Beijing in 1987 and published in a peer-reviewed American journal 22 . Positive signals above background levels, claimed to be qi, were reported in standard radiation dosimeters. Both the background levels and signals were quite high. Other phenomena were reported that I did not consider because the paper lacked sufficient information.
The Yan paper was not published until 2002 and makes no mention of any successful (or unsuccessful) attempts at replication during the intervening years. The results are difficult to evaluate from the data presented. Furthermore, no error estimates are given, which would be sufficient cause to deny publication in most reputable scientific journals.
Nevertheless, the data presented are sufficient in the case of one experiment to draw some conclusions. In this experiment, Dr. Yan “emitted qi” during an eleven-hour (!) “lecture.”
Thermoluminescence dosimeters
(TLDs) of the type commonly used in nuclear laboratories to measure radiation exposure were placed throughout the auditorium. Doses significantly above background were reported from different directions, indicating that the supposed qi-rays were unfocused. Although some of the other experiments contained controls, no measurements taken under identical conditions with the qi master absent are reported for this particular experiment.
In figure 3.1, I have plotted the reported dosages measured by two types of TLDs as a function of distance from the podium.
One type [7LiF(Mg,Ti)] is sensitive to gamma rays while the other type [6LiF(Mg, Ti)] is sensitive to thermal neutrons as well as gamma rays. I averaged over the two sides of the auditorium where the intensities were comparable. The squares and circles on the figure show the measured radiation exposure in milliroentgens (mR) accumulated over the eleven-hour experiment. For gamma rays, one milliroentgen is approximately equivalent to one millirem (mrem), the unit used to measure biologically significant exposure. If the numbers are accurate, they represent an intensity that would exceed the generally considered safe dosage if experienced steadily for a year, five thousand mrem. That is, the recorded radiation intensity was appreciable.
At the same time, the dosimeters used in the experiment are designed for measuring long-term accumulated exposure with about a ten-mR detection limit. They were not particularly suit able for the short-term exposures used here, and more precise instruments for measuring instantaneous radiation intensities are readily available. As mentioned, no estimates or errors are given in the paper (sufficient cause for its rejection). If we put ten mR error bars on the data points, the results are insignificant.
----
Fig. 3.1.
Results from the experiment of Xin Yan et al. The square points are the data from the dosimeters sensitive to neutrons and γ-rays. The round points are γ-rays only. The solid curve shows what would be expected if the measured radiation were conserved as would be expected for any form of energy.
----
The authors claim numerous reports from the audience of beneficial health effects, although they present no data on this.
Gamma rays and neutrons are not noted for their positive health consequences unless directed at tumors, and the authors concede, “It is highly unlikely that the qi field generated by Dr. Yan contains actual gamma rays and neutrons. Rather the TLD readings seem to be a phenomenological description of the interactions between a TLD detector and Dr. Yan’s qi field.” They offer no theoretical model for the phenomenon, no suggestion on how qi-rays might affect these particular detectors.
Independent of the significance of the dosage level, we see in figure 3.1 that the “gamma-ray” data actually increase with distance, while the “neutron-plus-gamma” data show no significant distance effect. The smooth curve plotted on the same graph shows the (unobserved) falloff with the square of distance that is required
The Yan paper was not published until 2002 and makes no mention of any successful (or unsuccessful) attempts at replication during the intervening years. The results are difficult to evaluate from the data presented. Furthermore, no error estimates are given, which would be sufficient cause to deny publication in most reputable scientific journals.
Nevertheless, the data presented are sufficient in the case of one experiment to draw some conclusions. In this experiment, Dr. Yan “emitted qi” during an eleven-hour (!) “lecture.”
Thermoluminescence dosimeters
(TLDs) of the type commonly used in nuclear laboratories to measure radiation exposure were placed throughout the auditorium. Doses significantly above background were reported from different directions, indicating that the supposed qi-rays were unfocused. Although some of the other experiments contained controls, no measurements taken under identical conditions with the qi master absent are reported for this particular experiment.
In figure 3.1, I have plotted the reported dosages measured by two types of TLDs as a function of distance from the podium.
One type [7LiF(Mg,Ti)] is sensitive to gamma rays while the other type [6LiF(Mg, Ti)] is sensitive to thermal neutrons as well as gamma rays. I averaged over the two sides of the auditorium where the intensities were comparable. The squares and circles on the figure show the measured radiation exposure in milliroentgens (mR) accumulated over the eleven-hour experiment. For gamma rays, one milliroentgen is approximately equivalent to one millirem (mrem), the unit used to measure biologically significant exposure. If the numbers are accurate, they represent an intensity that would exceed the generally considered safe dosage if experienced steadily for a year, five thousand mrem. That is, the recorded radiation intensity was appreciable.
At the same time, the dosimeters used in the experiment are designed for measuring long-term accumulated exposure with about a ten-mR detection limit. They were not particularly suit able for the short-term exposures used here, and more precise instruments for measuring instantaneous radiation intensities are readily available. As mentioned, no estimates or errors are given in the paper (sufficient cause for its rejection). If we put ten mR error bars on the data points, the results are insignificant.
----
Fig. 3.1.
Results from the experiment of Xin Yan et al. The square points are the data from the dosimeters sensitive to neutrons and γ-rays. The round points are γ-rays only. The solid curve shows what would be expected if the measured radiation were conserved as would be expected for any form of energy.
----
The authors claim numerous reports from the audience of beneficial health effects, although they present no data on this.
Gamma rays and neutrons are not noted for their positive health consequences unless directed at tumors, and the authors concede, “It is highly unlikely that the qi field generated by Dr. Yan contains actual gamma rays and neutrons. Rather the TLD readings seem to be a phenomenological description of the interactions between a TLD detector and Dr. Yan’s qi field.” They offer no theoretical model for the phenomenon, no suggestion on how qi-rays might affect these particular detectors.
Independent of the significance of the dosage level, we see in figure 3.1 that the “gamma-ray” data actually increase with distance, while the “neutron-plus-gamma” data show no significant distance effect. The smooth curve plotted on the same graph shows the (unobserved) falloff with the square of distance that is required
Similar Books
