Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health

Sleep Effects
There's a glaring omission of the research on sleep effects. The effects of cellphones on sleep was just reviewed in Microwave News (Feb 22). There were studies in the US around 1990 showing no effect from continuous 60Hz magnetic fields, but sleep disruption from intermittent fields. This is similar to what's been seen in animals on melatonin production: no change from a gradual rotation in the earth's field, but clear reduction if the field is rotated suddenly. There was an IEEE review by James C. Lin on microwave studies. Physicsjock (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First, Microwave News is not a WP:MEDRS. Still, can you provide a link? I do not find anything about sleep on Feb. 22. How about using the latest comprehensive EU SCENIHR scientific review instead? The section on ELF said about melatonin (sleep): "Laboratory studies on animals have looked at possible effects of ELF magnetic fields on various parts of the body. Although some studies have observed effects on the nervous system, animal development, and melatonin production, the evidence for such effects was found to be weak and ambiguous, and inadequate for drawing conclusions concerning possible human health risks." --papageno (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I guess it should have been Mar 8. Here is a link: http://www.microwavenews.com/Achermann.html This situation appears to be complex, but that doesn't mean it does not deserve mention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicsjock (talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, had found that one and thought it was probably the one you meant. Yes, it is interesting. However, an on-line newspaper with — to be diplomatic — a one-track point of view is not a WP:MEDRS.--papageno (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not go to Microwave News for medical conclusions. But it's a good starting point because it usually links to reliable sources (journal articles).  Aside from journals (excluding those where editors are allowed to have undisclosed conflicts of interest, I'm thinking of Radiation Research) and some textbooks, it's hard to think of another informed reliable source on this topic that is not biased by advertising dollars (newspapers & magazines) or other industry influence like lobbying or worse.  Here I'm thinking of the WHO.  Is a professor at a major medical school a reliable source? http://andrewamarino.com/SOBs.html.  I don't know about the EU committee... is there a membership list posted?  As reliable sources go, you could do far worse than Microwave News.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicsjock (talk • contribs) 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is evidence for sleep impairment as well as other associated health effects of EMF exposure.  An article published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26300312/) summarizing 22 epidemiological studies found symptoms from EMF exposure including sleep disturbances, headaches, fatigue, depression, cognitive dysfunction, as well as other symptoms.  Furthermore, there was a dose-response relationship found between EMF exposure and symptoms.  For instance, the closer to a cell phone base station, the greater the frequency of reported symptoms.  Since it has been accepted that EMF exposure can significantly reduce melatonin levels, the effects evidenced by the above review article seem more plausible.  Although epidemiological studies are not controlled experiments, they are used as a basis for further research.  Longer term exposures to EMF in controlled experiments might reveal these effects.  With the evidence for melatonin reduction, there should be a clear concern for potential health effects of EMF exposure. Bokidam (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reduction of melatonin due to EMF exposure has been evidenced by many studies ( . Although the effect of EMF on melatonin has not always been experimentally shown, the existing evidence gives strong support for the role of EMF in sleep impairment and other symptoms reported in the article cited in the previous post (published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy). Bokidam (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Martin Pall again? Hasn't the human race been wiped out by wi-fi yet? WP:FRINGE silliness. Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not yet addressed specific arguments I have been making:
 * - Pall's article was published in a peer-reviewed journal on PubMed
 * - Other research databases (previously cited on the EHS talk page) have hosted Pall's article
 * - Pall's article is a secondary source based on 22 previously conducted studies
 * - Studies cited by Pall showed a dose-response relationship between EMF and symptoms
 * - Even if Pall's article is a fringe source, Wikipedia policy allows the introduction of fringe theory
 * What scientific sources do you have to dispute Pall's findings on EMF symptoms (as opposed to news articles, which do not even address the article in question)?
 * Since I am still getting the same feedback from the same editors, I would hope to see feedback from others in the general community. Bokidam (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Could always go to WP:FT/N for (many) more eyes. But the bottom line is Wikipedia does not indulge WP:FRINGE crap, and WP:ECREE. Bon courage (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Microwave radiation disrupts the bodies natural synchronicity with the earths Schumann resonances is WP:FRINGE/PS &mdash; whatever Schumann resonances are, they have nothing to do with microwave radiation used in our homes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My entry has now been, repeatedly taken down and purposely mislabeled as "pseudoscience", claiming there's no such thing as the Schumann resonances.
 * Neither of you should be allowed to just arbitrarily delete posts, based on your personal opinion and/or lack of knowledge, without providing any sound explanations or reasons for the takedown or edit, whatsoever. I provided a very conclusive array of citations, sources and evidence for all my claims and edits. Explain yourselves or stop censoring content.
 * whatever Schumann resonances are You clearly didn't even take the time to check any of my provided info.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4718669/
 * Nanobee (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)




 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I was going to move the comment here, but you beat me to it. ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Generalizations? What are you basing that statement upon? Maybe you should look into the research from Rütger Wever. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11826883 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCtger_Wever It's seriously no wonder Wikipedia is such a shitty source of information, when's it run by such corporate funded, like you. Knock yourselves out. Nanobee (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * At https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22schumann+resonance%22 there isn't much to go by. I suspect there isn't any WP:MEDRS-quality source among them. Also the link between Wever and Schumann resonances is extremely tenuous, since it appears only in WP:FRINGE/PS sources. I could find no reliable source for such claim. While Wever did write about a 10 Hz electric field (not: electromagnetic), the link with the Schumann resonances is original research. The OR claim conflates between electromagnetic and electric fields, conflates between 7.83, 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz, on one side, and 10 Hz, on the other. So, besides being unverifiable, it is a far-fetched claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Honesty note
I don't want to be accused of anything silly so I want to note the revert that happened recently (12/8/2021) was me editing while accidentally logged out. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on health effects of electromagnetic radiation
More input on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on sleep and related health issues requested. Bokidam (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be anything secondary in PUBMED on this (except a lone piece by Martin Pall which Wikipedia will ignore just like everybody else has). Bon courage (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hazards section is off base.
The article starts with a Hazards section, followed a long trek through the electromagnetic spectrum. However, the Hazards are only directed at radio and microwaves, which is nutty since that is the end of the spectrum which is almost completely harmless. The article does not even mention the EM radiation that is instantly dangerous, Xrays, and Gamma rays.

Seems to me the the Hazards ought to be "Role of dosage" or something like that. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)