Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics      (Rated Start-Class)

Physics portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Biology

Biology portal

Electromagnetic radiation and health is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Elektrosmog

see www.elektrosmog.de I was surprised to see appart paranoia creeping in in Europe where people are sleeping in EMF proof tents..

see wikipedia german article "elektrosmog"

[edit] Title

I suggest this article would be better entitled "Effects of electromagnetic radiation on health". The current title is sensationalist. --Bobturneruk 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Actually, I think it could simply be "Electromagnetic Radiation and Health" as that feels more like a title, but either is fine to me Topazg 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now actioned this title change, and updated all the links from the ~30 pages that were linking to it -- hopefully this will be a better approach to the subject generally now ! Topazg 11:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonthermal effects

"The main biological effect of electromagnetic fields is to cause heating." - there is a wealth of research that shows significant effects at levels far below those at which any significant heating occurs. a few of the more prominent researchers: Adey WR, Blackman CF, Blank M, Delgado JM, Becker RO. (a random article from each). is anyone opposed to expanding that section? i think it actually merits an article by itself, something like "Biological effects of (weak) electromagnetic fields". ObsidianOrder 1 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)

I removed "(note that this argument makes no allowance for opportunity cost or option value as a formal cost-benefit analysis/risk assessment would)" in reference to the precautionary principle. This is irrelevant, adds nothing to the discussion and shows POV. It belongs in the article on precautionary principle article, not here. AdinaBob 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The summary of non-thermal effects feels particularly biased and skeptical, which goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. A few points that definitely need changing. Firstly, there are known and accepted biological effects of low-level EMFs, it is the mechanisms that are not known. For example, melatonin production is significantly reduced if the pineal gland is exposed to low level magnetic fields at night. Secondly, there are both "believers" and "non-believers" who support a precautionary approach, for various reasons, for example Sir William Stewart.Arathalion 14:22, 8 September 2006 (GMT)

There are credible publications that argue both for and against the idea that non-thermal effects of EM radiation have an adverse effect on health. Here is a pretty good list of papers holding a lot of the evidence for damaging non-thermal effects http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/studies.asp. Here is the latest guidance from the WHO http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/. In order to be unbiased we must draw the readers' attention to the fact that there is not yet a consensus amongst the experts on whether these effects are significant. --Bobturneruk 13:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Induction

Electromagnetic radiation does generate current via induction. I've only patially restored the references. (they were a bit overboard to begin with). If the anonymous editor who thought differntly can make a case here, I'll consider the possibility that there is some subtle distinction in terminology. But they are at heart the same phenomena. Just ask Maxwell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmeppley (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RF burn effects

I don't know about the birds being cooked, but severe burns from close proximity to transmitting radar dishes is, as far as I knew, quite well known and documented. I can see it quite possible that if a bird is sitting on a radar antenna at the time that this could kill the bird (effectively through tissue heating / cooking), but it does kind of sound like you expect to see a blackened charred thing with smoke coming off -- perhaps the wording could be changed to appear less extreme? Topazg 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sham exposure

It is important to note that the sham was also emitting RF radiation at a lower level, and that the reaction of participants to the sham exposure may also be related to EMFs [1]

I have no idea of the scientific consensus on this, but I've moved it from the article because of a) editorialising ("It is important to note") and b) unreliable sourcing (it just dips into BMJ Rapid Responses, which is no more than an online letters page, to a post by a person of unknown credentials). 81.132.104.40 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is important to note" must be taken out, this is just weasel wording (and I have a horrible feeling they may be mine!). Actually, I think more important will be to link in this letters to the author's response. Rubin has stated that the sham was indeed leaking levels of RF exposure at the levels quoted in the above link, but also pointed out that the exposure was continuous wave and that most of the proposed mechanisms and postulations on effect are directed at digitally pulsed signals - if continuous wave was an issue we would expect far higher literature showing effects from TV transmitters. Powerwatch have long contested that continuous wave radiation is not likely to be a problem.

My recommendation would be to change it to:

Comments have been made that the sham was also emitting RF radiation and therefore was not truly a sham, but this concern has been addressed by the study authors [2] (link to Rubin's response instead of the other comment)

I prefer this as it actually highlights the concern and the response, instead of pretending that it was never raised - do you have any objection? Topazg 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by 128.243.220.22

It is very difficult to maintain a truly neutral point of view when both sides are insistent on weasel wording their point of view to make it sound like it is more prominent or definitive than it actually seems to be. I am sure the intent is not to do this, but the recent edits have been highly POV and have been reverted. Please discuss edits if you feel they should return here first. Topazg 16:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be using "balance" and "weasel words" to push your POV. 82.10.209.215 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't my POV at all, just what I see as a middle ground between two opposed POV's. You also seem to have little understanding of Wikipedia's weasel word policy, specifically the relevant section on generalisation. If you are going to go to the effort to edit articles on Wikipedia, make sure you understand the rules and guidelines of doing so, else you are just being unhelpful to the community as a whole.

Regarding this article specifically, ES has its own page, and should just be linked. The evidence I have cited on relevant literature for mechanism is appropriate, and should not be removed. Topazg 09:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1, Your "middle ground" is biased. 2, What mechanism? 128.243.220.41 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Funnily enough, that's your POV, hence the POV criticism. I didn't write this article, and reverting your edits to content that was previously there from other authors is hardly enforcing my POV on anyone. Where possible I'm trying to reference my end, it would be helpful if you cited yours. 2. Sorry, I'm not following? Topazg 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to change from NPOV to something that sounds very POV, at the very least cite some sources. Otherwise this is nothing other than vandalism. As far as I can see this is currently NPOV and cannot see what you are objecting to. Please justify yourself. Arathalion 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've come here from the comments on the ES page. I'm sure I read something about Sir William Stuart refusing to answer questions in either the gurniad or Private Eye, but I'm not sure which. There is an article by Guy Kewney (BBC technology expert, not the job seeker, cable net author, general expert) that a quick Google fond on theregister.co.uk. Here is a quote (I hope that's allowed): "Sir William was asked if his report gave a clean bill of health to mobile phones and he, correctly, said no. Then - much to the astonishment of the team who worked with him on the report - he went further, and spoke of his own belief that until we did have a clean bill of health it might be wise to restrict exposure to children. I have asked the department which commissioned this report why Sir William said this. I said: "Is there something you haven't published, which Sir William knows about?" and they said, in so many words: "We don't know, he won't say." So I asked for an interview with Sir William. He hasn't responded." Link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/24/open_letter/page2.html

Yes, (Stewart btw) he has gone beyond the other members of the team on the report (which interestingly included Mike Repacholi). Basically, as far as I can see, he just treats the evidence differently. Evidence of a possibility of risk was encountered ([3] -- the REFLEX report appears to have grouped the studies together better than most) and that, as with smoking, it would be unwise to allow mobile phones to become so pervasive that they are used by all, just to find out 10 years later that the increase in risk to brain cancer or some such like disease is far greater. It seems to be very much the case with smoking in the early days -- something that no-one considers a risk, most people appreciate (talking 1920's / 1930's here), the evidence of possible harm is extremely limited etc... - yet eventually active smoking was found to be an unhealthy practice (though so far the literature on passive smoking is extremely inconclusive, it may be that bad smell on clothes may be pretty much the worst side effect).

As far as I can see, I can ethically support the ideas behind both viewpoints (precaution and not precaution), and the precautionary principle seems to require a weighting for the level of increase in risk (i.e. if a technology is major and widespread, then the level of risk must be very high to advocate usage of the precautionary principle - if the technology is minor, then the risk can be lower - this was Sir Richard Doll I think). At the moment, we don't have anything definitive on risk, but the worst case scenario appears to be potentially quite major. I'm glad I'm not a policy maker! Topazg 08:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power lines and health

I moved a section from Electric power transmission into this article. Please check Talk:Electric power transmission for old discussions before starting new discussions here. Han-Kwang (t) 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I added: "Category:Public health" and "Category:Radiobiology" to this article and then noticed that the latter has previously been removed as "erroneous". I think that Radiobiology covers both ionizing and non-ionizing radiations. What do others think? Biscuittin 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Hutchinson Encyclopedia it does include both Biscuittin 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radiobiology

Why was the Radiobiology article deleted? It is not clear from the log. Biscuittin 20:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Page has now been restored. Biscuittin 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading wrong reference?

The section Some research has found that exposure to elevated levels of ELF magnetic fields such as those originating from electric power transmission lines may be implicated in a number of adverse health effects. These include, but are not limited to, childhood leukemia (references below), adult leukemia[6], breast cancer[7] refers in Note 7 to the article Increased Breast Cancer Risk among Women Who Work Predominantly at Night from Epidemiology. 12(1):74-77, January 2001. But this article do not include any discussion about electromagnetic radiation and breast cancer? Or have I read the article in a careless way? The reference should be deleted, and a new reference need to be added. Ulner 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update needed

There is a 2007 WHO report on low-frequency EM fields which obsoletes the 2001 report and reviews attempts to confirm or disprove some of the studies mentioned in this article. [4] -- Beland 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it - it should be included. I think. --Moon22 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the information on the earlier factsheet and added information on the new factsheet in the article. Does someone want to tackle editing the final paragraph about the incidence of leukemia? The new factsheet includes information that might be suitable for inclusion in such a revision. I've also removed the {{update}} template. papageno (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Bioinitiative Report external link

Should the report be explicitly excluded based on the reasoning below?

The reason the edit by user 12.210.244.107 was reverted and just now reverted again is that the Bioinitiative Report has not been considered a WP:RS, being self-published. A WP article on the report was deleted for this reason. Furthermore, there are many WP:RS sources available that can be used instead. --papageno (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this. See also WP:EL and talk at electrical hypersensitivity, plus the AfD for Bioinitiative report. Verbal chat 17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support this. As an External link it provides a comprehensive overview of the science from those that believe there is reason for concern. WHO factsheets are self-published, but that doesn't make them ineligible as a RS. Who are us Wiki users to determine something as unreliable when the European Parliament clearly doesn't think so? As far as documents go, it's the biggest single referenced source of EMF literature available on the internet, and I think a blanket exclusion from WP does a big disservice to people coming here for as much information on a subject as possible. Topazg (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on my comments from last week, I still think the BioInitiative should be included whilst it is being considered both notable and reliable by the European Parliament. If there are no objections today, I will return the link. Topazg (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I dispute this for reasons that have already been gone over on wikipedia (WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:EL, etc). Additionally, the European Parliament action plan does not state that the source is reliable, notable or credible, merely that they are concerned by its findings. The fact that politicians have been mislead by this poorly written and biased report doesn't change anything, as they haven't praised it or even agreed with the findings - and they are not experts, etc. Verbal chat 10:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, this seems almost like a personal vendetta against the report. "mislead by this poorly written and biased report"? Where is your evidence for this? Topazg (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We have been over this before. That report is simply not a reliable source. It does not represent scientific consensus on this article's subject, and should not be given any weight here. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet the basis under which this is being decided is very unclear, other than "you both said so". Aside from the financial conflict of Cindy Sage some of the authors seem to have both reliable credentials and prominent positions within the electromagnetic research world, including no less than 3 former BEMS (BioElectromagnetics Society) presidents within the BioInitiative group. There _is_ no scientific consensus on the subject, there are currently a number of sides in strong disagreement, each with an unknown proportion of scientists supporting their opinion. There is no strong evidence to suggest which group has the largest number of qualified individuals, nor which viewpoint is best supported by the science. Media reports over-hyping the issue (We're all going to die) or under-hyping the issue (There are no risks) are commonplace, and help to obfuscate the issue further. The BioInitiative report is one of the most complete EMF reports in existence at the moment, and at the very least individual sections by authors without the conflict of interest should be quotable. The attitude being approached here seems completely against Wikipedia ethics, which encourages a further explanation of the reasoning behind the justifications for labels such as WP:RS and WP:PROMINENCE. I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, nor am I trying to push either one side of the argument over the other, but the process should be well justified, and at the moment it does not seem to be. It seems driven more by personal opinion of the posters than objective reasoning. Topazg (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a self published report by a self selected griup, has not been peer-reviewed, comes to conclusions outside of the mainstream, has undeclared conflicts of interest, etc. Need I go on? Have you read this report? I have read several sections and it's very poor. Why do you say it is complete? I disagree. It is certainly long. I also disagree that there is not a "consensus" - the majority of scientists and clinicians in the field do not share the conclusions of this report. I would also add in WP:UNDUE. Verbal chat 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Response to above comment, but indentation was becoming detrimental to readability, at least on my resolution): "Self published report by a self selected group". No different to ICNIRP, yet people consider them reliable. WHO factsheets are not subjected to any form of peer-reviewal scrutiny, and the members selected to formulate the factsheet are selected intra-organisationally, and choose which review information to incorporate or not within the factsheets. "Comes to conclusions outside of the mainstream", and "the majority of scientists and clinicians..." - This is a "non-Wikipedic" Weasel Worded approach, and precisely what I'm trying to avoid. Those sentences would be completely inadmissable in the article itself, so why are they valid arguments in the discussion? Again, is there any support for these statements or do we a) remove any references to ICNIRP and WHO factsheets under the same criteria, or b) find some aspects of the BioInitiative report suitable for admission under the same criteria? It seems to be a real case of double standards otherwise. The report is long, and over the past few months I have read the majority of it. Some of it I find well argued and well referenced, some of it considerably less so, but then, I find the same with almost all peer-reviewed papers in the field that I also try to keep on top of. It is not my place, or your place, to subjectively assert the report as high quality or "very poor" within the scope of our roles on Wikipedia. It is being treated as both notable and reliable with regards to the raising of issues of concern within the European Parliament and should therefore be worthy of encyclopaedic mention, even with caveats on veracity.Topazg (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The WHO is a well respected and recognised expert group. Bioinitiative is not. The talk page is the correct place for discussing whether a source should be included, and removing the WHO references is not to be taken seriously. Verbal chat 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you argue against BioInitiative on its self-reporting, self-selected nature, an argument that can also be directed at using WHO factsheets as reliable sources. Personally, I totally agree the removal of the WHO reference is a bad idea, but that's precisely the argument for the inclusion of the BioInitiative report. Both of these sources appear to be taken seriously at national / international policy making levels, which is surely a better benchmark of reliability than we are capable of asserting? I'm also still waiting for actual support of your "consensus", "most mainstream" etc claims, and your objective reasoning behind the classification of the document as "very poor". I could understand if the content was based largely on non-peer reviewed material, but the content of individual sections are effectively multiple individual reviews of fully peer-reviewed work. I do not buy the argument that Profs Lennart Hardell, Michael Kundi and Henry Lai are not experts in their respected fields, as basic objective criteria (academic credentials, length of involvement within the field, number of peer reviewed papers in the field etc.) suggests they are. You cannot publish a 600 page report in a journal, and having been involved in peer reviewal processes myself the very idea of expecting people to peer-review a document of that size is preposterous (it's time consuming enough properly peer reviewing a 10 page study), even if there were journals that would publish such a large collation of material. I'm happy with the exclusion of the report in principle, but only if it is supported by a valid argument. At the moment no objective argument has been presented of any kind. Topazg (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the first two lines of my previous comment again, you seem to have missed them in your reply. There is no comparison between the WHO and the bioinitiative group. If the peer-reviewed published field is so large then we can use that, being weary to place too much emphasis on primary sources. The WHO is an acknowledged RS. Plenty of valid arguments have been presented here and elsewhere against the inclusion of this report. There is no evidence that the bioinitiative report is "taken seriously at national / international policy making levels" - I have already addressed this. Plenty of large reports like this are peer reviewed either in whole or in multiple part, but the quality of peer review and acceptance by the mainstream are also important. Even if what you say is true, with the spin you're putting on it, it is too early to include this report. However, self-pub etc are good enough reasons for not using this report as a RS. Verbal chat 16:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You ask me to read your first two lines again, which begin "The WHO is a well respected and recognised expert group. Bioinitiative is not." and then say there is no comparison? That's pretty much a direct comparison isn't it? We cannot argue that BioInitiative fails WP:RS due to being self-published without conceding the hypocrisy that WHO factsheets are also self-published. There has to be separate, objective criteria under which the distinction is being made. The only valid arguments thus far appear to be criteria which would write off both WHO (to some degree) and ICNIRP in its entirety, which I'm sure you'd agree is not a good thing. However, under the same reasoning, if we are to consider them both reliable, it is not reasonable to use the same argument to consider BioInitiative unreliable. I'm sorry if I have put any spin on this, I am merely trying to work out how objectively one can be ruled ineligible and the other eligible when they both fail the criteria being set in the arguments above. At the very least Wikipedia should be consistent. Based on some recent headlines and the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 which states, quite explicitly, that it is "greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report(8) concerning electromagnetic fields, which summarises over 1500 studies on that topic..." (point 21) I would not say it is too early for inclusion either. At the very least it deserves inclusion with comments on its veracity, as people may come to this article specifically looking for commentary on the report itself.Topazg (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you make some serious and valid arguments for inclusion, that haven't already been addressed - without resorting to fallacious reasoning about the WHO etc - then those will be considered. Please drop the comparison between the WHO and bioinitiative - it's a poor argument. Try the reliable sources noticeboard and remember to notify interested parties, or start an RFC, but so far your arguments are weak and against policy. Verbal chat 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand your attitude. I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the report per se, just a consistent approach to what is and what is not included. What is fallacious about the reasoning I have made? That the WHO factsheets are self-published is not fallacious, it is just a statement of fact. That they aren't peer reviewed is likewise fact. I personally don't think that this is necessarily a reason for exclusion, and you still aren't addressing the point that the criticisms you launch at the BioInitiative report are equally valid criticisms against WHO factsheets. Either you launch the criticisms at both or at neither, but it is important to be consistent. The BioInitiative report is most certainly notable (and having now provided evidence that it is "taken seriously at national / international policy making levels" - the European Environment and Health Action Plan is certainly an international policy level risk assessment / management document), and the WP policies you feel would be breached by its inclusion are being breached by WHO factsheets in the same manner. I personally am not particularly bothered what gets included and what doesn't _provided the justifications are consistent and logical_. At the moment you haven't countered the logical inconsistencies in how the issues are currently being dealt with. I will raise an RfC as thus far we have worked fairly well on a number of similar documents and I don't want this disagreement on policy to make risk things becoming uncivil. Topazg (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

↠Your refusal to see the huge differences between the WHO (with reports published by a recognised group of experts (which are not self-selected) by a respected and recognised organisation, both in the scientific and political arena, which produces factsheets that are often reviewed and cited by scientists) and bioinitiative (a self-selected group with undeclared CoI with minimal recognition by politicians, and no recognition as yet by scientists) is a sticking point. They should not be treated the same. I really have trouble seeing where your coming from with this as the arguments for inclusion are so poor, and the differences between the WHO and bioinitiative are staggering. I'm sorry if I appear confrontational, and thanks for your confidence. I'm sorry though that your arguments concerning the WHO and for inclusion don't make sense to me. Verbal chat 08:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

↠Oh, that wasn't supposed to be quite my point, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I agree that there is a huge difference between the organisations, and that WHO are undoubtedly more notable, and more respected in both the scientific and political arena. However, I still stand by the fact that BioInitiative is notable enough for inclusion within the article. As far as I am aware, the group only has one participant with an undeclared financial conflict of interest (Cindy Sage), and consists of both a) 3 past presidents of the BioElectromagnetics society (Carl Blackman, Martin Blank and Kjell Hansson Mild), and b) a large number of highly respected experts in their relevant sectors of EMF science (Professors Michael Kundi, Lennart Hardell, Olle Johansson, Henry Lai, Kjell Hansson Mild) each with a number of their own peer reviewed papers on the subject. Aside from the lack of peer review of the document as a whole, it comprises of review material assessing over 1,500 individual peer-reviewed papers, and has generated enough media and public interest that at the very least it should be included within some section of the article with appropriate caveats on veracity. It appears to me that it is too "major" a piece of work (both in terms of magnitude and prominence) to be simply ignored by Wikipedia. Topazg (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting one, I'd missed that coming into the article. "The preponderance of evidence shows that the low-power, low-frequency, electromagnetic radiation associated with household current is very safe" is kind of unsupportable by the science I think. There's not a great deal of research done on house wiring and current, and most of the issues are associated with 50 / 60 Hz magnetic fields of around 0.4 microT (4 mG). This is unlikely to be a typical exposure in a house, but around high current appliances (e.g. electric cookers) this would be quite achievable. I think this sentence needs re-wording, at the very least to be factually correct, but ideally more in context with the rest of the section. Topazg (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion from the above... is there a consensus? It doesn't seem so. I would personally favour the report having an actual section (as opposed to added as an external link) where issues such as financial conflicts of interest can be raised and suitably cited. This way the issue can be aired and hopefully approached even-handedly. Comments, suggestions? Topazg (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for References

I arrived here from the RFC page that asks for inputs regarding inclusion of disputed references. The discussion seems to focus on WP policies, which are really rather weak criteria when it comes to scientific topics. Is there a consensus here that bad science should be included merely because one can find support for it in (e.g.) a peer-reviewed journal?--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, for example which bad science do you think is included? Also, could you link to the RFC, people here may be interested from the sound of it. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bioinitiative Report RfC is still active from six weeks ago, whoops. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, does that mean that matter was settled?

Verbal, I'm a bit wary of getting in too deep here, at least until I have more time and energy to bring myself up to date on recent published work.

There are many kinds of bad science, all represented well in the scientific literature.

One kind of bad science, hopefully not endemic but surely occurring more often than it's revealed, is fabrication of data. Reference 4 is one of two papers for which Robert Liburdy was severely censured in regard to 'intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims about the purported cellular effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF)'.

Is there anything on this other than "The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the respondent", which sounds distinctly like "settling out of court to avoid a big public fight", as opposed to any admission of wrongdoing. Care needs to be taken with such links, as they are no more demonstrative of a definitive fabrication than the finding was definitive that the affect was real. Topazg (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Best if I say no more at this stage - I've written more and excised it, as a lot of unreferenced generalisations would only stir the pot and not be helpful.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll look into that when I have time - I'm a bit busy in real life right now. If you have more information please feel free to drop it on my talk page, and also I have email enabled. In general, I would say bad science should be described as disputed in the text, with RS, if it is included at all. Also, I keep thinking you're talking about Ben Goldacre...:) Thanks. Verbal chat 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Topazg, if I reply to you, my words will be seriously brutal to your words. This will not be intended as a personal attack and I hope you won't take it that way. In any case, I will see if that can be avoided by leaving a while for you to reconsider your outlandish statement.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free, but brutality with words seems inappropriate. I'm genuinely interested in the followup of the article you linked to, which in itself appears more a "settlement to avoid discreditation" than a genuine ruling of wrongdoing. I don't seem to understand why you wish a brutal response? Topazg (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't. Not long after writing that, I looked at it and thought "this reads like a threat". Nothing was further from my mind, but I certainly didn't communicate what was on my mind. I've been holding back while I try to figure how to put that right, before getting back to the main issue. I'll try to get both done within the next couple of days.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, I'll look forward to it (if you have time anyway), many thanks :) Topazg (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try briefly to explain what was on my mind...

At the time, I thought your comments ridiculous - your imagination can probably come up with some of the impolite words that came to mind. My problem was that I couldn't see how to criticise your words without appearing abusive. What came out ended up worse. Now I feel quite comfortable saying that your comments still look ridiculous to me, but that this is no reflection on you as, evidently, the information you are working with is different from mine, and doubtless your outlook on various relevant matters is different.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: "The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the respondent" is very clear in the bottom of the document, and you used the link as evidence of "intentionally falsifying and fabricating data", which may well be the case, but the document itself does not seem to complete that ruling. It seems that both parties agreed not to follow up the charge by agreeing not to fund further work for Liburdy for a number of years. Circumstantially suspicious certainly, but not an actual ruling of fabrication. Topazg (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The document shows that Liburdy got the sack in a very public manner for intentionally falsifying and fabricating data. If there were the slightest morsel of doubt as to the evidence against him, he would have been up for huge compensation for the destruction of his career as a research scientist. The 3 years of no public funding is a legal formality: it would be stupid and criminal for anyone to give public research funding to someone with that background. 'The settlement is not an admission of liability' is likewise a legal matter that has no bearing on the facts concerning the research. That means that if the authorities want to sue him in relation to the millions of dollars of public money wasted directly in his corrupted research, or indirectly as a result of public trust in the lies that he published, then they would have to start from square one with the evidence, factual and legal, rather than getting a leg up if he had signed a statement that could be construed as acknowledging liability.

Liburdy tried to represent the meaning of the settlement document in just the way you did. Only in his case, there's no excuse for that as he has to have known the facts. You tried to interpret it in a generous manner. He deliberately misrepresented what it says.

If you want to maintain that there is still that morsel of doubt about the charges, it would be more relevant that he did not admit the misconduct. However, that is inseparable from him not denying it. 'Dr. Liburdy neither admits nor denies ORI's finding of scientific misconduct.'

Important in this respect is that it wasn't misconduct in general that he didn't deny. It was the ORI's finding of misconduct that he didn't deny.

I find it utterly implausible that an honest scientist accused of deliberately forging data in order to support findings that are actually refuted by the real data, would not deny the accusations. Liburdy tried to wriggle out of this and retain some credibility by claiming that the misconduct (that he didn't admit or deny) concerned technical aspects of the way data were represented, and directed his audience to focus on the software used to generate his published graphs. That is obviously a lie, as the document states clearly that he was charged with deliberate falsification.

ORI found Liburdy's lies about the nature of the charges serious enough to publish a rebuttalthat gives more information about his misconduct.

As far as I have found, that is the end of official public documentation available on the web. However, there's quite a lot more information, (and much more argumentation) in this scientific forum discussion. (This is where I learned about the above-mentioned ORI rebuttal. It's not linked, and the date is wrong by a few years, so I had a devil of a time finding the ORI document. Don't waste time following my steps, use the link above!)

I believe that the information I've presented here is conclusive, and editors of this article should be aware of it, but at the same time however much Liburdy deserves such exposure, this is not the right place. So I have in mind to delete it soon, moving it perhaps to my talk page for a little longer, then removing it totally from WP. The information about the published papers should be included in the historical account proposed below by Eldereft, but, as far as possible, without the personal angle. For the same reason, I'm not mentioning Liburdy in the edit summary.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, a most useful insight, to me at least! Topazg (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, having read all attached material -- yikes, talk about a damning indictment! Topazg (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there's two sides to this (as with all) stories though: http://www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a99issue.pdf.. Topazg (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not bet on it not cropping up again, but the article appears to be stable without that unreliable report. We should deactivate the RfC in a few days, if there are no objections? More importantly, that censure indicates that we should not be citing that paper except to provide historical context. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind - RFCbot closes those discussions automatically after they are well and truly stale. Also, the Liburdy being cited is not one of the ones for which they were censured. It might be good to add a History section including those papers, the original study that was confounded by SES and did not actually measure any fields, and concluding with the NIEHS report and the several large epidemiological studies from the nineties. I think Robert Park's book gives a decent treatment, up to the last decade or so. What do we think? - Eldereft (cont.) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Eldreft's plan sounds good to me. Maybe Liburdy should have an article, and it can be fleshed out there. Sounds interesting and notable from the little I've read. Verbal chat 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it sounds interesting and notable to me also. Topazg (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An article on Liburdy would either misinform the reader by giving him credibility, or further undermine his tarnished reputation. Either might be interesting and notable, but neither would improve Wikipedia.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, You're quite right, I'm not sure how this happened but I was quite wrong thinking and stating that the cited paper was one of the two censured. It needs to be said (in spite of my error, not in defense of it) that in view of the fraud exposed in relation to those two, Liburdy's credibility is zero and the cited paper may be regarded as part of the history but not as part of the evidence.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When this article is mature, I imagine the EMF section can consist exclusively of your proposed history section. Liburdy would have to figure in it.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indirect Accidents caused by electromagnetic pulse (EMP)

As radar is a subset of electromagnetic pulse, in turn, a category of electromagnetic radiation, would anyone have any suggestions where it would be appropriate to add a bit about possible aviation accidents caused by EMP or more specifically the incident whereby the U.S. aircraft carrier had a big fire which was caused by shipboard radar emanations leaking into poorly constructed shielding of control circuitry on fighter jets? This caused missile(s) to be fired by one of the armed jets which in turn caused fires on the carrier and the loss of personnel and materials. I believe Senator John McCain in an act of valiantry saved lives in this incident. Should I put this in the Radar wiki? I ask because there's something on accidents and pyro on this page. Any inputs?

Thanks, DonL (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No. No references, and believe it or not there's more than one aircraft carrier. Radar is not a "subset of electromagnetic pulse" in any interpretation I'd agree with - EMP refers to a different order of phenomena. You might as well include people killed by stacks of radio manuals falling on them...--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)