Talk:Wi-Fi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WiFi Logo

Can someone who knows how to do it please restore the WiFi logo and add a "fair use" or whatever justification they feel appropriate. This whole deletion of images is going far too far. --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

external link question

I think that the following link is relevant and helpful to understand the risk involved and why most businesses prefer wired connections for most of their PCs. I am proposing that the following link be added. Thoughts?

• Pros and Cons of 802.11 G in a Business Network Discusses the issues with wireless computer connectivity as verses wired at a business setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Networkingguy (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there's no objection, go for it. You've obviously put some effort into it. Be aware that someone could come along at any time and say "I've got a better link to cover the same stuff"...if so, we'll deal with that when it happens. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No sorry WP:EL says it can't go in. Integrate it into the article. -- KelleyCook (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelley is absolutely right that there's a rule that you can't post the link since it's your stuff. On the other hand, it's theoretically possible that I could post the link, since I have no connection to Networkingguy, but only if his articles meet the criteria for an acceptable external link, quoting the probably relevant bit from WP:EL: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." We argued the point once over at Robot, there were several times when people made an external link that they had some connection to, or a wikilink that eventually got back to them. Most people on Wikipedia say "never do it, ever"; but in fact you'll find a lot of technical articles with just such links, on the grounds that if someone removed the link, then some "neutral" party would just re-insert it, because there was consensus that the information was useful.

Okay that's the general discussion. On this point, I have a slight preference that you do what Kelley says, Networkingguy, and try to integrate as much of your material as possible directly into the article. That has the downside that some of your perfectly good information won't survive the cut because we can't accept the same level of detail; but Wikipedia has gotten so large that it's hard to keep track of everything, and it just makes things difficult when we have to keep checking on links to make sure the material in the links is appropriate...so much better to pull it in here where we've got many eyes and hands to do the work. Does that sound good? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new link

Last week George Mason University had a seminar on the history of Wi-Fi. Per guidance in the link section, I am proposing it here as a possible link for the Wi-Fi page. The link goes to the conference program that in turn has links to the written papers and .ppt's. Not all the written papers are in yet, so more the page corresponding to this link will be richer within a few weeks. However, it is pretty rich already.

The link is [1]

GMU has promised recorded audio links shortly.

Mike Marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmarcus (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Examine Consensus amongst scientists

New Section header inserted to distinguish this request from the previous section papageno (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Consensus amongst scientists is that there is no evidence of harm, and the continuing calls for more research into the effects on human health remain limited." should be first removed since it does not cite any references nor can any links be found. I can also claim that "there is no consensus among scientists on the adverse health effects of Wi-Fi" and what's more is that I can give you the links and references. Anyway. my statements and references will eventually be removed by some industry lobbyists who I believe have been hired to watch over the article (on shifts) 24 hours a day, 7 days weeks... (Spookee (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

I feel it is worth noting that the user Spookee is currently blocked for vandalism and sockpuppet edits of this article and another. See User_talk:Sevenneed for details --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, and, although I agree with the consensus statement, I believe the user's comments have some merit: a reference is lacking. There should be a reference pointing to comprehensive review or something similar to bolster the text. I suspect such a statement may not exist. The quotation further along in the section from Dr Michael Clark of the HPA is a popular press comment, not a formal review, and hence IMHO not strong enough as the sought after reference (although still quite valid for inclusion in the section!). An alternative might be to switch the two sentences, with a slight modification to the consensus: “There is a consensus amongst health protection authorities that there is no evidence of adverse health effects from Wi-Fi. For example, the UK's Health Protection Agency considers...Wi-Fi equipment.<ref>Ref 1</ref> However, in September 2007, Germany's...” (I've removed the “calls for research remain limited” clause from this suggestion; again, no reference, and I suspect one may not be found. And, the HPA has just begun a review exercise!) This construction allows for the future addition of references to statements or reviews from other health protection authorities.
I would also add a reference at point Ref 1, using a cite web template, to the UK HPA's document WiFi Summary.
Finally, I would suggest we add a {{main}} at the start of the Question of health risks section to direct users and editors to the Wireless electronic devices and health article, which is designed to cover / take edits on this topic area. papageno (talk)

I second you. Please go ahead and make the necessary edits. (Spookee (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

The WHO, for one, also thinks there is no link, after consulting leading scientists in the area. Their opinion reflects the mainstream science opinion (ie, the weighted body of evidence). I don't believe that is editorialising. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A stronger and more direct argument could be made by adding the WHO's voice to the list of organizations that form the consensus of health protection authorities. There will always be counter evidence from a few scientists who disagree with the positions taken by the HPA or WHO, which would weaken the consensus (suggested synonym “unanimity” according to Merriam-Webster, I think much more the lay understanding of the word than Wiktionary's “general agreement” The dictionary definition of consensus at Wiktionary) of scientists statement; other editors would be correct in pointing this out and adding the dissenting voices. I am aware of not a single health protection authoritie, however, that disagrees with the lack of adverse health effects position, making the proposed statement unambiguously unanimous. papageno (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is the balance of the sum of evidence, not individual scientists opinions, so since all the HPAs are saying there's no danger, and there is no conclusive evidence of non-thermal effects (non-thermal effects seen thus far can be attributed to a heating mechanism), then I still see no problem with saying the scientific consensus --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure there is consensus at all? See for example, / List of Studies and / Microwave News (Spookee (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

There is (almost) always a scientific consensus in any scientific field, ie there is always one view that is the accepted orthodoxy based on the balance of the collected evidence. Look at how quantum mechanics and relativity theory became the consensus, replacing the previous consensus. Non thermal effects of Wi-Fi is not a scientific controversy, as shown by the WHO, scientific groups, publications, HPAs, etc. Scientific consensus is not about the views of scientists, but the more abstract notion of the scientific view. Scientists are free to agree or not. Hopefully they don't, otherwise science wouldn't advance --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I can also claim 'Non thermal effects of Wi-Fi is not a scientific controversy, as shown by /scientific groups, / publications, /organizations, etc." Then when I look back at my argument, I suddenly realize how sloppy my reasoning is. Sorry for this bad argument. I will try to look for arguments more integrated, structured and convincing. Btw, have you heard of the quote "All science is either physics or stamp collecting… " by Ernest Rutherford ? (Spookee (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

What are you talking about? Have you heard the quote "philately will get you nowhere" --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't know?? I am not surprised. (Spookee (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Clarification: I don't understand your broken English --88.172.132.94 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User 88.172.132.94 probably works for the telecommunications industry. Arguments should be based upon reason and not on the force of language or unfounded claims. 88.76.59.133 (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User RDOlivaw was suspected of sockpuppetry and has been blocked indefinitely.

User Unprovoked was suspected of sockpuppetry and has been blocked indefinitely.

These two accounts were suspected to originate from the same user and have been used in wilful reverting of valid edits on section Question of health risks 84.63.100.220 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Question of health risks

New material has recently been added (all of which had no edit summary btw}, and it is unreferenced. I'm challenging this material because of this and also because it is not written in encyclopedic tone. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to me that the section on 'Question of Health Risk' is incomplete. It does not present a balanced viewpoint. It reassures the reader (it appears conspicuously biased) that there is really nothing wrong with using Wi-Fi, even by children for a prolonged period. However, there has been much ongoing debate among scientists as to whether Wi-Fi really harms our health. Extensive and in-depth research has just only begun and it's still too early to say that it is completely harmless to human health.

Germany did not advise its citizens to avoid Wi-Fi for no reason.

Pressure for investigation into Wi-Fi health risks

/ Germany Warns Citizens to Avoid Using Wi-Fi

/ School wi-fi radiation levels ‘three times that of phone masts’

Cloud of worry gathers over wireless health risks

Also, two official reports by Sir William Stewart - former chairman of the official UK Health Protection Agency and UK government chief scientist - have warned against the dangers of Wi-Fi.

I discovered that this section has been edited many times with some users trying to present the other side of the argument but their contributions were subsequently deleted. Seems to me some sort of information suppression is going on here.

It's the job of all wiki editors to present an article in a state that is as neutral and as complete as possible. 88.77.208.116 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is scientifically impossible to prove anything is “completely harmless to human health”, i.e., that the risk of harm is zero, as you suggest should be done with Wifi, user 88.77.208.116, though I believe in your sincerity when wishing for such an outcome.papageno (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Germany has done the right thing to caution its citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi and switch to alternative wired connections until more research is being done on the physiological effects of Wi-Fi. Sir William Stewart has also advocated a precautionary approach. Of course, it is impossible to prove it is completely harmless to human health (or for that matter, any other technology). I do not think that's the goal of such research either. The question is to what extent? What we do want to know is: if prolonged usage can indeed lead to serious adverse health effects like cancer, brain tumours, etc. 88.76.52.104 (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User 88.76.52.104, forgive me moving your comments here; I thought they were better aligned in this way. :-) I like your thinking, and would extended it further: not only should we understand fully the risks of the technology, we should balance them against the benefits. We all know of the risks of motorized transport to drivers, passengers, pedestrians — a toll of 55 deaths alone, not to mention countless serious injuries, just in the confines of my home town of Toronto — , yet society allows the use of the such transport because of the many benefits of the mobility it conveys.

I would also gently caution you on the use of the word “caution” to describe the German position. The Bundesregierung's paper of July 2007 uses no such word (nor the word “warned” as used by The Independent in its headline). See Wi-Fi#cite_note-4, and see body text of the article for almost verbatim English translation.

Finally, why do you think that original research needs to be performed on WiFi? That is, how is it different from mobile telephony, which uses similar (admittedly not identical) radio frequencies, with similar digital transmission schemes, and yet with much lower energies, presumably the source of any potential health effect, reaching a user in a typical situation? papageno (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. We should avoid adding substantial material to this section here, and add it instead, as necessary and appropriate, to the main article on the topic Wireless electronic devices and health. papageno (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone editing this section, kindly ensure that you add citations for any edits you make to avoid this section becoming a battleground or piece of original research. I've tagged the uncited info, and will be removing it in the next few days if suitable reliable references are not added. This is an encylopedia, so lets stick to the facts. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages

As in all aspects of life and technology arguing advantages and disadvantages is a question of views and aspects. The monition to include references on advantages is formally correct but substantially unconstructive. Where on Earth is the general cookbook on metrics for advantages. The baseline must be to balance cost and benefit. This might not please those individuals who think on risk first. Anyone who might want to include risk in discussion on advantages and disadvantages may clarify first, what aspect he/she wants to deal with. There is no addressing of advantages without addressing the aspect and view on the subject first. wireless friend (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Including references for all content that is likely to be challenged is Wikipedia policy. Balancing cost and benefit, however, is perfectly in line with another Wikipedia policy, neutral point of view. In all articles, the goal is to present as many notable viewpoints as possible, as long as each one can be attributed to reliable sources. I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of your comment is, though. If you have suggestions on how to improve this article, please be more specific. -kotra (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete Replacement of Question of health risks

I have reverted this edit. User 203.162.2.13, while one should usually be bold in one's edits, this is a particularly sensitive topic area. I would suggest discussing significant changes — for example, the complete replacement of the section, first on this discussion page, so the many passionate editors on this topic can comment. This inevitably leads to better edits (for example, in your recent edit, you have accidentally removed a reference to a direct source, replacing it with only a news article, which is once removed), with fewer edit wars! I think it might also be better for all of us, myself included, to focus on improving the main article on the topic of WiFi and health risks, Wireless electronic devices and health. This will: help to keep the WiFi article to a manageable size; allow contributors interested in the health aspects to channel their energies there; and annoy less the contributors watching this article who are interested only in other aspects of subject. papageno (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the new version and think it is not written in encyclopedic tone. For example, you mentioned using the original German link. That's good but this is an English page so I have included both the German orignal and the English news article to benefit the English readers as well. Second, your version is loop-sided. You wanted to drive in the fact that "All the expert reviews done here and abroad indicate that there is unlikely to be a health risk from wireless networks by Dr Michael Clark of HPA." But research in Wi-Fi has only just begun and this statement is certainly fallacious. Also, Sir William Stewart has pressed for research into the health effects of Wi-Fi and this has led to the new study by HPA. Sir William Stewart is the Chairman of HPA, not some Dr Michael Clark! This wasn't mentioned at all in your version. Can you explain?

On another note, users RDOlivaw and Unprovoked were suspected of sockpuppetry and have been blocked indefinitely. User 88.172.132.94 is now being suspected of the same prank. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/88.172.132.94 for evidence. All these users were unanimous in their viewpoints and have ganged up to make repeated reverts to valid edits on this section by users who tried to present the other side of the argument. 88.76.53.199 (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, user 88.76.53.199 (talk). I think you misunderstand my intention. The old version that you replaced wholesale is not “my” version. I don’t purport it to represent my point of view (POV). It represents the POV of the collective edits of all previous editors. Just so we are clear, I don’t purport that the new version you have added wholesale does not represent my POV either (sorry for the double negative). In other words, it is not the content of your new edits. Rather, it is the manner in which you have made your edits. Yes, it doesn’t say anywhere in WP that one can’t replace a whole section at once, or that one shouldn’t be bold in one’s edits. However, controversial subjects do seem to get treated better by first posting significant proposed changes on the Discussion page, allowing editors to comment, and then acting on the outcome of the discussion. In my experience, even on non-controversial subjects, this leads to more complete edits. In addition, while everything on WP eventually gets overhauled, significant edits on controversial subjects that have first been discussed seem to be less ephemeral, that is they last longer. Lastly, I think using the Discussion page approach is polite and courteous, and channels editors’ passions for a subject more productively. If your honest intention was to correct an in your view unbalanced article because some previous editors have been accused of sockpuppetry, as you have rightly pointed out, I do not accuse you of malfeasance, but I think you may have accidentally ignored the possibility that there may be other editors with other diverse viewpoints who might have had something to contribute. If you are an experienced WP user, forgive this sermon; you are no doubt already aware of its content. If you are new to WP, please take the advice in the friendly spirit with which it is intended. papageno (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Separately, I’d like to comment on the content points made. Again, I point out that the old content is not “my” content. Since I kindly have been invited to comment, I will take the liberty of making a few points, focusing on the content and not the editor. First, thanks for adding back in the German reference. However, some of the information is incorrect or incomplete. The posting was an answer made by the German Federal Cabinet, based on information provided by the German Ministry of the Environment, to questions posed by the German Green Party. Their written communication was dated July not September 2007. In the body text, a crucial point has been ignored: the German government specifically stated that it was not taking any direct precautionary measures as regards WiFi. It then goes on to say that it “...suggested as a general recommendation that people keep their radiation exposure to high-frequency EMF as low as possible, for example by preferring conventional wired connections when the use of wireless solutions can be foregone.” (direct translation from the German) I’d like to add this to the body text. I note the reference article from The Independent does not mention the first part of answer, thus giving an incomplete and hence misleading view of the German government’s position. It also uses the word “warn” in its headline; this is pure fiction, a creation of the Independent’s writers, as the German document does not use the word at all. I think this should also be noted in the reference. Frankly, the reference to the Independent’s article is superfluous, and should be removed, as we have the original source document and can include the direct translation. If editors do not feel comfortable with my translation, one can be requested at Wikipedia_talk:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I am a member, but can recuse myself from the request.

Secondly, there is mention of Sir William Stewart making the case for more study of WiFi. Why shouldn’t that be included?

There is also a suggestion that Michael Clark’s comments are “fallacious”. There is a case to be made that research from mobile telephony is applicable to the Wifi situation. Expert reviews on Wifi drawing on that body of research have come to the conclusions he states. Thus, his statement is correct. It should be added back in to the article. I am not rabid, however: it is also correct that studies specifically focusing on Wifi and health are sparse to say the least, as stated in the article, and that the HPA is conducting a new study. The new text is correct in pointing out that there are differences in the frequency band, the modulation and the trasmission schemes used by TV, radio, mobile telephony, etc. Dr. Clark’s comments from the old revision do not point out the differences. Current research does build on the research into prior technologies, so his comments should be included, the relevant old research should be presented, and the differences and gaps in the research should be noted. Some attempt has been made in the new revision to address this, with the exception of Dr. Clark’s comments; they should be added back in.

The content is to a great extent based on the BBC Panorama episode of May 2007. That episode has been criticized in the print media (Guardian, Scientists reject Panorama's claims on Wi-Fi radiation risks), on the BBC’s Newswatch programme, and in a ruling made by BBC Complaints. I believe all these points should be added to the article as well.

There is information about a study conducted in 1998 by Henry Lai. There are plenty more other studies showing no biological, let alone health, effects. In addition, the many provocation studies conducted all have failed to show a link between exposure and the anecdotal health effects mentioned at the start of the text. The author of one of the references cited in support of the ancedotal health problems Wi-fi phobia: it makes me sick even gently mocks those effects.

There is no requirement in WP to use this method, but IMHO using cite templates (eg {{Cite_web}}, {{Cite_journal}}) makes references more complete.

Finally, I note the new content is not entirely one-sided, and that some attempt has been made to present what I consider a balanced viewpoint. This is to be lauded, and is an approach that all editors should try to follow.

Thanks for the chance to comment, and I invite any user to add his or her thoughts! :-) papageno (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You have replaced the section by the title "=== Unproven health risks ===" which is a clear-cut case of enforcing your POV. Research into health risks of Wi-Fi has only just begun. If you are able to cite any scientific studies to justify your change in the section title, please do so. If you are unable to do so, I would take it as merely your POV. Also, you mentioned

"The old version that you replaced wholesale is not “my” version. I don’t purport it to represent my point of view (POV). It represents the POV of the collective edits of all previous editors."

However, a check on the edit history reveals that this section has mainly been the 'collective' effort of users RDOlivaw and Unprovoked who were suspected of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing and have been blocked indefinitely. Another main contributor of the section (user 88.172.132.94) is now being suspected of the same prank. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/88.172.132.94 for evidence. So your version can hardly be called "the collective edits of all previous editors". I would rather call it "the collective edits of a few sockpuppets". If you want to perpetuate your POV in this section, you need to convince others with good reasons. 88.76.51.168 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not change the section header to “Unproven health risks”; I am not related to any users with only numeric IPs who have made edits recently or in the past; I am not related to any of the cited sockpuppets; I only edit under my account, and have been editing only on my account since 2004-06-05. Please stop accusing me of vandalism in the edit summaries when you make changes to or revert edits made by users with numeric addresses or accounts other than papageno: it’s not me. I regret that I have not been able to express myself clearly enough on the matter of the origin of the previous version to the point where you could understand me. Let’s move past that. :-) I would love to engage you on a discussion on the content. I have included many comments on that front in my edits of 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC) just above. I welcome your views as well as those of any other user on them. papageno (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving Health Effects to Wireless electronic devices and health article

I would like to propose integrating all the content of the section "health risks" into the Wireless electronic devices and health article, leaving only a reference to that page in this WiFi article. I note there is no health section in the Wireless LAN article, and one should be added; there may be other cases where health effects need to be mentioned. Instead of having three sections on the topic, we could have only one, with a link to that single article where needed. The benefits would be: fewer edits taxing the WP system; less monitoring time and editing effort required by interested editors; and readers being able to see consistent content cited in a single article, instead of disparately edited content spread amongst many articles. This is not an attempt to suppress any content; rather, only a suggestion about where it might be located most efficiently. papageno (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody says you are trying to suppress any "content", unless you are guilty of it yourself. I do not think there is such a need anyway. This section on "health risks" is concise and it specifically refers only to health risks related to Wi-Fi. Also, it deserves a separate section of its own since a £300,000 study by the UK government has been devoted to it, showing its degree of importance. Wireless electronic devices and health is a much longer article dealing with wireless devices in general. Therefore, for encyclopedic breadth and depth, I do not think it is appropriate to combine the two. 88.76.51.168 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can create a new article on WLANs and Health? This would allow the content contained in this WiFi article and that in the Wireless electronic devices and health to be combined in one location, maintaining one consistent store of information on the topic. It would also head off the creation of another individual section on the topic in the Wireless LAN article. papageno (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Powerwatch and Spooky actions (of wi-fi on health) at a distance

Firstly, sorry about the pun :) Secondly, powerwatch is a lobby organisation that sells unproven gizmos to people who believe they have an illness which scientific studies suggest doesn't exist. See the electrosensitivity page. They cherry-pick data that supports their hypothesis, engage in fallacious reasoning, and are generally involved in poor science and have a closed mind to new ideas. For these, and other reasons (also discussed on the ES page) they do not meet the standards for wikipedia links. The other edits spookee has added, repeatedly, change the slant of the article to an anti-scientific viewpoint, hence are removed, and involve trivialities that adds nothing to the "debate" (eg. the Canadian university story). If you want to put your edits back, please discuss them here first to reach a consensus. Thanks! 88.172.132.94 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Powerwatch is not a lobby organisation, nor does it sell unproven gizmos, and you have no justification for your smears on fallacious reasoning, cherry picking of studies or poor science. As this is entirely your POV you cannot use it as justification for link removal. Topazg (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Topazg. User 88.172.132.94 cannot impose his POV and remove the link with his "fallacious reasoning, cherry picking of studies or poor science." See / PowerWatch's response to Ben Goldacre's comments re. Panorama, WiFi, etc. (Spookee (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Topazg works for powerwatch, and if you look at their site they sell unproven and ridiculous gizmo's, and the BBCs Panarama has been told off for taking their advice --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User 88.172.132.94 probably works for the telecommunications industry. Arguments should be based upon reason and not on the force of language or unfounded claims. 88.76.59.133 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't work for the telecommunications industry, and topazg is Graham Phillips of Powerwatch, son of its "head" Alisdair Phillips who has tried to whip up hysteria over electromagnetic radiation for the past 20 odd years, and who conveniently happens to have an interest in the company which seels "emf shielding devices"... They'll often point you to research that has used flawed methologies (eg. Henry Lai), research done by George Carlo (sacked by the phone companies) and other researchers who want to try and find something controversial so they can get more research grants.

Groups like Powerwatch, Mast Sanity and other "pressure" groups go on any local forum in an area where a mast has just been built to refer them to "alarming new research" which proves that phon masts and mobile phone radiation is a lethal killer, causing all sorts of problems, and that the only ways to stop it are: a)to move out of their house (which they know most people won't be able/inclined to do) to get away from the "radiation" or b)to buy some of the emf-shielding lead paint which Mr Phillips happens to sell. They rely on the age-old increasingly notable phenomena of the nocebo effect- by convincing some people that the mast will do them harm, then it can make people start to feel that way. They often claim that because people get better when they move away from a phone/tetra mast that it's because they are escaping the "harmful radiation"; when in actual fact it is more likely to be down to more pychological reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your depth of research leaves a lot to be desired. I do do work for Powerwatch, but I am not employed (they don't have the money to pay me) by them, as I am a freelance IT contractor and consultant, spending more of my time on database design, adminstration, and web application development and project management. Not that I see what that really has to do with anything, as I very clearly do _not_ make any attempt to advertise or market anything of any kind. Do you have any hard justification to your claim that as an organisation Powerwatch direct people towards unreliable research, or in fact any justification the papers such as those linked to authored by Henry Lai have such flawed methodologies (bearing in mind here I note the lack of paper responses in the literature against his papers finding these flaws - perhaps you know something you wish to share that other scientists haven't noticed?). Also I would be greatly appreciative if you could perhaps justify the apparent linking to much research by George Carlo, I can't seem to find it, not even on Powerwatch's ~500 paper study listing page. Your last sentence in the first paragraph is just strange nonsense, Controversial findings in the field of any big money industry (phones, tobacco, oil, pharmaceuticals etc..) does not start research grants flooding in - how would that work exactly, what kind hearted philanthropists are queueing up to fund such things? Why would they bother?

Powerwatch are nothing like Mast Sanity: They do not campaign, they do not go on "local forums" anywhere (frankly, it's just likely to be a waste of time anyway), and they do no lobbying against phone masts - never have, never will. Do you have any justification to support this comment? Or perhaps any evidence that we suggested people move house to avoid a phone mast (again, from a pragmatic perspective, this is also pointless, and expensive)?

WiFi chat hardly appears to be a useful forum to engage in the nocebo / real effect from mobile phone base stations or not, so I will leave that for elsewhere. Scientifically the evidence in the literature has more on the positive effect than the null or negative effect side (again, view the "Mobile Phone Masts" section on the page above, it's not quite complete but only missing 3 or 4 papers I think), but frankly the level of available literature is appalling on the whole topic. Any mechanism of effect is entirely unknown, but then science is about recognising and exploring observations until the balance of evidence has been pushed one way or the other. Concerning observations have been made for base stations, and the continued scientific explorations into such observations have not been followed up, thus Powerwatch make calls for such research. This is hardly hysterical scaremongering.

Oh, it's only a minor point, but if you are going to resort to name calling and ad-hominem attacks, please take the courtesy of spelling names correctly. Topazg (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)