ELECTROHYPERSENSITIVITY (EHS): IS IT REAL? DOES IT EXIST?

By Evelyn Savarin
Cellular Phone Task Force
evsavarin@yahoo.com
okt. 2015

EHS was first identified in the Russian research of 1950s and 60s under the term ‘Microwave
syndrome’. The term described a litany of symptoms and illnesses observed in Russian workers
occupationally exposed to higher levels of electromagnetic/ microwave radiation.

The first of many subsequent critiques and reports on the Russian Studies was the Dodge Report
1969 and later by Glaser, 1971. Their reports documented over 2,300 Russian studies and
references that identified a plethora of symptoms and illnesses ranging from those frequently
ascribed to EMF exposure as sleep disorders, headaches, depression, dizziness, nervousness,
memory problems, digestion, heart irregularities, tinnitus, to the more obscure, such as
trembling eyelids, changes in olfactory sensitivity, loss of hair as well as many bio-chemical
effects. 1,2

Based on many of those early studies, most East European countries, Russia and China adopted RF emission standards 1,000 to 10,000 times lower than the West. The Eastern Countries believed lower emission thresholds were justified in order to protect the population from the Biological effects that was evidenced in the Eastern research at the time. Meanwhile the West justified their higher RF safety thresholds simply using a safety factor from the physical heating health effects of RF/microwave emission. According to Western science, physical heating was the only definitive health risk from RF /microwave emission observed in the research up to that time. 3

Reports generated by Western governments have been critical of the Russian and Eurasian lower
Safety standards and the efficacy of their original research. The West’s assessment of the
Russian studies did not demonstrate a rationale for the 1,000 times lower Eastern Emission
Standards. 4 However a later 1979 more obscure government paper, the McCree Report, did in
Reports generated by Western governments have been critical of the Russian and Eurasian lower
Safety standards and the efficacy of their original research. The West’s assessment of the
Russian studies did not demonstrate a rationale for the 1,000 times lower Eastern Emission
Standards. 4 However a later 1979 more obscure government paper, the McCree Report, did in
fact confirm Euro-Soviet research was valid. 5 Despite that confirmation, American and Western
countries never found a justification to change to our 1,000 times higher RF emission
standards.4Interestingly, while US and other Western countries held dear to the higher emission
standards based on the ‘Heating’ of tissue rationale, the US Military at the same time was
conveniently looking into offensive RF — electromagnetic weaponry that could disrupt bodily
functions and alter behavior at below heating thresholds. 15
________________________________________________
In recent years conflicting evidence has pitted Industry against independently-sponsored research as to whether Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a real or imagined disorder. In industry-supported
research, EHS is considered an idiopathic disorder. Essentially, a series of health complaints
looking for a cause.This research conveys the opinion that patients reporting EHS have wrongly associated electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as the cause of their symptoms and disabilities. Instead
those scientists subscribe it to psychosomatic reasons. 6

From a series of provocation studies,industry-supported scientists have come to the conclusion
thatindividuals self reporting EHScannot detect whether an RF signal is on or off with any
degree of accuracy, anddo not show any biological differences from non-reporting individuals
during exposure.6The scientists conducting the studies automatically assumed that to be
legitimately designated aselectrohypersensitive, self proclaimed EHS patients should show a
clearresponsedistinction in those two areas from the non-reporting group.

Much of thoseprovocation studies were heavily funded by Mobile Telephone carriers 7 and led
by James Rubin PhD, a psychologist teaching at King's College in London.6

Closer examination on the methodology of these studies shows a disregard for science,
common sense and a clear obfuscation and misinterpretation of the results

Common sense dictates that after prolonged or repeated exposure to a stimulant or depressant the
body reduces its initial ability to respond or detect the stimulus in the same original manner., i.e.
smoking, alcohol, drugs, smells etc. Instead, with continued and greater exposure, we find the
body may begin to adapt, or experience changes and disorders very different and potentially
more debilitating to health than the original physical reaction to the exposure, i.e..cirrhoses of
the liver, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, violent behavior, etc.

The Russian studies of the 1960s clearly lay out how the process EHS develops over time. It
begins with periods of stimulation and heightened awareness, followed by a period of adaptation
and eventually followed by a period of organism decline. However if EMFs are removed during
the stages of stimulation and adaptation, the organism can potentially recover from many of the
disabling symptoms experienced throughout the exposures. Reintroduction of EMFs and
increasing exposure can often lead to more acute and fatal illnesses. 8

In a series of provocation studies performed between 2005 and 2009, Langrebe& Frick found
EHS individuals were NOT capable of detecting a magnetic stimulating device (on/off), while, in
contrast, non-EHS test subjects were able to detect the device emissions with great percent of
accuracy. The researchers concluded EHS individuals' lack of accuracy was probably due to
‘‘dysfunctional cortical process leading to reduced adaption’’. 9This is an interesting conclusion
which clearly contradicts Dr. Rubins’s original premise that EHS people should theoretically be
able to detect the signal/EMF stimulus, while non-EHS individuals should not..

In Dr. Rubin’s review he states that the cause of headaches during a cell phone call is
psychological and probably caused by the more neurotic, fearful responses observed in EHS individuals. Then he proceeds to attribute the neurotic behavior to perhaps a lack of sleep,
implying that headaches should be symptomatic of EHS reporting individuals, while loss of sleep
is NOT related! 6 This is blatant ignorance of EHS science which repeatedly identifies sleep
disorders as a primary bioeffect of EMF-RF exposure. (see studies above). (unfortunately this
should have some citations but I don’t have time to provide. This piece was part of a larger
report I created which had those citations)

A review of the literature of the following four provocation electrohypersensitivity studies, rather
than less, one finds more similarity between EHS individuals and non-reporting test subjects
exposed to RFs(10,11,12,13)

• Both groups shared sleep problems, headaches, stress related cellular changes, and
cognitive performance changes when exposed to cell phone simulation signals.
• The interesting distinction between the two groups is the timing and the magnitude of
reactions that was reported and observed by the two groups.

Dr Paul Dart M.D, a distinguished Oregon naturopathic medical physician and author who has
treated many EHS individuals in his practice,clearly lays out in a 2013 report the misleading
methods and conclusions of industry-funded provocation studies. He does an extensive research
review that clearly shows the many biochemical changes experienced by a percentage of
population exposed to current levels of RF emissions.14

Perhaps the greatest distinction between EHS reporting individuals and the non-reporting group
can be summarized by saying that EHS individuals may be more non-conforming as they seek
out causes and solutions to their physical problems. Rather than accept the popularly prescribed
ways to resolve, suppress or dismiss their physical symptoms, they feel compelled to search
deeper and wider into their environment for causes and solutions.

Studies & References on Electrohypersensitivity

1) Dodge, Christopher; “Clinical and Hygenic Aspects of Exposure to Electromagnetic
radiation”;Bioscience Division of US Navy, 1969.
www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Dodge_1969.pdf

2) Glaser, Zorach R; “BIBLIOGPHY OF REPORTED BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA
('EFFECTS') AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO MICROWAVE
AND RADIO-FREQUENCY RADIATION”; USNaval Medical Institute, Oct 1971
www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20091016_naval_studies.pdf

3) Cleary, Stephen; “Biological Effectsand Health Implications of Microwave
Radiation”;Symposium proceedings Edited by Stephen F. Cleary, Dept of Biophysics, Virginia
Commonwealth University, US Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, June 1970.Report
documenting the state of the art of international research and controversies on the
biologicaleffects of low-intensity microwave emissions.
www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/Biological_Effects_and_Health_Implications_of_Microwave_Radiation.pdf

4) Foster, Kenneth R.; “Criteria for EMF Standards Harmonization”;
Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania
www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/day2Varna_Foster.pdf

5) McCree, Donald; “REVIEW OF SOVIET/EASTERN EUROPEAN RESEARCH ON
HEALTH ASPECTS OF MICROWAVE RADIATION”; National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences Research Triangle Park, North Carolina;Presented at
theSymposium on the Health Aspects of Nonionizing Radiation heldat the NY Academy of
MedicineApril 9 and 10, 1979.Published in the Bulletin of the NY Academy of Medicine, Vol. 55, No. 11, December 1979
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1807746/

6) Rubin, G James; “Electrosensitivity: A Case for Caution with Precaution”; King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry
archive.radiationresearch.org/conference/downloads/011555_rubin_extra.pdf

7) International Scientific Conference on EMF and Health, 2011; sponsored by the European
Commission's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
(SCENIHR), P.4
www.elektrosmognews.de/Brussels_2011_EMF_Conference__CONFLICTS_OF_INTEREST.pdf
#page=4&search=”James Rubin

8) Troyanskiy, M P;“HYGIENIC PROBLEMS OF THE EFFECT OF MICROWAVE,
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS ON THE BODY”; Russian-language journal GIGIYENA
I SANITARlYA, No 8, 1972, Moscow; translation by Joint Publication Services of the Dept of Commerce
www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Russian-HYGIENIC_PROBLEMS_OF_THE_EFFECT_OF_MICROWAVE_ELECTROMAGNETIC_FIELDS_ON_THE_BODY.pdf

9) Shows our inability to distinguish when signals occur may be a result of dysfunctional cortical
processes that cannot adapt to on/off situations. Showed more tinnitus (ringing of the ears) from
exposure conditions. Langrebe M, Frick U; “ELF exposure to hypersensitive individuals and
analysis of hypersensitivity, perception, effects on motor skills, and tinnitus”; Psychiatric
University Hospital in Regensburg, Germany2005- 2009;
apps.who.int/peh-emf/research/database/IEEEdatabase/viewstudy.cfm?ID=1434

10) Improved performance on cognitive tasks by EHS as exposure continued.
Wiholm, C et al.; “900 (GSM) exposure to humans and analysis of cognitive function
(working memory in a virtual water maze)”; WHO Database on Electromagnetic Radiation, ID # 256; Bioelectromagnetics, (2008)
apps.who.int/peh-emf/research/database/IEEEdatabase/viewstudy.cfm?ID=256

11) Both groups reported headache symptoms to cell frequency exposure, however it appears the
non-EHS group had slightly more reported headaches and lasted longer after exposure turned
off. Both groups showed dermatological symptoms when the exposures were on.
Hillert L1, Akerstedt T, et al: “The effects of 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals
on headache and other symptoms: an experimental provocation study”;Department of Public
Health Sciences, Division of Occupational Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.;
Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Apr;29(3):18596.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044740

12) Both non-EHS group & ES group experienced headaches when phones were turned on, and could detect the signal with the same degree percentage of accuracy.
Rubin GJ et al; “Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants
double blind randomized provocation study.”;King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry,
Department of Psychological Medicine; BMJ. 2006 Apr 15;332(7546):886-91. Epub2006 Mar 6.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520326

13) Similar sleep brain wave disturbances by both hypersensitive and non-EHS group under
similar exposure conditions. Slight differences in amount of brain wave changes between groups.
Lowden A1, Akerstedt T , Ingre M, Wiholm C, Hillert L, Kuster N, Nilsson JP,
ArnetzB ;“Sleep after mobile phone exposure in subjects with mobile phone-related
symptoms.”; Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Sweden: Bioelectromagnetics.
2011Jan;32(1):4-14.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20857453

14) Dart P. MD, Cordes K. MD, Elliott A. ND, Knackstedt J. MD, Morgan J. MD, Wible P.
MD, Baker S.;“BIOLOGICAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF MICROWAVE
RADIOFREQUENCY TRANSMISSIONS: A REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH
LITERATURE “;Report to the Eugene Water and Electric Board, Eugene, Oregon, June2013
skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/paul-dart-md-lead-author-report-to-ewebjune-
2013.pdf
skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/dart-presentation.pdf

15) THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM IN LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT,By
Capt Paul E Tyler MC USN; Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education; Maxwell
Air Force Base Alabama
Original Document:
www.icomw.org/documents/tyler.pdf
Clearer Version
inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/low-intensity-conflict-and-moderntechnology/



Lees verder in de categorie Artikelen | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie