Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh, I didn't for a second think you were! Roger was, though.gmanontario said:
The Blessed Virgin Mary.
Bioelectromagnetics
- Thread starter Beleth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bioelectromagnetics
The Blessed Virgin Mary.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Ah, it's that time again. Roger, about the dysmenorrhoea study.
What was the name of the journal that was just about to publish it, again?
The Blessed Virgin Mary.
What was the name of the journal that was just about to publish it, again?
The Blessed Virgin Mary.
I'd just like to de-lurk add my thanks to everyone for debunking this rubbish and teaching me so much.
Roger you're are coming across as either:
1) A fool
2) A liar
but either way you're a man who preys on the ignorant and the weak for a profit. That's just above those that hurt others physically in my book.
Put better than I ever could:
Roger you're are coming across as either:
1) A fool
2) A liar
but either way you're a man who preys on the ignorant and the weak for a profit. That's just above those that hurt others physically in my book.
Put better than I ever could:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Mmm, no comment from T'ai Chi about Roger's ad-hom tendencies. Oh well.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
You know, on my browser this thread is now on page sixty-something. I have to confess to not having read every single word of it myself, actually, but it does seem to me that about 99% of it, maybe a little more, was people examining Roger's claims and shredding them. And of course Roger coming back with counterarguments which were an insult to anyone's intelligence.T'ai Chi said:
So jumping in at the point where people's patience has finally given out (and it takes a lot to get Hans to the end of his patience, someone watching the homoeopath boards once asked him if he was on tranquillisers), and sniping "ad hominem", isn't terribly constructive.
So tell you what, T'ai Chi, either have a look at the debate and make up your own mind about it (and that's actually quite a good idea, because a statistical viewpoint on sone of the stuff Roger has been spouting would be quite enlightening), or just keep out of it.
Roger is a rude, unpleasant man. He's quite capable of coming back at Bill or Hans (or me or anybody else) without any help from anyone else.
The BVM.
T'ai Chi said:Thanks for your comments Rolfe, but I'll do wtf I want to.
I'm interested in the data, if you and/or Cogreslab have any.
There are plenty of references to data for you to look at, if you bothered to do what Rolfe suggested: Actually read the thread. However, it would require for you to do actual work. That, unfortunately, is too much to ask for.
Do your homework, or stay out. This is not about you, this is not about your pathetic little personal feuds, this is serious, T'ai Chi.
Just back from Istanbul.
This well-organised but somewhat hasty WHO conference was largely designed and controlled by the establishment's viewpoints, but nevetheless there was sufficient freedom for alternative viewpoints, and a number of new studies were presented (in the form of posters rather than platform presentations) with the exception of Denis Henshaw's talk. On the third day a closed session prepared a set of priorities for EMF research in relation to children. For example the melatonin issue (which had been given high priority by the epi working group) was deemed only medium priority by the general working group.
Many of the themes of this thread also permeated the conference. For example the issue of whether childhood leukemia incidence is declining: it was categorically established that there is still an annual increase of a few percent (as I had maintained here) according to the UK statistics (see Stiller 2004).
Also the issue of whether ELF fields can penetrate the body: tbis is now generally also accepted, and no doubt will be further pursued at Richard Nuccitelli's Gordon Conference in July (of which we are co-sponsors). On this subject an interesting poster (Bilgin Elcin et al., from Adnan Menderes and Ankara Univs. Dept of Biophysics, Turkey) reported histological changes in adult male rat tissues from exposure to a vertical 1.5 kV 50Hz electric field. There were increases in sperm cells while the liver cells showed widened bile canaliculi and parenchymal degeneration in the liver cells inter alia. This exposure is well below the NRPB exposure guidelines.
Another useful poster was one of the first to address the issue of childrens' chronic exposure to cellphones. Acute exposure does not appear to cause any affects and two separate studies (e,g Preece) report no differences. Kolodynsky et al.'s new 3 year study of some 700 children aged 7-12 years however reported more mistakes in responses, shorter attention span, and lower IQ among the children cellphone users compared with the control group.
Most of the usual suspects were present, but there were a few new faces too. Dr Scholes from UCL presented evidence of how powerful are the endogenous fields are from the brain, and confirmed that myelination in the human infant is not completed before 2 years, and Dr Tracy Lightfoot from York Univ. a geneticist confirmed that no human leukaemia virus has ever been found. She suggested that chromosomal translocations in utero might be associated with childhood leukaemia as a result of faulty repair.
Since DNA repair is carried out by enzymes it was interesting to learn of several studies where the effect of non-thermal EMF has been to inhibit enzyme activity.
Camelia Gabriel (whose tissue dielectric studies are used by most of the cellphone industry) also confirmed that my concepts of half wave resonance as posted here were correct.
Liz Ainsbury gave a useful overview of the relative importance of circular polarisation, and made the same point as I did that this implicated the electric component as a bioeffector, since linear polarisation has a much lower current density.
John Swanson gave a review from the NGT viewpoint, and beautifully illustrated my comment on this thread that the NGT avoids electric field research, by dismissing it completely in his opening sentence, saying that we should be led by the epidemiology (and hence he looked only at magnetic fields). Since the utilities fund 80 percent of the epidemiology anyway, this effectively means that we are to be led by the way the utilities want to go!
As usual Mike Repacholi did a masterful job in ensuring that the main presentataions conformed to the establishment view on the one hand but left some latitude for the alternative protagonists to get on record and have their say on the other. He has a difficult job.
Leeka Kheifetz his former buddy at WHO (now at UCLA) is preparing a summary of the main workshop conculsions, and has asked me to put in a few remarks re the electric field issue.
It was nice to be made so welcome and given such respect by the bioelectromagnetics community by comparison with the rough treatment I get here! But then these poeple know their business and their science, and don't play about with pedantry and pejorative games.
I only have a few days before going to Washington for the annual BEMS meeting on the 17th, and in the interim have six presentations to prepare for various conferences upcoming in the next few months, so do not expect much from me re the latest tirades until I get back.
This well-organised but somewhat hasty WHO conference was largely designed and controlled by the establishment's viewpoints, but nevetheless there was sufficient freedom for alternative viewpoints, and a number of new studies were presented (in the form of posters rather than platform presentations) with the exception of Denis Henshaw's talk. On the third day a closed session prepared a set of priorities for EMF research in relation to children. For example the melatonin issue (which had been given high priority by the epi working group) was deemed only medium priority by the general working group.
Many of the themes of this thread also permeated the conference. For example the issue of whether childhood leukemia incidence is declining: it was categorically established that there is still an annual increase of a few percent (as I had maintained here) according to the UK statistics (see Stiller 2004).
Also the issue of whether ELF fields can penetrate the body: tbis is now generally also accepted, and no doubt will be further pursued at Richard Nuccitelli's Gordon Conference in July (of which we are co-sponsors). On this subject an interesting poster (Bilgin Elcin et al., from Adnan Menderes and Ankara Univs. Dept of Biophysics, Turkey) reported histological changes in adult male rat tissues from exposure to a vertical 1.5 kV 50Hz electric field. There were increases in sperm cells while the liver cells showed widened bile canaliculi and parenchymal degeneration in the liver cells inter alia. This exposure is well below the NRPB exposure guidelines.
Another useful poster was one of the first to address the issue of childrens' chronic exposure to cellphones. Acute exposure does not appear to cause any affects and two separate studies (e,g Preece) report no differences. Kolodynsky et al.'s new 3 year study of some 700 children aged 7-12 years however reported more mistakes in responses, shorter attention span, and lower IQ among the children cellphone users compared with the control group.
Most of the usual suspects were present, but there were a few new faces too. Dr Scholes from UCL presented evidence of how powerful are the endogenous fields are from the brain, and confirmed that myelination in the human infant is not completed before 2 years, and Dr Tracy Lightfoot from York Univ. a geneticist confirmed that no human leukaemia virus has ever been found. She suggested that chromosomal translocations in utero might be associated with childhood leukaemia as a result of faulty repair.
Since DNA repair is carried out by enzymes it was interesting to learn of several studies where the effect of non-thermal EMF has been to inhibit enzyme activity.
Camelia Gabriel (whose tissue dielectric studies are used by most of the cellphone industry) also confirmed that my concepts of half wave resonance as posted here were correct.
Liz Ainsbury gave a useful overview of the relative importance of circular polarisation, and made the same point as I did that this implicated the electric component as a bioeffector, since linear polarisation has a much lower current density.
John Swanson gave a review from the NGT viewpoint, and beautifully illustrated my comment on this thread that the NGT avoids electric field research, by dismissing it completely in his opening sentence, saying that we should be led by the epidemiology (and hence he looked only at magnetic fields). Since the utilities fund 80 percent of the epidemiology anyway, this effectively means that we are to be led by the way the utilities want to go!
As usual Mike Repacholi did a masterful job in ensuring that the main presentataions conformed to the establishment view on the one hand but left some latitude for the alternative protagonists to get on record and have their say on the other. He has a difficult job.
Leeka Kheifetz his former buddy at WHO (now at UCLA) is preparing a summary of the main workshop conculsions, and has asked me to put in a few remarks re the electric field issue.
It was nice to be made so welcome and given such respect by the bioelectromagnetics community by comparison with the rough treatment I get here! But then these poeple know their business and their science, and don't play about with pedantry and pejorative games.
I only have a few days before going to Washington for the annual BEMS meeting on the 17th, and in the interim have six presentations to prepare for various conferences upcoming in the next few months, so do not expect much from me re the latest tirades until I get back.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
How about sharing your contribution to this seminar.cogreslab said:
Abstract, poster, 3min presentation - what was your contribution?
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
cogreslab said:
Never one to let the truth get in the way of a good story, are you Rog? I was hoping you'd leave the "bul" part in Turkey!
From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030214074310.htm
Researchers from Imperial College London, University of Oxford, Kagoshima University (Japan) and University of the Ryukyus (Japan) have discovered the mechanism by which human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1), the virus which causes adult T-cell leukaemia, spreads through the body.
From: http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/-254803925.htm
human T-cell leukaemia virus
There are two retroviruses in the oncoretroviridae group which cause human disease; these are type I and type II human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV).
cogreslab said:
I don't believe that for one second.
cogreslab said:
Pseudoscientific nonsense, as usual. Polarization of what? And how can the state of polarization have anything to do with current density? How can that "implicate the electric component"? Don't you ever learn that you can't fool people on here with this kind of rubbish?
cogreslab said:
So you did manage to fool someone?
cogreslab said:
I suppose every court needs a jester!
JPK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 1,870
Let me start by saying I have read every post in this thread from the begining and it is very entertaining.
I admit I admire the energy that cogreslab has spent here, I often wonder how he manages to accomplish anything at the lab.
He seems to be under the impression that due to the amount of posts and views in this thread that he winning over people with his masterfull knowledge of bioelectromagnetics. After reading everything he has written, I just want to go on record and state, he has not got me believeing in his ideas. I dare say that the vast majority of people reading this thread are finding him looking less and less like a respectable scientist tring to help people and more and more like a guy attempting to spread fear and then offer to sell them comfort. I don't know how to do this but perhaps a poll is in order to see what the readers of this thread think of cogreslab theories. It might just be that I am no expert in the field of bioelectromagnetics, but most of his writing seems like technobabble. When confronted about specific points, he becomes very evasive, yet he seems to think he's winning over people with his long winded posts. Perhaps I'm a bit bias since I find his Challenge moraly repulsive, or the statements he made that indicate he is unaware humans are mammals, or that worms are animals, and any of the other very scary errors from a self proclaimed expert in bioelectromagnetics. I wonder what his intentions actually are by dragging this thread out so long? Can we expect some creative editing from all this and somehow see that we all end up agreeing with him on another board somewhere? Evertime I read one of his posts I expect to see a scene from Monty Python:
In this graph, this column represents 23% of the population. This column represents 28% of the population, and this column represents 43% of the population.
Cut back to presenter.
Presenter : Telling figures indeed, but what do they mean to you, what do they mean to me, what do they mean to the average man in the street?
Well one thing is for sure, Washington is a fertile place for his products. This administrations grip on scientific method seems to be on the same level as cogreslab.
JPK
I admit I admire the energy that cogreslab has spent here, I often wonder how he manages to accomplish anything at the lab.
He seems to be under the impression that due to the amount of posts and views in this thread that he winning over people with his masterfull knowledge of bioelectromagnetics. After reading everything he has written, I just want to go on record and state, he has not got me believeing in his ideas. I dare say that the vast majority of people reading this thread are finding him looking less and less like a respectable scientist tring to help people and more and more like a guy attempting to spread fear and then offer to sell them comfort. I don't know how to do this but perhaps a poll is in order to see what the readers of this thread think of cogreslab theories. It might just be that I am no expert in the field of bioelectromagnetics, but most of his writing seems like technobabble. When confronted about specific points, he becomes very evasive, yet he seems to think he's winning over people with his long winded posts. Perhaps I'm a bit bias since I find his Challenge moraly repulsive, or the statements he made that indicate he is unaware humans are mammals, or that worms are animals, and any of the other very scary errors from a self proclaimed expert in bioelectromagnetics. I wonder what his intentions actually are by dragging this thread out so long? Can we expect some creative editing from all this and somehow see that we all end up agreeing with him on another board somewhere? Evertime I read one of his posts I expect to see a scene from Monty Python:
In this graph, this column represents 23% of the population. This column represents 28% of the population, and this column represents 43% of the population.
Cut back to presenter.
Presenter : Telling figures indeed, but what do they mean to you, what do they mean to me, what do they mean to the average man in the street?
Well one thing is for sure, Washington is a fertile place for his products. This administrations grip on scientific method seems to be on the same level as cogreslab.
JPK
I posted: "Also the issue of whether ELF fields can penetrate the body: tbis is now generally also accepted",
Hans replied: "Not electrical fields. You know, the laws of physics have not changed lately, so you are either misunderstanding, misrepresenting, or lying".
It is very important to get this straightened out, Hans. As I understand it, conceding myself not to be a physicist, an ELF alternating current-carrying wire will be attended by electric and magnetic fields detectable outside its physical material. (Let us for now leave out the issue of what happens when the wire is "live" but not supplying a current). The magnetic fields will induce electric fields in its vicinity, and since the human body is transparent to magnetic fields there will be currents induced inside the body, which themselves give rise to electric fields. In my posts I have abbreviated this effect to saying simply that RF/MW and ELF electric fields can penetrate the body. One way or another there can exist electric fields inside the body as a result of a nearby current carrying wire.
The well recognised concept of SAR reflects the level of internal electric fields engendered as per above by some external source, multiplied by the conductivity of the tissue, and then divided by the permittivity of the tissue.
I do not think that is wrong, nor that I am lying.
Hans replied: "Not electrical fields. You know, the laws of physics have not changed lately, so you are either misunderstanding, misrepresenting, or lying".
It is very important to get this straightened out, Hans. As I understand it, conceding myself not to be a physicist, an ELF alternating current-carrying wire will be attended by electric and magnetic fields detectable outside its physical material. (Let us for now leave out the issue of what happens when the wire is "live" but not supplying a current). The magnetic fields will induce electric fields in its vicinity, and since the human body is transparent to magnetic fields there will be currents induced inside the body, which themselves give rise to electric fields. In my posts I have abbreviated this effect to saying simply that RF/MW and ELF electric fields can penetrate the body. One way or another there can exist electric fields inside the body as a result of a nearby current carrying wire.
The well recognised concept of SAR reflects the level of internal electric fields engendered as per above by some external source, multiplied by the conductivity of the tissue, and then divided by the permittivity of the tissue.
I do not think that is wrong, nor that I am lying.
My previous post reminded me that there was a new study reported at the WHO Istanbul conference (Saito, Kabuto et al., from Japan's National Research Institute for child health and development).
An association between electric appliances such as hair dryers and TV watching and childhood leukaemia was found in this all-Japan 1439 patient study. The authors concluded:
"A significant association was found between childhood leukaemia and the use of some electric appliances during the conception of the child and the use by the child. However, apparent dose-response relationship was not found."
As usual they used EMDEX probes, so I doubt whther they captured the electric component, and this may be why they found no dose response.
Anyway, this is further strong support for my argument.
An association between electric appliances such as hair dryers and TV watching and childhood leukaemia was found in this all-Japan 1439 patient study. The authors concluded:
"A significant association was found between childhood leukaemia and the use of some electric appliances during the conception of the child and the use by the child. However, apparent dose-response relationship was not found."
As usual they used EMDEX probes, so I doubt whther they captured the electric component, and this may be why they found no dose response.
Anyway, this is further strong support for my argument.
As for constructing a mechanism of interaction between weak internal but exogenously arising electric fields and cancer, one does not have to look far if the poster presented at Istanbul by Guler and Seyhan at the Dept of Biophysics, Ankara Univ is correct.
These authors exposed 180 guinea pigs between two copper plates at potentials varying between 0.3 kV/m and 1.9kV/m for 8 hrs/day for 3 days. This is the kind of electric field strength one might get from living near a high voltage powerline, but well below ICNIRP guielines.
Both vertical and horiziontal fields had the effect of increasing lipid peroxidation as evidenced by significantly higher levels of superoxide dismutase and malondialdehyde in the serum and spleen tissue of the exposed animals compared with controls.
This effect supports the notion that free radical activity was elevated through the exposure, though they did not say whether this was ELF or DC in the abstract.
These authors exposed 180 guinea pigs between two copper plates at potentials varying between 0.3 kV/m and 1.9kV/m for 8 hrs/day for 3 days. This is the kind of electric field strength one might get from living near a high voltage powerline, but well below ICNIRP guielines.
Both vertical and horiziontal fields had the effect of increasing lipid peroxidation as evidenced by significantly higher levels of superoxide dismutase and malondialdehyde in the serum and spleen tissue of the exposed animals compared with controls.
This effect supports the notion that free radical activity was elevated through the exposure, though they did not say whether this was ELF or DC in the abstract.
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,529
cogreslab said:
Kinky!
