Bioelectromagnetics

Place any human infant of less than three months age to sleep each night for at least eight hours in an ELF electric field of 100 Volts per metre for thirty days. My studies predict that child will die, or become so seriously ill that the test will have to be called off. The NRPB and the power utilities' investigation levels by contrast predict there will be no adverse effect.

I will personally bet any NRPB member of staff or any any electric power utility worker around the world £2000 (or US$3000) willing to do this experiment, that my prediction will prove correct.
Click to expand...

Somebody please explain to me how asking someone to place an infant under test conditions that he predicts will kill said infant is not advocating infanticide. I have asked the person responsible for this challenge to correct me, and have thus far had no response.

"Place any human infant"
"My studies predict that child will die"
"I will personally bet...that my prediction will prove correct."
 
Ed said:



Why? Are we to be enablers of ballslessness? If we are supposededly into the notion of a free interchange of ideas, the idea of some child tattleing in secrecy should be anathema. Where does it say that the identity of whiners must be kept secret?
Click to expand...

Please take that discussion elsewhere. Its off topic in this thread.
 
Cleopatra said:
Can we post in this damn thread or not?

Who is playing with the report post button damn it?


I suggest to the dear mods to learn how to play with the bl**dy buttons!!!
Click to expand...
I think the forum hiccuped again. I don't think my copying the thread had anything to do with it (I hope). Sorry, if it did.
 
Darat, if you want to contact anybody in UK and you don't want to expose your identity I can do this for you.

Mr. Coghill.

I think that it was Thomas Khun the one who has once said that "Bringing science into a political discussion, doesn't make the discussion scientific but once you bring politics into a scientific discussion, you don't discuss about science anymore".

I think that the problem lies exactly here. You try to address scientific issues by introducing into the discussion political terms like "the establishment".

You cannot expect people to dismiss something on principle, just because it involves power and wealth without providing enough evidence to back up your claims and certainly you cannot seriously suggest that you can fight the establishment by creating a second establishment that owes its existence ( and its financial future I must note ) to the first one.

In a previous post of yours you asked us why underprivileged live in areas where according to you great risks of EMF exist while the rich live in different places far away from the alleged risks. Have you ever thought that this happens because people like you terrorize the general public and sell products that are supposed to be scientifically tested to protect people from the alleged risks? How is that for an explanation?

I am not against profit and I am not against making a living out of selling the products of your knowledge. Also, I have to admit that a great percentage of our fellow citizens respond well to various placebo effects and I acknowledge their right to be deceived. What I cannot stand though is to be accused of conformism just because I refuse to be persuaded by inefficient data and theatrical challenges and because I question the efficiency of various products. In fact, personally I take great offence in that but worry not, I don’t intend to report you on libel. :)

BTW What the PhoneDome people have said after you contacted them? Did they acknowledge that they misquoted you? When they will correct this mistake in their website?

edited to add:

1.a. Mr. Coghill, many of the posters in this thread are quite experienced in debunking claims so they know how NOT to violate the rules.Also, some have been victims of real libel just because they have posed questions so they are very careful with other people's pride. :)
1.b. Having Lucianarchy on your side is not very flattering, don't encourage him/her.

2. Upchurch,it's ok. You know how it is when you lose a post :D
 
Upchurch said:
I think the forum hiccuped again. I don't think my copying the thread had anything to do with it (I hope). Sorry, if it did.
Click to expand...

Upchurch,

The copied thread remained as a link under my "user cp." The copy link was inaccessible. It still remains there, along with a link to the original thread.
 
Upchurch,

It looks like you left the copy open and locked down the original? All the links to the original thread are now broken.
 
BillHoyt said:


Somebody please explain to me how asking someone to place an infant under test conditions that he predicts will kill said infant is not advocating infanticide. I have asked the person responsible for this challenge to correct me, and have thus far had no response.

"Place any human infant"
"My studies predict that child will die"
"I will personally bet...that my prediction will prove correct."
Click to expand...

He does not need to correct you. Neither does anyone else, apart from you or the Court, need to define what "advocating infanticide" is.
 
Lucianarchy said:


He does not need to correct you. Neither does anyone else, apart from you or the Court, need to define what "advocating infanticide" is.
Click to expand...

If I were to say, "Load this gun. Point it at this person's head and fire. I predict the person will be dead or seriously injured. I will personally bet that my prediction will prove correct."

Of course, if I were to say that, using Luci Logic, I wouldn't be advocating murder, would I? Now, if I'm wrong about that, Luci, do correct me. If I'm wrong about the challenge, do correct me.
 
Timble said:
I assume Mr Coghill has got tired of playing and has taken his ball home.
Click to expand...

But he has yet to remove that incredibly offensive, and probably actionable challenge from his website.
 
BillHoyt said:
Upchurch,

It looks like you left the copy open and locked down the original? All the links to the original thread are now broken.
Click to expand...
I think this is a problem Luke ran into when playing with the Forum Spotlight. As I understand it, the "copy" function moves the original to the specified destination (in this case, a board that members aren't allowed to see or post to) and then makes a copy of the original thread back in the original board. Bass ackwards process, if you ask me. The end result is that it breaks the links.
 
I suspect it breaches the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority (UK) at the very least.
 
I have not gone home. We were taking delivery of a spectrophotometer today, calibrating it and checking that it accurately showed the peak for the test chemical (potassium bichromate). My posts were sandwiched between this and other scientific jobs at the lab, since unlike most of you I do not have all the time in the day to deal with these issues on this site, albeit they are serious.

I am not advocating infanticide, I am trying to stop the infanticide and puericide being committed on a daily basis by a corrupt establishment (sc. the NRPB and NGT in the UK) whose experts know the risks in which they are placing the general public by knowingly offering unscientific EMF exposure guidelines but doing nothing about it. Those courageous few scientists who do who speak out are usually silenced by removing their funding or their tenure. This inevitably cows others into keeping silent: they have families to care for too.

Ironically I am now off to Cardiff as a member of the Institute of Biology to hear Prof Attfield talk about scientific ethics. More anon. This issue is not going to go away, and nor am I, provided there is a certain respect in this forum and less emotive and falsely logical accusation.

So far I have seen little scientific support for argument against my claim that weak alternating electric fields are hazardous to health. Perhaps someone may now enlighten me, quoting the peer reviewed evidence of absence of health risk?
 
BillHoyt said:
But he has yet to remove that incredibly offensive, and probably actionable challenge from his website.
Click to expand...

Oh, no. I hope he leaves it where it is. I think it is good that people can see it.
 
cogreslab said:
I have not gone home. We were taking delivery of a spectrophotometer today, calibrating it and checking that it accurately showed the peak for the test chemial (potassium bichromate). My posts weresandwiched between this and other scientific jobs at the lab, since unlike most of you I do not have all the time in the day to deal with these issues on this site, albeit they are serious.

I am not advocating infanticide, I am trying to stop the infanticide and puericide being committed on a daily basis by a corrupt establishment (sc NRPB and NGT in the UK) whose experts know the risks in which they are placing the general public but doing nothing about it. Those courageous few scientists who do who speak out are usually silenced by removing their funding.

Ironically I am now off to Cardiff as a member of the Insitute of Biology to hear Prof Attfield talk about scientific ethics. More anon. This issue is not going to go away, and nor am I, provided there is a certain respect in this forum and less emotive and falsely logical accusation.

So far I have seen little scientific support for argument against my claim that weak alternating electric fields are hazardous to health.
Click to expand...

If you believe the infant will die, sir, then why are you advocating that someone take up the challenge? You have yet to address this incredibly irresponsible challenge adequately.
 
CFLarsen said:


Oh, no. I hope he leaves it where it is. I think it is good that people can see it.
Click to expand...

Well, we know ye who are constantly on ebay acquiring more digital storage space have a copy of it. :D
 
cogreslab said:
I am not advocating infanticide, I am trying to stop the infanticide and puericide being committed on a daily basis by a corrupt establishment (sc. the NRPB and NGT in the UK) whose experts know the risks in which they are placing the general public by knowingly offering unscientific EMF exposure guidelines but doing nothing about it. Those courageous few scientists who do who speak out are usually silenced by removing their funding or their tenure. This inevitably cows others into keeping silent: they have families to care for too.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're a hero, Roger. A hero who is willing to risk the life of an infant to prove himself right.

cogreslab said:
Ironically I am now off to Cardiff as a member of the Institute of Biology to hear Prof Attfield talk about scientific ethics. More anon. This issue is not going to go away, and nor am I, provided there is a certain respect in this forum and less emotive and falsely logical accusation.

So far I have seen little scientific support for argument against my claim that weak alternating electric fields are hazardous to health. Perhaps someone may now enlighten me, quoting the peer reviewed evidence of absence of health risk?
Click to expand...

Roger, on this forum, you argue for your own case. You do not ask others to disprove it.

You make the claim, you provide the evidence. The onus is on you.

BillHoyt said:
Well, we know ye who are constantly on ebay acquiring more digital storage space have a copy of it. :D
Click to expand...

Rest assured that Roger Coghill's challenge will be remembered. And stored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom