Can we trust what humans report? – myths and realities

Human information is crucial for efforts in the field of buildings, health and experiences. Despite this, there is strikingly little focus on how it is created and may be understood. Division between e.g. “subjective”/ “feelings” vs. “objective”/ “facts” and thinking that e.g. questionnaires produce “facts” are examples of popular ideas more based on cultural myths than science. Traditionally, the brain is thought to register what happens in- and outside the body. Emerging knowledge indicates that the brain instead should be seen as creating all conscious experiences. In principle, the creation is an “integration” of (a) our previous experiences (i.e. acting as a model to generate predictions on future events) and (b) what actually happens (i.e. the inputs the brain gets, e.g. from our senses); (a) and (b) themselves not being consciously experienced. In this “integration”, factors (a) vs. (b) may have any distribution. If (b) dominates, the traditional model may fit, i.e. experience is rather equivalent to what actually happens. If (a) dominates, the traditional model fails, experience has limited relevance to what actually happens and may be understood as a “copy” based on previous experiences; e.g. still getting symptoms in a building long time after proper renovation of a water-damage. The new knowledge has several important implications, like: (1) Talking, questionnaires etc. “only” give the experience of each person, in principle no “objective” data on causal mechanisms, buildings etc.; (2) As all experiences are “subjective”, no persons report “wrong” data; (3) Cultural misconstructions like “psyche”/“feelings” vs. “soma”/“real” are invalid, misleading and may be destructive. Taking the emerging knowledge into account may be of substantial help for all professions working in the field of buildings, health and experiences.publishedVersio

Understanding “Symptoms Associated with Environmental Factors” (SAEF) in buildings; e.g. “sick building syndrome”, “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” and “multiple chemical sensitivity”

The field of buildings, health and human experiences may be divided between conditions (a) with scientific support for causal relations between exposure and health effects, e.g. dampness in buildings and asthma exacerbation; (b) lacking such scientific support, e.g. “sick building syndrome” (SBS). b) conditions are often disregarded as imaginations, psychogenic etc. Traditional ideas are (1) the brain registers what happens in- and outside the body, thus reports of symptoms and experiences “objectively” reflect the underlying biological processes; (2) all symptoms and experiences result from biological processes in the body, often due to external causes. Emerging knowledge indicates that the brain instead creates all consciously experiences. In principle, experiences are “integrations” of (I) previous experiences (i.e. acting as models to generate predictions on future events) and (II) what actually happens (i.e. inputs to the brain, e.g. from senses); (I) and (II) themselves not being consciously experienced. In this “integration”, factors (I) vs. (II) may have any distribution. If (II) dominates, the traditional model may fit, i.e. experience is rather equivalent to what actually happens. If (I) dominates, the traditional model fails, experience has limited relevance to what actually happens and may be understood as a “copy” based on previous experiences; e.g. still getting asthma(like) symptoms in a building long time after proper renovation of water-damages. This new knowledge offers plausible explanations for learned phenomena like SBS, “multiple chemical sensitivities”, “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” and other conditions with limited scientific documentation for causality between associated environmental factors, e.g. “building”, “electromagnetic” and “chemical”, and experiences like symptoms. Important implications are (A) the symptoms and experiences in e.g. “SBS” are just as real as in any other medical condition; (B) as the symptoms and experiences in such conditions are not caused by the associated factor (e.g. “building”), nor through mechanisms like “syndrome”, “(hyper)sensitivity” etc.; such misleading terms should be abandoned. The new concept and phenomenon description “Symptoms Associated with Environmental Factors” (SAEF) offers a paradigm shift. SAEF opens for a better understanding of such phenomena, including prevention, treatment and the need for interdisciplinary approaches.publishedVersio

Can we trust what humans report? – myths and realities

Human information is crucial for efforts in the field of buildings, health and experiences. Despite this, there is strikingly little focus on how it is created and may be understood. Division between e.g. “subjective”/ “feelings” vs. “objective”/ “facts” and thinking that e.g. questionnaires produce “facts” are examples of popular ideas more based on cultural myths than science. Traditionally, the brain is thought to register what happens in- and outside the body. Emerging knowledge indicates that the brain instead should be seen as creating all conscious experiences. In principle, the creation is an “integration” of (a) our previous experiences (i.e. acting as a model to generate predictions on future events) and (b) what actually happens (i.e. the inputs the brain gets, e.g. from our senses); (a) and (b) themselves not being consciously experienced. In this “integration”, factors (a) vs. (b) may have any distribution. If (b) dominates, the traditional model may fit, i.e. experience is rather equivalent to what actually happens. If (a) dominates, the traditional model fails, experience has limited relevance to what actually happens and may be understood as a “copy” based on previous experiences; e.g. still getting symptoms in a building long time after proper renovation of a water-damage. The new knowledge has several important implications, like: (1) Talking, questionnaires etc. “only” give the experience of each person, in principle no “objective” data on causal mechanisms, buildings etc.; (2) As all experiences are “subjective”, no persons report “wrong” data; (3) Cultural misconstructions like “psyche”/“feelings” vs. “soma”/“real” are invalid, misleading and may be destructive. Taking the emerging knowledge into account may be of substantial help for all professions working in the field of buildings, health and experiences

Understanding “Symptoms Associated with Environmental Factors” (SAEF) in buildings; e.g. “sick building syndrome”, “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” and “multiple chemical sensitivity”

The field of buildings, health and human experiences may be divided between conditions (a) with scientific support for causal relations between exposure and health effects, e.g. dampness in buildings and asthma exacerbation; (b) lacking such scientific support, e.g. “sick building syndrome” (SBS). b) conditions are often disregarded as imaginations, psychogenic etc. Traditional ideas are (1) the brain registers what happens in- and outside the body, thus reports of symptoms and experiences “objectively” reflect the underlying biological processes; (2) all symptoms and experiences result from biological processes in the body, often due to external causes. Emerging knowledge indicates that the brain instead creates all consciously experiences. In principle, experiences are “integrations” of (I) previous experiences (i.e. acting as models to generate predictions on future events) and (II) what actually happens (i.e. inputs to the brain, e.g. from senses); (I) and (II) themselves not being consciously experienced. In this “integration”, factors (I) vs. (II) may have any distribution. If (II) dominates, the traditional model may fit, i.e. experience is rather equivalent to what actually happens. If (I) dominates, the traditional model fails, experience has limited relevance to what actually happens and may be understood as a “copy” based on previous experiences; e.g. still getting asthma(like) symptoms in a building long time after proper renovation of water-damages. This new knowledge offers plausible explanations for learned phenomena like SBS, “multiple chemical sensitivities”, “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” and other conditions with limited scientific documentation for causality between associated environmental factors, e.g. “building”, “electromagnetic” and “chemical”, and experiences like symptoms. Important implications are (A) the symptoms and experiences in e.g. “SBS” are just as real as in any other medical condition; (B) as the symptoms and experiences in such conditions are not caused by the associated factor (e.g. “building”), nor through mechanisms like “syndrome”, “(hyper)sensitivity” etc.; such misleading terms should be abandoned. The new concept and phenomenon description “Symptoms Associated with Environmental Factors” (SAEF) offers a paradigm shift. SAEF opens for a better understanding of such phenomena, including prevention, treatment and the need for interdisciplinary approaches

"Symptoms associated with environmental factors" (SAEF) - Towards a paradigm shift regarding "idiopathic environmental intolerance" and related phenomena

Health conditions characterized by symptoms associated with chemical, physical and biological environmental factors unrelated to objectifiable pathophysiological mechanisms are often labelled by the general term "idiopathic environmental intolerances". More specific, exposure-related terms are also used, e.g. "multiple chemical sensitivities", "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" and "candidiasis hypersensitivity". The prevalence of the conditions varies from a few up to more than 50%, depending on definitions and populations. Based on evolving knowledge within this field, we provide arguments for a paradigm shift from terms focusing on exposure and intolerance/(hyper-)sensitivity towards a term more in line with the perceptual elements that seem to underlie these phenomena. Symptoms caused by established pathophysiologic mechanisms should not be included, e.g. allergic or toxicological conditions, lactose intolerance or infections. We discuss different alternatives for a new term/concept and end up proposing an open and descriptive term, "symptoms associated with environmental factors" (SAEF), including a definition. "Symptoms associated with environmental factors" both is in line with the current knowledge and acknowledge the experiences of the afflicted persons. Thus, the proposed concept is likely to facilitate therapy and communication between health professionals and afflicted persons, and to provide a base for better understanding of such phenomena in healthcare, society and science

Electrohypersensitivity is always real.

Given the rapid increase of electromagnetic fields in our environment, the recent review paper by Belpomme and Irigaray (2022) (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113374) is timely in trying to integrate and discuss the available evidence to understand electrohypersensitivity (EHS), also called idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) or symptoms associated with EMF (SAEF-EMF) (Haanes et al., 2020). There is no doubt that EHS can be a severely disabling condition, has a relatively high prevalence and needs better scientific understanding and more effective treatments. However, we have serious concerns about 1. the metatheoretical perspective of the paper, 2. the biased and selective review of the literature, 3. the claims that are made about the meaning of reported data/findings, 4. the rationale used to arrive at a conclusion, and 5. the conclusion itself

Svake høyfrekvente elektromagnetiske felt - en vurdering av helserisiko og forvaltningspraksis

Bruk av utstyr som sender ut radiobølger har økt i senere år. Trådløs kommunikasjonsteknologi som mobiltelefoni dominerer. De siste årene har krav om stadig bedre dekning, teknologi i nye generasjoner og utvidede funksjoner på de mobile tjenestene ført til en betydelig økning av antallet og tettheten av radiosendere. Eksponering for elektromagnetiske felt (EMF) og mulige helseeffekter er sterkt fremme i media. I deler av befolkningen har dette ført til bekymring og usikkerhet, ikke bare for selve mobiltelefonens elektromagnetiske felt, men også for elektromagnetiske felt fra basestasjoner for mobiltelefoner og trådløse nettverk mv. Daglig får Statens strålevern og andre institusjoner henvendelser om mulige uønskete helseeffekter av slik eksponering. Helsemyndighetene mente at det var behov for en bredere gjennomgang og vurdering av problemområdet, av flere fagmiljøer, for å avklare eventuell fare for helseskader og for å vurdere behov for endringer i forvaltningen av elektromagnetiske felt