This book is about human perception. In particular, it is about the ability to sense the changes in natural magnetic fields that take place as a result of cyclical changes in the relative positions of the earth, the sun, the moon and the planets. This ability, argues Jean Edmiston, depends on the conductivity of the blood. This is higher in anaemic people because copper tends to replace iron in the haemoglobin and copper is more conductive than iron. In recent centuries the general level of iron in people’s blood has been high but in the bronze age it was low. The resulting high sensitivity to changing magnetic fields was reflected in the epic poetry of the time, especially that of the ancient Egyptians and early Greeks, the purpose of which was to preserve in stories of the Gods an understanding of the rhythms of the cosmos. These rhythms in turn, through their magnetic effects on the weather and on the mood of individuals sensitive to them, drive the cycles of human history.

This is a bold theory and some scientific facts are offered in support. But by and large the argument proceeds by anecdote and assumption. The scientific aspects are rarely expounded sufficiently fully to allow a judgement of their plausibility. For example, copper wire undoubtedly has lower electrical resistance than iron wire of the same dimensions. Does it follow that blood containing copper in place of iron in the haemoglobin is more conductive? That is, does the circulation in a magnetic field of blood carrying copper experience a stronger induced current than blood carrying iron? Perhaps it does. But in the book this is assumed rather than justified by evidence. And is it really true that blood could oxygenate tissue just as well if it were static, so that its circulation must have some other purpose – assumed here to be the experiencing of an induced current in a magnetic field? This is, to me at least, such a surprising assertion that I expected to see some strong evidence cited – but there was none. And are the differences between the induced currents in anaemic and non-anaemic people sufficient to have any effect? Are the differences in induced currents between times of maximum and minimum magnetic field large enough to be important? How do the these variations compare with normal variation in individuals at different times and between different people in modern populations?

Jean Edmiston may be right. But a convincing case needs to be made to address these questions and the many others that this book provokes but fails to pursue.

So this is certainly a provocative book but ultimately, because it raises so many questions that are not pursued with any degree of rigour, a very unsatisfying one. As the author herself says, she merely scratches the surface of a topic that, if she is right, deserves much deeper analysis.

Robert Peel

[Note: Jean Edmiston will respond to this review in a subsequent issue of the Newsletter.]