Coghill Challenge

[EHocking]

Has anyone read this disgusting challenge from Cogreslab?
<http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/cogchall.htm>

"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."

So for a £2000 bet this swine would harm, even kill, an infant.

I don't care that the claim is a load of bollocks, the CLAIMANT believes that the child would die and is willing to dare someone to put an infant in harms way.

I think this is totally disgusting.

And considering the woowoos clambering all over J.Randi's refusal to test Hira Ratan Manek or any other "breatharian" types 'cos he has no intention of participating in a challenge where a person's health might be put at risk, it clearly demonstrates to my mind what depths believers will plumb to hawk their wares.

[richardm]

Originally posted by EHocking

I don't care that the claim is a load of bollocks, the CLAIMANT believes that the child would die and is willing to dare someone to put an infant in harms way.


Makes you wonder if, deep down, the claimant really knows that nothing will happen to the kid. Certainly, it's a strange way to behave for someone who wants to save humanity. (Or at least, the bits of humanity that live near power cables).

[Mercutio]

The "bioelectromagnetics" thread discusses this challenge, among other things. Sadly, some of the early posts in the thread were lost in the time-space continuum...but the patient reader will be rewarded; they do get back on track and seriously discussing.

[Tricky]

Does it only work on humans? Hasn't this guy ever heard of lab rats?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tricky
Does it only work on humans? Hasn't this guy ever heard of lab rats?

I adressed that on the other thread. No response.

This person has developed his own poor taste version of the million dollar challenge. It is nothing more than a cheap PR stunt.

[cogreslab]

To Ed: The Coghill Challenge will not work with mammals or small rodents, because as I explained to you in some detail in my thread Bioelectromagnetics these rodents are born with fully myelinated brains, unlike the human infant where the process takes about a year. Maybe my explanation got lost in the early posts, but if so maybe it is a problem the webmaster should attend to to avoid having people to repeat their arguments.

Regarding the ethics of my Challenge, my position is that the establishment agencies such as NRPB are responsible for hundreds of infant and child deaths every year because they will not propose guidelines dictated by the epidemiology, human, laboratory and cellular studies published in the peer reviewed literature. These mass child murderers make any views you have on my Challenge pale into insignificance.

The more you skeptics scream about this issue and my Challenge (which reminds me somewhat of the king who threatened to cut a child in half to determine the true mother) the more it pleases me, because the more likely it is to pressure the NRPB into change. Unlike their attitude which has killed over a jumbo planeload of youngsters in the last decade since they have become aware of the issue, not a single infant has had one hair on its head hurt by my Challenge todate. So scream away,guys!

If you beleive the NRPB is right why don't you pick up an easy $3000? If you believe I may be right,why don't you petition the NRPB to get real? Then I could withdraw my challenge altogether. It's upto you!

[Oleron]

This quackwatch article is a good source for links. Hits the emf scare for a home run.

Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html)


I've had a look at the cogreslab site and it appears that it is just another crank selling magnetic insoles. Coghill uses a lot of big words to say very little.

As regards the infants, he goes on about raised incidences of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) and leukaemia. I don't know about leukaemia but I seem to remember that SIDS rate in UK is drastically lower than it was 10-15 years ago. This has been attributed to some bad advice about letting babies sleep on their fronts.

In a nutshell, this advice was given to UK mums around 10-15years ago but reversed soon after when SIDS rates rose sharply. The rates returned to normal when the advice was retracted. Nothing whatsoever to do with fields of any description.

This challenge is in poor taste, at best. I wonder if Mr Coghill has children of his own.

[cogreslab]

To Oleron: The link to Farley's Quackwatch article is a link to total crap. He has not provided one single scientific reference to any study in this century! Not only is the work obsolete, it is biased unbelievably in favour of the power utilities, and contains a number of important errors both of omission and commission. If skeptics believe that junk they will beleive anything.

As for labelling me as just another seller of insoles, I think you ought to allow readers to make their own minds up and look at my detailed arguments, even if for an airbrain like you they include big words.

[richardm]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Ed: The Coghill Challenge will not work with mammals or small rodents, because as I explained to you in some detail in my thread Bioelectromagnetics these rodents are born with fully myelinated brains,


Did anyone point out this article (http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/00/04braintip.html) in that thread. Let me know if they did, and I'll go and look there:

The scientists looked at the cellular makeup in the splenium, the thick, round, back portion of the rat corpus callosum, a mass that connects the two hemispheres of the brain, at 60, 120 and 180 days of age. Well after puberty's onset at about 40 days, axons (nerve fibers) continued to be wrapped by myelin -- white matter that both insulates axons and speeds the transmission of impulses between neurons. The number of unmyelinated axons decreased at the same time presumably because they are turned into myelinated axons.

Edited to add: I expect they did point out that human babies are mammals as well.

[Oleron]

To Cogreslab:
I thought I saw insoles for sale on your site.
Must have been mistaken....

[richardm]

Originally posted by Oleron
To Cogreslab:
I thought I saw insoles for sale on your site.
Must have been mistaken....

You were. But only just. It's Patches (http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/magcatalog.htm#magnets) that'll cure what ails you.

I think what Mr. Coghill was alluding to was his impression that you have the cart before the horse: He is not making this stuff up in order to flog dodgy therapeutic products, he really believes it. Apparently. And if you'd just read his site properly, you'd come to agree with him.

The fact that some of the stuff they sell scores highly on the dube-o-meter (which measures the level of dubious matter) doesn't help much, IMHO. I don't think that selling "Magnetic Fuel Economisers" helps credibility much, for example. And this whole business about "Unlike their attitude which has killed over a jumbo planeload of youngsters in the last decade since they have become aware of the issue" also causes the eyebrows to raise somewhat.

[Ed]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Ed: The Coghill Challenge will not work with mammals or small rodents, because as I explained to you in some detail in my thread Bioelectromagnetics these rodents are born with fully myelinated brains, unlike the human infant where the process takes about a year. Maybe my explanation got lost in the early posts, but if so maybe it is a problem the webmaster should attend to to avoid having people to repeat their arguments.



Nothing got lost. I responded that one can use timed pregnant rats. Mylenization under control.

Did you respond?

[Ed]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Ed: Regarding the ethics of my Challenge, my position is that the establishment agencies such as NRPB are responsible for hundreds of infant and child deaths every year because they will not propose guidelines dictated by the epidemiology, human, laboratory and cellular studies published in the peer reviewed literature. These mass child murderers make any views you have on my Challenge pale into insignificance.



So that makes you a small murderer? Did you ever study ethics?

[cogreslab]

I don't believe that you have yet seriously distinguished between the act of murder, defined as the deliberate and wilful taking of human life (which is what the NRPB are doing) and the act of wilfully drawing attention to that crime, which some might argue is an act of public responsibility.

Someone on my thread mentioned Edward Jenner as another example of testing ideas out on children. The difference is that he actually did so, and without reference, as did Pasteur, whereas I have not.

RE your question of using timed pregnant rats instead of human subjects, I pointed to Marino's work which bears out my claim. (see Marino et al., 1988, IN Modern Bioelectricity, (Marcel Dekker) which reports many animal experments e.g. p 982: investigators exposed pregnant rats to 100uW/cm2 at 27.1 MHz for upto twenty days... the rats in the exposed group showed significantly greater fetal resorption, least weight gain, and amongst their offspring there was a significantly higher incidence of delayed development (higher incidence of incomplete cranial ossification).

But as the NRPB themselves admit (Cridland, 1993) what goes for small animals cannot be extrapolated to humans. So why put the poor rats to that torture for nothing?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by cogreslab
the act of murder, defined as the deliberate and wilful taking of human life (which is what the NRPB are doing)
What, not even an "allegedly"? It seems your challenge is "deliberate" to a far greater degree.

[cogreslab]

Another totally unsupported value judgement, Mercutio! When are you skeptics going to learn to offer factual evidence rather than either dodging the issue by simply asking fresh questions or making value judgements about issues of which you have little expert knowledge? If you look back over my thread Bioelectromagnetics you will see that at virtually every point I have backed my argument with references from the peer reviwed scientific literature. In total my references exceed by an order of magntude the few such references, largely gleaned from Google, put up by the skeptics group opposing my arguments. Disappointing, I am afraid. I had rather expected a higher level of knowledge and debate here, and not the sorry saliva which keeps appearing such as Mercutio's last effort.

[Thomas]

There's a few things here I can't make any sense of:

For one thing you say that ELF frequencies at the 12000 Volts per metre, adviced by NRPB, is responsible for high infant mortality yes? Well, it's not that easy to find any evidence of this claim, because in Russia where the advice only is 500 Volts per metre, the infant mortality rate is 19.51, and in the UK where the advice is 12000V (24 times as high), the infant mortality rate is only 5.28, i.e. approximately 1/4 of the Russian infant mortality rate? Do you find this to support your claim?

Another thing, several branches must be a part of this conspiracy, including the goverment, the media and the International Agency for Research on Cancer?

What if your challenge will slowly kill an infant because the parents have been brainwashed by this conspiracy?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but before you do, I should say that my knowledge about ELF is minimal, so I would appreciate if you could explain this in a natural language. Thank you.

[cogreslab]

Relative infant mortality and ELF EM fields. That was a very good point. First to get rid of the jargon, ELF stands for extremely low frequency and is often taken to mean the electromagnetic (EM) frequencies between 30 and 3000 Hertz (cycles per second). Both in Russia and the UK this frequency is 50Hz (in the US 60 Hz). These frequencies are sometimes called power frequencies, because they are the frequencies of electric power.

Infant mortality is statistically a composite from a number of different causes, the chief of which are SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) which is more or less the same (but not completely) as cot death. However Congenital Heart Disease (CHD) is another almost as large proportion of infant mortality. So it's important not to equate SIDS with the infant mortality stats, but to separate them out. Moreover, definitions of SIDS vary between countries, and data collection too: in the UK all sudden unexpected deaths by law must be reported to coroners and kept in a publicly available record (That's how they couldn't stop me getting out the data for my study), but |I don't think the figures are collected the same way in Russia.

In Russia as I indicated the 500 V/m limit only applies in rural areas, and in that country a generally lower standard of living and relatively severe climate has a greater impact on infant mortality that in the West. Taking these facts together one would not expect to see a direct relationship between SIDS levels of the two countries.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Infant mortality is statistically a composite from a number of different causes, the chief of which are SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) which is more or less the same (but not completely) as cot death. However Congenital Heart disease is another amlost as large proportion of infant mortality. So it's important not to equate SIDS with the infant mortality stats, but to separate them out.

So in Russia they either calculate the figures extremely diffrent than in the UK, or else the main reason for SIDS is Congenital Heart disease, as opposed to the UK where the main reason for SIDS is EM?

[cogreslab]

Evidence of a SIDS-ELF link: one early peer reviewed study you might look at was by Eckert, Med Klin. 1976. He compared the SIDS deaths in Hamburg and Philadelphia and found that a signficant proportion were near ELF sources. A later measured field study however (author Arnessen I think, but I would have to check the file) did not confirm this finding but it only measured magnetic and not electric fields. I spoke to this author who promised to go back and check the electric fields but never published them as far as I am aware. When I first raised the issue in 1989 the NRPB also promised to do a measured field study, but they never reported it either. More recently Maria Feychting an epidemiologist from the Karolinska has been looking at the topic, and I think she has now published, also suggesting a link. Have you thought of searching PubMed?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Have you thought of searching PubMed?

Nope, and I don't think I will either. Since I don't care to study this issue further I'm just gonna have to buy your products.
I was thinking about buying a knee wrap, a leg wrap, an ankle wrap, a carpal wrap, a link bracelet, 2 square-kilometers of EMF protector net so I can wrap my house up and a dog bed I can sleep in. How does that sound?

[cogreslab]

There is also this recent study, which lines up with our findings on melatonin (MLT: we probably have the largest library of scientific references on MLT in this country) and have just ordered a GC/MS/MS ion trap machine (verbum sapientibus satis) for precise MLT determination in plants, and in humans exposed to EMF:

"In a 1997 study, Rod O'Connor, one of Persinger's students, found that the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome seems to be higher when geomagnetic storm activity is very low, with background frequencies of about 0.2 to 0.5 hertz. (Geomagnetic storms are caused by the compression and decompression of Earth's static field by solar winds.) Researchers have found that infants who die of SIDS have low levels of melatonin, a hormone that is best known for controlling our internal clocks but also mediates production of nitric oxide, a chemical transmitter integral to breathing. O'Connor believes that magnetic fields generated during weather events can depress nocturnal levels of melatonin and in turn, nitric oxide, disrupting infant breathing. To test his hypothesis, O'Connor has been exposing rat pups to weak magnetic fields of no greater than 0.5 hertz, similar to those that occur during geomagnetic storms. Pups exposed to the lowest intensity fields die soon after showing brain chemistry changes that reflect a drop in melatonin levels".

[Tricky]

Originally posted by EHocking
Has anyone read this disgusting challenge from Cogreslab?
<http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/cogchall.htm>

"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."

So for a £2000 bet this swine would harm, even kill, an infant.

I don't care that the claim is a load of bollocks, the CLAIMANT believes that the child would die and is willing to dare someone to put an infant in harms way.

I think this is totally disgusting.
After reading this, I am completely convinced that placing a child in the presence of an EMF would prove harmful or deadly to the child. Of course, in this case, EMF means "Evil Mother..." well, you get the idea.

[cogreslab]

OK So I have finally convinced at least one member of the thread that these 100V/m ELF fields are pernicious to human infants. Well, what are you going to do about it? Just sit there at your PC and call me rude names? Skeptics have already adequately demonstrated to me they have that ability in abundance.

Rather than that, may I suggest you now email the NRPB (call them EMF or what you will), and ask

a) why the NRPB have not researched or disclosed the results of research into the possible connection between SIDS and EMF, despite having agreed to do so over fourteen years ago?

b) why, if the NRPB are so convinced about the correctness of their guideline why none of their hundreds of staff have ever accepted this easy-to-earn £2000 from the Coghill Challenge to put one of their own (rather than the entire public's) infants in a mere 100 V/m electric field, which is only a mere fiftieth of the guidelines which they consider to be completely safe?

At worst I only stand to lose £2000 (and make nothing) from their attempt. I suspect that if they were even to attempt the matter the whole world's media would be peering over the cot for every entire second of the exposure period, cameras at the ready.

Since Ben Greenebaum's studies at Wisconsin demonstrated a clear correlation between very low electric field strength and respiration (and ATP inhibition), and since a major symptom of SIDS is respiration failure, I expect there would be more than a few doctors there too, equipped with breathing apparatus.

Having had to examine these dear little dead babies in the mortuary more than once, I personally would be there with a hempen noose for the NRPB directors.

[Cleopatra]

So we have a new thread about the infamous challenge. Good.

As I have said in the thread about Bioelectromagnetism the issue is not legal ( disclaimer : this is not an official legal opinion bla bla bla) but ethical.

The wording of the challenge, the price tag Mr. Coghill has put for a kid's life , the melodrama this challenge creates speaks volumes of the kind of science Mr. Coghill practices plus other issues that are related with the responsibility towards the general public etc.

I have been trying to persuade him in the other thread but he seems to insist.

I have posed him questions regarding the morality of this challenge but he hasn't replied to them yet. Oh well.

[Marian]

Originally posted by cogreslab
<snip>At worst I only stand to lose £2000 (and make nothing) from their attempt

WTF

THAT to you is the worst case scenario? Baby Jesus WEEPS.

For f*ck's sake, I have NEVER had to be so right as to hope that someone kills or harms a baby just to vindicate my point of view. I may believe that 'fast food' is going to kill off a lot of people, but I'm not going to gleefully award someone money if they feed their child ONLY McDonald's for 18 years when I know that's going to harm the kid, just so I can prove my point that their food is crap.

Do you ever have those moments of clarity when you think, 'What the hell am I doing?' If you believe it's not only unsafe, but deadly (as you CLEARLY state on your website) then you're offering a monetary inducement to murder, by your own beliefs!

Encouraging harm to prove harm...do you have any ethics? Or are you so lost in your 'cause' that you've become the worst of what you claim all those other people are?

I mean seriously, that's just sick.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Another totally unsupported value judgement, Mercutio![snip] Disappointing, I am afraid. I had rather expected a higher level of knowledge and debate here, and not the sorry saliva which keeps appearing such as Mercutio's last effort. Terribly sorry...I must have missed the part where you proved that they deliberately and willfully take human lives. Not only can you see their actions, but you know their intents. That's a pretty good trick...is it done with magnets?

[cogreslab]

Originally posted by Marian


WTF

THAT to you is the worst case scenario? Baby Jesus WEEPS.

For f*ck's sake, I have NEVER had to be so right as to hope that someone kills or harms a baby just to vindicate my point of view. I may believe that 'fast food' is going to kill off a lot of people, but I'm not going to gleefully award someone money if they feed their child ONLY McDonald's for 18 years when I know that's going to harm the kid, just so I can prove my point that their food is crap.

Do you ever have those moments of clarity when you think, 'What the hell am I doing?' If you believe it's not only unsafe, but deadly (as you CLEARLY state on your website) then you're offering a monetary inducement to murder, by your own beliefs!

Encouraging harm to prove harm...do you have any ethics? Or are you so lost in your 'cause' that you've become the worst of what you claim all those other people are?

I mean seriously, that's just sick.

I know what I am doing: I am drawing attention to this issue. I also know what you are doing: nothing except calling me rude names!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab
I know what I am doing: I am drawing attention to this issue. I also know what you are doing: nothing except calling me rude names!


Can we all calm down? :) Mr. Coghill the way you are drawing attention to the issue is quite questionable and this is what we try to argue here.

Please guys no name calling.

[cogreslab]

Let me spell it out for you:

The staff at NRPB know very well that their guidelines are rubbish. They also are well aware of that childhood leukaemia is the largest killer of children today. They thirdly know that there is a doubled incidence of childhood leukaemia associated with exposure to magnetic fields as low as 0.4uT (their guidelines have just been reduced to a mere 100uT). Finally they have evidence that the electric component is the active parameter, and that even 20 V/m may be sufficient to induce childhood leukaemia.

As for the other group incorporated in my Coghill Challenge, the NGT Plc staff, they are sitting on a recent large countrywide study which shows that near powerlines there is a doubled incidence of childhood leukaemia (This was conducted by Dr John Swanson, and he has been told not to publish it). If you don't believe me, go and ask him.

My definition of murder was the deliberate and wilful taking of human life. Deliberately withholding information in that way is a criminal offence, and the ensuing negligence is culpable homicide.

This is serious stuff folks.

[Marian]

Originally posted by cogreslab


I know what I am doing: I am drawing attention to this issue. I also know what you are doing: nothing except calling me rude names!

Where did I call you any names? Please show me. I didn't. I said it was sick (and I stand by that. If you believe something will kill an infant and you enduce others by monetary promise to do said action, that's sick).

I questioned whether you had any ethics. Apparently from your post it seems that your ethos is "The ends justify the means", is that correct?

I expressed shock that you would express that the 'worst' scenario to you would be to lose money (and not the death of an infant, which you claim will be the probable result of said experiement on your website).

Dead baby or losing money. I know which I believe would be the 'worst case scenario' or worst possible outcome. As to whether or not your proposed experiement will or will not result in harm, I don't know, and is not at issue. You have expressed that you believe it will (quite often). You believe it will seriously damage, and/or kill an infant. And yet you offer monetary inducement for someone to take part in said experiement. Yes, that's highly questionable, and highly unethical based on your beliefs.

If I believe a gun is loaded and I point it at someone's head and pull the trigger, in the United States I would be charged with attempted murder. The fact that the weapon posed no real danger (as it was unloaded) wouldn't matter. It would be my intent and knowledge that makes up the body of the crime.

You propose a monetary reward for something you state you absolutely believe will seriously harm, or kill an infant. Yes, I seriously question your ethics in such a proposal. And I find it shocking that to you the worst case scenario would be a monetary loss.

[cogreslab]

Cleopatra, you are in Athens, I am in South Wales, and others are in the US, but let me tell you the entire world is now looking at this thread.

[cogreslab]

To Marian: Hold on. The only people addressed by my Coghill Challenge are the staffs of those organisations publicly denying the risk, and who are charged with the responsibility for giving advice to the public.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Cleopatra, you are in Athens, I am in South Wales, and others are in the US, but let me tell you the entire world is now looking at this thread.

Good. So this friend of yours the scientist who has been "silenced by the establishment", the one Darat is looking for in order to get some answers, can address a couple of issues here.

[cogreslab]

Next may I address the issue of melodrama (Cleopatra's word). In 1998 I brought a court case at Cwmbran Magistrate's Court against a local cellphone retailer. I claimed an infringement of the UK Consumer Protection Act, 1978, for failing to label a product whose safety to the public was in doubt. The world's press turned up and the issue even got mentioned in the Malaysian Straits Gazette (not my normal read) . This case was instrumental in the appointment by the UKGovernment of the Stewart Committee, whose conclusions, after an urgent and thorough review of the literature was that children should be discouraged from excessive cellphone use, and that the frequencies used by such phones should avoid frequencies close to that of the brain. All new cellphone boxes now carry a warning message, and all UK retailers are supposed to hand new cellphone buyers a leaflet indicating the potential health hazards.

Children all over Britain have now got that message. They would not have if the debate had been closeted only in scientific conferences. IMHO the only way to get Governments to act is by blatant exposure in the world media, I am afraid. There are numerous similar examples of where the Govt has tried to cover science up (BSE, asbestos, fluoridation, tobacco etc). Come on, guys, do something useful and pressure the NRPB for change.

You can easily get their e-mail address via Google.

[Marian]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Marian: Hold on. The only people addressed by my Coghill Challenge are the staffs of those organisations publicly denying the risk, and who are charged with the responsibility for giving advice to the public.

I'm aware of that. I did actually read your site.

Listen...how about this. I'll give you the absolute benefit of the doubt and assume that you present such a challenge so that you can make your 'SEE! NONE of them will take it, how can it be safe?!' point, because you sincerely and truly believe that they (being people in said companies/organizations) *know* it's harmful. And that their actions (in presenting it as 'safe) is tantamount to murder in your belief.

Your ethics still suck.

And I'm sorry to put it that way, I can write it up into flowery language, but it would still read: your ethics suck.

Why? Because you believe it will seriously harm and/or kill an infant, and you're offering a monetary inducement for someone to do that, to prove a point. And whether you're right or not, the fact that YOU believe it would do serious harm makes it absolutely unethical.

Either that, or it makes you dishonest, if you have no intention of ever allowing such an experiment to proceed because you believe it would harm an infant. If that's the case, then your offer is fraudulent.

Either way...are either of those things what you want to present to prove a point or gather attention? Does it just boil down to 'the ends justify the means'?

And that you have the audacity to mention Jenner or Pasteur using children for comparison just blows my mind. Where did any of them engage in experiments that they believed would harm or kill?

[Cleopatra]

Mr. Coghill I believe that there is something wrong here indeed, if it wasn't for that challenge I would be willing to listen to more. This challenge is suspicious, it's theatrical and it appeals to the sentiment instead of reason.

Those who have facts in their hands do not need the drama! Common sense!!

[cogreslab]

Cleopatra, just read Denis Henshaw's comments and evidence of associations between ill health and ELF electric fields on the Bristol University Physics dept website. He is already confirming my claim.

[cogreslab]

Marian, I won't call you sick, or that your intellect sucks. But how can you condemn me and leave totally unscathed a bunch of people who are sitting back and knowingly watch these children die on a daily basis for the sake of their own salaries or profits? Perhaps, as an impartial skeptic, you would also be kind enough to put on record your opinion of these challengees?

[JPK]

Mr. Coghill,

I have read all of you posts on several differant threads. I have visited your website as well. Since you are and expert on magnetism, I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that my food stays fresher longer in my refridgerator because it's cold, or is it the magnets stuck to the front of it doing the trick? I mean why risk endangering myself, and others with dangerous electric fields when magnets will do the job?


JPK

[cogreslab]

I am afraid I have to go now. We are expecting another important lymphocyte analysis tomorrow very a.m. (lung cancer patient I think) and I need to get some sleep.

[cogreslab]

To JPK: Because it's cold in there. The fridge magnets have no biological effects. Goodnight.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by cogreslab
The only people addressed by my Coghill Challenge are the staffs of those organisations publicly denying the risk, and who are charged with the responsibility for giving advice to the public.
I doesn't matter. Try to understand that you're not entitled to harm or kill anybody. You can do your research, prove your facts, take it to the court and sue the orginisations. Thats it. Period.

For having established such a malicious challenge, you're the one that should be procecuted and punished accordingly. Thats it. Period.

[JPK]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To JPK: Because it's cold in there. The fridge magnets have no biological effects. Goodnight.

Well, thank you for answering my question. I knew you could do it.

JPK

[Beleth]

Okay, back this truck up a bit.

I don't think Coghill's goal in offering his Challenge is for anyone to actually perform the Challenge. In fact, given his stance on the issue, I'm pretty sure that he'd be outraged if someone attempted the Challenge.

His goal is to bring the dangers of ELF electricity to the mainstream. Nothing more.

Now, his means of doing so are shocking and provocative. So much so that the shock of the Challenge overshadows his message. People get outraged at the Challenge, not at the purported dangers of ELF electricity.

His message is getting lost in the shock of the delivery mechanism. This is to his cause's detriment.

Mr. (Dr.?) Coghill, you are doing your cause a disservice by offering this Challenge. You, wittingly or not, are aiming the focus of the discussion on the Challenge and not on the issue. Your tactics are, unfortunately, not unlike a suicide bomber's or Greenpeace's.

I urge you to find a less inflammatory method of presenting your message.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Beleth
Your tactics are, unfortunately, not unlike a suicide bomber's or Greenpeace's.

I urge you to find a less inflammatory method of presenting your message. I am glad that somebody leaves aside the Law that does NOT practice ( I am astonished with the mania of people in this forum) and catches the essence of the issue.

Your metaphor is a great one.

[Aoidoi]

Apologies, haven't read the original link. Just took a brief look and found some interesting things.

A quick look at Bristol University's webpages on the subject:
http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/research/track_analysis/MedHypoth.htm
These are hypothesized risks. The leukemia risk appears to be the smallest (2-8 per year). Skin cancer is next, lung cancer following. The largest estimated fatalities are from the air pollution created by the lines.

Also states it's largely superceded by http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ehib/emf/RiskEvaluation/riskeval.html
THE CONCLUSIONS AFTER REVIEWING ALL THE EVIDENCE:
· To one degree or another, all three of the DHS scientists are inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult
brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and miscarriage.
· They strongly believe that EMFs do not increase the risk of birth defects, or low birth weight.
· They strongly believe that EMFs are not universal carcinogens, since there are a number of cancer types that are not associated with EMF exposure.
· To one degree or another they are inclined to believe that EMFs do not cause an increased risk of breast cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, depression,
or symptoms attributed by some to a sensitivity to EMFs. However,
· All three scientists had judgments that were "close to the dividing line between believing and not believing" that EMFs cause some degree of increased risk of
suicide, or
· For adult leukemia, two of the scientists are "close to the dividing line between believing or not believing" and one was "prone to believe" that EMFs cause some
degree of increased risk.

Heres a page of links from the University: http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/research/track_analysis/PowerlinesAndHealth.htm

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Your metaphor is a great one. Thank you.

It's hard for us in the JREF crowd to understand that, sometimes, a Challenge can be offered that isn't really meant to be accepted.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am glad that somebody leaves aside the Law that does NOT practice ( I am astonished with the mania of people in this forum) and catches the essence of the issue.
He's asking for it when he makes statements like this:

The only people addressed by my Coghill Challenge are the staffs of those organisations publicly denying the risk, and who are charged with the responsibility for giving advice to the public.

The ethics behind such a statement is foul. That his cause may be a rightful one, does not make him entitled to threaten infants. It's an approach to the problem (if there is one), that will not meet acquiescence from the general public.

I agree that he should change his approach if he have a justified case. There are several examples where organisations deliberately have left out important information about the harmfullness of their products, this could be one of them, but I'm quite convinced, that we're not gonna find out by this type of methods.

[Marian]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Marian, I won't call you sick, or that your intellect sucks. But how can you condemn me and leave totally unscathed a bunch of people who are sitting back and knowingly watch these children die on a daily basis for the sake of their own salaries or profits? Perhaps, as an impartial skeptic, you would also be kind enough to put on record your opinion of these challengees?

I do not know if the 'challengees' are intentionally or unintentionally harming children. As such, why would I express an opinion? If I did have reason to have knowledge absolute one way or another I would present that information clearly and repeatedly. I wouldn't resort to 'kill your baby' challenges to be heard.

What I am addressing is what I can clearly see, which is regardless of your beliefs, whether I assume they are true, false, or otherwise...because you believe them to be true, your challenge is ethically wrong. You claim to care about infants dying from these fields, but then in the next breath propose to pay out money if one of THOSE guys exposes an infant for your challenge, which will pay out a monetary prize.

Then you attempt to justify it with the following (please correct me if I've missed any, as this is just off the top of my head)

Other scientists have used children for experiments (specifically Jenner and Pasteur).
You're only issuing your challenge to the employees or people involved with the specific companies or organizations that are involved with claiming the field is safe
You're drawing needed attention to the issue with theatrics


Have I skipped any? I've already stated that Jenner and Pasteur never conducted an experiment which they KNEW would result in serious harm and/or death to prove a hypothesis. So that's out.

Even if I somehow grasp your argument that you seem to be justifying that it's okay because they're bad people...is the infant to blame now too? What about someone wanting to take your challenge who doesn't work there, presumably you'd refuse them. Okay, what if it's a janitor who REALLY needs the money, so they're willing to do it. Do they fit your acceptable to kill their baby criterion? Whether or not it will not harm the infant doesn't matter with the ethical question because YOU believe it would.

So basically the attention that your experiment garners, from my unbiased perspective, isn't 'gee...could these fields be bad', but rather 'J.H.C! This guy thinks this stuff will kill a baby and he's so looney he'll pay someone to do it?!'

If you have real evidence to present to bolster your claims, then that's super. I recall on the other thread, I asked at least 3 times for your evidence before basically just giving up. You claim to have done studies, I asked for sources and where you published. Didn't hear anything. Heck, another post GOOGLED a bunch of stuff, and you jumped on that like a dying man grabbing a raft. I don't know why you were unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your claim, but it sure made me much more skeptical of your claims.

You see, if I believed people were murdering children and I had evidence of such, on such a wide scale as this, which effects so many people, I'd be offering that evidence left and right. You couldn't GET me to shut up about it. Instead I what I saw in the other thread was quite a bit different.

So take my opinion for what you will, but I basically shrugged and thought, okay no evidence, why should I care...because you didn't offer a shread or drop, even after numerous requests. Perhaps you have since then, or maybe just used the evidence someone else posted from Google I don't know. I pretty much lost interest at the point where I asked 3 times over the course of days and you had nothing. If you can't be bothered, why should I be?

However I don't need to exert much personal effort to read about your challenge, and draw a very real conclusion. I don't need to know whether or not its true, you claim to believe it's true. And as I stated before either you're honest...in which case you're offering a monetary reward for something you sincerely believe will seriously harm or kill an infant...or you're dishonest and the challenge is fraudelent because you have no intentions of allowing it to go forward.

Do you really think it's serving the point you want it to?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Beleth
It's hard for us in the JREF crowd to understand that, sometimes, a Challenge can be offered that isn't really meant to be accepted.
You don't know if he would accept it, you're judging his intentions, not his actions. You have to remember that he have serious issues with the organisations this challenge is aimed at. I wouldn't presume to judge what he would, and would not do, I can only take his own words into account.

It's not unlikely that this entire challenge farce is a commercial stunt so he can sell more products, but again, it's just judging intentions, not actions.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Thomas
You don't know if he would accept it, you're judging his intentions, not his actions.You misunderstand my point. He is the one offering the Challenge. No one in their right mind would ever consider accepting it, and he knows that.

I am judging his intentions by his words - by the things he has written here. If you look at what he has said here from the point that he's a reasonable man, then you are led to the conclusion that he knows that accepting his Challenge involves an unreasonable risk to a child.

He certainly has his evidence in order. Far more than most people who come here espousing similar positions. I tend to respect people who can back themselves up with evidence, and treat them as reasonable. Yet his Challenge is totally unreasonable, which leads me to the conclusion that his intention is not to have anyone actually follow through with it.

He's bluffing, in other words, and since calling his bluff involves potentially endangering a child, it is reasonable to think that no reasonable person will call it.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Beleth
You misunderstand my point. He is the one offering the Challenge. No one in their right mind would ever consider accepting it, and he knows that.

Eeehm, you're the one who misunderstands me, don't you think I know that he's the one offering the challenge?!

My point being; if a not so clever worker from one of these organisations think he/she could use the money, and have been misinformed by the company he/she works for as part of the scam, because they actually are covering this up from top level. Would Coghill agree to do the test to prove his point once and for all? Well, you don't know, and neither do I.
I'm just saying, that you shouldn't draw hasty conclusions to defend his case, because you don't know his intentions, all you can do is guess. On the other hand, I think what you say sounds reasonable, but I wouldn't go about declaring that the challenge is a bluff before someone actually would be stupid enough to agree to the terms. Judging by his devotion to this debate, I'm afraid that he is prepared to go far to prove his point.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Beleth
He certainly has his evidence in order. Far more than most people who come here espousing similar positions. I tend to respect people who can back themselves up with evidence, and treat them as reasonable.
There is just one thing that makes me wonder if that is the case:

Why doesn't he take his evidence to the court and sue the hell out of the responsible organisations then?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Beleth

It's hard for us in the JREF crowd to understand that, sometimes, a Challenge can be offered that isn't really meant to be accepted.
I'd have to say then that to call it a "challenge" is a deliberate obfuscation. It is like holding a "sweepstakes" when there is no prize. By drawing attention to his cause in this way, he hurts his own position by making himself appear to be an evil lunatic. Why would anyone wish to draw such negative attention to their cause?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'd have to say then that to call it a "challenge" is a deliberate obfuscation. It is like holding a "sweepstakes" when there is no prize. By drawing attention to his cause in this way, he hurts his own position by making himself appear to be an evil lunatic.Exactly my point.
Why would anyone wish to draw such negative attention to their cause? Some people believe that all attention is good attention, I suppose.

[Thomas]

Beleth,

You still haven't answered the question, if he "certainly has his evidence in order" as you say, why doesn't he take it to the court?

Haven't it occurred to you that this entire challenge could be nothing more than a commercial stunt for the electromagnetic products (http://www.galonja.co.uk/galonja_shop/catalog.asp?g_s_n=crlshop) they sell from their website?

Just exploring the possibilities, while making sure I don't make the classic fallacy; of mistaking kindness for honesty.

[Aussie Thinker]

Don’t get me wrong here but if Coghill is so obviously wrong isn’t accepting his challenge just a free $ 3,000 ?

I think he is just making a point that if NO ONE is willing to accept his challenge they are ADMITTING there IS a risk.

That IS his tactic..

He makes us all think (at least a little) that there must be some sort of risk or the money is just gunna be a gift to whoever wants it.

We knock him for risking a child…but.. there is no risk !!!! So why knock him.. it’s a sort of catch 22 and personally I think he is having a bit of a laugh about it !

Think about this… if I said I will give $ 3,000 to anyone who is willing to risk me making their baby explode using my own mind power…

I assume (given the right conditions) the baby owners get to control the experiment there would a huge number willing to grab the $ 3,000.. also another lot who would think I aint putting my baby at risk NO MATTER WHAT.

I personally think he is full of crap… the irony is.. would I put my baby up for the $ 3,000… NOPE !!! LOL

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Don’t get me wrong here but if Coghill is so obviously wrong isn’t accepting his challenge just a free $ 3,000 ?
But of course, in all liklihood no one would ever collect. Therw would be "conditions" that no person would put up with. Would you have to leave your child alone with him? How could you be sure that the setup wasn't rigged to harm the baby in some other way, thus making him look correct? I can believe such things of someone who would put forth such a "challenge".

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I think he is just making a point that if NO ONE is willing to accept his challenge they are ADMITTING there IS a risk.

That IS his tactic..

He makes us all think (at least a little) that there must be some sort of risk or the money is just gunna be a gift to whoever wants it.
And indeed there may be risks, although I suspect ELF fields are not among them. I would certainly never trust my child to such a person.
***
Originally posted by Beleth
Exactly my point.

Ah. I misinterpreted then. Sorry.

But I do take your point about how he provides evidence. I notice, though, that he is not to good about providing links to that evidence or, in many cases, citing the reference he is quoting.

For example:
Originally posted by cogreslab
There is also this recent study, which lines up with our findings on melatonin (MLT: we probably have the largest library of scientific references on MLT in this country) and have just ordered a GC/MS/MS ion trap machine (verbum sapientibus satis) for precise MLT determination in plants, and in humans exposed to EMF:

What recent study?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I personally think he is full of crap… the irony is.. would I put my baby up for the $ 3,000… NOPE !!! LOL
hehe, that's my notion too.

[davidhorman]

He compared the SIDS deaths in Hamburg and Philadelphia and found that a signficant proportion were near ELF sources.

Can you clarify that statement? Who isn't near an ELF source these days?

To test his hypothesis, O'Connor has been exposing rat pups to weak magnetic fields of no greater than 0.5 hertz, similar to those that occur during geomagnetic storms. Pups exposed to the lowest intensity fields die soon after showing brain chemistry changes that reflect a drop in melatonin levels

I assume that's different to the mylenation (or whatever) thing you were talking about earlier, because you said it wouldn't have any effect on rat pups?

David

[cogreslab]

There is just one thing that makes me wonder if that is the case:

Why doesn't he take his evidence to the court and sue the hell out of the responsible organisations then?

All in good time. If the situation doesn't change shortly that is exactly my intention. As you have seen, I managed to find a way to bring the cellphone industry into the dock. We have massive evidence of this cover-up, and because we know the mighty financial, political, and legal resources which will be arrayed against us, I have to work out a way to do this within my resources.

Meanwhile, you will note the interest in this thread is becoming more intense, with well over 6000 views in a few weeks.

[cogreslab]

To Tricky: I meant the Ray O'Connor study, but I have not yet seen the full text.

You are quite wrong about my not ptoviding any evidence re SIDS. I quoted Eckert 1976, for example.

[cogreslab]

Please don't invention exposure conditions for my challenge. You first invent the notion that I have to be alone with the infant, then argue you would not let me be alone with your child! Stop creating fanciful BS.

[cogreslab]

Less inflammatory means of getting my message over? we have been patiently trying to persuade the establishment of the correctness of our science since 1989. The peer reviewed study I published came out in 1996, and at that time we asked politely for a larger replication to be done. Nothing happened. I waited three years before upgrading the approach to this Challenge.

Tell me how to shout quietly?! Do not fear, I shall shout so loudly that the Coghill Challenge will seem like a faint whisper.

[cogreslab]

To David: everyone is exposed to ELF EMFs these days and many to RF/MW. In an average home the ELF electric field strength is 1-10 V/m, and there is little evidence of any serious effects at that level (though we don't really know the long term impact: HV power lines only appeared in the 1960s). Our research indicates that leukaemia elevation is nearly fivefold at an average exposure of 20 V/m. The establishment only discuss the magnetic component, and argue that although there is an accepted elevation at 0.4 uT, this level is rarely found in homes so the effect is likely to be small.

But that is not the case for the electric field. It is relatively common to find E-fields above 20 V/m , near electricity meters, for example where the current enters the home, near hot water systems, storage heaters and many other appliances and wiring circuits; and of course near powerlines and substations. If infants, children, animals, mammals, insects, and even bacteria "sleep" ( ie are chronically exposed) in these high electric field zones they quickly become ill. We want this danger mitigated and changed by getting the establishment to recognise these non thermal electric field effects, of which there is much robust evidence, and bring their reguiatory advice into line with the biological evidence.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Meanwhile, you will note the interest in this thread is becoming more intense, with well over 6000 views in a few weeks.
I guess you mean the other thread, but, yea, it's becoming the new 'humor' section.

Don't think that people take you serious before you actually prove your claims and take them to court, until then you're nothing but a colorful hot air ballon full of words. No more than words.

[Cleopatra]

Do they put something in the water in Denmark?

[cogreslab]

To Thomas: so you would take no account of the scientific arena, only the legal judgement? I suppose you are also naive enough to believe David Kelly was not murdered, too?

[cogreslab]

Must go now. Anyway I have had enough of trying to reason with illiterate airheads like Thomas.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Must go now. Anyway I have had enough of trying to reason with illiterate airheads like Thomas. I don't ask whether they put something in the water in Wales because I already have the answer to that...

Please let us all avoid the inflammatory posts that distract us from the issue.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do they put something in the water in Denmark?
Yea, we magnetize it with Coghill inventions. I think you would like it.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Thomas: so you would take no account of the scientific arena, only the legal judgement? I suppose you are also naive enough to believe David Kelly was not murdered, too?
I take account in evidence, but I don't think that you have it to be quite frank, and that's why you don't wanna go to court. And if David Kelly was murdered because he went public with knowledge about the weapons in Iraq, and you have evidence that involves a conspiracy covering the entire planet and a vast number of organisations, why are you alive while he is dead?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Thomas

I take account in evidence, but I don't think that you have it to be quite frank, and that's why you don't wanna go to court. And if David Kelly was murdered because he went public with knowledge about the weapons in Iraq, and you have evidence that involves a conspiracy covering the entire planet and a vast number of organisations, why are you alive while he is dead?

I suppose that if I were to be cynical, I'd say it was because The Establishment knew David Kelly was onto something, whereas The Establishment knows Roger Coghill isn't. So they don't need to murder him.

OTOH, While I haven't been convinced that Kelly was murdered, I haven't been convinced that Coghill is onto anything either. Guess I'll never make it into The Establishment at this rate.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Mercutio
The "bioelectromagnetics" thread discusses this challenge, among other things. Sadly, some of the early posts in the thread were lost in the time-space continuum...but the patient reader will be rewarded; they do get back on track and seriously discussing.

Oops - apologies for the duplication of threads. Didn't follow that thread down that far.

[chillzero]

I have read through this, and feel I would like to add my opinion.
Can we step back just a little from this issue, and look at the basics. I am in support of what Beleth said about this - to an extent.

As I read it, the story goes like this (assuming the facts laid down by Coghill are correct):
There are unacceptably high levels of ELFs in residential areas, which are having adverse effects on the health and well beign of those who live there - particularly children.
The board of people responsible for these levels insist that the levels are not harmful, and certainly not lethal to infants.

Coghill says 'OK - put your money where your mouth is. Put your child in one of these fields - and not even a field as strong as those under debate'.

I agree with Beleth that this is an emotive way of wording it, but I don't actually find it as horrific or emotional as to warrant the responses I see here.
I don't agree that this is similar to methods employed by suicide bombers. Coghill is not undertaking to directly harm anyone himself - he is testing the convictions of those we have to trust to keep us safe at home.

Now, Coghill, please tell me - what would your response be to a person who contacted you to undertake your challenge?

This is what will help me make my decision on this matter.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cogreslab
<snip>

Rather than that, may I suggest you now email the NRPB (call them EMF or what you will), and ask


Actually I'm more inclined to email the Associations you are a member of and bring your Challenge to their attention.

ie.
One point of the IEEE Code of Ethics, is:
<http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=about/whatis&file=code.xml&xsl=generic.xsl>

"9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action; "

I think the Challenge falls under this and the IEEE Ethics and Member Conduct Committee
<http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=committee/emcc&file=index.xml&xsl=generic.xsl> might be half interested.

Others that might also be intrigued by your approach to advertising your "concerns" might be,

IEEE Executive Committee
<http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=about/execs&file=index.xml&xsl=generic.xsl>

The IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety Executive Committee
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc28/excom.html>

and the European Bioelectromagnetics Association.
<http://www.ebea.org/council.html>

At worst I only stand to lose £2000 (and make nothing) from their attempt.

You don't quite understand our objection do you? But this particularly callous quote has been discussed.

I suspect that if they were even to attempt the matter the whole world's media would be peering over the cot for every entire second of the exposure period, cameras at the ready.

With certain people off to the sides accusing them of endangering a child? Colour me cynical.

Having had to examine these dear little dead babies in the mortuary more than once, I personally would be there with a hempen noose for the NRPB directors.

Is there no depth you won't plumb to promote yourself?
Not only is the inflammatory and callous nature of the "sentiment" degrading to the memory of these children, I'm disinclined to believe that you have attended any examinations of SIDS victims. Do you maintain that you have?

[cogreslab]

Mortuary experience: At the side of the Camden Coroner's office where I did the study in the 1980s with the full cooperation of the Coroner there was a small mortuary detached from the Courtroom by a garden. Among other things this mortuary holds separated brains in a large barrel of preservative for the students at several London Hospitals. This tends to give the place the same smell as any path lab such as the one I used at Cambridge for my brain dissection work, though there the cadavers are laid out ready for dissection by the lab assistant before the students arrive.

At Camden the bodies are kept in long shelves which pull out something like an elongated filing cabinet. You have probably seen similar in American murder movies. Sometimes the body parts of interest share the same shelf, and so it is with the infants: opening the shelf not only discloses the infant corpse but sometimes also the parts of other bodies too.

The first impression one gets is how pale the skin texture is of these infants, with almost a blueish tinge (from cyanosis), with not a mark on them, like a large china doll. Often the eyes are still open, and they are still shining e.g. blue, underlining the doll-like appearance.

Looking these infants the overwhelming feeling is, What a waste. I have had this impression on several occasions when examining the bodies.

Does that answer your question about my mortuary experience. impertinent though it was.

[cogreslab]

I am afraid that EHocking's threats give me little concern. I wonder what his own affiliations might be, since his stupid reaction smacks of a secret agenda unrelated to science. I would be astonished if any member of either the IEEE in the US or the IEE in the UK were unaware of my Challenge, since even the NGT provides a link to my website more than once, as well as to other dissenting groups and associations.

Now we all fully understand your attitudes and mine I am returning to the scientific issues I have raised in the Bioelectromagnetics thread, in view of the limited time I have available here.

Those who wish to rant and rave about ethics, infanticide, morality and other emotive sentiments can stay on this one.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Mortuary experience: At the side of the Camden Coroner's office where I did the study in the 1980s with the full cooperation of the Coroner
The above is not apparent in any of the studies you quote (SIDS, ME, Leukaemia). All these unpublished studies alude to are record retrieval from coroner archives and a measurements made in a few of the families' houses post-fact.

<snip unwarranted and emotive mortuary description>

Does that answer your question about my mortuary experience. impertinent though it was.

Not really, no - as there is no acknowledgements in any of your papers. "impertinent" - please....

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cogreslab
I am afraid that EHocking's threats give me little concern. I wonder what his own affiliations might be, since his stupid reaction smacks of a secret agenda unrelated to science.

hint. TINSC

And if you feel it is a stupid reaction to be appalled that someone would dare to endanger a child merely to prove a point - I pity you.

I would be astonished if any member of either the IEEE in the US or the IEE in the UK were unaware of my Challenge, since even the NGT provides a link to my website more than once, as well as to other dissenting groups and associations.

Now we all fully understand your attitudes and mine I am returning to the scientific issues I have raised in the Bioelectromagnetics thread, in view of the limited time I have available here.

Those who wish to rant and rave about ethics, infanticide, morality and other emotive sentiments can stay on this one.
You've more than illuminated your attitude for us.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Thomas
Beleth,

You still haven't answered the question, if he "certainly has his evidence in order" as you say, why doesn't he take it to the court?I was going to answer gruffly - actually, I did answer this gruffly - but now I'm on your side. See below.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Less inflammatory means of getting my message over? we have been patiently trying to persuade the establishment of the correctness of our science since 1989. The peer reviewed study I published came out in 1996, and at that time we asked politely for a larger replication to be done. Nothing happened. I waited three years before upgrading the approach to this Challenge.

Tell me how to shout quietly?! Do not fear, I shall shout so loudly that the Coghill Challenge will seem like a faint whisper. 1989? You have been at this for fifteen years and you still haven't taken this to court?

In your estimation, how many children have died in those fifteen years due to the ELF problem? Do you not see how their blood is now also on your hands?

How many more children are you going to let die until your "all in due time" comes? Why are you content to wank around with this stupid Challenge when there are babies dying, and you know the killers aren't going to do anything on their own to stop it?

Don't you see? You are part of the problem.

You have convinced me of Thomas' point more swiftly than Thomas was doing. You're just in it for the money and the attention, you baby-killer. You have no intention of making anyone actually stop killing babies; you only want to make yourself famous (or infamous) and maybe make a buck or two with your useless magnetic crap while you're at it.


Now I'm sure you're going to try to brush me off with a dismissive wave of your hand. But deep down you know - we all know - that that does nothing to eradicate your guilt in this matter. It just helps to put a tiny bandage on your ego. But, do whatever you think saves you the most face without you actually having to, you know, do something substantial to ameliorate your guilt, I guess.

Fifteen years of no results... you disgust me.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by EHocking


And if you feel it is a stupid reaction to be appalled that someone would dare to endanger a child merely to prove a point - I pity you.



If you honestly think that the Cogreslab is putting a child at risk, you have a duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. If you don't report it, and you do believe that cogreslab are putting a child at risk, then you are colluding by not doing anything.

So, what (apart from whining) have you done about it?

[Cleopatra]

Well it seems that you are not the only one who is aware of future tragedies and he doesn't report them to the authorities Luci. ;)

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


If you honestly think that the Cogreslab is putting a child at risk, you have a duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. If you don't report it, and you do believe that cogreslab are putting a child at risk, then you are colluding by not doing anything.

So, what (apart from whining) have you done about it?

Try reading my first post Luci. *I* know it is bollocks - but *he* maintains the child will die from EM exposure.

It's a perfect demonstration of the sort of depths a snake-oil salesman will plumb merely to promote his products and himself.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by EHocking


Try reading my first post Luci. *I* know it is bollocks - but *he* maintains the child will die from EM exposure.

It's a perfect demonstration of the sort of depths a snake-oil salesman will plumb merely to promote his products and himself.

'snake oil'? Are you living in the parlor days of the Victorians?

Listen, if you think he's attempting to put a child at risk, you have a duty of care in law to report it to the correct authorities, whether or not you think he will succeed matters not, it is the intent.

So what have you done to protect those infants?

[Timble]

It wouldn't be a very bright idea to answer that question would it, Lucianarchy, if steps where being taken?

You know you're actually a pretty good mimic, you're starting to sound like Mr Coghill.

(BTW I do know you're separate people so I'm not accusing you or Mr C of being socks)

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


'snake oil'? Are you living in the parlor days of the Victorians?
Not I, but some peole do not seem to have progressed scientifically if they believe that theses weak magnetic toys can cure disease. Snakeoil by any other name...


Listen, if you think he's attempting to put a child at risk, you have a duty of care in law to report it to the correct authorities, [/QUOTE][/b]
So by criticising my outrage at his proposal, does this imply that you support his proposal or by *your* lack of action can I assume that you are just as irresponsible as I am for not reporting this? You know perfectly well that my outrage is at the cheap and cynical *manner* of his "challenge".

whether or not you think he will succeed matters not, it is the intent.
Incorrect - it is the fact that *he* believes a child would die in those circumstances and *still* challenges someone. The fact that the child would not be endangered is not the point. The point is his cynical self-promotion.
So what have you done to protect those infants?
Which infants are these? There are none that require protection, my outrage and disgust is to do with the lack of ethics of Coghill for uttering such a cynical challenge - just to get himself some publicity.

[chillzero]

Originally posted by cabby
I have read through this, and feel I would like to add my opinion.
Can we step back just a little from this issue, and look at the basics. I am in support of what Beleth said about this - to an extent.

As I read it, the story goes like this (assuming the facts laid down by Coghill are correct):
There are unacceptably high levels of ELFs in residential areas, which are having adverse effects on the health and well beign of those who live there - particularly children.
The board of people responsible for these levels insist that the levels are not harmful, and certainly not lethal to infants.

Coghill says 'OK - put your money where your mouth is. Put your child in one of these fields - and not even a field as strong as those under debate'.

I agree with Beleth that this is an emotive way of wording it, but I don't actually find it as horrific or emotional as to warrant the responses I see here.
I don't agree that this is similar to methods employed by suicide bombers. Coghill is not undertaking to directly harm anyone himself - he is testing the convictions of those we have to trust to keep us safe at home.

Now, Coghill, please tell me - what would your response be to a person who contacted you to undertake your challenge?

This is what will help me make my decision on this matter.

I know it is really bad form to resubmit your own posts, but I think I may have been overlooked here, and I would honestly like an answer to the question I put.

What would you do if someone approached you to take the challenge?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by EHocking
The fact that the child would not be endangered is not the point.



So, having seen the evidence, you would expose an infant to the levels of the challenge?

Mr Coghill has done a fantastic job rasing awareness here. If it were not for his challenge, many people would still be ignorant to the risks our money driven 'leaders' are willing to subject us to. Indeed, you should be thanking him for saving lives.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Mr Coghill has done a fantastic job rasing awareness here. If it were not for his challenge, many people would still be ignorant to the risks our money driven 'leaders' are willing to subject us to. Indeed, you should be thanking him for saving lives.

Coghill doesn't save lives. He wants to kill an infant to prove himself right.

You, Lucianarchy, have just crossed the boundary from insane to cruel.

[Timble]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


So, having seen the evidence, you would expose an infant to the levels of the challenge?





Though there's no evidence that the child would suffer any harm.

No I wouldn't take up the challenge because it's utterly unethical on so many levels.

This would never be allowed in advertising from a real pharmaceutical or medical devices company, you'd have the EMEA, FDA, and every other regulatory authority known down on you instantly.

Mr Coghill's devices aren't real medical devices, so there's no regulation on his advertising.

I'd be perfectly happy to live in that intensity of field.

BTW my flat is about 15 metres from a telephone exchange which has a huge array of microwave transmitters on its roof, I probably get more than my share of EM radiation already.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Timble


BTW my flat is about 15 metres from a telephone exchange which has a huge array of microwave transmitters on its roof, I probably get more than my share of EM radiation already.

That explains a lot.

[Timble]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


That explains a lot.



And your excuse is?

[Aussie Thinker]

It good be argued Coghill’s challenge is morally acceptable.

Coghill could argue the loss of 1 child to save hundreds is acceptable.

I believe the argument for the “greater good” is an acceptable moral argument.

If the Child remains unharmed then Coghill is just a kook $ 3,000 lighter.

The PROBLEM .. MR Coghill is logistics.. The experiment would cost more than $ 3,000 in time money and effort than it would be worth to get it.

SO.. ANYONE willing to accept it WILL be out of pocket.. you need to make it more worth their while !

BTW I was willing to give Coghill a modicum of respect.. having Luci on his side sure don’t help …lol!

[Pragmatist]

Bump - and don't forget this one...

[cogreslab]

I must confess I have only just discovered this thread about my Challenge, amazing as it may seem. I hope all those who read it will also have read Fridays Sky News (29 Oct 2004), reporting that the Dept of Health have for three years been sitting on a study of 35,000 children living near powerlines, refusing to release it, and that this study showed a near doubled incidence of leukaemia among the children.. This report (authored by Dreaper et al., ) provides two points: one that the UK Govt has been guilty of a disgusting cover up regarding the health impact of electric and magnetic fields, and two that the health risks to which I have been so dramatically pointing are well-founded.

Imho this deliberate Govt cover-up, finally unmasked, makes my Challenge pale into insignificance.

[cogreslab]

Cabby asked|:

Now, Coghill, please tell me - what would your response be to a person who contacted you to undertake your challenge?

This is what will help me make my decision on this matter.

No one ever has. But I truly think that after a face to face exposition of the evidence from me the applicant would not go any further with the experiment. So the answer is, I would set out this evidence as strongly as I could, in order to deter any would be applicant. But as I say, no one from the power utiltities has ever applied. Perhaps they already knew the risks, as per the now exposed Dreaper report.

Now my question to you: what do you think of the people who have known for three years or more that children living near powerlines ( or any equivalent source of ELF EM fields for that matter) are at an elevated risk of leukaemia? The Govt and the power utlities have clearly known this for at least that long, yet have suppressed the evidence and not told parents to avoid such exposures. It would have been so easy simply to add a warning label to domestic electric appliances or to electricity mains meters.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by cogreslab
I must confess I have only just discovered this thread about my Challenge, amazing as it may seem.

Well, Roger, it does indeed seem amazing. Particularly since you were posting in this thread before....

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870455737#post1870455737

Do you honestly believe ANYONE will believe these ridiculous lies? It just doesn't seem to occur to you that some of us actually know how to search threads and also actually READ them... :rolleyes:

[The Don]

To put the study in some context. From the BBC report here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3967073.stm)
Research author Dr Gerald Draper said other research suggested power lines might account for 20 to 30 of 500 cases of childhood leukaemia each year.

But, he said, his work indicated a far smaller number of cases were affected.
So it's a small, buut statistically significant effect

The Department of Health said it would not comment on the findings until Dr Draper submitted his final report.
So it's not that much of a cover up, they're just waiting for the final report

[Dr Adequate]

Blimey, some people really do think that any publicity is good publicity. Now, I have a suggestion:

Originally posted by cogreslab
To Ed: The Coghill Challenge will not work with mammals or small rodents, because as I explained to you in some detail in my thread Bioelectromagnetics these rodents are born with fully myelinated brains, unlike the human infant where the process takes about a year.

So, take some pregnant rats... of course the downside is that this experiment can be done. If it succeeded, you would have added siggnificantly to human knowledge, gained prestige and importance for your lab, and saved an anquantifiable, but over time, large number of human lives. If it failed, you would have to abandon one of your pet theories. I predict that you are too swollen with ego to run the risk of finding out that you're wrong --- no matter how great the benefits to humanity if you turn out to be right.

At first, I thought you were a charlatan, and to be sure there's a great deal of the swindler in your nature, but a charlatan would lie and say that he had tested his hypotheses. A scientist, on the other hand, would really test his hypotheses. You, it seems, are neither. Reading your posts about your anti-cancer gizmo it seems you can't be bothered to give it proper trials. You might have found a way to prevent a horrifying disease, but you can't trouble yourself to find out if you have or not. --- and screw all the people who might benefit from an answer in the affermative. Let 'em die. An odd attitude.

The most coherent and charitable account I can give of this behaviour is that you know perfectly well deep down that you're just a kid dressing up and playing at being a scientist, and so you shy away from any experiment that might conceivably prove you right, because such an experiment will (as, by hypothesis, you are on some level aware) prove you wrong.

[Rolfe]

So, supposing there is some risk. Is it ethical to sell bogus devices and "supplements" with the claim that they will protect against this danger, when there is no objective evidence at all to support that claim? Given that people who buy these products may therefore feel no need to take any action to limit their exposure to the risk?

Roger isn't a scientist, he only plays one on the Internet.

Rolfe.

[Dr Adequate]

Well, Dodger? You have a lab. Rats are cheap. I've proposed an experiment that would prove you right if you're right. WILL YOU DO IT?

[Anders]

There is a report out on the state of radiation-health realated research in Sweden. Over all the research holds high standards, but one grup is said to be �totally out of control in its interpretations and assertions based on ecological studies whose mistakes any journalist would recognize�, this according to the internationall review group. The group? Olle Johansson's.

I'm not saying the internationall review group are totally correct, but, worth looking into.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Well, Dodger? You have a lab. Rats are cheap. I've proposed an experiment that would prove you right if you're right. WILL YOU DO IT? Actually, Dr Adequate, someone else proposed exactly this somewhere in the middle of the Thread that Swallowed Saturn (Bioelectromagnetics). I can't exactly remember how Roger weaselled out of it, or maybe he just ignored it.

Relevant comments included, we don't do experiments on animals. Except earthworms. Which were monitored all the time and returned to the garden unharmed. But we don't do experiments on mammals because you can't extrapolate from mammals to humans anyway. And bacteria are animals. No they aren't. Animals are anything that looks at you. No I was only joking, of course I know that animals are anything that breathes.

Oh I guess you had to be there.

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Cabby asked|:

Now, Coghill, please tell me - what would your response be to a person who contacted you to undertake your challenge?

This is what will help me make my decision on this matter.

No one ever has. But I truly think that after a face to face exposition of the evidence from me the applicant would not go any further with the experiment. So the answer is, I would set out this evidence as strongly as I could, in order to deter any would be applicant. But as I say, no one from the power utiltities has ever applied. Perhaps they already knew the risks, as per the now exposed Dreaper report.

When you were aksed before about this challenge, you gave a quite different answer. The difference there is that I specifically grilled you on the moral repugnance of such a challenge. Shall I refresh your memory on your previous answer?