Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions (ICBE-EMF review)

Abstract

Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions (ICBE-EMF review) Héroux P, Belyaev I, Chamberlin K, Dasdag S, De Salles AAA, Rodriguez CEF, Hardell L, Kelley E, Kesari KK, Mallery-Blythe E, Melnick RL, Miller AB, Moskowitz JM, on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(7):5398. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20075398. Abstract In the 1990s, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) restricted its risk assessment for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in seven ways: (1) Inappropriate focus on heat, ignoring sub-thermal effects. (2) Reliance on exposure experiments performed over very short times. (3) Overlooking time/amplitude characteristics of RFR signals. (4) Ignoring carcinogenicity, hypersensitivity, and other health conditions connected with RFR. (5) Measuring cellphone Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) at arbitrary distances from the head. (6) Averaging SAR doses at volumetric/mass scales irrelevant to health. (7) Using unrealistic simulations for cell phone SAR estimations. Low-cost software and hardware modifications are proposed here for cellular phone RFR exposure mitigation: (1) inhibiting RFR emissions in contact with the body, (2) use of antenna patterns reducing the Percent of Power absorbed in the Head (PPHead) and body and increasing the Percent of Power Radiated for communications (PPR), and (3) automated protocol-based reductions of the number of RFR emissions, their duration, or integrated dose. These inexpensive measures do not fundamentally alter cell phone functions or communications quality. A health threat is scientifically documented at many levels and acknowledged by industries. Yet mitigation of RFR exposures to users does not appear as a priority with most cell phone manufacturers. Conclusions Protection measures against wireless RFR exposures need considerable improvement due to the parochial positions adopted in the IEEE-ICNIRP risk assessments. The expanding modern needs for data communications are obviously best served by established optical fiber solutions [141,142] which, in contrast to wireless, offer complete confinement, energy efficiency, and privacy. Engineering can contemplate many technically practical solutions aimed at reducing cell phone users’ RFR exposures. Software-based solutions controlling RFR emissions, as well as hardware changes to antenna designs, should not be expensive to implement, and would only mildly influence the habits of cell phone users. Although these solutions are available, it seems that in many cases, the industry has either not implemented them, or, in some cases, has even fought exposure abatements by preventing public education about RFR exposures [143,144]. The charters of professional organizations in the world, including engineering, usually state that they place human safety above all other considerations. We firmly believe that RFR exposures to living tissues should be avoided when possible and that RFR power absorbed by the user’s body is wasted and harmful to health. In all likelihood, our recommendations for cell phone alterations would improve the lifespan of both humans and batteries. Open access paper: mdpi.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

The authors argue that IEEE risk assessment for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation focused inappropriately on thermal effects and short-duration experiments, overlooked signal characteristics and certain health outcomes, and used SAR measurement/averaging approaches they consider unrealistic or irrelevant. They propose low-cost engineering modifications to reduce users’ RF exposure (e.g., inhibiting emissions in contact with the body, antenna pattern changes to reduce absorbed power, and protocol-based reductions in emission number/duration/dose) and conclude that protection measures need considerable improvement.

Outcomes measured

• risk assessment approach for RF exposure limits (IEEE/ICNIRP)
• cell phone RF exposure mitigation via software/hardware engineering changes
• health effects mentioned: carcinogenicity, hypersensitivity, other health conditions (as discussed)

Limitations

• Narrative/review/opinion-style arguments; no primary study methods, inclusion criteria, or quantitative synthesis described in the abstract
• No specific exposure metrics (frequency, SAR levels) or populations are provided in the abstract
• Health effects are asserted/mentioned but specific supporting data are not detailed in the abstract

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.9)
  Abstract explicitly critiques IEEE-ICNIRP risk assessments and exposure limit approaches.

{
    "study_type": "review",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "mobile phone",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": null,
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "risk assessment approach for RF exposure limits (IEEE/ICNIRP)",
        "cell phone RF exposure mitigation via software/hardware engineering changes",
        "health effects mentioned: carcinogenicity, hypersensitivity, other health conditions (as discussed)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "The authors argue that IEEE risk assessment for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation focused inappropriately on thermal effects and short-duration experiments, overlooked signal characteristics and certain health outcomes, and used SAR measurement/averaging approaches they consider unrealistic or irrelevant. They propose low-cost engineering modifications to reduce users’ RF exposure (e.g., inhibiting emissions in contact with the body, antenna pattern changes to reduce absorbed power, and protocol-based reductions in emission number/duration/dose) and conclude that protection measures need considerable improvement.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Narrative/review/opinion-style arguments; no primary study methods, inclusion criteria, or quantitative synthesis described in the abstract",
        "No specific exposure metrics (frequency, SAR levels) or populations are provided in the abstract",
        "Health effects are asserted/mentioned but specific supporting data are not detailed in the abstract"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "radiofrequency radiation",
        "RFR",
        "cell phone",
        "mobile phone",
        "SAR",
        "IEEE",
        "ICNIRP",
        "exposure limits",
        "risk assessment",
        "antenna design",
        "exposure mitigation",
        "engineering solutions",
        "PPHead",
        "PPR"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.90000000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
            "reason": "Abstract explicitly critiques IEEE-ICNIRP risk assessments and exposure limit approaches."
        }
    ]
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.