Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 5

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

Contrary to being a bit verbose in the talk section, I am in favour of being as concise as possible in the main article. I am concerned about the repetition of the word claimed because it seems tautologous. I cannot see how people who consider themselves to have a condition that by itself is defined as a "claimed" association needs extra reference to being claimed. In full, this would be the equivalent of "I claim to have a condition where I claim that my symptoms are caused by EMFs". The initial "claim" has become superfluous in context, and I think it actually weakens the clarity of the point being made - it also gives the impression that the condition of ES is causally associated by EMFs, and that proponents can only "claim" to have the condition, which is not the reality. I would contest that removing the additional "claims" (see my previous main article edit) in the beginning of the prevalence section makes it cleaner, neater, and more contextually accurate. topazg (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is important to differentiate those surveys from double blinded (or for that matter singly blinded) experiment protocols as they refer only to the prevalence of people who self-report the condition. The word claimed is appropriate and necessary in that context. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, you have a valid point, but I still feel the repetition of claim is awkward to read clearly. Would you be happy with "... self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity ..." in each case? topazg (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On further reflection, I'm not actually sure you do have a valid point. The purpose of blinded provocation studies is to attempt to identify evidence of causation. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a condition defined (at least, by WHO) by the individual "claiming" sensitivity, with no requirement of actually being sensitive. In effect, its definition already recognises it as psychological instead of medical, so causation is pretty much irrelevant - if you or I decided to believe we had poor health as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields, we would fit the definition regardless or not of whether our beliefs were founded. I'm still happy with self-reported as an alternative word, as that is a simple statement of fact, and I think there are other implications of the word "claimed" that do not make sense with regards to a condition where the etiology is only "claimed" by its very nature. topazg (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with "self-reported". Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated as per our discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Either "self reported" or "claimed" is fine, but each study needs to have one or the other in order to make clear that the study results are not based upon a doctor's diagnosis. Furthermore, in technical writing its usually good to stick with either one term or the other, since doing otherwise might suggest to the reader that there is some difference between the two when in fact we mean to communicate no such thing. Locke9k (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} That's why I changed both references in question to self-reported. Simonm223 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think my concern on the previous wording was that "claim" implies there is a reasonable plausibility that the claimant is wrong, whereas self reported simply states that the attribution was not diagnosed by a qualified practitioner. I think it is hard to falsify a claim when the only condition required to be fulfilled is that the person "claims" their sensitivity - possibly with the exception of a psychological diagnosis that they are not of sane mind. Either way, I think the compromise works both ways :) topazg (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to put on record here that Topazg ‎has a direct conflict of interest here, and probably shouldn't be editing the article at all - and especially not to support the commercial and unscientific claims of his father and his father's company, with which he is associated. --128.243.220.22 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion, before going any further consult

WP:OUT. Simonm223 (talk

) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with recognising my work in a volunteer capacity for an organisation that has a direct COI, as I believe it to be relevant information. The familial context is obviously why I choose time to make such capacity available. I am happy having any contributions I make tested under the scrutiny of COI interests because my aim is not to push a POV. Anything I suggest is genuinely aimed to further the quality of the article, not to push my, or any other, personal opinion on the issue. As Simonm223 mentioned above, he personally disbelieves that symptoms are caused by EMFs, and I'm still personally somewhat divided on the issue - any belief will have some effect on how we view further evidence and how it fits into the bigger picture, and I am sure both of us (and other editors) will attempt to not "force-fit" the article towards our personal beliefs but towards a representation of what the science, and world in general, says about the issue. topazg (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NM: Topazg self-identifies. Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I think Simonm223 means

WP:outing, which is the policy on outing the real life identity of editors (in a nutshell, it says not to do it). Locke9k (talk

) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has been proposed as an external link. It sets off several

I inserted it and I feel it is worthy of inclusion, because it provides real empirical data of the nature of this condition. It is from a notable and reliable news source. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how it adds anything to the article, and would oppose inclusion. Verbal chat 17:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve, Sm8900, what aspects of Electromagnetic hypersensitivity do you think are covered in the Popular Science article that are not covered in the WP article? --papageno (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't feel the article offers anything to the article that isn't already present. I don't see any empirical data in it, and the notability of the news source is not enough for an article of a scientific or medical nature. I oppose inclusion also topazg (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Popular Science article, the best tidbits are in the sidebar quotes which are not online. But much more important are the scientific papers that need to be added, like this one: Schrottner Leitgeb Hillert 2007 or this one: Kwon et al 2008 Physicsjock (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the Schrottner paper is extremely important. As I alluded to in discussion above, the lack of homogeneity in the self-reported ES participants, including the strong likelihood that many of them are not sensitive to EMFs, is a critically import aspect to the debate that is often overlooked. I am not aware of a single double-blinded study that has addressed this issue in its study design. topazg (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The symptoms listed for EMR sensitivity parallel symptoms of Subliminal Distraction exposure. Where Wifi is used so are computers. Sitting reading a computer screen while there is repeating detectable movement in peripheral vision will cause these symptoms. It's your brain subliminally attempting but failing to trigger the vision startle reflex a massive number of times in a compact time frame. Discovered and solved forty years ago the cubicle was designed to deal with the vision startle reflex in crowded work situations to stop it there by 1968.

None of these arguments or studies mention Subliminal Distraction so you can believe they failed to control for it in the study.

VisionAndPsychosis.Net is a seven year investigation of Subliminal Distraction.

There are currently, August 2010, 14 elementary schools in Ontario Canada where parents claim WiFi EMR is causing similar symptoms. Video and pictures on-line show students crowded together using laptops while sitting in each other's peripheral vision. That's Subliminal Distraction. (See the EMR page at VisionAndPsychosis.Net.)

This is the same problem that caused the Everquest addiction uproar of 2002. It's back.....

L K Tucker 24.96.50.118 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the reliable sources mention this as far as I am aware. It also seems unlikely to me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ontario situation is gaining ground. Dr Magda Havas (Trent University professor, very well known in this field) has taken up a study on Simcoe County elementary schools, which installed WiFi last year. Parents are complaining of a range of symptoms in their kids, which are consistent between children, that disappear on the weekend or christmas/summer holiday. This has been published in the Toronto Sun, Star, CBC, and several others. This is a notable, situation regardless of the scientific reality being on either side of this argument.[1][2][3], not to mention.[4] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is notable, although Havas's science is crap (look at her website and you'll see - basically she has 2 studies both of which use self-reported symptoms with no controls). --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

←Un-indent
Perhaps, and I've mentioned this to her (to get an actual study in a peer reviewed journal).

There are a few other studies not directly attributed to her published by Lakehead University (who have banned WiFi from their buildings), Trent University, and University of Wisconsin. There are these papers too, which I haven't gone through. At least a few appear to be in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

1) Johnson Liakouris AG. Radiofrequency (RF) sickness in the Lilienfeld study: An effect of modulated microwaves Archives of Environmental Health; May/Jun 1998; 53, 3.

2) Santini R, Santini P, Le Ruz P, Danze JM, and Seignel M. Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Fhone Base Stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 4149, 2003

3) Hyland GJ. Physics and biology of mobile telephony. The Lancet, Vol 356, November 25, 2000.

4) Marha K, Musil J, and Tuha H. Electromagnetic Fields and the Life Environment. Institute of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases, Prague, Czechoslovakia. English Translation 1971

5) Havas M. 2006. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic Biology Medicine 25(4):259-68.

6) Grant L. Microwaves Imitate Pesticides. U.S. Department of Energy Risk Management Quarterly, Volume 5-3. http://www.stralingsvrijkind.nl/documenten/Bijlage-MicrowavesPesticides.pdf

7) Cherry, N. 2000 Criticism of the Health Assessment in the ICNIRP Guidelines for Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation (100 kHz- 300 GHz)

8) Johansso O. Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields—A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment, Pathophysiology, Volume 16, Issues 2-3, August 2009, Pages 157-177

9) Letter from Norbert Hankin, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, EPA, regarding the limitations and purpose of the FCC exposure standards.http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf

10) Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communication, 2008, National Academy of Science. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12036#toc

11) Sage C, Carpenter DO. 2009. Public health implications of wireless technologies, Pathophysiology Aug;16(2-3):233-46

12) Huss et al., "Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies", Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(1): 1-4, 2007.http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9149/9149.pdf.

13) Hallberg O, Johansson O, Apparent decreases in Swedish public health indicators after 1997 – Are they due to improved diagnostics or to environmental factors? Pathophysiology Volume 16, Issue 1, June 2009, Pages 43-46.

14) Milham S, Morgan L. A new electromagnetic exposure metric: High frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Volume 51, Issue 8, Date: August 2008, Pages: 579-586

15) Milham S. Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of “diseases of civilization”. Medical Hypotheses DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.08.032

16) Havas M, Olstad A. Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and student behavior in three Minnesota Schools, Science of the Total Environment, Volume 402, Issues 2-3, 1 September 2008, pp. 157-162.

17) Ozen, S. 2007. Low-frequency Transient Electric and Magnetic Fields Coupling to Child Body, Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2007), pp. 1–6. http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ncm315

18) Vignati, M. and L. Giuliani, 1997. Radiofrequency exposure near high-voltage lines. Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1569-1573 (1997) http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1469914

Like I said, I haven't actually read these, and don't have access to most of them, but they were pointed out to me and are some good sources for looking at the other side of the argument. As time goes one, this is beginning to become a very contentious issue between the scientists trying to convince everyone "nocebo effect" and more and more people stepping forward and saying "Well, nocebo or not, I'm still suffering". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If those are the refs on her website then I have gone through them. Unless I have missed something, there were only 2 studies that looked at symptoms, and both were self-reported with no controls. Being published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean it isn't crap science.

The evidence seems to show that [1] people report no symptoms when mobile phone base station is switched ON but they are told it is OFF and [2] people report lots of symptoms when base station is OFF but they are told it is ON. So the symptoms appear to be mostly if not entirely nocebo/psychological and nothing to do with RF radiation. The studies above simply look at symptoms but don't have any placebo control. If they did they would find that all their symptoms were nocebo. That is bad science. It's not a question of being on 'one side or the other' - you just need to look at all the evidence with an open mind, evaluate it, and see what it is saying.

Still, the Ontario school wifi panic thing is notable and should probably be added to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm pretty POV, so I'll leave it to you to add it in the words you think best represent the situation. If I find anything credible I'll post it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

here is a good example of what I'm talking about - it's very interesting, and although not peer reviewed it does show the same results as the proper scientific trials. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any video of it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

An interesting read... Though it brings to question, how do they know the lack of feeling ill is not in itself a placebo effect from being told that it is off?

The family I live with are big tin-foil heads, so sometimes I like to pull of hidden experiments. Switch the bulbs to CFLs, put on a wireless network. It's funny because when I tell them afterwards, that's when they say "Oh, I THOUGHT I felt strange, that explains it!" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That certainly could be the case. Some people might have undiagnosed illnesses that they mistakenly think are caused by wifi or whatever. The proper scientific studies are double-blind, which means the participants are not told whether or not the transmitter is on or not, and most studies show no difference between sham and real signal (see here). The important point is that the symptoms don't seem to be related to the radio waves. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We do now have a double-blind study in favor of EHS. This is the study by Magda Havas and Marrongelle. They took a DECT cordless phone station, and it was plugged either into a live socket or a dead socket. The heart rate was affected exactly at the times when it was plugged into a live socket.

On the contrary, you see anecdotes of people who did not make the association of their symptoms with EMF, and saw doctor after doctor, to no avail. By chance, they later learn of the possible connection, and find out that their symptoms go away when the source is turned off. Because the symptoms preceded the idea that EMF could be dangerous, it cannot be associated with the nocebo effect. -Pensees (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The DECT study isn't published in any peer-reviewed journal. Havas' website says it was submitted in 2009. And from what I can gather it wasn't double-blind - the researchers were not blinded, only the patients.

As for patients recovering after the source is turned off - that is exactly what you would expect if the illness was psychogenic, as a result of the

placebo effect. --sciencewatcher (talk

) 01:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

←Un-indent
A little tongue-in-cheek is intended in the following
Let's see. Per the list of members of the instigating group in Ontario, two chiropractors, one and the other both seemingly on the less scientific

And any professor who lists an article from Medical Hypotheses as a credible source has lost touch with scientific reality (a layperson could be forgiven for not knowing). Even more so one with only seven citations on PubMed in 35 years, none related to WiFi. I'm not sure of whom I'm more disappointed: Ms. Havas who, perhaps with good intentions, continues to believe despite the evidence, or the credulous media who couldn't cover a science story if their life depended on it. --papageno (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And now more seriously…
Per

Re "Perhaps, and I've mentioned this to her (to get an actual study in a peer reviewed journal)" HAVAS does now have a paper published in a peer reviewed journal that shows in a double blind study that SOME EHS patients are showing heart rate variability. This study is now in the process of being duplicated by several other scientists. Perhaps this audience can give her a chance and keep an open mind that it might be possible? Read it here Havas article

re "The DECT study isn't published in any peer-reviewed journal. Havas' website says it was submitted in 2009. And from what I can gather it wasn't double-blind - the researchers were not blinded, only the patients." Not true- see the actual paper at the link indicated in previous paragraph. --Robertwilliams232323 (talk) Current revision as of 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There simply is not enough reliable evidence. Nowhere near a lot. This is the same as many such afflictions today; the problem exists primarily in the minds of those who suffer it. And if there IS a problem, all this does is distract from the actual issues. It seems exceedingly unlikely that small scale electronics will cause these issues, and yet exposing someone to say..a Jacob's Ladder wont ever automatically kill them.

Another major issue with reaches across many forms of pseudoscience is here as well. Ill use the anti-vaccine controversy as my example, since it is a well known controversy: A large scale effect is ignored in the persuit of a belief that a small scale effect will cause problems. As with mercury, the amounts in any given vaccine are negligable, and you receive much more just from breathing air in a day. So if mercury caused autism, its not the vaccine thats doing it.

With THIS issue, people never seem to show mega effects from being in close proximity to an extremely large power source. Considering that the damage claimed by smallscale electronic fields, Why do these folks not respond to an Aurora? Or the earth's magnetic field anywhere else? Or solar flares? Or X-rays or...Well you see where im going with this: The most powerful of the effects should cause increasingly worsening symptoms, and you should even be able to initiate death in this manner. But in the end, our planet's magnetic sphere would be millions((Note: intentional exaggeration)) of times as destructive if people were effected by these things. And if its light, well, again theres the whole sun thing.

Remember, these claims basically are saying that a specific spectrum of light is causing problems, despite the number of such effects in use 100+ years ago, and billions in the form of stars. Thats a pretty big reach id say. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The National Research Council published an encompassing paper a few days ago that is worth examining, covering the effects of "Microwave Sickness". Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Though it reiterates what most studies state, it very clearly states that the amount of evidence is undeniable, and that just because it doesn't fit into the patterns we expect doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or have nasty effects that should be considered. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at the paper, it doesn't seem to say that at all. When I looked (briefly) at the research into mobile base stations, the papers they looked at all seemed to say that it was purely psychological (no link to actual EMF). It's difficult to draw conclusions, however, as there is no actual 'conclusion' section in the paper as far as I can see. It has a discussion section, but that doesn't seem to be based on the research that they review in the paper. Is this a reliable journal? It doesn't appear to be pubmed indexed as far as I can tell. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Numerous biological effects do occur after short-term exposures to low-intensity RFR but potential hazardous health effects from such exposures on humans are still not well established, despite increasing evidence as demonstrated throughout this paper. Unfortunately, not enough is known about biological effects from long-term exposures, especially as the effects of long-term exposure can be quite different from those of short-term exposure. It is the long-term, low-intensity exposures that are most common today and increasing significantly from myriad wireless products and services.

People are reporting symptoms near cell towers and in proximity to other RFR-generating sources including consumer products such as wireless computer routers and Wi-Fi systems that appear to be classic ‘‘microwave sickness syndrome,’’ also known as ‘‘radiofrequency radiation sickness.’’ First identified in the 1950s by Soviet medical researchers, symptoms included headache, fatigue, ocular dysfunction, dizziness, and sleep disorders. In Soviet medicine, clinical manifestations include dermographism, tumors, blood changes, reproductive and cardiovascular abnormalities, depression, irritability, and memory impairment, among others. The Soviet researchers noted that the syndrome is reversible in early stages but is considered lethal over time (Tolgskaya et al. 1973)"

To me that says "Not enough research is being done, but this appears to be this syndrome identified by the Soviets in the 1950s that causes X effects, is reversible, but lethal over time." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it in detail, but I believe that syndrome is only caused by very high power microwaves. The low levels in cell phones don't cause it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you've taken a look. It argues against the transmitter towers that are placed within cities and on the roof of residential buildings, not cell phones themselves. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this seems to be an unreliable source and they don't actually present any data - it's purely speculation and discussion, and therefore not suitable for inclusion here. If I've got it wrong, please post some refs. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It was published a week ago, so that may explain the lack of a pubmed ID. That doesn't mean it's unreliable. It's published by a reputable scientific publisher that is reliable, and its a analysis of primary studies, or a secondary source. I don't see where you come under the notion that it is an unreliable source, unless you are looking solely at the website hosting the pdf. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The journal doesn't appear to be pubmed-indexed at all. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re the edits today by

OK - so it looks like you have done some serious research on the paper and those involved and it seems that when it shows up in Pub med your opinion of the paper might change. I agree to leave that topic alone till then. You mention that (Sixth, only one author — Havas — has an affiliation with an academic or scientific research body.) You probably then know that Magda Havas teaches a public university course on the subject of The Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields at Trent University. She gets paid by the government of Canada to teach this course among many others. This is a respected institution. Even if all the naysayers are against her published papers being read here, do you not think it is fair to allow the readers of Wikipedia to know there is a school and a professor that specializes in this subject and also teaches the subject of EHS as her job? - It's time to allow her name and affiliation with the University to appear in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be ok to put a mention of her in the article, but we should probably also include some of the criticism against her as well. Havas' research is clearly very bad science and misinformation - you can easily see that by looking at a few of her papers. The question I have to ask is - why is a university funding such crap science? --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

One also has to wonder WHAT she is paid to do, exactly. Health Canada currently sides with the industry (because sick people won't pay them millions upon millions of dollars, clearly), so it seems rather odd that she would be employed to teach to the contrary. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

←Re-start indent
User Robertwilliams232323, thanks for commenting here on this matter. I think it would be considered courteous to achieve consensus in a discussion, or to at least wait for the those actively involved in an article, like myself, to comment before making edits. I have reverted them with an edit summary indicating your no doubt good faith for the moment. If you are anxious to speed up a discussion after having commented yourself, you are welcome to add a note to a user's talk page (like mine indicating such; when users return to Wikipedia, they receive notification of a change to their talk page, and are likely to respond faster. I trust these suggestions are taken in the friendly spirit with which they are intended.
First, if the article ever is added to PubMed, that would only address one of six concerns about

You're fooling yourself big time if you don't know that money makes the world go 'round — not science and progress. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, we should only include things based on wikipedia policies such as

WP:WEIGHT. If Havas is the only person in the world teaching a university course in Electromagnetic sensitivity then that might be notable. If other people have criticised her then that might be notable as well. --sciencewatcher (talk

) 15:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Magda's couse is the only one that gives you a university credit. As far as PubMed listings - I went to pubmed - typed in her name and 2 papers came up related to Electrohypersensitivity - Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle diabetes. AND Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. - Two reviewed publications - AND At Trent University she teaches that material. I feel that she has met the criteria to be associated with this article. She could be right about this stuff - and her voice should be heard. Now, I agree that it is now fair game to discredit these papers if you want. I just thought that mentioning her name would be suffice for people that wanted to attend a class for more information beyond wiki articles - but perhaps we should include these PubMed papers too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't/shouldn't just include her papers because they are listed in pubmed - they need to satisfy

WP:MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk

) 01:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We only need to follow

WP:MEDRS to use her papers to support a statement as fact. However, given what she does, how prolific her work is, and the fact that scientists write reviews on her papers (even if only to discredit them), I agree that she is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢

03:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So what more do we need to do? Everyone agrees. Put up the text that I wrote that she is a teacher at trent and teaches a class in Electrohypersensitivity. And then discredit her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.62.181 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

←Re-start indent
I strongly disagree. She is not notable in the context of this article, which should follow the

papageno makes some good points here. I agree that she is only notable for her populist views and media controversy and not for her scientific studies (which would fall under

WP:MEDRS). Ideally we should use a secondary source to discuss her (along with the controversy) if we decide to include a mention. --sciencewatcher (talk

) 16:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You're both only looking at her output in terms of what could possibly meet MEDRS. She's released a crapload of half-science papers. She speaks at international conferences on the topic, she works with Dr Graham Stetzer (the other "scientist" who is in the public eye for this topic). I think these two are notable in the context of this article in that they are public figures promoting the idea. Their science may not be notable, but their continued contributions towards the field are certainly notable. Science, just like other facets of life, is not a one-sided wall. Its possible for the underdogs to make an impact, and Magda has certainly had her share of newspaper exposure. Nothing that they say needs to be asserted as fact (or even as correct science), but Havas and Stetzer are more famous than ANY scientist that is working in this field. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read our comments you'll see that we both actually agree with you. We are saying that she is possibly notable for her publicity and newspaper coverage (under

WP:MEDRS). --sciencewatcher (talk

) 19:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Right! Perfect we agree - So write something Sciencewatcher and put it up. Just tell me how long this process is going to take? It's been 3 weeks now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwilliams232323 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

←Re-start indent
Anyone can add the info. I'd do it myself, but I don't really have time. If you want to do it yourself, go ahead. Just make sure it is

Not that I assume the world revolves around me, but apologies to anyone who has been waiting for a reply on my part.

I have had a look at the a number of the WikiProject Medicine Featured articles via list created by a toolserver tool. A perusal (not an exhaustive review, but the pattern emerges) of the disease or medical condition articles would seem to show that names of people are only mentioned in the History section. And those names that are mentioned appear to be of people that have made a significant scientific contribution. I do not believe such an achievement can be attributed to Havas and thus, in the context of this article, she is not notable.

Writing low quality articles, attending conferences and being in the media a lot is an argument for quantity over quality and does not qualify as notable. There are many folks in many disciplines who do such things, and there do not appear to be any sections (as I have noted before) in medicine articles to list such efforts.

In reply to certain other arguments, Havas and Stetzer are not the only folks working the field; others include scientist Rubin, Canadian activist Wetherall and UK activist Phillips. The argument "It's possible for the underdogs to make an impact" is a Straw man. I — and more importantly scientific review bodies and health authorities — do not reject Havas' work because she is an underdog, rather because it is of poor scientific quality. Lastly, the statement "Havas and Stetzer are more famous than ANY scientist that is working in this field" is an assertion that cannot be supported by any evidence.

I will repeat again that one solution to the dilemma here is already in use in this article: a link to an article about that person in the See Also section, used here for Arthur Firstenberg. I would support creating an article for Havas — she is notable enough for her own article — and linking to it from this article from the See Also section.--papageno (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The intro is highly biased. It hints that nonionizing radiation cannot be dangerous despite ~2000 studies which suggest the opposite. See also [[5]]. The current intro also suggests no medical recognition although in fact, the Freiburger appeal consists of 6000 German doctors who signed the appeal due to concern about EMF's negative effects on people. Furthermore, it gives too much weight to a few double-blind studies (industry-funded or flawed in study design). To offset this bias, there needs to be recognition of the cell tower survey studies that found EMF's are an issue (Santini, Bortkiewicz A, and a few others). We also have objective evidence of biological effects-- e.g., a recent study in a reputable journal showing that EMF's can affect the brain. Isa58 (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In wikipedia we have to follow

WP:MEDRS because it isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal. The same for 6000 German doctors - that fails MEDRS as well, although it may deserve a mention somewhere in the article itself (but not the lede). Similar for studies that show that EMFs can affect the brain - that may deserve a mention, but probably not in the lede. --sciencewatcher (talk

) 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... Why does 6000 German doctors signing an appeal have no weight? No MEDRS source is required to source the statement that 6000 scientists oppose the "mainstream" viewpoint... which seems to be pretty large opposition. Who is the mainstream again? That one paper from 2009? Those 6000 scientists are more peer review than anything on the almighty pubmed could ever dream of. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, if you read my comment I actually said we can probably include it. The point is that it can't be used to contradict a MEDRS review, which does actually carry more weight in wikipedia (see

WP:MEDRS). --sciencewatcher (talk

) 18:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't begin to cover this sort of situation. Methinks this is best asked at

WP:RSN, because its not being used for anything more than acknowledging the existence of the condition. Again, 6000 scientists carries far more weight than any MEDRS could ever have. Wiki policy or not, 6000 scientists are more mainstream than one peer reviewed paper by a handful of scientists. Would a journal remain peer reviewed and accepted if 6000 reviewers said "no, this is a load of crap, and we believe that such-and-such is the case?" This is still 6000 qualified professionals contradicting the study. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢

19:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Freiburger Appeal does not meet any standard for inclusion in the article.

First, WP:MEDRS absolutely applies. If one wishes to prove the existence of a condition and contradict a viewpoint established by WP:MEDRS references, then one must provide evidence supported by sources of the same quality.

Second, an on-line petition is in and of itself a suspect source.

Third, the appeal is from 2002, which means it is nine years of research out of date.

Fourth, I cannot find a source to confirm the figure 6,000? I can only find a link at the IGUMED (IGUMED being the organization that launched the Appeal) web site page about the Freiburger Appeal (in German) which is supposed to give the current list of signatories … that is dead. One can find this version at the Wayback Machine (archived May 3, 2008) The Wayback snapshot is from May 2008, but the web page date is 24 February 2003 — eight years ago. It says more than 1,000 doctors had signed at that point, but lists only 389 names.

How significant is this number? I have done a little analysis. 6% on the list are not German. 12% are dentists. 6% are homeopaths. 7.5% are naturopaths. Summing those up (some signatories may belong to several categories) gives almost 30% that one should strike off the numerator, leaving 276. For the denominator,

ISBN 9781846684845

) gives a figure of 3.5 doctors per 1,000 population for Germany. On a population of 82.5 million, that means roughly 290,000 doctors in Germany. Putting those together means 0.10% (276 / 290k) of doctors in Germany signed the appeal. If one does not stroke 30% off the list of given names, it is 0.13% (389 / 290k). If one assumes 1,000 people signed but strikes off 30%, it is 0.25% (700 / 290k). If one assumes 1,000 signatories, it is 0.35% (1,000 / 290k). None of these figures are significant.

Fifth, saying a quantity of "doctors" have a certain view is a double logical fallacy, both Argumentum ad populum and Argument from authority. How many of these doctors have any grounding in the subject? Perhaps we can ask the plastic surgeons on the list? or the orthopedic surgeons? or the sports medicine doctors?

Finally, the German Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) "German Federal Office for Radiation Protection") in a 2009 summary (PDF) (in German) of their positions on various EMF and health topics addressed "Doctors' appeals critical of mobile telephony" and referred to a meeting in August 2006 where, amongst others, the originators of the Freiburg Appeal, Drs. Waldmann-Selsam and Eger, were present. The BfS said that: the cases presented as evidence for the Appeal did not meet the German standard for case descriptions (the Robert Koch Institute criteria); the health issues proffered were not objectively described either systematically or thoroughly with medically recognized diagnostic methods; and an impartial and reproducible analysis of alternate explanations and their systematic elimination did not take place. The BfS concluded that the case descriptions presented did not support the posited causal relationship between EMF and health and that current scientific research studies that followed the guidelines of good epidemiological practice spoke against such a relationship.

The Freiburger Appeal falls far short of being significant evidence by any measure, let alone WP:MEDRS, something easily established here

in first instance. --papageno (talk

) 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.222.186 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)