Talk:Wireless electronic devices and health

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mtodorov 69 (talk | contribs) at 07:52, 10 July 2008 (→‎NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

You can't put all the devices in the debate because they are wireless

The mobile phones have been under debate for a while now, and the page describes that debate. There is no debate concerning wireless networking, dect cordless phones, etc. "there seems to exist less public awareness of the possible health issues for wireless LAN devices than there is for mobile phones" Why should there be?

Mobile phones overshadow discussion of Health concerns with wireless devices

Mobile Phone radiation seems to have a much stronger body of discussion related to it. It seems that generally clarity on health concerns for other wireless devices is much more lacking.

I would like to see deeper discussion of the EMF levels of Wireless LAN vs Mobile Phones for example.

I think that merging into Mobile Phone health and raditation would mean that other devices would generally be overshadowed by the stronger body of discussion on mobile phones specifically.

With more and more wireless devices in use I think a broader content looking at Wireless devices generally will be useful going forward.

Agreed, this is very much my take on the issue also. Have you added these comments to the "AfD" page for this article? Topazg 11:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you know...

They used to say cracking your knuckles was bad. Now, they're saying that they can't actually directly link it to arthritis.

I'm thinking the same thing will happen to whatever "health hazards" wireless devices cause.

ICNRIP page deleted - Conspiracy or something much more mundane?

Ive read the attached page, and tried to follow the link to ICNRIP and found it to be deleted, for what looks like antivandalism purposes.

Hit google and found ICNRIP.de being the 'International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection'.

Anyone know why this connected page was deleted and/or how the ICNIRP relates?

The article states that "From an environmental-health point of view, less than 0,1 microwatts per m2 are desirable but often sharply exceeded due to the presence of today's technologies. "

Is there any source for the number 0.1 microwatts? Otherwise it is a very POV-statement to make, and I think it should be removed. Mossig 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally

I am personally pretty apalled at the quality of this article. The English is awful. The article is anything but NPOV. Scientifically, things such as maximum values are being compared to typical values and assumptions (such as lower power = less likely to affect) are being made. Statements touted as facts are unreferenced and as a result are simply user opinion. Some of the stated facts are simply wrong (most phones at 900 Mhz?! more are at 1800 Mhz and plenty are at 2100 Mhz). This needs some serious editing! Arathalion 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new contributions by 195.188.250.142 are unsuitably worded. Also, the references to length of bluetooth/mobile phone studies need references, so I will remove them until some are presented. Arathalion 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article is biased towards electrical sensitivity existing, which all scientific evidence contradicts. There is also a lot of original research, and I think the whole article is non-notable. I also support the deletion of this article, and the claim that it is pseudoscience 128.243.220.21 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your first comment seems factually incorrect. As far as I can see, the article points very much to the lack of likelihood of its existence, both from using words such as "claimed" to citing the relevant literature. The article could do with broadening to studies not looking at ES (but still Wireless devices and health) to increase notability, and this I think is important to prioritise for this article.
I cannot see the reason for deleting the article, and also there is no pseudoscience quoted (as far as I can see), so how can it be pseudoscience? The topic title itself is neutral, and therefore cannot be pseudoscience -- I fail to see the support for your claim. Topazg 10:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[electromagnetic radiation and health] offers references that contradict these. I think it is wrong to consider all warnings about EMF health hazards "pseudoscience". There are good refs in mentioned article that warn about studies of increased cancer near the EMF power sources in animals and humans. Mainstream does not always mean "Objective". -- Mtodorov 69 (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Wording

Again, please can we avoid the usage of Weasel Words. "Scientific Consensus" is just not appropriate unless you can support the claim with comparative figures of scientific opinion. "Most scientists", "most medical practioners", and "most anything" are exactly the same, and are simply bad form. See Weasel Words for further info. Topazg 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move quotation mark

current text:

The chairman of the Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart, has said that "evidence of potentially harmful effects of microwave radiation had become more persuasive over the past five years. His report said that while there was a lack of hard information of damage to health, the approach should be precautionary."[1]

I think the closing quote goes at the end of the first sentence. Maybe I'm supposed to just do it but I'm new to this and don't have an account.

24.178.168.137 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

I think this page should be merged with Electrical sensitivity, as they both seem to cover the same ground. Anything not included already in the ES page could be included in a new subsection with the same title. I'm open to other suggestions, such as merging in the other direction if more appropriate, or merging with other pages. As it is this page needs a lot of work to remove bogus claims and bad links. Thanks 90.197.168.195 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree: ES is a term used by some people for a condition proposing that a certain causal realation exists beteen ELF/EM-fields and some specific symptoms. This article has a broader scope, and couldcover also other areas, which is not included in ES. (One example is hypothezied mutagenic or cancerogenic processes, which are definitly not a part of ES, but is a part of the broader "health" aspect.) Mossig (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Stewart Comments

The chairman of the UK Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart, has said that evidence of potentially harmful effects of microwave radiation had become more persuasive over the past five years.[2] His report said that while there was a lack of hard information of damage to health, the approach should be precautionary.[3] The HPA, however, disagrees with his assessment. Its official position is that “[t]here is no consistent evidence to date that WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population.” And also that “...it is a sensible precautionary approach...to keep the situation under ongoing review...”.[4] Sir William has resisted any calls to further explain his comments.

Not sure if I have improved things with my recent edit (shown above and current in the article). The Times reference link refers in an indirect quotation to a report by Stewart and things he has reportedly said therein, to support the first sentence in the text above. I've added in a link to the IEGMP report (2000) as an original reference to support the next sentence, as that is the only report of which I am aware Sir William has released on the topic. It covers mobile phones, but they do use microwaves, so while not exactly covering WLANs, which also use microwaves, it is close enough. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there is some other report from Sir William on WLANs or microwaves that came out at the time of the Times article, which appeared 2006-11-20? Does anyone know? Is there a link to the original report available - preferable to a popular press reference? Separately, there is no supporting reference for “Sir William has resisted any calls to further explain his comments.” Anyone aware of one? If one is not forthcoming in this discussion, a {{fact}} template should be added.papageno (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that has been discussed before and a reference was found in The Register, and another publication (the guardian, bbc?) --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two refs on the register from Guy Kewney, who is also the BBC's tech expert. These have been published on The Register and NewsWireless.net at least, and one is a public letter that was also sent to many people: [1] and [2]. I'm sure the bbc and/or guardian ran similar pieces too --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think the http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/25/wi-fi_health_concerns/ link would work as a reference to Sir William's resistance to calls to explain his comments further. It would also support the Times reference. I propose adding it at the end of the original quotation above. papageno (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Thanks for chipping in so much :) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that user RDOlivaw was suspected of sockpuppetry and has been blocked indefinitely. Also, user 88.172.132.94 is also being suspected of sockpuppetry. Refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/88.172.132.94 for evidence. CleanUpX (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed “issue of choice” Paragraph

I have removed the paragraph in the section “Exposure difference to mobile phone” suggesting that, as opposed to with mobile phones, there is an issue of choice in exposure for wireless devices, in particular for non-users. This is clearly not true: however trivial IMHO the exposure is in either case, non-users of cell-phones are still exposed to the transmissions of other cell-phone users in their vicinity, as well as to the transmissions originating from any local cell-phone base stations.papageno (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. I have re-written my original paragraph, with a clearer explanation of the difference. I will explain it here in a bit more detail:

Unlike wireless, exposure to mobile phone radiation is something people DO have a choice about.

Key to the debate over the safety of mobile phones and base stations is the issue of proximity. Scientists who claim mobile phones (and base stations) pose a health risk are talking about close proximity, not just "background radiation".

Base stations are claimed to be a risk only when people spend significant time living or working in close proximity to them (roughly under 100m). Anyone who wanted to avoid this would therefore be able to do so since base stations are usually quite visibly externally situated, and not normally aimed directly at public places such as schools or hospitals (note that base stations are often placed on top of public buildings, but the signal travels outwards, not downwards).

As for mobile phones themselves, the health concerns are only over mobiles being placed directly against the head. If a mobile phone is moved just a couple of centimetres away from a person's head, the microwave absorption to their brain drops drastically, moving it farther away still results in an exponential drop in dosage.

The background radiation from other users' mobile phones is highly unlikely to come anywhere near as close to that of you using a mobile yourself, unless you are in a small enclosed area with multiple (roughly three) mobile phone conversations taking place at once, such as a busy train. But, again, this is a scenario you are in control of. Going in a room full of mobile users is like going in a room full of smokers: you can choose whether you spend time in there or not. If you see someone near you is using a mobile phone, you can avoid getting too near to that person, in the same manner you might avoid a cigarette smoker. Wireless, on the other hand, is being installed "invisibly" in many public places such as schools where people (and, most worryingly, children) will spend great amounts of their time. Rather than being a mere by-product of other people's lifestyles, wireless is being deliberately forced on people.

This difference is what my deleted paragraph was pointing out. Whether there is any truth to the health claims or not, the fact is that wireless is being actively "aimed" at children in schools, whereas a person can easily distance their children from mobile phone technology. Personally, I have had no trouble living and working well away from mobile phone base stations, and avoiding close contact with mobile phones themselves, however, as WiFi becomes more and more prevalent, avoiding these invisible networks is becoming extremely difficult. This, to me, is a crucial difference in the two technologies, and this is why I have re-written my origina paragraph.

Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the questionable statement that others have raised concerns about. Needs to be properly sourced to a Verifiable RS, taking undue weight into account --68.35.75.27 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from intro / New intro suggestions?

I removed the following from the into because it uses "weasel words" and isn't referenced. I think it shouldn't be put back, but a better (neutral, but bearing the scientific and evidence view clearly in mind) introduction could be written instead. Here is the removed material:

With the focus on health concerns of mobile phones, people[who?] are questioning the health risks of other wireless devices now being increasingly used at work and in the home, such as wireless local area networks, DECT and other cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, and other wireless technology.

GeoffreyBanks (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio and TV Transmitters

This article says, "However, the powerful fields produced by radio (and then TV) transmitters have been present for more than 100 years now with no known effects on people's health." This appears untrue in the light of the following studies :

We should also note that:

  • Radio and TV transmitters, because of tighter regulations, are spaced further apart than, say, cell towers.
  • Cordless phone are in some cases a more significant source of exposure than that of a base station (which have been linked to health effects according to some studies, see article on Mobile phone radiation and health). Pensees (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all surveys, they do not show cause and effect. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Radio and TV transmitters are spaced further apart than cell towers, as broadcast transmissions, while made at frequencies different from those used for mobile telephony, are made at much higher power levels — tens to hundreds of thousands of watts. Spacing them as close as cell phone towers would be problematic from a health perspective. Also, given the range the combination of frequency and power gives to broadcast transmissions, there would be too much interference to adjacenent stations using the same frequencies. Viewers / listeners would have to accept this interference, or the number of stations would have to be reduced dramatically. Neither is practical. --papageno (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review Levitt Reference

This comment had been added in a revision on June 17, 2008, but was inadvertently deleted in a subsequent revision on July 1, 2008

Can anyone provide a relevant quotation from the Levitt (2001) reference used in this article as Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health#cite_note-5? Any references within that quotation would also be useful. It is hard to evaluate the reference without access to this detail. --papageno (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health&oldid=224754369"