Bioelectromagnetics

[cogreslab]

To Darat: It might be helpful for me to set out the results of Gilles Theraults electric field findings, since these are not easy to get to.

March 1994, Epidemiological study on the long term effects of ex[posure to 50 and 60 Hertz electric and magnetic fields

Prinicipal authors: Gilles Theriault, Marcel Goldberg, Anthony B Miller, Benedict Armstrong.

from Table 3.6b:

Odds ratios by cumulative exposure to electric fields according to time of exposure in relation to diagnosis- selected sites.

all leukaemias: n
controls cases OR

0-5 years 161 47 0.63
0-20 207 45 1.77 (95CI: 1.01-3.09)
20+ 124 24 2.28

CLL:
0-5 46 11 1.76
0-20 69 12 6.69 (95CI: 1.64-27.32)
20+ 47 10 1.12

There are several other sites showing elevations, sufficient in my opinion to exceed the likelihood that they occurred by chance.

These are very similar to the figures we found ourselves in our residential study. So there are other studies showing electric field elevations.

Sorry the figures seem bunched uop but there seems to be no way of tabuklating them better. The edit version is fine. Basically the all leukaemias data show OR of 2.28 for 20+ myears exposure, anmd the CLL data show a 6.69 OR for 0-20 years, both with good confidence intervals.

 

[CFLarsen]

To Darat: It might be helpful for me to set out the results of Gilles Theraults electric field findings, since these are not easy to get to.

That's not what Darat asked you. Let me refresh your memory:

Point 1

cogreslab stated:

"I have read this carefully many times, and he has had to withdraw at least one response as a result of my protests"

Moulder's response:

"The above is news to me. The only mention of Coghill in the Powerline FAQ is to his 1996 paper that claimed that power-frequency electric fields caused childhood leukemia. No other published studies have shown such an effect."

Do you dispute Professor Moulder's response and if so can you provide any corroborating evidence?


Point 2

cogreslab stated:

"remember that at Wisconsin is situated the US Navy's enormous ELF transmitter for communicating with submarines, an installation which has kept researchers there in business for decades."

Moulder's response:

"That site is about 400 miles north of us, and as far as I know it has not been a source of research funding in over 20 years."

Do you dispute Professor Moulder's response and if so can you provide any corroborating evidence?


Point 3

cogreslab stated:

"Some say that Mulder is actually funded by the US Navy, but I have no proof of this"

Moulder's response:

"I am not funded by the Navy and I never have been -- I work at a university where funding sources are public knowledge."

Do you dispute Professor Moulder's response and if so can you provide any corroborating evidence?

Three (3) very simple questions, Roger. Please answer them.

 

[Darat]

To Darat: It might be helpful for me to set out the results of Gilles Theraults electric field findings, since these are not easy to get to.

...snip....

It would be helpful if you could indicate what this post is addressing. I am assuming it is about the last part of Moulder's response to your claims in Point 1? But I would rather not assume. Also can you tell me which publication this can be found in?

 

[cogreslab]

To CFLarsen: I am responding to Dr Moulder's points in turn: the first one claimed that no other published study found similar results and I have just cited one which does! (though I am having trouble tabulating Therault's data at the moment).

He had previously on his site claimed my work is not peer review published and there was some correspondence between us on that point. It turned out that a copy of his Q and A site on Stewart Fist's own site still carried that statement, even though Moulder had later altered it. He might just remember the incident.

 

[Darat]

To CFLarsen: I am responding to Dr Moulder's points in turn: the first one claimed that no other published study found similar results and I have just cited one which does! (though I am having trouble tabulating Therault's data at the moment).

He had previously on his site claimed my work is not peer review published and there was some correspondence between us on that point. It turned out that a copy of his Q and A site on Stewart Fist's own site still carried that statement, even though Moulder had later altered it. He might just remember the incident.

His first point was that he had not as you claimed “…had to withdraw at least one response as a result of my protests…”

Are you saying that Moulder is incorrect and that you can provide proof that he did make such a change after you protested to him?

 

[CFLarsen]

To CFLarsen: I am responding to Dr Moulder's points in turn: the first one claimed that no other published study found similar results and I have just cited one which does! (though I am having trouble tabulating Therault's data at the moment).

He had previously on his site claimed my work is not peer review published and there was some correspondence between us on that point. It turned out that a copy of his Q and A site on Stewart Fist's own site still carried that statement, even though Moulder had later altered it. He might just remember the incident.

Roger,

Just answer the questions. Please try to focus on the issues that are being discussed. It serves no purpose other than to confuse, if you keep changing the subject.

Just answer the questions:

Do you dispute Professor Moulder's responses and if so can you provide any corroborating evidence?

 

[BillHoyt]

To Darat: It might be helpful for me to set out the results of Gilles Theraults electric field findings, since these are not easy to get to.

March 1994, Epidemiological study on the long term effects of ex[posure to 50 and 60 Hertz electric and magnetic fields

Prinicipal authors: Gilles Theriault, Marcel Goldberg, Anthony B Miller, Benedict Armstrong.

from Table 3.6b:

Odds ratios by cumulative exposure to electric fields according to time of exposure in relation to diagnosis- selected sites.

all leukaemias: n
controls cases OR

0-5 years 161 47 0.63
0-20 207 45 1.77 (95CI: 1.01-3.09)
20+ 124 24 2.28

CLL:
0-5 46 11 1.76
0-20 69 12 6.69 (95CI: 1.64-27.32)
20+ 47 10 1.12

There are several other sites showing elevations, sufficient in my opinion to exceed the likelihood that they occurred by chance.

These are very similar to the figures we found ourselves in our residential study. So there are other studies showing electric field elevations.

Sorry the figures seem bunched uop but there seems to be no way of tabuklating them better. The edit version is fine. Basically the all leukaemias data show OR of 2.28 for 20+ myears exposure, anmd the CLL data show a 6.69 OR for 0-20 years, both with good confidence intervals.

I will call upon you to cease evading questions, sir, as Claus has just pointed out. The question was childhood leukemia; this study does not address that, now, does it? There were also two other questions Moulder raised that you have dodged. This is not a game of dodge ball, sir. Stop evading questions.

 

[cogreslab]

Theriaults results as cited were a response to Dr Moulder's statement that no other published study had reported similar results (ie. Part One of the three questions). The McGill study was published in 1994. I will get you the exact refce in a moment. since I am working from the full dataset as given me by Theriault before the funding agents (three power utilities) withdrew the data for two years.

 

[BillHoyt]

To CFLarsen: I am responding to Dr Moulder's points in turn: the first one claimed that no other published study found similar results and I have just cited one which does! (though I am having trouble tabulating Therault's data at the moment).

Balderdash. Stop evading. The question was childhood lukemia. Answer that question. Stop with the red herrings and answer the questions, sir.

 

[cogreslab]

Why dont you just ask Dr Moulder if he now remembers our email dialogue, in response to which he said he would remove that question altogether? Perhaps he just forgot about it.

 

[BillHoyt]

Theriaults results as cited were a response to Dr Moulder's statement that no other published study had reported similar results (ie. Part One of the three questions). The McGill study was published in 1994. I will get you the exact refce in a moment. since I am working from the full dataset as given me by Theriault before the funding agents (three power utilities) withdrew the data for two years.

Childhood lukemia, sir. The question was on childhood lukemia. Don't bother with the reference, my assistant, Roxxy, has already found it. And stop with the subject/motive shift fallacy. Can you or can't you honestly, directly, and forthrightly address Moulder's point?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why dont you just ask Dr Moulder if he now remembers our email dialogue, in response to which he said he would remove that question altogether? Perhaps he just forgot about it.

Roger,

Why don't you just answer the questions? Don't try to shift the onus to Moulder. It won't work here.

Just answer the questions. You pointed to Moulder, and he could not corroborate anything you said. What is your reply to that?

 

[BillHoyt]

Why dont you just ask Dr Moulder if he now remembers our email dialogue, in response to which he said he would remove that question altogether? Perhaps he just forgot about it.

I will not follow your red herrings, sir. I can only conclude you cannot address Moulder's point. Last chance, sir, on this point. There are other questions already on the table for you, as well. Please address them.

 

[cogreslab]

I am not prevaricating. Dr Moulder 's text uses the word "cause" which is never possible to prove with epidemiology, - one at best only show an association. As for his confining the studies to childhood leukaemia only I don't see why adult leukaemias should be excluded simply for pedantic reasons. In fact Dr Moulder is making my point for me: - that the utilities have deliberately avoided research into the electric component. As a result there are few measured electric field studies.

 

[Darat]

Why dont you just ask Dr Moulder if he now remembers our email dialogue, in response to which he said he would remove that question altogether? Perhaps he just forgot about it.

Why don't you email him and ask him to corroborate your claim? It is your claim that so far has not stood up to scrutiny.

 

[cogreslab]

Surely I have as much opportunity as I need to respond on this forum? Or are you going to prevent me from answering all of the points you have raised? So far I am still on the first one!

 

[CFLarsen]

Roger,

Just answer the questions. You pointed to Moulder, and he could not corroborate anything you said. What is your reply to that?

 

[BillHoyt]

I am not prevaricating. Dr Moulder 's text uses the word "cause" which is never possible to prove with epidemiology, - one at best only show an association. As for his confining the studies to childhood leukaemia only I don't see why adult leukaemias should be excluded simply for pedantic reasons. In fact Dr Moulder is making my point for me: - that the utilities have deliberately avoided research into the electric component. As a result there are few measured electric field studies.

NO, SIR. NOBODY IS EQUIVOCATING ON THE WORD "CAUSE." THE QUESTION IS THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF THE DISEASE. THE DISEASE IS CHILDHOOD LUKEMIA, SIR.

THIS IS NOT PEDANTIC. THEY ARE DIFFERENT DISEASES. DO YOU NOT RECOGNIZE THIS, SIR?

STOP WITH THE SUBJECT / MOTIVE SHIFT, SIR.

 

[CFLarsen]

Surely I have as much opportunity as I need to respond on this forum? Or are you going to prevent me from answering all of the points you have raised? So far I am still on the first one!

Don't blame other people than yourself for not answering the pertinent questions.

Roger, you made some serious claims re. Moulder, and he shot your claims down.

Now, what is your reply to that?

 

[BillHoyt]

Surely I have as much opportunity as I need to respond on this forum? Or are you going to prevent me from answering all of the points you have raised? So far I am still on the first one!

Well, if you're preparing to take your crooked bat and flat ball home, then do so now. I will forewarn you I have been communicating with the MRC about other claims you have made. You are dealing with intelligent, skeptical people here who know how to get to the truth of matters. If you can't back up your claims, then pack up your crooked bat.

Now, are you going to address the questions or not?