Electromagnetic-Sensitivity (ES) is a condition in which adults and children develop intolerance to radiation from wireless technology devices and infrastructure such as cell phones, Wi-Fi, wireless utility “smart”meters and cell towers and antennas. Once they develop the condition, they experience various symptoms from tingling in the hands and pain in the head when using a cell phone to severe and disabling illness. The most common symptoms are headaches, sleep disturbances, nausea, dizziness, cognitive and memory problems, a racing heart and heart palpitations, burning sensations, nose bleeds and noise or light sensitivities. Recent research suggests that these symptoms indicate severe physiological harm including breakage of the Blood Brain Barrier, damage to the limbic system and the thalamus, oxidative stress, autoimmune damage and neurodegeneration. The prevalence of the condition is growing rapidly, including amongst children. Surveys from a decade ago suggest that 10% of the population already suffers from symptoms. However, this rate is likely understated considering many people who experience symptoms are not aware that their symptoms are caused by wireless devices and in addition, given the exponential increase in the past decade of the use of wireless devices including Wi-Fi and smartphones and increase in the levels of radiation in the environment from the wireless infrastructure, it is likely that the rates of people who suffer from the condition are higher and will continue to rise. While other conditions have been associated with exposure to radiation from wireless technology, such as brain & breast cancer, fertility problems, autism and ADD, it seems that the most widespread manifestation of harm from this technology is ES.

Electromagnetic sensitivity (ES) is a condition in which adults and children develop intolerance to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiation (EMR) and experience various symptoms when they are exposed to these fields and radiation.

Symptoms from wireless sources – Most people who develop ES manifest symptoms as a result of exposure to wireless based technologies, including cell phones, Wi-Fi, cordless phones, microwave ovens, wireless utility “smart meters”, cell towers and antennas, radars, wireless baby monitors, Bluetooth and other wireless devices which use the radio (RFs) and microwave (MWs) frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Symptoms from Electric sources – People who develop ES may also experience symptoms when they are exposed to non-wireless electric devices such as refrigerators, air conditions, hair dryers, power-lines which use the lower frequencies (ELFs) of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Humans are electric beings. Our brain, heart and nervous system are electric systems, they work using electric frequencies and pulses and emit EMFs. Therefore all humans are affected by external and manmade EMFs. We have been using EMF-based equipment for various medical treatments for decades because they have biological effects.  We are all in a way Electro-Sensitive, since radiation affects all of us. The difference is that people who develop the condition “ES” experience and can detect physiological reactions when they are exposed to radiation while those who are not yet ES are affected by it but do not feel the damage.

Once people develop the intolerance they may be reacting to extremely low levels of radiation and levels significantly lower than those emitted by wireless sources and from those they were able tolerate previously.

The first Symptoms people who develop ES usually experience are a tingling in their hands and pain and a feeling of heat in their head when using a cell phone. Common symptoms include headaches, sleep disturbances, a feeling of pressure in the head, heat in the face, pain in the ears, chest pressure, heart palpitations, nose bleeds, sinuses problems, dizziness, memory and cognitive problems, weakness and exhaustion, tinnitus, flu like symptoms that do not go away, nausea, muscle pain, a burning and twitching of the eyes, night sweats, noise and light sensitivity depression and anxiety. People may experience different symptoms from different radiation sources and the symptoms may change from one day to another and from one person to another.

The symptoms experienced by people with ES vary both in type and intensity. A person can be described as suffering from ES whether he has one symptom or many symptoms as long as the symptom can be correlated to exposure to EMFs. There are different levels of ES. For some it may be merely a nuisance and the sufferer will be able to continue and function within society. For others, the symptoms will be severe and disabling and they may be forced to leave their job, home and withdraw from society in a desperate search for a place without radiation, which is increasingly impossible to find. For stories on Canadians with ES, go to: https://www.c4st.org/es-stories/electro-sensitive-stories.html

The symptoms may appear every time there is an exposure or occasionally. They can appear immediately with exposure or after a prolonged exposure or hours after the exposure ended.

Children are a more vulnerable population to develop ES as their skulls are thinner, their nervous systems are still developing and their hormonal systems are changing. Many children develop the condition but most of them are not diagnosed. Some children who experience symptoms and can associate them to their cell phone or other wireless gadgets, hide them from their parents. It is likely that the increase in the rate of children suffering from ES is a result of the irresponsible and uncontrolled deployment of Wi-Fi in schools.

The most common first symptoms amongst children are pain in the head when using the cell phone, headaches, pain in the temples, noise sensitivity, exhaustion, nausea and vomiting, nose bleeds, deterioration in their school work as a result of  developing cognitive difficulties, memory problem and symptoms of ADD. Children may complain that it becomes difficult for them to follow the teacher and the material.

Physiological research shows that the symptoms experienced by people with ES are an indication of severe physiological injuries. Prof. Dominique Belpomme’s research which was published in 2015, examined 673 people with ES. The research found severe injuries including breakage of the Blood Brain Barrier, damage to the limbic system and the thalamus, oxidative stress, autoimmune damage and neurodegeneration (Belpomme et al 2015). Prof. Belpomme’s research started in 2008, and although the findings were not yet published, the data from the research was quoted by the Council of Europe in its 2011 opinion paper on wireless harms “The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment” as support to its determination that ES is a physiological condition of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and radiation (sections 8.1.4 & 22).

Many other published peer-reviewed studies found severe physiological injuries from radiation in people with ES including heart irregularities, damage to the autonomous nervous system regulation when exposed to RF (Wilén et al, 2006); effects on the heart rate, heart rate spectrum ratio spectrum, electrodermal activity and changes in alpha and theta spectral bands of EEG when exposed to magnetic fields (Lyskov et al 2001); reduced intracortical facilitation (Landgrebe et al, 2007) ; thyroid dysfunction, liver dysfunction and chronic inflammatory processes (Dahmen et al, 2009);  changes in (1) heart rate variability (2) microcirculation (capillary blood flow) which is analyzing the capacity of autonomous nervous activity (3) electric skin potentials (Tuengler et al 2013)

The mechanism of ES is not yet known but more papers with suggested potential mechanisms are being published (for example, Prof. Martin Pall’s paper form 2013) . Following the findings of Prof. Belmomme’s research (Belpomm et al 2015), it is possible that ES may not be one condition with one mechanism but a few separate conditions, all caused by exposure to EMFs and manifesting similar symptoms, but the type of injury and the mechanism of each injury is different. It is important to note that it is not necessary for a mechanism of a condition to be understood or proven in order for the condition to be recognized and diagnosed. We still do not know the physiological mechanism of many recognized conditions.

ES is a medically diagnosable condition. A substantial and increasing body of objective diagnostic tests and guidelines for the diagnosis and management of the condition exist.

In 2011 The Austrian Medical Association published Guidelines for the diagnosis of ES. The Guidelines rely on 3 principles (1) the ability of a person to correlate between cause and symptoms, which is the basis and important tool for every medical diagnosis (2) a list of objective diagnostic tests (3) the elimination of other potential causes. These guidelines have been adopted by doctors around the world.
New additional tests and bio-markers can be found in the research of Prof. Belpomme (Belpomme et al 2015) which was published in 2015. Additional scientific papers suggest bio-markers for the diagnostic of ES including metabolic and DNA testing (De Luca et al, 2014) and Prof. Von-Klitzing’s research (Tunegler & Von Klitzing 2013) showed that when some people with ES are exposed to radiation from cell phones, cordless phones and Wi-Fi changes can be recorded with their (1) heartrate variability (2) microcirculation (capillary blood flow) which is analyzing the capacity of autonomous nervous activity and (3) electric skin potentials. While such provocation tests that show immediate physiological changes as a result of exposure to radiation are ideal, these tests must be conducted in an environment clean from radiation which does not exist in normal medical facilities and is difficult to create.

The EMF Working Group of the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) is currently working on a comprehensive European EMF Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of ES and will include the recent findings and tests of Belpomme. The guidelines are in the final stages of editing and scheduled for publication soon.

In Canada, The Environmental Health clinic at  Toronto Women’s Hospital can  diagnosis and offer advice for the treatment of ES.  http://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/programs-and-services/environmental-health-clinic/

Family doctors should be able to diagnose ES reliably even without additional tests. The most important and elementary tool of diagnosis for a doctor is the ability of the patient to correlate between the cause and the manifestation of symptoms and the way the patient describes the symptoms. There are many conditions of which the mechanism is unknown and for which no diagnostic tests exist, such as the case of Migraines. Doctors diagnose Migraines only based on the way the patients are describing the headache. The same can and should be applied to ES. If a person feels pain in the head every time they use a cell phone, then clearly the cause of the pain is the cell phone. It is basic common sense especially if the person is credible and shows no psychological issues otherwise.

Accepting that a person feels a pain from their cell phones and that the cell phone may cause such pain is a matter of simple common sense and science. Not only are the symptoms of people with ES documented in the scientific literature (though unfortunately most doctors are unaware of them) but also it makes sense that such effects may occur. The radiation from cell phones and other manmade wireless sources is not “low” as it is often suggested. It is in fact a trillion times higher than the radiation in the natural environment in which we evolved. Since our brain, heart and nervous system are electric, external electric sources with such high levels of radiation will have an impact on our body and physiological electric system.

Currently there is no treatment for ES. People who develop the condition should take immediate steps to avoid exposure and if not possible, they should reduce exposure as much as possible. Research has shown that reduction of exposure is the most effective “treatment” (Hagström et al, 2013). The research also shows that psychogenic treatments and medications were much less effective than avoidance providing yet another proof that ES is a physiological condition not a psychogenic one and that any contention to the contrary is baseless.

ES is a widespread condition with the rate of people who suffer from it increasing rapidly. It is already in the scale of an epidemic. While the WHO in 2004 estimated the rate of ES in the population as 3%, , this estimation is based only on a couple of older surveys that were conducted before the massive proliferation of wireless technology. Surveys conducted by leading universities and institutions up to 2005 indicate a significantly higher rate with an average of 10%. Surveys in Germany found 9% (2005) 8% (2003), 6% (2002); in England 11% (2004); in Austria 7%-19% (2003); in Switzerland 5% (2005). A list with a reference to all the surveys that were conducted up to 2005 can be found in a paper by (Hallberg & Oberfeld 2006). The health minister of Norway also stated in 2013 that up to 10% of the population is suffering from ES. This data makes it clear that the attempt to suggest that those who suffer from the condition are a small fraction of the population that is “sensitive” and their response to radiation deviate from that of the general population are false.

Further, nowadays exposure to wireless radiation is no longer voluntary and radiation is everywhere which makes it harder for people to realize that the source of their symptoms is the radiation. Therefore, it is possible that the rates of ES are significantly higher than surveys may indicate.

Everyone can develop ES. People are not born with ES but develop it as a result of exposure to radiation from wireless sources. People usually get ES either by a one-time acute exposure (for example, acute exposure of cell tower antenna installers) or by chronic and cumulative exposure from normal exposure to wireless sources. As with other conditions a person may have a disposition towards a certain condition and therefore may develop it sooner than another person with the same exposure. The increasingly high prevalence of ES makes it clear that the attempts to suggest those who suffer from the condition are a small fraction of the population that is “sensitive” or that its response to radiation deviates from that of the general population are false.

Many studies conducted on the general population (not merely on people with ES) to evaluate potential health effects from exposure to radiation from cell towers, cell phones, smart meters and other wireless sources, indicate that many people in the general population (i.e., those who do not identify themselves as suffering from ES), are experiencing the same symptoms which people with ES report (Santini et al 2003). These findings suggest that many people are not aware that their symptoms result from exposure to wireless sources and therefore the rate of ES in the population is underestimated. These studies also indicate that if the levels of radiation continue to rise and assuming that the exposure of the population continues, the entire population may develop ES.

ES has been scientifically proven by numerous peer-reviewed, double-blinded studies including (1) subjective provocation studies (2) objective physiological provocation studies (3) physiological studies and (4) hundreds of studies which proved that the same symptoms reported by people with ES, and the physiological injuries suffered by people with ES, can result from exposure to radiation.

There are subjective studies which prove that some people with ES can detect radiation. For example, in 2011, a research led by Prof. Andrew Marino, one of the most prominent EMF scientists, proved that an ER doctor who suffers from ES can reliably detect EMFs. The authors determined that “EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome” (McCarty et al, 2011).

There are also numerous objective physiological provocation studies where people who suffer from ES were exposed to EMFs and the study recorded physiological manifestations resulting from the exposure. Scientifically, these are the more important studies, as they do not rely on the subjective perception of the subjects, but test objectively measured physiological changes. They also prove causation between the exposure to EMFs and the manifestation of physiological reactions and provide bio-markers for the diagnosis of ES.

Some of these studies have proven heart irregularities, damage to autonomous nervous system regulation from exposure to RF (Wilén et al, 2006); effects on the heart rate, heart rate spectrum ratio spectrum, electrodermal activity and changes in alpha and theta spectral bands of EEG when exposed to magnetic fields (Lyskov et al 2001); reduced intracortical facilitation (Landgrebe et al, 2007) ; thyroid dysfunction, liver dysfunction and chronic inflammatory processes (Dahmen et al, 2009);  changes in (1) heart rate variability (2) microcirculation (capillary blood flow) which is analyzing the capacity of autonomous nervous activity (3) electric skin potentials (Tuengler et al 2013).

ES has been recognized by international organizations including the European Parliament (2009) as part of a resolution on EMFs and Health which passed with a majority of 559 to 22 , and the Council of Europe (2011). In a report titled “The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment” following an extensive and unbiased investigation, the Council concluded that “…A syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields (SIEMF) does exist and that those people are not feigning illness or suffering from psychiatric disorders”.

The WHO in 2005 recognized ES is a real condition and wrote that “symptoms are certainly real…Some studies suggest that certain physiological responses of IEI individuals tend to be outside the normal range. In particular, the findings of hyper reactivity in the central nervous system and misbalance in the autonomic nervous system need to be followed up in clinical investigations and the results for the individuals taken as input for possible treatment.” Nevertheless, the WHO concluded that correlation to EMFs was not established. The report is a sham, contaminated by industry involvement. Even if it contained some specks of truth, recent scientific advances, human evidence and the recognition by courts and important international organizations prove it has been rendered obsolete.

Amongst countries which recognized ES is Russia who acknowledged ES as far back as the 60s when it was called “microwave sickness”. Sweden recognized ES in 2000. In 2011 a Spanish Court recognized that a University Prof. suffered from ES and awarded her disability. In 2014 the German Supreme Court of Administrative Litigation recognized that a person suffered from ES as a result of exposure to radiation while in the army. Recently, in 2015, a French Court determined that a woman suffered from an “Allergy to Wi-Fi” and awarded her disability payments. In 2015 the Israeli Supreme Court rejected a petition to ban Wi-Fi in schools. Following the presentation of evidence of children who suffer from ES, the court wrote that it expects the government to follow its own words and accommodate children who may suffer from sensitivity to RF. Furthermore it stated that if the government would not act accordingly, then “the doors of the court are open for the Plaintiffs to sue”. The head of the Radiation Department in the Israeli Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also admitted that “there are children who suffer from ES”. In 2014, the Attorney Generals of the cities of Boston and Philadelphia in the US, wrote to the Federal Communication Commission regarding its policy on EMR and its obsolete safety standards and demanded the protection of the rights of people who suffer from ES.

The Canadian Human Rights commission recognizes ES and states those living with environmental sensitivities are entitled to the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.

Here is the policy statement
Here is the medical perspective
Here is the legal perspective

Canada’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health dedicated three sessions to hearing expert testimony regarding Health Canada’s  safety guidelines for wireless technology. Their final report, tabled to the Canadian Parliament in June, 2015, received support from all parties. Six of its twelve recommendations were related to ES. The report can be found here.

Specific studies can be found here

Belpomme et al, 2015, Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0027.
Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder.
The study examined 1216 ES and MCS patients clinically and biologically in the hope of finding recognized clinical criteria and objective biomarkers for diagnosis. The research regarding ES examined 521 people with ES and 152 people who both ES and CMS so a total of 673 ES people. Findings: The data strongly suggest that EHS and MCS can be objectively characterized and routinely diagnosed by commercially available simple tests. Both disorders appear to involve inflammation-related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune response, capsulothalamic hypoperfusion and BBB opening, and a deficit in melatonin metabolic availability; suggesting a risk of chronic neurodegenerative disease. Finally the common co-occurrence of EHS and MCS strongly suggests a common pathological mechanism.

Wilén et al, 2006, Bioelectromagnetics. 2006 Apr;27(3):204-14.
Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms.
The study investigates the effect of a 30 minute exposure to a mobile phone-like radiofrequency (RF) on 20 ES people and 20 people of a control group. The following physiological and cognitive parameters were measured during the experiment: heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV), respiration, local blood flow, electrodermal activity, critical flicker fusion threshold (CFFT), short-term memory, and reaction time. Findings: The reaction time was significantly longer among the ES the test was performed. This difference disappeared when the test was repeated. ES differed significantly from the controls with respect to HRV. The cases displayed a shift in low/high frequency ratio towards a sympathetic dominance in the autonomous nervous system during the CFFT and memory tests, regardless of exposure condition. This might be interpreted as a sign of differences in the autonomous nervous system regulation between persons with ES.

Lyskov et al, 2001, Int J Psychophysiol. 2001 Nov;42(3):233-41.
Neurophysiological study of patients with perceived ‘electrical hypersensitivity’.
The study investigated baseline neurophysiological characteristics of the central and autonomous regulation and their reactivity to different tests in ES in 20 ES people who suffer from neuroasthenic symptoms (general fatigue, weakness, dizziness, headache) and facial skin (itching, tingling, redness). An equal number of symptom-free persons served as a control group. The examination comprised of self-reported measures, testing of visual functions, measurements of blood pressure, heart rate and its variability, electrodermal activity, respiration, EEG and visual evoked potentials (VEP).. Findings: Several variables were found to differ between the patients and the control groups. The mean value of the heart rate in rest condition was higher in the ES. Heart rate variability and response to the standing test were decreased in the ES. ES had faster onset, higher amplitudes, and left-right hand asymmetry of the sympathetic skin responses. They had a higher critical fusion frequency (43 vs. 40 Hz), and a trend to increased amplitude of steady-state VEPs at stimulation frequencies of 30-70 Hz. The data indicated that the observed group of patients had a trend to hyper sympathotone, hyperresponsiveness to sensor stimulation and heightened arousal.

Landgrebe et al, 2007, Journal of Psychosomatic Research 62 (2007) 283-288
Altered cortical excitability in subjectively electrosensitive patients: Results of a pilot study
The aim of the study was to understand the potential role of dysfunctional cortical regulations in ES. Cortical excitability parameters were measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation. 23 ES were tested with 2 control groups of a total of 49 people Findings: ES patients showed reduced intracortical facilitation as compared to both control groups, while motor thresholds and intracortical inhibition were unaffected. This pilot study gives additional evidence that an altered central nervous system function may account for symptom manifestation in ES as has been postulated for several chronic multisymptom illnesses sharing a similar clustering of symptoms.

Dahmen et al, 2009, Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 May;30(4):299-306.
Blood laboratory findings in patients suffering from self-perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
The study hypothesized that some ES people are suffering from common somatic health problems and aimed at finding routinely used laboratory tests in clinical medicine to identify or screen for common somatic disorders.  The study was done on 132 ES people and 101 controls. The study analyzed clinical laboratory parameters including thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), creatinine, hemoglobine, hematocrit and c-reactive protein (CRP). Findings: The results identified laboratory signs of thyroid dysfunction, liver dysfunction and chronic inflammatory processes in small but remarkable fractions of ES sufferers

Tuengler & Von Klitzing, 2013, Electromagn Biol Med. 2013 Sep;32(3):281-90.
Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
The paper addresses reasons why most provocation studies could not find any association between EMF exposure and EHS and presents a hypothesis of three potential bio-markers for diagnosis of ES using simultaneous recordings of (1) heartrate variability (2) microcirculation (capillary blood flow) which is analyzing the capacity of autonomous nervous activity and (3) electric skin potentials. Prof. Klitzing tested about 100 ES people using these bio-markers and provides some reference to his un-published data within this paper.

Pall, 2013, J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65.
Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects
The direct targets of extremely low and microwave frequency range electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in producing non-thermal effects have not been clearly established. However, studies in the literature, reviewed here, provide substantial support for such direct targets. Twenty-three studies have shown that voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) produce these and other EMF effects, such that the L-type or other VGCC blockers block or greatly lower diverse EMF effects. Furthermore, the voltage-gated properties of these channels may provide biophysically plausible mechanisms for EMF biological effects. Downstream responses of such EMF exposures may be mediated through Ca(2+) /calmodulin stimulation of nitric oxide synthesis. Potentially, physiological/therapeutic responses may appear largely as a result of nitric oxide-cGMP-protein kinase G pathway stimulation. A well-studied example of such an apparent therapeutic response, EMF stimulation of bone growth, appears to work along this pathway. However, pathophysiological responses to EMFs may be as a result of the nitric oxide-peroxynitrite-oxidative stress pathway of action. A single such well-documented example, EMF induction of DNA single-strand breaks in cells, as measured by alkaline comet assays, is reviewed here. Such single-strand breaks are known to be produced through the action of this pathway. Data on the mechanism of EMF induction of such breaks are limited; what data is available support this proposed mechanism. Other Ca(2+) -mediated regulatory changes, independent of nitric oxide, may also have roles. This article reviews, then, a substantially supported set of targets, VGCCs, whose stimulation produces non-thermal EMF responses by humans/higher animals with downstream effects involving Ca(2+) /calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide increases, which may explain therapeutic and pathophysiological effects.

Hagström et al, 2013, Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):117-22.
Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: Symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study.
The study analyzed the subjective experiences of 206 Finns who suffer from ES, including their symptoms, self-perceived sources of the health complaints and the effectiveness of medical and complementary alternative therapies. Findings: During the acute phase of ES the most common symptoms were nervous system related:  stress, sleeping disorders and fatigue. Reduction of exposure was reported by 76% to be the most effective in the reduction of their symptoms and improvement in their condition. . The official treatment recommendations of psychotherapy (2.6%) and medication (-4.2%) were not significantly helpful.
Hallberg O, Oberfeld G, 2006, Electromagn Biol Med 2006; 25 (3): 189 – 191
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/EHS2006_HallbergOberfeld.pdf (Full paper)
Letter to the editor: will we all become Electrosensitive?
The paper provides a list of all surveys that were conducted to estimate the rate of ES in the population and therefore it is valuable. The paper indicates that ES is not a condition suffered by a small fraction of the population, that it is widespread and that the extrapolated data shows a trend that suggests that 50% of the population may become electrosensitive by the year 2017.

Santini et al, 2003, Electromagn Biol Med 2003; 22 (1): 41 – 49
Survey study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations.
A survey study was conducted, using a questionnaire, on 530 people living or not in proximity to cellular phone base stations. Eighteen different symptoms described as radiofrequency sickness (ES), were studied by means of the chi‐square test with Yates correction. Findings: Certain complaints are experienced only in the immediate vicinity of base stations (up to 10 m for nausea, loss of appetite, visual disturbances), and others at greater distances from base stations (up to 100 m for irritability, depressive tendencies, lowering of libido, and up to 200 m for headaches, sleep disturbances, feeling of discomfort). In the 200 m to 300 m zone, only the complaint of fatigue is experienced significantly more often when compared with subjects residing at more than 300 m or not exposed (reference group). For seven of the studied symptoms and for the distance up to 300 m, the frequency of the reported complaints is significantly higher for women in comparison to men. Significant differences are also observed in relation to the ages of the subjects, and of the subject’s location in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors.

McCarty et al, 2011,  Int J Neurosci. 2011 Dec;121(12):670-6.
http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/171-IntJNeurosci2011.pdf (full paper)
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome.
The objective of the study was to provide evidence that acute exposure to environmental-strength electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could induce somatic reactions (EMF hypersensitivity). Methods: The subject, a female physician selfdiagnosed with EMF hypersensitivity, was exposed to an average (over the head) 60-Hz electric field of 300 V/m (comparable with typical environmental-strength EMFs) during controlled provocation and behavioral studies. Findings: In a double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize unintentional sensory cues, the subject developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 1 00 s after initiation of EMF exposure (p < .05). The symptoms were caused primarily by field transitions (off-on, on-off) rather than the presence of the field, as assessed by comparing the frequency and severity of the effects of pulsed and continuous fields in relation to sham exposure. The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs under conditions that reasonably excluded a causative role for psychological processes. Conclusion: EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally .