Risk Assessment of Human Exposure to Low Frequency Fields

  • J. H. Bernhardt
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 274)


Although several epidemiological studies suggest a weak association between the exposure to extremely low-frequency (ELF) fields and an increase in various kinds of cancer, a final risk assessment of long-term continuous exposure to ELF fields is so far not possible. It has not been proven definitely, that the electric and especially magnetic ELF fields occurring at working places or in every-day life are mutagenic or carcinogenic. The main critical points are those concerning statistical evaluation, insufficient determination of the field strength during exposure, dose-effect relationships, inadequate demarcation of concomitant factors, and — as one of the most important points — the absence of known interaction mechanisms. Final clarification of the question of possible late effects requires further elucidation. The non-stochastic ELF field effects, therefore, are of major importance when deriving standards are given priority.1


Electric Field Strength Exposure Limit Magnetic Field Exposure Contact Current Interim Guideline 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    International Radiation Protection Association/International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee. Interim guidelines on limits of exposure to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields, Health Phys 58:113–122 (1990).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.H. Bernhardt. The direct influence of electromagnetic fields on nerve and muscle cells of man within the frequency range of 1 Hz to 30 MHz, Radiat Environ. Biophys 16: 309–23 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. Environmental Health Criteria 69: Magnetic fields. WHO, Geneva (1987).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Postow and M.L. Swicord. Modulated fields and “window” effects, in: CRC Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, C. Polk and E. Postow, eds., Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, pp. 425 (1986).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Z.J. Sienkiewicz, R.D. Saunders, C.I. Kowalczuk. Biological Effects of Exposure to Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Fields and Radiation: II Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic fields. Chilton, NRPB-R239, London HMSO (1991).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.H. Bernhardt. The establishment of frequency dependent limits for electric and magnetic fields and evaluation of indirect effects, Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 27:1–27 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Sander, J. Brinkmann, B. Kuehne. Laboratory studies on animals and human beings exposed to 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields. International Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems. Paris, September 1982, Cigre No. 36 (1982).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Radiation Protection Association/International Non-Ionizing Radiation Commitee, Guidelines on limits of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz, Health Phys. 54:1154–23 (1988).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Working Group on Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Effects. Electric and magnetic field coupling from high voltage AC power transmission lines — classification of short-term effects on people, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 97: 2243–2252 (1978).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L.E. Zaffanella and D.W. Deno. Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Effects of Ultra-high-voltage Transmission Lines. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, Final report, EPRI EL-802 (1978).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Health Organization. Envrionmental health criteria 35: Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) fields. WHO, Geneva (1984).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    World Health Organization. Environmental health criteria 137: Electromagnetic Fields (300 Hz-300 GHz). WHO, Geneva (1993).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S.G. Allen, J.H. Bernhardt, C.M.H. Driscoll, M. Grandolfo, G.F. Mariutti, R. Matthes, A.F. McKinlay, M. Steinmetz, P. Vecchia, M. Whillock. Proposals for basic restrictions for protection against occupational exposure to electromagnetic non-ionizing radiations. Recommendations of an International Working Group set up under the auspices of the Commission of the European Communities, Physica Medica VII, No. 2: 77–89 (1971).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P.J. Dimbylow, Finite difference calculations of current densities in a homogeneous model of a man exposed to extremely low frequency electric fields, Bioelectromagnetics 8:355–73 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    W.T. Kaune, W.C. Forsythe, Current densities measured in human models exposed to 60 Hz electric fields Bioelectromagnetics, 6:13–22 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T.S. Tenforde, W.T. Kaune, Interaction of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields with humans, Health Phys. 53:595–606 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    German Draft Standard, DIN VDE 0848, Part 2: Safety in electromagnetic fields; Protection of persons in the frequency range from 30 kHz to 300 GHz. Berlin, Beuth Verlag (in German) October (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. Bernhardt
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal Office for Radiation ProtectionInstitute for Radiation HygieneOberschleißheim-NeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations