Leszczynski’s review of EHS science is available on-line

…see below for the UPDATE…

Dariusz Leszczynski’s “Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS)” has been published in the Reviews on Environmental Health. It is an open access article, freely downloadable. Large portion of the review has been published in 5 tables that, because of their size, are available as on-line supplementary material.

Supplementary Materials

• j_reveh-2021-0038_suppl_001.odt
• j_reveh-2021-0038_suppl_002.odt
• j_reveh-2021-0038_suppl_003.odt
• j_reveh-2021-0038_suppl_004.odt
• j_reveh-2021-0038_suppl_005.odt

Leszczynski EHS 10.1515_reveh-2021-0038Download

*************

…UPDATE: accidental deletion leading to incorrect statement…

After data extraction for the Table 1, during editing process, there accidentally were deleted words “and women” from the description of reference #14. Currently the text in Table 1 in columns 1 & 2 reads:

Tseng et al. 2011 [14]

Cross-sectional study of 1,197 men, ≥ 18 years, 2007, Taiwan.

The text should correctly read:

Tseng et al. 2011 [14]

Cross-sectional study of 1,197 men and women, ≥ 18 years, 2007, Taiwan.

As a direct consequence of this accidental edit deletion, a statement in the text of the article is incorrect and needs to be corrected.

On page 3 of the article, in the paragraph beginning with “Two potentially meaningful, EHS survey studies were performed in Taiwan…”, the following statements in sentences are incorrect:

• “The study subjects of the research published in 2011 were only men…” – correctly it should state that the study subjects were men and women.
• “Therefore, because the populations examined in both Taiwanese studies were this much different, the final result of the decline of EHS in Taiwan population from 13.3 to4.6% is uncertain as it might have been caused by the differences between examined populations.” – correctly it should state that the observed decline should be re-confirmed in another study, to strengthen the opinion that the decline indeed occurred.

Credit for pointing out the error goes to Frank de Vocht.

Sincere apologies for this accidental mistake.

If any of you, readers of the EHS review, notice any factual error in the text, please, kindly let me know.