Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 1

Initial discussions

This article was rather too POV, giving undue credence to the existence of a condition which is considered by the vast majority of scientists to be unproven. I have tried to balance it a little, but it probably requires a much more thorough rewrite to achieve NPOV. I have therefore tagged it as POV check. DWaterson 19:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. I am the original author. As pointed out in the text, it is a controversial subject. However I think I did make the point that much scientific and medical opinion currently does not accept this as a real physical condition. On the other hand, there is significant experiential evidence and this is recognised by the HPA report, which is definitely NPOV - it has to be, otherwise the author would be pilloried! Scientific proof is not the be-all and end-all - and I speak there as a practising scientist, much "scientific theory" is in practice a systematisation of experimental data. The more complex the system and the larger the error bars on the parameters, the less certain is any form of "proof". Physics and mathematics come at one end of the spectrum and medicine, biology and psychology at the other. It is fair to say that 2 years ago I would have been just as sceptical about this condition, however since then I have met a number of people with it because my wife has developed it. Obviously, however hard I have tried to keep it objective, some POV will tend to creep in! However my experience, again as a scientist, is that those who dismiss it as unproven are tending to do so on the basis of past experience and "conventional wisdom", given the current lack of detailed studies. Much the same as was done with ME 15 years ago, or Lister's carbolic spray 150 years back. Anyway, it's good to see that the article has been picked up so quickly (which says a lot for the efficiency of Wikipedia's editing, even with 1000 new articles being added per day!) and I look forward to seeing what can be done to make it more NPOV. There is a lot of pseudoscience around (which I do NOT approve of) and it would be really useful to have an article in a form which is not open to accusations of bias or trying to sell something (like, unfortunately, many alternative medicicine sites on the Internet), nor dismissively sceptical. The articles on MCS etc seemed to me to strike this balance well. I was interested to see your added comment on the tin-foil hat (and had not realised it was such a pejorative term!). This is, in fact, very primitive compared with practical shielding, and therefore I am not sure that it is helpful (see the Powerwatch website for alternatives). However, a wire mesh headnet has proved helpful to some, provided that it is earthed (grounded) - otherwise it can act as an antenna, and the increased fields observed by the sceptical students would be absolutely correct - I have seen the same thing happen. Hyperman 42 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now looked further at my original text and I can see that it could be misunderstood because I did not include details of prevalence. I have now included these to emphasise that in its severe form, this is currently a very rare condition. I certainly would not want to do any scaremongering - there is enough of that around already in certain areas of alternative medicine! Hyperman 42 10:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I do agree that you clearly had attempted to achieve NPOV, it just needed a little work. As I knew the page already existed, I put in the link to tin-foil hat partly as a slightly cheeky joke, sorry ;) However, it does illustrate a point clearly, and provide an alternative viewpoint. DWaterson 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As I now read the article I can't really spot anything not conforming to the NPOV policy. Is it OK if I remove the tag? –Mysid 10:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the text, as it reads, is probably sufficiently NPOV. Feel free to remove it if you wish. When I added the tag, I was hoping that we might get an editor with more specific scientific background knowledge to read it through and identify any contentious issues, but that's probably overly optimistic :) DWaterson 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case we could perhaps replace it with a more specific tag, or {{facts}} where unsure about the facts. –Mysid 06:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the word supposed from the first paragraph. EHS isn't a supposed condition. Even the 2005 Irvine report stated that the condition was very real, but it is the association / attribution to exposure EMFs that is supposed. In the end of the first paragraph I have changed "Normally considered harmful" as it is too subjective and open to interpretation. As exposure guidelines have been set (ICNIRP) and these are what are normally related to, it seemed more objective to use these as a reference point instead. The claim of 10-25% being affected by minor symptoms were described as being "extremely subjective". This implied that it was the symptoms themselves that could be subjective, as opposed to the attribution to the supposed source. I have changed this to remove ambiguity. Due to the lack of recent citations for prevalence in the original article, I have added a couple more from the last 5 years. I have removed the tin-hat reference as it seemed overly derogatory - Even though it is a contentious issue it seemed very subjective and not NPOV. I have also added cognitive behavioural therapy (which seems to be the main proposed course of treatment in the UK) to the paragraph. I have added a number of references, and corrected the Powerwatch reference (mispelling of Alasdair Philips and they seem to have stopped selling the book directly - It is however available from EMFields (as their site states) and I have adjusted the link accordingly). Returning to the first paragraph, whilst the prevalence is still so unknown, and especially whilst some reports a claiming 1-3% of the population being affected, can we call the condition "rare"? I would have said until the prevalence is better known that it has no quantifying description and that it is merely referred to as "a condition". Arathalion 09:26, 7 April 2006 (GMT)

I was in the understanding that the condition was rare – so honestly, my bad. And due to my limited English skills, I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of "supposed condition" (so I didn't remove it, although I've heard it's quite real). Great that it has now been corrected. –Mysid 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification, I will remove the "rare" reference. If anybody objects, feel free to comment. Arathalion 16:53, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Thanks, a good helpful set of edits. Hyperman 42 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

2005 study published by American Psychosomatic Society

Added a note on the negative results published in this study. Kayman1uk 08:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

50/1000 Doctors?

The best figures I can find are that in 2001 there were 1.7 doctors per head of population in the UK [1], giving approximately 100,000 doctors in the UK alone, based on a population of 60m. Germany's population is higher but if we assume the same number of doctors, then having 50 doctors sign up to a petition starts to sound quite feeble. Is it really worth noting that 0.05% of Doctors are willing to say that ES is real? 2000 doctors in the whole EU doesn't really sound like an improvement.

I'll add a small note to the main article on this point to avoid giving readers the impression this is a significant proportion of doctors. Kayman1uk 09:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you assume the same number of Doctors per head in Germany? Let alone base it on British doctors, who are well below European average (3.4/head). How can you say "up to 0.05%" when the quantity is "over 50"? To be at all correct, you would have to say "at least 0.05%".

Besides, the percentage is not relevant unless the request/awareness of the report...there is nothing to quantify this against, thus whatever figure is chosen is quite arbitrary. The Doctors who signed the appeal is not supposed to be an indication of how many Doctors in Germany think ES is real, and never was supposed to be - therefore the figure is irrelevant.

I'm going to remove this - it's not relevant, the figures are based on major assumptions, and the figure is arbitrary preventing it from being NPOV.Arathalion 10:11, 11 May 2006 (GMT)

I'm just trying to put the figures into some kind of context. It's remarkably difficult to find out how many actual doctors are registered in the UK or Germany. I'll keep looking.

Also, what does "Doctors" mean? Are we talking GPs? PhDs? Any qualified medical doctor? Kayman1uk 10:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was doctors with medical qualifications, mainly in the field of environmental medicine. 50 doctors is a significant number of initial signatories to any letter or appeal (compare multi-signatory letters from doctors/academics in newspapers or academic journals), especially in a relatively controversial area like this. Hyperman 42 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

When a letter is signed by 50 Doctors it is usually 50 of the countries most respected / senior doctors, a graduate of the 'Hollywood upstairs medical school' signature counts for nothing. The fact that 'sufferers' of this condition have resorted to asking Doctors to sign a letter indicating their belief in this condition further substaitiates the total lack of evidence for the existance of a link between exposure to EMF's and this illness. I believe it is important to present further detail about this specifically the number of Doctors in the EU, and whether or not any Important or well respected physicians have gone on record as indicating that the condition is purely psycosomatic.

The Freiburger Appeal was initiated by the doctors themselves who were concerned at the number of similar cases they were seeing; if the (unsigned) commentator above wishes to allege that the sufferers themselves somehow originated the appeal and coerced doctors to sign, he/she should produce evidence to back this up. As far as I know no highly recognised doctors in "conventional" medicine have stated either that the condition is definitely physical or psychosomatic. (I have deliberately not included those in "alternative" or "integrated" medicine.) Irvine's HPA report treads a middle course - quite rightly, noting both considerable experiential evidence and the lack of a direct scientific explanation - as yet. Hyperman 42 23:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for a source on the "2000 doctors signed this petition" claim. Anyone? Motmot 10:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tidy Up

Carried out slight tidy up. Linked a few words, moved some stuff on symptoms out of the Reports and Evidence section. Nothing dramatic. Kayman1uk 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes and call for some evidence

Hi all,

These are my first edits so apologies if I've messed anything too much.

I've already made a couple of alterations. In particular I've changed "A majority of people with electrosenitivity have MCS" to "Some people." The references that are currently cited do not provide any evidence either way as to what proportion of ES sufferers also have MCS.

I've also rephrased the bit about the study of 725 electrsensitivity sufferers - this is actually a review paper rather than a study. There are also three new papers out this year which support it's conclusions so I've added them in. (But couldn't format the reference section properly - can anyone help?).

There are some other bits in the article I also want to change, but thought I'd throw up for debate first.

1) The statement that "typical" ES sufferers have high levels of heavy metals is not supported by any literature that I know of. Am I missing a paper? If it can't be supported, should we take it out?

2) The idea that Selenium and vitamin supplements are helpful for ES has been tested in a good quality clinical trial and it doesn't seem to work. I think we should remove this part.

3) Re CBT - I don't really understand what the Govt / Industry bit has to do with anything. Either CBT helps people with ES or it doesn't. Whether that pleases Govt, Industry or whoever is surely irrelevant? Catpig 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just made some major changes to the article. As well as altering the above, I have also

1. updated the prevalence figures
2. taken out references to similarity with MCS / CFS etc - these seemed to be a bit unneccessary
3. added a new section on 'role of EMF' which seems to be the most important aspect of this illness as well as the most contentious.
4. made 101 other minor changes.

What do people think? Catpig 11:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all happy about the extent of the changes made by Catpig and in particular the level of deletions. This article has suddenly changed from what was a pretty well agreed consensus version which had lasted largely unchanged for some months to a very differently structured form which is almost unrecognisable in places. I am not at all convinced that the new version is as accessible to the casual reader who might hope to find some useful unbiased information in Wikipedia. The new version seems to rely on one or two sources and I can't see why the references to similarity with MCS/CFS are "unnecessary" - they are certainly not for sufferers, and the coexistence of the two conditions IS referred to in more than one of the references previously cited. I am tempted to try a major revert, as editing the valuable material back in again will be a major task, but would first invite Catpig to explain him/herself as he/she is not contactable via username. Thanks however for flagging up that the changes had been made. Hyperman 42 00:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that it is a major part of Wiki policy to hyperlink to as many as possible other potentially relevant subjects, even for apparently quite tenous connections :-) therefore it is certainly not appropriate to remove such hyperlinks without very good cause. Hyperman 42 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I think I have unfairly blamed Catpig for the major restructuring of the article. Looking more closely at the history this appears to have been done by the unidentified source 193.61.203.126 on 23 August without any supporting discussion. I intend to ask for a revert unless some justification is given in the next few days. Catpig's changes were more localised and generally justified, although I still disagree to soem extent with the interpretation of the simultaneity of ES and MCS. To some extent this is a problem of the poor distinction between mild, moderate and severe symptoms in most reporting. Hyperman 42 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyperman, apologies for any offence caused - possibly I took the whole "be bold" thing a bit too far. It was me who made those revisions, I just forgot to log in first. And the reason you can't contact me by username is because I have no idea how to set that up. As I say, I am very new here! Hence also my taking out hyperlinks - my bad.

With regards to the structure, I personally (obviously) think this is an improvement on the old version. Previously we just had a section labelled 'Reports and Evidence' which could cover almost anything. Breaking it down into what symptoms make up the condition, how prevalent it is, and the debate over the role of EMF seemed like a logical next step. But as you say, doing that involved a lot of rewriting along the way.

I don't think this new version is any more or less biased than the old version is it? What bits in particular do you think are biased? That's certainly not my intention and I'm quite happy for anything suggesting bias to be reworded.

Re MCS / CFS links being unneccessary: my impression from the literature on this is that most people with ES do not have MCS or CFS. That's why I thought we should reduce the discussion on it. But as you say, Grant and Rea do think it's a bigger overlap, so I'm happy to accept that I might have been wrong to take it out. Maybe we should have a short section on 'Similarity to other illnesses'?

Where shall we go with this now? I do think the old 'Reports' section needs to be broken down. It would be good to have the separate issues addressed separately. Do you want to revert it, then we can work together to separate this out? Catpig 08:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I probably need to take a look at the rewritten article with a more open mind but this may have to wait a few days. There was quite a tight structure to the article originally but it has evolved as various people have edited, so maybe it is time for a complete rethink. Sorry, I was probably unduly defensive about the changes. Incidentally I wasn't trying to imply your editing was biased, only that Wiki can act as a balanced source (NPOV) when most writers on a subject have axes to grind in one direction or the other.

The ES/MCS link is interesting. If ES is defined in its "mild" or "moderate" form then there is no particular link. In its "severe" form however, statistics, writers and my personal experience suggest that 60-80% of sufferers have had MCS or ME, and the remainder have had extremely high or prolonged exposures to mobile phones or other high-power electrical devices. I agree this distinction was not made in the previous text, and it would be useful to do so. The snag is that many of the writers themselves have not made the distinction explicit, although it is clear when looked at in context.

To become personally contactable in Wiki you can start a User Page, which is reasonably easy by trial-and-error (as I did it) especially if you borrow bits from other people's good user pages! When you registered your name, hopefully someone from Wiki would have got in touch after a day or two to welcome you and give you some initial hints - try logging in and see if you've received anything without realising it. Have a look at my user page and discussion if you like, though it is very basic - I am no computer buff! It's always interesting to know a bit about one's fellow-editors especially if working together on an area. Hyperman 42 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Hyperman. Ok, looked at from the point of view of differing severity, then I agree that there is an overlap with other 'medically unexplained' illnesses that we should mention. I'm not sure what the figures are for CFS / ME, but I've just had a flick through some papers and there does seem to be a consistent-ish theme for MCS overlap. Firstly there's the Levallois Californian survey. They report that 60% of their ES respondents also reported MCS. Then there's the Carlsson et al Swedish survey. They don't report overlap explicitly, but if we look only at those who report 'much annoyance' from one or more environmental sources then 253 reported problems with VDUs or fluorescent lights alone, 554 reported problems with chemicals alone, and 315 reported problems with both. So one estimate of % comorbid chemical sensitivity in these more severely affected respondents would be 253 / (253+315) = 55%. And I think that's our estimated overlap: 55-60%. Unless you have any advances on that?!

With regards the severity issue, again I agree that we need to say something. The perceived wisdom (a la Irvine) seems to be that 10% of sufferers have severe ES. But quite what the definition of 'severe' is is often left unspoken. That's why I have cited those two studies on work impairment and 'much' vs 'some' annoyance. Incidently, I see Levallois also reports data on this: 32.4 per 1000 in his sample reported ES and 5.2 per 1000 reported ES associated with necessity to change job or remain unemployed. So about 16% might be classified as severe cases. Other than these bits and pieces, did you have any good references in mind for a definition of what 'mild' 'moderate' and 'severe' ES might mean?

Cheers for the tip about the user page. I'll take a look. Catpig 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits by 80.218.237.44

I am not sure I agree with everything in this latest version (the 3rd Sept 23:34 one). Pointing out all the contentious areas would take a while, so I'll just take a fairly random selection of comments to illustrate the problems.

"ES is associated with chronically stressed immune system." There is some evidence that certain forms of ES are associated with alterations regarding the presence of mast cells in the skin (e.g. Johansson O et al. Exp Dermatol. 1994;3:234-8). But this hasn't been replicated by everyone (e.g. Lonne-Rahm S et al. J Occup Environ Med. 2000:42;512-16) and the general view is that it is unclear what if anything this means (e.g. Irvine Report 2005). And I'm not sure what other evidence there is that ES is associated with altered functioning in the immune system. We might mention it in the article, but at the moment I think this is more of interest to scientists than to the average reader. It certainly shouldn't be in the first line of the definition!

"ES is associated with... metal or chemical poisoning." I can't think of a single study which suggests this. Not one that's been peer-reviewed, anyway. Instead, the World Health Organisation's view is that ES "lacks apparent toxicological or physiological basis".

"ES can be confirmed by the increased quantity of sleep and well-being that rapidly occurs" when EMF levels are reduced. I know of only one experiment in which ES sufferers had EMF levels altered and the effects on their sleep examined. This suggested that, if anything, reducing EMF levels IMPAIRS sleep quality (Mueller Ch H et al 2000. Bioelectromagentics Society 22nd Annual Meeting, 2000:89-90), a finding that has not yet been replicated by anyone.

The "Therapy" section. Who's recommendations are all these? The World Health Organisation, the Health Protection Agency and the Eurpean Commission have all produced reports on this and there is also at least one systematic review on clinical trials for ES. None of them mention rythmic breathing, drinking litres of spring water or refloration of the intestines.

In short, it might be ok to include these opinions in this entry as the viewpoint of some commentators on ES, providing we can find a reference for them. But I think an encyclopadia entry should spend most of its time explaining what the viewpoint of the medical, scientific and regulatory mainstream is, regardless of whether we personally agree or disagree with that mainstream view. As Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states:

"the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each"

The HPA and the WHO are fairly prominent.

I suggest we revert the entry to the version produced on 23rd August which Hyperman42 and I had been discussing. Then if there are issues that need to be addressed they can be flagged up on the talk page and we can hammer them out. Catpig 09:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And another comment that I think is very misleading: "People with ES must be able to accept that the condition will remain for life." In fact, the condition does not invariably remain for life. The evidence is more nuanced than that. Patients with more severe forms of it do have a poor prognosis, but even here, some (35% in one study) recover partly or fully over time. Meanwhile those with mild versions of the condition (e.g. VDU-related symptoms only) actually have a reasonably good prognosis. See Stenberg O et al. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2002:28;349-357 or Eriksson N et al. JOEM. 1997:39;108-118 for details. Given the extensive nature of the errors in this article, I propose reverting it to the 23rd August one tomorrow morning (6 Sept) unless there are any objections.Catpig 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I missed this talk before reverting the article myself to the 23rd August one! The new article took a completely different tack and did not quote its sources, besides making many statements of opinion. Author 80.218.237.44, please discxuss on this talk page before making other changes, it would also be helpful if you could identify yourself. We do not want to start a revert war. Hyperman 42 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also comment that I don't disagree with some of 80.218.237.44's comments, for example I have seen a severely ES person greatly helped by reduced EMF exposures giving better sleep and there are some sources citing links with heavy metal poisoning, but we should work in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and sourcing, otherwise it just becomes an unsupported opinion factory. Hyperman 42 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits by 80.218.237.44 - further discussion

The IP address 80.218.237.44 is now registered under the username Charles1. I am Charles1 and have edited the entry "Electrical Sensitivity" again directly. Now I see through the a study of the Wikipedia rules that I am in a cooperative effort to provide a NPOV encyclopedia entry for this topic.

Please excuse any inconvenience. I see that you are all do an honest job to make a good entry.

I am acutely electrically sensitive since Jan 2005, have researched the industry, science, health aspects, politics, law, lobbying, protest groups related to electrical sensitivity extensively. I know how to measure low and high frequency electrical fields and know the recommended levels for sleeping areas. I have invested greatly in therapies and shielding. Shielding is good in the short term but is a dead end because it must be perfect (Faraday cage) to work and it encloses the suffer. EMF source removal is the only reliable approach but is quite difficult financially and socially especially if it means leaving your current living environment. I am willing to back up each of my inputs and discuss them in a professional manner. I have worked for 25 years with computers and would never have believed that ES could be real until I contracted it. I am dead serious about this topic.

The current article is structurally good from a scientific view but is massively skewed in favor of short term studies funded by the industry. For example, the reference to Roosli. He is a Swiss researcher funded by the Swiss government and the local communications industry. He has only produced studies based on short term exposure. His recent attempt to replicate the TNO study in Holland is fraudulent because of suppression of information concerning health damages to some of the test persons. As an individual he is probably a good guy just trying to make a buck for his family. For ES suffers he is a fraud. Do want to know more about him?

The entry leans toward industry lobbying and doesn't provide the user with anything useful to orient himself. It places the ES sufferer in the bizarre position of making "claims" or "reporting" his symptoms. The ES condition is so new and bizzare that the mainstream opinion has difficulty adjusting. The references to video terminals are out of date because they have been replaced with flat screens which are practically EMF neutral exactly because of groups like FEB. There is a vast research world out there on this topic and the current entry just doesn't do it justice. The idea that the entry is supported or NPOV just because you make a reference to a study somewhere is not correct. The ES condition is so rare and shocking to family, doctor, employer and friends because it is related to long term stress and is not mono-causal. It is exactly the clumsy attempts by some industry funded researchers to find mono-causality from short term exposure and the amateur attempts of other researchers to replicate already weakly structured studies that approaches recklessness. How to you propose to show that the reported references to the subject do it justice when many parameters are missing from them? What do you all consider as a reputable reference or source concerning electrical sensitivity? Study Parameters: - Medical History - Duration or test (Short term hours/days, Long term years) - Frequency used - Modulation(Pulsed, Nonpulsed) - Dosage - Symptoms - Field or Laboratory - Funding (Industry, Independent) - Researcher's credentials (end of comments by Charles1 / 80.218.237.44; note - four tildes ~ produces an autosignature )

Thanks Charles1 for identifying yourself. I look forward to a collaborative effort on this. Current situation is that the earlier version which had evolved over some months was extensively edited by Catpig in August. In the process quite a lot of the original references were removed and some new ones added. I think it is fair to say that this changed the balance of the article. However, it probably did need reorganising and therefore I have left it "as is" for the time being. I have not yet had time to do a thorough comparison of the two versions and see whether a combined version could be produced. Contributors may find it interesting to look back at the previous versions (last one being 13 August before the major rewrite), or indeed Charles1's edits of 3 September, and see whether material could profitably be lifted back from those, without making the article too long and unwieldy. A difficult balance, I know! I must admit I would like to see some of the original references restored.

Incidentally, I am a sceptical scientist/engineer but my wife has developed the severe form of ES and the evidence of our personal lives convinces me that it is a real phenomenon - but I can see both sides' points of view, having been in both places myself! The main thing however is to provide a balanced and objective view so that people can find out information, which will hopefully be helpful to them.

Also worth noting that it is more difficult to do scientific studies on ES in its severe form than might be supposed. Problems exist both for people in travelling to the site, and in the pain caused by testing if they do get there. The effect has been that the very people who show the strongest responses to stimuli are unable to attend or complete the study and therefore not counted. Hyperman 42 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of word "supposed"

I edited the initial paragraph of the article, because I felt the use of such words as "supposed" and "supposedly" indicate a POV on the part of the writer (ie that the writer is sceptical of the existence of such a condition). I've tried to edit it to reflect better the state of controversy, giving equal space to both points of view. In any case, I don't think the use of "supposed condition" is justified - the (Irvine 2005) report documents the term Electrical Hypersensitivity as a "condition" with real and debilitating symptoms, but states also quite clearly that their use of such a term does not imply the acceptance of a physical causal connection. In other words, it is not a "supposed" condition, it is a real condition, but the attribution of EMFs as the cause of the condition by sufferers might more fairly be described as a matter of supposition.

I also qualified the "there is no evidence .." to suggest that current mainstream science has found no evidence.

I wonder if it would be helpful to divide the "treatments" section into two, one for treatments suggested by sufferers and their support groups, and one for treatments suggested by mainstream health care (such as the recommendations by the Irvine report). It seems that many treatments suggested by one side are regarded as dubious and of limited benefit by the other side, and this controversy should be reflected in the discussion if an unbiassed account is to be given.Alan1507 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem there is the risk for the article to become horribly riddled with original research; whilst the article could report the opinions of both sides in a balanced manner, there could be considerable problems with verifiability. DWaterson 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the link you supplied, the way to avoid "original research" would be to cite "reliable references". The kind of references that support the point of view of sufferers and support groups comes from advocacy sites such as electrosensitivity.org.uk, and then one gets into a messy debate as to whether such references are considered reliable. I would have thought, however that if it is made clear that a controversy exists, then one is doing one's best to present a balanced article. Thus one can cite a reference, but one should qualify the citation by stating that the reference is disputed. Alan1507 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to finding a mutually acceptable reference for what treatments ES suffers use and prefer, why not simply use the Roosli et al 2004 reference (Ref 1 in the article)? That is a peer reviewed survey of what treatments people with ES use and how helpful they find them. It is discussed in the Irvine report. I'd recommend against dividing this section into two parts though - that will just make it hard to read. Why not describe the treatments that seem popular with ES sufferers in the first para of this section and then move on to the clinical trials bit by saying something like "Few of these treatments have yet been tested in formal clinical trials. Instead, a 2006 systematic review..."Catpig 09:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I go with Alan on this. The word "supposed" was inserted once before, several months back, and was removed - there seemed a fair majority agreement (see talk earlier). Hyperman 42 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I agree about taking out supposed.Catpig 09:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am less convinced about some other changes in the first paragraph. Particularly "Sufferers and their support groups maintain that many of the scientific reviews so far have been funded by industries that have a vested interest, and hence that their outcomes may have been biassed." Firstly, the statement isn't referenced - can you prove to an uninformed reader that this is indeed the viewpoint of most sufferers and most support groups? Secondly, is it factually correct? The HPA, WHO and EC reviews are the most pertinent here and I'm not sure they were funded by industry were they? Thirdly, it misses out all the other more complex reasons why some people are sceptical about the science in this area. And most importantly of all, I think raising this debate at this early stage in the article is distracting. Why not simply end the para at "It is a matter of ongoing controversy as to whether there is a direct physical link between EMF exposure and the symptoms experienced by sufferers." We can then provide a more detailed explaination about the controversy in the "Role of EMF" section.Catpig 09:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. DWaterson 11:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit when I wrote the statement about claims of sufferers and their support groups, I was thinking that I should at least put one of those "citation needed" markers on it, but I couldn't find out how to do it. I think it should have been put more clearly, sorry! What I was thinking of was the comment from someone (later taken out), concerning CBT that "it should be noted that this offers the best solution to those bodies (Governmental or Industrial) which have an interest in disassociating environmental factors from the condition of ES." A further evidence of this line of thought that could be cited is the response of Electrosensitivity UK to the HPA report (Irvine 2005). This may be found at http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/HPA-RPD%20Report.htm . In this article, they take a quote from Dr. Jill Meara of the HPA in a WHO conference in Prague: "“An acceptance that EMF has a causal role in ES would have widespread implications for future policy on prevention and management.” On the basis of that quotation, they argue that the whole issue has been politicised, stating “This is no longer to be decided by objective science, it is now a political issue, and we are but prawns in the gravy”. Now I am not saying that I agree with this line of argument; I am simply reporting what I understand to be the position likely to be taken by sufferers and their support groups, in the interests of the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. (Electrosensitivity UK is one of the biggest advocacy sites for this condition). I would suggest a further section headed "Controversy" that describes this and other aspects of the controversy in more detail. I'm not sufficiently experienced as a Wikipedia editor to trust myself to do this right and get all the links and formatting right. Alan1507 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Made a minor edit removing the reference to "funding" which was unsupportable, but reflecting the perceived politicization of the debate by Electrosensitivity UK, and added a reference. Probably a full new section on the nature of the controversy is the best way forward long term Alan1507 14:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in coming back to this. Couple of points. Firstly although you say electrosensitivity uk are major players in this issue, is that actually correct?? I've had a look and there is nothing on their website about how big their membership is or how representative their views are. Also, they aren't members of either the stakeholder advisory group on EMF or the electromagnetic fields discussion group. Plenty of other lobbying or advocacy groups are though, and I'm assuming membership of these talking shops suggests a degree of prominance in the debate - could we find a quote from them instead?

They are a registered charity though. Perhaps that's enough. I know, I'm arguing with myself now! Catpig 16:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I still don't think this issue is important enough to merit a mention in the introductory section of the article. As I mentioned, claims of industry bias / politicisation of the issue are only one reason why some people distrust the science in this area - and they are by no means the most interesting or relevant. Why do we think this issue deserves a mention and not the other more technical (if more prosaic) points that have been raised? I think we should not mention any of this here, but in the 'role of EMF' section instead.

Final thing - from a purely stylistic point of view, I dislike separate "controversy" sections. It means that if the reader wants to understand treatment, or the role of EMF, or whatever, they have to read that section to get the agreed facts and then jump to another section for different view points. Why not just discuss controversies in the relevant sections (where possible)? Catpig 09:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, getting back to your treatment comments above, did you want me to re-write the treatment section as suggested?Catpig 09:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

More input for discussion with references : Charles1

I guarantee that the ES will never get a perfect description of it's cause. The fact that it exists and that electromagnetic fields can trigger symptoms is sure. The immediate relief of some ES sufferers when they avoid electromagnetic fields is also sure. The best area to do research is long term stress which includes many sources: noise, cigarette smoke, dust, chemicals, bad emotions, overwork, worry etc.. The electromagnetic fields interfere with the normal electromagnetic cycles in the body over long periods of time (years) and the consequent chronic stress tips the autonomic nervous and hormonal systems into dysfunction. The body cycles related to electromagnetic fields are day/night undulations in the earth's magnetic field, EEG, heartbeat, REM, breathing. Stress research takes a completely different view than mono-causal thought models. Please take a glance at:

http://www.tldp.com/issue/179/emf179.htm contains a summary from medline searchs. This could be an acceptable mainstream source.

http://powerwatch.org.uk/gen/sensitiv.asp and http://powerwatch.org.uk/news/20060224_es_response.asp contains responses to publications that may fit the situation for wikipedia.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/hpa_rpd_reports/2005/hpa_rpd_010.pdf#search=%22electrical%20sensitivity%22 contains one of the first relatively good articles that is written to the mainstream world.

Thanks for your efforts.Charles1 23:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But still there is no proof of a causal relationship between the exposure to the electromagnetic fields and the symptoms of the patients. Your statement above that "electromagnetic fields can trigger symptoms" does not seem to be supported by the literature. Your last reference even says this explicitly. Mossig 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no absolute proof, but there is a lot of experiential evidence from a large number of people. Only a small proportion of people, but rather a lot to be just imagining it. We should remember that most disease have been discovered over the centuries by experiential reports of people in this way. Even for testing of modern drugs, the reporting both of beneficial effects and adverse side effects is considerably based on people's experiences! Hyperman 42 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

I have edited the opening paragraph by reintroducing some material from an earlier version. Irvine's HPA report (which is also the last of Charles1's references above) seems to me to make a fair balance of the different views and is not a scientific debunking of ES, as implied in the previous text. I have not deleted this text, but have edited it slightly and moved it to a later section, as I don't feel that the "conspiracy theory" aspects are the best thing to highlight in the opening summary - it is enough to note that there are two sides to the question. One difficulty is that people sometimes read their own points of view into Irvine's report (and ignore the opposing ones), but an objective look will show that he reports data from a wide variety of sources with impartiality. Hyperman 42 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also now reintroduced a number of references and sentences which had been present in the consensus version up till the end of July but were then deleted. I think this gives a better balance. The article may have become a bit unwieldy again (some duplication in places) but I suggest it does at least include both angles reasonably well at present. Hyperman 42 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest 2 edits Sep06

Mossig's deletion of the Irvine reference claiming it was not supported by the report was unfortunate as it was a direct quote not just from the report, but the main summary (para 2)! Agreed, it is not his only point, but the other angles are covered thoroughly in the remainder of the wiki page. In any case the link is valuable and should have been retained. I have restored both link and statement.

Solipsist has also deleted a reference as "spam". This is not normally good practice, it is a genuine press article and there are thousands of these all over Wikipedia. However I have not restored it as the article was based on anticipation of the contents of the report which in fact took a somewhat different slant when it was actually published. Hyperman 42 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Query for Topazg

Topazg, I'm not quite sure what the point we're trying to make is re the withdrawals from the Rubin paper. Is that it's hard for people with severe ES to take part in these studies (ie following on from the preceeding sentence), or that the symptoms might actually have a psychological origin, or something else? Could you clarify it? Catpig 18:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, just seen that the new bit is a combination of edits from Topazg and Mossig (so I now see what you were trying to say TopazG). An average reader will still be a bit confused about what the point being made is though. As the point has already been made that people with severe ES find it hard to take part in provocation studies, can I suggest we just remove the new lines entirely? Catpig 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if you also remove the implicit implication that the withdrawls that occured during the study were due to the exposure: this as these occured as often in sham exposure conditions as during actual exposure. That leaves the three persons that were excluded due to that they were unable to take part in the study at all: I am very reluctant to place any indicative value on that fact at all. Which leaves us with wath Rubin actually concludes in his paper. (Isn'tt reintrpretation of the results of a published paper, beyond what the authors themselves claim in the abstract/summary/conlusions, to be judged as original research, btw?) Mossig 22:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; I don't see what any of the info about the withdrawals during the study adds. I'll remove it. Seconldy, re the point being made about the people who were excluded - I'm also not really sure that's important. Just because some people with severe sensitivity couldn't take part in this study, doesn't mean that no-one with severe sensitivity took part. And as you say, it is tending towards original research. Thirdly, I think we are spending too much time in the article discussing this experiment, especially as it is only one provocation study out of 34! So I'll see if I can find a ref somewhere that makes the more general argument that people with severe ES may be under-represented in this type of experiment. Catpig 11:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I like your new text. The only exception is the word "however", which I do not really understand in the context. But that is probably due to that english is not my first language, and may be a msitake from my side. But could it not be removed, without changing anything else? Mossig 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup! I've taken it out. Catpig 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My point was really that if people are pulling out under "real" (i.e. non-sham) exposure due to real and measured conditions this is extremely important. You can forget the rest of the participants if these few have readily replicable symptoms in separate double-blinded conditions, and therefore their exclusion could be crucial. I have a distinct feeling that the majority of self-proclaimed electrosensitives are suffering entirely from a nocebo effect, and as such it is important to have a way of analysing which of these are clearly reacting without provocation, and which seem to only react when genuine provocation is present. Because the analysis of sensitive people was entirely grouped by self-assessived subjectivity, the Rubin study completely failed to address this possibility. I am mostly happy with the wording, though because of the reasons in the discussion I have removed the reference (also written by the study author) to people with severe ES partipicating, as again this is entirely down to the subjective self-assessment of the "sufferers" in question. Topazg 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Irvine Report

Retrospectively, I agree my addition just muddied the commentary on the Irvine report in the section discussing the role of EMFs. However, the sentence as it stood is horribly weasel-worded. "The Irvine 2005 report suggests that so far no there is no robust evidence that such a direct connection actually exists." This is not the flavour of the discussion section of the Irvine report, and the word "robust" is itself highly subjective. Whilst the new wording is somewhat more verbose than I would like, it does at least summarise exactly what was said in the Irvine report - in actuality really a very non-committal commentary that the symptoms are like other FSS/IEI with the exception of attribution to source, which it then refrained from commenting on. The sentence as it stood gave the impression that it really did not find evidence to support ES, whereas the commentary in the paper itself simply found a gross lack of consistency between data. Topazg 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never been sure why the Irvine report is mentioned in this section at all. It does duck out of the issue of whether ES is related to EMF - it's main comment on that is to refer to the systematic review that is already cited here. Would it not be easiest and best just to delete it from this section entirely? Catpig 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, this is probably the best way of dealing with it. Topazg 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Irvine was originally included in this section (many months back) to point out that reviews were not simply dismissing ES as imaginary. This point is now made adequately elsewhere. Good to see the article both clarified and shortened - normally wiki articles just grow and grow! Hyperman 42 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Computer Monitor LCD Headache, Eye Pain & Worse

Relating to Electrical Sensitivity - includes ongoing survey: http://www.freewebs.com/eclectives/monitorpain.htm

Is your computer monitor/LCD/CRT causing headaches? Eye pain? Nausea? Red skin sores? Think fibromyalgia & RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury) is solely due to repetitive typing? Think again! Is your LCD or laptop emissions free of PBDE flame retardants? Might those absorbed chemicals, as well as dental work, heavy metals & body parasites react to monitor's fluorescents' EMFs? Might electromagnetic radiation of phosphors combine with cadmium/epoxies of newer, not-outgassed LCDs or LEDs, causing food & chemical sensitivity, electrosensitivity, photosensitivity, skin conditions, bleeding, miscarriage?

Monitorp 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Style

I've tagged the article for inappropriate style. Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article for general readership, not a literature survey in an academic journal. The article also currently completely ignores references to the topic - both pro and con - in mainstream media. See the Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible guideline. 86.141.83.8 13:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

With no further commentary, as far as I know this is the only objection on style and appropriateness, and no one else seems to have taken up the baton from here. Would links to news commentaries on ES people and others on refutation of the syndrome itself be beneficial to the article, or just increase the chance that it becomes more contentious again? I think that this covers ES really extremely well, and doesn't IMHO go beyond that which a non-scientific layperson can understand, as the science cited is quite well explained in the text. I would like to propose that these tags are removed unless we can have further discussion on this. Topazg 11:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is rather ironic that in the past there have been criticisms that too much reference was made to media accounts or websites rather than solid scientific studies, and a lot of these links were then expunged! See further below. Hyperman 42 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I've tagged this article as non-neutral as I believe in it's current form it supports the thesis that electromagnetic fields cause the symptoms ascribed to ES, whereas the literature and scientific consensus do not support this view. It is true that in some instances the symptoms are real, but the cause has yet to be established and no well conducted scientific study has thus far shown any link. -unsigned edit by 128.243.220.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

it supports the thesis that electromagnetic fields cause the symptoms

Where do you see it saying that? As far as I can tell, it makes clear throughout that this is about reported experience. 86.141.83.8 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it does support that thesis by not pointing out that these symptoms are more likely

caused by other factors, are mostly self reported, and when studied scientifically any

correlation to electromagnetic field strength dissappears. As this is an article about ES

I think it should be clearer that it is highly contentious and that the scientific community

reject the thesis that there is such a condition due to lack of evidence. The repeated appeals

to the head of the HPA were also misleading, as he refuses to be drawn on the issue, made

the comment as a private individual (if I recall correctly), and

the HPA has said it does not agree with his opinion. Maybe that's what the first post meant.

If other factors were investigated maybe some of these people might find the real cause of

their symptoms - such as stress.

I like the changes you've made, that I've looked at, so far. Thanks!

82.10.214.10 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I think the changes made so far much improve the article. 82.10.214.10 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs need looking at in detail. For instance:

Some have argued that people with severe ES may be under-represented in these provocation studies, a factor which may limit the ability of the studies to find a difference between active and sham sessions [2].

Following the link, we find "some" = "a teacher in Italy". I think we can take that as non-authoritative. 86.141.83.8 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to make a second post so quickly, but I am concerned about the use of "consensus", "most mainstream" etc... these are weasel words and should not be used in an argument on neutrality IMHO. "No well conducted study" is also both weasel worded (well conducted?) and also untrue, as some of the papers in the Rubin review _did_ find an association, but these findings were not replicated. More accurate would be to say just that: that whilst some have found a link, these have not been replicated and the majority have not found the association. Topazg 10:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the recent changes have been very good, and the tidying work has been excellent. I think in its current form the NPOV flag can go unless there are any objection?

I think the article is not too technical. Yes, parts of it read like a literature review, but that in itself is far less technical than the more scientific articles on Wiki, and seems to be a good reflection of evidence from multiple areas of the topic. Is there any further objection on the level of technical detail and appropriateness than the fact it is primarily citation orientated?

The only other thing that bugs me is the references section. At the moment we a list numbered from 1 to 8 followed immediately by another one numbered from 1 to 12 - Is there any way we can either separate or combine these to be more continuous? Topazg 10:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, parts of it read like a literature review, but...

I think it's mainly a format issue: footnoting ^[1] with inline numbering ^[2] makes far easier reading than having the text (Pinchem et al, 2004; Grabbit et al 2006) interrupted by all these (Scarper et al, 2007) name-style citations.

I'm mildly troubled by the reliance on citation of individual studies, which can get a bit close to original research (ie editors choosing how to synthesise an account from the material). I think it's better to look for secondary studies, like the WHO and HPA-RPD-010 report, that provide authoritative overviews of the topic.

The only other thing that bugs me ...

My fault; I only got halfway through converting the refs. Preceding unprocessed refs with * rather than # kills the numbers. 86.148.152.27 11:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, this is an improved way of viewing the Refs -- it would be good to have these incorporated properly at some stage. I'll try and get onto it tomorrow if I have the time.

Regarding individual studies, I think these are quite reasonable to include provided abstract texts are not being paraphrased. The studies themselves should, IMHO, hold reasonable merit as they stand in the literature itself, especially when WHO are not particularly open about exactly which sections of literature they examined to provide their information (unlike the HPA report, which was extremely well cited). I think this is particularly important when we see the recent published accusation by Oxman et al that WHO have been "ignoring" evidence, a point which WHO themselves (Research Director Dr. Tikki Pang, according to Newsmax.com) are willing to admit under the basis that "time pressures and a lack of both information and money sometimes compromised WHO work.". Topazg 12:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but with controversial topics things very easily turn into "source wars", with constant suspicion that editors (whether pro and anti anything) might be cherry-picking studies. OTOH wth summary sources - from government, health organisations, well-known campaigning organisations - there's no doubt that we're reporting the views of notable players in the field.

As to the WHO/Oxman information, I hope you're not proposing some kind of syllogism along the lines of

WHO says ... whatever ... about ES.

Oxman et al say WHO's procedures are iffy.

Therefore, WHO's stance on ES is iffy.

That's most definitely out: WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. 86.148.152.183 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no, nothing of the sort, amusing though that is :) What I was suggesting is that, whether it is WHO, or John Bloggs' campaigning anonymous, it is vitally important for summary reports / factsheets to give precise reference of the evidence they have used to reach their conclusions. My comparison was that WHO factsheets rarely cite the evidence referenced, whereas the Irvine report did so very comprehensively. Individual, peer-reviewed papers may say something very important and may have been entirely omitted by a given summary or review, and it is IMHO unreasonable to assume that it was included unless the review has it cited in its references. I am more than happy to have a comprehensive overview of individual studies showing both sides, but I think both government and campaigning organisations should only have their material cited if the material itself contains references and citations to the source material that the review is on. There is always the risk of cherry picking studies on both sides, but then there is the risk of cherry picking from the organisations making the review as well, and it is just as important to be aware of this risk. Topazg 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, even for an article by a respected group like the WHO, a publication may reflect the opinion of its author. Their work on ES is led by Mike Repacholi, who is firmly of the view that EMF is non-hazardous - I believe this to be an honestly held opinion, not simply influenced by "big business". However the ex-WHO president Gro Harlem Brundtland, who actually suffers from ES, would have a very different view :-) Likewise the UK HPA is officially sceptical, but its head Sir William Stewart, who has actually met ES sufferers in person, is now taking a rather different view, as evidenced by his contriution to BBC's Panorama programme on wi-fi. In fact the Irvine report is commendably balanced and factual. Hyperman 42 00:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Wording

Aimed primarily at user on IP 128.243.220.21, "most mainstream scientists agree that" and "scientific consensus is that" are inappropriate terminology for a Wiki, as it seems to violate the Wikipedia Weasel word policy. It is uncited and unsupported without reference to exactly which, and what proportion of the field, scientists share that opinion. There is plenty of scientific evidence on the issue that can be correctly cited and explained without resorting to generalised statements. We have good evidence already on this article that shows the majority of studies published so far are showing that the link is highly tenious at best, so please can we just stick to published evidence. Topazg 10:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Freiburger Appeal

Anticipating another possible query, there are several links giving more up-to-date figures for current signatories to the Freiburger Appeal, apart from IGUMED itself, so I suggest this is relevant. There is a distinction between the 30,000+ total signatories and the ~2000 stated to have actual medical qualifications, and it gives an additional perspective to the 50 original signatories of 2002. Hyperman 42 01:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user 82.10.209.215 has deleted the statistics on the Freiburger Appeal signatories on the grounds that "they weren't doctors". Rather than start an edit war, I invite him/her to justify the grounds for this, in particular why the signatories qualified as "dr.med." are not doctors. Similar assertions have previously been made by anonymous user 128.243.220.22, demanding evidence for qualification but failing to provide any for non-qualification. Hyperman 42 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think this should be returned, as the original 50 signatures are easy to find on the internet. I have done some digging and have also heard the total signatures is now over 30,000 - 2,000 of which being medical signatories. However, I also understand that most have not signed a disclosure agreement and the full list cannot yet be released, though it is supposedly available on CD. It would be very useful if someone knows more about this that there could be some attempt to remove any signatures of people that haven't given consent and post the rest somewhere online. In the meantime, the 50 should be returned with reference to the IGUMED document. Topazg 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

These have been restored after having been deleted on the grounds that they were "biased". Yes, they are from groups representing those reporting ES, and thus have a POV, but this is not grounds for deleting them and thus suppressing the views of one side of the argument. Equally so, mainstream science has a POV based on the particular types of studies carried out, and this is well represented in the current article. Evidence for ES at present is largely based on personal testimony of those experiencing it, and it is not unreasonable to let people access this and weigh its credibility. (Personally I find some sites have a significant ideological agenda which I regret, but do not feel this is grounds for omitting them, though I prefer more objective sources). Both experimental observation and personal reporting of experiences have always been major factors in the development of scientific and medical knowledge. Hyperman 42 01:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

However I do take the point on the external links that they may not meet Wikipedia's current inclusion criteria (the same could be said for a lot of other links that I have seen but I agree this is not sufficient reason for restoration). I will look more closely at the links to see whether some do clearly meet the criteria and can be restored. Hyperman 42 23:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the original external links, two fairly obviously meet the Wikipedia criteria of providing additional relevant information, e.g. interviews, and do not violate the criteria for not linking, and I have restored them. These are the first and last on the list below. I have not restored the others as there are moot points about them (e.g. non English language, media article, bias). However any suggestion of removing these links should now be supported by a clear statement of why they are considered to violate Wikipedia criteria, which has not been previously forthcoming.

For information, the complete original set of external links was:

• ElectroSensitivity.Org – Information, Advice & Awareness of Electrosensitivity
• FEB – Swedish organisation for the electrically sensitive
• Electrosensitivity UK – British organisation for electrosensitive people
• Overcoming Electrical Sensitivity – One man’s experience of electrical sensitivity and how he freed himself from it
• Allergic to Electricity– Detailed newspaper article on one UK sufferer's experience
• Belgian BioElectroMagnetic Group – Information about electrosensitivity

Hyperman 42 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- Actually, this creates an interesting dilemma. Both information about electrosensitivity sites left could also claim to be "biased" under the basis that they both believe the condition is caused by EMFs (which is clearly the area of contention). However, does this really give reasoning for their removal? I can't help but feel that POV sites without sales pitch have a valid place on the "external links" section even if they are biased in their viewpoint. Likewise I think Electrosensitivity UK should be present because it is actually a registered UK charity for supporting those with the condition. At the very least this is notable and of potential interest to people reading the Wiki article? Topazg 11:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Equally, there should be no objection in principle to including a relevant "anti" or sceptical site. The most obvious example I can think of is Quackwatch. There are plenty of other examples in Wikipedia of links to sites giving a POV, in some cases carefully categorised under "pro" and "anti" headings, e.g. Multiple chemical sensitivity. I would rather have balance than no links - though evidently some disagree. I did not include Electrosensitivity-UK initially because it does tend to push a "political" POV; hence I added 2 non-controversial factual sites only. Hyperman 42 23:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We are concerned that we have been removed from your external links for pushing a "political" POV. When we started to support electrosensitives we put a great deal of time into forging links with the Health Protection Agency (Dr Jill Meara) the Department of Health (George Hooker) the Health and Safety Executive and many others. After two years of this we realised this reaction suffered by increasing numbers, 400 now in the UK making donations to keep us going at up to £2,400 a time, was politically and commercially unacceptable. What we represent is the interests of those with the first "politically incorrect" health condition. This has obliged us to take a more forceful line and appeal directly to "the street" pointing out the vested politics (who benefited from sale of licenses?) and commerce (who dangles rewards before advocates) of the issue. This is then used as a reason to disbar us from your external links. Catch 22? Many medical conditions lack full scientific understanding, always have, but only ours is as vigorously and vituperatively dismissed. The subjects of this "scientific" debate seem totally overlooked, indeed de-humanised, they are not amoebas or nematode worms, or sub-atomic particles without sentient capacities, but real live rational humans, some even scientists themselves, quite able to KNOW what makes them ill and how avoiding that, ie EMFs, helps them get better(a Koch-Henle postulate for causation incidentally). Over and over again we know this, without "rocket science", but as daily experience. Rod Read www.electrosensitivity.org.uk

Hi. I agree that the electrosensitivity UK website should not appear in this list, as it is a lobby group that highly spins evidence and is very selective and sensationalist in its reporting (in my opinion, from what I've seen). I believe it has also been engaged in other unprincipled practices. I also find the claim that ES sufferers are the only group that is treated badly by the established scientific based and evidence based system of medicine that we have objectionable. Without making a judgement, homoeopaths are also derided by many in science, and it looks like they might be soon kicked out of the NHS. The level of evidence they present is very similar, and the scientific evidence for the homoeopathic effect is of a similar level; to quote from this page, the mechanism is unknown and the effect unproven. ES is not the only group treated like this. Note that ES sufferers will be treated by the NHS, where they will investigate other possible causes and more research is being carried out. I feel ES UK would do better by taking the high road and not dropping to the level spin and name calling they engage in on their website. To Rod, why don't ESUK spend that money they're getting on funding research? That would help more sufferers long term if the condition exists than making a big noise now, annoying people, and only helping the few you are in contact with. The victimisation talk also does you a disservice, as does any appeal to emotion in science (I know this isn't a scientific forum, but emotion should also be left out in a debate such as this). There isn't a scientific/government/medical/industry conspiracy to make these people suffer, there is just no compelling or significant evidence for an effect of EMF or any known mechanism by which it can act. Work on solving these problems, either way, if you want to further your cause. For the sake of your sufferers and the rest of humanity, I hope ES doesn't actually exist. I hope I've come across as a fair and open minded student of science here. 82.10.214.20 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this seems fair to me. I am also heavily opposed to the conflict of interest arguments used by both sides. I think anyone with an opinion has a conflict of interest (or at least a big influence towards bias in editing articles if they strongly believe one side of an argument), and it would be great if science and research were used to support claims made on either end. Likewise, the "spin" effects by weasel usage of terminology also just obfuscates the subject for readers honestly wanting to find out more. Good response (if this topic interests you 82.10.214.20, register yourself an account - your contributions will be most welcome to this and related articles). Topazg 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by 128.243.220.22

Please stop changing experiences to "claims to experience". The experience of effects is not under question, and is not POV. The contention is over the attribution, and that is rightly caveated with the word "reported" in the same sentence. Topazg 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, responding to reason of reversion as user is not participating in talk. The "experiences" is not my opinion, but one of the HPA Irvine report on Electrical Sensitivity [3]. Even journalists such as Ben Goldacre, who firmly believes the evidence is not there for attribution to EMFs, accepts that the symptoms experienced are very real [4]. Please stop reverting this with your own opinion and contribute properly by discussing changes. Topazg 17:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who originated these changes, but I agree with them. The experiences are claimed, as the are experiences and hence subjective. They are also claimed to be linked to EM fields, which is the thrust of the argument. The symptoms report probably do, in many cases, exist, however the link to EM fields is unproven, and in fact the weight of the mass of evidence points against this. The claim that it can't be tested for is patently false. Studies have been conducted and no link has been shown. To claim the EM sensitivity only exists when it isn't being tested for is utter rubbish. So, in conclusion, the "no test exits" claim should be removed as it is patently false, and the experiences are claimed to be connected to EM fields. Putting the phrase "claimed experiences" earlier clearly demonstrates that this is exactly the case - a claim made by the sufferer of these undiagnosed symptoms and their small but vocal support groups. These groups are doing massive harm to these people by stopping them from being correctly diagnosed and getting real and proven treatment to stop whatever is actually causing their problems and therefore removing their symptoms. They also get to sell snake oil into the bargain, making a nice profit from their sales, speaking engagements, and subscriptions to their quack organisations. Thanks for your input. 82.10.209.215 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet the experiences are accepted as real in the scientific literature, which should be accepted as good faith. The link with EMFs is unproven, and is reflected in the text accordingly. The "no test exists" is absolutely true, but also a somewhat misleading statement - With no understood mechanism nor a non-self-assessed way of measuring it, there logically cannot be a test. That said, it is unreasonable to expect there to be a definite "ES Test" for obvious reasons, so the sentence should not be there on this basis. Claimed experiences implies that the symptoms are not real, and without some citation to support the statement this is unfairly pejorative and POV the other way. I appreciate you feel that ES groups feel that they are doing massive harm, but the groups feel they are being massively supportive. These are both entirely POV and neither is appropriate in content for a Wiki for precisely that reason - it is important to remain objective on _both_ sides.

Also, alarm bells ring when people start mentioning snake oil and quack organisations -- this starts heading from objectivity to subjectivity again. Charities such as Electrosensitivity.org.uk are opinionated and staunch believers in risk, but are also a non-profit UK charity -- hardly quack or snake oil merchants. The worst you can throw at them is well-intentioned mis-guidedness. I'm not trying to pick personal fights here, but these changes on the whole really stink of POV -- if you can support the changes please add relevant references that support your statement from reasonably reliable sources.

However, many thanks for engaging in discussion on this issue - I assure you I am only trying to maintain some rational and supported middle ground. Topazg 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with the statement that there cannot be a test "logically". No matter what the mechanism is, there is no "logical" reason that a double-blind exposure test shouldn't show significant effects in sufferers if ES exists. These tests have been done and have shown no effect above the placebo (or nocebo, if you like) effect in both groups. Why would, "logically", this test not show at least an association if not a link. The test show it's rubbish. I also make the point that they claim they experience a range of symptoms caused by EM fields, which is patent non-sense. The fact that they may actually be experiencing symptoms is, to this discussion, irrelevant. However, I agreed it should be made clear that they may have symptoms they mistakenly (unfortunately) attribute to EM fields 82.10.209.215 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But without a mechanism there is no understanding of what exactly constitutes an effect. There are some good points raised in the responses to Ben Goldacre's recent BMJ entry, and whilst some points are rather moot, some points are well made. It is quite possible the provocation studies are not set up in a way that an effect would be find, especially is there is other literature (including literature reviews) that have found evidence to suggest an effect. For example, the latest Oftedal study only had simulated pulsed RF, not an actual mobile phone [5] -- does this make a difference? Again, unless a mechanism is understood no-one knows. Maybe there is some synergistic nerve response to combined ELF and modulated RF exposure but not RF alone - maybe there's no effect to either, but in vitro studies have found a simplistic effect with RF alone (including CW RF fields). There are almost 500 studies on RF literature, of which less than 40 are provocation studies -- there is too much emphasis placed on them at this stage. Topazg 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding of the scientific method and basic principles is deeply flawed. At the most basic level, not only is there no evidence of any effect in the large number of well conducted and peer reviewed studies (above a placebo), there is also no known way in which there could be an effect. The claim for the mechanism being unknown is spurious, as there is no mechanism. When the claims go so outside of accepted science (I'll go for any university text on physics and EM fields here, since you have a problem with the well understood terms mainstream and consensus - that only cranks complain about usually) the burden of proof lies heavily with those making these claims. For a completely made up condition the amount of research that has gone on (I mean specifically into non-thermal effects) and money spent on this is very large. It should now be spent on more fruitful areas, such as actually diagnosing their problems. We should not give all opinions equal weight or coverage. The scientists, who aren't in the pay of the lobby groups or having dodgy degrees from unaccredited sources, and competent medical practitioners know these claims are rubbish and the cause is something else, whereas the lobby believes they are right. Research into EM should continue (obviously), and small studies and reviews of ES people should continue (perhaps by getting them to visit a real doctor). However, until any concrete evidence is found or some possible way in which this magical mechanism could work (that isn't non-physical or woo), then ES should be in the doesn't exist column, with a note that research is ongoing into the real causes. I have no vested interest in this, besides being a scientist. I'm not paid by any EM people or companies, and the only person who I know who claims to suffer ES has recently turned out to have a real illness that has now been treated. However, I base my opinions on science and evidence. 82.10.209.215 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You base your opinion on very carefully selected science and evidence, and then make out that this is the whole picture. This is not a scientific approach, and falling back onto ES Lobby conflict of interest is a rather strange (and also non-scientific) point considering the edits are regarding removal of peer-reviewed literature. "The scientists, who aren't in the pay of the lobby groups or having dodgy degrees from unaccredited sources, and competent medical practitioners know these claims are rubbish and the cause is something else, whereas the lobby believes they are right". This is just so unbelievably POV, and unsupported without any basis in fact, that it just has no place on Wikipedia. There is a large number of well conducted and peer reviewed studies, but only a fraction of these are provocation studies (as I presume you are implying with your mention of placebo). You then go out of your way to remove some of the cited non-provocation literature, which can only constitute POV pushing.

I respect that you have strong views on this issue, but this is not the way that Wikipedia is, or should be, maintained. If you wish to raise a point, include citations and references to support it, else I will report the IP address for consistent unsupported vandalism of articles. Topazg 09:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should fairly represent all (within reason) views on a subject; not give them all equal weighting in the interests of the supposed quest for balance, as though that has some justification in debate or science. I feel your views are hugely POV. I wonder what your links to the ES lobby may be? I've declared my interest as simply a scientist with no connections to lobby groups or interests on either side. Just because you can find awful reviews and articles supporting your view on the internet doesn't counter the mainstream view of scientists in physics and biology. The vast majority of peer-reviewed articles published in respectable journals reject the ES hypothesis, and the few that don't are either inconclusive or are very small studies which call for larger studies (which have been done already). Do you think an encyclopaedia is the correct place to call for a debunking of accepted science? No, that should be done elsewhere. I counter that you are the vandal, trying to appear "balanced" while forcing your POV on wikipedia, causing people (especially journalists and laypeople) to think that the support for ES in terms of people and science is bigger than the very small amount it actually is. If you have some proof that ES exists and/or how it works, send it to Nature, and then it can go in wikipedia (until Nature retract the paper I guess!) 82.10.209.215 10:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I accuse you of vandalism because I am reverting your edits that violate Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Reverting an article to previous state is hardly an act of vandalism. You have yet to cite any of your comments involving such buzzwords as "mainstream", "consensus", and "vast majority". If it is a "vast majority", give precise comparitive numbers of literature showing an effect and not. If there are flaws in the cited studies, make a reference to the criticism. If you have evidence of what proportion of scientists and or medical professionals that believe that there is no effect, again, reference this appropriately. You can't just write out your own opinion and expect everyone else to take this as fact. Topazg 10:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Later

I'm afraid that 82.10.209.215 is deluded if he believes that all people who disagree with him are non-scientists or have a POV in favour of the ES lobby. He/she should look at Topazg's user page to confirm this! - and also maybe produce a user page of his/her own rather than hiding behind a cloak of anonymity and making sweeping statements. Hyperman 42 01:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Topazg's page doesn't sate he is a scientist, and he doesn't work in a scientific field. He has an interest. So do you. He is also part of the lobby, being a spokesman for Powerwatch - a pro-ES group. I will say though that he seems to be reasonable and has shown that he can be swayed by scientific argument. Commenting on something so old, mid way through, also seems a bit odd. Maybe he should add Powerwatch to his user page (I don't care either way), but if he has any relevant scientific expertise then he should add that in my opinion. 82.10.218.4 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Original discussion continues below

Another quick point: you seem to be concerned about balance, but I must point out that showing both sides of an argument doesn't mean you should give both equal weight. Saying ES exits and giving this equal weight to the scentific rebuttal is POV, but stating that some think it exists but they are believed wrong because ... is ok (although in my opinion, still too biased towards the quacks) 82.10.209.215 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is "believed wrong" by some, and "believed right" by others. Aside from the provocation studies, there are a number of papers (and reviews) showing low level RF effects, and there are now quite a few scientists on the "ES is real" bandwagon. The whole point is that no-one knows for sure yet and the area is contentious, so the article should comment on the existing evidence and leave it objectively open. Topazg 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst 128.243.220.22's edits may or may not be valid, they need citations. These edits consistently used archetypal weasel words, such as "most scientists". Hang on, which scientists? Says who? Start backing up the claims, please, or don't put it in. Have there been any large-scale surveys on the consensus' of doctors or scientists on the validity of the claims of ES people? If not, then nobody can claim that there is a consensus. Arathalion 10:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is already in the article. For example, see the conclusions of the WHO http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html and they are doing a lot of research http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/ which has so far found no effect and no mechanism for an effect. Have a look at the intros to much of the work done (do a PubMed search or http://www.emf-portal.de/suche.php?sform=4&q_freq1=2412000000&q_freq1_u=0&q_freq2=5725000000&q_freq2_u=0&action=submit+query&l=e) they will state that this is a minority, non-mainstream, view that is being tested. Can you give any evidence that your view of the woo is held by any more than a few scientists? 128.243.220.41 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "view of the woo"? Firstly, can we avoid pejoratives such as "woo", and secondly this has nothing to do with my view, which frankly is completely undecided. Great, we have citations, and those can be in there with reference as listed (i.e. The WHO's position on this issue is that .... [1]). However, "most mainstream scientists" is just not appropriate for Wikipedia, and it would be really helpful if you could follow the highly detailed and fairly comprehensive editing guidelines on how to present the points you wish to make. I am not making claims about "most", and "mainstream", so I cannot give evidence (kind of like not being able to prove a negative) to support it. It is up to you, the claimant, to support your claim if you can. Also, you appear to have misread the WHO factsheet anyway, which talks about "no consistent evidence". This is not the same as "no evidence", and is subjective. I also note that unlike certain reports such as the HPA Irvine report, the WHO fails to cite the literature that it referenced to come to these conclusions. In the Electromagnetic Radiation and Health article I have cited a few papers that do show evidence, so clearly "no evidence" is incorrect.

I find the ES lobby and their anecdotal attempts to create reality out of highly tenuous facts highly irritating. I also find the anti-ES lobby and their weaselled attempts to distort the existing literature equally frustrating, and you appear to be doing a very good job of trying to label a highly contentious area as effectively "decided, with the exception of a few misguided freaks". This seems to be neither true, nor justifiable, and you have failed to produce any evidence to convince me otherwise. Topazg 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever regarding the consensus of scientists of doctors in the article. That is why I am asking you to present some before making such POV sounding statements. If you wish to find some papers supporting your statements from Pubmed or emf-portal.de then do so.

Evidence doesn't need to be given that it's not a minority view. It is not being stated to be majority or minority. If you want it to state as such, then evidence needs to be provided as such. Until then, it must remain neutral.Arathalion 09:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Provocation studies - theory and practice

In view of some of the statements made above about provocation studies, and the belief of some contributors (exemplified in an edit to the main page summary) that the evidence provided by these is decisive, I would like to show why there are still significant reservations about the results.

For a scientific study to be valid, it must effectively test the condition which is being reported and (for a medical or physical condition) a representative sample of the people who report each effect. For various reasons, studies conducted so far fall short of this.

Let us take as an example the study recently conducted by the University of Essex, which has been reported in the media (though not claimed by the researchers) to disprove any link. Various subjects were told that they would be exposed to radiation or a placebo (no radiation). A group of 56 people claiming to be electrosensitive and over 100 controls were exposed to real or zero radiation for periods of up to 50 minutes. The vast majority in both groups could not consistently tell the difference (only 2 of the ES group and 3 of the controls got 5 out of 5 correct). The people who claimed to be ES suffered more symptoms, even if the exposure was sham, suggesting a psychosomatic effect. Sounds solid and conclusive, doesn't it?

However, consider the following points.

1. Different people suffer at different levels. This is a point often missed by the usage of "ES" as a blanket term; proper scientific classification into "mild", "moderate" and "severe" effects would avoid this. People with "severe" ES may suffer an acute reaction; more moderate forms may give only a chronic or delayed effect. This is in line with allergenic effects. The number of people reporting "severe" ES is extremely small compared to those reporting "mild/moderate" effects. Statistics often quoted for "3% to 15% of the population have ES" refer to mild/moderate effects; common sense shows that those reporting/experiencing severe ES are currently a tiny minority, as it has a huge and obvious effect on their lifestyle.

2. The test as set up would be most effective for people with a severe or acute reaction; it would not necessarily identify people with lesser symptoms.

3. The study was conducted at the University of Essex in a typical building and site containing large amounts of electrical equipment, fluorescent lights etc, all of which are reported by severe ES sufferers to give them svere reactions. Moreover, people with severe ES have great difficulty in travelling long distances, especially by public transport. Of the 56 people claiming ES who managed to get to the study (there were many more who were unable to attend) no less than 12 had to drop out before the study was completed due to general pain from the surrounding environment. These people are NOT COUNTED in the study results, yet they are the very ones who are most likely to show an acute reaction. (Similarly, in Rubin's 2005 study, he mentions 3 people who were unable to withstand the environment and had to drop out, but were not counted in the - already rather small - study sample).

In other words, the test as set up is only effective in detecting people with acute conditions, as shown in 2; the practical arrangements for the test then exclude most people with that condition, as shown in 3! I do not accept that this is deliberate, or conspiracy theory; it is simply a lack of imagination by the researchers in trying to deal with a poorly understood condition. Generally, researchers have not been good at asking ES people whether the test conditions they propose would actually successfully identify the symptoms being experienced. It may also be noted that the Essex researchers were psychologists rather than medical - which in itself contains an implication of what they were expecting to find as a cause :-)

4. Reports from sufferers suggests that many people only react to certain frequencies. The Essex tests were only conducted at a single frequency.

5. A psychosomatic effect is evident in a lot of sufferers of ES, if they believe they are being exposed. However, why did they develop it in the first place? If you talk to them, you will find that the majority had never heard of ES, did not expect it to happen, and spent some time searching for an explanation of their puzzling and seemingly impossible symptoms. Yes, there may be a Pavlovian dog effect - but remember that Pavlov's dog became conditioned because it was exposed to genuine food and then developed a mental association. In the same way, ES sufferers have developed a fear of EMF's - but this fear could have developed because they were genuinely originally harmed by them and see personal evidence for this. Note incidentally that severe sufferers include Gro Brundtland (previously chairman of the WHO) and Brian Stein (MD of a major food company, before and since his ES developed) so they cannot be lightly dismissed as crackpots.

In short, the study methods are not sufficient to detect the phenomenon that they are supposed to be investigating. Some analogies may help to make the point (with apologies that, as always, parallels are not exact):

1. A study is done on disability. It is held on an upper floor of a building with stairs and no lift. All the people appearing for testing can walk, therefore severe disability does not exist. (Points 1 and 3 above)

2. A study is done on lung cancer. People show no obvious ill effect after 1 hour of smoking cigarettes, therefore there is no link between smoking and cancer. (Point 2 above)

3. A study is to be done on allergies. People are collected with various allergies; bee stings, nuts, pollen, solvents, dust mites etc. All are exposed to pollen. Only a few develop hayfever. Therefore, allergies and hayfever do not exist, and for the few people who do display a reaction, it is obviously all in the mind. (Point 4)

4. A colleague who was involved (and severely burnt) in the Ladbroke Grove train crash was unable to face travelling by train afterwards, although statistics show it to be the safest form of transport. (Point 5).

In summary, the various provocation trials conducted so far show that the people tested in the trials (who may not have included "severe" cases) are generally unable to detect short term effects from EM exposure. Fair enough, but that does not disprove the existence of ES, or show that "it's all in the mind". Again, see the lung cancer analogy - if acute response to provocation tests was the only acceptable evidence for ill effects, we would all still be walking round smoking Capstan Full Strength! The studies themselves are not bad science, but the sweeping conclusions that some people draw from them definitely is. If we are to be good scientists, we need to be aware of the limitations of our experiments, our assumptions, and what we can and can't prove.

Finally, as some evidence of the unwitting "exclusion effect" on people reporting severe symptoms, see the following published in a talk group recently (in response to some of my comments similar to those above):

"I could not attend because the University was 200 miles from me. As if the long journey via London were not enough, i remember also that the visit would have involved an overnight stay. Obviously the team were unable to recommend any hotels that might be suitable for an ES person to stay in!

There was also an issue over the expenses allowed for participants, they were very low, allowing only really for local people to attend the experiments. (the hotel would have been at my expense).

Furthermore, if a participant had to drop out of the study, which took place over a number of months, then no expenses would be refunded, and the particpant would be left footing the bill."

Hyperman 42 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Message to user 82.10.218.4

Please do not continue to revert to versions which are your personal opinion without discussing on the talk page. A consensus on an unbiased NPOV wording has been developed over a period of time by several editors with different views who have reached balance, and you are unilaterally distorting this. This could be considered to constitute vandalism. If you continue to do this, I will ask for dispute resolution and request that page editing is restricted to properly registered users. Hyperman 42 00:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: the link which you claimed to be broken in your edit summary does work, I have checked it on each occasion it has been restored. I hope that it is simply a case that it is blocked on your machine, and not a deliberately misleading statement. However, your explanation in the edit summary is definitely misleading as it conceals the extent of the changes you made. As a scientist, I am disappointed to see you doing this supposedly "in the name of science". Hyperman 42 00:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I did consider your other edits before reverting but could not make a case for retaining any of them. They were either POV changes to wording (which have been discussed and dismissed some months ago) or overemphasis on material already in the test; for example, the quote to support "consensus of scientists" merely refers to 3 groups looking at provocation studies. This ignores the severe lack of evidence on long-term clinical observation which is a hallmark of medical science. Until this is addressed, ES cannot be "proved" or "disproved". For example, pharmaceutical drugs rely both on pre-testing and clinical trials before release, to establish efficacy, and clinical observation of patients, to identify unpredictable long-term side-effects (which may in extreme cases cause withdrawal of a drug from the market, as with Vioxx). The difficulty with ES is that because it has only arisen over the last 20 years, for obvious reasons, the "past experience" on which much medical science is based is lacking, and interpretation of results obtained so far is difficult. In Sweden, clinical observation has led to both scientists and governments recognising the possible existence of ES. Hyperman 42 08:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree. And this is not just my opinion as a lay man - I am in fact a scientist with a relevant PhD and no connections to industry. It is not just my personal opinion either. There are at least 20 physicists within throwing distance and one Nobel laureate that feel my edits were clarifying several points. I am open minded, as all good scientists should be. I do find your posts slightly insulting, and you seem to have an odd view of proved and disproved. The ES.org site was broken, and still displays a <%CONTENT%> tag on the page linked to. I also fixed some typos and added requested refs. 82.10.218.4 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that closing the page to public editing goes against the spirit of wikipedia as there is no mass vandalism happening. Wikipedia articles should stand up to public scrutiny and correction, and closing the site to unregistered users would go against that (Although I do realise wikipedia is slightly broken, which is why I don't register. My changes should stand up to peer review. I only mention my PhD to address your comments). Just because people aren't registered doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to silence ES. I hope it doesn't exist, as I imagine sufferers do, and as yet there is no proof it does. I have arthritis and I wish that didn't exist! 82.10.218.4 09:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! It is good to have some proper debate on this. However, the spirit of Wikipedia is balance, consensus and NPOV and you are consistently altering the text to your own POV against the consensus of a group of equally qualified people over some months. This is a valid reason to seek Wikipedia arbitration.

On the technical points: ES is also a medical condition, not just a question of physics; physics has much to say on the possible stimulus, but there are other aspects that need to be considered (e,g,. at cell level). Not all science is as simple, predictable and reproducible as the physical sciences, as any honest GP will tell you :-) I have never said or implied there is a conspiracy to silence ES (some sites do, note that I have purposely distanced myself from them and not cross-referenced them). You have not answered any of the points on balancing provocation studies against clinical observation (incidentally the latter is the method that was used to diagnose and detect arthritis). Finally, the link to electrosensitivity.org works fine for me on 2 different computers; just because it does not work on your computer does not mean it is broken, as explained above; I always check links before enabling them. Hyperman 42 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note and in a spirit of scientific inquiry; you mentioned that you knew someone who had been cured of ES; how? Was it a psychological method, or the treatment of a separate underlying medical condition? Hyperman 42 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think 1 (small group of sequential) edit, and then a revert that took your complaint into account requires arbitration, or meets your description. These edits are my only ones. Also, "Cell level" is still physics, and I'm interdisciplinary in my research covering three fields. Medicine still requires scientific backing, and physics is concerned with observation as well as mechanisms - and I don't think physics is simple either :). I'm afraid I wont answer your points about the provocation studies as some of the assertions you make are very wrong - even Powerwatch has a more "balanced" view. I agree with consensus and balance, however I feel I interpret them differently to you. Balance does not mean giving all sides the same amount of air, only that they are fairly represented. Balanced does not, literally or figuratively, mean equal. This page gives ES more than it's fair share of support. I feel, and this is how scientific papers are usually written, that until there is strong evidence or proof that all phrases about ES should be qualified appropriately (i.e. that on the balance of evidence, there is no proof it exists). There are very many reasons for this. I also disagree about introducing NPOV - I was clarifying the current overall POV of the article, which is against ES existing. Usual caveat about how the symptoms may be real and can have other causes or be psychosomatic. Interestingly, and off-topic, I know of a case where someone cause burns and bleeding on their skin because they believed they had been burnt. I think this is covered in many A-level psychology texts. Lastly, I don't know anyone who claims to have ES 82.10.218.4 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On the last point, I had confused you with 82.10.209.215 (08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)) because of the similarity of IP addresses - this is the snag with "anonymous" IP's. The possibility of pyschosomatic effects and its frequent occurrence in many areas are of course well known. The tricky thing about ES is that there are a small group of people who report severe effects and for whom a psychosomatic explanation is unlikely (e.g. they had not heard of ES, nor expected it to develop). I have sympathy with your position, as I held it myself until 3-4 years ago, but having since met a significant number of actual sufferers and tested their credibility, I have seen the other side of the coin. The simple fact is that, in the UK at least, there has been little medical interest in actually studying these severe cases, and they have not been included in the provocation studies for reasons given above. I very much hope that they remain a small number of isolated cases. The alternative possibility is that they are the "canaries in the mine" or "tip of the iceberg". Some severe cases (Stein, Brundtland) were among pioneer users of mobile phones. In a society where mobile phone use and "electrosmog" (horrible word!) have spiralled in the last 20 years, we need to consider at least the possibility that they are not totally benign, or may affect certain susceptible people, as there is no past precedent to go on. Hence the concerns of scientists like Sir William Stewart. Hyperman 42 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment about the note about Sweden: ES is regarded as a real medical illness when viewed as a complex of symptoms, there is no consensus about what causes it. There is also one well-published case of "curing" ES from Sweden: one patient was suffering badly, even moved into the woods etc., but was later "cured" of ES by treating her clinical depression with medicines. Today she has moved back into the city and is no longer suffering from ES, nor depression. Your point about putting clinical studies as something different from provocation studies is strange, could you please expand on this? Mossig 15:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference I am trying to highlight is between clinical observation, based on patients' reported symptoms, and provocation studies trying to discern an acute response to a stimulus. Most medical science has developed over the years from the former, not the latter; as in many fields, observation precedes theory (thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics). For many illnesses provocation studies for an acute response are not even appropriate (e.g. the link between smoking and lung cancer).

On the second point, I believe that there is frequently a link between ES and an underlying illness, but it is often physical rather than psychological. In some cases treatment for depression will help those who perceive ES, particularly if it looks as if their symptoms are primarily psychological. In a significant number of other cases, a psychological or psychiatric aproach has been totally ineffective, but detailed testing and identification of underlying physical problems (particularly those weakening the immune system) has allowed treatment which has caused an improvement in both the treated condition and the ES. This does give a plausible explanation for why I can sit in front of my computer all day and feel no ill effects, in common with most people, whereas others report burning sensations and skin rashes etc on long term exposure and a very few report immediate acute symptoms. If there are underlying physical reasons for the last, we owe it to them to find out what it is and find ways of treating the condition, rather than falling back on "we don't understand it, it doesn't fit our theory so it must be psychosomatic" when the people involved are clearly not likely to be liable to it. A "grey area" is stress; this can have psycholigical effects, but also is known to have physiological effects which may push an already weakened immune system over the edge. Thus CBT may help a patient by giving them a coping strategy, or by alleviating the stress and helping the immune system to recover, but this does not mean that the illness was psychosomatic and has been cured. Hyperman 42 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, 82.10.218.4, I am interested to see you claiming on another person's talk page (direct quote): "I think the wikipedian I was replying to has an odd opinion of us both (although he likes you!) Cheers. 82.10.218.4 09:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)". I think you are referring to me, and no, I do not have an odd opinion of either of you. If you want to make such assertions, you should do it directly to the person concerned, not behind their back. This could be taken as an attempt to undermine others' credibility, and is certainly not good faith. It is not surprising that you wish to remain anonymous under these circumstances. Hyperman 42 16:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I had added information about him that is not on wikipedia (but is in the public domain), so I told him. It had been stated that he is a scientist, and I see no evidence for this so I directed him to the discussion about him that I didn't start. In reply I could say that you're stalking my edits, but I'm really not bothered if you do. I had no intention to do it behind your back, just to make the other guy aware he was being talked about. Your comments about him were favourable, so I said you seemed to like him. I think I like him too. Your comments about me seem to be more confrontational. 82.10.218.4 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not convinced by the Swedish pdf you added. Can you or anyone give any evidence that supposrts these claims? Has this book been peer-reviewed and what are the authors qualifications? What is the status of the website it's hosted on? I have no idea so I've moved the link into the section where it fits best, and reverted your biased assertion. I was under the impression that Sweden does not recognise ES, but does recognise the symptoms reported. 82.10.218.4 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The representation in the article that this material was collated and published by the swedish government is wrong. The collation of the statements has been done by an from the government independent organisation (i think it was people from FEB, the organisation for people in Sweden suffering from ES), and consists of statements done at an hearing, and letters sent in to a department (now defunct) of the swedish government that concerned research in occapational environments. What criteria the editors used for inlcsion of statements in the book is not stated. The swedish government does not in any case or form stand behind this publication, AFAIK. Mossig 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that, Mossig. I had a feeling something like that would be the case. Cheers. 82.10.218.4 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, I gave the wrong implication there, nevertheless this is a useful reference that needs to be included, not just deleted en masse. I will do so when I have worked out a better wording for its source. As for the statement about Swedish recognition, I took this from two different websites word-for-word, could you justify why it is false? I am happy to accept a possible inaccuracy in my interpretation if we can find an official or solid source. Hyperman 42 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that multiple ^pro^-ES sites says that it is a recognised condition in Sweden. The problem is, that I am not aware of any official swedish publication that acknowledges the same fact. I.e., I am not sure if it is a fact or a myth, and thus I do not think it should be included in Wikipedia until a solid reference surfaces.

Mossig 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is helpful, but the Irish report on electromagnetic fields says this about Sweden's position

"The Swedish Board of Health and Welfare is the Swedish authority to grant financial support through the national budget to disability organisations. A disability organisation is according to the authorities understood to be an organisation which members (at least a majority of) meet substantial difficulties in everyday life due to some kind of disability. The National Board of Health and Welfare thus make their decisions based on the consequences for the afflicted individuals and not based on any known underlying cause of the disability/problems. The Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive was granted financial support as a disability organisation. Most disability organisations that have received this type of financial support join the Swedish Disability Federation, as has The Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive. This fact has sometimes been misinterpreted as if electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a recognised medical diagnosis in Sweden."Catpigg 10:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I leave it to others to consider whether remarks are confrontational, but your implication that I stalk your edits is false - I was visiting topazg's user page anyway and happened to notice your comment. And as stated before, I "do not have an odd opinion of you". I see you as the dedicated physicist, valiant for scientific truth but therefore finding it difficult to compromise on the perceived truth and tending to give less weight to alternative types of evidence such as testimony. However, I likewise feel strongly about the truth, and an unwilling to see the summary severely biased towards one point of view to the exclusion of others. This is the classic recipe for an edit war, which I am sure both of us want to avoid. I would much prefer that we could find a position acceptable to both of us and to previous editors. Hyperman 42 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that 82.10.218.4 is correct in saying that the ES.org link is broken. When I tried it on my machine it led straight to a page stating that the particular account had been suspended. There seems to be a distinction between www.electrosensitivity.org (which is broken) and www.electrosensitivity.org.uk, which is not broken. I don't know if this is a temporary glitch on that particular website, in which case you might not have noticed it. However, to make reference to "a deliberately misleading statement" does seem a bit confrontational to me. Alan1507 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right - it looks like they must be having some problems, or have maybe given up after the Essex study results. ES.org.uk is a different organisation, and the consensus (discussed above) is that ES.org.uk should not be included, for various reasons. See the post from Rod Read above, and the replies below it. I think the link to ES.org should be left for a few days, and if the site's still down next week it should be removed. Thanks :) Regarding previous comments, no ill will is felt by me or intended to others - let's just forget about it. 82.10.218.4 14:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the steer to the Rod Read post. I am very much in agreement with your comments in reply to it. However, I have to say I'm not convinced about the Essex study results as reported in the BBC news web page. It said that in the control group, 5 out of 114 subjects got the on/off state of the mast correct on all six tests. The researchers said "This is the proportion expected by chance". I may have done the calculations wrong, but I make the probability of five or more of 114 getting six correct to be less than 0.05, which (admittedly by an arbitrary threshold) would be deemed "statistically significant". The expected value is going to be 114/64, or about 1.8. Ironically, the "Electrosensitive" group were apparently less able to distinguish if the mast was on or off than the control group ( 2 of 44 giving p= 0.15), but then I think it's a valid point that Hyperman 42 has already made that a lot of the most sensitive subjects were not able to take part in the study & hence the results could well be skewed. In fact, doing those calculations was about the first thing that made me less skeptical about the whole thing! I think I'd like to see the full study report (e.g. how many got it right 5 times out of 6?) before I'd make the claim that it was "just chance". But hard numbers are far more likely to convince me one way or the other than the emotionalism and name calling indulged in by ES.org.uk Alan1507 18:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Essex study did not use pure On/Off-asnwers, but instead also used a confidence scale, and used the ROC curve method for evaluating the results. Study is available at http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10286/10286.pdf . Mossig 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - should this be in the article, as opposed to the BBC news article, which I thought was a bit misleading (for reasons given above)? BTW also - just noticed the ES.org website now appears to be back online. Alan1507 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason this site does seem to go down occasionally, or give access problems to some users, but not to others (maybe while the owner is updating?) Unfortunately the link got summarily deleted twice rather than being queried for checking - hence the frustration expressed originally. Hyperman 42 19:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rational S{c|k}epticism

I also had another question. Which contributing editors to this page belong to the "Wiki Project Rational Skepticism"? Alan1507 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have no idea about that, and after looking at their pages I'm not sure exactly what they aim to do. I wish they could spell sceptic the same way as most of the English speaking world though :) 82.10.218.4 11:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition and initial sentence

I don't seem to have made it clear why I (and at least one other user) have been editing the first sentence back to its original form. The point is that this sentence is a definition. Adding "against established scientific and medical opinion" is a statement of interpretation, which belongs in a separate sentence (and is made several other times); the wording as it stands could be taken to mean that the people reporting it are deliberately doing so to be perverse and annoy scientists :-) Surely a better way can be found. Hyperman 42 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To be honest, I am not sure what the "against established scientific and medical opinion" bit really adds. The very next sentence already emphasises that "the balance of evidence from provocation studies so far indicate that the link is false" and we mention the WHO opinion only a line or so later. If we lose that phrase, I don't think the meaning of the opening para changes much, but it would be an easier read.Catpigg 09:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Swedish study

(referred to in discussion above) In fact the original attribution of the FEB collation did not attribute it to the Swedish government, this was accidentally added by another editor when moving and summarising it. I suggest that the original wording is adequate; readers can then make their own judgement on the reliability of the source.

As the multi-topic discussion above got rather tangled, I wonder whether anyone would object if it was retrospectively split into individual topics. This talk page, expressing lots of different viewpoints and reasoning, is in my view quite a valuable document. Hyperman 42 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand anecdotal evidence. Whether there is one anecdote or one million makes no difference to the level of evidence. Anecdote is a good motivation for scientific research, but it is in no way valid as any form of scientific evidence. Anecdote was well covered in the previous versions of this page. I have removed the "against established..." phrase, as it seemed to cause so much trouble and is repeated in the next line anyway. Thanks 147.171.255.140

However, if a large number of people report experiences from which there is sufficient common ground that clear trends can be drawn, that is rather more than "anecdotal". I am not convinced that this is sufficient grounds for deleting the reference to the Swedish study completely. Shouldn't readers of the page be allowed to make up their own minds based on all reasonable available evidence? (And by that I do not mean any claims on a website or pseudo-scientific explanations, only reasonable reporting).

It is rather ironic that to some extent I am being hoist by my own petard, as when I first started looking into this and similar subjects 3-4 years ago I was frustrated by the fact that there was very little proper scientific material available on the Internet to counter the unsubstantiated claims of various websites. At least this article does now contain a reasonable amount of evidnce from different points of view even if we would disagree about the ideal balance :-) Hyperman 42 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I hope that if you read my edits carefully you will see that they are a genuine attempt to modify wordings and try alternatives rather than blind POV-pushing. For example, I would defend "the balance of evidence from provocation studies so far does not support any link" as being both more scientifically and grammatically accurate than "and the balance of evidence from provocation studies so far indicate that the link is false". Hyperman 42 20:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Treatment

The previous statement has been clarified because it did not distinguish between the different levels of ES. For those with moderate symptoms attributed to high levels of computer and electrical equipment use (skin rash, burning face etc), reduction of exposure to a moderate level is often felt sufficient. For the much smaller number with severe ES, even small environmental exposures are felt to trigger symptoms, hence the desired for almost complete avoidance. Hyperman 42 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence has been modified because it suggests that the psychological/psychosomatic view is an accepted consensus; while it is certainly a majority opinion at the moment (which I would not dispute), there are a small but significant number of dissenting voices (e.g. the docotrs signing the Freiburger Appeal, stating "often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic". Also the classical conditioning theory, while it sounds reasonable, needs a reference to show that this specific idea has been proposed. It is reasonable that the article should emphasise the majority view; however, some contributors seem to wish to suppress the minority view altogether and give the impression that there is full medical and scientific consensus. This is not the case, especially as the subject has been largely neglected from an epidemiological perspective, with the exception of the Swedish study noted earlier (which I will restore unless a positive reason is given not to do so) and the Irvine report. Hyperman 42 20:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit 88.172.132.94, hopefully this is a positive way forward acceptable to all. Hyperman 42 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BioInitiative Report

I was following up on an article I read in a magazine concerning EMF/health and found the BioInitiative Report, an apparent meta study. I couldn't find it mentioned in the article itself here on wikipedia which made me wonder if it was all junk-science, so I turned to the talk and found nothing concerning it here either. As a skeptic on the subject of EMF effects on health I have never really looked for information on the subject one way or the other (pretty much assuming the consensus was it's other things like placebo or paranoia) but this study kind of made me wonder. Anyways, as I didn't see it mentioned here, I wondered if it's solid stuff, and if so, why isn't it used and linked in the article as it seems a decent source for information? Araziel (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What does it say about electrosensitivity? I've had a cursory glance, and the most relevant conclusions seem to be those in Section 9, VII (human subjective effects) where the author says that "The possible existence of physical symptoms from exposure to RFR from various sources including cell phones, cell towers and wireless systems has been a topic of significant public concern and debate. This is an issue that will require additional attention. Symptoms that have been reported include: sleep disruption and insomnia, fatigue, headache, memory loss and confusion, tinnitus, spatial disorientation and dizziness. However, none of these effects has been studied under controlled laboratory conditions. Thus, whether they are causally related to RFR exposure is unknown." Given the studies we reference in the wikipedia article, quite how he comes to the conclusion that these effects haven't been studied under controlled lab conditions before, I don't know! But if people decide this a reputable source, I suppose we might summarise that bit. I am not sure what it would add to the article, though. Catpigg (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I posted after only having a cursory glance at the report. It seemed to me like something someone might use as a source for further development of the article. My intention was just to let anyone updating the article know about it, I didn't even read the part you mention so I have a rather limited knowledge of the voracity of the report (not to mention no real knowledge of EMF). Anyways it's referenced from the Talk now so anyone dropping by will at least find it's already been discussed. Thanks for looking into it. Araziel (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Section Headings

Don't seem to describe their content any more. Probably due to the amount of edits we've had to make to remove pro-ES bias from the page. I'll have a proper look when I have more time. Thanks 88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Lack of scientific evidence for link' heading is not an objective one - it puts it in people's minds that there is no evidence whatsoever for a positive correllation between symptoms and a phsyical etiology, which isn't the case. - 82.46.52.149

It says "lack", not absence. Where in the paragraph does it denote the "role of EMF in causing ES"? 88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the paragraph is debating whether the mechanism behind the condition is a physical one or a psychological one, as such the heading has been changed to 'Phsyical v Psychological etiology'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 11:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Subjective symptoms" V Symptoms

All symptoms are subjective. The World Health Organization, the Health Protection Agency and the authors of the recent studies the 'Rubin Review' and the 'Essex Study' are in agreement that the symptoms are both real and disabling. What are you trying to imply by using the word 'subjective'? - 82.46.52.149 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.52.149 (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all symptoms are subjective, such things as bleeding, rashes, diminished lung capacity etc. is possible to quantify, and thus nor subjective in nature. Mossig (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Electrosensitivity symptoms include many quantifiable ones, including bleeding and rashes plus significant skin/eye/lung/heart problems etc. All of these symptoms are verifiable and are considered real by all notable organizations which have reviewed the literature. The psychologists and psychiatrists also generally make a point about this in their studies that the authenticity of the symptoms is not questioned. The WHO (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/) and the Health Protection Agency (http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/hpa_rpd_reports/2005/hpa_rpd_010.htm) do not describe the symptoms as being 'subjective' or 'perceived' in their literature to the general public, nor are these words used in the mainstream media. As such they should not be used to describe the symptoms on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think the point was that these symptoms are mostly not of the obvious kind - but I'm not denying some people claim rashes etc are caused by electromagnetic fields. The point was more that they perceive them to be related to EMFs, when there is no evidence that this is the case, and that other causes are more likely. However, I have no problem with the removal of the word perceived - although I think it makes no difference! It could easily be replaced with "reported". Subjective symptoms means ones that cannot be measured exactly (fatigue, headaches, ...), and perceived means exactly what it says - there is no bias inherent in these words 88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:"A group of scientists also attempted to estimate the number of people reporting "subjective symptoms" from electromagnetic fields for the EC" - this is an accurate summary, with "subjective symptoms" being a direct quotation. To leave out that it is an estimate of people reporting ES could mislead 88.172.132.94 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok the new sentence is a mixture of the sentence from the abstract with the 'people reporting' bit added in, so as not to mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 11:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be confrontational, but is still an estimate from surveys - not an investigation 88.172.132.94 (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The study is called 'Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic fields' not 'how many people are reporting subjective symptoms from electromagnetic fields'. The wording was taken from the beginning of the abstract which clearly outlines the studies intentions: "The aim of the project was to investigate the occurrence of "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" across Europe". I will however leave it as is as I dont want to start an edit war, but it does appear to mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubin Review Introduction

"There are over 30 studies into Electrical Sensitivity, of which the majority have found no causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and the symptoms being suffered"

This line seems to refer to the Rubin Review. Although true, the sentence contains inherent bias. 'over 30' should be replaced with 31, and 'the majority' should be replaced with the fact that there were 7 which found an effect and 24 which did not. This gives the sentence clarity, and a fairer, more objective viewpoint viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.52.149 (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, there are more than just the 31 in the Rubin review, and it gives a correct, concise and, as you admit, true, summary of their findings 88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it contains inherent bias. The new text is: "It is a matter of controversy whether EMF exposure causes sufferers' symptoms, and the balance of evidence from provocation studies so far indicates that the link is false. In a recent review of the literature regarding sufferers ability to detect electromagnetic fields, 7 found a positive correllation and 24 found a negative correllation, although the positive ones were rejected due to statistical insignificance or poor study methods [1]. "

The Rubin review looked at all of the literature and excluded those studies which were not blinded or placebo-controlled. The resulting was a list of what they considered to be 31 meaningful studies. The above paragraph highlights: a) That the balance of evidence is so far indicating that there isn't a link b) That it is still a contentious issue with 24 v 7 studies.

This is an improvement over the previous text which marginalizes the positive studies.

Please discuss a better way of wording these points or how you disagree with them before continuously reverting the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.52.149 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Implied causation?

"For those who are severely affected, ES can have a significant impact on their quality of life, causing physical, mental and social impairment and psychological distress."

I feel the above sentence implies that these people DO have ES, and that it CAUSES these problems. As the article makes clear, this is probably not the case. Although the symptoms reported are real, the causation is not known so it cannot be said that ES causes them. I propose the following variation:

"For those who report being severely affected, ES can have a significant impact on their quality of life; with sufferers reporting real physical, mental and social impairment and psychological distress.[3]."

Comments? 90.197.168.195 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another, sometimes used, way of viewing ES is as an actual illness, with some definitive symptoms, but with unknown cause. Mossig (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ES cannot be viewed as a disease until electromagnetic fields are proven to be the cause; the name is the thing. The symptoms can be real, but calling the ES is lazy and wrong until the cause is known. It doesn't help the sufferers, rather writes them off. In an encyclopaedic article we should avoid stating the cause until the cause or causes are definitely known - and the article does that in all places, except in the place of this one sentence, which has now been corrected to not imply the cause. 90.197.168.161 (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"ES cannot be viewed as a disease until electromagnetic fields are proven to be the cause; the name is the thing. The symptoms can be real, but calling the ES is lazy and wrong until the cause is known."

The name is electrical sensitivity, as expressed in 99.99% of all media and scientific articles on the subject. If you don't want it to be called this, that that is your viewpoint, and represents an editorial bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that ES is called ES in 99.99 per cent (do you have a reference for that?) of articles about ES is a brilliant deduction, but not I think the editors point. The WHO don't call it ES, and the editor above didn't suggest calling it anything else, but making sure that the cause is not implied by the text. Why do you have a problem with an edit that removes bias? At the worst it's an over cautious edit, and what's wrong with that? 86.146.119.116 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be renamed Idiopathic Sensitivity Syndrome or something similar, and discussions of causation kept in one subsection. However, if we keep this title it should be clear at all times that the cause is unknown, but also probably not electromagnetic fields 90.197.168.195 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about ES specifically. The scientific consensus is that the symptoms are real and disabling. If you want to discuss Ideopathic Environmental Intolerance, which has not taken up any sort of popular usage, then that is a seperate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 10:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't addressing the point raised above about the cause of ES being implied in this sentence. In the current revision (which keeps getting reverted) the cause isn't implied, so it should be kept this way. 90.197.168.161 (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence does not imply causation, it states the effects that the condiion has on a sufferers life. The psychological vs phsyical causation is discussed throughout the article with due weight given throughout the article to the psychological theory. I suggest you take a more objective viewpoint in your edits, as you clearly are in favour of a psychological etiology, but not only that, you are attempting to remove information about support groups and other considerations for sufferers without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence as suggested above removes the implication the EM fields cause ES, saying people who report ES report certain symptoms. This doesn't deny the reality of the symptoms, but leaves the cause open to debat, hence I shall revert to this version. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Headings

Please stop removing the 'Other considerations for sufferers' and 'Support groups' headings. To put the 'Other considerations for sufferers' text within a much larger block of text not only makes that block of text harder to read and understand, it also obfuscates the point that at present there are significant problems for people with this condition, whatever the underlying cause. I noticed you also removed the 'support groups' heading.

Please justify your thinking behind this before making further changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that etiology belongs in the etiology section. I also disagree that it makes the etiology section harder to read, or obfuscates the point. The point is still made, and in the correct place 86.146.119.116 (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the support groups section, I'll leave this in and open a discussion about it below in a while 86.146.119.116 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Support groups

The support groups section is currently only one line. Rather than expand it, the information could easily be incorporated into the lead (prominent) or at the end of the preceding section on treatment. Would anyone like to comment? I don't mind either, but incorporating it into the lead would be the least controversial option for pro-ES people IMO. Cheers! 86.146.119.116 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

'High profile cases'

There is clearly discordance between the editor wishing to add information regarding Gro Harlem Brundtland. This has been rectified by adding a 'High profile cases' section and incorporating other information relating to high-profile cases of electrosensitivity, along with a more NPOV description of her condition. If you disagree with any of this edit, please provide a counter-arguement with reasons for and against of the edit and help to work toward a revision which is acceptable to both parties in accordance with Wikipedia rules, rather than blindly reverting edits which will only frustrate both parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 03:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will remove this section as I agree with the other editors. This is hardly notable - former head of the WHO, not former top medical advisor or scientist. It is also TRIVIA and LISTY: this page should not contain a list of people who think they have ES, for many reasons. The most compelling are, 1 it is not a valid diagnosis, and 2 other articles (cf. Breast cancer) do not contain a list of "notable" (famous?) people with the condition, 3 it is not worthy of an encyclopaedia. If you really feel this must be included on wikipedia then it should go in an article such as "List of people who claim symptoms of ES", which can then be nominated for deletion. --84.16.252.126 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that this article should not be, and will not be allowed to become, a WP:COATRACK. I will also ensure that these edits against wikipedia policy are removed 89.131.198.74 (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You cite "other editors" however, I see only changing IP addresses which hardly should be considered a group forming a majority consensus. The arguments you present are unconvincing to me. Stating that it is of no relevance to include mention of the fact that the former director of the international agency most often cited as an authority to debunk claims of detrimental health effects from electromagnetic radiation, makes no sense to me. This information is also being attempted purged from the Gro Harlem Brundtland article, however, there the argument is that it is a biographies of living persons infringement. Comparing this conflict with the lack of such mentions in the article on breast cancer is a blatant non-sequitur as the reason for its inclusion here is to present the case for the lobby which asserts that there are in fact people who suffer from electrical sensitivity. Nobody in the world, to my knowledge, are challenging the existence of breat cancer. Your third argument is merely stating your opinion, thus, it isn't an argument. __meco (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with your compelling reason number 1: Valid diagnosis is only relative. In the UK it is arguably a valid diagnosis under the presumption that causation by EMFs is not part of the diagnosis. In Sweden it would be appropriate to include causation as part of the diagnosis, and in the US (IIRC) the syndrome itself would not be an appropriate diagnosis. It is hard to make any judgement on validity without nationalising the page, which does not seem to be an encyclopaedic approach - perhaps the diagnosis just has to remain a contentious issue for the time being. 2 I agree with in its entirety, "notable people that suffer" sounds almost like a sales-pitch - kind of like "notable people that use this pendant to cure herpes" as some validity for the pendant itself. 3 is a seriously subjective issue which I will politely refrain from involving myself in ;) Certainly I am in favour of not having a notable persons section Topazg (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you recognize the distinction between a trivia-like list of sufferers from some affliction, and the present section having perhaps as its premier function presenting the case that there are in fact significant high-profile cases that weigh in heavily in the debate over whether this is a bona fide medical condition or not. (ref. my comment above on the breast cancer comparison)? __meco (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Meco. The high-profile cases do add credibility, and it's information of note when describing the condition. When describing Scientology for example (i wish I could think of a better example), Tom Cruise and various other celebrities are mentioned as being followers. Whereas with Chrisitanity for example, there is clearly no need for a long list of followers. That's the difference between a list for 'Breast Cancer' and a list for Electrosensitivity. The fact that Nikola Tesla and also Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, who is held in very high-regard in international politics, both report adverse health when within the proximity of electromagnetic fields is both pertinent and interesting to an encyclopedic entry on the condition.

Also regarding this text:

notable people that suffer" sounds almost like a sales-pitch - kind of like "notable people that use this pendant to cure herpes" as some validity for the pendant itself.

This is quite a pejorative way of putting it. Not sure why you use the terms 'pendant' and 'herpes' to explain your point. The inclusion of high-profile cases is not for validity, there is a discussion of Etiology and Evidence above for that. It's more about the interest in highly notable people suffering from this condition for the reasons mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Topazg (powerwatch spokesman) on points 1 and 2, and that they are both valid reasons for removing this. It is also un-encyclopaedic, as encyclopaedias generally don't contain this kind of "ironic" information. Also, so the head of the WHO believes in ES - why is that relevant to ES? She isn't the scientific/medical head, nor did she write this report, and as head she has to ok the report. There are many examples where heads of bodies might disagree with the official position, but this isn't by itself notable, interesting, or relevant. This information shouldn't be included --77.202.15.207 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of any 'notable persons' section. It would lengthen the article without actually adding to it. I particularly support its removal if the rationale for including it is the suggestion that because "significant high-profile" cases exist, this somehow "weighs in heavily in the debate over whether this is a bona fide medical condition." That seems to be suggesting that if only us plebs get electrosensitivity, then it is uninteresting / non-valid / psychosomatic. But if celeberties / successful businessmen / doctors get it, then it must be bone fide. That is a silly argument. Catpigg (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not what the argument hinges on. The people mentioned had particular relevance to the field of electromagnetic radion and health. They were not mere celebrities. do note the word significant. I might direct your attention to the question I posed to Topazg above also. __meco (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible treatment and symptom alleiviation

Part of this section has been removed due to lack of evidence for the following claims:

"No physical treatments exist, as the origin of the symptoms is usually ascribed to either classical conditioning or mistaken self-diagnosis."

"The symptoms are assumed to have causes that are psychological in nature" (Reference given is for a news story on the Essex Study. The Essex Study is certainly not a majority or consensus viewpoint.)

"Patients reporting electrical sensitivity will typically reject treatment with psychological methods, and some will reject investigation into non-ES related causes." --Randomized (talk · contribs)

This information is True, and I'm sure it can be verified. The second complaint is mearly the opinion of a single purpose account. --81.169.137.209 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you'll have no problem finding references. Any claims that are not backed up by references, may be removed from Wikipedia and for good reason. Randomized (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Symptoms and severity edit

This sentance has been edited:

"For those who report being severely affected, ES can have a significant impact on their quality of life; with sufferers reporting real physical, mental and social impairment and psychological distress."

The reference provided for this provides this text on the symptoms:

"Sleep disorders (58%), headaches (41%), nervousness or distress (19%), fatigue (18%), and concentration difficulties (16%) were most common complaints."

No note of social or mental impariment. Concentration difficulties should not be described as 'mental impairment'. The new sentence is:

For those who report being severely affected, ES can have a significant impact on their quality of life; with sufferers reporting real physical symptoms and distress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be looking in the wrong place in the paper. Check page 143 in the right hand column. The authors say "Fifty-three percent of them stated their physical impairment with 'very severe' or 'severe' ... The mental impairment was almost equally profound (41% severe and 33% medium), whereas social impairment was assessed from none to medium by 76%." Catpigg (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

On reflection that seems fair enough. The sentence has been reverted. Randomized (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wifi paragraphs belong on 'wireless electronic devices and health'

There are 4 articles on electromagnetic fields, one of which is Electrical Sensitivity. The following wifi paragraphs have been removed as they belong in the 'wireless electronic devices and health' article which is linked to from the bottom of the electrical sensitivity page.

Following this, in 2007, the HPA, on behalf of the UK government, has launched a new "systematic" study into the effects of wi-fi networks, in order to calm recent fears in the media. The HPA said it expected the results of the research to be "reassuring", and Professor Pat Troop, chief executive of the agency, said there was "no scientific evidence to date" that wireless networks could have an adverse effect on the health of the general population.

Regarding possible health effects of wireless networks, Dr Michael Clark, of the Health Protection Agency, has stated that published research on the health effects of mobile phones, masts does not add up to an indictment of technologies using electromagnetic fields:

-

All the expert reviews done here and abroad indicate that there is unlikely to be a health risk from wireless networks. … When we have conducted measurements in schools, typical exposures from Wi-Fi are around 20 millionths of the international guideline levels of exposure to radiation. As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 percent of guideline levels. So a year sitting in a classroom near a wireless network is roughly equivalent to 20 minutes on a mobile. If Wi-Fi should be taken out of schools, then the mobile phone network should be shut down, too—and FM radio and TV, as the strength of their signals is similar to that from Wi-Fi in classrooms.

--Randomized (talk · contribs)

The information on WiFi being studied for health effects (ie ES effects) is clearly relevent. The other parargraph I'm neutral about, and I don't mind it being left in the WiFi article.--81.169.137.209 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, I'm not so sure about this wifi paragraph. "Health effects" is not synonymous with electrosensitivity - if the health effects being studied are cancer, for example, then discussion of it does not belong here. And in fact, the HPA research isn't directly studying the health effects of wifi at all. See here http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2007/071012_wifi.htm for the official summary on it. It is simply assessing whether levels of wifi encountered in day to day life are beneath international guidance levels. Electrosensitivity isn't mentioned at all by them. So I think we probably should cut it from the electrosensitivity article. Catpigg (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's relevant. if you can find a verifiable and reliable source that covers problems with this study then feel free to bring them here. --81.169.137.209 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous: I think the burden is on you to show that the study is relevant to ES. To demand a verifiable source to show that the study is _not_ applicable to ES is dishonest - why should somebody have written such a statement? Mossig (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is clearly relevant, just because someone thinks the safety limits are too high, without any evidence, doesn't make it less so. Randomized should add a source saying why this study doesn't meet his criteria. --213.239.207.90 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

He should add a source saying what, exactly? The point Randomized has is that ES is only one amongst a multitude of proposed hypothetical health effects from from electromagnetic fields. Thus not every article about possible health effects from EMF is relevant for ES. Mossig (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The HPA paragraph is clearly talking about general health effects from wi-fi. If we are to include the wifi paragraphs, then we must also include information on the health effects of power lines, mobile phones and mobile phones masts. All of these are perfectly valid topics, however we have an article for these - 'Electromagnetic radiation and health article'. There is also an article specifically addressing wifi - 'wireless electronics and human health', in which the paragraph belongs. The HPA article does not mention electrosensitivity. Randomized (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is another paragraph that mentions the HPA in a relevant way, which wasn't the one discussed here, which keeps being removed by Randomised without discussion. I think that this paragraph should be kept as it is relevant, and I find Randomised's edit warring irritating. PleaseInsertGirder (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Essex study controversy

There was and still remains great controversy over these studies, with the Essex study attracting a large amount of analysis and interpretation. 6 references were provided from some of the major commentators and support groups. More can be provided on request. The 6 references were trimmed down to 1 for brevity by 87.80.134.18. The original 6 references were:

1. Dr Grahame Blackwell - The Essex Study – Statistical Analysis - 01/08/07 http://www.starweave.com/essexstats/ 2. Mast Sanity - Press Release - Essex Study Examined - The Publicised Conclusions are NOT Supported by the Results http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=160&Itemid=70 3. Powerwatch - Essex Provocation Study finds "no effect" - http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070725_essex_provocation.asp 4. Powerwatch - EHP publish Powerwatch response to Eltiti "Essex" Study - http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20080201_ehp_journal_response.asp 5. Electrosensitivity.Org - The Essex Study - http://www.electrosensitivity.org/essex_study.htm 6. Environmental health Perspectives - Correspondence - http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10870/letter.html</ref>

The last one was chosen as it's the most official, having been published by a scientific journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Many journal articles attract correspondence; such correspondence is not evidence of controversy, and in this case the correspondence was answered reasonably (if not to the letter writers' satisfaction) by the study's authors. Furthermore, the reference only relates to the Essex study, not to any of the other studies or the comprehensive review mentioned at the start of the paragraph, thus does not sufficiently support the concluding sentence of the paragraph. The current reference should be removed and replaced with a more accurate reference or a fact template.papageno (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition of controversy is: "A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion.". The 8 authors of the correspondence are all well known commentators of the EMF debate and very much disagree with the study methods, statistical power and interpretaion of the study. There are, in addition, the 5 references provided. Thus the study is clearly very much controversial and does not warrent a fact template. I have located a better version of the current reference. It contains 3 letters to which 11 people have put their name - http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2235218&blobtype=pdf. The fact that these references are just relating to the Essex study is true. Perhaps in the rewording of the sentence it could include the fact that 2 of the studies, Eltiti et al. (2007a) and Regel et al. (2006), were in response to an earlier study which *did* find effects from mobile phone provocation (Zwamborn et al. 2003). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with papageno. You haven't shown that a controversy exists in the scientific community, just that some scientists question some research - which is all well and good and is how science works. This is nothing controversial. You need an independent, reliable, and verifiable source that says such a controversy exists in the scientific community, and you haven't provided one here. Science is open to this condition existing, but most studies conclude it does not. No controversy. That some people and groups think it does exist is already mentioned in the article. I have therefore reverted your additions. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC))==

I concur with papageno and NotThatJamesBrown that this is not evidence of a controversy, and should be removed from the article. Randomised seems to be an example of what is called a WP:TE. PleaseInsertGirder (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientific journals are the most reliable, independent, verifiable sources there are. The rest of your comments don't merit a reply.

Off Topic Discussion

PleaseInsertGirder > sockpuppet case filed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So ignoring Randomized's melodrama, the consensus seems to be to remove this addition. All Randomized's references here show is that scientists are discussing this. This is how scientific discourse works and is part of the scientific method, and is not evidence of a controversy. Randomized is also removing other good information (such as the BBC article) and is misrepresenting his removals. I'll ask Randomized to stop "edit warring", revert to the last version (which removed the sentence he was complaining about), and join in the discussion here properly. How about it Randomized? ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC))==

NotThatJamesBrown...

So far you have:

1) A sockpuppet case filed to which you have not yet responded [6]

2) Removed the sockpuppet warning from your user talk page [7]

3) An anonymous IP editor section which outlines your activity of editing through the banned TOR open proxy and having 13 IP addresses banned for vandalism to wikipedia's pages or for accessing through the TOR proxy [8] which resulted in indefinate page protection

4) You have been banned numerous times from wikipedia for vandalism, disruptive editing and sock-puppetry [9]

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], the most relevant of which being the 'unprovoked' username [21] [22]

5) Have not been civil or given respect to other users in either your electrical sensitivity edits or in other articles [23], accusing myself of being a 'biased loon', a 'vandal', 'melodramatic', 'edit warring'

6) Continuously include claims for which there are no citations or which are against consensus (governmental reviews and wifi paragraphs)

7) Have not contributed to discussion until recently when you decided to setup a puppet to help you in the talk pages, and have still not provided any form rationale for inclusion of wifi/psychological claims content.

My interest in all of this is protecting the integrity of the electrical sensitivity page which, being a controversial topic, must be based on citations and consensus. You have repeatedly violated civility, sockpuppetry and TOR open proxy policies and are continuing to try to fool people into thinking that your usernames are seperate and that other people are doing the vandalism, so why would people take you seriously? Randomized (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Randomized, I will not rise to your baiting. If you have a problem with me, please take it to my talk page (or yours and let me know), and stop disrupting this talk page. I am trying to improve this article and others on wikipedia. Please remove the comment above to either talk page, leaving a link instead. I suggest you do the same with the large section you have added below also, in order to show good faith on your part. I'm sorry that you are offended, but let's please try to focus on the articles without the ad-homs and rhetoric. To the other editors here, I apologise for this disruption. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC))==

Sheesh! You guys! Whatever NotThatJamesBrown may or may not have done sockpuppetwise, he has made some edits to this article that are worthy of a sensible discussion. So, can we have a twin track approach to this? You two can take this sockpuppet business outside, but at the same time let's carry on with improving the article (which is, in fits and starts, improving). It worked in Northern Ireland, it can work here Catpigg (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All that your (Randomized's) references here show is that scientists are discussing this. This is how scientific discourse works and is part of the scientific method, and is not evidence of a controversy. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==

As well as the arguments already given that a controversy has not yet been established, the BBC and Guardian articles referenced below both state that scientific consensus is that electromagnetic fields are not the causative factor. In addition, the Guardian article states "Whatever the cause, some scientists believe that some organisations set up to help sufferers may actually be making things worse by encouraging them to take elaborate measures to avoid EMF exposure." and "For their part, the ES sufferers just want answers. 'We are not unscientific or anti-scientific. We fully agree that there is not a scientific consensus,' says Read. 'We think the important question is how and why these people are suffering'". This is much more worthy of inclusion in the article in some form than the controversial "controversy". I propose the removal of the controversy section, which seems to still be the consensus view, and that the above be integrated into the article. Other sources for this information can also easily be found. Any comments? ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC))==

I am going to be WP:BOLD and edit this section so that it is in line with the sources and discussions above >>Partyoffive (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)<<

Government Reviews Section

Do we need this? At the moment it just contains information about the HPA report and the WHO fact sheet. But both of these are already mentioned several times earlier in the article. The HPA report is reference 5 in the earlier sections, but reference 18 in this Govt Review section. The WHO factsheet is reference 3 earlier in the page, but reference 20 in this section. Would there be any major objection if I deleted this section? I'm not too fussed either way, it just seems a bit redundant. Catpigg (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are other reviews? It would be good to get the opinion of the editor who created the section. For the moment, I have consolidated the references so they at least are not doubled. papageno (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if you remove this section. I put this section in as I believe there are a lot government / official organizational type reviews and this section could be expanded on, but admittedly with only two there it doesn't add a lot. It also lends a credible side to a debate which has so far attracted a lot of skeptics knocking the condition's cedibility. Perhaps the link to the WHO factsheet could be put into the links section. Randomized (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted it. But I have no objections to it being reinstated, if important new information is to be added that doesn't already appear elsewhere in the article. Catpigg (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I did add some information to this section. The information was mentioned in the lead, but the lead should include information that's already in the article (hence I added it to the article). This section could be expanded, or the information and any that could be added could just be placed with other reviews.==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC))==

Anonymous Ip editor

An anonymous editor has been repeatedly editing (mostly reverting) this article against the grain of conversation. This editor appears to be editing through some type of anonymous proxy, which I do believe is banned by wikipedia, and multiple IP addresses which have been used by this editor have subsequently been banned by wikipedia due to vandalism to wikipedia's pages. The IP addresses which have been used by this user since March 1st are:

Details

68.40.51.236

77.37.16.189

72.44.35.170

83.157.218.201

66.229.169.21

89.131.198.74

84.16.252.126

72.43.122.208

88.84.144.193 *

81.209.59.212 *

88.80.200.138 *

88.80.5.3 *

The last 4 have been banned by wikipedia due to vandalism. These IP's may or may not be TOR Exit Nodes (anonymous open proxies), which are strictly prohibited by Wikipedia - some databaes say there are, others not.

About TOR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#Etiquette_and_abuse

TOR node checker - http://www.as3344.net/is-tor/

Could this user please create an account and/or contribute to the discussion regarding the reverts. Of particular note are the following blocks of text (all discussed in the headings above):

- A paragraph from the HPA on wifi

- The Essex study controversy

- The pyschological claims relating to treatment and symptom alleviation, which are not backed up with references.

Also, would anyone object to me requesting that this page be protected from anonymous IP editing, due to constant reverting of the article by the above IP's without contributing to discussion or backing up with references?

Thanks Randomized (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE:

Another IP has been used by this user and banned subsequent to the edit for being part of the TOR open proxy: 65.23.158.193

The following two have also now been banned:

77.37.16.189

72.44.35.170

UPDATE:

This article is now page protected. The user has created (at last) an account as a result called 'NotThatJamesBrown' and has a very blatent sockpuppet / meatpuppet, created at the same time and editing the same articles using the same wording, called 'PleaseInsertGirder'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting new level of debate... isn't this called "ad hom"? I've just been reading about the 3RR too. Apologies if I've broken it, I don't think I have. Is "Randomized" aware of 3RR? ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC))==

Case report here - [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm signing off now. Editing this article is just not worth the constant hassle of constant reverts anymore. Just to let anyone editing this article know: NotThatJamesBrown, Unprovoked, PleaseInsertGirder, PartyOfive and all the IP's listed under 'Anonymous IP editor' are all the same person. What his game is I'm not sure, but good luck to him. It's just too much hassle to achieve common sense through this wikipedia setup. The sockpuppet case is listed here > [25]. Randomized (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC) The checkuser is here > [26] (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC) ps. This user is also editing other people's talk on this page. Randomized (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting the talk page, which is for discussing the article not making baseless accusations. If you disagree with edits people have made, why not join in the discussion. You have improved the article, but in a very disruptive way. Please try to be collegial and work with other people. I'm moving this section up into the other sockpuppet section, as they're on exactly the same topic. If you wish to further this discussion, please use a more appropriate forum. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC))==

Reinserting HPA information on ES and BBC paragraph

Two paragraphs have recently been removed, and I'd like to reinsert the. The first is:

A 2005 report by the UK Health Protection Agency concluded that ES needs to be considered in ways other than its etiology; that is, the suffering is real, even if the underlying cause is debated. They also wrote that considering only whether EM was a causative factor was not meeting the needs of sufferers, although continued research on etiology was essential.

which is clearly related to ES and relevant at the point in the article. The second is the following paragraph:

No physical treatments exist, as the origin of the symptoms is usually ascribed to either classical conditioning or mistaken self-diagnosis. The symptoms are assumed to have causes that are psychological in nature or to be caused by some other illness that has not yet been treated. Note that the existence of the symptoms is not questioned.

More references can be added to support this, and not I reverted this paragraph after removing the single phrase that a user was unhappy with, only to have them remove it again. Any objections, or suggestions for improvement? I've also commented on the "controversy" in it's section above. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==

The first paragraph clearly does belong in the article. It was lost due to your constant blind reverts. The second paragraph has had a heading to which I have requested that you contribute to for 14 days which you have so far failed to do so. - 35 Possible treatment and symptom alleiviation[27].

The extra references have been requested for 14 days and you haven't come up with any. Find the references before adding the text.

Randomized (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the phrase from the second paragraph that you complained about previously from the article, and I haven't included it in the paragraph copied here either. If you wish further support for this paragraph can be easily found. A simple and quick Google search shows a Guardian article (which also addresses the supposed "controversy") [here] and a second is from the Baylor College of Medicine, [here]. These are just the first two in a simple search with many results. Many academic articles also put the probable cause as being other than electromagnetic fields, hence the WHO preferred name of Idiopathic Environment Intolerance; see PubMed. Would you like to reinsert the first paragraph, or shall I do it, and work on the second with people here? ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC))==