Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 7

Better call Saul
On Better call Saul, the passage "Later in the series, Chuck's disease is shown to be psychosomatic." is being deleted by an editor on the grounds that it is not supported by the accompanying citations. The cited Radio Times source says, "...but is believed by doctors to be a psychosomatic one. In Rico, the most recent episode of Better Call Saul, the doctor's theories are proven right, with Chuck becoming so engrossed in his and Jimmy's case against an old folk's home that he absent-mindedly wanders outside - into what should be a world of burning pain - with no feeling at all." and "psychologists have conducted a number of tests which state that the condition is entirely psychosomatic, with scenarios in which neither the participant or the researcher know if an electromagnetic field is active proving rather conclusive. Better Call Saul fans may recognise a similar scene in episode five, Jello, where a doctor turns on an electronic device without Chuck knowing, and he doesn't react." Well, if that doesn't support the contended passage then a tiny change to the passage is needed, not its wholesale deletion. Does anybody still have an encyclopedic problem with it? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to, the TV series has never identified the illness as psychosomatic, not yet anyway. Here are the components of this WP:SYN situation: (1) We have a source stating that "doctors" -- not Chuck's doctor, if the character even has a doctor, but "doctors" in general -- believe EHS -- not Chuck's EHS, but all EHS -- to be psychosomatic. (2) We have one episode where Chuck absentmindedly walks outside and does not have any symptoms. But we have later episodes, including one just days ago, where he is suffering from what he believes to be EHS. It is then a WP:SYN problem to combine the first fact with the second fact and come up with the synthesized conclusion that Chuck without a doubt has a psychosomatic illness. If "doctors" think it is psychosomatic, and if Chuck has one episode with no symptoms, then it must be true that Chuck's illness is psychosomatic. Not only is that a WP:SYN problem, it is an absurd logical fallacy. If there is a future episode in which a professional unequivocally diagnoses Chuck with a psychosomatic illness, then we have a clear basis for including this in the article. Otherwise, it's WP:SYN. And it may very well happen that in a future episode Chuck himself concludes that the problem is psychosomatic, but Wikipedia's crystal ball isn't good enough for us to reach a conclusion before it happens. The other option is to get a consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are missing the whole thrust of the Radio Times piece, which discusses the way the programme is handling the psychosomatic basis of the condition - moreover, the condition was chosen by the writers precisely because it is both psychosomatic and subject to much superstitious ignorance. There is no value in reworking the points already made in the main body of the article, but equally - and contrary to your suggestion - there is no synthesis in covering the Radio Times' information about making the series as well as the dramatic content of the series. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide us with a source that "the condition was chosen by the writers precisely because it is both psychosomatic and subject to much superstitious ignorance"; not your opinion, but a specific statement by one or more of the writers of the show. And give us the name of the episode in which Chuck's EHS is identified unequivocally as psychosomatic (not an inference on the viewer's part, a specific statement in the episode that it is psychosomatic). Otherwise it is a synthesis of general medical opinions and unsourced speculation. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not need to provide sources for my own remarks on a talk page, don't be so silly. Wikipedia presents in articles what reliable sources say about a subject, and the Radio Times says that Chuck's condition has been revealed as psychosomatic. It also gives you the names of the episodes that you ask for, and explains how it was shown up. Notice that this is not an inference on either my part or any viewer's part but is made during an independent and verifiable article based on an interview with the actor concerned - and that, of course, is exactly what WP:VERIFY and WP:RS are all about. Or, are you denying that the Radio Times journalist is a reliable source? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me I'm silly, or any other editor for that matter. This is a legitimate content dispute and it serves no purpose to make such comments. I asked for the sources if you want to clear up the WP:SYN problem so you can make your requested change to the article, not because I think sources are required on the talk page. That request is made hundreds, if not thousands, of times every day on Wikipedia. As for Radio Times being a reliable source, sources are not either "reliable" or "unreliable" in every circumstance. They are reliable in the context of a specific article and the topic being discussed; see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Radio Times has not indicated that they are privy to information from the writers, or that they have the medical expertise to diagnose Chuck by watching the TV series. So RT is not a reliable source for what the writers think unless RT can state that the information was given to them by the writers, and RT is not a reliable source for medical diagnosis. I would be saying the same thing if RT had stated that Chuck's condition is not psychosomatic; RT is unreliable as either medical experts or as mind-readers of the show's writers. And the actor who plays Chuck (Michael McKean) has not specifically stated that Chuck's condition is psychosomatic; he has simply described Chuck's behavior and emotional issues; it is an inference to leap to the conclusion that the condition is psychosomatic. If McKean had said, "The bases for all of Chuck's condition is psychological", then we would have a clearer verification. Conditions such as EHS can be both physical and psychological conditions (read Psychosomatic medicine); my guess is that McKean does not yet know how much is psychosomatic, if any, but I have no idea what McKean knows nor do you. In any event, he didn't elaborate in the cited source. If you want a clearer picture of McKean's lack of information about the issue, this is his quote from the show's website: "After they told me what Chuck’s condition was, I thought it was intriguing. I asked if it was a real thing and how much of it is psychosomatic. They didn’t nail anything down because they wanted to see it progress." And that quote doesn't convince me one way or another about how much of the condition is psychosomatic. The point is that McKean is unclear about it because it is unclear to him. So without those specific sourced details about what the writers have intended or a specific statement in the TV series itself that the condition is psychosomatic, there is a WP:SYN problem. And making this conclusion in the Wikipedia article can wait for clearer evidence. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or trade magazine; we can wait for confirmation. The article states that Chuck "believes he suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity"; that is indisputable because it is clearly discussed in the show. "Psychosomatic" has not been discussed in the show. Sundayclose (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You evade the question. Wikipedia bases its content on what independent reliable sources say. Do you deny that the Radio Times journalist is an independent reliable source here? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop the false accusations. Your tone is becoming increasingly hostile. If that continues this discussion is at a stalemate unless others weigh in. I haven't evaded an issue. I have been very clear. RT is not a reliable source on this issue because they can't read the writers' minds and because they are not medical experts. Again, read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Do you think the show's website fabricated or misrepresented the quotation by McKean? Sundayclose (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I must have missed that particular point in among your lengthy comment. The issue here is not over the medical facts and nor is it over the series writers' hidden intentions, so you cannot write off the Radio Times on those arguments. Nor is it about what McKean has or has not said, so my own opinion on that is irrelevant. Let's tighten my question: do you deny that the Radio Times is an independent reliable source of comment on popular TV shows? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If the issue is not "over the medical facts", then why is it necessary to diagnose Chuck with a psychosomatic illness in the article? Why can't it simply be stated with the most easily verifiable fact: Chuck believes he has EHS?
 * If the issue is not over "the series writers' hidden intentions", then why did you make the comment above that "the condition was chosen by the writers precisely because it is both psychosomatic and subject to much superstitious ignorance"?
 * What is a "source of comment"? That is a very vague question, so please be specific about what it means.
 * RT a reliable source of quotations from others whom they interview (such as McKean; and the show's website is also a reliable source of McKean's comments).
 * RT is not a reliable source of reading an unspoken meaning into an actor's comments.
 * RT is a reliable source of their own opinions, but their opinions are not necessarily facts.
 * RT is not a reliable source of medical diagnosis required to diagnose a condition as psychosomatic simply by watching a TV series depicting the condition.
 * RT is not a reliable source of what writers' intentions are if they have not talked to those writers. Sundayclose (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a serious misunderstanding about the difference between the fictional character and reality-based commentary on the fictional character. EHS is psychosomatic, that is the real-world fact. Thus in discussing the fictional character a real-world source may well reference the fact that the character appears to have this psychosomatic condition. That is perfectly cromulent. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the entirety of the Wikipedia article on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity? EHS has not been conclusively demonstrated to be entirely psychosomatic in all circumstances. It just simply hasn't been proven to be physically based -- yet. Science does not jump to such conclusions so quickly. Science can never prove a negative (i.e., "EHS has no physical basis"). That's Science 101. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example, for centuries it was assumed that gastritis and gastrointestinal ulcers were caused by stress rather than a bacterium. That assumption was turned upside down when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren published research clearly linking Helicobacter pylori to the vast majority of cases of gastritis and ulcers; that research won them a Nobel Prize. It's far too early for scientists to conclude that EHS is entirely psychosomatic. So once again we have WP:SYN: "Much research fails to find a physical cause for EHS, therefore Chuck's EHS is psychosomatic". We need verification directly from the writers of the show or someone else very closely affiliated with it to conclude that the character's condition is psychosomatic. So far that verification has not been provided. Please note that I am not stating that Chuck's EHS can't be psychosomatic; I simply don't know, and neither does anyone else who is not directly involved with the show. We do know that Chuck thinks he has EHS, and that is what is currently in the article. Interested readers can read the remainder of the article if they want to know possible causes of EHS. Sundayclose (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article cites a source that explicitly states that Chuck's condition is shown to be psychosomatic. There is no question of SYN or OR here.  A "popular culture" section discusses how the article's subject is portrayed in popular culture; the Radio Times piece is exactly the sort of secondary source appropriate to this. It clearly states that the condition is portrayed as psychosomatic. Brunton (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And I linked a source above in which the very same actor cited in the RT source said he didn't know if the condition is considered by the writers to be psychosomatic. For all the well-explained reasons above, the Radio Times source is not a reliable source on this issue. See WP:RS. On Wikipedia, "citing a source" is not sufficient with a source that is not reliable. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And I linked another source in the article, written a year later, in which the very same actor explicitly discusses the psychosomatic nature of his character's illness. That makes your "I don't know" quote out of date and your arguments based on it worthless. Brunton did not use the word "reliable" in justifying these sources but it is hard to make a clearer statement of that fact. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The actor doesn't have to know. As I said, RT is reality-based commentary on a fictional situation. RT is entirely reliable for this - this is, after all, one of the longest-established media magazines in the world (the first ever of its kind), and it's published by the BBC. EHS is psychosomatic, the actor and Radio Times both discuss precisely this, and the main reason for exclusion appears to be, from the commentary above, that some people don't like the fact that EHS is psychosomatic. That is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Psychosomatic
As a separate but related issue: EHS has indeed not been conclusively demonstrated to be psychosomatic. It's not clear to me how you would demonstrate that conclusively. However, it is abundantly clear from the evidence that even if it is not psychosomatic, it does not appear to be due to weak electromagnetic fields. The evidence for it being a nocebo effect is vastly stronger than the evidence for it being down to "electrosmog". There is a pretty substantial industry capitalising on the bogus "electrosmog" meme, with misleading adverts appearing continually from 2000 to 2014 and beyond. The fact that a fraudulent industry exists means that we need to be especially careful not to allow exploitation of ambiguities in the evidence or the normal caution of scientific discourse. No scientist would say absolutely that every single claimed sufferer of EHS has psychosomatic symptoms. However, no responsible scientist would say that any claimed sufferer has, to date, been shown to be suffering any effect provably related to electromagnetic radiation from WiFi, and probably also from mobile phones. People have committed suicide because of this delusion, we need to be really clear that the reason public bodies generally refuse to remove WiFi in response tot he demands of purported EHS sufferers is simply that there is no credible evidence to support removal, not that it's some kind of evil uncaring conspiracy. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should Electromagnetic hypersensitivity provide a diagnosis of "psychosomatic" of a character in a popular TV series without either a source reliable for medical diagnosis or a source in which the writers of the show identify it as "psychosomatic"? Sundayclose (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No - for the reasons described by me in detail in the section immediately above. The source cited is not reliable for medical diagnosis. The source did not indicate it obtained this information from the writers of the TV series. The actor quoted in the source stated on the show's website that the writers (or directors) of the show specifically did not state that the condition is psychosomatic: "After they told me what Chuck’s condition was, I thought it was intriguing. I asked if it was a real thing and how much of it is psychosomatic. They didn’t nail anything down because they wanted to see it progress." Sundayclose (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. This appears to be a mischievous attempt by an editor who is losing the above debate against a three-to-one consensus and doesn't want to admit it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the third and final time I will ask you not to personalize this issue and make disparaging comments about an editor. Comment on the issue, not the editors. Consider this a warning. So far in this discussion (including the section above) you are the only editor who has referred to an editor as silly, has falsely accused an editor of evading an issue, and now accused an editor who posts a legitimate RfC that anyone is entitled to post of mischievous behavior. If you have additional personal issues with me or anyone else, this is not the place to address them; deal with it on user talk pages. And finally, consensus is not a vote, nor are consensus discussions about winning or losing; they are about improving the article. Kindly express your opinions about the issue and allow others to express their opinions here without making personal comments, and let the consensus process take it's normal course. Sundayclose (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion is pointless. It makes no sense to talk about a medical diagnosis of a fictional character. there will be no MEDRS sources for such a thing.  The section doesn't even belong in this article and I have deleted it.  This is not a blog or gossip site or place for recording trivia.  I urge the person who opened this RfC to withdraw it. 20:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC) - unsigned comment by  (note added by )
 * Fortunately for Wikipedia, you don't get to decide which RfCs can remain. This consensus discussion will follow the usual course. Sundayclose (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "The usual course" permits you to withdraw the question if you wish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately? Odd choice of words. This is a bogus RfC based on repetition of arguments that appear to me already to have been been rejected. And yes, admins do get to remove RfC tags, we do it all the time. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, POV warriors often simply reinsert them. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you telling us that you have acted as an administrator in a discussion in which you have participated by expressing your opinions on the issue? That you have made a decision as an admin that this is a "bogus" RfC and thus removed the RfC tags as an administrative action? Sundayclose (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am simply pointing out that admins do this all the time in their capacity as experienced Wikipedians (I have no idea about non-admins as I don't see RfCs unless the come to the drama boards). It is not a privileged action. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that reply as a good faith explanation, but it's very puzzling that you made the comment that "admins do get to remove RfC tags" when you were not acting as an admin and no one brought up the issue of whether admins can remove tags. You could easily have expressed your opinion of "bogus RfC" without a mention of your admin status. But for now I'll leave the issue of your "admins" comment alone. Thanks for explaining. Sundayclose (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that psychosomatic is both a loaded term and often misunderstood by non-healthcare people. It might be better to avoid it, even if that means using a synonym like psychophysiologic illness.  I'd be equally happy with deleting the section as trivia (it could be re-considered whenever the plot line is completely resolved).  A far more interesting section could be built from, which evaluates news sources for their failures in describing it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cannot evaluate It would be better if this request showed both the sources and the proposed change.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification The issue is over whether the following passage should be restored to the paragraph on popular culture and specifically Better call Saul:
 * "Later in the series, Chuck's disease is shown to be psychosomatic."
 * The refs supporting its inclusion, and currently still in the article, are:
 * Better Call Saul's Michael McKean talks Chuck's condition and warns: do not know me too quickly, Radio Times (retrieved 7 Oct 2015).
 * Kayla Cobb, You Catch-Up Guide To ‘Better Call Saul’ Season One, Decider, 4 February 2016. Quote; "...but the doctor does prove to Jimmy that Chuck’s disease is all in his head." (retrieved 13 March 2016)
 * Geoff Berkshire; ‘Better Call Saul’ Q&A: Michael McKean Talks Chuck and Jimmy’s Parents, Mike’s Past, Variety. (Retrieved 13 March 2016)
 * Also, here is a source dating from a year ago when Chuck's diagnosis was still undecided, and which has misled at least one participant here into assuming that this status is still current:
 * Better Call Saul Q&A – Michael McKean
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. No MEDRS sources are needed to establish that a fictional character claiming to have this condition was later diagnosed with a psychosomatic disorder. Saying it was psychosomatic in this case is merely stating the opinion of the fictional doctor. So the only necessary source is one that describes the fictional work. It is not necessary to have any other sources because that fictional opinion doesn't extend to anyone except the specific patient in the work. Roches (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No of course not. TeeVee characters do not live in the same space-time of modern medicine -- not until the writers say so.  TeeVee is fantasy and nothing else.  You might as well apply the laws of physics to a Harry Potter episode -- or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.  If a WP editor diagnoses fantasy characters, it is WP:SYNTH.  Quote an RS who says it, or a fictional doctor who diagnoses it, or leave it alone. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote from an RS which you ask for is in the bullet list just above here. I am surprised you did not see it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No A fictional treatment of a subject belongs in the article to the extent that reliable sources indicate that such treatment adds to an understanding of the subject or to its place in popular perception. Just being a subplot in a TV show doesn't count.  E Eng  04:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument suggests that your vote belongs in the wider debate at than here. To accept mention of his condition but merely to vote against inclusion of his diagnosis does not tally with your comment. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't have time to navigate a confusing series of tiered questions about pop trivia. No mention of this TV character is appropriate, period, because it doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding of this EHS nonsense. Feel free to refer to, or move, my comment elsewhere if you think it will be more helpful.  E Eng  15:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Malformed question. The source is not being used for a "diagnosis". Coverage of the plot line in Better Call Saul - a significant plot line in a significant series, well within the bounds of the type of pop culture we normally do include - can legitimately include media magazines' discussion of the plot line. The quesiton seems to eb aimed at excluding the fact that EHS is psychosomatic from any discussion of Better Call Saul: the OP appears to want either no mention of psychosomatic or no mention of Saul at all. Whether we include Saul or not is one question (under discussion below), but if we doinclude it then we can certainly include this article discussing the psychosomatic nature of the problem. I have no strong opinion on whether Saul should be included or not, but if it is included then the only possible answer to this question is that yes, we should include the fact that sources describe the symptoms as psychosomatic - that's not a "diagnosis" (the character is fictional, you can't "diagnose" a fictional character) it's a discussion of a plot line and can certainly be drawn from magazines that routinely do exactly that. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source was previously being used as a diagnostic. The OP deleted that bit and I have been trying get it restored - see the previous discussion. The inclusion of the whole pop culture section is being debated in a third discussion, which follows next but one after this one, and if that resolves to delete it then the issue here becomes academic. But I do agree that the question is malformed. Wikipedia discussions, don'ch'a love 'em? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't diagnose a fictional character. But yes: Wikipedia debate is incompatible with people's desire for an instantaneous answer (and by implication the answer they want, which is often not what they get). Guy (Help!) 14:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No. At least not with that phrasing. I haven't watched the latest episode, so may be wrong, but the show has not shown Chuck's disease to be psychosomatic. Obviously unlikely, but for all we know the writers may reveal him as an alien legitimately allergic to EMF. It is fiction after-all. --Icerat (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. So I've been summoned here to comment on whether an imaginary character really suffers from an imaginary condition, or just imagines it. Sorry, I've never watched the show in question, I can't help. Maproom (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, multiple secondary sources indicate this is the case. If there's any doubt remaining about this, it can be worded, "Radio Times reports..." ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the diagnosis has to be attributed to a real-word commentator with relevant medical knowledge, who describes relevant events in the show and draws a conclusion. If there are contradicting analyses then all POVs should be represented. In my opinion the show makes it abundantly clear that Chuck's EHS is psychosomatic, but we can't write it as a fact without a source. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A real-world medical diagnosis would not support it. This is a fictional tale and what the real world says is immaterial to it. It actually requires a diagnosis from within the same fictional world as Chuck - which may come either directly from the show or through a reliable journalist reporting on the fictional world. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Chuck is not a real person, but a real-world doctor can diagnose him - naturally based only on the information provided by the show. Unless established otherwise in the show, the doctor can assume the fictional world has the same rules of physics and biology as the real world. Commentary by some critic whether the show portrays Chuck's EMH as psychosomatic or real is also acceptable, but is of lesser value since the show intentionally leaves it open to interpretation. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are out of date - as explained somewhere above here, while the show originally left the diagnosis intentionally open, the sources currently cited in the article amply confirm that it has subsequently been "established otherwise in the show" as you ask, and that Chuck's aliment is psychosomatic. The opportunity for a real-world doctor to impose a non-fictional diagnosis is gone. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case there is ample opportunity for a real-world doctor to conclude that Chunk's condition is psychosomatic, and that would be the best possible source. One could argue, however, that he is actually sensitive to EM, but maybe only some times or under certain condition - and if there is such a source it should be represented as well. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A real-world doctor's diagnosis is irrelevant to verifying what the fictional diagnosis is. It would be among the worst possible sources. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and that real world doctor would also be a quack for two reasons - diagnosing a dubious condition, and diagnosing anybody based on a few minutes of seeing some behavior in a recording. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Just got the RFC. This easily makes the short list for the nuttiest RFCs I have encountered, and that is an impressive distinction. We have a controversial subject concerning a topic of real-life human health or welfare, with a spectrum of opinions in the medical/psychological field, and we? are? to? include? illustrations? drawn? from? a soapie???? This is beyond a joke. In such matters the kind of technically illiterate garbage one finds in real-life newscasts would not in most contexts be acceptable in a medically-relevant article &mdash; to incorporate a fictional condition in a fictional character on the basis of a hypothetical situation unsupported by logical merit or medical realities goes beyond reason. What next? The autism of Mr Spock? The Turnip fixation of Baldric? At least the newscasters presumably usually are basing their misrepresentations on actual events. This is garbage and it is a disgrace that it has occupied  pages of exchange in WP. In case I leave anyone in doubt about my opinion, I say NO. JonRichfield (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, that's not even close to what we have. The only issue is whether the character is described as having a psychosomatic condition. There is no attempt at all to characterise EHS as psychosomatic based on the fictional character - actually it's the other way round, the question is whether the fictional character should be identified as having a psychosomatic condition based on reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the craziest RfC I have ever seen in my (short) life on Wikipedia. This RfC expects users to state about the fictional condition of a fiction character for the benefit of an article that - at least in the current state - is nothing more than pseudoscience. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No - For reasons stated above.

Better call Saul back
An editor deleted this whole section on the basis that it does not belong here. For earlier discussions which created a consensus to include it, see here (brief) and here (top of this very page). Before deleting it, we need to establish that the consensus to include it has changed. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the pop culture trivia, which has no place in a medical article, especially when it grossly violates both WP:MEDRS and WP:RS. Sundayclose (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, it violates neither. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are blatantly violated, but we've both made our positions clear, so let's see what others think. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Others differ. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons adequately explained by, whose talk page I watch, which is what alerted me to this editing discussion about this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 00:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This section appears to me to have a place in the article, as it is a high profile example of this delusion in popular culture. I am not a huge fan of popular culture sections but it is very likely that a lot of viewers will be looking for some reference. I could be persuaded otherwise, but the existing arguments against look weak to me at this stage. I do agree that sourcing must be robust. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As the opener of this discussion, I think the section should be kept. Having thought it over, I now even believe that it should if possible be expanded. The whole topic has never been more than a fear stirred up by the ignorant. Any purported rational basis for that fear has been undermined by legitimate medical research and what we are left with is a delusional belief system. That is at least as much a social and cultural phenomenon as it is a medical one and the social aspect needs to be recognised here. As mentioned in the earlier discussion about this section, the interest in social media about the character Chuck's condition is too widespread and verifiable to ignore. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I should make clear that what I am especially looking for as the article improves is medically reliable sources, which should be sufficiently abundant on this topic that we have no need to refer to television drama series. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 14:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We never have any need to refer to pop culture in articles, but people seem to like it. Pop culture is generally a plague on the project, amounting to mountains of trivia based on persdonal observation (X was referenced in episode Y of series Z of The Simpsons, when Lisa said foo), but in this case it's a major plot line in a pretty significant series. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep based on previous consensus and I'm all for covering topics readers are clearly interested in. ~Kvng (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture section
Should this article have a section on Popular culture?

This thread began as a discussion about the deletion of this passage: ""Later in the series, Chuck's disease is shown to be psychosomatic.""

It then expanded into a discussion into the deletion of the whole section on popular culture, which would make the original discussion no longer relevant. The two discussions have become inextricably tangled and I doubt if anybody can make sense of them any more. So I think the best thing is to start afresh with the overarching issue.

[Update] The section has now been deleted in its entirety, so here it is so we can see what we are talking about:

";Popular culture In the American TV show Better Call Saul, Saul's brother Chuck McGill is a semi-reclusive who believes that he suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity. As the story develops, Chuck's disease is shown to be psychosomatic."

&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I'd say, yes it should. Most such alternative diagnoses have little significance in popular culture so this section is not normally relevant. But EHS, and especially its appearance in Better call Saul, is an exception as evidenced by its discussion in many reliable media sources: if the world finds it significant, then Wikipedia has to accept that. The argument that these sources are not medical misses the point that neither is popular culture - we still have to acknowledge them. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A bit late coming back to this discussion, but here goes... I'm not convinced that this article should have a 'popular culture' section, but if it does it is a nonsense not to say how it is portrayed. One of the reasons cited somewhere above for having this section is that people who have seen Better Call Saul will come here because they have seen a character with the condition in the series. If the article just says that there is a character in the series with the condition then it does't tell them anything they didn't already know.

We have reliable secondary sourcing saying that it is portrayed in the show as psychosomatic. It is suggested above that because the show itself doesn't explicitly identify it as psychosomatic then we can't say it is portrayed as psychosomatic. This is nonsense, as dramatic works frequently imply things without stating them explicitly. It is also classic OR, being based on editors' own interpretation of a primary source. Sourcing it to critical discussion of the series is appropriate in a 'popular culture' section. If this sourcing is not adequate then the article shouldn't have a popular culture section.

Bottom line: either the popular culture section should say how the show portrays the condition, or it should go. Brunton (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the status of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)
The above discussion on popular culture has highlighted a fervent but inchoate mix of ideas among editors as to the status of EHS, a mess which is preventing progress in that discussion. The present RfC is aimed at clearing this up. The issue may also be complicated by the fact that claimed sufferers of EHS fall into two groups, those who have misdiagnosed some real symptom caused by something else and those who have worried themselves into developing adverse symptoms via the nocebo effect. I would ask for comments on two issues: &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC) [Updated 11:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)]
 * 1) Is EHS a medical topic? Note that it is generally accepted classed as an alternative diagnosis, i.e. the condition has no medical recognition.
 * 2) Is EHS pseudoscience? Note that several other alternative diagnoses based on unsound ideas such as Leaky gut syndrome, Drapetomania and Mucoid plaque are currently categorised as such.

Discussion
Comment by the OP:
 * No, an alternative diagnosis is not a medical topic in the usual sense.
 * Yes, the purported mystery mechanism of electromagnetic effects on health is pure pseudoscience.
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes. Something doesn't have to be conclusively proven to exist or have official recognition to be studied by medicine. If medicine only focused on topics that already have a substantial body of research, we would be in the Dark Ages.
 * 2) Not yet. There is a gray area between legitimate science and pseudoscience, and it's simplistic thinking to suggest that it's a black and white issue. Some topics are much closer to the pseudoscience side of the spectrum because of virtual absence of controlled research published in peer reviewed publications over a period of many years (e.g., Indigo children, a concept that essentially is unproveable). Some areas at one time were thought not to exist because research had not yet found the evidence (e.g., most gastric ulcers were once thought to result from stress rather than a bacterium until Barry Marshall and Robin Warren provided overwhelming evidence that most are related to Helicobacter pylori). Some areas have slowly gained more perceived validity by the medical community although not without some continuing controversy (e.g., chronic fatigue syndrome). Science can never prove that something doesn't exist. The quality scientific research on EHS is in its infancy, so it would be irresponsible to leap to the conclusion that it is a pseudoscience. Hopefully, time will tell. But that depends on how much it is studied and, more importantly, which direction the weight of reputable medical opinion goes over time. Let me clarify something: I don't have a personal opinion about the likelihood that EHS is a genuine phenomenon. But I do feel strongly that it needs more time and research before it can be given the extreme label of "pseudoscience".
 * Sundayclose (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 2 Some people do suffer, but it is not actually caused by low-level EMR.  See this page from the WHO, which has been looking at the issue and coordinating research on it. Sundayclose the arguments you are raising are classic FRINGE arguments.  Have you ever read WP:FRINGE?  You should do....
 * As with all alt-med or PSCI topics, we need to deal with science/medicine to discuss this topic coherently and state what is known (as the WHO page above does); but there is no actual medical diagnosis of EMH. It is an "alternative diagnosis" and yes i need the quotes to write that. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read WP:FRINGE. You misunderstand my comments, or perhaps I did not state them clearly. I am not trying to make EHS appear more medically acceptable than it is. I have acknowledged that it has little, if any, research support. My point is that it has not been studied very much or for very long. There is a difference between "not studied" and "fringe" even though the concepts can overlap. Look at my opening comment to the pseudoscience question; it does not read "No"; it reads "Not yet". I am not claiming that EHS will never be considered pseudoscience or fringe, just that it is too earlier to make that judgment. Sundayclose (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again read the WHO page. It has been studied more extensively than most chemicals. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Yes again; I have read the WHO page. It actually restates one of my points above: "Regarding long-term effects, data are scarce and the evidence for the absence of long-term effects is limited. ... Where data are scarce, the absence of evidence of harm should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that no harm exists." I think you missed one of my comments above. I am in no way trying to make a case for the existence of EHS, just for not reaching premature conclusions without more research. I think the authors of the WHO article would agree. Sundayclose (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What it says is "In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research."  There are always some gaps in the research.  We don't fully understand how aspirin works, for example. It is a very FRINGE thing to read that and still say there are serious open questions here.  Reading that plainly, it says that based on very extensive research, there is nothing to see here. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with most of what you say, except for your apparent conclusion that "nothing to see" means that nothing can ever be seen and your conclusion that "there are always gaps" makes any gaps meaningless. Sundayclose (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It just violates NPOV to put a lot of weight on the slim chance something meaningful will be in the "gaps" when there is an "extensive" body of knowledge. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, read my comments above: "I am not trying to make EHS appear more medically acceptable than it is. I have acknowledged that it has little, if any, research support." I am not asking to give any more weight to the idea that it might have some validity. I am simply stating an opinion that the article should not label it as "pseudoscience" or "fringe", at least not at this point. That is why we have these discussions, to elicit opinions about what should be in the article (in this case, one word). Sundayclose (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, at very least people reporting EMH have a psychological condition that affects their health and wellbeing.
 * 2. Yes, there is enough scientific evidence to classify it as pseudoscience. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes × 2. And let's not have a heap of trivial crap in here about TV characters, eh. Alexbrn (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By that judgement, any mumbo-jumbo diagnosis can count as a medical topic. For example, is vivisection by an aliens in a flying saucer a medical topic? How does that differ from EHS? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's lots of mumbo-jumbo crap out there for sure, but when we're considering - as in this instance - a "condition" with a "diagnosis" which has enjoyed wide exposure on the fringe, and garnered rebuttal from the health mainstream, then yup we're talking biomedical information: fringe biomedical information to be precise. We see the "your science doesn't apply to my woo" gambit a lot on Wikipedia as a attempt to get carte blanche for giving undue weight to ... mumbo-jumbo crap. Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ironically, the popular culture debate is over an item which also rebuts the woo. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a medical topic. The fact it has no official medical recognition is irrelevant. The domain is medicine and health. Otherwise snake oil peddlers will override wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Yes. If the condition exists, it is a medical condition. There is no reason to believe that it does exist. (To the list of "alternative diagnoses based on unsound ideas", you could add Morgellons.) Maproom (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but I do not understand what you are saying. I read you as arguing that, "If it existed then it would be a medical condition, but it does not exist, therefore it is still a medical condition," which does not make sense. Could you clarify what you do mean? (Also, Morgellons is a specific medical condition of false belief, which is not at all the same as the false thing believed.) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * NO not medical topic I don't know what is a medical topic - do you mean something formal by that? Whether we like it or not, it is a thing that some people believe in. If people think that it a real health condition maybe that enough to call it a "medical topic" in the sense of linguistic descriptivism. But the article does make it pretty clear EHS is not supported by science
 * YES this is pseudoscience/fringe at best. This is all very clearly spelled out at one of the article's main references from the WHO . In particular, they say "EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis". Back to "medical topic" SemanticMantis (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, should Wikipedia's guidelines on medical topics apply, as in "for medical topics the guideline/policy is foo (one thing) but for non-medical topics the guideline/policy is bar (different)." Which guideline/policy applies here? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've updated my !vote accordingly. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This topic is a confusion of issues, concepts, concerns, and contexts. Until we get them at least vaguely sorted out, we are flogging the wrong end of the dead stick in midstream.
 * Is there a lot of confusion about EMF and health/physiology? Noooo doubt about that! You can find backyard experts and professional quacks who conflate everything from gamma to ELF in one breath and snap back and forth between microwaves or powerline- or domestic dekaHz ELF as many times per sentence as it suits them. Some may be liars with some idea of what they are talking about, but most don't, and don't need to, because when you are purveying nonsense, only a fool thinks that you have to have to talk sense to convince fools.
 * Does the fact that quackery, pseudoscience and hysteria abound, mean that the subject matter is meaningless or dismissable? Hardly. Replace "EMF/EMH" with "vitamins" or "obesity" or "immunity" or "fitness" or any basis for any branch of the quackery industry, and you can find just as much meaninglessness and dishonesty as is spouted in EMF contexts, either pro or con. This does not mean that the subject matter is itself either imaginary on the one hand, or properly understood on the other; we still are learning much about all those topics -- mainly the hard way. Similarly, it is not yet for us dismiss on a blanket basis, the rational suspicion that there might be physiological effects of EMF, purely on the grounds that preliminary investigations have failed to verify some or most of the claimed sensitivities.
 * The confusion between sensitivity and vulnerability is disgraceful; it is nearly universal. Under "See also" we have i.a.: Electromagnetic radiation and health; Mobile phone radiation and health; Wireless electronic devices and health; and Wi-Fi Safety. Not one about just plain reality or physiological effects or detectability. Even the title of this article has overtones suggesting health concerns. One could argue that "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity" implies medical aspects, and therefore that this article is a medical article, but then that presupposes "Electromagnetic sensitivity" as a reality. However, if it turns out that there is no such reality (except in visible wavelengths, IR (that we can feel as heat) and a few other special cases), then the medical aspects of sensitivity would fall away completely, leaving only the (separate) concept of vulnerability. For instance, ionising radiation can cause tissue and nucleic acid damage even if the victim is unaware of it, and EMR with suitable intensity and frequency could affect neural activity. That also leaves open the question of whether everyone is equally sensitive. Personally I have occasionally had ambiguous impressions of threshold reactions to my cellphone sending signals, that have left me receptive to the idea that some people might be more sensitive, but even if my impressions were mistaken, which they well may be, that would not justify affirmation of a negative. Nor did the rather few experiments that I have seen reported impress me with their presumptions and protocols. Get those wrong, and your p-values become meaningless.
 * Now, once we do distinguish between sensitivity and vulnerability, it becomes tempting to say: "Two articles!" And certainly there is some substance to the idea. However, I do not think it is desirable in this case. I reckon that it would be better to change the title to "Electromagnetic sensitivity" and have "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity" as a redirect and as a topic title in the article. The article then should distinguish, among other things, between vulnerability and sensitivity. My justification for this is that the two topics are sufficiently closely related that they are best discussed in the same article.
 * The questions of medical significance and the frequency and nature of symptoms and signs would then become a lot clearer and easier to distinguish. JonRichfield (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article on Electromagnetic radiation and health is the broadest in scope. You might want to propose merging in this article and some of those other See alsos, there certainly seems a degree of pointless duplication across them. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a medical diagnosis topic, and no to pseudoscience. EHS is a purported diagnosis that has also been quite extensively studied, with various health agencies around the world having weighed in on it, so it is most definitely a medical topic that falls under (for example) WP:MEDRS. As for the pseudoscience: people claiming positive study results for EHS are definitely engaging in pathological science, but badly performed science with spurious results is still science. Save the term for woo that truly deserves it - like homeopathy - and don't dilute it unnecessarily (like homeopathy). Kolbasz (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, our lede itself mentions that it is not a medical diagnosis and there is no physiological pathway for any proposed illness to exist in. Yes, every "positive" study has been error strewn pseudoscience articles.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary to date
I'm not sure about closing an RfC discussion if one is the OP, but here's what I see above (discounting comments by as I could find no vote as such): Not quite my own view, but that's consensus for you. Thanks all. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is EHS a medical topic? Yes 5, No 2.
 * 2) Is EHS pseudoscience? Yes 5, No 2.

lead
in december 2015 myself and the regular editor here on this page worked very hard to get the lead altered such that terminology like "the effects of EHS" and "EHS symptoms" (which blur the distinction between whether or not EHS is a verifiable disorder) altered or removed. Someone has been back through the lead and not only reinstated all of these terms, but has made it into an article which seems extremely supportive of the existence of this unverifiable disorder. In addtion, numerous gramatical errors have been introdiced. I will write a new lead this evening and append it to this comment for the apraisal of other editors here. Thank you, I hope we can get this cleaned up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.77.14 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the lead from the end of Dec 2015 was good. I restored it here.  What do folks think? Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good start. I have boldly gone further: I think the very first paragraph needs to be clear that it is hokum. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * seconded - welcome this edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.77.14 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the topic very well but remembered a colleague who worked on it in research funded by USDOE. Can these two things be incorporated into the article? a) showing behavioral side effects of long term exposure to low levels of microware and b) French woman awarded disability grant. Some science seems to exist and at least one court has set legal precedent.

--David.daileyatsrudotedu (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The first source is a very old (from 1988!) primary source; we don't use those for content about health per WP:MEDRS. We also don't use mainstream media (BBC) for health content, also per MEDRS Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. These alternative theories need mainstream scientific consensus demonstrating before we can source material as fact. Similarly, unless a related controversy is notable in its own right, it is not relevant to the article either. General noise among primary papers and media reports do not provide such verifiable material. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

comparing the oldest version, to the latest (2016-09-12)
started looking impartial, and fair. now reads like a biased attempt to convince readers of one side of an argument. the side shared by industry interests (and consumer convenience). to those who suffer, that comes across as rather condescending, disrespectful, dismissive, and even ignorant and passive aggressive. I'm sure each little change seemed an improvement to the editor, but the whole effect, has not only deprived impartiality, but created a mammoth too dauntingly big to try wrestle back to fit with wikipedia's standards in any small edit. I'm unsure how one might proceed, but from reviewing wikipedia policy pages, it seems moving portions to essays may be involved. note, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking 86.170.147.98 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting - here is the diff comparing oldest to most recent.  The oldest version had no inline sources, and the only source was this (deadlink; captured at internet archive here).  There is a bunch of stuff in the original version that fails verification to that source, and if you are looking for content that violates WP:OR or WP:NOT, it appears to be in the original version.
 * If you find content in the current version that is unsourced or sourced to an unreliable source, please point out that specific passage. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog has it right. If you believe the facts to be out there, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources. In all the time this article has existed, that has not happened. Any attempted content fork would of course be subject to the same scrutiny. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You might have a point, if the science had not moved on in the last ten years. It has. The article reflects current knowledge. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

skepticism as a belief system
From a more impartial site than Wikipedia:

Electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) is a combination of up to three factors:

1. a natural sensitivity, similar to other idiopathic or allergic reactions, which is not typical of the general population.

2. sensitisation by some trigger, which could be one, or more, of a variety of commonly encountered substances.

3. sensitisation by some incident, which may damage bioelectrochemical communication within the body, or create atypical chemical cascades.

Some people are electrically sensitive, that is they are aware of the presence of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), but are not adversely affected by them. Other people may or may not be aware of the presence of EMFs, but can become ill in their presence. These people we refer to as electrically hypersensitive (EHS). People who have developed EHS have a physiological disorder, characterized by neurological and idiopathic reactions, that noticeably appear or intensify near sources of EMFs such as electrical appliances, especially VDUs (computer monitors), power lines, fluorescent lights, mobile phones, cordless phones, wireless computers (wLANs), mobile phone base stations, etc.

Being EHS means experiencing recurring feelings of stress or illness when near an EMF source.

My comments:

Loud Noises and even fear of loud noises can cause violent reactions in PTSD patients. A transfer or "referred" process from other traumas may well be in play with EHS patients.

There are indeed pseudo-scientific companies with explanations and products that exploit EHS sufferers; however it is not good encyclopedia practice to conflate the malady with the exploiters.

Many ELF sufferers died before the cause was acknowledged. EHS has far more modest effects; and its existence may be inconvenient to research funding organizations.

The psychological components of the effect are difficult to filter out in experimental design, and this problem contributes to a growing bias. Wikipedia should not be involved in creating or perpetuating biases.

Work is currently being done in Sweden to localize the frequency responses of EHS sufferers. For a start, way back in '03:

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klasovsky (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is built from WP:MEDRS sources for WP:Biomedical information and reliable secondary sources for other content. The article you cite,, is a primary source and not useable per MEDRS.  You do not bring any useful references, and WP is not place for soapboxing.  Closing this.  If you have any MEDRS sources for biomedical information or RS for reliable information, you can bring them in another section.  Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

First sentence
This has been in the lead for a bit "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a pseudoscientific belief in a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields in the environment."

I am not convinced that one needs to call it a "pathological sensitivity". Just makes the sentence more complicated unnecessarily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Belief in EHS is not pseudoscientific, the pseudoscience comes in the business of promoting it and selling products to "protect" against EMF. The condition itself is apsychological illness, as far as I can tell, and not pseudoscience as such. I'd still categorise this article in Pseudoscience, but I'd express the reason differently. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes agree good point. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the use of "pseudoscience" that article does say that a belief can be pseudoscientific. But EHS is more than a belief, it is a claimed diagnosis for certain symptoms (which may be real for other reasons, or imagined), so I think the phrasing could probably be better there. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Getting back on topic, I added the qualifier "pathological" because there are other claimed sensitivities to electromagnetic influences, such as dowsing, which are not pathological, and we need to disambiguate that. I also see the word "pathological" as a simpler expression than the awkward workaround "such that negative symptoms result" - medical articles do not usually talk down to the reader in that way and this article comes under our medical guidelines. disagrees in part and has brought it up here because we failed to clear it up in a previous discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I had previously edited this page, and I never much liked the introduction but had left it alone. Your conversation drew me back to thinking about it. I believe I have improve the grammar now without changing the intent. RobP (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone for false belief instead of pseudoscientific belief, I think that explains it well. I might be able to get some shots of a non-electric ER room to add to the infobox (we had a few crazy politicians in Sweden in the 90's=. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 12:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes looks better. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The terms delusional, pseudoscience and false belief are subjective, a better term is "belief" or "theory" as it has not been proven either way conclusively. The paragraph following the first line also implies that there is no further need for research. This is not accurate; a current open access study finds that it is Essential to continue research: "Given the ubiquitous nature of MC-EMF in our modern environment, it is essential that we continue to conduct the highest quality research to investigate any possible effects that such exposures could have on human health and wellbeing". (© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)). http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/10/967/pdf (2016).Bioelectromagnetics Research within an Australian Context: The Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR). Sarah P. Loughran et al. Academic Editor: Mats-Olof Mattsson. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.Saparonia (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Saparonia (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources go further, they say that whatever adverse effects EM might possibly cause, EHS is not one of them. Nobody is saying that, for example, mobile phones are totally safe, only that they do not cause EHS. And if the sources say that a belief is delusional, then so does Wikipedia. We are not philosophers of science, we follow Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Second Paragraph
A problem with the third paragraph second paragraph is its implication that symptoms are purely psychosomatic, rather than potentially real but misattributed: "Such non-specific symptoms can be the result of anything stressing out the system: poor sleep, lack of physical activity, an unrecognized chronic illness, anxiety or depression." This is actually mentioned in the diagnosis section, and the supporting reference for the paragraph itself recommends (amongst other things) "a medical evaluation to identify and treat any specific conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms." --tronvillain (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC); edited 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the section is called "second paragraph" and you mention "third paragraph" in the text you wrote so i am not sure what you are raising an issue with. it would be more helpful if you proposed the specific change you want to make, or just make it to see how it flies. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, forgot to change the "third paragraph" to "second paragraph" in the body when I changed the section title, but I was referring to Symptoms may feel real, however treatment is based upon cognitive behavioural therapy, helping the person making the claim come to terms with the delusion. --tronvillain (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * re-worked management section and revised the lead in these diffs Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Quackery
I don't think it's any secret that a number of quack cures and fraudulent devices are associated with EHS (e.g. ). I suspect this should be mentioned in connection with the alt-med reference in the lede. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is one example, yes. That sort of thing could go in a society and culture section of the body, and if there is enough we could elevate it to the lead....  i'll see what i can find and add.  bogus lawsuits too.... Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * i added this... Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a step int he right direction, but the lede really ought to mention bullshit like the mobile phone holograms and such. It's a hugely profitable scam. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Added this to the body and the lead... Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of valid reference
Yesterday you did a significant amount of what looks to be good editing here, but I have to object to the removal of the material I had added to the article. You stated: (→‎Management: quote from Dunning has nothing to do with Management; unclear why it is here) The quotation seemed to me a perfect intro to that section because it explained WHY something without any science behind it to cause symptoms could actually result in symptoms anyway - symptoms that need to be managed. This seed a good intro to the next paragraph mentioning the WHO and saying it recommends that people presenting EMS claims be evaluated to determine if they need a psychological evaluation." What was wrong with that? Here is the quote:
 * "The ability of a human brain to convince itself of just about anything is not to be underestimated. If you believe yourself to be electrosensitive, then you will be, quite literally, whenever you (think that you) perceive the presence of electromagnetism... you will actually suffer measurable physical symptoms and can potentially become acutely ill." RobP (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note!  If you look at WP:MEDMOS, the management section describes how a condition is treated or managed.  As you noted that I noted, the quote from Dunning has nothing to do with actually managing the condition.  Things I didn't say are that we look for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to support this kind of content.  The ref provided there is not OK per MEDRS.  The WHO source and the review are both MEDRS, and both provide guidance on how to manage people who present claiming EHS.   That is why those things are there - they fit with what we do in the section.  Finally, the quote is also not very encyclopedic, with the use of "you" -- we generally don't use quotes in articles about health and not ones with personal addresses like this anywhere in articles about health that I am aware of.
 * Others may view it differently, but that is my analysis. I don't see how that quote fits anywhere in the article.  I just added some content from Dunning here, where i think this works... Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. And that works! I will just add an authorlink. RobP (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, great. Glad that is laid to rest. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative to the section title for SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS
Now very happy with the lede

Remaing minor issue is with the title SIGNS and SYMPTOMS - it seems a little odd to title the section thusly when the paragraph is mostly about symptoms which are merely proposed to be symptoms of the misdiagnosis. Suggest the title "PROPOSED SYMPTOMS" or something which continues in a maner and style similar to the lede Edaham (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Mobile Phones and electromagnetic sensitivity
Electromagnetic Sensitivity is dismissed as "delusional" by parties who wish to promote the monitoring of society by those means. The term "delusion" immediately dismisses serious consideration or further study and is not objective.Saparonia (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are your reliable sources for such claims? No sources, no content - see WP:RS. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Electromagnetic Sensitivity is dismissed as "delusional". There are parties who wish to promote the monitoring of society by those means. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/address-resolution-protocol-arp/118630-technote-ipdt-00.html
 * https://www.eff.org/files/2016/09/22/2016.09.20_final_formatted_ip_address_white_paper.pdf
 * Saparonia (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "delusion" immediately dismisses serious consideration or further study and is not objective.
 * Definition of delusional by Oxford Dictionary: "Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder" and " Based on or having faulty judgement; mistaken"https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/delusional Saparonia (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

'It is not delusional to question effects of electronic signals on electrical systems: serious study described and cited here has included the brain

Electronic signals interfere with other electrical systems, example: interference with flight systems aboard aircraft. "A FALSE TCASII RA SENDS A DC9 FLT INTO A CLB TO AVOID A POTENTIAL TARGET." "A B737-700 AUTOPLT GOES INTO CTL WHEEL STEERING MODE DURING AN ILS-LOC COURSE INTERCEPTION. FLT CREW EXPERIENCES A HDG TRACK DEV AND A MISSED APCH FROM SCT CTLR 9 MI W OF BUR, CA" https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf Saparonia (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Dependency may be a causal factor to describe questioning health issues as "delusional" Aircraft staff have found that passengers display volatile dependence issues with mobile devices."A FLT ATTENDANT CONFRONTED A FIRST CLASS PAX ABOUT TURNING OFF HIS PHONE ON AN MD80 AND THE PAX RESPONDED WITH VERBAL HOSTILITY." https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdfSaparonia (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Intereference in other electrical systems such as aircraft and hospitals may apply to Alpha waves of the brain: Article from Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-control-by-cell/ "James Horne and colleagues at the Loughborough University Sleep Research Centre in England devised an experiment to test this question. The result was surprising. Not only could the cell phone signals alter a person's behavior during the call, the effects of the disrupted brain-wave patterns continued long after the phone was switched off." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17548154?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Saparonia (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Brain Science Institute, Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, tested whether cell phone transmissions could alter a person's brainwaves. "The data showed that when the cell phone was transmitting, the power of a characteristic brain-wave pattern called alpha waves in the person's brain was boosted significantly. The increased alpha wave activity was greatest in brain tissue directly beneath to the cell phone, strengthening the case that the phone was responsible for the observed effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17786925?ordinalpos=1&(UTC)itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


 * -- "Saparonia (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:MEDRS. None of those sources are OK.  (Please pay special mind to the WP:MEDDEF section of MEDRS) Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not change a conversation. I cannot talk to people who unsay what I have just responded to. Don't be facile, we don't need dictionary definitions of "delusional", please treat us seriously. Jytdog is right, those other sources are not reliable. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to "unsay" what I had said. I changed it to make it more acceptable to your standards, I accept that saying society is being monitored by mobile IP addresses may have offended sensibilities. I would withdraw that if you request it. I am aware of this monitoring as I have worked in an industry using it.Saparonia (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * However, to call something "delusional" is insulting to people who report negative effects of electromagnetism and this has been studied seriously. The sources for the studies are cited below. I see here a parallel to people reporting unidentified flying objects, which have been witnessed by reliable witnesses, military and civilian, and at times by hundreds of people simultaneously and yet is still dismissed as delusional. If you want citations for that I will provide them but I mention this analogy here to prove a point in our debate not as supporting evidence for my objection to your choice of derogative language.Saparonia (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Saparonia - above you wrote "your standards". Listen.  You  - you -- are a Wikipedia editor.  Wikipedia's standards are your standards.  You agree to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia everytime you edit - read the Terms of Use that are linked below the Edit Summary box, the next time you make an edit.   You cannot be present here, and pretend to be some kind of outsider. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As an example, your sources on the technical abuse of device identifiers say nothing about the medical effects of transmitting those identifiers. You are asking us to follow up the links you post, I did that. We have linked to some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines above here. Please spend time with us in return and read those pages, they tell you how Wikipedia goes about checking and approving its content. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You are Mike Corley and I claim my five pounds. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Steelpillow - I accept your point. I have contributed to Wikipedia in the past but have lost those login details. I apologise for any ripples I have made. I don't object to your observations and am happy to accept your criticism. I am not alone in thinking that the study of the effects of modern technology on humans is necessarily in it's infancy. I wonder if a current open source (PDF) reference to a 2016 paper is more acceptable? This study is inconclusive but is clear about the need for further study "Given the ubiquitous nature of MC-EMF in our modern environment, it is essential that we continue to conduct the highest quality research to investigate any possible effects that such exposures could have on human health and wellbeing". It's freely available; (© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)). http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/10/967/pdf (2016).Bioelectromagnetics Research within an Australian Context: The Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR). Sarah P. Loughran et al. Academic Editor: Mats-Olof Mattsson. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.Saparonia (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * MDPI is a highly questionable publisher: "MDPI's warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles that are mainly written and published for promotion and tenure purposes rather than to communicate science" - Jeffrey Beall.
 * High quality research has already been carried out. It found no evidence that EMF causes ill effects, and indeed no plausible mechanism by which it could do so. The continued agitation of a handful of alarmists does not change that. This is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 01:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a serious study and because it doesn't agree with a personal viewpoint is not a good reason to retain a bias in an article that should be objective. Delusional, pseudo, false-science are all terms that are dismissive rather than objective. The referenced article is not alarmist, it is objective. It doesn't come to any final conclusion but gives a fair viewpoint.These studies were funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (#1042464).Saparonia (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if one assumes the Loughran et al article is WP:MEDRS, the article says "We have not found evidence that MC-EMF caused symptoms in any of the individuals, whereas belief was found to be a strong predictor of symptoms."--papageno (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have also found a study from the World Health Organisation to the effect that "Where there are uncertainties about  the  potential  health  risk  an  agent  poses  for  society,  pre-cautionary  measures  may  be  warranted  in  order  to  ensure  the  appropriate protection  of  the  public  and  workers.  Only  limited  research  has  been  per-formed on this issue for ELF magnetic fields and because of its importance, more research is needed. This may help countries to integrate precaution into their health protection policies"  http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/elf_ehc/en/ (Chapter 1: Summary and recommendations for further study pdf, 442kb http://www.who.int/entity/peh-emf/publications/Chapter%201.pdf?ua=1 )Saparonia (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you realize that this WHO monograph is from 2007 and refers to ELF, which have nothing to do with mobile phones or wireless internet?--papageno (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The precautionary principle does not apply here, because extensive study has shown that EHS is not a thing. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ElectromagneticHypersensitivity
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)/ Electromagnetic Field Intolerance (EMI) Syndrome

Also sometimes known colloquially as “Wi-Fi Allergy”, Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a term which generally refers to biological distress and adverse health symptoms experienced by a person exposed to artificial electromagnetic radiation EMR). The numbers of people experiencing such symptoms has been on the rise since the roll out of smart meters, which emit short but powerful bursts of microwave radiation.

The adverse health effects of wireless radiation were first reported in a scientific journal in Germany in 1932 by Dr Ewin Schliephake after people were subjected to strong AM radio transmissions. These symptoms included: severe tiredness and fatigue during the day, fitful sleep in the night, headaches to the point of intolerability, and high susceptibility to infection.

During the Second World War, military personnel exposed to radar developed serious adverse health effects known as 'microwave sickness'. After the war those who had been exposed to radar and communications radiation suffered increased illnesses, cancers and early death. This was confirmed in the 1960s in the USSR and Poland - but not in the West until more recently when objective, clinical tests have been published, showing physical changes in blood and histamine during exposure to athermal radiation.

Prior to these findings, there existed a consensus within scientific circles that this syndrome could not be recognized by science on the basis of this research relying primarily on the subjective symptom reports given by those exposed to athermal electromagnetic radiation; and that this method of investigation and any result derived from it was considered scientifically invalid. However it has ben shown that symptoms have a slow-onset for up to an hour.

Since the late l990s, growing numbers of people have attested to having the experience of varying degrees of pain, illness and functional impairment when they are exposed to wireless radiation from cell phones, Wi-Fi, cordless phones, computers, mast towers, radar and other wireless equipment. Most people do not understand that the origin of their symptoms co-insides with exposure to microwave radiation. This extends in many cases to medical circles.

In June 2011 Professor Dominique Belpomme3 (Oncologist, and Professor of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Necker- Enfants-Malades, France), and Professor Olle Johansson (Karolinska Institute, Sweden), were able to change the paradigm on this phenomenon by publishing research on blood samples that found both heat shock proteins (HSPs) and histamine levels were markedly altered in a highly significant proportion of those tested, in comparison to the control group. Heat shock proteins are large molecules containing amino acids that react adversely to heat, light and radiation.

Professor Belpomme and his team used a new diagnostic technique for testing that combines the Pulsed Eco-Doppler – a specialised ultrasound machine - with a computer to reveal brain perfusion (blood circulation) levels.

The results show that people with EHS/EFI have a reduced perfusion in the brain, mostly in the limbic area, compared to the control group. He points out that sufficient circulation to the limbic area is important as it controls the main body functions. However it is also likely that these effects would produce changes in the endocrine and hormonal systems, thus influencing mood and behaviour. Professor Belpomme’s team also showed that dosage of histamine, of proteins S100B and of heat shock proteins HSP70- and HSP27 in the blood were significantly altered in sufferers from EHS/EFI.

They were able to conclude that these symptoms amount to “a real physical illness, like cancer or heart disease”. Belpomme also reported on a severe lack of Vitamin D in the blood of those tested.

As a result of these findings, Professor Belpomme prefers to use the term: “Electromagnetic Field Intolerance Syndrome – EFI Syndrome”. Confirming this work, similar research was conducted in 2001 by Dr Peter French4, (Principal Scientific Officer, Microbiology, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney), in which he said: “………histamine – the chemical responsible for allergic reactions and which is involved in bronchial spasm - is nearly doubled after exposure to mobile phone frequencies. This could result in an increase in illnesses such as asthma and allergies in the years to come”.

He also said: “.... it has been demonstrated by several researchers that increasing the amount of heat shock proteins in cells results in the increased potential for developing tumours...' Professor Neil Cherry5 of Lincoln University in New Zealand also found altered histamine levels in an epidemiological study in Switzerland: “They were sampling melatonin before and after the (Shwarzenberg) tower was turned off and they found a significant rise in melatonin after the tower was turned off. They found a dose/response increase in sleep disturbance. When the tower was turned off experimentally, the sleep quality improved and melatonin rose in animals

Symptoms

Those affected report the following symptom, in varying degrees of intensity: Sleep problems, (insomnia, difficulty falling asleep, night waking, and nightmares), stress, anxiety, irritability, depression, suicidal feelings, headaches, sharp pain or pressure in the head, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), concentration, memory or learning problems, cognition impairment, fatigue, lethargy, muscle or physical weakness, disorientation, dizziness, or balance problems, eye problems, pressure in the eyes, heart palpitations and arrhythmias, chest pain, leg cramps, arthritic –type pain, back pain, nausea, flu-like symptoms, nose bleeds, respiratory problems, cough, asthma, skin rashes, facial flushing, kidney problems, endocrine disorders, thyroid dysfunction, diabetes onset, high blood pressure onset, changes in menstrual cycle and hyperactivity in children.

Management

Management of symptoms has often followed a pattern of avoiding exposure entirely - depending on the severity of symptoms - and then the search for a living space that does not submit the person to unnecessary or superfluous radiation. Some people use lead paint on their houses in order to screen out microwave radiation, and silver netting is also used to cover the person at night for protection. Some attempts have been made to create small devices that in some cases can alleviate major electro-stress, varying from pieces of metal that have had their isotopes changed to emit a higher frequency to counter-balance Extremely Low Frequencies, (ELFs). These are subjectively reported as having varying efficacy.

1 Schliephake, E., Schliephake E: “Arbeitsgebiete auf dem Kurzwellengebiet” [“Fields of the Short-wave region”] Dtsch Med Wochenschr. (1932):

2. P. W. French, R. Penny, J. A. Laurence, D. R. McKenzie: Mobile phones, heat shock proteins and cancer, June 2001, Wiley Online Library.

3. D Belpomme et al: “Reliable disease biomarkers characterising and indentifying Electrohypersensitivity and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspect of a unique pathological disorder.” Rev Environ Health, 2015. PMID: 266133326, pdf.

4 Cherry, N: Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is Genotoxic: The Implications for the Epidemiology of Cancer, Cardiac, Neurological and Reproductive Effects, Australian Senate Inquiry, 2000.

Other studies relating to EHS/EFI Syndrome

Carpenter, D.O: “Excessive exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields may cause the development of Electrohypersensitivity” Altern Ther Health Med. (2014); PMID: 25478802.

Carpenter D.O: “The microwave syndrome or electro-hypersensitivity: historical background” Rev Environ Health, 2015. PMID: 26556835.

Belpomme, D. et al: “Reliable disease biomarkers characterising and indentifying Electrohypersensitivity and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspect of a unique pathological disorder.” Rev Environ Health, 2015. PMID: 266133326, pdf.

Carpenter, D.O: “Excessive exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields may cause the development of Electrohypersensitivity” Altern Ther Health Med. (2014); PMID: 25478802.

Carpenter D.O: “The microwave syndrome or electro-hypersensitivity: historical background” Rev Environ Health, 2015. PMID: 26556835.

De Luca C et al: "HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000647/pdf/MI2014-924184.pdf"Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitivity subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention" Mediators Inflamm. (2014) PHID: 24812443

Gangi S, Johansson O: "Skin changes in "screen dermatitis" versus classical UV - and ionizing irradiation-related damage - similarities and differences" Exp Dermatol. (1997) PMID: 9412815

Genius SJ: "Fielding a current idea: exploring the public health impact of electromagnetic radiation" Public Health (2006) PMID: 17572456 article

Ghadamgahi M et al: (2016) “Memory loss risk assessment for the students nearby high-voltage power lines - a case study” Environ Monit Assess. (2016) PMID: 27194231.

Griesz-Brisson M: "Electrosensitivity from a neurological point of view" Neuroepidemiology (2013) 41: 275, no.227

Hassig M et al: "HYPERLINK "http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1746-6148-10-136.pdf"Influence of non ionizing radiation of base stations on the activity of redox proteins in bovines" BMC Vet Res. (2014) PMID: 24946856

Havas M: "HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5xFLi-ip_g"Evidence of Electrosensitivity" (video of lecture, 33 mins, Ecological Options Network, 2009)

Havas M: "Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system" Rev. Environ Health, (2013) 28(2-3): 75-84. PMID: 24192494

Havas M: "Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45-GHz cordless phone confirms original findings" Electromagn Biol Med, (2013) 32(2): 253-266. PMID: 23675629

Hedendahl L et al: “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an increasing challenge to the medical profession” Rev Environ Health (2015) PMID: 26372109.

Ikeda K et al: “Association between mobile phone use and depressed mood in Japanese adolescents: a cross-sectional study” Environ Health Prev Med. (2014) PMID: 24347468.

Khurana VG et al: “Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations” Int J Occup Environ Health (2010) PMID: 20662418

Johansson O.: "Electrohypersensitivity; State-of-the-Art of a Functional ImpairmentHYPERLINK "http://c4st.org/images/documents/scientific_studies/ElectrohypersensitivityStateoftheArtofaFuncationalImpairmentJohansson.pdf" HYPERLINK "http://c4st.org/images/documents/scientific_studies/ElectrohypersensitivityStateoftheArtofaFuncationalImpairmentJohansson.pdf""El Biol & Med. (2006) PMID: 17178584

Johansson O et al: "Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal health volunteers sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs - results from open-field provocation experiments" J Cut Pathol. (2001) PMID: 11737520

Johansson O et al: "Skin changes in patients claiming to suffer from "screen dermatitis": a two-case open-field provocation study" Exp Dermatol. (1994) PMID: 7881769 McCarty DE et al.: "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome" Int J Neurosci. (2011) 121(12): 670-676. PMID: 21793784.

Pall ML: “Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects” J Cell Mol Med. (2013) PMID: 23802593.

Rea WJ, Pan y, Yenyves EJ, Sujisawa I, Suyama H, Samadi N, Ross GH: "Electromagnetic field sensitivity" J Bioelectricity (1991) 10: 241-256. (copy)

Redmayne M et al: “The relationship between adolescents' well-being and their wireless phone use: a cross-sectional study” Environ Health (2013) PMID: 24148357.

Sage C: “The implications of non-linear biological oscillations on human electrophysiology for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS)” Rev Environ Health (2015) PMID: 26368042.

Szyjkowska A et al: “The risk of subjective symptoms in mobile phone users in Poland - an epidemiological study” Int J Occup Med Environ Health (2014) PMID: 24692074.

Tuengler A & von Klitzing: "Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic hypersensitivity" Electromagn. Biol. Med. (2013) 32(3):281-90, PMOD: 23301924

Villoresi G et al: “[Myocardial infarct and geomagnetic disturbances: analysis of data on morbidity and mortality]” Biofizika (1998) PMID: 9783069.

Abdel-Rassoul G et al.: "Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations" Neurotoxicology (2007) PMID: 16962663

Balik HH et al: “Some ocular symptoms and sensations experienced by long term users of mobile phones” Pathol Biol (Paris). (2005) PMID: 15708652.

Balikci K et al: “A survey study on some neurological symptoms and sensations experienced by long term users of mobile phones” Pathol Biol (Paris). (2005) PMID: 15620607.

Blettner N et al.: "Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional study in Germany" Occup Environ Med. (2009) PMID: 19017702

Borkiewicz A et al.: "Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review" (Polish) Med Pr. (2004) PMID: 15620045

Eger H, Jahn M: "Specific Health Symptoms and Cell Phone Radiation in Selbitz, Bavaria, Germany - Evidence of a Dose-Response Relationship" Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft (2010) tHYPERLINK "http://www.stayonthetruth.com/resources/EgerJahnSELBITZSTUDY2010EnglishFinalmitOriginalQuelle.pdf"ranslation

Eyvazlou M et al: “Association between overuse of mobile phones on quality of sleep and general health among occupational health and safety students” Chronobiol Int. (2016) PMID: 26942630.

Hänninen O et al: “Cardiovascular Responses to Electromagnetic Radiation” J. Afr. Ass. Physiol. Sci. (2013) pdf.

Hojo S et al.: “Development and evaluation of an electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire for Japanese people” Bioelectromagnetics (2016) PMID: 27324106.

Hutter H et al.: "Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations" Occup Environ Med. (2006) PMID: 16621850

Johansson O: “Electrohypersensitivity: a functional impairment due to an inaccessible environment” Rev Environ Health (2015) PMID: 26613327; pdf.

Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska W: "Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia" Sci Total Environ. (1996) PMID: 8717320

Lamech F: “Self-Reporting of Symptom Development From Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields of Wireless Smart Meters in Victoria, Australia: A Case Series” Altern Ther Health Med. (2014) PMID: 25478801.

Navarro E et al.: "The Microwave Syndrome: A preliminary study in Spain" Electromagn Biol Med. (2003) article

Oberfeld G et al.: "The Microwave Syndrome: Further Aspects of a Spanish Study" (2002) article

Redmayne M et al: “Could myelin damage from radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure help explain the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity? A review of the evidence” J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. (2014) PMID: 25205214.

Redmayne M et al: “Radiofrequency exposure in young and old: different sensitivities in light of age-relevant natural differences” Rev Environ Health (2015) PMID: 26613328.

Saini R et al.: “Neurological dysfunction and mobile phones” J Neurosci Rural Pract. (2010) PMID: 21799627; article.

Santini R et al.: "Survey study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations" Electromagn Biol Med. (2003) article

Santini R et al.: "Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I. Incidence according to distance and sex" Pathol Biol. (Paris) (2002) PMID: 12168254

Santini R et al.: "Symptoms experienced by people in the vicinity of base stations: II. Incidence of age, duration of exposure, location of subjects in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors" Pathol Biol. (Paris) (2003) PMID: 12948762

Schaap K et al: "Occupational exposure of healthcare and research staff to staticmagnetic stray fields from 1.5-7 Tesla MRI scanners is associated with reporting of transient symptoms" Occup. Environ. Med., (2014) 71(6):423-9, PMID: 24714654

Sudan M et al: "Prenatal and postnatal Cell Phone Exposure and Headaches in Children" Open Pediatr. Med. Journal (2012) PMID: 23750182

Shahbazi-Gahrouei D et al.: "Health effects of living near mobile phone base transceiver station (BTS) antennae: a report from Isfahan, Iran" Electromagn Biol Med. (2013) PMID: 23781985

Tang A et al: “Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Brain: Mechanisms from Animal and Experimental Models” Neuroscientist (2015) PMID: 26643579.

Tresidder A et al.: “Electrosensitivity: Sources, Symptoms, and Solutions” in Rosch PJ (ed.) Bioelectromagnetic and Subtle Energy MedicineHYPERLINK " http://www.amazon.com/Bioelectromagnetic-Subtle-Energy-Medicine-Second/dp/1482233193";CRC Press, (2014) 2nd ed.

Westerman R et al.: “Diseases of modern living: neurological changes associated with mobile phones and radiofrequency radiation in humans” Neurosci Lett. (2004) PMID: 15135881.

Wolf R, Wolf D: "Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station" Int J Cancer Prev. (2004) article

Augner C, Hacker GW: "Are people living next to mobile phone base stations more strained? Relationship of health concerns, self-estimated distance to base station, and psychological parameters" Indian J Occup Environ Med. (2009) PMID: 20442833

Augner C et al.: "Effects of exposure to GSM mobile phone base station signals on salivary cortisol, alpha-amylase, and immunoglobulin A" Biomed Environ Sci. (2010) PMID: 20708499

Dieudonne M: "Does electromagnetic hypersensitivity originate from nocebo responses? Indications from a qualitative study" Bioelectromagnetics (2016) PMID: 26369906

Eriksson N et al.: “The psychosocial work environment and skin symptoms among visual display terminal workers: a case referent study” Int J Epidemiol. (1997) PMID: 9447405

McCarty DE et al, (July 2011) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome, Int J Neurosci. 2011, Jul 28. [View on Pubmed] "EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally-inducible neurological syndrome"

Landgrebe M et al, (March 2008) Cognitive and neurobiological alterations in electromagnetic hypersensitive patients: results of a case-control study, Psychol Med. 2008 Mar 26;:1-11 [View on Pubmed]

Karinen A et al, (February 2008) Mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin, BMC Genomics. 2008 Feb 11; 9:77 [View on Pubmed]

Arnetz BB et al, (2007) The Effects of 884 MHz GSM Wireless Communication Signals on Self-reported Symptom and Sleep (EEG)- An Experimental Provocation Study, PIERS Online Vol. 3 No. 7 2007 pp: 1148-1150 [View Summary on PIERS]

Abdel-Rassoul G et al, (March 2007) Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations, Neurotoxicology. 2007 Mar; 28(2):434-40 [View on Pubmed]

Landgrebe M et al, (March 2007) Altered cortical excitability in subjectively electrosensitive patients: results of a pilot study, J Psychosom Res. 2007 Mar;62(3):283-8 [View on Pubmed]

Lin JC & Z Wang, (June 2007) Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds, Health Phys 92(6):621-8 [View on Pubmed]

Huss A & M Röösli, (October 2006) Consultations in primary care for symptoms attributed to electromagnetic fields - a survey among general practitioners, BMC Public Health 6:267 [View on Pubmed]

Johansson O, (2006) Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment, Electromagn Biol Med.2006;25(4):245-58 [View on Pubmed]

Hutter HP et al, (May 2006) Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations, Occup Environ Med. 2006 May;63(5):307-13 [View on Pubmed]

Papageorgiou, C.C et al, April 2006. Acute mobile phone effects on pre-attentive operation, Neurosci Lett. 2006 Apr 10-17; 397(1-2):99-103 [View on Pubmed]

Rajkovic V et al, (July 2005) Histological characteristics of cutaneous and thyroid mast cell populations in male rats exposed to power-frequency electromagnetic fields, Int J Radiat Biol. 2005 Jul;81(7):491-9 [View on Pubmed]

Leitgeb N et al, (May 2005) Does "electromagnetic pollution" cause illness? An inquiry among Austrian general practitioners, Wien Med Wochenschr 155:237-241 [View on Pubmed]

Belyaev I et al, (2005) 915 MHz microwaves and 50 Hz magnetic field affect chromatin conformation and 53BP1 foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons, Bioelectromagnetics. 2005 Apr;26(3):173-84 [View on Pubmed]

Bortkiewicz A et al, (2004) Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of Oberfeld G et al, (October 2004) The Microwave Syndrome - Further Aspects of a Spanish Study, Conference Proceedings [View Full Paper]

Al-Khlaiwi T, Meo SA, (June 2004) Association of mobile phone radiation with fatigue, headache, dizziness, tension and sleep disturbance in Saudi population, Saudi Med J. 2004 Jun;25(6):732-6 [View on Pubmed]

Westerman R, Hocking B, (May 2004) Diseases of modern living: neurological changes associated with mobile phones and radiofrequency radiation in humans, Neurosci Lett. 2004 May 6;361(1-3):13-6 [View on Pubmed]

Röösli M et al, (February 2004) Symptoms of ill-health ascribed to electromagnetic field exposure – a questionnaire survey Int J Hyg Environ Health 207(2):141-50 [View on Pubmed]

Navarro EA et al, (December 2003) The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain, Electromagn Biol Med 22(2-3): 161-169

Santini R et al, (September 2003) Symptoms experienced by people in vicinity of base stations: II/ Incidences of age, duration of exposure, location of subjects in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors, Pathol Biol (Paris). 2003 Sep; 51(7):412-5 [View on Pubmed]

Leitgeb N & Schröttner (September 2003) Electrosensibility and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Bioelectromagnetics; 24; 387-394 [View on Pubmed]

Hocking B & Westerman R (October 2002) Neurological changes induced by a mobile phone, Occup Med (London). 2002 Oct;52(7):413-5 [View on Pubmed]

Stenberg B et al, (October 2002) Medical and social prognosis for patients with perceived hypersensitivity to electricity and skin symptoms related to the use of visual display. Santini R et al, (July 2002) Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex, Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002 Jul;50(6):369-73 [View on Pubmed]

Edelstyn N, Oldershaw A, (January 2002) The acute effects of exposure to the electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on human attention, Neuroreport. 2002 Jan 21;13(1):119-21 [View on Pubmed]

Johansson et al, (November 2001) Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs - results from open-field provocation experiments, J Cutan Pathol; 28: 513-519 [View on Pubmed]

Lyskov E et al, (November 2001) Neurophysiological study of patients with perceived "electrical hypersensitivity" International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42, 233-241 [View on Pubmed]

Gangi S & Johansson O (April 2000) A theoretical model based upon mast cells and histamine to explain the recently proclaimed sensitivity to electric and/or magnetic fields in humans, Medical Hypotheses, April 2000 54(4), 663-71 [View on Pubmed]

Freude G et al, (January 2000) Microwaves emitted by cellular telephones affect human slow brain potentials, Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Jan; 81(1-2):18-27 [View on Pubmed]

Bergdahl J et al, (October 1998) Odontologic survey of referred patients with symptoms allegedly caused by electricity or visual display units, Acta Odontol Scand 56(5):303-7 [View on Pubmed]

Eriksson N et al, (December 1997) The psychosocial work environment and skin symptoms among visual display terminal workers: a case referent study, Int J Epidemiol. 1997 Dec;26(6):1250-7 [View on Pubmed]

Gangi S & Johansson O, (December 1997). Skin changes in "screen dermatitis" versus classical UV and ionizing irradiation-related damage -- similarities and differences, Exp Dermatol. 1997 Dec;6(6):283-91 [View on Pubmed]

Sandstrom M et al, (January 1997) Neurophysiological effects of flickering light in patients with perceived electrical hypersensitivity, J Occup Environ Med. 1997 Jan;39(1):15-22 [View on Pubmed]

Johansson O et al, (October 1994) Skin changes in patients claiming to suffer from "screen dermatitis": a two-case open-field provocation study, Exp Dermatol. 1994 Oct; 3(5):234-8 [View on Pubmed]

--ISB22 (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Emails
Has anyone else received emails posted from a computer at the School District of Waukesha regarding this article? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Care to tell us what they say? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, school districts are notoriously easy to hack, and that fact alone makes me wonder if this was actually sent by someone with access to their mail system. Not that it matters, it's just a curiosity thing (my boss has had me working on something involving DKIM spoofing lately). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How would they get your/our email?Unconventional2 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Possibly because my name is not both my username and all over Google. Being open and honest has never been a low-risk strategy. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 23:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep Steelpillow's right your eMail is pretty easy to find. Was it something that you can share with the group?Unconventional2 (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Start of quoted email:

Return-Path: < [at] stu.waukesha.k12.wi.us> Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178]) From: " " < [at] stu.waukesha.k12.wi.us> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 20:13:11 -0600 Message-ID:  Subject: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is real and nothing you say or do To: (redacted)

Body of message: I have caught you repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia saying that EHS has no scientific basis and is not a medical diagnosis,

Despite numerous peer reviewed studies proving wireless radiation is harmful and some people are sensitive enough to be able to feel the effects, despite thousands of primary and secondary studies, you still want to pollute Wikipedia with this garbage?

This webpage here has a ton of information about this condition - please click on several articles and watch a few of the videos on this page and then *tell me honestly *that you still don't believe EHS is real: https://wirelessaction.wordpress.com/resources/

You are a disgrace to Wikipedia.

With All Due Respect, Someone that doesn't have EHS but recognizes its validity

-- School District of Waukesha

End of quoted email.

This was sent to the mailbox I use for conversations with Wikipedia editors, so it appears that whoever it is had some sort of interaction with me where I responded before. I nuke the address and give Wikipedia another one every so often to avoid unwanted emails. Looks like it is time to do that again. Correction: it was an email address I put on my resume for human resources departments that are too dimwitted to reach me any other way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sender's email address aligns with their story and may be genuine. Wikipedia takes off-wiki harassment seriously so if you wanted to you could report them (not sure if WP:ANI is the right place) and ask for this incident to be investigated and necessary actions taken. Do you use your mailbox for anything else besides Wikipedia? If not, they might also be interested to know how often you get sent unwanted emails. If there is systemic abuse going on, it needs to be trodden on and our higher admins have some powerful methods available when they prove necessary. HTH. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't consider a single email, no matter how critical it is of me, to be harassment.
 * Also, my email system is designed to deal with spam, harassment, etc. I own several domains and can create as many email addresses as I want to. So if I had a need to have an email conversation with you, I would tell you to email me at steelpillow63952@[my domain] and I wouldn't give that address to anyone else. The "63952" is a random number to make it hard for someone who knows my system to guess the email address. If that email address started getting spam, (this often happens when malware reads someone's address book and sends spam to everyone on it) I would just shut it down and, if needed, assign you a new one. I started doing this years ago when my main email address started getting over a thousand spams per day.


 * But I digress. It doesn't look like he mass-emailed editors of this page, so there is no action required. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup we cannot make everyone happy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The technical information all lines up with the appearance. Note that the sender's domain is stu.waukesha.k12.wi.us, which is not actually a government website, but one registered using the United States' assigned top-level domain. (.gov is the official top-level domain for US government bodies). This doesn't necessarily mean anything; the waukesha.k12.wi.us domain resolves to a website about that school board, and my own county school board website is a .org. However, interestingly I can't find any registration information for waukesha.k12.wi.us at all. Even Neustar.us, which specializes in .us top level domains doesn't show any hits for this. Every one I tried tells me there's no information on this top.level domain, which is not referring to the .us in this case, but to the .k12.wi, I suspect.
 * The pathing information shows a google mail server, which is good, as google is hard to spoof. So I'm fairly certain this came from the same email address it appears to be from. So my guess is that some disgruntled high school student who's IP address at school has been blocked (as school IPs often are) from editing has decided to lash out in another way. I'll bet 5 bucks that if we look through all the IP edits to this article since the beginning of the last school year, we'll find one that resolves to that same school board who was reverted and blocked.
 * Oh, and the reason I did this was for my own amusement. I enjoy little mysteries like this, even when they turn out to not be so mysterious. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * k12.wi.us resolves to WISCNET, which I assume to be WiscNet.. Google Search reveals our correspondent to be an established campaigner. BTW, glad to hear it's an isolated incident. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird... I got no results from whois.com, .net, ICANN whois or network solutions for k12.wi.us. But to be fair, on ICANN and whois.com it kept dropping the first separator on me, so that it was returning no results for k12wi.us. Dunno why, but even when I dropped in the period in the url on ICANN I got nothing (see https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=k12.wi.us). I should have tried typing in the url at whois.com. Still, it works out to the same conclusion. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  06:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * More of the same: Still not enough to be considered harassment in my opinion, but if he does it another ten or so times I will report it at ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll watchlist your and this editor's talk page. If the disruption continues, it'll be at least two editors complaining about them at ANI. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)