Firstly, MRI scanners use different frequencies to devices like mobile phones or handheld computers that electrosensitive people like myself have complained about. Electrosensitivity may well be frequency related in which case there might not be any effect from an MRI scanner in spite of the intensity of the fields it produces.

Secondly, how many people have regular MRI’s? Sure, you might have a once off MRI for something. But suppose you are electrosensitive to the MRI machine, how would you be sure unless you’re having regular scans to know of a correlation?

An average 1.5T scanner operates at a peak RF power of 16-20KW (at around 63MHz) – though obviously the duty cycle is low, or thermal effects would cook the patient.

Even so, an average power deposition in the body approaching 0.4W/Kg is usual.

If we believe some of the worst rantings of the electro-sensitive lobby, we should be able to detect a substantial group of patients whose health has deteriorated after an MR exam, due to EM effects.

I don’t recall seeing any such correlation reported…must be Big Pharma’s cousin, Big Scanner Manfacturer suppressing the data.

I absolutely agree. There are a whole load of other ‘real’ causes that need to be discounted. Given that the effect is not immediate, it may not even be the device. It is so easy to see faces in the wallpaper and impose structure on random coincidence.

Paul,

Are you effected by wifi? Are you effected by power lines? I find the whole pda thing troubling because I don’t see that that would be generating much of an alternating field. Could somebody confirm this?

I can see that perhaps your pda could cause a localized effect, but spots in front of your eyes? What mechanism could be causing this? Are you sure they aren’t just common or garden floaters?

Tom

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m sure the symptoms are not “physiological noise” or anything like that because I can’t simply tune out from them as though they were there all the time and I was just being introspective. They are very uncomfortable to say the least.

Why no study to date has shown electrosensitivity to be correlated with EMF exposure, I don’t know. But perhaps the way the experiments are conducted needs to be reconsidered and perhaps a larger sample size used. I don’t know. But I am confident that one day there will be a study able to be repeated that will show electrosensitivity symptoms are not simply “all in the mind” and that EMF’s from the devices are the most likely explanation.

-Paul

in the cold dank world beyond the reach of the warm sun that is Ben Goldacre, this issue has been investigated to death. I’ve been reading up on it for the past couple of weeks.

The reason for the 50-60Hz thing is that if it’s a static field then it would be drowned out by the Earths magnetic field, the theory goes that an alternating field is new and artificial and therefore we aren’t adapted to it.

Tom

you mention various frequencies in the MHz range. Generally speaking the anti-EMF movement has been concerned with frequencies around 50-60Hz because of the link to AC power transmission. The argument generally is that there are ‘pulses’ within the higher frequency waves in the 10-100Hz range that cause the trouble. In so far as I’m aware of it though the vast bulk of 30+ years of research indicates that there is no effect even within this range. One question though, what kind of EMF field will be given off by a pda running off the battery? All the talk about fields given off by hairdryers etc have been with them plugged into the AC mains.

Tom

you cover a lot of ground. One thing to point out is that over the years CB radios have been credited muddled up in this as well (cancer risk for one thing, I’m not sure about EMF sensitivity).

Do you get symptoms from power lines? Again, these have traditionally been seen as causing both the cancer and the sensitivity.

Can somebody suggest a good readable paper on this whole confirmation bias/misattribution of cause thing that we all feel is going on here? Preferably with a killer anecdote or two. An anecdote is afterall worth a thousand statistics.

Tom

I got a chance to read the full Essex report and you’re right. Yes it is interesting. There are degrees of electrosensitivity. Those ES participants who had to drop out of the study are so badly affected that “exposure” leaves them ill for days.
Others can detect the “exposure” but their ES is not anywhere as debilitating. It’s perfectly possible to be electrosensitive without it affecting every move in your life. Threshold might be the keyword here.
You can check out one badly affected participants testimony here:
www.next-up.org/pdf/TestimonyBrianSteinAnEssexVictim28072007.pdf

The problem in understanding electrosensitivity is that on one side you have the anti-mobile industry lobbyists, including electrosensitivty sufferers, whose emotions tend to get in the way of sticking to the science. On the other side, you have the multi-billion dollar mobile communications industry whose CEO’s have a lot to lose if a health problem is discovered. So there are a lot of vested interests on both sides in seeing the outcomes they want to see.

From a personal perspective, I have found myself to be electrosensitive. I have noticed symptoms develop gradually during exposure to certain EMF’s from mobile devices (such as phones and pocket PC’s) when in very close proximity (usually holding the device). The symptoms build up during exposure and often last for hours following cessation of exposure. Even though I have never had any aversion to using such technology, I am finding it is having a real effect on my health. Given the correlation I have noticed between usage and exposure over a long period of time, I would find it hard to accept that it is purely some sort of psychological problem. I’m not sure why studies into electrosensitivity to date (as far as I’m aware) have not yielded results that could show a link between mobile device EMF’s and electrosensitivity symptoms. But perhaps there needs to be more objective ways of testing (such as blood tests, nerve tests etc…) rather than relying on reports of the participants. Perhaps also, given what I have noticed of the latency in symptom development and decline, there needs to be a longer period following each test to allow any symptoms to clear.

The symptoms I have experienced from electromagnetic fields (EMF’s) using mobile devices (like a phone and pocket pc) are: altered tinnitus (from a buzzing to a ringing sound), snowy and less sensitive vision, dizziness, rapid and repeated nerve twitches (at random locations all over), prickling and tingling sensations (again at random locations all over), pressure in the sinus region and vibration sensations particularly in the lower legs. These are the main symptoms I have been experiencing.

I first began noticing symptoms after using a GSM mobile phone some years ago and was surprised that not many other people I knew had the same problem. After noticing a strong correlation between usage and symptoms, I thought maybe the cause could be something to do with the (approximately) 900Mhz signal from the phone. But some years later after using a pocket PC (also called a personal digital assistant or PDA), I began noticing the same kinds of symptoms developing just from carrying the device around in my pocket–even with the wireless function switched off! I never expected to have this problem from using a pocket PC! This has lead me to think that EMF’s from the internal electronics could be to blame–perhaps even extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF’s. As I understand, if ELF EMF’s are to blame then shielding will be very difficult.

Before having used these digital mobile devices, I used to use CB and even amateur radio for a while. So I have some expertise in dealing with radiofrequency (RF) EMF’s. I never once recall having had any kind of electrosensitivity problem using a CB radio (that emmitted as much as 4 watts of power in the 27Mhz band) or amateur radios when near to the radiating antennas. I also have an old analogue cordless phone and likewise have never had any electrosensitivity problem using it.

to the extent that the Precautionary Principle is used in a dogmatic, won’t somebody think about the children, kind of way I absolutely agree with you. It is also a con. Unless the minutes of a meeting between the WHO, the mobile phone companies and the illuminati are discovered this issue will never be finally resolved. People will just get bored of it and move on to other things. The claim that we should wait until a study that resolves it all is at best nonsense and at worsed a trick. There’s no more likelyhood of a study coming out that convinces everybody than there is definitive new evidence from the Kennedy assisination.

Tom

The Precautionary Principle is a phallacy.

This is because its proposition is that if you are uncertain of the risks you should not do something fails to to account for the risks associcated with failing to take an action.

Because the knowledge is lacking to know what the risks of doing something are it follows that the knowledge of the risks associated with not doing something are also lacking.

Likewise the benefits.

Ignorance is not a basis to make a decision.

The precautionary principle at work. A little dated, but then again, human nature is very predictable.

Error establishing a database connection

Has your popularity grown so much, so soon that even your new best friends can’t cope?