Talk:Bioelectromagnetism

message: Shouldn't only a link to Wikiquote be here? --Eleassar my talk 18:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote

message: It seems that this article has much to do with chemical and electric effects.  But there seems to be little to no scientific evidence for magnetic phenomena.  Should this page simply redirect to Bioelectricity? Nimur 17:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnetism?

message: Can anyone explain why these two articles shouldn't be merged? There's only one article for magnetics and magnetism, so I'm at a complete loss as to why a far, far smaller topic needs 2 articles.
And following on from the comment above, maybe the Bioelectricity article too. If there isn't enough research to complete 3 featured articles, then why not try to complete 1 featured one? Kayman1uk 11:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a habit of new age chuckleheads to create unnecessary complexity and esotericism.  It allows for the co-existance of more high priests. Rogerborg (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bioelectromagnetics vs. Bioelectromagnetism 

message: I propose that it can be a very potent energy source that is as of yet untapped by our scientists see  as a possible reference source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bioelectromagnetism as a power source

message: I can't wear watches, because my bioelectric field screws them up. My father has the same problem. What is going on here? 156.34.190.134 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has asked another stupid question on the elephant talk page, complete rubbish. Just another form of vandal. ZooPro 02:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: My father can also not wear watches because he shorts out the batteries; it doesn't matter if they're digital or analog.  There's no reason hundreds of people would lie about such an insignificant phenomenon. ~Mike K.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.180.165 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interference with watches 

message: There's no reason why these two articles, Bioelectromagnetics and Bioelectromagnetism should remain separate. As someone said before, there's only one article for magnetics and magnetism, so why should a far smaller topic need 2 articles?
It is wrong, and in fact misleading, to counter-oppose these two subjects. I've looked at the relevant specialist textbooks at Google Books, and nowhere is there found such an opposition.
There are textbooks for 'Bioelectromagnetics', and there are textbooks for 'Bioelectromagnetism', and they all treat more or less the same subject areas. 
Here's a free online textbook for 'Bioelectromagnetism',
http://www.bem.fi/book/00/tx.htm
http://www.bem.fi/book/00/co.htm
According to the Introduction, Bioelectromagnetism would include Bioelectromagnetics,
Bioelectromagnetism is a discipline that examines the electric, electromagnetic, and magnetic phenomena which arise in biological tissues. These phenomena include: 
*The behavior of excitable tissue (the sources) 
*The electric currents and potentials in the volume conductor 
*The magnetic field at and beyond the body 
*The response of excitable cells to electric and magnetic field stimulation 
These two terms seem basically interchangeable, or perhaps 'ism' would include 'ics'. --Dyuku (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge - Seems pretty clear. Also fix the redirect from Bioelectromagnetic. Let's close this and get on with it. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger