EHS Proof

I have only found this, among lots of articles that say it's unknown, or could not be verified. If you know any other article, or news video, please post.

News:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2I&t=285

Sweden's Per Segerback:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/disconnected

"International Journal of Neuroscience", double blind, peer reviewed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome

"RESULTS:
In a double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize unintentional sensory cues, the subject developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 100 s after initiation of EMF exposure (p < .05)."

robert wrote

In Hava' video : They use "weight of evidence " approach the official says
about how they get the safety code 6 limits for radiation ( 6 mins .33. in
).

What's amazing is that this code did absolutely nothing to change anything, and is being regarded as saving us from any possible danger. The health Canada website says that children are not at any more risk than adults, and multiple transmitting devices can be around anybody and it's completely safe, because the limit is 50 times less than that of dangerous levels.
Also, holding a cell phone against the body is completely safe as well, they say.

The reason I'm trying to collect a list with any info about EHS is to try to convince people when it's time to tell them to turn off the Wifi.  I have had a pretty hard time, and I'm sure many of you have had as well.

If we had a way to convince people, we could get some relief when visiting them if they'd only turn off their devices.

It is very easy to proof that elektrosmog does change a number of properties in the body.
With a QRMA, one has 240 biomarkers within 2 minutes.
With a NLS system, one can see which dseases are present at the moment, AND, one can see which diseases are coming in the near future.

The problem however is that physicians do not have established yet in what way these changes are *damaging* health.

Most studies have the focus on cancers, but that is not our problem.
Our problems are the daily returning health symptoms, which cause a lot of paint, but are temporary.
These symptoms are going to be less as soon as the elektrosmog source is evaded or shielded, but that is hardly possible today.

So in all discussions, it is very important that doctors draw a line at which level a symptom is a danger to our health.
You may suffer from insomnia, or chronic headache, but these doctors do not say when the danger limit has been reached.

With a QRMA one can prove that after 10-20 minutes exposure of a DECT base station, the fat content of the liver has been increased. But no physician will tell you that such is life-threatening.

I have often observed, that in the presence of a DECT phone, irregular blood-glucose levels were measured. After the DECT was elimimated, these glucose levels were normal again.
Magda Havas had done such a study (heart-rate variables), and published it, but her University retracted this study, because  it was done *unethical*)

charles wrote

With a QRMA one can prove that after 10-20 minutes exposure of a DECT base station, the fat content of the liver has been increased. But no physician will tell you that such is life-threatening.

I'm pretty sure QRMA is not scientifically recognized.

More proof to add:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11793403
"Seven out of 63 subjects reached a statistically significant result which points to the existence of a small EMF sensitive subgroup within the study group. There was no relevant difference between the subjects with self reported EHS and those without in terms of the success rate in the field perception experiment, as well as the number and types of symptoms encountered during the test. The results of the EMF perception experiment suggest that EHS is not a prerequisite for the ability to consciously perceive weak EMF and vice versa."

Although it just proves people can feel fields, and nothing more. They could have picked the 14 controls who say they don't have EHS who actually don't even know they do though.. Which is entirely possible, unless they screened the controls to be perfectly healthy people with absolutely no problems.

Sure,
But the conclusion of this test:
*The results of the EMF perception experiment suggest that EHS is not a prerequisite for the ability to consciously perceive weak EMF and vice versa.*

The results suggest, not proved
That is a big difference.

One has to measure on persons, not ask them.
.
I'm pretty sure EHS is not scientifically recognized..