So you're using the abstract of paper as your proof? >Abstract >Melatonin secretion by the pineal gland has been reported to be affected by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). In an initial investigation to determine if calcifications commonly found in the pineal gland could respond to EMFs by a transducer mechanism, studies were conducted to ascertain if pineal tissues were piezoelectric. Second harmonic generation (SHG) measurements showed that pineal tissues contained noncentrosymmetric crystals, thus proving the presence of piezoelectricity. Both mulberry-like and faceted crystalline calcifications were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Some of the calcifications had compositions similar to that of hydroxyapatite; others contained a high concentration of aluminum. That abstract *literally* says that the calcifications are what they suspect could be piezoelectric and not the gland itself as you suggested. You couldn't even read the text correctly and got it backwards. It says what I said. Also, this is all you have to go on? Anyone can write a paper and get it in some journal, even in 1996 when this was published. It doesn't mean there is any truth or rigor in the "science". You just like this paper because it lines up with your world view. You need to be skeptical and find more information that goes in other directions and weigh the information present yourself before applying your bias and desire for a specific outcome. You're not using science; you're using fee fees.