Transcript Document

NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS FOR WORKER &
PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NIR
Elizabeth Kelley, M.A.
International NIR & Health Workshop
Porto Alegre, Brasil, May 18 & 19, 2009.
Technological Advances
EHS
RFID
Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) to Radio Frequency (RF)
?
exposure
smart meter
WiFi, WiMax
miscarriages
2000’s
1980’s
cancers
Long-term
Health Effects?
CFL
brain
tumors
cell phone
1970’s
cancers
computers
radio wave
sickness
1950’s
screen dermatitis
1940’s
electrocution
television
1920’s
radar
~1900
radio “wireless”
electricity
1900
time
2000
National & International EMF Standards
Using 2 GHz as the Reference Frequency
U.S. FCC EMF/RFR
Public and Worker Exposure Guidelines
2 GHz +
General Public
Workers
Short-Term
Long-Term
30 minutes
Unknown
6 minutes
Unknown
Comparison to Ionizing Radiation Standards
• International cooperation (ICRP)
• Independent standards (EPA) & regulation
(NRC)
• Many years, $ hundreds of millions for research
on long term, low level exposures
• Limits for workers 10 times < clinically
observable effects on chromosomes
• Limit for most sensitive member of public from
nuclear power is 200 times < workers
• Decisions controlled by ALARA, remote siting
International standard setting critique
• Define the Precautionary Principle as sciencebased
• Base standards on short term acute health
effects, e.g. temperature elevation, burn, etc.
• Have ignored credible studies showing low level
effects
• Restrict stakeholder representation and do not
fully consider economic and social aspects
• Conduct informational “risk communications”
campaigns
Concerns about some current standards
• Physical and biological effects not recognized
• Standards not health based, do not consider low level
effects
• Differential sensitivity of tissue not recognized
• RFR signal, as information to the cell, is not
included, e.g., frequency/amplitude modulation
• Chronic exposure should not be extrapolated from
acute exposure
• Adverse effect on bodily function and system;
minimal consequences not included
Concerns about EMF/health
issue management
•
•
•
•
•
•
Human rights to a cleaner, safer environment
Civil and constitutional rights
No independent, sustained, government programs.
Public health officials and major media are silent
Independent scientists are not included
Some nations preempt local control over antennas,
“no place to hide”
• Industry immunity, “no risk”, public policy control
• Issue management strategy by manufacturers and
providers: product marketing > consumer
adaptation> wireless technology expansion
European Parliament: EMF Resolution
April 2, 2009
• Concerns about adequacy of the existing EMF limits
• Calls for consideration of biological effects
• Calls for Member States and industry to address new
technologies to reduce EMF exposure
• Safer EMF environments – schools, homes, retirement
centers and health care facilities
• Calls for studies on electromagnetic compatibilioty of
artificial EMF with the living human body
• Calls for annual report on EU levels of EMF and
actions taken to protect human health and the
environment
European EMF Resolution cont.
• Deplores delay in publication of Interphone study
and asks for an explanation right away
• Fund awareness program for young Europeans on
cell phone risks and safer use of wireless technologies
• EU Indoor Air Quality policy study of wireless sources
at home and in public (indoor WIFI, DECT)
• Improved consumer information and labelling
• Single standard for ELF exposure along high voltage
grids
• Calls upon Member States to recognize EHS as a
disability and grant adequate protection as an equal
opportunity (as Sweden has)
Standard setting in a rapidly evolving
wireless & electrical power
environment
• Science trails technology
• Increased miniaturization and infrastructure
applications
• Voluntary vs. involuntary exposure
• Low level, chronic exposure; non-linear effects
• Combined and cumulative exposure
• Neurological/behavioral effects/EHS
• Animal and cell studies can help define exposure
• Flexibility the key, e.g. MRIs, children’s toys
Interim precautionary measures
• Switzerland, 1999; Italy, 2003; Liechtenstein, 2008
Defines places with sensitive use as wherever people
regularly spend lengthy periods of time - apartments,
schools, hospitals, offices and playgrounds; EMF emissions
monitoring and reporting.
• Liechtenstein, 2008 Environmental Protection law:
consider the state of scientific knowledge or experience,
people not endangered, well-being of the population not
substantially interfered with. In urgent cases, shutdown can
be ordered.
• Many nations issued health warnings on cell phone use
• European Parliament EMF Resolution April 2, 2009
• France, May 2009 – Call for EMF science review
Model national government approach
EMF research and policy oversight
Top level legislative, research and standards
development; ongoing public health and
safety activities:
Public health information and education
Risk assessment - pre and post market
Exposure monitoring & reporting
Product safety reviews
Occupational studies
Toxicological assessment
Boulder, Colorado, USA
America’s 1st “Smart Grid” City
Electrosmog
Antennas on Buildings
(Kitchen, 2001)
Fire Station 101
reflection
shadow
region
Power Density (micro/m2)
0.28
0.06
0.04
0.16
1
50
100
200
Distance (m)
0.07 W/m2
300 m
Time of Adjustment:
Paradigm Shift
duck or rabbit?
“The very existence of science depends on vesting the
power to choose between paradigms . . . ”
—Thomas Kuhn
Some Strengths of Scientific Evidence
•
Beyond all reasonable doubt (Criminal Law)
•
Reasonable certainty (Civil Law)
•
Balance of probabilities/evidence (Bayesian)
•
Strong possibility (IARC on ELF, 2002)
•
Scientific suspicion of risk (Swedish Chemical Law)
• “Pertinent information” (Swine Flu Risk Assessment)
Choosing an “appropriate “ strength
of evidence for action
is
an ethical issue
Who benefits and who gains from being wrong
in acting, or not acting, early enough to prevent
harm?
Short term, specific, economic interests?
Or long term health/ecosystem/general welfare
interests?
The Precautionary Principle
ICEMS Statement
When there are indications of possible adverse
effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from
doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of
taking action to control these exposures.
The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of
proof from those suspecting a risk to those who
discount it.
Eurobarometer, 2006
When government responds positively to citizen
concerns about how EMF exposure affects their
health and well-being, citizens place more trust in
their government.
The Gaia hypothesis is being tested