Why electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a biologically expected reaction to harmful radiation
By Peter Hensinger, Bernd I. Budzinski. Extracts from an article published in umwelt · medizin · gesellschaft | 37 | 2-2024
Peter Limbrick writes: The following extracts from the scientific paper demonstrate the reality of damage to the human organism from mobile phone radiation. On a personal note, when I get an overdose of radiation from phones, wi-fi and all the other gadgets, I suffer a seriously debilitating brain fog and then disturbed sleep for a couple of nights. This is serious enough for me to try to live a life without radiation as far as possible. I hope readers will consider if any of their ailments or illnesses could be caused by this radiation. Here is a website I have found useful: https://www.es-uk.info/
Introductory paragraph
Is electrohypersensitivity (EHS), caused by mobile phone radiation, a fact or all in the imagination? It is comprehensible why the mobile phone industry declares this illness to be imaginary. It would be damaging to their business if their pro-ducts were associated with the consequences of illness. However, the authorities responsible for health and radiation protection also claim that EHS is a psychological, anxiety-induced reaction. They deny connections with radiation expo-sure and claim that there is no underlying cause-and-effect mechanism. The available evidence for this correlation and the requirement for causality as a prerequisite for the recognition of a disease are the subject of this article, as are the reasons for discrimination against people with electrohypersensitivity.
Conclusion 1
There is a science-based explanation as to why people become electrohypersensitive: The non-ionising radiation from wireless communication leads to oxidative cell stress, this is undisputed in science. Oxidative cell stress leads to inflammatory pro-cesses in the organism. It would be abnormal if people with corresponding pre-existing conditions did not feel these changes or were not affected by them. It is therefore plausible that these processes lead to symptoms of illness in some of the population.
Conclusion 2
The claim that electrohypersensitivity cannot exist because the limit values protect against the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields is used to market digital products. The ICNIRP limits are scientifically untenable. The argument of a lack of causality is being instrumentalized to undermine the precautionary principle and thus a protection policy.
Conclusion 3
The discussion about electrohypersensitivity must be demystified. The effects of non-ionising radiation on the metabolism in the organism have been proven by over a thousand studies. These effects, triggered by EMF, are felt by people with electrohypersensitivity. The arguments used to cast doubt on electrohypersensitivity are not based on medical-biological facts, but on business interests and expert opinions of convenience. It is damaging to the industry’s business if its products are associated with the consequences of illness. It created the “mental disorder” narrative, a marketing story to protect its products. The authorities continue to spread it and ignore the medical causes. With the sale of mobile phone licence fees of 55 billion euros since 2001, the state has committed itself to promoting mobile technology and sold health.
Conclusion 4
The protection of the population and the protection of minorities for people with electrohypersensitivity require a precautionary policy, i.e. the education of consumers about risks, the possibilities of avoiding them, the implementation of the various technical possibilities for minimising radiation and the development of transmission technologies that are harmless to health. For medical and ecological reasons, the last wireless gaps must be preserved and even new “ mobile communication-free protection zones “ created in accordance with the recommendation of the Technology Assessment Committee (TAB) of the German Parliament - as planned in the Rhön biosphere reserve. Electrohypersensitivity must be recognised as an illness.
Authors
Peter Hensinger M.A., member of the board of diagnose:funk
Bernd I. Budzinski, former administrative judge
Paper: https://rfinfo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Hensinger_2024_Electrohypersensivity.pdf
Available also in the original German.
