ID Number		1037
Study Type		Human / Provocation
Model		400 MHz (Tetra), 900 MHz (GSM) exposure to self-reported hypersensitive volunteers and analysis of subjective symptoms and neuroendocrine function.
Details		Volunteers (n = 60, self-reported hypersensitive) exposed to 400 MHz (Tetra, CW) or 900 MHz (GSM, CW) RF for 50 minutes using exposure system developed for the MTHR program involving a mobile phone operating at full power (2 watts peak) under controlled conditions in two separate double blind provocation studies and assessed for hypersensitivity as compared to controls (n = 60, self reported non-sensitive). Primary endpoints include post-exposure headache severity, and secondary endpoints include self-reported nausea, fatigue, dizziness, skin itching / tingling / stinging, sensations of warmth or burning on skin, and eye pain or dryness. In a 2006 paper, the authors report no effect of any 900 MHz exposure (pulsed or CW) on any subjective parameter. The only finding was that hypersensitive people had more complaints regardless of the exposure / sham exposure. The authors also performed a review of the literature on RF hypersensitivity (involving 12 databases, 31 papers reviewed in detail) and reported "no robust evidence to support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity to EMF". A second review paper looking at the same literature database selected 9 studies that had attempted to treat EHS with either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), reducing EMF emissions in the workplace, shielding, antioxidant therapy, vitamin supplements, or acupuncture. The authors conclude that "CBT seemed to be the most appropriate and effective treatment since EMFs did not appear to be causative of EHS symptoms and it seems probable that some form of cognitive mechanism is responsible for [EHS patients'] misattribution of these symptoms." In a subsequent study, the authors recruited control (n = 60) and self proclaimed hypersensitive (n = 71) subjects and evaluated them via questionnaire for overall health. The authors report no significant difference in the overall use of mobile phones, but a statistically significant increase in certain (depressive) health complaints and clinical treatment was found to be associated with those in the hypersensitive group that were most acutely concerned with electromagnetic exposure. In parallel with the initial blinded laboratory provocation studies described above, the authors also evaluated a portion (n = 58) of the self-reported hypersensitive subjects regarding how sensitive to EMF fields they were via questionairre, both before and after the conclusion of the provocation study (after learning that they did not react significantly to the RF exposure). The authors report that knowing the results of the provocation testing did not significantly change the groups perception that they were in fact hypersensitive to EMF exposures. Many of the volunteers suggested the study itself was flawed. In a large meta analysis of EMF hypersensitivity studies (n = 46 provocation studies with 1175 subjects), the authors report no robust evidence of a correlation between exposure and symptoms, although they did find a significant nocebo effect. Authors' abstract: Witthoft and Rubin 2013 (IEEE #5209): OBJECTIVE: Medically unsubstantiated 'intolerances' to foods, chemicals and environmental toxins are common and are frequently discussed in the media. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is one such condition and is characterized by symptoms that are attributed to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). In this experiment, we tested whether media reports promote the development of this condition. METHODS: Participants (N=147) were randomly assigned to watch a television report about the adverse health effects of WiFi (n=76) or a control film (n=71). After watching their film, participants received a sham exposure to a WiFi signal (15 min). The principal outcome measure was symptom reports following the sham exposure. Secondary outcomes included worries about the health effects of EMF, attributing symptoms to the sham exposure and increases in perceived sensitivity to EMF. RESULTS: 82 (54%) of the 147 participants reported symptoms which they attributed to the sham exposure. The experimental film increased: EMF related worries (²=0.19; P=.019); post sham exposure symptoms among participants with high pre-existing anxiety (²=0.22; P=.008); the likelihood of symptoms being attributed to the sham exposure among people with high anxiety (²=.31; P=.001); and the likelihood of people who attributed their symptoms to the sham exposure believing themselves to be sensitive to EMF (²=0.16; P=.049). CONCLUSION: Media reports about the adverse effects of supposedly hazardous substances can increase the likelihood of experiencing symptoms following sham exposure and developing an apparent sensitivity to it. Greater engagement between journalists and scientists is required to counter these negative effects. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Eldridge-Thomas and Rubin 2013 (IEEE #5276): Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is a controversial condition in which people describe symptoms following exposure to electromagnetic fields from everyday electrical devices. However, doubleblind experiments have found no convincing evidence that electromagnetic fields cause these symptoms. In this study, we assessed whether recent newspaper reporting in the UK reflected this scientific evidence. We searched a database of newspaper articles to identify all those that contained IEI-EMF related keywords and selected a random sample of 60 for content analysis. For our primary outcomes, we assessed how many articles mainly or wholly presented an electromagnetic cause for IEI-EMF and how many discussed unproven treatments for the condition such as strategies intended to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields or the use of complementary and alternative therapies. We also assessed whether the type of information source used by a newspaper article (e.g. scientist, person with IEI-EMF, politician) or the type of newspaper (broadsheet, tabloid, local or regional) was associated with either outcome. Of the 60 articles, 43 (71.7%) presented a mainly electromagnetic cause, compared to 13 (21.7%) which presented mainly non-electromagnetic causes and 4 (6.7%) which did not discuss a cause. 29 (48.3%) did not mention any potential treatment, while 24 (40.0%) mentioned eletromagnetic field related strategies and 12 (20.0%) mentioned complementary or alternative therapies. Articles which quoted someone with IEI-EMF were significantly more likely to report an electromagnetic cause and to present unproven treatments. Those which used a scientist as a source were more likely to present a non-electromagnetic cause for the condition. The widespread poor reporting we identified is disappointing and has the potential for to encourage more people to misattribute their symptoms to electromagnetic fields. Scientists should remain engaged with the media to counteract this effect. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Rubin et al. 2011 (IEEE #5666): Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is a controversial illness in which people report symptoms that they believe are triggered by exposure to EMF. Double-blind experiments have found no association between the presence of EMF and self-reported outcomes in people with IEI-EMF. No systematic review has assessed whether EMF exposure triggers physiological or cognitive changes in this group. Using a systematic literature search, we identified 29 single or double-blind experiments in which participants with IEI-EMF were exposed to different EMF levels and in which objectively measured outcomes were assessed. Five studies identified significant effects of exposure such as reduced heart rate and blood pressure, altered pupillary light reflex, reduced visual attention and perception, improved spatial memory, movement away from an EMF source during sleep and altered EEG during sleep. In most cases, these were isolated results that other studies failed to replicate. For the sleep EEG findings, the results reflected similar changes in the IEI-EMF participants and a non-IEI-EMF control group. At present, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that people with IEI-EMF experience unusual physiological reactions as a result of exposure to EMF. This supports suggestions that EMF is not the main cause of their ill health. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Foster and Rubin 2014 (IEEE #5927): Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields (IEI-EMF) is a medically unexplained condition characterized by a wide variety of nonspecific symptoms that an individual attributes to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the environment produced by commonplace technologies. This article briefly reviews the scientific basis of the condition and some of the ethical issues raised by it. Taken as a whole, provocation studies have shown that people with IEI-EMF are unable to detect when they are being exposed to EMF with a probability greater than chance; IEI-EMF is a self-diagnosed condition by affected individuals. Ethical issues raised by IEI-EMF are generally similar to those raised by other forms of medically unexplained illness; however, they have significant social implications in view of the reliance of modern society on the electromagnetic spectrum. Implications for social policy include how to respond to the desires of affected individuals to be protected against the effects of low-level EMF in the environment, and possible harms to the individuals from well-meaning but inappropriate treatment. High-quality research and registration of clinical trials to improve treatment of the condition are needed.
Findings		No Effects
Status		Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator		King’s College Hospital, London, UK - g.rubin@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Funding Agency		MMF, MTHR (NRPB), UK, GSM Association
Country		UNITED KINGDOM
References		Rubin, GJ et al. Bioelectromagnetics., (2010) 31:1-11 Rubin, GJ et al. J Psychosom Res, (2008) 64:1-9 Rubin, GJ et al. Br Med J., (2006) 332:886-891 Rubin, GJ et al. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics , (2006) 75:12-18 Rubin, GJ et al. Psychosomatic Medicine, (2005) 67:224-232 Nieto-Hernandez, R et al. Occup Environ Med., (2011) 68:339-344 Witthoft, M et al. J Psychosom Res. , (2013) 74:206-212 Eldridge-Thomas, B et al. PLoS ONE., (2013) 8(6):e65713.-(6 pages) Rubin, GJ et al. Bioelectromagnetics., (2011) 32:593-609 Foster, KR et al. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine: An International Journal., (2014) 5:39-50 Witthoft, M et al. Psychol Health., (2017) Epub ahead of print]:-
Comments		The review included 8600 citations / abstracts  497 papers examined, 31 reviewed in detail, n = 725 total participants, 13 were VDT-related (213 participants), seven were mobile-phone-related (161 participants), 10 examined other sources of provocation (315 participants), and one (36 participants) examined variability within a healthy group of volunteers. Commentary by Sivertsen and Hysing (J Psychosomatic Res 64:11-12, 2007) on this study suggested media coverage leads to suspected susceptibilities.