Jump to content

Talk:Wireless device radiation and health

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.11.0.22 (talk) at 19:52, 15 December 2017 (→Proposed edit: "no increase" vs "There is no evidence"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Cleanup of lawsuits section

I have removed the Indian case. An ongoing case in such a slow-moving legal jurisdiction is not relevant. The French mast decision should be removed as well. There are doubtless tens of thousands of mast through France. The removal of one, without any apparent effect on others, is WP:UNDUE. Finally, the Italian pension decision, again without apparent effect on a significant number of other cases, should be summarized with one or two sentences instead of a whole sub-section. --papageno (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a cleanup and consolidation of this section. --papageno (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wall Street Journal 5/27/2016. Obviously it should be added to the article. I am not sufficiently familiar with the article at this point to make the insertion. It seems that it should go in the cancer section, and language in the effects and lede should be revised accordingly.

Question: Are we putting the studies in chronological order, reverse chronological order, or based on the significance of the studies, with review studies first and less significant studies later?

FYI. I did post about it on Jimbo's page here, in this section. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The story is also covered by the Scientific American and Fortune, no doubt cellphone shares are tumbling. OTOH the Huffington Post sounds a more cautious note. The Sci Am notes that these are only partial results posted on a prepublication web site here and looking at it it is still a draft and not the to-be-published version. Nevertheless the document itself says that these partial results have been peer-reviewed, so they do need to be taken seriously.
With my cautious scientist's hat on I would say that this experiment needs independent repetition and the result confirming before it can be accepted as mainstream science. Many studies have come undone in this respect and caution is very important here. This does not, at first sight, appear to have been a double-blind experiment in which the rat carers didn't know which was the control group: one cannot rule out some unintended bias on their part which might have affected the rats' health (for example they might have felt anxious in case the RF was switched on while they accessed the wired chamber and that might have been picked up by the rats and stressed them too).
Taking on my electromagnetics test engineer persona, I would note another limitation of the experiment because there was no control group for unmodulated RF, or for lower-frequency electric or magnetic fields such as are produced by power cables. The suggestion that any adverse effects are limited to mobile phones is wholly unsupported and if the risk is real then it could be more widespread. That thought, of course, raises one's concerns over the risks.
Sadly, I can see this as one of those stories that get caught up in the "silly season" and the truth of the matter gets lost in the kind of hyperbole you threw at Jimbo. I rather think the National Cancer Institute will be updating its faq on the subject, although given the mixed results from previous studies I don't think that a lot will change. Worth keeping an eye out for, though.
Is it too soon to cover this news story here? I am standing down on that one. I regard Wikinews as the place for the "reality change log" and Wikipedia as the place for the latests "checkpoint archive", as it were, and in this I appear to disagree profoundly with established consensus. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pre-print, and the supporting studies along with a parallel mouse study have not been released at all. There has been some criticism of the media coverage (for example, at Forbes), which has had some outlets revise their coverage, if regrettably opaquely. David Gorski at the prominent science skeptic site Science-Based Medicine also has a critical article. The inclusion of the study is preliminary. --papageno (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the new study would be conclusive for mice, I note some parts (e.g. no risk to [mice] females, have they be studied so far showing any effect?):

In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” [..] Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the number of tumors that developed in the animals exposed to CDMA versus GSM modulations. [..] The findings are not definitive, and there were other confusing findings that scientists cannot explain—including that male rats exposed to the radiation seemed to live longer than those in the control group.

— the SciAm article above[1]
I also note WHO info was taken out of the lead, correctly if/since they dropped 2B categorization. I can't locate mobile phones/radiation mentioned at (as I did at some point in the past) under "Volumes 1-117"[2] (while however I still see it under "Alphabetical order", even if both "Last update: 22 December 2016"; I'm guessing the meant to drop "Includes radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from wireless phones" in the latter but only did in the former..).
Anyone know more about sex differences (effects should(?) be the same for both sexes, at least for ionizing radiation, but cell phones do not have ionizing)?

After reading this article, I was reading a completely unrelated piece about about dry cleaning and found this: ” Liquid silicone (decamethylcyclopentasiloxane or D5) ….. Toxicity tests by Dow Corning shows the solvent to increase the incidence of tumors in female rats (no effects were seen in male rats), but further research concluded that the effects observed in rats are not relevant to humans because the biological pathway that results in tumor formation is unique to rats.” Could this pathway be the same for the cell phone cancer study?

— comment to critical Forbes article above[3]
[Some extra trivia on something that DOES cause cancer (WHO group 1 category), wood dust, made me think, what to make of other article I noticed at Forbes[4] and this they linked to:]

There may be more fiber in your food than you realized. Burger King, McDonald’s and other fast food companies list in the ingredients of several of their foods, microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) or “powdered cellulose” as components of their menu items. Or, in plain English, wood pulp.

— Qz.com article Forbes linked to[5]
Inclusion may be justified (as not harmful), as "wood dust" isn't the same as "wood pulp" (at least link to different articles at Wikipedia..). Note "wood smoke" is also known cancerous (separate category, i.e. "Biomass fuel (primarily wood), indoor emissions from household combustion of"). In lesser category 2A (yes, higher "worry" than mobile phones in (previously) only 2B..): "Very hot beverages at above 65 °C (drinking)" (year "In prep."). What that means with Tea ruled out (category 3) in 1991, and "Coffee (drinking)" (and caffeine), I'm not sure.. comp.arch (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Vandalism ? [6] ? --Ne0 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, and mind WP:NOTVAND. The article was full of unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More like a badly-needed cleanup to help meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many quotes

The number of quotes on this topic are not warranted. These need to be paraphrased out. Chabeck (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit: "no increase" vs "There is no evidence"

User Air.light proposes changing the beginning of the second paragraph in the lede from "Mobile phone use does not increase the risk of getting brain cancer or other head tumors" to "There is no evidence that mobile phone use increases the risk of getting brain cancer or other head tumors" (my emphasis added). We have reverted a few times and I thought it best to bring the matter here for discussion. I disagree with the user's proposal, for one since I think it is a case of Russell's teapot. I have reverted to the "initial state", created on 2017-01-12 by User Alexbrn, and invite User Air.light and other interested editors to comment on the proposed change. --papageno (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, WP:ASSERT facts. Why have a verbose alternative? Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original quote says definitively that mobile phone radiation does not increase the risk of cancer or other head tumors. A major source referenced here quite clearly does not say this and says information that somewhat contradicts this. It says that electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans".
Please tell me, why should we say the opposite when a major source (the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer) says otherwise?
It also says that "studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of mobile phone use". Long-term studies take decades to conduct as some cancers take a very long time to appear. Mobile phones haven't been around long enough to see the results of these studies (as explained in the source).
I think my edit was fairly conservative. I also think that that we should elaborate on this a little further – ie. elaborate on both points of view in the article for the reader to distinguish between. What reason is there not to? Being too verbose should not be a reason as this is an encyclopedia after all. Air.light (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO is even more direct. As they say in their Fact Sheet N° 193 (October 2014) summary of mobile phones and health: "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use." Studies are always ongoing on everything to do with human health, meaning it's not noteworthy. Cell phones have been around for nigh on 35 years, and the microwave band has been used for wide-area communications for 65 years. "It's too soon to know" is a common pseudoscience and cancer refrain, that doesn't hold up here. in the lede, the simple, straight state of affairs is sufficient, and in the body more explanation might be offered.--papageno (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'pseudoscience' eh? Instead, there are sentences that admit cancers caused by mobile phones, like in Italy this year. Atleast this was admitted as a FACT, while scientists are 'cautious'.

Attempts to edit were undone

It seems that updates are being deleted within minutes. My attempts that were undone include the following:

Studies are contradictory, suggesting that some people may be more vulnerable to ill effects.
There is a growing and substantial body of research regarding the siting of cell phone base stations (CPBS), aka monopoles, as contributing to autoimmune disease, neuropsychiatric complaints, heart dysfunction, and diagnoses of cancer. Cellular phone base stations are also associated with an adverse impact on plant and animal wildlife.
REFERENCES:
Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai, Environ. 2010. Rev. 18: 369–395. (Redacted)
The NO/ONOO-Cycle as the Central Cause of Heart Failure. Martin L. Pall. Int J Mol Sci. 2013 Nov; 14(11): 22274–22330. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856065/
Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Puente A, Breunig H, Balmori A. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Dec 1;572:554-569. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133?dopt=Abstract
Joel Moskowitz. Press Release: Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC. Mar 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.html

Another edit that was undone was the addition of this sentence:

The number of organizations urging caution has been growing and includes medical associations, environmental associations, governments, and school systems.
REFERENCE: Governments and Organizations that Ban or Warn Against Wireless Technology. Cellular Phone Task Force. Accessed 30 June 2017 http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128

and

...although the World Health Organization and medical organizations in other countries have recognized Electro Magnetic Sensitivity (EMS) as a real syndrome that afflicts a percentage of the population.
REFERENCE: Website of Environmental Health Association of Quebec. Accessed 1 July 2017. http://www.aseq-ehaq-en.ca/recongnition.html

Plus - I changed a subheading title with a blatant POV from "Bogus Products" to "Radiation Shielding Products" with no change to the content that said they were ineffective. It was undone. Seabreezes1 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:
  • We use WP:MEDRS for health claims not (say) press releases or stuff from dubious advocacy sources like cellphonetaskforce.org.
  • WP:V is a core policy and cannot be dodged. So saying "There is a growing and substantial body of research ..." must be directly supported by a decent source that says that.
  • The WP:LEDE must summarize the body. Do not add stuff to the lede unless it properly summarizes good material that already exists in the body.
Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to several scientific studies listed in PubMed, albeit including a link for a review of scientific literature that directed to a website that could be faulted as not Wiki approved. But updating the link to the better source rather than deleting the content of my edit to Wiki would've been more consistent with Wiki protocol of collaborative improvement. Ditto for the link to a press release citing a the National Telecommunications and Information Administration document housed on a slow loading/non-responsive NTIA website. Even placing "citation needed" while searching for a better source for a government document that is listed in search engines as containing this material from the DOI to the FCC would be preferable to ignoring the scientific dispute. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf
My efforts to find documentation of the wildlife science in mainstream press like the NY Times brings up news reports from other countries and American environmental groups, but nothing from premier US news carriers that are Wiki worthy - which is suggestive in itself.
IMHO: Including scientific and historical facts in the article about the evidence of harm, even while allowing for the controversy, is a responsibility of Wiki editors.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja edit Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our purpose is to reflect accepted knowledge as found in good sources, not to WP:RGW. A lot of the stuff about cell phone harm is just loony anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As someone with allergies and autoimmune disorders who has been in anaphylactic shock more than once with an ER scrambling, I am well acquainted with labeling. It is a fact that some people can't eat nuts or be around cats or use certain medications. Bee stings and clams are a normal part of summer for some, and a death trap for others. Yet my former mother in law told me that allergies were a form of mental illness as she heaped food on my plate. Consequently, I'm interested in things autoimmune related, and radiation from CPBS and Smart Meters are documented as problematic. Personally, my heart palpitations stopped when I had the smart meter pulled off my house. I only got them when I was in that corner of the house watching TV and I was horrified that I was that sensitive as I work in IT, albeit with the quirk that I don't use or like cell phones - thankfully in my rather rural home, I don't have good reception and use that as an excuse. Some of the claims might be speculative, but there is evidence of harm clinically documented and substantiated by scientific studies. I suggest that the POV in this article, as well as the material be updated. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, once there are enough actual deployments to make it relevant to this article, the range of frequencies should be extended upwards to 5925MHz, to include LTE bands 46 & 47.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wireless_device_radiation_and_health&oldid=815590513"