X’s Letter to GP

RE:       Electrohypersensitivity

For some medical professionals in Ireland the issue of recognising Electrohypersensitivity has been a contentious one. In spite of recognition by the European Parliament and Council of Europe1 and in the U.S. under the Americans with Disability Act2, many continue to regard it as at best psychosomatic, at worst (and conflating it with electrophobia, a separate condition) psychological.

You may not be aware that in 2019 The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) devoted a page in its publication ‘Digitalization – Challenges for Europe’ 3 to ‘Electromagnetic hypersensitivity.’ The EESC estimated then that “between 3% and 5% of the population are electro-sensitive, meaning that some 13 million Europeans many suffer from this syndrome.” These figures equate in Ireland to between 150,000 and 250,000 people.4 This ‘estimate’ may be conservative.

The Report’s Rapporteur took trouble also to state: “These people may sometimes suffer the incomprehension and scepticism of doctors who do not deal with this syndrome professionally and therefore fail to offer proper diagnosis and treatment.”3  He further stated that the EESC “is in favour of adopting binding safeguarding legislation that reduces or mitigates exposure to electromagnetic fields’ and that ‘The EU should assist currently affected groups.” 3

In the United States, the organization responsible for regulating the wireless industry and safeguarding the public’s health – the Federal Communications  Commission – was taken to court and asked to justify why it had ignored thousands of peer-reviewed research demonstrating harmful biological effects and illness from wireless radiation exposure at levels below the FCC-approved limits.

A landmark decision was issued by this second highest court in the U.S. issued on 13 August 2021.5 They ruled that the FCC’s “arbitrary and capricious’ decision to maintain their 25 year old exposure limits did not address evidence indicating non-cancer” harm such as

  • Impacts to children
  • Testimony of persons injured by wireless radiation
  • Impacts to the developing brain
  • Impacts to the reproductive system
  • Impacts to wildlife and the environment.

Although the FCC later submitted a literature review of cancer studies, it failed to submit evidence it had reviewed the literature relating to brain and reproductive system impacts. It also dismissed the American Academy of Paediatrics recommendations for strengthened regulatory protection for pregnant women and children, ignoring research indicating children absorb higher levels of radiofrequency deeper into their brains.

A Factsheet briefly summarising the case and its ramifications is enclosed.5

Another legal case under way may also have global repercussions for people suffering from Electrohypersensitivity.

A lawsuit6 is being filed by one of the diplomats who developed the condition ‘Havana Syndrome’ alleging disability discrimination. This follows President Biden’s introduction into law of the ‘Havana Act’7(also cited as ‘Helping American Victims Afflicted by Neurological Attacks Act of 2021’) which offers compensation to those intelligence agents and diplomats who have sustained brain injuries as a direct result of pulsed radio-frequency radiation, possibly caused by pulsed electromagnetic weapons.

Significant in the diagnosis of Havana Syndrome was Professor Golomb whose paper about the diplomats’ sickness provided “a detailed analysis of ‘Microwave Illness” (also known as “Radiation Sickness” or “Electrosensitivity.”)“ She noted that their “debilitating symptoms are engendered by underlying injuries for which a sound physiological basis is documented by hundreds, if not thousands, of peer-reviewed studies.”8 She also concluded that: “Microwave Illness may occur as the by-product of an intentional assault through a neuroweapon or simply through supposedly benign longer-term exposure to ambient RF/MW falling at or below FCC-authorized levels.” 8

Ireland like the FCC continues to adhere to the same obsolete, non-ionising radiation exposure levels; no statements have been made confirming they are safe.

The Irish Department for Communications continues to assume responsibility for health policy relating to non-ionising radiation9 and refuses to acknowledge any biological harm is caused below the current exposure level.

Challenges continue to be made by groups of eminent, internationally-recognized scientists and doctors to tighten up exposure levels to mitigate biological harm; and civic groups are now joining force to demand new legal protections at European level to protect all life from microwave radiation.10

In the meantime, until political will is translated into action it is worth remembering Professor Golomb’s testimony on how we should treat electrosensitive patients:

[24] “They must no longer be ignored, ridiculed, or rendered invisible or irrelevant. There must be some means to accommodate their situation and needs, to permit some place of refuge and grant them a measure of dignity… They need, and deserve, some place of refuge that does not itself become yet another place of torment.”

I would like to take this opportunity, Dr ???, to thank you for your ongoing support, and I would welcome your sharing this letter with your GP partners.

Yours sincerely


Source references:

1) TEN 746 EESC-2021-02341-00-00-AC-TRA EN(1) The societal and ecological impact of the 5G ecosystem’, European Economic & Social Committee, Opinion (Adopted at Plenary 20/10/21)

4.13    Electromagnetic hypersensitivity or electromagnetic intolerance is an illness which has been recognised by the European Parliament[1], the EESC[2] and the Council of Europe[3]. It affects a number of people, and with the roll-out of 5G (which needs a much denser electronic network) it is to be expected that this condition may affect more.

[1]           European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields (2008/2211(INI)) 28. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2009-0216_EN.html?redirect

[2]           EESC’s Opinion on Secure 5G deployment – EU toolbox: TEN/704 – OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 281

[3]           Resolution 1815 (2011) final version, Art. 8.1.4 http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994

2) Americans with Disability Act

“The Board has taken the commentary very seriously and acted upon it. As stated in the Background for its Final Rule Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Recreation Facilities that was published in September 2002: “The Board recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities. The Board plans to closely examine the needs of this population, and undertake activities that address accessibility issues for these individuals”.  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311469.pdf

3) ‘Digitalization – Challenges for Europe’, p85, Chapter III, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-01-19-295-en-n.pdf

4) Press Statement Population and Migration Estimates April 2021https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2021pressreleases/pressstatementpopulationandmigrationestimatesapril2021/

5) FACTSHEET: Environmental Health Trust et al. V. FCC

FCC’s Lack of Adequate Review for Wireless Radiation Exposure Limits https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021I1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/249823

6)  https://es-ireland.com/2021/12/16/diplomat-injured-by-rf-sue-us-government-for-disability-discrimination/

7) The Havana Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1828/text

8) Affidavit given by Prof Beatrice Golomb, neuroscientist, Professor of Medicine, University of California, in case of EHT/CHD vs FCC: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/otard-signed-final-dr-beatrice-golomb.pdf

9) “[The] Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications (DECC) is responsible for setting policy relating to the health effects of Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR) including electromagnetic fields. For more information please see www.gov.ie/decc. “

10) Europeans for Safe Connections – https://irelandforsafetechnology.com/resources-for-press.html

 Further Information

“Primary responsibility for protecting the population from the potential harmful effects of EMF falls to the governments of EU Member States under Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.” (p4)

“The WHO14/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 2011. The IARC has recently prioritised EMF radiation for review in the next five years (2020-2024)” (p6)

“The European Commission has not yet conducted studies on the potential health risks of the 5G technology.” (p9)

From Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health,, EU Parliament Briefing, EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Miroslava Karaboytcheva Members’ Research Service PE 646.172 – March 2020




See p2 especially on SCIENTIFIC IMAGING OF WI-FI AND CELL PHONE Children Are More Vulnerable