Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There are two references at the bottom of the page that don't see to be used. Should these be referenced in the text, moved into a further reading section, or simply deleted, or ... ? GeoffreyBanks (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to move the two unused references from the bottom of the article to here for discussion (deleting them from the main page), but for some reason I am unable to edit the article. Why is this page even protected? GeoffreyBanks (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected; I am not sure who added it. This means an editor must have an account and be autoconfirmed to make edits. While you have an account, you are perhaps not autoconfirmed? See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection and Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users. I also note that the two references are now in a section called “Additional references”, which I believe is a reasonable place for them to remain.papageno (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the second reference as it is not, in my view, worthy of being a further reading link. It is more of a polemic than a reference book. Here are the details I've removed, so they can be discussed or restored if needed:

• Grant, Lucinda (1995). The Electrical Sensitivity Handbook: How Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Are Making People Sick (First Edition ed.).
  OCLC 32969331. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help
  )

There seems to be no reference to the Leitgeb and Schrottner papers. These papers prove that at least some fraction of sufferers can detect currents that the general population cannot. This should be stated in the opening paragraph. Physicsjock (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this the paper in question? Leitgeb, N (2007). "Perception of ELF electromagnetic fields: excitation thresholds and inter-individual variability". Health Physics. 92 (6).

PMID 17495660. BL Shelfmark 4275.100000. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Use the PMID numeric link to see an abstract of the paper. --papageno (talk

) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

   Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Sep;24(6):387-94.
   "Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity."
   Leitgeb N, Schröttner J.

   Bioelectromagnetics. 2007 Apr;28(3):208-13.
   "Investigation of electric current perception thresholds of different EHS groups."
   Schröttner J, Leitgeb N, Hillert L.

although the "Perception of ELF" one is also relevant. Physicsjock (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The new section

I have changed the wording to remove "well-established", since the main purpose of the section is to lend some credibility to electrosensitivity (i.e., the symptom of headaches on a mobile phone or even lower-powered mobile phone mast may not be completely psychological as much of the electrosensitivity article seems to suggest.) As a general principle, though, negative findings on related areas do not necessarily negate a positive finding-- it is not as simple as a tally of positive and negative findings (although it might be informative to analyze the tally in terms of sponsorship, as some have done). According to Martin Blank, one reproducible harmful effect outweighs all negative effects. [1] For example, the first study you mentioned above refers in particular to penetration of BBB by sucrose. I'm not the expert here, but maybe that only says something about sucrose, and not about other substances that have been reported to penetrate the BBB. Also, I am aware of research showing some beneficial aspects (e.g., improved learning), and perhaps it is true under particular circumstances, but I'm not sure it applies in all circumstances. Pensees (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"As a general principle, though, negative findings on related areas do not necessarily negate a positive finding". Gosh, it's nice seeing that pointed out by someone else. This is a really important point in science. Topazg (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes you've made recently (I actually pressed save several hours ago, but my connection went down and its only just reconnected, and it immediately saved the changes, so apologies for not reading this response first). I agree with your principle. It is important that this page remains NPOV and takes account of the balance of evidence (see

WP:WEIGHT. Your changes should be discussed first as they were fairly major in, for example your complete reweighing of the lead. (see the note at the top of this page). I also think it is silly to reproduce material here that is covered on other pages, such as the mobile phone radiation and health page. Many of these studies are not looking at Electrical Sensitivity but at specific phenomenon that may be related, but we can't make that connection and there is no need - these reports are covered in the relevant articles. We should also avoid primary sources, and not give undue weight to the anecdotal evidence. The page must make no judgement, just report the facts. For these reasons I also think the mobile phone base station paragraph should be removed. GeoffreyBanks (talk

) 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Geoffrey. As a general principle for this article I would suggest that unless someone reputable has very explicitly linked a result or study to electrosensitivity, then it shouldn't appear on this page. And I also prefer secondary sources to original studies - just for ease really, there are so many studies out there that we can't hope to list them all! It would just make the article unreadable. Catpigg (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

_{start of reply by papageno}

Thank you for your comments, Pensees.

• I agree with the change to remove “well-established”.
• “the main purpose of the section is to lend some credibility to electrosensitivity”. This should not be the reason for any article or section of an article; information should be presented, and that information will or will not lend credibility to a line of thinking, not the other way around.
• As regards “As a general principle, though, negative findings on related areas do not necessarily negate a positive finding”; it is unconvincing: one can just as easily say that “One positive finding does not necessary make that finding true nor outweigh all other negative findings.”
• “it is not as simple as a tally of positive and negative findings”. This is correct; however, if effects cannot be reliably reproduced -- which is the case for Blood-brain barrier effects (including albumin, see Finnie 2002), then the possibility that effects are merely chance or related to some other cause is much higher. Furthermore, it is the responsibility for those positing a relationship (cell-phone radiation causes leakage of the blood-brain barrier that can cause headaches for those who are hypersensitive) to offer the conclusive proof, not for those who disbelieve the posited relationship to refute it (see Burden_of_proof#Science_and_other_uses); and if significant studies do not confirm the first linkage, then that relationship cannot be claimed as conclusively proven.
• Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but I feel that “although it might be informative to analyze the tally in terms of sponsorship, as some have done” is a veiled Ad hominem attack. I do not countenance such attacks on any side of any argument.
• The reference to Martin Blank, as esteemed as I am sure he is, cannot be seen as serious. One should and without equivocation take reports of symptoms (like headaches) seriously. I would venture that most health scientists, Martin Blank included, believe that further research based on an effect that cannot be reproduced reliably has the potential to lead to ineffective treatments, wasted money, false hopes and unnecessary worries.
• I acknowledge your point “I am aware of research showing some beneficial aspects...”

If this section is to be further improved to the point where it could be retained,

• the first sentence “To separate out the possible psychological effects, it is perhaps better to look at experiments done on laboratory animals or in-vitro tests.” should be removed. It is not necessary.
• it must point out
  • the additional research on blood brain barrier effects
  • that the posited effects are not conclusively proven

Submitted with respect, papageno (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

_{start of reply by User:pensees}

Thanks for your comments, papageno. The following is an explanation regarding the principle "negative findings on related areas do not necessarily negate a positive finding”, which might have been too ambiguous. Allow me to break it down and provide an example to justify this principle.

• "Positive" = Used in support of position P
• "Negative" = Used in support of position ~P
• "do not necessarily negate" = Do not necessarily contradict one another

Now suppose we are considering positions:

• P = blood-brain barrier is open to some substances when microwaves are on
• ~P = blood-brain barrier is not open to any substances when microwaves are on

Suppose one study shows sugar does not leak across BBB into the brain when microwaves are on. This can be used in support of position ~P, so is categorized as a negative finding. Nevertheless, note that it does not yet disprove position P. Furthermore, it cannot prove position ~P unless it can be demonstrated that all substances do not leak across BBB.

Next, suppose another study shows albumin leaks into the brain when microwaves are on, and significantly more than when they are off. This can be used in support of position P only, and if true, would imply P [and may be cause for concern if the substance that went through was harmful]

Finally, let's suppose both studies are legitimate (although there could be methodology errors in one or the other or both). The evidence that albumin passes through does not on the face of it contradict the evidence that sugar did not pass through, i.e., the membrane may be more permeable to one substance than the other). Combined together, they actually imply P. That is what I mean by "negative findings on related areas do not necessarily negate a positive finding” and that just one positive finding may refute the negative thesis. Just because one substance doesn't pass through, it doesn't mean that another substance couldn't have passed through. Therefore, I had doubts that the negative studies mentioned actually contradicted P. More later... Respectfully, Pensees (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All good points. I would add, however, that: all research with a variety of other substances shows that they do not pass through the BBB as a result of EMF or that the permeability of the BBB to those substances was unaffected by EMF; and that almost all studies show that there are no BBB effects as a result of EMF. I would suggest this means that the evidence standard for albumin is raised: there must be a great preponderance of unambiguous evidence. That evidence does not appear to exist. With respect, perhaps because you have not yet had an opportunity to reveal all the recent studies, there are three other recent studies — specifically mentioning albumin — that found no BBB effects. They are: Tsurita et al (2000)

doi:10.1080/00313020600699284, no abstract seems to be available, quotation of concluding sentence of article “Therefore, it appears that exposure of the developing mouse brain to mobile telephone-type RF fields does not produce any perturbation of BBB integrity, at least that is detectable by albumin immunohistochemistry at the light microscope level, or any fluid leakage which does occur is minimal and rapidly resolved.” --papageno (talk

) 04:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of those studies, so it is quite interesting. However, I'd like to note that it is untrue that there is no evidence for penetration of BBB by other substances a result of EMF. The original article I had cited, for example, mentions one study about mannitol and inulin penetration http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1533043 "Headaches from cellular telephones: are they real and what are the implications?". Note also that this paper indicates some methodological or analytical problems with some studies claiming no effects. See also a more recent paper by Henry Lai, http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_9.pdf, section on Blood-Brain barrier. In it, he notes that research has suggested 'power window' effects where effects happen at certain power densities and not others as well as research showing that change in brain or body temperature may also be needed to see the RFR effect upon BBB penetration. In one study, greater penetration was actually seen at the lower power density (0.2 mW/cm² than the higher one 2.4mW/cm², SAR 1.0W/kg). Note that in some studies, the penetration of BBB is in a higher percentage of animals than in the control, although not necessarily taking place in the majority of the animals. Perhaps then it is not surprising that many studies did not find an effect, given the many other potential variables involved under which the RFR exposure occurred (power density window effects, temperature effects, a possible sub-group of animals being more susceptible than others for unknown reasons). Below are a couple studies that do show penetration of BBB by various substances.

• Frey et al, 1975, on fluorescein, which does not normally pass through BBB
• Oscar et al, 1977, on mannitol and inulin,
  PMID 861720
• Albert et al, 1981, on horseradish peroxidase,
  PMID 7317776
• Chang et al, 1982, on I-labeled albumin
• Salford et al, 1994, on albumin and fibrinogen,
  PMID 8012056

Pensees (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if these effects on the blood/brain barrier exist, it would be OR for us to include this on the electrical sensitivity article unless there are Verifiable and reliable sources that make a link between this effect and the condition electrical sensitivity, also taking npov and Undue Weight into account. These studies might be relevant on the mobile phone radiation and health page, but not here. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sponsorship and Results

This is in reponse to Qui1che who wrote: 'I feel that“although it might be informative to analyze the tally in terms of sponsorship, as some have done” is a veiled Ad hominem attack'.

• It is perfectly rational to consider possible conflict of interest, whether it be on the side of industry or non-industry. The authors of one study looked for bias from industry-funded studies, non-industry-funded studies, and studies with mixed funding. They found that "In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the only factor that strongly predicted the reporting of statistically significant effects was whether or not the study was funded exclusively by industry." Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies HTML PDF. The authors of this study suggested that associations found between funding source and results might be the result of influence on the design of studies and selective publication of material that supported the sponsor's agenda.
• We must be alert to the fact that even prestigious organizations like WHO, have received industry funding. See Repacholi Admits Interference from the Industry at the World Health Organisation EMF Project .
• I've read reports about tight regulation of what industry-funded scientists are allowed to say, the requirement to add what is in effect a disclaimer sentence after a positive finding (which may have been in past revisions of this article), and speaking of ad hominem attacks, I've also seen attacks on the quality of scientists who found positive effects, even though the same conclusion was also found later by other researchers).

Pensees (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think no one — researchers for or against, those finding effects or not, editors for or against, etc. — is more or less ethical or committed to "science" than another. We all have our biases and are prone to see what we want to see. On my worse days, me too! ;-) I'd like to think I try hard to counteract this natural tendency. The research you cite is interesting and a study with which I was not aware. I agree with the authors that sponsorship should be published along with all studies, which I do think is happening more and more, and that it should be taken into consideration when evaluating study results. I do not, however, think that source of sponsorship obviates the peer-reviewed science conducted or results obtained, and do think that a focus on such science and results, rather than on who conducted the study thanks to whom, is the most productive way for us editors to improve WP articles. I also note that the authors of the study you cite do suggest “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.” Lastly, I invite you to reply to my previous comments in the section above about other albumin BBB studies. --papageno (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I get some comments on this section and the 'Symptoms and Severity' section?

I've rehashed the 'Symptoms and Severity' section to make it more readable to the layperson. Most of the text has been retained and moved around a bit to make it more understandable and a bulleted list of most-often attributed symptoms has been added.

The Etiology section now contains a structure with 'Introduction', 'Double-blind Tests', 'Pathophsyiological Markers' (Added), 'Debate over the cause', 'Mobile phone base stations' and 'Conclusions'. The 'Mobile phone base stations' section should probably be moved into the 'Electromagnetic Radiation and Health' article IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my opinion, your recent massive changes without discussion have had a hugely negative effect on this article. You have changed the bias of the article to supporting the existence of EHS, which is against wikipedia policy. This article is on a controversial subject, and although I believe your edits were made in good faith I think you should revert some of the bigger changes and bring them here for discussion first. There is no time limit, we can proceed by building consensus and improving the article as a group. If it takes a few weeks rather than the two days so far, so be it - but we'll probably have a better article at the end. Please reconsider your actions. I feel that many of your changes are good, but also a several of them aren't, and it is now hard to sort these as you have made so many rapid changes. --CaneryMBurns (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to compare the last version to the one before the recent massive editing and found that it actually seemed to remove a lot of good information that describes the scientific and medical consensus of this phenomena. So I have reverted and started to make/restore uncontroversial changes. Can other changes please be discussed first. For example the tables may be useful, but we should discuss formatting and their contents first. CaneryMBurns (talk)

Thanks for your reply. The edits certainly were in good faith and I am sorry if you feel that the article has had a "hugely negative" effect.

I would, however, like to point out the following things:

1) Very little text has been removed. Some text has been reworded to make the document flow better and more interesting to the reader.
2) The information added I believe has been missing for quite some time, and I believe has been fair, evenly weighted and objective. This includes, for example, information on pathophysiological markers ^[2] and prevalence studies ^[3].
3) I have added, in addition to supporting evidence for a physical causation, what I believe to be a balanced summary of the definition and classification of electrosensitivity.^[4] For instance, I have included information from the World Health Organization that the condition is "not a medical diagnosis", nor has an ICD code. Likewise, I have inserted significant text stating that treatment should not focus on the patients perceived need to reduce EMF's and that other factor's should be taken into account. ^[5]
4) Much of the text has been reformatted as the old article did not read well for the layperson and had duplicate information. The changes made include splitting up of the text into subheadings, adding tables where relevant and inserting some introductory paragraphs^[6] to help the reader understand the context of each section better.

I would disagree that the article has become biased toward "the existence of EHS". As you can see from the references, EHS has been the focus of much research and debate among scientists and has referenced in many scientific journals and official reports. In addition, the symptoms are acknowledged as being "certainly real" by the World Health Organization, thus the existence of it I don't think can be doubted. Furthermore, I have specifically added a new section addressing how EHS is defined and classified by various quaters.^[7]

Overall, I think the edits have been fair and objective. I think most people would agree that the new article is better than it was the old one^[8] in terms of readability, interest to the user, ability to jump to specific parts of the document and the broader range of topics mentioned.

Obviously, I have put a lot of time into making the edits and have tried to be careful to preserve text already in the article. The aim of the edits is to improve the article and work towards it being nominated for 'Good Article' status. I don't, however, think that reverting the edits would be constructive to reaching this goal. I agree that we should all work together to try to reach this goal, however the guidelines state that you should 'be bold' and get stuck in.

I also think it would be a good idea to request independent feedback on this article from other members of the wikipedia community who can help us work towards a better article considering that it is, as you say, a contentious topic.

I would like to reiterate that I apologize for any section that has suffered a negative effect. Could you specify which sections in particular you believe have suffered a negative effect?

Ok, I'll watch which edits you make and we'll discuss them afterwards. I think mediation might be a good idea here to prevent any overly-heated debate. Would you be happy with that?

*I really like the new restructuring from

be bold in updating pages

, and that the changes have a "hugely positive effect".

*CaneryMBurns wrote: "You have changed the bias of the article to supporting the existence of EHS, which is against wikipedia policy. "

On the contrary, I think the new article has done a reasonably fair job in keeping with wikipedia policy, having represented both viewpoints. I am not sure why you feel it is biased towards the existence of EHS. Pensees (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User Randomized's edits, all assuredly done in good faith, are some for the better, some for the worse. I also believe the user has been editing the article long enough to know that using the talk page to discuss edits is viewed as a courtesy, reduces rancor, leads to greater consensus, improves the editing process and hence leads to better articles. Making 33 (almost consecutive) edits (admittedly, some trivial) in three days is a welcome burst of energy for our sorry band of interested parties, but has changed the article substantially, without users having had a chance to comment. It risks allowing poor changes to survive without review, because of the volume of changes precluding careful scrutiny. User Pensees is a newer Wikipedian (welcome!), and perhaps is unaware that for contentious articles, the approach of discussing changes first in an article's talk page is viewed as a a courtesy. Mediation is not necessary at this stage ... there has barely been time to reflect on the content changes and even begin to discuss them. Kind respects to all editors mentioned, papageno (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)