Talk:Wireless device radiation and health

"Misinformation" or "information"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In response a few recent edit/revert cycles — involving me and user Plmoknqwerty (talk) — regarding the use of "misinformation" or "information" in the 5G subsection, I bring the matter to Talk. Should we keep "misinformation" or change the word to "information"? --papageno (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The Bloomberg article referenced uses terms such as "disinformation", "inauthentic", "misleading" and "conspiracy" to describe the quality of the claim about 5G and the coronavirus. It is in keeping with WP:NPOV to use the term "misinformation". --papageno (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely keep - every reliable source I've found calls it not only false but a conspiracy theory: "conspiracy theory", "false idea", "misinformation" New York Times; "complete rubbish", "fake news", "conspiracy theory", "false claim" BBC; "conspiracy theory", "false" Factcheck; "baseless conspiracy theory", "unfounded", "hoax" CNN "false claim", "conspiracy theory", "disinformation" Washington Post; "fake news", "conspiracy theory" Paper in Jour. of Medical Internet Research. One of Wikipedia's most important roles is to call misinformation what it is. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Change. 5G has not been fully tested or researched enough for any news source to say that it is factually not involved. Surely, wikipedia is supposed to be using scientific proof i.e. peer reviewed research and articles and the like rather than rehashed "news" that is not necessarily based on any hard 'proof'?! it should therefore not be labelled 'misinformation' which is a rather subjective term (that also should not be used on a platform such as wikipedia).... Plmoknqwerty (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of all the sources cited here is there is sufficient knowledge about radio waves, communications technology and viruses that the hypothesis that 5G affects the coronavirus is misinformation. That we do not have perfect knowledge of 5G — frankly we never have perfect knowledge about anything — does not stop us at WP from noting what the present consensus scientific view about a topic is. To make your point, you would need to find multiple reputable sources that say that 5G affects the coronvirus. Such sources do not exist, and hence your claim fails. If such sources became available, it would be reasonable to bring the matter back here to talk and make another case. --papageno (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Obvious nonsense that must be labelled as such per WP:PSCI policy. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with above "keep" votes. There's an abundance of reliable secondary sources calling it misinformation at the linked section. Calling it anything else would be unsourced original research. POLITANVM ^talk 17:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, per the aforementioned reliable sources and WP:PSCI. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep we dont do batshit insane nonsense. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Court links no good

Footnotes 48 and 49 do not lead to valid links

48 - "Wright v. Motorola, Inc. et al., No95-L-04929".

49 Christopher Newman, et al. v Motorola, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) ("Because no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation has been proffered by the plaintiffs, as explained below, the defendants’ motion will be granted and the plaintiffs’ motion will be denied."). Text

The Newman case appears to be referring to 218 F.Supp.2d 769 (2002). The Wright case is not findable and the link is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyberks (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Contradictory statements in the Cancer section

Alexbrn, as I said in the edit summary, there are statements in that paragraph which are directly contradicted by later statements. It's not fine to have them there. Faulty (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Glucose metabolism

I would like to know why scientific studies were reverted from the Glucose metabolism chapter. Petenka (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Belpoggi study on fertility is unscientific

The section about the effects on fertility cites a study by Dr. Belpoggi. This study is deemed unscientific by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/emf/kompetenzzentrum/berichte/berichte-mobilfunk/stoa.html). The review highlights weaknesses regarding methodology. It's also worth noting that Dr. Belpoggi's study does not reflect an official position of the EU and that the study has not been published by an EU scientific outlet.

Dr. Belpoggi seems to align with anti-cellular conspiracy believers (example: https://kompetenzinitiative.com/fiorella-belpoggi-vertrauen-der-buergerinnen-und-buerger-zurueckgewinnen-win-back-citizen-trust/) Jonatz2 (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)