Articles,Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity,News,Research |
 

PAPER: A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) – open access

Denis L. Henshaw &  Alasdair Philips

Received 26 Sep 2024, Accepted 22 Nov 2024, Published online: 09 Dec 2024

Conclusions and recommendations

  1. ‘At the scientific level, researchers working in the field of magnetoreception in biology should be made aware of EHS as a human public health concern and funded to address the issue as part of their scientific research.

  2. All interested parties, especially EHS sufferers and medical professionals, should be made aware of the considerable growth in understanding in recent decades of the mechanisms by which all forms of life sense MFs/EMFs, even at extremely low levels. EHS research to date has been significantly hindered by a fundamental lack of knowledge among many medical scientists and EHS researchers regarding the current scientific understanding of quantum biology mechanisms and processes. This has resulted in the design and analysis of inappropriate provocation tests.

  3. Almost all existing epidemiological and provocation studies have failed adequately to determine and measure the necessary dependent and independent variables. In particular:

    1. to characterize in proper technical detail the EMF/RF exposures (including electric and MF levels; average and peak power-density levels; frequencies involved; and modulation characteristics).

    2. to triage participants effectively to remove ‘electrophobic’ and other volunteers self-reporting apparent EHS-related problems.

    3. in provocation studies, to fail to recognize the nonlinear nature of EHS responses and the extremely low levels of exposure (<100 nT) that have effects and, instead, use relatively high exposures fairly close to the ICNIRP and IEEE guidance levels.

    4. in provocation studies, to provide a participant-comfortable extremely low EMF/RF test location, screened from anthropogenic sources and allow adequate time (days rather than hours) for adverse effects to washout between exposures.

  4. EHS studies should move away from current, nonforensic epidemiological approaches and human subjective provocation studies (Leszczynski Citation2022; Röösli et al. Citation2024). Instead, objective measurements of biological parameters, such as heart rate variability, brain wave activity (e.g. fMRI and wide-bandwidth EEG), and the immune response to oxidative stress should be investigated (Caswell et al. Citation2016; Gurfinkel et al. Citation2018; Pishchalnikova et al. 2019; Wang et al. Citation2019; Thoradit et al. Citation2024). We caution that these approaches require sophisticated design and analysis and advanced design personal exposure meters.

  5. We recommend that the WHO properly reevaluates its understanding of EHS to align it with the substantial body of available scientific literature showing mechanistic evidence of interactions of all forms of life, including humans, with low levels of electric and magnetic fields.’

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329?#d1e1631