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

[Dysfunkion]

If you ever find your EMF meter or get a new one I'd be curious to know what kind of EF reading you get from your keyboard/mouse. Even if they are low voltage they can carry EF from other devices connected to your computer. It could also be proximity to other devices near your computer setup or the computer/monitor itself.

For instance, I've noticed that ethernet cables and associated devices that use 1gpbs instead of the slower previous standard of 100mbps tend to induce a 1kV/m EF reading which by itself isn't that bad. But the problem is that this EF spreads to any device they are connected to and if snaked around other electronics I also noticed they will induce an EF reading into those devices. For instance I had an LED monitor that was off and disconnected from power but had the ethernet cable running right under it and it read a uniform 1kV/m across the entire surface of the monitor.

So I'm wondering what other electronics cables you might have criss-crossing around or near your computer that might also introduce EF into anything else connected or nearby? EF like a 1kV/m (1000V/m) reading I was getting dissipates at a short distance but if it spreads into anything nearby even if it's off/unplugged, it can increase the surface area and exposure. I found it even spread onto an aluminium tripod I had a tablet on connected to ethernet.

I was thankfully able to remove the 1kV/m reading from parts of my ethernet by introducing a grounded ethernet surge protector between the modem/router and the device I use most, dropping the readings to nearly 0V/m. Whilst grounded ethernet surge protectors aren't specifically designed for this purpose, I found the Ubiquiti model to do the job and wasn't too pricey and it's a reputable brand. If you're outside the US though be warned that it might not come with a ground/earth cable, so I would suggest checking that first and sourcing one.

There are other ethernet grounding options out there too, but I wouldn't recommend getting anything that doesn't come with an earth/ground cable specifically designed for your country unless you know where to get a cable beforehand.

I never considered criss-crossed cables before, I should organize them a bit better but there isn't too much left even plugged in.Like the sound system, computer, and monitor is plugged into the power strip under the desk to the back. the sound system is connected to the back of the computer but that's it. My fan is usually connected to another outlet not right next to me in the room but it's a small one and removing that I noticed nothing so it's obviously not a huge contributing factor. I could try inserting a ground ethernet surge protector in the middle of the long wire though. I include as little of it as I need in the room because the more of that wire is in here, the worse I feel.

 

[Dysfunkion]

Has anyone with an intolerance for most screens been able to tolerate an ereader for extended periods of time? Reading on my computer screen is getting very tedious and just isn't sustainable. If anyone here does have one they can handle what is it and can you store all text file formats on it?

 

[Wishful]

E-ink readers should provide a different experience than LCD, and shouldn't produce much EMF if you're concerned about that (it sends signals across the screen only when you change a page).

I don't have a problem with typical LCD monitors, but I really like my Kobo Clara. I usually choose a font size larger than printed books, which helps my aging eyes. I haven't encountered any format problems. I just wish they had more books that I wanted to read, and a better recommendation system. I also hate how many companies now have no convenient way to contact them about problems or provide feedback. It sends a "all we care about is getting your money" message.

 

[Dysfunkion]

E-ink readers should provide a different experience than LCD, and shouldn't produce much EMF if you're concerned about that (it sends signals across the screen only when you change a page).

I don't have a problem with typical LCD monitors, but I really like my Kobo Clara. I usually choose a font size larger than printed books, which helps my aging eyes. I haven't encountered any format problems. I just wish they had more books that I wanted to read, and a better recommendation system. I also hate how many companies now have no convenient way to contact them about problems or provide feedback. It sends a "all we care about is getting your money" message.

That's what I was thinking which is why I asked. I haven't used a typical LCD monitor in a while so I'm not sure how I respond to those, could always just try it and if I don't like it return it. I really despise how this stupid condition makes even just buying a new device so complicated.

I'll look into that one, if you can add your own text files then what's on the official market of it doesn't concern me too much. These days I just expect crappy support with all my tech because I can assure you all of those support emails just go into a big inbox only a couple people are going through that barely care about solving any issues and just get them out of the way ASAP.

 

[Wishful]

My Kobo has a web browser mode, but I haven't tried it. You can check the online specs for the file formats accepted. Newer models have additional features. FWIW, mine was a refurbished unit at a reduced price, and I haven't had any real problems with it (some minor software glitches).

 

[Dysfunkion]

Interesting thing from tonight, I got on a phone call with someone for an hour (against my better judgement and I didn't know how to tell them about this without it being awkward so I pushed through) and lengthy phone calls produce distinct results EMF sensitivity wise. the area of my hand where I held the phone and my head has this icy hot feeling that is extending down through my spine into my "downstairs regions" but doesn't produce that hot brain in a microwave fiery hot feeling in my forehead area. My mouth also got extremely dry. I swear this is the strangest condition in the known universe, never doing that again with a lengthy phone call.

This is what my hand looks like right now, that was holding the phone. All the red areas are icy hot tingling the most.

 

[Florida Guy]

Has this sensitivity been tested? We know that high power electro magnetic fields can have an effect on the body but do casual low energy fields found in the home have an effect and can people feel it? For those who believe they can feel it, a test could be performed in which a field was turned on and off and the sensitive person says they feel it or dont feel it. If they really feel it that would be amazing and so far I have not heard of anyone passing a test like that. Maybe there are a few people who can detect when a low power electrical source is turned on by the way they feel but I haven't heard of any yet

High power electrical fields like being in an mri or right next to a cell tower have fields millions of times stronger than you find in the home, up to billions of times stronger. I would not want to be within that powerful radiation. The question is, do these very low levels found in the home cause a problem or not? Keep in mind that the earth itself has a magnetic field so even if you are far from civilization and have no electronics, you are still in an electromagnetic field. I would not worry about a cell phone or most anything in the home

Otoh, I've seen ads and seen people saying that a device with wires and electricity going through it, has a healing effect. I saw an ad claiming what looked like a heating pad could cure psoriasis, a skin condition, just by lying on it and turning it on. Oddly enough, it did not seem to be patented and you would think that if it worked it would very valuable and they would not want anyone stealing their invention but no patent, no patent applied for, just take their word for it.

That being said, if you hold a cell phone by your head while using it, keep in mind that when its transmitting, its putting out its max power trying to get to the cell tower. Try speaker phone or an earpiece when calling or receiving. The amount of power equals the inverse square of the distance. So being 1" from the phone, you are getting 4 times the energy as 2" away and up to 100 times the energy as 10" away. A little farther away makes a big difference

 

[Dysfunkion]

Has this sensitivity been tested? We know that high power electro magnetic fields can have an effect on the body but do casual low energy fields found in the home have an effect and can people feel it? For those who believe they can feel it, a test could be performed in which a field was turned on and off and the sensitive person says they feel it or dont feel it. If they really feel it that would be amazing and so far I have not heard of anyone passing a test like that. Maybe there are a few people who can detect when a low power electrical source is turned on by the way they feel but I haven't heard of any yet

High power electrical fields like being in an mri or right next to a cell tower have fields millions of times stronger than you find in the home, up to billions of times stronger. I would not want to be within that powerful radiation. The question is, do these very low levels found in the home cause a problem or not? Keep in mind that the earth itself has a magnetic field so even if you are far from civilization and have no electronics, you are still in an electromagnetic field. I would not worry about a cell phone or most anything in the home

Otoh, I've seen ads and seen people saying that a device with wires and electricity going through it, has a healing effect. I saw an ad claiming what looked like a heating pad could cure psoriasis, a skin condition, just by lying on it and turning it on. Oddly enough, it did not seem to be patented and you would think that if it worked it would very valuable and they would not want anyone stealing their invention but no patent, no patent applied for, just take their word for it.

That being said, if you hold a cell phone by your head while using it, keep in mind that when its transmitting, its putting out its max power trying to get to the cell tower. Try speaker phone or an earpiece when calling or receiving. The amount of power equals the inverse square of the distance. So being 1" from the phone, you are getting 4 times the energy as 2" away and up to 100 times the energy as 10" away. A little farther away makes a big difference

It's not a light switch effect, I need to be in the field for some minutes for the reaction to kick in, I'd say usually around 10 minutes is when things start ramping up badly. Like if I walk past a room for example with a big screen TV on, a video game console, and a wifi transmitter I wouldn't feel that immediately but if I went in there in some amount of minutes I will start getting the symptoms. The exposure needs to be lengthy which is probably why a lot of those tests were failed if the person was as sensitive as I am. If you put me in a room with a wifi router and randomly broke up the exposure by turning it off and on at random intervals it's going to take me longer to get sick. I'd be willing to participate in a study if any doctor would take me seriously but I'm not sure what you would specifically be looking for that this is doing besides measuring markers associated with the nervous and possibly immune system? It causes largely severe neuropathy and neuro-psychiatric symptoms with me. Reactions from chemicals, specifically artificial scents usually trigger a similar general reaction but EMF radiation I'm sensitive to goes straight to causing neuropathy in various fun ways.

I can try speaker phone next time and see if that works well enough but if not I'm gonna have to go back to texting and leaving calls for anything less than 5 or so minutes at most. There is also probably wired headsets but I can also be sensitive to microphones but a wired one with a very tiny microphone is worth a try if I can find one for my phone's model.

 

[Wayne]

This is what my hand looks like right now, that was holding the phone.

Hi @Dysfunkion -- I'm very sensitive to EMFs from smart phones, but have discovered a product called Safesleeve (around $40-$50) gives me considerable protection.

 

[hapl808]

For those who believe they can feel it, a test could be performed in which a field was turned on and off and the sensitive person says they feel it or dont feel it. If they really feel it that would be amazing and so far I have not heard of anyone passing a test like that. Maybe there are a few people who can detect when a low power electrical source is turned on by the way they feel but I haven't heard of any yet

This doesn't really mean anything. The same logic was used to prove pesticides were safe. Spray someone with scented perfume or DDT, and they may not be able to tell the difference. This is why pesticide cases are so difficult if the exposure was not extreme - how do you prove cancer was connected to chronic exposure years earlier?

I agree it sounds bizarre - because I hadn't experienced anything like that. And then in the last few years, I noticed my headaches were vastly worse and more frequent when my router (a few feet away from my computer) was turned on.

That being said, if you hold a cell phone by your head while using it, keep in mind that when its transmitting, its putting out its max power trying to get to the cell tower. Try speaker phone or an earpiece when calling or receiving. The amount of power equals the inverse square of the distance. So being 1" from the phone, you are getting 4 times the energy as 2" away and up to 100 times the energy as 10" away. A little farther away makes a big difference

This is what I do - I always use an earpiece, usually wired just because the sound is much better and why not be extra safe. Occasionally I'll use bluetooth, but I've never noticed issues with bluetooth (keyboard, mouse, etc), only wifi.

 

[southwestforests]

Haven't read it yet, just found this 288 page PDF for the European Union government,

Health effects of EMF – 2015 01 20
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
SCENIHR
Opinion on
Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields
(EMF)
SCENIHR adopted this Opinion at the 9th plenary meeting on 27 January 2015

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this Opinion is to update the SCENIHR Opinions of 19 January 2009
'Health effects of exposure to EMF' and 6 July 2009 'Research needs and methodology to
address the remaining knowledge gaps on the potential health effects of EMF' in the light
of newly available information since then, and to give special consideration to areas
where important knowledge gaps were identified in the previous Opinion. In addition,
biophysical interaction mechanisms and the potential role of co-exposures to
environmental stressors are discussed.

...

From here on page 12 to page 17 is as far as I've gotten.
It mentions known studies.

Health effects of EMF – 2015 01 20
12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction

The purpose of this Opinion is to update the SCENIHR Opinions of 19 January 2009
'Health effects of exposure to EMF' and 6 July 2009 'Research needs and methodology to
address the remaining knowledge gaps on the potential health effects of EMF' in the light
of newly available information, and to give special consideration to areas where
important knowledge gaps were identified in the previous Opinions. In addition,
biophysical interaction mechanisms and the potential role of co-exposures to
environmental stressors are discussed.

Information has primarily been obtained from reports published in international peer-
reviewed scientific journals in the English language. Additional sources of information
have also been considered, including web-based information retrieval and documents
from governmental bodies and authorities. SCHENIR 'Memorandum on the use of the
scientific literature for human health risk assessment purposes – weighing of evidence
and expression of uncertainty' 2012, was followed.

Not all identified studies are necessarily included in the Opinion. On the contrary, a main
task is to evaluate and assess the articles and the scientific weight that is to be given to
each of them. Only studies that are considered relevant for the task are commented
upon in the Opinion. Nevertheless, all identified studies are listed in the annex.
A specific concern in the assessment of many studies is the description of the exposure.
This applies to experimental as well as to epidemiological studies. Over time, many
studies have reported biological effects as a result of EMF exposure. However, in many
cases the description of the exposure is insufficient for reproducing the experiment.
Papers with poor description of essential data, such as the exposure, are therefore of
little or no value in risk evaluation and do not provide adequate knowledge about modes
of actions. In the last few years there have been a number of in vivo and in vitro studies
dealing with exposure directly from a commercial mobile phone or other wireless device.
In almost all cases these experiments are without relevance, since they do not quantify
the factual exposure.

An epidemiological study should ideally capture all major sources of exposure as a
function of time during the relevant time period (considering latency) prior to occurrence
of the outcome. The minimum requirement for exposure assessment for an
epidemiological study to be informative is to include reasonably accurate individual
exposure characterization over a relevant period of time capturing all major sources of
exposure for the pertinent part of the body. Valid exposure assessment makes it possible
to distinguish between sub-groups with contrasting exposure levels. As EMF exposure is
ubiquitous, it is difficult to find an unexposed reference group, and instead, a quantitative
contrast is chosen by comparing low versus high exposure levels.

From page 15,

The earlier described evidence that RF exposure may affect brain activities as reflected
by EEG studies during wake and sleep is further substantiated by the more recent
studies. With regard to these findings, studies which aim at investigating the role of pulse
modulation and which use more experimental signals, indicate that although effects on
the sleep EEG are neither restricted to NREM sleep (one study indicates effects also in
REM sleep) nor to the spindle frequency range. It seems that depending on the EMF
signal the theta and delta frequency range in NREM sleep can also be affected.
Furthermore, half of the experimental studies looking at the macrostructure of sleep
(especially those with a longer duration of exposure) also found effects, which, however,
are not consistent with regard to the affected sleep parameters. Therefore, given the
variety of applied fields, duration of exposure, number of considered leads, and statistical
methods it is presently not possible to derive more firm conclusions.

For event-related potentials and slow brain oscillations results are inconsistent.
Furthermore, there is a lack of data for specific age groups. One study indicates that
children and adolescents seem to be less affected. Therefore, the previous evidence that
RF exposure may affect brain activity as reported by EEG studies during both wake and
sleep appears also in recent studies. However, the relevance of the small physiological
changes remains unclear and mechanistic explanation is still lacking.

Overall, there is a lack of evidence that RF EMF affects cognitive functions in humans.
Studies looking at possible effects of RF fields on cognitive function have often included
multiple outcome measures. While effects have been found by individual studies, these
have typically been observed only in a small number of endpoints, with little consistency
between studies.

 

[Dysfunkion]

There certainly is plenty of research out there that simply overall states that EMF radiation can do things to the body, everyone knows this. If you get actually electrocuted you're gonna get hurt. What we don't know is what is going on in the body of people who get hurt from very ordinary levels of radiation to this degree. We have theories but nothing solid and it's extremely difficult to get research on us when this effect isn't like a light switch and varies depending on the source and related details, length of exposure, distance of exposure, systems effected in the individual and what they're primary manifestations are, and individual differences based on the original variables. It's essentially an objective scientific nightmare to study even if research and experiences we already know of say that "too much electric energy can be bad and even low levels can have some biological effects".

 

[Florida Guy]

Ok but what about the claims that it cures people? It seems that some say emf's cause them harm and others say it helps them. What about the devices they sell claiming the fields generated will cure you?Which group is right?

Its true that electric fields can affect humans or animals at high levels but the evidence is mixed at best on what these effects are especially at low levels. This quote kind of sums it up:

Overall, there is a lack of evidence that RF EMF affects cognitive functions in humans.
Studies looking at possible effects of RF fields on cognitive function have often included
multiple outcome measures. While effects have been found by individual studies, these
have typically been observed only in a small number of endpoints, with little consistency
between studies.

 

[Wishful]

I would not want to be within that powerful radiation.

Just to clarify, an MRI's magnetic field isn't "radiation", it's a field, just like the Earth's field, but much stronger. Likewise, an electric current passing through you isn't radiation, it's electron flow. We can't be precise about ME symptoms, because our language lacks clear definitions, but physics does have clear definitions, so we should use those to be precise.

 

[Wishful]

What about the devices they sell claiming the fields generated will cure you?Which group is right?

The group that can provide strong, replicable evidence for their claims is more right (hard to absolutely prove claims).

 

[hapl808]

There certainly is plenty of research out there that simply overall states that EMF radiation can do things to the body, everyone knows this. If you get actually electrocuted you're gonna get hurt. What we don't know is what is going on in the body of people who get hurt from very ordinary levels of radiation to this degree. We have theories but nothing solid and it's extremely difficult to get research on us when this effect isn't like a light switch and varies depending on the source and related details, length of exposure, distance of exposure, systems effected in the individual and what they're primary manifestations are, and individual differences based on the original variables. It's essentially an objective scientific nightmare to study even if research and experiences we already know of say that "too much electric energy can be bad and even low levels can have some biological effects".

This is exactly why it's hard to study so many things. What's the long term effect of pesticides? Of heavy metal exposure?

We set minimum 'safe' levels, but these levels are likely for healthy people. The same way that now it's somehow 'accepted' in medicine that MSG sensitivity is a myth, yet many of us have awful acute reactions. My guess is that 'healthy' people may not react, but there are sensitivities that are not anaphylactic. Many doctors and even immunologists don't really believe this to be true, but many of us have those reactions.

I think there's much more evidence that EMF could be harmful than helpful, but the field is mostly a joke. Even if anyone seriously wanted to study it (which they don't, because it could put at risk trillions of dollars), it would be very hard - the same way that the field of nutrition is often a joke, despite billions poured into research. If someone gets cancer, we often have no idea why. Every year we get articles that say eggs are the perfect food, eggs cause heart disease, coffee causes heart problems, coffee protects the heart, some red wine is good for you, all alcohol is poison and killing you, etc.

Since EMF generally has safe levels described, one presumes that there is 'some' risk. Things with minimal risk rarely have maximum safe levels. The question is whether a lifetime of exposure at the safe levels are actually safe. Would be nice to see a 20 year study on people who talk on their phone vs those who use an earpiece, or a 20 year study on people who sit closer than 10 ft from their wifi vs those who have no home wifi. But doing a study like this with any rigor is impractical and no one would fund them anyways, so it'll never happen.

 

[southwestforests]

High power electrical fields like being in an mri or right next to a cell tower have fields millions of times stronger than you find in the home, up to billions of times stronger.

Here's what's known about the MRI field effects,
Those bits about the magnetic fields potentially causing peripheral stimulation and/or heating are points of interest.

https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/mri-magnetic-resonance-imaging/benefits-and-risks

Risks

MR images are made without using any ionizing radiation, so patients are not exposed to the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. But while there are no known health hazards from temporary exposure to the MR environment, the MR environment involves a strong, static magnetic field, a magnetic field that changes with time (pulsed gradient field), and radiofrequency energy, each of which carry specific safety concerns:

The strong, static magnetic field will attract magnetic objects (from small items such as keys and cell phones, to large, heavy items such as oxygen tanks and floor buffers) and may cause damage to the scanner or injury to the patient or medical professionals if those objects become projectiles. Careful screening of people and objects entering the MR environment is critical to ensure nothing enters the magnet area that may become a projectile.
The magnetic fields that change with time create loud knocking noises which may harm hearing if adequate ear protection is not used. They may also cause peripheral muscle or nerve stimulation that may feel like a twitching sensation.
The radiofrequency energy used during the MRI scan could lead to heating of the body. The potential for heating is greater during long MRI examinations.

See also:

Magn Reson Med Sci. 2023; 22(1): 7–25.
Published online 2022 Feb 26. doi: 10.2463/mrms.rev.2021-0047
PMCID: PMC9849420
PMID: 35228437
Progress in Understanding Radiofrequency Heating and Burn Injuries for Safer MR Imaging
Minghui Tang 1 and Toru Yamamoto 2 , *

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9849420/

Abstract

RF electromagnetic wave exposure during MRI scans induces heat and occasionally causes burn injuries to patients. Among all the types of physical injuries that have occurred during MRI examinations, RF burn injuries are the most common ones. The number of RF burn injuries increases as the static magnetic field of MRI systems increases because higher RFs lead to higher heating. The commonly believed mechanisms of RF burn injuries are the formation of a conductive loop by the patient’s posture or cables, such as an electrocardiogram lead; however, the mechanisms of RF burn injuries that occur at the contact points, such as the bore wall and the elbow, remain unclear. A comprehensive understanding of RF heating is needed to address effective countermeasures against all RF burn injuries for safe MRI examinations. In this review, we summarize the occurrence of RF burn injury cases by categorizing RF burn injuries reported worldwide in recent decades. Safety standards and regulations governing RF heating that occurs during MRI examinations are presented, along with their theoretical and physiological backgrounds. The experimental assessment techniques for RF heating are then reviewed, and the development of numerical simulation techniques is explained. In addition, a comprehensive theoretical interpretation of RF burn injuries is presented. By including the results of recent experimental and numerical simulation studies on RF heating, this review describes the progress achieved in understanding RF heating from the standpoint of MRI burn injury prevention.

...
The RF field heats the human body (in conjunction with or without the use of medical devices) and occasionally leads to RF burn injuries.10 The frequency of these accidents is increasing with the increasing static magnetic field strength of MRI systems owing to stronger attractive displacement forces, the advent of new imaging techniques, and higher RF frequencies. Therefore, MR safety has been a concern as a medical safety issue, e.g., screening for projectile ferromagnetic objects at the walk-in stage and checking the MRI compatibility of implantable medical devices. 1,2,11–14

Several reports have surveyed accidents that occurred during MRI examinations. In the United Kingdom, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reported that 308 MRI accidents occurred from 1993 to 2014 15, and in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that 1548 MRI accidents occurred from 2008 to 2017. 16 Among these accidents, RF burn injuries were the most common, accounting for 42% and 55% of all the accidents reported by the MHRA15 and FDA,16 respectively. In addition, a survey in Japan revealed that RF burn injuries had occurred in 12% of 1319 hospitals.17 The number of RF burn injuries has increased in recent decades; the FDA reported 419 cases in 1997–200918 and 849 cases in 2008–2017.16 This tendency may be related to the prevalence of 3T MRI because the RF heating is theoretically proportional to the square of the static magnetic field strength of MRI; the heating sensation experienced by patients increases with the increase in strength of the static magnetic field.19 Moreover, with the development of ≥ 7T MRI systems, the risk of RF burn injuries would increase. Thus, to ensure MRI safety, it is necessary to address the problem of RF burn injuries.

 

[hapl808]

I had a very bad prolonged crash / baseline decline after a long MRI. I assumed it was just from the exertion, but who knows.

 

[Wayne]

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.​

 

[Dysfunkion]

This is exactly why it's hard to study so many things. What's the long term effect of pesticides? Of heavy metal exposure?

We set minimum 'safe' levels, but these levels are likely for healthy people. The same way that now it's somehow 'accepted' in medicine that MSG sensitivity is a myth, yet many of us have awful acute reactions. My guess is that 'healthy' people may not react, but there are sensitivities that are not anaphylactic. Many doctors and even immunologists don't really believe this to be true, but many of us have those reactions.

I think there's much more evidence that EMF could be harmful than helpful, but the field is mostly a joke. Even if anyone seriously wanted to study it (which they don't, because it could put at risk trillions of dollars), it would be very hard - the same way that the field of nutrition is often a joke, despite billions poured into research. If someone gets cancer, we often have no idea why. Every year we get articles that say eggs are the perfect food, eggs cause heart disease, coffee causes heart problems, coffee protects the heart, some red wine is good for you, all alcohol is poison and killing you, etc.

Since EMF generally has safe levels described, one presumes that there is 'some' risk. Things with minimal risk rarely have maximum safe levels. The question is whether a lifetime of exposure at the safe levels are actually safe. Would be nice to see a 20 year study on people who talk on their phone vs those who use an earpiece, or a 20 year study on people who sit closer than 10 ft from their wifi vs those who have no home wifi. But doing a study like this with any rigor is impractical and no one would fund them anyways, so it'll never happen.

That's certainly the trap at play here. Like you said nutrition has billions of dollars dumped into it and still in 2024 no one can agree on what is objectively good or bad other than obvious extremes like eating 20 pounds of potato every day is highly likely to make you seriously ill. I think when it comes to something this broad as the effects of EMF radiation on the body appears to be just as broad when all variables are considered as nutrition for example what should be focused on is specifically why this certain subset of people is so sensitive with this umbrella of symptoms which would still be an extremely broad range of things to study anyways no one is willing to fund.

The only people I know of that have beaten this according to them have been a very small subset of people on the Andy Cutler chelation protocol which I have been through for years with barely a dent in mine. I remember when my EMF sensitivity started getting so bad that it was ruining my life and have an idea on what ramped it up so badly but still don't know specifically what caused it. The people I worked with in the same place had absolutely no issues despite handling the same cleaning products, doing the same work, being on the same computers, and touching the same amount of coins. So it's obviously a byproduct of a much bigger ongoing issue in my body I had to make things more complex. this whole mystery is just my case, someone else as severe as me would have a completely different story. If you browse around the net yourself you'll come across some commonalities like this tends to be something that happens to victims of mold poisoning but not everyone. 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.