Re: Wikipedia on the topic of EHS

[Guest guest]

yes, it's the same for the Italian version ...

I tried to modify heavily but the 'editor' modified it backwith a lot of

ìtecnical' complains.

In any case, the most important is to follow at 100% the Wikipedia's rules ...

and step & step !

I will plan the same process abt the Italian wikipedia ... we'll see

giorgio

>

> Wikipedia relies on the principle that the more " eyes " and " editors " , the more

accurate it will be. So the more people who are on the side of truth, the better

for the article's accuracy. However, since another editor can revert everything

at any time, the most important thing is to make small edits on a regular basis.

>

> If you check this article,

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity

> you'll see it's full of hints that EHS is

> (a) A psychological nocebo effect,

> ( Disproven by double-blind studies, and

> © Better explained by other illnesses.

>

> I propose that we can make a big difference with little effort by removing

these biased statements, with the comment that they violate wikipedia's

principle of NPOV (Neutral Point of View), and with proper justification in the

discussion page.

>

> For example, we know that:

> (a) There are scientific studies for animals, plants, in vitro effects, DNA

effects, blood brain barrier opening, etc. We know that these phenomenon occur

scientifically in the nonthermal range. Increasingly scientists are waking up

to the dangers of microwaves, and we have many statements being issued by

members of Bioelectromagnetics societies, e.g., the recent Seletun statement

plus many others.

> ( There are in fact double-blind studies related to blood pressure and

arrhythmia (and those double-blind studies claiming people cannot accurately

tell if they're exposed are often flawed in design, skewed in analysis, and/or

funded by industry. E.g., if they only look at microwave and not

electrical/digital harmonics or chemicals, they are going to make a mistake with

confounders or counting the exposed as part of the control group; if they

dismiss people who got too sick to continue, they're going to lose the people

who were probably accurate; they may also fail to consider washout periods, of

recovering from prior exposure before the next test.)

> © Illnesses of unknown etiology, like CFS, autism, may potentially be in

some way related to ES

> (d) Mobile phone mast studies show people within 300 meters get a wide variety

of symptoms, even among those who don't believe it. Many are getting sick from

Wi-Fi, and it's caused big controversy in places like Canada.

>

> See the following wikipedia getting started guide:

> http://www.scribd.com/doc/49289004/Wikipedia-Basics

>

> One good source of references might be:

> http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/overview.asp

> Instead of citing powerwatch, which may be considered by others to be

> unreliable, you could instead cite the PubMed article that powerwatch lists.

The following short format can be used for citing the PubMed reference: <ref

name= " pmid 10583715 " />

>

> Possible topics to edit:

> * Electrical_sensitivity

> * Mobile phone radiation and health

> * Wifi#Health_Issues

>