Bioelectromagnetics

Status
Not open for further replies.
But back to the topic...

I may have some insight on the interactions between organic matter and electromagnetic radiation: this was not intended as an experiment, but in hindsight, all the proper controls were in place:

4/27/2004, 7:00 pm, PDT

I subjected approximately 100g of mixed beef and pork tissue at 270K to 10cm radiation at a rate of approximatedly 800W for 60 seconds. The result was put on a toasted bun and presented to Mrs Phildonnia, who declared (without any prompting from the experimenter) "Hey, this hot-dog is still frozen in the middle!". The remainder was then subjected to an additional 60 seconds of radiation, and the process repeated, with a more favorable judgement from the human subject.
 
I would like to categorically agree with Cleopatra.

It looks like Mr. Coghill has a made a legitimate effort to discuss something that he has a serious interest in and all he has gotten is a bunch of crap.

I am with soapy sam and look forward to seeing where this thread is going.

Perhaps Mr. Coghill could give us a little bit more information about what he wants to talk about or perhaps he would like to restart the thread in the science sub forum.
 
OK, Soapy Sam I accept your apology and will try to explain why I am in here among you skeptics. Good science needs checks and balances, and the skeptic movement does a power of good in that direction. However, science should not throw away everything it does not understand. I am minded of Prince de Broglie's remark about scientific experts, that they should be free to proceed in any research direction they choose, and be unfettered. Sadly in the UK science is very fettered. I can give several examples where sound and reputable scientists have lost their funding or jobs for being outspoken on the EMF issue.

To be continued, (since if I write too much the page expires)
 
I think the problem started when you did not actually open any discussion in your opening post. As elsewhere, an empty slap attracts grafiti.

I agree partly with Cleopatra that you have been answering questions, but only partly, because I think your answering has been somewhat selective. This may be due to many questions and lack of time, so let's let that lie.

I would like to open then with a question: What is bioelectromagnetics (as opposed to Electromagnetics)?

Hans
 
The nub of this issue is whether non-ionising EM fields and radiations with densities too low to cause thermal effects could be a health hazard. This embraces fields and radiations from cellphones, powerlines, and domestic electric appliances, as well as many kinds of occupational exposures. The Western regulatory authorities (capitalist countries) deny any such effects and have huge vested interests at risk if this were found to be so. Some major former communist/atheist countries (e.g. Russia, China) however fully accept the so-called "non thermal effects" argument, and their PELs (permitted exposure limits) are far lower than those guidelines suggested by WHO, ICNIRP, and NRPB, who are a closed little band of self-supporting brothers/sisters. (Note these latter authorities do not set standards or limits but merely offer guidelines).

Our lab is entirely independent, however, and our research indicates there is a problem from chronic exposures to RF/MW masts, powerlines and fields from electric appliances. Simply admitting this would in my view save many lives and avoid many family tragedies. By putting myself at your disposal and setting out the main issue I hope to encourage informed debate and test the robustness of my scientific arguments before a semi-lay audience. You already have now some idea of the level of capability we have in this field, from my previous posts on the thread started by Cleopatra.

Kind regards,
 
Definition of Bioelectromagnetics:

The science which researches interactions between the physical energies of electricity and magnetism with organic life processes. It also embraces the study of how organic life makes use of these physical energies, e.g. how some elasmobranch fishes can detect electric fields as low as 1/4 of a millionth of a volt per metre, or how in oxidative phosphorylation the inner mitochondrial membrane organises electron transport so as to synthesise adenosine triphosphate (ATP).

This science is increasingly important in our modern world because we have created a planet where locally the levels of artificially originating radiation exceed by several orders of magnitude the previously prevailing levels in the environment.
 
cogreslab said:
*snip* You already have now some idea of the level of capability we have in this field, from my previous posts on the thread started by Cleopatra.

Kind regards,
Click to expand...
Would that be your claim that EM waves can be deflected by things not in their path, or that crystals can amplify ;)?

Anyhow, the main subject is valid, but numerous tests have been carried out, without disclosing anything conclusive. I am aware of the vested interests, there is no such thing as an independent party, but these reports have been published. I would find it more interesting if you could point out flaws in those reports rather than attacking the character of those who made them.

Hans
 
Good point. I should not have perhaps argued that those running the regulatory groups keep in close private contact, for why shouldn't they? It does however stultify the chances of lateral thinking in my view, when a group with a certain opinion self-confirm their views in this untested way.

However, to start with a few of the numerous examples of bad science as a means of cover-up: The UKCCCR published in the BJC (British Journal of Cancer) after twelve years the results of their ELF electric field study measuring these in the homes of children with leukaemia (just before Xmas, when few might notice it). They used as their metric of bedplace exposure only three minute measurements of the field, during the daytime. This is clearly not representative of such exposures. I should add that only under intense pressure from me and a number of other scientists did Sir Richard Doll (of whom more anon) agree to include the electric field at all.

Because this was obviously going to attract criticism, the E-field study also reported 48 hour period measurements at the bedplace and in other rooms of the childrens' homes. But this too includes two nocturnal and four daytime periods, so it too is a major dilution of the bedplace nocturnal exposure. Unsurprisingly they could not find any strong positive association. Our own study quite rightly took the 12 hour period between 2000 hrs and 0800 hrs as the exposure period, and found a five fold risk of leukemia when the E-field means exceed 20 V/m. See what I mean about the serious flaws in Doll's study? I went to his presentation at NRPB headquarters, and put these points; and he could not answer them.
 
By the way Hans, your appellation (MRC_Hans) might be said to imply some connection with the Medical Research Council? Is that correct?
 
I should perhaps add that I wrote to the BJC editor Leo Kinlen (an old friend of Doll: they were both criticised by a US Congress Subcommittee in 1977 for reporting erroneous fluoridation cancer figures in the Lancet) who agreed to publish these valid criticisms, but only if they were hopelessly watered down, which I refused to do.

The fluoridation issue is not my field, but is another example of cover up. If you want a real shocker, however, just read the latest issue of the Ecologist which exposes the disgraceful way in which polio has been deliberately mislabelled as being of viral origin, when it is clearly related to pesticide toxicity.

Another mighty cover-up is the AIDS scandal perpetrated by NCI (National Cancer Institute) in the early 1980s. NCI pretended to find a virus which later the Pasteur Institute could prove was one they had previously sent as a sample to Robert Gallo at NCI. The first pictures appearing in Nature in Gallo's paper were actually of the Pasteur Institute's virus not any deriving from NCI!

Even Pasteur himself falsified data, a fact which only emerged after his death, when contrary to his request his family released his private notebooks.

Anyway, present establishment UK science pales that into insignificance, as readers of this thread will learn in coming posts.
 
cogreslab said:
The fluoridation issue is not my field, but is another example of cover up. If you want a real shocker, however, just read the latest issue of the Ecologist which exposes the disgraceful way in which polio has been deliberately mislabelled as being of viral origin, when it is clearly related to pesticide toxicity.
Click to expand...


So why has it's levels gone through the floor. Secondly what is in the vacine
Another mighty cover-up is the AIDS scandal perpetrated by NCI (National Cancer Institute) in the early 1980s. NCI pretended to find a virus which later the Pasteur Institute could prove was one they had previously sent as a sample to Robert Gallo at NCI. The first pictures appearing in Nature in Gallo's paper were actually of the Pasteur Institute's virus not any deriving from NCI!
Click to expand...

Source for this (and virusmyth.net is not a source)?
 
By the way Hans, your appellation (MRC_Hans) might be said to imply some connection with the Medical Research Council? Is that correct?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. The MRC handle is an old combat flight simulator handle, and has no relevance for these topics at all. It is just that I have used it on the internet for so long that a lot of people know me by that handle.

I do work in the medical industry, as a QA engineer. Education-wise, I'm an electronic engineer.

Hans
 
cogreslab said:
*snip* If you want a real shocker, however, just read the latest issue of the Ecologist which exposes the disgraceful way in which polio has been deliberately mislabelled as being of viral origin, when it is clearly related to pesticide toxicity.

*snip*
Click to expand...
Oh? So how come vaccine works? How come polio exists in countries where pesticide use is practically non-existent? How come it was prevalent in cities, whereas rural areas were rather safe?

Hans
 
Hans, If these points re polio are not covered in the Ecologist article perhaps you should write to Zac Goldsmith, the Editor, about them. It isn't my field of expertise, as indicated, and I have only the opinons of those I trust to tell me it is a worthy article.

Thanks to all for the amusing speculations about my name and affiiliations. The name Coghill is somewhat unusual I admit, but there are plenty of them in this world entirely unconnected to me, including scientists. I do believe I am the only Roger Coghill in this field however.

I am not to be addressed as Doctor, since I am not a qualified medical pactitioner, and though some media often describe me thus, I take all pains to advise them of their error when I see it. Since a search on Google will show you there are some 9000 websites referring to Roger Coghill, it is not always easy to be aware of being misquoted or misnamed. Hence the Phonedome/Shield or what ever button thing unnoticed misquotation. I am continuing this dialogue in the Bioelectromagnetics thread from now, so please address any comments/replies on that topic there.
 
cogreslab said:
I am continuing this dialogue in the Bioelectromagnetics thread from now, so please address any comments/replies on that topic there.
Click to expand...


Ummmm....Isn't that where we are now?
 
Yes, but some dialogue was also emerging in Cleopatra's original post re the Phonedome thing. I want to consiolidate all things referring to me here, so I don't have to look in several places. Sorry if I confused you!
 
I can recall some years ago that there was a concern here in Connecticut (this is where we store white people in the USA, BTW) about power lines and cancer. It causesd a bit of a scare and sort of went away. I must say that an awful lot of expensive houses would have been effected had the scare not dissipated.

The scare de jure is now Radon.
 
One source for this issue is "AIDS: the HIV Myth" by Jad Adams, Mcmillan Publishers, 1989. Curious to know, if it was not a virus, what might be the environmental cause of this acquired immunodeficit, I did some preliminary unpublished work and found a relationship between children born at the same time as MW telecommunications towers. Also a meta-analysis I did which compared registered AIDS cases and the levels of RF/MW radiation in the same cities as measured for the US Govt by Ric Tell found a correlation between high AIDS incidence and high RF/MW levels in the fifteen largest US cities. There seemed to be no relationship between city population size and AIDS incidence, which one might perhaps have expected from a viral aetiology.

None of this stuff is published, btw, so must at this stage be regarded as simply speculative on my part. Given the existing literature however, it would not surprise me to find this relationship borne out by a well conducted epi study. Sadly I have not the funding for such a research project.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom