Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS)

The lack of international and national health policies to protect persons with self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), known also as an idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) or a microwave sickness, is not considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) as being caused by the exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF). EHS is not recognized as a disease anywhere in the world. Some studies have roughly estimated that 1-10% of the population might experience some form of EHS. However, because of the lack of diagnostic criteria for EHS, these estimates might be either under- or over-estimates. Because the vast majority of human population is exposed to EMF, the possibility of developing EHS from the EMF is a substantial public health issue that should be dealt with globally, even if the individual risk of developing EHS might be small. The WHO recognizes that the symptoms experienced by the EHS persons might be severe and might significantly hamper everyday life. However, after a broad analysis of international and national documents, there seems to be currently no effort to develop health policies for the dealing with EHS, no matter what causes it. National governments, follow the opinions of the WHO and the EMF safety standards setting organizations, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (IEEE-ICES), are not developing any practical health policy advisories for self-declared EHS sufferers. However, symptoms experienced by the self-declared EHS persons affect their well-being and, according to the Constitution of the WHO, are a health problem. Hence, independently of what causes EHS symptoms, this admitted well-being-impairment should be dealt with globally by developing an uniform health policy. Furthermore, WHO, ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES should be advocating and supporting research that would generate a reliable scientific evidence on what are the possible cause(s) of EHS. Without such research there is not possible to develop diagnostic methods as well as any possible mitigation approaches. There is an urgent need for the WHO to advocate for the national governments to urgently develop a comprehensive and common EHS health policy.

Dariusz Leszczynski responds to comments of Maël Dieudonné on Leszczynski's review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS)

While Dieudonné has praised thoroughness of Leszczynski's review of EHS studies, he was critical of the final conclusions. Leszczynski strongly disagrees with argumentation of Dieudonné that EHS issue is settled and that biomarker research is unnecessary because it is expensive and might produce false positives. Leszczynski's opinion is that his review has demonstrated how very poor scientifically and inadequate statistically is the to-date executed research on EHS. Dieudonné's approach of using such poor science to justify claim that EHS issue is settled and there is no causality link between EHS and EMF exposures, is completely unjustified and simply false.

Prevalence of Migraine Disease in Electrohypersensitive Patients

BACKGROUND

The vast majority of electrohypersensitive (EHS) patients present headaches on contact with an electromagnetic source. Clinical features suggest that the headaches of these patients could be a variant of the migraine disease and could be treated as such. We aimed to assess the prevalence of migraine disease in EHS patients using a validated questionnaire.

METHODS

Patients with EHS defined according to WHO criteria were contacted through EHS patient support associations. They were required to answer a self-questionnaire including clinical data and the extended French version of the ID Migraine questionnaire (ef-ID Migraine) to screen for the migraine disease. Migraine prevalence and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. Patients' characteristics, symptoms (rheumatology, digestive, cognitive, respiratory, cardiac, mood, cutaneous, headache, perception, genital, tinnitus and tiredness) and impact on daily life were compared between migraineur and non-migraineur patients.

RESULTS

A total of 293 patients were included (97% women, mean age 57 ± 12 years). Migraine was diagnosed in 65% (N = 191; 95% CI: 60-71%) with the ef-ID Migraine. The migraine diagnosis was accompanied by nausea/vomiting in 50% of cases, photophobia in 69% or visual disturbances in 38%. All of the 12 symptoms assessed were of higher intensity in migraineurs than in non-migraineurs. The symptoms prevented social life in 88% of migraineurs and 75% of non-migraineurs (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our work encourages us to consider the headaches of these patients as a possible variant of the migraine disease and, possibly, to manage them according to the current recommendations.