Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Diagnosis

I think the Article also needs a Diagnosis section when these differences could be expanded upon a bit more. For instance from Rubin the comment; Implications for researchers and clinicians, it says "Identifying what these causes are may require careful investigation. For some, complaints of EHS may mask organic or psychiatric pathology," and from WHO "a medical evaluation to identify and treat any specific conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms, (and) a psychological evaluation to identify alternative psychiatric/psychological conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms, etc"

In addition the following from WHO is also worthy of inclusion in some manner. "Some studies suggest that certain physiological responses of EHS individuals tend to be outside the normal range. In particular, hyper reactivity in the central nervous system and imbalance in the autonomic nervous system need to be followed up in clinical investigations and the results for the individuals taken as input for possible treatment." Jagra (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this section so far and think it is a very good addition. Regarding the claim about Sweden recognising EHS as a functional impairment, I've had a quick look through the paper used to support this, and it seems to me that they use "The Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive http://www.feb.se" as their source (although this is in the following paragraph, and they don't source this statement, unfortunately). A better source would be the official government statement of this. It must exist if this is true, and I'd like to see it - so if any Swedes are reading this I'd be grateful if they could help out. Verbal chat 10:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is more in appendix 8A here Jagra (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And a nice summary of the Swedish position is also available in Annex 4 on page 55 here. It describes the position of the Swedish health authorities as recognising that people with EHS have a disability, but that they refrain from comment about the causes of that disability. The section finishes by saying that "this fact has sometimes been misinterpreted as if electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a recognised medical diagnosis in Sweden." Catpigg (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is important to add this to the article (that EHS is not a recognised medical diagnosis in Sweden) in addition to what we already have, as this comes up very very often. Verbal chat 14:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I have removed the following paragraph as it is unsourced.

No physical treatments currently exist, as the origin of the symptoms is usually ascribed to either classical conditioning or mistaken self-diagnosis. The symptoms are often assumed to have causes that are psychological in nature or to be caused by some other illness that has not yet been treated. Note that the existence of the symptoms is not questioned.

In particular, is there a source to demonstrate that the origin of the symptoms is "usually ascribed to classical conditioning" or "mistaken self-diagnosis"? The source for the symptoms being assumed as psychological in nature seems to be drawing from one particular study which doesn't encapsulate the disease as a whole, it instead refers to just one study. If the symptoms are often assumed to be psychological in nature a major source should be used, such as W.H.O or the Health Protection Agency. Do any of the major sources refer to the symptoms often being assumed to be psychological? The Cognitive Behavioural Therapy studies have not been able to treat this disease effectively.

I would agree with DavidWestlake that the citations do not support the text as written, do not support the assertions of diagnosis, and furthermore is not a suitable source for a medical science citation. Both ref's 22 and 23 are not reliable sources, for medical findings. The study mentioned in both of these , seems to be PMID 18007992, now that is a reliable source, what does it actually say? Well I have read the full report and the ONLY mention of psychology in the entire document was "This elevated level of SC (skin conductance) in IEI-EMF (patients) compared with control individuals may reflect either a psychophysiological stress response to participating in the study or a more general imbalance in autonomic nervous system regulation" In other words this study does not support the current text in any way, meaning the current text is unsourced, and unless RS sources are added, it should now be removed.

Yes, to support the words "the origin of the symptoms is usually ascribed" a major RS review source or a number of separate minor RS sources would be needed.Jagra (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Treatment

I have added some information from the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency review entitled "Definition, epidemiology and management of electrical sensitivity", section 4.5.3 which is a neutral source and a major review. It can be found at http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733810369?p=1197637096018. In particular, page 29 contains a very useful table of all the treatments and their efficacy.

The review discusses the success of neutralizing chemical dilution, antioxidant treatment, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Acupuncture and Shiatsu which has not been documented in the article thus far. The following quote also sheds some light on the applicability of all the treatment studies to date (including C.B.T):

The studies reviewed suffer from a combination of the small numbers of subjects included and the potential variation both within and between study populations. Little information is given as to the attributed exposures of the subjects. These factors limit their general applicability outside the immediate study group. For those studies where detail was available, only two were placebo controlled [Acupuncture and nutrition intervention].

It was also noted that success may have more to do with offering a caring environment as opposed to a specific treatment.

All of these aspects have been added to the document. This review, being conducted by a government agency, is a more authoritative source than the systematic review by Rubin et al. These systematic reviews can be original research (ie. a primary source) depending on the methods used. I think it should be removed, as there aren't any studies mentioned in that review that are not discussed and accounted for by the h.p.a. --ScienceMind (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against the HPA report, but we should defiantly keep the Rubin review. He is one of the most active and prestigious researchers in this field, and isn't a primary source in this case. In addition, just because something is from the government doesn't mean it is a great source. Also, can you/someone explain what the phrase "neutralizing chemical dilution" above refers to? Verbal chat 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what "neutralizing chemical dilution" is either. It's mentioned in the review:

The earliest report described a therapy based on water ‘potentised by subject-specific neutralising EMF frequencies’52. Details of the responses of three patients were reported, with success claimed for around 60 patients at the time of reporting. Treatment methods were described in further detail in a later report.

I wasn't sure how to describe this succinctly, so I've used "neutralizing chemical dilution" which is how it's referred to in table 8.

True, government sources don't have to be good but this review is a good one no doubt and covers pretty much every source and angle on the topic. That's why I don't see the need for a systematic review. Has anyone got a full copy of this report? Perhaps there is a reason why they came to a different conclusion to the h.p.a? --ScienceMind (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds suspiciously like a placebo homeopathy. Verbal chat 15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Having said that, I know someone who took homeopathy drops after major knee surgery and refused any painkillers afterwards. They didn't experience any pain at all - a first according to the surgeons. These are most likely placebo effects and likewise with the neutralization dilution, but I think it would constitute original research to leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceMind (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the latest changes to the Treatment section. It has replaced easily verifiable methods, which possibly have the best chance of success in relieving symptoms ("screening or shielding (such as earthed/grounded metallic netting or paints"), with harder to verify, and questionable methods ("devices emitting 'shielding' electromagnetic fields"). The following sources suggest that such **devices** purported to protect from electromagnetic fields are usually a scam. In effect, the changes replace verifiable methods with questionable methods, which can easily be criticized, again setting up a straw man argument. Here are sources exposing the questionable devices:

• http://www.radiationresearch.org/ScienceandPublicPolicyInstitute.doc
• http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=39t

Meanwhile, here are sources that suggest that many have found metallic netting or shielding paint helpful (whose effectiveness can be easily verified with a sensitive electrosmog detector):

• http://www.robindestoits.org/-Portables,-Wifi-ondes-dangereuses-Emission-66-Minutes-sur-M6-20-05-2008_a348.html
• http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=128
• Public Exposure: Dna, Democracy, & the Wireless Revolution

I have also read studies about those Graham-Stetzer filters helping relieve symptoms of teachers in schools, although I don't know much about it.

This article also mentions VDU filters as one of the methods that didn't help much. I think this is granted considering VDU filters are more designed for electrical or static fields rather than AC electromagnetic fields. Furthermore, most modern LCD monitors no longer have strong AC magnetic fields anyway, which might explain why it's not complained about as much these days, whereas wireless fields are a bigger complaint. So I wouldn't be surprised that they didn't help relieve symptoms.

Arguably the strongest solutions for ES sufferers are being replaced with more questionable solutions, just as the strongest evidence for EHS has previously been removed from the article, although they can still be read in the talk archives.

Pensees (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pensees. The line you reverted was only there to show what kind of treatments ES sufferers commonly use, not whether those treatments work or not. I felt that metal netting and special paint were adequately covered in the first line which says that sufferers "generally try to reduce their exposure as much as possible." With respect to shielding devices, regardless of whether they work or not, the Roosli reference suggests that a little over 10% of sufferers do indeed use them. I will put the line back in, but expand the "generally try to reduce exposure" a little so that it mentions netting as an example. Is that any better? Catpigg (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Infringement of copyright

The following paragraph is an infringement of copyright on the Health Protection Agency's review:

A group of scientists also attempted to estimate the number of people reporting "subjective symptoms" from electromagnetic fields for the European Commission.[14] The group reported that estimates of the total number of cases differed substantially between countries as well as between the answering groups, with self aid group (SAG) estimates consistently around ten times higher than those of centres of occupational medicine (COM). Estimates ranged from less than a few cases per million of the population (COM estimates from UK, Italy, and France) to a few tenths of a percent of the population (SAG estimates in Denmark, Ireland, and Sweden). The group concluded that the differences in prevalence were at least partly due to the differences in available information and media attention around electromagnetic hypersensitivity that exist in different countries. Similar views have been expressed by other commentators.[4]

--ScienceMind (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is in fact true, apart from the first line that paragraph appears on page 25 of the report. I suggest the paragraph be removed (apart from the first sentence). It probably should be removed from this talk page as well. Apart from adding the material back in a non-copyright infringing way, should this be reported to the copyvio people? Verbal chat 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this, I hope it's ok. I had to cut some of the information. Verbal chat 08:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

NO/ONOO cycle

Here is a potential physiological connection between Post Radiation Syndrome PMID 18667279 and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) PMID 11461161 that if established will likely have implications also for EMS and worth watching! Jagra (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead changes

I have reviewed the recent changes to the lead and find both the text and references worthwhile additions. Jagra (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jagra, are you referring to the current lead as is, or the previous changes (now removed) that mention EHS's strongest evidence: mobile phone mast studies and neurological/immunological symptoms, which were rehashed many times in the archives? It would be helpful if you could make it clear, as I'm being threatened to be blocked! Pensees (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the basis in past archive discussions for disputing those references?Jagra (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly of those references PMID 12168254, PMID 15620045, PMID 16962663 are WP:RS sources as is PMID 18648606 which provides further evidence for physiological effects of not only low dose radiation but also magnetic fields. But I am not yet convinced that they support the removed text. Nevertheless, immunological and neurological changes have been reported in peer-reviewed scientific research in response to electromagnetic fields. Non-ionizing electromagnetic fields far below international standards have also been correlated to an increase in EHS-like symptoms in the general population.

For instance where have the first two references been published in the peer reviewed literature? I would think other references could be found to support the first sentence. The second sentence generally appears OK, apart from the word 'far'. Jagra (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. For the first sentence, I wouldn't mind removing the word 'peer-reviewed.' I actually meant to refer to the studies within those two references as being peer-reviewed, as opposed to the two references themselves, but I can see how the wording is unclear. Let me see if I can find another reference as well. For the second sentence, sounds good to remove the word 'far'. Pensees (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Further problem in that many of the references in those first two references do not appear to be published in the peer reviewed literature, and that is usually required for WP:RS purposes. Except say for sources beyond dispute such as WHO etc, if it is in an obscure journal then it is unlikely to have a satisfactory peer review process. Generally any listed in Pubmed are satisfactory, those not need to be questioned. But lets see what you can find. Jagra (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference

I have reinstated an RS ref that supports the text, Other methods often used by sufferers include screening or shielding (such as earthed/grounded metallic netting or paints), electrical filters,[34] It was removed with comments of, (Reverted to revision 228363125 by SesquipedalianVerbiage; Removing new reference. It's a very poor write up of a presentation and a poor primary source) These comments are POV, bordering on OR (very poor write up) ! it is not a presentation but a paper in fact a review, summarising case studies and anecdotal reports (as the abstract says) published in Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):259-68 included in the US National Library of Medicine as PMID 17178585 It is not a study therefore not a primary source so why stop there! What is important is that the Ref is RS and that it supports the text. Jagra (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The version of it I found was a presentation write up. Can you give a full link to the journal paper version (doi?) edit: the PMID didn't show for me just :s I'll look when I have time. The version I read though was absolutely awful. Is "dirty electricity" even an accepted term? I'll have to read the full text again. If anyone knows more about this journal and paper could they please join in here? Verbal chat 07:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find the full version from the link you've provided. Where did you obtain it from? Thanks. Verbal chat 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the PMID link I have given above, up on the right hand side is a blue box titled Informaworld, click on that to access the full article. If you do not subscribe you may need to purchase a copy Jagra (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jagra, can you clarify how the Havas paper supports the idea that electrical shielding or filters is *often* used by sufferers? Does the paper give any indication of what percentage of sufferers use that technique? I have read the paper and can't see any reference to that. Equally, the Smith reference also used in this section (ref 32) makes suggestions as to how electrically sensitive patients might be treated (e.g. by homeopathy), but doesn't say that many electrically sensitive patients do in fact use those kind of treatments. I would suggest dropping both references, and replacing them with the Roosli reference that is already used in the article (ref 3). That paper shows (in figure 4) that sizeable percentages of the sensitive sample in the study (n=429) tried to avoid EMF exposure, use shielding devices, use alternative medicine, take drugs, use meditation etc. I am not sure if additional references are required. Catpigg (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Roosli paper, but if it does show as you indicate I think it is a good suggestion. The text could also be revised to indicate all the approaches used, thanks Jagra (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have altered the text to remove those two references, and to replace them with the Roosli reference. Roosli says that in his sample, the main techniques sufferers used to cope with their illness were: Disconnecting, remove indoor source, avoid exposure, reconstruction*, information*, meditation / body work*, drugs, shielding devices, alternative medicine*, shielding of the dwelling, changing life style*, law complaint*. Those marked with * were used by less than 5% of the sample. Our text summarises this by saying that the main techniques used are avoidance of exposure, medication, CAM and shielding. I didn't think those with less than 5% uptake were worth mentioning, but did think we could combine meditation / body work and alternative medicine into complementary and alternative medicine. Hope you think that's an appropriate summary. Catpigg (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that the wording be revised to take account of recent complaint to say,

Methods often used by sufferers include avoidance of exposure, disconnection or removal of sources, shielding devices, shielding (or screening) of the dwelling , medication and complementary and alternative therapy. [3]

If references are found that specify the type of screening the wording can be further amended to be more specific. Jagra (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That is much neater. Go for it. Catpigg (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree 'electrical devices' which could I suppose at a stretch include house wiring? Jagra (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for house wiring being a problem? I realise that they often produce fields of greater intensity than wifi, for example, but I haven't read of people claiming to be sensitive to wiring. In fact one of the support groups (powerwatch?) did recommend using mains-wiring networking rather than WiFi, even though this clearly is bad science and would probably effect those that are sensitive more (if they exist, of course). I'm interested as this is a claim I've not heard, and would go against the advice of lobby groups. Verbal chat 06:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well there certainly are sources for household wiring and childhood cancers, PMID 453167, and PMID 17341803, but not sure of the co-relationship here. When you mention mains-wiring networking are you talking about shielded cat 5e network cables? Jagra (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant problems for people claiming EHS. This article is about Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, not cancers or other illnesses, and I think we should stick to claims that relate to EHS/ES directly from reliable sources. I haven't read any article that links the symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity to household wiring, and for us to make this link would be OR (and possibly WP:BEANS!). By mains wiring networking, I meant products such as dLAN HomePlug, which uses the existing electrical wiring as a conduit for a home network. Verbal chat 09:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be discounting the possibility of physiological pathways that depending on individual diatheses may cause Cancer in one and auto-immune disease in another, apart from possibilities of co-relationships as suggested by WHO? An open mind is best, with so many unknowns at this point in time. But certainly i agree that the Article should only include WP:RS citations, and that is why I simply queried the situation on this page in the event that someone may know of that relevant source, and frankly that is the only reason I am discussing it now. By the way it cannot be WP:OR or WP:BEANS unless placed in the Article! Using shielded cables is a better precautionary principle.Jagra (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were suggesting that mains wiring in the home or office could trigger EHS, but I've not heard of that being reported - in fact I've read the opposite; that mains wiring is ok, and that it is suggested as a way of avoiding things they feel are harmful such as WiFi. I was simply interested in seeing such a reference if one exists, and I agree it should stay out of the article unless a significant number of people reporting EHS complain about it. The reference to WP:BEANS was that we shouldn't give people who are convinced they suffer from EHS something else to worry about. Verbal chat 18:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. dLAN units do put some limit levels of RF "noise" around mains wiring (I use them myself), but I haven't heard of anyone suffering from any side effects of these. Topazg (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraud charges reported in Science story

I thought this might be worth mentioning here. I'll quote the first two paragraphs from a news story that has appeared in the latest issue of Science:

The only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breakage are at the center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV). Critics had argued that the data looked too good to be real, and in May a university investigation agreed, concluding that data in both studies had been fabricated and that the papers should be retracted.

The technician who worked on the studies has resigned, and the senior author on both papers initially agreed with the rector of the university to retract them. But since then, the case has become murkier as the senior author has changed his mind, saying that the technician denies wrongdoing. He will now agree to retract only one paper, and he also says his critics have been funded by the cell phone industry, which has an obvious interest in discrediting any evidence of harm from its products. (Science 321:1144-1145, 2008).

The two papers both include Hugo Rüdiger as a co-author, and neither is currently used in this Wikipedia article, but this is something we should probably be aware of, just in case. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.microwavenews.com/#September3 (9/3 entry) for Microwave News's response to this article, which lists over 11 other papers besides Rudiger's 2 papers, which point towards changes in DNA breaks, plus additional related studies on similar microwave frequencies. I've found some of the cited papers on pubmed:

• Changes in DNA breaks after Cell phone radiation: PMID 15935405, PMID 17336440, PMID 17011595, PMID 16116041, PMID 18436834, PMID 18509546, PMID 16836873)
• Chromosomal Changes PMID 18439037, PMID 12524674 , PMID 11604062
• Changes in DNA breaks following similar frequencies: PMID 7677797, PMID 8627134, PMID 16458332, PMID 7506381, PMID 12642984

Pensees (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looie, I think this might make a good addition to the mobile phone radiation and health article, and maybe a small mention in this article (but I'm less sure about that). Thanks for the find! Scientific fraud and retractions are huge stories in themselves, and as this develops it may warrant its own article. Verbal chat 08:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This certainly isn't the first time these studies have been accused of fraud, and I think it more prudent to wait for some level of authentication that the results were in fact fraudulent before it decides encyclopaedic recognition. Also the starting statement "The only two peer-reviewed scientific papers..." is completely false, and I find it quite shocking that this got through the editorial process of the most prestigious scientific journal in the world. Powerwatch's mobile phone article also covers a number of other peer-reviewed citations regarding DNA breaks and other forms of cellular damage[1]. This is certainly worth bearing in mind and holding in discussion, but I would be against further action until the accusation has had some substance behind it.Topazg (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far - Science isn't the best journal in the world, and this is from a news section too. I imagine that a sub removed some qualification from the "only two" statement, so I think it is best to wait for more information - but I still think the right place for this is the Mobile phone article. I asked Looie for more details too. Verbal chat 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't actually know anything more about this than the quote I inserted. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

True, this is a fair comment. My memory was that Science had the highest Impact Factor out of the journals (just pipping Nature), and was using this as the benchmark of prestige. Firstly, some quick research hints that it may not in fact have the highest impact factor, and secondly this may not be a sufficient basis for determining notoriety. It is certainly a journal with a very high reputation though. I agree totally that the mobile phone article is more appropriate than an ES one.Topazg (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Austria phone survey

An Austria phone survey has just been included in the prevalence section. The sample is small, the question not very interesting from a medical or scientific point of view, and it doesn't add anything to the article - the other studies already show that many people think they are effected by electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps it is important in that it shows a reduction (3.5% only) and in that case it maybe deserves more details, but unless this paper shows something interesting (I'll try to get hold of a copy) I suggest it is moved here for reference. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: "The objective of the study was to provide updated information and to investigate potential temporal change of the prevalence of EMF-related concerns and hypersensitive persons in Austria since a first study in 1994. It could be shown that the percentage of persons convinced to be sensitive to electricity has increased. In addition, it could be shown that 3.5% persons suffer from adverse health effects attributed to EMF. This is almost twice as the prevalence of 2% estimated in 1994. The results show that concerns about EMF did not decrease with time in spite of scientific studies and health risk assessments concluding that a causal relationship of EMF below recommended reference levels would be implausible." Verbal chat 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In a phone survey in Austria, the question: "Do you feel disturbed from electromagnetic pollution?" was put to 460 people, aged between 15 and 80 (response rate=88%). 3.5% of the respondents defined themselves as electrosensitive, which was an increase on the 2% estimated in 1994. The authors conclude that despite "scientific studies and health risk assessments concluding that a causal relationship of EMF below recommended reference levels would be implausible" concern levels had actually increased.<ref name=schrottner&leitgeb08>{{cite journal | last = Schrottner, J. | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = Leitgeb, N. | title = Sensitivity to electricity – Temporal changes in Austria | journal = BMC Public Health (Open Access) | volume = 8:310 | doi = 10.1186/1471-2458-8-310 | url = http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/310 |year=2008 }}</ref>

Above is the text for discussion. This is certainly a pretty small study in a minor journal. I took it out of the Prevalence section since the most interesting result deals with the observation that, within the limitations of the study, public concern does not track scientific dismissal. This reference might work better in the Treatment section (please discuss). Ideal would be if this result could be paired with one examining the effects of a public safety awareness campaign (like the singing electricity lightning bug, for those of you of a certain age and place). - Eldereft (cont.) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it need to go in at all? Not every study on electrosensitivity needs to be cited on this page! It would an unreadable mess if we tried to do so. Catpigg (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it coming out - that was my original thought. I only edited it to make it more accurate to the source. Verbal chat 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no problems here with leaving it out. I thought it at least worthy of discussion, but unless someone brings some compelling arguments to this discussion it should not be reinserted. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

History

The history section needs to inform the background to the current discussions on the existence, nature, extent and aetiology of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Without such a section the EHS entry lacks important contextualisation. At this stage in our understanding of EHS a primary concern should be to provide a catalogue of the major records of previous apparent instances, to help inform judgements over whether the same symptomology is under discussion for the various apparent occurrences of the syndrome. For instance, there is a need to clarify how far the symptoms for VDU dermatitis correlate with Microwave Illness and Radio Sickness and any current apparent manifestations. The similarities with symptoms from radiotherapy are relevant in that some approaches see the primary aetiology in thermal terms. On these grounds the following aspects are relevant: (1) records of symptoms from classical times; (2) records of symptoms from the 18th century, the earliest for modern times; (3) the beginnings of experiments to produce symptoms during the 18th century; (4) studies of particular EHS symptoms, from Beards onwards, including microwave hearing; (5) the apparent transition of symptoms, from essentially occupational at first, but then, from the late 20th century, apparently identifiable among the general population; (6) the first instances of apparent symptoms affecting a specific local general population. (7) One subsection not included in my entry would be that of instances of famous or well documented people apparently acquiring EHS. A suitable case might be Tesla, who features in many of the standard books.

In due course it might be appropriate to extend the History section into key areas other than just symptomology. Such areas could include: (1) a brief overview of the histories of mechanistic theories for EHS, including those which have now been discarded; (2) an overview of the range of speculation in bioelectromagnetics relevant to EHS, with reference to piezoelectricity, quantum phenomena, geomagnetic fields, lunar periodicity and other factors producing apparently similar symptoms; (3) differences and changes in attitudes amongst scientists towards the existence of EHS. It should be possible to highlight the key historical steps without prejudging any detailed work on aetiology. Denver26 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Two further slight changes to the proposed History section are as follows.

1. After the sentence on EHS as “VDU dermatitis” in the 1970s, there should probably be a sentence referring to some of the more important publications on electromagnetic hypersensitivity: “Becker’s book, The Body Electric of 1985, led to a series of books on electromagnetic hypersensitivity and accounts of people claiming to suffer from it.” Referenced works could include: Becker (1990) Cross Currents, Smith and Best (1990) Electrodynamic Man, Grant (1995) The Electrical Sensitivity Handbook, Granlund-Lind and Lind (2002, 2004) Black on White: Voices and Witnesses about electro-hypersensitivity, Nordström (2004) The Invisible Disease, Philips, Alasdair and Jean, (2006) Electrical Hypersensitivity, A Modern Illness.

2. The research, both theoretical and practical, on sensitivity to high magnetic fields in NMRI scanners might be alluded to, probably after the references to research from 1981 on powerline/MF frequencies: “From 1982 cases of apparent sensitivity to high magnetic fields in MRI scanners were noted and studied.” A reference could be Mansfield and Morris (1982) NMR Imaging in Biomedicine.

For the Notable Cases section, as used on similar sites, I guess four, Tesla, Rea, Brundtland and Figes, could be front-runners, to illustrate supposedly the first case, the first professor of environmental medicine, and people claiming EHS from cell phones and WiFi: “Nikola Tesla, the father of electrical engineering, who in 1880-1881 claimed he became hypersensitive, especially in hearing and sight, aged 25 after working at the Hungarian National Telegraph Company in Budapest, and was “probably the first well documented case of electromagnetic hypersensitivity”, with references to his autobiographical account of 1919 and Smith & Best’s quotation from 1990. “Dr William J Rea, a medical doctor and surgeon, the Director of the Environmental Health Centre, Dallas, and in 1988 the world’s first Professor of Environmental Medicine, at the University of Surrey, England,” referenced to Becker (1990) Cross Currents. “Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, a medical doctor, former Prime Minister of Norway, and Director General of the World Health Organisation 1998-2003, who claimed she had “a strong discomfort and headaches” every time she used a cell phone,” referenced to the Norwegian newspaper article used on her own Wiki entry. “Kate Figes, author and critic from London, England, who claimed symptoms from WiFi include “dizziness, a tingling all over the body (which in my case feels like being scrambled), headaches, extreme fatigue and confusion”,” referenced to articles in the Guardian and the Evening Standard newspapers from London, England. “Accounts by 400 people claiming electrosensitivity were published in 2002”, referenced to the publication Black on White (2002, 2004).Denver26 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have WP:RS/WP:MEDRS that directly relate these effects to the modern myth of EHS, then I'm afraid it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and should not be included. Also, see WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Verbal chat 06:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Electrohypersensitivity - delete and redirect

The Electrohypersensitivity article should be deleted and redirected to this article, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The article here is much more comprehensive and covers the same topic. --papageno (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Electrohypersensitivity merged to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The bit connecting to Johnny Mnemonic was probably WP:original research, and definitely not something I think this article needs. The UK section is old, but might be useful if we establish a Timeline section. The Johansson source in the Sweden section we already discuss, and the Swedish Skeptics link I included in the merge. This might could be integrated better, but here it is. If I recall from the last time we discussed the title, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is the more prevalent term, but we can discuss moving in a new section if necessary. Also, if anyone thinks that additional material needs to be merged, please remember to mention the source article for compliance with the GFDL. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 04:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Washout times"?

Not all of this article is clear, at least to this non-specialist. What e.g. does this mean (just before Diagnosis section): "washout times are needed to prevent a carry-over effect of previous exposure"? Might someone clean things up a little? Testbed (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

By (not very good) example: If you've been in a steam room, and your are going to do an experiment involving steam rooms, the washout time would be the time needed for your body to return to normal after leaving the steam room - so the minimum time before you could do another steam room experiment. So, for you to return to normal temp, dry off, your pores to close, etc. Basically it's the time for all effects to wear off and return to normal. With EHS hough this is zero because it doesn't exist, but in experiments you have to account for it possibly existing. The analogy is to washing something out of a system, like coloured water if you are looking for a leak. That is probably a better example! Verbal chat 11:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevent Papers

I believe that this paper may be relavent to this topic. This whole article currently reads like it was written by the power company and is filled with weasel words to make it as if the whole thing is some sham. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers on the topic that do not use words such as supposed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really familiar with Medical Hypotheses? It does not meet WP:MEDRS. --papageno (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even meet WP:RS. Verbal chat 10:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say to stick it in the article, I said to read it, as it's relevant. Stop diving in and going straight for the jugular. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

However, please remove the word supposed, as it is a well documented and real condition, whatever the cause may be.[2][3] (and you cannot tell me that the WHO is not a reliable source) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, electrical sensitivity of the nature supposed by adherents doesn't exist. As the article takes pains to point out, the symptoms are real, but this cause is not. Verbal chat 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats an absolutely unneutral point of view (A neutral point of view requires looking at it from both sides, not just the "mainstream consensus", or what the authors of this article have deemed as such). The condition is real, the cause is unknown. Read the two papers I included from the world health organization... or would they just be adherents and thus not a reliable source because they advocate something that the "scientific consensus" does not? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The symptoms are real, but are not caused by electromagnetic radiation. That is the mainstream, prominent, scientific, and medical view per WP:RS. This article is also neutral per WP:NPOV. Verbal chat 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are still ignoring that the world health organization says it is real. It is neutral according the cherry picked scientific literature that claims it as ineffective, ditto for it being mainstream. Again, please address the WHO point, as it explicitly states that it is real, and that the cause is unknown. The WHO is one of the most reliable secondary sources available, so if you ignore it, this article is not NPOV (not that it is to begin with, as the whole page dances around the subject as if it is a total sham, as if the scientific view is the only correct view). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like both WHO and Interphone are expecting updates in the next couple months - http://www.icnirp.de/documents/StatementEMF.pdf. We should really avoid citing the fringe stuff except in the article for the author; instead, rely on how reliable sources have presented the rationale for concern or origins of the controversy. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt many people search this article looking to be told "Its a sham, here is a bunch of "proof" by scientists that say it is a sham", nor for the historical context of a "conspiracy theory". I'm sure at least a third of the readers will be people who believe, or have been told, that they are sensitive to EMF. But no, they're wrong because they couldn't tell a false positive from a true positive in a laboratory filled with electrical machinery and equipment. I know that last sentence is irrelevant to the article, but I think wikipedia needs to look beyond ONLY what the mainstream scientific body says about things.

I mean, how many decades after the first warnings about cigarettes came out and the "conclusion" by the scientific mainstream that, yeah, it does cause cancer? The mainstream is not always right, is not the only view, and is not the only view that should be represented. Currently it is, thus, the article pushes a point of view. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Would this: Lakshmikumar, S.T., 2009, "Power Line Panic and Mobile Mania", Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 33, Issue 5, Pg. 35 be considered an applicable paper or is it treading too close to WP:SYNTH? Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, though we should rely on medical sources to document the psychological nature of the condition. That article is a very good basis for documenting the physical impossibility of cell phone communications causing anything, let alone harm. Nevard (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that a physicists conclusions are based on consistent numbers and that a human is not. It is not up to the physicist to make a conclusion on a medical condition. No trained biologist or medical practitioner would ever expect the same level of consistency from experiments with complex living organisms as is possible with simple physical systems. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If a physical action can happen after the physics are considered it is a possibility it may have ramifications in a biological system. But if a physical happening is clearly impossible, no real biological scientist would pretend it could happen. Pretending that there are some complex uncertainties relating to something which is simply impossible is a dead end. Nevard (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

——Start of Comment by papageno——
This is a subject about which Floydian clearly feels passionate. I reply:
1. The Medical Hypotheses (MH) article is not relevant: that the article had to published in such a journal is almost evidence enough. Then there is the compelling and overwhelming weight of evidence in a multitude of other medical and scientific fields that suggest other much more plausible reasons for the maladies the MH author ascribes to Electromagnetic (EM).
2. "Supposed" applies to the basis of the condition being EM, and any other wording is a "weaselly" attempt to suggest otherwise.
3. Readers of WP should expect WP:MEDRS in an article about a medical condition. WP:MEDRS suggests a summary of the scientific consensus, which is what it written in the lead paragraph. WP:MEDRS also suggests "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported." Thus, for example, in the article body in the "Etiology and evidence" section, the opening paragraph gives a view of some of the positions on EMHS, including "Although individuals who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity believe that electromagnetic fields from common electrical devices trigger or exacerbate their symptoms…" and "Some professionals consider electromagnetic hypersensitivity to be a physical condition with an unclear cause, while others suggest that some aspects may be psychological." If you feel an approach other than that advocated currently by WP:MEDRS should be taken, you can suggest changes there or at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine.
4. "Sham" seems to have set you off. No where in the article is the word sham used to describe the condition or sufferers' symptoms. It is only used to describe experimental states used in research. Many investigators in fact have taken pains to recognize explicitly sufferers' pains while rejecting EM as a cause when reporting research results, as they should.
5. The case of Smoking is a red herring.
6. Investigators from a whole range of disciplines have been involved in the examination of EMHS: physicists and biologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, medical doctors, etc. Read the bios of the authors of the journal articles cited as references. And I realize that Floydian's comment relates to the Skeptical Inquirer article suggested by Simonm223.
7. Humans are variable, you are right. I would add further: that researchers are fallible, confounding variables can lurk, the placebo effect may lower, random chance plays a role, and so on. That's why studies are replicated with the largest possible numbers of data points / participants. A combination of plausibility and repeated, statistically-significant evidence — core elements of the scientific method — is the best way we have to address the challenge, and the science conducted on that basis does not suggest EMHS is a condition attributable to EM.
With respect, --papageno (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
——End of Comment by papageno——

1) I said to read that paper, not put it in the article. So many of the editors here have already set their mind to a point of view, often without any sort of research into the subject (some, not all editors). I realize its in a journal that is not a reliable source. It makes some good points about the research that is conducted, and it clues you in to the fact that the way the conclusions of those studies are presented must be interpreted carefully, as the wording may be misleading, or a blatant generalization. For example, "the general public is not at risk" does not mean "There is no risk", it means that only a small percentage of the overall population is affected.

2) Any other wording is weaselly? Supposed is weaselly, it is a pejorative in this context that implies that it absolutely does not exist. See the W.H.O document I posted (and if thats to be updated in a few months, we can look at it again in a few months. Thats not a reason to avoid it in the interim. The non weaselly wording would be to remove "supposed", as the sentence continues on to read "patients claim", which acheives the same result without slashing it down as a "supposed" condition.

3) I'd like to have a link to the papers that declare one study to be the general consensus and another to be the minority view. I'm certain that many of the "studies" are industry studies, and that the ones that are independent probably sway on both sides of the argument.

4) I know the word "sham" isn't in the article. However, the article certainly implies that its fake (or, in other words, a sham)

5) No, its an example of the repression of information in our capitalist society, because money is more important than lives.

6) That comment does relate to the one post. Is skeptical inquirer a MEDRS (I'm only wondering based on the title of it)?

7) I think what science has proven so far is: A) not everyone is affected B) the energy in radio and EMF signals is less than that of a yellow lightbulb, in terms of thermal potential, or whether it will cook you. What is not taken into account is the effects of magnetism on the human body. C) In a lab full of equipment, probably fluorescent lights, and probably in the middle of a city (Or do they conduct the experiments in a grounded building free of any other interference that could be affecting the subjects?) people couldn't tell a false positive (Any research on the opposite, telling them nothing in here gives off EMF, then introducing a false negative to see if they notice?). There are also conditions that are very much related to this, for example scotopic sensitivity syndrome.

That is all - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the inordinate delay in replying.
1) The generally fantastic (in the sense of the first two meanings given for the word given at the Wiktionary entry for the word) reputation of Medical Hypotheses means one should be appropriately cautious when evaluating viewpoints expressed therein. What conclusions does τ wish other commenters to draw from the article? Even if one accepts the premise, what implications does it have for the article? Speculative proposals don't belong in Wikipedia. Note: I rely on the article abstract, as I don't have full access to the article. Secondly, while in scientific terms there can never be a statement that there is no risk to anything (it is a logical impossibility), in lay terms "the general public is not at risk" does mean exactly that "there is no risk for everyone". Other interpretations are attempts to confuse with semantic arguments.
2) This point has been overtaken by the discussion section "Supposed and IP bad faith".
3) Fringe viewpoints need not be included in medical articles as a counterpoint to the consensus view.
4) The article doesn't claim the symptoms are sham, nor belittle those who have them. The article states that electromagnetic radiation (EM) doesn't cause the symptoms. Both views are correct.
5) Views on capitalism and its effects on the flow of information should be expressed in the article on the subject, or perhaps also at conspiracy theory (with gentle humour intended).
6) I don't believe this is a critical information source to pursue for this article.
7) The state of the science is A. No one appears to be hypersensitive to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (OK, outside of light); we should continue to search for the cause of and treat those with the symptoms of EHS. B. The energy potential of non-ionizing radiation below current standards has neither thermal nor magnetic effects; much research and review clearly has examined magnetic effects. C. i. The boat has sailed on provocation research for quibbles on study design to be offered: overwhelmingly, no connections have been found. ii. I surmise User Floydian means to suggest that scotopic sensitivity syndrome and EHS are related because individuals can be sensitive to light and other forms of non-ionizing radiation. However, humans involved systems to detect and process the former; no such systems exist for the latter. No connection can be drawn.
--papageno (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The hypersensitivity is NOT to EM radiation per se

I can only speak from my experience so I'm sorry if you have much more serious condition than I do, I'm just trying to explain that I believe is wrong with how this is explained in media:

The term used to describe this condition is very misleading and vague. I think this also explains why the tests performed have been unable to come up with results. In order to explain the logic behind this conclusion I'll have to sidetrack a bit.

I don't have the expensive equipment necessary to study my own condition but since I do have *some kind of* sensitivity to *something possibly related* in my eyes I can at-least form some speculation based on what I've experienced.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-5UPyE6dcWgC&lpg=PA17&pg=PA17

"While human conscious hearing stops around 20kHz, higher, ultrasonic frequencies in music, up to at least 80kHz, can be perceived by the brain. "

So it appears that some people in professional tests are able to perceive ultrasonic frequency in their brain. Interesting though I'm not able to do this. Some people do note that they become "dumb" in front of the monitor. That's also interesting and I also feel my creative thinking is severely lacking when in front of the monitor so there just may be something to it. (I do music and development and it's definitely easier to think and solve problems when not in front of the computer but I'm not going to speculate on what is the cause for this)

That quote establishes that it is possible that there is something in the brain that can sense very high frequencies. This gives way to assume that in millions of people there are exceptions that could be abnormally sensitive to some type of excitation in the brain.

As for me, I used to be able to watch a TV/CRT without discomfort. After moving to use LCD my eyes started to dry and eventually it went I could only use LCD for few hours without getting a burning sensation in eyes. I've since moved again to a CRT monitor and there was immediate relief. Some points of interest are: Why I get this from some computer LCD with CCFL, not all CCFL? And has it anything to do with flicker? The LCD CCFL's flicker at higher frequency than incandescent and the CRT. But some (rare) LCD do not seem as bad as most. So I do *not* believe the flicker is the reason of the dryness and burning sensation. Keep in mind the burning sensation comes for me at around 8 hours of near continuous LCD use where as with CRT I can watch it 20 hours almost straight with no issue.

What does that leave? It's all just visible light emitting from the display? I believe, as a musician, that just as there are annoying sounds (think a synthesized pulsewave) and pleasant sounds (those most often found from natural sources rather than lab instruments - except my synthesizers of course which I know how to program to be pleasant in the audible range) there exists similar behaviour in other frequencies of EM spectrum. The equipment to accurately capture high energy distortion/IMD transients possibly occurring broadly at very high frequencies would be very expensive if it even exists. So as much as I would like to I'm not equipped to study what is the difference in the radiation from various displays that would explain the burning sensation.

So there are various type of sensitivity and we are not quite sure even to what parameters of the emissions is the sensitivity to. It could WELL be to some very particular type of waveforms/transients/distortions that require very specialized or non-existent equipment to measure. After all it takes very specialized equipment to test for transient issues in the computers multi-Ghz operating range which is where also wireless radios operate.

What I'm trying to say is that unless the people trying to understand this hypersensitivity issue have millions worth of the right kind of kit they may not be getting anywhere and then there's the issue of psychosomatic responses these very sensitive people may ALSO have developed in reaction to getting exposed to the unnatural radiation sources so often that they've begun to just have adverse reaction to seeing electric equipment due to their lack of knowledge what type of radiation source it is that cause the issue.

I brought that last point because after these LCD CCFL issues I've began to be just generally stressed when exposed to CCFL in general even though I don't get the burning feel from such exposure. So simple skin based test be giving false data because the brain reacts to just knowledge of the possible EM emission around the subject as a preventive defensive mechanism.

If you can't tell I'm not very excited about energy saving CCFL lamps. There are also studies showing that switching to them do nothing to solve the greenhouse problem. And did anyone mention what happens when energy/water company income starts dropping due to energy saving? If you guessed the CEO and investors will move from big house to small house and start live frugally, THINK AGAIN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.172.94 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you don't think it's caused by LCD flicker, because LCDs don't flicker. The refresh rate of LCDs refers to how often the screen is updated, not how often it displays an image. The image is constantly being displayed, unlike CRTs. A noticeable CRT flicker is due to the CRT refresh rate not being high enough to fool your eye/brain into thinking the image is there all the time. One suggestion if you're stuck using LCDs is to adjust the color tone of your monitor. Many have different presets, and perhaps you'd respond better to one other than the default. Also? Take breaks. Getting eye strain when looking at a light source for 8+ hours doesn't necessarily indicate a problem with the eyes...99.186.225.51 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget about the mercury in these cfl's that the companies do not warn the consumers about even on the packaging!. Stores instruct their employees to not bring up any of the downfalls to them to customers. Try calling your local hazardous materials disposal locale and ask them what you should do with the CFL that just fell on the kitchen floor and is leaking a liquid metal on the floor. They often won't have a clue.

Also, one of the flaws of the supposed research done on this condition is Scientists only looking at radiation thermally. Yes, it cooks you very slowly. To quote Dr. Paul Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychology at the New York Medical College: "It is generally not appreciated that there is a cumulative effect (on our bodies) and that talking on the cell phone for an hour a day for 10 years can add up to 10,000 watts of radiation. That's 10 times more than you get from putting your head in a microwave oven." What is ignored in these studies is the effect of EM on cell function. There are studies (Even on everyone favourite, pubmed) indicating that mitochrondria and DNA is effected by these fields. Article 1: Yamashita, Kazuhiko; Saito, Masao (2001). "Effects of middle-level static magnetic field on metabolic activity of mitochondria". Electrical Engineering in Japan. 137 (1): 36–41. doi:10.1002/eej.1078. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Article 2: Schmitz, C; Keller, E; Freuding, T; Silny, J; Korr, H (2004). "50-Hz magnetic field exposure influences DNA repair and mitochondrial DNA synthesis of distinct cell types in brain and kidney of adult mice". Acta Neuropathologica. 107 (3): 257–264. doi:10.1007/s00401-003-0799-6. PMID 14689206. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Article 3: Yamashita, K; Ono, T; Saito, D; Saito, M (1999). "Effect of static magnetic field on cell growth and mitochondria". TENCON 99. Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Conference. 2: 1158–1161. doi:10.1109/TENCON.1999.818631. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Article 4: Gorczynska, E; Galka, G; Wegrzynowicz, R; Mikosza, H (1986). "Effect of magnetic field on the process of cell respiration in mitochondria of rats". Physiological chemistry and physics and medical NMR. 18 (1): 61–69. PMID 3022316., but hey, its just a conspiracy, and those tests are LIES.well... at least according to those with an investment in the infrastructure... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that research has only looked at thermal effects is incorrect: a glance at sites listing research conducted over the past years (for example, the Research page and menu links at the University of Ottawa's RFCom.ca web site) would reveal that the vast majority of research has looked at RF exposure levels that include those below the ICNIRP standards, IE below those that cause thermal heating. Next, the comment by Dr. Rosch is unfortunate and unscientific. First, the supposition that there is a cumulative effect [presumably “…of cell phone exposure…” is implied] is an assertion not born out by the evidence to date. The only effect of long term exposure studied long term is on cancer. As the latest comprehensive and authoritative scientific review of the area, one in a biennial series conducted by the European Commission's (the executive body of the European Union) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR; “Health Effects of Exposure to EMF” [PDF format], dated 19 January 2009, URL is to the EU Commission website) says (in Section 4 Opinion, 1. Update, Radio frequency fields (RF fields), beginning at page 60): “It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans. However, as the widespread duration of exposure of humans to RF fields from mobile phones is shorter than the induction time of some cancers, further studies are required to identify whether considerably longer-term (well beyond ten years) human exposure to such phones might pose some cancer risk.” The report later in the same section also says: “Therefore, the conclusion that scientific studies have failed to provide support for an effect of RF fields on self-reported symptoms [IE Electromagnetic sensitivity symptoms] still holds. Scientific studies have indicated that a nocebo effect (an adverse non-specific effect that is caused by expectation or belief that something is harmful) may play a role in symptom formation. As in the previous opinion, there is no evidence supporting that individuals, including those attributing symptoms to RF exposure, are able to detect RF fields.” The opinion is unchanged from their 2007 report. Dr. Rosch then goes on to conflate long-term low-level and short-term acute exposure to radiation, which is incorrect. To draw an analogy, one could stand in the sun for 5 minutes (let alone one hour) every day for ten years, and conservatively receive an exposure of more than one million watts of radiation — elements of which have been conclusively shown to cause cancers —, a level 100 times more than that cited by Dr. Rosch, but one would not equate that (to use a little dramatic prose) with standing for a second in the face of a solar fireball at 100 paces. A number of journal articles are then cited. It is to be saluted that second and fourth have Pubmed references. The first, third and fourth articles all deal with static magnetic fields, and the second with Extremely low frequency fields (ELF fields). Both are distinct from high frequency RF fields, like those produced by mobile telephony. As regards the former, the SCENIHR 2009 report (Section 4 Opinion, 1. Update, Static fields, beginning page 62) says: “Although a fair number of studies have been published since the last opinion, the conclusion drawn there stands: there is still a lack of adequate data for a proper risk assessment of static magnetic fields. More research is necessary, especially to clarify the many mixed and sometimes contradictory results. Short term effects have been observed primarily on sensory functions for acute exposure. However, there is no consistent evidence for sustained adverse health effects from short term exposure up to several teslas.” As regards the latter, the report (Section 4 Opinion, 1. Update, Extremely low frequency fields (ELF fields), beginning page 62, highlighting only the Electromagnetic sensitivity portions) says: “[italic text recapitulates the previous, 2007 opinion] No consistent relationship between ELF fields and self-reported symptoms (sometimes referred to as electrical hypersensitivity) has been demonstrated. … Based on the scientific rationale presented above, the SCENIHR updates the previous opinion and concludes the following: The new information available is not sufficient to change the conclusions of the 2007 opinion. … No new studies support a causal relationship between ELF fields and self-reported symptoms.” Finally, the previous comments include a mention of “LIES” and a “conspiracy” including one attributed “to those with an investment in the infrastructure”. It would seem these comments do not contribute to a rational tone for the discussion about this wikipedia article. --papageno (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Those ending comments weren't directed towards any editors, just the research that is out there, which I feel is heavily influenced by lobbyists. The basis of what I gather from the reports you are quoting is "Results are mixed and inconclusive at this point, therefore we err on the side of ignorance rather than precaution, with regards to the link between the cause and effect of symptoms of Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and radiation emitted by cell phones."

Cell phones are also a small fraction of the magnetism and radiation we are bombarded with constantly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

While I had not perceived the ending comments as having been directed at any editors, the clarification that they were not is welcome. User ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ has not chosen to defend the evidence he presented earlier against my rebuttal. Before we move on to tackle his further comments, perhaps we might ask him to comment and settle that matter first. --papageno (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The hazardous waste people wouldn't know what to do with a broken CFL leaking liquid metal for one simple reason: CFLs contain no liquid metal. It's mercury vapor, and a tiny amount at that.
  
• Each of the studies you linked to has to do with the effects of static magnetic fields on cellular function. EM waves cannot be implicated in affecting cellular function by using studies performed with static magnetic fields. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• And have you broken one of those bulbs or are you saying that based on what science tells you? I have broken one on the floor, and liquid mercury most certainly does come out.
• That's a red herring. If static magnetic fields effect cellular function, then a dynamic magnetic field is going to be the same, if not worse. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to all the journals to offer such a scientific rebuttal as you are able to, and my here-say has no weight behind it. However, I would love to hear your thoughts regarding the two papers I unearthed, currently the bottom section of this talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Supposed and IP bad faith

I'll start another section, since you are clearly not coming here and discussing. I am providing an undoubtable source validating the condition. The World Health Organization easily trumps any source that can be provided. Secondly, it is horrible etiquette to revert edits that aren't vandalism as vandalism. WP:Vandalism addresses what is vandalism, and adding sources is certainly not in that list, nor is something that goes against your personal opinion of the condition.

However, I doubt you have any intention of responding, but I'll wait 48 hours before reverting your personal opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to say the symptoms may be real, but the cause is under dispute - or indeed whether it is a real condition and not a (lay) misdiagnosis in some cases and psychological in others. Your reference does not to my mind support the removal, I agree with the other ip. you seemed to break the footnotes too. isn't there a rule about assuming good faith, which you are breaking above?? If you revert to your unsupported version I'm sure I and others will just fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.168.163 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the causes cause the effects is rather irrelevant. The removal of the word supposed from "supposed condition" does not imply that the causes cause the effects. All it implies is that the condition has recognition from medical/scientific authorities, has been given a name, and is documented as such. The rest of the article can then go on to explain that the symptoms claimed by sufferers are not linked to the causes that they hypothesize. That doesn't mean the condition doesn't exist, period, and has been coined exclusively by the general public, which is what is implied by the word "supposed".

The case of the footnotes is easily fixed. Just a reference that was formatted quickly, which can be easily fixed. Bad faith is bad faith, and reverting legitimate edits as "Clear vandalism" is being a dick. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and your opinion is not supported by references or medical practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.168.163 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Maybe you should read that dick essay too! seems you're the bad faith dick that vandalises the page breaking the footnotes

"Whether the causes cause the effects is rather irrelevant" Really? I think it is rather important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.168.163 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you're looking at another part of the article than I am.

1) Yes, the World Health Organization supports my addition, its the reference I'm using

2) It's NOT vandalism to make a well intentioned edit. It is being a dick to revert that edit as "clear vandalism". Again, the breaking the references is a case of a minor change to the reference I added and is really not a big deal.

3) The cause if the condition is separate from the fact that it has been given a name by a reliable medical source. The fact that the name is published by the World Health Organization is more than enough proof that the medical world acknowledges the existence of the condition. Any subjective editor opinions are irrelevant. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1, no it doesn't (see 3). 2, irrelevant and you did break the page and then accused the person who fixed it of bad faith and being a dick (dickish in the extreme, can you drop that stick now), 3, just because it has been documented doesn't mean it exists, cf. Z rays, orgone, anti-AGW writing, horoscopes, MMR-autism, homeopathy, acupuncture, reki, etc, etc. You are putting extra interpretation on this source that isn't warranted or supported by the source; which I'm guessing isn't allowed. If you have some other reasons, hopefully better, then I'll have a look at those. --86.146.118.236 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, read the document more closely. Is it focused on a condition of which the WHO has named 'Electromagnetic hypersensitivity'? Secondly It is bad faith to revert legitimate edits as vandalism, whether or not you feel the edits were factual. This is explained in detail at WP:vandalism, which is a policy here. This means it is relevant in every situation. In addition, I never broke the page, I simply inserted a reference with less detail filled in than the other reference. This is hardly 'breaking the page' as you claim. Finally, the opening sentence already makes reference to the fact that it is an unproven condition, hence "in which people claim to..." (emphasis my own). The use of the word "supposed" in "is a supposed condition..." implies that the condition itself is non existent (not that the condition is a nocebo). Given the several dozen sources on the subject, it is pretty evident that there is a condition named 'Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity', in which sufferers claim that they are being bombarded by cosmic radiation, however no studies have produced a conclusive link between electromagnetic fields and the self-purported sensitivity perceived by patients. Make more sense now? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Do I think EM fields really cause people to get sick? Hell no. The body of Quantum Physics provides some compelling reasons why it can not. Notwithstanding that a "condition" can be an entirely psychological one. People who wrongly believe that EM fields are making them sick experience this condition. We don't have to suppose the existence of the condition; the contentious question is the nature of the condition. On this I am most likely going to vehemently disagree with Floydian. Doesn't change the fact that this condition, regardless of the cause, is something that happens to people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs)

You're getting into discussing the subject itself. My personal opinion is that the physics examined in terms of EMHS only looks at whether it can cook you, and not the effects of magnetics on cellular functions, which has an established foothold in science. However, that aside, the use of supposed implies that the condition itself does not exist, as opposed to the fact that the connection between cause and effect is unproven. None of the sources on the article reference it as a supposed condition, but rather they question the causes of the symptoms that are grouped together into a condition called EMHS.

Your last sentence speaks something. Doesn't change the fact that this condition, regardless of the cause, is something that happens to people.

Precisely. A condition or a disorder is a group of non-specific symptoms grouped together. This condition is something that happens to people. It may be psychosomatic, or it may be something as of yet undiscovered. The point is that people do experience it, and thus those symptoms are a condition, even if the cause is psychosomatic, its still a condition that has been given a name that is agreed upon by all the medical sources used on the article.

I think it really comes down to needing more opinions. The two of us will not agree. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict} I agree that the word "supposed" is inappropriate. I was simply qualifying that agreement so that other people who agree with me about the cause of the condition will understand why I agree with you (bluntly put because being neurotic about technology is a condition :D) and possibly not accuse you of vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was the IP who posted the message above. My bad :p - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

{undent} No, fault is mine. I forgot to sign. :) Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The condition as described obviously does not exist (although I think the unknown etiology language of the article catches the nuance better), but there is still an identifiable subset of people who report symptoms they ascribe to electrosmog or somesuch. The current opening sentence describes the causal connection as being made by those presenting, which should perfectly adequate without supposed. After the lead is the appropriate place to discuss DSM/ICD/misdiagnosis/etc. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at this point the IP has restored "supposed", but has been banned for using multiple IPs on this article/edit warring. I don't wish to board that boat, so would someone else care to make the reversion? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it. The present language is good enough for me. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with users Simonm223 (talk) and 2over0 (2/0). The use of provocative language, perhaps not intended as such rather intended in good faith, by some commenters in this thread is regrettable. --papageno (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now here's an interesting article

From the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2008, by Samuel Milham and L. Lloyd Morgan, discussing the case of La Quinta middle school, California. After having a new school constructed, the students and teachers began rapidly developing various cancers. Within a year, almost 18 cases of various cancers had appeared in both the teachers and the students, prompting a health and safety inquiry. This paper documents that inquiry. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119553477/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

This second paper is called the BioInitiative report. It was released in 2007 and is the conclusion of fourteen international scientists, with a dozen reviewers. Aside from mentioning one of the biggest points I have tried to make clear (that money has a bigger influence on scientific consensus than science itself does)

Under "Main reasons for disagreements among experts" "10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate." (pg 5)

It goes on to say "It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes - some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death." (pg 6)

Backing up the idea that it is not the energy behind the signals that causes the damage (so whoever tossed that physics article at me can consider it a red herring)

It goes further, examining specific diseases. "There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia." (pg 8) "The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher." (pg 11)

Note that the current safety standard is 933-1000 mG!

"Exposing humans to cell phone radiation can change brainwave activity at levels as low as 0.1 watt per kilogram SAR (W/Kg)*** in comparison to the US allowable level of 1.6 W/Kg and the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) allowable level of 2.0 W/Kg. It can affect memory and learning. It can affect normal brainwave activity. ELF and RF exposures at low levels are able to change behavior in animals." (pg 14)

"People who are chronically exposed to low-level wireless antenna emissions report symptoms such as problems in sleeping (insomnia), fatigue, headache, dizziness, grogginess, lack of concentration, memory problems, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), problems with balance and orientation, and difficulty in multi-tasking. In children, exposures to cell phone radiation have resulted in changes in brain oscillatory activity during some memory tasks. Although scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship; these complaints are widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed (Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Israel). For example, the roll-out of the new 3rd Generation wireless phones (and related community-wide antenna RF emissions in the Netherlands) caused almost immediate public complaints of illness.(5)" (pg 15)

reference 5 reads: TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory, The Netherlands. 2003. Effects of Global Communication System radio-frequency fields on well-being and cognitive functions of human beings with and without subjective complaints. Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research 1-63.

It goes on and on. The conclusions reached are that continuing in a business-as-usual fashion is going to have a profound effect on our well-being in the coming decades, and that precautionary measures must be taken, at the very least in response to the overwhelming number of complaints.

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf

Good reads - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

…but not particularly compelling science.--papageno (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Its a review of current science, not a new experiment. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that it is a review of current science, so much as a collection of individual review papers by authors collated into a bigger whole. It isn't a review in the sense of, for example, an IARC monograph. I think the content would have been much more compelling if it wasn't topped and tailed in quite such a driven political manner. Many of the middle sections have good content in, though being published in a special issue of a journal where the lead editor of the issue was a close colleague of on of the BI authors is a good example of not going about presenting the work in the "right" way. topazg (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall try and write in a little less mischievous manner. Neither item cited is new to this editor. Why do you think the first is a compelling and scientific study? Why do you think the second is a compelling and scientific review? --papageno (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First link above is borked, but I think it is this paper, yes? If so, it is just more of the same. Not to imply that this is what you are doing here, but as a general comment based on my experience editing this article - we need sources describing and summarizing the expert analysis of the topic more than we need a blow-by-blow of every paper that treats the topic, especially since the issue of power lines was pretty firmly settled by the large epidemiological studies a decade ago. Iff other people start using their high frequency voltage transients methodology and this gets picked up by the health physics community, that could be a good source for Electromagnetic radiation and health, though.

I believe that back in the archives there was a fair bit of discussion when the BioInitiative Report came out. It was rejected as a source then because it is a self-published report by a self-selected group with an axe to grind. It appears to have received enough outside commentary now, though, that it might make sense to mention here a description of what if any effect the report has had on public perceptions of EHS. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In defence, ICNIRP reviews are also self-published (with only internal peer review) reports by a self-selected group. The argument of whether there is an axe to grind is almost semantic - both groups will have preconceived opinions that will affect their efforts to objectively view the science, and I think both groups genuinely hold their opinion on what they believe the science to say, as opposed to just seeking a scientific justification to support a political view. The fact that the BI report is written in such a political manner rather undermines the quality of some of its chapters. topazg (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure since I've only been looking at this article for a few months. I just do not trust the "expert" opinion on this subject. I personally do not suffer from it, but the people I live with are absolutely nuts about it. Even with a skeptical approach, something needs to be investigated if something in the realm of 3% of the population (Thats a good 200 million people) are supposedly affected, and when thousands of people (the people that often actually live next to the things, unlike the experts) complain, there has to be something going on. The subject is very divided, as I've seen quotes ranging from absolute dismissal of the idea (that people are loonies) to claiming that most of the uprise of pathogenic disease in the past 100 years can be attributed to electricity. Regardless of experts, this topic really should not be covered in terms of "it exists" or "it doesn't exist", because in general, there are plenty of articles covering both sides of the argument. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

When the academic consensus is that it could not exist based on our current understanding of the world WP:DUE comes into play. Simonm223 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is rather a non-scientific approach to Wiki-content on a scientific article. To take the over-used example of John Snow and Cholera, it would have been very acceptable to publish information in an Encyclopedia based on collections of significant observed data even without a previously understood mechanism of effect. With regards to ES itself, I remain very unconvinced that there has been work carried out that gets even close to ruling out the possibility that some people are sensitive to electromagnetic fields. I am very convinced that there is good supportive evidence that the majority of those that believe themselves to suffer do so psychologically (as a form of nocebo), but most of the latter double blind provocation studies have approached the subject of ES from demonstrating the presence of a psychological effect as opposed to eliminating the possibility of an electromagnetic one. Of course, you cannot prove a negative, but if there is in the region of 70% or more of self-selected ES participants suffering psychosomatically, this becomes a large confounder that should be controlled for. It is a false logic to assume that because a majority of self-selected electrosensitive individuals are not actually sensitive to EMFs, that the rest are not as well. Most other high quality science that assessed individual reactions in double-blind conditions make concerted efforts to deal with both bias _and_ confounding, and this hasn't happened yet in most ES provocation studies - something made hard because the selection criteria is entirely subjective self-assessment, but it should be recognised anyway. I do believe that the figures of 3% (or even an order of magnitude less) are extremely unlikely. This doesn't make it a non-issue in the same way that photosensitive epileptics are not a non-issue, but it does make it much harder to detect without genuine, replicable, physiological markers. topazg (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

{Undent} What you are asking us to do though is to engage in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because you are not satisfied with the methodology used in current research. This is not our place. We have to report that, based on current research, the cause of this condition appears to be psychological - because that is what extant peer-reviewed research supports. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I was commenting that your justification of "When the academic consensus is that it could not exist based on our current understanding of the world WP:DUE comes into play" gives, in my mind, a misleading approach to the reason for doing so - There are plenty of scientific views that can meet the WP:DUE criteria that also recognise theoretical concepts beyond our current understanding of the World. I am commenting that there are plenty of methodological issues that would make sense regarding inclusion in the article despite being outside of current understanding - I am _not_ suggesting that we put them in just because I pointed them out, as I agree, that is a rather obvious breach of WP:OR. Naturally, they would have to be sourced and cited appropriately for inclusion, which there is no case for at the moment ... I'm aware it's a somewhat pedantic argument, but I think attention to logical accuracy and pedantry serves the purposes of concise encyclopaedic entries well, and I wanted to point out what I saw as a logical flaw in the previous reasoning. I happen to agree completely that with current published studies and reviews (including the 2010 Rubin review) on this issue I would agree that the only justified conclusions in the article at present is that the research suggests a psychological origin for ES. I hope that clears things up! topazg (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)