Noorwegen: Survey onder leden van de Noorse EHS vereniging.

De Noorse vereniging voor mensen met EHS (Electro Hyper Sensitivity) heeft de resultaten gepubliceerd van een survey onder haar leden in de jaren 2007-2008.
Onderstaand de samenvatting in het Engels. Nederlandse samenvatting volgt.

Bron: EMFacts Consultancy 31 jan 2011

From Bente Gilbu Tilset :

L. A. Solberg and B. G. Tilset: ”Eloverfølsomhet i Norge –
rapport fra spørreundersøkelse 2007-2008” FELO 2010,
Printed version: ISBN: 978-82-998421-0-5;

Electronic version:
epapir.info/felo/Rapport_V12_211210/index.html;
ISBN: 978-82-998421-1-2

The English summary:

FELO (The Association for Electrohypersensitive) Norwaysent
questionnaires to all 364 members in the winter of 2007-2008. 184
answers were received, giving a rather low response rate of 51 %. The
two main reasons for this are probably: the questionnaires were sent
together with a newsletter and might have been overlooked, and FELO
may have a number of “supporting members” that are not
electrohypersensitive (EHS) themselves. The survey was conducted in
order to document the electromagnetic sources that the EHS react to,
the symptoms they experience, the treatments and
interventions/actions that help, and how their handicap affects daily
life. The results will be used in the work for improving the
conditions for EHS both in Norway and internationally. Some of the
main results are summarized below.

*The respondents*
The people who answered the survey had an essentially higher level of
education than the average in the Norwegian population. They were
also overrepresented in occupations that require a lot of computer
work. 77 % of the respondents were women - in accord with the gender
distribution among FELO members. The respondents had been EHS for an
average of 11 years.

*The sources*
The sources that most reacted to were mobile phones, fluorescent
lighting (including energy-saving compact fluorescent lamps),
oldfashioned computer- and TV-screens, and wireless networks. Most
reacted to 10-14 of the 19 sources listed in the questionnaire. The
sources included both low-frequency electric and magnetic fields and
high-frequency radiation.

*The symptoms*
Most EHS experienced 12-15 different symptoms – out of the 18 that
were listed. It was common to experience an “acute phase” with
more intense symptoms. In the acute phase, the most serious symptoms
were a general feeling of being unwell, exhaustion, concentration
problems, “pressure” in the head/headache, joint/muscle pain, and
dizziness. Most experienced partial recovery after different
actions/treatments. The worst symptoms were then exhaustion,
joint/muscle pain, hypersensitivity to light/sound/smell,
concentration problems, and a general feeling of being unwell.

*Timeline of symptoms*
The survey showed that symptoms appeared after varying duration of
exposure; some people reacted after a short exposure, others after
several hours’. Many experienced delayed reactions – symptoms
could occur up to one and a half day after exposure. The time for
full recovery (after the end of exposure) also varied; from immediate
recovery to “never”. Several wrote that the timeline varied,
depending on the radiation type, intensity, and duration.

*Working life*
Only 22 % of the respondents were working full time. 7 % were
unemployed, working at home (housewives), or students. 42 % were
partly or completely disabled, while 13 % were partly or completely
on sick leave. Thus, more than half of the respondents were partly or
completely excluded from working due to their health problems.

*Diagnoses*
Since electrohypersensitivity is not a recognized diagnosis, other
diagnoses were used for sick leaves. The one most frequently used was
exhaustion, followed by muscular pain and psychiatric problems.

*Reasons for electrohypersensitivity*
Most believed that a combination of factors led to their
electrohypersensitivity. 63 respondents mentioned high exposure to
mobile phones, computers, wireless networks and/or office machines.
Transformers, power lines and/or mobile phone masts were mentioned by
43. 56 mentioned amalgam or mercury poisoning as a (contributing)
factor for EHS.

*Treatments*
We asked the respondents to list treatments that had helped and
treatments that had NOT helped them.
• Among the medical treatments i, 57 had positive effects from
different nutritional interventions. Vitamins and minerals were most
commonly mentioned (38). 14 respondents had not been helped by
nutritional interventions – therefore the success rate ii was 80 %.

• Dental treatment had helped 29 of the respondents. Most of these
had removed metal and/or amalgam. 5 people had not been helped by
dental treatment – thus the success rate was 85 %. Several
commented that it could take a long time before one noticed any
improvements – and some had experienced a temporary worsening of
symptoms. Some commented that amalgam removal should be carried out
with good ventilation and/or a fresh-air mask.
• Few had experienced positive effects after treatment by a medical
doctor (8) or psychologist (3). No effect of these treatments was
reported by 39 and 9 respondents, respectively. Thus, the success
rates were 17 % for medical and 25 % for psychological treatment.
• Several had tried different forms of alternative treatments.
Acupuncture and homeopathy had helped 22 and 21, respectively.
Others, however, had no effect of these treatments (16 and 10,
respectively). Thus, the success rates were 52 % for acupuncture and
66 % for homeopathy.

*Other interventions*
The interventions that had the largest positive effect were: keeping
a distance to and/or avoiding fields and radiation (104 persons).
Electromagnetic sanitization was mentioned by 97. Success rates were
96 % and 98 %, respectively. Several mentioned the importance of a
radiation-free place to sleep. Avoiding electromagnetic fields and
radiation gave a larger improvement in health than any of the
treatments that were tried.

*Moving*
More than 40 % of the EHS had moved or wanted to move due to
electrical installations in the house, or due to wireless networks,
mobile phone masts, high-voltage power lines and/or transformers
close to their house. In average, the respondents had moved 2.1
times. One person had moved 10 times!

*Attitudes*
About half experienced that their family doctor did not understand
their electrohypersensitivity. Most respondents still received help
like medical examinations and sick notes. More than 30 % reported
little or varying understanding of their situation from friends and
family. More than 60 % experienced little or varying understanding
from strangers. This lack of understanding is an additional strain for
the EHS.

*Everyday life*
Economy, social activity and general quality of life are reduced for
people with EHS. In the acute phase, most respondents had to either
avoid certain activities and/or places, or they could only stay in
shielded/adapted places. After some time (with interventions and/or
treatments) most experienced an improvement. For those who were most
severely affected (5 persons), everyday life was very difficult. They
needed total isolation from modern society and had to live in a house
without electricity - far from radiation sources.

Voor de originele berichtgeving zie:
www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1398 .

_



Lees verder in de categorie Berichten Internationaal | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie