 |
| Source: Microwave News Archive (Louis Slesin) |
(See the end of this post for additional resources.)
What is electromagnetic hypersensitivity?
Following is an excerpt from "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity means Peter Lloyd can't leave his house... or enjoy any modern pleasures inside" by Martin Shipton, Wales Online, Oct 16, 2014:
The term "electrical
hypersensitivity" was first used in 1989, while "electromagnetic
hypersensitivity" - EHS for short - was coined in 1994 to
reflect sufferers' sensitivity to magnetic as well as electric fields.
As early as the 1930s, however,
EHS symptoms were observed in people working with radio and electricity, and
with military radar in the 1940s.
Environmental EHS appeared in the
general population from the 1970s with computers.
It increased in the 1980s with
mobile and cordless phones, and with wifi from 2000.
Thousands of people are now
linked with EHS support groups in 30 countries. The first started in Sweden in
1989; the UK group began in 2003.
Sweden recognised EHS as a
functional disability in 2002. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did
likewise in 2007. In 2009, the European Parliament
voted for persons with EHS to be recognised as disabled.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome) – Review of mechanisms
Physician's Weekly, Apr 15, 2020
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), known in the past as “Microwave syndrome”, is a clinical syndrome characterized by the presence of a wide spectrum of non-specific multiple organ symptoms, typically including central nervous system symptoms, that occur following the patient’s acute or chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields in the environment or in occupational settings. Numerous studies have shown biological effects at the cellular level of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at magnetic (ELF) and radio-frequency (RF) frequencies in extremely low intensities. Many of the mechanisms described for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) apply with modification to EHS. Repeated exposures result in sensitization and consequent enhancement of response. Many hypersensitive patients appear to have impaired detoxification systems that become overloaded by excessive oxidative stress. EMF can induce changes in calcium signaling cascades, significant activation of free radical processes and overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells as well as altered neurological and cognitive functions and disruption of the blood-brain barrier. Magnetite crystals absorbed from combustion air pollution could have an important role in brain effects of EMF. Autonomic nervous system effects of EMF could also be expressed as symptoms in the cardiovascular system. Other common effects of EMF include effects on skin, microvasculature, immune and hematologic systems. It is concluded that the mechanisms underlying the symptoms of EHS are biologically plausible and that many organic physiologic responses occur following EMF exposure. Patients can have neurologic, neuro-hormonal and neuro-psychiatric symptoms following exposure to EMF as a consequence of neural damage and over-sensitized neural responses. More relevant diagnostic tests for EHS should be developed. Exposure limits should be lowered to safeguard against biologic effects of EMF. Spread of local and global wireless networks should be decreased, and safer wired networks should be used instead of wireless, to protect susceptible members of the public. Public places should be made accessible for electrohypersensitive individuals.
--
Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment
Highlights
- Electrohypersensitivity is caused by electromagnetic fields.
- Electrohypersensitivity is a neurological disorder with inflammation, oxidative stress, blood brain barrier opening and neurotransmitter abnormalities.
- Electrohypersensitivity must be defined by the decrease of brain electromagnetic fields tolerance threshold.
Abstract
Much of the controversy over the cause of electrohypersensitivity (EHS) lies in the absence of recognized clinical and biological criteria for a widely accepted diagnosis. However, there are presently sufficient data for EHS to be acknowledged as a distinctly well-defined and objectively characterized neurologic pathological disorder. Because we have shown that 1) EHS is frequently associated with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) in EHS patients, and 2) that both individualized disorders share a common pathophysiological mechanism for symptom occurrence; it appears that EHS and MCS can be identified as a unique neurologic syndrome, regardless its causal origin. In this overview we distinguish the etiology of EHS itself from the environmental causes that trigger pathophysiological changes and clinical symptoms after EHS has occurred. Contrary to present scientifically unfounded claims, we indubitably refute the hypothesis of a nocebo effect to explain the genesis of EHS and its presentation. We as well refute the erroneous concept that EHS could be reduced to a vague and unproven “functional impairment”. To the contrary, we show here there are objective pathophysiological changes and health effects induced by electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure in EHS patients and most of all in healthy subjects, meaning that excessive non-thermal anthropogenic EMFs are strongly noxious for health. In this overview and medical assessment we focus on the effects of extremely low frequencies, wireless communications radio frequencies and microwaves EMF. We discuss how to better define and characterize EHS. Taken into consideration the WHO proposed causality criteria, we show that EHS is in fact causally associated with increased exposure to man-made EMF, and in some cases to marketed environmental chemicals. We therefore appeal to all governments and international health institutions, particularly the WHO, to urgently consider the growing EHS-associated pandemic plague, and to acknowledge EHS as a new real EMF causally-related pathology.
Much of the controversy over the cause of electrohypersensitivity (EHS) lies in the absence of recognized clinical and biological criteria for a widely accepted diagnosis. However, there are presently sufficient data for EHS to be acknowledged as a distinctly well-defined and objectively characterized neurologic pathological disorder. Because we have shown that 1) EHS is frequently associated with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) in EHS patients, and 2) that both individualized disorders share a common pathophysiological mechanism for symptom occurrence; it appears that EHS and MCS can be identified as a unique neurologic syndrome, regardless its causal origin. In this overview we distinguish the etiology of EHS itself from the environmental causes that trigger pathophysiological changes and clinical symptoms after EHS has occurred. Contrary to present scientifically unfounded claims, we indubitably refute the hypothesis of a nocebo effect to explain the genesis of EHS and its presentation. We as well refute the erroneous concept that EHS could be reduced to a vague and unproven “functional impairment”. To the contrary, we show here there are objective pathophysiological changes and health effects induced by electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure in EHS patients and most of all in healthy subjects, meaning that excessive non-thermal anthropogenic EMFs are strongly noxious for health. In this overview and medical assessment we focus on the effects of extremely low frequencies, wireless communications radio frequencies and microwaves EMF. We discuss how to better define and characterize EHS. Taken into consideration the WHO proposed causality criteria, we show that EHS is in fact causally associated with increased exposure to man-made EMF, and in some cases to marketed environmental chemicals. We therefore appeal to all governments and international health institutions, particularly the WHO, to urgently consider the growing EHS-associated pandemic plague, and to acknowledge EHS as a new real EMF causally-related pathology.
Excerpts
In Table 6 the prevalence expressed in percentages of EHS people relative to the overall population is estimated to range from 0.7% to 13.3%, mainly affecting on average 3%–5% of the population in many different worldwide area or countries, meaning that millions of people may in fact be affected by man-made EMF intolerance, and often by EHS. Similar worldwide figures may account for MCS (Genuis, 2010)....
Given the seven billion people worldwide – most using cordless phones and/or mobile phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless devices – and given the present and future development of 5G (Hardell and Nyberg, 2020; Hardell and Carlberg, 2020; Pall, 2021), it is expected that the prevalence of EMF intolerance and EHS will significantly increase worldwide in the next few years. However, because the figures indicated in Table 6 are estimations based on no objective criteria for identifying EHS (Hallberg and Oberfeld, 2006), we believe these data require confirmation by more objective evaluations. Although the reported EHS prevalence figures are only estimations, it is expected that EMF intolerance and EHS prevalence will continue to grow, in as much as the manufacturers of WC technologies and chemical industries will continue developing their products....
Today's level of scientific knowledge engenders a great ethical responsibility of scientists and governments and of national and international health bodies to uncover the adverse health effects of the increasing man-made EMF exposures and warn on the emerging and growing worldwide EHS and MCS global plagues. This means that suitable public health measures must urgently be taken to recognize EHS and MCS as new pathologies and decrease EMF-exposures.
We therefore strongly ask WHO to add EHS and MCS in the future versions of the WHO International Classification of Diseases on the basis on their clinical and pathophysiological identification, just as has already been done for other recognized diseases.
--
The
Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of
Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report
Belpomme, Dominique, George L. Carlo, Philippe Irigaray, David O.
Carpenter, Lennart Hardell, Michael Kundi, Igor Belyaev, Magda Havas,
Franz Adlkofer, Gunnar Heuser, Anthony B. Miller, Daniela Caccamo,
Chiara De Luca, Lebrecht von Klitzing, Martin L. Pall, Priyanka Bandara,
Yael Stein, Cindy Sage, Morando Soffritti, Devra Davis, Joel M.
Moskowitz, S. M.J. Mortazavi, Martha R. Herbert, Hanns Moshammer, Gerard
Ledoigt, Robert Turner, Anthony Tweedale, Pilar Muñoz-Calero, Iris
Udasin, Tarmo Koppel, Ernesto Burgio, and André Vander Vorst. 2021. "The
Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of
Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 14: 7321. doi: 10.3390/
Abstract
Clinical research aiming at objectively identifying and characterizing
diseases via clinical observations and biological and radiological
findings is a critical initial research step when establishing objective
diagnostic criteria and treatments. Failure to first define such
diagnostic criteria may lead research on pathogenesis and etiology to
serious confounding biases and erroneous medical interpretations. This
is particularly the case for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and more
particularly for the so-called “provocation tests”, which do not
investigate the causal origin of EHS but rather the EHS-associated
particular environmental intolerance state with hypersensitivity to
man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, because those tests
depend on multiple EMF-associated physical and biological parameters and
have been conducted in patients without having first defined EHS
objectively and/or endpoints adequately, they cannot presently be
considered to be valid pathogenesis research methodologies.
Consequently, the negative results obtained by these tests do not
preclude a role of EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS
patients. Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself
are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects. This international
consensus report pleads for the acknowledgement of EHS as a distinct
neuropathological disorder and for its inclusion in the WHO
International Classification of Diseases.
Open access paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/14/7321
--
Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS)
Dariusz Leszczynski. Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 6. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0038.
Dariusz Leszczynski. Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 6. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0038.
Abstract
Part of the population considers themselves as sensitive to the man-made electromagnetic radiation (EMF) emitted by powerlines, electric wiring, electric home appliance and the wireless communication devices and networks. Sensitivity is characterized by a broad variety of non-specific symptoms that the sensitive people claim to experience when exposed to EMF. While the experienced symptoms are currently considered as a real life impairment, the factor causing these symptoms remains unclear. So far, scientists were unable to find causality link between symptoms experienced by sensitive persons and the exposures to EMF. However, as presented in this review, the executed to-date scientific studies, examining sensitivity to EMF, are of poor quality to find the link between EMF exposures and sensitivity symptoms of some people. It is logical to consider that the sensitivity to EMF exists but the scientific methodology used to find it is of insufficient quality. It is time to drop out psychology driven provocation studies that ask about feelings-based non-specific symptoms experienced by volunteers under EMF exposure. Such research approach produces only subjective and therefore highly unreliable data that is insufficient to prove, or to disprove, causality link between EHS and EMF. There is a need for a new direction in studying sensitivity to EMF. The basis for it is the notion of a commonly known phenomenon of individual sensitivity, where individuals’ responses to EMF depend on the genetic and epigenetic properties of the individual. It is proposed here that new studies, combining provocation approach, where volunteers are exposed to EMF, and high-throughput technologies of transcriptomics and proteomics are used to generate objective data, detecting molecular level biochemical responses of human body to EMF.
Final conclusions
– Problems and solutions for EHS research are summarized in Figure 2.
– Over the last 30 years, a sizable number of research studies has examined causality link between EMF exposures and EHS symptoms.
– The majority of the studies did not find any link between EMF and EHS.
– The EHS studies have examined acute effects but did not have capability to examine delayed EMF responses.
– The major problem is that scientists do not know whether EHS volunteers have indeed correct self-diagnosis of EHS or whether the diagnosis is incorrect and experimental groups are contaminated, to unknown degree, by non-EHS persons. In extreme situation, the small group of volunteers used in research study might have no EHS persons at all.
– Recently, research on EHS has drifted into direction of nocebo as the cause of EHS, what is incorrect.
– Instead of studying obvious impact of nocebo, or likes of medical students’ disease, research should focus on finding suitable biochemical and biophysical markers that could be used, in combination with single individual-focused provocation studies, to determine the sources of the EHS symptoms.
– The opinion that there is no causality link between EHS and EMF is unproven. This opinion, expressed by the World Health Organization EMF Project, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety and numerous governmental organizations, should be revised because the scientific research data is of insufficient quality to be used as a proof of the lack of causality.
--
Redefining electrosensitivity: A new literature-supported model
Abstract
In critically examining literature on electrohypersensitivity and the
reported somatic responses to anthropogenic modulated radiofrequency
radiation (RFR) exposure, it becomes apparent that
electrohypersensitivity is one part of a range of consequences. Current
evidence on the necessity of considering patients’ overall health status
leads us to propose a new model in which electrohypersensitivity is but
part of the electrosensitive status inherent in being human. We propose
the likelihood and type of response to environmental RFR include i) a
linear somatic awareness continuum, ii) a non-linear somatic response
continuum, and iii) the extent of each individual’s capacity to repair
damage (linked to homeostatic response). We anticipate this last,
dynamic, aspect is inextricably linked to the others through the
autonomic nervous system. The whole is dependent upon the status of the
interconnected immune and inflammatory systems. This holistic approach
leads us to propose various outcomes. For most, their body maintains
homeostasis by routine repair. However, some develop
electrohypersensitivity either due to RFR exposure or as an
ANS-mediated, unconscious response (aka nocebo effect), or both. We
suggest RFR exposure may be one factor in the others developing an
auto-immune disease or allergy. A few develop delayed catastrophic
disease such as glioma. This model gives the blanket term
ElectroMagnetic Illness (EMI) to all RFR-related conditions. Thus, EHS
appears to be one part of a range of responses to a novel and rapidly
changing evolutionary situation.
Conclusion and consequences of the model
Overall, there is compelling evidence in the broader literature indicating that EHS is but one part of a more complex range of responses related to humans being intrinsically electrosensitive.
In fact, “Many of the general malaise symptoms associated with IEI (Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance) 7 are common in the general population” p.42 (World Health Organisation 2004). This is not a sign of a healthy general population even by the WHO’s definition of health, 8 and causes must be identified. Life is dependent upon, and arguably defined by the electrical activity, of the brain, the broader nervous system and indeed the body’s ongoing efforts to maintain homeostasis. As we said earlier, internal electrical impulses are inherent to life; when they stop, we die. There are also natural, static and low-frequency, non-modulated, electromagnetic fields with which we have evolved and most of which we use and even rely upon. Our bodies and cells have their own resonant frequencies, and research has shown cell sensitivity to RFR exposure at ultra-low intensities (Kositsky, 2001). It is almost to be expected that exposures never encountered during the course of evolution would affect us. Indeed, “Since the low-level environmental exposures associated with IEI are commonly found in everyone’s daily living environment, the exposed population is indistinguishable from the general population. Everyone is exposed” p.44 (World Health Organisation 2004).
Our current model of electrosensitivity includes the “general population” and expresses that differing responses are a normal part of being alive. For some of those who do not appear to respond (no symptoms), there will mostly likely be cellular impacts. For most, these will be promptly repaired or otherwise dealt with (e.g., apoptosis); for some, damage will gradually or eventually accumulate and may lead, in time, to a catastrophic response in the form of a disease that began as oxidative stress that the body has fought but finally to which it has catastrophically succumbed. For others, effects will be felt and cause early symptoms. Among these people, some will respond by avoiding the exposure either subconsciously or consciously, while others will ignore them and eventually pay the price. Others will develop EHS. At this stage, it will often go undiagnosed due to lack of training in recognising this possible diagnosis.
Importantly, this model implies that there is a need to acknowledge that EHS (with all its variety) is one part of a range of symptomless pre-cursor and EMI responses to a novel and rapidly changing evolutionary situation. There should be no stigma to EHS, and those affected deserve the same level of concern and extent of assistance as those with allergies or auto-immune diseases, the principal actions being minimisation of the harmful stimulant until personal repair capacity has improved, then slowly re-introducing exposure, to the extent manageable on an individual basis. Assistance with this would be necessary at several stages so the body is not pushed into the hypo-responsive state, but rather assisted to reach the best possible health with the best practicable repair capacity.
We propose that to work towards avoiding, ameliorating, or attempting to overcome EHS it is necessary not only to observe the positive actions recommended, but also to build capacity. And capacity provides the energy necessary to build resilience (Gerritsen and Band 2018).
In fact, “Many of the general malaise symptoms associated with IEI (Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance) 7 are common in the general population” p.42 (World Health Organisation 2004). This is not a sign of a healthy general population even by the WHO’s definition of health, 8 and causes must be identified. Life is dependent upon, and arguably defined by the electrical activity, of the brain, the broader nervous system and indeed the body’s ongoing efforts to maintain homeostasis. As we said earlier, internal electrical impulses are inherent to life; when they stop, we die. There are also natural, static and low-frequency, non-modulated, electromagnetic fields with which we have evolved and most of which we use and even rely upon. Our bodies and cells have their own resonant frequencies, and research has shown cell sensitivity to RFR exposure at ultra-low intensities (Kositsky, 2001). It is almost to be expected that exposures never encountered during the course of evolution would affect us. Indeed, “Since the low-level environmental exposures associated with IEI are commonly found in everyone’s daily living environment, the exposed population is indistinguishable from the general population. Everyone is exposed” p.44 (World Health Organisation 2004).
Our current model of electrosensitivity includes the “general population” and expresses that differing responses are a normal part of being alive. For some of those who do not appear to respond (no symptoms), there will mostly likely be cellular impacts. For most, these will be promptly repaired or otherwise dealt with (e.g., apoptosis); for some, damage will gradually or eventually accumulate and may lead, in time, to a catastrophic response in the form of a disease that began as oxidative stress that the body has fought but finally to which it has catastrophically succumbed. For others, effects will be felt and cause early symptoms. Among these people, some will respond by avoiding the exposure either subconsciously or consciously, while others will ignore them and eventually pay the price. Others will develop EHS. At this stage, it will often go undiagnosed due to lack of training in recognising this possible diagnosis.
Importantly, this model implies that there is a need to acknowledge that EHS (with all its variety) is one part of a range of symptomless pre-cursor and EMI responses to a novel and rapidly changing evolutionary situation. There should be no stigma to EHS, and those affected deserve the same level of concern and extent of assistance as those with allergies or auto-immune diseases, the principal actions being minimisation of the harmful stimulant until personal repair capacity has improved, then slowly re-introducing exposure, to the extent manageable on an individual basis. Assistance with this would be necessary at several stages so the body is not pushed into the hypo-responsive state, but rather assisted to reach the best possible health with the best practicable repair capacity.
We propose that to work towards avoiding, ameliorating, or attempting to overcome EHS it is necessary not only to observe the positive actions recommended, but also to build capacity. And capacity provides the energy necessary to build resilience (Gerritsen and Band 2018).
--
Clinical Practice Guidelines for EHS -
Proceedings from a Symposium on the Impacts of Wireless Technology on Health
"Clinical Practice Guidelines for EHS - Proceedings from a Symposium on the Impacts of Wireless Technology on Health." Edited by Riina Bray, MD, and David Fancy, PhD. Published by the Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada. 137 pp. http://bit.ly/EHSsymposium.
The document is the published proceedings from a symposium for medical doctors on the subject of wireless technology and EHS held at the Environmental Health Clinic at Women's College Hospital (Toronto) in 2019.
The presenters include Riina Bray, MD; Anthony Miller, PhD; Magda Havas, PhD; Meg Sears, PhD; Jennifer Armstrong, MD; Barbara Payne; David Fancy, PhD; Shelley Wright; Frank Clegg; Robert Steller; and Melissa Chalmers.
The proceedings can be downloaded: http://bit.ly/EHSsymposium.
--
Metabolomics and psychological features in fibromyalgia and electromagnetic sensitivity
Cristina Piras, Stella Conte, Monica Pibiri, Giacomo Rao, Sandro Muntoni, Vera Piera Leoni, Gabriele Finco, Luigi Atzori. Metabolomics and psychological features in fibromyalgia and electromagnetic sensitivity. Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 20418 (2020).
Abstract
Fibromyalgia (FM) as Fibromyalgia and Electromagnetic Sensitivity (IEI-EMF) are a chronic and systemic syndrome. The main symptom is represented by strong and widespread pain in the musculoskeletal system. The exact causes that lead to the development of FM and IEI-EMF are still unknown. Interestingly, the proximity to electrical and electromagnetic devices seems to trigger and/or amplify the symptoms.
We investigated the blood plasma metabolome in IEI-EMF and healthy subjects using 1H NMR spectroscopy coupled with multivariate statistical analysis. All the individuals were subjected to tests for the evaluation of psychological and physical features.
No significant differences between IEI-EMF and controls relative to personality aspects, Locus of Control, and anxiety were found. Multivariate statistical analysis on the metabolites identified by NMR analysis allowed the identification of a distinct metabolic profile between IEI-EMF and healthy subjects. IEI-EMF were characterized by higher levels of glycine and pyroglutamate, and lower levels of 2-hydroxyisocaproate, choline, glutamine, and isoleucine compared to healthy subjects. These metabolites are involved in several metabolic pathways mainly related to oxidative stress defense, pain mechanisms, and muscle metabolism.
The results here obtained highlight possible physiopathological mechanisms in IEI-EMF patients to be better defined.
Open access paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-76876-8
--
Heart rate variability in healthy young
adults exposed to global system for mobile communication (GSM) 900-MHz
radiofrequency signal from mobile phones
Wallace J, Andrianome S, Ghosn R, Blanchard ES, Telliez F, Selmaoui B. Heart rate variability in healthy young adults exposed to global system for mobile communication (GSM) 900-MHz radiofrequency signal from mobile phones. Environ Res. 2020 Aug 23;191:110097.
Abstract
Given the large number of mobile phone users and the increasing exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) worldwide, we aimed to study the effect of RF-EMF related to mobile phones on heart rate variability (HRV).
Twenty-six healthy young adults participated in two
experimental sessions with a double-blind, randomized and
counter-balanced crossover design. During each session, participants
were exposed for 26 min to a sham or real 900 MHz RF-EMF, generated by a
commercial dual-band Global System for Mobile technology (GSM) mobile
phone. We recorded an electrocardiogram at rest during the exposure. We
evaluated HRV by time- and frequency-domain analysis.
Evaluation of
time-domain HRV parameters revealed a statistically significant increase
of the standard deviation of interbeat intervals (SDNN) during the real
exposure. Other time-domain parameters were not affected. Analysis in
the frequency-domain demonstrated that total spectral power and
low-frequency band (LF) absolute power were significantly increased
during exposure (p = .046 and p = .043, respectively). However, other
parameters were not affected.
In conclusion, it seems that most HRV
parameters were not affected by GSM signal exposure in our study. The
weak effect observed on HRV frequency-domain is likely to represent a
random occurrence rather than a real effect.
--
Toffa DH, Sow AD. The enigma of headaches associated with electromagnetic hyperfrequencies: Hypotheses supporting non-psychogenic algogenic processes. Electromagn Biol Med. 2020 May 13:1-10. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2020.1762638.
Abstract
Although an electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is reported in numerous studies, some authors associate hyperfrequencies (HF)-related pains with a nocebo effect while others suggest a biological effect. Therefore, we aimed to suggest hypotheses about the complex mechanisms of headaches related to HF-exposure. We crossed basic features of headaches with relevant studies (from the year 2000 up to 2018) emphasizing on the HF effects that may lead to pain genesis: neuroglial dysmetabolism, neuroinflammation, changes in cerebral blood perfusion, blood-brain barrier dysfunction and electrophysiological evidences of hyperexcitability. We privileged studies implying a sham exposure (for in vivo studies) and a specific absorption rate lower than 4 W/Kg. HF-induced headaches may involve an indirect inflammatory process (neurogenic, magnetogenic or thermogenic) as well as a direct biophysical effect (thermogenic or magnetogenic). We linked inflammatory processes to meningeal dysperfusion or primary neuroglial dysfunction triggered by non-thermal irradiation or HF-induced heating at thermal powers. In the latter case, HF-induced excitoxicity and oxidative stress probably play a crucial role. Such disorders may lead to vascular-trigeminal activation in predisposed people. Interestingly, an abnormal oxidative stress predisposition had been demonstrated in overall 80% of EHS self-reporting patients. In the case of direct effects, pain pathways' activation may be directly triggered by HF-irradiation (heating and/or transcranial HF-induced ectopic action potentials). Further research on HF-related headaches is needed.
--
This report summarizes the responses of 184 persons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) who submitted comments to the FCC (Docket #13-84) and reported either their symptoms or the sources of their problematic exposure to radio frequency radiation.
https://www.saferemr.com/2020/05/EHSsubmissionstoFCC.html
--
Stein Y, Udassin IG. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome) – Review of mechanisms.
Environmental Research. Vol 186. Available online 30 March 2020, 109445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Abstract
Belpomme D, Irigaray P. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Mar 11;21(6). pii: E1915. doi: 10.3390/ijms21061915.
Since 2009, we built up a database which presently includes more than 2000 electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and/or multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) self-reported cases. This database shows that EHS is associated in 30% of the cases with MCS, and that MCS precedes the occurrence of EHS in 37% of these EHS/MCS-associated cases. EHS and MCS can be characterized clinically by a similar symptomatic picture, and biologically by low-grade inflammation and an autoimmune response involving autoantibodies against O-myelin. Moreover, 80% of the patients with EHS present with one, two, or three detectable oxidative stress biomarkers in their peripheral blood, meaning that overall these patients present with a true objective somatic disorder. Moreover, by using ultrasonic cerebral tomosphygmography and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, we showed that cases have a defect in the middle cerebral artery hemodynamics, and we localized a tissue pulsometric index deficiency in the capsulo-thalamic area of the temporal lobes, suggesting the involvement of the limbic system and the thalamus. Altogether, these data strongly suggest that EHS is a neurologic pathological disorder which can be diagnosed, treated, and prevented. Because EHS is becoming a new insidious worldwide plague involving millions of people, we ask the World Health Organization (WHO) to include EHS as a neurologic disorder in the international classification of diseases.
Conclusions
In summary, we showed that there are presently sufficient clinical, biological, and radiological data for EHS to be acknowledged as a well-defined, objectively identified, and characterized pathological neurologic disorder. As a result, patients who self-report they suffer from EHS should be diagnosed and treated on the basis of presently available biological tests, including the detection of peripheral blood and urine biomarkers and the use of imaging techniques such as fMRI, TDU, and, when possible, UCTS. Moreover, because we showed for the first time that EHS is frequently associated with MCS and that both clinico-biological entities may be associated with a common physiopathological mechanism for genesis, it clearly appears that they can be identified as a unique neurologic pathological syndrome whatever their causal origin. Moreover; as it was shown that MCS genesis may be attributed to toxic chemical exposure, and EHS genesis to potentially excessive EMF and/or chemical exposure; protective measures against these two environmental stressors should be taken. Whatever its causal origin and mechanism of action, EHS should therefore be from now on recognized as a new identified and characterized neurological pathological disorder. As it is already a real health plague potentially involving millions of people worldwide it should be acknowledged by WHO, and thus be included in the WHO ICD. As stated during the international scientific consensus meeting on EHS and MCS that we have organized in 2015 in Brussels, scientists unanimously asked WHO to urgently assume its responsibilities, by classifying EHS and MCS as separate codes in the ICD; so as to increase scientific awareness of these two pathological entities in the medical community and the general public, and to foster research and train medical practitioners to e ciently diagnose, treat, and prevent EHS and MCS–which in fact constitute a unique, well-defined, and identifiable new neurologic disease.
Open access paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/6/1915
--
--
Panagopoulos DJ, Chrousos GP. Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Feb 23;667:255-262. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.344.
Abstract
Human exposure to man-made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased to unprecedented levels, accompanied by increase in various health problems. A connection has been indicated by an increasing number of studies. Symptoms characterized as Electro-hyper-sensitivity (EHS) are frequently reported especially in urban environments. Lately, people are advised by private companies and individuals to protect themselves from man-made EMFs by metal shielding through various products, for which there are reasonable concerns about their protective efficacy and safety. Indeed, any metal shielding practice, even when correctly applied, attenuates not only man-made totally polarized EMFs accused for the health problems, but also the natural non-polarized EMFs responsible for the biological rhythmicity and well-being of all animals. Strong evidence on this was provided by pioneering experiments in the 1960's and 1970's, with volunteers staying in a shielded underground apartment. We analyze the physical principles of EMF-shielding, the importance of natural atmospheric EMFs, and examine available shielding methods and suggested products, relying on science-based evidence. We suggest that an avoidance strategy is safer than shielding, and provide specific protection tips. We do not reject shielding in general, but describe ways to keep it at a minimum by intermittent use, as this is theoretically safer than extensive permanent shielding. We explain why metallic patches or "chips" or minerals claimed by sellers to be protective, do not seem to make sense and might even be risky. We finally suggest urgent research on the safety and efficacy of shielding methods combined with use of generators emitting weak pulses of similar frequency, intensity, and waveform with the natural atmospheric resonances.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30831365
--
Bogers RP, van Gils A, Clahsen SCS, Vercruijsse W, van Kamp I, Baliatsas C, Rosmalen JGM, Bolte JFB. Individual variation in temporal relationships between exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and non-specific physical symptoms: A new approach in studying 'electrosensitivity'. Environ Int. 2018 Sep 15;121(Pt 1):297-307. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.064.
--
The enigma of headaches associated with electromagnetic hyperfrequencies: Hypotheses supporting non-psychogenic algogenic processes
Toffa DH, Sow AD. The enigma of headaches associated with electromagnetic hyperfrequencies: Hypotheses supporting non-psychogenic algogenic processes. Electromagn Biol Med. 2020 May 13:1-10. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2020.1762638.
Abstract
Although an electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is reported in numerous studies, some authors associate hyperfrequencies (HF)-related pains with a nocebo effect while others suggest a biological effect. Therefore, we aimed to suggest hypotheses about the complex mechanisms of headaches related to HF-exposure. We crossed basic features of headaches with relevant studies (from the year 2000 up to 2018) emphasizing on the HF effects that may lead to pain genesis: neuroglial dysmetabolism, neuroinflammation, changes in cerebral blood perfusion, blood-brain barrier dysfunction and electrophysiological evidences of hyperexcitability. We privileged studies implying a sham exposure (for in vivo studies) and a specific absorption rate lower than 4 W/Kg. HF-induced headaches may involve an indirect inflammatory process (neurogenic, magnetogenic or thermogenic) as well as a direct biophysical effect (thermogenic or magnetogenic). We linked inflammatory processes to meningeal dysperfusion or primary neuroglial dysfunction triggered by non-thermal irradiation or HF-induced heating at thermal powers. In the latter case, HF-induced excitoxicity and oxidative stress probably play a crucial role. Such disorders may lead to vascular-trigeminal activation in predisposed people. Interestingly, an abnormal oxidative stress predisposition had been demonstrated in overall 80% of EHS self-reporting patients. In the case of direct effects, pain pathways' activation may be directly triggered by HF-irradiation (heating and/or transcranial HF-induced ectopic action potentials). Further research on HF-related headaches is needed.
Excerpts
Electromagnetic HFs are non-ionizing radiations that have complex interactions with intracranial structures. These radiations can significantly impact on neuroglial excitability and induce direct or indirect changes in the permeability of the BBB and meningeal capillaries. All these objective interactions can lead to the induction of headaches either by non-thermal/thermal proinflammatory mechanisms, by thermal stimulation of trigeminal endings, or also by ectopic discharges genesis. However, we believe that unless there occurs a prolonged and high-intensity exposure, a low threshold for vascular trigeminal activation seems crucial to promote headaches in EHS people. Our hypotheses are based on the conclusions of several studies targeting the brain effects of HF. However, further experiments based on the current assumptions should be conducted. In practice, since it is impossible to avoid HF exposure in modern society, it is important to emphasize awareness to reduce this exposure, especially in EHS individuals. Moreover, since some of the mechanisms described above can lead to durable neuroglial processes, chronic exposure in predisposed people can result in brain disorders (headaches or other) that increasingly evolve independently from HF triggering.
--
Symptoms Experienced by Persons with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Submissions to FCC Docket #13-84
This report summarizes the responses of 184 persons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) who submitted comments to the FCC (Docket #13-84) and reported either their symptoms or the sources of their problematic exposure to radio frequency radiation.
https://www.saferemr.com/2020/05/EHSsubmissionstoFCC.html
--
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome) –
Review of mechanisms
Abstract
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), known in the past as “Microwave syndrome”, is a clinical syndrome characterized by the presence of a wide spectrum of non-specific multiple organ symptoms, typically including central nervous system symptoms, that occur following the patient's acute or chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields in the environment or in occupational settings.
Numerous studies have shown biological effects at the cellular level of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at magnetic (ELF) and radio-frequency (RF) frequencies in extremely low intensities. Many of the mechanisms described for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) apply with modification to EHS. Repeated exposures result in sensitization and consequent enhancement of response. Many hypersensitive patients appear to have impaired detoxification systems that become overloaded by excessive oxidative stress. EMF can induce changes in calcium signaling cascades, significant activation of free radical processes and overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells as well as altered neurological and cognitive functions and disruption of the blood-brain barrier. Magnetite crystals absorbed from combustion air pollution could have an important role in brain effects of EMF. Autonomic nervous system effects of EMF could also be expressed as symptoms in the cardiovascular system. Other common effects of EMF include effects on skin, microvasculature, immune and hematologic systems.
It is concluded that the mechanisms underlying the symptoms of EHS are biologically plausible and that many organic physiologic responses occur following EMF exposure. Patients can have neurologic, neuro-hormonal and neuro-psychiatric symptoms following exposure to EMF as a consequence of neural damage and over-sensitized neural responses.
More relevant diagnostic tests for EHS should be developed. Exposure limits should be lowered to safeguard against biologic effects of EMF. Spread of local and global wireless networks should be decreased, and safer wired networks should be used instead of wireless, to protect susceptible members of the public. Public places should be made accessible for electrohypersensitive individuals.
Mechanisms
Many of the mechanisms described for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) apply with modification to EHS. Repeated exposures result in sensitization and consequent enhancement of response (Overstreet, 2001; Latremoliere and Woolf, 2009; Molot, 2013; Sage, 2015). Many hypersensitive patients appear to have impaired detoxification systems that become overloaded by excessive oxidative stress (Korkina, 2009; De Luca et al., 2014). Patients can have neurologic, neuro-hormonal and neuro-psychiatric symptoms following exposure to EMF as a consequence of neural damage and over-sensitized neural responses (Dwyer and Leeper, 1978; Pall, 2016). EMF can induce changes in calcium signaling cascades (Liboff, 1984; Blackman et al., 1985; Smith et al., 1987; Pall, 2013, 2015), significant activation of free radical processes and overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells (Irmak et al., 2002; Zmyslony et al., 2004; Friedman et al., 2007; Blank and Goodman, 2009; De Iuliis et al., 2009; Georgiou, 2010; Avci et al., 2012; Jing et al., 2012; Bilgici et al., 2013; Burlaka et al., 2013) as well as altered neurological and cognitive functions (Frey, 1961; Thomas et al., 1986; Carrubba et al., 2007; Nittby et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2010; Molot, 2013; Yakymenko et al., 2016; Pall, 2016; Kim et al., 2017) and disruption of the blood-brain barrier (Salford et al., 2008; Nittby et al., 2009). Magnetite crystals absorbed from combustion air pollution could have an important role in brain effects of EMF (Maher et al., 2016).
Conclusions
In the modern world, exposure to electromagnetic radiation has become inescapable. There are many people who develop adverse health effects as a result of exposure to EMF. This review of the literature included numerous self-reported neurologic and neuropsychiatric symptoms which have a temporal relationship to EMF exposures. Further studies suggest that EMF exposure may be associated with changes in cerebral blood flow which correspond to abnormalities on PET scan of the brain. Some of the researchers have even localized the brain abnormalities to the temporal lobe, thought to be the closest site of exposure to cell phones. Because of the widespread use of EMF technology, it is difficult to avoid exposure.
Open access paper: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061559548743/EHS%20Mechanisms%20YS%20IU.pdf
--Open access paper: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061559548743/EHS%20Mechanisms%20YS%20IU.pdf
Electrohypersensitivity
as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological
Disorder:
How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It
Belpomme D, Irigaray P. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Mar 11;21(6). pii: E1915. doi: 10.3390/ijms21061915.
Abstract
Since 2009, we built up a database which presently includes more than 2000 electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and/or multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) self-reported cases. This database shows that EHS is associated in 30% of the cases with MCS, and that MCS precedes the occurrence of EHS in 37% of these EHS/MCS-associated cases. EHS and MCS can be characterized clinically by a similar symptomatic picture, and biologically by low-grade inflammation and an autoimmune response involving autoantibodies against O-myelin. Moreover, 80% of the patients with EHS present with one, two, or three detectable oxidative stress biomarkers in their peripheral blood, meaning that overall these patients present with a true objective somatic disorder. Moreover, by using ultrasonic cerebral tomosphygmography and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, we showed that cases have a defect in the middle cerebral artery hemodynamics, and we localized a tissue pulsometric index deficiency in the capsulo-thalamic area of the temporal lobes, suggesting the involvement of the limbic system and the thalamus. Altogether, these data strongly suggest that EHS is a neurologic pathological disorder which can be diagnosed, treated, and prevented. Because EHS is becoming a new insidious worldwide plague involving millions of people, we ask the World Health Organization (WHO) to include EHS as a neurologic disorder in the international classification of diseases.
Conclusions
In summary, we showed that there are presently sufficient clinical, biological, and radiological data for EHS to be acknowledged as a well-defined, objectively identified, and characterized pathological neurologic disorder. As a result, patients who self-report they suffer from EHS should be diagnosed and treated on the basis of presently available biological tests, including the detection of peripheral blood and urine biomarkers and the use of imaging techniques such as fMRI, TDU, and, when possible, UCTS. Moreover, because we showed for the first time that EHS is frequently associated with MCS and that both clinico-biological entities may be associated with a common physiopathological mechanism for genesis, it clearly appears that they can be identified as a unique neurologic pathological syndrome whatever their causal origin. Moreover; as it was shown that MCS genesis may be attributed to toxic chemical exposure, and EHS genesis to potentially excessive EMF and/or chemical exposure; protective measures against these two environmental stressors should be taken. Whatever its causal origin and mechanism of action, EHS should therefore be from now on recognized as a new identified and characterized neurological pathological disorder. As it is already a real health plague potentially involving millions of people worldwide it should be acknowledged by WHO, and thus be included in the WHO ICD. As stated during the international scientific consensus meeting on EHS and MCS that we have organized in 2015 in Brussels, scientists unanimously asked WHO to urgently assume its responsibilities, by classifying EHS and MCS as separate codes in the ICD; so as to increase scientific awareness of these two pathological entities in the medical community and the general public, and to foster research and train medical practitioners to e ciently diagnose, treat, and prevent EHS and MCS–which in fact constitute a unique, well-defined, and identifiable new neurologic disease.
Open access paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/6/1915
Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an Environmentally-Induced Disability that Requires Immediate Attention
Havas M.
Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an Environmentally-Induced Disability that Requires Immediate Attention. Review Article. J Sci Discov. 3(1):jsd18020;DOI:10.24262/jsd.3.1.18020. 2019.
Abstract
A
growing number of countries are beginning to acknowledge that
electrohypersensitivity (EHS) exists and a few countries have classified
it as a disability or a functional impairment attributable to the
environment. Epidemiological studies and in vivo experiments show that
exposure to non-ionizing radiation (NIR) from extremely low to microwave
frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) at exposure intensities far
below the maximum limits in international guidelines increases anxiety,
depression, and physiological stress and impairs cognitive functions
that include concentration, memory and learning. Furthermore, exposure
to NIR contributes to neurodegenerative diseases including dementia,
Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis,
Parkinson’s disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism
spectrum disorder. Exposure of the fetus to NIR (mobile phone) affects
the neonatal heart and can lead to emotional and behavioral problems in
human offspring. Similar exposures in laboratory studies report impaired
cognitive performance, neuronal losses and pathological changes in the
brain of rat offspring. The scientific and medical communities have
repeatedly sent out urgent warnings, in the form of appeals,
declarations and testimonies, that exposure to NIR needs to be reduced
from a public health perspective. These warnings have been largely
ignored. With continued development of wireless technology and the
imminent roll out of new and densified technologies (e.g., 5G
technology, satellite constellations, repeaters, wearables, Internet of
Things), society will pay an enormous price for disregarding these
warnings. It is long overdue for those responsible for public health,
the health of children and health policy to take these warnings
seriously and to provide a refuge for those afflicted by EHS. EHS is
real, it is exacerbated by exposure to NIR, it is increasing among the
population and when severe it becomes a disability. Action is long
overdue to minimize exposure to NIR and to provide a safe environment that all can enjoy.
Conclusion
Environments contaminated by electrosmog can be devastating to those individuals who are already impaired by electromagnetic exposures. Unfortunately, these environments may also induce impairment in previously unimpaired individuals. Fetal exposure is particularly disturbing as it can affect the life of the offspring, as shown in both human and animal studies. The research reported here is regarding undesirable disruption of neurological and hormonal functions such that either cognitive or physical ability becomes impaired.
According to this research, exposure to EMF or EMR at levels far below the maximum limits in federal guidelines can contribute to deficits in memory and learning; increase the stress response and lead to mood disorders, including both anxiety and depression; contribute to symptoms of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; contribute to neurodegenerative disorders and exacerbate symptoms of multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and various types of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. Removal of the EMF/EMR exposure can ameliorate the impairing symptoms for many with EHS and/or reduce requirements for prescriptive medications and care. Mechanisms of action involve neurotransmitter disturbances, oxidative stress, programmed cell death (apoptosis), increase in stress proteins, reduced growth of nerve cells, DNA damage and altered hormonal levels.
With the impending deployment of 5G (5th Generation Wireless technology and the Internet of Things), exposure to mm [millimeter] waves will dramatically increase, further densifying our current electrosmog exposure.
Scientists and physicians familiar with EHS have submitted multiple appeals and declarations to governing agencies in an attempt to reduce exposure to electromagnetic frequencies. They recommend establishing more protective emission and exposure guidelines; designing technologies that emit EMR less often, at lower intensity and with a reduced radiation footprint; educating health care providers; informing the public; and establishing radiation-free environments for persons with EHS.
Agencies responsible for assuring disabled persons are included, and welcomed, in their communities and have equal access to necessities and enjoyment of life have provided little support for those suffering with EHS, presumably due to lack of information and/or unintentional, yet nevertheless in appropriate, attitudinal barriers. It is my hope that this document will encourage federal and state agencies, as well as other jurisdictions and decision-makers, to take EHS seriously and to help individuals affected by this physiological condition and to support their families. According to the World Health Organization (2015) the level of severity of EHS is classified as being severe for approximately 10% of individuals who report EHS symptoms. This percentage is likely to increase as more EMF-emitting technologies, such as 5G, mm waves and Internet of Things, are deployed.
Open access paper: http://www.e-discoverypublication.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/JSD18020-final.pdf
--
Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk
Panagopoulos DJ, Chrousos GP. Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Feb 23;667:255-262. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.344.
Highlights
• Human exposure to man-made EMFs has increased with increasing health problems.
• Metal shielding is lately suggested by private companies/individuals as a way to reduce exposure.
• Metal shielding reduces both man-made and natural atmospheric EMFs.
• EHS symptom relapses and internal desynchronization are reported after shielding.
• An avoidance strategy of man-made EMFs should be preferable than metal shielding.
• Metal shielding is lately suggested by private companies/individuals as a way to reduce exposure.
• Metal shielding reduces both man-made and natural atmospheric EMFs.
• EHS symptom relapses and internal desynchronization are reported after shielding.
• An avoidance strategy of man-made EMFs should be preferable than metal shielding.
Abstract
Human exposure to man-made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased to unprecedented levels, accompanied by increase in various health problems. A connection has been indicated by an increasing number of studies. Symptoms characterized as Electro-hyper-sensitivity (EHS) are frequently reported especially in urban environments. Lately, people are advised by private companies and individuals to protect themselves from man-made EMFs by metal shielding through various products, for which there are reasonable concerns about their protective efficacy and safety. Indeed, any metal shielding practice, even when correctly applied, attenuates not only man-made totally polarized EMFs accused for the health problems, but also the natural non-polarized EMFs responsible for the biological rhythmicity and well-being of all animals. Strong evidence on this was provided by pioneering experiments in the 1960's and 1970's, with volunteers staying in a shielded underground apartment. We analyze the physical principles of EMF-shielding, the importance of natural atmospheric EMFs, and examine available shielding methods and suggested products, relying on science-based evidence. We suggest that an avoidance strategy is safer than shielding, and provide specific protection tips. We do not reject shielding in general, but describe ways to keep it at a minimum by intermittent use, as this is theoretically safer than extensive permanent shielding. We explain why metallic patches or "chips" or minerals claimed by sellers to be protective, do not seem to make sense and might even be risky. We finally suggest urgent research on the safety and efficacy of shielding methods combined with use of generators emitting weak pulses of similar frequency, intensity, and waveform with the natural atmospheric resonances.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30831365
--
Individual
variation in temporal relationships between RF exposure & physical
symptoms:
A new approach in studying 'electrosensitivity'
Bogers RP, van Gils A, Clahsen SCS, Vercruijsse W, van Kamp I, Baliatsas C, Rosmalen JGM, Bolte JFB. Individual variation in temporal relationships between exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and non-specific physical symptoms: A new approach in studying 'electrosensitivity'. Environ Int. 2018 Sep 15;121(Pt 1):297-307. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.064.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Everyday exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from wireless devices such as mobile phones and base stations, radio and television transmitters is ubiquitous. Some people attribute non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) such as headache and fatigue to exposure to RF-EMF. Most previous laboratory studies or studies that analyzed populations at a group level did not find evidence of an association between RF-EMF exposure and NSPS.
OBJECTIVES: We explored the association between exposure to RF-EMF in daily life and the occurrence of NSPS in individual self-declared electrohypersensitive persons using body worn exposimeters and electronic diaries.
METHODS: We selected seven individuals who attributed their NSPS to RF-EMF exposure. The level of and variability in personal RF-EMF exposure and NSPS were determined during a three-week period. Data were analyzed using time series analysis in which exposure as measured and recorded in the diary was correlated with NSPS.
RESULTS: We found statistically significant correlations between perceived and actual exposure to wireless internet (WiFi - rate of change and number of peaks above threshold) and base stations for mobile telecommunications (GSM + UMTS downlink, rate of change) and NSPS scores in four of the seven participants. In two persons a higher EMF exposure was associated with higher symptom scores, and in two other persons it was associated with lower scores. Remarkably, we found no significant correlations between NSPS and time-weighted average power density, the most commonly used exposure metric.
CONCLUSIONS: RF-EMF exposure was associated either positively or negatively with NSPS in some but not all of the selected self-declared electrohypersensitive persons.
BACKGROUND: Everyday exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from wireless devices such as mobile phones and base stations, radio and television transmitters is ubiquitous. Some people attribute non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) such as headache and fatigue to exposure to RF-EMF. Most previous laboratory studies or studies that analyzed populations at a group level did not find evidence of an association between RF-EMF exposure and NSPS.
OBJECTIVES: We explored the association between exposure to RF-EMF in daily life and the occurrence of NSPS in individual self-declared electrohypersensitive persons using body worn exposimeters and electronic diaries.
METHODS: We selected seven individuals who attributed their NSPS to RF-EMF exposure. The level of and variability in personal RF-EMF exposure and NSPS were determined during a three-week period. Data were analyzed using time series analysis in which exposure as measured and recorded in the diary was correlated with NSPS.
RESULTS: We found statistically significant correlations between perceived and actual exposure to wireless internet (WiFi - rate of change and number of peaks above threshold) and base stations for mobile telecommunications (GSM + UMTS downlink, rate of change) and NSPS scores in four of the seven participants. In two persons a higher EMF exposure was associated with higher symptom scores, and in two other persons it was associated with lower scores. Remarkably, we found no significant correlations between NSPS and time-weighted average power density, the most commonly used exposure metric.
CONCLUSIONS: RF-EMF exposure was associated either positively or negatively with NSPS in some but not all of the selected self-declared electrohypersensitive persons.
--
Characteristics of perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the general population
Gruber MJ, Palmquist E, Nordin S. Characteristics of perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the general population. Scand J Psychol. 2018 May 9. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12449.
Abstract
Health problems evoked in the presence of electrical equipment is a concern, calling for better understanding for characteristics of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in the general population. The present study investigated demographics, lifestyle factors, frequency and duration, coping strategies, proportion meeting clinical criteria for intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and comorbidity. Using data from a large-scale population-based questionnaire study, we investigated persons with self-reported (n = 91) EHS in comparison to referents (n = 3,250). Middle age, female sex and poor perceived health was found to be associated with EHS. More than 50% in the EHS group reported having EMF-related symptoms more often than once a week, and the mean number of years experiencing EHS was 10.5. More than half of the EHS group reported that their symptoms started after a high-dose or long-term EMF exposure, that they actively tried to avoid EMF sources and that they mostly could affect the EMF environment. A minority of the EHS group had sought medical attention, been diagnosed by a physician or received treatment. Exhaustion syndrome, anxiety disorder, back/joint/muscle disorder, depression, functional somatic syndrome and migraine were comorbid with EHS. The results provide ground for future study of these characteristic features being risk factors for development of EHS and or consequences of EHS.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29741795
--
Hypersensitivity
to electromagnetic waves: research efforts should be scaled up
and
suitable care provided for the people concerned
French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), March 27, 2018
Today the Agency is publishing the results of its expert
appraisal on hypersensitivity to electromagnetic waves. This work drew
on all the available scientific literature, as well as on numerous
hearings with hospital and general practitioners, researchers,
associations, and the people concerned. The expert appraisal revealed
the great complexity of the issue of electrohypersensitivity (EHS),
while concluding that according to the current state of knowledge, there
is no solid experimental evidence establishing a causal link between
exposure to electromagnetic fields and the symptoms described by the
people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive. The Agency also
emphasised that the suffering and pain expressed by the people declaring
themselves as electrohypersensitive is a reality of life, requiring
them to adapt their daily lives to cope with it. In this context, the
Agency recommends providing suitable care for the people concerned and
pursuing research work, in particular by setting up studies whose
experimental conditions take into account the circumstances of people
declaring themselves as EHS.
Radiofrequency electromagnetic waves have been a major health, environmental and societal concern for several years now, in France and abroad. Despite the measures taken to regulate and monitor the levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields, for several decades the scientific literature has regularly reported cases of people suffering from various disorders attributed to exposure to fields emitted by household appliances, electrical facilities and communicating devices.
In this context, the Agency has published several opinions and collective expert appraisal reports, particularly in 2003, 2005, 2009, 2013 and, most recently, in 2016, on the potential health risks of exposure to radiofrequency waves. It also wished to pay due attention to the issue of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), by devoting a specific in-depth expert appraisal to this subject.
This expert appraisal, whose results are published today, was based on an analysis of the scientific literature and on numerous hearings (with hospital and general practitioners, researchers, associations and the people concerned). It was also supplemented with data based on more than 500 additional comments from scientists and stakeholders, in the framework of the open public consultation that ran from 27 July to 15 October 2016, and which was based on a preliminary expert appraisal report.
The Agency also concluded that the pain and suffering (headaches, sleep, attention and memory disorders, social isolation, etc.) expressed by the people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive is a reality of life, requiring them to adapt their daily lives to cope with it.
The 40 experts, who worked on this expert appraisal for almost four years, investigated many hypotheses in an attempt to understand these symptoms. However, current scientific knowledge shows no cause and effect relationship between the symptoms of people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive and their exposure to electromagnetic waves. Nevertheless, these symptoms, which can have a significant impact on the quality of life of these people, require and warrant suitable care by health and social service players.
To this end, the Agency recommends asking the French National Authority for Health to consider the relevance of formulating recommendations for health professionals to ensure suitable care for people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive. The Agency also recommends developing training for health professionals on the issue of electrohypersensitivity and training for social service professionals in supporting and counselling people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive, as well as taking their questions and expectations into account in their practices and fostering greater coordination between the players involved in their care.
The Agency also recommends continuing research:
Radiofrequency electromagnetic waves have been a major health, environmental and societal concern for several years now, in France and abroad. Despite the measures taken to regulate and monitor the levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields, for several decades the scientific literature has regularly reported cases of people suffering from various disorders attributed to exposure to fields emitted by household appliances, electrical facilities and communicating devices.
In this context, the Agency has published several opinions and collective expert appraisal reports, particularly in 2003, 2005, 2009, 2013 and, most recently, in 2016, on the potential health risks of exposure to radiofrequency waves. It also wished to pay due attention to the issue of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), by devoting a specific in-depth expert appraisal to this subject.
This expert appraisal, whose results are published today, was based on an analysis of the scientific literature and on numerous hearings (with hospital and general practitioners, researchers, associations and the people concerned). It was also supplemented with data based on more than 500 additional comments from scientists and stakeholders, in the framework of the open public consultation that ran from 27 July to 15 October 2016, and which was based on a preliminary expert appraisal report.
Agency conclusions and recommendations
The Agency's expert appraisal showed the great complexity of the issue of electro-hypersensitivity. First of all, there are currently no validated diagnostic criteria for EHS, and the expert appraisal found that it is only possible to define EHS on the basis of self-reporting by individuals.The Agency also concluded that the pain and suffering (headaches, sleep, attention and memory disorders, social isolation, etc.) expressed by the people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive is a reality of life, requiring them to adapt their daily lives to cope with it.
The 40 experts, who worked on this expert appraisal for almost four years, investigated many hypotheses in an attempt to understand these symptoms. However, current scientific knowledge shows no cause and effect relationship between the symptoms of people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive and their exposure to electromagnetic waves. Nevertheless, these symptoms, which can have a significant impact on the quality of life of these people, require and warrant suitable care by health and social service players.
To this end, the Agency recommends asking the French National Authority for Health to consider the relevance of formulating recommendations for health professionals to ensure suitable care for people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive. The Agency also recommends developing training for health professionals on the issue of electrohypersensitivity and training for social service professionals in supporting and counselling people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive, as well as taking their questions and expectations into account in their practices and fostering greater coordination between the players involved in their care.
The Agency also recommends continuing research:
- by strengthening the interactions between scientists and associations of people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive;
- by supporting the establishment of research infrastructure suitable for investigating EHS, mainly in order to conduct long-term follow-up studies, while ensuring that the experimental conditions are controlled and take into account the circumstances of people declaring themselves as electrohypersensitive;
-
by securing long-term funding for research work on the health effects of radiofrequencies.
Report (in French):
--
Vital Signs with Dr. Sanjay Gupta
You can watch the program online now by viewing the following three videos on the CNN website:
Part 1 (9-minute video): Welcome to the National Quiet Zone - with Diane Schou and Dr. David Carpenter. In a small West Virginia town, a restriction on wireless internet and phone signals provides a refuge to disconnect.
http://cnn.it/2floP7A
Part 2 (7-minute video): Reducing Wireless Exposure -
with Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Melissa Chalmers, Kevin Mottus, and Dafna
Tachover. As the world becomes more connected, how can you reduce your
exposure to electromagnetic fields?
http://cnn.it/2yBjBgB
Part 3 (5-minute video): Living in the National Quiet Zone - with Leo Halepli. What life is like for a young man from Turkey now living in the small town of Green Bank, West Virginia.
http://cnn.it/2yBjBgB
Note: Dr. Gupta's statement that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause DNA damage is false. The National Toxicology Program found that mice and rats exposed to non-ionizing, cell phone radiation developed DNA damage. Numerous studies
have found evidence of DNA damage from exposure to low-intensity
radiofrequency radiation (RFR). At least seven published studies have found evidence of DNA damage in humans. The DNA damage may be an indirect
effect of the oxidative stress caused by exposure to RFR.
Discussion Questions:
Why
doesn't our federal government conduct or fund research on electromagnetic hypersensitivity and other health effects (e.g., cancer,
reproductive and neurological damage) associated with exposure to
radio frequency radiation? The only major study the government has
conducted in the past two decades, the National Toxicology Program study
on second-generation (2G) cell phone radiation, was requested by the
FDA in 1999 and still has not been finalized.
Why
doesn't the Federal Communications Commission update its decades-old
guidelines for radio frequency radiation exposure based upon the latest
international research that finds biologic and health effects from
current levels of exposure to radio frequency radiation?
--
Mobile Phone Use and The Risk of Headache:
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cross-sectional Studies
Wang J, Su H1, Xie W, Yu S. Mobile Phone Use and The Risk of Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cross-sectional Studies. Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 3;7(1):12595. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12802-9.
Abstract
Headache is increasingly being reported as a detrimental effect of mobile phone (MP) use. However, studies aimed to investigate the association between MP use and headache yielded conflicting results. To assess the consistency of the data on the topic, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available cross-sectional studies. Published literature from PubMed and other databases were retrieved and screened, and 7 cross-sectional studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. We found that the risk of headache was increased by 38% in MP user compared with non-MP user (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.61, p < 0.001). Among MP users, the risk of headache was also increased in those who had longer daily call duration (2-15 min vs. <2 min: OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.34-1.98, p < 0.001; >15 min vs. <2 min: OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.76-3.54, p < 0.001) and higher daily call frequency (2-4 calls vs. <2 calls: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.76, p < 0.001; >4 calls vs. <2 calls: OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.78-3.58, p < 0.001). Our data indicate that MP use is significantly associated with headache, further epidemiologic and experimental studies are required to affirm and understand this association.
The underlying mechanism of the association between MP use and headache remains unclear but some suggest that breakdown of the blood-brain barrier due to exposure to low intensity MP frequency microwave energy may be involved 33,34,35,36. Also, the dopamine-opiate system may be involved in headaches and low intensity electromagnetic energy exposure affects those systems 37,38,39. However, since Frey’s group first reported headaches occurring after microwave energy exposure at approximately the same frequencies and incident energies that present day MP emit40, the exact mechanism under this association is still not fully understood now.
The results of our meta-analysis and lots of previous studies herein supported current clinical opinion that MP use may cause increased risk for headache. Therefore, it is advisable to admit that the use of MP is a risk factor for headache. In Stalin’s study 18 and Chiu’s study 19, the prevalence of MP usage among adult and children was 69.8% and 63.2% respectively in their study population, and that was only the data from two years ago. We could foresee the prevalence of MP usage will be higher in the future. So it is also advisable to suggest that excessive use of MP should be avoided by increasing social awareness through health promotion activities. It is imperative that health care professionals, clinicians and common people are educated about the deleterious influence of MP on headache. And it is reasonable to instruct children and adolescent about a prudent use of MPs. In addition, we encourage screening of headache patients during routine clinical visits to identify those patients to explore excessive MP use as a potential cause. Intervention and policies must be developed, evaluated and carry out at the population level to raise the awareness of the potential adverse health effect to decrease the headache caused by MP using.
Open Access Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-12802-9
Headache is increasingly being reported as a detrimental effect of mobile phone (MP) use. However, studies aimed to investigate the association between MP use and headache yielded conflicting results. To assess the consistency of the data on the topic, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available cross-sectional studies. Published literature from PubMed and other databases were retrieved and screened, and 7 cross-sectional studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. We found that the risk of headache was increased by 38% in MP user compared with non-MP user (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.61, p < 0.001). Among MP users, the risk of headache was also increased in those who had longer daily call duration (2-15 min vs. <2 min: OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.34-1.98, p < 0.001; >15 min vs. <2 min: OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.76-3.54, p < 0.001) and higher daily call frequency (2-4 calls vs. <2 calls: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.76, p < 0.001; >4 calls vs. <2 calls: OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.78-3.58, p < 0.001). Our data indicate that MP use is significantly associated with headache, further epidemiologic and experimental studies are required to affirm and understand this association.
Excerpts
The underlying mechanism of the association between MP use and headache remains unclear but some suggest that breakdown of the blood-brain barrier due to exposure to low intensity MP frequency microwave energy may be involved 33,34,35,36. Also, the dopamine-opiate system may be involved in headaches and low intensity electromagnetic energy exposure affects those systems 37,38,39. However, since Frey’s group first reported headaches occurring after microwave energy exposure at approximately the same frequencies and incident energies that present day MP emit40, the exact mechanism under this association is still not fully understood now.
The results of our meta-analysis and lots of previous studies herein supported current clinical opinion that MP use may cause increased risk for headache. Therefore, it is advisable to admit that the use of MP is a risk factor for headache. In Stalin’s study 18 and Chiu’s study 19, the prevalence of MP usage among adult and children was 69.8% and 63.2% respectively in their study population, and that was only the data from two years ago. We could foresee the prevalence of MP usage will be higher in the future. So it is also advisable to suggest that excessive use of MP should be avoided by increasing social awareness through health promotion activities. It is imperative that health care professionals, clinicians and common people are educated about the deleterious influence of MP on headache. And it is reasonable to instruct children and adolescent about a prudent use of MPs. In addition, we encourage screening of headache patients during routine clinical visits to identify those patients to explore excessive MP use as a potential cause. Intervention and policies must be developed, evaluated and carry out at the population level to raise the awareness of the potential adverse health effect to decrease the headache caused by MP using.
Open Access Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-12802-9
Special Issue on Ecopsychology and Environmental Sensitivities:
Chemical, Electrical, and Beyond
--
EUROPAEM
EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment
of EMF-related health problems and illnesses
of EMF-related health problems and illnesses
Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Lercher P, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.Rev Environ Health. Publ online 2016 Jul 25. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011.
Abstract
Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with unspecific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress in social and work environments, physical and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities are causal or contributing environmental stressors that deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by all other members of the health care community. It seems certainly necessary now to take "new exposures" like electromagnetic field (EMF) into account. Physicians are increasingly confronted with health problems from unidentified causes.
Studies, empirical observations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently neglected. New wireless technologies and applications have been introduced without any certainty about their health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose exposure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of these technologies. Common EMF sources include Wi-Fi access points, routers and clients, cordless and mobile phones including their base stations, Bluetooth devices, ELF magnetic fields from net currents, ELF electric fields from electric lamps and wiring close to the bed and office desk. On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-term-exposure to certain EMF exposures is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer's disease and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more recognized by health authorities, disability administrators and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of law.
We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI) leading to a functional impairment (EHS), but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains the environment. In the beginning, EHS symptoms often occur only occasionally, but over time they may increase in frequency and severity. Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleeping problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue and flu-like symptoms.
A comprehensive medical history, which should include all symptoms and their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in the context of EMF exposures, is the key to the diagnosis. The EMF exposure can be assessed by asking for typical sources like Wi-Fi access points, routers and clients, cordless and mobile phones and measurements at home and at work. It is very important to take the individual susceptibility into account.
The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources of EMF at home and in the workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessibility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many examples have shown that such measures can prove effective. Also the survival rate of children with leukemia depends on ELF magnetic field exposure at home.
To increase the effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other environmental factors that contribute to the total body burden should also be addressed. Anything that supports a balanced homeostasis will increase a person's resilience against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can change and why the number of symptoms reported in the context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the adverse effects of peroxynitrite - as has been increasingly used in the treatment of multisystem disorders - works best.
This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and provides concepts for the diagnosis and treatment and accessibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual health outcomes as well as for the development of strategies for prevention.
http://bit.ly/2asNTuj
--
Electrohypersensitivity:
a functional impairment due to an
inaccessible environment
Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: a functional impairment due to an inaccessible environment. Rev Environ Health. 2015 Dec 1;30(4):311-21. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0018.
Abstract
In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity is recognized as a functional impairment which implies only the environment as the culprit. The Swedish view provides persons with this impairment a maximal legal protection, it gives them the right to get accessibility measures for free, as well as governmental subsidies and municipality economic support, and to provide them with special Ombudsmen (at the municipality, the EU, and the UN level, respectively), the right and economic means to form disability organizations and allow these to be part of national and international counterparts, all with the simple and single aim to allow persons with the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity to live an equal life in a society based on equality. They are not seen as patients, they do not have an overriding medical diagnosis, but the 'patient' is only the inferior and potentially toxic environment. This does not mean that a subjective symptom of a functionally impaired can not be treated by a physician, as well as get sick-leave from their workplace as well as economic compensation, and already in the year 2000 such symptoms were identified in the Internal Code of Diagnoses, version 10 (ICD-10; R68.8/now W90), and have been since. But the underlying cause still remains only the environment.
http://1.usa.gov/1YFwzkd
Excerpts
The very first case may have been
Nikola Tesla (10 July 1856–7 January 1943) a Serbian-American inventor,
electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist, best known
for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC)
electricity supply system. Descriptions of his health status closely resembles
what we today would have named electro-hypersensitivity. A surge of similar
case reports were also seen during the amateur radio (DX) years.
In more recent times, as early as
in the 1970s, a report from the former Soviet Union described a “microwave
syndrome”. The Soviet military recognized early on the possible side-effects
from radar and radio radiation. This microwave syndrome was seen in up to a
quarter of the military personnel working with radio and radar equipment. They
showed symptoms such as fatigue, dizziness, headaches, problems with
concentration and memory, sleep disturbances, and being hot tempered. The
treatment suggested was a change of assignments and to keep away from exposure.
Rest, physical exercise, and nutritious food were also offered (8).
Also in the 1970s the newspaper industry was one of the first to supply it’s employees with personal computers using visual display terminals. Complaints of headaches and visual problems, as well as clusters of miscarriages and birth defects in children born to female editors and other newspaper employees, generated some publicity. In addition, many people who worked in the electronics industry in Sweden, including an estimated 12% of the electrical engineers in that industry, became electrically sensitive, and helped form the current Swedish disability organization ...
Also in the 1970s the newspaper industry was one of the first to supply it’s employees with personal computers using visual display terminals. Complaints of headaches and visual problems, as well as clusters of miscarriages and birth defects in children born to female editors and other newspaper employees, generated some publicity. In addition, many people who worked in the electronics industry in Sweden, including an estimated 12% of the electrical engineers in that industry, became electrically sensitive, and helped form the current Swedish disability organization ...
In the United States,
then-Representative Al Gore held Congressional hearings in 1981 on the health
effects of computer screens ....
Today the most famous electrohypersensitive
person is Gro Harlem Brundtland (20 April 1939), the former Prime Minister of
Norway and the former Director General of the UN World Health Organization
(WHO).
I and my collaborator, Dr.
Shabnam Gangi, in two papers of theoretical nature (27, 28), have put forward a
model for how mast cells and substances secreted from them (e.g. histamine,
heparin, and serotonin) could explain sensitivity to electromagnetic fields...
When it comes to functional
impairments, it is always only action that speaks, nothing else. To ensure that
everyone acts within the UN Human Rights Convention is of paramount importance,
and that persons with EHS is promptly given complete accessibility is the only
acceptable goal, as is proper symptom identification and treatment when
possible, but only when asked for by the disabled person Himself/Herself.
However, the latter should never be used instead of the first.
--
Biomarkers
for diagnosing electrohypersensitivity &
multiple chemical sensitivity:
Two
etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder
Belpomme D, Campagnac C, Irigaray
P. Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying
electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic
aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Rev Environ Health. 2015 Dec
1;30(4):251-71. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0027.
Abstract
Much of the controversy over the causes of electro-hypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) lies in the absence of both recognized clinical criteria and objective biomarkers for widely accepted diagnosis.
Since 2009, we have prospectively investigated, clinically and biologically, 1216 consecutive EHS and/or MCS-self reporting cases, in an attempt to answer both questions. We report here our preliminary data, based on 727 evaluable of 839 enrolled cases: 521 (71.6%) were diagnosed with EHS, 52 (7.2%) with MCS, and 154 (21.2%) with both EHS and MCS. Two out of three patients with EHS and/or MCS were female; mean age (years) was 47. As inflammation appears to be a key process resulting from electromagnetic field (EMF) and/or chemical effects on tissues, and histamine release is potentially a major mediator of inflammation, we systematically measured histamine in the blood of patients. Near 40% had a increase in histaminemia (especially when both conditions were present), indicating a chronic inflammatory response can be detected in these patients. Oxidative stress is part of inflammation and is a key contributor to damage and response. Nitrotyrosin, a marker of both peroxynitrite (ONOO°-) production and opening of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), was increased in 28% the cases. Protein S100B, another marker of BBB opening was increased in 15%. Circulating autoantibodies against O-myelin were detected in 23%, indicating EHS and MCS may be associated with autoimmune response. Confirming animal experiments showing the increase of Hsp27 and/or Hsp70 chaperone proteins under the influence of EMF, we found increased Hsp27 and/or Hsp70 in 33% of the patients. As most patients reported chronic insomnia and fatigue, we determined the 24 h urine 6-hydroxymelatonin sulfate (6-OHMS)/creatinin ratio and found it was decreased (<0.8) in all investigated cases. Finally, considering the self-reported symptoms of EHS and MCS, we serially measured the brain blood flow (BBF) in the temporal lobes of each case with pulsed cerebral ultrasound computed tomosphygmography. Both disorders were associated with hypoperfusion in the capsulothalamic area, suggesting that the inflammatory process involve the limbic system and the thalamus.
Our data strongly suggest that EHS and MCS can be objectively characterized and routinely diagnosed by commercially available simple tests. Both disorders appear to involve inflammation-related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune response, capsulothalamic hypoperfusion and BBB opening, and a deficit in melatonin metabolic availability; suggesting a risk of chronic neurodegenerative disease. Finally the common co-occurrence of EHS and MCS strongly suggests a common pathological mechanism.
http://1.usa.gov/1NEtsXW
--
The microwave syndrome or electro-hypersensitivity: historical background
Carpenter DO. The microwave syndrome or electro-hypersensitivity: historical background. Rev Environ Health. 2015 Nov 10. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0016. [Epub ahead of print]
Abstract
Microwave generating equipment first became common during World War 2 with the development of radar. Soviet bloc countries reported that individuals exposed to microwaves frequently developed headaches, fatigue, loss of appetite, sleepiness, difficulty in concentration, poor memory, emotional instability, and labile cardiovascular function, and established stringent exposure standards. For a variety of reasons these reports were discounted in Western countries, where the prevailing belief was that there could be no adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) that were not mediated by tissue heating. The reported Soviet effects were at lower intensities than those that cause heating. However, there were several accidental exposures of radar operators in Western countries that resulted in persistent symptoms similar to those described above. The Soviets irradiated the US Embassy in Moscow with microwaves during the period 1953-1975, and while no convincing evidence of elevated cancer rates was reported, there were reports of "microwave illness." Officials passed these complaints off as being due to anxiety, not effects of the microwave exposure. There is increasing evidence that the "microwave syndrome" or "electro-hypersensitivity" (EHS) is a real disease that is caused by exposure to EMFs, especially those in the microwave range. The reported incidence of the syndrome is increasing along with increasing exposure to EMFs from electricity, WiFi, mobile phones and towers, smart meters and many other wireless devices. Why some individuals are more sensitive is unclear. While most individuals who report having EHS do not have a specific history of an acute exposure, excessive exposure to EMFs, even for a brief period of time, can induce the syndrome.
Excerpts
Electro-hypersensitivity
(EHS) is a syndrome that may include some or all of the following: excessive
fatigue, headache, tinnitus, insomnia, photophobia, a feeling of cognitive dysfunction and impaired
memory, irritability, pain at various sites and often cardiovascular
abnormalities (1). However, these are all relatively common complaints. All of
us have on occasion suffered from headaches and insomnia. Because the symptoms
are relatively non-specific, and because the adverse health effects of
electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is a contentious issue, and also because primary
care physicians have no objective diagnostic algorithms by which to diagnose
EHS, patients suffering from EHS are often referred to a psychiatrist. There
is, however, a body of evidence, both old and more recent, that indicates that
these symptoms are triggered by exposure to EMFs in sensitive individuals. This
is the case for exposure to both the extra low electromagnetic fields (ELF)
coming from electricity and the radiofrequency (RF) EMFs coming from radar,
communication devices, WiFi, smart meters and many other forms of wireless
devices.
There are conflicting estimates
on what percent of the population suffers from EHS, with some suggesting that
between 5 and 10% of people have the syndrome, and that the incidence is
increasing with time (2). However, there are several reports of tests of
individuals taken into a laboratory and their responses recorded when they were
unaware of whether or not an EMF field was being applied. Some of these studies
have not shown that individuals who report that they are electro-sensitive are
in fact able to discern if the EMFs are present or not (3–6). However, these
reports are balanced by others that show that at least some individuals do
respond with adverse symptoms when exposed to EMFs in a blinded fashion (7, 8).
Thus not everyone who believes they are electrosensitive really is, but it is
also likely that some have the symptoms of EHS but have not identified the
cause. Thus the true incidence of EHS is currently not known.
... the Soviet countries’
standard for maximal permissible [EMF] exposure during the workday is 1,000
times lower than that in the US. [0.01 mW/cm2 over an entire workday]
Some of the strongest evidence
that EHS is a real syndrome comes from cases of acute high intensity exposure
to microwaves of healthy people, which resulted in prolonged illness ....
Recent years have seen a marked
increase in overall exposure to EMFs ....There has always been uncertainty over
which characteristics of EMFs are most important with regard to human health
effects. Because the mechanisms whereby these various adverse health outcomes
arise are still not well understood, it is important to ask the question of
which components pose the greatest risk, whether or not we are confident of the
answer. Frey (36, 37) first suggested that peak power density was more important
than average power density. Litovitz et al. (38) concluded that 60 Hz EMFs and
RF EMFs do very much the same things, and later studies suggested that the low
frequency, modulatory component of RF was particularly important (39). Others
have implicated on-off transients, “dirty electricity” and other
characteristics of the fields than the steady 50 or 60 Hz fields.
... smart meter RF radiation is
significantly different from many other forms of RF, in that it consists of
brief but very high intensity pulses. Thus, whereas the average exposure over
time is not excessive it appears possible that the high intensity pulses are
responsible for the development of EHS. Brief intense pulses have been
described as “dirty electricity” by Milham and Morgan (33), who suggest that
many of the reported adverse effects of EMFs are due to these brief events, rather than the sine wave
forms ...
Conclusion
The weight of evidence indicates
that EHS is a real syndrome induced by exposure to either ELF or RF EMF. In
some cases it results from a brief, high intensity exposure, whereas in others
it appears to reflect ambient exposures, especially those of increasing
intensity and perhaps of certain waveforms. Whether from acute high intensity
exposure or ambient background exposure from cell towers, mobile phones, smart
meters and other devices, it is clear that not everyone develops EHS, for
reasons not well understood. Certainly more research is needed to understand
exactly which of the components of EMF exposures pose the greatest danger to
human health, and what biological mechanisms are responsible. But the important
conclusion is that there is something about EMFs of various forms that do pose
direct hazards to human health.
--
Electromagnetic
Hypersensitivity (EHS): Fad Allergy,
Debilitating Disease, or What?
The National Law Review, Oct 15,
2015
"... electromagnetic
hypersensitivity (or “EHS” – sensitivity to radio waves from Wi-Fi routers,
cell phones and similar products) is an “allergy” that has recently gotten more
mainstream media attention and is also “characterized by a range of non-specific
symptoms.” The Access Board, which is the federal agency responsible for
promulgating accessibility guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, has recognized that “electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered
disabilities under the ADA ...."
<snip>
"The upshot of court rulings
to date is that while some courts will overlook the lack of scientific evidence
that EHS is caused by exposure to EMF in the context of government benefits,
they have not been so accommodating where another individual’s (or company’s)
rights would be adversely affected by a ruling in favor of an EHS
plaintiff."
"If EHS becomes as prevalent
as “gluten sensitivity,” we can expect more EHS sufferers to ask courts to
fashion them a remedy. Unlike bread and pasta for the gluten-obsessed,
EMF is not something a person can easily avoid. Americans are exposed to
EMF on a daily basis, from the likes of garage door openers, cell phones,
cordless phones, laptops, tablets, to Wi-Fi routers in their homes,
supermarkets, malls and places of work. Radio frequency energy is literally
everywhere. While there is no science to support the causation hypothesis,
people who believe they have EHS really believe they have a legitimate
sensitivity, and many have demonstrable symptoms that are not frivolous. That
makes for motivated litigants, which means the courts will probably see more of
these cases in the future. But for courts to decide that EHS is something more
than a fad allergy, or a psychological manifestation arising from the nocebo
effect, they will need controlled scientific studies supporting the
case—studies that at the moment do not exist."
Complete article: http://bit.ly/1VUUvg8
--
2015
International Scientific Declaration on Electromagnetic
Hypersensitivity
and
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
ARTAC / ECERI Press Release, Sep 4, 2015
Following the fifth Paris Appeal Congress, which took place on the 18th of May, 2015 and focused on environmental hypersensitivities, the attending European, American and Canadian scientists unanimously decided to create a working group and to write a Common International Declaration to request an official recognition of these new diseases and of their sanitary consequences worldwide.
The declaration calls upon national and international bodies and institutions and particularly the World Health Organization, for taking urgently their responsibility for recognizing electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as real diseases, including them in the International Classification of Diseases.
This International Declaration also asks national and
international institutions to adopt simple precautionary measures of
prevention, to inform populations and requires
the appointment of real independent expert groups to evaluate these sanitary
risks in total scientific objectivity, which
is not the case today.
For the
Scientific Committee of the Paris Appeal Fifth Congress:
Pr. David Carpenter, MD (USA)
Pr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD
(Sweden)
Pr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MS
(France
Brussels International Scientific Declaration : www.appel-de-paris.com
To
download the Declaration: http://bit.ly/ehsDeclaration
To
download the Program of the Congress: http://bit.ly/ParisEHSappeal2
--
Ex-WHO
General-Director Warns: "Wireless
Technology has Health Effects There is no Doubt "
YouTube, Aug 20, 2015
(3:20)
On August 14, 2015, retired
General-Director of the World Health Organization and former Prime Minister of
Norway, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, was interviewed by the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.
One issue discussed in the interview was her current thoughts about wireless radiation. Her statement was crystal clear. Watch the relevant clip from the interview here, subtitled in English by Citizens´ Radiation Protection, Norway.
--
What does
the World Health Organization say about EHS?
The EHS overview on the World
Health Organization's web site is nine years old. When will the WHO inform the
public about the world-wide program of EMF studies on EHS it is
co-ordinating?
Electromagnetic fields and public
health: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Backgrounder, World Health
Organization, December 2005
<snip>
What WHO is doing
WHO, through its International
EMF Project, is identifying research needs and co-ordinating a world-wide
program of EMF studies to allow a better understanding of any health risk
associated with EMF exposure. Particular emphasis is placed on possible health
consequences of low-level EMF. Information about the EMF Project and EMF
effects is provided in a series of fact sheets in several languages www.who.int/emf/.
Resources
Hypersensitivity to WiFi ... Could it be a disability?
Alexis Kramer. Hypersensitivity
to WiFi ... Could it be a disability? Bloomberg BNA. Sep 10, 2015. http://www.bna.com/hypersensitivity-wifi-disability-b17179935773/
On Sept. 1, a federal district
court in Florida refused to dismiss an ADA
claim based on allegations
that an individual experienced insomnia, loud and violent ear ringing and
difficulty concentrating as a result of the attachment of a digital meter to
his home.
The court said that because these
symptoms substantially limited major life activities and derived from “some
sort of physical or mental impairment,” it could reasonably infer that the
plaintiff has a disability.
--
Electromagnetic
hypersensitivity -- an
increasing challenge to the medical profession
Hedendahl L, Carlberg M, Hardell
L. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an increasing challenge to the medical
profession. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):209-15.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 1970, a report from the former Soviet Union described the
"microwave syndrome" among military personnel, working with radio and
radar equipment, who showed symptoms that included fatigue, dizziness,
headaches, problems with concentration and memory, and sleep disturbances.
Similar symptoms were found in the 1980s among Swedes working in front of
cathode ray tube monitors, with symptoms such as flushing, burning, and
tingling of the skin, especially on the face, but also headaches, dizziness,
tiredness, and photosensitivity. The same symptoms are reported in Finns, with
electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) being attributed to exposure to
electromagnetic fields (EMF). Of special concern is involuntary exposure to
radiofrequency (RF)-EMF from different sources. Most people are unaware of this
type of exposure, which has no smell, color, or visibility. There is an
increasing concern that wireless use of laptops and iPads in Swedish schools,
where some have even abandoned textbooks, will exacerbate the exposure to EMF.
METHODS: We have surveyed the literature on different aspects of EHS and
potential adverse health effects of RF-EMF. This is exemplified by case reports
from two students and one teacher who developed symptoms of EHS in schools
using Wi-Fi.
RESULTS: In population-based surveys, the prevalence of EHS has ranged
from 1.5% in Sweden to 13.3% in Taiwan. Provocation studies on EMF have yielded
different results, ranging from where people with EHS cannot discriminate
between an active RF signal and placebo, to objectively observed changes
following exposure in reactions of the pupil, changes in heart rhythm, damage
to erythrocytes, and disturbed glucose metabolism in the brain. The two
students and the teacher from the case reports showed similar symptoms, while
in school environments, as those mentioned above.
DISCUSSION: Austria is the only country with a written suggestion to
guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems. Apart
from this, EHS is not recognized as a specific diagnosis in the rest of the
world, and no established treatment exists.
CONCLUSION: It seems necessary to give an International Classification of
Diseases to EHS to get it accepted as EMF-related health problems. The
increasing exposure to RF-EMF in schools is of great concern and needs better
attention. Longer-term health effects are unknown. Parents, teachers, and
school boards have the responsibility to protect children from unnecessary
exposure.
From: The Fifth Congress of the Paris Appeal: Environmental idiopathic
intolerance: what role for EMFs and multiple chemicals? 18 May 2015, Brussels,
Belgium.
Conclusions
The prevalence of EHS seems to be
increasing today, and many people get symptoms when exposed to ELF- and/or
RF-EMF. With the ever more extensive use of wireless technologies, nobody can
avoid being exposed. It is important to work toward getting objective
diagnostic criteria for EHS, and have it recognized and officially accepted as
hypersensitivity, an illness caused by exposure to EMF. Thus, it is necessary
to give an International Classification of Diseases to EHS. If and when EHS is
accepted as a diagnosis by society and the medical profession, measures can be
taken especially in consideration for this group of people with EHS regarding
healthcare, accommodation, school, and work.
Measurements of exposure to EMF
should be performed in classrooms and in school yards during a typical school
week. The results must be evaluated in relation to current knowledge of
biological effects from EMF exposure. This should lead to a precautionary
approach using wired solution of the internet connection, but also reduction of
other sources of EMF exposure. This approach should be similar as for control
of exposure to other toxic agents such as asbestos and radon emissions. It is
time to consider ELF-EMF and RF-EMF as environmental pollutants that need to be
controlled.
--
Implications
of non-linear biological oscillations on human
electrophysiology for EHS and MCS
Sage C. The implications of
non-linear biological oscillations on human electrophysiology for
electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Rev
Environ Health. 2015 Sep 12.
Abstract
The 'informational content' of
Earth's electromagnetic signaling is like a set of operating instructions for
human life. These environmental cues are dynamic and involve exquisitely low
inputs (intensities) of critical frequencies with which all life on Earth
evolved. Circadian and other temporal biological rhythms depend on these
fluctuating electromagnetic inputs to direct gene expression, cell
communication and metabolism, neural development, brainwave activity, neural
synchrony, a diversity of immune functions, sleep and wake cycles, behavior and
cognition. Oscillation is also a universal phenomenon, and biological systems
of the heart, brain and gut are dependent on the cooperative actions of cells
that function according to principles of non-linear, coupled biological
oscillations for their synchrony. They are dependent on exquisitely timed cues
from the environment at vanishingly small levels. Altered 'informational
content' of environmental cues can swamp natural electromagnetic cues and
result in dysregulation of normal biological rhythms that direct growth,
development, metabolism and repair mechanisms. Pulsed electromagnetic fields
(PEMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) can have the devastating biological
effects of disrupting homeostasis and desynchronizing normal biological rhythms
that maintain health. Non-linear, weak field biological oscillations govern
body electrophysiology, organize cell and tissue functions and maintain organ
systems. Artificial bioelectrical interference can give false information
(disruptive signaling) sufficient to affect critical pacemaker cells (of the
heart, gut and brain) and desynchronize functions of these important cells that
orchestrate function and maintain health. Chronic physiological stress
undermines homeostasis whether it is chemically induced or electromagnetically
induced (or both exposures are simultaneous contributors). This can eventually
break down adaptive biological responses critical to health maintenance; and
resilience can be compromised. Electrohypersensitivity can be caused by
successive assaults on human bioelectrochemical dynamics from exogenous
electromagnetic fields (EMF) and RFR or a single acute exposure. Once
sensitized, further exposures are widely reported to cause reactivity to lower
and lower intensities of EMF/RFR, at which point thousand-fold lower levels can
cause adverse health impacts to the electrosensitive person.
Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) can be a precursor to, or linked with, multiple
chemical sensitivity (MCS) based on reports of individuals who first develop
one condition, then rapidly develop the other. Similarity of chemical
biomarkers is seen in both conditions [histamines, markers of oxidative stress,
auto-antibodies, heat shock protein (HSP), melatonin markers and leakage of the
blood-brain barrier]. Low intensity pulsed microwave activation of
voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) is postulated as a mechanism of action
for non-thermal health effects.
Does
electromagnetic hypersensitivity originate from
nocebo responses?
Indications
from a qualitative study
Dieudonné M. Does electromagnetic
hypersensitivity originate from nocebo responses? Indications from a
qualitative study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Sep 15. doi: 10.1002/bem.21937.
[Epub ahead of print]
Abstract
Idiopathic Environmental
Intolerance attributed to Electromagnetic Fields (IEI-EMF) is a condition in
which symptoms are attributed to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. As
electro-hypersensitive (EHS) people have repeatedly been observed, during
provocation trials, to report symptoms following perceived rather than actual
exposure, the hypothesis has been put forward that IEI-EMF originates from
psychological mechanisms, especially nocebo responses. This paper examines this
hypothesis, using data from a qualitative study aimed at understanding how EHS
people come to regard themselves as such.
Forty self-diagnosed EHS people were interviewed.
A typified model of their attribution process was then elaborated, inductively,
from their narratives. This model is linear and composed of seven stages: (1)
onset of symptoms; (2) failure to find a solution; (3) discovery of EHS; (4)
gathering of information about EHS; (5) implicit appearance of conviction; (6)
experimentation; (7) conscious acceptance of conviction.
Overall, symptoms appear before subjects start questioning effects of EMF on
their health, which is not consistent with the hypothesis that IEI-EMF
originates from nocebo responses to perceived EMF exposure. However, such responses
might occur at the sixth stage of the process, potentially reinforcing the
attribution. It remains possible that some cases of IEI-EMF originate from
other psychological mechanisms.
--
Metabolic
and Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic
Hypersensitive Subjects
as a
Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention
De Luca et al 2014. Metabolic and
Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool
for Diagnostics and Intervention. Mediators of Inflammation. Volume 2014,
Article ID 924184. Open Access http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
--
This West
Virginia Town Has Gone Radio Silent: Greetings
from the Quiet Zone
Steve
Featherstone, Popular Science, Apr 13, 2015.
Excerpts
"According
to the World Health Organization (WHO), EHS is not a medical diagnosis, but
rather a vague set of symptoms with no apparent physiological basis. Even so,
the condition--whatever its cause--appears to be widespread. Olle Johansson, an
associate professor of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, says
the number of people who claim to have EHS varies by country, from 8 percent of
the population in Germany to 3.5 percent, or about 11 million people, in the
U.S."
“There
are few epidemic diseases this large,” Johansson says. “Nowadays, wherever you
live, whatever you do, you’re whole-body exposed, 24/7.”"
"As
palpable as Jane’s symptoms are to her--and as certain as she is that they’re
caused by EMR--scientific consensus disagrees. Almost universally, scientists
hold that most EMR has no adverse health effects at the levels people typically
encounter. And no study has ever definitively linked EHS symptoms to RF
radiation, a type of electromagnetic radiation that originates from wireless devices,
such as Wi-Fi routers, cellphones, base stations, or Bluetooth antennas.
“Health agencies have repeatedly waded through the scientific literature,” says
Kenneth Foster, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania,
“and they don’t see any clear evidence that there’s a problem other than if you
put a rat in a microwave oven, it’s bad for the rat.”
"The
only recognized health risk from RF radiation is the heating of tissue (as in
the rat in the microwave). In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission
adopted a safety standard for RF-emitting devices based on thermal heating.
That’s why even though the standard is set far below levels recognized to cause
harm, wireless companies still recommend not carrying your phone around in your
pocket or sleeping with one too close to your head."
"According
to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health
at the University of California at Berkeley, the test for the thermal standard
is outdated if not irrelevant. “It’s not at all reflective of what the average
user looks like today and not really of any user anywhere,” he says. “It’s not
even the right measurement.” Moskowitz believes that science hasn’t caught up
with the rapid proliferation of RF-emitting devices--from smartphones to smart
meters--that have been spilling radiation into our homes, schools, and
workplaces over the past two decades. Electrosensitives may be the proverbial
canaries in the coal mine, he says. He cites a growing body of research that
suggests RF exposure has many nonthermal biological effects, including damage
to sperm cells and changes in brain chemistry.
“There
are a lot of unanswered questions, obviously, but we clearly have evidence for
precautionary health warnings,” Moskowitz says."
"Without
an official medical diagnosis, it’s difficult for EHS sufferers to claim
benefits from insurance companies and government health agencies. Only Sweden
recognizes EHS as a functional impairment, equivalent to a disability. But
activists are beginning to have an impact on attitudes toward EHS and
EMR-related issues, such as the use of wireless networks in public schools.
Some day they hope that the medical establishment will treat EHS like other
mysterious syndromes, such as fibromyalgia. They won a moral victory in 2011,
when the WHO classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic” in response to
its Interphone study, which found a 40 percent greater risk for certain brain
tumors at the highest exposure levels. (Scientists, however, did not find an increased
incidence in cellphone users overall.) Then, in February of this year, France
restricted the use of RF devices in daycare centers, citing a precautionary
approach to exposure. Those gains aside, few if any studies are taking
seriously the issue of EHS, and the inexorable expansion of wireless
technologies does not appear to be slowing. Barring a breakdown in relations
between electrosensitives and townsfolk or defunding of the GBT, Green Bank
will continue to attract technological refugees searching for a safe haven from
the electrosmog they feel is smothering the rest of the world."
“That’s
why I call [EHS] technological leprosy,” Diane {Schou } said. “We can’t be with
other people in society. We have to live like lepers. Technology is wonderful stuff--if
we aren’t harmed by it.”
This article was originally
published in the April 2015 issue of Popular
Science, under the title "Greetings From The Quiet Zone.”
To read
the entire article: http://bit.ly/1LjN9ml
--
Is a toxicology model appropriate as a guide for biological
research with electromagnetic fields?
My comments
The American neuroscientist, Allan H. Frey, published the first scientific paper that documented the microwave hearing effect in 1962. He published the first paper that documented leakage in the blood-brain barrier from exposure to microwave radiation in 1975. In the following letter from 1990, he discussed why the toxicology model is inappropriate for biologic research on electromagnetic fields.
Twenty-five years later, we have yet to fully comprehend this important message.
International guidelines and national regulatory standards assume a dose-response relationship exists between the power of an EMF exposure and the likelihood of a harmful health effect. However, biologic studies are finding harmful effects from sub-thermal exposures to microwave radiation at power levels that are a fraction of the regulatory limits.
Allan
H. Frey. Letter to Editor: Is a toxicology model appropriate as a guide for
biological research with electromagnetic fields? Journal of Bioelectricity.
9(2):233-234. 1990.
"...
most people use a toxicology model as their frame of reference in the selection,
funding, design and analysis of experiments. Data and theory show, however,
that this is the wrong model (2-4). Thus much of the research has been
inappropriate or irrelevant. This is one reason why hundreds of millions of
dollars have been spent on EMF biological research with so little return for
investment."
"
... living beings are electrochemical systems that use very low frequency EMFs
in everything from protein folding through cellular communication to nervous
system function."
"
... if we impose a very weak EMF signal on a living being, it has the
possibility of interfering with normal function if it is properly tuned. This
is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a
toxicology model."
The
letter can be viewed at: http://bit.ly/AFrey1990
--
Is There a Connection Between Electrosensitivity and
Electrosensibility? A Replication Study
My comments
The electromagnetically sensitive (ES) participants selected for the following study were based upon individuals' responses to a self-reported measure. Most ES participants did not experience severe symptoms so it may be inappropriate to consider them to have electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
Like other sham provocation studies, this study assumed that someone with ES knows when they are exposed to an electromagnetic field (EMF) and when they are not. The study protocol assumed that there is no lag between the exposure and the ability to detect the exposure (or the non-exposure).
The study also assumed that all ES participants would be affected by exposure to a 50 Hz magnetic field. However, it is likely that some people who experience ES may be sensitive to certain radio frequency fields, but not ELF magnetic fields.
Despite the questionable assumptions upon which this study was based, the ES participants were significantly (p = .038) more likely to detect an MF exposure than chance would dictate. This result replicated the finding of an earlier study.
--
Is There a Connection Between Electrosensitivity and Electrosensibility? A Replication Study
Szemerszky
R, Gubányi M, Árvai D, Dömötör Z, Köteles F. Is There a Connection Between
Electrosensitivity and Electrosensibility? A Replication Study. Int J Behav
Med. 2015 Mar 17. [Epub ahead of print]
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Among people with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to
electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF), a better than random detection ability for a
50-Hz 0.5-mT magnetic field (MF) and a propensity to experience more symptoms
than controls was reported in a previous study.
PURPOSE:
The current study aimed to replicate and clarify these results using a modified
experimental design.
METHOD:
Participants of the provocation experiment were 49 individuals with
self-reported IEI-EMF and 57 controls. They completed the questionnaires (symptom
expectations, Somatosensory Amplification Scale-SSAS, radiation subscale of the
Modern Health Worries Scale-MHWS Radiation) and attempted to detect the
presence of the MF directed to their right arm in 20 subsequent 1-min sessions.
Symptom reports were registered after each session.
RESULTS:
Individuals with IEI-EMF as opposed to the control group showed a higher than
random detection performance (d' index of signal detection theory), while no
difference in their bias (β index) toward the presence of the MF was found.
Predictors of reported symptoms were self-reported IEI-EMF and believed as
opposed to actual presence of the MF. People with IEI-EMF reported
significantly more symptoms particularly in the believed presence of the MF.
IEI-EMF was closely related to MHWS Radiation and SSAS scores.
CONCLUSION:
People with IEI-EMF might be able to detect the presence of the MF to a small
extent; however, their symptom reports are connected to perceived exposure.
--
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: EESC urges continuance of the precautionary principle
through regulation and advisory work (Ref: 06/2015)
Press Release, European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Jan
23, 2015
At its January plenary session, the EESC adopted an opinion on electromagnetic
hypersensitivity syndrome (EHS) which recognises the distress being suffered by
people in Europe who believe they are affected. The opinion, which was adopted
by 136 votes to 110 with 19 abstentions, calls for sympathetic and appropriate
treatment and support for this condition.
Although
the EESC opinion says that radiofrequency exposure is not causally linked to
EHS symptoms, it urges continuance of the precautionary principle through
regulation and advisory work, particularly as further research is still needed
to accumulate evidence concerning any potential health impact from long-term
exposure.
The EESC opinion on electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome points out that
further substantial research is ongoing to understand the problem and its
causes. It also notes that the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on
Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has performed an extensive
analysis of this issue and will shortly be completing its latest opinion which
draws on a broad public consultation. The opinion will soon be adopted and will
be published on the SCENIHR website (http://ec.europa.eu/health/
Public Hearing on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
Between 3 and 5 per cent of the population are electrosensitive according to
the European Economic and Social Committee.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is causing distress and loss of quality
of life to a growing number of Europeans and according to new estimates,
between 3 % and 5% of the population are electro-sensitive. The most common
sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) pollution are mobile phone masts,
cordless phones and Wi-Fi routers installed in the homes. All these emit
microwaves permanently (24/7) in the places where they are installed.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) study group on
electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) will hold a public Hearing on EHS on Tuesday,
November 4, 2014 in Brussels, Belgium.
This event
will gather all relevant stakeholders from a broad range of European civil
society for a debate on how to deal with this issues at EU level and to give
input for the future EESC's opinion that is scheduled for adoption in January
2015.
The EESC is a consultative body of the European Union that gives
representatives of Europe’s socio-occupational interest groups and others, a
formal platform to express their points of views on EU issues.
--
EESC
opinion: Exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents
(electromagnetic fields)
European
Economic and Social Committee, Dec 7, 2011
Proposal
for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum
health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks
arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields)
Key
points
- The EESC
recommends that this directive be adopted and implemented in the
legislation of Member States as soon as possible.
- However,
the Committee is in favour of a precautionary approach being adopted
without delay, given the risks of the non-thermal biological effects of
emissions from electromagnetic fields. The long-term health of workers
must be completely guaranteed at a high level through the introduction of
the best available technologies at economically acceptable costs. The
Committee expects a relevant provision to be incorporated into the
directive.
- The EESC
supports the Commission's initiative to fix thresholds so as to make this
precautionary approach effective and credible; however, to ensure that
this is absolutely effective it advocates fixed thresholds based on the thresholds
applied when Directive 2004/40/EC was transposed (by Austria, the Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Italy).
- The
Committee stresses the need to strengthen the independence of scientific
bodies involved in determining thresholds for workers' exposure to
electromagnetic radiation, its effects and its consequences for public
health, and in establishing measures to protect the health of workers
exposed to this radiation. It is essential to put a stop to conflicts of
interest among members of these bodies, linked to the financing of their
research and their appointment (procedures and calls for tender, use of
independent public research institutes).
- The
Committee concedes the need for a derogation for professions using
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for medical purposes, which should
however be subject to a time limit and accompanied by additional resources
for research into new technologies to protect workers from the effects of
electromagnetic fields and alternative techniques. Workers subject to the
derogation should be covered by enhanced measures to protect them, special
medical supervision and civil liability insurance to cover errors in the
execution of their work arising from strong exposure to electromagnetic
fields. The Committee also feels that the above-mentioned principles
should be applied not only to medical workers, but also to all other
workers who may be excluded from the general principles of the directive
on the basis of the derogation included in Article 3 of the proposal.
--
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: EESC urges continuance of
the precautionary principle through regulation and advisory work (Ref:
06/2015)
Press Release, European Economic and Social Committee
(EESC), Jan 23, 2015
At its January plenary session, the EESC adopted an opinion on electromagnetic
hypersensitivity syndrome (EHS) which recognises the distress being suffered by
people in Europe who believe they are affected. The opinion, which was adopted
by 136 votes to 110 with 19 abstentions, calls for sympathetic and appropriate
treatment and support for this condition.
Although the EESC opinion says that radiofrequency exposure
is not causally linked to EHS symptoms, it urges continuance of the
precautionary principle through regulation and advisory work, particularly as
further research is still needed to accumulate evidence concerning any
potential health impact from long-term exposure.
The EESC opinion on electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome points out that further
substantial research is ongoing to understand the problem and its causes. It
also notes that the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and
Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has performed an extensive analysis of
this issue and will shortly be completing its latest opinion which draws on a
broad public consultation. The opinion will soon be adopted and will be
published on the SCENIHR website (http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/index_en.htm).
--
Public Hearing on Electromagnetic
Hypersensitivity
Between 3 and 5 per cent of the population are electrosensitive according to
the European Economic and Social Committee.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is causing distress and loss of quality
of life to a growing number of Europeans and according to new estimates,
between 3 % and 5% of the population are electro-sensitive. The most common
sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) pollution are mobile phone masts,
cordless phones and Wi-Fi routers installed in the homes. All these emit
microwaves permanently (24/7) in the places where they are installed.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) study group on
electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) will hold a public Hearing on EHS on Tuesday,
November 4, 2014 in Brussels, Belgium.
This event will gather all relevant stakeholders from a
broad range of European civil society for a debate on how to deal with this
issues at EU level and to give input for the future EESC's opinion that is
scheduled for adoption in January 2015.
The EESC is a consultative body of the European Union that gives representatives
of Europe’s socio-occupational interest groups and others, a formal platform to
express their points of views on EU issues.
--
EESC
opinion: Exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents
(electromagnetic fields)
European Economic and Social Committee, Dec 7, 2011
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the
exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic
fields)
Key points
- The
EESC recommends that this directive be adopted and implemented in the
legislation of Member States as soon as possible.
- However,
the Committee is in favour of a precautionary approach being adopted
without delay, given the risks of the non-thermal biological effects of
emissions from electromagnetic fields. The long-term health of workers
must be completely guaranteed at a high level through the introduction of
the best available technologies at economically acceptable costs. The
Committee expects a relevant provision to be incorporated into the
directive.
- The
EESC supports the Commission's initiative to fix thresholds so as to make
this precautionary approach effective and credible; however, to ensure
that this is absolutely effective it advocates fixed thresholds based on
the thresholds applied when Directive 2004/40/EC was transposed (by
Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and
Italy).
- The
Committee stresses the need to strengthen the independence of scientific
bodies involved in determining thresholds for workers' exposure to
electromagnetic radiation, its effects and its consequences for public
health, and in establishing measures to protect the health of workers
exposed to this radiation. It is essential to put a stop to conflicts of
interest among members of these bodies, linked to the financing of their
research and their appointment (procedures and calls for tender, use of
independent public research institutes).
- The Committee concedes the need for a derogation for professions using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for medical purposes, which should however be subject to a time limit and accompanied by additional resources for research into new technologies to protect workers from the effects of electromagnetic fields and alternative techniques. Workers subject to the derogation should be covered by enhanced measures to protect them, special medical supervision and civil liability insurance to cover errors in the execution of their work arising from strong exposure to electromagnetic fields. The Committee also feels that the above-mentioned principles should be applied not only to medical workers, but also to all other workers who may be excluded from the general principles of the directive on the basis of the derogation included in Article 3 of the proposal.
--
Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic
fields in California
Levallois P, Neutra R, Lee G, Hristova L. Study of
self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environ
Health Perspect. 2002 Aug;110 Suppl 4:619-23.
Abstract
Cases of alleged hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) have been reported for more than 20 years, and some authors have
suggested some connection with the "multiple chemical sensitivity"
illness. We report the results of a telephone survey among a sample of 2,072
Californians. Being "allergic or very sensitive" to being near
electrical devices was reported by 68 subjects, resulting in an adjusted
prevalence of 3.2% (95% confidence interval = 2.8, 3.7). Twenty-seven subjects
(1.3%) reported sensitivity to electrical devices but no sensitivity to
chemicals. Characteristics of the people reporting hypersensitivity to EMFs
were generally different from those of people reporting being allergic to
everyday chemicals. Alleging environmental illness or multiple chemical
sensitivity diagnosed by a doctor was the strongest predictor of reporting
being hypersensitive to EMFs in this population. Other predictive factors apart
from self-reporting chemical sensitivity were race/ethnicity other than White,
Black, or Hispanic; having low income; and being unable to work. The perception
of risk of exposure to EMFs through the use of hair dryers (vs. exposure to
power and distribution lines) was the factor the most associated with
self-reporting about hypersensitivity to EMFs. However, risk perception was not
sufficient to explain the characteristics of people reporting this disorder.
Open Access Paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241215/
Additional Resources
Updated: March 2022
Andrianome et al. Increasing levels of saliva alpha amylase in electrohypersensitive (EHS) patients.Int J Radiat Biol. 2017 Aug;93(8):841-848. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Anonymous. Testimony from an internist about her two electrosensitive children to the Joint Committee on Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Sep 4, 2017. http://bit.ly/MDtestifyMass
Belpomme, D. “Diagnosing, treating and preventing the electromagnetic fields impact on adults and children." 2nd international forum on protection from electromagnetic environmental pollution. Protection of children. Krakow, Poland. Nov 27, 2017. (46 minute video). http://bit.ly/EHSBelpomme2017
Bevington, M. The Prevalence of People with Restricted Access to Work in Manmade Electromagnetic Environments. Journal of Environment and Health Science. 2019. doi: org/10.15436/2378-6841.19.2402. https://bit.ly/3EuDJ60
Bray, R. Trials and trends in caring for patients with electromagnetic hypersensitivity at Ontario's Environmental Health Clinic. WSF Montreal. Aug 13 2016. https://maisonsaine.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ehs-bray-13-08-2016.pdf
De Luca et al 2014. Metabolic and Genetic
Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool for
Diagnostics and Intervention. Mediators of Inflammation. Volume 2014, Article
ID 924184. Open Access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000647/pdf/MI2014-924184.pdf
Ekici B, Tanındı A, Ekici G, Diker E. The effects of the duration of
mobile phone use on heart rate variability parameters in healthy
subjects. Anatol J Cardiol. 2016 Apr 7. http://bit.ly/1Wo9na9.
Environmental Health Trust. Electromagnetic Sensitivity. http://bit.ly/EHTehs
Genuis SJ, Lipp CT. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction. Sci Tot Environ. 2012 Jan 1;414:103-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153604
Hardell L, Koppel T.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations – a case study in Stockholm, Sweden. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Mar 2.
doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0169. https://www.degruyter.com/
Heuser G, Heuser SA. Functional brain MRI in patients
complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to
electromagnetic fields. Rev Environ Health. 2017 Jul 5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28678737
Hojo S, Tokiya M, Mizuki M et al. Development and evaluation of an electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire for Japanese people. Bioelectromagnetics. Jun 21, 2016. http://bit.ly/28KvYuF
Hojo S, Mizukoshi A, Azuma K, Okumura J, Ishikawa S et al.
Survey on changes in subjective symptoms, onset/trigger factors,
allergic diseases, and chemical exposures in the past decade of Japanese
patients with multiple chemical sensitivity.
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Aug 13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30115513
Johansson O, Redmayne M. Exacerbation of demyelinating syndrome after exposure to wireless modem with public hotspot. Case report. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Jun 29, 2016. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1107839
Lai, H. Electrohypersensitivity Abstracts. Dec 14, 2017. (Over 100 abstracts of scientific studies on EHS published between 1995 and 2017). http://bit.ly/LaiEHSabstracts
Leszczynski D. Brief report on EHS provocation studies. Feb 11, 2018. http://bit.ly/2o22pMy
Maisch D. Commentary: The sad state of affairs with EHS research in Australia. Between a Rock and a Hard Place. Nov 5, 2017. http://bit.ly/2AroQjF
Marshall TG, Heil TJR. Electrosmog and Autoimmune Disease. Immunol Res. Jul 13, 2016. Open Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12026-016-8825-7
Medeiros LN, Sanchez TG. Tinnitus and cell phones: the role of
electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation.Brazilian Journal of
Otorhinolaryngology. 82(1):97-104. 2016. Open Access: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26602000
Milner C. Tuning in to Microwave Sickness: How wireless technology can trigger a devastating illness. Epoch Times, May 23, 2019. https://www.theepochtimes.com/tuning-in-to-microwave-sickness_2925499.html
Palmquist E, Claeson AS, Neely G, Stenberg B, Nordin S. Overlap in prevalence between various types of environmental intolerance. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014; 217(4-5):427-34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24029726
Raefsky et al. Delayed-Onset multiphasic demyelinating lesions after high dose radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure: A multiple sclerosis (MS) micmic.
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020 Jun 20;45:102318. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
Rea WJ. Wireless pollution: The epidemic of the 21st century. video: 24 mins. http://manhattanneighbors.org/rea/
Rea WJ, Pan Y, Fenyves EJ, Sujisawa, Suyama H, Samadi N, Ross GH. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. J Bioelectricity 1991; 10 (1-2): 241-256. Open Access: http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html
Slottje P, van Moorselaar I, van Strien R, Vermeulen R, Kromhout H, Huss
A. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in occupational and primary
health care: A nation-wide survey among general practitioners,
occupational physicians and hygienists in the Netherlands. Int J Hyg
Environ Health. 2016 Dec 2. pii: S1438-4639(16)30385-6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/
Tatoń G, Kacprzyk A, Rok T, Pytlarz M, Pawlak R, Rokita E.
A survey on electromagnetic hypersensitivity: the example from Poland.
Electromagn Biol Med. 2021 Oct 22;1-8. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2021.1995873. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34686066/
Terzi, M, Ozberk, B, Deniz, OG, Kaplan, S. The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):77-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2016.04.003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27083321
Yakymenko I. Nikola Tesla, you and electro-sensitivity. June 30, 2017. http://bit.ly/2vCW8Kx
EHS Support Groups and Resources
Canadians for Safe Technology. Electromagnetic Sensitivity. http://c4st.org/electrosensitivity/
D'Agnolo L. Are “Wi-Fi Allergies” an Impairment Covered by the ADA? National Law Review. June 21, 2017. http://bit.ly/2rEx0AD
The Electrosensitive Society. https://www.electrosensitivesociety.com/
Harkinson J. This Former Techie Owes His Fortune to Electronic Devices. Now He Thinks They're Dangerous. Mother Jones. 2017 Jan 28. http://bit.ly/2k3O5kt
Jolie Talks. https://www.jolietalks.com/
Physicians for Safe Technology. https://mdsafetech.org/problems/electro-sensitivity/
Wireless Technology Injury Advocacy Group. https://wearetheevidence.org/
