Electrosensitivity
Guidelines like EUROPAEM 2016 now specify:
nature | altered EEG | some conscious ES symptoms | biological safety limit (BioInitiative, 2012) | heating safety limit (ICNIRP, 1998) |
---|---|---|---|---|
9,200,000 (1800 MHz) | ||||
4,500,000 (900 MHz) | ||||
6 (general population) | ||||
3 (children, sensitives) | ||||
<1 | ||||
0.00001 | ||||
0.000001 |
Sensitive Populations | Night-time exposure | Day-time exposure | |
WiFi (10 Hz) | 0.1 | 1 | 10 |
DECT cordless phone 3G (UMTS) | 1 | 10 | 100 |
FM radio | 100 | 1000 | 10000 |
nature | some conscious ES symptoms | biological (Council of Europe, 2011) | heating safety limit (ICNIRP, 1998) |
---|---|---|---|
61 | |||
0.6 | |||
0.2 (medium term) | |||
<0.02 | |||
0.00002 |
human sensitivity (Aurora Disturbance, solar flare) | human brain entrainment: Schumann Resonance | biological safety limit (BioInitiative 2007) | heating safety limit (ICNIRP, 2008) |
---|---|---|---|
2,000,000 | |||
100 | |||
0.05 | |||
0.0004 (rise/fall, at 0.0013) |
Sensitive populations | Night-time exposure | Day-time exposure | |
nT | 30 | 100 | 100 |
nT maximum | 300 | 1000 | 1000 |
V/m | 0.3 | 1 | 10 |
Sensitive populations | Night-time exposure | Day-time exposure | |
nT | 0.3 | 1 | 1 |
V/m | 0.003 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Sensitive populations | Night-time exposure | Day-time exposure | |
uA/m2 | 0.05 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
biological damage threshold | biological safety limit (Seletun, 2010) | SAR heating safety limit (whole body) | SAR heating safety limit (head) | SAR heating safety limit (limbs) |
---|---|---|---|---|
4.0 | ||||
1.6 or 2.0 | ||||
0.08 | ||||
0.0003 | ||||
0.00002 |
Conversion Chart (Next-up)
Experts: zero exposure only
Three leading experts in the field of bioelectromagnetics have stated that
the only valid safety limit for man-made electromagnetic exposure is zero.
For the heating measure of power density this means:
0 microWatts/cm2 = 0 milliWatts/cm2 = 0 microWatts/m2
This zero-only approach is the same for ionizing nuclear radiation,
where it is generally accepted that there is no safe exposure limit to man-made nuclear radiation.
Therefore any acceptance of man-made radiation is inherently risky.
It is likely to cause adverse effects in some biological organisms even at the lowest detectable levels.
Dr George Carlo:
"Dr. Carlo confirms that cell damage is not dose dependant because any exposure level,
no matter how small, can trigger damage response by cell mechanisms."
"Wherever you have information that is being transmitted wirelessly,
you have the ability to trigger those protective responses and that is dangerous, there is no threshold."
Assoc. Prof. N Cherry:
"He also found many epidemiological studies showing dose-response relationships
for cancer, cardiac, reproductive and neurological effects,
showing a safe level of zero exposure, consistent with EMF/EMR being genotoxic."
Assoc. Prof. O Johansson:
"A completely protective safety limit based on today’s information would be zero."
(For reference details, see below.)
Field measured | Type | Metric | Natural or background levels | Safety Limit | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Magnetic Field | power lines (50-60 Hz) | nanoTesla | 0.0002 nT | 10 nT |
2 | Electric Field | radio waves (>30 kHz) | Volts per meter | 0.00002 V/m | 0.006 V/m (extrap.) |
3 | Electric Field | power lines (50-60 Hz) | Volts per meter | 0.0001 V/m | 1 V/m |
4 | Heating: power flux density (PFD) | radio waves (pulsed require lower limits) | microWatt per meter squared | 0.000001 uW/m2 | 0.1 uW/m2 |
5 | Heating: specific energy absorption rate (SAR) | radio waves | Watts per kilogram | < 0.00002 W/kg | 0.0003 W/kg |
NB: Electric fields are measured peak to peak, not averaged.
Biological safety limits are for long-term and cumulative exposures.
Heating limits (e.g. ICNIRP) are set for only 6 minutes, averaged.
New metrics have recently been suggested as more accurate and relevant for measuring biological safety limits, such as assessing DNA damage, protein expression, fertility impairment, oxidative stress, tumor promotion, etc.
For sources of the International Safety limits, see below (Building Biology SBM-2008, BUND, EUROPAEM 2016, Seletun 2010 etc.).
These biological International Safety Limits are:
A survey of personal exposure in Slovenia in 2016 found an average of 0.26 V/m, far above the international EUROPAEM 2016 safety limit of 0.006 V/m for sensitive people and people with EHS. (Gajšek P et al, IEEE Rad Anten Days Ind Ocean (RADIO), 2016)
SAR heating limits should be replaced by non-linear biological limits,
e.g. DNA fragmentation
SAR heating limits (Specific Absorption Rate) are still used by the few remaining thermalists - scientists still claiming that the only effect of radiation is heating. This claim was disproved in the 1960s and the majority of scientists now accept non-thermal effects. Thus, of 30 scientists in 2011 at the World Health Organization's IARC, 28 voted to classify non-thermal radiation as a 2B cancer agent while only 2 still denied this because of the invalidated heating hypothesis. In fact many medical procedures now depend on non-thermal radiation, convincingly disproving the thermalists' claims. A heat rise of 1.0 C is regarded as dangerous by thermalists, despite the fact that even slight exertion by the human body quickly raises the body temperature by a similar or greater amount. Thermalists disregard all the established evidence for other changes, such as molecular, CNS, protein expression, blood perfusion, DNA fragmentation etc, all now regarded by the majority of scientists as more useful and valid indications of adverse effects.
Most medical experts now recommend that SAR should be replaced with more accurate and relevant non-thermal, biological and long-term tests, such as DNA fragmentation, cell hydration or oogenesis.
Blank M et al: "Electromagnetic fields and health: DNA-based dosimetry" Electromagn Biol Med. (2012) PMID: 22676645
The heating hypothesis assumes a linear or dose-response biological effect. In fact it has long been known that low-level non-thermal effects are non-linear and depend on the particular frequency, modulation and exposure duration or repetition.
Most scientists now reject the IEEE, ICNIRP or FCC denial of established non-thermal effects. Thus since the 1980s in the USA leading scientists have rejected ANSI / IEEE claims that their thermal limits protect against known non-thermal effects:
A major divergence in safety limits, of 1000 times, can be seen between heating values adopted by the USSR and the USA from 1935 to the present day.
The EUROPAEM limits (2016) diverge even more, by 10 million to 1 billion times. They adopt a more up-to-date approach in the light of recent science showing adverse effects from exposure at much lower levels, but which are still far above natural levels.
Leading experts state that, as for ionizing radiation, there is no safe level of man-made non-ionizing exposure above natural levels.
[Watts per meter squared is essentially a heating metric, as first used in 1935 to prevent heating.
Modern metrics should be based on perhaps DNA breaks or protein expression as a more reliable and accurate metric: see above.]
The figures below are simplified and general, since more recent standards have variations for some frequencies, pulse and amplification characteristics and exposure durations.
USSR:
1935: perhaps the first RF safety limit, for physiotherapy rooms:
10 microWatts/cm2 = 0.01 milliWatts/cm2 = 100,000 microWatts/m2
This limit of 100,000 uW/m2 has remained the USSR and Russia's safety limit for workers (1955), and the general population (1968, 1984, 1996 and 2003), or 0.2 V/m.
USA:
1953: H Schwan proposed for the US Navy Dept.:
10,000 microWatts/cm2 = 10 milliWatts/cm2 = 100,000,000 microWatts/m2
This limit of 100,000,000 uW/m2 remained the USA's safety limit for the general population (1966 ANSI, 1975, and IEEE 1991, 1998 ).
Experts: zero exposure only
Three leading experts in the field of bioelectromagnetics have stated that the only valid safety limit for man-made electromagnetic exposure is zero.
0 microWatts/cm2 = 0 milliWatts/cm2 = 0 microWatts/m2
This zero-only approach is the same for ionizing nuclear radiation, where it is generally accepted that there is no safe exposure limit to man-made nuclear radiation.
Therefore any acceptance of man-made radiation is inherently risky. It is likely to cause adverse effects in some biological organisms even at the lowest detectable levels.
EUROPAEM:
2016: heating safety limit for sensitive populations:
0.000001 microWatts/cm2 = 0.00000001 milliWatts/cm2 = 0.1 microWatts/m2
heating safety limit (daytime) for general population:
0.0001 microWatts/cm2 = 0.000001 milliWatts/cm2 = 10 microWatts/m2
France:
Paris: Reduction to 5 V/m (2017)
Switzerland:
Refusal to raise limits, as requested by Swiss Telecom, on health grounds:
USA: for FCC and EPA:
Lists of government guidelines: