Impact of Public Concerns about Low-Level Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Interpretation of EMF/Radiofrequency (RFR) Database

  • John M. Osepchuk
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 274)

Abstract

A review of the history of setting standards for safe exposure to electromagnetic energy shows a strong reliance on science and the associated finding of thresholds for effects and hazards. The reliance on science has been attacked by a number of journalists, historians and social scientists over the last 15 years resulting in calls for “prudent avoidance” and the abandonment of reliance on established science. Accompanying this trend has been much misinformation and miseducation by the media leading to electrophobia. There are strong indications, however, that society is beginning to realize that emergent technologies and economic well-being are dependent on rational science-based standards. Thus, in the development of new standards, the need for two tiers of exposure limits in response to public concerns is justified only in an uncontrolled environment and only in those areas of the spectrum where a significant uncertainty exists about the scientific database. This resolves down to environmental exposures only, the frequency range around the resonance of the human body, and for long-term exposures only. Whether this two-tier philosophy should be extended to the extremely low frequency (ELF) range is debatable.

Keywords

Specific Absorption Rate Lower Tier Uncontrolled Environment Safe Exposure Occupational Exposure Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Public Law 90-602, Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, Approved by the U.S. Congress (October 18, 1968).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.C. Petersen, Radio frequency/microwave protection guides, Health Physics, 61:59–67 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    IEEE, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE C95.1-1991, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1992. Approved by ANSI (1992).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. Nair, M.G. Morgan, and H.K. Florig, Biological Effects of Power-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, Report OTA-BP-E-53, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (May 1989).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.M. Osepchuk, The need for science-based standards in EMF policy, in: “Proc. of the First World Congress on Electromagnetics in Biology and Medicine,” Orlando, FL (June 1992).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Brodeur. “The Zapping of America,” New York: William Morrow (1978).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N.H. Steneck. “The Microwave Debate,” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 234–235 (1984).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.M. Sandman, Risk communications: facing public outrage, EPA Journal, 21-22, (November 1987).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Q. Balzano, J.A. Bergeron, J.M. Osepchuk, and R.C. Petersen, On the need for a full-spectrum EMF policy: reliance on science-based standards for the safe use of electromagnetic energy, Forum (in press, 1993).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.M. Osepchuk, Some misconceptions about electromagnetic fields and their effects and hazards, in: “Biological Effects and Medical Applications of Electromagnetic Energy,” O.P. Gandhi, ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ch. 20 (1990).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K.R. Foster and W.F. Pickard, The risks of risk research, Nature, 330:531–532 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E.R. Adair, Currents of death: rectified, Paper commissioned by IEEE-COMAR (1990).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Yost. “Non-Ionizing Radiation Questions and Answers,” San Francisco: San Francisco Press (1993). (Revision of 1988 version.)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.L. Ray. “Trashing the Planet,” New York: Regnery Gateway (1990).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Bailey. “Eco-Scam.,” New York: St. Martins (1993).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Pumento. “Science Under Siege,” New York: Morrow (1993).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M.W. Lewis. “Green Delusions.” Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press (1992).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L.L. Schloesser, Green guidelines, Reasons, 33-34 (April 1993).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.M. Osepchuk and R.C. Petersen, The role in emerging technologies played by standards for exposure to electromagnetic energy, IEC (1993, in press.).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Editorial, Jury should be commended, Wilson County Citizen. Fredonia, Kansas (January 25, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Burgos, Cellular radiation safety is a hot issue in Wilmette, Chicago Sun-Times (March 11, 1993).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V.A. Vanko, V.M. Lopukhin, and V.L. Sarvin, Satellite solar power systems, Sov. Phys. Usp., 20(12): 989–1001 (December 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.V. Pound, Radiant heat for energy conservation, Science, 208:494–495, May 2, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Massachusetts Department of Public Health, “105 CMR 122.000, Fixed Facilities Which Generate Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range of 300 kHZ to 100 GHz and Microwave Ovens,” (1983).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    NCRP, “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields,” National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland, NCRP Report No. 86 (1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Osepchuk
    • 1
  1. 1.Raytheon Research DivisionLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations