Hypersensitivity
Hypersensitivity or electrical sensitivity is a condition reported
by some people where they are extremely sensitive to electric or
magnetic fields, reacting to even quite low levels in various ways
such as headaches and stress.
Review by Rubin et al
In 2005, a review was published. It concludes
that:
“The symptoms described by "electromagnetic hypersensitivity"
sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However,
it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure
to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that "electromagnetic
hypersensitivity" is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although
more research into this phenomenon is required.”
Review by HPA
In November 2005, the UK Health Protection Agency 
(HPA) published
a report
on electrical sensitivity.
It was commissioned by HPA from an outside expert, Dr Neil Irvine,
in response to criticisms that the last major HPA review of EMFs,
in 2004, gave insufficient weight to electrical sensitivity. The
report centres on power-frequency fields, with passing reference
to radio frequencies.
The report is specifically cast as NOT being concerned about aetiology
– what causes the symptoms – but instead as being about
understanding and describing the symptoms. On aetiology, the report
does however note:
“a recent review [ie NRPB 2004] .. found no compelling
causal evidence for health effects…”
“the use of the term ES [electrical sensitivity] in this
review does not imply the acceptance of a causal relationship
between symptoms and attributed exposure, however.”
“While sufferers and their support groups are firmly convinced
of a causal relationship with EMFs, the majority of mainstream
scientific opinion does not consider there to be robust evidence
of such a relationship. This position is supported by a recent
systematic review of 31 blind or double-blind provocation studies…”
The report thoroughly reviews the existing literature of electrical
sensitivity. Much of the literature comes from Nordic countries
and Sweden in particular.
On treatment, the report is cautious about methods advocated
by sufferers and their support groups, but suggests “some
success” for psychologically based management strategies,
and suggests the reported success of other strategies may be “more
to do with offering a caring environment as opposed to a specific
treatment.”
Factsheet from WHO
In 2005, WHO issued a
factsheet
on electrical hypersensitivity (EHS). The conclusions are as follows:
“EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms
that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly
real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause,
EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS
has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis
to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical
diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical
problem.”
The view of SCENIHR
SCENIHR is the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Emerging
and Newly Identified Health Risks. In their
opinion
on EMFs in 2007 they stated:
“A variety of symptoms (dermatological symptoms such as redness,
tingling and burning sensations as well as neurovegetative symptoms such as
fatigue, headache, concentration difficulties, nausea, heart palpitation)
have been suggested to be caused by ELF field exposure. The term
"electromagnetic hypersensitivity" (EHS) has come into common usage based on
the reported experience by the afflicted individuals that electric
and/or magnetic fields, or vicinity to activated electrical equipment
trigger the symptoms.
A relationship between ELF field exposure and symptoms has not been shown
in scientific studies. From these results it seems clear that ELF is neither
a necessary nor a sufficient factor to trigger health complaints in individuals
reporting EHS. Whether ELF may be a contributing factor under some conditions
remains to be determined.”
more on SCENIHR
Psychosom Med. 2005 Mar-Apr;67(2):224-32
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review
of provocation studies.
Rubin GJ, Munshi JD, Wessely S.
BSc, Mobile Phones Research Unit, New Medical School Building,
Bessemer Road, London SE5 9PJ, UK. g.rubin@iop.kcl.ac.uk.
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess whether
people who report hypersensitivity to weak electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) are better at detecting EMF under blind or double-blind
conditions than nonhypersensitive individuals, and to test whether
they respond to the presence of EMF with increased symptom reporting.
Methods: An extensive systematic search was used to identify relevant
blind or double-blind provocation studies. This involved searching
numerous literature databases and conference proceedings, and
examining the citations of reviews and included studies. The results
of relevant studies were tabulated and metaanalyses were used
to compare the proportions of "hypersensitive" and control
participants able to discriminate active from sham EMF exposures.
Results: Thirty-one experiments testing 725 "electromagnetically
hypersensitive" participants were identified. Twenty-four
of these found no evidence to support the existence of a biophysical
hypersensitivity, whereas 7 reported some supporting evidence.
For 2 of these 7, the same research groups subsequently tried
and failed to replicate their findings. In 3 more, the positive
results appear to be statistical artefacts. The final 2 studies
gave mutually incompatible results. Our metaanalyses found no
evidence of an improved ability to detect EMF in "hypersensitive"
participants. Conclusions: The symptoms described by "electromagnetic
hypersensitivity" sufferers can be severe and are sometimes
disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind
conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This
suggests that "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is
unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into
this phenomenon is required.
back |
