Here is the page!
Cheers,
Dennis
From Mast Network
From Lucinda Grant,
PO Box 4146, Prescott AZ 86302 USA - February 2005
Thanks to Lucinda
Grant to publish her article. You find it as a pdf-file here: EMR_February.pdf
To: Friends
of the Electrically Sensitive
Hello! Hope you are
well. In 2004 an important event occurred regarding electrical sensitivity
which compels me to write you.
The World Health
Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland held several conferences in 2004
about the link between electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure and health
effects. One of these was specifically about electrical sensitivity and
entitled “WHO International Seminar and Working Group meeting on EMF
Hypersensitivity.” This conference took place in Prague, Czech Republic
during October 25-27, 2004. According to the WHO conference information on the
Internet, “Sensitivity to EMF has been given the general name “Electromagnetic
Hypersensitivity” or EHS. It comprises nervous system symptoms like headache,
fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin symptoms like prickling, burning
sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems.
Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes a disabling problem for the
affected persons, while the level of EMF in their neighbourhood is usually no
greater than is encountered in normal living environments.” (See website info
at http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/hypersensitivity_prague2004/en/index.html
.)
This conference
notice calls electrical sensitivity “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”, a term
previously used by some of the researchers in Western Europe. Now that this
name appears formally accepted, the medical community likely will tend to use
it as well. Of course, informally the term electrical sensitivity is still ok
and easier to say. The WHO also is using the medical abbreviation of
“EHS” rather than ES. I suggest using EHS now instead of ES as EHS
appears to be the formal medical abbreviation.
The World
Health Organization is a medical authority that publishes the internationally
used ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related
Health Problems, 10th Revision), a database of medical diagnoses
used by physicians; however, EHS is not yet formally listed there. To
move the EHS medical designation forward as a physiological condition, I
suggest having medical doctors help us update the ICD-10. This resource
is continuously being updated for new and emerging conditions. See in
particular the WHO website instructions at http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/
. By adding electromagnetic hypersensitivity into the ICD-10 as a physiological
condition, we will be giving medical doctors a diagnosis category to use
internationally. This ICD-10 update seems more likely to be accomplished in
Western Europe, where EHS is more commonly known and discussed at this time.
I was not able to
get to the WHO conference, but I want to thank everyone who attended on our
behalf! About 127 people from 26 countries were there. The list of
attendees primarily looks like a mix of scientists, medical doctors, cell
phone/electrical industry representatives, government employees, and EHS
support group leaders (Sweden, UK, Finland, Germany). A book
summarizing everyone’s presentations was given out at the meeting but is no
longer available. The WHO posted slides from their invited speakers at http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/hypersensitivity_prague2004/en/index.html
. The main WHO website is at www.who.int; a
search there by “electromagnetic fields” (EMF) will find their current EMF
meeting schedule and related information.
So, how did the
meeting go? Some of the attending EHS said they were saddened by talk of
a possible psychological link advocated by some of the speakers although that
was certainly not the main focus. It seems a historical trend for
illnesses with a difficult diagnosis to get pressure for placement in the
psychological bin early on – requiring the patients to fight the misdiagnosis
as well as their health problem until better research is available. Some
illnesses which have experienced this initially include multiple sclerosis,
chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS),
light sensitivity, and hyperacusis (sound sensitivity). Of course, having economic
pressures of industry groups as MCS and EHS do increases problems in getting
proper research/diagnosis/treatment.
On our behalf I
should mention that in March 2002 the then active Director-General of the WHO,
Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland – a medical doctor, was reported in the European
media to have electromagnetic hypersensitivity herself and became unable to use
a computer or cell phone any longer. Microwave News confirmed this
report. An overview of her situation is posted to Sweden’s FEB website in
English at www.feb.se
under news dated March 9, 2002. She retired from the WHO not long after this
disclosure. However, it is a significant boost to the EHS to have a former WHO
Director-General among our ranks. She revealed publicly that for her, EHS is
real. Too bad she missed the Czech Republic get-together.
Now, under a new
director, the WHO has moved on to their first EHS conference. Despite this
progress, the WHO recently pulled back from advocating an EMF precautionary
principle should be followed until more is known about its health
effects. (See www.microwavenews.com
Nov. 2, 2004 item “WHO EMF Project Rejects Stricter Exposure Limits to Reduce
Childhood Leukemia Risk” and their December 2004 commentary “The Case for EMF
Precautionary Policies.”) This despite the WHO being aware their International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified ELF (extremely low
frequency) magnetic fields as a possible class 2B carcinogen. This
frequency is the 50/60 Hertz power line current of the modern world. Further,
in 1998 a working group of scientists organized by the US government’s National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) used IARC procedures to
review the electromagnetic literature and similarly concluded: ELF
electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans as class 2B
carcinogens.
Having said that,
what did this WHO EHS meeting discuss that was useful? First, Dr. Mike
Repacholi of the WHO spoke of this conference being necessary because of public
concern about EMF health effects accompanied by the increasing EMF exposures in
our technological society. In other words, this occurred because the EHS
illness has reached a critical mass of international proportion and can no
longer be ignored. Dr. Repacholi said EHS symptoms can cover several
categories, according to a 1997 European Commission working group report:
nervous system symptoms (headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances); skin
symptoms (facial prickling, burning, rashes); eye symptoms (burning); other
(muscle aches/pains, ear/nose/throat problems, digestive disorders). He
further said EHS is a collection of various symptoms but not a diagnosable
syndrome distinct from other illnesses at this time. He discussed that
studies to assess whether symptoms in the EHS could be brought forth by EMF
exposure have not gone well enough to prove EMF exposures are the cause.
I would add -- these provocation tests only seem valid when patients have
easily discernible symptoms that come and go quickly plus are sensitive to the
frequency being tested. Symptoms delayed or prolonged can confound brief
testing where the frequency is turned on/off in intervals of a few minutes. These
tests also need to be conducted in EMR-shielded rooms to reduce interference
with other exposures.
As Dr. Repacholi
reported, studies to determine a connection between EMF exposures and EHS
symptoms are ongoing internationally. (EHS studies reported by others as
pending/on-going are in the UK, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, and
Austria.) I suggest medical doctors explore the electromagnetic history of
Russia in particular which shows ill health among EMR-exposed workers. They
will find the commonly reported EHS symptoms already have a history in the
electromagnetic realm. (See, for example, the McRee/Silverman/Dodge papers
listed at the end of this letter.) It has been a common practice for
medical doctors to concern themselves with possible cell phone interference of
cardiac pacemakers and electrical equipment in the hospital setting. Signs of
electromagnetic interference (EMI) can show forth as equipment malfunction,
static on a wireless broadcast, or flicker on a computer/TV screen. Some
doctors, however, seem oblivious to the fact that the living human body is a
low-current electrical device easily susceptible to EMI as well. The
body, with brain electricity measured by EEG and heart electricity measured by
EKG, has warning symptoms of its own.
Right now the
Russians are in a defensive position because they advocate very strict
radiation standards. The cell phone industry and other
electrical/electromagnetic industry on the other hand, want a worldwide
“harmonization” of standards that would allow a universal set of standards easy
for them to meet. While some countries such as Russia have stricter limits it
poses an unresolved issue which makes other countries and the public wonder who
is right. The WHO has become engulfed in this harmonization topic and held a
Moscow conference in September 2004. The WHO suggested the early Russian
studies showing low-level “non-thermal” (non-heating) EMF health effects be
carried out again, this time jointly by Russian and non-Russian scientists in
order to either prove or disprove their standards. A two-page summary of the
Moscow meeting is posted to the WHO website and seems to shroud the facts –
that the Russians seek to defend their standards, they oppose the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) radiation standards,
and are concerned in particular about cell phone use by children. (See, for
example, http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/russian_conf.doc
.)Therefore, I do not believe contacting the WHO directly with our requests is
worthwhile right now given the significant political and economic hot potato
this EMF dilemma has become. Dr. Repacholi of the WHO concluded his EHS
presentation in Prague by stating “There is a need to study EHS in detail to
determine what is known about this condition and what further research is
necessary to fill any gaps in knowledge.”
Dr. Berndt Stenberg
of Sweden also attended the Prague meeting and mentioned the 1997 European
Commission report’s proposed definition: “Electromagnetic
hypersensitivity is a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health
effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric,
magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs).” Dr. Patrick Levallois of
Canada cited this definition at the conference as well. The skin is a
vulnerable site of EMR exposure with facial rashes, burning, and itching
reported in both computer users and cell phone users. Dr. Stenberg, whose focus
is dermatology, discussed dividing EHS into two groups: the skin cases and
those patients with more/other symptoms. He said the skin-symptom group tended
to have a better prognosis than the other. Although not necessarily stated, the
skin symptoms can be an early warning of the person not being tolerant of the
radiation exposure, which can lead to further symptoms if ignored.
These skin
symptoms, etc. related to computer use were significant enough in the 1980’s
for Sweden’s white-collar labor union TCO to request computer manufacturers
reduce computer monitor radiation emitted. As a result, computer monitors
meeting the TCO standards are widely available from the major manufacturers.
See www.tcodevelopment.com
for a long list of TCO-certified products. Despite the radiation reduction and
moving from cathode-ray tubes to LCD screens, computer-related health problems
are still being reported. One of these is burning skin, sometimes simulating a
sunburn, potentially due to radiation from the computer screen. Whether
lighter-skinned folks, who are naturally sun-sensitive, are more prone to skin
effects from other radiation sources seems a good question. Some early studies
indicated airborne particles coupled with static electricity may have been
factors in the skin effects reported at that time. Turning the screen away from
the computer user can reduce the burning effect, but is not ergonomically
correct and leaves ambient EMR exposure. Some EHS have found using a
grounded, shielded computer screen filter of help in reducing onset of the skin
symptoms, although computer avoidance is far better. The TCO standards are not
health-based but were designed as a middle-ground, offering some level of
radiation reduction while being a cheap/easy fix for the computer
manufacturers. It is apparent that TCO needs to further tighten down their
radiation standards and this time include the computer keyboard too. A review
of computer monitor chemical emissions and further reductions/substitutions is
also necessary.
Dr. Olle Johansson
from Sweden’s prestigious Karolinska Institute presented information at the WHO
meeting about his extensive skin studies. He found a significant increase in
mast cells among facial skin samples of the EHS. In a related study using
normal, healthy volunteers, computers and TV sets were demonstrated to produce
a similar skin effect. He said, “The high number of mast cells present may
explain the clinical symptoms of itch, pain, edema, and erythema.” He has
several published articles outlining the very technical details of his skin
studies. Mast cells relate to histamine, which has been implicated in such
illnesses as hives (urticaria), asthma, motion sickness, and some types of
allergies. This indicates a broad illness mix if EMR exposures increase mast
cell activity/histamine. Some of the early Russian reports showed an increase
of blood histamine in EMR studies. The Merck Manual lists various
hypersensitivity states and includes a section marked “Physical Allergy”
related to health problems such as hives from physical exposures such as the
sun, heat, cold, etc. I wonder whether we fit into this group as one component
of the symptom picture?
Dr. Bruce Hocking,
a physician from Australia, attended this talk as well. He told about a test of
one woman who had pain symptoms she blamed on cell phone use. He tested her A
and C nerve fibers in the skin both before and after cell phone use. While the
patient’s A fibers had little noticeable reaction after the test, the C fibers
on the phone side showed a significant change. Exactly how this test was
performed I don’t know but some general information about it is on the WHO
meeting slides. I did not see any control tests to show what a non-EHS person’s
C fibers would do in a similar procedure.
The C fibers seem
very important regarding pain research. Dr. Hermann Handwerker of Germany, who
has no interest in EHS, has investigated skin C fibers using contact electrical
currents to study pain.(M. Schmelz, et al.) He found electricity can turn on seemingly
insensitive branches of certain C fibers that seem dormant
(mechano-insensitive) unless inflamed. He has even tried mapping out the areas
around these C fibers that seem “electroreceptive”. Once activated, he
suspects they may contribute to pain states. He found some of these
touch-insensitive areas could be sensitized by certain chemical applications,
making the insensitive area now touch-sensitive. This may provide a clue as to
how MCS could lead to EHS; skin sensors, overstimulated by chemicals or EMR,
may become chronically sensitized and ultimately lead to a chronic pain state.
Dr. Handwerker of Germany and co-workers also found an acidic pH state could
maintain a touch-sensitive state in many of the C fibers he studied.(Kay H.
Steen, et al.) Unfortunately, he used a non-living animal model (rat skin)
because a chronic acid state is difficult to maintain under normal conditions.
However, if certain disease states affect pH it could indicate a vulnerable
subgroup. Whether pH plays a part in EHS is unknown. It appears we need pain
specialists involved in this field.
The fact that EHS
can be very painful was expressed by Anne Silk of the UK. She said the EHS
people there are often diagnosed with fibromyalgia and can develop increased
sensitivity to touch and heat exposures. Anne talked of “central sensitization”
which is a chronic pain state. According to the Gray’s Anatomy book, central
sensitization is believed to be tied to NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptor
sites and nitric oxide, a body chemical. Dr. Martin Pall, a US scientist not at
the WHO conference, recently theorized that NMDA receptors and nitric oxide are
factors in MCS, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and post-traumatic
stress disorder. He proposes these chemical effects could cause a chronic cycle
of illness, although he has not tested out his theory regarding humans yet.
Whether his theory has anything to do with EHS is unknown although it would
seem to be more appropriate regarding later-stage EHS cases where other conditions
can co-exist rather than early EHS cases where none of these other illnesses
may be apparent. A curious thing about nitric oxide is its classification as a
“radiosensitizer” in some medical studies, meaning the chemical can sensitize
tumors to radiation therapy. In other words, it is well known in the medical
profession that certain chemicals can sensitize human biological components to
radiation. Further, many prescription drugs are known to sensitize a person to
the sun; the herb St. John’s wort is a natural sun sensitizer, for example.
Whether nitric oxide has any part in EHS is not known; it would be interesting
to see how EMR exposure affects body nitric oxide levels.
NMDA receptor sites
were early-on hypothesized to be involved in how the seizure medication and
prescription drug Neurontin works, a drug sometimes found helpful for the EHS
(6% of 100). (See our 1999 Treatment Survey results posted to the files on www.groups.yahoo.com/group/esens.)
I have also occasionally heard of bad reactions to this drug as others could
not necessarily tolerate it. Neurontin is now believed by some to be a type of
calcium channel blocker. As I discussed in my 1996-97 Microwave Sickness
series (See Less EMF, Inc. re this item.), several of the drugs listed as
helpful for the EHS in the old Russian studies and the modern surveys have a
chemical component listed as “meth” or “methyl”. Even Neurontin has a methyl
component. The long version of NMDA being N-methyl-D-aspartate may indicate a
relationship with methyl compounds. Do these methyl-based chemicals have an
affinity for the NMDA receptor sites? Whether NMDA receptor sites are a factor
in EHS is unknown.
A recent
Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) book reveals Neurontin approved for both
seizure management and pain control for postherpetic neuralgia, a painful
condition difficult to treat. I have heard of Neurontin used for pain reduction
of headaches too although that is not an approved use. The PDR text also states
Neurontin has been shown effective for neuropathic pain control in mice and rat
studies. In one study, magnesium has shown a benefit in pain control of
postherpic neuralgia patients – the same disease Neurontin helps. Magnesium was
reported to help several EHS patients in our last survey too (19% of 100).
Magnesium is known to be a calcium channel blocker and some believe magnesium
inhibits NMDA activity. A problem with taking magnesium is that it tends to
have a laxative effect so it can easily lead to having diarrhea. On the other
hand, calcium was shown to be helpful for 15% of 100 in our survey. Calcium is
known to be mobilized in the body by EMR exposure. Does calcium involve a pH
balancing effect? (Note: Neurontin is listed on a drug sheet as a drug which
may cause tinnitus in some people. The incidence rate is listed as “infrequent”
and did not rate over 3% among drug users. This drug sheet was published in
2004 by the American Tinnitus Association and distributed through The
Hyperacusis Network.)
Russian researcher
Dr. Natalya Lebedeva tested human EMR sensitivity and found people more
sensitive to electromagnetic exposures also tend to be more sensitive to pain,
as determined by contact electric current perception testing. She wrote that
nociceptors (pain sensors- type not stated) are believed to be a factor in EMR
sensing. Dr. Cristina Del Seppia of Italy and collaborators have studied
how electromagnetic exposure of healthy humans can increase their sensitivity
to pain, at least short-term in their case.(Sergio Ghione, et al. and Floriano
Papi, et al.) Neither Dr. Lebedeva nor Dr. Del Seppia attended the WHO
presentation. In fact, scientists/medical doctors who live in Russia did not
come at all.
Dr. Joerg
Schroettner of Austria came and talked about his electric current perception
tests. In these studies of contact electric current perception threshold, he
and co-attendee Dr. Norbert Leitgeb of Austria found the group of EHS patients
quite sensitive to this applied electric current. Among them, more than 50%
scored “sensitive or very sensitive” compared with a control group also tested.
They suggest a test of this sort to exclude people who claim to have EHS but
may not have it. (I don’t see this as suitable for the EHS as they are already
electrically overstimulated.) Further, they sought to differentiate between
people who can more acutely sense the electric current without symptoms (they
define as electrosensitivity), versus sensing with symptoms (they define as
EHS). They concluded by saying “…increased electrosensitivity is a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”
Dr. Monica
Sandstrom and Dr. Kjell Hansson Mild, both of Sweden’s National Institute for
Working Life, attended the WHO conference. Their work on EHS is among the best
and their co-worker Dr. Eugene Lyskov of Sweden outlined some of their
findings. They monitored EHS patients using EEG, EKG, blood pressure tests,
heart rate variability studies, etc. Dr. Lyskov explained that their “physiological
profile showed imbalance of autonomic regulation with a trend towards
hypersympathotone and increased arousal.” He said the signs of autonomic
nervous system imbalance are moderate but statistically significant. Further,
Dr. Lyskov discussed that their studies on sympathetic skin responses to sound
and visual stimulation and their work with evoked brain potential measurements
showed a “hyper-responsiveness to external stimuli.” He said an autonomic
nervous system problem of this type could lead to increased sensitivity to
environmental factors. Dr. Sandstrom and co-workers, for example, found the EHS
more sensitive to flicker in an early study. Their EHS studies overall have
shown a tendency for decreased heart rate variability, increased heart rate, increased
blood pressure, and decreased occipital alpha EEG band. (See his slides on the
WHO website for additional particulars.) According to a book called “Pain and
the Brain”, autonomic adjustments can be caused by overstimulation; EMR
exposure certainly seems a major way.
At the WHO
conference, Dr. Fabriziomaria Gobba of Italy spoke of a program to manage EHS
cases there. A working group plans to send information out to physicians to
educate them about EHS and EMFs. Then, as a second step, the physicians will
receive a questionnaire to report EHS cases to the working group. The patients
then undergo a medical and environmental review to see what is going on and
what steps might help the EHS. If the patient gives consent, their case file
will be posted to a “national archive of EHS cases” and may be pulled for
further studies. Dr. Gobba hopes this program will cause “…prevention of the
avoidable sufferance caused by irrational handling of EHS claiming subjects,
(and) possibly an improvement of prognosis…” Dr. Gobba is also involved in an
on-going study of EHS patients which includes testing re blood, urine, EKG,
blood pressure, heart rate variability, plus several questionnaires.
Dr. Osmo Hanninen
of Finland reported that he has tested EHS patients via heart rate, heart rate
variability, and blood pressure. He found exposure to mobile phone radiation
could cause changes in heart rate and blood pressure not seen in healthy test
subjects.
Dr. Jill Meara, a
physician with the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in the UK,
told the WHO participants that the NRPB, an advisory group for the government,
has contracted with a public health consultant in Ireland to prepare a public
health review of the EHS illness. Dr. Meara described how she found it
impossible to develop a symptom-based case definition of EHS, given the wide
variety of possible symptoms.
According to
Professor Lawrie Challis of the UK, five EHS studies are pending there. One of
these is regarding function of the inner ear using otoacoustic emission and
video-oculography testing. This study proposes to determine whether cell phone
radiation is stimulating the vestibular labyrinth in the inner ear. If so, this
could explain the motion sickness type symptoms reported under some types of
EMR exposure (nausea, dizziness, etc.). Other EHS studies there will examine
blood hormone levels, heart rate, EEG, EKG, critical flicker fusion threshold,
and/or symptom questionnaires. Non-EHS EMR mobile phone studies pending in the
UK intend to check blood pressure, electrical changes in the brain, and thought
processes.
Matti Wirmaneva,
representing a Finland EHS support group, presented a poster at the conference
about those who hear a humming noise simulating a diesel engine running at a
distance. This noise is usually heard indoors or in a car with the windows
closed. The poster notes that this sound can develop during microwave exposure.
Cell phone technology uses microwave transmissions. The US government
previously admitted to there being a phenomenon called “microwave hearing” that
has occurred near radar installations, although they do not agree it can occur
at current microwave intensities the general public is commonly exposed to now.
People with tinnitus may find their condition diminishes from one location to
another and, if so, it may be microwave-related.
That is how many of
us determined EMR as a health problem – by noticing certain
locations/situations cause us to feel worse. Of course, other environmental
factors need to be considered as well, such as chemical exposures, mold, etc.
Finding an environmental cause to symptoms can give us a chance to reduce the
symptoms by changing our lifestyle. Sometimes these changes become very severe,
as outlined in the poster presentation at the WHO meeting by Sweden’s EHS
group, FEB. They posted a 143-page book called “Black on White: Voices and
Witnesses about Electro-hypersensitivity – The Swedish Experience” compiled by
Rigmor Granlund-Lind and John Lind. This book represents the commentary from
about 400 Swedish EHS who submitted statements about their ill health during an
open public comment period to the Swedish government in 2000. Their concerns
were subsequently ignored by the government and later compiled by EHS
supporters. This book shows the extent and severity of the EHS illness. In
particular, a chapter is devoted to the “electro-refugees” – those who much
leave home, jobs, and family to find an electromagnetically safer place to be.
This flight to the country can cause a person to become homeless or live in
extreme conditions without electricity. (If the person also has MCS, they are
usually without the benefit of propane gas/natural gas or fire for heating and
cooking purposes too.) Often the problem is in avoiding radiation from cell
phone towers, but can involve other/all EMR sources in other cases. When the
cellular phone industry was analog, there seemed less of a problem with people
needing to move but as the technology evolved to higher frequencies that cycle
faster, pulsed signals (digital), and the requirement for more transmitters
closer together to cover an area, the EHS have found increased problems of EMR
avoidance/tolerance. The Black on White book lists the factors the EHS believe
originally caused their symptoms. From highest to lowest number of reports
these are: computers, presence of dental amalgams/dental amalgam removal
(mercury fillings), general electricity/fluorescent lights/low energy lamps,
cellular phones/masts/telephones, chemicals, and photocopiers. Their EHS
symptoms reported from highest to lowest incidence are: skin problems, light
sensitivity/eye problems, tiredness/weakness, heart/blood pressure problems,
headaches, muscle/ joint pain, dizziness, concentration difficulties,
nausea/general poor health, memory disorders, endocrine reactions, lung
problems, stomach/intestinal disorders, numbness, “influenza”/throat problems,
sleep disorders, hearing problems/tinnitus, tremors/cramps, anxiety/depression,
haziness/confusion, fainting/coma, asthma/allergies, speech difficulties, and
irritability. What is seldom mentioned in the EHS literature is that some
people die due to the severity of their case and the lack of treatments/proper
EMR reduction. It should be further noted that typical medical tests such
as x-rays may not be tolerated by the EHS, preventing proper
diagnosis/treatment of other serious conditions, such as cancer. Also,
hospitals can be electromagnetically and chemically intolerable; these are
personal tolerance issues. The Black on White book is available in
English free as an electronic book to print from the FEB website www.feb.se
under their news archives of October 25, 2004.
Dr. Magda Havas of
Canada, who is a scientific advisor to The EMR Policy Institute, reported to
the WHO group about the reduction of “dirty electricity” in the indoor
environment. She has used Graham/Stetzer filters to reduce higher frequencies
coming indoors on power line current. She found these filters helped some
multiple sclerosis patients reduce their pain and some diabetics reduce their
insulin requirements. Dr. Kjell Hansson Mild of Sweden also mentioned higher
frequency noise on electrical power line distribution systems due to electrical
spikes from appliance usage, etc.
Other presentations
at the WHO meeting included reports of population surveys to find the incidence
rate of EHS among the public. Dr. Patrick Levallois, a physician from Canada,
told of his work with the California state Department of Health EMF program. In
June, 2002 this program reported that a phone survey of 2,072 people there
showed about 3% of them stating they are EHS. The complete EMF report is posted
online at http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/deodc/ehib/emf/RiskEvaluation/riskeval.html
. The EHS part of this long report is at http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/deodc/ehib/emf/RiskEvaluation/Appendix3.pdf
. He stated “…self-reported EHS seems quite common in general populations.” Dr.
Levallois also mentioned an EHS survey conducted by Dr. Lena Hillert of the
Karolinska Institute, Sweden. In her 1997 study, 10,670 Swedish residents were
surveyed by mail. Of those, 1.5% responded that they were indeed EHS.
Dr. Martin Roosli
of Switzerland spoke about his 2004 phone survey of the Swiss population. A
total of 2,048 residents participated. He found 2.7% of this group responded
with symptoms they attributed to EMR exposure. An additional 2.2% reported
having EHS in the past. Thus, overall about a 5% EHS response rate. Forty-three
percent reported sleep disorders, 34% had headache, 11% had concentration
problems, and 9% regarded nervousness. Symptom causes were listed as power
lines 28%, mobile phone handsets 25%, TV/computers 21%, and mobile phone base
stations 13%. Dr. Roosli’s study found that while the Swiss population’s main
EMR concern is about health effects of cell phone towers, the EHS patients did
not have this primary focus.
Of further
interest, Dr. Torbjorn Lindblom of Sweden’s FEB support group presented a paper
showing the Swedish health ministry announced in its 2001 Environmental Health
Report that about 3% of their population indicated having an
electromagnetically-related health problem. Dr. Lindblom asked “How shall
electric injured people get a place in the community again?”, given that
our personal world keeps shrinking with the ever-expanding wireless age.
These population
surveys of EHS indicate perhaps between 1.5%-5% of the public have this health
problem in the modern societies. This percentage may be understated because the
homeless are often omitted, EHS people who don’t use phones are excluded from
the phone surveys, those unaware of EMR exposure as a factor in their illness
are not counted, and those unwilling to publicly admit to this health problem
due to the controversy involved are uncounted as well. These statistics
are a sizeable portion of the general public and are certainly worthy of note
in medical and public health circles.
No US government
employees attended the WHO EHS conference but former US government employee
Marija Hughes spoke on our behalf and gave the WHO a copy of her latest book
“Computer, Antenna, Cellular Telephone and Power Lines Health Hazards (volume
3)”. (See Less EMF, Inc. re her books.) Unfortunately, the US EHS medical
expert Dr. William Rea did not attend the WHO conference. However, he does an
annual symposium in Dallas, Texas and this year’s main topic is titled “The
Autonomic Nervous System and its Relationship to Environmental Pollutants
including the Cardiovascular System and Electromagnetic Sensitivity”. This
symposium will be June 9-12, 2005. For particulars, contact the American
Environmental Health Foundation at 8345 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 225, Dallas TX
75231-4262; phone: (800) 428-2343 or (214) 361-9515.
Overall, it was a
good start that the WHO had the EHS conference. It points to the need for solid
studies and a focus on solutions. No doubt it provided a way for interested
researchers to network and helped define the extent of the problem. A working
group composed of WHO-appointed participants met on the third day of the
conference for the purpose of preparing a report covering the EHS condition for
future publication in a journal.
A resolution was
brought forward during the conference by the EHS representatives asking for EHS
to be properly recognized, receive handicapped status, and be assigned a medical
diagnosis code (ICD-10). This resolution was not acted on by the WHO. Some of
the EHS support groups contacted the WHO after the meeting as well, but no
movement forward has been made regarding these requests. A German group is also
in the process of petitioning the WHO for support in establishing areas with
significantly reduced ambient EMR, called “protection areas” and prohibition of
the DECT phone technology. As I previously stated, I believe the ICD-10
update method on page 1 of this letter may be useful but beyond that I don’t
expect much from the WHO at this time.
Regarding EHS
having handicapped status, many of our symptoms are common among the population
in general and can have many causes. It seems the symptoms are not the question
so much but the cause is the question and the fuss. It would seem that a person
with the symptoms of EHS who listed them as serious enough would be eligible
for and potentially receive Social Security disability benefits. Problems,
however, and denial of benefits may arise if a diagnosis of electromagnetic
hypersensitivity is listed instead of just listing the symptoms, due to the
“new” and controversial nature of this illness. Therefore, legal and/or medical
advice is strongly recommended in this matter.
In related news,
there also was an EHS conference in London this year. Coghill Research
Laboratories, an EMF research group in Gwent, UK sponsored this event titled
“Electrosensitivity (ES) in Human Subjects.” The conference was held at
the Royal Society of Medicine in London on September 11, 2004. I didn’t
attend this one either; however, some of the WHO conference attendees presented
at this one also – Dr. Olle Johansson, EHS campaigner Anne Silk, Roger Coghill,
Dr. Magda Havas, author Marija Hughes, and Dr. Jill Meara. According to an
article published in The Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter of Sept./Oct.
2004, Cyril Smith , UK author of the book “Electromagnetic Man”, and Don Maisch
of EMFacts Consultancy, Australia spoke as well. About 35 people attended this
meeting in London. Published proceedings are expected to be available for
purchase soon. (Contact information: Roger Coghill, Coghill Research
Laboratories, Lower Race, Pontypool, Gwent NP4 5UH , UK; website: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"ww.cogreslab.co.uk" claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"ww.cogreslab.co.uk" claiming to be http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/ .)
I’ve included a
list of some of the better EHS studies and possible related information at the
end of this letter. The free Internet database PubMed at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed
can help you find EMR/EHS research papers. Your library may help you locate
these as well. It seems most of the modern EHS research I’ve seen explores the
phase 1 question “Is EHS real?” and the phase 2 question “What symptoms do the
EHS experience/How is EHS expressed?” What comes further on will be
attempts to answer the phase 3 question “What medical or other
treatment(s)/procedure(s) can help the EHS?” As an EHS patient myself, I await
further answers to this question, as you do. It would seem that understanding
the workings of phase 2 will naturally bring on phase 3 studies in the future.
Of course, ultimately government-regulated EMR reduction in a meaningful way
will be the best answer.
In the meantime, it
is of most importance to reduce electromagnetic exposures as you can, to reduce
possible symptoms. Obtaining help with electromagnetic reduction in the home
can be useful. A central contact to locate local help near you may be
found by reaching the International Institute for Bau-biologie and Ecology, PO
Box 387, Clearwater FL 33757; phone: (727) 461-4371; fax: (727) 441-4373;
website: http://www.bau-biologieusa.com/info.html
.Their “building biology” focus is from Germany and in part concerns EMF
reduction in the home. I would like to see them working with medical doctors in
helping EHS patients diagnose and treat their home environment. Meters to
detect electromagnetic exposures in order to locate possible problems before
they overwhelm you can be useful too. One source with many meter choices
is Less EMF, Inc., 809 Madison Ave., Albany NY 12208; phone: (518)
432-1550; fax: (309) 422-4355; website: http://lessemf.com
. They also have many books and EMR shielding resources. However, EMR reduction
is a technical area. Although metal can be useful in some types of EMR
shielding work, metal can hold a significant charge. Therefore, avoiding
ungrounded, unshielded metal is often helpful. In addition, replacing a
mattress that has metal springs for a futon mattress instead plus a wooden bed
frame can improve sleep and reduce exposures. Energy-efficient lighting,
in many new commercial buildings, also is best avoided to reduce symptoms. Use
medical guidance to help you in your health decisions and use common sense: go
with what seems to feel best for you.
Please
remember that I am not a medical doctor or a scientist and am not active in
this field now so contacting those who are and obtaining proper medical assistance
regarding your individual case is vital. For medical assistance, the American
Academy of Environmental Medicine at 7701 E. Kellogg, Suite 625, Wichita
KS 67207; phone: (316) 684-5500; fax: (316) 684-5709; website: http://www.aaem.com
can help you locate a local medical doctor who specializes in environmental
medicine. However, this group seems primarily focused on the MCS issue. They
may have an awareness of EHS but may have little to offer regarding specific
EHS treatments at this time. Beyond this, doctors who focus on natural healing
methods may be of some help in alleviating symptoms by natural means. It is
often useful to call the medical doctor or their office first before you make
an appointment in order to assess their opinion/knowledge/treatment protocols
re EHS before you decide whether to visit them. Alternative medicine
practitioners often seem more aware and helpful to the EHS as they may use
energy sensing/energy transfer techniques themselves such as traditional
acupuncture, Qi Gong, Healing Touch, etc., although these particular treatments
may not be suitable for you. In the event you cannot visit the doctor’s office
due to your condition, ideally they will make some provision for you such as a
home visit, a phone consultation, turning off bothersome equipment/lights
inside the office building and using natural daylight for lighting instead, or
at least meeting you outside of the office building.
It is important to
realize that such simple and good things as strawberries, peanut butter, and
the sun can cause a serious health problem for some members of the general
public. For every type of whatever exposure, a sub-group of the public will be
more sensitive/intolerant to it, healthwise; this will hold true for
practically any exposure you could name. Other information in our treatment
survey indicated that, for some, a vegetarian diet was of some help in
improving health. Food intake can affect body pH, with macrobiotic/vegetarian
diets tending to be more alkaline and meats/sugars generally being more acidic.
Other foods sometimes omitted to good result were milk and gluten (wheat, rye,
barley, mainly plus other wheat types – spelt, etc. Oats are sometimes listed
in this group too as a problem for those with celiac disease.) Avoiding
hot spices such as cayenne, mustard, and pepper, which may feed an inflamed
condition, could be good too. Organic food is preferable to reduce chemical
exposures, if available. Another important consideration is what Dr. William
Rea of the USA has called the “rainbarrel” effect (total body load). He has
likened the human body to a barrel in the rain, and this barrel can hold a
variety of exposures, up to a point. After the body’s tolerance limit is
exceeded, the rainbarrel overflows – meaning the body then develops overt
symptoms of ill health. Environmental medicine properly done is much more than
a ten-minute doctor’s visit. It may involve assessing a person’s medical
history, family health predispositions, current medical evaluation,
environmental exposure history related to work, etc., current environmental
analysis, and diet/food intolerances to get an overall picture of what is in
that person’s “rainbarrel”. Then, by detoxification/diet changes/treatment of
disease states/environmental avoidance strategies, etc., the hope would be for
an increased tolerance to exposures that had been troublesome before. By proper
medical treatment, the rainbarrel then would be emptied to some extent allowing
the body to adapt better to current exposures. Detoxification using
environmental medicine can involve sauna treatment; in alternative medicine
detoxification methods include enzymes (protease, lipase, etc.) and/or herbal
treatment. The enzymes are usually mold-derived so may not suit the
MCS/mold-sensitive. Raw foods are another enzyme source. I believe some MCS
cases may be viral-based. Reviewing initial symptoms/exposures that started the
condition helps determine the cause but because some toxic chemical exposures
can be odorless, the cause of the MCS may be unknown.
Although our survey
did not indicate much benefit in taking melatonin or beta carotene supplements,
they may have some benefit for the EHS. For instance, Dr. Olle Johansson of
Sweden found beta carotene/vitamin A helpful in treating the sun sensitivity
symptom of an EHS patient. Beta carotene is listed as a treatment for sun
sensitivity, according to The Merck Manual. Melatonin has occasionally come up
as helpful for some EHS, although I have not seen any widespread use of it for
that purpose. Melatonin is a natural body chemical, the quantity of which can
be influenced by light and electromagnetic exposures, according to some
studies. Melatonin has shown some good effect in pain control studies. Of
course, we are a large and diverse group; what helps one may harm another due
to our various symptoms and conditions.
In other news, an
excellent new book is out - The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental
Illnesses caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions by Gunni
Nordstrom. Gunni is an investigative journalist in Sweden who writes
about the evolution and politics of EHS in Sweden (ISBN 1-903816-71-8; O Books,
UK; Price: $14.95 USA). She went to the Czech Republic for the WHO EHS
conference in October.
The Independent
Living Resource Center of San Francisco, California, a disability consulting
service, recently conducted a survey of MCS/EHS patients to see how their
disabilities are being handled in the working environment. Their final report
on the survey results, titled “Canaries in the Mine”, is 55-pages of real-life
experiences and advice regarding MCS/EHS disability accommodations in the
workplace and the often lack thereof. Information about use of the Americans
with Disabilities Act is included. For a copy, contact the Independent Living
Resource Center – San Francisco, 649 Mission St., 3rd Floor, San
Francisco CA 94105; phone: (415) 543-6222; fax: (415) 543-6318.
Some EHS/EMF
websites which may be interesting: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/esens
, www.buergerwelle.de
, www.electrosensitivity.org.uk
, www.electroallergie.org
. Chemical Injury Information Network, which focuses on the chemically
sensitive has a monthly newsletter that sometimes includes EHS items too. Their
contact information is CIIN, PO Box 301, White Sulphur Springs MT 59645;
phone: (406) 547-2255; fax: (406) 547-2455; website: www.ciin.org.
The former Microwave News newsletter is now discontinued, but Dr. Louis Slesin
maintains his website online and occasionally adds breaking news. He has
requested funds to keep his website (www.microwavenews.com)
available and updated. His new address is Microwave News, 155 East 77th
St., New York NY 10021; phone: (212) 517-2800. On the brown sheet enclosed is
an overview of recent happenings by The EMR Policy Institute. If you feel that
any of these organizations are helping you, please support them financially.
Happy New Year and
God bless,
Lucinda Grant
PS: You have my
permission to copy this letter for anyone you feel needs it.
“Electromagnetic
Perception and Individual Features of Human Beings” by Natalya N. Lebedeva et
al., in Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 29, #3, year 2001,
pages 440-449.
“Holter ECG monitoring
in patients with perceived electrical hypersensitivity” by Monica Sandstrom et
al., in the International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 49, year 2003,
pages 227-235.
“Electromagnetic
Field Sensitivity” by William J. Rea, MD et al., in the Journal of
Bioelectricity, Vol. 10 (1 & 2), year 1991, pages 241-256.
“Symptoms of ill
health ascribed to electromagnetic field exposure – a questionnaire survey” by
Martin Roosli et al., in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental
Health, Vol. 207, year 2004, pages 141-150.
“Environmental
Aspects of Microwave Radiation” by Donald I. McRee, Ph.D. in Environmental
Health Perspectives, October 1972, pages 41-53.
“Trends in
Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Bioeffects Research and Related
Occupational Health Aspects” by C. H. Dodge and Z. R. Glaser, in Journal of
Microwave Power, Vol. 12, #4, year 1977, pages 319-334.
“Nervous and
Behavioral Effects of Microwave Radiation in Humans” by Charlotte Silverman in
American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 97, #4, April 1973, pages 219-224.
“A Theoretical
Model Based upon Mast Cells and Histamine to Explain the Recently Proclaimed
Sensitivity to Electric and/or Magnetic Fields in Humans” by S. Gangi and O.
Johansson, in Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 54, #4, year 2000, pages 663-671.
“Skin changes in
‘screen dermatitis’ versus classical UV- and ionizing irradiation-related
damage – similarities and differences” by S. Gangi and O. Johansson, in
Experimental Dermatology, Vol. 6, year 1997, pages 283-291.
“Neurophysiological
Effects of Flickering Light in Patients with Perceived Electrical
Hypersensitivity” by Monica Sandstrom et al., in the Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 39, # 1, Jan. 1997, pages 15-22
“Electrosensibility
and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity” by Norbert Leitgeb et al., in
Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 24, year 2003, pages 387-394.
“ “Terminal”
Dermatitis due to Computers (Visual Display Units)” by Alexander A. Fisher, MD
in Cutis, Vol. 38, year 1986, pages 153-154.
“A Rosacea-like
Skin Rash in VDT-operators” by Berndt Stenberg in “Work with Display Units 86”
(book), B. Knave and P.G. Wideback – editors, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,
1987.
“Prevalence of
self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a
population-based questionnaire survey” by Lena Hillert, MD et al., in Scand. J.
Work Environ. Health, Vol. 28, #1, year 2002, pages 33-41.
“Video Display
Units: An Emission Source of the Contact Allergenic Flame Retardant
Triphenyl Phosphate in the Indoor Environment” by Hakan Carlsson et al., in
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 34, #18, year 2000, pages 3885-3889.
“The Electrical
Sensitivity Handbook” by Lucinda Grant (book), Weldon Publishing, 1995.
“Human Head
Exposure to a 37 Hz Electromagnetic Field: Effects on Blood Pressure,
Somatosensory Perception, and Related Parameters” by Sergio Ghione et al., in
Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 25, year 2004, pages 167-175.
“Exposure to
Oscillating Magnetic Fields Influences Sensitivity to Electrical Stimuli: II
Experiments on Humans” by Floriano Papi et al., in Bioelectromagnetics, Vol.
16, year 1995, pages 295-300.
“Cutaneous Mast
Cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers sitting in front of ordinary
TVs/PCs – results from open-field provocation experiments” by Olle Johansson et
al., in Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, Vol. 28, year 2001, pages 513-519.
“Sensitization of
insensitive branches of C nociceptors in human skin” by M. Schmelz et al., in
The Journal of Physiology, Vol. 480, #2, year 1994, pages 389-394.
“Protons
Selectively Induce Lasting Excitation and Sensitization to Mechanical
Stimulation of Nociceptors in Rat Skin, in vitro” by Kay H. Steen et al., in
The Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 12, #1, Jan. 1992, pages 86-95.
“Elevated Nitric
Oxide/Peroxynitrite Theory of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Central Role of
N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptors in the Sensitivity Mechanism” by Martin L. Pall
in Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 111, #12, Sept. 2003, pages
1461-1464.
“Magnetic-field-induced
DNA Strand Breaks in Brain Cells of the Rat” by Henry Lai et al., in
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 112, #6, May 2004, pages 687-694.