Jump to content

Talk:Wireless device radiation and health: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,553,990 edits
m Signing comment by 209.6.231.228 - ""
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Wireless device radiation and health/Archive 4) (bot
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Controversial}}
{{Controversial}}
⚫
{{British English}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=B |importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Telecommunications |importance=low }}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Health and fitness|importance=Low}}
}}
}}
{{ITN talk|31 May|2011}}
{{ITN talk|31 May|2011}}
⚫
{{British English}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 13: Line 15:
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Mobile phone radiation and health/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Wireless device radiation and health/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index }}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}


== "Misinformation" or "information"? ==
==My Edit on India's Supreme Court Ruling removed==
{{archive top| There is consensus that the word "misinformation" in this article (in connection with the claim about 5G and the coronavirus) is appropriate and should not be changed as it accurately reflects the view of reliable sources. The argument put forth for changing this to "information" seems to be a personal view rather than one backed up by reliable sources. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 05:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)}}

In response a few recent edit/revert cycles — involving me and user [[User: Plmoknqwerty|Plmoknqwerty]] ([[User talk: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"? --[[User:Qui1che|papageno]] ([[User talk:Qui1che|talk]]) 03:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi,

I had attempted to edit the [[Mobile phone radiation and health]] page some time back. Here is difference page of that edit <ref>{{cite web |last1=Mobile |first1=Radiation |title=Mobile phone radiation and health Difference between revisions - Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health&oldid=prev&diff=783451512}}</ref>
I agree with [[User:Seabreezes1|Seabreezes1]] that the edit get deleted rather more quickly than expected.

The cellular operator association of india (COAI) has filed intervenor and caveat applications so that any unfavorable judgment is not passed. Full order of Supreme Court is here <ref>{{cite web |title=SC Directs Deactivation of BSNL’s Mobile Tower, On A Complaint From A Cancer Patient [Read Petition & Order] Live Law |url=https://www.livelaw.in/sc-directs-deactivation-bsnls-mobile-tower-complaint-cancer-patient/ |website=livelaw.in |accessdate=23 November 2018}}</ref>

The petition against the mobile towers can be read here.<ref>{{cite web |title=PIL seeking monitoring Radiation from Mobile Towers SC issues notice to Ministry of Telecom and Broadcasting |url=https://www.livelaw.in/pil-seeking-monitoring-radiation-mobile-towers-sc-issues-notice-ministry-telecom-broadcasting/ |website=livelaw.in |publisher=Supreme Court |accessdate=23 November 2018}}</ref> [[User:Ntu129|Ntu129]] ([[User talk:Ntu129|talk]]) 04:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

== [[WP:NPOV]] contents about Mobile phone radiation ==
Hi Wikipedians,
From my understanding, the subject seems like written by the mobile industry people who tried to claim that "there is no adverse health effect of RF radiation". Please see the reference below and add the additional contents with [[WP: NPOV]] items which are evidence of adverse health effect of RF radiation. <ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/</ref> <ref>{{Cite web||title= FRIGHTENING FREQUENCIES: THE DANGERS OF 5G & WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT THEM| url=https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/ |last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> <ref> https://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/national-toxicology-progam-finds-cell.html</ref> <ref>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-20160808-snap-story.html</ref><ref>http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/357591-public-health-is-littered-with-examples-where-economic-interests-trumped</ref> <ref>https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/</ref> [[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] ([[User talk:Goodtiming8871|talk]]) 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

:Mostly junk sources. The review is interesting, but inserted into the article in an undue way &ndash; [[Lennart Hardell]]'s views are outliers in this space.[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-that-cell-phone-and-cancer-study/] but possibly worth a mention. I've added something more due. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 04:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC) </br>
: Hi, I believe the contaminated or fake news( example: The New York Times) is real junk source.
Would you be able to clarify the difference between the junk source and the reliable source?
Why did you consider the source from [[United States National Library of Medicine]] is junk in your point of view? [[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] ([[User talk:Goodtiming8871|talk]]) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
:As I wrote, the review (PMID 28656257) is "interesting": this is the piece by [[Lennart Hardell]] &ndash; it essays an outlier view which may yet be worth mentioning. Otherwise, see [[WP:MEDRS]] and [[WP:PSCI]]/[[WP:FRINGE]] for relevant policy/guidance. The medical consensus is that mobile phone radiation is not a health hazard; conversely there is a bit of a conspiracist/loony fringe claiming otherwise (see electricsense.com - a site you linked, for crankery turned up to 11). We need to be clear about the first and call out the fringe views for what they are. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 08:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
: Hi, the contents by [[Lennart Hardell]] : it is the publication from United States National Library of Medicine based on 52 reliable References.
I will summarize the contents below - just one line, and remove the duplicated contents - as it was already written by "Rolf h nelson" on 9 February 2018: fda: ( "the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of radiofrequency energy exposure")

* New edit: Professor [[Lennart Hardell]]
claims that a Fact Sheet from [[WHO]] contains the issue of the neutral point of view as missing with non-thermal biological adverse effects to the human body from RF radiation.

* It's my previous edit:
however, in the year 2017, [[United States National Library of Medicine]](PMC - US National Institutes of Health) Publication claims that a Fact Sheet from [[World Health Organization|WHO]] had several issues of neutral point of view regarding [[International Agency for Research on Cancer|IARC]] is the part of [[WHO]] and five of the six members of the WHO Core Group regarding RF frequency adverse effect research, are having severe conflict of interest to [[International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection]] (ICNIRP). ICNIRP did not embrace the evidence about non-thermal biological adverse effects from RF radiation. [[WHO]] promised to conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from radiofrequency fields exposure by 2012, but there is no official declaration of risk assessment from [[WHO]] so far. <ref> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/</ref> [[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] ([[User talk:Goodtiming8871|talk]]) 03:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

:::I have removed the text about and the supporting Hardell article (see {{PMC|5504984}}) reference. It is drivel. Any article that ends with an insinuation that the WHO are affording themselves protection from radio waves that they do not recommend for others, based on comparing the radio wave levels at the main train station of a capital city and a suburban campus like that of the WHO in Geneva is nonsense, especially when the levels at the main train station in Stockholm are '''below''' the levels the WHO recommends. Frankly, one could explain to a primary school student why the levels would be higher at the former than the latter. There are other good reasons to exclude the article, but this reason is egregious enough. --[[User:Qui1che|papageno]] ([[User talk:Qui1che|talk]]) 04:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

::::Hi [[User:Qui1che|papageno]],<br>Would you please be able to elaborate that the issue with the neutral point of view to a Fact Sheet from [[WHO]] regarding deliberate missing with non-thermal biological adverse effects to Human? [[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] ([[User talk:Goodtiming8871|talk]]) 04:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::I'm sorry Goodtiming8871, but I really don't know what you are asking. {{Smiley}} The Hardell reference does not measure up to [[WP:MEDRS]], as I have explained —briefly, with one reason — in a previous comment above. Please do not add the text back in without making your case here first. --[[User:Qui1che|papageno]] ([[User talk:Qui1che|talk]]) 05:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::On paper the Hardell paper would appear to be MEDRS. However it's not really a "review" and on reflection it is really [[WP:REDFLAG|too off-the-wall]] with its claims to merit inclusion unless we can use other sources discussing Hardell's view for [[WP:PARITY]]. I.e., I wouldn't object to including Hardell's view if we made it clear it was fringe. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 05:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think this article is worthy of inclusion. It's published in a pay-to-play journal. It's a Spandidos publication, so the the top editors are the father Spandidos and his son and daughter. And Hardell himself is one of the "Editorial Academy"! (Reference: {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180623013632/https://www.spandidos-publications.com/pages/ijo/editorial |date= 23 June 2018}}). I doubt the article had adequate peer review. That I—and anyone else with a modicum of technical knowledge in the field—could detect a fatal flaw in his conclusion in about 30 seconds reinforces that belief.--[[User:Qui1che|papageno]] ([[User talk:Qui1che|talk]]) 03:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

::::::Hi [[User:Qui1che|papageno]], I mean, with the topic: non-thermal biological adverse effects to Human, I believe that it should be included in a Fact Sheet issued by [[WHO]].<br>Concerning non-thermal biological adverse effects to Human, Please let me know if you have an idea for finding the reliable source to meet the [[WP:MEDRS]] guideline, [[Mobile phone radiation and health]], Yep it is disputable agenda in our society. [[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] ([[User talk:Goodtiming8871|talk]]) 06:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I do not think the WHO Fact Sheet should include such effects, as they are not proven. And the Fact Sheet is not the topic of the article, so we must take its conclusions as given.--[[User:Qui1che|papageno]] ([[User talk:Qui1che|talk]]) 03:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This might be straying into the realms of original research but as billions of people have been using mobile phones for 10 years or more the statistics are as good as it is possible to be. Any adverse effect even a tiny one would stand out given a dataset as huge as this, it is actually harder to study now because there are not enough people not using phones but historical data covers both low and high usage levels. We should try to avoid getting into the territory where claims that something is dangerous because it cannot be proved to be safe are given undue weight because this is statistically a impossible thing to do. All that can be done is to say that the risk is below a certain level. Just throwing this into the discussion to help to keep it grounded in real statistics. [[User:Mtpaley|Mtpaley]] ([[User talk:Mtpaley|talk]]) 22:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)




*'''Keep.''' The [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-09/covid-19-link-to-5g-technology-fueled-by-coordinated-effort 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". --[[User:Qui1che|papageno]] ([[User talk:Qui1che|talk]]) 03:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


*'''Absolutely keep''' - every reliable source I've found calls it not only false but a conspiracy theory: ''"conspiracy theory", "false idea", "misinformation"'' [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/technology/coronavirus-5g-uk.html New York Times]; ''"complete rubbish", "fake news", "conspiracy theory", "false claim"'' [https://www.bbc.com/news/52168096 BBC]; ''"conspiracy theory", "false"'' [https://factcheck.afp.com/experts-dismiss-claims-5g-wireless-technology-created-novel-coronavirus Factcheck]; ''"baseless conspiracy theory", "unfounded", "hoax"'' [https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/tech/5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-trnd/index.html CNN] ''"false claim", "conspiracy theory", "disinformation"'' [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/dhs-to-advise-telecom-firms-on-preventing-5g-cell-tower-attacks-linked-to-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories/2020/05/13/6aa9eaa6-951f-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html Washington Post]; ''"fake news", "conspiracy theory"'' [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205032/ Paper in Jour. of Medical Internet Research]. One of Wikipedia's most important roles is to call misinformation what it is. --[[User:Chetvorno|Chetvorno]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Chetvorno|<i style="color: Purple;">TALK</i>]]</small></sup> 19:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
== non-thermal biological adverse effects ==
I was looking for the Wikipedia subject: non-thermal biological adverse effects to Human. Is there any topic would cover this scientific issue to human? [[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] ([[User talk:Goodtiming8871|talk]]) 03:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
:[[Electromagnetic radiation and health]] ? [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 07:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Hi [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] Thank you for your update [[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] ([[User talk:Goodtiming8871|talk]]) 10:23, 22 June 2018 (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).... [[User:Plmoknqwerty|Plmoknqwerty]] ([[User talk:Plmoknqwerty|talk]]) 05:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
== Violations ==
::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. --[[User:Qui1che|papageno]] ([[User talk:Qui1che|talk]]) 20:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


{{ping|Emfsafety}} Stop violating [[WP:MEDRS]]. We don't allow that. You might get blocked or banned if you persist. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' Obvious nonsense that must be labelled as such per [[WP:PSCI]] policy. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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 [[Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic|linked section]]. Calling it anything else would be unsourced original research. [[User:Politanvm|<span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">POLITANVM</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Politanvm|talk]]</sup> 17:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
<blockquote>In 2018 a Hindawi journal, ''Journal of Environmental and Public Health'', published an epidemiological paper on [[glioblastoma]], none of the authors of which had academic appointments.<ref name="SMC">{{cite news |title=Expert reaction to paper looking at brain tumour incidence and lifestyle factors |url=http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-looking-at-brain-tumour-incidence-and-lifestyle-factors/ |work=Science Media Centre. |date=May 3, 2018}}</ref> The paper was accompanied by a press release that overstated the importance of findings with respect to the hypothesis that [[Mobile phone radiation and health|cell phones are dangerous]], and the results of the paper in media interviews by the authors.<ref name="SMC" /><ref name="SBM2018">{{cite journal |last1=Mazer |first1=Benjamin |title=Bad Faith: When conspiracy theorists play academics and the media for fools |journal=Science-Based Medicine |date=16 July 2018 |url=https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/bad-faith-when-conspiracy-theorists-play-academics-and-the-media-for-fools/}}</ref></blockquote>


Quoted by [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
* '''Keep''', per the aforementioned reliable sources and [[WP:PSCI]]. [[User:Myxomatosis57|Myxomatosis57]] ([[User talk:Myxomatosis57|talk]]) 21:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' we dont do batshit insane nonsense. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small>the inedible dog </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 21:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Court links no good ==
{{reflist-talk}}


Footnotes 48 and 49 do not lead to valid links
== Requested move 2 January 2020 ==
48 - "Wright v. Motorola, Inc. et al., No95-L-04929".
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
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 following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Andyberks|Andyberks]] ([[User talk:Andyberks#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Andyberks|contribs]]) 00:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' to "Wireless device radiation and health". <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> {{#if:|<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>|{{#if:|<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small>}}}} [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 14:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
----


==Contradictory statements in the Cancer section==
[[:Mobile phone radiation and health]] → [[Wireless device radiation and health]] – The content of this article relates to technologies more broadly than just mobile/cell phones, including wifi, DECT and others. I propose that the article title should reflect this. Note that in August 2019, the [[Wireless electronic devices and health]] article was merged into this one, which has a very similar title (and could be an alternative option), however since most of the health concerns center around radiation, perhaps that should be kept in the title. Feel free to comment on whether there might be any issues with doing this. -- [[User:SimonEast|SimonEast]] ([[User talk:SimonEast|talk]]) 04:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
[[File:Radio waves hazard symbol.svg|thumb|Radio waves, which are radiating electromagnetic signals, are not what the average person thinks radiation is. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)]]
* <s>Propose instead [[Electromagnetic fields and human health]]</s>. This is a phrase used in the sources, scientific literature, and the exact quote has 100000 ghits. It avoids the emotionally confusing connection with "radiation", which is commonly non-scientifically assumed to be [[ionizing radiation]]. The scope of this article extends to zero-frequency (Ref 1 includes "EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz"), zero-frequency implies a static electric or magnetic field, which is technically not radiation. Broadly, "radiation" is the wrong word. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
** Existing article at [[Electromagnetic radiation and health]]. Wondering whether these articles excessively overlap. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' on "Wireless device radiation and health", which is how things like 5G are typically described in local regulations for antennas and their supporting equipment (e.g. [http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/mobile-5g-and-small-cell-2019-legislation.aspx by state], [http://sananselmo-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=sananselmo-ca_8397b41675b5de650a27df9d779ecbd7.pdf one city]), [https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns including the FCC] and Section 704 of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]], and [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1406360.html case law]. That's the case for the U.S., but I don't know about E.U. and other English speaking countries' regs.
:This title unlike the previous, would more clearly cover cell phones, WiFi, antennas, and 5G. However, I could see advantages to separating the public antennas (and other utility equipment) from the cell phones themselves, as the regulations and exposure levels, methods of mitigation, would be different, I believe.
:EMF is too broad. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


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. [[User:Faulty|Faulty]] ([[User talk:Faulty|talk]]) 09:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for "Wireless device radiation and health". We also have [[Electromagnetic radiation and health]], so the proposed title "[[Electromagnetic fields and human health]]" does not disambiguate well, even if more technically accurate. As a bonus, this term avoids the [[WP:ENGVAR]] where the title starts "Mobile phone" yet the article uses "cell phone" 25 times (including a section title), "cellphone" 5 times, and "mobile phone" 42 times (including the references). [[Special:Contributions/94.21.10.204|94.21.10.204]] ([[User talk:94.21.10.204|talk]]) 06:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


== Glucose metabolism ==
:With {{diff||933829208|933637968|this edit}} I've changed many uses of "cellphone" or "cell phone" to "mobile phone", "phone" or just omitted entirely, per [[MOS:ARTCON]]. Of course, not in references or quotes. [[Special:Contributions/94.21.10.204|94.21.10.204]] ([[User talk:94.21.10.204|talk]]) 06:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>


I would like to know why scientific studies were reverted from the Glucose metabolism chapter. [[User:Petenka|Petenka]] ([[User talk:Petenka|talk]]) 19:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
== "Better title" ==


== Belpoggi study on fertility is unscientific ==
Is this really a "better title" for the article? Seems I just missed the move proposal above and it was closed after 7 days, but with just three comments. I thought the original title was more reader-friendly. Oh well. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


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.
== "Bone mineralization" ==


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/) [[User:Jonatz2|Jonatz2]] ([[User talk:Jonatz2|talk]]) 16:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I am surprised to see no mention of the bone mineralization study from 2011 in the article; it seems to be pretty definitive evidence that cellphones do interact with our bodies, although not in a way that's clearly harmful. I think it should be incorporated into the article, but I'm tired of seeing my wikipedia contributions thrown away, so I''m just leaving this here for someone else to add... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21415640 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.6.231.228|209.6.231.228]] ([[User talk:209.6.231.228#top|talk]]) 05:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 14:13, 17 June 2024


"Misinformation" or "information"?

[edit]
There is consensus that the word "misinformation" in this article (in connection with the claim about 5G and the coronavirus) is appropriate and should not be changed as it accurately reflects the view of reliable sources. The argument put forth for changing this to "information" seems to be a personal view rather than one backed up by reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
[edit]

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)[reply]

Contradictory statements in the Cancer section

[edit]

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)[reply]

Glucose metabolism

[edit]

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

Belpoggi study on fertility is unscientific

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wireless_device_radiation_and_health&oldid=1229564694"