Review of Economic & Social Research Institute (ESRI) – Report Series No. 126 August 2024: Public Perceptions of Electromagnetic Fields and Environmental Health Risks
TO ESRI:
A considerable number of concerns were expressed about the method used, content and misconceptions within this study that may be wrongly assumed to be correct by policymakers for whom this ESRI report has been produced. This review has been written in order to address, correct and expand on identified issues and misconceptions.
The ESRI study is ultimately concerned with the public perception of health and environmental risks from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF EMF), which includes the energy, transmissions and emissions generated by telecommunications masts, antennae and wireless devices such as ‘smartphones’, ‘smart’ meters, wireless baby monitors etc. This particular objective was made covert within a number of potential environmental hazards. The apparent purpose of the study is to assist policymakers in the important process of decision-making.
The field of psychology was chosen as a basis for the study, a psychometric method of ‘behavioural science’ was used i.e. a framework mainly concerned with subjective differences of risk perception that people can have. The Open Science Framework employed for the study set a questionable scientific foundation for the study in its statement “We expect risk perception for EMF to be lower amongst those who demonstrate higher comprehension of RF EMF.” The study was activated through an online survey.
As the study was activated online it inadvertently excluded the growing percentage of the population who are adversely affected by RF EMF and therefore are unable to, or have difficulties accessing or spending time on mobile phones, tablets, laptops or computers. Intolerance to RF EMF can result in a range of symptoms and conditions, collectively known as Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome (EMR-S) (previously called Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) or Microwave Sickness). This is characterised by a variety of effects both acute and chronic including headaches, pain, anxiety, paraesthesia, sleep disturbance, fatigue, dizziness, ‘microwave hearing’, heart irregularities, and cognitive disturbance. Prolonged exposure to RF EMF can result in cardiovascular, central nervous system and neurological illnesses. The BioInitiative Report, compiled by a group of highly qualified medical professionals and other experts who work in Bioelectrics provides an explanation on EMR-S and a summary of potential effects: https://bioinitiative.org/ The growing number of EMR-S sufferers is recognised in the European Economic and Social Committees (EESC) report: Digitalisation: Challenges for Europe (2019), Page 85, which estimates that 3% to 5% of the population are affected i.e. 13 million people across Europe:
It is surprising that our own Government does not openly recognise EMR-S given that The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Electromagnetic Fields) Regulations 2016 makes references to effects of RF EMF such as ‘stimulation of muscles, nerves or sensory organs’. It goes on to say ‘These [effects] might have a detrimental effect on the mental and physical health of exposed employees. The stimulation of sensory organs may lead to transient symptoms … and may thereby affect the ability of an employee to work safely.’ Ref: S.I. No 337 of 2016.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/si/337/made/en/print
The World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC) classified RF EMF as a group 2B possible carcinogen: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 102, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, page 419 https://publications.iarc.fr/126 (2013)
The authors of the ESRI study state that ‘there is no scientific evidence that EMFs lead to negative health outcomes’ (Executive Summary vii). Obviously, this is wholly untrue given the amount of independent scientific research currently available and the growing number of people affected. The authors advise that even ‘the simple act of asking’ a question about RF EMF can create an impression that there may be negative effects’ (page 3). For many years people whose health is adversely affected have noted that the field of Psychology has been utilized to label them as experiencing a ‘Nocebo’ effect by linking their claim of EMR-S to the act of accessing information about negative RF EMF effects on media sources. Given the numerous scientific studies available regarding the negative effects of this radiation on plants, animals and insects, all of which obviously do not access media of any kind, the clear evidence of negative effects on all living things cannot be doubted. Understanding EHS and its mechanisms is quite difficult to explain in a short document but the rationale for EMR-S is provided in the following report:
Why Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a biologically expected reaction to Harmful Radiation by Peter Hensinger, Bernd I. Budzinski (2024): https://ehtrust.org/why-electrohypersensitivity-ehs-is-a-biologically-expected-reaction-to-harmful-radiation/
The effects on insects, animals and plants are starkly made known in a report published by biologist Ulrich Warnke with an advisory Board of five Professors and two Doctors who are all involved in the field of Bioelectrics. Bees, Birds and Mankind, Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’ https://www.naturalscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/kompetenzinitiative-ev_study_bees-birds-and-mankind_04-08_english.pdf
The ESRI study demonstrates that (a) only 2.7% of respondents recognised RF EMF as a hazard, (b) the ‘daily relevance’ of RF EMF generated very low ratings and (c), few individuals perceived RF EMF as a risk either to human or environmental health. (Executive Summary vii). On a practical level participants whose tech devices were constantly receiving and transmitting information in order to take part in this study were unlikely to perceive any risk from that activity but it does raise questions about their level of personal awareness regarding RF EMF radiation. Obviously, if the public are not made aware of potential health effects, the relevance of risk will remain low. The European Parliamentary Assembly and Council of Europe generated a Resolution to encourage governments to inform citizens of the potential dangers of RF EMF. This vital information was never shared with the people of Ireland, despite noted potential effects on foetuses and children, whose bodies and brains are still in the process of developing.
EU Parliamentary Assembly and Council of Europe – Resolution No. 1815: The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment (2011) https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&lang=en
The survey describes RF EMF as a ‘relatively benign hazard,’ which is not only a misconception but is derogatory to those who suffer the consequential biological effects on a 24/7/365 basis. The debilitating effects of living in this inhospitable environment can result in an inability to participate in society on an equal basis with others. The scientific community have been aware that RF EMF can affect living things possibly going back to the 1930s. The Electrosensitivity UK (ES-UK) group publishes an Overview on their webpage: www.es-uk.info.
Thousands of current independent scientific reports refute the notion that RF EMF is a ‘relatively benign hazard’ e.g. The National Toxicology Program (NTP), Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation, a decade long study, found a clear correlation between mobile phone RF EMF radiation exposure and two types of Cancer (glioma and schwannoma) as well as DNA damage: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones#:~:text=NTP%20Studies%20%26%20Findings,%E2%80%932700%20megahertz%20(MHz).
Conclusions in the NTP coincided with An ICEMS Monograph by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy on Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction between Electromagnetic fields and living Matter: https://www.ramazzini.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Non-thermal-effects-and-mechanisms-of-interaction-between-electromagnetic-fields-and-living-matter_2010.pdf;
Both of these are more concisely discussed in: Environmental Health Trust information: https://ehtrust.org/clear-evidence-of-cancer-concludes-the-expert-panel-to-the-us-national-toxicology-program-on-cell-phone-radiation-study-findings/.
In Section 3.3 of the ESRI report respondents expressed a belief that some levels of exposure to RF EMF are above ‘suggested limits’. The ‘suggested limits’ referred to in the ESRI study are those adopted by the European Union (and other countries) and are produced by the non-governmental organisation, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). While the ESRI’s statement that levels of RF EMF are not above ‘suggested limits’ is correct, it is important to note that the ICNIRP guidelines are based only on thermal and short-term effects. Independent research has demonstrated that biological effects can occur at non-thermal levels and at thousands of times lower than ICNIRPs suggested limits. Further information on this can be found in: (BioInitiative 2012 https://bioinitiative.org/; EUROPAEM EMF Guidelines 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/emf2022/2016_EUROPAEM_EMF_Guideline.pdf
Building Biology Institute Factsheet https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/EMR_Factsheet_v2.0r.pdf).
The following research paper spells out the difference between thermal (ICNIRP) RF EMF effects and the non-thermal effects that are now more established as the essential subject: Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An International Perspective, by Dominique Belpomme et al: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749118310157
The ICNIRP guidelines are particularly irrelevant in current exposure conditions where all living things are chronically exposed to pulsed and modulated ‘around the clock’ artificial man-made radiation. Some more recent scientific papers indicate that one of the mechanisms for destructive bioactivity is the actual pulsing and modulation i.e. the variability of man-made electromagnetic fields: Dimitris J Panagopoulos: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300991
In its 2020 revision the ICNIRP conveniently deleted pulse exposure limits. Consequentially no specific restrictions exist on pulse modulations of any kind. Information regarding this is included in the work of Dr James C Lin (former member of the ICNIRP) and published by the IEEE Microwave Magazine under Health Matters, June 2023 (pages 18-23) entitled RF Health Safety Limits and Recommendations: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10121536
Assumptions behind the ICNIRPs radiofrequency limits are discussed in a recent scientific report published by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) (2022): Note that Assumption 8 makes specific reference to individuals who are particularly sensitive to RF EMF: Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G: https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ICBE-EMF-paper-12940_2022_900_OnlinePDF_Patched-1.pdf
There are many criticisms of the ICNIRP, often described as being a closed self-selected non-governmental organisation and reputed to have links to the Telecommunications Industry. Michele Rivasi and Klaus Buchner, both Members of the European Parliament, produced a comprehensive report in 2020. The International Commission for Protection Against Non-Ionising Radiation: Conflict of Interest, “Corporate Capture” and the Push to Expand the 5G Network: https://escuelasaludable.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/icnirp_report-final-june-2020.pdf
Independent scientists and medical professionals declare that it remains unclear to this day ‘why the W.H.O. would take recommendations from such a group’ as ICNIRP, who are not active researchers in the field of RF EMF, and ‘exclude other scientific research groups and public health professionals’ who actively work on research in this field. Dr Belpomme et al. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749118310157 (page 644).
Section 3.3 Understanding of EMFs
With little information regarding the initial stages of the study, or the debriefing form shared with participants it is difficult to know whether any information about the subject of RF EMF was made available. According to the ESRI study the majority of participants (58.3%) believed that RF EMF could damage human cells in a similar way to X-ray radiation, which the authors recorded as a misconception to be concerned about. However, it is worth noting, if the words ‘X-ray radiation’ had been omitted from the question, the response would have been correct. RF EMF can damage human cells and two independent scientific studies are provided here to demonstrate the point: Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields by Henry Lai and B. Blake Levitt: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2023-0023/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOopYo6WSk3TJlXRf9BNUGTIQobL4bXDpcWz1B8LbOWTcu__dlEyu
and Mobile telephony radiation exerts genotoxic action and significantly enhances the effects of gamma radiation in human cells, by Professor Dimitris Panagopoulos: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379568858_Mobile_telephony_radiation_exerts_genotoxic_action_
Question 3.4 probed participants’ perceptions regarding variations in levels of RF EMF exposure in public places across the country and the response indicated a belief that there is a large variation. The authors assert that this belief is ‘incorrect.’ However, levels of radiation do vary across the country and therefore it is not ‘incorrect’ for participants to believe this. Variations depend on the amount of telecommunications infrastructure in an area, on the number of base stations, public Wi-Fi, ‘smart’ meters etc as well as on the time of day/night and the number of users. Variations can be easily verified through use of EMF meters, signal bars on phones and visually by the number and position of masts in any given area. Those who suffer with EMR-S would disagree with the authors’ assertion that there is ‘not’ a large variation in levels, as many EMR-S can readily distinguish through physical and sensory experience where signals rise and fall in density. Those with the auditory affect i.e. ‘Microwave Hearing’/‘Frey effect’ can also usually identify directional sources of signals. With the now chronic levels of RF EMF the ability to find places where exposure is less severe i.e. where symptoms can ease or even disappear, has greatly diminished. Recent research on the Microwave Auditory Effect is provided here, written by Dr. James C Lin (formerly a member of ICNIRP): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363461470_The_Microwave_Auditory_Effect
A section in ICNIRPs guidelines 1998 dedicated to the Microwave Auditory Effect was also deleted from the ICNIRPs revised guidelines in 2020.
In Section 3.3 of the ESRI study, responses to the final two questions are directly about fifth generation (5G). Respondents believed that 5G uses (a) higher frequency and (b) is a new form of RF EMF. The ESRI authors consider both responses to be misconceptions (page 15). Common sense would suggest that there would be no point in introducing 5G or any new technologies if no difference were expected, or that auctioning and deploying more spectrum bands as needed will not lead to an increase in signals and RF radiation. More accurate knowledge shows that 5G networks include the introduction of low and mid-range frequency bands, and does indeed extend into higher millimetre frequencies as well as the use of novel modulations and pulse sequences. While high frequency bands are used in other countries for 5G, the 26Ghz band has yet to be auctioned in Ireland. We are informed that 5th Generation capabilities will see the promise of ‘smart’ and ‘efficient’ future cities unfold through the ‘Internet of Things’. This requires thousands of transmitters/receivers to be installed in public places such as on bus stops, lampposts, street furniture etc while emitting signals, collecting data and blanketing us and our environment in constant emissions of RF EMF radiation. For better explanations of 5G the Building Biology Institute: Electromagnetic Radiation & Health Factsheets provide comprehensive information: https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/EMR_Factsheet_v2.0r.pdf). Numerous warnings from independent scientists regarding 5G have been submitted through many Appeals to the E.U., U.N., and the W.H.O. This is the seventh Appeal signed by 400+ scientists and medical doctors: The EU’s illegal precedence of economy over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies (January 2023).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363731884_The_European_Union_prioritises
Environmental Health
The title of the ESRI study includes environmental health but there appears to be no specific reference made to effects of RF EMF on the environment within the manuscript. Many reports are already available, for example the three-part study provided here: “Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna published in Reviews on Environmental Health” written by B. Blake Levitt, Henry C. Lai and Albert M. Manville (2021).
Part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0026/html
Part 2. How species interact with natural and man-made EMF
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050/html
Part 3. Exposure Standards, Public Policy, Laws and Future Directions
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083/html
A fourth paper was published in 2022:
Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000840/full
In general, policymakers would do better to source perceptions of risk, including RF EMF, from the real experts i.e. the Insurance Industry. The Insurance Industry is already protecting itself against potential risks regarding RF EMF. Insurance Company specialists in Emerging Risks have warned the insurance industry about unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic/radiofrequency fields. The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is now a General Insurance Exclusion applied across the market as standard. This means that claims ‘’directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise’ have now been excluded from public liability policies.
There are some concerning statements within the ESRI study (Executive Summary) such as the warnings to policymakers that ‘misconceptions about health effects could be exploited’ and that communications campaigns’ ‘may lead to increased perceptions of risk’ (Section 4.3 Policy Implications). The authors suggest instead that other more familiar environmental hazards such as radon or noise pollution may ‘warrant greater communication priorities’. While understanding the instinct of Governments, their advisors, think tanks and agencies to suppress what may turn out to be economically or politically damaging, the ESRI describes its research as being ‘free of any expressed ideology or political position.’ Deflection from what is in reality the truth can lead to conspiracies of silence and action determined to maintain a nominated narrative at any cost.
The ‘funding effect’ has been well documented and reveals the ways in which studies can be designed by researchers to achieve results that are more favourable to the funders. It may be worth noting that the Environment Protection Agency and funder of this study, with public money, is advised by the ICNIRP and therefore continues to persevere in the narrative of thermal short-term effects of RF EMF only, despite current science and the Irish Statutory Instrument No. 337 of 2016.
The authors advocate the psychological method used in this study as a way forward for policymakers to measure public perception on many issues. However, accepting psychological conclusions when making policy decisions regarding a biological/physiological issue such as the health and environmental risks associated with RF EMF is unethical and wholly wrong. The main aim of the ESRI study might be perceived as providing useful non-disruptive information for policymakers in the face of trade-offs ‘when deciding where to direct limited resources.’ However, this aim might also be seen as characteristic of a society in which the delineation between an abandoned social public and the needs of an economic system are exposed. Those who survive the daily experience of Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome are tired of wilful blindness, complicity, the downplaying of risks and the continuous deregulation of the industry. Moving forward, economic research on this topic might be more positively employed in encouraging policy advances aimed at the deployment of safe technology as well as practical support and redress for those who have been made ill by RF EMF artificial man-made radiation. To broaden and clarify possibilities regarding policy dilemmas faced by policymakers this recent paper (2024) written by scientists and medical professionals who work in the field of RF EMF might be helpful: Applying the Precautionary Principle to Wireless Technology: Policy Dilemmas and Systemic Risks
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2024.2293631
Finally, the requirement for approval from the ESRI Research Ethics Committee was waived in relation to this study as the issue was not considered to be a sensitive one and participants were described as non-vulnerable – hopefully this review will create a step forward in the understanding of the disabling and isolating condition of Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome i.e. a consequence of an environment laden with pulsed modulated man-made artificial radiation – a very sensitive issue indeed.
If you have read this through – Thank you
Ethna Monks
Member of Electromagnetic Sense Ireland http://www.es-ireland.com
February 2025
Electromagnetic Sense Ireland 