NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR WORKER & PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NIR

Elizabeth Kelley, M.A.

International NIR & Health Workshop Porto Alegre, Brasil, May 18 & 19, 2009.

Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) to Radio Frequency (RF)

exposure

time1900 2000

1940’s

radar

1970’s

computers

1980’s

cell phone

electricity

~1900

1950’s

television

radio “wireless”

1920’s

RFID

WiFi, WiMax

2000’s

EHS

miscarriages

brain tumors

electrocution

cancers radio wavesickness

screen dermatitis

cancers

smart meter

?Long-term

Health Effects?

CFL

Technological Advances

National & International EMF Standards Using 2 GHz as the Reference Frequency

U.S. FCC EMF/RFR Public and Worker Exposure Guidelines

2 GHz +

Short-Term Long-Term

General Public

Workers

30 minutes Unknown

6 minutes Unknown

Comparison to Ionizing Radiation Standards

• International cooperation (ICRP)

• Independent standards (EPA) & regulation (NRC)

• Many years, $ hundreds of millions for research on long term, low level exposures

• Limits for workers 10 times < clinically observable effects on chromosomes

• Limit for most sensitive member of public from nuclear power is 200 times < workers

• Decisions controlled by ALARA, remote siting

International standard setting critique

• Define the Precautionary Principle as science-based

• Base standards on short term acute health effects, e.g. temperature elevation, burn, etc.

• Have ignored credible studies showing low level effects

• Restrict stakeholder representation and do not fully consider economic and social aspects

• Conduct informational “risk communications” campaigns

Concerns about some current standards

• Physical and biological effects not recognized

• Standards not health based, do not consider low level effects

• Differential sensitivity of tissue not recognized

• RFR signal, as information to the cell, is not included, e.g., frequency/amplitude modulation

• Chronic exposure should not be extrapolated from acute exposure

• Adverse effect on bodily function and system; minimal consequences not included

Concerns about EMF/health issue management

• Human rights to a cleaner, safer environment• Civil and constitutional rights• No independent, sustained, government programs. • Public health officials and major media are silent• Independent scientists are not included • Some nations preempt local control over antennas,

“no place to hide”• Industry immunity, “no risk”, public policy control • Issue management strategy by manufacturers and

providers: product marketing > consumer adaptation> wireless technology expansion

European Parliament: EMF ResolutionApril 2, 2009

• Concerns about adequacy of the existing EMF limits

• Calls for consideration of biological effects

• Calls for Member States and industry to address new technologies to reduce EMF exposure

• Safer EMF environments – schools, homes, retirement centers and health care facilities

• Calls for studies on electromagnetic compatibilioty of artificial EMF with the living human body

• Calls for annual report on EU levels of EMF and actions taken to protect human health and the environment

European EMF Resolution cont.

• Deplores delay in publication of Interphone study

and asks for an explanation right away• Fund awareness program for young Europeans on cell phone risks and safer use of wireless technologies• EU Indoor Air Quality policy study of wireless sources at home and in public (indoor WIFI, DECT)• Improved consumer information and labelling• Single standard for ELF exposure along high voltage grids• Calls upon Member States to recognize EHS as a disability and grant adequate protection as an equal opportunity (as Sweden has)

Standard setting in a rapidly evolving wireless & electrical power

environment• Science trails technology• Increased miniaturization and infrastructure

applications • Voluntary vs. involuntary exposure• Low level, chronic exposure; non-linear effects • Combined and cumulative exposure• Neurological/behavioral effects/EHS • Animal and cell studies can help define exposure • Flexibility the key, e.g. MRIs, children’s toys

Interim precautionary measures • Switzerland, 1999; Italy, 2003; Liechtenstein, 2008 Defines places with sensitive use as wherever people regularly spend lengthy periods of time - apartments, schools, hospitals, offices and playgrounds; EMF emissions monitoring and reporting.• Liechtenstein, 2008 Environmental Protection law: consider the state of scientific knowledge or experience, people not endangered, well-being of the population not substantially interfered with. In urgent cases, shutdown can be ordered. • Many nations issued health warnings on cell phone use• European Parliament EMF Resolution April 2, 2009 • France, May 2009 – Call for EMF science review

Model national government approach EMF research and policy oversight Top level legislative, research and standards development; ongoing public health and safety activities:

Public health information and education

Risk assessment - pre and post market

Exposure monitoring & reporting

Product safety reviews

Occupational studies

Toxicological assessment

Boulder, Colorado, USAAmerica’s 1st “Smart Grid” City

Antennas on Buildings (Kitchen, 2001)

shadowregion

1 50 100 200 300 m

Distance (m)

Power Density (micro/m2)0.28 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.07 W/m2

Fire Station 101

reflection

Electrosmog

Time of Adjustment: Paradigm Shift

“The very existence of science depends on vesting the power to choose between paradigms . . . ”—Thomas Kuhn

duck or rabbit?

Some Strengths of Scientific Evidence

• Beyond all reasonable doubt (Criminal Law)

• Reasonable certainty (Civil Law)

• Balance of probabilities/evidence (Bayesian)

• Strong possibility (IARC on ELF, 2002)

• Scientific suspicion of risk (Swedish Chemical Law)

• “Pertinent information” (Swine Flu Risk Assessment)

Choosing an “appropriate “ strength of evidence for action

isan ethical issue

Who benefits and who gains from being wrong in acting, or not acting, early enough to prevent harm?

Short term, specific, economic interests?

Or long term health/ecosystem/general welfare interests?

The Precautionary Principle   ICEMS Statement

 When there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures.

The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it.

Eurobarometer, 2006

When government responds positively to citizen

concerns about how EMF exposure affects their

health and well-being, citizens place more trust in

their government.

The Gaia hypothesis is being tested