The Development of Biomedical Approaches and Concepts in Radiofrequency Radiation Protection
Source abstract
Abstract
The approaches and concepts used in the development of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) protection guidelines evolved over the past quarter of a century. The values of exposure limits (EL) proposed by various groups are converging. Early guides specified ELs in incident power density. Recent ELs are based on considerations of the relationship between bioeffects and the magnitude of the whole body average specific absorption rate (WBA-SAR) and current densities induced in the body. Both these quantities may be considered as dosimetric ones. Thresholds for untoward health effects expressed in terms of these quantities were suggested, and may be considered as basic ELs. It is possible to derive a frequency-dependent relationship between incident RFR fields and WBA-SAR and/or induced current densities in the body. ELs specified for the purpose of determining compliance in terms of electric and magnetic field strengths or equivalent plane-wave power density existing at a point where a person could be present, but measured in the absence of the exposed subject, may be considered as derived working limits.The rationales offered for the recommended ELs indicate that the principal consideration in establishing limits for frequencies of 10 MHz and higher is the prevention of thermal injury, thermal being defined as relatable to heating, i.e. an increase in temperature. At lower frequencies, below 100 kHz or 30 kHz, direct effects on membranes of nerve and muscle cells may be the limiting factor. An additional consideration is the hazard of shock and burns from contact with ungrounded large metal objects that are charged by RFR fields. Recent advances in RFR dosimetry led to concerns that exposure to presently accepted derived ELs may result in large local SARs and induced current densities in certain parts of the body. The present review concludes that further refinements to the basis for RFR should be introduced. Threshold for health hazards should be investigated taking into account both direct and thermal bioeffects of RFR. The dose-thermal effects relationships should be quantified using the concepts of SAR, SA and thermal dosage. Several unresolved questions, such as the biological basis for SAR time-averaging, and the limitation of pulse peak power, are briefly discussed.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Electromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. International Telecommunications Union. (1983). Radio Regulations, ITU. Geneva
2. Gordon, Z.V. (1966).Problems of industrial hygiene and biological effects of super-high frequency electromagnetic fields. (In Russian). Medicina. Moscow.
3. Petrov, I.R.[ed.]. (1972).Influence of Microwave Radiation on the Organism of Man and Animals. Translated from Russian: NASA TT-F708. National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Springfield, VA: 201.
4. Environmental Health Criteria No. 16. (1981).Radio-frequency and Microwaves. World Health Organization. Geneva.
5. International Nonionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association. (1984). Interim guidelines on limits of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz. Health Physics 46: 975–984.
6. American National Standards Institute, ANSI C95-1-1982.American National Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electro-magnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz. IEEE. New York, N.Y.
7. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, A.C.G.I.H. (1982).Threshold Limit Values. ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH: 89–93. [Note: the RFR exposure limits in the 1985 edition do not differ from the 1982 version]
8. International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association. (1985). Review of concepts, quantities, units and terminology for non-ionizing radiation protection. Health Physics 49 (in press).
9. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. (1979). Random House. New York.
10. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP. (1981).Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. NCRP. Washington, D.C.
11. Illinger, K.H. [ed.]. (1981).Biological Effects of Nonionizing Radiation. American Chemical Society. Washington, D.C.10.1021/bk-1981-0157 ↗
12. Durney, C.H., Johnson, C.C., and Barber, P.W.et al. (1978).Radiofrequency dosimetry handbook. [2nd ed.] Report SAM-TR-78–22. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, TX.
13. Australian Standard 2772. (1985).Maximum Exposure Levels—Radiofrequency Radiation. 300 kHz—300 GHz. Standards Association of Australia, Sydney.
14. Deutsche Norm DIN 57–848. (1984).Gefahrdung durch electromagnetische Felder. VDE Verlag. Berlin.
15. Bernhardt, J.H. (1983).On the rating of human exposition to electric and magnetic fields with frequencies below 100 kHz. Ispra Courses on Protection against Microwave Radiations and Radiofrequency Radiations, Electric and Magnetic Fields. Commission of the European Communities, Joint Research Centre. Ispra, Italy, Pubi: MIRA/83/14.
16. Beltrame, F., Chiabrera, A., and Grattarola, M.et al. (1980). Electromagnetic control of cell function. Alta frequenza, 49: 101–114.
17. Gandhi, O.P. (1985). The ANSI RF safety guideline— its rationale and some of its problems. Paper presented at theSymposium on Biological Effects of Electropollution, Howard University, Washington, D.C. September 9 1985. (Submitted for publication to IEEE Proceedings).
18. Elder, J.A. and Cahill, D.F. [eds.] (1984).Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/8-83–026F. Cincinnati, OH.
19. Fröhlich, H. and Kremer, F.[eds.](1983).Coherent excitations in biological systems. Springer. New York.10.1007/978-3-642-69186-7 ↗
20. Adey, W.R. and Lawrence, A.F.[eds.](1984).Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems. Plenum Press. New York.10.1007/978-1-4613-2789-9 ↗
21. Davydov, B.I., Tikhontchuk, V.S., and Antipov, V.V. (1984).Biological Effects. Standardization and Protection Against Electromagnetic Radiation. (In Russian). Meditsina. Moscow.
22. Sliney, D.H., Wohlbarsht, M.L., and Muc, A.M. (1985). Differing radiofrequency standards in the microwave region—implications for future research. (Editorial) Health Physics, 49(in press).
23. Ministry of Health Protection of the USSR. (1984).Temporary Sanitary Norms and Rules for Protection of the Public Against Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Radiotechnical Installations(In Russian). Moscow.