Bioelectromagnetics

[Pragmatist]

May I pose a question? I have followed this thread really carefully so far and I find disturbing the fact the we have ended up discussing basic things. Why this has happened?

Is the issue we examine basic in terms of science or there is ego involved? Sorry for the question but I needed to pose it .

Hello Cleopatra,

I'm not sure what you mean by "basic things". Do you mean basic science? I'll tell you what *I* think is going on and maybe that'll help. Others can tell you their opinions.

Let me use a legal analogy. Roger is trying to make an extremely complex case. Rather like a very complicated contract. He is willing to introduce endless precedents that he believes are relevant. He wants us to re-examine each precedent, like virtually re-try each case. But he has yet to clearly state exactly what his case is! Some of us, don't want to get into the details of other cases, we want to establish what HIS case is. And before getting bogged down in the details of whether or a not a particular precedent applies to the alleged contract, wouldn't be it be a good idea to establish whether or not a contract even exists first?!

In terms of science, I believe the matter is basic. Roger is trying to introduce an extremely complex area of science (electromagnetics) - an area which is arguably THE most complex area of science. Yet at each stage he appears to display ignorance of even the most basic principles of the areas he claims to be an expert in!

From my point of view, I don't feel I can have any meaningful conversation about the advanced stuff until I have established whether or not he knows the basics. And it appears to me he is relying on sheer chuztpah (as Bill pointed out earlier) to convince the laypeople in the audience that he is scientifically knowledgeable. But he isn't. His grasp of real science is kindergarten to my mind, and I suspect some others feel the same way too. Sadly I keep seeing the most basic errors, again and again and again.

I don't have anything against Roger. And I even agree with his basic premise. I would even be happy if he succeeded in making his point. But honestly, not through playing on people's ignorance, not through misrepresenting science and not through pseudoscientific BS. And also not by blowing it out of all proportion. Yes, there are EM risks. Are they as bad as Roger makes out? To my mind, no. But I'm willing to be convinced, by REAL science and REAL proof, not just bluster.

Because there's an underlying issue here. Is Roger's intention REALLY to save us all from the evils of EM exposure? Or is it just a useful platform from which to scare the ignorant and confuse the non-technical in order to sell them more bogus "protective products"? Because that's what he seems to be doing. He wants us all to cower in terror at EM exposure (and the evidence he offers of the level of harm is weak at best). He wants us to believe and trust in expertise he doesn't have. And then, above all, he is selling highly dubious devices backed up by even more suspect "science". For what purpose? Isn't it just that he wants us to believe so we'll buy? And if not, surely he'd be more receptive to the idea of showing us his science is real rather than imagined.

I know I'm coming on a bit strong, but it's out of frustration, believe me! Trying to get Roger to give a straight answer to a straight question and show his science is like trying to grab a greased eel with wet hands!

It's like his "challenge" (the infant one). The most simple, basic and fundamental question to ask is: if someone offered to take it up would he accept? We don't know, he won't tell us. Why not? Perhaps because there IS no real challenge, maybe it's just another ploy to scare people into buying some dubious product.

Well, that's my 2c worth anyway.

 

[cogreslab]

To Cleopatra: this thread inevitably will address basic science, but some posts are trying to manipulate the science so as to cover up the truth of what I am showing. Note that after asserting that I know nothing about bioelectromagnetics,


e.g.:

"In terms of science, I believe the matter is basic. Roger is trying to introduce an extremely complex area of science (electromagnetics) - an area which is arguably THE most complex area of science. Yet at each stage he appears to display ignorance of even the most basic principles of the areas he claims to be an expert in!"


it turns out that my version of electric and magnetic fields (e.g. near a common kettle lead) is correct as demonstrated by the WHO website and by empirical measurements. After that the so called experts, who had previously been denying it, said "Of course everybody knew that".

You are dealing with some very devious people here, Cleopatra. They are doing everything in their power to undermine the truth of this issue, as I have been saying all along. But the truth is shortly going to come out: what have you to say about that Dr John Swanson?

 

[Cleopatra]

Thanks for your reply Pragmatist.

You see, I don't have anything against Mr. Coghill, in fact I like him although I feel uncomfortable with his challenge. I find it vulgar. I don't mind so much about his products, if people are idiots it's their choice.

Having clarified that I must admit that although I am not a physicist I kinda knew from day one that Mr. Coghill is not interested in science and that is because he was using political terms in order to support his scientific claims. I might not be a scientst but I am like a fish in the water when it comes to politics.

Something is going wrong when scientist are using politics.

Regarding his mistake maybe he made a mistake not out of ignorence , maybe he made a lapsus and his too proud to admit it. This is why I said that maybe is a matter of ego.

 

[Cleopatra]

I posted my previous message before reading your last one Mr. Coghill. As always I will think about it in the name of justice mostly although I feel that I shouldn't do that.

I makes me sad when I feel that I shouldn't bother to be just because it doesn't worth it but anyway .

Let's avoid characterizations please. I don't think that anybody here is devious.At least one part here has some strong and obvious interests to defend and this is not the side of the skeptics Mr. Coghill.

To Cleopatra: this thread inevitably will address basic science, but some posts are trying to manipulate the science so as to cover up the truth of what I am showing. Note that after asserting that I know nothing about bioelectromagnetics it turns out that my version of electric and magnetic fields in (e.g. a common kettle lead) is correct as demonstrated by the WHO website and by empirical measurements. After that the so called experts, who had previously been denying it, said "Of course everybody knew that".

You are dealing with some very devious people here, Cleopatra. They are doing everything in their power to undermine the truth of this issue, as I have been saying all along. But the truth is shortly going to come out: what have you to say about that Dr John Swanson?

 

[Thomas]

You see, I don't have anything against Mr. Coghill, in fact I like him although I feel uncomfortable with his challenge. I find it vulgar. I don't mind so much about his products, if people are idiots it's their choice.

You find him vulgar and a fraud, but you still like him?

 

[Cleopatra]

Good observation Thomas but I judge people in multiple levels. I find it convenient to blame it on my job. There are many criminals that I like more than I like many of my colleagues. Mr. Coghill is not a criminal.

He is theatrical and he plays a political game, he is not interested in science this is obvious. He is not worse than those who are on the other side of the coin though. Also I'd prefer to go our for a drink with Ian than many other skeptics but it's just me.

edited to add: I think that the easiest way to pin down Coghill is to debate him on politics and not on science. As Pragmatist said he is like trying to hold a greasy can with wet hands.

 

[cogreslab]

To MRC Hans: Now I address your third objection:
You said:

3) The recording of electric fields was not blinded. Together with the fact that there was no strictly standardized way of measuring, this gives broad room for observer bias. Electrical fields vary greatly over small distances and with polarity (as evidenced by the very big standard deviations on your data).

The instruments we used were 64 channel data loggers collecting readings every 30 seconds averaged into five minute periods over a 24 hour period. Sometimes that period might start in the afternoon, for example, but the data without exception was taken from 2000 hrs to 0800 hours the next day. In order to ascertain that the instrument was logging correctly the operator had to check the initial few readings before leaving it in place. The actual exposure period might not start until many hours later. How could that be unblinded? I guess what Hans’ paymasters have told him to say is that the operator could place the data collection instrument advantageously to collect the highest data in the case of the cases and the lowest in the case of controls. That was not possible since the data collecting instruments were placed in the same places in accordance with instructions which were identical for all operators.

So the idea of deliberate bias is rubbish on two counts: first the data collection did not start while the operator was there, (and the variable use of appliances or lighting makes a big difference between daytime and nighttime readings) and secondly there was a set procedure about probe placement. As for the measurements themselves all the probes were identical, with identical circuitry traceable to European norms, the dataloggers were identical, and the trolleys on which they rested were identical,

Furthermore they were all cross correlated before use, and checked against other instruments to make sure of accuracy. Indeed we also checked them against EMDEX instruments and found a less than 10 percent difference in their comparative readings. The idea of our have carried out a non-blinded study is frankly absolute rubbish. Who fed it to you, MRC Hans?

Oh sorry, I forgot: you guys never answer my questions. It is only me who answers your questions.

As for your silly point about several appliances contributing to a larger total electric field, so what? It was the total electric field which IMHO cauised these childrens' illness, not one particular component of it, since as I explained, electric fields are superpositive.

 

[Pragmatist]

To Cleopatra: this thread inevitably will address basic science, but some posts are trying to manipulate the science so as to cover up the truth of what I am showing. Note that after asserting that I know nothing about bioelectromagnetics,


e.g.:

"In terms of science, I believe the matter is basic. Roger is trying to introduce an extremely complex area of science (electromagnetics) - an area which is arguably THE most complex area of science. Yet at each stage he appears to display ignorance of even the most basic principles of the areas he claims to be an expert in!"


it turns out that my version of electric and magnetic fields (e.g. near a common kettle lead) is correct as demonstrated by the WHO website and by empirical measurements. After that the so called experts, who had previously been denying it, said "Of course everybody knew that".

You are dealing with some very devious people here, Cleopatra. They are doing everything in their power to undermine the truth of this issue, as I have been saying all along. But the truth is shortly going to come out: what have you to say about that Dr John Swanson?

Roger: Keep saying it and maybe somebody will believe you - NOT!

There is NOTHING on the WHO website that comes close to addressing the issue I raised. It is irrelevant.

There is NOTHING in your measurements that comes close to addressing the issue I raised. They are also irrelevant.

Ergo, you have not addressed the issue I raised. You can keep blustering all you want to divert attention, but as yet you have offered ZERO evidence to back up your claim and ZERO credible evidence to counter mine.

And I repeat, there IS a point to me making what seems to be a picky pedantic point. There are many power engineering companies that now use "displacement current cancellation" to mitigate the effect of EM fields. But according to you, it doesn't exist! Why? Because you can't detect it by waving a meter in the general direction of a kettle and because the WHO haven't mentioned it! Great, what an awesome standard of proof! I'm impressed!

And PLEASE would you leave out the tiresome conspiracy theory, it's getting really old. There's hardly anybody on here that you HAVEN'T accused of having "affiliations" (don't you just LOVE that word!).

Who is Dr John Swanson? Does he know anything about electromagnetics? If so, please convince him to join in here, I'd be more than happy to see more scientific input.

 

[cogreslab]

Sorry, Pragmatist, but there is indeed a conspiracy going on here: the conspiracy to cover up that ELF electric fields have seriously adverse health effects for the general public. This discovery is against the interests of the power utilities, who have done everything they can to divert attention towards the relatively harmless magnetic component of the EM field, and denigrate researchers who say what I am saying.

There are many studies showing that ELF electric fields are harmful, and our epi study was the most powerful so far in that regard. That is why it got such emotional attention. Unlike poor Robert Liburdy, who said the same as me via his 1992 FASEB paper, they haven't been able so far to dislodge me, so are having to resort to pillorization and ridicule, and untenable criticisms of my work and expertise. It won't work, folks.

If you had any sense you would change sides now before it is too late! You cannot fool all the people all the time, Prag.

 

[Pragmatist]

Thanks for your reply Pragmatist.

You see, I don't have anything against Mr. Coghill, in fact I like him although I feel uncomfortable with his challenge. I find it vulgar. I don't mind so much about his products, if people are idiots it's their choice.

You're welcome, Cleopatra.

But I'd like to address the issue of the "idiots". The problem is that many, good, ordinary decent and reasonably intelligent people fall for these things. It's very tempting for us to think they're "idiots" because we can see through it, but I don't think that's a fair assessment.

Many people are weak and vulnerable at different times through no fault of their own. Imagine for example that you are a mother, you have a baby and the baby dies suddenly (classic SIDS). You are distraught, you want to find out why it happened. Along comes this nice man who tells you that it happened because you left your baby in an EM field. Well, now you feel even worse because maybe it was your fault. And you feel angry at the evil power companies because they didn't warn you and so on. In that vulnerable state you're open to anything. This kindly person offers to sell you the solution to all your problems. Buy this and the next baby you have will be "protected". You're not a physicist but he keeps telling you about all his qualifications, he has a white coat and seems to be a scientist. So you believe him. After all this nice man is the only person who seems to be helping and offering solutions.

Or maybe you are a person with cancer. You are dying, you are desperately hoping for a miracle cure. All rationality goes out the window. You'll try anything because you have nothing to lose. Here is that nice man telling you the cancer was caused by power lines, and offering you some "protective device" that may just possibly cure you. Are you going to refuse?

I've met many con artists in my time. And some REALLY good ones. You know what? They were the most delightful and charming people you could meet! And that is the whole point. A con artist, by definition, seeks your confidence, they WANT you to like them. They will do anything to make you like them more. And once you like them enough, you implicitly trust them to some extent. It's how they ply their trade. You're not likely to trust someone you don't like.

Now I am NOT calling Roger a con artist or saying he has done the above things, I was just making a general point.

 

[Thomas]

Good observation Thomas but I judge people in multiple levels. I find it convenient to blame it on my job. There are many criminals that I like more than I like many of my colleagues. Mr. Coghill is not a criminal.

I don't judge people by politics, religion, race or nationality, my major criteria is if they have good ethics. No more, no less

Being a crocodille breeder, then I have to wonder; how do you judge if a crocodille is criminal?

 

[Cleopatra]

Pragmatist.

Some months ago I started a thread in this very forum to discuss the right of people to be deceived. The thread doesn't exist right now but many people posted some very interesting ideas.

I joined this forum when one of my professors pointed out to me this place to find help when I was procecuting a medium for purjury in a murder case( it's a long story that has to do with the greek legal system I can point to you past threads where I explain that in details if your are intrerested and if the threads exist of course-- in brief our association has declared a war against the plague that is called psychic detectives and mediums).

I am quite aware of the morality of the issue and the problems that poses but allow me to remark that I will never pity those who will buy Coghill's magnetic coasters to improve the taste of their wine.

As for the issues that they are related to the potential risks of the EMF and the harm that Mr. Coghill does to the general public with his unfounded allegations I have posted earlier in this thread and to the previous one that actually brought Mr. Coghill here and I don't know if you have seen.

Mr Coghill talks about politics and it was easy even for me to address his posts.

Also, Mr. Coghill happens to be involved energetically in politics. People that have the right to vote should be very careful when they choose their representatives.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks Hans,

I maintain it is NOT correct. It's obvious that some are not following the argument I am making and so I need to restate it more clearly. The point I'm trying to make may seem to be a very picky pedantic point, but in reality it has much more significance than appears at first sight to the issues that Roger is trying to raise. But before I can make the wider point I need people to realise the truth of this one.

Let's take this one simple step at a time and see if we can reach agreement step by step - would you please bear with me on this one?

A generalised description of a capacitor is two conductors separated by an insulator. In practice a physical capacitor usually consists of two metal plates with some dielectric material between them. But it is also true that a multicore wire such as a kettle lead is also a form of (weak) capacitor is it not? I mean there are two conductors, let's say the live and neutral. They are not connected together as that would be a dead short. They are typically separated by plastic which is a dielectric material.

With me so far? Do you disagree with any of the above?

Therefore I maintain that a kettle lead must have capacitance (between the live and neutral or live and earth etc). This capacitance may be very small but it is there nonetheless. So in effect a kettle lead can act as a capacitor.

True or false? Do you agree with the above?

Thanks. If you wouldn't mind answering the above, I can then proceed to the next step.

OK correct, and as that capacitor is connected to AC, a small current will flow, giving rise to a magnetic field. Agreed, you are right. You might even be able to measure it given the excellent sensitivity of modern instruments, still... yes, I consider it nitpicking.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

To MRC Hans: *snip* I guess what Hans’ paymasters have told him to say is *snip* The idea of our have carried out a non-blinded study is frankly absolute rubbish. Who fed it to you, MRC Hans?

Oh sorry, I forgot: you guys never answer my questions. It is only me who answers your questions.

*snip*

I have answered your questions up to now, but I have duly noted that you have already resorted to attemts at character assassination. Just for your info, I have no vested interests in your electricity board. I do not even live in your country.

I do not accept your claim that the test subjects were representative. At best, you had no way of knowing if they were representative. Same goes for the controls.

I do not accept that it is a normal of research way to test for one (ot even a few) selected parameter(s). If you were to research the effect of a specific parameter, e.g. electric fields, the correct approach would have been to select groups with different exposure and then map any difference in disease prevalence. Hence the upside down remark.

I do not accept your claim that the measurements were blinded. The operators could hardly avoid knowing which group the locality they set up belonged to. Since the result is quite marginal, it takes only small flaws to confound the data.

Now, for one question you have not answered: Do you or do you not claim that potential damages from electrical fields are caused by caused by the fields and running in the tissues of the body?

Cleopatra: I don't know about others, but my aim here is to discuss the scientific issues. I know this makes for a muddled thread, and I did suggest to address it in a separate thread, but Roger insisted that it be here.

Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

OK correct, and as that capacitor is connected to AC, a small current will flow, giving rise to a magnetic field. Agreed, you are right. You might even be able to measure it given the excellent sensitivity of modern instruments, still... yes, I consider it nitpicking.

Hans

Thanks Hans,

In the case of the kettle lead, yes, it might be nitpicking, but there is a bigger point here that IS relevant, I promise!

You can obviously see where I was going, but it's still not quite right. There is no net current ALONG the wires. There would be if there was a larger capacitance at the end of the wires, but in this case there isn't.

In this instance, each individual point of the wire is a source of (electric) flux to the counter point on the other wire. So using Kirchoff's laws and integrating over the whole wire, the net current ALONG the wire is zero. But each of those alternating flux lines to the other wire is generating a magnetic field BETWEEN the wires in a different 3D plane to the mag field you'd get from current ALONG the wire.

Now forget the kettle lead. Let's scale it up to an EHT distribution line. The same principle applies except that NOW we have a much more powerful magnetic field, in an unexpected plane (parallel to the ground), that is independent of both current flow in the wires AND how the lines are phased. The point being that you can cancel through currents with counterphasing, you CANNOT cancel this field though in a straight distribution line above ground. And this field drops with reciprocal distance, not inverse square or cube. Given the length of some distribution lines we have to start thinking in terms of true EM transmission lines even though the frequency is low.

So if magnetic field CAN be a health hazard, here is a whole field which is apparently completely ignored by all these risk experts! So when people like Roger try to convince us that no mag field could cause a particular effect, and we discover that he doesn't even know about the existence of one type of field, then how can we rely on his assertions that a given effect cannot possibly be caused by a mag field? Rhetorical question.

Conversely, some power engineering companies are using "displacement current cancellation" which by some novel geometry they can offset the displacement field against the through wire field. The mere fact that they can do this proves that the displacement field is NOT negligible as it would be in the kettle lead. I think this is used in buildings but NOT in distribution lines as far as I am aware.

I think these latter points are very relevant to the discussion. They present evidence that Roger is ignorant of a key parameter that influences his experiments, thus throwing even MORE doubt on the validity of his results. And also it demonstrates that power companies are NOT simply ignoring the whole problem (they may not be doing ENOUGH, but they're not ignoring it either).

There are two obvious conclusions:

1. There is a possible risk that nobody seems to be addressing, and....
2. Roger doesn't know what he's talking about!

I submit that the latter was obvious, but not necessarily the former!

 

[Pragmatist]

I am quite aware of the morality of the issue and the problems that poses but allow me to remark that I will never pity those who will buy Coghill's magnetic coasters to improve the taste of their wine.

As for the issues that they are related to the potential risks of the EMF and the harm that Mr. Coghill does to the general public with his unfounded allegations I have posted earlier in this thread and to the previous one that actually brought Mr. Coghill here and I don't know if you have seen.

I'll take a look at the other threads, thanks.

I agree with all that. But it's not just morality, there is direct "legality" too, even if it's just a wine coaster.

I'm discussing a general point here, not accusing Roger of anything. I've mentioned wine coasters in context because it was under discussion, this has nothing to do with Roger.

If someone relies on someone's representations as an "expert" and is misled, that would be a tort wouldn't it? And where does the legal responsibility lie?

Some responsibility (contributory negligence) would lie with the "victim" for not doing due diligence, but then again, unless people like us bother to expose the BS, then how can someone be diligent in a complex area of expertise? In court, if the "victim" is found to have contributory negligence, this would tend to mitigate damages if found to be the case, but the main duty of care still lies squarely with the deceiver, doesn't it?

And speaking of duty of care. The duty of care in a case of misrepresentation is that much more onerous when the person accused of misrepresentation alleges to be an expert isn't it?

As a lawyer you are obviously aware of this. But, for example, if I were to hire you, how would I know if you are a good lawyer? You could show me evidence of all your successes, but what if these successes were bogus? How would I know? And how could I test you on matters of law if I'm not a lawyer? The same applies to anyone else claiming to be an expert. How can anyone test if someone really IS an expert in the field they claim? Just HOW diligent is anyone legally expected to be before trusting an "expert"?

So there are three distinct issues here:

If someone sells a wine coaster by making ridiculous claims then the matter is not "illegal" per se but it is legally "wrong" in that a tort is committed, tort of course means "to twist", but in the sense of a "wrong".

If someone sells something with alleged medical effect (not a wine coaster!) that is misrepresented, then one can argue that it is also morally wrong, given that someone's health is involved. And it is also tortious.

And then finally, selling something that is misrepresented may also breach statutory consumer law and therefore also be "illegal" in the true sense of the word.

The point being, that no matter which way you take it, it's WRONG! All I'm saying is that I would never personally hold the victim responsible in total. Negligent in a contributory way perhaps, but not responsible.

The prosecution rests its case!

 

[cogreslab]

This issue of balancing came out at the North Yorks Power Line Public Inquiry in 1992. I do not profess to be an electrical engineer, but perhap one with better knowledge than me can explain how the generators can ever exactly predict the demanded load so that there is current balance? There is always gojng to be a small difference between generation at one end of the line and uptake at the other isn't there? And what about phase balance? (Another mystery to me). Do not these imbalances give rise to fields? Then there is the issue of unbalanced ground return currents too.

 

[Cleopatra]

Thanks for the lecture on Law, Pragmatist, in legal terms and strictly legally speaking though only specific kind of claims can be subjected to Law. The way the coasters are presented by their manufacturer , if they fail to do what they promise well, Law doesn't care.

This is why I accused Mr. Coghill that he makes claims based on subjective criteria like taste, comfort etc. Law (thank God) doesn't care about your taste.

So, I guess that here you debate ethics and not law. In that case I agree with you.

 

[cogreslab]

To Hans:

Thanks for clearing up the issue of whether you live in the UK, but does that answer mean that you do not work for an overseas utility too, since your answer leaves that question unanswered?

To respond to the question you say I have not answered, namely:



"Now, for one question you have not answered: Do you or do you not claim that potential damages from electrical fields are caused by caused by the fields and running in the tissues of the body?"

This is how I see it: there are a number of different life processes dependant on the use of electrons in some way or other, including electric fields. For example, the brain and the heart both use relatively weak electric fields to convey instructions to the body's cells, and there is evidence that exposure to external electric fields (say from high voltage powerlines but not exclusively from that kind of source) can cause bradycardia. (Asanova and Rakov 1966 was the earliest example I can think of there, but there were also studies published before that).

In the brain, which is largely composed of glial cells responsible for synthesising ATP, the effect is different in that the electric field depolarises their inner mitochondrial membranes thus lowering the amount of energy available in the brain, and having diffuse cognitive effects.

These are only two examples of the many differing effects I believe are going on, and though I take your point about the skin acting as insulator, it is not really able to prevent ELF entry in the same way it might be protective against microwaves (the longer the wave the more penetrative, hence the use of ELF for submarine communication).

I am still not sure if I have completely answered your question, because I cannot understand the sense of the last part, and wonder if you may have left some word out?

I won't be able to post more tonight but will come back for more tomorrow. Ding Ding; end of this round!

 

[Soapy Sam]

I wonder, in the study that Mr.Coghill refers to, whether other common factors, such as genetics / heredity, family & individual medical history, diet, water, passive smoking, local contamination and other environmental factors were positively ruled out?

It seems to me that only then would a proven correlation with EM fields begin to resemble a smoking gun.

My home town , until recently, had a magnetic products factory. I have never read of any unusual illness among it's employees or children on the adjacent housing estate. There used to be a poster here (The Crotchety Englishman) who had worked in high energy magnetic research labs. He had interesting tales to tell, but I do not recall any health related ones.

To say electrc fields were found in the houses of children with leukaemia is as meaningful as saying bricks were found. Brick dust contains silicates (and often coal dust, in South Wales), both known contributors to some forms of cancer. (I do not suggest this as a serious cause; I merely make the point that the connection is no more or less dubious than that with EM fields.)

This is a very informative thread. In more ways than one.