Personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A comparative analysis of international,

Abstract

Personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A comparative analysis of international, national, and regional guidelines My note: This paper suffers from problems that undermine the authors' results and conclusions. Ramirez-Vazquez R, Escobar I, Vandenbosch GAE, Arribas E. Personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A comparative analysis of international, national, and regional guidelines. Environmental Research. 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.118124. Highlights • International, National and Regional exposure limits for RF-EMF. • RF-EMF limits are based on the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) Principle. • Maximum exposure limit must be scientific related, not political or in any other way. • New technologies and new smartphones require less intensity than previous model Abstract A worldwide overview and analysis for the existing limits of human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) is given in this paper. These reference levels have been established by different national and even regional governments, which can be based on the guidelines provided by the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and even in the United States of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as, are based on the so-called precautionary principle. Explicit reference is made to the exposure limits adopted in countries or regions, such as Canada, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and regions of Belgium (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia), where the limits are much lower than the international standards. The limits are compared to a selected set of in-situ measurements. This clearly shows that the measured values are typically very small compared to the international standards but could be somewhat higher compared to the reduced limits. Based on this observation and the reasonable assumption that the sensitivity of people to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) is the same everywhere (whole-body), we propose the idea to establish a worldwide reference limit for the general public, thus applicable in all countries, if the ICNIRP considers it appropriate. Research must continue to generate measurement data that demonstrate the levels of exposure to which we are really exposed, and with this, provide arguments to the organizations that established the guidelines, especially the ICNIRP, to evaluate whether the current limits are too much. High and can be modified when considered pertinent. To the best of our knowledge, at no time has the reference level for the general public been exceeded. Conclusion The duality of limits in the same country does not seem appropriate, because people who live in one area or another have more or less the same interaction with RF-EMF waves. Therefore, the limits should be the same, following the ALARA principle – As Low As Reasonably Achievable. The reasons for setting the maximum exposure limit should only be scientific related, not political or in any other way. In this paper, we provided an overview, analyze, and discuss existing limits to RF-EMF. The international reference levels established by ICNIRP are also recommended by WHO, IEEE and FCC, and are adopted by most countries. However, some countries such as Canada, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and regions of Belgium establish more restrictive limits than the international ones. The case of Belgium is rather specific because it establishes three very strict and different limits in Brussels, Flanders, and Wallonia. In addition to the international limits, we have commented on the BioInitiative Limit, based on the Precautionary Principle as a preventive action, an excessively restrictive value that leaves aside more than 60 % of the personal exposure studies to RF-EMF. There should be a trend towards unifying the limits of exposure to RF-EMF in all countries. This would allow decisions to be made in a scientific and consensual manner. The solutions could follow the ones from the International Union for Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP), which is an international organization that has sixty member countries and is in charge, among other things, of the correct use of the International System of Units and of reviewing the measurement units of the physical magnitudes. Based on the observation and analysis of measured levels that in most cases, the measured levels are very small, we propose that a reference limit be established for the general public, reasonable and applied to all countries, if the ICNIRP considers it appropriate. Therefore, research must continue to generate measurement data that demonstrate the levels of exposure to which we are really exposed, and with this, provide arguments to the organizations that established the guidelines, especially the ICNIRP, so that they evaluate whether the current limits are too high and can be modified, when considered pertinent. To the best of our knowledge, at no time has the reference level been exceeded for the general public, and we believe that it will not be exceeded, since the new smartphones require much less intensity than previous models, and the same goes for new technologies, 5G, 6G. sciencedirect.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

The paper reviews international (ICNIRP/IEEE/FCC/WHO-recommended) and more restrictive national/regional RF-EMF exposure limits (e.g., Canada, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and Belgian regions) and compares these limits to a selected set of in-situ measurements. It reports that measured values are typically very small compared with international standards but could be higher relative to reduced limits, and states that to the authors' knowledge public reference levels have not been exceeded.

Outcomes measured

• Comparison of RF-EMF exposure limits/guidelines across jurisdictions
• Comparison of measured in-situ RF-EMF levels vs guideline reference levels
• Policy proposal to unify public exposure limits (ALARA; precautionary principle discussed)

Limitations

• No quantitative details provided in the abstract on the selected in-situ measurements (methods, locations, sample size, frequencies, metrics).
• Assumes sensitivity of people to EMF is the same everywhere (whole-body) without supporting detail in the abstract.
• Primarily a guideline/policy comparison; does not report health outcome data in the abstract.

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.9)
  Discusses ICNIRP reference levels and notes they are recommended by WHO; compares national/regional limits to ICNIRP/IEEE/FCC guidance.
• 5g-policy (0.55)
  Mentions new technologies including 5G/6G in the context of exposure intensity and policy discussion.

{
    "study_type": "policy",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "general public (personal exposure; in-situ measurements)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "General public",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Comparison of RF-EMF exposure limits/guidelines across jurisdictions",
        "Comparison of measured in-situ RF-EMF levels vs guideline reference levels",
        "Policy proposal to unify public exposure limits (ALARA; precautionary principle discussed)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "The paper reviews international (ICNIRP/IEEE/FCC/WHO-recommended) and more restrictive national/regional RF-EMF exposure limits (e.g., Canada, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and Belgian regions) and compares these limits to a selected set of in-situ measurements. It reports that measured values are typically very small compared with international standards but could be higher relative to reduced limits, and states that to the authors' knowledge public reference levels have not been exceeded.",
    "effect_direction": "unclear",
    "limitations": [
        "No quantitative details provided in the abstract on the selected in-situ measurements (methods, locations, sample size, frequencies, metrics).",
        "Assumes sensitivity of people to EMF is the same everywhere (whole-body) without supporting detail in the abstract.",
        "Primarily a guideline/policy comparison; does not report health outcome data in the abstract."
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "RF-EMF",
        "personal exposure",
        "in-situ measurements",
        "exposure limits",
        "guidelines",
        "ICNIRP",
        "IEEE",
        "FCC",
        "WHO",
        "ALARA",
        "precautionary principle",
        "BioInitiative",
        "5G",
        "6G",
        "Belgium"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.90000000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
            "reason": "Discusses ICNIRP reference levels and notes they are recommended by WHO; compares national/regional limits to ICNIRP/IEEE/FCC guidance."
        },
        {
            "slug": "5g-policy",
            "weight": 0.5500000000000000444089209850062616169452667236328125,
            "reason": "Mentions new technologies including 5G/6G in the context of exposure intensity and policy discussion."
        }
    ]
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.