Talk:Wireless device radiation and health

Motor vehicle

My specific interest at this time is in the dangers of talking on "mobile phones" while operating a motor vehicle. -- More studies and informed discussion on this would be of practical use to the general public/ safety and health. I admit at my current scanning/skimming level I might have missed something. -- [aftercomment]: The "Wikipedia" sites are an inspiration; will continue "hitting". -- [User: Skydogs|TDLturner]19:15, 2006marzo10. (MST)

Coverage is in a different article: Mobile phones and driving safety. I added a link to make it easier to find. -- Beland 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Old talk

I have added back precautionary measures, because I don't agree that they are NPOV. To make it more palatable, though, I have modified the wording, adapting it to the approach adopted by the World Health Organization precautionary principle for EMF and health.--R.Sabbatini 18:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph is much better now - the style is much more informative and encyclopedic. ChrisUK 23:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To all contributors to this topic: it is very controversial, so please let us keep it neutral and with authoritative links, only. There are thousands upon thousands of articles in the media about the subject, but the majority is written by journalists with second-hand info. I will edit out any contribution that departs from this norm. Thanks for your interest. --R.Sabbatini 22:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot of material in this article that is clearly inappropriate for 'Mobile phone radiation and health'—e.g. the entire 'Indirect health hazards' section... anonymous @ 01:04, 5 June 2005 (EST)

I don't think so. Since is this by far the highest (and the only one to have solid evidence) risk of using phone cells, it is my opinion that this section should be mantained, regardless of not being caused by radiation per se. --R.Sabbatini 05 June 2005.

scientific consensus?

"according to the scientific consensus, the only effect on the human body is that the temperature of the head may increase by a harmless fraction" - this is not true, there is no such consensus. convensional wisdom indicates that the only effects of non-ionizing fields would be thermal. however there is a vast quantity of research, primarily in vitro and on simple animal models, that shows significant effects of nonthermal fields (sometimes very weak ones). the mechanism of that is not well understood. that said, there are (as far as i know) no epidemiological studies that show a strong/significant/unambiguous effect from cellphones. i posted a related comment in Talk:Electromagnetic radiation hazard. i think that subject merits an article in itself, not just on the hazardous aspects of electromagnetic fields on humans but covering all that is known about the subject so far, and this article can link to that for more info as well as mention here some of the in vitro/animal studies with parameters similar to cellphone exposure. what do you think? what should such an article be called? Biological effects of electromagnetic radiation? ObsidianOrder 1 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

There are also many studies showing very little or no effect of non thermal fields. Plus you have to distinguish between spontaneous variations in a parameter and variations owing to RF. Mmny of the studies have found fairly insignificant, temporary effects, not shown to cause adverse health effects. And if you read http://www.mcluk.org/zmirou/zmirou2.htm then you will see that many of the "non thermal fieklds" used have in fact been pulsed, and caused increases in temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

the other side of the story

After consultation with R.Sabbatini, I went through and removed/changed any parts of the article which explicitly state the POV that there are no grounds for health concerns. I also fixed a few technical inaccuracies and added links. Todo:

• a decent summary of the in-vitro and animal-model research. this is a huge topic, I guess we just have to sample the high points.
• some more info on epidemiological studies. is there a meta-review? can we cite each study we mention?
• some hard data on radiated power from base stations and the typical radiation levels they produce (with sources)
• better explain the importance of "non-ionizing" and "non-thermal"

I'd appreciate it if people can look this over. ObsidianOrder 05:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

One particular nitpick: sure, inverse-square-with-distance is a pretty rapid dropoff, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the fields are weak, you have to consider that they feed into a high gain antenna first. Take a typical macro-cell base station with 5 (sometimes up to 20) carriers at 15W feeding into a 18dBi gain antenna, that gives a peak ERP (isotropic Effective Radiated Power) of ~700W per carrier (~500W is more common) or ~3500W peak total ERP. In the center of a beam at 100m the peak field is ~3uW/cm^2. (incidentally, these are the kinds of hard numbers on radiated power that the article needs, but from cited sources) That doesn't seem like much if you're looking at the FCC 1.6W/kg standard, but then you have to look at studies such as this one: Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997;18(6):455-61 [1] (showing irreversible infertility in mice at <1uW/cm^2) and this one: von Klitzing. Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields influence EEG of man. Physica Medica. April - June 1995 Vol 11 pp 77-80. (showing EEG changes at <0.1uW/cm^2). ObsidianOrder 06:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This report has a decent summary of the animal and in-vitro experiments related to cell phone safety. It's virtually impossible to give it a concise summary since it covers topics from modulation of calcium efflux to ornithine decarboxylaze to DNA strand breaks (about 30 subheadings, ~40 pages, btw it covers human and epidemiological studies as well). While the people who assembled this report were apparently very conscientious - it is as good a coverage of the literature as I have seen anywhere - I have to disagree with some of their assessments. It seems they do not have a good knowledge of the current theoretical models of interaction of RF fields with tissue (such as IPR, temporal integration or ion channel nonlinearities), which leads them to be skeptical of many observations which actually fit the theory nicely. Anyway, clearly this is too much material for this article, but perhaps a summary of a few paragraphs might work? I'm not sure which parts to pick. A bullet list would demonstrate the broad range of effects but would be otherwise hard to read for most non-specialist readers. Anyway, I really want to include a sense of what's in there without being way too verbose. ObsidianOrder 13:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Unscientific contributions

A recent contribution to this article has stated that the human head acts as a parabolic reflector (sic) and generates a moving hot spot inside the brain. I have removed the offending paragraph, because:

1. A parabolic lens would be the physical model, not a reflector
2. The side of the head around the ear is mostly plane, so the focus, if existent, would be far away at the other side of the head
3. The amorphous, electrically conducting and largely irregular structures of the cranium could not act as a lens, but rather as a Faraday cage
4. I did a literature review in [2] and there are no reports that there is such an effect

--R.Sabbatini 15:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

R.Sabbatini, you're absolutely right about the head not being a "parabolic reflector". However, near-field effects are very complicated and a "lens" is not a good model either. In practice when a cellphone next to a head are simulated using a finite elements computation, it turns out that there are usually one or more focal points *inside the head* at which field intensities are >10x greater than what they should be based just on radiated power. ObsidianOrder 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. but only in part. Some researchers in Brazil have calculated a finite elements model of RF within the head and have "forgotten" to put the effect of bone densities and of heat dispersion by blood circulation in the model... So these focal points could not happen at all! Living heads are active response devices, very finely tuned to maintain temperature, oxygenation, etc. Please send me the reference for a sensible and realistic simulation if you know one. --R.Sabbatini 22:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here you go: a great review with links to more info [3], and a free online paper from AFRL [4] (see paragraph 3.2.4 and especially figures [5] and [6]). To summarize: a device with 125mW output power produces average head SAR of a mere 8mW/kg, but at high resolution (1mm grid or finer) there are regions with up to 9.5W/kg SAR (and yes, this is using anatomically accurate models from MRI scans, as do most of the studies in the review article). That means at peak output conditions of ~1W for a cell phone you'd get SAR up to 76W/kg in some points (but "only" ~20W/kg in the brain). The high-field-strength spots are located primarily at the surface (including the pinnea and skin) and secondarily inside the brain, a locus about 30-40mm directly below the surface adjacent to the antenna. Yes, you can probably "maintain temperature" even at 76W/kg (that's roughly 1C/minute) but that is completely irrelevant since we are talking entirely about *nonthermal effects*; there is no "active response" to such. I would also point out that even 8mW/kg is easily sufficient to produce weak nonthermal effects such as affecting melatonin levels or increasing hsp expression (especially with chronic exposure), and 76W/kg is enough to produce some pretty dramatic effects in vitro, including massively modulating Ca2+ efflux, modulating neurotransmitter binding, and literally driving conformational changes in transmembrane proteins. ObsidianOrder 04:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

These very high SAR avlues, over what volume (in weight) where they averaged?Mossig 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mossig - in this particular report, a volume of 1mm^3. Yes, these are quite high values, the overall average is much lower (actually 10^5 times lower), but I think you'd agree the existence of such high-field-strength spots could be very biologically significant. Also please note that the model used, while anatomically accurate to 1mm scale, does not take into consideration the microscopic structure of tissue (capillaries, cells, etc) and those inhomogeneities probably cause much higher local (sub-mm scale) SAR values. ObsidianOrder 01:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be a reflector? Transmitted electromagnetic radiation is partially (or totally, if the angle is low enough) reflected at the boundary between materials of different refractive index, as in the mirror effect at the surface as seen from underwater. I haven't looked up or tried to think through how refractive index varies with frequency, to see whether the effect would be plausible in the radio frequencies, but if it were visible-wavelength light going through a glass head-shape you would get bright spots where rays converge that were reflected where they would have left the glass. The same sort of internal reflection is described in explanations of how a rainbow happens. dsws 02:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dan - several reasons: one, the wavelength is on the same scale as the size of the supposed reflector so you're more likely to see diffraction; two, this is less than one wavelength away from the antenna, hence what happens is near-field propagation which is quite different from far-field reflection/refraction/etc; three, the absorption is strong enough that the signal loses 50% strength within several cm of travel inside tissue, and any reflection off the far side will be quite attenutated; and finally, this has been modelled using finite elements, see one of the diagrams in the article. The bottom line is you do get "hot spots" below the surface, but the reasons are not optics-like reflection or refraction. ObsidianOrder 20:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Reflection and refraction are large-scale effects due to exactly the same equations that rules near-field behaviour. But you are right in that the SAR distribution often can be very non-obvious.Mossig 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Health Issues regarding other Wireless Digital Systems

Would anyone that's a bit more knowlegable in this area, like to have a look at the related section which covers other Wireless Digital Systems and Health.

I have been uncertain about what possible effects/issues exist in regards to Wireless LAN's. Thanks

I have added some data to the article in question, but lots of research on it remains to be done. --R.Sabbatini 11:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

I'm going to have another go at cleaning up some of this article. I think there is a little too much editorial POV and "jumping to conclusions". Encyclopedia articles don't typically have a "conclusions" section ;) No disrespect intended, and while I think a lot of the material I am about to remove is pretty good, the problem is it is not sourced, and it only presents one side of the story. I am not opposed to putting it back in if it was properly sourced and if the counter-arguments were fairly presented. Hope that's ok. ObsidianOrder 05:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Section moved from article: Vested interests in scientific research

The following text is too biased to be left in the article; eg comment about militants, and the sales pitch for MMF Barrylb 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some commentators who are militants against the widespread use of mobile telephony have alleged that the mobile phone industry has pressured research institutions to reduce funding for independent investigation of possible health effects, interfered with publicity of research results suggesting health concerns, and attacked the credibility and integrity of such research and researchers. No hard evidence has been provided for this allegations, however.

In fact, it seems to be the opposite: the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF), for instance, applies every year several million dollars for funding independent research on the subject. The money is provided with no strings attached by the biggest manufactureres, such as Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. The MMF is a not-for-profit organization based in Brussels, Belgium. Only research which adheres to the highest methodological standards are funded. Results are required to be published in the best peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.

The World Health Organization International EMF Project maintains a public database of research studies which can be consulted on-line [7]. Abstracts of studies are published as well as the complete reference. There are ca. 450 studies in the database related to mobile telephony EMF and health.

Yay, you caught one that escaped the last cleanup. Congratulations ;) I agree this should go. Perhaps write something quick that mentions the MMF and that it funds research, without any additional comment? Also the WHO database stuff (last para) can stay. ObsidianOrder 03:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Source: Gerard Hyland

I note that in the article, Gerard J Hyland is referenced. I'd like to propose that this be removed, as Hyland has been repeatedly strongly criticised for his work as unreliable, unrepeatable, and unscientific. In particular, Hyland's work was rejected as reliable evidence in the case of Petursson vs Hutchison 3G (2005). [8] (I appreciate this is from a POV website, mast-victims.org, however the relevant text is a reprint of the judicial verdict):

74. Dr Hyland lacked balance and impartiality in relation to his evidence in this case. He did not adopt the objective approach which a court expects from an expert witness. Dr Hyland claimed that all the expert bodies (apart from the SSI (Sweden) and Zmirou (France) reviews as to which he had no evidence) lacked honesty, independence and were economical with the truth. This is a bold and startling contention. It would, for example, cast doubt on the integrity of Sir William Stewart (who chaired the IEGMP, and who is now the Chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board) who referred in the foreword to the Stewart 1 report to "the fierce independence" of the group he chaired. I have no hesitation in rejecting Dr Hyland's statement with respect to these eminent and expert bodies. Dr Hyland produced no evidence in support of his contention. His unjustified criticism of national and international groups reflects poorly upon himself and must be viewed in the light of his own partiality in giving evidence in this case. In his reports to this court, Dr Hyland failed to draw attention to the COST 281 Statement. That paper, dated November 2001, is titled Scientific Comment on Individual Statements of Concern About Health Hazards of Weak EMF. It was prepared by an international committee of scientists in response to a submission which Dr Hyland made to the European Parliament. It contains the following: "It is postulated by Dr Hyland that GSM radiation affects the organism. This is supported by the argument GSM 'has rather well defined frequencies' which can interfere with 'a variety of oscillatory electrical biological activities, each characterised by a particular frequency, some of which happen to be close to those used in GSM' in particular 8.34Hz and 2Hz, which 'correspond to those found in the human EEG – especially in the ranges of the alpha and delta brain waves, respectively'. This is non-scientific argument by analogy." The paper sets out those matters, which it says Dr Hyland has ignored, and continues "Therefore postulating that weak GSM signals would affect brain activity just because there is a similarity in the frequency components ignores well-established knowledge.". It goes on to express strong criticism of Dr Hyland's approach eg "not based on generally accepted scientific rules. It is of dubious scientific nature and does not reflect the view of the majority of the accepted scientific experts in the field." This indicates strong condemnation by peers as to his own objectivity and scientific rigour.

DWaterson 21:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Health Hazzards of Base Stations

My contribution to this section (see below) was removed by Barrylb. Although there is still no proven causal relationship between brain tumours and Base Towers, the anecdotal evidence is mounting and the situation at RMIT I feel is of sufficient interest (and concern) to justify inclusion. What do others think? --angusj 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Of anecdotal interest, in May 2006, the top two floors of the RMIT University in Melbourne Australia were closed pending further investigation because seven staff members who worked there had contracted brain tumours over a seven year period. On the roof of the RMIT building there is a mobile phone transmission tower. While this does not demonstrate a causal relationship between brain tumours and proximity to mobile phone towers, it is certainly concerning. [9][10]

It is interesting, but I think it is too soon to include anything in the article. Check out http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=459 for someone else's commentary. -- Barrylb 11:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Barry for the interesting link. Yes, seven brain tumours in 2 floors of a building in seven years could be due to other causes. I certainly agree it's too early to point the finger at base towers. Also, this cluster of cases could still be coincidental (though the probability of that seems pretty small). There's a judgement call on what's creating necessary vs unnecessary anxiety in the community, but generally I believe it best to err on the side of too much information and letting others make up their own minds. (As a side note, and having considered the comments made in your link, I'm not easily persuaded that electrical currents to air-conditioning units and lifts are likely to be significant contributors towards causing this cluster of tumours since air-conditioning units and lifts are found in just about every modern building without causing these problems. However, if base towers themselves require sufficient electricity to induce significant EMF exposure then of course that needs to be considered too.) --angusj 13:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it does belong in the article, its big news at the moment, it's relevant, we just need to be clear that it shouldn't be taken as conclusive evidence. Brendanfox 11:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there has been feedback to the previous EMFacts link, saying perhaps the radiation underneath the mobile phone towers could actually be high enough for concern: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=460

I also think it is good to "err on the side of too much information" but I suppose my concern was the prominance given to the story - it may be overstating the signficance of the story until we know any more. Perhaps it could be put in a separate current events section. -- Barrylb 22:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the paragraph in the original location (pending a better place for it). Also, I've just done a quick calculation on the probability that this cluster of tumours is coincidental - and the probability of that is about 0.1% - ie it's very unlikely. (My calculation was based on an annual incidence of primary brain tumours = 20/100,000 and assumes that the number of people regularly visiting the top 2 floors would be no more than a few thousand.) --angusj 02:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The stories are saying it was only staff affected. One article says "more than 100 employees" were sent home [11]. So I presume it would be no more than, say, 150 employees. -- Barrylb 04:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would do some calculations too... According to statistics at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/braintumorstudy the annual incidence of brain tumours for people under 65 is 4.5/100,000, so over 7 years that is about 32/100,000 (I assume Australia is similar to US in brain tumour rates). I plugged in some values at http://home.clara.net/sisa/binomial.htm (expected proportion=0.00032, number observed=7, sample size=150) and it output 0.00000000 probability of it happening... -- Barrylb 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I've heard one suggestion that perhaps the peak exposure occured many years ago, and it is only now that the tumours are developing, explaining why the levels can be currently within normal limits. Just on that, does anyone know what the accepted exposure limits are based on? Is there a particularly good study that determined these values? Interested to read how these things are calculated...Brendanfox 07:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the suggestion that "peak exposure occurred many years ago" is absolute rubbish if it's to imply the staff must have been exposed prior to residence in the building. The extremely conservative statistics presented above should pretty much discount any thoughts that this cluster of tumours is coincidental. Also, the 'Telegraph Newspaper' link states that environmental tests were carried out 5 years ago (in 2001) after the first 2 cases were reported and these were reported as 'safe' - so there's nothing to suggest they've improved safety since then. However, it's important to note that none of these workers developed tumours overnight since all tumours take time (usually many months) to develop to clinically detectable sizes. Anyhow, the most likely explanation is that whatever is causing these tumours is undetectable with currently used monitoring devices. --angusj 08:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think the idea was more that there was a peak in exposure at some point (perhaps an incident of some kind) at the actual site, some time ago, but this is clearly very speculative. It's also possible that there's some other factor that the workers have in common. Brendanfox 11:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tumours like these probably take something like 10 years to develop. [12] Regarding the exposure limits, they are set based on the level at which thermal affects are known to occur. They take no account of non-thermal affects. I think it is unlikely that the phone towers exceed the exposure limits. If the phone towers are to blame it will be due to non-thermal affects and this is the key battleground for the entire industry. -- Barrylb 12:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Some slow growing brain tumours may take 10 years to develop but others can develop much more rapidly (and as a retired anaesthetist I've seen quite a few patients with brain tumours). Also, with any kind of EMF radiation both dosage and duration of the exposure are important factors in morbidity. Obviously workers who've been there the longest are at greatest risk. --angusj 14:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Brendanfox - current limits are based solely on thermal exposure models. If it won't (literally) fry you, it's safe. This leads to limits in the 10's of W per kg levels or single W per kg for continuous exposure, just to be safe. This is probably a very useless measurement, considering that people have observed nonthermal effects at microwatts per kg levels. The problem is that such effects are not easy to reproduce... some evidence indicates that the results may be affected by ambient RF noise, or the strength and relative orientation of constant magnetic fields (the Earth's magnetic field, for example). That means that you could live next to a powerline and get cancer from it, but your neighbor (for whom the powerline and Earth magnetic fields intersect at a different angle) is perfectly safe. It is not a simple matter, and gross epidemiological studies can completely miss that. ObsidianOrder 02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The final report RMIT report is available here. Their media release says "there is no brain cancer cluster on the top floors". There is an interesting independent response here -- Barrylb 21:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Barry for the interesting link to the independent response. (The obvious solution now is to move RMIT administration into the 2 floors in question.) --angusj 22:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article - Conclusions

This new section sounds like original research and POV to me. -- Barrylb 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mobile phones and its corresponding base stations seem to be remarkably safe devices, as far as the majority of well accepted and reproducible experimental and observational studies could determine. They are in use for more than 30 years, so long range effects have also been taken into account. They are used by more than a billion users worldwide, and vast numbers of people are constantly exposed to low-level, non-ionizing radiation coming out of base stations, so lack of a strong statistical base is not an issue. The spectrum of radio waves used for communication for more than a century, at intensities orders of magnitude larger than microwave radiation used in mobile telephony, an exposing even larger numbers of people, has not been implicated either.

A number of common sense and science-based facts would sum up to the conclusion that significant ill effects are improbable:

1. Even with a very low risk ratio, an increase in the number of several diseases which have been attributed to low-level microwave radiation would be easily detected, and this has not been the case;
2. The penetration power of microwaves into the human body is very low. Most of the radiation is converted to heat within a few millimeters of external anatomic structures and clothing. Those who are not afraid of being exposed to visible light in reasonable amounts, should not fear microwave radiation, which has many properties of weak visible light toward the infrared range, i.e., they have comparatively lower power density than light, lower frequencies, are non-ionizing, non-cumulative, and with too large a wavelenght to promote interaction with subcellular structures
3. The levels of radiation emitted by base stations is too low to be biologically significant, and represent an increase of a few tenths of microwatts per cm² over the already-existent microwave background radiation of a typical modern city.
4. Emission power absorbed by the human body are higher for handsets, but they are typically used only a few minutes per day close to the head;
5. Exposure limits defined by international standards, such as ICNIRP, are typically 50 or more times lower than the biological safety limit. If they are respected, biological effects are

extremely improbable.

Are you really antagonizing the additions to this article, which was started by me in the first place? What is your agenda?? Of course conclusions are warranted. Of course they are not a POV unless you have a POV. They are NPOV, based on published evidence. But I have renamed it to Summary and will reinsert it back as many times as I wish. If you want to submit this to a votation, please do. --R.Sabbatini 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I upset you. As you probably know, Wikipedia has a No original research policy which they summarize as:

This section appears to violate that, whether you call it Conclusions or Summary or whatever. -- Barrylb 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Barrylb. The evidence regarding the safety of mobile base stations in particular is still very scant for reasons touched on in the main article. Also, I'm still of the view that the recent cluster of brain tumours at RMIT is of sufficient interest and concern to warrant a comment in the main article. It appears that the paragraph mentioning the RMIT issue has been removed. --angusj 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. This section presents one POV very nicely, but that's not we're here to do (at least not without presenting the other side). -- Avenue 04:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"remarkably safe devices" - RSabbatini, I gotta give you this, you're certainly not trying to hide your POV. Now, I wouldn't say that they are remarkably dangerous, but I am not so sure they are safe either... and there is a huge controversy in the published literature about that. For an encyclopedia to state as a fact that they are safe when there is such a controversy is an example of extreme (and unacceptable) POV. Yes, I also agree with Barrylb, the "Conclusions" section was in violation of NOR. I am going to attempt to clean up the rest of the article (again), while preserving any sourced material, please bear with me. ObsidianOrder 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

cleanup again

Cut a number of bogus statements which fall under the general category of opinions presented as undisputable facts, examples:

• "Currently the only universally accepted biological effect of microwaves is heating" - which is why there are 3000+ papers on non-thermal effects
• "they are unable to interact with microscopic cell structures" - only if you don't understand the interaction mechanism
• "[The WHO] have concluded that there is no convincing evidence for harmful effects" - actually, they've concluded quite the opposite, as judged by their recommendation of the precautionary principle applied to this
• "relative risk is comparatively small" - opinion
• "One should be aware that that documented effects..." and "... should be considered with great caution" - really not our place to say that. Find an expert who says that and quote him if you want.
• "mere 30 metres away ... would be extremely unlikely to occur" - opinion, POV writing
• "media exposure frenzy created around conflicting and often badly conducted scientific studies" - opinion, POV writing

Please note that I left all of the sourced information, including stuff in the biblio and quotes from various reports, no matter how lame. I will be expanding the section that talks about the Stewart report shortly. ObsidianOrder 01:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"only if you don't understand the interaction mechanism" Oh dear it seems like Obsidian Order is referencing the discredited work of Gerald Hyland, whose theory on the mechanism of non thermal fields on health has never been proven and which has been condemned by his peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

More than 3000 scientific articles that documents non-thermal effects? I have seen this statement before, but never seen any list of these alleged papers. Please give a reference to such a list, or at least the first 1000 papers. Mossig 17:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mossig - I will gladly get you started. Here are the first 500: [13]. Want more? You'll have to do some digging ;) Search MEDLINE [14] for anything by the following authors: "Adey WR", "Blackman CF", "Becker RO", "Frey AH", "Blackwell RP" (many more, but these come to mind first, their work is almost exclusively in this area...) and also for "magnetic fields" or "electromagnetic" or "microwave" in combination with one of the following terms: calcium, embryo, melatonin, ornithine, "bone healing", opioid, cholinergic, analgesia, hyperalgesia, "power frequency", "power line", VDT, ... That should easily get you over the 1000 mark, probably close to 2000. Enjoy. ObsidianOrder 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Mossig - alternatelty do this exact search on MEDLINE: ("magnetic fields" OR electromagnetic OR microwave) AND (opioid OR cholinergic OR embryo OR melatonin OR calcium OR ornithine OR "bone healing" OR expression OR analgesia OR modulation) -> 2661 results, from a random sample I'd say about 75% are directly relevant. A random pick from the middle, #1318 "Flipo D et al, Increased apoptosis, changes in intracellular Ca2+, and functional alterations in lymphocytes and macrophages after in vitro exposure to static magnetic field. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 1998 May 8;54(1):63-76." Do I even need to explain why a static field is completely non-thermal? Or why this is a flat-out impossible result according to the conventional (forces exerted on molecular dipoles) theory of interaction of biological systems with magnetic fields? ObsidianOrder 23:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One more for you: WHO EMF project bibliography [15] - just hit search -> "There are 2679 studies that match your criteria" ObsidianOrder 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The paper you use as an example is regarding static fields, which by definition is not microwaves. There are a lot of research also being done, and non-thermal effects shown, for low frequency fields. Regarding your list: The first paper is not a scientific publication, it is a discussion. The seconds discusses thermal effects. A couple further down discusses influences on driving when talking in a mobile phone, which may be due to the microwaves, or due to the cognitive task of having a conversation. etc. (The list even includes papers from the EU regarding the precautionary principle!) Please give me a list of 3000+ scientific articles that show non-thermal effects of microwaves. (And btw, Yes, I know how to do scientific searches. And I have done them. And I am very sceptical that there are 3000+ papers in existance which shows non-thermal effects of microwaves. As you assert that they exist, it is up to you to show that they do.) Mossig 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the WHO-database: the search result of 2679 includes 710 review articles, which gives 1969 articles of original research. If we narrow it down to microwaves related articles, we get 1837 relevevant articles. The list includes high-power, ie. thermal studies. And it includes negative results, ie. no effects were shown from microwave radiation. The database also includes non-peer reviewed articles...Mossig 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"very sceptical that there are 3000+ papers in existance which shows non-thermal effects of microwaves" - not exactly what I claimed. I would estimate that the total scientific literature about non-thermal effects of EMF (any frequency) consitis of ~3000 papers. Please bear in mind that all the conveniently accessible indexes do not include most of the Russian and Chinese literature on the subject, which is very extensive. So 2000 in MEDLINE is something like 3000 total. Of these 20 or 30% report negative results, and some smaller percentage are reviews or theoretical studies. Probably less than 50% of the remainder is specifically about microwaves or RF. I would estimate 400-600 experimental studies reporting positive non-thermal effects of microwaves specifically, and 100-150 studies reporting no effect. I hope that clarifies things. ObsidianOrder 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As a regular reader of the scientific press, my estimates of the percentage of negative resutls articles is considerable higher. I am still waiting for the specific list so that it can be discussed.Mossig 16:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, I will get you a list. From a small random sample of the IEGMP biblio, I get 12 positive, 1 negative, 7 not about microwaves or not an experimental study. My percentage of negatives may actually be high. ObsidianOrder 16:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mossig - got your list, see the msg at the bottom. ObsidianOrder 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"regarding static fields" - the question was papers about non-thermal effects of any type, I believe. I did not say microwave-only and neither did you. If there are non-thermal effects, it is likely they would occur in a wide range of frequencies, depending on the interaction mechanism(s), as indeed has been shown to be the case. For one thing, any non-linear medium (tissue) would demodulate RF or microwave fields down to ELF. Also, the reported ELF effects occur at SAR numbers in the milli-, micro- or sometimes nano-watt per kg level, which demonstrates that "thermal" SAR limits are based on a faulty premise. So ELF non-thermal effects are quite relevant to cell phones, although indirectly.

The question was about microwaves specifically. You stated in the beginning of this sections: ""Currently the only universally accepted biological effect of microwaves is heating" - which is why there are 3000+ papers on non-thermal effects". If that was not what you inteded to say then your phrasing is bordering on the dishonest.Mossig 16:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I guess I don't really tend to think of such a strong distinction between effects at different frequencies - except for ELF (where a 0.01Hz sometimes makes a big difference), the observed effects are usually remarkably non-frequency-sensitive (or I should say, not carrier-frequency-sensitive, they are quite sensitive to modulation). Based on my reading of the literature the existence of nonthermal effects at any frequency strongly implies the existence of some effects at other frequencies as well. The main point is the existence of (one or more) non-thermal primary interaction mechanisms. ObsidianOrder 16:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"The first paper is not..." - you're nitpicking. The IEGMP biblio is full of examples of what you want - how about, for example: "Adey W R, Bawin S M and Lawrence A F (1982). Effects of weak amplitude-modulated microwave fields on calcium efflux from awake cat cerebral cortex. Bioelectromagnetics, 3, 295.". There are several hundred of those in there. If you really want, go through and count the number of experimental studies about microwaves specifically, I would actually be quite interested in the percentage.

The title does not show if they had a positive or negative result, and the paper is so old so that it is not available in electronic format. Thus I can not check it at the moment. An Why should I do the work of proving your conjectures? Mossig 16:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"it includes negative results" - yes, indeed, I didn't say papers which show non-thermal effects, I said papers on non-thermal effects. I would say somewhere between 20 and 30% report negative results. I was also including theoretical studies and review articles.

"narrow it down to microwaves related articles, we get 1837 relevevant articles" - isn't that quite a lot already? The WHO database while quite good is not exhaustive, so the real total is higher. Also see above re: non-English/Western literature. ObsidianOrder 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are using the total number of articles in the field of research to argue for your poit of view, regardless of what they showed? Intriguing tactic, but it is not science. You can only use the articles that support your view, and I am still waiting for that list.Mossig 16:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Currently the only universally accepted biological effect of microwaves is heating" - this statement is intended to mean that everyone accepts the heating effects. It is not intended to dismiss non-heating effects. Just that not everyone accepts them. -- Barrylb 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically correct, I suppose, but it was hardly an example of neutral writing. ObsidianOrder 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen the original sentence by another author: "The only known and clearly documented biological effect of microwaves is heating". I edited that into the one you quoted. -- Barrylb 07:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry if I sounded like I was picking on you, that was not my intention. ObsidianOrder 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is an exhaustive search of all MEDLINE records specifically about nonthermal effects of microwave or RF radiation from Jan 2005 to the present, organized in three categories: positive (non-thermal effect definitely observed, 38 articles), negative (no non-thermal effect observed or dubious, 29 articles) and other (not an experimental study - reviews, letters to the editor, and theoretical studies, 14 articles). These are in bibtex format. Considering that this covers just a year and a half, and the subject has been studied for ~30 years, my original numbers are about right (400-600 positives), although possibly the number of negatives I cited was low (it's probably around 200-300). I can do 10 years if you want, this is kind of fun ;)

I would also mention that there was a lot of studies on (for example) in-vitro Ca++ efflux in the 80's which were mostly positive, whereas recent work is often on whole-animal models studying cell-phone-like exposure, which are often negative. It is also notable that virtually none of these studies control the total EM envitonment, including static magnetic fields and broad-spectrum noise, and those can and do critically influence the results.

Now, what does this all mean? Is there a non-thermal effect (or category of effects)? Yes, obviosuly, there is. Is it reproducible? Also obviously not very well reproducible - although some of the factors affecting that are by now well known, most studies still fail to take them into account. Is it a strong effect? Sometimes it is, usually not very. Is it physiologically or medically significant? Again, maybe, and in some circumstances - usually in a health adult organism it is similar to a relatively weak generalized stressor. Can we conclude that modulated microwaves are "generally safe", and can safety be established with SARs? Hell no! But the dangers would usually only manifest in combination with other factors (physical or chemical). SARs are irrelevant since EMF effects rarely or never have a traditional dose-response relationship, moreover effects are observed at ridiculously low power densities. Just my two cents. ObsidianOrder 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. I will look at the list later. But I have to ask you how you define "non-thermal"? The usual "definition" is effects shown below todays SAR-limits, but the first article in your positive list seems to be working at levels of 2.4W/kg, which is above? Further articles seems to be testing at the limits, and one even has "high power microwaves" in the title. Mossig 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If effects occur at levels only marginally above the current limits then there is still cause for concern that the limits are not adequate. -- Barrylb 09:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Mossig - yes, some of these are testing at the limits, they are included here because there are definite effects reported which cannot be attributed to temperature. As procedures with a "thermal intent" such as PRF treatment of nerves and RF ablation have become more common in medical practice, people started observing results which are frankly quite bizarre, such as growth of new nerves in the area adjacent to RF ablation. So some of the studies address that, and yes, the power levels are a bit high for those. Needless to say, other studies have vastly lower power levels.

Barry - yes, indeed, particularly since according to the ARFL study cited in the article a 1W cell-phone will cause localized areas of up to 20W/kg in the brain and 76W/kg in surface tissues. ObsidianOrder 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you here referring to the SAR values taken over one voxel, ie. over a volume of 1mg? These are absolutly not comparable to the limits for volumes of 10g and 1g resp. It is not possible to compare SAR values taken over different averaging volumes. To do so is very very wrong. Mossig 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit I fail to see the logic of this. If a SAR of X under uniform exposure is sufficient to produce effects, for example in vitro, surely under non-uniform exposure you would expect any areas with a SAR above X to exhibit effects - no matter how small or large that area is? In fact the only meaningful scale to calculate SAR over is a scale such that the field is essentially uniform over it, which in the case of cell phones would be one to several mm, no larger. ObsidianOrder 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way to have an uniform exposure. All studies I have seen give their SAR values as average exposure over the whole cell culture or animal. Thus it is not possible to compare these values with spatial peak voxel values. This as we do not know the spatial peak values in the experiments, and they are not possible to claculate without very precise knowledge about the experimental setup.Mossig 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well-done in-vitro studies typically take steps to ensure uniformity, or measure the degree of non-uniformity. Cellular or tissue-level studies commonly use samples of a few mm in their smallest dimension, so exposure is essentially uniform. Your point is partially correct for MW studies of whole organisms, given the rapid attenuation of MW in tissue, but even then, the typical setup is a TEM waveguide which is far more uniform than the near-field of an antenna. For most RF (not MW) studies, exposure is fairly uniform over the whole organism.ObsidianOrder 23:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please show me a reference to an exposure system that is uniform, as verified by FDTD-simulations. I am very interested in finding such a system! A TEM-cell gives nothing even close to uniform absorption in the body of the animal or even in a Petri dish: "Investigation of SAR uniformity in TEM cell exposed culture media", Andrews, E.F. et al.; Journal: Antenna Measurements and SAR, 2004. AMS 2004.Mossig 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question of what is non-thermal: any effect which cannot be reproduced by equivalent heating is non-thermal. If there is no measurable heating, the effect is non-thermal by definition. If for example there is substantial heating, but the effect is only observed with modulated RF and not with CW RF of equivalent power (or perhaps the effect is frequency-dependent, or only occurs in a narrow power window, etc) then that is also a non-thermal effect despite the fact that there is heating. ObsidianOrder 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the following definition, taken from , "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields-Mechanisms for the Effects of Pulsed Microwave Radiation on Protein Conformation", LAURENCE, J.A. et. al, J. Theor. Biol.(2000) 206. "An athermal exposure to microwaves is one which does not cause the temperature of a specied volume of the subject averaged over a specied time period to exceed the normal value." The paper also includes some interesting ideas on the background to some of the athermal effects noticed.Mossig 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mossig - athermal is not the same as nonthermal ;) athermal means (without) heat (heat is absent), and nonthermal means (other than) heat (heat, even if present, is not the causative agent). (cf anaerobic and nonaerobic). See Becker and Marino, "Electromagnetism and Life" [16] for an interesting perspective. P.S. Yes, I have seen FDTD (or FEM) simulations of experimental setups, as well as direct measurements, stay tuned - I don't have time to look for that right now but I'll have it in a day or two. ObsidianOrder 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for the references... And the text, even though it is old, was interesting. I especially liked the passage: "From an evolutionary standpoint, nature would favor those organisms that developed a capacity to accept information about the earth, atmosphere, and the cosmos in the form of electromagnetic signals and to adjust their internal processes and behavior accordingly." A sad fact for the authors is that this is as much nonproven today as it was then.Mossig 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mossig, sorry for the delay in responding... yes, here are some references: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. As you see the maximum variation - both as calculated and as measured - using standard containers (Petri dishes or rectangular flasks) is on the order of 3dB. Non-standard container/exposure systems like strip-lines can bring that down to maybe 0.5-1.0dB, but are not used in most studies. Compare that with the AFRL model of a head which has a variation on the order of 36dB, and the variation in whole-organism studies using small lab animals which are on the same order of magnitude, 20-30dB. The point is that if in-vitro studies show an effect at a certain power level, then a whole organism in which any part is at that level can reasonably be expected to have a similar effect in that part, and so looking at the peak voxels in a whole-organism FDTD simulation is correct. ObsidianOrder 02:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. The first reference gives a variation of +8/-72 dB of max/min SAR in the testtube relative the mean (figure 4). Other tests in the same article gives numbers of +6/-78 dB (figure 8), +8/-36 dB (figure 11) etc. The second reference gives similar numbers: +7/-17 dB (figure6). The third article does not give enough statistical data to evaluate the spread of the exposure. The fourth does only give data on the bottom of the petri dish. And it goes on to state that the maximum deviation can be up to 1W/kg at the edge, and thus they dont include the edge in their calculations! The fifth article does not state maximum and minimum calculated SAR-values. In conclusion I can not see that these articles backs the statement that the variation in the peak voxels are on the order of +3dB. Mossig 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back ;) Please look carefully at the fourth article. The liquid layer they are working with is only 2mm thick (as I had mentioned, well-done studies use thin films). Thus 1mm from the bottom is right in the middle vertically, and vertical variation is very small. In terms of horizontal distribution, Fig.5 shows (on the right) -2 to -8dB approximately, where the whole cell average is just under -2 and the area close to -8 is very small (most of the volume being within +/-1dB of -2). This meets my +/- 3dB specification exactly. Other good studies are roughly on par with this. I think in general "cold spots" or localised areas with much lower field strength are both inevitable and far less important than "hot spots"... if an exposure system produces +/-1dB over 80% of the volume and the other 20% is lower, in parts much lower (this describes most competent real-life setups), then the behavior in that in vitro system at a given average SAR can reasonably be extrapolated to in vivo effects in voxels with the same peak SAR. Unless you think that the effect occurs only in the cold spots? P.S. I think you're going to prompt me to write a paper or two on this... if highly uniform exposure is so important, I know how to produce it ;) ObsidianOrder 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So we are down to one article. Which I have numerous issues with, but lets keep to the SAR-variation. Fig. 5 to the right shows a variation between 1.7W/kg and 0.1W/kg, or 12dB. A lot more than the 6dB, or +/-3dB. My main concern is not about the cold spots, but about the (really) hot spots, typically at the edges: as all the in vitro and in vivo tests shows small effects, these may be due to only things happening in the hot spots, which makes the common use of the mean SAR fallacious. But that part is Original Research, and may very well be published one day... Mossig 10:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sensitivity to Digital Microwave Wireless Signals

It would be interesting to conduct a survey on how many people are experiencing interference to their nervous systems or eye problems from using microwave wireless technology such as cellphones or wireless LAN's. But doing a respectable survey could prove troublesome because those who have no problems tend to deride those who do as if they are hypochondriacs and dismiss their reports as nonsense.

I find when I use a mobile phone or PDA with WiFi, I start to experience problems with my nerves and also eyes. It seems like the digital microwave signals are somehow interfering with my nervous system. Here are some observations I have experienced:

• Sensations of false vibrations, particularly lower legs and arms
• A tight (or false pressure) feeling on scalp when using a cellphone
• Twitches and spasms
• Itchy and swollen eyes and small flashes in peripheral night vision when moving eyes
• Slight dizziness and disorientation and often a headache that develops

These symptoms are most pronounced when holding and using the device (cellphone or WiFi PDA) and develop very quickly upon commencement of use. They tend to slowly fade away over 12 to 24 hours after cessation of usage, although they can sometimes persist for a longer duration. When sitting near a device (within a couple of feet), the symptoms take much longer to develop (after about 15 minutes of web browsing on a WiFi PDA at a distance of a bit over a foot - although much contact is made with the stylus in selecting links etc...) and, particularly the nerve problems, are much less noticable. -PaulSyd 17-09-2006.

Unfortunately, attempting to conduct any sort of survey would be very much original research, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion in WP. DWaterson 11:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's a government or corporation who's funding it.

Nevertheless there is a long way from proposed research to inclusion in an encyclopedia. Although interesting it's true that this would not be suitable Wikipedia material. Winston.PL 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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:

• The effects of radiofrequency fields on cell proliferation are non-thermal.
• Igor Belyaev
• REFLEX Projekt (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods)

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:

• 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. (Printed in English)
• Latvian study
• French study
• Spanish study
• Austrian study
• Egyptian study
• Stork study

Other studies:

• SWEDISH RADIATION PROTECTION AUTHORITY REPORT 2002 [22]: "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."

• Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort.# Schuz J, # Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Johansen C J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1707-13.Click here to read

• Repacholi, M.H. Health risks from the use of mobile phones. Toxicology Letters, 2000. available at [23] (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 [24].
• 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 in 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". [25]. 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

[[26]] --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 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)

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.

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)

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)

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 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 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)