EHS workshop at BioEM2021: Sensitivity to EMF: The Present and The Future

My proposal of workshop on EHS has been approved by the Technical Program Committee of the BioEM 2021 conference. Below is the description of the workshop. It will be conducted as hybrid workshop with presentations on-site in Ghent and on-line.


Sensitivity to EMF: The Present and The Future

The ongoing deployment of 5G wireless communications together with the expansion of the internet social media has led to galvanization of the anti-5G activist movement. Activists are concerned that their health will be affected by the radiation emitted by the 5G networks where base stations will be densely distributed and in close proximity to dwellings and placer of work. Currently available research, predominantly based on psychological provocation studies, does not provide sufficiently reliable evidence of the lack of causality link between health and exposures to EMF.

The proposed EHS workshop will address a number of unresolved questions concerning the EHS:

  • How certain we are that EHS exists?
  • What could be the mechanism of how EHS develops in population?
  • What role in developing EHS plays the density of EMF emitters and what chemical polluters?
  • Are current ICNIRP safety guidelines sufficient to protect persons with self-declared EHS?
  • How reliable and how useful, for setting health policies, is the to-date published EHS research?
  • What additional impact may have 5G on EHS, or will it remain the same as with 3G and 4G?
  • What new research should be done to get more insight into EHS physiology and psychology?

Speakers invited to present in the EHS workshop (all speakers confirmed):

  • Workshop Chair: Dariusz Leszczynski
  • Martin Röösli – Professor of Environmental Epidemiology & Head of the Environmental Exposures and Health Unit, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Associated Institute of the University of Basel, Switzerland
  • Maël Dieudonné – Max Weber Center, Institut des Sciences de l’Homme, 14 avenue Berthelot, F-69007, and  Health Services and Performance Research, University Hospital of Lyon, 162 avenue Lacassagne, F-69003, Lyon, France
  • Dariusz Leszczynski – Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, Helsinki University, Finland, and Chief Editor of ‘Radiation and Health’ of the Frontiers in Public Health, Lausanne, Switzerland

Workshop schedule (proposal for 120 min total):

  • Introduction – Leszczynski (5 min)
  • Martin Röösli (30 min)
  • Maël Dieudonné (30 min)
  • Dariusz Leszczynski (30 min)
  • Discussion (25 min)

Brief outlines of presentations (not abstracts)

Martin Röösli: Hypersensitivity and vulnerable populations in environmental epidemiology

  • Individuals are reacting to environmental stressors differently owned to other factors such as genetic predisposition, co-exposures, health literacy etc. Exposure-response curves are used in environmental epidemiology to express how much the likelihood to develop a disease is increasing with increasing exposure. In the public health context, protection of vulnerable populations has received substantial attention in the last few decades. On the top of this natural variation, the existence of so-called hypersensitive individuals have been suggested for various environmental exposures such as chemicals, noise or electromagnetic fields. The basic idea behind is that such individuals are reacting to substantially lower exposure levels outside the typical variation in the population, similar to individuals with an allergy. In this talk I will discuss the concept of vulnerability and hypersensitivity for various environmental stressors including electromagnetic fields.

Maël Dieudonné: EHS: a problem from the past or a challenge for the future?

  • From a bioelectromagnetic perspective, EHS may no longer appear as a problem: while EHS persons’ symptoms are not consistent with established EMF health effects, many studies have shown that they are not associated with EMF exposure, whether in experimental or real-life settings. Dismissing EHS nonetheless seems premature. EHS persons have not disappeared: they keep raising public concern and challenging the effectiveness of safety regulations, while their symptoms remain perplexing for health professionals. Drawing from available scientific evidence and my personal experience as an EHS researcher, I will contend that the way forward starts with a better definition of EHS, disentangling the roles of EMF exposure, beliefs and behaviours in the genesis of EHS symptoms.

Dariusz Leszczynski: An urgent necessity for overhaul of EHS research

  • Part of the population considers themselves as sensitive to the man-made electromagnetic radiation (EMF) emitted by powerlines, electric wiring, electric home appliances and the wireless communication devices and networks. Sensitivity is characterized by a broad variety of non-specific symptoms that the sensitive people claim to experience when exposed to EMF. While the experienced symptoms are currently considered as a real life impairment, factors causing these symptoms remain unclear. The to-date published scientific studies, examining sensitivity to EMF, are of insufficient methodological design to find the link between EMF exposures and sensitivity symptoms, if such exists. Predominantly psychology-driven efforts to examine sensitivity to EMF are likely inadequate to find physiological ailment. There is a need for a new direction by combining both psychological provocation approach and physiological biochemistry approach to gather not only subjective but also objective scientific evidence. I will present inadequacies of the past research and propose direction for the new EHS research.

9 thoughts on “EHS workshop at BioEM2021: Sensitivity to EMF: The Present and The Future

  1. Please read my experiences of being ES in the book “The Microwave Delusion.”
    I took part in the UK research to prove if it exists or not. It was rigged to prove it was not real.
    After one session with the mast on (recognised by myself) I reported over the next few days in diary to fill in for the researchers classic reaction to EMF’s, but also by the time I had driven home serious internal bleeding which continued for several days. After that a bled internally when exposed to wi- fi or high EMF’s.This would have been very easy to check out. Instead my diary was ignored because what I claimed happened to me the researcher said was impossible. I thought they were trying to check out what was possible with hypersensitive people not ignore them.
    Clearly I was wrong. After publicising this in the UK press I had an audience with Sir William Stewart (Chair Health Protection Agency) who after a grilling asked me to help design the next tests. I accepted and met with his number two who refused my help and told me that they did not need more studies.

  2. Pingback: Extended Abstracts for the EHS Workshop at the BioEM2021 in Ghent, Belgium | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  3. Good luck with this important meeting, dear Dariusz!

    With my very best regards
    Yours sincerely

    (Olle Johansson, associate professor)

  4. Pingback: EHS workshop at BioEM2021: Sensitivity to EMF: The Present and The Future – Life, Death and all between

  5. Hope the presenters are familiar with the 2020 large study, “Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It” by Dominique Belpomme, and Philippe Irigaray. They found EHS to be characterized biologically by low-grade inflammation and an autoimmune response involving autoantibodies against O-myelin. “Moreover, 80% of the patients with EHS present with one, two, or three detectable oxidative stress biomarkers in their peripheral blood, meaning that overall these patients present with a true objective somatic disorder.” So, one aspect to consider would be how much oxidative stress can an individual handle. People have a variety of things going on in their bodies. Oxidative stress is only one of the mechanisms of disruption/damage found in the science.
    (How very odd for a person who has experienced this impairment directly to see groups of experts debating whether it exists or not.)

  6. To have a meaningful discussion on EHS one should include on the panel a medical doctor who has experience with diagnosing patients who claim to be EHS – there are several that I know of around the world. One should also include an EHS person who preferably is also a scientific researcher, again I know a number of such people to give a perspective that is based on real experiences and not speculation and potentially biased opinions.

  7. Researchers need to look at blood zeta potential of EHS persons. This seems to me to be the most simple and objective approach. I am sure there is a way to measure the zeta potential, other than visual examination of live blood. Then you have a direct numerical measure, which you can plug into all sorts of statistical tables.

    In fact zeta potential should be measured even of healthy people, before and after exposure. I suspect it may be affected in everyone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.