This study is one of the many that are conveniently ignored by people who say electromagnetic field sensitivity is psychological, not biological/physical.
Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity
William J. Rea, MD, FACS
Environmental Health Center, Dallas
8345 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 205
Dallas, TX 75231
Yaqin Pan, MD
Dept. of Allergy, Beijing Union Medical College Hospital Beijing, PRC
Ervin J. Yenyves, PhD
Dept. of Physics, University of Texas at Dallas
Iehiko Sujisawa, MD. and Hideo Suyama, MD
Dept. of Ophthamology, Kitasato University Kitasato, Japan
Nasrola Samadi, PhD
Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Florida
Gerald H. Ross, M.D., CCFP
Environmental Health Center, Dallas
http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html
This article was first published in 1991 in the Journal of Bioelectricity, 10(1&2), 241-256. Figure 1is not included here, but can be obtained by writing Dr. W. J. Rea at the Environmental Health Center, Dallas, 8345 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 205, Dallas, TX 75231.
Abstract
A multiphase study was performed to find an effective method to evaluate electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivity of patients. The first phase developed criteria for controlled testing using an environment low in chemical, particulate, and EMF pollution. Monitoring devices were used in an effort to ensure that extraneous EMF would not interfere with the tests. A second phase involved a single-blind challenge of 100 patients who complained of EMF sensitivity to a series of fields ranging from 0 to 5 MHz in frequency, plus 5 blank challenges. Twenty-five patients were found who were sensitive to the fields, but did not react to the blanks. These were compared in the third phase to 25 healthy naive volunteer controls. None of the volunteers reacted to any challenge, active or blank, but 16 of the EMF-sensitive patients (64%) had positive signs and symptoms scores, plus autonomic nervous system changes. In the fourth phase, the 16 EMF-sensitive patients wer rechallengd twice to the frequencies to which they were most sensitive during the previous challenge. The active frequency was found to be positive in 100% of the challenges, while all of the placebo tests were negative. We concluded that this study gives strong evidence that electromagnetic field sensitivity exists, and can be elicited under environmentally controlled conditions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friday, May 20, 2011
Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity proven in 1991 study
This study is one of the many that are conveniently ignored by people who say electromagnetic field sensitivity is psychological, not biological/physical.
Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity
William J. Rea, MD, FACS
Environmental Health Center, Dallas
8345 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 205
Dallas, TX 75231
Yaqin Pan, MD
Dept. of Allergy, Beijing Union Medical College Hospital Beijing, PRC
Ervin J. Yenyves, PhD
Dept. of Physics, University of Texas at Dallas
Iehiko Sujisawa, MD. and Hideo Suyama, MD
Dept. of Ophthamology, Kitasato University Kitasato, Japan
Nasrola Samadi, PhD
Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Florida
Gerald H. Ross, M.D., CCFP
Environmental Health Center, Dallas
http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html
This article was first published in 1991 in the Journal of Bioelectricity, 10(1&2), 241-256. Figure 1is not included here, but can be obtained by writing Dr. W. J. Rea at the Environmental Health Center, Dallas, 8345 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 205, Dallas, TX 75231.
Abstract
A multiphase study was performed to find an effective method to evaluate electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivity of patients. The first phase developed criteria for controlled testing using an environment low in chemical, particulate, and EMF pollution. Monitoring devices were used in an effort to ensure that extraneous EMF would not interfere with the tests. A second phase involved a single-blind challenge of 100 patients who complained of EMF sensitivity to a series of fields ranging from 0 to 5 MHz in frequency, plus 5 blank challenges. Twenty-five patients were found who were sensitive to the fields, but did not react to the blanks. These were compared in the third phase to 25 healthy naive volunteer controls. None of the volunteers reacted to any challenge, active or blank, but 16 of the EMF-sensitive patients (64%) had positive signs and symptoms scores, plus autonomic nervous system changes. In the fourth phase, the 16 EMF-sensitive patients wer rechallengd twice to the frequencies to which they were most sensitive during the previous challenge. The active frequency was found to be positive in 100% of the challenges, while all of the placebo tests were negative. We concluded that this study gives strong evidence that electromagnetic field sensitivity exists, and can be elicited under environmentally controlled conditions.
Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity
William J. Rea, MD, FACS
Environmental Health Center, Dallas
8345 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 205
Dallas, TX 75231
Yaqin Pan, MD
Dept. of Allergy, Beijing Union Medical College Hospital Beijing, PRC
Ervin J. Yenyves, PhD
Dept. of Physics, University of Texas at Dallas
Iehiko Sujisawa, MD. and Hideo Suyama, MD
Dept. of Ophthamology, Kitasato University Kitasato, Japan
Nasrola Samadi, PhD
Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Florida
Gerald H. Ross, M.D., CCFP
Environmental Health Center, Dallas
http://www.aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html
This article was first published in 1991 in the Journal of Bioelectricity, 10(1&2), 241-256. Figure 1is not included here, but can be obtained by writing Dr. W. J. Rea at the Environmental Health Center, Dallas, 8345 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 205, Dallas, TX 75231.
Abstract
A multiphase study was performed to find an effective method to evaluate electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivity of patients. The first phase developed criteria for controlled testing using an environment low in chemical, particulate, and EMF pollution. Monitoring devices were used in an effort to ensure that extraneous EMF would not interfere with the tests. A second phase involved a single-blind challenge of 100 patients who complained of EMF sensitivity to a series of fields ranging from 0 to 5 MHz in frequency, plus 5 blank challenges. Twenty-five patients were found who were sensitive to the fields, but did not react to the blanks. These were compared in the third phase to 25 healthy naive volunteer controls. None of the volunteers reacted to any challenge, active or blank, but 16 of the EMF-sensitive patients (64%) had positive signs and symptoms scores, plus autonomic nervous system changes. In the fourth phase, the 16 EMF-sensitive patients wer rechallengd twice to the frequencies to which they were most sensitive during the previous challenge. The active frequency was found to be positive in 100% of the challenges, while all of the placebo tests were negative. We concluded that this study gives strong evidence that electromagnetic field sensitivity exists, and can be elicited under environmentally controlled conditions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment