Bioelectromagnetics

carla said:
Hans,


If you are going to quote another’s post at least do it correctly and accurately.

I always do. And I did not quote your post, I just used the quote function to make a statement (ahh I forget: You are one more poster who does not know the quote function).

Further, if you don’t have anything intelligent to say in response, then perhaps you should consider saying nothing.

As I did say, I am willing to discuss auras with you but not in this thread.

Like many forums, this one appears to contain those who find it easy to criticise others, but hard to provide some intelligent contribution to a discussion.

How would you know?

Regarding aura, why would I discuss something with someone who by their own admission doesn’t know what it is?

Why should I care?
Click to expand...


Sorry, folks. A bit of noise on the line :rolleyes:.

Hans
 
steenkh said:
Carl,

You could discuss it exactly because we do not understand what it is. Many here have heard about it and believe that auras are hot air. You seem very confident that auras exist, so you could perhaps also explain what they are? But please do it in another thread. There are already two new threads for your claims: Children seeing auras and The Lemon Test

Steen
Click to expand...
Oh, I just noticed! Another Dane. Hej Steen! Velkommen til!

Hans
 
Ah, enlightenment!

I was wondering what Roger's game was, now I know. It's a distraction from something damaging.

It seems that my answers to Roger regarding his claims about electric and magnetic fields not being related, his claims about polarized magnetic fields and melatonin etc., struck a nerve.

Let's just recap what Roger claimed most recently:

1. There is no relationship between the electric and magnetic field of an electromagnetic wave at power frequencies.

2. Closed metallic spheres are insulators.

3. Electrons enter the skin through pores and orifices (especially when wet). And this is how an electric field penetrates the body.

4. Rotating magnetic fields induce a higher current density than linear ones.

5. Circular polarized magnetic fields suppress melatonin but linear and elliptical ones don't.

6. "In a linearly polarised field the induced current crosses the zero current level whereas in an elliptically polarised field the induced current does not reach zero voltage"

7. And we are still waiting for Roger to show us those Kato equations he promised.

Why do I think he was trying a distraction? Well, he said this:

cogreslab said:
I would dearly also like to respond in depth to the comments made by Hans and Prag etc in their last couple of posts, but will have to leave that to my return from the BEMS annual meeting in Washington.
Click to expand...

So he didn't have any time to address the simple points above. But then he had time to write about 17 messages after that in which he had time to:

a) Write a long letter to Leeka whatever re-raising all the old issues he's already been demolished on.

b) Write a message about "Ladycare" magnets and encourage us to "discuss" them.

c) Find a Ladycare "study" to dissect.

d) Taunt PJ in an attempt to restart an old argument about Lymphocyte sizes.

e) Resurrect the Moulder issue and write one of his commentaries.

f) Engage Hans in a new discussion and make a set of new claims.

g) And then a new poster turns up conveniently to argue with us about lemons and auras.

Hmmm... I'm very good at spotting patterns, and that sure looks like one to me!

And let's not forget the latest set of pseudoscience:

cogreslab said:
3. Mechanisms: Electric fields create a force which affects ion behaviour. Plenty of variants on that theme, e.g altering the local ionisation density by varying ionisation electron tracks; or e.g. Altering the degeneracy of ions involved in in a bond breaking event, thereby affecting the recombination probability. Alteration of spin state preventing recombination and therefore increasing the probability of an external reaction.
Click to expand...

Oh, and what was so damaging in the above apart from the kiddy level physics mistakes? What about his melatonin claims? Methinks that should be addressed.

O.K. back on track.
 
Hej Hans,

Mange tak! I have noticed the comparatively high number of Danes here, considering the small population! It has probably something to do with the high percentage of Danes having internet access. Considering the barrage of woo-woo stuff being brought in TV, I cannot believe that Denmark is a better place for being a skeptic than anywhere else!

But I get carried away. Sorry I was off-topic!

Hans, I have to disagree with you in this post! Your misquoting of Carl was definitely a good paraphrase of him, but it sure looked like a quote!
 
What about his melatonin claims?
Click to expand...

Well Melatonin is used for insomnia !

It shows some anti tumour effects in animal models, however there is not the evidence that melatonin or lack of it is correlated with Cancer in humans. The studies done seem to have centered around Breast Cancer.

I thought he'd stopped the Melatonin stuff a while back.
 
cogreslab said:
3. Mechanisms: Electric fields create a force which affects ion behaviour. Plenty of variants on that theme, e.g altering the local ionisation density by varying ionisation electron tracks; or e.g. Altering the degeneracy of ions involved in in a bond breaking event, thereby affecting the recombination probability. Alteration of spin state preventing recombination and therefore increasing the probability of an external reaction.
Click to expand...

O.K. let's get the latest load of sci-tripe out of the way:

1. An electric field is a potential field. A charged body in an electric potential field experiences a force. That force may cause it to move.

2. "altering the local ionisation density by varying ionisation electron tracks". Well, I suppose that is true to some extent, charged bodies in an electric field will be attracted by the electrode of opposite charge, so the positive ion density will increase near the negative electrode and vice versa. But we're talking ELF fields here aren't we? The ones that CHANGE constantly back and forward, the ones where the positive and negative electrodes alternate 60 times per second....

3. "Altering degeneracy of ions involved in a bond-breaking event". Quantum mechanics Rog? Ambitious since you haven't mastered basic 001 physics yet! Yes, the degeneracy of ion eigenstates will be affected by an electric field, it's called the Stark effect. And this has very little to do with practical bonding except in crystals. Are you implying that the human body is a crystal, or were you just throwing out some nice techie terms that you don't actually understand? Why don't you explain this Rog?

4. Alteration of spin state? Perhaps you mean quantum spin polarization? Or are you referring to Ligand Field Theory? Well, I'm quite sure we could have a nice discussion about theoretical quantum mechanics, but you're making a claim aren't you? So it's not theoretical any more. So let's see the proof of the effect on the "probability of an external reaction". Remember we ARE talking about specific effects on the human body here.

And perhaps you would care to give us an idea of the real field strengths involved here?

Now all we need to do is show how an ELF electric field strong enough to disrupt quantum events enters the body. Hmmm...ah yes, I remember, the electrons go in through pores and orifices, especially when the skin is wet! :)
 
To be fair to CogresLab I think it's safe to assume that there isn't a single possible theoretical mechanism that he's ruled out. If someone came up with a paper that said that there was an effect from EMF and that the pixies cause it, CogresLab is sufficiently open-minded not to exclude it as a mechanism.
 
Prester John said:


Well Melatonin is used for insomnia !

It shows some anti tumour effects in animal models, however there is not the evidence that melatonin or lack of it is correlated with Cancer in humans. The studies done seem to have centered around Breast Cancer.

I thought he'd stopped the Melatonin stuff a while back.
Click to expand...

I think this is central to his claims. Recently he has been arguing about Kato's experiment involving "polarized magnetic fields". His arguments about direct effects from external ELF electric fields have been shredded. So now he falls back on an electric field induced in the body by an external magnetic field.

But that argument is immediately challengeable because he has consistently argued AGAINST that very same thing, because it is the position of the NRPB etc., who have claimed that any effect is most probably due to a normal magnetic component by induction.

So unless he wants to start agreeing with the NRPB (and would then have to admit that he has been wrong all along) he needs to try to put some new spin on the argument. Literally. So now he introduces SPINNING magnetic fields a la Kato, and makes a new claim that this induces HIGHER electric fields in the body than a normal magnetic field does.

And there is a bonus too. Because he has no credible mechanism to back his claim about electric fields, with a little manipulation, he can throw Kato's results on MELATONIN into the pot and claim that the mechanism is the effect of an electric field on melatonin.

But there are a host of problems with that. And I don't think he wants any discussion of those because one of the main factors is that he is selling an alleged "melatonin supplement" with the direct and explicit claim that there is PROOF that "EMF's deplete melatonin". And by tying the melatonin to the breast cancer results, then this is really his only leg left to stand on in regard to his "power lines cause cancer" claims.

So I would like to cover some points about Kato, melatonin etc., and Roger's claims.

1. Roger keeps trying to promote the idea about melatonin being depleted by electric fields. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence to that effect. The main evidence which Roger relies upon is the work of Liburdy. But Liburdy is the same person who was censured in 1992 for forging experimental results regarding electric field effects in order to promote his hypothesis. Roger keeps insisting he was "exonerated" of those charges, but I can find no evidence to support that, and in fact the record still shows that the charges against him were proven (as I proved many posts ago). Therefore Liburdy, whatever he does, will always be treated with suspicion and have a lack of credibility. I would not consider Liburdy a credible source.

2. So Roger cannot tie melatonin directly to electric fields. Which means he has to fall back on Kato and rely on the induction effects of a magnetic field. But that argument is flawed at the outset because, as I have already stated, a changing magnetic field induces an electric CURRENT into tissue. Whilst it is true that there will be some small voltage potential at the endpoints of the current, the only effect such a potential (and the associated electric field) could have, would be to cause a current flow. But since the current flow causes the potential, it is ridiculous to then argue that the same potential causes the same current! This rather like saying a chicken lays one particular egg. When that specific egg hatches, it creates the same chicken that laid it! Which is ridiculous. So this rules out the electric field theory immediately.

3. And if we then look at Kato we see further problems with the hypothesis. Firstly we see that Kato only got a melatonin effect using a "circularly polarized magnetic field". As I explained a few posts back, it took some time to figure out exactly what that referred to. But it refers to a SECTION of a spinning magnetic field. Which is a highly artificial situation. I can't think of a single cirumstance where any human would be exposed to such a field in practice! The only place where one would be likely to encounter such a field is at the centre of an electric motor field coil. How many people find themselves regularly INSIDE an electric motor which has the core removed and the power switched on?

4. The second problem with Kato is that Kato's experiments were on RODENTS, not humans. Roger's specific claim is that these fields affect melatonin in HUMANS. But if you bother to look up the current state of research in this area, you will find that the general concensus appears to be that the effect does NOT occur in humans, or baboons or other higher primates. In fact I will cite just one (of many) recent studies to that effect, the most recent one I've found so far:

GR Warman, H Tripp et al: Acute exposure to circularly polarized 50-Hz magnetic fields of 200-300 mT does not affect the pattern of melatonin secretion in young men. J Clin Endocrin Metab 88:5668-5673, 2003.

Remember that the NRPB guidelines (I believe) for magnetic field exposure are 500 MICRO TESLA. So the above is a field averaging 500 times STRONGER than the guideline exposure limits which Roger insists are too high!

5. This also demolishes the corollary to Roger's reliance on the Kato experiments. Roger claims (I don't know if it's true) that Kato says that "circularly polarized magnetic fields" create current densities in tissue 40% higher than normal. From that he presumes that there will be an electric field 40% higher than "normal" and that this will ensure the effect is that much more pronounced. But if a field 500 TIMES stronger than the maximum exposure limit Roger claims is already too high doesn't do the trick then how on earth can he rely on an alleged 40% increase above a figure LOWER than the current guidelines?!

6. That doesn't leave much! Roger then justifies selling his alleged "melatonin supplement" as "radioprotective" on the grounds that the fields deplete melatonin, and that supplementation with melatonin will mitigate the damaging effect of the fields. Which of course is a non-sequitur in itself, even before we consider that there is little or no consistent evidence that such a melatonin depletion effect exists in the first place!

So what can we conclude? Roger is claiming that the melatonin effect is proved. Which is a lie. He uses that to sell a product to the public as "radioprotective", with no credible evidence to support that either. When questioned about the effects he cites in support, his answer is the usual pseudoscience predicated on a "chicken is caused by the same egg it laid" argument! And of course the usual cherry picking of ancient journal references.

Seems to me he is caught out again. The Harmonizer is not the only lie and swindle (with possibly dangerous consequences) that he promotes.

And I suspect THAT is what he didn't want any of us to realise. Hence all the recent diversions. I got too close when I figured out what Kato was really doing.
 
Roger's last post was over a week ago. Does anyone remember when he said he'd be back from whatever convention he was attending? If he's still up for being ripped to shreds, that is.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Roger's last post was over a week ago. Does anyone remember when he said he'd be back from whatever convention he was attending? If he's still up for being ripped to shreds, that is.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
BEMs conference in Washington ended yesterday
http://bioelectromagnetics.org/bems2004/

by cogreslab back on the 16th
I would dearly also like to respond in depth to the comments made by Hans and Prag etc in their last couple of posts, but will have to leave that to my return from the BEMS annual meeting in Washington.
Click to expand...
... so any time now...

You may wish to read the book of abstracts presented at the meeting in the meantime. There are a number of articles whose subject are relative to this thread.
 
The Don said:
This is hardly scientific but the text string "coghill" was absent from that document
Click to expand...
It's plain, from his last "trip report" that Mr.Coghill doesn't actually contribute to these, but merely sits in the peanut gallery. That notwithstanding, a number of articles pertinent to this thread were presented, a quick scan of the abstract reveals that the presenters don't seem to support Mr.Coghills views on EMF etc.
 
The Don said:
What ? they don't ?

Clearly they have been "got at" by the powers that be
Click to expand...
Clearly - this is why Mr.Coghill has not been able to get any of his "reasearch" published even with them. Him being both a member AND a reviewer for their journals!!

..... so that makes HIM part of the conspiracy to shut him up?...
 
I'm back, but pretty knackered as usual, (10,000 miles in almost as many days) so expect the odd type or misspell for a day or so, a la thyristor gaffe I made in a previous post. Pleased to see that quite a lot of scientific comments have ensued during my absence at the BEMS Washington meeting.

And the aura thing. First, carla, thanks for your interest, but the problem scientists have with words like "aura" is they are not defined very scientifically, and are endowed with all sorts of other unproven characteristics and colours claimed to be seen by practitioners of various non accredited disciplines. It would be better to start with a fact that the human body has its own individual and complex current and consequent field around it which can be measured both at the skin surface and nearby with conventional instruments. It has a cocktail of frequencies and much variation in current density or amplitude, but there is no doubt of its existence. The issue is, does this field, let us call it endogenous bcause it originates inside the body, perform any function other than being a simple by-product of the many electrochemical reactions ongoing in the body all the time?

It would appear from many studies that this field plays a role in embryogenesis, in development, and possibly in morphology and growth control. Since it appears to be electric in nature it can therefore be influenced by other exogenous electric fields, and that is the nub of the argument: how low do these need to be before they no longer have an influence. Some argue that only thermal levels aere likely to prove noxious while others beleive that non thermal levels are sufficient to disrupt these delicate life processes. I would continue but really I need to ration my time a bit and want to get back to the issues raised by Hans (see his/her very good post above) and by Prag.
 
To EHocking:

"Why did you NOT present to the conference?

And will you be presenting at the next BEM one?"

The timing was not good for us in terms of our research results, and the Istanbul conference was organised in something of a rush anyway. We have presented at BEMS before (both platforms and posters) and at present have eight ongoing research projects. Of these we will present one poster at the Gordon Conference next month and between three and five posters at the Childhood Leukaemia conference in London in September, and one presentation at the electrosensitivity meeting we are organising the next day at the RSM.

We will also be presenting a poster or two at the Dublin BEMS meeting next year, provided they are accepted by the program commitee. Submissions for the BEMS June meeting always have to be in by January, and sometimes this timetable is inconvenient since projects may be still in course in January. Hope this amnswers your question.
 
cogreslab said:
To EHocking:

"Why did you NOT present to the conference?

And will you be presenting at the next BEM one?"

The timing was not good for us in terms of our research results, and the conference was organised in something of a rush anyway. We have presented at BEMS before (both platforms and posters) and at present have eight ongoing research projects. Of these we will present one poster at the Gordon Conference next month and between three and five posters at the Childohooh leukaemia conference in September, and one presentation at the electrosensitivity meeting we are organising the next day at the RSM.

We will also be presernting a poster or two at the Dublin BEMS meeting next year, perovided they are accpted by tyhe program commitee. Submissions for the BEMS June meeting always have to be in by January, and sometimes this timetable is inconvenient since projects may be still in course in January. Hope this amnswers your question.
Click to expand...

Okay, kids, I got first dibs on Groton. I love that town. And I'll have my own posters there. Simply a picture of dodger, his name, his company, and his Groton presentation schedule. Oh, and a list of direct quotes, ranging from that challenge, through the scientific gaffes, and, as a button finish, his motive-impugning comments about other scientists and professional organizations. Just direct quotes from his website and from his postings here. There won't be a word of commentary or conclusions drawn.

This could be fun. Anybody else from CT/RI/MA area interested in a summer day or two in downtown rotten groton? Man, I love that town. Great bars and strip clubs.
 
Before I start responses to Hans, Prag and PJ, I would like to say a word about Bob Liburdy, who has been labelled in this thread as a fraud.

Robert Librudy is one of the finest radiation scientists in the world. Not only does his long and impressive list of published papers go back to the 1970s, mostly in highly respectable journals like Rad Res, but any one who has witnessed his presentations will know his delivery and clarity are an example to anyone aiming to present a platform paper to their peers.

The disgusting attempt to brand him as a fraud is a permanent blot on the scientific landscape. His data was never questioned, only the presentation of graphs from which it derived, and the allegations of those who raised the issue have now well and truly been shown to be without any substance whatsoever.

Why the attack? His 1992 FASEB paper argued for an electric field metric, which as I have often said, is anathema to the utilities.

Just let's get that straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom