Content uploaded by Magda Havas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Magda Havas
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract
Aim: The effect of pulsed (100 Hz) microwave (MW) radiation on heart rate
variability (HRV) was tested in a double blind study. Materials and Methods:
Twenty-five subjects in Colorado between the ages of 37 to 79 completed an
electrohypersensitivity (EHS) questionnaire. After recording their orthostatic
HRV, we did continuous real-time monitoring of HRV in a provocation study,
where supine subjects were exposed for 3-minute intervals to radiation gener-
ated by a cordless phone at 2.4 GHz or to sham exposure. Results: Question-
naire: Based on self-assessments, participants classified themselves as
extremely electrically sensitive (24%), moderately (16%), slightly (16%), not
sensitive (8%) or with no opinion (36%) about their sensitivity. The top 10
symptoms experienced by those claiming to be sensitive include memory prob-
lems, difficulty concentrating, eye problems, sleep disorder, feeling unwell,
headache, dizziness, tinnitus, chronic fatigue, and heart palpitations. The five
most common objects allegedly causing sensitivity were fluorescent lights,
antennas, cell phones, Wi-Fi, and cordless phones. Provocation Experiment:
Forty percent of the subjects experienced some changes in their HRV attribut-
able to digitally pulsed (100 Hz) MW radiation. For some the response was
extreme (tachycardia), for others moderate to mild (changes in sympathetic
nervous system and/or parasympathetic nervous system). and for some there
was no observable reaction either because of high adaptive capacity or because
of systemic neurovegetative exhaustion. Conclusions: Orthostatic HRV
combined with provocation testing may provide a diagnostic test for some EHS
sufferers when they are exposed to electromagnetic emitting devices. This is the
first study that documents immediate and dramatic changes in both Hearth
Rate (HR) and HR variability (HRV) associated with MW exposure at levels
273
Provocation study using heart rate variability shows
microwave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone
affects autonomic nervous system
Magda Havas*, Jeffrey Marrongelle**, Bernard Pollner***,
Elizabeth Kelley****, Camilla R.G. Rees*****, Lisa Tully******
* Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada
** 1629 Long Run Road, PO Box 606, Schuylkill Haven, PA, USA
*** Haspingerstrasse 7/2, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
**** International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Venice, Italy
***** 350 Bay Street, #100-214, San Francisco, California, 94133, USA
****** 27 Arrow Leaf Court, Boulder, Colorado 80304, USA
Address: Magda Havas BSc, PhD, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University,
Peterborough, ON, K9J 7B8, Canada - Tel. 705 748-1011 x7882 - Fax 705-748-1569
E-mail: mhavas@trentu.ca
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 273
well below (0.5%) federal guidelines in Canada and the United States (1000
microW/cm2).
Key Words: heart rate variability, microwave radiation, DECT phone, auto-
nomic nervous system, provocation study, sympathetic, parasympathetic, cord-
less phone, 2.4 GHz, electrohypersensitivity
Introduction
A growing population claims to be sensitive to devices emitting electromagnetic
energy. Hallberg and Oberfeld1report a prevalence of electrohypersensitivity (EHS)
that has increased from less than 2% prior to 1997 to approximately 10% by 2004 and
is expected to affect 50% of the population by 2017. Whether this is due to a real
increase in EHS or to greater media attention, is not known. However, to label EHS as
a psychological disorder or to attribute the symptoms to aging and/or stress does not
resolve the issue that a growing population, especially those under the age of 60, are
suffering from some combination of fatigue, sleep disturbance, chronic pain, skin, eye,
hearing, cardiovascular and balance problems, mood disorders as well as cognitive
dysfunction and that these symptoms appear to worsen when people are exposed to
electromagnetic emitting devices2-7.
The World Health Organization (WHO) organized an international seminar and
working group meeting in Prague on EMF Hypersensitivity in 2004, and at that meeting
they defined EHS as follows8:
“. . . a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using
or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic
fields (EMFs) . . . Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes a debilitating
problem for the affected persons . . . Their exposures are generally several orders of
magnitude under the limits in internationally accepted standards.”
The WHO goes on to state that:
“EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted indi-
viduals attribute to exposure to EMF. The symptoms most commonly experienced
include dermatological symptoms (redness, tingling, and burning sensations) as well
as neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms (fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficul-
ties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation and digestive disturbances). The collection
of symptoms is not part of any recognized syndrome.”
Both provocation studies (where individuals are exposed to some form of electro-
magnetic energy and their symptoms are documented) and amelioration studies (where
exposure is reduced) can shed light on the offending energy source and the type and rate
of reaction.
Several amelioration studies have documented improvements in the behavior of
students and the health and wellbeing of teachers9, among asthmatics10, and in both
diabetics and those with multiple sclerosis11,12 when their exposure to dirty electricity is
reduced. Dirty electricity refers to microsurges flowing along electrical wires in the kHz
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
274
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 274
range that can damage sensitive electronic equipment and, it appears, affect the health of
those exposed.
In contrast to amelioration studies, provocation studies, examining the response of
people with self-diagnosed EHS, have generated mixed results.
Rea et al.13 were one of the first to show that sensitive individuals responded repeat-
edly to several frequencies between 0.1 Hz and 5 MHz but not to blank challenges. Reac-
tions were mostly neurological and included tingling, sleepiness, headache, dizziness,
and - in severe cases - unconsciousness, although other symptoms were also observed
including pain of various sorts, muscle tightness particularly in the chest, spasm, palpi-
tation, flushing, tachycardia, etc. In addition to the clinical symptoms, instrument
recordings of pupil dilation, respiration, and heart activity were also included in the
study using a double-blind approach. Results showed a 20% decrease in pulmonary
function and a 40% increase in heart rate. These objective instrumental recordings, in
combination with the clinical symptoms, demonstrate that EMF sensitive individuals
respond physiologically to certain EMF frequencies although responses were robust for
only 16 of the 100 potentially sensitive individuals tested.
In a more recent review, Rubin et al.14concluded that there was no robust evidence to
support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity to EMF. This was based on 31
double-blind experiments that tested 725 EHS subjects. Twenty-four studies found no
difference between exposure and sham conditions and of the seven studies that did find
some evidence that exposure affected EHS participants, the research group failed to repli-
cate the results (two studies) or the results appeared to be statistical artifacts (three studies).
Those who live near antennas and those who suffer from EHS often complain of
cardiovascular problems such as rapid heart rate, arrhythmia, chest pain, and/or changes
in blood pressure3,7,15,16.
Indeed, the doctors who signed the Freiburger Appeal17 stated the following:
“We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic disease
among our patients especially . . . extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder
to influence with medications; heart rhythm disorders; heart attacks and strokes
among an increasingly younger population . . .”
Based on these findings we decided to study the affect of microwave (MW) radiation
generated by a digital cordless phone on the cardiovascular system by monitoring heart
rate variability (HRV). Unlike cell phones that radiate microwaves only when they are
either transmitting or receiving information, the cordless phone we used radiates
constantly as long as the base of the phone is plugged into an electrical outlet. The phone
we used was an AT&T digitalally pulsed (100 Hz) cordless telephone that operates at
2.4 GHz or frequencies commonly used for microwave ovens and Wi-Fi. It resembles its
European version know as a Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT)
phone that operates at 1.9 GHz18.
HRV is increasingly used for screening cardiovascular and neurological disorders19-24.
We wanted to determine whether HRV could be used as a tool to diagnose EHS and
whether it could be used to predict probability and/or intensity of the reaction to a MW
provocation. The HRV analysis, using NervExpress software25, 26, provides information
about the functioning of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system with real
time monitoring and provides additional information including a pre-exposure fitness
score based on the orthostatic test.
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
275
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 275
Materials and methods
Background electromagnetic environment
Testing was done in two locations, one in Golden and the other in Boulder, Colorado,
on three separate weekdays during a 6-day period (Table 1). Background levels of low
frequency magnetic fields, intermediate frequency radiation on electrical wires, and
radio frequency radiation were monitored at each location and the values are provided
in Table 1. All testing of the electromagnetic environment was done in the area where
volunteers were tested for their heart rate variability during the provocation study.
The extremely low frequency magnetic field was measured with an omni-directional
Trifield meter. This meter is calibrated at 60 Hz with a frequency-weighted response
from 30 to 500 Hz and a flat response from 500 to 1000 Hz. Accuracy is ± 20%.
Power quality was measured with a Microsurge Meter that measures high frequency
transients and harmonics between 4 and 150 kHz (intermediate frequency range). This
meter provides a digital reading from 1 to 1999 of dv/dt expressed as GS units with a +/-
5% accuracy27. Since we were trying to ensure low background exposure, we installed
GS filters to improve power quality. The results recorded are with GS filters installed.
Within at least 100 m of the testing area, all wireless devices (cell phones, cordless
phones, wireless routers) were turned off. Radio frequency radiation from outside the
testing area was measured with an Electrosmog Meter, which has an accuracy of ±2.4
dB within the frequency range of 50 MHz to 3.5 GHz. Measurements were conducted
using the omni-directional mode and were repeated during the testing. This meter was
also used to determine the exposure of test subjects during provocation with a digital
cordless phone. This cordless phone emits radio frequency radiation when the base
station is plugged into an electrical outlet. This happens even when the phone is not in
use. We used the base station of an AT&T 2.4 GHz phone (digitally pulsed at 100 Hz)
to expose subjects to MW radiation18. The emission of MWs at different distances from
the front of the base station is provided in fig. 1.
Testing of subjects
Subjects were recruited by word-of–mouth based on their availability during a short
period of testing. Of the 27 people who volunteered to be tested, two were excluded, one
based on age (less than 16 years old) and another based on a serious heart condition.
Subjects were asked to complete a wellness and EHS questionnaire. They were then
asked questions about their age, height, weight, blood type, time of last meal, and occu-
pation (in the event of occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields/radiation).
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
276
Table 1 - Measurements of the electromagnetic environment at each testing location
Location Date Magnetic Field Power Quality Radio Frequency Radiation
30 - 1000 Hz 4 - 150 kHz 50 MHz – 3.5 GHz
Colorado mG GS units microW/cm2
Golden 10/16/08 3 – 15 140 0.8
Boulder 10/20/08 0.4 37 <0.01
Boulder 10/21/08 0.4 80 <0.01
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 276
We measured resting heart rate and blood pressure using a Life Source UA-767 Plus
digital blood pressure monitor; saliva pH with pH ion test strips designed for urine and
saliva (pH range 4.5-9.0), and blood sugar with ACCU-CHEK Compact Plus.
In an attempt to address the question: “Is there a simple test that relates EHS with the
electrical environment of the human body?”, we measured galvanic skin response (GSR),
body voltage, and the high and low frequency electric and magnetic field of each subject.
Wrist-to-wrist galvanic skin response was measured as an indicator of stress using a
Nexxtech voltmeter (Cat. No. 2200810) set at 20 volts DC and attached to the inner wrist
with a Medi Trace 535 ECG Conducive Adhesive Electrodes Foam used for ECG moni-
toring. Capacitively coupled “body voltage” was measured with a MSI Multimeter
connected to a BV-1 body voltage adaptor. The subject’s thumb was placed on one
connector and the other connector was plugged into the electrical ground, which served
as the reference electrode. High frequency (HF) and low frequency (LF) electric and
magnetic fields were measured with a Multidetektor II Profi Meter held at approximately
30 cm from the subject’s body, while the subject was seated.
HRV testing
Two types of HRV testing were conducted. The first was an orthostatic test and the
second was continuous monitoring of heart rate variability with and without provocation
(exposure to MW frequencies from a digital cordless phone). NervExpress software was
used for HRV testing25. NervExpress has both CE and EU approval and is a Class Two
Medical Device in Canada and in the European Union. An electrode belt with transmitter
was placed on the person’s chest near the heart, against the skin. A wired HRV cable
with receiver was clipped to the clothing near the transmitter and connected to the COM
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
277
Fig. 1. Radiation near a 2.4 GHz AT&T digital cordless phone when the base station of the phone is
plugged into an electrical outlet and the phone is not in use
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 277
port of the computer for acoustical-wired transmission (not wireless). This provided
continuous monitoring of the interval between heartbeats (R-R interval).
For the orthostatic testing subject laid down on his/her back and remained in this
position for 192 R-R intervals or heartbeats (approximately 3 minutes), at which time a
beep from the computer indicated that the person stand up and remain standing until the
end of the testing period, which was 448 intervals (approximately 7 minutes depending
on heart rate).
For the provocation testing, subject remained in a lying down position for the dura-
tion of the testing. A digital cordless phone base station, placed approximately 30 to 50
cm from subject’s head, was then connected randomly to either a live (real exposure) or
dead (sham exposure) extension cord. It was not possible for the subject to know if the
cordless phone was on or off at any one time. Continuous real-time monitoring recorded
the interval between each heartbeat. Data were analyzed by timed stages consisting of
192 R-R intervals (heartbeats).
The sham exposures are referred to as either pre-MW exposure or post-MW exposure
to differentiate the order of testing. Since type of exposure was done randomly in some
instances either the pre-MW or the post-MW is missing. Subjects who reacted immedi-
ately to the cordless phone were retested with more real/sham exposures. When subject
was exposed multiple times, only the first exposure was used for comparison. Provoca-
tion testing took between 9 to 30 minutes per subject.
After the initial testing, treatments (deep breathing, laser acupuncture, Clean Sweep)
that might alleviate symptoms were tried on a few subjects but these results will be
reported elsewhere.
Interpretation of HRV results
The results for the orthostatic testing and provocation testing were sent to one of the
authors (JM) for interpretation. An example of the type of information send is provided
in fig. 2 (orthostatic) and fig. 3 (provocation). No information was provided about the
subject’s self-proclaimed EHS and the information about exposure was blinded. JM did
not examine the provocation results until he reviewed the orthostatic results. No attempt
was made to relate the two during this initial stage of interpretation.
Predicting response and health based on orthostatic test
For the orthostatic testing JM provided a ranking for cardiovascular tone (CVT),
which is based on the blood pressure and heart rate (sum of systolic and diastolic blood
pressure times heart rate) and provides information on whether the cardiovascular
system is hypotonic (<12,500) or hypertonic (>16,500). We used a 5-point ranking scale
as follows: Rank 1: < 12,500, hypotonic; Rank 2: 12,500 to 14,000; Rank 3: 14,000 to
15,500; Rank 4: 15,500 to 16,500; Rank 5: > 16,500, hypertonic.
Non-Adaptive Capacity (NAC)awas ranked on a 5-point scale with 1 indicating
highly adaptive and 5 indicating highly non-adaptive. This was based on a balanced
sympathetic (SNS) and parasympathetic (PSNS) nervous system (average orthostatic
response within ±1 standard deviation from center on graph) and on the overall fitness
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
278
aLater Adaptive Capacity (AC) was used, which is the inverse of NAC.
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 278
score. The closer to normal value of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) in a given
subject, the less likely they are to react, since their adaptive capacity is high. “Normal”
refers to the balanced SNS/PSNS and the appropriate direction of movement under
stress, in this case when person stood up. Direction of movement is shown in the
NervExpress graph (fig. 2). Appropriate direction of movement would be either up 1
standard deviation (small increase in SNS and no change in PSNS); up and to the left
1 standard deviation each (small increase in SNS and small decrease in PSNS); or to
left (no change in SNS and slight decrease in PSNS). For those who move further to the
left (greater down regulation of PSNS) or further up and to the left (greater up regula-
tion of SNS combined with a greater down regulation of PSNS), the less likely they are
to adapt and the more likely they are to react. Likewise, if the fitness score is high or
adequate, the individual would be capable of resisting the stressor. An adequate phys-
ical fitness score is between 1:1 and 10:6. The first number refers to the functioning of
the physiological system and the second is the adaptation reserve. The lower the
numbers the greater the level of fitness in each category. Note, if a subject with good
or adequate fitness was to be a reactor to MW stress, his/her reaction would be both
rapid and strong.
Probability of Reaction (POR) was ranked on a 5-point scale with “1” indicating low
probability of a reaction and “5” indicating high probability of a reaction to stress of
any kind. Criteria were similar to the NAC. However, greater consideration was given
to the Chronotropic Myocardial Reaction Index (ChMR) value and the dysautonomic
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
279
Fig. 2. Orthostatic HRV information provided for blinded analysis of Subject 18
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 279
status (average of orthostatic test is more than two standard deviations from center or
up to the right) of the subject, whereby individuals with compromised ANS and a poor
ChMR ranking (outside the range of 0.53 to 0.69) would be most likely to react and vice
versa.
A potential non-responding reactor is someone with low energy, average orthostatic
response in lower left quadrate, and a physical fitness score between 10:6 and 13:7.
Subject 18 in fig. 2 is a borderline non-responding reactor. Note, this does not neces-
sarily imply that this person is hypersensitive, only that he probably does not have
enough energy to mount a reaction even if he was EHS.
JM also provided his comments on the health status of the subject based on the
rhythmogram, autonomic nervous system assessment (changes in the SNS and PSNS),
Fitness Score, Vascular Compensation Reaction (VC), ChMR, Compensation Response
(CR), Ortho Test Ratio (OTR), Parameters of Optimal Variability (POV), Index of
Discrepancy (ID); and Tension Index (TI). The interpretation of the HRV parameters is
dependant to a certain degree on the integration of all the data provided as a whole with
value being given to the total ANS picture presented. Those skilled in the art and
science of HRV analysis should reach similar interpretive assessment of the data
presented here26.
Blinded analysis of provocation results
The blinded data for the continuous monitoring of heart rate variability with real and
sham exposure were sent to JM for analysis (fig. 3). JM attempted to identify the stage
during which exposure took place, stage during which the subject reacted, and then
ranked symptom probability (5-point scale) and intensity (non-reactive, mild, moderate,
intense). The assessment is provided in Appendix A.
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
280
Fig. 3. Continuous monitoring of HRV with real and sham exposure to MW radiation from a digital cord-
less phone. Information provided for blinded analysis of Subject 18
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 280
Wellness and EHS Questionnaire
Prior to any testing, each subject was asked to complete a wellness and EHS question-
naire. This was designed on surveymonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) and was adminis-
tered in paper format. This questionnaire was analyzed separately from the HRV data.
Results
Background electromagnetic environment
The two environments, where we conducted the testing, differed in their background
levels of EMF and electromagnetic radiation (EMR). The Golden site had high magnetic
fields (3-15 mG), high levels of dirty electricity (140 GS units) despite the GS filters
being installed, and elevated levels of radio frequency (RF) radiation (0.8 microW/cm2)
coming from 27 TV transmitters on Lookout Mountain within 4 km of our testing envi-
ronment. Despite RF reflecting film on windows the RF levels inside the home were
elevated. The Boulder environment was relatively pristine and differed only with respect
to power quality on the two days of testing (Table 1).
The cordless phone, used for provocation, produced radiation that was maximal at the
subject’s head (3 to 5 microW/cm2) and minimal at the subject’s feet (0.2 to 0.8
microW/cm2) depending on height of subject and the environment. The cordless phone
did not alter magnetic field or power quality.
Participants
A total of 25 subjects were included in this pilot study, ranging in age from 37 to 79
with most (40%) of the subjects in their 50s (Table 2). Eighty percent were females.
Approximately half of the participants had normal body mass index and the other half
were either overweight (28%) or obese (16%)28. Mean resting heart rate for this group
was 70 (beats per minute) and ranged from 53 to 81. Blood pressure fell within a
normal range for 40% of participants and fell within stage 1 of high blood pressure for
16% of the subjects29. None of the subjects had pacemakers, a prerequisite for the study.
Forty percent had mercury amalgam fillings and 28% had metal (artificial joints,
braces, etc.) in their body. This is relevant as metal implants and mercury fillings may
relate to EHS30.
Questionnaire
Self-perceived Electrosensitivity
One third of participants did not know if they were or were not electrically sensitive,
40% believed they were moderately to extremely sensitive, 16% stated that they had a little
sensitivity, and 8% claimed they were not at all sensitive. Their sensitivity was slightly
debilitating for 24% and moderately debilitating for 20% of participants (fig. 4).
Reaction time for symptoms to appear after exposure ranged from immediately (12%)
to within 2 hours (4%) and was within 10 minutes for the majority of those who believe
they react (28%) (fig. 5). Recovery time ranged from immediately to within 1 day with
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
281
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 281
only 4% claiming to recover immediately. Several participants noted that the rate of
reaction and recovery is a function of the severity of their exposure and their state of
health. The more intense the exposure the more rapid their response and the slower their
rate of recovery. These results may have a bearing on the provocation study as we are
testing an immediate reaction/recovery response (~3 minutes) to a moderate intensity
exposure (3 to 5 µW/cm2) and the percent that claims to respond quickly is low among
this group.
Symptoms
The most common symptoms of exposure to electrosmog, as identified by this group
of participants, included poor short-term memory, difficulty concentrating, eye prob-
lems, sleep disorder, feeling unwell, headache, dizziness, tinnitus, chronic fatigue and
heart palpitations (fig. 6, upper graph). Of the symptoms commonly associated with
EHS, heart palpitations (10th), rapid heartbeat (18th), arrhythmia (21st), and slower heart-
beat (23rd) are the only ones we would be able to identify with HRV testing. For most
participants who claim to react, reactions are mild to moderate.
All of the symptoms, except high blood pressure, arrhythmia, and slower heartbeat,
were experienced several times per day (daily) or several times per week (weekly) by at
least one or more participants. The patterns for symptom severity and frequency are
similar (fig. 6, upper vs lower graph). Some of the symptoms (feeling unwell, pain,
chronic fatigue, gas/bloat, skin problems) were experienced several times each month
(monthly) may relate to menses in pre-menopausal or peri-menopausal women (16
women).
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
282
Table 2 - Information about participants
#%
Gender Male 5 20%
Female 20 80%
Age Mean and Range 60 years 37-79 years
Age Class 20s 1 4%
30s 1 4%
40s 2 8%
50s 10 40%
60s 5 20%
70s 7 28%
BMIaobese 4 16%
overweight 7 28%
normal 13 52%
underweight 1 4%
Resting Heart Rate Mean and Range 70 bpm 53-81 bpm
Blood PressurebNormal 10 40%
Pre-hypertension 11 44%
High Blood Pressure 4 16%
Metal in Body Pace maker 0 0%
Mercury fillings 10 40%
Other metal 7 28%
aBMI = Body Mass Index based on height and weight28
bBlood Pressure (BP) according to National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (nd)29
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 282
A large percentage of participants had food allergies (64%), mold/pollen/dust aller-
gies (48%), pet allergies (20%), and were chemically sensitive (36%) (fig. 7).
Some also had pre-existing health/medical conditions (fig. 8). The top five were
anxiety (28%); hypo-thyroidism (24%); autoimmune disorder (20%), depression (16%)
and high blood pressure (16%). Note these may be self-diagnosed rather than medically
diagnosed conditions.
Objects contributing or associated with adverse health symptoms
Among the objects identified as contributing to adverse health symptoms, tube fluo-
rescent lights were at the top of the list with more than 40% of participants reacting often
or always (fig. 9). The next 4 items on the list (antennas, cell phones, Wi-Fi, cordless
phones) all emit microwave radiation. According to this figure 16% of subjects respond
to cordless phones often or always and their responses may include headaches, dizziness,
depression, which we are unable to monitor with HRV.
Fifty-two percent stated they are debilitated by their sensitivity, 24% slightly, 20%
moderately, and 8% severely. Some have difficult shopping, which may relate to
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
283
Fig. 4. Self-proclaimed electrosensitivity of participants (n=25)
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 283
lighting in stores. Others have difficulty flying or traveling by car, perhaps due to
microwave exposure on highways and in airplanes. A few subjects are unable to use
mobile phones and computers and are unable to watch television. Some are unable to
wear jewelry because it irritates the skin and/or watches because they often malfunction
(fig. 7).
EHS and person’s EMF
The body voltage, as measured by the potential difference between the subject and the
electrical ground, differed at the two sites. Subjects at Golden had much higher values
than those at Boulder. This was also the case for the high and low frequency electric field
and for the HF and LF magnetic field (Table 3). Galvanic skin response was highly vari-
able among subjects prior to testing and did not relate to either sensitivity or the envi-
ronment. There was no association between any of the EMF measurements (body
voltage, GSR, electric field or magnetic field) that we conducted prior to testing and
EHS of the subjects tested. In a follow-up study it would be useful to monitor each
person’s EMF before, during, and after exposure.
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
284
Fig. 5. Self-proclaimed response time of participants to electro-stress and recovery (n=25)
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 284
Blind assessment of responses: orthostatic HRV provocation HRV
The Orthostatic HRV provided us with the state of the ANS and the relative fitness
score of the individual prior to exposure, which is important for predicting the intensity
outcome of exposure.
A summary of the orthostatic HRV (blinded analysis) along with the self-assessment
and the provocation HRV (blinded and unblinded) are provide in Appendix A for each
subject. For those individuals who had either a moderate or intense response, the blinded
predictions show good agreement for stage of exposure and for intensity of exposure.
Based on the orthostatic test, those with high adaptive capacity had a lower proba-
bility of reacting to stress, but if they did react, their reaction would be moderate to
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
285
Fig. 6. Severity and frequency of symptoms associated with electrosmog exposure (n=25)
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 285
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
286
Fig. 7. Response to specific questions that may contribute to or be associated with electrical sensitivity
(n=25)
Fig. 8. Existing medical conditions of participants (n=25)
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 286
intense. Conversely, those with low adaptive capacity had a higher probability of
reacting but they didn’t always have the energy to react and hence their reactions would
be mild.
Provocation HRV
Most of the subjects (15/25, 60%) did not respond appreciable to the MW radiation
generated by the cordless phone when it was plugged into a live outlet. The rhythmo-
gram was unchanged and the heart rate, parasympathetic and sympathetic tone remained
constant (figs. 3, 10, 12).
However, 10 subjects (40%) did respond to the MW challenge. Fig. 13 shows the
response for six of those 10. Response and the recovery were immediate. MW provoca-
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
287
Fig. 9. Objects contributing to adverse health symptoms. Those marked with a dot generate microwave
frequencies (n=25)
Table 3 - Personal electromagnetic environment (mean ± standard deviation) of subjects tested includ-
ing galvanic skin response (GSR), body voltage, electric (E-field) and magnetic fields (M-field) at both
high and low frequency (HF and LF) [* P ≤0.05].
Location Date GSR Body E-field E-field M-field M-field
Voltage HF LF HF LF
mV mV mV mV mG mG
Golden 10/16/08 3.5 ± 1.8 3.4 ± 0.5* 88 ± 85* 333 ± 71* 4.6 ± 5.7* 17 ± 14*
Boulder 10/20/08 3.2 ± 2.5 0.5 ± 0.5 13 ± 33 63 ± 94 0.2 ± 0.6 2.7 ± 0.7*
Boulder 10/21/08 4.1 ± 1.3 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 0.8 57 ± 50 0.1 ± 0.4 1.7 ± 0.6*
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 287
tion differed noticeably compared with sham exposure. Heart rate increased significantly
for four of the subjects, resulting in tachycardia for three. The heart rate for subject 25
jumped from 61 bpm to 154 bpm (with real provocation) and returned to 64 bpm (with
sham provocation) (fig. 11). The increase in heart rate was accompanied by up regula-
tion of the SNS and down regulation of the PSNS during cordless phone exposure for
four subjects in Table 4 (fig. 13). Response of the one subject (Subject 27) was para-
doxical in that the heart rate increased from 72 to 82 bpm during which time the
parasympathetic tone increased and the sympathetic tone remained constant.
Fig. 14 shows the range of responses of some non- or slightly reactive subjects to
provocation.
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
288
Fig. 10. Continuous monitoring of HRV during provocation part of this study for one subject who was
non-reactive
Fig. 11. Continuous monitoring of HRV during provocation part of this study for one subject who react-
ed to the MW radiation from a digital cordless 2.4 GHz phone
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 288
The pre- and post-MW cordless phone response (SNS & PSNS) differed significantly
for this group (fig. 15) with up regulation of the SNS and down regulation of the
PSNS with MW exposure and the reverse for post-MW exposure suggesting a recovery
phase.
The severe and moderate responders had a much higher LF/HF ratio than those who
either did not respond or had a mild reaction to the MW exposure from the cordless
phone (fig. 16B). This indicates, yet again, a stimulation of the SNS (LF) and a down-
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
289
Table 4 - Real-time monitoring of heart rate, sympathetic and parasympathetic tone before, during, and
after exposure to a 2.4 GHz digital cordless phone radiating 3-5 microW/cm2
EHS Subject EHS Heart Rate (bpm) Sympathetic Response Parasympathetic Response
Code Ranked bgrnd pre MW post bgrnd pre MW post bgrnd pre MW post
Intense 25 1 61 61 154 64 -1 -1 40 0 0-4 -1
17 2 66 68 122 66 0040 0-2 -3 0
26 3 59 61 106 61 -1 -1 30 1 2-3 1
27 4 72 nd 82 69 0 nd 00-3 nd 2 -2
Moderate 5566 66 66 65 1130-1 -1 -3 -1
9677 75 75 73 1101-2 0 -3 -1
3748 50 53 nd 2 -2 0 nd 200nd
16 8 61 nd 62 63 0 nd -2 0 -2 nd -2 -2
8981 nd 81 80 1 nd 11 0nd -2 -1
10 10 69 68 70 70 00 00-2 -2 -3 -1
Mild 2 11 54 54 55 56 -2 -3 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3
23 12 59 nd 58 60 -1 nd 0 -2 -2 nd -2 -3
12 13 71 nd 69 74 0 nd 10-1 nd -1 -1
18 14 60 61 61 61 -2 -1 -2 -1 -3 -3 -3 -2
19 15 63 62 62 61 -1 0 -1 -1 -3 -3 -3 -2
6 16 65 66 66 65 0000-3 -3 -4 -3
4 17 61 62 61 61 -2 -1 -1 -2 -3 -2 -3 -2
24 18 71 72 71 69 0000-3 -2 -1 -2
None 1 19 71 70 71 71 0001-3 -1 -1 -1
11 20 57 nd 57 58 0 nd 00 3nd 32
21 21 78 78 78 nd 111nd -2 -3 -3 nd
7 22 70 71 70 69 0000-3 -3 -3 -3
14 23 69 68 67 66 0000-1 -2 -2 -1
20 24 67 nd 66 66 0 nd 00-1 nd -1 -1
13 25 80 78 76 nd 111nd -3 -2 -2 nd
Response Mean Heart Rate Mean Sympathetic Mean Parasympathetic
(bmp) Response Response
Intense 65 63 116 65 -0.5 -0.7 2.8 0.0 -0.5 0.0 -2.0 -0.5
Moderate 67 65 68 70 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.4 -0.8 -0.8 -2.2 -1.2
Mild 63 63 63 63 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -1.0 -2.6 -2.7 -2.5 -2.3
None 70 73 69 66 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 -1.4 -2.2 -1.3 -0.8
All 66 66 74 66 -0.1 -0.3 0.4 -0.2 -1.5 -1.7 -2.0 -1.4
Note:
EHS categories described in text: bgrnd = background; pre=sham exposure before real exposure;
MW=microwave exposure; post=sham exposure after real exposure; nd=no data
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 289
regulation of the PSNS (HF). The up regulation was greater for LF2 than for LF1 (fig.
16A).
Based on self-assessment and the results from the provocation study, 2 subjects (8%)
underestimated their sensitivity and 5 subjects (20%) overestimated their sensitivity to
the cordless phone provocation. However, only two of the 5 claim to experience mild
heart palpitations and only one of those responds “sometimes” to cordless phones.
Discussion
The most intriguing result in this study is that a small group of subjects responded
immediately and dramatically to MW exposure generated by a digital cordless DECT
phone with blinded exposure. Heart rate (HR) increased significantly for 4 subjects (16%)
(10 to 93 beats per minute) and the sympathetic/parasympathetic balance changed for an
additional 6 subjects (24%) while they remained in a supine position. This is the first
study documenting such a dramatic change brought about immediately and lasting as long
as the subject was exposed and is in sharp contrast to the provocation studies reviewed by
Levallois5, Rubin et al.14, and Bergqvist et al.31. Authors of these reviews generally
conclude that they were unable to establish a relationship between low or high frequency
fields and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or with symptoms typically occurring
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
290
Fig. 12. Subject 7: no changes in heart rate, sympathetic, and parasympathetic tone before, during, and
after blind provocation with a 2.4 GHz cordless phone generating exposure of 3 to 5 microW/cm2
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 290
among such afflicted individuals. Furthermore, several studies report no effect of mobile
phones (various exposure conditions) on human HRV-parameters32-39.
Our results clearly show a causal relationship between pulsed 100 Hz MW exposure
and changes in the ANS that is physiological rather than psychological and that may
explain at least some of the symptoms experienced by those sensitive to electromagnetic
frequencies. Dysfunction of the ANS can lead to heart irregularities (arrhythmia, palpi-
tations, flutter), altered blood pressure, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, sleep disturbances,
profuse sweating and fainting spells, which are some of the symptoms of EHS.
When the SNS (fight or flight response) is stimulated and the PSNS (rest and digest)
is suppressed the body is in a state of arousal and uses more energy. If this is a constant
state of affairs, the subject may become tired and may have difficulty sleeping (unable
to relax because of a down regulated PSNS and/or up regulated SNS). Interestingly,
Sandstrom40 found a disturbed pattern of circadian rhythms of HRV and the absence of
the expected HF (parasympathetic) power-spectrum component during sleep in persons
who perceived themselves as being electrically hypersensitive.
If the dysfunction of the ANS is intermittent it may be experienced as anxiety and/or
panic attacks, and if the vagus nerve is affected it may lead to dizziness and/or nausea.
Our results show that the SNS is up regulated (increase in LF) and the PSNS is down
regulated (decrease in HF) for some of the subjects during provocation. The greatest
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
291
Fig. 13. Reactive Subjects: changes in heart rate, sympathetic, and parasympathetic tone before, during,
and after blind provocation with a 2.4 GHz cordless phone that generates exposure of 3 to 5 microW/cm2
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 291
increase is in LF2, which is the adrenal stress response, although LF1 also increases. We
not know the degree to which this is due to the 100 Hz pulse, the MW carrier, or their
combination.
Several studies lend support to our results.
Lyskov et al.41 monitored baseline neurophysiological characteristics of 20 patients
with EHS and compared them to a group of controls. They found that the observed group
of patients had a trend to hypersympathotone, hyper-responsiveness to sensor stimula-
tion and heightened arousal. The EHS group at rest had on average lower HR and HRV
and higher LF/HF ratio than controls. We found that subjects with intense and moderate
reactions to the MW provocation also had higher LF/HF ratios than those who did not
respond.
Kolesnyk et al.42 describes an “adverse influence of mobile phone on HRV” and Rezk
et al. 43 reports an increase of fetal and neonatal HR and a decrease in cardiac output after
exposure of pregnant women to mobile phones.
Andrzejak et al.44 reports an increased parasympathetic tone and a decreased sympa-
thetic tone after a 20-minute telephone-call. While these results are contrary to our find-
ings, the effect of speaking cannot be ruled out in Andrzejak’s study. In our study the
subject remained in a supine position, silent and still during the testing.
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
292
Fig. 14. Non or slightly reactive subjects: patterns of response for before, during, and after blind provo-
cation with a 2.4 GHz cordless phone that generates exposure of 3 to 5 microW/cm2
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 292
Workers of radio broadcasting stations have an increased risk of disturbances in blood
pressure and heart rhythm. They have a lower daily heart rate, a decreased HR vari-
ability, higher incidences of increased blood pressure and disturbances in parameters of
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
293
Fig. 15. Response of 25 subjects to blind provocation by a 2.4 GHz digital cordless phone that generates
exposure of 3 to 5 microW/cm2
Fig. 16. A. Mean high frequency (parasympathetic) and low frequency (sympathetic) spectral distribu-
tion as a function of response intensity of 25 subjects exposed to a 2.4 GHz cordless phone. B. Low fre-
quency (LF1 + LF2) to high frequency (HF) ratio for different exposures
AB
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 293
diurnal rhythms of blood pressure and HR-all of no clinical significance, but showing a
certain dysregulation of autonomic cardiac control45-48.
Bortkiewicz et al.49 reported that exposure to AM radio frequency EMF within
hygienic standards affects the functions of the ANS of workers. Workers had higher
frequency of abnormalities in resting and 24-h ECG than controls and an increased
number of heart rhythm disturbances (ventricular premature beats). As in our study, RF
exposure was associated with a reduced HF power spectrum suggesting that the EMF
field reduce the influence of the PSNS on circulatory function.
Several studies report changes in blood pressure with electromagnetic exposure50, 51.
Others show an increase of oxidative stress and a decrease of antioxidative defense-
systems in heart-tissue irradiated with 2.45 GHz and 900 MHz respectively52, 53. Still
others show a stress-response reaction following exposure to radio frequency radiation
either in the form of heat shock proteins (hsp) or changes in enzymatic activity. Irradia-
tion of rats with a low-intensity-field (0.2-20 MHz) resulted in an increase of myocar-
dial hsp7054. Similarly 1.71 GHz MW exposure increased hsp70 in p53-deficient embry-
onic stem cells55. Abramov and Merkulova56 report pulsed EMFs increase the enzymatic
activity of acetylcholinesterase in the animal heart, which suppresses the parasympa-
thetic and allows the sympathetic to dominate.
Most of the studies on humans, that did not show any effects of MW radiation in some
of the studies mentioned above, were conducted with young, healthy subjects, giving
rise to the question whether the experiments would have yielded different results with
subjects with a “higher level of pathologic pre-load” and thus fewer possibilities to
acutely compensate the possible stressor of radiation.
The studies on work-exposure to MW radiation were able to show different levels of
effects on the cardiovascular system, and this could be interpreted as the necessity to
remain regularly, repeatedly, and for a longer time under the influence of a certain EMF
exposure, hence pointing out the great importance of the electromagnetic exposures in
the work and home environment. Perhaps only chronic exposure to MW-EMF can influ-
ence various rhythms (e.g. cardiovascular biorhythms) sufficiently to cause detectable
effects. Perhaps it is these individuals who become EHS and then respond to stressors if
they have sufficient energy to mount a reaction.
In our study, half of those tested claimed to be moderately to extremely sensitive to
electromagnetic energy and they ranged in age from 37 to 79 years old. The symptoms
they identified are similar to those reported elsewhere and include poor short-term
memory, difficulty concentrating, eye problems, sleep disorder, feeling unwell,
headache, dizziness, tinnitus, chronic fatigue, and heart palpitations2, 7, 57.
The common devices attributed to stress generation included fluorescent lights,
antennas, cell phones, Wi-Fi, and cordless phones. The last 4 items all emit MW radia-
tion.
Many of those claiming to have EHS also had food allergies, mold/pollen/dust aller-
gies and were chemically sensitive. With so many other sensitivities it is difficult to
determine whether the sensitivity to electromagnetic energy is a primary disorder attrib-
utable to high and/or prolonged EM exposures or a secondary disorder brought about by
an impaired immune system attributable to other stressors.
Interestingly, the younger participants (37 to 58) displayed the most intense responses
presumably because they were healthy enough to mount a response to a stressor. Those
who did not respond to the MW exposure were either not sensitive, or they had a low
adaptive capacity coupled with a poor fitness score and did not have enough energy to
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
294
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 294
mount a reaction. Orthostatic HRV combined with provocation monitoring may help
distinguish these three types of responses (sensitive, not sensitive, non-responsive reac-
tors).
The term EHS was deemed to imply that a causal relationship has been established
between the reported symptoms and EMF exposure and for that reason the WHO8has
labeled EHS as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI) to indicate that it is an
acquired disorder with multiple recurrent symptoms, associated with diverse environ-
mental factors tolerated by the majority of people, and not explained by any known
medical, psychiatric or psychological disorder. We think this labeling needs to be
changed especially in light of this study.
Conclusions
The orthostatic HRV provides information about the adaptive capacity of an indi-
vidual based on fitness score and on the state of the SNS and PSNS. A person with high
adaptive capacity is unlikely to respond to a stressor (because they are highly adaptive)
but if they do respond the response is likely to be intense. Orthostatic HRV was able to
predict the intensity of the response much better than the probability of a response to a
stressor, which in this case was a 2.4 GHz digital cordless phone that generated a power
density of 3 to 5 microW/cm2.
Forty percent of those tested responded to the HRV provocation. Some experienced
tachycardia, which corresponded to an up regulation of their SNS and a down regulation
of their PSNS (increase in LF/HF ratio). This was deemed a severe response when the
HR in supine subjects increased by 10 to 93 beats per minute during blinded exposure.
HR returned to normal during sham exposure for all subjects tested. In total, 16% had a
severe response, 24% had a moderate response (changes in SNS and/or PSNS but no
change in HR); 32% had a slight response; and 28% were non-responders. Some of the
non-responders were either highly adaptive (not sensitive) or non-responding reactors
(not enough energy to mount a reaction). A few reactors had a potentiated reaction, such
that their reaction increased with repeated exposure, while others showed re-regulation
with repeated exposure.
These data show that HRV can be used to demonstrate a physiological response to a
pulsed 100 Hz MW stressor. For some the response is extreme (tachycardia), for others
moderate to mild (changes in SNS and/or PSNS), and for some there is no observable
reaction because of high adaptive capacity or because of systemic neurovegetative
exhaustion. Our results show that MW radiation affects the ANS and may put some indi-
viduals with pre-existing heart conditions at risk when exposed to electromagnetic radi-
ation to which they are sensitive.
This study provides scientific evidence that some individuals may experience
arrhythmia, heart palpitations, heart flutter, or rapid heartbeat and/or vasovagal symp-
toms such as dizziness, nausea, profuse sweating and syncope when exposed to electro-
magnetic devices. It is the first study to demonstrate such a dramatic response to pulsed
MW radiation at 0.5% of existing federal guidelines (1000 microW/cm2) in both Canada
and the US.
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
295
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 295
Acknowledgements
We thank those who offered their homes for testing and those who volunteered to be tested. Special
thanks goes to Evelyn Savarin for helping with this research.
References
1. Hallberg O, Oberfeld G. Letter to the Editor: Will we all become electrosensitive? Electromagn Biol
Med 2006; 25: 189-91.
2. Firstenberg A. Radio wave packet. President, cellular phone taskforce. 2001; http://www.good
healthinfo.net/radiation/radio_wave_packet.pdf
3. Eltiti S, Wallace D, Zougkou K, et al. Development and evaluation of the electromagnetic hyper-
sensitivity questionnaire. Bioelectromagnetics 2007; 28: 137-51.
4. Hillert L, Berglind N, Arnetz BB, et al. Prevalence of self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or
magnetic fields in a population-based questionnaire survey. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002;
28(1): 33-41.
5. Levallois P. Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic field expo-
sure: a review of the literature. Environ Health Perspect 2002; 110 (suppl 4): 613-8.
6. Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-art of a functional impairment. Electromagn Biol
Med 2006; 25: 245-58.
7. Schooneveld H, Kuiper J. Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) in the Netherlands. A questionnaire survey.
2nd graphical edition. Stichting EHS (Dutch EHS Foundation), 2008, 23.
8. Mild KH, Repacholi M, van Deventer E (eds). Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. Proceedings Inter-
national Workshop on EMF Hypersensitivity Prague, Czech Republic October 25-27, 2004, 196.
9. Havas M, Olstad A. Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and student behavior in three Minnesota
Schools. Sci Total Environ 2008; 402(2-3): 157-62.
10. Havas M. Dirty electricity: an invisible pollutant in schools. Feature Article for Forum Magazine,
Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF), 2006; Fall.
11. Havas M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on
diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagn Biol Med 2006; 25: 259-68.
12. Havas M. Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive diabetics and may
explain brittle diabetes. Electromagn Biol Med 2008; 27(2): 135-46.
13. Rea WJ, Pan Y, Fenyves EJ, et al. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. J Bioelectr 1991; 10: 241-
56.
14. Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of
provocation studies. Psychosom Med 2005; 67: 224-32.
15. Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone
base stations: 1st influence of distance and sex. Pathol Biol 2002; 50: S369-73.
16. Granlund R, Lind J. Black on White: voices and witnesses about electro-hypersensitivity, the
Swedish Experience. 2nd Internet Edition Oct 3, 2004. Translation: J. Ganellen; Diagrams: J. Renner-
felt © Mimers Brunn Kunskapsförlaget, Sweden. mimersbrunn@spray.se
17. IGUMED. Freiburger Appeal. nterdisziplina re Gesellschaft fur Umweltmedizin e. Bergseestr. Bad
Sackingen, October 9 2002, 57, 79713. igumed@gmx.de
18. Haumann T, Sierck P. Nonstop pulsed 2.4 GHz radiation inside US homes. 2nd International
Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 7-11 Oct. 2002.
19. Singer DH, Martin GJ, Magid N, et al. Low heart rate variability and sudden cardiac death. J Elec-
trocardiol 1988; 21: S46-55.
20. Cerutti S. Power spectrum analysis of heart rate variability signal in the diagnosis of diabetic
neuropathy, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 11th Annual International Confer-
ence, 1989, 12-13.
21. Hayano J. Decreased magnitude of heart rate spectral components in coronary artery disease. Circu-
lation 1990; 81: 1217-24.
22. Muhlnickel B. The value of heart rate frequency variability in the prognostic evaluation of patients
with severe cerebral injuries. Anaesthesiol Reanim 1990; 15: 342-50.
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
296
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 296
23. Van Ravenrwaaij-Arts CM, Kollee LA, Hopman JC, et al. Heart rate variability. Ann Int Med 1993;
118: 436-47.
24. Camm AJ, Malik M. Guidelines, heart rate variability, standards of measurement, physiological
interpretation, and clinical use. Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North
American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. Eur Heart J 1996; 17: 354-81.
25. Riftine A. Nervexpress. System Guide and User’s Manual. Heart Rhythm Instruments Inc., 2002,
72. Metuchen NJ. www.nervexpress.com.
26. Riftine A. Quantitative assessment of the autonomic nervous system based on heart rate variability
analysis theoretical review of the nerve-express system with sample cases. Theoretical Review and
Clinical Use 2005; 43 pp. www.intelwave.net
27. Graham MH. A microsurge meter for electrical pollution research. Memorandum No. UCB/ERL
M03/3, 19 February 2003, Electronics Research Laboratory, College of Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley.
28. NHLBI. High Blood Pressure. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, Diseases and Conditions
Index. November 2008. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Hbp/HBP_WhatIs.html.
29. NHLBI. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, Obesity Education Initiative, Calculate our Body
Mass Index. No date; http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
30. Mortazavi SM, Daiee E, Yazdi A, et al. Mercury release from dental amalgam restorations after
magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile phone use. Pak J Biol Sci 2008; 11(8): 1142-6.
31. Bergqvist U, Vogel E (eds). Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromag-
netic fields. A report prepared by a European group of experts for the European Commission, DG
V, Swedish: National Institute for Working Life, 1997; 135 pp.
32. Mann K, Röschke J, Connemann B, et al. No effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields
on heart rate variability during human sleep. Neuropsychobiology 1998; 38: 251-6.
33. Röschke J, Mann K, Connemann B. Cardiac autonomic activity during sleep under the influence of
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Somnologie 2005; 9: 180-4.
34. Wilén J, Johansson A, Kalezic N, et al. Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with
mobile phone related symptoms. Bioelectromagnetics 2006; 27: 204-14.
35. Atlasz T, Kellényi L, Kovács P, et al. The application of surface plethysmography for heart rate
variability analysis after GSM radiofrequency exposure. J Biochem Biophys Methods 2006; 69:
233-6.
36. Parazzini M, Ravazzani P, Tognola G, et al. Electromagnetic fields produced by GSM cellular
phones and heart rate variability. Bioelectromagnetics 2007; 28: 122-9.
37. Barker AT, Jackson PR, Parry H, et al. The effect of GSM and TETRA mobile handset signals on
blood pressure, catechol levels and heart rate variability. Bioelectromagnetics 2007; 28: 433-8.
38. Johansson A, Forsgren S, Stenberg B, et al. No effect of mobile phone-like RF exposure on patients
with atopic dermatitis. Bioelectromagnetics 2008; 29: 353-62.
39. Ahamed VI, Karthick NG, Joseph PK. Effect of mobile phone radiation on heart rate variability.
Comput Biol Med 2008; 38: 709-12.
40. Sandstrom M, Lyskov E, Hornsten R, et al. Holter ECG monitoring in patients with perceived elec-
trical hypersensitivity. Int J Psychophysiol 2003; 49: 227-35.
41. Lyskov E, Sandström M, Hansson Mild K. Neurophysiological study of patients with perceived
‘electrical hypersensitivity’. Int J Psychophysiol 2001; 42: 233-41.
42. Kolesnyk I, Zhulinsky M, Abramov VO, et al. Effect of mobile phone electromagnetic emission on
characteristics of cerebral blood circulation and neurohumoral regulations in humans. Fiziol Zh
2008; 54: 90-3.
43. Rezk AY, Abdulqawi K, Mustafa RM, et al. Fetal and neonatal responses following maternal expo-
sure to mobile phones. Saudi Med J 2008; 29: 218-23
44. Andrzejak R, Poreba R, Poreba M, et al. The influence of the call with a mobile phone on heart rate
variability parameters in healthy volunteers. Ind Health 2008; 46: 409-17.
45. Bortkiewicz A, Zmylony M, Gadzicka E, et al. Evaluation of selected parameters of circulatory
system function in various occupational groups exposed to high frequency electromagnetic fields.
II. Electrocardiographic changes. Med Pr 1996; 47: 241-52.
46. Bortkiewicz A, Zmylony M, Gadzicka E, et al. Ambulatory ECG monitoring in workers exposed to
electromagnetic fields. J Med Eng Technol 1997; 21: 41-6.
47. Gadzicka E, Bortkiewicz A, Zmylony M, et al. Evaluation of selected functional circulation param-
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
297
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 297
eters of workers from various occupational groups exposed to electromagnetic fields of high
frequency. III. 24-h monitoring of arterial blood pressure (ABP). Med Pr 1997; 48: 15-24.
48. Szmigielski S, Bortkiewicz A, Gadzicka E, et al. Alteration of diurnal rhythms of blood pressure and
heart rate to workers exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Blood Press Monit 1998; 3:
323-30.
49. Bortkiewicz A, Gadzicka E, Zmylony M. Heart rate variability in workers exposed to medium-
frequency electromagnetic fields. J Auton Nerv Syst 1996; 59: 91-7.
50. Lu ST, Mathur SP, Akyel Y, et al. Ultrawide-band electromagnetic pulses induced hypotension in
rats. Physiol Behav 1999; 65: 753-61.
51. Li BF, Guo GZ, Ren DQ, et al. Electromagnetic pulses induce fluctuations in blood pressure in rats.
Int J Radiat Biol 2007; 83: 421-9.
52. Kim MJ, Rhee SJ. Green tea catechins protect rats from microwave-induced oxidative damage to
heart tissue. J Med Food 2004; 7: 299-304.
53. Ozguner F, Altinbas A, Ozaydin M, et al. Mobile phone-induced myocardial oxidative stress: protec-
tion by a novel antioxidant agent caffeic acid phenethyl ester. Toxicol Ind Health 2005; 21: 223-30.
54. Ronchi R, Marano L, Braidotti P, et al. Effects of broad band electromagnetic fields on HSP70
expression and ischemia-reperfusion in rat hearts. Life Sci 2004; 75: 1925-36.
55. Czyz, J, Guan K, Zeng Q, et al. High frequency electromagnetic fields (GSM signals) affect gene
expression levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics
2004; 25: 296-307.
56. Abramov LN, Merkulova LM. Histochemical study of the cholinesterase activity in the structures of
the rat heart normally and during exposure to a pulsed electromagnetic field. Arkh Anat Gistol
Embriol 1980; 79: 66-71.
57. Bergqvist U, Wahlberg J. Skin symptoms and disease during work with visual display terminals.
Cont Derm 1994; 30: 197-204.
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
298
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:14 Pagina 298
APPENDIX A: Summary of data based on blind assessment.
Notes:
1 Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) response categories are based on HR = heart rate; SNS = sympathetic
nervous system; PSNS = parasympathetic nervous system.
2 EHS was ranked based on changes in HR and changes in the SNS and PSNS during exposure to
microwave (MW) radiation.
3 Self-assessment of sensitivity based on questionnaire response.
4 Cardiovascular (CV) Tone is based on the HR times the sum of the systolic and diastolic blood pres-
sure; values at 1 or lower are hypotonic and values at 5 are hypertonic.
5 Intensity of reaction (IOR); adaptive capacity (AC), which is 6 - non adaptive capacity (NAC); and
probability of reaction (POR) are based on the orthostatic heart rate variability (HRV) results and
are described in the text.
6 Subjects were exposed to MW radiation at different stages. Stages in parentheses were not used in
the study as they reflect multiple exposures with interference from other agents.
7 Blind assessment was based on the HRV during continuous monitoring with real and sham expo-
sure to MW radiation from a 2.4 GHz digital cordless phone radiating and at a power density
between 3 and 5 microW/cm2.
8 Excellent subject.
9 Symptomatic at stage 3, parasympathetic rally begins to recovery but feels anxiety, stage 3 faint or
dizziness predicted. Decent Chronotropic Myocardial Reaction Index (ChMR) and vascular
compensation reaction (VC). Middle of bell curve.
10 The healthier a subject the more likely the reaction. This person has the energy to become sympto-
matic.
11 Mildly inflamed. Mildly fatigued but highly adaptive. ChMR and VC good. Has ability to react.
12 Adaptive person. Could use Mg and/or K based on high standing HR.
13 Has plenty of energy. Moderate response due to weakening. Stage 7 body re-regulating from expo-
sure.
14 Shows a weakening reaction (down regulation of SNS). Positive reactor. Very healthy for age.
Highly adaptive geriatric.
15 Lot of adaptive capacity. If she is exposed her reaction would be a fairly strong reaction.
M. Havas, et al: Microwave radiation affects autonomic nervous system
299
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:15 Pagina 299
16 Has diminished energy capacity (11:6). This person doesn’t have enough energy to have a robust
response.
17 Potentiated reactor, time sensitive, couldn’t tolerate re-exposure. If she reacts it will be moderately
strong because of ChMR. Needs minerals for VC factor slowed her down.
18 May be on heart medication. Cardiac rate and rhythm non-adaptive. CV tone hypertonic.
19 Any neurological insult will be met with a hard reaction since she has inverted response when she
stands up.
20 If reactor, it will be strong because of ChMR strong. Highly adaptive capability and reserve. Slow
VC could be mineral or vitamin D deficiency.
21 Don’t have a strong PSNS resistance. Reactivity is based on inability to go parasympathetic, and
then they will go more sympathetic if they have the energy to do so. No energy. Either a delayed
reaction or a weak reaction.
22 Afibrillation, palpitations of heart probable. Strong girl. 11:6 fitness is OK for a person this age.
23 May have dental problems based on S/P response. Neurologically compromised.
24 Neurologically compromised. May be overmedicated on CV drug.
25 Strong gal. Decent reserve capacity but temporary fatigue. Doesn’t feel bad but poor health for her
age.
26 Normal reaction to stress, mild non-toxic reaction. Potential for reaction: moderately high because
of the 10.4 but may tolerate an amount of exposure before they react because of the reserve capa-
bilities.
27 Ridiculously healthy. Poster boy for his age. He can take a lot based on fitness of 6:5.
28 Lower end of bell curve. Doesn’t have energy to react although may be symptomatic.
29 Either highly adaptive or non-reactive. Orthostatic response indicates that person doesn’t have
enough energy to have a robust response.
30 Normal CV tone for age, Decent Tension Index (TI). Good geriatric pattern. If she reacts it would
be moderate to mild.
31 Strong girl. Has strong adrenal capacity. If she reacts it will be strong. May have chronic fatigue.
32 Moderate inflammation. Tired and has low adaptive reserve. If stressor comes along it will produce
more stress. If reacting it would be medium.
Eur. J. Oncol. Library, vol. 5
300
18-havas:18-havas 11-10-2010 9:15 Pagina 300
