Dear Sir or Madam,
What a tired and pathetic article, which appears to be aimed at diverting attention from the known biological effects of exposure to the radiofrequency/microwave radiation emitted by wireless devices, such as cellphones, wi-fi, DECT cordless phoes, wireless baby monitors, cell towers, "smart" meters, Bluetooth devices, and so on.
It would be interesting to know if the writer has any financial interests to disclose, as very often these "EHS is a nocebo effect" articles are written by people with close, conflicted links to the industries that they are all too obviously defending.
I see that she is an associated fellow at the "Centre for Inquiry", which is dedicated to challenging "well-known and widely believed claims”, such as, er, dragons, boogieman, God, homeopathy, mermaids and the tooth fairy.
In her article, the writer contends that "wireless has been shown to be harmless, over and over and over again".
•In 2011, there was enough evidence for the International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B possible Carcinogen, and a number of scientists involved in the orginal classification have since called for it to be tightened again to Group 2A Probable Carcinogen, or even Group 1 Known Carcinogen. Please see IARC Monograph 102.
•There are thousands of independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies which show harmful biological effects from levels of radiation/microwave radiation which are supposedly well within international "safety" levels, and these are non-thermal effects (i.e. they do not result from the heating of bodily tissues). See the BioInitiative Report.
•206 scientists from 40 countries who are actually involved in the study of the biological effects of exposure to this radiation have recently put their names to an Appeal sent to the United Nations, all UN states, and the World Health Organisation, calling for proper precautionary measures to be taken in order to mitigate the harm caused by wireless technologies. They note that children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to this radiation, and they also ask that "medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity". See the International EMF Scientist Appeal.
•The HESA parliamentary committee has recently completed an investigation on Canada's revised Safety Code 6, which sets the permitted radiofrequency exposure levels for Canadians. Again, their report emphasised the known risks of this radiation to infants and young children in particular, and of the 12 recommendations, no less than four would, if implemented, improve the statistical analysis of electrosensitivity, support the research, testing and treatment of the condition, and improve education and awareness (the need for which is amply illustrated by your article). See Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians - Report of the Standing Committee on Health, June 2015.
•Earlier this year, France enacted legislation aimed at outlawing the exposure of children under 3 to wi-fi radiation in nurseries and other meeting places, and restricting the exposure of older children.
The writer's contentions that EHS is a "nocebo" effect, and that "wireless has been shown to be harmless", are not supported by the evidence - and no cherry-picking of the science will change the underlying reality.
The pulsed microwave frequency radiation from wireless devices is harmful, and EHS is inextricably linked to electromagnetic radiation.