Talk:Wireless device radiation and health/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

References

Here is a list of references that I removed fromthe article, as they does not seem to be refererred to from the text. If I have made any mistake, please put them back using the "ref"-tag as used for the other references. Mossig 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Genotoxity:

Mobile Phone and cancer

  • Swedish INTERPHONE study: American Journal of Epidemiology 2005 161(6):526-535; doi:10.1093/aje/kwi091 (2005). “Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk”. Stefan Lönn, Anders Ahlbom, Per Hall, Maria Feychting.
  • British INTERPHONE study: Br J Cancer. 2005 Oct 3;93(7):842-8. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, Auvinen A, Blaasaas KG,Cardis E, Christensen HC, Feychting M, Hepworth SJ, Johansen C, Klaeboe L, Lonn S, McKinney PA, Muir K, Raitanen J, Salminen T, Thomsen J, Tynes T.
  • German INTERPHONE study:American Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/aje/kwj068 (2006). “Cellular Phones, Cordless Phones, and the Risks of Glioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany) Joachim Schüz, Eva Böhler, Gabriele Berg, Brigitte Schlehofer, Iris Hettinger, Klaus Schlaefer, Jürgen Wahrendorf, Katharina Kunna-Grass, and Maria Blettner.

Radio and base station:

Other studies:

  • SWEDISH RADIATION PROTECTION AUTHORITY REPORT 2002 [1]: "No significant associations have been seen between all brain tumors combined and phone use, with relative risks ranging from 0,9 to 1,3 (...) Subgroup analyses showed no consistent pattern of increased risk. It was considered that it was not biologically plausible that exposure to RF fields could increase the risk of cancer. The studies conducted so far have ruled out with a reasonable certainty that mobile phones cause cancer."
  • Repacholi, M.H. Health risks from the use of mobile phones. Toxicology Letters, 2000. available at [2] (PDF Format)
  • G J Hyland (2000). "Physics and biology of mobile telephony". The Lancet. 356: 1833–1836.
  • Shaw CI, Kacmarek RM, Hampton RL, Riggi V, Masry AE, Cooper JB, Hurford WE. (2004). "Cellular phone interference with the operation of mechanical ventilators". Crit Care Med. 32: 928–31.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. (2004). "Mobile phone interference with medical equipment and its clinical relevance: a systematic review". Med J Aust. 181: 145–9.
  • Seitz, H, Stinner, D, Eikmann, Th, Herr, C, Roosli, M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and subjective health complaints associated with electromagnetic fields of mobile phone communication -- a literature review published between 2000 and 2004. Science of the Total Environment, June 20 [e-publication ahead of print], 2005, available at http://www.sciencedirect.com.
  • Rubin, GJ, Das Munchi, J, Wessely, S. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosom Med. Mar-Apr; 67(2): 224-32. 2005, available at [3].
  • K. R. Foster, The precautionary principle - common sense or environmental extremism? IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 21:8-13 (2002).
  • Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB. Documents of the NRPB: Volume 15, No. 5 (In PDF)
  • Glaser, R. Are thermoreceptors responsible for "non-thermal" effects of RF fields? Edition Wissenschaft, 21, December 2005.
  • Sienkiewicz Z.J. and Kowalczuck, C.I. A Summary of Recent Reports on Mobile Phones and Health. NBRP Reports, 2004.

External links

The External Links section does begin to be unvieldly. Needs cleanup and structure.Mossig 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

INTERPHONE study

The Danish study published on September 12th 2006 with 420 000 telephone subscribers, is presented at ref 3. and commented at ref 4.This study does not follow the INTERPHONE setup. The Danish INTERPHONE study is linked at ref 10. and has unfortunately too few longtime users to find or rule out effects at 10 years use.

The authors of a study must certainly support the whole text in their report, but not necessarily the very brief text in the abstract, whitch only informs of the content.

Today it is obvious that longtime use of Mobile Phones promote cancer. This is best shown by the Review at the Austrian Health department, "Gesundheitliche Auswirkungen der Handy-nutzung-Eine Übersicht über die vorliegende Evidenz zur Frage der Kanzerogenität, der Fertilität und der Auswirkungen auf den kindlichen Organismus". [4]. It is only available in German, but the trendanalysis in diagram (Abb2) at page 9 show cancer incidens as a function of mean time of use. That short-time studies show an Odd-Ratio lower than 1.0 is explained by the author as a systematic error due to losses of test persons in the control groups, i.e. the real risk is underestimated./George —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.218.2.245 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The authors of a papers must certainly support what is said in the abstract. The abstract is in fact written by the authors. If you reintrepret the abstract or the conclusions from a published article it is to be considered as Origina Research, and is not admissable in Wikipedia. That the cancer risk is obvious is a matter of opinion: the danish report from 2006 does not support it, for example. Mossig 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

type of cel phones - confusion?

The article mentions that GSM phones can have peak power output of 2 watts, but CDMA and TDMA are less. GSM is TDMA... Joezasada 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a confusion: TDMA is used both as a technical term for time division multiple acess, and that is indeed used by the GSM system, and as a name for an american mobile phone system, that is more correctly named IS-136 of D-AMPS. Mossig 12:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
GSM phones have a 2 Watts or 2000 milliwatts (mW) peak power output. But it's average power is 250 mW of continuous power because it only transmits 1/8th of the time. GSM utilises 8 slots per channel. The GSM's phone power is adjusted to use the minimum power required to extend battery life. The power out is reduced in a sequence of 15 steps down to around 2 mW during calls. (e.g. T-Mobile, AT&T/Cingular)
A CDMA phone transmits with an average power of 200mW. I dont' know what their peak power output is. The CDMA's phone power is also adjusted to use the minimum power required to extend battery life. (e.g. Verizon, Sprint)
iDEN phones (e.g. NexTel) transmit with a peak power of 3 Watts and their average power is around 1000 mW. iDEN has 3 slots per channel. They also adjust their power down to the minimum required to extend battery life.

Kgrr 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate citation

It has for a long time been known that Microwave radiation can cause break in DNA-strings "The effects of radiofrequency fields on cell proliferation are non-thermal." Velizarov S, Raskmark P, Kwee S..

Let's ignore this sentence's grammar for now, because there is a more serious problem. The cited article never mentions DNA. If there's anything worse than an uncited statement, it's a statement with a citation that doesn't back it up. —Keenan Pepper 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I removed the referemce and replaced it with a fact tag. Mossig 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RF and Cataracts

"RF (0.3 - 30 MHz) and MW (30 MHz - 300 GHz) Effects may include formation of cataracts, neurological effects, male sterility and possibly cancer." http://www.jlab.org/ehs/manual/EHSbook-538.html

"Studies have shown that intense exposure to this type of nonionizing radiation can cause heat-related effects such as cataracts, skin burns, deep burns, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke, as well as electrical shock." http://www.nsc.org/issues/rad/nonioniz.htm

"Many possible biological effects of electromagnetic fields have been postulated but it is generally accepted that the most significant effects are thermal. When MW or RF radiation is absorbed by the body, heat is generated. Normally the blood vessels will dilate to allow the excess heat to be removed by blood flow. The main risk is therefore to parts of the body with poor blood supply, such as the lens of the eye, but no evidence has been found that chronic exposure to low level MW or RF radiation induces cataract." http://www.safety.ed.ac.uk/policy/part7/part7_2/part7_2.shtm

Kgrr 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Danish Cohort Study Exclusion

Directed primarily at Mossig:

The 200,000 in this case are both excluded and misclassified. The way the study was done was to compare the incidence rates of the selected mobile phone users against the background Danish cancer levels. The selected users were extracted out of the overall cancer registry data on a case by case basis (i.e. removing the number of people and the number of cases from the totals). By having 200,000 users they cannot identify, they therefore cannot exclude them from the overall registry data and therefore they are effectively considered to be "non-users". This is an extreme flaw of the paper, and needs to be highlighted accordingly, especially considering the media coverage this cohort has had.

I am not happy, without far better justification, with the removal of this sentence and citation. Topazg 11:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As a further commentary, I realise I had actually misused the word "excluded". I have revised the sentence to be accurate, and have adjusted the Pay as you go / subscriber commentary for clarity. In face all "pay as you go" customers are considered non-users, and subscriptions after 1995 are also considered non-users - this was not clear from the previous text. Topazg 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FDA Commentary on Hardell Research

This seems to be simply pov material. The fact it is an analysis of two studies is irrelevant. The use of a mailed questionnaire opens a new can of worms on the validity of different exposure assessment methods, and also happens to not differ from some of the interphone studies anyway. To include this would also necessitate including literature on the analysis of mailed questionairres, of which there has been two papers on the interphone usage of them alone. I recommend that this is removed as to include it impartially would require a large amount of explanatory text on the pros and cons of the method that deserves to be in a totally separate Wiki page.

The lack of mechanism has already been commented on, and the lack of animal data is not actually true, as there is plenty of rat data that has not yet been included. They are quite right that the Hardell studies are not in agreement with most other recent epidemiological literature on the subject, but that is already evident from the other papers cited in this section. With no other redeeming features, I recommend that this comment be removed unless there are objections? [User:Topazg|Topazg] 23:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirlian photo

[[5]] --Artman40 20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just the basics - IMHO it's about economics, not health

Hi,

The points below may well be common knowledge to all in the debate, but I think the following should be made available reasonably early in the wiki page on this topic. Bear in mind that most visitors will be looking for a balanced overview in a nutshell rather than having time to read every line on the subject.

  • Public concern is continually whipped up on this subject by journalists looking for a good hard-to-disprove SCARE story. It sells copy!
  • The unfortunate fact that one word 'radiation' with highly negative connotations from atomic power is used in an imprecise way for two different phenomena has much to do with the ongoing hysteria regarding the subject. The two types of radiation have entirely different effects (ionising radiation e.g. as results from nuclear reactions, VS non-ionising radiation, as in radio transmission). It is worth being clear about the distinction between the above two types of 'radiation' and the effects of each.
  • There is little if any clear evidence to suggest that non-ionising radiation is harmful to human health unless it is strong enough to cause heating. Another reason the hysteria over radiation from transmission masts continues is the difficulty of proving a negative scientifically.
  • New masts can have a negative effect on nearby house prices,due to various factor including visual effect and perception of risk. Perhaps it is time to compensate those affected, rather than having a charade over alleged health effects.
  • As an example, TV and radar signals are thousands of times more powerful than the signals emitted from typical local masts (megaWatts of radiated power), and have been around for 65 years without vast (... or /any/) swathes of illness around the transmission sites.
  • Another example. Sunlight delivers a power of around 700 Watts per square metre on a bright day and is not harmful if the ionising component (UV) is low. (UV waves have frequencies many times higher than visible light and tens of thousands of times higher than radio frequencies). 700W/sq. m is thousands of times more powerful even than the highest published saftey limit, and radiation levels from masts will be generally be well below the UK-enforced ICNIRP safety limits, which are milliWatts (thousandths of a Watt) per square metre.

I hope this may prove useful. Not having the insight into how the wiki works I would not edit the page myself but if any editor feels these points are worth incorporating then please do so.

82.69.191.230 12:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Martin Spencer, UK.

Yes, thanks for the comments -- please do feel free to register a proper Wiki account, all knowledgeable people working on the article is useful and it doesn't take long to work through the stuff you need to remember when editing. My response to your points would be:
  • Totally agree with you - I wish people didn't like sensationalism, it's a big pet peeve of mine.
  • Also agreed. Visible light is radiation of a form, people need to stop stereotyping the word as "harmful".
  • Not sure I agree. There is a fair amount of literature on non-thermal effects now. There is also plenty of literature not finding an effect, but it is not true to say that the research isn't there for an effect.
  • Yes, there is now a big price fall risk of being near a mast -- see my response to point 1!
  • TV are primarily CW signals, and IIRC most health effects are being implicated on pulsed RF.
  • Same as point above, UV from the Sun is effectively CW also.
I don't know whether there will end up being any truth over the CW / pulsed argument, but it is just as important I think not to pigeonhole phone masts and TV transmitters as it is to not pigeonhole RF generally and, for example IR. Topazg 09:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citations

I'm really not happy with the removals of citations from George Carlo and Powerwatch, and a paper citation from Gerald Hyland. Both of the first two are notable players in the field, and the Powerwatch citation is material extracted from the paper in question that was mentioned by the authors in discussion but not in the abstract. I note that George Carlo's commentary included mention of funding and COI which I dislike in an argument from either side, but it also contained a lot of very relevant epidemiological points. Both of these seem to be relevant, verifiable, and from a notable source. Also, Hyland's paper is published science and I am unsure why it has been removed?

I also removed the "some claim" about the Shuz Danish paper because that was from the paper itself I think, and removed "so-called" from the non-thermal effects description. Topazg 09:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on further inspection, I would agree that whilst (IMHO) useful with regards to the input on the subject generally, they are probably violating the Wikipedia self-publish guidelines (which also seems to find news story citations as violating Wiki policy??) - I think that only the Hyland citation should be returned. Topazg 12:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Further to Mossig's recent removal of on the Danish Study: You are quite correct, it is in fact the British Interphone study that commented on not being able to draw any conclusions for greater than 10 years. Sentence was therefore quite POV. Topazg 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
See above - Gerard Hyland is discredited as a source and has been roundly condemned in the courts. Cheers, DWaterson 14:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to note also - it wasn't me who was the anon IP that commented out the reference - but I agree that Hyland should not be used as a reliable source here. DWaterson 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I strongly disagree. In the rapid response responses to his provocation study, Rubin had no problem in citing Hyland's work as an important reference, as have other scientists. Just because he made a right pigs ear of a big legal case (and a few other things) does not mark his published work as non-reliable. If it is peer reviewed, non-shot-down, and citable, it should be considered reliable. What justification do you have for unreliability, specifically related to this citation? Topazg 08:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. To my mind this page reads like a very poor undergraduate literature review. These citations seem to skirt the WP:NOR policy. This page should be a summary of the area (including known facts and claimed effects, presented appropriately). A list of research papers is awful, as is the general quality of this article 128.243.220.21 11:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
How do the citations skip the NOR policy? And why not make contributions or recommendations to improve the article if you have some? Topazg 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
He said "skirt" not "skip". Are they summaries of OR? 82.10.218.4 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardell study

Is the Hardell study mentioned? Information here. The section mentioning the studies only give the year and country. Badagnani (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be addressed. Badagnani (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll join this monologue by saying that it should be added when the results are published in a peer reviewed journal and assessed by independent scientists, with relevant caveats etc. 88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg, Fredrik Söderqvist, Kjell Hansson Mild, L. Lloyd Morgan. Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for 10 years. Occup. Environ. Med. 2007; 64: 626-632. I'm not familiar with this journal, it's impact factor etc, and I don't know what the article says either 88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Long range studies

I have removed the para on long range studies and one other sentence as the references do not support the claims made in the text. They are references to self-reporting questionnaires, as I made clear in my edit summaries 88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is basically that you do not like the studies, the way they were done, or their findings. However, they appear to be legitimate sources and you'd need to be more specific about why you believe they must be blanked from the article. A more appropriate course would be to add a qualification regarding how the studies were conducted rather than blanking all mention of them entirely. Badagnani (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE "Selected" removal of text justified here. It is selected for removal because: 86.146.119.116 (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The studies are surveys and questionnaires, describing them as long range "epidemiological" studies is implying something more than this (such as ctually running some tests). Recent is also flawed, as the first is dated 1995. I'd also say that long range is misleading, as the ones I've looked at (quickly I admit) only appear to give snapshots. They also don't show "an increase", they could at most (and I don't know if they do) show that clusters of whatever appear in certain places. Hence, I'll delete. If they're added back they need a big rewrite 86.146.119.116 (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A qualification to this effect seems more prudent than a simple massive blanking of properly sourced text, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is it isn't properly sourced. The sources don't support the text. Hence I will remove it again. You are also reverting other good edits. Thanks for replying. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of text

According to Wikipedia guidelines, it is not necessary to discuss the removal of a referenced section in advance of doing the edit. The text I removed previously, andn now again, is not supported by the reference, and IMHO false. Thus I removed it again. Please feel free to reinsert it when appropriate references has been found. Mossig (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment is confusing because no specifics are given about any specific text whatsoever. If you would kindly take two or three minutes and actually summarize what you would like to do as regards deletion of text from the article, then develop consensus for such, that would go a long way toward assuring everyone here of your good faith, thank you. As we all know, earlier massive swaths of properly sourced text were removed, against "Wikipedia guidelines." Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The text "Some scientists[1] believe that chronic, low-level radiation exposure may, over time, may be as harmful as higher-level, acute radiation exposures. "
is not properly referenced, as the statements are not supported by the reference. Thus I have removed it previously, as I use to when finding false information on Wikipedia. I can not see where in the guidelines it is shown that I need to discuss is on Talk first - please read guidlines on "concensus". I will remove this part of the text again after the holidays. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossig (talk • contribs)

Claim by British Consumers' Association

This is in regard to the statement: "Still, the use of "hands-free" is not recommended by the British Consumers' Association".

The only reference is to a news article in 2000. I have not been able to find any published opinion from the BCA of a later date. This coupled to the fact that the investigation by BCA that lead to their recommendation in 2000 has been heavily critisied, I think this statement is miseading, and not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, and thus should be removed. Temporarily I will augment it with a date. Mossig (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding a date seems prudent. Badagnani (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If so, why did you revert the change? Mossig (talk) 20:36, 23 December

2007 (UTC)

I added back the more informative ref, but I think it should be removed unless there is a good source for this 86.146.119.116 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


The electrosenstivity lobby

It is interesting that whilst researching the nocebo effect, and how it may relate to the proposed condition of electrosensitivity, I read an article in a local paper about the erection of a new phone mast. Basically, it was being erected due to the fault of the local council who made an "admin error" (or somebody took a backhander which is more likely) and forgot to send refusal notices. Most of the debate on the local forum was about how this would affect house prices etc, with very little mention made of the alleged health effects. Then all of a sudden, we have Eileen O'Connor (a ELS adovcate from the UK) and a few other known ELS advocates contributing to the discussion (which is strange as they don't live anywhere near the area in question) telling everyone about how it can affect health, and advertising their own webpage. Now I'm sure that they are well intentioned, but it does strike me that their talk can actually influence people in believing there is very real health threat, and possibly cause an increase in the number of self reported sysmptoms around masts- which can only benefit the ELS cause. Call me cynical, but I do wonder if that is perhaps the aim. I notice that many of the contributors who suddently joined our local forum have done the same thing for masts in other areas, and have joined local discussion forums. I'm sure they are well intentioned, but I do suspect this may be a cause of perhaps some of the responses to the erection of phone masts. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk • contribs)

This is a very interesting opinion. Badagnani (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there are at least tree scientific published studies of birds and GSM base stations, that also shows harmful effects.Kozzz (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


No they don't. They don't show any link between their observations and the base stations. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Three studies on bird nesting have nothing to do with the nocebo effect, as above.

Article name

Hi. Why does the word "radiation" appear in the title of this article? Can't it be named simply: Mobile phones and health The word radiation, although accurate, is viewed negatively by the public and seems to add a bias to the article right at the title. It also limits the scope of the article; although sections already stray outside the area of mobile phone signals. Comments? 86.146.119.116 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep at current title. Editors should not be in the business of maximizing, or minimizing terminology or evidence, to suit one or another agenda. Title is descriptive (it is not the bending of the elbow, or skin contact with the plastic used to make the phone, for example, that is in question regarding health issues). Present the evidence that exists and is sourced (and do not conduct massive blanking of properly sourced material presenting "one side," as we've seen in epidemic proportion at this article in recent weeks). Badagnani (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is faulty. Editors also wrote this title which uses the word "radiation". Why are you still going on about massive blanking? Can you provide diffs for changes where more than one or two sentences have been removed? The removals I've seen, and then rewriting, has much improved the article. The word radiation has a strong POV attached. How about the more neutral:
Mobile phone signals and health or Health implications of mobile phone transmissions
or some variation thereof. Just because the title is currently biased, and has been for a while, is no reason to keep it biased. Note this is a discussion not a vote. The current title, IMO, is unacceptable, please suggest NPOV alternatives. Whether the article can be extended to include "mobile phone elbow" is also open to debate; although the plastic and elbow movements apply to all phones, so IMO shouldn't be in this article, which can be extended to all health concerns that are unique to mobile phones. Thanks 86.146.119.116 (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the current title is NPOV, and thus is OK. To extend the article to include all possible health consequences from the use of mobile phones, regardless of the cause, will make it too long.
"Mobile phone signals and health" is not specific enough - does it refer to EM-signalling or ring-signals?
"Health implications of mobile phone transmissions" are more POV than the current title. (It does imply that there are actual implications) Mossig (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel the use of the word radiation is current unacceptable due to the negative POV associated with this word. I think that anyone thinking it has anything to do with ringtones is very unlikely, and this would be quickly dispelled by a reading of the article. There is a stronger case for saying the current title is misleading as mobile phones do not emit particle radiation, which is what the public understands by the word radiation. The intention of the original naming of the article, looking at the history, was clearly to support the POV that mobile phone transmissions are dangerous, by using the loaded word radiation.
How about Mobile phone transmissions and health or signals or transmission signals etc? There are a million NPOV variations, so why can't we just choose one. Again, note that I'm not saying that this title is inaccurate, but it is clearly misleading to the layman. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No new objections or suggestions? 86.146.119.116 (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The current title is fine; the suggestions appear to be attempts to skew the article toward a certain minimizing POV, which we have had problems with recently (generally with anon IPs blanking huge swaths of properly sourced content with "I don't like it reasoning"), and which are thus most unsatisfactory. Badagnani (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The title needs to be changed for exactly that reason: to minimise the POV introduced by using the loaded word radiation. What bias does the alternatives of "signals" or "transmissions" introduce? You say it would change the POV, how? The only way I can see it changing the POV is by making it more neutral. Why is the word radiation non-negotiable? Please give your answers to both questions. The blanking you're claiming is a separate issue 86.146.119.116 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not see the problem with the term "radiation" - it is technically correct, as the radio transmissions from a mobile phone consists of electromagnetic radiation. Thus I think that the tile is fine, and should be kept. Mossig (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
That the word radiation, "is viewed negatively by the public", cannot be an argument here. This is not an advertisment for mobile phones. WP must stick to science, not consider sales figures.Kozzz (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Err... what do you mean? Are you admitting that the use of the word "radiation" is introducing a bias against mobile phones? I agree that this article should not advertise mobile phones, and I don't think anyone has suggested this. By introducing your straw-man you have shown you agree that the current title is biased against mobile phone use. The article shouldn't be biased at all, and should reflect the current scientific understanding. Mobile phones do not emit particle radiation and hence the word radiation should not be included. I suggest the "signals" variation --82.24.151.197 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And the common way to avoid bias is to use well established scientific terminology, which in this case is "electromagnetic radiation", or radiation in short. There is nothing that says that the term radiation implies only particle radiation, it also covers the whole EM-spectrum. Mossig (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Id suggest using either "electromagnetic radiation" or "em signals", or just "signals" then. The word radiation clearly adds a negative connotation. The fact it is scientifically accurate is not disputed, but there are many more scientifically accurate words that do not put such a negative image into the mind of the public. In fact another compelling argument is that the word radiation is too broad, as mobile phones do not emit particle or ionizing radiation, and hence those should be excluded. Signals would achieve this --82.1.48.108 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The term "signals" is not used in radio science to describe electromagnetic radiation, or EM-waves. Thus it is not a suitable word, especially as signals has many more confounding meanings. Radiation is still, regardless of your opinion, a technically and scientifically correct way of describing the topic of this article. Mossig (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It is used in the industry though, and is understood by the layman to refer to the transmissions between mobile phones and base stations. Scientist do also use this word, as long as they define it. Scientists do not use the term radiation (or at least should not) without properly qualifying it, ie electromagnetic non-ionizing radiation. The use of the term radiation is introducing a POV that these signals/transmissions are dangerous, and this is not supported by the facts. Why not just suggest an alternative? Why are you so keen to keep this word over suitable alternatives? --82.1.48.108 (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Scientists do use the term radiation, and specific qualification is not commonly required, as it can be inferred from the circumstances. The term signals always requires qualification, as it is much broader. I am not suggesting an alternative as I think the current article name is fine, and NPOV. Mossig (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's simplify the problem into some questions: 1, Do you agree that "radiation" is typically taken by the public at large to mean particle radiation? 2a, Is the phrase "mobile phone signals" scientifically accurate? (the ring tones argument has already been discounted); 2b, Same question for "mobile phone transmissions"
There is plenty of evidence that radiation is taken by the public at large to mean the "bad kind" of radiation that causes cancer by well understood means. Why can't we use a narrower term that correctly defines the kind of radiation we're talking about? I can only assume that your remark that the kind of radition discussed in scientific papers is clear from the context is another way of agreeing with the previous poster - yes, they do say what kind of radiation they are talking about. Your argument against signals applies equally to radiation; it is too broad a term. The word signals has the advantage of not carrying a negative connotation. Wikipedia is for all people, and should be accessible to all. Using scientific words that have a different meaning in the two spheres is intentionally confusing the issue. The word radiation should therefore be replaced with a suitable alternative, so suggest one as the title can't stay as it is. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree the current title is biased, and it should be changed to either "mobile 'phone signals" or "mobile 'phone transmissions" --81.153.131.222 (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) So there is a consensus here that the article name should be changed? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • No, there is no consensus for such a change, as the anon IP (known for massive, selective blanking of text and links, apparently always in a manner that favors minimization of health effects) seems to be pushing for. The current title is accurate and appropriate. Badagnani (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The current title appropriately reflects the subject area. Barrylb (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you also agree that I am "known for massive, selective blanking of text and links, apparently always in a manner that favours minimization of health effects". I feel this is an unfair characterisation of me and my edits. I asked if there was a consensus. Do either of you have answers to the arguments presented above as to why the current title carries a POV? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have not followed your edits closely enough to comment on bias. However, the phrase "Mobile phone radiation" is widely used in this subject area. I do not consider it POV in the title. Barrylb (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Editors should not be in the business of maximizing, or minimizing terminology or evidence, to suit one or another agenda. The current title is properly descriptive (it is the radiation, not the bending of the elbow, or skin contact with the plastic used to make the phone, that is in question regarding health issues). Because some members of the public have a negative view of the term "radiation" does not mean we should consequently excise this term from our accurate and properly descriptive title. The suggestion appears to be a pattern of minimization on the part of the anon IP. Badagnani (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the whole point of the discussion, and many people have responded to your views above. Many think the title introduces a POV, and the word radiation can be replaced by an equally (or even more accurate) scientific term that makes the article more neutral. We are discussing it here, I haven't made any changes to the title. Does every edit you make here have to contain false and insulting allegations? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive blanking

There have been claims in the previous sections of "massive" blanking of "properly sourced" sections. Can people please provide diffs below or examples of properly text that has been removed and should be reintroduced so it can be discussed. Thanks 86.146.119.116 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health&diff=179993268&oldid=179991822 are what is alluded t. Mossig (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't see any massive blanking there. One sentence removed due to poor sourcing (according to talk) and one rephrased to more accurately reflect the source? It looks like a series of improving edits to me, with the article now being much better for it (apart from the emotional title).. --82.1.48.108 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the edit includes one removal of a source, one sourced sentence removed, and the removal of a whole section, including its references. Mossig (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I missed the removal of the second sentence. It looks like a section, but it is mostly refs. This diff therefore shows the removal of two poorly sourced sentences, which was discussed on the talk page. I also note that the editor who removed these changes did it one ref at a time after reviewing them, until they found that none of the refs supported the sentence. The sentence was then removed as improperly sourced and discussed on the talk page. Those refs have now been reintroduced in a sentence that is supported by them. Is a two sentence removal and discussion really "massive blanking", and within a short time all the data was reintroduced in an unbiased and correctly referenced way. Just what is the problem here? --82.1.48.108 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree! However, Mossig wasn't the user complaining about the massive blanking though. I feel it is best to get this discussed here and rectified ASAP so that it wont cause any future problems, so if any editors that do have problems with blanking can raise them here or in new sections below I'd be very grateful. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Following have been blanked:
a) The one and only International Conference on Cell Tower Siting
b) The most extensive report ever about a Radio station (158 pages) made on behalf of the Swiss government.
It seem ridicolous to describe "Health hazards of base stations" without them.Kozzz (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have a reference for the conference proceedings or a special issue to do with it, then cite that. The fact there was a conference is irrelevant. The removal of the conference was also done after the claims of massive blanking. The claim in the text is also fully justified by the bioinitiative ref. Also, the fact there was a conference on cell tower siting doesn't tell us if they were for against it. I would imagine both views were represented, and from the title I'd imagine they might not have looked at health effects at all (rather, how to get good coverage, etc). Maybe they did, but unless there is something that is peer-reviewed that has come out of it, it is irrelevant. That there has only been one, 7 years ago, is also suggestive.
As to your second point, radio stations aren't always mobile phone stations. I don't know which ref you are referring to, so why not introduce the ref below in a new section so it can be discussed. Thanks 81.153.131.222 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Salzburg Conference proceedings: http://www.salzburg.gv.at/themen/gs/gesundheit/umweltmedizin/elektrosmog/celltower_e.htm Public Health Salzburg 2000
Both ICNIRP(1998) and Salzburg Conference (2000) reviewed the current available scientific knowledge. ICNIRP gave recommendations for short term radiation (suitable for handsets) and Salzburg Conference long term radiation exposure (suitable for cell towers). The Bioinititaive group criticise ICNIRP limit for not giving enough protection against cancer. I suggest that the text about ICNIRP and the Bioinitiative moves to “Handset” and information about the Salzburg RESOLUTION (http://www.salzburg.gv.at/salzburg_resolution_e.htm) and studies of cellphone base stations is given under “Bas stations and health”). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozzz (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think the Salzberg stuff should be included. It appears to have had an agenda before it was set up, so it's no surprise that those that attended agreed. Where are peer reviewed refs that came from it? Those might be worthy of inclusion. 81.153.131.222 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is ICNIRP a good source?

The radiation protection authorities in several countries refers to the ICNIRP guidlines for short term radiation exposure.

However, when refering to ICNIRP on WP, it must be understood thet this Organization falsely call itself "International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection". ICNIRP is not a "Commission" in the normal sense of that word. ICNIRP is closed society, situated in Germany and manned with self-appointed experts.

So, when other scientists critizise ICNIRP for beeing "unscientific" (Salzburg Health Authorities), this cannot be neglected. There is no consensus about ICNIRP guidlines, they are under dispute.Kozzz (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia article about the ICNIRP? If not, do we need one? This article mentions "ICNIRP guidelines" yet never even gives the actual name of this organization. Badagnani (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, I think the original commenter is incorrect, and that the use of the word 'fraud' is emotive and inappropriate. The commenter may choose to disagree with or cite evidence about a controversy with the guidelines promulgated by the ICNIRP. The commenter may also believe the the choice of 'commission" in the ICNIRP's name is incorrect or in some way misleading. However, the ICNIRP is a serious international organisation, formed out of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), which itself had its first general assembly in 1964. The ICNIRP's roots go back to 1973 within the IRNA, and it became an independent entity in 1992. The current commission's members come from countries around the world. "Members of the Commission are elected upon nomination by the members of the Commission, the Executive Council of the International Radioprotection Association (IRPA), or the IRPA Associate Societies. The election takes place every 4 years at the last Annual General Meeting before the IRPA Congress." This would not seem to qualify as a 'closed society' of 'self-appointed experts'. The ICNIRP maintains a link with the IRPA and hence to radiation protection organisations throughout the world, and partners with other major organisations "...such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH), the European Commission (EC). ICNIRP's collaboration with WHO is principally through its support for the WHO International EMF and INTERSUN Projects." "It is registered as a registered association in the register of associations (Vereinsregister) in Germany ... It's Secretariat is based in Munich. ICNIRP is also a formally recognized non-governmental organization in non-ionizing radiation for the World Health Organization and the International Labour Office [sic]." Quotations are from the ICNIRP web site; other information is taken from this site as well as from the IRNA web site. Please note this commenter is not a member of the ICNIRP or the IRPA, or of any affiliated organisations.
As regards a lack of consensus on the ICNIRP guidelines, I think the commenter is also incorrect. Like in many scientific endeavours, the evidence in this case is that there is broad consensus amongst scientists and practitioners in the field on the guidelines, and that there is a relatively smaller number of scientists and practitioners who disagree. It is appropriate to cite those disagreements in a fashion in keeping with WP guidelines. It is also appropriate to cite the large number of competent national and international authorities who have adopted or who support guidelines adhering to those of the ICNIRP as a testament to the broad consensus.
As regards creating a WP article on the ICNIRP, no issue there; perhaps the information in this comment can help to start it off. papageno (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the title of this section, but no the contents of the above comments 86.146.119.116 (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that the refernce to ICNIRP and the radiation figures is prudent under Thermal effects but not under Health hazards of base stations as ICNIRP not have stated that their guidelines are valid for "continous" (i.e day and night) radiation.Kozzz (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Nor have they said they aren't; but since there is no compelling evidence for non-thermal effects why would they? They have said they are safe limits though - that would imply safe 81.153.131.222 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But there ARE compelling evidence for non-thermal effects. The problem is that all information about them immediately becomes blanked on WP.Kozzz (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "there IS compelling evidence". Bring it up in a new section below where it can be discussed. Provide diffs for the blanking in the blanking section above so it can be discussed. As far as I'm aware there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers that state that there are any non thermal effects. Please add them here so we can see --81.153.131.222 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a few peer-reviewed few studies referenced in the base station section and they all relate to non-thermal effects. Barrylb (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged non thermal effects- as I've said I strongly suspect the nocebo effect plays a large part in these studies, given that those used as a control group lived much further away from the tower but importantly - they also thought they lived further away than they actually were. All those studies did was show an increase in self reported symptoms such as depression, sleep problems etc. All of these can be brought on via various mechanisms (anxiety being one), and nothing necessarily to do with non thermal effects. Different results in neuro-cognitive performance can be due to the same effect, given that anxiety and other conditions can lower test scores in general. The studies show nothing, except to provide more funding for more focused research. I liken it to when CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome) was first identified, and the Epstein Barr virus was widely believed to the cause, but it turned out not to be, or at leats not a major factor. I think it will be the same for those suffering from electrosensitivity which they believe is due to mobile phone masts and other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific papers that state that there are non thermal effects

( Answer to 81.153.131.222 above)

A) Regarding cognitive effects around GSM base stations on man and birds:

-Santini R et al, 2001. Symptoms rapportes par des utilisateurs de telephones mobiles cellulaires. Path Biol 49:222-226. Santini R et al,2002. Symptoms experienced by people in vicinity of base station: I/ Incidences of distances and sex. Pathol. Biol., 50: 369-373.
-Enrique Navarro, Jaume Segura, Manuel Portolés, Claudio Gómez-Peretta de mateo. Rhe Microwave Syndrome: A preliminary Study in Spain, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22(2):161–169 (2003).
-H-P Hutter, H Moshammer, P Wallner, M Kundi. ”Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations”. Occup. Environ. Med 2006:63:307-313
-G. Abdel-Rassoul, O. Abou El-Fateh, M. Abou Salem, A. Michael, F. Farahat, M. El-Batanouny, E. Salem. “Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations”. NEUTOX-636.
-Alfonso Balmori Martínez. Effects of the electromagnetic fields of phone masts on a population of white stork (ciconia ciconia). Biologue Valladolid. Spain. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, nr 24, 2005
-Joris Everaert, Dirk Bauwens: A Possible Effect of Electromagnetic Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations on the Number of Breeding House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26: 63–72, 2007 DOI: 10.1080/15368370701205693.
-The Urban Decline of the House Sparrow (Passer domesticus): A Possible Link with Electromagnetic Radiation, Alfonso Balmori anf Örjan Hallberg, Electrmagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26:141-151, 2007, DOI 10.1080/15368370701410558.

B) Regarding cognitive effects around Radar stations on man:

-Kolodynski, A, & Kolodynska V, 1996. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda radio location station in Latvia. Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93.

C) Regarding cognitive effects around Shortwave stations on man:. Not peer-reviewed, but made in cooperation with the operator, Swiss Telecom:

Schwarzenburg study
-Altpeter, E.S., Krebs, Th., Pfluger, D.H., von Kanel, J., Blattmann, R., et al., 1995: "Study of health effects of Shortwave Transmitter Station of Schwarzenburg, Berne, Switzerland". University of Berne, Institute for Social and Preventative Medicine, August 1995. 158 pages.

D) Regarding cognitive effects from mobile phone handsets on man:

-The Effects of 884 MHz GSM Wireless Communication Signals on Self-reported Symptom and Sleep (EEG)- An Experimental Provocation Study. Bengt B. Arnetz, Torbjorn Akerstedt, Lena Hillert, Arne Lowden, Niels Kuster, and Clairy Wiholm. doi:10.2529/PIERS060907172142. :http://piers.mit.edu/piersonline/piers?volume=3&number=7&page=1148
-Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task . Krause, Christina; Björnberg, Christian; Pesonen, Mirka; Hulten, Annika; Liesivuori, Tiia; Koivisto, Mika; Revonsuo, Antti; Laine, Matti; Hämäläinen, Heikki. International Journal of Radiation Biology, Volume 82, Number 6, June 2006 , pp. 443-450(8). http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/trab/2006/00000082/00000006/art00007
-Mobile phone ‘talk-mode’ signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset. Ching-Sui Hung, Clare Anderson, James A. Horne, , and Patrick McEvoy Sleep Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK Centre for Mobile Communications Research, Loughborough University, UK Received 20 November 2006; revised 15 May 2007; accepted 17 May 2007. Available online 24 May 2007. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2007.05.027 . :http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0G-4NT9GJ3-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c2c7bf3f92f710a48062324e30301ad8

Kozzz (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of those "studies" appear to be surveys and questionnaires. Although these can be useful in identifying trends or suggesting if further research is required (if performed correctly), they don't prove that one thing is linked to another. What the other poster asked for was peer-reviewed papers showing non-thermal effects. The bulk of these papers don't do that, and the surveys and questionnaires are already well covered in the article. Do you have any good refs of lab studies showing that mobile phones (not any electromagnetic fields, but those emitted by 'phones) have some non-thermal effects on biological tissue, and also any evidence that these may be detrimental to health - other than any already mentioned in the article. Also, that table is awful. --147.171.255.159 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm "The bulk of these papers don't do that". So apparently some do, which means you have your answer. Barrylb (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting one - M. Buttiglione et al, "Radiofrequency radiation (900 MHz) induces Egr-1 gene expression and affects cell-cycle control in human neuroblastoma cells", J Cell Physiol. Volume 213, Number 3, December 2007: "our results provide evidence that exposure to 900 MHz-modulated RF radiation, at a SAR value lower than that at which thermal effects may occur, affects both gene expression and cell regulatory functions." Barrylb (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kozzz doesn't seem to understand that the majority of those studies are based on self reported symptoms, and as such are highly controversial. I have to say that the graph makes amusing reading (% of disturbed people?). Thr Italian study basically comments that there is a (slight) increase in cell death with exposure to RF radiation, but it doesn't think that this is a direct effect, but due to change in cell regulation mechanisms and gene expression. No health effects can be summarised as leading from these changes, given that cell death is part of the cycle, and that small changes either way may not have biological health implication.

Well, that's one. Is 900Mhz in the mobile phone transmission range? I can't access the pdf right now to check what it says, and mobile phone transmissions aren't my area. Does it also draw any conclusions as to effects on health? I said "bulk" as I can't access the data right now, but the majority clearly don't fit the description. So from this long list we've found one study that might be worthy of inclusion, although the date is rather recent for this paper. Any more that might be worthy of consideration? --147.171.255.159 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to have a quick look through http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/studies.asp for useful papers on non-thermal effects from ELF and RF EMFs. Topazg (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Commented-out material moved here

The following was messing up the spacing in the lead:


Here it is again uncommented:

In December 2006, a 21-year Danish study with 420,000 participants [2] claimed to rule out any causal link between cell phones and cancer.

While epidemiological studies have shown mixed results regarding short and medium term health hazards, there is extensive literature (see [3] for a survey) on non-thermal effects of weak microwave radiation on biological tissue in animal models or in-vitro, including affecting the growth of certain tumors, cell death, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, DNA damage and non-repair, formation of micronuclei, and others, which suggest the possibility of adverse health effects in humans.

--88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Improve references by using cite templates

There are many references in this article to articles in journals or publications. Could the references be made more clear and unambiguous by using the citation templates within <ref> reference tags as a standard? I have just updated reference 27, selected at random, using {{Cite journal}}. This would appear to be the citation template that should most often be used in this article. Where there is also a lay source commenting on the article, say from a newspaper, that information can be included in and displayed using the {{Cite journal}} template.
One complication is that some journals or other sources do not permit access to the full content of an article by the general user. In those cases, and where another full text source is available, I think the appropriate citation template should be used with additional text giving the full source, something like <ref>{{Cite journal with parameters}} Also, full text at: {{Cite web with parameters}}</ref> papageno (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Move position of Lönn et al 2004 article from Thermal Effects to Mobile phones and cancer

The Lönn et al 2004 article in the Thermal Effects section appears to be in the wrong place. The article does not refer to thermal effects. The article is still valuable, and would be repositioned best to the Mobile phones and cancer section. This would then seem to leave the remaining sentence in the final paragraph of the Thermal Effects section about thermal effects on nerve fibres as an orphan without a citation. I recommend adding a {{fact}} template to indicate citation needed. If a citation can be found, and it implicates the Lönn et al 2004 article, the WP article could be edited further to include a Lönn reference in both spots using a name parameter in the <ref> tag. papageno (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, the study is already mentioned and referenced in the Mobile phones and cancer section. I will consolidate the references for the moment. My suggestion, however, is still that the text in the Thermal Effects section be removed. papageno (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Changes as outlined here have been made to the article. papageno (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating the External Link for Mobile Phone SAR information

There has been some editing conflict around the current external link providing a listing of mobile phone SAR values. Based on my knowledge of Motorola models, I would agree the current link's list appears to be quite out of date. An internet search turned up a UK site which appears to be indepdent, if commercial: SAR Values & Mobile Phone Health at Mobile Phones UK. The listing appears to be up to date, again based on my Motorola model knowledge. It incorporates information from manufacturer's sites, and provides links to those sites, as well as information from another independent web site SARVALUES. SARVALUES' listing alone appears out of date. As a UK site, Mobile Phones UK's listing gives values based on the European SAR testing procedures (averaged over 10 grams of tissue). I propose replacing the current link with the link to the Mobile Phones UK listing. papageno (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of Date, POV, and unreliable source link removal

I am about to remove a link from the "Independent sources" section because:
1, It is not independent
2, It is no longer current (out of date info)
3, It is from an unreliable source

I didn't leave a comment before as I thought this would be an entirely uncontroversial and was described in the edit history. I also don't think it can be in any way characterised as "blanking", and the previous discussion was about (supposed, POV) massive blanking - of which there is still no evidence. Please discuss possible replacements below, if you feel the need. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not delete sources discussing older models of automobiles because only the newest models of automobiles should be discussed at Wikipedia. This appears to be a SPA IP which has a disturbing pattern of selective deletion over a period of months. I hope this IP will prove me wrong in this analysis. Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The link title is misleading, the information is out of date and of dubious validity, the source is also poor quality and should not be in the independent section. It also adds nothing to the article, and is not referenced from the article. I really don't see why you have such a problem with this, and with my edits in general. If you have any evidence of massive blanking or abuse by anyone please discuss it here, in the massive blanking section, or take it to arbitration or whatever. Please assume good faith and don't just make vague accusations. If you really want it in, put it back - I wont revert it --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good arguments - I have no problem with that link being removed. Barrylb (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

SAR is discussed in the article body, and I believe a link to SAR ratings would be useful for readers. I have no preference as to whether that link is provided in the External Links section or through a sentence in the article body. The current link is out of date, and IMHO the most relevance to readers from such a listing would come from a current version. In which case, I would suggest the link proposed in the previous section on the discussion page; any other up to date link suggestions gladly welcomed. If a body text sentence were to be viewed as the correct route, the link in the External Links section could be removed, and perhaps this construction could serve as the basis for the body text: SAR ratings are available from manufacturers and from [suggested link URL|other web sites]. Or, instead of linking directly in the text, one could use a reference to provide the link to the listing in the References section, something like SAR ratings are available from manufacturers and from other web sites.<ref>For example, see [http://www.mobile-phones-uk.org.uk/index.htm Mobile Phones UK]</ref>. papageno (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My point was that it wasn't linked, and even if it was this is a poor source. I agree with what you say, and think a comment about manufactures publishing these details is much better; that covers all mobile phones and shows that this information is already public, without pushing POV. Could someone add such a sentence and remove the link, in order to avoid further unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety I shan't edit this link --88.172.132.94 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It is important and instructive to retain this link, as it provides data regarding models that, even if people are no longer using them, were used by many people around the world for significant periods of time. "Wiping" such information out and privileging only information on models in use over the past year or so obliterates extremely important data about the effects of models widely used two, three, four, five, or more years ago (which may have already exerted their effects on these models' users). This should already have been clear without my having to spell it out, and I presume it was, but it is simply the content of the link that is objected to by the anon (keeping in mind its previous pattern of very selective deletion). Badagnani (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment on the content not the editor. I you look at my history you will see this is not a "SPA", and I deny your llegations of "blanking" and "deleting". All my edits have been appropriate and constructive. As I said above, and following papageno's suggestion, we should add a simple statement telling people how to find the SAR information for ALL mobile phones, not just this out of date subset. This link is also inappropriate for all the other reasons mentioned, to which the other two editors have agreed. Can you please focus on trying to improve the article. If you have a problem with me bring it up on my talk page. I'd also point out that all of these phones SARs are below the safety guidelines limits, and there is no suggestion of anyone trying to hide anything. I will be making the suggested edits above as per consensus, and for the reasons stated. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus for such selective blanking of a link that includes such important, key information to an understanding of this subject, as discussed earlier. The above commentary seems to have been ignored: "Wiping" such information out and privileging only information on models in use over the past year or so obliterates extremely important data about the effects of models widely used two, three, four, five, or more years ago (which may have already exerted their effects on these models' users). This should already have been clear without my having to spell it out, and I presume it was, but it is simply the content of the link that is objected to by the anon (keeping in mind its previous pattern of very selective deletion). Badagnani (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A link with current information is necessary. The SARValues link is out of date. The Mobile Phones UK link provides a more up to date list. It should be added, which now seems to have been done, in the article body text, by an editor. I take Badagnani's comments about the historical value of a listing with older models, and agree such information could be useful to readers. But, I don't believe SARValues listing fulfills that purpose. It would seem to be a current listing whose currency has lapsed. Nevertheless, I think we can have it both ways: the Mobile Phones UK listing shows the SARValues site as a source, and includes links to the SARValues site in the table and at the bottom of the listing. Thus, we get current listing and links to older models with the economy of just one link, to the Mobile Phones UK listing. As such, the link in the body text to the Mobile Phones UK listing should be maintained (although I would prefer we use <ref> tags and {{citeweb}} template with an access date parameter, instead of just the simple external URL used as of right now; this would facilitate periodic checking of the list to ensure it was still current, and that it still maintained links to the SARValues web site). The link to SARValues in the External Links section should either be removed, or replaced with the Mobile Phones UK link. papageno (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not considerably difficult to add a parenthetical reference following a link saying something such as: "(data for mobile phones produced between 2001 and 2005)," or whatever is necessary. Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree the SARValues link could be tagged appropriately. I cannot confirm that selection of a year range, nor how authoritative a listing for the period in question the link provides. As a result, the link, as a sole representative, is not strong enough to stand in the External Links section. Using the body text and references, I believe a better positioning of all the information can be created. A proposal:
  • modify the final clause in the Health Hazards of Mobile Phone in the body text from the current "...and SAR data for many recent models can be found here [LINK]." to "...as well as on third party web sites."
  • add this reference at the end of that clause using <ref> tags:
"For example, two listings using the European 10 g standard: of more current models at {{cite web |url= http://www.mobile-phones-uk.org.uk/index.htm|title= Mobile Phones UK|accessdate=2008-01-19 |work= Mobile Phones UK web site|publisher=Landmark Internet Ltd}}; of phones from 2005 and earlier at {{cite web |url= http://www.sarvalues.com/eu-complete.html/|title= The Complete SAR List For All Phones (Europe)|accessdate=2008-01-19 |publisher= On-Line-Net - Web Design & Internet Services}} (a listing of US phones from 2005 and earlier, using the US 1 g standard, is also available at the SARValues site)"
  • remove the SARValues link from the External Links
This proposal includes both references, giving readers access to more information than before; improves the body text by removing the external link to a reference (as suggested by WP); includes more detailed references by using {{cite web}} templates; better informs the reader about the information the links will provide; and better incorporates the links into the body text. papageno (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps all users could halt the revert edits until the discussion has resulted in a conclusion. papageno (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are discussing the link to http://www.radiationtalk.com/sar_chart.html , I must say that it is of very low quality. The SAR values are not specified wheather they are taken by US (1g) or EU(10g) standards. Furthermore, the FAQ on the site is full of errors, such as "the majority of the cell phones now exceed the safe levels set by the F.C.C." (The SAR limits are mandatory, and all telephones on the market must be below these.), "A dummy head is immersed in a gel-like solution similar to body fluid and a cell phone is attached to the ear." (The dummy head is filled with the solution, not immersed into it.), "Readings are taken from the antenna" (measurements are made inside the dummy head). The description of near-field radiation is also far removed from reality. And the whole thing lacks references. It is also very hard to find out who, individual or organisation, that it the publisher of the website. In summary, it is not a high quality site that should be linked to from an encylcopedia as an information resource. Mossig (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The changes outlined in my discussion comment of 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC) above have now been made. They do not involve the link to which user Mossig (talk) refers. papageno (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
User DrEightyEight (talk) removed the SARValues citation, inadvertently breaking the other Mobile Phones UK citation. I have fixed the break and also added back in the removed citation, as no objections were raised to its inclusion in the most recent proposal 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC). I invite user DrEightyEight to share his/her objections re the SARValues citation here before making any further edits. papageno (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about breaking the other link, and I couldn't see why the other one wasn't working so I removed it. I guess I forgot to test the first link after. (I'm the "massive blanking IP 88" by the way). My objections to the SAR values site are the same: it is not a reliable source - how can we in any way trust its claims without verifying them ourselves (which is OR). It is also out of date, incorrect in it's factual statements, and we tell people how to find the information already. I'd like to say I think your edits are very good, and thanks for contributing. Thanks. -DrEightyEight (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! I surmised it might be you. Welcome to the (sur-)real world. :-) No worries about the other citation; quite by accident, and I have done much worse! Thanks for the kind edit compliments too. On to business ... I'm not quite sure why the SARValues site (just to be clear, this is not Radiationtalk's list) is not trustworthy or is inaccurate? Leave aside for a moment that the list appears to be no more recent than 2005. I am not an expert on the SAR testing procedures, but the description on the SARValues site appears to be workmanlike and neutral, and is attributed to the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum industry association. The lists of SAR values are properly indicated as either using EU or US testing standards. I have checked a few, admittedly not all, SAR values, for some Motorola phones, and they appear to be in order; none of the values listed are above official standards. While I would disagree with the choice of health links on the SARValues site, one could at least argue that Powerwatch and Microwave News are advocacy groups with more than a little sophistication. All this would seem to suggest that the lists in general could be viewed to some degree as genuine, and probably sourced from credible testing. As regards being out of date, I attempted to preface the point, perhaps clumsily, in the reference text. The list seems to be a good source of information for models going back quite some years, which might be convenient and useful for WP readers, and so I feel on that basis that it should be included. papageno (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that user DrEightyEight was suspected of sockpuppetry and has been blocked indefinitely. Also, user 88.172.132.94 is currently being suspected of sockpuppetry. Refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/88.172.132.94 for evidence. CleanUpX (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)------------- 88.172.132.94 was cleared of sockpuppetry.

External links section

Hi, I think the external links section could do with a bit of a tidy + update. One of the first things I noticed is the "Newspaper articles" section. This contains two old articles, both POV, that are not referenced directly. The article does reference newspaper articles, and these are correctly in the references, so I think these two links should be removed. If anyone has suggestions for other improvements for this section, please add them below --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep links. Anon IP has a pattern of selective blanking and deletion, which in this instance is not helpful to this article. Badagnani (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the editing pattern of editors of this article (and I make no judgment as regards any specific user's approach to editing), it would be helpful to understand why user Badagnani believes the links should be kept, so that a consensus can be sought. I believe that seeking such a consensus is user Badagnani's wish, based on the summary of his/her latest edit to the article. papageno (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I thank user 88.172.132.94 for bringing his/her concerns to the talk page, a wise choice with an article where many editors have strong beliefs. I also agree with his point of view and vote to remove the links from the External Links sections. There is no text, with no references to peer-reviewed studies, discussing cancer and mast sites in the Health hazards of base stations section, which seems to be the primary focus of the two newspaper articles. If such studies exist, they should be added to the Health hazards of base stations section (after a review on this talk page), and any newspaper articles discussing the studies could be mentioned in the reference using the {{Cite journal}} with laysummary and laysource parameters. The newspaper articles currently listed do not reference any such studies. papageno (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The changes outlined here have already been made to the article. papageno (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

just accommodate this link somewhere http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/warning-using-a-mobile-phone-while-pregnant-can-seriously-damage-your-baby-830352.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.37.93 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Improve Genotoxic effects section - Expand text on Panagopoulos et al research

I would like to propose expanding the text on the Panagopoulos et al research, by replacing the first sentence in the Genotoxic effects section with:
"Research published by a team at the [[National and Kapodistrian University of Athens|University of Athens]] in 2004 had a reduction in reproductive capacity in [[Drosophila melanogaster|fruit flies]] exposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.<ref>Reference 1<ref> Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007, with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz; and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant difference between the two frequencies. <ref>Reference 2<ref> Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells …”.<ref>Reference 3<ref>"

Reference 1 is new (Publisher’s Abstract, as no PMID number found). Full {{Cite Journal}} code:
{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Panagopoulos| first = DJ| authorlink = | coauthors = Karabarbounis, A; Margaritis, LH| date = 2004-12-01| year = | month = | title = Effect of GSM 900-MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster| journal = Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine| volume = 23| issue = 1| pages = 29–43| publisher = Taylor & Francis| location = [[London]], [[United Kingdom|UK]]| issn = 1536-8378| pmid = | doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 87856304| id = {{doi |10.1081/JBC-120039350|label= <nowiki>10.1081/JBC-120039350}}| url = http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713628995%7C language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-15| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</nowiki>

Reference 2 is new (PMID abstract). Full {{Cite Journal}} code:
{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Panagopoulos| first = DJ| authorlink = | coauthors = Chavdoula, ED; Karabarbounis, A; Margaritis, LH| date = [[January 1]], [[2007]]| year = | month = | title = Comparison of bioactivity between GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz Mobile Telephony Radiation | journal = Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine| volume = 26| issue = 1| pages = 33–44| publisher = Informa Healthcare| location = [[London]], [[United Kingdom|UK]]| issn = 1536-8378| pmid = 17454081| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 47815878| id = {{doi |10.1080/15368370701205644|label= <nowiki>10.1080/15368370701205644}}| url = http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a777389376%7C language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-14| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }}</nowiki>

Reference 3 is to the existing cited Panagopoulos et al journal article. I suggest replacing the current reference with full {{Cite Journal}} code:
{{cite journal | quotes = | last = Panagopoulos| first = DJ| authorlink = | coauthors = Chavdoula, ED; Nezis, IP; Margaritis, LH| date = [[January 10]], [[2007]]| year = | month = | title = Cell death induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz mobile telephony radiation| journal = Mutation Research| volume = 626| issue = 1–2| pages = 69–78| publisher = Elsevier| location = [[Amsterdam]], [[Netherlands]]| issn = 0027-5107| pmid = 17045516| doi = | bibcode = | oclc = 109920000| id = | url = http://pmid.us/17045516| language = English| format = | accessdate = 2008-01-15| laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = Our present results suggest that the decrease in oviposition previously reported, is due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells, induced by both types of mobile telephony radiation. Induced cell death is recorded for the first time, in all types of cells constituting an egg chamber…}}
papageno (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The changes outlined here have been made to the article. papageno (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Thermal Effects Section – remove sentence with dated unresolved missing citation request

I propose the removal of the sentence “Premature cataracts are known as an occupational disease of engineers who work on high power radio transmitters at similar frequencies.” This sentence was tagged with a fact template in February 2007, and no citation has yet been added. Hence, the statement should be removed. This might engender further editing (given the next sentence), but perhaps we can start with this change. papageno (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're suggestions, after a quick read, all sound good, although I haven't checked the refs --88.172.132.94 (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Flattered. A bit anal retentive on my part, but is it possible this comment belongs better with the previous sub-section on changes to the Genotoxic effects section? If you also agree with the proposal in this sub-section about removing the text in thermal effects, you can edit your comment here to indicate that as well. papageno (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I meant both :) --88.172.132.94 (talk)
The change outlined here has been made to the article. papageno (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a Talk page archive

When editing this talk page, this message appears: "This page is 143 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance." I suggest we get input as to which archiving approach, if any, we should adopt. papageno (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've archived some of the older sections. There is now a link to the archive at the top. Barrylb (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to minimizing radiation references in opening section - ICEMS

I have updated the references in the first article section about minimizing radiation to use cite web templates. The Austrian reference is no longer valid, so that has been changed to a {{fact}} template. I have added the official French government link as a reference to supplement the Ars Technica reference.
Other recent edits to the section include the addition of text and references to the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS). However, this is not a government radiation protection organization, and the references in question do not refer to any government radiation protection organizations. Thus, at least in this context, the references are not relevant, and have been removed. papageno (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff for the ICEMS addition or removal? I'm having trouble finding it (wikipedia is playing up I think) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It's the edit of 16:11, 19 January 2008. papageno (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia crashed for me soon after I edited above. Thanks for the info --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
A replacement reference for the Austrian comment was added by user User:84.218.2.57 in the page edit Revision as of 18:07, 20 January 2008 papageno (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reorganize sub-sections in Health hazards of handsets section

I would like to propose reorganizing the sub-sections in the Health hazards of handsets section to better structure the material. The second level sub-sections should be Thermal Effects and Non-Thermal Effects. Genotoxic effects, Mobile phones and cancer and Electrical sensitivity should be made third-level subsections, as they all refer to Non-Thermal effects. This leaves some material in the Non-Thermal effects uncategorized. Thus, I propose leaving the Glaser reference in that second level, and creating two new third level sub-sections: Blood Brain Barrier effects (to contain the Salford study); and Sleep and EEG effects (to contain the Karolinska Institute/Wayne State University study). There is much more research in each of these areas, so creating the new third-level subsections is thinking ahead to organizing all that material. To summarize, this would make the sections:
Health hazards of handsets

Thermal Effects
Non-Thermal Effects
Blood Brain Barrier effects
Electrical sensitivity
Genotoxic effects
Mobile phones and cancer
Sleep and EEG effects

papageno (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The changes outlined here have been made to the article. papageno (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Precautionary Principle - Not Supported by WHO Reference

See this brief old discussion from 2004 before reading on.
The first sentence of the final section in the article Precautionary Principle reads “In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case.” and is supported by a WHO reference. However, the WHO document does not suggest voluntary adoption of the Precautionary Principle over another method. Rather, it addresses the adoption of precautionary approaches in general. It states in its concluding section titled “Implications”:

The above considerations suggest that a cautionary policy for EMF should be adopted only with great care and deliberation. ... A principle requirement is that such policies be adopted only under the condition that scientific assessments of risk and science-based exposure limits should not be undermined by the adoption of arbitrary cautionary approaches. That would occur, for example, if limit values were lowered to levels that bear no relationship to the established hazards or have inappropriate arbitrary adjustments to the limit values to account for the extent of scientific uncertainty.

The document rules out ALARA for EMF, and, although it does not explicitly choose between or rule out either the Precautionary Principle or Prudent Avoidance beyond insisting on science and cost-benefit analysis (per above quotation), in my reading, it seems to favour more Prudent Avoidance. Any thoughts? papageno (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Recent Edits arising from Western Mail Article

I have removed the recent edits that have arisen as a result of an article, cited in reference, in the Western Mail (Wales) (WM), for the following reasons:

  • Mobile phones and cancer is treated in length in that section in this WP article. The WM article refers obliquely to recent long-term studies on cancer. Those recent studies are already treated directly in this Wikipedia (WP) article's Mobile phones and cancersection
  • The recent WP article edit stated “the French government has advised that children should not spend more than six minutes talking on a mobile phone.” This is also stated in the cited WM article. However, I can find no such warning nor accompanying video at the French Ministry of Health, Youth and Sports or the related AFSSET health protection organization. The ministry did issue a statement on January 2, 2008 about prudent measures to reduce exposure, including some directed at children, as the WM article suggests. The statement is already referenced in the lead section of this WP article
  • the only other study the WM article references is that of the “Karolinska Institute, in Sweden, and Wayne State University”. This study is already referenced directly in the WP article in the Non-thermal effects section
  • The WM article mentions the Stewart report; this too is already treated directly in this WP article
  • The WM article mentions a conference held in 2007 by Coghill Research Laboratories. The topics on the agenda for this conference are, once again, all covered in this WP article.
    papageno (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for adding material in good faith which had already been included elsewhere in the article and thank you for your edit. Although a secondary source, I am a little alarmed that some of the details included by The Western Mail in their report, particularly the statement by Michele Froment-Vedrine appear to be unsubstantiated. I zee from a link to a Rueters news item on the web that the story has now been removed, and I am not sure why. But from where did the story of the television warning film arise, I wonder. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That matertial was added and the press story cited as I believed the WM article offered a useful discussion on how the precautionary principle was being applied in practice to children. I also believed both that the conference mentioned was notable and that the `French six minute limit and TV broadcast' was unique. I was not suggesting that all the other material in the WM article, or indeed at the conference, was or was not already covered elsewhere in this wiki article. If we are to ignore all conferences and symposia simply because they have "the same agenda" as previous ones, I'm not sure we'd ever see any new findings, would we? And I don't see how the fact that a statement was issued by the French Government ministry on one date proves that another statement wasn't issued by another French organisation at a later date. But maybe I am confusing government with AFSSET? And maybe I need to search a little more carefully for the primary sources in both cases. I assume Madame Michele Froment-Vedrine still has her job. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
papageno, I too can find no internet source for the "six minutes" claim, although it seems likely that the French government announcement was accompanied on one or more TV news items by a film showing the thermal effects or mobile phone radiation on the brain. All the Reuters links lead back to the January 2 announcement you cite, e.g. [6]. I have not yet been able to determine whether any of the papers presented at the "emergency conference" mentioned in the WM article were indeed new or notable. But don't hold your breath.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Martinevans123, I appreciate all your comments and believe in your good faith. I had tried to focus on the content, not on the person, in the above discussion, but perhaps some emotion seeped in. I am tired of the media distorting things for their own sensationalist purposes, whatever the topic — not just with regards to mobile phones and health. I note the Reuters article cited is headlined “France warns against excessive mobile phone use” and the first paragraph is “The French Health Ministry on Wednesday issued a warning against excessive mobile phone use, especially by children, though it recognised science had not proved cellular technology was dangerous” rather than a headline of “Science had not proved cellular technology is dangerous” and a paragraph with the clauses reversed. Nevertheless, the comments of the French minister are interesting. I think they should be added as an additional reference using the Reuters article (and the cite news template) to the official ministry reference (currently reference 4) in the lead section of the article. papageno (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the WP "Controversial" warning should also appear on the article page and not just on this Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. The {{Controversial}} template used on this talk page only works on talk pages. papageno (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Add Japanese study - published in British Journal of Cancer

I believe user 75.88.151.7 would like to see a recent Japanese study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, added to the Mobile phones and cancer section; the study is noted in this Reuters dispatch Japanese study clears mobiles of brain cancer risk. I agree. It should be added with a {{Cite journal}} reference, using the Reuters dispatch in the lay parameter. I have removed the edit from the very bottom of the WP article where it had inadvertently been added. papageno (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This study has now been added to the article papageno (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Albumin in the brain

The section about leaking albumin into the brain should state that albumin does not naturally occur in the brain. However, I believe such a statement needs to be sourced. __meco (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to find souch a source, as the statement is false. Mossig (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuits - improve references

I have revised the text re the Daubert hearing and the associated case. The reference supports the use of a Daubert hearing and the case itself. However, there are a number of details missing from the cite case template, most importantly IMHO a date/year for the case. Can anyone help? Also, can anyone help with more reference details for the other Motorola case in the section? I don't have access to an online law database, which would seem to be needed. Also, should we add fact templates to support that cases were brought against other manufacturers, since there are no references for such cases at the moment? papageno (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Effects on Bacteria Infection?

Is there any research of mobile phone EMF radition effects on various bacteria infections, especially in the urinary track and abdominal? I saw researches like [this] that links increased E. Coli activities to EMF but not specifically relate to the frequency, strength and usage pattern of cell phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.131.147 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thermal effects

"However, the cornea of the eye does not have this temperature regulation mechanism and exposure of 2-3 hours' duration has been reported to produce cataracts in rabbits' eyes at SAR values from 100-140W/kg, which produced lenticular temperatures of 41-41°C[12]."

41-41C is quite a narrow range. Looks like a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darsie from german wiki pedia (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

When does it expose one to radiation

Is one exposed to radiation only when the cell phone is being used or is it also potentially dangerous to have the cell phone near one's body while not making a call? For example if one carries the cell phone in a pants poket? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.219.28 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this information already contained in the article? If not, why not? Badagnani (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In my observations as an electromagnetic detection amateur, the radiation when not using the cell phone comes less frequently when not in use, typically a duration of several seconds of hello protocols once every 10-60 minutes, with variance depending on the device and signal availability. For example, if it's a device that also downloads e-mail wirelessly, the radiation may be more frequent. Additionally, under extremely low signals, some mobiles will emit very powerful signals in the order of every few seconds or minutes in search for a tower/mobile phone mast when not on a call. In terms of signal strength, another interesting observation is that the signal for some mobiles is stronger during this hello protocol and when talking than when only listening. I don't know that there is any "safe" level of exposure, but some simple precautionary measures are keeping some distance when it is on, turning it off at night, and turning it off in low signal environments where it's not even usable. Pensees (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

clarifyme tag for Martin Blank

In the new Martin Blank paragraph under Non-thermal effects section I just added a {{clarifyme}} tag to the sentence about electrons in DNA molecules being moved around by EMF (permalink). To save me sorting through 600 pages of fringecruft, does anyone already know if the conjectured mechanism is selective movement of charge from one region of the (already polar) strand to another, or if it involves charge rearrangement after ionization? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Salzburg International Conference on Cell Tower Siting "
  2. ^ PubMed Abstarct
  3. ^ The Stewart Report
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wireless_device_radiation_and_health/Archive_2&oldid=934948199"