Europeans for Safe Connections calls for better protection of women against microwave radiation
Women are from Venus, men come from Mars. This wisdom applies to more areas than just relationship dynamics. Medical science would also do well to internalise this insight. A non-negligible 5% of people today relate their health issues to exposure to wireless devices. The vast majority of this so-called electromagnetic hypersensitive (EHS) population appears to be female.
Many scientists have been asking for recognition of EHS. ICBE-EMF calls EHS a humanitarian crisis that requires an urgent response.
What can be the cause? The condition has been known under a number of different names for much longer, but possibly due to the complexity of the underlying mechanisms, EHS is still not well understood. Or do other beliefs play a role? Fact is, that the difference in occurrence in women and men is generally ignored. Why is this so and can acknowledging this fact help in better understanding EHS?
Beyond doubt is that women are at high risk of developing health problems due to radiation and should be protected from wireless.
Europeans for Safe Connections calls for adequate research on EHS and for better protection of women against microwave radiation!
Is it mainly women who report EHS symptoms?
Studies from Finland and Japan found that over 80% and 95% of EHS respondents, respectively, were women. The results under EHS respondents in Denmark and in The Netherlands were 71%, respectively 77%. Generally, sex ratio shows a clear predominance of women among patients, reaching two-thirds in the EHS group, as found in a review published in International Journal of Molecular Sciences. The most commonly reported symptoms included fatigue, stress, headaches, and cognitive difficulties, often triggered by digital and wireless devices such as mobile phones and computers. After moving to areas with low EMF, the symptoms disappear.
So, it is really mainly women who report EHS symptoms. No scientist has attempted to objectively explain this obvious trend, which is worldwide. How is that even possible? Do women spend more time on devices? Or could there be another cause?
How men viewed women in ancient history still influences today’s medicine
The trust between a doctor and a patient is a fundamental pillar of effective healthcare. Patients rely on their doctors to listen, believe their symptoms, and provide appropriate care without bias. That is how it should be, but unequal treatment in health care is a common reality. See e.g. the implicit bias leading to racial and ethnic disparity in health care.
“Unfortunately, medicine has long been shaped by gender bias, historically reinforcing male dominance. Ancient beliefs, like Aristotle’s view of female bodies as defective, influenced medical thinking. Women’s health was defined by their reproductive role, with illnesses often linked to their reproductive organs.
Before her pain is taken seriously as a symptom of a possible disease, it first has to be validated — and believed — by a medical professional. This aura of distrust comes from an image of the attention-seeking, hypochondriac female. When clinical research exempts women from studies and trials on the grounds that female hormones fluctuate too much and upset the consistency of results, medical culture is implicitly reinforcing the centuries-old myth that women are too biologically erratic to be useful or valuable.” (Medical Myths)
When women report pain, it is more likely to be dismissed as psychological or emotional rather than recognized as a legitimate physical issue (Gender bias in medical diagnosis) and women with chronic pain may suffer more and longer than men (Harvard medical school).
The undiagnosed bias – and what does it mean for EHS?
TedX talk – Pain: the undiagnosed bias
The complaints of people with EHS are generally not taken seriously. Since the introduction of telegraph, EHS victims are asking attention for their symptoms. At the time telegraph operators were mostly women. Their symptoms were labelled as neurasthenia, a mental disorder that falls into the category of neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders. (See A. Firstenberg – The Invisible Rainbow) These findings still permeate perceptions of the problem in the present day.
Bias has also led to flawed research methods that already assumed in advance that EHS has a psychological cause. The methods of the “psychology driven provocation studies” in recent decades have been extensively criticized by D. Leszczynski : they can never prove or disprove a causality link between EHS and the radiation exposed to. However, the results were over and over replicated and thus strengthening incorrect proof that EHS would be a psychosomatic disorder.
The exclusion of females in research – and what does it mean for EHS?
TedX talk – Why medicine often has dangerous side effects for women
The studies done on physical effects of wireless don’t take into account the complexity of female biology. That the situation is complex can be read in M. Hava’s latest article where she identifies five precursor categories that can trigger EHS symptoms: physical trauma to central nervous system; exposure to toxic chemicals; biological infections; acute or chronic exposure to either ionizing or non-ionizing radiation; and an impaired immune system. But even in this article no attention is given to the differences in biology between male and female.
To take the much-needed step forward, medical experts must not only acknowledge that they, perhaps unconsciously, misjudge women, but also recognise that they have long assumed too easily that women are the same as men, just a little smaller. And yes, for once men are right: women are difficult. But why?
Sensitivity – a good or bad feature?
Wouldn’t it be better if society could not see sensitivity as a burden but be able to value it positively? Any parent knows that during pregnancy, women experience heightened taste and smell to better protect the baby. Women’s increased sensitivity to the environment seems to be an evolutionary adaptation to optimize conditions for future generations. By detecting and responding to environmental signals, they help set the epigenetic programs of their offspring, shaping their health and survival.
Women’s heightened environmental sensitivity is not limited to pregnancy. It looks like evolution made them more perceptive to sensory and environmental changes throughout all life.
Could this increased sensitivity also apply to factors like electrosmog?
The heightened sensitivity in women could also explain why they make up the majority of those reporting EHS. These findings suggest that women’s greater environmental sensitivity may extend beyond biological and chemical factors to include electromagnetic fields, potentially influencing their health and well-being in modern, technology-driven environments.
Conclusion
As our reliance on modern technology grows, so does the need to ensure its safety for all. The experiences of those suffering from EHS highlight the urgent need for precautionary measures to protect public health, especially vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those already affected by EMF exposure.
Women are from Venus, yet medicine has too often treated them as if they were from Mars. Recognizing and addressing gender bias is essential to ensuring fair and effective healthcare and research must reflect their unique biological needs.