Bioelectromagnetics

[cogreslab]

To Timble: That Guardian article was reporting that the NRPB had reduced its guidelines to be in line with ICNIRP. I dealt with the previous glaring illogicallity of have two so called expert bodies offering dramatically different guidelines previously in this thread. The point Henshaw makes about Switzerland, italy and Sweden having far lower recommended exposure limits was also touched on above. The average Chinese coolie in the paddy fields is better protected by EMF legislation than anyone in the UK.

 

[Ed]

In FY97, $13 million was appropriated for Project ELF. In the 1996 court case Wisconsin v. Donna and Tom Howard-Hastings, three expert witnesses -- including former nuclear submarine commander Captain James T. Bush -- were able to establish that Project ELF's sole role is to launch and wage a nuclear war.

Excuse me, but do you guys know just what you are getting yourselves into? Project ELF is a weapon of total destruction, a very large, purpose built trigger for launching Trident missiles from submarines, and Moulder may be a part of it. I have steadily defended all my claims about Moulder, despite what Bill Hoyt (aka airhead) blurts out in his inimitably emotional and puerile fashion.

You appear to be quoting from here: http://www.mlui.org/pubs/specialreports/greenscissorsrpt/GSMI13.html

During a 1996 court trial against peace activists, three expert witness -- including former nuclear missile
commander Captain James T. Bush -- testified that Project ELF's sole role is to launch and wage a nuclear
war.

One aspect of the sea based leg of Triad is that the enemy must be assured that no matter what he does the subs will nuke him. Having a highly exposed ELF array whose destruction would wipe out 1/3 of our deterrence is ludicrious.

 

[Marian]

To Darat: your "evidence" is not worth the paper it is not written on, - the value judgemental denials of one biased Professor.

I'm still waiting to see your evidence cogreslab. Yanno, the study you refer to on your site, that I've asked for now at least 3 times and that you've promised to post 'on another thread'.

I know I'm not the only one asking either.

I'm also curious to know...since it's been discussed, do you really believe that it would kill a human infant, and if so how do you justify offering a monetary incentive to get people to try your 'experiement'?

 

[CFLarsen]

To Darat: your "evidence" is not worth the paper it is not written on, - the value judgemental denials of one biased Professor.

Considering that you have a pattern of making grand claims that are either false or that you cannot back up with evidence, I find your comment here incredibly arrogant.

Do you really think you can get away with just dismissing Moulder like this? It won't work, Roger.

Prove your claims. Or don't make them.

 

[Cleopatra]

If you search google for Stewart Fist (Electric words) and go to his links page you will find his (earlier) version of Moulder's site, and a separate link with Fist's comments. I hope you can find there the original version of Moulder's site which has now been updated by Dr Moulder to remove his original statement about me.

Darat, since I am really interested on what is going on here could you please check this toy you know how to use, the Internet Archive, to investigate this claim? Thank you very much in advance sorry for asking you that but it might take you some minutes and it will take me a day to check this claim.

edited to add Oh it's the broken link "scandal" I am sorry I just read the responses to that.

 

[Darat]

To Darat: your "evidence" is not worth the paper it is not written on, - the value judgemental denials of one biased Professor.

And what does that say about your claims?

To paraphrase you:

To cogreslab: your "claims" are not worth the paper they are not written on. - the value judgemental denials of one biased person.

You made claims, you haven't been able to provide evidence to support even one of them, I have provided evidence that your claims are false.

 

[Cleopatra]

Ok let's say that I am the not so clever mayor of a small town and I have in front of me Coghill and Moulder trying to talke in scientific terms in order to confuse my already confused mind.

In order to persuade me that his findings prove that the citizens of my town are in danger he brings me as an example Prof Moulder who had to alter his claims because of Coghill's findings.

Prof. Moudler denies it. According to Dr. Coghill though Moulder wants to cover things up so I cannot expect from Moulder to provide me with evidence for the truth but Coghill has to do that if he wants to support his case. Even I --the not so clever-- Mayor has realized that so far we haven't seen any evidence. Roger claims things that I cannot possibly check ( he said that they have exchanged some e-mails), he asks us to go ask Moulder again. BUT if he is covering the truth as Coghill says why he send us to this person to find it?

Mr. Coghill, can you see that even if you are right you expect us to take you on good faith because you haven't provided solid evidence.

Solid evidence = a clue that proves that Moulder have changed his claims after studing your findings.

So if you don't have it, take it back because the crocodiles and the hounds of the forum will insist until you back up your claim or you state that you were wrong and I cannot blame them Mr. Coghill.

Second.

Is it so difficult to learn if they perform experiment in the Navy Base in Wisconsin? I mean if it was a classified info neither Coghill nor Moulder would refer to this in public and Coghill wouldn't be aware of it since he lives in Wales.

So, can anybody help the Mayor here?

Third. Coghill said that he didn't have proof to back up the claim that Moulder is financed by the Navy. Moulder denies it . Ok.

It seems that the court of Law was involved in the area so there is something that smells bad there indeed. I keep my reservation for that.

I am terribly curious to see what the other professor Darat contacted yesterday will say about the allegations that he was prevented by the establishment from continuing his research .

 

[cogreslab]

Although this is somewhat a red herring it is also my aim to corroborate my claim about the dialogue between me and Dr. Moulder , and I am also looking into his denial. I suspect he may simply have forgotten the exchange, and if you remind him he will recall it. As for Fist's broken links I am trying to get that sorted too. If that is of more concern to you all than the main issues I am trying to debate, frankly it disappoints me. I stand by my statementy that Moulder is paid by Wisconsin University, whose EMF research is funded by the Office of Naval Research, partly because of the proximity of its ELF transmitterrs. Moulder has already lied by saying no research was conducted into it for 20 years, as I showed by producing a paper only published ten years ago. I am not here the rest of this day, since I have a meeting in London at the Royal Society on EMF hazards to attend, but will be back, (as Arnie Shwartzenegger says), hopefully with more evidence. Meanwhile let me repeat, the views expressed on Moulder's site are hopelessly biased, as Fist says on his own website, if you revisit it.

 

[Darat]

Darat, since I am really interested on what is going on here could you please check this toy you know how to use, the Internet Archive, to investigate this claim? Thank you very much in advance sorry for asking you that but it might take you some minutes and it will take me a day to check this claim.

edited to add Oh it's the broken link "scandal" I am sorry I just read the responses to that.

I did do a cursory search on the web archive but couldn't find any evidence to support (or not) cogreslab claims, since the search was cursory evidence that supports cogreslab claims could be there.

cogreslab made a whole series of claims in this post

Mulder: someone drew attention to his infamous Q and A site. I have read this carefully many times, and he has had to withdraw at least one response as a result of my protests. The site gives a very biased view of the literature in my opinion, and remember that at Wisconsin is situated the US Navy's enormous ELF transmitter for communicating with submarines, an installation which has kept researchers there in business for decades. Some say that Mulder is actually funded by the US Navy, but I have no proof of this.

and to date has not been able to provide any supporting evidence for these claims.

I have been able to provide evidence, which in the light of lack of evidence from cogreslab, indicates that these claims are in fact without foundation.

 

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab Although this is somewhat a red herring it is also my aim to corroborate my claim about the dialogue between me and Dr. Moulder , and I am also looking into his denial. I suspect he may simply have forgotten the exchange, and if you remind him he will recall it.

Mr. Coghill if he tries to cover the truth as you suggest how you expect that he will ever admit such a thing? Don't you see the problem here?

As for Fist's broken links I am trying to get that sorted too. If that is of more concern to you all than the main issues I am trying to debate, frankly it disappoints me.

No you know very well that if such a thing has happened then you would have won half of your case!!!! You can see that can't you?It IS essential that's why we insist.

I stand by my statementy that Moulder is paid by Wisconsin University, whose EMF research is funded by the Office of Naval Research, partly because of the proximity of its ELF transmitterrs.

If this is true then you have a point but can we just speculate? Do you want people to make speculations about your work and the way your lab is financed??

Meanwhile let me repeat, the views expressed on Moulder's site are hopelessly biased, as Fist says on his own website, if you revisit it.

But since you are involved you might be biased as well.

 

[cogreslab]

to Judge Cleopatra: What I said was the the Professor at Bristol had his funding from MRC withdrawn. That is not the same as being prevented from doing his research, since if you look at his own website you will see he has found other backers, - thank goodness. The MRC sacked his whole department and gave thenm three months notice. Check it out with the MRC please and let's get on with the science again.

 

[cogreslab]

Moulder will have to admit it if I can produce the earlier version of his site, which I am now trying to do.

 

[Cleopatra]

to Judge Cleopatra: What I said was the the Professor at Bristol had his funding from MRC withdrawn. That is not the same as being prevented from doing his research, since if you look at his own website you will see he has found other backers, - thank goodness. The MRC sacked his whole department and gave thenm three months notice. Check it out with the MRC please and let's get on with the science again.

Mayor ,sir, not judge although I wouldn't mind play the judge in this case!!

Thanks for correcting me.

If you want to discuss stricktly about science :1. Don't sell products because I am a non-scientist consumer and I want to get informed about your products, I have this right and you have the obligation to inform me using simple phrases. 2. Don't bring politics into the discussion.

 

[Cleopatra]

Moulder will have to admit it if I can produce the earlier version of his site, which I am now trying to do.

I agree that he will have to admit it if you provide such a clue.

 

[CFLarsen]

Moulder altered his website which had previously alleged my work was not peer reviewed. His opinions are wholly biased on behalf of the US Navy's interests. Moulder works at Wisconsin, where EMF research is funded by the Office of Naval Research. The ELF transmitter in Wisconsin state may be 400 miles from Moulder's Office, but its effects are global. I would personally not wish not be on Moulder's side in this issue: that thing makes SIDS and childhood leukaemkia (or even adult leukaeimias) like a vicar's teaparty in terms of its destructive power.

Apart from the fact that you have shown no evidence whatsoever that Moulder's opinions are biased on behalf of the US Navy's interests - why would they be, if he is not backed by them?

 

[Dragon]

Just to clear up some possible confusion (well, It confused me for a while).
Prof Moulder has two sets of FAQs - one concerning Cellular Phone Antennas and the other concerning Power Lines.
It is an earlier version of the cell phone FAQ that Stewart Fist critiques here. This earlier version has a reference to a publication by Roger Coghill called "Something in the Air". The current version of those FAQs has no mention of it.
The FAQs on power lines, however, has this reference (see Question 19L) -

The exception is a 1996 study by Coghill et al [C42], which measured electric and magnetic fields in bedrooms of 56 boys who had developed leukemia and an equal number of healthy controls. The investigators reported that the 24-hour mean electric fields in the bedrooms of the leukemic children was 14±13 V/m, compared with 7±13 V/m for the controls. The validity of the Coghill et al [C42] study can be questioned on several grounds. First, the study had an unblinded design, so that those doing the field measurements knew whether the homes were those of cases or controls. Second, the study recruited its subjects through media requests, and because of the great media attention to the possible hazards of power line fields, it is quite possible that parents of children with cancer, who lived near high voltage lines, would have been more likely to volunteer for the study. Finally, the huge standard deviations in the measured electric fields is an indication of extreme variability in exposure.

 

[Cleopatra]

Dragon thank you very much!!! Are you a detective or something?

In Steward Fist critique for Moulder's FAQ Roger Coghill is presented as follows by Fist( RED FONTS are used to quote Fist--BOLD face mine)

15E) Haven't a British and a New Zealand researcher claimed that there is evidence that low-intensity RF exposure is hazardous?
Yes and no. Roger Coghill (U.K.) and Neil Cherry (New Zealand) have been quoted in the mass media as claiming that there is evidence that RF exposure is hazardous at intensities well below the ANSI, FCC, ICNIRP and NRPB guidelines.
Fist : It is an interesting question as to why these two 'activists' have been selected. I could name about fifty or so British and New Zealand scientists who share these opinions to various degrees.
Roger Coghill appears to be an "environmental manager", who runs a laboratory that makes [permanent?] magnets "to help people suffering from muscular or arthritic pain" [59]. He has self-published a document [58] that explains "Coghill's hypothesis of cerebral morphogenic radiation". Apparently, Coghill believes that "the brain is actually a organic fully operational radio transmission station... that is in radio contact with every cell in its body" [59]. He appears to base his theory heavily on "Eastern European" research that has not been published in the West [59].


Fist: This is the old debating trick of picking out one member of the opposite side who can be subject to ridicule, or who appears to hold extreme views. Then set him/her up as if he is representative of all your opponents. It's a form of demonising.
[...]
I don't happen to agree with a lot of their claims either, but I accept their input into the dispute in the same way that I accept the opinions of John Moulder. They are all contributiors to an ongoing debate which need to be examined carefully and critically. Most of Coghill's ideas can be realtively easily dismissed, but Cherry commands much more respect.
Cherry and Coghill are both activists with scientific knowledge and research backgrounds, and both have a keen interest in the subject. It is true that Coghill makes some money from selling protective products which is why most biomedical scientists subject everything he claims to microscopic scrutiny, and then usually reject it. Cherry, however, spends a fortune of his own money travelling the world and speaking about what he sees as very important health issue.

If Moulder is going to condemn one as being mercenary in intent, then, to be consistent, he ought to be praising the other as being altruistic.

What he is doing instead is trying to find a cheap way to shoot down an opponent who can match him in terms of knowledge and scientific standing (and strength of conviction) in this debate.

Personally, I think they both go off at tangents and exaggerate their claims. And they would probably think I am ignorant of the facts and lack judgement. The world was ever thus.

And I don't think either of them are much concerned with preaching to scientists (who would be expected to know most of this stuff anyway) as they are in providing an alternative view to the propaganda of the cellphone industry, for politicians and intelligent lay-people.

It seems that you are perceived as a scientist with a political agenda. In my book that is not necessary bad under certain circumstances.

It seems that Moulder corrected that maybe because it was pointed out to him that Mr. Coghill was an unfortunate example to quote and use.

Of course Judge-Mayor Cleopatra was right Mr. Coghill.

Once money and politics are involved in Science credibility doesn't exist.... I hope you see my point right now." Coghill makes money by selling protective products..."

 

[Lucianarchy]

Once money and politics are involved in Science credibility doesn't exist.... I hope you see my point right now." Coghill makes money by selling protective products..."

Are you saying that the JREF lack credibility? Don't they make money by selling 'debunking' products?

How about other labs who are not even independant and get their financial support from commercial interests? Using your logic they are even more biased, right?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Having vested interests does not exclude anybody from making valid researh (good thing since otherwise very little, if any, valid research could be done), it also does not invalidate their arguments per se.

It DOES, however, invalidate any whining they may present about the OTHER side having vested interests .

Hans

 

[Lucianarchy]

Having vested interests does not exclude anybody from making valid researh (good thing since otherwise very little, if any, valid research could be done), it also does not invalidate their arguments per se.

It DOES, however, invalidate any whining they may present about the OTHER side having vested interests .

Hans

Indeed, and that is why we say 'Let the data speak for itself.' We have seen evidence that there is indeed a risk to chronic overexposure to EM. We have also seen evidence that the data has been, is being suppressed. The evidence supports the claims of cogreslab.