Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Key articles

It would be good to have more references to some of the well established effects of electrosensitivity. An example is: A. Frey "Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy" (J. Appl. Physiol., 1962). Johnrafillo (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Johnrafillo (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Social and economic effects of electrosensitivity

I’m sure there should be more on how electrosensitivity affects lifestyle and jobs. Many of my friends who suffer electrosensitivity have had to abandon their homes and families, and some have lost their work if employers don’t make the right changes. What about including Genius and Lipp’s review of 2011 – EHS: Fact or Fiction? It’s likely the best review to date on the whole subject of electrosensitivity anyway. And Kato and Johansson on how people are affected in Japan, 2012.RoddytheOutback (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no established cause for electrosensitivity, that changes can be made? THe only treatment that has shown any efficacy is cognitive behavioural therapy, which is already mentioned in the article. The Kato article is a questionnaire survey, and the Genius article is at odds with more authoritative sources and thus cannot be described as the “best review to date” of EHS. --papageno (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Mechanisms for electromagnetic sensitivity

This entry lacks details on the cellular, molecular and bioelectrical mechanisms of EMF effects. I suggest a fundamental paper like Bawin SM & Adey WR “Sensitivity of calcium binding in cerebral tissue to weak environmental electric fields oscillating at low frequency” Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A, 1976, 73(6): 1999-2003, and a recent review such as Pall ML “Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects” J Cell Mol Med., 2013, 17(8): 958-965, showing how far this is now accepted as the molecular mechanism for both ELF and RF effects.HelmutRHenkelmann (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no accepted methods for RF to cause any health effects in humans. --papageno (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the latter article shows that this method is accepted. And why limit the spectrum to RF? HelmutRHenkelmann (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The method is perhaps accepted by the author and by the journal in which it was published (and I repeat this point from an earlier comment on this Talk page), the journal “Electromagnetic biology and medicine”, whose editor in chief is Henry Lai, a noted proponent of EMF causing health issues; the rest of the editorial board (see here) is primarily composed of similar proponents. It is highly unlikely that the study underwent a thorough peer-review. Further, the journal has a very low impact rating. The author seems to have missed research that doesn't support this thesis, which is all in-vitro research anyway. This is why organizations like the WHO still say that there is no known mechanism for RF to cause health effects including sensitivity. As for other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, if you have good WP:MEDRS evidence for frequencies outside of 3 kHz–300 GHz, you are welcome to present it. --papageno (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

there are lots of biological effects of microwaves/rf. you gotta work in the industry and only care about profits to believe otherwise. you can technically cut holes in people, massage their tissue, control their brain waves, activate voltage gated calcium channels (which leads to headaches, anxiety, depression, autism in newborns, concentration issues, heart fibrillation and stroke can be caused and natural looking deaths, cancer, many things.. melatonin levels drop from exposure to microwaves, just like the sun was always out.), chill people, create expansion and contraction and sound in peoples bodies, link to peoples nervous systems, and dustify people by tearing apart their molecular bonds. you could create a microwave bullet, focuses right in the middle of a person obliterating a persons tissue. got white papers on effects of microwaves, and tons of other research info here: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/story.html#links It's been fully weaponized, tons of articles all over my site. http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/story.html#nsabrainlink The people at the US Moscow Embassy got real sick from scalar waves/microwaves bombardment from the Russians, too. That was back in the 1950s-1970s. It was first use of mind reading radar. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The focus in this article is on effects from levels below safety standards. At those levels, there are are no accepted effects or mechanisms. The links you provide do not meet the standard for WP:MEDRS.--papageno (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

except for the white papers and the news paper sources, books, and interviews by famous scientists. The fact of the matter is FCC does not even believe microwaves have any potential to cause harmful effects outside of heating, this is why the safety standards do not consider microwaves to have other effects. I believe the white papers prove that microwaves pass the blood-brain barrier, and activate voltage gated calcium channels, causing release of calcium intracell, leading to superoxide and nitrous oxide (Dr. Martin Pall's) paper is conclusive. People also experience "microwave sickness" without a doubt and we've known that since 1950s when Russian's bombarded the Moscow Embassy with scalar waves for decades, making everyone sick. These effects happen even at levels the FCC claims are safe (again, FCC claims there is no effect of microwaves AT ALL even at unsafe levels besides heating, which we know is false because countless studies show biological health effects when there should be none). I also like the documentary, "Resonance: Beings of Frequency" because it highlights the many effects even on birds and bees. One of the news articles I posted highlighted material showing microwaves were harming plant life, preventing plants from growing, and damaging bark, in controlled studies as well as in the real world. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Paul Dart's white paper is pretty good. It compiles information from dozens of sources and his personal experience working with patients and researching the matter. These white papers are well-sourced, reliable sources of information. All of them, like 10 different papers and books and documents are available on my website in the previous link. Download 'em, link to em, read em, and use them as sources.. Here's a few sources: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/RF-EMF%20Harmful%20Effects/2014-0224-Paul-Dart-35552.pdf http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/RF-EMF%20Harmful%20Effects/2014-0224-Martin-Paul-35551.pdf http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/otherfiles/20080319_do_you_have_microwave_sickness.pdf An entire book: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/otherfiles/Barnes%20and%20Greenbaum%202006%20book--Biological%20and%20Medical%20Aspects%20of%20Electromagnetic%20Fields.pdf http://www.rfemf.com/ http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/356334-wi-fi-kills-plants-could-harm-kids-but-can-be-harnessed-for-energy/ Here's three videos: https://vimeo.com/54189727 http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/whoiselisalam.html http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/media_archive/2014-02-24%20Dr.%20Martin%20Pall%20&%20Dr.%20Paul%20Dart,%20M.D.%20Oregon%20House%20of%20Rep.%20Health%20Committee%20Presentation.mp4 Dozens more sources at http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/story.html#nsabrainlink 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with this condition, "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is it basically doesn't even cover the issue of biological health effects of radiation, but it's the main condition used to diagnosis sickness for the condition. The issue is much more wide spread because all of society is being dosed with microwaves, and each and every person is experiencing some kind of damage from it whether they feel it or not. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that Oregon joker gets his science from, but when I look at the research the conclusions of all the studies is that EMF has no effect on melatonin, and that microwave exposure does NOT have effects in certain individuals. Anyway, I'd suggest you stop reading ridiculous bullshit from people who have no clue, and look at the actual science that has been done. LOL :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the reports that "Oregon joker" relies on has dozens upon dozens of Ph.D.'s who generated it (from around the globe). I believe I linked to that report. If not it's on the previous story.html#links link I provided. "Bio Initiative 2012". I beg to differ, I think dozens of reports have found increased brain tumor development, and many people right near cell towers report the greatest sickness. People lit up and got sick when smart meters went live in California, too. This is backed by multiple sources. Multiple studies. Most info on the biological health effects of it hidden away in the research literature and suppressed for decades by the powers that be. One problem is today so many people have daily sickness, and no one is tracking down the cause. How do you know all the headaches people get (people pop pain killers today like they're nothing), sleep disturbances (there is increased sleep aid use), all the anxiety, depression (people are getting prescribed more and more antidepressants/antianxiety than ever), autism (rate of diagnosis keeps going up), schizophrenia (more and more people especially in the city are developing this condition, due to factors linked to city life, like wireless exposure and stress increases), colony collapse disorder in bees, extinction in certain species like birds and issues with bird navigation, isn't all being caused? We have data that all these problems keep getting worse, and worse, and it does correlate with man created conditions such as deployment of wireless technologies. Yet if you go the doctors office, they have no clue the cause, and only focus on treatment (typically w/ drugs). And no known medical tests can rule out RF/EMF causing sickness or any other environmental cause. Our techniques can't even tell what's happening at the quantum, subatomic, atomic, molecular or cellular levels that microwaves act on. But we know there is an effect, we just aren't paying any attention to it. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your conspiracy theories. Start a blog. Bhny (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Research has shown that people have all sorts of symptoms when they are TOLD that a cellphone tower is transmitting but it isn't, but ZERO symptoms when they are told is it not transmitting but it is. There's even a TV programme with Richard Hammond which does exactly that experiment. Perhaps you missed it while digging into the conspiracy theories? Anyway, all this discussion is moot. For wikipedia we rely on WP:MEDRS to decide what to include. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories by what standard? Anyway, I confirmed that Martin Pall's paper was peer reviewed by 4 reviewers, for the Cellular and Molecular Medicine journal. This particular journal always has very good peer reviewing before publishing. This paper was honored by being placed on the Global Medical Discovery web site, as one of the top medical papers of 2013. I believe that this is the first time that any paper on biological mechanisms of action of EMFs has been so honored. The journal has an impact factor of around 4.5, that is about 4 and 1/2 times the impact of the average journal, so it is quite a respectable impact factor and it is covered in PubMed. The paper has already been cited 16 times, according to the Google Scholar database, just a bit over a year after it was published, so it is clearly going to be a very influential paper, "papageno's" claim to the contrary. Thus I conclude it to fit the requirements set in WP:MEDRS for a reliable source for medical content, giving the green light for people to use it for a source in this article. I spoke to Martin Pall, apparently he has already given seven professional talks on the paper in four countries, and is giving four more, adding three countries. He's also written two additional white papers on the matter & is producing two more which will be submitted soon.. 2602:306:CE65:9470:9927:F5E:CF45:6DE8 (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Before commenting further, to clarify: the article you are suggesting be used as a source is Pall, ML "Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects." (J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65. doi:10.1111/jcmm.12088. Epub 2013 Jun 26.) (at PMID 23802593)? --papageno (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Studies

A user removed an apparently unreferenced section. However if you look at the (referenced) next sentence, it doesn't seem to match the source. I think it would be better to rewrite this entire paragraph with proper references rather than just deleting bits that aren't correctly referenced. The thrust of the deleted text seems valid, and can be found in other references. I don't have time to look into this in detail right now. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ICNIRP recognises electromagnetic sensitivity

Now that ICNIRP accepts sensitivity to electromagnetic exposure, much of this article seems rather one-sided, and some editors appear rather heavy-handed in rejecting valid data. Wouldn't it better to accept ICNIRP's lead and start with the established evidence for electromagnetic sensitivity and remove the minority skeptic viewpoint, which anyway confuses fear of EM with the different established condition of physical sensitivity, to later in the article? Roaringforties (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Might you be able to point us to a reference, I think directly at the ICNIRP would be most convincing, that supports your assertion? I couldn't find any in an admittedly brief search. Thanks. --papageno (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Genetic haplotypes

I see the article is very thin on all the molecular studies on sensitivity, including genetic, where some haplotypes have been discovered which are nearly ten times more common in people with electromagnetic sensitivity. I think that, say, De Luca C et al, Mediators Inflamm, 2014, ought to be included.Johnrafillo (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)~

I just read the paper, and I found it very interesting. Other users think that it should be included in the article? Alex2006 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No. A little bit suspect publisher. A little suspect affiliations of the researchers. Builds on their own previous work. Needs multiple, independent replication before relevant for inclusion. --papageno (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Cellphone tower studies

This article is missing evidence of sensitivity symptoms around cellphone towers - very important to understanding the spread of this sensitivity in the general population. Similarly it should have the Microwave Hearing or Tinnitus studies going back to the 1960's.Lucianotorredo (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We need high quality refs per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean studies that show there is no difference in symptoms when the tower is turned off vs on? I think we do already have meta-analyses of these studies. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of ones like Khurana VG 2010, indicating that some 80% of celltower studies show electrosensitivity symptoms. I'm not sure why no difference studies are useful - negative findings prove nothing.Lucianotorredo (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was: studies show that people have symptoms when they are TOLD the base station is on, but no difference in symptoms when it is actually turned off or on. Also, if you read Khurana, you'll see that the only large well-controlled study (Berg-Beckhoff 2009) found no difference and concludes that the symptoms are probably caused by stress and not RF. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Khurana study, like most others, is very clear that cellphone towers can cause neurological symptoms (and cancers), so it ought to be included. It states: "We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations."Lucianotorredo (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You will need to link the PMID of said review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put it under symptoms etc. with PMID as requested.Lucianotorredo (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Summarized as we do not generally quote. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, this has been added to the wrong section (symptoms vs studies). Second, the premise of the OP's comment is incorrect - we do already cite over 24 studies into this (in the "studies" section, strangely).

I think the OP needs to thoroughly read the studies section to see if this review actually adds anything. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the change you added wasn't a "minor change". Be careful ticking that "minor change" tickbox! --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This study adds review evidence for neurobehavioral symptoms near base stations, something not otherwise specified in the studies section which lacks any reference to base stations. It should be included as a key area of the study of the symptoms.Lucianotorredo (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the studies should be in the studies section. The symptoms section just lists the symptoms. Also, there are quite a lot of studies we reference that look into symptoms near base stations. See Rubin and Wessely (2010) for example (look in the "Mobile Phone Base Station Experiments" section of their paper). Also, refs 5, 20 and 21 in the current article look at base stations.

I'm not saying the article doesn't need updated. Perhaps the text needs to be clarified based on the references we already have. If you want to update the article, the first thing I would recommend would be to read the full text of some of these references. If you have trouble finding the full-text of any of them, let me know. The Wessely article is available here for example. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I’ve tried sorting, updating and expanding the range of the Studies section, as suggested. I’ve tried to maintain an impartial approach while also indicating some of the areas under study at present. I’ve removed some duplications from elsewhere in the article (eg HPA 2005, not technically a study and referred to elsewhere) and some quotations which restated what is given elsewhere. I’ve kept the final paragraph with its WHO 2005 conclusion.Lucianotorredo (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well done - this is a very useful reworking and update to parts of the Studies section, which had become outdated and lacked a broad perspective. Perhaps there should be more studies referenced on the social and economic situations of people with this condition.Johnrafillo (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding content that does not match the conclusions

This was added

"Note that one of these studies did show study subjects as able to distinguish real from sham stimuli: Six of 95 EHS participants (6.3%) and 1 of 47 control participants (2.1%) were reliably able to discriminate active from inactive conditions in these experiments, a nonsignificant difference in proportions (chi-square = 1.18, df = 1, p = .28). p. 228 [In the article, this text was supported with a citation reference to Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S (2005). "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies". Psychosom Med. 67 (2): 224–232. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000155664.13300.64. PMID 15784787.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). I have made this modification of the comment by User:Doc James to avoid a spurious citation reference at the bottom of this Talk page, and left behind this text in single square brackets to indicate the change. papageno (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)]

Which means that they could not distinguish real from sham.

Additionally here are the actual conclusions from that ref "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 EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Forgive me! Yes. I see.Daniel Helman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Reverted. Daniel Helman (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience! Feeling the fields isn't the same as getting symptoms, so I hadn't been convinced by the logic of the argument you'd presented. But ... of course ... I'd misread the quote. Thank you so much for taking the time!Daniel Helman (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The page is well-polished and that doesn't happen by chance. You've put a lot of work in. It shows. Daniel Helman (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is mostly the work of others. I have made only a few edits and can take little / no credit for its current state. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at this article and see whether there's anything here that you think is worth including? I'm still focused on NPOV. Genuis, Stephen J., and Christopher T. Lipp. "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction?." Science of the Total Environment 414 (2012): 103-112. http://gnusha.org/~nmz787/biological%20radio%20research/Electromagnetic%20hypersensitivity__Fact%20or%20fiction.pdf Best wishes. Daniel Helman (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just skimming the paper raises giant red flags. For example, there are the classic Sweden canards:

"Sweden (with about a quarter of a million people with EHS reported in 2004 (Johansson, 2006)) classifies EHS as a functional impairment (Johansson, 2006)"

The reported number of sufferers is a figure extrapolated from a survey, and Sweden does not in fact acknowledge EHS as a diagnosis.
The paper also pushes MCS, another not-accepted-by-science diagnosis, and alt-med detox. So while I've never heard of the journal and can't comment on its usual standard (that it's published by Elsevier doesn't say much; Elsevier also publishes stuff like the "Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies"), this paper doesn't even seem worth reading in detail, let alone include in the article. Kolbasz (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Which means that they could not distinguish real from sham." - It doesn't mean this - it states that a minority of participants were reliably able to discriminate active from inactive conditions. The "nonsignificant difference" is referring to the fact that the proportion of those who could accurately distinguish real from sham was not significantly different between the EHS (self-identified "electromagnetic hypersensitive") group and the control group - it doesn't refer to their ability to distinguish real from sham.

Additionally, the review states from one of the studies,

"Furthermore, although some cognitive parameters (ability to filter information, reaction time) showed significant decrements as a result of exposure, others (memory, visual attention, dual-tasking reaction time) showed significant improvements"

Are the authors suggesting that since there were both apparently significant positive and negative cognitive results, this can be interpreted as a null effect overall? Bearing these points in mind, it seems that their conclusion of "no robust evidence" leaves something to be desired.Sjmsn (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Society and Culture Section

We should add this. A lot of traffic is coming to here because of Better Call Saul 24.228.60.155 (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ref

WRT

"While there is a correlation between at least some medical effects of elevated blood pressure and effects attributed to electrical fields, the overlapping symptoms are mostly of neurological nature, for example headache, dizziness, fatigue, sleep disturbances. Nevertheless the thermic effects of exposure to electrical fields cannot be excluded from causing a rise in blood temperature and in turn in blood pressure (hypertension)."

Not exactly sure what this means. The WHO ref does not seem to support it. And no page number is given for Harrison's. Also need the edition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

What it means is that someone is trying to rescue a hypothesis from refutation. The temperature rise can be calculated form standard models, and with the frequencies and powers in play it is negligible. Less than the effect of a nice hot cup of tea. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cause

There does not seem to be any discussion on the possible underlying physiological causes. Obviously this would be early stages but it would be nice to see if there is any current work in this area. There is a reference to EMF having an impact on ants, presumedly the authors of that study would have proposed some underlying physics / physiological interactions for further study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.253.92.217 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That is because there are no underlying physiological causes (subject to longer-term research). WP:CRYSTAL and similar forbid articles from speculating about the future. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Until now, most of the research consisted only in provocation studies, under the assumption that EHS implies sensitivity. In order to explain the syndrome, one would need long-time studies, which are extremely difficult to perform. Alex2006 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories

I removed Category:Ailments of unknown etiology since there is a consensus that this is not an actual ailment; the category Category:Somatic psychology pretty much makes that point. "Unknown" is abused by quacks in their version of the "god of the gaps" fallacy - there are some genuinely puzzling disorders but this ain't one. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering about that category. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I think that it is the other way around, since there is no consensus that this syndrome is psychosomatic and is caused by nocebo (read the article about that), although there is a nocebo component. As I wrote in the comment, there are important scholars (Prof. Röösli from Uni Basel (2008), see reference; see also here (2012) (9.1. "Gesamtbewertung") who relativize this interpretation. Moreover, in the article the psychosomatic origin is presented only as a possibility: this means that before inserting this category, the article should be changed correspondingly with reliable sources. Because of that, I will restore the previous category, and I think that we should remove the Category:Somatic psychology: please don't change the categorization without bringing convincing evidence of your thesis. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

First and foremost, disputed content gets excluded until there is consensus for inclusion. That means both come out until this discussion is complete. Second, there is robust consensus from provocation studies that this is not a disorder. That is well established in the article. There is no evidence that the electrosensitives are actually sensitive. Third, I strongly support the category "alternative diagnoses" - even if the other category is included, this is still an alternative diagnosis since "sufferers" are either self-diagnosed, or diagnosed by quacks. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Guy, and thanks for the fast answer! I agree with your first point, but not with the second. From the literature it is clear that: a) EHS People are real sufferers; b) Nocebo can explain only "partially" the EHS syndrome (read again Röösli, cited above in this thread). The paper by Röösli is a survey (published by the Swiss Department for Environment), and is the most recent which I know (and in the meantime, research is going on). About the author, together with Rubin he is one of the foremost experts in this field, so his conclusions have a large weight. About the third point, I also agree with you: a diagnosis does not exist, so if your category describes self-diagnosed syndromes, it is ok to have EHS among them.

In conclusion, I would suggest that we remove the psychosomatic category, insert yours, and leave the ailment category in place. Do you agree? Alex2006 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The medical establishment is perfectly clear in its consensus. It uses cautious language just in case something crops up in the current round of research, but the key point is that over many studies, the existing evidence points firmly towards some combination of psychosomatic (nocebo) origin and/or misplaced diagnosis of other ailments. Not all claims will arise from identical circumstances so both Category:Somatic psychology and Category:Alternative diagnoses are appropriate. The idea that this is a genuine ailment, even if of unknown etiology, is not remotely supported by the existing evidence and Category:Ailments of unknown etiology is therefore wholly inappropriate. If new studies change the landscape we can revisit (Like, say, in biology birds used never to be classified as dinosaurs but now they are), but unless and until that happens, we are where we are. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that if I bring a paper which contradicts what you say, you cannot repeat your thesis. Röösli in his analysis explains very well that the psychosomatic model is only one of the possible explanations for the EHS. Please read the study which I cited above, especially p. 93, starting with "Neben dem oben beschriebenen psychosomatischen Modell sind auch andere Ansätze zur Erklärung der EHS-Entstehung denkbar", and what follows. And, I repeat, Röösli is a key person in this field (among others, he is one of the main WHO experts about this theme), so his opinion counts. Alex2006 (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Or we can remember that "hypersensitives" cannot even tell when the electromagnetic radiation is not there. There will never be any shortage of speculation at the fringes, and people looking in good faith to see if there is any small subgroup who genuinely are sensitive, but the consensus view is that electromagnetic hypersensitivity does not exist as a real condition, it is essentially a nocebo effect. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see with regret that none of yours have read the source which I brought (but maybe the problem here is the German language?), and that you call "the fringes" one of the three main WHO experts (the other two are Rubin and Lerchl) about the subject. I think that continuing a discussion here is not useful. Alex2006 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)than single papers (and I agree with

There is an important distinction between what is supported by the evidence and what remains possible (i.e. not actually ruled out by the evidence). Lots of possibilities have not been ruled out, some kind of electromagnetic fatigue included. But very few are supported by the available evidence. As Guy points out, other studies have gathered evidence to supported nocebo and related origins. I cannot easily read Röösli's paper but from what you say he is merely noting that EHS is not ruled out. Does he in fact offer evidence to support it over other diagnoses? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No matter what it says, Röösli is still just a single source, and shouldn't be granted undue weight over the vast majority of other studies. Kolbasz (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to notice the following 3 facts:

• It is not "Röösli", but this is an official paper issued by the Swiss government;
• This is not "a single paper", but a survey of papers, among them these which support the nocebo thesis;
• Until now on this page have been excluded lots of papers, under the (according to me, right) assumption that comprehensive studies (like those of Rubin) have much more weight than single papers. Now we have a comprehensive study, more recent than most of the papers here cited, issued by a collaborator of Rubin at WHO, but the line of thought has magically became just the opposite: it is the meta study which is "a single source" and should not be overweighed against the single studies! My compliments to this shining and - above all - coherent example of clear scientific reasoning. I can ask here in Rome if there is some free place at the Collegio Romano: if one day the holy see will decide to repeat the trial to Galileo, here we have some interesting candidates for the court, since here the line of reasoning resembles a lot that of those Jesuits...:-) Bye Alex2006 (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Galileo Gambit? Oh dear. Kolbasz (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As we say in Roman dialect, it looks like this thread "è finito in caciara"  :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, pur-leeze, stop your ad hominem griping the lot of you, it just makes it harder to find any value in your posts. The Swiss "Röösli" report is clearly a significant one and we cannot ignore it. I checked out the French-language version of the Summary at [1], as I am a little stronger there than in German. It makes it very clear that among acute symptoms, EHS is seldom if ever responsible while amongst the rest, the nocebo effect drowns out any ability to verify or falsify any purported EHS effects. It is worth stating its final paragraph in full:

Rien ne prouve que les personnes électrosensibles réagissent de manière plus sensible aux CEM que le reste de la population, c’est pourquoi il convient de prendre en considération tous les groupes de personnes lors de futures études. Du point de vue scientifique, on peut considérer que la population, y compris les personnes électrosensibles, est protégée des effets directs de l’exposition aux CEM sur la santé. Néanmoins, étant donné le manque d’analyses ciblées, il n’est pas possible de rejeter totalement l’hypothèse qu’il existe des personnes véritablement gênées dans leur bien-être par les CEM autorisés.

Which Google Translate and I between us render into English as:

There is no evidence that electrosensitive people react more sensitively to EMF than the rest of the population, therefore it is appropriate to consider all groups of people for future studies. From the scientific point of view, one can consider that the population, including electrosensitive people, is protected from direct effects of EMF exposure on health. Nevertheless, given the lack of targeted analysis, it is not possible to completely reject the hypothesis that there are people whose welfare is genuinely affected by permitted EMC emissions.

This pretty much supports my original comment above - I see no sign of the alleged contradiction. The study and I are agreed that there is no evidence supporting electrosensitivity as a medical ailment or diagnosis, although we cannot rule out the possibility that future studies might find something. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for translating (and sorry for my previous comment :-))! Yes, but his conclusion does not support the "Psychosomatic diagnosis" due to the Nocebo effect either, as he clearly states at page 91 (and also indirectly in the conclusion, when he propose to "consider all the population": only with control groups with "normal people" you can find a "nocebo" or "placebo" effect). In other words, EHS, if exists, is a syndrome, and remains a syndrome (forgetting the maybe 99.9% of EHS self-candidates who have psychosomatic problems). Alex2006 (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The psychosomatic effect does not need a control group, it just needs a double-blind trial with and without real EMF present, and this has been done. EHS may well be a syndrome, but that does not mean that it is caused by EMF exposure, only that it is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Also, I have now taken a quick look at the longer paper in German. The Discussion opens on page 91 with:

In summary it can be said that there is strong evidence that short-term EMF exposure has no effect on physiological parameters or wellbeing[?] of EHS individuals. Regarding long-term effects there is little data and no statement can be made. EHS is a self-diagnosis of people who, because of their own experiences in everyday life, come to the conclusion that they react to electromagnetic fields. A measurable diagnostic parameter has not yet been identified.

All my comments stand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo SteelPillow, sorry, it was page 93. Here is the translation:

In addition to the psychosomatic model described above are also conceivable other approaches to explain the emergence of EHS . Moreover, is cannot be completely ruled out, that long-term EMF pollution can lead in individual cases to discomfort. However, it is very difficult to provide causal evidence. Basically, more long-term studies would be desirable. A crucial problem in the implementation and interpretation of studies on EHS is the assumption by EHS individuals that health complaints have been caused by exposure. Especially in long term observational studies is often not possible a Blinding of participants with regard to their exposure status, and real exposure effects can hardly be distinguished from Nocebo effects (detailed Discussion in Chapter 5).

This means that from the his analysis the psychosomatic diagnosis does not emerge as the only possible. Alex2006 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. But "posssible" and "supported" are very different things. Supported diagnoses get a category, unsupported possibilities don't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's ignoring it, that is the kind of hyperbole handed out by homeopathy shills who accuse the scientific community of ignoring their evidence when actually the scientific community has seen it and just prefers a more parsimonious explanation. As I said, it is possible that a minority of the self-proclaimed electrosensitives may have some form of sensitivity but it is abundantly clear that the majority do not and are victims of charlatans and the nocebo effect. Science does nto prove negatives, Wikipedia does not represent outliers as anything other than outliers. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, and you don`t understand that you agree with me. When there is a syndrome, Science is above all interested to prove its existence and underlying mechanisms, and just later its prevalence among the population. And, in absence of a diagnosis, it is natural that many people with generic symptoms will accuse the next base station or wi-fi, exactly as they accuse a soap in the case MCS. The psychosomatic model explain perfectly these cases, which are clearly psychosomatic, but not all the cases and, above all, cannot be used in long time studies. You can read the chapter 5 of the paper, about the long time studies, where this is explained. Alex2006 (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that we all pretty much agree on the science, I guess our difference of view on approprite Categories must be a purely encyclopedic one. I would still maintain that the unsupported possibilities should not be included in the categories applied. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I still think that a category which in this case is appropriate to explain the mechanism of false positives should not be used here, but apparently there is non consensus about that, so let's leave it so. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Better Call Saul 1

I feel the primary reason of interest in this "disease" is because of its mention in Better Call Saul because Chuck McGill in the show has it. I wanted to see if a pop culture section would be good Panewithholder (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally reverted the edit in contention. Because Panewithholder is a very new user, when he reached out to me about my reversion I thought it'd be a good opportunity for mentorship. Because I'm walking him through the process of discussing a contentious edit in this case though I can't really participate fairly in the discussion. As such I'm recusing myself, but would encourage other editors to discuss it and build consensus as they see fit, so that Panewithholder can have a chance to see how disputed edits are handled in a best-case scenario. Simonm223 (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This article dates back to 2006, references go back to the '80s, and the main interest in this topic peaked in the '90s (see e.g. TCO Certification). A pop culture section would not improve the article in any way. Kolbasz (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Manual of Style - Medicine-related articles (WP:MOSMED) does have a provision for a "Society and Culture" section, where perhaps pop culture references could be housed. It might be useful to find examples of how popular culture references are treated in other medicine articles.--papageno (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Society and culture ("this might include stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues, notable cases") ≠ a list of pop culture references. Kolbasz (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kolbasz. I took a quick look to the Society and Culture sections of articles about other illnesses, like Cancer and Tubercolosis, and I could not find such an usage. Alex2006 (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The BCS references are bringing a disproportional amount of attention to the condition and is likely to distort public perceptions of it. I agree that a pop culture reference "section" seems unjustified but the influence of the series on perception of the condition could br considered of encyclopaedic import, and therefore worthy of mention. Bustter (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest the usual test: has the reference in Better Call Saul created significant comment in mainstream media? If it has, then the cultural significance can be reliably sourced (per WP:RS) and the section can be created with suitable citations. If nobody with any significant authority has commented, then its significance cannot be verified and the section should not be created. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The most common way by far that anyone has ever heard of this disease in a show of cultural significance is not worthy of being mentioned in the article? C'mon guys. Think about what you are doing here and the Wikipedia goal of expanding knowledge.Timtempleton (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. I do find it irritating when people overstate the significance of pop culture trivia. Note this prominent case from 2013. Your conviction that Better Call Saul is of paramount cultural significance leads you to believe that the 96% of the world's population who are not in the US, and 100% of the population prior to February this year, have never heard of this fake disease. You are this: wrong. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I googled "Better Call Saul" hypersensitivity and Chuck's little problem is all over the web. Top hit was the Guardian piece currently cited. Second was the Radio Times. Game over. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steelpillow. I appreciate how there are checks and balances to ensure the site is useful and interesting for a general audience and not just the playground of rude intellectuals with superiority complexes.Timtempleton (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have to confess I too get irritated when pop culture trivia go viral and really do overshadow a serious issue, but if it happens, it happens and we must document the fact. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. My point was that "the primary reason of interest in this "disease" is because of its mention in Better Call Saul" is an unevidenced assertion and likely to be a massive overstatement. The anti-WiFi mob have been at it for at least a decade, loudly. That's why we have international reports, which pre-date the show. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal case

I have a friend who suffer from this, many have probably noticed how they can for example hear a cellphone in a car stereo before it actually ring, this dude can do the same thing, he will point out at your cellphone and a few second later it will ring. He describe it as a tingling sensation in his left foot. He is really reluctant to talk about it after what he describe has being "experimented upon" by doctors and psychologist in the '80. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.58.149.93 (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Sadly, Wikipedia can only report cases like this if they have received significant attention elsewhere, for example in papers published by the doctors concerned or in the mainstream media. I do hope the only medical downside is the transient negative emotional state induced by foolish experimenters. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nocebo effect

The cause of EMS is not the nocebo "effect". It is incorrect to say that absence of measurable results is "suggesting the cause to be the nocebo effect". What the research shows is that the syndrome is entirely imaginary, which is a different matter.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The cause of symptoms in certain trials has indeed been ascribed to the nocebo effect. You are wrong to say that they are imaginary: as the lead clearly states, "Whatever their cause, EHS symptoms are a real and sometimes disabling problem for the affected person." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's illogical to include the nocebo effect under electrohypersentisitivty. Electrosensitivity has long been established and accepted by the medical majority, including the WHO and its agencies, with just the 2005 'fact' sheet as a rogue outlier in its outdated attempt to deny a link. A sensitivity is categorically different from a nocebo effect. The diagnosis of a nocebo effect says nothing about the origin of the different condition of a sensitivity. A provocation test for sensitivity cannot assess whether a condition is the result of a nocebo effect since it cannot assess the Pavlovian conditioning necessary for establishing the nocebo effect. The references to the nocebo effect should be removed to a separate Wiki entry about EM nocebo effects, and the entry on electrohypersenstivity should be limited to the molecular and behavioral outcomes established for EM exposure from the 1950s onwards and now accepted by the WHO etc.Kyriolosmakrinos (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to your suggestion that the 2005 work stands alone, this WHO report from 2010 supports the 2005 finding. I can't be bothered to check the rest of your assertions. What I like about this little conversation is that we appear to have an "it's all in the mind" hardline skeptic and an "it's all for real" believer both agreeing on something. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Provocation studies say you are wrong, so we follow the sources. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion to separate out the two issues. It should have been done ages ago. Let’s go for it. Sensitivity and the Nocebo effect are obviously two different medical conditions as regards their diagnosis, ICD-10 numbers, treatment, prognosis and outcomes etc. There’s already a Wiki entry on the Nocebo effect so it should be simple to transfer that element and then keep each entry on its own subject matter for the future.Rdh8h (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The claimed sensitivity is not a medical condition but is an example of the nocebo effect. The medical evidence is overwhelming, as the article makes clear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Totally wrong. Sensitivity or Intolerance has been established since before and after 1932. It’s the Nocebo effect which is an invalid hypothesis for all examples of sensitivity or intolerance symptoms, especially as regards unaware adults and children where the required prior conditioning is impossible. This Talk discussion, however, is about the need to sort out the confusion of categories in this Wiki article. This article is about the real physical effects of Sensitivity or Intolerance, according to its heading. The WHO 296 sheet, however, is about psychological or Nocebo effects of fear caused by prior conditioning. The latter needs to be moved to its appropriate article entry under the Nocebo Effect, to leave this article focussed on its given subject matter, about the established real physical effects of sensitivity or intolerance to electromagnetic exposure.Rdh8h (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The article cites reliable sources for the material it presents. Unless you can trump those with even better sources, you are wasting your time with all these unsupported claims. As I am sure this ground has already been gone over ad nauseam, I personally don't think much of your chances. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, the article does not quote many reliable sources. If it did, there would not be this discussion. A few failed provocation tests show nothing about sensitivity or intolerance, since they have failed. There are plenty of studies which do show sensitivity. The article needs to include established aspects of sensitivity like geomagnetic effects, MRI effects, non-thermal electronic warfare, along with the legal cases recognising sensitivity, the establishment of refuges for people with this sensitivity, bans or warnings on electromagnetic radiation and fields to help people with this sensitivity, and links to the numerous websites on this sensitivity. Removing the irrelevant nocebo or fear material would help clarify the article on its given subject-matter.Rdh8h (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Which studies show sensitivity? --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If a provokation test provokes no response with real stimuli but provokes a response when the subjects are told they're being provoked, that does in fact show two things: that no real sensitivity exists and that the nocebo effect is responsible for the symptoms. Kolbasz (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of studies establishing and confirming electrical sensitivity at both the molecular and organism level, including provocation studies. The WHO mainly accepts these and warns governments to adopt non-thermal limits below ICNIRP’s heating levels, to protect vulnerable groups, including those diagnosed with electrical sensitivity. The WHO, however, fell into a major confusion in its 296 sheet, which is an absurd muddle. This much-criticised 296 sheet attempts to define a real electrical sensitivity or intolerance as a psychological fear without any of the necessary proof of prior conditioning. The 296 sheet and the failed provocation tests, therefore, which by their own admission have nothing to do with real electrical sensitivity, should be put into their correct Wiki entry under Nocebo effects. Wiki should not fall into the WHO error of muddling entirely different categories, distinct conditions which have their own different diagnoses, different treatments and different ICD-10 classification numbers. Wiki should not be making the same basic mistake as WHO 296, especially since it is one easily corrected by separating out the two different conditions.Rdh8h (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

To remove the logical muddle in this article, we need to clarify the definitions in the opening paragraph. (1) An environmental sensitivity, such as EM, should not be defined by the word ‘purportedly’, since it cannot be both a real sensitivity and a fictional one. Since there are masses of peer-reviewed articles on real sensitivity at the molecular level and from cellphone towers, MRI scanners and geomagnetic effects, which this article should be centered on, then ‘purportedly’ should be removed. Subjective conscious provocation tests are a different issue and should be dealt with separately. (2) If IEI-EMF is defined as a fear or a nocebo effect, it is clearly a different category. This needs stating. If ‘ideopathic’ is defined as ‘cause unknown’ then it cannot refer to the fear or nocebo effect, since the cause is well known – i.e. the fear or nocebo effect - and fear or the nocebo effect are therefore irrelevant and should be moved to their respective Wiki entries.Kyriolosmakrinos (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no "logical muddle in this article". This article is about a claimed medical sensitivity. A cellphone is sensitive to certain EM emissions - that's its job - but we are not talking about that kind of sensitivity here. Nor do we mean the kinds of well-studied molecular sensitivity used for example in magnetic cranial stimulation. The logical muddle comes when you confuse the one kind with another, as you have just done. "Idiopathic" is a description of individual cases and not a blanket label for a condition. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is odd to allude to cellphones as being sensitive. Most other Wiki entries on environmental sensitivities, allergies and intolerances concern biological effects in plants, animals and humans, not gadgets. There are plenty of problems with this article as explained above. It doesn’t make sense to put under an article on sensitivity that it is another category altogether. I suggest we start by rewording the introduction to the article to sort out some of the current confusions and make the topic clearer for readers.Kyriolosmakrinos (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Yours is a WP:SPA with a curiously similar style to User:Rdh8h. If you are the same person, that is called a WP:SOCKPUPPET and will get you blocked from these discussions. Own up now and you might be OK. Is Kyriolosmakrinos a sockpuppet of Rdh8h? If you deny it and persist in your disruptive proposals I will have it checked out anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologise if I’ve broken any Wiki rules of which I was unaware. When the Wiki project was starting we discussed the importance of a user-driven open encyclopedia based on anonymity of contributors and this is something I’ve always adhered to, using anonymous user-names for the different contributions in many areas I’ve made over many years. Contributing to most Wiki pages has been positive and other users have also been positive and constructive.

(disruptive repetition of unsourced minority PoV deleted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC))

Kyriolosmakrinos (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, so, if you use sockpuppets (socks) you need to be very open about that and not leave it up to others to discover. You also need to explain your reasons very clearly. Your various user pages for each sock are good places to do that. Anonymity does not mean a failure to link multiple user accounts to a common user, it means a failure to link any of them to some particular person. Socking does not provide anonymity so that is not an acceptable reason for socking. Persistent user accounts can sometimes be traced and socks can usually be linked. The best way to remain anonymous is not to log in but to to be identified only by your IP address of the moment. Even then, Wikipedia has ways of tracking linked edits. Since you claim to have been around Wikipedia a long time I find it very hard to accept that you do not know all this already. Your disruptive discussion here continues. Stop now. No wriggling. No excuses. No "but I thought...". No "its' not me this time", etc.. Get off this talk page and stay off, or I take you to WP:ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Human Rights Commission sources

The only thing you need to read is this part on the cover pages: "The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Canadian Human Rights Commission." Kolbasz (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I was so busy searching for "disability" that I missed it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"whatever their cause"

"Whatever their cause, EHS symptoms are a real and sometimes disabling problem for the affected person. However, there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to electromagnetic field exposure." Please permanently remove the first of these two sentences which are in logical conflict. The repeated addition of the "whatever their cause" statement, seems to be vandalism by someone attempting to promote the idea that the symptoms may be caused by some hitherto unknown physical mechanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.33.7.230 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is all perfectly consistent. Read the article. Then read the cited sources to confirm what the article says. Don't bother to argue your case against those of us who have done both. That's how our policy on reliable sources works. Just to give you an illustration, people used to think that cholera was caused by "bad air". That was wrong, but it didn't stop cholera being a debilitating and often lethal disease. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What those two sentences are saying is this: "the people claiming to have EHS are genuinely suffering, but it has nothing to do with electromagnetic fields". The former explains why many countries consider EHS a genuine disability, the latter explains why nobody (even those who grant disability benefits) accepts it as a diagnosis. Kolbasz (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's just badly written. The problem is nothing so grandiose as being in conflict with the cited material. It's the simple wording of saying that the symptoms of a thing are not linked to the thing. In which case they aren't the symptoms. It looks daft and sort of like a proponent of the existience of the ailment, edited the latter part of the paragraph in retaliation to the skeptical tone of the rest of the lead. This might not be the case of course, but that is how it reads. Doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry.124.78.165.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Having just read this article for the first time today, I would disagree entirely - it's really not badly written, inconsistent or in any way unclear. It's quite clearly articulated and the distinction is well defined. People who experience the list of symptoms are sick and having a reaction to something. But as no evidence exists that these people actually are sensitive to EM fields - since if they were so sensitive, they'd be able to identify when they are exposed to one - there is no scientific evidence that EM fields are what is causing them to be sick. CleverTitania (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

One could write, "Whatever their cause, the symptoms ascribed to EHS..." but that construction has already been used in the previous sentence, it would be clumsy to do so again. Their description as "EHS symptoms" is both better reading and sufficiently clear from the preceding sentence that, provided we assume consistency from one sentence to the next, its meaning is not open to misinterpretation. Such assumptions are usual in an encyclopedia (if not always in legal documents). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Last try: "The reported symptoms" (a) "of" (a thing, b) "are...etc., etc." > meaning that there is a bad thing (b) and people say it does stuff (a). "what ever their cause", the (a) are very bad for (c) who are a group of people. Stopping there for a moment, this means that theres a thing (b) which causes nasty things (a) to happen to people (c). In the next sentence we go on to say, there's no scientific basis for (a). Therefore, since the existence of (b) rests heavily on a link between electromagnetic exposure and (a), a claim that the symptoms of EHS are "real and sometimes disabling" is conflicting because there may, according to the lead, be no such thing as EHS at all. In which case we don't need a sentence which ascribes the symptoms to this cause. By all means leave it as it is if you like. The thing reads like it is a ditch effort by someone to promote the veracity of claims that EHS is a real illness. In short - a is not the a of this b unless b. since b=?? it's wrong to say a "really" came from b whatever the cause.116.231.76.241 (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the likelihood is that there is no such thing as EHS. However there are still people who are very sick who claim to have EHS. That is a demonstrable, well-cited fact. We don't need to figure out what is actually causing their illness, although the article gives a few clues. We're just following wikipedia policies in that we lay out the evidence and let the reader to come to their own conclusions. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're still reading it wrong, but "Whatever the causes" does seem a bit clumsy, so we could cut that part out. Something like:

The reported symptoms of EHS include headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin symptoms like prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. While the symptoms are a real and sometimes disabling problem for the affected person, there is no scientific basis to link them to electromagnetic field exposure.

Or one step further:

Symptoms attributed to EHS include headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin symptoms like prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. While the symptoms are a real and sometimes disabling problem for the affected person, there is no scientific basis to link them to electromagnetic field exposure.

Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is less awkward. I would be happy with either of these variations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I like option 2 above. Thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm the OP - sorry, login is difficult from china sometimes, I'll sign posts (edah)... I would welcome any edits which remove or clarify all terms in this article like, "the sufferers of ehs" and, "ehs symptoms". The sufferers of ehs are not the sufferers of ehs, they are people who claim things. While they may attribute their claims to ehs, we can't use the term, "ehs symptoms" or "ehs sufferers" in the way that we would say, "pneumonia symptoms". Someone with inflamed alveoli has pneumonia by definition. Someone who has a list of symptoms, what ever they may be and attributes it to ehs is not, by definition, an ehs sufferer, nor are those symptoms ehs symptoms. To state them thus is to subtly lend undue weight. ehs symptoms would be better written as, "the claimed symptoms" or similar. ehs sufferers would be better rendered, "people who claim to have ehs" -EDAH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.76.241 (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have already replied to this point. Language is an imprecise thing and Wikipedia is not a legal document. As long as the context disambiguates the phrase, there is no problem and readability is more important. Anyway, I have now made the change per Option 2, so I hope that wraps this one up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with that alteration. I think that wraps it up as far as I'm concerned. I also appreciate the distinction between the text in the lead and the WHO quote, which is quoted in context in the cause section of the article. EDAH 116.231.76.241 (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Good spot

Well done Alexbrn for spotting that a paper on 1.5-7 Tesla scanners was being used to support the idea of EHS. I don't have a magnetic flux meter to hand, but I am pretty confident that the magnetic flux of my home WiFi power supplies is well below 1T. How did that not get challenged earlier? Amazing. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we're going through sources, I would like to point out that we have a reference from Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine - a journal that takes homeopathy seriously. There also seems to be a bunch of other dubious ones (I'm seeing some Hindawi on there, for example). Perhaps a full source review is in order? Kolbasz (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Damn right. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and seeing this article gets a few thousand views a day it's rather a shame it had fallen into the state it had. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved from article

I cut this from the article an am pasting here. This section to me is a classic example of using a bunch of primary sources to undercut the conclusions of reviews discussed in the paragraph that was above this. We don't do this in WP.

On the other hand, a few provocation studies have claimed some correlation between exposure and symptoms, where subjects with self-diagnosed EHS have been screened for the frequency and type of exposure to which they are most sensitive. It has been argued that these positive studies suggest that frequency or non-linear effects, proposed in 1979, rather than intensity, are relevant, although this has been disputed. Provocation tests in 1981 suggested a link between use of video terminals and skin rash in sensitive individuals. Some studies have suggested neurophysiological differences between sensitive individuals and controls. This may reflect either a psychophysiological stress response to participating in the study or a more general imbalance in autonomic nervous system regulation. Although effects have been shown in some tests of effects on sleep, there are problems of intra-individual reproducibility. Remediation studies suggest that removal of an electromagnetic environment may remove symptoms for computer workers and phantom limb pain.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this is an excellent example of the kind of cherry-picked primary sauce that seeks to push a PoV over the heads of secondary sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Textbook WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Conferences

I moved this section here because it seems pointless.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a workshop on electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The aim of the conference was to review the current state of knowledge and opinions of the conference participants and propose ways forward on this issue. The meeting was conducted by the WHO International EMF Project as part of the scientific review process to determine biological and health effects from exposure to EMF. The purpose of these workshops is to bring together expert scientists so that established health effects and gaps in knowledge requiring further research can be identified. EHS has been a particularly contentious issue for a number of years.

article needs a dramatic rewrite

sourcing is terrible, and this is full of woo. Needs a complete rewrite with rigorous sourcing. Am listing this at the FRINGE noticeboard and noting it at WP:MED as well. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Pop culture trivia is generally inappropriate in a medical article, but I won't fight that battle. At the very least the trivia should be well-sourced, which it is not. Sundayclose (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not a medical article, it is an article about pseudoscience. TFD (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience does not adhere to the scientific method. Other than the Better Call Saul sources, which of the studies cited in the article do not adhere to the scientific method? Which were not published in peer reviewed journals or were not reviews or meta-analyses of peer reviewed sources? Which reputable scientific or medical organization (such as the World Health Organization or the American Medical Association) has identified it as a pseudoscience rather than an area of study that has not reached definitive conclusions about possible physical bases for EHS? Please provide sources, not your personal opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Studies have failed to show any connection between magnetism and the symptoms sufferers claim are caused by magnetism. So it is similar to astrology. Readers want to know what the claims are, how the field arose and who practices it. Of course we should mention that it has no scientific support, but articles about astrology should not be exclusively about peer-reviewed studies testing the claims. For the most part it is the subject of study of social sciences, not life sciences or physics. TFD (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What you say here is OK. The article doesn't reflect that either. Jytdog (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a medical article because it makes statements about human health. So WP:MEDRS applies here: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any article, including those on alternative medicine." That means that any medical statement made in this article must have MEDRS level sourcing. Some content may be physics, social science, pseudoscience, etc., so MEDRS does not necessarily apply to the whole article, but any statement suggesting that electromagnetic fields, or anything else, have an impact on human health is a medical statement and must follow MEDRS. Roches (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly any claim that electromagnetism affects human health needs MEDRS sourcing, but since no such claim is made, it is not required. It is the same with astrology. If you insist that only medical journals can be used for articles about astrology, there will be glaring gaps, since medical researchers have better things to do than investigate astrological medicine. "Reading Health in the Stars Politics and Medical Astrology in Renaissance Milan" for example is a peer-reviewed article that makes no health claims. Is it an unreliable source because it was not published in a medical journal? TFD (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ever the man when you want a pithy putdown of irrational nonsense, Professor Brian Cox brands astrology-believing Tory MP David Tredinnick an 'outlier on the spectrum of reason' Guy (Help!) 09:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)