Bioelectromagnetics

Pragmatist said:


Roger, just when I think you couldn't possibly make any more of an idiot of yourself than you already have, you go and do it.

You are a complete and total moron. That's not ad-hom, it's a fact. No, I'm not referring to the ridiculous lies and technobabble in the content of the "letter" for a change. This time I'm referring to the fact that Leeka Kheifets LEFT the WHO a YEAR ago!

:dl:
Click to expand...

Now that is funny

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/staff/en/index2.html

where's that dog...ahhhh

:dl:
 
To PJ: Leeka is at UCLA Dept of Epidemiology now, which is where I sent the letter. Anyway, she is also going to be at BEMS. She is charged with the job of writing up the summary of the WHO meeting.
PS: Please do not allege that I had anything to do with the Ladycare ads or trials. I simply asked for your views in these, and I am inclined to agree with some of them myself.
 
Ahh Roger you edited your reply to take the conspiracy theory out, you know "how did Pragmatist know about Leela and perhaps he is closer to all this than he lets on" (paraphrase but close enough).

Looks like my post tipped you off and saved you a bit of embaressment eh ;)
 
EH said:

"Therein lies Mr.Coghill's cunning.

Upon NOT receiving a response from WHO he can then rant and rave about his concerns being ignored and consiracy theories".

Wrong again, EH! I sent the letter to Leeka as indicated in the post above. Though I doubt I will see a retraction from you. These pejorative statements and UVJs which turn out to be unfounded have seriously undermined not only this thread but the credibility of the whole skeptic movement, I am sad to say. I can see why you seek the former, but am puzzled that you also pursue the latter, against the interests of this group.
 
No PJ: I took the trouble to follow up the link provided, and revised my post within minutes. Pity you don't follow up the copious references I cite here, so that you can become better informed.
 
cogreslab said:
EH said:

"Therein lies Mr.Coghill's cunning.

Upon NOT receiving a response from WHO he can then rant and rave about his concerns being ignored and consiracy theories".

Wrong again, EH! I sent the letter to Leeka as indicated in the post above. Though I doubt I will see a retraction from you. These pejorative statements and UVJs which turn out to be unfounded have seriously undermined not only this thread but the credibility of the whole skeptic movement, I am sad to say. I can see why you seek the former, but am puzzled that you also pursue the latter, against the interests of this group.
Click to expand...


Cogreslab said:
As a means of summarising the argument todate as it is emerging on this thread i have copied the letter I just wrote to Leeka Kheifets at WHO below:
Click to expand...
emphasis mine

Not wishing to speak for EHocking but i suspect a certain amount of tongue in cheek was present in his post.
 
To PJ:

"You are a complete and total moron. That's not ad-hom, it's a fact. No, I'm not referring to the ridiculous lies and technobabble in the content of the "letter" for a change. This time I'm referring to the fact that Leeka Kheifets LEFT the WHO a YEAR ago!"


Are you standing by this allegation still, or might I see a retraction here too?
 
cogreslab said:
To PJ:

"You are a complete and total moron. That's not ad-hom, it's a fact. No, I'm not referring to the ridiculous lies and technobabble in the content of the "letter" for a change. This time I'm referring to the fact that Leeka Kheifets LEFT the WHO a YEAR ago!"


Are you standing by this allegation still, or might I see a retraction here too?
Click to expand...

To Cogreslab, as i did not say that, i suggest that you have just provided futher evidence in support of the above statement.
 
To PJ: You know, it might even go a little way to removing the impression you give of exaggerated over reaction if you actually dispensed with the UVJs ("lies...technobabble") and offered a calm recitation of where you think my points to Leeka are in error.

I am struggling to maintain my original belief that the skeptics are more than simply screeching cage rattling monkeys, bound in their encapsulated virtual world of links and postures. But outbursts like that dissuade me of the critical quality of such posters.
 
cogreslab said:
To PJ: You know, it might even go a little way to removing the impression you give of exaggerated over reaction if you actually dispensed with the UVJs ("lies...technobabble") and offered a calm recitation of where you think my points to Leeka are in error.

I am struggling to maintain my original belief that the skeptics are more than simply screeching cage rattling monkeys, bound in their encapsulated virtual world of links and postures. But outbursts like that dissuade me of the critical quality of such posters.
Click to expand...


:dl:

To borrow from Hans (if i may)

Keep Diggin Roger.
 
To Cogreslab, as i did not say that, i suggest that you have just provided futher evidence in support of the above statement.

But you cited Prag's comment in support, and added the laughing hyena gif. It would be really nice if Prag also admitted his over- reactions were unfounded. But I have given up expecting any retractions from him.

Who was it among you who swore that lymphocytes were simply 8-9 microns across?
 
cause we all know they're 4-14 microns don't we. I've provided a reasonable discussion of this many pages back lest you forget.
 
Prester John said:
Ahh Roger you edited your reply to take the conspiracy theory out, you know "how did Pragmatist know about Leela and perhaps he is closer to all this than he lets on" (paraphrase but close enough).

Looks like my post tipped you off and saved you a bit of embaressment eh ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks PJ, wish I'd seen that! :)

It's the first thing you get on Google if you type in the woman's name! Rog doesn't seem to have understood that every time he mentions someone I look them up to find out who they are.

Funny though that I could find that in 10 seconds on Google, yet our Rog, who has allegedly just returned from a WHO meeting in Istanbul DIDN'T know it?

Hmmm.......
 
Moulder Question 9:

Q: Do non-ionizing electromagnetic sources cause non-thermal as well as thermal effects?

His A: One distinction that is often made in discussions of the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic sources is between "nonthermal" and "thermal" effects. This refers to the mechanism for the effect: non-thermal effects are a result of a direct interaction between the field and the organism (for example, photochemical events like vision and photosynthesis); and thermal effects are a result of heating (for example, heating with microwave ovens or IR light). There are many reported biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic sources whose mechanisms are totally unknown, and it is difficult (and not very useful) to try to draw a distinction between "thermal" and "nonthermal" mechanisms for such effects [A4].

I am a bit surprised that Moulder does not enlighten his readers about the reason why this distinction is so often made. It is because Western regulation is based solely on "thermal" levels of exposure to EMF, whereas there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that "non thermal" levels are also capable of causing adverse health effects. Accordingly it is more than useful to draw this distinction and very easy in fact to identify the likely boundary between thermal and non thermal, since that, more or less is where the Western regulatory guidelines, standards and limits are placed. Finally the admission of many non thermal biological effects does not concede that many of those are also adverse, according to a large number of studies. In summary Moulder is glossing over the issue which centrally permeates the bioelectromagnetic community's debates.
 
cogreslab said:
To PJ:

"You are a complete and total moron. That's not ad-hom, it's a fact. No, I'm not referring to the ridiculous lies and technobabble in the content of the "letter" for a change. This time I'm referring to the fact that Leeka Kheifets LEFT the WHO a YEAR ago!"


Are you standing by this allegation still, or might I see a retraction here too?
Click to expand...

QED #3! :D
 
cogreslab said:
EH said:

"Therein lies Mr.Coghill's cunning.

Upon NOT receiving a response from WHO he can then rant and rave about his concerns being ignored and consiracy theories".

Wrong again, EH! I sent the letter to Leeka as indicated in the post above. Though I doubt I will see a retraction from you. These pejorative statements and UVJs which turn out to be unfounded have seriously undermined not only this thread but the credibility of the whole skeptic movement, I am sad to say. I can see why you seek the former, but am puzzled that you also pursue the latter, against the interests of this group.
Click to expand...
I see you've not responded to ONE of my posts regarding your experimental technique and report writing of the second Harmoniser "experiment".

Do you care to correct or discuss the glaring errors and misrepresentations in that report, or merely stand in the corner stamping your foot at me?

...edited to add: Please share the response to your letter at the Forum.
 
Prester John said:



Cogreslab said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a means of summarising the argument todate as it is emerging on this thread i have copied the letter I just wrote to Leeka Kheifets at WHO below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

emphasis mine

Not wishing to speak for EHocking but i suspect a certain amount of tongue in cheek was present in his post.
emphasis mine

Not wishing to speak for EHocking but i suspect a certain amount of tongue in cheek was present in his post.
Click to expand...
A certain degree, but you'd have to be pretty close to my cheek to see the bump
 
"Funny though that I could find that in 10 seconds on Google, yet our Rog, who has allegedly just returned from a WHO meeting in Istanbul DIDN'T know it?"

Are you joking! Leeka's to-be-vacant post was well advertised by Mike Repacholi throughout the BEMS community for ages before she left. You have to realise this is a small community, and most of us have been in the field for at least ten years, and meet continually at conferences across the globe. Moreover there is a good deal of cross domicile: e.g. right now Rick Saunders from the NRPB is spending a secondment year at WHO, and not so long ago Ben Greenebaum from Wisconsin spent a year or so there.
As if that were not enough, the proceedings of the Istanbul conference carries the name and address of all participants. For a brief moment I had hoped that one of you might have a better insight into the issues than was obviously the case. When I realised almost immediately that it was once again simply relying on some web site posting, and not on personal contact I changed the post.
 
"Oops, too many errors in quick succession. Quick, change the subject Rog! "

I would prefer to use the expression "pedantic distractions". Moulder's Q9 returns us to the main debate, just in case you start a new series of posts on everything else you can seize upon except the subject of my letter itself, (which no one has yet addressed).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom