Talk:Wireless device radiation and health

My Edit on India's Supreme Court Ruling removed

Hi,

I had attempted to edit the Mobile phone radiation and health page some time back. Here is difference page of that edit I agree with 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

The petition against the mobile towers can be read here. 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. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mostly junk sources. The review is interesting, but inserted into the article in an undue way – Lennart Hardell's views are outliers in this space.[1] but possibly worth a mention. I've added something more due. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote, the review (PMID 28656257) is "interesting": this is the piece by Lennart Hardell – 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. 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 WHO had several issues of neutral point of view regarding 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. 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. --papageno (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi papageno,
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? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Goodtiming8871, but I really don't know what you are asking. 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. --papageno (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 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. 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: Archived 23 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine). 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.--papageno (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi 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.
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. 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.--papageno (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I just read the PMC 5504984) reference and I agree that it is meaningless drivel. Most references are from the BioInitiative Working Group which is "self-published online, without peer review - wikipedia". It also references emfscientist.org but there is nothing there apart from scare stories without any data. www.peccem.org references emfscientist.org then says "The preponderant presence of members of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reminds us that this organization (and other institutions with the same criteria) refused to accept new scientific evidence of potential health risks from nonthermal, low-intensity radiofrequency radiation despite recent scientific advances in knowledge on the subject. " Without referencing any of these recent scientific advances. Mtpaley (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2020 (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. Mtpaley (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

References

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? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Electromagnetic radiation and health ? Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Hi Alexbrn Thank you for your update Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Violations

@Emfsafety: Stop violating WP:MEDRS. We don't allow that. You might get blocked or banned if you persist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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. The paper was accompanied by a press release that overstated the importance of findings with respect to the hypothesis that cell phones are dangerous, and the results of the paper in media interviews by the authors.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 2 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Wireless device radiation and health". (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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. -- SimonEast (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Radio waves, which are radiating electromagnetic signals, are not what the average person thinks radiation is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Propose instead Electromagnetic fields and human health. 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. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Existing article at Electromagnetic radiation and health. Wondering whether these articles excessively overlap. —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. by state, one city), including the FCC and Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and 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. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (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). 94.21.10.204 (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

With 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. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Better title"

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. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Bone mineralization"

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 Im just leaving this here for someone else to add... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21415640 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.231.228 (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSMED, we try to use reviews and meta-analyses rather than (currently unreplicated?) single studies. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Currently we have:

In response to public concern, the World Health Organization established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. They have stated that although extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum, all reviews conducted so far have indicated that, as long as exposures are below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, which cover the full frequency range from 0–300 GHz, such exposures do not produce any known adverse health effect.

The cited page is just a landing page, it's not clear what exactly is being cited (looking at the archive near the access date archive doesn't help.)

The "In response to public concern" is vague (concern about what?), if we mean cancer we should just say cancer. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The link to the FDA studies on link 7 is broken.

Title! Desync-o-tron (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Misinformation" or "information"?

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)