Talk:Wireless electronic devices and health

Rationale for concern

I just removed the following text from the article, as it seems somewhat out of place (doubly so in .the lead):

Nevertheless, there are numerous scientific studies that suggest there is a basis for concern that continuous or frequent long-term exposure to WiFi electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could have adverse health effects. A number of schools and universities have limited wireless connectivity based on the “precautionary principle” and opted for fiber-optic network. An example of such institutions is Lakehead University

Thiomersal controversy, reporting an issue where the evidence for safety is at least as good as here, has a Rationale for concern section. Would we like to do something similar here, or would that inevitably lead to too much overlap with Electromagnetic radiation and health? - Eldereft (cont.) 15:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. The mercury / vaccinations / autism evidence is indeed very weak, and whether it one day gets found to be real or otherwise, existing evidence clearly does not support it, and does support a lack of association. There is no such evidence for safety with WiFi - there is no evidence for harm either, there is simply no evidence at all that I can find in peer-reviewed literature. The evidence with Mobile Phones is a lot more contentious, with arguments to be made on both sides based on a plethora of evidence to support each side's argument. I do agree that to have caveats in the safety of WiFi is not appropriate at the moment, but not under any basis of "evidence of safety", so much as "lack of evidence of harm". topazg (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

why remove that first paragraph? It seems to be very relevant.Unless your concern is to defend this technology? In which case your bias makes you an unsuitable candidate to edit wikipedia Jalusbrian (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

References

New Research reported Feb 2010

New research was referred to in Feburary 2010.

Studies Find Harm From Cellular and Wi-Fi Signals (Slashdot.com)

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health Which also talks specifically of wireless devices affect on health as part of the article.

"The concern about Wi-Fi is being taken seriously in Europe. In April 2008, the national library of France, citing possible "genotoxic effects," announced it would shut down its Wi-Fi system, and the staff of the storied Library of Sainte-Geneviève in Paris followed up with a petition demanding the disconnection of Wi-Fi antennas and their replacement by wired connections. Several European governments are already moving to prohibit Wi-Fi in government buildings and on campuses, and the Austrian Medical Association is lobbying for a ban of all Wi-Fi systems in schools, citing the danger to children's thinner skulls and developing nervous systems. "

Im not sure how best to include this information so Ive included these additonal sources here:

• http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/02/06/2238247/Studies-Find-Harm-From-Cellular-and-Wi-Fi-Signals?from=rss

• http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?printable=true

--118.210.144.210 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's really just one source: the first Slashdot link is a posting that refers to the other GQ article. That article is from the popular press, and so is not "new research." Sources for science and medicine WP pages should confirm to WP:RS, which does not include the popular press, and so the GQ article should not be reflected in this WP page. Beyond that, the piece is a particularly egregious example of an article long in innuendo and scare-mongering, which sells magazines, but short on science, which takes a skilled writing to make interesting to sell magazines. The quote cited about wireless internet lacks weight. For example, the library system in my city, the largest public library system in North America, has just extended wireless internet to all 99 branches in the system, and there are lots of children at each branch (and there are thousands of library branches ith wireless internet access around the world). A more recent counter-anecdote, but really neither are scientific research. --papageno (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: I agree completely topazg (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Radio transmitters: Radio Vaticano case

A high-profile case of alleged health problems due to living close to powerful radio transmitters is the Vatican Radio case; a court battle has been going on for years, with scientific studies blaming its powerful radio transmitters for a higher rate of leukemia cases in nearby villages. This has been widely covered by the European press, see e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7891504/Vatican-radio-waves-blamed-for-high-cancer-risk.html 84.198.246.199 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Magda Havas manuscript being added to the intro

Catch2424 is attempting to add the following to the intro:

In 2007 Magda Havas, (B.Sc., Ph.D.) from the Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada wrote that laboratory studies of radio frequency radiation as well as epidemiological studies of people who live near cell phone antennas and/or use wireless technology indicate adverse biological effects (including cancers, DNA breaks and more).

www.magdahavas.org is not a reliable source. Please stop adding this without consensus. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From my googling it seems like she has a poor reputation. she even collaborates with a guy that makes these bizarre devices to filter "dirty electricity" Bhny

Sorry, BUT It is NOT only her findings.

it is all over the net... Also in the EU:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387291/Mobile-phones-wi-fi-banned-schools-theyre-potentially-harmful.html
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/13/toronto-oecta-wifi.html
• http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/05May/Pages/health-impact-wifi-mobiles-electromagnetic-fields.aspx
• http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/
• http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/wireless-safety/ban-wifi-schools
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/8514380/Ban-mobile-phones-and-wireless-networks-in-schools-say-European-leaders.html
• http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110519/00442614333/european-politicians-look-to-ban-wifi-school-children.shtml
• http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128
• http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi-fi-is-removed-from-schools-and.html

enough read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catch2424 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not enough. At minimum, we require a peer-reviewed journal article. Please do not re-add the material until you obtain consensus here. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded: “All over the net” is not a reason to add something. A health article has to be guided by WP:MEDRS. --papageno (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If none of these resources is a reliable source which source is??? We need help from someone else to decide about this.unsigned comment added by Catch2424 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding dashes between your posts. I've already mentioned peer review and Quilche and linked you to specific wiki policy, namely WP:MEDRS. Are either of those unclear? TippyGoomba (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thirded..Any and all news agency references only proves that the agency decided to publish the story, it does not add any credability to the underlying scientific correctness of the findings or material. [ucapajr 10.06.2019 14:15 CET]

Here is a reliable source: http://www.bioinitiative.org/ As described in the preface of the report: "The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries,ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency." The report covers the thousands of studies available on the subject and is authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.97.244 (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else but I cannot easily verify the credibility of the source above. There is no address in the contacts page, which indicates that this is a virtual "institution"? I cannot find where are they getting funding from and to whom they are accountable, and even if their publications are peer reviewed.

Just a note: peer review, incidentally, does not mean that the artical has been reviewed or acceditited, anyone can do that just by getting their buddies to do it. Peer review means that it has been reviewed by a cross section of people versed in the disapline and who are not connected to the enterprise generating/publishing the material. [ucapajr 10.06.2019 14:15 CET]

References

Revisions to IARC 2b classification

I have changed the IARC classification text in the lead paragraph of this article to the text that was well-established in the lead at the Mobile phone radiation and health article, with small changes to fit the article here. This has the effect of removing the mention of other substances that are in IARC Class 2b. The inclusion of other substances either trivializes or demonizes. They do not help to explain why mobile phone radiation is in the category; each substance must be evaluated on its own. Users can follow the link to the Category 2b article to see the explanation for the category and the other substances that are on the list. The change to the new text also changes the reference for the classification to one from the World Health Organization, a better, medically reliable source (per WP:MEDRS).--papageno (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Humans?

Why does this article constantly refer to people as "humans"? Being overly abstract is not more formal -- it's just plain odd and sets a very strange tone to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Electromagnetic radiation

I am not aware of any frequency below 300 KHz being radiated out into space from a conductor. If the frequency is too low, the electromagnetic waves fall back into the conductor and never get radiated.71.181.160.192 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mobile phone radiation and health

These two articles are redundant. Mobile telephones are a wireless electronic devices and there is no rationale for separating the two into different articles except ignorance on the part of those who are paranoid about these things. jps (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Merge to Mobile phone radiation and health to eliminate needless duplication of content. And the small amount of WiFi-related content is already covered at Wi-fi and Electromagnetic radiation and health. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Done Seems obvious their contents are interrelated and need not be split. Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mobile phone radiation and health which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)