Provocation with stress and electricity of patients with "sensitivity to electricity"

Citation
S. Lonne-rahm et al., Provocation with stress and electricity of patients with "sensitivity to electricity", J OCCUP ENV, 42(5), 2000, pp. 512-516
Citations number
30
Categorie Soggetti
Envirnomentale Medicine & Public Health
Journal title
JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
ISSN journal
10762752 → ACNP
Volume
42
Issue
5
Year of publication
2000
Pages
512 - 516
Database
ISI
SICI code
1076-2752(200005)42:5<512:PWSAEO>2.0.ZU;2-V
Abstract
Twenty-four patients with self-reported "sensitivity to electricity" were d ivided into two groups and tested in a double-blind provocation study. Thes e patients, who reported increased skin symptoms when exposed to electromag netic fields, were compared with 12 age- and sex-matched controls. Both gro ups were exposed to 30-minute periods of high or low stress situations, wit h and without simultaneous exposure to electromagnetic fields from a visual display unit. The matched controls were tested twice and given the same ex posure as the patients but had the fields turned on every time. Stress was induced by requiring the participants to act in accordance with a random se quence of flashing lights while simultaneously solving complicated mathemat ical problems. Blood samples were analyzed for levels of the stress-related hormones melatonin, prolactin, adrenocorticotrophic hormone, neuropeptide Y, and growth hormone, and the expression of different peptides, cellular m arkers, and cytokines (somatostatin, CD1, factor XIIIa, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha). Skin biopsies were also analyzed for the occurrence of mast cells. Stress provocation resulted in feelings of more intense mental stres s and elevated heart rate. The patients reported increased shin symptoms wh en they Knew or believed that the electromagnetic field was turned on. With the blind conditions there were no differences between "on" or "off." Infl ammatory mediators and mast cells in the shin were not affected by the stre ss exposure or by exposure to electromagnetic fields. The main conclusion w as that the patients did not react to the fields.