Guest guest Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.