Bioelectromagnetics

And yet you dismiss the meta-analysis studies which deny such a link in the more recent - better conducted tests. Quoting from the Italian meta-analysis abstract because I can easily find it in the thread
Many other epidemiological studies have been published since then, characterised by improved--although still not optimal--methods of exposure assessment. At the end of 2000, the epidemiological evidence to support the association between exposure to extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood leukemia is less consistent than what was observed in the mid 90s. At the same time, a growing body of experimental evidence has accumulated against both a direct and a promoting carcinogenic effect of ELF-EMF.
Click to expand...
early studies found an apparent link (possibly becuase of flawed protocol), more recent studies are at odds with this link

Early studies weren't as good and yet you refer to studies which are up to 24 years old.


Even if EMF causes cancer how do your trinkets help to prevent it ?
 
cogreslab said:
Why exactly should we put ANY confidence at all in what you say?

Because I have been using textbook knowledge. Anybody can verify what I have said.

Hans, it's not what I say. It's what the authors of all these studies are saying.

But right now, all we see is what you say they say. We see you making conclusions about a subject you have shown you do not understand.
Click to expand...

Hans
 
Prag: "By the way, speaking of Helen Dolk. Perhaps Roger you would be kind enough to tell us what the results were of her SECOND epi study of "health risks from transmitting towers"? You know, the much more comprehensive follow up study AFTER Sutton Coldfield".

I am pleased you brought that up. The second study included Paul Elliott as co-author. It mixed up the high power transmitters such as Sutton Coldfield with a host of much small transmitters but kept the geographical distances and areas the same, thereby diluting the results. When i disentangled the high power transmitters out from these, the same positive associational effect was apparent in the second study.


I didn't bother to write to the journal. Perhaps I should have.
 
cogreslab said:
Prag: "By the way, speaking of Helen Dolk. Perhaps Roger you would be kind enough to tell us what the results were of her SECOND epi study of "health risks from transmitting towers"? You know, the much more comprehensive follow up study AFTER Sutton Coldfield".

I am pleased you brought that up. The second study included Paul Elliott as co-author. It mixed up the high power transmitters such as Sutton Coldfield with a host of much small transmitters but kept the geographical distances and areas the same, thereby diluting the results. When i disentangled the high power transmitters out from these, the same positive associational effect was apparent in the second study.


I didn't bother to write to the journal. Perhaps I should have.
Click to expand...
We've already seen the manner in which you cherry pick and misrepresent data to support your agenda (refer to my initial critiques of your 2nd harmoniser "experiment".

Care to share the treatment you resorted to on *this* study to support your agenda?
 
cogreslab said:
Prag: "By the way, speaking of Helen Dolk. Perhaps Roger you would be kind enough to tell us what the results were of her SECOND epi study of "health risks from transmitting towers"? You know, the much more comprehensive follow up study AFTER Sutton Coldfield".

I am pleased you brought that up. The second study included Paul Elliott as co-author. It mixed up the high power transmitters such as Sutton Coldfield with a host of much small transmitters but kept the geographical distances and areas the same, thereby diluting the results. When i disentangled the high power transmitters out from these, the same positive associational effect was apparent in the second study.


I didn't bother to write to the journal. Perhaps I should have.
Click to expand...

Based on the reading I have done on this:

1. Paul Elliott did an independent study which showed no effect at all.

2. The second Dolk study showed apparent effects from two transmitters. Sutton Coldfield and Alexandra Palace. Dolk (privately) concluded that it was the mixed UHF/FM signals that caused the effect. Sutton Coldfield had mixed signals. Alexandra Palace did not. Dolk expressed "confusion" when questioned about this.

3. I've only seen Dolk's own comments about the second study so I can't comment on the methodology. Words like "inconclusive", "weak apparent association", spring to mind though.

4. You were citing Dolk as a paragon of virtue when her results appeared to support your claim. Now that we see that her other results do NOT support your claim, suddenly her work is seriously flawed.

QED. Checkmate, Roger.
 
Hans: "And yet you dismiss the meta-analysis studies which deny such a link in the more recent - better conducted tests. Quoting from the Italian meta-analysis abstract because I can easily find it in the thread".

Hans, not only do the most recent and large scale epi studies report an association at 0.4uT but that is the conclusion of the two most important meta-analyses. You were quoting from a minor Italian study were you not? Is it available in English? I know you originally gave the reference but I have forgotten it.
 
You were citing Dolk as a paragon of virtue when her results appeared to support your claim. Now that we see that her other results do NOT support your claim, suddenly her work is seriously flawed.


I never said it was "seriously flawed", nor that the first Dolk study was a paragon of virtue, only that I had to disentangle the figures from Dolk, Elliott et al to get comparables. The comparables support my argument.

Moreover one should not take this small set of studies in isolation: there have been a number previous studies reporting adverse health effects near radio and TV towers and transmitters:
EG:
Chiang, Yao, et al,. 1989 (effects on phagocytosis, etc)
Alpeter et al (the Schwartzenberg short wave tower near Bern)
The Radio towers at Hawaii
Bruce Hocking's small study of childhood leukaemia near TV masts in Australia
Kolodynski et al., 's studies at the Skrunda radiolocator
and here are a few more:

SIGLER A. T. et al
Radiation exposure in parents of children with Downs Syndrome,
John Hopkins Med. J i117 p374 p399 1965

SZMIGIELSKI S.
Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to high frequency (radio frequency and microwave) elecromagnetic radiation
Sci. Tot. Environ i180 p9 p17 1996

Zhao Z Yang G et al
Setting exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation and microwaves in China
Reviews on Environmental Health v10 i3-4 p209 p212 1994

One should not simply consider the results of one study alone.

These were all positive assocations.

Do you have any others with negative results?
 
Thought we'd already agreed that EM exposure was a problem. We know already that gamma rays are bad for us.

We were talking about low frequency EM (from power lines)

On that basis the studies you quote are invalid.

If you'd like to start a separate thread in which the dangers of, say, microwave radiation are discussed be my guest. I for one would hate to be exposed to high intensity microwaves (did someone say Radar Range ?).

Please understand, in low frequency EM, we're talking about much, much, much lower energy levels.
 
"But right now, all we see is what you say they say".

That is a problem for you I must admit, unless you are able to attend the relevant conferences all around the world at your own cost, to maintain an extensive library of hard copy peer reviewed papers, to sit for hours in libraries digging out all the relevant papers, even organising conferences of world class scientists to debate the issues, sitting late into the night arguing the toss with colleagues with opposing views, and doing all that for more than fifteen years.

I do not agree that I have a flawed grasp on this issue.
 
Effects of EMF on biological systems in a word : Inconsistent

Some studies produce effects, some studies produce no effects. The studies that produce effects are not consistent, and do not produce the same effects.



The committee's overall conclusion based on analysis of in vitro experimentation is that magnetic-field exposures at 50-60 Hz have been shown to induce changes in cultured cells only at field strengths that exceed residential exposure levels by factors of 1,000 to 100,000.
Click to expand...

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309054478/html/53.html#pagetop

Stevens, CF, Savitz DA, Anderson LE, Driscoll DA, Gage FH, Garwin RL, Jelinski LW, Kelman BJ, Luben RA, Reiter RJ, Slovic P, Stolwijk JAJ, Stuchly MA, Wartenberg D, Waugh JS, and Williams JR. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.

The certainty with which Mr Coghill presents his opinions is far from warranted.
 
Prag: "This is the whole problem. You have two complex systems: biological organisms/systems and electromagnetic waves, fields, currents potentials etc.

There are few who truly understand all aspects of either one. Now put them together and try to interrelate them. Then throw in a few statisticians, epidemiologists etc. Add a few Rogers and Cyrils who make up the "science" as they go along. Give it all a good stir and try to make some sense of the results. Good luck!"

Yes, we are still all learning. The reason we need to learn is that technology has created in the last fifty years an ocean of unregulated EM fields and radiations and we are trying to swim in it.

The disorders now increasing on our planet are often related to compromised immunity, and though there are other obvious sources of hazard this area is central to the effects being reported from exposures to non-thermal levels of EMF.

There is a concomitant need to develop protective strategems, whether by regulation, prudent avoidance, or devices, because no one is going to forego the splendid technical advances which have given us mobile telephony, mass entertainment, diagnostic apparatus, and maybe even therapeutic interventions.
 
The committee's overall conclusion based on analysis of in vitro experimentation is that magnetic-field exposures at 50-60 Hz have been shown to induce changes in cultured cells only at field strengths that exceed residential exposure levels by factors of 1,000 to 100,000.
Thanks for that, PJ.

And what did they say about electric fields?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Oh, btw, just to report back on something.

Those magnetic coasters are really good for wine. Put one under the bottle you open today, then, if you have any left, the next it'll taste even better!

Here's another tip. Put some water in the fridge and set it on the coaster.Drink a cold pint at night and a cold pint in the morning and you should feel energised.

The only side effect is when you walk past the fridge. All the other fridge magnets fly off and attach themselves like limpets to your bladder.
 
Please understand, in low frequency EM, we're talking about much, much, much lower energy levels.

I have never denied the difference in energy levels. But it is not only a question of energy. pulse train or modulated RF fields for example are far more bio-effective than continuous wave emissions.

Quite a few studies had been published before this lesson became apparent.
 
The only side effect is when you walk past the fridge. All the other fridge magnets fly off and attach themselves like limpets to your bladder.

WOW! Lucy, you could make yourself a fortune with a party trick like that!
 
cogreslab said:
That is a problem for you I must admit, unless you are able to attend the relevant conferences all around the world at your own cost, to maintain an extensive library of hard copy peer reviewed papers, to sit for hours in libraries digging out all the relevant papers, even organising conferences of world class scientists to debate the issues, sitting late into the night arguing the toss with colleagues with opposing views, and doing all that for more than fifteen years.
Click to expand...
Your judgement is compromised in a number of ways:

- Firstly you are so sure that there is a risk you dismiss the opposing view
- Secondly you do not understand the science well enough (as evidenced by your statements here)
- Thirdly you sell objects which have incredibly dubious claims

I for one am willing to state that the evidence from epidemiological studies is inconclusive. I'm willing to concede that, for example, Dr Henshaw has proposed a plausable mechanism for health effects to occur. Please note however that this mechanism has nothing to do with human exposure to EM fields and everything to do with human exposure to heavily ionised pollution particles. I'm happy for research to carry on into the potential link, and on the effects of low frequency EM radiation on living systems.

What I'm unhappy about is for people like yourself to stir up concern for what is at worst a marginal issue (I understand that some studies estimate that a single case of childhood leukaemia MAY be attributable to this) and on the back of this hysteria attempt to further the case for bad science (that's the one in which an hypothesis is made and then the research is made to fit that hyothesis) and for charlatans and moutebanks to take advantage of this public hysteria to sell items with no proven effecacy at all.
 
I'm sorry, I couldn't find Dr. Young's book.


Power over People
Dr Louise B Young

was reprinted in 1992 by Oxford University Press, price £10-95.

It includes updated information by the autrhor to bring it into the early 1990s, but of course the world has moved on yet again since then.
 
cogreslab said:
The disorders now increasing on our planet are often related to compromised immunity, and though there are other obvious sources of hazard this area is central to the effects being reported from exposures to non-thermal levels of EMF.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that:

- The disorders now increasing on our planet are often related to compromised immunity
- There is a link between non-thermal levels of EMF and compromised immunity

Are you seriously suggesting that AIDS is caused by EMF exposure ? Are you instead referring to allergies ?
 
From page 2:
At exposure levels well above those normally encountered in residences, electric and magnetic fields can produce biologic effects (promotion of bone healing is an example), but these effects do not provide a consistent picture of a relationship between the biologic effects of these fields and health hazards.
Click to expand...

Inconsitent.
 
Hans said (some pages back):

Electrons take part in electrical currents, and chemical bonds. What is your evidence that electrical fields can influence electrical currents and chemical bonds inside the body to any greater degree than magnetic fields? This is what our discussion is about.

More or less this is the core of the discussion. I am not however sure that I need to prove the electric field effects are "greater" than the magnetic, simply that they exist, and have important biological consequences.

Am I right about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom