Is electro-magnetic field (EMF) hypersensitivity a real thing?

[Dysfunkion]

I just did an AI query, and came up with the following:

There have been reports of people feeling better after an MRI scan, although the reasons for this are not entirely understood. A study conducted at McLean Hospital, affiliated with Harvard Medical School, observed that some individuals with bipolar disorder experienced mood improvements after undergoing MRI scans. In this study, 77% of participants with bipolar depression reported feeling better after the scans, compared to only 30% of those who received sham scans.​

​

Additionally, 29% of healthy individuals also reported mood elevation following the scans. The researchers speculated that the electromagnetic fields generated by the MRI scanner might influence brain activity and potentially contribute to mood improvements, although this was a preliminary finding and further research was suggested to understand the phenomenon better.​

This is why I will never even touch the thing, even in healthy people there are numerous reports of effects from it. If I used it I'm quite sure my nervous system would explode or something.

 

[southwestforests]

I've had several MRI through the decades and do not have recall of any strong enough to remember reactions to the thing other than sensory overload from the noise and a bit of claustrophobia.
The strength of those 2 reactions could potentially overpower the perception of any other reaction to the thing.

Will add anecdote that when a teen and early 20-something I was feeling energy from the 1980s cathode ray tube televisions.
Especially when coming home late from my retail job, even later during the Christmas season, and everybody else was asleep and the TV in family room was off.
Remember many times walking past it to hallway to bedrooms and thinking, "I can feel that thing's energy right here right now and I don't like that feeling."

Between that feeling, and the noise and flashy light, I've only briefly twice had televisions since moving out on my own in 1987.
Am much more relaxed in a home which does not have any TV set in it.
Which still holds true with the modern LCD flat screen TVs.

The LCD screens such as this PC screen are different enough that I don't have that objectionable sense of energy the CRT television sets emitted.

But I still prefer having this PC off as much as practical.

For reasons I do not know, the laptop isn't anywhere near as strong with that feeling as this PC is.

 

[Florida Guy]

We are bathed in emf every day. It comes not just from cell phones and towers but also from radio and tv transmissions, and noise type emf from electric motors and devices. I think only the very strong radiation is a risk. We may find later that all of it is harmful but how can we stop using electricity?

A certain percentage feel better after mri and some feel worse. So does it help or hurt? If you believe its helping you, the power of suggestion will make you feel better and likewise the opposite if you believe its bad for you

Cat scans also produce electromagnetic radiation (emr) in the form of xrays which will have an effect on the body. We take these tests when its necessary and serious, not for minor concerns because the effect will build over time with repeated exposure

Distance from the source is the most important factor. If you are 1 foot from the source and move so that you are 2 feet away, you have reduced the radiation by a factor of 4. Being 50' from a cell tower might possibly be hazardous but if you are a block away, about 400' away, you are getting about 1/64 as much radiation. Also buildings and trees can block it somewhat. So if you are 4 or 5 blocks away, instead of complaining about low signal, consider that your risks are very low and you should be glad

 

[Dysfunkion]

I've had several MRI through the decades and do not have recall of any strong enough to remember reactions to the thing other than sensory overload from the noise and a bit of claustrophobia.
The strength of those 2 reactions could potentially overpower the perception of any other reaction to the thing.

Will add anecdote that when a teen and early 20-something I was feeling energy from the 1980s cathode ray tube televisions.
Especially when coming home late from my retail job, even later during the Christmas season, and everybody else was asleep and the TV in family room was off.
Remember many times walking past it to hallway to bedrooms and thinking, "I can feel that thing's energy right here right now and I don't like that feeling."

Between that feeling, and the noise and flashy light, I've only briefly twice had televisions since moving out on my own in 1987.
Am much more relaxed in a home which does not have any TV set in it.
Which still holds true with the modern LCD flat screen TVs.

The LCD screens such as this PC screen are different enough that I don't have that objectionable sense of energy the CRT television sets emitted.

But I still prefer having this PC off as much as practical.

For reasons I do not know, the laptop isn't anywhere near as strong with that feeling as this PC is.

If the electronics are simply plugged in I feel nothing unless you put me in a room with a ton of wires on the ground which has happened before when we were getting work in my unit done and the ethernet wire from the other room was unplugged from the router and snaked into my room here while still plugged into the back of my PC. Symptoms from raw electrical power from an abundance of wires like that are blurry/flickery vision, burning in face/forehead, brain fog, high anxiety, and body stiffness. So yeah it can be triggered if something is just plugged in but it needs to be one large pile powered cables.

 

[hapl808]

If you believe its helping you, the power of suggestion will make you feel better and likewise the opposite if you believe its bad for you

Everyone loves the power of suggestion - it sounds so neat and it's pretty hard to prove beyond short term effects. It's like the Malcolm Gladwell of psychiatry - great sound bite, often falls apart upon further examination.

Most of the things that have affected me were things I figured out years later. Only in the last year or two did I realize that I had a huge decline after a long MRI, and even then initially I assumed it was just the exertion. I doubt it was the power of hindsight suggestion that caused me to feel bad.

Same with vaccination. Initially I looked up my vaccinations because I thought maybe I missed a polio booster since some of my symptoms are similar (neurological and muscular). Then I found I got a Hep B vaccine that was discontinued in France because of a worrying rise in neurological disorders - very similar to my symptoms.

 

[hapl808]

I had 2 other people that lived in the same house I grew up in but none of them developed anything nearly as bad as I did. In fact one of those people right now lives in a room with a wifi router right next them and uses enough toxic beauty products every day to put me in the grave by the end of the day, no problems besides sinus issues often. I think those that develop this tend to have been predisposed to doing so by birth stemming from environmental factors. This also means you're going to have tons of overlapping biomarkers that don't lead to anything specific on what exactly is causing the issue.

This is the problem - and similar with nutrition. I know people who ate healthy their whole lives and dropped of a heart attack in their 50's. Others who smoked and drank and ate ice cream every day and lived to 100. Researchers know that genetics accounts for so much, but they don't usually say it because it's not what people want to hear. They want to think their health is under their control.

 

[southwestforests]

We are bathed in emf every day. It comes not just from cell phones and towers but also from radio and tv transmissions,

Transmissions ... electrical transmission lines.
Can remember backpacking with Dad in the 1970s and the trail passed under some high tension lines, could hear the buzzing and feel it in the hair in my arms.
Funny thing was, the clearing through the forest for the power lines had been populated by a whole sea of gorgeous rhodedendrons.

Perhaps of related interest?
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-...posure/extremely-low-frequency-radiation.html

Studies in people

Studying the effects of ELF radiation in people can be hard, for many reasons.

Exposure to ELF radiation is very common, so it’s not possible to compare people who are exposed with people who aren’t exposed. Instead, studies try to compare people exposed at higher levels with people exposed at lower levels.

It is very hard to determine how much ELF radiation a person has been exposed to, especially over a long period. As far as we know, the effects of ELF radiation do not add up over time, and there is no test that can measure how much exposure a person has had.

Researchers can get a snapshot of ELF exposures in different ways, but none of these are perfect:

They can have a person wear a device that records their exposure levels over hours or days.
They can measure the magnetic or electrical field strength in a person’s home or workplace settings.
They can estimate exposure based on the wiring configuration of someone’s workplace/home or on its distance from power lines.

But all of these methods result in exposure estimates that have a lot of uncertainty. They typically don't account for a person’s ELF exposures while in other places, and they don’t measure ELF exposures in every location that person has ever lived or worked over their lifetime. As a result, there is no good way to accurately estimate someone’s long-term exposure, which is what matters most when looking for possible effects on cancer risk.

 

[Wayne]

For reasons I do not know, the laptop isn't anywhere near as strong with that feeling as this PC is.

I did some research a few years ago, and discovered laptops give off much less EMF radiation if they're used without being plugged in. I immediately quit using mine when it was plugged in, and noticed a BIG difference. But I still don't use it on my lap, I keep it off to the side, and run the picture to my TV, and have my fingers on the keyboard as little as possible.

 

[Dysfunkion]

Transmissions ... electrical transmission lines.
Can remember backpacking with Dad in the 1970s and the trail passed under some high tension lines, could hear the buzzing and feel it in the hair in my arms.
Funny thing was, the clearing through the forest for the power lines had been populated by a whole sea of gorgeous rhodedendrons.

Perhaps of related interest?
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-...posure/extremely-low-frequency-radiation.html

The other day I had to go around the back of some stores near the huge power box and I felt it myself in the same way, made my skin largely on my arms and legs feel all stingy for a short time. Was really uncomfortable but ultimately didn't have any lasting pain thankfully unlike last nights disaster.

Hand I held the phone in's nerves are still feeling pretty wonky especially when holding something where it gets a bit painful and other nerves also still feel a bit icy and strange but I think I'll be fine. I have short phone calls just about every day for typically around 5 minutes at most but over an hour? I gotta draw my line in the sand, never again. I didn't see this coming even though I expected something.

 

[Wishful]

Since EMF generally has safe levels described, one presumes that there is 'some' risk.

I don't presume that. I presume that it's lawyers doing butt protection. Then, if a case of harm from EMF is held in court, the lawyers can point to the warning and say "The risk was posted."

We know there's risk of harm from certain power levels, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's harm below that level. A bullet causes harm if it strikes you, but not if it just passes close by. We don't know whether a specific form and level of EMF (or electric or magnetic) fields causes harm, especially over long periods. At this time, it's mainly a matter of personal judgement whether you believe something is safe or harmful. It's no different than our judgement of supplements and remedies that lack large-sized proper studies.

 

[southwestforests]

Since EMF generally has safe levels described, one presumes that there is 'some' risk. Things with minimal risk rarely have maximum safe levels.

Found this about that factor,

Radiation: Radar​

2 November 2007 | Q&A
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-radar

Thermal effects: RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. The earliest signs of an adverse health consequence, found in animals as the level of RF fields increased, include reduced endurance, aversion of the field and decreased ability to perform mental tasks. These studies also suggest adverse effects may occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized exposure to RF fields sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1°C. Possible effects include the induction of eye cataracts, and various physiological and thermoregulatory responses as body temperature increases. These effects are well established and form the scientific basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to RF fields.

..

What international standards regulate radar?

Exposure limits for RF fields are developed by international bodies such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP is a non-governmental organization formally recognised by WHO. The Commission uses health risk assessments developed in conjunction with WHO to draft their guidelines on exposure limits. The ICNIRP guidelines protect against all established RF health effects and are developed following reviews of all the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including reports on cancer and non-thermal effects. Environmental RF levels from radars, in areas normally accessible to the general public, are at least 1,000 times below the limits for continuous public exposure allowed by the ICNIRP guidelines, and 25,000 times below the level at which RF exposure has been established to cause the earliest known health effects.

...

In summary

RF fields cause molecules in tissue to vibrate and generate heat. Heating effects could be expected if time is spent directly in front of some radar antennas, but are not possible at the environmental levels of RF fields emanating from radar systems.
To produce any adverse health effect, RF exposure above a threshold level must occur. The known threshold level is the exposure needed to increase tissue temperature by at least 1oC. The very low RF environmental field levels from radar systems cannot cause any significant temperature rise.
To date, researchers have not found evidence that multiple exposures to RF fields below threshold levels cause any adverse health effects. No accumulation of damage occurs to tissues from repeated low level RF exposure.
At present, there is no substantive evidence that adverse health effects, including cancer, can occur in people exposed to RF levels at or below the limits set by international standards. However, more research is needed to fill certain gaps in knowledge.

 

[Wayne]

But doing a study like this with any rigor is impractical and no one would fund them anyways, so it'll never happen.

Which leaves people to use their own common sense--AND--don't believe a word of absolute dismissal of health concerns from those who have political or financial interests.

 

[hapl808]

We know there's risk of harm from certain power levels, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's harm below that level. A bullet causes harm if it strikes you, but not if it just passes close by. We don't know whether a specific form and level of EMF (or electric or magnetic) fields causes harm, especially over long periods. At this time, it's mainly a matter of personal judgement whether you believe something is safe or harmful. It's no different than our judgement of supplements and remedies that lack large-sized proper studies.

If we know there's a risk of harm from certain power levels, it doesn't necessarily mean there's harm below that level, and it also doesn't mean there isn't harm below that level. My point is that we don't know.

That's my point - if there's a 'safe' level, it's hard to know if that means safe for everyone, safe for healthy people, safe for eight hours a day, safe for 24 hours a day, and so forth. Lots of stuff, for instance, is totally safe…for anyone without impaired renal function. Maybe there's an equivalent for EMF - compromised BBB, etc.

It's hard to know, hard to study long term effects of low exposures, etc. This is the difficulty with pesticides, mold, heavy metals, etc - and we've often made the wrong conclusions and set the wrong minimum safe levels. We did it with lead paint, leaded gasoline, various pesticides, etc.

 

[Wishful]

That's my point - if there's a 'safe' level, it's hard to know if that means safe for everyone, safe for healthy people, safe for eight hours a day, safe for 24 hours a day, and so forth.

Nothing is absolutely sure in life. It's a balance between risk and freedom. Do you really want to live in a super-nanny state where anything that isn't proven 100% safe is banned?

For factors such as EMF exposure, I'm not expecting useful results from short-term experiments. Statistical analysis on large populations is more likely to provide reliable results. Do people who use 5G phones for many hours a day have more <whichever disease> than people who avoid using cellphones? Do people who get MRI's develop <whichever disease> more than people who don't get subjected to high magnetic fields? I'm guessing that this was how x-ray risk was determined, and definitely how smoking and asbestos risks were determined (Hey, most of my lung cancer patients worked in an asbestos mine...). It's not a simple technique, since it's hard to figure out which factor is involved, but statistics can show that something is causing harm. Statistics showed that people who lived under powerlines had higher rates of cancer, and that got lots of publicity, but it turned out that people who lived under powerlines were in a different financial category, and their cancer rate matched that of people of that category who didn't live under powerlines.

As for past mistakes, keep in mind that using asbestos saved a lot of lives too, since the alternative materials at that time were less safe in other ways (fire risk of other insulations, for example). How many more people died of insect-spread disease when DDT was banned? Life isn't about avoiding all risks, it's about balancing between risks.

 

[hapl808]

As for past mistakes, keep in mind that using asbestos saved a lot of lives too, since the alternative materials at that time were less safe in other ways (fire risk of other insulations, for example). How many more people died of insect-spread disease when DDT was banned? Life isn't about avoiding all risks, it's about balancing between risks.

True. Unfortunately, people don't like admitting that, so usually they pretend there is no risk.

Like with vaccines, most people will insist that outside of anaphylaxis, no one is ever harmed by any vaccine. That any negative reactions are temporary by definition - which is a strange assertion for something that is designed to have a (beneficial) long term effect on your immune system.

Pesticides are a good example, because the whole reason they were promoted were for insect-spread diseases, better crops, etc. Yet the law of unintended consequences - it often damaged animal and plant ecosystems for decades (Silent Spring, etc).

I don't want a nanny state, I want a state that puts some damn money and resources into actually researching and improving lives - as opposed to the usual, "We have investigated ourselves and our actions, and don't worry - it's all good!"

Since there are no consequences for causing harm, the incentives are full speed ahead - opioids, benzos, SSRIs, pesticides, lead, vaccine quality control (polio), etc.

 

[Wayne]

the incentives are full speed ahead

Hi @hapl808 -- Sigh, so true, so true. I watch politics quite closely, and am constantly dismayed about how most of the thinking and talking is so short term. I've thought that if I had the time and energy, I'd try to found a new political party called the "7th Generation Party".

I'd heard that a philosophy of a native American tribe(s) is that whenever considering a course of action, to take into account how that action is going to affect the 7th generation down. Ya think life would be a little different on this planet if politicians and business leaders did that more often?

Same goes in various fields of endeavors such as medicine or new technologies. It's so often about quick decisions to make quick profits. When others object to so much experimental things foisted on the public at large, the response is usually, "well, there's no scientific evidence of any danger. If they have done any research at all, it's almost always deeply flawed to bring about the results they want.

Anyway, my 2 cents worth for the day.

 

[Wishful]

I watch politics quite closely, and am constantly dismayed about how most of the thinking and talking is so short term.

I get newsletters from my member of parliament. His latest rant is against the carbon tax and how his party will try to get rid of it, so that Albertans can enjoy their summer driving vacations without suffering extra cost. I've been thinking of writing to him pointing out that it's the the government's responsibility to make mature decisions for the good of the majority of the people for the long term. Subsidizing the burning of fossil fuels is the opposite of that. Also, the government does not need to subsidize carbon capture R&D: that's the industry's responsibility. Even a fraction of that money diverted to ME research could make a big difference.

Yah, not happy about politicians either.

 

[Wishful]

https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/mobile-phones-cancer-who/

"Do mobile phones cause brain cancer? New study has definitive answers" It's WHO study claiming that mobile phone use does not cause cancer. I think it will be interesting to see the responses to the study. Will anyone be able to point out a solid flaw in the study? The point about brain cancer rates not correlating with the increased exposure of the general population to the microwave signals seems pretty strong to me.

Of course, for this thread, it doesn't answer the question of non-brain-cancer harm, or the ability to sense microwave signals.

 

[hapl808]

I have no idea and not sure a study is 'definitive' because the study authors say it's definitive. The PACE trial said their findings were definitive.

Also, it would be an enormous undertaking to find a flaw in the study - because it's not a study, it's a meta-analysis. So this is pure statistical analysis of previous studies, which is highly technical mathematics. Deciding which studies meet inclusion criteria, etc. A well run meta analysis can be useful, a poorly one not so much.

This is often how they've concluded vaccines have no long term side effects - with statistical analysis of existing studies, rather than actually running a study to examine it. "There was a 400% increase in neuromuscular disorders diagnosed, but we ran a statistical analysis and found that was within normal variance." Maybe. Maybe not.

It is interesting that they say brain cancers have not gone up at all. Yet I keep seeing articles and studies that say the opposite? I have no knowledge in this area, so I have no idea what to believe. Public health keeps saying everything is fine, then I see supposed skyrocketing rates of cancer with various explanations - from COVID to people just living so long everyone's getting cancer, etc.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10372320/

 

[Dysfunkion]

Yeah see I don't doubt in the least based on what wireless signals do to me that they can and do cause cancer even in people that don't actually feel it. I think one of the real questions in terms of EMF sensitivity is why though it can likely cause brain cancer in both people that do get extremely sick from the signals and people that don't some can actually get immediately ill from over exposure to their much lower tolerable baselines. I see what could be many unrecognized EMF sensitivity cases all the time online, just go to the subreddit for example and search "screens" or "computer". The heavy current of denial of this condition runs extremely deep to the point where they will make the obvious connection but still deny it because it's just not in line with what they believe can happen.

When it first started happening to me I didn't immediately connect the dots either and I don't know how quickly it ramped up either until it got to the point where I noticed walking into a room with computers or turning on the TV at home made me feel feverish and brain sick to the point where it was unable to be ignored or tied to anything else. I've also been blind to the addition of something to the EMF environment much like for example someone plugging in a Glade air freshener in another room and still got sick before.