Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs

Bioelectromagnetics · 2020 · Mixed · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

MixedInsufficient evidencePaper 1537

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2020

Study typepolicy

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs. Bioelectromagnetics. 2020 Apr 20. DOI: 10.1002/bem.22267 Abstract Current limits for exposures to nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) are set, based on relatively short-term exposures. Long-term exposures to weak EMF are not addressed in the current guidelines. Nevertheless, a large and growing amount of evidence indicates that long-term exposure to weak fields can affect biological systems and might have effects on human health. If they do, the public health issues could be important because of the very large fraction of the population worldwide that is exposed. We also discuss research that needs to be done to clarify questions about the effects of weak fields. In addition to the current short-term exposure guidelines, we propose an approach to how weak field exposure guidelines for long-term exposures might be set, in which the responsibility for limiting exposure is divided between the manufacturer, system operator, and individual being exposed. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Excerpts "Both IEEE and ICNIRP base their analyses on rigorous reviews of the scientific literature and on established firm evidence of health effects in humans. The present guidelines are based on acute exposures; to date both IEEE and ICNIRP have not found sufficient evidence to include health effects of long-terrm exposures at lower levels. However, over the last 20 years the evidence has become extremely strong that weaker EMF over the whole range for frequencies from static through millimeter waves can modify biological processes. There is now solid experimental evidence and supporting theory showing that weak fields, especially but not exclusively at low frequencies, can modify reactive free radical concentrations and that changes in radical concentration and that of other signaling molecules, such as hydrogen peroxide and calcium, can modify biological processes ..." "The evidence that weak radiofrequency (RF) and low-frequency fields can modify human health is still less strong, but the experiments supporting both conclusions are too numerous to be uniformly written off as a group due to poor technique, poor dosimetry, or lack of blinding in some cases, or other good laboratory practices. Based on recent studies by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) [Smith-Roe et al., 2020] and the Ramazini Foundation [Falcioni et al., 2018] as well as laboratory data, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has declared RF fields as possible human carcinogens [IARC, 2013]. A recent paper extends the NTP studies by evaluating genotoxicity in animals exposed to fields at or over the guideline limits and found DNA damage in Comet assays [Smith-Roe et al., 2020]. Many other papers indicate similar results, but many negative results are also in the literature." "PROPOSED APPROACH TO SETTING EXPOSURE LIMITS From these and other lines of solid research, the guidelines for exposure could be revised. Increased emphasis on long-term exposures may require refining the concept of dose to more flexibly combine exposure time and field intensity or energy absorbed. Eventual guidelines might suggest limiting cell phone calls to X hours per day with exposure levels above Y W/m2, and for Z days per week exposure should be less than Y W/m2 to allow the body to reset its baseline." "What is missing in the current guidelines or regulations are guidelines for long-term exposure to weak EMF...." "Guidelines should be set at three levels: the individual user, local company, and national or international level.... External guidance, in terms of informed recommendations or at least analysis of various intensities and styles of usage from some agency such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or NIH, would be useful. Limits on the time for operations of base stations and exposures in adjacent living spaces are not controlled by the user and must be set by competent authorities, based on scientific evidence. It is likely to be difficult to specify times when exposures to RF signals are zero or below some limit. What will be needed is being able to say with some certainty that exposure below a given level has not been shown to cause changes in body chemistry above some level. A starting point might be current levels from TV and radio stations that are large enough to give signal-to-noise ratios around 20 dB (100-fold) with typical receiving systems. Currently, mean values for the population's exposure to these systems are estimated to be around 0.1 V/m and peak exposures range up to 2 V/m, which exceed current exposure limits for a small fraction of the population. Therefore, one starting point for exposure limits might be an average of 0.1 V/m, not based on research but on practicality, until further research results dictate either a lower or higher limit."

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typepolicy

Effect directionmixed

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

Exposurelong-term exposures to weak EMF (not addressed in current guidelines); current guidelines based on relatively short-term/acute exposures

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

This article argues that existing EMF exposure limits are primarily based on short-term (acute) exposures and do not address long-term exposures to weak fields. The authors state that evidence indicates long-term exposure to weak EMF can affect biological systems and might affect human health, and they propose an approach for setting long-term weak-field exposure guidelines with shared responsibility among manufacturers, system operators, and individuals.

Outcomes measured

biological effects/biological process modification
potential human health effects
carcinogenicity (RF classified as possible human carcinogen by IARC, referenced)
genotoxicity/DNA damage (Comet assay; referenced animal studies)
reactive free radical concentrations (mechanistic)
hydrogen peroxide and calcium signaling (mechanistic)

Limitations

Appears to be a guidelines/policy discussion rather than a primary empirical study (no original sample size or methods described in the abstract/excerpts).
Claims rely on cited literature; the excerpt notes both positive and negative results exist in the literature.
Some suggested exposure-limit starting points are described as based on practicality rather than research (e.g., 0.1 V/m).

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "policy",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "long-term exposures to weak EMF (not addressed in current guidelines); current guidelines based on relatively short-term/acute exposures"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "biological effects/biological process modification",
    "potential human health effects",
    "carcinogenicity (RF classified as possible human carcinogen by IARC, referenced)",
    "genotoxicity/DNA damage (Comet assay; referenced animal studies)",
    "reactive free radical concentrations (mechanistic)",
    "hydrogen peroxide and calcium signaling (mechanistic)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This article argues that existing EMF exposure limits are primarily based on short-term (acute) exposures and do not address long-term exposures to weak fields. The authors state that evidence indicates long-term exposure to weak EMF can affect biological systems and might affect human health, and they propose an approach for setting long-term weak-field exposure guidelines with shared responsibility among manufacturers, system operators, and individuals.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Appears to be a guidelines/policy discussion rather than a primary empirical study (no original sample size or methods described in the abstract/excerpts).",
    "Claims rely on cited literature; the excerpt notes both positive and negative results exist in the literature.",
    "Some suggested exposure-limit starting points are described as based on practicality rather than research (e.g., 0.1 V/m)."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "exposure guidelines",
    "long-term exposure",
    "weak EMF",
    "nonionizing electromagnetic fields",
    "IEEE",
    "ICNIRP",
    "IARC",
    "radiofrequency",
    "millimeter waves",
    "low-frequency fields",
    "base stations",
    "cell phones",
    "dosimetry",
    "free radicals",
    "reactive oxygen species",
    "genotoxicity",
    "Comet assay"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.86,
      "reason": "Discusses ICNIRP (and IEEE) guideline basis and limitations regarding long-term low-level exposures."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1002/bem.22267
PubMed: 32311139

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library