(See the end of this post for additional resources.)
What is electromagnetic hypersensitivity?
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.
http://bit.ly/211JeT7
--
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.
--
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
--
French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), March 27, 2018
--
Vital Signs with Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's Chief Medical Correspondent, has produced a program on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity which was aired on CNN International and on CNN in the U.S. in October and November, 2017.
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.
--
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 electrohypersensitivity. 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.
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
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.
http://1.usa.gov/1JefNOy
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.
http://1.usa.gov/1JefNOy
--
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 16, 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.”
--
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.
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.
http://bit.ly/1tFQcLd
--
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.
http://bit.ly/1tFQcLd
--
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: August, 2018
Updated: August, 2018
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
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
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
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.January–February 2016. Open Access: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26602000
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
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/
Terzi, M, Ozberk, B, Deniz, OG, Kaplan, S. The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. Available online 12 April 2016. http://1.usa.gov/1SVOa2g
Yakymenko I. Nikola Tesla, you and electro-sensitivity. June 30, 2017. http://bit.ly/2vCW8Kx
--
EHS Support Groups and Resources
D'Agnolo L. Are “Wi-Fi Allergies” an Impairment Covered by the ADA? National Law Review. June 21, 2017. http://bit.ly/2rEx0AD
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/
Wireless Technology Injury Advocacy Group. https://wearetheevidence.org/
