|Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF),
Electrical sensitivity (ES),
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, resulting in negative symptoms. EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognised medical diagnosis. Claims are characterized by a "variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields".
Those who are self-described with EHS report adverse reactions to electromagnetic fields at intensities well below the maximum levels permitted by international radiation safety standards. The majority of provocation trials to date have found that such claimants are unable to distinguish between exposure and non-exposure to electromagnetic fields. A systematic review in 2005 showed no convincing scientific evidence for symptoms being caused by electromagnetic fields. Since then several double-blind experiments have shown that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect. However Professor Dominique Belpomme and his team found a new diagnostic technique for testing that combines the Pulsed Eco-Doppler – a specialized ultrasound machine - with a computer to reveal blood flow to the brain. The results show that people with EHS have a reduced perfusion in the brain, mostly in the limbic area, compared to the control group, resulting in insufficient circulation in the brain. The changes in levels rose and fell according to exposure or non-exposure. Belpomme points out that the limbic area is an important part of the brain - as it controls the main body functions. Professor Belpomme’s team also showed that dosage of histamine, of proteins S100B and of heat shock proteins HSP70- and HSP27 in the blood were significantly altered in sufferers from EHS. They were able to conclude that these symptoms amount to “a real physical illness, like cancer or heart disease”. 
Until recently this condition has been ascribed by mainstream medicine as psychological, but the work of Belpomme gives evidence that EHS may be a simple allergic response to microwaves in the same way that asthmatics react to dust and pollen.
A 2005 review by the UK Health Protection Agency and a 2006 systematic review each evaluated the evidence for various medical, psychological, behavioral, and alternative treatments for EHS and each found that the evidence-base was limited and not generalizable, but that the best evidence favored cognitive behavioural therapy. As of 2005 WHO recommended that people presenting with claims of EHS be evaluated to determine if they have a medical condition that may be causing the symptoms the person is attributing to EHS, that they have a psychological evaluation, and that the person's environment be evaluated for issues like air or noise pollution that may be causing problems.
Some people who feel they are sensitive to electromagnetic fields seek to reduce their exposure by avoiding sources of radiation, disconnecting or removing electrical devices, shielding or screening of self or residence, and applying complementary and alternative therapy. Government agencies have enforced false advertising claims against companies selling devices to shield against EM radiation.
Signs and symptoms
There are no specific symptoms associated with claims of EHS and reported symptoms range widely between individuals. They include headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. In severe cases such symptoms can be a real and sometimes disabling problem for the affected person, causing psychological distress. There is no scientific basis to link such symptoms to electromagnetic field exposure.
The prevalence of some reported symptoms is geographically or culturally dependent and does not imply "a causal relationship between symptoms and attributed exposure". Many such reported symptoms overlap with other syndromes known as symptom-based conditions, functional somatic syndromes, and IEI (idiopathic environmental intolerance).
Those reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity will usually describe different levels of susceptibility to electric fields, magnetic fields, and various frequencies of electromagnetic waves. Devices implicated include fluorescent and low-energy lights, mobile, cordless/portable phones, and WiFi. A 2001 survey found that people self-diagnosing as EHS related their symptoms most frequently to mobile phone base stations (74%), followed by mobile phones (36%), cordless phones (29%), and power lines (27%). Surveys of electromagnetic hypersensitivity sufferers have not been able to find any consistent pattern to these symptoms.
Most blinded conscious provocation studies have failed to show a correlation between exposure and symptoms, leading to the suggestion that psychological mechanisms play a role in causing or exacerbating EHS symptoms. In 2010 Rubin et al. published a follow-up to their 2005 review, bringing the totals to 46 double-blind experiments and 1175 individuals with self-diagnosed hypersensitivity. Both reviews found no robust evidence to support the hypothesis that electromagnetic exposure causes EHS, as have other studies. They also concluded that the studies supported the role of the nocebo effect in triggering acute symptoms in those with EHS. The Essex provocation study of 2007 received some criticism for its methodology and analysis. In their response the authors noted that their study says nothing about long-term effects, but that those affected often claim to respond to the fields within a few minutes.
Some psychologists have suggested that severely affected EHS people who claim that they are unable to live in a wireless society are, like hermits of ancient times, escaping from the pressures of modern life. In addition, scare stories in the media seem capable of increasing the likelihood of the symptoms ascribed to electromagnetic exposure.
Some other types of studies suggest evidence for symptoms at non-thermal levels of electromagnetic exposure. A review in 2010 of ten studies on neurobehavioral and cancer outcomes near cell phone base stations found eight with increased prevalence, including sleep disturbance and headaches. Since 1962 the microwave auditory effect or tinnitus has been shown from radio frequency exposure at levels below significant heating. Studies during the 1960s in Europe and Russia claimed to show effects on humans, especially the nervous system, from low energy RF radiation; the studies were disputed at the time.:427–430
Other studies on sensitivity have looked at therapeutic procedures using non-thermal electromagnetic exposure, genetic factors, an alteration in mast cells, oxidative stress, protein expression and voltage-gated calcium channels. Mercury release from dental amalgam and heavy metal toxicity have also been implicated in exposure effects and symptoms. Another line of study has been the nature of hyper-sensitivity or intolerance and the range of environmental exposures which may be related to it. Some 80% of people with self-diagnosed electromagnetic intolerance also claim intolerance to low levels of chemical exposure.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is not an accepted diagnosis; medically there is no case definition or clinical practice guideline and there is no specific test to identify it, nor is there an agreed-upon definition with which to conduct clinical research.
Complaints of electromagnetic hypersensitivity may mask organic or psychiatric illness. Diagnosis of those underlying conditions involves investigating and identifying possible known medical causes of any symptoms observed. It may require both a thorough medical evaluation to identify and treat any specific conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms, and a psychological evaluation to identify alternative psychiatric/psychological conditions that may be responsible or contribute to the symptoms.
Symptoms may also be brought on by imagining that exposure is causing harm, an example of the nocebo effect. Studies have shown that reports of symptoms are more closely associated with belief that one is being exposed than with any actual exposure.
A 2006 systematic review and a 2005 review by the UK Health Protection Agency each evaluated the evidence for various medical, psychological, behavioral, and alternative treatments for EHS and each found that the evidence-base was limited and not generalizable. The conclusion of the 2006 review stated: "The evidence base concerning treatment options for electromagnetic hypersensitivity is limited and more research is needed before any definitive clinical recommendations can be made. However, the best evidence currently available suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy is effective for patients who report being hypersensitive to weak electromagnetic fields."
As of 2005 WHO recommended that people presenting with claims of EHS be evaluated to determine if they have a medical condition that may be causing the symptoms the person is attributing to EHS, that they have a psychological evaluation, and that the person's environment be evaluated for issues like air or noise pollution that may be causing problems.
The prevalence of claimed electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been estimated as being between a few cases per million to 5% of the population depending on the location and definition of the condition.
In 2002, a questionnaire survey of 2,072 people in California found that the prevalence of self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity within the sample group was 3% (95% CI 2.8–3.68%), with electromagnetic hypersensitivity being defined as "being allergic or very sensitive to getting near electrical appliances, computers, or power lines" (response rate 58.3%).
A similar questionnaire survey from the same year in Stockholm County (Sweden), found a 1.5% prevalence of self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity within the sample group, with electromagnetic hypersensitivity being defined as "hypersensitivity or allergy to electric or magnetic fields" (response rate 73%).
A 2004 survey in Switzerland found a 5% prevalence of claimed electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the sample group of 2,048.
In 2007, a UK survey aimed at a randomly selected group of 20,000 people found a prevalence of 4% for symptoms self-attributed to electromagnetic exposure.
A group of scientists also attempted to estimate the number of people reporting "subjective symptoms" from electromagnetic fields for the European Commission. In the words of a HPA review, they concluded that "the differences in prevalence were at least partly due to the differences in available information and media attention around electromagnetic hypersensitivity that exist in different countries. Similar views have been expressed by other commentators."
Society and culture
Products have been advertised that claim to shield people from EM radiation from cell phones; in the US the Federal Trade Commission published a warning that "Scam artists follow the headlines to promote products that play off the news – and prey on concerned people. If you're looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece – or another small portion of the phone – are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation." The FTC has enforced false advertising claims against companies that sell such products.
In February 2014 the UK Advertising Standards Authority found that an advertisement for a "A-COMED Electrosmog Detector" sold by The Healthy House Ltd violated UK law, in that claims it made about harm from electromagnetic radiation were unsubstantiated and misleading.
People have filed lawsuits to try to win damages due to harm claimed from electromagnetic radiation. In 2012 a New Mexico judge dismissed a lawsuit in which one person sued his neighbor, claiming to have been harmed by EM radiation from his neighbor's cordless telephones, dimmer switches, chargers, Wi-Fi and other devices and in 2015 parents of a boy at a school in Southborough, Massachusetts alleged that the school's wi-fi was making the boy sick. In the New Mexico case, the plaintiff had brought the testimony of his doctor, who also believed she had EHS, and a person who represented himself as a neurotoxicologist; the judge found none of their testimony credible.
In November 2015 a depressed teenaged girl in England committed suicide; she had complained about EHS and after her death her suicide was attributed to EHS by tabloids and taken up by EHS advocates.
Some people who feel they are sensitive to electromagnetic fields self-treat by trying to reduce their exposure to electromagnetic sources by avoiding sources of exposure, disconnecting or removing electrical devices, shielding or screening of self or residence, and complementary and alternative therapy. Some clinics offer alternative medicine treatments like chelation therapy, which is approved only for proven acute heavy metal contamination and has severe side effects; others offer acupuncture, megavitamin therapy, chiropractic, crystal healing, reflexology, shiatsu, or mud baths.
- Arthur Firstenberg
- Electromagnetic radiation and health
- List of questionable diseases
- Mobile phone radiation and health
- Multiple chemical sensitivity
- TCO Certification for CRT monitor emission
- Wireless electronic devices and health
- "Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity". WHO Factsheet 296. World Health Organisation (WHO). December 2005. Retrieved 2012-10-24.
- Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S (2005). "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies". Psychosom Med. 67 (2): 224–232. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000155664.13300.64. PMID 15784787.
- Röösli M (2008). "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: a systematic review". Environ. Res. 107 (2): 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.02.003. PMID 18359015.
- Sabine Regel; Sonja Negovetic; Martin Röösli; Veronica Berdiñas; Jürgen Schuderer; Anke Huss; Urs Lott; Niels Kuster; Peter Achermann (August 2006). "UMTS Base Station-like Exposure, Well-Being, and Cognitive Performance". Environ Health Perspect. 114 (8): 1270–5. doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. PMC . PMID 16882538.
- J Rubin; G Hahn; BS Everitt; AJ Clear; Simon Wessely (2006). "Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study". British Medical Journal. 332 (7546): 886–889. doi:10.1136/bmj.38765.519850.55. PMC . PMID 16520326.
- Wilén J, Johansson A, Kalezic N, Lyskov E, Sandström M (2006). "Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms". Bioelectromagnetics. 27 (3): 204–214. doi:10.1002/bem.20195. PMID 16304699.
- Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0027. Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Belpomme D, Campagnac C, Irigaray P.
- Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S (2006). "A systematic review of treatments for electromagnetic hypersensitivity". Psychother Psychosom. 75 (1): 12–8. doi:10.1159/000089222. PMID 16361870.
- "Definition, epidemiology and management of electrical sensitivity", Irvine, N, Report for the Radiation Protection Division of the UK Health Protection Agency, HPA-RPD-010, 2005
- Röösli, Martin; M Moser; Y Baldinini; M Meier; C Braun-Fahrländer (February 2004). "Symptoms of ill health ascribed to electromagnetic field exposure – a questionnaire survey". Int J Hyg Environ Health. 207 (2): 141–50. doi:10.1078/1438-4639-00269. PMID 15031956.
- Fair, Lesley (March 1, 2008). "Federal Trade Commission Advertising Enforcement" (PDF). Federal Trade Commission. pp. 18–19.
- "ASA Ruling on The Healthy House Ltd". UK Advertising Standards Authority. 19 February 2014.
- Sage, Cindy. "Microwave And Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: A Growing Environmental Health Crisis?". San Francisco Medical Society web page. Retrieved 2008-05-31.
- Philips, Alasdair and Jean (2003–2011). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) (in 8 sections)
- Hillert, L; N Berglind; BB Arnetz; T Bellander (February 2002). "Prevalence of self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a population-based questionnaire survey". Scand J Work Environ Health. 28 (1): 33–41. doi:10.5271/sjweh.644. PMID 11871850.
- James Rubin; Rosa Nieto-Hernandez; Simon Wessely (2010). "Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields". Bioelectromagnetics. 31 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1002/bem.20536. PMID 19681059.
- Cohen, A; Carlo, G; Davidson, A; White, M; Geoghan, C; Goldsworthy, A; Johansson, O; Maisch, D; O'Connor, E (2008-02-01). "Sensitivity to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals". Environmental Health Perspectives. 116 (2): A63–4; author reply A64–5. doi:10.1289/ehp.10870. PMC . PMID 18288297.
- Boyd I, Rubin G, Wessely S (2012). "Taking refuge from modernity: 21st century hermits". J R Soc Med. 105 (12): 523–9. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2012.120060. PMID 23288087.
- Witthoft M, Rubin GJ (2013). "Are media warnings about the adverse health effects of modern life self-fulfilling? An experimental study on idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)". J Psychosom Res. 74 (3): 206–212. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.12.002. PMID 23438710.
- Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, Bortkiewicz A, Carlberg M, Ahonen M. "Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations". Int J Occup Environ Health. 16 (3): 263–7. doi:10.1179/107735210799160192. PMID 20662418.
- Frey AH (1962). "Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy". J Appl Physiol. 17 (4): 689–92. PMID 13895081.
- Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Cartellieri M, Denk-Linnert DM, Katzinger M, Ehrenberger K, Kundi M (2010). "Tinnitus and mobile phone use". Occup Environ Med. 67 (12): 804–8. doi:10.1136/oem.2009.048116. PMID 20573849.
- Bergman W (1965), The Effect of Microwaves on the Central Nervous System (trans. from German) (PDF), Ford Motor Company, pp. 1–77
- Michaelson, Sol M. (1975). "Radio-Frequency and Microwave Energies, Magnetic and Electric Fields". In Calvin, Melvin; Gazenko, Oleg G. Ecological and Physiological Bases of Space Biology and Medicine (Volume II Book 2 of Foundations of Space Biology and Medicine). Washington, D.C.: NASA Scientific and Technical lnformation Office. pp. 409–452.
- Pilla AA (2013). "Nonthermal electromagnetic fields: from first messenger to therapeutic applications". Electromagn Biol Med. 32 (2): 123–36. doi:10.3109/15368378.2013.776335. PMID 23675615.
- De Luca C, Chung Sheun Thai J, Raskovic D, Cesareo E, Caccamo D, Trukhanov A, Korkina L. "Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention". Mediators Inflamm. 2014 (924184): 1–14. doi:10.1155/2014/924184. PMC . PMID 24812443.
- Johansson O, Gangi S, Liang Y, Yoshimura K, Jing C, Liu PY (2001). "Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs - results from open-field provocation experiments". J Cutan Pathol. 28 (10): 513–9. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0560.2001.281004.x. PMID 11737520.
- Pall ML (2013). "Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects". J Cell Mol Med. 17 (8): 958–65. doi:10.1111/jcmm.12088. PMID 23802593.
- Mortazavi SM, Daiee E, Yazdi A, Khiabani K, Kavousi A, Vazirinejad R, Behnejad B, Ghasemi M, Mood MB (2008). "Mercury release from dental amalgam restorations after magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile phone use". Pak J Biol Sci. 11 (8): 1142–6. doi:10.3923/pjbs.2008.1142.1146. PMID 18819554.
- Nordin S, Neely G, Olsson D, Sandström M (2014). "Odor and Noise Intolerance in Persons with Self-Reported Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity". Int J Environ Res Public Health. 11 (9): 8794–8805. doi:10.3390/ijerph110908794. PMID 25166918.
- Genuis SJ, Lipp CT (2012). "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or fiction?". Sci Total Environ. 414: 103–112. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.11.008. PMID 22153604.
- Baliatsas C, Van Kamp I, Lebret E, Rubin GJ (2012). "Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF): a systematic review of identifying criteria". BMC Public Health (Systematic review). 12: 643. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-643. PMC . PMID 22883305.
- Rubin GJ, Cleare AJ, Wessely S (January 2008). "Psychological factors associated with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phones". J Psychosom Res. 64 (1): 1–9; discussion 11–2. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.05.006. PMID 18157992.
- Levallois, P; R Neutra; G Lee; L Hristova (August 2002). "Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California". Environ Health Perspect. 110 (Suppl 4): 619–23. doi:10.1289/ehp.02110s4619. PMC . PMID 12194896.
- Schreier N, Huss A, Röösli M (2006). "The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland". Soz Praventivmed. 51 (4): 202–9. doi:10.1007/s00038-006-5061-2. PMID 17193782.
- Eltiti S, Wallace D, Zougkou K, et al. (February 2007). "Development and evaluation of the electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire". Bioelectromagnetics. 28 (2): 137–51. doi:10.1002/bem.20279. PMID 17013888.
- Bergqvist, U; Vogel, E; Aringer, L; Cunningham, J; Gobba, F; Leitgeb, N; Miro, L; Neubauer, G; Ruppe, I; Vecchia, P; Wadman, C (1997). "Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic fields. A report prepared by a European group of experts for the European Commission, DG V". Arbete och Hälsa. 19.
- "Cell Phone Radiation Scams". Federal Trade Commission. September 2011.
- Barrett, Stephen (August 28, 2015). ""Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity" Is Not a Valid Diagnosis". Quackwatch. Retrieved 1 November 2016.
- O'Connell, Scott (January 18, 2016). "Wi-Fi lawsuit against Southboro's Fay School is headed to trial". The Telegram.
- Gorski, David (December 7, 2015). ""Electromagnetic hypersensitivity" and "wifi allergies": Bogus diagnoses with tragic real world consequences". Science-Based Medicine.
- Dunning, Brian (October 30, 2007). "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Real or Imagined?". Skeptoid.
- O'Brien, Jane; Danzico, Matt (September 12, 2011). "'Wi-fi refugees' shelter in West Virginia mountains". BBC News. Retrieved September 13, 2011.
- Stromberg, Joseph (12 April 2013). "Green Bank, W.V., where the electrosensitive can escape the modern world. - Slate Magazine". Slate. Retrieved 14 April 2013.
- Gaynor, Michael (January 2015). "The Town Without Wi-Fi - Washingtonian". Washingtonian. Retrieved 12 January 2015.