| Subject: Closed Field Experiments |
Author:
James Rubin
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10:40:54 05/27/06 Sat
Dear Sirs,
I see on your website that you have conducted two provocation studies to examine the effects of EMR on hypersensitive individuals. This is an area that I am working in myself, and I attach two of my publications which might be of interest to you.
Your website mentions that the results of the Bristol experiments should be published this year - if they are available, would it be possible for you to send me a copy either by email or post?
In fact, I would be extremely interested in reading the results for any of the studies mentioned on your website!
With kind regards
Dr James Rubin
Research Fellow
Mobile Phones Research Unit
King's College London
New Medical School Building
Bessemer Road
London SE5 9PJ
UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7346 3798
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies
G. JAMES RUBIN,PHD, JAYATI DAS MUNSHI, MBBS, AND SIMON WESSELY,MD
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess whether people who report hypersensitivity to weak electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) are better at detecting EMF under blind or double-blind conditions than nonhypersensitive individuals, and to test whether
they respond to the presence of EMF with increased symptom reporting. Methods: An extensive systematic search was used to
identify relevant blind or double-blind provocation studies. This involved searching numerous literature databases and conference
proceedings, and examining the citations of reviews and included studies. The results of relevant studies were tabulated and
metaanalyses were used to compare the proportions of “hypersensitive” and control participants able to discriminate active from
sham EMF exposures. Results: Thirty-one experiments testing 725 “electromagnetically hypersensitive” participants were
identified. Twenty-four of these found no evidence to support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity, whereas 7 reported
some supporting evidence. For 2 of these 7, the same research groups subsequently tried and failed to replicate their findings. In
3 more, the positive results appear to be statistical artefacts. The final 2 studies gave mutually incompatible results. Our
metaanalyses found no evidence of an improved ability to detect EMF in “hypersensitive” participants. Conclusions: The
symptoms described by “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has
proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that “electro-magnetic
hypersensitivity” is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required. Key
words: electromagnetic hypersensitivity, provocation studies, systematic review.
EHS electromagnetic hypersensitivity; EMF electromagnetic
field; SMD standardized mean difference; UMTS universal
mobile telecommunications system (a “third-generation” mobile
phone signal); VDU visual display unit.
INTRODUCTION
“
E
lectromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS) is a relatively
new phenomenon in which sufferers report a range of
symptoms that are apparently triggered by the presence of
weak electromagnetic fields (EMFs) (1). These symptoms
show no cohesive pattern (2,3) but are typified by nonspecific
sensations such as sleep disturbance, headaches, fatigue, and
subjective cognitive problems (2,3). In its more severe form,
EHS can be disabling, preventing sufferers from pursuing
normal work or social lives.
The electromagnetic triggers for the symptoms reported by
EHS sufferers are diverse. Although a list of the more com-mon
would include visual display units (VDUs), mobile
phones, mobile phone base stations, fluorescent lighting, over-head
power lines, and household items such as televisions and
microwave ovens (3), not all sufferers report being sensitive to
all potential triggers and many report only 1 or 2 specific
electrical items as being problematic. The EMFs emitted by
these devices vary considerably and encompass frequencies in
the radio, microwave, kilohertz, and extremely low-frequency
ranges (3). In almost all cases, however, the intensity of the
EMFs that seem to trigger EHS symptoms is far below that
known to cause physiological changes in animal models (4,5).
The underlying causes of EHS are the subject of considerable
debate. On the one hand, it has been proposed that biophysical
factors may make a minority of people particularly sensitive to
EMF, with mechanisms involving the release of histamine by
mast cells (6) having been suggested. On the other hand, it has
also been proposed that the condition may be more psychologic
than physicochemical (7), with symptom amplification and clas-sic
conditioning being important. Clearly, the appropriate treat-ment
and management of EHS will depend on which of these
models is correct. The best way to determine this is to examine
the results of blind and double-blind experimental provocation
studies. These experiments typically expose volunteers with self-reported
EHS to 2 conditions, an active condition in which weak
EMFs are presented and an inactive condition in which they are
not. Two outcomes can then be examined: the participant’s
ability to correctly discriminate active from inactive (their “elec-tromagnetic
sensibility”) and the participant’s tendency to expe-rience
more symptoms in the active condition (their “electromag-netic
hypersensitivity”) (8). Although electromagnetic sensibility
may be a necessary precondition for EHS, it is certainly not
sufficient as there is evidence that healthy individuals can display
heightened sensibility without necessarily experiencing symp-toms
as a result (8).
Two previous reviews have looked at provocation studies
for EHS in some detail. In 1997, a report for the European
Commission (1) described the results of 13 such experiments
and concluded that, although “‘electromagnetic hypersensi-tive’
people do react in these provocation studies, [. . . ]these
reactions have not been shown to be related to the fields.”
More recently, a systematic review considered the results of 8
experimental studies published in peer-reviewed journals be-fore
coming to a similar conclusion (9).
The systematic review reported here attempted to identify
all blind or double-blind provocation studies for EHS that
could help to answer the following questions: are people who
are apparently hypersensitive to weak EMFs better at detect-ing
these fields under blind or double-blind conditions than
nonhypersensitive individuals, and do they respond to the
presence of weak EMFs with increased symptom reporting?
METHODS
Search Strategy for the Identification of Studies
The following electronic databases were searched for potentially relevant
studies: AMED, ASSIA, Cinahl, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, Em-
From the Mobile Phones Research Unit, Division of Psychological Medi-cine,
Institute of Psychiatry and Guy’s, King’s and St. Thomas’ School of
Medicine, King’s College London, UK.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Gideon James Rubin, BSc,
MSc, PhD, Mobile Phones Research Unit, New Medical School Building,
Bessemer Road, London SE5 9PJ, UK. E-mail: g.rubin@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Received for publication May 10, 2004; revision received September 23,
2004.
DOI: 10.1097/01.psy.0000155664.13300.64
224 Psychosomatic Medicine 67:224–232 (2005)
0033-3174/05/6702-0224
Copyright © 2005 by the American Psychosomatic Society
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 