Bioelectromagnetics

[Pragmatist]

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:

....snip....

These were all positive assocations.

Do you have any others with negative results?

Roger, in case it's slipped your notice, *I* am not LOOKING for positive/negative "studies" of POSSIBLE ASSOCIATIONS between health and various types of EM radiation, towers etc. For the hundredth time, nobody is disputing that various sorts of EM radiation MAY have adverse health effects. And a possible association is not proof of anything.

We have asked you to prove YOUR claims. Every time you come up with "studies". Most of which have no relation whatsoever to your specific claims. When YOU claim there IS a relation to your claims, we see for ourselves that there ISN'T. You cite a study in support of a claim. When it is pointed out that the overall conclusion of that same study DENIES your claim, you choose to only accept some PART of the overall study that you think supports you.

If someone came up with a study of radiation in which one person died and 99 others were not affected, and the overall conclusion was that there was no effect, YOU would be citing that study that it's proven dangerous because one person died!

There is no point in denying it. You've done it too often, you're not fooling anyone. All these "studies" are just another diversion to escape the fact that you haven't got a leg to stand on, on scientific grounds or in terms of proof of your specific claims.

My reason for mentioning Dolk is that YOU cited Dolk as a victim of the "great conspiracy", presumably because her first study results disagreed with what you claim is the position of the "establishment". I then simply pointed out that her later and more comprehensive results did NOT substantially disagree with "the establishment". And the moment I said it you were quick to point out an alleged flaw in her study. You did not point out any flaw in her study that you cited in support of your claim, nor did you mention that there was any reason to question her expertise or credibility. All of this was in the context of "scientists who depart from scientific orthodoxy" according to you.

Please look at what I said before:

And here is where your whole argument falls apart Roger. When anybody asks you to prove any of your claims you present some reference (which in reality may or may NOT support the position you claim - usually NOT). If someone then presents another reference that (also) contradicts your claim, your argument is always essentially that any reference you quote is reliable, but those of others are unreliable because of conspiracies etc

And as soon as I said that, you DID precisely that! Therefore I consider my statement to be proved. Hence the QED.

You are cherry picking. It's obvious to all.

I don't believe you have any credible argument in support of your position or claims EXCEPT cherry picked "studies". Well, anybody could do that in support of ANY argument. It is NOT a credible position.

 

[cogreslab]

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

1. I do not dismiss the opposing view, on the contrary I examine it carefully. On more than one occasion here I have provided a critical analysis of the opposing evidence to show how it is flawed. I am not alone in coming to the conclusion there is a serious problem, as evidenced in the consensus of epi studies, and that further the electric field effects are not yet fully researched (a matter on which the NRPB has lately come to agree on).

2. It is your value judgement, based only on a number of pedantic sophistries and obtuse misunderstandings that I do not understand the science. I disagree withn your judgement, and say that your own interpretation of the litearture suggests to me a reluctance to accept the main body of evidence, for reasons I am ignorant about. On more than one occasion retractions have been necessary because my version of events though challenged has proved correct.

3. As for scaremongering, I am on record as repeatedly saying that e.g. normal use of cellphones carries no presently evident health risk, except perhaps for children, but that fuirther resaerch is necessary. My legal action led to the setting up of the Stewart Ciommittee which also came to that conclusion.

4. We sell some third party products based on our and other researches, (however imperfect you may think these researches are). So does the cellphone industry. Their research pointed to adverse health effects but they deliberately tried to cover it up. The result of their ill protected handset products is brain tumours, lymphoma, lowered attention span, etc. among excessive users.

By contrast , you have no evidence whatsoever that the products in contention do not work, no evidence of any harm to any user of these products, and only the single complaint that we did not publish a study conducting enough replications in only one of these products (which are not ours anyway). On that "evidence" you aim to dismiss all the many peer reviewed studies supporting the concerns of many scientists I have cited in this thread, and to brand me as a scaremonger out for profit.

The only ones out for profit are those who presently decieve the public into thinking that cellphones, base stations, electric appliances, power lines and all other sources of non-ionising fields and radiation are completely safe, against a scientific background which clearly says otherwise.

As for the further allegation of cherry picking, I am shaking a whole tree of cherries down around you. Taste a few.

 

[BillHoyt]

By contrast , you have no evidence whatsoever that the products in contention do not work, no evidence of any harm to any user of these products, and only the single complaint that we did not publish a study conducting enough replications in only one of these products (which are not ours anyway). On that "evidence" you aim to dismiss all the many peer reviewed studies supporting the concerns of many scientists I have cited in this thread, and to brand me as a scaremonger out for profit.

The only ones out for profit are those who presently decieve the public into thinking that cellphones, base stations, electric appliances, power lines and all other sources of non-ionising fields and radiation are completely safe, against a scientific background which clearly says otherwise.

As for the further allegation of cherry picking, I am shaking a whole tree of cherries down around you. Taste a few.

Balderdash, dodger. You can't just brush off the burden of proof and place it on someone else's shoulders. It is you, the producer or purveyor of a product to provide evidence it works. When you, the producer or purveyor hawk a product whose claims include effectiveness that is against all science to solve problems whose existence is against all science, guess where the burden of proof resides? I'll give you two guesses, and you already used up your first one.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Balderdash, dodger. You can't just brush off the burden of proof and place it on someone else's shoulders. It is you, the producer or purveyor of a product to provide evidence it works. When you, the producer or purveyor hawk a product whose claims include effectiveness that is against all science to solve problems whose existence is against all science, guess where the burden of proof resides? I'll give you two guesses, and you already used up your first one.

Yes, people who make claims should provide evidence for, or retract, their claims...

 

[Cleopatra]

I would reply to that but my father is reading this thread....

 

[BillHoyt]

2. It is your value judgement, based only on a number of pedantic sophistries and obtuse misunderstandings that I do not understand the science. I disagree withn your judgement, and say that your own interpretation of the litearture suggests to me a reluctance to accept the main body of evidence, for reasons I am ignorant about. On more than one occasion retractions have been necessary because my version of events though challenged has proved correct.

Pedantic sophistries? Are you retarded? The list of scientific gaffes and errors you've made over the past nearly 60 pages is astounding. Some you've conceded, the big ones you stolidly refuse to acknowledge. Your biology is flawed. Your taxonomy. Your basic understanding of faraday cages. You have no grasp of the fundamentals of electromagnetic radiation. Man, it is abundantly clear you don't even know how your compass and your polaroid sunglasses work! We could go on and on.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that you reverse yourself. You contradict yourself. Not on pedantic points, dodger, but on the salient claims you make, such as cancer, DNA damage, etc.

 

[Pragmatist]

It's clearly not productive to simply ask Roger to come up with proofs of his claims. Every time we do that all we get is a load of misrepresented "studies". So I'm going to go back to addressing specific issues/questions. The following questions have so far been ducked, anyone else please feel free to add anything I've forgotten:

1. Which journal is the dysmenorrhea study going to be published in?

2. Please explain how a mains transformer works if electric and magnetic fields are "totally unrelated" at ELF frequencies?

3. How does an external ELF electric field penetrate the body to any significant extent?

4. Do you have any comments regarding (Don's) interpretation of the fact that the rise in incidence of leukemia is due to greater survival rates rather than greater numbers of children are catching it?

5. Please explain how one "polarizes" a pure magnetic field?

6. How does the state of polarization (of anything) affect current density and "implicate the electric field"?

 

[The Don]

I apologise if I stated that your are a scaremongering is profit driven, I should have added self-aggrandisement to the list of motivational factors.

We are still at an impasse with regards to the study evidence. Study after study has show no effect or little effect. You should know the studies, you provided both the links to them and your own interpretation of the results. I have attempted to engage you in discussion regarding this but you appear to have declined. The latest example is your understanding of the word "incidence" and my attempt to demonstrate how an increate in incidence can be due to either an increase in the number of new cases or an increased survival rate for those with the condition.

Your defence of the items that you sell as "well they don't not work" is poor in the extreme. Not working in this regard is getting people to part with money for a product which does nothing. I believe that the burden of evidence is on the party caliming that something does work and we've already discussed the failings in the methods you have used to do that (here kitty, kitty Donny's gonna weigh you a few more times).

 

[Pragmatist]

I would reply to that but my father is reading this thread....

Hi Ptolemy!

 

[Pragmatist]

This is an advertisement. I'm thinking of offering demolition services at very reasonable rates!

1. I do not dismiss the opposing view, on the contrary I examine it carefully. On more than one occasion here I have provided a critical analysis of the opposing evidence to show how it is flawed. I am not alone in coming to the conclusion there is a serious problem, as evidenced in the consensus of epi studies, and that further the electric field effects are not yet fully researched (a matter on which the NRPB has lately come to agree on).

ROG QUOTE: My conclusion: the NRPB and the power utilities have deliberately procrastinated, distorted and suppressed the truth about residential exposure to ELF electric fields.

ROG QUOTE: To Darat: your "evidence" is not worth the paper it is not written on, - the value judgemental denials of one biased Professor.

2. It is your value judgement, based only on a number of pedantic sophistries and obtuse misunderstandings that I do not understand the science.

ROG QUOTE: OK, so I don’t know a lot of physics. Nor biochemistry, nor microbiology, anatomy, physiology, radio engineering, physical chemistry, epidemiology, statistics, or the myriad specialities of modern science needed to conduct research in a multidisciplinary and largely uncharted region like bioelectromagnetics.

3. As for scaremongering, I am on record as repeatedly saying that e.g. normal use of cellphones carries no presently evident health risk, except perhaps for children, but that fuirther resaerch is necessary. My legal action led to the setting up of the Stewart Ciommittee which also came to that conclusion.

ROG QUOTE: Anyone who uses a cellphone for more than 20 minutes needs their head examined.

4. We sell some third party products based on our and other researches, (however imperfect you may think these researches are). So does the cellphone industry. Their research pointed to adverse health effects but they deliberately tried to cover it up. The result of their ill protected handset products is brain tumours, lymphoma, lowered attention span, etc. among excessive users.

ROG QUOTE: The best explanation I have yet seen is by Dr Cyril Smith of Salford University.
(Pendulums and boiled egg slicers)

ROG QUOTE: Yes, I think it works in exactly the way Smith suggests.

By contrast , you have no evidence whatsoever that the products in contention do not work, no evidence of any harm to any user of these products, and only the single complaint that we did not publish a study conducting enough replications in only one of these products (which are not ours anyway). On that "evidence" you aim to dismiss all the many peer reviewed studies supporting the concerns of many scientists I have cited in this thread, and to brand me as a scaremonger out for profit.

ROG QUOTE: I dare say that some will now say OK but if you haven’t yet proved it works how can you justify offering such a device? It could at best be simply a placebo, and at worst a dangerous deception if people are putting trust in this unproven adornment. But first you must see that view against a background where the cellphone industry is constantly claiming out loud there is no hazard whatsoever from RF radiation at less than thermal levels. And they haven’t proved their case either. So even if this device was simply a placebo, in a world where there is no other solution to these non-elective unregulated exposures, the psychological value alone gives the device an advantage if only as a talisman.

ROG QUOTE: (From here, above) The result of their ill protected handset products is brain tumours, lymphoma, lowered attention span, etc. among excessive users.

The only ones out for profit are those who presently decieve the public into thinking that cellphones, base stations, electric appliances, power lines and all other sources of non-ionising fields and radiation are completely safe, against a scientific background which clearly says otherwise.

ROG QUOTE: The Mobile Phone Personal Harmoniser has a significantly protective effect against exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiations from mobile phones

ROG QUOTE: Protects against all EM radiation

ROG QUOTE: This is indeed useful information when developing some new device/technique, and of value to competitors (e.g. to avoid goiing down a blind alley)

As for the further allegation of cherry picking, I am shaking a whole tree of cherries down around you. Taste a few.

ROG QUOTE: 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.

QED #2

 

[cogreslab]

Prag:

You asked six questions:

1. Which journal is the dysmenorrhea study going to be published in?

2. Please explain how a mains transformer works if electric and magnetic fields are "totally unrelated" at ELF frequencies?

3. How does an external ELF electric field penetrate the body to any significant extent?

4. Do you have any comments regarding (Don's) interpretation of the fact that the rise in incidence of leukemia is due to greater survival rates rather than greater numbers of children are catching it?

5. Please explain how one "polarizes" a pure magnetic field?

6. How does the state of polarization (of anything) affect current density and "implicate the electric field"?

1. I've already said that I have no idea when this study will be published: it is not within my gift, nor am I the first author, and nor have I myself submitted it. I am certainly not at liberty to disclose the journal for which it is intended.

2. You very well know that a transformer has a primary and a secondary winding , and current passing down the primary induces a current in the secondary. That does not mean there is any relationship between the components of an electromagnetic wave at power frequencies. You know that too.
3. You keep regarding the human body as being entirely insulated in the same way as a closed (metallic) sphere. That is not the case: there are many pores and other orifices (not to mention the lungs) whereby electrons (which are mutually repulsive) may easily enter, especially if the skin is wet.

4. I do not think the Don's interpretation is correct, since incidence is a measure of the numbers of people with the disorder of interest per unit population (usually per 100,000). It is this annual figure which is rising by a few percent each year. I think the Don is referring to prevalence, not incidence. Compare the figures for breast cancer which showed a decline in incidence after the introduction of screening for elder women.

5. Who said the field was pure? Rotating magnetic fields induce a higher current density than linear fields according to Kato, whose paper explains it very well, hence my argument that this also means higher associated electric fields in the body.

6. The answer is embodied in 5 above. Kato sets out the equations on page 365 of The Melatonin Hypothesis (Stevens Wilson et al eds). He found that circularly polarised magnetic fields of 1.4uT suppressed plasma and pineal melatonin, but that horizontal and vertical fields did not. Elliptically polarised (5:3 ratio) also effectively reduced melatonin but at less ellipsis (4:1) it did not. In a linearly polarised field the induced current crosses the zero current level whereas in an elliptically polarised field the induced current does not reach zero voltage, according to Kato. His calculations showed that the current density produced by a circularly polarised magnetic field is about 40 percent greater than that induced by either a linearly polarised or an elliptically polrised magnetic field of the same intensity. Those differences explained why somne experiments reported no effects on melatonin and others do. I have argued from this that if the induced current density is the active parameter mediating melatonin synthesis, then the electric field is implicated. Remember that the earliest reports of EMF effects on melatonin used electric fields.

I would like to deal with some other posts tonight but I have little time left before I go to Washing5ton for the annual BEMS meeting.

In my view btw the continuous use of a cellphone for 20 minutes is excessive. About 95 percent or more of calls are less than 5 minutes I believe.

 

[cogreslab]

To the Don. You said|:

We are still at an impasse with regards to the study evidence. Study after study has shown no effect or little effect. You should know the studies, you provided both the links to them and your own interpretation of the results.

It would help if you identify the studies which you claim run counter to my argument. Then we could perhaps solve this impasse.

 

[cogreslab]

"You can't just brush off the burden of proof and place it on someone else's shoulders".

In law the burden of proof is on the producer/distributor is it|? So according to you the cellphone industry has to demonstrate their handsets are safe in use, or admit the hazard. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Prester John]

A couple of observations:

Cogreslab said:

1. I've already said that I have no idea when this study will be published: it is not within my gift, nor am I the first author, and nor have I myself submitted it. I am certainly not at liberty to disclose the journal for which it is intended.

I call b@ll@cks. Its not a state secret, if you're an author you will have been told by the lead author which journal it has been accepted in. Some people here have familiarity with the Journal and Peer review system.

3. You keep regarding the human body as being entirely insulated in the same way as a closed (metallic) sphere. That is not the case: there are many pores and other orifices (not to mention the lungs) whereby electrons (which are mutually repulsive) may easily enter, especially if the skin is wet.

I was just looking through my pores the other day to examine my internal organs. Not. Certainly the lungs are shielded from electric fields by the skin. At the levels found in residential accomodation the skin does insulate quite effectivley.

4. I do not think the Don's interpretation is correct, since incidence is a measure of the numbers of people with the disorder of interest per unit population (usually per 100,000). It is this annual figure which is rising by a few percent each year. I think the Don is referring to prevalence, not incidence. Compare the figures for breast cancer which showed a decline in incidence after the introduction of screening for elder women.

Yes and if more people are surviving then the incidence increases. You need figures for new diagnosis. You really need to provide references for your assertions. However keeping it local, we'll look at some figures for Breast Test Wales:

http://www.screeningservices.org/btw/results/results.html

Graph at the bottom, i quote:

Despite the increased incidence, there was a reduction in the crude number of deaths from breast cancer from 844 in 1988 to 732 in 1999 - a 13% reduction. When standardised for age there was a 23% reduction in mortality, 43 deaths per 100,000 to 33 deaths per 100,000.

empasis mine
This directly contradicts your above statement.

You must be thinking about the decreased mortality associated with breast screening. So you're wrong again.

I'll leave the EMF field stuff to others

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Roger, once and for all: You did choose your battle-ground yourself. It is not my fault you challenged so many people at once. Now, GET YOUR NAMES STRAIGHT!. You are supposed to be a scientist, Roger. You are referring to hundereds of studies, attending big conferences and what have you. SURELY it is not too much to ask that you keep track of who said what in this thread. After all, all it requires is simple reading skills .

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

"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.

But you have been shown to have. You don't understand electromagnetics, you use faulty stastistics, and your research protocols are dismal. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

. Nice touch, Lucianarchy!

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

Since the effect of magnetic fields have been extensively explored, and found to be negligible, to support your theory, you need to show that the effect of electric fields is much greater, and hence not negligible.

Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

Prag:

You asked six questions:

1. Which journal is the dysmenorrhea study going to be published in?

2. Please explain how a mains transformer works if electric and magnetic fields are "totally unrelated" at ELF frequencies?

3. How does an external ELF electric field penetrate the body to any significant extent?

4. Do you have any comments regarding (Don's) interpretation of the fact that the rise in incidence of leukemia is due to greater survival rates rather than greater numbers of children are catching it?

5. Please explain how one "polarizes" a pure magnetic field?

6. How does the state of polarization (of anything) affect current density and "implicate the electric field"?


1. I've already said that I have no idea when this study will be published: it is not within my gift, nor am I the first author, and nor have I myself submitted it. I am certainly not at liberty to disclose the journal for which it is intended.

Cop out. It can be published in a magazine ad, (where you are listed as the first author) but you can't tell us which journal it will be submitted to.

You said:

This dysmenorhea study was already completed in terms of data collection by another firm and we only came in at a late stage to analyse it, after the client had already made the contents known. This made it difficult to find a journal willing to publish it. If it had been within our gift we would not have adviswed the client to make the results known so early.

This alleged journal was willing to publish it, knowing full well it was already used in advertising but you can't even tell us what journal that is. O.K. I take that as a claim which you cannot prove and thereby I will consider it false unless/until other information is given.

RESULT - EVASION / NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIM PRESENTED

2. You very well know that a transformer has a primary and a secondary winding , and current passing down the primary induces a current in the secondary. That does not mean there is any relationship between the components of an electromagnetic wave at power frequencies. You know that too.

I don't know anything of the sort, don't try to put words into my mouth! This is a total evasion and is noted as such. You claimed that there was no relation between the electric and magnetic fields in the NEAR field of an emitter. You did NOT claim an ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE which exists in the FAR field (a few thousand kilometres away). And in any event, the fields in an electromagnetic wave are ALWAYS in the ratio of 377:1 in free space.

RESULT - EVASION / MISREPRESENTATION / NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIM PRESENTED

3. You keep regarding the human body as being entirely insulated in the same way as a closed (metallic) sphere. That is not the case: there are many pores and other orifices (not to mention the lungs) whereby electrons (which are mutually repulsive) may easily enter, especially if the skin is wet.

Rubbish! After I have said dozens of times that the skin is a conductor filled with conducting fluids, you now claim that I have "regarded the body as an insulator"? Even lay people will easily see through that evasion/misrepresentation. And PLEASE tell me how a metallic sphere is an INSULATOR???! Electrons entering through pores???! Jeez, you really don't know when to stop digging do you? And just how many electrons are there in an ELECTRIC FIELD? Doh!

RESULT - MISREPRESENTATION / PSEUDOSCIENCE / IGNORANCE OF BASIC JUNIOR SCHOOL PHYSICS.

4. I do not think the Don's interpretation is correct, since incidence is a measure of the numbers of people with the disorder of interest per unit population (usually per 100,000). It is this annual figure which is rising by a few percent each year. I think the Don is referring to prevalence, not incidence. Compare the figures for breast cancer which showed a decline in incidence after the introduction of screening for elder women.

I'll leave it to Don answer this one if he wants to, it's his question.

5. Who said the field was pure? Rotating magnetic fields induce a higher current density than linear fields according to Kato, whose paper explains it very well, hence my argument that this also means higher associated electric fields in the body.

Err..you said "magnetic field", that's "magnetic" as in NOT electric, or NOT electromagnetic which leaves...uh...MAGNETIC. And that's "field" as in NOT wave which leaves....FIELD. So we are talking about a "magnetic field" which is a....MAGNETIC FIELD! I'll be damned if I can see where the "impurity" arises!

Let me quote EXACTLY what you said:

Magnetic fields can be circularly, elliptically or linearly polarised, depending on the way the load is configured.

And the above does not answer the question. What is meant by the claim that the field is "polarized"? How does one "polarize" a magnetic field? Which is pure because it's not an electric field, or an electric wave, or an electromagnetic field or an electromagnetic wave.

RESULT - EVASION / MISREPRESENTATION / NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIM PRESENTED

6. The answer is embodied in 5 above. Kato sets out the equations on page 365 of The Melatonin Hypothesis (Stevens Wilson et al eds). He found that circularly polarised magnetic fields of 1.4uT suppressed plasma and pineal melatonin, but that horizontal and vertical fields did not. Elliptically polarised (5:3 ratio) also effectively reduced melatonin but at less ellipsis (4:1) it did not. In a linearly polarised field the induced current crosses the zero current level whereas in an elliptically polarised field the induced current does not reach zero voltage, according to Kato. His calculations showed that the current density produced by a circularly polarised magnetic field is about 40 percent greater than that induced by either a linearly polarised or an elliptically polrised magnetic field of the same intensity. Those differences explained why somne experiments reported no effects on melatonin and others do. I have argued from this that if the induced current density is the active parameter mediating melatonin synthesis, then the electric field is implicated. Remember that the earliest reports of EMF effects on melatonin used electric fields.

Pseudoscientific nonsense! How can any state of "polarization" of a magnetic field (which is a nonsense claim in itself) cause different laws of induction? How is it possible that these alleged modifications of the basic laws of induction have been apparently missed by every physicist in the last 200 years and are then trotted out by Kato without a complete rewrite of the whole of physics?! Let me quote you, "the induced current does not reach zero voltage". Since when did CURRENT = VOLTAGE?!!! More technobabble as usual!

And I see this is quoted from some book instead of the research report you claimed you had. I'm going to call your bluff. Let's see those equations and the explanation, I remind you that you offered to produce them:

If you want I will set out the calculations, or you can find them in Kato, 1997.

RESULT - EVASION / PSEUDOSCIENCE / IGNORANCE OF BASIC JUNIOR SCHOOL PHYSICS.

So setting aside Don's question I note for the record that I have asked you 5 questions and I have not received a sensible answer to any of them.

In my view btw the continuous use of a cellphone for 20 minutes is excessive. About 95 percent or more of calls are less than 5 minutes I believe.

Ah, an opinion not a claim. So I won't hold you to this one. But I would be very interested to know what you base that opinion on. I mean how on earth are you monitoring the phone usage of every person on the planet? And isn't that illegal?

 

[Pragmatist]

I've been trying to make sense of the claims about "polarized magnetic fields" that Roger has referred to several times. For the benefit of anyone following the electromagnetic discussion here is what I have found. Most of the bioelectromagnetics literature referring to these effects is very poor and the descriptions such as they are, are often very confused.

I have a fundamental objection to the use of the term "polarized" in connection with a magnetic field because by definition, a magnetic field is always a closed loop. There are no known magnetic monopoles.

In essence it's like talking about the "positive" and "negative" "ends" of a circle. But a circle has no "ends", which is why I think the term is nonsensical. A collection of magnetic VECTORS however, which form PART of a field (but not a complete field) CAN be considered "polarized" as I have said before. It appears that the problem in this case comes from an unfortunate use of the term "field" when referring to VECTORS. There are also some inconsistencies in the way the term is applied leading to further confusion. For example the legitimate use of "polarized" in relation to the magnetic vector COMPONENT of an electromagnetic wave is often used in the same way, and it is difficult to tell WHICH of the two possible interpretations is being used from the context of many papers.

It appears that the convention in these bioelectromagnetic experiments that Roger has specifically referred to is that "linearly polarized magnetic field", refers to a SECTION of a field in which the magnetic VECTORS are aligned in one linear direction. Such as the section of a field between the poles of a circular magnet with a section removed (i.e. a "G" shaped magnet). It has to be remembered that the proper field extends throughout the magnet and so the term refers only to a part of the field, not the whole. For example, a small section of the circumference of a large circle may APPEAR flat (linear) to a small observer.

The term "circularly polarized" magnetic field appears to be used in the context of a simple ROTATING magnetic field SECTION. For example using two orthogonal magnetic coils with correct phasing, a rotating linear SECTION (vectors again, not a complete field) of a field can be formed in the space between them. Imagine a circle anchored at one point on its circumference and being rotated about that point.

The important point in both cases is that the terms refer to SECTIONS of fields, a group of vectors forming PART of a complete field, rather than a complete field in themselves, hence the confusion.

"Elliptical polarization" in context is just the vector result of various combinations of rotation and amplitude variation.

In relation to the biological effects it appears that some experiments claim to have found effects on melatonin in rodents. Other reports indicate that there is little or no evidence that the effect occurs in humans, and some state explicitly that the effect does NOT apply to humans (in experiments performed so far). As usual there appears to be little consistency in the conclusions.

I'm not sure how relevant these findings are to real typical human exposures. I can't think of any ordinary circumstance in which power lines are likely to cause a rotating magnetic field. Particularly one in which a human will be only exposed to a partial field. It's much more likely that if anyone IS exposed to a significant partial field, then it will probably be as a result of an extremely large high current line, in relatively close proximity, unbalanced (i.e. non parallel feed and return circuits) and LINEAR (in accordance with the above definition). But the claimed biological results seem to indicate that "linear" field sections are not a problem (even in rodents) and such a configuration is unlikely in most real cases.

And the normal laws of induction apply, there is no "new physics" here.

So this seems to be another red herring as I suspected. I can't see any relevance to Roger's specific claims (and his actual descriptions are pseudoscientific nonsense). And the situation described seems to be highly artificial. The results of such exposure are highly variable depending on tissue type, geometry etc.