Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 5

Repetition of "claimed" in prevalence section
Contrary to being a bit verbose in the talk section, I am in favour of being as concise as possible in the main article. I am concerned about the repetition of the word claimed because it seems tautologous. I cannot see how people who consider themselves to have a condition that by itself is defined as a "claimed" association needs extra reference to being claimed. In full, this would be the equivalent of "I claim to have a condition where I claim that my symptoms are caused by EMFs". The initial "claim" has become superfluous in context, and I think it actually weakens the clarity of the point being made - it also gives the impression that the condition of ES is causally associated by EMFs, and that proponents can only "claim" to have the condition, which is not the reality. I would contest that removing the additional "claims" (see my previous main article edit) in the beginning of the prevalence section makes it cleaner, neater, and more contextually accurate. topazg (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is important to differentiate those surveys from double blinded (or for that matter singly blinded) experiment protocols as they refer only to the prevalence of people who self-report the condition. The word claimed is appropriate and necessary in that context. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, you have a valid point, but I still feel the repetition of claim is awkward to read clearly. Would you be happy with "... self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity ..." in each case? topazg (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, I'm not actually sure you do have a valid point. The purpose of blinded provocation studies is to attempt to identify evidence of causation. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a condition defined (at least, by WHO) by the individual "claiming" sensitivity, with no requirement of actually being sensitive. In effect, its definition already recognises it as psychological instead of medical, so causation is pretty much irrelevant - if you or I decided to believe we had poor health as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields, we would fit the definition regardless or not of whether our beliefs were founded. I'm still happy with self-reported as an alternative word, as that is a simple statement of fact, and I think there are other implications of the word "claimed" that do not make sense with regards to a condition where the etiology is only "claimed" by its very nature. topazg (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with "self-reported". Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated as per our discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Either "self reported" or "claimed" is fine, but each study needs to have one or the other in order to make clear that the study results are not based upon a doctor's diagnosis. Furthermore, in technical writing its usually good to stick with either one term or the other, since doing otherwise might suggest to the reader that there is some difference between the two when in fact we mean to communicate no such thing. Locke9k (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} That's why I changed both references in question to self-reported. Simonm223 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think my concern on the previous wording was that "claim" implies there is a reasonable plausibility that the claimant is wrong, whereas self reported simply states that the attribution was not diagnosed by a qualified practitioner. I think it is hard to falsify a claim when the only condition required to be fulfilled is that the person "claims" their sensitivity - possibly with the exception of a psychological diagnosis that they are not of sane mind. Either way, I think the compromise works both ways :) topazg (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to put on record here that Topazg ‎has a direct conflict of interest here, and probably shouldn't be editing the article at all - and especially not to support the commercial and unscientific claims of his father and his father's company, with which he is associated. --128.243.220.22 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Friendly suggestion, before going any further consult WP:OUT. Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy with recognising my work in a volunteer capacity for an organisation that has a direct COI, as I believe it to be relevant information. The familial context is obviously why I choose time to make such capacity available. I am happy having any contributions I make tested under the scrutiny of COI interests because my aim is not to push a POV. Anything I suggest is genuinely aimed to further the quality of the article, not to push my, or any other, personal opinion on the issue. As Simonm223 mentioned above, he personally disbelieves that symptoms are caused by EMFs, and I'm still personally somewhat divided on the issue - any belief will have some effect on how we view further evidence and how it fits into the bigger picture, and I am sure both of us (and other editors) will attempt to not "force-fit" the article towards our personal beliefs but towards a representation of what the science, and world in general, says about the issue. topazg (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NM: Topazg self-identifies. Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I think Simonm223 means WP:outing, which is the policy on outing the real life identity of editors (in a nutshell, it says not to do it). Locke9k (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Man Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves
This article has been proposed as an external link. It sets off several redflags and I am not sure how it really adds to the article, but I could be convinced otherwise. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I inserted it and I feel it is worthy of inclusion, because it provides real empirical data of the nature of this condition. It is from a notable and reliable news source. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see how it adds anything to the article, and would oppose inclusion. Verbal chat  17:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, Sm8900, what aspects of Electromagnetic hypersensitivity do you think are covered in the Popular Science article that are not covered in the WP article? --papageno (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't feel the article offers anything to the article that isn't already present. I don't see any empirical data in it, and the notability of the news source is not enough for an article of a scientific or medical nature. I oppose inclusion also topazg (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Other Important Papers
Regarding the Popular Science article, the best tidbits are in the sidebar quotes which are not online. But much more important are the scientific papers that need to be added, like this one: Schrottner Leitgeb Hillert 2007 or this one: Kwon et al 2008 Physicsjock (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that the Schrottner paper is extremely important. As I alluded to in discussion above, the lack of homogeneity in the self-reported ES participants, including the strong likelihood that many of them are not sensitive to EMFs, is a critically import aspect to the debate that is often overlooked. I am not aware of a single double-blinded study that has addressed this issue in its study design. topazg (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Probable Cause of Believed EMR Sensitivity
The symptoms listed for EMR sensitivity parallel symptoms of Subliminal Distraction exposure. Where Wifi is used so are computers. Sitting reading a computer screen while there is repeating detectable movement in peripheral vision will cause these symptoms. It's your brain subliminally attempting but failing to trigger the vision startle reflex a massive number of times in a compact time frame. Discovered and solved forty years ago the cubicle was designed to deal with the vision startle reflex in crowded work situations to stop it there by 1968.

None of these arguments or studies mention Subliminal Distraction so you can believe they failed to control for it in the study.

VisionAndPsychosis.Net is a seven year investigation of Subliminal Distraction.

There are currently, August 2010, 14 elementary schools in Ontario Canada where parents claim WiFi EMR is causing similar symptoms. Video and pictures on-line show students crowded together using laptops while sitting in each other's peripheral vision. That's Subliminal Distraction. (See the EMR page at VisionAndPsychosis.Net.)

This is the same problem that caused the Everquest addiction uproar of 2002. It's back.....

L K Tucker 24.96.50.118 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that none of the reliable sources mention this as far as I am aware. It also seems unlikely to me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Ontario situation is gaining ground. Dr Magda Havas (Trent University professor, very well known in this field) has taken up a study on Simcoe County elementary schools, which installed WiFi last year. Parents are complaining of a range of symptoms in their kids, which are consistent between children, that disappear on the weekend or christmas/summer holiday. This has been published in the Toronto Sun, Star, CBC, and several others. This is a notable, situation regardless of the scientific reality being on either side of this argument., not to mention. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is notable, although Havas's science is crap (look at her website and you'll see - basically she has 2 studies both of which use self-reported symptoms with no controls). --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

← Un-indent

Perhaps, and I've mentioned this to her (to get an actual study in a peer reviewed journal).

There are a few other studies not directly attributed to her published by Lakehead University (who have banned WiFi from their buildings), Trent University, and University of Wisconsin. There are these papers too, which I haven't gone through. At least a few appear to be in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

1)     Johnson Liakouris AG.  Radiofrequency (RF) sickness in the Lilienfeld study:  An effect of modulated microwaves Archives of Environmental Health; May/Jun 1998; 53, 3.

2)     Santini R, Santini P, Le Ruz P, Danze JM, and Seignel M.  Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Fhone Base Stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 4149, 2003

3)     Hyland GJ.  Physics and biology of mobile telephony.  The Lancet, Vol 356, November 25, 2000.

4)     Marha K, Musil J, and Tuha H.  Electromagnetic Fields and the Life Environment.  Institute of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases, Prague, Czechoslovakia. English Translation 1971

5)     Havas M. 2006. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic Biology Medicine 25(4):259-68.

6)     Grant L. Microwaves Imitate Pesticides.  U.S. Department of Energy Risk Management Quarterly, Volume 5-3. http://www.stralingsvrijkind.nl/documenten/Bijlage-MicrowavesPesticides.pdf

7)     Cherry, N. 2000 Criticism of the Health Assessment in the ICNIRP Guidelines for Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation (100 kHz- 300 GHz)

8)     Johansso O.  Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields—A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment,  Pathophysiology, Volume 16, Issues 2-3, August 2009, Pages 157-177

9)     Letter from Norbert Hankin, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, EPA, regarding the limitations and purpose of the FCC exposure standards.http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf

10)   Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communication, 2008, National Academy of Science. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12036#toc

11)   Sage C, Carpenter DO. 2009. Public health implications of wireless technologies, Pathophysiology Aug;16(2-3):233-46

12)   Huss et al., "Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies", Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(1): 1-4, 2007.http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9149/9149.pdf.

13)   Hallberg O, Johansson O, Apparent decreases in Swedish public health indicators after 1997 – Are they due to improved diagnostics or to environmental factors?  Pathophysiology Volume 16, Issue 1, June 2009, Pages 43-46.

14)   Milham S, Morgan L.  A new electromagnetic exposure metric: High frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 51, Issue 8, Date: August 2008, Pages: 579-586

15)   Milham S. Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of “diseases of civilization”. Medical Hypotheses DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.08.032

16)   Havas M, Olstad A. Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and student behavior in three Minnesota Schools, Science of the Total Environment, Volume 402, Issues 2-3, 1 September 2008, pp. 157-162.

17)   Ozen, S. 2007.  Low-frequency Transient Electric and Magnetic Fields Coupling to Child Body, Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2007), pp. 1–6. http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ncm315

18)   Vignati, M. and L. Giuliani, 1997. Radiofrequency exposure near high-voltage lines. Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1569-1573 (1997) http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1469914

Like I said, I haven't actually read these, and don't have access to most of them, but they were pointed out to me and are some good sources for looking at the other side of the argument. As time goes one, this is beginning to become a very contentious issue between the scientists trying to convince everyone "nocebo effect" and more and more people stepping forward and saying "Well, nocebo or not, I'm still suffering". -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If those are the refs on her website then I have gone through them. Unless I have missed something, there were only 2 studies that looked at symptoms, and both were self-reported with no controls. Being published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean it isn't crap science.


 * The evidence seems to show that [1] people report no symptoms when mobile phone base station is switched ON but they are told it is OFF and [2] people report lots of symptoms when base station is OFF but they are told it is ON. So the symptoms appear to be mostly if not entirely nocebo/psychological and nothing to do with RF radiation. The studies above simply look at symptoms but don't have any placebo control. If they did they would find that all their symptoms were nocebo. That is bad science. It's not a question of being on 'one side or the other' - you just need to look at all the evidence with an open mind, evaluate it, and see what it is saying.


 * Still, the Ontario school wifi panic thing is notable and should probably be added to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm pretty POV, so I'll leave it to you to add it in the words you think best represent the situation. If I find anything credible I'll post it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * here is a good example of what I'm talking about - it's very interesting, and although not peer reviewed it does show the same results as the proper scientific trials. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any video of it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting read... Though it brings to question, how do they know the lack of feeling ill is not in itself a placebo effect from being told that it is off?
 * The family I live with are big tin-foil heads, so sometimes I like to pull of hidden experiments. Switch the bulbs to CFLs, put on a wireless network. It's funny because when I tell them afterwards, that's when they say "Oh, I THOUGHT I felt strange, that explains it!" -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That certainly could be the case. Some people might have undiagnosed illnesses that they mistakenly think are caused by wifi or whatever. The proper scientific studies are double-blind, which means the participants are not told whether or not the transmitter is on or not, and most studies show no difference between sham and real signal (see here). The important point is that the symptoms don't seem to be related to the radio waves. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We do now have a double-blind study in favor of EHS. This is the study by Magda Havas and Marrongelle.  They took a DECT cordless phone station, and it was plugged either into a live socket or a dead socket.  The heart rate was affected exactly at the times when it was plugged into a live socket.
 * On the contrary, you see anecdotes of people who did not make the association of their symptoms with EMF, and saw doctor after doctor, to no avail. By chance, they later learn of the possible connection, and find out that their symptoms go away when the source is turned off.  Because the symptoms preceded the idea that EMF could be dangerous, it cannot be associated with the nocebo effect. -Pensees (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The DECT study isn't published in any peer-reviewed journal. Havas' website says it was submitted in 2009. And from what I can gather it wasn't double-blind - the researchers were not blinded, only the patients.


 * As for patients recovering after the source is turned off - that is exactly what you would expect if the illness was psychogenic, as a result of the placebo effect. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

← Un-indent

A little tongue-in-cheek is intended in the following

Let's see. Per the list of members of the instigating group in Ontario, two chiropractors, one and the other both seemingly on the less scientific quackery side of chiropractic beliefs, bring their health concerns to the proper authorities for thorough scientific study by epidemiologists call around and decide Wifi must be the cause of vague, non-specific health problems being suffered by children. Their partners, one a former journalist and the other a documentary director, use contacts and skills to get the item into the press. It lasts a few days, is rejected as a premise by the provincial teachers federation, and dies. Yes, that must belong in a medical article on WP. Oh, and the fact that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Wifi access points have been installed in schools, libraries, restaurants and other public places around the world without incident or media attention? Perhaps the recent Ontario story belongs in an article about health hysteria, but here it (and the Lakehead University policy) would at least seem to contravene WP:UNDUE. --papageno (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And any professor who lists an article from Medical Hypotheses as a credible source has lost touch with scientific reality (a layperson could be forgiven for not knowing). Even more so one with only seven citations on PubMed in 35 years, none related to WiFi. I'm not sure of whom I'm more disappointed: Ms. Havas who, perhaps with good intentions, continues to believe despite the evidence, or the credulous media who couldn't cover a science story if their life depended on it. --papageno (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And now more seriously…

Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources from reputable publishers are to be preferred over primary studies. The best in this field, and now in its third incarnation, is the Electromagnetic Fields 2009 Update of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) of the European Commission. And as regards Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, that update in its Section 10 Conclusions says: "No consistent relationship between self-reported symptoms and extremely low frequency fields has been demonstrated." --papageno (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re "Perhaps, and I've mentioned this to her (to get an actual study in a peer reviewed journal)" HAVAS does now have a paper published in a peer reviewed journal that shows in a double blind study that SOME EHS patients are showing heart rate variability. This study is now in the process of being duplicated by several other scientists. Perhaps this audience can give her a chance and keep an open mind that it might be possible?  Read it here Havas article


 * re "The DECT study isn't published in any peer-reviewed journal. Havas' website says it was submitted in 2009. And from what I can gather it wasn't double-blind - the researchers were not blinded, only the patients." Not true- see the actual paper at the link indicated in previous paragraph. --Robertwilliams232323 (talk) Current revision as of 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There simply is not enough reliable evidence. Nowhere near a lot. This is the same as many such afflictions today; the problem exists primarily in the minds of those who suffer it. And if there IS a problem, all this does is distract from the actual issues. It seems exceedingly unlikely that small scale electronics will cause these issues, and yet exposing someone to say..a Jacob's Ladder wont ever automatically kill them.


 * Another major issue with reaches across many forms of pseudoscience is here as well. Ill use the anti-vaccine controversy as my example, since it is a well known controversy: A large scale effect is ignored in the persuit of a belief that a small scale effect will cause problems. As with mercury, the amounts in any given vaccine are negligable, and you receive much more just from breathing air in a day. So if mercury caused autism, its not the vaccine thats doing it.


 * With THIS issue, people never seem to show mega effects from being in close proximity to an extremely large power source. Considering that the damage claimed by smallscale electronic fields, Why do these folks not respond to an Aurora? Or the earth's magnetic field anywhere else? Or solar flares? Or X-rays or...Well you see where im going with this: The most powerful of the effects should cause increasingly worsening symptoms, and you should even be able to initiate death in this manner. But in the end, our planet's magnetic sphere would be millions((Note: intentional exaggeration)) of times as destructive if people were effected by these things. And if its light, well, again theres the whole sun thing.


 * Remember, these claims basically are saying that a specific spectrum of light is causing problems, despite the number of such effects in use 100+ years ago, and billions in the form of stars. Thats a pretty big reach id say. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

New paper on electromagnetic radiation from NRC
The National Research Council published an encompassing paper a few days ago that is worth examining, covering the effects of "Microwave Sickness". Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Though it reiterates what most studies state, it very clearly states that the amount of evidence is undeniable, and that just because it doesn't fit into the patterns we expect doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or have nasty effects that should be considered. Cheers,  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking a quick look at the paper, it doesn't seem to say that at all. When I looked (briefly) at the research into mobile base stations, the papers they looked at all seemed to say that it was purely psychological (no link to actual EMF). It's difficult to draw conclusions, however, as there is no actual 'conclusion' section in the paper as far as I can see. It has a discussion section, but that doesn't seem to be based on the research that they review in the paper. Is this a reliable journal? It doesn't appear to be pubmed indexed as far as I can tell. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Numerous biological effects do occur after short-term exposures to low-intensity RFR but potential hazardous health effects from such exposures on humans are still not well established, despite increasing evidence as demonstrated throughout this paper. Unfortunately, not enough is known about biological effects from long-term exposures, especially as the effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure. It is the long-term, low-intensity exposures that are most common today and increasing significantly from myriad wireless products and services.
 * People are reporting symptoms near cell towers and in proximity to other RFR-generating sources including consumer products such as wireless computer routers and Wi-Fi systems that appear to be classic ‘‘microwave sickness syndrome,’’ also known as ‘‘radiofrequency radiation sickness.’’ First identified in the 1950s by Soviet medical researchers, symptoms included headache, fatigue, ocular dysfunction, dizziness, and sleep disorders. In Soviet medicine, clinical manifestations include dermographism, tumors, blood changes, reproductive and cardiovascular abnormalities, depression, irritability, and memory impairment, among others. The Soviet researchers noted that the syndrome is reversible in early stages but is considered lethal over time (Tolgskaya et al. 1973)"
 * To me that says "Not enough research is being done, but this appears to be this syndrome identified by the Soviets in the 1950s that causes X effects, is reversible, but lethal over time." -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked into it in detail, but I believe that syndrome is only caused by very high power microwaves. The low levels in cell phones don't cause it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you've taken a look. It argues against the transmitter towers that are placed within cities and on the roof of residential buildings, not cell phones themselves. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, this seems to be an unreliable source and they don't actually present any data - it's purely speculation and discussion, and therefore not suitable for inclusion here. If I've got it wrong, please post some refs. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It was published a week ago, so that may explain the lack of a pubmed ID. That doesn't mean it's unreliable. It's published by a reputable scientific publisher that is reliable, and its a analysis of primary studies, or a secondary source. I don't see where you come under the notion that it is an unreliable source, unless you are looking solely at the website hosting the pdf. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The journal doesn't appear to be pubmed-indexed at all. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Havas paper
Re the edits today by Robertwilliams232323 (talk) and the user's desire to include text supported by a " 'peer-reviewed' study". by Magda Havas et al. I invoke WP:3RR and suggest the matter be discussed here.

The Havas et al article is hardly published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, and thus does not meet WP:MEDRS, for six reasons. First, the journal "European Journal of Oncology" is not indexed in Pubmed. Second, the issue was published by the Ramazzini Institute, which I would characterize as scientifically suspect (see Aspartame_controversy). Third the co-”sponsor” of the issue, besides the Ramazzini folks, is the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), the grandiose name for the group founded by and for EMF sensitivity supporters; the journal issue is styled "an ICEMS monograph". Fifth, the journal’s (or at least the issue’s) two editors are Livio Giuliani and Morando Soffritti (the latter of the Ramazzini Institute), who were as of 2008 the ICEMS Spokesman and an ICEMS member respectively per the ICEMS resolutions page; Havas and another author (Kelley) of the paper are ICEMS members. The article almost has been self-published! At most charitable, it does raise serious questions as to just what sort of peer review the article was put. Sixth, only one author — Havas — has an affiliation with an academic or scientific research body. What qualifications did the other authors have that would suggest the article reports quality work? Just looking at the second author mentioned, Marrongelle, one can find that he is a chiropractor, nutritionist (not an officially protected designation, so meaningless) and first-class graduate of the nonaccredited and now defunct Capital University of Integrated Medicine. Furthermore, citing a single "study", of dubious quality in an unreliable publication, would be an egregious case of WP:UNDUE.For further criticism of the work, see Magda Havas’ New EHS Study Has Serious Flaws by Lorne Trottier at the Skeptic North site. --papageno (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - so it looks like you have done some serious research on the paper and those involved and it seems that when it shows up in Pub med your opinion of the paper might change. I agree to leave that topic alone till then. You mention that (Sixth, only one author — Havas — has an affiliation with an academic or scientific research body.)  You probably then know that Magda Havas teaches a public university course on the subject of The Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields at Trent University.  She gets paid by the government of Canada to teach this course among many others.  This is a respected institution. Even if all the naysayers are against her published papers being read here, do you not think it is fair to allow the readers of Wikipedia to know there is a school and a professor that specializes in this subject and also teaches the subject of  EHS as her job?   - It's time to allow her name and affiliation with the University to appear in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be ok to put a mention of her in the article, but we should probably also include some of the criticism against her as well. Havas' research is clearly very bad science and misinformation - you can easily see that by looking at a few of her papers. The question I have to ask is - why is a university funding such crap science? --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One also has to wonder WHAT she is paid to do, exactly. Health Canada currently sides with the industry (because sick people won't pay them millions upon millions of dollars, clearly), so it seems rather odd that she would be employed to teach to the contrary. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

← Re-start indent

User Robertwilliams232323, thanks for commenting here on this matter. I think it would be considered courteous to achieve consensus in a discussion, or to at least wait for the those actively involved in an article, like myself, to comment before making edits. I have reverted them with an edit summary indicating your no doubt good faith for the moment. If you are anxious to speed up a discussion after having commented yourself, you are welcome to add a note to a user's talk page (like mine indicating such; when users return to Wikipedia, they receive notification of a change to their talk page, and are likely to respond faster. I trust these suggestions are taken in the friendly spirit with which they are intended.

First, if the article ever is added to PubMed, that would only address one of six concerns about WP:MEDRS; they all need to be addressed. Even then, it would still leave the matter of WP:UNDUE. As regards adding information about the course at Trent, I am not sure I perceive any logic. For one, Havas is not paid by the government of Canada, she is paid by Trent, funded by the Ontario provincial government, student fees, and donations. But the fact that she is teaching the course at Trent is a sign of her tenure and resultant academic freedom; it is not an endorsement by either Trent, no matter how respectable it may be, or the three funding parties, no matter how respectable they may be. She also appears to be teaching two other courses, one on pollution (her apparent original interest area, her work in the area the reason for her tenure) and environmental communications. Her teaching these other courses does not imply an endorsement by anyone of these fields either. And in which of the three course fields does she specialize, then? (Aside: my dryly humourous response is the third, communications, because she is — and I mean this with grudging respect — quite adept in the area.) I might also add that the single reference work given in the course syllabus is the BioInitiative Report, which hardly bodes well that the course has a comprehensive and sound scientific underpinning. There is no basis for her name or affiliation with the university to appear in the article, or that of any other researcher or institution for that matter, except in passing when noting relevant WP:MEDRS research.

Finally, I trust User Floydian's comments about Health Canada and money were meant in jest, because they are a logical fallacy at best, and the typical conspiracy theory lament of those unable to provide hard evidence at worst. --papageno (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're fooling yourself big time if you don't know that money makes the world go 'round &mdash; not science and progress. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the point, we should only include things based on wikipedia policies such as WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. If Havas is the only person in the world teaching a university course in Electromagnetic sensitivity then that might be notable. If other people have criticised her then that might be notable as well. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Magda's couse is the only one that gives you a university credit. As far as PubMed listings - I went to pubmed - typed in her name and 2 papers came up related to Electrohypersensitivity -  Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle diabetes. AND Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. - Two reviewed publications - AND At Trent University she teaches that material. I feel that she has met the criteria to be associated with this article.  She could be right about this stuff - and her voice should be heard.   Now, I agree that it is now fair game to discredit these papers if you want.  I just thought that mentioning her name would be suffice for people that wanted to attend a class for more information beyond wiki articles - but perhaps we should include these PubMed papers too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We can't/shouldn't just include her papers because they are listed in pubmed - they need to satisfy WP:MEDRS as well. Also we generally only include reviews here, not individual papers (being a "review" is different from being "peer-reviewed"). But as I pointed out above, we can still mention Havas herself if she is notable, as well as any criticism of her - this would not fall under WP:MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We only need to follow WP:MEDRS to use her papers to support a statement as fact. However, given what she does, how prolific her work is, and the fact that scientists write reviews on her papers (even if only to discredit them), I agree that she is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  03:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So what more do we need to do? Everyone agrees. Put up the text that I wrote that she is a teacher at trent and teaches a class in Electrohypersensitivity. And then discredit her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.62.181 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

← Re-start indent

I strongly disagree. She is not notable in the context of this article, which should follow the Manual of Style (medicine-related articles); this style manual has a strongly scientific bent, and does not seem to have a section called "populist promoters of a particular point of view" (slight humour intended). The views she expresses are outlined in the article already and discussed. That is exactly and exclusively what is required for an article about a medical condition. She does teach a course called "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields", but there are I dare say hundreds of courses at universities around the world dealing with electromagnetic fields and health, for sure in medical and engineering faculties as well as in environmental studies faculties. Her on biography says "… is one of the few courses available in North America at a senior undergraduate level…". I take that to mean her course is not unique on my continent let alone others.

User Robertwilliams232323 says "She could be right about this stuff - and her voice should be heard." This is not a basis anywhere in WP for including material.

User Floydian says "the fact that scientists write reviews on her papers" Millions of scientists write reviews on the work of other scientists. This does not make the work of the other scientists WP:MEDRS or notable: it happens every minute of every day.

User Floydian says Havas is "prolific"; from a point of view of science output, this is incorrect. She only has seven citations on PubMed in 35 years, only four related to EMF and health via the concept of dirty electricity: a very small series of cases involving diabetes (, four subjects); a review article that includes her diabetes research ; a single-blind study in a school ; and a study of the magentic and electrical field strengths in Ontario. That does not equal notability for scientific output (nor are they of quality - per the July 2010 article " 'Dirty electricity': what, where, and should we care?" : "However, all these published studies were subject to significant methodological flaws in the design of the studies, the assessment of exposure, and the statistical analysis, which prevented valid assessment of a causal link between this exposure metric and adverse effects.") I do agree that she is notable for her populist fear-mongering in the media and elsewhere. However, I think that would underpin a case for an article about her, where one logically could list her views (and counter them), and state that she teaches a course about EMF and health. I would have no objection to an article about Havas, nor to it being referenced here in the See also section, in the same way that the See Also section has a link to Arthur Firstenberg. It would address User Robertwilliams232323's passionate desire (meant sincerely) to have Havas' name somewhere in the article.--papageno (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have justed reverted User Robertwilliams232323's good faith edits. Perhaps I could have a little time to reply to a discussion before changes are made? I realize some editors may be passionate about having a point included rapidly. Per WP:DISENGAGE: "Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time." This helps to ensure that all editors involved in a discussion can chime in thus aids in achieving a solid WP:Consensus. And I would not consider it discourteous if any editor placed a comment on my talk page to alert me and so speed things up. --papageno (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * papageno makes some good points here. I agree that she is only notable for her populist views and media controversy and not for her scientific studies (which would fall under WP:MEDRS). Ideally we should use a secondary source to discuss her (along with the controversy) if we decide to include a mention. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're both only looking at her output in terms of what could possibly meet MEDRS. She's released a crapload of half-science papers. She speaks at international conferences on the topic, she works with Dr Graham Stetzer (the other "scientist" who is in the public eye for this topic). I think these two are notable in the context of this article in that they are public figures promoting the idea. Their science may not be notable, but their continued contributions towards the field are certainly notable. Science, just like other facets of life, is not a one-sided wall. Its possible for the underdogs to make an impact, and Magda has certainly had her share of newspaper exposure. Nothing that they say needs to be asserted as fact (or even as correct science), but Havas and Stetzer are more famous than ANY scientist that is working in this field. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read our comments you'll see that we both actually agree with you. We are saying that she is possibly notable for her publicity and newspaper coverage (under WP:RS), but not for her science itself (her studies fail WP:MEDRS). --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right! Perfect we agree - So write something Sciencewatcher and put it up. Just tell me how long this process is going to take? It's been 3 weeks now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

← Re-start indent

Anyone can add the info. I'd do it myself, but I don't really have time. If you want to do it yourself, go ahead. Just make sure it is WP:NPOV, which probably means including notable criticism as per WP:WEIGHT. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that I assume the world revolves around me, but apologies to anyone who has been waiting for a reply on my part.


 * I have had a look at the a number of the WikiProject Medicine Featured articles via |this list created by a toolserver tool. A perusal (not an exhaustive review, but the pattern emerges) of the disease or medical condition articles would seem to show that names of people are only mentioned in the History section. And those names that are mentioned appear to be of people that have made a significant scientific contribution. I do not believe such an achievement can be attributed to Havas and thus, in the context of this article, she is not notable.<BR />
 * Writing low quality articles, attending conferences and being in the media a lot is an argument for quantity over quality and does not qualify as notable. There are many folks in many disciplines who do such things, and there do not appear to be any sections (as I have noted before) in medicine articles to list such efforts.<BR />
 * In reply to certain other arguments, Havas and Stetzer are not the only folks working the field; others include scientist Rubin, Canadian activist Wetherall and UK activist Phillips. The argument "It's possible for the underdogs to make an impact" is a Straw man. I — and more importantly scientific review bodies and health authorities — do not reject Havas' work because she is an underdog, rather because it is of poor scientific quality. Lastly, the statement "Havas and Stetzer are more famous than ANY scientist that is working in this field" is an assertion that cannot be supported by any evidence.<BR />
 * I will repeat again that one solution to the dilemma here is already in use in this article: a link to an article about that person in the See Also section, used here for Arthur Firstenberg. I would support creating an article for Havas — she is notable enough for her own article — and linking to it from this article from the See Also section.--papageno (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Intro section
The intro is highly biased. It hints that nonionizing radiation cannot be dangerous despite ~2000 studies which suggest the opposite. See also []. The current intro also suggests no medical recognition although in fact, the Freiburger appeal consists of 6000 German doctors who signed the appeal due to concern about EMF's negative effects on people. Furthermore, it gives too much weight to a few double-blind studies (industry-funded or flawed in study design). To offset this bias, there needs to be recognition of the cell tower survey studies that found EMF's are an issue (Santini, Bortkiewicz A, and a few others). We also have objective evidence of biological effects-- e.g., a recent study in a reputable journal showing that EMF's can affect the brain. Isa58 (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In wikipedia we have to follow WP:MEDRS. Double-blind placebo-controlled studies are the gold standard, and that is what we mainly rely on. An uncontrolled survey cannot be used to override a higher quality double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Also the Blake paper you gave above fails WP:MEDRS because it isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal. The same for 6000 German doctors - that fails MEDRS as well, although it may deserve a mention somewhere in the article itself (but not the lede). Similar for studies that show that EMFs can affect the brain - that may deserve a mention, but probably not in the lede. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ummm... Why does 6000 German doctors signing an appeal have no weight? No MEDRS source is required to source the statement that 6000 scientists oppose the "mainstream" viewpoint... which seems to be pretty large opposition. Who is the mainstream again? That one paper from 2009? Those 6000 scientists are more peer review than anything on the almighty pubmed could ever dream of. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, if you read my comment I actually said we can probably include it. The point is that it can't be used to contradict a MEDRS review, which does actually carry more weight in wikipedia (see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS). --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * MEDRS doesn't begin to cover this sort of situation. Methinks this is best asked at WP:RSN, because its not being used for anything more than acknowledging the existence of the condition. Again, 6000 scientists carries far more weight than any MEDRS could ever have. Wiki policy or not, 6000 scientists are more mainstream than one peer reviewed paper by a handful of scientists. Would a journal remain peer reviewed and accepted if 6000 reviewers said "no, this is a load of crap, and we believe that such-and-such is the case?" This is still 6000 qualified professionals contradicting the study. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Freiburger Appeal does not meet any standard for inclusion in the article.<BR>
 * First, WP:MEDRS absolutely applies. If one wishes to prove the existence of a condition and contradict a viewpoint established by WP:MEDRS references, then one must provide evidence supported by sources of the same quality.<BR>
 * Second, an on-line petition is in and of itself a suspect source.<BR>
 * Third, the appeal is from 2002, which means it is nine years of research out of date.<BR>
 * Fourth, I cannot find a source to confirm the figure 6,000? I can only find a link at the IGUMED (IGUMED being the organization that launched the Appeal) web site page about the Freiburger Appeal which is supposed to give the current list of signatories … that is dead. One can find  The Wayback snapshot is from May 2008, but the web page date is 2003-02-24 — eight years ago. It says more than 1,000 doctors had signed at that point, but lists only 389 names.<BR />
 * How significant is this number? I have done a little analysis. 6% on the list are not German. 12% are dentists. 6% are homeopaths. 7.5% are naturopaths. Summing those up (some signatories may belong to several categories) gives almost 30% that one should strike off the numerator, leaving 276. For the denominator, The Economist Pocket World in Figures (2011 edition, ISBN 9781846684845) gives a figure of 3.5 doctors per 1,000 population for Germany. On a population of 82.5 million, that means roughly 290,000 doctors in Germany. Putting those together means 0.10% (276 / 290k) of doctors in Germany signed the appeal. If one does not stroke 30% off the list of given names, it is 0.13% (389 / 290k). If one assumes 1,000 people signed but strikes off 30%, it is 0.25% (700 / 290k). If one assumes 1,000 signatories, it is 0.35% (1,000 / 290k). None of these figures are significant.<BR />
 * Fifth, saying a quantity of "doctors" have a certain view is a double logical fallacy, both Argumentum ad populum and Argument from authority. How many of these doctors have any grounding in the subject? Perhaps we can ask the plastic surgeons on the list? or the orthopedic surgeons? or the sports medicine doctors?<BR>
 * Finally, the German Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) "German Federal Office for Radiation Protection") in a 2009 summary (PDF) of their positions on various EMF and health topics addressed "Doctors' appeals critical of mobile telephony" and referred to a meeting in August 2006 where, amongst others, the originators of the Freiburg Appeal, Drs. Waldmann-Selsam and Eger, were present. The BfS said that: the cases presented as evidence for the Appeal did not meet the German standard for case descriptions (the Robert Koch Institute criteria); the health issues proffered were not objectively described either systematically or thoroughly with medically recognized diagnostic methods; and an impartial and reproducible analysis of alternate explanations and their systematic elimination did not take place. The BfS concluded that the case descriptions presented did not support the posited causal relationship between EMF and health and that current scientific research studies that followed the guidelines of good epidemiological practice spoke against such a relationship.<BR>
 * The Freiburger Appeal falls far short of being significant evidence by any measure, let alone WP:MEDRS, something easily established here in first instance. --papageno (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

EHS as a officially recognized functional impairment in Sweden
Under the heading of Diagnosis there is a statement regarding the official status of EHS as a functional impairment in Sweden. Even disregarding the factual claim itself (which is wrong), the following two sentences make little sense.

"'In Sweden electromagnetic hypersensitivity is an officially recognized functional impairment, but it is not regarded as a disease.[31] The Swedish Science and Popular Enlightenment Association, Vetenskap och Folkbildning (VoF), has criticized this research.[32]'"

What is "this research" that VoF is criticizing? The first sentence only says that EHS is an officially recognized functional impairment. It makes no reference to any research.

An even more important issue though is the claim itself that EHS is an "officially recognized functional impairment" in Sweden. The reference given is not a statement from any official entity, but rather an article written by well known EHS lobbyist Olle Johansson. His rhetoric should not be mistaken for official policy of any kind. Unfortunately, his propaganda has almost completely saturated the available information on this issue. You cannot easily find any first-hand official statements on the Internet, especially if you're trying to do so in English.

First of all, EHS is not a recognized medical diagnosis (in Sweden or anywhere else), and cannot therefore be recognized as a disability. What is recognized is that people claiming to suffer from EHS are in fact experiencing symptoms that, regardless of their actual cause, can be considered functionally impairing. This is what is recognized by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. They agree that these people are indeed impaired, but make it clear (at least when asked directly) that there is no reason to believe it has anything to do with electromagnetic fields. If one suffers from severe symptoms of any kind, it can be considered a disability. The term EHS would not appear on any medical professionals evaluation, nor in any official documents regarding functional impairment. If some of the recipients of financial support choose to describe themselves as suffering from EHS, that would be a personal choice. The only source I've found in English is this paper (which concerns Ireland, but has got a couple pages detailing the Swedish point of view. See pages 19 and 55). Here are a couple of excerpts:

"'The focus in Sweden is on the symptoms presented by the afflicted person and the right to sick leave, sickness benefits, disability pension etc is based on the degree of ill health and functional handicap of the person regardless of a known or unknown cause for the condition.'"

"'The Swedish Board of Health and Welfare is the Swedish authority to grant financial support through the national budget to disability organisations. A disability organisation is according to the authorities understood to be an organisation which members (at least a majority of) meet substantial difficulties in everyday life due to some kind of disability. The National Board of Health and Welfare thus make their decisions based on the consequences for the afflicted individuals and not based on any known underlying cause of the disability/problems. The Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive was granted financial support as a disability organisation. Most disability organisations that have received this type of financial support join the Swedish Disability Federation, as has The Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive. This fact has sometimes been misinterpreted as if electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a recognised medical diagnosis in Sweden.'"

I believe the paragraph regarding this should be rewritten to more accurately represent the official view of the Swedish government. It should not be phrased in such a way that, taken out of context, would seem to validate EHS as a diagnosable medical condition (which is exactly what the article currently used as reference 31 is doing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.141.85 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed it agreeing with comments above and it just seems to be this one person (Johansson) that says it's "official" (not the swedish authorities), and even then he says "i.e. it is not regarded as a disease". Bhny (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please revert the undiscussed move
Unlike the content of the article, the title of the article should reflect its WP:Common name. The new term is certainly not that, is long, unweildly, and most of all, undiscussed. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  10:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For medical terms we go with the medical name which is "Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields" per this 2010 review article accessed from PubMed. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That may well be a technical term in the literature, but I think WP:COMMONNAME should take precedence over such a long term unfamiliar to lay readers. What's the most widely used name for this? I'd prefer electrosensitivity (it gets 14x ghits), but electromagnetic hypersensitivity is close enough for me. bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Several other reviews use several different terms; that lone review is the only time I have EVER seen the term you are proposing. WP:COMMONNAME applies to all articles, but please point me to a discussion or guideline/policy if I'm mistaken. If this has a "medical name" then that would mean it's a recognized medical condition, yes? We'll have to update the article to reflect that. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see MEDMOS. For your answer to if it is a recognized medical condition please read the review posted above. Many controversial conditions have names and are accepted / not accepted to varying degrees by the medical establishment. Are there people who claim that they get symptoms from EM, yes and no one is medicine would deny that. Does the medical establishment believe that the symptoms are indeed from EM (no per the review posted). But a name is still useful. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're using a minor facet of the situation to avoid the situation altogether. The recognition of a medical condition is not related to the cause or reality of the symptoms of that condition. The condition is recognized, the symptoms/effects just aren't correlated with EM energy. WP:MEDMOS states: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". The current title definitely meets these criteria. The proposed rename does not, as it is not the "most commonly used" name. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The PubMed reference above is the only one in PubMed using "Idiopathic" in conjunction with EMF in the title. The entire rest of the scientific and lay literature uses the term EHS. "Idiopathic etc EMF" would appear to be the outlier at the moment, and thus the article should remain named as is. If a substantial body of articles from a diverse set of authors and sources using "Idiopathic etc EMF" can be established in the future, a renaming should be reconsidered. A redirect from "Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields" to this article can be established if desired. --papageno (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing seems to come up for either name in ICD-10 online. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WHO proposed the name be changed to IEI-EMF in 2006- http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/EHS_Proceedings_June2006.pdf The term Idiopathic environmental intolerance (Electromagnetic field attributed symptoms),  or IEI-EMF, is proposed to replace terms that imply an established causal relationship between symptoms and electromagnetic fields (e.g. electromagnetic hypersensitivity, electrosensitivity and hypersensitivity to electricity). Bhny (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and I agree we should go with the World Health Organization. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This article says " This finding led to the implication that these symptoms are due to beliefs and anticipation of harm rather than to the EMFs themselves. Consequently, the World Health Organization has suggested that terms such as “electrosensitivity” should be replaced by IEI-EMF to acknowledge the absence of evidence for a causal connection between EMFs and reported symptoms (Hansson Mild et al. 2006)."  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the current WHO factsheet on the condition. You'll see it is titled "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" and it says "A more general term for sensitivity to environmental factors is Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI), which originated from a workshop convened by the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) of the WHO in 1996 in Berlin. IEI is a descriptor without any implication of chemical etiology, immunological sensitivity or EMF susceptibility. IEI incorporates a number of disorders sharing similar non-specific medically unexplained symptoms that adversely affect people. However since the term EHS is in common usage it will continue to be used here."


 * If we do change the name, we should probably rename MCS as well. However I'm not entirely convinced that we should be changing the name, as it seems the WHO is still mainly using the old name. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The WHO factsheet you reference is from 2005. The name change appears to have been in 2006. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As you've stated numerous times, the WHO merely suggested this change of name in 2006. That doesn't mean that it is, it was just a suggestion. The medical literature still needs to follow suit for it to be so, and the vast majority of sources use EMH. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  10:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Has requested opinions from WP:MED let hear others opinion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It might have been possible to frame that a little more neutrally. What, no mention of WP:COMMONNAME? Surely WP:COMMONNAME carries quite a lot of weight in a discussion about article titles. bobrayner (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to worry too much about the specific wording. WPMED's a pretty good group of editors.
 * For myself, at this point in time, I'm inclined to stick with the shorter term, even though it is clearly a WP:POVTITLE. The perfect name doesn't exist, so I will accept giving up technical accuracy and neutrality in favor of recognizability, naturalness, and concision.
 * If/when WHO or some other major health organization actually adopts the mile-long, then I'd suggest moving the page. In between now and then, I think it is adequate for the shorter title's factual failings should be fully explained in the article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While the factsheet is from 2005, it is the current factsheet as listed on their website here. Also, as pointed out by Floydian the name change was just 'proposed'. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent single studies added
I have reverted the recent edit by User Pm57a (talk). The studies do not meet the standards of evidence required for a health article, as outlined at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). All appear to be small, single studies that do not contradict the evidence assembled by comprehensive reviews: -papageno (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huttunen et al "FM-radio and TV tower signals can cause spontaneous hand movements near moving RF reflector" (2009). Small sample size. Plus, published in an issue of a journal guest-edited by a member of the BioInitiative Report committee that published that report as several articles (2 years after that report was first released) as well as other articles, all of them about EMF being bad for health. It is dubious any article received peer review, and so the study and source are not WP:MEDRS
 * Havas et al "Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system" (2010). The reasons this paper are not WP:MEDRS were covered extensively before on this talk page
 * McCarty et al "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome" (2011) This is an examination of a single patient and must be considered very preliminary research, and so not WP:MEDRS


 * I have tried to address papageno’s concerns about the range and tentative nature of the new studies in the revised addition. It is inappropriate to criticize the new studies on the basis of the limited number of subjects, however, since the condition under discussion is idiopathic by definition. Therefore if one interprets WP: MEDRS as expressing a requirement only for large-scale studies WP could not address an idiopathic condition. In fact nearly all the provocation studies and their reviews already listed in the article, both dated before 2006 and dated after 2006, are not WP: MEDRS since they too have failed to address the idiopathic nature of the condition. In addition most but not all of these earlier provocation studies also fail WP: MEDRS by the inadequacy of their design through not showing that they have screened their subjects effectively, since screening is essential for analysing any idiopathic intolerance; unsurprisingly, to review these studies shows that those with the least effective screening are often those with the lowest correlation between idiopathic symptoms and exposure. If most or all of these provocation studies should be removed from the Wiki article because of this fundamental failure to meet WP: MEDRS over an idiopathic condition. the Wiki entry would have little left. It therefore seems best to include the existing flawed provocation studies, perhaps with a caveat on their inadequacy, while including the more recent studies which are beginning to attempt to meet the criteria demanded by the idiopathic nature of the condition. — Pm57a (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC).


 * The comments by User Pm57a are somewhat illogical and incoherent. The existing evidence in the article has been included because it does meet WP:MEDRS, in particular the comprehensive secondary reviews. Whether evidence should be included or not is independent of the "idiopathic" nature of the condition. And adding a "caveat" to evidence that does not meet WP:MEDRS does not make a case for its inclusion: it does not obviate the need for meeting the WP:MEDRS standard in the first place. The article has been reverted back. –papageno (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not explaining this fundamental distinction sufficiently in my previous posting, or even in the brief addition to the article.


 * 1. The inherent nature of idiopathic conditions differentiates their analysis at a methodological level from the epidemiologically driven data derived from unscreened provocation testing based on the assumption of homogeneity. If IEI-EMF is both fundamentally and holistically idiopathic in both its clinical expression and its pathophysiological parameters, to criticise its heterogeneous ontological status by demanding higher level outputs from the evidence available is to mis-categorise its true nature. If IEI-EMF is not essentially idiopathic, then in adopting this nomenclature we appear to be applying an a priori assumption with no evidence. It would be quite reasonable to accept that until 2006 (the date when the terminology IEI-EMF seems to have been first suggested) the condition was assumed not to be idiopathic and thus to accept studies until that date as valid contributions in the research process. Studies subsequent to 2006, such as provocation reviews, ought ideally to be dependent on the different parameters necessitated by any idiopathic condition, however, and, where they do not so do, could or should be noted as flawed in their presuppositions and not fully compliant with the assumptions behind WP: MEDRS, although they should not necessarily be rejected from the Wiki article for that reason alone.


 * 2. The three new studies (Huttunen 2009, Havas 2010, McCarty 2011) have radically changed our understanding of how to approach the condition, by introducing a new paradigm into the analysis of an idiopathic rather than the homogenous condition as assumed heretofore. They are the most significant studies in their contribution to analytical rather than descriptive research into the condition of IEI-EMF/EHS since the twin re-founding but primarily descriptive papers, and, along with Rea 1991 (already listed in this Wiki article, note 11), the first significant conscious psychological provocation test. For the first time these three new studies of 2009-2011 have shown how the condition can be approached consistently at a scientific medical level rather than through anecdotal or epidemiological psychological recollections. No study is perfect, as has been noted in the case of these three, but this does not detract from their conceptual or evidential importance, especially in an area of medicine where so little is established about the supposed condition. In fact, although the Havas 2010 paper may be limited in its scope, it happens to signify the turning point in our understanding of how the condition can be assessed scientifically. It gives the scientific rationale only implicit in the Huttunen 2009 paper and it has now been vindicated by the comprehensive McCarty 2011 study. It has advanced our understanding of the condition as much or more than Czerski 1964, Drogitschina 1964 and Rea 1991. It would be extraordinary for this Wiki article not to give readers any clue or reference to the most important change in approaching this condition for the last 20 years.  In addition, it is one which vindicates in some respects the new terminology “IEI-EMF”, rather than the traditional “EHS”. Doubtless there will be many refinements and amplifications in due course, but this does not detract from the merits of these three papers in providing a new and promising paradigm in how the idiopathic nature of this condition can be assessed and the expectation that they should be noted, albeit briefly, for the benefit of readers of this Wiki article.


 * 3. In case anyone is unaware of the addition being made, it is as follows:
 * “Some recent sensitivity studies have adopted the new paradigm suggested by evidence for the idiopathic nature of the condition. Although tentative at this stage and necessarily small in scale, these new studies use real or sham exposures in blinded and double-blind provocation tests based on different methodologies and parameters from judgments limited to immediate psychological perception. They assess sensitivity by correlating real or sham exposures with autonomic responses, while allowing for adaptive capacity or systemic exhaustion, in, for instance, muscular movement, heart rate variability (, http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Havas-HRV-Ramazzini1.pdf), and the comparative frequency and severity of behavioural effects during field transitions or gradients .”
 * I hope these points have removed any misunderstandings and I therefore feel it will be proper to reinstate this brief addition to the article.Pm57a (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, these seem to be of dubious quality. As far as I could tell, only one was placebo controlled, and that was on a single subject. But more importantly, as per WP:MEDRS we need to rely mainly on reviews for medical info. Also, you seem to be doing some WP:SYNTH by stringing together a bunch of small studies to advance a position which isn't supported by the reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User Pm57a's arguments are wholly without merit, and contain logical, factual and methodological errors. To address point 1. There is no inherent nature of idiopathic conditions that forces one to exclude epidemiological evidence or, in the case here, the provocation studies. User Pm57a is factually incorrect when asserting that either the former studies make or the latter studies made an assumption of homogeneity. And the suspicion that EHS was idiopathic did not suddenly appear in 2006: the tide of results of provocation studies had far earlier made that designation apt. Even if one takes point 1 as given — and it would be a stretch to do so — User PM57a is also incorrect about point 2. How one could assert that "The three new studies … have radically changed our understanding of how to approach the condition…" is beyond belief. It is not just that they are imperfect: the studies are such thin gruel that at most charitable they could be called extremely preliminary, which is not a level of evidence that would signal a fundamental shift in thinking. The worst of the lot, Havas et al, is of a quality below that of a secondary school science class. Thus, they are not revolutionary as User PM57 asserts, fall below the standard of WP:MEDRS, and should not be included. To continue to press the point — with more and more words — is special pleading. -papageno (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have addressed papageno’s worries about Havas 2010 by balancing it with Kruse 2010 so that readers can evaluate Havas’ study for themselves. Havas 2010 is a crucial article, as explained above, with its claims that “These data show that HRV can be used to demonstrate a physiological response to a pulsed 100 Hz MW stressor. … Our results show that MW radiation affects the ANS … It is the first study to demonstrate such a dramatic response to pulsed MW radiation at 0.5% of existing federal guidelines (1000 microW/cm2).” Wiki readers ought to be aware of it and the issues it is raising. It should therefore be included.


 * The distinction between “idiopathic” and “homogenous” is important since they cannot seemingly both apply equally to a medical condition. If a condition is idiopathic it is unique to the patient concerned and its pathology and etiological status are presumably unique to that patient. If a condition is homogenous to humans, its pathology and etiological status are common to humans whenever it occurs. Human sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, as with many or all life forms, is obviously homogenous in the sense that all human life is dependent on sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. If the condition of hyper-sensitivity exists, however, it may be either homogenous or idiopathic. Until recently it was generally assumed that, like most medical conditions with a genetic, viral or bacterial involvement, it was homogenous and a common pathology and etiological status would be found in each patient, thus validating numerous provocation tests and epidemiological studies. In the last 5-10 years, however, it has increasingly been seen as idiopathic, where each patient has a unique pathology and etiological status although sharing many common features with others suffering the same or a similar condition.


 * It therefore follows that, if the supposed condition is essentially idiopathic, epidemiological or provocation studies of necessity must also elucidate idiopathic elements for each subject concerned. This is the importance of the new paradigm in assessing the nature and prevalence of the supposed condition. It was not often attempted in previous studies because of the cost and difficulty of full screening of all subjects involved and the need to list every relevant parameter of every subject individually. The new studies are significant steps especially in assessing effects on the autonomic nervous system and clearly deserve a place in this Wiki article. The appeal to special pleading against these studies is fallacious here, since the studies are germane and indeed central to the subject matter of the article. To argue that they are intrinsically irrelevant or insufficient would be a one-sided argument.Pm57a (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I cannot comment further nor Assume good faith until User Pm57a can give some signal that he (or she) has read the friendly comments I have been posting to his talk page and until he explicitly states here that he understands that consensus must be reached here before edits to the article can be undertaken. His repeated attempts to introduce text into the article without waiting for a talk consensus to emerge — edits which have been reverted by three different users (me, Sciencewatcher , and Noformation ) — have reached now, I my view, the point of being considered Disruptive_editing.--papageno (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, you should hang around the evolution articles if you want to see disruptive editing (seriously, check out the talk archives for Talk:Creation–evolution controversy‎ and Talk:Objections to evolution, they are ridiculous). So far this is a mild POV pushing annoyance.  If it gets any worse we can take it to ANI, as of now I'll leave a note on his talk page and hope for the best.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  08:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedish recognition; Popsci and pre-print article in Further readings
I have removed the text about Sweden being the only country that recognizes EHS. The issue has already been dealt with at Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity. I have also removed the two links included in a new "Further readings" section. The first, "The Man Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves", was already dealt with at Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity/Archive_5. The second appears to be about a journal article that is in pre-print. While the journal (Technology and health care) shows up in the PubMed catalogue, I cannot find even an abstract of the article let alone the full text at either PubMed or the journal's own web site. Until the official abstract and text are available, it is difficult to know exactly what the journal article will claim. At such time, the article could be reconsidered for inclusion. Even then, I think one would have to consider issues such as the relatively small sample size, and the preliminary nature of the primary research, and the fact that it seems to only reconfirm the existing conslusions of this WP article that are supported amply by secondary reviews.<BR> I note that User Sciencewatcher has already removed the McCarty et al article (again) which was already dealt with only quite recently at Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity. --papageno (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Studies on EHS within the Flight Crews of Commercial Airlines
Are there any studies now or going on about the effects of flight crews. Studies that are not persuaded by money from large commercial carriers. Please feel free to email me SharAnn1@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.90.129.95 (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Electro sensitivity A fact that anyone can test.
ES.Electro sensitivity.Try this out and experience ES physically.Little known phenomenon,3 min clip can be seen on www.lifepulse.co.ilTrond aaronsen (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.222.186 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition of Havas et al research to support delayed effects, term changes
I have just completed a manual revert to version 585650174 dated 2013-12-11T16:29:38‎ by ClueBot NG. A flurry of edits by Jasonlee8985 (talk) has introduced changes that are difficult to examine in overview: to introduce a new study by Magda Havas to support delayed effects; text about a hospital in Toronto; changes to the name given to those claim EHS; and additional symptoms. None can be supported.

The Havas et al study is highly suspect. 1) She has low peer-reviewed, Pubmed-indexed output. Her previous Pubmed item to this one was in 2008. 2) The study is termed a replicated. However, the original research was never published in a peer-reviewed, Pubmed-indexed journal. Thus, this is an initial study. 3) The study is published in the journal “Electromagnetic biology and medicine”, whose editor in chief is Henry Lai, a noted proponent of EMF causing health issues; the rest of the editorial board (see here) is primarily composed of similar proponents. It is highly unlikely that the study underwent a thorough peer-review. Further, the journal has a very low impact rating. All three of these points do not add up to a WP:MEDRS. 4) Even if one accepts the study at face value, it has not been peer-reviewed duplicated by Havas, other teams, and at larger scales, to be considered relevant to place in apposite to the Rubin et all study (Undue Weight). 5) Those claim EHS have almost exclusively been reported as immediately recognizing the presence of the waves an experiencing symptoms. The claim that symptoms are delayed seems like moving the goalposts. For all these reasons, the reference and the text it supports should be removed.

The fact that Women's College Hospital in Toronto offers advice is insignificant compared to the total number of hospitals in the province of Ontario or in the rest of the world. This is further Undue Weight and should be removed.

The use of the term “electrosensitives” to refer to those who claim to be affected by EHS is not supported by any references or any authoritative health body. Lastly, other symptoms of EMS were added but no references were provided.

Some changes to the order of paragraphs without changing their content were made by User Jasonlee8985. I would be open to reinstating just those changes if other editors indicated their assent too. --papageno (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency Top Secret Document
The inclusion of text suggesting various effects from RF supported by a link to a Top secret document by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency is not tenable. A copy of the document may be viewed here (PDF). 1. The document is a review of research that is almost 40 years old, and that summarizes research conducted in the Soviet block communist countries that is even older still. It has been overwhelmingly supplanted by much more recent primary research and secondary reviews on RF and electromagnetic hypersensitivity that does not support any effects. 2 Cherry picking individual research studies from a review article defeats the point of a review: to examine all the research and then to come to conclusions. 3. The conclusion section of the document (Section VI, page 25) itself does not support effects of RF on health. It says that (a) methodological and reporting problems make it difficult to evaluate the research; (b) most effects noted could be attributed to heating effects; (c) non-thermal effects more mostly evaluated using subjective endpoints; and (d) there is was not "detailed investigative support" for non-thermal effects. For these reasons, the study cannot be considered a good source for the statements for which it is intended as support. I have reverted the (599062514) by User Kylesmith55 (Talk) adding it in good faith. On a less rational note, I add that the document caused some stir in the community that believes RF causes electromagnetic hypersensitivity, I think because of the titillation of its top secret designation. However, it is no smoking gun: the facts speak against the document. --papageno (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It could be useful to have a review like this US military one listing typical non-thermal radiation symptoms, since it’s all part of showing how the condition of electro-sensitivity was established medically by the 1960s-1970s – the denial was in the US military skeptic evaluation, of course, not in the positive findings of many of the studies reviewed which should still stand in their own right. I think we should also add a history paragraph which goes back to the 1932 study which was said to be the first to recognize the electro-sensitivity syndrome. It should also include some examples of the Polish and Russian studies which described the syndrome pretty fully. This would allow readers to see how the studies up to the 1970s established the condition among occupational workers, as in the radar, radio and electrical industries. Most of the studies mentioned in this current Wiki article date only from after electro-sensitivity became a public health issue, when the general population also began to be sensitized to electromagnetic radiation and EMFs with increasing frequency from tower antennas, computers, cellphones, smart meters and WiFi.Rdh8h (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * From that pdf: "Divergences of opinion between Bloc and Western researchers...are the result of nonstandardized research protocols and materials.". i.e. they're saying its crap science :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * “Crap” is your interpretation. The report refers to Soviet research into potential offensive weapons applications of low-level microwave radiation, as in internal sound perception for disorienting personnel, alterations of brain function from mixing frequencies, physiological effects like possible heart seizure using pulsed UHF, and possible alteration of the permeability of the blood-brain barrier to allow neurotoxins to cross and lead to death or serious neurological impairments. Since all these aspects have been subsequently confirmed by western scientists, it looks like the western science was “crap”, not the eastern.Rdh8h (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't read all the article. However "nonstandardized research protocols and materials" does mean "crap science". That is not my opinion. And according to the document the research has NOT been confirmed by "western scientists". Why are you trying to defend crap science? --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's neither my nor Sciencewatcher's conclusion, the conclusion reached in the document is that the research is not of sufficient quality (Sciencewatcher is mischievously paraphrasing with "crap" ).--papageno (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Rdh8h, re “…the denial was in the US military skeptic evaluation…” The document is evidence for the exact opposite of what you assert. If you would like to include the point of view you suggest, you need some good WP:MEDRS sources to back it up. --papageno (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)