Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Radio frequency radiation exposure standards: considerations for harmonization.

L S Erdreich1, B J Klauenberg

  • 1Exponent, New York, NY 10170, USA.

Health Physics
|April 24, 2001
PubMed
Summary

Radio frequency radiation exposure standards differ due to interpretations of biological data and policy choices. Harmonizing these global standards requires detailed review of scientific and engineering data.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Meta-analysis of stray voltage on dairy cattle.

Journal of dairy science·2009
Same author

Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review.

International journal of radiation biology·2005
Same author

Electromagnetic field standards in Central and Eastern European countries: current state and stipulations for international harmonization.

Health physics·2002
Same author

Using human data to protect the public's health.

Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP·2001
Same author

Thermal models for microwave hazards and their role in standards development.

Bioelectromagnetics·1999
Same author

Cell phones and cancer: what is the evidence for a connection?

Radiation research·1999

Area of Science:

  • Electromagnetics and Health
  • Radiation Safety Standards
  • Risk Assessment Methodologies

Background:

  • Existing radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure standards exhibit significant variability in their origins, development, legal standing, and specific exposure limits.
  • Understanding the technical basis for these differences is crucial for assessing RFR safety and for potential global harmonization efforts.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify the sources of variation among RFR exposure limits by evaluating the technical aspects of eight international standards.
  • To compare the scientific data, rationales, and methodologies underpinning these standards, particularly in the energy-deposition and surface-heating ranges.

Main Methods:

  • Applied a risk assessment framework, based on guidelines from organizations like the U.S. EPA and WHO, to analyze eight RFR exposure standards.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examined the scope of underlying biological data, safety factor rationales, and definitions for exposure limits in the 0.1 MHz to 300 GHz frequency range.
  • Compared approaches to energy deposition (0.1-10 GHz) and surface heating (10-300 GHz), including time averaging and frequency dependence.

    • Main Results:

    • In the energy-deposition range, all standards utilized a basic restriction derived from biological data and a 10-fold safety factor, but interpretations of the data and rationales for safety factors varied.
    • Significant variability exists in the surface-heating range concerning exposure limits, time averaging, and frequency dependence, with differing tissue geometries for partial-body exposures.
    • Differences in development approaches do not fully explain the discrepancies in exposure limits, and computation methods are not always clearly defined.

    Conclusions:

    • Variations in RFR exposure limits stem from differing interpretations of biological data, safety factor rationales, and policy considerations.
    • Harmonizing global RFR standards necessitates a more thorough examination and coordinated approach to biological and engineering data, alongside policy options.