Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Anybody else thinking of Johnny Mnemonic?--"Shut up, Brx." 01:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Tinfoil hat removal[edit]

That is not funny. Talsley (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? I find it amusing.--Dumpling (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Tin foil hats are always funny. TyTy 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on this article?[edit]

It's an article quoted from some news around the intarwebz: [1] "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity : Evidence for a novel neurological syndrome"

Although I only find sites such as, or , etc... whenever I google for the article's names, the abstract is listed in PubMed : [2], so it's a legit medical article. Brocoli (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure[edit]

I think we should rewrite this page to ridicule the crazies a bit more...

More lunacy[edit]

They're trying to get WiFi off of ferries. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The article's suggested course of action is incorrect and misleading[edit]

Becoming Amish would not help. A sufferer of this dreaded disease would have to depart this universe, as they'd still be awash in electromagnetic energy, with the CMB contributing to it. Of course, the more commonsense notion of seeing a physician to ascertain what is actually causing "illness" is spot on and proved quite effective.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Electrosensitivity in Sweden[edit]

in Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognized functional impairment (i.e., it is not regarded as a disease).

The electrohypersensitive people have their own handicap organization, The Swedish Association for the Electrohypersensitive. This organization is included in the Swedish Disability Federation (Handikappförbundens SamarbetsOrgan; HSO). HSO is the unison voice of the Swedish disability associations towards the government, the parliament, and national authorities, and is a cooperative body that today consists of 43 national disability organizations (where The Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive is 1 of these 43 organizations) with all together about 500,000 individual members. You can read more on (the site has an English short version).(Source: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 12:53, 29 November 2014

The site from the Swedish government doesn't have anything about electromagnetism, and all the second site links to is a letter written by a single person to the WHO that the more I read about sounds like a crazy person pretending at science. What they supply as a source that the Swedish government recognizing it is a .org website that demands research funding recognition from the Swedish government for their "disability." After watching a bit more his entire idea seems to be that wireless waves are just like microwaves, which are like x rays, because he can't see them. His basis is a rat study he just talks about and won't release the data on. He thinks he's right because he's a professor, but when I looked for his "studies" he is really not...he's a lecturer that doesn't do research without published papers. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact, he has published some papers. I can't (and won't) say anything about their quality.
Also, the title of lecturer doesn't guarantee that he's not a researcher. At my university (not in Sweden), that title is occasionally granted to either super-new PhD graduates (somewhat common) or legitimate researchers who somehow don't have a PhD (rare). MarmotHead (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hummm, well granted what I know is from US medical schools I've worked in. Lecturers were the lowest rank of the pole in the clinical departments, and claiming to be a professor publicly was a big no-no, while the research assistants were used for studies. Plus other things that don't make sense to me in this realm of credentials are also why neurosciences had an experimental dermatology section, not the dermatology dept, and being a lecturer previously in industrial production at the Royal Institute (another professor claim that seems to be a lecturer) doesn't seem to jive with a clinical setting. This might be incorrect....but that's why people doing these things have bios with references so people can confirm.
Thank you for the papers on pubmed. I can't say much about the quality without looking at the data. However, many seem to be missing the abstract while the rest seem pretty odd. Such as increasing rates of cancer on the side you sleep on, papers that imply there might possibly be issues with EMF (never state in the abstract there are or do a follow up study), UV rays don't cause cancer, something called chronic digital stress that is proposed in papers (not proven to exist), 1997--A curious year in Sweden (wtf), nerve regeneration in third degree burn grafts, and nurse oral hygiene relating to infections. These stories are too weird, claims are too exaggerated, that it doesn't pass the smell test. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah even at my university (an American med school), lecturers are the lowest so, yep, your point stands. But, such a lecturer can do as much research as they can get funded (usually not much). My personal favorite of his articles was the one about the ants. I guess that it's safer than expected to picnic near wifi, given the nearby ant population's willingness to warn you! This was close to your point, but several of the more specific sounding abstracts actually sounded more like opinion pieces or plans to do research rather than actual research. MarmotHead (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Very true they certainly can. However, studies often require resources from their departments or hospitals like space, people, clinical access and buy down for time. Being a professor level title often shows that commitment from the universities, which is why it was often desired, with extensive CV's to drum up inquiries and market to grants folk...which are missing from this person. He can certainly help on the project, as anyone can on the grant, but claiming he was the lead publicly is certainly not true looking at PubMed. He hasn't made his research public (other than bland abstracts) like other major researchers (such as Lenski) leaving a lot of doubt for any review.
It's interesting that insects might be affected. However, given Olle's other inaccuracies I wouldn't want to waste my time on the opinions of a single researcher that requires extensive verification by readers and other researchers for every claim (even if some are mildly interesting). The limited resources, and more limited seemingly every year, that can be used to verify if he's lying again can be used to actually find something real. Personally I think that medical research that is intentionally dishonest should be criminal. This includes drug companies falsifying data, cranks like Olle/Wakefield, and Brinkley's implantations. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well. Hm. Not quite this, exactly[edit]

Single blind study showing unconscious neural activation from 3g phone calls but not sham calls. There's a really small experimental and control group here, and they aren't dealing with people who claim to have hypersensitivity.

But... it's interesting and not entirely expected. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Only 31 subjects. :/ αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but the measures here aren't subjective and apparently have a really strong correlation. It's interesting. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure." Also, "Treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the person's perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home." Flux gate gamma (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We're circlejerkers[edit]

Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


having watched cgp's grey's video (, shouldn't we metchion the nocebo effect, which i beleave explains a lot of cases? while the nocebo effect in this case creates the illusion of hypersensitivity, that does not mean that the pain isn't, from the sufferer's perspective, real. (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe the consensus is that this is some kind of psychological disorder that produces real and distressing symptoms, but has nothing to do with radiation since it can be reliably triggered by people thinking an RF source is on, with no correlation as to whether it actually is on. Nog Bogmire (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fluorescent lights and electricity pylons[edit]

How does [3] (and many similar such) fit into the argument.

Do the people who complain about power cables also experience problems when the cables are buried underground (as is being done in some places)? Anna Livia (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Radio Telescopes[edit]

It appears that the 'quiet zones' surrounding these sites attract the Electromagnetic sensitive. However, why are they unaffected by the astronomical technology? --Scherben (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)