Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 8

The Science of Electro-Magnetic Sensitivity
I was quite shocked by the certainty of the wording of this article, stating that EMF sensitivity MUST be psychosomatic. How many have you have seen this web site which lists peers reviewed science on this subject?

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp#es

These scientific studies would very much suggest that EMF sensitivity, at very least, COULD indeed a thing, and not just in the brain.

I'm just putting this out here for people who edit this page to consider, as reading articles on this issue would tend to make one believe the case has been closed and the science has been carried out and definite conclusions have been made. This is just not the case and it is my view that the wikipedia page should not reflect such certainty if it doesn't want to just appear as laughable North Korean propaganda once again.

Probrooks (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This article does not contain the word "psychosomatic" and does not say that "EMF sensitivity MUST be psychosomatic". Instead, it says what every peer-reviewed scientific paper on the topic says, which is the there is zero evidence that EMF sensitivity exists. (The fact that some people falsely believe that EMF sensitivity exists is another matter)


 * You gave us a link to a bunch of scientific papers above, but when I checked the first one it said "Results showed that IEI-EMF participants reported lower levels of well-being during real compared to sham exposure during open provocation, but not during double-blind trials. ... These findings are consistent with a growing body of literature indicating there is no causal relationship between short-term exposure to EMFs and subjective well-being in members of the public whether or not they report perceived sensitivity to EMFs." I am not going to bother checking the rest. If you think one of those papers supports the theory that EMF sensitivity exists, tell me which one and I will be happy to look at that paper. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second paper on your list, a copy may be viewed at [ http://www.leftforum.org/sites/default/files/panel_documents/378.EHS_.pdf ]. Related: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if you take the time to look at the list, you will see that papers are colour coded and listed as positive (green) 41 studies, neutral 24 studies (grey) and negative 26 studies (pink). This is why it is useful, because you can see what looks like ALL the science which has been carried out on this topic rather than just rely on a systematic review, you can look at it all yourself.


 * Probrooks (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As Guy says, the article represents the level of certainty expressed in the more recent reliable sources, per WP:MEDRS. Sadly, few of the global chatterati follow such guidelines and many people get a surprise when they come here. And contrary to your allegation the article lead expressly includes alternatives to the nocebo (aka psychosomatic) effect, where it states that "As of 2005 WHO recommended that people presenting with claims of EHS be evaluated to determine if they have a medical condition that may be causing the symptoms the person is attributing to EHS,..." I personally agree that, for this very reason, the opening sentence is over-harshly expressed and I am trying to get it toned down a little - but only a very little (see the discussion immediately above). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree the wording reflects WP:MEDRS, which tends to more gentle and less certain. This is a real problem for controversial articles, another one is Morgellons, where wikipedia is saying "it is all in their heads", when that diagnosis is only based upon the information we have now in 2016. And so I think a certain sensitivity to other people's points of view and suffering, of those who have symptoms of EMF sensitivity, may be in order, rather than claim it is a "belief" and harshly assert "the truth", without any flexibility that this perception may in fast be incorrect.


 * Probrooks (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In this website you can do a quick search for "systematic" and it shows that all systematic reviews either came back negative or unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, a competent physician who has a patient saying that he has symptoms X, Y, and Z and claiming that they are cause by his EMF sensitivity will of course reject that as a possible cause (because EMF sensitivity does not exist) but will consider the possibility that the symptoms are the result of some disease or disorder that actually does exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your competent doctor may not be practicing "Occams Razor" then, which states that the simplest explanation is the most likely one. Is there any evidence to suggest that what are reported to be EMF symptoms are in fact other diseases or disorders? Personally, if I went to see a doctor and told him I couldn't use a computer or couldn't be inside a house with a smart meter installed, I'd hope he listened to what I was saying about what I thought the causative element was of what was ailing me, rather than just trying to find out some other causation because he didn't believe in the existence of my condition!


 * Probrooks (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Psychiatric conditions are diagnosis of exclusion. So yes one would rule out medical conditions first such as anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis or hyperthyroidism. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Probrooks, research shows that EMF-sensitive people report symptoms when the transmitter is off but they are told it is on, but not when the transmitter is on. That strongly suggests that is is psychiatric in nature. That doesn't mean the symptoms are imaginary. Anxiety and depression are very real. Also, if there is no plausible mechanism for EMF causing symptoms then you can't really say the simplest explanation is that the person is EMF sensitive. The simplest explanation is psychiatric. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symptoms from EMF may well be delayed, so the transmitter is off, but the effects are still being experienced in the body. It may well occur through a mechanism that 2016 understanding is not taking into account. You say the simplest explanation is psychiatric: I don't get it. You are saying that people are fooling themselves into experiencing these symptoms? What is the mechanism of this psychiatric explanation? The simplest explanation would be to say that EMF's are effecting the body in ways that are not yet understood by 2016 science. Considering the breadth and scope of this sensitivity, it is not like Morgellons where it is a very small percentage of the population but something like a few people every hundred. I find it really rich such an obviously controversial subject is treated with such concrete certainty. There is 41 peer reviewed scientific studies I posted showing evidence of electromagnetic sensitivity, which should at least cast some doubt upon claims that such sensitivity is only psychiatric.


 * Probrooks (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not base our content on primary sources per WP:MEDRS. We base our content on high quality recent review articles. If you are not sure the difference please spend some time reading. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Doc James has it exactly right. Probrooks, you claim "there is 41 peer reviewed scientific studies I posted showing evidence of electromagnetic sensitivity" I claim that the number is zero, For the second time I ask, point me at one study that you believe shows that electromagnetic sensitivity. Don't ask me to wade through 41 of them. Just pick one that you think is a good one and we will examine it together. If it says what you claim it says and if it is indeed a WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable source, I will personally change the article to reflect the new information. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * Well, if you take the time to look at the list, you will see that papers are colour coded and listed as positive (green) 41 studies
 * The study that Guy quoted from is listed as a 'positive' study, despite directly contradicting the statement on the website. This website is fundamentally wrong from the very first claim of scientific support.
 * Furthermore, the very next 'positive' result was merely an experiment to determine what symptoms occurred, and to what extent, from s review of self-reported data. So that doesn't support it, either.
 * The third merely presents a hypothesis that might explain ES as a recognizable phenomenon, but doesn't nothing to support this hypothesis with evidence.
 * The fourth actually supports it... With experiments done on one person. Who was, themselves a physician, and likely had extensive insight into how such a double blind trial might be done. So it's therefore not only a tiny experiment, but a poorly structured one.
 * The fifth again shows minor evidence of some physical link, but records significantly different physiological effects. It can't be taken as support for the supposed deleterious effects claimed by the site you linked to. Indeed, it is evidence against those symptoms actually claimed by the site. Taken these facts together, it is safe to say that we cannot trust the site you linked to be honest about the conclusions of any of those papers.
 * In short, your evidence sucks. Badly. I'm not trying to be rude, but the only information we can glean from your initial post here is that this particular website cannot be trusted to guide us to reliable sources, and than you failed to notice this. Which is okay, it happens. But you're not going to get anywhere with it, so I advise you to drop it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I’m well aware of how wikipedia works and that these are primary sources. I put them out here for those interested in inquiring further into this matter with an open mind. I’m not here to really argue or to trying to change the article based on this data as I made clear originally.


 * I’m only making a basic point here, there are strong indications EMF sensitivity is a thing, anyone can see that going by the sheer size of the phenomena and the lack of an alternative explanation as to what is causing this phenomena.


 * In Sweden, they view electromagnetic sensitivity as a thing,


 * http://noxtak.com/page/files/Electrohypersensitivity_Olle_Johanson.pdf


 * The wikipedia article as it stands posits that people’s experience of EMF sensitivity is not necessarily random and that there are telltale symptoms which this study, the 2nd positive study points out.


 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25478801


 * “(1) insomnia, (2) headaches, (3) tinnitus, (4) fatigue, (5) cognitive disturbances, (6) dysesthesias (abnormal sensation), and (7) dizziness. The effects of these symptoms on people's lives were significant.”


 * Whereas, the present wikipedia article simply states that “In severe cases such symptoms can be a real and sometimes disabling problem for the affected person, causing psychological distress.”


 * This is incredibly condescending language, which may be undermining what are real physical symptoms, which may be entirely disabling.


 * Also, the hypothesis here, that this sensitivity is somehow made in the mind, is not fully explained in this article, where is the science behind this hypothesis?


 * Studies like these in Sweden communicate a reality to people’s symptoms.


 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12432989


 * Also, the Russians have much research on non-ionizing radiation, of which I cannot find too many references to on the web. This means the Russian requirements for EMF during soviet times were much more stringent, as in their thousands of studies, they found very noticeable effects at a much lower level than in the west.


 * This link discusses these issues and also scientific research in the 1950’s and 60’s in America which showed a clear correlations between EMF’s and human health. I’ve yet to really explore this research, but wanted to point out that it exists.


 * http://ethw.org/Biological_Effects_of_Electromagnetic_Radiation#IV._Biological_Hazards


 * I’ll spend some more time researching this and see if I can come up with something solid to contribute to the article, already I can see a few things…


 * Probrooks (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind that we need WP:MEDRS sources. Please propose changes to the article the next time you write. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

negative language used in this article
The negative language used in this article- "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity" reflects a narrow view of current research on a symptomatology that by some estimates is reported by 2-5% of the industrial world's population. It is not within Wikipedia's mission to influence the future of research in this field or to make this 2-5% of the population objects of ridicule. Use of "false belief" and "pseudoscientific" are uncalled for, biased and constitute original research.

I suggest that more modest language be used here- as in this article:

Bioelectromagnetics. 2010 Jan;31(1):1-11. doi: 10.1002/bem.20536. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'): An updated systematic review of provocation studies. Rubin GJ1, Nieto-Hernandez R, Wessely S. Author information Abstract Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF; formerly 'electromagetic hypersensitivity') is a medically unexplained illness in which subjective symptoms are reported following exposure to electrical devices. In an earlier systematic review, we reported data from 31 blind provocation studies which had exposed IEI-EMF volunteers to active or sham electromagnetic fields and assessed whether volunteers could detect these fields or whether they reported worse symptoms when exposed to them. In this article, we report an update to that review. An extensive literature search identified 15 new experiments. Including studies reported in our earlier review, 46 blind or double-blind provocation studies in all, involving 1175 IEI-EMF volunteers, have tested whether exposure to electromagnetic fields is responsible for triggering symptoms in IEI-EMF. No robust evidence could be found to support this theory. However, the studies included in the review did support the role of the nocebo effect in triggering acute symptoms in IEI-EMF sufferers. Despite the conviction of IEI-EMF sufferers that their symptoms are triggered by exposure to electromagnetic fields, repeated experiments have been unable to replicate this phenomenon under controlled conditions. A narrow focus by clinicians or policy makers on bioelectromagnetic mechanisms is therefore, unlikely to help IEI-EMF patients in the long-term.

The following article demonstrates that indeed new avenues of research are being explored- or at least conjectured.

Advances in Biological Chemistry, 2013, 3, 177-186 ABC doi:10.4236/abc.2013.32023 Published Online April 2013 Cancer induction molecular pathways and HF-EMF irradiation Gérard Ledoigt1*, Dominique Belpomme2 1 Clermont-Université, UMR PIAF Université-INRA, Blaise-Pascal University, Campus Universitaire des Cézeaux, Landais; Aubiere cedex, France 2 Paris-Descartes University Hospital, Medical Oncology Department, Association for Research and Treatment against Cancer (ARTAC), Paris, France Email: * Gerard.Ledoigt@univ-bpclermont.fr Received 14 January 2013; revised 7 March 2013; accepted 10 April 2013 Copyright © 2013 Gérard Ledoigt, Dominique Belpomme. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ABSTRACT The response of cells to different types of electromagnetic fields can be induced by low-level (athermal) high frequency (HF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) exposure associated with mobile phone technologies. There are many examples of biological effects involving the epigenome. EMFs could trigger protein activation mediated by ligands, such as Ca2+, that alter the conformation of binding proteins, especially the NADPH plasmic membrane oxidase, so inducing increased formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that may alter proteomic functions. Classical antiapoptotic and procarcinogenic signaling pathways that are commonly found activated in human malignancies and in inflammation mainly involve the transcription factor NF-κB. The microenvironment that exists during chronic inflammation can contribute to cancer progression. The data support the proposition that long term HF-EMF exposure associated with improper use of cell phones can potentially cause cancer.

Keywords: Cell Membrane; Chronic Inflammation; EMF Exposure; Gene Expression; Cancer; Carcinogenesis; NF-κB

Klasovsky (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Klasovsky (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure so the first review states "have tested whether exposure to electromagnetic fields is responsible for triggering symptoms in IEI-EMF. No robust evidence could be found to support this theory."
 * The second source does not appear to be pubmed indexed and has an impact factor less than 1. Not sure if it qualifies as a high quality secondary source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to what estimates place the number of people experiencing this at 2-5%. Because that's an estimate that doesn't just stray, but determinedly strides across the line between fringe and tin-foil-hattery. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Every article in Category:pseudoscience must have its 2-5% of apologists who want it reclassified more kindly. 95% is a pretty solid consensus. Wikipedia is not an academic journal and its language should be more accessible than them - where an academic paper refers to a "manually-oriented implement for the extraction and microtransportation of ground-based materials", Wikipedia refers to a "spade". &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

————————————— Negative language is used here! that's my point! it needs to be softened!
 * First source is solid but says there is no evidence this is caused by EMF. Second source is from Scientific Research Publishing, so it's a predatory open access journal. So, the first source is a measured scientific version of "this is not a thing" and the second is ignorable. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have failed to make any valid argument for why this is so. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW My second example was taken at random, just to show that there is some latitude for skepticism re the canonical position here- it's from a sound Botanist who was bothered by the narrowness of current research and rather naively wanted to suggest some other avenues of approach- there is some good Swedish research suggestive of possible sensitivities to very specific frequencies out there- that wasn't my point though- Klasovsky (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a primary source for people who will be caretakers for those claiming to suffer from EHS. These will be actually migraineurs and allergics and people with chronic fatigue syndrome symptoms, many of whom are subject to anxiety attacks. Language here could- and will- lead to disregard for what- admittedly- are likely only nocebo reactions. The language here is the equivalent to giving permission to pop balloons behind the backs of PTSD victims, since they are really only afraid of guns and bombs. Cell phones won't be turned off as per the EHS sufferer's request (for example) &if &when that betrayal is discovered the usual, admittedly unscientific symptoms- rashes, anxiety attacks and migraines- will recur- with a vengeance for the patient. It is tremendously cavalier to go beyond the language used in peer reviews such as the first example above; to scream FALSE! in a quiet room, just because you can. There are non-exploitative reasons why "EMI Refuges" have been set up out in the real world.


 * I could easily set up a double-blind clinical trial and prove that PTSD victims can detect the difference between balloons popped behind their backs and silence. Can you provide a citation that shows that anyone anywhere who claims to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity can, in a double-blind test, tell the difference between the presence and absence of a non-ionizing electromagnetic field? No. You can not. Instead you find references like [ http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ ], which says " A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions. The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure." or [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601 ], which says "There was no evidence that EHS individuals could detect presence or absence of RF-EMF better than other persons ... This review showed that the large majority of individuals who claims to be able to detect low level RF-EMF are not able to do so under double-blind conditions. If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet." --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The only Swedish research I know of showing any kind of positive results for EHS is the work by 2004's Misleader of the Year. I really hope that's not what you're referring to. Kolbasz (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I take the point that carers will be coming here for information. But really, the truth does have to be told in a way that is unmistakable. Mealy-mouthed euphemism or watering-down just suggest that the truth isn't really the truth if you squint at it a bit. Perhaps there is a middle way - forceful and unmistakable but nevertheless respectful of the individual. As I have said, the language of academic studies is too obscurantist. Does anybody have any better ideas? As a starter for ten, I have boldly substituted "mistaken theory" for "false belief" in the lead. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * undid my edit. I am puzzled by this. EHS is a claimed medical diagnosis, it is not a "belief" any more than any other medical condition is a "belief". Sure, one can believe in a diagnosis and there is pseudoscience wrapped around this one but that does not make it a "belief" in itself. I can talk about it here as a syndrome and debate the evidence for claimed causes, without "believing" in any particular cause. Worse, the phrase "false belief" is linked to the article on delusion and the medical literature is clear that symptoms presented are often real to the point of disabling. Can somebody explain (without POV bias please) why description as a "belief" and a "delusion" should be deemed more accurate that description as a theory? Would "say "pseudoscientific diagnosis" be an acceptable form of words? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Electromagnetic fields do not cause these effects. EHS is the false or delusional belief that they do. The symptoms are psychosomatic - the nocebo effect. Analogy: someone believes that their cancer was caused by eating genetically modified food. The cancer is real, but the attribution is delusional. Same deal. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We are both agreed that EM effects are not involved, please hang on to that. Belief in EHS is the belief that they are. EHS itself is merely the imagined cause, it is not the belief in that imagined cause. By analogy, a unicorn is not a belief in an unreal beast, it is the unreal beast itself. Someone "believes in" unicorns, someone "believes in" EHS. Also, the noceob effect is only one recognised diagnosis. The symptoms presented can have other, serious but manageable medical causes. That is why proper medical attention is needed in each case - to diagnose what is really going on. And that is also why dismissing the patent's condition as delusional is premature: "the symptoms can be real and distressing to the sufferer" and we should respect that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any dispute that the symptoms can be real. But there's no good evidence to support their being caused by hypersensitivity to EM radiation (and plenty that they aren't).  The position supported by RS is that EM hypersensitivity is not a condition, but a purported (and unsupported) explanation for a syndrome.  Brunton (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right. And an explanation is not in its own right a "belief". EHS is an explanation not a belief. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say "x is true" and there is no good evidence for X, we are not talking about science but rather matters of faith, or belief. we cannot even discuss this as a hypothesis anymore that may or may not be true; it is were we could talk about in the framework of hypothesis - as something that might be true.  But we can't. . Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, your analysis of your example is flawed. We are talking about two things, whether X is factually true (science) and whether you believe X to be true (belief). X is not the belief that X is true. A unicorn is not the belief that unicorns exist. EHS is not the belief that EHS is a real condition. All the sophistry in the world about "hypotheses" will not change these simple observations. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience vs. delusion
Most of us appear to be in violent agreement that EHS is not caused by EMF. However, I don't believe this question is settled. So, should we represent the subject as: I think both is correct: it is a delusional belief fed by pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) A pseudoscientific claim
 * 2) A delusional belief
 * 3) Both


 * I agree. In particular, "EHS exists" is a pseudoscientific claim while "I suffer from EHS" is a delusional belief. Likewise, "Unicorns exist" is a pseudoscientific claim while "I own a unicorn" is a delusional belief. Our problem on this page is that some individuals reject the strong evidence against EHS existing (the fact that in double-blind studies alleged "sensitives" cannot tell whether the electromagnetic field is on or off) and instead regard the delusional belief as evidence: "I suffer from EHS, therefor EHS exists." This is akin to saying "I own a unicorn, therefor unicorns exist". You need to provide evidence that your unicorn exists other than your personal belief that you own one. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Belief in unicorns is not the same thing as a unicorn. Belief in alien UFOs is not the same thing as an alien UFO. Belief in EHS is not the same thing as EHS. In each case the belief exists but the thing believed in does not. It is a logical absurdity to say that a thing which does not exist is the same as a thing which does exist. By comparison with the above example, "Unicorns exist" is a pseudoscientific claim while "I have seen a unicorn" is a delusional belief. The unicorn is not the belief, it is the object of the belief. In logic it is very common for one truth to depend on another, but not the other way round. "I own a car" is dependent on the fact that "cars exist", but the existence of cars is not dependent on whether or not I own one. The semantics of language generally follows the logic, so let's keep it that way here. The delusion is the belief in EHS, not EHS itself. I suppose I could get all wikilawyery and demand WP:RS for the definition of EHS itself as a belief in EHS. Any offers? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really struggling to see your point. The article is about EHS and those who claim to have it. The two are inextricably linked. Guy (Help!) 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I saw where you replied to me in the above section, but I didn't know what you were saying there. Now, I don't know what you're saying here, beyond a guess that you seem to think that the article shouldn't be about the people who claim to suffer from EHS. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be so unclear. People keep restoring a definition based on delusional belief to the article lead. What part of "belief in a thing is not the thing itself" do you guys not understand? Let's take UFOs as an analogy. To paraphrase, "The article is about UFOs and those who claim to have seen them. The two are inextricably linked." This is quite true, but it does not demonstrate that a belief in UFOs is itself a UFO. The point here is that the lead sentence in the present article is/was defining EHS as a belief in EHS. That is a linguistic absurdity and needs minor correction. There should be no implication for EHS here, just a shatteringly basic observation on the semantics of a badly-crafted remark. There really is nothing more to misunderstand. Does this make it any clearer? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC) [10:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)]
 * To give you a concrete example. The WHO summary, currently the first cite in the article, explains that; "This reputed sensitivity to EMF has been generally termed “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS". Note that the WHO is defining EHS as the claimed sensitvity itself and not as the belief in that claimed sensitivity. Here too is a report from the UK National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB), also cited in the article, which overtly seeks to define "ES" (aka EHS). It makes no mention of "belief", delusional or otherwise, in its discussion of the definition. Please do not restore your version of the "truth" until you can verify it with more reliable sources than the WHO and the NRPB. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC) [Updated 09:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)]
 * What part of "belief in a thing is not the thing itself" do you guys not understand?
 * Okay, I think the main source of confusion is your own. You see, in the opening posts of this section, both Guy and (and, for that matter, though I didn't give voice to it) agreed that the belief and the 'thing' are two different things. Hence why both of them said that "both" is the correct answer. No-one is contesting that.
 * The other thing I think you might not be clear on is that this article is about both. We can't very well have an article about a delusional belief that doesn't include significant coverage of those who believe it. I mean, the belief itself is just a belief, a meme, a bit of (false) information that exists only in the minds of the people who believe it. But those minds spring from the brains of those people, which are real, tangible things worth discussing. Since there is no 'scripture' of EHS, no 'culture' of EHS and no measurable impact of EHS in the real world outside of those people, we pretty much have to include them in any reasonable encyclopedic article.
 * So it seems that you are arguing against a position no-one has taken and as such, you've already won the argument. I hope this helps. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry it doesn't help. People were still reverting my edits back to the "delusion" version, so I had very evidently not yet won the argument - I wasn't just breaking wind into a tea cup as you seem to think. So I gave up trying to explain and resorted to wikilawyering; "Please do not restore your version of the "truth" until you can verify it with more reliable sources than the WHO and the NRPB." since then, the reversions seem to have stopped. A win if it stays that way, but a win only for WP:VERIFY and a sad loss for rational discourse. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as this discussion goes; you were not positing a position that anyone disagreed with, to my knowledge. The person who reverted you has not participated here. And even though they reverted you, that does not mean that they necessarily disagree with the conclusions stated here. They could have found your text confusing. I would hazard to suggest that, as at least two people in this discussion have found your comments confusing, that this is a distinct possibility. Allow me to offer a word of advice: be as concise as you can be. Your comments above make more sense to me now, but only because I took one sentence out of your last comment and essentially ignored the rest. I'm not trying to bust your balls, just trying to help out. And this is coming from someone who might not be known for his walls of text in every comment, but only because some others are too polite to give me hell for it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your concern for my wellbeing, but it is time to move on. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
has created Draft:Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity as a woo-based alternative article. Does anyone know the best way to get that rubbish cleaned out? The guy is bound to protest. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * — ISB22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Unconventional2 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sent to XfD. No hope. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515232743/http://www.sfms.org:80/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1770 to http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1770
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010073038/http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8934/8934.html to http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8934/8934.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup
Just to say, I removed some stuff because it was not enlightening and appeared to be from primary sources. Here is the diff. I'd be grateful if anybody who still deems it encyclopedic could explain why. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

SPI
Sockpuppet investigations/Nalbert123 --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Changes
Suggested changes to this article need to be supported by high quality recent secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Doc James:
 * I have done an edit in the article because it is clearly outdated and not correct. We are many users that have tried to make it more neutral and correct, but our edits keep on being reversed no matter what. Electrohypersensitivity is a recognized handicap in several countries and an official diagnosis in Austria. This is what the EU enviromental doctor write about this ilness:


 * https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10910251701394/EUROPAEM%20EMF%20Guideline%202016%20for%20the%20prevention%20and%20treatment%20of%20EMF-related%20health%20problems.pdf


 * I've done a sandbox here to show people how it should be and everyone is of course free to comment and discuss on the content of the sandbox. The article on EHS is now a lot about Elctrophobia, which is a clear problem. I agree with the user Klasovsky's viewpoint.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leksijensen/sandbox


 * --Leksijensen (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * First off, you should always sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comment. Second, you should indent your comments to help us understand whom you are responding to. You can do this by beginning each line of your response with a colon, or if the comment you are responding to is indented, by using one more colon than that response used. See WP:TOPPOST for more on this.
 * Finally, you need to examine the literature on a subject in it's entirety, and not just pick and choose references and parts of reference that support your belief. The broad consensus among scientists is that EHS is not a thing. But you carefully picked your references to make your sandbox (which constitutes a WP:POVFORK and is not consistent with WP policy) to support the conclusion you had already come to. That's not how we work, here. Please read WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to understand why the article appears the way it does. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Society and culture
This section is awful, just a collection of "yah-boo!" anecdotes. The controversy is well enough documented as a social phenomenon to merit encyclopedic treatment in its own right. Can I suggest a rewrite around the increasing number of organizations which do believe in a link between exposure and EHS despite the lack of scientific evidence. Here is a useful source of pointers:. The "counter-counter-culture" of refusal to accept these claims (e.g. in the courts) obviously also needs equal emphasis. Does this seem sensible? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The anecdotes can go. I disagree with adding organizations who do believe in EHS; this is a back door around WP:MEDRS. Neither the suggested medical article template, nor any medical articles with good status (good status articles cover two topics: Stigma, and Economic costs of the illness) cover this kind of information in Society and culture section. --papageno (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Causes - myelin damage
One possible cause for EHS is given in this article, being myelin damage. More info here as well. It "suggests" it could be the cause. Any opinions on adding this? Otter22 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It has to be established that there is something to explain before proposing speculative explanations. --tronvillain (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I consider this resolved. Otter22 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sweden EHS
(About ‎SPA Otter22's edit which is still pending after its post-revert reinstatement): what surprises me about this article, is that it fails to discuss any psychiatric or anxiety issues (at least in the abstract that is accessible); society and the environment are claimed to be the cause. According to Tronvillain the source fails MEDRS. Input welcome, — Paleo  Neonate  — 14:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The article does discuss psychiatric issues, I have the full PDF. But the facts I posted are not even a study, but just that Sweden provides some assistance for people with EHS, and how the people are viewed. I don't see how this can be not credible. --Otter22 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The key here is that Sweden has concluded that people who think that they are being chased by unicorns -- er, I mean, people who think that they are being hurt by electromagnetic fields -- Can show physical symptoms of stress, and that Swedish doctors should treat those symptoms. This says nothing about whether Unicorns -- I mean Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (sorry, I sometimes confuse things that do not exist) actually exist.


 * I challenge anyone who claims to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity to, in a proper double-blind test, tell the difference between the presence and absence of a non-ionizing electromagnetic field. Can you do that? No. You can not. Nobody can. Instead you find references like [ http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ ], which says " A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions. The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure." or [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601 ], which says "There was no evidence that EHS individuals could detect presence or absence of RF-EMF better than other persons ... This review showed that the large majority of individuals who claims to be able to detect low level RF-EMF are not able to do so under double-blind conditions. If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon: International Journal of Neuroscience, double blind :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784 "The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs ".  I just found this by accident, but again, I was not arguing for this. They also mention, which may be the case with most, or all EHS, that the patient had no conscious knowledge of the field, but felt pain and twitches etc. which indicated to the patient that the field is present, and began after 100 seconds.  So it is likely that any EHS person would tell the presence of any field they are affected by, based on having pain/symptoms or not, and in some cases the symptoms could be delayed by minutes or hours. In this case 100 seconds is very short, so it can be easily studied. Otter22 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon: Even in the WHO proceedings it was found that there were experiments that showed people could tell if a EMF field was present or not. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/EHS_Proceedings_June2006.pdf "In the laboratory experiment, the hypothesis on Electrosensitivity (association between field situation and effects reported by subjects) was confirmed. 49 subjectively hypersensitive subjects and a second group of 14 people not claiming to be hypersensitive but who are aware of the EHS issue showed, that several subjects perceive weak 50 Hz EMF of 200 V/m and 6 µT. However, the Electrosensitivity does not seem to be connected to the perceived degree of EHS. And, the ability to detect an EMF does not a priori mean that EMF cause health effects. "


 * Project Nemesis was the name of the study.
 * "Seven out of 63 subjects reached a statistically significant result which points to the existence of a small EMF sensitive subgroup within the study group." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11793403

Otter22 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This article clearly says that there is no determined way to diagnose this condition. This is clearly written if you read the article. I am not arguing whether condition is about unicorns or not, all I am trying to add is that in Sweden people with this condition have their own association and can receive compensation. This is real fact, nothing uncertain. Maybe someone can help me re-word this in a different way? Otter22 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

And yes you're right, it says nothing about whether it exists. I never said it exists. I am only writing what the people of Sweden are doing. If you think they are wrong to do that then that's your opinion, but it is fact they do that, and isn't Wikipedia about facts? Otter22 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Guys, what Otter22 is wanting to add isn't contentious. I know we are all looking at this article very skeptically, but he's not making any claims to legitimize the condition, he providing well sourced information regarding Sweden's view of it. It's not the kind of edit that we're protecting this page against. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see is a MEDRS source here.  User:Tronvillain you wrote here that it isn't.  Would you please explain why you think it isn't?  thx  (I do think the content would need to be modified, but the source is OK I think, at least for the fact of the status in Sweden) Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog: I am open to any modifications, as long as it suits everyone and everyone can agree. Maybe adding something like 'those who claim themselves as having EHS' and 'no proof is required' would make it clear that it is not something medically diagnosed. Otter22 (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, as long as it's not being used to imply that it's an actual physical condition it's fine, but I think the previous language did imply that. - - tronvillain (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * And giving it an entire section would seem to lend Sweden's position an unwarranted amount of weight. - - tronvillain (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * tronvillain: I could not find anywhere else it seemed to make sense to put it, hence the new section. I don't see how a section gives it weight, it is just for organizational purposes. Another country may choose to have this sort of association in the future, so then where would it go? It seemed logical to go in it's own place instead of bunching with something unrelated. Perhaps the naming of the heading "Recognition" is not the best suited. Maybe something like "Countries that provide Aid to thier EHS population", or something along those lines can be thought up. Please advise on the section that you think it would be good to go into if there is one. I can try to come up with better wording and post it here first to ensure it does not imply anything unintended.
 * OK I added it here. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog: Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter22 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * and thank you for accepting the invitation to discuss it here. —  Paleo  Neonate  — 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Reopening Sweden EHS matter
The previous discussion was concluded (in good faith) with undue haste, without allowing for a full discussion of the matter, and without regard for the conclusions of previous discussions. I have removed the text. The matter of including Sweden and EHS has been discussed on multiple occasions, to cite just one here, resulting in the text being removed/suppressed. In the outside pseudoscience world, the fact that Sweden recognizes EHS as a functional impairment is constantly cited as proof that the condition exists or that it should be taken seriously. User Otter22 makes the latter claim in comments on User Reb1981's talk page: "This is real fact that this entire country recognizes these people and provides help for them." However, the fact that Sweden recognizes it as an impairment says everything about Sweden's social support system, and nothing about the condition: it is giving undue weight to the unique Swedish case. I note author of the reference cited, Olle Johansson, an activist for EHS, was named "Misleader of the Year" (Årets förvillare) by the The Swedish Skeptics' Association (Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning). Text arising from undue weight, supported by misleaders, and that comes with a pseudoscience tinge does not belong in a Wikipedia medical article. --papageno (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Qui1che: I said exactly what is going on, which is if you live in Sweden and you have EHS, you can try to get some government help, and are likely to receive it, while in other places you cannot. This does not make it real or unreal, it is just what it is. If it's 'sometimes' that they are able to receive this help, then we should mention what it depends on. I was not aware sometimes help is offered while sometimes not. Otter22 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is fine to discuss as long as we stay on topic. Thanks for re-opening it.  This is a "society and culture" thing (which is where I put it) not a medical thing - this is a big difference here in WP.  Sweden's recognition of EHS as a disability is a fact, and is verifiable via a review in a good enough quality journal (which is more than we actually need - for this kind of "society and culture" topic, a plain old RS is sufficient). A single sentence is not UNDUE at all.  What other people might make of this outside of WP is not our concern.  You are not bringing good reasoning under the policies and guidelines for the content you removed. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What text are we discussing? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the full text of the journal article, the author is clearly a proponent of EHS and argues throughout that it's an actual response to EM radiation. Are we completely sure this is a credible journal? --tronvillain (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor in chief is another noted EHS proponent David O. Carpenter (see article abstract), and the issue was almost entirely devoted to articles by other noted proponents saying EHS is real, including another co-written by Johansson and one by Carpenter himself (see here). --papageno (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Replying to Jytdog:
 * "for the content you removed" With respect, it is more accurate to say "for the content you believe should not have been added."--papageno (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It pains me to say it, but I'm actually getting swayed. This is a real contentious topic, and I couldn't find any sources to justify the authors claims which, as I read closer, are pretty broad. I think if we could find another source (preferably from the govt) I'd be mollified.  Congrats on the board nom, btw :) Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ )  talk  05:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this "EHS is officially recognised in Sweden" claim seems to extend back as far as 2004 and is frequently repeated, but where exactly is it officially recognised?--tronvillain (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note, it is in the wee hours of the morning where I live, so I am signing off for now. Thanks to all for your prompt responses to a request for comment. --papageno (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, this will not be resolved tonight.  There are two issues with regard to this, in the society and culture section.  1) is it true and adequately sourced? and 2) is it DUE?    In my view there is no doubt about #1 - it is true and adequately sourced (and I reckon we could find many more refs for the bare fact that I had stated).  The only possible question is whether it is DUE.   And I have not seen a good argument for UNDUE.  Am open to hearing one.   Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bit late here so I am not going to try to find it (I can do that tomorrow if needed) but as I recall, the last time this came up a look at the actual Swedish sources showed that Sweden recognizes that people who truly believe that EMF is hurting them show symptoms typical of stress, and that Sweden should treat such symptoms. This is the same as saying that that people who truly believe that unicorns are hurting them show symptoms typical of stress, and that Sweden should treat such symptoms, and says nothing about whether electromagnetic hypersensitivity or Unicorns do or do not exist.
 * On a related note, I recently opened a discussion about another Swedish source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The responses are worth reading. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I recently opened a discussion about another Swedish source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The responses are worth reading. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

−
 * I'm not convinced yet that it's even true, let alone adequately sourced. The issue in question starts with "This issue of Reviews on Environmental Health consists of invited papers on several syndromes of uncertain etiology but ones that pose serious and severe debilitation and interference with quality of life for those affected. Often in aggregate called 'idiopathic environmental intolerance' they include electromagnetic hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, Gulf War illness and likely some others less well defined" and "All of these pathologic disorders should be recognized by the scientific and medical communities and international health institutions." It's completely possible that it's true, but can an issue explicitly devoted to uncritical acceptance of fringe topics actually be considered credible?--tronvillain (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly this reminds me of culture bound syndrome and I wonder if some source discusses EH under those terms... —  Paleo  Neonate  — 05:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it seems that this discussion is fragmented in at least three discussions (two elsewhere). It may be appropriate to remember to replace some links by permanent ones when closing again this thread... —  Paleo  Neonate  — 05:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The ICD article and section linked in the contentious edit, ICD-10 Chapter XX: External causes of morbidity and mortality, does not include a W90 and nor does the rest of the article. (The nearest to it is "W85 Unintentional: exposure to electric current or radiation")
 * The page appears to be a faithful scraping from the standard itself, so that part of the claim appears to be false. One might be charitable and trust that this is not fabrication on the part of the researcher but an honest mistake somewhere, but either way it is just more woo from the woo merchants, unless and until they can ever one day come up with a real fact. Is it relevant to the society and culture section? Only if we can reliably source the claim that it is such a thing. Until then, our mere editorial judgement that it is woo is insufficient to say that it is, sigh. Best left out until a reliable commentary turns up. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The page appears to be incomplete. Following the link for W85 leads to a page with W90 "Exposure to other non-ionizing radiation." Of course, that establishes nothing about EHS. --tronvillain (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for that. I am not used to external links in the main body of articles (do we make an exception for the WHO?) do I didn't follow it. W90 is evidently intended to cover RF burns, microwave heating, laser blinding and suchlike. I wonder where the "Sweden puts EHS under it too" meme comes from. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * it isn't a "meme" it is a simple fact. Not "fake news". Somewhat bizarre that you are discussing it as something other than it is. And please see your talk page.  Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A meme may or may not be factual, there is no value loading to the term in that respect. That is precisely why I used the term when I wondered about the statement's provenance. The meme I refer to is that Sweden recognises its pathology as originating in the electromagnetic field effects, and that one does appear to be false - see below - but it need not have done. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is something relevant: According to Professor Olle Johansson, the condition is a disability: “In Sweden, electro hypersensitivity is officially a disability which is completely officially recognized (this is not recognized as an illness because no diagnosis exists for this condition).” Professor Johansson gave the example of a head ache “ how can one measure the pain or prove the existence of a head ache?”, The disability is different for each person and it depends on the individual environment. In the Supreme Administrative Court in Sweden, some complainants received compensation due their disability. The number of people suffering from EMF in Sweden is 2.5% or around 230,000 people.
 * And from The Guardian; Sweden recognises EHS as a "functional impairment", or disability, but it is the patients, not doctors, who make the diagnosis. The fact is, everyone who suffers from EHS is self-diagnosed – and each has their own story to explain the cause of their problems.
 * These suggest that the Swedish view pretty much echoes the WHO. Self-diagnosis is not a clinical pathology. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a simple fact - Sweden recognized it is as disability, so in Sweden you get some governmental benefits for that. It is a "society and culture" thing.  Again, not medical - not about the nature of the "condition", but rather how it is handled in society and culture, in one country. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hoped I had made that clear. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, where is it established that Sweden even recognizes it as a disability? I'm seeing a lot of repetition of the same phrase, and almost all of it seems to trace back to Johannson. Let's see... okay, here in 2010 he seems to identify this as the source of that claim: "It’s symptoms (listed below) are classified as an occupationally-related symptom-based diagnosis (code ICD-10) by the Nordic Council of Ministers since 2000." He quotes this section: He neglects to mention that it's preceded by a variety of caveats before this: The mere existence of suggestions for coding doesn't appear to establish official national recognition as a disability or default access to compensation. --tronvillain (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is established in the source . We don't do peer review on MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two mainstream news sources that report this fact as well and these are all we need for this "society and culture" fact:
 * -- Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The swedish article on EHS is interesting, read through google translate at least. It is here. It confirms that it is a recognized diagnosis; not all doctors do it and lots of scientists in Sweden don't treat it like a real thing. Some towns give money to EMR-proof your house, and some don't.  People have apparently brought the towns that don't give money to court; those people have lost in court.   Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Those look suspiciously like just repetitions of Johansson's assertion. And you think it doesn't matter that Johannson's own citation doesn't appear to back up his claim (it's actually the second one in the journal article as well)? That entire issue is questionable as a reliable source:  "This issue of Reviews on Environmental Health consists of invited papers on several syndromes of uncertain etiology but ones that pose serious and severe debilitation and interference with quality of life for those affected. Often in aggregate called 'idiopathic environmental intolerance' they include electromagnetic hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, Gulf War illness and likely some others less well defined" and "All of these pathologic disorders should be recognized by the scientific and medical communities and international health institutions."--tronvillain (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The swedish article on EHS is interesting, read through google translate at least. It is here. It confirms that it is a recognized diagnosis; not all doctors do it and lots of scientists in Sweden don't treat it like a real thing. Some towns give money to EMR-proof your house, and some don't.  People have apparently brought the towns that don't give money to court; those people have lost in court.   Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Those look suspiciously like just repetitions of Johansson's assertion. And you think it doesn't matter that Johannson's own citation doesn't appear to back up his claim (it's actually the second one in the journal article as well)? That entire issue is questionable as a reliable source:  "This issue of Reviews on Environmental Health consists of invited papers on several syndromes of uncertain etiology but ones that pose serious and severe debilitation and interference with quality of life for those affected. Often in aggregate called 'idiopathic environmental intolerance' they include electromagnetic hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, Gulf War illness and likely some others less well defined" and "All of these pathologic disorders should be recognized by the scientific and medical communities and international health institutions."--tronvillain (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The opposition to this simple, fact-based edit based now on three reliable sources has no basis in policy or guideline. The policies and guidelines apply to everyone as do the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience and alt med. It is as unacceptable for those opposed to pseudoscience to abuse this page by giving their opinions as it is for people who believe in EHS to abuse this talk page.  No one has brought a policy-and-guideline based objection to this factual content about society and culture yet.  Please consider your subsequent responses carefully.--Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider the following version, which I can get behind:
 * In Sweden, EHS is sometimes recognized as a disability and since 2000 its symptoms have been classified under the ICD-10 code W90.
 * The addition of "sometimes" is supported by the source, and makes a drastic change in the tone of the statement from defending the condition to acknowledging that some doctors in one particular country believe it. It's also more accurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I can live with that. It deals with the ambiguity well enough (it is recognized in the diagnostic guideline; the ambiguity comes in the practice of applying it and in compensating people for it).  but this is good enough. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "In Sweden, the former Minister of Health and Social Affairs, Lars Engqvist – as a member of the previous government – anyhow gave his “approval” in a letter dated May, 2000 [Regeringskansliet 2000-04-06, Dnr S2000/2158/ST; see page 85 of the enclosed report]. He also made it clear in his response that for EHS persons there are no restrictions or exceptions in the handicap laws and regulations. Thus, these laws and regulations are to be fully applied also for EHS persons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter22 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That appears to be a copy and paste from a letter by Johansson, yet again. --tronvillain (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That seems more acceptable, though are they really "classified" under that code? They're mentioned as an example in Appendix IV "Conditions with aetiology attributed to environmental factors - mechanisms not yet understood" which are "they are often named after the attributed environmental factor that the patient (or others) claims to elicit the symptoms" along with some suggestions for coding. Still, definitely an improvement. Anyway, I had a longer reply composed before an edit conflict, mostly about the Swedish page and its sources:
 * “Three reliable sources", one of which is from someone who is clearly a proponent of EHS in an issue explicitly devoted to the acceptance of fringe topics (see above) and two which could plausibly just be repeating him given that he appears to have been saying it for years. Looking at the Swedish Wikipedia page, there's one reference to it being a diagnosis in Sweden under R68.8, "Other specified general symptoms and signs", which is just one of the suggestions for coding under ICD-10 (their link is dead and there's no apparent available archive - I should suggest the new one). It has no apparent mention of it being "an official and fully recognized functional impairment." Based on this, this, and this, it would seem that it isn't the national government. What the Swedish page does have is references showing that there's an ElectroSensitive Association that receives funds as a disability organization, as seen here, here, and here given that there's no requirement for evidence, and that some municipalities provide grants for "electrosanitizing" homes and that some don't, as per here again (Google translate: "The municipalities have no obligation to pay, in accordance with applicable law.") and here(Google translate: "EHS Halland can not expect financial help from local governments to elsanera their houses. In recent years, no Halland Municipality granted the contribution and the cases were continued to the court have been rejected too.") Given all of this and that Johansson's own citation doesn't appear to support his statement, I'm just not convinced that saying "In Sweden EHS is an official and fully recognized [by who?] functional impairment" is justified. Granted, these are all Swedish language sources, but that's not strictly an objection to their use. --tronvillain (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article mentioned is discussing and rejecting payment for home shielding, which is also mentioned in the HSO report. This was not paid for, but that does not mean the person was not recognized as having a disability. Otter22 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How about this article Report from the HSO which says "In 1995 electro sensitive persons were recognised as a “group with a disability” in Sweden." The article mentions electro sensitive a few times as well, recommending improvements to accessibility. I am not sure if it can be used as a reference, but it seems to be the only article directly from HSO, which is the Swedish disability federation. Otter22 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, recognized by who? By the Swedish Disability Federation, of which the Elecrosensitive Association is a clearly a member? That's not a government organization. The funding of an advocate group like the Electrosenstive Association doesn't establish government recognition of the disability itself: "Generaldirektör Lars-Erik Holm konstaterar att förbundet uppfyller villkoren för statsbidrag. [General Director Lars-Erik Holm says that the union meets the conditions for government subsidies. To the members of the diagnosis should be scientifically established and recognized is not one of them.]" One might be able to justify something like "The Swedish Electrosensitive Association is a member of the Swedish Disability Federation NGO, which does not require that the existence of a disability be scientifically established for membership." --tronvillain (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The main thing I was originally trying to say to the reader is that people in Sweden who think they have EHS are able to receive aid/compensation. This is not happening anywhere else, so it seems that it is unique to Sweden. I am ok to leave 'recognized' out, since there evidence of who is recognizing as you mentioned. I think the aid can come from the ES Association but also from the municipalities. You seem to have researched this even more than I have. Is there any way you would mention that they are able to receive compensation through this Association or from the municipality itself? It may also be clearer to say that Functional Impairments do not require scientific recognition, and the ES Association was created based on the claim of functional impairment.  It could also be noted that this was done based on UN texts which mention no recognition is required to claim functional impairments. Not sure which of these is relevant. I think the fact that they can receive aid is the most relevant.Otter22 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The ES Association doesn't appear to provide any aid itself (it's an advocacy organization), but some municipalities appear to provide funding for "electrosanitization" of homes. I'm not seeing evidence for aid beyond that though.--tronvillain (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Here "It is not a medical diagnosis, and according to the State, it may not count as a disability. Yet there are municipalities in Sweden where you can seek and receive grants for electrosanitization if you feel electricity hypersensitive." So, how about adding that then "In Sweden, although EHS is not a medical diagnosis, there are municipalities where those who claim to have EHS can receive grants for electrosanitization of their homes." Otter22 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, and definitely supported by a variety of sources. --tronvillain (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok great. I'm assuming this should go under Society and Culture. Last paragraph?  Otter22 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It actually might fit pretty well on the end of the "self treatment" first paragraph. That would make it "Some people who feel they are sensitive to electromagnetic fields self-treat by trying to reduce their exposure to electromagnetic sources by avoiding sources of exposure, disconnecting or removing electrical devices, shielding or screening of self or residence, and complementary and alternative therapy. In Sweden, although EHS is not a medical diagnosis, there are municipalities where those who claim to have EHS can receive grants for electrosanitization of their homes."--tronvillain (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this proposal. — Paleo  Neonate  - 18:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree strongly with the inclusion of the information. 1. That some places in Sweden provide disability support says everything about the system of support for the disabled in Sweden and next to nothing about EHS. This conclusion has been made on several previous occasions when this very same topic has been dealt with here and elsewhere in WP. What has changed now? I can see no case having been made for the inclusion of the info strong enough or with new info or arguments to overturn previous conclusions. 2. In addition, I can find no articles anywhere in WP, let alone about medical topics, that cite the Swedish disability system in any section. That is undue weight. 3. No other English speaking country has blanket programs for disability support for EHS. I note this contrasts with another "non-illness", Multiple chemical sensitivity, where the text says the U.S. "Social Security Administration agrees that some MCS patients are too disabled to be meaningfully employed." More undue weight. 4. Neither the Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, nor any medical articles about illnesses with good status cover disability in the Society and culture section (or at all). The manual of style says "Society and culture: This might include social perceptions, cultural history, stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues, notable cases." Disability is not mentioned in any other section of the manual of style. The Good class articles seem to include sub-sections/sub-paragraphs about Stigma and Economic costs only. 5. It is important to understand how evidence is perceived and used in the outside world so that Wikipedia does not include pseudoscience as real science. Jimmy Wales himself rejects pseudoscience in Wikipedia and says evidence should be "honest, factual and truthful." The reason Olle Johansson and other advocates for EHS continually write about the disability support in Sweden for EHS, even though Sweden does not recognize that radio waves cause the disability, is to establish the legitimacy of the illness surreptitiously. However, this is not being truthful—in fact, it is deliberately deceitful—, and such evidence is not WP:MEDRS. We should not allow and end-run around WP:MEDRS in a medical article because we are talking about the Society and culture section. 6. Conclusion: the fact that one can get disability support in Sweden for EHS should not be included in the article. PS I see the text is now in the article. It should be removed until this discussion is concluded. --papageno (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I don't doubt you, but it would be useful to have links to previous discussions about the same subject and their conclusions.  I agree with you about avoiding the promotion of pseudoscience.  I think that the above formulation does not claim that EMH is an actual condition, but only mentions that it may be possible in some area to obtain compensation for claiming to suffer of it...  It seems that there were efforts to compromise with a reasonable mention, possibly in hope that requests to include the information would be satisfied, while at the same time avoiding to promote pseudoscience.  Note that the current edit was added after three editors agreed with a formulation (including the one who proposed this formulation, four editors if we also count the one who added it).  — Paleo  Neonate  - 06:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Qui1che The sentence was added to "Self-treatment", not Society and Culture.  The sentence is factual based, and it seems you agree.  If it is in the wrong place, it should be placed in the correct place, not removed because it's in the wrong place. Otter22 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is very much in the society and culture section. That is where it belongs. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Self-treatment" didn't make a lot of sense to me as a subsection of "Society and Culture", but perhaps it should be moved back. --tronvillain (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is definitely society and culture. Stuff that people do - not medicine. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetic radiation
One thing that could be explained better in our article which isn't currently is the discussion of which electromagnetic fields (a concept that is itself something of an arbitrary identifier from the standpoint of physics) are ignored by sufferers in their belief about various "ranges of frequencies" causing their condition. Most people don't realize, for example, that the vast majority of electromagnetic radiation people are exposed to comes from the Sun. Do we know of any EMH claimants who think that the Sun is a problem? Or what about natural sources of RFI? Are people impervious to such radiation when it is natural? Is there any claim that they can distinguish between natural and artificial radio sources?

This article has the chance to explain some basic physics of electromagnetic radiation and their relationship to electric and magnetic fields, and many skeptical sources point out this as a starting point for skepticism, but I don't think the current version does justice to these issues.

What do others think?

jps (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Reasons I agree (a hypothetical logical order): 1) lead including short conclusion about unreliablility of claims 2) "EMF" in general - some sources can be harmful (to everyone), some can be perceived (by everyone or almost), as you said, some are natural, others not (that does not matter that much, since we can often replicate artificially the natural sources); other important parameters: frequency, amplitude, ionizing/nonionizing, pulsed/modulated etc... 3) common safety regulations about radiation exposure including for communications (SAR, nonionizing, etc)...  4) all of this to arrive at that common sources that are neither considered generally harmful at their normal exposition level nor reliably detected by humans (or other mammals), but about which some people complain, claiming that they are the cause of their (usually self-diagnosed) distress disorder (with some also claiming to be able to reliably detect when exposed to those)...  5) relation to common conspiracy theories, perhaps also if necessary a mention of related market which may also fuel those beliefs or that anti-EMF-movement (if any)...  6) And finally the studies demonstrating that these claims are questionable, most cases being undiagnosed, that less controversial disorders have often been implicated (when diagnosed), etc...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 11:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever info included should be brief and to the point; there is already information at Electromagnetic radiation and health (about frequencies) and Mobile phone radiation and health (about regulations) which we should not duplicate. These articles are already suggested here under See also, which I think is sufficient. --papageno (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that a casual reader may not recognize that the claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields is selective to certain fears about technology rather than any actual empirical basis for the energy/intensity/resonant frequency. The article currently doesn't do justice to this plain fact of physics of such and the concomitant lack of empirical basis for the contested condition. jps (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * jps Please state the "fact of physics" you are referring to. I can provide hundreds of medical articles that indicate EMF can have effects on cellular function, the human body, mice, trees, etc. Please provide proof indicating that those with EHS claimed to have a fear of technology. Most with EHS have developed it after using technology, and enjoying it, for many years. Long time computer operators being one of the most common of EHS sufferers.  Otter22 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess the larger point is that I would like to see the physics of electromagnetic radiation (which clearly is not understood by claimed sufferers) to be explored in the article. jps (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Would such a section, even if it contains nothing to support their delusions, really help them? For example, reading the various discussion boards by claimed sufferers, they don't seem to realize that a standard PC puts out far more electromagnetic radiation than a netbook, and that both put our far more than a digital watch. They also don't seem to realize that gasoline vehicles emit far more electromagnetic radiation than diesel vehicles. Would knowing this help them, or would it feed their delusion and cause them to waste money replacing a computer of vehicle that isn't hurting them in any way? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)