People respond to artificial electromagnetic fields in very different ways. Some live immersed in wireless technology with no apparent consequences. Others have stripped their environment down to the minimum and still suffer debilitating symptoms. Most approaches to electromagnetic hypersensitivity assume a single model: reduce EMF exposure, symptoms improve. The logic is simple, and for some people it works beautifully. For others, it barely moves the needle. For still others, it’s addressing the wrong target entirely.
When we analyzed the EHS Global Census data, we stopped asking “what works for EMF-related symptoms” and started asking “what works for whom, and why.” The answer came in the form of eight distinct phenotypes spanning the full response spectrum: from people with excellent EMF hygiene and no symptoms at all, through resilient individuals who seem unaffected despite heavy exposure, to those with severe multi-system impairment. Each phenotype has different characteristics, different risk levels, and different implications for what to do next.
Your profile determines your path forward. Understanding which pattern you fit can save months or years of pursuing approaches that don’t match your situation.
How We Classified
We built the phenotype framework on two dimensions.
The first dimension is the exposure-symptom pattern. This comes from comparing Survey A scores (lifestyle and EMF exposure habits) with Survey B scores (symptom burden). Some people have low exposure and low symptoms. Others have high exposure and high symptoms. But the interesting cases are the mismatches: high exposure with low symptoms, or low exposure with high symptoms. These tell us something important about individual variation.
We used median splits to divide participants into high and low categories on each survey, then crossed them to create four base patterns:
- Healthy Baseline: Low exposure, low symptoms. Good EMF hygiene and minimal symptom burden.
- Resilient: High exposure, low symptoms. Poor EMF hygiene but somehow protected from consequences.
- Reactive: Low exposure, high symptoms. Already minimized exposure, still suffering.
- Overexposed: High exposure, high symptoms. The expected pattern where exposure correlates with symptoms.
The second dimension is sensitivity burden. Survey A asked about environmental sensitivities beyond EMF: reactions to fragrances, foods, seasonal changes, chemicals. We divided participants into those with few sensitivities (0-2) and those with many (3+).
Four base patterns times two sensitivity levels yields eight phenotypes. This isn’t arbitrary categorization. The phenotypes showed meaningfully different symptom levels, different sleep scores, and different implications for intervention. They represent real variation in how people respond to artificial EMF — and real variation in what each person needs.
The Four Base Patterns
Before diving into all eight profiles, it helps to understand the four base patterns and what they tell us about the exposure-symptom relationship.
Healthy Baseline (37% of sample)
Low EMF exposure combined with low symptoms. These individuals demonstrate what good electromagnetic hygiene looks like in practice: Survey A scores below the median, indicating limited technology exposure, good sleep environment practices, and protective habits. Their symptom scores are correspondingly low.
This is the target state. What we hope to achieve for symptomatic individuals through intervention. Healthy Baseline shows that low-symptom existence is possible in the modern electromagnetic environment, given the right habits and perhaps the right biology.
The question for this group isn’t how to improve but how to maintain. Circumstances change: new jobs with more screen time, new homes with different EMF environments, periods of stress that deplete resilience. What works now needs to be understood and protected.
Resilient (16% of sample)
High EMF exposure combined with low symptoms. These individuals have Survey A scores above the median, indicating significant technology use, devices in the bedroom, substantial screen time. Yet their symptom scores remain low.
This is the mystery group. They’re doing things that should cause problems, and the problems aren’t appearing. Something is protecting them.
Possible explanations include robust autonomic regulation (their nervous systems handle stress without dysregulating), genetic variants affecting EMF sensitivity, strong antioxidant capacity, or lifestyle factors we didn’t fully capture like grounding practices or time in nature.
Resilient individuals represent an untapped research opportunity. Understanding what protects them could unlock prevention strategies applicable to everyone. But they also warrant caution: resilience can fade with age, accumulated stress, or new health challenges. Absence of symptoms doesn’t guarantee absence of effect.
Reactive (17% of sample)
Low EMF exposure combined with high symptoms. These individuals have already minimized their exposure. Their Survey A scores are below median, indicating good electromagnetic hygiene. Yet their symptom scores are high, often in the Electrosensitivity or Electrohypersensitivity range.
This pattern breaks the simple dose-response model. If exposure drives symptoms, then low exposure should mean low symptoms. For Reactive individuals, it doesn’t.
The implication is significant: EMF reduction alone won’t resolve their situation. They’ve already reduced exposure and symptoms persist. Something else is driving the problem, likely biological dysfunction that exists independently of current EMF levels. Autonomic dysregulation, chronic inflammation, mast cell activation, mitochondrial impairment. The biology needs support, not just the environment.
The Reactive phenotype is perhaps the most important to identify correctly, because continuing to pursue EMF reduction when you’re already at low exposure wastes time and energy on the wrong target.
Overexposed (30% of sample)
High EMF exposure combined with high symptoms. The expected pattern where exposure correlates with consequences.
These individuals have Survey A scores above median and symptom scores in the problematic range. Their situation is the most straightforward: high exposure appears to be driving high symptoms.
This is the phenotype most likely to improve with conventional EMF reduction. The intervention matches the problem. Reduce exposure, symptoms should improve.
The question for Overexposed individuals is what has prevented them from reducing exposure so far. Incomplete knowledge of sources? Environmental constraints they can’t easily change? Underestimating the importance of the bedroom? Not knowing where to start? These are addressable barriers.
What Sensitivity Burden Adds
Each base pattern gets subdivided by environmental sensitivity count.
We asked about sensitivities to fragrances, foods, seasonal changes, lactose, histamine, and other environmental triggers. Participants with 0-2 sensitivities were classified as “without sensitivities.” Those with 3+ were classified as “with sensitivities.”
This distinction matters because sensitivity burden predicts symptoms independently of EMF exposure. In our correlation analysis, environmental sensitivities explained 21.6% of symptom variance while EMF exposure explained 17.0%. Biological vulnerability, as reflected in sensitivity count, was actually a stronger predictor than exposure level.
Adding the sensitivity dimension revealed how burden modifies each base pattern.
For Healthy Baseline, sensitivity burden made modest difference. Average symptom scores were 38.2 without sensitivities and 42.1 with sensitivities. When you’re in the low-symptom zone, additional sensitivities don’t push you far.
For Reactive, sensitivity burden also made little difference: 112.9 without, 107.9 with. When symptoms are already high, additional sensitivities don’t add much more. You may already be at a ceiling.
But for both Resilient and Overexposed individuals, the impact was significant. Resilient without sensitivities averaged 45.0 on symptoms; Resilient with sensitivities averaged 57.9. That’s a 29% increase. The sensitivities partially compromised the protection that defined the Resilient pattern. Overexposed without sensitivities averaged 102.6; Overexposed with sensitivities averaged 128.7, a 25% increase that pushed them to the highest average symptom score of any profile.
This tells us something important: sensitivity burden doesn’t just matter for the Resilient group. It significantly amplifies symptoms whenever EMF exposure is high, whether or not the person was previously protected. The total load model applies across profiles — when you add chemical sensitivities, food reactions, and seasonal triggers to the mix, the system’s capacity to cope diminishes.
The Eight Phenotypes
Now let’s look at each phenotype in detail.
Profile 1: Healthy Baseline
Profile: Low EMF exposure, low symptoms, few sensitivities (0-2).
Percentage of sample: 29%
Average scores: Symptoms 38.2/250, Sleep 50.9/163
Risk level: Low
This is the largest single profile in our sample. These individuals have good electromagnetic hygiene and minimal symptom burden. Their sleep scores, while not perfect, are in the mild range. They represent what successful EMF management looks like.
What defines them: Survey A scores below median indicate they’ve limited technology exposure, maintained good sleep environment practices, and adopted protective habits. Whether by intention or circumstance, they’re not heavily burdened by EMF. And their bodies aren’t complaining.
What to do: Maintain what’s working. The goal isn’t to change anything but to understand what’s protective and preserve it consciously. Circumstances change: new jobs, new homes, new life phases. The habits that keep someone in Healthy Baseline need to be recognized and continued even when external pressures shift.
Key insight: Being here by accident is different from being here on purpose. Understand what you’re doing right so you can keep doing it.
Profile 2: Healthy + Sensitivities
Profile: Low EMF exposure, low symptoms, multiple sensitivities (3+).
Percentage of sample: 9%
Average scores: Symptoms 42.1/250, Sleep 55.4/163
Risk level: Low but vulnerable
On paper, this phenotype looks like Healthy Baseline. Low exposure, low symptoms. But underneath, the picture is different: multiple environmental sensitivities indicating a body that’s reactive to various triggers.
What defines them: Good EMF hygiene combined with sensitivity to fragrances, foods, seasonal changes, or other environmental factors. Currently stable because EMF exposure is low and total load remains below threshold. But the margin is thinner than it appears.
What to do: Address the sensitivities proactively. Don’t wait for EMF symptoms to appear before taking them seriously. Each sensitivity is filling the bucket. Reduce those loads now while capacity remains. An increase in EMF exposure, a period of high stress, or a new environmental trigger could tip total load over threshold.
Key insight: Stability isn’t the same as resilience. The current low-symptom state depends on keeping total load low. The sensitivities are warning signs that the system has limited reserve.
Profile 3: Resilient
Profile: High EMF exposure, low symptoms, few sensitivities (0-2).
Percentage of sample: 7%
Average scores: Symptoms 45.0/250, Sleep 52.0/163
Risk level: Low short-term, uncertain long-term
The mystery phenotype. High exposure should produce symptoms, but it doesn’t. Something is protecting these individuals that we don’t fully understand.
What defines them: Survey A scores above median indicate significant technology use, devices in bedroom, substantial screen time. Yet symptoms remain minimal. Their sleep scores are comparable to Healthy Baseline. Whatever EMF does to others, it seems to have less effect on them.
What to do: Study for protective factors. What’s different about these individuals? If it’s modifiable (lifestyle, practices, environmental factors), it could help others. If it’s constitutional (genetics, baseline autonomic function), it still provides insight into mechanisms.
But also: don’t assume protection lasts forever. Resilience can fade with age, accumulated health challenges, or changes in life circumstances. The absence of symptoms now doesn’t guarantee absence later. And absence of symptoms doesn’t mean absence of subclinical effects.
Key insight: Being resilient is valuable. Understanding why you’re resilient is more valuable. And not taking resilience for granted is wisest of all.
Profile 4: Resilient + Sensitivities
Profile: High EMF exposure, moderate symptoms, multiple sensitivities (3+).
Percentage of sample: 9%
Average scores: Symptoms 57.9/250, Sleep 64.1/163
Risk level: Medium (transitional)
The transitional phenotype. These individuals have the high-exposure pattern of Resilient but are no longer in the low-symptom zone. Their sensitivities have partially compromised whatever was protecting them.
What defines them: High EMF exposure combined with multiple environmental sensitivities. Symptoms are moderate, not severe, suggesting some resilience remains. But the 29% increase in symptoms compared to pure Resilient shows the buffer is shrinking.
What to do: Act now while margin remains. This is the phenotype most at risk of sliding into Overexposed + Sensitivities if nothing changes. Reduce EMF exposure even though you’ve been handling it; the handling is becoming harder. Address the other sensitivities loading your system. Expand your capacity before the remaining buffer disappears.
Key insight: Resilience with sensitivities is resilience on borrowed time. The sensitivities are eroding the protection. Intervene before you discover how much protection you’ve lost.
Profile 5: Reactive
Profile: Low EMF exposure, high symptoms, few sensitivities (0-2).
Percentage of sample: 9%
Average scores: Symptoms 112.9/250, Sleep 90.5/163
Risk level: High
The phenotype that breaks the simple model. Low exposure should mean low symptoms. For Reactive individuals, it doesn’t. They’ve done the work to minimize EMF and they’re still suffering.
What defines them: Survey A scores below median indicate good electromagnetic hygiene. They’ve removed devices from bedrooms, reduced screen time, perhaps done professional remediation. Yet symptom scores are in the Electrosensitivity or Electrohypersensitivity range. Sleep scores are significantly elevated, indicating substantial disruption.
What to do: Stop pursuing EMF reduction as the primary strategy. It’s not working because EMF isn’t the primary driver anymore (if it ever was). This phenotype needs biological support: functional medicine workup, autonomic assessment, inflammatory marker evaluation, possibly mast cell investigation. The nervous system, immune system, or cellular energy systems may be dysfunctional in ways that produce symptoms independent of current exposure levels.
Key insight: If you’ve minimized exposure and symptoms persist, further EMF reduction is the wrong target. Your biology needs support, not just your environment.
Profile 6: Reactive + Sensitivities
Profile: Low EMF exposure, high symptoms, multiple sensitivities (3+).
Percentage of sample: 9%
Average scores: Symptoms 107.9/250, Sleep 83.4/163
Risk level: High (complex)
The most complex presentation. Low EMF exposure, high symptoms, and multiple environmental sensitivities compounding the picture. These individuals react to everything, and removing any single trigger doesn’t solve it.
What defines them: Good EMF hygiene combined with sensitivity to fragrances, foods, seasonal changes, and other triggers. The body is in a state of broad environmental reactivity. EMF sensitivity exists alongside chemical sensitivity, food intolerance, and probably autonomic dysfunction underlying all of it.
What to do: Comprehensive environmental medicine. Total load reduction across all domains, not just EMF. This means addressing chemical exposures, food triggers, and every other source of burden simultaneously. Plus biological support for the compromised systems underneath.
Single-factor interventions won’t work. You’ve probably already discovered this. What’s needed is professional guidance from someone who understands that these conditions cluster together, not a series of specialists each seeing only their piece.
Key insight: Complex doesn’t mean hopeless. It means comprehensive. The approach has to match the complexity of the problem.
Profile 7: Overexposed
Profile: High EMF exposure, high symptoms, few sensitivities (0-2).
Percentage of sample: 10%
Average scores: Symptoms 102.6/250, Sleep 88.6/163
Risk level: High (but responsive)
The expected pattern. High exposure correlating with high symptoms. This is what the simple dose-response model predicts, and for this profile, the model fits.
What defines them: Survey A scores above median indicate significant EMF exposure: heavy technology use, poor sleep environment practices, substantial screen time. Symptom scores are elevated into the Electrosensitivity or Electrohypersensitivity range. Sleep is significantly disrupted. And crucially, they don’t have multiple other sensitivities complicating the picture.
What to do: Straightforward EMF reduction, starting with the bedroom. This phenotype is the most likely to respond to conventional intervention because EMF appears to be the primary driver. The relationship between exposure and symptoms is clear. Reduce one, the other should improve.
The question is what has prevented reduction so far. Incomplete knowledge of sources? Environmental constraints? Underestimating the bedroom? Not knowing where to start? These barriers can be addressed.
Key insight: For you, the basics work. EMF reduction should help significantly. The path forward is clearer than for other profiles. You just have to walk it.
Profile 8: Overexposed + Sensitivities
Profile: High EMF exposure, high symptoms, multiple sensitivities (3+).
Percentage of sample: 20%
Average scores: Symptoms 128.7/250, Sleep 80.1/163
Risk level: Highest
The largest high-risk group. High EMF exposure, high symptom burden, and multiple environmental sensitivities loading the system from every direction.
What defines them: The highest average symptom score of any profile. The bucket is overflowing and being filled from multiple sources simultaneously. EMF exposure is a problem, but so are chemical sensitivities, food reactions, seasonal triggers. The burden is compounded — sensitivity burden alone increases symptom averages by 25% compared to Overexposed individuals without those additional sensitivities.
What to do: EMF reduction alone won’t bring total load below threshold because other triggers keep filling the bucket. This phenotype needs the comprehensive approach: EMF reduction AND sensitivity management AND sleep optimization AND biological support. Not sequentially. Together. Reducing load from every direction at once.
Start with the bedroom because that’s the foundation. But understand from the beginning that you’ll need to address everything. The scope of intervention must match the scope of the problem.
Key insight: Single interventions won’t cut it. The highest burden requires the most comprehensive response. But it also offers the most opportunity: reducing load from multiple directions can produce larger improvements than focusing on any one factor alone.
Why This Matters
The phenotype framework isn’t academic classification for its own sake. It’s practical guidance for what to do next.
Consider the difference in approach between profiles.
- If you’re Reactive, spending money on bedroom shielding may be addressing the wrong problem. Your exposure is already low. Your symptoms persist because something biological is driving them. You need a different kind of evaluation.
- If you’re Overexposed, spending money on comprehensive functional medicine workup before trying basic EMF reduction may be premature. Your situation is relatively straightforward: high exposure, high symptoms. Try the obvious intervention first. It may be enough.
- If you’re Resilient + Sensitivities, you might feel like you’re handling things fine, but the data suggests you’re transitional. The sensitivities are eroding whatever protects you. Acting now, while you still have buffer, is easier than recovering after you’ve tipped into a more symptomatic state.
- If you’re Overexposed + Sensitivities, single-focus interventions will likely disappoint you. You’ve perhaps already experienced this: trying EMF reduction without much improvement, or addressing food sensitivities without resolving the whole picture. The approach has to be comprehensive because the problem is comprehensive.
The phenotypes also explain contradictory experiences in the EHS community. Someone reports dramatic improvement from bedroom remediation; someone else tries the same thing with minimal results. They may fit different phenotypes. What works for Overexposed won’t work for Reactive. What helps Resilient + Sensitivities won’t help Healthy Baseline.
One-size-fits-all advice makes sense only when everyone is the same. They’re not. The phenotype framework acknowledges this and directs intervention accordingly.
Finding Your Pattern
You can approximate your profile through self-assessment, though formal evaluation provides more precision.
Assess your exposure level (Survey A dimension):
- Consider your technology usage patterns. Do you use your phone intensively all day, or minimally? Do you have devices in the bedroom at night? How many hours of screen time daily? Do you use wireless headphones or a smartwatch consistently?
- Consider your sleep environment. Is your phone in the bedroom? Near the bed? Charging on the nightstand? Is the router close to sleeping areas? Do you have smart devices, baby monitors, or other transmitting technology in or near the bedroom?
- Consider protective practices. Do you practice grounding regularly? Spend time in natural environments? Take breaks from technology?
- Higher exposure patterns: intensive all-day phone use, devices in bedroom, phone within arm’s reach at night, high screen time, minimal nature exposure, no grounding practice.
- Lower exposure patterns: minimal phone use, devices out of bedroom at night, limited screen time, regular nature exposure, grounding practice.
Assess your symptom level (Survey B dimension):
- Consider the core symptoms our data revealed as most common: fatigue, concentration problems, nervousness, insomnia, irritability, memory issues.
- Rate each on a 0-10 scale. If several of these are 5 or above, you’re likely in higher-symptom territory. If most are 3 or below, you’re likely in lower-symptom territory.
- Consider function. Can you work a full day without cognitive fatigue? Sleep through the night and wake refreshed? Maintain emotional equilibrium under normal stress? Complete tasks without unusual difficulty?
Functional impairment suggests higher symptom burden even if you’re not labeling specific symptoms.
Assess your sensitivity burden:
- Do you react to fragrances, perfumes, cleaning products, or scented personal care items?
- Do you notice symptoms shifting with weather changes, barometric pressure, or seasonal transitions?
- Do you have food sensitivities, intolerances, or allergies? Lactose, gluten, histamine, specific additives?
- Do you react to sun exposure beyond normal sunburn?
- Do you have multiple skin allergies or frequent allergic reactions?
If you count three or more of these sensitivities, you’re likely in the higher-sensitivity category.
Map your approximate profile:
- Lower exposure + lower symptoms + few sensitivities = Healthy Baseline
- Lower exposure + lower symptoms + many sensitivities = Healthy + Sensitivities
- Higher exposure + lower symptoms + few sensitivities = Resilient
- Higher exposure + lower symptoms + many sensitivities = Resilient + Sensitivities
- Lower exposure + higher symptoms + few sensitivities = Reactive
- Lower exposure + higher symptoms + many sensitivities = Reactive + Sensitivities
- Higher exposure + higher symptoms + few sensitivities = Overexposed
- Higher exposure + higher symptoms + many sensitivities = Overexposed + Sensitivities
This is approximate. The census used standardized surveys with specific scoring. But directional self-assessment can help you understand which general pattern you likely fit and what approach makes sense.
When to seek professional evaluation:
- If your symptom burden is significantly affecting function, professional assessment is warranted regardless of profile.
- If you’re unsure whether you’re Reactive or Overexposed (that is, whether your exposure is actually low or higher than you realize), professional EMF measurement can clarify.
- If you’ve tried interventions matching your apparent profile without improvement, you may be misclassified or may have complicating factors that require professional workup.
- If you’re in any of the high-risk profiles (Reactive, Reactive + Sensitivities, Overexposed, or Overexposed + Sensitivities), professional guidance helps prioritize interventions and avoid wasted effort.
From Pattern to Path
The eight profiles emerged from data, not theory. We didn’t decide in advance that there should be eight categories and then fit people into boxes. We looked at how exposure, symptoms, and sensitivities actually varied across 94 participants who completed all surveys, and the patterns revealed themselves.
What the patterns show is that the human response to artificial EMF isn’t uniform. It spans a spectrum from robust health through asymptomatic resilience to severe multi-system impairment, and the right approach depends entirely on where someone falls. The Reactive individual pursuing more EMF reduction is wasting effort. The Overexposed individual pursuing functional medicine before trying basic exposure reduction may be overcomplicating things. The Resilient + Sensitivities individual assuming they don’t need to act because symptoms aren’t severe is watching their buffer erode. And the Healthy Baseline individual has something worth understanding and protecting.
Knowing your profile directs your next steps. It tells you which interventions match your situation and which ones don’t. It explains why advice that worked for someone else might not work for you, and why your experience might differ from others in the same EMF environment.
One-size-fits-all doesn’t work because one size doesn’t fit all. The phenotype framework acknowledges this reality and provides a map for navigating it.
Find your pattern. Match your approach. The path forward depends on where you’re starting from.
This article presents the phenotype framework from the EHS Global Census. For complete methodology, statistical validation, and integration with other findings, the full technical reports are available at 2025 EHSGC Reports.