Bioelectromagnetics
- Thread starter Beleth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bioelectromagnetics
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
cogreslab said:I am not going to have much time next week since I am going to Istanbul for the WHO meeting on EMF hazards, but since we have nearly 2000 posts now and nearly 20,000 views, may be it is a good time to review where we have got to.
My position is that the regulatory advice on EMF is conspicuously wrong:
Low frequency:
ELF electric fields as low as 20 V/m can be the cause of serious incapacity in adults, life-threatening to children, and mortal to infants. By contrast the official view is that nothing under 10,000 V/m is anything to worry about. An enormous gap.
But you have not supplied any useful documentation for your claim, which thus remain speculation.
I hope I have shown that the existing epi literature has never properly addressed the possibility that ELF electric fields rather than magnetic, are the bioeffector.
First of all, you have ignored the fact that most studies in the epi litterature are based on viciniti to field sources, and thus DO take bpth rypes of fields into account, secondly, you have failed to support you thesis about the elctrical field being more important than the magnetic.
High frequency:
The RF/MW environment has changed dramatically with the arrival of mobile telephony. Is there a heath hazard from these extremely weak fields and radiations?
You do not have a better answer to this question than enybody else. Your research in this area has been shown to be fatally flawed.
The existing regulation is based on some very dodgy science (a few studies with macaque monkeys were used to set the standards and these still only recognise thermal effects).
Not half as dodgy as the "science" YOU have provided.
Other important countries like China and Russia have far lower PELs.
Have we any reasons to assume thatthe Russians and Chinese somehow hide information we do not have access to. Have we any reasons to assume that they are mode careful about their populace than the West?
In the West there is a increasing level of public complaint that living near such masts or excessively using handsets has adverse effects.
Does that public concern build on any kind of documentable fact?
And there is some evidence in the literature (e.g. Helen Dolk et al, 1997), that proximity to RF towers is associated with leukaemia in adults. The position is unclear enough for the Govt to initiate a large research programme.
Well, doesn't that squarely contradict your claim that the government is covering up?
As for static magnets, the claims of manufacturers is supported to some extent by published work, but this is patchy at present.
SOme works show that in certain setings permanent magnets may have some effects, some of which are beneficial. However, how does this support YOUR sweeping claim of the universal benefit from permanent magnets?
Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, where stringent (hopefully) pre-testing of new drugs avoids major mistakes, there is no health-related regulation of cellphone installations on the one hand, nor (except for the efforts of the ASA and the DFT) of static magnet marketing, since producers can satisfy Class 1a regulations quite easily.
In other words, we have no reason to trust you more than the cell-phone industry.
Against that background there is clearly a need for a greater research effort, but this is largely shunned by academic institutions as being too fringe.
Not only an unsupported statement, but you have yourself contradicted it on several occasions.
So we have a situation where questionable protective devices against hazards which are themselves in dispute are under scrutiny, where enormous commercial effects are likely should weak EMF be found hazardous, and where the potential promise of magnet therapy still needs underpinning by sound research and a better understanding of mechanisms (if any).
Not an easy research environment to work in! Nevertheless the job is important if we are to progress, and I thank all for the efforts being put into this issue.
Especially not easy when you don't know much about the topics in question and don't know how to make stastistically valid research
Hans
Come on Prag!
"The key decision was to classify power-frequency magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic”.
Why are not you therefore calling Elizabeth Cardis a scaremonger?
When she presented this in public, I asked her why there was no IARC pronouncement about ELF electric fields. An embarrassed silence. Then "Well, we haven't looked into this yet".
It must be the most officially unresearched area in the whole of bioelectromagnetics. And by this I include Martha Linet's pathetic reasons for excluding ELF electric fields from the NCI study. Do you want me to take you through her "argument"?
"The key decision was to classify power-frequency magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic”.
Why are not you therefore calling Elizabeth Cardis a scaremonger?
When she presented this in public, I asked her why there was no IARC pronouncement about ELF electric fields. An embarrassed silence. Then "Well, we haven't looked into this yet".
It must be the most officially unresearched area in the whole of bioelectromagnetics. And by this I include Martha Linet's pathetic reasons for excluding ELF electric fields from the NCI study. Do you want me to take you through her "argument"?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Am I the only one who is reminded of the former Iraqui minister of information?cogreslab said:
or:
"I'ts just a scratch, come back and fight, I can still bite you!".
Roger, you have been devastated, half of it by the main trust of your fire being directed at your own foot.
Hans
Well, doesn't that squarely contradict your claim that the government is covering up?
Helen Dolk was prevented from publishing her results for two years, until another study with other co-authors was conducted which deliberately served to water down her findings. It was a scandal at the time.
Helen Dolk was prevented from publishing her results for two years, until another study with other co-authors was conducted which deliberately served to water down her findings. It was a scandal at the time.
Hans said, re the need for more research : "Not only an unsupported statement, but you have yourself contradicted it on several occasions".
OK there must be many such calls for more research (the perennial cry of the researcher), but since you ask for supporting evidence:
from Stewart, 2000:
page 104, para 274:
"Funding for research on health effects arising from exposure to RF radiation progressively has increased through the 1990s, although it has not been straightforward to raise sufficient funds for a comprehensive programme. This has resulted from a number of reasons. In particular, funding from Goverment has been limited, as has support from industry and in the latter case there continues to be a problem of potential conflicts of interest, which needs to be addressed in any future funding arrangements".
A masterly diplomatic statement, yet Stewart recommended a large research programme which is now in progress, though the principal investigators are not clearly independent, unfortunately, most having gone on record as disbelieving there may be any effects to consider.
_
OK there must be many such calls for more research (the perennial cry of the researcher), but since you ask for supporting evidence:
from Stewart, 2000:
page 104, para 274:
"Funding for research on health effects arising from exposure to RF radiation progressively has increased through the 1990s, although it has not been straightforward to raise sufficient funds for a comprehensive programme. This has resulted from a number of reasons. In particular, funding from Goverment has been limited, as has support from industry and in the latter case there continues to be a problem of potential conflicts of interest, which needs to be addressed in any future funding arrangements".
A masterly diplomatic statement, yet Stewart recommended a large research programme which is now in progress, though the principal investigators are not clearly independent, unfortunately, most having gone on record as disbelieving there may be any effects to consider.
_
However, how does this support YOUR sweeping claim of the universal benefit from permanent magnets?
ER, where did I say that? All I said was what the NRPB says: no adverse effects below 2T. IMHO to get therapeutic effects static magnets must be of specific character, and applied within certain duration and other modalities. A knowledge of these characteristics is gained from many studies (mostly eastern bloc) over many years. Take a look at what Mike MacLean and Bob Holcomb at Vanderbilt Univesirsity are researching in this regard.
ER, where did I say that? All I said was what the NRPB says: no adverse effects below 2T. IMHO to get therapeutic effects static magnets must be of specific character, and applied within certain duration and other modalities. A knowledge of these characteristics is gained from many studies (mostly eastern bloc) over many years. Take a look at what Mike MacLean and Bob Holcomb at Vanderbilt Univesirsity are researching in this regard.
Does that public concern build on any kind of documentable fact?
Yes. Apart from Lennart Hardell's published study on brain tumours among cellphone handset users, and a large (12000) user study from Kjel Mild at Lund University there is plenty of other published evidence, not only re handsets but also re mast radiations. The Bern Univ study at Schwarzenberg is particularly instructive in that regard. After they shut down the transmitter the symptoms disappeared.
Also you should look at the Skrunda data, a whole series of studies pubished in 1996 by J total Environ. ( Elsevier). Finally there is the Yao et al study (1989) on 1200 children and students living/working near microwave sources. There was clear fall in their phagocytosis index related to exposure, as well as other cognitive effects (All these from memory. If you want the refs I can supply them).
Yes. Apart from Lennart Hardell's published study on brain tumours among cellphone handset users, and a large (12000) user study from Kjel Mild at Lund University there is plenty of other published evidence, not only re handsets but also re mast radiations. The Bern Univ study at Schwarzenberg is particularly instructive in that regard. After they shut down the transmitter the symptoms disappeared.
Also you should look at the Skrunda data, a whole series of studies pubished in 1996 by J total Environ. ( Elsevier). Finally there is the Yao et al study (1989) on 1200 children and students living/working near microwave sources. There was clear fall in their phagocytosis index related to exposure, as well as other cognitive effects (All these from memory. If you want the refs I can supply them).
Hans said: You do not have a better answer to this question than enybody else. Your research in this area has been shown to be fatally flawed.
The point dear Hans, is that I am actually and continually quoting almost everybody else! Our own peer review published work in this area was not flawed nor has anyone (apart from a few posters on this forum) ever said it was (except of course the NRPB, who devoted a whole para to one of our studies in one of their documents. Except their comments were inaccurate).
The point dear Hans, is that I am actually and continually quoting almost everybody else! Our own peer review published work in this area was not flawed nor has anyone (apart from a few posters on this forum) ever said it was (except of course the NRPB, who devoted a whole para to one of our studies in one of their documents. Except their comments were inaccurate).
Hans said: "But you have not supplied any useful documentation for your claim, which thus remain speculation".
Not so. I clearly quoted the former USSR rationale for their 500 V/m limit and referred to (and cited) Shandala's 1988 overview which contained 168 references. There is asimilar exposition from the Chinese of why their limits are thousands of times below those of the West too.
Here is the reference (and pleasse don't say I don't understand it):
Zhao Z Yang G et al
Setting exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation and microwaves in China
Reviews on Environmental Health v10 i3-4 p209 p212 1994
Not so. I clearly quoted the former USSR rationale for their 500 V/m limit and referred to (and cited) Shandala's 1988 overview which contained 168 references. There is asimilar exposition from the Chinese of why their limits are thousands of times below those of the West too.
Here is the reference (and pleasse don't say I don't understand it):
Zhao Z Yang G et al
Setting exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation and microwaves in China
Reviews on Environmental Health v10 i3-4 p209 p212 1994
Hans said: "First of all, you have ignored the fact that most studies in the epi literature are based on vicinity to field sources, and thus DO take both types of fields into account, secondly, you have failed to support your thesis about the electrical field being more important than the magnetic".
Not so that most studies are so based. At least, that is the case if discussing childhood cancers and residential studies which are predominantly either measured or calculated magnetic field studies. The earliest, in 1979 by Wertheimer and Leeper, certainly took both components into account because it used no measurements, only wiring configurations e.g. near pole hung transformers, where there was a higher electric component. That is why the wiring codes literature shows stronger associations than measured or calculated magnetic field studies (the so-called "wiring codes paradox").
The earlier Russian studies were of the electric field too. But after the utilities started to respond to these reports the emphasis went firmly in the direction of the magnetic field, in an attempt imho to obfuscate the issue. I have hardly started to develop the evidential background for an electric field metric on this forum. It covers hundreds if not thousands of cellular, live animal and human studies, as well as a re-evaluation of the residential and occupational literature. You have only seen a partial review of the residential epi studies here - the tip of the iceberg.
Not so that most studies are so based. At least, that is the case if discussing childhood cancers and residential studies which are predominantly either measured or calculated magnetic field studies. The earliest, in 1979 by Wertheimer and Leeper, certainly took both components into account because it used no measurements, only wiring configurations e.g. near pole hung transformers, where there was a higher electric component. That is why the wiring codes literature shows stronger associations than measured or calculated magnetic field studies (the so-called "wiring codes paradox").
The earlier Russian studies were of the electric field too. But after the utilities started to respond to these reports the emphasis went firmly in the direction of the magnetic field, in an attempt imho to obfuscate the issue. I have hardly started to develop the evidential background for an electric field metric on this forum. It covers hundreds if not thousands of cellular, live animal and human studies, as well as a re-evaluation of the residential and occupational literature. You have only seen a partial review of the residential epi studies here - the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Coghill.
Is it possible for you to address the issues in simple terms the way other posters here have done? The reason I am asking this is because we have to rely on Pragmatist and Hoyt to explain your posts and I am not sure you want that.
According to them you are ignorant of the basic.
Although you articulate your thoughts very well and in simple words when it comes to politics, you seem to make things complicated when it comes to giving explanations about other issues.
I wanted you to know that this has been noted but I haven't decided yet if you do it deliberately to confuse "fence-sitters" like me,or to show that you know more than people here think.
Is it possible for you to address the issues in simple terms the way other posters here have done? The reason I am asking this is because we have to rely on Pragmatist and Hoyt to explain your posts and I am not sure you want that.
According to them you are ignorant of the basic.
Although you articulate your thoughts very well and in simple words when it comes to politics, you seem to make things complicated when it comes to giving explanations about other issues.
I wanted you to know that this has been noted but I haven't decided yet if you do it deliberately to confuse "fence-sitters" like me,or to show that you know more than people here think.
Dodger,
Stand up and debate like a man, you wimp. I called you out for releasing your crap abstract to an advertiser. You came back with more crap appeals to authority, and the claim that this "research" of yours is about to be published. To which Timble asked:
"Any hints as to where?"
Answer the question. Where? When?
Stand up and debate like a man, you wimp. I called you out for releasing your crap abstract to an advertiser. You came back with more crap appeals to authority, and the claim that this "research" of yours is about to be published. To which Timble asked:
"Any hints as to where?"
Answer the question. Where? When?
Cleopatra said:
Bad girl, Cleopatra, you sprang the trap! It is the same in the sciences. Every respectable scientific journal demands first publication rights. They also demand pre-release control.
Roger can't have submitted this "paper" prior to releasing this information to advertisers. The prospective publishers would all boot him in his nitwit butt for having done so.
Dodger has a basic learning disability here. He continues to believe he is talking with trash collectors and strip club bouncers, and continues to believe we won't know enough about how to call his bluffs. Thus, he has to ignore Timble. He resorts to this every time he's been cornered. I can't tell if his trousers are wet from the sweating he's doing or if he piddled his pants. I'm not getting close enough to find out.
So, dodger, unless you tell us otherwise, we'll have to assume you plan to publish in Annals of Improbable Research, and are hoping for an IgNobel. You would certainly deserve it. Whatever you claim about this "paper," you can anticipate pointed questions and investigations from this end. Unless you tell us it makes excellent budgie cage lining. That claim will certainly go unchallenged.