Bioelectromagnetics

[Jeff Corey]

It probably detected a very impolite word embedded in your term. Try "snickers" instead. See? It does recognize "nickers".

 

[Rolfe]

Holistic Nutrition
by John Burns BVMS MRCVS

Raving nuts appear even in the most well-regulated families.

I hadn't come across that particular fruitcake before, I must add him to my rogues gallery.

Rolfe.

 

[cogreslab]

Rolfe:

You said:

"This doesn't specifically address Roger's angle, so far as I can see, however. He may think he's widely quoted, but he's also completely off the wall. His ideas about "metabolism", well, I think I'll just go away and cry now".

Please don't make my Skeptometer go off the scale!

If youre so knowledgeable, teacher, how about a few pieces of hard fact, not just abusive pejoratives (I am getting quite thick skinned about these, Rolfey) so let's have some proper criticism not just Scottish saliva, or references to llong thrid party websites.]

I am well aware of Ramey's commerically biased outpourings, in fact I use his site in my magnet therapy Home study course, as a means of teaching where his gross errors are and how they should be corrected, btw.

Skeptometer reading now 87.

 

[cogreslab]

The coils are wound on frames fabricated from wood and aluminum and are therefore completely shielded against emission of electric fields.

I am asking Henry if he earthed his coils.

 

[cogreslab]

OK Prag:

Let's start again from the top:

You said:
Firstly, you continue to make the ridiculous assertion that there is "no relation" between the electric and magnetic fields in a near field at low frequency. This is NOT true as I have explained repeatedly (and Hans too). There is a world of difference between the words "no fixed relation" and "no relation". The words "no fixed relation" indicates that the relation is dependent on other variables, such as the geometry of the emitter, and other factors as well. It does NOT mean there is NO relation at all. If the geometry and other factors are known, then it is perfectly possible to determine the precise relation between the fields. So you are wrong. The fact that you make absolutely NO apparent effort to actually CHECK and correct your misconceptions says volumes about the quality of your "science".

Rubbish! You are squirming about like (dare I say it), a worm on a hook trying to deny by means of sophistry that all those epi studies on the magnetic field can say nothing about electric field exposure.

Let me repeat it: there is absolutely no relation in terms of field strength between the electric and the magnetic field at ELF frequencies. The WHO say it; the NRPB say it, and nearly all physicists also say it.

Now tell us why we are all wrong.

 

[Pragmatist]

The coils are wound on frames fabricated from wood and aluminum and are therefore completely shielded against emission of electric fields.

I am asking Henry if he earthed his coils.

And what possible difference would that make?

I just KNOW I'm going to love the answer to this one!

 

[Pragmatist]

OK Prag:

Let's start again from the top:

You said:
Firstly, you continue to make the ridiculous assertion that there is "no relation" between the electric and magnetic fields in a near field at low frequency. This is NOT true as I have explained repeatedly (and Hans too). There is a world of difference between the words "no fixed relation" and "no relation". The words "no fixed relation" indicates that the relation is dependent on other variables, such as the geometry of the emitter, and other factors as well. It does NOT mean there is NO relation at all. If the geometry and other factors are known, then it is perfectly possible to determine the precise relation between the fields. So you are wrong. The fact that you make absolutely NO apparent effort to actually CHECK and correct your misconceptions says volumes about the quality of your "science".

Rubbish! You are squirming about like (dare I say it), a worm on a hook trying to deny by means of sophistry that all those epi studies on the magnetic field can say nothing about electric field exposure.

Let me repeat it: there is absolutely no relation in terms of field strength between the electric and the magnetic field at ELF frequencies. The WHO say it; the NRPB say it, and nearly all physicists also say it.

Now tell us why we are all wrong.

Endlessly repeating the same fallacy over and over again does not make it true.

I couldn't care less about your epi studies! I've never even bothered to address your damned epi studies! I am concerned with fundamental physics that you are constantly misrepresenting.

NOTHING in any epi study has the slightest relevance to the independent scientific fact that fields are always related. If someone failed to record sufficient information in any study to allow a specific assessment of the relation for a particular case, it does not imply that there is never any relation at all.

I daresay that will fall on deaf ears - as usual.

Now, you constantly refer to the WHO and the NRPB. Well, the information on the WHO web site that you are so fond of was provided to them by the NRPB. That's ONE source, NOT two.

You constantly assert that the information provided by the NRPB about matters of EM radiation and safety etc., is unreliable and incomplete. Then you rely on that SAME source of information to make a case! Have you totally lost your mind? Yes, that's a serious question! If you can't see what's wrong with that picture you have to be insane.

I have answered you MULTIPLE times that the information on the WHO website (provided by the NRPB) is INCOMPLETE! The fact that you simply, blindly refuse to accept that is not my problem. If your mind is totally closed to new information you are incapable of learning.

The WHO/NRPB web sites are "kiddy physics" for laypeople. They are NOT designed to be authoritative references to all aspects of physics. I believe that is about the 5th or 6th time I've said that. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

The whole problem is this, it seems to me. You are so locked into a specific mindset relating to a narrow interpretation of "studies","risks" etc., that you can't see the wood for the trees. You simply can't see that other people are NOT locked into your narrow little agenda. Some of us are capable of thinking outside YOUR little box. The arguments made on here by myself and others are FUNDAMENTAL! They go way beyond your specific application. And here is the crux. You can't START from any place OTHER than the fundamentals. If the fundamentals are wrong, then everything based upon those misconceptions is also false. You are so self absorbed in your own theories that you can't see that to the rest of us you are building castles on sand. LEARN THE BASICS FIRST before spinning fancy theories.

And I put you to proof that "nearly all physicists say it". O.K. prove it. Bring "nearly all physicists" here and let's hear what they have to say. Boy, it must have taken you simply AGES to have spoken to them all!

Please do not apply "homeopathic principles" to reasoning. The infinite dilution of logic does NOT result in a more potent argument!

 

[cogreslab]

OF COURSE! The penny has finally dropped! Rolfe's a complete BVM! I couldn’t understand the apparent dedication to scientific truth, the complete refusal to accept that static magnets might be any thing else than a con trick, the nervousness when one of his colleagues had the honesty to admit that medicine might be more than just a load of tablets.

Now it finally comes out: Rolfe is a BVM! A veterinarian, or "friendly vet" to you and I. This is the crowd who charge £100 for a simple snip to castrate a poor undeserving stallion, and if some desperately impecunious Welsh farmer tries to castrate his own foals to save money, even though he's been doing that for years, they try to put the poor fellow in jail. This is the bunch who sell medication identical to that for humans, except they sell it at three times the price! And should some smart pet owner decide it’s cheaper to buy the human version, this is the bunch who, to protect their own self interest, try to make that illegal! This is the crowd who charge you £30 to put down your pet in a few moments with a lethal injection of a chemical costing a few pence out of a syringe costing even less! This is the bunch who charge you a fortune just to come out and take a look!

Now it makes sense at last. No wonder, when static magnets appear on the scene which can keep out the ascarids these guys get jumpy and start using pejoratives, and words like woo woo. It’s their fat livelihood, their swanky four by fours, and their green welly lifestyle which is at stake. The Chinese study I mentioned earlier in this thread reported that the magnetised water could eliminate 95 percent of ascarids, compared with only 75 percent using conventional piperazines. Anyone with horses will tell you just how much piperazines cost (around £10 a shot), and that you have to do this every six weeks! Purpose configured neodymium static magnets cost £30 perhaps less, and they last thirty years. Piperazines by contrast are made weak enough so that you have to come back for more when the worms return. I have made a fecal inspection or two, but this is the worst smelling one I have come across so far!

Now I see why he is so vociferous against static magnets: in two words, folks, self interest! I looked on Google and keyed in two other words: vet bills. Guess what! 124,000 sites opened up! I took a look at a few at random: there are hundreds of thousands of people out there chronicling the disgusting rip off being perpetrated by these BVMs. It’s not my habit to link you to large websites as a defence against precise scientific quotation, but really, see for yourselves, folks! Key in vet bills on Google!

The situation has gotten so bad with these greedy BVMs that even famous tennis players are struggling to keep up:

I quote:

"The elder Martina has bought so many dogs (including another one during this tournament) that she, too, is playing on at the age of 47 in a desperate attempt to pay the vets' bills".


What an innocent I was to believe this Rolfe guy was altruistic if mistakenly trying to offer an honest criticism of my ideas. He’s just in it for the money! Ah well, one down, three to go.

 

[cogreslab]

Prag has just opined:

The WHO/NRPB web sites are "kiddy physics" for laypeople.

Can I quote you on that, Prag? Maybe their "kiddy physics" also prevents them from offering sound well supported advice on EMF exposure to the public?

And btw, I don't believe any of you physics guys, because history has shown time and time again that you get it wrong:

"No, No, the world is flat, Galileo, and it certainly doesn't move!"
Forget it, Wilbur, the idea will never take off"
"Oh no, it's perfectly OK to install x-ray machines in shoeshops, little boy"

and now:

"Sorry Rodge, there are still related magnetic fields in the leads, even when the electric kettle isn't being boiled".

Fortunately I don't take these physics theorists on trust: my instruments tell me there's no magnetic field there when the kettle's switched off, but that there is an important electric field, as I showed earlier in this thread.

Go back to your 19th C theories, Prag, - I prefer the real, measurable world.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
And btw, I don't believe any of you physics guys, because history has shown time and time again that you get it wrong:

"No, No, the world is flat, Galileo!"
Forget it, Wilbur, the idea will never take off"
"Oh no, it's perfectly OK to install x-ray machines in shoeshops, little boy"

and now:

"Sorry Rodge, there are still related magnetic fields in the leads, even when the electric kettle isn't being boiled".

Fortunately I don't take these physics theorists on trust: my instruments tell me there's no magnetic field there, but that there is an important electric field, as I showed earlier in this thread.

Go back to your 19th C theories, Prag, - I prefer the real, measurable world.

I have news for you, Roger: It was the scientists who realized that Earth is round, clerics thought it was flat. It was the scientists who realized that heavier than air flight was possible, clerics who claimed that it was reserved for birds and angels. It was scientists who realized the dangers of X-rays, business-men (modern clerics ?) who placed them in shoe-shops.

Now for trusting your instruments:

Measuring magnetic fields is quite complicated and requires a good theoretical understanding of electromagnetics in order to get useful results. This is because polarity, frequency, impedance, distribution, phase, interference, and noise can confound the measurements.

Measuring electrical fields is VERY complicated and requires a profound theoretical understanding of electromagnetics in order to get useful results. This is because electrical field measurements are even more sensitive to the factors mentioned above PLUS, unlike magnetic fields, it is virtually impossible to measure an electrical field without influencing it.

You have repeatedly shown that your knowledge and theoretical understanding of electromagnetics is very limited, and now you even scoff at such learning. In the hands of a lay-man, even the best instrument is likely to yield completely unreliable results.

Your latest disclosure, your applying a 32mV (where did you get just that value, btw?) to an open-ended wire and making assumptions about the resultant field shows just how poor your understanding of these things is.

How do you propose to be able to design experiments and evaluate the results when you have only the most sketchy idea of the theoretics behind an important part of of them?

Hans

 

[cogreslab]

Prag, I really can't beleive I'm reading your recent post:

"And what possible difference would that make?

I just KNOW I'm going to love the answer to this one! "

If you look under your sink or similar you might see an earth strap, put there by the electrician after wiring your home. It carries an aluminium tag warning householders not to remove it.

Unless you earth the metallic parts of an exposure system you will create eddy currents which give rise to electric fields. In homes the earth strap serves the purpose of collapsing any accidental short circuits and avoids the risk of electrocution. In a well earthed home the electric fields are less than 10 V/m. If the earthing system is deficinet the average fields can exceed 40 V/m. It is this level which can cause ill health IMHO.

 

[WinterMute]

Cogreslab, this question has been asked before to you but I couldn't find any proper answer so here goes again:

Do you personally have the ability to distinguish between "normal" water and water that has been on one of your magnetic coasters (water from the same source)?

 

[cogreslab]

I have news for you, Roger: It was the scientists who realized that Earth is round, clerics thought it was flat. It was the scientists who realized that heavier than air flight was possible, clerics who claimed that it was reserved for birds and angels. It was scientists who realized the dangers of X-rays, business-men (modern clerics ?) who placed them in shoe-shops.

Now for trusting your instruments:

Measuring magnetic fields is quite complicated and requires a good theoretical understanding of electromagnetics in order to get useful results. This is because polarity, frequency, impedance, distribution, phase, interference, and noise can confound the measurements.

Measuring electrical fields is VERY complicated and requires a profound theoretical understanding of electromagnetics in order to get useful results. This is because electrical field measurements are even more sensitive to the factors mentioned above PLUS, unlike magnetic fields, it is virtually impossible to measure an electrical field without influencing it.

You have repeatedly shown that your knowledge and theoretical understanding of electromagnetics is very limited, and now you even scoff at such learning. In the hands of a lay-man, even the best instrument is likely to yield completely unreliable results.

Your latest disclosure, your applying a 32mV (where did you get just that value, btw?) to an open-ended wire and making assumptions about the resultant field shows just how poor your understanding of these things is.

How do you propose to be able to design experiments and evaluate the results when you have only the most sketchy idea of the theoretics behind an important part of of them?

Hans

I am well aware of the difficulties in measuring electric fields, Prag, and by no means disagree with your comments there. That is why in our study I made sure we commissioned a professional engineer to construct and prove the accuracy of our instruments, which were supplied by Delta T Devices, a well established Cambridge firm, to calibrate them to NPL and cross check them, just as the UKCCCR did. We couldn't check the electric fields against the EMDEX instruments being supplied to the Wessex HA, because at that time EMDEXes had no electric field probes. The NRPB did however later (with difficulty) fit electric field probes to the instruments. These difficulties in construction and proper siting using plexiglass stands however do not invalidate either our data or theirs. What I'm complaining about is the reluctance of UKCCCR to publish the results of their electric field data collection, so that we can see if the results tally with ours,. This they have persistently refused to do, just as the NRPB has "buried" their cot death measurements. And just as the electricity companies will not measure electric fields when asked to. I wrote to Gareth Llewelyn about that and got no reply. Llewlyn is the NGT's director of consumer safety or some such title.

Cleopatra commented there was something rotten going on here, and she was right. Over the years I have meassured the electric fields in many homes. After reducing the electric fields in various ways the ill health symptoms often disappear.

And btw, in the days of Galileo the clerics were just about the only repository of scientific and literary wisdom.

 

[cogreslab]

I have news for you, Roger: It was the scientists who realized that Earth is round, clerics thought it was flat.

I don't think so, Prag: it was the navigators such as Columbus, who daily saw the last thing to go out of sight over the horizon was the mast top, from which you have recently climbed down. Our Cristobal had done some long North to South passages before it dawned on him he could reach the Indies by sailing west.

Galileo, a scientist, turned up nearly a century later. and even he got it wrong badly on more than one occasion.

 

[Cleopatra]

Cleopatra commented there was something rotten going on here, and she was right. Over the years I have meassured the electric fields in many homes. After reducing the electric fields in various ways the ill health symptoms often disappear.

I heard my name and although is not the beloved ghost of Caesar that is calling I will respond.

Mr. Coghill I believe that there might be an issue. I feel angry with you though because instead of contributing in clarifying things for the benefits of the general public you contribute in the general confusion.

 

[Prester John]

Cogreslab Said:

I don't think so, Prag: it was the navigators such as Columbus, who daily saw the last thing to go out of sight over the horizon was the mast top, from which you have recently climbed down.

So they made an observation and drew conclusions from it ? Remind what exactly science is cogreslab. And you also completely ignore the CLASSICAL scientists who had it sussed millenia ago!


Still waiting btw, your last couple of carcinogenesis references didn't really do your case much good as they were talking about DNA damage. Your last quote on the matter specifically talked about damage to Guanine. Your theory cannot explain the hereditary aspects of cancer, thus it is dead in the water. I haven't even looked at the biochemistry as i'm not a biochemist and have insufficient understanding of the field.

 

[Thomas]

I don't think so, Prag: it was the navigators such as Columbus, who daily saw the last thing to go out of sight over the horizon was the mast top, from which you have recently climbed down. Our Cristobal had done some long North to South passages before it dawned on him he could reach the Indies by sailing west.

Galileo, a scientist, turned up nearly a century later. and even he got it wrong badly on more than one occasion.

Baloney, the first one to suggest that the earth was round was Pythagoras, about 500 B.C. Later Anaxagoras used the shadow of the earth reflected on the moon during lunar eclipse as evidence for Pythagoras' theory. Later yet, in about 350 B.C., Aristotle suggested that the earth was a sphere, using the constellations in the sky you would see when you travelled away from equator. Some hundred years later the size of the earth was measured by some other Greeks (no, I didn't say geeks, I said Greeks).

Furthermore, Galieo adopted most of his astronomy from Copernicus. That the earth is a sphere can hardly be attributed to Galieo, and certainly not to Columbus or any other jolly sailor.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have news for you, Roger: It was the scientists who realized that Earth is round, clerics thought it was flat.

I don't think so, Prag: it was the navigators such as Columbus, who daily saw the last thing to go out of sight over the horizon was the mast top, from which you have recently climbed down. Our Cristobal had done some long North to South passages before it dawned on him he could reach the Indies by sailing west.

Galileo, a scientist, turned up nearly a century later. and even he got it wrong badly on more than one occasion.

Interesting. This is the second time in less than a day that a creduloid has come up with this falsehood.

Galileo got in trouble with the church for claiming that the Earth moved around the Sun, and not the other way around. It was never a question of the shape of the Earth. That was settled long before by Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy), whose work the Church had accepted by then.

Even St. Augustine of Hippo mentioned it in his "Expositions on the Psalms": "He hath made the round world so sure, that it cannot be moved."

Try again, Rog. Someday, I'm sure you will succeed.

 

[MRC_Hans]

AAAAaaaaaaarrrgghh! For heaven's sake Roger, this is not funny anymore.

Prag, I really can't beleive I'm reading your recent post:

"And what possible difference would that make?

I just KNOW I'm going to love the answer to this one! "

If you look under your sink or similar you might see an earth strap, put there by the electrician after wiring your home. It carries an aluminium tag warning householders not to remove it.

Unless you earth the metallic parts of an exposure system you will create eddy currents which give rise to electric fields. In homes the earth strap serves the purpose of collapsing any accidental short circuits and avoids the risk of electrocution. In a well earthed home the electric fields are less than 10 V/m. If the earthing system is deficinet the average fields can exceed 40 V/m. It is this level which can cause ill health IMHO.

I was about to answer the above piecemeal, but it is too far gone. It is mainly technobabble. You happen to score a hit here and there, but I suspect it is more or less random.

Roger, an electric field is generated between two conductors with different potential. Grounding may shield or reduce fields, but it might as well increase them, depending on the situation.

Grounding electrical installations (which, btw, is not done in all countries) has nothing to do with electrical fields, for two reasons:

1) The effects are unpredictable anyway.

2) The neutral wire has the same effect on fields.

Grounding is used, as you mention (although using an unorthodox terminology), to reduce the risk of electric shock due to faulty installations and appliances. It works only if aplliances have proper facilities for grounding.

It is not usefull to cite the field strenght in V/m in order to assess the influence on the body, because, as we seem to agree, the important thing here is the effects INSIDE the body, and the field does not extend here. The capability of an electrical field to cause currents to flow in the body depends as much on its impedance as on its strenght in V/m.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Look, I realize it can be difficult to keep all the names apart, but just look at the top of the automatic quotation you use. There it says "Originally posted by ......". That way you can avoid confusing, e. g. me with Pragmatic.

Now:

I am well aware of the difficulties in measuring electric fields, Prag, and by no means disagree with your comments there.

I'm sorry, but you are not. Your statements clearly show that you do not realize just how complex it is. I could lecture you for hours on elctrical fields, and you would still have more to learn.

That is why in our study I made sure we commissioned a professional engineer to construct and prove the accuracy of our instruments, which were supplied by Delta T Devices, a well established Cambridge firm, to calibrate them to NPL and cross check them, just as the UKCCCR did.

And here you prove my point; even the best and most precise instruments will not give you correct or useful readings if applied wrongly. Positioning of not only probes, but the instrument itself and any persons in the vicinity will strongly impact measurements.

We couldn't check the electric fields against the EMDEX instruments being supplied to the Wessex HA, because at that time EMDEXes had no electric field probes.

The precision of the instriment is not really that important. The correct application is.

The NRPB did however later (with difficulty) fit electric field probes to the instruments.

Oh? I thought you said they ignored electrical fields?

These difficulties in construction and proper siting using plexiglass stands however do not invalidate either our data or theirs.

This statement is nonsense. Difficulties in construction and making measurements do indeed not invalidate data, and that is not what I claim. It is how you HANDLE the difficulties that matter. And since you do not know how an electrical field behaves, you are not qualified to handle such difficulties, nor are you able to evaluate results obtained by you or others.

*snip*

Cleopatra commented there was something rotten going on here, and she was right. Over the years I have meassured the electric fields in many homes. After reducing the electric fields in various ways the ill health symptoms often disappear.

How do you reduce electrical fields in a household? May I point out that feng shui people, eath ray people, and many others make the same type of claims. I don't suppose you have any evidence for your claim?

And btw, in the days of Galileo the clerics were just about the only repository of scientific and literary wisdom.
So you don't know much about history, either?

Hans