Talk:Wireless electronic devices and health/Archive 1

You can't put all the devices in the debate because they are wireless
The mobile phones have been under debate for a while now, and the page describes that debate. There is no debate concerning wireless networking, dect cordless phones, etc. "there seems to exist less public awareness of the possible health issues for wireless LAN devices than there is for mobile phones" Why should there be?

Mobile phones overshadow discussion of Health concerns with wireless devices
Mobile Phone radiation seems to have a much stronger body of discussion related to it. It seems that generally clarity on health concerns for other wireless devices is much more lacking.

I would like to see deeper discussion of the EMF levels of Wireless LAN vs Mobile Phones for example.

I think that merging into Mobile Phone health and raditation would mean that other devices would generally be overshadowed by the stronger body of discussion on mobile phones specifically.

With more and more wireless devices in use I think a broader content looking at Wireless devices generally will be useful going forward.


 * Agreed, this is very much my take on the issue also. Have you added these comments to the "AfD" page for this article? Topazg 11:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would be good to provide a comparison in terms of a) Frequency ranges, b) Duration, and c) Strengths. For example:
 * (a) Recent cordless phones and wireless LANs are of higher frequencies (2.4 GHz/5.8 GHz) than mobile phones.
 * (b) For many cordless phone/wireless LAN models, the base stations are radiating constantly (24/7) regardless of usage. This is in contrast to the older analog 900 MHz cordless phone models, some of whose base stations don't seem to be radiating 24/7.  Meanwhile, mobile phones do not radiate 24/7, besides a periodic hello protocol to the base station/cell tower typically on the order of once a half hour or hour.
 * (c) For strength comparisons between mobile phones and wireless LAN/cordless phones, it really depends on the particular model. Certain cordless phones are much much weaker than certain mobile phones.  On the other hand, certain mobile phones may be weaker in strength at a 1 meter distance than certain cordless phone models.  There is variance within each type of device.  For cordless phones, older analog 900 MHz models seem to have much lower strength than the newer digital 2.4 GHz/5.8 GHz models.  Meanwhile, for mobile phones, variance of strengths may depend on the model or carrier.  Another thing to note is that mobile phones' signal strength varies on usage-- it can be a lot less when only listening versus higher when talking or in the periodic messages to the cell tower/base station.  During the listening phase, it can be comparable or even less than a typical cordless phone.
 * Would appreciate help to find peer-reviewed sources. Pensees (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you know...
They used to say cracking your knuckles was bad. Now, they're saying that they can't actually directly link it to arthritis.

I'm thinking the same thing will happen to whatever "health hazards" wireless devices cause.

ICNRIP page deleted - Conspiracy or something much more mundane?
Ive read the attached page, and tried to follow the link to ICNRIP and found it to be deleted, for what looks like antivandalism purposes.

Hit google and found ICNRIP.de being the 'International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection'.

Anyone know why this connected page was deleted and/or how the ICNIRP relates?

The article states that "From an environmental-health point of view, less than 0,1 microwatts per m2 are desirable but often sharply exceeded due to the presence of today's technologies. "

Is there any source for the number 0.1 microwatts? Otherwise it is a very POV-statement to make, and I think it should be removed. Mossig 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally
I am personally pretty apalled at the quality of this article. The English is awful. The article is anything but NPOV. Scientifically, things such as maximum values are being compared to typical values and assumptions (such as lower power = less likely to affect) are being made. Statements touted as facts are unreferenced and as a result are simply user opinion. Some of the stated facts are simply wrong (most phones at 900 Mhz?! more are at 1800 Mhz and plenty are at 2100 Mhz). This needs some serious editing! Arathalion 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The new contributions by 195.188.250.142 are unsuitably worded. Also, the references to length of bluetooth/mobile phone studies need references, so I will remove them until some are presented. Arathalion 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is biased towards electrical sensitivity existing, which all scientific evidence contradicts. There is also a lot of original research, and I think the whole article is non-notable. I also support the deletion of this article, and the claim that it is pseudoscience 128.243.220.21 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, your first comment seems factually incorrect. As far as I can see, the article points very much to the lack of likelihood of its existence, both from using words such as "claimed" to citing the relevant literature. The article could do with broadening to studies not looking at ES (but still Wireless devices and health) to increase notability, and this I think is important to prioritise for this article.


 * I cannot see the reason for deleting the article, and also there is no pseudoscience quoted (as far as I can see), so how can it be pseudoscience? The topic title itself is neutral, and therefore cannot be pseudoscience -- I fail to see the support for your claim. Topazg 10:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Electromagnetic radiation and health article offers references that contradict these. I think it is wrong to consider all warnings about EMF health hazards "pseudoscience". There are good refs in mentioned article that warn about studies of increased cancer near the EMF power sources in animals and humans. Mainstream does not always mean "Objective". When I was serving army in 1987 I was at a radar station. They told us the radiation is harmless, but they gave us extra portion of milk nevertheless. The Truth simply isn't commercially viable. -- Mtodorov 69 (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Wording
Again, please can we avoid the usage of Weasel Words. "Scientific Consensus" is just not appropriate unless you can support the claim with comparative figures of scientific opinion. "Most scientists", "most medical practioners", and "most anything" are exactly the same, and are simply bad form. See Weasel Words for further info. Topazg 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

move quotation mark
current text:

The chairman of the Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart, has said that "evidence of potentially harmful effects of microwave radiation had become more persuasive over the past five years. His report said that while there was a lack of hard information of damage to health, the approach should be precautionary."[1]

I think the closing quote goes at the end of the first sentence. Maybe I'm supposed to just do it but I'm new to this and don't have an account.

24.178.168.137 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I think this page should be merged with Electrical sensitivity, as they both seem to cover the same ground. Anything not included already in the ES page could be included in a new subsection with the same title. I'm open to other suggestions, such as merging in the other direction if more appropriate, or merging with other pages. As it is this page needs a lot of work to remove bogus claims and bad links. Thanks 90.197.168.195 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not agree: ES is a term used by some people for a condition proposing that a certain causal realation exists beteen ELF/EM-fields and some specific symptoms. This article has a broader scope, and couldcover also other areas, which is not included in ES. (One example is hypothezied mutagenic or cancerogenic processes, which are definitly not a part of ES, but is a part of the broader "health" aspect.) Mossig (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Stewart Comments
"The chairman of the UK Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart, has said that evidence of potentially harmful effects of microwave radiation had become more persuasive over the past five years.[2] His report said that while there was a lack of hard information of damage to health, the approach should be precautionary.[3] The HPA, however, disagrees with his assessment. Its official position is that “[t]here is no consistent evidence to date that WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population.” And also that “...it is a sensible precautionary approach...to keep the situation under ongoing review...”.[4] Sir William has resisted any calls to further explain his comments."

Not sure if I have improved things with my recent edit (shown above and current in the article). The Times reference link refers in an indirect quotation to a report by Stewart and things he has reportedly said therein, to support the first sentence in the text above. I've added in a link to the IEGMP report (2000) as an original reference to support the next sentence, as that is the only report of which I am aware Sir William has released on the topic. It covers mobile phones, but they do use microwaves, so while not exactly covering WLANs, which also use microwaves, it is close enough. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there is some other report from Sir William on WLANs or microwaves that came out at the time of the Times article, which appeared 2006-11-20? Does anyone know? Is there a link to the original report available - preferable to a popular press reference? Separately, there is no supporting reference for “Sir William has resisted any calls to further explain his comments.” Anyone aware of one? If one is not forthcoming in this discussion, a  template should be added.papageno (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that has been discussed before and a reference was found in The Register, and another publication (the guardian, bbc?) --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are at least two refs on the register from Guy Kewney, who is also the BBC's tech expert. These have been published on The Register and NewsWireless.net at least, and one is a public letter that was also sent to many people: and . I'm sure the bbc and/or guardian ran similar pieces too --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I think the http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/25/wi-fi_health_concerns/ link would work as a reference to Sir William's resistance to calls to explain his comments further. It would also support the Times reference. I propose adding it at the end of the original quotation above. papageno (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Thanks for chipping in so much :) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that user RDOlivaw was suspected of sockpuppetry and has been blocked indefinitely. Also, user 88.172.132.94 is also being suspected of sockpuppetry. Refer to Suspected sock puppets/88.172.132.94 for evidence. CleanUpX (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed “issue of choice” Paragraph
I have removed the paragraph in the section “Exposure difference to mobile phone” suggesting that, as opposed to with mobile phones, there is an issue of choice in exposure for wireless devices, in particular for non-users. This is clearly not true: however trivial IMHO the exposure is in either case, non-users of cell-phones are still exposed to the transmissions of other cell-phone users in their vicinity, as well as to the transmissions originating from any local cell-phone base stations.papageno (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I have re-written my original paragraph, with a clearer explanation of the difference. I will explain it here in a bit more detail:

Unlike wireless, exposure to mobile phone radiation is something people DO have a choice about.

Key to the debate over the safety of mobile phones and base stations is the issue of proximity. Scientists who claim mobile phones (and base stations) pose a health risk are talking about close proximity, not just "background radiation".

Base stations are claimed to be a risk only when people spend significant time living or working in close proximity to them (roughly under 100m). Anyone who wanted to avoid this would therefore be able to do so since base stations are usually quite visibly externally situated, and not normally aimed directly at public places such as schools or hospitals (note that base stations are often placed on top of public buildings, but the signal travels outwards, not downwards).

As for mobile phones themselves, the health concerns are only over mobiles being placed directly against the head. If a mobile phone is moved just a couple of centimetres away from a person's head, the microwave absorption to their brain drops drastically, moving it farther away still results in an exponential drop in dosage.

The background radiation from other users' mobile phones is highly unlikely to come anywhere near as close to that of you using a mobile yourself, unless you are in a small enclosed area with multiple (roughly three) mobile phone conversations taking place at once, such as a busy train. But, again, this is a scenario you are in control of. Going in a room full of mobile users is like going in a room full of smokers: you can choose whether you spend time in there or not. If you see someone near you is using a mobile phone, you can avoid getting too near to that person, in the same manner you might avoid a cigarette smoker. Wireless, on the other hand, is being installed "invisibly" in many public places such as schools where people (and, most worryingly, children) will spend great amounts of their time. Rather than being a mere by-product of other people's lifestyles, wireless is being deliberately forced on people.

This difference is what my deleted paragraph was pointing out. Whether there is any truth to the health claims or not, the fact is that wireless is being actively "aimed" at children in schools, whereas a person can easily distance their children from mobile phone technology. Personally, I have had no trouble living and working well away from mobile phone base stations, and avoiding close contact with mobile phones themselves, however, as WiFi becomes more and more prevalent, avoiding these invisible networks is becoming extremely difficult. This, to me, is a crucial difference in the two technologies, and this is why I have re-written my origina paragraph.

Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing the questionable statement that others have raised concerns about. Needs to be properly sourced to a Verifiable RS, taking undue weight into account --68.35.75.27 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added a single sentence about the issue of choice.

The user above me who removed it is suspicious. This was only their second ever Wikipedia edit, yet they seemed very familiar with editing Wikipedia. They have only ever edited 3 articles. Thier username almost looks randomly generated. They removed my “questionable” statement, but it wasn’tt questionable at all, all common knowledge and relevant to the article. They also said that others had “raised concerns” about what I wrote. That is not true. One person (Qui1che) pointed out an inaccuracy in what I’d written, so I re-wrote it to eliminate this inaccuracy, and Qui1che was clearly was satisfied as they didn’t take up the issue again.

Please do not remove my sentence without discussing it here with me first. The issue of choice is entirely relevant. It’s just like the issue of second-hand smoking. You can’t compare the dangers of second-hand smoking with the dangers of riding a motorbike, without considering the fact that one is voluntary and the other is not. I would say this aspect is central to the whole issue. It certainly deserves one line. Grand Dizzy (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed as it is not sourced - as it needs a verifiable and reliable source, per the arguments of the IP and papageno. Regarding IP edits, as they don't have an account they may have edited on other IPs or have a dynamic IP - but just being an IP with few edits is no reason to dismiss their reasoning based on WP policy. I also think WP:SYN and WP:OR may be relevant here. Also, as was pointed out, their really isn't an "issue of choice" concern here. Yours, Verbal   chat  14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The effects of wireless networks, whatever they are, affect both the people who are using the network, and other people in the area who are not using the network. Do you not think this is wholly relevant to this article? Should the article not make some mention of this fact? Most man-made health risks are things that people choose for themselves. Wireless networking is one of those few exceptions to this — where the choice of one person affects everyone who lives near them. That is surely noteworthy? Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just source it and we can say Particularly galling to some EHS patients is the unavoidable or involuntary nature of their exposure. or something like that. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed from intro / New intro suggestions?
I removed the following from the into because it uses "weasel words" and isn't referenced. I think it shouldn't be put back, but a better (neutral, but bearing the scientific and evidence view clearly in mind) introduction could be written instead. Here is the removed material:

With the focus on health concerns of mobile phones, people are questioning the health risks of other wireless devices now being increasingly used at work and in the home, such as wireless local area networks, DECT and other cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, and other wireless technology.

GeoffreyBanks (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Radio and TV Transmitters
This article says, "However, the powerful fields produced by radio (and then TV) transmitters have been present for more than 100 years now with no known effects on people's health." This appears untrue in the light of the following studies : We should also note that:
 * Bruce Hocking et al. "Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers."  The Medical Journal of Australia, 1996. (See https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/dec2/hocking/hocking.html)
 * "Cancer Incidence near Radio and Television Transmitters in Great Britain".  (See http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/153/2/202)
 * Paola Michelozzi et al. "Adult and Childhood Leukemia near a High-Power Radio Station in Rome,Italy", American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 155, No. 12., 2002. (See http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/155/12/1096)
 * Radio and TV transmitters, because of tighter regulations, are spaced further apart than, say, cell towers.
 * Cordless phone are in some cases a more significant source of exposure than that of a base station (which have been linked to health effects according to some studies, see article on Mobile phone radiation and health). Pensees (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These are all surveys, they do not show cause and effect. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Radio and TV transmitters are spaced further apart than cell towers, as broadcast transmissions, while made at frequencies different from those used for mobile telephony, are made at much higher power levels — tens to hundreds of thousands of watts. Spacing them as close as cell phone towers would be problematic from a health perspective. Also, given the range the combination of frequency and power gives to broadcast transmissions, there would be too much interference to adjacenent stations using the same frequencies. Viewers / listeners would have to accept this interference, or the number of stations would have to be reduced dramatically. Neither is practical. --papageno (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Radio and TV transmitters, because of tighter regulations, are spaced further apart than, say, cell towers."
 * TRIPE. Factually wrong. This has nothing to do with 'tighter regulations'. It is mostly the nature of the systems involved, a necessary part of their design, that determines how close the antennas are. Cell towers are close so that your cell phone doesn't need to transmit at a much higher power/need a large antenna for communication. Also you are much more likely to have near line of sight for reliable comms.
 * As stated above by 'papageno', there is usually no need for multiple TV towers, unless a repeater is involved. The frequencies used are also a factor, as I believe that the (lower) frequencies used for TV travel much further than those used for cell phones. Almost missed the obvious, TV towers only transmit, while cell installations receive as well, from very low power (relatively) cell phones. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Review Levitt Reference
This comment had been added in a revision on June 17, 2008, but was inadvertently deleted in a subsequent revision on July 1, 2008

Can anyone provide a relevant quotation from the Levitt (2001) reference used in this article as Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health? Any references within that quotation would also be useful. It is hard to evaluate the reference without access to this detail. --papageno (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the reference and replaced it with a fact template. --papageno (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't provide the reference, but I don't think that means it should be deleted. Is this the discussion Qui1che is referring to? It is in chapter 3. Get an interlibrary loan? People citing books are not required to produce quotations when they do so; there are people citing books all over the place without giving quotations. If you think they should, you should bring it up at the relevant policy page, perhaps WP:CITE. II  | (t - c) 04:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. Before going through such a cumbersome process, cumbersome since no copy is available in my country according to OCLC (the book is ), perhaps one of the regular contributors to this page with more ready access to the book, even the editor who relatively recently added the text and the book reference, might have the courtesy to supply the information requested? That was the nature of my original plea, over a month ago. Your edit here and revert in the article has enabled, however, a serendipitous discovery: there is another template Request quotation, that I will add to the article, which seems designed for a situation such as the one here. --papageno (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Who added it? It is in a library about 25 miles from me; I'll go check it out. II  | (t - c) 05:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it was user Pensees (talk) in this edit. --papageno (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, yes it was me that added the Blake Levitt reference on cell towers. I read that book from a library years ago. Don't have quotes on hand, but I took some notes. This particular chapter was written by Henry Lai. Henry compares high strength exposures that have more immediate effects (1 hour or less) to low strength exposures that have longer-term effects (3 months). Henry also gives many examples of studies that showed effects at even lower levels of radiation: This builds the case that lower exposures are not to be ignored. That chapter was written by Henry Lai in 2001. Since then, there are more studies also showing effects at very low exposures. Pensees (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The following are examples of high strength exposures with immediate effects: a) Rats with behavioral disruption after 30-60min of 1.28 GHz at 3.75 W/kg and 5.62 GHz at 4.9 W/kg;  b) Monkeys with performance disruption at 30-60min of ~1.3GHz at 4W/kg -- he says this is the basis for our current standards.  (Mobile phone safety limit is at 1.6W/kg.)
 * The following are examples of low strength exposures with long-term effects: a) Rats with behavioral disruption at 0.7W/kg of 2.45 GHz 7 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 14 weeks; b) Smaller disruption at 0.14 W/kg (0.5 mW/cm^2) of 2.45 GHz 7 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 90 days D'Andrea et al. (1986). The idea is that over enough time, the effects of lower levels can be seen.
 * D.Pomerai et al (2000): Molecular stress response at 0.001 W/kg
 * Fesenko et al. (1999): Immunological function change in mice at 0.001 mW/cm2.
 * Persson et al (1997): Blood-brain barrier permeability in mice at 0.004-0.008W/kg.
 * Phillips et al. (1998): DNA damage at 0.0024-0.024W/kg. Damage in cells after 24 hours of low intensity RFR.
 * Dutta et al (1989): Calcium efflux for RFR at 0.005 W/kg
 * Velizarov et al. (1999): Decrease in cell division after 0.000021-0.0021W/kg.
 * Magras and Xenos (1999): Decreased reproductive in mice 0.000168-0.001053mW/cm2. Lost capability to reproduce after 5 generations

Here's the statement discussed in this section, which had been removed from the article. I thought I'd just include it here to explain this talk section to those who didn't read the original text: "Researcher Henry Lai suggested that long-term lower dosages may cause damage similar to short-term higher dosages, based on behavioral studies on rats and other sources. " Pensees (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wireless LAN - Fact Template
There is a fact template at the end of the first paragraph of the Wireless LAN section. For what aspect specifically of that paragraph is a citation needed? --papageno (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, as Inverse-Square law is already a link, this is unnecessary.Topazg (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wireless LAN Section
I feel this whole section is really poor. The first paragraph is fine. The second is marginally reasonable but most misleading. There are far more than 30 provocation studies, and the vast majority have shown no effect. Somewhere in the proportion of 10-15% of the studies have found an association, but it isn't causal - very little in science is, even the link between tobacco and smoking is only causal based on scientific consensus that the evidence is hard to dismiss. The findings that did find an association were statistically significant, and should at least receive mention, even if the balance of the paragraph implies that the association is an artifact from other exposures or experimental confounders. The third paragraph begins fine with a position statement from the HPA, but the comment from Pat Troop is highly misleading (of course there is no scientific evidence to date that wireless networks cause adverse health effects: there is no scientific evidence to date evaluating the association at all!). Mike Clark's comment that research elsewhere does not add up to an indictment of WiFi is valid, though I am unsure if it really contributes anything to the article. The paragraph of his below published in the Times is cringeworthy. Including TV and radio transmitters (of which there is limited research showing harm for radio transmitters at least, and the section above in talk is missing the Korean papers finding an increased leukaemia risk - one by Park and one by Ha from memory) as "the same sort of signal" is a demonstration of scientific incompetence. They are a fairly significantly lower frequency, they have no amplitude modulation (which is considered to be very important if any health effect is real) and as with the Pat Troop comment this effectively seems to bypass WP:NOR purely under the basis that they said it in a newspaper. Having a long list in the references to national media stories doesn't feel appropriate when discussing levels of scientific evidence. I would be in favour of the following:


 * Removing the link in the first paragraph
 * Change the second paragraph simply to point to the ES page - maybe something like "WiFi has been anecdotally linked to the Electrical Sensitivity, but no studies have researched this association to date. Please read the [Electrical Sensitivity] article for information on the research so far into the possible association with mobile phone exposure and other radiofrequency electromagnetic fields."
 * Remove the sentence "The HPA said it expected the results of the research to be "reassuring," and Professor Pat Troop, chief executive of the agency, said there was "No scientific evidence to date" that wireless networks could have an adverse effect on the health of the general population." and replace citation 7 with a link to the [HPA Study Press Release]
 * Drop the unsupportable OR paragraph by Mike Clark. It has no place in an Encyclopedia article relating to establishment of health effects. The year in a classroom = 20 minutes on a phone also has no support, and [other attempts to calculate expected exposure levels] have found considerably different results. Mike Clark has never supported his claim with any figures.

This leaves the section more concise and based in fact rather than anecdote.Topazg (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Some other comments related to wireless LANs, if I might add: I think undue weight has been given to the claim that one year in a Wi-Fi hotspot is not worse than a 20-minute call-- I don't see the factual basis for this-- long-term low radiation is dangerous, as is the case for cell tower radiation.
 * Additionally, I thought the following deserved some note, but it was removed from the article: "In April 2008, France's National Library decided to give up Wi-Fi in favor of a wired connection in response to the BioInitiative report and a study from Professor S. Lee, et al. In June 2008, four libraries in Paris turned off Wi-Fi in response to health complaints of staff. " Pensees (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The French National Library (FNL) matter is not significant. It does not add any additional information to the science, which we can instead quote directly. If their decision relied on the Bioinitiative Report (found unacceptable as a source as it transgressed WP:RS) and a single research study, then the decision was not made on a rational basis. Finally, thousands of other libraries offer Wifi, including in my major metro region, all the public library boards and all the post-secondary institution libraries, amongst them the the third-largest academic library in North America (and the first and second ranked academic libraries offer it too). To mention the FNL, even if a prominent institution, and the other four Parisian libraries would be an example of given them undue weight (WP:UNDUE). --papageno (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cordless Phones Section
The following Cordless Phones section was removed, so I thought I'd raise it here for discussion:

DECT and other cordless phones come with base stations that have intensities between 4 and 170 mW/m2 within a 3 meter distance, and which radiate even when the phone is not in use. These intensities are comparable to that of residences in the main beam of mobile phone base stations and broadcast towers, which have been correlated with cancer and various other health symptoms. A study by L. Hardell, et al., in 2003, and a separate study by L. Harell, et. al, in 2006, found a correlation of tumor risks with cordless phones. Meanwhile, a study by J. Schuz, et al., found no correlation between DECT radiation and brain tumor risk. The study, however, had only a few cases with exposure longer than 5 years, and none over 10 years. .

Pensees (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is now enough research on Cordless phones for it to warrant a place in a Wiki article without any doubt - my gut feeling is that it should be with the mobile phones and health article as opposed to this one however ... thoughts and feelings? Topazg (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Start of Comment 1. Cordless phones should be part of a Wiki article; however, I would vote for here, as the Mobile Phone health article is quite long, and integrating cordless phones I think would add undue complexity. We could invite readers to view that article with lead in text2. This leads to another point. We should also decide how strict we should be in this article about related research. For example, should we allow only research specifically relating to cordless phones as references in a cordless phones section, or also research in closely related technologies? I personally favour the latter, as I think the various wireless technologies are related enough for the research to be cross-cited, with appropriate text. “This research in a related tech is applicable to this tech because…”. I note in the WLAN section in this article, a strict approach to research regarding EHS has been adopted, that none specifically researching EHS and WLAN has been conducted. I take no position as regards the content of the statement in this discussion thread (I'll do that in the specific thread, although that might have to wait for another day, given the late hour as I type); I cite it merely as an example of the strict approach. [[Image:smiley.svg|12px]] While I have given my preference, one or the other approach should be adopted here and consistently applied throughout the article.3. The use of sources that are not WP:RS is deplorable. The report at web site http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf, which I am sure has been included as a reference with sincerity, falls into this category. It is not even acceptable as a summary of RS research; we can simply cite that research directly, and many fine examples are given even in the original comment in this thread.4. The phrase “… come with base stations that have intensities between 4 and 170 mW/m2 within a 3 meter distance, and which radiate even when the phone is not in use” is imprecise. I admit to not having read all the references, but a few points could still be tightened. a. Phone not in use, does this mean no conversation in progress, either talk or listen? b. The range 4 to 170 mW/m2 is a 100-fold difference. What states of the base station cause the variance? c. Why a distance of 3 m? Since Power Density varies with the inverse square of distance, a shorter distance would conceivably give much higher densities. d. Is the 170 mW/m2 figure credible? By my calculations, at 3 m that would mean a transmit power of more than 19 W. I am pretty sure the tiny power supplies on the cordless phone base stations I own are not putting out juice to support that strength of transmission! And the DECT standard (according to the WP article DECT) has a peak transmit power of only 250 mW, giving a calculated maximum power density for DECT stations at 3 m of 2 mW/m2. Even so, a 19 W transmit power still would give a power density under ICNIRP guidelines at a distance as close as 0.4 m. e. Distance has proven a poor indicator of the radiation subjects actually receive; dosimetric data are proving better (although, admittedly, no method has yet proven without drawbacks).5. “These intensities are comparable to that of residences in the main beam of mobile phone base stations and broadcast towers …” a. Power densities in neighbourhoods depend on so many factors, besides the obvious distance from and transmit power of individual mobile phone sites. Why not say “These intensities are similar to those in areas with mobile phone system coverage.”? b. Why not add that “These intensities are between 50 and 2500 times below the ICNIRP safety guidelines for the frequency band used by DECT.”, correct according to my calculations? c. “…main beam of mobile phone base stations and broadcast towers…” (my emphasis added) is sloppy. For mobile phone base stations, are there other beams besides the main one? Side lobes are not an issue with the highly directional antennas like those use at mobile phone base station sites. “…beam of mobile phone base stations…” would suffice. And for broadcast media, antennas are not typically very directional at all, so the concept of a “beam” would not apply. “…or within the service area of broadcast media transmitters…” might be more appropriate.I need to write more on the correlation to cancer, but it is way past my bedtime here in North America. Sorry for what has turned into a lengthy missive! --papageno (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC) End of Comment

Wirelss LANs in hospitals
I understand that some hospitals have installed wireless LANs for use in transmitting data and voice, taking dictation and locating equipment, amongst other uses. I have no idea of the prevalence of such installations, hence the significance, and thus no idea if it is worthy of inclusion in the article here as a “vote of confidence from healthcare”. In my view, it would take installation figures of at least several orders of magnitude for this to become significant. This link to Trapeze Networks healthcare solutions page leads to white papers describing installations in Italy, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, and the United States. This article in ZDNet started me off. --papageno (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of GP practices and hospitals (in the UK) run multiple wireless networks (but patient stuff, supposedly, uses the landlines for "security"). However, there is a problem of RS here, and any relation to health. This may be a place to apply WP:BEANS - we don't want to make this an issue. Verbal   chat  07:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, being involved in implementation of IT solutions myself, I suspect hospitals installing WiFi will have had little consideration for health, it will have been installed on mobile, cable-less, low cost benefits alone. Even if it was implemented on a wider scale it would not be considered a "vote of confidence from healthcare" if this is supposed to imply some form of implicit agreement amongst the medical profession that, having weighed up the evidence, they believe the health risks to be less than the benefit of WiFi. Seems like a non-starter to me for this article. Topazg (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, in both directions. Verbal   chat  08:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)