William J. Beaty wrote:
> Mark Fergerson <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%3aYb.320$7k3.128@fed1read01>...
>
>> By that standard, your brain fell out a long time ago, judging by what's on your webpages. ;>)
>
> Here's more evidence for that position:
>
> Don't touch my Disgustoscope
http://amasci.com/creepy.html
Doesn't play in Netscape. (And since when are you sponsored by an underwear company, even though
it's kinda topic-appropriate?)
But I remember the Disgustoscope well- you're definitely my kind of weird!
BTW I've seen TV ads for handheld versions of the "vortex gun"; did you get a piece of them? You
should have, they showed several applications you disclosed on your site (which predate any
patents they might have).
Frinst:
http://www.alltvstuff.com/zero1.html
>> Why should 60 Hz be especially dangerous? We've all been immersed in a low-level (whatever what
>> that means) 60 Hz field for generations. We've all been exposed to much stronger, local fields
>> every time we use an appliance.
>
> Maybe not 60Hz, maybe just everything above ??5Hz?? It takes AC to wiggle your biomagnetite
> crystals, or to induce small ion currents.
Yeah, I know. I also know that not all of us have the same crystals in the same places, or the
same densities, etc. It may be a hereditary thing, but nobody seems to want to look closely
enough to find out for fear of the "racism" card, methinks.
"Above ~5 Hz"? Then consider the Schumann Resonance fields; they used to be assumed to be a
constant environmental factor but have recently been shown to be variable over long and short
timescales. Since we evolved in it (which is why it's considered not only beneficial but
essential by many), it seems reasonable that every lifeform from viruses to us have adaptations
to handle the kind of long-term exposure effects assumed in the (yet to be seen) paper.
> It would be nice if the authors ran some control groups with DC fields having similar strength.
I'd be less dissatisfied if they'd done anything other than the hasty, inflammatory job they did.
> "Dangerous" is the issue. Supposing that the results are supported by others (and supposing that
> it works with human neurons, not just with rats,) what macro effects are produced by DNA-breakage
> in neurons? Maybe it resembles accelerated aging. If disease isn't involved, what happens as your
> brain accumulates more decades? Memory loss? If the brains of powerline workers and CRT-exposed
> web surfers are aging prematurely, would anyone have ever noticed?
Insurers would have noticed right off the bat and started charging statistically high premiums
for such people. Unions would have complained. Social Security statistics would be skewed. Memory
loss or early retirements among electrical workers would definitely be noticed. That kind of
thing is newsworthy.
OTOH lab rats aren't exact analogs of humans. Higher mammals have more inbuilt repair mechanisms,
so even if damage occurs in humans it may be routinely repaired. Have the authors already
sacrificed all their rats? Did they do any long-term observations to see if the alleged damage
self-repairs? I bet not.
If self-repair is shown not to occur, we could all start wearing metglas helmets. ;>)
>> Is it closedmindedness to want to see evidence of a
>> phenomenon before accepting analyses of it at face value?
>
> Nope. Saying "I won't believe a thing until I see some numbers" is sensible (even required.) The
> problems arise if we disbelieve in advance, for example by assuming that the researchers used much
> stronger fields than are common every day.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Especially when said claims run counter to
such things as the Schumann Resonance.
> Suspension of premature belief is totally different than premature disbelief. Unfortunately both
> get called "skepticism."
Can't help that. Also can't help my cynicism, but agendas drive a lot of this kind of "research".
> I suspect that much of the controversy arises because many insist that magnetic fields must have
> zero effect on biochem. Yet there are studies about AC magnetic fields affecting melatonin, and
> screwing up the action of Tamoxifen drug. The big fight may seem to be about disease and cancer,
> but I see that underneath it is a fight over whether fields from 60Hz coils can have any
> biological impact at all.
>
>
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/11_29_97/fob3.htm
>
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/1_10_98/bob1.htm
I'd like to know what mechanism is purported for these effects; AFAIK hormones have no magnetic
properties.
Checking the sources and references supports my cynical suspicions about P. C. bias.
Also note that the second article mentions the increased "risk" due to transients, as I mentioned
WRT NY subways. Graham says:
" ...it's beginning to appear that a field's magnitude matters less than its intermittency or
other features, such as power surges called electrical transients."
Granted, there's a rather high density of therapists in NY, but where's the pathological
evidence?
Mark L. Fergerson
