BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Modern electric lighting enables people to work, sleep, eat, and receive services throughout the 24-hour day. As a result, many individuals encounter new patterns and types of electrical light, change the timing of their meals, and experience sleep disturbances and other stresses. Those factors can disrupt circadian rhythms and possibly lead to adverse health effects such as cancer.

NTP studied two exposure scenarios related to modern lighting practices.

1. Night shift work

Night shift work is defined as working three hours between 12 and 5am. It is a complex exposure scenario and includes the following.

2. Sources of electrical light at night

Why is it important to study night shift work and light at night?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 10 million adults in the U.S. frequently work night shifts. Frequent night shift work is more common among men, blacks, and non-Hispanics.

Night shift work may contribute to almost 12,000 new breast cancer cases per year in the U.S. The link between night shift work and breast cancer among black women is a research gap.

Exposure to indoor electric lighting is nearly ubiquitous in our society. Findings from the National Sleep Foundation show that 90% of Americans use some type of electronic device a few nights per week within one hour of bedtime. In 2016, satellite imaging data of the Earth at night (see Figure 5) indicated that more than 99% of the U.S. population lived under light-polluted skies at night.

NTP Evaluation

NTP used systematic review methods and established criteria to reach its cancer hazard conclusions. These conclusions are based on scientific judgment with consideration given to all relevant information.

What did the evaluation find?

High confidence that persistent night shift work that disrupts circadian rhythms can cause breast cancer in women and may cause prostate cancer in men. Persistent night shift work is defined as frequent and long-term night shift work, especially beginning in early adulthood.

• The exact conditions of persistent night shift work are hard to define as duration and frequency may depend on their specific combination.

Moderate confidence for a causal relationship between human cancer and certain lighting conditions that cause circadian disruption. Certain lighting conditions are defined as excessive LAN exposure combined with insufficient daylight exposure.

• The lighting conditions at night that lead to circadian disruption depend on a combination of light characteristics such as wavelength, exposure duration, light intensity or levels, and timing.

Q: How does circadian disruption work?

Sunlight is the major external signal that synchronizes the master circadian clock to natural light-dark cycles we experience daily. To keep biological rhythms coordinated (see figure for example of daily rhythms), the master clock, which is located in the brain, sends signals to a large network of peripheral clocks that are in almost every cell of the body. Exposure to too much light at night, especially during times when people are typically asleep, is thought to contribute to circadian disruption and increased risk of cancer.

Q: How were the conclusions on persistent night shift work and certain lighting conditions reached?

NTP used systematic review methods to identify studies, evaluate study quality, and integrate evidence across studies.

For each exposure scenario (night shift work or LAN), NTP integrated the evidence from human and non-human studies of exposure and cancer, studies of circadian disruption, and studies of mechanisms (e.g., biological effects) to reach our conclusions.

Read more at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/cancer/completed/shiftwork/index.html

The post NTP Review of Shift Work at Night, Light at Night, and Circadian Disruption appeared first on EMFSA.

Summary of NTP Cancer Hazard Conclusions Exposure Circumstances That Cause Circadian Disruption:
Persistent Night Shift Work
Certain Lighting Conditions

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/results/pubs/cancer_assessment/lanfinal20210400_508.pdf

Selected images:

NTP Review of Shift Work at Night, Light at Night, and Circadian Disruption

Topic Overview

Status: NTP cancer hazard assessments

Conclusion(s): NTP concluded that

(1) persistent night shift work can cause breast cancer in women and

(2) certain lighting conditions may be linked to cancer.

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/cancer/completed/shiftwork/index.html

The post April 2021-Monograph: NTP Cancer Hazard Assessment Report on Night Shift Work and Light at Night appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract

Exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) (frequencies of 100 kHz to 300 GHz) has been steadily increasing. In addition to heat-related effects of RF EMF, other yet-unspecified biological effects, might exist which could possibly lead to health effects. Given the large number of health endpoints that have been studied, we wanted to prioritize those that would merit systematic reviews.

We developed a survey listing of all health endpoints reported in the literature and we asked 300 RF EMF experts and researchers to prioritize these health effects for systematic review as critical, important or unimportant. We also asked the experts to provide the rationale for their prioritization.

Of the 300 RF EMF experts queried, 164 (54%) responded. They rated cancer, heat-related effects, adverse birth outcomes, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cognitive impairment, adverse pregnancy outcomes and oxidative stress as outcomes most critical regarding RF EMF exposure. For these outcomes, systematic reviews are needed. For heat-related outcomes, the experts based their ranking of the critical outcomes on what is known from human or animal studies, and for cancer and other outcomes, they based their rating also on public concern.

To assess health risks of an exposure in a robust manner, it is important to prioritize the health outcomes that should be systematically reviewed. Here we have shown that it feasible to do so in an inclusive and transparent way.

Excerpt

4. Discussion

RF EMF experts rated cancer, heat-related effects, adverse birth outcomes, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cognitive impairment, adverse pregnancy outcomes and oxidative stress as outcomes most critical regarding RF EMF exposure. For these outcomes, systematic reviews will be performed. For heat-related outcomes, the experts based their rating of the critical outcomes on their knowledge of human or animal studies, and for cancer and other outcomes, they based their rating also on public concern.

4.3. Implications

Given the many health outcomes studied in relation to RF EMF exposure, the survey showed that not all outcomes are considered equally important by RF experts. We decided at the outset of this survey that systematic reviews will be needed for those topics that are rated as critical by a large proportion of the RF experts. As part of the WHO health risk assessment on RF EMF exposure, WHO has recently commissioned those reviews through an open call for expressions of interest. A selection committee convened by WHO ranked the teams based on the criteria related to qualifications and skills mentioned in the calls, including expertise in systematic review methodology, RF EMF expertise and expertise in the outcome of interest. All team members were assessed for conflicts of interest, as per WHO’s requirements. The protocols for the systematic reviews will soon be published in Environment International.

To assess health risks of an exposure in a robust manner, it is important to prioritize the health outcomes that should be systematically reviewed. Here we have shown that it feasible to do so in an inclusive and transparent way.

Funding

This work was sponsored by the World Health Organization

The post Prioritizing health outcomes when assessing the effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A survey among experts appeared first on EMFSA.

From a scientific point of view, many uncertainties exist regarding electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). While there are numerous individuals who claim to suffer from health problems due to EMF
exposure, many experimental studies conducted on this topic have not been able to establish a causal relationship with EMF.

The systematic review conducted by Schmiedchen et al. (2019) focused on published blinded experimental studies in volunteers in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz with study participants claiming to suffer from EHS. The analysis aimed at evaluating these studies with regard to their methodological limitations, since the respective study approaches can lead to biased results due to implicit assumptions. The authors performed a “risk of bias” assessment by evaluating the individual studies with regard to possible systematic bias. Such bias can occur, for example, if some of the study participants had physical illnesses that could explain their EHS symptoms, or due to the sequence and duration of the exposure conditions applied, since these can result in different stress levels.

A total of 28 studies were included in the analysis, 7 of which found statistically significant associations between EMF exposure and health effects in EHS persons. Both increased and decreased occurrence of symptoms was observed under exposure conditions. However, 21 studies found no evidence that the symptoms reported by the study participants were related to EMF exposure. For 82% of the studies examined, the authors criticized the heterogeneity of the study participants, as the exposure scenarios applied were probably not suitable for some of the participants. This could have led to false negative results (i.e. a study does not find a link between exposure and symptoms, eventhough it does exist) if effects only occur under very specific exposure conditions. The results of studies with relatively few methodological limitations show less likely exposure-related effects. In almost one third of the studies examined, the nocebo effect plays a role with regard to symptoms in people with EHS. According to the authors, this review suggests absence of a causal relationship between EMF exposure and health effects.

However, it still cannot be ruled out that there might be weak health
effects, or some individuals who actually do react to EMF. For future studies, the authors thus recommend to identify subgroups and to conduct studies at the individual level.

Source:

https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Newsletter_BERENIS_Nr._21_-_ENGLISH-1-2.pdf

The post Systematic review of methodological limitations in electromagnetic hypersensitivity studies (Schmiedchen et al. 2019) appeared first on EMFSA.

The article “5G and its effects on human health” by Abbas Haider was published on the 18 June 2020 in Electronics 360.

The author discusses:

•What is 5G?

•5G technology and millimeter-wave

•Cancer and tumors

•Electrohypersensitivity (EHS)

•The impacts of 5G technology on children

•Skin amplifies human health risks

•5G, DNA damage and the future of the human genome

The author of the article can be contacted at:  engineering360editors@ieeeglobalspec.com

Link to the article: https://electronics360.globalspec.com/article/15299/5g-and-its-effects-on-human-health?fbclid=IwAR2bJJL5v80WEVdxGablVmqQVmq-vK7_bhXMNIZPZHFDxD7XjZA8DvGEbfc

The post Article Discussing 5G and Health on Industry Affiliated Platform appeared first on EMFSA.

Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz) Health Phys 118(5):483-524; 2020. (This publication was published ahead of print in March 2020). 

Further information on the new ICNIRP RF EMF Guidelines

The ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields are for the protection of humans exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF) in the range 100 kHz to 300 GHz. The guidelines cover many applications such as 5G technologies, WiFi, Bluetooth, mobile phones, and base stations.

This publication replaces and superseeds the 100 kHz to 300 GHz part of the ICNIRP (1998) radiofrequency guidelines, as well as the 100 kHz to 10 MHz part of the ICNIRP (2010) low-frequency guidelines. 

Citation: ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys 118(5):483-524; 2020.
(Pre-print published in March 2020 under Health Phys 118(00):000–000; 2020).

Content: Guidelines including two appendices. The Guidelines provide the limits of exposure. Appendix A and B respectively provide further detail concerning the relevant dosimetry, and the biological and health effects reported in the literature.

Additional Information

FAQs on RF 
Differences between 2020 and 1998 Guidelines

Note that the guidelines are the source reference.

Public Consultation – The draft of the RF Guidelines was available for review through a public consultation process opened to everybody from 11 July to 9 October 2018. This process is reported here. 

The post ICNIRP RF EMF GUIDELINES 2020 appeared first on EMFSA.

ICNIRP Publications 2020

Abstract—In this statement, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) presents its principles for protection against adverse health effects from exposure to non-ionizing radiation. These are based upon the principles for protection against ionizing radiation of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) in order to come to a comprehensive and consistent system of protection throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The statement further contains information about ICNIRP and the processes it uses in setting exposure guidelines. Health Phys. 118(5):477–482; 2020

Key words: International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection; health effects; safety standards; radiation, non-ionizing

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPprinciples2020.pdf

Excerpt

Basic Premise

ICNIRP aims to provide advice on protection against adverse health effects from both short- and long-term exposures to non-ionizing radiation and uses the WHO’s definition of health: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” 4 ICNIRP’s advice is based on a detailed evaluation of the scientific evidence. Scientifically substantiated adverse health effects (see the Appendix) are identified and exposure limits are developed to prevent these. For the estimation of exposure limits, ICNIRP generally assumes worst-case situations and takes uncertainties in the scientific evidence into consideration.

In general, people with medical conditions are included in the general public and the guidelines are protective for them. It should be noted, however, that the exposure guidelines are not meant to be protective for people with certain clinically substantiated diseases or conditions that may make them more susceptible to harm from non-ionizing radiation,  e.g., patients with Xeroderma pigmentosa, or individuals taking photosensitizing medications. 

A biological effect is any biological, physical, or chemical change induced in a biological system. Living organisms have repair and feedback mechanisms that are designed to maintain homeostasis, the balanced situation in which a biological system can properly function. If the capacity of these compensatory mechanisms is overwhelmed or exhausted, this may result in adverse health effects. The ICNIRP guidelines are not intended to protect against biological effects as such, unless there is also an associated adverse health effect.

However, it is not always easy to draw a clear distinction between biological and adverse health effects, and indeed this can vary depending on individual susceptibility to specific situations. An example is sensory effects from nonionizing radiation exposures under certain circumstances, such as a tingling sensation resulting from peripheral nerve stimulation by electric or magnetic fields; magnetophosphenes (light flickering sensations in the periphery of the visual field) resulting from stimulation of the retina by electric fields induced by exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields; and microwave hearing resulting from thermoelastic waves due to expansion of soft tissues in the head which travel via bone conduction to the inner ear. Such perceptions may sometimes lead to discomfort and annoyance. ICNIRP does not consider discomfort and annoyance to be adverse health effects by themselves, but, in some cases, annoyance may lead to adverse health effects by compromising well-being. The exposure circumstances under which discomfort and annoyance occur vary between individuals.

The post ICNIRP STATEMENT: PRINCIPLES FOR NON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION appeared first on EMFSA.