Bioelectromagnetics

Status
Not open for further replies.
In regards to the Coghill challenge.

http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/

Place any human infant of less than three months age to sleep each night for at least eight hours in an ELF electric field of 100 Volts per metre for thirty days. My studies predict that child will die, or become so seriously ill that the test will have to be called off. The NRPB and the power utilities' investigation levels by contrast predict there will be no adverse effect.

I will personally bet any NRPB member of staff or any any electric power utility worker around the world £2000 (or US$3000) willing to do this experiment, that my prediction will prove correct.
Click to expand...

:eek: :eek: :eek: WHOA!!!!!

Ummm....other than some ethical concerns, why would a human infant have to be used. Why not another mammal?


cogreslab wrote:
they should be free to proceed in any research direction they choose, and be unfettered
Click to expand...

Would the above be "unfettered"?

I believe somewhere you mentioned peer review. Have you published any papers? Have you been published in a peer reviewed journal? I'm looking through your website and I need help here.
 
Browsing your site Mr. Coghill I have discovered that you have worked on Atlantis as well.
http://www.galonja.co.uk/galonja_sh...&g_u_nam=&g_tim=&pid=59&v_det=1&full=1&c_id=0
We have a couple of threads about that. Maybe you want to post your comments there. I confess that I find disappointing the fact that a classicist cannot see what Plato meant with Atlantis.

Anyway. These are the threads I am talking about

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870433881#post1870433881

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32404&highlight=atlantis

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33523&highlight=atlantis
 
crlgplandscape.jpg


As an aside, would the tall chap in the back go by the name of Lucianarchy? Something about the gleam in the eye made me wonder.
 
Again from the challenge page:
This challenge was first thrown down in 1999. We have had not one single person daring to take it up and thereby win a thousand pounds.
Click to expand...

You're kidding!! In all this time, not one person willing to sacrifice their newborn child??? Incredible! Don't people understand this is science? It must be part of the vast conspiracy to suppress some forms of research.

Write to me or E-mail me in the usual way to enter. Entrants must agree that we will let visitors to our website know the results of this trial, with the outcome verified by the coroner or doctor attending the infant.
Click to expand...

You may want to include local law enforcement. Maybe Child Protecitive Services. I'm sure they'd be interested.


From your staff philosophy:
We don't judge intelligence by the length of someone's hair,

nor brilliance by the letters after their name.
Click to expand...

Nor do a bunch of people wearing white lab coats make up a research team.
 
cbish said:
In regards to the Coghill challenge.

http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/



:eek: :eek: :eek: WHOA!!!!!

Ummm....other than some ethical concerns, why would a human infant have to be used. Why not another mammal?
Click to expand...
You're getting there, but I don't you have the full picture needed to give you the moral outrage you should have. [urlrogbot] claims to believe that the infant will die under these conditions. He is betting it will die. Now apart from the fact that rogbot is full of donkey dong, he believes it, and under his version of the facts, the infant will die.

So, either rogbot is, shall we say, quite a bit less than convinced about these deadly power lines (and therefore, shall we say, prevaricates quite a bit) or he is despicable and morally bankrupt. Neither interpretation is charitable. I have asked rogbot to respond to this interpretation of his challenge by presenting a reasonable third possibility. I keep hearing crickets.
 
As we have seen, Roger Coghill does not want to take responsibility for endangering the life of an infant. No, it's the evil power companies' responsibility!

Hey, Roger is just doing good here, by being prepared to put a child's life at stake, only to prove himself right.

Anything for science, right?
 
My Challenge: I stand by the challenge. In a scenario where one party (The NRPB) is saying something is safe to expose infants to, and another party (myself) says it is a life threatening hazard to these infants, who is the guilty party? The NRPB is letting these infants become exposed to high E-fields all the time, not me.
 
CFLarsen was quite right to bring out the full text of the NRPB's point of view, just as I was right to point out they had conceded the good conduct of the uncited but "large and well conducted studies" of the issue. I now want to cxontinue by exploring the NRPB's stated value judgements: They said (Docs of NRPB as cited previously, not any other source Mr Larsen)

"The evidence is, however, not conclusive. In those studies in which measurements were made, the extent to which the more heavily exposed children were representative is in doubt, while in those in Nordic countries in which representativeness is assured, the fields were estimated and the results based on such small numbers that the findings could have been due to chance".

See my next post, In case this page too expires
 
First let's be clear about which studies the NRPB were referring to. I beleive they referred to the Nordic studies as those from Feychting and Ahlbom at the Karolinksa (though there were others at the same time, around 1992, from Denmark and Norway too). The other major study since then was from Doll's group in the UK (the UKCCCR study), which confirmed sixteen previous studies pointing to a risk elevation at around 250nT upwards.

Continued...
 
The persistence of these positive associations between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia has been accepted by a consensus of the world's bioelectomagnetics scietists. I point to the comments made in 1990 by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which proposed that ELF EM fields be designated a B2 carcinogen for that and other reasons. In fact they wanted a stronger carcinogen status for EMFs but were overruled by the White House. You can read about that whole dirty saga in Microwave News, accessible via Google if you dont have the site address.
 
The NRPB in 2001 offered the value judgement that these later studies though admitted to be large and well conducted, were not conclusive, thereby isolating themselves from the conclusion of the world's largest Environmental protection agency. I ask you, if sixteen out of eighteen residential epi studies point (as they do) to an association between chronic exposure to ELF EM fields and childhood cancer, and the two which do not show an association were both funded by the power utilities, would you as reasonable people come to the same conclusions as the NRPB?

Continued...
 
The NRPB then discusses "those studies in which measurements were made". This brings in the large NCI (National Cancer Institute) study by Martha Linet and colleagues. It too found the same positive association as the UK group above 400nT, (although the press release and media put a negative spin on the results for political purposes). It did not measure electric fields. It claimed that of four previous studies measuring electric fields and childhood cancer, none had found conclusive evidence, but that is rubbish because our peer reviewed and published study (which the authors cited but referenced incorrectly) had found a near fivefold elevation where the E-field exceeded 20 V/m.

Continued...
 
The NRPB argue that association reported in the unmeasured studies "might be due to chance".

That is not the conclusion of the Karolinska authors, who say:

"The finding of an association, in childhood leukaemia, with calculated historical fields but not with measurements are consistent with the assumption that historical calculated fields are reasonably good predictors of past fields, but that spot measurements are poor predictors of those fields. The confinement of an association to one family homes might be explained by a limited accuracy in exposure assessments in apartment houses. The results provide support for the hypothesis that exposure to magnetic fields increase the risk of cancer. This is most evident in childhood leukaemia. What aspect of the fields that might be involved remains unclear".

I do see any comment about these results being due to chance. To answer another post "These results persisted when data were broken down by gender, age, time of diagnosis and area of living (the OR was nearly 4 times when fields above 300nT were used as the cutoff) Who would you rather believe? The NRPB or the Karolinksa Institute (which is responsible for awarding Nobel prizes)?
 
cogreslab said:
My Challenge: I stand by the challenge. In a scenario where one party (The NRPB) is saying something is safe to expose infants to, and another party (myself) says it is a life threatening hazard to these infants, who is the guilty party? The NRPB is letting these infants become exposed to high E-fields all the time, not me.
Click to expand...

rogbot,

Do you or don't you believe the infant will die or be seriously harmed? Do you or don't you? Yes or no.
 
Can I next deal with Mr. Larsen's rude comment that I am a fraud, by not citing the entire NRPB text. Well nor did he. On the next page of that review (Docs of the NRPB Vol 12, 1, page 164) the authors prsent their general conclusion. This ends: "Unless however further research indicates that the finding is due to chance or some currently unrecognised artifact, the possibility remains that intense and prolonged exposures to magnetic fields can increase the risk of leukaemia in children".

Given the weight of evidence the NRPB really had no other choice but to make this concession, which was the first time they did so in any of their published documents, so far as I am aware.

I hope Mr Larsen youy will now withdraew your rude comment which infringes rule 8 of this forum. But notice the NRPB conclusion completely omit to mention electric fields, and so does the WHO and ICNIRP. This is because that is where the active parameter of the fields is most evident in the literature.

For those not familiar with physics there is no relation at ELF frequencies between the electric and the magnetic components of the EM wave, unlike at high frequencies where in a plane wave situation there is a fixed relationship. So any studies of ELF magnetic fields can say nothing about the electric component. Which is exactly what the utilities want to acheive, because by focussing entirely on the magnetic component they disguise the important bioeffects induced by the electric component, as evidenced by thousands of cellular, live animal and human studies already in the literature.
 
rogbot,

Do you or don't you believe the infant will die or be seriously harmed? Do you or don't you? Yes or no.
 
I don't know what makes you believe Bill that if you insult this man you will make him reply to your question.
 
Cleopatra said:
I don't know what makes you believe Bill that if you insult this man you will make him reply to your question.
Click to expand...
I don't know what makes you believe I want him to reply. I already know the answer. I want him to know the answer. I want others to know the answer. The answer is perfectly clear:

o If he believes the power lines will be harmful, his challenge is a moral outrage.

o If he doesn't believe the power lines will be harmful, his constant claims of harm are a moral outrage.

Do you see a way out of rogbot's problem here? He clearly doesn't, and clearly won't answer because he can't. His challenge either exposes his lies or his moral bankruptcy.

I welcome anybody's rational explanation of how this is not so.
 
BillHoyt said:
Do you see a way out of rogbot's problem here? He clearly doesn't, and clearly won't answer because he can't. His challenge either exposes his lies or his moral bankruptcy.

I welcome anybody's rational explanation of how this is not so.
Click to expand...
I suspect the answer as well-- I am not qualified to suggest that I know the answer. Also, I have noticed that he tries to move the discussion here and disassociate himself from the woo-woo crystal he promotes although his lab sells equally woo-woo objects. I mean you don't need to be a scientist to know once you see Atlantis mentioned.

But it's exactly those observations that gives us the luxury to be gentle and polite. I guess we will never agree on that. Oh well.
 
Cleopatra said:
I suspect the answer as well-- I am not qualified to suggest that I know the answer. Also, I have noticed that he tries to move the discussion here and disassociate himself from the woo-woo crystal he promotes although his lab sells equally woo-woo objects. I mean you don't need to be a scientist to know once you see Atlantis mentioned.

But it's exactly those observations that gives us the luxury to be gentle and polite. I guess we will never agree on that. Oh well.
Click to expand...
Cleopatra,

There are no qualifications involved in these questions at all. It is basic logic. Either rogbot believes the infants will come to harm or he doesn't. If he doesn't believe it, then why is he making a living telling everybody about the dire harm? That is no longer a question of being mistaken or of being delusional. That is outright lying. He knows the truth and is advocating its opposite. But, if he does believe in the harm, then he is inciting people to bring harm to innocents.

This issue is abundantly clear, cleopatra, and does not rest on the issue of whether or not there is actual harm.

BTW, I began calling rogbot rogbot after he idiotically reponded to my post with links to pictures of birds and animals perched on power lines. His knee-jerk, bot-like reply? "Did these studies also take into account the fact that real estate that lies under power lines tends to be lower-cost, available to lower-income families?" They were pictures of birds, owls and squirrels perched on power lines. I invite you to go back and read that pivotal exchange to understand why I will forevermore refer to him as rogbot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom