Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2002 Aug;110(Suppl 4):619–623. doi: 10.1289/ehp.02110s4619

Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California.

Patrick Levallois 1, Raymond Neutra 1, Geraldine Lee 1, Lilia Hristova 1
PMCID: PMC1241215  PMID: 12194896

Abstract

Cases of alleged hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have been reported for more than 20 years, and some authors have suggested some connection with the "multiple chemical sensitivity" illness. We report the results of a telephone survey among a sample of 2,072 Californians. Being "allergic or very sensitive" to being near electrical devices was reported by 68 subjects, resulting in an adjusted prevalence of 3.2% (95% confidence interval = 2.8, 3.7). Twenty-seven subjects (1.3%) reported sensitivity to electrical devices but no sensitivity to chemicals. Characteristics of the people reporting hypersensitivity to EMFs were generally different from those of people reporting being allergic to everyday chemicals. Alleging environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity diagnosed by a doctor was the strongest predictor of reporting being hypersensitive to EMFs in this population. Other predictive factors apart from self-reporting chemical sensitivity were race/ethnicity other than White, Black, or Hispanic; having low income; and being unable to work. The perception of risk of exposure to EMFs through the use of hair dryers (vs. exposure to power and distribution lines) was the factor the most associated with self-reporting about hypersensitivity to EMFs. However, risk perception was not sufficient to explain the characteristics of people reporting this disorder.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (523.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Andersson B., Berg M., Arnetz B. B., Melin L., Langlet I., Lidén S. A cognitive-behavioral treatment of patients suffering from "electric hypersensitivity". Subjective effects and reactions in a double-blind provocation study. J Occup Environ Med. 1996 Aug;38(8):752–758. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199608000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berg M., Arnetz B. B., Lidén S., Eneroth P., Kallner A. Techno-stress. A psychophysiological study of employees with VDU-associated skin complaints. J Occup Med. 1992 Jul;34(7):698–701. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergdahl J. Psychologic aspects of patients with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity or visual display units. Acta Odontol Scand. 1995 Oct;53(5):304–310. doi: 10.3109/00016359509005992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergqvist U., Wahlberg J. E. Skin symptoms and disease during work with visual display terminals. Contact Dermatitis. 1994 Apr;30(4):197–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1994.tb00643.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cormier-Parry M. L., Karakashian G. V., Burnett J. W. Dermatologic manifestations in users of video display terminals. Cutis. 1988 Jul;42(1):16–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Feldman L. R., Eaglstein W. H., Johnson R. B. Terminal illness. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1985 Feb;12(2 Pt 1):366–366. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(85)80054-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fisher A. A. "Terminal" dermatitis due to computers (visual display units). Cutis. 1986 Sep;38(3):153–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kreutzer R., Neutra R. R., Lashuay N. Prevalence of people reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Jul 1;150(1):1–12. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Levallois Patrick. Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic field exposure: a review of the literature. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Aug;110 (Suppl 4):613–618. doi: 10.1289/ehp.02110s4613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lidén C., Wahlberg J. E. Work with video display terminals among office employees. V. Dermatologic factors. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1985 Dec;11(6):489–493. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.2197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lidén S. "Sensitivity to electricity"--a new environmental epidemic. Allergy. 1996 Aug;51(8):519–524. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1996.tb04663.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McCarron P., Harvey I., Brogan R., Peters T. J. Self reported health of people in an area contaminated by chromium waste: interview study. BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):11–15. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Oftedal G., Vistnes A. I., Rygge K. Skin symptoms after the reduction of electric fields from visual display units. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1995 Oct;21(5):335–344. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Perry G. F. Video display terminals: potential health effects of office automation. Indiana Med. 1991 Jul;84(7):466–469. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shusterman D., Lipscomb J., Neutra R., Satin K. Symptom prevalence and odor-worry interaction near hazardous waste sites. Environ Health Perspect. 1991 Aug;94:25–30. doi: 10.1289/ehp.94-1567940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES