Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Daily mail

Consensus is that the use of the daily mail as a source is not appropriate. Thus I have removed this[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. See WP:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree and this also initially raised suspicion when I noticed it. I then tried to find a better source, but only fell on other similar or worse tabloids (and one school news site). But I also read [2] then noticed that the same [3] was linked from there, so I then left it in. —PaleoNeonate - 23:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sciencebasedmedicine.org, like so many other publications (and so many other Wikipedia editors) was fooled by a bogus story that looks exactly like a real story.

As detailed in the RfC, The Daily Mail often lifts an article from another publication, makes a few changes and adds a few fabrications to make the story more lurid and clickbaity, then publishes it without attribution and a new author, pretending that it is an original work.

This appears to be another such case. The original story was published in The Mirror at 16:10, 19 November 2015 UTC.[4] The Daily Mail published a slightly modified version at 13:04 EDT, 19 November 2015, which converts to 17:04 UTC, 19 November 2015. [5] So, once again, we have clear case of plagiarism and copyright violation. This happens a lot with The Daily Mail, which is one reason why we no longer allow it as a source other than in certain limited circumstances.

If you can find another source that is better than The Daily Mail, use that better source. If you can't find another source that is better than The Daily Mail, assume that it is at best a violation of WP:COPYVIO and at worst a complete fabrication.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Mirror was indeed among the tabloids I found, but I didn't make the link, that's interesting to note. I actually tried to see if they all based their news on a common agency but didn't see an agency attribution. At least three articles were very similar. In any case, it should be noted that all cases mentioned the mother or family's EMS beliefs, but also noted that this was not supported by medical staff. It seems that other than sciencebasedmedicine, we have only contentious tabloids about this story. What should we do then, drop the story, refer to all tabloids, select the mirror, stick to the sciencebasedmedicine source and not go further? Or does this mean that even sciencebasedmedicine claims should be dropped? Should we open an RSN thread about this sciencebasedmedicine article with these details? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 03:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guy Macon I don't know what is in your craw about SBM, but they don't appear to be fooled by anything. They make it clear that most publications passed on the wi-fi allergy thing and nobody pointed out the parents' likely neglect in not getting what is apparently depression taken care of - which is what happens way too often when people fall prey to altmed/pseudoscience notions about health. They run around doing useless things and not doing the needful thing. And it is extra tragic with parents and their kids. This Slate piece brings that out clearly. SBM is a fine source for this - this is exactly the kind of thing where SBM is useful - we have no MEDRS (secondary) sources on this b/c it is too fringey for them to address. SBM does, and clearly. It is great secondary source here, that digests the news pieces and provides a sound scientific/medical perspective. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the sciencebasedmedicine article did point to the possibility of parental negligence in relation to erroneous self-diagnosis (and is not a fringe view). Apparently the girl had access to a school counsellor, but not to treatment by qualified psychologists or psychiatrists. —PaleoNeonate - 04:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The sciencebasedmedicine article is clearly relevant, from a reliable source, and adds to the article. However, one particular passage in the sciencebasedmedicine article shows that they were fooled about one specific thing. (the area where they were fooled is peripheral to the topic sciencebasedmedicine article article is about, and in no way invalidates anything the sciencebasedmedicine article says).

The one place where they made an error because they were fooled is in the words "Interestingly, this Daily Mail report of the inquest...". Clearly they thought (as any reasonable person who doesn't know about The Daily Mail's long history of plagiarism would) that there exists a report about the inquest written by a Daily Mail author named Mark Duell. No such report exists. What actually exists is a report written by Mirror author Annabel Howard and plagiarized by The Daily Mail 56 minutes later.[15][16] The only other plausible explanation is that sciencebasedmedicine purposely cited something that they knew to be plagiarized, which I don't believe for a minute. No, they were clearly fooled.

None of this in any way invalidates anything in the sciencebasedmedicine source, unless, as one editor did above, the fact that sciencebasedmedicine cited The Daily Mail is used as a reason why we should cite it as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, copied right down to the link to the Samaritans. Amazing. Thanks for pointing out WP:DAILYMAIL. --tronvillain (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved: While we want to keep the reliable Science Based Medicine source [17], which mentions [18], it was agreed that the latter source is less reliable and should not be included (also per WP:DAILYMAIL). Moreover, it appears to have been plagiarized from the Mirror. —PaleoNeonate - 07:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

There have been various good-faith attempts to insert material about the character Charles McGill on the AMC series Better Call Saul, most of them unsourced and written by new users. I recently watched the entire series, and indeed that character has such symptoms (he ripped out the wiring oot in his house and has great difficulty going outside, he sewed a space blanket inside his business suit, he passed out and was hospitalized when he was in a place with fluorescent lights, at the hospital he insisted that they unplug his motorized bed and turn off the lights). When in the hospital bed he claimed that the electric fields from it were causing him great pain, but when the doctor turned it back on without telling him he showed no discomfort.

This is a highly watched show and he is a major character. Can we find some sources and manage to include this in the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That would almost certainly have to be sourced to the show itself. I don't see any problem with that, however. It's primary, but since it's just going to be one or two sentences, and it's readily verifiable fictional plot information, there's no need for a secondary source. I'd still put an in-line cite to the show, just to CYA. I've never watched it (I was never much of a Breaking Bad fan), so I can't really help with writing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If you didn't like Breaking Bad you won't like Better Call Saul.

As for sources, how about these?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2015/feb/15/better-call-saul-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-real-health-risk

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/emmys/la-et-st-michael-mckean-better-call-saul-emmys-chat-20150510-story.html

https://blogs.chapman.edu/dodge/2017/04/04/upcoming-documentary-explores-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity/

http://www.tvguide.com/news/mega-buzz-better-call-saul-chuck-illness/

And of course our own article on Better Call Saul says "...Charles L. "Chuck" McGill, Jr., Jimmy's elder brother and a named partner at HHM who is confined to his home by electromagnetic hypersensitivity (season 1–3)." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'm fine with a primary source. But since you've got secondary sources, I'm certainly not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. :D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those sources document the nocebo effect you described. I wonder if there is a site that carries summaries of episodes which is an RS... But if we want to point out that Chuck doesn't experience symptoms when he doesn't know he's exposed to EM fields, we would need either a source that says that, or we rely on the episode. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find a secondary source for that (for those searching, it is in episode 5, (Episode name "Alpine Shepherd Boy"), timestamp 26:00). I found a couple of pseudoscience sites ( https://norad4u.blogspot.com/2015/04/how-come-chuck-mcgill-could-not-scense.html https://www.facebook.com/SafeCellPhones/posts/832658816784102 ) attempting to explain it away, which makes no sense at all. Why not just say "this is a work of fiction"? Also, our Alpine Shepherd Boy article says "Kim takes a call from Hamlin saying that Chuck is in the hospital. There, Jimmy and Kim explain Chuck's condition to a skeptical doctor who proves that Chuck's electromagnetic hypersensitivity may not be genuine by flipping a switch under the hospital bed. She recommends Chuck be committed to a mental institution, but Jimmy initially decides to take him home", but that's not a reliable source either. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No, our article isn't a reliable source, but I'm still minded that we're discussing events in a fictional universe. There is, quite literally, no more definitive source for that than a primary source. A primary source can't possibly be wrong, or give unwarranted weight to certain aspects, or put a spin on it or be biased in any way, even in theory. I think copying the text from our article (with, perhaps a linked mention of the episode name) and altering it to stand alone would be fine. I'd still cite the show, though, because this isn't the plot section of an article about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with that solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

@Atkinsok: concerning your post here, please note that although expertise (WP:EXPERT) can be useful to Wikipedia, articles must simply summarize reliable sources about the topic. We should avoid primary sources, synthesis and original research (further reading: WP:RS, WP:OR). This talk page is where article improvements should be discussed, but it is also not a WP:FORUM to discuss the topic itself. I recommend reading WP:FIXBIAS which may help to address perceived bias. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Modification to intro paragraph

The intro paragraph currently asserts that EHS has "no scientific basis" This seems too prejudicial, so a change to "controversial in the scientific community" seems warranted. Even among the listed articles there's a fair bit of disagreement, but quite a few studies supporting seem to have been deleted recently. I intended to add this medical study earlier: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109 but I believe I may have done it incorrectly, as someone removed it. I personally don't think EHS is more than placebo, but it seems too dogmatic to deny that there is at least some support for it in the scientific community. It seems as though this page has been rather heavily edited as of late to promote the idea that EHS is entirely fraudulent. Perhaps this is correct, but it seems better to let sources speak to that than editors. Jamesbilten (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. There can be a temptation to try to provide "balance" to an article by presenting both sides, but often that does more harm than good. Bradv 03:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly the method section of this paper: "We have surveyed the literature on different aspects of EHS and potential adverse health effects of RF-EMF." basically means that they read some existing literature and drew some conclusions - while this: "This is exemplified by case reports from two students and one teacher who developed symptoms of EHS in schools using Wi-Fi." Means they did no research beyond noting two or three people in their vicinity. Besides this the purpose of the publication seems to be to lobby for more research into effects of exposure to various types of emissions in schools. At a push the quoted source might support a piece of text which acknowledges the existence of continued lobbying for more research into the effects, however it's conclusion does nothing to support a change to the intro paragraph of Wikipedia's article on the subject, nor does it contribute any scientific weight to the claims of those who allegedly suffer from EHS. It should be noted that people catalogue all sorts of things on pubmed. It's being there isn't a seal of quality, nor does it infer strong peer review. Edaham (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: that placebo has any effect at all is also questionable. Perhaps you mean anxiety? It's only in properly controlled research that placebo has relevance. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I promise you this: somewhere out there is a geologist who is a member of a Flat Earth society and a true believer in a flat earth.

That one or two people with the credentials to get something published (to be clear: only two of the three authors have any credentials, and those two are practicing physicians, not researchers) that makes wild claims unsupported by the mainstream scientific consensus or empirical evidence is really not all that surprising.

The purpose of this paper is rhetorical: it is explicitly designed to convince people outside of the scientific establishment to take action. It was not designed to (and would not be adept at) convince scientists to focus more research on this area or change their minds. It does not present any novel evidence. It does not even describe it's own methodology in choosing existing literature to review, so we have absolutely no idea what criteria they used to select sources.

In short, this paper is a token paper. It exists only to survive peer-review while making claims that can be quoted by lobbyists and activists. It was not written to contribute to the field of medicine.

Note: you can read the full text of the paper here. I don't know if you need a researchgate account or not, but if so and anyone is lacking one, I can do some verification and pull quotes for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• The article hasn't been edited to "rather heavily edited as of late to promote the idea that EHS is entirely fraudulent." I don't believe there's anything in the entire article that suggests fraud. Clearly, people have symptoms and attribute them to electromagnetic fields, but the credible evidence is that EMF isn't doing anything - that's not fraud, that's just being incorrect. --tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wall of text

Dr J Hi, I'm new here. I'm a traditional M.D. I practice in General Internal Medicine. I don't believe in Homeopathy. In general I consider myself a skeptic on most issues. I'm not selling anything. I don't have EHS.

But, I will add a strong support for Jamesbilten's comment that this page is not at all neutral. ...WALL OF TEXT REMOVED...

If you want me to help edit, then I would love to join in the discussion. Let me know. I find this a very interesting topic. But, IMHO that first edit needs to start presenting that these patients have real symptoms, and medicine is failing to treat these patients because it isn't listening to them under some ridiculous guise that 'listening would somehow do more harm', and therefore 'ignoring them is better.' Sorry to offend you if you disagree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPaulJ (talk • contribs)

(TL;DR) . Sorry @DrPaulJ:, nobody is going to read that wall of text. If you are proposing a change to the article, please explain it briefly in the form of "Please change X to Y" or "please add X between Y and Z" followed with the source(s) used to back up the change. --McSly (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

OK @McSly:, point taken. Thanks for leaving the wall up for discussion. In brief, I support @Jamesbilten: suggestion to change or delete the sentence "EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognised medical diagnosis." This is not a neutral presentation of the situation, and by itself is either unsupported, or if referenced from the WHO factsheet overstate the WHO's statements. The WHO call this Idiopathic to mean it doesn't know what the cause is. They prefer to call this IEI-EMF, because they recognize that the syndrome exists and is a problem, that people have 'real symptoms' but that the science does not have certainty that the cause is directly from EMF, or if the cause is purely from Nocebo. A better, more neutral phasing is therefore "The etiology of EHS is unknown, and studies indicate that it may not be related to direct effects of EMF, but instead a type of Nocebo effect." To fully address the specific reasons why a phrase "has no scientific basis' is incorrect, would require reading the wall of words. My suggestion on that would be a more major modification to create a section of the document to fairly address what the controversy is, and why there are two sides to it. But that likely requires more general discussion on a talk page before edits like this occur so that the section can be added with fairness given to both sides of the argument. The wall of words is to start that discussion.

The lede summarizes the body, and as far as I can tell from the body the EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognised medical diagnosis is an accurate summary. --tronvillain (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Tronvillian:. The point of the lead/body ...DISCUSSION ABOUT EHS... what part of my revision "The etiology of EHS is unknown, and studies indicate that it may not be related to direct effects of EMF, but instead a type of Nocebo effect." do you find offensive or incorrect (even without changes to the body)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPaulJ (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hearing not response I made this change.Paul (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hearing not response" for less than a day is not establishing consensus. Fringe topics without good evidence should clearly be identified as such. Neither surveys of in vitro research nor a primary study of a single person in any sense meet WP:MEDRS. We could perhaps change it to "There is no good evidence for EHS and it is not a recognized medical diagnosis", since it's always possible to have low quality evidence. --tronvillain (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@tronvillain Point taken on WP:MEDRS, although the rule for allowed citations seems violated in several other places in the document, too. WP:MEDRS also quotes "make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." I did cite reliable sources ...DELETED STUFF ...

It's the opposite interpretation that I'm worried about. Your statement "...it's always possible to have low quality evidence" isn't the likely interpretation of readers. People often hear a phrase 'no basis' and interpret this to mean literally 'None' or "established false." This cascades in logic to statements like "I can conclude from solid evidence that EMF *will never* be found to cause biologic symptoms in humans. It's been established as scientifically impossible." I have literally heard this, and then have them quote from the WHO statements you quote. Similarly, there is a misinterpretation of 'not a recognized medical diagnosis' to mean roughly "It has been established that if a patient complains of EHS but no cause can be found, then they are doing so because a) they do not have symptoms and are making this up, or b) have an established psychological problem. They give rational that they inferred this from the fact that EHS is not from EMF and therefore must be of psychological origin." It's the distinction between "I do not know" as opposed an assertion "I know it is not".

Thus, I'd like to change the wording such that it gives more clarity that neither the WHO nor any mainstream body stated has ever stated certainty of cause whatsoever (e.g. not certain for nocebo either). I interpret those two WHO's statements you quote to mean specifically that the term itself is ambiguous, and the science is unclear.

But, I agree stating the 'party line' may be as much as can happen on Wikipedia, and don't argue that the WHO published statements.

For now, how about at least more full quotes from the WHO to give more context, however. To me the tone is not the same. It's more clear what the issue is. The cause is not certain, and the label is not certain. For example, how about two cut and paste quotes from the WHO.

EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem. The term EHS is ill-defined and is frequently used in two different contexts: 1) as a medical condition based on the afflicted person’s interpretation of the cause of their ill health, but irrespective of any established causal relationship; and 2) to describe the ability of certain individuals to perceive or react to EMF at significantly lower levels than most people.""

It's a bit wordy but to me this more fully specifies what the 'official statement' and sentiment was. Importantly for me it does not cherry pick out 'not a diagnosis' because it first makes more clarification 'EHS (meaning #1) can be a disabling problem' is a 'real' and certain thing even if not a 'medical diagnosis' because it is ambiguous in meaning. Similarly it does not cherry pick 'no scientific basis' because it added 'EHS (meaning #2) whatever it's cause' to imply that there is uncertainty in all causes.

References

Also, as a more general question with respect to 'establishing consensus', what process is used to establish 'consensus' on this board such that it will not cause editing wars or instant retraction because 1 member does not agree? Paul (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That looks like something that could go in the body (though we shouldn't just combine two quotes), and could be summarized in the first paragaraph of the lede by "there is no good evidence for EHS and it is not a recognized medical diagnosis." Also, we'd have to be careful that mentioning that EHS being used "to describe the ability of certain individuals to perceive or react to EMF at significantly lower levels than most people" doesn't imply that there's good evidence that such abilities exist.

Getting consensus usually requires other people that agree with your arguments and interpretation of policy and guidelines; otherwise. And a WP:BRD cycle isn't edit warring - someone making a bold edit, someone else reverting, and then discussing until consensus is achieved is an important part of how things work. --tronvillain (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

- Macon Response and references -

DrPaulJ, I have written an essay that directly answers the question in your last paragraph regarding establishing consensus. It is at WP:1AM.

Quotes from Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction? by Stephen J. Genuis and Christopher T. Lipp, published in Science of The Total Environment Volume 414, 1 January 2012, Pages 103-112[19]:

"Some consider the EHS condition to be purely psychosomatic (Rubin et al.,2010; Das-Munshi et al., 2006)"

"This stance is buttressed by the failure of numerous studies to prove a connection between people's reported EHS and their actual exposure to EMR (Nam et al., 2009; Mortazavi et al., 2007)."

"In fact, many of the studies show that people with self-reported EHS were more sensitive to devices emitting no EMR than true EMR (Frick et al., 2005)."

"Rubin et al. found that participants with self-reported EHS did not have any abnormal physiological responses to acute EMR exposure. Looking at twenty-nine single double-blind studies that exposed people to real and sham EMR, they report that most of the studies did not show any significant association between EMR and consistent symptoms in the self-reported EHS participant (Rubin et al., 2011)."

References:

• Das-Munshi J, Rubin GJ, Wessely S. Multiple chemical sensitivities: a systematic review of provocation studies. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;118(6):1257–64

• Frick U, et al. Comparison perception of singular transcranial magnetic stimuli by subjectively electrosensitive subjects and general population controls. Bioelectromagnetics 2005;26(4):287–98.

• Mortazavi SM, Ahmadi J, Shariati M. Prevalence of subjective poor health symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields among university students. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28(4):326–30.

• Nam KC, et al. Hypersensitivity to RF fields emitted from CDMA cellular phones: a provocation study. Bioelectromagnetics 2009;30(8):641–50.

• Rubin GJ, Nieto-Hernandez R, Wessely S. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'): an updated systematic review of provocation studies. Bioelectromagnetics 2010;31(1):1-11.

• Rubin GJ, Hillert L, Nieto-Hernandez R, van Rongen E, Oftedal G. Do people with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields display physiological effects when exposed to electromagnetic fields? A systematic review of provocation studies. Bioelectromagnetics 2011;32(8):593–609.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

- reply -

Thanks for the replies @Guy Macon: and @Tronvillain:. It helps answer questions, but raises further questions for me, both respect to Wiki, and this original post.

- with respect to WIKI stuff.

• I appreciate the need for Wiki editing standards, etc. I'm not trying to alter any of that. I'm learning and the reference WP pages are helpful.

• My question on consensus was actually more about how many people are in it, and what are the time or entry/exit protocols to it. For example in standards work 'consensus' is normally done by establishing quorum, making motions, calling votes, etc. Is that what is going on here? It seems like people randomly chime in, but I have no idea how many people are in the virtual room? I read in intro materials 'be bold' so I was. It was prompted by response - not ok to make change without wait '<24hr.' OK. How long and or what are the exit criteria (e.g. how many people sign off, how are votes counted, when is the discussion 'done', page changes made, and talk page wiped clean even if vote is 'no')?

- regarding changes

• If the quotes are ok to insert, then I'll see if I can find the appropriate spaces. As noted above I'm not sure about the protocol is for appropriately doing this.

• regarding the lede, how about modification to "There is no good evidence to suggest that EHS is caused EMF. EHS is not a recognized medical diagnosis because the term itself is ambiguous in meaning"
• It may also be helpful for a line such as "The WHO has suggest the term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance associated with EMF (IEI-EMF) to emphasize that the cause is only associated with EMF, not necessarily caused from EMF."

- with respect to articles listed by @Guy Macon, see Wall of text 2

Wall of text 2 --- skip down if you have no interest.

• I cleared down my wall above to more room. This is another "Wall" mainly in response to @Guy Macon, and perhaps a few questions to @tronvillain

• @Guy Macon, thank you for your post. I appreciate the essay on one vs many issue, and like the empathetic "don't take it personal" tone. I recognize that everyone is just trying to help and has important opinions to consider. From the EHS page itself I was reasonably clear that most of the people that would be editing would support what is currently stated on that page (e.g. EHS is not a diagnosis, etc), and that my perspective was different, and considered a minority view. At least one person stated dissent that it needs 'more balance' and looking at the history it appears others have tried edits here or there to provide alternative perspectives, only to be quickly shot down. It seems most of those users get offended and leave quickly to end the discussion although I don't know exactly what happened. I voted to support @Jamesbilten, who seemed to ask for something that I would agree with. E.g. Not state that EHS _is_ caused by EMF or anything like that, but instead just recognize that there are some reasonable people that disagree, that a strong assertion that EHS is established to be exclusively from Nocebo is bunk, and that generally this is a big deal for patients that this.

• I was not aware of this specific article(s) and only read the abstracts. I think the arguments you seem to be making are already on the main page, and I'm already familiar with them, but perhaps you can point out a specific point you are trying to highlight. As far as I can see, your quote several sources that support one view intended to convince me. In this, let me totally agree with you that there are a lot of people that hold these view and that it is reasonably easy to find such quotes. I don't dispute this. But, the foundations for their statements are not convincing to me. I am more than happy to discuss this offline if you like, but I fear that would just make more walls as it will put you on a defensive tack. Metaphorically, I'm actually trying to build a bridge, not a wall.

• I introduced a bit of my rational of why in the original 'wall of text', now taken cleared down. But, if I understand correctly, the issues @tronvillain raised is that when creating a page for a medical topic, it is not appropriate to use primary sources, but instead focus on secondary or tertiary sources because this tends to be more stable. In principle, I strongly agree with this. Since the WHO would be the most definitive source already as 'guidelines', other scientific arguments using primary sources should not be cited here. If your quotes are allowed, then it is easy to also find alternatives, and this should also be allowed if nothing else to point out the reasonable questions that are not answered, and show the range of opinions. These range from things like Doctors quotes to the the lay press E.g. this, or this to all kinds of things out of the Bioinitiative_Report to @Jamesbilten's suggestion, down to very detailed primary source articles and analysis like I originally sourced in 'the wall'. This can lead to opinionated editing wars, which are not productive.

• If you want more clarity on my rational of how I can read your sources and still disagree, you should be aware that most medical libraries do not carry the journal Bioelectromagnetics. This is mainly a technical journal. While the reviewers of technical journals may often use animal studies, they are not typically trained in considerations that are important in human medicine. Human medicine is harder to study because there are different ethical considerations for participants to quit or not volunteer. For example, note that all the studies you quote, do not involve any therapy. They are classified as 'studies of harm.' A RCT study of harm in animals is common. But in humans a study of harm is different because ethically humans are required option to not volunteer or quit. And surprisingly, while sick people will volunteer for therapy, sick people do not generally want to volunteer for harm. This effect significantly skews the statistical sampling, and must be accounted for. In the studies you quote this was not properly not accounted for. I can discuss this further offline if your interested, but requires some medical knowledge and a lot of primary citation - as opposed to a simple wiki tertiary reference.

• The 'alternative' side points that the blinded provocation studies everybody cites as the rational for nocebo are quickly and easily debunked based on major methodological flaws. And, I've examined that point closely and find that it is actually true. The other sides point out that the presence of a nocebo effect in one patient does not establish that some other patient does not have a real disease. This is also obviously true. My conclusion is the cause is not certain. And, the WHO actually agrees with that 'minority' opinion. They don't just call this "nocebo." They call this "idiopathic." They say it _might_ be from nocebo, or that the evidence they reviewed _suggests_ nocebo. They stated that future research could change this opinion. They also say that a major problem is that the term itself is vague. If the term itself is vague, then any cause of the term cannot be certain. It is simply not established that this is ONLY nocebo.

• The most helpful thing I've read to help me understand a 'why' this wiki page is justified is in @tronvillain's reference to WP:MEDRS. If I understand correctly, it states a goal to use secondary sources rather than the primary sources as I gave. In this, I actually strongly agree because reading and interpreting the medical literature can often be hard and involve details like I point such as the evaluation of study design. It generally requires a fair bit of medical knowledge and understanding of statistics because single studies often make mistakes, where higher levels of evidence generally have more eyes to catch these mistakes.

• I concur that the WHO's 2006 report is the closest thing to an authoritative guideline despite its age, and my misgivings of its evidence base. And, I can understand this as a result of editorial policy in the setting of a discussion about a medical problem. If this is the case the article should be cleaned up to be aligned with the WHO proceedings and guidance only.

• Also, for me, the point is not to establish that one side is right and the other is wrong. I'm arguing that the elephant has legs AND a trunk. To me is that its just plainly clear there are two warring sides where both sides have *some* reasonable points. My concern is that this page presents the subject as if there is only one side, and as if there is no controversy even. That is not painting a reality that I see. It's not the case in the medical literature, nor in the public press, nor in real life as I see patients. Stating one side to this story can only really occur if you have a very sheltered view and only read the literature that supports your sides views.

• Based on this I wonder if such discussion about the controversy should then be an independent wiki topic since so many people seem to be having these issues. As your main article highlights "This paper offers a review of the _sparse_ literature on this perplexing condition and a discussion of the _controversy_ surrounding the legitimacy of the EHS diagnosis." The literature is sparse. The discussion has controversy. As in, it's not one sided.

• The 'official' medical line from authoritative sources is 'officially' stating 'not a diagnosis.' In doing this it is hiding that the rational given was that the label needs more clarity so that some diagnostic criteria can be evenly applied and more study can appropriately occur. At the same time, work to establish better diagnostic criteria have been blocked by a your quotes such as "Some consider the EHS condition to be purely psychosomatic." Notice the word "some." "Some" does not even imply "most." And, the argument is promoting that the patients problems are somehow solved by stating that the condition doesn't exit, or stating one side of the opinion that EHS is exclusively and only caused from nocebo. The patients problems exist regardless of the label assignment.

• Additional problems exist even if the cause of all IEI is a variant of nocebo. If nocebo is the explanation, then the features are highly unique even within nocebo. For example, most nocebo effects are not so extreme as to cause a person to abandon their homes and lives and move into the wilderness and impose social isolation. Official sources offers only a weak therapeutic suggestion of maybe CBT will help, but CBT itself has not been established to work in these patients and as far as I can see no research is exploring which therapy might be best. When such research is proposed the arguments are either A) the disease doesn't exist, or B) that the cause has been established as exclusively just nocebo. That's ignoring the reality of that your summary article states as a perplexing condition, with sparse literature.

• Patients want to get better, and the official sources are giving them the equivalent statement of "your problem is just that you are nuts". In my experience, these patients state they know exactly what to expect from seeing their 'real' doctor. It is written in the lede of this page - 'not a diagnosis', 'no scientific basis'. Every patient I know that really has this knows the party line, and is actively ignoring it. They are fearful to talk about it. What they hear from this is a doctor saying "the problem is all in your head... blah..blah..blah..( I don't care about your problem because I can't do anything about it). Now, please just go away." And, the patients follow that last thing. Because of the fear of being labeled 'you are crazy' patients are driven to seek care elsewhere. The official sources wonder why people are exploring 'alternative' medicine, and why studies can only find 19 patients. I'd I'm scratching my head and finally understanding - of course patients would want seek 'alternative medicine'. The 'official sources' are abandoning these patients. The alternatives at least suggest 'try this or try that - I don't know if will work for you, but it helped so and so, and maybe it will work for you too'.

END OF WALL OF TEXT2. Paul (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• You put your finger on it: most will agree with the sources, your interpretation is different but you have a minority view. Wikipedia is not the place to fix the fact that your view is a minority - what you're trying to do is Right Great Wrongs, but we explicitly do not do that. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(Not sure if the response is from the same 'Guy.') A 'view' is a complex thing, not as black and white as you paint. It includes things such as tone and 'spin.' The question is is the majority 'view' of this page reflective majority view of people in general (or of medical professionals, if this is bound to a WP:MEDRS topic). Or is it a 'view' of a smaller group of editors that have desire to alter the tone based and make it support a WP:RGW topic geared toward limiting WP:FRINGE medicine. 'FRINGE' is itself a WP:RGW topic, and the assertion that this topic is part of WP:FRINGE is an opinion within that group. WIKI editors read documents (perhaps from the WHO, or quotes from selected people) and _interpreted_ this as 'FRINGE.' But, for example, you will not find the word 'FRINGE' anywhere in the WHO proceedings, nor in any scientific article I've ever read on this. For example, in the Gizmodo article, 6 physicians were asked about this. 1 of the 6 (Harriet Hall) starts by "It's not real". 1 of the 6 (Dr. Carpenter) starts "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a real disease" and 4/6 state a more careful tone pointing out the uncertainty and de-emphasis of 'It's not real' with statements like "Unfortunately, very little is known about the physiological mechanism by which EHS causes symptoms. Despite its name, a number of studies have shown no correlation between EHS symptoms and RF-EMF exposure." My view and suggestions are in completely in line with the 4/6. A Gizmodo article isn't intended to be a scientific proof of where the 'majoritity view' because that truth is not known, and likely could never be fully known. But, as far as I can see the Wiki page is not reflecting other more official sources either, and the physician quotes of the Gizmodo article are in my physician opinion much closer to the truth of 'majority view'. Paul (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia is heavily biased to reality and doesn't put the fringe view up for comparison whether it be holocaust denial, flat earthism or EHS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn You might have noticed that my proposal was to soften the tone of the page (not declare that EHS is caused by EMF). In this, I provided rational and evidence from primary sources in the peer reviewed literature and direct quotes from the WHO workshop that indicated that most other scientists do not make the statements as strongly as stated on this page. Can you understand the ironic hypocrisy in your equating my proposals to holocaust denial and flat eathism while linking to a reference WP:GEVAL?

In case the distinction is not clear for you, there is a Demarcation Problem. The evidence base that would link the topic EHS to exclusive cause by Nocebo, or to Pseudoscience(and thus make it a fringe theory) does not meet a standard of Falsifiability. Such an absolutist position has not been strongly asserted by the WHO or any professional organization. The official line is that the cause of EHS is Idiopathic. This means - cause unknown. They suggest that the best evidence to date indicates is likely explained by at least nocebo.

In 2006, the WHO, stated "The term Idiopathic environmental intolerance (Electromagnetic field attributed symptoms), or IEI-EMF, is proposed to replace terms that imply an established causal relationship between symptoms and electromagnetic fields (e.g. electromagnetic hypersensitivity, electrosensitivity and hypersensitivity to electricity). Should a causal relationship to EMF or any other explanation be established in the future, the name of this condition may be changed according to this new knowledge" (WHO proceedings, page 16). Prominent organizations like the WHO have not stated words like "Should it be established in the future that the holocust did not occur..."

Since 2006, some other scientists such as Marino have criticized the methodology used by Rubin and from which the WHO made its evaluation. They state that they have found established relationships to EMF, provide a single case example, along with a lot of other valid science from animal and bench studies. Some scientists such as David_O._Carpenter have gone so far as stating "EHS is real". The Austrian Medical Association has recognized EHS, and has published guidelines on treatment. Countries such as Austria have not made claims to statements the world is flat.

I'm not going so far as to even assert that Dr. Marino, or Carpenter are correct, only that they are not providing pseudoscience either. I'm suggesting that most physicians, such as Dr. Pham (the head of the COSMOS study) are careful to qualify their statements with phrases like "Unfortunately, very little is known about the physiological mechanism by which EHS causes symptoms. Despite its name, a number of studies have shown no correlation between EHS symptoms and RF-EMF exposure." My proposals imply that EMF has not been adequately established as the cause, and there is still confusion over what the term EHS means. This is because is NOT established that Nocebo causes all of this. Also, EMF causality has NOT been falsified. It is entirely possible that EMF might be found in the future to be the cause. For example, if somebody repeats Marino's study, then science would have pretty good grounds to say this syndrome can in fact be caused from EMF. Nobody has done that yet, but it is entirely possible that they might. So, right now, an honest and neutral evaluation should state "we don't know."

This is not even close to the same league as flat earthism. Thus, I'm arguing that the tone should not be the same as flat earthism. Paul (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The editor who signs his posts with Guy in bold is not the same person who signs his post with (not bold) "Guy Macon". In threads where we both participate, you should avoid call me by my full name to avoid confusion as to who you are relying to. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

ok Guy Macon. Duly noted. I presume the 'avoid' is a typo, and you prefer to have full name identified. Paul (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Copying down still unanswered questions that are getting lost in the conversations above.

- with respect to WIKI stuff.

• My question on consensus was actually more about how many people are in it, and what are the time or entry/exit protocols to it. For example in standards work 'consensus' is normally done by establishing quorum, making motions, calling votes, etc. Is that what is going on here? It seems like people randomly chime in, but I have no idea how many people are in the virtual room? I read in intro materials 'be bold' so I was. It was prompted by response - not ok to make change without wait '<24hr.' OK. How long and or what are the exit criteria (e.g. how many people sign off, how are votes counted, when is the discussion 'done', page changes made, and talk page wiped clean even if vote is 'no')?

- regarding changes

• If the quotes from the WHO are ok to insert, then I'll see if I can find the appropriate spaces. As noted above I'm not sure about the protocol is for appropriately doing this.

• regarding the lede, how about modification to "There is no good evidence to suggest that EHS is caused EMF. EHS is not a recognized medical diagnosis because the term itself is ambiguous in meaning"
• It may also be helpful for a line such as "The WHO has suggest the term Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance associated with EMF (IEI-EMF) to emphasize that the cause is only associated with EMF, not necessarily caused from EMF."

Paul (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We have an article on scientific consensus. We also have Wikipedia:Consensus to describe our content discussion process. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"This is not even close to the same league as flat earthism." <- there's the problem right there. The OP is advocating a view which is not consistent with reality. Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

ad hominem is not a valid form of argument. Walk me through your logic to your assertion, and provide the sources that support your view.Paul (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticising a view is not "ad hominem". And logic does not generally proceed by trying to falsify a premise, but to prove it. You are trying to advance the view that EMH is plausibly caused by EMF, so the onus is on you – and in Wikipedia terms the WP:ONUS is on you to prove a suitably good level of sourcing to support that view that you wish us to include. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The statement you provided is 'ad hominem'. It only makes an unsupported accusation that my view is not rooted in reality. Also, please reread the talk page. I explicitly did NOT attempt to assert the plausibility that EHS is caused by EMF, and have stated this explicitly several times. Also, I DID provide suitable support. I referenced direct quotes from the world health organization. The onus has therefore shifted to support a view that science has established that EHS has been unequivocally proven to be caused exclusively from Nocebo. In absence of that support, my argument holds.Paul (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

File under "I'm not saying the holocaust didn't happen, just that we can't be 100% sure; we need to find sources that unequovically disprove the deniers". Look - no sane source entertains the notion that EHS is caused by EMF. Accordingly, Wikipedia won't either. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

See Troll. Since Alexbrn apparently does not read to even know what the argument is about, only makes inflammatory comments and fails to support his views with any actual sources, we can move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPaulJ (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You have virtually zero experience on Wikipedia, and 100% oif it is advocating a fringe theory (please do read that linked page). You do not understand the difference between "X is advocating $BATSHITCRAZYTHING" (perfectly acceptable and not a fallacious argument) and "X is batshit crazy" (an ad-hominem and a personal attack). Alexbrn has nearly 40,000 edits to many hundreds of different articles and is well-versed in Wikipedia policy. He and I have both seen more new users trying to "correct" our articles on well-debunked bullshit than we care to count. I suggest you wind your neck in and understand that if you want to contribute to this article the best thing you can do is find reliable independent mainstream sources that describe the views you want to present - even if they then critique them. "Advocates believe X" sourced from a high quality medical journal meta analysis is going to be more persuasive than a colour piece in the Guardian that points and laughs. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Original research?

This article seems to have sourcing (particularly in the "Causes" section) that doesn't even mention EHS. I propose we carve this out. The article is about a bogus diagnosis, and this shouldn't be muddied with material which could belong in Electromagnetic radiation and health (which is generally about real effects). Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I agree. The real scientific and medical content should be moved to Electromagnetic radiation and health, and I appreciate the hatnote you put up explaining the difference. Bradv🍁 21:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that was mostly unreliably-sourced anyway. I've salved a bit and moved it across to the other article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: This makes more sense. I have one question: the leftover last sentence of the Causes section mentions a correlation, but doesn't really put it in context. Is there a way to expand on that and explain what it means? Would this source help at all? [20] Bradv🍁 05:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Going through the source, I can't find our text supported at all - it seems more that the source categorizes chemical sensitivity and EHS as in the same family of "sensitivity" conditions. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Italian court rules to turn off Wifi for student

Jan 29, 2019

Italian court rules that Wifi be shut off for student with electromagnetic hypersensitivity: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/01/28/a-firenze-il-tribunale-fa-spegnere-il-wifi-a-scuola-un-atto-straordinariamente-innovativo/4916086/?fbclid=IwAR13yCVOD08krcMoB4Y8UjqgveEfPFEbova2TmqFDy4Fd24TmUcfwLMMI-0

Shouldn't this be added to Society and culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter22 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This Article Violates NPOV and Needs to Be Rewritten

The current article reads like a polemic. It is one-sided. There simply have not been enough studies done to rule out a physical basis for the symptoms. Lack of evidence is not proof of a purely psychosomatic illness. That the current article is in violation of NPOV is based on obvious omissions:

(I) Most people you are likely to talk with report some pain or other negative sensation from holding a cellphone to their head for an extended period of time, e.g. a couple of hours. There is no scientific study of this that I know of... since studies are limited. Yet go and ask all your friends and most will report this. You yourself reading this probably have had this experience, that if you hold a cellphone to your head for a couple of hours you get pain or some other negative sensation.

(II) There are a few plausible mechanisms that could provide a physical basis for this condition: (1) Differential heating. Radio waves can heat materials. This is how a microwave oven works. Differential heating of tissue may cause these symptoms. (2) Ion-channel disruptions. Non-ionizing radiation can still influence the motion of ions, and may cause some difficulties on a cellular or physiologic level.

(III) Studies of electrical workers and others working in environments with high levels of non-ionizing radiation suffer some health risks, e.g. some elevated cancer risks.

(IV) Some scientific studies show symptoms linked to non-ionizing radiation, and these ought to be included in the discussion in the article, even though they are underpowered. The point of showing preliminary data is to allow the public to understand that the field of study is indeed preliminary.

As it stands, this article is a disservice to the public.

A better article would at least present some information from each of the categories I've written above. And also emphasize: if there is no scientific basis yet for deciding, it ought to be clarified that this does not imply that the condition is purely psychosomatic. Science doesn't work that way. Thanks! 119.252.120.186 (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"People you talk with": Anecdotes are not a reliable source and thus not admissable as such on Wikipedia.

"Plausible mechanisms": Heating is mentioned in the linked article Electromagnetic radiation and health. For ion channels. you would need a reliable source.

"High levels of non-ionizing radiation": This article is not about people who suffer high levels of radiation.

"Some scientific studies": That will happen even if there is no effect. This is because of the definition of statistical significance.

On the whole, you are in the wrong article. Electromagnetic radiation and health is about real health effects of EM radiation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! To follow up briefly.

"People you talk with": Easy to disagree with your assessment. Common knowledge and common experience are not excluded from Wikipedia.

"Plausible mechanisms": Heating is mentioned in the article currently, but not presented in a way that is consistent with NPOV. For ion-channels as a possible mechanism, try Mathie, A., E. Kennard, L., & L. Veale, E. (2003). Neuronal ion channels and their sensitivity to extremely low frequency weak electric field effects. Radiation protection dosimetry, 106(4), 311-315. or do a search on Google Scholar for: ion channel electromagnetic sensitivity.

"High levels of non-ionizing radiation": I mentioned this in good faith as an example of sensitivity versus hypersensitivity. It is relevant. That there are potential health problems noted in the page Electromagnetic radiation and health is relevant to this article, as hypersensitivity may entail an increased sensitivity to whatever mechanisms are active in those health problems. Deductive reasoning dictates this. Again this is a good-faith attempt at looking at the current article and improving it, to help it conform with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

"Some scientific studies": If there is no scientific consensus yet, why would Wikipedia present it as if there is? This is clearly a violation of NPOV.

I've described how the current article violates NPOV, and have done so in good faith.119.252.120.186 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

common experience are not excluded from Wikipedia those reported by reliable sources, like "Claims are characterized by a 'variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields'", seems like a summary of the common experience. Then "They include headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. In severe cases such symptoms can be a real and sometimes disabling problem for the affected person, causing psychological distress". as hypersensitivity may entail an increased sensitivity to whatever mechanisms are active in those health problems this article is about cases that are not exposed to any known dangerous radiation level but who believe to be, that attribute to radiation other health problems, that may include anxiety, neuralgia etc. As previously noted, a more detailed article on known health effects and ongoing research exists... Science doesn't work that way an important thing in science is being able to test hypotheses to confirm or rule out. Lack of evidence can often be considered lack of existence for practical and efficiency reasons (to pursue better paths and continue with what works). This of course does not mean that misunderstood or surprising personal experiences don't exist. It often happens that simpler explanations are the best ones. But back to the article: the NPOV policy is about faithfully summarizing reliable sources. If you can find a medically reliable source that confirms the diagnostic as being due to radiation levels that do not affect the general population, it could be used. —PaleoNeonate – 13:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem, always, is the provocation studies, which show that supposedly sensitive individuals are unable to distinguish between real electromagnetic radiation and a sham.

There are a number of symptoms which are claimed by various True Believers as EHS, MCS, chronic Lyme, candida overgrowth, blood acidosis, Morgellons, breast implant illness, vaccine injury and more. Same symptoms, the diagnosis depends largely on what quack treatment is being sold. These may or may not turn out to have a genuine cause, but whatever that is we can be reasonably certain by now that it is not what the quacks claim. Guy (help!) 13:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Claims by some self-professed sufferers (or believers) aren't relative to the scientific study of a disease or a religion. Nor are the beliefs of scoffers. NPOV would demand reference to studies of observed commonality between known EMF symptoms and those of professed EHS victims. And those are extant. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26372109/ More important are ethical considerations. This article encourages the equivalent to popping a balloon behind a PTSD sufferer. It carries the implicit advice, "Don't comply with what people with EHS want from you". Klasovsky (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Using language like "self professed", "sufferers", and "believers" is disrespectful to those with other views or experiences and may be seen as writing from a point of view that is not neutral - we only sum up evidence. It is frustrating when people complain without providing any evidence to backup their points, but terms like these are not only likely to re-enforce reader's perception of bias. User:Klasovsky Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Amousey, Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopaedia. EHS is not a thing. And do you know what's really disrespectful? Lying to people about what's wrong with them in order to sell them fake cures. Guy (help!) 23:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Look into Shattered Assumption Theory and note that individuals with EHS do respond to Cognitive processing therapy . The degree of isolation accompanying EHS indicates it can be a stubborn and onerous condition, and not one that has been solved by the sort of ridicule implicit in this article. WHO estimates about 10% of cases as "serious" Electromagnetics in Biology, Kato, Japan 2007 references a study where 1.5% of respondents reported some degree of EHS. Kato, noting the difference in psychometric scores between controls and subjects in tests of EMS conjectures other environmental factors may be in play Klasovsky (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"This Article Violates NPOV and Needs to Be Rewritten" Of course it does. It's a Wikipedia article. You surely do not expect to get anything reliable on Wikipedia?

I have just added the passage below - so let's see how long it lasts as it is - and of course it has to be approved by people like JzG/Guy. So we all know what will happen. People like them will not let anything go on Wikipedia which tells people the truth about health issues.

In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognized functional impairment (i.e., it is a recognised physical condition which is not classified as a disease). Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000-290,000 Swedish men and women report a variety of symptoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field (EMF) sources.

Heating or Hearing...

I changed the text from low level heaTing to low level heaRing.

That change was reverted.

See e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5215134/ where the discussion is about low frequency heaRing, no reference whatsoever about heaTing. Also if you google search "tinnitus heating" you'll find NOTHING.

I think the reversion of my change was in error.

I'm not an audiologist, so apologies if my lay talk upsets someone. I was correcting what I still see as a typographical error.

Ehud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavron (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Relevant scientific references on this condition

Here are just a few references:

" A study of real-world exposure to non-ionizing radiation from magnetic fields in pregnant women found a significantly higher rate of miscarriage, providing new evidence regarding their potential health risks. The Kaiser Permanente study was published today in the journal Scientific Reports (Nature Publishing Group)." https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/health-research/news/new-kaiser-permanente-study-provides-evidence-of-health-risks-li https://mdsafetech.org/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015300659?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599?via%3Dihub https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914#abstract https://heartmdinstitute.com/detox-toxins/emf/ https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10910251701394/EUROPAEM%20EMF%20Guideline%202016%20for%20the%20prevention%20and%20treatment%20of%20EMF-related%20health%20problems.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypc1 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No scientific basis? Really?

"EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognised medical diagnosis." If that's true, what do you call a sunburn? Those are caused by EMFs, too. There are a wide variety of scientifically accepted afflictions caused by a sensitivity to EMFs. 75.174.69.109 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

no, that's caused by ultraviolet, which is high energy photons. There are no "scientifically accepted afflictions" caused by EMF. Guy (help!) 23:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ultraviolet light is an EMF, as is all light. Same for electricity, and magnetism. 75.174.69.109 (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No it is not. See photon and electromagnetic field. Guy (help!) 23:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about my audacious tone for the introduction above. I just mean to say that the difference between UV rays, visible light, infrared, microwaves, radiowaves, x-rays, gamma rays etc. is pretty much just wavelength and frequency. They're all EMFs. I'm a little less clear on electricity and magnetic fields, but I believe those are considered EMFs, too. 75.174.69.109 (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that is not true. The energy of a photon is the product of its frequency and Planck's constant. Ultraviolet light can cause skin cancer because UV photons have sufficient energy to break bonds in DNA molecules, whereas infra-red photons do not. You could sit in front of a fire for ever without getting skin cancer. Photons impart energy by collision, electromagnetic fields such as microwaves cause polar molecules to rotate and become more energetic, which is exhibited as heat. The mechanisms of action are completely different. You can't get cancer from microwave-induced heating. DNA does not break down and recombine at those temperatures, you'd be on fire before mutagenesis could occur. Guy (help!) 23:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say all EMFs are necessarily harmful, but I did say all light waves/rays are EMFs, which is true. 75.174.69.109 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in any meaningful sense, no. See wave-particle duality versus electromagnetic field. Guy (help!) 23:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to gather from those articles, or why you don't think they're EMFs in a meaningful way. What is meaningful to you? 75.174.69.109 (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

What you need to gather is this: you're wrong.

UV (and all forms of light) consists of streams of photons which collide with the body and impart an energy expressed as E=hf.

Electromagnetic fields are fields, not streams of photons. They do not contact the body, there is no impact, they induce motion by interactions of fields, rather like an electric motor. Guy (help!) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think this editor was confused about the difference between electromagnetic field and electromagnetic spectrum/radiation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Guy, WP:DNB.

75.174.69.109, photons are created by disturbances is EM fields. They are force carriers and mediators of the electromagnetic force. EM fields and photons are neither wholly distinct phenomena (as a photons are a mechanism by which an EM field interacts with its environment), nor are they the same thing (EM fields create photons, but are not photons themselves). Tethros (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tethros, DNB does not cover instances where people are talking abject nonsense about fringe topics. Guy (help!) 07:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tethros / 75.174.69.109 - It's clear that EHS and sunburn aren't interchangeable terms. I presume you are agreeing with the second half of the sentence - that it's not a recognized medical diagnosis. Lead sentences are a summary of what is further down the page - look there and check the sources used first. I don't see you citing any sources to backup your point - WP:MEDRS say what is acceptable. So first find sources of a similar quality, post them on the talk page, then suggest what you want the lead to say. I can't agree with the point you are making. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Doc sees sunburn, says "sunburn" not "EHS induced trauma." Lead apron with a dental X-ray is a sensible evidence-based precaution. Kitchen foil pericranial Faraday cage when using a cell phone, not so much. Not all EM fields are equivalent in terms of energy, nor potential for tissue damage. A line of argument putting everything between gamma rays and IR light in the same basket is unpersuasive, to say the least. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

We need to reevaluate contributions to this article. It is biased. Here are just a few references:

" A study of real-world exposure to non-ionizing radiation from magnetic fields in pregnant women found a significantly higher rate of miscarriage, providing new evidence regarding their potential health risks. The Kaiser Permanente study was published today in the journal Scientific Reports (Nature Publishing Group)." https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/health-research/news/new-kaiser-permanente-study-provides-evidence-of-health-risks-li

Physicians for Safe Technology https://mdsafetech.org/

And other studies https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015300659?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599?via%3Dihub https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914#abstract https://heartmdinstitute.com/detox-toxins/emf/ https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10910251701394/EUROPAEM%20EMF%20Guideline%202016%20for%20the%20prevention%20and%20treatment%20of%20EMF-related%20health%20problems.pdf Mypc1 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Declined, None of these are reliable sources, the diagnosis is scientifically implausible due to physics.
• Reactivate, How is the Keiser Permanente Study or references & studies provide by Physicians for Safe Technology not relaible  ? Physics has nothing to do with biochemistry and biology. Mypc1 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Hi we have WP:MEDRS which covers this. The purported effects don't have a scientific basis so there is no chance this article will change based off those studies which are weak. By the way, Scientific reports is not considered a prestigious journal. PainProf (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Listen, we can debate this literally forever. Kaiser Permanente is a credible source, as are the other references. Let the site creators mediate this discussion. Mypc1 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which negative symptoms are attributed. EHS has scientific basis and is a recognized medical diagnosis. This condition is characterized by a variety of symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields".

Individuals with EHS report adverse reactions to electromagnetic fields. There were a number of Medical Doctors, researchers and scientists who question the outdated electromagnetic frequencies standards and provide compelling reasons to revise the outdated standards. Mypc1 (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Declined, None of these are reliable sources, the diagnosis is scientifically implausible due to physics.
• Reactivate, Please reactivate. How is the Keiser Permanente Study or references & studies provide by Physicians for Safe Technology not reliable? Physics has nothing to do with biochemistry and biology.Mypc1 (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Some clarification would be helpful. The sources stated mostly fail to meet WP:MEDRS - peer reviewed journal publications, particularly review articles or systematic reviews and chapters in edited books are expected. The Physicians group may have publications that have been independently reviewed. What is needed is to suggest some wording, then add a clear reference for each point - including a page number for anything lengthy, or a direct quote. The Austria reference and EUROPAEM ones I will look into. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Here are my original edits

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which negative symptoms are attributed.

EHS has scientific basis and is a recognized medical diagnosis.

The evidence base is disputed, and articles are based on scientific consensus. EHS isn't in the ICD and doesn't have widespread international recognition eg no diagnostic code so this can't be added.

At best, there is scientific discussion that it may be theoretically possible. But, that a very far cry from establishing that it is - and there is absolutely no basis for a diagnosis of such a theoretical condition or syndrome, that is completely false. Ifnord (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This condition is characterized by a variety of symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields".

The symptoms are non-specific, which means also found in other conditions/not unique to EHS. We could look at the wording around this though the lead summarizes the main text, so the main text would be changed first. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Individuals with EHS report adverse reactions to electromagnetic fields.

This can be referenced to the WHO reference on the page.

There were a number of Medical Doctors, researchers and scientists who question the outdated electromagnetic frequencies standards and provide compelling reasons to revise the outdated standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypc1 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless "compelling" is a direct quote found in neutral source(s) we can't use it - at the moment the weight of evidence goes against this. It is unclear to me which standards are being referred to, how old they are or how much of a change is being suggested. This is a minority point so could be included with appropriate weight if referencing is adequate. I think it needs rephasing to link to EHS.

With the exception of the WHO source, which supports the text of this article, and maybe the REVEH journal article (which I haven't looked at), these are not credible scientific references. Anti-science advocacy groups and quacks who sell "high vibrational foods" are not MEDRS. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I will read up on your references. I don't see any attempt to include quackery here. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay, this is heading towards topic ban territory. Guy (help!) 23:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Revert of "no scientific evidence" justification

User:JzG I am confused on your [[21]] revert reason on my anti-fringe edit. Above on the talk page the "no scientific evidence" has been challenged twice (not by me). I simply added the text from the WHO in support of what's on the existing page to clarify/strengthen the point. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Two things about this topic are quite clear: while discussed theoretically, there is no evidence of it; and while people have claimed reactions, there is no evidence of a link from claimed experiences to EM fields. From Deborah Cooney vs. the California Public Utilities Commission and others. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, Case No. 4:12-cv-6466, filed Dec 20, 2012, "The weight of evidence indicates that experimental and epidemiologic studies have failed to provide adequate support for a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and complaints of 'EMS.' Experimental studies have found no reliable evidence that people who claim to be sensitive actually experience any unusual physical reactions when exposed to electromagnetic fields." Ifnord (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Studies

The following studies support the theory of electromagnetic fields having an effect on the body:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26300312/

Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6685799/

Health effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF EMF)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29573716/

Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16846978/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240626/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5589725/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.142.29 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Magnetization of Red Blood Cells

Magnetization is a known method of separating red blood cells from whole blood. The hemoglobin in red blood cells contains iron atoms, and these atoms can be given a relatively permanent magnetic polarization. Magnetized red blood cells will clump together.

One school of thought holds that a person with electromagnetized and clumping red blood cells will suffer from poor oxygen uptake because clumped red blood cells can't perform their job optimally. Does someone see a major flaw in this theory? Paul Klinkman (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing specific improvements to the article, not a forum for general discussion of the subject. That being said, the magnetic fields used in separating red blood cells are something like five orders of magnitude stronger than the typical ambient geomagnetic field, if I have read the abstracts correctly in a quick search. (I believe the magnetic component of e.g. a wi-fi signal is much weaker than the earth's field.)

More importantly, those RBC separation fields are steady, much like the field of a permanent magnet. Time-varying magnetic fields are useful in some demagnetizing applications, not for inducing remanent magnetization. Those are two possible flaws in the theory, in my view.

I will leave if for another editor to hat or delete this discussion. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, @Paul Klinkman this discussion is for improving the article, not for speculating wildly about what might be true. Wikipedia is not a place for our home-spun theories. Articles should summarize what reliable secondary sources say, and as far as I am aware there is not a single reliable source that makes this claim. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)