Bioelectromagnetics

[cogreslab]

Having cited the last refernce I note nevertheless that few epi studies have measured ELF electric fields: the London, Thomas study in S California only measured spot measurements, the Savitz study (1988) gave up trying to measure period measurements, and the UKCCCR study reported only spot and TWA 48 hr measurements, none of which are representative of bedplace exposure. We are going to ask UKCCCR to either give us the data for re-analysis or re-analyse it meaningfully.

Part of the reason why there are so few E-field studies is that EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), the consortium of power utilities who supply EMDEX EMF measuring instruments (commonly used by epi studies because they are always donated free) are incapable of measuring E fields without costly modification. We believe this was a deliberate ploy to avoid E-field research.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*


Discussion

The results on the whole showed a fair agreement between the instruments, though differences were observed which may be due to differences in the physical sensor configurations and their size relative the kettle lead being measured. For example, the analogue sensor was encased so that readings at the kettle lead surface were not possible so close to the source of interest. The magnetic field readings demonstrate that there is no identifiable magnetic field around the lead when the kettle is not under load other than the fields ambient in the room, whereas there is an evident ELF electric field present in all cases except when the lead is physically detached from the mains supply.

The figures at discrete distances tend to show the effect of the inverse square rule, both for the electric and the magnetic but there was not sufficient statistical power in the data to test this rule definitively, and a separate exercise would be needed to confirm the observed trend.

Conclusions

This small study supports the assertion of WHO (see their website) that electric fields are present in cables attached to the mains even when their associated appliances are not under load. The implications for these findings is that future epidemiological studies should take the measured ELF electric field into account when assessing potential health hazard.

Note: These tables haven't come out well. Does anyone know how a Forum post can handle tables better?

I especially like the reference to the weather being fair .

What exactly was the purpose of this experiment? I'm asking, because the result is obvious, and consistent with theory. A live wire will have an electric field around it, and since the circuit breaker is situated in the kettle, the plugged-in wire will be live.

Has anybody, ever, claimed that a live wire would not have an electric field? The big question here is whether such a field has any health impact or not.

Hans

 

[cogreslab]

To Hans: The purpose of this little exercise was to confirm that the WHO website was correct in its claims, which had been in part disputed by other posts. If the electric field is present all the time while domestic circuits are live, and magnetic fields are only present when devices are under load, it means that chronic exposure to electric fields should be taken on board when conducting epi studies evaluating relationships between exposure and health. This has only been done properly in a study we published in 1996, since the only other three published residential studies reporting E-fields at best only took spot measurements or diluted period measurements.

Because at ELF frequencies there is no relationship between these two components all the magnetic field studies can say nothing about the impact of the electric field.

I believe that the NRPB and the utilties are well aware of this gap in knowledge, but have deliberately avoided E-field research.

We found a nigh five fold incidence of childhood cancer where the mean exposure to E-fields in the case bedplace (arguably the chief domestic source of exposure) was 20 V/m or more, with good confidence intervals.

Whilst the magnetic field levels at which incidence elevation occurs (c. 0.4uT) is comparatively rare in homes, the level of 20 V/m is very common in homes, since "near appliances the electric field strength can be several hundred volts per metre" (quote from NRPB). BY avoiding E-fields and concentrating only on magnetic field studies (e.g. using EMDEX instruments) the establishment makes it seem that there is little risk of cancer from ELF EM field exposure. I disagree: IMHO it commonly affects infants producing SIDS, and children , producing several hundred cancer cases each year, and probably also affects adults too, to judge from the many peer reviewed papers reporting associations between comparatively high EMF exposure and serious ill health.

Our 1996 study data was checked by the man who is now head of the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit, John Steward, who appears as co-author of our paper. We asked for an independent lab to replicate this study, but no one has ever done so.

There is a mighty attempted establishment cover up of this important finding, IMHO.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[cogreslab]

The statement about clear weather was to establish there were no electrical storms ongoing at the time of the measurements, which might have perturbed the results.

 

[Prester John]

Posted by cogreslab

We found a nigh five fold incidence of childhood cancer where the mean exposure to E-fields in the case bedplace (arguably the chief domestic source of exposure) was 20 V/m or more, with good confidence intervals. The data was checked by the man who is now head of the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit, John Steward, who appears as co-author of our paper.

apologies if i have missed it earlier in the thread but have you the full reference for this?

 

[cogreslab]

To Prester John: Below is the abstract of my study taken from Entrez Pubmed:

Eur J Cancer Prev. 1996 Jun;5(3):153-8.

Comment in:
Eur J Cancer Prev. 1997 Feb;6(1):93-5.

Extra low frequency electric and magnetic fields in the bedplace of children diagnosed with leukaemia: a case-control study.

Coghill RW, Steward J, Philips A.

Coghill Research Laboratories, Gwent, UK.

This retrospective case-control study of 56 cases and 56 controls measured extra low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields between 2000 h and 0800 h in the bedplaces of children with leukaemia. Mean ELF electric field (E-field) levels found in case homes of 13.9 Vm-1 (SD: 13.6) were significantly higher (P < 0.01) compared with only 7.3 Vm-1 (SD: 12.9) in controls matched for age and sex. Moreover, applying conditional logistic regression, a dose-response relationship emerged between E-field exposure and incidence: above 20 Vm-1 the relative risk was 4.69 (95% CI: 1.17-27.78; P = 0.025), whereas at levels of 10-19 Vm-1 it was 2.40 (95% CI: 0.79-8.09) and at levels of 5-9 Vm-1 it was only 1.46 (95% CI: 0.47-5.10). By contrast, similar readings of the rms ELF magnetic field found no significant case-control differences: mean levels in cases' homes of 0.070 microT (SD: 0.070) compared with 0.057 microT (SD: 0.038) in controls. Although there were imperfections in the study design, it is concluded that the importance of the E-field may have been overlooked in epidemiological studies to date.

PMID: 8818603 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Prester John]

Thankyou, yes i think you referenced it earlier:

Mean ELF electric field (E-field) levels found in case homes of 13.9 Vm-1 (SD: 13.6) were significantly higher (P < 0.01) compared with only 7.3 Vm-1 (SD: 12.9) in controls matched for age and sex

The Mean Electric Fields of 13.9 with a standard deviation of 13.6 in the test group, compared to 7.3 with a standard deviation of 12.9! in the control group seem very close, despite the statisitical significance.

1) How can the control group have an exposure of 7.3, with SD of 12.9, can you have negative values of exposure?

2) If the confidence intervals overlap then surely this suggests that there is no practical difference, the SD overlap significantly.

3) What is the practical difference between 13.9 and 7.3 Vm-1 ? What are the normal ranges of exposure ?

Moreover, applying conditional logistic regression, a dose-response relationship emerged between E-field exposure and incidence: above 20 Vm-1 the relative risk was 4.69 (95% CI: 1.17-27.78; P = 0.025), whereas at levels of 10-19 Vm-1 it was 2.40 (95% CI: 0.79-8.09) and at levels of 5-9 Vm-1 it was only 1.46 (95% CI: 0.47-5.10).

NB : All the CI overlap, and given the small sample size, this surely suggests that the results should be looked with caution.

Incidentally i would not live in a house near any major electrical system, my personal precautionary principle

 

[MRC_Hans]

To Hans: The purpose of this little exercise was to confirm that the WHO website was correct in its claims, which had been in part disputed by other posts. If the electric field is present all the time while domestic circuits are live, and magnetic fields are only present when devices are under load, it means that chronic exposure to electric fields should be taken on board when conducting epi studies evaluating relationships between exposure and health.

Right. I expected that, of course, but since this thread has become unreasonably long, it was nice to have it recapitulated. After all, electrical fields is a major agenda for you.

This has only been done properly in a study we published in 1996, since the only other three published residential studies reporting E-fields at best only took spot measurements or diluted period measurements.

Yes, I read your report, but to be perfectly frank, it has very little research value (I'm sure you are already aware of the objections raised against your methods). The only reasonably indisputable result of it is that the electric field varies greatly from place to place (something I could have told you long before 1996).

Because at ELF frequencies there is no relationship between these two components all the magnetic field studies can say nothing about the impact of the electric field.

Actually, that does not follow. You have yourself, somewhere upstream in this thread, acknowledged that the only way an electric field can impact biological functions is by causing a current to flow in the living tissue. Thus, we can assess the possibility of an electric field to do this, and we will find that it is orders of magnitude below that of a magnetic field.

I believe that the NRPB and the utilties are well aware of this gap in knowledge, but have deliberately avoided E-field research.

We found a nigh five fold incidence of childhood cancer where the mean exposure to E-fields in the case bedplace (arguably the chief domestic source of exposure) was 20 V/m or more, with good confidence intervals.

Your study does not prove causality.

Whilst the magnetic field levels at which incidence elevation occurs (c. 0.4uT) is comparatively rare in homes, the level of 20 V/m is very common in homes, since "near appliances the electric field strength can be several hundred volts per metre" (quote from NRPB).

Obviously, such values (hundreds of V/M) can only be reached very near to installations and applications (with exception of CRTs), within few centimetres.

BY avoiding E-fields and concentrating only on magnetic field studies (e.g. using EMDEX instruments) the establishment makes it seem that there is little risk of cancer from ELF EM field exposure. I disagree: IMHO it commonly affects infants producing SIDS, and children , producing several hundred cancer cases each year, and probably also affects adults too, to judge from the many peer reviewed papers reporting associations between comparatively high EMF exposure and serious ill health.

Our 1996 study data was checked by the man who is now head of the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit, John Steward, who appears as co-author of our paper. We asked for an independent lab to replicate this study, but no one has ever done so.

Perhaps because your study was so flawed?

There is a mighty attempted establishment cover up of this important finding, IMHO.

I hope this answers your question.

To elaborate a bit on this:

We seem to agree that what counts is the ability of a field to cause current to flow in the body.

Since the body has a relatively high conductivity, it will mainly be magnetic fields that can do this. The figures for electrical field strenght can seem dramatic, but reality is that the energy that can be transferred via those fields is very low at the frequencies in question. Furthermore, our bodies being "bags of ionic fluids" (your own words), electric fields have very little capacity for penetrating anything but the topmost layers of the skin. In effect, the body is its own faraday cage.

So, I suggest that when most studies ignore the electric fields it is because of the realisation that any effect from it must be orders of magnitude lower than that of the magnetic field. And since the possible effects of magnetic fields keep hovering around the level of noise, it does not seem to make much sense to use time on electric fields.

.... Unless you can suggest some other mode of effect?

Hans

Edited for various errors and lack of clarity.

 

[cogreslab]

No, Hans: If you measure e.g. the ELF electric field inside an upper bedroom under a 275 kV powerline (not the highest value around) you will still find a 70 V/m field. Try using your probe e.g. near an electrically heated aquarium: the fields are over 50 V/m perhaps 2 metres away, and so on. Near a domestic hot water heating system similarly there are fields in excess of 20V/m several metres distant. I know this through having made hundreds of measurements (five cases of cot death were near such appliances or electrically heated water beds). It is your knowledge not my study which is flawed through your not having ever made such measurements.

As regards the large SDs I agree they are large, but the statistical significance is still there because the data was so strong. Pragmatist challenged the views of the WHO saying they were not experts in physics, and now you appear to be saying that the methodology of the Head of Cancer stats for Wales is wrong. What's with you guys? Do you have some agenda here?

Furthermore, no epi study can ever prove causality, merely association. The two fold difference between the cases and controls in my study compares with average fields in a home between 1-10 V/m, according to our dearly beloved Sir Richard Doll. I do not (on this rare occasion) disagree with him. As for your comments on how statistics (including 95%CI ), are compiled and what they mean you will find these questions answered in any statistics primer. The important thing is that our 95CI did not pass through one, in the vital test.

But to cut to the meat of your post: tell me what are the objections and how was our methodology flawed? It cuts little ice to post unsupported value judgements like that without backing them up. If you rely on the NRPB or the NCI comments on our study they were deliberately inaccurate, and it will give me some pleasure to take those comments apart, so fire away! And finally I would remind you that our study was the only one from the UK accepted for inclusion in one of the two major published meta-analyses of these issues. (They rejected the National Grid study, because the NG refused to cooperate with the authors).

 

[cogreslab]

Hans said: "Actually, that does not follow. You have yourself, somewhere upstream in this thread, acknowledged that the only way an electric field can impact biological functions is by causing a current to flow in the living tissue. Thus, we can assess the possibility of an electric field to do this, and we will find that it is orders of magnitude below that of a magnetic field".

I do not think that is the only possible mechanism of interaction actually. That it is orders of magnitude lower than the magnetic field inside the body is also untrue. (See Om Gandhi's work on endogenous electric fields in comparison with exogenous accessed via Entrez Pubmed). There are many examples of sensitivity to electric fields in the animal kingdom, at levels far below those measured or calculated inside the human body as a result of ELF exposure. And do not foget that electric fields are superpositive, so it is plausible they may perturb existing life processes based on electron transport.

This thread is longer than it need be because of the stupid attempt to hijack it by posts like those of Bouncer BIll and some others.

 

[Pragmatist]

But to cut to the meat of your post: tell me what are the objections and how was our methodology flawed? It cuts little ice to post unsupported value judgements like that without backing them up. And I would remind you that our study was the only one from the UK accepted for inclusion in one of the two major published meta-analyses of these issues. (They rejected the National Grid study, because the NG refused to cooperate with the authors).

Good idea, let's cut to the meat of ALL the postings.

Roger, time and again you resort to evasion tactics to try and change the subject, focus attention away from the inadequacy of your scientific knowledge, and one way or another to try and push YOUR agenda.

Some people may fall for these tactics, I don't, and luckily nor do most on here. But in case anyone HAS been fooled I'm going to spell it out and I am going to do it in more than one post so you can't avoid it by only addressing the least significant point in a multi-point post.

A summary of The Coghill Technique, with selected examples - there are many more examples than the ones below throughout the thread.

1) When questioned about A answer about B and hope that nobody notices the difference. In answer to a technical question about the magnetic field IN a kettle lead you address the issue of a electric field OUTSIDE the lead.

2) Related to the above, misrepresent the original question. In the case of the kettle lead, keep repeating that the original query related to the WHO to divert attention from the fact it relates to a specific technical claim made by you.

3) Divert the questioner to a third party to avoid responsibility. For example, when questioned about EMF's and health divert the question to Moulder. When questioned about the kettle lead, divert the question to the WHO.

4) Use technical Bullsh*t to confuse the audience. A classic, "the curl is only there to balance the equation". Translation: I haven't a clue how to read/handle equations and I hope you don't either.

5) Appeal to authority and remind everyone of your credentials. When your lack of knowledge leaves you high and dry remind everyone that you have various degrees, a million dollar lab etc., and maintain that your status is higher than that of the questioner so whatever the questioner says must be wrong.

6) When cornered, attack the questioner. Become abusive, and/or accuse the questioner of being part of some global conspiracy against you.

7) Quote irrelevent material ad nauseum. Quote pages and pages of totally irrelevant material and hope the questioner goes to sleep and stops bothering for an answer.

This list is by no means comprehensive!

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, Hans: If you measure e.g. the ELF electric field inside an upper bedroom under a 275 kV powerline (not the highest value around) you will still find a 70 V/m field. Try using your probe e.g. near an electrically heated aquarium: the fields are over 50 V/m perhaps 2 metres away, and so on. Near a domestic hot water heating system similarly there are fields in excess of 20V/m several metres distant. I know this through having made hundreds of measurements (five cases of cot death were near such appliances or electrically heated water beds). It is your knowledge not my study which is flawed through your not having ever made such measurements.

You were mentioning hundreds of V/M coming from household appliances. The figures you now mention look quite probable, but that was not what I was commenting. Unless you take special precautions to identify the source, e.g. by switching it on and off, it makes no sense to measure fields several meters from any appliance in a normal household as the fields from various installations will be overlapping and interfering. And yes, I have been measuring such fields.

*snip*

But to cut to the meat of your post: tell me what are the objections and how was our methodology flawed? It cuts little ice to post unsupported value judgements like that without backing them up. If you rely on the NRPB or the NCI comments on our study they were deliberately inaccurate, and it will give me some pleasure to take those comments apart, so fire away!

Well, I was only trying to be polite, since I'm sure you have heard it all before, but by all means:

I read your study and formed my own opinion.

1) Your active group is not representative. You aquired that group through advertizing for patients. In other words, there is a high probability that the selection favored patients where exposure to electric fields was suspected. The correct method would be to select subjects randomly among all known patients.

2) The whole approach is upside down. You select two groups that you a priori know to be different, then select a single parameter and compare it. That approach is only permissible (and barely even then) if there are already other evidence pointing strongly t oan assosiation between those two, essentially random, factors you have elected to compare. You have conceded above that this study cannot show causality, but nevertheless you keep referring to it as evidence for electric fields causing damage.

3) The recording of electric fields was not blinded. Together with the fact that there was no strictly standardized way of measuring, this gives broad room for observer bias. Electrical fields vary greatly over small distances and with polarity (as evidenced by the very big standard deviations on your data).

I am aware that other criticism has been levelled at the study, too, but the problems I mention above are more than enough to explan the results you got.


Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

To Hans: The purpose of this little exercise was to confirm that the WHO website was correct in its claims, which had been in part disputed by other posts.

NO!!!! NOBODY disputed "the claims of the WHO".

YOU tried to divert attention to the WHO in order to avoid facing the fact that YOU had made a specific claim that was technically wrong.

I refer you to your original claim that: "a kettle lead has no magnetic field in it, when the kettle isn't drawing current".

My response: "I dispute that, it is technically wrong".

YOU brought the WHO into it. Please show a direct and unambiguous proof that the WHO made the claim that "a kettle lead has NO magnetic field IN it when the kettle isn't drawing current".

The fact that the WHO claimed that a kettle lead has an external magnetic field around it when the kettle is drawing current (which is true), is NOT mutually exclusive to the above, and it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the above question. It does not contradict the above statement, nor is it relevant in any way.

I specifically said that I did not dispute the (limited) statements of the WHO that you quoted.

This has nothing to do with the WHO. You made a false technical claim and I require you to prove it or admit you were wrong.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans said: "Actually, that does not follow. You have yourself, somewhere upstream in this thread, acknowledged that the only way an electric field can impact biological functions is by causing a current to flow in the living tissue. Thus, we can assess the possibility of an electric field to do this, and we will find that it is orders of magnitude below that of a magnetic field".

I do not think that is the only possible mechanism of interaction actually.

Well, that was what you said earlier.

That it is orders of magnitude lower than the magnetic field inside the body is also untrue. (See Om Gandhi's work on endogenous electric fields in comparison with exogenous accessed via Entrez Pubmed).

Simple calculations will show that it is. I'm talking the fields you find in a normal household here.

There are many examples of sensitivity to electric fields in the animal kingdom, at levels far below those measured or calculated inside the human body as a result of ELF exposure.

I assume you are right, although I cannot at present think of any. But the fact that some creatures are able to sense it is in no evidence for the thesis that they cause damage. There are also creatures that are extremely sensitive to, say, IR radiation.

And do not foget that electric fields are superpositive,

In what way do you mean?

so it is plausible they may perturb existing life processes based on electron transport.

Which is the same as current. Now, do you suggest the mechanism is current, or do you not?

This thread is longer than it need be because of the stupid attempt to hijack it by posts like those of Bouncer BIll and some others.

Which is why I suggested starting fresh threads, but you rejected that. As long as you insist on having all communication in one single thread, it is bound to become muddled.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
I refer you to your original claim that: "a kettle lead has no magnetic field in it, when the kettle isn't drawing current".

*snip*

Uhh, apart from semantic details, like the use of the word "in", the statement is basically correct. A strictly correct version would be: "A kettle lead does not generate a magnetic field when the kettle is not drawing current."

This applies universally to any conductor (not just kettle leads ).

Hans

 

[Pragmatist]

Uhh, apart from semantic details, like the use of the word "in", the statement is basically correct. A strictly correct version would be: "A kettle lead does not generate a magnetic field when the kettle is not drawing current."

This applies universally to any conductor (not just kettle leads ).

Hans

Thanks Hans,

I maintain it is NOT correct. It's obvious that some are not following the argument I am making and so I need to restate it more clearly. The point I'm trying to make may seem to be a very picky pedantic point, but in reality it has much more significance than appears at first sight to the issues that Roger is trying to raise. But before I can make the wider point I need people to realise the truth of this one.

Let's take this one simple step at a time and see if we can reach agreement step by step - would you please bear with me on this one?

A generalised description of a capacitor is two conductors separated by an insulator. In practice a physical capacitor usually consists of two metal plates with some dielectric material between them. But it is also true that a multicore wire such as a kettle lead is also a form of (weak) capacitor is it not? I mean there are two conductors, let's say the live and neutral. They are not connected together as that would be a dead short. They are typically separated by plastic which is a dielectric material.

With me so far? Do you disagree with any of the above?

Therefore I maintain that a kettle lead must have capacitance (between the live and neutral or live and earth etc). This capacitance may be very small but it is there nonetheless. So in effect a kettle lead can act as a capacitor.

True or false? Do you agree with the above?

Thanks. If you wouldn't mind answering the above, I can then proceed to the next step.

 

[cogreslab]

TO Hans: As usual a load of invective, and then the astonishing statement "I was only trying to be polite", when Hans, you were clearly trying to be rude, and to deflect readers attention from my argument. Most readers of this thread will have seen that in virtually all cases I have given a straight answer to the many abusive questions posted. I don't intend to be drawn into further diversion, so let me instead address the criticisms you have put forward regarding my study.

You raise three criticisms (and then claim others unspecified, as a catch all).

Let's take your first criticism:

"1) Your active group is not representative. You acquired that group through advertizing for patients. In other words, there is a high probability that the selection favored patients where exposure to electric fields was suspected. The correct method would be to select subjects randomly among all known patients".

This is not correct: we began by acquiring cases from the Wessex Health Authority until they were told by LRF not to help us, or lose their own project funding for the UKCCCR study. (I still have a copy of the letter in my files). The second group of cases were acquired at random from a distinct geographical area in the database of a charity, none of whom had any idea whatsoever of the electric or magnetic fields in their homes. Virtually none of the final candidates were living near overt sources of EMF. To gain as many cases as possible in this pilot study we went on a TV programme and acquired a few more cases that way, but not many. To suggest that this group is biased is nonsense. If anything it illustrates that the establishment from the outset was sufficiently concerned at what we might find they deliberately tried to hinder the study. All these methods of candidate acquisition are seen commonly in epi studies.

I will now try to deal with your second criticism, before time penalties stop me, but should that happen I will continue with a separate post. (There is no attempt at subterfuge, i had to attend to arrangements for delivery of our new GC?MS?MS machjine).

2) The whole approach is upside down. You select two groups that you a priori know to be different, then select a single parameter and compare it. That approach is only permissible (and barely even then) if there are already other evidence pointing strongly t oan assosiation between those two, essentially random, factors you have elected to compare. You have conceded above that this study cannot show causality, but nevertheless you keep referring to it as evidence for electric fields causing damage.

 

[Pragmatist]

Roger: You may be interested in a study I did which I feel is comparable to yours in terms of informational value:

Study of Gravitational Fields

By the Garbage Man, BS (think bull!), MSc (Master of Scandals)

1. Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the proposition that gravitational vector fields influence the spacial displacement and potential and kinetic energies of masses within them.

2. Experimental Conditions

A planetary body consisting of a substantial mass was obtained. It was hypothesized that said body produced a gravitational vector field of magnitude proportional to said mass and directed along a line subtended by the geometric centre of said body and which intersects normally with the surface plane of said body at any given point on said plane. It was further hypothesized that said field extends to infinity and that the total effective field at any given point displaced above the surface of said body could be represented by a surface integral of a unit vector.

An edifice was located on the surface of the planetary body. This edifice consisted of a number of levels, which shall be represented by the numbers 1 to 100 respectively. Each level is displaced above the body by a distance defined by the floor of said level relative to a tangent plane at the foot of the edifice tangent to the surface of the planetary body and tangent at a point which is geometrically central to the lower surface of said edifice. Therefore each level has a greater relative displacement to the tangent plane of the planetary body than the last, and the increase in displacement is linear in accordance with the numbering of said levels multiplied by a displacement constant representing the relative spacial displacement of one level to the other along a line drawn normal to the tangent plane.

At each level an aperture was located in the outer surface of the edifice. This aperture was cleared of obstructions and a small mass of organic material belonging to the species Cucurbita Pepo was placed outside the edifice through the aperture, such that it was located at a net displacement from the tangent plane with no intervening masses. This process was repeated for each level of the edifice.

3. Results

The data are presented in Fig 1.

It was observed that in each case, the test mass would spontaneously accelerate along a trajectory described by a line subtended by the geometric centre of the planetary body and normal to the surface of the tangent plane at the base of the edifice.

It was further observed that in all cases the test body would impact the surface of the planetary body at a time t which was proportional to the net initial displacement from the tangent plane, with a velocity that was also proportional to said displacement.

In all cases there was a severe disruption of the structural integrity of the test mass upon impact and said disruption increased with increasing initial displacement. It was further observed that the entropic state of the surface of the planetary body increased imediately following each impact. Further studies need to be performed to assess the wider implications of this factor which is outside the scope of this study.

4. Implications

By extrapolating the data obtained for Cucurbita Pepo to the human body, there is a significant statistical correlation that potentially has grave implications for human health. It is hypothesized that the structural integrity of the human body may experience similar disruption under such circumstances as the test mass, and this is a matter which should be addressed by competent authorities forthwith.

5. Conclusions

It is concluded that there is indeed a force of the nature of a gravitational field vector emanating from planetary bodies.


6. Recommendations

It is strongly recommended that people avoid situations in which they displace themselves above the surface of a planetary body without the benefit of restraining devices that offset the force leading to gravitational acceleration. It is further recommended that people avoid displacing themselves through apertures at higher levels of edifices into free space as the evidence suggests that there is a severe risk to health in doing so.

Tha author of this report wishes to acknowledge that this study was funded by the Federal Union of Garbage Collectors and gratefully thanks them for their cooperation, without which this comprehensive study could not have been performed.

----------------------------------------------------------

Impressive huh?

Rough translation of the above:

We live on earth. There are multi story buildings on earth. There is also gravity. Things fall down under the influence of gravity.

Somebody threw pumpkins out of the windows of a multi storey building. The pumpkins splatted when they hit the ground. They also made a big mess.

The higher up the pumpkin was thrown from, the bigger the splat and the bigger the mess.

We recommend that people do not throw themselves out of the windows of high buildings because they'll probably end up splatted just like the pumpkins. We think throwing yourself off high buildings could be a health hazard.

What this report proved was that things fall down when they are thrown out of windows.

----------------------------------------------------------

Don't you all feel better for knowing these facts? I mean who would have guessed?

 

[Cleopatra]

May I pose a question? I have followed this thread really carefully so far and I find disturbing the fact the we have ended up discussing basic things. Why this has happened?

Is the issue we examine basic in terms of science or there is ego involved? Sorry for the question but I needed to pose it .

 

[cogreslab]

To MRC HANS: I now respond to your second criticism

You said:


"2) The whole approach is upside down. You select two groups that you a priori know to be different, then select a single parameter and compare it. That approach is only permissible (and barely even then) if there are already other evidence pointing strongly to an association between those two, essentially random, factors you have elected to compare. You have conceded above that this study cannot show causality, but nevertheless you keep referring to it as evidence for electric fields causing damage.


My comments:

All case control studies elect two groups known beforehand to be different, namely the people with the condition (the cases) and those without it (the controls). This is standard epidemiology and not "upside down" a term which I do not understand in this context. Nor did we compare only one parameter, but several, including temperature, humidity, and light intensity during the exposure period. We also attempted to control for age, gender, and socio economic status. The controls were not selected by us, incidentally. Nor was there any way in which choice of the cases could be biased. We began expecting the promised cooperation of an individual claiming tom know a large number of cases in one geographical area, but this turned out not to be the case. We then turned to the Wessex Health Authority who agreed to help, but after some way into the study advised us that they had been told that if they continued to help us they would lose their funding for the UKCCCR project . This stinks, but it is the truth, and in due course the people responsible will be named and unfrocked in open Court by my documentary evidence.

So we then got help from a charity and the all cases provided were accepted into the study if they fulfilled the entry criteria (e.g. date of diagnosis) , and these were again selected at random by the charity from a defined geographical area to avoid bias. Finally after appearing on a morning TV programme to talk about our project we obtained a very few more cases from the same geographical area, but in no way enough to bias the selection. Your accusation that we biased the study selectively is therefore entirely without foundation. Your suggestion that people only volunteered if they were living near powerlines is also unfounded, since only a few of the 56 cases exhibited such situations, and the majority of the high fields measured in case bedplaces were from appliances or other internal sources, rather than from powerlines or substations, as we later discovered. Finally the two chief factors examined, electric fields and magnetic fields, are strongly related yet randomly so at ELF frequencies, so your last point here is also rubbish.

We could not have predicted or engineered the strong dose response relationship which emerged from our study. Few of those collecting the data were known to each other, moreover, some being from Wessex Health Authority and some from the charity. When I first presented these data in a BEMS poster, I remember Ray Neutra (a well known BEMS researcher) came up to me and pointed out what a strong D/R relationship our study showed, since at that time we had not had the figures analysed. I was quite surprised at the time, I recall. So your allegation of deliberate bias is rubbish.

Let me now address your point about causality, and I refer you back to Bradford Hill’s famous list. Epidemiology by itself cannot confirm causality, which depends on the strength of the association, the persistence of the effect over a number of studies, a plausible biological explanation, as well as in vitro and human studies etc. Only the totality of these can provide a causal relationship. I have elsewhere set out the other components of the argument that electric fields are an important bioeffector. But epidemiology is generally accepted, even by your friend Sir Richard Doll, as one of the strongest in Bradford Hill’s list. In summary your second point is balderdash. Go back to your paymasters and ask for a better bag of bullets.

You say you have yourself measured EMF. What instrument did you use, pray, and who gave it to you??