cogreslab said:
"I have demanded you prove your claims about electromagnetics".
Apart from a trivial argument over the timing of when an RF signal collapses (which was a diversionary pedantism) my electromagnetics is OK, and you have not been able to challenge any of the facts: the main point in these is that the ELF electric component differs from the magnetic in terms of people's exposure to EMF, that being in the near field it has no relation to the magnetic component, The electric field is there all the time the circuit is live, whereas the magnetic is only there when the circuit is under load. You have not denied either that there has been precious little research into the effects of the electric field, (in my view deliberately).
Cr*p! As usual!
I'm not going to let you divert attention by re-addressing every issue. They are there in the record for all to see. You were wrong on numerous counts and I presented the evidence that PROVED you were wrong. Instead you ducked the issue by asserting over and over again something unrelated and insisting that it WAS related.
If someone states that a green car is travelling at 50 mph, and I say, "no, the car is red", your argument that it is green is NOT proved by continuously asserting that it is travelling at 50mph! The speed at which the car travels has NO relevance to what colour it is. So let me summarise the argument about electric fields and magnetic fields in the absence of current.
YOU: A changing electric field does NOT create a magnetic field if current is not drawn.
ME: A changing electric field creates a magnetic field IRRESPECTIVE of whether a current is drawn or not.
YOU: I present evidence that a current creates a magnetic field.
ME: But a changing electric field also causes a magnetic field, it is independent of current.
YOU: I present evidence that a current creates a magnetic field.
ME: That is irrelevant. I'm not talking about currents, I'm talking about electric fields.
YOU: I present evidence that a current creates a magnetic field. (repeated ad-nauseum...)
One doesn't have to be Einstein to see the pattern there, or the utter logical fallacy of your alleged argument. You ducked the issue as always. You are intellectually dishonest sir!
cogreslab said:
I also showed that ELF fields can penetrate the body, and had you wished to debate that would have brought in Gandhi's and other work for you to look at.
No you didn't! You ASSERTED that an LF electric field can penetrate the body. Hans gave you the scientific reasons why it could not. And as usual you continued to repeat your assertion ad-nauseum. You SHOWED nothing. Your ASSERTIONS are NOT facts.
cogreslab said:
Also waiting in the wings are a large number of studies reporting adverse effects on health at the sort of levels of electric field strength found in homes, offices and factories.
That was the outline of my case and you have been totally unsuccessful in trying to topple it.
Who CARES?! I said clearly several times that I accepted that such fields COULD have adverse effects. I came to that conclusion long before I ever encountered you or your facile arguments. I have done NOTHING to attempt to "topple" that case. I have challenged YOUR knowledge and understanding of basic high school physics.
cogreslab said:
That was all I needed to "prove" in order to make my case that weak ELF electric fields are harmful to health, and that the regulatory authorities need to lower their guidelines drastically. .
By contrast you asked for the evidence backing these claims and I guess that by now I have provided you with towards fifty good quality scientific studies in support. If in your version of science you pay no attention to these that's not my problem, because everyone else reading this thread (some 10,000 views) do regard published scientific studies as supporting a scientific argument.
More cr*p! I NEVER asked for ANY evidence backing any claim that ELF electric fields are harmful to health. I didn't NEED to ask for any evidence because I already believed that it was true before encountering you or this thread. And nothing you have done has convinced me any MORE of the case I accepted from the outset. If anything you have WEAKENED my belief in the case because now I realise that if any of the studies that I previously accepted were peformed by people like YOU, then their science may not be as solid as I thought it was. Congratulations Roger, you have converted a believer in your case into a skeptic!
cogreslab said:
Now the scientific argument has gone against you, you resort to attacking the words on my website, my product lines, the court case whose consequences pivotably improved protection of the public, and any shred of evidence you can dredge from other sites misquoting us, in order to look respectable.
I suggest you give yourself a vestige of respect by climbing down from the mast (or gumtree) up which you now sit, and continue the scientific debate, thereby restoring some credibility to your character. While you are doing that, since it is Sunday, I have other things to do.
It is irrelevant whether or not *I* "look respectable, and I would daresay that most on here would not question MY respectability on the basis of what they have seen. What matters is whether YOU are respectable, and the evidence thus far does not look promising. No, I will NOT be diverted by your silly rhetoric from properly investigating you and your agenda.
Whadda bunch of Nellys!