Leszczynski at the ARPS 2023, Gold Coast, Australia

I will have one oral podium presentation and two poster presentations at the ARPS Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 29.10. – 2.11. 2023.

Below are abstracts of my presentations. Posters and slides of my presentations will be made available here after the conference, on November, 3, 2023.

Oral podium presentation

The lack of international and national health policies to protect persons with self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Dariusz Leszczynski, University of Helsinki, Finland

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), known also as an idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) or a microwave sickness, is not considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) as being caused by the exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF). EHS is not recognized as a disease anywhere in the world. Some studies have roughly estimated that 1-10% of the population might experience some form of EHS. However, because of the lack of diagnostic criteria for EHS, these estimates might be either under- or over-estimates. Because the vast majority of human population is exposed to EMF, the possibility of developing EHS from the EMF is a substantial public health issue that should be dealt with globally, even if the individual risk of developing EHS might be small. The WHO recognizes that the symptoms experienced by the EHS persons might be severe and might significantly hamper everyday life. However, after a broad analysis of international and national documents, there seems to be currently no effort to develop health policies for the dealing with EHS, no matter what causes it. National governments, follow the opinions of the WHO and the EMF safety standards setting organizations, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (IEEE-ICES), are not developing any practical health policy advisories for self-declared EHS sufferers. However, symptoms experienced by the self-declared EHS persons affect their well-being and, according to the Constitution of the WHO, are a health problem. Hence, independently of what causes EHS symptoms, this admitted well-being-impairment should be dealt with globally by developing a uniform health policy. Furthermore, WHO, ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES should be advocating and supporting research that would generate a reliable scientific evidence on what are the possible cause(s) of EHS. Without such research there is not possible to develop diagnostic methods as well as any possible mitigation approaches. There is an urgent need for the WHO to advocate for the national governments to urgently develop a comprehensive and common EHS health policy.

Poster presentation #1

Scientific inadequacy of the to-date executed research on electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Dariusz Leszczynski, University of Helsinki, Finland

Part of the population considers themselves as sensitive to the man-made electromagnetic radiation (EMF) emitted by powerlines, electric wiring, electric home appliance 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, the factor causing these symptoms remains unclear. So far, scientists were unable to find causality link between symptoms experienced by sensitive persons and the exposures to EMF. However, as presented in this review, the executed to-date scientific studies, examining sensitivity to EMF, are of poor quality to find the link between EMF exposures and sensitivity symptoms of some people. It is logical to consider that the sensitivity to EMF exists but the scientific methodology used to find it is of insufficient quality. Scientific research of EHS consists of three types of studies:  (i) survey studies, (ii) provocation studies, and (iii) biochemical/physiological studies. All types of studies have limitations. The dominant role play currently the provocation studies where volunteers are exposed to EMF and asked how they feel following the exposure and whether they can feels when the radiation is on or off. There are several problems with EHS studies:

• It is not known whether EHS volunteers have correct-self-diagnosis of EHS or are non-EHS
• Bias by excluding volunteers with pre-existing health problems
• Bias by volunteers withdrawing from studies because of the fear of radiation exposure
• Bias by volunteers withdrawing from studies because of distrust in objectivity of scientists
• Lack of proof that psychology methods are capable to detect EHS – lack of positive controls
• Bias by the nocebo and placebo effects known to affect physically feelings of volunteers

It is time to drop out psychology driven provocation studies. Such research produces subjective data that is insufficient to prove, or to disprove, causality link between EHS and EMF. There is a need for a new direction in studying sensitivity to EMF. The basis for it is the notion of a commonly known phenomenon of individual sensitivity, where individuals’ responses to EMF depend on the genetic and epigenetic properties of the individual. It is proposed here that new studies, combining provocation approach, where volunteers are exposed to EMF, and high-throughput technologies of transcriptomics and proteomics are used to generate objective data, detecting molecular level biochemical responses of human body to EMF.

Poster presentation #2

Wireless radiation and health: The evidence is not settled yet

Dariusz Leszczynski, University of Helsinki, Finland

The differences in the evaluation of scientific evidence by various scientific committees are caused by the participating scientists. The majority of committees self-select member scientists. A close look clearly shows that each of these groups selects only scientists with the same opinion on the issue of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and health. Hence, there is an easily achievable group’s internal consensus. This gives a false impression that science is settled. However, the groups of scientists have different views on the meaning of the scientific evidence and different view on what exposures are safe/unsafe. Hence, the proposed safety guidelines differ significantly. Therefore, the scientifically legitimate question is whether the currently used safety guidelines are sufficiently protecting users or should the safety guidelines be revised. The diversity of interpretations of RF-EMF science reflects a broader problem of RF-EMF research. When the results of experimental studies are difficult to interpret, and the outcomes of studies are mostly ambiguous, it is up to individual scientists and groups of scientists to determine the significance of the results of such studies. Scientists who are more worried about the possible health effects will provide a different final evaluation of the ambiguous science than the scientists who are less worried about the possible effects. There is also an often expressed opinion that the majority of the RF-EMF studies are of poor quality, have too small sample size for reliable statistics, and provide in vitro and in vivo evidence that has not been proven to occur in living humans. The most recent critical reviews showing the low quality of science have concerned the 5G technology and health. Despite the general agreement that the currently available scientific evidence is of poor quality and that there are significant gaps in the knowledge, this inadequate scientific evidence is used to make opposing claims, that there is either no evidence of harm or that evidence of harm has been established. Hence, when scientific studies on RF-EMF and health are of known and proven insufficient quality, what is the scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility of scientists when they claim that human health safety is already assured? In conclusion, I recommend conveying a round-table debate that would assess the current status of the science on RF-EMF and health and would review the adequacy of the current safety guidelines.

See you there!