Is this as woo-woo an object as ...

[Cleopatra]

...it appears to me?

Phone Shield and Computer Shield. Tiny crystals that absorb radiation from cell phones and pcs? Hmmmm.

I found a flyer in a computer store yesterday.

This is the product. It comes from UK. The official page has a Greek version as well, this is very rare as you understand!

http://www.healthpal.co.uk/

Scientifically designed to alleviate the harmful biological side effects
of radiation from Mobile Phones and Computer VDU's
Helps relieve headaches, short term memory loss, distorted vision, confusion, tiredness etc - these are just some of the less serious complaints reported that have been associated with mobile phone and computer use
Safe for all the family - the microcrystals are non toxic and harmless if accidentally swallowed.
No interference with transmission or reception
Suitable for all makes and models
Fitted in seconds without wires or batteries

[CFLarsen]

The Cogill guy mentioned runs a company that "tests" these devices. He is heavily involved with the Power Line scare, and he even has a challenge:

The £2000 ($3000) Coghill Challenge to power utility workers and the NRPB is:

Place any human infant of less than three months age to sleep each night for at least eight hours in an ELF electric field of 100 Volts per metre for thirty days. My studies predict that child will die, or become so seriously ill that the test will have to be called off. The NRPB and the power utilities' investigation levels by contrast predict there will be no adverse effect.
Source (http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/cogchall.htm)

Edited to remove possible violation of Rule 8

What serious researcher would jeopardize the health and even life of an infant, just to prove himself right?

Incidentally, he also has a link to...well, go check for yourself... (http://www.spiritworldonline.com/)

[sackett]

I went to link CF provided. Yvonne Bailey at Spirit World Online sez:

"In the early 1900's physical mediumship became more and more prevalent and wonderful proof was given by the mediums of those times. These mediums practiced clairvoyance, direct voice, transfiguration and various physical manifestations. They were given these gifts to get the people's attention. Once enough attention was received, these gifts became less and less and were slowly replaced by the gift of working with the mind."

Aha, now I see why modern mediums never quite come up with anything observable: it's all in their heads!

She goes on with this:

"My classes will give you the knowledge that will give you the confidence to work with your mind."

Next comes the hook, excuse me, the price:

"Each group of four lessons cost £60 (GBP) (approx. $108 US or €85.49)."

I gather that you can take these classes (call them that) on line. I'm not sure how you do that, but no doubt all will be made clear after you cough up the first 60 pund.

Practically all woowoos have something to sell.

[kookbreaker]

In my last days at Edmund it seemed like I was absolutely bombarded with these devices from perspective vendors. They inevtiably did not have any other products (like many purveyor of woowoo stuff) and always had some kind of graph showing the "harmful fields" and how they were reduced by the use of the device.

Only one of the purveyors ever called me, being a salesman he stated proudly "but didn't you see the graph?". I told him his graph had no figures on the X-Y axis, only a title. This could be a fraction of the total measurement (i.e. selective use of data) . He didn't understand what the problem with that was.

[Jas]

I figure if you buy one of those, you deserve what you get.

[MRC_Hans]

To answer Cleopatra's initial question, could it work?

No.

Electromagnetic radiation propagates in straight lines. Even if that small patch is the best absorber of EM radiation in the Universe, it cannot absorb any waves but those that pass directly through it. So, if it worked, to have an effect, you would have to put them all over the front of your monitor. But then you couldn't use it.

To stop the radiation from your cellphone, you would have to cover it with the things. But then it wouldn't work.

So, yes, it is a total woowoo object. Doubly so, because even if it worked, it would be useless :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Jas]

So I emailed that link, because I thought it was funny.

Then I was emailed back this link (http://www.tachyon-partners.com/Member/PersonalWebPages/Pages/tachyon/pwpc.asp?MemberID=2933&DISTID=home&PGDID=0&CONTENTPG=60) which apparently is 'the real deal'.

Enjoy

[DangerousBeliefs]

FTC Consumer Alert - Radiation Shields: Do They ‘Cell’ Consumers Short? (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/cellshlds.htm)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jas
So I emailed that link, because I thought it was funny.

Then I was emailed back this link (http://www.tachyon-partners.com/Member/PersonalWebPages/Pages/tachyon/pwpc.asp?MemberID=2933&DISTID=home&PGDID=0&CONTENTPG=60) which apparently is 'the real deal'.

Enjoy
:D

From the link:
The ocean contains an infinite number of droplets of water, yet like zero-point energy, it is formless.
Oh really? How many drops (finite units) can be divided into the ocean (a bigger finite unit)? A big number probably, but not infinite.

If you were to remove one drop from the ocean, that drop would still contain everything within the ocean, but now it has taken a form.
Now this claim seems rather easy to refute empirically...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jas
So I emailed that link, because I thought it was funny.

Then I was emailed back this link (http://www.tachyon-partners.com/Member/PersonalWebPages/Pages/tachyon/pwpc.asp?MemberID=2933&DISTID=home&PGDID=0&CONTENTPG=60) which apparently is 'the real deal'.
Tachyon-partners.com?

I remember and episode of Star Trek where Picard made use of an Inverse-Tachyon beam to close a temporal flux in the universe. It was one of the most creative episodes.

[Jas]

Well, I'm going off to buy it now, I mean, those guys from StarTrek have some pretty advance technology, so it obviously works.

[Jas]

MRC_Hans...isn't it elliptical?

*edited to say - please ignore this post, as I was clearly smoking crack when I posted it.

[Pyrrho]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870403551#post1870403551

The post referred to in the above link has been reported for possible violation of Rule 8. As the present rule is somewhat ambiguous, and enforcement of it relies on my judgment, I am exercising my judgment and will edit the post to remove the offending portion. A copy of the post has been made and will be restored in its entirety if my decision is overruled.

[Cleopatra]

Kudos to the idiot who reported the post.

Cleopatra.

[Lorri]

Originally posted by sackett
I went to link CF provided. Yvonne Bailey at Spirit World Online sez:

"In the early 1900's physical mediumship became more and more prevalent and wonderful proof was given by the mediums of those times. These mediums practiced clairvoyance, direct voice, transfiguration and various physical manifestations. They were given these gifts to get the people's attention. Once enough attention was received, these gifts became less and less and were slowly replaced by the gift of working with the mind."

Aha, now I see why modern mediums never quite come up with anything observable: it's all in their heads!

She goes on with this:

"My classes will give you the knowledge that will give you the confidence to work with your mind."

Next comes the hook, excuse me, the price:

"Each group of four lessons cost £60 (GBP) (approx. $108 US or €85.49)."

I gather that you can take these classes (call them that) on line. I'm not sure how you do that, but no doubt all will be made clear after you cough up the first 60 pund.

Practically all woowoos have something to sell.

Sackett says he is a thinker - well he needs to brush up on the skills needed to get us to the thinking stage. He has commented on spiritworldonline and the education. He says that he is not sure how you take classes on line - well if he read the text on the site he would see that it clearly states the classes are held in a private chat room. You do not have to cough up the first 60 pound for everything to be made clear - you just have to ask sackett - think about it - it is very simple, just ask.

[Cleopatra]

Thank you for your illuminating post and welcome to the forums. I didn't get your point though.

Does sackett lies about the amount of money what is exactly your problem with his post?

[Pyrrho]

Sorry for this off-topic comment, but I wish to point out that the titles under people's names, with a few exceptions, are automatically assigned by the bulletin board software, based on the number of posts the person has contributed. The titles are not necessarily a statement by the person that they consider themselves to be a "Scholar", "Thinker", "Critical Thinker", etc.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Sorry for this off-topic comment, but I wish to point out that the titles under people's names, with a few exceptions, are automatically assigned by the bulletin board software, based on the number of posts the person has contributed. The titles are not necessarily a statement by the person that they consider themselves to be a "Scholar", "Thinker", "Critical Thinker", etc. What do you mean? That the software hasn't detected that I am a crocodile breeder indeed? :eek:

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What do you mean? That the software hasn't detected that I am a crocodile breeder indeed? :eek:
All psychic functions of the software were disabled when it was installed at this site.

[Correa Neto]

People, it is clearly stated that this gizmo was

"Scientifically designed"

What else do you want as an evidence?

Or this is an evidence of another conspiracy of the close minded materialist evil main stream scientists that are sock puppets of the iluminati?

Now, on a serious side. I belive there are laws in USA against false claims in advertising.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Tachyon-partners.com?

I remember and episode of Star Trek where Picard made use of an Inverse-Tachyon beam to close a temporal flux in the universe. It was one of the most creative episodes.

No no no!

It was an Inverse tachyon *pulse* - "All good things"

here (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/All%20Good%20Things)

Do not diss the Picard!

[Lorri]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cleopatra
Thank you for your illuminating post and welcome to the forums. I didn't get your point though.

Does sackett lies about the amount of money what is exactly your problem with his post? [/QUOTE

The point I was making was that Sockett made comments that were negative assumptions and yet when i looked at the site, all the information was there. It said that classes were held in a private chat room, it said how much money the classes were and it stated 'if you have any queries click here' and you were thrown straight into an email, complete with address, where you could raise any questions. It did not say 'pay your money and then you can ask questions'.

I am all for constructive criticism on any subject but sackett's criticism was not right and he did make negative assumptions when there was no need.

Thank you for welcoming me to the forum and i am going to have a good browse around and hope to have some lively and interesting debates.

[Cleopatra]

I am sorry Lorri but after browsing the site I didn't find Sackett posting any false information. Do I miss something?

[Lorri]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry Lorri but after browsing the site I didn't find Sackett posting any false information. Do I miss something?

This is what Sackett said:

"I gather that you can take these classes (call them that) on line. I'm not sure how you do that, but no doubt all will be made clear after you cough up the first 60 pund".


When he said 'I'm note sure how you do that' I commented that if he had read the text on the website he would have seen that the classes take place in a private chat room. He further said 'but no doubt all will be made clear after you cough up the first 60 pund' and I said that it was quite clearly stated ANY QUERIES, and so you did not have to cough up the first to 60 pound for all to be made clear.

I hope that my explanation as to why I commented on this matter is now made clear. Phew - this is hard work!!!

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen What serious researcher would jeopardize the health and even life of an infant, just to prove himself right?


Edward Jenner.

[sweetkb713]

"Safe for all the family - the microcrystals are non toxic and harmless if accidentally swallowed. "

Well, that's good!

[cogreslab]

There are many devices on the market claiming to offer radioprotection. In our lab we have tested some of them on human peripheral blood lymphocyte viability, using the accepted trypan blue exclusion test. The tests are all perfomed double blind and some results have been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. This doesnt mean that because they work in vitro they also work in vivo. What we are seeking is an scientifically acceptable mechanism of interaction, and we think it may be to do with the ability of any crystal to amplify (remember the old crystal radio sets, oldsters?).

The ancient Greeks used crystals for similar purposes, which is why amethysts are so called: they were thought to ward off alcoholism (a-methus ~ without wine). The word cosmetic also comes from this custom, because the cosmetic crystal was thought to tune the wearer into the cosmos. So the idea is ancient: but we still lack acceptable science to explain the mechanism. Which is what our lab researches. I have every respect for all skeptics, because that is the only real way to progress science. It is equally important, however, not to dismiss anything and everything that we do not understand. Roger Coghill, Coghill Research Laboratories, South Wales, UK.

[Cleopatra]

Hello Roger thanks for your post. My question is simple. Does the crystal I refered to in my opening post do what it promises? Shall I buy it?

[cogreslab]

Someone criticised our longstanding $3000 challenge to the UK's NRPB and the world's power utilities to place a human infant in a 100 V/m electric field as being an irresponsible act. Given the recently official view of these agencies that there is no hazard to human health at less than 12,000 V/m., by setting these unacceptably high and increasingly challenged guidelines these same agencies are doing exactyly that: they are placing poeple in hazard. Your critic may be interested to know that last week the NRPB reduced the guideline limits by 20 percent at a stroke, a paltry gesture, since they are well aware that exposure to fields of as little as 400nT double the risk of childhood leukaemia, as demonstrated by 14 out of sixteen peer reviewed studies (the two negative studies were both funded by the utilities).

Meanwhile childhood leukaemia inexplicably and implacably continues to rise by several percent each year in industrialised (i.e. electrified) countries. Per contra, cancers among travelling folk (who don't normally use mains electricity), is almost unheard of. Not surprisingly, not one of the utilities' personnel worldwide has had the guts to put their children where their public advice is. Who is being responsible, me or them?

Roger Coghill, Coghill Research Laboratories.

per contra

[CFLarsen]

Roger,

That person was me.

If you really are convinced that electric fields are harmful, how can you then place a human infant in such a field?

If you are the one with the real knowledge about these perceived dangers, then you are the one responsible. Not those who reject your claims.

[cogreslab]

To forumer Cleopatra (who used static magnets to cure the gout of her lovers such as Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, incidentally!) I do not know whether this phone button device will work in vivo, since we only tested it in vitro. If you are concerned about RF hazard and live in the US you might consider taking melatonin on a regular basis, available freely there. If you live in the UK where melatonin is only available on prescription, you might consider eating melatonin-rich foods such as porridge oats or bananas, preferably at bedtime.
I must declare my position here, and say that our lab has just developed a cocktail of melatonin-rich ingredients in a food supplement called Asphalia, which, after scientific investigation, is being backed financially by the Welsh Assembly Government and the European Regional Investment Fund. However this will not be ready for sale until later this year, so please do not treat this as an advert! You can get a lot of info on melatonin via Google I expect.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To forumer Cleopatra (who used static magnets to cure the gout of her lovers such as Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, incidentally!)

Do you have historic records that show this?

Cleopatra also drank pearls dissolved in vinegar, to enhance her sex life. Do you similarly believe in that cure? If not, why not?

[Cleopatra]

Roger thanks again for your post, I am just a consumer that wishes to be informed that's all. Also, by searching you learn things you ignore. For example I knew that melatonin was good for insomnia but I didn't know that it can work as a natural shield against harmful radiation.( hmmm is radiation always harmful? Anyway!)

I don't wish to exhaust the discussion in arguing over logical fallacies , too legalistic for my taste , I want to point a couple of things to your posts though.

First of all the fact that NRPB increased the guideline limits doesn't mean that your experiment is safe for children. Also, the fact that ancient Greeks used amethyst doesn't mean that amethyst could protect them from alcohol. So, this is not quite an argument. By the way the Byzantines who feared God and woo-wooism used to consume radishes in order to protect themselves from the side effects of over-drinking. It works. :)

The site of the company that sells this crystal presents your research as proof that their product actually works .

So, are you saying that maybe instead of bying the crystal I might consider to double the number of bananas I consume on a daily basis?

Mark Anthony was an incurable... peasant.Don't remind me of him please. Do you know a crystal that takes away the scent of the village from the villager?That would be some invention!

[Cynical]

My day has been made. Cleopatra, an obviously strong-minded person, has completely ignored Claus Flodin Larsen's post. BRAVO! Miracles DO happen! :clap:

HEY, CLAUS FLODIN! How goes it, bub??:p

[cogreslab]

I do not know how many bananas you consume daily! A study by Hattori et al (1995) - you can find it in Pubmed- gives the melatonin levels of common fioods.

As for my historical notes, they were not being offered on a strictly scientific proof basis, but for the interest and entertainment of the forum. (I happen to have a degree in classics too, from Cambridge). Must go now, but thank you for the comments.

[Cleopatra]

Roger. I have a degree in Classical Studies from Cambridge too. :) Now that you told me that I might be more severe towards your logical fallacies. ;)

There is no rush. I will wait for you to reply to my questions some other time.

Don't be too late though. Don't let me expose myself to the radiation of my pc while I am waiting for an answer. I need to know if I have to buy this crystal. :)

[Lorri]

What serious researcher would jeopardize the health and even life of an infant, just to prove himself right?

Larsen made the above comment but it seems obvious to me that roger coghill is placing this challenge with the certainty that it will never be taken up because the ones he is challenging are well aware of what the results would be.

I can't believe that Larson does not understand this subtle message.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Lorri
What serious researcher would jeopardize the health and even life of an infant, just to prove himself right?

Larsen made the above comment but it seems obvious to me that roger coghill is placing this challenge with the certainty that it will never be taken up because the ones he is challenging are well aware of what the results would be.

I can't believe that Larson does not understand this subtle message. Honestly this is the first time in my life that I read such an interpretation of a challenge. Skeptics do take challenges seriously especially those that have to do with public health.

I don't know who Roger Coghill is but I do not have any solid evidence so far that he is toying the general public by advertising pretentious challenges.

It's Larsen BTW. Claus Larsen.

[CFLarsen]

Roger,

Could I ask you to tell us in advance when you are making a joke, and when you are making a serious claim?

Since you don't seem to want to answer questions about your challenge and how you are willing to risk the life of a child, perhaps you could address this pivotal question?

Do you acknowledge that electromagnetic radiation propagates in straight lines?

[Lorri]

[Honestly this is the first time in my life that I read such an interpretation of a challenge. Skeptics do take challenges seriously especially those that have to do with public health.

I don't know who Roger Coghill is but I do not have any solid evidence so far that he is toying the general public by advertising pretentious challenges.

It's Larsen BTW. Claus Larsen. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have copied directly from Coghill Research Laboratory website the following:

Only power worker employee and NRPB staff employee parents are eligible for the Coghill Challenge.

What I belive that the guy is saying is that the utilitie companies would not take up the challenge because they know what the results would be. Incidentally it says on the site that the challenge was issued in 1999. Presumably there have been no takes from the power companies.

[Cleopatra]

Lorri:

Claus posed the question, we will see what he will reply.

[Randi]

This "shield" thing is a farce and a scam....

Ignore it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Randi
This "shield" thing is a farce and a scam....

Ignore it.

Unfortunately folks have a hard time with that. Notice how much attention Winston Wu threads get while being completely devoid of merit.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
To answer Cleopatra's initial question, could it work?

No.

Electromagnetic radiation propagates in straight lines. Even if that small patch is the best absorber of EM radiation in the Universe, it cannot absorb any waves but those that pass directly through it. So, if it worked, to have an effect, you would have to put them all over the front of your monitor. But then you couldn't use it.

To stop the radiation from your cellphone, you would have to cover it with the things. But then it wouldn't work.

So, yes, it is a total woowoo object. Doubly so, because even if it worked, it would be useless :rolleyes:.

Hans I see Cleopatra asked once more if it works. Maybe I'm on your ignore list, otherwise my explanation is above. No ot does not, cannot work.

Hans

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I see Cleopatra asked once more if it works. Maybe I'm on your ignore list, otherwise my explanation is above. No ot does not, cannot work.

Hans You are not in my ignore list of course but I am interested to see what the man who claims that he has tested this crystal in a lab has to say about it.

He joined the forum It's nice to have him present us his theories. So far he is presenting us classical myths. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Randi
This "shield" thing is a farce and a scam....

Quite agree.

Originally posted by Randi
Ignore it.

Quite disagree. Every claim must be challenged, and if shown false, or if no evidence supports it, it must be pointed out. All the time, every time. Especially if there is potential or real harm to people.

There is no sleep for these claimants, while I'm in town! ;)

[69dodge]

Originally posted by cogreslab
we think it may be to do with the ability of any crystal to amplify (remember the old crystal radio sets, oldsters?).The crystal in a crystal radio set acts as a rectifier, not an amplifier.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You are not in my ignore list of course but I am interested to see what the man who claims that he has tested this crystal in a lab has to say about it.

He joined the forum It's nice to have him present us his theories. So far he is presenting us classical myths. :) Ahh, sorry, didn't notice :o . Some of these threads move so fast...

Now, lessee..........

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by cogreslab
There are many devices on the market claiming to offer radioprotection. In our lab we have tested some of them on human peripheral blood lymphocyte viability, using the accepted trypan blue exclusion test.

Could you point to where we can read the protocol, or at leas an abstract?

The tests are all perfomed double blind and some results have been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Where?

This doesnt mean that because they work in vitro they also work in vivo. What we are seeking is an scientifically acceptable mechanism of interaction, and we think it may be to do with the ability of any crystal to amplify (remember the old crystal radio sets, oldsters?).

Then you'd better think again. No crystals have the ability to amplify. Amplification requires a power source. Crystal sets had no amplification.

How is the device assumed to protect against radiation unless it is placed directly in the line of sight between the radiation generator and the person?

The ancient Greeks used crystals for similar purposes, which is why amethysts are so called: they were thought to ward off alcoholism (a-methus ~ without wine).

What has that to do with radiation? Why do you consider ancient Greeks to be authorities on radiation protection?

The word cosmetic also comes from this custom, because the cosmetic crystal was thought to tune the wearer into the cosmos.

But now we know that this is without basis in the observable world

So the idea is ancient: but we still lack acceptable science to explain the mechanism. Which is what our lab researches.

That is interesting, but again, even if you find a substance that has excellent properties for absorbing radiations (and we already know several such substances), how do you suggest to apply it without totally screening off utilities?

I have every respect for all skeptics, because that is the only real way to progress science. It is equally important, however, not to dismiss anything and everything that we do not understand.

Roger Coghill, Coghill Research Laboratories, South Wales, UK.

[CapelDodger]

Anybody know the hierogryphs for "static magnet"? Thanks for the heads-up, Cleopatra, but we already know they're a bit wierd in Pontypool. Too much rugby without a helmet.

[cogreslab]

I will try to reply to the questions being asked. First, to Cleopatra: rather than trust in devices which to the best of my knowledge have not been tested by double blind placebo contriolled clinical trials, the best advice I can give at the current state of scientific knowledge is to restrict your cellphone calls in duration. Avoid long calls (i.e. longer than say 20 minutes at one time), and don't trust hands free kits either. Do not phone from inside cars, or indside any other metal clad rooms/cabinets. In normal use I do not see any evidence that cellphones are harmful.

That advice related to RF/MW radiation (radiofrequency/microwave). As far as ELF goes (extremely low frequency, or powerline frequencies), try to prudently avoid exposure and staying for any long time in fields in excess of 20 V/m: most homes are in the range 1-10 V/m, except near domestic electric appliances, so this should not be difficult. I hope this helps.

Regarding the trypan blue exclusion test, (where the trypan blue dye reveals if the cell membrane has been fractured) you can find numerous examples of its use in Medline.

Continued...

[cogreslab]

Our work on endogenous field effects was published in 2000 in the ICNIRP Ismaning Conference Proceedings and in Electro and Magneto Biology the same year (a peer reviewed journal). The work on childhood leukaemia was published in several journals including nthe Russian and English versions of Biophysics Journal and the European Journal of Cancer Prevention in 1996.

Mr Larsen raises the question of whether I was right to issue the challenge and possibly thereby jeopardise the live of an Utility or NRPB employee (to whom as someone pointed out this challenge is confined). Employees of these organisation will have the benefit of expert advice before entering the challenge. So I do not think I am risking an infant life here. The complete absence of any takers however suggests that the agencies are not prepared to stand by their advice to the public in regasrd to their own employees.

Our study on childhood leukaemia was published in 1996, and was ignored by the agencies. I waited four years before issuing the challenge. We had found a fivefold likelihood of childhood cancer when E-fields exceeded 20 V/m., with good confifdence intervals, and it was the world's largest study of this issue at the time.
Whay would you do ? Sit on your hands for years waiting for a response? During the study I witnessed many personal family tragedies (about half the children died). The symptoms begin with bruising and end in painful bleeding from the anus and a look of hopelessness in the victim's young eyes from incomprehension. Some are very brave, even at the end.

This terrible killer could be reduced if people got simple advice from the agencies about avoiding exposure, but commercial interest has led to obfuscation, procrastination, and downright deception of the public, so that childhood leukaemia is among the largest child killers in civilised (i.e. electrified) society today, and continues to grow several percent each year.

Roger Coghill

Continued...

[cogreslab]

A point source of visible light radiates equally in all directions. RF/MW can be direcdtionally influenced so that the polar diagram is not isotropic.

[cogreslab]

I would rather not comment about the relative merits of Pontypool from one who lives in Cardiff. Both places have their merits and faults! Must go now, but thanmks for the critical interest in our work. When were you up at Cambridge, Cleopatra?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Mr Larsen raises the question of whether I was right to issue the challenge and possibly thereby jeopardise the live of an Utility or NRPB employee (to whom as someone pointed out this challenge is confined). Employees of these organisation will have the benefit of expert advice before entering the challenge. So I do not think I am risking an infant life here. The complete absence of any takers however suggests that the agencies are not prepared to stand by their advice to the public in regasrd to their own employees.

Whoa, perhaps I could ask you to be a bit more truthful here? You are not risking the life of "an Utility or NRPB employee". You specifically state on your website:

The £2000 ($3000) Coghill Challenge to power utility workers and the NRPB is:

Place any human infant of less than three months age to sleep each night for at least eight hours in an ELF electric field of 100 Volts per metre for thirty days. My studies predict that child will die, or become so seriously ill that the test will have to be called off. The NRPB and the power utilities' investigation levels by contrast predict there will be no adverse effect.
(Emphasis mine)

Any human infant of less than three months age, Roger. You claim that you know this infant will die. or become seriously ill. You willingly put this infant at risk, and you say it's the responsibility of other people?

This is similar to you putting an infant on the highway and then blame the truckdriver for running over the child.

Originally posted by cogreslab
A point source of visible light radiates equally in all directions. RF/MW can be direcdtionally influenced so that the polar diagram is not isotropic.

Ìt's easy to test whether the PhoneShield and CompuShield will do that. Have such tests been made?

Mind you, I am not asking whether the two products have any beneficial effects. I am simply asking if they can directionally influence RF/MW.

[cogreslab]

Some materials can amplify without conventional power sources, because every atom includes electrons which spin, and their spin state is really a form of intrinsic energy. Many biomolecules are also arrays, and appear to be capable of amplification. The theoretical work was advanced by Dr. Art Pilla at a number of Bioelectromagnetics conferences over the last 20 years, and I think is largely accepted. Furthermore, unless the material is at absolute zero temperature it will contain thermal energy which can be transduced. I cannot accept that crystals, by repeating the incident signal many times within their lattice, do not thereby amplify. However it is not a debate I wish to pursue here. I suggest you go to the BEMS forum to debate that issue.

Roger Coghill

[cogreslab]

Let us be very clear about this. The employees of the agencies have complete responsibility in law for the health and safety of the infants in their custodial care. If for the sake of money they take what after all is the official advice of their employers who see no harm in placing these infants in electric fields 50 times below their own guidelines, then these parents are simply repeating a situation which because of those (false, in my view) guidelines is happening all over the UK today: some 400 children get leukemia every year.

Not many people on this forum agree with your view, Mr Larsen.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Some materials can amplify without conventional power sources, because every atom includes electrons which spin, and their spin state is really a form of intrinsic energy. Many biomolecules are also arrays, and appear to be capable of amplification. The theoretical work was advanced by Dr. Art Pilla at a number of Bioelectromagnetics conferences over the last 20 years, and I think is largely accepted. Furthermore, unless the material is at absolute zero temperature it will contain thermal energy which can be transduced. I cannot accept that crystals, by repeating the incident signal many times within their lattice, do not thereby amplify. However it is not a debate I wish to pursue here. I suggest you go to the BEMS forum to debate that issue.

It's a simple "yes" or "no" question:

Can the PhoneShield and CompuShield directionally influence RF/MW?

Originally posted by cogreslab
Let us be very clear about this. The employees of the agencies have complete responsibility in law for the health and safety of the infants in their custodial care. If for the sake of money they take what after all is the official advice of their employers who see no harm in placing these infants in electric fields 50 times below their own guidelines, then these parents are simply repeating a situation which because of those (false, in my view) guidelines is happening all over the UK today: some 400 children get leukemia every year.

Let us be very clear about this: You are willing jeopardize the life and health of an infant, and then place the blame on other people.

Originally posted by cogreslab
Not many people on this forum agree with your view, Mr Larsen.

It is not a question of how many people agree. The facts speak for themselves. And, as I am sure you agree, you do not speak for other people here.

[Lorri]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CFLarsen

Let us be very clear about this: You are willing jeopardize the life and health of an infant, and then place the blame on other people.

Why cannot you understand that the guy does not want to jeopardize the health and life of any infant. In fact he is doing pioneering work and bringing the results to the public domain in any way that he can. He is getting his message across in a subtle way and the web site is fascinating. The utilities workers will not take up the challenge because they know the truth of the situation. Well done Coghill Research and get a life Larsen.

[TLN]

Lori, do you have any evidence that electromagnetic fields cause disease?

May I see it please?

[Lorri]

Originally posted by TLN
Lori, do you have any evidence that electromagnetic fields cause disease?

May I see it please?

Hi Tln

I suggest that you do a search under mobile phone mast action group or electric pylon actin group etc., and you will begin to get a feel for what is happening out there in the real world. The incidence of cancer around these fields is horrific. Children are particularly vulnerable.

We need to beware in the home as well. Do you live perhaps on the ground floor of a block of flats, is the cupboard housing the electric supply that feeds all the flats next to your flat? and so on and so on.

Do a search on cancer statistics, do random searches using all the words that might surround the issue.

In other words tln do your home work - I have and it is frightening.

[CFLarsen]

Lorri,

I assume that you have done your homework? Yes?

Do you want to tell us what your findings are?

[MRC_Hans]

Lorri: I assume you are unaware, but your data is wrong. Several surveys have been made, and it has not been possible to link cancer to neither cell-phone towers, nor the use of cell-phones (which is when you get a REALLY high dose). Most authorities are still conservative about it, so we might say the jury is still out, but there are no "horrible" figures.

May I remind Lorri in particular, and everybody else in general that doing web searches is NOT exactly a reliable way to find facts. To be sure, there is a lot of facts out thtre, but there are also TONS of fiction. Web sources should be used with extreme reservation.

Hans

[Darat]

Originally posted by Lorri
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CFLarsen

Let us be very clear about this: You are willing jeopardize the life and health of an infant, and then place the blame on other people.

Why cannot you understand that the guy does not want to jeopardize the health and life of any infant. In fact he is doing pioneering work and bringing the results to the public domain in any way that he can. He is getting his message across in a subtle way and the web site is fascinating. The utilities workers will not take up the challenge because they know the truth of the situation. Well done Coghill Research and get a life Larsen.

Nonsense - if he truly believed in what he said he wouldn't under any circumstances be suggesting placing an infant into known harm.

I can't believe that you can support a challenge that (according to the person issuing it) would result in injury or death to a human baby.

What happens if someone takes him up on it and the child dies?

Will he just say "See I told you so!".

If this effect was so pronounced there is no reason it wouldn't also have an effect on other animals, therefore why doesn't he suggest a challenge with baby rats, rabbits, cats, dogs and so on.

No he issues this challenge because he knows no sensible person would ever take him up on it and because he knows for a fact no ethics body in any university, hospital and so on would ever condone such an experiment on a human subject.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Some materials can amplify without conventional power sources, because every atom includes electrons which spin, and their spin state is really a form of intrinsic energy.

Nonsense. Even if you could utilize the energy in electron spin, it would obviously be exhausted very quickly. But you cannot; spin is an intrinsic quality of electrons, and they would not be electrons if you took away the spin.

Many biomolecules are also arrays, and appear to be capable of amplification.

No. Amplification requires a power source, period. Law of thermodynamics, you know.

The theoretical work was advanced by Dr. Art Pilla at a number of Bioelectromagnetics conferences over the last 20 years, and I think is largely accepted.

You apparantley think wrongly.

Furthermore, unless the material is at absolute zero temperature it will contain thermal energy which can be transduced.

That would mean that the material got colder. If you have a way to extract heat energy from a substance that way, there is a Nobel prize and a place in history waiting for you.

I cannot accept that crystals, by repeating the incident signal many times within their lattice, do not thereby amplify.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you will HAVE to accept it. Crystal lattices can convert signals, absorb them, redirect them in various ways, but they cannot amplifiy them.

However it is not a debate I wish to pursue here. I suggest you go to the BEMS forum to debate that issue.

That is wise of you, since you are obviously not qualified for such a debate. Nevertheless, your willingness to throw around pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and ready made opinions on a subject you know so little of, is useful for our assessment of your credibility in general.

Roger Coghill [/B]

Hans

[CFLarsen]

MRC_Hans,

It's a simple sniff test.

When asked for evidence that electromagnetic fields cause disease, Lorri says: "Do a Google". A simple reference to the study that shows the connection, yet we don't get a straight answer.

When asked if the PhoneShield and CompuShield can directionally influence RF/MW, Coghill says: "Blah, blah, blah". A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice, yet we don't get a straight answer.

We see this all the time when we deal with believers in the paranormal.

Originally posted by Darat
No he issues this challenge because he knows no sensible person would ever take him up on it and because he knows for a fact no ethics body in any university, hospital and so on would ever condone such an experiment on a human subject.

Precisely. He creates a situation, where he can never lose. He tries to invoke a sense of fear, uncertainty and doubt, so he can peddle his own products and beliefs. And he takes infants hostage to do so.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by cogreslab
A point source of visible light radiates equally in all directions. RF/MW can be direcdtionally influenced so that the polar diagram is not isotropic. Only by interfering directly with the ray. You can place a reflector, lens, or refractor element directly in the path of the wave. This can influence it. But you cannot, for example, place an object on the top of a computer screen and influence radiation going towards the user. This is true for the entire EM wave spectrum. Furthermore, such a device must be a considerable fraction of the actual wavelenght to influence it.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
MRC_Hans,

It's a simple sniff test.

*snip*.

We see this all the time when we deal with believers in the paranormal.

*snip*. I know. But whenever I am able to penetrate such explanations with facts, I like to do so. I think it builds credibility ;).

Hans

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab
I will try to reply to the questions being asked. First, to Cleopatra: rather than trust in devices which to the best of my knowledge have not been tested by double blind placebo contriolled clinical trials, the best advice I can give at the current state of scientific knowledge is to restrict your cellphone calls in duration. Avoid long calls (i.e. longer than say 20 minutes at one time), and don't trust hands free kits either. Do not phone from inside cars, or indside any other metal clad rooms/cabinets. In normal use I do not see any evidence that cellphones are harmful.

Hello Roger, thanks for your reply.

In this web-page http://www.healthpal.co.uk/experts.htm , on the right, the Phone and PC shield people quote you as follows:

The PhoneShield technology was successfully tested by independent experts in Great Britain at the respected Coghill Research Laboratories which reported that The PhoneShield crystal resonator (formerly known as PhonePulse in the development stage)
"is effective in mitigating the detrimental biological effects of cellphone radiation and thus affords significant protection".

Roger Coghill is an acknowledged expert on electro magnetic radiation and gave evidence to the IEGMP.

There is a photo of a man talking on his cell too, I pressume that it's you.If I can see well you have placed this crystal on your cell.

What this page mentions has almost nothing to do with what you posted here.

Could you please give me a reason?

I am not an expert in electromagnetic fields but in my work I have to examine almost on a daily basis various experts ( I am a lawyer) and I am in the position to read carefully reports and point out things that don't seem to match, this is why I insist so much in precision.

So, obviously there is a significant difference between your quotes in the advertisment and what you posted here. I'd like to know why since you are kind enough to reply to our questions.:)

If --according to your opinion-- the best way to avoid the side effects of the mobile phone radiation is a conservative use of the device along with some dietary tips you gave to your previous posts why you invite people to buy this crystal?

I started my studies in Cambridge in 1994. Those years in England were very happy and productive. :)

[Lorri]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRC_Hans
[B]Lorri: I assume you are unaware, but your data is wrong.

Hy MRC Hans

The surveys you speak of have not been carried out by independents. In other words, they can easily have a biase.

I take on board what you say about web searches but you can go a step further. For instance, if a community is claiming high incidence of cancer etc since erection of masts etc., and have set up an action group which has a web presence, you can request to see statistics. You can easily research the statistics that they provide you with.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Lorri
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRC_Hans
[B]Lorri: I assume you are unaware, but your data is wrong.

Hy MRC Hans

The surveys you speak of have not been carried out by independents. In other words, they can easily have a biase.

I take on board what you say about web searches but you can go a step further. For instance, if a community is claiming high incidence of cancer etc since erection of masts etc., and have set up an action group which has a web presence, you can request to see statistics. You can easily research the statistics that they provide you with.

And have you done this?

[MRC_Hans]

Lorri: NO research is carried out by independents; such people do not exist. But quality research makes its reports public for everybody to study. If the study has not been conducted properly, it will be evident when scrutinizing the report.

Do you think the groups you are talking about are unbiased? But, by all means, show us some of them. Apparantly you know about some, so where are they? We have better things to do that go out searching for something when you can tell us wwhere it is.

But, you know, you can find arguments for just about anything out there. I'll bet I can point you to a group of people that will show you what looks like compelling scientific evidence that Elvis Presley lives.

Hans

[richardm]

Originally posted by Lorri
For instance, if a community is claiming high incidence of cancer etc since erection of masts etc., and have set up an action group which has a web presence, you can request to see statistics. You can easily research the statistics that they provide you with.

The problem is that these reports become self-fulfilling.

In any community, there will be a certain number of cases of cancer. If a mast is erected there will continue be cases of cancer, but because people are aware that "masts cause cancer", the mast will be blamed. Before you know where you are there are people putting together petitions to get the masts removed.

After the mast is gone, there continue to be cases of cancer, but "obviously" they must have another cause.

Sure, there are clusters of cases around power lines and masts. There are also clusters that are not around power lines and masts. People live in groups. Of course things happen in clusters. If we were evenly distributed across the country we wouldn't see these (I suppose there will be exceptions where there are situations like high levels of radon gas, etc).


The worst thing masts and lines do to you is butcher the value of your house - nobody wants to live near 'em. "Because they cause cancer".

[Tez]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Some materials can amplify without conventional power sources, because every atom includes electrons which spin, and their spin state is really a form of intrinsic energy. And you know of a way of slowing them down and extracting that energy? Nobel prize coming your way soon... Many biomolecules are also arrays, and appear to be capable of amplification. Not without some external energy source The theoretical work was advanced by Dr. Art Pilla at a number of Bioelectromagnetics conferences over the last 20 years, and I think is largely accepted. Not if your paraphrasing of it is correct - though I suspect you may have misunderstood the good Dr. Furthermore, unless the material is at absolute zero temperature it will contain thermal energy which can be transduced. Nonsense. I cannot accept that crystals, by repeating the incident signal many times within their lattice, do not thereby amplify. Well, that which you "cannot accept" unfortunately possesses the nasty property of being the scientific fact. However it is not a debate I wish to pursue here. I suggest you go to the BEMS forum to debate that issue.

Roger Coghill

I think you're wise to avoid debating this, since you clearly do not understand what youre talking about. The passive amplification you are imagining is a fiction, hopefully of your wishful thinking and not borne of the desire for defrauding and exploitation you seem to have an inclination to put it to.

I looked at your paper in electro and magneto biology, it is quite interesting (I am not qualified to evaluate it professionally). Which is why I am disappointed in your obvious dabbling in crackpottery...

I'll do you a deal. Next time you're in London, drop by Imperial College with some of your 20 pound "magnetic coasters that magnetize water and potentially improve the taste of red wine", and we'll put them to a double blind test (a person of your choice can do the tasting, we can agree on some store bought liquid for the test, and I'll supply glasses). If they produce a statistically significant effect, I will buy you the most expensive bottle of wine in the store on Gloucester road - well, lets say up to 500 pounds worth. Or I'll simply give you 500 pounds. What do you have to lose? If you win, I keep the coasters - they'll be worth 500 quid.

Incidentally there was some work being done on using photonic bandgap materials to reflect away the EMR from the head side of a cellphone, do you know what happened to those?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I know. But whenever I am able to penetrate such explanations with facts, I like to do so. I think it builds credibility ;)

I have no problems with facts. :)

[MRC_Hans]

Mr. Coghill: In one of your published reports, here (http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/microshield.htm) , you mention something you call "the endogenous electric field of the lymphocyte donor". Could you expan on what the endogenous electric field is?

What generates it?

How do you measure it?

Hans

[Cleopatra]

Hmmm. After reading Tez's post I googled on Mr. Coghill and I read his biography. As most of you can imagine I was intrigued by what Tez mentioned: the magnet that is supposed to improve the taste of red wine. :)

His date of birth obliges me to address him as Mr. Coghill, this is what the protocol dictates in this corner of earth, at least. I apologize for using your first name Mr. Coghill. :)

[Tez]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Hmmm. After reading Tez's post I googled on Mr. Coghill and I read his biography. As most of you can imagine I was intrigued by what Tez mentioned: the magnet that is supposed to improve the taste of red wine. :)

His date of birth obliges me to address him as Mr. Coghill, this is what the protocol dictates in this corner of earth, at least. I apologize for using your first name Mr. Coghill. :)

Well then I'm "Mr. Tez" to you young lady...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tez
Well then I'm "Mr. Tez" to you young lady...

Dr. Cleopatra for you Mr. Tez.


:p

[Tez]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Dr. Cleopatra for you Mr. Tez.


:p

Damn - I forgot I'm "Dr. Tez" too.

Guess thats because I finished my PhD while you were still bathing in your mothers milk :p

[figtertype]

This is slightly off topic, but...

Is it really ethical for Coghill Research Laboratories to be producing magnet research whilst selling magnetic therapies on their website? I should think that would tend to undermine credibility a bit...

Mr. Coghill, have you had any research done by independant researchers who are NOT in the business of selling magnets?

[cogreslab]

Wow! I didn't expect to stir up such a wasp's nest! But I welcome the combined critical intelligences of this forum, and will be pleased to respond as best I can. First, these are serious responses, and the jokes may come later.

First I would like to accept the challenge from the forumer about thes magnetic coasters. But I feel he/she puts themselves at a disadvantage, and would like to propose the following:

If the double blind trial proves abortive, I undertake to donate £500 to the charity Children with Leukaemia. If the trial proves positive I would ask that the challenger does likewise, rather than give me £500, or bottles of expensive wine.

I am not sure whether the challenger has ever tried this test, so to make sure we start from an even playing field, if my above terms are acceptable, I undertake to send a pre-trial magnetic coaster to the challenger free of all charges for his/her own experimental purposes. May I suggest , for example, you try it on a domestic pet, and with its drinking water, and see if the pet prefers the magnetised or the unmagnetised water, by placing the coaster under one of two drinking bowls, or similar non-placebo influenced situations.

If after your own trials of whatever nature you decide not to proceed with the challenge that is OK by me. I think in all fairness however, you should report the results and reasons for not proceeding,though I do not insist on this.
#

[roger]

Originally posted by figtertype
Is it really ethical for Coghill Research Laboratories to be producing magnet research whilst selling magnetic therapies on their website? I should think that would tend to undermine credibility a bit... Why not? Just about any drug you take was originated and researched by the company that ends up selling the drug. Of course, in the US they have to prove to independent parties (FAA) that the drug works.

If the research is independently replicated and confirmed, it's good. If not, then not. Not sure where the ethics come into play, so long as the research is good.

[cogreslab]

The debate about the definition of amplitude is interesting but we have not really defined the term amplify, and I suggest this is a prerequisite. Everyone is familiar with the effect of the Newton's Cradle I hope. Force applied to one end is almost losslessly delivered at the other end, without infringing any of the known laws of physics. The nature of electrons is such that a similar force applied to one end of a current carrying wire is delivered to the other end with energy loss equivalent only to the resistance of the wire. Since the oxygenated world is filled with electrons and their associated atoms then any single movement of any single electron exerts a force throughout this immense free space.

I.e. all the electrons in the world slightly move their position relative to the initiating electron. I define this as amplifification, but welcome comments.

[Tez]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Wow! I didn't expect to stir up such a wasp's nest! But I welcome the combined critical intelligences of this forum, and will be pleased to respond as best I can. First, these are serious responses, and the jokes may come later.

First I would like to accept the challenge from the forumer about thes magnetic coasters. But I feel he/she puts themselves at a disadvantage, and would like to propose the following:

If the double blind trial proves abortive, I undertake to donate £500 to the charity Children with Leukaemia. If the trial proves positive I would ask that the challenger does likewise, rather than give me £500, or bottles of expensive wine.

I am not sure whether the challenger has ever tried this test, so to make sure we start from an even playing field, if my above terms are acceptable, I undertake to send a pre-trial magnetic coaster to the challenger free of all charges for his/her own experimental purposes. May I suggest , for example, you try it on a domestic pet, and with its drinking water, and see if the pet prefers the magnetised or the unmagnetised water, by placing the coaster under one of two drinking bowls, or similar non-placebo influenced situations.

If after your own trials of whatever nature you decide not to proceed with the challenge that is OK by me. I think in all fairness however, you should report the results and reasons for not proceeding,though I do not insist on this.
#

Thats good of you. I'll PM you my address. And dont worry, I'm ruthless about intellectual honesty (to a fault, according to one collaborator of mine, since I have refused to be on a number of papers for which I thought my stakes to co-authorship were borderline). Not sure I'll do anything publishable, but I will certainly make my findings public - both on the forum and around my department :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tez
Not sure I'll do anything publishable, but I will certainly make my findings public - both on the forum and around my department :)

Oh, you might want to consider write it up for SkepticReport... ;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Oh, you might want to consider write it up for SkepticReport... ;)


And since I started this thread I would like to write a popularized version about the potential effects of those coaster magnets on wine for my culinary column with the help of the gentlemen involved. :)

[cogreslab]

I very much liked Mr Larsen's analogy to my challenge of putting an infant on the highway then blaming the truck driver for its death. That is exactly what the NRPB and the electricity utilities are doing: they have created scientifically untenable guidelines which lead parents to put their children in ELF electric fields which are hazardous, knowing fully the risks of such chronic exposures.

I liken my challenge to a wake-up call similar to that trumpeted by John Snow when he removed the Old Street pump and stopped ignorant folk from contracting cholera from the tainted water.

I only wish the entire British public was reading this exchange so they could see the hazards to which I am pointing. If Mr Larsen would like to go to our site and click on the 5700 scientific references we quote there and read a few of the papers, he might reconsider his original and quite correct skepticisms, and help make the world a safer place for the future. I am tempted to disclose on this forum a private letter I recently wrote to Gareth Llewellyn, National Grid Transco's director, on this scientific background, to which I await a reply.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by roger
Of course, in the US they have to prove to independent parties (FAA) that the drug works.


Not to be nit-picky, but I'm sure you meant FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and not the Federal Aviation Administration. You did, didn't you? :)

[scotth]

Originally posted by cogreslab
I.e. all the electrons in the world slightly move their position relative to the initiating electron. I define this as amplifification, but welcome comments.

Well, that is a pretty useless definition.

How about: The process of increasing the magnitude of a variable quantity, especially the magnitude of voltage, power, or current, without altering any other quality.

[Tez]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Oh, you might want to consider write it up for SkepticReport... ;)

Kidding right? I have about a bazillion conspirators b!tching and moaning at me night and day to finish various articles, and now you'd like something for skepticreport. (Although I must say I prefer the audience of skepticreport...)

Cleopatra: Send me 61 bottles of your favourite wine(s). I will test 30 with the coaster the first month, then 30 without and keep one as "control".

Wine is so damn expensive for what you get here, cant blame me for trying to get a bit on the cheap...

[Cleopatra]

I will send you <strike through>31</strike through> 32 and don't try to bargain with a Jew.

[cogreslab]

Thanks. I am arranging to have magnetic coasters from two different suppliers sent to you as indicated. (We do not actually make these coasters ourselves, incidentally, but we receive a small commission on all sales to help with our research into bioelectromagnetics). Must go now. Please advise if I have not answered all responders.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by cogreslab
I very much liked Mr Larsen's analogy to my challenge of putting an infant on the highway then blaming the truck driver for its death. That is exactly what the NRPB and the electricity utilities are doing: they have created scientifically untenable guidelines which lead parents to put their children in ELF electric fields which are hazardous, knowing fully the risks of such chronic exposures.

Wrong. This is exactly what you are doing: You are the one claiming that it is dangerous - even lethal. You are the one suggesting that it is done. You are the one who puts up the money.

Please do not try to shift the blame onto your opponents.

Originally posted by cogreslab
I liken my challenge to a wake-up call similar to that trumpeted by John Snow when he removed the Old Street pump and stopped ignorant folk from contracting cholera from the tainted water.

The difference between you and Snow is that he turned out to be right. You have yet to prove that you are right.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."
Robert Park, Physicist.

Originally posted by cogreslab
I only wish the entire British public was reading this exchange so they could see the hazards to which I am pointing. If Mr Larsen would like to go to our site and click on the 5700 scientific references we quote there and read a few of the papers, he might reconsider his original and quite correct skepticisms, and help make the world a safer place for the future. I am tempted to disclose on this forum a private letter I recently wrote to Gareth Llewellyn, National Grid Transco's director, on this scientific background, to which I await a reply.

I have read plenty of papers on these kinds of scares. They are less than convincing - and I am being nice here.

Now, could you please answer this question?

Can the PhoneShield and CompuShield directionally influence RF/MW, yes or no?

[Jas]

Originally posted by richardm

After the mast is gone, there continue to be cases of cancer, but "obviously" they must have another cause.


I think it's the 'memory' of the masts which continue to cause cancer. What other explanation could there be?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Must go now. Please advise if I have not answered all responders. In fact you haven't replied to my questions. What you posted here doesn't have much to do with the advertisment of the PC/Phone Shield. Why is that?

[CapelDodger]

It's fortunate for the purveyors of such protections that these powers are manifested in crystals. Crystal: such a mellifluous word, associated with gems and shiny, sparkly, pretty things. Pure mountain streams, all that sort of stuff. Imagine if they manifested in coprolites. "Wear this rather unimpressive lump for protection." "What is it?" "Oh, it's very ancient, and entirely natural." "But what is it?" Not such an easy sell.

But then, the universe does seem to have turned out well for the ... less rational bussiness-person. Ever noticed how feng shui practitioners never say "What this room needs is a bucket of warm spit under the window"?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It's fortunate for the purveyors of such protections that these powers are manifested in crystals. Crystal: such a mellifluous word, associated with gems and shiny, sparkly, pretty things. Pure mountain streams, all that sort of stuff. Imagine if they manifested in coprolites. "Wear this rather unimpressive lump for protection." "What is it?" "Oh, it's very ancient, and entirely natural." "But what is it?" Not such an easy sell.

But then, the universe does seem to have turned out well for the ... less rational bussiness-person. Ever noticed how feng shui practitioners never say "What this room needs is a bucket of warm spit under the window"? Ok Capel Dodger I woke up the cats with my laughers while reading that but I confess that I am intrigued with the experiment Tez will perform.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

Kudos to the guy for being up for it. Not what one would normally expect, but those Poolers are really peculiar. They're famous for producing front-rows, who are the brick-built ones that charge head-down into similar hairy-arsed monsters. They call it sport, and I'm not about to question it. Not to their faces, anyway.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by cogreslab
The debate about the definition of amplitude is interesting but we have not really defined the term amplify, and I suggest this is a prerequisite.


Since when is there any kind of debate as to the meaning of the amplitude of an EM wave? What's wrong with the peak magnitude of the Electric (or Magnetic, if you wish) field strength?


Everyone is familiar with the effect of the Newton's Cradle I hope. Force applied to one end is almost losslessly delivered at the other end, without infringing any of the known laws of physics. The nature of electrons is such that a similar force applied to one end of a current carrying wire is delivered to the other end with energy loss equivalent only to the resistance of the wire.


Efficient transmission is not amplification. You still lose rather than gaining energy.

Since the oxygenated world is filled with electrons and their associated atoms then any single movement of any single electron exerts a force throughout this immense free space.
[i.e. all the electrons in the world slightly move their position relative to the initiating electron. I define this as amplifification, but welcome comments.

The force propagating from an electron attenuates with the square of distance, rather than being amplified. If the movement of every electron were amplified, then the movement of the electrons they move would be amplified as well, and so on. The universe would be a catastrophic crescendo of random electric fields.

You obviously understand neither crystals, electromagnetism, or amplification- how did you end up hawking a product involving all three?

[Flatworm]

Further, the only way for something to divert an electromagnetic beam without being in its path would be to warp spacetime (i.e. the gravitational lens effect.) If you have a device capable of warping space enough to divert EM rays around a human-sized object, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it.

[richardm]

Hi Flatworm, good to see you back!

[cogreslab]

Mr Larsen, Excuse me, but I do not generate electricity, the utilities do. Please try to exercise some kind of logic. How can I be "putting infants onto a highway?!

[cogreslab]

Mr Larsen, The NRPB already admit there is an elevated risk of childhood cancer from chronic exposure to ELF EM Fields. That is no longer an issue. The issue is my contention (and that of others) that the active bio-effector is actually the electric component, and that is evident from many cellular, live animal, and human studies in the peer reviewed literature, not just my own peer reviewed papers. Please, if you want to engage in arguments like this you should first do your own literature search. Have you ever in your life published a peer-reviewed scientific paper, by the way?

[cogreslab]

To Cleopatra. I will try to answer your question more concisely. The difficulty I face is that i do not know the extent of your exposure. If you use a cellphone normally you do not need this button thing. If you have to use a cellphone excessively, say more than two hours a day, or for more than 20 minutes at one time, then you should consider some sort of radioprotection. Since we have only tested the button thing in vitro I honestly do not know if it will work in vivo. I would suggest you change your phoning habit if possible, and thereby avoid the potential hazard, but if that isn't possible either, then one known response is to supplement your diet with melatonin rich foods, since there is good evidence that the adverse RF/MW effects are on melatonin synthesis. I hope this helps. Stop fixating on one (so far as I know) unproven product, and take a broader view. Unless of course you are not really interested in my answers but simply trying to pull down the makers of the button thing.

[cogreslab]

To figtertype. I cannot agree that firms conducting research into their speciality should not sell related products. Selling pharmaceuticals does not stop such firms from researching pharmacology.

[cogreslab]

To Flatworm. Cathode ray tubes routinely work by diverting electron beams by means of magnetic fields. I see nothing unusual in that. I wonder if you have read Feynman's Lectures on Physics Vol Two?

[cogreslab]

I have just gotten around to looking at this Phoneshield site, and was surprised to see that actually they misquoted seriously the conclusions of our 2000 report: they omitted to say that we confined our study to peripheral blood lymphocytes in vitro, and make it look as if we gave a general endorsement in vivo, which we never did. Thanks for pointing out the blag. I shall speak to them about this. I don't think the report features anywhere on our own website, so no one has had the opportunity of checking what we actually said in it.

To conclude let me repeat, a study on cells in vitro does not mean that the effect will also occur in vivo in the living body.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:

Kudos to the guy for being up for it. Not what one would normally expect, but those Poolers are really peculiar. They're famous for producing front-rows, who are the brick-built ones that charge head-down into similar hairy-arsed monsters. They call it sport, and I'm not about to question it. Not to their faces, anyway.
This post has been reported for rudeness, with a request to delete rude remarks. I see nothing particularly rude about this post. No action will be taken.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Mr Larsen, Excuse me, but I do not generate electricity, the utilities do. Please try to exercise some kind of logic. How can I be "putting infants onto a highway?!

It is highly logical, Mr. Coghill. You claim that you know there is a lethal danger. You put the infant in that lethal danger.

Originally posted by cogreslab
Mr Larsen, The NRPB already admit there is an elevated risk of childhood cancer from chronic exposure to ELF EM Fields. That is no longer an issue.

Evidence, please? This will come as a big surprise to Danish scientists.

Originally posted by cogreslab
The issue is my contention (and that of others) that the active bio-effector is actually the electric component, and that is evident from many cellular, live animal, and human studies in the peer reviewed literature, not just my own peer reviewed papers. Please, if you want to engage in arguments like this you should first do your own literature search. Have you ever in your life published a peer-reviewed scientific paper, by the way?

Irrelevant. If you want to argue your point on this board, you will have to provide your own evidence. Telling people to go seek it out themselves is not going to work here.

Now, for the umpteenth time:

Can the PhoneShield and CompuShield directionally influence RF/MW, yes or no?

Why don't you want to answer this? It's a simple "yes" or "no".

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by cogreslab
The debate about the definition of amplitude is interesting but we have not really defined the term amplify, and I suggest this is a prerequisite. Everyone is familiar with the effect of the Newton's Cradle I hope. Force applied to one end is almost losslessly delivered at the other end, without infringing any of the known laws of physics. The nature of electrons is such that a similar force applied to one end of a current carrying wire is delivered to the other end with energy loss equivalent only to the resistance of the wire. Since the oxygenated world is filled with electrons and their associated atoms then any single movement of any single electron exerts a force throughout this immense free space.

I.e. all the electrons in the world slightly move their position relative to the initiating electron. I define this as amplifification, but welcome comments. To amplify is to increase the strength of a signal. I notice that you use a different definition, but I strongly suggest you stick to the accepted one, for two reasons:

1) It becomes very tedious to participate in a debate if all participants are free to use private definitions of any or all words.

2) Your definition does not make sense.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Flatworm. Cathode ray tubes routinely work by diverting electron beams by means of magnetic fields. I see nothing unusual in that. I wonder if you have read Feynman's Lectures on Physics Vol Two? An electron beam is a flow of charged particles. Charged particles can indeed be influenced by both electric and magnetic fields. However, we are not talking about charged particles here, we are talking about electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetics waves consist of photons (if you choose to view them as particles). Photons are not charged.

Mr. Coghill, I'd like to repeat a question you have been avoiding throughout this discussion:

How do you suggest that these shield devices can influence an electromagnetic wave without being in its direct path?

I have an additional question; I apologize in advance if it appears rude, but I think it is pertinent:

Do you have any education or knowledge in electromagnetics?

...If the answer to that question is the "no" that seems indicated by your statements within that field so far, I'd like to say that this is obviously no disgrace, since nobody can be an expert in all fields, but I would then suggest that you refrain from making claims pertaining to that field.

Hans

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Cleopatra. I will try to answer your question more concisely. The difficulty I face is that i do not know the extent of your exposure. If you use a cellphone normally you do not need this button thing. If you have to use a cellphone excessively, say more than two hours a day, or for more than 20 minutes at one time, then you should consider some sort of radioprotection. Since we have only tested the button thing in vitro I honestly do not know if it will work in vivo. I would suggest you change your phoning habit if possible, and thereby avoid the potential hazard, but if that isn't possible either, then one known response is to supplement your diet with melatonin rich foods, since there is good evidence that the adverse RF/MW effects are on melatonin synthesis. I hope this helps. Stop fixating on one (so far as I know) unproven product, and take a broader view. Unless of course you are not really interested in my answers but simply trying to pull down the makers of the button thing.


Mr. Coghill

I don’t use my cell much many colleague do though because they believe that a cell phone secures their privacy. I believe that only the personal contacts secures that but you are right I am fixated with that object. This crystal made me start this thread and this very crystal brought you to this forum.

Now that you finally visited the web site you might have noticed that apart from your photo it has the photo of a child that is talking on a cell phone. Many parents and consumers might be misleaded by the image of a scientist who uses his cell having attached the crystal on it because his experiements have proven that it reduces the potential risks of an excess exposition to the radiation of a cell phone and bye it and not only that: people who avoided the use of cells for fear of its side effects might start using it just because you advertise it.

Next to you is a child that talks on that phone. I am fixated with people that use kids and this is what the Phone shield people do by using your name.

I have no reason to doubt you when you claim that the PhoneShield people misquoted you. I advise in my turn to talk to your lawyers about that and let them deal with those people especially if you have signed any papers.

Don’t be surprized with them though. If they mentioned that you haven’t performed any in vivo experiments they wouldn't sell a piece. Simple as that.

One last thing out of curiosity: since you suggest a moderate use of the cell phone, why have you attached one of the crystals that you don’t know if they work in vivo on your cell?

I wonder who reported Capel Dodger’s post. CD is many things but rude and his post was sarcastic, I am glad it was nominated for the language award.

[richardm]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Do you have any education or knowledge in electromagnetics?


Mr. Coghill's qualifications and memberships indicate a background in Biology. As we've seen many times in the past, expertise in one field does not automatically translate into a good understanding of other fields.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lorri
Why cannot you understand that the guy does not want to jeopardize the health and life of any infant. In fact he is doing pioneering work and bringing the results to the public domain in any way that he can. He is getting his message across in a subtle way and the web site is fascinating. The utilities workers will not take up the challenge because they know the truth of the situation. Well done Coghill Research and get a life Larsen.
Which part of

"Place any human infant of less than three months age to sleep each night for at least eight hours in an ELF electric field of 100 Volts per metre for thirty days. My studies predict that child will die, or become so seriously ill that the test will have to be called off. The NRPB and the power utilities' investigation levels by contrast predict there will be no adverse effect."

don't you understand?

[davefoc]

Things I've learned from this thread:
1. Cell phones can cause cancer if they are used too long.
2. Putting a particular crystal on top of the cell phone can eliminate this problem. Maybe, apparently there has only been in vitro testing of the idea, but it was done using the "accepted trypan blue exclusion test", so it must be credible.
3. The path of photons can be bent like the electron beam in a CRT with the appropriate crystal.
4. Crystals can act as amplifiers. Maybe. Apparently this is based on an unusual definition of the word amplifier, so I'm not quite sure of this.
5. The crystals in crystal radio sets worked as amplifiers, not like detectors (rectifiers) as I had previously thought.
6. Magnetic coasters can improve the taste of wine.
7. Even very low electrical fields can kill babies.
8. Cleopatra used static magnets to cure the gout of her lovers such as Julius Caesar and Mark Antony.
9. The use of an appropriate crystal can shield the user of a CRT from dangerous radiation.
10. Cleopatra uses a cell phone and a PC.
11. Tez can be very creative when it comes to figuring out a way to scam some free wine.


Can there be any doubt now about the E in "JREF forum"?

Additional unrelated comment. Randi needs a cool avatar. Why does Pyrrho let him post without one?

[Tez]

Originally posted by davefoc

11. Tez can be very creative when it comes to figuring out a way to scam some free wine.


Well, I'm still waiting for my 32 Euro, with which I'll pick myself up 64 bottles of the finest Greek/Israeli wine. Methinks it'll take a several Tesla magnet and some sleight of hand to make it drinkable...

[Cleopatra]

:nope:

With 32 Euros you cannot even buy a PhoneShield to protect yourself from radiation Mr. Tez.

I said I would sent you 32 bottles of wine. Ok. I will see how I will arrange it BUT you will have to write an article for Skeptic Report AND give me info about my culinary article.

I will contact your legal advisors for the details...

Science is so cheap these days...





:p

[Tez]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
:nope:

With 32 Euros you cannot even buy a PhoneShield to protect yourself from radiation Mr. Tez.

Since I dont have a cellphone, the crystal would do me as much good as anybody else...


I said I would sent you 32 bottles of wine.

Oops perhaps you did. How could I consent to letting someone with no proven sommeliering skills choose the wine for my microwave dinners?

Ok. I will see how I will arrange it BUT you will have to write an article for Skeptic Report AND give me info about my culinary article.

Typical lawyer, puts in the fine details a posteriori. If you send me some food too, I'll give you info about your culinary articles right away. Claus can publish my writeup in his rag - it'll simultaneously be appearing in "News of the World", which unfortunately reaches a similar audience...


I will contact your legal advisors for the details...

:p

To negotiate with you my queen, I'll need only My Cousin Vinny...

[cogreslab]

To Cleopatra. I do not think we have ever advertised this Phonedome thing on our own website, but I quite agree that the Phonedome people are overstepping the mark. Not quite sure i understand your remark about why do I use one of these button things. I was not aware I did.

[cogreslab]

To richardm. Yes science today is in my view overspecialised. In our lab we have graduates in physics and in chemistry among the research staff, as well as a physical chemist professor and an electronics engineer as consultants, so that we can contribute effectively in this multidisciplinary science of bioelectromagnetics. Moreover my company has been in existence for 23 years, and I guess a little of these other disciplines has rubbed off on me during that time. Not meaning to boast, but I am also a referee for several peer reviewed journals including the Bioelectromagnetics Journal (arguably the most important in the field) and am a member of the IEEE-instigated committee ICES set up to decide permitted exposure limits for RF/MW in the US. We also conduct bioelectromagnetics research on a daily basis, and our lab is equipped with oscilloscopes, microscopes, frequency analysers, refractometers, field measuring devices, magnetometers, and a host of other relevant instruments, as well as all the apparatus and chemicals for culturing cells in vitro in sterile conditions. The lab has five separate buildings on a 2.5 acre site.
I hope this answers your comment

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Cleopatra. I do not think we have ever advertised this Phonedome thing on our own website, but I quite agree that the Phonedome people are overstepping the mark. Not quite sure i understand your remark about why do I use one of these button things. I was not aware I did.

Good evening Mr. Coghill.

I have never visited your web-site I will have to look for it. I learned about you from the site of the Phone Shield people. In that site there is a picture of you talking on the cell phone. I thought I saw that you have attached a crystal. You say that I am wrong. I am wrong then, I apologize for that.

As for the PhoneShield people they present you as the reason why we must buy their product. Maybe you wish to protect yourself from that.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To richardm. Yes science today is in my view overspecialised. In our lab we have graduates in physics and in chemistry among the research staff, as well as a physical chemist professor and an electronics engineer as consultants, so that we can contribute effectively in this multidisciplinary science of bioelectromagnetics. Moreover my company has been in existence for 23 years, and I guess a little of these other disciplines has rubbed off on me during that time. Not meaning to boast, but I am also a referee for several peer reviewed journals including the Bioelectromagnetics Journal (arguably the most important in the field) and am a member of the IEEE-instigated committee ICES set up to decide permitted exposure limits for RF/MW in the US. We also conduct bioelectromagnetics research on a daily basis, and our lab is equipped with oscilloscopes, microscopes, frequency analysers, refractometers, field measuring devices, magnetometers, and a host of other relevant instruments, as well as all the apparatus and chemicals for culturing cells in vitro in sterile conditions. The lab has five separate buildings on a 2.5 acre site.
I hope this answers your comment

What is bioelectromagnetics (as opposed to electromagnetics)?

IEEE, as we know, is open to anybody who pays the (rathere stiff) membership fee.

You have not answered my comments.

Hans

[cogreslab]

To Mr Larsen. The evidence that the NRPB already concede an elevated incidence of childhood cancer in magnetic fields as low as 400nT is in the published report Documents of the NRPB: ELF Electromagnetic fields and the risk of Cancer Vol 12, (1) , 2001, page 163.:

"Recent large and well conducted studies have provided better evidence than was available in the past on the relationship between power frequency magnetic field exposure and the risk of cancer. Taken in conjunction they suggest that relatively heavy average exposures of 0.4 uT or more are associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemia in children under 15 years of age".

I hope this answers your request for evidence. Must go now, but I am aware I still haven't answered all your points and will try to do so in a separate post.

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, does somebody know what 400nT means in practice? What is the field strength under a HT line? And near a household utility like an electric stove?

Hans

[Hagrok]

The document he's referring to is here (http://www.nrpb.org/publications/documents_of_nrpb/abstracts/absd12-1.htm#group) .

Notice how he omitted the statement "The evidence, however, is not conclusive" directly following his quote.

The general conclusion of the paper is here:

Laboratory experiments have provided no good evidence that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are capable of producing cancer, nor do human epidemiological studies suggest that they cause cancer in general. There is, however, some epidemiological evidence that prolonged exposure to higher levels of power frequency magnetic fields is associated with a small risk of leukaemia in children. In practice, such levels of exposure are seldom encountered by the general public in the UK. In the absence of clear evidence of a carcinogenic effect in adults, or of a plausible explanation from experiments on animals or isolated cells, the epidemiological evidence is currently not strong enough to justify a firm conclusion that such fields cause leukaemia in children. Unless, however, further research indicates that the finding is due to chance or some currently unrecognised artefact, the possibility remains that intense and prolonged exposures to magnetic fields can increase the risk of leukaemia in children.

--Dan

{edited to fix URL}

[CFLarsen]

(I see Hagrok was faster than me...)

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Mr Larsen. The evidence that the NRPB already concede an elevated incidence of childhood cancer in magnetic fields as low as 400nT is in the published report Documents of the NRPB: ELF Electromagnetic fields and the risk of Cancer Vol 12, (1) , 2001, page 163.:

"Recent large and well conducted studies have provided better evidence than was available in the past on the relationship between power frequency magnetic field exposure and the risk of cancer. taken in conjunction they suggest that relatively hevy average exposures of 0.4 uT or more are associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemia in children under 15 years of age".

You got that one from the "Power Line Health Facts", not exactly an unbiased source. The link from that site to the actual document on NRPB doesn't work.

However, I was able to track down the full quote (emphasis mine)

Recent large and well-conducted studies have provided better evidence than was available in the past on the relationship between power frequency magnetic field exposure and the risk of cancer. Taken in conjunction they suggest that relatively heavy average exposures of 0.4 µT (4 milligauss) or more are associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemia in children under 15 years of age. The evidence is, however, not conclusive. In those studies in which measurements were made, the extent to which the more heavily exposed children were representative is in doubt, while in those in Nordic countries in which representativeness is assured, the fields were estimated and the results based on such small numbers that the findings could have been due to chance.
Source (http://www.arpansa.gov.au/news/doll_emf.htm)

You, Sir, are a fraud. You deliberately left out the part where it says that the studies were not conclusive.

What, you thought I wouldn't check?

Originally posted by cogreslab
I hope this answers your request for evidence.

As you may have guessed, it does not. Quite contrary, it reveals your dishonesty.

Nevertheless, I would still like an answer to this simple question:

Can the PhoneShield and CompuShield directionally influence RF/MW, yes or no?

Come on, Rog. It takes less than 10 seconds. Don't waste my time with your fairytales and selective quoting. Tell me, yes or no. What could be simpler?

Why do you hesitate?

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, Mr. Coghill, I (unlike, I understand, others here) did not know you till you posted on these boards, so my opinion on you is entirely based on your merits here. I am afraid that my impression of your credibility is, so far, not going in a favorable direction. Perhaps you could remedy the situation with a few quick, straight answers? If you have forgotten the questions, I'll gladly repeat them to you (or, you might re-read this thread).

Hans

[Hagrok]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(I see Hagrok was faster than me...)
It's been a slow day :)

That document was rediculously easy to find. Just go to the NRPB site and search for "ELF children cancer".

--Dan

{edit 'cause I misspelled an acronym....}

[davefoc]

Hans asked:Mmm, does somebody know what 400nT means in practice? What is the field strength under a HT line? And near a household utility like an electric stove?


I didn't. But I found this site:
http://www.alleghenyenergy.com/Environmental/AE_Environment/EMF/EMF.pdf

The site has a few tables directly related to your question.

Bottom line with regard to household magnetic field intensities seems to be that only a hair dryer has the potential to generate magnetic fields substantially larger than the 600 milligaus natural magnetic field. A table from the above site listed the magnetic field strength of a hair dryer at 1.2 inches from the head as 60-20000 milligauss.

From the tables on the above site it appears that the strength of magnetic fields from power lines are insignificant with regard to the natural magnetic field of the earth.

The 400 nanoTesla value converts to 4 milligauss. This is about one hundreth of the natural magnetic field. Perhaps the reason why somebody thinks that it is reasonable to worry about such a low value is that it is being theorized that the varying magnetic fields from ELF power is more dangerous than static magnetic fields. Using this as the limit to worry about it appears that there's a lot of stuff that might generate magnetic fields in this range. But when you look at how fast these fields fall off with distance typical human exposures to values in the 4 milligauss range seem likely to short for the average person.

This link had a long discussion about the typical exposure of an individual to magnetic fields:
http://www.nrpb.org/publications/documents_of_nrpb/pdfs/doc_12_1.pdf

This of course is not the same thing as the electric field which might be over the 100 volts/meter value put forth for the human infant challenge by Coghill.

A rough estimate for a 12000 volt line suspended at 15 meters sounds like 800 volts/meter to me (actually this is a bit low because the a 12,000 volt RMS line has a 1.4 time higher peak voltage). So I guess one would want to be pretty careful with a baby around power lines if Coghill is right. But in reading a few of the links there seems to be no evidence of that.

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks Davefoc! Not meaning to ask others to do my homework, but I was short for time. Yes, it is assumed that an alternating field has very different effects than a static one. Obviously, the claimed effects from HT lines are exaggarated. Thousands of people are living more or less directly under HT lines, so if there was any strong effect, it would be easy to show stastistically.

BTW, estimating the field under a HT line is not as simple as using the voltage and the height; HT lines (and other electrical lines) are always run together in three phase groups and the fields from the three phases partially cancel out.

Hans

[cogreslab]

To Mr Larsen. Since my lab has never tested this device (Phoneshield, Phonedome or what ever they now call it) for its polar diagram I honestly do not know the answer to the question you are asking. All we did or claimed to report was the effect if any on white blood cells. The picture on their site is certainly not of me, and though i visited this site, it did not occur to me that they were representing my photo there at all. You keep accusing me of promoting, being associated with, or being fully familiar with this device, but we don't have anything to do with it. Sorry.

There was no intention on my part to omit NRPB.s text, but you asked for evidence and I gave you the reference to read the rest of it since it is easy to find. The NRPB's value judgement there has altered somewhat since 2001 anyway: and even before then the Stewart Report (in which the NRPB was heavily involved) advocates that "in line with our precautionary approach we beleive that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non essential calls should be discouraged". Elsewhere they conclude that exposure to cellphones even at levels below national guidelines may not be without risk, and particularly if the frequency is in the range of 16 Hz or near brain rhhythms (i.e. at ELF frequencies.

I am presently in dialogue with the utilities via the Environment Council (by invitation incidentally) to try to see some acceptable way forward for this issue. The NRPB is in a difficult position, since they explicitly do not wish to alarm the public by presenting the bald truth of the matter, which is that we have a serious problem with exposures at very weak field levels. Hence they temper their remarks with calming value judgements which are not based on the increasingly robust scientific picture.

MRC Hans complains i have not answered his question, but what was the question?

There are plenty of peer reviewed studies reporting elevated illhealth or depressive illness among populations living near powerlines, but the fact is that inside homes there are also areas of relatively high field strength near appliances to which people may be chronically exposed. In a normal home the e-field is say 1-10 V/m but near a domestic electric hot water system it could be 50 V/m. In a study i did in the late 1980s we found an overrepresentation of SIDS cases near such appliances, even though they were not near powerlines.

I am not interested in other people's value judgements on my research incidentally.

[cogreslab]

If we use your definition of amplify how dlo you define the Bell's theorem issue relting to simultaneous information delivery in free space?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by cogreslab
I am not interested in other people's value judgements on my research incidentally.

Thank you. You have just admitted you are not doing science.

[Hellbound]

There are plenty of peer reviewed studies reporting elevated illhealth or depressive illness among populations living near powerlines...

Did these studies also take into account the fact that real estate that lies under power lines tends to be lower-cost, available to lower-income families? That typically those who do live under power lines (specifically the high-voltage type lines we are discussing) tend to be on the lower end of the income scale? Did the studies also take into account the fact that things like regular health care and nutrition are less available at low income? That depression and suicide is more common among low income households? Just tossing out a few ideas, but there have been these types of problems with these studies. If the study does not take this into account, then the sample they get from power lines is not representative of the population at large, and comparing cancer rates is comparing apples and oranges (and not in an IR spectrograph, where apples and oranges are remarkably similar).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Mr Larsen. Since my lab has never tested this device (Phoneshield, Phonedome or what ever they now call it) for its polar diagram I honestly do not know the answer to the question you are asking. All we did or claimed to report was the effect if any on white blood cells. The picture on their site is certainly not of me, and though i visited this site, it did not occur to me that they were representing my photo there at all. You keep accusing me of promoting, being associated with, or being fully familiar with this device, but we don't have anything to do with it. Sorry.

No, I am not accusing you of promoting the device, or being associated with it or whatever. I asked you a simple question. Obviously, you don't want to answer it. I'm sorry too.

Originally posted by cogreslab
There was no intention on my part to omit NRPB.s text, but you asked for evidence and I gave you the reference to read the rest of it since it is easy to find.

Roger, I do believe you tried to pass off a quote indicating you were right, and when we found the full quote, you now come back and claim that there was no "intention" of omitting just that part that proved you were wrong.

I've heard your excuse many times before from people who have done the same. You fibbed, you got caught. It's that simple.

Originally posted by cogreslab
I am presently in dialogue with the utilities via the Environment Council (by invitation incidentally) to try to see some acceptable way forward for this issue. The NRPB is in a difficult position, since they explicitly do not wish to alarm the public by presenting the bald truth of the matter, which is that we have a serious problem with exposures at very weak field levels. Hence they temper their remarks with calming value judgements which are not based on the increasingly robust scientific picture.

So, you are saying that there's a conspiracy of silence to keep this information from the public? The NRPB is in effect putting people's lives in lethal danger, precisely as you are willing to? That's pure drivel, a feeble attempt at creating an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and doubt. After which you can sell your services to a frightened public.

Originally posted by cogreslab
I am not interested in other people's value judgements on my research incidentally.

Then why do you have your experiments peer-reviewed? Why do you come here? Surely, you didn't think you could come to a skeptics' board without being questioned?

[Cynical]

Hey, Claus Flodin! :roll: How goes it, dude??

Maybe cogreslab comes here for the sheer entertainment of watching you flounder. You are really quite amusing, Claus Flodin. Better than watching a comedy sitcom.:D

[davefoc]

MRC_Hans said:BTW, estimating the field under a HT line is not as simple as using the voltage and the height; HT lines (and other electrical lines) are always run together in three phase groups and the fields from the three phases partially cancel out

You are right of course. I was aware of this but somehow failed to be aware of it when I wrote that sentence.

[cogreslab]

I would be grateful if all comments etc regarding bioelectromagnetics in any of its aspects be directed to my thread titled Bioelectromagnetics, where quite a decent dialogue seems to be developing. It saves me looking at several different threads to keep in the argument. Must go now. I will be going back to this issue of amplification on that thread later.

[cogreslab]

Finally, for I really must go. Yes there is a conspiracy by the world's power utilities, equivalent to that perpetrated by the tobacco companies, to pervert scientific research in order to protect their commercial interests. The same is going on with RF/MW. Forthcoming posts on the Bioelectromagnetics thread will uncover these bit by bit, in response to questions.

Stupid of me. I should have included the word unsupported in my comment about not being interested in other value judgements. Of course you are right. I do value the critical capability of this forum, but am not interested in unsupported value judgements. I value all critical analyses supported by preferably peer reviewed counter argument. Thanks for making me put that right!blue

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by cogreslab
I would be grateful if all comments etc regarding bioelectromagnetics in any of its aspects be directed to my thread titled Bioelectromagnetics, where quite a decent dialogue seems to be developing. It saves me looking at several different threads to keep in the argument. Must go now. I will be going back to this issue of amplification on that thread later.
Scr** you, I'll post where I want so long as I adhere to the forum rules, thank you. As a matter of fact, here is a copy of the post I just made on your distract-them-away-from-my-previously-posted-unsupportable-nonsense thread:

Regarding your morally repugnant babies-under-the-power-lines challenge, though, why don't these all fall over and die? (http://www.oweb.com/Advertiser-Tribune/Text/S.G.2001Stories.html)

Or him? (http://www.inkspotdesigns.com/frames_(Services)/frames_(ISD_Stock_Photos)/Low_Rez_Sample_Pages/Roll_08/Squirrel_On_A_Wire_02.html)

Why don't Great Horned Owls (http://www.saltgrassflats.com/birds/great_horned_owl.html)come crashing down from these poles?

My future posts to your distract-em thread will be all aimed at moving them back to this thread. You will have to deal with it, rog.

[BillHoyt]

rogbot,

How dare you make that challenge! How dare you!

[BillHoyt]

Which is it, rogbot? Are you not telling the truth when you claim power lines are dangerous? Or do you want adults to put infants at risk of death?

Please do regale us with a third option if you have one to proffer.

[BillHoyt]

<marquee>Answer the question, rogbot</marquee>

Do you or don't you believe the infant will die or be seriously harmed? Do you or don't you? Yes or no.

<marquee>Answer the question, rogbot</marquee>

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
To answer Cleopatra's initial question, could it work?

No.

Electromagnetic radiation propagates in straight lines. Even if that small patch is the best absorber of EM radiation in the Universe, it cannot absorb any waves but those that pass directly through it. So, if it worked, to have an effect, you would have to put them all over the front of your monitor. But then you couldn't use it.

To stop the radiation from your cellphone, you would have to cover it with the things. But then it wouldn't work.

So, yes, it is a total woowoo object. Doubly so, because even if it worked, it would be useless :rolleyes:.

Hans


Stupid question ( You see Claus I am working on that !!)

Electromagnetic radiation is like a wave or is created in an electromagnetic field?

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Electromagnetic radiation is like a wave or is created in an electromagnetic field?

Electromagnetic Radiation -from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectromagneticRadiation.html)
Electromagnetic radiation is also known as an electromagnetic wave, and consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields at right angles to one another and to the propagation direction. Electromagnetic radiation comes in discrete packets known as photons

It is basically light, it behave like light, the only difference is that is a light that you can't see it. And depending on its frequency (or color) somethings will be transparent to this light or not.

That is why you cell phone work in a closed room, because the walls are transparent to the frequency that the cell phone use.

[Cleopatra]

Thank you my dear somebody was faster than you but it is cool to collect all these links.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



*snip*

Electromagnetic radiation is like a wave or is created in an electromagnetic field? Mmm, I'll try for a simplified explanation of how an EM wave is created and how it is related to an EM field. Apart from nuts, this explanation will contain simplifications, physiscists need not dissect it.

Imagine a wire connected to a battery, and led some distance to a light-bulb. Via another wire, a little distance away, the current is led throighfrom the other side of the bulb and back to the battery. The bulb is alight, and a current is flowing in the circuit.

Now, elementary school physics tell us that a magnet field is surrounding the wires, and not so elementary school physics will tell us that there is an electric field between the two wires. If the voltage of the battery is 12 volts and the distance between the wires is one meter, the field strenght will be 12V/m (are you listening, Roger?).

So far, so good. Now let's switch the current off and on (presumably we included a circuit breaker somewhere). Probably they told you in school that when we switch on the current in a circuit, current starts flowing all over the circuit immidiately, because it is already "full of mobile elctrons". That is one of the lies they told you in school.

What really happens is that current (electrons) rushes into the wire from the circuit breaker. But, remember the electric and magnetic fields? They do not appear instantaneously, they have to be built up using a little of the energy from the current. Once generated, they spread away from the wire at the speed of light. So you can imagine a wave-front of current surging through the wire, something like a wave through a channel where a flood-gate has suddenly opened. At the same time a "wake" of magnetic and lectric fields spread from the wire, originating at the current front.

Once the wave-front has run through the entire circuit, and it does this at a speed close to the speed of light, a constant current is running, and the fields are stationary. The wave-fronts of the fields, however, spread on at the speed of light. When we switch off, the reverse thing happens: An end-front runs the length of the circuit, and the fields collapse in its wake, returning (some of) the energy invested in them to the circuit (which makes the current disappear a little slower than it would otherwise have done).

Now, let us assume we can switch the current on and off very fast, so that just as the current has come all the way through the circuit, we switch it off again, and vice versa. Now we generate a train of field wakes that constantly emanate from the wire.

This train of wavefronts is an EM wave, or radio wave.

Hans

[Pragmatist]

Bump - lest we forget...

[Rolfe]

Pragmatist, CHECK YOUR PMs FOR PETE'S SAKE!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

OK OK I grovel mine was full.

Fixed now.

Rolfe.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
So, if it worked, to have an effect, you would have to put them all over the front of your monitor. But then you couldn't use it.


That depends entirely on what frequency the substance is absorbing. If these "harmful frequencies" are lower than those of visible light, then it should be possible to cover your monitor with a substance that blocks the "harmful radiation" but still allows you to see it.