A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of

Abstract

A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) Henshaw DL, Philips A. (2024). A mechanistic understanding of human magnetoreception validates the phenomenon of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). International Journal of Radiation Biology, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329. Abstract Background Human electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or electrosensitivity (ES) symptoms in response to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs) at levels below current international safety standards are generally considered to be nocebo effects by conventional medical science. In the wider field of magnetoreception in biology, our understanding of mechanisms and processes of magnetic field (MF) interactions is more advanced. Methods We consulted a range of publication databases to identify the key advances in understanding of magnetoreception across the wide animal kingdom of life. Results We examined primary MF/EMF sensing and subsequent coupling to the nervous system and the brain. Magnetite particles in our brains and other tissues can transduce MFs/EMFs, including at microwave frequencies. The radical pair mechanism (RPM) is accepted as the main basis of the magnetic compass in birds and other species, acting via cryptochrome protein molecules in the eye. In some cases, extraordinary sensitivity is observed, several thousand times below that of the geomagnetic field. Bird compass disorientation by radio frequency (RF) EMFs is known. Conclusions Interdisciplinary research has established that all forms of life can respond to MFs. Research shows that human cryptochromes exhibit magnetosensitivity. Most existing provocation studies have failed to confirm EHS as an environmental illness. We attribute this to a fundamental lack of understanding of the mechanisms and processes involved, which have resulted in the design of inappropriate and inadequate tests. We conclude that future research into EHS needs a quantum mechanistic approach on the basis of existing biological knowledge of the magnetosensitivity of living organisms. Conclusions and recommendations 1. At the scientific level, researchers working in the field of magnetoreception in biology should be made aware of EHS as a human public health concern and funded to address the issue as part of their scientific research. 2. All interested parties, especially EHS sufferers and medical professionals, should be made aware of the considerable growth in understanding in recent decades of the mechanisms by which all forms of life sense MFs/EMFs, even at extremely low levels. EHS research to date has been significantly hindered by a fundamental lack of knowledge among many medical scientists and EHS researchers regarding the current scientific understanding of quantum biology mechanisms and processes. This has resulted in the design and analysis of inappropriate provocation tests. 3. Almost all existing epidemiological and provocation studies have failed adequately to determine and measure the necessary dependent and independent variables. In particular: 1. to characterize in proper technical detail the EMF/RF exposures (including electric and MF levels; average and peak power-density levels; frequencies involved; and modulation characteristics). 2. to triage participants effectively to remove ‘electrophobic’ and other volunteers self- reporting apparent EHS-related problems. 3. in provocation studies, to fail to recognize the nonlinear nature of EHS responses and the extremely low levels of exposure (<100 nT) that have effects and, instead, use relatively high exposures fairly close to the ICNIRP and IEEE guidance levels. 4. in provocation studies, to provide a participant-comfortable extremely low EMF/RF test location, screened from anthropogenic sources and allow adequate time (days rather than hours) for adverse effects to washout between exposures. 4. EHS studies should move away from current, nonforensic epidemiological approaches and human subjective provocation studies (Leszczynski 2022; Röösli et al. 2024). Instead, objective measurements of biological parameters, such as heart rate variability, brain wave activity (e.g. fMRI and wide-bandwidth EEG), and the immune response to oxidative stress should be investigated (Caswell et al. 2016; Gurfinkel et al. 2018; Pishchalnikova et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019; Thoradit et al. 2024). We caution that these approaches require sophisticated design and analysis and advanced design personal exposure meters. 5. We recommend that the WHO properly reevaluates its understanding of EHS to align it with the substantial body of available scientific literature showing mechanistic evidence of interactions of all forms of life, including humans, with low levels of electric and magnetic fields. Open access paper: tandfonline.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

This narrative review discusses biological mechanisms of magnetoreception (including magnetite-based transduction and the radical pair mechanism via cryptochromes) and argues these mechanisms could be relevant to understanding EHS. It notes that most existing provocation studies have failed to confirm EHS as an environmental illness, and attributes this to inadequate mechanistic understanding and inappropriate test designs.

Outcomes measured

• electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms
• magnetoreception / magnetosensitivity mechanisms (magnetite particles, radical pair mechanism, cryptochromes)
• bird compass disorientation by RF EMFs

Limitations

• Review based on consulting publication databases; no systematic review methods, inclusion criteria, or quality appraisal described in the abstract
• No new empirical human exposure data or effect estimates reported
• Exposure parameters (frequencies/levels) are discussed conceptually but not quantified as study measurements

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.78)
  Mentions ICNIRP/IEEE guidance levels and recommends WHO reevaluate its understanding of EHS.

{
    "study_type": "review",
    "exposure": {
        "band": null,
        "source": "anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (general)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "Humans (electromagnetic hypersensitivity context) and broader animal kingdom (magnetoreception literature)",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms",
        "magnetoreception / magnetosensitivity mechanisms (magnetite particles, radical pair mechanism, cryptochromes)",
        "bird compass disorientation by RF EMFs"
    ],
    "main_findings": "This narrative review discusses biological mechanisms of magnetoreception (including magnetite-based transduction and the radical pair mechanism via cryptochromes) and argues these mechanisms could be relevant to understanding EHS. It notes that most existing provocation studies have failed to confirm EHS as an environmental illness, and attributes this to inadequate mechanistic understanding and inappropriate test designs.",
    "effect_direction": "mixed",
    "limitations": [
        "Review based on consulting publication databases; no systematic review methods, inclusion criteria, or quality appraisal described in the abstract",
        "No new empirical human exposure data or effect estimates reported",
        "Exposure parameters (frequencies/levels) are discussed conceptually but not quantified as study measurements"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
        "EHS",
        "electrosensitivity",
        "magnetoreception",
        "magnetite",
        "radical pair mechanism",
        "cryptochrome",
        "radiofrequency",
        "microwave",
        "quantum biology",
        "provocation studies",
        "WHO",
        "ICNIRP"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.7800000000000000266453525910037569701671600341796875,
            "reason": "Mentions ICNIRP/IEEE guidance levels and recommends WHO reevaluate its understanding of EHS."
        }
    ]
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.