Bioelectromagnetics

R5:

(Was not your case "ejected from court," as the BBC put it?)

No. The case was heard in its entirety over a two day period.
 
R6:

(Did you not claim to the media that you spent over 20,000 pounds bringing the case to trial?)

No. In response to a question from a BBC reporter after the case I claimed that the case had probaly cost around £20,000. He/she never asked me if I would have to pay these costs myself, so I had no opportunity of explaining then that the costs were not for my settlement. AT the time I recall that I felt that this question was somewhat irrelevant and trivial compared with the far more important issue of cellphone safety, both then and now.
 
I wil stop the responses at this point to see if this procedure is working. Also there are things I must do tonight of importance.
 
cogreslab said:
R4:

(Do you acknowledge that radio waves continue to self-propagate long after the transmitter's power plug is pulled?)

I acknowledge that radio waves will continue to propagate through space at around the speed of light after the transmitter's power is collapsed, but these propagations will attenuate greatly, and not be long in detectable duration. If it were correct that they continue indefinitely as has been suggested so as to reach e.g. ACentauri some light years later, then all radio signals emitted on this planet since the first one would still be there and detectable, which they are not, so far as i know. But I don't beleive in ghosts, which I suppose is how these signals might be described, since I have no real evidence of the phenomenon.

I must add that I never disagreed with this view, i merely said that IMHO Moulder did not explain it very well, because I felt that people might construe his remarks as suggesting that they would still hear such signals later.
Click to expand...
This is becoming embarrassing. You persist in brandishing your lack of knowledge about electromagnetics, while trying desparately to veil it in what you think are fancy words, presumably hoping to impress the uninitiated. However, that tactic does not work here, sir.

1) Radio waves will propagate through space AT the speed of light.

2) The term "collapsed" is not used about turning off a transmitter.

3) The propagations are not attenuated. The signal is attenuated according to the inverse square law, possibly modified by the radiation characteristics of the arial. In plain English, that means that attenuation in a certain direction can be greatly reduced by a directional arial.

4) "not be long in detectable duration" This is nonsense, both grammatically and technically. The signals will continue for all eternity, although they will sooner or later be attenuated to a level that makes detection difficult (perhaps even impossible with current technology). Alpha Centaury is not an unlikely range for a powerful directional signal.

5) In principle all signals ever emitted still exist, but they are not HERE, they are up to (how long since is it, exactly?) about 100 LY away in space.

Why do you involve yourself in such discussions? After all, this is entirely irrelevant to you mission and only serves to repeatedly expose your ignorance?

Hans
 
Maybe it would be easier for all of us to follow the thread if we let Mr. Coghill to reply to all of the questions first and then respond to them.
 
Educate me:

"Radio waves will propagate through space AT the speed of light".

Do they move at the same speed through water as through air?
 
Educate me:

" In principle all signals ever emitted still exist, but they are not HERE, they are up to (how long since is it, exactly?) about 100 LY away in space".

So radio waves are not deflected by the ionosphere's layers?
 
Educate me:

"The signals will continue for all eternity, although they will sooner or later be attenuated to a level that makes detection difficult".

How long is "sooner or later" ?
 
R7:

(Did the court not order your side to pay the defendant's costs, as reported in the media?)

To be honest, I cannot remember, but it will presumably be in the court record. All I can say is that I personally paid no costs, and so far as I am aware the NRPB tendered none, nor did anyone else for that matter. Again I never thought this was of any importance compared with the issue of mobile phone safety.

Why is this so important to you?
 
R8:

(Do you not know worms are animals? (Acknowledged.)

Yes I know that worms are animals.

We have in our library The Biology of Earthworms, EDWARDS C. A. J.R. LOFTY , 2nd Ed. Chapman and Hall, London 1974.

I apologise for this error when trying to say that we do not as a policy conduct experiments on animals, except when in an attempt to assist their health, and under the supervision of a vet. We had excluded oligochaeta and other annelids from this policy. So far as I know earthworms are not treated by veterinarians.
 
Kettles and ELF fields

Just to clear up one point by empirical means:

"To example this for lay readers, if your electric kettle is connected to the mains, there will be no ELF magnetic field unless you switch on the kettle."

I just set up a kettle with a mains lead and a field detector of the type usually used to find cables in walls (a similar one can be seen at http://www.cie-ltd.co.uk/catalogue/power/9150.gif although this isn't quite the same model).

With the kettle plugged in and turned on, the detector indicated presence of an AC field (LED + warbling from speaker). With it turned off but still plugged in, the indication was the same. Unplugging the lead from the wall but leaving the kettle and detector in the same position gave no indication.

As far as I can tell by looking at the internals, the detector works by using a coil to pick up any ELF signals and amplifying them.

To me this is empirical evidence that there is an ELF (50Hz) magnetic field present even when the kettle is switched off.

First post by the way, this forum looks like an interesting place.
 
R9:

(Do you not know bacteria are not animals?)

Yes. Aerobic bacteria respire and have independent movement, as do animals, so might satisfy certain definitions of animal, but generally bacteria are not classified to the animal kingdom.
 
R11:

(On what basis do you make the following statement: "With a finite amount of carcinogen available, if cancer was caused by chemical interaction, then your carcinogen would run out and hey presto no more cancerous cells?")

I never said this. I think you must be confusing me with some other poster.
 
R12:

(If your claim about carcinogens were correct, then why isn't your solution to your supposed power-line-cancers simply to move away? Why will that not cure the cancer? )

Because the cells have shifted their metabolic pathway and are transformed. Sometimes however spontaneous remissions occur when the ox phos pathway is restored again in appropriate circumstances of plentiful oxygen bioavailablity peroxide free radical presence, and of course the absence of carcinogens such as ELF electric fields.
 
R13:

(What evidence do you have that "radio waves cause [AIDS] to happen... and the viruses are somehow transmitting itself through the sexual activity," as you've been quoted as saying?)

This is a complete misquotation, and is in no way representative of the correlation I reported between MW radiation and comparatively high percentages of registered AIDS people in major US cities.
 
Perhaps you should answer the questions i put to you. As i stated earlier q11 and 12 refer to questions i asked regarding your position on carcinogens. Namely if cancer is cause by carcinogens interacting with a cells metabolism, how do you explain in hereditary aspects of cancer? Both population (human) and cellular (ie daughter cells of cancerous cells are cancerous ?).

You seem to have gone quiet on this point, and it is somewhat of a defining aspect, that to be honest i should of realised earlier was the crucial point.

Do you like Simon and Garfunkel ? They did some good songs, maybe i'll tell you my favourite soon...
 
R14:

(What is your evidence that"[t]he frequencies mobile phones use [are] exactly identical to the frequencies with which human skull vibrates," as you've been quoted as saying?

It isn't an exact quote so far as I can remember, but if you allow that cellphones radiate at say 800 -950 MHz, and the diameter of an infant skull is 12 cm, this would be resonated by a wave of around 700MHz. The NRPB only recognises whole body resonances, which are much lower in frequency (say 40 MHz for an adult and 75Mhz for a 5 year old child: see NRPB Docs3(1) page 14), but in the opinion of some they should also be taking into account organ level resonances, which would be much higher.
 
cogreslab said:
Educate me:

"Radio waves will propagate through space AT the speed of light".

Do they move at the same speed through water as through air?
Click to expand...

You should learn to educate yourself instead of relying on us to do it!

Radio waves will propagate through free space at the speed of light.

The other answer depends on the theory you use. In classical electromagnetics it is assumed that light travels slower in water than in air. In Quantum Electrodynamics, it is stated that light travels always at the same speed in ANY medium, but that it's passage through a material substance is retarded in time because the wave is constantly absorbed and re-emitted by atoms of the material. The net result works out the same either way.

I thought you had physics books by Feynman? This is the heart of Feynman's own theory and should be in every one of his text books! Have you actually READ the book you have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom