Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Elektrosmog

see www.elektrosmog.de I was surprised to see appart paranoia creeping in in Europe where people are sleeping in EMF proof tents..

see wikipedia german article "elektrosmog"

Nonthermal effects

"The main biological effect of electromagnetic fields is to cause heating." - there is a wealth of research that shows significant effects at levels far below those at which any significant heating occurs. a few of the more prominent researchers: Adey WR, Blackman CF, Blank M, Delgado JM, Becker RO. (a random article from each). is anyone opposed to expanding that section? i think it actually merits an article by itself, something like "Biological effects of (weak) electromagnetic fields". ObsidianOrder 1 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)

I removed "(note that this argument makes no allowance for opportunity cost or option value as a formal cost-benefit analysis/risk assessment would)" in reference to the precautionary principle. This is irrelevant, adds nothing to the discussion and shows POV. It belongs in the article on precautionary principle article, not here. AdinaBob 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The summary of non-thermal effects feels particularly biased and skeptical, which goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. A few points that definitely need changing. Firstly, there are known and accepted biological effects of low-level EMFs, it is the mechanisms that are not known. For example, melatonin production is significantly reduced if the pineal gland is exposed to low level magnetic fields at night. Secondly, there are both "believers" and "non-believers" who support a precautionary approach, for various reasons, for example Sir William Stewart.Arathalion 14:22, 8 September 2006 (GMT)

There are credible publications that argue both for and against the idea that non-thermal effects of EM radiation have an adverse effect on health. Here is a pretty good list of papers holding a lot of the evidence for damaging non-thermal effects http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/studies.asp. Here is the latest guidance from the WHO http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/. In order to be unbiased we must draw the readers' attention to the fact that there is not yet a consensus amongst the experts on whether these effects are significant. --Bobturneruk 13:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Induction

Electromagnetic radiation does generate current via induction. I've only patially restored the references. (they were a bit overboard to begin with). If the anonymous editor who thought differntly can make a case here, I'll consider the possibility that there is some subtle distinction in terminology. But they are at heart the same phenomena. Just ask Maxwell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmeppley (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

RF burn effects

I don't know about the birds being cooked, but severe burns from close proximity to transmitting radar dishes is, as far as I knew, quite well known and documented. I can see it quite possible that if a bird is sitting on a radar antenna at the time that this could kill the bird (effectively through tissue heating / cooking), but it does kind of sound like you expect to see a blackened charred thing with smoke coming off -- perhaps the wording could be changed to appear less extreme? Topazg 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How can this problem be dealt with effectively? Drahmad890b (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sham exposure

It is important to note that the sham was also emitting RF radiation at a lower level, and that the reaction of participants to the sham exposure may also be related to EMFs [1]

I have no idea of the scientific consensus on this, but I've moved it from the article because of a) editorialising ("It is important to note") and b) unreliable sourcing (it just dips into BMJ Rapid Responses, which is no more than an online letters page, to a post by a person of unknown credentials). 81.132.104.40 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is important to note" must be taken out, this is just weasel wording (and I have a horrible feeling they may be mine!). Actually, I think more important will be to link in this letters to the author's response. Rubin has stated that the sham was indeed leaking levels of RF exposure at the levels quoted in the above link, but also pointed out that the exposure was continuous wave and that most of the proposed mechanisms and postulations on effect are directed at digitally pulsed signals - if continuous wave was an issue we would expect far higher literature showing effects from TV transmitters. Powerwatch have long contested that continuous wave radiation is not likely to be a problem.

My recommendation would be to change it to:

Comments have been made that the sham was also emitting RF radiation and therefore was not truly a sham, but this concern has been addressed by the study authors [2] (link to Rubin's response instead of the other comment)

I prefer this as it actually highlights the concern and the response, instead of pretending that it was never raised - do you have any objection? Topazg 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by 128.243.220.22

It is very difficult to maintain a truly neutral point of view when both sides are insistent on weasel wording their point of view to make it sound like it is more prominent or definitive than it actually seems to be. I am sure the intent is not to do this, but the recent edits have been highly POV and have been reverted. Please discuss edits if you feel they should return here first. Topazg 16:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be using "balance" and "weasel words" to push your POV. 82.10.209.215 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't my POV at all, just what I see as a middle ground between two opposed POV's. You also seem to have little understanding of Wikipedia's weasel word policy, specifically the relevant section on generalisation. If you are going to go to the effort to edit articles on Wikipedia, make sure you understand the rules and guidelines of doing so, else you are just being unhelpful to the community as a whole.

Regarding this article specifically, ES has its own page, and should just be linked. The evidence I have cited on relevant literature for mechanism is appropriate, and should not be removed. Topazg 09:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1, Your "middle ground" is biased. 2, What mechanism? 128.243.220.41 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Funnily enough, that's your POV, hence the POV criticism. I didn't write this article, and reverting your edits to content that was previously there from other authors is hardly enforcing my POV on anyone. Where possible I'm trying to reference my end, it would be helpful if you cited yours. 2. Sorry, I'm not following? Topazg 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to change from NPOV to something that sounds very POV, at the very least cite some sources. Otherwise this is nothing other than vandalism. As far as I can see this is currently NPOV and cannot see what you are objecting to. Please justify yourself. Arathalion 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've come here from the comments on the ES page. I'm sure I read something about Sir William Stuart refusing to answer questions in either the gurniad or Private Eye, but I'm not sure which. There is an article by Guy Kewney (BBC technology expert, not the job seeker, cable net author, general expert) that a quick Google fond on theregister.co.uk. Here is a quote (I hope that's allowed): "Sir William was asked if his report gave a clean bill of health to mobile phones and he, correctly, said no. Then - much to the astonishment of the team who worked with him on the report - he went further, and spoke of his own belief that until we did have a clean bill of health it might be wise to restrict exposure to children. I have asked the department which commissioned this report why Sir William said this. I said: "Is there something you haven't published, which Sir William knows about?" and they said, in so many words: "We don't know, he won't say." So I asked for an interview with Sir William. He hasn't responded." Link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/24/open_letter/page2.html

Yes, (Stewart btw) he has gone beyond the other members of the team on the report (which interestingly included Mike Repacholi). Basically, as far as I can see, he just treats the evidence differently. Evidence of a possibility of risk was encountered ([3] -- the REFLEX report appears to have grouped the studies together better than most) and that, as with smoking, it would be unwise to allow mobile phones to become so pervasive that they are used by all, just to find out 10 years later that the increase in risk to brain cancer or some such like disease is far greater. It seems to be very much the case with smoking in the early days -- something that no-one considers a risk, most people appreciate (talking 1920's / 1930's here), the evidence of possible harm is extremely limited etc... - yet eventually active smoking was found to be an unhealthy practice (though so far the literature on passive smoking is extremely inconclusive, it may be that bad smell on clothes may be pretty much the worst side effect).

As far as I can see, I can ethically support the ideas behind both viewpoints (precaution and not precaution), and the precautionary principle seems to require a weighting for the level of increase in risk (i.e. if a technology is major and widespread, then the level of risk must be very high to advocate usage of the precautionary principle - if the technology is minor, then the risk can be lower - this was Sir Richard Doll I think). At the moment, we don't have anything definitive on risk, but the worst case scenario appears to be potentially quite major. I'm glad I'm not a policy maker! Topazg 08:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Power lines and health

I moved a section from Electric power transmission into this article. Please check Talk:Electric power transmission for old discussions before starting new discussions here. Han-Kwang (t) 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(guy who doesn't know how to use wiki says...) This may well be the wrong forum to bring this up in, but does anybody know of any study that bothered to test the soil around any of these power line induced cancer clusters? Electrical equipment, particularly transformers are or used to be filled with PCBs, which are bad, I don't think I need to cite that. They're reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens. Whether they cause leukemia or not is another story that I don't know. It wouldn't be science if we didn't look at this, I hope somebody has, but it would really make the whole thing less scary, and make a whole lot more sense if the health effects were caused by a guy tipping over a barrel and poor industrial hygiene in the power transmission business than to "malevolent vapors" 96.232.146.216 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I added: "Category:Public health" and "Category:Radiobiology" to this article and then noticed that the latter has previously been removed as "erroneous". I think that Radiobiology covers both ionizing and non-ionizing radiations. What do others think? Biscuittin 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Hutchinson Encyclopedia it does include both Biscuittin 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiobiology

Why was the Radiobiology article deleted? It is not clear from the log. Biscuittin 20:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Page has now been restored. Biscuittin 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Misleading wrong reference?

The section Some research has found that exposure to elevated levels of ELF magnetic fields such as those originating from electric power transmission lines may be implicated in a number of adverse health effects. These include, but are not limited to, childhood leukemia (references below), adult leukemia[6], breast cancer[7] refers in Note 7 to the article Increased Breast Cancer Risk among Women Who Work Predominantly at Night from Epidemiology. 12(1):74-77, January 2001. But this article do not include any discussion about electromagnetic radiation and breast cancer? Or have I read the article in a careless way? The reference should be deleted, and a new reference need to be added. Ulner 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Update needed

There is a 2007 WHO report on low-frequency EM fields which obsoletes the 2001 report and reviews attempts to confirm or disprove some of the studies mentioned in this article. [4] -- Beland 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it - it should be included. I think. --Moon22 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the information on the earlier factsheet and added information on the new factsheet in the article. Does someone want to tackle editing the final paragraph about the incidence of leukemia? The new factsheet includes information that might be suitable for inclusion in such a revision. I've also removed the {{update}} template. papageno (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Bioinitiative Report external link

Should the report be explicitly excluded based on the reasoning below?

The reason the edit by user 12.210.244.107 was reverted and just now reverted again is that the Bioinitiative Report has not been considered a WP:RS, being self-published. A WP article on the report was deleted for this reason. Furthermore, there are many WP:RS sources available that can be used instead. --papageno (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this. See also WP:EL and talk at electrical hypersensitivity, plus the AfD for Bioinitiative report. Verbal chat 17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support this. As an External link it provides a comprehensive overview of the science from those that believe there is reason for concern. WHO factsheets are self-published, but that doesn't make them ineligible as a RS. Who are us Wiki users to determine something as unreliable when the European Parliament clearly doesn't think so? As far as documents go, it's the biggest single referenced source of EMF literature available on the internet, and I think a blanket exclusion from WP does a big disservice to people coming here for as much information on a subject as possible. Topazg (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on my comments from last week, I still think the BioInitiative should be included whilst it is being considered both notable and reliable by the European Parliament. If there are no objections today, I will return the link. Topazg (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I dispute this for reasons that have already been gone over on wikipedia (WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:EL, etc). Additionally, the European Parliament action plan does not state that the source is reliable, notable or credible, merely that they are concerned by its findings. The fact that politicians have been mislead by this poorly written and biased report doesn't change anything, as they haven't praised it or even agreed with the findings - and they are not experts, etc. Verbal chat 10:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, this seems almost like a personal vendetta against the report. "mislead by this poorly written and biased report"? Where is your evidence for this? Topazg (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We have been over this before. That report is simply not a reliable source. It does not represent scientific consensus on this article's subject, and should not be given any weight here. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet the basis under which this is being decided is very unclear, other than "you both said so". Aside from the financial conflict of Cindy Sage some of the authors seem to have both reliable credentials and prominent positions within the electromagnetic research world, including no less than 3 former BEMS (BioElectromagnetics Society) presidents within the BioInitiative group. There _is_ no scientific consensus on the subject, there are currently a number of sides in strong disagreement, each with an unknown proportion of scientists supporting their opinion. There is no strong evidence to suggest which group has the largest number of qualified individuals, nor which viewpoint is best supported by the science. Media reports over-hyping the issue (We're all going to die) or under-hyping the issue (There are no risks) are commonplace, and help to obfuscate the issue further. The BioInitiative report is one of the most complete EMF reports in existence at the moment, and at the very least individual sections by authors without the conflict of interest should be quotable. The attitude being approached here seems completely against Wikipedia ethics, which encourages a further explanation of the reasoning behind the justifications for labels such as WP:RS and WP:PROMINENCE. I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, nor am I trying to push either one side of the argument over the other, but the process should be well justified, and at the moment it does not seem to be. It seems driven more by personal opinion of the posters than objective reasoning. Topazg (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a self published report by a self selected griup, has not been peer-reviewed, comes to conclusions outside of the mainstream, has undeclared conflicts of interest, etc. Need I go on? Have you read this report? I have read several sections and it's very poor. Why do you say it is complete? I disagree. It is certainly long. I also disagree that there is not a "consensus" - the majority of scientists and clinicians in the field do not share the conclusions of this report. I would also add in WP:UNDUE. Verbal chat 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Response to above comment, but indentation was becoming detrimental to readability, at least on my resolution): "Self published report by a self selected group". No different to ICNIRP, yet people consider them reliable. WHO factsheets are not subjected to any form of peer-reviewal scrutiny, and the members selected to formulate the factsheet are selected intra-organisationally, and choose which review information to incorporate or not within the factsheets. "Comes to conclusions outside of the mainstream", and "the majority of scientists and clinicians..." - This is a "non-Wikipedic" Weasel Worded approach, and precisely what I'm trying to avoid. Those sentences would be completely inadmissable in the article itself, so why are they valid arguments in the discussion? Again, is there any support for these statements or do we a) remove any references to ICNIRP and WHO factsheets under the same criteria, or b) find some aspects of the BioInitiative report suitable for admission under the same criteria? It seems to be a real case of double standards otherwise. The report is long, and over the past few months I have read the majority of it. Some of it I find well argued and well referenced, some of it considerably less so, but then, I find the same with almost all peer-reviewed papers in the field that I also try to keep on top of. It is not my place, or your place, to subjectively assert the report as high quality or "very poor" within the scope of our roles on Wikipedia. It is being treated as both notable and reliable with regards to the raising of issues of concern within the European Parliament and should therefore be worthy of encyclopaedic mention, even with caveats on veracity.Topazg (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The WHO is a well respected and recognised expert group. Bioinitiative is not. The talk page is the correct place for discussing whether a source should be included, and removing the WHO references is not to be taken seriously. Verbal chat 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you argue against BioInitiative on its self-reporting, self-selected nature, an argument that can also be directed at using WHO factsheets as reliable sources. Personally, I totally agree the removal of the WHO reference is a bad idea, but that's precisely the argument for the inclusion of the BioInitiative report. Both of these sources appear to be taken seriously at national / international policy making levels, which is surely a better benchmark of reliability than we are capable of asserting? I'm also still waiting for actual support of your "consensus", "most mainstream" etc claims, and your objective reasoning behind the classification of the document as "very poor". I could understand if the content was based largely on non-peer reviewed material, but the content of individual sections are effectively multiple individual reviews of fully peer-reviewed work. I do not buy the argument that Profs Lennart Hardell, Michael Kundi and Henry Lai are not experts in their respected fields, as basic objective criteria (academic credentials, length of involvement within the field, number of peer reviewed papers in the field etc.) suggests they are. You cannot publish a 600 page report in a journal, and having been involved in peer reviewal processes myself the very idea of expecting people to peer-review a document of that size is preposterous (it's time consuming enough properly peer reviewing a 10 page study), even if there were journals that would publish such a large collation of material. I'm happy with the exclusion of the report in principle, but only if it is supported by a valid argument. At the moment no objective argument has been presented of any kind. Topazg (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the first two lines of my previous comment again, you seem to have missed them in your reply. There is no comparison between the WHO and the bioinitiative group. If the peer-reviewed published field is so large then we can use that, being weary to place too much emphasis on primary sources. The WHO is an acknowledged RS. Plenty of valid arguments have been presented here and elsewhere against the inclusion of this report. There is no evidence that the bioinitiative report is "taken seriously at national / international policy making levels" - I have already addressed this. Plenty of large reports like this are peer reviewed either in whole or in multiple part, but the quality of peer review and acceptance by the mainstream are also important. Even if what you say is true, with the spin you're putting on it, it is too early to include this report. However, self-pub etc are good enough reasons for not using this report as a RS. Verbal chat 16:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You ask me to read your first two lines again, which begin "The WHO is a well respected and recognised expert group. Bioinitiative is not." and then say there is no comparison? That's pretty much a direct comparison isn't it? We cannot argue that BioInitiative fails WP:RS due to being self-published without conceding the hypocrisy that WHO factsheets are also self-published. There has to be separate, objective criteria under which the distinction is being made. The only valid arguments thus far appear to be criteria which would write off both WHO (to some degree) and ICNIRP in its entirety, which I'm sure you'd agree is not a good thing. However, under the same reasoning, if we are to consider them both reliable, it is not reasonable to use the same argument to consider BioInitiative unreliable. I'm sorry if I have put any spin on this, I am merely trying to work out how objectively one can be ruled ineligible and the other eligible when they both fail the criteria being set in the arguments above. At the very least Wikipedia should be consistent. Based on some recent headlines and the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 which states, quite explicitly, that it is "greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report(8) concerning electromagnetic fields, which summarises over 1500 studies on that topic..." (point 21) I would not say it is too early for inclusion either. At the very least it deserves inclusion with comments on its veracity, as people may come to this article specifically looking for commentary on the report itself.Topazg (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you make some serious and valid arguments for inclusion, that haven't already been addressed - without resorting to fallacious reasoning about the WHO etc - then those will be considered. Please drop the comparison between the WHO and bioinitiative - it's a poor argument. Try the reliable sources noticeboard and remember to notify interested parties, or start an RFC, but so far your arguments are weak and against policy. Verbal chat 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand your attitude. I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the report per se, just a consistent approach to what is and what is not included. What is fallacious about the reasoning I have made? That the WHO factsheets are self-published is not fallacious, it is just a statement of fact. That they aren't peer reviewed is likewise fact. I personally don't think that this is necessarily a reason for exclusion, and you still aren't addressing the point that the criticisms you launch at the BioInitiative report are equally valid criticisms against WHO factsheets. Either you launch the criticisms at both or at neither, but it is important to be consistent. The BioInitiative report is most certainly notable (and having now provided evidence that it is "taken seriously at national / international policy making levels" - the European Environment and Health Action Plan is certainly an international policy level risk assessment / management document), and the WP policies you feel would be breached by its inclusion are being breached by WHO factsheets in the same manner. I personally am not particularly bothered what gets included and what doesn't _provided the justifications are consistent and logical_. At the moment you haven't countered the logical inconsistencies in how the issues are currently being dealt with. I will raise an RfC as thus far we have worked fairly well on a number of similar documents and I don't want this disagreement on policy to make risk things becoming uncivil. Topazg (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

← Your refusal to see the huge differences between the WHO (with reports published by a recognised group of experts (which are not self-selected) by a respected and recognised organisation, both in the scientific and political arena, which produces factsheets that are often reviewed and cited by scientists) and bioinitiative (a self-selected group with undeclared CoI with minimal recognition by politicians, and no recognition as yet by scientists) is a sticking point. They should not be treated the same. I really have trouble seeing where your coming from with this as the arguments for inclusion are so poor, and the differences between the WHO and bioinitiative are staggering. I'm sorry if I appear confrontational, and thanks for your confidence. I'm sorry though that your arguments concerning the WHO and for inclusion don't make sense to me. Verbal chat 08:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

← Oh, that wasn't supposed to be quite my point, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I agree that there is a huge difference between the organisations, and that WHO are undoubtedly more notable, and more respected in both the scientific and political arena. However, I still stand by the fact that BioInitiative is notable enough for inclusion within the article. As far as I am aware, the group only has one participant with an undeclared financial conflict of interest (Cindy Sage), and consists of both a) 3 past presidents of the BioElectromagnetics society (Carl Blackman, Martin Blank and Kjell Hansson Mild), and b) a large number of highly respected experts in their relevant sectors of EMF science (Professors Michael Kundi, Lennart Hardell, Olle Johansson, Henry Lai, Kjell Hansson Mild) each with a number of their own peer reviewed papers on the subject. Aside from the lack of peer review of the document as a whole, it comprises of review material assessing over 1,500 individual peer-reviewed papers, and has generated enough media and public interest that at the very least it should be included within some section of the article with appropriate caveats on veracity. It appears to me that it is too "major" a piece of work (both in terms of magnitude and prominence) to be simply ignored by Wikipedia. Topazg (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am new here but can I suggest that a way forward to include the disputed reference with some kind of agreed comment on its reliability? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• My main critisism of the report is that Cindy Sage is the author of the critical parts: the Summary for the public including the conlcusions (section 1), the evidence for the inadequacy of the standards (section 4) and the Key scientific evidence and public policy recommendations (section 17), while she at the same time has a personal commercial interest in the outcome of the study. (She is in total the author of 7 out of 17 sections.) If the report is included in the article this should probably be mentioned. Mossig (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• In reading over the article I see it a bit one sided. For example, in the powerline section it says "The preponderance of evidence shows that the low-power, low-frequency, electromagnetic radiation associated with household current is very safe", but then goes on to contradict that statement. Powerlines are household frequency, but not household voltage or current. My recollection is that there are complaints about animals living under powerlines, and I don't see that included (animals grazing for example). I would also like to see some information on the voltage level of the powerlines, and a comparison of HV ac and HVDC transmission. I see nothing wrong with including both sides of the issue, including references from advocacy groups. Apteva (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting one, I'd missed that coming into the article. "The preponderance of evidence shows that the low-power, low-frequency, electromagnetic radiation associated with household current is very safe" is kind of unsupportable by the science I think. There's not a great deal of research done on house wiring and current, and most of the issues are associated with 50 / 60 Hz magnetic fields of around 0.4 microT (4 mG). This is unlikely to be a typical exposure in a house, but around high current appliances (e.g. electric cookers) this would be quite achievable. I think this sentence needs re-wording, at the very least to be factually correct, but ideally more in context with the rest of the section. Topazg (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion from the above... is there a consensus? It doesn't seem so. I would personally favour the report having an actual section (as opposed to added as an external link) where issues such as financial conflicts of interest can be raised and suitably cited. This way the issue can be aired and hopefully approached even-handedly. Comments, suggestions? Topazg (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for References

I arrived here from the RFC page that asks for inputs regarding inclusion of disputed references. The discussion seems to focus on WP policies, which are really rather weak criteria when it comes to scientific topics. Is there a consensus here that bad science should be included merely because one can find support for it in (e.g.) a peer-reviewed journal?--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, for example which bad science do you think is included? Also, could you link to the RFC, people here may be interested from the sound of it. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bioinitiative Report RfC is still active from six weeks ago, whoops. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, does that mean that matter was settled?

Verbal, I'm a bit wary of getting in too deep here, at least until I have more time and energy to bring myself up to date on recent published work.

There are many kinds of bad science, all represented well in the scientific literature.

One kind of bad science, hopefully not endemic but surely occurring more often than it's revealed, is fabrication of data. Reference 4 is one of two papers for which Robert Liburdy was severely censured in regard to 'intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims about the purported cellular effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF)'.

Is there anything on this other than "The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the respondent", which sounds distinctly like "settling out of court to avoid a big public fight", as opposed to any admission of wrongdoing. Care needs to be taken with such links, as they are no more demonstrative of a definitive fabrication than the finding was definitive that the affect was real. Topazg (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Best if I say no more at this stage - I've written more and excised it, as a lot of unreferenced generalisations would only stir the pot and not be helpful.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll look into that when I have time - I'm a bit busy in real life right now. If you have more information please feel free to drop it on my talk page, and also I have email enabled. In general, I would say bad science should be described as disputed in the text, with RS, if it is included at all. Also, I keep thinking you're talking about Ben Goldacre...:) Thanks. Verbal chat 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Topazg, if I reply to you, my words will be seriously brutal to your words. This will not be intended as a personal attack and I hope you won't take it that way. In any case, I will see if that can be avoided by leaving a while for you to reconsider your outlandish statement.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free, but brutality with words seems inappropriate. I'm genuinely interested in the followup of the article you linked to, which in itself appears more a "settlement to avoid discreditation" than a genuine ruling of wrongdoing. I don't seem to understand why you wish a brutal response? Topazg (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't. Not long after writing that, I looked at it and thought "this reads like a threat". Nothing was further from my mind, but I certainly didn't communicate what was on my mind. I've been holding back while I try to figure how to put that right, before getting back to the main issue. I'll try to get both done within the next couple of days.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, I'll look forward to it (if you have time anyway), many thanks :) Topazg (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try briefly to explain what was on my mind...

At the time, I thought your comments ridiculous - your imagination can probably come up with some of the impolite words that came to mind. My problem was that I couldn't see how to criticise your words without appearing abusive. What came out ended up worse. Now I feel quite comfortable saying that your comments still look ridiculous to me, but that this is no reflection on you as, evidently, the information you are working with is different from mine, and doubtless your outlook on various relevant matters is different.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: "The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the respondent" is very clear in the bottom of the document, and you used the link as evidence of "intentionally falsifying and fabricating data", which may well be the case, but the document itself does not seem to complete that ruling. It seems that both parties agreed not to follow up the charge by agreeing not to fund further work for Liburdy for a number of years. Circumstantially suspicious certainly, but not an actual ruling of fabrication. Topazg (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The document shows that Liburdy got the sack in a very public manner for intentionally falsifying and fabricating data. If there were the slightest morsel of doubt as to the evidence against him, he would have been up for huge compensation for the destruction of his career as a research scientist. The 3 years of no public funding is a legal formality: it would be stupid and criminal for anyone to give public research funding to someone with that background. 'The settlement is not an admission of liability' is likewise a legal matter that has no bearing on the facts concerning the research. That means that if the authorities want to sue him in relation to the millions of dollars of public money wasted directly in his corrupted research, or indirectly as a result of public trust in the lies that he published, then they would have to start from square one with the evidence, factual and legal, rather than getting a leg up if he had signed a statement that could be construed as acknowledging liability.

Liburdy tried to represent the meaning of the settlement document in just the way you did. Only in his case, there's no excuse for that as he has to have known the facts. You tried to interpret it in a generous manner. He deliberately misrepresented what it says.

If you want to maintain that there is still that morsel of doubt about the charges, it would be more relevant that he did not admit the misconduct. However, that is inseparable from him not denying it. 'Dr. Liburdy neither admits nor denies ORI's finding of scientific misconduct.'

Important in this respect is that it wasn't misconduct in general that he didn't deny. It was the ORI's finding of misconduct that he didn't deny.

I find it utterly implausible that an honest scientist accused of deliberately forging data in order to support findings that are actually refuted by the real data, would not deny the accusations. Liburdy tried to wriggle out of this and retain some credibility by claiming that the misconduct (that he didn't admit or deny) concerned technical aspects of the way data were represented, and directed his audience to focus on the software used to generate his published graphs. That is obviously a lie, as the document states clearly that he was charged with deliberate falsification.

ORI found Liburdy's lies about the nature of the charges serious enough to publish a rebuttalthat gives more information about his misconduct.

As far as I have found, that is the end of official public documentation available on the web. However, there's quite a lot more information, (and much more argumentation) in this scientific forum discussion. (This is where I learned about the above-mentioned ORI rebuttal. It's not linked, and the date is wrong by a few years, so I had a devil of a time finding the ORI document. Don't waste time following my steps, use the link above!)

I believe that the information I've presented here is conclusive, and editors of this article should be aware of it, but at the same time however much Liburdy deserves such exposure, this is not the right place. So I have in mind to delete it soon, moving it perhaps to my talk page for a little longer, then removing it totally from WP. The information about the published papers should be included in the historical account proposed below by Eldereft, but, as far as possible, without the personal angle. For the same reason, I'm not mentioning Liburdy in the edit summary.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, a most useful insight, to me at least! Topazg (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, having read all attached material -- yikes, talk about a damning indictment! Topazg (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there's two sides to this (as with all) stories though: http://www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a99issue.pdf.. Topazg (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not bet on it not cropping up again, but the article appears to be stable without that unreliable report. We should deactivate the RfC in a few days, if there are no objections? More importantly, that censure indicates that we should not be citing that paper except to provide historical context. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind - RFCbot closes those discussions automatically after they are well and truly stale. Also, the Liburdy being cited is not one of the ones for which they were censured. It might be good to add a History section including those papers, the original study that was confounded by SES and did not actually measure any fields, and concluding with the NIEHS report and the several large epidemiological studies from the nineties. I think Robert Park's book gives a decent treatment, up to the last decade or so. What do we think? - Eldereft (cont.) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Eldreft's plan sounds good to me. Maybe Liburdy should have an article, and it can be fleshed out there. Sounds interesting and notable from the little I've read. Verbal chat 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it sounds interesting and notable to me also. Topazg (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An article on Liburdy would either misinform the reader by giving him credibility, or further undermine his tarnished reputation. Either might be interesting and notable, but neither would improve Wikipedia.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, You're quite right, I'm not sure how this happened but I was quite wrong thinking and stating that the cited paper was one of the two censured. It needs to be said (in spite of my error, not in defense of it) that in view of the fraud exposed in relation to those two, Liburdy's credibility is zero and the cited paper may be regarded as part of the history but not as part of the evidence.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When this article is mature, I imagine the EMF section can consist exclusively of your proposed history section. Liburdy would have to figure in it.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Indirect Accidents caused by electromagnetic pulse (EMP)

As radar is a subset of electromagnetic pulse, in turn, a category of electromagnetic radiation, would anyone have any suggestions where it would be appropriate to add a bit about possible aviation accidents caused by EMP or more specifically the incident whereby the U.S. aircraft carrier had a big fire which was caused by shipboard radar emanations leaking into poorly constructed shielding of control circuitry on fighter jets? This caused missile(s) to be fired by one of the armed jets which in turn caused fires on the carrier and the loss of personnel and materials. I believe Senator John McCain in an act of valiantry saved lives in this incident. Should I put this in the Radar wiki? I ask because there's something on accidents and pyro on this page. Any inputs?

Thanks, DonL (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No. No references, and believe it or not there's more than one aircraft carrier. Radar is not a "subset of electromagnetic pulse" in any interpretation I'd agree with - EMP refers to a different order of phenomena. You might as well include people killed by stacks of radio manuals falling on them...--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir William Stewart comment and reference

Perhaps this is splitting hairs … The "Biological hazards" section of the article includes a direct quote attributed to Sir William Stewart "evidence of potentially harmful effects of microwave radiation had become more persuasive over the past five years." The reference (I've now added ref tags and a cite new template) is to a Times article from 11 months after I believe Sir William made the comments, around 11 January 2005 at the time of the release of the UK NPRB report "Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB". I can't find the comments at the executive summary of the NPRB report. I do find a reference at Powerwatch's page on the report. However, neither the Times or the Powerwatch page show the comments as a direct quote. It would seem likely that the comments were made; can we find another source with the comments as a direct quote? I have searched so far in vain. If we cannot find such a source, the comments could be re-written as an indirect quote.--papageno (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical Enquirer

The most recent issue of Skeptical Enquirer had an article going over the physics of EM radiation and demonstrating why EM frequency radiation is not harmful to biological organisms beyond RF burns. I will try to incorporate some of that information over the next few days. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Does it have anything to say about electrosensitivity? Verbal chat 14:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think it addresses that particular variant of hypochondria. It's written by a physicist and it's focused on the physics of EMF radiation. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder in regards to posts like the one removed from the bottom of this section. The WP Talkpage guidelines state that "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." It goes on to state, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article".(User8253 6 November 2009 (UTC)) comment added by User8253 (talk • contribs)

New ICNIRP Study Released

While reading this article and Mobile phone radiation and health, I came across a new study released (I believe this month) from the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection).

You can find the paper here.

The summary is as follows:

• The mechanisms by which RF exposure heats biological tissue are well understood and the most marked and consistent effect of RF exposure is that of heating, resulting in a number of heat-related physiological and pathological responses in human subjects and laboratory animals. Heating also remains a potential confounder in in vitro studies and may account for some of the positive effects reported.

• Recent concern has been more with exposure to the lower level RF radiation characteristic of mobile phone use. Whilst it is in principle impossible to disprove the possible existence of non-thermal interactions, the plausibility of various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low.

• Concerning cancer-related effects, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at SAR levels up to 4 W kg-1. With regard to in vitro studies of RF effects on non-genotoxic end-points such as cell signaling and gene/protein expression, the results are more equivocal, but the magnitudes of the reported RF radiation induced changes are very small and of limited functional consequence. The results of studies on cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis and cell transformation are mostly negative.

• There is some evidence of small changes in brain physiology, notably on spontaneous EEG, and somewhat more variable evidence of changes in sleep EEG and regional cerebral blood flow but these may be of limited functional consequence; no changes were seen in cognitive function. With regard to more general physiological end-points, the evidence suggests that there are no consistent effects of non-thermal RF exposures on cardiovascular physiology, circulating hormone levels or on auditory or vestibular function, except for the auditory perception of pulsed RF such as that characteristic of radar.

• The evidence from double-blind provocation studies suggests that subjective symptoms, such as headaches, that have been identified by some individuals as associated with RF exposure, whilst real enough to the individuals concerned, are not causally related to EMF exposure.

• The experimental data do not suggest so far that children are more susceptible than adults to RF radiation, but few relevant studies have been conducted.

• Studies of the effects of RF modalities such as high peak power pulses have been somewhat diverse and sporadic; no effects have been seen other than those associated with heating and with acoustic perception.

Anyhow, just thought I'd lend a hand for anyone who cares about this page.

Untilzero (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DNA damage

This edit introduced a new subsection on DNA damage associated with 50 Hz fields. The magnetic field mentioned in the paper was 1 mT, which is 2500 times greater than the 0.4 μT mentioned elsewhere as what one might encounter in a home. Should the subsection be expanded to point out how much greater the field at which effects were found was than the fields normally encountered? --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I would say so. The everyday person reading this isn't going to understand what that term even means, so I would think putting it into perspective would be a good idea. User8253 (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree there's no explicit data that support same effects at different variables.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of different variables, one cannot assume it happens at all different variables, and no scientist would. To keep NPOV, the test amount needs to be put into perspective. User8253 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We should just cite what 1mT is and not what it isn't, since home exposure is not the same (and only kind) for everybody to make such claims beyond that there's always a safety margin when defining exposure limits.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full paper, only the abstract. What did the paper have to say about the tested magnetic field compares to the magnetic fields people tend to be exposed to? --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-worded the sentence since the original showed potential bias in stating something as fact, when all scientists know that for results to be fully accepted, continued duplication by others scrutinizing their work must be done. One result, as seen by several other citations above, proves nothing in science and many times the results are never duplicated showing weakness in the initial results (which is why, personally I don't understand even allowing citations like this to be used at all on WP.) The article should should have a npov giving the overall accepted consensus on an article, just like a standard, written encyclopedia would.

After reading through the WP guidelines I am still concerned this goes against the section on what WP is and isn't. It clearly states three things:

What Wikipedia Isn't:

1. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.

2. Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible.

and most important
3.Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. User8253 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a Reminder -- What Wikipedia Isn't

After reading through the WP guidelines I thought it would be a good idea to state some things to remember when posting. This seems extremely important with articles like this one.

What Wikipedia Isn't:

1. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.

2. Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible.

3.Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

A full list can be found here: WP:NOT

User8253 (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What radiation, exactly?

I feel like the article lumps all radiation discussed under non-ionizing radiation (in the introduction), and I really think this is highly misleading. For example, the statement, "Strong radiation can induce current capable of delivering an electric shock to persons or animals. It can also overload and destroy electrical equipment," sounds very strange when you consider that all visible light is in the non-ionizing range of the spectrum. (As far as I know, no visible light has ever delivered an electric shock or overloaded electrical equipment.) The Biological hazards, Health effects, and Mobile phones sections do better than the first two, but then the final section on the US Military goes back to overgeneralizing the phrase "electromagnetic radiation." (In fact, sense the article limits itself to non-ionizing radiation, does this section even fit?) ~ StrawberryBlondy (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good observation. Johnfravolda (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased links in improper format, improper rich media

{{rfctag}} Closed.

User:Jojo129 has posted biased links including a request to sign a petition and a video. Also, two links include video and/or audio in contravention of WP:External links#Rich media. Finally the links are in the wrong place within the article per Wikipedia:Layout#External links. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The links were inappropriate. MiRroar (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The same links have been added to Mobile phone radiation and health and I see no reason whatever outcome applies to this article shouldn't also apply to the mobile phone article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The links are currently removed. Is there any objection to closing the RfC and leaving the links removed? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing without objection. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

I suggest this article would be better entitled "Effects of electromagnetic radiation on health". The current title is sensationalist. --Bobturneruk 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Actually, I think it could simply be "Electromagnetic Radiation and Health" as that feels more like a title, but either is fine to me Topazg 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now actioned this title change, and updated all the links from the ~30 pages that were linking to it -- hopefully this will be a better approach to the subject generally now ! Topazg 11:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this article focused on non-ionizing radiation as opposed to the health effects of ionizing radiation (UV, X-rays, etc.) would a better title be "Non-ionizing radiation and health"? Futurechemist1 (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, it is such a good idea that I have just created a redirect by that name which, for the time being, points to this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. I was actually about to suggest such a change myself. "Electromagnetic radiation" is too broad. We're not takling about x-rays and gamma rays here. MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiation at ultraviolet frequencies the same as ultraviolet light?

The introduction to the article says "ultraviolet [...] frequencies [...] are ionizing". The template at the bottom of the article classifies ultraviolet light under "non-ionizing radiation" (in the 'Main articles' section of the template).

Are ultraviolet frequencies and ultraviolet light two different concepts?

If so, I thought it might be worth expanding on this in the introduction to avoid the confusion I have. --invenio tc 01:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They are the same concept. I'm not sure the extent to which UV is ionizing. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ionizing radiation is an article worth reading. In short, the ozone layer blocks most of the Sun's high-energy UV (because that energy is absorbed in ionizing ozone). Some lower energy UV penetrates to the surface, but in amounts that we've evolved to tolerate with minor effect by tanning (though in the case of our modern unnatural indoor lifestyles sunburning became a possibility). Really the question whould be better if rephrased. "Which molecular bonds in the body are the most easily ionized, and at what energy does this happen?" LeadSongDog come howl! 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

S.T. Lakshmikumar: Reference 30

From Page: According to Dr. Lakshmikumar at the National Physical Laboratory, India, a direct, causal, link between RF radiation and cancer (including leukemia) would require one to be "willing to discard Planck's Law… and the entire body of quantum physics."

This reference does not seem to advance any understanding of this topic other than the personal opinion of one physicist. It should be assumed that an opposing opinion by a physicist with a similar reputation could be found to give a quote for the category of "Suggesting a Significant Link."

A better use of this reference could be a quotation from the article by S.T. Lakshmikumar in relation to the type of interactions that photons of different energies have with matter. For example infrared radiation induces molecular vibrations and rotations which can lead to damage from heating where as UV radiation causes damage when it is absorbed by DNA which can change the DNA's molecular structure (Wiki: Sunburn).

It wasn't until after reading the article by S.T. Lakshmikumar that I was motivated to post this topic. There are some glaring errors in his estimates of relative photon energy between visible, cell phone and microwave radiation in both absolute and relative magnitude. The energy range of 1-3 eV that he states is able to break molecular bonds is also incorrect as the heart of this range is visible light that we're exposed to everyday. Quantitative errors aside, this article does seem to do a decent job of explaining qualitative relationships but I would ask any reader to maintain a healthy level of skepticism due to the abundant and rather obvious errors in the article.

I would suggest that this reference be edited as suggested or removed. In it's current state it appears to be a biased statement that asks the reader to believe the physicist just because he says so rather than providing logic or evidence to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.140.105 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The focus of this portion of the article and of Lakshmikumar's comments is on non-ionizing RF radiation. Since by definition, non-ionizing radiation cannot break chemical bonds, a direct causal link between such RF and cancer is hard to see as plausible. A direct causal mechanism would thus defy a number of laws of physics, and thus the statement is not "biased" — though perhaps many scientists would not put it in public as colourfully as Lakshmikumar. Still, I dare say it is the prevailing opinion of a broad spectrum of scientists and thus representative. To cite two other similar popular science views: David Gorski at the posting "Cell phones and cancer again, or: Oh, no! My cell phone’s going to give me cancer! (revisited)" on the Science-Based Medicine blog; and Steven Novella at the posting "Banning Wi-Fi From Schools" on his Neurologica blog. A very thorough and scientific review of the causal link between mechanisms by which non-ionizing RF and might engender health effects like cancer is at the article Valberg, Peter A; van Deventer, T Emilie; Repacholi, Michael H; "Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks—Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences" in Environmental Health Perspectives 115:3 (March 2007). --papageno (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — slight edits to comments for clarity, with original struck through --papageno (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

individual studies

In #Suggesting a significant link, Michelozzi 2002 and Draper 2005 are individual studies that are given the same weight as reviews. Idem for the "aerosol pollutants" under #Electric power transmission. Articles should be centered around high-quality reviews. As undue weight, these individual articles should be removed. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Suggest using the excellent and comprehensive SCENIHR 2009 update. --papageno (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob Park - Physics

The material added about "Robert Park, a professor of Physics at the University of Maryland" with a link to his blog does not add much in my opinion, since it is not in the spirit of WP:MEDRS, and the blog link seems a little promotional. I think whether or not the material should be included should be discussed here.--papageno (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Park's invited column with support of first the APS and then the University of maryland (not a personal blog).

What's New is an invited column in the University of Maryland. The column has the footnote "Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be." (emphasis added) If it was just a personal blog then that last part wouldn't be there. (In his 2002 book Voodoo Science Park explains that he wrote that column during 16 years by invitation of the American Physical Society, with a identical disclaimer, back when it was hosted in www.aps.org. It started with "the APS" around 1997 [5], then at some point around 2001 it was changed to "the American Physical Society or the University" [6] and then finally to the current disclaimer "the University".) So, the column has carried this disclaimer for around 25 years. And, if you look at WP:SPS (self-published sources) "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Park is an emmeritus professor of physics, was public relations officer of the APS, has written a book in Oxford UP about "voodoo science", has written many newspaper articles denouncing pseudoscience, the What's New column got an award from the APS, etc. Just read Robert_L._Park. And it's not even self-published, since it's published by the University of Maryland.

Note that the text introduced in this edit is not acceptable. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

P.D.: If you want to cite something for Park, better look for one of his articles in the NYT and other newspapers, unless it's very fringe stuff that has no chance of being reported in mainstream sources (per WP:FRINGE). To give an example, followup of what happened to research of phenomena X after it was rejected by the scientific community and fell into obscurity. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dirty electricity" image" - removed

I have removed the image File:ElectricSineWave.jpg from the article. It refers to an "hypothesis" of "dirty electricity" that is not mentioned in the text; thus, the picture does not add anything to the article. The fact that some people "claim" that it is the cause of some symptoms is vastly below the standard required of medical articles. --papageno (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever... It was an image for an otherwise imageless article that could have been used in some form or another, but I guess we can't even show something and say "this is what they think causes it but its not actually anything"... Compromise, sometimes, and this article could progress somewhat methinks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposing move to Radiation and health or Radiologic health hazards

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Consensus is against the move at this time. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Electromagnetic radiation and health → Radiation and health – OPEN RENAME

• Or better Radiologic health risk Health risks of non-ionizing radiation (see below for other selection)
  • Or Non-ionizing radiation risks to health User:Geofferybard 05:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Radiation"/"Radiologic" is standard English for "nuclear radiation"; not "electromagnetic radiation", which is completely non-nuclear! Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• There are many types of radiation (see Radiation). We are talking about a specific type of non-ionizing radiation. Saying only "radiation" will make people think about nuclear radiation (as Softlavender says). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Electromagnetic radiation is the only type I'm aware of that may be non-ionizing (although x rays and gamma rays are ionizing). The adverse health effects (if any) from non-ionizing radiation most likely will be caused through a different mechanism than ionizing radiation and it makes sense to discuss them in this separate article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose all new proposals as well. You can't keep changing the title you wish it to be, because people have been voting on your original proposal and the 10,000 bytes you have added to this discussion make it impossible to follow. Your new proposals are not narrow enough. The article is about EMF, not about neutron radiation. You really shouldn't be trying to mess with article titles you do not understand. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote. There was one modification which was in essence acknowledging that you had a point that the proposed new title was itself not perfect. But you are digging in your heals and making numerous OT comments on this thread and elsewhere which technically constitute personal attack. i am willing to shrug that off but i would ask that you stick to the topic. also, rather than analyzing the number of bytes, which seems like a collosal waste of time, why not recognize that you are acknowledged for the positive contribution you have made and move forward on the actual discussion. rather, you are determined to prove a point and whip up support to oppose the rename. the sun will also rise tommorow one way or another. Please be civil. Please refrain from making blanket statements about what you think this editor does or does not understand. The proposal was modified. Get over it. Personally, i don't have nearly as much invested in this matter as in lots of other stuff i could be working on. please register your opinion on this topic, stick to the topic,and move on. Electromagnetic radiation: radiation consisting of electromagnetic waves, including radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays."- RANDOM HOUSE Webster's Unabridged 2nd Edition 1998. Bard गीता 01:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does not and never did need a rename, and that's why no one supports it. All of your proposed renames are inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Modified proposal

The point is that this title is overly broad. (Yes, of course, "Radiologic health risk" would be also.) There are two problems with this title:

(1) It merely juxtaposes categories. That is always a sloppy way to title articles. This is not a Sergei Eisenstein movie or a poetic endeavor.It is an encyclopedia.

Suggested titles:

Health risks of non-ionizing radiation.

Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and health.

(2) The current title is overly broad. Electromagnetic radiation includes both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

Please note that...

Enric's remark supports RENAME. Jc3a5h's remark would also support RENAME: it makes sense to discuss them in this [ionizing radiation] separate article. That is exactly my point. The article title suggests that both ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation are discussed in this article. They are not. Bard गीता 23:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That remark makes it clear that you still have no idea what ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation are, nor the differences between the two, nor which is which; therefore, you should not be messing about with article titles on either of them nor creating pages or redirects that concern them. Please post questions on an article's Talk page if you have questions about the contents or the titles, rather than making move requests that have no basis in understanding or fact and which thus waste everybody's time. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

are you trying to improve this article or prove a point?

Look - i am going to dinner. i back up my assertions with facts. are you more interested in collaboration or personally discrediting me? you never posted on this topic until you thought you could embarass me. eh?

Well you know what - i am man enough to admit that you have a point with regard to the original right hand side of the "-->"", ie., that my suggested new title was flawed and i take your point. but my basic point remains valid. the article title is overbroad and inaccurate. please address these concerns and refrain from statements about what you think i do or do not understand and whether i should or should not make proposals in talkspace. please don't be on a personal crusade delegitimate stuff just because of who proposed it. i will consider your reply after my dinner. Bard गीता 00:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't support rename, I oppose it. I don't like using Oppose because then it looks like a vote. (And you are misunderstanding Jc3a5h's comment). --Enric Naval (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude i am not trying to put you into a binary box YES or NO. The point is that the remark you made supports a point i was trying to make. i am trying to get a modified proposal through edit conflicts....wait.Bard गीता 00:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to the original replies

• Oppose. "Radiation"/"Radiologic" is standard English for "nuclear radiation"; not "electromagnetic radiation", which is completely non-nuclear! Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• There are many types of radiation (see Radiation). We are talking about a specific type of non-ionizing radiation. Saying only "radiation" will make people think about nuclear radiation (as Softlavender says). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Electromagnetic radiation is the only type I'm aware of that may be non-ionizing (although x rays and gamma rays are ionizing). The adverse health effects (if any) from non-ionizing radiation most likely will be caused through a different mechanism than ionizing radiation and it makes sense to discuss them in this separate article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Civil, courteous, source-based in line responses by original movant to commentators

Softlavender wrote:

Oppose. "Radiation"/"Radiologic" is standard English for "nuclear radiation"; not "electromagnetic radiation", which is completely non-nuclear! Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

: Madame, either your facts are incorrect or the WIkipedia article on the topic is grossly inaccurate. I quote:

"Electromagnetic radiation is classified according to the frequency of its wave. The electromagnetic spectrum, in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength, consists of radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays"

When you assert that ""electromagnetic radiation", which is completely non-nuclear!" you probably mean to say that non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is completely non-ionizing. (Radiation is a wave form not a particle form. As such, it does not break down into a nucleus/electron structure, although that would be an oversimplification even if it were. Please see wave particle dualism if this topic interests you. But the plain fact of the matter is that the Wikipedia article is correct on this point.

Enric wrote:

There are many types of radiation (see Radiation). Exactly the point which the previous commentator did not seem to incorporate into their argument.

We are talking about a specific type of non-ionizing radiation.

Exactly my point. The article title says "Electromagnetic radiation..." and then proceeds to discuss only one particular subset thereof. The title would be good for an article which discussed both forms of EM radiation. It does not. It only discusses one form of it. Thus, the title needs to be changed. It is true that my original suggested title did not completely resolve the defect, but the fact remains that the existing title is overbroad.

Saying only "radiation" will make people think about nuclear radiation i don't know what other people will or will not think. But you are a bit off point here as the article is not "saying only 'radiation' the article is titled "Electromagnetic radiation and..." As such it is mistitled.

Basically you and i are arguing the same thing from different sides. The article is about non-ionizing radiation. The title suggests that it is about non-ionizing radiation AND ionizing radiation, as they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation.

You seem to be worried that people will expect to see only ionizing radiation discussed in the article.

Lavender seems to believe that electromagnetic radiation is a synonym for non-ionizing radiation. This is incorrect as per the Wikipedia article on the topic and also RANDOM HOUSE Webster's.

It seems that i am worried that people will expect to see all forms of Electromagnetic radiation discussed.

(as Softlavender says). It is nice that you are acknowledging the other commentator but your overall point appears not to support her overall point. To the contrary, the points you make actually serve to underscore that the title as it stands now is confusing and should be changed. That said, i freely admit that my main focus at first was the bad style of a juxtapositional title and i did, in fact overlook that my proposed new title was flawed. Frankly, the health risks of ionizing EM far exceeds that of non-ionizing radiation, but there are some people - a small minority - who dispute science and believe that EM from cell phone towers will kill us all. i don't ridicule the people who believe that at all, but we need to keep Wikipedia NPOV.

END OF BARD REPLY TO --Enric Naval (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Jc3s5h wrote:

Oppose. Electromagnetic radiation is the only type I'm aware of that[ OT - that is not the point] may be non-ionizing (although x rays and gamma rays are ionizing). The adverse health effects (if any) from non-ionizing radiation most likely will be caused through a different mechanism than ionizing radiation and it makes sense to discuss them in this separate article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

REPLY The statement does not join issue with the matter under question. Nobody stated that EM of some type may be non-ionizing. That is not at all in issue.

What is in issue gets Support from your statement to wit: it makes sense to discuss them in this separate article.This is not a MERGE proposal. This article is about non-ionizing EM. The proposal is that the name reflect what the article is about.

Bard गीता 00:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PLEASE CONTINUE DISCUSS THE MODIFIED RENAME DISCUSSION HERE

The proposal was modified. Therefore it is not appropriate to attempt to direct discussion under earlier comments which were directed to the original proposal. Also, certain points were discussed and clarified below those original comments. By commenting directly under those original comments, it appears that there is an attempt to conjure up a vote scenario. This is not a vote, it is a discussion. Please comment at the bottom of the thread wherever possible.

The most recent comment, to which this is directed, was placed at the top of the thread directly below old posts which were replied to. As such, it is a breach of custom and protocol since threads generally proceed down the page. Thus, that most recent post is replicated below and is replied to below, is as follows:

The recent post to which i am replying is as follows (copied from above):

The article does not and never did need a rename, and that's why no one supports it. All of your proposed renames are inaccurate.Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You probably meant "both" proposed renames, rather than "all". There are two. The first one was WITHDRAWN. (BTW thank you for pointing out that the proposed rename was itself flawed,)

Rather than push this into a "vote" contest Please state reasons why you claim each of the two proposals on the floor are "inaccurate". (For all anyone knows, you might be spot on.) But it is not possible to :::make a determination unless you state the reason that you believe that the proposed titles are "inaccurate". It is not appropriate to expect anyone to read your mind, nor is it appropriate to argue new sub-threads :::below old comments which were directed to the original, mooted proposal.

Further proposals for renaming the article

1. Non-ionizing radiation risks to health
2. Health risks of non-ionizing radiation.

RATIONALE: These titles are more specific to the content of the article and the modifications reflect due consideration of criticism of the original proposal. Please comment below.
These two proposals and rationale were made by Bard गीता in this edit (I think), consolidated for clarity by papageno (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Better Non-ionizing radiation and health (it's already a redirect to this article, created 4 days ago), shorter and follows better the current title. Also, using "risks" in the title implies that there are proved risks, when they are still being studied. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If a change is to be made, agree with User Enric Naval's suggestion of "Non-ionizing radiation and health". The remaining "Electromagnetic radiation and health" page here should be shortened to the current lead perhaps with minor editing and links to the new page Non-ionizing radiation and health as well as radiation and radiation poisoning. --papageno (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The term of art used in aerospace, military, and telecom is "hazards of electromagnetic radiation to personnel" or "HERP". I see no reason that term wouldn't be suitable for this article.

Sidebar: the hazard is certainly not just hypothetical. Put an egg in the microwave on high for five minutes (and stand way back) if you must confirm for yourself. I will not be responsible for the consequences, but rest assured that egg is never going to hatch. The ongoing scientific debate is about quanitifying GRAS exposures, not about the existence of hazards. Clearly, simply living on earth's surface means that we are exposed to EMF at frequencies from DC to cosmic rays. We have defenses against it all, but at some power level any of it will be quickly fatal, ionizing or not. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, Eric, Papageno. Good mediation skills at work, IMHO. Frankly, I had thrown in the towel and wondered why it is that a rather dry technical matter would provoke such a vociferous reaction. Sooo... I am grateful to see the thoughtfulness which has emerged in this discussion. I think that you have resolved the gap between myself and one or more others. And probably this would have gone smoother if I had crafted the proposal more thoughtfully. I think it is important that, however the emerging consensus is or is not implemented, that we not lose our perspective. This is not a zero sum game, and we all want the project to have good precise navigable articles that have titles which edify and educate rather than obfuscate and exacerbate differences. So, even though I am quite enthusiastic about Eric's proposal, the sun will rise tommorow whether or not we get this sorted out immediately. WP:NOBIGDEAL. In deference to an earlier critic, I do understand that when most laypersons say "electromagnetic radiation" they think of non-ionizing radiation and that is a valid point. I get that. I don't know what more I can do to get that point across. But as I think that the three who have commented recently all implicitly recognize, the educational mission of Wikipedia means that we do not pander to the lowest common denominator and let ourselves be led around through a ring in our nose labeled GoogleHits or PopularOpinion. As Encyclopedists, we seek Truth, we honor Truth and we disseminate Truth. Truth, not popular glosses and misconceptions. The real take home message of this discussion is that it is about collaboration and working out our differences through respectful rational dialogue not trying to prove other people wrong. To try to prove that you are smarter, is a fool's errand.In sum, I concur with the above remarks, and although not entirely 100 per cent, would in no way try to block concensus for the proposal advanced by Eric and Papageno and (perhaps implicitly endorsed, in a roundabout way, by LeadSongDog???) To wit,

Non-ionizing radiation and health was the original idea of User:Jc3s5h, not myself. As far as I am concerned

Resolved

It would be a big improvement because as far as I am concerned, the current title is a daughter class which has usurped a superordinate class, but whatever else happens keep the WikiLove flowing. The current title is probably due for a facelift but as we tie up loose ends it is not a shockingly dysfunctional misnomer. Let's wrap this up and so we can WP:PUT DOWN THE WHIP AND STEP AWAY FROM THE HORSE... Bard गीता 05:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy. Wikiobscurity triumphs. And in 6 months time we'll have another rename back to "Electromagnetic radiation and health". --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets actually discuss obscure changes for longer than 24 hours, shall we? Oh... and you know, gain consensus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WHO IARC pronouncement

Suddenly all over the news are renderings based on this press release about this new monograph meeting announcing monograph 102 (Intro here). Details to follow in the Lancet Oncology July issue, but in short it assigns a group 2B classification: "possibly carcinogenic to humans", interpretted as a conclusion "that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk." So far as I can tell, this is just more of the same-old-same-old. This assigned group is lower than a group 2A "probably carcinogenic to humans" but higher than a group 3 "not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans". LeadSongDog come howl! 18:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As the "Mobile telephones" section mentioned forthcoming reports, I have updated it with relevant text 'borrowed' from Mobile phone radiation and health ie.this version as noted in my edit summary. If further attribution is required please advise. Regards - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 16:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Undone for now. We don't attribute medical statements to mass media. See wp:MEDRS. This is wikipedia, not wikinews, so we can wait for the actual report to be published.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Its apparently released. The who has declared electromagnetic radiation as "potentially carcinogenic to humans", class 2A. The report on iarc is the official release.[7] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) LeadSongDog, I disagree and have re-reverted. The report 'findings', albeit a press release from the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer, is at http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf. Will you also go to the Mobile phone radiation and health page and remove the equivalent /same text? Which is from the lead (2nd para) to that article? (Thank you Floydian for your comment) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 21:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the press release (#208 in their system) you will see it is as I said above. Please undo your insertion of assertions based on news reports, this is not in accord with wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted 220.101 revert. He had not brought his concerns with LeadSongDog's rationale here first, although as I wrote those comments, he has now done so. However, he should gain consensus before making any further changes. As a compromise, I would like to propose that the IARC matter be included with a brief summary, but that any text be referenced only directly to IARC release on the IARC web site or WHO web site, not to news or to other third party sites. When the journal article appears in Lancet Oncolgy in a few days, we can review what is presented there and discuss any changes at that time. What do people think? If this proposal is accepted, I will propose some text to be included.

Addendum replying to 220.101 comments just above: yes, the Mobile Phone article should also be amended, and I intend to do so. Because the issue blew up in the press and was listed on the WP main page, a lot of fresh editors unfamiliar with WP:MEDRS and with the history of the article, and with the tradition of talking through changes to the article on the talk page first, made changes to that article. I will make the changes to Mobile Phone and Health when a little dust has settled. --papageno (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to a carefully worded representation of what was in the IARC press release, though I see little value in it until either the monograph is published or the Lancet Oncology paper is available. Certainly the mass news media have made a mess of reading the tea leaves. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I propose this text, short, neutral, with a few quotations, and indicating when more information will be available, that will go in the article lead. All other text will be deleted, and I will put a warning box at the top indicating that re the IARC issue, the text is consensus of talk. I am also linking to this discussion from Talk:Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#World_Health_Organization_.28WHO.29_.27report.27_31_May_2011 so the same text proposed here can be used at that article (Mobile phone radiation and health), in the interest of economy and consistency.

On 31 May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer wrote that it had "…classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)…" and that "…a concise report summarizing the main conclusions…" that lead to the decision would be published online and in print in the 1 July 2011 of The Lancet Oncology. Reference: "IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans" (PDF). World Health Organization press release N° 208. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2011-05-31. Retrieved 2011-06-02.

OK, everyone? --papageno (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"...1 July 2011 issue of The Lancet Oncology." and convert to {{cite press release}}, then I'm fine with it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As i did on the mobile phone radiation and health talkpage too, i suggest to add this only to the relevant paragraph (the mobile phone section) and not into the lead, because the page covers a wide range of topics and not only the cancer risk of mobile phone usage. StoneProphet (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Indian review

The October 2011 literature review is problematic, in that it simply aggregates how many studies found effects, rather than looking at the quality of the studies, relation of the frequencies and power levels of exposure to the size of the effects (dose/response relationship), or the number of subjects involved. It is in no sense that I can detect systematic. Can we at least hold off a few weeks on including this, so there will be time for some comment in the literature? After all, wp:NOTNEWS. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with your summary. bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, if this is an article about Electromagnetic radiation and health then we should at least try to stay in the same neighbourhood as WP:MEDRS. The source seems to fall far short. After reading the first few pages I've discovered some worrying generalisations and it's playing fast and loose with vocabulary. It cites this as though it were peer-reviewed science, and it takes Levitt and Lai at face value even though they've been discredited. The criticism of IEEE and ICNIRP that starts at the bottom of page 9 reads more like something from a conspiracy-theory forum rather than a sober government paper. I don't think we can rely on this "literature review" for now. Need better sources. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Radio frequency fields

The Radio frequency fields sub-section is skewed and some of the references are in the wrong place. I attempted to remove the non-neutral rhetoric only to receive the following bafflingly ironic alert moments later: (Reverted to revision 688648507 by Alexbrn (talk): Rv. a non-neutral skew) JuliousMaximous (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You made Wikpedia say, in its own voice, thay mobile phones "may" cause cancer. The sources we use are less strong in their statements and I reverted to a text which was more neutrally aligned with them. (Add: and by the principle of WP:SYNC the content here need to be aligned with that in our Mobile phone radiation and health article.) Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed these points and revised my edit accordingly JuliousMaximous (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request for a 3O made in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. rejected). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If the matter cannot be resolved after extensive discussion here, then you may refile at 3O or some other dispute resolution venue. Note that discussion through edit comments will not be enough to satisfy the discussion requirement. If any editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User JuliousMaximous (talk) has now added a {{POV}} template, but has not added detailed reasons for doing so here. I suggest User JuliousMaximous swiftly add those detailed reasons or the POV template should be removed speedily, per Template:POV#When_to_remove. --papageno (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

papageno (talk) The reason for the POV template is the non-neutral (skewed, interpretive) language used to present particular aspects of the topic, as well as the narrowness of the aspects presented - in the context of the broader concerns relating to RFR radiation. Alexbrn (talk) and I have reached an impasse as I addressed his comments in re-editing the content accordingly but (s)he nevertheless reversed the changes again (without proper explanation). This matter clearly requires the attention of an impartial 3rd party. JuliousMaximous (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:JuliousMaximous, this is just restating that you think there is a problem, with vague allusions. Detail your case here with specific issues, clearly and amply detailed. A third opinion will not be forthcoming as outlined above until we have had a discussion. We can't have a discussion until you make your complete and thorough case. I have removed the POV template for now. --papageno (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electromagnetic radiation and health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113052702/http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf to http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-thermal biological adverse effects

Hello Wikipedians, Would it be possible to add the subject of non-thermal biological adverse effects? I think there are references to this part and it would be beneficial for us in this section. I realised that there was a discussion for non-thermal about 2006 but now it is 2018 and there would be several refrences for 12 years. (Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What sources did you have in mind? Remember they must be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you both of you Goodtiming8871 and Alexbrn. The new new sources must conform Wikipedia standards and there are likely several new findings on the topic of these specific adverse effects. I think adding them one at a time can help already. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but POV-skewed edits like the ones you attempted are most certainly not welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added a sentence on the health classification from the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the WHO. Please have a look. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted as this is bad. First as put it makes no sense (what type/frequency/intensity of field is meant?); secondly, ledes must summarize material in the body of the article; thirdly this WHO document is horribly out-of-date - the topic of mobile phones is dealt with at Mobile phone radiation and health. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You termed my sourced edit a "nonsensical lede-bomb", really? What does that even mean. This was a god faith edit. Please, show some manners. Unbelievable..... Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Also this exact information was already in an article section below. So this can qualify as part of a summary. Further, why would it be out of date? Also this article deals as an overview article including mobile phones and health. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)