17 March 2016 – “Omega News”, by Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D., microwaves, Finland
Weather radars send directional pulses of microwave radiation, on the order of a microsecond long. Between each pulse, the radar serves as a receiver as it listens for return signals from particles in the air. The duration of the “listen” cycle is on the order of a millisecond, which is a thousand times longer than the pulse duration.
The radar uses a series of typical angles (elevation angles of an antenna). After each scanning rotation, antenna elevation is changed. This scenario will be repeated on many angles to scan all the volume of air around the radar within the maximum range. Usually, this scanning strategy is completed within 5 to 10 minutes to have data within 15 km above ground and 250 km distance of the radar. The radars use angles ranging from 0.3 to 25 degrees.
Due to such angles (about 0.3 degrees) the radiation of the radar can easily penetrate into many living houses. Unfortunately in many cases there are no reasons to elevate antenna beam over the living houses because static obstacles often cannot disturb work of the radar. It is very bad that a big town may be the “static obstacle” too.
On the contrary, rotating blades of wind turbines often lead to essential mistakes for the radar. The wind turbines having appeared in Kotka (Finland), the antenna beam of the radar was elevated. At least power density(exposure) was reduced from 300 mW/m2 to 20 mW/m2 at fixed measurement place.
I have a friend who suffers even from weak microwave radiation. In this connection she is forced to live far from typical sources of the radiation. Some times ago she said that she began suffering from some new source of the radiation. When she moved to live into low place her negative symptoms disappeared. Unfortunately this place was not suitable for living especially in winter.
About the same time the newest weather radar started working. Distance of the radar to her home was about 100 km. She wanted to know whether the radar was cause for her suffering. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland (STUK) answered that maximum exposure of the radiation from the radar was 0.3 % of the national limit ( limit of the ICNIRP). This response was unable to help her. Thus she had to leave home to another place (often only, a caravan in winter forest).
Whether exposure of the radiation from the radar can lead to health problems if person lives at distance about 100 km to the radar ? To answer this question we need a reliable limit for long-term exposure of the radiation. I think that nowadays only the limit1(0.1) mW/m2 for long-term exposure worth using ((Resolution 1815, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe,http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&).
I could not help calculating.
If radiation power of the radar is 250 kW(peak) and antenna gain is 40 dB, the power density can be 20 mW/m2 at 100 km to the radar. Thus, the radiation might be detrimental, even if the distance is over 100 km from the radar!
How about 0.3 % ? It means “only” 30000 mW/m2. Here is no mistake in my calculation. The ICNIRP has permitted special limit for the radiation from the radar in thousand times as much as usual limit!
I suppose the most typical symptom from such radar can be tinnitus because the duration of the “listen” cycle is on the order of a millisecond.
Thus, if a country is using a network of these radars, health problems are possible for whole population of the country.
Electrosensitivity experienced by an electrosensitive person
On February 13, 2013, the body of Carsten Häublein a former pastor from Ammertal, was recovered from the river Schlei in Schleswig-Holstein (Germany). From the available evidence, it was concluded that he had taken his own life. After seven years of suffering whenever he was exposed to mobile communication radiation (RFEMF), he obviously had lost the courage to continue this way of life. Half a year before he died, on September 13, 2012, I received a mail from him at 2:46 a.m. in which he described his state of health as follows:
My formerly radiation-free home in the North of Schleswig-Holstein, where I took shelter after fleeing from Bavaria and where I became free of symptoms and again socially acceptable, has turned into a buzzing, whizzing, and burning inferno precisely at the same time when the horror “LTE” was introduced nation-wide …
I only hold out by lying for about 3-4 hours each day in a tub filled with salt water, afterwards covering myself with piles of emergency blankets and winding a canopy around my head – just enough not to suffocate. Then I find several, a few hours of sleep …
The brutal nocturnal charge, which I do not get rid off during the day in any other place but in the water, causes an increasing intolerance of also this PC, the stove, the phone, the car’s electrics, and so on – something I did not experience at all until July this year. To write a letter like this one I am perhaps able every other two days. For some people this is a sort of death sentence.
Yet, I still seem to be able to regenerate: After each swim in the salt containing river Schlei and after each bath in the tub I feel free from symptoms. This is the proof for me that all the wild turbulences are of exogenous nature, owed to a noxious state hostile to life which from the outside attacks and tortures my body. The wellbeing, though, does not last very long …
A second mail followed a few hours later:
Dear Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Carsten Häublein is writing – but this time not with a substantial message but in very deep distress because of new EMF stress. If you can arrange it, please call me – xxxxx. Whatever we exchange, please treat it with absolute discretion – many greetings Carsten Häublein
Both mails give evidence that the pastor Häublein must have been in an emotional state marked by despair, bitterness, and hopelessness. His enemies, who from the beginning thought of him as a mentally ill person, will probably feel fully supported in their view by the description of his suffering, and they will not even wonder at all what made him so very ill. But the answer clearly lies in his move from South to North Germany. Between 2006 and 2009, he was ill in the radiation-exposed Ammertal, he then felt well again in 2009 after moving to a radiation-free spot at the Baltic Sea. When the radiation finally reached his new home in 2012, his illness not only returned, but was worse than before. With his long ordeal and his reoccurrances when confronted with new exposures, he proved that his electrosensitivity was caused by electromagnetic fields.
Since 2006, pastor Häublein was strongly committed to have electrosensitivity regarded as an environmental illness. He did not want and could not approve that German politicians responsible for taking care of the health of the people, would sit back and watch how a minority of people are deprived of their right to health. As science obviously could not help him and the many other persons concerned, he intended to have a court decision on this matter and he wanted to hear my opinion. I believe it is in his interest that on the occasion of the third anniversary of his death I write this report.
I told pastor Häublein that in my opinion a court action to have electrosensitivity recognized as an environmental disease would be doomed to fail. The judge would refer to the safety limits of RF-EMF, which the German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) – opposite to my view – claim to reliably protect the people against any health risk. It could also to be added that the radiation emitted by base stations and other radiating devices fall well below the safety limits. The prospects of convincing a judge that the BfS hardly knows anything about the biological effects of mobile communication radiation and, therefore, uses the “expertise” of “experts” from the mobile communication industry are certainly rather poor. Furthermore, should indeed a courageous judge be found who believes that the plaintiff’s personal history and the causes behind his illness may be true, he would probably be set right latest in the second instance.
Electrosensitivity assessed by scientists
The Häublein case is an example of a tragedy in Europe, where thousands of people suffering from the aftereffects of electrosensitivity are classified as psychologically peculiar or even mentally disturbed. The sole reason of this claim is to deny RF-EMF being the cause of this suffering. The German SSK made a statement on this issue in 2011 in an especially perfidious way:
Thus, looking at the international literature altogether the conclusion can be drawn despite the different definition of target groups and recruitments that “electrosensitivity” in the sense of being causally connected to EMF exposition most probably does not exist. Further research therefore should be carried out in a subject area outside EMF research.
The way the issue of electrosensitivity is dealt with arouses the suspicion that the ignoring of any effects is based on an arrangement between industry and politics.
Scientists, who are selected for this kind of research by industry and politics because they know a lot about psychology and psychiatry, but often nothing about RF-EMF, try to find out – endowed with ample funds – if there are any differences in behaviour and sensitivity between non-electrosensitive and electrosensitive people. With the statistical evaluation of experimental or questionnaire data, they come to the conclusion that the electrosensitive persons suffer significantly more from somatoform disorders, without finding an adequate physical cause for the symptoms described. Unanimously, the researchers then state that the suffering of these people can be very severe due to these somatoform disorders and that this has to be taken seriously. Yet, unanimously they are of the opinion that the research results obtained cannot confirm RF-EMF being a cause of the electrosensitivity. Thus, the way for the so-called risk communication is paved for which the mobile communication industry has a special group of “experts” on stand-by. Regularly, it informs the public that based on the available investigations it is scientifically proven that electrosensitivity occurs quite independently from RF-EMF exposure and that, too, it has nothing to do with it, because, they believe that below the safety limits there are no relevant biological effects causing a health risk.
In his report on the BioEM2015 (1) , Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski states that all studies concerning the question of electrosensitivity, which are quoted as proof against electromagnetic fields causing health disorders, are from their approach inadequate to justify this conclusion. He talks of a standstill in science because for years it has been limited to the questions “how do you feel” and “what do you feel” instead of impartially searching with molecular-biological techniques for the physiological differences between electrosensitive and healthy persons. The biggest obstacle to advancing knowledge in this field, according to Leszczynski, is that scientists obviously lack ideas for new research approaches. What he hides is the fact that industry and government, the only ones having the necessary funds, do not support the research approach he proposes. His professional experience is the best proof that this assumption is correct: His research division at the national STUK in Finland was closed in 2012 and he lost his job apparently because he had started to turn to this neglected research area (2) .
The reason that there is no real explanation for electrosensitivity caused by mobile communication radiation is not at all a proof against the assumption that electrosensitivity is a special form of the radiation illness known for a long time. The argument also turns into air because there are other diseases with a pathogenesis only partly or not at all understood, but without anyone doubting their existence. Pastor Häublein – by the way not the only one – claims that the symptoms of electrosensitivity disappeared all the sudden after moving to a radiation-free place, but returned all the sudden when the place was connected to radio network via LTE. Furthermore, he has shown himself that protection from the external radiation is possible under certain conditions. If this is true, and we do not have any reason to doubt, any further proof of the causality of an interaction would not be necessary – quite independently from knowing the mechanisms.
In the meantime it is well known that radiation effects exist also below the safety limits, which industry and politics categorically ruled out so far. Further proof was recently provided by Professor Alexander Lerchl from the private Jacobs University Bremen, a former member of SSK – even if just by accident. For many years, Alexander Lerchl ensured the harmlessness of RF-EMF with exclusively negative results. Recently, however, he was forced to confirm – based on the outcome of a study financed by industry and politics and carried out by his research group – something which he had vehemently denied before: RF-EMF in form of UMTS can increase tumour growth in mice below the safety limits (3) . By the way, the mechanism of this process is still a mystery just as the one of electrosensitivity. Tumour promotion is with a high probability accompanied by tumour initiation. The genotoxic potential of RF-EMF as demonstrated in laboratory studies and the outcome of several epidemiological studies speak in favour of this assumption. Altogether, the conclusion can be drawn that biological organisms of any nature, be it single cells, animals or humans, may be at risk in some way due to RFEMF exposure. If this is possible, inevitably the question arises why it should not be responsible for the symptoms of electrosensitivity also.
Dariusz Leszczynski criticizes in his report on the BioEM2015 that during the conference a vast number of bioelectromagnetic topics were dealt with, yet biological effects on humans were sparsely presented. However, without such investigations it is nearly impossible to prove that electromagnetic fields cause physiological changes in human organisms that are relevant for the development of diseases. He suspects that this kind of research is more or less blocked by decision-makers in politics and industry who may be afraid of the possibly awkward consequences from the results. That Dariusz Leszcynski’s suspicion is more than justified reflects the dealing with the REFLEX-Study, a research project designed as required by him. In this study financed by the European Union and coordinated by me we found genotoxic effects of RF-EMF far below the safety limits. To get rid of these results, in 2008, Alexander Lerchl – who no doubt acted in the interest of the industry – suddenly claimed that the REFLEX results would be faked. With this kind of emergency brake, he obviously intended to prevent the support for the REFLEX link-up study on which the decision of the European Union was pending. He adhered to this allegation for years until finally in 2015 the Hamburg District Court forced him to recant and convicted him of defamation and libel.
As it currently appears, politicians responsible for the health of people seem to rank the business of the mobile communication industry higher than they rank the protection of the people suffering from electrosensitivity. This is illustrated especially by the government-funded pseudo-research in this area, the pseudo-results of which make it possible to play down the relevance of electrosensitivity for the health of people. Upon the invitation by members of the EU Parliament, a hearing took place on January 12, 2016, which dealt with electrosensitivity. The outcome remains to be seen. In preparation of the hearing the Initiative Citizens of the World called attention to the International Electromagnetic Field Scientist Appeal signed by 218 scientists from 40 countries in 2015 which states among others:
Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.
Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.
Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.
In the meantime there are first signs that the policy of playing down the environmental radiation exposure as harmless may slowly come to an end. A court in Toulouse, France, considered it proven based on medical certificates that Ms Marine R. just as pastor Häublein is suffering from gnawing aches in head and spine and sleep disorders near base stations, smartphones, and even TVs. Therefore, it classified the plaintiff 85% severely handicapped and awarded her with a monthly pension of 800 € for three years. In order to avoid any exposure to electromagnetic fields Ms Marine R. now lives in an old stone house in the Pyrenees near the Spanish border without electricity and running water, and of course without mobile phones.
Let us hope that courageous judges will be found not only in France who understand the basis for electrosensitivity, who question the rationale for the safety limits and who provide justice to electrosensitive people.
[Alcune considerazioni di Marine Richard, il primo caso di EHS riconosciuta da un tribunale francese come invalidità, e la risposta del prof. Olle Johansson.]
3 March 2016 – “Mobilfunk Newsletter – EMF Omega News”
Please, find below a very important message from Ms Marine Richard in France, the lady who is the first person with the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity to be recognized by a French tribunal and given monetary disability support.
Further down you also find my reply to her.
Olle Johansson, associate professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
171 77 Stockholm
Från: Marine Richard Skickat: den 2 mars 2016 18:40 Till: Olle Johansson
Thank you very much for your interest and concern about electrohypersensitivity.
As a person with EHS, as an activist and as the first ‘case’ of EHS recognized by a French tribunal as impaired I wish to tell you a word about this important question : what is the best strategy to help people with EHS (and fast !) ? Impairment of disease ?
In my opinion, it is important to see three different aspects :
1/ the environment is polluted by EMFs and all beings on earth are impacted. No scientific doubt on this point.
2/ people with EHS GET sick in a specific environment, different from one person to an other. So it is at the moment impossible to establish a simple ‘systematic cause>systematic consequence’ scheme. We would lose time if we fight on this aspect at the political level as the lobbies use this difference of sensitivity to create a doubt. Time we don’t have as so many people are suffering !!!
Each person with EMF sensitivities develops a specific nervous response to specific EMFs, at a specific moment probably because of several different factors (nervous over-excitability, high exposure, exposure to chemicals, PTSD, genetic factors – we don’t know the cocktail yet because it has never been studied). Considering that, it is impossible to prove EHS is a disease. But it is easy to prove that the symptoms appear and disappear depending on the environment. For example, a very easy way to test me (only me as we all are different) : we discovered that if I touch the skin of a person who is using the metallic trackpad of a computer plugged with electric power (and a bad earthing), I can feel a strange sensation in my hand, if you unplug the computer, my strange sensation stops. This test is 100% sure. But only on me ! We tested it several times. People without MY EMF sensitivity can’t feel the difference. So we can say that I have an immediate reaction to EMFs. In the example of the trackpad, it doesn’t cause me a disability. But it simply proves that I do have a reaction to the changes of the environment. If it is so for me why not for other people with different frequencies and more serious symptoms ? As a consequence, EHS can be an impairment. Nobody can tell us the contrary.
3/ EHS as an intolerance is reversible, there are ways to use neuroplasticity to go back to the sensitivity one had before EHS appeared. There are cases of full recovery or real improvement. But it doesn’t work with everyone, it takes time in a protected zone and it doesn’t change the fact that the environment IS toxic when it is polluted by EMFs. People with EHS and ‘normal’ people with a consciousness should be able to choose the environment they live in. If EHS is recognized as an impairment, the states will have no other choice but to create protected areas where we would be able to live, impaired and not impaired, all together with bees, robins and tomato plants also physically stressed by EMFs (as proved by the research)!
Thank you for your time and understanding.
Be happy !
Marine Richard (France)
Från: Olle Johansson Skickat: den 2 mars 2016 22:06 Till:Marine Richard
I am very, very impressed by your elegant summary, it is so right-to-the-point. If everyone could see what you have learnt – the very hard way – then they would only argue for a functional impairment recognition of electrohypersensitivity, and an immediate clean-up of the environment, as well as an immediate economic reimbursement for all cases of electrohypersensitivity.
As you point out, an impairment is – by definition – not defined by someone else or proven by certain tests. The impairment is always individual, personal, and private, and develops when in contact with an inferior environment. [N.B. Remember that functional impairments are only based upon each individual’s impaired accessability to – and contact with – an inferior environment (cf. the UN), thus, there is actually no need for any “recognition” in local laws (cf. the UN).]
Accessibility measures are key issues for allowing electrohypersensitive persons, and others with functional impairments, to gain/regain their rightful independence. If such measures are allowed, then full recovery or real improvement will come. As you point out, it doesn’t – however – work for everyone, it takes time in a protected zone, and it doesn’t change the fact that the environment IS toxic when it is polluted by EMFs. Also, always remember that inaccessibility and discrimination are prohibited by law, so society must act.
I have always said that we should make it easy for us – by making sure to connect to all the UN texts, realize that it’s the whole environment that must be accessability-adapted, and do not forget that such accessibility measures actually are 100% positive for everyone to share! People with functional impairments should have full access to the entire society, not just a small part of it. The human rights for all of us, regardless of functional impairments, are that we should live an equal life in a society based on equality. It’s that simple.(I have never heard anyone voluntarily wanting to give up their human rights, so be sure not to have any country forcing it’s citizens to it; it would be extremely shameful.)
I agree, it is impossible to prove electrohypersensitivity to be a disease … since the sick and ill ‘patient’, with the ‘disease’, is the environment, not the person.
Olle Johansson, associate professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
171 77 Stockholm
[Purtroppo succede anche questo. Gli Elettrosensibili perdono il lavoro, o perché si licenziano in quanto sofferenza e prostrazione fisica impediscono loro di continuare a lavorare o perché licenziati da datori di lavoro ottusi e senza pietà. Di cosa possono vivere, allora? Non tutti hanno una famiglia alle spalle in grado di accollarsi le spese del loro mantenimento. Sono invalidi, ma non hanno alcun tipo di aiuto dallo Stato. Quella dell’articolo è una storia che arriva dall’America, ma situazioni simili si sono verificate e si verificano tuttora anche in Italia. Cosa ne è dei diritti umani di queste persone?]
19 February 2016 – “The Independent – North Kingstown”, by James Bessette Staff Writer
On a 4-0 vote Tuesday night, the North Kingstown School Committee voted to terminate a high school math teacher at the end of the school year, citing numerous instances of insubordination.
Chairwoman Cheryl Clarkin was absent.
Superintendent Phil Auger alleged Shelley McDonald failed to attend a PARCC exam training session and a PARCC infrastructure trial, and failed to administer the online assessment exam in March at the district’s request. Additionally, McDonald allegedly refused to administer the PARCC in December, which prompted Principal Denise Mancieri to send the math teacher home for the day, Auger said. Near the end of the 2013-14 school year, then high school Principal Thomas Kenworthy, according to Auger, sent a letter of reprimand to McDonald after he became aware she was turning off a wireless router in another teacher’s classroom.
“As superintendent of schools, I cannot allow district staff to be insubordinate to their superiors,” Auger said at the meeting, which was heavily attended by McDonald’s colleagues.
Typically, termination matters are handled in executive session, but the employee can request the hearing be public.
Mary Ann Carroll, the school district’s legal counsel, said the School Committee needed to vote on the matter Tuesday because March 1 is the deadline to notify teachers of layoffs and/or terminations for the following school year. She also said the hearing was a “pre-hearing,” not necessarily a final decision.
National Education Association Rhode Island Deputy Executive Director John Leidecker said McDonald plans to appeal the decision to the School Committee, either via a public evidentiary hearing or in private.
In executive session Tuesday, the School Committee also approved the suspension of another teacher for the remainder of the school year, followed by termination. That teacher’s name was not made public.
Two years ago, McDonald, who has taught in North Kingstown for eight years, had advocated to halt Wi-Fi installation in the district’s schools, offering studies, testimony and literature relating to the alleged dangers of Wi-Fi to humans.
Following Tuesday’s meeting, McDonald, who was diagnosed with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, said she began having problems around 18 months ago, experiencing sinus pressure and pain that turns into migraines, at times. When she is in areas with Wi-Fi, she finds it difficult to think, McDonald said, among other issues.
“It slows down my thinking,” she said. “It makes me confused and dizzy.”
During a March 2014 meeting, McDonald pressed Auger to sign a “statement of accountability,” assuring the district’s insurance covered health matters allegedly caused by Wi-Fi. At that meeting, McDonald was joined by Town Councilor Kerry McKay, who said due diligence needed to be done “to see if there are any potential alternatives” to Wi-Fi installation if the potential existed for harm to the town’s children. Auger said at the meeting – and reiterated Tuesday night – the state Department of Health has said Wi-Fi is not harmful to humans.
In her statement to the school board, McDonald said she thinks she was being recommended for termination because she regularly advocates against Wi-Fi, for the health and well-being of herself and others in the building.
Leidecker said he regarded McDonald’s termination as “retaliation” because she “chose to speak out.” He alleged McDonald’s requests for accommodations, such as disconnecting Wi-Fi in her classroom and not using Chromebooks in her class, were denied without investigation.
He provided a letter from McDonald’s doctor that stated her symptoms were “causally related” to Wi-Fi wave exposure. Leidecker alleged school officials “demanded” to see McDonald’s medical records, but the math teacher was reluctant to divulge that information, instead inviting committee members and the school’s legal counsel to speak with the doctor directly.
McDonald also said two years ago, Auger threatened to terminate her if she continued to raise her concerns about Wi-Fi health issues – he denies that claim.
“I persist despite Dr. Auger’s warning because a very serious health risk exists in our classrooms,” she said, “and I have a responsibility to my students and their families to advocate the school remove that threat.”
Auger said the hearing was not about her advocacy, but rather the issue of employees “picking and choosing” which rules they’ll follow.
“That will lead to problems of efficiency in getting our mission done,” Auger said.
McDonald said she did not skip the PARCC infrastructure trial, the email invitation was mistakenly sent to another math teacher with the same last name, Brian McDonald instead. She said she uses technology in her classroom on a daily basis, and has taught in classrooms equipped with smartboards. She said she was unaware of specific directives to use technology, but that she uses what is available to her “in a safe and responsible manner, when appropriate.”
Leidecker read evaluations from McDonald’s colleagues, which called her an“effective” teacher and “the kind of teacher you want to retain.”
She said she never refused to attend technology-based training sessions, noting she participated in “several” PARCC training sessions. McDonald said she requested to be trained on hard-wired computers, rather than on wireless devices, because exposure to electromagnetic fields “makes [her] sick.”
“I’ve made that clear; I never refused to give an assessment” she said.
Leidecker argued Pearson, the company that runs the PARCC exams, also requires teachers to agree to its terms, which include teachers disclosing personal information such as Social Security numbers, addresses and other personal information, prior to administering the test, which caused McDonald to be reluctant to click “agree.” Leidecker also said Pearson regards this information as “assets” the company may sell off.
Auger said the district received written clarification from the state Department of Education that Pearson has access to teacher names and subject areas, but not personal information. He said the district “does not pass along” Social Security numbers to the company.
Auger also said the district has yet to receive McDonald’s formal response as to whether she will agree to the terms to administer the PARCC in April. Leidecker said the RIDE clarification was received Monday and there are still open discussions about disclosures the teachers must make. McDonald can’t say “at this point” if she would agree to the terms because a final document of what information Pearson will gather has yet to be provided, Leidecker said.
Auger said no other teachers “to his knowledge” refused to sign the Pearson agreement before administering the PARCC.
Committee member Lynda Avanzato acknowledged McDonald contacted committee members several times about her concerns, but said the situation morphed into “doing something that is not part” of her job.
Carroll said McDonald requested a meeting and two letters were presented to school officials, one from a Wakefield-based walk-in clinic stating the teacher was allergic to electromagnetic radiation and another noting McDonald had migraine headaches while in school. Carroll said the district requested a release to speak with McDonald’s doctor, but McDonald denied that request in an April 6 letter to Auger, citing possible strain on the doctor/patient relationship.
In an April 15 letter, Auger wrote McDonald had not offered “sufficient documentation” to support her request for accommodations.
8 February 2016 – “Mobilfunk Newsletter – EMF Omega News”
See attached documents and comments below by EHS pioneer Olle Johansson PhD
Informant: André Fauteux
Excerpt from the CHRC report Accommodation for Environmental Sensitivities: Legal Perspective International approaches to definitions of disability in human rights protection vary in their reliance on medical diagnoses and symptoms. At one end of this spectrum are the Canadian and Australian approaches, in which a very broad definition of disability is adopted.3 As a result of this, complainants are required to provide minimal medical evidence to establish that they qualify as persons with a disability, and individuals with environmental sensitivities do not need to prove the veracity of their condition. In fact, the courts have specifically held that the inability of the medical community to diagnose a condition or identify its cause does not affect whether an individual has a disability, so long as its triggers can be identified.4 Instead, the analysis is meant to focus on the individual’s accommodation needs and the behaviour of the employer or service provider.5
In contrast, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies a very restrictive medical test for an individual to qualify as a person with a disability and be eligible for protection under the ADA.6 Individuals with environmental sensitivities often find it difficult to establish that they have a disability under this definition. In one case, for example, the United States District Court held that a woman did not qualify as a person with a disability because her sensitivities to chemicals only affected a major life function (breathing) while at the office and exposed to chemicals.7
From: Olle Johansson
A functional impairment does not need any diagnosis, nor any recognition (apart from the personal one), no tribunals or similar. Please, read my latest paper for an update on this: Johansson O, “Electrohypersensitivity: a functional impairment due to an inaccessible environment”, Rev Environ Health 2015c; 30: 311–321 [enclosed as a pdf]
Also see what medical doctors* may do if they are given the opportunity: Johansson O, “Electrohypersensitivity – In January 2015, how far from January 1945 were we?”, Newsvoice.se 24/2, 2015a
It has been investigated many times, and it turns out that it is a very uncommon situation; it is not so fun to ‘play the role’ of a handicapped person, as you may imagine, and the monetary gain is not that big. In rich countries, this uncommon behaviour is not an economical problem, so it is far better to allow this rare incidence to take place instead of running the risk of chasing entitled persons out of their human rights. We can afford it. (I once positioned myself at a Stockholm roundabout and during 10 minutes (and this was not during the rush hours) more than 60 million Swedish kronor, approx. 10 million Canadian dollars, passed. So, yes, we can afford it.)
Furthermore, it has also been shown that early support cuts the later costs for the society, for the employers, for the health care, etc., down to a tenth (or even lower), so here you may gain billions whereas above you may loose (perhaps) a few millions.
Finally, the greatest economic gain lies in the fact that when you make a society completely accessible then everyone benefits from it. A phased-off sidewalk in Stockholm, meant for persons with movement disorders, are used to at least 99.9% by normal healthy people taking advantage of it while being on a roller board, a bicycle, pulling a shopping cart, pushing a baby pram, using a Segway, a walking frame, a skateboard, etc. The economic advantages of this are, of course, astronomical.
As a citizen – even as a top journalist like yourself – it is of paramount importance to only see the possibilities, not the problems, when it comes to functional impairments and accessibility measures. Many times, only thanks to functionally impaired persons, society has developed immensely.
There is still a very strong tendency to be afraid of persons with Down’s syndrome, odd movement impairments, MCS persons, EHS persons, and Swedes without knowledge of the French language. Especially medical doctors react in a rather primitive way, looking at these persons as potential patients, to be given diagnostic criteria, hospital clothes, and flimsy ‘treatments’. I cry when I think about how, for instance, the persons with Down’s syndrome were treated in the 1940ies and 50ies here in Sweden, being looked away for life in their homes or most often at medical institutions, being victims of homemade ‘treatments’ and unfounded theories; nowadays they are the most loved and respected citizens, having their own movies, theater plays, winning awards, writing poems, books, etc. And the irony is that if you really want to have a loving creature, filled with the uttermost kindness, they even outbeat a puppy! (…But they were not treated as puppies, but as filthy dogs…) And nowadays physicians want to go down such an avenue again, to ‘treat’ EHS persons…and then, in the future, maybe Swedes without knowledge of the French language … or Canadian journalists, if you see what I am driving at. :-(((((
In summary, in Sweden EHS persons are not seen as patients, they do not have an overriding medical diagnosis, but the ‘patient’ is only the environment – inferior and potentially toxic. This does not mean that a subjective symptom of a functionally impaired can not be treated by a physician, as well as get sick-leave from their workplace as well as economic compensation, and already in the year 2000 such symptoms were identified in the Internal Code of Diagnoses, version 10 (ICD-10; R68.8/now W90), and have been since. But the underlying cause still remains only the environment. (As a matter of fact, the EHS persons in Sweden are even “allowed” to break a leg, have diabetes and get psoriasis treatments. Thus, ‘functional impairment’ and ‘medical condition’ are not mutually exclusive. They are different things. In the everyday world, having EHS is definitely a huge disability and it impairs the ability of a person to have an optimal quality of life. If it was not an impairment, only those interested in esoterica would care about it. So, the pragmatic aspect that makes it important is the simple fact that it is an impairment that disables people’s lives. (And interventions for people who have the condition include medical treatments of their symptoms, but not of their environmental causes – there we need technicians, physicists, electricians, and others to make the latter accessible.) About this, the current whole society needs to be educated. Furthermore, prevention is yet another aspect that definitely should be in the discussion; when will we see my dream of tomorrow’s green, human-friendly technology come into play?)
[*As you know, the UN definition of functional impairments includes everyone.]
Olle Johansson, associate professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
171 77 Stockholm
à l’occasion du colloque du 11 Février 2016 à l’Assemblée nationale
« Pour mieux comprendre et reconnaitre l’électro-hypersensibilité »
Nous, médecins, scientifiques et professionnels de santé,
Considérant l’appel de Fribourg lancé en 2002 par des médecins, nous constatons ces dernières années au cours de nos consultations, une augmentation dramatique de maladies graves et chroniques chez nos patients, telles que:
Les symptômes généralement constatés à l’utilisation du téléphone portable :
– douleur et/ou une chaleur dans l’oreille
– troubles de la sensibilité superficielle à type de dysesthésies(fourmillements, picotements, brûlures, voire prurit) au niveau du visage, du cuir chevelu ou du bras
Puis peu à peu, et de façon permanente :
– maux de tête, associés de façon caractéristique à une raideur et douleur de la nuque.
– troubles visuels à type de vision floue,
– anomalies de la sensibilité profonde (faux vertiges), malaises
– lésions cutanées avec sensation de brulures (causalgies) et/ou un prurit,
– insomnie, fatigue chronique et éventuellement tendance dépressive.
Et enfin, en l’absence de traitement et de mesure de protection, l’évolution est marquée par la constitution progressive de lésions anatomopathologiques, totalement irréversibles : syndrome confusionnel,absences, désorientation temporo spatiale ouétat de démences’apparentant à une maladie d’Alzheimer y compris chez les sujets jeunes.
Chez l’enfant : maux de tête et troubles du sommeil, dyslexie, troubles de l’attention et de la concentration, perte de mémoire de fixation, parfois troubles du comportement (enfant refusant d’aller à l’école sans raison), Considérant que nous connaissons l’environnement résidentiel et les habitudes de nos patients, nous constatons souvent une corrélation dans le temps et dans l’espace, entre l’apparition de ces troubles et le début de l’extension de l’irradiation par des ondes électromagnétiques, dans des cas comme:
– l’installation d’une antenne relais de téléphonie mobile dans les environs du domicile ou du lieu de travail du patient,
– l’utilisation intensive d’un téléphone portable,
– l’utilisation d’un téléphone sans fil de type DECT à domicile ou au travail.
Les champs électromagnétiques semblent donc pour partie expliquer l’apparition de ces troubles.
Comme l’indique la Déclaration scientifique Internationale sur l’Electrohypersensibilité et la sensibilité aux produits chimiques multiples signée par des scientifiques et médecins du monde entier réunis à l’Académie Royale de Médecine à Bruxelles en mai 2015, à l’initiative de l’ECERI des marqueurs biologiques ont été identifiés chez les malades électrohypersensibles qui permettent d’établir l’existence de véritables pathologies invalidantes. A tel point que certaines personnes doivent s’isoler des endroits pollués par les champs électromagnétiques (wifi, téléphonie mobile…) afin de continuer à vivre dans les conditions les plus normales possibles. Pour autant, cette pathologie n’est toujours pas reconnue par les autorités sanitaires françaises.
Dans le contexte de la reconnaissance, par le Tribunal du contentieux de l’incapacité de Toulouse, du handicap à 80% subi par un malade atteint d’électro-hypersensibilité, nous pensons qu’il est temps d’évoquer enfin de ce sujet majeur de santé publique.
Cette pathologie étant complexe et multifactorielle, nous sommes démunis face à ces personnes, dont la souffrance physique est réelle et les symptômes avérés. Même si une controverse scientifique demeure à certains égards sur le sujet, ces patients existent et des réponses doivent leur être apportées médicalement pour atténuer leur souffrance.
Nous avons besoin d’être mieux informés sur les impacts sanitaires des champs électromagnétiques et d’être dotés d’outils pour mieux aider ces patients.
Nous appelons ainsi solennellement l’État français et plus particulièrement la Ministre de la santé à faire de l’impact sanitaire des champs électromagnétiques une priorité sanitaire et de considérer ces patients, de plus en plus nombreux, qui sont pour la plupart en grande difficulté et précarité sociale.
Il nous semble indispensable, par précaution, d’abaisser l’exposition générale de la population aux champs électromagnétiques ; notamment pour ce qui est des enfants, de réduire leur exposition à la wifi et aux tablettes dans les établissements scolaires.
Une recherche indépendante et approfondie doit être menée sur le sujet et les personnes électro hypersensibles doivent pouvoir se réfugier dans des « zones blanches »
Enfin, les décisions de certaines Maisons Départementales des Personnes Handicapés de reconnaître l’électro-hypersensibilité comme handicap doivent être définitivement validées et appliquées par toutes les MDPH pour que les personnes EHS soient toutes prises en charge.
Liste des 50 premiers signataires de l’Appel, avant le Colloque :
Pr Dominique BELPOMME (75)
Pr Pierre LE RUZ (72)
Catherine NEYRAND – masseur kinésithérapeute (26)
Christian BORDES, osthéopathe (31)
Dr Gérard DIEUZAIDE (31)
Dr Nathalie BOSCH chirurgien dentiste (83)
Dr. Valérie BOURIN-KLEIN, généraliste (38)
Dr Jeanine ISRAEL, retraitée (38)
Anne Marie CHARRIER, orthophoniste Nantes
Sandy RONDIN – Infirmier Puériculteur en Unité de Protection Maternelle et Infantile (44)
Colette PRALUS, kinésithérapeute (83)
Dr Patricia LOPEZ (69)
Dr Michaël RAMAIN (94)
Dr Marie HANOTTE (69)
Dr Alain LACHARD (83)
Dr Sylvie GOURLET, vétérinaire (89)
Dr Antoine ROPHE (83)
Dr JENNESSEN Ralph (Var)
Francis GLEMET, pharmacien industriel (34)
Dr Didier TARTE, retraité (27)
Dr. Jean-Claude ALBARET (10)
Dr Dominique ERAUD (75)
Dr Vinciane VERLY (Bruxelles)
Jean-Pierre MARGUARITTE, osthéopathe (92)
Dr Bernard COADOU, retraité (33)
Dr TOURRE 26120 Chabeuil médecine générale et sportive
Dr Eric MENAT Médecin Généraliste libéral 31
Dr Michel ANGLES 12
Danielle PERSICO, Pédiatre (26)
Sylvie RINAUDO, docteur en chimie (75)
Philippe Masson, dentiste (75)
Dr Yvon GUIBERT (84)
Nathalie BUISSON infirmière libérale (26)
Dr Véronique RIGAULT, Centre hospitalier de Lannemezan (65)
Véronique CHAVANAT, Orthophoniste (78)
Katia TAMISIER, infirmière en retraite (79)
Dr André MERGUI (30), stomatologue
Adeline BARROIS, Infirmière (59)
Dr Lionel FABRE (83)
Dr Paul GUILLON (41)
Dr Sophie LIBERT (75)
Dr Maryline LE ROULIER (91)
Françoise de SAINT-PAUL, infirmière anesthésiste (47)
Dr Nicole SICARD (12)
Dr Pierre LENTHERIC (30)
Dr Jean-François PAILLE (74)
Dr Catherine BILLOD, généraliste, homéopathe et ostéopathe (01)
CALL for doctors and health professionals – «to better understand and recognize electrohypersensitivity» 11 Feb 2016 (auto translation, via Michèle Rivasi)
APPEAL of DOCTORS and HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS
At the occasion of the symposium at the National Assembly on 11th February 2016, “To better understand and recognize electro-hypersensitivity”
We, doctors, scientists and health professionals,
Considering the appeal of Fribourg launched in 2002 by physicians, we find in recent years during our consultations, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, such as:
Symptoms usually found in mobile phone use:
– Pain and / or heat in the ear
– Disorders of the surface sensitivity type dysesthesia (tingling, tingling, burning or itching) on the face, scalp or arm
Then gradually, and permanently:
– Headache, associated typically with stiffness and pain in the neck.
– Tinnitus, hyperacusis,
– Visual disturbances type of blurred vision,
– Anomalies of deep sensitivity (false vertigo), malaise
– Skin lesions with sensation of burns (causalgia) and / or itching,
– Muscle disorders (myalgia, spasms, twitching) and / or joints (arthralgia, stiffness)
– Cognitive disorders.
– Onset of severe cognitive disorders (attention deficit and concentration, loss of short term memory)
– Insomnia, chronic fatigue and possibly depressive tendency.
And finally, in the absence of treatment and protection measure, evolution is marked by progressive constitution of pathological lesions, totally irreversible: delirium, absences, spatial disorientation or temporal state of dementia resembling a disease Alzheimer including young subjects.
In children headache and sleep disorders, dyslexia, attention disorders and concentration, loss of memory attachment, sometimes behavioral problems (child refusing to go to school without reason)
Considering that we know the residential environment and habits of our patients, we often see a correlation in time and space, between the occurrence of these disorders and the beginning of the extension of the radiation waves electromagnetic, in cases such as:
– The installation of a mobile phone mast in the vicinity of the home or the patient’s workplace
– the intensive use of a mobile phone
– using a DECT-type wireless phone home or at work.
Electromagnetic fields thus appear to partly explain the appearance of these disorders.
As indicated in the Declaration on International Scientific electrohypersensitivity and sensitivity to multiple chemicals signed by scientists and doctors around the world gathered at the Royal Academy of Medicine in Brussels in May 2015, on the initiative of the ECERI biomarkers have been identified in the EHS sufferers that establish the existence of true debilitating conditions.
So much so that some people must isolate polluted places by electromagnetic fields (WiFi, mobile phone …) to continue to live under the most normal conditions possible.
However, this disease is still not recognized by the French health authorities.
In the context of the recognition by the Dispute Tribunal of the inability of Toulouse, 80% of disability suffered by a patient with electro-hypersensitivity, we believe it is finally time to discuss this major issue public health.
This pathology is complex and multifactorial, we are clueless about these people, whose physical suffering is real and symptoms found. Although scientific controversy remains in some respects on the subject, these patients exist and their responses must be made medically to alleviate their suffering.
We need to be better informed on health impacts of electromagnetic fields and to be equipped with tools to better help these patients.
We call solemnly as the French government and particularly the Minister of Health to the health impact of electromagnetic fields a health priority and take these patients, more and more, which are mostly in big trouble and social insecurity.
It seems essential, as a precaution, lower the general population exposure to electromagnetic fields; especially in terms of children, reduce their exposure to wifi and tablets in schools.
An independent and thorough research should be conducted on the subject and electro hypersensitive persons should be able to take refuge in “white areas”
Finally, decisions of some houses Departmental Disabled Persons recognize electro-hypersensitivity as a disability must be definitively validated and applied by all MDPH for people to EHS are all supported
List of top 50 signatories of the Appeal before the Conference:
Pr Dominique BELPOMME (75)
Pr Pierre LE RUZ (72)
Catherine NEYRAND – physiotherapist (26)
Christian Bordes, osteopath (31)
Dr. Gerard DIEUZAIDE (31)
Dr Nathalie BOSCH dentist (83)
Dr. Valerie BOURIN-KLEIN, general (38)
Dr. Jeanine ISRAEL retired (38)
Anne Marie Charrier, speech Nantes
Sandy LOG – Nurse puériculteur Protection Unit in Mother and Child (44)
Colette PRALUS, physiotherapist (83)
Dr. Patricia LOPEZ (69)
Dr. Michael RAMAIN (94)
Dr Marie HANOTTE (69)
Dr. Alain LACHARD (83)
Dr. Sylvie GOURLET, veterinary (89)
Dr. Antoine Rophé (83)
Dr. Ralph JENNESSEN (Var)
Francis GLEMET, industrial pharmacist (34)
Dr Didier PIE, retired (27)
Dr. Jean-Claude ALBARET (10)
Dr Dominique ERAUD (75)
Dr Vinciane VERLY (Brussels)
Jean-Pierre MARGUARITTE, osteopath (92)
Dr Bernard COADOU, retired (33)
Dr TOURRE 26120 Chabeuil general medicine and sports
Dr. Eric MENAT Liberal General Practitioner 31
Dr. Michel ANGLES 12
Danielle Persico, Pediatrician (26)
Sylvie RINAUDO, PhD in chemistry (75)
Philippe Masson, dentist (75)
Dr Yvon Guibert (84)
Nathalie Buisson liberal nurse (26)
Dr Véronique RIGAULT, Hospital of Lannemezan (65)
Véronique CHAVANAT, Speech Therapist (78)
Katia TAMISIER nurse in retirement (79)
Dr. André MERGUI (30), dentist
Adeline BARROIS, Nurse (59)
Dr Lionel Fabre (83)
Dr. Paul GUILLON (41)
Dr Sophie LIBERT (75)
Dr Maryline THE ROULIER (91)
Françoise de SAINT-PAUL, nurse anesthetist (47)
Dr. Nicole SICARD (12)
Dr. Pierre Lenthéric (30)
Dr. Jean-François STRAW (74)
Dr Catherine BILLOD, general practitioner, homeopath, and osteopath (01)
“I SABATI DELLA SALUTE”, organizzati dalla “Associazione Mimosa Amici del DH Oncologico di Borgomanero”, hanno avuto inizio sabato 6 febbraio 2016 con una conferenza tenuta dal nostro Vicepresidente dr. Paolo Orio sul tema “Inquinamento elettromagnetico: effetti biologico sanitari a breve e lungo termine”.
Durante l’incontro si è cercato come sempre di fornire informazioni accurate sull’Inquinamento Elettromagnetico, attualmente una delle più grandi minacce per la salute umana e per l’ambiente, soprattutto per quanto riguarda quello in Alta Frequenza generato dall’uso di tecnologie e dispositivi Wireless.
Proprio la scarsa conoscenza del pericolo da parte della popolazione sta portando sempre più persone ad adottare connessioni Wireless in sostituzione di quelle cablate, e questo sta già avendo pesanti ripercussioni di tipo sanitario, destinate ad aggravarsi ulteriormente nel tempo.
Per questo motivo sono state fornite anche nozioni di igiene elettrica, spiegando quali comportamenti tenere e quali accorgimenti adottare per minimizzare l’esposizione ai Campi Elettromagnetici in Alta (ma anche in Bassa) Frequenza.
Il pubblico era numeroso e, come spesso accade durante questi incontri, nuovi Elettrosensibili si sono presentati ai nostri rappresentanti a testimonianza del fatto che la Elettrosensibilità è in aumento e, fortunatamente, sta crescendo anche la consapevolezza del problema.
“I SABATI DELLA SALUTE” continueranno nei mesi successivi con interventi di altri esperti e si terranno sempre presso l’Aula Magna dell’Ospedale di Borgomanero (NO), dalle ore 16:00 alle ore 18:00.
Per maggiori dettagli, potete cliccare sulla immagine della locandina qui a destra per ingrandirla.
[Via Dave Ashton della pagina Facebook “UK Electrosensitives”.
Articolo ben scritto, che fornisce molte informazioni e diversi riferimenti a studi scientifici e a documentazione varia sulla Elettrosensibilità.]
In the past it has been called “yuppie flu” and “microwave disease”. Its symptoms include unexplained allergies, whistling in the ears, tachycardia and cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, numbness of the head, constant headaches, etc. Are you also affected by the growing electromagnetic pollution from cell phone masts, Wi-Fi networks, cordless phones etc?
Scientists today are linking the increase of electromagnetic pollution with many unexplained symptoms that afflict more and more every day:
The “allergic” reaction to artificial electromagnetic radiation is called “electrohypersensitivity”, it has been recognized by the World Health Organization and is considered likely to influence in the following years a significant proportion of the population in developed countries.
In the past the term “microwave illness” has been used to describe symptoms of employees working near broadcasting antennas and radars and the term “yuppie flu” for symptoms of corporate executives overexposed to mobile phones and electronic office equipment.
“Sensitivity to EMF has been given the general name “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity” or EHS. It comprises nervous system symptoms like headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin symptoms like prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes a disabling problem for the affected persons. Their EMF exposure is generally several orders of magnitude under the limits of internationally accepted standards.” World Health Organization 
Medical associations warn
The Austrian Medical Association notes :
“There has been a sharp rise in unspecific, often stress-associated health problems that increasingly present physicians with the challenge of complex differential diagnosis. A cause that has been accorded little attention so far is increasing electrosmog exposure at home, at work and during leisure activities, occurring in addition to chronic stress in personal and working life. It correlates with an overall situation of chronic stress that can lead to burnout.”
The Freiburger Appeal  from the Union of Environmental Medicine, Germany (IGUMED),signed by thousands of doctors and scientists from around the world sounded the alarm:
“We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:
Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD)
Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications
Heart rhythm disorders
Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population
Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer’s) and epilepsy
Cancerous afflictions: leukemia, brain tumors
Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:
Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
Susceptibility to infection
Nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms.
We can no longer believe this to be purely coincidence, for:
Too often do we observe a marked concentration of particular illnesses in correspondingly HFMR-polluted areas or apartments;
Too often does a long-term disease or affliction improve or disappear in a relatively short time after reduction or elimination of HFMR pollution in the patient’s environment;
Too often are our observations confirmed by on-site measurements of HFMR of unusual intensity.
On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development.
One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already-present chemical/physical influences, stress the body’s immune system, and can bring the body’s still-functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and sick people are especially at risk.
Our therapeutic efforts to restore health are becoming increasingly less effective: the unimpeded and continuous penetration of radiation into living and working areas , particularly bedrooms, an essential place for relaxation, regeneration and healing, causes uninterrupted stress and prevents the patient’s thorough recovery.
In the face of this disquieting development, we feel obliged to inform the public of our observations, especially since hearing that the German courts regard any danger from mobile telephone radiation as “purely hypothetical” (see the decisions of the constitutional court in Karlsruhe and the administrative court in Mannheim, Spring 2002).
What we experience in the daily reality of our medical practice is anything but hypothetical! We see the rising number of chronically sick patients also as the result of an irresponsible “safety limits policy”, which fails to take the protection of the public from the short- and long-term effects of mobile telephone radiation as its criterium for action. Instead, it submits to the dictates of a technology already long recognized as dangerous. For us, this is the beginning of a very serious development through which the health of many people is being threatened.”
Per Segerbäck, was a telecommunications engineer, that was working from the early 80’s as a senior executive in Ellemtel, a subsidiary of the Swedish company mobile phones Ericson and he helped develop the mobile networks that today have spread in every part of world.
After 10 years of work he and almost all his colleagues had continuous nausea, headaches and skin redness.Because the found relief only outside the office, the came to the conclusion that these symptoms were due to the elevated electromagnetic radiation from the cell phone antennas, computers, fluorescent lightings etc.
Ericson company wanted to keep Segerbäck, so they electromagneticaly shielded his office, they replaced his computers with low EFM ones and gave him electromagnetic shielded clothes to wear so he could move out of the office.
In the mid 90’s, when the first mobile networks began to appear in Stockholm and the avoidance of the radiation was impossible, Segerbäck retired to a farmhouse in the countryside.There he lives so far away from mobile phone masts and the electricity network, using an external battery 12Volt for essential needs. 
How chronic exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation can lead to health problems
Dr. Blank, a professor at Columbia University and researcher in bioelectromagnitism explains that our cells have a stressful reaction to artificial electromagnetic fields as they do with other environmental toxins (heavy metals, etc.) .
The human DNA functions as an antenna which receives even low power low and high frequency signals and produces stress proteins.
The mechanism of adaptation to stress triggers our hormonal system to cope with any challenge presented.Unfortunately it is designed to operate for a temporary period.
Chronic production of stress proteins, as is the case of constant exposure to multiple sources of radiation is:
associated with sleep problems, depression, headaches, gastric and skin problems, obesity, heart disease, asthma, infections, etc. 
exhausts the immune system and leads to the appearance of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s Lyme, lupus, disease Crohn, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, etc. 
What is the reason for the great increase of electrohypersensitivity cases the past few years
The increase of electrohypersensitivity incidents is due to the large increase in the quantity and the variety of radiation signals to which the public is exposed in recent years.
Exposure to low-frequency radiation has increased significantly due to greater use of electricity, while simple sinusoidal signal of 50-60Hz power grid has been deformed because of high frequency harmonics.
The phenomenon of ‘contamination’ of the electrical grid with harmonics, is called “Dirty Electricity”, due to the widespread use of electronic non-linear load devices (fluorescent lamps, AC adapters, electronic dimmer switches, inverter air conditioners, plasma TVs, photovoltaic systems, etc.) and has already been linked to electrohypersensitivity 
Also, levels of high frequency radiation have multiplied because of the rapid development of telecommunications (mobile telephony and Internet).
According to Professor Paul Doyon of the University Kyushu , wireless radiation can cause numerous biological effects that are found in people with chronic fatigue syndrome: increased oxidative damage and decrease of catalase, glutathione, CoQ10, SOD etc., cellular calcium outflow, mitochondrial dysfunction, reduction of Natural Killer (NK) cells, reduced norepinephrine levels, reduction of 5-HT (serotonin precursor) etc.
The size of the problem and its impact on the lives of those affected
Electrohypersensitivity today is recognized as a disability in Sweden, where it affects 3% of the population (approximately 250,000 people). Great Britain and Canada are also considering to recognize this novel disability.
Researchers Hallberg and Oberfeld studying the growth rates of electrohypersensitivity cases, predicted that by 2017, 50% of the population will display such symptoms .
“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant” Dr. William Rea, former president of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine 
The European Parliament“calls on Member States to follow the example of Sweden and to recognize persons that suffer from electrohypersensitivity as being disabled so as to grant them adequate protection as well as equal opportunities.” .
The effect on the lives of people affected is often dramatic as it is difficult to work and move in public places because of excessive presence of artificial radiation.
For many it is necessary to live in wireless free zones, like those created in hospitals in Sweden  or the Drôme, France (see photo) which has been declared a haven for people sensitive to radiation .
We encourage governments to (…) designate wireless-free zones in cities, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF. Benevento Resolution (2006), International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (IECEMS) 
“It is evident that various biological alterations, including immune system modulation, are present in electrohypersensitive persons. There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance, indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons. It is clear something serious has happened and is happening. Every aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples’ lives, including the ability to work productively in society, have healthy relations and find safe, permanent housing, is at stake. The basics of life are becoming increasingly inaccessible to a growing percentage of the world’s population. I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time. There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should act decisively to protect public health by changing the exposure standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results of the independent science on this topic and aggressively researching links with a multitude of associated medical conditions.” Dr.Johansson, Neurology Section, Karolinska Institute in Stockholm 
Chronic burden from artificial electromagnetic radiation is an important biological factor that should not be overlooked in the diagnosis of diseases and chronic symptoms.
Electromagnetic pollution may be the real cause behind multitude of diseases with similar symptoms characterized by doctors as chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic immune dysfunction, kidney failure, encephalopathy, environmental hypersensitivity, psychosomatic reactions, etc.
Children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with allergies or weakened immune systems are at high risk.
Also, women are more affected by the disease , since their brains due to hormonal differences are more vulnerable to radiation.