Which way to go? EHS: a disability or an environmental disease?
How should the EHS community perceive EHS? In our struggle for recognition of EHS, we not only run into perceptions of EHS from the outside world. Also within the EHS community itself, we face several different views on the condition, ranging from disability to disease.
The question then naturally arises on which position to focus. And whether we should try to bridge differences in views so that together we can adequately fight the battle for recognition? ESC concludes that the only way forward is to go both ways.
The debate outside the EHS community
Many scientists agree that EHS is a real physical problem that occurs as a result of EMF exposure. They are investigating what actually goes wrong in the body and what biomarkers can be found to diagnose EHS. Multiple systems appear to be affected. Numerous studies provide evidence of this. However, EHS is not yet officially acknowledged.
Mainstream medicine wrongly dismisses EHS as a psychological problem. It is important for health authorities to know that the many times repeated provocation studies that led to this verdict have been severely criticised. ESC recommends not to participate in these studies because wrong methods are used, meaning that these studies can never prove EHS. Neither for wireless fields nor for electric fields.
The debate inside the EHS community
Because of the lack of conclusive scientific understanding, the EHS community itself is also looking for a clear position on how best to characterise EHS. There are different opinions within the EHS community itself and from supporting scientists on whether EHS is a disease or a disability, both in various variants.
This internal debate does not provide conclusive answers, possibly leading to divisions over which activities are best to focus on. The truth is that there is no real contradiction between the different opinions. After all, every illness has limiting effects, medically and socially.
ESC’s chairman Rob van der Boom concludes:
“EHS is a physical response to man-made toxic EMFs in the environment that prevents people from leading a normal life. Getting EHS recognised means recognising both aspects, disease and disability. We need to work at the same time in both directions.”
Opportunities for ESC to act on
There is a lot of news with important opportunities for ESC to act on. And yes, ESC will take both directions. Maybe you would like to join yourself. Read about recent developments:
Let’s get WHO to recognise EHS as an environmental disease
Doctors, health authorities and governments need to start recognising EHS.
You can help by getting EHS recognised in the International Classification of Diseases. Read about this in Let’s get WHO to Recognise EHS!
Compliance in Europe to the UN Convention on Disabilities
EHS is also often socially disabling. Society needs to recognise that. All European countries have ratified the UN convention on disability. And must comply with it.
- Read ESC’s Report on the Implementation of the UN Convention. Also your country has to comply. Did your organisation participate in the survey?
- And read Does EU comply with the Convention on Disabilities? There are several leads for ESC to act on.
- Read about individual claims on compliance with this convention. All claims will bring closer a general recognition of EHS. See Step-by-step-Recognition of EHS
- Recently, UN recognised MCS as a disability. This can be of great value for people with EHS. Read why in MCS Now a Disability — What about EHS?
- Would you like to join the new Working Group UN? Feel free to ask for information.
Contactperson: Kamil Bartošák
A.N. Onimous
Interesting viewpoint.
1) In a low EMF environment I function AMAZINGLY, physical health is back, fitness is back, reading hundreds of pages of complex medical or technical stuff and remembering and commenting on it. Have to go to France, the Schwarzwald in Germany, or the north part of Sweden (up to 3 years ago when they rolled out 4G). So it is definitely a pure environmental illness. Many scientiste like the famous Olle Johanson come to this conclusion.
2) But back in the man-made EMF environment in my own country, within days the health and even the eyesight is gone, mental focus is almost impossible and important blood-markers are totally off. But for many this is nowadays the ‚normal environment‘. And I need to stay away from high EMF sources, otherwise I collapse. I hear: other people are happy with WiFi and use their smartphone here, it is just you! So it is an environmental problem/thing but in practical conversations in the toxic EMF cloud we live in daily ‚just your problem‘ is what I hear: which makes it a disability in their view (and one they want to ignore, even in hospital).
Both methods (disability and environmental illness) are therefore present in everyone’s mind and useful to pursue. So I fully agree with ESC on this. Main purpose is to reach a goal.
3) But also, every human is in essence the same, and EMF affects everyone’s health in some way. So it is not our problem, it is EVERYONE’S problem. Lead water pipes are considered a health-hazard, but nobody notices it when drinking water from it. Asbestos or x-ray radiation, DDT who notices it, but it it still considered a health hazard. The thought I/They do not feel it is therefore rubbish. So the third dimension should be: It is in everyone’s interest to reduce all radiation.
4) The medical world no longer uses the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). They witched to ALADA (As Low As Diagnostically Acceptable): if a method exists that has lower exposure that must be used by law. And if it does not lead to a significant different treatment or another specialist would have to look at it anyway if the diagnosis would be… , then it is forbidden by law to give the person that exposure. According to the Dutch health council there is no reason not to apply the precautionary principle to Cell-towers, WiFi, Bluetooth and other wireless radiation. WHY is ALARA still not prosecuted for that? 0,0001 microwatt/meter square gives a perfect 5 star connection on a smartphone (mandatory design feature of smartphones) so why can cell-towers be measured to emit several thousands of microwatt/ meter square on and into homes and public space? That is several millions times higher than necessary for a perfect connection. Why is that allowed? The power that goes in the cell-towers and could be saved could resolve the whole CO2 nonsense discussion.
I therefore agree, but would also add two other viewpoints.
So there should be 4 viewpoints to reach and use to accomplish a healthy environment.