This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I think the Article also needs a Diagnosis section when these differences could be expanded upon a bit more. For instance from Rubin the comment; Implications for researchers and clinicians, it says "Identifying what these causes are may require careful investigation. For some, complaints of EHS may mask organic or psychiatric pathology," and from WHO "a medical evaluation to identify and treat any specific conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms, (and) a psychological evaluation to identify alternative psychiatric/psychological conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms, etc"
In addition the following from WHO is also worthy of inclusion in some manner. "Some studies suggest that certain physiological responses of EHS individuals tend to be outside the normal range. In particular, hyper reactivity in the central nervous system and imbalance in the autonomic nervous system need to be followed up in clinical investigations and the results for the individuals taken as input for possible treatment." Jagra ( talk) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph as it is unsourced.
No physical treatments currently exist, as the origin of the symptoms is usually ascribed to either classical conditioning or mistaken self-diagnosis. The symptoms are often assumed to have causes that are psychological in nature [1] or to be caused by some other illness that has not yet been treated. Note that the existence of the symptoms is not questioned. [2]
In particular, is there a source to demonstrate that the origin of the symptoms is "usually ascribed to classical conditioning" or "mistaken self-diagnosis"? The source for the symptoms being assumed as psychological in nature seems to be drawing from one particular study which doesn't encapsulate the disease as a whole, it instead refers to just one study. If the symptoms are often assumed to be psychological in nature a major source should be used, such as W.H.O or the Health Protection Agency. Do any of the major sources refer to the symptoms often being assumed to be psychological? The Cognitive Behavioural Therapy studies have not been able to treat this disease effectively.
I have added some information from the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency review entitled "Definition, epidemiology and management of electrical sensitivity", section 4.5.3 which is a neutral source and a major review. It can be found at http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733810369?p=1197637096018. In particular, page 29 contains a very useful table of all the treatments and their efficacy.
The review discusses the success of neutralizing chemical dilution, antioxidant treatment, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Acupuncture and Shiatsu which has not been documented in the article thus far. The following quote also sheds some light on the applicability of all the treatment studies to date (including C.B.T):
The studies reviewed suffer from a combination of the small numbers of subjects included and the potential variation both within and between study populations. Little information is given as to the attributed exposures of the subjects. These factors limit their general applicability outside the immediate study group. For those studies where detail was available, only two were placebo controlled [Acupuncture and nutrition intervention].
It was also noted that success may have more to do with offering a caring environment as opposed to a specific treatment.
All of these aspects have been added to the document. This review, being conducted by a government agency, is a more authoritative source than the systematic review by Rubin et al. These systematic reviews can be original research (ie. a primary source) depending on the methods used. I think it should be removed, as there aren't any studies mentioned in that review that are not discussed and accounted for by the h.p.a. -- ScienceMind ( talk) 14:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pensees. The line you reverted was only there to show what kind of treatments ES sufferers commonly use, not whether those treatments work or not. I felt that metal netting and special paint were adequately covered in the first line which says that sufferers "generally try to reduce their exposure as much as possible." With respect to shielding devices, regardless of whether they work or not, the Roosli reference suggests that a little over 10% of sufferers do indeed use them. I will put the line back in, but expand the "generally try to reduce exposure" a little so that it mentions netting as an example. Is that any better? Catpigg ( talk) 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The following paragraph is an infringement of copyright on the Health Protection Agency's review:
A group of scientists also attempted to estimate the number of people reporting "subjective symptoms" from electromagnetic fields for the European Commission.[14] The group reported that estimates of the total number of cases differed substantially between countries as well as between the answering groups, with self aid group (SAG) estimates consistently around ten times higher than those of centres of occupational medicine (COM). Estimates ranged from less than a few cases per million of the population (COM estimates from UK, Italy, and France) to a few tenths of a percent of the population (SAG estimates in Denmark, Ireland, and Sweden). The group concluded that the differences in prevalence were at least partly due to the differences in available information and media attention around electromagnetic hypersensitivity that exist in different countries. Similar views have been expressed by other commentators.[4]
-- ScienceMind ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a potential physiological connection between Post Radiation Syndrome PMID 18667279 and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) PMID 11461161 that if established will likely have implications also for EMS and worth watching! Jagra ( talk) 09:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the recent changes to the lead and find both the text and references worthwhile additions. Jagra ( talk) 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated an RS ref that supports the text, Other methods often used by sufferers include screening or shielding (such as earthed/grounded metallic netting or paints), electrical filters,[34] It was removed with comments of, (Reverted to revision 228363125 by SesquipedalianVerbiage; Removing new reference. It's a very poor write up of a presentation and a poor primary source) These comments are POV, bordering on OR (very poor write up) ! it is not a presentation but a paper in fact a review, summarising case studies and anecdotal reports (as the abstract says) published in Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):259-68 included in the US National Library of Medicine as PMID 17178585 It is not a study therefore not a primary source so why stop there! What is important is that the Ref is RS and that it supports the text. Jagra ( talk) 05:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Jagra, can you clarify how the Havas paper supports the idea that electrical shielding or filters is *often* used by sufferers? Does the paper give any indication of what percentage of sufferers use that technique? I have read the paper and can't see any reference to that. Equally, the Smith reference also used in this section (ref 32) makes suggestions as to how electrically sensitive patients might be treated (e.g. by homeopathy), but doesn't say that many electrically sensitive patients do in fact use those kind of treatments. I would suggest dropping both references, and replacing them with the Roosli reference that is already used in the article (ref 3). That paper shows (in figure 4) that sizeable percentages of the sensitive sample in the study (n=429) tried to avoid EMF exposure, use shielding devices, use alternative medicine, take drugs, use meditation etc. I am not sure if additional references are required. Catpigg ( talk) 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have altered the text to remove those two references, and to replace them with the Roosli reference. Roosli says that in his sample, the main techniques sufferers used to cope with their illness were: Disconnecting, remove indoor source, avoid exposure, reconstruction*, information*, meditation / body work*, drugs, shielding devices, alternative medicine*, shielding of the dwelling, changing life style*, law complaint*. Those marked with * were used by less than 5% of the sample. Our text summarises this by saying that the main techniques used are avoidance of exposure, medication, CAM and shielding. I didn't think those with less than 5% uptake were worth mentioning, but did think we could combine meditation / body work and alternative medicine into complementary and alternative medicine. Hope you think that's an appropriate summary. Catpigg ( talk) 10:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were suggesting that mains wiring in the home or office could trigger EHS, but I've not heard of that being reported - in fact I've read the opposite; that mains wiring is ok, and that it is suggested as a way of avoiding things they feel are harmful such as WiFi. I was simply interested in seeing such a reference if one exists, and I agree it should stay out of the article unless a significant number of people reporting EHS complain about it. The reference to WP:BEANS was that we shouldn't give people who are convinced they suffer from EHS something else to worry about. Verbal chat 18:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought this might be worth mentioning here. I'll quote the first two paragraphs from a news story that has appeared in the latest issue of Science:
The only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breakage are at the center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV). Critics had argued that the data looked too good to be real, and in May a university investigation agreed, concluding that data in both studies had been fabricated and that the papers should be retracted.
The technician who worked on the studies has resigned, and the senior author on both papers initially agreed with the rector of the university to retract them. But since then, the case has become murkier as the senior author has changed his mind, saying that the technician denies wrongdoing. He will now agree to retract only one paper, and he also says his critics have been funded by the cell phone industry, which has an obvious interest in discrediting any evidence of harm from its products. (Science 321:1144-1145, 2008).
The two papers both include Hugo Rüdiger as a co-author, and neither is currently used in this Wikipedia article, but this is something we should probably be aware of, just in case. Looie496 ( talk) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
An Austria phone survey has just been included in the prevalence section. The sample is small, the question not very interesting from a medical or scientific point of view, and it doesn't add anything to the article - the other studies already show that many people think they are effected by electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps it is important in that it shows a reduction (3.5% only) and in that case it maybe deserves more details, but unless this paper shows something interesting (I'll try to get hold of a copy) I suggest it is moved here for reference. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
In a phone survey in Austria, the question: "Do you feel disturbed from electromagnetic pollution?" was put to 460 people, aged between 15 and 80 (response rate=88%). 3.5% of the respondents defined themselves as electrosensitive, which was an increase on the 2% estimated in 1994. The authors conclude that despite "scientific studies and health risk assessments concluding that a causal relationship of EMF below recommended reference levels would be implausible" concern levels had actually increased.<ref name=schrottner&leitgeb08>{{cite journal | last = Schrottner, J. | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = Leitgeb, N. | title = Sensitivity to electricity – Temporal changes in Austria | journal = BMC Public Health (Open Access) | volume = 8:310 | doi = 10.1186/1471-2458-8-310 | url = http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/310 |year=2008 }}</ref>
I'm fine with it coming out - that was my original thought. I only edited it to make it more accurate to the source. Verbal chat 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The history section needs to inform the background to the current discussions on the existence, nature, extent and aetiology of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Without such a section the EHS entry lacks important contextualisation. At this stage in our understanding of EHS a primary concern should be to provide a catalogue of the major records of previous apparent instances, to help inform judgements over whether the same symptomology is under discussion for the various apparent occurrences of the syndrome. For instance, there is a need to clarify how far the symptoms for VDU dermatitis correlate with Microwave Illness and Radio Sickness and any current apparent manifestations. The similarities with symptoms from radiotherapy are relevant in that some approaches see the primary aetiology in thermal terms. On these grounds the following aspects are relevant: (1) records of symptoms from classical times; (2) records of symptoms from the 18th century, the earliest for modern times; (3) the beginnings of experiments to produce symptoms during the 18th century; (4) studies of particular EHS symptoms, from Beards onwards, including microwave hearing; (5) the apparent transition of symptoms, from essentially occupational at first, but then, from the late 20th century, apparently identifiable among the general population; (6) the first instances of apparent symptoms affecting a specific local general population. (7) One subsection not included in my entry would be that of instances of famous or well documented people apparently acquiring EHS. A suitable case might be Tesla, who features in many of the standard books.
In due course it might be appropriate to extend the History section into key areas other than just symptomology. Such areas could include: (1) a brief overview of the histories of mechanistic theories for EHS, including those which have now been discarded; (2) an overview of the range of speculation in bioelectromagnetics relevant to EHS, with reference to piezoelectricity, quantum phenomena, geomagnetic fields, lunar periodicity and other factors producing apparently similar symptoms; (3) differences and changes in attitudes amongst scientists towards the existence of EHS. It should be possible to highlight the key historical steps without prejudging any detailed work on aetiology. Denver26 ( talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The Electrohypersensitivity article should be deleted and redirected to this article, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The article here is much more comprehensive and covers the same topic. -- papageno ( talk) 03:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not all of this article is clear, at least to this non-specialist. What e.g. does this mean (just before Diagnosis section): "washout times are needed to prevent a carry-over effect of previous exposure"? Might someone clean things up a little? Testbed ( talk) 08:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this paper may be relavent to this topic. This whole article currently reads like it was written by the power company and is filled with weasel words to make it as if the whole thing is some sham. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers on the topic that do not use words such as supposed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The symptoms are real, but are not caused by electromagnetic radiation. That is the mainstream, prominent, scientific, and medical view per WP:RS. This article is also neutral per WP:NPOV. Verbal chat 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Would this: Lakshmikumar, S.T., 2009, "Power Line Panic and Mobile Mania", Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 33, Issue 5, Pg. 35 be considered an applicable paper or is it treading too close to WP:SYNTH? Simonm223 ( talk) 20:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
——Start of Comment by papageno——
This is a subject about which Floydian clearly feels passionate. I reply:
1. The Medical Hypotheses (MH) article is not relevant: that the article had to published in such a journal is almost evidence enough. Then there is the compelling and overwhelming weight of evidence in a multitude of other medical and scientific fields that suggest other much more plausible reasons for the maladies the MH author ascribes to Electromagnetic (EM).
2. "Supposed" applies to the basis of the condition being EM, and any other wording is a "weaselly" attempt to suggest otherwise.
3. Readers of WP should expect
WP:MEDRS in an article about a medical condition. WP:MEDRS suggests a summary of the scientific consensus, which is what it written in the lead paragraph. WP:MEDRS also suggests "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported." Thus, for example, in the article body in the "Etiology and evidence" section, the opening paragraph gives a view of some of the positions on EMHS, including "Although individuals who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity believe that electromagnetic fields from common electrical devices trigger or exacerbate their symptoms…" and "Some professionals consider electromagnetic hypersensitivity to be a physical condition with an unclear cause, while others suggest that some aspects may be psychological." If you feel an approach other than that advocated currently by WP:MEDRS should be taken, you can suggest changes there or at
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine.
4. "Sham" seems to have set you off. No where in the article is the word sham used to describe the condition or sufferers' symptoms. It is only used to describe experimental states used in research. Many investigators in fact have taken pains to recognize explicitly sufferers' pains while rejecting EM as a cause when reporting research results, as they should.
5. The case of Smoking is a
red herring.
6. Investigators from a whole range of disciplines have been involved in the examination of EMHS: physicists and biologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, medical doctors, etc. Read the bios of the authors of the journal articles cited as references. And I realize that Floydian's comment relates to the Skeptical Inquirer article suggested by Simonm223.
7. Humans are variable, you are right. I would add further: that researchers are fallible, confounding variables can lurk, the placebo effect may
lower, random chance plays a role, and so on. That's why studies are replicated with the largest possible numbers of data points / participants. A combination of plausibility and repeated, statistically-significant evidence — core elements of the scientific method — is the best way we have to address the challenge, and the science conducted on that basis does not suggest EMHS is a condition attributable to EM.
With respect, --
papageno (
talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
——End of Comment by papageno——
I can only speak from my experience so I'm sorry if you have much more serious condition than I do, I'm just trying to explain that I believe is wrong with how this is explained in media:
The term used to describe this condition is very misleading and vague. I think this also explains why the tests performed have been unable to come up with results. In order to explain the logic behind this conclusion I'll have to sidetrack a bit.
I don't have the expensive equipment necessary to study my own condition but since I do have *some kind of* sensitivity to *something possibly related* in my eyes I can at-least form some speculation based on what I've experienced.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-5UPyE6dcWgC&lpg=PA17&pg=PA17
"While human conscious hearing stops around 20kHz, higher, ultrasonic frequencies in music, up to at least 80kHz, can be perceived by the brain. "
So it appears that some people in professional tests are able to perceive ultrasonic frequency in their brain. Interesting though I'm not able to do this. Some people do note that they become "dumb" in front of the monitor. That's also interesting and I also feel my creative thinking is severely lacking when in front of the monitor so there just may be something to it. (I do music and development and it's definitely easier to think and solve problems when not in front of the computer but I'm not going to speculate on what is the cause for this)
That quote establishes that it is possible that there is something in the brain that can sense very high frequencies. This gives way to assume that in millions of people there are exceptions that could be abnormally sensitive to some type of excitation in the brain.
As for me, I used to be able to watch a TV/CRT without discomfort. After moving to use LCD my eyes started to dry and eventually it went I could only use LCD for few hours without getting a burning sensation in eyes. I've since moved again to a CRT monitor and there was immediate relief. Some points of interest are: Why I get this from some computer LCD with CCFL, not all CCFL? And has it anything to do with flicker? The LCD CCFL's flicker at higher frequency than incandescent and the CRT. But some (rare) LCD do not seem as bad as most. So I do *not* believe the flicker is the reason of the dryness and burning sensation. Keep in mind the burning sensation comes for me at around 8 hours of near continuous LCD use where as with CRT I can watch it 20 hours almost straight with no issue.
What does that leave? It's all just visible light emitting from the display? I believe, as a musician, that just as there are annoying sounds (think a synthesized pulsewave) and pleasant sounds (those most often found from natural sources rather than lab instruments - except my synthesizers of course which I know how to program to be pleasant in the audible range) there exists similar behaviour in other frequencies of EM spectrum. The equipment to accurately capture high energy distortion/IMD transients possibly occurring broadly at very high frequencies would be very expensive if it even exists. So as much as I would like to I'm not equipped to study what is the difference in the radiation from various displays that would explain the burning sensation.
So there are various type of sensitivity and we are not quite sure even to what parameters of the emissions is the sensitivity to. It could WELL be to some very particular type of waveforms/transients/distortions that require very specialized or non-existent equipment to measure. After all it takes very specialized equipment to test for transient issues in the computers multi-Ghz operating range which is where also wireless radios operate.
What I'm trying to say is that unless the people trying to understand this hypersensitivity issue have millions worth of the right kind of kit they may not be getting anywhere and then there's the issue of psychosomatic responses these very sensitive people may ALSO have developed in reaction to getting exposed to the unnatural radiation sources so often that they've begun to just have adverse reaction to seeing electric equipment due to their lack of knowledge what type of radiation source it is that cause the issue.
I brought that last point because after these LCD CCFL issues I've began to be just generally stressed when exposed to CCFL in general even though I don't get the burning feel from such exposure. So simple skin based test be giving false data because the brain reacts to just knowledge of the possible EM emission around the subject as a preventive defensive mechanism.
If you can't tell I'm not very excited about energy saving CCFL lamps. There are also studies showing that switching to them do nothing to solve the greenhouse problem. And did anyone mention what happens when energy/water company income starts dropping due to energy saving? If you guessed the CEO and investors will move from big house to small house and start live frugally, THINK AGAIN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.172.94 ( talk) 13:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Article 2: Schmitz, C; Keller, E; Freuding, T; Silny, J; Korr, H (2004). "50-Hz magnetic field exposure influences DNA repair and mitochondrial DNA synthesis of distinct cell types in brain and kidney of adult mice".
Acta Neuropathologica. 107 (3): 257–264.
doi:
10.1007/s00401-003-0799-6.
PMID
14689206. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Article 3: Yamashita, K; Ono, T; Saito, D; Saito, M (1999). "Effect of static magnetic field on cell growth and mitochondria". TENCON 99. Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Conference. 2: 1158–1161.
doi:
10.1109/TENCON.1999.818631. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Article 4: Gorczynska, E; Galka, G; Wegrzynowicz, R; Mikosza, H (1986). "Effect of magnetic field on the process of cell respiration in mitochondria of rats". Physiological chemistry and physics and medical NMR. 18 (1): 61–69.
PMID
3022316., but hey, its just a conspiracy, and those tests are LIES.well... at least according to those with an investment in the infrastructure... -
ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ
τ
¢ 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)I'll start another section, since you are clearly not coming here and discussing. I am providing an undoubtable source validating the condition. The World Health Organization easily trumps any source that can be provided. Secondly, it is horrible etiquette to revert edits that aren't vandalism as vandalism. WP:Vandalism addresses what is vandalism, and adding sources is certainly not in that list, nor is something that goes against your personal opinion of the condition.
However, I doubt you have any intention of responding, but I'll wait 48 hours before reverting your personal opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
{undent} No, fault is mine. I forgot to sign. :) Simonm223 ( talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The condition as described obviously does not exist (although I think the unknown etiology language of the article catches the nuance better), but there is still an identifiable subset of people who report symptoms they ascribe to electrosmog or somesuch. The current opening sentence describes the causal connection as being made by those presenting, which should perfectly adequate without supposed. After the lead is the appropriate place to discuss DSM/ICD/misdiagnosis/etc. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
From the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2008, by Samuel Milham and L. Lloyd Morgan, discussing the case of La Quinta middle school, California. After having a new school constructed, the students and teachers began rapidly developing various cancers. Within a year, almost 18 cases of various cancers had appeared in both the teachers and the students, prompting a health and safety inquiry. This paper documents that inquiry. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119553477/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
This second paper is called the BioInitiative report. It was released in 2007 and is the conclusion of fourteen international scientists, with a dozen reviewers. Aside from mentioning one of the biggest points I have tried to make clear (that money has a bigger influence on scientific consensus than science itself does)
Under "Main reasons for disagreements among experts" "10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate." (pg 5)
It goes on to say "It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes - some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death." (pg 6)
Backing up the idea that it is not the energy behind the signals that causes the damage (so whoever tossed that physics article at me can consider it a red herring)
It goes further, examining specific diseases. "There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia." (pg 8) "The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher." (pg 11)
Note that the current safety standard is 933-1000 mG!
"Exposing humans to cell phone radiation can change brainwave activity at levels as low as 0.1 watt per kilogram SAR (W/Kg)*** in comparison to the US allowable level of 1.6 W/Kg and the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) allowable level of 2.0 W/Kg. It can affect memory and learning. It can affect normal brainwave activity. ELF and RF exposures at low levels are able to change behavior in animals." (pg 14)
"People who are chronically exposed to low-level wireless antenna emissions report symptoms such as problems in sleeping (insomnia), fatigue, headache, dizziness, grogginess, lack of concentration, memory problems, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), problems with balance and orientation, and difficulty in multi-tasking. In children, exposures to cell phone radiation have resulted in changes in brain oscillatory activity during some memory tasks. Although scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship; these complaints are widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed (Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Israel). For example, the roll-out of the new 3rd Generation wireless phones (and related community-wide antenna RF emissions in the Netherlands) caused almost immediate public complaints of illness.(5)" (pg 15)
reference 5 reads: TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory, The Netherlands. 2003. Effects of Global Communication System radio-frequency fields on well-being and cognitive functions of human beings with and without subjective complaints. Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research 1-63.
It goes on and on. The conclusions reached are that continuing in a business-as-usual fashion is going to have a profound effect on our well-being in the coming decades, and that precautionary measures must be taken, at the very least in response to the overwhelming number of complaints.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf
Good reads - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
{Undent} What you are asking us to do though is to engage in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because you are not satisfied with the methodology used in current research. This is not our place. We have to report that, based on current research, the cause of this condition appears to be psychological - because that is what extant peer-reviewed research supports. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I think the Article also needs a Diagnosis section when these differences could be expanded upon a bit more. For instance from Rubin the comment; Implications for researchers and clinicians, it says "Identifying what these causes are may require careful investigation. For some, complaints of EHS may mask organic or psychiatric pathology," and from WHO "a medical evaluation to identify and treat any specific conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms, (and) a psychological evaluation to identify alternative psychiatric/psychological conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms, etc"
In addition the following from WHO is also worthy of inclusion in some manner. "Some studies suggest that certain physiological responses of EHS individuals tend to be outside the normal range. In particular, hyper reactivity in the central nervous system and imbalance in the autonomic nervous system need to be followed up in clinical investigations and the results for the individuals taken as input for possible treatment." Jagra ( talk) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph as it is unsourced.
No physical treatments currently exist, as the origin of the symptoms is usually ascribed to either classical conditioning or mistaken self-diagnosis. The symptoms are often assumed to have causes that are psychological in nature [1] or to be caused by some other illness that has not yet been treated. Note that the existence of the symptoms is not questioned. [2]
In particular, is there a source to demonstrate that the origin of the symptoms is "usually ascribed to classical conditioning" or "mistaken self-diagnosis"? The source for the symptoms being assumed as psychological in nature seems to be drawing from one particular study which doesn't encapsulate the disease as a whole, it instead refers to just one study. If the symptoms are often assumed to be psychological in nature a major source should be used, such as W.H.O or the Health Protection Agency. Do any of the major sources refer to the symptoms often being assumed to be psychological? The Cognitive Behavioural Therapy studies have not been able to treat this disease effectively.
I have added some information from the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency review entitled "Definition, epidemiology and management of electrical sensitivity", section 4.5.3 which is a neutral source and a major review. It can be found at http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733810369?p=1197637096018. In particular, page 29 contains a very useful table of all the treatments and their efficacy.
The review discusses the success of neutralizing chemical dilution, antioxidant treatment, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Acupuncture and Shiatsu which has not been documented in the article thus far. The following quote also sheds some light on the applicability of all the treatment studies to date (including C.B.T):
The studies reviewed suffer from a combination of the small numbers of subjects included and the potential variation both within and between study populations. Little information is given as to the attributed exposures of the subjects. These factors limit their general applicability outside the immediate study group. For those studies where detail was available, only two were placebo controlled [Acupuncture and nutrition intervention].
It was also noted that success may have more to do with offering a caring environment as opposed to a specific treatment.
All of these aspects have been added to the document. This review, being conducted by a government agency, is a more authoritative source than the systematic review by Rubin et al. These systematic reviews can be original research (ie. a primary source) depending on the methods used. I think it should be removed, as there aren't any studies mentioned in that review that are not discussed and accounted for by the h.p.a. -- ScienceMind ( talk) 14:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pensees. The line you reverted was only there to show what kind of treatments ES sufferers commonly use, not whether those treatments work or not. I felt that metal netting and special paint were adequately covered in the first line which says that sufferers "generally try to reduce their exposure as much as possible." With respect to shielding devices, regardless of whether they work or not, the Roosli reference suggests that a little over 10% of sufferers do indeed use them. I will put the line back in, but expand the "generally try to reduce exposure" a little so that it mentions netting as an example. Is that any better? Catpigg ( talk) 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The following paragraph is an infringement of copyright on the Health Protection Agency's review:
A group of scientists also attempted to estimate the number of people reporting "subjective symptoms" from electromagnetic fields for the European Commission.[14] The group reported that estimates of the total number of cases differed substantially between countries as well as between the answering groups, with self aid group (SAG) estimates consistently around ten times higher than those of centres of occupational medicine (COM). Estimates ranged from less than a few cases per million of the population (COM estimates from UK, Italy, and France) to a few tenths of a percent of the population (SAG estimates in Denmark, Ireland, and Sweden). The group concluded that the differences in prevalence were at least partly due to the differences in available information and media attention around electromagnetic hypersensitivity that exist in different countries. Similar views have been expressed by other commentators.[4]
-- ScienceMind ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a potential physiological connection between Post Radiation Syndrome PMID 18667279 and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) PMID 11461161 that if established will likely have implications also for EMS and worth watching! Jagra ( talk) 09:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the recent changes to the lead and find both the text and references worthwhile additions. Jagra ( talk) 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated an RS ref that supports the text, Other methods often used by sufferers include screening or shielding (such as earthed/grounded metallic netting or paints), electrical filters,[34] It was removed with comments of, (Reverted to revision 228363125 by SesquipedalianVerbiage; Removing new reference. It's a very poor write up of a presentation and a poor primary source) These comments are POV, bordering on OR (very poor write up) ! it is not a presentation but a paper in fact a review, summarising case studies and anecdotal reports (as the abstract says) published in Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):259-68 included in the US National Library of Medicine as PMID 17178585 It is not a study therefore not a primary source so why stop there! What is important is that the Ref is RS and that it supports the text. Jagra ( talk) 05:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Jagra, can you clarify how the Havas paper supports the idea that electrical shielding or filters is *often* used by sufferers? Does the paper give any indication of what percentage of sufferers use that technique? I have read the paper and can't see any reference to that. Equally, the Smith reference also used in this section (ref 32) makes suggestions as to how electrically sensitive patients might be treated (e.g. by homeopathy), but doesn't say that many electrically sensitive patients do in fact use those kind of treatments. I would suggest dropping both references, and replacing them with the Roosli reference that is already used in the article (ref 3). That paper shows (in figure 4) that sizeable percentages of the sensitive sample in the study (n=429) tried to avoid EMF exposure, use shielding devices, use alternative medicine, take drugs, use meditation etc. I am not sure if additional references are required. Catpigg ( talk) 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have altered the text to remove those two references, and to replace them with the Roosli reference. Roosli says that in his sample, the main techniques sufferers used to cope with their illness were: Disconnecting, remove indoor source, avoid exposure, reconstruction*, information*, meditation / body work*, drugs, shielding devices, alternative medicine*, shielding of the dwelling, changing life style*, law complaint*. Those marked with * were used by less than 5% of the sample. Our text summarises this by saying that the main techniques used are avoidance of exposure, medication, CAM and shielding. I didn't think those with less than 5% uptake were worth mentioning, but did think we could combine meditation / body work and alternative medicine into complementary and alternative medicine. Hope you think that's an appropriate summary. Catpigg ( talk) 10:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were suggesting that mains wiring in the home or office could trigger EHS, but I've not heard of that being reported - in fact I've read the opposite; that mains wiring is ok, and that it is suggested as a way of avoiding things they feel are harmful such as WiFi. I was simply interested in seeing such a reference if one exists, and I agree it should stay out of the article unless a significant number of people reporting EHS complain about it. The reference to WP:BEANS was that we shouldn't give people who are convinced they suffer from EHS something else to worry about. Verbal chat 18:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought this might be worth mentioning here. I'll quote the first two paragraphs from a news story that has appeared in the latest issue of Science:
The only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breakage are at the center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV). Critics had argued that the data looked too good to be real, and in May a university investigation agreed, concluding that data in both studies had been fabricated and that the papers should be retracted.
The technician who worked on the studies has resigned, and the senior author on both papers initially agreed with the rector of the university to retract them. But since then, the case has become murkier as the senior author has changed his mind, saying that the technician denies wrongdoing. He will now agree to retract only one paper, and he also says his critics have been funded by the cell phone industry, which has an obvious interest in discrediting any evidence of harm from its products. (Science 321:1144-1145, 2008).
The two papers both include Hugo Rüdiger as a co-author, and neither is currently used in this Wikipedia article, but this is something we should probably be aware of, just in case. Looie496 ( talk) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
An Austria phone survey has just been included in the prevalence section. The sample is small, the question not very interesting from a medical or scientific point of view, and it doesn't add anything to the article - the other studies already show that many people think they are effected by electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps it is important in that it shows a reduction (3.5% only) and in that case it maybe deserves more details, but unless this paper shows something interesting (I'll try to get hold of a copy) I suggest it is moved here for reference. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
In a phone survey in Austria, the question: "Do you feel disturbed from electromagnetic pollution?" was put to 460 people, aged between 15 and 80 (response rate=88%). 3.5% of the respondents defined themselves as electrosensitive, which was an increase on the 2% estimated in 1994. The authors conclude that despite "scientific studies and health risk assessments concluding that a causal relationship of EMF below recommended reference levels would be implausible" concern levels had actually increased.<ref name=schrottner&leitgeb08>{{cite journal | last = Schrottner, J. | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = Leitgeb, N. | title = Sensitivity to electricity – Temporal changes in Austria | journal = BMC Public Health (Open Access) | volume = 8:310 | doi = 10.1186/1471-2458-8-310 | url = http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/310 |year=2008 }}</ref>
I'm fine with it coming out - that was my original thought. I only edited it to make it more accurate to the source. Verbal chat 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The history section needs to inform the background to the current discussions on the existence, nature, extent and aetiology of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Without such a section the EHS entry lacks important contextualisation. At this stage in our understanding of EHS a primary concern should be to provide a catalogue of the major records of previous apparent instances, to help inform judgements over whether the same symptomology is under discussion for the various apparent occurrences of the syndrome. For instance, there is a need to clarify how far the symptoms for VDU dermatitis correlate with Microwave Illness and Radio Sickness and any current apparent manifestations. The similarities with symptoms from radiotherapy are relevant in that some approaches see the primary aetiology in thermal terms. On these grounds the following aspects are relevant: (1) records of symptoms from classical times; (2) records of symptoms from the 18th century, the earliest for modern times; (3) the beginnings of experiments to produce symptoms during the 18th century; (4) studies of particular EHS symptoms, from Beards onwards, including microwave hearing; (5) the apparent transition of symptoms, from essentially occupational at first, but then, from the late 20th century, apparently identifiable among the general population; (6) the first instances of apparent symptoms affecting a specific local general population. (7) One subsection not included in my entry would be that of instances of famous or well documented people apparently acquiring EHS. A suitable case might be Tesla, who features in many of the standard books.
In due course it might be appropriate to extend the History section into key areas other than just symptomology. Such areas could include: (1) a brief overview of the histories of mechanistic theories for EHS, including those which have now been discarded; (2) an overview of the range of speculation in bioelectromagnetics relevant to EHS, with reference to piezoelectricity, quantum phenomena, geomagnetic fields, lunar periodicity and other factors producing apparently similar symptoms; (3) differences and changes in attitudes amongst scientists towards the existence of EHS. It should be possible to highlight the key historical steps without prejudging any detailed work on aetiology. Denver26 ( talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The Electrohypersensitivity article should be deleted and redirected to this article, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The article here is much more comprehensive and covers the same topic. -- papageno ( talk) 03:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not all of this article is clear, at least to this non-specialist. What e.g. does this mean (just before Diagnosis section): "washout times are needed to prevent a carry-over effect of previous exposure"? Might someone clean things up a little? Testbed ( talk) 08:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this paper may be relavent to this topic. This whole article currently reads like it was written by the power company and is filled with weasel words to make it as if the whole thing is some sham. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers on the topic that do not use words such as supposed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The symptoms are real, but are not caused by electromagnetic radiation. That is the mainstream, prominent, scientific, and medical view per WP:RS. This article is also neutral per WP:NPOV. Verbal chat 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Would this: Lakshmikumar, S.T., 2009, "Power Line Panic and Mobile Mania", Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 33, Issue 5, Pg. 35 be considered an applicable paper or is it treading too close to WP:SYNTH? Simonm223 ( talk) 20:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
——Start of Comment by papageno——
This is a subject about which Floydian clearly feels passionate. I reply:
1. The Medical Hypotheses (MH) article is not relevant: that the article had to published in such a journal is almost evidence enough. Then there is the compelling and overwhelming weight of evidence in a multitude of other medical and scientific fields that suggest other much more plausible reasons for the maladies the MH author ascribes to Electromagnetic (EM).
2. "Supposed" applies to the basis of the condition being EM, and any other wording is a "weaselly" attempt to suggest otherwise.
3. Readers of WP should expect
WP:MEDRS in an article about a medical condition. WP:MEDRS suggests a summary of the scientific consensus, which is what it written in the lead paragraph. WP:MEDRS also suggests "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported." Thus, for example, in the article body in the "Etiology and evidence" section, the opening paragraph gives a view of some of the positions on EMHS, including "Although individuals who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity believe that electromagnetic fields from common electrical devices trigger or exacerbate their symptoms…" and "Some professionals consider electromagnetic hypersensitivity to be a physical condition with an unclear cause, while others suggest that some aspects may be psychological." If you feel an approach other than that advocated currently by WP:MEDRS should be taken, you can suggest changes there or at
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine.
4. "Sham" seems to have set you off. No where in the article is the word sham used to describe the condition or sufferers' symptoms. It is only used to describe experimental states used in research. Many investigators in fact have taken pains to recognize explicitly sufferers' pains while rejecting EM as a cause when reporting research results, as they should.
5. The case of Smoking is a
red herring.
6. Investigators from a whole range of disciplines have been involved in the examination of EMHS: physicists and biologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, medical doctors, etc. Read the bios of the authors of the journal articles cited as references. And I realize that Floydian's comment relates to the Skeptical Inquirer article suggested by Simonm223.
7. Humans are variable, you are right. I would add further: that researchers are fallible, confounding variables can lurk, the placebo effect may
lower, random chance plays a role, and so on. That's why studies are replicated with the largest possible numbers of data points / participants. A combination of plausibility and repeated, statistically-significant evidence — core elements of the scientific method — is the best way we have to address the challenge, and the science conducted on that basis does not suggest EMHS is a condition attributable to EM.
With respect, --
papageno (
talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
——End of Comment by papageno——
I can only speak from my experience so I'm sorry if you have much more serious condition than I do, I'm just trying to explain that I believe is wrong with how this is explained in media:
The term used to describe this condition is very misleading and vague. I think this also explains why the tests performed have been unable to come up with results. In order to explain the logic behind this conclusion I'll have to sidetrack a bit.
I don't have the expensive equipment necessary to study my own condition but since I do have *some kind of* sensitivity to *something possibly related* in my eyes I can at-least form some speculation based on what I've experienced.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-5UPyE6dcWgC&lpg=PA17&pg=PA17
"While human conscious hearing stops around 20kHz, higher, ultrasonic frequencies in music, up to at least 80kHz, can be perceived by the brain. "
So it appears that some people in professional tests are able to perceive ultrasonic frequency in their brain. Interesting though I'm not able to do this. Some people do note that they become "dumb" in front of the monitor. That's also interesting and I also feel my creative thinking is severely lacking when in front of the monitor so there just may be something to it. (I do music and development and it's definitely easier to think and solve problems when not in front of the computer but I'm not going to speculate on what is the cause for this)
That quote establishes that it is possible that there is something in the brain that can sense very high frequencies. This gives way to assume that in millions of people there are exceptions that could be abnormally sensitive to some type of excitation in the brain.
As for me, I used to be able to watch a TV/CRT without discomfort. After moving to use LCD my eyes started to dry and eventually it went I could only use LCD for few hours without getting a burning sensation in eyes. I've since moved again to a CRT monitor and there was immediate relief. Some points of interest are: Why I get this from some computer LCD with CCFL, not all CCFL? And has it anything to do with flicker? The LCD CCFL's flicker at higher frequency than incandescent and the CRT. But some (rare) LCD do not seem as bad as most. So I do *not* believe the flicker is the reason of the dryness and burning sensation. Keep in mind the burning sensation comes for me at around 8 hours of near continuous LCD use where as with CRT I can watch it 20 hours almost straight with no issue.
What does that leave? It's all just visible light emitting from the display? I believe, as a musician, that just as there are annoying sounds (think a synthesized pulsewave) and pleasant sounds (those most often found from natural sources rather than lab instruments - except my synthesizers of course which I know how to program to be pleasant in the audible range) there exists similar behaviour in other frequencies of EM spectrum. The equipment to accurately capture high energy distortion/IMD transients possibly occurring broadly at very high frequencies would be very expensive if it even exists. So as much as I would like to I'm not equipped to study what is the difference in the radiation from various displays that would explain the burning sensation.
So there are various type of sensitivity and we are not quite sure even to what parameters of the emissions is the sensitivity to. It could WELL be to some very particular type of waveforms/transients/distortions that require very specialized or non-existent equipment to measure. After all it takes very specialized equipment to test for transient issues in the computers multi-Ghz operating range which is where also wireless radios operate.
What I'm trying to say is that unless the people trying to understand this hypersensitivity issue have millions worth of the right kind of kit they may not be getting anywhere and then there's the issue of psychosomatic responses these very sensitive people may ALSO have developed in reaction to getting exposed to the unnatural radiation sources so often that they've begun to just have adverse reaction to seeing electric equipment due to their lack of knowledge what type of radiation source it is that cause the issue.
I brought that last point because after these LCD CCFL issues I've began to be just generally stressed when exposed to CCFL in general even though I don't get the burning feel from such exposure. So simple skin based test be giving false data because the brain reacts to just knowledge of the possible EM emission around the subject as a preventive defensive mechanism.
If you can't tell I'm not very excited about energy saving CCFL lamps. There are also studies showing that switching to them do nothing to solve the greenhouse problem. And did anyone mention what happens when energy/water company income starts dropping due to energy saving? If you guessed the CEO and investors will move from big house to small house and start live frugally, THINK AGAIN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.172.94 ( talk) 13:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Article 2: Schmitz, C; Keller, E; Freuding, T; Silny, J; Korr, H (2004). "50-Hz magnetic field exposure influences DNA repair and mitochondrial DNA synthesis of distinct cell types in brain and kidney of adult mice".
Acta Neuropathologica. 107 (3): 257–264.
doi:
10.1007/s00401-003-0799-6.
PMID
14689206. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Article 3: Yamashita, K; Ono, T; Saito, D; Saito, M (1999). "Effect of static magnetic field on cell growth and mitochondria". TENCON 99. Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Conference. 2: 1158–1161.
doi:
10.1109/TENCON.1999.818631. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Article 4: Gorczynska, E; Galka, G; Wegrzynowicz, R; Mikosza, H (1986). "Effect of magnetic field on the process of cell respiration in mitochondria of rats". Physiological chemistry and physics and medical NMR. 18 (1): 61–69.
PMID
3022316., but hey, its just a conspiracy, and those tests are LIES.well... at least according to those with an investment in the infrastructure... -
ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ
τ
¢ 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)I'll start another section, since you are clearly not coming here and discussing. I am providing an undoubtable source validating the condition. The World Health Organization easily trumps any source that can be provided. Secondly, it is horrible etiquette to revert edits that aren't vandalism as vandalism. WP:Vandalism addresses what is vandalism, and adding sources is certainly not in that list, nor is something that goes against your personal opinion of the condition.
However, I doubt you have any intention of responding, but I'll wait 48 hours before reverting your personal opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
{undent} No, fault is mine. I forgot to sign. :) Simonm223 ( talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The condition as described obviously does not exist (although I think the unknown etiology language of the article catches the nuance better), but there is still an identifiable subset of people who report symptoms they ascribe to electrosmog or somesuch. The current opening sentence describes the causal connection as being made by those presenting, which should perfectly adequate without supposed. After the lead is the appropriate place to discuss DSM/ICD/misdiagnosis/etc. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
From the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2008, by Samuel Milham and L. Lloyd Morgan, discussing the case of La Quinta middle school, California. After having a new school constructed, the students and teachers began rapidly developing various cancers. Within a year, almost 18 cases of various cancers had appeared in both the teachers and the students, prompting a health and safety inquiry. This paper documents that inquiry. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119553477/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
This second paper is called the BioInitiative report. It was released in 2007 and is the conclusion of fourteen international scientists, with a dozen reviewers. Aside from mentioning one of the biggest points I have tried to make clear (that money has a bigger influence on scientific consensus than science itself does)
Under "Main reasons for disagreements among experts" "10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate." (pg 5)
It goes on to say "It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes - some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death." (pg 6)
Backing up the idea that it is not the energy behind the signals that causes the damage (so whoever tossed that physics article at me can consider it a red herring)
It goes further, examining specific diseases. "There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia." (pg 8) "The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher." (pg 11)
Note that the current safety standard is 933-1000 mG!
"Exposing humans to cell phone radiation can change brainwave activity at levels as low as 0.1 watt per kilogram SAR (W/Kg)*** in comparison to the US allowable level of 1.6 W/Kg and the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) allowable level of 2.0 W/Kg. It can affect memory and learning. It can affect normal brainwave activity. ELF and RF exposures at low levels are able to change behavior in animals." (pg 14)
"People who are chronically exposed to low-level wireless antenna emissions report symptoms such as problems in sleeping (insomnia), fatigue, headache, dizziness, grogginess, lack of concentration, memory problems, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), problems with balance and orientation, and difficulty in multi-tasking. In children, exposures to cell phone radiation have resulted in changes in brain oscillatory activity during some memory tasks. Although scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship; these complaints are widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed (Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Israel). For example, the roll-out of the new 3rd Generation wireless phones (and related community-wide antenna RF emissions in the Netherlands) caused almost immediate public complaints of illness.(5)" (pg 15)
reference 5 reads: TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory, The Netherlands. 2003. Effects of Global Communication System radio-frequency fields on well-being and cognitive functions of human beings with and without subjective complaints. Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research 1-63.
It goes on and on. The conclusions reached are that continuing in a business-as-usual fashion is going to have a profound effect on our well-being in the coming decades, and that precautionary measures must be taken, at the very least in response to the overwhelming number of complaints.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf
Good reads - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
{Undent} What you are asking us to do though is to engage in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because you are not satisfied with the methodology used in current research. This is not our place. We have to report that, based on current research, the cause of this condition appears to be psychological - because that is what extant peer-reviewed research supports. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)