Talk:Mobile phone radiation and health/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents

Reference Not Working Properly

Reference [1] no longer works properly and needs to be updated. 28/04/2009 20:33 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.244.250.67 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Compact, fixed size reference list

Excuse me for springing this on everyone, but I have added some code to the references section that creates a fixed-size reference listing with an elevator scroll bar. I think it is a good way to make a long reference list like ours display in a more compact fashion. It doesn't seem to affect cite templates, and clicking on reference links in the body text jumps a reader straight to the reference below (and vice-versa), even if that reference is not actively displayed in the elevator window at that moment. The change could be easily reverted if others do not like the approach. I saw the approach for the first time at Christian metal (don't ask …). Any comments? --papageno (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought scrolling reflists were deprecated as there were problems with accessibility on speech browsers? DWaterson (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha, see here for example, for previous consensus on this issue: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11#Template:Scrollref DWaterson (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mobile phone base station section

Current article mentions "no significant clustering" with regards to health effects at base stations. Yet, here is a recent article (April 22, 2007) regarding "Cancer clusters at phone masts" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687491.ece), and this report is not the first of its kind. Pensees (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's properly sourced, add it to the article. Badagnani (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That is not a research article - it is a newspaper article citing anecdotical stories as evidence. Please find a proper source. Mossig (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It reminds me of the recent "suicide clusters linked to mobile phones"[1], which falls at the very first hurdle - there was no suicide cluster! One of the worst science front page stories this year. It is also worth mentioning again, and I think this is in the article, that clustering to some extent is expected in a random distribution, and surveys do not show cause and effect. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: the Bridgend mast clusters, Ben Goldacre is still waiting for an answer off Roger Coghill as to the average distance from a mast that he compared the figures to. It's probably safe to conclude that the chance of them being caused by the phone mast is about as much as Ben getting an answer to the question. A shockingly insensitive story to run as well...but that's the Daily Express for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some papers out there that could be cited certainly: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16962663, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16621850, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12168254, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12948762) Topazg (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, also interesting is the WHO EMF database, which appears to have 10 papers on base stations and health effects - 2 appear to show no health effect and 8 appear to show an adverse health effect.
No health effect WHO EMF Study IDs: 144 (Catney et al, 2006 - PubMed), 289 (Schuz et al, 2006 - PubMed - Actually, this Schuz paper appears to be a misclassification, as it is looking at DECT phone base units on bedside tables instead of mobile phone base stations.)
Adverse health effect WHO EMF Study IDs: 560 (Bortkiewicz et al, 2004 - PubMed),772 (Santini et al, 2002 - PubMed),970 (Wolf et al, 2004 - Download),1122 (Navarro E, 2003 -- Can't find this one!),1226 (Eger et al, 2004 - Download),1463 (Oberfeld et al, 2008 - Download in German),1626 (Hutter et al, 2006 - PubMed),1645 (Abdel-Rassoul et al, 2007 - PubMed)
I'd be interested in getting hold of the Navarro ref, but it appears that the WHO EMF database has a rather one sided collection of papers pointing towards those finding an effect! Topazg (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

None of them "show" any effect Graham, as you well know. Selection bias, recall bias.. they're all there. Asking people who are concerned about living near a mast how they feel is a bit like asking turkeys to vote for christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Article from IHT to be integrated in the text

Rift delays release of study on safety of cellphones [2] MaxPont (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Interphone

Why hasn't anyone cited the interphone results from february? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144349.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.89.147 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is a primary source, and this article already has too many of those. There may be other reasons too. Update: It seems that this is reporting on an update of an as yet unfinished study. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Not really, Interphone is more of an unfinished project consisting of a number of already published studies which are already well cited in the article. The Israel paper (which is one of the Interphone project papers) linked in the first comment should really join the others currently in the article. I'll add it this week if I find the time to do it properly. Topazg (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Microwave News (http://www.microwavenews.com/) has some interesting commentary on Interphone.Pensees (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a forum for discussing the topic, but for improving the page. See WP:TALK. --Verbal (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudiger paper retraction

As outlined in this article, HW Rudiger, one of the participants in the review cited on EM effects has withdrawn the paper he published in 2008 (PMID 18278508) due to concerns over possible scientific misconduct. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with my reference

User Verbal has removed my reference of a news report for a University Study which indicates that Delta waves are affected by phone and wireless router radiation. This reference went well with the first sentence. Please see User:CyclePat/Currently Working On/template/reference/Leung, Maria for more details on this reference. The question: What's wrong with a news report. We use them all the time on Wikipedia. In fact, if we where to add a "popular media" section to this article, we would most likely be citing Television shows like Fringe (TV series) or the X-files. --CyclePat (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a University news website story about an unfinished study being performed by students as part of a course at the university. It has not been reported in any reliable news source or published in peer reviewed literature. That's 6 reasons why it shouldn't be included. The 7th is that it was a reference to your userpage. For a guide to reliable sources for medical articles, see WP:MEDRS. The X-Files should not be cited in this article without a very good reason, and I think I'd be against adding a "popular culture" section to a medical article. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Well... well done. I must agree! Except with my current reference methodology which utilises templates from my user page and really has nothing to do with the quality of the reference's content. I must indicate though that for a long time I've heard of many reports which have been discredited that deal with phone radation and health. I think, if there are any such reports (well known) that have been discredited, we should still mention them in the article as such!!! (of course as a minor POV). But I think that's something perhaps to discuss when and if it happens, right! --CyclePat (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nocebo / Causality / Clustering

Clearly I'm not in agreement with you on this Verbal, so I'll explain my reasoning :)

  • "It has been noted that these surveys do not show statistically significant clustering or causality". Ok, this may require citing, but I'm not sure if it adds anything. Significant clustering I disagree with, as it either doesn't make much sense (significance within the cluster itself of symptoms), or does make sense but is self-explanatory (significance of the cluster with regards to symptom clustering generally) as this will apply to any study looking at symptoms in a specific area. It is far too much detail for individual studies on this article, especially bearing in mind it doesn't add a great deal to the article content. Causality simply shouldn't be mentioned, having it in here does a poor show of presenting the information scientifically. There is no single study that could possibly demonstrate causality by itself, and to need to comment that these don't almost feels like a case of "protesting too much".
  • "those complaining of adverse symptoms may be displaying the nocebo effect, unless this is controlled in the study." Well, either it is controlled for or it isn't, in which case it should be stated explicitly. Having an ambiguous confounder without reference of citation is horribly unscientific. There's lots of things that any study may or may not have controlled for, you can't mention them all. Without some reference that would suggest it worth mentioning, this half of the sentence is just not notable, nor worth its place in the article. The double blind provocation studies on EHS also have (almost entirely) failed to control for the nocebo effect, which will have had a large impact on the outcome, but that isn't mentioned in any of the pages that talk about Rubin or Eltiti or many of the other studies of note.

I'm removing the sentence again for now. If you can find a citation that makes it notable _and_ contextually relevant, then obviously feel free to put it back. Without such a reference I think it is lowering the quality of the article, and making it appear less NPOV. topazg (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reposition Precautionary Measures

The opening section of the article has a detailed discussion of precautionary measures. I would like to propose that:

  • the text in the opening section be shortened to a summary like "However, some national radiation advisory authorities, have recommended measures to minimize exposure.";
  • a new top-level section be created called "Precaution", placed at the position of the current "Precautionary principle" top-level section.
  • This new top-level section would contain two sub-sections: the existing "Precautionary principle" top-level section, and a new sub-section called "Precautionary measures";
  • this new sub-section ("Precautionary measures") could then contain the full text about such measures currently found in the opening section of the article ("However, some national radiation advisory authorities,…stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.[12]").--papageno (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Verbal chat 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done The discussed changes have been made to the article.--papageno (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove Hospital Section

The final section about cell phones in hospitals contains no information concerning their effects on health. If the point of the section is to illustrate that hospitals ban cellphones for reasons unrelated to potential health effects, then it should be stated more clearly. Even then, that information could be summed up in one sentence without a need for its own section.24.214.165.199 (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is obviously biased

In this article, as well as other articles about radiation and health, there are several formulations that clearly suggest a subjective point of view rather than an objective scientific point of view. I can only speculate on reasons for this. However, noone can be sure about the long term health effects of mobile phone use after only ten or fifteen years. There will be no sufficiently reliable evidence for the health affects for at least fifty years from now.

An example of the many obviously biased formulations in this article is the following:


"Normal exposure to mobile phone radiation cannot cause headaches or dizziness, nor can it cause brain cancers, neurological effects or reproductive effects."

To say that radiation "cannot" cause something, e.g. headaches, is a very strong formulation for a scientific conclusion. Also, it is quite surely incorrect. Even if only one person would get only one headache that was caused by radiation, the conclusion is false.

I have a feeling these articles about radiation are influenced by someones hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.215.246 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


I'd recommend the comments above be removed for two reasons: 1., speculative accusation of hidden agendas is inappropriate. It is far more likely that there is a simple matter of inadequate editing and refining of the article to put all of it into the proper neutral encyclopedic tone. 2., the "example of obviously biased formulations in this article," is not, in fact, in this article. The comments have no longer bearing on the talk about the article, if they ever did (I have not checked the edit history to see if the quote was ever in the article.) -- anonymous


I also agree- there are many questionable sentences. For instance, the sentence "Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences.[41]" cites a single study, which, in the abstract states "at certain RF radiation exposure conditions, there were statistically significant increases in genotoxicity for some end points". If you say "reviews" and "generally concluded", you can't just cite a single review, which does not appear to "generally conclude" that RF is not genotoxic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.35.95 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is heavy on junk science. Radio waves are not the type of radiation known to cause health problems. The long tern effects of cell phone radiation on health can be predicted by comparing other sources of radio waves. People have worked with 20,000 watt radio transmitters since about the 1930s. Have they tested for higher than normal cancer rates? Analog phones using the 3.6 limit haven't been widely used in 10 years VS digital in the under 1 watt range. Cell phones running off a little battery produces about 1/20000th of a radio station. (TV is even higher powered.) Some studies have linked the thermal heating to an increased blood flow leading ability to think. (And the warming is on the same level as the heat from a Christmas tree bulb.) http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20035254-247.html#! Shouldn't the article include a history of the health effect claims include that the original study has been discredited by the medical journal that published it? So far any link from radio waves is so slight to not be something worth worrying about. 22yearswothanks (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

New ICNIRP Study released

While reading this article and Electromagnetic radiation and health, I came across a new study released (I believe this month) from the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection).

You can find the paper here.

The summary is as follows:

• The mechanisms by which RF exposure heats biological tissue are well understood and the most marked and consistent effect of RF exposure is that of heating, resulting in a number of heat-related physiological and pathological responses in human subjects and laboratory animals. Heating also remains a potential confounder in in vitro studies and may account for some of the positive effects reported.

• Recent concern has been more with exposure to the lower level RF radiation characteristic of mobile phone use. Whilst it is in principle impossible to disprove the possible existence of non-thermal interactions, the plausibility of various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low.

• Concerning cancer-related effects, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at SAR levels up to 4 W kg-1. With regard to in vitro studies of RF effects on non-genotoxic end-points such as cell signaling and gene/protein expression, the results are more equivocal, but the magnitudes of the reported RF radiation induced changes are very small and of limited functional consequence. The results of studies on cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis and cell transformation are mostly negative.

• There is some evidence of small changes in brain physiology, notably on spontaneous EEG, and somewhat more variable evidence of changes in sleep EEG and regional cerebral blood flow but these may be of limited functional consequence; no changes were seen in cognitive function. With regard to more general physiological end-points, the evidence suggests that there are no consistent effects of non-thermal RF exposures on cardiovascular physiology, circulating hormone levels or on auditory or vestibular function, except for the auditory perception of pulsed RF such as that characteristic of radar.

• The evidence from double-blind provocation studies suggests that subjective symptoms, such as headaches, that have been identified by some individuals as associated with RF exposure, whilst real enough to the individuals concerned, are not causally related to EMF exposure.

• The experimental data do not suggest so far that children are more susceptible than adults to RF radiation, but few relevant studies have been conducted.

• Studies of the effects of RF modalities such as high peak power pulses have been somewhat diverse and sporadic; no effects have been seen other than those associated with heating and with acoustic perception.



Anyhow, just thought I'd lend a hand for anyone who cares about this page.


Untilzero (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, a new SCENIHR opinion was released in 2009- available here: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_022.pdf There is no reason to cite the 2007 opinion when a more recent one available —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.35.95 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting Interphone report

I have just rolled back manually to revision 2009-10-29 19:38:52 by XLinkBot. The intervening changes were based on a Fox news article that itself was was based on a Telegraph article. That Telegraph article just reiterates information that has been released to date, but it does not quote from the actual Interphone final report. Perhaps it is sensible to await the publishing of that report. The Telegraph article does suggest the final version of the Interphone report has been submitted for publishing in a journal before the end of the year. I am hopeful it will prove interesting, given how long it has been in preparation! I thus did make one small change to the text from the base XLinkBot version: that the report is expected "before the end of the year", changed from "October 2009". --papageno (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the good faith edit by Daviddaniel37 (talk). No such announcement by the WHO has been made (check WHO The International EMF Project). All news reports are based on the Telegraph article mentioned above. However, the research paper on the Interphone report has not yet been published in a scientific journal (or even peer-reviewed). It would seem sensible, good science and good WP technique (per WP:MEDRS#Definitions) to base our edits here on "…published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible." (emphasis is mine) I think it is safe to say that the editors interested in this page have awaited the final Interphone report for months, years even; waiting a few more weeks for the official journal text does not seem like a burden. --papageno (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

FOX News is an established news source. It would not misquote the WHO. While we wait for the exact words in the report, it is wiser to update the WHO's position as the current position is quite contrary to the old one and it is deceptive to state the WHO's current position incorrectly when we know better. --daviddaniel37 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

FOX news is not a WP:MEDRS. We should wait for the report or for a medical RS to report on this. Wikipedia is not news, we should o with established RS, and so far the WHO have not publicly altered their position. Verbal chat 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We both know they have changed their position. The WHO have publicly altered their position when they released this information to FOX News. --daviddaniel37 (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The WHO does not make statements through FOX. Please provide a MEDRS, or just wait for the WHO to publicly announce this or for the report to be published. There is no rush. The WHO website has not changed, and there are no new reports that I see. Verbal chat 16:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Popular press; when the research is published, we can see how they present their conclusions. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the findings of the interphone effort have been published by both IARC and WHO:

[3][4]

Anders Ahlbom of the Karolinska Institute, Sweden, epidemiologist and member of the WHO Task Group, provided overviews of the scientific evidence :

[5]

It is certainly true that most documents regarding these correlations are careful to mention that it could be due to bias', but they do not fail to mention that there is a statistically significant correlation in regards to the data. Unomi (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thr Karolinksa Institute have been pushing this view for years it should be added. There's no real suprises in this. GimpyFauxHippy (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank Unomi for the comments. The whole point of the Interphone effort was to get as great a conclusive power as possible from collecting as much data as possible from the pooling of national studies. So while nations' individual studies and partially pooled results are interesting, it is the sum total that should be the most revealing. The citations above would seem to leave out the research efforts from more than half the nations involved in the Interphone project (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and New Zealand). I am no insider, but various reports seem to suggest that the process of pooling has been very challenging (a euphemism!) for the researchers involved, and, combined with methodological issues revealed over the course of the project (for example, the recall bias cited above), the cause of much delay in the release of the final report. It will be interesting to see the final language used. PS The ELF and leukemia information is not relevant to the Mobile phone health discussion. --papageno (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

More stringent standards

I have renamed the Adequacy of Current Standards section to a more neutral "More Stringent Standards". I have removed the lead phrase in that section "The controversial question …" which is POV. I have removed the duplicated Salzburg Resolution information in Base Stations and left it in the More Stringent Standards section. I have updated the reference for the Salzburg resolution to that of the conference. I have added a reference for one nation with a more stringent standard (Switzerland; a two-tier standard, actually). If anyone can provide links to the official standards bodies of other nations with more stringent standards, perhaps they can be added to the existing reference (IE, "For example, Switzerland … Also, Nation 2 with standards REF Nation 3 with standards REF, etc.). I think we should also add a sentence along the lines "Studies of exposures in the real world have shown average values of [whatever the studies show, but typically orders of magnitude below current standards]". --papageno (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cell Phone Exposure and Alzheimer’s

Re the Florida Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center study. This is the only study … of just 96 subjects … and they were mice … about mobile phone RF having a protective effect as regards Alzheimer’s. There is nothing in the most up-to-date comprehensive review, the EU SCENIHR 2009 update, about mobile phone RF and Alzheimer’s (just a bit of early research on ELF and Alzheimer’s). The Florida study is extremely preliminary science, needs replication / confirmation, and does not yet belong in the article, let alone in the article lead. It should be removed. --papageno (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There's quite a bit on ELF and Alzheimer's now, either directly (see recent Garcia review) or by powerline proxy (Huss 2009), but that's a separate issue for a separate article. For mobile phones there is very little, although there are a few human exposure studies showing that cellphone radiation (or cellphone simulated radiation) have positive effects on cognitive performance (Preece 2005, Edelstyn 2002, Krause 2000(1), Krause 2000(2), Koivisto 2000(1), Koivisto 2000(2)). topazg (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done The item has been removed from the article. --papageno (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It really depends if you are talking about modulated or unmodulated signals. The microwave/alzheimer's studies are in question because they supposedly involve unmodulated signals. Secondly we need to balance 2 different mechanisms-- on the one hand microwaves may increase acetylcholine which can have temporary benefits on brain functioning. On the other hand, by another mechanism, microwaves can lead to cell death/apoptosis, possibly due to increased free radicals by the fenton cycle, which can lead to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. 68.192.155.72 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The positions expressed by 68.192.155.72 are not supported by cumulative scientific research. --papageno (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WHO and Precautionary Approach

The text of the section Precaution, sub-section Precautionary principle says the WHO has "…recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case." However, the WHO reference given says something quite different: "The above considerations suggest that a cautionary policy for EMF should be adopted only with great care and deliberation. The requirements for such a policy as outlined by the European Commission do not appear to be met in the case of either power or radio frequency EMF; however other related policies, such as Prudent Avoidance, may be justified." The sub-section should be re-written. --papageno (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Common criticism: Follow the money

I've heard it argued many times that many of the studies which don't reveal a compelling causality link between mobile phones and genotoxicity/cancer/etc. are financed by mobile phone lobbyists, or "the industry" and are therefore not to be trusted. I have never found this line of argument convincing, not least of it because this kind of reductio makes the people making it sound at least as biased as they are trying to make these studies out to be. It always swings both ways.

But I was still interested if it was true. Is it? The article doesn't mention this, and maybe it shouldn't, seeing as it is an encyclopedic article and not an explicit handbook for these kinds arguments. But do metastudies even consider these kinds of money-trails or is the data just interpreted at face-value? I am thinking of the Benveniste-Nature debacle. — Mütze (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is some evidence for bias. See http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050711_industry.asp
"In 36 studies focused on genetic effects, such as DNA damage, 53 per cent showed some kind of biological effect that might indicate concern. Of those studies, a vast majority — 79 per cent — were independent. Conversely, studies showing no effects had direct industry funding 82 per cent of the time."
Conflict of interest is a big problem. See http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1797826
"…the only factor that strongly predicted the reporting of statistically significant effects was whether or not the study was funded exclusively by industry."
Supposedly studies with mixed funding would be better, but then again, Interphone seems an exception. Please see http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/reasons_us.pdf "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone" and conflicts of interest issues: http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf
The same thing happened with the tobacco industry. The majority of industry-funded studies found no effects whereas the majority of non-industry-funded studies found effects. No surprise here. -- Pensees (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
In the only primary study reference above (Huss et al 2009) did not find conflict of interest. It found an (in the words of the authors) "association" between funding an negative outcome in the case of the 59 studies examined. In their discussion, the authors say "Although we have shown an association between sponsorship and results, it remains unclear which type of funding leads to the most accurate estimates of the effects of radiofrequency radiation" and conclude "The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account." [Aside: I agree. I think the most shocking thing about the article is that funding was not given in a portion of the articles examined.] Furthermore, no conflicts of interest have been demonstrated that have led to the modification of research results, nor the retraction of any papers. The only EMF papers I am aware of that have been called into question for serious ethical reasons are from the Rüdiger group at the University of Vienna. See: Adventures in Science and Ethics blog posting; article in the journal Science (August 2008). The research called into question was publicly funded by the EU. To include text alluding to an association in the lead of the article, like that in a recent good faith edit, especially with text referring to the tobacco industry, whose research was discredited directly as faulty and where serious ethical lapses have been demonstrated, is Poisoning the well. Finally, at a point where many decades of research have been concluded, a majority of major public health authorities in the world (International - WHO, supranational- EU SCENIHR, national authorities) have all taken positions that EMF and health effects below regulatory guidelines are not demonstrated by current science, as opposed to the tobacco case where health authorities were swiftly campaigning against tobacco. --papageno (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have not read through all the references, but I would expect that good-faith studies would learn from the mistakes and limitations of earlier studies. Thus, to simply count the number of studies funded by industry vs. those that are ostensibly independent seems flawed; some accounting of how recent the study was, and the extent to which it discussed limitations of earlier studies and tried to overcome those limitations, seems necessary. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The Huss article abstract says "Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a statistically significant result". This is to be expected. Thus, the analysis by Henry Lai, is very important.Isa58 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
If you are going to add this you will need to follow WP:WEIGHT. You can't just add it to the lede - that is giving it excessive weight. Also see papageno's comment above regarding the tobacco industry. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
User Isa58's comments do not address the points I have raised above.--papageno (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The World Health Organization recognizes EMHS and the symptoms experience, but disavows the theory that the symptoms are related to / caused by RF exposure.[6] I also found this secondary study in the process, indicating a need to recognize it and study it for what it is.[7]and look, its on pubmed too (even though MEDRS doesn't require anything about pubmed in sources). Not sure how much this contributes, but its my usual case of dropping off a few studies for analysis. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say the "study" looks like pretty thin gruel. A page at most of text, from someone who never before and never again published anything? That aside, I would say it is now outdated: the plea for more research has been answered, leading to the WHO (and others) characterization of EHS not being caused by RF. And aside, you are correct that WP:MEDRS has no explicit language about Pubmed. However, it does require sources to be reputable and reliable, and journals not indexed in Pubmed are highly suspect on those dimensions. And this is borne out: the self-published Ramazzini Institute stuff, including, for example, Ms. Havas most recent "study", do not show up. --papageno (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Related request for comment

I have initiated a request for comments concerning the links added by User:Jojo129 to the article Electromagnetic radiation and health. Jojo129 has added the same links to this article, and I believe outcome of the RfC should apply equally to both articles. Please comment at Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health#Biased links in improper format, improper rich media. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference for the EPA criticism of the IEEE/FCC standard?

Hi -- is there a reference for the sentence: "The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ called this revised standard "seriously flawed", partly for failing to consider non-thermal effects, and called for the FCC to adopt the 1986 NCRP standard which was five times stricter." Thanks (anon for now, it's a long story, thanks)

The reference is from B.Blake Levitt, Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, Page 34
"The EPA has called the revised ANSI/IEEE standard "seriously flawed" and has questioned its ability to protect the public's health and safety. The agency specifically cited the standard's failure to recognize nonthermal effects and its different limits for "controlled" and "uncontrolled" environments, which are not directly applicable to general exposure." and also "The EPA has called on the FCC to adopt instead the 1986 NCRP exposure limits" Pensees (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A new article to add

Hi,

There is a report on a new (large scale) study on cancer and mobile phones: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/17/2901641.htm

But I can't find the original article to add reference to it, any one willing to try and search ? Talgalili (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the article which User:Hadolaven added and for which I cleaned up the markup. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
exactly what I was looking for - many thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talgalili (talkcontribs) 06:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

This addition of an external link by User:Vegasciencetrust seems to be a conflict of interest. Rather than revert it, I will remove the conflict by endorsing the link because it is interesting and useful. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be interesting, but it doesn't seem relevant to the subject. Verbal chat 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it isn't relevant. It gives people unfamiliar with electrical measurements an intuitive grasp of the amount of power involved. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Radiation Absorbtion

What is that reference to UVA doing in there? At present it just points to a disambiguation, and it's not clear which (if any) of the UVA articles it should be connected to. Mobile phones don't put out any UVA radiation, right? --Lhames (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no possible ultraviolet emission in mobile phones. "UVA" could be trying to express a field strength in microvolts, µV, but that's not clear. I deleted the UVA reference.--Albany45 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaky feeders and health

As it has been announced that the Channel Tunnel will be given mobile coverage using leaky feeder technology[8] I wonder whether anyone knows where to look for information about the safety of this implementation? __meco (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaky feeder cable is just like many small, low power atennas. It operates under the same principles as any other antenna. There are no special health concerns above those that might already exist for other situations.--papageno (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Letters to the journal editor are not valid evidence

Letters to the editor are not WP:MEDRS. A slew of letters to the journal editor that were cited as references were removed from this article some time ago, since one could add letters for every journal article cited. I have reverted User Isa58's addition of such a letter as a reference and the text that was supported from the "Health hazards of base stations" section.--papageno (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Another report

This is a report that I was emailed today. I don't know the qualifications of those involved.If it's worth adding to article as valid research, then somebody might like to do this. The field of mobile phone health risks seems full of urban myths and general misinformation.Thanks for any scientific response. emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2011/04/25/important-information-on-the-biological-effects-of-cell-phones-and-wireless-technologies.aspx [Unreliable fringe source?] Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a natural health website aggregating several clinical trials (primary sources). It's also aggregating the conclusions of advocacy websites. The author is Joseph Mercola, a fringe advocate who doesn't have a reputation for accuracy in medical stuff. This doesn't look a secondary source that could pass WP:MEDRS.
(btw, is it misrepresenting the conclusions of the Chinese trial? (from abstract) Overall, the frequency of cellular phone use was not significantly associated with epithelial parotid gland malignancy.) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism - lead section

Obvious vandalism to the lead section, and the article is currently linked by the English Wikipedia frontpage. Would someone with more wiki experience than me sort it out please? 86.16.116.148 (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Someone reverted it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cellphone head sar 1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Cellphone head sar 1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

World Health Organization (WHO) 'report' 31 May 2011

The lead para says "The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report on 31 May 2011 ...". Which seems to me to be innacurate as it was 'only' a press release detailing the findings. The press release says (Conclusions, p.2)
"A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online."
It may be better to say "released the findings of a report on 31 May 2011 ..."? Until the report is published in the Lancet? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 21:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In parallel with my comments at Talk:Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health#WHO_IARC_pronouncement, I would like to propose that the IARC matter be included here with a brief summary, but that any text be referenced only directly to IARC release on the IARC web site or WHO web site, not to news or to other third party sites. When the journal article appears in Lancet Oncolgy in a few days, we can review what is presented there and discuss any changes at that time. What do people think? If this proposal is accepted, I will propose some brief text to be included in the lead now; when the journal article appears, we can then draft more detailed text to include in the Cancer sub-section as well. --papageno (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Should the IARC/WHO press release really get so much space in the lead? Its not the "ultimate" conclusion. The IARC classification was mainly triggered by Interphone study, which itself concluded, that with the exception of the "highest exposure levels" "no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phone" had been found. What about a more balanced lead? I am for changing the lead (this article is anyway not only about cancer) and moving a short note of the WHO press release to the cancer section, until further evalution had been made and the report has been fully published.StoneProphet (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Today's La Vanguardia is carrying all the criticism against the report. Pages 2 and 3. It also says that the study used in the report was funded partially by phone companies, but that they had taken care that the origin of the funding didn't affect the outcome. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed text re this issue at Talk:Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health#WHO_IARC_pronouncement, comment at 20:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC). I suggest that we use the same text in both articles in the interest of economy and consistency. Please view the proposal there, and make any comments or suggestions there. The proposed text will be placed in the lead of this article, and all other text in the lead and elsewhere in the article regarding the IARC issue will be deleted. I will also add a warning box to the top of the article that re the IARC issue, the text as is was the result of Talk consensus. Does this make sense? --papageno (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
What about simply putting your proposal in the "cancer" subsection of this page (where already lots of different studies and opions have been added), and keeping the lead neutral? In the line like that "possible hazards of mobile phone radiations are disputed", with different classifications of the danger in different international organisations, but that there is no ultimate proof and enough evidence for either side and research ist still onoging? StoneProphet (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I added your proposal into the cancer section and changed the lead according to the arguments i pointed out. I hope thats ok. StoneProphet (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The WHO's press release opens with this summarizing paragraph: "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use."
What is the problem with quoting and citing their release? Yes, they will release their full report shortly (the release says it will be online "in a few days," not only July 1 as now incorrectly stated above and in the article). But they have already released this statement. Yes, let's avoid editorializing it, and avoid citing media interpretations. But what could be wrong with citing the WHO's own release? How is it "balanced" to state "Whether mobile phone radiation is a hazard for human health is disputed," which is an unattributed conclusion? "No definitive conclusion about the health risks of mobile phone radiation has been made" is true, but isn't the whole truth. It's also true that the WHO/IARC has classified the radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans. So, shouldn't the lead say both things? Is Wikipedia merely a summary of "proven" things, and not a place for reporting what respected bodies have specifically reported to the public? Most of the article is statements of things unproven. Should all those statements be removed as well? The article is about phone radiation and health. When the WHO/IARC officially states that phone radiation is possibly carcinogenic to humans, and emphasizes the importance of the "potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," that's very relevant to the subject of the article.
The statements in the WHO/IARC release are a lot stronger than merely "no conclusion has been reached." Now the article spends many paragraphs right at the top of the article reporting on older reports that didn't draw links, burying much further down the most recent report, which does draw a link. This seems to be an editing bias against citing reports on the hazard in favor of citing reports on the lack of hazard. 24.215.141.102 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
In before somebody states that the single WHO source is undue weight versus all the industry-fundedscientific studies. Th IP above has put it quite correct. We don't need an official report to qualify for MEDRS. The World Health Organization is THE highest source for anything related to health; they have stated there is a possible link, this article should also state that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Then I'll try a brief mention in a few words, just the main summary, as this summary has been officially stated by the WHO/IARC and is a significant, unambiguous statement, and much more recent than most of the other citations in this article. The classification has been officially made, and announced. The press release is in regards to a report that has been completed, and the summary of the report's findings is explicitly clear in the press release, and explicitly in regards to wireless phones and health, the subject of this article. Citation converted to press release per LeadSongDog. 24.215.141.102 (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
@IP: "Possible link", does simply mean "we dont know whether it is yes or no". It does not mean "likly" or "probably" (that would be classification 2A). This is exactly the scientific consensus prevailing since the large scale introduction of mobile phones. Therefore there was nothing wrong with the old lead, because it gives now too much overweight to a simple press release about one only of the hazards described in the article. StoneProphet (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The WHO/IARC's own release states the situation more strongly than your interpretation. They state that there are consequences for the public health of their findings. They don't say "we don't know whether it is yes or no." They are a respected institution and they are making a particular statement, with some strength, based on scientific research. The summary of their findings is quoted in the article. It important enough for the lead because it's a significant organization stating an increased risk over previous findings, and extremely recently. The conclusion quoted in the lead doesn't overstate it, it merely briefly says what they said. It doesn't claim the report said "probably." 24.215.141.102 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats simply wrong. They are talking about "potentiel conseqences", IF there is a link between cancer and mobile phone radiation. But there IS still no proof against or for this claim and _because_ of that it is classified as 2B. "Possible" simply means that they have no proof for the link, but also cant rule it out. If they would have some evidence for a conclusion that mobile phone radion causes cancer, they would classify it as 2A or higher. On the 2B list we even have coffee or vegetables. StoneProphet (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Semantics and WP:SYNTHESIS, pure and simple. Nobody is advocating putting "mobile phones cause cancer" into the article. We are advocating putting essentially the verbatim conclusion presented by the WHO. The fact that little proper and independent research has been done and that no conclusive link has been reached either way is a red herring, as we aren't here to develop our own secondary conclusions of the sources available. We are here to present the information presented in those sources. Right now, the trump card of MEDRS sources is stating that there is a possible link (which, I might add, if they have reached this conclusion, there is obviously a lot of research on either side of the table which they have spent several years, as qualified medical scientists, reviewing). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This is about weightning. You are putting a non published WHO report about cancer in the lead of a page dealing with numerous topics aside of cancer, and which also presents numerous studies which come to indifferent results regarding the possibility of a link between mobile phone radiation and cancer. Whats the problem with putting the WHO report where it belongs - in the cancer section to the other findings and reports dealing with cancer? StoneProphet (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The WHO has far more weight than any of the other studies in the fact that its a world consortium of scientists. What the WHO says essentially IS the prevailing scientific consensus. Systemic bias is widespread in EMF related topics because of what is at stake, but there is no way that a handful of studies, each by three or four scientists, can outweigh a conclusion (whether the paper detailing the methodology is released yet is again irrelevant; the conclusion is what is important, and we have that) by hundreds of scientists collectively reviewing, almost certainly, all the sources that are in this article and hundreds more. The WHO study is also more recent, which gives it even more sway over conclusions released two or three years ago. Finally, I do not agree with merely hiding it in the cancer section, as this is directly related to this entire topic, is a very serious announcement, and is very contradictory to the conclusions thus far: The most reliable source we have has just declared that these may cause health issues, when tonnes of sources contradict that. That is lead-worthy in my opinion. Everything else is pulling at straws to resist admitting that there is some possibility that bombarding your head with constant EM energy isn't going to make us healthier. We have now gone from "there has been no conclusive evidence of" to "there is a possibility of". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

() Your head is being bombared with constant EM energy, period. Cell phones do increase the dose, but sitting in front of your computer editing wikipedia also increases your dose. "There has been no conclusive evidence of" is still absolutely true, it's just previously the classification was "there has been no evidence of, period." The epidemiological evidence also flies in the face of common sense: if cell phones routinely caused gliomas, we'd have a huge epidemic because the ratio of cell phones to humans is pretty disturbing. Honestly, for all the doubts I have about the truth of the link, it is something we should mention in the lead because it's a big part of the public perception. From a "customer service" standpoint to our readers, a single line in the lead seems appropriate. SDY (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The process would be akin to tobacco; cell phones have only been around for 25 years, and only really exploded about 10-15 years ago, so things can only get worse as the cell phone using population ages. The people that can't take detach their blackberries from 1/2 an inch away from their brain are going to be the guinea pigs of our social experiment. But I digress, as this is just my thought process on the matter. Before it was no conclusion, now it is possibly conclusive. The risk factor has been upped, so the article should reflect this change in stance by the world's scientists. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The WHO is a UN body. It is not "the world's scientists", or even the world's medical scientists (any more than the IMF represents the world's economists). It is not a scientific academy or society.
Further, it is wrong to say "Before it was no conclusion, now it is possibly conclusive. The risk factor has been upped". The position hasn't changed as a result of this press release, it just says that statistically, it's possible that there is an effect. However, this still has to contend with the fact that the WHO have only ever labelled one item as non-carcinogenic, so the fact that mobiles have gone in the "possible" category shouldn't come as shock, and it has to contend with the fact that there is no physical mechanism that microwave radiation could cause cancer - the WHO looked at the statistical evidence, not the physical evidence. 163.1.150.29 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Read again more carefully what 2B means, the only thing that it concludes is that a link is possible. It goes on to say that the link may very well be pure coincidence. We should report the classification, of course, but reporting it as a major change is misleading: both 3 and 2B mean "not enough data to make a conclusion." SDY (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the lead a bit, relying more on formulations used by the WHO itself to emphasize more what this "possibly carcinogenic" means. Nevertheless i am still against to have this in the lead. StoneProphet (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This latest edit interprets the WHO's conclusion via selective quoting. The article now says
'...possibly carcinogenic. That means that there "could be some risk", but "chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence."'
That only selectively quotes from their release, when their summary paragraph is far clearer as to their own intentions. The previous edit quoted their summary paragraph, which was very clear. Here is that summary in its entirety:
'The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.'
The current edit does not communicate this. The current edit even only selectively defines "possibly carcinogenic," and then misapplies the definition of "limited evidence" to what "possibly carcinogenic" means, thus making an incorrect statement. The release said:
'the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk'
and also claimed that the evidence was limited, defining that as
'A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.'
So, the current edit communicates something very different from the WHO's own conclusion. And nothing about the previous edit claimed this was a "major change" or a "shock." The previous edit communicated everything the summary of the WHO's release communicated, and no more than that. 24.215.141.26 (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You are throwing the "results", which deals with the evidence itself (which is "limited"), and the "conclusion" of the IARC (2B - possibly carcinogenic, "could be some risk" and so on) together, misapplying the explanations for the different types of evidences with the definitions of the hazard groups. You cant use the generic definition of "limited evidence" as "conclusion" for the cancer risk, especially when there is indeed a conclusion by the IARC itself, because this way you are making your own conclusion. Its not our part to conclude the results by ourself, per WP:SYNTH. Thats why the old version (to which i reverted) simply quoted the IARC conclusion, which must be enough for the lead. With the full report released one can make further additions and explanations, but then in the cancer subsection. There is also no selective quoting in the old version, thats exactly the conclusion of the IARC in this release, without throwing sentences and definitions from different sections of the release together. StoneProphet (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The edit StoneProphet just reverted didn't do any of the things just described. This description appears to apply to StoneProphet's own edit. Can somebody explain why the previous edit was reverted? It gave the conclusion from the report, directly quoted, and without interpretation. It further included the WHO's qualification about the evidence being limited, again directly quoted. It did all this in very few words, appropriate for the lead. StoneProphet's edit is an interpretation, linking aspects from WHO's release together as though each "means" the next, and is also less informative (since their actual conclusion is very specific, dealing with and ONLY with an increased risk for glioma). In the article, StoneProphet's edit quotes half of the generic definition of "limited evidence" and then claims it is part of the definition of "possibly carcinogenic," which is incorrect. My edit quoted both halves of the "limited evidence" definition and then said exactly what it was: the definition of limited evidence. But on the talk page, StoneProphet is claiming that my edit is applying the definition of limited evidence to the conclusion. Something is amiss.
Considering that the edit StoneProphet reverted (again) was brief, factual, and only directly and fully quoted the WHO's own conclusion, it is hard to understand how Wikipedia's standards are being followed by this revert. Reverting from a revision that had a brief, comprehensive, factual quote from a significant release by the WHO, to a version that contains re-interpretation, and leaving out important aspects of the report, doesn't make sense. This is an article about cell phone radiation and health. The WHO has made a clear statement about this very thing, and more recently than anyone else. It's very significant. The edit had no original research. It had a neutral point of view. It was 100% verifiable. How to justify StoneProphet's repeatedly reverting? 24.215.141.26 (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats simply wrong and it seems to me that you deliberatly do not want to understand that. You were messing around with generic definitions to make your own conclusion about the statistical results, while leaving the IARC conclusion out. The old version simply quotes the IARC conclusion. No selective quoting. No use of generic definitions. No original research, just the main sentences in the IARC press release under the heading "conclusion". Accusing my version of OR, while in fact it is yours which is messing around with definitions to insert your own conclusion is ridiculous. If you want to use the "result" section of the press release too, then you HAVE to use the IARC conclusion and NOT your own conclusion drawn from the generic definition for limited evidence.
To bring this senseless argument to an end, here is the concrete conclusion of the IARC:
Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. "
Well and thats exactly what is in the lead and belongs in there, because this _is_ their conclusion. If you really want to add definitions into the article, then add them in the place were they belong, into the cancer subsection. The lead is only a summary of the article and not the place for widespread definitions and explanations. StoneProphet (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Then it sounds like the best thing is to use the lead paragraph of the WHO's release in the lead paragraph of this article. Here again is the entirety of the lead paragraph of the WHO's release, no words added or removed:
"The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use."
Seems sensible to have that sentence in the lead of this article. It's the most summarizing and self-contained sentence in the entire release; hence, it's the lead of the release, before the detail sections below it. Talk posts above have agreed. 24.239.161.64 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Its a press release. Thats anyway only a summary. So we can directly move to the most essential part of it, its conclusion section. This also has the advantage, that it explains somehow what 2B means, instead of going into detail on which statistical findings this is based (which belongs into the article). Talk post above have spoken for only a very short reference to this release (if at all), like i did too. StoneProphet (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was published yesterday, in the online version of The Lancet Oncology: "Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" @ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70147-4/fulltext 24.42.75.161 (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

External links - conflict of interest

User Vicky fobel added in good faith an external link to an organization MobileWise of which she is a trustee, a conflict of interest. The link does not add to anything already stated in the article and attributed to more medically reliable sources and I have removed it again from the article. Since User Vicky fobel appears to be a new WP editor, I have left a detailed (and I hope useful and friendly) comment on her talk page. --papageno (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Thermal Effects section needs work

I have a couple of problems with the Non-Thermal Effects section. First, the lead paragraph talks about modulation of the signal. What does this have to do with non-thermal effects? It seems non sequitur.

Secondly, to mention them as "so-called" and to put "non-thermal effects" in quotes is to somehow give the reader the impression that there is some doubt about the legitimacy of the term "non-thermal effects." In fact, simply web-search for "non-thermal effects of microwaves" and you will find many peer-reviewed journal articles dating back to the 1950's and 1960's, studying the phenomenon of non-thermal effects of 2450 MHz microwave radiation on chemical reactions, microorganisms, and other processes/systems. For example, it is well-accepted that microwave exposure can cause acceleration of organic chemical reactions that cannot be accounted for simply by macroscopic temperature rise. The mechanism involved is thought to be polar alignment of reacting species (if I have that terminology correct). Similarly, destruction of microorganism's ability to reproduce on inoculated bread was shown to be dramatic after microwave exposure, and no such reduction was shown when the product was simply heated to the same temperatures.

There is nothing "voodoo" about non-thermal effects. We should not somehow mislead the reader into thinking there is any doubt about the existance of non-thermal effects, but rather, that there may be no firm conclusions regarding the significance of non-thermal effects of cell phone radiation in the health of humans (or other living systems).

Finally, the third paragraph of the section seems to go on to talk about "stress proteins" in a way that is similarly seems disconnected from the discussion of non-thermal effects and without adequate introduction or explanation.

I am hoping someone sincerely interested in the topic of non-thermal effects will give the section a re-write. JoGusto (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

4.3 billion mobile users?

This figure is laughable. The reference link is dead, too. Someone do the math... 123.98.132.13 (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

2 corrections and 1 revision

The first paragraph of the article incorrectly states that mobile phones use the microwave frequency; changed to radio frequency. The other correction is part of the revision; the number of active cell phone subscriptions as of Feb 2012 is 5.9 million. Just for reference, the International Telecommunications Union www.itu.int/ict keeps the official count. This will be included in he revision to the Thermal Effects Section. With all due respect to the contributor, he entire section is inadequate and technically incorect and incomplete. --Drfrankv (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo,
i reverted your change from Microwave to radio frequency. The Microwave range is the radio range covering the frequencies between 300 MHz and 300 GHz, and all the mobile phone systems that I know work in this range. Anyway, if you know some system which work outside this range, please mention them and we can change the affected sentence. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow contributor,
I understand that you may have had the best intentions in making the reversion. This is not a matter for argument. I do have one question and some information for you to consider. First, when you mention that we can change the affected sentence, who is we? Is there a editorial panel or committee that one should send revisions to for approval request that they make the change? If so, then I apologize for not following protocol and kindly request any instruction as to how to contact them, as I can't seem to find any reference to this. Second. about the microwaves; The words radio frequency and microwave are commonly used in an interchangeable manner by the media and the public, primarily because there is a specific bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum that both types of electromagnetic energy share, the radiofrequency width of the spectrum includes those frequencies ranging from 10MHz to 300 GHz and the microwave width of the spectrum includes those frequencies from 300MHz to 300GHz. Cell phones use the 700-850 MHz width and the 1700-1850 MHz width. Radio frequency waves and microwaves share a segment of the em spectrum, but they are two distinctly different types of waves and it is the wave that distinguishes between the two. radio waves are longer than microwaves and are omnidirectional. Microwaves are shorter than radio frequency waves and are unidirectional, which is why they are only used in point to point systems like FMS and POFS. To avoid argument or discussion, it would be simpler to refer to the regulatory authority on the electromagnetic spectrum, the FCC. Please review the FCC regulations at [9] [10] [11] and [12]. I you have any information that the FCC is not aware of, you may contact them, otherwise the use of the word microwave is technically incorrect. As a courtesy, I will wait 24 hours for any input on this issue. Please remember that this is not my opinion, it is the verifiable reality. Thank you. --Drfrankv (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
By we he means himself, yourself, and anyone else who's paying attention. Can you please give the specific change you have in mind and quote directly from your references to make it clear for everyone. I presume you have a change in mind, since you've given a 24 hour deadline. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The references provided by User Drfrankv do not support any contention that the text should be changed from microwaves. The WP article on microwaves gives the boundaries as 300 MHz to 300 GHz, with some other definitions beginning instead at 1 GHz. All frequencies used for mobile telephony — around the world in various bands at 800, 900, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100 and 2400 Mhz (and maybe even more) — fall within this range. “Microwave” is the correct term. I believe User Drfrankv may be confused by the uses to which microwaves and other radio waves are put; for example, microwave links are direct, line of sight links using highly directional antennas; and two-way radiocommunications uses frequencies in VHF, as well as UHF and 800, the latter two which fall into the microwave part of the spectrum. --papageno (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Drfrankv's distinctions don't really exist. Microwaves are radio waves. Some radio waves are microwaves. FCC documents are not especially useful because they use terms in the context of what they regulate. Their definitions do not necessarily correspond to general use in science and engineering. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There is not much to say besides what our friends wrote above. This is a problem of definition. If you are not happy with the definition of Microwaves given on Wikipedia, I suggest you to go on the discussion page of the Microwaves article and to open a discussion there about the used range. A last word about "we": "we" is the community: me, you and the other contributors. Consensus here is reached through discussion. A lengthy process maybe, but the only one possible in an open project as Wikipedia. Alex2006 (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. It is clear beyond a doubt, that I am out of my league in attempting a dialogue here, so I withdraw from further attempts at communications as I withdraw any contributions I may have had in mind. My apologies for the intrusion. I offer my best regards. If I may, I would humbly leave a parting thought for contemplation: Has anyone notified the WHO that the press release issued on May 31, 2011 is incorrect and that if their intent was to classify the the electromagnetic fields that mobile phones generate, they should have listed microwave electromagnetic fields and not radiofrequency electromagnetic fields? Similarly, the expediency with which my one word contribution was eradicated and rather than accepting an invitation to a dialogue, 3 people who have no idea who I am and what I may be able to contribute showed up within a day to point out how wrong I am and how right you are. It seems almost unfair to allow the FCC to go this long publicly displaying an official explanation on how mobile phone work that includes the statement they use radio waves and that they convert the sound of your voice to radiofrequency waves. --Drfrankv (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Did anyone let them know that they are wrong, according to you?? User Jc3s5h did not hesitate in saying that my distinctions don't exist and that FCC documents are not especially useful because they are used in terms in the context of what they regulate. The regulate the entire electromagnetic spectrum; their definitions absolutely correspond and apply to general use, science and engineering. User Quilche believes that I am confused, among other things. I submit to you, without insult or prejudice that you read what you wrote to me, and think about who is confused. User TippyGoomba, I thank you for the civility in your reply. In response to our question, I changed one word in the first paragraph; I changed microwave to radiofrequency because microwave is incorrect, and I am most definitely paying attention. Best of luck to you all. Good-bye.
I think you may be confused. Nobody here is saying that mobile phones don't use radio waves. What we are saying is that microwaves are just a subset of radio waves, and mobile phones always use microwaves. It would be just as correct to say 'mobile phones use radio waves', but it is better to say 'microwaves' as that gives more information. I think you are incorrect in saying that 'microwaves are unidirectional'. They are only unidirectional if you use a unidirectional antenna. It is easier to do that with microwaves due to the small wavelength. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Council of Europe resolution

The Council of Europe resolution recently added here is not a scientific paper, but is a political statement, in my opinion relevant to the article, since it attests the widespread health concerns in Europe deriving from the diffusion of wireless technologies. Therefore it cannot be canceled appealing to WP:MEDRS. Alex2006 (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hum, you could create a separate section for government positions. Similar to Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health#Positions_of_governments_and_scientific_bodies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not support the creation of this section with the Council of Europe (COE) resolution as the single supporting text for a number of reasons. (1) The COE is neither a government or scientific body, so the parallel with the article on electromagnetic radiation is inapt. It is also not a leading body on health or electromagnetic radiation research. (2) The resolution itself is not supported by any of those leading bodies like the WHO, the FCC, the NIH, the EU Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), etc., and should be considered a fringe view. (3) The backing report and resolution appear to be primarily the work of a Green EU Parliamentarian (Jean Huss) and in line with other EU parliamentary resolutions promulgated by the Greens. Those EU resolutions have been consistently rejected by the EU Commission based on SCENIHR reports. (4) The analysis behind the report backing the resolution (see text here) is grotesquely inadequate, one-sided and cherry picked. It seems only to have considered anti-EMF organizations, research and conclusions; does not mention and so seems not at all to draw upon the SCENIHR reports, the most comprehensive and most significant in the EU (key players in the COE); mentions multiple times thoroughly discredited research like the Bioinitiative Report and work by the laughable Ramazzini Institute (of aspartame research controversy fame), as well as the anti-EMF ICEMS and its regular internet press release "appeals"; uses faulty logic ("one could not conclude that there was no risk"), red herrings like the lack of insurance coverage, and makes emotional appeals by alluding to other independent controversies like lead ad tobacco; and finally, asserts the existence of Electromagnetic hypersensitivity where no major health body (WHO, CDC, etc.) does. In short, to include this section means using a reference that does not meet WP:RS, and that relies on "science" that does not meet WP:MEDRS. We should not permit non-WP:MEDRS information through the back door. This new section should be stricken. --papageno (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Basically I agree entirely with Quilche here. The source violates WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and does not warrant inclusion.OakRunner (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Update number of mobile phone subscribers

At the beginning of this page an uncited claim is made as to the number of global mobile phone subscribers http://www.mocom2020.com/2009/03/41-billion-mobile-phone-subscribers-worldwide/ has a graph showing 4.1 billion subscribers by the end of 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.50.201.45 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Thermal/Ionising

"It is worth noting that thermal radiation is not comparable to ionizing radiation in that it only increases the temperature in normal matter, it does not break molecular bonds or release electrons from their atoms."

This is all true but surely irrelevant. The only thermal radiation is black body radiation from the case and there is no ionizing radiation involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talkcontribs) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

External links - Phone SAR site

I have removed the link to phoneradiationlevels.com added in good faith. It is unclear where the site sources its values for radiation levels, and so it is impossible to verify whether or not they are accurate, or whether thaye are according to the European or US testing scheme. It also includes posts that deal with the subject of mobile radiation and health that are dealt with better here. --papageno (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted the same edit seemingly by the same anonymous user on the same basis. --papageno (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That does look to be a scaremongering site with loads of references to 'radiation' but not a single mention of the word 'non-ionizing', that alone is enough to make it a low quality reference. Mtpaley (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cancer due to cell phone radiation

I would refer to the writer to read this page for further details and information on this section. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones#r11 Thank you. Aniruddha 3 9 27 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)User:Aniruddha 3 9 27

That is a good reference. Is it linked to from the main article? Mtpaley (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

per country table with maximum power for gsm emissions

I'd like to start this table. --SvenAERTS (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

per country table with maximum power for gsm emissions
nr. max emission country
1. 0,024 W/m2 soit 3 V/m [1] Belgium
nr. V/m Country
  1. . I don't understand why the reference is not witheld.
  2. . I notice that in our Belgian law, one uses the unit for its norm 0,024 W/ m2 (ter indicatie 3 V/m) whereas the ICNIRP uses the unit 2 W/kg. How to make the conversion? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence from reliable sources to be incorporated

These post-2010 review articles should meet WP:MEDRS guidelines on reliable sources:

87.115.100.194 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theory/and or something....

This article is a conspiracy theory. Anyone can fix this? No viable evidence to support its claims. --209.188.40.228 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There could be some risk - meaningless

Re 'There could be some risk' - this phrase should be banned. There could be some risk from the colour red but rightly that does not deserve mention. It is the kind of popular press phrase that should not appear in a encyclopedia. When there is a risk then the article should say so but 'There could be some risk' is statistical nonsense. Mtpaley (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientific consensus or not?

I'm one of the environmental judges at the Brussels Environmental Court. About every month I have citizens with with different types of diseases filing complaints about the erection of a gsm antenna within 200 m of their homes. But this is because the power has been reduced from 20 V/m down to 3 V/m, so there are more antennas needed. 3 V/m is a factor 200 less than what the WHO recommends. Still there are doctors and local politicians and office holder instructed by local politicians who support the theses or seem to just give in to their patients or citizens that the non-ionizing radiation used for gsm's does harm these individuals. I find this very dangerous, e.g. in case of these ill people. Suggesting - without any evidence - that their illness is due to gsm radiation or their healing capacity is affected by it, diverts the energy of these patients away from getting better and even worse it makes these patients throw their arms in the air and seek no further because it's the gsm radiation anyhow. I've come to the conclusion it would be more helpful to tell these people they can probably check this gsm radiation cause of the list of causes for them having become sick or hampering their healing process, etc. and continue checking other factors. These other factors are not unendless, in fact it is a limited list of potential causes and they deserve to put all their energy in checking them all, see which one they can eliminate and see what measures to take to deal with the remaining. Can it be stated there is scientific consensus that gsm's non-ionizing radiation is most likely not causing any illness nor cancer? And that to deal with the remaining uncertainty, the safety factors applied by the WHO and the European Union are more than sufficient to say that the power, they way in which gsm's and their antenna's are used and if one uses a head and mouth set, gsm use does not cause any negative effects on human nor animal/insects whatsoever? If not, show me the replicated scientific experiments that indicate how gsm use / gsm masts in the power ranges recommended by the WHO cause something in humans and animals? So, is there scientific consensus or not? I have lawyers stating there is NO scientific consensus. But I don't see why or where they get that conclusion from. It's contrary to my conclusion: there is scientific consensus there are no negative effects on humans nor animals / insects and that to deal with the uncertainty that remains, the WHO and EU actions because of the precautionary principle are more than sufficient. I find it dangerous to make people believe differently. Thank you. --SvenAERTS (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to apply rational arguments in an area in which people are notoriously irrational. In general people are very bad at understanding risks and tend to get fixated on trivia. The official risk classification for mobile phones Group 2B is hopelessly non specific and is basically the risk of a risk. As it is impossible even in principle to prove that anything is safe (and I wish you the best of luck in trying to explain that to someone with no knowledge of stats) many things end up in this dumping ground with weasel words like 'possibly harmful'. There are probably some good books out there which would help but when people cry out that it must be proved safe or be banned then it is hard to progress. Mtpaley (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
On a more Wikipedia side of things see the section before this where we were debating adding some other 2B risks to the article. Maybe telling people that mobile phones should be treated with the same trepidation as ferns and talcum powder is the way to go. I can't think of any other way to make people read 'Group 2B carcinogen' and understand what it actually means. Mtpaley (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No - but that's moot. I think you have the conclusions already and can dismiss the consenesus question as moot on separate points. The conclusions so far seem to be: that there has been extensive examination, there is no obvious risk according to authoritative experts, that calculations of effects are below the level of significance, and that there are still questions ongoing which are not available for current matters. The concept that there is or isn't a 'scientific consensus' I believe is legally flawed and moot and I'll offer three lines on this
  • (a) Use authoritative instead: There is no certification process or body for 'scientific consensus' so is going to be debateable (and is debated) what is or has such consensus. The legal sense of 'consensus' as a statement that a specific group does not disagree with is not legally useful in this setting. What seems legally useful is if a number of experts agree then something is authoritativeand usable in judgements.
  • (b) Logically, absolutes and negatives cannot be proven: The "not causing any illness or cancer" is not something provable, and lack of proof does not constitute proof of lack nor is asking for "replicated scientific experiments that indicate how" a specific situation causes something feasible to produce for the millions of situations or guarantee that the next test would not turn something up. So again, consensus would not be of use in court. For health cases, the precedent used is one of effects shown at some large level of exposure are extrapolated to a lower level exposure effect being below the level of significance. Both the level and the extrapolation are debateable, but consensus on them is not useful for that part either.
  • (c) Precedent of change: The history visible is of change in theory and obsolete scientific theories and differing analysis or results at any given time, so we expect to progress over time and work with what we have today but never can be confident of having the final or correct answer. The actors remain liable should the future show previously unrecognized risks or longer term effects, but for now any current judgement is only able to use the current knowledge.

Markbassett (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)