Transcript The International Project

The International
Project
Health and environmental effects of
exposure to static and time varying
electric and magnetic fields
Collaboration
• International partners
WHO, UNEP, ICNIRP, ILO, IARC
ITU, IEC, NATO & EC
• National partners >40 countries
» WHO collaborating institutions
USA, UK, France, Japan
Sweden & Germany
» Independent scientific institutions
International EMF Project within the World Health Organization
Dr GH Brundtland Director General
Mrs PK Singh Executive Director, SDE
Cluster: Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments
Dr Richard Helmer Director, PHE
Department: Protection of the Human Environment
Dr J Bartram
Water,
Sanitation
and Health
(WSH)
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
Dr MH Repacholi
Occupational and
Environmental
Health (OEH)
EMF Project
Food
Safety
(FOS)
Chemical
Safety
(PCS)
International EMF Project










forum for co-ordinated international response to EMF issues
assesses scientific literature
makes status reports on health effects
identifies gaps in knowledge needed to be filled to make better health risk
assessments
encourages a focused research program
incorporates results into WHO's Environmental Health Criteria and IARC
monographs
facilitates development of internationally acceptable EMF standards
investigates environmental impacts of EMF
studies risk perception, communication and management of EMF
provides advice to national authorities
International Advisory Committee
• Provides a forum for a co-ordinated international
response on the health concerns raised by exposure
to EMFs.
• Provides oversight on the conduct of the Project.
• Reviews outputs from the Project.
Research Co-ordination Committee
Terms of Reference
•
Ensure research needed by WHO is completed in time.
•
Avoid unnecessary duplication of research, so scarce
resources are used wisely and effectively.
•
Encourage high quality research.
•
Encourage the use of standardised protocols for future metaanalyses.
•
Maintain an updated worldwide inventory of EMF research.
WHO EMF Project
Risk Perception
and Communication
International
Scientific Reviews
Standards
Seminars
and W/G Reviews
Health Status Reports
Research Gaps
Review of
World Standards
WHO
Task Groups
Research
Co-ordination
Develop
Frame for Standards
User Friendly Handbook
and EHC Monograph
Collection of
Database
EMF Management
Programme
WHO/IARC
Task Group Reviews
IAC
Environmental
Impact
Review of EMF Impacts Home Page/Fact Sheets
on Environment
in Multiple Languages
WHO
Task Groups
Documents with
Anticipated
Environmental Impacts:
For Future Development
Projects
Health Risk
Assessment
WHO EHCs
IARC Monographs
Information
and Training
Global
EMF Standard
National EMF Protection Programmes
Training Programmes
- Internet
- Conventional
in Multiple Languages
International EMF Project
Definitions of biological and health effects
• WHO defines health as a state of complete physical, mental
and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity
• Biological effects are measurable responses to EMF exposure
….not necessarily hazardous
• Health hazard is a biological effect producing consequences
outside the body's normal range of physiological
compensation and is detrimental to health or well-being
EMF Scientific Reviews
RF: Munich, November 1996 (Bioelectromagnetics 19: 1-19, 1998)
Static & ELF: Bologna, June 1997 (Bioelectromagnetics 20: 133-160)
Eastern European Research: Moscow, May 1998 (Being published)
Psychosocial effects: Graz, September 1998 (To be published)
Chinese research: Beijing, May 1999 (proceedings published)
Intermediate EMF: Maastricht, June 1999 (To be published)
Environmental impacts: Munich, October 1999 (To be published)
Pulsed RF: Erice, November 1999 (To be published)
Non-ionizing radiations: Kyoto, May 2000 (To be published)
EMF health effects and standards: Xian, China, October 2000
WHO approach to identifying
EMF research needs
• Used content of a database needed by WHO and
IARC to assess carcinogenic and other health
hazards and included research to fill gaps…mainly
epidemiological and animal toxicological studies
• Identified research that was suggestive of health
consequence but not substantiated, and so needed
confirmation and extension
EMF PSYCHOSOCIAL EFFECTS
WHO associates health with mental well-being
EMF hypersensitivity
Stress reactions
Chernobyl-type effects
Clinical symptoms
Royal Society of Canada review1
Conclusions on RF Toxicology(1)
Cancer
…Although a few studies have demonstrated elevated tumour
rates in animals exposed to RF fields, most studies have found no
significant difference in tumour occurrence rates between animals
that have been exposed to RF fields and unexposed controls.
There is little evidence that exposure to RF fields at non-thermal
levels enhances tumorigenesis in animals….need more research.
1Royal Society of Canada (1999) A Review of the Potential Health Risks of
Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices. Report
RSC.EPR 99-1, Ottawa pp155
Royal Society of Canada review1
Conclusions on RF Toxicology(2)
An analysis of the literature reveals that the vast
majority of studies on the genotoxic effects of RF field
have proven to be negative suggesting that there is no
reason for concern on the part of the public
1Royal
Society of Canada (1999) A Review of the Potential Health Risks of
Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices. Report
RSC.EPR 99-1, Ottawa pp155
Research priorities for RF fields
WHO/ICNIRP review indicated specific research needed for:
• mobile telephones
• high RF-exposed workers
• emerging technologies (eg wide-band radars)
NEED:
• Epidemiological studies
• Animal studies with near-field exposure
• Human studies (memory loss, blood pressure, etc)
• Laboratory studies having direct significance to in-vivo effects
International EMF Project
Working Group on Standards
• Purpose: To draft the framework of an
internationally acceptable EMF exposure
standard (0-300 GHz).
• Standard: The term “standard” includes
voluntary guidelines issued by specialized
scientific organizations and mandatory
regulations enacted under government
legislation.
Working Group on Standards
Topics for discussion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Criteria for evaluating scientific studies
Models for developing exposure limits
Use of safety factors
One or two tier standard?
Form of the standard - need to indicate how to determine compliance?
Detailed requirements for a scientific rational to support limits
Social and economic impacts…should they be considered?
Should one standard cover the whole frequency range (0-300 GHz)?
Other aspects of standards?
Comparison of exposure limits - 900 MHz
General Public
Occupational
ICNIRP
4.5 W/m2
22.5 W/m2
IEEE (USA)
6 W/m2
30 W/m2
NRPB (UK)
33 W/m2
33 W/m2
Russia
0.1 W/m2
0.25 W/m2
Benefits of EMF Standards Harmonisation
• Increased public confidence that governments and
scientists agree on health risks
• Reduced debate and fears about EMF -precautionary principal?
• Everyone protected to the same high level
• Economic benefits with globalisation of trade
•
•
•
•
WHO Fact Sheet on Mobile Phones and
Base Stations: Conclusions (1)
Strict adherence to existing safety standards
EMI caution around hospital intensive care units, aircraft
navigation systems, and medical devices (e.g. cardiac pacemakers
and hearing aids)
Barriers around antenna sites to preclude unauthorised access to
areas where exposure limits may be exceeded
No evidence to indicate any need for RF-absorbing covers
around mobile telephone handsets
WHO Fact Sheet on Mobile Phones and
Base Stations: Conclusions (2)
• While RF field levels around base stations are not
considered a health risk, siting decisions should take
into account aesthetics and public sensibilities
• Open communication between mobile telephone operators and the
public during the planning stages for new antennas can help create
public understanding and greater acceptance of a new facility
• Effective communications among scientists, government,
industry and the public can raise awareness of mobile telephone
technology and reduce mistrust and fears, both real and perceived
Research priorities for RF fields
WHO/ICNIRP review indicated specific research needed for:
• mobile telephones
• high RF-exposed workers
• emerging technologies (eg wide-band radars)
NEED:
• Epidemiological studies
• Animal studies with near-field exposure
• Human studies (memory loss, blood pressure, etc)
• Laboratory studies having direct significance to in-vivo effects
RF exposure to
mobile phones
Handset antennas
• << power than base stations
• head absorbs >> local power
• << international guidelines
and cause << 1EC
• Person 30 cm from phone
absorbs 100 times less than
user
• RF decreases rapidly at
greater distances from the
handset
Mobile telephone
base stations
Max fields ~ 40-50 m
from tower
~ 0.8 µW/cm2 for 20 m
~ 0.05 µW/cm2 for 30 m
RF levels no more than
from AM or FM radio,
or TV stations
MW ovens max RF level
100 µW/cm2 at 1 m
No nation limits base
station distances
Schedule for Health Risk Assessments
2001 IARC evaluate carcinogenicity of static and ELF fields
2002 WHO assesses non-cancer health risk of static and ELF fields
2003 IARC evaluate carcinogenicity of RF fields
2004 WHO assesses non-cancer health risk of RF fields
Results published as IARC monographs
or WHO EHCs
For further information
Web Site - http://www.who.int/emf
or from
Micheal H. Repacholi, EMF Project Manager
WHO, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 791-4123
Phone: + 41 22 791-3427
E-mail: [email protected]