EMF Sensitivity Research - Discussion

Since it has been found that electromagnetic fields can affect health, researchers have investigated these phenomena in vivo and in vitro, in animals^10,11,12 and humans.^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7} No individual had been specifically challenged in an attempt to reproduce acute symptoms until Smith and Monro⁵ followed by Choy, Monro, and Smith,⁸ who used a series of oscillators of varying frequency to trigger symptoms in electrically sensitive patients. We modified this procedure by developing controlled environmental area, where baselines were constantly monitored for particulates, pollutants, and extraneous fields. Here, controlled EMF output was applied so that data would be more reproducible.

Several factors have led us to believe that we have reproducible results. Meticulous construction of environmental rooms made a great difference in the reproducibility of test results. Prior to the use of such facilities and careful monitoring, a variety of factors, such as diet, exposure to chemicals, EMF, or dust gave rise to symptoms which would have been mistaken for placebo reactions. Such effects were minimized here, as evidenced by the sinail number of placebo reactions. A few patients reacted to the tields generated by the monitoring devices (Iriscorder, EKG, and computers) and had to be dropped from the study as too fragile for accurate analysis. Some patients reacted to the fields generated by the fluorescent lights, and others did not present the same signs and symptoms at each challenge, even though the reactions were significant when contrasted with the blank responses. The Iriscorder data were objective, however, and were always reproducible (Figure 1).

We also noted that patients sometimes had delayed or prolonged responses. Therefore, care had to be taken to be certain that the patient had returned to baseline before the next challenge. This carry-over was first noted when evaluating responses to placebo challenges. Such a response could usually be explained and eliminated by use of longer intervals between challenges.

In this study, of the 100 patients who expressed suspicion of EMF sensitivity, 75 actually responded to fields, whereas none of the controls did. Of the 75, 25 had no reactions to blanks, whereas 50 did, and thus were discarded from the study; even though we felt that some of the reactions to blanks might be evidence of delayed reaction to previous frequencies, or prolonged response to the previous positive challenge, as well as true placebo reactions.

We learned that challenge with 21 frequencies was impossible on many sensitive patients. They were often unwell for several hours or days, which confused the data from repeat challenges on subsequent days. Hence, we selected the one frequency of maximum sensitivity for repeat challenges in the phase IV studies.

When one compares the various groups to controls, it is clear that there is a group of patients who have unstable response systems which appear different from those of the individuals who acted as controls. These studies show that EMF sensitivity could be elicited under environmentally controlled conditions. As a result of the weak field levels and short exposure time, the responses were mild except in two patients whose symptoms were so severe (e.g., drop attack, severe itching) that they received intravenous vitamin C, magnesium, and oxygen as a result of the prolonged and delayed reactions.

Signs and symptoms appeared similar to those seen in food or chemically sensitive patients at the Environmental Health Center-Dallas, and included neurological, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermal, and ocular changes. The neurological symptoms were most comon. Similar responses have been recorded by others in the literature.^{5,6,7,6,13,14} In 1972, after the Soviets reported that electrical utility workers were suffering from listlessness, fatigue, and nausea, Subrohmangam and coworkers¹³ investigated and reported decisive changes in cardiac function and bioamine levels when pulses of 0.01 and 0.1 Hz were used. They found significant changes in the hypothalamus in response to the EMF fields.

In these studies, the preponderance of reactions occurred at one to 10 Hz, which accords well with their observations. However, many reactions also occurred at 50 and 60 Hz, as well as some up to 5 MHz. We conclude that in any given individual susceptibility may develop to any frequency and produce reactions.

Static magnetic fields are known to cause increased blood pressure on some individuals.¹⁴ Choy and coworkers⁸ found that EMF reactions in EMF sensitive patients were not limited to the nervous system, but occurred in the same systems as in these studies, which basically corroborate theirs, though neurological symptoms predominated in our experiments.

Over the past 30 years, numerous investigations with animals and a few epidemiological studies of human populations have been devoted to assessing the relationship of microwave exposure to cataract development. The severity and speed of formation depends not only on intensity, but also on wavelength and duration of exposure.^16-21 McCally et al.²² reported damage to corneal epithelium in Cynomolgus monkeys after 2.45 GHz irradiation for 6everal hours at only 20-30 mW/cm² (CW) or even 10-15 mW/cm² with pulsed fields. Therefore, the results of Paz²³ strongly suggests that the potential for eye injury exists in surgery where EMF fields are present.

In our experience, the patients’ clinical responses could not always be reproduced completely, but the objective Iriscorder, EKG, and respirometer could be. However, the responses were definitely different from controls or placebo challenges. In our experience over the years, we have found partial reproduction of symptoms on repeat challenge to be as significant as total reproduction. Therefore, significant differences from controls in objective ineasurementa were deemed valid.

There are several explanations for lack of exact reproducibility. These are the following: (a) the patients’ total body loads were different at different exposure periods. For example, some patients may only respond to EMF when in a reactive hypersensitive state;^5,8 (b) tissue resistance could influence the effect of the EMF. Zimerman²⁴ reported that electrical resistance of skin decreased with increasing temperature and increased with progressive drying, as might be expected; (c) injections of antigen neutralizing substances prior to test may have reduced the response to EMF. One patient with asthma was sensitive to high voltage power lines a well as low voltage house wiring. He experienced muscle spasms in head, neck, arms, and legs. This patient was also sensitive to dust, weeds, dust mites, and some foods. He reacted in our tests to 2.5 and 60 Hz and to 5 and 50 KHZ with tightness in the chest. He then received an antigen shot to neutralize his hypersensitivity reactions. Five months later, he was unreactive to EMF; (d) weather changes might affect the results, since we know that the weather can influence the propagation of EMF, as may alterations in the geomagnetic fields. Since humidity, pollution, temperature, etc. can affect resistance and total body load, weather should perhaps affect the results. Adverse weather (inversions, for example) may increase pollution load, while good weather lessens it. There is some evidence of resonance between geomagnetic fields and an applied ac magnetic field,²⁵ which implies that the results may depend in part at least upon the strength and orientation of the geomagnetic field in the test area; and (e) different wave forms might cause different responses. In these experiments, we used only square wave inputs to the coils. Consequently, we do not know whether other wave forms (sine, sawtooth, triangular, etc.) might induce different types or intensities of reactions.

Thus far, definitive information has not been sufficient to identify a plausible mechanism for EMF interactions with biological tissue. Interactions appear to take place at the cell surface, perhaps acting on receptor sites and altering ion and molecular transport across the membranes.²⁵ Further work remains to be done in the field.

It is clear that EMF sensitivity is a real phenomenon in some environmentally sensitive patients, because some had consistent reactions while none of the controls did. This study must be considered as only preliminary, but the evidence clearly points to sensitivity in some people.

In conclusion, it is evident that EMF testing is at a rudimentary stage; but clearly EMF sensitivity exists and can be elicited under environmentally controlled conditions. Further studies are needed to investigate the effects of EMF fields on human health.