Studies on Electormagnetic Hyper Sensitivity/ Electromangetic Radiation Syndrome (EHS / EMRs)

        
 
 
   

Preview of studies about EHS

On this page we present studies and articles on “electromagnetic hypersensitivity / electromagnetic intolerance”. We present articles that support the understanding that this sensitivity is in fact a health effect of radiation exposure, as well as articles that argue otherwise. We explain the studies and point out their strengths and weaknesses.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a complex phenomenon, but not a new one. The first cases were documented among radar workers. At the time, the illness was called MICROWAVE SICKNESS, and it was clear that the symptoms were caused by radiation. When personal computers entered the office world, exposure to low-frequency non-ionizing radiation increased, and with it the number of sensitive people, mainly to CRT screens. A further increase came with the mobile and wireless revolution.

As the number of sensitive and harmed people reporting symptoms during exposure grew, the research approach toward them changed. For the first time, electrosensitive people became a threat to the industry: if their sensitivity is real, it is proof that exposure to non-ionizing radiation has biological and health effects. At this time, exposure studies began to appear in which sensitive people were repeatedly and randomly exposed to mobile or wireless radiation, and were expected to react immediately and guess, always correctly, if there was radiation, without being given enough recovery time. These studies suggested that the source of the sensitivity is not the radiation, but something else, perhaps psychosomatic. These studies received wide publicity and, for now, have won the consensus. The remarks at the end of these studies, that EHS is perhaps a psychosomatic response, have become the consensus.

Recently, there has been a growing number of studies that, alongside more accurate exposure, try to identify physiological responses rather than guesses, as well as studies looking for biological and pathological markers that distinguish between people who are sensitive to radiation and those who are not.

Partial list of studies on Electormagnetic Hyper Sensitivity/ Electromangetic Radiation Syndrome (EHS / EMRs), its’ relation to EMF/EMR , symptoms, diagnosis, treatmentת and coping.

  1. USA 2012 – Physiological and Neurological Changes in an Electrosensitive Subject Exposed to a 60 Hz Electric Field
    An electrosensitive subject was exposed, in a series of controlled experiments, to strong 60 Hz electric fields. She developed headaches, involuntary muscle twitching, and an irregular heart rate within about 100 seconds of the start of exposure. The subject reacted physiologically especially when the field appeared and disappeared, i.e. when it changed. She had no awareness of the field’s presence, or of when it was switched on and off.
    During the study, the subject underwent a range of physiological and neurological tests to measure the field’s effects on her body functions, including:
  • Brain wave mapping (EEG)
  • Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain (MRI)
  • Sleep lab tests (including video recording and EEG)
  • Blood tests, liver function tests, blood count, and more
    The bottom line of the study is that electrosensitivity is a neurological syndrome caused by environmental influences (environmental radiation levels).
    The study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784
    – An electrosensitive subject was able to detect exposure to a strong electric field.
  1. European team of scientists led by Belpomme, 2015 – Belpomme’s Study – Biological Markers in People Sensitive to Radiation and Chemicals
    “Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder” – Dominique Belpomme, Christine Campagnac, Philippe Irigaray
    Belpomme’s study was the first to set itself the goal of defining and finding biological parameters for diagnosing electrosensitivity. The study examined the subjects’ physiological responses during and after exposure.
    The study’s strengths:
  1. Turkish-Finnish team, 2013 – New Study on Electrosensitivity – Psychiatric Treatment Doesn’t Help, Reducing Exposure Does!
    A new Finnish questionnaire study published in February 2013 examined the most common symptoms among electrosensitive people and what helped them improve their condition. The findings showed that psychiatric treatment does not help, while reducing exposure does.
  • The most common symptoms were stress (60.3%), sleep disorders (59.3%), and fatigue and exhaustion (57.2%).
  • The triggers for onset were exposure to personal computers (50.8%) and mobile phones (47%). Respondents reported that personal computers and mobile phones were also the leading causes of symptoms after the onset of electrosensitivity.
  • After the acute stage of sensitivity passed, they still reacted to wireless electronic devices, while their reaction to basic (non-wireless) electrical appliances moderated.
  • According to 76% of respondents, reducing radiation exposure contributed to their partial or full recovery.
  • Other factors that contributed to improvement and recovery: changing dietary habits (69.4%), dietary supplements (67.8%) and increased physical activity (61.6%).
  • Only 2.6% reported that the official treatment for electrosensitivity, based on psychotherapy, helped them. Psychiatric drug treatment: -4.2% (meaning respondents reported it had a negative effect on their functioning and on their electrosensitivity).
    The study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557856
    DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.02.001
    (About the study:
    http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/ViewEntry.aspx?EntryId=2568982)
    – Reducing exposure helps in coping with electrosensitivity
  1. British team, 2006 – Critique of Dr. Rubin’s Studies on Electrosensitivity (He exposed the sensitive subjects to radiation even when there was supposed to be no exposure, expected an almost immediate response, expected sensitive people to always be able to distinguish between radiation levels even when already tired and in pain, and allowed too little rest time. In practice, the non-sensitive subjects also reacted to the radiation)
    Dr. Rubin is a psychiatrist who conducted several provocation studies on electrosensitive people. In the studies, he exposed the subjects to radiation from a mobile phone simulator attached to their heads. At the end of the (relatively long) exposure, the subjects were asked to confirm whether radiation was present or not.
    The main problem with Dr. Rubin’s studies is that even during the sham exposure, when there was supposed to be no radiation exposure, the researcher exposed the subjects to various types of non-ionizing radiation, whether out of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge. The result was that most subjects, including those who were not electrosensitive, reported radiation in all the tests. The researcher concluded from this that the mobile phone simulator had a psychological effect on the subjects.
    His flawed studies are widely cited by denialists and the industry.

    In Rubin et al. (2006), the “sham” condition was treated as no exposure, yet it leaked up to 0.002 W/kg SAR, roughly 4.5 mW/m² (0.45 µW/cm²). In my experience, most moderate-to-severe EHS people react to this level within minutes. The study therefore compared two exposure levels, not exposure versus no exposure, and its conclusion that symptoms during sham were “psychological” is not supported.

    Link to the study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440612/
    Critiques:
    https://norad4u.blogspot.com/2017/02/rubins-study-on-electromagnetic-hyper.html
    https://norad4u.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-dr-james-robin-ehs-study-is.html
    http://norad4uh.blogspot.com/2017/02/blog-post_84.html

    The WHO EMF Project fact sheet on EHS (2005, never updated) relies mainly on a systematic review by Rubin et al. (2005) of provocation studies with the same design flaws. Rubin’s own provocation study (2006) then used a “sham” condition that leaked up to 0.002 W/kg (roughly 4.5 mW/m²), a level many EHS people react to within minutes.
    WHO – Electromagnetic hypersensitivity backgrounder (Dec 2005)
    Europe PMC – Rubin et al. 2005

    – Dr. Rubin’s studies are flawed and misleading, and are exploited by the industry and denialists


  2. Japanese-Swedish team, 2011 – Study on Electrosensitivity in Japan, Causes and Characteristics (Questionnaire study. Symptoms: fatigue, headaches, memory and concentration problems. What helps: reducing exposure, alternative treatment, switching to wired. Triggers: cell antennas, cordless phones, mobile phones, public transport. Consequences: job loss, reduced income)
    A questionnaire study completed by electrosensitive people (mostly women) in Japan.
  • Typical symptoms: 85% reported chronic fatigue. 81% reported headaches, memory and concentration problems, and difficulty thinking.
  • What helps: 71% used alternative treatments to ease their suffering. About 85% took steps to protect themselves from non-ionizing radiation, such as moving home or buying low-radiation equipment.
  • What usually triggers the symptoms: 37% reported that cell antennas and cordless phones trigger their symptoms. 65% reported suffering from other people’s mobile phone use on trains or buses, and 12% reported that, for this reason, they cannot use public transport.
  • Employment: 53% had a steady job before becoming electrosensitive. Most of them lost it or experienced a significant drop in income after becoming electrosensitive.
    Abstract:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22458999
    DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.02.002
    (Full study:
    https://microondes.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/kato__johansson_2012-2.pdf)
    – Documenting the effects on electrosensitive people
  1. Finnish team, 2011 – Shielding Laptop Radiation Improved the Well-Being of Electrosensitive People
  • Electrosensitive people who used a computer shielded in a cabinet for 1-7 years reached a point where they could work at the computer for a full day.
  • Those who worked with the shielded computer for 2-3 months reported partial improvement in symptoms.
  • An electrosensitive woman who used it for one week reported relief of symptoms.
    Abstract:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22364840
    DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.01.005
    (Full study, available for download for a fee:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928468012000405)
    – Effectiveness of shielding a computer to reduce exposure and symptoms
  1. British team, 2007 – Why the ESSEX Study on Detecting Electrosensitivity Is Flawed (In fact, electrosensitive people correctly identified when radiation was present in “only” 70% of the valid tests)?
    The ESSEX study took place in England and was concluded by 2009. Its goal was to test whether electrosensitive people can tell when a radiation source is on and when it is off, and distinguish between radiation sources.
    At first glance, the study was a source of hope, which turned into complete disappointment when it was published. Based on the study’s data, the group published several articles, all of them dismissing the phenomenon of electrosensitivity and claiming that the subjects have no ability to “feel” the radiation and its type.
    The study concluded that electrosensitive people cannot tell when radiation sources are on. In fact, if you look at the study’s numerical data, the electrosensitive subjects correctly identified when radiation was present in 70% of the valid tests.
    Full study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072835/
    DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10286
    Critique of the study in English:
    http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=4229
    http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/essex-study-phillip-watts.pdf)
    – The electrosensitive group identified the exposure conditions better than the control group. The results were processed to show the opposite.
  2. French researcher, 2016 – Does Electrosensitivity Originate from a Nocebo Effect? (The appearance of symptoms before the patient knew about electrosensitivity, or about radiation at all, contradicts the common and mistaken assumption that it is a psychosomatic phenomenon)
    Does electromagnetic hypersensitivity originate from nocebo responses? Indications from a qualitative study
    A study that contradicts the mistaken assumption that electrosensitivity has a psychological origin. It proposes several stages of electrosensitivity:
  • Symptoms appear
  • No solution, cure or treatment is found
  • The patient realizes it may be electrosensitivity
  • Gathering information about electrosensitivity
  • The patient comes to understand they are electrosensitive, and is gradually convinced
  • Trial and error (searching for ways to reduce exposure and improve their medical condition)
  • Full understanding and confidence in the self-diagnosis
    The appearance of symptoms before the patient knew about electrosensitivity, and about radiation in general, contradicts the common and mistaken assumption that it is a psychosomatic phenomenon.
    Abstract:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26369906
    DOI: 10.1002/bem.21937
    – Refuting the notion that electrosensitivity is a psychosomatic phenomenon
  1. Sweden, 2015 – Electrosensitivity – A Growing Challenge for Medicine
    A review article on electrosensitivity that examines the historical reports, the research in the field and recent reports. The historical reports range from cases of sensitivity in the Soviet army, through cases caused by computer screens in the early 1980s, to contemporary incidents involving wireless and mobile equipment.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109
    DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0012
    – A review of electrosensitivity
  2. Carpenter, USA, 2015 – Historical Background on Electrosensitivity and Microwave Syndrome
    Microwave syndrome is the historical name for electrosensitivity. Since the 1950s, various studies have described electrosensitivity symptoms under this name. This article presents the historical background and the historical studies and articles describing these symptoms and the syndrome.
    The author calls for electrosensitivity to be recognized as a disease.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26556835
    DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0016
    – A historical review of studies on electrosensitivity symptoms.
  3. International team from Russia, Italy and Malaysia, 2014 (Chiara De Luca, Jeffrey Chung Sheun Thai, Desanka Raskovic, Eleonora Cesareo, Daniela Caccamo, Arseny Trukhanov and Liudmila Korkina) – Study Found Biological and Genetic Markers of Sensitivity to Radiation and Chemicals
    “Metabolic and Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention”
    From the study: “We tested a panel of 12 metabolic blood redox-related parameters and of selected drug-metabolizing-enzyme gene polymorphisms on 153 EHS, 147 MCS, and 132 control Italians, confirming MCS altered (P < 0.05–0.0001) glutathione-(GSH), GSH-peroxidase/S-transferase, and catalase erythrocyte activities. We first described comparable—though milder—metabolic pro-oxidant/proinflammatory alterations in EHS with a distinctively increased plasma coenzyme-Q10 oxidation ratio. Severe depletion of erythrocyte membrane polyunsaturated fatty acids with increased ω6/ω3 ratio was confirmed in MCS, but not in EHS. We also identified significantly (P = 0.003) altered distribution-versus-control of the CYP2C19∗1/∗2 SNP variants in EHS, and a 9.7-fold increased risk (OR: 95% C.I. = 1.3–74.5) of developing EHS for the haplotype (null)GSTT1 + (null)GSTM1 variants.”
    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/mi/2014/924184/
    DOI: 10.1155/2014/924184
    – Diagnosing electrosensitivity.
  4. European team, 2015 – The European Academy for Environmental Medicine’s Guideline on Non-Ionizing Radiation
    At the end of 2016, a European team published a research review and summary of ways to prevent, diagnose and treat the medical consequences of exposure to non-ionizing radiation and electrosensitivity.
    Igor Belyaev, Amy Dean, Horst Eger, Gerhard Hubmann, Reinhold Jandrisovits, Olle Johansson, Markus Kern, Michael Kundi, Piero Lercher, Wilhelm Mosgöller, Hanns Moshammer, Kurt Müller, Gerd Oberfeld, Peter Ohnsorge, Peter Pelzmann, Claus Scheingraber and Roby Thill – EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses
    The article:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111
    DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011
    (About the article in Hebrew:
    http://norad4uh.blogspot.com/2015/12/blog-post_7.html
    Hebrew translation of the article’s abstract:
    http://norad4uh.blogspot.com/2016/02/europaem-emf-guideline-2015.html)
    – Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the medical consequences of exposure to non-ionizing radiation and electrosensitivity.
  5. Austrian Medical Association, 2012 – The Austrian Medical Association’s Guideline for Diagnosing and Managing Electrosensitivity
    In 2012, the Austrian Medical Association was the first to define ways to diagnose and treat electrosensitivity, making it a pioneer in the field.
    Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome). Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF Working Group (AG-EMF).
    https://www.vagbrytaren.org/Guideline%20%20AG-EMF.pdf
    – Diagnosis and treatment of electrosensitivity
  6. Johansson and Redmayne, 2014 – Article on the Effect of Radio Frequency Radiation on the Myelin Sheath of Nerves
    In this article, the authors review the effects of low-level radio frequency radiation on the myelin sheath (which serves as an insulating layer around the nerves), and the effects of damage to this layer on the neurological condition of humans and animals. Among other things, the authors note that:
  • Exposure to non-ionizing radiation damaged the myelin sheath in rats.
  • Damage to the myelin sheath led to an increased risk of multiple sclerosis.
  • An effect was found on proteins involved in producing myelin.
  • Many symptoms of electrosensitive people resemble the symptoms of people whose myelin sheath has been damaged.
    The study:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25205214
    DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2014.923356
    – A damage mechanism that contributes to electrosensitivity
  1. International team, 2016 – Critique of a 2016 Exposure Study
    “Effects of personalised exposure on self-rated electromagnetic hypersensitivity and sensibility – A double-blind randomised controlled trial”
    In this study, the researchers tried to address two of the problems in previous exposure studies on electrosensitivity: the test environment and the type of exposure. Although the researchers intended to test the subjects in a low-radiation environment and expose them to the type of radiation they are particularly sensitive to, the study suffers from many problems. The main ones are:
  1. German team, 2017 – fMRI Brain Scans Showed Major Differences Between the Brains of Electrosensitive and Non-Sensitive People
    In this pilot study, fMRI scans were performed on the brains of about 10 electrosensitive people and 69 non-sensitive people. The scans showed a clear and distinctive abnormality in all the electrosensitive subjects.
    The study therefore strengthens the possibility that electrosensitive people have differences in brain function (a pathological finding), and that fMRI could be a diagnostic tool for electrosensitivity.
    During fMRI there is exposure to high levels of non-ionizing radiation (about 3,000,000 milligauss, plus radio frequency radiation). This raises the possibility that the brains of the electrosensitive subjects reacted during the exposure-scan, so the scan results were in fact affected by the exposure itself (which actually demonstrates exposure => reaction).
    In the image: on the right, the scan results of a control subject; on the left, the scan results of an electrosensitive subject.
    Abstract:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28678737
    DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2017-0014
    (Press release:
    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pilot-study-shows-dramatic-difference-in-brain-activity-with-ehs-electrohypersensitive-cases-as-compared-to-controls-non-ehs-300566854.html)
    – Pathological findings in electrosensitivity; fMRI may be usable as a diagnostic tool for electrosensitive people.
  2. Sweden, 2016 – Critique of a Study – Psychological Symptoms in Electrosensitive People
    The 2016 study “Psychological symptoms and health-related quality of life in idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields” showed more psychological symptoms and poorer health among people who defined themselves as electrosensitive. The study was conducted by psychologists, and it is cited from time to time by those who deny electrosensitivity.
    But unlike what the denialists want to prove, the study does not prove that electrosensitivity is caused by psychological problems. It shows that among people who defined themselves as electrosensitive, there were more psychological problems and poorer health. That is not the same thing.
    The health problems and physical pain resulting from electrosensitivity are understandable. The psychological problems some electrosensitive people show stem from post-trauma caused by:
  • The experience of severe pain with every exposure.
  • Continued exposure and severe symptoms in the early stages, when the person does not yet understand what is causing them (and does not reduce exposure).
  • The system’s and the environment’s denial of the connection, once it has been found and is already clear to the person harmed by the radiation.
    The study can be misunderstood by denialists, who mistranslate the sentence “The results suggest that IEI-EMF is associated with various types of psychological symptoms and with poor HRQoL”. Electrosensitivity is “associated with” these symptoms, not “caused by” them. Such a misunderstanding and jumping to conclusions is typical of readers who don’t understand electrosensitivity, have not experienced it, do not treat it, suffer from confirmation bias themselves and don’t understand the subject.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27095153
    PMID: 27095153, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.03.006
    – Electrosensitive people suffer more from psychological problems.
  1. Israel-USA (Yael Stein, Iris G Udasin ), 2020 – Electrosensitivity – A Review of Mechanisms
    This article reviews the mechanisms, health background, and possible causes of electrosensitivity, based on an analysis of research in the field and on following the health of electrosensitive people.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32289567/
    PMID: 32289567, DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109445
    (Full article:
    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061559548743/EHS%20Mechanisms%20YS%20IU.pdf)
  2. 32 leading scientists in the field from around the world, 07-2021 – 32 Leading Scientists – Electrosensitivity Must Be Recognized as a Distinct Neurological Disorder
    In a summary article by more than 30 leading scientists researching the field around the world, led by Professor Belpomme, the researchers call for:
  • Scientific recognition of electrosensitivity as a distinct neurological disorder.
  • Inclusion of electrosensitivity in the World Health Organization’s list of diseases.
    “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”
    The researchers also come out against provocation studies that focus on the subject’s ability to detect radiation, conducted before electrosensitivity was even defined as a disease and its characteristics defined:
    “This is particularly the case for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and more particularly for the so-called “provocation tests”, which do not investigate the causal origin of EHS but rather the EHS-associated particular environmental intolerance state with hypersensitivity to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, because those tests depend on multiple EMF-associated physical and biological parameters and have been conducted in patients without having first defined EHS objectively and/or endpoints adequately, they cannot presently be considered to be valid pathogenesis research methodologies. Consequently, the negative results obtained by these tests do not preclude a role of EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS patients. Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects.”
    https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/14/7321
    Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(14), 7321, DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147321
    – Electrosensitivity must be recognized as a distinct neurological disorder and added to the World Health Organization’s list of diseases. Provocation studies are not representative and not suitable.
  1. Canada, Prof. Magda Havas – Prof. Magda Havas – Radio Frequency Radiation Affects Heart Rate in Electrosensitive People
    The study was published in 2021. It was conducted on 69 people, some electrosensitive and some not. Effects on heart rate were seen in some of the electrosensitive subjects. The researchers conducted similar experiments in 2011 and 2013. Heart rhythm disturbance is a known and common symptom among electrosensitive people.
    Original Findings Confirmed in Replication Study: Provocation with 2.4 GHz Cordless Phone affects the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) as measured by Heart Rate Variability (HRV)
    https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/2605
    DOI: 10.18103/mra.v9i11.2605
    (Original study:
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23675629/
    Detailed explanations about the study:
    https://www.norad4u.co.il/2021/12/20/6293/)
  2. Italian team, 12/2022 – New Study – 19 Biological Markers in the Plasma of Fibromyalgia Patients with Electrosensitivity
    The study compared biological markers in the blood tests of 54 fibromyalgia patients with electrosensitivity to the blood tests of 23 healthy people.
    The findings showed about 19 significant differences in biological markers between the blood tests of the “sensitive” and the “healthy”.
    The markers are related to:
  • Metabolism and energy
  • Muscles
  • Oxidative stress
  • Chronic pain
    Received 23 July 2022, accepted 1 December 2022, published 19 December 2022.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25588-2
    DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25588-2
    (Free-to-read version:
    https://rdcu.be/c1WrH)
    – In my humble opinion, the study shortens the path to diagnosing electrosensitive people, and perhaps even to recognizing electrosensitivity, at least in terms of suffering and limitations, similar to the recognition of fibromyalgia patients.
  1. ICBE-EMF – ICBE-EMF – Electrosensitivity Is a Humanitarian Crisis Requiring an Immediate Response
    https://icbe-emf.org/activities/electrohypersensitivity/
    (Explanation:
    https://www.norad4u.co.il/studies-h/reports-declarations/#ICBE-EMF_-_rgyswt_lqrynh_hynh_msbr_hwmnytry_hdwrs_tgwbh_myydyt)
  2. British team, 2024 – Article – Various Types of Non-Ionizing Radiation Affect Animals
    A publication by Alasdair Philips from England, an electronics engineer who runs the POWER WATCH website, on mechanisms by which very low-level electromagnetic fields affect animals and organisms in the animal kingdom. This contradicts the position of the standard-setting bodies (ICNIRP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and other denialists that non-ionizing radiation at levels below the standards has no biological effects (on humans).
    The authors note that:
  • The existing science on animals is extensive and well-established, and contradicts the position of the standard-setting bodies and the World Health Organization.
  • Most exposure studies on electrosensitivity conducted to date are based on a partial and incorrect understanding of radiation’s effect on biological systems, and suffer from many errors in experimental design and execution.
    Henshaw, D. L., & Philips, A. (2024). A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). International Journal of Radiation Biology, 101(2), 186–204.
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329
    DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329
    (Expansion, translation and images:
    https://www.norad4u.co.il/2024/12/24/9647/
    POWER WATCH:
    https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/)
    – The basic assumption that non-ionizing radiation has no biological effects is wrong. Exposure studies on electrosensitive people are flawed. Non-ionizing radiation affects animals at levels low relative to existing standards.
  1. French team, 2025 – Biological Findings (DNA Breaks, Impaired Repair) in Electrosensitive People, in Relation to Radiation Exposure
    A study published in MDPI found significant biological findings in people who define themselves as electromagnetically hypersensitive (EHS). The researchers analyzed skin cells (fibroblasts) from the participants and found:
  • Two distinct biological subgroups among the sensitive people:
    a. Those with an acute response at very low exposure
    b. Those with a relatively low response at very high exposure
  • Impaired DNA damage repair processes, including double-strand DNA breaks.
  • Delayed movement of the ATM protein, a key part of the repair mechanism. This phenomenon does not occur in non-sensitive people.
  • A link between the reported symptoms and real biological measurements.
    Conclusion: The study provides a scientific basis for the view that electrosensitivity is not just a “mental problem”, but may be a bi…
    https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/10/4792
    Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26(10), 4792, DOI: 10.3390/ijms26104792
    – Biological findings (DNA breaks and repair problems) in electrosensitive people

List of studies without details

  1. USA 2012 – Physiological and Neurological Changes in an Electrosensitive Subject Exposed to a 60 Hz Electric Field
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784
    – An electrosensitive subject was able to detect exposure to a strong electric field.
  2. European team of scientists led by Belpomme, 2015 – Belpomme’s Study – Biological Markers in People Sensitive to Radiation and Chemicals
    http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2015.30.issue-4/reveh-2015-0027/reveh-2015-0027.xml?format=INT
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326
    – Physiological markers and diagnosis of electrosensitivity
  3. Turkish-Finnish team, 2013 – New Study on Electrosensitivity – Psychiatric Treatment Doesn’t Help, Reducing Exposure Does!
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557856
    DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.02.001
    – Reducing exposure helps in coping with electrosensitivity
  4. British team, 2006 – Critique of Dr. Rubin’s Studies on Electrosensitivity (He exposed the sensitive subjects to radiation even when there was supposed to be no exposure, expected an almost immediate response, expected sensitive people to always be able to distinguish between radiation levels even when already tired and in pain, and allowed too little rest time. In practice, the non-sensitive subjects also reacted to the radiation)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440612/
    – Dr. Rubin’s studies are flawed and misleading, and are exploited by the industry and denialists
  5. Japanese-Swedish team, 2011 – Study on Electrosensitivity in Japan, Causes and Characteristics (Questionnaire study. Symptoms: fatigue, headaches, memory and concentration problems. What helps: reducing exposure, alternative treatment, switching to wired. Triggers: cell antennas, cordless phones, mobile phones, public transport. Consequences: job loss, reduced income)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22458999
    https://microondes.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/kato__johansson_2012-2.pdf
    DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.02.002
    – Documenting the effects on electrosensitive people
  6. Finnish team, 2011 – Shielding Laptop Radiation Improved the Well-Being of Electrosensitive People
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22364840
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928468012000405
    DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.01.005
    – Effectiveness of shielding a computer to reduce exposure and symptoms
  7. British team, 2007 – Why the ESSEX Study on Detecting Electrosensitivity Is Flawed (In fact, electrosensitive people correctly identified when radiation was present in “only” 70% of the valid tests)?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072835/
    DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10286
    – The electrosensitive group identified the exposure conditions better than the control group. The results were processed to show the opposite.
  8. French researcher, 2016 – Does Electrosensitivity Originate from a Nocebo Effect? (The appearance of symptoms before the patient knew about electrosensitivity, or about radiation at all, contradicts the common and mistaken assumption that it is a psychosomatic phenomenon)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26369906
    DOI: 10.1002/bem.21937
    – Refuting the notion that electrosensitivity is a psychosomatic phenomenon
  9. Sweden, 2015 – Electrosensitivity – A Growing Challenge for Medicine
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109
    DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0012
    – A review of electrosensitivity
  10. Carpenter, USA, 2015 – Historical Background on Electrosensitivity and Microwave Syndrome
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26556835
    DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0016
    – A historical review of studies on electrosensitivity symptoms.
  11. International team from Russia, Italy and Malaysia, 2014 (Chiara De Luca, Jeffrey Chung Sheun Thai, Desanka Raskovic, Eleonora Cesareo, Daniela Caccamo, Arseny Trukhanov and Liudmila Korkina) – Study Found Biological and Genetic Markers of Sensitivity to Radiation and Chemicals
    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/mi/2014/924184/
    DOI: 10.1155/2014/924184
    – Diagnosing electrosensitivity.
  12. European team, 2015 – The European Academy for Environmental Medicine’s Guideline on Non-Ionizing Radiation
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111
    DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011
    – Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the medical consequences of exposure to non-ionizing radiation and electrosensitivity.
  13. Austrian Medical Association, 2012 – The Austrian Medical Association’s Guideline for Diagnosing and Managing Electrosensitivity
    https://www.vagbrytaren.org/Guideline%20%20AG-EMF.pdf
    – Diagnosis and treatment of electrosensitivity
  14. Johansson and Redmayne, 2014 – Article on the Effect of Radio Frequency Radiation on the Myelin Sheath of Nerves
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25205214
    DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2014.923356
    – A damage mechanism that contributes to electrosensitivity
  15. International team, 2016 – Critique of a 2016 Exposure Study
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.031
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.031
    – A study that tries to improve, but still makes many mistakes.
  16. German team, 2017 – fMRI Brain Scans Showed Major Differences Between the Brains of Electrosensitive and Non-Sensitive People
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28678737
    DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2017-0014
    – Pathological findings in electrosensitivity; fMRI may be usable as a diagnostic tool for electrosensitive people.
  17. Sweden, 2016 – Critique of a Study – Psychological Symptoms in Electrosensitive People
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27095153
    PMID: 27095153, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.03.006
    – Electrosensitive people suffer more from psychological problems.
  18. Israel-USA, 2020 – Electrosensitivity – A Review of Mechanisms
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32289567/
    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061559548743/EHS%20Mechanisms%20YS%20IU.pdf
    PMID: 32289567, DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109445
  19. 32 leading scientists in the field from around the world, 07-2021 – 32 Leading Scientists – Electrosensitivity Must Be Recognized as a Distinct Neurological Disorder
    https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/14/7321
    DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147321
    – Electrosensitivity must be recognized as a distinct neurological disorder and added to the World Health Organization’s list of diseases. Provocation studies are not representative and not suitable.
  20. Canada, Prof. Magda Havas – Prof. Magda Havas – Radio Frequency Radiation Affects Heart Rate in Electrosensitive People
    https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/2605
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23675629/
    DOI: 10.18103/mra.v9i11.2605
  21. Italian team, 12/2022 – New Study – 19 Biological Markers in the Plasma of Fibromyalgia Patients with Electrosensitivity
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25588-2
    https://rdcu.be/c1WrH
    DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25588-2
    – In my humble opinion, the study shortens the path to diagnosing electrosensitive people, and perhaps even to recognizing electrosensitivity, at least in terms of suffering and limitations, similar to the recognition of fibromyalgia patients.
  22. ICBE-EMF – ICBE-EMF – Electrosensitivity Is a Humanitarian Crisis Requiring an Immediate Response
    https://icbe-emf.org/activities/electrohypersensitivity/
  23. British team, 2024 – Article – Various Types of Non-Ionizing Radiation Affect Animals
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329
    DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329
    – The basic assumption that non-ionizing radiation has no biological effects is wrong. Exposure studies on electrosensitive people are flawed. Non-ionizing radiation affects animals at levels low relative to existing standards.
  24. French team, 2025 – Biological Findings (DNA Breaks, Impaired Repair) in Electrosensitive People, in Relation to Radiation Exposure
    https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/10/4792
    DOI: 10.3390/ijms26104792
    – Biological findings (DNA breaks and repair problems) in electrosensitive people