Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Initial discussions

This article was rather too POV, giving undue credence to the existence of a condition which is considered by the vast majority of scientists to be unproven. I have tried to balance it a little, but it probably requires a much more thorough rewrite to achieve NPOV. I have therefore tagged it as POV check. DWaterson 19:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. I am the original author. As pointed out in the text, it is a controversial subject. However I think I did make the point that much scientific and medical opinion currently does not accept this as a real physical condition. On the other hand, there is significant experiential evidence and this is recognised by the HPA report, which is definitely NPOV - it has to be, otherwise the author would be pilloried! Scientific proof is not the be-all and end-all - and I speak there as a practising scientist, much "scientific theory" is in practice a systematisation of experimental data. The more complex the system and the larger the error bars on the parameters, the less certain is any form of "proof". Physics and mathematics come at one end of the spectrum and medicine, biology and psychology at the other. It is fair to say that 2 years ago I would have been just as sceptical about this condition, however since then I have met a number of people with it because my wife has developed it. Obviously, however hard I have tried to keep it objective, some POV will tend to creep in! However my experience, again as a scientist, is that those who dismiss it as unproven are tending to do so on the basis of past experience and "conventional wisdom", given the current lack of detailed studies. Much the same as was done with ME 15 years ago, or Lister's carbolic spray 150 years back. Anyway, it's good to see that the article has been picked up so quickly (which says a lot for the efficiency of Wikipedia's editing, even with 1000 new articles being added per day!) and I look forward to seeing what can be done to make it more NPOV. There is a lot of pseudoscience around (which I do NOT approve of) and it would be really useful to have an article in a form which is not open to accusations of bias or trying to sell something (like, unfortunately, many alternative medicicine sites on the Internet), nor dismissively sceptical. The articles on MCS etc seemed to me to strike this balance well. I was interested to see your added comment on the tin-foil hat (and had not realised it was such a pejorative term!). This is, in fact, very primitive compared with practical shielding, and therefore I am not sure that it is helpful (see the Powerwatch website for alternatives). However, a wire mesh headnet has proved helpful to some, provided that it is earthed (grounded) - otherwise it can act as an antenna, and the increased fields observed by the sceptical students would be absolutely correct - I have seen the same thing happen. Hyperman 42 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now looked further at my original text and I can see that it could be misunderstood because I did not include details of prevalence. I have now included these to emphasise that in its severe form, this is currently a very rare condition. I certainly would not want to do any scaremongering - there is enough of that around already in certain areas of alternative medicine! Hyperman 42 10:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I do agree that you clearly had attempted to achieve NPOV, it just needed a little work. As I knew the page already existed, I put in the link to tin-foil hat partly as a slightly cheeky joke, sorry ;) However, it does illustrate a point clearly, and provide an alternative viewpoint. DWaterson 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As I now read the article I can't really spot anything not conforming to the NPOV policy. Is it OK if I remove the tag? –Mysid 10:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the text, as it reads, is probably sufficiently NPOV. Feel free to remove it if you wish. When I added the tag, I was hoping that we might get an editor with more specific scientific background knowledge to read it through and identify any contentious issues, but that's probably overly optimistic :) DWaterson 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case we could perhaps replace it with a more specific tag, or {{facts}} where unsure about the facts. –Mysid 06:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the word supposed from the first paragraph. EHS isn't a supposed condition. Even the 2005 Irvine report stated that the condition was very real, but it is the association / attribution to exposure EMFs that is supposed. In the end of the first paragraph I have changed "Normally considered harmful" as it is too subjective and open to interpretation. As exposure guidelines have been set (ICNIRP) and these are what are normally related to, it seemed more objective to use these as a reference point instead. The claim of 10-25% being affected by minor symptoms were described as being "extremely subjective". This implied that it was the symptoms themselves that could be subjective, as opposed to the attribution to the supposed source. I have changed this to remove ambiguity. Due to the lack of recent citations for prevalence in the original article, I have added a couple more from the last 5 years. I have removed the tin-hat reference as it seemed overly derogatory - Even though it is a contentious issue it seemed very subjective and not NPOV. I have also added cognitive behavioural therapy (which seems to be the main proposed course of treatment in the UK) to the paragraph. I have added a number of references, and corrected the Powerwatch reference (mispelling of Alasdair Philips and they seem to have stopped selling the book directly - It is however available from EMFields (as their site states) and I have adjusted the link accordingly). Returning to the first paragraph, whilst the prevalence is still so unknown, and especially whilst some reports a claiming 1-3% of the population being affected, can we call the condition "rare"? I would have said until the prevalence is better known that it has no quantifying description and that it is merely referred to as "a condition". Arathalion 09:26, 7 April 2006 (GMT)

I was in the understanding that the condition was rare – so honestly, my bad. And due to my limited English skills, I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of "supposed condition" (so I didn't remove it, although I've heard it's quite real). Great that it has now been corrected. –Mysid 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification, I will remove the "rare" reference. If anybody objects, feel free to comment. Arathalion 16:53, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Thanks, a good helpful set of edits. Hyperman 42 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

2005 study published by American Psychosomatic Society

Added a note on the negative results published in this study. Kayman1uk 08:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

50/1000 Doctors?

The best figures I can find are that in 2001 there were 1.7 doctors per head of population in the UK [1], giving approximately 100,000 doctors in the UK alone, based on a population of 60m. Germany's population is higher but if we assume the same number of doctors, then having 50 doctors sign up to a petition starts to sound quite feeble. Is it really worth noting that 0.05% of Doctors are willing to say that ES is real? 2000 doctors in the whole EU doesn't really sound like an improvement.

I'll add a small note to the main article on this point to avoid giving readers the impression this is a significant proportion of doctors. Kayman1uk 09:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you assume the same number of Doctors per head in Germany? Let alone base it on British doctors, who are well below European average (3.4/head). How can you say "up to 0.05%" when the quantity is "over 50"? To be at all correct, you would have to say "at least 0.05%".

Besides, the percentage is not relevant unless the request/awareness of the report...there is nothing to quantify this against, thus whatever figure is chosen is quite arbitrary. The Doctors who signed the appeal is not supposed to be an indication of how many Doctors in Germany think ES is real, and never was supposed to be - therefore the figure is irrelevant.

I'm going to remove this - it's not relevant, the figures are based on major assumptions, and the figure is arbitrary preventing it from being NPOV.Arathalion 10:11, 11 May 2006 (GMT)

I'm just trying to put the figures into some kind of context. It's remarkably difficult to find out how many actual doctors are registered in the UK or Germany. I'll keep looking.

Also, what does "Doctors" mean? Are we talking GPs? PhDs? Any qualified medical doctor? Kayman1uk 10:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was doctors with medical qualifications, mainly in the field of environmental medicine. 50 doctors is a significant number of initial signatories to any letter or appeal (compare multi-signatory letters from doctors/academics in newspapers or academic journals), especially in a relatively controversial area like this. Hyperman 42 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tidy Up

Carried out slight tidy up. Linked a few words, moved some stuff on symptoms out of the Reports and Evidence section. Nothing dramatic. Kayman1uk 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes and call for some evidence

Hi all,

These are my first edits so apologies if I've messed anything too much.

I've already made a couple of alterations. In particular I've changed "A majority of people with electrosenitivity have MCS" to "Some people." The references that are currently cited do not provide any evidence either way as to what proportion of ES sufferers also have MCS.

I've also rephrased the bit about the study of 725 electrsensitivity sufferers - this is actually a review paper rather than a study. There are also three new papers out this year which support it's conclusions so I've added them in. (But couldn't format the reference section properly - can anyone help?).

There are some other bits in the article I also want to change, but thought I'd throw up for debate first.

1) The statement that "typical" ES sufferers have high levels of heavy metals is not supported by any literature that I know of. Am I missing a paper? If it can't be supported, should we take it out?

2) The idea that Selenium and vitamin supplements are helpful for ES has been tested in a good quality clinical trial and it doesn't seem to work. I think we should remove this part.

3) Re CBT - I don't really understand what the Govt / Industry bit has to do with anything. Either CBT helps people with ES or it doesn't. Whether that pleases Govt, Industry or whoever is surely irrelevant? Catpig 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just made some major changes to the article. As well as altering the above, I have also

1. updated the prevalence figures
2. taken out references to similarity with MCS / CFS etc - these seemed to be a bit unneccessary
3. added a new section on 'role of EMF' which seems to be the most important aspect of this illness as well as the most contentious.
4. made 101 other minor changes.

What do people think? Catpig 11:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all happy about the extent of the changes made by Catpig and in particular the level of deletions. This article has suddenly changed from what was a pretty well agreed consensus version which had lasted largely unchanged for some months to a very differently structured form which is almost unrecognisable in places. I am not at all convinced that the new version is as accessible to the casual reader who might hope to find some useful unbiased information in Wikipedia. The new version seems to rely on one or two sources and I can't see why the references to similarity with MCS/CFS are "unnecessary" - they are certainly not for sufferers, and the coexistence of the two conditions IS referred to in more than one of the references previously cited. I am tempted to try a major revert, as editing the valuable material back in again will be a major task, but would first invite Catpig to explain him/herself as he/she is not contactable via username. Thanks however for flagging up that the changes had been made. Hyperman 42 00:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that it is a major part of Wiki policy to hyperlink to as many as possible other potentially relevant subjects, even for apparently quite tenous connections :-) therefore it is certainly not appropriate to remove such hyperlinks without very good cause. Hyperman 42 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I think I have unfairly blamed Catpig for the major restructuring of the article. Looking more closely at the history this appears to have been done by the unidentified source 193.61.203.126 on 23 August without any supporting discussion. I intend to ask for a revert unless some justification is given in the next few days. Catpig's changes were more localised and generally justified, although I still disagree to soem extent with the interpretation of the simultaneity of ES and MCS. To some extent this is a problem of the poor distinction between mild, moderate and severe symptoms in most reporting. Hyperman 42 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyperman, apologies for any offence caused - possibly I took the whole "be bold" thing a bit too far. It was me who made those revisions, I just forgot to log in first. And the reason you can't contact me by username is because I have no idea how to set that up. As I say, I am very new here! Hence also my taking out hyperlinks - my bad.

With regards to the structure, I personally (obviously) think this is an improvement on the old version. Previously we just had a section labelled 'Reports and Evidence' which could cover almost anything. Breaking it down into what symptoms make up the condition, how prevalent it is, and the debate over the role of EMF seemed like a logical next step. But as you say, doing that involved a lot of rewriting along the way.

I don't think this new version is any more or less biased than the old version is it? What bits in particular do you think are biased? That's certainly not my intention and I'm quite happy for anything suggesting bias to be reworded.

Re MCS / CFS links being unneccessary: my impression from the literature on this is that most people with ES do not have MCS or CFS. That's why I thought we should reduce the discussion on it. But as you say, Grant and Rea do think it's a bigger overlap, so I'm happy to accept that I might have been wrong to take it out. Maybe we should have a short section on 'Similarity to other illnesses'?

Where shall we go with this now? I do think the old 'Reports' section needs to be broken down. It would be good to have the separate issues addressed separately. Do you want to revert it, then we can work together to separate this out? Catpig 08:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I probably need to take a look at the rewritten article with a more open mind but this may have to wait a few days. There was quite a tight structure to the article originally but it has evolved as various people have edited, so maybe it is time for a complete rethink. Sorry, I was probably unduly defensive about the changes. Incidentally I wasn't trying to imply your editing was biased, only that Wiki can act as a balanced source (NPOV) when most writers on a subject have axes to grind in one direction or the other.

The ES/MCS link is interesting. If ES is defined in its "mild" or "moderate" form then there is no particular link. In its "severe" form however, statistics, writers and my personal experience suggest that 60-80% of sufferers have had MCS or ME, and the remainder have had extremely high or prolonged exposures to mobile phones or other high-power electrical devices. I agree this distinction was not made in the previous text, and it would be useful to do so. The snag is that many of the writers themselves have not made the distinction explicit, although it is clear when looked at in context.

To become personally contactable in Wiki you can start a User Page, which is reasonably easy by trial-and-error (as I did it) especially if you borrow bits from other people's good user pages! When you registered your name, hopefully someone from Wiki would have got in touch after a day or two to welcome you and give you some initial hints - try logging in and see if you've received anything without realising it. Have a look at my user page and discussion if you like, though it is very basic - I am no computer buff! It's always interesting to know a bit about one's fellow-editors especially if working together on an area. Hyperman 42 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Hyperman. Ok, looked at from the point of view of differing severity, then I agree that there is an overlap with other 'medically unexplained' illnesses that we should mention. I'm not sure what the figures are for CFS / ME, but I've just had a flick through some papers and there does seem to be a consistent-ish theme for MCS overlap. Firstly there's the Levallois Californian survey. They report that 60% of their ES respondents also reported MCS. Then there's the Carlsson et al Swedish survey. They don't report overlap explicitly, but if we look only at those who report 'much annoyance' from one or more environmental sources then 253 reported problems with VDUs or fluorescent lights alone, 554 reported problems with chemicals alone, and 315 reported problems with both. So one estimate of % comorbid chemical sensitivity in these more severely affected respondents would be 253 / (253+315) = 55%. And I think that's our estimated overlap: 55-60%. Unless you have any advances on that?!

With regards the severity issue, again I agree that we need to say something. The perceived wisdom (a la Irvine) seems to be that 10% of sufferers have severe ES. But quite what the definition of 'severe' is is often left unspoken. That's why I have cited those two studies on work impairment and 'much' vs 'some' annoyance. Incidently, I see Levallois also reports data on this: 32.4 per 1000 in his sample reported ES and 5.2 per 1000 reported ES associated with necessity to change job or remain unemployed. So about 16% might be classified as severe cases. Other than these bits and pieces, did you have any good references in mind for a definition of what 'mild' 'moderate' and 'severe' ES might mean?

Cheers for the tip about the user page. I'll take a look. Catpig 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits by 80.218.237.44

I am not sure I agree with everything in this latest version (the 3rd Sept 23:34 one). Pointing out all the contentious areas would take a while, so I'll just take a fairly random selection of comments to illustrate the problems.

"ES is associated with chronically stressed immune system." There is some evidence that certain forms of ES are associated with alterations regarding the presence of mast cells in the skin (e.g. Johansson O et al. Exp Dermatol. 1994;3:234-8). But this hasn't been replicated by everyone (e.g. Lonne-Rahm S et al. J Occup Environ Med. 2000:42;512-16) and the general view is that it is unclear what if anything this means (e.g. Irvine Report 2005). And I'm not sure what other evidence there is that ES is associated with altered functioning in the immune system. We might mention it in the article, but at the moment I think this is more of interest to scientists than to the average reader. It certainly shouldn't be in the first line of the definition!

"ES is associated with... metal or chemical poisoning." I can't think of a single study which suggests this. Not one that's been peer-reviewed, anyway. Instead, the World Health Organisation's view is that ES "lacks apparent toxicological or physiological basis".

"ES can be confirmed by the increased quantity of sleep and well-being that rapidly occurs" when EMF levels are reduced. I know of only one experiment in which ES sufferers had EMF levels altered and the effects on their sleep examined. This suggested that, if anything, reducing EMF levels IMPAIRS sleep quality (Mueller Ch H et al 2000. Bioelectromagentics Society 22nd Annual Meeting, 2000:89-90), a finding that has not yet been replicated by anyone.

The "Therapy" section. Who's recommendations are all these? The World Health Organisation, the Health Protection Agency and the Eurpean Commission have all produced reports on this and there is also at least one systematic review on clinical trials for ES. None of them mention rythmic breathing, drinking litres of spring water or refloration of the intestines.

In short, it might be ok to include these opinions in this entry as the viewpoint of some commentators on ES, providing we can find a reference for them. But I think an encyclopadia entry should spend most of its time explaining what the viewpoint of the medical, scientific and regulatory mainstream is, regardless of whether we personally agree or disagree with that mainstream view. As Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states:

"the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each"

The HPA and the WHO are fairly prominent.

I suggest we revert the entry to the version produced on 23rd August which Hyperman42 and I had been discussing. Then if there are issues that need to be addressed they can be flagged up on the talk page and we can hammer them out. Catpig 09:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And another comment that I think is very misleading: "People with ES must be able to accept that the condition will remain for life." In fact, the condition does not invariably remain for life. The evidence is more nuanced than that. Patients with more severe forms of it do have a poor prognosis, but even here, some (35% in one study) recover partly or fully over time. Meanwhile those with mild versions of the condition (e.g. VDU-related symptoms only) actually have a reasonably good prognosis. See Stenberg O et al. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2002:28;349-357 or Eriksson N et al. JOEM. 1997:39;108-118 for details. Given the extensive nature of the errors in this article, I propose reverting it to the 23rd August one tomorrow morning (6 Sept) unless there are any objections.Catpig 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I missed this talk before reverting the article myself to the 23rd August one! The new article took a completely different tack and did not quote its sources, besides making many statements of opinion. Author 80.218.237.44, please discxuss on this talk page before making other changes, it would also be helpful if you could identify yourself. We do not want to start a revert war. Hyperman 42 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also comment that I don't disagree with some of 80.218.237.44's comments, for example I have seen a severely ES person greatly helped by reduced EMF exposures giving better sleep and there are some sources citing links with heavy metal poisoning, but we should work in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and sourcing, otherwise it just becomes an unsupported opinion factory. Hyperman 42 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits by 80.218.237.44 - further discussion

The IP address 80.218.237.44 is now registered under the username Charles1. I am Charles1 and have edited the entry "Electrical Sensitivity" again directly. Now I see through the a study of the Wikipedia rules that I am in a cooperative effort to provide a NPOV encyclopedia entry for this topic.

Please excuse any inconvenience. I see that you are all do an honest job to make a good entry.

I am acutely electrically sensitive since Jan 2005, have researched the industry, science, health aspects, politics, law, lobbying, protest groups related to electrical sensitivity extensively. I know how to measure low and high frequency electrical fields and know the recommended levels for sleeping areas. I have invested greatly in therapies and shielding. Shielding is good in the short term but is a dead end because it must be perfect (Faraday cage) to work and it encloses the suffer. EMF source removal is the only reliable approach but is quite difficult financially and socially especially if it means leaving your current living environment. I am willing to back up each of my inputs and discuss them in a professional manner. I have worked for 25 years with computers and would never have believed that ES could be real until I contracted it. I am dead serious about this topic.

The current article is structurally good from a scientific view but is massively skewed in favor of short term studies funded by the industry. For example, the reference to Roosli. He is a Swiss researcher funded by the Swiss government and the local communications industry. He has only produced studies based on short term exposure. His recent attempt to replicate the TNO study in Holland is fraudulent because of suppression of information concerning health damages to some of the test persons. As an individual he is probably a good guy just trying to make a buck for his family. For ES suffers he is a fraud. Do want to know more about him?

The entry leans toward industry lobbying and doesn't provide the user with anything useful to orient himself. It places the ES sufferer in the bizarre position of making "claims" or "reporting" his symptoms. The ES condition is so new and bizzare that the mainstream opinion has difficulty adjusting. The references to video terminals are out of date because they have been replaced with flat screens which are practically EMF neutral exactly because of groups like FEB. There is a vast research world out there on this topic and the current entry just doesn't do it justice. The idea that the entry is supported or NPOV just because you make a reference to a study somewhere is not correct. The ES condition is so rare and shocking to family, doctor, employer and friends because it is related to long term stress and is not mono-causal. It is exactly the clumsy attempts by some industry funded researchers to find mono-causality from short term exposure and the amateur attempts of other researchers to replicate already weakly structured studies that approaches recklessness. How to you propose to show that the reported references to the subject do it justice when many parameters are missing from them? What do you all consider as a reputable reference or source concerning electrical sensitivity? Study Parameters: - Medical History - Duration or test (Short term hours/days, Long term years) - Frequency used - Modulation(Pulsed, Nonpulsed) - Dosage - Symptoms - Field or Laboratory - Funding (Industry, Independent) - Researcher's credentials (end of comments by Charles1 / 80.218.237.44; note - four tildes ~ produces an autosignature )

Thanks Charles1 for identifying yourself. I look forward to a collaborative effort on this. Current situation is that the earlier version which had evolved over some months was extensively edited by Catpig in August. In the process quite a lot of the original references were removed and some new ones added. I think it is fair to say that this changed the balance of the article. However, it probably did need reorganising and therefore I have left it "as is" for the time being. I have not yet had time to do a thorough comparison of the two versions and see whether a combined version could be produced. Contributors may find it interesting to look back at the previous versions (last one being 13 August before the major rewrite), or indeed Charles1's edits of 3 September, and see whether material could profitably be lifted back from those, without making the article too long and unwieldy. A difficult balance, I know! I must admit I would like to see some of the original references restored.

Incidentally, I am a sceptical scientist/engineer but my wife has developed the severe form of ES and the evidence of our personal lives convinces me that it is a real phenomenon - but I can see both sides' points of view, having been in both places myself! The main thing however is to provide a balanced and objective view so that people can find out information, which will hopefully be helpful to them.

Also worth noting that it is more difficult to do scientific studies on ES in its severe form than might be supposed. Problems exist both for people in travelling to the site, and in the pain caused by testing if they do get there. The effect has been that the very people who show the strongest responses to stimuli are unable to attend or complete the study and therefore not counted. Hyperman 42 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of word "supposed"

I edited the initial paragraph of the article, because I felt the use of such words as "supposed" and "supposedly" indicate a POV on the part of the writer (ie that the writer is sceptical of the existence of such a condition). I've tried to edit it to reflect better the state of controversy, giving equal space to both points of view. In any case, I don't think the use of "supposed condition" is justified - the (Irvine 2005) report documents the term Electrical Hypersensitivity as a "condition" with real and debilitating symptoms, but states also quite clearly that their use of such a term does not imply the acceptance of a physical causal connection. In other words, it is not a "supposed" condition, it is a real condition, but the attribution of EMFs as the cause of the condition by sufferers might more fairly be described as a matter of supposition.

I also qualified the "there is no evidence .." to suggest that current mainstream science has found no evidence.

I wonder if it would be helpful to divide the "treatments" section into two, one for treatments suggested by sufferers and their support groups, and one for treatments suggested by mainstream health care (such as the recommendations by the Irvine report). It seems that many treatments suggested by one side are regarded as dubious and of limited benefit by the other side, and this controversy should be reflected in the discussion if an unbiassed account is to be given.Alan1507 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem there is the risk for the article to become horribly riddled with original research; whilst the article could report the opinions of both sides in a balanced manner, there could be considerable problems with verifiability. DWaterson 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the link you supplied, the way to avoid "original research" would be to cite "reliable references". The kind of references that support the point of view of sufferers and support groups comes from advocacy sites such as electrosensitivity.org.uk, and then one gets into a messy debate as to whether such references are considered reliable. I would have thought, however that if it is made clear that a controversy exists, then one is doing one's best to present a balanced article. Thus one can cite a reference, but one should qualify the citation by stating that the reference is disputed. Alan1507 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to finding a mutually acceptable reference for what treatments ES suffers use and prefer, why not simply use the Roosli et al 2004 reference (Ref 1 in the article)? That is a peer reviewed survey of what treatments people with ES use and how helpful they find them. It is discussed in the Irvine report. I'd recommend against dividing this section into two parts though - that will just make it hard to read. Why not describe the treatments that seem popular with ES sufferers in the first para of this section and then move on to the clinical trials bit by saying something like "Few of these treatments have yet been tested in formal clinical trials. Instead, a 2006 systematic review..."Catpig 09:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I go with Alan on this. The word "supposed" was inserted once before, several months back, and was removed - there seemed a fair majority agreement (see talk earlier). Hyperman 42 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I agree about taking out supposed.Catpig 09:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am less convinced about some other changes in the first paragraph. Particularly "Sufferers and their support groups maintain that many of the scientific reviews so far have been funded by industries that have a vested interest, and hence that their outcomes may have been biassed." Firstly, the statement isn't referenced - can you prove to an uninformed reader that this is indeed the viewpoint of most sufferers and most support groups? Secondly, is it factually correct? The HPA, WHO and EC reviews are the most pertinent here and I'm not sure they were funded by industry were they? Thirdly, it misses out all the other more complex reasons why some people are sceptical about the science in this area. And most importantly of all, I think raising this debate at this early stage in the article is distracting. Why not simply end the para at "It is a matter of ongoing controversy as to whether there is a direct physical link between EMF exposure and the symptoms experienced by sufferers." We can then provide a more detailed explaination about the controversy in the "Role of EMF" section.Catpig 09:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. DWaterson 11:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit when I wrote the statement about claims of sufferers and their support groups, I was thinking that I should at least put one of those "citation needed" markers on it, but I couldn't find out how to do it. I think it should have been put more clearly, sorry! What I was thinking of was the comment from someone (later taken out), concerning CBT that "it should be noted that this offers the best solution to those bodies (Governmental or Industrial) which have an interest in disassociating environmental factors from the condition of ES." A further evidence of this line of thought that could be cited is the response of Electrosensitivity UK to the HPA report (Irvine 2005). This may be found at http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/HPA-RPD%20Report.htm . In this article, they take a quote from Dr. Jill Meara of the HPA in a WHO conference in Prague: "“An acceptance that EMF has a causal role in ES would have widespread implications for future policy on prevention and management.” On the basis of that quotation, they argue strongly that the whole issue has been politicised, stating “This is no longer to be decided by objective science, it is now a political issue, and we are but prawns in the gravy”. Now I am not saying that I agree with this line of argument; I was merely reporting what I understood to be their position (Electrosensitivity UK is one of the biggest advocacy sites for this condition). I would suggest a further section headed "Controversy" that describes this and other aspects of the controversy in more detail. I'm not sufficiently experienced as a Wikipedia editor to trust myself to do this right and get all the links and formatting right. Alan1507 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)