Prof. Dr. Tamara Galonja Coghill; full professor at the Faculty of Economics and Engineering Management FIMEK - Novi Sad; Republic of Serbia
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity ("idiopathic environmental intolerance", Rubin et al, 2010) is characterized by subjective symptoms after exposure to electrical manifestations (Palmquist et al., 2014). These symptoms are diverse and so far it has not been possible to precisely classify them in relation to the field characteristics that cause them (Roosli, 2008).
The threshold of sensitivity and the type of reaction to different stimuli are individual characteristics of biological systems (Schrottner et al, 2007). In the case of human electromagnetic hypersensitivity, it is about subjective symptoms, which will manifest in certain people when using or staying near electrical devices (Graham et al., 1998). The most typical symptoms are skin rash, changes in nervous system function, headache, anxiety, neurasthenia (Bergquist and Vogel, 1997).
To date, several provocation tests of people with EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome) have been conducted. Early studies were mainly driven by the idea of confirming the existence of EHS. Thus, a pioneering study by Reo et al. (1991) found positive results in only 16% of respondents. On the other hand, Johansson et al. (1994) create an experiment in which two subjects, who associate skin changes with radiation) are placed in front of a television screen. Biopsy results showed that at the end of the challenge period, somatostatin-positive cells disappeared. After examining the psychosocial and neurophysiological aspects of 20 EHS patients, Hannsen Mild et al. (1998) concluded that EHS is a multifactorial problem.
Johansson (2004), who with a team of collaborators at the Karolinska Institute has been examining this set of symptoms for several years, classifies electromagnetic hypersensitivity equally in the category of all other recognized hypersensitivity to stimuli of any nature, emphasizing in this case skin and mucous reactions as primary alarming.
Measuring plasma cortisol as a quantifier of stress levels, Selmaoui et al. (1997) present results showing the absence of changes in measured values after acute exposure to a magnetic field.
Lonne-Rahm et al. (2000) examined twenty-four individuals, who claimed to have EHS symptoms, by exposing them to screen radiation in high- and low-stress situations. After exposure, extensive analyzes of exposed subjects were conducted, which included blood analyzes of stress hormone levels (melatonin, prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, neuropeptide Y, and growth hormone), expression analyzes of various peptides, cell markers, and cytokines, as well as analyzes of skin biopsies. The general conclusion of the study is that the patients did not react to the fields to which they were exposed. Steuckenius and Brugger (2000) opined that electromagnetic hypersensitivity ―reflects the human tendency to assume a connection between one's own orgasmic state and (objectively unrelated) variables in the external environment‖. They came to that conclusion
after an experimental study conducted on forty healthy male subjects. The variety of interpretations of the causes and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity is reflected in the results of the study by Anttil (2000), who believes that the causes of the symptoms should be sought in the world of fungi. Since mycotoxins are biologically very active, and mycotoxin-producing representatives of the kingdom of fungi are present in ventilation systems and elsewhere, the author considers them to be real causes of the so-called. EHS.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which is described by a set of subjective symptoms, ranging from unpleasant sensations to physiological disorders, is extremely difficult to precisely define. In other words, the lack of a pathophysiological marker is an obstacle to the examination and precise definition of this set of disorders. As the feeling of general weakness is one of the most common symptoms, Hillert et al. (2001) investigated the nature and possible etiology of this disorder by testing the hypothesis of changes in cholinesterase activity as its cause. After examining the subjects three times, the authors did not find a significant decrease in cholinesterase levels at the time of the most intense manifestation of the examined symptom, and concluded that the weakness attributed to electromagnetic fields is not of a physical nature.
The results of a comparative study on 14 subjects with EHS symptoms and 14 control subjects, during which three parameters were monitored: ECG, heart rate and heart rate variations during 24 hours, showed no difference in the first two monitored parameters. In the third parameter, differences were observed in the LF/HF (low and high frequency) ratio, which is higher in individuals with EHS symptoms, indicating higher sympathetic activity (Sandstrom et al., 2001).
Studies that indicate the existence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity interpret the test results with a pronounced dose of caution. So Szemerszky et al. (2015) concluded that individuals with EHS symptoms may have a low ability to detect magnetic fields. Eltiti et al. (2007) in a provocative study investigated the possibility that short-term exposure to the signals of mobile telephony base stations causes the intensification of symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Although they found a positive subjective connection (a personal feeling of excitement, which is not accompanied by measurable physiological changes), they tended not to attribute the induced effects to the radiation exposure itself.
Since not a single organism has been identified so far, which would be insensitive to electromagnetic fields (Coghill, R., Galonja Coghill, T., 2000), the idea that this sensitivity cannot vary in intensity, and that it is evolutionarily destined not to go beyond the range of biological insignificance, is illogical and absurd.
ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY
Prof. PhD Tamara Galonja Coghill; Professor, Faculty of Economics and engineering management FIMEK-Novi Sad; Republics Serbia
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity ("idiopathic environmental intolerance," Rubin et al., 2010) is characterized by subjective symptoms after exposure to electrical events (Palmquist et al., 2014). These symptoms are diverse and have so far not been possible to accurately classify with respect to the characteristics of the fields that cause them (Roos, 2008).
Threshold and type of reactions to different stimuli are the individual characteristics of biological systems (schröttner et al, 2007). In the case of human electromagnetic hypersensitivity, it is about subjective symptoms, which will be manifested in certain people when using or being around all electrical appliances (Graham et al., 1998). The most typical symptoms of skin rash, modification functions of the nervous system, headache, anxiety, neurasthenia (Bergquist and Vogel, 1997).
To date conducted more tests of provocative people with EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome - hypersensitivity syndrome solenoid). Early studies were mainly guided by the idea of confirming the existence of EHS. That's pioneering studies by Rea et al. (1991) found positive results in only 16% of respondents. On the other hand, Johansson et al. (1994) created an experiment in which two subjects (skin changes associated with radiation) were placed in front of the television screen. Biopsy results showed that at the end of the provocation period somatostatin-positive cells disappeared. After testing and psychosocial aspects of neurophysiological 20 EHS patients, Hanssen Mild et al. (1998) concluded that the EHS multifactorial problem,.
Johansson (2004), who with a team of collaborators at the Karolinska Institute several years researching this set of symptoms, electromagnetic hypersensitivity equally categorized as all other recognized hypersensitivity to stimuli of any nature, pointing in this case, skin and mucosal reactions as the primary alarming.
Performing the measurements of plasma cortisol as quantifiers of stress levels, Selmaoui et al. (1997) present the results of which indicate the absence of changes in the measured value after acute exposure to a magnetic field.
Kolonne-Rahm et al. (2000) examined twenty-four persons, claiming to have symptoms of EHS, exposing them to radiation-screen in high and low-stress situations. After the presentations, the comprehensive analysis of exposed subjects, which included blood tests of hormone levels related to stress (melatonin, prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, neuropeptide Y and growth hormone), expression analysis of various peptides, cellular markers and cytokines, as well as analysis of skin biopsy. The general conclusion of the study is that patients are not responsive to the fields where they were exposed. Steuckenius and Brugger (2000) expressed the opinion that the electromagnetic hypersensitivity "reflects the human tendency to presuppose the connection between his own orgasmic state, and (objectively unrelated) variables of the external environment". Came to this conclusion after experimental research done in forty healthy male subjects. The variety of interpretations of the causes and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity is reflected in the results of tests by Anttila (2000), who believes that the causes of the symptoms are to be found in the world of mushrooms. As mycotoxins are biologically very active, and mycotoxin-producing representatives Empire fungi present in ventilation systems and elsewhere, the author considers to be the real causes of the so-called. EHS.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which describes a set of subjective symptoms, ranging from the unpleasant sensation to psychological disorders, it is extremely difficult to define precisely. In other words, the lack of pathophysiological markers is an obstacle to testing and precise definition of this set of disorders. How does it feel a general weakness of the most common symptoms, Hillert et al. (2001) examined the nature and possible etiology of this disorder by testing the hypothesis of changes in cholinesterase activity as its cause. Following the third test subjects, the authors found no significant decrease in cholinesterase levels during the most intense manifestation of the symptoms investigated, and concluded that the weakness attributed to electromagnetic fields is not physical.
The results of comparative studies on 14 patients with symptoms of EHS and 14 control subjects, during which they followed three parameters: ECG, the number was flat-lined and variation of heart rate during 24 hours, showed no difference in the first two monitored parameters. In the third parameter differences were observed in the LF / HF (low and high frequency) ratio, which is higher in people with symptoms of EHS, which indicates a higher sympathetic activity (Sandstrom et al., 2001).
Studies that suggest the existence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity test results interpreted with caution expressed. So Szemerszky et al. (2015) conclude that persons with symptoms of EHS may have little ability to detect magnetic fields. Eltiti et al. (2007) in a provocative study examined the possibility that short exposure signals of base stations of mobile telephony challenges intensify symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Although they found a positive subjective relationship (personal sense of excitement, which is not accompanied by measurable physiological changes), they are prone to induced effects that are not attributable to the exposure to radiation.
Because he has not established a single body, which would be insensitive to electromagnet ic fields (Coghill, R. Galonja Coghill, T., 2000), the idea that this sensitivity can vary the intensity, and that the evolutionary destined to go out of range biological insignificance, is illogical and absurd.
1. Anttila, K. (2000): Mycotoxins, fungus and ―electrohypersensitivity‖, Medical Hypotheses, 55(3): 208-214
2. Bergquist, U. and Vogel, E. (eds.) (1997): Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic fields. A report prepared by the European group of experts for the European Commission, DG V. Arbete ach Halsa, 19
3. Coghill, R., Galonja-Coghill, T. (2000): Protective effect of a donor's endogenous electric fields on human peripheral blood lymphocyte viability, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 2000, Vol19, No. 1, 43-56
4. Eltiti, S., Wallace, D., Ridgewell, A., Zougkou, K., Russo, R., Sepulveda, F., Mirshekar-Syahkal, D., Rasor, P., Deeble, R., Fox, E. (2007): Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study., Environmental Health Perspectives, JSTOR: 1603-1608.
5. Graham, C., Hansson Mild, K., Cook, M.R. and Wood, A. (1998): Clinical Studies and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, EMF RAPID, Breakout Group Reports for Clinical and In Vivo Laboratory Findings, organized by the NIEHS, 15-33
6. Hanssen Mild, K., Anneroth, G., Bergdahl, J. (1998): El-och bildskarmsoverkanslighet - en tvatvetenskaplig studie. National Institute for Working Life, Umea, Sweden. Investigation Report
7. Hillert, L., Flato, S., Georgellis, A., Arnetz, B.B. and Kolmodin-Hedman, B. (2001): Environmental illness: fatigue and cholinesterase activity in patients reporting hypersensitivity to electricity, Environmental Research 85(3): 200-206
8. James, G.R., Nieto-Hernandez, R., Wessely, S. (2010): Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'): An updated systematic review of provocation studies., Bioelectromagnetics 31, no. 1 1.
9. Johansson, O. (2004): Electrohypersensitivity: Observations in the Human Skin of a Physical Impairment, Symposium on Electrosensitivity in Human Beings, September 2004, London, Abstract CD, published by Coghill Research Laboratories
10. Johansson, O., Hilliges, M., Bjornhagen, V. and Hall, K. (1994): Skin changes in patients claiming to suffer from ―screen dermatitis‖: A two case open provocation study. Exp. Dermatol. 3: 279-285
11. Lonne-Rahm, S., Iersson, B., Melin, L., Schultzberg, M., Arnetz, B. and Berg, M. (2000): Provocation with stress and electricity of patients with ―sensitivity to electricity‖, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 42(5): 512-516
12. Palmquist, E., Claeson, A.-S., Neely, G., Stenberg, B., Nordin, S. (2014): Overlap in prevalence between various types of environmental intolerance., International journal of hygiene and environmental health 217, no. 4, 427-434.
13. Rea, W., Pan, Y., Fenyves, E., Sujisawa, I., Samadi, N. and Ross, G. (1991): Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity 10:241
14. Roosli, M. (2008).: Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review. Environ Res 107:277–287.
15. Sandstrom, M., Mild, K.H., Hornsten, R. and Lyskov, E. (2001): 24h holter ECG recording and parallel monitoring of ELF magnetic field exposure in persons with perceived electrical hypersensitivity, Abstract book, 23rd BEMS Annual Meeting: 34
16. Schrottner, J., Leitgeb, N., Hillert, L. (2007): Investigation of electric current perception thresholds of different EHS groups. Bioelectromagnetics 28:208–213.
17. Selmaoui, B., Lambrozo., J. and Touitou, Y. (1997): Endocrine functions in young men exposed for one night to a 50-Hz magnetic field. A circadian study of pituitary, thyroid and adrenocortical hormones. Life Sciences 61(5): 473-486
18. Steuckenius, S. and Brugger, P. (2000): Perceived electrosensitivity and magical ideation, Perceptual and Motor Skills 90(3): 899-900
19. Szemerszky, R., Gubányi, M., Árvai, D., Dömötör, Z., Köteles, F. (2015): Is There a Connection Between Electrosensitivity and Electrosensibility? A Replication Study. International journal of behavioral medicine (2015): 1-9.
ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY
Prof.PhD Tamara Galonja Coghill; Professor, Faculty of Economics and engineering management FIMEK-Novi Sad; Republics Serbia
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity ("idiopathic environmental intolerance," Rubin et al., 2010) is characterized by subjective symptoms after exposure to electrical events (Palmquist et al., 2014). These symptoms are diverse and have so far not been possible to accurately classify with respect to the characteristics of the fields that cause them (Roos, 2008).
Threshold and type of reactions to different stimuli are the individual characteristics of biological systems (schröttner et al, 2007). In the case of human electromagnetic hypersensitivity, it is about subjective symptoms, which will be manifested in certain people when using or being around all electrical appliances (Graham et al., 1998). The most typical symptoms of skin rash, modification functions of the nervous system, headache, anxiety, neurasthenia (Bergquist and Vogel, 1997).
To date conducted more tests of provocative people with EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome - hypersensitivity syndrome solenoid). Early studies were mainly guided by the idea of confirming the existence of EHS. That's pioneering studies by Rea et al. (1991) found positive results in only 16% of respondents. On the other hand, Johansson et al. (1994) created an experiment in which two subjects (skin changes associated with radiation) were placed in front of the television screen. Biopsy results showed that at the end of the provocation period somatostatin-positive cells disappeared. After testing and psychosocial aspects of neurophysiological 20 EHS patients, Hanssen Mild et al. (1998) concluded that the EHS multifactorial problem,.
Johansson (2004), who with a team of collaborators at the Karolinska Institute several years researching this set of symptoms, electromagnetic hypersensitivity equally categorized as all other recognized hypersensitivity to stimuli of any nature, pointing in this case, skin and mucosal reactions as the primary alarming.
Performing the measurements of plasma cortisol as quantifiers of stress levels, Selmaoui et al. (1997) present the results of which indicate the absence of changes in the measured value after acute exposure to a magnetic field.
Kolonne-Rahm et al. (2000) examined twenty-four persons, claiming to have symptoms of EHS, exposing them to radiation-screen in high and low-stress situations. After the presentations, the comprehensive analysis of exposed subjects, which included blood tests of hormone levels related to stress (melatonin, prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, neuropeptide Y and growth hormone), expression analysis of various peptides, cellular markers and cytokines, as well as analysis of skin biopsy. The general conclusion of the study is that patients are not responsive to the fields where they were exposed. Steuckenius and Brugger (2000) expressed the opinion that the electromagnetic hypersensitivity "reflects the human tendency to presuppose the connection between his own orgasmic state, and (objectively unrelated) variables of the external environment". Came to this conclusion after experimental research done in forty healthy male subjects. The variety of interpretations of the causes and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity is reflected in the results of tests by Anttila (2000), who believes that the causes of the symptoms are to be found in the world of mushrooms. As mycotoxins are biologically very
2B OR NOT 2B – PANDORINA KUITJA ” “2B OR NOT 2B – PANDORAS' BOX”
active, a mycotoxin-producing representatives Empire fungi present in ventilation systems and elsewhere, the author considers to be the real causes of the so-called. EHS.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which describes a set of subjective symptoms, ranging from the unpleasant sensation to psychological disorders, it is extremely difficult to define precisely. In other words, the lack of pathophysiological markers is an obstacle to testing and precise definition of this set of disorders The results of comparative studies on 14 patients with symptoms of EHS and 14 control subjects, during which they followed three parameters: ECG, the number was flat-lined and variation of heart rate during 24 hours, showed no difference in the first two monitored parameters. In the third parameter differences were observed in the LF / HF (low and high frequency) ratio, which indicates a higher sympathetic activity (Sandstrom et al., 2001). examined the possibility that short exposure signals of mobile telephony challenges intensify symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Although they found a positive relationship subjective (personal sense of excitation, which is not accompanied by measurable physiological changes), they are prone to induced effects are not attributable to the exposure to radiation. Coghill, T., the idea that this sensitivity can vary the intensity, and that the evolutionary destined to go out of range biological insignificance. 1. Mycotoxins, fungus and ―electrohypersensitivity‖, 55(3): 208-214 2. (1997): Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic fields, DG V. Arbete ach Halsa, 19
3. 43-56
4. Eltiti, S., Wallace, D., Ridgewell, A., Sepulveda, F., Mirshekar-Syahkal, D., Rasor, P., Deeble, R., Fox, E. (2007): Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? study., Environmental Health Perspectives, JSTOR: 1603-1608.
2B OR NOT 2B – PANDORA'S BOX”
5. Graham, C., Hansson Mild, K., Cook, M.R. and Wood, A. (1998): Clinical Studies and Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, EMF RAPID, Breakout Group Reports for Clinical and In Vivo Laboratory Findings, organized by the NIEHS, 15-33
6. Hanssen Mild, K., Anneroth, G., Bergdahl, J. (1998): El-och bildskarmsoverkanslighet - en tvatvetenskaplig studie. National Institute for Working Life, Umea, Sweden. Investigation Report
7. Hillert, L., Flato, S., Georgellis, A., Arnetz, B.B. and Kolmodin-Hedman, B. (2001): Environmental illness: fatigue and cholinesterase activity in patients reporting hypersensitivity to electricity, Environmental Research 85(3): 200-206
8. James, G.R., Nieto-Hernandez, R., Wessely, S. (2010): Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'): An updated systematic review of provocation studies., Bioelectromagnetics 31, no. 1 1.
9. Johansson, O. (2004): Electrohypersensitivity: Observations in the Human Skin of a Physical Impairment, Symposium on Electrosensitivity in Human Beings, September 2004, London, Abstract CD, published by Coghill Research Laboratories
10. Johansson, O., Hilliges, M., Bjornhagen, V. and Hall, K. (1994): Skin changes in patients claiming to suffer from ―screen dermatitis‖: A two case open provocation study. Exp. Dermatol. 3: 279-285
11. Lonne-Rahm, S., Iersson, B., Melin, L., Schultzberg, M., Arnetz, B. and Berg, M. (2000): Provocation with stress and electricity of patients with ―sensitivity to electricity‖, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 42(5): 512-516
12. Palmquist, E., Claeson, A.-S., Neely, G., Stenberg, B., Nordin, S. (2014): Overlap in prevalence between various types of environmental intolerance., International journal of hygiene and environmental health 217, no. 4, 427-434.
13. Rea, W., Pan, Y., Fenyves, E., Sujisawa, I., Samadi, N. and Ross, G. (1991): Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity 10:241
14. Roosli, M. (2008).: Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review. Environ Res 107:277–287.
15. Sandstrom, M., Mild, K.H., Hornsten, R. and Lyskov, E. (2001): 24h holter ECG recording and parallel monitoring of ELF magnetic field exposure in persons with perceived electrical hypersensitivity, Abstract book, 23rd BEMS Annual Meeting: 34
16. Schrottner, J., Leitgeb, N., Hillert, L. (2007): Investigation of electric current perception thresholds of different EHS groups. Bioelectromagnetics 28:208–213.
17. Selmaoui, B., Lambrozo., J. and Touitou, Y. (1997): Endocrine functions in young men exposed for one night to a 50-Hz magnetic field. A circadian study of pituitary, thyroid and adrenocortical hormones. Life Sciences 61(5): 473-486
18. Steuckenius, S. and Brugger, P. (2000): Perceived electrosensitivity and magical ideation, Perceptual and Motor Skills 90(3): 899-900
19. Szemerszky, R., Gubányi, M., Árvai, D., Dömötör, Z., Köteles, F. (2015): Is There a Connection Between Electrosensitivity and Electrosensibility? A Replication Study. International journal of behavioral medicine (2015): 1-9.
