Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Real or Imagined?
Are sufferers of electrosensitivity reacting to electromagnetism, or just to simple stress?
Filed under Alternative Medicine, Health
| Skeptoid #72 October 30, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Today we're going to put on a suit made of metal screening to shield us from electromagnetic radiation, and walk around looking like Robbie the Robot, for today's topic is one of the latest fad illnesses caused by the evils of our modern technological society: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
You've seen them on the TV news and on the Internet: Thousands of people worldwide, though mostly concentrated in the United Kingdom and Sweden, who believe that their bodies are being afflicted by the electromagnetic radiation put out by computers, wireless data networks, cell phone networks, radio and television broadcasting, power lines, and virtually anything that uses electricity. Mass media trumpet the alarmist headlines, like one article that proclaims "For years, opponents of cell towers and wireless technology have voiced concerns about potential health effects of electromagnetic fields. Once ridiculed as crackpots, they're starting to get backup from the scientific community."
Generally called electrosensitivity or ES for short, the condition manifests itself in sufferers as skin sensitivity and blemishing, light sensitivity, fatigue, high blood pressure, headaches, joint pain, dizziness, and a whole array of associated symptoms. Interestingly, these are also the exact same symptoms caused by simple stress. We'll come back to that later.
There is no cure that is broadly accepted among ES advocates, but they do agree on one point: shielding or complete removal from the environment is the only sure-fire way to alleviate the symptoms. Breakspear Hospital, located in Hertfordshire, UK, advertises itself as the world's leading facility for the treatment of ES, among other things. On its list of treatments for ES, unfortunately, is chelation therapy, a dangerous and tedious drug-based treatment for removing heavy metal contamination from the body. People who choose this option should be aware that the drugs used in chelation therapy are approved only for use in cases where a blood test has proven acute heavy metal contamination. This is because chelation therapy ravages the body and can produce side effects as dangerous as liver failure. Any doctors or alternative practitioners who prescribe such therapy in the absence of its prescribed condition should be approached with extreme caution, and probably also reported to the relevant medical board. Other practitioners who claim to treat ES prescribe holistic treatments such as acupuncture, vitamin megadosing, chiropractic, exposure to energized crystals, reflexology, shiatsu, clay baths, and avoidance of genetically modified foods. The Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas, will even rent you their "safe vacation home" in Jamaica where you can be free of the causes of ES, although the pictures they post on their web site show it to apparently be as full of electrical appliances as any other home, including a TV and VCR, which are alleged to be among the worst causes of ES.
What does the medical establishment have to say about ES? Well, that depends on whom you ask. Electrosensitivity.org, a web site set up by Troy Knight, a young man suffering from ES, blames "great opposition from medical establishments and governments" for the lack of a definitive diagnosis of ES in mainstream science. I'm not sure how he defines "great opposition", or what form he believes such opposition might take, but quite to the contrary a number of studies have been done. Nobody doubts that a large number of people wordwide report this condition, and nobody doubts the reality of their symptoms or the suffering they endure. What falls under skepticism is their self-diagnosis that their condition is caused by the proximity of electrically powered devices.
Quite obviously, people in many countries around the world have been using electricity for over a century. And, in poorer regions like parts of Asia, Africa, and South America, there are populations who (even today) use no electricity at all. If normal levels of electromagnetic radiation were indeed harmful to the body, then we would see correlation on a massive scale between such physiological damage and geography. There is no such correlation, and no cases of observed physiological damage caused by electromagnetic radiation even in the most industrialized regions. Thus, there is very good reason for science to not simply accept this self-diagnosis without inquiry.
But the symptoms and suffering are still real, so what do we do? Well, we do science. One of the first steps in doing science is to throw out the anecdotal evidence of personal testimonials — with apologies to the people wearing tinfoil helmets — and design randomized controlled trials to test for the true causes of the ailment, and to test the efficacy of potential treatments. So, if it's not too politically incorrect to do so, let's take a look at some of these trials and see what's been learned.
Well-performed trials always have a number of features in common. First, they do include subjects who objectively report themselves to be electrosensitive, and they also include people who do not. Second, all subjects are usually surveyed to gauge their own perceived sensitivity to various electromagnetic phenomena, whether they claim to suffer from ES or not. Third, the trials are blinded wherever possible. Test administrators never know anything about a given subject's claimed sensitivity. All subjects are randomly assigned to different test groups. Subjects typically do not know what is being tested. And finally, the statisticians who evaluate the results do not know the identity of any of the subjects, or about the procedures performed on each group. Statistical methods are employed to cancel out any bias wherever possible.
The first study we'll look at is one from 2005, by the UK Health Protection Agency, which found that a disproportionately large segment of self-reported ES sufferers also report suffering from other idiopathic symptom-based conditions. Now this doesn't tell us anything about ES, of course, but it does tell us that ES sufferers are more likely to also report other conditions that are commonly classified as psychosomatic, or as it's more politically correct to say, psychophysiologic illnesses. It's fair to note that some psychosomatic cases are people simply faking symptoms, and while some ES sufferers might be faking, probably the great majority are not, and are experiencing real symptoms; and now we know that many of these people also report conditions known to be psychosomatic in nature. Read between my lines at your own peril.
This finding is certainly consistent with the findings of other studies, which have tested various treatments for ES. What these studies have found is that the only successful treatment has been psychotherapy. A trial at Sweden's University of Uppsala's Department of Clinical Psychology took blood samples from subjects and analyzed them for indicators of stress, both before and after the test. Some subjects were secretly exposed to electromagnetic radiation, but there were neither any differences between ES sufferers and control subjects in how they reacted to it, nor were there any differences in stress among those who received radiation and those who did not. When subjects received psychotherapy, the patients who reported themselves as ES sufferers had a greater reduction in stress levels following psychotherapy than did subjects who did not report themselves as hypersensitive.
Another such trial was performed at the Environmental Illness Research Center in Huddinge, Sweden. Half the subjects reported themselves as hypersensitive, half did not. Half received cognitive behavioral therapy, half did not. All were evaluated for stress before the study, after the study, and six months later. Just like in the other trial, subjects with perceived hypersensitivity benefitted more from cognitive behavioral therapy than did those who were not hypersensitive. There were no other significant differences among any groups.
So before all of you ES sufferers band together and have me tarred and feathered for proclaiming that yours is not a physical condition, allow me to remind you that I'm not saying that. Psychological conditions do cause physical symptoms — like I said at the beginning of the episode, stress is a psychological condition, and it causes all the same symptoms that ES does. These conditions can be very traumatic, and at their most severe, even life threatening. So it's not to be taken lightly. But every reasonable person should agree that it's best to understand the condition's true nature.
A 2005 trial at the Psychiatric University Hospital in Germany found further support for the hypothesis that ES sufferers are not having a physiological response to electromagnetic radiation:
The major study endpoint was the ability of the subjects to differentiate between real magnetic stimulation and a sham condition. There were no significant differences between groups in the thresholds, neither of detecting the real magnetic stimulus nor in motor response. But the three groups differed significantly in differentiating between stimulation and sham condition, with the subjectively electrosensitive people having the lowest ability to differentiate and the control group with high level of EMF-related complaints having the best ability to differentiate. Differences between groups were mostly due to false alarm reactions in the sham condition reported by subjectively electrosensitives (SES). We found no objective correlate of the self perception of being "electrosensitive."
These results represent the preponderance of evidence from well-performed trials seeking to find whether ES sufferers can actually detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and react to them. Going back to Sweden again, a 2000 study at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the Center for Public Health Sciences found that ES sufferers were no better than the control group at deciding whether or not they were exposed to electric and magnetic fields. In this test, subjects were exposed to four provocations at irregular and unknown intervals over several days, with at least several days of recovery time between each provocation. Each subject received two real provocations of actual electromagnetic radiation, and two sham provocations. The study concluded that exposure to electromagnetic fields is not a sufficient cause of the symptoms experienced by ES sufferers.
Some researchers have turned their attention to causes that would correlate to the presence of common environmental EM sources like computers or offices, most notably flickering lights. In the United States, televisions flicker at 30 Hz, fluorescent lights at 60 Hz, and computer monitors at a variety of frequencies in the same approximate range. This flickering is usually imperceptible unless you look for it specifically, for example by waving your hand in front of a CRT monitor. Generally, if your brain can detect flickering light sources, it knows that there are probably electromagnetic sources nearby. Thus, an ES sufferer can correctly conclude that electromagnetic sources are irradiating them, and logically (if incorrectly) associate that with their symptoms.
This was evidenced by another study from Sweden in 1997, from the University of Umeå's Department of Environmental Medicine:
An increasing number of people in Sweden are claiming that they are hypersensitive to electricity. These patients suffer from skin as well as neurological symptoms when they are near computer monitors, fluorescent tubes, or other electrical appliances. Provocation studies with electromagnetic fields emitted from these appliances have, with only one exception, all been negative, indicating that there are other factors in the office environment that can effect the autonomic and/or central nervous system, resulting in the symptoms reported. Flickering light is one such factor and was therefore chosen as the exposure parameter in this study. Ten patients complaining of electrical hypersensitivity and the same number of healthy voluntary control subjects were exposed to amplitude-modulated light. A higher amplitude of brain cortical responses at all frequencies of stimulation was found when comparing patients with the control subjects.
The ability of a human brain to convince itself of just about anything is not to be underestimated. If you are experiencing stress (and just about everyone is experiencing some stress), whatever you attribute it to will inevitably create more stress whenever you encounter it. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe yourself to be electrosensitive, then you will be, quite literally, whenever you perceive the presence of electromagnetism. This doesn't mean that you have a paranormal ability to detect electromagnetic fields. You don't. But you might be able to hear the high-frequency ring of your neighbor's television set, or see the 60-Hz flickering of a fluorescent light bulb, or you might see that your computer has found a WiFi network or that your cell phone has four bars of signal. There are many ways that a person can detect the probable presence of electromagnetic radiation without the ability to directly sense it. And, if you've fallen into the self-fulfilling syndrome of believing yourself to be electrosensitive, you will actually suffer measurable physical symptoms and can potentially become acutely ill. By the same token, if you believe strongly enough that acupuncture or vitamins will cure your electrosensitivity, they probably will.
But all this strategy accomplishes is to reinforce faulty assumptions, and leave you equally vulnerable to a recurrence in the future. A better strategy is to understand the true cause of your stress, possibly through psychotherapy or possibly on your own, and either solve it or simply find a way to relax and blow off some steam.
I'll close with an experience related by a listener who wrote in, that aptly illustrates this phenomenon:
We had an interesting incident near Humboldt State University. A new cell tower went up and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cell phone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health. To paraphrase the bottom line: "think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Andersson, B, Berg, M, Arnetz, BB, Melin, L, Langlet, I, Lidén, S. "A cognitive-behavioral treatment of patients suffering from "electric hypersensitivity". Subjective effects and reactions in a double-blind provocation study." J Occup Environ Med. 1 Aug. 1996, Volume 38, Number 8: 752-758.
Flodin, U, Seneby, A, Tegenfeldt, C. "Provocation of electric hypersensitivity under everyday conditions." Scand J Work Environ Health. 1 Apr. 2000, Volume 26, Number 2: 93-98.
Frick, U., Kharraz, A., Hauser, S., Wiegand, R., Rehm, J., Kovatsits, U., Eichhammer, P. "Comparison perception of singular transcranial magnetic stimuli by subjectively electrosensitive subjects and general population controls." Bioelectromagnetics. 1 May 2005, Volume 26, Number 4: 287-298.
Hillert, L, Kolmodin Hedman, B, Dölling, BF, Arnetz, BB. "Cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with electric sensitivity - a multidisciplinary approach in a controlled study." Psychother Psychosom. 1 Jan. 1998, Volume 67, Number 6: 302-310.
Sandström, M, Lyskov, E, Berglund, A, Medvedev, S, Mild, KH. "Neurophysiological effects of flickering light in patients with perceived electrical hypersensitivity." J Occup Environ Med. 1 Jan. 1997, Volume 39, Number 1: 15-22.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Real or Imagined?" Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
30 Oct 2007. Web.
10 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4072>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
From my understanding, the jury is still out on cell phone dangers. People have all kinds of reasoning on both sides why they should or shouldn't be harmful. My take on it is that, like smoking or SHS, any harm will likely be cumulative, and could be combined with other causes. We won't know for 30 years, and even then we still won't *really* know.
Dan Pearson, Omaha, NE
November 02, 2007 7:54am
Electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 400 micrometers and 700 micrometers can kill you!!! Lol. Just kidding.
wj32, Location Unknown
November 06, 2007 12:34am
My reaction would be that all EM radiation can kill, if at the correct intensity, but to add to that; it is all around us in varying degrees, some of which is much greater than that from these devices, so evaluation:-
1) more research needed (jobs for the boys!)
2) probably not worth worrying about!
Griff...
Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
November 06, 2007 5:21am
This illness I suffer has drawn me to skepticism because I know it's capable of leading those that want the truth to it. There is a parade of people out there that dogmatically adhere to fallacies that has kept this illness and ones like it from being recognized by science. I would argue that anytime you imply "mental" you could just as easily say "flying spaghetti monster" I can't prove your wrong, yet the evidence you make for it isn't much better. I would put the treatments you prescribe in the same league with the efficacy of your favorite vitamin or quack alternative treatment, say acupuncture or quackropractic. The danger here is you could be disenfranchising a huge section of the population from getting a proper diagnosis, if you weren't blowing sunshine up all your listeners asses with this notion that therapy works. If it were true, we might possibly separate the wheat from the chaff and people like me that suffer from a real physical illness (mold reactivity) that hasn't been recognized by medicine yet could get the treatment we desperately need. In the outside chance I am deluding myself as you imply of ef sufferer's I could still get the treatment I need. Win/Win. Their are a few sayings in life, one is "if it sounds to good to be true it probably is" the other is "if someone really had a cure that worked news would get out and people would be pounding the doors down to get at it." I would be trampling over those people to get to the front of the line!
Robert Christ, Tallahassee fl
November 12, 2007 12:55pm
Are you allergic to mold?
In one sentence, what is the point you are trying to make.
Marius vanderLubbe, Nullarbor Plain, Australia
November 12, 2007 11:57pm
This issue is a lot more complicated than "real or imagined", their are about a million in the US alone who suffer from "mental disorders", none are getting better.
Maybe the reason why the treatments don't work is their based on a false premise.
Deathly allergic to mold, the symptoms are not that different from ES, and are extremely debilitating to the point that I haven't worked in ten years.
If only researchers took the time to study mold instead of ES which is kind of silly and a waste of money, but gave them lots if ammunition for this ignorance argument.
Their are many things that could cause ES suffers illness, mold is just one of them. To simply postulate it's mental is ignorant. That EF suffer's are looking for an environmental cause wouldn't seem that silly if in fact their was an environmental cause like say mold. What would really be unusual is if someone said this:
"well something is making me very sick but I don't really care to find out what it is"
To use their own argument against them is strawman, doesn't matter who created it.
Brian should do this same piece but on mold related illness, science applied properly, (no strawmen or ignorance arguments). Scrutiny will show this illness deserves serious consideration as a likely catalyst for chronic fatigue and researchers & practitioners need to take this seriously.
(I say catalyst because I don't think its the cause acoem used this premise so they could knock it down)
http://www.acoem.org/guidelines.aspx?id=850
One sentence? give me a break, tell Brian to do his show in one sentence.
Robert
Robert Christ, Tallahassee fl
November 13, 2007 7:59am
I was thinking along the lines of
"I have an allergy to mold Brian,and perhaps this (or something like it) may be a possible cause for the described symptoms of E.S, so don't discount sufferers as nut jobs."
Wasn't hard.
Interesting surname, by the way. I thought mine had some interesting connotations, but yours has more. Did you chose it?
Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
November 13, 2007 9:19pm
I could of done it like that but wanted to be a little more persuasive I suppose.
No, I was born with it.
Although it's pronounced crist, not christ.
robert christ, tallahassee fl
November 13, 2007 10:48pm
http://kob.com/article/stories/S451152.shtml
Someone brings a suit against a town to ban wifi because he can't find his tinfoil hat.
The sad thing here is that the town is arguing that wifi is too important to ban; in other words, they aren't arguing that the whole "ES" condition is psychosomatic, as they should be...
This has the makings of a reasonable scientific theory. People claim they are suffering from a condition caused by a measurable independent variable. It's testable, it's repeatable, hell, it's falsifiable; unfortunately for the 'sufferers', it's demonstrably false when tested.
But the danger is that people will start claiming that more and more possible sources might be responsible. By suggesting more and more possible causes, eventually there will be a positive result. Doing this is a good example of post-hoc reasoning / moving goalposts.
eric thorn, Seoul, ROK
June 22, 2008 10:08am
"think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
That was priceless.
Trevor Agnitti, Springfield
June 28, 2008 10:46am
My 5-yr old has no idea whether the wi-fi is on or not, but I sure do. We shut it at night and he stopped screaming in pain. Think we imagined that? For him it seems to be a proximity to the transmitter in conjunction with the length of exposure and type of activity he's engaged in. All good medical diagnoses start with anecdotal evidence. All newly found issues have their strange proponents. You may not see it, feel it or taste it, but I have no doubt it exists in our house.
By the way, no one sued the city. They made a plea to the city council to vote against allowing wi-fi in public buildings: library, community centers. They lost that battle.
lkr, santa fe
July 30, 2008 7:35pm
Yeah, I can tell when the wi-fi isn't working, too.
My laptop loses connectivity to the 'net.
And THAT is annoying!!
Brenton, New Zealand
August 18, 2008 5:31pm
Minor correction:
Fluorescent lights run on 60Hz AC (in the US), but flicker at twice that rate, 120Hz. They go off while the applied voltage is low, and are on at the voltage peaks.
TV Frames are updated at about 30Hz, but are made up as pairs of fields which update at 60Hz. This makes a 60Hz flicker on many display devices, like CRTs. Other display devices, like LCDs, may keep a pixel "mostly on" so the flickering brightness is not actually produced.
carl van wormer, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
August 30, 2008 6:04pm
Looks like the UK Health Protection Agency link needs repair. The correct link is http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947416613
Stephen Nelson, San Jose, CA
September 21, 2008 12:02am
If electromagnetic sensitivity is actually stress caused by the flicker of computer monitors and the high-pitched whine of much electronic equipment -- which seems a very likely explanation as they're both subtle and irritating as all hell -- then it's not psychosomatic. It's just misdiagnosed. I wonder how many doctors recommend people who complain of ES to try switching to an LCD monitor and a quieter computer. (Answer: probably few, because ergonomics is a different field and people are really poor at working across fields.)
Paul, Walnut Creek, CA
October 12, 2008 7:00pm
In this study http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html some people do seem to show sensitivity to EM.
Tim, Bozeman, MT
November 24, 2008 2:59pm
I have been suffering since 1999, and have only in the past 5 years found any information on EMF hypersensitivity. I have been diagnosed with MS, Lupus, Fybromyalgia, depression, etc - but CRTs and Flourescent lights are the triggers. I avoid those as much as possible, but it's hard to avoid them at work, so I suffer.
danielle, amity,or
May 08, 2009 10:54am
I've had fun with this one. We had a wingnut at one place I worked (SeaWorld) who got a job in the environmental dept. It was her job to inspect workplaces for environmental hazards. We went into a electric supply room that had 2 great humming transformers in it. I handed her a hard hat lined with tinfoil, and explained it helped prevent headaches. She put it on and said it made her feel better. Made me feel better too. I was later told not to tease the animals, but thankfully her crackpot ideas were discredited from then on.
Dave Waldman, Atascadero CA
June 27, 2009 1:28pm
ES or EHS is real. I call it a combo type of illness, that causes a lot of pain. The combo is electromagnetic field and toxic metals. One can be tested for toxic metals. A lot of people are being irradiated and are so unaware, but those who are sensitive feel it in many ways. Use meters to find out if you are safe. It is CUMULATIVE!
C Moore, Unionville, CT
August 23, 2009 11:15am
If it is actually possible that stupid people can get sick (or even die!) from their stupid ideas, perhaps this is evolution at work?
Chris, Toronto
September 01, 2009 9:46am
I have suffered from intense headaches since I retired as a Biomedical scientist 6 years ago, they mostly occur if I spend the day at home. I have seen a neurologist who said I mustn't lie in bed in the morning on the days I dont go out! I have stopped using a cordless phone and mobile and have painted some of my walls with sheilding paint as the family next door have a wifi.
I live near an electricity substation and I still feel very tired and get headaches if I sit in my living room although they are not as bad as they were. As a scientist I dont really believe in anything I cant test for so I find the idea of electrosensitivity weird.
I need someone to tell me what to do to get rid of the headaches as the only thing I've found that works is to walk the streets all day and winter is coming.
Rita Turner, Folkestone
October 05, 2009 6:43am
This comment is addressed to Rita Turner, Folkestone who posted on Oct 05, 2009 6:43am.
Just a thought Rita, but have you had your gas boiler/heating system checked to see that it is safe and not leaking carbon-monoxide into your house. Carbon-monoxoide (which is odourless) poisoning can cause flu-like symptoms such lethargy, muscle aches, headaches, and of course it can cause death at prolonged/higher exposures. This could be why your symptoms are worse now your at home more (since you retired) and during winter when you have the heating on. This is a much more rational explanation than EHS, which like Brian Dunning, I'm skeptical about.
It never hurts to have your gas appliances checked regularly for safety anyway.
Simon, Doncaster UK
November 01, 2009 10:37am
I HAVE BEEN ES FOR 10YRS I AM NOT AN ELECTROPHOBE I WILL USE A MOBILE I WILL WATCH A TV ETC.. I DO NOT RUN WHEN I SEE A MOBILE PHONE MAST OR A PERSON APPROACHING ME WITH A PHONE HOWEVER ITS USSUALLY AT TIMES WHEN I AM QUITE SETTLED MINDING MY OWN BUSSINESS WHEN THE THAT FAMILIAR STINGING SENSATION/MILD STABBING PAIN IN THE HEAD ALERTS ME TO THE FACT THAT A PERSON SAY 2-10M AWAY IS USING A PHONE USSUALLY IN A QUE INSIDE A BUILDING. YOU CAN DRIVE ME DOWN THE M25 BLINDFOLDED AND I WILL TELL YOU WHREE THE MOBILE MASTS ARE, I HAVE DONE THIS IN OTHER COUNTRIES AND CONVERTED MANY A SCEPTIC - TURN YOUR ATTENTION AWAY FROM HOUNDING THE SICK HERE AND LOOK AT ALL THE UP AND COMING RESEARCH ON THE EFFCETS OF EMFS ON THE GENERAL POPULATION NEVERMIND ES PERSONS, WHAT IS THE PHYCHOLOGY BEHIND THOSE THAT WOULD HAVE US BRANDED MAD AND DELUDED - WHY WAHT IS YOUR MENTAL PROBLEM !
PC, LONDON
December 28, 2009 4:40am
I'm writing in response to the fact that I lost a Son, in 2008 from glioblastoma multiforme brain cancer. He was a graduate student in San Diego, CA. I found articles on the internet about a brain cancer cluster on campus. Four men, 2 in 2008 died, 1 has died and 1 is still battling. In November of 2009, ANOTHER brain cancer victim was diagnosed! The school said the tower near ALL of these victims,( within 2-3 hunderd feet), was a sprint tower. I investigated on my own, and it is a HPWREN, high performance wireless educational network, backbone to the UCSD campus. If this isn't the PROOF of the DANGER'S of EMF exposures, then what is???
VF, Colorado
Virginia Farver, FTC., CO
January 09, 2010 6:56pm
@Virginia
What you have, ma'am, is what the scientific community likes to refer to as "anecdotal evidence". You see, you have one case, one *SPECIFIC* case, involving one tower, and three people with cancer that happened to be in the area of it. Scientifically, however, there are thousands (likely tens of thousands) of these towers, and at approximately none of them has there been any incident of higher cancer rates.
What I'm trying to say essentially is that if you sift through all the receiver towers and all the people in proximity to them, you're bound to find one around which people have higher incidence of brain cancer. You're also likely to discover two or three that have a higher instance of chlamydia transmission within x-radius around it. Does it mean that the tower is broadcasting sexually transmitted diseases to those that live around it? NO! It means that there happens to be more people with, for whatever reason, has higher risk factor for contracting y-diagnosis.
Sword of Damocles, Longview, WA
January 11, 2010 2:05pm
People should just get over it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome
Anonymous, Nowhere, Anywhere
January 12, 2010 6:39am
Brief synopsis:
Prior to engaging in any scientific evaluation (such as the self-diagnosis of a presumptive medical condition), please refer to the following statement.
First Rule of Statistics: Correlation does NOT equal causation.
Case closed.
Dismayed in Dallas, Dallas, Texas
January 12, 2010 3:07pm
I have been exhibiting many of these symptoms! The dizziness, light sensitivity, skin sensitivity and blemishing,fatigue,headaches as well as many other things... But It couldn't possibly be because I am a pregnant red head with a sinus infection. It TOTALLY has to be that...
Many people perceived they have an illness that is really just psychosomatic. I'm sure if I were to tell my sister of this "illness" that she would develop symptoms within the week.
Amber, Texas
January 15, 2010 8:57am
Well from my own experience, I would be willing to bet that it is REAL.
First, I felt a weird vibration for 5 months (off and on, jolted me awake), then a strange low frequency sound started. It took me 11 months to figure out the source of the sound that I thought it was machinery, but it WAS cell towers, most likely 3G. I have no proof, but the sound emanated from the top of the towers, it was so low I could not record it. Since then, the various phenomenon that occur include: pounding low freq sound that hurts my ears and a strange strong tingling sensation, sometimes directional (I feel it on one side of my body, and as I turn, the source direction remains constant) and sometimes ALL over my body. So as long as I have no way to record the phenomenon that I am experiencing, some people's absolute skepticism will remain.
But it IS hurting my ears at this very moment, and inside my house is louder than outside, which suggests a real sound. Not one other person I know has experienced this locally, but I am convinced it is real, the electromagnetic sensitivity was not the first symptom, I believe that they are continuing to gradually boost the power levels, thereby giving me different sensations that I have to live/exist with.
BTW, the closest tower is more than 1/2 a mile away, the noisiest (at the time) tower was over 2 miles away! So believe what you want, but try to have an open mind and realize human beings can be different in many respects, including sensitivity.
Carly, Tampa
January 16, 2010 8:19am
You clearly know very little about this matter. You are causing great skepticism of doctors who are doing all they can to help alleviate real suffering. People used to think dust and pollen allergies were psychosomatic. When you get brain cancer from your cell phone and your EMF radiating devices, I'll be glad.
sick of people who keep science from progressing, seattle
January 17, 2010 10:18pm
ES, and the larger cluster of disorders known as environmental illness, is a horrendously complex medical issue. While you make a lot of valid points, you also drastically oversimplify the issue by reducing the entire spectrum of inquiry to a few studies that have shown negative results. Yes, as yet, there is no reproducible method of determining whether ES and EI are primarily physiological. But to take that fact and then conclude that it must mean the disorder is psychological is a breach of logic as well as a misuse of scientific skepticism. The logical extension of such thinking is that medical science has illuminated every mystery of the body, and therefore anything that falls outside of its current parameters must be the realm of some other discipline, or just make-believe, which is ridiculous.
Skepticism is good. I'm a skeptic. And if I hadn't begun to suffer from EI years ago and in such a debilitating fashion, I'd probably be writing the same stuff you are. But as it is, I do have it, and so I'm writing this instead. I've spent a lot of time and money exploring both psychological and physiological explanations for this condition, and my personal experience has led me to believe that it is primarily physiological. The studies you've referenced aren't as conclusive as you've made them out, and there are others, too, that have shown positive results. Any true skeptic would have to say that the verdict is out, that's all. This isn't about tinfoil helmets.
Derek, Kalamazoo, MI
January 21, 2010 5:01pm
You are very closed minded to decide that something must be psychosomatic just because you've not experienced it yourself and that the combination of things in the body of various individuals, -maybe differing in each- causing it has not been definitively arrived at by scientific researchers.
I have had this illness seriously since around the time of 9-11, but had it yrs before that if exposed to a microwave oven running in close prioxity. i have to think that until cell phone towers got put up in large numbers, there was not much to set it off in me(I avoided MW ovens).
I have always wanted to be tested before a TV audience or some blind study to prove it to you doubting Thomases.
A note..everyone who has it ill-responds to very different things. For me it is mostly microwaves..anything emitting them,... though computers do not bother me much. They say its about the FREQUENCY..an allergic response to that. I don't have the why's..I just know that most of the time when the pain comes on, it is either when I'm asleep or when I inadvertently do not know a miicrowave oven is in use nearby or a cell phone too close, only to find out that of course one was.
If I so much as touch a cell phone, nerve pain shoots up from my hand to my shoulder. If I pick up a friends laptop to move it away from me, I experiece chest pain and trouble breathing for up to 2 hrs after the exposure..if only for 3 seconds!
Lack of evidence does not equate evidence of lack.
sunnie wilmot, Sarasota, FL
January 22, 2010 2:08pm
Brian, four years ago, I was exhibiting the same symptoms you describe and I was told by a massage therapist that it had to be caused by Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. She had me undergo acupuncture and told me that if I avoided any areas near cell phone towers, microwaves, TVs, I would be okay. I did just that. I felt much better. I found myself not having the ringing ears, the constant headaches, the tingly skin, I just felt so much better.
I started working at a retail store shortly thereafter. I didn't give my physical issues any more thought because they were gone. Unbeknownst to me, our store had Wi-Fi, the roof of the store had a cell tower, the store next door had both a TV and a microwave. But the simple task of not THINKING about the affliction made it go away for me.
I became a victim to my victimization. I'm not saying that everyone would experience the same, I just invite anyone who is suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity to simply distract yourself. Change your life, write a journal, read a book, take a drive, go for a hike, just do something which is the exact opposite of what you normally do when you get your symptoms. Simple relaxation techniques like yoga or meditation can make you feel brand new. Which makes me think that my illness was severe stress all along. The more you think about it, the worse it gets (just like a panic attack that can feel just like a heart attack, only because you THINK it is a heart attack).
lawrence, albuquerque, nm
February 11, 2010 2:28pm
I can hear t.v. frequencies and hear different tones from channels when they are changed and when they go to commercial , it causes no pain, however it is annoying my ears ring from this. I also can see these new cfl bulbs or leds flicker which causes eye strain , before you go to judge others for what they believe is true you should think of how it would feel if it happened to you. Every one is different with falts and gifts not the same but I can tell you this is not stress it is real
mylady midwest, st.louis,mo
February 12, 2010 10:30pm
Two studies, with different points of view, on cellphone usage ( which involves electromagnetic waves )
British Journal of Cancer - Interphone study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17636416
Other study - Independent study
www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/reasons_us.pdf
Read these reports and make up your own mind about the subject. Also, it has been documented, by Dr. Robert Beck and others, that small currents ( in the nano,microamp range ) can induce chemical reactions in biological systems. This body of research is available through PubMEd and other Databases even though it is not popularized or made available or explained at large.
Andy, Alpharetta, GA
February 13, 2010 10:53am
I wrote in earlier about a brain cancer cluster on the SDSU campus. 5 people, 4 within the last 3 years have gotten Brain Cancer. To the person, in Washington, who typed an e-mail under mine, I have NEWS for you! Get FEBRUARY 2010 ISSUE OF THE," GQ MAGAZINE." For someone who has lost a child to this HORRIBLE disease, I have nothing to say! Your ignorance is obvious, and pretty insensitive as well!
Virginia Farver
Virginia Farver, FTC., CO
February 20, 2010 9:48am
Deleterious non-thermal biological effects of microwave EMR have been known since the 1950s. There's nothing new here except the rapidly increasing extent and intensity of EMR exposure.
As the late Dr Robert Becker describes in his book "The Body Electric" at p. 314, this knowledge entered the scientific orthodoxy in the east, but not in the west.
"All of the industrialized West is locked into a false position on electropollution's risks [...]
Soviet scientists have consistently assumed that any radiation that doesn't occur in nature will have some effect on life. We've consistently made the opposite assumption. Throughout our recent history American regulators have [...] extended no protection until there was proof of harm sufficient to overcome all deception [...]
In the 1950s, Russian doctors conducted extensive clinical exams of thousands of workers who had been exposed to microwaves during the development of radar. Having disclosed serious health problems, these studies weren't swept under the rug. Instead, the USSR set limits of 10 microwatts for workers and military personnel, and 1 microwatt for others. Both levels are strictly enforced. When this first became known in the West in the early 1960s, instead of checking their assumptions many American scientists and administrators chose to believe this was Russian propaganda aimed at embarrassing us."
The cognitive/behavioural studies referenced in this article are recent additions to the western smokescreen.
Michael Lusk, Järna
April 14, 2010 6:10am
The intensity of electromagnetic radiation falls off with the square of the distance from the source. This means that when you are two feet away from the source, you receive one quarter the amount that you receive when you stand one foot away. When you stand three feet away, you receive one ninth the amount at one foot. And standing ten feet away you receive one one-hundredth of the amount at one foot away.
The quotes above from "The Body Electric" don't make any mention of distance. Workers developing radar equipment might well spend significant amounts of time within a foot or so of the equipment, and I could believe that such intense exposure might possibly be "deleterious".
But how close does any normal person get to the top of a cell tower? If the tower is 50 feet tall, and you stand right at the base, you are receiving 1/2500th the amount of radiation that is being emitted at the top of the tower!
So comparing workers exposed to microwaves at possibly a few feet from the source to regular people who are typically hundreds of feet from the source is just not a valid comparison.
Jim Preston, California
April 14, 2010 10:40am
If you believe that EMF's are safe, then you have only listened to Industry! They have Trillions of dollars, and they still control the media. The Interphone Study that was just released SHOWS SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FOR BRAIN TUMOR DEVELOPMENT WITH WHAT MOST PEOPLE EXPOSE THEMSELVES TOO, WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS. The American Cancer Society also get's lavish donations from the Telecommunications Industry! It's ALL ABOUT MONEY!!! Please look up,T-Mobiles,"ECOLOG," Study that was released in 2000. It was buried!!!Listen to the Scientist's, they have everyones best interest at heart. If there is a Scientist who says there is no harm, from EMF's, I wonder what type of PERK they are getting? MONEY~THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!!!!
Virginia Farver, FTC., CO
May 27, 2010 8:53am
If it was buried, It wouldn't show up on a search. It's always good to hear a commenter who is completely irrational and thinks that the industry is what, paying Brian to say this. Has he ever cared what the "Industry" or media said before?
Caleigh, Maine
July 31, 2010 6:42am
If it's completely irrational, please look at this link and do your research!
Lexology: Cell Phone Advisory, Calling for Coverage!
www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9f5de43d-e2b0-4879-9410-313e91b5da4b
No I'm not irrational, just a Mom who has lost a Son from this horrible disease! I've also been in contact with several experts within this field, and the public is quite frankly unaware! Read," Cell Phones and Brain Tumors, 15 Reasons for Concern!"
The Interphone Study that the media spun to their advantage STILL shows a 40% risk for development of Gliomas! The most deadly form of brain cancer. Also, if you don't believe the American Cancer Society is in bed with Industry, Please look this up as well! There are sites on the computer asking people to boycott this Non Profit!!!! No, I'm not irrational, but if you feel the need, keep on using your cell phone! I told you so!
Virginia Farver, FTC., CO
August 07, 2010 6:41pm
One argument for the possibility that non-ionizing radiation affects tissue is "cyclotron resonance." A fancy term which, boiled down, merely means that waves interact and are amplified when they resonate together. On the ocean, this is easily seen as two waves meet and heap up to form a new wave much larger than the surrounding waves. With respect to tissue, the theory holds that resonance causes biochemical reactions. Interestingly, one byproduct of this phenomenon may be the release of lithium in the brain. Which, if true, would seem to answer Bob Dole's question: "Where's the outrage?" See Dr. Robert O. Becker's book "Cross Currents" for a more detailed explanation of cyclotron resonance.
Barton Spring, Austin, Tx
August 25, 2010 5:55pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
You described the situation of being/not being ES.
But still - can electromagnetism actually harm my health? If really not - why mobile phones are decided being harmful then? Or I just didn't catch the point and mobiles and other e/m-fields are totally health-friendly?
Dima Halfer, Lviv, Ukraine
November 01, 2007 2:51am