Roger and me…2005, Jan 1st | Emner: Medical Quackery, Myths & Mysteries, New Age, Pseudoscience
by Hans Egebo
Roger Coghill of Coghill Research Laboratories, UK claims to be a scientist doing research work in the field bioelectromagnetism, which is defined as the study of interactions between biological entities and electromagnetic forces. This broad, multidisciplinary field includes the study of the possible adverse health effects of ELF fields, which are generated by electrical power, and of RF fields which are generated by many modern technologies, most notably cell phones.
Mr. Coghill takes part in the public debate about these subjects, claims to conduct scientific research in the area, and has some very strong opinions about the area where he claims so have disclosed special mechanisms whereby adverse effects may incur. Mr. Coghill also markets various commercial products, which he claims will protect users in various ways against such adverse effects.
The fact that several of Mr. Coghill’s products and theories involve what can be termed as borderline science had sparked a long and sometimes heated debate at the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) message board. I participated in this debate and soon realized some interesting facts about Mr. Coghill’s knowledge of electromagnetic theory.
Obviously, 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. This can be done by personally acquire the necessary knowledge, or by employing specialist advisors. In all events, your methods, theories and argumentation should be supported by current knowledge in each field. As an electronic engineer, I soon discovered large voids in Mr. Coghill’s access to knowledge about electromagnetic theory.
I have found this lack of knowledge to be so profound that it is my personal conclusion that Mr. Coghill sadly is not qualified to do research or make conclusions within any field that involves electromagnetics. Whether I’m right is left to the judgment of the reader. Below are a number of statements from Mr. Coghill, made during the abovementioned debate, with my comments in italics. They deal mainly with Mr. Coghill’s understanding about electromagnetics, but his grasp of scientific methods in general, including the application of statistics are also touched upon.
‘ere we go…
“By putting myself at your disposal and setting out the main issue I hope to encourage informed debate and test the robustness of my scientific arguments before a semi-lay audience.”
This was Mr. Coghill’s declaration of intent very early in the debate. This is spoken as a true scientist, but we must take notice of the expression “semi-lay audience”. Mr. Coghill here implies that his educational level is superior to that of his audience in general. A rather presumptuous stance, considering that the JREF community includes persons with extensive skills in many kinds of science, including not a few highly educated professionals.
“The science which researches interactions between the physical energies of electricity and magnetism with organic life processes. It also embraces the study of how organic life makes use of these physical energies, e.g. how some elasmobranch fishes can detect electric fields as low as 1/4 of a millionth of a volt per metre, or how in oxidative phosphorylation the inner mitochondrial membrane organises electron transport so as to synthesise adenosine triphosphate (ATP).”
Here Mr. Coghill introduces the science of bioelectromagnetism, and, unfortunately, immediately shows weak spots:
- Magnetism is not an energy, it is a force
- An electric field is not an energy, it is a force
- The electric “fields” that some fish are so excellent at sensing are not fields in the electromagnetic sense, but minute currents running through the conductive medium of water. They are measured and rated as voltages because this is simpler to measure and use. The perfectly correct way of rating them would be mA/cm2, but when the conductivity of the medium is known, either value can be calculated from the other.
- Electron transport is simply electrical current.
“Also a meta-analysis I did which compared registered AIDS cases and the levels of RF/MW radiation in the same cities as measured for the US Govt by Ric Tell found a correlation between high AIDS incidence and high RF/MW levels in the fifteen largest US cities. There seemed to be no relationship between city population size and AIDS incidence, which one might perhaps have expected from a viral aetiology.”
Here we have a sample of Mr. Coghill’s approach to science in general:
- There are two factors: RF/MW levels and AIDS incidence, so why a meta-analysis, when a normal analysis would do?
- Fifteen cities? What about all the others?
- And, more pertinent, even: What about African cities? Here the incidence of AIDS is way higher than in US cities, but hardly the level of RF.
- Finally a straw-man: The expected relationship between city size and disease incidence; if this was a normal contagious disease, this presumption might be valid, but with a special spread mechanism, of course such a simple correlation cannot be expected.
Risking the lives of infants to prove himself right
“No we have never used infants in our experiments, even with static magnets. Except maybe by accident we used some infant earthworms once. The worms were monitored all the time, all were healthy and all were returned to the garden after the experiment with static magnets,”
This came about when Mr. Coghill was asked about his challenge, where he offers a sum to persons who will put a human infant in a specified electric field, something Mr. Coghill claims will be dangerous, perhaps even fatal, to that infant. The claim above made some debaters hint that Mr. Coghill had more consideration for worms than human infants, but more to the point is the inherent hypocrisy: He claims that we would not hurt the worms and they were returned to the garden unhurt:
- How exactly does he know they were unhurt?
- If the experiment did not put them in jeopardy, it means that the result was known beforehand, and then why make it?
“150V/cm is the same as 15,000 volts per meter. It is in the same order of magnitude as the unperturbed field beneath a 750,000 volt power line. People living in homes beneath say the 400,000 volt power lines in the UK are mightily protected by the bricks and tiles of their home, but the field in an upper bedroom is still in the order of 70 V/m, and still therefore in my definition of hazardous.”
A peculiar conclusion. Mr. Coghill cited third party experiment that seemed to indicate some adverse effects from 150V/cm fields, and uses this to argue for his claim that 70V/m (=0.7V/cm) are dangerous.
“I still need to answer the question about why the corpus callosum is so important for signal transduction. This brain structure straddles the two halves of the cerebral hemispheres and is bathed by the third and lateral ventricles which thereby afford a direct pathway for any electric field and currents throughout the entire extracellular fluids.”
An example of confusing electrical fields with currents running in a conductive medium.
“These fluids are 0.9 percent saline solution, and therefore they are rich in separated Na and Cl ions. and can carry electric signals almost losslessly because of their high conductivity.”
Actually, the conductivity is only medium. It is high compared to skin, air, and clothing, but low compared to metals.
“(I) hope you noted the last para in the Timaeus about the beauty of the integrated Universe, btw, which is more or less what I am driving at: all electrons by Hund’s Rule are connected throughout the Universe, and as Blake would say, the sound of a wounded hare at the other end of the earth affects me too. Or Donne: every man is a part of the main.”
Rather poetic. Form a technical viewpoint, however, total nonsense. All electrons in the Universe may be connected in some esoteric way, but this has nothing to do with real-world electromagnetics.
Wrong, wrong, wrong…
“Fact: there is no relation between the electric and the magnetic component at ELF frequencies, so no magnetic field study can say anything about the electric component.”
Totally wrong. As most ELF (ELF=Extremely Low Frequencies) fields are observed in the near-field, because of the very long wavelengths (hundreds to thousands of kilometers), the impedance of such fields is highly variable, and thus the relationship is not a simple one, but none can exist without the other.
“…also went to the biochem lab at Cambridge to look at the set up at Lacy Hulbert’s invitation. I was horrified to find that the mu metal separator left an air gap at the top. This meant the exposed and control cells alike were both exposed to equal electric fields, so if the bioeffective parameter was the electric and not the magnetic field this configuration would invalidate the design. However, only the magnetic fields were reported in the study.”
Bit of a gem here. Mu metal screens are primarily used for magnetic shielding, although being a metal, they also provide electrical shielding. The idea that enclosures must be without air-gaps, however, only pertains to the VHF range. With wavelengths in the kilometer range, a few air gaps are of little consequence.
“E.g. spermatozoa once entered into the egg change the charge on the ovum surface so that other sperm cannot enter and cause polyfertilisation, but electric fields can depolarise these membranes. The notochord similarly relies on electric current polarity, giving rise to electric fields, , and if this is reversed there are serious morphological consequences. In short, endogenous electric fields are an important constituent of normal development.”
Another confusion between electromagnetic fields and galvanic potentials. Mr. Coghill appears to think they are the same thing.
“To answer your question directly, yes I believe that external electric fields can superpose on internal endogenous fields to the extent of disruption, based largely on the knowledge that the conductivity of physiological saline is almost lossless inside the body.”
The E-field experiment
“Hold on, Hans, when did you ever measure the conductivity of saline body fluids? We did and found some surprising results: the fluids at 0.9 percent conduct with virtually no loss of field strength and the fields do not fall off with distance, but are more or less the same at every part of the body (More on this as we get into technicalities).”
Describing an alleged experiment in the conduction of an E-field. Since E-fields are not conducted by conductors but by dielectrical (insulating) layers, one wonders how this experiment was set up. We are forced to assume that the field was measured along a vessel of fluid, that formed part of an open-ended circuit..
“We then tried to see if the conductivity changed with salinity, and it showed a trend that at around 0.9 percent the conductivity was maximal, as if Nature had chosen that particular salinity in body fluids for its conductive effectiveness.”
More on the same experiment. Since the presumed setup can be expected to show the same result from a very wide range of conductivities (because the field has a very high impedance), the differing results must be due to inaccuracies (or bias). At any rate, the whole setup show total lack of understanding of how E-fields work.
“Remember also that these body fluids constitute 60-80 percent of total body mass, and can act as an important capacitor: we humans are like insulated bags of salty water! This capacitance can stay around inside the body for some time, as people who walk across nylon carpets discover when they grab a metal door handle. Ouch!”
Another gem. The capacitance does not stay, but the charge might (the capacitance depends on the position in relation to nearby conductors which form the second plate).
“There is inevitably a relationship between the volume of the dielectric between the two plates in your solid capacitor and its capacitance, if you think about it: the more volume of whatever material lies between your two plates, the greater the capacity of that passive component to resist a passage of current.”
And another. Not even the most elementary grasp of how a capacitor works.
“Capacitors store current in the sense that they resist passage until a certain level is reached. You can get a nasty shock from a TV set long after it has been disconnected from the mains.”
Capacitors store charge. That was pointed out to Mr. Coghill, and..
“Regarding your point about charge, such charges are electrostatic when we are discussing alternating currents. I can see a case for saying that highly charged biota are not affected while they are acting as capacitors (like birds on a powerline): the effects only cause damage when there is an actual flow of current, say to earth, or a field external to the material.”
..we got the above. Of course charges need not be electrostatic, but he mentioned such charges himself. Getting momentarily on the right track with the current, but fields are always external to the (conductive) material.
“But with increasing frequency the majority of the energy lies in the electric component (most RF/MW probes use the electric component for this reason)”
Wrong and wrong. There is no basic relationship between frequency and distribution between E and M components, but at higher frequencies, practical fields tend to have lower impedances, which work the other way around. RF probes are almost universally inductive.
“Common examples of these non-energetic (“non-thermal”) effects are many in the scientific literature. In daily life the use of infra red emitters to deter or confuse insects and some animals is one simple example (Callahan, 1968).”
Mr. Coghill argues about the effect of non-thermal radiation on the organism and comes up with this brilliant example. I have an even better one: Light in the visible red region has been shown to make most automobiles stop at road-crossings.
“It is important to realise that a cellphone has to get its signal to the nearest base station, maybe five km distant, rather than the few hundred feet for a cordless phone. It is thus the most radiative appliance ever invented, and what do we do? We hold it next to arguably that most sensitive of all body organs, the brain (unless one happens to read Sunday Sport, which favours a different part of the anatomy).”
A nice try at humor. But how does he come to the conclusion that the 2W (max) cellphone is “the most radiative appliance ever invented”? As radio communication devices go, they are relatively weak.
Smart words, not so smart usage of them
“I don’t think Moulder really means to say that a radio signal continues to exist after the power is collapsed, otherwise your radio programme would also continue after the transmitter stopped transmissions.”
Mr. Coghill likes to use smart words, but we do not use the term “collapsed” about a power supply (unless you run it over by a truck). And, yes, radio waves do continue to spread after the transmitter has stopped.
“To achieve radiation the electromagnetic energy must form closed loops of flux which propagate away from the emitter at near light speeds (light is also electromagnetic energy).”
Best perhaps to let this speak for itself. I have no idea where he gets this notion.
“…for my benefit and education please explain why and how Morse signals at visible light frequencies do not collapse immediately when the source is interrrupted? “
Could it be because EM waves continue until they hit something?
“On the first would you accept a better definition that capacitors store charge derived from the current arriving at the capacitor? Do you accept this revised definition?”
After the idea if capacitors storing current, Mr. Coghill apparently read a little about the subject and came with this. Much better, but still only a part of the properties of capacitors. And, since we were discussing AC, not really the important part.
“On the second, I say again that there is no magnetic field in the kettle cable unless the kettle is drawing current from the mains to which it is attached, whereas the electric field is there whether the kettle is switched on or not. Do you dispute this?”
A little analogy that Mr. Coghill turned out to be very fond of, and kept returning to, thinking that since he had been unable to measure the relationship, it could not exist.
“On the third, I say again that the electromagnetic energy leaves the radio antenna having formed a closed loop of flux, the character of these successive closed loops form the signal that is received by the receiving antenna. Do you dispute this?”
Making loops around radio waves. It seems Mr. Coghill has read some popularized description of radio waves and is trying to use it to sound like a scientist.
“When no current flows in a wire connected to the mains there is a net zero voltage, but the electric field is still present, since the electrons are moving back and forth to the same position, but since there is no net movement in any direction there is no magnetic field.”
Mr. Coghill’s understanding of AC magnetic fields leaves something to be desired. Any movement of electrons is accompanied by a magnetic field. Moving back and forth creates an AC field.
“If a sinusoidal current is flowing in a conductor the electric field and magnetic fields will also attempt to vary sinusoidally.”
Uhh, no. They WILL vary according to the current. Otherwise the current cannot vary.
“When the current reverses direction the magnetic field must first collapse into the conductor and then build up in the opposite direction.”
Seems Mr. Coghill remembers something about self-induction, but he is getting it upside down. The voltage changes, but the current cannot change till the magnetic field has changed. The term “collapsed” is indeed sometimes used here, but “discharged” would be more correct.
“A finite time is required for a magnetic field and its associated electric field to collapse, however…”
Mr. Coghill seems to think it is a constant time, otherwise how would he come to the following:
“and at frequencies above about 15kHz not all the energy contained in the field has returned to the conductor before the current has started to increase in the opposite direction and created new electric and magnetic fields.”
A totally arbitrary frequency, since all this depends on the inductivity of the conductor.
“The energy left outside the conductor cannot then return to it and instead is propagated away from the conductor at the velocity of light in closed loops of electric and magnetic flux.”
Loops again. A very inept attempt at explaining radio waves.
“The electric loops are at right angles to the magnetic loops of flux.”
The angle is correct, but…loops? Sometimes, for visualization, radio waves are drawn as sinus waves. Maybe that is the reason for the loops idea.
“The amount of energy radiated from the conductor increases with increase in frequency, since more energy is then unable to return to the conductor.”
No, there is no direct correlation with frequency, and the one that is there is for entirely different reasons (namely that the conductor becomes longer compared to the wavelength).
“It is this energy which can couple with organic life.”
Yes, radio waves interact with conductors in their way, including living organisms.
“The electromagnetic wave is a representation of the maxima and minima of the electric and magnetic fields which are mutually at right angles to the direction of propagation, as well as being at right angles to each other.”
Let’s count this a correct, although still awkward. And where did the loops go?
Selling the product
“Incidentally though the neodymium magnet producers claim that these do not lose magnetism with heat, in practice we have found they do, and we had to take special insulating precautions with our fuel economisers which were getting hot through proximity to the car engines.”
Yes, Mr. Coghill markets fuel economizers, the simple and cheap fuel saving gadget that car producers somehow keep forgetting to install, even though it would give them a competitive edge for practically no expense.
“Being like yourself a pragmatist, I tend to believe the instruments rather than the theorists (- those folk who said man could never fly were physicists were they not?).”
And, of course it would help to understand some of the theories.
“I do not think that is the only possible mechanism of interaction actually. That it is orders of magnitude lower than the magnetic field inside the body is also untrue. (See Om Gandhi’s work on endogenous electric fields in comparison with exogenous accessed via Entrez Pubmed). There are many examples of sensitivity to electric fields in the animal kingdom, at levels far below those measured or calculated inside the human body as a result of ELF exposure. And do not forget that electric fields are superpositive, so it is plausible they may perturb existing life processes based on electron transport.”
More confusion between electromagnetic and galvanic fields.
“This issue of balancing came out at the North Yorks Power Line Public Inquiry in 1992. I do not profess to be an electrical engineer,”
“but perhaps one with better knowledge than me can explain how the generators can ever exactly predict the demanded load so that there is current balance? There is always going to be a small difference between generation at one end of the line and uptake at the other isn’t there?”
Even lacking the simple understanding that electrical currents run in closed circuits.
“And what about phase balance? (Another mystery to me). Do not these imbalances give rise to fields? Then there is the issue of unbalanced ground return currents too.”
They do, they do. Nobody said otherwise, but it is a little difficult to explain to a lay-man like Mr. Coghill.
Mixing up two different things
“This is how I see it: there are a number of different life processes dependant on the use of electrons in some way or other, including electric fields. For example, the brain and the heart both use relatively weak electric fields to convey instructions to the body’s cells, and there is evidence that exposure to external electric fields (say from high voltage powerlines but not exclusively from that kind of source) can cause bradycardia. (Asanova and Rakov 1966 was the earliest example I can think of there, but there were also studies published before that).” “
Here we have the clearest proof that Mr. Coghill believes that electromagnetic and galvanic fields are the same.
“Light bends when it passes from one material to another doesn’t it, by refraction? Or is the refractive index of my microscope objective merely illusory (small joke intended here)? And do not nearby magnetic fields bend light? Or are you arguing that it is their field which is in the direct path? And at submicroscopic levels (i.e. in a molecular environment) might not gravity have an important effect on a light path? I realise you will not believe my naivity, but I am not sure about light always travelling in straight lines! Might it not travel in helical “lines” in a single direction? If so the right diameter helix could pass around a small enough object.”
This cam about when discussing a patch that was supposed to absorb radiation. It was pointed out to Mr. Coghill that even if the device did absorb radiation, it could only absorb what radiation came straight at it, since EM waves move in straight lines. So he launched into a lot of arguments about lenses and such, which is of course entirely irrelevant, since lenses ARE in the path of the light they bend. The idea of submicroscopic gravity deflection is inspired (gravity does indeed bend EM waves, but we need stellar class gravity fields to be ably to observe it), but still nonsense.
I agree that it is hard to believe his naivety, especially as the discussion was not about light at all.
“So the heart’s beat rate is controlled by electric fields emanating from the sino-atrial node; the brain uses electric fields created from currents flowing between the great pyramidal cells on either side of the cerebral hemispheral cortex (“Betz cells”) via the corpus callosal nervous transmissions into the third and lateral ventricles;”
This disperses any doubt that might have existed that Mr. Coghill does not understand the difference between galvanic fields and electric fields.
“Now, how in Hell does the electric field get into the body? We have a most efficient barrier to intrusion in the form of the dermis and epidermis, specifically evolved to deflect and keep out radiation e.g. from the sun; and we have associated melanin dependent protections. The skin like hair is dead. We defend our living selves with the dead bodies of our own cells, and “fill the wall up with our English dead”, to quote Shakespeare. These thicknesses have been honed by the shortness of the waves incoming such as solar UV which may be too short to penetrate past the wall of dead. But RF waves are longer and can get past this evolutionary derived barrier, and so can the even longer non-ionising fields and radiation.”
Getting literary again does not hide the fact that Mr. Coghill does not know what he is talking about. Now he is talking about RF waves, but that was not the subject. The discussion was about how he could claim that electrical fields could enter the faraday cage of the conductive body. And radio waves are longer than ionizing radiation. Mr. Coghill has his spectrum mixed up.
“The ELF project at Wisconsin and the back up at Michigan does the same job: at 76 Hz it can communicate effectively with organelles (nuclear subs in this case) well below the surface of the saline ocean. These subs have long strings dangling out behind them to pick up the signals. Cells also have long glycoproteins – a whole forest of them in the glycocalyx, each able to receive via their negatively charged sialic acid residues specific information.”
A truly hilarious comparison. Obviously the effect is not scaleable; the dangling antenna really must be of a length that makes it a significant fraction of the wavelength.
“Then we substituted an ELF field (50Hz,. square wave, 32mV) and found that this damaged the cells more than normal. A function generator’s output was attached to the gold wire. This led into the space above the culture in a sealed phial. The parameters were dialled into the FG. Since it was an electric field there was no need to complete the circuit.”
Mr. Coghill demonstrated that he is unaware that an electric field exists between two conductors at different potentials. He thinks it is just something you send through a wire.
“The coils are wound on frames fabricated from wood and aluminum and are therefore completely shielded against emission of electric fields.”
I suppose this one speaks for itself.
It takes courage to be an ignoramus
“If you look under your sink or similar you might see an earth strap, put there by the electrician after wiring your home. It carries an aluminium tag warning householders not to remove it. Unless you earth the metallic parts of an exposure system you will create eddy currents which give rise to electric fields. In homes the earth strap serves the purpose of collapsing any accidental short circuits and avoids the risk of electrocution. In a well earthed home the electric fields are less than 10 V/m. If the earthing system is defined the average fields can exceed 40 V/m. It is this level which can cause ill health IMHO.”
We must admire Mr. Coghill’s courage. Here he tries to explain how household wiring functions, in the process disclosing that he knows little about that subject. Yet he claims to measure electric fields in households.
“I am well aware of the difficulties in measuring electric fields, and by no means disagree with your comments there. That is why in our study I made sure we commissioned a professional engineer to construct and prove the accuracy of our instruments, which were supplied by Delta T Devices, a well established Cambridge firm, to calibrate them to NPL and cross check them, just as the UKCCCR did.”
A debater had pointed out the difficulties to make reliable measurements of electrical fields in a household (because of the multiple sources and because you can hardly avoid influencing them with your equipment), and Mr. Coghill explains how carefully his equipment is calibrated. It is like saying that you can measure rubber bands better with a more precise ruler.
“One point to make as well is that charges on the surface of a large sphere will equal the charges on a sphere inside it. Since the surface area of the interior sphere is inevitably smaller than the sphere encompassing it, this leads to a concentration of charge density on the interior surface.”
Where Mr. Coghill got this totally weird idea is anybody’s guess, but it certainly shows he does not understand a faraday cage.
“Yes I know how a thermocouple works. This was what Dorsett used, but Callahan used a different method. An extremely sensitive thermistor probe (such as we have used for years here, supplied by another Welsh company Skye Instruments, – but we don’t use them on moths) and reported this method in his 1964 paper:”
We were discussing infra-red radiation (IR), Mr. Coghill had referred to a report that had measured IR with a thermocouple, and somebody pointed out that a thermocouple only measures intensity, not wavelengths, so he pointed to another experiment that used … a thermistor. Unfortunately, a thermistor also measures only intensity.
A final moment of truth, but…
“OK, so I don’t know a lot of physics. Nor biochemistry, nor microbiology, anatomy, physiology, radio engineering, physical chemistry, epidemiology, statistics, or the myriad specialities of modern science needed to conduct research in a multidisciplinary and largely uncharted region like bioelectromagnetics.”
Mr. Coghill has a moment of truth.
“Resonance at a cellular level is somewhat different. Here the resonance is achieved when an electromagnetic wave ‘s characteristics physically match the characteristics of the object to be resonated. The effect is known as half wave resonance because the length of half the EM wave must match the diameter of, say, a globular object for the resonance to occur.”
Unfortunately, globular objects do not show half-wave resonance.
“This is perhaps better understood by imagining a sphere (or circle if you looking at a diagram on a page) being sliced through the middle horizontally and the bottom semicircle moved to the right until its left limb touches the right limb of the upper semicircle. You have now constructed what looks like a sine wave on the imagined page, and the length of this “wave” is twice the diameter of the original circle (or sphere). “
Mr. Coghill tries his hand at explaining electromagnetics for the lay-man. Fortunately, the audience were not lay-men.
“If we now assume that the wave is actually composed of “crowds” of electrons moving in higher and lower gangs (to represent increased or decreased amplitude) then these will cross the midline in one direction at one time and in the opposite direction the next time.”
Unfortunately, the assumption is entirely wrong. A wave does not consist of electrons, it consists of photons.
“Very disturbing to the surface of the sphere! It surface at that place will be subjected fortst to an upward, and then to a downward pressure. Only when the half wave matches the diameter will this occur however, so if the wave is smaller or larger than the object’s diameter then this “irritition” will not occur.”
Neither electrons nor photons exert a physical force on an object, or at least such forces are totally irrelevant to resonance phenomenon.
“Magnetic fields are not there if the load is switched off. Electric fields are there all the time the kettle lead is connected to the mains. This means that chronic exposure to EMF lies largely with the electric component. Sorry, if that upsets you, but it is a main reason for investigating the electric component at ELF frequencies via epidemiology. This is because there is no relation at all between the electric and magnetic components of an EM wave at ELF frequencies. Skreak all you like about my physics knowledge, but that is the basic position, and you very well know it.”
Kettle again. What is reality is that the impedance for near fields varies greatly, and impedance is the relationship between electric and magnetic field. So the claim that they are not interrelated is fundamentally wrong.
“No it was not at all worthless, Hans, it needed a larger set of samples. For example. say we had repeated the study twice more on some subsequent occasions. The three together would have satisfied your need for more data in order to derive a distribution. Eventually as i say the client found some more money so we could continue looking at this device. But take a look at this: For each group (e.g. the exposed culture) we counted ten separate squares in the hemacytometer. In each we identified the viable and the non-viable. That gave us twenty separate figures. From this it is possible to derive SDs, means, and sums, for the viable and the non viable cells ie. the data needed to test for significance within that group.”
Mr. Coghill referenced the report of a study he had conducted, and the readers rejected the conclusion because he had attempted to make statistics on a n=1 sample plan. He retorts saying that they made ten measurements on each sample. This from a person who claims to conduct scientific experiments.
This could go on forever…
…or at least as long as Mr. Coghill chooses to talk about the subject, but let me end by this little item:
“You keep regarding the human body as being entirely insulated in the same way as a closed (metallic) sphere. That is not the case: there are many pores and other orifices (not to mention the lungs) whereby electrons (which are mutually repulsive) may easily enter, especially if the skin is wet.”
Well, I guess we’ll just let it speak for itself.