User talk:Floydian/Electrical pollution

As we discussed on the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk, I have offered to review your sources. Bear with me as I make updates to this page, I am compiling my notes regarding your references. Nimur (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• NFAM research article
  • This report has not been peer-reviewed by anybody.

• Karl Maret (Md, M.Eng) report
  • This "conference report" openly states that it takes place in a nation which does not perform any research in this area: "Kazakhstan does not have a research program in this area and it did not appear that they had any sizable budget for this type of research." How can you consider it a reliable source? Wouldn't you rather look at reports from a nation which does perform research into this area?
  • Out of eight presentations discussed, there is not a single citation to back up any of the claims made. Have none of these professors published any work in any other conference, journal, or meeting?
• Canadian Human Rights Commision, Margaret E. Sears (PhD, M.Eng)
  • This paper seems to be written by a real scientist (hooray - forgive me, I have been diligently reading a lot of tripe lately, it is nice to see some properly formed ideas)
  • In Section VII-C, the first significant mention of electromagnetic effects, the very first paragraph states "Our limited understanding of the biological effects of the vast majority of frequencies gives reason for concern. Although there is still debate in this regard, tinnitus, brain tumours and acoustic neuroma are associated with cell phones and mobile phones." It proceeds to list twenty five scientific papers which discuss potential health effects of electromagnetic interference. I suggest you read these papers.
  • There is discussion of electrocution hazard. I agree that this is a significant biological risk. Improperly installed electric mains are a major hazard to human health.
  • Low frequency radio signals are discussed. Two scientific papers are cited which discuss the association of ELF waves and genetic damage. These papers do not mention a causal link:
    • Microsatellite analysis for determination of the mutagenicity of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields and ionising radiation in vitro - "Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) have been reported to induce lesions in DNA and to enhance the mutagenicity of ionising radiation. However, the significance of these findings is uncertain because the determination of the carcinogenic potential of EMFs has largely been based on investigations of large chromosomal aberrations..."
    • Occupational carcinogens: ELF MFs. "It is important to synthesize this information for both scientific and public health purposes. Various organizations and individuals have published lists of occupational carcinogens. However, such lists have been limited by unclear criteria for which recognized carcinogens should be considered occupational carcinogens, and by inconsistent and incomplete information on the occupations and industries in which the carcinogenic substances may be found and on their target sites of cancer."
  • Seriously, follow this paper. Read the papers it references. This is a good reference.

• Shocking News, a regular newsletter by Dr. Donald Hillman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University
  • This newsletter is not peer-reviewed by anybody.
  • Mostly, the newsletter gives some facts about electrocution hazard, not about radio propagation. As above, I do not doubt the health effects of electrocution on humans, or on cows.

• David Stetzer and Magda Havas, World Health Organization workshop on electrical hypersensitivity
  • Is this paper an advertisement for the Stetzer Filter? It seems ironic that you are complaining about conflict of interest while promoting a commercial product that is little more than a surge protector.
  • This paper discusses a case study in Toronto and cites health standards for Kazakhstan. Why not use Canadian health standards?
  • The paper mentions a specific maximum electric field intensity (for Kazakh standards), and proceeds to measure a voltage by direct connection to the electric mains. Electric field is not the same as voltage. Why didn't they use an electric field meter, since this is evidently the item of potential health risk?

• Case study of three minnesota schools with the filters, using dummy filters for control group
  • This led me to Health Concerns associated with Energy Efficient Lighting and their Electromagnetic Emissions. The data does not appear to be verified or vetted. The paper appears to be published by "THE CANADIAN INITIATIVE TO STOP WIRELESS, ELECTRIC, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION" - I don't know if you consider this an unbiased source. I do not consider this an unbiased-sounding publisher.

• California EMF program final report on effects of EM Fields (Chapter 21 in particular)
  • Did you even read this? All 3 out of 3 judges strongly believe that electromagnetic fields are not a universal carcinogen.

Just a comment on this one, I am not pointing out the carcinogen effect, but rather the other multitude of effects that were also judged (Leukemia in particular was given a high causality) -- Floydian ^τ _γ 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) votes to dtudy health effects of cell towers on fire station
• Association for Comprehensive Neurotherapy, report on global problem
• This study is 12 years old and may be slightly outdated

Meant entirely politely and with no intention to offend but I think before publishing an article like this (which I promise will be up for speedy deletion basically as soon as it hits the ground if it is anything like the current version) you might like to familliarize yourself with some basic quantum physics. I am not certain you actually understand what electromagnetic radiation is, based on previous discussion with you. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware, it is far from finished (And tbh, far from started). However, I think my understanding of EMF is irrelevant to what sources and the general public say. I know wikipedia will strive to delete this, as surely anything thats unsupported by the scientific collective cannot exist and must be in everybody's imaginations, but it never hurts to try and put out something informative so that people that are told they have it by their doctor don't land on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity only to be told "Nope, you're faking it, it doesn't exist, blah blah blah, we scientists know more about the subjective feelings that you are experiencing than you do, so can it." The "scientific consensus" is not the end all be all of opinions in the world. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly say that claiming that low-frequency photons distributed in a manner that deviates from a clean sine-wave on an osciloscope display cause health problems - in contravention of everything we know about interactions between energy and matter - is rather far from scientific consensus. And it's scientific consensus that will matter. As you are the one writing this article I would suggest you might be well served to actually know what you were talking about first. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if people on wikipedia knew what they were talking about instead of deciding they do because they have searched pub med. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)