EVOLUTION OF ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR EVOLUTION OF ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR

RADIOFREQUENCY EMFRADIOFREQUENCY EMF

Paolo Vecchia

Past Chairman of ICNIRP

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

PROJECT GROUPSPROJECT GROUPS

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

BASIC QUESTIONSBASIC QUESTIONS

• How likely is it that the exposure limits for radiofrequency fields

will change?

• What would be the consequences?

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

• How likely is it that the basic approach to protection will change?

• What would be the consequences?

EVOLUTION OF ICNIRP GUIDELINESEVOLUTION OF ICNIRP GUIDELINES

• RF (interim)

1984

• RF

1988

• Time-varying electromagnetic fields > 0 Hz - 300 GHz

1998Basic features of guidelines have not changed over the time

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

ICNIRP 1998

Adapted by Hitchock and Patterson 1995

EARLY STANDARDS (1953-1982)EARLY STANDARDS (1953-1982)

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

ARE GUIDELINES OUTDATED?ARE GUIDELINES OUTDATED?

• Guidelines for time-varying fields last updated in 1998

• “Old” does not necessarily mean “not valid any longer”

• Long duration is in general a proof of good norms

• A balance between stability and updating is needed

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

WHY TO REVISE A STANDARD?WHY TO REVISE A STANDARD?

• New scientific evidence (new effects, changes in thresholds,

refinement of dosimetry)

• New technologies (revision of safety factors, possibility of relaxation)

• Outdated research database

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

NOT REASONS TO REVISE NOT REASONS TO REVISE SCIENCE-BASEDSCIENCE-BASED STANDARDS STANDARDS

• Social pressure

• Different regulations issued by national or local authorities

• Time passed from last revision

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

CONFIRMATION OF ESTABLISHED EFFECTSCONFIRMATION OF ESTABLISHED EFFECTS

It is the opinion of ICNIRP, that the scientific literature published

since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any

adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not

necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting

exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields.

(ICNIRP 2010)

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

CONSIDERATION OF LONG-TERM EFFECTSCONSIDERATION OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS

[The Interphone data] combined with the results of biological and animal

studies, other epidemiological studies, and brain tumour incidence trends,

suggest that within the first 10-15 years after first mobile phone use there is

unlikely to be a material risk of adult brain tumours resulting from mobile

phone use.

ICNIRP - SC I. Mobile Phones, brain Tumours, and the Interphone Study: Where Are

We Now? (2011)

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

TREND OF MOBILE PHONES AND BRAIN TUMORS (USA)TREND OF MOBILE PHONES AND BRAIN TUMORS (USA)

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

THE IARC CLASSIFICATIONTHE IARC CLASSIFICATION

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

THE IARC CLASSIFICATIONTHE IARC CLASSIFICATION

IARC’s evaluation of RF-EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” is

not in contradiction with the assessments of ICNIRP and other major

scientific organizations (such as SCENIHR (EU), HPA (UK), AFSSET

(France), ARPANSA (Australia), HCN (The Netherlands), etc.

A correct knowledge and understanding of the IARC classification, and

of the different approach and scope of the different institutions is crucial.

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

However, do hypotheses and suggestions of long-term effects justify a different approach to health protection?

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

Depending on the effects the appropriate system is chosen:

• Health threshold based system

Adequate for established threshold effects

• Optimization system

Adequate for no-threshold known hazards

• Precautionary measures

Adequate for suspected hazards

DIFFERENT PROTECTION SYSTEMSDIFFERENT PROTECTION SYSTEMS

The main objectives of this workshop are to identify similarities and differences in ionizing and non-ionizing radiation protection principles, in order to develop a reasoned and logically consistent framework

The important issue of whether the principles of justification, optimization and limitation that govern ionizing radiation protection can or should be applied for non-ionizing radiation, will be also in the focus.

The result of the workshop will flow in the update of the ICNIRP statement on “General approach to protection against non-ionizing radiation”.

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

THE OPTIMIZATION PRINCIPLE (ALARA)THE OPTIMIZATION PRINCIPLE (ALARA)

Total Cost

Cost of Health Detriment

Social Cost

Cost

Exposure Level

UNKNOWNCOUNTRY-

DEPENDENT

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014

THE BALANCE FOR BASE STATIONSTHE BALANCE FOR BASE STATIONS

Total Cost

Cost of Health Detriment

Cost of Protection

Cost

Exposure LevelBase stations

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

FOR YOUR ATTENTIONFOR YOUR ATTENTION

ANTENNAS, DEVELOPMENT, INCLUSION AND HUMAN HEALTH Lima, Peru, 10-11 July 2014