Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Surveys -> Mobile phone base stations

The information in this section was only about mobile phone base stations. I have extended this secton so it includes more survey data, and then criticisms and results from more recent larger and better surveys. However, the survey information about electrical sensitivity in the article is included in the prevalence section not the evidence and aetiology section, and also this information is specific to mobile phone base stations. In the past information about WiFi "induced" electrical sensitivity has been removed, and I feel the same fate should befall this section. Mobile phone base stations are covered in far more depth on the mobile phone radiation page, to which there are links. I therefore think this section should be removed, or a very short sentence with a link to mobile phone radiation and health should be included in the prevalence section. GeoffreyBanks (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a good reason to keep it, I'll replace this section with a link to the mobile phone radiation and health page. GeoffreyBanks (talk)

I agree this should be removed. Its a duplication and not directly about electrosensitivity. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The surveys showing increased symptoms in proximity to electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations are directly related to electrosensitivity. There should at least be a sentence summarizing it and referring user to another section for more information.. Pensees (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a source stating this, that's OR. There is a link in the see also section, and repeating a section from another article, without the important discussion, seems like a bad idea. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand the reasons not to mention health symptoms around mobile phone base stations, because this is one of the strong pieces of evidences for electromagnetic sensitivity. Being such a critical part of the debate, removing mention of it makes this page NPOV. There are quite a few studies in different countries, including the following:

• FRANCE: R. Santini et al. (PMID 12168254) July 2002, reports a significant increase of various symptoms within 100, 200, or 300 meters of a cellular phone base station. These symptoms include fatigue, headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, nausea, loss of appetite, visual perturbations. See also PMID 12168254.
• SPAIN: E. Navarro et al., 2003 The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain reports a statisticially significant link between GSM base stations and symptoms including fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, discomfort, concentration difficulty, memory loss, visual disorder, dizziness, and cardiovascular problems.
• POLAND: A Bortkiewicz (PMID 15620045), 2004. A survey in Poland found people living near base stations had complaints of sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blured vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite, headache and vertigo. Note that this association was found even for people who did not link their complaints with the base station's presence. [See also related study on mobile phone symptoms (PMID 11761657 and PMID 16379318))]
• EGYPT: G Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007 (PMID 16962663) found an increase of symptoms compared to controls around mobile phone base stations, such as headache, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, sleep disturbance.

What are the reasons for saying that health effects found around mobile phone base stations are unrelated? If you feel that the related discussion denying health effects around base stations also needs to be mentioned, then the summary sentence can mention both. Merely linking to the Mobile Phone article in the 'See also' section doesn't really do the justice of including these studies into the debate. Pensees (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

These sorts of things are better off in electromagnetic radiation and health, I think, and that article could use bolstering. EHS are people who respond not to masts, but above and beyond that -- they respond to lower levels of electromagnetism. Also, I think if you find a published version of the Bioinitiative, it could be mentioned. Someone said PMID 18242044 is that, although I don't know, haven't read it. II | (t - c) 02:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed and CaneryMBurns are saying that health effects around mobile phone base stations (aka masts/cell towers) are not directly relevant to electrosensitivity. However, if you go to any of the following websites, you will see that mobile phone base stations are indeed one of the major issues troubling electrosensitives:

• http://www.es-uk.info
• http://www.feb.se
• http://www.electrosensitivity.org

Even the Essex study mentioned on this page, which attempted to disprove electrosensitivity, relates EHS to masts (http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/EHS/). For information on the weaknesses of these double-blind tests, see the Double-blind Tests section below. ImperfectlyInformed further suggests that electrosensitivies respond to lower levels of electromagnetism. Mast exposures are already in the category of very low strength EMFs of electromagnetism. Pensees (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What the mobile phone base station studies above show is that the general population also has similar symptoms to EHS sufferers in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations, even those who do not link their symptoms to mobile phone base stations. These studies are evidence of a causal link between the EMF of mobile phone base stations and EHS-like symptoms. Pensees (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, where to start... No, these studies do not show a causal link of any kind. The most a survey of this kind can show is a correlation. Also, unless these studies explicitly make the link to EHS, or a meta-study does, it would be OR of us to make this link. There is also the fact that most of these results can be explained away statistically all by confounding factors, etc... Verbal chat 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that epidemiological studies show correlation, and that correlation does not imply causation. Sorry for my unclear wording, which is probably why you thought I was saying these studies showed a causal link-- I actually said they were "evidence of a causal link". I guess it sounds the same, for which I apologize, but I actually meant something different. Pensees (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand: No, they aren't evidence. They might be suggestive, but the levels of clustering are nothing unusual. Verbal chat 08:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do any of these studies explicitly mention electromagnetic hypersensitivity? If not, I think they should be added to the electromagnetic fields and health article. If they do, then they should be included.

They're already dealt with in the Mobile phone radiation and health article. Verbal chat 12:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead and biointiative

The latest edit by user Penssees has made the lead very unbalanced. I also think Bio initiative isn't a RS, so I think this should be discussed. The lead edits should be in the body if anywhere. Edits like this should be discussed first. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think BioInitiative is not a reputable source? They look pretty qualified to me - http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/index.htm --Randomized (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the authors of the BioIniative Report include some of the leading scientists in the field. I read that the BioInitiative Report was put together by 14 scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals and includes over 2000 peer-reviewed published science studies. The core group was supposedly formed after a Bioelectromagnetics Society conference. Here is a link I found from the EEA (European Environment Agency), which seems to take the BioInitiative report seriously: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/radiation-risk-from-everyday-devices-assessed. Hence, I think it is RS.

Previously, the intro mentioned the lack of controlled resesarch finding association between EMF and health. It seemed untrue to me in light of the research that I had come across. Thus, to correct it, I indicated a short sentence indicating some surveys of scientific research, which include some that did find associations, as well as research that did not find associations. Pensees (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The authors involved are prestigious. They are also some of the leading exponents that EMF are noxious. This is not necessarily wrong: researchers are entitled to believe what they wish, just as you or I: what matters is that their research is conducted to usual scientific standards. However, the members of the BioInitiative Working Group in preparing the BioInitiative Report has fallen short of this standard. Section 2 of the report says “Is the global, governmental process addressing these questions transparent and responsive to public concerns? Or, is it a cosmetic process giving the illusion of transparency and democratic participation?”. “How much control have special interests exerted over harmonization goals and safety standards? How much over scientific funding, research design, dissemination of research results and media control? Are the interests of the public being conserved?” In other words, it's all just one big conspiracy and the public is being hoodwinked; this is hardly deep scientific method. Section 8, page 3 mentions the “fragile blood-brain-barrier” (BBB) and the Salford et al (2003) BBB study. Yet the author of the section, Olle Johansson, does not mention several other contradictory studies (see my contributions to the discussion above). The approach works: a recent editor to this article, finding only the Salford study in the BioInitiative Report, added only that reference. I do not know which possibility is more troubling: that the omission was deliberate, or out of ignorance. Finally, if the report is so compelling, why did the authors not publish a synopsis in some recognized public health journal? Many of the authors have many journal articles to their names, and would know how to take that approach. Yet I can find no such published article. Either none has been submitted, or one was submitted and rejected. In either case, that makes the BioInitiative Report a self-published item, one has not been passed the test of scrutiny by an academic journal, and thus, by definition, a report that does not meet the standards laid out in WP:SOURCE.
Since the EEA was involved in the creation of a section of the BioInitiative Report, its recommendation cannot be considered independent. Oddly enough, the EEA does not seem to mention the EU's competent body for investitation of EMF and health, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) of the Health & Consumer Protection Directorate General, in the text of the link given above ... it is only mentioned in a reference note. That body's latest comprehensive review “Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health”, published 2007-03-21, was an update to previous reviews published in 1999 and 2001 (see report). The report states in regards to RF fields that “In conclusion, no health effect has been consistently demonstrated at exposure levels below the ICNIRP-limits established in 1998.” The review does not make the BioInitiative report either. --papageno (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of using the BioInitiative Report as at least a collection of valid peer-reviewed papers. It's easier to reference one large document, especially when it has such a prestigious list of authors (which would imply to me that they are likely to have good reasons for releasing the report in the manner in which they have), than to have a massive reference war as people trade 500 papers and 500 counter-papers over a Wiki article.

It is really unreasonable to expect the report to be peer-reviewed and published in a journal. It is very rare that meta-analyses and other review papers are longer than 10 to 15 pages in journals, whereas the BioInitiative report is over 600 pages long. It is simply not publishable in a journal. Many documents used by governments to work public guidance advice come from sources that are similarly not published in journals nor peer reviewed (for example "Documents of the NRPB" in the UK). Whilst the report may not be peer reviewed, the papers referenced within the report and used to generate the summaries are, and ruling it out of inclusion in this article seems to be perhaps the worse of two evils in this context. Topazg (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about meta-analysis's not being peer-reviewed and published is easily falsified by looking at meta-analysis's on PubMed. They could easily have published a summary or extended abstract if length was a problem. I remain dubious about the quality of this reference. Many large government documents undergo peer review before they are published also, in committees for example (the same as review committees). The bioinit review is by no means comprehensive, and appears not to paint a full picture, and should not be given undue weight in the article (not appearing in the lead). The problems with WP:SOURCE remain. ----CaneryMBurns (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, there does appear to be an entry on pubmed related to the BioInitiative Report. PMID 18242044 Pensees (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent detective work! The article PMID 18242044 can be used as a reference. I might dryly note that Procter & Gamble could not have done a better marketing job for the BioInitiative Report itself: the article's authors mention it four times in the abstract alone, along with the URL for the full report. --papageno (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is very good, and shows that it isn't unreasonable to expect publication. I'll review this paper shortly, and hopefully it will be a good reference we can use. M Thanks. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In reply to "Could you explain why you think BioInitiative is not a reputable source?"

-At least one of the main authors, Cindy Sage, has a direct financial interest in that electrical sensitivity is real and that people are at risk from electromagnetic radiation. This as her company, which she fully owns, is doing consultancy in the field of reduction of these fields. This kind of direct financial interest in a certain outcome of a supposedly scientific metastudy is unfortunate, to say the least. (Source: http://www.silcom.com/~sage/emf/cindysage.html ) Mossig (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever financial motives a few of the authors may have, they still managed to review a large body of evidence, some of which is supposedly left out of WHO's compilation. I could alternatively cite numerous individual pubmed articles showing a link between wireless radiation and health effects. However, it was requested to cite compiled reviews of studies, rather than individual studies, and Bioinitiative is perhaps one of the largest and most recent compilation of reviews supporting the existence of health effects and almost every watchdog site mentions it. NPOV does not mean not including any view per se, but including all significant views, and I think the view of BioInitiative authors deserves a spot. See also the section in this talk page on Sponsorship-- if we used direct financial interest as a criteria on reputability, that would make industry-funded studies questionable as well.Pensees (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The removals of mentions of the BioInitiative Report are another reason why the article is still NPOV. A conflict of interest in one of the authors is not a good reason to throw out the entire report, which is a very significant part of the debate and which includes 2000 or so peer-reviewed studies. The WHO EMF project also has significant conflict of interest issues, as per Archive 2 but its views are mentioned in the article. Pensees (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's better if you try to add comments to recent discussion that cover the same material, and the bioinit report is discussed again below. The CoI is not the only reason for rejecting the report, and there really isn't much debate; for most this question is settled. If you want to allege a conspiracy at the WHO then you'll need very good sources to back it up. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the term "conflict of interest" for the WHO EMF project, your suggested term 'conspiracy' is a little too strong of a word. Again, I refer you back to my comments in Sponsorship and Results in Archive 2 . See also the following article J. Aust. Coll. Nutr. & Env. Med. Vol. 25 No. 1 (April 2006) pages 15-17

• http://www.rebprotocol.net/November2007/Conflict%20of%20Interest%20&%20bias%20in%20health%20advisory%20committees--WHOs%20EMF%20task%20group%20Don%20Mais%2006%20Apr%204pp.pdf

The WHO EMF project's conflict of interest is a valid concern considering those members who have either worked for or received monetary funds from the telecommunications industry. Pensees (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the fact that WHO has recieved industry funding, you should read the article about the funding source influence on the result again: the only connection they found was in studies with exclusively industry funding. Mixed funding, both industy and non-industry, was the best, and seemed to give the best scientific results. Which is how the WHO studies have been funded, AFAIK. Thus I fail to see a similar conflict of interest in WHO EMF project as in the Bioinitiative group. (The ACNEM journal is by now infamous for publishing strange articles. It's a pity that they have removed their archives from the web - it held some gems in the field of strange theories. The article you cite is written by Don Maisch, who I find next to nothing about on the net, more than that he (also!) is a consultant that seems to be specialising in mitigating EMF from power lines and mobile phone systems.) Mossig (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please can you justify the conflict of interest you mention for Don Maisch? His "EMFacts Consultancy" (http://www.emfacts.com/) looks as if it is more facts-oriented as opposed to professional services-oriented. I don't see any indications there that he is selling anything.
• Can you also justify why ACNEM is infamous, and what strange articles had been published that make this journal infamous? I'm curious to know.
• The article in http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf (same article), raises a concern not about mixed-funding studies, but about questionable conflicts of interest, such as inviting only industry representatives to a key EMF meeting, having a document reviewed by so many with industry ties, and about the former head of the group receiving huge sums of money from the cell phone industry. The article brings up the forgotten lessons of "Big Tobacco". Pensees (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not necessarily say that Don Maisch has a conflit of interest - it's just interesting that he has a consultancy firm that seems to specialise in producing papers sceptical to the use of EMR. What areas he actually is consulting in is not defined. And how he actually is making money is not disclosed anywhere. ACNEM is infamous among the reasearcher that I know. Since they have closed their archives, it is hard to give examples. But I remember something about our internal organs communicating by photons conducted by some kind of fibre optics embedded in the lymphatic system(?). I do not really remember the details. But it was more entertaining as long as their archives were open! And the conclusion that mixed funding is best is not from the paper you linked, but from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1797826. This study conludes: " Interestingly, studies with mixed funding were of the highest quality." Mossig (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that article-- I think I am the one who introduced that article into the discussion. I did not say my concern was about mixed funding, per se. Undisclosed large sums coming from industry and close industry ties of those involved in writing key WHO reports, however, is a cause for great concern. Pensees (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

The lead was recently changed by Pensees in such a way that has completely changed its balance. It is now poorly written and does not adhere to the policies of this project (NPOV, to name but one). The previous version was good (not great), but had achieved consensus. I ask that the lead be reverted and a discussion takes place before such changes are made in future, as this article is controversial (see the tag at the top of this talk page!).

Hopefully we can now work on making improvements together, rather than individually. CaneryMBurns (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been reverted. Can any editor suggest improvements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaneryMBurns (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The current lead sentence says "To date, controlled studies have not found the symptoms to be correlated with the presence of electrical fields or waves." I think this sentence is untrue and biased. The criteria of NPOV is to allow inclusion of significant views. What about the previous lead mentioning a sentence for evidence of each view in the main paragraph (one for provocative studies against its existence, and one for neurological / immunological survey studies supporting its existence). Pensees (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any references that aren't from the already debunked bioinitiative report (not independent, vested interest, only small review published in a journal). We need good, solid reliable sources from, for example, peer reviewed publications in high impact journals with high citations would be great. Bring them here and we can work on a new lead. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is silly, the BioInitiative report hasn't been debunked. It has a number of very independent scientists working on the sections within (by independent I refer here to vested financial interests, not people without their own opinion), and has around 2,000 references (of which the vast majority are in peer reviewed journals) in a 600 page report. It is hardly small, and the Hardell / Sage paper on it by necessity doesn't even scratch on the surface of the information contained within. Have you even read the report? Topazg (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with the Bioinitiative report is that the main author is not independent, according to your definition. Cindy Sage, has a direct financial interest in that electrical sensitivity is real and that people are at risk from electromagnetic radiation. This as her company, which she fully owns, is doing consultancy in the field of reduction of these fields. This kind of direct financial interest in a certain outcome of a supposedly scientific metastudy is unfortunate, to say the least. (Source: http://www.silcom.com/~sage/emf/cindysage.html) Mossig (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So, under the basis that most of the sections were written primarily by one scientist in each case, none of whom were Cindy Sage, what do we do? Remove the BioInitiative report entirely and start collection individual papers and turn the Wiki page into some form of scientific review paper of its own? Or accept that the large majority of the report is beyond this form of accusation and accept it as an acceptable alternative summary of the science? Topazg (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Sage wrote section 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 15 and 17. Including "Statement of the problem", "Evidence for inadequacy of the standards" and "Key scientific evidence and public health recommendations". Thus I find the whole report flawed, especially as Sage's vested interest was not explicitly reported. Mossig (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also believe it hasn't gone though any formal peer-review are vetting process, which leaves it as self-pub and not a good source. The one published section was also authored by Cindy Sage. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Which returns to the issue of are we going to remove it? If so, I don't mind starting to sieve through the science and put up peer-reviewed papers referenced within the report instead, but it's going to change the tone of the article quite a lot if done thoroughly. Topazg (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence wikitable

I do not think the following table, reproduced here below, should be included:

Year	Author	Sample Size	Location	Definition	Percentage	Notes	Abstract
2001	Schroeder E	-	Germany	-	6%
2002	Levallois et al.	2,072	California	"being allergic or very sensitive to getting near electrical appliances, computers, or power lines"	3.24%	95% CI 2.8-3.68% RR 58.3%
2002	Hillert et al.	15,000	Stockholm, Sweden	"hypersensitivity or allergy to electric or magnetic fields"	1.5%	RR 73%
2003	Infas	-	Germany	-	8%
2004	Schreier et al.	2,048	Switzerland	"electromagnetic hypersensitivity"	5%	95% CI 4–6%
2005	Carlsson et al.	13,604	Sweden	'annoyance' relating to visual display units, fluorescent tube lighting, and other electrical equipment	2.5%
2007	Eltiti et al.	20,000	Colchester, England	Persons who 'fit the profile of someone with electrosensitiity'	4%

I do not think this should be included as it mostly duplicates the information in and function of the references. What little extra information is included could easily be placed in a well referenced and easy to read paragraph, that can give an extra important details of the studies. I realize this must have taken a lot of work, but this table makes the article longer without adding any useful information that isn't already there or that couldn't be simply added in a more concise and informative way to the prose. I'm not sure all the studies meet V and RS, and we shouldn't over use primary sources. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - tables are fun and have their place, but providing a substrate for an annotated bibliography is not it. Such lists have a tendency to at least skirt WP:SYNTH, and the salient points from this table are much better treated in explanatory prose. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this paragraph is that it doesn't read easy to the layperson and doesn't give an easy indication of how many people suffer. The benefit of a table is that it's easier on the eye to scan down a column and see, for example, prevalence percentages, in which country the studies were conducted and how they defined the sensitivity. Explaining this in explanatory prose takes longer (4 paragraphs) and isn't particularly conducive to helping the read digest how prevalent it actually is - it reads more like a literature review. In addition, there are 2 studies which are currently not in the section which would make it even harder to digest, hence the table.

The studies are:

Cited in 2004 Schreier et al. study. Schreier N, Huss A, Roosli M. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: A cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed 2006; 51:202-209. link

Eltiti S, Wallace D, Zougkou K, Russo R, Joseph S, Rasor P et al. Development and evaluation of the electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire. Bioelectromagnetics 2007; 28:137-151. link

Perhaps you could come up with a better paragraph which makes it easier to understand the prevalence if you don't like the table?

--Randomized (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eldreft. The table is a poor addition, resembling a bibliography. It is much harder for anyone to understand and seems to obfuscate the issues. If you want to suggest a better wording, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current section is a bit technical and wordy (which is partly my fault in the first place). But I don't think we need a full table. Can't we just say something like "Several studies have attempted to estimate the prevalence of electrosensitivity. These estimates have ranged from 1.5% (in Sweden) to 8% (in Germany) ref ref." Then if you really want, we could add a line about why the prevalence seems to differ so much in different studies. Does much more really need to be said? Catpigg (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This section isn't particularly readable, but I agree with Eldereft that a table should not be used to format these refs. I've added an introductory sentence for the time-being.

--ScienceMind (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure this section needs such an introduction, but the reason I've removed it is that I'm not convinced the table above is reliable. For a start the 8% ref is missing a lot of data, and refers to a paper that refers to a paper... and secondly it was added by a SPA which has now left the project. I'd recommend starting a new section to discuss this if you feel an introduction is needed. Verbal chat 21:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added in a couple of the studies from that table above which were missing from the article. They are the Swiss survey and the UK survey. I hope you don't mind, but I've added in the opening sentence again. I don't think it needs a new section to discuss this sentence.

--ScienceMind (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Temporary protection

Whilst the page is protected, can we please discuss the recent addictions to try and gain consensus over them. I have started several such discussions above. There has also been a note left on the fringe theories noticboard re this article. Randomizer, please join in the discussion and we can work together, all of us, on this! thanks! --CaneryMBurns (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Any reliable sources actually establish that this is a topic?

Are there any reliable sources which mention "electrical sensitivity" as a topic? If so, where can I find them? I see a few studies, but none of them mention "electrical sensitivity" as a condition. There are advocate websites and some holistic healers who seem to think that something like this exists, but they aren't reliable sources. As such, we need to determine whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about this at all. I might recommend deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ES is mentioned in the media a lot (for a fringe theory, not as much as homeopathy of course), such as the BBC and the Guardian, but mostly in articles either saying it doesn't exist or in articles about fringe groups such as powerwatch (re debunked panorama; but that wasn't ES per se) and mastsanity - where they also usually say that "scientists/doctors believe" it doesn't exist. The WHO prefer the name Idiopathic Environment Intolerance 5from memory) as it doesn't imply causation, which could be multiple different things. So, as to this article, I don't know where that leaves us. If this article should exist (and I think it should, but as always I'm willing to be swayed by logical argument) then it should remain firmly neutral - by respecting the widely held scientific view over that of the lobby groups (many with a vested financial interest). --CaneryMBurns (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is more than sufficient reference material to continue this article. See, for example, the World Health Organisation factsheet 296 and and Essex study Eltiti, S (2007). "Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study". Environ Health Perspectives. 115 (11): 1603–1608. doi:10.1289/ehp.10286. ISSN 0091-6765. OCLC 183843559. PMID 18007992. Retrieved 2008-02-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) The support of all editors, especially those new to this topic, to maintain appropriate WP standards for this article are to be welcomed. The use of the talk page to discuss changes, as has been done here, is also suggested. --papageno (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Per preceding for the question of notability of the topic, but I would like to stress that this should be treated primarily as a sociology article, and only a biophysics article in a historical context. The science indicating that mains current is safe to be around unless you are grounding it across your heart is settled (except maybe possibly surprisingly below the power and sensitivity of some frankly excellent studies) by biophysical plausibility and, for instance, references in this handy (6 MB / 65 pg.) PDF report from the NIEHS. Additionally, upwards of three dozen provocation studies provide a firm scientific basis to state categorically that the symptoms of EHS sufferers are not caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields of commonly encountered powers in the 0 - 10⁹ Hz range. We should of course be sensitive to the fact that apparently they are suffering from something, just that something is independent of "electrosmog". - Eldereft (cont.) 23:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article seems very confused as to how we are supposed to think about this topic. For instance, shouldn't the lede say "...is a psychosomatic condition..." (or something similar)?Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a very good and important change to the lead, and I support a change along these lines. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is beyond support from even the double blind study conclusions. If it was to come into play there would need to be cited evidence that the condition has been established as psychosomatic, which is not the case. It is very appropriate for people not to leave the page thinking this topic is conclusively understood. Topazg (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The following web page is a list of references to positive and negative studies on the subject by PowerWatch, which contends that there is conclusive evidence: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp. This list includes the European-Union funded REFLEX study on DNA effects, R. Santini study on symptoms near mobile phone base stations, even studies concerning radio/TV transmitters, a section on Electrical Sensitivity, and so on.Pensees (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I contest this, I don't believe the evidence is anywhere near conclusive. REFLEX is really not an ES related project. Topazg (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That website is run by the pro-electrical sensitivity organization powerwatch, which featured in the BBC panarama program that they had to apologies about. So we should be careful of their conclusions and cherry-picking. For example, their conclusion that their is evidence for electromagnetic fields causing these symptoms is not supported by the scientific literature. For problems with surveys versus provocation studies, see my answer below. I support the change to the lead suggested above. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We should be careful about everything we read :) However, I must also stress that that Panorama programme was criticised for having an unfair weighting of scientists that inaccurately reflected current opinion - Powerwatch's role was not criticised. I would also contest that this is not in fact Powerwatch's conclusion [1] as I cannot seem to find it anywhere on the page. Topazg (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename to electromagnetic sensitivity

Certainly many of the sources on this page mention electromagnetic sensitivity. This page should be renamed, as this is what the whole thing is about. Electricity is not really the same thing. Please comment if you oppose. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be good, most references do seem to use the term Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Or we could go with the WHO name of Idiopathic Environment Intolerance. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IEI is definitely not a suitable rename as it is a different term entirely. WHO put ES/EHS undo the wider IEI blanket whilst controversy still exists over the topic, but IEI is in itself much broader. I see no issue with the other renames though Topazg (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Or possibly electrosensitivity, which might be the favored term in the UK. I prefer Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, though, as it is the most descriptive term and is used by the WHO factsheet and our own List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think EHS would be the best choice, if only because of the WHO reference. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Double-blind Tests

With regard to the double-blind tests, this article mentions "Some have criticised this study, but the early objections were soon addressed, and the evidence from provocation studies indicate that electromagnetic fields "do not cause the symptoms", citing http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2235218&blobtype=pdf. I am not so sure they were addressed satisfactorily. The population size of electrosensitive volunteers was extremely limited and on top of that, those with severe responses had to drop out (who are the ones that need to be studied). As the response had mentioned, time lag should also be considered. Volunteers should have recovery periods in between exposure, as the effects of one exposure, however immediate, may have effects that last for a while (if not permanently), and interfere with later tests. The following is also a criticism of the Essex study which suggests that they spun the press release contrary to what the report really demonstrated: http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=160&Itemid=90. Additionally, it includes the testimonies of those who had to drop out from the study, including Brian Stein who says he was fine until his 15th year of mobile phone usage when he would get severe pain in his head/ear only when using a mobile. This type of provocation study is ill-advised, because few of those most sensitive to EMFs will want to risk ill effects resulting from the study. I'd rather go by survey studies such as R. Santini, studies of people where they are, rather than requiring exposure to something that electrosensitive people are trying to avoid. The R. Santini study involved >500 participants and found a distance-dependent increase of various health symptoms to the mobile mast PMID 12948762. That is at least a more reasonable population size. Various other survey studies like this found similar results. Pensees (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For your concerns about whether the Essex study addressed concerns satisfactorily you'll have to find a source that meets wikipedia inclusion criteria (for example, a peer reviewed article in a good journal). "Mastsanity" is a considered a fringe group even by other lobby groups in this area, and are very much not a reliable source. Your own opinion is just that, and your own conclusions fall at WP:NOR. Brian Stein's anecdotal evidence is also not worthy of attention in this article. Also, these kinds of studies are how all kinds of allergen response studies are carried out - except that in this case electromagnetic fields are definitely not the cause. Surveys such as the ones you suggest are good for suggesting areas of further research, as they cannot show cause and effect and have massive bias and clustering problems. And the further research has been conducted, with the result that electromagnetic fields have so far been found not to cause these negative effects. ---CaneryMBurns (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

EHP have published three criticisms of the Essex study, and the authors have responded. It is up to people to read and make their own minds up. I agree that anecdotal evidence and press releases are not admissable as evidence against. On this point, I have reduced the section on the main article discussing criticism of the Essex study, as it doesn't seem to warrant the amount of text it had. A simple point and reference seems more suitable. Topazg (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Two important points to make:

1. Mention of Hocking's writings in the WHO's EHS Proceedings (June 2006), was removed from this article, but is important to the double-blind tests discussion. While Hocking acknowledges that a large number of cases are psychological in nature, he also mentions examples of cases where the psychological explanation does not work. One such case is when objective changes are found, e.g., nerve fiber changes in one individual for reasons unknown. Another such case is when an individual is extremely accurate. For one case, he observed that an individual was fairly accurate in judging whether a mobile phone was on or off (correct for 10/12 tests). After an extended period in a semi-rural area, that individual's accuracy went down to 50%, but then he felt worse and the next day, his accuracy was up to approximately 70%.

Because of the wide range of subjects, Hocking advises that candidates should be chosen more selectively. In the Essex study, due to low numbers of participants, selection criteria were not rigorously followed. The ones who would probably have been more accurate were excluded because their health symptoms were too strong. Hocking also advises that the test type and duration should be tailored to the individual, and that washout times are needed to prevent a carry-over effect of previous exposure. These are weaknesses that definitely need to be mentioned in the article to make it NPOV.

2. Indviduals can be ES without knowing 100% of the time when something is on or off (due to carry-over effects or other reasons, even nocebo effects). We must be careful not to redefine ES too narrowly, as meaning that the individual can accurately detect within 5-10 minutes whenever the wave is on or off. While there may be a few such individuals, these are just a subset of the ES cases. Hence, the double-blind studies can only address that subset, and not ES in general. With that in mind, the double-blind studies takes a proportionally larger chunk of the article and debate than it deserves. Pensees (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Any comments? Pensees (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was this critique by Hocking removed again from the article? The first time, it was for lack of discussion on the talk page. Now that it is on the talk page, no one is discussing it... Pensees (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hocking is mentioned and not given undue weight. Verbal chat 07:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

Users Pensees and Randomized have added a neutrality disputed tag without giving reasons. I have removed it due to the lack of reasons. If the could put there reasons for the tag below before reinstating it, we can then work on the problems, if any. Please be specific (ie specific claims and sentences that you think break NPOV), so that they can be remedied quickly.. CaneryMBurns (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Virtually the entire article my friend. Virtually all edits which you have made under this and other usernames have been to undo other peoples work to fit your own hypothesis. I will be contributing a lot of information and debate when I have the time to collate it all. The entire article has a psychological slant to it and does not in any way fulfil NPOV. --Randomized (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by a psychological slant? If systematic reviews of provocation trials largely conclude that the effect is psychosomatic, then that is the "slant" we will have to take. These reviews should be made prominent. II | (t - c) 03:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I think the article is fairly close to being balanced, I think the fact half of the main editors of the page are unhappy with it gives reasonable justification for the "neutrality to be disputed", and I think keeping it there is reasonable. I would have said Randomized should have until the end of the month or so to back up the non-psychological aspect and we can take it from there. Topazg (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Randomized hasn't backed up his claim of non-neutrality, and has accused all editors that disagree of being the same person. His only other recent edits have been vandalism [2]. I have tried to work with Randomized, but he ignores my and other users efforts, while making accusations and disrupting this and other pages. The tag should be removed until he or others have presented specific evidence. To Topazg, "half of the main editors" - 2 editors does not add up to half the main editors, and neither have given justification for this tagging, as required. Allowing the page to be disrupted for a month for no reason is not a good solution. Bring any problems here so they can be discussed and fixed if needed! ---CaneryMBurns (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the sudden influx of people here, I gladly stand corrected on this - it seemed like article editors totalled 4 to me up until today :) Topazg (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am unclear on what precisely is being contested. I am removing the tag for the moment, but if specific reasons based on reliable sources or policy are asserted, it should remain through the resulting civil discussion. You may also wish to introduce text that you believe more closely approximates NPOV. Please note that drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. Please also note that we are required not to give equal validity to discredited conjectures. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I might make some observations, from an uninvolved perspective. It seems from the Article that all agree that these 'patients' have symptoms. That is a good starting point. However what the cause of the symptoms is, is not established, the Article does make this clear.

What it does not make clear though is the nature of those symptoms, and the descriptors used in the Article seem to me to have little published support, I think that is what is considered here to not meet WP:NPOV I have to agree to some extent with that claim. For instance:

1. In the lead the words 'physical and psychological symptoms' are used, but no citation is given to support this use. A quick read indicates to me the word neurological symptoms is just as apt, but I have no ref for that. Have since found PMID 10859662, PMID 9029427, PMID 18366821, PMID 17013888. Ref. 2. also says 'Neurological symptoms such as headache and fatigue predominate...' Denialist claims are therefore signs of POV.
2. The words 'mental and psychological distress' are not mentioned in ref.1 and therefore the text in Symptoms and severity that contain these words are unsourced and constitute WP:OR.
3. Ref. 11 does not say it is a 'psychosomatic illness', so why does the text attribute those words to that paper? unsourced and OR again.
4. Ref 21. 'suggested a psychological basis' it does not mention the words 'classical conditioning' or 'mistaken self-diagnosis' nor does it contain the words 'assummed to have causes that are psychological in nature' suggesting and assumming are not the same in science, and just what has a psychological basis, the symptoms themselves or more likely the attribution of cause? the words in the text are more WP:OR
5. Ref. 23 the authors only 'suggest CBT is effective' one would need to read the individual studies to see why four studies failed to be conclusive? the authors suggestion is no more than one would expect from such a source, it is hardly evidence, and needs balance. Can only find three RS CBT trials and one of those is foreign language without english abstract. Of the two remaining PMID 9817951 and PMID 8863199 one claims a significant result the other 'no significant group differences' I would say mixed results however both these studies are subject to Class 1 error, in that sample sizes are too small to yeild significant results. I would say the reveiw caution is more relevant than their 'suggestion' and therefore this edit should be so qualifiedwith the words left out of the quotation "The quality of these studies was limited....." .
6. Ref 2. Is cited extensively in the Article, however the link given for this under References does not exist. I for one would like to read what it actually says, so I can conclude my comments. So if someone can provide a link to that paper here, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

I could not find support in the reference 2. for these words included in the Article "As yet no consistent evidence has been found of any objective signs of disease in this group." Given that this report says "Specifically excluded from this reveiw were attributed health effects in terms of specific disease processes" Then the article words are a complete distortion of this report, and need to be removed or suitably reworded.

So these matters do need to be addressed to present a more NPOV Article. Jagra (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the Ref 2 link Topazg (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(too much indentation) As a scientist with no particular agenda, I've gone over the article, and find it to be mostly pretty good, with a few exceptions. A few of the edits by Randomized appear to be improvements, but the majority are not, and he/she seems unwilling to compromise, so what can you do? The worst thing in the article, in my opinion, is the paragraph that reads, "The Essex study has received some criticism for its methodology and analysis, and the authors have responded in full to these initial criticisms. Following this study, it was reported in the press that the evidence from provocation studies indicate that electromagnetic fields "do not cause the symptoms". The first sentence needs to be worded more neutrally, and the second ("reported in the press") has no value as scientific evidence. As a whole, this paragraph badly violates NPOV. Also, I generally agree with the criticisms by Jagra. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is non-neutral about the first sentence, the criticisms were poor and published as letters, and were answered quickly by the authors. The sentence is approaching UNDUE by giving them mention at all, and they have been culled back already by other editors. The press statement is sourced and although it is not scientific it does give the current popular feeling that this problem has been addressed by this study (although obviously some lobby groups disagree (not all), and they are given an appropriate voice in the article). If I've missed the point, could you please clarify? Thanks. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou to jagra and Looie496 for joining the discussion. I'm not quite sure where "he/she seems unwilling to compromise, so what can you do?" comes from so I'm just going to gloss over that.

I agree with all of the points made by Jagra and Looie496.

In addition:

1) Regarding how the article is worded, a lot of the text cites the psychological authors repeatedly ie. Rubin et al from the Kings College Institute of Psychiatry. The following studies are not mentioned in the article:

General studies:

1. ^ Sandstrom M, Lyskov E, Berglund A, Medvedev S, Mild KH. Neurophysiological effects of flickering light in patients with perceived electrical hypersensitivity. J Occup Environ Med 1997;39(1):15–22 link
2. ^ Sandstrom M, Lyskov E, Hornsten R, Mild KH, Wiklund U, Rask P et al. Holter ECG monitoring in patients with perceived electrical hypersensitivity. Int J Psychophysiol 2003;49(3):227–35 link
3. ^ Lyskov E, Sandsrom M, Mild KH. Provocation study of persons with perceived electrical hypersensitivity and controls using magnetic field exposure and recording of electrophysiological characteristics. Bioelectromagnetics 2001;22:457–62 link
4. ^ Berg M, Arnetz B, Liden S, Eneroth P, Kallner A. Techno-stress. A psychophysiological study of employees with VDU associated skin complaints. J Occup Med 1992;34(7):698–701 link
5. ^ Johansson O, Hilliges M, Bjornhagen V, Hall K. Skin changes in patients claiming to suffer from ‘screen dermatitis’: a two-case open-field provocation study. Exp Dermatol 1994;3:234–8 link
6. ^ Johansson 0, Hilliges M, Han S-W. A screening of skin changes with special emphasis on neurochemical marker antibody evaluation in patients claiming to suffer from ‘screen dermatitis’ as compared to normal healthy controls. Exp Dermatol 1996;5:279–85 link

Prevalence:

1. Cited in 2004 Schreier et al. study. Schreier N, Huss A, Roosli M. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: A cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed 2006; 51:202-209. link
2. ^ Eltiti S, Wallace D, Zougkou K, Russo R, Joseph S, Rasor P et al. Development and evaluation of the electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire. Bioelectromagnetics 2007; 28:137-151. link

Treatment:

1. ^ Arnetz B, Berg M, Anderzen I, Lundeberg T, Haker E. A nonconventional approach to the treatment of ‘environmental illness’. J Occup Environ Med 1995;37:838–44 link
2. ^ Treatment of Electrical Hypersensitivity by high-dose, broad-spectrum antioxidants and pulsed electromagnetic fields - link
3. ^ Hillert L, Kolmodin-Hedman B, Eneroth P, Arnetz B. The effect of supplementary antioxidant therapy in patients who report hypersensitivity to electricity: a randomized controlled trial. Medscape Gen Med 2001;3(1). link
4. ^ Harlacher et al 1998 - originally in Swedish language, reviewed by Hillert, 1998
5. ^ Gustavsson et el, 1992 - originally in Swedish language, reviewed by Hillert, 1998

This represents significant viewpoints other than the psychological viewpoint given by the KCIP. I believe most, if not all, of these studies are cited and discussed in the UK HPA report.

2) The 2005 Rubin review is mentioned twice in the article:

In 2005, a systematic review was published which looked at the results of 31 experiments testing the role of electromagnetic fields in causing ES. Each of these experiments exposed people who reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity to genuine and sham electromagnetic fields under single- or double-blind conditions.[11] The review concluded that:

"The symptoms described by 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to electromagnetic fields can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' is unrelated to the presence of electromagnetic fields, although more research into this phenomenon is required."

In a 2005 review of the literature regarding whether sufferers are genuinely affected by electromagnetic fields, seven studies were found which did report an association, while 24 could not find any association with electromagnetic fields. However, of the seven 'positive' studies, two could not be replicated even by the original authors, three had serious methodological shortcomings, and the final two presented contradictory results.[11]

3) The positions of the ICEMS and the IDEA are not mentioned in the article:

1. ^ The Venice Resolution Initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety - http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm ("We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity; that this adverse health condition can be quite disabling; and, that this condition requires further urgent investigation and recognition. ")
2. ^ IDEA Position on Electro-Magnetic Radiation - http://www.ideaireland.org/emr.htm

4) The Freiburger, Bamberger, Hofer, Lichtenfelser and Helsinki appeals I believe should be given more mention. These express a significantly different viewpoint from that of the official line and contain a large amount of signatures in total - approx 50,000 with around 2,000 being doctors or scientists:

1. http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/reports/md341.doc
2. ^ http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Rapporten/Appell_AerzteBamberg230704.pdf
3. ^ http://www.elektrosmognews.de/news/20050605_hofer_appell.pdf
4. ^ http://www.elektrosmognews.de/news/20050703_LichtenfelserAppell.pdf
5. ^ http://www.elektrosmognews.de/news/20050226_helsinki_erstunterzeichner.html

Only the Freiburger appeal is cited in the article.

5) I also think that the article suffers from a lack of clarity regarding how the condition is defined and classified. For example, there is no mention of the fact that Sweden officially recognizes it as a "Physical Impairment" or that it may represent 2 distinct problems. Please take a look at the Official Classification section of a revision I made to the article here. I would like to re-introduce this section.

I have added the neutrality disputed tag back in until these and the other points mentioned are addresses and resolved.

For how I would incorporate the studies in point 1 into the article, please see the text I added for Pathophysiological markers, Prevalence and Treatment. I would be grateful for comments on these sections.

--Randomized (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with citing Rubin twice? He should be put in the lead. That's the most reliable source so far. Do any studies reproduce the symptoms under blind conditions? II | (t - c) 05:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree with II above. We need to give the mainstream view the bulk of our attention, with fringe views kept to a minimum except where they are notable. Second, here are my thoughts on Randomized's complaints:

1, Those are primary sources and should be used sparingly if at all, whereas Rubin is a large, well conducted and high impact meta-analysis (a secondary source) and can be used more frequently. If you have a reason for inclusion of any of these papers, please say what and where. The HPA report (already used) would be a good secondary source.

2, As has been said already, Rubin's two papers should probably be given more prominence.

3, If you can find good secondary sources/third party sources for these, then please suggest how to add them.

4, The Freiburger appeal is a fringe view, as are the other sites you mention (which fail sourcing criteria), and are given due prominence by WP:WEIGHT.

5, Can you give a source for Sweden officially recognising EHS and that it is caused by electromagnetic fields, as I think this has already been looked at and found to be false.

To Jagra, I think most of his points can be addressed by a tidying of the references - as these points are mostly included, and new references can be found. However, neurological is a subset of physical, and supported by the references; other physical symptoms are also claimed, as well as psychological ones. Regarding point 3, the reference is published in "Psychosomatic medicine", and other references also make this assertion.

Summary: At worst I see some need for verification and fact tags, and consolidation and checking of the references, not the tagging of the whole article. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rubin review was specifically relating to provocation trials only, not other studies. The 'what' and 'where' were included at the end of my post which you have not responded to. Under what assertion do you suggest that the Rubin papers should be given more prominence? They are littered all throughout the article. Very little mention of Carlo, Johansson, Lai etc. Also do you genuinely consider 50,000 signatures and 2,000 by doctors 'fringe'? The fact that Sweden recognizes electrosensitivty as a Physical Impairment is a well known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Rubin review is a meta analysis of provocation trials, which are the best results we have and the best way of finding if EHS is caused (provoked) by electromagnetic fields. 2,000 Doctors, in the whole EU, when Dr isn't limited to MD-like physicians, isn't a great number. It is also an appeal, not research or findings of fact. I'm not suggesting that it should be removed, just that it is already given more than enough prominence. If Sweden recognises EHS please provide a current Swedish government source or similar that states this. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I contest that provocation trials that do not attempt to control for a possible placebo effect (which is reasonably well established) are nigh useless at detecting ES, as the proportion of individuals exhibiting a placebo effect are likely to be greater than the small percentage that are claiming a response to EMFs. I have seen very little in the provocation literature that I would suspect had much chance of finding an effect, should one be there, and this certainly includes Rubin's provocation study (not the review).

Much better in my opinion would be to conduct studies looking for objective changes in brain activity or such like from EMF exposures, as opposed to subjectively claimed symptoms (it is well known how objective the symptom severity of "man-flu" is). Landgrebe should be cited in this article, as he has now produced 2 very interesting papers looking at objective responses: One showing that some people clearly have an objective response to EMFs, and another showing that psychological stimuli (such as "We're now zapping you with a phone", when actually there was no exposure present) also can cause very strong responses in those who believe they are sensitive. Ideally studies should be attempting to collect people that appear to objectively react to phones but do not react to psychological stimuli as opposed to just allowing anyone who claims to be ES to be categorised as sensitive. Otherwise I believe the psychological respondees would outnumber genuinely sensitive persons in any provocation study. Topazg (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that why provocation studies use "sham" exposures and the like? I'm afraid that changes in brain activity aren't that objective - the feelings and beliefs of the person being tested can alter their brain patterns, in the same way that someone who thinks they have just swallowed a poisen will have increased heart rate. Your comments are actually evidence that EHS doesn't exist. If you were allergic to honey, for example, you would react badly to someone attempting to smear you with it. You would not be able to differentiate between these people and those that only thought they were allergic. However, if you do a skin test on both with fake honey and real honey, you should be able to spot if either actually have real symptoms. The problem here is there is no great evidence that people are "allergic" to electromagnetic fields. Indeed, the evidence suggests that they are only allergic to fields they know about or have physical reactions when the trigger is not present, suggesting that the trigger is something else. There are good procedures for choosing study participants in order to avoid bias, and this kind of superficial cherry picking is probably not a good way of avoiding bias. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, with Jagra and Looie we have two more people disputing neutrality, so I have put it back. You said yourself that "At worst I see some need for verification and fact tags, and consolidation and checking of the references, not the tagging of the whole article." and yet you have not done any of these to address their complaints. We now have at least 5 people who are questioning the neutrality. The NPOV tag does not state the article is not neutral, merely that the status is disputed, which certainly appears to be the case including some level of justification. Your opinion that it is neutral is not enough alone to detag the article.

In direct response, there is good evidence to suggest there is a large psychological component in people's responses. This does not rule out there also being a non-psychological response (so your assertion that it is evidence that EHS doesn't exist is simply logically incorrect), but the proportions of affected people attributed to each would imply that psychological respondees would "drown out" the effect of real respondees unless this was controlled for. This is not a case of "superficial cherry picking", or however you choose to refer to selection bias, but a necessary confounding factor that needs taking into account - I don't know of any of the double blind studies that have done this to _any_ degree. If by the process of attempting to eliminate those that respond to psychological stimuli you end up with no subjects to test, then that is good evidence that the response is exclusively (or as near as) psychological. This has not been done. Topazg (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Also, please note that the npov tag specifically states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." -- It seems quite clear that the dispute has not been resolved thus far Topazg (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just made a few other edits that seem in line with other concerns. As it stands I am currently pretty happy with the article now - There may be things to be added still, but the content as it stands seems pretty fair and neutral. Are there still other concerns regarding the article as it stands? Topazg (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the tag can go now. If there are more concerns, can they go in a new section please. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My responses as to why this article is still NPOV can be read in the Mobile Phone Base Station section and Double-blind Tests section. Removing sections in favor of EHS, giving 'undue weight' to sections against EHS, and not accepting criticisms against double-blind studies, seems hardly NPOV. I also still think the BioInitiative report (www.bioinitiative.org) deserves mention-- after all, it is referenced in pubmed (despite the continual accusations of "self pub"), includes 2000 or so peer-reviewed studies, is written by 14 or so authors including members of environmental agencies and the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and is a key part of the debate. Pensees (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add these things, feel free and we'll proceed with BRD; I personally prefer that people put the edits' on the table so that we can discuss with a reference at hand. The base stations seem more associated with the population in general, but clearly we would expect EHS sufferers to suffer more than the general population in the vicinity of the "masts". Essex is conducting a study at the moment.[3] I think this warrants a mention. If you can find more studies similar to this, they warrant inclusion as well, but not the real general stuff on cellphone masts. II | (t - c) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bioinitiative has been discussed several times already, while it was also agreed that the mast data belongs in the mobile phones and health article, where it is already dealt with fairly. Note that these surveys do not talk about EHS, but just about clustering around phone masts. For the same reason the ongoing WiFi review was removed (see talk archive). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, refer to Mossig's answer above re:WHO. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Article structure and citations

The content of the Article is essentially medical science, as such the correct manual of style is WP:MEDMOS and in particular the structure should ideally follow these guidelines with I suggest a Controversies section Added. Also the Wikiproject Medicine reliable scources has much to say that would benefit here. Note the avoidance of newspaper articles.Jagra (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This generally seems like a good idea. However, having a controversies section doesn't seem like a good idea, the most prominent fringe views should be integrated into the text and "controversy" is too strong a word. For popular/fringe perception and lobby groups newspapers can be good sources, but not for science/medical views, I agree. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote lead

I've taken a shot at rewriting the beginning of the article. No major changes in content or tone, but I thought it was poorly worded and/or redundant in several respects. I would like to do a bit more editing of other parts of the article, but since I believe that in a controversial article, editing should be done in small chunks, I will try to take it one bit at a time.Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I like the rewrite although I felt that the 'majority of physicians' line wasn't justified and is unsourced. Also, I also changed experimental studies to provocation trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWestlake (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

David, I understand your objections, but the lead looks too abrupt now. It somehow, I feel, must convey the fact that there is so far no good empirical evidence that EHS is actually associated with electromagnetic fields. Since most readers won't know what "provocation trials" are, the current text doesn't say that clearly. Do you think you could take a shot at rewording it?Looie496 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have slight issues with the first half of the last sentence is it assumes that all EMF -> body affects are established already, when it is clear from the science at the moment (bystander effects, blood brain barrier effects, possible biological mechanisms behind ELF MFs and childhood leukaemia etc..) that there is still a large amount not currently understood. I have also tried to reword the second half to be in more "layman's terms". Topazg (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have also added a link to the Wiki Provocation study page which should deal with the other concern? Topazg (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

These all look good, I've made a small edit to the lead which I hope you approve of. We don't need to get too technical on the intro. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, simple is better here. I'm happy with this. Topazg (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead also. --DavidWestlake (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The mention of CBT in the lead is not warranted, given the low quality of studies, the mixed results, the poor levels of evidence and the nature of the 'speculative suggestion' as a conclusion in the reveiw, as discussed above. Frankly the science does not warrant an inclusion anywhere in the Article except to show another POV, but certainly not as a lead!. Jagra (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The CBT trials appear to have limited success. They should be mentioned, but not in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWestlake (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary research suggests that non-ionizing radiation may have an effect on the body (see electromagnetic radiation and health), but these effects appear subtle. This is not quite true. In fact, it is wrong in several ways. For example, computer monitors emit flickering light, which is a form of non-ionizing radiation, and this radiation can easily cause headaches or eye strain in susceptible individuals (such as me), especially if the flicker frequency is low. More importantly, the sentence says nothing about intensity, and pretty much an form of radiation can be destructive if it is intense enough. It may be possible to rescue the sentence by careful rewording, but I'm not really sure it is even needed here.Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, for now I'll remove those two sentences, pending any further discussion. I think the CBT reference is good for the article, but is too weak for the lead. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I'm a bit concerned about the external links as they stand in this page. One of which is a personal site by a British sufferer, the other is a Belgian group. There is a British electrosensitivity charity and the Swedish association for electrosensitives that both seem more notable and relevant for inclusion here. My first choice would be to change the links to these sites, and my second choice would be to remove external links altogether, but I do think it should be changed. Topazg (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not very keen on these links at all. It's so hard to justify them, even for balance, when they tend to be so one sided or emphatic in their view. Some are better than others, but are they really needed? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think they are "relevant links" as opposed to "balanced and impartial links". If people are concerned they are places to go focusing on the topic, not necessarily accurate or useful in themselves. I am also happy with just removing the external links bit entirely. Topazg (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The http://www.es-uk.info website looks like a good, relevant resource. I vote for adding it. -Pensees (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think unless we can find good links on both sides, and I'm not to sure these count as good, then it's probably best just to remove the section. They don't really add anything. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be ok with just nixing the section for the nonce. No need to get into WP:DIRECTORY discussions. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag for EMFs and existing effects

There are a number of understood effects, such as electric shock and burns at high level of EMFs - Is this really needed to have cited in the top paragraph? It seems pretty non-controversial and off topic to EHS that I would be happy leaving it uncited, but if not it would probably be useful to link to a Wiki article that already covers it... Topazg (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at addressing this. The microwave article doesn't really talk about it's thermal effects, so I went directly to dielectric heating. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any after reading this besides the heating effect, which couldn't be causing the hypersensitivity symptoms -- I don't think it counts. Certainly ionizing radiation has effects, but is that relevant to the page? L's stay on topic -- when you say these are established, people will think they are well-established in reference to people's reactions. It's a vague and unclear statement that needs to be cited. I think it would be better to be clear about what people report and what science has found when these people are told they are near an EM field. Also, is it fair to say majority? Has any provocation trial found that people could distinguish between a sham and not? II | (t - c) 12:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Radar operators can receive physical burns if too close in proximity to the radar dish when transmitting. Heating effects are obviously well known (microwave ovens for example) Documents of the NRPB, Volume 15 No 2 goes into much more detail than it is worth doing on here, but it could be used as the citation if required? 4 of the provocation studies in Rubin's review of 31 (cited at the top) found a difference between sensitive subjects and controls in their ability to detect a real exposure. There are others also, referenced in the talk in here by Randomized. Topazg (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This says "multiple effects". We've already covered the heating effect. Let's talk about the others, otherwise we have a factual problem in the lead. II | (t - c) 05:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence on non-ionizing radiation effects at levels considered nonthermal. One example is with stress proteins, for which both ELF-EMF (powerline electromagnetic fields) and RF-EMF (radiofrequency fields) have shown biological effects. See the following article by Martin Blank on stress proteins. Evidence for Stress Response (Stress Proteins) In the past, the United States EPA also criticized safety standards for not considering non-thermal effects. - Pensees (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence for effects on humans apart from thermal effects and the cancer causing effects of ionizing radiation (ie, not the kind we're discussing here, but still electromagnetic), as far as I'm aware. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. The brain is essentially an electrochemical device, and pretty much any electrical event will affect it to some degree. A few examples: (1) electrodes attached to the head can affect brain activity at relatively low current levels; (2) the technique of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TCMS) uses very strong magnetic fields, generated by coils mounted directly over the head, to alter brain activity; (3) there is evidence that relatively weak electromagnetic fields can alter neural growth, if they are sustained for days without alteration. Etc. The important thing is that there is no known biophysical mechanism for the fields generated by computers, monitors, cell phones etc to have pathological effects on the brain. (I'm a neuroscientist, by the way.)Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, sorry - I was being needlessly careless. Lesson learned! I agree with your last sentence entirely (the one not in brackets, although I don't doubt that either). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there papers on this? Can we cite the bioinitiative paper in the lead? Are these effects established? I'll admit that I have trouble understanding these effects. I have trouble understanding why, if EMFs can alter neural growth, that suggests that there is a biophysical mechanism that fields can have pathological effects on the brain. II | (t - c) 10:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, some of these might be worth considering; microwaves PMID 18058332, PMID 15742733, Review PMID 17495662, Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) PMID 12238306, PMID 16097402, Oxidative damage PMID 17456027, PMID 15788236, Immune system PMID 15352165. So yes there are possible (not yet proven in this condition) biophysical and biochemical mechanisms for effects on the brain/body. Lack of evidence is not yet to be taken as evidence of lack.Jagra (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not in the lead, and probably not in the article. A principle author had a huge undeclared conflict of interest, and the report is self pub. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I fact tagged this assertion: "the actual role that these fields play in the etiology of sensitivity symptoms is controversial because the fields tend to occur below the exposure levels generally accepted to cause physiological effects" -- is this really true? This implies that people experience these symptoms when the levels of these fields are "high" -- what is meant by high? I'm not physicist; I thought what mattered most when it comes to health effects was the frequency, and so I'm confused by the word "high". High frequency radiation tends to be ionizing, and cause harmful health effects, while low frequency tends to just cause thermal effects. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, interesting Youtube video. Also, this link claims that "It is also curious how studies we quote frequently seem conveniently skirted round like Dr Blackwell�s summary of the only six mast studies showing effects in their environments". What are these mast studies? What is a mast in this context, for that matter? This article is rather difficult to understand. II | (t - c) 10:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the BioInitiative report is still not a reliable source for assertions of fact (see above).

I concur that that sentence is poorly formed. As I parse it, it says that these (low-frequency low-intensity) fields may or may not play a causative role in the symptoms of electrosensitives (hence this article); one argument against is that experiments have shown how to use EMFs to effect physiological changes, and the exposures in question have been demonstrated to be safe. It should be reworded to avoid giving any impression that headaches, rash, and general malaise are usual symptoms of exposure to high intensity fields.

"High" exposure to a given frequency means intensity, or number of photons (or electric field strength). You get a measurable dose of x-rays just by stepping outside, just not at a high enough intensity to matter. Similarly, there is no question that you can cause physiological effects at any frequency given enough intensity, but typical exposures in modern society are simply too low to matter. You are correct that ionizing radiation is high frequency (in this context; in the RF range, light is much more "wave-like" than "particle-like"); the definition is a little loose, but certainly does not include anything with a lower frequency than visible.

I believe "mast" refers exclusively to cell phone towers, though other radiative infrastructure may be included. Possibly it is a British term. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, also interesting is the WHO EMF database, which appears to have 10 papers on base stations (which I think is a more appropriate term to masts, which seems unnecessarily ambiguous?) and health effects - 2 appear to show no health effect and 8 appear to show an adverse health effect.

No health effect WHO EMF Study IDs: 144 (Catney et al, 2006 - PubMed), 289 (Schuz et al, 2006 - PubMed - Actually, this Schuz paper appears to be a misclassification, as it is looking at DECT phone base units on bedside tables instead of mobile phone base stations.)

Adverse health effect WHO EMF Study IDs: 560 (Bortkiewicz et al, 2004 - PubMed),772 (Santini et al, 2002 - PubMed),970 (Wolf et al, 2004 - Download),1122 (Navarro E, 2003 -- Can't find this one!),1226 (Eger et al, 2004 - Download),1463 (Oberfeld et al, 2008 - Download in German),1626 (Hutter et al, 2006 - PubMed),1645 (Abdel-Rassoul et al, 2007 - PubMed)

I'd be interested in getting hold of the Navarro ref, but it appears that the WHO EMF database has a rather one sided collection of papers pointing towards those finding an effect! Topazg (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I pulled Roosli et al from this link, which was recently deleted from the External links section. This indicates that the people who are interested in this topic could read that link a little more closely. I'd also like to look into these cellphone masts, but I'm extremely stretched at this point... II | (t - c) 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to be clear: I don't think that most informed biologists would say that it is impossible for the fields generated by, say, a CRT, to be harmful. The argument, instead, has two parts: first, calculations show that they are pretty unlikely to be harmful; second, direct experimental tests show that people can't actually tell the difference between a real electric field and a "placebo" field. If there were any actual evidence of harm, as opposed to mere beliefs that are easily explained away, most people would be open to changing their opinions about this.Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I support generally what Looie496 says above. Except it is not much of an argument to claim that "that people can't actually tell the difference between a real electric field and a "placebo" field." It does not establish anything if at all. For instance free radicals and macrophages do not communicate well, and organ damage can be well advanced before symptoms arise, as autopsies generally show. General calculations are fine but may not apply to (order of error) subpopulations. Until such time as RCT trials are devised and conducted to assess all potential (known)forms and pathways of damage, on patients with an accepted case criteria, there is simply 'a lack of evidence' An NPOV position recognises that opinions may well change, and will be framed to present evidence as it develops over time. Jagra (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Jagra's assessment here. Topazg (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick observation from the introduction. UV rays can cause skin damage, so this is a biological effect from non-ionizing radiation. Also, phototoxicity reactions can occur when taking antibiotics and antibacterial medication. This happened to a friend of mine who was taking prescription medication, they had itching skin whenever exposed to light. I don't think that the only established biological effects are from ionizing radiation or from thermal heating effects. --ScienceMind (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't UV radiation mostly in the ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Isn't that what causes sunburn and the rest? Verbal chat 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your right in that some UV can be ionizing. UV-c can be ionizing to some molecules, and UV-a and UV-b can ionize partially. Having said that, the damage is caused when DNA absorbs UV-b and UV-c, interferes with transcription and causes a DNA mutation. This is a non-ionizing effect. A gene regulating cell division can then form a malignancy, which is how skin cancer comes about.

Eitology and evidence

This section currently contains the sentence "Some professionals consider electromagnetic hypersensitivity to be a real physical condition with an unclear cause, while others consider it to be a psychosomatic illness.[1]" Refernce one does not use the word 'psychosomatic' anywhere. Under the heading Discussion - Current evidence, In discussing only four of the 31 studies it says, "Given that the actual presence of EMF did not correlate with increased symptom severity in these studies, these findings suggest that psychologic mechanisms may play at least some role in causing or exacerbating EHS symptoms." (4 out of 31, maybe cause, maybe exaccerbate, does not equate to considered psychosomatic!), further on under Discusion- Implications for researchers and clinicians, it says "Identifying what these causes are may require careful investigation. For some, complaints of EHS may mask organic or psychiatric pathology," So this reference does not support the Article sentence, as it stands, and it is OR. I suggest it be changed to reflect what the ref actually says. something like;

"Some professionals consider electromagnetic hypersensitivity to be a real physical condition with an unclear cause, (ref needed) while others suggest EHS complaints may mask either organic or psychiatric pathology, in some." (1) Jagra (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference is from "Psychosomatic Medicine" and it isn't OR to say that it supports the psychosomatic hypothesis, as someone reading it who knows the definition can reasonably come to that conclusion. However, there are numerous articles in newspapers where Drs (medical and PhD) describe it as a psychosomatic phenomenon, as do many sufferers (and many specifically deny it too). I'll look up a few references later. I don't think the claim that some call it psychosomatic is at all controversial. It would be if we said it definately was with no evidence, but this statement is entirely reasonable. --Verbal (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, but I don't see why you're labeling it a psychological disorder. Doctors use different words for a reason ... II | (t - c) 07:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be more general, but I don't see a problem either so I'll self revert. --Verbal (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, but psychological disorder implies mental instability which is not a general feature of psychosomatic illness. :) II | (t - c) 07:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether a 'psychosomatic hypothesis' is reasonable is not the point. The reference given does not support the text and words it claims to. If you can find an RS source that makes the case and provides the evidence you mention for such a statement, then add it by all means, (the title of a journal will not do), psychosomatic and psychiatric pathology are indeed different. Or alter the text as suggested. The only psychology comments in this paper are those in italics in the first para above, and then only in the (speculative) Discussion section. The words "these findings suggest that psychologic mechanisms may play at least some role in causing or exacerbating " do not equate with the current text, the authors of this paper have not "considered it to be a psychosomatic illness" and that statement without other ref's requires an OR jump. Jagra (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It supports the rest of the sentence, and it does support the some consider it psychosomatic without a leap into OR. I think other sources should be added to reinforce this if you feel that would help. --Verbal (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jagra here. My understanding is that EHS is no more considered psychosomatic than it is related directly to EMFs. It is currently not established either way, merely that the existence of psychological factors is supported by the science - not that the whole condition is psychological. This definitely strikes me as OR Topazg (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that some say it is, or at least some aspects are, psychosomatic or psychological in nature. I thought that was the point. If you have some sources (and I agree they exist, and that you're one of the people to ask) could you provide them, I'm a bit busy to look right now. Thanks. Verbal chat 12:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The WHO factsheet supports undiagnosed medical condition, non-EMF environmental condition (stress, flickering lights, &c.), or psychiatric/psychological condition. I tagged the ref. to the end of that sentence, but we might ought to move that sentence to be the second in the paragraph. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientifically the Rubin paper refers to at, albeit very reservedly. This Landgrebe Paper is much better at analysing approximately how large the psychological aspect is likely to be, although the abstract doesn't use the word psychosomatic or psychological. I would have said (especially having the full paper) that this is the best scientific reference for it at the moment, and also seems to be (completely subjectively of course) well carried out research, with a proper sham (e.g. non-emitting at all as opposed to emitting RF at much lower levels as many of the provocation studies have done). Topazg (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As unreasonable as it is, if you don't have a source that states psychosomatic, you can't put down psychosomatic. If people are willing to accept leeway maybe we could do it, but since Jagra is a stickle, we should stick with what the sources say -- if they only vaguely say "appears to have some psychologic components", then that's what you have to say. (I'm not reading the papers right now.)II | (t - c) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem is the negative connotations associated with psychosomatic. I reworded that sentence in line with the WHO reference. Would someone check that it is still appropriate to cite it to Rubin as well? - Eldereft (cont.) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure that either Rubin or WHO say it is wholly pyschiatric, which the current wording ("while others consider it to be a psychological condition.[14][1] ") might imply. I think it might be truer to sources to say "while others suggest it may in some, be a psychological condition. (14)(1)Jagra (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a paper that claims EHS is solely a psychological condition, certainly not Rubin or WHO and I have corrected POV in the Article that claimed otherwise. If you have references that says otherwise produce them.Jagra (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)