Bioelectromagnetics

[Pragmatist]

As indicated I shall be away for a few days. Best to all.

PS: I prefer my "silly poem" to this twaddle.

I'm glad you mentioned your poem. It seems you have time to compose things like that, but not enough to simply compose a few lines to explain the Kato setup and/or how one produces "polarized magnetic fields".

It's just so unfortunate that every time someone asks you to actually explain one of your claims, you suddenly have something more urgent to do. Se la vie, must be coincidence of course.

 

[The Don]

The Don said (elsewhere than this thread):

[|Coghill's] theory states (I think) that EM waves makes lymphocites go "wibble" and that he will sell you a majik charm, powered by black body radiation which will shield you.

I want to place on record here that I have never used the word "wibble" in my life, and I do not spell magic with a k.

As usual a gross misrepresentation, designed only to pejorise.

The impact of weak electric fields on organisms is not confined to cancer anyway, as I have pointed out, and therefore there are probably a number of mechanisms e.g. depolaristion of the inner mitochondrial membrane, interference with the body's own signal transduction, etc. All of these have been advanced by reputable labs and we do not disagree with them.

Did you claim that there EM radiation had an impact on lymphocites ?
Did you claim that your product produced radiation in the 4-14 um range (consistent with black body radiation at room temperature) ?
Did you claim that your product provided protection against EM radiation ?

Apart from a certain laxness of terminology have I materially misrepresented your position ?

Are you willing to concede that:

- You have no idea as to whether the products you market have any effect on the health of actual live human beings because you have not done any research
- Even if these products did have an effect, you have no idea why they have an effect because you ahve insufficient grasp of the underlying science

 

[Cleopatra]

Mr. Coghill thanks for the link about Atlantis I have already seen it I am waiting for your CD in order that we discuss about this issue if you are interested.

Pragmatist, your parody was hilarious to the extreme. A well deserved language award nomination.

 

[Mercutio]

A student of mine gave me, today, a Stealth Radar Shield (sorry, it won't let me link directly to the ad--the product is featured on this page, but you must go to the products page to get the real info) , which is...well...

The Stealth Radar Shield™ is a unique device developed using advanced radar-absorbing and stealth technology once reserved only for the United States Department of Defense. This same technology is used in the patented Stealth Radar Shield device, creating an advanced phone radiation defense. It actually absorbs radiation emitting from the earpiece areas of wireless phones, and as a result, reduces that radiation up to 98%

It looks to be a bit of tinfoil about the size of a dime (1.5 cm), with a hole punched in the middle and an adhesive-backed, um, back.

Interestingly, the brochure states (in a footnote)

* The majority of electromagnetic radiation emited by cellular and cordless phones comes from the antenna and parts of the phone other than the earpiece. The Stealth Radar Shield™ only blocks radiation from the earpiece. It does not have any effect on radiation from other parts of the phone.

Not nearly so impressive a product as the one discussed in this thread...I guess that is why Coghill labs does not endorse this one....

edited to add...if you do go to the site, please be sure to check out the book "Cell Phones - Medical Menaces of a Modern Day Convenience - Book (by Klatz/Goldman)"

The "Cellular Phones/RF Radiation" mini book (95 pages) Drs. Ronald Klatz and Robert Goldman, co-founders of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, explain the many potential side effects of radio frequency energy emitted from cellular and cordless phones. This mini-book thoroughly explains how the Stealth Radar Shield blocks 98% of the radiation emitted from the earpiece of your cell phone. Everyone who uses a cell phone needs to have a shield. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Seems keeping Rogers nonsense and lies at bay is a work of Sisyphus, but we'll try -

To Cleopatra:

Prag's comment "When he tells everyone that they are so dangerous, he is ignorant of the fact that most of those fields will never even REACH the inside of the body". is sadly wrong.

For starters the way mobile phones are assessed for impact on users is a statistic called "Specific Absorption Rate ("SAR"), which estimates the level of electric field inside the body as a result of the phone, and using a formula which incorporates conductivity of tissues et alia produces an SAR value for cellphone types.

The signals from cellphones are EM waves, which is something different from the fields Roger's main mission is about (not that he understands them better). And the fact that they are absorbed by living tissue is not disputed. We call this a straw-man.

(There is a lot wrong with this approach, but that's another issue).

No, noo, please do explain, Roger .

My Motorola phone has an official SAR of 0.9 W/kg for example. The limit is the US (ANSI) is 1.6 W/kg from memory, and in Europe I thinkm it's 2.0 W/kg but this depends on a number of factors e.g frequency. So to say these fields never get inside the body goes against the way all the cellphones in the world are presently evaluated for health impact.

And nobody said that. That is just your straw-man. Remember: You are talking about how ELF electrical fields are dangerous. Sure, there are issues with cell-phones, nobody has disputed that.(although we probably think the problem is less than YOU claim)

These are RF/MW radiations, of course, but ELF fields, being a much lower frequency, are much more penetrative of water (of which we are largely made)

Noo, they are not, because here it is NOT EM waves, but fields, as you have repeatedly pointed out yourself, rememeber?

which is why the US and other navies chose 76Hz (an ELF frequency), for their communications with submarines.

No that is actually not the reason. First of all, this is a WAVE, not a field, secondly, it penetrates only a fraction of a wavelenght into the ocean, but since the wavelenght is several thousand kilometers, this suffices. Such waves, however, hardly interact with the human body at all: We are much too small.

Not only does Roger persist in brandishing his ignorance, he has now reached the predicatable saturation point for ad-hoc argumentation: He has painted himself into a corner and he must either repeat already debunked arguments or risk contradicting his own earlier statements, or both, as demonstrated above.

In the digging a hole analogy, he has now dug his hole so deep that the dirt he throws up falls back on him .

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

Phew, go away for a couple of days and this thread takes a bit of catching up on!

OK Bouncer, so you want to talk dysmennorhea. This study is about to be published so far as I know. It takes a while in the peer reviewed literature. But you wouldn't know about that because you've never tried it!

Well, I have. Quite a lot actually. And one thing I do know for sure - if a paper has been accepted, you know the name of the journal which has accepted it. Seems to me you've been asked to name the journal several times, Roger, but have ignored the question. Which leaves two possibilities.

1. Roger is lying and the paper has not been accepted for publication - maybe there never was such a paper in the first place
2. The journal concerned is a bigger joke than the Beano and even Roger is embarrassed to reveal the name.
   [/list=1]Any bets on which one?
   
   The Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[cogreslab]

Polarization.

Anyone can set out a description of polarisation, just with a little effort and Google. Here is a simple description (copied from Google, not by me):

"In electrodynamics, polarization is a property of waves, such as light and other electromagnetic radiation.

Think of a photon as a sphere that spins around an axis as it tumbles through space. The polarization literally is the orientation of this axis. In technical terms, the axis is the B component (magnetic); the plane orthogonal to it is the E component (electric) a.k.a the plane of polarization.

Polarization of visible light can be observed using a polarizing filter (the lenses of polaroid sunglasses will work). While viewing through the filter, rotate it, and if linearly polarized light is present the degree of illumination will change. An easy first phenomenon to observe is at sunset to view the horizon at a 90° angle from the sunset.

Common sources of light, such as the Sun and the electric light bulb emit what is known as unpolarized light. More specialised sources, such as certain kinds of discharge tubes and lasers, produce polarized light. The difference between these two types of light is caused by the behaviour of the electromagnetic fields that make up the light.

As described by Maxwell's equations, light is a transverse wave made up of an interacting electric field E and a magnetic field B. The oscillations of these two interacting fields cause the fields to self-propagate in a certain direction, at the speed of light. In most cases, the directions of the electric field, the magnetic field, and the direction of propagation of the light are all mutually perpendicular. That is, both the E and B fields oscillate in a direction at right angles to the direction that the light is moving, and also at right angles to each other.

(In optics, it is usual to define the polarization in terms of the direction of the electric field, and disregard the magnetic field since it is almost always perpendicular to the electric field.)

If the direction of oscillation of the electric field E is fixed, the light wave is said to be linearly polarized. There are two possible linear polarization states, with their E fields orthogonal to one another. Any other angle of linear polarisation can be constructed as a superposition of these two states.

The direction of polarization is arbitrary with respect to the light itself. It is usual to label the two linear polarization states in accordance with some other external reference. For example, the terms horizontally and vertically polarized are generally used when light is propagating in free space. If the light is interacting with a surface, such as a mirror, lens or some other interface between two media, the terms s- and p-polarized are used. For example, consider the following:



| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
|/


In the above diagram, a light ray is reflecting off a mirror at some angle. If the electric field of the light is oscillating perpendicular to the plane of the diagram, the light is termed s-polarized. If it is oscillating in the plane of the diagram, it is termed p-polarized. Other terms used for s-polarization are sigma-polarized and sagittal plane polarised. Similarly, p-polarized light is also referred to as pi-polarised and tangential plane polarized.
If the direction of the electric field E is not fixed, but rotates as the light propagates, the light is said to be circularly polarized. Two possible independent circular polarization states exist, termed left-hand or right-hand circularly polarized depending on whether the electric field is rotating in a counter-clockwise or clockwise sense, respectively, when looking in the direction of the light propagation. Elliptical polarization can be thought of as a combination of circular and linear polarization.

Individual photons are inherently circularly polarized; this is related to the concept of spin in particle physics.

If the light consists of many incoherent waves with randomly varying polarisation, the light is said to be unpolarized. It is possible to convert unpolarised light to polarised light by using a polarizer. One such device is Polaroid® sheet. This is a sheet of plastic with molecules that are arranged such that they absorb any light passing through it which has an electric field oscillating in a given direction; this has the effect of linearly polarizing the light. Other devices can split an unpolarised beam into two beams of orthogonal linear polarization; They are generally constructed from certain arrangements of prisms and optical coatings.

The angle of polarization of linearly polarised light can be rotated using a device known as a half-wave plate. Similarly, linear polarization can be converted to circular polarization and vice versa with the use of a quarter-wave plate.

The possible polarization states can be mapped to a sphere, with left circular at +z, right circular at -z, horizontal at +x, vertical at -x, and the diagonals at +y and -y. Passing through a dichroic wave plate is equivalent to a rotation of the sphere. The amount of amplitude of polarization x that passes through a polarizer that passes y is 1/2 the distance between x and the antipode of y; the intensity is (x·y+1)/2".

Prag: you still have not conceded that both RF and ELF waves (or fields to which they give rise) can penetrate the body. You said they couldn't and you are wrong.

As for SAR, its formula includes an expression of the internal electric field, just as I said. See my subpage on our website for the formula. There is no way SAR is not defined by an (internal) electric field.

 

[Mercutio]

Polarization.

Anyone can set out a description of polarisation, just with a little effort and Google. Here is a simple description (copied from Google, not by me):

Please edit your post to add the link to the specific site you copied.

 

[BillHoyt]

Polarization.

Anyone can set out a description of polarisation, just with a little effort and Google. Here is a simple description (copied from Google, not by me):

"In electrodynamics, polarization is a property of waves, such as light and other electromagnetic radiation...

Roger Dodger,

Do you not understand the difference between electromagnetic and magnetic? It is hilarious that you would offer this in support of your claim about polarized magnetic fields. Magnetic, dodger, not electromagnetic.

This is almost as funny as your comment about compasses. Apparently you are painfully unaware of local declinations, which should be just one clue that the earth's magnetic field isn't polarized. The other clue would be to actually understand what it means to be polarized.

 

[Rolfe]

NOT ONE PERSON on here has accepted the "methodology" of your ridiculous experiment.

Re non adjacent squares:

Quote from another poser, sorry poster: "(I see you did that)".

Just one example.

THAT's an example of someone accepting the methodology???!!!

That was me, and while I'm not knowledgeable enough about electronics to comment on Roger's evidently ultra-bogus theorising in that area, I do know about counting cells. And I think I have been right up there with the best in criticising that methodology. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough??

OK, try it once more.

ROGER, YOUR CELL COUNTING METHODOLOGY IS COMPLETE CARP.

I was summarising the standard method of carrying out a manual haemocytometer count, and mentioned the part about counting non-adjacent cells. As I typed it, I hadn't noticed that Roger had mentioned that aspect at all. On reviewing what he said, I then noticed that he'd mentioned something about counting a diagonal line of squares, which isn't entirely kosher, but probably just about OK. Instead of modifying what I'd already typed, I just added a comment to show that I'd noticed that aspect had been addressed.

AND HE CHOOSES TO INTERPRET THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS AN ACCEPTANCE OF HIS METHODOLOGY!!!

I've heard of intellectual dishonesty, but this one makes the national debt look like a small overspend at the corner shop.

The fact that he wasn't counting adjacent cells is essentially irrelevant in the context that he counts several squares from the one chamber and presents them as separate data points, then when challenged on this declares that that's all right because it's all right to measure each data point only once if your method is sufficiently robust.



The Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[EHocking]

THAT's an example of someone accepting the methodology???!!!

That was me, and while I'm not knowledgeable enough about electronics to comment on Roger's evidently ultra-bogus theorising in that area, I do know about counting cells. And I think I have been right up there with the best in criticising that methodology. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough??

OK, try it once more.

ROGER, YOUR CELL COUNTING METHODOLOGY IS COMPLETE CARP.

It's not the only fishy thing about his "research".

 

[Rolfe]

Please edit your post to add the link to the specific site you copied.

Try this one here. You may find the diagram makes a bit more sense with the proper layout.

Or even better, this one here. I suspect this of being the original, because the diagram now really makes sense, although the angles are a bit off. In fact, do have a look, and laugh at how mangled it got by the time Roger posted it! (The first site is probably Roger's source, because it has lost the mirror and only shows the light. Roger doesn't even manage to get that bit right.)

By the way, I see Roger has ignored my request for the name of the journal just the same as he has ignored all previous requests. Roger, please name the journal which has accepted the dysmenorrhoea paper.

The Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[Pragmatist]

Polarization.

Anyone can set out a description of polarisation, just with a little effort and Google. Here is a simple description (copied from Google, not by me):

Except you it appears, you have to steal someone else's work and present it without acknowledging the true source. Pathetic.

And I am perfectly familiar with polarization thank you. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me about the polarization of electromagnetic waves. What I REQUESTED was that you explain your claim about "polarized magnetic fields". Magnetic fields are NOT electromagnetic waves - if you don't even know the difference you are even more ignorant than I believed (which is certainly pushing boundaries of belief as it is).

So this is noted as yet another evasion, and another claim you apparently can't back up.

Prag: you still have not conceded that both RF and ELF waves (or fields to which they give rise) can penetrate the body. You said they couldn't and you are wrong.

As for SAR, its formula includes an expression of the internal electric field, just as I said. See my subpage on our website for the formula. There is no way SAR is not defined by an (internal) electric field.

Conceded? RF and ELF WAVES? As for RF WAVES, I do recall saying that the skin effect would significantly oppose penetration of RF many posts ago. That is true. So I can't see what there is to "concede". Secondly, I don't recall making any statement to the effect that ELF WAVES couldn't penetrate the body. I require you to prove that assertion. I said, quite clearly, many times that ELF ELECTRIC FIELDS will not penetrate the body to any significant extent. Yes, there IS a major difference. The "fields to which the waves give rise" doesn't make any sense.

ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES (RF OR ELF) are NOT ELECTRIC FIELDS.

Yet another straw man argument?

SAR is an estimate of POWER absorbed as I explained. It is NOT a measure of "electric field", although electric field is considered in one of the forms of the calculation. So is conductivity. You multiply the two together (well, E^2 * conductivity / tissue mass density).

BUT, the actual electric field in tissue depends on the impedance of the tissue AND the source impedance of the field as well. A low impedance in tissue and a high impedance source for example means that the E field will be reduced substantially in magnitude when it hits the tissue. And any impedance mismatch will cause reflection as well.

Now, the important point is this: the electric field (in an RF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE, NOT an isolated electric field) is PRESUMED (for the purposes of calculation) to provide the drive that mobilises a current. The POWER that is absorbed, is generated as a result of the CURRENT that the field is PRESUMED to cause. Which depends on a series of impedances as I have said. BUT if I wanted to calculate the SAR I could just as easily use the magnetic component and refer only to currents without ever MENTIONING electric field at all! So the fact that the electric field appears in one form of the equation tells me next to nothing about the electric field itself.

(For the benefit of people who DO understand basic electrics, I could just as easily use I^2 * R to calculate power as V^2/R. R will actually be complex, (Zr + i * Zi) in the case of a real world impedance.)

So the SAR can not in any way be considered a "measure" of electric field strength. Because the POWER depends entirely on the electric field strength AND the impedances in COMBINATION, NOT the electric field in isolation. (Or the magnetic field and the impedances if I wish).

In any event, the electric field referred to is the electric VECTOR COMPONENT of an ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE, it is NOT a pure electric field.

But the problem, as you keep illustrating, is that you don't really understand what either a field or a wave actually is. And you are confusing a mathematical model with a real field.

Edited to add: I don't recall anyone denying that RF would penetrate the body to SOME extent. In case that wasn't clear from the above. RF is NOT ELF.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Hi, cogreslab,

You wrote:

"Although only one subject was used, and only one test performed, he was counted 10,000 times and therefore represents a sample size of 10,000 leading to statistical confidence in the results"

I don't believe it is correct to say that the sample size is 10,000.

This I believe is a classic case of what is called 'psuedo-replication' in statistics. There is no replication at the level of the population of interest. The readings are also not independent of each other because they were all taken on the same subject.

I also strongly disagree with, because of n = 1, the inferences:

"This study shows conclusively that a common kettle lead can be used to induce panic states in human (non mammalian) subjects."

and

"Analysis of the data strongly indicated a 100% response and as such the results may be comfortably extrapolated to the entire human population."

This used to be a big problem in ecology. They'd take a bazillion measurements on only one lake, and say that replication took place.

Here is a classic paper on pseudo-replication: http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~srivast/biol404/Hurlbert_EcMonogr1984.pdf

 

[MRC_Hans]

Polarization.

Anyone can set out a description of polarisation, just with a little effort and Google. Here is a simple description (copied from Google, not by me):

*snipped, long, irrelevant paste in about polarization of EM waves*

A definite pattern is emerging here: Explanations from Roger are either pinched from somebody else, and largely irrelevant, or they are nonsensical technobabble (sometimes they are pinched technobabble ).

Roger, hellooo! We were talking about FIELDS, not Waves. --- Oh? you don't know the difference? I see.... .

Prag: you still have not conceded that both RF and ELF waves

Neither Pragmatic nor anybody else has denied that EM waves can penetrate the body.

(or fields to which they give rise)

EM waves do do not give rise to fields. In the near-zone of a radiating antenna, there exists field phenomenons, but they behave differently from waves.

This an important misconception that Roger has: He thinks EM waves and EM fields are more or less the same phnenomenon, and this is wrong; they are fundamentally different.

EM waves are an energy form.
EM fields are forces.

can penetrate the body. You said they couldn't and you are wrong.

As explained, Roger is wrong.

As for SAR, its formula includes an expression of the internal electric field, just as I said. See my subpage on our website for the formula. There is no way SAR is not defined by an (internal) electric field.

Roger mistakes EM files and galvanic fields, thinking they are the same. An excusable mistake for a lay-person, but not for a scientist.

Again and again, Roger shows his fatal lack of knowledge in the fields he claims to do research about.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hi, cogreslab,

You wrote:

"Although only one subject was used, and only one test performed, he was counted 10,000 times and therefore represents a sample size of 10,000 leading to statistical confidence in the results"

I don't believe it is correct to say that the sample size is 10,000.

This I believe is a classic case of what is called 'psuedo-replication' in statistics. There is no replication at the level of the population of interest. The readings are also not independent of each other because they were all taken on the same subject.

Thank, you T'ai CHi. You show open-mindedness. And Roger: Seems you cannot even get friends among people who are more willing to believe in alternative theories than us hard-core skeptics. I also notice that Lucianarchy has been wise enough to slip out.

I also strongly disagree with, because of n = 1, the inferences:

"This study shows conclusively that a common kettle lead can be used to induce panic states in human (non mammalian) subjects."

and

"Analysis of the data strongly indicated a 100% response and as such the results may be comfortably extrapolated to the entire human population."

Uhhn, pssst, T'ai: That was a parody post by Pragmatic (obviously an excellent one ). I do notice that Roger for some reason posted a copy of it, maybe he did not realize the parody, or he (who has been running a website design business) is so inept at using the forum that the replica was a mistake

This used to be a big problem in ecology. They'd take a bazillion measurements on only one lake, and say that replication took place.

Here is a classic paper on pseudo-replication: http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~srivast/biol404/Hurlbert_EcMonogr1984.pdf

Yeah, Roger is far from the only one doing crappy "research" out there .

Hans

 

[BillHoyt]

!

 

[The Don]

Uhhn, pssst, T'ai: That was a parody post by Pragmatic (obviously an excellent one ). I do notice that Roger for some reason posted a copy of it, maybe he did not realize the parody, or he (who has been running a website design business) is so inept at using the forum that the replica was a mistake

To be rigourously fair to CogresLab, he posted

PS: I prefer my "silly poem" to this twaddle.

prior to including it

 

[MRC_Hans]

[voice=Yoda]Right you are. Be fair we must.[/voice]

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and while we are being fair, might I direct some of Roger's 20,000 viewers here to this thread, where they can show their appreciation of his efforts.

Hans