ABSTRACT
Clinical research aiming at objectively identifying and characterizing diseases via clinical observations and biological and radiological findings is a critical initial research step when establishing objective diagnostic criteria and treatments. Failure to first define such diagnostic criteria may lead research on pathogenesis and etiology to serious confounding biases and erroneous medical interpretations. This is particularly the case for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and more particularly for the so-called "provocation tests", which do not investigate the causal origin of EHS but rather the EHS-associated particular environmental intolerance state with hypersensitivity to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, because those tests depend on multiple EMF-associated physical and biological parameters and have been conducted in patients without having first defined EHS objectively and/or endpoints adequately, they cannot presently be considered to be valid pathogenesis research methodologies. Consequently, the negative results obtained by these tests do not preclude a role of EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS patients. Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects. This international consensus report pleads for the acknowledgement of EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and for its inclusion in the WHO International Classification of Diseases.
Subject(s)
Biomarkers/metabolism , Hypersensitivity/metabolism , Multiple Chemical Sensitivity/metabolism , Animals , Consensus , Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Electromagnetic Fields , Humans , Nervous System Diseases/metabolismABSTRACT
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is an ill-defined term to describe the fact that people who experience health symptoms in the vicinity of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) regard them as causal for their complaints. Up to now most scientists assume a psychological cause for the suffering of electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals. This paper addresses reasons why most provocation studies could not find any association between EMF exposure and EHS and presents a hypothesis on diagnosis and differentiation of this condition. Simultaneous recordings of heart rate variability, microcirculation and electric skin potentials are used for classification of EHS. Thus, it could be possible to distinguish "genuine" electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals from those who suffer from other conditions.
Subject(s)
Electromagnetic Fields/adverse effects , Radiation Injuries/diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Electrophysiological Phenomena/radiation effects , Heart Rate/radiation effects , Humans , Radiation Injuries/physiopathologyABSTRACT
The safety guidelines of ICNIRP on bio-effects of low energy fields are based absorption and transformation into thermal effects. These guidelines are much higher than for acute reactions and long time exposure. It is pointed out that the guidelines for cordless telephone and mobile phone should correspond to long time exposure to low energetic electromagnetic fields.
