We included a section in Survey A that seemed almost secondary, but responded to something crucial: do you have sensitivities to things other than artificial electromagnetic fields?
76% said yes.
This wasn’t a minor finding buried in the demographics. It turned out to be one of the most important patterns in the entire census, one that reframes how we should think about EHS, who develops it, and why interventions that focus only on artificial EMF exposure often fall short.
What We Found
The prevalence of non-EMF sensitivities in our population was striking across every category we asked about.
Scent and perfume sensitivity affected 57% of participants. More than half react to fragrances, cleaning products, air fresheners, personal care products. For many, this means navigating a world full of invisible triggers: the colleague’s perfume, the bathroom air freshener, the scented candle at a friend’s house.
Seasonal sensitivity affected 48%. Nearly half notice their symptoms shift with weather patterns, barometric pressure changes, pollen seasons, or transitions between seasons. Their bodies track environmental changes most people don’t consciously register.
Lactose intolerance affected 35%. Food additive sensitivity, 32%. Sun sensitivity, 22%. Multiple skin allergies, nearly 20%. Histamine or DAO deficiency, 17%. Sorbitol intolerance, 16%.
These aren’t rare conditions affecting outliers in our sample. They’re common patterns affecting the majority. And they cluster together: participants with one sensitivity were more likely to have others. The sensitivities travel in packs.
Only 24% of participants reported no environmental sensitivities beyond artificial EMF. For three-quarters of the EHS population we surveyed, electromagnetic sensitivity exists within a broader pattern of environmental reactivity.
The Sensitivity-Symptom Connection
Having additional sensitivities wasn’t just demographically interesting. It predicted how severe someone’s EHS symptoms were.
Participants with any environmental sensitivity beyond artificial EMF showed symptom scores 67% higher than those without. This wasn’t a subtle difference detectable only through statistics. It was a dramatic gap visible in the raw numbers.
The more sensitivities someone reported, the worse their symptoms tended to be. The correlation was significant (r=0.321, p=0.002), meaning this wasn’t random variation. Each additional sensitivity added to the burden.
When we calculated how much of symptom variance each factor explained, the results challenged conventional thinking. Environmental sensitivities explained 21.1% of symptom variance. Artificial EMF exposure habits explained 17.3%.
Read that again: biological vulnerability, as reflected in sensitivity burden, was a stronger predictor of symptom severity than exposure level.
This doesn’t mean artificial EMF exposure doesn’t matter. The exposure-symptom correlation is real and significant. But it means that two people with identical exposure to non-native EMF can have dramatically different symptom burdens depending on what else their bodies are reacting to. Exposure alone doesn’t determine outcome. The terrain matters as much as the trigger.
The Total Load Model
These findings make sense through what’s sometimes called the total load or bucket model of environmental sensitivity.
The concept is straightforward: each person has a finite capacity to process environmental stressors. Think of it as a bucket. Various exposures and triggers fill the bucket: artificial EMF, chemical fragrances, food antigens, histamine load, seasonal allergens, chronic infections, psychological stress. As long as total load stays below capacity, the system copes. Symptoms remain minimal or absent.
But when total load exceeds capacity, the bucket overflows. Symptoms emerge. And once the system is overwhelmed, even small additional exposures can trigger disproportionate reactions, because there’s no remaining buffer.
This model explains several patterns that seem contradictory under simpler exposure-response thinking.
Why do some people with high artificial EMF exposure remain asymptomatic? Their buckets are large, and man-made EMF is the only significant contributor. They have capacity to spare. The exposure registers but doesn’t overflow anything.
Why do some people with carefully minimized non-native EMF exposure still suffer severe symptoms? Their buckets are small, or they’re being filled by other sources. Chemical sensitivity, food reactions, mold exposure, chronic inflammation from other causes. Artificial EMF may be low, but total load is still exceeding capacity.
Why do symptom patterns vary so widely among people with similar technogenic EMF exposure? Because artificial EMF is only one input. The other contents of each person’s bucket differ. One person’s bucket contains electromagnetic pollution plus fragrance chemicals plus histamine-rich foods plus seasonal allergens. Another’s contains artificial EMF plus nothing else. Same exposure level, completely different total load.
The bucket model also explains why removing one contributor can produce improvement even if other contributors remain. If your bucket is overflowing by 10%, reducing any input by 15% brings you back below threshold. It doesn’t matter which 15% you remove. Total load is what matters, not which specific load.
This is why some people improve dramatically with artificial EMF reduction while others see minimal change. For the first group, non-native EMF was the primary contributor pushing them over capacity. Removing it solved the problem. For the second group, artificial EMF was one contributor among many, and removing it wasn’t enough to bring total load below threshold.
A Note on Natural vs. Artificial EMF
It’s worth being precise about what we mean by electromagnetic sensitivity.
The Earth has a natural magnetic field. The sun emits a full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. The Schumann resonances pulse through the atmosphere. These natural electromagnetic phenomena are part of the environment our biology evolved within over millions of years. They’re not the problem.
The problem is artificial electromagnetic fields: the polarized, pulsed, modulated signals from wireless technology. The non-native light spectra from LEDs and screens. The radiofrequency emissions from cell towers, WiFi routers, Bluetooth devices, smart meters. The dirty electricity riding on building wiring. These are evolutionarily novel exposures that our biology has no precedent for handling.
When we talk about EMF sensitivity or electromagnetic pollution throughout this research, we’re referring specifically to these artificial, non-native sources. The distinction matters because the solution isn’t to hide from all electromagnetic phenomena, which would be impossible and counterproductive. It’s to reduce exposure to artificial sources while potentially increasing connection to natural ones. Grounding, sunlight exposure, and time in nature may actually support the biological systems that help us cope with the technogenic EMF we can’t entirely avoid.
Which Sensitivities Correlate Most Strongly
Not all sensitivities showed equal association with EHS symptoms. Some were more predictive than others.
- Seasonal sensitivity showed the strongest correlation (r=0.362, p<0.001). People who react to weather changes and seasonal transitions had notably higher EHS symptom burdens. This makes biological sense: seasonal sensitivity suggests the autonomic and immune systems are having trouble with environmental adaptation generally, not just with one specific trigger.
- Lactose intolerance correlated significantly (r=0.341, p<0.001). The gut-brain connection is increasingly recognized in environmental medicine, and digestive dysfunction often accompanies other forms of sensitivity. Lactose intolerance may be a marker of broader gut barrier issues that contribute to systemic reactivity.
- Food additive sensitivity correlated at r=0.289 (p<0.01), while Sorbitol sensitivity at r=0.286 (p<0.05). These point toward compromised detoxification capacity or altered gut microbiome, both of which could affect how the body handles other environmental stressors including artificial EMF.
- Scent and perfume sensitivity, despite being the most prevalent at 57%, showed a more modest correlation (r=0.240, p<0.05). This may be because fragrance sensitivity is common enough in the general population that it’s less specific to the high-symptom EHS phenotype.
- Sun sensitivity correlated at r=0.225 (p<0.05), suggesting possible connections to oxidative stress handling and mitochondrial function.
The pattern across these correlations points toward something systemic. These aren’t random sensitivities that happen to co-occur. They’re different manifestations of bodies that are struggling with environmental adaptation broadly. The autonomic nervous system, immune regulation, gut barrier function, detoxification pathways, mitochondrial energy production: when these systems are compromised, sensitivity to multiple triggers follows.
The Lifestyle-Sensitivity Correlation
One finding from the correlation matrix deserves particular attention because it was unexpected and raises important questions.
People with more environmental sensitivities also showed worse electromagnetic hygiene scores. The correlation was strong: r=0.556, explaining 30.9% of variance. This was the second-strongest relationship in the entire dataset, after only sleep and symptoms.
This seems counterintuitive at first. You might expect people with multiple sensitivities to be more careful about non-native EMF exposure, not less. They’re clearly attuned to environmental factors affecting their health. Why wouldn’t that extend to electromagnetic hygiene?
Several hypotheses could explain this pattern.
The first is shared underlying dysfunction. If autonomic dysregulation or some other systemic problem predisposes people to both artificial EMF sensitivity and other sensitivities, then the correlation reflects common causation rather than one causing the other. The same compromised system that makes you reactive to fragrances also makes you reactive to non-native EMF, and the dysfunction itself might manifest in behaviors that score poorly on electromagnetic hygiene metrics.
The second is cumulative damage. Perhaps chronic exposure to artificial EMF progressively depletes biological resilience, eventually triggering sensitivity cascade. Initial electromagnetic sensitivity develops, continued exposure depletes adaptive reserves, and the system becomes sensitized to additional triggers. Under this model, the high-exposure, high-sensitivity pattern reflects the end stage of a progressive process.
The third is behavioral confounding. People with multiple sensitivities may interact with technology differently in ways that Survey A scores as worse electromagnetic hygiene but that actually represent adaptive responses. More frequent phone checking due to anxiety. Longer screen time due to social isolation when you can’t tolerate public spaces. Using devices as coping tools when other activities are limited by sensitivity. The higher scores might not reflect ignorance about electromagnetic pollution but rather the constraints of living with a complex condition.
We can’t determine from cross-sectional data which explanation is correct. This correlation needs longitudinal research tracking how EMF exposure habits and sensitivity burden change over time in relation to each other. But whatever the mechanism, the relationship is strong enough that it must mean something important about how these conditions develop and interact.
The Overlap with Other Conditions
The sensitivity cluster pattern connects EHS to a broader landscape of environmental and functional conditions that often co-occur.
Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) shares obvious overlap. Fragrance sensitivity, which affected 57% of our sample, is a hallmark of MCS. Many people with EHS report that chemical exposures worsen their electromagnetic symptoms, and vice versa. The conditions aren’t identical, but they share territory.
Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) is increasingly recognized as an underlying mechanism in environmental sensitivities. Mast cells are immune cells that release histamine and other mediators in response to perceived threats. In MCAS, this release happens too easily and too often, triggered by foods, chemicals, temperature changes, stress, and potentially artificial electromagnetic fields. The histamine and DAO deficiency affecting 17% of our sample may represent the visible edge of a larger pattern of mast cell involvement.
Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia frequently co-occur with EHS. All three conditions share features: fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, sleep disruption, widespread symptoms without clear structural pathology. All three are more common in women. All three are often dismissed by conventional medicine. The symptom overlap suggests shared mechanisms, possibly involving autonomic dysfunction, neuroinflammation, or mitochondrial impairment.
Irritable bowel syndrome appeared in our symptom data as well, with 20.6% reporting significant gut symptoms. The gut-brain axis is increasingly understood as bidirectional, with intestinal dysfunction affecting neurological function and vice versa. Gut barrier problems can drive systemic inflammation that sensitizes multiple systems.
For clinicians, these overlaps matter. A patient presenting with EHS may also meet criteria for MCS, MCAS, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, or IBS, sometimes several at once. Treating each as a separate condition misses the systemic pattern. They’re different expressions of bodies that have lost resilience to environmental stressors broadly.
What This Means for Assessment
If 76% of EHS patients have other environmental sensitivities, and those sensitivities predict symptom severity more strongly than artificial EMF exposure itself, then assessment protocols need to change.
Sensitivity screening should be standard in any EHS evaluation. Not as an afterthought or a checklist buried in the intake forms, but as a core component that informs the clinical picture. Which sensitivities are present? How many? How severe? This tells you about the patient’s total load and guides intervention priorities.
The EFEIA protocol includes sensitivity assessment in Survey A precisely because of these findings. We learned from the pilot data that non-native EMF exposure alone wasn’t explaining the variation we were seeing. Sensitivities filled the gap.
A patient with EHS plus seasonal sensitivity plus food additive reactions plus histamine intolerance is a different clinical situation than a patient with EHS alone. The first needs comprehensive environmental medicine addressing multiple triggers. The second might improve substantially with artificial EMF reduction alone.
This also affects how we interpret exposure data. A low-exposure patient with multiple sensitivities may be more impaired than a high-exposure patient with none, because total load is what determines symptoms, not any single contributor.
What This Means for Intervention
The total load model suggests intervention strategies that differ from pure artificial EMF reduction
- Identify all significant contributors. Electromagnetic hygiene assessment remains important, but it should be paired with evaluation of chemical exposures, food triggers, gut function, environmental allergens, and other potential inputs to total load. What else is filling the bucket?
- Prioritize based on impact and feasibility. Not every contributor can be reduced equally easily. Some, like neighbor WiFi or outdoor electromagnetic pollution, may be largely outside your control. Others, like diet or personal care products, can be changed immediately. Start where you can make the biggest difference most quickly.
- Recognize that reducing any contributor helps. This is good news for people who feel overwhelmed by the scope of the problem. You don’t have to eliminate everything at once. Reducing histamine-rich foods by 50% might bring someone below threshold even if artificial EMF exposure remains unchanged. Removing fragrance products from the home might provide relief even if the workplace remains problematic. Total load is cumulative, and so are reductions.
- Address the terrain, not just the triggers. If multiple sensitivities reflect compromised underlying systems, then supporting those systems can expand bucket capacity. Autonomic regulation through breathing practices, cold exposure, or heart rate variability training. Gut healing through dietary changes and targeted support. Mitochondrial function through nutrient optimization. These aren’t direct EMF interventions, but they build the resilience that determines how much load the body can handle.
- Consider natural electromagnetic exposures as therapeutic. Grounding (direct skin contact with the earth), sunlight exposure, and time in natural environments may support the biological systems that artificial EMF disrupts. These aren’t just neutral; they may actively help restore function. The goal isn’t electromagnetic avoidance but electromagnetic balance: less artificial, more natural.
- Expect variability in what works. Because total load composition differs between individuals, the most effective intervention will differ too. For one person, artificial EMF reduction is transformative because it was the dominant contributor. For another, dietary changes matter more. For a third, addressing mold exposure in the home is the key. The sensitivity profile helps predict which approach will have the most leverage.
The Broader Picture
The finding that EHS rarely travels alone has implications beyond individual clinical care.
It suggests that EHS is better understood not as an isolated sensitivity to one physical agent but as part of a broader pattern of environmental vulnerability. The body that reacts to artificial electromagnetic fields is often, perhaps usually, a body that reacts to other environmental factors as well. The electromagnetic component may be the most prominent or the most recently recognized, but it exists within a context.
This reframes research priorities. Studying non-native EMF exposure in isolation may miss the larger picture. Understanding why some people develop multiple sensitivities while others remain resilient, identifying the underlying mechanisms that predispose to reactivity generally, developing interventions that address root causes rather than individual triggers: these may be more productive directions than ever-more-precise measurement of artificial EMF-specific dose-response relationships.
It also connects EHS to a community of related conditions. People with MCS, MCAS, chronic fatigue, and fibromyalgia face similar challenges: real symptoms, unclear mechanisms, limited recognition from conventional medicine. The sensitivity cluster finding suggests these communities have more in common than they might realize. Shared research, shared advocacy, and shared clinical approaches could benefit all.
And it validates what many people with EHS already know from their own experience: that their reactivity extends beyond artificial electromagnetic fields, that managing their condition requires attention to multiple factors, that the tidy category of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” doesn’t fully capture what they’re living with.
76% of them were telling us this all along. We just needed to ask the right question to hear it.
This article examines the environmental sensitivity cluster and total load model. For complete prevalence data, correlation analyses, and integration with other census findings, the full technical reports are available at 2025 EHSGC Reports.