Rather late, but welcome back Jneutron I hope all is well. We need your sanity here, the disciples have been getting rather aggressive lately....🙂
I will look around because I believe there was some studies done at Dewsbury regarding a school and AC related issues.....
I will look around because I believe there was some studies done at Dewsbury regarding a school and AC related issues.....
In order to determine cause and effect, you must be able to measure the cause properly. Your posting here tells me that you have no understanding of how to use a voltmeter, no understanding of E/M fields, no understanding of how to do a reasoned, critical search through the web with an eye towards very bad science disguised as "intellect".
First, why do you believe your clock is broadcasting 60 hz and the wires aren't? Most digitals nowadays use single chip supplies, switchmode, which radiate many frequencies (incuding light), there may not even be a transformer in it. So, what exactly are you measuring? You do not have the experience to tell us, but you do provide unsupported conjecture.
Statistically significant because they say so? Do you believe they would tell you if it wasn't significant? Do you understand statistics sufficiently that you could evaluate their statement accurately?
Repeating bad science many times does not turn it into good science.
And how do you know? Because they said so? Think tobacco companies.
A legitimate research paper does not "assume" anything. They provide sufficient detail such that others can repeat the experiment. One key thing to look for in web browsing for such material is....is what they provide testable, repeatable by others? If insufficient information is given, you should be wary of the content and conclusions.
You have fallen prey to some of the charlatans out there. This commonly happens when the victim "or target audience" as it were, has absolutely no understanding or experience in the subject.
All of your results are consistent with getting good nights sleep. The fact that you seem to believe that a wire which is more likely to strangle you in your sleep is helping you by "earthing" just means that you've been had.
Hmm. I think that team is not a very good example to use. Was the video before or after the performance enhancing scandal?
As stated, I am not closed minded. I do electric and magnetic for a living, I am quite good at it. And what you've stated so far shows me what you do not understand about E/M..which is quite honestly, pretty much everything.
I was also a rather good athlete back in the day, and I confess to lacing and tying my spikes in very specific and symmetrical patterns prior to the big races, with my favorite lucky socks..
Should you provide any content from others which is not consistent with bottom feeders, I will absolutely read and review.
At this time, your efforts would be better spent figuring out why your sleep patterns are not good when you do not have the "comfort" of your wired pacifier (as it were).
Personally, I would look at:
1. You have a large transformer nearby which has a 120 hz constant hum in the background. I'd be bonkers if I had to listen to that every single night. Perhaps you should try one of those background wave sound generators to hide the hum.
2. The fans you note go on randomly, depending on ambient temperature and power utilization through the transformer. They'll wake you up whenever they turn on.
3. Ambient light is another well documented (scientifically) problem for some. Me, I can't have a nightlite, need room darkening shades as well, or my sleep goes all to heck. You moved a light source (clock) away, and claim it helps.
Think about it more. You're sitting in a baseball stadium with a headache, blaming the grass cause it's too green, the sky cause it's too blue, the lines on the field cause their too straight, the uniforms cause the're too garish colored, but totally neglecting the guy next to you hitting you upside the head with a baseball bat..
The term I use here is Ice cream science.. Ice cream is sold at the beach, sharks attack at the beach, therefore ice cream causes sharks.
While you have referred to us as "deniers", you are actually the one denying science and scientific methodology. I have NO DOUBT that you were having sleep issues as you claim, and NO DOUBT that having done "something", you may be sleeping better. However, your claims (as it were) are incorrect, and you are attempting to present bogus "science" in support.
You need to search the true cause of the problem, I have provided a few places to look. Good luck.
John
Last edited:
Ah, pardon my mistake. I incorrectly attributed the nearby transformer with Retsel, who is not the OP.
Retsel, all else still applies to you. Good luck trying to figure out why your sleep is a problem.
But you're looking in the wrong places.
John
Retsel, all else still applies to you. Good luck trying to figure out why your sleep is a problem.
But you're looking in the wrong places.
John
Not always the case.
For example the Grandfather clock with the chiming every hour and half hour. If you can hear it in the bedroom at first the damn thing will wake you up all through the night every hour and half hour. But if you do not turn off the chimes with the passing of a few sleepless nights the mind learns to tune out the sound of the clock. Even that constant tic tock sound it makes. For those of you that own a Grandfather clock you know what I mean.
Same for the constant hum of the transformer. The mind leans to either tune out the constant sound or adjusts to it.
As for the cooling fans on the transformer turning on and off, unless they are really loud, to me that would not be any different to getting use to the furnace fan turning on and off through the night and hearing the forced air through the register/s and cold air return. Then add to that that damn fume exhaust induction fan that kicks on first when the stat calls for heat. That took some time for my brain to tune out, but it eventually did.
Same goes for summer air conditioning. Blower fan kicks on and off through the nighttime while sleeping. In some cases the outside AC condenser cooling fan can be heard kicking on and off from the adults bedroom or that of a child's. Again in most cases the mind tunes out the sound.
SLEEP MACHINE! My wife cannot sleep without it. Yes my brain even learned to tune that damn thing out too. Though the thing sets on her nightstand near her ears turned down low so I hardly hear it. Even that I don't notice anymore.
YMMV as well as the OPs though.
Totally agree. Sometimes I can sleep through violent t-storms, sometimes I hear everything and wake up.
I was just putting some possibilities out there that are far more plausible reasons for poor sleep at night.
But what about the line cord on the Grandfather clock? Perhaps it's putting out 60 hz magnetic fields??
Just joshin, my GF clock doesn't normally wake me. Even the random weight clunk caused by either chain stretch or sprocket tooth wear doesn't wake me. Eventually, I'll get around to disassembly of the movement and fix that clunk, been kinda busy..you know what they say about the cobbler's kid's shoes..
John
I happened to read this last night:
The Crusade Against Multiple Regression Analysis | Edge.org
The Crusade Against Multiple Regression Analysis
A Conversation With Richard Nisbett
That was sooo cool... I just KNEW there was something about civil engineers and mozzarella cheese...
John
Earthing affects EEG brain waves in half of subjects tested
Since several of you are making judgements without looking at any of the data, and for others who are just too busy to take the time to research them, I am posting the results (see below) summarized in one of the journal articles. What is fascinating about the measurements of EEG (brain waves - alpha, beta, theta delta) is the variability in the effects of earthing. Clearly as earthing is administered (there were experimental and control subjects to control for the placebo effect), there is a sudden and significant impact on about half of the subjects, but what is fascinating is that half have increased activity while others have decreased activity. Of course more research needs to be conducted to better understand why directionality of the results varied, and why some had an effect while others had no effect at all. Another issue is that the effects were noted only in the left side of the brain. The journal article provides a couple images of EEG waves for 2 of the subjects which are fascinating to view.
One thing I would like to clear up is that someone incorrectly concluded that I am pursuing this because I have insomnia. That is not true, the original poster had insomnia and I simply posted about earthing as something to try since it seems to work for some individuals with insomnia. I have always been a very sound sleeper. However, my perception of the effect of earthing is that I am sleeping a little better and seem to manage with less sleep.
Retsel
The effect of earthing (grounding) on human physiology
Gaétan Chevalier1, Kazuhito Mori2, and James L. Oschman3
1 California Institute for Human Science, Graduate School & Research Center, Encinitas, CA
2 California Institute for Human Science, Graduate School & Research Center, Encinitas, CA
3 Nature’s Own Research Association, Dover, NH
EEG
As mentioned earlier, EEG recordings were taken for both left and right hemispheres at points Fp1 (left hemisphere) and Fp2 (right hemisphere) in the international 10-20 system of electrode
placement. Inspection of rms EEG recordings showed an abrupt change (decrease or increase) at earthing time in the left hemisphere for a number of subjects but no change was visible in any recording of the
right hemisphere (see Figure 1 for examples of recording displays). Consequently, it was decided to test if the changes observed in left hemisphere recordings were statistically significant. The results for 22 earthed subjects are presented in Table 2. Only the data of 22 experimental subjects were used because the data of the 6 others were not complete enough due to instrumental error.
Table 2: t-tests results for rms EEG recordings of 22 earthed subjects (left hemisphere)
Parameter pre-test post-test change
t-test probability M SD M SD
df* = 20 (two tails)
Beta left 1.98 1.77 0.61 0.50 -1.37 1.86
0.10
Alpha left 3.44 1.54 3.00 1.32 -0.44
1.09 ns**
Theta left 3.24 8.7 3.03 0.94 -0.21
0.89 ns
Delta left 3.98 1.74 3.54 1.95 -0.44
1.01 ns
T/B left 2.07 0.56 2.04 0.78 -0.03 0.13
ns
D/B left 2.45 1.32 2.35 1.39 -0.10 0.39
ns
* df = degrees of freedom ** ns = not significant
As shown in Table 2, on all scales the earthed subjects tended to show a decrease in mean rms values pre- and post-earthing, although no statistical significance was reached (Beta left just failed to reach significance with p < 0.10). However, inspection of rms data recordings of experimental subjects clearly shows an abrupt change for many of these subjects at the time of
earthing, and this change continued throughout the earthing period. However the changes were increases or decreases and it 5 6 seemed as though there was a wash-out or cancelling effect in the results shown in Table 2 when
both increases and decreases were pooled in the same statistical analysis. To see if this was correct, pre- and post-earthing data were compared using a t-test for correlated samples of the absolute rms values of the changes. Statistical significance was found at the 0.001 level of confidence for Beta left, Alpha left, Theta left and Delta/Beta (D/B) left and at the 0.004 level
of confidence for Delta left and Theta/Beta (T/B) left (see Table 3).
Table 3: t-test results of absolute changes for rms EEG recordings of 22 earthed subjects (left hemisphere)
Parameter pre-test post-test change
t-test probability M SD M SD
df = 20 (two tails)
Beta left 2.07 0.57 1.73 0.43 -0.34
5.07 0.001
Alpha left 3.87 1.62 2.77 1.07 -1.10
4.89 0.001
Theta left 3.49 1.01 2.78 0.61 -0.71
4.17 0.001
Delta left 4.23 1.95 3.09 1.55 -1.14
3.61 0.004
T/B left 2.27 0.70 1.83 0.57 -0.44 3.52
0.004
D/B left 2.75 1.35 2.06 1.26 -0.69 4.10
0.001
As mentioned earlier the abrupt changes pre- and post-earthing occurred only in the left hemisphere rms signals. Figure 1 shows examples of two subjects from the experimental group (subjects 4 and 6). Each scale (Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta) represents 56 minutes of recording: the first half of
the scales are pre-earthing and the second half after earthing. Right hemisphere rms recordings are shown in blue; left hemisphere rms recordings are shown in red. The abrupt shift in the left hemisphere (red) is clearly seen exactly at the midpoint of these graphs, when the subjects were
earthed (arrow). This shift continues throughout the intervention period. Little if any change occurs in the right hemisphere (blue). Similar graphs for control subjects showed no observable change in left or right hemisphere rms recordings.
Figure 1. EEG changes in left hemisphere rms recordings. First 28 minutes pre-earthing; second 28-minutes after earthing (arrow shows when earthing intervention begins). An immediate and abrupt shift occurs in the left hemisphere (red) in one or more of the EEG scales (Beta, Alpha, Theta,
Delta) when subjects are earthed; changes are maintained throughout the earthing period. The right hemisphere (blue) did not change.
During earthing, 12 out of 24 graphically analyzed earthed subjects showed a significant increase or decrease in one or more of the 4 EEG scales for the left hemisphere (Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta). There is a relatively equal distribution of increases verses decreases in all scales, for the subjects in which change occurred (Table 4). For example, in 4 subjects both Beta left and Alpha
left increased and in 5 subjects both Beta left and Alpha left decreased. In general changes were more dramatic and obvious for Beta left and Alpha left than Theta left and Delta left.
Since several of you are making judgements without looking at any of the data, and for others who are just too busy to take the time to research them, I am posting the results (see below) summarized in one of the journal articles. What is fascinating about the measurements of EEG (brain waves - alpha, beta, theta delta) is the variability in the effects of earthing. Clearly as earthing is administered (there were experimental and control subjects to control for the placebo effect), there is a sudden and significant impact on about half of the subjects, but what is fascinating is that half have increased activity while others have decreased activity. Of course more research needs to be conducted to better understand why directionality of the results varied, and why some had an effect while others had no effect at all. Another issue is that the effects were noted only in the left side of the brain. The journal article provides a couple images of EEG waves for 2 of the subjects which are fascinating to view.
One thing I would like to clear up is that someone incorrectly concluded that I am pursuing this because I have insomnia. That is not true, the original poster had insomnia and I simply posted about earthing as something to try since it seems to work for some individuals with insomnia. I have always been a very sound sleeper. However, my perception of the effect of earthing is that I am sleeping a little better and seem to manage with less sleep.
Retsel
The effect of earthing (grounding) on human physiology
Gaétan Chevalier1, Kazuhito Mori2, and James L. Oschman3
1 California Institute for Human Science, Graduate School & Research Center, Encinitas, CA
2 California Institute for Human Science, Graduate School & Research Center, Encinitas, CA
3 Nature’s Own Research Association, Dover, NH
EEG
As mentioned earlier, EEG recordings were taken for both left and right hemispheres at points Fp1 (left hemisphere) and Fp2 (right hemisphere) in the international 10-20 system of electrode
placement. Inspection of rms EEG recordings showed an abrupt change (decrease or increase) at earthing time in the left hemisphere for a number of subjects but no change was visible in any recording of the
right hemisphere (see Figure 1 for examples of recording displays). Consequently, it was decided to test if the changes observed in left hemisphere recordings were statistically significant. The results for 22 earthed subjects are presented in Table 2. Only the data of 22 experimental subjects were used because the data of the 6 others were not complete enough due to instrumental error.
Table 2: t-tests results for rms EEG recordings of 22 earthed subjects (left hemisphere)
Parameter pre-test post-test change
t-test probability M SD M SD
df* = 20 (two tails)
Beta left 1.98 1.77 0.61 0.50 -1.37 1.86
0.10
Alpha left 3.44 1.54 3.00 1.32 -0.44
1.09 ns**
Theta left 3.24 8.7 3.03 0.94 -0.21
0.89 ns
Delta left 3.98 1.74 3.54 1.95 -0.44
1.01 ns
T/B left 2.07 0.56 2.04 0.78 -0.03 0.13
ns
D/B left 2.45 1.32 2.35 1.39 -0.10 0.39
ns
* df = degrees of freedom ** ns = not significant
As shown in Table 2, on all scales the earthed subjects tended to show a decrease in mean rms values pre- and post-earthing, although no statistical significance was reached (Beta left just failed to reach significance with p < 0.10). However, inspection of rms data recordings of experimental subjects clearly shows an abrupt change for many of these subjects at the time of
earthing, and this change continued throughout the earthing period. However the changes were increases or decreases and it 5 6 seemed as though there was a wash-out or cancelling effect in the results shown in Table 2 when
both increases and decreases were pooled in the same statistical analysis. To see if this was correct, pre- and post-earthing data were compared using a t-test for correlated samples of the absolute rms values of the changes. Statistical significance was found at the 0.001 level of confidence for Beta left, Alpha left, Theta left and Delta/Beta (D/B) left and at the 0.004 level
of confidence for Delta left and Theta/Beta (T/B) left (see Table 3).
Table 3: t-test results of absolute changes for rms EEG recordings of 22 earthed subjects (left hemisphere)
Parameter pre-test post-test change
t-test probability M SD M SD
df = 20 (two tails)
Beta left 2.07 0.57 1.73 0.43 -0.34
5.07 0.001
Alpha left 3.87 1.62 2.77 1.07 -1.10
4.89 0.001
Theta left 3.49 1.01 2.78 0.61 -0.71
4.17 0.001
Delta left 4.23 1.95 3.09 1.55 -1.14
3.61 0.004
T/B left 2.27 0.70 1.83 0.57 -0.44 3.52
0.004
D/B left 2.75 1.35 2.06 1.26 -0.69 4.10
0.001
As mentioned earlier the abrupt changes pre- and post-earthing occurred only in the left hemisphere rms signals. Figure 1 shows examples of two subjects from the experimental group (subjects 4 and 6). Each scale (Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta) represents 56 minutes of recording: the first half of
the scales are pre-earthing and the second half after earthing. Right hemisphere rms recordings are shown in blue; left hemisphere rms recordings are shown in red. The abrupt shift in the left hemisphere (red) is clearly seen exactly at the midpoint of these graphs, when the subjects were
earthed (arrow). This shift continues throughout the intervention period. Little if any change occurs in the right hemisphere (blue). Similar graphs for control subjects showed no observable change in left or right hemisphere rms recordings.
Figure 1. EEG changes in left hemisphere rms recordings. First 28 minutes pre-earthing; second 28-minutes after earthing (arrow shows when earthing intervention begins). An immediate and abrupt shift occurs in the left hemisphere (red) in one or more of the EEG scales (Beta, Alpha, Theta,
Delta) when subjects are earthed; changes are maintained throughout the earthing period. The right hemisphere (blue) did not change.
During earthing, 12 out of 24 graphically analyzed earthed subjects showed a significant increase or decrease in one or more of the 4 EEG scales for the left hemisphere (Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta). There is a relatively equal distribution of increases verses decreases in all scales, for the subjects in which change occurred (Table 4). For example, in 4 subjects both Beta left and Alpha
left increased and in 5 subjects both Beta left and Alpha left decreased. In general changes were more dramatic and obvious for Beta left and Alpha left than Theta left and Delta left.
As I stated earlier, in determination of cause/effect/correlation, it is EXTREMELY important that the measurement be done accurately.
Do you have any idea what the level of voltage is for EEG waves?
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to electrically measure them?
Do you have any idea what level of filtering is required in order to pull the room environment electrical and magnetic noise out of the signals being detected?
One of the most important things the front end electrical systems in an EEG does is to use one of the electrodes attached to the patient as a reference ground. If the patient has been connected to earthing ground ANYWHERE during the test, it messes up the front end electronics reference potential as well as upset all the front end DSP.
That is low level instrumentation standard operational procedure, guarantee that the patient is not connected to anything that can upset the instrumentation.
Perhaps you should inform the researchers of that content that they really need to READ THE INSTRUCTION MANUALS. Connecting the patient to earth screws up the readings!! GIGO.
Sigh, where's an electrical engineer when you need one??
ps...Oh, directly quoted from your post: ""Only the data of 22 experimental subjects were used because the data of the 6 others were not complete enough due to instrumental error.""
The fact that 22/28, or 78% of the EEG's provided useable date should have been their first clue. HOW MANY medical test regimes allow for a 22% failure rate?
When they realized that, they should have immediately stopped their data taking and evaluated why a tried and true technology was giving them problems to the tune of 22 percent.
That should also be a lesson to YOU. You read that whole thing, right? Why did YOU not question the fact that they had measurement problems despite the fact that I pointed out to you measurement is KEY?
In this internet/google age, it is VERY important that people learn how to interpret and question any online content.
John
Last edited:
That's why the cite is important- to see if the authors controlled for the basics. Remember the strain gage tests to validate the spoon benders? The guy who blew the hole through that test was Paul Horowitz.
I believe nobody has claimed you suffer from insomnia. You do however, claim that ""I am sleeping a little better and seem to manage with less sleep.""
And you are trying to present scientific research in support of your perceptions.
As you chose to call those who disagree with you "deniers", I find it necessary to point out to you the flaws in what you are reading.
One of the most dangerous things about the internet nowadays, is that people like you, not trained in a specific field, cannot recognize when content is totally bogus.. you do not have the knowledge database necessary to make decisions as to the accuracy of these website claimings.
Another dangerous thing is, you've had people here explain to you the shortcomings of what you are presenting, but you choose to attack us (mildly, not so bad and I thank you for that). We are not your enemy, nor deniers.. some of us are actually quite knowledgeable in this stuff.
I teach advanced electrical safety as part of my job, and I am ALWAYS open to any possibility that there are hazards out there not yet understood.
John
I had a professor once who used the expression, "Like weighing the captain of a ship by weighing the ship with the captain, weighing the ship without the captain, then subtracting."
Study citation
The journal article excerpt was printed in the Journal of European Biology and Bioelectromagentics, Jan 31, 2006.
As far as throwing out data judged as incomplete, data is thrown out of many (most?) studies for a variety of reasons. It is a sign of a sound study to evaluate the data and toss out the bad data. Furthermore if entire data sets were tossed aside due to some questionable data, it would waste billions of dollars spent on data collection. Finally, it is not as if those data sets affected anything. The study readily described how some subjects showed no impact by earthing, and some subjects had lower EEG readings while others had higher readings. I would think that if the researchers wanted to bias their findings, that they would have thrown out the data for those subjects which showed no change, or those which only showed an increase or decrease in EEG readings. Frankly, I cannot think of a way that the removed data might have biased the results. The study should have described the reasons why it omitted those data, though, as it does raise questions about the capabilities of the researchers.
If the grounding (earthing) of the subjects would have biased the results, then I would have expected to see ALL EEG readings to be affected the same way (such as lower measured output). But that is not the case, the measured EEG levels in some subjects actually increased, suggesting that the grounding of the subjects did not affect the measurements. Also, the procedure was reviewed beforehand for its soundness. I personally don't know this particular apparatus and how it works.
Keep in mind that there are many studies now which have found very positive results associated with earthing, and the effect is immediate and reproducible. The effect on EEG brain waves is an attempt to understand why sleep patterns improve in subjects who are earthed, and why cortisol levels decrease. Also, there are changes to the immune system and decreases in blood viscosity.
Also, I am coming at this from a place where I already read over and over about some of the physiological effects of electricity on the body as I have been studying this for over 10 years. Based on this base knowledge, I would have thought that earthing would cause positive health effects - and the results of these studies provides compelling proof.
Again, if you are starting from no background on this, I suggest that you read Robert Becker's book, The Body Electric. He was able to understand and accomplish some amazing things. For example, salamanders are able to regrow whole limbs. Becker was able to regrow whole limbs in frogs which do not normally have that capability, and heal bone abnormalities when no other intervention was able to do so. He also was able to show how humans can regrow fingers if the conditions are right. He was one of the first who determined that EMF radiation has a negative effect on human health and fought hard to expose and increase regulations to reduce the detrimental effects of electricity on human health. Again, this is why earthing makes so much sense.
I guess I can understand why some of you cannot wrap your heads around this. I think that you first need to understand that humans are electricity machines. Nerves (including the brain) and muscles and in fact all cells run on electrical signals. You must start with this understanding to begin to understand how electricity can affect humans (both positive and negative).
Retsel
The journal article excerpt was printed in the Journal of European Biology and Bioelectromagentics, Jan 31, 2006.
As far as throwing out data judged as incomplete, data is thrown out of many (most?) studies for a variety of reasons. It is a sign of a sound study to evaluate the data and toss out the bad data. Furthermore if entire data sets were tossed aside due to some questionable data, it would waste billions of dollars spent on data collection. Finally, it is not as if those data sets affected anything. The study readily described how some subjects showed no impact by earthing, and some subjects had lower EEG readings while others had higher readings. I would think that if the researchers wanted to bias their findings, that they would have thrown out the data for those subjects which showed no change, or those which only showed an increase or decrease in EEG readings. Frankly, I cannot think of a way that the removed data might have biased the results. The study should have described the reasons why it omitted those data, though, as it does raise questions about the capabilities of the researchers.
If the grounding (earthing) of the subjects would have biased the results, then I would have expected to see ALL EEG readings to be affected the same way (such as lower measured output). But that is not the case, the measured EEG levels in some subjects actually increased, suggesting that the grounding of the subjects did not affect the measurements. Also, the procedure was reviewed beforehand for its soundness. I personally don't know this particular apparatus and how it works.
Keep in mind that there are many studies now which have found very positive results associated with earthing, and the effect is immediate and reproducible. The effect on EEG brain waves is an attempt to understand why sleep patterns improve in subjects who are earthed, and why cortisol levels decrease. Also, there are changes to the immune system and decreases in blood viscosity.
Also, I am coming at this from a place where I already read over and over about some of the physiological effects of electricity on the body as I have been studying this for over 10 years. Based on this base knowledge, I would have thought that earthing would cause positive health effects - and the results of these studies provides compelling proof.
Again, if you are starting from no background on this, I suggest that you read Robert Becker's book, The Body Electric. He was able to understand and accomplish some amazing things. For example, salamanders are able to regrow whole limbs. Becker was able to regrow whole limbs in frogs which do not normally have that capability, and heal bone abnormalities when no other intervention was able to do so. He also was able to show how humans can regrow fingers if the conditions are right. He was one of the first who determined that EMF radiation has a negative effect on human health and fought hard to expose and increase regulations to reduce the detrimental effects of electricity on human health. Again, this is why earthing makes so much sense.
I guess I can understand why some of you cannot wrap your heads around this. I think that you first need to understand that humans are electricity machines. Nerves (including the brain) and muscles and in fact all cells run on electrical signals. You must start with this understanding to begin to understand how electricity can affect humans (both positive and negative).
Retsel
LOL. Digging your heels in and stating something rather obvious in a VERY foo-foo way (and completely leaving out chemistry) is not an argument. But it does show something very common, that proving someone wrong often only makes them more attached to their beliefs.
The Backfire Effect
Last edited:
Obviously the researchers you cited also do not know how it works.
Well, I do. And earthing the subject is NOT what the machine is designed for. Once you've compromised the equipment, you cannot trust the data.
When a researcher also has no knowledge of what can screw up the readings and the reading accuracy, then that research is deemed questionable.
That is exactly what you did with the voltmeter as well. You've no idea how it works, nor what it's limitations are. Yet, you explain to us as if we don't know. I believe I own voltmeters older than you.
Hmmm. ""Read over and over"". So, you are not a trained engineer. Nor are you a trained biomedical researcher, right? But you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, right?
I make the assumption that you don't have a scientific degree. If that's the case, then you are in way over your head here.
We've been trying to get you to actually question the questionable. But clearly, from your "reading over and over", you have no base knowledge in a subject you're trying to preach on.
As opposed to engineers, physicists, and scientists on this forum with anywhere from 3 to 4 decades of experience and knowledge behind them. Trust me, googling for 10 years and believing zealots is not the same thing as actually learning something.
It's also clear from you statement, ""I would have thought that earthing would cause positive health effects"", that you enter into this with preconceived beliefs.
That is your first and biggest mistake. Scientists never do that.
So far, you've batted a great big zero. All you've shown us so far is that a group of researchers don't know how to properly use an EEG, and more importantly, don't know when their data is bad yet still writes a paper.
As a reviewer of papers for publications of very high technical content, that paper would have been rejected by me for the fault I pointed out. Clearly, some disciplines require a more substantial peer review process lest the garbage make it into print and embarrass everybody.
Sometimes a paper is "ok as is"
Sometimes a paper is "ok after modification"
Sometimes a paper is "there are faults, the researcher needs to go back and fix"
And then there's "are you kidding me, you wasted my time reviewing this garbage??? ""
John
Last edited:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...4AC6185ABAC23624C62.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Can't say this is peer reviewed research by any stretch!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.