Viewpoints on Electrosensitivity
back to: Viewpoints on ES
to: Expert Viewpoints
to: World Health Organization, ICNIRP
to: European Union
to: Nocebo effects and Electrophobia
to: pro-industry regulators
to: Provocation test failures and problems
to: Documentaries, Films, Humor
Other organizations, adopting the majority biological viewpoint
Other national and international organisations have fully accepted the reality of Electrosensitivity and its link with electromagnetic exposure. Since 2008 the majority of international scientists involved in this area has accepted the reality of harm from electromagnetic radiation and fields below heating levels.
- The international Nordic Council of Ministers in 2000 classified El-allergy or Electrosensitivity as ICD-10 R.68.8.
"R68.8 Other specified general symptoms and signs (suggested/recommended for multisymptomatic “idiopathic/environmental intolerance” (IEI), including “multiple chemical sensitivity” (MCS); “electromagnetic
intolerance” (“el-allergy”) etc. if the patient has not one major symptom which should preferably be coded.)
"“Electromagnetic intolerance” “El-allergy”. Usually general symptoms (tiredness, nausea, memory- and concentration difficulties etc.) related to use of TV/PC/data-screens, electrical transformers or fluorescent lamps. Symptoms disappear in “non-electrical environments”."
(Nordic Council of Ministers: The Nordic Adaptation of Classification of Occupationally Related Disorders (Diseases and Symptoms) to ICD-10 (2000) pdf)
- The BioInitiative Reports of 2007 and 2012 gave evidence of the current majority scientific viewpoint that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic exposure, including acute symptoms.
- The parliament of the European Union in 2009 voted that the old heating limits of the WHO's ICNIRP, still used by some countries, were obsolete, and that new biological low-level and long-term limits were needed. The old heating limits averaged exposure over 6 minutes to prevent a rise of temperature of more than one degree in a healthy adult male. It was not designed for children, the elderly, pregnant women and those with impaired immune systems or sensitivities.
- The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly voted in 2011 that governments should recognise people with Electrosensitivity and provide 'white zones' free from man-made radiation for them.
- Of the 12 recommendations in the report “Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians” by the Standing Committee on Health of the Canadian House of Commons in June 2015, four concerned EHS:
2. That Statistics Canada consider including questions related to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the Canadian Community Health Survey.
3. That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity testing, diagnosis and treatment, and its possible impacts on health in the workplace.
4. That the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the World Health Organization consider updating their guidelines and continuing education materials regarding the diagnosis and treatment of electromagnetic hypersensitivity to ensure they are based on the latest scientific evidence and reflect the symptoms of affected Canadians.
5. That the Government of Canada continue to provide reasonable accommodations for environmental sensitivities, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
- Courts and Tribunals around the world now award financial compensation for people with Electrosensitivity. Awards have also been made for tumors from phones or cancer from TV towers.
- Disability legislation in most countries requires employers and public authorities to provide equal rights of access for people with Electrosensitivity.
- The Austrian Medical Associationissued a protocol for diagnosis and treatment of Electrosensitivity in 2012.
- A growing number of individual countries have rejected the WHO's obsolete heating limits and adopted lower, biological long-term, limits (see section on Safety Limits). A growing number of countries have warned against or banned cellphones or WiFi in schools or for children. Others have banned wireless 'smart' meters or made them voluntary. Safety limits for people with EHS are now set at 0.1 microWatts per meter squared (Building Biology 2008; EUROPAEM 2015).
- The California Medical Association's Wireless Standards Re-evaluation (107-14) calls for new long-term limits to replace obsolete heating limits.
- International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) "oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions, until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members".
IAFF Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medine: "Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions" (August 2004)
- LAUSD (The Los Angeles Unified School District) in 2000 and again in 2009 voted to approve resolutions banning cellphone towers from school property or from close to school premises. In 2009 they also voted for increased setbacks and advance notification.
News Release: "LOS ANGELES BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS VOTE TO PROHIBIT CELL PHONE TOWERS NEAR SCHOOLS" (May 2009)
News Release: "Call for Increased Setbacks and Advanced Notification on Locations Near Schools" (December 2009)
- Most leading medical experts have long accepted adverse non-thermal effects (unlike the minority viewpoints of some members of the ICNIRP and WHO). Thus the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape states: "the fact that high-frequency radiation gives rise to non-thermal effects is undisputed" (Electrosmog in the Environment, SAEFL, 2005, p.10).
Viewpoints in the Media
Some early references to views in the media on ES and other health effects: