“I packed up and left everyone and everything I’d ever known. Hi, my name is Sue. Westchester County, NY was my home, when in 2010, I began to struggle with my health. By 2016, I had a dizzying array of symptoms: burning skin, headaches, extreme fatigue, tinnitus, and cardiac arrhythmia. Finally, I was diagnosed with EMR Syndrome and hired a Building Biologist to shield my house. Initially, that helped – but as my neighbor’s wireless technology grew, including powerful LEDs that penetrated my home — my symptoms became intolerable. I began to live in my car for up to 10 hours a day, even in winter. Looking back, I believe it was my innate survival instinct that made me pack up and relocate to the low-EMR Radio Quiet Zone in Green Bank, West Virginia. It was a bold and scary move... and it saved my life.”
EMR Syndrome: Real people talk about a real condition.
This website provides information and support for the millions who suffer acute health effects linked to man-made electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from cell towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, antennas, smart products, LED lighting, and other sources.
Bloggers, Biomarkers, and Hope
By Rob Brown, MD, FACR
Recently, a blogger wrote a series of posts correlating the radiation emanating from a power substation in Santa Clara, CA with the string of tendon injuries experienced by the San Francisco 49ers at nearby Levi's Stadium. The content garnered so much attention that mainstream media picked up on the story. Although the blog's author was quickly marginalized as a "self-proclaimed" scientist and a conspiracy theorist, what impressed me most was the traction he gained. His posts went viral on social media, with over 21 million views on X alone. My son and nephew even sent me texts about it! Concern is growing...
There was a time when EMFs — predominately extremely low frequencies of electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) from high-tension power lines and substations — only impacted a limited number of people. Few initially experienced symptoms from that exposure, and the majority of the population was oblivious. In retrospect, these "canaries in the coal mine" delivered a much-needed societal message: human-generated electromagnetic fields have biological effects on humans. In the last 25 years, wireless communication has increased and multiplied the population's electromagnetic radiation exposure. The obvious conclusion is that we need engineers to develop safer methods of energy distribution and distant communication. This message has been largely ignored. Instead, the "sensitive" group has been considered by some researchers to be afflicted with a psychological condition, possibly experiencing a "nocebo" effect, meaning that because these people saw something they thought would harm them, it did. Other researchers, however, studied the biochemistry and published papers describing how and why those biological effects could be due to physiological insults to the body, such as oxidative stress.
Now we find ourselves in a situation in which major population centers around the world are buzzing with high concentrations of ambient radiofrequency radiation. Studies show health repercussions may be acute and/or chronic. Symptoms, including sleeplessness, tinnitus, atrial fibrillation, memory loss, and confusion have become uncomfortably common. So much so that many now believe that these symptoms are normal. They aren't. People with what is now termed EMR Syndrome, know this because their symptoms exacerbate with exposure and lessen in a low EMF environment.
Because different diagnoses can cause similar symptoms, attributing symptoms to EMF exposure needs to be proven. We need a specific biomarker, an objective data point or diagnostic test that can document the physical impacts from EMFs. To date, most analyses have focused on the metabolites of oxidative stress. But oxidative stress can be caused by many disease processes.
Last year, I wrote a hypothesis paper describing the impact that nonionizing radiation from a cellphone can have on the blood. Blood clumping, or rouleaux formation, previously described with dark field microscopy, can now be seen with a diagnostic ultrasound machine while the blood is still flowing within the body. In studying many more subjects, we have found that rouleaux formation is more common in those suffering from EMR Syndrome. This is a promising tool providing objective data.
Public awareness that ELF-EMFs and wireless technology can be harmful is slowly building. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services and FDA removed material on their website stating that cellphone radiation is safe. This is an important step because the FDA supplies information to the FCC, which should then use this new information to update their regulations regarding exposure limits. Hope is on the horizon.
Stay tuned!
Rob Brown, MD, FACR
VP for Scientific Research and Clinical Affairs
Environmental Health Trust
Preface to OVERPOWERED
By Martin Blank, PhD
At various gatherings, when I am inevitably asked what I do for a living, an interesting sequence often ensues. “I am working on the biological effects of cell phones, WiFi, and related devices,” I reply. That is followed by a slightly anxious, “So, are they dangerous?” After I say that there is a considerable body of evidence showing significant risk, the conversation usually ends—often with a statement such as, “Well there’s no way I am giving up my cell phone.”
These experiences have shown me that in writing this book, I face a bit of an uphill battle. While people are on edge about the health issues, they are also on edge about the possibility of having to give up the amazing technologies that have become so much a part of their lives. Allow me to put you at ease right from the start: There is no need for us to abandon the devices of the electronic age.
But there is a vast continuum of ways to address the problems— from abandonment to the unrestricted use that currently exists. One has only to look at the story of aerosols to see how safer alternatives come to light once a problem is identified. When aerosols first appeared, they were seen as miracle substances, as is often the case with many technological advances. Then in the 1970s, studies showed that the propellants in aerosols were depleting the ozone layer that is critical to life on earth. National and international organizations were called to action, and there was an expanding and effective ban on the use of the most dangerous propellants. As a result, today we still have aerosols, but the emission of ozone-depleting substances is on the decline.
Whenever arguments are raised about implementing limitations, the typical corporate- sponsored line is that “there is no solid evidence of danger.” I have written this book to show you that this is not the case. There is a large body of solid science showing that the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that is a by- product of our high-tech world has many and varied effects on our biology. It is time we replaced the common refrain of “no solid evidence of danger” with “it’s time we acknowledge the dangers and do something
about it.”
The steps necessary for change are many. Two of the most important are:
1. Establish the criteria that will make the technology safer for users and for all in the surrounding environment. Fortunately, those criteria are not difficult to put in place, and there are multiple ways in which the amount of exposure can be reduced. What is required is the recognition that the change is needed and doable.
2. Create an informed citizenry. When people are informed, they are empowered. We have seen over and over again what the population can achieve when it is mobilized to act. Corporate and government policy can change dramatically.
These goals are central to the ideas in this book. By knowing the facts, you can make informed decisions about how you use technology, and you can also become part of the process required to reduce the potential harm posed by EMR.
*Preface to Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other WiFi-Age Devices by Martin Blank, PhD. Permission granted by Seven Stories Press. Copyright © 2014 by Martin Blank, PhD
Far More Than a Name
By Ruth F. Moss
When I was a kid, the most loathsome food of all was mayonnaise. Its yuck factor was so monumental that my distaste traveled to any other food that was white and creamy, such as whipped cream and mashed potatoes. All of which reminds me of my third in a series of job interviews, as I hunted for a copywriting position at a top Madison Avenue ad agency. To my surprise and utter glee, I was hired. At 9:15 am on my first day, I was marched into the Creative Director’s office and greeted by these words: “Welcome and congratulations! You are going to be the writer on the Hellmann’s Mayonnaise account.” Within seconds, I felt the blood drain out of me and the words, sorry, but I can’t, teetering on my lips… when some higher voice stopped me. “This job is the opportunity of a lifetime – you’ll figure it out.”
Although to this day, I eschew (rather than chew) mayonnaise, I’m grateful that I took that job. I quickly learned how to put myself in the place of others (a trait that bears fruit in many areas of life). For years, I wrote TV, radio, and print ads for Hellmann’s, adding more household products to my portfolio as the years went on. Although I was considered a “creative,” I spent equal time with clients and account execs, hammering out the branding and marketing strategies that would underpin the creative work… identifying targets, positioning statements, objectives, and learning a deep reverence for singlemindedness – which embraces the view that the human brain is not wired to remember multiple, competing ideas… that too much to remember often results in remembering nothing at all. Years later, I left work to focus on family and other pursuits. I never dreamt that the tenets of effective marketing would ever play a role in my life again.
Fast forward to 2015, when I was injured and disabled by a smart utility meter. After the reality of the injury sank in, my first question was, “What’s this called?… this condition that’s left me unable to use a cellphone, portable phone, or be in Wi-Fi without feeling massive head and nerve pain. Does it have a name???” Much to my amazement and dismay, it did not have a name; it had 10 names (Electromagnetic Sensitivity, Electrohypersensitivity, Radiation Sickness, Microwave Syndrome, Electrosensitivity, and more). I was dumbstruck. Would you name a product several different names and expect anyone to buy it? I later learned that between 10-15 names were being used worldwide to label acute electromagnetic radiation injury. Gradually, I realized that multiple names had evolved naturally from different pockets of advocacy — and that each name, in its own way, had achieved hard-fought and hard-won victories. The question for today is… will a fragmented name and message hold up to the massive challenge we are now facing? Many leading safe technology advocates say no… that it’s time to let go of the things that separate us, to come together for the sake of the whole, and for the power and impact that one name and message, repeated and repeated, will bring to our mutual cause.
Experienced advocates Pam Wallace of Michigan, Andrew Molnar of Ithaca, Dr. Kent Chamberlin of UNH, and Nicholas Martin of the U.K. joined me in early 2024 as we launched the OneName Project. To avoid bias, the five of us agreed to focus on project operations and remove ourselves from the actual decision-making process. The final name choice would be driven by the community voice and a panel of doctors, scientists, and leading global advocates. This intensive year-long initiative had the objective of choosing one singular name to label electromagnetic injury — either a name already in use or a new configuration. We soon discovered a secondary twist.
From the moment we rolled the project out to the community by way of an online platform, the chorus of comments began:
Do not call me hyper.
Do not call me sensitive.
I have been injured, poisoned, made sick…
Give me a name that I can advocate for with full voice.
Give me a name that puts the blame on the cause, not on me.
This forceful feedback from the community made us realize that one name could do more than just unite… it could be strategic… and send a critical message in and of itself. The difference between one name and another may seem subtle, but it is not. Names that put the responsibility for the condition on the person can produce isolation and stigmatization, whereas names aimed at the cause (EMR) can be instruments of bold advocacy. After the joint participation of our panel of experts, one name rose to the top – EMR Syndrome. To date, many leading safe technology organizations in the U.S. have adopted EMR Syndrome — including the National Call for Safe Technology, Environmental Health Trust, Americans for Responsible Technology, Environmental Health Sciences, The Electrosensitive Society, and the National Association of Environmental Medicine (NAEM). And many more advocates are saying it, writing it, and sharing it. With the help of our community and the launch of emrsyndrome.org, we look forward to these numbers growing until our ultimate goal of universal awareness and recognition is achieved.
As with any important endeavor, there will always be controversy. We have heard two specific name objections… one, that “the word syndrome implies an unknown cause.” This unfortunate rumor can be put to rest by checking a dictionary. Webster’s says, “Syndrome: A number of symptoms occurring together and characterizing a specific disease or condition.” The second objection carries more weight: “We must stick with the names that are officially recognized by federal disability agencies.” We completely agree with the need for federal recognition… and are developing a step-by-step process to attain federal agency and medical board-diagnosis recognition for EMR Syndrome. Is it not better to add or amend than continue to reinforce a name that fragments our message and holds back the voices of our advocates?
Dr. Kenneth J. Emonds, Biochemist and Senior Fellow of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote, “Congratulations on your steadfast work in the effort to consolidate the garbled terminology surrounding this enormous health problem. I really like the idea of the proper medical/technical nomenclature which does not blame the victim. That is vital… and makes a serious contribution to the medical and political clarity of an immense global threat to the health of all species.”
In the U.S. alone, an estimated 3-5% or 7 million people have EMR Syndrome. This percentage holds true for most other countries and far outnumbers those with Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus, and Rheumatoid Arthritis… put together. The time is ripe. We’re now in a position to exponentially break through. Marketing and branding are time-tested disciplines that will blow the lid off our efforts to raise public awareness. There is nothing good or evil about these disciplines — they simply work. Both major profit-driven corporations and leading eco-conscious organizations apply these principles on a daily basis.
Mayonnaise is just a sandwich spread. Whether it sells or not is of little consequence to our community of advocates. Instead, we’re focused on a different type of spread… the spread of a truth across all segments of the public. The self-same principles of marketing and branding that made Hellman’s #1 in the land will raise the awareness of EMR Syndrome to levels that can no longer be ignored or denied. It all starts with one name and grows from there.
Ruth F. Moss
President, EMR Syndrome Alliance
Former SVP Creative Director, DFS Advertising
Click here for a summary of the OneName Project


























