The formal announcement appeared on the journal website on April 25, 2024:
Research Topic on Individual Sensitivity to Wireless Radiation is online and ready for submissions
********************
Journal: Frontiers in Public Health
Section: Radiation and Health
Research Topic: Individual Sensitivity to Wireless Radiation
Research Topic Editors: Dariusz Leszczynski and Frank de Vocht
Manuscript submission: opens May 1, 2024; deadline November 30, 2024
Submissions of original research and systematic reviews are encouraged.
Scientists interested in submitting manuscripts, please contact both Editors: blogbrhp@gmail.com and frank.devocht@bristol.ac.uk
List of the potential authors will be published in May 2024.
Description of the Research Topic
It is well known and established that different individuals can be differently affected by the same environmental factor/pollutant. One of the more recent additions to the long list of environmental pollutants is electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless communication devices and networks (wireless radiation). Wireless radiation can induce various biological effects in cells grown in vitro, experimental animals, and voluntarily exposed humans. The currently ubiquitous wireless radiation could in theory, therefore, cause an epidemic of various diseases, like brain cancer. However, so far such an epidemic has not materialized. There might be various reasons for this, including that biological reactions do not necessarily result in adverse health effects, but it could also be that while wireless radiation might cause biological effects, only some (very) sensitive individuals might be affected. The search for such sensitive individuals using provocation exposures followed by inquiries about acutely occurring symptoms has failed, which might be because these could be prone to bias related to the subjective feelings of the volunteers participating in the experiment. However, there is an ongoing controversy and debate among scientists and the general public about whether the to-date gathered experimental evidence concerning human sensitivity to wireless radiation is of sufficient breadth and quality to prove reliably the existence of individual biological sensitivity to wireless radiation or to disprove this conclusively. Physiological experiments on human volunteers will likely continue to be necessary to determine whether some individuals react differently to wireless exposures, but additionally, the preliminary assessments of the differences in individual sensitivity might be achieved using high-throughput screening techniques of proteomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, or studies addressing gene-environment interactions. Target molecules, found to be responding to the exposures, may indicate what physiological processes might be affected, and if so subsequently targeted assessments of specific physiological functions of the human body may potentially enable the identification of sensitive individuals.
The proposed Research Topic will present the ongoing research, review published research studies, provide viewpoints and debates, and suggest directions for further physiological/psychological research.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Pingback: Folkehelsen i Tysvær gikk nedover med vindturbinene. Viktigste spørsmål ble ikke stilt. - steigan.no
This is an interesting initiative. However, it only covers half of the EHS problem if you focus on RF radiation because most of the health problems are caused by low-frequency EMF sources in the household, car or working area. Most complaints are about secondary responses of the mind and body, arising relatively long after first exposure to EMF. Health effects such as bad sleep, brain fog, and many other unmeasurable ‘effects’ are complex phenomena and not yet of physiological interest.
New research should focus – in my view – on the primary interaction of EM waves with matter: cells, organelles, macromolecules or whatever energy ‘receptor’. It may also be rewarding however to pay attention to the role of specific components of the immune system.
One of the main questions is whether the effect is dependent on the nature of the EM trigger that influences whatever primary receptor in the study. Focussing on RF radiation only may result in missing the cause of EHS discomfort by exposure to the abundant low-frequency EMFs in everyday environments.
Hugo Schooneveld, PhD
Creator of the Dutch EHS Foundation
No worries, Google translator does the trick 😉
I forgot in my previous comments that not everyone reads Swedish. Here is a (rough) translation to English of Olle Johansson’s EHS lab test from 1995, which I recommended, an which I think could rather easily be replicated times over: https://einarflydal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Olle-Johansson-EHS-1995-paper-Translation.pdf
Thanks Einar Flydal for your comment. I guess my “proof-approach” would be based on the the same kind of idea.
Put for instance within a White Zone 100 equal boxes, each in at least 50 meter distance from each other and let precisely one box contain a cellphone which emits permanently strong EMFs. If someone is making a walk and succeeds to identify precisely this box containing the cellphone, then the probablity for a non-EHS-person to succeed would be 1/100. If the person succeeds three times in a row, then the probability for a non-EHS-person to succeed would be 1/ 1 00 00 00.
I would call 1/1000 000 a proof. Each of the three walks can of course be done at totally different days.
However, the mobile phone industry will, after the experiment has been published, do its best to present doubts and ideas, how the walking person could have cheated.
(So it must be clear for the experiment that the walking person hides no kind of EMF detector, that this one cellphone makes no noise, has no smell, that its box has no marks, no smell, etc., and that there is no help from a second person, who gives a sign to the walking person – the second person could perhaps identify the box containing the cellphone from distance by infrared gadgets. )
Thus a labor test would be probably easier, which also uses this kind of probablitiy argument. However, the industry will also in this case present all kind of ideas how it could have been cheated.
I will have to translate Olle Johansson’s report into English. Thanks.
AHO
Well, I reckon my comment was directed to other comments, and not addressing Dariusz’ invitation to the Research Topic issue. It is certainly timely. But it is frustrating to see that whatever evidence is cast before the feet of the physics oriented, it is dismissed as insufficient, if not for other reasons, so by causal regression ad infinitum, which in biology comes easy. So why should this initiative be different? Perhaps one more paper on what is needed for scientific proof should be part of the issue?
If you want to understand why EHS people do not want to contribute to lab research on EHS, you should read Brian Stein’s report of his horrible experiences with Rubin’s lab experiments at the University of Essex, UK, where he took part, believing he could help prove the existence of EHS (Stein, Brian & Mantle, Jonathan: The Microwave Delusion, Grosvenor House Publishing Ltd, 2020, pages 35 – 39). Due to his very strong sensitivity reactions which made fulfilling the full test cycle impossible, he was excluded from the experiment and not counted …
If you want to read a rather simple double blinded test that could easily be replicated times over with very few people, rather cheaply, and deliver statistical proof of the existence of EHS, though no biophysical explanation, see Olle Johansson’s report from 1995: https://einarflydal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Johansson-1995_ELOVERKANSLIGHET-metod-studie-Swedish-OCRed.pdf: 1 test person responding “right” 100% in 9 double blinded tests. I.e., probability of being product of pure chance: 0,001953125. Why are such tests not replicated?
As to the connection between EHS and MCS I have not read much. But I stumbled over the mainly autobiographical book “Prostituting Science – The Psychologisation of MCS, CFS and EHS for Political Gain” by Diana Crumpler, Incling Australia, 2014. It delivers a case as strong and impressing as anyone can wish.
All the best,
E.F.
To convince any and all skeptics we need reliable scientific data. Nobody will deny reliable science.
Pingback: Research Topic on Individual Sensitivity to Wireless Radiation is online and ready for submissions | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Hi,
Several people who claim to have EHS, could probably scientifically prove that they can feel, sense for instance the EMFs of a radiating cellphone. But why should they want to prove it? The main question remains open: how should they ever prove that this radiation is harming them? They can only say: I get this kind of symptom but the cellphone-industry will say: that is because of your fear regarding radiation. Sarcastic comments by the cellphone industry could even be: You can also hear, preceive the singing of a bird, but is it therefore a danger to your health?
We need a strong political demand within EHS research and EHS discussion like: If one person can clearly prove, that hes/she can sense a radiating cellphone or similar EMF-source, then this must suffice to establish White Zones, i.e. zones where people can live without celltowers, cellphones, WLAN, etc. in the EU, USA, etc.
Otherwise, why should real EHS-people ever want to prove and show that they can sense EMFs of cellphones?
Dr. Arthur Hoffmann-Ostenhof
That is why I send you my wishes.
Take care,
Q.
WJ Rea et al documented the link between MCS and EHS long ago, notably in their 1991 landmark paper Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity :
https://senate.texas.gov/cmtes/82/c510/1009-WilliamRea2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William-Rea-2
VDTs did emit VOCs, as do today’s liquid crystal screens : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34074793/
Best regards
André
I am afraid there will be a mix of manuscripts…
Largely, sensitivity issue, in general and EHS in particular are avoided by scientists. The problem is that the behavior of some EHS persons made the issue to be perceived by the scientific community as woodoo-science that is better to avoid because one’s reputation might be tarnished. Furthermore, if the sensitivity to wireless radiation is scientifically proven as a fact then this is a big trouble for the industry and for the standards-setting groups.
Due to fear and scientifically rational concern, it was groups of self-perceived electrosensitives who posed a powerful activist force behind the push for the EU to release huge research sums for 5G bio research.
Still, individual sensitivity/EHS seems to have a very little place in the research being carried out. Focus on risk assesment for the general population takes up relatively more.
Perhaps there is a need for a monumental consensus paper signed by many researchers to propose a research agenda for EHS/symptoms/ individual sensitivity for the next decade(s).
Such a paper could help EHS organizations to raise funding through national public and private research foundations.
David Wedege, chair, The Danish EHS Association.
Hope you will receive, for publication, mostly scientific papers. Best wishes, Q.
Don, yes, I think that it is likely that in some cases person might be experiencing both, sensitivity to chemical(s) and sensitivity to EMF. But, this is just an unproven suspicion. We need experimental evidence.
I have been going through the ‘early’ Swedish trade union publications, mainly “No risk in the IT environment”(1999), and “Hypersensitive in IT environments”(1996), as well as communicating with Gunni Nordstrom who wrote “The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental Illness caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions” (2004)
What is interesting is that generally, the cases of EHS in the Swedish office place environment observed in the 1980s, 1990s, seems to have been initially triggered by chemical exposures that may have sensitised some workers to go on to develop a sensitivity to EMF emissions from the equipment (mainly computer monitors)they were closely working with.
So, the big question is: Is it possible that some cases of sensitivity to wireless radiation (EHS) may also have a chemical sensitivity component ??? Looking at the recent 2003 UN environment programme’s technical report “Chemicals in Plastics” there is cause for concern, as they identify over 3000 industrial chemicals in the environment as specifically of potential concern, meaning we don’t know what biological effect they may have.
As the well-worn statement goes, more research is needed…….
Don Maisch PhD