02\/18\/2025<\/p>\n
Wireless radiation sickness has a new and more universally acceptable name:\u00a0Electromagnetic Radiation Syndrome<\/a>, or EMR Syndrome, according to a\u00a0press release<\/a>\u00a0issued by the OneName Project.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n (Article by Suzanne Burdick republished from ChildrensHealthDefense.org<\/a>)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EMR Syndrome is a \u201cnew unifying name for a 21st-century health crisis,\u201d the press release said.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Millions of people experience physical symptoms \u2014 including headaches, insomnia, heart palpitations and more \u2014 when exposed to\u00a0electromagnetic radiation<\/a>\u00a0(EMR), according to the press release.<\/p>\n But until now, it\u2019s been difficult for these individuals to advocate for themselves and educate others because there\u2019s been no single, easily understandable term for the condition.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Instead, there were multiple names, including\u00a0electromagnetic sensitivity<\/a>,\u00a0electrohypersensitivity<\/a>,\u00a0microwave syndrome<\/a>,\u00a0Havana syndrome<\/a>\u00a0and others.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Some of these names stigmatized the people by labeling them as \u201csensitive,\u201d instead of placing the blame on the radiation that was causing their illness. Other names confused the public \u2014 such as microwave and Havana syndrome \u2014 because they sounded like references to microwave ovens and the capital of Cuba, rather than wireless radiation from cellphones, Wi-Fi routers and smart devices.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That\u2019s why the \u201cOneName Project\u201d was created.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The project brought together people living with EMR-related disabilities, leading wireless radiation experts, safe technology advocates and medical professionals to choose one term \u2014 a simple, non-stigmatizing term \u2014 to label illness from\u00a0exposure<\/a>\u00a0to wireless radiation and electromagnetic fields.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThis decision was the result of a truly collaborative process,\u201d said organizing committee member\u00a0Kent Chamberlin, Ph.D.<\/a>\u00a0\u201cWe\u2019ve not only created a unified identity for this condition but also a renewed sense of hope for those living with it.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Chamberlin is past chair and professor emeritus of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of New Hampshire. He served on the New Hampshire\u00a0Commission to Study The Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology<\/a>, a team of independent experts convened by the state to answer questions about the impacts and safety of cell towers and wireless radiation. He is now president of the\u00a0Environmental Health Trust<\/a>\u00a0(EHT).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n People who have EMR Syndrome and their allies are now working to ensure that EMR Syndrome is formally recognized by global organizations, such as the World Health Organization, according to the press release.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Accommodation cards that explain the term for people with EMR Syndrome to carry and distribute for educational purposes will soon be available on the\u00a0EMR Syndrome website<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2018People need one name they can recognize and remember\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Organizing committee member\u00a0Ruth F. Moss<\/a>, who directs SafeTech Westchester in New York and has EMR Syndrome, said her first question after being diagnosed with EMR-related illness in 2015 was \u201cWhat do you call this?\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cOver several months, I got five different answers,\u201d Moss said. She had worked for years in marketing, so she knew that having five different terms for EMR-related illness was a problem in building public awareness.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cI assumed someone in the movement must be trying to coalesce the names,\u201d she recalled. But over the next year, she realized that wasn\u2019t the case. She also realized there weren\u2019t just five names for EMR-related illness, but \u201c10 names, 15 names.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It was clear that she and others with EMR-related illness needed one term as they advocated for themselves and safe technology, rather than diluting their efforts with multiple terms.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cNo one is going to remember a\u00a0health condition<\/a>\u00a0if it\u2019s called 10 different things. People need one name that they can recognize and remember,\u201d Moss said. \u201cIt\u2019s the way our brains work.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Project was \u2018thorough, independent and not swayed by bias\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n It was a daunting task to decide on one name for electrosensitivity, members of the project\u2019s organizing committee said.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cWe took many months thinking through the best way to do this,\u201d said Andrew Molnar, who helped lead the organizing committee. Molnar directs Ithacans for Responsible Technology and has EMR Syndrome.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Moss agreed. \u201cNo decision was made swiftly,\u201d she said. \u201cTeam members were willing to talk everything through to its fairest conclusion.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Chamberlin said it was important to the committee members that the process of selecting a name was \u201cthorough, independent and not swayed by bias.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The organizing committee developed a series of steps they committed to follow using a transparent process, he said, beginning with an\u00a0online public forum<\/a>\u00a0that ran for four months.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The forum elicited input from people who have EMR Syndrome, safe tech advocates and the general public about what criteria were important to them in selecting a new name. It also collected ideas for the new name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Initially, the organizing committee members thought that consensus on a new name might emerge from the public forum. But although the criteria for a new name became clear, no one term rose to the surface as everyone\u2019s first choice.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cAs time went on,\u201d Molnar said, \u201cwe realized we needed to pull together a group of experts to look at the data.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So the organizing committee convened a\u00a0decision-making committee<\/a>\u00a0of 11 international medical professionals, research scientists and leading advocates for those with EMR Syndrome who had name recognition in the EMR and safe technology field.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Their participation boosted the credibility of OneName Project\u2019s process, Chamberlin said. The organizing committee handed over the public comments to the decision-making committee members, along with a list of suggested criteria derived from the comments.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The two most important criteria for the new name were that it would be easily understandable by the public, and wouldn\u2019t stigmatize or blame those with the condition.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The decision-making committee\u2019s job was to select a name, based on their analysis and discussion of the data.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The handover posed a challenge for some members of the organizing committee. \u201cWe knew a name could be chosen that we didn\u2019t like,\u201d Moss said, \u201cbut this was bigger than personal preferences.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The decision-making committee met twice in September 2024. Molnar moderated their discussions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n They decided on \u201cEMR Syndrome\u201d because it achieved the delicate balance between what was medically and scientifically credible, and what the public said they wanted in a new name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThis balance was paramount to the process,\u201d said organizing committee member Pam Wallace, who directs SafeTech Forward in Michigan and has EMR Syndrome. \u201cIt\u2019s the reason we had professionals from the medical, scientific, legal and educational communities on the Decision-Making Committee.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Dr. Sharon Goldberg<\/a>, an integrative and functional medicine doctor with experience treating patients with EMR Syndrome, was on the decision-making committee. She shared reasons why the committee chose \u201cEMR Syndrome.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThe previous names \u2014 like electrohypersensitivity \u2014 were a problem when the person went to the doctor,\u201d she said. Such terms labeled the person as too sensitive. \u201cThat needed to change.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n EMR Syndrome\u2019s etiology is clear. It focuses on EMR as the cause of the person\u2019s symptoms without stigmatizing the person reporting the symptoms, Goldberg said. Also, people are used to hearing the word \u201csyndrome\u201d to describe medical conditions. Sometimes the pharmaceutical industry uses the word in\u00a0marketing new drugs<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The term also works well in scientific publications and litigation because it\u2019s broad enough to cover all forms of illness caused by radiation along the EMR spectrum.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2018People are getting it\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Moss said she has already begun using \u201cEMR Syndrome\u201d in conversation. \u201cPeople are getting it,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The name is also an effective teaching tool. If people say, \u201cWhat\u2019s EMR?\u201d you can answer that, Moss said.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Members of both committees acknowledged that public acceptance of the new name may take time \u2014 and that some countries may prefer to stick with an old name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For instance, the U.K. has used electrohypersensitivity for a long time, said organizing committee member Nicholas Martin, chairs a U.K. organization focused on EMR-disability.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Molnar agreed. \u201cThere are a number of medical systems \u2014 especially in Europe where electrohypersensitivity is the technical term \u2014 that might still choose to keep that as their technical term, and that\u2019s fine.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It\u2019s common for a condition to have both a technical term and a vernacular term. \u201cFor example, conjunctivitis is the technical scientific term for pink eye,\u201d Molnar said.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The\u00a0U.S. Access Board<\/a>\u00a0uses the term \u201celectromagnetic sensitivity\u201d for EMR-related disability.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Molnar said:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThough it would be ideal, we may not ultimately convince every single scientific or governmental entity to change its official name. That\u2019s not what we\u2019re trying to do here. We\u2019re trying to get one name for the public that really helps focus our efforts and starts getting the public to rally around us.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Are FCC wireless radiation limits good enough?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The new name comes at a time of growing doubt that the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s\u00a0(FCC) exposure limits<\/a>\u00a0for\u00a0wireless radiation<\/a>\u00a0adequately protect people\u2019s\u00a0health<\/a>. The limits haven\u2019t been updated since 1996.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In 2021,\u00a0Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a>, EHT and other groups\u00a0won a lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0challenging the FCC\u2019s exposure limits.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The groups filed\u00a011,000 pages of evidence<\/a>\u00a0of harm from 5G and wireless technology, which they alleged the FCC ignored when it decided to keep its 1996 guidelines. The pages included evidence of widespread sickness due to wireless radiation exposure.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The\u00a0FCC has yet to comply with a court-ordered mandate<\/a>\u00a0to explain how the agency determined that its current guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of exposure to wireless radiation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Meanwhile, scientists and safe tech advocates say there are things the telecom industry can do to mitigate people\u2019s wireless radiation exposure. A Swiss telecom company also acknowledged this in a\u00a02003 patent application<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For instance, Chamberlin and other scientists with the\u00a0International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields<\/a>\u00a0in 2023 published a\u00a0peer-reviewed report<\/a>\u00a0on how the industry could make \u201csimple engineering fixes<\/a>\u201d to reduce cellphone radiation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n There\u2019s also\u00a0patented technology for undergarments<\/a>\u00a0that reduce the wearer\u2019s exposure to EMR.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Local communities can do things, too.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Cities can pass ordinances that require cell towers to be at least 1,640 feet from homes, businesses and schools. That\u2019s the setback distance the\u00a0New Hampshire commission<\/a>\u00a0recommended to adequately protect human health.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Public awareness of EMR Syndrome can boost these efforts \u2014 and help people live healthier lives, Goldberg said. \u201cAwareness of wireless radiation can be applied as lifestyle medicine,\u201d she explained, \u201cprovided that patients are motivated and willing to reduce their in-home exposure.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For instance, studies show that reducing one\u2019s exposure to wireless radiation can help lower\u00a0blood sugar levels<\/a>\u00a0and improve\u00a0sleep<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Wallace agreed. \u201cThis is about pointing the way to more awareness and safer practices that can be used to live safer and healthier lives.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read more at:\u00a0ChildrensHealthDefense.org<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n