report from Prague

>
> I have just returned from Prague Workshop on Electrosensitivity...
>
> There is too much to say, I would try to make it short, and be ready
> to further clarifications according to any particular interest of
> yours...
>
> First of all, that was a meeting organized by Word Health
> Organization, which is the world authority regarding the issues of
> health.
> It is not a scientific organization, although it deals with results of
> science. It is mainly a regulatory board.
>
> I was surprised that the organizers have shown highest doubt regarding
> the reality of phenomenon. More than half of invited speakers were
> advocating the standpoint that ES is not related to EM fields,
> suggesting it should be treated as mental problem. .
>
> I have to say that, being myself for years at managerial positions, I
> have some understanding for the WHO approach.
> We have to admit that among ES population there is a significant
> percentage of people whose mental build up has added to the symptoms
> much more than the initial impact of the electric devices (if any).
> That is natural. I am myself aware that fear and perception of device
> boosts my symptoms.
> Also, in the countries with well funded social programs, like Sweden,
> ES people are given much sympathy (even the pensions), what
> additionally encourages imaginary symptoms, and what costs society
> while having no much benefit to the sufferers.
> In such situation, until valid diagnostic criteria are found,
> recognition of ES as a "real" phenomenon is not productive, especially
> when you have to think of the possible consequences of accordingly
> adjusted radiation limits. The rest of society prefers having their
> mobile phones, despites the potential (still faintly argumented) risk,
> and we have to be aware that they are majority!
>
> The issue of main concern was whether the existing provocation studies
> have proved the relation between exposure and the symptoms. That
> relation IS problematic, as I presented in my paper (attached below).
> Unfortunately, in that paper (which I didn't have enough time to
> finish as I liked), I didn't emphasize enough that there is no doubt
> from my side that the phenomenon IS related to operation of device.
> Anyway, the only thing I said there was that the phenomenon itself can
> not be judged from the number of failures in provocation studies
> (mostly they give *self proclaimed* ES persons to guess whether a
> device is on or off). The only one case which is well documented is
> enough to counterweight the thousand failures, and for the phenomenon
> to be recognized as real - related to operation of certain electric  
> devices.
>
> Fortunately, we were happy to see several very serious and clever
> researchers standing for the truth and resisting tremendous pressures.
> As one of them said, the fact we had this Meeting is enough for the
> moment.
>
> So I have nothing to tell you regarding the practical issues, as the
> Meeting was not considering them.
> This list seems to be more related to reality of ES sufferers than the
> Meeting was.
> Anyway, I am happy I was there as I made many things clear to myself.
> I also met several interesting people. And spent some nice days in
> beautiful Prague.
>
> Drasko
>
> =====================
>
> Drasko Cvijovic, GHOSTBUSTERS,
>
> serene environment consultancy
>
> BELGRADE, Serbia & Montenegro
>
> Malog Radojice 9
>
> [hidden email]
>
> +381 63 207 115
>
>
>
> Branislav Vulovic, VINCA,
>
> institute of nuclear sciences, radiation protection laboratory
>
> BELGRADE, Serbia & Montenegro
>
> Vinca
>
> [hidden email]
>
> +381 63 864 5410
>
>
>
> On Elusiveness of Relationship between EM Field Parameters and the
> Discomfort Reported by Electrosensitive Persons
>
>
>
> in this paper we are discussing the obstacles that limit our ability
> to help ES people as non ionizing radiation protection practitioners
>
>
>
>
>
> INTRODUCTION.
>
> After years of attempts to be of practical help to
> Electrosensitive people, we have to say that this task is more
> difficult than it looks like. Measuring and eventual mitigating of EM
> fields are a simple task, compared to the interpretation and
> prediction of practical outcome and impact to a particular person.
>
> In this paper we are more raising the questions than giving much
> answer. Fortunately, the corpus of evidence that ES phenomenon is
> real - is growing, so we don't have to worry that this paper would be
> understood as discrediting the efforts towards the understanding and
> recognition of the phenomenon. On contrary, we believe that naming the
> things that are uncertain would lift the burden from the facts that
> are positively established, and lead towards more precise descriptions
> of the matter.
>
> A simple dose - response model, like there is with UV
> radiation for example, seems at the moment to be inapplicable to ES
> phenomenon.
>
> The relation between measurable exposure to EM fields and the related
> response is so elusive that even the claims that the symptoms are not
> triggered (only) by EM fields can not be disregarded easily. It is
> important to say that we are here not advocating the standpoints of
> various "alternative" theories, which generally look poorly founded.
> We just feel the necessity of rational consideration of any possible
> explanation of the following facts which we are facing in practice.
>
> Most of those facts should be considered "anecdotal", as
> they are primarily based on collecting various personal reports, but
> we think they are generally so well known that they require no strict
> scientific verification.
>
>
>
>
>
> FACTS.
>
> Generally, there are two types of troublesome facts in our
> consideration:
>
> · Expected ES response fails to occur in relation to certain EM
> field.
>
> · A response similar to ES occurs without EM field.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.. It is often difficult for an ES person to distinguish the
> symptoms coming from EMFs, from those induced by chemicals, flu, etc..
>
>
> Although Electrosensitivity seems to be sometimes shown up through
> objective signs like skin changes, mostly it is manifested through
> subjective changes, like mental confusion and feeling sick. So attempt
> to objectively explore the ES phenomenon needs highly introspective
> and reliable subjects, able to pass blind tests. But even experienced
> ones seem to be limited to stating whether the symptoms are present or
> not, and have difficulties in distinguishing whether they come, for
> example, from chemical exposure (as many ES people are also MCS), flu,
> or from some other source. Distinguishing of the EM field parameters
> seem to be inachievable.
>
>
>
> 2.. There are tremendous personal differences in reaction to certain
> fields.
>
>
> Physiological predispositions definitely play a role.
>
> Personal short and long term history with particular EMFs seems to be
> relevant in both ways - so as to facilitate and to inhibit the
> reaction.
>
> We have apparently contradictory reports - that prolonged exposure to
> a certain field (computer for example) facilitates the reaction, as
> kind of allergy, but also that people get used to some fields.
>
> Different people react to the same fields differently. For example the
> same computer monitors are found by one person as acceptable while by
> other as horrible, and for the other pair of monitors it turns
> opposite.
>
> We have no reason not to believe any of those reports, and generally
> we are not inclined to explanation that all comes from some sort of
> imagination, although it is obvious that among self - reported ES
> persons exists a large number of those who have no connection with
> real ES, or who extremely exaggerate.
>
> Some reports are too alike that it doesn't look possible that
> different people could imagine so similar stories.
>
> Possible explanation is that some involuntary cognitive processes,
> like attention, could modulate the response.
>
>
>
> 3.. The reaction is dependant on surrounding, presence of plants,
> chemicals, overall personal health, mood, meteorological conditions,
> etc.
>
>
> Presence of chemicals builds up the reaction to EMFs. Cloudy weather
> and night is also reported to be worsening the condition, even if the
> person is in a room without windows. Any illness, stress, bad mood,
> anything that lowers overall physical energy acts the same way. Serene
> surrounding, presence of plants, harmonic relationship with other
> people, etc. seems to be working the opposite way.
>
> This matches the research reports which point out non uniform findings
> and difficulties in replicating results.
>
> A probable explanation is that general weakness or strength adds up to
> the general physiological predisposition, but other explanations are
> also possible, especially regarding the sensing of meteorological
> conditions.
>
>
>
> 4.. Average background residential exposure to various EMFs is often
> by orders of magnitude higher than the increment added by operation of
> a device that causes symptoms (fluorescent lights, low radiation
> monitors...)
>
>
> Dominant source of RF/MW pollution in most urban surroundings
> are mobile phone base stations. Dominant residential exposure to LF
> magnetic and electric fields comes from street and house installation.
>
> Radiation coming out from computers and fluorescent lights is
> incomparably lower (at the usual distance). So it is curious why
> people still react to those low emission devices.
>
> Possible explanation is that flickering present both at screens
> and fluorescent lights induces symptoms. Another explanation could be
> that the reaction is based on subjective (psychological) triggers.
> More blind testing should be done, but we believe that even with the
> eyes closed the reaction remains.
>
> Also, this could have been related to research reports stating
> that there are power and frequency "windows".
>
>
>
> 5. Some relatively strong sources (old cordless phones,
> commercial radio stations, E fields from installation...) are seldom
> reported as problematic.
>
>
>
>
>
> Old cordless phones generally seem to be causing much less trouble
> than mobile and DECT phones. The same applies to the comparison
> between commercial radio stations and mobile phone base stations.
>
> The frequency is higher, and the signal is pulsed at the new devices,
> what could have been one of the clues.
>
> E fields from simple extension cords and light bulbs can cause LF
> electric field to be up to 10.000 V/m high near the source, but there
> would be hardly any ES person who believes to be able to distinguish
> that fields about the house.
>
> All this suggests there is no single value that is relevant.
>
>
>
> 6.. The subjective feeling in some shielded rooms is often so
> unpleasant that it proves better not to shield.
>
>
>
> Shielding in order to make an ES friendly environment generally fails.
> Total shielding is extremely difficult to perform, but any shielding
> should have given some relax, as it creates environment with less
> EMFs. But often the shielded rooms are reported as unacceptable,
> despites the objective figures. It seems that metal shielding causes
> special problems.
>
>
>
> That matches the fact there are a lot (more or less credible) reports
> (some of them are peer reviewed) about reactions induced by EM fields
> that cancel each other or that are shielded, so that they make no
> measurable effect, and they still give the same or even stronger
> reaction.
>
> Possible explanation for this would be that the field characteristic
> we are usually concerned with are not the only relevant parameters,
> while there is something else that (also) triggers the symptoms.
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. "Miraculous devices" (crystals, "Polarizers", "Neutralizers",
> etc.) do mitigate ES symptoms; checked by objective methods.
>
>
>
> We are aware that advocating the above statement could lead to loosing
> credibility, as apparently there is no plausible mechanism of
> interaction between such devices and biological systems, not to
> mention that such devices have no measurable effects to EM fields.
>
> But the above statement is real.
>
> None of the therapies seem to have had similar success among those
> afflicted by ES. This could have been explained by desperation of ES
> sufferers, but for some devices we have done blind tests ourselves. We
> have also been presented an objective proof by difference in
> measurement of acupunctural points.
>
> The only explanation is that we are missing some big part of the
> puzzle. Anyway, that part doesn't necessarily have to do directly with
> ES, such devices could have an (unexplained) impact to overall body
> strength, and therefore to easier bearing of EMFs.
>
>
>
>
>
> DISCUSSION.
>
> There is a problem of apparent mismatch between EM field parameters
> and the related symptoms. Also, any existing explanation is unable to
> adopt all the facts. Our opinion about the outcome of future the
> research is that this discrepancy would be explained by one of the
> following:
>
>
>
> · Symptoms could be occurring on a relatively simple
> physiological level, but in a relation to some alternative parameter
> ("magnetic vector potential" etc.).
>
> · The phenomenon could be simply related to EMFs, but strongly
> mediated by some basic cognitive processes.
>
> · The phenomenon could prove closer to currently "delicate"
> issues (dowsing, homeopathy, astrology.), than to well defined
> phenomena (radiation effects, etc.). That would mean that facts have
> to be further separated from fiction, before establishing whether the
> facts are explainable by the means we already have (primarily two of
> the above), or some alternative approaches would have to be
> introduced.
>
>
>
> We also find that the available scientific research has been focused
> too much on objective aspects of the phenomenon, leaving too much
> place for various unfounded but attractive ad hoc theories (generally
> trying to support the mentioned "miraculous" devices) which are more
> concerned with fitting the subjective findings than with reality.
>
> More attention should be paid by science to subjective reports and
> findings of people who have objectively proven to be ES.
>
>
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> We are still far from understanding the phenomenon and basing
> predictions on it. Subjective reports are not fitting into
> explanations. More research has to be done. Any simple outcome like
> establishing of a strict dose - response relationship looks
> improbable. Once the scientific community is ready to believe the
> phenomenon is real, combining of objective methods with subjective
> indications could yield most results.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>