Do fluctuations in Earth's magnetic field cause heart attacks?

[LaraKnowles]

TL;DR Summary

Recent studies, all cropping up in the past few years, are reporting links between geomagnetic activity and every health condition you can imagine.

https://biomedscis.com/fulltext/the...tic-disturbance-on-human-health.ID.000203.php

''m) Solar activity may contribute to the development of and be a trigger of the exacerbation of nervous and mental disorders, such schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, and multiple sclerosis [38].''

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805718/

https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-...m_contentnullutm_campaignblog_2019_on-health/

''Our results may be explained through the direct impact of environmental electric and magnetic fields produced during GMD on the human autonomic nervous system. Interactions between GMD and the autonomic nervous system are likely to induce a cascade of reactions in the body's electrophysiology that culminate in the collapse of organ functions and death.''

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13769-does-the-earths-magnetic-field-cause-suicides/ Geomagnetic storms and suicides.
https://aepi.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42494-020-00019-9 geomagnetic activity and the incidence of convulsive seizures.

It is theorized that this is because when Earth's magnetic field fluctuates, it messes up the pineal gland, causing all sorts of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...to-5500-heart-related-deaths-in-a-given-year/

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014cosp...40E1114G/abstract#%3A~%3Atext%3DIt%20was%20shown%20statistically%20that%2Ccomparison%20with%20quiet%20geomagnetic%20conditions "It was shown statistically that during geomagnetic disturbances the frequency of myocardial infarction and brain stroke cases increased on the average by a factor of two in comparison with quiet geomagnetic conditions."

Question - is there any legitimacy to these claims or is this pseudoscience disguised as science? Most of these studies seemed to suddenly pop up in the past 3 years and seem to be related to an emerging field known as "heliobiology".

On one hand, there seems to be a lot of articles saying this is so. On the other hand, the Earth's magnetic field is over a hundred times weaker than a fridge magnet, and humans are exposed to magnets stronger than that without experiencing heart or mental symptoms (examples: MRI scanners). Some sources appear to cast doubt on the claims in these studies. https://www.health.com/condition/stroke/solar-flare-health-effects

Some of the studies mention Schumann resonance caused by solar activity being the mechanism by which geomagnetic storms affect health.

 

[Dale]

https://biomedscis.com/fulltext/the...tic-disturbance-on-human-health.ID.000203.php

This journal, Open Access Journal of Biomedical Science, appears to have some characteristics predatory journals. It is not indexed in the Clarivate master journal list. Its name is deceptively similar to the Journal of Biomedical Science, which is open access and which is listed. Its website has strange phrasing which seems like a non-native English writer or an AI wrote it.

This is not a reference we would generally accept as being valid here.

You posted a lot of references, and it takes a while to evaluate each. But if the first one was the strongest reference, then it seems unlikely. If you think another reference was the strongest, then please indicate which. I always start by looking at the Clarivate MJL

 

[LaraKnowles]

This journal, Open Access Journal of Biomedical Science, appears to have some characteristics predatory journals. It is not indexed in the Clarivate master journal list. Its name is deceptively similar to the Journal of Biomedical Science, which is open access and which is listed. Its website has strange phrasing which seems like a non-native English writer or an AI wrote it.

This is not a reference we would generally accept as being valid here.

You posted a lot of references, and it takes a while to evaluate each. But if the first one was the strongest reference, then it seems unlikely. If you think another reference was the strongest, then please indicate which. I always start by looking at the Clarivate MJL

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014cosp...40E1114G/abstract#%3A~%3Atext%3DIt%20was%20shown%20statistically%20that%2Ccomparison%20with%20quiet%20geomagnetic%20conditions "It was shown statistically that during geomagnetic disturbances the frequency of myocardial infarction and brain stroke cases increased on the average by a factor of two in comparison with quiet geomagnetic conditions."

The sample size is pretty big.

 

[Dale]

The journal “Journal of Clinical and Basic Cardiology” is also not indexed on the Clarivate MJL, so we typically wouldn’t accept references from that either. It seems unlikely that this is a real effect if it is both so large and is otherwise unknown. That particular combination is highly suspect. I also couldn't find any proceedings of COSPAR journals.

I also looked for this pair of authors to see if they published anything else together. They have published in other COSPAR meetings, and in the Open Journal of Biophysics, which is another unknown journal. Space, Ecology, and Safety, as well as EGU General Assembly, are similarly unknown journals.

The only journal that they have published in that is recognized by the Clarivate MJL is "Atmosphere", which is a journal published by MDPI, whom I regard as a predatory publisher*. So that is not particularly promising.

is there any legitimacy to these claims or is this pseudoscience disguised as science?

I don't know anything specifically about this topic, but from what I have seen here it seems more likely to be pseudoscience than not. Certainly, the publication track record is much more consistent with pseudoscience, and particularly given the factor of 2 claimed effect size.

It is also hard to see, if this is a real effect, how anyone would survive getting a MRI scan, which I do know a lot about specifically. Most people survive their MRI scan, and if there were a factor 2 increased risk during normal geomagnetic variation then surely the risk factor would be substantially higher for a MR scan where the magnetic fields are tens of thousands of times stronger than the earth's field.

* MDPI, Hindawi, Frontiers, vixra, and ResearchGate are all unacceptable sources, in my opinion

 

[LaraKnowles]

The journal “Journal of Clinical and Basic Cardiology” is also not indexed on the Clarivate MJL, so we typically wouldn’t accept references from that either. It seems unlikely that this is a real effect if it is both so large and is otherwise unknown. That particular combination is highly suspect. I also couldn't find any proceedings of COSPAR journals.

I also looked for this pair of authors to see if they published anything else together. They have published in other COSPAR meetings, and in the Open Journal of Biophysics, which is another unknown journal. Space, Ecology, and Safety, as well as EGU General Assembly, are similarly unknown journals.

The only journal that they have published in that is recognized by the Clarivate MJL is "Atmosphere", which is a journal published by MDPI, whom I regard as a predatory publisher*. So that is not particularly promising.

I don't know anything specifically about this topic, but from what I have seen here it seems more likely to be pseudoscience than not. Certainly, the publication track record is much more consistent with pseudoscience, and particularly given the factor of 2 claimed effect size.

It is also hard to see, if this is a real effect, how anyone would survive getting a MRI scan, which I do know a lot about specifically. Most people survive their MRI scan, and if there were a factor 2 increased risk during normal geomagnetic variation then surely the risk factor would be substantially higher for a MR scan where the magnetic fields are tens of thousands of times stronger than the earth's field.

* MDPI, Hindawi, Frontiers, vixra, and ResearchGate are all unacceptable sources, in my opinion

What sources do you think would be acceptable in this context?

 

[Dale]

What sources do you think would be acceptable in this context?

I would look for reputable journals focused on cardiovascular medicine like Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, or the European Heart Journal. Or if not in those then in reputable general medical journals like New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, or Journal of the American Medical Association.

 

[LaraKnowles]

I would look for reputable journals focused on cardiovascular medicine like Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, or the European Heart Journal. Or if not in those then in reputable general medical journals like New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, or Journal of the American Medical Association.

I searched American College of Cardiology and found a paper from Mayo Clinic Proceedings which sourced it which seems to debunk the notion that geomagnetic storms cause arrhythmias:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4807870/ - sample size is also large, at around 60,000 people.

No effects seen on the heart at magnetic fields up to 8 T: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15556667/

However, Journal of the American Heart Association finds a correlation between geomagnetic storms and higher blood pressure: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.021006 Associations remained after adjustment for ambient air pollutants and ambient particle radioactivity.

Couldn't find anything else relevant to the sources you mentioned.

 

[Laroxe]

It's a difficult one, this, people get carried away with the possible effects of mysterious energy. The pineal gland is also a source of lots of speculation and we do know that it does react to electromagnetic energy in the form of photons. When it goes dark, melatonin is produced by the pineal, but this clearly isnt the sort of effect being discussed.

Something which did stand out was the observation that cardiovascular problems increased by a factor of two, this does immediately bring us to the problems of epidemiology and correlations. I remember reading some guidelines on the interpretation of correlational studies even large populations, the fact is that when we look at large amounts of data, finding associations is surprisingly easy. Some authors have made reasonable amounts of money publishing spurious correlations as works of comedy though the correlations are all real. (you can download the book Spurious Correlations for free, just google it)The correlation between two factors, in this case for example it is geomagnetic disturbances and cardiovascular events. These would need to be clearly defined and in a set period of time, other factors may also require adjustments. Can then be used to calculate the level of risk. The numbers are so unreliable it has been suggested that for them to even be considered useful an observed increase in risk by a factor of at least 3 for it to be considered in any way useful. In itself this wouldn't be considered a meaningful number but it might suggest a starting point for further studies using more reliable methods.

The association between smoking and lung cancer suggested a risk increase in the region of 15 to 30 times. While I haven't gone through the paper, it does appear to be correlational, in which case its rather meaningless, but it does get papers published.

I admit its been some time since I've paid attention to stats but I'm confident that this is where the experts might be found.:)

 

[Dale]

However, Journal of the American Heart Association finds a correlation between geomagnetic storms and higher blood pressure: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.021006 Associations remained after adjustment for ambient air pollutants and ambient particle radioactivity.

This is a much more believable paper, both in terms of the journal and also in terms of the claims. Here, instead of a claim of doubling the risk of heart attack or stroke, the claim is that there is a small increase in blood pressure in elderly men. The amount of increase was a few percent of the normal blood pressure, or less. The conclusion is a much more sedate “these natural phenomena influence BP in elderly men”.

This study is not very generalizable. It specifically studied older men, and predominantly white older men, as a particular high risk group, and specifically in Boston. So follow-up studies will be required to see if other groups and locations show a similar effect.

There is one particular issue with this study that did not seem well addressed in the paper. There were 8 time points, 3 effects, and several models considered. So there is a high risk of multiple comparisons issues. If this issue was addressed in the statistics it was not reported, raising reproducibility concerns.

Also, strangely, the p-values were not reported for the primary measures of the paper reported as the conclusion (unless I missed them somewhere). This raises doubts about the existence of this effect, so a replication of this study, even in elderly white men, is warranted.

And of course, a clear causal pathway would be necessary before any interventions could be recommended.

 

[Vanadium 50]

An orthogonal point. Correlation does not imply causality:

 

[Barakn]

This is a much more believable paper, both in terms of the journal and also in terms of the claims.

It claims "solar activity can impact autonomic nervous system activities," and to back this up, cites Mattoni, M., Ahn, S., Fröhlich, C. et al. (2020). However, that paper only had 20 volunteers, and says this in its results: "[T]he only significant results were an increase in very low frequency during higher local geomagnetic activity and a geomagnetic anticipatory decrease in heart rate a day before the higher global geomagnetic activity. Both correlations were very low. The loss of most significant effects after this correction suggests that previous findings may be a result of autocorrelation."

The "anticipatory decrease" is especially troubling, suggesting the human heart can predict geomagnetic disturbances and reacts before they occur.

 

[Dale]

The "anticipatory decrease" is especially troubling, suggesting the human heart can predict geomagnetic disturbances and reacts before they occur.

It could also suggest that the human heart can cause geomagnetic disturbances.

 

[LaraKnowles]

The "anticipatory decrease" is especially troubling, suggesting the human heart can predict geomagnetic disturbances and reacts before they occur.

Are you suggesting that the paper is pseudoscience?

 

[Barakn]

There might be something to the statistics in these papers, but the pineal gland/magnetic field evidence is weak. I think these researchers are missing the obvious: the exquisite sensitivity of the human eye in low light levels and sleep disruption. There are two classes of people directly affected, those who are extra sensitive to light at night and whose sleep is directly disturbed, and those who want to observe visual phenomenon, or related events, at night and intentionally remain awake, or awaken, to see it. In the latter category are aurora buffs (check out the large number of aurora notification pages on Facebook), astronomers (amateur and professional alike), and satellite operators (solar weather events both directly impacting satellites with radiation and also degrading orbits by puffing up the outer atmosphere).

Once a small percentage of the population has been affected by an event, residual effects spread via social networking like a contagion. Angie's son Seth is awakened by a particularly bright aurora, enhanced by reflection from snow, and can't get back to sleep. Angie has a hard time getting Seth going in the morning, and gets Seth to school late. Angie is stressed. Bob, an avid aurora enthusiast, stays up late because the Kp index is predicted to reach 6. An aurora appears, and he calls and wakes up his friend Dave to see it. The next morning, Bob calls in "sick" to his office, and his boss has to distribute extra work to other people in his department. Stress levels go up. Dave goes to work, but is slightly off his game, and emails an invoice with a large mistake to a client, leading to an angry phone call. Dave and the client are stressed. Sally spends the night trying to revive a satellite after a single-even upset from solar radiation causes it to stop sending signals. While driving home, her drowsiness leads to a car accident that injures 5 people. At the hospital, staff are pulled from other areas of the building to the E.R. to deal with the influx, leading to increased levels of stress, pain, and anxiety in other patients. Then all of these people have interactions with other people, and so on. The overall effect, averaged over the entire population, is small and barely measurable.

And we might as well lump in the light of the moon, for which there is a larger body of research.

 

[jrmichler]

It claims "solar activity can impact autonomic nervous system activities," and to back this up, cites Mattoni, M., Ahn, S., Fröhlich, C. et al. (2020). However, that paper only had 20 volunteers, and says this in its results: "[T]he only significant results were an increase in very low frequency during higher local geomagnetic activity and a geomagnetic anticipatory decrease in heart rate a day before the higher global geomagnetic activity. Both correlations were very low.

Note the part about "Both correlations were very low."

On the other hand, search terms percentage of heart disease caused by lifestyle results in a number of good hits such as: https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.or...lthier-diet-regular-exercise-and-not-smoking/. The very first sentence is "Ninety percent of the nearly 18 million heart disease cases worldwide could be prevented by people adopting a healthier diet, doing regular exercise, and not smoking.".

Are you suggesting that the paper is pseudoscience?

When the subject is heart disease, any paper with low correlations might as well be pseudoscience because the major causes of heart disease are well known and have high correlations.

The "anticipatory decrease" is especially troubling, suggesting the human heart can predict geomagnetic disturbances and reacts before they occur.

It can also mean that people are reacting to news reports of upcoming geomagnetic disturbances. The placebo effect works both ways.

 

[Dale]

It can also mean that people are reacting to news reports of upcoming geomagnetic disturbances. The placebo effect works both ways.

Indeed. Sometimes this is called the nocebo effect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

 

[LaraKnowles]

Seen a lot of news articles lately about upcoming magnetic storms and their impact on human health: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/fa...t&cvid=2ac33d5b533f441398bc86eb57ce3bd0&ei=22

A lot of these articles mention how magnetic storms are bad for the heart.

 

[Dale]

Seen a lot of news articles lately about upcoming magnetic storms and their impact on human health: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/fa...t&cvid=2ac33d5b533f441398bc86eb57ce3bd0&ei=22

A lot of these articles mention how magnetic storms are bad for the heart.

That is why the standard here is the professional scientific literature. So far the evidence shown here doesn’t support that assertion.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you publish an article saying "We're all gonna die! We're all gonna die!" yes, I suppose that might cause heart attacks.

 

[Laroxe]

If you publish an article saying "We're all gonna die! We're all gonna die!" yes, I suppose that might cause heart attacks.

Nah! There are so many things in articles, that are apparently going to kill us, most people don't even read them.
People are far more cynical about existential threats these days, if there is no evidence that it originated in the existential area of France, they know it's just sparkling anxiety. :)

 

[russ_watters]

Seen a lot of news articles lately about upcoming magnetic storms and their impact on human health: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/fa...t&cvid=2ac33d5b533f441398bc86eb57ce3bd0&ei=22

A lot of these articles mention how magnetic storms are bad for the heart.

That's the same questionable author/source as your prior link. It's not acceptable, so this thread is closed. If you actually do have any other/better sources, PM me.