Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from radiation therapy, is known to increase the risk of cancer. Many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, and other sources, but so far there's no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk.
The FCC defines RF exposure in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of the rate of absorption of RF energy of the human body. The SAR for cell phones is 1.6 watts per kg of body tissue, measured at a distance of 5mm. The SAR is defined as the exposure under worst-case conditions; most cell phones operate at a fraction of this level in normal coverage areas.
In addition, the field strength of the signal follows an inverse square law, so the exposure 40 feet from a cell phone transmission discussed above would be about six million times lower than the SAR limit, or 2.6 x 10-7 W/kg.
Given this, the scientific community is skeptical about EHS, especially since a series of double-blind tests have shown patients unable to distinguish between real and fake stimuli, cellphones, for example.
Many doctors consider EHS to be an example of the 'nocebo effect' a condition where an inert substance creates an adverse reaction in a patient. It's the opposite of the more widely known placebo effect, in which an inert substance causes a beneficial result.
Regardless of the cause, the symptoms are real and can be debilitating. One woman in the UK who claims she is allergic to electricity doesn't venture outside without a full-body protective suit that has silver woven into the fabric to repel EM fields; neighbors say she looks like a "demented bee keeper". Judge for yourself here. To give herself some relief from the unrelenting EM barrage, she lives life by candlelight and has moved to a rural part of Dorset.