18

I saw there was a question about the harmfulness of WiFi waves, but i'd like to focus on the claims that they can cause headaches specifically; not the cancer-claims.

Numerous people come up with anecdotes about how they, or someone they know, get headaches from WiFi radiation.
Source: http://www.squidoo.com/wifi-headaches#module124071521

I can't seem to find any research on this. Does anyone know of the latest insights into this?

On PubMed i found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=wifi+headache
"There were more statistically significant associations (36%) than could be expected by chance (5%)."

Wouter
  • 475
  • 4
  • 8
  • 1
    And just as a starting point, an article that lists a lot of references, but i didn't read the article, and didn't check any of the references: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/aug2007_report_cellphone_radiation_02.htm – Wouter Mar 03 '14 at 12:48
  • 2
    it's much more likely to get headaches from the activities you engage in while making use of a WiFi connection than from the connection itself... – jwenting Mar 03 '14 at 14:21
  • IMO it's already covered in [Are WiFi waves harmful?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1178/are-wifi-waves-harmful) – vartec Mar 03 '14 at 14:34
  • No time to read through these now, possibly total bunk, but here are [34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Biological Effects + Damage From Wi-Fi](http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/papers-finding-adverse-biological-effects-damage-to-health-from-wi-fi/). – Steven Jeuris Mar 03 '14 at 15:36

2 Answers2

28

The symptoms you describe are commonly referred to as electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

I believe the studies you would be interested in are the following:

The majority of provocation trials to date have found that self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and fake electromagnetic fields,[2][3] and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. Since a systematic review in 2005 showing no convincing scientific evidence for it being caused by electromagnetic fields,[2] several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure, as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields.[4][5][6]

The systematic review of 2008 by Röösli M [3], which seems to be the latest, writes in the abstract:

RF-EMF [radiofrequency electromagnetic field] discrimination was investigated in seven studies including a total of 182 self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitive (EHS) individuals and 332 non-EHS individuals. The pooled correct field detection rate was 4.2% better than expected by chance (95% CI: −2.1 to 10.5). There was no evidence that EHS individuals could detect presence or absence of RF-EMF better than other persons.

[2] Rubin, James; J Das Munshi J, Simon Wessely (March–April 2005). "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies". Psychosomatic Medicine 67 (2): 224–32. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000155664.13300.64. PMID 15784787.
[3] Röösli M (June 2008). "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: a systematic review". Environ. Res. 107 (2): 277–87. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.02.003. PMID 18359015.
[4] Regel, Sabine; Sonja Negovetic, Martin Roosli, Veronica Berdinas, Jurgen Schuderer, Anke Huss, Urs Lott, Niels Kuster, and Peter Achermann (August 2006). "UMTS Base Station-like Exposure, Well-Being, and Cognitive Performance". Environ Health Perspect 114 (8): 1270–5. doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. PMC 1552030. PMID 16882538.
[5] Rubin, James; G Hahn, BS Everitt, AJ Clear, Simon Wessely (2006). "Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study". British Medical Journal 332 (7546): 886–889. doi:10.1136/bmj.38765.519850.55. PMC 1440612. PMID 16520326.
[6] Wilen, J; A Johansson, N Kalezic, E Lyskov, M Sandstrom (April 2006). "Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms". Bioelectromagnetics 27 (3): 204–14. doi:10.1002/bem.20195. PMID 16304699.

Steven Jeuris
  • 506
  • 1
  • 5
  • 10
  • That latest systematic review [has been cited 99 times](http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?cites=4532671083244806041&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en), certainly it would be worthwhile checking those out as well. – Steven Jeuris Mar 03 '14 at 16:40
  • This does not answer the question as it stands. I think the questioner is looking for objective measurements, not self reporting. – Jiminy Cricket. May 26 '14 at 11:27
  • 4
    @Duckisaduckisaduck Granted, an answer based on physics might also negate the hypothesis that WiFi could ever cause headaches. Headaches however are quite subjective, so I (and the OP it seems) find a double blind subjective experimental setup sufficient. It would be interesting to know more about this nonetheless. Feel free to update/add new answers. – Steven Jeuris May 26 '14 at 11:32
  • True, fair enough. It would take a very expensive trial including some kind of brain scan to differentiate between psychological and physiological symptoms - possibly confounded by any uncertainty about brain scans causing headaches. – Jiminy Cricket. May 26 '14 at 11:42
  • 1
    If they can cause headaches you can detect invisible wifi waves with your headache. – borjab Oct 23 '15 at 23:44
-6

Yes they can cause headaches.

A big misconception is that RF EMF cannot cause harm because it doesn't cause ionisation - the issue with this fallacy is that ignores other pathways/mechanisms for harm. Radiofrequencies, especially modulated/pulsed fields, cause oxidative stress, nitric oxide depletion, endothelial cell dysfunction, calcium ion channel leakage, even blood-brain barrier leakage.

Inflammatory responses can lead to headaches in some but not others. EHS is real - as real as light-induced epilepsy (visible light is non-ionising, but can still cause harm when pulsating).

ABSTRACT

Objective: We sought direct evidence that acute exposure to environmental-strength electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could induce somatic reactions (EMF hypersensitivity). Methods: The subject, a female physician self-diagnosed with EMF hypersensitivity, was exposed to an average (over the head) 60-Hz electric field of 300 V/m (comparable with typical environmental-strength EMFs) during controlled provocation and behavioral studies. Results: In a double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize unintentional sensory cues, the subject developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 100 s after initiation of EMF exposure (p < .05). The symptoms were caused primarily by field transitions (off–on, on–off) rather than the presence of the field, as assessed by comparing the frequency and severity of the effects of pulsed and continuous fields in relation to sham exposure. The subject had no conscious perception of the field as judged by her inability to report its presence more often than in the sham control. Discussion: The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs under conditions that reasonably excluded a causative role for psychological processes. Conclusion: EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00207454.2011.608139

*EDIT to save commenting space, commentary from Prof Dominique Belpomme of ARTAC: http://www.emfacts.com/2012/01/electromagnetic-intolerance-elucidated/

Excerpt: "Dr. Belpomme’s team has developed a diagnostic method based on blood tests and a special brain scan (pulsed Doppler echography) to visualize blood flow. “These patients clearly have vascular disorders in the brain, said the oncologist. In addition, our biological tests show that 30% of them have high levels of histamine, 50% have too much stress proteins, most have low levels of melatonin (an potent anti-cancer hormone), and 30% have levels of antibodies and proteins that are tell-tale signs of thermal shock and brain damage.” He adds that half of his patients suffer from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and that MCS and EHS share the same brain abnormalities.

The oncologist explained that there are three distinct levels of sensitivity to pollutants. First, there is intolerance, caused by polymorphism. “This means that we are all different. For example, 30% of the population is most at risk of developing cancer.”

Second, there is the susceptibility factor demonstrated by Swedish oncologist Lennart Hardell who studied 16 families who were electrosensitive because of shared genetic factors. There are also active susceptibility factors, “such as dental amalgam that behave like antennas capturing airwaves”, explains Belpomme.

Finally, electromagnetic hypersensitivity appears in two stages. “The first phase is induced by exposure to a specific EMF frequency, either an acute or chronic exposure, such as talking on a cell phone 20 minutes every day. The first signs of hypersensitivity are pain and a heat sensation in the ear. In the second phase, the disease sets in. That’s when you become intolerant at all frequencies.”

Mike
  • 9
  • 1
  • 9
    A single study with a single subject is a fairly unreliable response to a systematic review and doesn't trump it's conclusions. – matt_black May 23 '14 at 20:24
  • It'd certainly be interesting to take a look at the study, but as @matt_black said, it won't prove anything by itself with the preponderance of evidence against it. – Bobson May 23 '14 at 21:18
  • Single study - that's a fair comment, but there are more. What should be born in mind is that EHS is now medically provable: see http://www.emfacts.com/2012/01/electromagnetic-intolerance-elucidated/ Also, bear in mind that Rubin (cited above by another commenter) is a psychiatrist - not a scientist. He is also a board member of the heavily criticised AGNIR group. – Mike May 23 '14 at 21:46
  • PS - I think I have to retract my comment about a single study being a fair comment... not being funny or anything, but a minority of one person knowing that the world is round and being able to objectively prove it is not overshadowed by a majority or preponderance believing it to be flat :) - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon – Mike May 23 '14 at 22:08
  • 3
    @Mike A systematic review is not a preponderance of belief. It is a preponderance of evidence. –  May 23 '14 at 22:37
  • @Mike Who Rubin *is* (psychiatrist vs scientist) doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the research, and even that work should be considered in the context of the entire body of research as is done in Röösli's systematic review. –  May 23 '14 at 22:39
  • "light-induced epilepsy" has a clear physical mechanism - light-detecting cells in our eyes. Where are the wifi-detecting cells? – Oddthinking May 24 '14 at 00:48
  • I've had headaches due to the noise of static electricity in the air, prior to a thunderstorm. – gerrit May 26 '14 at 19:07
  • @Oddthinking Any cell with a membrane is sensitive to wireless radiation because, as I stated above, one of the main mechanisms for harm is through calcium leakage via the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels. Prof Martin Pall explains it here: http://youtu.be/CFBYRfmqS8Q also see Warnke 2009 (http://www.kompetenzinitiative.net/broschuerenreihe/brochure-series/english/bees-birds-and-mankind.html), Petersen 1996, Ikeharaa 2005, Goldsworthy 2012. You can find all of these papers and more online. – Mike May 27 '14 at 18:40
  • @Articuno - a preponderance of evidence to the contrary doesn't overshadow a single instance of verifiable, repeatable truth. – Mike May 27 '14 at 18:44
  • 1
    @Mike You [beg the question](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) by assuming that this instance is verifiable and repeatable truth. The dispute in this comment thread is *whether* this is in fact verifiable repeatable truth. As far as I can tell, this subject hasn't had this exact test regime repeated on her by another research group to rule out effects of accidental or intentional exploitation of [researcher degrees of freedom](http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/11/1359). Even taking this study at face value, there is a 5% chance that there was really no effect here. –  May 27 '14 at 19:04
  • 1
    @Mike Additionally, they "*defined EMF hypersensitivity as the occurrence of **any** medically recognized symptom in response to provocation using an environmentally relevant EMF; there was no requirement that the same symptom must reoccur when the EMF provocation was repeated*." *Any* symptom could have happened, and they would have counted it as an effect due to EMF. –  May 27 '14 at 19:10
  • @Mike If the effect is real, you should expect a positive [dose-response relationship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose%E2%80%93response_relationship), and that hasn't been established (not a criticism of this study... it's just that it wasn't designed to find a dose-response relationship.. a second study would be needed for that.) –  May 27 '14 at 19:17
  • @articuno: "there is a 5% chance that there was really no effect here." P-values can't be used to make this conclusion. – Oddthinking May 27 '14 at 19:17
  • @Oddthinking Okay. An effect size this large would have been observed 5% of the time even in the case that there is in fact no effect. –  May 27 '14 at 19:21
  • @Mike They used 20 trials for comparison of two arms in Table 3, but only 15 trials for comparison of three arms in Table 4. Why these choices? Seems kind of ad hoc, and leads me to suspect that the results could be sensitive to these choices. –  May 27 '14 at 19:24
  • @Mike I said "Even taking this study at face value, there is a 5% chance that there was really no effect here." That is incorrect. I meant "Results like this would been observed 5% of the time even in the case that there is in fact no effect." –  May 27 '14 at 19:25
  • @Articuno - see my comment at May 23, 21:46. "What should be born in mind is that EHS is now medically provable: see emfacts.com/2012/01/electromagnetic-intolerance-elucidated". There are other methodologies which have been developed independently of Belpomme which also show EHS markers, e.g. Prof Lebrecht von Klitzing. – Mike May 27 '14 at 22:19
  • @Mike Then, provide the "more". What does "medically provable" mean? Is that the same as scientifically provable using evidence? If so, please present it. –  May 27 '14 at 22:22
  • @Mike The article you linked to says that the WHO's position is that "Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure" and that "EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem." –  May 27 '14 at 22:22
  • @Articuno I'm not sure how many you need. What is the number at which it becomes proof..(how many in 'a preponderance' ;)? My ref: to the EMFacts article was for the purposes of drawing attention to Belpomme's work in medically diagnosing EHS - but yes, some folks at the WHO have a different opinion. It would be great to see them include some live blood cells or comet assays in their double-blind studies - difficult to ask a blood cell whether the oxidative stress it exhibits is psychosomatic. In contrast, some governments acknowledge EHS as a functional impairment (it isn't a disease). – Mike May 27 '14 at 22:54
  • 2
    @Mike The systematic review of Rubin used *all* relevant blind or double-blind provocation studies. So far, you've presented one study that focused on a single individual (that I've already mentioned isn't conclusive for several reasons in the comments above). So, instead of asking "how many do I need", start with presenting at least more than one. It's also not about numbers, but the context of the work. An exact replication of the McCarty work would be more compelling than an unrelated study on a second individual with experiment variables left open for more researcher degrees of freedom. –  May 27 '14 at 23:18
  • @Mike As far as I can tell, the emfacts.com article doesn't present any evidence, only testimony and claims. Also, government acknowledgement is not scientific evidence. –  May 27 '14 at 23:26
  • @Articuno - the first place I would start for an introduction to how sensitive we ALL are to the even the most subtle of frequencies is here: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=robert+becker&sts=t&tn=The+Body+electric. Not everyone exhibits symptoms of EHS but everyone is sensitive. (Also see the Prof Pall link above for some mechanisms of how) – Mike Jun 01 '14 at 08:52
  • @Articuno - and if you really want to see more studies on EHS specifically, then see here: http://es-uk.info/research-studies.html and http://www.scribd.com/doc/89156880/Electrosmog-and-Headaches and http://www.scribd.com/collections/3440803/Electrosmog-Bibiographies and http://www.electrosensitivity.co/science-about-es.html and http://www.emfanalysis.com/ehs.html – Mike Jun 01 '14 at 08:54
  • @Mike add the specific studies that you think are relevant to this answer. Don't send us looking through a bunch of links. –  Jun 01 '14 at 15:10