In 1997, before Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and 3G technology, a group of scientists attempted to estimate the number of people reporting "subjective symptoms" from<unk>  fields for the European Commission. They estimated that<unk>  sensitivity occurred in "less than a few cases per million of the population" (based on centres of occupational medicine in UK, Italy and France) or up to "a few tenths of a per cent of the population" (based on self-aid groups in Denmark, Ireland and Sweden). In 2005, the UK Health Protection Agency reviewed this and several other studies for prevalence figures and concluded that "the differences in prevalence were at least partly due to the differences in available information and media attention around<unk>  that exist in different countries" and that "Similar views have been expressed by other commentators". The authors noted that most of the studies focused on computer monitors (VDUs), as such the "findings cannot apply in full" to other forms of EMF exposure such as radio waves from mobile phones/base stations. In 2007, a UK survey aimed at a randomly selected group of 20,000 people found a prevalence of 4% for symptoms self-attributed to<unk>  exposure. A 2013 study using telephone surveys in Taiwan, concluded that the rates of IEI-EMF were in decline within the country, despite previous expectations of a rise in prevalence as electronic devices became more widespread. Rates declined from 13% in 2007 to 5% in 2013. The study also referred to apparent declines in the Netherlands (from 7% in 2009 to 4% in 2011) and in Germany (from 10% in 2009 to 7% in 2013). More women believed to be<unk> ally hypersensitive than men. In 2021, physicist Sébastien Point draws attention to the fact that the prevalence of electrohypersensitivity is similar to the prevalence of specific phobias as well as the gender ratio (2 electrohypersensitive or phobic female for one electrohypersensitive or phobic man), what, according to him, reinforces the hypothesis that electrohypersensitivity is a new specific phobia.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Pacemaker crosstalk
Cardiac aberrancy
Ischemic cascade
Congenital fiber type disproportion
Ventricular dyssynchrony
Coronary vasospasm
Tissue stress