Posted By Lorraine Shuker Some of you may have seen this article in The Times last week end (if not see it at http://www.timesonline.c.../0,,2087-1774586,00.html). Essentially it is saying that ill health effects (nausea, headaches and muscle pains) from exposure to electrical items are now being recognised as legitimate. What do you think this will mean for H&S at work?

Posted By Clive Cooper This is what the Health Protection Agency have said on their website (http://www.phls.co.uk/default.htm). Recent newspaper articles about a forthcoming report from the Health Protection Agency are speculative, and various assertions about its contents are inaccurate. (Sunday Times, 11 Sept 2005; Daily Mail, 12 September 2005). The report will be a scientific review of the topic of electrosensitivity with a public health perspective. It will not be a definitive statement of policy from the Board of the Health Protection Agency. The Board of the Agency is not in a position to make a decision on whether electrosensitivity is a “medical condition" or not. This is for the medical profession to decide on an international basis. The report will be published next month with a press release summarising its contents. This will be available to news media under embargo.

Posted By Simone Plaut As a former Radiographer and part qualified naturopath, I find the way that this topic has developed along the same stubborn disbelieving path that allowed so many early radiation workers to die horrible deaths from leukaemia and other cancers, to be deplorable. Are we as a society so stupid that just because we dont have firm evidence that something is hazardous we assume it is OK until enough poor b******s are dead. Just because only some individuals are sensitive or notice the problem they must be nuts or stupid and lets ignore them. Not so long ago (15 years or so) secretarial staff with hand and wrist pain were sent to see a psychiatrist. RSI is still not a recognised medical problem......too embarrassed probably. As a profession we should be far more forward thinking. In Russia they have recognised electrosensitivity as a genuine problem for decades. About time we started to be more proactive. I have been guiding clients on this matter for many years, in a careful non-panic inspiring fashion. Pregnant women well away from printers and copiers etc. Others as far as possible. We cant totally change office environments, but with a little effort and forward thinking we can do a lot more. Simone Plaut Safety Knowhow Ltd. London

Posted By Simone Plaut i can suggest a few books for you on this topic including one i wrote on radiation safety which is sadly out of print. email me directly and i will fish them out for you so you can do more reading. simone@safetyknowhow.com

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Alternatively, it could be the biggest scare story since MMR. The problem is, it takes a journo 1/2 an hour over a liquid lunchto concoct a story like this. His editor will then remove any difficult scientific terms which might confuse the punters and 5 million people will then read the product over breakfast. Whereas a properly peer reviewed scientific document will not be half as fun to read and will have a circulation of a few thousand at most. I'm not saying yea or nay in this case, just wait until the full report comes out before you jump to expensive conclusions.

Posted By John Donaldson I don’t know how many have visited the HPA web site but I have copied below thier response to the recent press article. Press Statement 12 September 2005 Forthcoming Review on Electrosensitivity Recent newspaper articles about a forthcoming report from the Health Protection Agency are speculative, and various assertions about its contents are inaccurate. (Sunday Times, 11 Sept 2005; Daily Mail, 12 September 2005). The report will be a scientific review of the topic of electrosensitivity with a public health perspective. It will not be a definitive statement of policy from the Board of the Health Protection Agency. The Board of the Agency is not in a position to make a decision on whether electrosensitivity is a “medical condition" or not. This is for the medical profession to decide on an international basis. The report will be published next month with a press release summarising its contents. This will be available to news media under embargo.

Posted By Simone Plaut sorry for delay on the reference book i recommend......had to find it! has twelve pages of references in international medical research evidence to back up the material in the text. Living Dangerously by Pat Thomas. Newleaf publications. www.gillmacmillan.ie Reviewed by Lynn McTaggart author of "What Doctors Dont tell you" ....."Destined to become a health classic.....Pat Thomas has firmly established herself as the Rachel Carson of the twenty-first century". If anyone doesnt know who Rachel Carson was....I suggest you put her name into Google. Happy reading everyone. Simone Plaut

Posted By Adrian Watson Yes, most people know that Rachael Carson wrote "Silent Spring". But, most people don't know that many "facts" in that book, were not facts at all. Furthermore, the paranoid reaction to that book has resulted in millions of people needlessly dying from malaria, through banning DDT. So whilst we all want to be "safe" let's not jump before we are truly aware of the consequences. Let's at least read the report before we trash its findings! Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Lorraine Shuker Could electrosensisivity be behind "sick building syndrome"? PS. John ~ Simone didn't refer to smoking when presenting her opinion.

Posted By Robert K Lewis I sometimes feel when I read some comments that Dan Brown is speaking more truth in the Da Vinci Code than is being espoused as scientific fact. The problems of strong electromagnetic fields having effects on the human body have been long recognised and attested from the time of the 2nd world war. The precautionary principle then argues that very low levels of electromagnetic radiation must therefore also have an effect. For me the problem is that these effects are not measurable but merely asserted as by virtue of subjective narratives. I could easily make an analogous statement that says because a 1 tonne block of concrete falling on my head is likely to kill me then a speck of dust doing the same may also have an adverse effect such as submicroscopic bruising that could cause brain haemmorrhage. We are not however going to change the precautionary converts just as we cannot stop people believing that the facts in the da Vinci Code are true, and this is where the literature of most pop medicine is best situated - as novels. The whole sensible risk assessment debate falls apart yet again. Bob

Posted By Adrian Watson John, Is DDT "maybe being used " or "is it" being used? Prior to DDT being withdrawn, malaria was under control in most - not all parts - of africa. Following the withdrawal of DDT, malaria rates have soured. This is not withstanding the increases in third world debt, poverty and civil wars. As far as I am aware anti-malarial drugs were not readily available in the thirld world before the withdrawal of DDT. Regarding birds, is the downturn due to pesticides, habitat destruction or changes to agriculture? Adrian

Posted By Robert K Lewis The problem with DDT was its wholesale spraying across water courses and the subsequent contamination of plants and aquatic life - hence the food chain. The answer now is the use of impregnated nets but the solution is being difficult to fulfil in practice. Perish the thought that we have to rely purely on prophylaxis when the root cause can be dealt with in an efficient manner without damage to the food chain. Rachel Carson had some points to make but I have yet to see anything from her pen that relates to the question of electromagnetic radiation - Information please. Bob

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Hmm, It's the end of the month now, has anyone heared any more from the HPA on the report that they promised? Nothing is coming up on ther website. I know I was a tad sceptical initially, but the issue still needs closure I feel.

Posted By Simone Plaut My thanks to Jonathan for this update. I have read the article and my understanding of it is that even though the causation of electrosensitivity is not yet understood by the scientific community, they are urging caution from now on. Considering that tiny electrical potentials are used to run the nervous system, cell membrane transport systems and muscle activity, to name but a few it is not beyond the realms of possibility that swamping these delicate balanced systems with electromagnetic fields might put things out of kilter a little. Note also that almost all the dangerous effects of radiation can also be caused by chemical exposure. regards to all Simone Plaut London

Posted By Simone Plaut dear P not all of us are so naive some of us actually read outside of just what IOSH publish, what mainstream medical profession publish and do our own research. there are some great things out there that I know of to help you......email me and I can suggest a few things. Regards Simone Plaut HDCR MIOSH etc author of Radiation Protection in the XRay Department.

Posted By Paul Shepard Jonathan - but it is the nature of such reports that they will not satisfy everyone. Million dollar question is who are they aiming to satisfy ? The report ceratinly did not satisfy many ES sufferers as you noted re. the Times article I should imaginge there are alot of very extra depressed and deflated ESSERS out thier at the moment, but they will surely gather thier strengths and thoughts for a well deserved retort. To save reinventing the wheel here I have taken some extracts from the ES website under heading of HPA-RPD Report - offering some response to the HPA report ..... As Imelda of 'ehsisreal' a sister Irish organisation, a longstanding, indeed pioneering EHS sufferer herself, points out, it is an evolving illness/condition/reaction so there are bound to be varying viewpoints and perspectives. Also as the HPA freely admit it is not within their brief to define an illness. The responsibility for that lies with medical authorities in the UK and internationally, that is how official disease classifications are made. It is already by its nature dated, much of it refers to what literature was available in the first half of 2004, we at ES-UK were only starting up then and the condition is much more written about now. It is also curious how studies we quote frequently seem conveniently skirted round like Dr Blackwell’s summary of the only six mast studies showing effects in their environments. Also Andy Davidson's scientifically pointed open letter to Mike Clark bringing up all manner of unresponded to issues. Also weight is attributed to some work more than to others and the scientific enterprise itself seems to be more arbitrary and prone to ‘political’ interference and conventional thinking than its image and reputation for objectivity projects to the outside 'unscientific' world. .....Because as Dr Jill Meara of the HPA-RPD told the WHO conference on Electrical Hypersensitivity in Prague last year: “An acceptance that EMF has a causal role in ES would have widespread implications for future policy on prevention and management.” Well yes but yes you bet it would, and it is what has to be done. Massive research following recognition of the risks is needed to avert serious and building health problems. What Lloyd Morgan of the USA Federal Brain Tumour Registry calls: “a health emergency tsunami that is poised to drown us in future health tragedies of unknown dimensions” And we cannot put it any better than that. New policies are needed on management of emissions and a rethink of electrical distribution strategy, a few hundreds of millions there then. So they have been told to shut it the f**k up in whatever colourful language John Prescott uses. Never mind radiation emissions from masts and mobiles, as confusingly to most present who thought that was why they were there but somehow that particular topical source of conflict and concern seems partially left outside the remit of this report!.You could say they never got the baby properly into the bath water! Also, and explicitly, the 'aetiology' of the syndrome of EHS is left out. It seems to us and other groups this is the empty core of the report. If you are not considering what electrical sensitivity is, and how it is caused then why have a report on it? Anyway you are all educated bright people I dont see the debate as tendered by Lorraine Shuker expanding ? It is surely as significant as issues like RSI,COSHH, sorry to say it again Asbestos hazzards in the work place, in terms of the possible elongated/lag effects for true pathophsiological markers showing themselves, and leading to loss of productivity,compensation claims etc the things that shareholders wilt at the very thought of, ES and closely associated disorders should prudently sit on the top table of the policy makers, lets face it 56 million people are intamate with there phones and similar devices/technologies and it aint going away ! Risk assesment will raise the question - can we avoid the hazzard altogether, if not how can we control/mitigate matters. So to get back on track - What is the likely impact for businesses here ? lets perhaps have some scenarios ?? kind regards - Paul (not without cost !)