Talk:Wireless device radiation and health/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Limits on 2GHz by country

Reference levels for general public exposure to time-varying electric field on 2GHz. ICNIRP limit for power density is 10 w/m2 and reference level for electric field is 61 v/m.

Country	Power density w/m2	Electric field V/m
Serbia	10	24
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

I do not think a listing is needed. Almost every country in the world uses the same International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) limits. There are only a few exceptions. --papageno (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think people are interested in those exceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duleorlovic (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

How much research is needed? - when will we change the lead?

In the lead: "In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified mobile phone radiation as Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic. That means that there "could be some risk" of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted."

I know the non-ionizing radiation can't be proven save. So, "so additional research [needed]", made me wander what does that mean? What does it take to move to another (lower) category:

Group 1: carcinogenic to humans.
Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans.
Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to humans.
Group 3: not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.
Group 4: probably not carcinogenic to humans. Only one substance – caprolactam – has both been assessed for carcinogenicity by the IARC and placed in this category.

[AND I notiched, the ONLY substance in the lowest category "is an irritant and is mildly toxic"! Of course the dose makes the poison, so anything, even water, can be toxic, but I didn't think it would be labeled "mildly toxic".. Do most things studied, at all, end up in 2B? Or at least, those studied long enough (increases false positives right?). I'm not sure why so few in Group 4.

AND in Group 3:
Toxins derived from Fusarium graminearum, F. culmorum and F. crookwellense
Toxins derived from Fusarium sporotrichioides]

(only?) Critical readers will notice that 2B is the third category, not second. As there is a category for "probably carcinogenic" and this radiation is NOT in that category, can we say: "didn't classify mobile phone radiation in Group - 2A probably carcinogenic, but in Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic"? Note I do not propose "classified mobile phone radiation as probably not carcinogenic".

I assume as already classified, Group 3 will never be a new option. Would if ever stop being classified in any group or does that not happen and Group 4 would be the only option?

As I understand the physics to not allow non-ionizing radiation to break bonds/cause cancer. Would entirely new physics have to be discovered? I don't know enough about the physics; not really sure this is true, is it maybe more about biology, that while of course is based on physics, would it allow for some cancer cause that involves current physics, with or with bond-breaking? Thermal effects, that do not have anything to do with DNA? comp.arch (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Objective and subjective information, I found from last month, on the classification and what is needed for its change and the possibility thereof.[1][2] comp.arch (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Worst sentence on Wikipedia?

 Fixed

"however Frey alleges that an editor determined that a researcher who claimed that his attempts to replicate Frey's research had not validated Frey's results had incorrectly interpreted his own results, and that his research had confirmed Frey's results"

Say what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.62.71 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as it wasn't even relevant to the preceding references. He was talking about a withdrawn paper by Merritt. Bhny (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This deserves an award. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Who was talking about a withdrawn paper? What day is today? Where am I? EEng (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Beware, folks... this is what mobile phones can do to your brain... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're breaking up. EEng (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mention of other Class 2b substances unhelpful

I have removed the mention of other substances that are in IARC Class 2b. The inclusion of other substances either trivializes or demonizes. They do not help to explain why mobile phone radiation is in the category; each substance must be evaluated on its own. Users can follow the link to the Category 2b article to see the explanation for the category and the other substances that are on the list.--papageno (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I admit that the examples of 2B carcinogens include both trivial and demonized but given that most people won't look any further into what 2B actually means I think that giving some extreme examples is helpful. The phrase 'List of IARC Group 2B carcinogens' is so laden with emotional baggage that there is no way that is going be taken as a neutral term. We need to explicitly include some examples to put this into context, group 2B is a every day risk that nobody worries about unless it it is specified as '2b cancer risk'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mtpaley. The real info comes only if one brings examples. Alex2006 (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a list of thing within the group is more descriptive than the arbitrary name of the group. The phrase "possibly carcinogenic" isn't descriptive either. Do we have a source which mentions radiation along with some other substances so we don't get into WP:OR land? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I share some of the concerns expressed by other commenters here, but do not believe that including examples addresses them. It is true that the term "List of IARC Group 2B carcinogens" might only be viewed with negative connotations, and that readers might not seek to dive deeper by following a link to that article. However, if we include one example from that list, any other examples are fair game. So we can add talc, but then it would be fair to mention DDT and lead, which most people would take as dangerous — but which are dangerous because they are an endocrine disruptor and a neurotoxin respectively, not because they are on the 2B list, and then we're back to square one. There already is some text that attempts to put the 2B list in context in this article. I would be open to discussing here other or additional text to give even more context; I recommend viewing the Positions of governments and scientific bodies - WHO section of the Electromagnetic radiation and health article which might prove helpful in such work. --papageno (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"then it would be fair to mention DDT and lead, which most people would take as dangerous — but which are dangerous because they are an endocrine disruptor and a neurotoxin respectively", thanks for adding this info I wasn't aware of. Can't we just say that (the cause non-cancer, see below) or possibly agree not to list such "possible carcinogens" in the article based on that? Or are there a lot of other dangerous examples on the list that we would have to "explain away" (I also see..: HIV type 2 (infection with), HPV some types other than 16, 18, 31 and 33, Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency))? What I think you are saying is that they happen to be on the list and are maybe very unlikely to either cause cancer (just some other disease) or if they do it is not because of any kind of radiation (separate mechanism). Quickly checking, I can't see that a neurotoxin has anything to do with radiation or cancer. Radiation from outside the body would never be classified as a toxin (nor even ingested radioactive material?). Do/can neurotoxins cause cancer? The word cancer can't even be found on the page, except for in references (seems it is there a possible cure, not a cause of cancer):

"Use of Chlorotoxin for Targeting of Primary Brain Tumors." Cancer Research

Interestingly, however, in the intro section "Local pathology of neurotoxin exposure often includes neuron excitotoxicity or apoptosis[14] but can also include glial cell damage."

Endocrine disruptor: "These disruptions can cause cancerous tumors". Is DDT known to be dangerous then (mostly) because of something other than tumors? But..

DDT (yes, in class 2B, but seems to be mis-classified in too low a category?): "A Lancet review of epidemiological studies concluded that that DDT causes cancers of the liver, and pancreas" but article also says "the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a "possible" human carcinogen [that is 2B, it seems], and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 "probable" carcinogens." Now it seems either the page has an error or the EPA, has a very unfortunate "class B2" ("probable", not "possibly"), that is not the same as IARC Class 2B, and seems more like 2A! comp.arch (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: To my surprise lead is in almost all categories (in some form), in, not only, group "2B 23, Sup 7 1987" but also "Lead compounds, inorganic 2A Sup 7, 87 2006" and "Lead compounds, organic" is NOT a carcinogen, in group 3 "23, Sup 7, 87 2006".[3] Seems lead 2B was not superseded by 2A (or was it?) and it is supposed to be in many categories concurrently.

+Examples. A casual reader is unlikely to click through to the full list. I'm not sure why a list including, e.g., coffee and lead brings us "back to square one". Agreed that the text attempting to put 2B into context is not quite adequate--but I was unable to come up with better without relying either on examples or original research. Perhaps a cleverer person could do better. In the meantime, using so-called extreme examples is an easy way to provide the context. Meh222 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree it would be good to have some examples of other things in this category for comparison. 71.167.62.71 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Throw lawsuits out?

Perrymasonfan, about this edit. Is it enough to have a source? "brought by people who believe their brain tumors were caused by their cell phones" maybe what the people think, but this article isn't about that. The causal chain, would have to be, first that mobile phone radiation causes tumors, then that those tumors causes a lawsuit. The latter would only be very indirect (and NOT a cause therefore out of the scope of the article?) and the former is unproven. Even if a judge rules something. They are not scientists. Should we at a minimum wait for a ruling? I believe the bar may be low to file a lawsuit, and doesn't the judge have to allow a lawsuit to go forward?

"admitted the testimony of 5 of 8 scientific expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, which allows the cases to move into the discovery phase" I wander what happened to the three not admitted, and if admitting into "discovery phase" means anything other than "show me if your case is bogus" (I am not a laywer). Does this only belong in the news and wikipedia is not a news site, per WP:NOTNEWS policy? Allowing "29 lawsuits" seems to only be to imply there is a danger, while this article (showing the scientific consensus), seem not to agree with, and then it would be WP:UNDUE?

We could discuss the case from Italy separately (maybe it has been decided as it is in the article), but what one judge decides in Italy, doesn't make scientific fact. comp.arch (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The case from Italy has been decided, since the Corte di Cassazione is the supreme court. This means that there have been a first and a second trial and the decision of the Supreme Court can't be appealed. Of course what the Italian Judges decide does not make science, but makes jurisprudence (in Italy, of course), and is based upon the current scientific knowledge (there are academic experts which bring it to the judges). Since this case is summarized under the "Lawsuits" section, there is no reason to think that people can confuse it with the outcome of a scientific paper. Alex2006 (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Because that IS a ruling (while I guess a wrong one.. and I can't read it as it's in Italian) and a supreme court I guess it may be ok, to have it in. I only threw out the most recent "29 lawsuits" per WP:UNDUE as not yet ruled on, and it would imply to some that judges agree.. In the states they don't, at least the source here tells me. As I said, Italy is a "separate" issue.. comp.arch (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and not just in this case. :-) Maybe in the future if there will be some more interesting case worldwide we could split this section in a separate article, like in the case of tobacco. Until then, I think that a separate section here is ok. BTW I will change the section name to Litigation, i think that it is more appropriate. Alex2006 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Maximum Emissions per EU member State

are mentioned in the google: EU emf_comparision_policies_en.pdf (I signalled the typo in comparision) --SvenAERTS (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The 900 MHz frequency is also used as to mark a reference level

The 900 MHz frequency is also used as to mark a reference level (Reference: Stam, Rianne. (May 2011) "Comparison of international policies on electromagnetic fields (power frequency and radiofrequency fields)." (PDF) National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (of the Netherlands) ) to express the total power or impact of the electric field "E" - expressed in V/m - or the power density "S" - expressed in W/m2 - of the overall cellular frequencies immision and cumulated effects caused by all frequencies e.g. 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2100 MHz, used by all mobile phone operators at the same time to a certain space where e.g. humans are exposed to these frequencies over a certain span of time. --SvenAERTS (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Strange wording for this sentence

In the second sentence on this page the wording feels a little awkward.

  As of 2016, there were 7.4 billion subscriptions worldwide (but some have more than two, so 4,230 millions users in 2014 gives better picture with then about 97 phones per 100 citizens).

"So 4,230 millions users in 2014" would make more sense if it was "So 4.23 billion users" in order to keep with the style of the previous clause which uses 7.4 billion to state the number of subscriptions. It seems awkward to suddenly switch from billions to millions when there is still over a thousand million.

Banditd92 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Too many quotes

The number of quotes on this topic are not warranted. These need to be paraphrased out. Chabeck (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

New study released showing link to cancer

See: Wall Street Journal 5/27/2016. Obviously it should be added to the article. I am not sufficiently familiar with the article at this point to make the insertion. It seems that it should go in the cancer section, and language in the effects and lede should be revised accordingly.

Question: Are we putting the studies in chronological order, reverse chronological order, or based on the significance of the studies, with review studies first and less significant studies later?

FYI. I did post about it on Jimbo's page here, in this section. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The story is also covered by the Scientific American and Fortune, no doubt cellphone shares are tumbling. OTOH the Huffington Post sounds a more cautious note. The Sci Am notes that these are only partial results posted on a prepublication web site here and looking at it it is still a draft and not the to-be-published version. Nevertheless the document itself says that these partial results have been peer-reviewed, so they do need to be taken seriously.

With my cautious scientist's hat on I would say that this experiment needs independent repetition and the result confirming before it can be accepted as mainstream science. Many studies have come undone in this respect and caution is very important here. This does not, at first sight, appear to have been a double-blind experiment in which the rat carers didn't know which was the control group: one cannot rule out some unintended bias on their part which might have affected the rats' health (for example they might have felt anxious in case the RF was switched on while they accessed the wired chamber and that might have been picked up by the rats and stressed them too).

Taking on my electromagnetics test engineer persona, I would note another limitation of the experiment because there was no control group for unmodulated RF, or for lower-frequency electric or magnetic fields such as are produced by power cables. The suggestion that any adverse effects are limited to mobile phones is wholly unsupported and if the risk is real then it could be more widespread. That thought, of course, raises one's concerns over the risks.

Sadly, I can see this as one of those stories that get caught up in the "silly season" and the truth of the matter gets lost in the kind of hyperbole you threw at Jimbo. I rather think the National Cancer Institute will be updating its faq on the subject, although given the mixed results from previous studies I don't think that a lot will change. Worth keeping an eye out for, though.

Is it too soon to cover this news story here? I am standing down on that one. I regard Wikinews as the place for the "reality change log" and Wikipedia as the place for the latests "checkpoint archive", as it were, and in this I appear to disagree profoundly with established consensus. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a pre-print, and the supporting studies along with a parallel mouse study have not been released at all. There has been some criticism of the media coverage (for example, at Forbes), which has had some outlets revise their coverage, if regrettably opaquely. David Gorski at the prominent science skeptic site Science-Based Medicine also has a critical article. The inclusion of the study is preliminary. --papageno (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if the new study would be conclusive for mice, I note some parts (e.g. no risk to [mice] females, have they be studied so far showing any effect?):

In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” [..] Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the number of tumors that developed in the animals exposed to CDMA versus GSM modulations. [..] The findings are not definitive, and there were other confusing findings that scientists cannot explain—including that male rats exposed to the radiation seemed to live longer than those in the control group.

— the SciAm article above[4]

I also note WHO info was taken out of the lead, correctly if/since they dropped 2B categorization. I can't locate mobile phones/radiation mentioned at (as I did at some point in the past) under "Volumes 1-117"[5] (while however I still see it under "Alphabetical order", even if both "Last update: 22 December 2016"; I'm guessing the meant to drop "Includes radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from wireless phones" in the latter but only did in the former..).

Anyone know more about sex differences (effects should(?) be the same for both sexes, at least for ionizing radiation, but cell phones do not have ionizing)?

After reading this article, I was reading a completely unrelated piece about about dry cleaning and found this: ” Liquid silicone (decamethylcyclopentasiloxane or D5) ….. Toxicity tests by Dow Corning shows the solvent to increase the incidence of tumors in female rats (no effects were seen in male rats), but further research concluded that the effects observed in rats are not relevant to humans because the biological pathway that results in tumor formation is unique to rats.” Could this pathway be the same for the cell phone cancer study?

— comment to critical Forbes article above[6]

[Some extra trivia on something that DOES cause cancer (WHO group 1 category), wood dust, made me think, what to make of other article I noticed at Forbes[7] and this they linked to:]

There may be more fiber in your food than you realized. Burger King, McDonald’s and other fast food companies list in the ingredients of several of their foods, microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) or “powdered cellulose” as components of their menu items. Or, in plain English, wood pulp.

— Qz.com article Forbes linked to[8]

Inclusion may be justified (as not harmful), as "wood dust" isn't the same as "wood pulp" (at least link to different articles at Wikipedia..). Note "wood smoke" is also known cancerous (separate category, i.e. "Biomass fuel (primarily wood), indoor emissions from household combustion of"). In lesser category 2A (yes, higher "worry" than mobile phones in (previously) only 2B..): "Very hot beverages at above 65 °C (drinking)" (year "In prep."). What that means with Tea ruled out (category 3) in 1991, and "Coffee (drinking)" (and caffeine), I'm not sure.. comp.arch (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism ? [9] ? --Ne0 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No, and mind WP:NOTVAND. The article was full of unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

More like a badly-needed cleanup to help meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup of lawsuits section

I have removed the Indian case. An ongoing case in such a slow-moving legal jurisdiction is not relevant. The French mast decision should be removed as well. There are doubtless tens of thousands of mast through France. The removal of one, without any apparent effect on others, is WP:UNDUE. Finally, the Italian pension decision, again without apparent effect on a significant number of other cases, should be summarized with one or two sentences instead of a whole sub-section. --papageno (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done a cleanup and consolidation of this section. --papageno (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Attempts to edit were undone

It seems that updates are being deleted within minutes. My attempts that were undone include the following:

Studies are contradictory, suggesting that some people may be more vulnerable to ill effects.

There is a growing and substantial body of research regarding the siting of cell phone base stations (CPBS), aka monopoles, as contributing to autoimmune disease, neuropsychiatric complaints, heart dysfunction, and diagnoses of cancer. Cellular phone base stations are also associated with an adverse impact on plant and animal wildlife.

REFERENCES:

Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai, Environ. 2010. Rev. 18: 369–395. (Redacted)

The NO/ONOO-Cycle as the Central Cause of Heart Failure. Martin L. Pall. Int J Mol Sci. 2013 Nov; 14(11): 22274–22330. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856065/

Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Puente A, Breunig H, Balmori A. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Dec 1;572:554-569. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133?dopt=Abstract

Joel Moskowitz. Press Release: Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC. Mar 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.html

Another edit that was undone was the addition of this sentence:

The number of organizations urging caution has been growing and includes medical associations, environmental associations, governments, and school systems.

REFERENCE: Governments and Organizations that Ban or Warn Against Wireless Technology. Cellular Phone Task Force. Accessed 30 June 2017 http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128

and

...although the World Health Organization and medical organizations in other countries have recognized Electro Magnetic Sensitivity (EMS) as a real syndrome that afflicts a percentage of the population.

REFERENCE: Website of Environmental Health Association of Quebec. Accessed 1 July 2017. http://www.aseq-ehaq-en.ca/recongnition.html

Plus - I changed a subheading title with a blatant POV from "Bogus Products" to "Radiation Shielding Products" with no change to the content that said they were ineffective. It was undone. Seabreezes1 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Some points:

• We use WP:MEDRS for health claims not (say) press releases or stuff from dubious advocacy sources like cellphonetaskforce.org.
• WP:V is a core policy and cannot be dodged. So saying "There is a growing and substantial body of research ..." must be directly supported by a decent source that says that.
• The WP:LEDE must summarize the body. Do not add stuff to the lede unless it properly summarizes good material that already exists in the body.

Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I linked to several scientific studies listed in PubMed, albeit including a link for a review of scientific literature that directed to a website that could be faulted as not Wiki approved. But updating the link to the better source rather than deleting the content of my edit to Wiki would've been more consistent with Wiki protocol of collaborative improvement. Ditto for the link to a press release citing a the National Telecommunications and Information Administration document housed on a slow loading/non-responsive NTIA website. Even placing "citation needed" while searching for a better source for a government document that is listed in search engines as containing this material from the DOI to the FCC would be preferable to ignoring the scientific dispute. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

My efforts to find documentation of the wildlife science in mainstream press like the NY Times brings up news reports from other countries and American environmental groups, but nothing from premier US news carriers that are Wiki worthy - which is suggestive in itself.

IMHO: Including scientific and historical facts in the article about the evidence of harm, even while allowing for the controversy, is a responsibility of Wiki editors.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ninja edit Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Our purpose is to reflect accepted knowledge as found in good sources, not to WP:RGW. A lot of the stuff about cell phone harm is just loony anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As someone with allergies and autoimmune disorders who has been in anaphylactic shock more than once with an ER scrambling, I am well acquainted with labeling. It is a fact that some people can't eat nuts or be around cats or use certain medications. Bee stings and clams are a normal part of summer for some, and a death trap for others. Yet my former mother in law told me that allergies were a form of mental illness as she heaped food on my plate. Consequently, I'm interested in things autoimmune related, and radiation from CPBS and Smart Meters are documented as problematic. Personally, my heart palpitations stopped when I had the smart meter pulled off my house. I only got them when I was in that corner of the house watching TV and I was horrified that I was that sensitive as I work in IT, albeit with the quirk that I don't use or like cell phones - thankfully in my rather rural home, I don't have good reception and use that as an excuse. Some of the claims might be speculative, but there is evidence of harm clinically documented and substantiated by scientific studies. I suggest that the POV in this article, as well as the material be updated. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

At some point, once there are enough actual deployments to make it relevant to this article, the range of frequencies should be extended upwards to 5925MHz, to include LTE bands 46 & 47.

Proposed edit: "no increase" vs "There is no evidence"

User Air.light proposes changing the beginning of the second paragraph in the lede from "Mobile phone use does not increase the risk of getting brain cancer or other head tumors" to "There is no evidence that mobile phone use increases the risk of getting brain cancer or other head tumors" (my emphasis added). We have reverted a few times and I thought it best to bring the matter here for discussion. I disagree with the user's proposal, for one since I think it is a case of Russell's teapot. I have reverted to the "initial state", created on 2017-01-12 by User Alexbrn, and invite User Air.light and other interested editors to comment on the proposed change. --papageno (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, WP:ASSERT facts. Why have a verbose alternative? Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The original quote says definitively that mobile phone radiation does not increase the risk of cancer or other head tumors. A major source referenced here quite clearly does not say this and says information that somewhat contradicts this. It says that electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans".

Please tell me, why should we say the opposite when a major source (the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer) says otherwise?

It also says that "studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of mobile phone use". Long-term studies take decades to conduct as some cancers take a very long time to appear. Mobile phones haven't been around long enough to see the results of these studies (as explained in the source).

I think my edit was fairly conservative. I also think that that we should elaborate on this a little further – ie. elaborate on both points of view in the article for the reader to distinguish between. What reason is there not to? Being too verbose should not be a reason as this is an encyclopedia after all. Air.light (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The WHO is even more direct. As they say in their Fact Sheet N° 193 (October 2014) summary of mobile phones and health: "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use." Studies are always ongoing on everything to do with human health, meaning it's not noteworthy. Cell phones have been around for nigh on 35 years, and the microwave band has been used for wide-area communications for 65 years. "It's too soon to know" is a common pseudoscience and cancer refrain, that doesn't hold up here. in the lede, the simple, straight state of affairs is sufficient, and in the body more explanation might be offered.--papageno (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

'pseudoscience' eh? Instead, there are sentences that admit cancers caused by mobile phones, like in Italy this year. Atleast this was admitted as a FACT, while scientists are 'cautious'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mobile phone radiation and health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111082827/http://www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/en_GB/news_527/ to http://www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/en_GB/news_527/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418100044/http://www.iegmp.org.uk/ to http://www.iegmp.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

non-thermal biological adverse effects

I was looking for the Wikipedia subject: non-thermal biological adverse effects to Human. Is there any topic would cover this scientific issue to human? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Electromagnetic radiation and health ? Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Hi Alexbrn Thank you for your update Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

My Edit on India's Supreme Court Ruling removed

Hi,

I had attempted to edit the Mobile phone radiation and health page some time back. Here is difference page of that edit I agree with Seabreezes1 that the edit get deleted rather more quickly than expected.

The cellular operator association of india (COAI) has filed intervenor and caveat applications so that any unfavorable judgment is not passed. Full order of Supreme Court is here

The petition against the mobile towers can be read here. Ntu129 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Violations

@Emfsafety: Stop violating WP:MEDRS. We don't allow that. You might get blocked or banned if you persist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

In 2018 a Hindawi journal, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, published an epidemiological paper on glioblastoma, none of the authors of which had academic appointments. The paper was accompanied by a press release that overstated the importance of findings with respect to the hypothesis that cell phones are dangerous, and the results of the paper in media interviews by the authors.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 2 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Wireless device radiation and health". (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Mobile phone radiation and health → Wireless device radiation and health – The content of this article relates to technologies more broadly than just mobile/cell phones, including wifi, DECT and others. I propose that the article title should reflect this. Note that in August 2019, the Wireless electronic devices and health article was merged into this one, which has a very similar title (and could be an alternative option), however since most of the health concerns center around radiation, perhaps that should be kept in the title. Feel free to comment on whether there might be any issues with doing this. -- SimonEast (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Radio waves, which are radiating electromagnetic signals, are not what the average person thinks radiation is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Propose instead Electromagnetic fields and human health. This is a phrase used in the sources, scientific literature, and the exact quote has 100000 ghits. It avoids the emotionally confusing connection with "radiation", which is commonly non-scientifically assumed to be ionizing radiation. The scope of this article extends to zero-frequency (Ref 1 includes "EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz"), zero-frequency implies a static electric or magnetic field, which is technically not radiation. Broadly, "radiation" is the wrong word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Existing article at Electromagnetic radiation and health. Wondering whether these articles excessively overlap. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes on "Wireless device radiation and health", which is how things like 5G are typically described in local regulations for antennas and their supporting equipment (e.g. by state, one city), including the FCC and Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and case law. That's the case for the U.S., but I don't know about E.U. and other English speaking countries' regs.

This title unlike the previous, would more clearly cover cell phones, WiFi, antennas, and 5G. However, I could see advantages to separating the public antennas (and other utility equipment) from the cell phones themselves, as the regulations and exposure levels, methods of mitigation, would be different, I believe.

EMF is too broad. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support for "Wireless device radiation and health". We also have Electromagnetic radiation and health, so the proposed title "Electromagnetic fields and human health" does not disambiguate well, even if more technically accurate. As a bonus, this term avoids the WP:ENGVAR where the title starts "Mobile phone" yet the article uses "cell phone" 25 times (including a section title), "cellphone" 5 times, and "mobile phone" 42 times (including the references). 94.21.10.204 (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

With this edit I've changed many uses of "cellphone" or "cell phone" to "mobile phone", "phone" or just omitted entirely, per MOS:ARTCON. Of course, not in references or quotes. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Better title"

Is this really a "better title" for the article? Seems I just missed the move proposal above and it was closed after 7 days, but with just three comments. I thought the original title was more reader-friendly. Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Bone mineralization"

I am surprised to see no mention of the bone mineralization study from 2011 in the article; it seems to be pretty definitive evidence that cellphones do interact with our bodies, although not in a way that's clearly harmful. I think it should be incorporated into the article, but I'm tired of seeing my wikipedia contributions thrown away, so Im just leaving this here for someone else to add... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21415640 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.231.228 (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSMED, we try to use reviews and meta-analyses rather than (currently unreplicated?) single studies. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Currently we have:

In response to public concern, the World Health Organization established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. They have stated that although extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum, all reviews conducted so far have indicated that, as long as exposures are below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, which cover the full frequency range from 0–300 GHz, such exposures do not produce any known adverse health effect.

The cited page is just a landing page, it's not clear what exactly is being cited (looking at the archive near the access date archive doesn't help.)

The "In response to public concern" is vague (concern about what?), if we mean cancer we should just say cancer. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

WP:NPOV contents about Mobile phone radiation

Hi Wikipedians, From my understanding, the subject seems like written by the mobile industry people who tried to claim that "there is no adverse health effect of RF radiation". Please see the reference below and add the additional contents with WP: NPOV items which are evidence of adverse health effect of RF radiation. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mostly junk sources. The review is interesting, but inserted into the article in an undue way – Lennart Hardell's views are outliers in this space.[10] but possibly worth a mention. I've added something more due. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I believe the contaminated or fake news( example: The New York Times) is real junk source.

Would you be able to clarify the difference between the junk source and the reliable source? Why did you consider the source from United States National Library of Medicine is junk in your point of view? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote, the review (PMID 28656257) is "interesting": this is the piece by Lennart Hardell – it essays an outlier view which may yet be worth mentioning. Otherwise, see WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI/WP:FRINGE for relevant policy/guidance. The medical consensus is that mobile phone radiation is not a health hazard; conversely there is a bit of a conspiracist/loony fringe claiming otherwise (see electricsense.com - a site you linked, for crankery turned up to 11). We need to be clear about the first and call out the fringe views for what they are. Alexbrn (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the contents by Lennart Hardell : it is the publication from United States National Library of Medicine based on 52 reliable References.

I will summarize the contents below - just one line, and remove the duplicated contents - as it was already written by "Rolf h nelson" on 9 February 2018: fda: ( "the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of radiofrequency energy exposure")

• New edit: Professor Lennart Hardell

claims that a Fact Sheet from WHO contains the issue of the neutral point of view as missing with non-thermal biological adverse effects to the human body from RF radiation.

• It's my previous edit:

however, in the year 2017, United States National Library of Medicine(PMC - US National Institutes of Health) Publication claims that a Fact Sheet from WHO had several issues of neutral point of view regarding IARC is the part of WHO and five of the six members of the WHO Core Group regarding RF frequency adverse effect research, are having severe conflict of interest to International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP did not embrace the evidence about non-thermal biological adverse effects from RF radiation. WHO promised to conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from radiofrequency fields exposure by 2012, but there is no official declaration of risk assessment from WHO so far. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the text about and the supporting Hardell article (see PMC 5504984) reference. It is drivel. Any article that ends with an insinuation that the WHO are affording themselves protection from radio waves that they do not recommend for others, based on comparing the radio wave levels at the main train station of a capital city and a suburban campus like that of the WHO in Geneva is nonsense, especially when the levels at the main train station in Stockholm are below the levels the WHO recommends. Frankly, one could explain to a primary school student why the levels would be higher at the former than the latter. There are other good reasons to exclude the article, but this reason is egregious enough. --papageno (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi papageno,
Would you please be able to elaborate that the issue with the neutral point of view to a Fact Sheet from WHO regarding deliberate missing with non-thermal biological adverse effects to Human? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Goodtiming8871, but I really don't know what you are asking. The Hardell reference does not measure up to WP:MEDRS, as I have explained —briefly, with one reason — in a previous comment above. Please do not add the text back in without making your case here first. --papageno (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

On paper the Hardell paper would appear to be MEDRS. However it's not really a "review" and on reflection it is really too off-the-wall with its claims to merit inclusion unless we can use other sources discussing Hardell's view for WP:PARITY. I.e., I wouldn't object to including Hardell's view if we made it clear it was fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this article is worthy of inclusion. It's published in a pay-to-play journal. It's a Spandidos publication, so the the top editors are the father Spandidos and his son and daughter. And Hardell himself is one of the "Editorial Academy"! (Reference: Archived 23 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine). I doubt the article had adequate peer review. That I—and anyone else with a modicum of technical knowledge in the field—could detect a fatal flaw in his conclusion in about 30 seconds reinforces that belief.--papageno (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi papageno, I mean, with the topic: non-thermal biological adverse effects to Human, I believe that it should be included in a Fact Sheet issued by WHO.
Concerning non-thermal biological adverse effects to Human, Please let me know if you have an idea for finding the reliable source to meet the WP:MEDRS guideline, Mobile phone radiation and health, Yep it is disputable agenda in our society. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think the WHO Fact Sheet should include such effects, as they are not proven. And the Fact Sheet is not the topic of the article, so we must take its conclusions as given.--papageno (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I just read the PMC 5504984) reference and I agree that it is meaningless drivel. Most references are from the BioInitiative Working Group which is "self-published online, without peer review - wikipedia". It also references emfscientist.org but there is nothing there apart from scare stories without any data. www.peccem.org references emfscientist.org then says "The preponderant presence of members of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reminds us that this organization (and other institutions with the same criteria) refused to accept new scientific evidence of potential health risks from nonthermal, low-intensity radiofrequency radiation despite recent scientific advances in knowledge on the subject. " Without referencing any of these recent scientific advances. Mtpaley (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This might be straying into the realms of original research but as billions of people have been using mobile phones for 10 years or more the statistics are as good as it is possible to be. Any adverse effect even a tiny one would stand out given a dataset as huge as this, it is actually harder to study now because there are not enough people not using phones but historical data covers both low and high usage levels. We should try to avoid getting into the territory where claims that something is dangerous because it cannot be proved to be safe are given undue weight because this is statistically a impossible thing to do. All that can be done is to say that the risk is below a certain level. Just throwing this into the discussion to help to keep it grounded in real statistics. Mtpaley (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

References