--- topic: "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity" title: "Is Electrosensitivity Real?" order: 1 description: "Electrosensitivity symptoms are real, but blinded trials suggest electromagnetic fields are probably not the trigger. What the research shows and what helps." question: "Is 'electrosensitivity' real, and what helps people who have it?" answer: "Symptoms are real, but blinded trials show people cannot reliably tell real from sham fields, so fields are probably not the trigger." actions: - "See your doctor about the symptoms themselves, such as poor sleep and headaches, which were the most common complaints in a Swiss survey of electrosensitive people [1]." - "Ask about cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT): in a small controlled trial, people given CBT within a multidisciplinary programme rated their sensitivity lower six months later [9]." - "Hold off on shielding paint, canopies or rewiring: blinded trials do not link symptoms to fields, and reviewers say a narrow focus on field mechanisms is unlikely to help [3]." cautions: - "People who identify as electrosensitive report worse general health and more depression than others, so ask a clinician to check for treatable causes [8]." - "Symptoms can be severe and disabling even though blinded tests do not link them to fields, so seek help early if they stop you sleeping, working or going out [2]." confidence: 4 confidenceNote: "Several systematic reviews of dozens of blinded studies agree, though study quality varies and evidence on treatment is small." evidenceSummary: rctCount: 2 observationalCount: 4 metaAnalysisCount: 4 totalParticipants: "1,175 volunteers in 46 blinded studies" replicated: true newestStudyYear: 2021 references: - id: "1" pmid: "17193782" title: "The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland." authors: "Schreier N, Huss A, Röösli M" year: 2006 journal: "Soz Praventivmed" - id: "2" pmid: "15784787" title: "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies." authors: "Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S" year: 2005 journal: "Psychosom Med" - id: "3" pmid: "19681059" title: "Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'): An updated systematic review of provocation studies." authors: "Rubin GJ, Nieto-Hernandez R, Wessely S" year: 2010 journal: "Bioelectromagnetics" - id: "4" pmid: "23438710" title: "Are media warnings about the adverse health effects of modern life self-fulfilling? An experimental study on idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)." authors: "Witthöft M, Rubin GJ" year: 2013 journal: "J Psychosom Res" - id: "5" pmid: "16520326" title: "Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study." authors: "Rubin GJ, Hahn G, Everitt BS, et al." year: 2006 journal: "BMJ" - id: "6" pmid: "21769898" title: "Do people with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields display physiological effects when exposed to electromagnetic fields? A systematic review of provocation studies." authors: "Rubin GJ, Hillert L, Nieto-Hernandez R, et al." year: 2011 journal: "Bioelectromagnetics" - id: "7" pmid: "26369906" title: "Does electromagnetic hypersensitivity originate from nocebo responses? Indications from a qualitative study." authors: "Dieudonné M" year: 2016 journal: "Bioelectromagnetics" - id: "8" pmid: "18157992" title: "Psychological factors associated with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phones." authors: "Rubin GJ, Cleare AJ, Wessely S" year: 2008 journal: "J Psychosom Res" - id: "9" pmid: "9817951" title: "Cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with electric sensitivity - a multidisciplinary approach in a controlled study." authors: "Hillert L, Kolmodin Hedman B, Dölling BF, et al." year: 1998 journal: "Psychother Psychosom" - id: "10" url: "https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields" title: "Radiation: Electromagnetic fields" authors: "World Health Organization" year: 2016 journal: "WHO Questions and answers" - id: "11" pmid: "34298941" title: "The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report." authors: "Belpomme D, Carlo GL, Irigaray P, et al." year: 2021 journal: "Int J Mol Sci" - id: "12" pmid: "31640707" title: "Methodological limitations in experimental studies on symptom development in individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) - a systematic review." authors: "Schmiedchen K, Driessen S, Oftedal G" year: 2019 journal: "Environ Health" --- Yes and no. The symptoms people attribute to electromagnetic fields, such as headaches and poor sleep, are real and can be disabling [1][2]. But in 46 blinded studies, people who feel sensitive could not be shown to react to real fields more than to sham ones [3]. Expectation appears to play a large part [4]. So help is possible even though the field is probably not the cause. ## How it works **What it is.** Researchers call it idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF): symptoms that people attribute to electrical devices, with no medical explanation found [3]. In a representative Swiss phone survey of 2,048 people, 5% reported it. The most common complaints were sleep problems (43%) and headaches (34%), mostly blamed on power lines and phone handsets [1]. **What blinded testing shows.** In provocation studies, volunteers who report sensitivity are exposed to real or sham fields without knowing which. An updated review pooled 46 such studies with 1,175 volunteers and found no robust evidence that fields trigger symptoms [3]. In a London trial, 60 sensitive people and 60 controls each spent 50 minutes with a 900 MHz mobile phone signal, a plain carrier wave and a sham signal. Headaches rose during exposure whatever the signal, including the sham, and sensitive people believed a signal was on 60% of the time during real exposure and 63% during sham [5]. A review of 29 experiments with objective measures such as heart rate and blood pressure also found no reliable physiological reaction [6]. **Expectation is powerful.** When 147 volunteers watched a TV report on the health risks of Wi-Fi and then received a sham Wi-Fi exposure, 54% reported symptoms they attributed to it, and the report increased worry and the sense of being sensitive [4]. This is the nocebo effect: expecting harm can produce real symptoms. **Real symptoms, not imaginary ones.** In interviews with 40 self-identified electrosensitive people, symptoms came first and the suspicion about fields came later [7]. People who adopt the label report much worse general health, more depression and more other unexplained syndromes than other people [8]. Their suffering deserves a full medical look. **What helps.** Treatment evidence is thin. In a small controlled trial, 10 patients given cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) within a multidisciplinary programme rated their sensitivity lower than 12 controls six months later [9]. Reviewers warn that a narrow focus on field mechanisms is unlikely to help patients in the long term [3]. **Official and dissenting views.** The World Health Organization says there is little scientific evidence for electromagnetic hypersensitivity and no accepted biological mechanism to explain it [10]. A 2021 consensus report disagrees with how the question has been tested. It argues that provocation tests are not valid until the condition is objectively defined, and that nocebo has not been proven [11]. For the wider science of wireless radiation, see [What the Science Says](/emf/what-the-science-says). For products sold to block fields, see [Do EMF-Blocking Products Work?](/emf/emf-blocking-products). ## The evidence in detail **Blinded provocation studies.** Rubin and colleagues' first systematic review (2005) found 31 experiments testing 725 'electromagnetically hypersensitive' participants. Twenty-four found no evidence of a biophysical hypersensitivity. Seven reported some support, but two of those groups failed to replicate their own results, three results looked like statistical artefacts, and the last two contradicted each other. Meta-analyses found no better ability to detect fields in the hypersensitive group [2]. The 2010 update raised the total to 46 blind or double-blind studies and 1,175 volunteers, again with no robust evidence that fields trigger symptoms but with support for a nocebo effect [3]. **Objective outcomes.** A 2011 review of 29 experiments with objectively measured outcomes found five with significant effects, among them lower heart rate and blood pressure, an altered pupil reflex, reduced visual attention and changed sleep EEG. These were mostly isolated results that other studies failed to replicate, and the sleep EEG changes also appeared in non-sensitive controls [6]. **A representative trial.** The London trial (60 sensitive people, 60 controls) used headache severity on a 0-to-100 scale as its main outcome. Headache rose during exposure and eased afterwards, with no strong difference between real and sham signals or between the two groups. Sham exposure alone triggered severe symptoms in some participants [5]. **Nocebo experiment.** Witthöft and Rubin randomised 147 people to a TV report on Wi-Fi's health risks (76) or a control film (71), then gave everyone a 15-minute sham Wi-Fi exposure. Overall 82 people (54%) reported symptoms they attributed to it. The report raised worry about fields and, among people with high anxiety, raised symptoms and the likelihood of seeing themselves as sensitive [4]. **Criticism of the evidence.** The verdict is not unchallenged. Schmiedchen and colleagues assessed 28 blinded experiments and found limitations in studies with both positive and negative results, most often in participant selection, counterbalancing of exposure order and effectiveness of blinding. Many lacked power calculations. Even so, the methodologically sound studies indicated that an effect of exposure is unlikely, and the authors concluded that any physical effect must be very weak or affect only a few people [12]. Belpomme and colleagues argue that provocation tests cannot settle the question because electrohypersensitivity has not first been defined objectively, that negative results therefore do not exclude a role for fields as a trigger, and that nocebo is unproven. They call for biomarker and imaging research [11]. Their report is a consensus statement that argues for a different research approach and for recognition as a distinct disorder, not a blinded trial. **Who is affected.** In a questionnaire study of 52 people sensitive to mobile phones, 19 who also reported electrosensitivity, and 60 controls, the electrosensitive group had greater depression, more health worries and more other unexplained syndromes, although psychiatric diagnoses did not differ between groups [8]. In the interview study, symptoms preceded any suspicion of fields. That sits awkwardly with a purely nocebo origin, although nocebo responses may reinforce the belief later [7]. **Treatment.** In a small controlled CBT trial, 10 treated patients were compared with 12 controls. The treated group rated their electric sensitivity lower at six months, while symptom indices fell over time in both groups and biochemical stress markers did not change [9]. The trial was small and not randomised, so it can only suggest a benefit. **Bottom line (confidence 4).** Several systematic reviews of dozens of blinded studies agree: people with electrosensitivity cannot be shown to detect fields, and their symptoms do not reliably follow real exposure. The symptoms themselves are real and sometimes disabling. What causes them is unresolved, and expectation, stress, sleep problems and other illness are all plausible contributors. Trial evidence on treatment is small, and critics of the testing methods deserve a hearing.