Bioelectromagnetics

Good point about expecting Darat to do my work. I will ask Denis myself to confirm the claim about his funding.

As you will know, I am actually the reincarnation of Odysseus. Let me explain about this apparent sadomasochism on board my boat. We were coming through the beginning of the straits of Messina when I saw these whirlpools to starboard, and a huge cave to port. But if you make that passage today you will also see it is where a huge overhead powerline crosses from the mainland to Sicily. The crew were attempting to haul me by a line upto the mast top to take ELF EM field measurements, when the halyard got caught and I found myself tangled up in the rigging. The crew, not noticing this, simply belayed the line, leaving me aloft, and, hearing the lunchtime whistle, promptly went below decks for some wine-dark water with pretzels. They were mightily amused on their return above decks, and the tale has been exaggerated ever since then, partly to save their embarrassment.

These "Sirens" were the sound of the lunch break signal in fact. The electric fields were around 2000 Volts per metre btw.
 
To Cleopatra: Surely all challenges, from throwing down earth on an unburied corpse in Greek tragic theatre, via the throwing down of gauntlets in the tournament theatre in mediaeval times, to firing warning shots at Russian transport ships in the Cuban war theatre, are by definition theatrical, since their purpose is to be clearly seen by the spectators (Theatron = the place where you look at things).
 
cogreslab said:
To Cleopatra: Surely all challenges, from throwing down earth on an unburied corpse in Greek tragic theatre, via the throwing down of gauntlets in the tournament theatre in mediaeval times, to firing warning shots at Russian transport ships in the Cuban war theatre, are by definition theatrical, since their purpose is to be clearly seen by the spectators (Theatron = the place where you look at things).
Click to expand...
Yes but you see Mr. Coghill we are in 2004 now. Our societies have accumulated a vast social experience from Wars and from organized attrocities that they were commited even by scientists in concentration camps.

Humanity has won its right to organize challenges without having to eat its flesh to accomplish them. Thanks to science and to the social experience we have as societies of the 21th century we don't need to sacrifice babies in order to persuade people about the rightheness of our claims.

We don't really need to return back in time and this is what you do with your challenge. In everything there is an aspect of morality and of aesthetics.

Well, your challenge violates both;morality and aesthetics not to say that I don't approve of the way you use the Classical civilization in your examples.

Of course this is the pure Anglosaxonic way, for you the classical tradition is a mental game that can be used as a tool, I am quite aware of this attitude. Of course I recognize your right to approach things that way I just had to express my objection for the record.
 
I do agree we are far more civilised in 2004. For example we only urinate on prisoners these days, and if there is the occasional genocide of say 800,000 people in a small African country we are polite enough not to mention it or do anything which might upset the natives.
 
And?

Human nature doesn't change Mr. Coghill although lately I am trying to do some reading on the Biology of the beliefs and "behaviors"( I mention it just because you are a Biologist and I intend to start a thread about it I will let you know) and it seems that some things do change but basically the criminal insticts are still here, it's the our perception towards them that has changed.

If people still get tortured doesn't give you the right to set up challenges that involve human lives, if this what you try to suggest here.
 
cogreslab said:
How curious! Another long period of silence from the skeptics! Am I finally making headway here?!
Click to expand...

I believe most sceptics accept that there is strong evidence to suggest that chronic em exposure poses a severe health risk to millions of people throughtout the world.

It is only a few pseudo skeptics, like Larsen and Hoyt, who are just too cranky to admit they were wrong.

No matter, the issue has been raised, and hopefully, awareness too. Thanks.

http://www.revolt.co.uk/
 
Lucianarchy said:
I believe most sceptics accept that there is strong evidence to suggest that chronic em exposure poses a severe health risk to millions of people throughtout the world.
Click to expand...

Well not quite. You see, I see that there is a problem because governments do change the acceptable levels of exposure to EMF but I cannot overlook the fact that the whole issue has become part of a political conflict, it has turned into a fertile field to make money and into a very attractive political agenda for ambitious politicans.

Hence the skepticism.
 
Fertile fields: it's not only politicians, Cleopatra. Nor is the opportunism confined to politics. The National Grid Transco plc in the UK (the supplier of electricity via the national electricity grid) keeps some 2000 million pounds in cash yet spends only £300,000 a year on health effects research relating to their product (less than it recently cost to change their logo). If it were found and accepted that ELF EM fields were hazardous there would be an enormous cost to the NGT in changing/acquiring their powerline wayleaves. Similar expenses would confront appliance and equipment makers, but more than all these the military would face a gigantic problem, in view of their widespread surveillance emissions. Did you know that even back in 1965 Johns Hopkins University reported that there was an elevation of Downs syndrome children near USAF bases with radar, whereas there was not so near the bases without radar (Sigler et al., 1965)? Though this was then challenged by a military-funded study(Merritt et al) this conflicting study was so poorly designed as to be of little value to the debate.
 
Cleopatra said:


Well not quite. You see, I see that there is a problem because governments do change the acceptable levels of exposure to EMF but I cannot overlook the fact that the whole issue has become part of a political conflict, it has turned into a fertile field to make money and into a very attractive political agenda for ambitious politicans.

Hence the skepticism.
Click to expand...

Indeed. One shoul be skeptical of some skeptics too. But that does not alter the fact that the evidence is strongly in favour of the risks mentioned.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Indeed. One shoul be skeptical of some skeptics too.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this goes to your vendatta with Claus and Bill or it is a general remark. If it is the later I agree. It's good to pose questions
But that does not alter the fact that the evidence is strongly in favour of the risks mentioned.
Click to expand...
I am not a physicist but I keep telling myself that I have this case in court and I have to put my butt down and read in order to drag some conclusions.

Trust me. Coghill would lose his "case" because politics and profit are involved in it. He would lose even if he had me as his lawyer. :p
 
I am interested in defining your previous post more finely, Cleopatra: are you saying I would lose my case (even if I had you as my lawyer) because there is so much at stake politically and financialy, or are you saying that I would lose my case because the judge would be corrupted by politicians and financial or other inducements? Either way it seems I have the factual arguments on my side but the weight of politics and commercial interest against me.

I don't care a fig about either of those corruptions, I would win anyway, and in deed am clearly doing so in this forum: look at the dead bodies all around me!
 
cogreslab said:
I don't care a fig about either of those corruptions, I would win anyway, and in deed am clearly doing so in this forum: look at the dead bodies all around me!
Click to expand...
And then the hero rides his horse and takes the girl...

In real life though we would lose the case because :

1. We wouldn't be able to provide smashing evidence and therefore the judge would start wondering about our motives.

2. The judge discovers that you have set up a theatrical challenge of questionable taste ( it's the price tag you have set that actually bothers me tremendously) to scare the general public.

3. The judge discovers that you try to address the fears of the general public that you have created so theatrically with a full line of products.

4. The judge discovers that your products are advertized in a way that there is no way to test them something that stands for your challenge as well.

After the above it's us that must find a way to bribe the judge in order not to lock us up in jail. Tad hyberbolic, I know, but with a challenge like the one you have set don't complain.

This morning I was talking with some fellow posters about this thread in a system of communication we use (PalTalk) and I attemped to defend you by pointing out that : a) you don't dare to insignuate that you can magnetize whisky and make it taste better because you aknowledge that whisky is a perfect drink ( joking) and b) you don't talk about comforting pain in your website something that is true. One of the participants pointed out to me that my argument is pathetic and that it's like trying to clean a rapist because he used a condom to rape his victim.

I find the argument crude but the fellow poster could have been a judge or worse a member of jury...
 
cogreslab said:
I don't care a fig about either of those corruptions, I would win anyway, and in deed am clearly doing so in this forum: look at the dead bodies all around me!
Click to expand...

Be careful not to confuse bored stiff with dead.
 
Cogreslab said-
"The National Grid Transco plc in the UK (the supplier of electricity via the national electricity grid) keeps some 2000 million pounds in cash"

Really? Then their board of directors should be fired immediately.
You found this number in their last financial report? If not, then where does the figure come from?

By the way,have you done any research on WiFi / Bluetooth and similar wireless communication systems for computer networking? Power figures are very low of course, but I imagine these will fast become as ubiquitous as the accursed mobile phone, and as with cellphones, the issue of closeness to the source arises, with perhaps longer exposure.
(I will declare an interest. I'm less concerned about the EM emission from cellphones than the anti-social sonic emissions. Were I dictator of the planet, anyone owning one of these Satanic Devices would have it nailed to his forehead.)
 
Another of your self confessed colleagues said some time ago:

"Judge not that ye be judged" did He not?
 
Nice one, scotth!

Cleopatra's statement of case reminds me of the Greek chorus in their ancient tragedies. Of course there will always be those bringing motive into the arena, and there is little doubt about the power utilities, Government's or the military's motives in suppressing this science. As for mine, some posts say I am only doing it for commercial gain.

Is none of you charitable enough to believe this is not the case?

a) The products from our lab were developed in response to the problem of EMF, the actuallity of mammary and other cancers, (does any of you not know someone with cancer now?) the risks to infants and children so evident in the literature, and not the other way around.

b) I did not invent all those scientific references for my own commercial benefit, they were there already.

c) The company has been in business over 20 years, and all its profits (meagre though they be), go back into our research.

Where are my trappings of wealth from this disgustingly mercenary motive, folks? I will dig out the power utilities figures to show you the comparison. Then make your judgements.

The sad thing about the Greek chorus is that they always stayed on the sidelines, putting both points of view of the protagonists. Here, you have a real opportunity to bombard the NRPB and utilities with your questions about their very questionable behaviour, instead of persistently shooting the messenger.
 
cogreslab said:
Another of your self confessed colleagues said some time ago:

"Judge not that ye be judged" did He not?
Click to expand...
That was not very nice of you Mr. Coghill because in this thread I didn't attempt to use my beliefs as an argument.
Cleopatra's statement of case reminds me of the Greek chorus in their ancient tragedies. Of course there will always be those bringing motive into the arena, and there is little doubt about the power utilities, Government's or the military's motives in suppressing this science. As for mine, some posts say I am only doing it for commercial gain.

Is none of you charitable enough to believe this is not the case?
Click to expand...

The motive will be brought in the arena as long as you bring politics in this very arena. I am willing to believe you but you don't help me much. Also, since you complain that nobody here sees the other side I have already said that I believe that there is something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark indeed ( let's use your tradition and leave mine alone for a change) but I cannot join you Mr. Coghill, I cannot. You are an extremist. Personally I hate political extremism, as Beleth said to the other thread you resemble to the suicide terrorists. But on the issue of your challenge I have several points to make and I will do it to the other thread.

Did you read what Soapy Sam said? I am afraid that he is right.
 
To soapy Sam:

RE the Grid, well let's start with this table shall we?

The salaries of the directors:

Table 1A
Executive Directors
Year ended
31 March
2003 Year ended
31 March
2003


Base Annual Termination Benefits
salary bonus payments in kind (i) Total Total (ii)
£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000



Roger Urwin 600 300 – 24 924 794
Steve Lucas 315 164 – 18 497 423
Edward Astle (iii) 325 266 – 15 606 284
Steve Holliday 325 169 – 23 517 444
Rick Sergel 519 219 – 17 755 728
John Wybrew 360 176 – 28 564 500
Stephen Box (resigned 21/10/2002) (iv) 233 111 4 13 361 532
William Davis (resigned 21/10/2002) 301 10 – 5 316 139



Totals 2,978 1,415 4 143 4,540 3,844

I dont know how to make it into the table format it came from, but all the figures are £000s. E.g. Roger Urwin was paid £924,000 last year.
 
The National Grid Transco group turnover was £9.4 billion in 2002/3 , and its operating profit was over £2, 185 million. Cash inflow exceeded £3 billion during that period.

This gives you a general idea iof the size of the group.
 
To Cleopatra: I didn't bring politics into this arena, only science. The other posts initiated discussions about things like motive, politics, avarice, etc., and charged me with these stigmata. Most of my posts have concerned the scientific issues, and aimed to provide well documented, peer reviewed support for the concerns I am raising here.

However, since these other issues were raised I have dealt with them. Call me extremist if you will (another stigma!) but I am genuinely trying to do something about a serious public problem by researching treatments for ill health, against a background where all establishment approaches have abysmally failed: we are down to our last antibiotic, and MRSA (methicin resistant staphylococcus aureus) is rife throughout British and other hospitals, to the extent that one can go in with a broken leg and come out with an incurable infection. There has been no improvement in cancer incidence or treatment in the last thirty years, and all present interventions do not address the problem of metastasis. Meanwhile the UK cancer statistics are being manipulated to disguise this problem to the extent that when the chief UK statistical officer tried to complain about these imposed distortions he too lost his job. (I mean Prof Michel Coleman for the avoidance of doubt).

We are losing the battle against cancer, despite Nixon's 1960s initiative. Millions of US and UK people suffer serious sleep disturbances, arguably due to EMF. Myalgias and immune related disorders are increasing inexorably. The NHS (National Health Service) is in crisis: more more and patients, fewer beds.

The one to ten chances are, Cleopatra, you will develop breast cancer by the time you are fifty. After that there is a one in three chance you will prematurely die of cancer. Wouldn't you like someone to find a solution to this increasingly global problem of industrialised society?

Extreme problems require extreme measures. The non-extremists, with their comfortable lifestyles dependent on not rocking the boat, have failed their society. I do not intend to fail.

Sorry if all that bores you stiff, but it is interesting to most reasonable people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom