This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are two references at the bottom of the page that don't see to be used. Should these be referenced in the text, moved into a further reading section, or simply deleted, or ... ? GeoffreyBanks ( talk) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)There seems to be no reference to the Leitgeb and Schrottner papers. These papers prove that at least some fraction of sufferers can detect currents that the general population cannot. This should be stated in the opening paragraph. Physicsjock ( talk) 13:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Use the PMID numeric link to see an abstract of the paper. --
papageno (
talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)I meant
Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Sep;24(6):387-94. "Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity." Leitgeb N, Schröttner J.
and
Bioelectromagnetics. 2007 Apr;28(3):208-13. "Investigation of electric current perception thresholds of different EHS groups." Schröttner J, Leitgeb N, Hillert L.
although the "Perception of ELF" one is also relevant. Physicsjock ( talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The new section Electrical_sensitivity#Laboratory_Studies is problematic. The section refers to blood brain barrier leakages and refers to these effects as well-established. However, a quite a number of recent studies (Franke et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 26(7):529-535 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20123; Kuribayashi et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 26(7):578-588 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20138; Finnie et al. (2006) "Neonatal mouse exposure to mobile telephony and effect on blood-brain barrier permeability" Pathology 38:262-263 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16753752; Cosquer et al (2005) "Whole-body exposure to 2.45 GHz electromagnetic fields does not alter anxiety responses in rats: a plus-maze study including test validation" Behav Brain Res 156:65-74 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15922061; Kumlin et al (2007) "Mobile phone radiation and the developing brain: Behavioral and morphological effects in juvenile rats. Journal" Radiat Res 168: 471-479 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17903040), as opposed to the Frey 1998 reference, itself based on much older research, have failed to show the associations suggested by the Salford et al study done at Lund University in 2003. Hence, the current text's assertion that “...well-established that low-intensity microwaves can cause a leakage in the blood-brain barrier...” is incorrect. This would seem, thus, to put the whole section under question. -- papageno ( talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to remove "well-established", since the main purpose of the section is to lend some credibility to electrosensitivity (i.e., the symptom of headaches on a mobile phone or even lower-powered mobile phone mast may not be completely psychological as much of the electrosensitivity article seems to suggest.) As a general principle, though, negative findings on related areas do not necessarily negate a positive finding-- it is not as simple as a tally of positive and negative findings (although it might be informative to analyze the tally in terms of sponsorship, as some have done). According to Martin Blank, one reproducible harmful effect outweighs all negative effects. [1] For example, the first study you mentioned above refers in particular to penetration of BBB by sucrose. I'm not the expert here, but maybe that only says something about sucrose, and not about other substances that have been reported to penetrate the BBB. Also, I am aware of research showing some beneficial aspects (e.g., improved learning), and perhaps it is true under particular circumstances, but I'm not sure it applies in all circumstances. Pensees ( talk) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Pensees ( talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This is in reponse to Qui1che who wrote: 'I feel that“although it might be informative to analyze the tally in terms of sponsorship, as some have done” is a veiled Ad hominem attack'.
Pensees ( talk) 02:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Could I get some comments on this section and the 'Symptoms and Severity' section?
I've rehashed the 'Symptoms and Severity' section to make it more readable to the layperson. Most of the text has been retained and moved around a bit to make it more understandable and a bulleted list of most-often attributed symptoms has been added.
The Etiology section now contains a structure with 'Introduction', 'Double-blind Tests', 'Pathophsyiological Markers' (Added), 'Debate over the cause', 'Mobile phone base stations' and 'Conclusions'. The 'Mobile phone base stations' section should probably be moved into the 'Electromagnetic Radiation and Health' article IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The edits certainly were in good faith and I am sorry if you feel that the article has had a "hugely negative" effect.
I would, however, like to point out the following things:
1) Very little text has been removed. Some text has been reworded to make the document flow better and more interesting to the reader.
2) The information added I believe has been missing for quite some time, and I believe has been fair, evenly weighted and objective. This includes, for example, information on pathophysiological markers
[2] and prevalence studies
[3].
3) I have added, in addition to supporting evidence for a physical causation, what I believe to be a balanced summary of the definition and classification of electrosensitivity.
[4] For instance, I have included information from the World Health Organization that the condition is "not a medical diagnosis", nor has an ICD code. Likewise, I have inserted significant text stating that treatment should not focus on the patients perceived need to reduce EMF's and that other factor's should be taken into account.
[5]
4) Much of the text has been reformatted as the old article did not read well for the layperson and had duplicate information. The changes made include splitting up of the text into subheadings, adding tables where relevant and inserting some introductory paragraphs
[6] to help the reader understand the context of each section better.
I would disagree that the article has become biased toward "the existence of EHS". As you can see from the references, EHS has been the focus of much research and debate among scientists and has referenced in many scientific journals and official reports. In addition, the symptoms are acknowledged as being "certainly real" by the World Health Organization, thus the existence of it I don't think can be doubted. Furthermore, I have specifically added a new section addressing how EHS is defined and classified by various quaters.
[7]
Overall, I think the edits have been fair and objective. I think most people would agree that the new article is better than it was the old one
[8] in terms of readability, interest to the user, ability to jump to specific parts of the document and the broader range of topics mentioned.
Obviously, I have put a lot of time into making the edits and have tried to be careful to preserve text already in the article. The aim of the edits is to improve the article and work towards it being nominated for 'Good Article' status. I don't, however, think that reverting the edits would be constructive to reaching this goal. I agree that we should all work together to try to reach this goal, however the guidelines state that you should 'be bold' and get stuck in.
I also think it would be a good idea to request independent feedback on this article from other members of the wikipedia community who can help us work towards a better article considering that it is, as you say, a contentious topic.
I would like to reiterate that I apologize for any section that has suffered a negative effect. Could you specify which sections in particular you believe have suffered a negative effect?
Ok, I'll watch which edits you make and we'll discuss them afterwards. I think mediation might be a good idea here to prevent any overly-heated debate. Would you be happy with that?
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are two references at the bottom of the page that don't see to be used. Should these be referenced in the text, moved into a further reading section, or simply deleted, or ... ? GeoffreyBanks ( talk) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)There seems to be no reference to the Leitgeb and Schrottner papers. These papers prove that at least some fraction of sufferers can detect currents that the general population cannot. This should be stated in the opening paragraph. Physicsjock ( talk) 13:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Use the PMID numeric link to see an abstract of the paper. --
papageno (
talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)I meant
Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Sep;24(6):387-94. "Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity." Leitgeb N, Schröttner J.
and
Bioelectromagnetics. 2007 Apr;28(3):208-13. "Investigation of electric current perception thresholds of different EHS groups." Schröttner J, Leitgeb N, Hillert L.
although the "Perception of ELF" one is also relevant. Physicsjock ( talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The new section Electrical_sensitivity#Laboratory_Studies is problematic. The section refers to blood brain barrier leakages and refers to these effects as well-established. However, a quite a number of recent studies (Franke et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 26(7):529-535 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20123; Kuribayashi et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 26(7):578-588 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20138; Finnie et al. (2006) "Neonatal mouse exposure to mobile telephony and effect on blood-brain barrier permeability" Pathology 38:262-263 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16753752; Cosquer et al (2005) "Whole-body exposure to 2.45 GHz electromagnetic fields does not alter anxiety responses in rats: a plus-maze study including test validation" Behav Brain Res 156:65-74 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15922061; Kumlin et al (2007) "Mobile phone radiation and the developing brain: Behavioral and morphological effects in juvenile rats. Journal" Radiat Res 168: 471-479 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17903040), as opposed to the Frey 1998 reference, itself based on much older research, have failed to show the associations suggested by the Salford et al study done at Lund University in 2003. Hence, the current text's assertion that “...well-established that low-intensity microwaves can cause a leakage in the blood-brain barrier...” is incorrect. This would seem, thus, to put the whole section under question. -- papageno ( talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to remove "well-established", since the main purpose of the section is to lend some credibility to electrosensitivity (i.e., the symptom of headaches on a mobile phone or even lower-powered mobile phone mast may not be completely psychological as much of the electrosensitivity article seems to suggest.) As a general principle, though, negative findings on related areas do not necessarily negate a positive finding-- it is not as simple as a tally of positive and negative findings (although it might be informative to analyze the tally in terms of sponsorship, as some have done). According to Martin Blank, one reproducible harmful effect outweighs all negative effects. [1] For example, the first study you mentioned above refers in particular to penetration of BBB by sucrose. I'm not the expert here, but maybe that only says something about sucrose, and not about other substances that have been reported to penetrate the BBB. Also, I am aware of research showing some beneficial aspects (e.g., improved learning), and perhaps it is true under particular circumstances, but I'm not sure it applies in all circumstances. Pensees ( talk) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Pensees ( talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This is in reponse to Qui1che who wrote: 'I feel that“although it might be informative to analyze the tally in terms of sponsorship, as some have done” is a veiled Ad hominem attack'.
Pensees ( talk) 02:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Could I get some comments on this section and the 'Symptoms and Severity' section?
I've rehashed the 'Symptoms and Severity' section to make it more readable to the layperson. Most of the text has been retained and moved around a bit to make it more understandable and a bulleted list of most-often attributed symptoms has been added.
The Etiology section now contains a structure with 'Introduction', 'Double-blind Tests', 'Pathophsyiological Markers' (Added), 'Debate over the cause', 'Mobile phone base stations' and 'Conclusions'. The 'Mobile phone base stations' section should probably be moved into the 'Electromagnetic Radiation and Health' article IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The edits certainly were in good faith and I am sorry if you feel that the article has had a "hugely negative" effect.
I would, however, like to point out the following things:
1) Very little text has been removed. Some text has been reworded to make the document flow better and more interesting to the reader.
2) The information added I believe has been missing for quite some time, and I believe has been fair, evenly weighted and objective. This includes, for example, information on pathophysiological markers
[2] and prevalence studies
[3].
3) I have added, in addition to supporting evidence for a physical causation, what I believe to be a balanced summary of the definition and classification of electrosensitivity.
[4] For instance, I have included information from the World Health Organization that the condition is "not a medical diagnosis", nor has an ICD code. Likewise, I have inserted significant text stating that treatment should not focus on the patients perceived need to reduce EMF's and that other factor's should be taken into account.
[5]
4) Much of the text has been reformatted as the old article did not read well for the layperson and had duplicate information. The changes made include splitting up of the text into subheadings, adding tables where relevant and inserting some introductory paragraphs
[6] to help the reader understand the context of each section better.
I would disagree that the article has become biased toward "the existence of EHS". As you can see from the references, EHS has been the focus of much research and debate among scientists and has referenced in many scientific journals and official reports. In addition, the symptoms are acknowledged as being "certainly real" by the World Health Organization, thus the existence of it I don't think can be doubted. Furthermore, I have specifically added a new section addressing how EHS is defined and classified by various quaters.
[7]
Overall, I think the edits have been fair and objective. I think most people would agree that the new article is better than it was the old one
[8] in terms of readability, interest to the user, ability to jump to specific parts of the document and the broader range of topics mentioned.
Obviously, I have put a lot of time into making the edits and have tried to be careful to preserve text already in the article. The aim of the edits is to improve the article and work towards it being nominated for 'Good Article' status. I don't, however, think that reverting the edits would be constructive to reaching this goal. I agree that we should all work together to try to reach this goal, however the guidelines state that you should 'be bold' and get stuck in.
I also think it would be a good idea to request independent feedback on this article from other members of the wikipedia community who can help us work towards a better article considering that it is, as you say, a contentious topic.
I would like to reiterate that I apologize for any section that has suffered a negative effect. Could you specify which sections in particular you believe have suffered a negative effect?
Ok, I'll watch which edits you make and we'll discuss them afterwards. I think mediation might be a good idea here to prevent any overly-heated debate. Would you be happy with that?
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)