Talk:Wireless device radiation and health
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A news item involving Wireless device radiation and health was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 May 2011. |  |
Court links no good
editFootnotes 48 and 49 do not lead to valid links
48 - "Wright v. Motorola, Inc. et al., No95-L-04929".
49 Christopher Newman, et al. v Motorola, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland) ("Because no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation has been proffered by the plaintiffs, as explained below, the defendants’ motion will be granted and the plaintiffs’ motion will be denied."). Text
The Newman case appears to be referring to 218 F.Supp.2d 769 (2002). The Wright case is not findable and the link is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyberks (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Contradictory statements in the Cancer section
editAlexbrn, as I said in the edit summary, there are statements in that paragraph which are directly contradicted by later statements. It's not fine to have them there. Faulty (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Glucose metabolism
editI would like to know why scientific studies were reverted from the Glucose metabolism chapter. Petenka (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Belpoggi study on fertility is unscientific
editThe section about the effects on fertility cites a study by Dr. Belpoggi. This study is deemed unscientific by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/emf/kompetenzzentrum/berichte/berichte-mobilfunk/stoa.html). The review highlights weaknesses regarding methodology. It's also worth noting that Dr. Belpoggi's study does not reflect an official position of the EU and that the study has not been published by an EU scientific outlet.
Dr. Belpoggi seems to align with anti-cellular conspiracy believers (example: https://kompetenzinitiative.com/fiorella-belpoggi-vertrauen-der-buergerinnen-und-buerger-zurueckgewinnen-win-back-citizen-trust/) Jonatz2 (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonatz2 This study is also cited in the section on cancer. Possible WP:UNDUE? Squoop (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
The WHO RF EMF project needs updating
editI think a general overhaul of the health effects of RF EMF is needed now that WHO has conducted a survey among RF EMF scientists about the six most important health effects of RF EMF. The health effects have been summarized in a series of 14 high quality systematic reviews that are published in the highly cited journal Environment International. If there are no objections, I would like to reorganize the page according to the 6 priority outcomes and include the results of the systematic reviews. Most of the references to the single studies such as the NTP study should then be removed because this is all dealt with in the systematic reviews. Joshver (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)