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 challenge , coghill

Reply
Old 13th May 2004, 05:51 AM   #1
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,282
Coghill Challenge

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.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking 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 13th May 2004, 06:02 AM   #2
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,244
Re: Coghill Challenge

Quote:
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).
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.
richardm 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 13th May 2004, 06:26 AM   #3
Mercutio
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,274
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.
Mercutio 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 13th May 2004, 06:33 AM   #4
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,234
Does it only work on humans? Hasn't this guy ever heard of lab rats?
Tricky 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 13th May 2004, 07:29 AM   #5
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Quote:
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.
Ed 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 13th May 2004, 07:55 AM   #6
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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!
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 07:59 AM   #7
Oleron
Muse
 
Oleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 936
This quackwatch article is a good source for links. Hits the emf scare for a home run.

Quackwatch


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.
Oleron 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 13th May 2004, 08:07 AM   #8
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 08:17 AM   #9
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,244
Quote:
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 in that thread. Let me know if they did, and I'll go and look there:

Quote:
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.
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.
richardm 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 13th May 2004, 08:22 AM   #10
Oleron
Muse
 
Oleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 936
To Cogreslab:
I thought I saw insoles for sale on your site.
Must have been mistaken....
Oleron 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 13th May 2004, 09:01 AM   #11
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,244
Quote:
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 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.
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.
richardm 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 13th May 2004, 09:03 AM   #12
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Quote:
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 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 13th May 2004, 09:05 AM   #13
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Quote:
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?
Ed 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 13th May 2004, 09:50 AM   #14
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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?
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 09:57 AM   #15
Mercutio
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,274
Quote:
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.
Mercutio 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 13th May 2004, 10:15 AM   #16
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 11:05 AM   #17
Thomas
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,643
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.
Thomas 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 13th May 2004, 11:17 AM   #18
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 11:30 AM   #19
Thomas
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
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?
Thomas 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 13th May 2004, 11:33 AM   #20
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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?
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 11:47 AM   #21
Thomas
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
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?
Thomas 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 13th May 2004, 11:50 AM   #22
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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".
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 12:13 PM   #23
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,234
Re: Coghill Challenge

Quote:
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.
Tricky 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 13th May 2004, 01:39 PM   #24
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 01:41 PM   #25
Cleopatra
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,063
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.
Cleopatra 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 13th May 2004, 01:49 PM   #26
Marian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 454
Quote:
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.
Marian 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 13th May 2004, 01:49 PM   #27
Mercutio
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,274
Quote:
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?
Mercutio 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 13th May 2004, 01:52 PM   #28
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
Quote:
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!
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 01:57 PM   #29
Cleopatra
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,063
Quote:
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.
Cleopatra 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 13th May 2004, 02:02 PM   #30
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 02:05 PM   #31
Marian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 454
Quote:
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.
Marian 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 13th May 2004, 02:06 PM   #32
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 02:08 PM   #33
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 02:11 PM   #34
Cleopatra
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,063
Quote:
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.
Cleopatra 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 13th May 2004, 02:24 PM   #35
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 02:26 PM   #36
Marian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 454
Quote:
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?
Marian 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 13th May 2004, 02:28 PM   #37
Cleopatra
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,063
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!!
Cleopatra 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 13th May 2004, 02:30 PM   #38
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 02:36 PM   #39
cogreslab
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 844
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?
__________________
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 13th May 2004, 02:41 PM   #40
JPK
Graduate Poster
 
JPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,748
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
JPK 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 08:54 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.