Bioelectromagnetics
- Thread starter Beleth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bioelectromagnetics
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
cogreslab said:
Here's a good, scientific, site which covers those topics.
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/
"Parapsychology can be defined as "..the study of apparent new means of communication, or exchange of influence, between organisms and environment". These kinds of communication or influence are referred to by the neutral term psi, and they may be divided into two general categories: extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (PK). For ESP the organism appears to receive information from the environment; this can be referred to as Receptive Psi. PK denotes the organism's apparent exertion of influence on an aspect of the environment; this can be referred to as Emissive Psi. Our remit involves the exploration of psi and non-psi hypotheses, as suggested by the word "apparent" in the above definition.
In addition to exploring possible mechanisms for apparent ESP and PK, our remit spreads more broadly to include the development of an understanding of exceptional human experiences (EHEs). These EHEs are people's everyday spontaneous experiences that may or may not reflect the operation of genuine psi, but that are real, sometimes inspiring, and sometimes troubling experiences for the individuals concerned. Such experiences may include out-of-body experiences (OBEs), near death experiences (NDEs), and apparitional experiences. "
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/
What I learned from the sites Dragon was kind to post is that you are considered as an extremist and activist and your scientific claims are not well accepted by the scientific community because you sell protective products that you have not tested in vivo.
It seems that Moulder belongs to the other side of the coin but it's not us who brought him into the discussion anyway.
It's not a bad thing to have a political agenda, it's not a bad thing to be passionate about your ideas, it's not bad to make a profit out of your knowledge.
It's bad to terrorize the general public though in order to serve better your marketing plans. It's bad to support conspiracy theories for the same purpose.It's very bad to set up theatrical challenges that you baptize scientific.
As for the necromancy issue. Yes there are many things that we don't know. Until we learn please don't help those who invest on people's pain to become rich. Don't help those that they are not ashamed to prolong the pain that the loss of a beloved person causes. Please don't do that. You don't really need to.
And since you mentioned Ulysses. Well,as you remember in the scene from "The Odyssey" where he visits Hades, he fed the spirits blood in order they talk about the future he didn't feed them dollars or pounds. ...
It seems that Moulder belongs to the other side of the coin but it's not us who brought him into the discussion anyway.
It's not a bad thing to have a political agenda, it's not a bad thing to be passionate about your ideas, it's not bad to make a profit out of your knowledge.
It's bad to terrorize the general public though in order to serve better your marketing plans. It's bad to support conspiracy theories for the same purpose.It's very bad to set up theatrical challenges that you baptize scientific.
As for the necromancy issue. Yes there are many things that we don't know. Until we learn please don't help those who invest on people's pain to become rich. Don't help those that they are not ashamed to prolong the pain that the loss of a beloved person causes. Please don't do that. You don't really need to.
And since you mentioned Ulysses. Well,as you remember in the scene from "The Odyssey" where he visits Hades, he fed the spirits blood in order they talk about the future he didn't feed them dollars or pounds. ...
Dragon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,639
Hmmm.., not quite, Roger.cogreslab said:
After MRC_Hans posted a link to Moulder's FAQs on Power Lines you said -
Now the not very flattering reference to you in those FAQs is the one I quoted above and refers to your electric field study. So far as I can tell that statement has not been altered since it was first posted.
The change is on the other FAQ page about cell phone antennas where Moulder originally had a reference to your book "Something in the Air". Now he doesn't mention you at all. Perhaps he withdrew it as a result of a protest from you or perhaps he thought a "self-published" document wasn't worth including as he developed the FAQs. No doubt you or Darat can clear this point up with Prof Moulder now we seem to have pinned down the actual reference.
Neil Cherry is now sadly dead, and I have little regard for Stewart Fist's opinions. nor have many other people. if you want to rely on the views of an aging hack journalist who hasn't even the courtesy to reply to my e mails that is up to you.
I have decided to leave to spiritualist link on my site. As for your stance that people should not make a profit out of their knowledge, tell that to the academic world, which is being mightily encouraged to do so in order to preserve their funding.
I have decided to leave to spiritualist link on my site. As for your stance that people should not make a profit out of their knowledge, tell that to the academic world, which is being mightily encouraged to do so in order to preserve their funding.
cogreslab said:
I didn't have any doubt that you would leave the link to your site sir but don't complain afterwards if people call you a woo-woo. Personally I have never called you that way and I never will.
After reading your posts and the various comments I found on line about you I have concluded that you are a very clever person, no wonder why you don't hesitate to promote necromancy, you know how well it sells. That makes you more blameworthy of course.
Regarding profit and knowledge , actually I said exactly the contrary, I don't believe that it's something you are to blame, I repeat what I find questionable is using the general public's fears as a marketing trick.
Offering a link to another website does not automatically mean I promote the ideas it presents, Cleopatra. I expect there are also links to the NRPB on my site, but I hardly agree with their views, nor promote the products they sell there. Please be reasonable enough to distinguish between pointing to a source of information and promoting the ideas it offers.
I am not sure that Moulder's additional remarks about my peer reviewed study were there contemporaneously with my complaint to him. But I shall be dealing with his comments on my and many other studies as I go through Moulders's Qand As one by one (a large task, but I consider it important). As for first putting out a reference to my book Something in the Air and then removing it later, I am not interested in speculating long why he should have done that, but I think the only point he wished to make at the time was that it was not peer reviewed, and not published by a conventional book publishing house. I have published several other books through recognised publishers. with sales exceeding 100,000 copies and in five languages, so I don't think his point in any case was a strong one.
Yes, I am quite interested in Yvonne Bailey's work, and how she seems to intue other people's problems and give them comfort. She often, I know spends two or three hours with one client but still only charges them £25, and sometimes nothing at all. I doubt she is doing this to get rich, since it is more of a vocation than a profession for her. She has just been selected by the Western Mail News Group's SWE to write a regular weekly column by the way, but I don't mean to say that this is any kind of scientific evidence, just the view by a responsible newspaper that her writings have value for their readers.
Excuse me. Once again, you have dodged questions.
Your site, sir, has a link on its first page. That link is called "spiritualism," and it points to the home page of this link.
On that page you will find:
"A good friend of mine is a specialist in the effects of electricity and magnetism on our lives. He has an independent research labratory based in the UK. Take a look at the interesting work he does."
To the right of that text is YOUR LOGO, sir, which is an active hyperlink back to YOUR HOME PAGE sir.
Would you care to give, then, a revised response? Or did this woman use your logo without your permission?
Your site, sir, has a link on its first page. That link is called "spiritualism," and it points to the home page of this link.
On that page you will find:
"A good friend of mine is a specialist in the effects of electricity and magnetism on our lives. He has an independent research labratory based in the UK. Take a look at the interesting work he does."
To the right of that text is YOUR LOGO, sir, which is an active hyperlink back to YOUR HOME PAGE sir.
Would you care to give, then, a revised response? Or did this woman use your logo without your permission?
The concerns (use the word fears if you like) about ELF and RF fields and radiation risk are not so much from the public as from the scientitifc community, Cleopatra. Are you condemning me for trying to find and provide solutions for what, as you become more familiar with the scientific literature, will persuade you and any other reasonable person must be addressed if we are to live safely with the alternating electric fields unknown in nature until the advent of electricity?
Rachel Carson was not trading on the fears of the public in the 1960s when virtually single handed she evangelised the dangers of DDT in her book Silent Spring. Nor did she aim to get rich by selling copies of it, even though it turned out a best seller.
if I wanted to be rich I would have stayed in the City as an investment banker with Morgan Grenfell and Co., , but i forsook that career to do this. Please be charitable enough to recognise that my objectives are not as self centred as you propose.
Rachel Carson was not trading on the fears of the public in the 1960s when virtually single handed she evangelised the dangers of DDT in her book Silent Spring. Nor did she aim to get rich by selling copies of it, even though it turned out a best seller.
if I wanted to be rich I would have stayed in the City as an investment banker with Morgan Grenfell and Co., , but i forsook that career to do this. Please be charitable enough to recognise that my objectives are not as self centred as you propose.
cogreslab said:
Money is not always the primary reason why people become frauds. Having power over people, being able to tell them what to do, is a very strong feeling. A feeling you can't buy with money.
I don't give a sh1t for this "I-could-have-been-rich-so-trust-me-when-I-sell-you-stuff" rant. It's a very poor excuse. You have a lot of products up for sale, Roger.
To BillHoyt: I think my last post answered your last post. I am now going to start on the Moulder critique, since it is of greater importance. Tez was sent his magnetic coasters this week btw.
I will start by defining the interests of the Office of Naval research. Probably the best way to set out their problem with electropollution is to point out that not only are their personnel occupationally exposed to much higher levels of EMF than the general public, and therefore they have a vested interest in high PELs (permitted exposure limits) but also they own or operate large areas of terrain containing devices such as OTH radar (over the horizon) which impact on vicinal populations. Of course unlike the power utilities and the cellphone/radio industries they do not have a commercial objective, so I am asking that you accept these initial reasons why it is in the interests of ONR to support high PELs. Accordingly Moulder's biased defence of existing establishment guidelines, standards and limits, and his attempted destruction of arguments from the so called "non-thermal" camp are more than convenient to the ONR. Whether they pay him directly for this service or whether he receives his income from the University is not the issue.
I will start by defining the interests of the Office of Naval research. Probably the best way to set out their problem with electropollution is to point out that not only are their personnel occupationally exposed to much higher levels of EMF than the general public, and therefore they have a vested interest in high PELs (permitted exposure limits) but also they own or operate large areas of terrain containing devices such as OTH radar (over the horizon) which impact on vicinal populations. Of course unlike the power utilities and the cellphone/radio industries they do not have a commercial objective, so I am asking that you accept these initial reasons why it is in the interests of ONR to support high PELs. Accordingly Moulder's biased defence of existing establishment guidelines, standards and limits, and his attempted destruction of arguments from the so called "non-thermal" camp are more than convenient to the ONR. Whether they pay him directly for this service or whether he receives his income from the University is not the issue.
I will however start with Moulders's Q and A site on Powerlines and Cancer (ELF frequencies) which contains 35 questions, some with subpages) and a partial bibliography, and then go on to his RF/MW Q and A site. When I have finished I will place the two complete critiques on my own website for peole to read generally. I am aware that Moulder's sites are changing all the time as new studies are reported, so from time to time the two will go out of step until; I can catch up again.
This is not going to be a quick exercise, but will spread over several months, because the Moulder sites are very detailed, and I dare say took him some years to complete.
This is not going to be a quick exercise, but will spread over several months, because the Moulder sites are very detailed, and I dare say took him some years to complete.
It sure does. It says your first post was bull.cogreslab said:
"Offering a link to another website does not automatically mean I promote the ideas it presents, Cleopatra. I expect there are also links to the NRPB on my site, but I hardly agree with their views, nor promote the products they sell there. Please be reasonable enough to distinguish between pointing to a source of information and promoting the ideas it offers"
Now becomes:
"Yes, I am quite interested in Yvonne Bailey's work, and how she seems to intue other people's problems and give them comfort"
So, the answer was as Cleopatra suggested: you are promoting necromancy.
Thank you.
cogreslab said:
I have been reading since you started this thread various links and reports, I ever read the sites that Luci needed two minutesto trace in Google, I needed more to read them.
It seems that there is something to be afraid of but for a reason that I haven't understood yet nobody is able to trace what causes this fear and of course nobody has proofs that there is a risk in that. I went to the Library of the Svhool of Medicine today and I found some books in Medical Physics. I am trying to understand what causes the suspicions and the fears.
The lack of evidence has left much room to politics . Politics seem to have replaced the lack of scientific data. I don't feel comfortable with that because I have been dealing with politics since I was 16 and I know how politics work and what politics are about.
Your site doesn't state in the most clear way that your products have not been tested in vivo, the same problem that appears in the site of the PhoneDome people. This leaves the road open to multiple interpretations.
I accept the analogy and the argument,that's why I am skeptical but in order to believe we want to have solid evidence. Don't blame people for that.
I have nothing against self-centered objectives also you seem to me really ambitious and energetic. I hapen to expect more from people like you, especially because you belong to a different generation and when you were at my age higher ideals were more appreciated than they are today. Please be charitable enough to recognize my right to be romantic and devoted to a moral code.
Let me return to the necromancy site. This is not fun. It's a terribly immoral to sell hopes to people that they are in pain. It's terribly immoral to perform a cold reading and sell it as communication with the dead.
In my previous posts I talked to you about semantics.Even your logo serves a purpose to those who know some things.
Are you a Pythagorean too? I am asking this out of curiosity because I thought that you are a Christian. Both cults, necromancy and Dodecatheism are not canonical BTW.
cogreslab said:
Big Red Flag.
Roger, if you were so sure that Moulder was biased in favor of the Navy, why should it take you "several months" to back up that claim with evidence?
This reeks of you accusing someone else of something, and when called to back it up, you can't, but choose to point to a never-ending "exercise". Because, Roger - we both know that you will never finish this exercise of yours.
You are not the first fraud to use this technique. We have seen several examples, both on this forum and on others, where believers in paranormal phenomena try to make phony claims. When called to provide evidence, they back down, and say what you say here: Oh, they gotta go back and write it up properly, the study/evidence is coming soon, you just wait....
Poppycock, Roger.
It will take several months because there are a large number of conclusions on Moulder's sites which need to be addressed untangled and reappraised. Don't worry CFLarsen, once I embark on a project I see it through. You skeptics are performing a great job in presenting me with an intelligent if over-belligerent and overly rude platform to test and prove my scientific points, for which I will now use you to the fullest extent, and for whch I am grateful for the enormous time you are all putting into this: it is fast becoming the largest thread in the forums, or so it seems to me. Many thanks. guys!