Abstract

A coherent and overarching framework for health protection from non-ionising radiation (NIR) does not currently exist. Instead, many governments maintain different compliance needs targeting only some NIR exposure situations. An international framework developed by the World Health Organization would promote a globally consistent approach for the protection of people from NIR. Designed based on decades of practical experience the framework provides guidance on establishing clear national health and safety objectives and how they should be achieved. It supports multisectoral action and engagement by providing a common language and systematic approach for managing NIR. The framework should allow governments to respond to policy challenges on how to achieve effective protection of people, especially in a world that is rapidly deploying new NIR technologies. In this paper the concepts and key features are presented that underpin the framework for NIR protection, including examples of implementation.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/ac3bc3/pdf

The post A coherent framework for non-ionising radiation protection appeared first on EMFSA.

Bio James C. Lin

James C. Lin is a professor of bioengineering and electrical engineering at the University of Illinois Chicago. At the University of Illinois, Lin has served as head of the Bioengineering Department, Director of the Robotics and Automation Laboratory, and Director of Special Projects in the College of Engineering. He also held an appointment as the NSC Research Chair from 1993-1997. Lin is the author of more than 140 journal papers, and author or editor of seven books. After beginning his higher education at Whitworth College in Spokane, Wash., he received the BS, MS and PhD (1971)degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Washington, Seattle. Lin’s academic career took him from teaching and research in Seattle, on to positions at Wayne State University in Detroit and finally at the University of Illinois-Chicago, where he has served as a professor of electrical engineering, bioengineering and physiology and biophysics since 1980. Professor Lin’s research interests include: Biomedical instrumentation; Electromagnetic Engineering for Biology and Medicine; Imaging and Sensing; Bioelectromagnetics; Mobile Telecommunication Safety; Biological Interactions of Electromagnetic Radiation Including RF (Radio Frequency), Microwaves, and Lasers.

Source:

Proceedings of the Workshop on Conducting Evaluations of Evidence that are Transparent, Timely and Lead to Health-Protective Actions February 8-11, 2021

https://prhe.ucsf.edu/sites/g/files/tkssra341/f/wysiwyg/Proceedings_Final_05_10.pdf

The post Professor James C. Lin – Some Key Differences in the ICNIRP and IARC Evaluations of RF Evidence appeared first on EMFSA.

ABSTRACT

In critically examining literature on electrohypersensitivity and the reported somatic responses to anthropogenic modulated radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure, it becomes apparent that electrohypersensitivity is one part of a range of consequences. Current evidence on the necessity of considering patients’ overall health status leads us to propose a new model in which electrohypersensitivity is but part of the electrosensitive status inherent in being human. We propose the likelihood and type of response to environmental RFR include i) a linear somatic awareness continuum, ii) a non-linear somatic response continuum, and iii) the extent of each individual’s capacity to repair damage (linked to homeostatic response). We anticipate this last, dynamic, aspect is inextricably linked to the others through the autonomic nervous system. The whole is dependent upon the status of the interconnected immune and inflammatory systems. This holistic approach leads us to propose various outcomes. For most, their body maintains homeostasis by routine repair. However, some develop electrohypersensitivity either due to RFR exposure or as an ANS-mediated, unconscious response (aka nocebo effect), or both. We suggest RFR exposure may be one factor in the others developing an auto-immune disease or allergy. A few develop delayed catastrophic disease such as glioma. This model gives the blanket term ElectroMagnetic Illness (EMI) to all RFR-related conditions. Thus, EHS appears to be one part of a range of responses to a novel and rapidly changing evolutionary situation.

The post Redefining electrosensitivity: A new literature-supported model appeared first on EMFSA.

Author: Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe Release date: 10/11/2020
(Signed by groups representing > 3500 medical doctors)

This UK and International Consensus Statement regarding health effects of non-ionising radiation has been written on behalf of both Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation (PHIRE) and British Society of Ecological Medicine (BSEM). https://phiremedical.org/2020-nir-consensus-statement-read/

The statement reflects the consensus from the most recent, independent, expert global forums1,2,3,4,5,6 on the acute and chronic health effects resulting from Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR).
The statement clarifies the medical community’s serious concerns surrounding the deployment of 5G and the continued use of RFR in public spaces.

Statement PDF https://phiremedical.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-Non-Ionising-Radiation-Consensus-Statement.pdf

 Caymen iNews, 10th November 2020

Medical experts and practitioners from around the world have united once again to make clear their concerns regarding the health effects of escalating non-ionising radiation (NIR) exposures. NIR is electromagnetic energy ranging from Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves right the way up to Ultraviolet (UV). In particular, they are concerned about radiofrequency (RF) emissions from existing mobile phone networks, Wi-Fi, and the rollout of 5G.

Whilst such emissions were historically presumed to be biologically inert, and are still purported to be safe by many to this day, there is now highly credible evidence to the contrary. The main risks associated with exposure to such (wireless) non-ionising radiation in the peer-reviewed scientific literature include: increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.[1]

Mounting human epidemiological evidence of increased cancer has now been corroborated by ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenesis from animal studies. These include the two largest investigations ever undertaken globally, from the widely respected National Toxicology Program (USA),[2,3] and Ramazzini Institute (Italy).[4] What is more, law courts are now validating such links: with compensation for health damages from mobile phone radiation being won in a growing number of cases internationally.[5] Some legal teams are so certain of negative health effects that civil suits for Wi-Fi and other wireless injury are now being brought on a ‘no win no fee’ basis,[6] and insurance underwriters consider related risks to be ‘high’.[7,8]

Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated adverse biological effects occurring in response to a range of NIR exposures below current safety guidelines;[9] however, emissions continue to escalate. Medical evidence of harm has now reached the critical mass necessary to inspire the medical community to step out of their usual roles, stand up and speak out regarding their concerns.

Read more at: https://tinyurl.com/yxzc47c3

The post 2020 Consensus Statement of UK and International Medical and Scientific Experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR) appeared first on EMFSA.

Switzerland’s Federal Council decided to keep current 5G radiation exposure limits, while unveiling plans to further monitor the effects of the next-generation mobile technology.

In a statement, the cabinet explained it aimed to protect the population from non-ionizing radiation by maintaining its limits. While noting 5G can play an important role in digitalisation, it said it had taken concerns raised by some citizens about the technology into consideration.

Going forward, the Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) will develop an enforcement aid based on test measurements on adaptive antennas. Until completion, such antennas will need to be assessed as conventional.

The government also decided to implement a range of measures including further development of radiation exposure monitoring and creation of a new environmental medical advice centre for non-ionizing radiation.

Read more at: https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/top-three/switzerland-plans-5g-emissions-monitoring/

The post Switzerland plans 5G emissions monitoring appeared first on EMFSA.

Table 1. Data gaps in knowledge related to low frequency electric and magnetic fields and health.

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPlfgaps2020.pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251081/

The post ICNIRP: GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE RELEVANT TO THE “GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS (1 HZ–100 KHZ)” 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.

Author Information Health Physics: March 2017 – Volume 112 – Issue 3 – p 305-321

doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000654

Abstract

Use of non-ionizing radiation (NIR) for diagnostic purposes allows non-invasive assessment of the structure and function of the human body and is widely employed in medical care. ICNIRP has published previous statements about the protection of patients during medical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but diagnostic methods using other forms of NIR have not been considered. This statement reviews the range of diagnostic NIR devices currently used in clinical settings; documents the relevant regulations and policies covering patients and health care workers; reviews the evidence around potential health risks to patients and health care workers exposed to diagnostic NIR; and identifies situations of high NIR exposure from diagnostic devices in which patients or health care workers might not be adequately protected by current regulations. Diagnostic technologies were classified by the types of NIR that they employ. The aim was to describe the techniques in terms of general device categories which may encompass more specific devices or techniques with similar scientific principles. Relevant legally-binding regulations for protection of patients and workers and organizations responsible for those regulations were summarized. Review of the epidemiological evidence concerning health risks associated with exposure to diagnostic NIR highlighted a lack of data on potential risks to the fetus exposed to MRI during the first trimester, and on long-term health risks in workers exposed to MRI. Most of the relevant epidemiological evidence that is currently available relates to MRI or ultrasound. Exposure limits are needed for exposures from diagnostic technologies using optical radiation within the body. There is a lack of data regarding risk of congenital malformations following exposure to ultrasound in utero in the first trimester and also about the possible health effects of interactions between ultrasound and contrast media.

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2017/03000/ICNIRP_Statement_on_Diagnostic_Devices_Using.10.aspx

PDF available at the above link

The post ICNIRP Statement on Diagnostic Devices Using Non-ionizing Radiation appeared first on EMFSA.

https://www.icnirp.org/en/workshops/article/workshop-nir2020.html

The post ICNIRP 9th International Workshop Postponed due to Sars-CoV-2 virus appeared first on EMFSA.