Bioelectromagnetics

I will call this question 15 and my reply R15 for now, until incorporated into BB's schema.

R15:

"(from PJ: "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 caused 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 ?)".

I have no idea, because I have never looked into this aspect. I would speculate at this stage that transformed cells proliferate and copy their mutant DNA, and do not see how this is inconsistent with my hypothesis that cancer is a metabolic disorder. It may be that Szent Gyorgii had deliberated on this and I will have a look thorugh the papers.
 
To henryh:

I am not sure that your electrician's probe is going to give you accurate results, or what exactly it is measuring there. Our instruments were accurately calibrated and traceable to NPL standards less than two months previously.
 
To Cleopatra:

"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".

I will try to answer all the questions and each time will append to them an unique R number, together with the question in parentheses. Is that OK? I don't guarantee to answer them in the same order as the post, though, simply because i may not have seen them in any particular order.


__________________
 
To Prag:

Can I return to the issue of J C-M's equations?

R16:

Your point was:

"Let me choose just one, extremely simple point which is easily proved as it relates to mathematics which as we all know is a precise and unambiguous doctrine and therefore has no ambiguous answers. The comment of Roger I refer to is this one:

This is the correct view, and does not as it happens conflict with James Clerk Maxwell's fourth equation (Curl E = - dB/dt) since it is the curl which makes the equation balance not the simple E field".


The order of these equations varies bewteen textbooks, and in another I looked at it was given thrid place. However, the point I was trying to make is that a) equations are meant to balance on each side, and it was not the simple E field which equivalates to the change of magnetic field over unit time, but its curl, which can be equal to zero, In that case there is no change in the magnetic component. So an electric field can exist without a magnetic field.
 
O.K. If anyone wants the SCIENCE let me address/comment on each of Roger's direct, quoted statements below, that I quoted in the BS list. I will answer with a scientific rebuttal where possible.

In this way there will be NO excuse for anyone to claim the scientific validity of Roger's statements have not been addressed. My comments are in red.


1. your body's natural electric fields protect you against disease by improving the viability of your white blood cells! Look after your aura!

Scientific rebuttal: Pure speculation. Define "aura" in scientific terms. Prove that the claim is true.


2. The worms were monitored all the time, all were healthy and all were returned to the garden after the experiment with static magnets

BTW we don't do animal experiments in my laboratory

Translation: "We don't do animal experiments because after we experiment on the animals we return them to where we found them." Scientific rebuttal: a total contradiction.


3. you cannot argue that what may happen with a mammal when exposed will also happen with a human being.

Translation: A human is not a mammal. Scientific rebuttal: a human IS a mammal


4. Yes I concede that worms are animals really, and so are bacteria with which we also experiment.

Scientific rebuttal: Bacteria are NOT animals, they are prokaryotes


5. I concede there are a lot of people out there who have no real scientific understanding of homeopathy

Scientific rebuttal: there is no proof of homeopathy and that is why there is no scientific explanation of it. It is pseudoscientific garbage.


6. Animal experiments. "Things that look at you" was a quote from one of the Beatles, describing his refusal to eat such things. I agree the true definition of an animal is anything that breathes.

Scientific rebuttal: Plants breathe and they are NOT animals. This is BS.


7. Fact: there is no relation between the electric and the magnetic component at ELF frequencies, so no magnetic field study can say anything about the electric component.

Scientific rebuttal: this is NOT fact. It is completely wrong. There is ALWAYS a relation between mutually generated fields, and that relation is known as the impedance of the field. This relation does not break down with frequency, but it is more difficult to determine in the near field of an antenna where it depends on spacial position as well as other factors.


8. To answer your question directly, yes I believe that external electric fields can superpose on internal endogenous fields to the extent of disruption, based largely on the
knowledge that the conductivity of physiological saline is almost lossless inside the body.

Scientific rebuttal: this is not true. The conductivity and loss of
physiological saline is a function of frequency and it is NEVER zero. There are numerous well documented studies on this of which the modelling by Camelia Gabriel for the US Air
Force (Brooks AFB) is widely considered to be the most comprehensive and accurate.


9. This capacitance can stay around inside the body for some time

Scientific rebuttal: capacitance doesn't "go" anywhere. Capacitance is a natural property that is found wherever a region of low conductivity is bound by two or more
separate regions of higher conductvity. It is not something like a fluid which can flow anywhere so the statement that it "stays inside the body" is absolutely absurd and displays total ignorance of basic physics.


10. To MRC Hans: there is inevitably a relationship between the volume of the dielectric between the two plates in your solid capacitor and its capacitance, if you think about it: the more volume of whatever material lies between your two plates, the greater the capacity of that passive component to resist a passage of current. Capacitors store current in the sense that they resist passage until a certain level is reached.

Scientific rebuttal: the capacitance of a capacitor depends entirely on the thickness of the dielectric between the plates (and also on the plate size and spacing, and
even the frequency under discussion). The net volume of the dielectric is irrelevant. The net volume of the dielectric does not affect its ability to "resist the passage of current".

The ability to resist true current is defined as the breakdown point of the dielectric and depends on the thickness between the plates (but not the volume) and also on other properties of the material. Capacitors do NOT store current. That is a complete absurdity.

Capacitors store CHARGE. Current is defined as the flow of charge. The above is like saying that a bucket can store a FLOW of water. A bucket can store water, not a FLOW of water (unless one is talking about a vortex which is irrelevant in the above case). In normal operation a capacitor does NOT resist passage of current until a certain level is reached - the exception to this is in the case where the potential on a capacitor is so high
that it causes dielectric breakdown, rupturing and therefore destroying the capacitor. This would never happen in normal operation. The original statements are totally wrong and again
display total ignorance of basic physics


11. Regarding your point about charge, such charges are electrostatic when we are discussing alternating currents. I can see a case for saying that highly charged biota are not affected while they are acting as capacitors (like birds on a powerline): the effects only cause damage when there is an actual flow of current, say to earth, or a field external to the material.

Scientific rebuttal: birds are NOT "capacitors". Nor do they act as "capacitors" when sitting on a power line because they are at an equipotential. They have the intrinsic
property of capacitance as do most materials but capacitance is not a significant factor in the case of a equipotential field. There will be damage to the bird if there is an actual
flow of current to earth i.e. if the bird touches a grounded line at the same time. Current however does not flow through a field. If the bird is placed in a field gradient (not an equipotential) there may be current flow from higher potential to lower (conventional current) through the bird because the body of the bird will represent a lower impedance path than the surrounding air, although such current is likely to be negligible even for quite intense fields. In the specific case of a bird sitting on a power line, there is no significant interation between the field of the line, the bird, and the ground, therefore
there is no significant current flow. The bird IS however fully exposed to the electric field of the cable. It would be reasonable to assume therefore that if a pure electric field could cause harm to an organism in and of itself, that the bird would be harmed when it sits on a power line. As the bird is generally NOT harmed by sitting on a power line we
can reasonably reject the hypothesis that mere exposure to a pure electric field is harmful - unless strong supporting evidence is shown to the contrary.


12. 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.

Scientific rebuttal: this is NOT true. There are at least two separate wires in the lead to the kettle. One of them is at mains potential and the other neutral or ground
(doesn't make any real difference since neutral is usually very close to ground potential). Each wire is a conductor separated by an insulator (the plastic insulation of the wire). The insulator acts as a dielectric and the whole lead acts as a capacitor. If the lead is
plugged in, but the kettle is switched off, there will be no net current flow down the wire. However, one of the wires is at mains potential ("live") and so will have on it an alternating voltage the RMS (root mean square) value of which is equal to the nominal mains
voltage. The instantaneous value of this voltage along the wire is constantly changing. It cycles through a total potential change of 1.414 X 2 x RMS value of the mains 60 times each second.
Therefore there is a continuously changing electric flux between the live and neutral (or earth) wire. A changing electric flux creates a magnetic field INDEPENDENTLY of current flow. As the flux originates from each discrete point along the live wire, there is no net flow of current ALONG the wire. However, because there is always a changing electric flux, there will be a magnetic field in the region BETWEEN the wires, which is called the displacement field. This field will lie in a plane normal to a line drawn directly between the wires, as opposed to the magnetic field due to any current (when the kettle is switched on) which will follow a circular path AROUND each of the wires and will therefore lie in a different plane. The magnitude of the displacement field in the case of a kettle lead will be extremely weak and will NOT be easily measurable OUTSIDE the wire because it is so small. However, that does not imply that it does not exist. The conventional magnetic field due to true current flow ALONG the wires when the kettle is switched ON will be MUCH
stronger and more easily detectable. Although the fields from the live and return wires will be opposed (as the return current flows in the opposite sense to the feed current), and the result is that even for true current flow, most of the magnetic field around the kettle lead will be cancelled out in practice.

Therefore, in a strict, rigorous scientific sense (which is what science is all about), the above statement is FALSE. There IS an ELF magnetic field IN the wire when the kettle is switched off.

Although its magnitude is negligible in a kettle lead, the displacement field is NOT negligible in the case of a power distribution line or larger installation. It is often used in practical power engineering to cancel some of the effect of residual magnetic fields generated by conventional current. It is therefore of some significance when discussing
matters related to power transmission and distribution and exposure to fields therefrom.

END OF PART ONE

 
Now I see Praggers has come in with a numbered list of comments on some selections of my statements. I will give answers to his comments and preface the same numbers with P to distinguish them from BB's schema, but not tonight! (Here it's gone midnight).
 
PART TWO


13. I don’t think Moulder really means to say that a radio signal continues to exist after the power is collapsed, otherwise your radio programme would also continue after the transmitter stopped transmissions.

Scientific rebuttal: A radio SIGNAL was never mentioned in the criticized text. An electromagnetic wave becomes independent of the transmitter once it has "launched" from
the aerial. This EM wave will theoretically continue to propagate outwards and away from the antenna for infinite time over infinite distance in a straight line, UNLESS it interacts with some other force/matter along the way. The general theory currently accepted is that the radiation occurs in discrete wave units called quanta or photons. In any given case, any single photon will continue to propagate outward without attentuation. Therefore in a strict sense, the radio program, which is propagated by a flux of photons, continues to exist as long as the photons comprising the flux do, and they do not interact with anything else.

The above statement is false and misleading and demonstrates fundamental lack of knowledge about EM transmission


14. To achieve radiation the electromagnetic energy energy must form closed loops of flux which propagate away from the emitter at near light speeds (light is also electromagnetic energy). This is not likely at the extremely low frequencies, only at radio frequencies

Scientific rebuttal: The above statement is false. The currently accepted model of EM radiation is that it consists of a pair of linked orthogonal force field vectors, one electric and the other magnetic. There is no flux of anything. EM waves propagate by
definition at the speed of light, since light IS an EM wave. And the frequency of the radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with how the radiation propagates or indeed whether
it propagates at all.

15. He does however make the important concession that the electric and magnetic components are unrelated

Scientific rebuttal: this has already been dealt with in point 7

16. And for my benefit and education please explain why and how Morse signals at visible light frequencies do not collapse immediately when the source is interrrupted?

Scientific explanation: because the EM wave is independent of the generating source once it has left the generator. This should be obvious to any junior school student.


17. Since Garbage Man has questioned the possibility that 60Hz line sources might radiate and thereby put vicinals (oops sorry, nearby people) into the far field of its emissions

Scientific rebuttal: the original case did not state anything about putting nearby people into far fields of 60Hz sources. This is absurd because the far field starts at several thousand kilometers from the source for 60Hz radiation. This would be obvious to anyone who knew anything about radiation.

18. Garbage Man, to help me prepare my case, where have you ever found this powerline the length of the US-Canadian border?

Scientific rebuttal: a powerline the LENGTH of the US-Canadian border was never mentioned in the original case, therefore the statement addresses an imaginary issue that was never raised.


19. On the second, I say again that there is no magnetic field in the kettle cable unless the kettle is drawing current from the mains to which it is attached, whereas the electric field is there whether the kettle is switched on or not. Do you dispute this?

Scientific rebuttal: this has already been dealt with in point 12

20. On the third, I say again that the electromagnetic energy leaves the radio antenna having formed a closed loop of flux, the character of these successive closed loops form the signal that is received by the receiving antenna. Do you dispute this?

Scientific rebuttal: this has already been dealt with in point 14

21. When no current flows in a wire connected to the mains there is a net zero voltage, but the electric field is still present, since the electrons are moving back and forth to the same position, but since there is no net movement in any direction there is no
magnetic field.

Scientific rebuttal: this is complete nonsense. The AVERAGE voltage across a wire connected to mains is zero integrated over time. However, the INSTANTANEOUS voltage is constantly changing between 1.414 times the RMS value of the mains and 1.414 times the negative RMS value, once per cycle, with 60 cycles per second. The average is not a legitimate measure for AC sources. The proper measure is the RMS or root mean square value.

The movement of electrons constitues an electric current. And a magnetic field is generated by current. Therefore if there was any movement of electrons as claimed there would automatically be a magnetic field. It makes no difference if electrons are simply displaced or whether they move over a distance. Similarly a changing electric field generates a changing magnetic field independently of the movement of electrons as described in Maxwell's Fourth Law of Electromagnetism. Therefore in any event there will be a magnetic field present. See also answer 12. The statement is therefore wrong, as well as self-contradictory, it displays ignorance of basic electrical laws.

22. A finite time is required for a magnetic field and its associated electric field to collapse, however, and at frequencies above about 15kHz not all the energy contained in the field has returned to the conductor before the current has started to increase in the opposite direction and created new electric and magnetic fields.

Scientific rebuttal: this is pseudoscientific nonsense and meaningless technobabble. There is no magical cut off frequency of 15Khz for radiation. Again it displays fundamental ignorance of electrical basics

23. This is the correct view, and does not as it happens conflict with James Clerk Maxwell's fourth equation (Curl E = - dB/dt) since it is the curl which makes the equation balance not the simple E field.

Scientific rebuttal: this is pseudoscientific nonsense and meaningless technobabble. It also displays gross ignorance of basic mathematics. The equation quoted
is Faraday's Law of Induction which is also known as Maxwell's THIRD (not fourth) equation.

The statement shows fundamental ignorance of vector calculus which is essential to understanding modern formulations of Maxwell's equations. The equation quoted actually reads that the Electric field vector (E) depends on the rate of change of the Magnetic field
vector (B). The magnitude of E is negative relative to the magnitude of B, and the curl is a vector operator that tells us that the resultant Electric field vector is spinning (literally that it is curling around the axis of the changing magnetic flux). Roger has assumed that the Curl is a variable which is ridiculous and shows his ignorance again. Also this equation is not relevant in any way to the issues that were under discussion, it basically says that a changing magnetic field causes an electric field.

24. I have no quarrel with the idea that a changing electric field induces a magnetic field, and vice versa, but this is not incompatible with the kettle lead situation, because the ELF electric field strength is dependent on the mains voltage and so the electric field around the plugged in lead is steady, and unless the voltage changes the electric field strength is not likely to change either. Only if the electric field changes would one see a transient magnetic field and then only until the new electric field strength (as a result of some different voltage) establishes itself. That is why I and the World Health Organisatioin (inter alia) are right on this matter, and you are wrong.

Scientific rebuttal: again, this is pseudoscientific nonsense and meaningless technobabble. The key issues have already been addressed above. The admission that a changing electric field induces a magnetic field (which is true) contradicts Roger's own
previous statements to the effect that only a current causes a magnetic field. The claims about the voltage being constant are ridiculous, the case refers to an alternating voltage which by definition is alternating, NOT constant!

There is nothing on the WHO web site that addresses the issue of a magnetic field arising from a change of magnetic flux INDEPENDENT of an electric current. The WHO correctly states that a current causes a magnetic field and completely ignores the case of an alternating
field of electric flux causing a magnetic field because in the case of small scale
electrical appliances it is insignificant. Which does not imply that it is insignificant elsewhere in an electrical installation and does not alter the fact that said magnetic field is present nonetheless.

END OF PART TWO

 
cogreslab said:
This is the correct view, and does not as it happens conflict with James Clerk Maxwell's fourth equation (Curl E = - dB/dt) since it is the curl which makes the equation balance not the simple E field".


The order of these equations varies bewteen textbooks, and in another I looked at it was given thrid place. However, the point I was trying to make is that a) equations are meant to balance on each side, and it was not the simple E field which equivalates to the change of magnetic field over unit time, but its curl, which can be equal to zero, In that case there is no change in the magnetic component. So an electric field can exist without a magnetic field.
Click to expand...

:dl:

Have you ever heard the phrase, "when in a hole stop digging"? :)

Roger, you are simply displaying your utterly phenomenal ignorance of electromagnetics AND basic mathematics!

The order of Maxwell's equations is fixed, please tell us precisely which textbooks have a "different order". Prove it!

The Curl is a VECTOR OPERATOR, it is NOT A VARIABLE!!! Get it now? Oh, why do I bother? Of course you don't get it, and that is the whole point!
 
cogreslab said:
Now I see Praggers has come in with a numbered list of comments on some selections of my statements. I will give answers to his comments and preface the same numbers with P to distinguish them from BB's schema, but not tonight! (Here it's gone midnight).
Click to expand...

Feel free to answer my points if you wish, although I don't expect any answer.

But first, please would you answer my question about your qualifications? Thank you.
 
PART THREE


25. Also what do you think of the Aharanov-Bohm paper? I ask this because the corpus callosal fibres' layout in the brain would be a good representation of the experimental set
up required to produce this effect, and I always have respect for Nature's intelligence.

Both your points (magnetised fluids; the AB expt.) are well taken , and I would have made them myself.

Scientific rebuttal: This is ludicrous (and contradictory) technobabble. It would be obvious to anyone who understood the Aharonov Bohm effect that the initial statement is
ridiculous. The Aharonov Bohm effect refers to a quantum mechanical theory in which it is postulated that an imaginary mathematical quantity known as the magnetic vector potential MAY have real physical existence and may influence a system, when a magnetic field is present but when the flux of the magnetic field is completely shielded and cannot interact with the system. In order to set up the basic conditions necessary to experimentally
reproduce the AB effect, one has to start with a TOTALLY shielded magnet from which NO magnetic flux whatsoever can escape. In practice this is exceptionally difficult to do, it requires a lot of metallic shielding material and is usually performed at temperatures approaching absolute zero (-273K). To imply that any structure of the brain could approximate the AB experimental conditions requires that the brain be frozen almost to absolute zero and that the structure be COMPLETELY magnetically shielded in a block of solid magnetic shielding metal (i.e. mu metal). There is no structure in the human brain (or any other organic brain) that could ever begin to approach the necessary conditions. To suggest it implies absolute ignorance of the AB experiment.

The following statement that "I would have made them myself" is therefore proven to be a lie. Because why would anyone make such a stupid statement in the first place, if they already realised how stupid and irrelevant it was?

26. 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.

Scientific rebuttal: already dealt with in point 7, the same pseudoscientific statement demonstrating ignorance of basic electrical principles is again repeated here.

27. 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?

Scientific rebuttal: Pragmatist stated that the WHO was not AUTHORITATIVE with respect to advanced physics. The WHO is the World HEALTH Organisation, it is not an
organisation of physicists and does not claim to be a world authority on physics. The statements on its web site regarding physics are basically true but they are also simplified and incomplete, as it was clearly not the intention of the WHO to give courses in advanced electromagnetic theory. The WHO cannot be relied on as an authoritative source with which to rebut arguments about physics.


28. This is how I see it: there are a number of different life processes dependant on the use of electrons in some way or other, including electric fields. For example, the brain and the heart both use relatively weak electric fields to convey instructions to the body's cells

Scientific rebuttal: pure speculation. There is no scientifically accepted proof of either of the above statements. Electrons are NOT electric fields.


29. I do not say I have all the answers Soapy:

I probably know more about anticancer treatments than you have had hot dinners, sonny boy.

Contradictory statements. Translation: "I do not say I have all the answers until my argument is proven wrong, in which case I assert that I DO have all the answers to avoid further rebuttal of my claims."


30. And what about phase balance? (Another mystery to me). Do not these imbalances give rise to fields? Then there is the issue of unbalanced ground return currents too.

To Hans: Maybe you should take in a little basic biology too, Hans. The difference between us is that I have physicists and others whom I pay to advise me, (but I have not bothered
them to get involved in this thread). May I point out that physicists also argue amongst themselves over their science (see how Pragmatist has scoffed at other physicists' views -eg
WHO- ) so who am I to say which is correct?

I see examples of phase imbalance and ground return currents delivering high ELF magnetic fields via my instruments, and though it would be interesting to know exactly how these arise, I doubt whether any physicist could compute the answer exactly, and it is not essential, unless I am an NGT employee tasked to reduce these to the minimum.

Contradictory statements. Roger claims to not understand what phase balancing is, yet claims to see examples of it when it suits him. How can anyone recognise something they don't know or understand? The comparison between the views of any physicist and the WHO is meaningless, because as described above the WHO is NOT an authoritative source for physics.

30. And do not nearby magnetic fields bend light?

Scientific rebuttal: magnetic fields do NOT bend light. The statement is false. A magnetic field of sufficient strength MAY cause rotation of the plane of polarization of an EM wave (the Faraday Effect), but it will not affect its path.

31. but I am not sure about light always travelling in straight lines! Might it not travel in helical "lines" in a single direction? If so the right diameter helix could pass around a small enough object.

Scientific rebuttal: meaningless technobabble! Light travels in straight lines, not "helical lines". If light travelled in this way, ALL current theories of electromagnetism AND quantum mechanics AND radiation would be easily, provably wrong.


32. Moulder appears to be saying here that ELF power lines do not radiate, and though there has been some dispute about this I am inclined to agree with him. This is not to say that their effects cannot have action at a distance, however.

Scientific rebuttal: MORE meaningless technobabble! ELF power lines DO radiate because they can be very long, but the amount of radiation over a small network is very low and probably insignificant for practical purposes. Action at a distance is a theoretical quantum mechanical concept that has never been proved in any way. It is a point of argument amongst physicists and would totally violate relativity if shown to be true. It is often invoked by pseudoscientists to justify allegations which go well beyond reason and sense.


33. To EHocking: Are you mad? Measuring the level of water left in each bowl is a useful surrogate for standing there all day to count the visits by the animal. I would hate to have you design a scientific protocol! Unless of course you fancy spending the time seeing how many times dogs drink from bowls: on the other hand maybe you have nothing better to do.

Scientific rebuttal: Science requires that every effort is made to eliminate all possible influences that may upset the experiment. It PRECISELY requires that the experiment be monitored constantly in some way in order to avoid influencing extraneous events from affecting the results. An experiment which is NOT monitored constantly is usually completely invalid.


34. I answer that by pointing out that during most of our evolutionary experience we have never had exposure to relatively long wave alternating electric fields of any chronicity.

Scientific rebuttal: more technobabble. There is no such word as "chronicity". And the premise is false inasmuch as there are numerous natural sources of long wave alternating electric fields INCLUDING (but not limited to) the Schumann resonances. Humans have ALWAYS been exposed to ELF electric fields as long as they have been on earth.


35. Now, how in Hell does the electric field get into the body? We have a most efficient barrier to intrusion in the form of the dermis and epidermis, specifically evolved to deflect and keep out radiation e.g. from the sun; and we have associated melanin dependent protections. The skin like hair is dead. We defend our living selves with the dead bodies of our own cells, and "fill the wall up with our English dead", to quote Shakespeare. These thicknesses have been honed by the shortness of the waves incoming such as solar UV which may be too short to penetrate past the wall of dead. But RF waves are longer and can get past this evolutionary derived barrier, and so can the even longer non-ionising fields and radiation. We need to be thicker skinned these days, (especially if joining this forum with new ideas).

Scientific rebuttal: this is more pseudoscience and demonstrates ignorance of basic biology as well as basic electrical principles. The human skin is highly conductive, but on the outside of the skin there is a thin layer of dead tissue called the Corneum Stratum. The insulating properties of skin have nothing whatsoever to do with electromagnetic wave penetration. The corneum stratum will block certain ranges of EM radiation to a greater or lesser degree (such as light), but it is the bulk electrical properties and transmission of the whole skin that determine if EM radiation will penetrate the body. The body itself, because of the conductivity of skin, acts as though it is enclosed in a Faraday cage, and so a simple electric field is unlikely to penetrate far into the body. In addition there is a physical phenomenon known as the "skin effect" (nothing to do with organic or human skin) in which RF waves pass OVER the surface of a material without penetration into it. The above is nonsense. It was the skin effect that allowed Nikola Tesla to stand inside million volt electric fields of lightning discharges without coming to any harm - because the RF current couldn't penetrate the skin.


36. Yes, good point. I forgot to deal with the issue of the Schumann resonances, discovered by O. Schumann in 1954. These are an important zeitgeber for many seasonal effects, but we are accustomed to them by evolution also, to the extent that astronauts are provided I believe with artificial versions when in space. They are totally unlike the ELF electric fields of modern technology.

Scientific rebuttal: more pseudoscience. There is no difference between the electricity of a natural field and an artificial one. The ONLY difference is likely to be regularity of the field.


37. Thanks EHocking, btw, for elevating my wealth for me by hundreds of thousands of dollars at a stroke. Sadly for me, a million dollars is not the same however as a million pounds: is this the kind of accuracy you would bring to your experimental protocols?

Scientific rebuttal: EHocking provided absolute proof that the statement that the laboratory was worth one million POUNDS was on one of Roger's web sites, contrary to Roger's claim that he had only ever claimed one million DOLLARS.


38. We do not sell medicines without a licence.

Scientific rebuttal: No license has ever been produced as evidence that one exists and products that would reasonably qualify as "medicines" ARE sold on Roger's web site, including one called "Asphalia".


39. Your value judgment is laughable. First there is no medical research involved, secondly I am forcing no one to do anything. And thirdly if you regard putting a child into an ELF field recommended as perfectly safe by the regulatory authorities, then clearly there is no abuse.

Scientific rebuttal: proper ethical conduct for conducting any experimental procedure on humans is clearly defined in international conventions such as the Helsinki Declaration. According to those conventions the proposed experiment would reasonably qualify as an abuse.


40. 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.

Scientific rebuttal: the above statement is proven false by earlier answers, most of the alleged "facts" HAVE been challenged and the subsequent statements are false and have already been dealt with.

END OF SCIENTIFIC REBUTTALS
 
Re: Kettles and ELF fields

henryh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the madhouse Henry! :)

Actually, it's extremely unlikely that you'd be able to measure the displacement field in a kettle lead with ANY external instrument, unless you had something like a SQUID (superconducting quantum interference detector). Although I won't rule it out - some modern instruments are surprisingly sensitive. Your probe is probably capacitively coupling to the electric field and that is what you are seeing. My point was however, that no matter how small in a kettle lead, the magnetic field DOES actually exist.

My point may seem pedantic. Why argue about an effect which is negligible? My answer is this: science by it's very nature HAS to be pedantic. Science requires precision and accuracy of thought. Science cannot afford to ignore the small things. If anyone REALLY understands a scientific principle then they need to understand it fully and properly. And my contention is that Roger does not.

Plus of course there is a bigger issue. When we scale the same effect up in a major power installation it becomes very significant and can be used to offset other fields. If Roger is completely unaware of the existence of these fields then his experiments are meaningless because he can't rule out that THIS field caused any given effect.

Enjoy the forum, *I* am! :)
 
Cleopatra said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would mean that the debate would stop, since Coghill never answers all the questions.

Hans
 
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?


The way an EM wave interacts with a medium is frequency dependant. So, the correct answer is: Probably not.

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?

Ah, yes! Certain bands are partly reflected by the ionosphere. I agree we should not look for those in space.

Educate me:

"The propagations are not attenuated"

Please define for me the word propagation.

Dictionary:
Physics. The act or process of propagating, especially the process by which a disturbance, such as the motion of electromagnetic or sound waves, is transmitted through a medium such as air or water.

The signal is attenuated while it propagates.


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" ?

For signals travelling in pace, hours, days, years, millienna, depending on signal strength. We have no insurmountable problems exchanging signals with space probes at the distance of Pluto, using transmitters in the probe that are in the same power bracket as your cellphone. We detect radio signals from natural radio sources in space, some of which are billions of lightyears away and have probably ceased to exist eons ago.
Click to expand...
Interesting subject, although I fail to see how it is relevant for the main debate at hand. --- Except of course that it gives me repeated opportunity to demonstrate that my knowledge of electromagnetics is better than yours ;).

Hans
 
Praggers, old bean, I am really disappointed in you. I had hoped for a proper scientific appraisal and a serious debate when more than one of your Parts One and Two "Scientific rebuttals" are mere pedantic debating tricks.

I will take readers through these one by one to demonstrate your idiocies, and in the same order as you have given them. Since it will be a boringly long post, and on several occasions my similar attempts have timed out, I will do this on a word document separately, then copy it into the post.
 
cogreslab said:
I will call this question 15 and my reply R15 for now, until incorporated into BB's schema.

R15:

"(from PJ: "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 caused 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 ?)".

I have no idea, because I have never looked into this aspect. I would speculate at this stage that transformed cells proliferate and copy their mutant DNA, and do not see how this is inconsistent with my hypothesis that cancer is a metabolic disorder. It may be that Szent Gyorgii had deliberated on this and I will have a look thorugh the papers.
Click to expand...


So they do have "mutant" DNA!! And how do they get "mutant" DNA if the carcinogens interact with the metabolism and not the DNA ? (A - carcinogens interact with cellular DNA).

Since you have stated that cancerous cells have "mutant" DNA, and it has been shown that the genes affected are genes that induce cellular proliferation (eg sis, fms, erba, src, K-ras etc), or areTumour Suppresor genes that inhibit cellular proliferation (eg Rb, p53, DCC) or they regulate programmed cell death (eg bcl-2), is it not possible that it might well be this aspect, rather than a very theoretical idea, with little experimental evidence (that can be accounted for in the modern theory), that you are suggesting?


Your theory doesn't account for important observable features of cancer, you have only minimal evidence for it, which is completely outweighed and outclassed by the evidence for cancer being genetic on origin. I refer you back to the Rous Sarcoma Virus experiment (see earlier link). Classic work that demonstrated that cancers origins lies in the DNA of cells.
 
Pragmatist: Very good work! The remark earlier: "When in a hole, stop digging" becomes very pertinent indeed. Mr. Coghill is certainly in over his head in more than one sense.

And to Roger:

It is evident that you are accostumed to being able to impress the peasants with your fancy titles and your pseudolearned technobabble. In a place like this, however, such bluff is bound to be called. Not only that, but here people care enough about the truth to bother with blasting through your repeated diversions and smoke-screens.

Sir, your case has been scredded. You have been exposed as a liar and a swindler. You are not a scientist: You do not have the qualifications needed to design, conduct, or evaluate research in the area of bioelectromagnetics. How can you claim to measure electric fields and make conclusions on your data when you do not understand the physics of electrical fields on even the most basic level?

I do not doubt that the traumatic experience of your little son being almost a victim of SID has been an important impetous for your crusade, but the ends do not justify the means. You do not fight possible injustice with lies and fraud.

Hans
 
Pragger’s "Scientific Rebuttals".

P1:

(1. your body's natural electric fields protect you against disease by improving the viability of your white blood cells! Look after your aura!)


Prag ‘s comment is this is pure speculation. In fact we published in 2000 a peer reviewed study where the endogenous electric field of a donor (but not a non-donor) had a protective effect on his human while blood cells (peripheral blood lymphocytes extracorporeally. This was peer reviewed prior to its acceptance and publication, by a panel including the Professor of Physics at Oakland University, Michigan and several notable biologists.

The reference is

Coghill R.W. Galonja-Coghill, T.
Protective effect of a donor's endogenous electric field on human peripheral blood lymphocytes.
Electro and Magneto Biology. v19 i1 p46 p59 2000

It was also accepted by ICNIRP and published in their Ismaning 2000 conference proceedings, and by several other conferences including the EBEA Symposium last year.

The reference to the aura was because the comment was not in a scientific but in a lay journal, and its readers had some idea about that concept, but probably not about endogenousn fields. The endogenous electric fields of organisms can be perturbed by exogenous electric fields. Do you really want me to take you through the physics of how a charged particle in one place will affect another nearby? Or to dispute that electrons are negatively charged particles ? Or that like charges repel?

P2:

(The worms were monitored all the time, all were healthy and all were returned to the garden after the experiment with static magnets

BTW we don't do animal experiments in my laboratory)

This was the basis of Bouncer Bill’s pedantic attack alleging I do not know that worms are animals, and now sadly Prag is deploying the same silly trick. The sense of what I was trying to say is however clear from the context : we do not as a matter of policy conduct experiments on animals for ethical reasons, and in this case I was explaining that the worms were not in any way harmed by the static magnetic fields we applied to them. Had I included the word " normally" in order to make it clear to readers that I did understand that worms were animals the confusion about our lab policy would have remained. I must say that IMHO this general technique of nitpicking and pedantry when the sense and thrust of the post is clear simply devalues both Prag and Bouncer in the view of all reasonable readers, rather than increases their scientific stature. They will simply be looked on "Cleverclogs".

P3:

(you cannot argue that what may happen with a mammal when exposed will also happen with a human being).

Again Prag is ignoring the actual point I am making simply for the sake of scoring a cheap point. Had I included the words "these mammals" (i.e. the argument that animal experiments, in this case on mammals, cannot be extrapolated to human beings, he could not have made cheap point, and In suppose the reason he did so was to divert attention from the important point I was making about inferences from animal experiments. If he had been interested in scientific discussion rather than simply scoring a low debating point he might have put forward arguments about the relevance of animal (mammalian) experiments to human health.

P4:

(Yes I concede that worms are animals really, and so are bacteria with which we also experiment).

Again note that Prag is avoiding the main point I make about the scope of our lab so as to deflect from the issue by descending into pedantry. Procaryotes are not regarded as a kingdom in the same way as the animal and plant kingdoms.

P5:

I concede there are a lot of people out there who have no real scientific understanding of homeopathy


Prag’s response to my comment is to offer an unsupported value judgement about homeopathy, which will be of interest to Randi afficionados in view of the issue of Jacques Benveniste’s experiments and the controversy in Nature some years back. Homeopathy is now an accepted part of the medical armory today, and recognised by the MHRA, who regulate it. So Prag’s comment is beneath further scientific attention, and indicative of just how unscientific he really is in his approach to new ideas.

P6:

(Animal experiments. "Things that look at you" was a quote from one of the Beatles, describing his refusal to eat such things. I agree the true definition of an animal is anything that breathes).

The other part of the usual definition is that animals have independent movement, which plants do not. Notice once again that Prag is concentrating heavily on precise definitions of irrelevant topics in order to undermine or deflate arguments he is unable to address frontally.

P7:

(Fact: there is no relation between the electric and the magnetic component at ELF frequencies, so no magnetic field study can say anything about the electric component).

My statement is perfectly correct: in the radiating near field no plane wave has yet emerged. And no calculable relationship between the two components (electric and magnetic) can be derived. All that can be said is that they are both present, but that is of little use in any argument trying to deny that ELF magnetic fields say nothing about the character of the electric component there. Not only are the facts but also the conclusions of my statement correct, and Prag is the only physicist I have yet come across who tries to deny this. The point of making my statement is that the power utilities and others with vested interests have carefully concentrated on the ELF magnetic component and have avoided research into the ELF electric component, knowing full well that it is the electric component which is the important bio-effector.

The NRPB describe it thus (Docs 3(1), 1993, page 9-10:

"The description of electromagnetic radiation given above where the electric and magnetic fields are in phase and are at right angles to the direction of propagation is known as the far field or plane wave, which describes the approximate nature at a distance of several wavelengths from a source. In these circumstances it is possible to relate E, H, and S in a simple way (S= E2/377 = 377H2).

…At closer distances and well within a wavelength a region called the reactive near field exists where non-radiating field components may be dominant. In both cases, i.e. the radiating and reactive near fields, the electric and magnetic fields need to be assessed separately". This is what I am arguing too. What is wrong with the NRPB’s physics, Prag, since they obviously agree with my view?

I will carry on with P8 onwards in a separate post, since other business now calls me away.
 
Oh I forgot:
to answer the point about qualifications, in case it is relevant, after completing part One of the Classical Tripos as an Open Scholar I continued as a Senior Exhibitioner in Biological Sciences and received an honours degree in that subject from Cambridge University in 1962. I regard the level of biology incorporated in the Environmental Management MA from UWCN as a relevant discipline. Perhaps the prospectus is available on the UW website?

What are your qualifications Prag? Or are we going to see the same post we got from others, namely "Mind your Own Business".
 
Keep digging, Roger ;):

cogreslab said:
Pragger’s "Scientific Rebuttals".

*snip*
Prag ‘s comment is this is pure speculation. In fact we published in 2000 a peer reviewed study where the endogenous electric field of a donor (but not a non-donor) had a protective effect on his human while blood cells (peripheral blood lymphocytes extracorporeally. This was peer reviewed prior to its acceptance and publication, by a panel including the Professor of Physics at Oakland University, Michigan and several notable biologists.

I read that study and it shows no causality. Nor surprising, since you are not able to define exactly what an "endogenous electric field" is. The study fails to rule out several posible confounders. It may have been peer-reviewed, although by now one has to wonder that exactly the term "peer" denotes in this case.

*snip*

The reference to the aura was because the comment was not in a scientific but in a lay journal, and its readers had some idea about that concept,

What concept? What exactly IS aura, in your opinion?

but probably not about endogenousn fields.

What exactly is an endogenous field and how do you measure it?

The endogenous electric fields of organisms can be perturbed by exogenous electric fields. Do you really want me to take you through the physics of how a charged particle in one place will affect another nearby?

Yes, please! Do explain. How is this, in your opinon, relevant to the study of how electrical (ELF) fields affect the body?

Or to dispute that electrons are negatively charged particles ? Or that like charges repel?

*snip* we do not as a matter of policy conduct experiments on animals for ethical reasons,

But you do encourage experiments with human infants.

and in this case I was explaining that the worms were not in any way harmed by the static magnetic fields we applied to them.

How did you know in advance that they would not be harmed?

Had I included the word " normally" in order to make it clear to readers that I did understand that worms were animals the confusion about our lab policy would have remained. I must say that IMHO this general technique of nitpicking and pedantry when the sense and thrust of the post is clear simply devalues both Prag and Bouncer in the view of all reasonable readers, rather than increases their scientific stature. They will simply be looked on "Cleverclogs".

Better not make conclusions on behalf of others. Some of this is pedantry, except that it serves to highlight the incongruencies of your statements and your lack of honesty.

*snip*

Prag’s response to my comment is to offer an unsupported value judgement about homeopathy, which will be of interest to Randi afficionados in view of the issue of Jacques Benveniste’s experiments and the controversy in Nature some years back.

Benveniste's experiments were thoroughly schredded long ago.

Homeopathy is now an accepted part of the medical armory today,

Incorrect. Attempts at showing a factual effect of homeopathy have failed. Not surprisingly, since homeopathy is contradicted by the laws of physics.

and recognised by the MHRA, who regulate it.

There is a certain regulation, in order to protect the public from dangerous sustances, but not nearly enough, if you ask me. The fact that the MHRA acknowledges the existence of homeopathy and has laid own certain rules for its use in no way constitute evidence of its usefulness, however. Roger, if you'd like to discuss homeopathy, a couple of us are VERY much ready :p!

*snip*
(Fact: there is no relation between the electric and the magnetic component at ELF frequencies, so no magnetic field study can say anything about the electric component).

My statement is perfectly correct: in the radiating near field no plane wave has yet emerged.


Your statement is both theoretically and functionally incorrect.

And no calculable relationship between the two components (electric and magnetic) can be derived.

Imprecise statement. What is correct is that you cannot make a direct assumption about field strength from one to the other. But then, nobody claimed that.

*snip*Prag is the only physicist I have yet come across who tries to deny this.

Perhaps you should meet more physicists. Anyway, the statement is a lie, since Pragmatist has been backed up by at least two others here.

*snip* In both cases, i.e. the radiating and reactive near fields, the electric and magnetic fields need to be assessed separately". This is what I am arguing too. What is wrong with the NRPB’s physics, Prag, since they obviously agree with my view?

The fact that the fields need to be assessed separately does not support your claim that htey are independent. And indeed the quotation effectively contradicts your earlier statement that the NRPB "deliberately ignores" electrical fields.
Click to expand...

Hans
 
Hans if you are going to continue making these unsupported value judgements you will detract from any credibility you might still possess. Look at your comments here:

I read that study and it shows no causality. Nor surprising, since you are not able to define exactly what an "endogenous electric field" is. The study fails to rule out several posible confounders. It may have been peer-reviewed, although by now one has to wonder that exactly the term "peer" denotes in this case.

a) "It shows no causality". Explain this and support your value judgement.

b) "You wre unable to define what an endogenous field is". Not true, we did not characterise the power density nor the frequencies being delivered, but the deifinition of the source and method was complete, so that anyone can replicate this study.

c) "fails to rule out several confounders"

Which were these? Another unsupported value judgement!

c) "what exactly the word peer denotes in this case"

I quoted one of the peers. Are you arguing that this well known physics professor's views are not of any scientific value?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom