Bioelectromagnetics

Timble said:
Sorry can't get the link to the idividual items on the site.
See the CAP code.

http://www.asa.org.uk/index.asp
Click to expand...
Thank you. My team of research experts have already found this from the CAP code documented on that site:

"47.2 Marketing communications addressed to, targeted at or featuring children should contain nothing that is likely to result in their physical, mental or moral harm:
a) they should not be encouraged to enter strange places or talk to strangers. Care is needed when they are asked to make collections, enter schemes or gather labels, wrappers, coupons and the like

b) they should not be shown in hazardous situations or behaving dangerously in the home or outside except to promote safety. Children should not be shown unattended in street scenes unless they are old enough to take responsibility for their own safety. Pedestrians and cyclists should be seen to observe the Highway Code

c) they should not be shown using or in close proximity to dangerous substances or equipment without direct adult supervision. Examples include matches, petrol, certain medicines and household substances as well as certain electrical appliances and machinery, including agricultural equipment

d) they should not be encouraged to copy any practice that might be unsafe for a child. "

Perhaps this has some applicability here?
 
And there is this:

"11.1 Marketing communications should contain nothing that condones or is likely to provoke violence or anti-social behaviour."
 
It astonishes me that some posters in this forum who claim they recognise only facts and not beliefs should not take on board the following facts:

Fact: sixteen out of eighteen studies of childhood cancer in relation to EMFs show a positive correlation, with elevated incidence commencing around 400nT compared with an NRPB guideline of 1600uT.

Fact: in five years my challenge has not hurt a hair on the head of any infant.

Fact: the majority of studies funded by the power utilties or the establishment agencies have only examined the magnetic component, whether measured or calculated.

Fact: the EMDEX instruments designed and donated by the power utilities do not have an electric field probe. It took NRPB six months to find a way of using the EMDEX to measure electric fields in the UKCCCR study.

Fact: the few studies examining the ELF electric component show far stronger ORs than the above.

Continued...
 
Fact: there is no relation between the electric and the magnetic component at ELF frequencies, so no magnetic field study can say anything about the electric component.

Fact: the UKCCCR study of the electric field is seriously flawed because it deliberately chooses periods not representative of bedplace measurements (when the child is likely to get the most EMF exposure).

Fact: the NRPB steer their conclusions to the magnetic component and say little about electric fields.

Fact: some hundreds of infants and some thousands of children have died of SIDS or had leukaemia in the last five years.

Fact: scientists who speak out on the EMF issue have lost their tenures or their funding.

Fact: scientists who toe the line and declare that there is no hazard to health from fields lower than the NRPB guidelines have been given awards and positions in academia.

My conclusion: the NRPB and the power utilities have deliberately procrastinated, distorted and suppressed the truth about residential exposure to ELF electric fields. In the normal home these are 1-10 volts per metre, but near appliances or inside homes near powerlines can rise to several hundred V/m.

Now please stop calling me a fraud, an advocate of infanticide, and unscientific, a dodger of answers, etc. and reserve those words for the NRPB and the power utilties, who rightly deserve them.
 
cogreslab said:
Fact: sixteen out of eighteen studies of childhood cancer in relation to EMFs show a positive correlation.

a) source?
b) correrlation is not equal to causeation

Fact: in five years my challenge has not hurt a hair on the head of any infant.

But if someone took it up you think it would

Fact: the majority of studies funded by the power utilties or the establishment agencies have only examined the magnetic component, whether measured or calculated.

source?

Fact: the few studies examining the ELF electric component show far stronger ORs than the above.


source?
Click to expand...
 
Is that the best you can do, geni? Try harder, and concede that all I have said is fact, instead of speculating what might happen.
 
If they are indeed facts then you should have no problems providing sources.

I've asked for the 'studies' you've claimed to have done....still waiting on those. I suspect I'll be waiting forever.
 
cogrelab wrote:
Fact: in five years my challenge has not hurt a hair on the head of any infant.
Click to expand...

Yes, and thankfully so. That's because no one has applied to your challenge. And why is that, Roger? Explain to me your thoughts on why no one will take up your challenge.



Fact: scientists who speak out on the EMF issue have lost their tenures or their funding
Click to expand...

Why would that happen? Could it be that studys have shown it to be a non issue? Perhaps it would be more relevent to keep requesting funding to prove the sky is orange. Again, explain your thoughts as to why this is happening.

Fact: scientists who toe the line and declare that there is no hazard to health from fields lower than the NRPB guidelines have been given awards and positions in academia.
Click to expand...

Why would that be? Could it possibly be because they're doing good science?

Now please stop calling me a fraud, an advocate of infanticide, and unscientific, a dodger of answers, etc. and reserve those words for the NRPB and the power utilties, who rightly deserve them.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to call you any names but I do think you should consider some things:

fraud--well you seem to sell alot of products that definitely have scientifically questionable claims.

infanticide--would it be possible to design a test with any other subject and/or with a different outcome?

unscientific--see above. and souces, sources, sources.

dodgers of answers--I think you owe alot of answers here.
 
Seems it is not possible to get answers. Biology is not my field, so I'll leave that to members more competent in that area. Electromagnetics IS my field, and I find that the majority of Mr. Coghill's statements within that field are of doubtful validity. I therefore want to pursue that topic a little. Since Mr. Coghill tends to ignoe my questions, I have decided on a different approach: I will now collect my questions in a new thread; I will post questions to Mr. Coghill's various statements, wait an appropriate time for him to reply, then post my debunking of the statement. Appropriate time will be dependent on Mr. Coghill's activity here, so that after he has posted elsewhere a couple of times, I will conclude that he is not going to reply to my question. Should you answer, Mr. Coghill, I will of course look forward to a sober and scientific debate.

All this may not really come to an effect before later, as I'm shortly having a brief holiday away from computers :).

Hans
 
To geni and Marian: Sources. Yes you have a right to these and I will provide all of these these in support of my facts in a separate post on this site. To MRC Hans: You are unhappy with the validity of my physics, but I am honestly not sure in which aspects, so if you set out your objections here I will be pleased to respond. I will not however have time to look at other sites, so please help me here by staying on this thread.
 
To cbish: 1. The NRPB claim that exposure to a 100 V/m electric field is perfectly safe. I deny that. This challenge is confined to NRPB and Utilities employees. In my opinion none of these have accepted what should be to them a safe and easy challenge because they know already that their guidelines are flawed.
 
To cbish 2. Not so. Denis Henshaw, Gerard Hyland, and others have/had been in their tenure for many years and their science is good. Moreover the EMF issue is very much alive, with new studies appearing all the time showing bioeffects at well beneath the NRPB guideline levels. More and more countries (e.g. Sweden, Italy, etc.) are taking notice of these studies and revising their advice accordingly.
 
To cbish: 3. Ray Cartwright is a major player in the establishment team re EMF. His epidemiological study on the issue was rejected for five years by the peer reviewed journal until he included a clause saying that the study design had a scant chance of finding anything. Later Sir Richard Doll when questioned on it admitted it was a poorly designed study. Yet this worthy (Cartwright) was made a Professor and given a great deal of money for research. This is one supporting example of what I claim, but there are iothers.
 
To cbish: 4. The products we sell are either from our own manufacture or selected from third party producers. They are listed on our website and in our brochure. Which of them do you consider have dubious scientific backing? My book on magnet therapy has sold over 40,000 copies and been translated into five languages. There are over a hundred peer reviewed scientific references in the back of it to support the various claims being made there. If you like I can send you a free copy.
 
You are definetely a fighter Mr. Coghill, you have this distinctive British gut but I wish I could get over the wording of your challenge and the crystal merchandise.

But I will definetely try to learn more about the issues you brought up here.
 
To cbish: 5. I have explained above why the effect is on the human infant and not on animals or adults (because of incomplete myelination). I t would be possible to reanalyse the seriously flawed study of the UKCCCR on electric fields so as properly to represent bedplace exposure, and this I argue would show the same results as our own peer reviewed and published study of 1996, but the NRPB refuse to do so, just as they have never disclosed the results of their own investigation into cot death and EMF fields..
 
To cleopatra: thank you for your kind words. Yes the challenge is uncompromising. Over the years I have seen more kids with leukaemia, read more coroner's accounts of cot deaths, interviewed the parents and seen their grief. Something has to be done about that, cleopatra. Hence my uncompromising determination to change things.

As for the crystals, we don't sell the naffing things, and our in vitro study was unfairly misquoted in two websites, a matter I am trying to deal with. We do test any such objects in case there is anything in the science, because it is wrong to reject a scientific claim simply because it is counterintuitive to existing thinking. But I agree that the producers should have gone on to do a clinical placebo controlled trial with cellphone users to substantiate the cellular findings. I cannot force them to do that, however.
 
GREENLAND S SHEPPARD A
A pooled analysis of magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood leukaemia
Epidemiology v11 i6 p624 p634 2000

This is probably the most comprehensive meta analysis of recent years. It includes our study as being the only one from the UK because the National Grid plc refused to collaborate with the authors by supplying their source data (unlike us, who gave them every assistance).
 
cogreslab said:
To cleopatra: thank you for your kind words. Yes the challenge is uncompromising. Over the years I have seen more kids with leukaemia, read more coroner's accounts of cot deaths, interviewed the parents and seen their grief. Something has to be done about that, cleopatra. Hence my uncompromising determination to change things.
Click to expand...

To be honest sir the way you have worded your challenge bothers me a lot because it's theatrical and it addresses the feelings and not the reason of people.

I am relatively young in my profession , I practice for 8 years now but I have seen many people being manipulated by those who take advantage of the feelings of despair of parents. I feel disgust about the new-age movement which turned into an establishment and an industry very soon.

As for the crystals, we don't sell the naffing things, and our in vitro study was unfairly misquoted in two websites, a matter I am trying to deal with. We do test any such objects in case there is anything in the science, because it is wrong to reject a scientific claim simply because it is counterintuitive to existing thinking. But I agree that the producers should have gone on to do a clinical placebo controlled trial with cellphone users to substantiate the cellular findings. I cannot force them to do that, however.
Click to expand...
Most of us don't reject ideas on principle. When I said that I will study your work about Atlantis I mean it. Also I will try to investigate your claims regading the scientists who lost their funds because of their scientific findings.

I am not very smart but I am not stupid either. I think that I know what happened with the PhoneDome people and I doubt if they will fix their site. They will continue selling the crap and you know it very well.

If I was asked to defend you in an imaginary court I know that we would lose the case Mr. Coghill because the case would lack what we would need most:credibility. The Coghill product series deprives you of this important factor.Pity because you might be right but when financial interests are involved and when you bring politics in science nobody is willing to listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom