Bioelectromagnetics

[Lucianarchy]

Luci, you're so far up Mr Coghill's arse only the soles of your shoes must be visible.

If you can't see that Mr Coghill's playing the citations game and hoping no-one will read them you must be more stupid than you appear.

He may not be the genius you claim, but he's certainly smart and needs the help of troll like he needs a hole in the head.

This is an interesting debate so stop trying to derail it.

Derail it? That's a laugh!! Timbo, if you have trouble reading things which cause you problems, here's clue. Ignore it.

I do find your statement somewhat disengenous though, as you are someone who is on record as a supporter of posting completely made up quotes and libelous statements. In fact, given your recent outburst here, welcome to by filter list. The only other person in there at the moment is pedophile who used to post here.

'Playing the citations' game is, in the real world, providing peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Mr Coghill is not the only proponent of the dangers of EM. Far from it:

Precaution in Practice presented at the Children with Leukaemia meeting “Powerlines and health” National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham, 5 December 2002 M J O’Carroll
"1. The problem. Concerns expressed by residents and the responses of the Electricity Supply Industry (ESI), NRPB and government indicate a conflict between their various perceptions of national needs and public safety. Here I try to express key perceptions in the conflict in my own terms, aiming to avoid unreasonable perceptual bias and to seek common ground."

Bristol University Human Radiation Effects Group
Covers published research and also carries a response to findings of the UK Childhood Cancer Study, UKCCS
"There is some confusion as to the nature of the findings of the UK Childhood Cancer Study, UKCCS(1) with regard to proximity to high voltage powerlines. The study actually finds increased childhood cancer in relation to proximity to high voltage powerlines."

Battle lines drawn in pylon debate BBC News Online
"after a week filled with conflicting scientific evidence over the health risks of living near power lines, BBC News Online examines what the latest figures mean." 11/99

[/b]Experts link power lines to cancer (Guardian)[/b]
"Evidence reported to link power lines with cancers is to be published by a team at Bristol university after doing experiments on the electromagnetic fields which surround the cables." 11/99

NIEHS REPORT on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields June 1999

[/b]Possible link between power lines and childhood cancer Sept 1998 [/b]
"A team from Bristol University has discovered the answer to a riddle which has puzzled scientists for many years. Epidemiological studies carried out in many places suggest that there is a link between high electromagnetic (EM) fields (such as those around power lines) and childhood leukaemia. But this was only a statistical association. It was not a demonstrated ‘cause and effect’. The bio-mechanism which might lead to a higher cancer risk was missing. Now the Bristol team believe they have found the answer."


The radon effect in electromagnetic fields M J O'Carroll, April 1997
"On 14 February 1996 Henshaw announced [1] experimental results showing enhanced deposition of harmful radon products upon surfaces in the presence of power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs)."

Public health concern about electromagnetic fields from electricity supply.
Professor M J O'Carroll Presented to the ADC conference on 28.11.96
"This paper aims to give a balanced and rational account of public health concerns about exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from electricity supply systems. It is written to advise non-scientific members of the public and local and national government from a scientific perspective. It was first produced for a BBC Radio 4 Helpline and a Public Local Inquiry. Unlike official and industrial advisory papers It describes the public concerns and their associated field levels, assesses those concerns and puts them in perspective, recognising the Official and Industrial position."

Prudent avoidance Professor M J O'Carroll
Presented to the ADC conference on 28.11.96 with the accompanying paper "Public health concerns about EMFs from electricity supply".

NIEHS (USA) Press release 24th June 1998
"An international panel of experts convened by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences reported to the institute today that electric and magnetic fields like those surrounding electric power lines should be regarded as a "possible human carcinogen". Summary of the report itself

The International EMF Project was established by The World Health Organisation in 1996.
"Technologies using the electromagnetic spectrum have provided immense benefits and reshaped the way we communicate, practice medicine, travel, conduct business and manufacture goods. While extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the spectrum, not all frequencies have been fully researched. Further, some of this research has suggested that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) may produce a broad range of health effects such as cancer, changes in behaviour, memory loss, Parkinsons and Alzheimer's diseases. While insufficient research has been conducted to substantiate these effects, sufficient concerns and perceptions of risks have been raised that there is an urgent need for an accelerated programme to provide scientific consensus and clarification of these issues."

To name but a few...

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Dearie me. Was anyone else in this forum unaware of the fact that I'm a vet? I give Roger a list of my qualifications in order not to do what he does, that is obfuscate and falsify my credentials, and hey presto, that's all he needs to dismiss any points I might happen to make.

Actually, I wasn't making "an honest criticism of his ideas". Others better versed in electronics and magnetism are doing a sterling job on that one, though Roger doesn't seem to have the foggiest idea of how seriously he's been shredded. I was questioning his qualifications, and his honesty with regard to the tale of the court case that he lost, and the whole ethics of selling quack medicines and devices on the back of these loopy theories of his.

As for making money from drug sales. Is anyone else in the forum unaware of the fact that I run a diagnostic laboratory, I make precisely zero percent of my income from drug sales, and that it matters not a whit to me financially how my colleagues decide to treat their patients?

And maybe someone would like to do a small comparison between the costs of veterinary treatment and the costs of similar private medical treatments for humans. The latter are usually hidden from the patient either by social welfare provision such as the NHS, or the fact that an insurance company pays for it. Because many pets aren't insured, the cost often comes as a bit of a shock. But people demand "the best", the most up-to-date scientific medical and surgical treatment for their pets, and they are getting it at a fraction of the cost of similar treatment for humans. Then all some of them can do is moan about it. Well, there's a very simple answer. Pet health insurance.

OK, Roger, you've just dismissed anything I might say because you think (wrongly) that I'm selling something and so have a vested interest. Where does that leave you, with your magnetic coasters and dubious supplements?

Rolfe.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Electromagnetic waves and the electromagnetic spectrum

Electromagnetic waves propagate through empty space at the speed of light, ie, 300 000 kilometres per second, and include the light that enables us to see, which vibrate at frequencies of about 1014 cycles per second. They have both an electrical component and a magnetic component vibrating at right angles to each another.

The entire electromagnetic spectrum is extremely wide, ranging from waves that vibrate at less than one cycle per second, or one Hz (Hertz) – named after Heinrich Hertz, the German physicist who discovered electromagnetic waves in 1888 – to 1024 Hz. The corresponding range of wavelengths – speed/frequency – is from 3 x 108 metres to 3 x 10-15 metre.

Above the visible spectrum are the ultraviolet rays, X-rays and g-rays, the ‘ionising’ radiations that break molecules up into electrically charged entities, and can damage DNA, causing harmful mutations.

Below the visible spectrum, are the ‘non-ionising electromagnetic radiation’ (NIEMR), emitted by electrical power stations, transmission lines, radio and TV towers, mobile phone base-stations, microwave ovens, radar, electric blankets, radios, TVs, computers, mobile phones, and other electrical appliances.


The report reveals for the first time that less than half of the exposures are due to nearby high-voltage power lines and electricity sub-stations. The remainder are probably from a combination of wiring, computers, televisions and other electrical equipment, but needs further research.

The effect is too small to have been detected in the UK Childhood Cancer Study conducted in 1999.

However it was spotted in a pooled analysis of 3,247 cases of childhood leukemia in Europe, North America and New Zealand published last year.

"Electrical connection" - Rob Edwards and Duncan Graham-Rowe. New Scientist 6 March 2002.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Electromagnetic exposure: real risks or paranoia?

New Internationalist, July, 2002 by Clare Doube

"More and more studies are showing serious adverse health effects caused by electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Completed research now includes multiple studies that have linked power lines with childhood cancers; computer exposure with miscarriages; and EMF exposure of workers in high-exposure occupations (such as electrical workers) with cancer congenital problems in their children. Over 90 studies have also concludedthat mobile phones cause cancers and have cardiac, reproductive and neurological effects. [...]
Industry influence could also be having an impact. Cherry says that '80 per cent of research is financed by industry' and that 'certain independent advisers on committees have industry links'. This could explain recent changes to Italian legislation. The current Italian Prime Minister, Silvia Berlusconi, owns three TV stations. Since his election, the acceptable limit for EMF exposure in Italy has been raised."

 

[cogreslab]

From Prag:

"Your theory cannot explain the hereditary aspects of cancer, thus it is dead in the water".

Hey, hang on there! Did I concede that anywhere?

I am still trying to find the time to deal with your 40 point long list, and if you guys stuck to science instead of attempting character assassination more than half the time, I might have a better chance to set the whole matter out more thoroughly, (including the problem with the Hungarian viewpoint, the issue of mutation, and heredity, and how they fit comfortably within my schema).

I love a good fight, but there should also be a breathing space between rounds.

 

[cogreslab]

Rolfe I let you off one UVJ but where is your support for this one:

"dubious supplements"?

Can you say which supplements, and why they are dubious, please?

Skeptometer now reading 85.

 

[Pragmatist]

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!

Just one question? This magnetized water is supposed to be beneficial to living organisms right? But now we find out that it apparently kills worms. So that makes it poisonous doesn't it?

Even if we assume that it has no immediate, drastic poisonous effect on humans (neither would a single dose of piperazine), the cumulative effect of long term use is a different matter. I wouldn't want to take piperazine every day for example. So why would anyone want to take magnetized water every day if this is true?

And of course, aside from any direct effect, I would then have to ask what magnetized water is doing to my natural (and beneficial) gut bacteria and flora etc. But there's also a bigger issue. ALthough none of us want ascarids in our gut, they do have a part in the greater ecosystem. And if magnetized water is killing them, then it would have an unnatural environmental impact if any of it got into natural water systems like streams or lakes. If people start using magnetic coasters and then have a pee or pour some down the sink, it will find itself working its way into natural waters.

Your whole campaign is designed to warn the public about hidden dangers of electricity. Well this certainly sounds like one of them to me. Are you going to actively campaign to have magnetized water banned as well? As a member of the Green Party, are you not concerned about the environmental impact of magnetized water? Is the Green Party aware of this? Sounds like someone needs to tell them pronto, because I'm quite sure they would not condone the use of anything that could potentially cause damage to the ecosystem!

And how can any member of the Green Party, sell and advocate something that so obviously has potential to cause untold damage to the ecosystem?

 

[cogreslab]

Lucianarchy is quite right to point to the furious arguments going on globally about weak EMF bioeffects. Actually, they make this debate look like vicar's teaparty in terms of belligerence, posturing, and slanted argument!

Pleased to hear you now are into diagnosis Rolfe, rather than pet owners' pockets. I notice you haven't bothered to defend your more commercial vet customers. Maybe there isn't a defence for their self-interested trade-protective actions such as I described?

As for our "pseudo science", what do you make of our three spectrophotometers and our quadrupole ion trap GC/MS/MS machine, to mention some of the "woo woo devices " we deploy here to develop our "dubious supplements"? I doubt whether rotary evaporators, oscilloscopes, microscopes, spectrum analysers or the other necessities of laboratory life would impress you either. Maybe you should consider a visit here if you as you say are not too far way? (avoid the gyppoes and the scrapyard, mind) Then you could report back to the assassination squad.

 

[cogreslab]

May be for assassination squaddies the word elimination is synonymous with kill, but to me it means they just get the hell out.

 

[Rolfe]

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!

Actually, maybe I should explain this.

It's generally recognised that it is in the interests of animal patients to have drugs specifically licensed (that is tested for safety and efficacy) in the target species, rather than just picking stuff up from the human pharmacopoeia. Unfortunately that means that proper scientific trials have to be done on these species and a lot of data submitted to the VMD and so on. The market for veterinary medicines is a lot smaller than the market for human medicines, and this makes the veterinary-licensed preparations more expensive. Often they're not exactly the same preparations - for example, Synulox for animals has a different composition to the apparently identical Augmentin for humans.

It's not the vets who make the law that insists that if a veterinary-licensed preparation exists, we have to use it. It's the government who does that. It's to give animals the best access to tailor-made preparations, and allow the drug companies some incentive to go on developing specifically veterinary formulations. What the law first came in, a lot of vets were very unhappy about it, as it meant that some of their clients were having to pay a lot more. But it does seem to be working, as the prices of these drugs has gradually come down as they've been used more, and we have access to a wider range of specifically veterinary-formulated preparations.

Of course Roger would understand nothing of this, as the quack devices and so on that he sells don't have to be licensed by anyone, and don't have to show any independent evidence of safety or efficacy. He might have a much shorter sales list if they did.

Oh, Roger, much of what I say about you is going to be value-judgement, because it is my judgement that you are an exploitative quack. Deal with it.

Rolfe.

 

[Pragmatist]

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?

Why of course you can. I'm nothing if not eminently quotable!

However, just because their WEB site contains simplified physics for laypeople I think it would rather be stretching the point to assume that means that they don't know anything else about the subject!

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"

There were PHYSICISTS advising Galileo? I'll bet they worked for the NRPB. It was obviously a conspiracy!

BTW, enlighten me, which NON-PHYSICIST is responsible for the technology that you write your messages to this board with? And which is responsible for making the meters that you trust enough to measure fields that form the basis of your campaigns? I thought you got your instruments calibrated by the NPL. I thought that meant the National Physical Laboratory. Hey, don't trust THOSE guys, they're evil physicists!

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.

What, you mean those instruments that were designed, built and calibrated by those evil physicists that you don't trust?

 

[cogreslab]

Looks like a bit of a lull, so I will now take a few hours out of the battle scene to start answering Prag et al questions off line.

 

[JamesM]

Rolfe's a complete BVM!

Rolfe is the Blessed Virgin Mary? Why did nobody tell me?

 

[Pragmatist]

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.

Yep, I was right! I LOVE this answer! Hey, I made a psychic prediction and it came true, can I claim the JREF prize? Randi, you listening? Now where did I put that Ferrari catalog?

Err...not exactly. The term "collapsing a short circuit" is meaningless technobabble.

The earth strap is there so that if for any reason, any part of the (usually metallic) pipework comes into contact with a live, it will prevent the sink from becoming live by shunting the current to earth. You wouldn't want to have your hands in water in the sink and for the sink to then become suddenly live. If there was a short circuit on the other hand, it would draw excessive current from the supply and would trip the breaker or blow the fuse, thus cutting off the electricity. That's what fuses are for Roger. And a short circuit wouldn't necessarily make anything live anyway.

The earthing system of a house has nothing whatsoever to do with fields. There is a difference between a field and a current.

And that should be obvious even to "kiddy physicists"!

 

[Prester John]

From Prag:

"Your theory cannot explain the hereditary aspects of cancer, thus it is dead in the water".

Hey, hang on there! Did I concede that anywhere?

I am still trying to find the time to deal with your 40 point long list, and if you guys stuck to science instead of attempting character assassination more than half the time, I might have a better chance to set the whole matter out more thoroughly, (including the problem with the Hungarian viewpoint, the issue of mutation, and heredity, and how they fit comfortably within my schema).

I love a good fight, but there should also be a breathing space between rounds.

It was me actually, try doing what Hans suggested.

On to your points, no you haven't conceded, and i doubt you will ever. However you have not so far, and i've been asking for days, produced any explanation for the herditary aspects of cancer. You have tried to define mutation as an up or down regulation of a gene however, and i suspect that this redifinition of a word will play a part in your "explanation" . I will remind you also to include something about viruses, specificaly Rous Sarcoma Virus because a) it was key to identifying the true cause of cancer (genetic as opposed to metabolic) and b) Virology is a fascinating subject in itself don't you think?

 

[cogreslab]

Quote from Rolfe:

"Of course Roger would understand nothing of this, as the quack devices and so on that he sells don't have to be licensed by anyone, and don't have to show any independent evidence of safety or efficacy".

Wrong again!

Skeptometer now reads 84.

Static magnets fall under the Class One devices category and have to be registered with the former MDA (now MHRA) while AC devices powered by electricity are in Class Two, and proof of efficacy has to be available or submitted for both classes.

For years Adrian Mann at the former MDA and I have been in dialogue to evaluate and submit efficacy data, indeed Adrian was kind enough to present at our 1996 World Congress on Magnet therapy some years back.

 

[Pragmatist]

From Prag:

"Your theory cannot explain the hereditary aspects of cancer, thus it is dead in the water".

Hey, hang on there! Did I concede that anywhere?

I am still trying to find the time to deal with your 40 point long list, and if you guys stuck to science instead of attempting character assassination more than half the time, I might have a better chance to set the whole matter out more thoroughly, (including the problem with the Hungarian viewpoint, the issue of mutation, and heredity, and how they fit comfortably within my schema).

I love a good fight, but there should also be a breathing space between rounds.

Yawn....for the umpteenth time, *I* have not discussed cancer with you.

Roger: you want us to believe that you know more than any physicist, that you have worked out the cure for cancer etc., etc. And then you can't even get people's names right on a simple bulletin board....

Yeah, right, *I'M* convinced. Don't know about anyone else.

Oh, and why SHOULD we stick to science? YOU don't!

 

[Lucianarchy]

Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, 29 (1993) 255-276

Elsevier Sequoia S.A., Lausanne

JEC BB 01580

Electromagnetic fields, cancer, and the theory of neuroendocrine-related promotion

Andrew A. Marino

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Department of Cellular Biology and Anatomy, Louisiana State University Medical Center, P.O. Box 33932, Shreveport, LA 71130-39i2 (USA)

Abstract

Environmental electromagnetic fields were predicted to increase the risk for cancer in chronically exposed human subjects because of impaired immunosurveillance mediated by the neuroendocrine system. This theory was examined by evaluating the human observational studies involving EMF-exposed subjects, and it was determined that the risk of cancer is greater when EMFs are added to the environment, at least for children and white males. The inference of risk obtained from the studies supports the theory of neuroendocrine-related progression of cancer but does not prove it because the studies provide no basis to exclude other possible mechanisms such as EMF-induced changes in ornithine decarboxylase, melatonin, or ion-resonance interactions.

 

[Lucianarchy]

CHRONIC ELECTROMAGNETIC STRESSORS IN THE ENVIRONMENT:

CHRONIC ELECTROMAGNETIC STRESSORS IN THE ENVIRONMENT: A RISK FACTOR IN HUMAN CANCER

Andrew A. Marino and *Don M. Morris
Department Of Orthopaedic Surgery
*Veterans Administration Medical Center
and
Department of Surgery and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Louisiana State University
School of Medicine in Shreveport
P.0. Box 33932
Shreveport, LA 71130-3932
"
[...]

Electromagnetic fields are real, physical, incorporeal entitle that arise from the existence and motions of atomic charges. Electromagnetic waves are electromagnetic fields that propagate through space and, after generation by the source, are physically unconnected to it. Typical examples are radar, microwave ovens, and radio and television signals. The second class of electromagnetic fields consists of electric and magnetic fields. They are distinct but frequently superimposed fields that arise in the vicinity of wires carrying electric currents. Although these fields are stationary in the sense that they do not propagate through space, their magnitude or direction may be time-dependent. The strength of electric and magnetic field decreases (usually in a complicated fashion) with increasing distance from the source. Typical sources are high-voltage powerlines, electric blankets, and airport metal-detectors.

Electromagnetic fields became increasingly common constituent of the general and workplace environments early in the 20th century, but some lifestyles and occupations are associated with more than the average amount of exposure to electromagnetic fields People who live near high-voltage powerline, for example, are chronically exposed to electric and magnetic fields that are significantly stronger than those usually experienced by the general population. People who use electric blanket similarly experience stronger fields for longer duration compared to the general population. Navy shipboard personnel are exposed to electromagnetic field from any shipboard radars, and in this regard their work environment differ significantly from that of other young men. People living near airports are exposed to radar beams used to locate and guide airplanes. Such residential areas differ from other socio-economically comparable neighborhoods with regard to the constituency of the electron genetic background. Amateur radio operator experience more electromagnetic-field exposure than the general population because of their proximity to radiating antennas. Many other patterns of exposure in the genera and workplace environments can be identified with increased intensity and duration of exposure to electromagnetic field. The existence of sub-groups in the general population that experience increased exposure raises the question of whether the exposed groups have an increased incidence of certain diseases that may be linked to this exposure.

Despite the accelerating presence of electromagnetic field in the general and workplace environment, their possible public-health significance was largely unstudied in the United States until the late 1970s. But the situation changed, due largely to developments in two partially-related areas. A better understanding of the physiological role of the body's innate electrical activity has been achieved, and has led to clinical applications of a variety of electromagnetic devices intended to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. The energy imparted to the body by the therapeutic devices is frequently less than that derived from some typical environmental and workplace condition, and the possible consequence of environmental and workplace exposure could not be ignored. The second development was the generation of a large body of research data on animals that revealed previously unsuspected effect of electromagnetic fields on biological systems. In 1979, epidemiologist began reporting on direct studies of possible correlation between environmental exposure and disease. The bulk of such studies focused on one class of disease -- cancer.

These studies have some potential methodological shortcomings -- whether they actually exist is a different question -- as well as unique difficulties that deserve attention. Many factors besides electromagnetic fields are associated with particular living or working condition. People living near powerlines may be exposed to ozone from the corona discharge that occurs along the wire. Sailors aboard ship breathe in salt air and live in cramped quarter. People near airports are exposed to high noise levels. Amateur radio operators may breathe in solder fume. The list of possible confounding factors is long. Bias in the choice of a control group is another obvious possibility tending to undercut the reliability of an apparent correlation between exposure and disease. One unique problem with electromagnetic-field studies is that the fields leave no physical trace of having been present in tissue. Unlike lead, asbestos, or cotton dust, there is no radiological, histopathological or biochemical test for the actual presence of electromagnetic fields in exposed individuals. A physiological dosimeter that records past exposure to electromagnetic fields does not exist.

Against the background of possible perturbing influences and uncertainties a threshold question arises: do the present epidemiological studies provide sufficiently strong evidence to support the conclusion that environmental electromagnetic fields are a risk factor for cancer? In the next section we briefly describe all of the epidemiological studies which we could find that bear on this question. We also give our reasons for concluding that the question should be answered affirmatively."

 

[Oleron]

Mr Coghill,

So insulting the medical profession and the electricity generating boards wasn't enough for you? You're now starting on Vets about their fees?!

Are there any established professions you don't have a problem with?
Homeopaths maybe...?