EMF Sensitivity Research - Materials and Methods

in

This study was carried out in four phases:

 

  1. The tests were carried out in an environmentally controlled area with porcelain-on-steel walls to minimize airborne chemical pollution which might interfere with the testing procedure. This type of construction also acted to decrease external electromagnetic fields. Portable EMF monitoring devices were used to find an area that would minimize background EMF which might disturb double-blind challenges and interfere with the testing process. The low-pollution room had a background of 0-100 V/m electric field and 20-200 nT (Tesla) magnetic field. The immediate test site of the patients had unmeasurable electrical fields and magnetic fields in the vicinity of 20 nT.

    The major emphasis of this phase of the studies was the evaluation of the effects of the magnetic field generated by a coil fed from a sweep/function generator (Model 3030, B.K. Precision Dynascan Corp.). This equipment allowed us to test square wave frequencies from 0.1 Hz to 5 MHz.

    The patients were tested while they were sitting comfortably upright in a chair with the generator on a desk at least 2 m away, with its output connected to a coil 6 cm in diameter and 15 cm tall, made of 35 m of cable and positioned on the floor with its center approximately 0.3 m from the feet of the person tested. The mean values of the alternating magnetic field generated by this arrangement were approximately 2900 nT at floor level, approximately 350 nT at the level of the chair seat and patients’ knees, and about 70 nT at hand level. The exposure period lasted approximately 3 minutes per challenge.

    Before the EMF challenge, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, temperature, sign and symptom scores, and autonomic nervous system functions were tested. The autonomic nervous system function was tested with a binocular iriscorder (Model C2515, Hamamatsu Photonics), which measured pupil area, time at which constriction and dilation occurred, and rate of constriction/dilation.9

    All patients had been previously evaluated and treated for biological inhalant, food, and chemical sensitivities in order to minimize possible confusion from coexisting problems. The patients were stabilized on a healthy diet in a constant low-pollution environment. In addition, they had their overall body load reduced and stabilized in a controlled environment.

  2. This was a single-blind screening of 100 patients who cornplained of being EMF-sensitive. They were challenged under low-pollution conditions using the sweep/function generator at 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, 50, 60, and 100 Hz; then at 1, 5, 10, 20, 35, 50, 75, and 100 KHz; and finally at I and 5 MHz. There were twenty-one active challenges and five blanks (placebos) per person, giving a total of 2600 challenges. When the number and/or intensity of symptoms were 20% over baseline, the result was considered positive, and were recorded as such under the various criteria used. A change in the iriscorder readings more than two standard deviations from baseline was also recorded as a positive result.
  3. Twenty-five patients who were found to be positive in phase II challenges and who had no more than one placebo reaction were then selected for a third phase of the study. In addition, 25 healthy naive volunteers were challenged. Double-blind EMF challenges and placebos using the aforementioned parameters were performed. There were 1300 total challenges, of which 1050 were active and 250 were blanks. The tests averaged 21 active frequencies and 5 blanks per subject.
  4. Sixteen patients who reacted in phase III were then rechallenged on two separate occasions in a double-blind manner, using only the frequencies to which they had responded most strongly. For each subject, the frequency of maximum sensitivity was inserted randomly into a series of 5 placebo challenges. Thus, there were a total of 32 active challenges and 160 blanks.
‹ EMF Sensitivity Research - IntroductionupEMF Sensitivity Research - Results ›