Are There Symptoms from Exposure to Environmental EMR?

Change always produces some fear, and, as the digital age gathers pace, new fears are developing. One concerns the potential relationship between low-frequency Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR), such is used to drive mobile devices, and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS). Unfortunately, while there is enough evidence to provoke concerns in the public about physical and psychological symptoms, and to prompt the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to recognise this distress as 'real,' there is not enough evidence to allay these fears. Given this, what is known about the extent to which EHS affects people, and what symptoms can it produce in their physical and mental states?

It is estimated that EHS causes distress and loss of quality of life for between 3% and 5% of the European population (i.e. between 22 and 37 million people; EESC, 2015). Moreover, increasing numbers of individuals are claiming that they experience EHS, in one form or another (see Figure 1). Observational studies have noted associations between a wide range of symptoms and presumed exposure to environmental non-ionising EMR^1,2. These studies, typically, examine the correlation between symptoms and proximity to base stations³, or levels of mobile phone usage⁴. Unfortunately, as has often been repeated, correlation is not causation, and it is difficult to get definitive evidence of a causal link.

Percentage population claiming EHS

Source: Phil Reed

The reported symptoms of EHS can involve serious conditions, after long-term EMR exposure, as well as reversible symptoms, after shorter-term exposure¹. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as being possibly carcinogenic for humans, and placed EMFs in the ‘Group 2B’ category of carcinogens. This category is employed when a causal association between a stressor and cancer is considered credible, but when there is insufficient evidence available to rule out the impact of chance, bias, or confounding factors with reasonable confidence⁵.

In addition to a wide range of cancers^1,2, low-frequency non-ionising EMR exposure has been linked to other health problems, such as: asthma⁶, diabetes⁷, multiple sclerosis⁸, and reproductive dysfunction⁹. Furthermore, a number of neuropsychiatric and central nervous system conditions, such as: Alzheimer disease¹⁰, anxiety¹¹, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder¹, autism spectrum disorder¹², and depression¹³, have been associated with EMR exposure. Any putative associations between EMR and disease are of concern, because many of the conditions linked to environmental EMR have, themselves, shown an increase in prevalence over the last 20 years, and represent a substantial burden on health care resources. For example, the number of young people with depression has nearly doubled¹⁴, and sleep disturbances have risen sharply¹⁵. Whether these occurrences are linked causally to EMR, or not, even in part, remains completely unclear.

Although rises in condition prevalence have been linked by some, at least in part, to increased EMR exposure¹, in the absence of causal evidence obtained through controlled experiments, this suggestion is impossible to even begin to verify. This is a critical point, as, if links to environmental triggers for these conditions were to be established, or dismissed, this would enable appropriately-targeted measures to be taken to reduce disease burden and improve public health – which may, or may not, involve a focus on environmental EMR. For this reason, the potential EMR link to disease needs investigation.

Health relationships with environmental EMR-exposure tend to be with single diseases, or apparently random symptom sets. Apart from these links, the most common symptoms self-reported by those who claim EHS, as a result of EMR exposure, are sleep disturbances, headaches, fatigue/tiredness, nausea, skin burning, dysesthesia, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, concentration and attention dysfunction, and memory changes (see Table 1). However, if EHS is to be accepted as a disease/syndrome, then it must involve clusters of multiple symptoms, in addition to, or separate from, other identifiable diseases^1,2. This has not yet been established, leaving open the possibility that these conditions are not EMR-related.

Reported symptoms of EHS

Source: Phil Reed

Despite these cautions, there are theoretical reasons not to exclude the possibility of environmental non-ionising EMR impacting disease. Although the suggested conditions show a huge range of symptomatic differences from each other, many are related to biological systems hypothesised as being negatively affected by EMR exposure^1,10. Evidence has been obtained from nonhuman studies and tissue cultures that EMR will affect histamine-related inflammatory responses¹⁰, which are implicated in diseases, such as asthma and some ASD. Additionally, EMR is taken to impact voltage-activated calcium gate channels², which are widespread throughout the nervous system, and are related to many neuropsychiatric conditions. In line with these suggestions, a range of physiological markers, such as elevation of heat shock proteins¹⁶, melatonin reduction¹⁷, oxidative stress¹⁰, altered cerebral blood flow¹⁸, and increased inflammatory markers¹⁰, have all been noted in those with EHS. However, no single biological marker has been found to predict EHS¹⁹.

Unfortunately, while many of these conditions and claimed associations with environmental EMR are of great concern to the public and public-health officials, current research does not provide strong enough evidence, either way, relating to any adverse health effects from non-ionising EMF. In fact, there are numerous theoretical issues that have not been adequately addressed by current research. For example, as noted above, a central stumbling block is that it is unclear whether EHS distress is causally related to EMR exposure¹⁹, and the potential mechanisms of such a relationship remain unresolved^1,2,10.

As a consequence of these gaps in knowledge, problems with the acceptance of EHS as a ‘real’ disorder have emerged, and have retarded the development of an approach that can help with this critical contemporary issue. Given these concerns, both the European Economic and Social Committee and the World Health Organisation have stressed that further research is essential to accumulate evidence concerning any potential health impact from EMR exposure. Such advice is imperative to follow: We know the consequences for public health of not addressing concerns about safety seriously enough, and of not vigorously addressing such concerns through public forums (witness measles), allowing poorly addressed fears, or poorly researched technology, to drive behavior. If EHS is a ‘real’ phenomenon, causally related to non-ionising EMR, then we need to know it. If it is not, then we need to be able to say why.