Abstract
In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity is recognized as a functional impairment which implies only the environment as the culprit. The Swedish view provides persons with this impairment a maximal legal protection, it gives them the right to get accessibility measures for free, as well as governmental subsidies and municipality economic support, and to provide them with special Ombudsmen (at the municipality, the EU, and the UN level, respectively), the right and economic means to form disability organizations and allow these to be part of national and international counterparts, all with the simple and single aim to allow persons with the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity to live an equal life in a society based on equality. They are not seen as patients, the do not have an overriding medical diagnosis, but the ‘patient’ is only the inferior and potentially toxic environment. 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.
Acknowledgments
Supported by the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, and a grant from Mr. Einar Rasmussen, Kristiansand S, Norway. Mr. Brian Stein, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, UK, the Irish Campaign against Microwave Pollution, and the Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA; Cumann Comhshaoil Dhoctuirı na hEireann) are gratefully acknowledged for their general support.
References
1. Miljöhälsorapport 2001, The National Board of Health and Welfare (in Swedish; ISBN: 91-7201-495-4).Search in Google Scholar
2. DIVS: 2000:839; ISBN: 92-893-0559-2, http://www.nordclass.se/ICD-10_Nordic%20Occupational_2000.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
3. The Swedish Association for the Electrohypersensitive (http://www.feb.nu; http://www.feb.se; the website has an English version).Search in Google Scholar
4. HSO, Handikappförbundens SamarbetsOrgan; http://www.hso.se.Search in Google Scholar
5. UN 22 Standard Rules/UN Convention, see website: http://www.un.org.Search in Google Scholar
6. The Swedish Action Plan for Persons with Impairments (“Den nationella handlingplanen för handikappolitiken – Från patient till medborgare”; Proposition 1999/2000:79, bet. 1999/2000:SoU14).Search in Google Scholar
7. Sydsvenskan, January 23-26, 2009; http://sydsvenskan.se/chattarkiv/article408013.ece.Search in Google Scholar
8. Petrov IR, editor. Influence of Microwave Radiation on the Organism of Man and Animals. Report from Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR. Translated to English “Vliyaniye SVChIzlucheniya na Organizm Cheloveka I Zhivotnykh”. Meditsina Press, Leningrad, 1970. Report from NASA TT F-708, Springfield, Virginia.Search in Google Scholar
9. Nordström G, von Schéele C. Sjuk av bildskärm, Tidens Förlag, 1989, ISBN 91-550-3484-5.Search in Google Scholar
10. Nordström G, von Schéele C. Fälslaget om de elöverkänsliga, Tidens Förlag, 1995, ISBN 91-550-4083-7.Search in Google Scholar
11. Nordström G. Mörkläggning – Elektronikens rättslösa offer, Hjalmarson & Högberg Förlag, 2000, ISBN 91-89080-41-6.Search in Google Scholar
12. Johansson O, Hilliges M, Björnhagen V, Hall K. Skin changes in patients claiming to suffer from “screen dermatitis”: a two-case open-field provocation study. Exp Dermatol 1994;3:234–8.10.1111/j.1600-0625.1994.tb00282.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Johansson O, Liu P-Y. “Electrosensitivity”, “electrosupersensitivity” and “screen dermatitis”: preliminary observations from on-going studies in the human skin. In: Simunic D, editor. Proceedings of the COST 244: Biomedical Effects of Electromagnetic Fields – Workshop on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. Brussels/Graz: EU/EC (DG XIII), 1995;52–7.Search in Google Scholar
14. Hillert L, Berglind N, Arnetz BB, Bellander T. Prevalence of self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a population based questionnaire survey. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002;28:33–41.10.5271/sjweh.644Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the art of a functional impairment. Electromagn Biol Med 2006;25:245–58.10.1080/15368370601044150Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Schröttner J, Leitgeb N. Sensitivity to electricity-temporal changes in Austria. BMC Public Health 2008;8:310.10.1186/1471-2458-8-310Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
17. Schreier N, Huss A, Röösli M. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzland. Soz Praventivmed 2006;51:202–9.10.1007/s00038-006-5061-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Levallois P, Neutra R, Lee G, Histova L. Study of self reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environ Health Perspect 2002;110:619–23.10.1289/ehp.02110s4619Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Sears ME. The Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Human Rights Commission 2007.Search in Google Scholar
20. Meg Tseng MC, Lin YP, Cheng TJ. Prevalence and psychiatric comorbidity of self-reported electromagnetic field sensitivity in Taiwan: a population-based study. J Formos Med Assoc 2011;110:634–41.10.1016/j.jfma.2011.08.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Hilliges M, Wang L, Johansson O. Ultrastructural evidence for nerve fibers within all vital layers of the human epidermis. J Invest Dermatol 1995;104:134–7.10.1111/1523-1747.ep12613631Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Johansson O, Wang L, Hilliges M, Liang Y. Intraepidermal nerves in human skin: PGP 9.5 immunohistochemistry with special reference to the nerve density in skin from different body regions. J Peripher Nerv Syst 1999;4:43–52.Search in Google Scholar
23. Wang L, Hilliges M, Jernberg T, Wiegleb-Edstrom D, Johansson O. Protein gene product 9.5-immunoreactive nerve fibres and cells in human skin. Cell Tiss Res 1990;261:25–33.10.1007/BF00329435Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Johansson O, Gangi S, Liang Y, Yoshimura K, Jing C, et al. Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs – results from open-field provocation experiments. J Cutan Pathol 2001;28:513–9.10.1034/j.1600-0560.2001.281004.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Johansson O, Hilliges M, Han SW. A screening of skin changes, with special emphasis on neurochemical marker antibody evaluation, in patients claiming to suffer from screen dermatitis as compared to normal healthy controls. Exp Dermatol 1996;5:279–85.10.1111/j.1600-0625.1996.tb00130.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Johansson O. Elöverkänslighet samt överkänslighet mot mobiltelefoner: Resultat från en dubbel-blind provokationsstudie av metodstudiekaraktär (=Electrohypersensitivity and sensitivity to mobile telephones: Results from a double-blind provocation study of pilot character, in Swedish), Enheten för Experimentell Dermatologi, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Rapport nr. 2, 1995, ISSN 1400-6111 (First study on humans).Search in Google Scholar
27. Gangi S, Johansson O. Skin changes in “screen dermatitis” versus classical UV- and ionizing irradiation-related damage – similarities and differences. Two neuroscientists’ speculative review. Exp Dermatol 1997;6:283–91.10.1111/j.1600-0625.1997.tb00174.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Gangi S, Johansson O. A theoretical model based upon mast cells and histamine to explain the recently proclaimed sensitivity to electric and/or magnetic fields in humans. Med Hypotheses 2000;54:663–71.10.1054/mehy.1999.0923Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29. Hallberg Ö, Johansson O. Melanoma incidence and frequency modulation (FM) broadcasting. Arch Environ Health 2002;57:32–40.10.1080/00039890209602914Search in Google Scholar PubMed
30. Hallberg Ö, Johansson O. Malignant melanoma of the skin – not a sunshine story! Med Sci Monit 2004;10:CR336–40.Search in Google Scholar
31. Hallberg Ö, Johansson O. Mobile handset output power and health. Electromag Biol Med 2004;23:229–39.10.1081/JBC-200044239Search in Google Scholar
32. Hallberg Ö, Johansson O. Alzheimer mortality – why does it increase so fast in sparsely populated areas? Europ Biol Bioelectromag 2005;1:225–46.Search in Google Scholar
33. Hallberg Ö, Johansson O. Apparent decreases in Swedish public health indicators after 1997 – are they due to improved diagnostics or to environmental factors? Pathophysiology 2009;16:43–6.10.1016/j.pathophys.2008.12.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Hallberg Ö, Johansson O, Horst E. A melanoma trend forecast from 2002 – what happened then? Electromagn Biol Med 2015;21:1–3.Search in Google Scholar
35. Belpoggi F, Blackman CF, Blank M, Bobkova N, Boella F, et al. Benevento Resolution 2006. Electromag Biol Med 2006;25:197–200.10.1080/15368370601034003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
36. Blackman CF, Blank M, Kundi M, Sage C, Carpenter DO, et al. The Bioinitiative Report – A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). 2007, http://www.bioinitiative.org.Search in Google Scholar
37. Avino P, d’Alessandro A, Bedini A, Belyaev I, Belpoggi F, et al. The Venice Resolution 2008, http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm.Search in Google Scholar
38. Johansson O. The London Resolution. Pathophysiology 2009;16:247–8.10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.03.005Search in Google Scholar
39. Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, et al. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Scientific Meeting: Seletun, Norway, November 17-21, 2009. Rev Environ Health 2010;25:307–17.Search in Google Scholar
40. Dämvik M, Johansson O. Health risk assessment of electromagnetic fields: a conflict between the precautionary principle and environmental medicine methodology. Rev Environ Health 2010;25:325–33.10.1515/REVEH.2010.25.4.325Search in Google Scholar PubMed
41. Hagström M, Auranen J, Johansson O, Ekman R. Reducing electromagnetic irradiation and fields alleviates experienced health hazards of VDU work. Pathophysiology 2012;19:81–7.10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.01.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
42. Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R. Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology 2013;20:117–22.10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.02.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
43. Holmboe G, Johansson O. Symptombeskrivning samt förekomst av IgE och positiv Phadiatop Combi hos personer med funktionsnedsättningen elöverkänslighet (=Description of symptoms as well as occurrence of IgE and positive Phadiatop Combi in persons with the physical impairment electrohypersensitivity, in Swedish). Medicinsk Access 2005;1:58–63.Search in Google Scholar
44. Lindberg E-R. Building planning for persons with the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity – a project in the voltage field between belief and knowledge (in Swedish with English summaries). Doctoral Dissertation, The Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, and the Karolinska Institute, Department of Neuroscience, Stockholm, Sweden, 2011, http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:455407.Search in Google Scholar
45. Kato Y, Johansson O. Reported functional impairments of electrohypersensitive Japanese: a questionnaire survey. Pathophysiology 2012;19:95–100.10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.02.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
46. Kato Y, Johansson O. The situation of electrohypersensitivity: Symptoms, EMF sources, economic and social problems, and precautionary approach. Jap J Clin Ecol 2012;21:123–30.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
