The lack of international and national health policies to protect persons with self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity

EUROPAEM

The EMF working group of the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) in their review of EMF and health research [26] has briefly reviewed some selected studies on EHS and commented on the reliability of the evidence as follows:

The question, whether EHS is causally associated with EMF exposure is controversially discussed. On the one hand, physicians judge a causal association between EMF exposures as plausible based on case reports, on the other hand, national and international health risk assessments mostly claim that there is no such causal association, because provocation studies under controlled blinded conditions mostly failed to show effects. However, these studies have severe shortcomings that must be addressed: sequences of exposure conditions were often contiguous neglecting aftereffects of exposure; the exposure duration and the examined effects were short-term; the sham exposure was frequently under conditions that could provoke arousal in sensitive individuals; the time frame neglected the temporal conditions of symptom occurrence and disappearance, and/or the recruitment of persons with EHS was not medically assessed.

EUROPAEM’s review [26] is critical of the WHO approach towards EHS and dismissal of causal approach while the scientific evidence is still not settled:

The WHO does not consider EHS as a diagnosis and recommends to medical doctors that the treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on a person’s perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or at home […]. Based on the existing evidence and practical knowledge this view ignores a causal approach…

EUROPAEM has also proposed [26], still preliminary, recommendations for how to evaluate and diagnose self-declared EHS persons:

The recommended approach to diagnosis and treatment is intended as an aid and should, of course, be modified to meet the needs of each individual case […]. 1. History of health problems and EMF exposure, 2. Medical examinations and findings, 3. Measurement of EMF exposure, 4. Reduction and prevention of EMF exposure, 5. Diagnosis, 6. Treatment of the patient including the environment.

EUROPAEM review [26] admits the shortcomings of the knowledge on EHS that could be used for its diagnosis:

We do not have any clinical findings yet that are specific to EMF, which makes diagnosis and differential diagnosis a considerable challenge.

…but it proposes also a long list of biomedical tests that, potentially, could be helpful in diagnosis of EHS.

Large part of the EUROPAEM review [26] presents precautionary EMF exposure values, proposed by the EUROPAEM, that are lower than the safety guidelines recommended by ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES.

EUROPAEM review [26], on the contrary to the opinions of the WHO, ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES, proposes also classification of EHS as a disease:

Regarding the current International Classification of Diseases (ICD), ICD-10-WHO 2015, we recommend at the moment: (a) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS): to use the existing diagnostic codes for the different symptoms plus code R68.8 “Other specified general symptoms and signs” plus code Z58.4 “Exposure to radiation” and/or Z57.1 “Occupational exposure to radiation”.

ICEMS

The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) was registered in Italy in 2003 as a non-profit organization of independent scientists who, similarly to ICNIRP, represent only themselves and their scientific opinions are their own (www.icems.eu/organization.htm).

In 2011 ICEMS has published its first, and so far the only, monograph: “Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter”, edited by Livio Giuliani and Morando Soffritti for the “European Journal of Oncology” – Library Vol. 5 of the National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases “Bernardo Ramazzini”, Bologna, Italy, 2010, Part I and Part II (www.icems.eu/papers.htm).

ICEMS Monograph includes an experimental provocation study on EHS [27] that can be considered as an opinion of ICEMS on the existence of the EHS and on the causal link between EHS and EMF. There are presented some general and critical comments on EHS research:

Most of the studies on humans, that did not show any effects of MW radiation in some of the studies mentioned above, were conducted with young, healthy subjects, giving rise to the question whether the experiments would have yielded different results with subjects with a “higher level of pathologic pre-load” and thus fewer possibilities to acutely compensate the possible stressor of radiation.

…and pointed out difficulty of separating EHS from other kinds of stress:

Many of those claiming to have EHS also had food allergies, mold/pollen/dust allergies and were chemically sensitive. With so many other sensitivities it is difficult to determine whether the sensitivity to electromagnetic energy is a primary disorder attributable to high and/or prolonged EM exposures or a secondary disorder brought about by an impaired immune system attributable to other stressors.

The authors of the study disagree with the re-naming of the EHS to become IEI-EMF as they consider that the causality link between EHS symptoms and EMF exposures exists:

The term EHS was deemed to imply that a causal relationship has been established between the reported symptoms and EMF exposure and for that reason the WHO has labeled EHS as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI) to indicate that it is an acquired disorder with multiple recurrent symptoms, associated with diverse environmental factors tolerated by the majority of people, and not explained by any known medical, psychiatric or psychological disorder. We think this labeling needs to be changed especially in light of this study.

However, the conclusions and statements on EHS published in the ICEMS Monograph by Havas and co-workers [27] are significantly weakened by the subsequent publications by Havas and Marrongelle of the replication study [28] and retraction of this replication study [29].

BioInitiative

BioInitiative (https://bioinitiative.org) considers biological effects as clearly established what is a far stronger statement than the statements of ICNIRP is or IEEE-ICES, although also these organizations recognize that some biological effects happen at non-thermal exposures. However, the most important distinction is that the BioInitiative assumes that these established biological effects will, over time, lead to health effects, whereas ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES disagree. On bioeffects and possibility of health effects the BioInitiative states (https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions):

Bioeffects are clearly established and occur at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. Bioeffects can occur in the first few minutes at levels associated with cell and cordless phone use. Bioeffects can also occur from just minutes of exposure to mobile phone masts (cell towers), WI-FI, and wireless utility ‘smart’ meters that produce whole-body exposure. Chronic base station level exposures can result in illness.

In respect of chronic exposures the BioInitiative states (https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions):

Bioeffects with chronic exposures can reasonably be presumed to result in adverse health effects. Many of these bioeffects can reasonably be presumed to result in adverse health effects if the exposures are prolonged or chronic. This is because they interfere with normal body processes (disrupt homeostasis), prevent the body from healing damaged DNA, produce immune system imbalances, metabolic disruption and lower resilience to disease across multiple pathways. Essential body processes can eventually be disabled by incessant external stresses (from system-wide electrophysiological interference) and lead to pervasive impairment of metabolic and reproductive functions.

Interestingly, while there is not much research altogether on the possibility of co-effects of EMF exposures and chemicals exposures, the BioInitiative states on this issue the following (https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions):

EMF and RFR make chemical toxins more harmful. EMF acts on the body like other environmental toxicants do (heavy metals, organic chemicals and pesticides). Both toxic chemicals and EMF may generate free radicals, produce stress proteins and cause indirect damage to DNA. Where there is combined exposure the damages may add or even synergistically interact, and result in worse damage to genes.

BioInitiative asks for action on re-defining safe exposure levels (https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions):

New safety limits must be established – health agencies should act now. Existing public safety limits (FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits) do not sufficiently protect public health against chronic exposure from very low-intensity exposures. If no mid-course corrections are made to existing and outdated safety limits, such delay will magnify the public health impacts with even more applications of wireless-enabled technologies exposing even greater populations around the world in daily life.

Finally, BioInitiative has the opinion that the sensitive populations, that include self-declared EHS and others vulnerable persons, need to be protected (https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions):

Sensitive populations must be protected. Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be set at lower levels than for healthy adult populations. Sensitive populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with developed electrical sensitivity (EHS).

What also differentiates BioInitiative from ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES is the following statement (https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions):

Standard of evidence for judging the science. The standard of evidence for judging the scientific evidence should be based on good public health principles rather than demanding scientific certainty before actions are taken.

European Union

Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), in its opinion on ‘Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)’ (https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a67fe808-06bb-11e6-b713-01aa75ed71a1/language-en), concluded on EHS (IEI-EMF) as follows:

The symptoms that are attributed by people to RF EMF exposure can sometimes cause serious impairments to a person’s wellbeing. However, research […] adds weight to the conclusion that RF EMF exposure is not the cause of these symptoms. This applies to the general public, children and adolescents, and to people with IEI-EMF. Recent meta-analyses of observational and provocation data support this conclusion. For symptoms triggered by short-term exposure to RF fields (measured in minutes to hours), the consistent results from multiple double-blind experiments lead to a strong overall weight of evidence that RF EMFs do not cause such effects. For symptoms associated with longer-term exposures (days to months), the evidence from observational studies is broadly consistent but has gaps, most notably in terms of the objective monitoring of exposure. Current evidence weighs towards an absence of effects due to RF EMF exposure.

Also published in 2015, ‘Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity”’ (own-initiative opinion) (2015/C 242/05) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014IE5117&from=PL):

The EESC [European Economic and Social Committee] acknowledges and is concerned about the prevalence of EHS. It is encouraged to note that further substantial research is ongoing to understand the problem and its causes.

However, to allay continuing public concern and to uphold the precautionary principle the EESC urges the Commission to continue its work in this area particularly as further research is still needed to accumulate evidence concerning any potential health impact from long-term exposure, for example using a mobile phone for more than 20 years.

There remains the issue of public perception. For some individuals the prevalence of EMF is seen as a threat – in the workplace, to their families and in public spaces. Similar groups are equally concerned over multiple chemical exposure, widespread food intolerance or exposure to particles, fibres or bacteria in the environment. Such individuals need support, not only in dealing with actual illness symptoms but with the concerns they express about modern society.

The Committee notes that EHS sufferers experience real symptoms. Efforts should be made to improve their health conditions with a focus on reducing disability.

Unfortunately, from their point of view, the overwhelming medical and scientific opinion is that there is no conclusive evidence to link the wide range of symptoms described as EHS to electromagnetic or radiofrequency exposure (EMF).

EHS sufferers continue to argue that action on their problem, both by Member States and the EU, falls far short of what they believe is necessary. Most public health authorities, however, do not agree.

However, this is not to deny the reality of EHS-attributed symptoms; clearly many people self-diagnose as suffering from a range of disconnected health problems which they link with electromagnetic fields. The proportion of the population claiming this diagnosis varies considerably between Member States. The World Health Organisation notes that ‘EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.

And finally the EESC opinion/conclusion on safety limits and lowering exposures is as follows:

The EESC has stated its concerns regarding these issues and expressed its support for reducing exposure to non- ionising radiation in opinions published on these rules while they were being prepared. However, sufferers from EHS are characterised by attributing their symptoms to EMF at intensities well below the limits permitted.

Nordic countries

In Nordic countries EHS is recognized as a handicap but not as disease. Hence, there are no diagnostic criteria for EHS. Nordic Countries, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden, have together developed a Nordic co-operative project called “The Nordic Adaptation of Classification of Occupationally Related Disorders (diseases and symptoms) to ICD-10”, financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers (Nordisk Ministerråd) and completed from 1996 to 2000 (https://eloverkanslig.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/the-nordic-adaptation-of-classification-of-occupationally-related-disorders-icd-10.pdf). The aim of the project was to provide a “Nordic list of occupational disorders” with advice on how to code them in accordance with the WHO International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) version 10. EHS is defined as follows:

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’.

In the table listing ICD-10 codes for the most frequently encountered occupational disorders in the Nordic countries, EHS is listed as follows:

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).

T78.8 Other adverse effects, not elsewhere classified (‘Other specified general symptoms and signs’ (R68.8) is recommended for conditions like ‘idiopathic environmental intolerance’ (IEI), incl. MCS; electromagnetic intolerance (‘el-allergy’) etc.).

Australia

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is the Australian Government’s primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety, what includes exposures to radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices and networks.

ARPANSA develops own radiofrequency safety standard based on the ICNIRP standard and on the own, ARPANSA’s, review of scientific evidence. To develop the new standard, ARPANSA reviewed the 2020 ICNIRP guidelines and other relevant scientific literature and performed also public consultation. The updated ICNIRP 2020 guidelines were considered by ARPANSA as an international best practice. Australia was the first country that adopted ICNIRP 2020 guidelines in their own safety guidelines.

ARPANSA (https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity) considers that the current scientific evidence does not establish that electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms are caused by exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields. According to ARPANSA website, some individuals report a wide range of non-specific health problems that they self-attribute to low-level exposure of electromagnetic fields (EMF). The most commonly reported symptoms are headaches, body pain, lethargy, tinnitus, nausea, burning sensation, heart arrhythmia and anxiety. The collection of these symptoms is not part of any medically recognized syndrome. Finally, ARPANSA advises that on the basis of current scientific information, there is no established evidence that EHS is caused by EMF at levels below exposure guidelines. ARPANSA acknowledges that the health symptoms experienced by the affected individuals are real and can be a disabling problem, and advise those affected to seek medical advice from a qualified medical specialist. As useful link ARPANSA provides link to World Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/el-hsensitivity).

Belgium

Belgium follows the opinion of the WHO. The Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment website (https://www.health.belgium.be/en/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity) provides information about EHS is as follows:

Although the name suggests a connection between the complaints and the exposure to electromagnetic fields, this connection is not confirmed by scientific research. That is why electromagnetic hypersensitivity is considered as a case of “idiopathic environmental intolerance”. “Idiopathic” refers to symptoms that remain unexplained, the cause of which is unknown. There is a hypothesis that the cause of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (at least partially) can be found in a strong negative affectation (strong influenceability due to a negative expectation). Yet, additional research is necessary before further conclusions can be drawn.

There is also offered full info about EHS as a downloadable document (https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_theme_file/19104345/Electromagnetic%20hypersensitivity%20EN_fiches.pdf). This document informs also that EHS is not classified as a disease due to lack of diagnostic criteria:

Due to the fact that no methods have been found to objectify the symptoms and describe these as separate pathology, “electrohypersensitivity” is not included in the internationally recognised list of diseases (International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) of the World Health Organisation.

Also here it is stressed and advised to provide help and to treat EHS sufferers with consideration and respect:

Even if no causal connection to electromagnetic fields is found, the symptoms themselves are very real and we need to pay attention to that.

…and further the following advice is provided on how to help EHS persons, but in very general terms that are of little help to persons providing assistance to EHS sufferers:

After the medical, psychosocial and environmental conditions have been investigated, it is necessary to treat an electromagnetically sensitive person in a personal, multidisciplinary and global manner.

There are various therapeutic techniques suggested, of which cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has proved to be the most efficient. In cognitive behavioural therapy, patients are encouraged to question their assumptions and to look for other causes and interpretations of their symptoms. They look for ways to deal with their symptoms and if necessary, learn techniques to deal with psychosocial stress. The best results are achieved when the treatment is started in a timely fashion.

However, it is strongly discouraged to advise avoidance of EMF exposures as it might:

Reducing the exposure is often seen by the affected people as a solution. This, however, brings the person reporting electromagnetic sensitivity into a vicious circle, in which the existence of symptoms, the attribution of them to one source of electromagnetic fields or another and avoidance follow and support one another.

Finally, the document ends with general advice of the importance of good personal relationship between EHS person and physician, as helping factor in recovery of EHS person:

Although there is currently no clearly outlined therapeutic treatment, it is certain that a good relationship between doctor and patient and the emotional support of people in their environment are important.

Canada

Health Canada Safety Code 6 is a document that sets out recommended safety limits for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The recommendations were published in 2009 and updated in 2015 (https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/ewh-semt/alt_formats/pdf/consult/_2014/safety_code_6-code_securite_6/final-finale-eng.pdf).

Safety Code 6 uses weight-of-evidence approach that takes into account both the quantity of studies and the quality of those studies. Properly conducted studies receive more weight when they have appropriate statistics applied, all of the necessary controls included, and have complete evaluation of the radiofrequency source and exposure level. Poorly conducted studies receive little weight when they have limitations such as inadequate statistical analysis, lack of appropriate control samples, and inadequate evaluation of the radiofrequency source and exposure level.

According to Health Canada Safety Code 6 updated in 2015 (excerpts):

…the only established adverse health effects associated with RF field exposures in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz relate to the occurrence of tissue heating and nerve stimulation (NS) from short-term (acute) exposures.

…there is no scientific basis for the occurrence of acute, chronic and/or cumulative adverse health risks from RF field exposure at levels below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6.

The hypotheses of other proposed adverse health effects occurring at levels below the exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6 suffer from a lack of evidence of causality, biological plausibility and reproducibility and do not provide a credible foundation for making science-based recommendations for limiting human exposures to low-intensity RF fields.

Health Canada also states that the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 are consistent with the standards used in other parts of the world, including: Japan, Australia, New Zealand, USA and European Union.

Finland

In general, the stance of Finland’s STUK – Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority is that there are no proven health effects of radiation emitted by wireless communication devices and networks (www.stuk.fi/web/en/topics/mobile-telephones-and-base-stations/no-evidence-of-health-hazards).

STUK follows closely opinions and recommendations of the WHO and ICNIRP. Hence, STUK considers that the only proven effect of EMF exposures are thermal effects and does not recognize non-thermal effects as scientifically established when it states:

Various theories have been offered according to which radio frequency radiation has other negative effects not attributable to excessive warming. However, such theories have not been verified by scientifically valid research reports. Insofar as other negative effects exist, they are caused by as yet unknown mechanisms.

In respect of health effects STUK states:

The conclusions […] can be summarized in the statement that any exposure falling below the current exposure limits has no verified health effects.

…but STUK also recognizes that there remains uncertainty about effects of low-level EMF exposures on humans:

However, additional research is required on exposure that approaches the limits before final conclusions can be drawn. Exposure to this kind of radiation occurs practically only when people talk on their mobile phones. The most significant gap in the information related to mobile phones is the fact that no data exist on the health effects of mobile phone use that today spans more than 15 years. Because of this, an increase in the number of slowly developing cancer forms, for example, is not yet detectable in statistics.

In respect of EHS, STUK does not recognize EHS as being caused by EMF exposures and has a very brief and very vague statement on EHS, mentioning also other, potentially harmful, agents (www.stuk.fi/web/en/topics/mobile-telephones-and-base-stations/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity):

Some people experience symptoms detrimental to health in certain working and living environments, although the same environment or exposure does not cause symptoms to the majority of people. The factors related to such symptoms include moulds, various chemicals and fragrances as well as electromagnetic fields.

The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority follows advances in the research data concerning electrical sensitivity and, when necessary, makes statements on electrical sensitivity issues in terms of radiation protection.

Finally, as many other radiation protection authorities and organizations, also STUK, while claiming lack of proof of health effects, advises general public how to reduce exposures to wireless radiation emitted by handsets, because STUK considers effects of radiation emitted by base stations as settled (www.stuk.fi/web/en/topics/mobile-telephones-and-base-stations/how-to-reduce-your-exposure):

Health effects of mobile phones are marked by a number of uncertainties. For this reason; STUK recommends that unnecessary exposure to radiation from mobile phones be avoided. In particular, children’s unnecessary exposure should be avoided as their life-long exposure will be longer than that of those who begin using mobile phone as adults and as only scant research exists on health effects to children. This recommendation does not apply to weak exposure generated by base stations, as scientifically valid data on the health effects of such radiation is unavailable at the present time.

France

The 2018 Opinion of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/AP2011SA0150EN.pdf) regarding the expert appraisal on ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)’.

ANSES report has found that while the pain and suffering reported by the EHS sufferers is real, there is no clear diagnostic criteria for the ailment and studies have shown that the development of symptoms is unrelated to exposure (nocebo effect).

Currently, the only way to define EHS is on the basis of self-reporting by people. This can cause a lack of sensitivity in all the studies on the topic, since very different EHS individuals can be recruited without distinction.

Considering uncertainties of science and the need for further research to resolve current gaps in the knowledge the ANSES recommends that:

Considering the current or future deployment of new mobile communication technologies […], in parallel with the existing services, and the uncertainties concerning the long-term effects of exposure to radiofrequencies, the Agency emphasizes the need for these technological developments to go hand in hand with limitation of individual exposure, whether exposure is environmental or related to devices.

Specific recommendation for how to care for EHS persons before the science provides better evidence of the ailment’s causes:

develop training for doctors on the health effects of radiofrequencies and provide them with information enabling them to meet the expectations of EHS individuals

ask the French Society for Occupational Medicine to examine the feasibility of a good practice guide on the care of EHS individuals in the workplace

ask the French National Authority for Health (HAS) to examine, as with the recommendations it formulated on fibromyalgia, the relevance of formulating care recommendations tailored to EHS individuals

foster closer ties and promote collaboration among professionals involved in the care of EHS individuals (doctors, occupational and environmental disease clinics – CCPPs, departmental homes for disabled persons – MDPHs, etc.)

Germany

In Germany, issue of health effects of RF-EMF exposures is guided by The Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) (www.bfs.de) that is described as an organizationally independent, scientific-technical higher federal authority supervised by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU).

German BfS opinion on possibility of health effects caused by RF-EMF exposures at the levels below ICNIRP safety guidelines is completely negative. According to BfS there is no proof and no evidence to support existence of non-thermal biological effects and health effects caused by non-thermal RF-EMF exposures. The only open question for the BfS, where it indicates the need for further research is the possibility of long-term effects, when exposures to RF-EMF last for tens of years.

BfS clearly and unequivocally states on its website (see: BfS. Electromagnetic Fields) that Deutsches Mobilfunk Forschungsprogramm (www.emf-forschungsprogramm.de) has concluded:

1. The existence of health effects below the limit values was neither confirmed by the results of the DMF (Deutsches Mobilfunk Forschungsprogramm), nor by other up-to-date studies conducted on national or international levels.

   • No evidence of non-thermal biological effects below the limits

   • No impairment of general health and cognitive performance

   • No proven increased cancer risk

   • No acute effects in embryos or children

2. Long-term effects for periods of use exceeding a decade remain an open issue. Therefore, further research is conducted into this question.

However, in another place on the BfS website (https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/emf/lff/effect/discussed/discussed.html) the following information concerning EHS is published:

…Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Studies conducted by the BfS have shown that just under two per cent of the German population consider themselves to be electromagnetically hypersensitive. They attribute various complaints, such as headaches, sleep disturbance, fatigue and concentration problems to the presence of electric and magnetic fields in their environment.

For a long time, science has been trying to understand the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The common conclusion of the numerous studies conducted to date, is that a causal relationship between electric and magnetic fields and the complaints of electromagnetically hypersensitive individuals is highly unlikely. This view is also held, among others, by the World Health Organization (WHO)…

Thus the information presented on the BfS site oscillates between forceful statement of no evidence for non-thermal effects and more ambiguous statement of EMF as cause of EHS as highly unlikely. According to BfS non-existence of non-thermal effects means there is no mechanism for EMF exposures below safety limits to cause EHS. However, BfS refrains from stating such unequivocally and, instead, claims that it is highly unlikely for the EHS to be caused by EMF.

At the same time, when advising that there are no biological or health problems associated/caused by RF-EMF exposures below levels approved as safe by ICNIRP, the BfS advises users how to reduce exposures and BfS advises to purchase cell phone models with low levels of emitted radiation (SAR) (https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/emf/mobile-communication/protection/smartphone-tablet/smartphone-tablet.html):

A device is considered to be low-radiation up to a SAR value of 0.5 watts per kilogram for the use case “holding the phone right next to the ear during a call”. 41 per cent of currently available smartphones can be classified as “low-radiation” regarding this use case.

Such advice, of buying phones with lower SAR to lower RF-EMF exposures, is in disagreement with what umbrella organization of wireless networks providers, the GSMA advises on understanding SAR (https://www.gsma.com/iot/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/mmfgsmasarflyer-2.pdf) as follows:

Does a lower SAR mean that a phone is safer? No. Variations in SAR do not mean that there are variations in safety. While there may be differences in SAR levels among phone models, all mobile phones must meet RF exposure guidelines.

Iceland

Icelandic Radiation Safety Authority follows directly opinion of the WHO and writes the following opinion on EHS (https://gr.is/rafsgulothol):

Electromagnetic intolerance: with the increased utilization of electronic communications technology that utilizes electromagnetic fields on radio frequencies, the Radiation Protection Authority has received inquiries and complaints from people who have health problems that they associate with intolerance to electromagnetic fields. The World Health Organization (WHO) website has some detailed information and advice on electromagnetic tolerance, see https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/.

In respect of the specific question: Are there people with electromagnetic intolerance? The answer of the Icelandic Radiation Safety Authority is that to date, it has not been possible to demonstrate, by scientific methods, that electromagnetic fields cause electromagnetic resistance.

India

Ministry of Communications’ Department of Telecommunications’ website (https://dot.gov.in/journey-emf) provides information concerning safety guidelines and possible health effects.

Safety guidelines recommended by the WHO are strictly followed by the Government of India that states:

WHO has recommended adoption of international standards, namely International Commission for Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The main conclusion from the WHO reviews is that EMF exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health. The WHO says – “All reviews conducted so far have indicated that exposures below the limits recommended in the International Commission for Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 1998 EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0–300 GHz, do not produce any known adverse health effect”. However, there are gaps in knowledge still needing to be filled before better health risk assessments can be made.

However, the limits for emissions from base stations were reduced to 10% of ICNIRP recommended guidelines:

Keeping the precautionary EMF safe exposure limits for the Radio Frequency Field (Base Station Emissions) as 1/10th of the safe limits prescribed by ICNIRP for all areas in India, eliminates the need for fixing lower limits for specific areas like schools, hospitals, residential premises, children playgrounds; a segregation of which is impractical in densely populated localities.

In line with the precautionary approach and in order to provide citizens with the detailed information about location and workings of base stations, the Government of India own EMF Portal (www.tarangsanchar.gov.in) has been set up and it provides the general public with information on location of base stations in vicinity of any locality.

Health concerns are being recognized but generally dismissed as unlikely and the advice of the WHO seems to be strictly followed:

There is a public concern over possible health effects from Electromagnetic Field Radiation (EMR) exposure from diverse EMR sources especially Mobile BTS antennae and mobile. In this regard, several studies have been conducted in different countries, under the aegis of World Health Organization (WHO). WHO has referred to approximately 25,000 articles published around the world over past 30 years, and based on an in-depth review of scientific literature, has concluded: “current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic field”. Since the effects on human beings are to be studied over a long period of time, further studies are going on around the world.

…and further in respect to radiation emitted by the base stations:

With reference to Electromagnetic Radiation emanating from cellular mobile towers, World Health Organization (WHO) in its Fact Sheet No. 304, May 2006 on Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health (Base Stations and Wireless Technologies) has concluded that “considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak Radio Frequency (RF) Signals from base stations and wireless networks caused adverse health effects”. From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short or long term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF Signals produced by based stations.

Furthermore, in respect to base stations in India the Department of Communications wrote the following on base stations’ radiation and health:

EMF radiations from a mobile tower, which are below the safe limits prescribed by ICNIRP and recommended by WHO, have no convincing scientific evidence of causing adverse health effects. Department of Telecommunications have prescribed stricter precautionary norms for exposure limit for the Radio Frequency Field (Base Station Emissions) which is 1/10th of the existing limits prescribed by ICNIRP and recommended by WHO. Further, Government of India has taken adequate steps to ensure that Telecommunications Service Providers strictly adhere to these prescribed norms.

The website of the Ministry of Communications of India does not mention EHS. However, EHS is presented by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in their Information paper ‘On Effects of Electromagnetic Field Radiation from Mobile Towers and Handsets’ published on July 30, 2014 (https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/EMF_Information_Paper_30.07.2014.pdf):

…a study conducted by the WHO concluded that EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. However, EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EM radiation. Furthermore, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem…

Italy

In Italy, there are no official government and public health materials on EHS available. There is a draft law document on the initiative of Senator Scipoliti, of March 15, 2013, on the rules for the protection of people with environmental disabilities, including electromagnetic sensitivity (https://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00699527.pdf). This document proposes the list of the measures that need to be taken in order to protect environmentally sensitive persons, including those with electromagnetic hypersensitivity:

1. In order to protect the right to work of subjects suffering from environmental disease or disability, the following measures are envisaged:

   1. adoption of adequate aids in the workplace, including, in particular, those listed in article 5, paragraph 3;

   2. use of detergents with low emission of volatile organic compounds and free of fragrances for cleaning the premises used for work and for the relative toilets in the case of chemical sensitivity;

   3. use of furnishings that do not exhale volatile chemicals in the case of chemical sensitivity;

   4. allocation in environments equipped with purifiers and with air exchange of the equipment that release ink fragrances and volatile chemicals;

   5. possibility of changing duties if incompatible with the condition of a person suffering from disease or environmental disability;

   6. ban on the use of wireless communication systems in offices where there is a person affected by electrosensitivity or by disease or environmental disability incompatible with biologically active electromagnetic fields;

   7. maintenance of the professional category for those who have contracted an illness or an environmental disability due to work-related reasons;

   8. incentives for teleworking in all cases in which it is of advantage to a person suffering from disease or environmental disability.

2. In order to protect the right to study of subjects suffering from disease or environmental disability, adequate accommodation solutions are provided in a reclaimed school environment, both as regards the building materials and those necessary for teaching, as well as the prohibition of use of fragrances and chemical detergents, in the case of chemical sensitivity and the ban on the use of wireless fidelity systems and mobile telephones, resorting, in the most serious cases, to remote learning and verification.

However, while very interesting this document was not enacted.

Two communities in Italy have taken unilateral actions on electromagnetic sensitivity and/or 5G deployment. Basilicata region of Italy recognizes electrosensitivity as a rare disease. Document ‘deliberazione no. 1296’, dated October 15, 2013 of the Regione Basilicata, Dipartimento Salute, Sicurezza e Solidarietà Sociale, Servizi alla Persona e alla Comunità (Department of Health, Safety and Social Solidarity, Personal and Community Services) has recognized pathology of electrosensitivity (given code: RQG020) and stated the following on the subject of the implementation of the Ministerial Decree of 18 May 2001, number 279, dealing with the recognition of rare diseases, including electrosensitivity:

…the recognition of the right to exemption for subjects affected by these diseases, it takes place on the part of Local Health Companies of residence, upon presentation of certification/diagnosis of disease, prepared by medical specialists of recognized public reference centers from regions and autonomous provinces for the treatment of rare diseases.

to transmit, to the extent of subsequent competence, this act to the Healthcare companies ASP and ASM, at the San Carlo Hospital Potenza and IRCCS CROB of Rionero in Vulture.

It means that in region of Basilicata, electrosensitivity is considered as rare disease, it can be diagnosed by physicians and diagnosed persons can receive hospital care as needed.

In another region of Italy – Comune di Avolasca, Provincia di Alessandria – on June 12, 2019, was implemented moratorium on deployment of the 5G. One of the reasons justifying moratorium was electrosensitivity. Moratorium was set in place for a limited period of time, until the forthcoming new evaluation of the carcinogenicity of EMF will be performed by IARC:

…the Mayor and the Town Council THEY UNDERTAKE – to adopt a contingent and urgent ordinance to suspend the testing of 5G in the administered territory pending the new classification of carcinogenesis announced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, applying the precautionary principle sanctioned by the European Union, pending the data by reference more up-to-date scientific studies, independent from links with industry and already available on the effects of radio frequencies, which are extremely dangerous for human health…

The document of the moratorium on deployment of the 5G was sent, among others, to the President and to the Prime Minister of the Italy as well as Ministers of Health and of Internal Affairs.

Japan

Japan EMF Information Center (JEIC) website (https://www.jeic-emf.jp/english/topics/4991.html) informs that the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) of Japan has set out the Radio Radiation Protection Guidelines for Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields that serves as a standard in the use of mobile phone, radio and TV waves. Under the Radio Law, Regulations for Enforcement of Radio Law and Radio Equipment Regulations of Japan, MIC has defined the standards for the frequency and strength of the radio waves that will prevent occurrence of harmful to human health effects.

Japanese government recognizes only thermal effects of exposure as hazardous to health. Japanese EMF Information Center states that:

…when exposed to the high frequency electromagnetic field (EMF), the human body or some part of it’s received an energy which could be converted to heat. As a result, the temperature of specific body parts could be elevated in case of exposure to a very strong high frequency EMF or radio wave. Fortunately, the body’s thermoregulatory system prevents the elevation of temperature above the safety levels at exposure to an EMF at or below a certain strength of the acting factor. The human body has a system that maintains the body temperature within certain boundaries by regulation of perspiration and blood circulation…

Further, the JEIC informs that the health effects are unlikely when following current safety guidelines:

…Since the mobile phones operate at low level of energy (relying mostly on modulation) there is no possibility that in common living or working environment for exposure to strong EMF that can raise the body’s temperature. Therefore, high frequency EMFs and radio waves used in mobile phones and other types of wireless telecommunications are thought to have no adverse health effects…

Safety guidelines enforced in Japan are directly based on the ICNIRP guidelines (https://www.tele.soumu.go.jp/e/sys/ele/body/index.htm) as it appears from the following statement:

…Based on scientific knowledge accumulated by these studies, we formulated the “Radio Radiation Protection Guidelines for Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields” (hereinafter referred to as RRPG) taking various safety factors into consideration. The standard values set out in these guidelines are on a par with the values released by ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), and are used not only in Japan, but in every country of the world. If these standard values are satisfied, there is no influence on the human health according to WHO (World Health Organization), ICNIRP etc…

…and further:

…There is no indication that radio waves emissions from cellular phones or their base stations will cause or promote cancer, there are also no other effects on the human body which adversely affect health…

MIC website does not have information on EHS and JEIC website informs that the web page dealing with EHS is under construction (as of Jan. 12, 2022).

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan has published a brochure (in Japanese), ‘Radio Waves and Safe Living Environments’ (https://www.tele.soumu.go.jp/resource/j/ele/body/emf_pamphlet.pdf) on health effects and safety of EMF exposures where it mentions EHS. Information concerning EHS, extracted from the brochure shows that it follows opinions of the WHO Fact sheet 296 published in December 2005. It states that:

1. EHS has a broad variety of nonspecific symptoms.

2. Symptoms severity can be very broad, and EHS symptoms can interfere with everyday life for those affected, regardless of whether it causes symptoms.

3. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria.

4. There is no scientific basis for EHS symptoms to be associated with electromagnetic field exposure.

5. EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear whether it represents a single medical problem.

6. The WHO urges governments to: “Governments should be aware of the potential risks of electromagnetic fields to people, health professionals, and employers in EHS.”

7. Properly targeted and balanced information about health hazards should be provided.

However, as per the MIC and JEIC websites, the EHS is not formally recognized in Japanese safety regulations.

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the National Institute for Public Health (RIVM) and the Environment of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport very briefly presents EHS. Webpage presenting electromagnetic fields in daily life (https://www.rivm.nl/en/electromagnetic-fields/emf-dailylife) states the following:

There is ongoing research on possible non-specific health effects such as fatigue, loss of concentration, sleep disturbance, headache and ‘electrohypersensitivity’. However, a causal relationship with EMF exposure has not been established.

New Zealand

The Ministry of Health of New Zealand has the RF-EMF exposure safety limits that (https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/environmental-health/non-ionising-radiation/radiofrequency-field-exposure-standard):

are based on a careful review of the research into the health effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation, and include wide margins for safety

New Zealand standard NZS 2772.1:1999 Radiofrequency fields – Maximum exposure levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz recommends limits for controlling exposures to radiofrequency fields. It is in full agreement with the ICNIRP recommendations of 1998 and 2020. The Ministry of Health states that it has reviewed the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines and advises that compliance would provide protection at least equivalent to that offered by NZS 2772.1:1999.

Biomedical research on RF-EMF and health is reviewed by the Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields. The membership includes representatives from government, industry, academic and consumer groups. The Committee meets every 6 months and considers papers on key research topics, and research reviews published by national and international health bodies. The Committee prepares occasional reports to Ministers to provide them with background information and a current summary of research findings. The most recent was published in 2018 (https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/interagency-committee-health-effects-non-ionising-fields-report-ministers-2018).

Report states on EHS:

Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is the name given to a range of symptoms such as headaches, tiredness, dizziness, sleep disturbances and aching muscles, which some people attribute to EMF exposures.

Although both ELF and RF fields have been suggested as a cause of the symptoms, most of the concern and research have focused on RF fields.

Recent reviews of these studies continue to conclude that people who consider themselves unusually sensitive to EMFs are, in fact, unable to detect EMFs, and the occurrence of symptoms appears unrelated to exposures.

Experimental evidence suggests a nocebo effect…

Poland

Government of Poland has recently (in 2020/21) approved ICNIRP safety guidelines as legally binding. In respect of health effects of EMF, Government of Poland firmly states that there is no proven link between EMF exposures from wireless devices and networks and any health problems, including cancer. The most recent statement (https://www.gov.pl/web/5g/przeczytaj-siec-5g-powoduje-nowotwory-fake-news), published on Nov. 4, 2021 states (excerpts; translated from Polish language):

5G causes cancer? Fake news! 11/04/2021. The results of scientific research do not support this thesis. For several years there have been disseminated numerous myths about the harmfulness of the 5G network. From time to time, materials posted on social media appear suggesting the harmful effects of this technology on human health. […] So far, however, no studies have been published that would be positively assessed by experts and confirm the relationship between cancer formation and the GSM network.

EHS is not considered as valid medical diagnosis. The “White Book” on EMF quoted by the Government of Poland (https://www.gov.pl/web/5g/biala-ksiega1) states on EHS (translated from Polish language):

A few percent of people with ailments such as severe exhaustion, headache, tinnitus or insomnia are considers them as the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on the body. Research shows that symptoms occur when a person subjectively believes they are particularly vulnerable to EMF, and not when measurements show that they are, so the severity of symptoms is related to perceived, not real, EMF exposure. Attempts are being made to define a medical condition called “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS). The unresolved problem, however, remains to define the causes and the precise set of electrosensitivity symptoms.

Russia

The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) was created in 1997 at the Russian Academy of Medical Science (RAMS) within the framework of the Russian Scientific Commission on Radiation Protection (RSCRP). The RSCRP acts as the overseer of the RNCNIRP. The RNCNIRP is an independent scientific organization which does not accept financial sponsorship. Its decisions are thought of as recommendations, and are considered by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation when it is setting standards. Mandatory compliance is required with regard to the Sanitary Provisions and Ecological Norms (SanPiN) guidelines set by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. The latest RF-EMF SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03 (safety standard) on mobile communications was issued by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation in 2003 (http://apekspro.ru/files/SanPiN%202.1.8_2.2.4.1190-03.pdf). This decreed that the maximum permissible exposure level for RF-EMF over the frequency range of 300 MHz–300 GHz in the Russian Federation is 10 μW/cm2 (0.1 W/m2). SanPiN 2003 also recommended that:

Use of mobile telecommunication devices should be restricted for those under 18 years of age and pregnant women

Currently, the Health Ministry of Russian Federation, the State Sanitary Serwis, and the RNCNIRP don’t have any official policy on EHS. Exposure limits in Russia have are claimed to have sufficiently large safety factor, and take into account possible knowledge uncertainties, including sensitivity to EMF. Therefore, there are no EHS complaints from the general population. It is considered that for the public health system the EMF sensitivity is irrelevant.

Switzerland

There is no official position on EHS in Switzerland. Also in Switzerland it is considered that the causality link between EMF exposures and EHS symptoms is not yet established. However, the opinion of lack of causality is not considered to be proven sufficiently and it is considered that the non-specific symptoms of EHS are probably caused by EMF exposures and more research is needed to establish it.

The document ‘Electrosmog in the environment’ (https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog/publications-studies/publications/electrosmog-in-the-environment.html) published by the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL) states the following:

Some people have the ability to consciously perceive weak electromagnetic radiation, which can be established in experimental arrangements and tests. Test subjects have to be able to tell the difference between a real and a sham exposure.

…it is difficult to precisely determine the causes of these [EHS] symptoms […] other factors come into question, such as stress, noise, flickering light, chemicals, and physical or mental disorders.

…there are no generally acknowledged criteria for an objective diagnosis of electrosensitivity, and it also appears that ability to perceive weak fields and electrosensitivity exist independently of one another.

The document admits that to-date published research is insufficient to give reliable answers on EMF and EHS:

Many questions still need to be answered regarding these two phenomena, and therefore a great deal of research is still required.

The document lists also EMF exposure effects that are established, probable, possible and improbable. Effects such as:

non-specific symptoms (headaches, fatigue, problems of concentration, disquiet, burning skin, etc.)

…are listed as probable effects of EMF exposure.

The document states also that:

Every year, the data volume transmitted over mobile communication networks doubles. […] Overall, the population’s exposure to electrosmog is likely to rise further.

It has not been conclusively determined whether non-ionising radiation below the limit value harms health in the long term. […] … electrosensitive people feel that their health or well-being is harmed by electrosmog. To date, there are no recognised medical diagnostic criteria.

The document lists several actions needed to be done by the Federal Government. These call for adoption of the Precautionary Principle, for minimizing radiation emissions, for continuation of research and for following changes in exposure of population:

The federal government adopts the precautionary principle as regards the limit values in the Ordinance on Protection against Non-Ionising Radiation (NISV)…

…Network operators and installation owners should ensure that their mobile communication services and power grid infrastructures emit as little radiation as possible.

…Targeted research needs to be conducted in order to fill in the knowledge gaps about the long-term effects.

The population’s exposure level must be better known…

Report ‘Mobile Radio and Radiation’ by the working group on Mobile Radio and Radiation on behalf of the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) presents two important opinions concerning the existence of EHS are presented [excerpts]:

In medical practice there are cases in which patients plausibly attribute their complaints to high NIR exposures in their everyday life.

It cannot, however, be excluded that the effects manifest themselves only under certain conditions or exposure situations which are not yet understood. Owing to methodical difficulties with investigation of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, additional research activities are therefore urgently required.

Finally, electrosmog is presented briefly on website of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog/in-brief.html) with the following opinions on EMF and health, including EHS:

Various studies present evidence of biological effects, however, including in the case of weak radiation exposure below these limit values. For example, weak high-frequency radiation can alter electric brain activity and influence brain metabolism and blood flow. Whether these effects have an impact on health is still unclear

…some people firmly believe that they suffer from impaired well-being and health impacts due to very weak radiation. Ways of helping so-called electrosensitive persons are only beginning to emerge.

United Kingdom

Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) was an independent scientific advisory group that reported to Public Health England (PHE). AGNIR report published in 2012 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-health-effects) states the following on the responses of humans to EMF exposures concerning acute exposures/effects:

The overall evidence from the numerous experimental studies that have been conducted suggests that no causal link exists for short-term exposures.

These studies also suggest that people are unable to detect the presence of RF fields.

These findings apply to both healthy participants and to people who report being sensitive to various types of electromagnetic field.

This does not undermine the importance of the symptoms that are experienced, but it does suggest that causes other than those related to RF fields should be considered.

…and on the chronic/delayed exposures/effects:

…RF field exposures over the longer term, early observational studies concerning the effects of RF fields from mobile phone handsets or base stations suffered from several methodological flaws which limit the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

…insufficient good quality evidence is available to draw conclusions as to the role of long-term exposure to RF fields in causing symptoms.

In 2017 AGNIR was dissolved (https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/advisory-group-on-non-ionising-radiation-agnir). Following dissolution of AGNIR, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/committee-on-medical-aspects-of-radiation-in-the-environment-comare), and expert group at the Department of Health will continue to watch over the non-ionising radiation. However, as of end of 2020, COMARE has not yet established non-ionizing radiation group and is still in process of acquiring expertise in this area.

USA

Radiofrequency safety limits are set in place by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0) whereas the US Food and Drug Administration reviews the biomedical evidence concerning effects of RF-EMF exposures.

Currently, US FDA considers that the scientific evidence does not demonstrate that exposures to RF-EMF would be hazardous to health (https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/scientific-evidence-cell-phone-safety). Hence, Head of the US FDA has provided in 2019 FCC with a letter confirming the validity of the FCC safety standards (https://www.fda.gov/media/135022/download).

In respect of the EHS, the US FDA states the following:

…the scientific evidence indicates symptoms experienced by people who self-identify as having electromagnetic hypersensitivity occur when the individual believes they are being exposed to radio frequency energy.

…very real symptoms [of EHS] are not the result of radio frequency exposures.

…people cannot sense when they are being exposed to RF.

The World Health Organization has a fact sheet on this subject: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity […]. The FDA continues to monitor all scientific publications in this area.