Draško Cvijanović, electrohypersensitive person (testimony)
SUMMARY
The word radiation in everyday speech mainly refers to something like radioactivity or, say, radiation from the sun, where the transfer of excess energy creates clear damage. When we talk about (alleged?) hypersensitivity to very low values of the electromagnetic field, such immediate damage most likely does not occur at all.
Historically, there is a reasonable resistance to reject this model of radiation in relation to electrosensitivity because there is currently no other applicable model, but it is methodologically necessary to distinguish description from verification or explanation of the phenomenon.
Very low field levels ("radiation") have clearly been proven to be of some biological significance (magnetroeception), although the biological purpose is largely unknown. Nevertheless, under the influence of the "radiation" model, the reasoning "if it's not aggressive, then it's all in your head" persists, which is more or less the dominant attitude today, even among well-intentioned researchers who are not electrosensitive.
TERM "RADIATION" AS A COMMON SOURCE OF MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING "ELECTROHYPERSENSITIVITY" PHENOMENON
Drasko Cvijanovic, electrically hypersensitive persons
ABSTRACT
"Radiation" in general speech refers mostly to something like ionizing or, say, UV impacts, where excessive energy transmission results in some observable damage. When talking about (alleged?) hypersensitivity to extremely low EMF levels, such "automated" damage is probably not occurring at all.
There is a reasonable (historically induced) reluctance to abandon the plausibility of radiation model to EHS due to lack of any other plausible model of influence, but it is methodologically necessary to separate the call for describing and endorsing the EHS phenomenon from the call to explain it.
Such extremely low impact stimuli have been well proven as biologically relevant (magnetoreception), although most of its purpose remains unknown. Still, under (even implicit) influence of radiation model, persists the reasoning that "if it's not aggressive, than it is all in your head", which is more or less predominant standpoint now, even among well-minded researchers (who are not sensitive themselves).
Currently, to avoid such inputs there are claims from the side of sufferers to redefine the EHS definition as "discomfort related to the environment which is influenced by the operation of certain electrical devices". It is rather brave but a necessary step to avoid being ridiculed by calls to guess the radiation presence through so-called provocation studies. That doesn't mean abandoning provocation studies, just necessity to redesign them without prejudices about the mechanism.
