Monday, February 6, 2023

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research

Feb 4, 2023 Update

Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure on Free Radical-Related Cellular Processes (290 studies)

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington

This document contains abstracts for 290 studies published since 1997 that assessed the effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure on free radical-related cellular processes.

See pages 164-187 for the Table that summarizes key details about each study.

Summary

1.    Of the 290 studies published since 1997, 263 studies (91%) reported statistically significant effects of radiofrequency radiation on free radical-related cellular processes; only 27 studies (9%) found no significant effects.

2.    Change in cellular free radical status is a consistent effect of radiofrequency radiation exposure.

3.    Effects can occur at low specific absorption rates (SAR) or power density of exposure. Seventy studies are marked LI for low intensity (≤ 0.4 W/kg). Of the 70 low intensity exposure studies, 68 studies (91%) reported significant effects on free radical-related cellular processes.

4.    Effects have been reported at different frequencies, exposure duration, and modulations, and in different biological systems, cell lines, and animal species. These data support the assertion that “Radiofrequency radiation affects cellular free radical processes.”

5.    Most of the studies are live animal (in vivo) studies with long-term exposure, e.g., daily exposure up to several months.

6.    Some studies used mobile phones or RFR-emitting devices for exposure (see Table). The SAR and characteristics of RFR in these studies are not well defined. However, these studies should not be overlooked because they represent real-life exposure scenarios. Waveform modulations of RFR during wireless communication usage probably play an important role in biological effects which are not revealed in studies that used a simple form of radiation (e.g., continuous-wave or GSM) and spatially uniform fields. Researchers in bioelectromagnetics should realize that the perfect RFR exposure system simulating real life exposures simply does not exist.

To download the 187-page document (pdf): https://bit.ly/RFR-oxidative-Lai-2023

--

Feb 1, 2018 (Updated June 26, 2022)

The preponderance of research published from 1990 through April 2022 has found significant effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation as well as to extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields. Overall, 76% (n=796) of 1,046 radio frequency radiation (RFR) studies reported significant effects. Additionally, 88% (n=810) of 916 extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic field studies found significant effects. 

Currently, there are 1,962 studies in Dr. Henry Lai's collection of research on the effects of exposure to RFR and static or ELF electromagnetic fields (EMF). The abstracts for these studies can be downloaded by clicking on the link below.

Government and industry-linked scientists often claim that research on the effects of exposure to EMF is inconsistent, and that more research is needed before health warnings are issued or regulatory exposure limits are strengthened.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC plans to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity. Thus, the IARC will likely re-classify RFR to either "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) or "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1) at the next expert review.

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington and Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, has compiled summaries of the research on the biologic and health effects of exposure to RFR and ELF EMF. His set of abstracts which cover the period from 1990 to April 2022 constitute a comprehensive collection of this research.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of the research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative damage or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of RFR studies that examined genetic and neurological effects has found significant effects.

The evidence for DNA damage has been found more consistently in animal and human (in vivo) studies than in studies of cell cultures (in vitro).


Top Line Results

Overall, 82% (n=1,608) of 1,962 studies of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields reported significant biologic effects.
 

Radio frequency radiation:

91% (n=263) of 288 oxidative damage (or free radical) studies published since 1997 reported significant effects.

68% (n=291) of 423 genetic effects studies 
published since 1990 reported significant effects.

73% (n=244) of 335 neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

Overall, 76% (n=798) of 1,046 radio frequency radiation studies reported significant biologic effects.


Extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields::

90% (n=270) of 298 oxidative damage (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

84% (n=257) of 307 genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

91% (n=283) of 311 neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

Overall, 88% (n=810) of 916 extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic field studies reported significant biologic effects.



The Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research

The Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure on Free Radical-Related Cellular Processes (290 studies)

Feb 4, 2023 Update

Dr. Henry Lai, Emeritus Professor, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington

This document contains abstracts for 290 studies published since 1997 that assessed the effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure on free radical-related cellular processes.

See pages 164-187 for the Table that summarizes key details about each study.

Summary

1.    Of the 290 studies published since 1997, 263 studies (91%) reported statistically significant effects of radiofrequency radiation on free radical-related cellular processes; only 27 studies (9%) found no significant effects.

2.    Change in cellular free radical status is a consistent effect of radiofrequency radiation exposure.

3.    Effects can occur at low specific absorption rates (SAR) or power density of exposure. Seventy studies are marked LI for low intensity (0.4 W/kg). Of the 70 low intensity exposure studies, 68 studies (91%) reported significant effects on free radical-related cellular processes.

4.    Effects have been reported at different frequencies, exposure duration, and modulations, and in different biological systems, cell lines, and animal species. These data support the assertion that “Radiofrequency radiation affects cellular free radical processes.”

5.    Most of the studies are live animal (in vivo) studies with long-term exposure, e.g., daily exposure up to several months.

6.    Some studies used mobile phones or RFR-emitting devices for exposure (see Table). The SAR and characteristics of RFR in these studies are not well defined. However, these studies should not be overlooked because they represent real-life exposure scenarios. Waveform modulations of RFR during wireless communication usage probably play an important role in biological effects which are not revealed in studies that used a simple form of radiation (e.g., continuous-wave or GSM) and spatially uniform fields. Researchers in bioelectromagnetics should realize that the perfect RFR exposure system simulating real life exposures simply does not exist.

To download the 187-page document (pdf): https://bit.ly/RFR-oxidative-Lai-2023

--
February 1, 2018 (Updated September 1, 2022)

The preponderance of research published from 1990 through April 2022 has found significant effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation as well as to extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields. Overall, 77% (n=845) of 1,102 radio frequency radiation (RFR) studies reported significant effects. Additionally, 88% (n=810) of 916 extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic field studies found significant effects. 

By the end of April 2022, there were 2,018 studies in Dr. Henry Lai's collection of research on the effects of exposure to RFR and static or ELF electromagnetic fields (EMF). The abstracts for these studies can be downloaded by clicking on the link below.

Government and industry-linked scientists often claim that research on the effects of exposure to EMF is inconsistent, and that more research is needed before health warnings are issued or regulatory exposure limits are strengthened.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC plans to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity. Thus, the IARC will likely re-classify RFR to either "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) or "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1) at the next expert review.

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington and Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, has compiled summaries of the research on the biologic and health effects of exposure to RFR and ELF EMF. His set of abstracts which cover the period from 1990 to April 2022 constitute a comprehensive collection of this research.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of the research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative damage or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of RFR studies that examined genetic and neurological effects has found significant effects.

The evidence for DNA damage has been found more consistently in animal and human (in vivo) studies than in studies of cell cultures (in vitro).

Top Line Results


Overall, 82% (n=1,655) of 2,018 studies of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields reported significant biologic effects.
 

Radio frequency radiation:

91% (n=263) of 288 oxidative damage (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

68% (n=291) of 423 genetic effects studies 
published since 1990 reported significant effects.

73% (n=291) of 391 neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

Overall, 77% (n=845) of 1,102 radio frequency radiation studies reported significant biologic effects.


Extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields::

90% (n=270) of 298 oxidative damage (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

84% (n=257) of 307 genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

91% (n=283) of 311 neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

Overall, 88% (n=810) of 916 extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic field studies reported significant biologic effects.




Thursday, February 2, 2023

Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure

To learn why it is important to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation see my Welcome to EMR Safety page for an overview of the health risks including presentations, radio interviews, and podcasts

This page contains safety tips from various organizations on how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, laptops, tablets, Wi-Fi routers, and other wireless technology. 

To download the following one-page handout click on the link:  https://bit.ly/wirelesstipsheet




---




---

Environmental Working Group, November 2022

EWG’s big picture recommendations for wireless devices

  • Default to airplane mode.
  • Increase distance from devices.
  • Turn off when not in use.
  • Used wired devices if possible.

Children are almost constantly exposed to wireless radiation, starting as early as the first weeks of life. As they get older, that exposure grows every day, thanks to the widespread use of smartphones, laptops and other wireless devices in the classroom and at home.

Wireless devices radiate radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Research has raised concerns about the health risks of exposure to this radiation, including harm to the nervous and reproductive systems, and higher risk of cancer. Cell phone radiation was classified a “possible carcinogen” in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization. The agency said human epidemiological studies showed a link between higher risk of a type of malignant brain cancer and cell phone use.

At home

Parents and caregivers can exert more control over their kids’ wireless radiation exposure at home than at school, and have more latitude to try new ways of using devices.

Getting started

To begin, inventory your home’s electronic devices. Consider smart speakers, cordless phones and mouses, gaming consoles, cell phones, wireless security systems and electric alarm clocks, among other types of technology. Even things you might not think emit electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation, like Fitbits and other wearable fitness devices, are a source of wireless radiation exposure and best for young kids to avoid.

Increase distance

The first, easiest-to-implement option is to increase the distance between your child and wireless devices in the home. The more distance, the less exposure.

Wired headphones or the speaker mode on a cell phone can put distance between the device and kids’ bodies. They should carry the device in a backpack or bag, not a pocket.

When no one is actively using the device, make sure it’s in airplane mode. Otherwise, the device will keep seeking the “signal” – it will continue trying to communicate with nearby cell towers, producing unnecessary radiation.

Another simple but important fix: Locate routers and cordless phone base stations – the worst radiation offenders – away from where your kids sleep, study and play. See if you can lower your Wi-Fi router’s output. It may be set to “High” as a default, which could create more intense wireless radiation output than anyone in your household needs.

Choose wired

To reduce radiation exposures significantly, many experts recommend using wired devices whenever possible. Make replacing wireless headphones with wired your first step then, over time, choose auxiliary devices that plug in or are battery-powered, including keyboards, mouses and microphones. Wireless earbuds also emit radiofrequency radiation, so limit the use of such devices, especially for children and youth.

Here are some other ways to reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation from wireless.

The big picture

  • Aside from the obvious devices (phones, tablets, computers, game consoles), think twice about wireless digital baby monitors and other wireless or virtual devices. If used, such devices and appliances should be kept away from bedrooms and other areas where children sleep.
  • Shut off all wireless devices, including your router, at night and when they’re not in use.
  • Consult this checklist for a low-electromagnetic field, or EMF, set-up published by Environmental Health Trust if you or a family member spend a lot of time at a computer.

At night

  • Strongly encourage your child not to sleep near their wireless gadgets. If this isn’t possible – and let’s face it, with teenagers, you may not succeed at wresting the phone or tablet away – try to convince them to place it away from their head instead of under a pillow.
  • Even better, keep electronics out of bedrooms as much as possible, or at least away from beds. This includes TV screens and audio speakers.
  • Use an old-fashioned electric or battery alarm clock that doesn’t connect to Wi-Fi. And get one for your children if they claim to need their cell phone so they can get up in the morning.
  • Move beds away from utility meters or large appliances, which also emit radiation, even if they’re on the other side of a wall.

Studying, playing and communicating

  • Experts recommend starting a child’s cell phone use as late as practical, considering the family and educational context and needs of each child. The younger kids are, the more vulnerable their bodies are to potentially harmful effects of wireless radiation exposure.
  • Encourage your children to use a device’s speaker function or wired earbuds when they want to use their phone to talk.
  • Download movies and shows instead of streaming them, then watch in airplane mode. Even better, watch on a wired computer or screen.
  • Teach and encourage your children to use their laptop or tablet placed on a table or another hard surface, away from their bodies.
  • Get wired – consider getting cords and cables for your kids’ game console, and turning it off when your children finish playing.

Powering down

  • Put phones in airplane mode as much as possible when they are near children, with both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth turned off. If they (or you) want to put a phone in a pocket or backpack, turn it off first.
  • Also, power devices down when you’re in transit, like on a plane, train, bus or in a car.
  • Get to know when radiation emissions are highest – streaming video, traveling in a car, or when the signal is poor – and do what you can to help your child avoid these scenarios. (To see how strong or weak the signal is, check how many bars it has.)

At school

Parents and caregivers don’t have nearly as much control at school over how much their child is exposed to wireless radiation as they do at home. And with technology ever more prevalent in educational settings, chances are kids are close to a variety of devices all day.

Nearly half of U.S. schools report having a computer for every child, according to a Department of Education study. Another 37 percent have a computer for each child in some age groups. In some cases, kids may take the device home with them for long or short periods. The survey also said 70 percent of teachers use technology in the classroom.

It’s tough to shield your child from wireless radiation exposure entirely. But you can take steps to lower their exposure based on advice published by experts. Start by approaching school administrators with your concerns. Learn your school or district’s cell phone policy. If none exists, request that a committee be formed to develop a policy and plan trainings for teachers about safe technology use.

Here are a few ideas teachers can implement in the classroom or that schools and school districts can use. The gold standard: Whenever possible, use wired connections for laptops, tablets, interactive white boards, printers and other devices.

If a wired school network isn’t feasible:

  • Emphasize keeping devices off and turning them on only when in use – and issue frequent reminders.
  • Students’ personal electronic devices, like cell phones, should be turned off or in airplane mode during school.
  • Make sure the school policy on wireless device use is posted in classrooms.
  • Ask school districts to equip new facilities with wired technology.
  • Many experts recommend setting school Wi-Fi routers to the lowest possible level that still allows educational content access, as well as turning off routers when they’re not in use.

Wireless technology use during the pandemic

From the start of the coronavirus pandemic, wireless technology became the main path for accessing education and participating in virtual classrooms for kids and families in the U.S. and across the globe. In 2020, a survey found nearly half of 2- to 4-year-olds and about two in three kids ages 5 to 8 already owned their own mobile devices, a tablet or smartphone – and that was before the Covid-19-related school closures prompted desperate working parents nationwide to employ wireless devices as babysitters and educators.

That’s many kids with constant access to wireless devices – and also exposed to the health risks of wireless radiation. Parents have taken note of these potential harms. A European citizens group coalition in March called for simple steps to protect kids by swapping wireless for cables in places where children spend time and educating the public about the dangers of exposure.

Earlier this year, EWG together with more than 22,000 people petitioned federal regulators to establish stricter standards for kids’ exposure to wireless devices’ radiofrequency radiation.

For more information

To find additional resources, advocacy guidance, tip sheets and other useful suggestions, consult the websites of one of these organizations:

  • The Environmental Health Trust’s “Wi-Fi in Schools Toolkit” offers a wealth of resources, including fact sheets and tip sheets, background on the science of EMF exposure, and guidance for parents, teachers and schools. It also has more than a dozen downloadable and printable posters on exposure and sleep, children’s development, and the effects of EMF exposure on breast cancer risk and male reproductive health.
  • An Environmental Health in Nursing textbook downloadable chapter on EMF, courtesy of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, contains useful information, like a detailed explanation of the health impacts of EMF exposure, advocate organizations’ tip sheets, and other valuable resources.
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics issued recommendations about EMF exposure.
  • The Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition offers a downloadable backgrounder for students and educators on “Cell Phones, Wireless and Your Health,” which includes suggested activities to use in the classroom and as homework. It includes a list of additional websites you may choose to consult.

---

Safety Recommendations for Children Who Use Digital Technologies to Study at Home

Scientific Research Institute of Hygiene and Children's Health in the Russian Ministry of Health 
and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RusCNIRP)
March 25, 2020 

(The recommendations were translated from Russian using Google's translation tool and then edited for easier reading on the Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website.) 

The following recommendations for distance learning at home are intended for children (up to 18 years of age) and their parents and grandparents and anyone who helps children study at home using digital technologies.

1. Children under 18 years of age who study at home should primarily use personal computers and laptops connected to the Internet via a wired network. When using a wireless network, the distance from the Wi-Fi router to the student should be at least 5 meters (16 feet).

2. The keyboard of the computer or laptop must be disinfected with an antiseptic every day before starting work. The monitor also needs to be treated with an antiseptic agent.

3. Before using the keyboard wash the hands of both the child and the adult who helps him or her.

4. To reduce the risk of visual impairment and musculoskeletal system disorders, provide a child working at a computer or laptop with a convenient workplace (the height of the table and chair should correspond to the height of the child), to exclude the illumination of the monitor screen.

5. The main light source at the child's workplace should be located on the side of the screen (not behind the screen and not from the back of the person working with the screen). The brightness of the source should approximately correspond to the brightness of the screen.


6. The use of tablets for distance learning at home is acceptable for adolescents over 15 years old. Before using the tablet, you need to wash your hands and wipe the screen with a disinfectant (wet towel). The location of the Wi-Fi point should be at least 5 meters (16 feet) from the student’s workplace. The tablet is placed on the table on a stand at an angle of 30 degrees, the distance from the screen to the pupil’s eyes is at least 50 centimeters (20 inches). Do not use a laptop or tablet on your lap, in your hands, lying down and the like.
30 degree angle
         
7. For all age groups: completely avoid use of smartphones for educational purposes (reading, searching for information)

8. For all age groups: for reading or completing tasks, mainly use ordinary books and notebooks.

9. Children under 6 years old must not use any computer equipment for educational purposes at home.

10. Children 6 to 12 years of age should minimize the use of computer equipment for educational purposes at home. If it is necessary to use it, the total duration of all types of on-screen activities should not exceed 2 hours per day (including watching TV). The class schedule should be based on a one-to-three schedule for 6 to 8 year olds (for every 10 minutes of work 30 minutes of rest) and one-to-two schedule for ages over 8 and up to 12 years (for every 10 minutes of work - 20 minutes of rest).

11. For children 12 to 18 years of age, the following mode of computer use is recommended: “one to two” for 12 to 15 year olds (for every 30 minutes of work - 60 minutes of rest) and “one to one” for children for 16 to 18 year olds (for every 45 minutes of work - 45 minutes of rest). 


The total duration of all types of screen activities for children 12 to 18 years of age, including watching TV, should not exceed 3.5–4 hours per day.

12. For the prevention of visual fatigue, perform gymnastics for the eyes during the break; for the prevention of general fatigue - a warm-up (tilts, body turns, squats, etc.)

13. If necessary to use headphones limit their continuous use: no more than an hour at a volume of not more than 60%.

14. Ventilate the room where the students study, before the start of classes (at least 15 minutes) and after each hour of work.

15. Do not use tablets and smartphones for educational purposes outdoors (in the park, on the playground and similar places).


The above recommendations are based upon research from multicenter studies on children's health and safety while using digital educational technologies, materials from the Scientific Research Institute of Hygiene and Children's Health “NRCM of Children's Health,” and the Russian National Committee for Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation, as well as recommendations from the World Health Organization and the best safety practices for children's digital educational environments.

--

California Department of Public Health


In December, 2017, the California Department of Public Health captured worldwide attention when it published an official cell phone safety document,"How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cell Phones." The three-page document is available at http://bit.ly/CDPHguidance.

In March, 2017, before the judge could finalize her ruling in a lawsuit we filed under the Public Records Act, the California Department of Public Health released an unofficial cell phone safety document, "Cellphones and Health," dated April, 2014. The document was originally written in 2009 but never released to the public. More information is available on my web site.
To download 3-page document: http://bit.ly/CDPHguidance

More Safety Tips

American Academy of Pediatrics. "Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know." http://bit.ly/AAPrecs

Athens Medical Association. "16 Rules to Reduce Wireless Radiation Exposure." http://bit.ly/2pOt2HG

Baby Safe Project. "What You Need to Know about Wireless Radiation and Your Baby."
bit.ly/BabySafeEMR

City of Berkeley. Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance.

Canadians for Safe Technology. "Wireless Safety Tips. http://bit.ly/C4STtips

Connecticut Department of Public Health. "Cell Phones: Questions and Answers about Safety." http://bit.ly/cellphoneFAQsConn

Consumer Reports. "Cell Phone Radiation Warnings." http://bit.ly/CRwarnings

Electrosensitive Society. "How to reduce your exposure: Electromagnetic hygiene in 12 easy steps. http://bit.ly/ESsafetytips

Environmental Health Trust. "10 Tips to Reduce Cell Phone Radiation."  http://bit.ly/EHT10tips

Environmental Working Group. "EWG's Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use." http://bit.ly/EWGcellphone

German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Recommendations from the BfS for making telephone calls on mobile communications. http://bit.ly/BfScalls

German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Smartphones and tablets--tips to reduce radiation exposure. http://bit.ly/GFRPtips

New Jersey Education Association. "Minimize Health Risks from Electronic Devices." NJEA Review. Sept 2016. bit.ly/NJEAtips

Physicians for Safe Technology. "Safety Tips for Wireless Devices." bit.ly/MDsafeTechTips

Vienna Medical Association. "Mobile Phone Information." 




Wednesday, February 1, 2023

Wireless Radiation Exposure Limits

Maximum recommended radio frequency exposure levels
(power density) by source


For the general public, the recommended maximum whole-body average radio frequency exposure limit as measured by the incident power density varies by source:

FCC (based on acute heating averaged over 30 minutes)

https://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/fcc-maximum-permissible-exposure.htm

Recommended levels:

2,000,000 µW/m2 (for 30 - 300 MHz)

frequency (in Hz)/150 µW/m2 (for 300 MHz - 1500 MHz)

10,000,000 µW/m2 (for 1500 MHz - 100,000 MHz)


ICNIRP (2020) (based on acute heating averaged over 30 minutes)

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf

Recommended levels:

2,000,000 µW/m2 (for 30 - 400 MHz)

frequency (in Hz)/200 µW/m2 (for 400 MHz - 2000 MHz)

10,000,000 µW/m2 (for 2000 MHz - 300,000 MHz)


Council of Europe, Resolution 1815

https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994

Recommended level: 106 µW/m2


European EMF guideline for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.(Belyaev et al,, 2016)

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html?lang=en

Recommended levels:

FM radio: 100 - 10,000 µW/m2

Cell phone frequencies: 1 - 100 µW/m2

Wi-Fi (2400 and 5000 MHz): 0.1 - 10 µW/m2


BioInitiative Report (2012)

https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/section_1_table_1_2012.pdf

Recommended levels: 3–6 µW/m2


Building Biology Institute guideline for sleeping areas (2015)

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55517edbe4b0b260d3936ec1/t/5e3ca9927d681d130c3c0364/1581033875399/SBM-2015_Building_Biology_Evaluation_Guideline_Values.pdf

Recommended level: <0.1 µW/m2


Definitions:

Mhz = megahertz = million cycles per second

µW/m2 = microwatts per square meter = millionths of a watt per square meter


--

April 19, 2022


Leading experts on wireless radiation biological effects call for stronger exposure limits in new research review

On April 19, Dr. Henry Lai and B. Blake Levitt published an extensive review of the research on the biological effects of wireless radiation which calls for stronger limits on radio frequency radiation exposure to protect human health. According to their paper, governments should adopt a maximum full-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 1.65 milliwatts per kilogram which is 48 times lower than the wireless exposure limits that allow the public to be exposed to a full-body SAR of 80 milliwatts per kilogram and 960 times lower than the 1.6 watts per kilogram cell phone exposure limit for the head and body in the U.S. The paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (see abstract and excerpts below).

Dr. Lai is professor emeritus at the University of Washington. In his long research career he has focused on the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and their possible medical applications with research end points covering molecular biology, neurochemistry, behavior, and cancer treatment. He has published over 100 peer-reviewed research papers.


Henry Lai, B. Blake Levitt. The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. April, 2022. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683.

Abstract

In this paper, we review the literature on three important exposure metrics that are inadequately represented in most major radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure guidelines today: intensity, exposure duration, and signal modulation. Exposure intensity produces unpredictable effects as demonstrated by nonlinear effects. This is most likely caused by the biological system’s ability to adjust and compensate but could lead to eventual biomic breakdown after prolonged exposure. A review of 112 low-intensity studies reveals that biological effects of RFR could occur at a median specific absorption rate of 0.0165 W/kg. Intensity and exposure duration interact since the dose of energy absorbed is the product of intensity and time. The result is that RFR behaves like a biological “stressor” capable of affecting numerous living systems. In addition to intensity and duration, man-made RFR is generally modulated to allow information to be encrypted. The effects of modulation on biological functions are not well understood. Four types of modulation outcomes are discussed. In addition, it is invalid to make direct comparisons between thermal energy and radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. Research data indicate that electromagnetic energy is more biologically potent in causing effects than thermal changes. The two likely function through different mechanisms. As such, any current RFR exposure guidelines based on acute continuous-wave exposure are inadequate for health protection.

Excerpts

"Over the last 25–30 years, significant information has been published that in other regulated areas would have resulted in re-examination and adjustments to allowable exposure limits. This has not been the case with these two groups [the FCC and ICNIRP] which adhere to a model based on obsolete scientific evidence, especially in light of the new 5G network that uses higher frequencies and novel modulation forms that have never been used before in broad civilian telecommunications and which are poorly studied."

"RFR effects have been observed at low intensities (< 0.4 W/kg) – a list of which is included in Supplement 1 – far below the guidelines. This points to both the nonlinearity of how living systems couple with nonionizing radiation as well as the inadequacy of acute thresholds. The studies encompass many different biological effects to myriad systems, including: apoptosis induction, adrenal gland activity, blood–brain barrier permeability, brain transmitter levels, calcium concentration in heart muscle, calcium efflux, calcium movement in cells, cell growth, cognitive functions, cellular damage in liver, decreased cell proliferation, embryonic development, endocrine changes, enolose activity, genetic effects, hippocampal neuronal damage, immunological functions, kidney development, memory functions, latency of muscular contraction, membrane chemistry, nerve cell damage, metabolic changes, neural electrical activity, oxidative stress, plant growth, prion level, protein changes, renal injury, serum testosterone concentration, heat-shock protein induction, testis morphology, testosterone synthesis, thymidine incorporation, and ultrastructural alteration in cell cytoplasm. In fact, there are not many physiological functions in humans, animals, or plants that are not affected by low-level RFR."

"As reflected in Supplement 1, SARs at which effects were observed were available from 112 studies. Of these, 75 (67%) were in vivo exposure studies with whole body/organ SARs available. The other 37 (33%) studies were in vitro experiments.... The level at which biological effects occur represents data from in vivo and in vitro and acute and chronic/repeated-exposure experiments. There is a very wide range of effects seen. With an exposure that induces a SAR of 0.0165 W/kg, and using a ten-fold protection, the SAR would be 0.00165 W/kg (i.e., 1.65 mW/kg). For rate of energy absorption in body organs, 0.00165 W/kg is far below the maximum level allowed in the guidelines (whether over 1 or 10 gm of tissue as per FCC/ICNIRP allowances). Given the large body of work as illustrated in Supplement 1, the SAR at, or below, 4 W/kg as a safe threshold is insupportable."

"The duration of exposure is another important factor in biological effects. Other than demarcations for whole body exposures averaged over 30 minutes and local body areas averaged over 6 minutes, neither FCC nor ICNIRP address duration, especially pertaining to long-term and low-level RFR exposures. These are prevalent in both near-field exposures to people with WiFi routers, for example, as well as cell phones, and far-field exposures from infrastructure that have created chronic rising ambient background levels (Levitt et al. 2021a). The guidelines are written only for short-term acute durations.... What we do know is that the supposition that all exposures are the same above and below the SAR threshold set by FCC/ICNIRP is fundamentally flawed in light of the most current research. One feasible and logical solution to such uncertainties regarding duration as an exposure factor would be to adopt an SAR level commensurate with the studies summarized in Supplement 1 at no higher than 0.00165 W/kg, no matter the exposure conditions."

"It is generally believed that modulated RFR is more biologically active than continuous-wave (CW) radiation, i.e., the carrier-wave. To understand the biological and possible hazardous health effects of RFR, it is therefore important to understand modulation effects. Below we discuss what is known about modulation from the research literature (mostly from 1990 to date) and examine the claim that modulation makes RFR more biologically significant...There is research showing no significant biological effects of CW-RFR (Table 1a) but there are also studies that reported CW-RFR effects too (Table 1b). The reason why CW-RFR produced effects in some studies but not others is unknown. Both types of studies (with “effect” and “no effect” outcomes) involved many different biological endpoints, exposure intensities, and duration of exposure – with no discernible differences. A possible explanation is that different tissue types respond differently to CW-RFR. But that just adds another level of inquiry. One of the most puzzling observations is when CW caused an effect but modulation did not (e.g., Kubinyi et al. 1996; Luukkonen et al. 2009). In some studies, a modulated field produced an effect that was not produced by CW. These observations may indicate that the CW carrier-wave itself and modulation act on different mechanisms.... Differences in responses between CW and modulated fields of the same frequency and incident power density provide strong proof that non-thermal effects occur since the two conditions should produce the same amount of heating.... Some studies reported that different frequencies of modulation caused different biological responses .... CW and modulated fields can cause the same effects but with different degrees of biological activity and intensity of reactions. In most instances, a modulated field was found to be more potent than CW versus only one study in which the opposite was reported (Persson et al. 1997).... To add to the complexities described above, effects with modulated fields have also been shown to depend on exposure duration.... there are many studies that used intermittent exposure (e.g., 10 min ON/10 min OFF) instead of continuous exposure with the supposition that intermittent exposure is more biologically active. But not much data showed this to be true.... There are many studies using pulsed fields (i.e., mobile phone signals are pulsed), but there are not many studies that compared pulsed and CW fields of the same SAR in the same study. However, there are reports that effects only occurred with a pulsed field but not CW.... there are many studies showing effects of RFR on the hippocampus..."

"Oxidative changes and stress have been reported in many papers on exposure to electromagnetic fields (Lai 2020; Yakymenko et al. 2016). These are the most consistent cellular responses to RFR exposure. Mechanisms have been proposed to account for oxidative effects that may involve the low-frequency component of modulation (e.g., see Barnes and Greenebaum 2015; Castello et al. 2021). ... But there is not enough data to conclude that modulation effects are caused by oxidative processes. In fact some effects of CW exposure alone also found changes in free radical mechanisms."

"It is important to point out as significant proof of non-thermal RFR effects that CW and modulated-waves of the same frequency and incident power density can/and do produce different effects. The bottom line is that certainty is elusive regarding precise effects in all circumstances. What is clear is that both modulation and continuous-wave RFR are biologically active and both should be considered in exposure guidelines. In situations where enough evidence exists to warrant specific caution, such as with pulsed fields used in cell phones and phased modulation with 5G, particular attention should be paid to include modulation in the guidelines beyond the suppositions of safety contained within the safety allowances. Peak exposures must also be factored in and not just the averaged values which only hide their significance."

"It is apparent that the biological outcome of changing the intensity and duration of RFR exposure is basically unpredictable. This is mainly due to the complex nature of the biological system studied. Intensity and duration can interact and produce different response patterns as shown in the literature reviewed above.

It is also apparent that how RFR modulation affects biological functions is difficult to quantify. Observed effects are multi-variant and involve many factors such as intensity, carrier frequencies and modulation, the modulation waveform itself, exposure duration, and properties of the exposed object. Not enough research data are presently available to provide an explanation or prediction of modulation effects under all circumstances. It may also turn out that modulation is of little major health concern or conversely that it is the only factor that matters – evidence is thus far too contradictory regarding modulation’s ability to consistently enhance the biological effects of carrier-waves. Then again, with most modulation forms the carrier-wave is completely altered. All of this awaits proper investigation with comparison studies. In the meantime, there are legitimate reasons for concern, given the contradictions in the literature.

In general, anthropogenic RFR – with highly unusual waveform characteristics and intensities that do not exist in the natural world – is new to the environment and thus has not been a factor in the evolution of species. Living organisms evolved over millions of years in the presence of static and extremely-low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. These fields play critical roles in their survival, e.g., in migration, food foraging, and reproduction, etc. (see Levitt et al. 2021b). Living organisms are extremely sensitive to the presence of these environmental fields and thus, they can easily be disturbed by man-made EMF. RFR probably acts upon and modifies these primordial EMFs and affects biological functions. Interactions of static/ELF EMF and RFR are basically not well studied, not to mention the mechanisms of involvement of RFR modulations. The interactions are inevitably complex. Such interaction studies would provide answers to wildlife effects.

Regarding the perennial thermal- versus non-thermal- effects criticism inherent in human RFR exposure guidelines, it must be said that the underlying mechanisms of effects should not be a matter of concern in setting of exposure guidelines as is common today. What is important is the level at which energy absorption causes an effect. One such powerful proof – among so very many others – of non-thermal effects is evidenced in the fact that CW and modulated-waves of the same frequency and incident power density can produce different effects, as seen in the modulation section of this paper and Table 2."

"When effects continue to be observed over a long period of time that go against prevailing beliefs, even when mechanisms remain imperfectly understood, the appropriate course of regulatory action is to examine the underlying basis upon which an original premise was formed. When proven incomplete or invalid by new information, the change in a regulatory course is not only justified but is imperative. Disproven or incomplete deductions of how RFR affects living cells and tissues, as well as suppositions of safety for exposed individuals and the environment are insupportable given the wealth of studies to draw from today that have filled in many gaps. We need to more responsibly address the increasing near- and far-field RFR exposures of contemporary life with an eye toward 5G technology’s unique characteristics. A new conceptual framework is called for."


==


Study: Wireless radiation exposure for children should be hundreds of times lower than current federal limits

Environmental Working Group, July 2021

WASHINGTON – A peer-reviewed study by the Environmental Working Group recommends stringent health-based exposure standards for both children and adults for radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices. EWG’s children’s guideline is the first of its kind and fills a gap left by federal regulators.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health, relies on the methodology developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to assess human health risks arising from toxic chemical exposures. EWG scientists have applied the same methods to radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices, including cellphones and tablets.

EWG recommends the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adjust its woefully outdated health standards for wireless radiation, last revised a quarter-century ago, well before wireless devices became ubiquitous, heavily used appliances synonymous with modern life. The recommendation draws on data from a landmark 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program, or NTP, one of the largest long-term studies on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure.

EWG’s new guidelines, the first developed in the U.S. to focus on children’s health, recommend that children’s exposure overall be 200 to 400 lower than the whole-body exposure limit set by the FCC in 1996.

The EWG recommended limit for so-called whole-body Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, for children is 0.2 to 0.4 milliwatts per kilogram, or mW/kg. For adults, EWG recommends a whole-body SAR limit of 2 to 4 mW/kg, which is 20 to 40 times lower than the federal limit.

The FCC has not set a separate standard for children. Its standards for radiofrequency radiation set a maximum SAR of 0.08 watts per kilogram, or W/kg, for whole-body exposure and an SAR for localized spatial peak – the highest exposure level for a specific part of the body, such as the brain – of 1.6 W/kg for the general population.

The NTP studies examined the health effects of 2G and 3G wireless radiation and found there is “clear evidence” of a link between exposure to radiofrequency radiation and heart tumors in laboratory animals. Similar results were reported by a team of Italian scientists from the Ramazzini Institute.

Cellphone radiation was classified a “possible carcinogen” in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, a conclusion based on human epidemiological studies that found an increased risk of glioma, a malignant brain cancer, associated with cellphone use.

EWG scientists say that more research is needed on the health impacts of the latest generation of communication technologies, such as 5G. In the meantime, EWG’s recommendation for strict, lower exposure limits for all radiofrequency sources, especially for children.

When the FCC established its radiofrequency radiation limits, following the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, relatively few Americans, and likely no children, owned and used cellphones.

Much has changed since the federal limits were set, including technology and how these devices are used. A survey completed by the nonprofit Common Sense Media in March 2020, just before the start of the Covid-19 spread in the U.S., found that 46 percent of 2- to 4-year-olds, and 67 percent of 5- to 8-year-olds, had their own mobile devices, such as a tablet or smartphone.

With remote learning, a necessity during the Covid-19 pandemic, phones, tablets and other wireless devices became a part of life for young children, tweens and teens nationwide.

“The FCC must consider the latest scientific research, which shows that radiation from these devices can affect health, especially for children,” said Uloma Uche, Ph.D., EWG environmental health science fellow and lead author of the study.

“It has been 25 years since the FCC set its limits for radiofrequency radiation. With multiple sources of radiofrequency radiation in the everyday environment, including Wi-Fi, wireless devices and cell towers, protecting children’s health from wireless radiation exposures should be a priority for the FCC,” she added.

“We have grave concerns over the outdated approach the federal government has relied on to study the health effects of cellphone radiation and set its current safety limit and advice for consumers,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Government guidelines are a quarter-century old and were established at a time when wireless devices were not a constant feature of the lives of nearly every American, including children.”

Reviewing 5G and other aspects of wireless technology should be the focus of public health agencies, noted Cook. “It is long past time the federal government made exposure to 5G wireless devices safe. We strongly believe those exposures deserve far more investigation and scientific rigor than has been applied to date.”

“The evidence shows that children absorb more radiofrequency radiation than adults, and the developing body of a child is more vulnerable to such effects,” said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG’s vice president for science investigations and co-author of the study.

“More research on the safety and sustainability of wireless technology is essential,” added Naidenko. “Meanwhile, there are simple steps everyone can take to protect their health, such as keeping wireless devices farther from their bodies.”

There are a number of easy, precautionary steps consumers can take until the government conducts the rigorous scientific assessment the issue deserves, which should have occurred years ago.

“Based on our review of the health risks and the inadequacy of current standards to protect children, while the science evolves, it is perfectly reasonable for parents to consider minimizing or eliminating radiofrequency radiation sources at home by relying more on wired internet access, and to urge schools to take comparable steps to reduce classroom and campus exposure,” said Cook.

Other health-protective tips for consumers who want to reduce radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices include using a headset or speaker, texting instead of talking, and limiting the time children spend on smart phones.

Find all of EWG’s tips to reduce exposure to wireless radiation here.

EWG’s recommendation for limits for radiofrequency radiation exposure is its latest effort to advance the public dialogue about science-based standards that protect public health.

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2021/07/study-wireless-radiation-exposure-children-should-be-hundreds


Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach

Uloma Igara Uche, Olga V Naidenko. Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Environ Health 20, 84 (2021). doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1.

Abstract

Background  Epidemiological studies and research on laboratory animals link radiofrequency radiation (RFR) with impacts on the heart, brain, and other organs. Data from the large-scale animal studies conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Ramazzini Institute support the need for updated health-based guidelines for general population RFR exposure.

Objectives  The development of RFR exposure limits expressed in whole-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a metric of RFR energy absorbed by biological tissues.

Methods  Using frequentist and Bayesian averaging modeling of non-neoplastic lesion incidence data from the NTP study, we calculated the benchmark doses (BMD) that elicited a 10% response above background (BMD10) and the lower confidence limits on the BMD at 10% extra risk (BMDL10). Incidence data for individual neoplasms and combined tumor incidence were modeled for 5% and 10% response above background.

Results  Cardiomyopathy and increased risk of neoplasms in male rats were the most sensitive health outcomes following RFR exposures at 900 MHz frequency with Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) modulations. BMDL10 for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats following 19 weeks of exposure, calculated with Bayesian model averaging, corresponded to 0.27–0.42 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 0.20–0.29 W/kg for GSM modulation. BMDL10 for right ventricle cardiomyopathy in female rats following 2 years of exposure corresponded to 2.7–5.16 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 1.91–2.18 W/kg for GSM modulation. For multi-site tumor modeling using the multistage cancer model with a 5% extra risk, BMDL5 in male rats corresponded to 0.31 W/kg for CDMA and 0.21 W/kg for GSM modulation.

Conclusion  BMDL10 range of 0.2—0.4 W/kg for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats was selected as a point of departure. Applying two ten-fold safety factors for interspecies and intraspecies variability, we derived a whole-body SAR limit of 2 to 4 mW/kg, an exposure level that is 20–40-fold lower than the legally permissible level of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body SAR under the current U.S. regulations. Use of an additional ten-fold children’s health safety factor points to a whole-body SAR limit of 0.2–0.4 mW/kg for young children.

==

Related Posts:  

Study: Wireless radiation exposure for children should be hundreds of times lower than federal limits (based on NTP study)

ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields 

Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects