Bioelectromagnetics
- Thread starter Beleth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bioelectromagnetics
First let me be clear about which site of Moulder's three I am first responding to: it is found at this link:
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/toc.html
I am starting this response on 9 May 2004. This site concerns only ELF (Extremely low frequency) electromagnetic fields such as originate from power lines, domestic or industrial electric appliances, or domestic and industrial wiring circuits.
If any reader has trouble with visiting this link of Moulder's three sites, could they please let me know?
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/toc.html
I am starting this response on 9 May 2004. This site concerns only ELF (Extremely low frequency) electromagnetic fields such as originate from power lines, domestic or industrial electric appliances, or domestic and industrial wiring circuits.
If any reader has trouble with visiting this link of Moulder's three sites, could they please let me know?
ELF Question 1: is there a concern about powerlines and cancer?
Here is Moulder's response text in full:
The concern about power lines and cancer comes largely from studies of people living near power lines (Q12) and people working in "electrical" occupations (Q15). Some of these studies appear to show a weak association between exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the incidence of cancer.
However:
the more recent epidemiological studies show little evidence that either power lines or "electrical occupations" are associated with an increase in cancer (Q19);
laboratory studies have shown little evidence of a link between power-frequency fields and cancer (Q16);
an extensive series of studies have shown what life-time exposure of animals to power-frequency magnetic fields does not cause cancer (Q16B);
a connection between power line fields and cancer is physically implausible (Q18).
A 1999 review by the U.S. National Institutes of Health concluded that:
"The scientific evidence suggesting that [power-frequency electromagnetic field] exposures pose any health risk is weak."(Q27G).
A 2001 review by the U.K. National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB) concluded that:
"Laboratory experiments have provided no good evidence that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are capable of producing cancer, nor do human epidemiological studies suggest that they cause cancer in general." (Q27H)
A 2001 review by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection [B12] concluded that:
"In the absence of evidence from cellular or animal studies, and given the methodological uncertainties and in may cases inconsistencies of the existing epidemiologic literature, there is no chronic disease for which an etiological [causal] relation to [power-frequency fields] can be regarded as established".
Overall, most scientists consider that the evidence that power line fields cause or contribute to cancer is weak to nonexistent.
My response:
Moulder completely omits many studies of the effect of ELF fields on organic cells, particularly human peripheral blood lymphocytes, the majority of which demonstrate an adverse effect. (e.g. Lyle et al., 1983; 1988). You can find these two studies in full in BEMS journal or in abstract on Entrez Pubmed.
He argues that some of the epidemiological studies have found a weak association. This is a biased judgement, since sixteen out of eighteen such studies have reported positive correlations and only two have reported negative correlations. The two negative studies were both funded by the power utilties (one at Rhode Island (Fulton, Cobb et al., 1980) and a later one in Yorkshire (Myers, Cartwright et al., 1985). The first of these was subsequently found to be flawed and when reanalysed also revealed a positive correlation; and the second , funded by the former CEGB and reported at the Hanford conference originally in 1985, was not published in BJC until five years later and only after the authors altered their text to admit that the study was so designed as to have little chance of fiunding any correlation. Accordingly Moulder gives an entirely erroneous value judgement about the strength of the epidemiological residential studies.
As for the occupational studies, there are well over seventy studies, the vast majority reporting a positive correlation. I f you want me to detail these I can do so.
Moulder continues by saying that the latest epi studies show little evidence that exposure causes an increase in cancer. It is difficult to know exactly which ones he is referring to but the latest is probably the UKCCR study which reported a nigh twofold incidence at levels of 0.4 uT magnetic fields. There have been no recent properly conducted studies of ELF electric field exposure(which is where I argue the problem lies) since the UKCCR electric field study was seriously and deliberately flawed by choosing only 3 mins spot and 48 hour period measurements, neither of which reflect normal bedplace exposure of the children.
Moulder then makes three more claims without identifying the studies here to which he is referring, pointing the reader instead to other question numbers (Q16, Q16B and Q18) , so I will deal with these when I get to those questions.
Moulder concludes his answer to Question 1 with three quotes, from US NIH (1999), NRPB (2001) and ICNIRP (2001). A|ll of these are now out of date and have been overtaken by modified new conclusions from the NRPB in the light of increasing evidence. Since this post is getting long I will deal with these quotes in a separate post.
Here is Moulder's response text in full:
The concern about power lines and cancer comes largely from studies of people living near power lines (Q12) and people working in "electrical" occupations (Q15). Some of these studies appear to show a weak association between exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the incidence of cancer.
However:
the more recent epidemiological studies show little evidence that either power lines or "electrical occupations" are associated with an increase in cancer (Q19);
laboratory studies have shown little evidence of a link between power-frequency fields and cancer (Q16);
an extensive series of studies have shown what life-time exposure of animals to power-frequency magnetic fields does not cause cancer (Q16B);
a connection between power line fields and cancer is physically implausible (Q18).
A 1999 review by the U.S. National Institutes of Health concluded that:
"The scientific evidence suggesting that [power-frequency electromagnetic field] exposures pose any health risk is weak."(Q27G).
A 2001 review by the U.K. National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB) concluded that:
"Laboratory experiments have provided no good evidence that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are capable of producing cancer, nor do human epidemiological studies suggest that they cause cancer in general." (Q27H)
A 2001 review by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection [B12] concluded that:
"In the absence of evidence from cellular or animal studies, and given the methodological uncertainties and in may cases inconsistencies of the existing epidemiologic literature, there is no chronic disease for which an etiological [causal] relation to [power-frequency fields] can be regarded as established".
Overall, most scientists consider that the evidence that power line fields cause or contribute to cancer is weak to nonexistent.
My response:
Moulder completely omits many studies of the effect of ELF fields on organic cells, particularly human peripheral blood lymphocytes, the majority of which demonstrate an adverse effect. (e.g. Lyle et al., 1983; 1988). You can find these two studies in full in BEMS journal or in abstract on Entrez Pubmed.
He argues that some of the epidemiological studies have found a weak association. This is a biased judgement, since sixteen out of eighteen such studies have reported positive correlations and only two have reported negative correlations. The two negative studies were both funded by the power utilties (one at Rhode Island (Fulton, Cobb et al., 1980) and a later one in Yorkshire (Myers, Cartwright et al., 1985). The first of these was subsequently found to be flawed and when reanalysed also revealed a positive correlation; and the second , funded by the former CEGB and reported at the Hanford conference originally in 1985, was not published in BJC until five years later and only after the authors altered their text to admit that the study was so designed as to have little chance of fiunding any correlation. Accordingly Moulder gives an entirely erroneous value judgement about the strength of the epidemiological residential studies.
As for the occupational studies, there are well over seventy studies, the vast majority reporting a positive correlation. I f you want me to detail these I can do so.
Moulder continues by saying that the latest epi studies show little evidence that exposure causes an increase in cancer. It is difficult to know exactly which ones he is referring to but the latest is probably the UKCCR study which reported a nigh twofold incidence at levels of 0.4 uT magnetic fields. There have been no recent properly conducted studies of ELF electric field exposure(which is where I argue the problem lies) since the UKCCR electric field study was seriously and deliberately flawed by choosing only 3 mins spot and 48 hour period measurements, neither of which reflect normal bedplace exposure of the children.
Moulder then makes three more claims without identifying the studies here to which he is referring, pointing the reader instead to other question numbers (Q16, Q16B and Q18) , so I will deal with these when I get to those questions.
Moulder concludes his answer to Question 1 with three quotes, from US NIH (1999), NRPB (2001) and ICNIRP (2001). A|ll of these are now out of date and have been overtaken by modified new conclusions from the NRPB in the light of increasing evidence. Since this post is getting long I will deal with these quotes in a separate post.
I will now adddress the last part of Moulder's Q1 (powerlines and cancer) where he cites three authorities (US NIH, NRPB, and ICNIRP).
For the interested lay reader I suggest the following three books as an introduction to the cover up: "Power over People" by Dr. Louise Young, 1974 reprinted by Oxford Univ Press two years ago, "Cross Currents" by Dr Robert becker, 1990 (JP Tarcher publishers), and "The Great Powerline Cover Up" by Paul Brodeur, 1995 (Little,Brown and Co). These three books from highly respected publishing houses together give a detailed account of the way the US power utilities have tried to cover up the facts. Brodeur was a staff writer for the New Yorker for 35 years and some excerp
ts of his book were published there, causing a great stir at the time.
However, the main point is that Moulder's three quotes are highly selective. E.g. he completely fails to mention other equally competent bodies, such as NCRP (National Council for Radiation Protection) which advocated that guidelines should aim to reduce to a mere 10 volts/metre. I will be refining, detailing, and adding to these opposing views tomorrow, so that readers can see how Moulder has biased the selection, and only represented the views of a small quango who are well known to each other and serve on each other's committees.
For the interested lay reader I suggest the following three books as an introduction to the cover up: "Power over People" by Dr. Louise Young, 1974 reprinted by Oxford Univ Press two years ago, "Cross Currents" by Dr Robert becker, 1990 (JP Tarcher publishers), and "The Great Powerline Cover Up" by Paul Brodeur, 1995 (Little,Brown and Co). These three books from highly respected publishing houses together give a detailed account of the way the US power utilities have tried to cover up the facts. Brodeur was a staff writer for the New Yorker for 35 years and some excerp
ts of his book were published there, causing a great stir at the time.
However, the main point is that Moulder's three quotes are highly selective. E.g. he completely fails to mention other equally competent bodies, such as NCRP (National Council for Radiation Protection) which advocated that guidelines should aim to reduce to a mere 10 volts/metre. I will be refining, detailing, and adding to these opposing views tomorrow, so that readers can see how Moulder has biased the selection, and only represented the views of a small quango who are well known to each other and serve on each other's committees.
I will now adddress the last part of Moulder's Q1 (powerlines and cancer) where he cites three authorities (NIH, NRPB, and ICNIRP).
For the interested lay reader I suggest the following three books as an introduction to the cover up: "Power over People" by Dr. Louise Young, 1974 reprinted by Oxford Univ Press two years ago, "Cross Currents" by Dr Robert Becker, 1990 (J.P Tarcher) , and "The Great Powerline Cover Up" by Paul Brodeur, 1995 (Little Brown and Co). These three books published by highly respected publishers together give a detailed account of the way the US power utilities have tried to cover up the facts over the years. Brodeur was a staff writer for the New Yorker for 35 years and some excerpts of his book were published there, causing a great stir at the time.
However, the main point is that Moulder's three quotes are highly selective. E.g. he completely fails to mention other equally competent bodies, such as NCRP (National Council for Radiation Protection) which advocated that guidelines should aim to reduce to a mere 10 volts/metre. I will be refining, detailing, and adding to these opposing views tomorrow, so that readers can see how Moulder has totally biased his selection, and only represented the views of a small quango, all of whom
are well known to each other, and serve on each other's committees.
For the interested lay reader I suggest the following three books as an introduction to the cover up: "Power over People" by Dr. Louise Young, 1974 reprinted by Oxford Univ Press two years ago, "Cross Currents" by Dr Robert Becker, 1990 (J.P Tarcher) , and "The Great Powerline Cover Up" by Paul Brodeur, 1995 (Little Brown and Co). These three books published by highly respected publishers together give a detailed account of the way the US power utilities have tried to cover up the facts over the years. Brodeur was a staff writer for the New Yorker for 35 years and some excerpts of his book were published there, causing a great stir at the time.
However, the main point is that Moulder's three quotes are highly selective. E.g. he completely fails to mention other equally competent bodies, such as NCRP (National Council for Radiation Protection) which advocated that guidelines should aim to reduce to a mere 10 volts/metre. I will be refining, detailing, and adding to these opposing views tomorrow, so that readers can see how Moulder has totally biased his selection, and only represented the views of a small quango, all of whom
are well known to each other, and serve on each other's committees.
Claus,CFLarsen said:
It seems like just yesterday we were talking about citing whole books when asked for citations. I said something about it being a cute tactic that makes it impossible for discussions or debates. Sheesh, it was just yesterday, wasn't it?
Some of the expert agencies and competent authorites omitted by Moulder in the last part of his question one on Powerlines and cancer include:
1. The ERMAC Committee, 1971
(Electromagnetic Radiation Management and Control)
appointed by US Congress to look into the health risks of EMF and advise.
2. Carnegie Mellon University's review for the US Office of Telecommunication Policy (authors Grainger Morgan and Indira Nair), 1989.
3. US Environmental Protection Agency
Review of the effects of ELF and RF/MW on human health. 1990
4. .California EMF Program: An evaluation of the possible risks from electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) from powerlines, internal wiring, electrical occupations and appliances, 2001.
5. Swedish National Electrical Safety Board (1993, 1994)
6. The Interagency Task Force Studying EMF (1995-1996)
7. Bonneville Power Administration (ed. Jack Lee): Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission |Lines: a review, 1996
8. The Swedish Trade Union Conferderation (1993-1994)
9 Swedish Agencies (1996): Guidance for decision makers.
10, IARC
There are others. All these bodies have reviewed the literature and come to the conclusion that there is a need for caution, specific action, or reduced exposure provisions. I will edit this post to include their specific quotes and conclusions a little later. You may then begin to see that Moulder has only selected the handful of Agencies which conclude there is no need to do anything about guidelines, limits or standards.
1. The ERMAC Committee, 1971
(Electromagnetic Radiation Management and Control)
appointed by US Congress to look into the health risks of EMF and advise.
2. Carnegie Mellon University's review for the US Office of Telecommunication Policy (authors Grainger Morgan and Indira Nair), 1989.
3. US Environmental Protection Agency
Review of the effects of ELF and RF/MW on human health. 1990
4. .California EMF Program: An evaluation of the possible risks from electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) from powerlines, internal wiring, electrical occupations and appliances, 2001.
5. Swedish National Electrical Safety Board (1993, 1994)
6. The Interagency Task Force Studying EMF (1995-1996)
7. Bonneville Power Administration (ed. Jack Lee): Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission |Lines: a review, 1996
8. The Swedish Trade Union Conferderation (1993-1994)
9 Swedish Agencies (1996): Guidance for decision makers.
10, IARC
There are others. All these bodies have reviewed the literature and come to the conclusion that there is a need for caution, specific action, or reduced exposure provisions. I will edit this post to include their specific quotes and conclusions a little later. You may then begin to see that Moulder has only selected the handful of Agencies which conclude there is no need to do anything about guidelines, limits or standards.
Some of the expert agencies and competent authorites omitted by Moulder in the last part of his question one on Powerlines and cancer include:
1. The ERMAC Committee, 1971
(Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Committee)
"Unless adequate monitoring and control based on a fundamental understanding of biological effects are instituted in the near future , in the decades ahead man may enter an era of pollution of the environment comparable to the chemical pollution of today".
Note:ERMAC, appointed by US President's Office of Telecommunications Policy to look into the health risks of EMF and advise, recommmended an immediate $60 million research programme. It only happened in 1992 with the RAPID programme.
2. Carnegie Mellon University's review for the US Office of Technology Assessment (authors Grainger Morgan and Indira Nair), 1989.
3. US Environmental Protection Agency
Review of the effects of ELF and RF/MW on human health. 1990
4. California EMF Program: An evaluation of the possible risks from electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) from powerlines, internal wiring, electrical occupations and appliances, 2001.
5. Swedish National Electrical Safety Board (1993, 1994):
"Therefore , these guidelines should be followed in housing, planning, and construction. if they can be implemented within reasonable costs: strive to site powerlines and electrical facilities in such a way that magnetic fields are reduced; avoid building new homes, schools, day care centres, etc. in close proximity to existing power lines which have significant magnetic fields, if alternative sites are available; strive to limit significant fields in existing homes, schools and workplaces".
6. The Interagency Task Force Studying EMF (1995-1996):
"We now think that the term prudent avoidance is not sufficiently clear with respect to intent. and the Task Force are advocating a strategy that calls for a pro-active programme of providing information to the community about EMF and factors to consider if concerned individuals decide to reduce exposure. We term that approach Voluntary Exposure Control".
7. Bonneville Power Administration (ed. Jack Lee): Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission |Lines: a review, 1996:
"Most of the recent reviews that commented on possible needs for field exposure reduction or prevention often recommend a variation of a concept called "prudent avoidance". This generally means taking low or no-cost steps to reduce exposures".
8. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation (1993-1994):
"The increasingly confirmed relationship between magnetic firlds and cancer means that a principle of caution must be applied. Unnecessary exposure should be avoided, and new environments be designed and equipped so that employees' exposure to magnetic fields is minimised".
9 Swedish Agencies (1996): Guidance for decision makers.
"Where new electrical installations and buildings are concerned, efforts should be made already at the planning stage to design and position them in such a way that exposure is limited".
10, International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC),2001:
"However, pooled analyses of data from a number of well-conducted studies show a fairly consistent statistical association between childhood leukaemia and power-frequency residential magnetic field strengths above 0.4 microTesla, with an approximately two-fold increase in risk. This is unlikely to be due to chance, but may be affected by selection bias. Therefore this association between childhood leukemia and high residential magnetic field strengths was judged limited evidence for excess cancer risk in exposed humans".
"Overall, extremely low frequency magnetic fields were evaluated as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on the statistical association of higher level residential ELF magnetic fields and increased risk for childhood leukaemia".
There are others. All these bodies have reviewed the literature and come to the conclusion that there is a need for caution, specific action, or reduced exposure provisions. I will edit this post to include their specific quotes and conclusions a little later. You may then begin to see that Moulder has only selected the handful of Agencies which conclude there is no need to do anything about guidelines, limits or standards.
__________________
1. The ERMAC Committee, 1971
(Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Committee)
"Unless adequate monitoring and control based on a fundamental understanding of biological effects are instituted in the near future , in the decades ahead man may enter an era of pollution of the environment comparable to the chemical pollution of today".
Note:ERMAC, appointed by US President's Office of Telecommunications Policy to look into the health risks of EMF and advise, recommmended an immediate $60 million research programme. It only happened in 1992 with the RAPID programme.
2. Carnegie Mellon University's review for the US Office of Technology Assessment (authors Grainger Morgan and Indira Nair), 1989.
3. US Environmental Protection Agency
Review of the effects of ELF and RF/MW on human health. 1990
4. California EMF Program: An evaluation of the possible risks from electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) from powerlines, internal wiring, electrical occupations and appliances, 2001.
5. Swedish National Electrical Safety Board (1993, 1994):
"Therefore , these guidelines should be followed in housing, planning, and construction. if they can be implemented within reasonable costs: strive to site powerlines and electrical facilities in such a way that magnetic fields are reduced; avoid building new homes, schools, day care centres, etc. in close proximity to existing power lines which have significant magnetic fields, if alternative sites are available; strive to limit significant fields in existing homes, schools and workplaces".
6. The Interagency Task Force Studying EMF (1995-1996):
"We now think that the term prudent avoidance is not sufficiently clear with respect to intent. and the Task Force are advocating a strategy that calls for a pro-active programme of providing information to the community about EMF and factors to consider if concerned individuals decide to reduce exposure. We term that approach Voluntary Exposure Control".
7. Bonneville Power Administration (ed. Jack Lee): Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission |Lines: a review, 1996:
"Most of the recent reviews that commented on possible needs for field exposure reduction or prevention often recommend a variation of a concept called "prudent avoidance". This generally means taking low or no-cost steps to reduce exposures".
8. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation (1993-1994):
"The increasingly confirmed relationship between magnetic firlds and cancer means that a principle of caution must be applied. Unnecessary exposure should be avoided, and new environments be designed and equipped so that employees' exposure to magnetic fields is minimised".
9 Swedish Agencies (1996): Guidance for decision makers.
"Where new electrical installations and buildings are concerned, efforts should be made already at the planning stage to design and position them in such a way that exposure is limited".
10, International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC),2001:
"However, pooled analyses of data from a number of well-conducted studies show a fairly consistent statistical association between childhood leukaemia and power-frequency residential magnetic field strengths above 0.4 microTesla, with an approximately two-fold increase in risk. This is unlikely to be due to chance, but may be affected by selection bias. Therefore this association between childhood leukemia and high residential magnetic field strengths was judged limited evidence for excess cancer risk in exposed humans".
"Overall, extremely low frequency magnetic fields were evaluated as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on the statistical association of higher level residential ELF magnetic fields and increased risk for childhood leukaemia".
There are others. All these bodies have reviewed the literature and come to the conclusion that there is a need for caution, specific action, or reduced exposure provisions. I will edit this post to include their specific quotes and conclusions a little later. You may then begin to see that Moulder has only selected the handful of Agencies which conclude there is no need to do anything about guidelines, limits or standards.
__________________
Hardly sir.
I for all am reading although as I have previously posted I do not understand why you have decided to debate Prof. Moulder and not reply to our simple questions that they are not questions of experts. I think that it would take you 15 min if you decided to reply.
Shall I recap?
As far as I am aware I have answered all the questions todate except those which are skeptical about the biological effects of weak EMFs, and the question about who are my clients, the latter of which I feel it is only reasonable to refrain from answering.
For some reason some posts allege we sell crystals, or that I recommend them, which I have never done. About sixteen years ago I co authored a book with Harry Oldfield, and described his research, but I am not convinced about the efficacy of his electrocrystal treatments, and we have not been in touch for a decade. So I find it difficult to spell that out any clearer. Also I have been accused of promoting necromancy, which considering I do not myself believe in any after life is difficult to answer any other way that to say that. I do not however wish to deny others their right to their own convictions, and am interested in exploring the issue in case there is any bioelectromagnetics content in their evidence.
My aim is to uncover for the benefit of this forum and the skeptics movement generally the scandalous cover-up going on by the establishment and the utilities over EMFs, a bigger saga than tobacco, asbestos, and BSE combined. Moulder's Q and A site, referred to by another forum member in order to challenge my views, offers a convenient platform for presenting the evidence for those interested.
For some reason some posts allege we sell crystals, or that I recommend them, which I have never done. About sixteen years ago I co authored a book with Harry Oldfield, and described his research, but I am not convinced about the efficacy of his electrocrystal treatments, and we have not been in touch for a decade. So I find it difficult to spell that out any clearer. Also I have been accused of promoting necromancy, which considering I do not myself believe in any after life is difficult to answer any other way that to say that. I do not however wish to deny others their right to their own convictions, and am interested in exploring the issue in case there is any bioelectromagnetics content in their evidence.
My aim is to uncover for the benefit of this forum and the skeptics movement generally the scandalous cover-up going on by the establishment and the utilities over EMFs, a bigger saga than tobacco, asbestos, and BSE combined. Moulder's Q and A site, referred to by another forum member in order to challenge my views, offers a convenient platform for presenting the evidence for those interested.
Prester John
Anti-homeopathy Illuminati member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 1,185
cogreslab said:
Yes i am interested so please explain, also could you provide the full reference for the BJC paper you mentioned.
Regards
PJ
Since I cannot edit after two hours, the quotes will have to be given as separate posts. Hence 4. above (California EMF program, 2001-2002:
“To one degree or another all three of the DHS scientists are inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and miscarriage.
“To one degree or another all three of the DHS scientists are inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and miscarriage.
cogreslab said:
Mr Coghill I have explained to you at least four times so far that I haven't invented that. Look what this site that sells the crystals says about you:
http://www.healthpal.co.uk/experts.htm
Do you consider that it's possible for bioelectromagnetics to have anything to do with beliefs about afterlife?
I have been reading about this issue for the last two weeks Mr. Coghill and as I previously said it seems that there is something that people are afraid of. It's certain though that there is no evidence that proves anything so far and you are the single voice in the scientific community who protests. This is not bad but it's rather telling.
Please do not take what I say in the wrong way, I do not mean to sound sarcastic but if somebody reads your posts might think that either you see yourself as a genius that none seems to get or that there is a huse conspiracy only you protest. Well. Ot doesn't sound right.
Also, have you read any of us baptizing Moulder an expert and you try to debunk him here? You brought him into the discussion.
One last comment. Today I contacted on the phone your office about the Atlantis CD and I think that I found my way with a very polite man that answered the phone and helped me out. I appreciate that he offered to send me the CD without asking for payment in advance. I always appreciate the gestures that demonstrate good faith and I wanted to let our community know about this. I hope to receive that CD at the end because I collect and read everything that has to do with Atlantis.
Also, I am anticipating for the results of Tez's experiment.
To PJ: The full BJC reference you asked for was
JAKAB F SHOENFELD Y et al
A Medical Nutriment has Supportive Value in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer
British Journal of Cancer vol 89 pages 465 - 469 2003
Regarding our test procedures, we first isolate lymphocytes within leucocytes by centrifugation by underlaying the sedimented whole blood with Histopaque to separate and then remove the white cells with a micropipette (obviously under a laminar flow hood), wash them several times in Dulbecco's add 10percent inactivated serum from the same donor, and antibiotics and anti mycotics. (This is a pretty standard isolation procedure). We then standardise the cell numbers with a hemocytometer, and spin again to get out a cell free supernatant. This cell free supernantant is divided into two aliquots. The pellet is resuspended and the standard (around 5 x 10>5 per ml) is also divided into two aliquots. One of each of these two sets (the cell free set and the cell-containing set) are laced with the reagent (around 50 microlitres in 200 microlitres of solution) and the four samples are incubated overnight at 37 C. A hexokinase and glucose oxidase assay performed by a person (who is not aware of which culture is which) determines the level of residual glucose. We are dealing with cancer cells where it is accepted that these take up three times as much glucose as normal cells, so what we are looking for is to see if the glucose uptake of the cancer cells has reverted to normal levels in the quinone laced culture as compared with the non-quinone laced culture. This is done at varying dose levels. If this turns out to be the case it means that the quinone has helped the cancer cells to revert to a normal oxidative phosphorylation pathway instead of simply using glycolysis to synthesis ATP.
I should perhaps add that since this study is designed for replication we use standard Sigma Chemicals diagnostic kits and a UV vis AMI Unicam spectrophotometer at 340 nm wavelength and a 1cm light path.
Hope that makes our protocol clear.
JAKAB F SHOENFELD Y et al
A Medical Nutriment has Supportive Value in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer
British Journal of Cancer vol 89 pages 465 - 469 2003
Regarding our test procedures, we first isolate lymphocytes within leucocytes by centrifugation by underlaying the sedimented whole blood with Histopaque to separate and then remove the white cells with a micropipette (obviously under a laminar flow hood), wash them several times in Dulbecco's add 10percent inactivated serum from the same donor, and antibiotics and anti mycotics. (This is a pretty standard isolation procedure). We then standardise the cell numbers with a hemocytometer, and spin again to get out a cell free supernatant. This cell free supernantant is divided into two aliquots. The pellet is resuspended and the standard (around 5 x 10>5 per ml) is also divided into two aliquots. One of each of these two sets (the cell free set and the cell-containing set) are laced with the reagent (around 50 microlitres in 200 microlitres of solution) and the four samples are incubated overnight at 37 C. A hexokinase and glucose oxidase assay performed by a person (who is not aware of which culture is which) determines the level of residual glucose. We are dealing with cancer cells where it is accepted that these take up three times as much glucose as normal cells, so what we are looking for is to see if the glucose uptake of the cancer cells has reverted to normal levels in the quinone laced culture as compared with the non-quinone laced culture. This is done at varying dose levels. If this turns out to be the case it means that the quinone has helped the cancer cells to revert to a normal oxidative phosphorylation pathway instead of simply using glycolysis to synthesis ATP.
I should perhaps add that since this study is designed for replication we use standard Sigma Chemicals diagnostic kits and a UV vis AMI Unicam spectrophotometer at 340 nm wavelength and a 1cm light path.
Hope that makes our protocol clear.