Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses, 2020, Dieudonné

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
Background
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a condition defined by the attribution of non-specific symptoms to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of anthropogenic origin. Despite its repercussions on the lives of its sufferers, and its potential to become a significant public health issue, it remains of a contested nature. Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the origin of symptoms experienced by self-declared EHS persons, which this article aims to review.

Methods
As EHS is a multi-dimensional problem, and its explanatory hypotheses have far-reaching implications, a broad view was adopted, not restricted to EHS literature but encompassing all relevant bodies of research on related topics. This could only be achieved through a narrative approach. Two strategies were used to identify pertinent references. Concerning EHS, a complete bibliography was extracted from a 2018 report from the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety and updated with more recent studies. Concerning related topics, the appropriate databases were searched. Systematic reviews and expert reports were favored when available.

Findings
Three main explanatory hypotheses appear in the literature: (1) the electromagnetic hypothesis, attributing EHS to EMF exposure; (2) the cognitive hypothesis, assuming that EHS results from false beliefs in EMF harmfulness, promoting nocebo responses to perceived EMF exposure; (3) the attributive hypothesis, conceiving EHS as a coping strategy for pre-existing conditions. These hypotheses are successively assessed, considering both their strengths and limitations, by comparing their theoretical, experimental, and ecological value.

Conclusion
No hypothesis proves totally satisfying. Avenues of research are suggested to help decide between them and reach a better understanding of EHS.
Click to expand...
Open access, https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0

Additionally, people suffering from such symptoms may get diagnosed or diagnose themselves with various “functional somatic syndromes”, i.e., controversial and unexplained illnesses defined either by a predominant complaint (diffuse pain for fibromyalgia, asthenia for chronic fatigue syndrome, digestive problems for irritable bowel syndrome, etc.) or by an unproven etiology (participation in the Gulf War for the eponymous syndrome, exposure to chemical products for multiple chemical sensitivity, persistent Borrelia infection for chronic Lyme disease, etc.)
Click to expand...
 
As an on-and-off DXer (someone whose hobby is receiving distant radio stations), I've always found EHS and RF safety interesting. It's overwhelmingly likely EHS is people attributing symptoms to the wrong cause. One time, someone did a study where they put people with EHS next to a source of radio waves (a cell phone or a WiFi AP?) without telling them whether it was on, and asked if they could tell based on "feel." They didn't do better than chance. Also, one time a company put up a cell phone tower, and suddenly everyone started complaining of various symptoms, dizziness, headaches, etc. Embarrassingly, the company revealed they'd turned it off weeks ago!

Also, misinformation among people concerned about radio waves abounds. For example, a lot of these "EMF people" say 5G only works at millimeter wave frequencies: example here. Not true. It's being deployed across the spectrum used for cell phones, starting as low as 600 MHz. Or they use phone cases that supposedly block the radiation from them. But when you do that, the base station says it can't hear the phone clearly and the phone compensates by cranking up the transmit power, defeating the purpose.

I'm moderately skeptical of 5G, but not for safety reasons. Millimeter waves don't propagate tell. They behave much like light, so everyday objects like walls cause a lot of signal loss. Also, there aren't many things that require extremely high data rates but can't be hardwired. And there's a fundamental limit to how much data you can transmit across a radio channel.

If anything, I think the limits for RF safety are rather low. The biggest danger at low frequencies seems to be everything metal becoming an antenna capable of delivering painful shocks, and at high frequencies heating. The only exception might be that sperm cells are rather sensitive, but this only concerns the rather small proportion of people who are currently trying to father a child.
 
I found a study on double-blinded exposure. I don't know if this was the study I heard about, as this experiment may have been done multiple times.
Does Short-Term Exposure to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals Increase Symptoms in Individuals Who Report Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields? A Double-Blind Randomized Provocation Study

The signal level they used was quite strong, equivalent to standing around 40m from a 100W effective radiated power transmitter. Supposedly that's around the average power of a rural cell phone station, but urban ones may be much less, around 10 W.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom