ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bioelectromagnetics

Reply
Old 26th June 2004, 03:48 PM   #2281
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Before I start responses to Hans, Prag and PJ, I would like to say a word about Bob Liburdy, who has been labelled in this thread as a fraud.

Robert Librudy is one of the finest radiation scientists in the world. Not only does his long and impressive list of published papers go back to the 1970s, mostly in highly respectable journals like Rad Res, but any one who has witnessed his presentations will know his delivery and clarity are an example to anyone aiming to present a platform paper to their peers.

The disgusting attempt to brand him as a fraud is a permanent blot on the scientific landscape. His data was never questioned, only the presentation of graphs from which it derived, and the allegations of those who raised the issue have now well and truly been shown to be without any substance whatsoever.

Why the attack? His 1992 FASEB paper argued for an electric field metric, which as I have often said, is anathema to the utilities.

Just let's get that straight.
Yes, let's get that straight, but first we have to undo the curling-iron job you just did on the facts.

"On June 18, the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) declared that Dr. Robert Liburdy had committed scientific misconduct. ORI charged Liburdy with "intentionally falsifying and fabricating data" in two papers about EMF effects on calcium changes in rat blood cells"

Misconduct, dodger. MISCONDUCT. Not mistakes or simple errors, but misconduct. Digging deeper,
"The acting director of ORI, Chris Pascal, told Microwave News,... "We did find that there was falsification and fabrication in the three figures, and they were retracted—not corrected, but retracted." [1]

FALSIFICATION AND FABRICATION, dodger. Not corrected, dodger, but retracte. A total of three figures in two separate papers!

Making the data dance to a different tune, dodger. Graphs tell the story. They can also tell lies. But you, dodger, want to misrepresent this as some minor mishap or tiny error blown up by Darth Electriv Vader?

"Finally, in 1999, Robert Liburdy was fired for "massaging" data. Liburdy acknowledged that he had omitted some data for "illustration purposes," but in one case investigators found he had omitted 93 percent of the data that did not agree with his hypothesis. To call that a "massage" is like calling Michael Jackson's cosmetic alterations a "nose job."[2]

93 F***in percent of the data omitted!!!!!!!!!!!!!




[1] Microwave News
[2] Park
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 03:54 PM   #2282
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
To Bouncer:

Yiou forgot to mention this from the same site:

"I admit no scientific wrong-doing," Liburdy stated in a letter published in Science(July 16), arguing that "the crux of the charges" center on his graphing techniques. "The raw data for my two calcium studies are valid. Thus, these papers are not being retracted, and my scientific conclusions stand as published." He explained that he agreed to the settlement because he could not afford "a protracted legal battle with ORI."

But this issue is important, Bouncer. I will get some other information for you regardfing this data, since you seem inclined to disagree with the scientific consensus throughout the world that Liburdy was innocent of the charges laid against him, and was the victim of a deliberate attack.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 04:33 PM   #2283
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
To Bouncer:

Yiou forgot to mention this from the same site:

"I admit no scientific wrong-doing," Liburdy stated in a letter published in Science(July 16), arguing that "the crux of the charges" center on his graphing techniques. "The raw data for my two calcium studies are valid. Thus, these papers are not being retracted, and my scientific conclusions stand as published." He explained that he agreed to the settlement because he could not afford "a protracted legal battle with ORI."

But this issue is important, Bouncer. I will get some other information for you regardfing this data, since you seem inclined to disagree with the scientific consensus throughout the world that Liburdy was innocent of the charges laid against him, and was the victim of a deliberate attack.
Malarky.

"Robert P. Liburdy, Ph.D., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL): Based on an investigation report by the LBNL dated July 7, 1995, and an analysis of the data and information from Dr. Liburdy obtained by ORI during its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Liburdy, former staff biochemist at LBNL, engaged in scientific misconduct in biomedical research by intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims about the purported cellular effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) that were reported in two scientific papers: Liburdy, R.P. ABiological interactions of cellular systems with time-varying magnetic fields. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 649:74-95, 1992 ("ANYAS paper"); and Liburdy, R.P. "Calcium signaling in lymphocytes and ELF fields." FEBS Letters 301:53-59, 1992 (the "FEBS Letters paper"). The ANYAS and FEBS Letters papers were supported by a NCI, NIH, grant.

_

The ANYAS and FEBS Letters papers reported data indicating that EMF exert a biological effect by altering the entry of calcium across a cell's surface membrane. EMF, which are ubiquitous forms of radiation that arise from diverse sources such as power lines, home wiring, and household appliances, have been of public concern for potential health effects.

_

Dr. Liburdy's claims were potentially very important when published in 1992 because they purported to link EMF and calcium signaling, a fundamental cell process governing many important cellular functions.

_

Dr. Liburdy entered into Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with ORI in which he neither admitted nor denied ORI's finding of scientific misconduct, and the settlement is not an admission of liability. Dr. Liburdy voluntarily agreed, for the 3-year period beginning May 28, 1999, to exclude himself from any contracting, subcontracting, or nonprocurement transactions with the United States Government, and from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS. Additionally, he agreed to submit letters requesting retraction of Figure 12 of the ANYAS paper and of Figures 6 and 7 of the FEBS Letters paper."
ORI 1999 Annual Summary

The findings:

It was intentional.
He falsified data.
He also fabricated data.
And he fabricated claims.

You can stop the silly graphing technique apologetics. Most of us at JREF are native English speakers. We can read the truth.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 04:38 PM   #2284
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
The Liburdy Affair

The original charge was made in the Federal Register by the US Dept of Health and Human Services on 18 June 1999 about a paper published in FEBS letters in 1992, (right in the middle of the BEMS annual meeting at Long Beach). Liburdy saw the charges and immediately made a statement at the meeting.

First he pointed out that at his request other scientists reviewed the facts and did not agree with the charge. The complaint solely relates to three figures of fura data depicting calcium changes in one fig. in a 1992 review paper and two figs in a 1992 research paper (FEBS letters 301: 53-59).

His computer processed graphical presentation included a baseline adjustment and normalisation, a technique commonly used in the literature, to graphically overlay and compare exposed vs control traces. The data was never questioned, only the method of presentation. Perhaps Liburdy should have mentioned this automated processing, but few ever bother. The accusation that 93 percent of the data was omitted is rubbish: any graph could omit datapoints in the same way for the sake of clarity. This computer-processed data was then labelled as "fabricated" by the ORI.

Moreover that data was complemented by calcium 45 data presented in the same papers, and both data sets supported the paper's conclusions and scientific findings. This fact went unmentioned in the Govt. notice.

Liburdy concluded his address to the full BEMS society meeting with the following words:

"I should state for clarity that the breast cancer research I have conducted over the past six years is not part of these charges and has never been challenged. My review puiblished studies stand and these findings have been independently replicaterd by four other laboratories. For example at this meeting Dr Kabuto and Dr Ishido and their colleagues from Japan report in poster P40 that bthey successfully replicated our melatonin findings at 12mG. This constitutes the fourth independent laboratory replication of this finding".

AS the ORI conceded, "Dr Liburdy's finding were very important when published in 1992 because they purported to link EMF and calcium signalling, a fundamental cell process governing many important cell processes".

The history of ELF and RF effects on ionic calcium have been one of the longest enduring and most persistent effects reported in bioelectromagnetics. To have seen four replications of the effect in human lymphocytes from four different and reputable labs around the world (including their own EPA) brought the entire regulatory standards into question and thereby challenged the utilties and the military's position at one stroke.

The establishment had to do something to undermine this inconvenient science, and that was their attempt. It failed miserably. Today everyone holds up this effect on melatonin inhibition as one of the most robust mechanisms of interaction yet reported.

As for Bob Liburdy, he now works at a patent office.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 04:48 PM   #2285
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
AS the ORI conceded, "Dr Liburdy's finding were very important when published in 1992 because they purported to link EMF and calcium signalling, a fundamental cell process governing many important cell processes".
First, dodger, correct the above quote. When will you stop trying to slip these alterations into the facts. Fix it, apologize for it, publish it in your next post, and then I will address the rest of your pap.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 05:11 PM   #2286
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
The Liburdy Affair (part 2):

Subsequent to the BEMS meeting, an article by one William Broad was submitted to the New York Times and printed on 24 July 1999, wher it was given front page coverage.

Virtually the entire global bioelectromagnetics community responded via the Bioelectromagnetics Society to that letter, which wrote to the NYT, saying

"The story, dealing with government findings of falsification by a single researcher, is unfairly misleading to the general public by presenting as finally resolved and settled a scientific issue that is still controversial and has significant public health implications.

"We find it strange that Mr Broad selects and quotes as his only expert witness in this area "Robert Park, a professor of physics at the Univ of Maryland who has long questioned the power-cancer link" and who holds, in the opinion of many, who are familiar with ELF-EMF health effects research, an unjustified extreme point of view.

The letter goes on to point out that the NIEHS in 1998 a) labelled EMF a possible carcinogen, and b) that passive regulatory action (i.e. educating the public, prudent avoidance, and means of reducing exposure) is warranted.

"Electric fields are mostly below 10 V/m in homes... However the story is quite different in the immediate vicinity -within a few feet - of some power lines or devices that are operated at high voltage or carry large currents (which produce the magnetic fields).

"We most strongly agree with Dr Olden's [of the NIEHS] statement that "more remains to be learned about the physics of magnetic field interaction with living systems".

In the end I will make sure that this particular public is educted too.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 05:17 PM   #2287
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
To Bouncer:

First, dodger, correct the above quote. When will you stop trying to slip these alterations into the facts. Fix it, apologize for it, publish it in your next post, and then I will address the rest of your pap.


__________________

What correction Bouncer? I note that I inadavertently at first wrote Faseb J instead of FEBS letters, if that's what you mean, but this was corrected when I came to give the exact reference.

Anyway. The factsa re as I and the Bioelectromagnetics Society have stated them, and you are the only one in this world who still maintains the contrary position. (As well as dear old Prof Park I suppose, but then no one listens to him either).
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 05:19 PM   #2288
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
The Liburdy Affair

The original charge was made in the Federal Register by the US Dept of Health and Human Services on 18 June 1999 about a paper published in FEBS letters in 1992, (right in the middle of the BEMS annual meeting at Long Beach). Liburdy saw the charges and immediately made a statement at the meeting.
The original charge was made by his employers the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, after one of Liburdy's own research assistants reported him for falsifying data.

Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
First he pointed out that at his request other scientists reviewed the facts and did not agree with the charge. The complaint solely relates to three figures of fura data depicting calcium changes in one fig. in a 1992 review paper and two figs in a 1992 research paper (FEBS letters 301: 53-59),

His computer processed graphical presentation included a baseline adjustment and normalisation, a technique commonly used in the literature, to graphically overlay and compare exposed vs control traces. The data was never questioned, only the method of presentation. Perhaps Liburdy should have mentioned this automated processing, but few ever bother. The accusation that 93 percent of the data was omitted is rubbish: any graph could omit datapoints in the same way for the sake of clarity. This computer-processed data was then labelled as "fabricated" by the ORI.

Moreover that data was complemented by calcium 45 data presented in the same papers, and both data sets supported the paper's conclusions and scientific findings. This fact went unmentioned in the Govt. notice.
Liar. From the ORI newsletter updated 10/20/2003 at http://ori.dhhs.gov/ (my emphasis):

Coverage of this case in the scientific and popular press raised several important questions regarding the ORI findings: 1) are the ORI findings simply a matter of scientific interpretation over how the data were graphically presented in the figures? 2) did three experts independently review the facts and disagree with ORI's findings? and 3) are the scientific conclusions of these papers still valid? Based on the information ORI received from LBNL and directly from Dr. Liburdy, ORI will attempt to clarify these issues.

First, this is not a case involving a matter of data interpretation or the graphic techniques used by Dr. Liburdy to present his data in the three figures at issue. The evidence demonstrates that Dr. Liburdy intentionally falsified or fabricated data presented in the figures. For example, Dr. Liburdy fabricated four experimental traces in one figure by selecting discrete points representing only 7% of the data he had recorded, where the full set of data did not support the published effect. In addition, he did not reduce the primary data to calcium values, a step that was required to compare the experimental differences he claimed to have measured, and he did not repeat the experiment.

In the other two figures, Dr. Liburdy subtracted a large, spontaneously rising, background level of calcium concentration, but he claimed in both papers that the baseline was stable and constant, and he failed to describe his manipulations of data. The evidence also shows that Dr. Liburdy algebraically manipulated data in two figures to create dramatic differences between the experimental and the control data that was not present in the first figure and not significant in the second. Finally, he fabricated additional data points to cover up an unstable test condition revealed by his manipulations in the first case, and to change the timing of the experimental test in the second.

Second, Dr. Liburdy's own experts did not review all of the data or other evidence, including that identified by ORI, in this case. In contrast, two scientists who were experts in the EMF field or in the experimental techniques used by Dr. Liburdy and who served as consultants to ORI during its oversight review, agreed with ORI's conclusion that Dr. Liburdy published falsified data.


Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Liburdy concluded his address to the full BEMS society meeting with the following words:

"I should state for clarity that the breast cancer research I have conducted over the past six years is not part of these charges and has never been challenged. My review puiblished studies stand and these findings have been independently replicaterd by four other laboratories. For example at this meeting Dr Kabuto and Dr Ishido and their colleagues from Japan report in poster P40 that bthey successfully replicated our melatonin findings at 12mG. This constitutes the fourth independent laboratory replication of this finding".

AS the ORI conceded, "Dr Liburdy's finding were very important when published in 1992 because they purported to link EMF and calcium signalling, a fundamental cell process governing many important cell processes".

The history of ELF and RF effects on ionic calcium have been one of the longest enduring and most persistent effects reported in bioelectromagnetics. To have seen four replications of the effect in human lymphocytes from four different and reputable labs around the world (including their own EPA) brought the entire regulatory standards into question and thereby challenged the utilties and the military's position at one stroke.

The establishment had to do something to undermine this inconvenient science, and that was their attempt. It failed miserably. Today everyone holds up this effect on melatonin inhibition as one of the most robust mechanisms of interaction yet reported.

As for Bob Liburdy, he now works at a patent office.
You are also conveniently omitting to mention that even IF Liburdy's data was totally valid, that 93% of the data points actually REFUTED his claim and his hypothesis!

I don't know what you hope to achieve with these ridiculous lies. You get caught out every time. Haven't you realised yet that we DON'T take your word for things, we check them out ourselves.

BTW, nice attempt to sidetrack the issue away from YOUR claims once again.....
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 05:20 PM   #2289
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,696
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Virtually the entire global bioelectromagnetics community responded via the Bioelectromagnetics Society to that letter, which wrote to the NYT, saying
Now, care to hazard a guess about who this "community" is? (The only other place I even saw the word was on a homoeopathy site, which may say something.) And how many people it consists of? And just what sort of standing they have in the wider scientific community?

The Blessed Virgin Mary.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 08:01 PM   #2290
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
What correction Bouncer? I note that I inadavertently at first wrote Faseb J instead of FEBS letters, if that's what you mean, but this was corrected when I came to give the exact reference.

Anyway. The factsa re as I and the Bioelectromagnetics Society have stated them, and you are the only one in this world who still maintains the contrary position. (As well as dear old Prof Park I suppose, but then no one listens to him either).
Your capacity for twisting and fabricating facts is inordinately high. When coupled with your near-nil capacity for examination of the facts and for self-correction, this is indeed a most questionable combination.

Pragmatist has already sprung the most important information. So I'll get back to your peculiar twist of the ORI summary. Here is the salient poriton of the actual summary:

"Dr. Liburdy's claims were potentially very important when published in 1992 because they purported to link EMF and calcium signaling, a fundamental cell process governing many important cellular functions."

Here is your version of it:

"Dr Liburdy's finding were very important when published in 1992 because they purported to link EMF and calcium signalling, a fundamental cell process governing many important cell processes."

The first rule of scholarship is to get the quotes right.
The second rule of scholarship is to comprehend what it is you are quoting. Which brings us to your unfounded value judgment wrappings:

"AS the ORI conceded, "Dr Liburdy's finding were very important when published in 1992 because they purported to link EMF and calcium signalling, a fundamental cell process governing many important cell processes"."

There was no concession here, dodger. This was a slam. When you omitted the word "potentially" you changed the tenor to fit your interpretation. ORI is conceding nothing, but clearly signalling that this paper would have been pivotal had it not been a scam. That if the data had not been cooked, it would have been significant. But that since the data were clearly falsified, and fabricated the paper is suitable for lining budgie cages. Couple that with "purported" and you get the clear picture of an office doing its best to tell the scientific community to remove the paper from consideration and take care of their budgies instead.

But now lets move onto the 93% and Robert Park. You remember, the President of the American Physical Society of whom you wrote: "dear old Prof Park I suppose, but then no one listens to him either." Right. Robert Park, president of the American Physical Society, publisher of the world's most respected and most widely-read journals in physics. No listens to him. Right.

You sad, deluded old putz.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2004, 08:32 PM   #2291
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Well said Bill.

By the way, the original charge was made against Liburdy in 1995, not 1999. It was 1999 when they finally fired Liburdy. And Roger also conveniently omits to mention the $3.3 million in research grants that Liburdy obtained from the NIH, BASED entirely on the fraudulent data. Of course that couldn't POSSIBLY be a motive could it?

And just for the record I note that once again Roger would like to address the points raised by me, Hans, PJ etc....but doesn't. He always has time to lie to us though. Funny that, isn't it?
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2004, 12:09 PM   #2292
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,505
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Before I start responses to Hans, Prag and PJ, I would like to say a word about Bob Liburdy, who has been labelled in this thread as a fraud.

*snip*
Diversion duly noted. You now have zero iota of credibility, as far as I'm concerned.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2004, 03:32 PM   #2293
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Found something very interesting on Google. The clip below is an extract from the Times Higher Educational Supplement dated 2 days ago. Seems people are getting wise to Roger.

http://www.thes.co.uk/current_editio...ory_id=2014009

SCARES

Non-reviewed research

* In 1998, self-employed researcher Roger Coghill released research straight to the media saying that the waves produced by mobile phones could damage the activity of lymphocytes in the body's immune system. Over the next five years his claims, though contradicted by most other evidence, were cited in 119 news publications in the UK alone. Most made no reference to the unofficial status of the research paper or to the fact that other research disagreed.


Maybe someone should invite them to look here!
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2004, 04:45 PM   #2294
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Pragmatist
Found something very interesting on Google. The clip below is an extract from the Times Higher Educational Supplement dated 2 days ago. Seems people are getting wise to Roger.

http://www.thes.co.uk/current_editio...ory_id=2014009

SCARES

Non-reviewed research

* In 1998, self-employed researcher Roger Coghill released research straight to the media saying that the waves produced by mobile phones could damage the activity of lymphocytes in the body's immune system. Over the next five years his claims, though contradicted by most other evidence, were cited in 119 news publications in the UK alone. Most made no reference to the unofficial status of the research paper or to the fact that other research disagreed.


Maybe someone should invite them to look here!
Pragmatist / Rolfe,

Did you notice the story below this one, about Shattock's MMR research? Isn't this the research some anti-vax quack recently ballyhooed here on JREF? I think the thread was very recent. Anybody remember it? Is this not the same research?
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2004, 06:07 PM   #2295
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by BillHoyt


Pragmatist / Rolfe,

Did you notice the story below this one, about Shattock's MMR research? Isn't this the research some anti-vax quack recently ballyhooed here on JREF? I think the thread was very recent. Anybody remember it? Is this not the same research?
Sorry, doesn't ring any bells with me, I must have missed that thread. A forum search on "Shattock" and feasible mispellings/variants thereof didn't show anything either.

I did find another interesting article about our Rog though!

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19...nd99arkin.html
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2004, 01:17 PM   #2296
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
To Prag:

The orignal report re Liburdy may have been submitted by LBL in 1995, but the original charge by ORI was only made in 1999, and Liburdy responded immediately. I do not believe either he or anyone else was aware of it before the 1999 BEMS meeting.

As for the alleged misquote by me (see Bouncer's post) omitting the word "potentially", I was quoting from a document which also omitted the same word, and there was no intention on my part to strengthen the statement. Bouncer is being overly pedantic as usual imho. Liburdy's study (as well as the three or so replications after then) are important, not just potentially important.

Though I am determined to get to responding to Hans et al., I also wish to defend the allegations made against Liburdy. Tomorrow moreover there is an Environment Council meeting in London with the NGT discussing ways forward over the ELF exposure problem to which I am going, and as usual many things on my return from Washington have deprioved me of the time i would like to spend on this thread, but hopefully by the end of the week things will have got back to normal and i can resume full time on these matters.

I formally claim that the NGT are sitting on their own privately conducted nationwide study (Draper, Swanson et al.) showing a near 2 fold elevation of childhood leukaemia within 100 metres of HV powerlines. Unless they go public on this very soon I and others intend to bring a class action which will make the 1998 cellphone case look like a child's teaparty.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2004, 01:25 PM   #2297
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,846
If this thread every gets back to discussing Roger's claims and ..ahem.. "products" could someone drop me a PM?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2004, 01:29 PM   #2298
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
The THES comment is complete BS.

EG: from BEMS J, Feb 2003:

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

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

Moreover there was also a good deal of published evidence of RF effects on lymphocytes in 1998 and my campaign was based on that and not solely on our opwn lab research, which was anyway peer review published in 2000.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2004, 01:49 PM   #2299
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
RF effects on lymphocytes and the haemopoietic system:

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

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

Must go now, but should be back on line on Wednesday.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2004, 03:27 PM   #2300
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
To Prag:

The orignal report re Liburdy may have been submitted by LBL in 1995, but the original charge by ORI was only made in 1999, and Liburdy responded immediately. I do not believe either he or anyone else was aware of it before the 1999 BEMS meeting.
Sigh.. Keep digging Roger!

I did a bit more research to be sure of the point. Apparently the original complaint by his lab assistant was first filed in 1994 and concerned his research of THAT time, not the 1992 research. LBL then started an investigation and had concluded by mid 1995 that he had committed research fraud (in respect of which work I don't know). So they filed a request with the ORI for an independent investigation. As part of that investigation ORI had to obtain further research data from Liburdy.

Here is an extract from the Federal Register (my emphasis):

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

Robert P. Liburdy, Ph.D., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Based on an investigation report by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) dated July 7, 1995, and an analysis of the data and information from Dr. Liburdy obtained by ORI during its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Liburdy, former staff biochemist at LBNL, engaged in scientific misconduct in biomedical research by intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims about the purported cellular effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) that were reported in two scientific papers: (1) Liburdy, R.P. ``Biological interactions of cellular systems with time-varying magnetic fields. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 649:74-95, 1992 (``ANYAS paper''); and (2) Liburdy, R.P. ``Calcium signaling in lymphocytes and ELF fields.'' FEBS Letters 301:53-59, 1992 (the ``FEBS Letters paper''). The ANYAS and FEBS Letters papers were supported by a National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant.

So you want us to believe that he is found guilty of research fraud by LBL, who think it serious enough to call in the ORI, who then contacted Liburdy and demanded his data for review and Liburdy didn't know about it until 4 years later? Oh please!

And then we have the matter of Liburdy's claims after the event which you quoted earlier and the subsequent definitive response by the ORI which I quoted which says that the ORI does NOT accept Liburdy's claims of innocence and misinterpretation. Data was FORGED, not just badly graphed. Experts alleged to have examined the work and supporting Liburdy (2 of them) did NOT see all the data, and the ORI are even offering the full data to anyone who wishes to investigate and/or challenge their findings. We also note that after 5 years NOBODY has offered any legitimate reinterpretation of the data that would support any conclusion other than the one ORI reached - which was that Liburdy's work was fraudulent. I also note that the ORI explicitly say that Liburdy's data is NOT valid and neither are his "scientific" conclusions.

ORI are saying that Liburdy committed fraud. They say his subsequent statements are not true and that he is a liar.

I don't believe Liburdy, and I most certainly don't believe YOU!

Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
As for the alleged misquote by me (see Bouncer's post) omitting the word "potentially", I was quoting from a document which also omitted the same word, and there was no intention on my part to strengthen the statement. Bouncer is being overly pedantic as usual imho. Liburdy's study (as well as the three or so replications after then) are important, not just potentially important.
There is no ALLEGED misquote. The original quote is in the public domain and your rendition of it is NOT correct. There is no "alleged" about it. You misquoted. I don't believe your excuse that it was misquoted in the document you were reading (unless it was a document YOU wrote!). You don't seem to realise that you have lied to us once too often, nobody on here trusts your claims any more.

And as for being "overly pedantic". A quote is either accurate or it isn't. There is nothing pedantic about expecting an accurate quotation, particularly where the omitted word makes a world of difference to the interpretation. Consider the two statements in relation to your "challenge":

1) Roger Coghill is a child killer.
2) Roger Coghill is POTENTIALLY a child killer.

So I take it that if I go around saying the first of those things you would have no objection? Because my omission of the word "potentially" is unimportant and anyone who insists that it has to be there is being overly pedantic? Yeah, right!

Keep digging...

Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Though I am determined to get to responding to Hans et al., I also wish to defend the allegations made against Liburdy. Tomorrow moreover there is an Environment Council meeting in London with the NGT discussing ways forward over the ELF exposure problem to which I am going, and as usual many things on my return from Washington have deprioved me of the time i would like to spend on this thread, but hopefully by the end of the week things will have got back to normal and i can resume full time on these matters.
Diversion noted.

Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
I formally claim that the NGT are sitting on their own privately conducted nationwide study (Draper, Swanson et al.) showing a near 2 fold elevation of childhood leukaemia within 100 metres of HV powerlines. Unless they go public on this very soon I and others intend to bring a class action which will make the 1998 cellphone case look like a child's teaparty.
Another diversion noted. Prove it by the way, I don't believe you.
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2004, 03:30 PM   #2301
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
The THES comment is complete BS.

EG: from BEMS J, Feb 2003:

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

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

Moreover there was also a good deal of published evidence of RF effects on lymphocytes in 1998 and my campaign was based on that and not solely on our opwn lab research, which was anyway peer review published in 2000.
Crap. Their comment is completely accurate. YOUR research was not peer reviewed in 1998 and you announced the results directly to the press at that time. You can dance around all you want. Whether or not it WAS reviewed later is irrelevant.
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2004, 03:32 PM   #2302
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
RF effects on lymphocytes and the haemopoietic system:

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

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

Must go now, but should be back on line on Wednesday.
Irrelevant. Another diversion duly noted.
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2004, 01:01 AM   #2303
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
To Prag:
.....snip......
I formally claim that the NGT are sitting on their own privately conducted nationwide study (Draper, Swanson et al.) showing a near 2 fold elevation of childhood leukaemia within 100 metres of HV powerlines. Unless they go public on this very soon I and others intend to bring a class action which will make the 1998 cellphone case look like a child's teaparty.......snip.......
Unlike BillHoyt, MRC_Hans and Pragmatist, I don't necessarily let the fact that the "facts" you provide are completely flawed get in the way of a good argument. I'll let them continue to nail you to the wall over those points. I would like to draw your attention to the above quote you provide

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

- What the mechanism for the increased incidence is (is it Dr. Henshaw's ions ?)
- How the trinkets you market will reduce the incidence ?
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2004, 06:20 AM   #2304
Prester John
Anti-homeopathy Illuminati member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,185
Roger doesn't seem to have the appetite for this thread as much recently - even with his far flung travels taken into consideration.
__________________
"...at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." Carl Sagan

I am a Homeopath. Remedies available at reasonable prices.
Prester John is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 12:35 PM   #2305
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
Wrong PJ!:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally I have not forgotten the queries raised about the apparently inconsistent figures in our second Harmoniser report, and am looking into this.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 12:41 PM   #2306
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,505
Well, just take your time. We can wait.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 01:05 PM   #2307
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
To the Don:

You said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the trinkets, we have found that static magnetic fields "calm" the impact of moving electric fields. I beleive there is good physical support for this view.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 01:06 PM   #2308
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Roger,

Roger and me...

Do you have any comments?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 01:15 PM   #2309
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
Hold on Prag!

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

I am sure Liburdy knew about the LBL and ORI investigations well before 1999. But he only became aware of the ORI statement at the 1999 BEMS meeting.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 01:22 PM   #2310
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Hold on Prag!

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

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

You make the claim, you prove it.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 01:27 PM   #2311
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
To CF Larsen:

You pointed to the following:

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

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

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

Your quotee is quite right about the need to gain at least basic knowledge of many scientific disciplines in order to familiarise with bioelectromagnetics. Right now I am trying to master differential IR spectrometry, so as to get a handle on the identification of molecules, and the wave numbers of specific active groups such as CH3, NH2 etc. Ahead of me is a better understanding of GC/MS/MS technology, THz microscopy, and the effects of static magnetic fields on bacterial motility (flagellate bacteria use an actual electric motor powered by hydrogen, and SMFs seem to slow this down, leading possibly to lowered proliferation). And of course all the time I revisit the basic textbooks on e.g. parallel resonant circuits.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
cogreslab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 01:40 PM   #2312
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,505
ROger, this is hopeless! Do you not learn at all? Why are you here if you pay no attention to what we say?

Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
To the Don:

You said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are not electromagnetic fields.

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

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

But why should we leave aside such a crucial fact?

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

Technobabble.

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

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

*snip*

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense. If you can change an electric field with a permanent magnet, there is a Nobel prize waiting for you.
Does this never stop?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 01:49 PM   #2313
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
To CF Larsen:

You pointed to the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just expect your reply to be countered.

What is your answer? Will you write a reply? Yes or no?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 02:03 PM   #2314
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Hold on Prag!

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

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

Notice in Federal Register published June 17:

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

BEMS Meeting 1999, June 20-24, 1999.

Liburdy statement June 23, 1999.

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

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

Like Claus said, your claim, you prove it!

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

Strange you weren't aware of the later ORI statement before now. Particularly since I quoted it in full about 20 pages back...! Keep digging...
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 02:16 PM   #2315
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by Pragmatist
Notice in Federal Register published June 17:

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

BEMS Meeting 1999, June 20-24, 1999.

Liburdy statement June 23, 1999.

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

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

Like Claus said, your claim, you prove it!
Ain't skepticism and critical thinking a drag? Well........no!

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

Strange you weren't aware of the later ORI statement before now. Particularly since I quoted it in full about 20 pages back...! Keep digging...
Ahhh.....this is so beautiful.....
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 02:30 PM   #2316
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
To CF Larsen:
Well, I am the first to concede I am not an electronics engineer. Others however, such as Alasdair Philips, Cyril Smith, Frank Barnes, Stewart Maurer, to mention just a few, do have a profounder knowledge, and all are of the opinion that chronic exposure to ELF EM fields have important adverse bioeffects on human populations.
Ah.. Alasdair Philips. Is he the one who runs an organisation called "Powerwatch" or something like that? Doesn't he offer advice to people on the horrifying evils of EMF's? And doesn't he also just happen to offer "consultancy services" to go check out people's houses and advise them on how to avoid the terrible danger? All for a modest fee of course.

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

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

Haven't heard of the others before.

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
I have never said that people living near powerlines are in grave danger, since the electric field from these is often largely shielded by e.g. trees, brick walls etc. The main exposure to people is from appliances in the home or at the office/factory.
Liar. Oh yes, and it's kettle leads that kill babies isn't it?

Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Your quotee is quite right about the need to gain at least basic knowledge of many scientific disciplines in order to familiarise with bioelectromagnetics. Right now I am trying to master differential IR spectrometry, so as to get a handle on the identification of molecules, and the wave numbers of specific active groups such as CH3, NH2 etc. Ahead of me is a better understanding of GC/MS/MS technology, THz microscopy, and the effects of static magnetic fields on bacterial motility (flagellate bacteria use an actual electric motor powered by hydrogen, and SMFs seem to slow this down, leading possibly to lowered proliferation). And of course all the time I revisit the basic textbooks on e.g. parallel resonant circuits.
If you were learning IR spectrometry you'd know that the FIRST principle is that the wavenumbers CHANGE with the chemical environment of the ligand. Rather the whole point! And the easiest way to identify a ligand is by trace SHAPE, not by wavenumber...

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

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

Keep digging...!
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 02:57 PM   #2317
Pragmatist
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally posted by CFLarsen


Ain't skepticism and critical thinking a drag? Well........no!
Well, it is for poor old Rog!

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

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...post1870483352
Pragmatist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2004, 03:18 PM   #2318
Lucianarchy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,105
Claus, well done for publicising the dangers of chronic EM radiation and the how those dangers are actively being supressed. Ms Cleo mentioned in passing that you were working for Mr Coghill's cause. Would you be good enough to put the links to these alongside your article? :

http://www.radiationresearch.org/

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

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

http://www.bioelectromagnetics.org/

http://www.revolt.co.uk

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

Thanks.
Lucianarchy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2004, 12:22 AM   #2319
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,505
Roger Coghill, and other interested parties, I have an offer for you:

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

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

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

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2004, 12:31 AM   #2320
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Quote:
Originally posted by cogreslab
As for the trinkets, we have found that static magnetic fields "calm" the impact of moving electric fields. I beleive there is good physical support for this view.
Could you please explain this in terms of known electomagnetic equations. After all you do realise it is utter rubbish.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.