Bioelectromagnetics

[cogreslab]

Yes, Cleopatra, I will try to make my posts as clear as I can for lay readers.

Do you first see the basic things I am saying?:

1. We have in the last one hundred years out of 3 million years of man's evolution introduced electromagnetic radiations onto this planet from all parts of the "electromagnetic ("EM") spectrum" which were never present before then.

This EM spectrum is a vast range of frequencies and wavelengths but is united in one simple formula ( c=fl, which means that the speed of light is equal to the frequency of any EM wave times its wavelength : note that c is almost always used for the speed of light, deriving from the latin word celeritas for speed) which applies both to the ionising and the non ionising regions of this spectrum.

Non ionising is generally defined awhere the wave's energy is strong enough to dislodge electrons from the atoms which with they are associated. Non ionising radiation isn't strong enough for that but it can still make the electrons vibrate or rotate.

This formula means that if you know the EM frequency in cycles per second (known as Hertz) then you can calculate its wave length.

No one is arguing against the fact that the ionising EM radiations are pernicious (though even here it took 31 years before there were any exposure restrictions at all, and after then the restrictions got stricter and stricter as we continually realised just how dangerous these radiations were). Even in the 1950s it was still possible to use X rays without any permitted exposure limits and such machines were even found in shoe shops.

Now we are wiser, but it seems that even the non ionising fields and radiations might pose a health threat, and this is what the argument is all about.

2. Electromagnetric waves consist of two components, the magnetic and the electric. At high frequencies where the wave is short there is a reasonably fixed relation between the two components, so if you know one component's strength you can reasonably calculate the other. Again there is one formula for this, at least, where the wave is regular and the componernts are in phase with each other (called plane wave conditions).

But close to the source the components are not related, but rather jumbled up (in the so called "radiating near field"). This area becomes longer as the wave's frequency becomes slower, and at the frequency of power lines (50 cycles per second or Hertz in the UK) it is a very large distance, perhaps one sixth of 5, 000, 000 metres. So we are all in the near field of power frequency emissions in our homes, and in that region no one can say anything about the electric field from a study of the magnetic at those frequencies.

With higher frequencies the radiating near field is much shorter, - a distance, say perhaps only a metre or so from the radiator if that, so the same does not apply. But the other thing is that the energy is much higher too and most of it is in the electric component, even though with increasing frequency the penetration of this radiation energy into the body also is shallower. Even so, at RF (radio frequencies) the electric energy still gets past the skin and into the conductive fluids of the body.

So at the extremely low frequencies of powerlines one has to consider the two fields separately, because the magnetic field is quite unrelated to the electric, and different in character. It's no good simply doing studies on the magnetic field and ignoring the electric field from a possible adverse health perspective.

But that is exactly what the power utilities have been doing: largely confining their powerline etc research to the magnetic component, when there is a good deal of lab evidence that the electric field does the harm.

You have heard of electrocution, but have you ever heard of magnetocution?! My argument is that there is sufficient evidence to indict the electric component as the bioeffector , but the utilities have failed to research the possibility, deliberately imho.

Unlike the arguably damaging AC electric component, which is an entirely novel evolutionary experience for mankind, the magnetic component has always been there: - we live on a huge spinning magnet. Birds and some other creatures use their sensitivity to this quasi-static magnetic field to find their way around. It also appears to help control the rise and fall of melatonin and our various circadian rhythms. Without the geomagnetic field we tend to go adrift. It seems also that the magnetic field can "calm" the ragged electric component.

Thus a number of devices have emerged which apply static magnetic fields locally, and their producers claim they are therapeutic. Some main claims are : improved blood flow, leading to better oxygen delivery, pain relief, especiaslly of sprains and arthritis, sounder sleep, etc.

That is the background to the scientific argument.

 

[cogreslab]

In Humanities nobody is allowed to publish abstracts of articles that are under publish. I was surprized to see that an abstract of a survey was given to an add before it is published.What's the deal in sciences?

It depends on the journal, actually. Some journals are quite happy with restricted circulation within the scientfic community, - at symposia or conferences - in case discussion turns up something in need of alteration. They do however take a dim view of media prepublicity, since by announcing the results the journal gains kudos and hopefully extra readers too.

When the results are deemed important they often appear in the press before publication: a good example is Robert Gallo's press conference on the AIDS virus prior to its subsequent publication in the scientific literature. This dysmenorhea study was already completed in terms of data collection by another firm and we only came in at a late stage to analyse it, after the client had already made the contents known. This made it difficult to find a journal willing to publish it. If it had been within our gift we would not have adviswed the client to make the results known so early.

 

[JamesM]

Every respectable scientific journal demands first publication rights. They also demand pre-release control.

Not to derail, but how do pre-print servers, e.g. arXiv.org affect this? The attempted chemistry preprint server did not catch on, so I've no idea how this works with regard to publication in other areas.

 

[BillHoyt]

It depends on the journal, actually. Some journals are quite happy with restricted circulation within the scientfic community, - at symposia or conferences - in case discussion turns up something in need of alteration. They do however take a dim view of media prepublicity, since by announcing the results the journal gains kudos and hopefully extra readers too.

Right, dodger. And web publication by a hawker of fraudulent wares would hardly constitute either restricted circulation or within the scientific community. Right, dodger?

When the results are deemed important they often appear in the press before publication: a good example is Robert Gallo's press conference on the AIDS virus prior to its subsequent publication in the scientific literature. This dysmenorhea study was already completed in terms of data collection by another firm and we only came in at a late stage to analyse it, after the client had already made the contents known. This made it difficult to find a journal willing to publish it. If it had been within our gift we would not have adviswed the client to make the results known so early.

The journal name? The publication date?

Your local fishmonger must really like you what with all the red herring you buy.

 

[BillHoyt]

Not to derail, but how do pre-print servers, e.g. arXiv.org affect this? The attempted chemistry preprint server did not catch on, so I've no idea how this works with regard to publication in other areas.

Several of them went out of business. The problem is garnering submissions. The problem with that is the journal publishers need to okay such pre-publication. Most of them say "no."

 

[T'ai Chi]

Stand up and debate like a man, you wimp.

Ad hom.

 

[Cleopatra]

Ad hom.

Did you join this thread to derail it? Guess what. He won't reply to you because he is busy debunking Coghill's claims.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Dodger has a basic learning disability here.

Ad hom.

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.

Does anyone really think that you're actually a hard strip club bouncer? I'd guess you're in a more soft craft actually...

Unless you tell us it makes excellent budgie cage lining. That

Be like Tez, for example, and actually come up with a hypothesis to test, design an experiment to test it, and evaluate the results, etc.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think a large instrument like a data logger will perturp the fields so much that the measurements become useless.

Even when battery operated and largely shielded?

Yes.

(shielded? How do you shield it?)

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Your sweeping claim is made at your website where you indiscriminately endorse and sell products with permanent magnets.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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).

I am not interested in your selective quoting, I am interested in your own research. Your research is flawed, and it has been heavily criticised. --- actually that is an understatement. It has been demolished.

Even I have pointed out several fatal flaws in your research which you have been unable to account for. I notice that you are now trying to smoke-screen the whole thing, mainly with bald-faced lies, but ..I'm not going to let you get away with it. Even if I have to repeat the whole refutation, I'm going to call your bluff.

........And we'll see whose teeth are going to be all over Pontypool.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

You don't understand it. You don't understand the most elementary parts of the subject.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Technobabble. You don't understand what you are talking about, you just fling out fancy words. Face it Roger, you simply don't have the knowledge to build a coherent train of argumentation in this field.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, Cleopatra, I will try to make my posts as clear as I can for lay readers.

Including a certain Roger Coghill.

Do you first see the basic things I am saying?:

1. We have in the last one hundred years out of 3 million years of man's evolution introduced electromagnetic radiations onto this planet from all parts of the "electromagnetic ("EM") spectrum" which were never present before then.

Yes, they have, although the intensities and distribution has changed.

This EM spectrum is a vast range of frequencies and wavelengths but is united in one simple formula ( c=fl, which means that the speed of light is equal to the frequency of any EM wave times its wavelength : note that c is almost always used for the speed of light, deriving from the latin word celeritas for speed) which applies both to the ionising and the non ionising regions of this spectrum.

Babble. The entire range of EM moves at the speed of light, and so the relationship between frequency and wavelenght remains the same. That was what you tried to say in layman's terms. All this radiation is mediated by photons. The higher the frequency (and hence the shorter the wavelength), the more energetic are the photons. When the wavelenghts become comparable to the size of atoms, the photons become so energetic that they can knock electrons loose from atoms and thereby ionize them (make them electrically charged).

Non ionising is generally defined awhere the wave's energy is strong enough to dislodge electrons from the atoms which with they are associated.

He has his citations wrong. He means ionizing . The reason he did not spot the error is because he does not understand much of it at all.

Non ionising radiation isn't strong enough for that but it can still make the electrons vibrate or rotate.

No, but it can impart energy to an atom, mainly as an electron changing level. (rotate or vibrate is nonsense).

This formula means that if you know the EM frequency in cycles per second (known as Hertz) then you can calculate its wave length.

How astute . Roger is trying to make a simple relationship look complicated (to him it IS complicated).

No one is arguing against the fact that the ionising EM radiations are pernicious (though even here it took 31 years before there were any exposure restrictions at all, and after then the restrictions got stricter and stricter as we continually realised just how dangerous these radiations were). Even in the 1950s it was still possible to use X rays without any permitted exposure limits and such machines were even found in shoe shops.

Roger still mainly lives in the fifties and sixties.

Now we are wiser, but it seems that even the non ionising fields and radiations might pose a health threat, and this is what the argument is all about.

2. Electromagnetric waves consist of two components, the magnetic and the electric. At high frequencies where the wave is short there is a reasonably fixed relation between the two components, so if you know one component's strength you can reasonably calculate the other. Again there is one formula for this, at least, where the wave is regular and the componernts are in phase with each other (called plane wave conditions).

No, there is a totally strict relationship between them. And it has nothing to do with high frequencies, this relationship exists at ANY frequency.

But close to the source the components are not related, but rather jumbled up (in the so called "radiating near field").

No, they are not jumbled up at all, but their relationship is guided by something we call their impedance. To simplify, if the impedance is high, the eletric field is dominant, if the impedance is low, the magnetic field is dominant. The term "close to the source" is relative to the wavelength; close to the source means within a couple of wavelengths (the transition is gradual). This means that for an FM radio station "close" means a few meters, while for a power line, "close" means some 6-10,000 kilometers.

This area becomes longer as the wave's frequency becomes slower, and at the frequency of power lines (50 cycles per second or Hertz in the UK) it is a very large distance, perhaps one sixth of 5, 000, 000 metres. So we are all in the near field of power frequency emissions in our homes, and in that region no one can say anything about the electric field from a study of the magnetic at those frequencies.

This is one of Roger's private axioms. Unfortunately, he is quite alone with it. While it is correct that the relationship between electric and magnetic field is not a strict ratio within the near-field, it is certainly not arbitrary.

With higher frequencies the radiating near field is much shorter, - a distance, say perhaps only a metre or so from the radiator if that, so the same does not apply.

All depending on the wavelenght.

But the other thing is that the energy is much higher too and most of it is in the electric component,

The energy is higher with frequency, although this is of little consequence while we are in the radio spectrum. The claim that it is mostly in the electric component is simply nonsense.

even though with increasing frequency the penetration of this radiation energy into the body also is shallower. Even so, at RF (radio frequencies) the electric energy still gets past the skin and into the conductive fluids of the body.

WOW! This is mainly correct, except that it is not the electric energy, but the electromagnetic energy.

So at the extremely low frequencies of powerlines one has to consider the two fields separately, because the magnetic field is quite unrelated to the electric, and different in character. It's no good simply doing studies on the magnetic field and ignoring the electric field from a possible adverse health perspective.

Except, of course, since we know the load charateristics of a power line, we can calculate that relationship with great precision. Roger tries desparately to ignore this (wait for the kettle lead argument [tm]), because his whole mission depends on trying to make it look like he is almost the only person in the world who has thought of the electrical component.

But that is exactly what the power utilities have been doing: largely confining their powerline etc research to the magnetic component, when there is a good deal of lab evidence that the electric field does the harm.

This "good deal of lab eviedence" mainly consists of a couple of Roger's own deeply flawed experiments.

You have heard of electrocution, but have you ever heard of magnetocution?!

Electrocution refers to effects of physical contact with conductors, and is of course entirely irrelevant. Magneticution (a Roger Coghill word) does exist, however: Experiments have shown the deadly effect of very strong alternating magnetic fields.

My argument is that there is sufficient evidence to indict the electric component as the bioeffector , but the utilities have failed to research the possibility, deliberately imho.

First of all there is no such evidence, except a few heavily criticized studies, secondly, Roger fails to understand the simplest things about how an electric field penetrates the body: It does not, because of the body's relatively high conductivity.

Unlike the arguably damaging AC electric component, which is an entirely novel evolutionary experience for mankind, the magnetic component has always been there: - we live on a huge spinning magnet. Birds and some other creatures use their sensitivity to this quasi-static magnetic field to find their way around.

Earth´s magnetic field is static and entirely irrelevant to this discussion.


It also appears to help control the rise and fall of melatonin and our various circadian rhythms. Without the geomagnetic field we tend to go adrift. It seems also that the magnetic field can "calm" the ragged electric component.

Pure speculation.

Thus a number of devices have emerged which apply static magnetic fields locally, and their producers claim they are therapeutic.

And their sellers, whom include Roger Coghill.

Some main claims are : improved blood flow, leading to better oxygen delivery, pain relief, especiaslly of sprains and arthritis, sounder sleep, etc.

Some research has shown certain effects of strong static magnetic fields, not all of them beneficial. Certainly, strong static magnetic fields should be treated with has much care as alternating fields.

That is the background to the scientific argument.

It has been shown in this thread that Roger has little idea of what a scientific argument entails.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*Be like Tez, for example, and actually come up with a hypothesis to test, design an experiment to test it, and evaluate the results, etc.

Good morning T'ai Chi! Sorry to wake you up so rudely, but in this thread it is Roger Coghill who presents hyphoteses and have them tested. And he is not doing very well, I'm afraid.

Hans

 

[Prester John]

Comment:

Biological aspects:

Whilst i am not an expert in any of the fields discussed i have a reasonable knowledge and am conversant with the field. Roger has presented several ideas, which are at odds with the current understandings, and he has not provided the evidence to back his ideas.
This includes:

Carcinogenesis, Rogers idea is that this is caused by the disruption of a cells metabolism. He cannot explain most of the key features of cancer, and HE suggested a seperate thread for this discussion. He did not contribute to the thread that was started.

Thryoid : Roger suggested that this was in some way controlled by an electrical process from the Brain. NO evidence was posted in support of this idea, the function of the thryoid is not completely characterised but large portions are known.

Wound healing : Roger suggested a centralised electrical process for this, again the chemical process is documented, but not complete.

Experimental : Roger doesn't use water baths because they produce electrical fields that interfere with his experiments. Instead he uses electrical incubators. Water baths are used generally because they provide good thermal stability. 2 issues here ?

I'm sure i've forgotten some here, and Rolfe has addressed issues as well.

General : Rogers debating style means it is often hard to understand what exactly he is saying. For instance earlier in the conversation about incubators he said "its amazing what you can do with gas these days". Now this is ambiguos, suggesting the use of a gas incubator but not actually saying that he does use one. I echo Cleopatra call for plain talking from Roger. Hans and Prag make the world of EMF seem understandable. If you understand the subject you can explain it well.

EMF: Not my area but Hans and Pragmatist know their stuff. Roger looks like hes been taken to the cleaners, dry cleaners, bagged, debagged and then dropped off at the council dump.

 

[EHocking]

Ad hom.

[/b]

Does anyone really think that you're actually a hard strip club bouncer? I'd guess you're in a more soft craft actually...



Be like Tez, for example, and actually come up with a hypothesis to test, design an experiment to test it, and evaluate the results, etc. [/B]

What we have been attempting to do is engage Mr.Coghill in discussing his research, experiments and results.

To date he has been reluctant to reciprocate.

To date I've had no response on my first forays into his second "experiment" on the Harmoniser device. Perhaps I should address my "analysis" of his report to his client instead and point out that Mr.Coghill does not endorse the device, but regards it as a mere talisman, or at best, a placebo?

He states he'll refund the cost of any of the trinkets he markets if they don't deliver as stated. I wonder if he'll extend that to returning his clients costs when his reports are shown to be nonsensical as well?

 

[vlix]

I wonder if he realises that his concession that few other skeptics have dared to join this argument might indicate that there are very few who agree with him? In my case I have expressly asked that no others in my ken, not even my own staff, join this thread. If I had done so you guys would have been overwhelmed. This is my battle.

I have been reading this thread from its beginning, with great interest. I would just like to have it known that I agree with Pragmatist et al., and that I think that you, Mr. Coghill, are either a fraud, a fool, or both. I bet I'm not the only one either
"My battle"? Oh pur-lease Mr. Coghill! Lose the melodramatics and invite your friends, it'll be fun!

 

[Pragmatist]

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.

Originally posted by Cogreslab That is the background to the scientific argument.

Well, that is Roger's "science" anyway! The rest of us use a slightly different science than Roger!

Cleopatra, Let me explain properly, I hope this will help:

In physics we recognise that we have two unusual kinds of forces. One is known as electric and the other magnetic. Nobody actually knows what these forces really are. There are all kinds of fancy theories, but in reality it's still a great mystery.

But we understand how to relate these forces together and we understand how they behave when we play with them, and also (usually) what happens when they interact with other things. The reason we understand what we do is largely due to the work of two scientists, Faraday who did thousands of experiments, and Maxwell who wrote up Faraday's results in terms of mathematics we can use to make models and predictions with.

All this happened nearly 200 years ago. And although we have learned a lot more since then, Faraday and Maxwell's work is still valid and we still rely on it. That is why we don't need "peer reviewed references" to make definitive statements about the behavior of electricity. It's been well known for 200 years, and asking for a "peer reviewed reference" is rather like somebody insisting we need a "peer reviewed reference" before they will believe in gravity! But as we all know, things fall down when dropped (due to gravity) and we don't need fancy scientific references to explain something so obvious.

This is the first pitfall of Roger's presentation. He constantly asserts things that we know are not true and then insists on "peer reviewed references" to prove otherwise. Well nobody today is likely to do experiments, nor are journals likely to publish articles relating to stuff that has been well known for 200 years! It's rather like expecting someone to write a scientific report to explain that apples fall from trees - ridiculous. That is why many pages back I wrote my spoof report on gravity, to illustrate how ridiculuous Roger's insistence on "scientific reports" is in this case. This stuff can be found in any halfway decent school text book.

Back to electricity. Faraday found that there was a relation between the forces of electricity and magnetism. Several relations in fact. But one of the key ones was his law of induction which states that whenever an electric field changes it creates a magnetic field and vice versa. Maxwell later wrote the precise mathematical relationship down as well, so we can calculate that relation for any particular case. Maxwell extended this theory and came up with proof that light (and other radiation such as radio, X-rays etc) was all the same thing. It was a COMBINATION of electric and magnetic fields in a particular pattern which we call an electromagnetic wave. He also proved that electric and magnetic fields were inseparable.

Now, most people are familiar with a magnetic field. It's what you get from ordinary magnets. Most people don't know that magnetism doesn't exist on its own. The magnetic field in a magnet is due to tiny spinning elements of electric charge inside the atoms of the material of the magnet.

An electric field is more difficult to visualise. But most people are familiar with static electricity. If you wear nylon clothes on a dry day and stroke a cat, or walk on a nylon carpet with the wrong shoes, you pick up electric charges which build up. When the charge gets high enough, it creates an electric field between you and other objects. This causes things like your hair to stand on end. That is an electric field. The kind of electric field that causes hair to stand on end can be hundreds of thousands of volts per metre for example.

Now, in addition to the fields, we have something called currents. Fields are like a region of pressure. "Field" literally refers to an area of force. Currents are a flow of electrons. When you get an electric shock it's because a current is flowing. A pure field doesn't give anyone a shock. When damage is caused to objects by electricity its ALWAYS because a current flows somewhere. If there is no current, there is no damage.

One of the things that Faraday discovered was that an electric current always causes a magnetic field. Ampere formalised this mathematically. But when Maxwell came along later he discovered that Ampere's equations were incomplete. They failed to account for one rather unusual property which was that a changing pure electric field (no actual current) could ALSO cause a magnetic field. Maxwell fixed Ampere's equation to add this, and that directly led him to discover that light was an electromagnetic wave. If this latter finding of Maxwell's was not true, then light etc., couldn't possibly exist. Maxwell explained this finding in terms of an imaginary "current" called the displacement current (invented solely to keep the mathematics straight) and a REAL magnetic field called the displacement field. So the current is imaginary, a mathematical trick, but the magnetic field ISN'T a trick, it is real. It is the displacement field that makes up the magnetic component of light etc.

This relates to Roger's ubiquitous "kettle lead" that he keeps harping on about. Roger insists that his kettle lead proves that Maxwell was wrong because Roger doesn't understand what a displacement field is! Roger insists that it doesn't exist because he can't measure it in his kettle lead! Which is extremely ridiculous because the displacement field in a kettle lead would be so tiny it would be virtually unmeasurable in any event. But the reason I keep mentioning it, is because WITHOUT taking that field into account, we CAN'T account for electromagnetic waves. And also someone who doesn't understand what this field is, can't possibly understand what electromagnetic waves are either.

In technical terms this is a HUGE boo boo! If Roger really knew what he was talking about he'd know about this and understand it. But even though he's been told it many times he just carries on blindly denying its existence. Which shows that not only does he not KNOW it in the first place. but also that he is making no effort whatsoever to correct that by LEARNING about it either! So this is one reason we know that Roger doesn't really understand what he's talking about. To give an analogy, it's like someone who insists that apples always fall UPWARDS when they fall off trees! One doesn't need a "peer reviewed reference" to see how absurd that is!

The next technical point to emerge is that Roger insists that there is no relation between the electric and magnetic fields in the "near field" of an antenna. This is also absurd. It is generally absurd in the first instance, because it was Faraday's experiments 200 years ago that proved beyond question that there is ALWAYS some relation between these two fields. In some cases that relation may be complex or difficult to calculate. But that most certainly does NOT mean that there is no relation at all, which is what Roger keeps insisting on.

An antenna is a fancy name for an aerial. Like a TV aerial for example. The way an antenna works is that you pump currents into it. The currents cause electric charge to build up in certain places in the aerial and this creates an electric field. But these currents are also constantly changing and this means that the field they create is also constantly changing. If we then look at what Maxwell said about displacement fields (the ones Roger insists don't exist) we see that this should create a constantly changing MAGNETIC field as well. Although the currents exist only inside the antenna, the FIELDS exist independently in the open space all around the antenna.

When we are close to the antenna, the strength of these fields depends on many factors, the geometry of the aerial is one of the most important factors (fields are related by complex geometry). These factors MAY make it difficult to calculate precisely the levels and relations between the two fields. But difficult does NOT mean impossible! And although the relation may be complicated, that relation exists nonetheless.

Now, although this relation is complicated near the antenna, when we go a much further distance away from the antenna, this relation gradually smooths out into the known relation of a standard electromagnetic wave. An electromagnetic wave in free space has a very simple relation, the electric field is always 377 times stronger than the magnetic field.

So in summary, in what we call the "near field" (near to the antenna) the relation between the fields MAY be complicated and varies from instance to instance. In the "far field" a (relatively) long way from the antenna, the relation is always fixed in the ratio 377:1. And regardless of whether we are talking near field or far field, the relation between the fields is always known as the IMPEDANCE.

To make this much clearer, let me use an analogy. Imagine a huge sheet of stretched rubber - a gigantic trampoline, say 100 metres across. In the middle there is someone jumping and bouncing up and down on the trampoline. If we want to measure how the rubber of the trampoline stretches, we can say that at the place where the person is bouncing, and near to that place, the stretching of the rubber may be complicated at any instant. For example, the shape of the specific stretch for any one bounce depends on whether the person hits with the feet, or on their bottom, or on their head etc. But if we want to measure the vibrations of the rubber at the edge (50 metres away) every bounce will appear as a small, smooth vibration.

This is like the near and far fields of an antenna. The region near the antenna (the place where the person is bouncing) may have unusual patterns of stretching, the region further away, the impact smooths out into a more regular wave.

BUT, here is the main point. No matter how complex the stretching of the rubber at the place of impact, there is ALWAYS a relation between the specific impact and the specific "stretch" pattern.

Roger says that there is no such relation. That the stretching of the trampoline is completely independent of the impact AND the shape of the person hitting the rubber. Which effectively denies that impedance exists in the near field. Which is of course, absurd - again!

There are other problems as well with Roger's understanding of this physics. He clearly doesn't understand the difference between potential (pressure), current (flow) and fields (areas of pressure). He also doesn't understand impedance at all, or its inverse which is conductivity. He talks about things like currents flowing through fields - they don't, currents flow through WIRES, not fields. But again this leads to erroneous ideas.

All these things are so fundamental, that without this basic understanding, nobody can really talk sense about issues of electromagnetic fields. The stupid "kettle lead" is quite irrelevant to anything, but that is all Roger knows. And that is the problem. Roger talks complete nonsense based on his faulty understanding. And the kind of mistakes he makes define the kind of misconceptions he has. I can see it, Hans can see it. Anyone else who truly knows about EM can see it. But Roger won't listen. He insists he is right because of ONE thing he has misunderstood from the WHO web site! Because the WHO didn't mention displacement fields or impedance, he thinks they don't exist!

And instead of simply going out and trying to actually LEARN something about the subject he stubbornly sticks to his misconceptions. He believes if he says it enough, the laws of physics will somehow accommodate themselves to HIS ideas! To the rest of us, it's rather pathetic. He has dug himself into a hole, and just continues to dig himself deeper and deeper, getting ever further from any sense or reality. And what's more, it's not just us who think that. The email I posted some time ago that I found on a google search from the Bioelectromagnetics forum shows exactly the same thing - 3 years ago. Back then he was going on about the same silly misconception about a "kettle lead". And someone on that list, a professor of physics, told him to go learn the basics before trying to teach grandma to suck eggs! But sadly, even after all this time, he still hasn't learned or made any effort to learn.

There's hardly any point addressing the other errors he makes because with a faulty understanding of the basics, EVERYTHING he says and does based on that fault is itself faulty. Therefore, all his claims about what fields do or don't do is based entirely on misconceptions of basic electrical fundamentals.

He keeps on about electric field components. But he doesn't understand what electric fields are or how they behave. When he tells everyone that they are so dangerous, he is ignorant of the fact that most of those fields will never even REACH the inside of the body. That is why none of the authorities think they are significant, THEY know that they don't do what Roger thinks. But Roger doesn't know that - and doesn't WANT to know that. He'd rather invent a ludicrous conspiracy theory than simply admit that he is the only one who doesn't actually understand the problem.

 

[Pragmatist]

You clearly have no experience or familiarity with the bioelectromagnetics literature, but need to resort to weblinks selectively biased and slanted by their creators. It is highly improbable that you have ever conducted any bioelectromagnerics research let alone published any. By contrast we have papers in several fully peer reviewed journals and I sit as referee on several others. Whether you like it, or respect the venerable institutions of which I am a member or not, my qualifications as listed were all genuine, despite insinuations on this thread to the contrary. The attempt to suggest I falsify my crdedentials has been completely disproved.

Nor do you attempt to familiarise yourself with the actual texts of the papers you cite, and this has led to retractions when the fuller text is quoted.

Pubmed is selectively biased and slanted by it's creators? Wow! Thanks for telling me, I'll never trust those shysters again!

If you are a referee on any journals, then all I can say is God help us! Of course, some of us don't consider "Magnet Scammer's Weekly" to be a journal!

It has been shown that you misrepresent your credentials in order to confuse the public as to the extent of your scientific qualifications. I don't care how screwy the Cambridge degree system is, the quotes below speak for themselves:

QUOTE: Whilst writing, a little about me and the laboratory. I have a Masters from
Emmanuel College, Cambridge where I was an Open Scholar in Biology

QUOTE: I continued as a Senior Exhibitioner in Biological Sciences and received an honours degree in that subject from Cambridge University in 1962.

QUOTE: From there I gained an Open Scholarship to Emmanuel College, Cambridge and was awarded an Upper Second Honours in Classics before taking Honours in Natural Sciences as a Senior Exhibitioner in 1962

QUOTE: I seem to remember having been awarded an M. Phil from Surrey University too, but I never took it up.

QUOTE: Well, at Surrey I was told to take the MPhil then apply for an upgrade to PhD after passing that. I wouldn't go there if I were you Rolfe.

QUOTE: To answer your questions:

1. BA Hons
2. Second class (they did not specify upper or lower, so far as I recall).
3. Biological sciences, with ouija board as a special subject.
4. Under Zangwill: physiology and experimental psychology; Under Chambers: statistics, dissection, animal and industrial psychology, experimental procedures, theory of vision (under Richard Gregory) rat behaviour studies (e.g. Hebb, Skinner etc.), and a few more like that, including how to kick Randarians in sensitive biological places.

From:http://www.pamex.ie/reports/coghillbiog.pdf

Senior Exhibitioner in Biological Sciences, Emmanuel Cambridge 1960-1962: 2.1 Hons

QUOTE: Surrey then wanted out with minimum fuss,after I showed them I had a copy of the internal examiner''s pre-viva letter failing me before he had even conducted the viva, so released me unexamined with the freedom to take the PhD elsewhere, - which I never bothered to do.

I admit I had not read the part in Henry's paper which explined what he did to mitigate electric fields (the paper only appeared this month, and I had not seen his preprint (sometimes he sends me these), but this does not mean that what he did was sufficient, and I will be discussing this with him in Washuington in a few weeks tiime.

I didnt misdrespresent the experiment: I simply posted the abstract data, which didnt mention electric fields.