Electro-Magnetic Radiation - Sensitivity is REAL

Messages
10,147
Likes
24,537
Thirty five scientists from numerous countries reviewed studies on electrical hypersensitivity and EMF issues.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/14/7321

The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(14), 7321; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22147321
Received: 26 April 2021 / Revised: 23 June 2021 / Accepted: 26 June 2021 / Published: 7 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Sensitivity Illnesses: Mechanisms and Molecular Signatures 2.0)

From the abstract:

This international consensus report pleads for the acknowledgement of EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and for its inclusion in the WHO International Classification of Diseases
 

hapl808

Senior Member
Messages
884
Likes
2,300
I didn't read the whole paper, but the Abstract sounds like they are just pointing out the issues in the studies that denied the existence of the sensitivity. I'm not clear on how they proved it's real other than by 'consensus' in the report?

(I know some people who suffer from it and seem to be more accurate than an EMF meter in knowing when they're exposed, but I'm just not convinced this paper is the blockbuster proof which is what's needed.)
 
Messages
10,147
Likes
24,537
I'm not clear on how they proved it's real other than by 'consensus' in the report?
Probably I didn' t word this correctly.Its saying studies which seemed to have negative results, were actually poorly done, and that therefore, there is potential for- EMF to in fact be injurious to sensitive individuals.

So its saying we need to still figure it all out. Instead of concluding- there is nothing there to see.
 
Messages
10,147
Likes
24,537
I didn't read the whole paper, but the Abstract sounds like they are just pointing out the issues in the studies that denied the existence of the sensitivity. I'm not clear on how they proved it's real other than by 'consensus' in the report?
they seem to be saying that we have people who have electro sensitivity (and similar to multiple chemical sensitivity). And its clearly a disorder and health issue. But what started it, they don't seem to know. And whether EMF plays a role, they may not yet know.

I have experienced "feeling" electromagnetic energy in my body, in circumstances in which I was not expecting any such thing. And it happens when I am very etremely run down. Whether the fact that i can feel it enter my body, or I can hear it in my brain enter my brain (both have occurred) I don't personally know that it made me ill.

But I know it can enter the body and thats really concerning when we proliferate all these frequencies willy nilly and then aren't even doing proper studies of what might happen to nerves and brains.
 

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
4,520
Likes
8,254
Location
Alberta
I agree with hapl808: the abstract sounds like a group of people who want EMF sensitivity to be real, were unhappy with all the experiments that didn't prove its existence, and came up with reasons for why those results should be ignored. If they're unhappy with the lack of biomarkers for the experiments, they should choose one and do the experiments avoiding all the failures of previous ones.
 
Messages
10,147
Likes
24,537
the abstract sounds like a group of people who want EMF sensitivity to be real, were unhappy with all the experiments that didn't prove its existence, and came up with reasons for why those results should be ignored.
I think this is a serious topic and thats reflected in the literature and discussion raised here.
 

dannybex

Senior Member
Messages
3,508
Likes
2,624
Location
Seattle
When in the first paragraph of the paper, they basically lie about previous research -- ("Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects.") -- then there's clearly a bias involved, which taints the rest of their 'conclusions'.

There are many papers that have shown nocebo effects. Here's just one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440612/
 
Messages
42
Likes
127
When in the first paragraph of the paper, they basically lie about previous research -- ("Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects.") -- then there's clearly a bias involved, which taints the rest of their 'conclusions'.

There are many papers that have shown nocebo effects. Here's just one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440612/
Yes, there are numerous studies showing that individuals who claim EHS are indeed experiencing symptoms, but that the symptoms do not correlate to electromagnetic radiation.

The nocebo effect is a prominent cause of EHS claims. That is, the patients rate their symptoms higher whenever they believe they are near electromagnetic signals. For example, the researchers might bring a fake WiFi router into the room that doesn't contain any electronic components or power sources. The patients will report their symptoms are elevated due to the presence of the router.

The inverse also holds in double-blind studies: Patients who can't tell when the electromagnetic sources are turned on and off don't show any correlation to their reported symptoms. It's only when they're informed that the electromagnetic source is enabled that they begin to feel symptoms.

The headline of this post ("Sensitivity is REAL") is not an accurate view of the science.
 

percyval577

geometrical disaster
Messages
1,285
Likes
1,743
Location
Ik waak up
To my knowledge EMF have been shown to act on calcium channels, causing some opening.

So there is nothing mysterious about feeling an impact from EMF when this happens in the brain.

Another question is if this is a matter of general concern, probably not.
 

Viala

Senior Member
Messages
367
Likes
995
I think people who suffer from EHS face similar problems that we do, many studies don't support them and show there is nothing wrong with them. Electromagnetic radiation is rarely neutral and some people may be more sensitive. They may also react differently every day and every hour, just like we do, and are prone to placebo and nocebo as well. In Sweden EHS is oficially recognized. Another factor which I think is important here is that telecommunication companies would not want EHS to become a recognized problem, same as insurance companies.
 
Messages
10,147
Likes
24,537
To my knowledge EMF have been shown to act on calcium channels, causing some opening.
yes there seems to be some studies showing calcium ion channels are a potential route thats affected by EMF. This makes sense to me, as that is similar to possibly how acupuncture needles are stimulating the body.

I was not allowed to do further research on EMF as its my shot/jab day, later this aft. Bigger fish to fry, as they say.
 

percyval577

geometrical disaster
Messages
1,285
Likes
1,743
Location
Ik waak up

dannybex

Senior Member
Messages
3,508
Likes
2,624
Location
Seattle
Simon Wesseley is one of the authors...
Well, there were also four other authors. My main point was the fact that the 35 authors of the paper you posted lied about the fact that there are indeed that show a nocebo effect. And it was such a blatant lie, so easy to double-check.

Anyway, here's two more. No Wesseley in sight...

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01563/full

"IEI-EMF participants consistently reported significantly lower levels of well-being, when they believed the base station was “on” compared to “off”. Interestingly, control participants also reported experiencing more symptoms and greater symptom severity when they too believed the base station was “on” compared to “off”."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27939951/

"During double-blind testing, no participant was able to correctly identify when they were being exposed better than chance."
 
Last edited:

Pyrrhus

Senior Member
Messages
4,032
Likes
12,320
Location
U.S., Earth
When in the first paragraph of the paper, they basically lie about previous research -- ("Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects.") -- then there's clearly a bias involved, which taints the rest of their 'conclusions'.
That's a classic straw-man fallacy. They never said there was no evidence, they said there was no proof.

Big difference.

Two of the three papers you cite were actually discussed and critiqued in detail in the paper.
 
Last edited:
Messages
245
Likes
604
People say that non ionizing radiation can't even interact with the body, or cant damage it. I wondered about that because visible light is non ionizing and it can obviously interact with your eyes or you wouldn't be able to sense it, based on that I think its worth further consideration whether radio waves might have some interaction too and if it could make a difference.