Sunday, June 23, 2019

Mobile Communications and Public Health

Mobile Communications and Public Health

Edited by Marko Markov

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. June 2018. ISBN-13: 978-1-138-56842-6 (Hardback); 978-0-203-70510-0 (eBook)

This book represents a comprehensive overview of various forms of mobile communications devices, with increasing variations and intensities that constitute a serious hazard to both the biosphere and mankind. Contributors stress the lack of controls over mobile communication signal sources, as well as the absence of monitoring the health of individuals exposed to microwave radiation. The work also entails a review of the engineering behind mobile communication technology, including a summary of basic scientific evidence of the effects of biological exposure to microwaves, and unique coverage on potential hazards of mobile communication for children.

Marko S. Markov, Ph.D., has been professor and chairman of the Department of Biophysics and Radiobiology of Sofia University for more than 20 years. With over 45 years of basic science research experience, and over 40 years in the clinical application of electromagnetic fields, he is recognized as one of the world’s best experts in the subject. His list of publications includes 196 papers and 18 books.

  • Presents an overview of what modern science knows about mobile communications signals;
  • Details the latest research on potential hazards related to uncontrolled use of mobile devices;
  • Provides information related to children's organisms not developed biologically prior to exposure to microwave signals;
  • Offers methods of control of the house and work environment; and
  • Explores the link between science and electromagnetics hazards.

By Rainer Nyberg, Lennart Hardell. pp. xii - xvi


Mobile Communications and Public Health

by Marko S. Markov. Chapter 1: pp. 1-24.


The last quarter of the 20th and the first two decades of the 21st centuries are characterized by increasing hazards of electromagnetic fields for the biosphere and public health. This anthropogenic factor has been considered in two distinct directions: low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines and high frequency EMF from cellular communications.

Public fear as well as scientific understanding have pointed to the serious problems for public health. World Health Organization (WHO) recognized the importance of this issue and originated “The international EMF project” which during the last two decades has organized a series of international meetings in different locations of the world with the intention to harmonize standards for EMF radiation and exposure. Unfortunately, this activity did not end with a more or less defined conclusion or at least a recommendation. With respect to EMF emitted for the purpose of mobile communications, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recognized the non-ionizing radiation from microwaves used in mobile communications as a possible carcinogenic source (category 2B).

This paper discussed the basic physics problems related to characterization of the non-ionizing radiation that are of importance for public health. Special attention is paid to missing definitions for basic terminology and to the non-thermal effects of EMF as well as the incorrect use of SAR [Specific Absorption Rate] for defining conditions of exposure. The core of the paper is the potential hazard of mobile communications for human health.


In conclusion, today the entire biosphere and mankind are subjected to signals from space and terrestrial sources, unknown by numbers and by their physical characteristics. We are at the bottom of the ocean of electromagnetic waves. What is worse—this global “experiment” is conducted without protocol, monitoring, and the possibility to produce any protections. The mobile communication industry is creating newer and newer tools in order to eventually increase the speed of communications. Smartphones and smart meters significantly change the electromagnetic environment not only for occupational conditions, but in every home. Billions of people are not informed about the fact that their homes and they themselves are subjected to the “new and advanced” technological developments. This cohort includes babies and elderly people, schoolboys and professionals.

What is even worse, the new 5G mobile technology is being introduced even before the development of industrial standards. No health hazard estimation is planned; no guidance for protection and standards are developed. It is time to ring the bell.


Cell Phone Radiation: Evidence From ELF and RF Studies Supporting More Inclusive Risk Identification and Assessment 

By Carl Blackman. Chapter 2: pp. 25-46.


Many national and international exposure standards for maximum radiation exposure from the use of cell phones and other similar portable devices are ultimately based on the production of heat, particularly in regions of the head, that is, thermal effects (TE). The recent elevation in some countries of the allowable exposure, that is, averaging the exposure that occurs in a 6 minute period over 10 grams (g)  of tissue rather than over 1 g, allows for greater heating in small portions of the 10-g volume compared to the exposure that would be allowed averaged over a 1-g volume. There is concern that ‘hot’ spots, that is, momentary higher intensities, could occur in portions of the 10-g tissue piece, which might have adverse consequences, particularly in brain tissue.

There is another concern about exposure to cell phone radiation that has been virtually ignored except for the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) advice given in a publication in 1986 (National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986, 400 pp.). This NCRP review and guidance explicitly acknowledged the existence of non-thermal effects (NTE), and included provisions for reduced maximum-allowable limits should certain radiation characteristics occur during the exposure.
If we are to take most current national and international exposure standards as completely protective of thermal injury for acute exposure only (6 min time period), then the recent evidence from epidemiological studies associating increases in brain and head cancers with increased cell phone use per day and per year over 8–12 years raises concerns about the possible health consequences of NTE first acknowledged in the NCRP 1986 report (National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986, 400 pp.).
This paper will review some of the salient evidence that demonstrates the existence of NTE and the exposure complexities that must be considered and understood to provide appropriate, more thorough evaluation and guidance for future studies and for assessment of potential health consequences. Unfortunately, this paper is necessary because most national and international reviews of the research area since the 1986 report (National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986, 400 pp.) have not included scientists with expertise in NTE, or have not given appropriate attention to their requests to include NTE in the establishment of public health-based radiation exposure standards. Thus, those standards are limited because they are not comprehensive.


There is substantial scientific evidence that some modulated fields (pulsed or repeated signals) are bioactive, which increases the likelihood that they could have health impacts with chronic exposure even at very low exposure levels. Modulation signals may interfere with normal, nonlinear biological processes. Modulation is a fundamental factor that should be taken into account in new public safety standards; at present it is not even a contributing factor. To properly evaluate the biological and health impacts of exposure to modulated RFR (carrier waves), it is also essential to study the impact of the modulating signal (lower frequency fields or ELF-modulated RF). Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF signals. The current Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards are not sufficiently protective of public health with respect to chronic exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony). The collective papers on modulation appear to be omitted from consideration in the recent World Health Organization (WHO) and IEEE science reviews. This body of research has been ignored by current standard setting bodies that rely only on traditional energy-based (thermal) concepts. 

More laboratory as opposed to epidemiological research is needed to determine which modulation factors and combinations are bioactive and deleterious at low intensities, and are likely to result in disease-related processes and/or health risks; however, this should not delay preventative actions supporting public health and wellness. If signals need to be modulated in the development of new wireless technologies, for example, it makes sense to use what existing scientific information is available to avoid the most obviously deleterious exposure parameters and select others that may be less likely to interfere with normal biological processes in life. 

The current membership on Risk Assessment committees needs to be made more inclusive by adding scientists experienced with producing nonthermal biological effects. The current practice of segregating scientific investigations (and resulting public health limits) by artificial, engineering-based divisions of frequency needs to be changed because this approach dramatically dilutes the impact of the basic science results and eliminates consideration of modulation signals, thereby reducing and distorting the weight of evidence in any evaluation process.


Public Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields

By Peter Gajšek. Chapter 3: pp. 47-64.


The increasing use of various wireless devices and development of new telecommunication technologies has resulted in a fundamental change of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) exposure in the everyday environment. In the last three decades, a large number of scientific studies on the exposure assessment of the general public to RF-EMF in different environments were completed. The results of numerous exposure assessment studies come to almost the same conclusions: that public RF-EMF exposures in different micro environments are only a small fraction of existing RF exposure standards.


In general, all the research studies related to exposure assessment of the general public to fixed RF-EMF sources in the environment including base stations, broadcasting, and wireless systems clearly demonstrated that the total mean value of the electric field was quite low and did not exceed 10% of the internationally recognized limit values.

It is expected that the strength and complexity of EMF exposures will increase continuously, especially in relation to expansion of the 5th generation of mobile telephony and other emerging technologies that will use different frequency bands. An increasing number of devices and processes employing these frequencies (household appliances, telecommunication, etc.) have already been introduced into everyday life. Almost nothing is known about these exposures and potential exposure levels.

It is expected that global mobile data traffic will grow at a compound annual rate of 45% in the coming years, which represents a tenfold increase between 2016 and 2022 (Ericsson, 2016). This increase is driven largely by the adoption of mobile video streaming. On top of that, the Internet of Things (IoT) is shifting from a vision to reality. The 29 billion connected devices by 2022 are expected to include 18 billion IoT or machine-to-machine (M2M) devices. Subsequently, the future 5G mobile networks will need to support new challenging and new use cases, which will demand more spectrum in ever higher frequency ranges.

Furthermore, emissions will continue to change in characteristics and levels due to new infrastructure deployments, smart environments, and novel wireless devices. Thus it is expected that the complexity of EMF exposures will increase in the future.


Health Effects of Chronic Exposure to Radiation From Mobile Communication 

By Igor Belyaev. Chapter 4: pp. 65-100.


Due to strong evidence showing the critical role of the exposure duration for the effects of nonthermal microwaves (NT MW), studies with prolonged chronic exposures became of key importance in assessment of the MW health effects. Given the undoubted key role of specific signal characteristics such as frequency, modulation, and polarization, the studies with chronic exposures to real signals of mobile communication become of predominant importance for assessment of health effects from mobile communication. There were a number of such studies performed recently. Most of them confirmed results of animal studies with chronic MW exposure previously performed in Russia/The Soviet Union by showing detrimental health effects including those related to carcinogenesis.


Chronic exposure to nonthermal microwaves (NT MW) may result in various health effects affecting the central nervous system, fertility, immune functions, and causing/promoting cancer. Taken together, available studies indicate that response to NT MW depends on PD and duration exposure (7). The SAR based ICNIRP safety standards, which have been widely adopted for protection against acute thermal effects of MW, are insufficient to protect the public from chronic exposures to NT MW from mobile communication. New safety standards should commonly be adopted based on data from multiple studies on chronic exposures and mechanisms for nonthermal MW effects (106). It should be anticipated that definite parts of human population, such as children, pregnant women, and hypersensitive persons, which constitute about 1%–10% of the general population in economically developed counties (113), could be especially vulnerable to chronic NT MW exposures. In general, new signals of mobile communication should be tested with chronic exposures before being put into practice.


Can Electromagnetic Field Exposure Caused by Mobile Communication Systems in a Public Environment Be Counted as Dominant?

By Jolanta Karpowicz, Dina Šimunić, Krzysztof Gryz. Chapter 5: 101-128. 


The core principle used by mobile communication systems to transfer information via the wireless links involves the emission and reception of the electromagnetic field in the radio frequency band. The entire population today is exposed to the electromagnetic field emitted by mobile terminals (mobile phone handsets, cordless phones, tablets, laptops, routers, etc.) and their base stations. The same frequency bands are also used by other technologies, such as radio and television broadcasting, wireless internet access, microwave heating, anti-theft systems, radio frequency identification systems, and so on. When discussing health hazards may be caused by electromagnetic field exposure from mobile communication systems, it must be remembered that in some cases, other sources of electromagnetic exposure may deliver a dominant or a significant exposure component of the total radio frequency electromagnetic exposure of particular individuals. This paper describes the technical aspects of various mobile communication systems. Exposure scenarios with various dominant sources of exposures are discussed in the chapter together with exposure evaluation techniques which may help recognize the exposure pattern. 


The level of exposure to RF-EMF recorded in the discussed investigations performed in environments accessible to the public is usually significantly lower than the general public exposure limits provided by international guidelines and legislation established in various countries (4–61 V/m) (Council Recommendation, 1999, Gryz et al., 2014a, Stam, 2011). It is worth noting that, when approaching RF emitting antennas, especially BTS of mobile networks or RTV broadcasting, over a short distance the level of RF-EMF increases and may even significantly exceed the mentioned limits. However, the investigations show that in locations where many users of mobile communication tools are present in a crowded space, the components of RF-EMF exposure caused by their activities (which significantly vary over time) may together exceed components from the stationary emitters of RF-EMF (such as mobile networks base stations and RTV broadcasting antennas). Furthermore, other studies showed that local hot spots of exposure may also be created in such locations as a result of the multipath propagation of RF-EMF. Together, this is significant in the context of the safety of the vulnerable population, such as individuals with medical implants and users of telemedicine body worn sensors, because it may cause local hot spot overexposure with respect to the limit of radio frequency exposure, which may influence the function of electronic devices. In order to avoid medical device malfunction, it is usually recommended to maintain a distance from the transmitting terminals (handsets) greater than 1 meter....

It is also important to keep in mind that the rapidly developing mobile communication services are including continuously higher frequencies – AM and FM radio transmissions initially operated at kHz and MHz frequencies and analogue radiophones and cellular phones started from frequencies 27–450 MHz, whereas today’s digital cellular phones use frequencies up to 2.2 GHz and wireless internet access explores frequencies up to almost 6 GHz, where the next generation of cellular phones is also going to be. Even much higher frequencies are explored by radio links, almost up to 100 GHz.


Low-Level Thermal Signals: An Understudied Aspect of Radio Frequency Field Exposures with Potential Implications on Public Health

By Lucas A. Portelli. Chapter 6: 129-162.


Protection from the hazards of radio frequency (RF) fields is currently aimed at confining the RF-induced thermal changes in tissue to within limits which are currently considered as safe. In this regard, hazardous effects of such exposures are traditionally investigated, catalogued, and interpreted from a perspective based on presumably adequate approximations and assumptions that simplify several dosimetric and biological aspects. While these simplifications are certainly useful and convenient, they tend to obscure the existence of dosimetric artifacts and subtle biological responses which may be of relevance to human health when observed from the microdosimetric or chronic perspectives. Increasingly realistic human models, for example, can unveil the existence of localized hot-spots and thermal transients which are invisible when using simpler models or space and time averaging as is customary for the safety regulatory practice. This results in exposures which can be in reality many times greater than the supposed and reported exposures. Similarly, from the biological perspective, the classical thermal hazard paradigm assumes that thermal damage only occurs after certain relatively high temperatures are reached for short amounts of time, inducing safety regulations to limit rather acute thermal exposures accordingly. However, while this perspective is practical and apparently sufficient to protect the population under the current paradigm, it is impervious to the possibility of the existence of the effects of chronic exposures to low-levels of thermal challenges. Such exposures may cause small amounts of thermal damage directly or indirectly (e.g., via the stimulation of compensatory physiological reactions) which may add up over time.
In this regard, one must recognize that localized thermal transients (collections of which form Thermal Signals) are an unavoidable result of exposure to modulated RF fields, even if the exposure is within the limits which are currently considered as safe. One can contemplate, for example, how such a thermal signal can appear when tissue is exposed to an intermittent RF field (e.g., …on-off-on-off…) as the deposited heat is actively or passively redistributed by physical or physiological means throughout the organism and back into the environment.
The fact that such signals are inherent to RF exposures alone makes the studying of their biological effects a necessity to guarantee human safety. Nevertheless, at present, the possibility of biological effects of thermal signals is not mentioned, contemplated or investigated since they are deemed inconsequential under the current paradigm. Yet, sensitivity to minute thermal changes is an inherent aspect of physicochemical laws which govern the dynamics and function of biochemical reactions and structures. Such structures and reactions can potentially act as transducers of thermal signals into the cellular processes, which may translate into biological and ultimately health effects. Consequently, the study of thermal signals may open a myriad of possibilities for noninvasive, nonchemical interaction with biochemical signals at the cellular level which may have broad implications in the scientific, industrial, regulatory, and therapeutic arenas.


It is an undeniable fact that complex biological systems, from the molecular to the full organism level, are built around very rigorous thermal specifications making them very sensitive and responsive to small temperature changes in their internal or external vicinity. Hence, thermal signals which are invariably linked to the imposition of RF fields have the potential to be accompanied by compensatory biochemical responses from tissue at a local or global level in the organism. Such thermal signals might initially have modest effects on biochemical reactions and structures, however, these effects may then be amplified by the biological system into relevant biological and health effects.

From the public health perspective, a necessary question to answer is: what are the biological effects of chronic exposures to low-level thermal signals and what are the relative health risks? (i.e., compared to a smoking certain number of cigarettes a day, for example). However, to date, our currently poor understanding about the true biological relevance of thermal signals is insufficient to draw useful scientific conclusions which can affect decisions, recommendations, and policy to protect the public from potential hazards. In fact, the amount of data available is much less than would be considered the bare minimum. How “small” a thermal signal is can only be judged from a biological system perspective by generating the appropriate set of experiments and interpreting them from a paradigm that includes this possibility. While, in essence, the characteristics of this thermal signal will be a result of the antagonistic thermal processes (heat-in versus heat-out) specific to the details of the exposure, the need for consideration of the effects from the cellular spatio-temporal scale might require significant amounts of effort and complications. However, such apparent complications, in return, may hold substantial scientific, industrial, and therapeutic potential at best or understanding of realistic safety thresholds at worst.

Therefore, in view of the pervasiveness and potential relevance of low-level thermal signals, the paradigm centered around the notion of a “thermal damage threshold” on which the current safety standards and recommendations for mobile communications are currently based might be incomplete. For this reason alone, basic research in this area is imperative. Therefore, scientists and executives who are seriously concerned about the implications of mobile communications on public health must consider directing their scientific resources towards unveiling the true biological relevance of RF-induced small thermal signals to such a degree as these are directed towards the study of RF-induced “thermal” and “nonthermal” effects. In this regard, thermal signals may not only appear as a secondary effect in other instances of intermittent energy deposition (ultrasound or light), but it could also be purposely generated to achieve therapeutic levels, should these exist....


How Cancer Can Be Caused by Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures: EMF Activation of Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels (VGCCs) Can Cause Cancer Including Tumor Promotion, Tissue Invasion, and Metastasis via 15 Mechanisms

By Martin L. Pall. Chapter 7: pp. 163-186.


Thirty reviews each argue that microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can and do cause cancer. These conclusions should be definitive and are further buttressed by the National Toxicology Program study on 2G cell phone radiation. However, there are still claims that there cannot be a mechanism for EMF cancer causation. Such EMFs are known to act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation and consequent downstream increases in intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and peroxynitrite/free radicals/oxidative stress. Fifteen mechanisms are discussed here whereby these downstream effects can cause cancer. These include single strand and double strand DNA breaks and oxidized DNA bases; increased ornithine decarboxylase; lowered melatonin; increased NF-kappa B; increased tumor promotion via degradation of gap junction proteins; increased tumor promotion via DNA breaks/gene amplification; increased tissue invasion and metastasis via increased tight junction protein degradation; increased CaMKII via protein oxidation; calcium produced increased CaMKII; calcium-dependent phosphatidylserine flippase; c-src activation by calcium/calmodulin; calcium increased cellular oncogene transcription; calpain activation of tumor migration, tissue invasion, and metastasis. These 15 mechanisms and reviews on calcium roles in cancer causation together show that EMFs acting via VGCC activation can cause cancer initiation, promotion, and progression. We have, therefore, a large number of mechanisms by which microwave frequency EMFs can cause cancer.


This paper is based on three important findings. First, that microwave and lower frequency EMFs act via activation of VGCCs. Second, 29 different reviews have concluded that such EMFs cause cancer, raising the question of how VGCC activation can cause cancer. Third, because VGCC activation acts mainly via increased [Ca2+]i, it is reasonable to assume that cancer causation occurs via increased calcium signaling and via other downstream effects of [Ca2+]i. This paper finds that there are multiple mechanisms that fit each of these two descriptions that cause cancer based on the cancer literature. Many of them come from the downstream effects involving the peroxynitrite/free radical/oxidative stress pathway and one of the important consequences of that pathway, elevated NF-kappa B. Those downstream effects are similar or identical to the effects that are central to inflammatory carcinogenesis in the literature. But, in addition, there are cancer causing effects that are caused by excessive calcium signaling and these are also discussed here.

These mechanisms are listed below. Mechanisms 1–6 are all reported to be raised following EMF exposures and are, therefore, particularly plausibly involved in EMF-caused carcinogenesis. Each of these 15 is produced as a consequence of either the peroxynitrite/free radical/oxidative stress pathway of action of as a consequence of excessive calcium signaling. Each is, therefore, highly plausible because each of these pathways of action are well documented downstream effects of EMF exposures....

We have, then, 15 well-documented mechanisms by which EMFs acting via VGCC activation can cause cancer. It is complete and utter to nonsense, therefore, to claim there are no such mechanisms.


A Summary of Recent Literature (2007–2017) on Neurobiological Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation

By Henry Lai. Chapter 8: 187-222.


Neurological effects are caused by changes in the nervous system. Factors that act directly or indirectly on the nervous system causing morphological, chemical or electrical changes in the nervous system can lead to neurological effects. The final manifestation of these effects can be seen as psychological/behavioral changes, for example, memory, learning, and perception. The nervous system is an electrical organ. Thus, it should not be surprising that exposure to electromagnetic fields could lead to neurological changes. Morphological, chemical, electrical, and behavioral changes have been reported in animals and cells after exposure to nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) across a range of frequencies. The consequences of physiological changes in the nervous system are very difficult to assess. We do not quite understand how the nervous system functions and reacts to external perturbations. The highly flexible nervous system could easily compensate for external disturbances. On the other hand, the consequence of neural perturbation is also situation-dependent. For example, an EMF-induced change in brain electrical activity could lead to different consequences depending on whether a person is watching TV or driving a car.


1. A major concern is that in some of the studies, details of the exposure setup and dosimetry are not provided. This is important since details of the independent variables are very important in interpreting the validity of the experimental results, that is, dependent variables. In many of these studies, a cell phone was used in the exposure of animals and humans. But information on how the cell phone was activated, in many instances, was not provided. Thus, the amount of energy deposited in the body was not known....

2. Most of the studies were carried out with relatively high levels of RFR compared to environmental levels. However, if you look through the narratives, there are studies that reported effects at very low level, for example, Bak et al., (2010). Indeed, biological/health effects of RFR at levels much lower than most international RFR-exposure guidelines, for example, International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), have been reported (see table 1 in Levitt and Lai, 2010). This raises the question on whether the guidelines used in most countries nowadays are actually obsolete and new exposure guidelines have to be set.

3. Thus, there is ample evidence that RFR exposure affects the nervous system from both acute and long-term exposure experiments. Brain electric activities, nerve cell functions and chemistry, and behavior can be affected. Some explanatory mechanisms for these effects have emerged. One consistent finding is that animals exposed to RFR suffered from memory and learning deficits. These effects can be explained by the results of numerous reports that showed RFR affected the hippocampus, a brain region involved in memory and learning. However, the location and configuration of the human hippocampus are quite different from those of a rodent. There have not been many studies on the effect of RFR on the human hippocampus. Several studies did report deficits in memory in human subjects exposed to RFR, particularly on short-term memory, a function specifically related to the hippocampus....

4. Another very consistent finding is that RFR affects free radical metabolism in the brain. This may explain some of the cellular and physiological effects of RFR on the nervous system. As a matter of fact, oxidative changes in cells and tissues after exposure to RFR is a very common phenomenon (cf. Yakymenko et al., 2016). This happens in many organs of the body and can provide explanation of many reported biological effects of RFR.

5. Many of the effects of RFR on the nervous system, for example, on the hippocampus, oxidative effects, and behavioral effects are also observed with exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (cf. my section on the neurological effects of ELF EMF in the Bioinitiative Report, There has been speculation whether biological effects observed with low frequency modulated RFR were actually caused by the modulation. There are two reports published in the last decade that seemed to refute this hypothesis..... Another question is whether one type of modulation is different from another in causing biological effects. Cell phone technology advances from one generation to another. Do the research data of a 3G phone apply to 4G or 5G phone radiation? RFR is a complex entity. Its biological effects depend on many of its physical properties, for example, frequency, direction of the incident waves relative to the object exposed, dielectric properties, size and shape of the exposed object, polarization of the waves, and so on. Thus, it is unlikely that one can easily extrapolate the effects from one form of RFR to another. An assumption that 3G radiation is safe does not necessary imply that 5G radiation is safe. Each one of them has to be investigated separately.

6. An important area of research is on how RFR in the environment affects humans and wildlife. Environmental RFR level has become higher and higher over the past decades due to the employment of RFR wireless devices. Take the example of Bak et al. (2010) mentioned above, an effect on human event-related brain potential was reported after 20 min of exposure to a GSM signal at a power density of 0.0052 mW/cm2. This is very close to the levels found in some cities. The highest power density of ambient RFR measured near schools and hospitals in Chandigarh, India, was reported to be 0.001148 mW/cm2 in 2012 (Dhami, 2012). The maximum total RFR power density emitted by FM and TV broadcasting stations and mobile phone base stations in centers of the major cities in the West Bank-Palestine was 0.00386 mW/cm2 (Lahham and Hammash, 2012). One also has to take into consideration that exposure in the Bak et al. (2010) study was acute (20 min), whereas environmental exposure is chronic. Related to the neurological effect is the magnetic sense possessed by many species of animals. It is essential for their survival. Interference by RFR of magnetic compass orientation in animals has been reported (e.g., Landler et al., 2015; Malkemper et al., 2015; Pakhomov et al., 2017; Schwarze et al., 2016; Vácha et al., 2009). Understanding the effects could help in preserving the ecosystem and ensure survival of the species on this earth.


Radiobiological Arguments for Assessing the Electromagnetic Hazard to Public Health for the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: The Opinion of the Russian Scientist

By Yury G. Grigoriev. Chapter 9: 223-236.


Over the past 25 years, there has been a global distribution of wireless communications which has significantly changed the electromagnetic pollution of the external environment and the methodology for assessing health risks for all population groups. In these difficult conditions, many specialists have neglected radiobiological concepts, for example, the concept of a critical organ or critical system, the possibility of accumulating adverse effects, and the determination of residual damage (remote consequences). Almost daily life-long exposure of the RF EMF to the brain has not received attention. In many countries, there is complete disregard for the precautionary principle proposed by the WHO. Children for the first time in the entire period of civilization should be included in the risk group. Even before the era of the development of mobile communications, there were significant differences in the guidelines and standards for radio frequency radiation in the radio frequency range. This paper demonstrates the significance of biological responses to the nonthermal low RF EMF. Therefore, scientists should stand firm in this “electromagnetic chaos” in the habitat of the population.


At present, there are no unified approaches to assessing the health hazards of the RF EMF of mobile communications. There is a wide variation in the permissible RF EMF levels. The possibility of developing long-term consequences is underestimated. The technical solutions for the creation of new types of wireless communication outrun scientific research to assess the danger to the public. The precautionary principle is ignored when placing base stations. There is a desire to ensure that all schools use Wi-Fi.

The large spread, uncontrolled, use of this connection by all groups of the population, including children, continues although the mobile phone is an open source of radiation, and the critical body is the user’s brain.


A Longitudinal Study of Psychophysiological Indicators in Pupils Users of Mobile Communications in Russia (2006–2017): Children Are in the Group of Risk

By Yury G. Grigoriev, Natalia I. Khorseva. Chapter 10: 237-252.


The human brain is exposed to electromagnetic fields of the radio frequency range (RF EMF) constantly, around the clock, from the base stations. The decision of the IARC in 2011 has determined social and ethical problems for society and for scientists—the definition of risk for the population, including children. Children are the most active group of mobile communication users. Unfortunately, the current assessment of the impact of RF EMF on the children's brains through questionnaires conducted in epidemiological studies is not convincing. The chronic impact of RF EMR, including the radiation of mobile phones on the bodies of children and adolescents, in particular on their psychophysiological and cognitive functions, have not been studied.
This publication presents the results of a longitudinal study of the psychophysiological indicators of children and teenage mobile communication users conducted in Russia from 2006 to present. The patterns of the negative influence of mobile phone radiation on the auditory and visual system, fatigue and performance, and on the parameters of attention and memory are established. The undeniable advantage of these studies is not only the presence of a control group, but also the development and implementation of preventive measures to reduce the negative impact of mobile phone radiation.


....So, the longitudinal changes in the psychophysiological indicators of children who use mobile phones convincingly show that chronic exposure to electromagnetic radiation from a mobile phone may negatively affect the central nervous system of the child:

1. The reaction time to sound and light stimuli is increased;
2. There is an increase in the number of violations of phonemic perception and the number of missed signals when a sound stimulus is presented;
3. Indicators of arbitrary attention and semantic memory deteriorate;

4. There are increased parameters of fatigue and decreased parameters of working capacity
It should be especially noted that in most cases in children who are active users of mobile communication, changes in psychophysiological indicators either were within the lower limit of the norm or already go beyond it....

It was found that the safe mode of use (headphones, speakerphone, use of SMS, MMS) statistically significantly improve ALL psychophysiological indicators.

We believe that the results of our longitudinal observations clearly show that the RF EMF from mobile phones affects psychophysiological indicators of children and adolescents. 

Based on our results, it can be confidently affirmed that children are located in the group at risk. It should be recognized and the efforts of the scientific community to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the organisms of children should be made. One of the possible ways of reducing the impact of electromagnetic fields on children is an understanding of the dangers by the parents and children, the use of mobile communication, and a voluntary choice of the form of communication, that is, the introduction of the concept of “voluntary risk.”

pp. 253-264.

Saturday, June 22, 2019

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Source: Microwave News Archive (Louis Slesin)

(See the end of this post for additional resources.)

What  is electromagnetic hypersensitivity?

Following is an excerpt from "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity means Peter Lloyd can't leave his house... or enjoy any modern pleasures inside" by Martin Shipton, Wales Online, Oct 16, 2014:

The term "electrical hypersensitivity" was first used in 1989, while "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" -  EHS for short -  was coined in 1994 to reflect sufferers' sensitivity to magnetic as well as electric fields.

As early as the 1930s, however, EHS symptoms were observed in people working with radio and electricity, and with military radar in the 1940s.

Environmental EHS appeared in the general population from the 1970s with computers.

It increased in the 1980s with mobile and cordless phones, and with wifi from 2000.

Thousands of people are now linked with EHS support groups in 30 countries. The first started in Sweden in 1989; the UK group began in 2003.

Sweden recognised EHS as a functional disability in 2002. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did likewise in 2007.

In 2009, the European Parliament voted for persons with EHS to be recognised as disabled.

Despite having official recognition, many doctors still know little or nothing about the condition.


Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an Environmentally-Induced Disability that Requires Immediate Attention

Havas M. Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an Environmentally-Induced Disability that Requires Immediate Attention. Review Article. J Sci Discov. 3(1):jsd18020; DOI:10.24262/jsd.3.1.18020. 2019. 


A growing number of countries are beginning to acknowledge that electrohypersensitivity (EHS) exists and a few countries have classified it as a disability or a functional impairment attributable to the environment. Epidemiological studies and in vivo experiments show that exposure to non-ionizing radiation (NIR) from extremely low to microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) at exposure intensities far below the maximum limits in international guidelines increases anxiety, depression, and physiological stress and impairs cognitive functions that include concentration, memory and learning. Furthermore, exposure to NIR contributes to neurodegenerative diseases including dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. Exposure of the fetus to NIR (mobile phone) affects the neonatal heart and can lead to emotional and behavioral problems in human offspring. Similar exposures in laboratory studies report impaired cognitive performance, neuronal losses and pathological changes in the brain of rat offspring. The scientific and medical communities have repeatedly sent out urgent warnings, in the form of appeals, declarations and testimonies, that exposure to NIR needs to be reduced from a public health perspective. These warnings have been largely ignored. With continued development of wireless technology and the imminent roll out of new and densified technologies (e.g., 5G technology, satellite constellations, repeaters, wearables, Internet of Things), society will pay an enormous price for disregarding these warnings. It is long overdue for those responsible for public health, the health of children and health policy to take these warnings seriously and to provide a refuge for those afflicted by EHS. EHS is real, it is exacerbated by exposure to NIR, it is increasing among the population and when severe it becomes a disability. Action is long overdue to minimize exposure to NIR and to provide a safe environment that all can enjoy.


Environments contaminated by electrosmog can be devastating to those individuals who are already impaired by electromagnetic exposures. Unfortunately, these environments may also induce impairment in previously unimpaired individuals. Fetal exposure is particularly
disturbing as it can affect the life of the offspring, as shown in both human and animal studies. The research reported here is regarding undesirable disruption of neurological and hormonal functions such that either cognitive or physical ability becomes impaired.

According to this research, exposure to EMF or EMR at levels far below the maximum limits in federal guidelines can contribute to deficits in memory and learning; increase the stress response and lead to mood disorders, including both anxiety and depression; contribute to symptoms of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; contribute to neurodegenerative disorders and exacerbate symptoms of multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and various types of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. Removal of the EMF/EMR exposure can ameliorate the impairing symptoms for many with EHS and/or reduce requirements for prescriptive medications and care. Mechanisms of action involve neurotransmitter disturbances, oxidative stress, programmed cell death (apoptosis), increase in stress proteins, reduced growth of nerve cells, DNA
damage and altered hormonal levels.

With the impending deployment of 5G (5th Generation Wireless technology and the Internet of Things), exposure to mm [millimeter] waves will dramatically increase, further densifying our current electrosmog exposure.

Scientists and physicians familiar with EHS have submitted multiple appeals and  declarations to governing agencies in an attempt to reduce exposure to electromagnetic frequencies. They recommend establishing more protective emission and exposure guidelines; designing technologies that emit EMR less often, at lower intensity and with a reduced radiation footprint; educating health care providers; informing the public; and
establishing radiation-free environments for persons with EHS.

Agencies responsible for assuring disabled persons are included, and welcomed, in their communities and have equal access to necessities and enjoyment of life have provided little support for those suffering with EHS, presumably due to lack of information and/or unintentional, yet nevertheless in appropriate, attitudinal barriers. It is my hope that this document will encourage federal and state agencies, as well as other jurisdictions and decision-makers, to take EHS seriously and to help individuals affected by this physiological condition and to support their families. According to the World Health Organization (2015) the level of severity of EHS is classified as being severe for approximately 10% of individuals who report EHS symptoms. This percentage is likely to increase as more
EMF-emitting technologies, such as 5G, mm waves and Internet of Things, are deployed.


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.


• 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.


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.


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. 


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.


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.


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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.


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:


Special Issue on Ecopsychology and Environmental  Sensitivities: 
Chemical, Electrical, and Beyond

Ecopsychology, Vol. 9, Issue 2


EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment 
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. 


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.


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.


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.


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 ...

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.


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.


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]


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.


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 ...


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 ...."


"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:


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 :

To download the Declaration:
To download the Program of the Congress:


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


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


Hypersensitivity to WiFi ... Could it be a disability?

Alexis Kramer. Hypersensitivity to WiFi ... Could it be a disability? Bloomberg BNA.  Sep 10, 2015.

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.


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.


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.


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]


Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance attributed to Electromagnetic Fields (IEI-EMF) is a condition in which symptoms are attributed to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. As electro-hypersensitive (EHS) people have repeatedly been observed, during provocation trials, to report symptoms following perceived rather than actual exposure, the hypothesis has been put forward that IEI-EMF originates from psychological mechanisms, especially nocebo responses. This paper examines this hypothesis, using data from a qualitative study aimed at understanding how EHS people come to regard themselves as such.

Forty self-diagnosed EHS people were interviewed.

A typified model of their attribution process was then elaborated, inductively, from their narratives. This model is linear and composed of seven stages: (1) onset of symptoms; (2) failure to find a solution; (3) discovery of EHS; (4) gathering of information about EHS; (5) implicit appearance of conviction; (6) experimentation; (7) conscious acceptance of conviction.

Overall, symptoms appear before subjects start questioning effects of EMF on their health, which is not consistent with the hypothesis that IEI-EMF originates from nocebo responses to perceived EMF exposure. However, such responses might occur at the sixth stage of the process, potentially reinforcing the attribution. It remains possible that some cases of IEI-EMF originate from other psychological mechanisms.

Metabolic and Genetic Screening of
Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects 
as a Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention

De Luca et al 2014. Metabolic and Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention. Mediators of Inflammation. Volume 2014, Article ID 924184. Open Access


This West Virginia Town Has Gone Radio Silent: 
 Greetings from the Quiet Zone

Steve Featherstone, Popular Science, Apr 13, 2015 16, 2015


"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), EHS is not a medical diagnosis, but rather a vague set of symptoms with no apparent physiological basis. Even so, the condition--whatever its cause--appears to be widespread. Olle Johansson, an associate professor of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, says the number of people who claim to have EHS varies by country, from 8 percent of the population in Germany to 3.5 percent, or about 11 million people, in the U.S." 

“There are few epidemic diseases this large,” Johansson says. “Nowadays, wherever you live, whatever you do, you’re whole-body exposed, 24/7.”"
"As palpable as Jane’s symptoms are to her--and as certain as she is that they’re caused by EMR--scientific consensus disagrees. Almost universally, scientists hold that most EMR has no adverse health effects at the levels people typically encounter. And no study has ever definitively linked EHS symptoms to RF radiation, a type of electromagnetic radiation that originates from wireless devices, such as Wi-Fi routers, cellphones, base stations, or Bluetooth antennas. “Health agencies have repeatedly waded through the scientific literature,” says Kenneth Foster, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, “and they don’t see any clear evidence that there’s a problem other than if you put a rat in a microwave oven, it’s bad for the rat.”
"The only recognized health risk from RF radiation is the heating of tissue (as in the rat in the microwave). In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a safety standard for RF-emitting devices based on thermal heating. That’s why even though the standard is set far below levels recognized to cause harm, wireless companies still recommend not carrying your phone around in your pocket or sleeping with one too close to your head."

"According to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley, the test for the thermal standard is outdated if not irrelevant. “It’s not at all reflective of what the average user looks like today and not really of any user anywhere,” he says. “It’s not even the right measurement.” Moskowitz believes that science hasn’t caught up with the rapid proliferation of RF-emitting devices--from smartphones to smart meters--that have been spilling radiation into our homes, schools, and workplaces over the past two decades. Electrosensitives may be the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, he says. He cites a growing body of research that suggests RF exposure has many nonthermal biological effects, including damage to sperm cells and changes in brain chemistry.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions, obviously, but we clearly have evidence for precautionary health warnings,” Moskowitz says."

"Without an official medical diagnosis, it’s difficult for EHS sufferers to claim benefits from insurance companies and government health agencies. Only Sweden recognizes EHS as a functional impairment, equivalent to a disability. But activists are beginning to have an impact on attitudes toward EHS and EMR-related issues, such as the use of wireless networks in public schools. Some day they hope that the medical establishment will treat EHS like other mysterious syndromes, such as fibromyalgia. They won a moral victory in 2011, when the WHO classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic” in response to its Interphone study, which found a 40 percent greater risk for certain brain tumors at the highest exposure levels. (Scientists, however, did not find an increased incidence in cellphone users overall.) Then, in February of this year, France restricted the use of RF devices in daycare centers, citing a precautionary approach to exposure. Those gains aside, few if any studies are taking seriously the issue of EHS, and the inexorable expansion of wireless technologies does not appear to be slowing. Barring a breakdown in relations between electrosensitives and townsfolk or defunding of the GBT, Green Bank will continue to attract technological refugees searching for a safe haven from the electrosmog they feel is smothering the rest of the world." 
“That’s why I call [EHS] technological leprosy,” Diane {Schou } said. “We can’t be with other people in society. We have to live like lepers. Technology is wonderful stuff--if we aren’t harmed by it.”

This article was originally published in the April 2015 issue of Popular Science, under the title "Greetings From The Quiet Zone.”

To read the entire article:


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:


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 fieldHowever, 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]


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 (


Public Hearing on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Between 3 and 5 per cent of the population are electrosensitive according to the European Economic and Social Committee.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is causing distress and loss of quality of life to a growing number of Europeans and according to new estimates, between 3 % and 5% of the population are electro-sensitive. The most common sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) pollution are mobile phone masts, cordless phones and Wi-Fi routers installed in the homes. All these emit microwaves permanently (24/7) in the places where they are installed.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) study group on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) will hold a public Hearing on EHS on Tuesday, November 4, 2014 in Brussels, Belgium.

This event will gather all relevant stakeholders from a broad range of European civil society for a debate on how to deal with this issues at EU level and to give input for the future EESC's opinion that is scheduled for adoption in January 2015.

The EESC is a consultative body of the European Union that gives representatives of Europe’s socio-occupational interest groups and others, a formal platform to express their points of views on EU issues.


EESC opinion: Exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields)

European Economic and Social Committee, Dec 7, 2011

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields)

Key points
  • The EESC recommends that this directive be adopted and implemented in the legislation of Member States as soon as possible.
  • However, the Committee is in favour of a precautionary approach being adopted without delay, given the risks of the non-thermal biological effects of emissions from electromagnetic fields. The long-term health of workers must be completely guaranteed at a high level through the introduction of the best available technologies at economically acceptable costs. The Committee expects a relevant provision to be incorporated into the directive.
  • The EESC supports the Commission's initiative to fix thresholds so as to make this precautionary approach effective and credible; however, to ensure that this is absolutely effective it advocates fixed thresholds based on the thresholds applied when Directive 2004/40/EC was transposed (by Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Italy).
  • The Committee stresses the need to strengthen the independence of scientific bodies involved in determining thresholds for workers' exposure to electromagnetic radiation, its effects and its consequences for public health, and in establishing measures to protect the health of workers exposed to this radiation. It is essential to put a stop to conflicts of interest among members of these bodies, linked to the financing of their research and their appointment (procedures and calls for tender, use of independent public research institutes).
  • The Committee concedes the need for a derogation for professions using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for medical purposes, which should however be subject to a time limit and accompanied by additional resources for research into new technologies to protect workers from the effects of electromagnetic fields and alternative techniques. Workers subject to the derogation should be covered by enhanced measures to protect them, special medical supervision and civil liability insurance to cover errors in the execution of their work arising from strong exposure to electromagnetic fields. The Committee also feels that the above-mentioned principles should be applied not only to medical workers, but also to all other workers who may be excluded from the general principles of the directive on the basis of the derogation included in Article 3 of the proposal.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: EESC urges continuance of the precautionary principle through regulation and advisory work  (Ref: 06/2015)

Press Release, European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Jan 23, 2015            

At its January plenary session, the EESC adopted an opinion on electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome (EHS) which recognises the distress being suffered by people in Europe who believe they are affected. The opinion, which was adopted by 136 votes to 110 with 19 abstentions, calls for sympathetic and appropriate treatment and support for this condition.

Although the EESC opinion says that radiofrequency exposure is not causally linked to EHS symptoms, it urges continuance of the precautionary principle through regulation and advisory work, particularly as further research is still needed to accumulate evidence concerning any potential health impact from long-term exposure. 

The EESC opinion on electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome points out that further substantial research is ongoing to understand the problem and its causes. It also notes that the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has performed an extensive analysis of this issue and will shortly be completing its latest opinion which draws on a broad public consultation. The opinion will soon be adopted and will be published on the SCENIHR website (


Public Hearing on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Between 3 and 5 per cent of the population are electrosensitive according to the European Economic and Social Committee.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is causing distress and loss of quality of life to a growing number of Europeans and according to new estimates, between 3 % and 5% of the population are electro-sensitive. The most common sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) pollution are mobile phone masts, cordless phones and Wi-Fi routers installed in the homes. All these emit microwaves permanently (24/7) in the places where they are installed.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) study group on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) will hold a public Hearing on EHS on Tuesday, November 4, 2014 in Brussels, Belgium.

This event will gather all relevant stakeholders from a broad range of European civil society for a debate on how to deal with this issues at EU level and to give input for the future EESC's opinion that is scheduled for adoption in January 2015.

The EESC is a consultative body of the European Union that gives representatives of Europe’s socio-occupational interest groups and others, a formal platform to express their points of views on EU issues.


EESC opinion: Exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields)

European Economic and Social Committee, Dec 7, 2011

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields)

Key points
  • The EESC recommends that this directive be adopted and implemented in the legislation of Member States as soon as possible.
  • However, the Committee is in favour of a precautionary approach being adopted without delay, given the risks of the non-thermal biological effects of emissions from electromagnetic fields. The long-term health of workers must be completely guaranteed at a high level through the introduction of the best available technologies at economically acceptable costs. The Committee expects a relevant provision to be incorporated into the directive.
  • The EESC supports the Commission's initiative to fix thresholds so as to make this precautionary approach effective and credible; however, to ensure that this is absolutely effective it advocates fixed thresholds based on the thresholds applied when Directive 2004/40/EC was transposed (by Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Italy).
  • The Committee stresses the need to strengthen the independence of scientific bodies involved in determining thresholds for workers' exposure to electromagnetic radiation, its effects and its consequences for public health, and in establishing measures to protect the health of workers exposed to this radiation. It is essential to put a stop to conflicts of interest among members of these bodies, linked to the financing of their research and their appointment (procedures and calls for tender, use of independent public research institutes).
  • The Committee concedes the need for a derogation for professions using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for medical purposes, which should however be subject to a time limit and accompanied by additional resources for research into new technologies to protect workers from the effects of electromagnetic fields and alternative techniques. Workers subject to the derogation should be covered by enhanced measures to protect them, special medical supervision and civil liability insurance to cover errors in the execution of their work arising from strong exposure to electromagnetic fields. The Committee also feels that the above-mentioned principles should be applied not only to medical workers, but also to all other workers who may be excluded from the general principles of the directive on the basis of the derogation included in Article 3 of the proposal.

Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California

Levallois P, Neutra R, Lee G, Hristova L. Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Aug;110 Suppl 4:619-23.


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.

Additional Resources
Updated: May, 2019

Andrianome et al. Increasing levels of saliva alpha amylase in electrohypersensitive (EHS) patients.Int J Radiat Biol. 2017 Aug;93(8):841-848.

Anonymous. Testimony from an internist about her two electrosensitive children to the Joint Committee on Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Sep 4, 2017.

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).

Bray, R. Trials and trends in caring for patients with electromagnetic hypersensitivity at Ontario's Environmental Health Clinic. WSF Montreal. Aug 13 2016.

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:

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.

Environmental Health Trust. Electromagnetic Sensitivity.

Genuis SJ, Lipp CT. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction. Sci Tot Environ.  2012 Jan 1;414:103-12.

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.

Hojo S, Tokiya M, Mizuki M et al. Development and evaluation of an electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire for Japanese people. Bioelectromagnetics. Jun 21, 2016.

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.

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.

Lai, H. Electrohypersensitivity Abstracts. Dec 14, 2017. (Over 100 abstracts of scientific studies on EHS published between 1995 and 2017).

Leszczynski D. Brief report on EHS provocation studies. Feb 11, 2018.

Maisch D. Commentary: The sad state of affairs with EHS research in Australia. Between a Rock and a Hard Place. Nov 5, 2017.

Marshall TG, Heil TJR. Electrosmog and Autoimmune Disease. Immunol Res. Jul 13, 2016. Open Access:

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:

Milner C. Tuning in to Microwave Sickness: How wireless technology can trigger a devastating illness. Epoch Times, May 23, 2019.
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.

Rea WJ. Wireless pollution: The epidemic of the 21st century. video: 24 mins.

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:

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.

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.

Yakymenko I. Nikola Tesla, you and electro-sensitivity. June 30, 2017.


EHS Support Groups and Resources

Canadians for Safe Technology. Electromagnetic Sensitivity.

D'Agnolo L. Are “Wi-Fi Allergies” an Impairment Covered by the ADA? National Law Review. June 21, 2017.

Harkinson J. This Former Techie Owes His Fortune to Electronic Devices. Now He Thinks They're Dangerous. Mother Jones. 2017 Jan 28. 

Job Accommodation Network. Accommodation ideas for electromagnetic sensitivity. Office of Disability Employment Policy. U.S. Department of Labor. undated.

Jolie Talks.

Wireless Technology Injury Advocacy Group.