Bioelectromagnetics

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

My apologies to Hans for spelling his name wrong here and there.
Also for the erroneous presumption that he was based in the UK.

No worries, mate.

Edited to add: But perhaps it would look nice if you corrected your little article about me accordingly .

However, I hope readers will take a look at the IEE site and their version of the differences in character bewteen electric and magnetic fields at ELF frequencies.

The nub of the argument between Hans and me on this (I think) is that though there is obviously an alternating electric field always created by a moving magnetic field, at ELF frequencies this is not predictable because the exposee is in the near field.

Well that is part of it. The ratio between the fields is indeed nearly impossible to predict. It is also very difficult to measure, therefore understanding of electromagnetic theory is essential if you propose to make any conclusions on this. My point is that you do not posess that understanding.

Hence no magnetic field study can argue that the results also apply to the electric field. This means that in testing for any association, epi studies have to measure the two separately, and so far the majority of them have only measured or calculated (or addressed) the magnetic field.

That is not correct. As I have pointed out several times, many of the existing studies do not work with measuring fields at all, they work with location, e.g. near high tension lines, where both fields can be predicted to be high. Also, even if the ratio between the fields cannot be inferred with any certainty in each case, it is perfectly feasible to make assumptions about the OVERALL ratio over a large number of cases. Take your kettle example : In one kettle it makes a lot of difference whether it is off or on, but for a thousand kettles, we might infer that a given percentage of them will always be on.

In Theriault's occupational study at McGill when he added in the transients (which cause high E fields) and the ELF electric component the ORs increased dramatically. I had lunch whith the Quebec Hydro people at Istanbul, who told me that Theriault's transient data were erroneous, and that he had agreed not to publish it but then went ahead. Taking them at their word it seems we still therefore have no good evidence (except our 1996 study) for either accepting or dismissing the importance of the electric component. Instead we only have the cellular and live animal studies where the evidence is robust for adverse effects, particularly on white blood cells. Clearly this is an important gap in the science which needs to be filled. One does not have to be a qualified electrical engineer to see that.

Perhaps not, but one needs to be properly qualified to do the research that may need to be done. And one needs to be properly qualified to evaluate the existing research.

It is my argument that the ELF electric component is the bio-active parameter affecting many life processes. E.g. It affects many enzymes. For example the rate limiting enzyme for melatonin synthesis is controlled by EM fields at light frequencies and possibly also at ELF frequencies too. (a new May 2004 Japanese study has just shown that these enzymes' gene expression correlates with melatonin synthesis and with light dark cycles, for example).

Yes, this is your argument, but you have not been able to support that argument, and since you are unsure about the physics behind ELF, your argument becomes very weak. For instance, your lack of distinction between electromagnetic and galvanic fields punches big holes in much of your reasoning.

*snip*

Roger, try to understand this: I don't think there is anything wrong with your case; I'm as concerned about public safety as anybody else, but I think you are making your case very poorly. The gross inaccuracies, the conspiracy theories, the pseudoscience, and the peddling of woowoo gadgets, all is putting you in a very bad light. If there exists a conspiracy to suppress these things, you are doing them a great favour by helping to make the subject untouchable by real scientists.

Hans

Hans

 

[Cleopatra]

Slight derail :

Hans I just saw that you try to debate Iacchus on the 14 Gerarai in his forum. LOL

Being there done that, here,some months ago. After you finish we can work together on an article for Skeptic Report. LOL

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, yeah, a sudden whim. I guess I have to go back and follow up. Nice chap, Lacchus. Total foghead, IMHO, but..nice.

Hans

 

[cogreslab]

Roger, try to understand this: I don't think there is anything wrong with your case; I'm as concerned about public safety as anybody else, but I think you are making your case very poorly. The gross inaccuracies, the conspiracy theories, the pseudoscience, and the peddling of woowoo gadgets, all is putting you in a very bad light. If there exists a conspiracy to suppress these things, you are doing them a great favour by helping to make the subject untouchable by real scientists.

Hans

Hans

Thanks Hans, and I appreciate your constructive remarks. I must concede that some of my posts have been inaccurate, maybe grossly, when I was trying to make a point quickly and did not appreciate the high degree of definition (e.g. my loose use of the term animals) required in this forum.

As for the conspiracy theories, I have to say they really do exist, and those who have been close to this science for a decade or two are well aware of the probably quite natural reluctance of those with vested interests to accept inconvenient scientific evidence, and to take appropriate steps to avoid it. I am not alone in saying this!

Many books example the avoidance strategies of the utilities, the military, and the telecoms industry: "Power over People" Dr Louise Young; "The Zapping of America", Paul Brodeur; "Cover Up"; "The Body Electric", Robert Becker; "Cellphone Russian Roulette", Robert Kane; to mention just a few books off the cuff.

The main feature of this obfuscation has been failure to research electric field effects on people, hence the dramatic Coghill Challenge. This is probably where we disagree most, i.e. about the E-field's relative chronicity compared with (intermittent) magnetic field exposure. For those controlling most of the research funding to have focused largely on the magnetic component has imho held up scientific progress in understanding these strong reactions weak fields.

Pseudoscience? I don't think my biology is wrong, but from the outside it seems to me that physicists themselves disgree over many issues in this arena, so choosing one view inevitably opens one to this criticism. You have seen the statments of WHO and the IEE on how electric fields are always present but not magnetic fields, and I do not think this view is wrong either.

Peddling woo woo gadgets? Most of our third party products are static magnets, for which there is good evidence of efficacy. The two shielding devices are either physical shields such as Microshield or this Harmoniser thing. There is also the Tecno thing, which no one seems to have mentioned here, though we don't actuially sell it. The other "buttons" are not promoted by us, but we did not shrink from testing them in vitro.

The Harmoniser? Two main criticisms there it seems|:

a) how in hell is it supposed to work?
b) where is the evidence of efficacy in vivo?

We only did an in vitro study, and made no in vivo investigations. (Incidentally I have taken advantage of some spare lab resources and repeated the test on the Harmoniser at ELF frequencies the other day. The figures still showed significant protective differences, and this was using a Harmoniser still kicking around the lab for a year or two). (If you like I will put the detailed results on the JREF subpage on our website).

But the more general issue about woo woo devices is that unless science explores avenues that it does not currently understand there will be no progress. Most posters are calling this thing a woo woo, but if they applied the same strictures they apply to me they need to demonstrate it doesn't work, and no one has done that. I do not have all the answers about these strange devices, I concede, but products like aspirin are still sold for profit on the market despite having known adverse side effects, whereas this Harmoniser have never shown any, only good reports. Even if its action is only as a placebo, modern medical practice has recognised that benefit (there are plenty of peer reviewed papers on this topic) though I think there is more than a placebo effect, judging by the persistent in vitro evidence.

Bioelectromagnetics in its more curious forms is not untouchable by "real scientists". No one recently condemned Newton for his passionate belief in Astrology. (His comment was the same as mine: "I have studied it sir. You have not"). Indeed, many famous scientists/academics had/have foibles of a non scientific nature. For example the great Classicist Gilbert Murray used to conduct weekly seances in his parlour to contact the dead.

OK so most of these ventures into the unknown will end up on the dustpile, but venture we should. The main thing is to apply the same rigour as one would expect in the peer review process.

In our published work we make sure all these disciplines are in place, and take a pragmatic rather than a theoretical view in general. I know the situation regarding fields around an electric kettle lead only because I measure them with traceable instruments, not because of the theory which (correctly) says the magnetic field should be there all the time there is an alternation of electric field and vice versa. There may be some other countering effect also in operation to produce the net effect.

Anyway, I must get back to work: preparing a poster for the Gordon Conference and five other presentation due in September. Will try to find more time for responses to this thread later.

 

[EHocking]

<snip>

The Harmoniser? Two main criticisms there it seems|:

a) how in hell is it supposed to work?
b) where is the evidence of efficacy in vivo?

We only did an in vitro study, and made no in vivo investigations. (Incidentally I have taken advantage of some spare lab resources and repeated the test on the Harmoniser at ELF frequencies the other day. The figures still showed significant protective differences, and this was using a Harmoniser still kicking around the lab for a year or two). (If you like I will put the detailed results on the JREF subpage on our website).

I would much prefer to see you provide the data from your 2nd experiment as you indicated you would in a reply to me earlier. I mean, you had time to repeat the experiment, but you did not have time to find the original experiment notes?

Also, blithely performing yet another "experiment" off the cuff as it were and then claiming it supports your past "research" does not instill confidence that you approach your lab work in a methodical and controlled manner.

But the more general issue about woo woo devices is that unless science explores avenues that it does not currently understand there will be no progress. .... whereas this Harmoniser have never shown any[side affects], only good reports. Even if its action is only as a placebo, modern medical practice has recognised that benefit (there are plenty of peer reviewed papers on this topic) though I think there is more than a placebo effect, judging by the persistent in vitro evidence..

You miss the point Mr.Coghill. The experiments you have presented to date do not show any effects of this device. Your argument about science not progress because such deviceses are not researched is invalidated by the fact that no effect has been demonstrated for science to investigate.

Bioelectromagnetics in its more curious forms is not untouchable by "real scientists". No one recently condemned Newton for his passionate belief in Astrology. (His comment was the same as mine: "I have studied it sir. You have not"). Indeed, many famous scientists/academics had/have foibles of a non scientific nature. For example the great Classicist Gilbert Murray used to conduct weekly seances in his parlour to contact the dead.

You forgot Galileo and Columbus.
It is an unwritten usenet law that, whenever the above argument is regurgitated into a discussion, Galilleo and Columbus are also included.

OK so most of these ventures into the unknown will end up on the dustpile, but venture we should. The main thing is to apply the same rigour as one would expect in the peer review process.

In our published work we make sure all these disciplines are in place...

It is indeed this demonstrated lack of rigour in the presentation of your experimental work that is undermining your arguments in this Forum. Your goals would be much more quickly reached if you were to produce accurate written reports on well conducted and controlled experiments.

 

[Rolfe]

No one recently condemned Newton for his passionate belief in Astrology. (His comment was the same as mine: "I have studied it sir. You have not").

Roger obviously hasn't read all of the most recent issue of Skeptic Report!

The BVM.

 

[cogreslab]

I am still trying to find the original version of this second Harmioniser report you quoted which is somewhere in our files, so apologise for the delay. Meanwhile, (re Galileo and Columbus) readers may care to peruse these remarks from an interview with Prof Martin Blank at Columbia University. I suppose at the time nearly everyone beleived Lord Kelvin was right, and woe betide the poor maverick who challenged him.

Q. The American Physical Society has written a report saying that biological effects at low field levels (below the noise level) are theoretically not possible. How do you reply?



A. It is tempting to simply dismiss the statements of a group whose expertise is so far afield from medical and biological issues, but the issue can be answered with two questions.

Q. Are the physicists aware of research in biology that contradicts their conclusion?

Q. Are the models they use relevant to cellular processes?

The answers to both questions are NO. From my replies to earlier questions it should be clear that many laboratories have shown that weak EM fields can have significant effects on cells (e.g., reaction rates and protein synthesis as in the stress response). The task of the theoretician is to develop realistic models for the observations. The commonly used models for cells, where a membrane is the only cell structure, are unrealistic and not even relevant for stimulation of transcription in the DNA of the cell nucleus. Calculations based on unrealistic models can only lead to irrelevant conclusions.



A famous example is Lord Kelvin, the most respected physicist of his time, who used an unrealistic model and came to the wrong conclusion about the age of the earth. Geologists correctly proposed that the earth was billions of years old, but Kelvin calculated that if the earth were that old, heat at the earth’s core would have diffused away, and the earth would have cooled into a solid mass. Since the earth had a molten core, the age estimated by geologists was wrong. Kelvin's model did not take into account heating from radioactive decay, a phenomenon that was not discovered until many years later. Theoreticians must use models that relate to transcription, if they hope to arrive at reasonable conclusions about effects of EM fields on transcription.



Theoreticians who claim that biological effects of EM fields are impossible at levels weaker than thermal noise (the energy due to random molecular motion) must acknowledge that the extreme sensitivity of sharks to electric fields is well below the thermal noise limit. Sharks have an elaborate inter-connected system of sensors that is able to detect fields as low as nanovolts/cm. Biological systems often have unusual properties (e.g., retinal cells can react to a single quantum of light). Physicists must develop models that are appropriate for the biological measurements they are meant to explain.

 

[cogreslab]

"The experiments you have presented to date do not show any effects of this device".

Our tests with lymphocytes in vitro on the protective effects of this Harmoniser did show effects, surely?

 

[cogreslab]

"Roger, anybody who has gone through elementary school knows that you can stack magnets. And any magnets can be stacked. The bald-faced lie was that: "SuperMagnets differ from all others". ALL OTHER MAGNETS can be changed in that way too, Roger. Thank you for giving me opportunity to point out this lie of yours to our audience".

The point I was making is that other suppliers only provide one magnet, so the opportunity to vary the field strength in the way our system does is lost.

 

[cogreslab]

"Also, since it calims to find correlation between MAGNETIC fields and disease, it sort of contradicts Roger's claims".


Not at all. The fact that a magnetic field is also present and weakly associated with ill health does not invalidate that the electric field may be more strongly assocaited and be a candidate for a causal effect! The ORs with ELF electric fields are far higher than the magnetic field findings.
.

 

[cogreslab]

Prag: "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?"

Where did I say or pretend I had superior knowledge?

 

[cogreslab]

Larsen: "They are websites that advocate false notions about EMF, solely to scare people into buying products and keep them in a state of ignorance".

I wonder if Claus realises that he has just dismissed at a stroke the entire biioelectromagnetics community, some 600 scientists around the world, mostly from reputable universities, who are members of the Society whose website he refuses to acknowledge!

I am beginning to learn just how impartial and non-selective these skeptics are.

 

[EHocking]

"The experiments you have presented to date do not show any effects of this device".

Our tests with lymphocytes in vitro on the protective effects of this Harmoniser did show effects, surely?

This experiment and it's presentation was as equally flawed as the second experiment and was discussed ad nauseum here.

So, no. Your tests did NOT show effects.

(... and stop calling me Shirley )

 

[Pragmatist]

My apologies for not being able to devote much time here during the last few days, but we have been horrendously busy and I am still struggling to emerge from the paperwork. The issue won't go away, though, and nor will I.

I have now set up a system for being able to include graphs, tables etc on our site under Skeptics Corner, (still under construction as far as content is concerned.)

My apologies to Hans for spelling his name wrong here and there. Also for the erroneous presumption that he was based in the UK. However, I hope readers will take a look at the IEE site and their version of the differences in character bewteen electric and magnetic fields at ELF frequencies.

The fact that Hans clearly told you who he was, that he was not based in the UK, and that he was NOT associated with the IEE in the first 1/3rd of this thread as it is, didn't stop you from making the accusations though did it? And you wonder why we don't buy into your similar claims about other people/organisations?

The nub of the argument between Hans and me on this (I think) is that though there is obviously an alternating electric field always created by a moving magnetic field, at ELF frequencies this is not predictable because the exposee is in the near field. Hence no magnetic field study can argue that the results also apply to the electric field. This means that in testing for any association, epi studies have to measure the two separately, and so far the majority of them have only measured or calculated (or addressed) the magnetic field.

And there is a magnetic field caused by an alternating electric field too. Which YOU conveniently choose to ignore. As it has been explained dozens if not hundreds of times by now, the electric field penetration at ELF frequencies into the body is negligible. You, yourself have argued that the high E field from overhead lines is considerably attenuated by weak conductors such as brick walls, yet you continue to insist that the body (a much stronger conductor) DOESN'T exhibit such a shielding effect. The studies don't NEED to measure the E field because it is insignificant in practice. No amount of insistence on your part changes that. The ONLY thing that would change that is if you showed some real EVIDENCE that it is true. Which you have failed to do.

In Theriault's occupational study at McGill when he added in the transients (which cause high E fields) and the ELF electric component the ORs increased dramatically. I had lunch whith the Quebec Hydro people at Istanbul, who told me that Theriault's transient data were erroneous, and that he had agreed not to publish it but then went ahead. Taking them at their word it seems we still therefore have no good evidence (except our 1996 study) for either accepting or dismissing the importance of the electric component. Instead we only have the cellular and live animal studies where the evidence is robust for adverse effects, particularly on white blood cells. Clearly this is an important gap in the science which needs to be filled. One does not have to be a qualified electrical engineer to see that.

In vitro evidence of cell effects is not relevant to the in-vivo case for the reasons that have been explained to you so many times. If a cell is in a petri dish then it is OUTSIDE the effective Faraday cage of the body. It is PRECISELY for reasons like this why one DOES need a qualified electrical engineer to assess what is really going on. The uninformed speculations of biologists don't count for anything.

It is my argument that the ELF electric component is the bio-active parameter affecting many life processes. E.g. It affects many enzymes. For example the rate limiting enzyme for melatonin synthesis is controlled by EM fields at light frequencies and possibly also at ELF frequencies too. (a new May 2004 Japanese study has just shown that these enzymes' gene expression correlates with melatonin synthesis and with light dark cycles, for example).

But this is the whole problem isn't it? It's NOT just "your argument" as in "your opinion". You go around telling people that your speculations are FACTS. You rely on the ignorance of the public to mislead people. You don't go out and tell people, "Look I don't really know or understand anything about electromagnetics, but I have this THEORY that....". What you do is tell people, "Look, I'm a great and distinguished bioelectromagnetics expert and it is a FACT that electric fields kill infants etc..."

This wouldn't be excusable if you knew what you were talking about - but as we have seen on here, you don't have a clue! You are woefully ignorant of even the basics. But that doesn't bother you. Truth doesn't bother you. The consequences of what you do doesn't bother you. The harm you may cause doesn't bother you. And THAT bothers ME, and I suspect most reasonable people on here too.

Every time you open your mouth, metaphorically speaking, you throw out another example of gross ignorance. Look at your own statement above, "EM fields at light frequencies". You are talking about LIGHT. Light is NOT an "EM field", it is an EM WAVE. Yes, there IS a difference. A MASSIVE difference. There is no relation (in context) between the (practical) behavior of a light wave and and ELF FIELD. But that doesn't stop you adding it in does it?

Since the utilities seem in no hurry to look at ELF electric fields, and since the present regulations do not offer protection at the levels reported as bioactive, I am doing all in my power to raise public and scientific awareness of this vital gap in knowledge. Some may not like the dramatic way I do this (aka The Coghill Challenge), but it does effectively underline the problem! Obviously if the utltities had taken more care to address the issue of electric fields and not simply dismissed it without reason my Challenge would not be necessary.

You are trying to raise "public and scientific awareness" of your OWN rewritten, private version of physics. You are NOT presenting fact, you are presenting idle, ignorant misunderstanding. Your "challenge" does not address "the problem", because YOU are "the problem". The utilities did NOT dismiss the ELF electric field without reason. They analysed the REAL situation and concluded that it was insignificant. Now, it is POSSIBLE that they MIGHT be wrong about that. But that doesn't make YOU right by any means. THEY at least made some effort to investigate the physics. Yet, after all the arguments on here, the fact that you have been PROVEN wrong more times than I care to count, you haven't bothered to learn ANYTHING or attempted to modify your own ideas one iota. Precisely WHO is dismissing things without reason? The vital gap in knowledge is yours, and yours alone.

Sooner or later this scientific lacuna has to be filled. Not even the utilities want to kill their own customers! That is why we are all sitting down together at the Environment Council right now to try to find a way round the problem.

You were trying to convince us before that they DID want to kill their own customers, go figure...! And there is no "scientific lacuna" - well except in YOUR knowledge that is. The sooner you actually make some effort to fill it, the sooner you will be a in position to discuss these matters sensibly and intelligently.

 

[Pragmatist]

PJ said: Read what I actually wrote please. How about "powered by ATP"? Powered by ATP is NOT the same as "powered by hydrogen". Doh!

If you look at Alberts, Bray's Molecular Biology of the Cell you will see that they use the words "Driven by the hydrogen gradient across this membrane" to describe how flagellate motors are powered. (p 720 in the 2nd edition, though the 3rd edn may have it on a slightly different page). See also De Pamphilis and Adler, J Bacteriol. 105: 384-395, 1971).

In ox phos pathways ATP is synthesised normally by similar hydrogen gradients across (in that case) the inner mitochondrial membrane) which is a different process.

And what precisely CAUSES the "hydrogen" (it's ionic by the way) gradient across the membrane? More hydrogen? Or ATP perhaps?

A nuclear power plant uses a nuclear reaction to heat water that is used to drive steam turbines. The pressure gradient in the superheated water turns the turbine. So I guess nuclear power plants are NOT "nuclear" power plants. By your reasoning they are "powered" by water....

 

[Pragmatist]

Thanks Hans, and I appreciate your constructive remarks. I must concede that some of my posts have been inaccurate, maybe grossly, when I was trying to make a point quickly and did not appreciate the high degree of definition (e.g. my loose use of the term animals) required in this forum.

And you realised this WHEN exactly? I mean it didn't stop you from doing the same for the next 500 odd posts either!

As for the conspiracy theories, I have to say they really do exist, and those who have been close to this science for a decade or two are well aware of the probably quite natural reluctance of those with vested interests to accept inconvenient scientific evidence, and to take appropriate steps to avoid it. I am not alone in saying this!

Nobody doubts that the conspiracy THEORIES exist. But there is plenty of room for doubt about the alleged conspiracies themselves. And the fact that you are not the only one saying it doesn't exactly count for much.

Many books example the avoidance strategies of the utilities, the military, and the telecoms industry: "Power over People" Dr Louise Young; "The Zapping of America", Paul Brodeur; "Cover Up"; "The Body Electric", Robert Becker; "Cellphone Russian Roulette", Robert Kane; to mention just a few books off the cuff.

I could probably find 500 odd books alleging an (alien) UFO conspiracy cover up. Some of them even written by otherwise respectable scientists. So I guess that proves that there IS a UFO conspiracy does it? Do you believe in alien UFO's Roger?

The main feature of this obfuscation has been failure to research electric field effects on people, hence the dramatic Coghill Challenge. This is probably where we disagree most, i.e. about the E-field's relative chronicity compared with (intermittent) magnetic field exposure. For those controlling most of the research funding to have focused largely on the magnetic component has imho held up scientific progress in understanding these strong reactions weak fields.

Pseudoscience? I don't think my biology is wrong, but from the outside it seems to me that physicists themselves disgree over many issues in this arena, so choosing one view inevitably opens one to this criticism. You have seen the statments of WHO and the IEE on how electric fields are always present but not magnetic fields, and I do not think this view is wrong either.

Same old nonsense. The WHO and IEE have not said one word about magnetic fields NOT being present. They have simply ignored the case where very weak fields are present. The fact that they have not mentioned them is NOT a claim that they don't exist. The simple fact that you can't see the utter illogic of your own statements tells us all we need to know about your "scientific" capacity. And there are plenty on here who think your biology is wrong... Physicists don't disagree on the basics, the fact that you can't understand it, does not equate to a disagreement between others.

Peddling woo woo gadgets? Most of our third party products are static magnets, for which there is good evidence of efficacy. The two shielding devices are either physical shields such as Microshield or this Harmoniser thing. There is also the Tecno thing, which no one seems to have mentioned here, though we don't actuially sell it. The other "buttons" are not promoted by us, but we did not shrink from testing them in vitro.

There is also good evidence of the NON-efficacy of static magnets. And good evidence of the HARMFUL effects of static magnets too.

The Harmoniser? Two main criticisms there it seems|:

a) how in hell is it supposed to work?
b) where is the evidence of efficacy in vivo?

We only did an in vitro study, and made no in vivo investigations. (Incidentally I have taken advantage of some spare lab resources and repeated the test on the Harmoniser at ELF frequencies the other day. The figures still showed significant protective differences, and this was using a Harmoniser still kicking around the lab for a year or two). (If you like I will put the detailed results on the JREF subpage on our website).

Don't forget point 3. Where is the evidence of efficacy in vitro? Where is the evidence it does ANYTHING at all?

But the more general issue about woo woo devices is that unless science explores avenues that it does not currently understand there will be no progress. Most posters are calling this thing a woo woo, but if they applied the same strictures they apply to me they need to demonstrate it doesn't work, and no one has done that.

Science needs to explore strange things, agreed. But nobody is under any obligation to demonstrate that it DOESN'T work. The onus is fairly and squarely on YOU. YOU make the claim that it DOES work, it's impossible to prove a negative so it's up to you, and you alone, to prove the claim you make.

I do not have all the answers about these strange devices, I concede, but products like aspirin are still sold for profit on the market despite having known adverse side effects, whereas this Harmoniser have never shown any, only good reports. Even if its action is only as a placebo, modern medical practice has recognised that benefit (there are plenty of peer reviewed papers on this topic) though I think there is more than a placebo effect, judging by the persistent in vitro evidence.

Products like aspirin are PROVEN to have a positive, measurable, objective effect in tests that everyone agrees are well conducted. A product that does not work may not have any direct side effects. Except lulling the ignorant into reliance upon something that claims to "protect" but doesn't. I guess you don't consider possible cancer or death from overexposure to harmful EM, as a result of relying on useless rubbish a "side effect"...

And your "placebo" ideas are why some of us consider you to be morally bankrupt.

Bioelectromagnetics in its more curious forms is not untouchable by "real scientists". No one recently condemned Newton for his passionate belief in Astrology. (His comment was the same as mine: "I have studied it sir. You have not"). Indeed, many famous scientists/academics had/have foibles of a non scientific nature. For example the great Classicist Gilbert Murray used to conduct weekly seances in his parlour to contact the dead.

And that therefore proves WHAT exactly? That astrology is real because Isaac may have said something about it? That talking to the dead is possible? Or that some notable people have held crazy ideas? So I guess that means that makes YOU notable or a "real" scientist? Not exactly, Roger...

My beef with you is not that you may have some crazy ideas. It's that you don't know the DIFFERENCE between a crazy idea and reality, and that you are ignorant of the real science you claim expertise in.

OK so most of these ventures into the unknown will end up on the dustpile, but venture we should. The main thing is to apply the same rigour as one would expect in the peer review process.

Agreed. So why don't YOU do that?

In our published work we make sure all these disciplines are in place, and take a pragmatic rather than a theoretical view in general. I know the situation regarding fields around an electric kettle lead only because I measure them with traceable instruments, not because of the theory which (correctly) says the magnetic field should be there all the time there is an alternation of electric field and vice versa. There may be some other countering effect also in operation to produce the net effect.

I've told you a dozen times why you won't be able to measure that field, but since you don't listen... There is no need for any "countering effect". And it's really rich how you now claim that the theory is correct after all your claims to the effect that it wasn't! How about in this VERY post of yours above for example... Sheesh!

 

[Pragmatist]

A famous example is Lord Kelvin, the most respected physicist of his time, who used an unrealistic model and came to the wrong conclusion about the age of the earth. Geologists correctly proposed that the earth was billions of years old, but Kelvin calculated that if the earth were that old, heat at the earth’s core would have diffused away, and the earth would have cooled into a solid mass. Since the earth had a molten core, the age estimated by geologists was wrong. Kelvin's model did not take into account heating from radioactive decay, a phenomenon that was not discovered until many years later. Theoreticians must use models that relate to transcription, if they hope to arrive at reasonable conclusions about effects of EM fields on transcription.

This is a really tired old woo woo argument. Some scientist was wrong about something sometime in the past, therefore all scientists are wrong and any pseudoscientific idea must be right. If you are going to talk about Lord Kelvin why don't you mention the DOZENS of significant things he DID get right? By the way, can you prove the above story? The reason I ask is because Kelvin seems to be a favorite for these kinds of claims, but for most of them, if you examine what REALLY happened in proper context it often reveals a quite different story.

If I wanted to, I could find plenty of examples of pseudoscience gone wrong. Phlogiston? N-rays? But I don't, because such arguments are usually the last resort of incompetence.

Theoreticians who claim that biological effects of EM fields are impossible at levels weaker than thermal noise (the energy due to random molecular motion) must acknowledge that the extreme sensitivity of sharks to electric fields is well below the thermal noise limit. Sharks have an elaborate inter-connected system of sensors that is able to detect fields as low as nanovolts/cm. Biological systems often have unusual properties (e.g., retinal cells can react to a single quantum of light). Physicists must develop models that are appropriate for the biological measurements they are meant to explain.

Another tired old (non) argument. There is a vast difference between some system optimized for DETECTION of something and a generic effect on all other (remotely) similar systems. I have an instrument which is highly sensitive to minute electric fields and can measure the voltage gradient of a field. Does that imply that a similar voltage gradient would have an adverse effect on ANY voltmeter, just because they are both built with the same basic electronic components? Of course not.

Again, it is totally illogical arguments like this that undermine your case.

 

[cogreslab]

To Prag: Thank you for your continued efforts to make me see the light (small joke here). It seems the nub of the issue is that you argue that weak ELF electric fields cannot possibly penetrate the Faraday cage of the body, and have asked me to produce evidence of this. By contrast I am arguing that externally originating ELF electric fields (e.g. 50 or 60Hz, 20V/m) do have important adverse health effects. I take the point well that in vitro effects are not sufficient to make my argument stand up, because they do not occur within this Faraday cage, and that I need to produce in vivo results in order to try to convince you.

Arguably this means exposing an organism - let us start with a whole live animal, (though we recognise that any effects found may not also apply to humans) to the field strength of interest. We also have to beware of possible confounders, such as magnetic fields, chemicals, restraint stress, etc.

Well there are a vast number of such experiments. Probably the most obvious are those placing small animals under powerlines and examining their brains for anomalies, such as the series conducted by Hans Arne Hannsen in the early 1980s. I have mentioned those reviewed by Morris Kendall et al (1989). Before then were the studies by Suzanne Bawin and Ross Adey on live cat brains, though these were mainly (but not all) at RF frequencies which famously reported calcium efflux. (I am regarding that effect as adverse in view of the vital role of that cation in immunocompetence). Would you feel that this approach is going to be persuasive?

 

[cogreslab]

There seems to be some kind of tech problem with my posts tonight. I thought I had lost the one above but it is there is seems after all.

Hans said:

"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, I would like to ask you some questions about an issue which is intriguing me. It is at this time a complete speculation, but could shape some experiments in my lab if you think there is anything in the notion.

I cannot avoid noticing the apparent similarity between the DNA macromolecule and a parallel resonant circuit. In the simplest form of a parallel circuit (of the kind you know about) one finds several components: an inductor, a resistor and a capacitor all in parallel. If the reactances of the capacitor and the inductor are equal then the currents are also equal and opposite, and this subtraction of currents means that the only current that flows is in the resistor. The resonant frequency is that at which the parallel impedance is simply R, and since

f= 1/2pi .sq rt( LC)

this gives the resonant frequency.

In the DNA helix the electron flows are opposite in direction along each strand. The purine and pirimidine bases seem to be similar to resistors and capacitors in nature. At specific resonant frequencies this could be how the h-bonds are broken when gene expression is required. Though there are enzymes performing this task, they do not work unless magnesium ions are present, which may support the speculation.

The weakest bonds are where you have sequences CTCT. If one strips these out there is no stress response to ELF electric fields. If you re-insert them into DNA elsewhere the effect is seen again.

I took a look at a molecule's DNA sequence (Beta-globin) shown in Alberts Bray (p532 in Ed 2) and found these were only in the introns, not the exons. It could be that the resonant effect needed to open DNA operates via a mechanism of this kind. Any comments?

To Prag: You said there were also many negative studies re static magnetic field effects. I have looked at these too, but in all cases there were very good reasons why: e.g. low applied field strength. short duration of exposure, few subjects in the trial. If you like I can take you through these studies, or perhaps you have specific ones in mind?

 

[cogreslab]

Not sure if that post got through either. apologies if this is a duplicate.

There seems to be some kind of tech problem with my posts tonight. I thought I had lost the one above but it is there is seems after all.

Hans said:

"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, I would like to ask you some questions about an issue which is intriguing me. It is at this time a complete speculation, but could shape some experiments in my lab if you think there is anything in the notion.

I cannot avoid noticing the apparent similarity between the DNA macromolecule and a parallel resonant circuit. In the simplest form of a parallel circuit (of the kind you know about) one finds several components: an inductor, a resistor and a capacitor all in parallel. If the reactances of the capacitor and the inductor are equal then the currents are also equal and opposite, and this subtraction of currents means that the only current that flows is in the resistor. The resonant frequency is that at which the parallel impedance is simply R, and since

f= 1/2pi .sq rt( LC)

this gives the resonant frequency.

In the DNA helix the electron flows are opposite in direction along each strand. The purine and pirimidine bases seem to be similar to resistors and capacitors in nature. At specific resonant frequencies this could be how the h-bonds are broken when gene expression is required. Though there are enzymes performing this task, they do not work unless magnesium ions are present, which may support the speculation.

The weakest bonds are where you have sequences CTCT. If one strips these out there is no stress response to ELF electric fields. If you re-insert them into DNA elsewhere the effect is seen again.

I took a look at a molecule's DNA sequence (Beta-globin) shown in Alberts Bray (p532 in Ed 2) and found these were only in the introns, not the exons. It could be that the resonant effect needed to open DNA operates via a mechanism of this kind. Any comments?

To Prag: You said there were also many negative studies re static magnetic field effects. I have looked at these too, but in all cases there were very good reasons why: e.g. low applied field strength. short duration of exposure, few subjects in the trial. If you like I can take you through these studies, or perhaps you have specific ones in mind?