gas or as mobile electrons within the conduction band near atoms.

The behaviour of "free" electrons in a gas plasma results in some significant travel of said electrons. As such the two concepts of, "free" electrons in an ionised gas and "free" electrons in a solid, are not the same, even if similarities exist.

Do as I did, and research the IEEE literature on "free electrons" and reach your own conclusions.

My conclusions are most definitely my own and Maxwellian twaddle is unlikely to provide any understanding of physical processes.

There is NO evidence that the Earth is an abundant source of free electrons. If it was, the Earth would be consistently as conductive as the most conductive metal. Clay, for example - is not particularly conductive. Moist soil, however - is.

Your contradiction makes my point. That is, I am suggesting that the "moisture" along with traces of "conductive" substances are in or on the earth/ground - that is to say, that the Earth is merely the sum of its constituent parts. In the normal course of events the electrons are "ruled" by the atoms of which they are part. However, there are still significant quantities of electrons available to react to an "electromagnetic signal", i.e. "electromagnetic fields".

The conductive pathways within the Earth tend to be via electrolytic processes and ion\anion transport and that's part of the biological system of life.

Are you suggesting that lightning on others planets strikes the ground because there is life there? Of course you are not. The lightning eventually goes to the ground because that is where the sequential path of "free electrons" leads it to. If there were no "free electrons" in the ground to form a "conductor" then the lightning would not form towards it preferentially.

I apologise for subverting the original intent of your thread, but you really need to consider the actual fundamental physical processes of electromagnetism.


Michael V

[PersianPaladin]

When somebody uses terms like "Maxwellian twaddle", I stop taking them seriously. And never have I ever said that electric and magnetic fields exist independently of charged particles and vibrating\moving electrons. The fact is that the "drift velocity" of electrons is generally very slow in solids, but the "speed" of the transmission of electrical energy is dictated by the speed of electromagnetic field that is typically at the speed of light. The slow-moving and vibrating electron produces the high-speed wave which propagates outwards at high speed to the next valence-electron which also vibrates and produces its own high-speed wave which is why electricity can transmit so quickly even as the particles flow very slowly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity

Not sure I'd trust you to repair my electronics, to be honest.

Please, stick to verified facts - or go and comment elsewhere.

[Sparky]

If there are so many positive health benefits to walking barefoot, wouldn't those cultures that do not wear shoes exhibit them.?

[orrery]

If there are so many positive health benefits to walking barefoot, wouldn't those cultures that do not wear shoes exhibit them.?

I believe that the primary health benefit being advertised in regards to grounding are anti-inflammatory effects and accelerated healing.

[D_Archer]

The Earthing definitely has benefits, that is the basis of the work of James L. Oschman, the trouble ofcourse is finding a mechanism.

For any health benefits i would study 'negative ions' and how the act of earthing increases their presence in the body. Logically the "sick" body is charged too much (+), earthing creates a pathway for exchange of charge which naturally seek equilibrium.

A much easier way to heal would be to spend time in an enviroment with an abundant amount of negative ions, like on a beach or at a waterfall or in the cave system at Visoko, where tunnels where build above waterways.

Regards,
Daniel

[PersianPaladin]

The Earthing definitely has benefits, that is the basis of the work of James L. Oschman, the trouble ofcourse is finding a mechanism.

For any health benefits i would study 'negative ions' and how the act of earthing increases their presence in the body. Logically the "sick" body is charged too much (+), earthing creates a pathway for exchange of charge which naturally seek equilibrium.

A much easier way to heal would be to spend time in an enviroment with an abundant amount of negative ions, like on a beach or at a waterfall or in the cave system at Visoko, where tunnels where build above waterways.

Regards,
Daniel

Are there any scientific papers (outside of Oschman's circle) that support this claim?

[Corona]

interesting topic; I became interested in it some months ago. When I first heard of the beneficial claims I was very sceptical. But the explanation of "free electrons" actually made sense to me (as being a layman on this matter). Thanks to your research Paladin, I`m not so sure myself anymore. I actually did read some of the studies and some like you have pointed out actually do sound promising.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to just try it for myself and grounded myself with a simple copper wire (including an inbuilt resistor). While I am not grounded at an optimal 0 V, my readings are at about 0,4-0,6 V. So far I cannot really tell if I am experiencing any benefical effects (being aware that the placbo could be a source of error).

I am definitely open to this idea, but would like to see some more double-blind studies. Some more interesting links (although grounding in these cases is of course useless as the frequencies created by cell phones etc. are too high to be blocked by simply grounding oneself):

http://news.discovery.com/tech/cell-pho ... 10223.html
http://news.discovery.com/human/cell-ph ... 10531.html

[D_Archer]

Are there any scientific papers (outside of Oschman's circle) that support this claim?

What claim, you mean the negative ions and healing?

(although grounding in these cases is of course useless as the frequencies created by cell phones etc. are too high to be blocked by simply grounding oneself)

Indeed, this is why healing in a cave is interesting because you are protected from this radiation.

Regards,
Daniel

[Goldminer]

Are there any scientific papers (outside of Oschman's circle) that support this claim?

What claim, you mean the negative ions and healing?

(although grounding in these cases is of course useless as the frequencies created by cell phones etc. are too high to be blocked by simply grounding oneself)

Indeed, this is why healing in a cave is interesting because you are protected from this radiation.

Regards,
Daniel

Then again, it is said that caves are a sink for trapped low levels of radon gas, the radiation from which is the healing property of radiation hormesis. If you are interested in this subject do a search on the subject of radiation hormesis. (The subject is quite political, since the politically correct way of thinking is to be afraid of all radiation.)

[D_Archer]

Thanks Gold.

This was interesting read: http://radiation-hormesis.com/

Regards,
Daniel