Bioelectromagnetics

[Pragmatist]

The THES comment is complete BS.

EG: from BEMS J, Feb 2003:

Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability.

Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, Barbul A, Korenstein R, Jerby E, Avivi L.

Moreover there was also a good deal of published evidence of RF effects on lymphocytes in 1998 and my campaign was based on that and not solely on our opwn lab research, which was anyway peer review published in 2000.

Crap. Their comment is completely accurate. YOUR research was not peer reviewed in 1998 and you announced the results directly to the press at that time. You can dance around all you want. Whether or not it WAS reviewed later is irrelevant.

 

[Pragmatist]

RF effects on lymphocytes and the haemopoietic system:

I support my previous statement with Table 5.19 from Stewart's 2000 review (p94). "Epidemiological studies of lymphatic and haemopoetic cancer in people potentially exposed to RF radiation through work or hobbies".

10 of 11 studies are listed there are pre 1998 (i.e. only one after 1998) of which only 1 (Garland et al, 1990) reported an OR of less than 1.1, and four reported ORs exceeding 2.8. None of these came from our lab.

Must go now, but should be back on line on Wednesday.

Irrelevant. Another diversion duly noted.

 

[The Don]

To Prag:
.....snip......
I formally claim that the NGT are sitting on their own privately conducted nationwide study (Draper, Swanson et al.) showing a near 2 fold elevation of childhood leukaemia within 100 metres of HV powerlines. Unless they go public on this very soon I and others intend to bring a class action which will make the 1998 cellphone case look like a child's teaparty.......snip.......

Unlike BillHoyt, MRC_Hans and Pragmatist, I don't necessarily let the fact that the "facts" you provide are completely flawed get in the way of a good argument. I'll let them continue to nail you to the wall over those points. I would like to draw your attention to the above quote you provide

Even IF you are correct in this respect (and my position is that as I understood it the jury was still out but I'm willing to be persuaded) could you please explain:

- What the mechanism for the increased incidence is (is it Dr. Henshaw's ions ?)
- How the trinkets you market will reduce the incidence ?

 

[Prester John]

Roger doesn't seem to have the appetite for this thread as much recently - even with his far flung travels taken into consideration.

 

[cogreslab]

Wrong PJ!:

Taken together the three meetings I attended in the last 20 days (Istanbul, Washington DC, London) seem to indicate a sharp change of heart on the part of the establishment. Of them the most surprising was the London meeting organised by the Environmental Council and paid for by NGT, where it was recognised by the two dozen present that EMF does represent a problem, and the immediate need is to define a route towards mitigation or prudent avoidance (though this term was not liked by the assembled company) via public awareness of the risk.

At Istanbul the meeting was still unable to form a view on the acceptance of thermal only standards. The WHO speakers were rather stage managed to present the overall impression that non thermal effects were not well defined, but sufficient leeway was given via posters and questions from the floor for the alternative view to be heard. Another great diplomatic effort by Mike Repacholi.

At Washington with over 400 attendees, (you can see the abstracts on the BEMS website) the accent was on TeraHertz science (I.e. Infra red, surprise surprise, with some notable contributions from Cambridge Univ physics dept and from Durham Univ). Nevertheless there were several not quite polite exchanges, e.g between Cindy Sage (who presented a great platform talk showing the preponderance of non thermal studies (over 400) in the literature showing bioeffects, compared with a very few which did not) and Mays Swicord of Motorola.

I returned to find two unpublished studies implicating melatonin (one which suggested TV watching improves maturation and the other that it inhibits spermatogenesis, neither appearing to be peer review published, however).

So I am slowly emergijng from the desktop pile of agenda to regain contact with this thread.

Not sure where to begin. I badly need to respond to Hans' very good critique. There are some important points to answer re Pragmatist, and a miscellanuy of minor things.

Meanwhile I have written to ORI to ask for their data under the Freedom of Information Act, since I had been unware of their later (Sept 1999) comments on the Liburdy affair, and also to the THES to point out that my concerns over cellphone exposure were not based on our own lab work as they allege, but on the near dozen published studies of lymphatic cancers implicating cellphones.

Finally I have not forgotten the queries raised about the apparently inconsistent figures in our second Harmoniser report, and am looking into this.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, just take your time. We can wait.

Hans

 

[cogreslab]

To the Don:

You said:

- What the mechanism for the increased incidence is (is it Dr. Henshaw's ions ?)
- How the trinkets you market will reduce the incidence ?

The first is the 64 m $ question in this science. I can at least offer you my own opinion as to mechanism, but there are others with different notions.

First let me confine this mechanism to childhood leukaemia, since the association is reasonably well established by some 17 epi studies showing a correlation between exposure to magnetic fields above 0.4 uT and the disorder.

The establishment argues that since 0.4 uT is rarely seen in homes the issue is not vitally important. But I do not think they have taken on board the electric component, where our study found a higher correlation where exposure exceeds 20V/m (commonly found in homes near appliances) and my explanation of the mechanism concerns the electric not the magnetic component.

Because of the paucity of AC electric fields on the planet before electricity Nature has exploited the electtric component in many ways (exquisite sensitivity to E-fields by fishes birds and other creatures for navifgation and mate/prey detection). Within muticellular creatures there is also prolific evidence of use of electrons either via fields or currents (signal transduction, ATP synthesis, wound healing, immunosurveillance).

Leaving aside for a moment Prag's argument that E fields by themselves cannot at ELF frequencies penetrate the body, I hope that everyone willaccept that E-fields are superpositive and that the force exerted by an electron will result in a perturbation of other electrons in the vicinity.

If this is so, and if endogenous fields from say the heart and the brain or other sources, are performing important househeeping tasks, then this perturbation (at levels below those needed to produce a thermal effect) will plausibly affect those processes.

Evidence?

The earliest indications of bioeffects from ELF electric field exposure were reported in 1972 from Russian switchyard workers. They experienced bradycardia, and asthenia. The former would be expected if exogenous E-fields were impacting on the electric fields generated by the sino-atrial nodes of the heart to control vascular blood movement. and the latter would be expected if exogenous E-fields impacted on the synthesis of ATP via oxidative phosphorylation and electron transport in the inner mitochondrial membrane.

These symptoms have permeated the literature since then, not only at a cellular or live animal, but at a human studies level.

In the early 1980s a clutch of in vitro studies found that lymphocyte response to mitogenic challenge was inhibited by electric fields, and animal studies confirmed this.

The problem is, there have been few epi studies of electric field exposure (I wonder why!) and there is no correlation between B and E fields at ELF frequencies. So the issue cannot be fully resolved on present scientific evidence.

MY explanation of this persistent correlation between childhood leukamia and ELF EM field exposure is that the electric field induced or brought inside the body by contact currents has an adverse effect on many cell processes, including lymphocyte competence. In response the body attempts to produce excess lymphocytes, but these incompetence cells serve no other pupose than to make the blood picutre milky, henmce the origin of the word leukaemia ("white blood").

I am conscious that this expanation needs fleshing out, but it is at least a starting point for a skeptical response.

As for the trinkets, we have found that static magnetic fields "calm" the impact of moving electric fields. I beleive there is good physical support for this view.

 

[CFLarsen]

Roger,

Roger and me...

Do you have any comments?

 

[cogreslab]

Hold on Prag!

Liburdy didn't know about it until 4 years later? Oh please!

I am sure Liburdy knew about the LBL and ORI investigations well before 1999. But he only became aware of the ORI statement at the 1999 BEMS meeting.

 

[CFLarsen]

Hold on Prag!

Liburdy didn't know about it until 4 years later? Oh please!

I am sure Liburdy knew about the LBL and ORI investigations well before 1999. But he only became aware of the ORI statement at the 1999 BEMS meeting.

Prove it.

You make the claim, you prove it.

 

[cogreslab]

To CF Larsen:

You pointed to the following:

"The prospect of living under a power line has scared a great many people into believing that they are in grave danger. Feeding this fear, Roger Coghill sells products advocates theories, both involving what can be termed as borderline science. Anybody who wants to pursue a multidisciplinary area of science must somehow master all involved disciplines to a sufficiently high degree to apply them correctly. As an electronic engineer, I have discovered large voids in Mr. Coghill’s access to knowledge about electromagnetic theory".

Well, I am the first to concede I am not an electronics engineer. Others however, such as Alasdair Philips, Cyril Smith, Frank Barnes, Stewart Maurer, to mention just a few, do have a profounder knowledge, and all are of the opinion that chronic exposure to ELF EM fields have important adverse bioeffects on human populations.

I have never said that people living near powerlines are in grave danger, since the electric field from these is often largely shielded by e.g. trees, brick walls etc. The main exposure to people is from appliances in the home or at the office/factory.

Your quotee is quite right about the need to gain at least basic knowledge of many scientific disciplines in order to familiarise with bioelectromagnetics. Right now I am trying to master differential IR spectrometry, so as to get a handle on the identification of molecules, and the wave numbers of specific active groups such as CH3, NH2 etc. Ahead of me is a better understanding of GC/MS/MS technology, THz microscopy, and the effects of static magnetic fields on bacterial motility (flagellate bacteria use an actual electric motor powered by hydrogen, and SMFs seem to slow this down, leading possibly to lowered proliferation). And of course all the time I revisit the basic textbooks on e.g. parallel resonant circuits.

 

[MRC_Hans]

ROger, this is hopeless! Do you not learn at all? Why are you here if you pay no attention to what we say?

To the Don:

You said:

- What the mechanism for the increased incidence is (is it Dr. Henshaw's ions ?)
- How the trinkets you market will reduce the incidence ?

The first is the 64 m $ question in this science. I can at least offer you my own opinion as to mechanism, but there are others with different notions.

First let me confine this mechanism to childhood leukaemia, since the association is reasonably well established by some 17 epi studies showing a correlation between exposure to magnetic fields above 0.4 uT and the disorder.

The establishment argues that since 0.4 uT is rarely seen in homes the issue is not vitally important. But I do not think they have taken on board the electric component, where our study found a higher correlation where exposure exceeds 20V/m (commonly found in homes near appliances) and my explanation of the mechanism concerns the electric not the magnetic component.

But your study was fatally flawed, as pointed out repeatedly. Did you think we would forget?

Because of the paucity of AC electric fields on the planet before electricity Nature has exploited the electtric component in many ways (exquisite sensitivity to E-fields by fishes birds and other creatures for navifgation and mate/prey detection).

Those are not electromagnetic fields.

Within muticellular creatures there is also prolific evidence of use of electrons either via fields or currents (signal transduction, ATP synthesis, wound healing, immunosurveillance).

Leaving aside for a moment Prag's argument that E fields by themselves cannot at ELF frequencies penetrate the body,

But why should we leave aside such a crucial fact?

I hope that everyone willaccept that E-fields are superpositive and that the force exerted by an electron will result in a perturbation of other electrons in the vicinity.

Technobabble.

If this is so, and if endogenous fields from say the heart and the brain or other sources, are performing important househeeping tasks, then this perturbation (at levels below those needed to produce a thermal effect) will plausibly affect those processes.

No, because the external fields do not enter the body. Haven't you been paying attention?

*snip*

The problem is, there have been few epi studies of electric field exposure (I wonder why!)

Could it be because other researchers understand that they do not penetrate the body ?

and there is no correlation between B and E fields at ELF frequencies.

No matter how often you repeat this fallacy, it remains a fallacy.


I am conscious that this expanation needs fleshing out, but it is at least a starting point for a skeptical response.

It not only needs fleshing out, it needs a skeleton, too.

As for the trinkets, we have found that static magnetic fields "calm" the impact of moving electric fields. I beleive there is good physical support for this view.

Nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense. If you can change an electric field with a permanent magnet, there is a Nobel prize waiting for you.

Does this never stop?

Hans

 

[CFLarsen]

To CF Larsen:

You pointed to the following:

"The prospect of living under a power line has scared a great many people into believing that they are in grave danger. Feeding this fear, Roger Coghill sells products advocates theories, both involving what can be termed as borderline science. Anybody who wants to pursue a multidisciplinary area of science must somehow master all involved disciplines to a sufficiently high degree to apply them correctly. As an electronic engineer, I have discovered large voids in Mr. Coghill’s access to knowledge about electromagnetic theory".

Well, I am the first to concede I am not an electronics engineer. Others however, such as Alasdair Philips, Cyril Smith, Frank Barnes, Stewart Maurer, to mention just a few, do have a profounder knowledge, and all are of the opinion that chronic exposure to ELF EM fields have important adverse bioeffects on human populations.

I have never said that people living near powerlines are in grave danger, since the electric field from these is often largely shielded by e.g. trees, brick walls etc. The main exposure to people is from appliances in the home or at the office/factory.

Your quotee is quite right about the need to gain at least basic knowledge of many scientific disciplines in order to familiarise with bioelectromagnetics. Right now I am trying to master differential IR spectrometry, so as to get a handle on the identification of molecules, and the wave numbers of specific active groups such as CH3, NH2 etc. Ahead of me is a better understanding of GC/MS/MS technology, THz microscopy, and the effects of static magnetic fields on bacterial motility (flagellate bacteria use an actual electric motor powered by hydrogen, and SMFs seem to slow this down, leading possibly to lowered proliferation). And of course all the time I revisit the basic textbooks on e.g. parallel resonant circuits.

Roger,

If you really feel you don't have the qualifications, why on Earth do you feel you can advice people to buy your products?

I would like to formally invite you to write a reply to the article on SkepticReport. Submit it to me at webmaster@skepticreport.com, and I will publish it.

Just expect your reply to be countered.

What is your answer? Will you write a reply? Yes or no?

 

[Pragmatist]

Hold on Prag!

Liburdy didn't know about it until 4 years later? Oh please!

I am sure Liburdy knew about the LBL and ORI investigations well before 1999. But he only became aware of the ORI statement at the 1999 BEMS meeting.

Notice in Federal Register published June 17:

Federal Register: June 17, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 116), Notices, Page 32503-32504

BEMS Meeting 1999, June 20-24, 1999.

Liburdy statement June 23, 1999.

LBL found him guilty of fraud in 1995. Then they referred it to ORI. Only took him 4 years to MENTION it to anyone...

Do ORI publish without informing a suspect of their verdict first?

Like Claus said, your claim, you prove it!

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference either way though. The guy was found GUILTY of fraud - TWICE (once by LBL, once by ORI). His excuses after the event were later trashed by ORI. End of story.

Strange you weren't aware of the later ORI statement before now. Particularly since I quoted it in full about 20 pages back...! Keep digging...

 

[CFLarsen]

Notice in Federal Register published June 17:

Federal Register: June 17, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 116), Notices, Page 32503-32504

BEMS Meeting 1999, June 20-24, 1999.

Liburdy statement June 23, 1999.

LBL found him guilty of fraud in 1995. Then they referred it to ORI. Only took him 4 years to MENTION it to anyone...

Do ORI publish without informing a suspect of their verdict first?

Like Claus said, your claim, you prove it!

Ain't skepticism and critical thinking a drag? Well........no!

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference either way though. The guy was found GUILTY of fraud - TWICE (once by LBL, once by ORI). His excuses after the event were later trashed by ORI. End of story.

Strange you weren't aware of the later ORI statement before now. Particularly since I quoted it in full about 20 pages back...! Keep digging...

Ahhh.....this is so beautiful.....

 

[Pragmatist]

To CF Larsen:
Well, I am the first to concede I am not an electronics engineer. Others however, such as Alasdair Philips, Cyril Smith, Frank Barnes, Stewart Maurer, to mention just a few, do have a profounder knowledge, and all are of the opinion that chronic exposure to ELF EM fields have important adverse bioeffects on human populations.

Ah.. Alasdair Philips. Is he the one who runs an organisation called "Powerwatch" or something like that? Doesn't he offer advice to people on the horrifying evils of EMF's? And doesn't he also just happen to offer "consultancy services" to go check out people's houses and advise them on how to avoid the terrible danger? All for a modest fee of course.

And isn't he also responsible for statements to the effect that microwaves can be modulated onto ELF "carriers"? Doesn't he also advise that people can be exposed to the evil "circularly polarized magnetic field" a la Kato, by 3 phase overhead transmission lines?

And dear old Cyril Smith again! Our favorite scientist! Who measures electric currents with pendulums and dowsing rods. The discoverer of the stunning scientific sigificance of the common hard boiled egg slicer, no less...

Haven't heard of the others before.

Not that it makes the slightest difference in any event. ANYBODY with the slightest bit of common sense realises that there is SOME danger from exposure to ELF EM fields. Even a few WITHOUT the slightest bit of common sense too, it appears!

And if you are the first to concede that you're NOT an electronics engineer then why do you keep arguing with electronics engineers and pretending you have superior knowledge?

I have never said that people living near powerlines are in grave danger, since the electric field from these is often largely shielded by e.g. trees, brick walls etc. The main exposure to people is from appliances in the home or at the office/factory.

Liar. Oh yes, and it's kettle leads that kill babies isn't it?

Your quotee is quite right about the need to gain at least basic knowledge of many scientific disciplines in order to familiarise with bioelectromagnetics. Right now I am trying to master differential IR spectrometry, so as to get a handle on the identification of molecules, and the wave numbers of specific active groups such as CH3, NH2 etc. Ahead of me is a better understanding of GC/MS/MS technology, THz microscopy, and the effects of static magnetic fields on bacterial motility (flagellate bacteria use an actual electric motor powered by hydrogen, and SMFs seem to slow this down, leading possibly to lowered proliferation). And of course all the time I revisit the basic textbooks on e.g. parallel resonant circuits.

If you were learning IR spectrometry you'd know that the FIRST principle is that the wavenumbers CHANGE with the chemical environment of the ligand. Rather the whole point! And the easiest way to identify a ligand is by trace SHAPE, not by wavenumber...

And as for the textbooks, don't you think it would be worthwhile reading the BEGINNING first? I mean it would help enormously if you actually knew the basic difference between potential and current, fields and waves etc!

And even *I* know that flagellates use a proton pump which is powered by ATP! Which is hardly "powered by hydrogen"!

Keep digging...!

 

[Pragmatist]

Ain't skepticism and critical thinking a drag? Well........no!

Well, it is for poor old Rog!

And just for reference purposes, here is where I originally posted the full ORI statement:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870483352#post1870483352

 

[Lucianarchy]

Claus, well done for publicising the dangers of chronic EM radiation and the how those dangers are actively being supressed. Ms Cleo mentioned in passing that you were working for Mr Coghill's cause. Would you be good enough to put the links to these alongside your article? :

http://www.radiationresearch.org/

http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega214.htm

http://www.equilibra.uk.com/emfsbio.shtml

http://www.bioelectromagnetics.org/

http://www.revolt.co.uk

http://www.rfsafe.com/article340.html

Thanks.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Roger Coghill, and other interested parties, I have an offer for you:

In a separate thread, I am willing to explain from rock bottom how electrical fields work. You can ask questions, and I will answer them. Perhaps Pragmatist and others will assist me and provide second opinins.

I have only one condition: The tread should be entirely dedicated to the purpose of explaining electromagnetic subjects. No discussion of other agendas.

If you agree, I will ask the moderators to assist in keeping the thread free of derailings.

Hans

 

[The Don]

As for the trinkets, we have found that static magnetic fields "calm" the impact of moving electric fields. I beleive there is good physical support for this view.

Could you please explain this in terms of known electomagnetic equations. After all you do realise it is utter rubbish.