Bioelectromagnetics

ELF Electric field studies: These are few, only four in fact. The earliest was by Savitz, Wachtel et al, in 1987 (Am J Epidemiol) as part of the New York PowerLine Public Enquiry. David Savitz , from N. Carolina University rechecked the original 1979 Denver study by Nancy Wertheimer which only used wire codes, but still found an elevated incidence, a paper which shocked the scientific world at that time, hence the Savitz replication. Savitz revisited Denver using a different set of children and time periods, and additionally tried to collect E-field measurement data but gave up on the basis that his study design did not permit assessment of chronic exposure. Nevertheless the analysis of his partial E field data capture showed a near two fold elevation of childhood leukaemia, as did the wire code replication. He found the elevation commenced at around 212 nT. and above 11 V/m.

There was then a study by Univ. of South California by Stephanie London and colleagues which collected spot E field measurements but for some reason did not report them. After that we did the world's largest E-field study at that time (despite attempted obstruction by the UKCCCR who threatened any health authority which helped us with a cut off of funding) and published the results in 1996 (Europ. J Cancer Prevention) showing a five fold elevation when a 20V/m cut off was used and a clear dose response relationship with good confidence intervals.

The statistics on our data were performed by the senior statistician of Gwent health Authority who subsequently lost his job and was moved sideways. It was however a relatively small study with only 56 leukaemia cases and 56 controls, and we asked for a larger study to be done. Just after then a very large occupational study of ELF EM fields exposure (Theriault et al. from McGill University) reported an even larger OR , but only when electric fields were added to the magnetic measurements. The data was immediately confiscated by the utilities who funded this Canadian study and prevented them from any further analysis for several years. (Gilles Theriault managed to give me a copy of the printouts before they were removed). When the NCI came to do their own study (Linet et al) they omitted the electric field on the grounds that there was not enough support for thinking there might be a risk! You can find all these references in the scientific studies database on our website, which allows searches by individual author and any keyword appearing in the title. They are also all in Entrez Pubmed.
 
Cleopatra, let me ask you a question: say you uncovered a mighty cover up by Government, bigger perhaps than BSE , asbestos, and tobacco combined. The adversaries are also huge corporations for whom the discovery is inconvenient since it threatens their commercial interests. You want to do something about it but your own finances are tiny. You realise you need to create and equip a lab, to produce peer review quality work to demonstrate the science, to tell the world and its media about the cover up, and you know the might of the establishment will be against you.

Yet you also know there are solutions provided the issue is faced honestly by those responsible. How would you go about acheiving your aim?
 
May I suggest you also invite Denis Henshaw (and Gerard Hyland for that matter) to take a look at this thread and make any comments he wishes?
 
It seems that Darat invited Prof. Henshaw. Thanks Darat.

If I were in your shoes Mr. Coghill I would try to join forces with scientists that think alike and we would attempt to conduct independant research together. I understand that science is not like Law, it needs a lot of money but yet wars need sacrifices.

Also, since you asked me, I would never sell products to protect the general public from the risks my opponents suppose to create because you know, this could lead me to the creation of a fortune and then I would end up praying to God ( since I happen to be a fideist) that nobody harms the establishment thanks to which I am making a living...

Sophocles in "Antigone" says that the only weapon that somebody needs to use in order to break "the establishment" or a regime is virtue. I couldn't agree more.

I am optimist by nature though. Maybe one of your associates in your lab is a real braveheart and he will decide to leave the merchandise aside and devote himself to science. If this happens in the future then your lab will have contributed something essential in the history of science. I am sure you are aware of "The Master Builder" of Ibsen this is what I am having in mind.
 
cogreslab said:
*snip* 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.
Click to expand...
Well, you could start by answering my latest question: How does one operate a cellphone with your protective mesh covering the speaker, display, and keyboard?

You also mention something you call an endogenous electric field, what is that, and how do you detect it?

Actually, starting a seperate thread was intended to help you, freing you from the trouble of finding my posts among many others, but have it your way...


Hans
 
Cleopatra said:
It seems that Darat invited Prof. Henshaw. Thanks Darat.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Just to clarify I haven't invited Prof Henshaw here, I've merely asked him can he substantiate the statement made by cogreslab.
 
The starting point for this thread was "can crystals absord radiation ?" as per the purported device. The orthodox answer is that crystals can interract with radiation which passes thtrough them but that they cannot act as a radiation sponge, soaking up stray radiation. If there is direct evidence to the contrary then this would be an astonishing reversal of our understanding of EM radiation (and of years of experimental evidence).

I have seen no evidence to support submitted on this thread to challenge the orthodox view.

The thread has now moved on to consider the effects of EM radiation especially the effects on rates of childhood leukaemia. It would appear from trawling the 'net that opinion is divided on the issue. In the "No effect" camp are the governments and the power companies (who have funded most of the research) and in the "Effect" camp we have a number of researchers and amateurs who have a specific axe to grind (and who, because of the way in which research has been funded, are somewhat starved of funds).

There is a lack of independent research (particularly when the "Effect" camp view anyone who comes up with "No effect" to have been "got at" by "the powers that be") or at least the perception that this is the case. A few points to note however:

- Researchers who lose funds can become bitter (and blame outside influences)
- If someone is looking for an effect there CAN be a temptation to analyse the data in a particular way which may invalidate the results (this applies to both camps) and compromise the study
- Results from meta analyses tend to reflect what the person conducting the meta analysis were looking for

This should not stop people from continuing to do research to identify hidden risks.
 
To MRC Hans: Having spent time on setting out some of the epidemiology i will now concentrate on the physics. The word endogenous in bioelectromagnetics means originating from within the organism rather from any external source. The principal sources of endogenous fields in human beings are the heart and the brain, though muscular movement also creates minute electric currents which give rise to endogenous endogenous fields. Arguably the best work in this area is by Om Ghandi at Utah, who has pointed out that the prsent RF/MW PELs can on occasion exceed the levels of endogenous fields from the heart.
 
The mesh you refer to is the one covering the Microshield pouch. The construction of this mesh I gather is quite complicated and though no doubt the makers aimed to make a profit in fact they have recently gone into liquidation. But that's beside the point. The pouch also contains a sliding aerial which can be varied to alter the RF/MW signal, whose polar diagram shows a directional gain away from the user's head. There are several similar patents by Hitachi, Nokia and other cellphone manufacturers, some of whom actually declare that their patent application is for the purpose of protecting the cellphone user. The mesh and its leather covering is sufficiently thin to permit operation when in place. I am not sure whether this is now an adequate response but if not let me know. I have copies of these various patents somewhere in our library, since it caused quite a media fuss when I reported them some years back.
 
I accept much of what "The Don" says. However, in peer review those expert in the field can analyse in detail the methods used to uncover or deny an effect, and what concerns me is that when analysing utility funded studies I often find tricks which invalidate the study design. When I challenge these protocols there is silence. A typical case is the study by Adam Lacy Hulbert at (shame to say it) my old University, funded by the NGC plc. He was trying to replicate work done by Reba Goodman at Columbia which found adverse effects at only 8uT on cells. Lacy Hulbert used a double skinned mu metal container and put the cells to be exposed on one side and the controls on the other side, dividing them by a mu metal wall. He reported a negative effect, and was hawked around the conferences to deny Goodman's work. He got his PhD.

We contacted the mumetal container suppliers and asked for an exact copy.

Cont
 
I also went to the biochem lab at Cambridge to look at the set up at Lacy Hulbert's invitation. I was horrified to find that the mu metal separator left an air gap at the top. This meant the exposed and control cells alike were both exposed to equal electric fields, so if the bioeffective parameter was the electric and not the magnetic field this configuration wouls invalidate the design. However, only the magnetic fields were reported in the study.

Having heard this Reba wrote to the journal and her letter was published there, but the Lacy Hulbert team (including Jim Metcalf), never responded to the criticism, a clear sign they had no answer to it. This is what I mean about deliberate attempts to distort and suppress evidence on the part of the NGC. Having discussed this flaw with him it is possible that Adam didn't realise at the time that his container was artfully designed by the NGC to prevent any meaningful results.
 
Mr. Coghill:
OK, so far, thanks for answers. I cannot comment further on the mesh shiled without having examined one, except that the up to 99% protection you cite is neccessarily wildly optimistic.

As for endogenous fields, OK; so you are talking about the very weak potentials from muscles (which are the largest, btw, not the smallest), heart, and brain. Those fields are not detectable outside body except by electrodes. I will use this info in assessing other claims made by you.

Hans
 
To MRC Hans: No, Hans the endogenous fields from multicellular creatures are detectable at some distance from the body. See our study published in Electro and Magneto Biology in 2000 (peer reviewed) and our paper in the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection) proceedings of their Symoposium on Effects of Electricity and Magnetism on the Living World, Ismaning, Germany, 2000. We can routinely detect these fields in our lab. In July 2004 the Gordon Conference in Connecticut (at which I am presenting) is full of such evidence.
 
OK, this may be so. I have not worked in this field in the recent years, and detection hardware has been steadily progressing. I will look for those papers. Anyway, we are talking about millivolt levels.

Hans
 
To MRC Hans: I mean the conference on Bioelectrochemistry, Connecticut College, 25-30m July:
Organised by Ric Nuccitelli, here are some of the papers:

2:00 pm - 9:00 pm Arrival and Check-in
6:00 pm Dinner
7:30 pm - 9:30 pm Endogenous Electric Fields I: Roles in Developing Systems
Kenneth R. Robinson, Purdue University, Chair
Mike Levin, Forsythe Institute, Massachusetts
"DEVELOPMENT OF LEFT/RIGHT ASYMMETRY"
Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte, Salk Institute, San Diego
"NOTCH ACTIVITY ACTS AS A SENSOR FOR EXTRACELLULAR CALCIUM DURING VERTEBRATE LEFT-RIGHT DETERMINATION"
Dick Woodruff, West Chester University, Pennsylvania
"TRANSPORT OF CHARGED MOLECULES INTO THE INSECT OOCYTE"
Kenneth R. Robinson, Purdue University
"ELECTRICAL CONTROL OF DROSOPHILA NEUROBLAST POLARITY"
MONDAY
7:30 am - 8:30 am Breakfast
9:00 am - 12:30 pm Endogenous Electric Fields II: Mechanisms of Electric Field Detection and Signal Transduction
Colin McCaig, University of Aberdeen, Chair
Min Zhao, University of Aberdeen
"ELECTRICALLY DRIVEN WOUND HEALING"
Richard Nuccitelli, RPN Research
"NON-INVASIVE MEASUREMENT OF THE ELECTRIC FIELD IN MAMMALIAN WOUNDS"
Ann Rajnicek, University of Aberdeen
"MECHANISMS OF NERVE GROWTH CONE GUIDANCE"
Richard Borgens, Purdue University
"ELECTRICAL STIMULATION OF SPINAL CORD REGENERATION"
12:30 pm Lunch
4:30 pm - 6:00 pm Poster Session I
6:00 pm Dinner
7:30 pm - 9:30 pm Electrochemical and optical probes of cell dynamics I: monitoring metabolism
Peter Smith, Marine Biological Laboratory, Chair
Orian Shirihai, Tufts University
"IMAGING MITOCHONDRIAL PROTEIN IMPORT, METABOLIC ACTIVITY AND NETWORKING "
Raoul Kopelman, University of Michigan
"PEBBLES: IN VITRO AND IN VIVO IMAGING USING POLYMER NANOSENSORS"
Peter Smith, Marine Biological Laboratory
"FROM THE OUTSIDE IN: TRACKING CELLULAR METABOLISM VIA BOUNDARY LAYER ELECTROCHEMISTRY"
TUESDAY
7:30 am - 8:30 am Breakfast
9:00 am - 12:30 pm Electrically driven transport across biological barriers I: Cellular Targets and Mechanisms of Action
Luis Mir, CNRS - Institut Gustave-Roussy, France, Chair
Peter Tieleman, University of Calgary
"MOLECULAR DYNAMICS OF THE CHANGES IN THE MEMBRANE CAUSED BY ELECTRIC PULSES"
Eberhard Neumann, University of Bielefeld, Germany
"ADVANCES IN PLASMA MEMBRANE ELECTROPORATION FOR DRUG AND GENE DELIVERY"
Lluis Mir, CNRS - Institut Gustave-Roussy, France
"TRANSPORT OF DNA IN VIVO ACROSS ELECTROPERMEABILIZED CELL MEMBRANES: MECHANISMS AND APPLICATIONS TO NON-VIRAL GENE THERAPY"
12:30 pm Lunch
6:00 pm Dinner
7:30 pm - 9:30 pm Keynote Addresses
Mu-ming Poo, UC Berkeley
"ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEURAL CIRCUITS"
Lionel Jaffe, Marine Biological Laboratory
"ELECTRICAL CONTROLS OF DEVELOPMENT"
WEDNESDAY
7:30 am - 8:30 am Breakfast
 
Cleopatra said:


Sophocles in "Antigone" says that the only weapon that somebody needs to use in order to break "the establishment" or a regime is virtue. I couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

Very noble. However, in practice, the overthrow of Establishments and States are done by educating those affected and organising them to take action.

Cogreslab is doing an excellent job in preparing the conditions for this to happen. You must realise that his 'challenge', just like the JREF's, is nothing more than a publicity stunt in order to raise awareness? I really don't understand why anyone here is making an issue over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom