Found this page helpful? Please like. Wants to help other and spread awareness? Please share

Safety standards & recommendations, what are they, who determine them, on what basis, are they protecting us or industry & what do I think is safe.

icnirp guidance levels
ICNIRP RF guidance levels – not so safe

Would you ever accept an air pollution safety standards, in which the air will be considered GOOD as long as you don’t choke and die from it on the spot?Would you ever accept an water quality standards that claim the water are “all OK” as long as you don’t dia few minutes after drinking them?
Well that is exactly the condition with the safety standards of exposure to EMF radiation. These so called “safety standards” are created by regulatory bodies that claim to be independent (such as the FCC and ICNIRP), while being heavily influenced by the industry.  

Both RF and ELF standards are based only on short term immediate life rist effect such as the stimulation of currents over the nerves in ELF magnetic fields and tissue heat in high levels of RF radiation. 

Actually the above standards are based on the theoretical assumption that non-ionizing radiation have no long term biological and health effect, and that the only influence that RF have is heat, and the only influence of EMF magnetic field is electric current being created over nerves (both in very high levels, much higher than the levels in which studies show biological change and damage). 
On the base of these non protective high level, short term, so called safety standards, safety tests are done to cell phone, cell towers, antennas, infrastructure, appliances and wireless devices. 

In these condition, the so called safety standards for non-ionizing radiation, protects the interest of the wireless and electricity industries, and do not protect the public. 
Do you want to know more? You are in the right place!
In this chapter of the site we explain how these so called safety standards were created, by who, why and how it gain authority. In addition we will try to recommend our own safety levels for you to work by, that will be based on long term and biological effects.

EMF “Safety standards” not so safe

A Safety Standard is a problematic term. Safety standards are usually set by a committee of experts who tried to determine how much radiation is safe and how much is not safe. In the process of setting the standard many aspects, other than safety or health, are taking into consideration. For example: financial, technical and political aspects. Sometimes when you can not technically meet the standard, or meeting it will result in financial cost, the standard is gently shifted to please everyone and to save money. The international standards for low (ELF – used to be 1000 milliGauss, since 2005 it is 2000mG) and high frequency(RF – since the year of 1996 it is 1000-400 microWatts square centimeter) electromagnetic radiation are very high. Both takes into account only the immediate, obvious and permanent damage to the body and does not take into account any long-term health effect or biological effects. Some companies and organizations will use these outrageous high so called “safety standards”, without explanation of the true essence of it and its limitations.

ICNIRP(The committee that set the standards for most of the world) takes IEEE standards, approve them for all humans, to all age groups (the IEEE standards are usually for healthy professionals, in the working age), and recommend them to the WHO’s EMF study group(EMF Project). The EMF Study group then approve these standards and give them an “international” validity. Then the WHO’s EMF study group(EMF Project) introduce the standards as a recommendation to countries around the world. Most Countries embrace the WHO standards for EMF exposure of humans without any changes to it.

Both ICNIRP and the WHO’s EMF Study group are suspected in a conflict of interest. 

From ICNIRP Standards – page 496

“BASIS FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE  –Only short term effect is covered!!!

These guidelines for limiting exposure have been developed following a thorough review of all published scientific literature. The criteria applied in the course of the review were designed to evaluate the credibility of the various reported findings (Repacholi and Stolwijk 1991; Repacholi and Cardis 1997); only established effects were used as the basis for the proposed exposure restrictions. Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions, although epidemiological research has provided suggestive, but unconvincing, evidence of an association between possible carcinogenic effects and exposure at levels of 50/60 Hz magnetic flux densities substantially lower than those recommended in these guidelines.

ICNIRP 1996 page 496 - Basis For Limiting
ICNIRP 1996 page 496 – Basis For Limiting

On page 508 – What are the EMF standards are based on? 

ICNIRP 1996, page 508 - Basic-restrictions
ICNIRP 1996, page 508 – Basic-restrictions

From the “ICNIRP STATEMENT” – Some people will not be protected

“Some guidelines may still not provide adequate protection for certain sensitive individuals nor for normal individuals exposed concomitantly to other agents….”

Some people will not be protected by ICNIRP's standards
Some people will not be protected by ICNIRP’s standards – Good to know!

What good is the ICNIRP standard? 

What good is this “safety standard” if most people are exposed to radiation levels lower than the safety standard, for several hours a day, every day for several years? 

What good is this “safety standard” if an Electromagnetic hypersensitive person exposure to “safe” radiation levels causes him headaches, diabetes, neurological problems, epileptic seizures, chronic fatigue and trouble ills? 

What good is this “safety standard” if for a person that was exposed to radiation levels lower than the “safety standard” but might still got cancer from this radiation? 

What good is this “safety standard” if some studies showed damage to living cells at radiation levels 1000 times lower than the standard’s safe level? 

There is one thing which the standard is always good for. It is very good and easy to use the “safety standard” as an excuse. Once in awhile companies and manufacturers of infrastructure, services and equipment that emit electromagnetic radiation (antenna, cell phone, cordless phone, high-voltage line, transformer and electric company) use it to show that their products are safe, or in order to dismiss claims of damages and health effect from victims. For example, there are several bodies that consider the very high safety standard of 1000 milliGauss (for low frequency electromagnetic radiation) as the only mandatory standard. One of them is the IEC (Israeli electric company) company that refers to this number as the only mandatory standard. Even if you submit them with test results showing radiation levels of 20 milliGauss , which comes from their facility, the IEC will argue that all is OK according to the “safety standard”. We all know that even for a short stay of half an hour, the radiation level of 20 milliGauss, is not recommended. 

icnirp guidance levels
ICNIRP RF guidance levels – not so safe

World map of EMF safety standards 

The WHO published a map of safety standards in different countries across the world. The map does not always work and you need to enter each state to read about the different standards. Most the countries in the world are working according to the ICNIRP or FCC thermal so called safety standards. Some countries, especially old “east block” countries and Europeans countries have lower standards.
Press here to open the map in a new tab…

Safety standard and me

 Country/ body RF safety standard 
mW/m2 (uW/cm2)
 ELF Magnetic
Field safety 
standard
mG
 ELF Electric field
 
V/m
 Comment
 ICNIRP 10000-4000
(1000-400) –
 Frequency depended
 2000  5000 (10000 for ocupantional)  Only immediate acute
effect is tested. ICNIRP does not believe there is any biological long term effect, even in ELF
where they were proven wrong in 2001 and in RF when they where
proven wrong in 2011 ,
both when the WHO entered ELF and RF  to the list of
“possible carcinogenic
in humans” 
 USA ICNIRP ICNIRP  
 CANADA ICNIRP ICNIRP  
 UK ICNIRP ICNIRP  
 AUSTRALIA ICNIRP ICNIRP  
 ISRAELActual – ICNIRP.

 

Environmental protection ministry Recommendation is 10% of ICNIRP

Ministry of education recommendation is 1% of ICNIRP
 Actual – ICNIRP.

Environmental
protection
ministry
Recommendation
is not to pass
public
exposure
average
level for 24 hours  of 4, and of a yearly average of 2.
  The only legal standard
in Israel is the ICNIRP
standard, meaning
2000mG for ELF
magnetic field and 400-1000uW/cm2 for RF.

In RF they call the
ICNIRP level “the Health
threshold” . The ministry
of environment protection issued a
recommendation
to keep pubic exposure
less than 10% of ICNIRP,
they call it “the environmental threshold”.

The ministry of
education recommends not to pass 1% of ICNIRP in schools.

In ELF, the ministry of
environment protection
issued a
recommendation
to keep pubic exposure
less than an yearly
average of 2mG.

The max “allowed” public average exposure for 24
hours is 4mG,
Confused?

I think all the above
is meant to make you
think they protect you,
while they actually use
the ICNIRP standards.
 INDIA 10% of ICNIRP ?  
 ITALY 100 (10)   
 CHINA 70-100 (7-10)   
 SWITZERLAND 20-100 (2-10)   
 HUNGARY, BULGARIA, RUSSIA 20-100(2-10)    
Salzburg
Austria
 0.1   
 Recommended threshold by
the
BioInitiative
report 2007
 1 (0.1) 2  
 EU
assembly
 1 (0.1)     http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=13137 
level which
inflect 
Immediate pain on me (No Rad)
 1 (0.1) 5 50 Reference for EHS
people, I an not the worst case of EHS.
I know EHS people that are more sensitive than me.
level which
inflect pain or
discomfort  after a few minutes
on me
(No Rad)
 0.05 (0.005) 3 15   Reference for EHS
people, I an not the
worst case of EHS.
I know EHS people that are more sensitive than me.
 My recommendation
for
non EHS 
 <0.04(0.004) <2 <10 long term.
Please note that
biological influences
appear also in levels
lower than this level
which should be
considered as a
compromise.
According
to the
2011
 BioInitiative
report, below this level there is no biologic effect
 <0.03 (0.003)Please see
 “DEFINING A NEW
‘EFFECT LEVEL’ FOR RFR”

“A scientific benchmark
of 0.003 uW/cm2 or
three nano-watts per
centimeter squared for
‘lowest observed effect
level’

for RFR is based on
mobile phone base
station-level studies.”
at – http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/)
 BUILDING BIOLOGY recommendation for “slight concern”0.001-0.0001
(0.0001-0.00001)
0.02-1mG1-5 V/m
My
recommendation for
EHS people
 <0.0005 (0.00005) <1 as low as possible
<2 V/m
 long term, some EHS
people will need lower levels.
BUILDING BIOLOGY recommendation for “no concern”<0.0001 (<0.00001>)

 <0.02mG <1 V/m 

Please notice that my recommendation have no legal validity and they are much more drastic than most other standards or recommendation. Since there is still no consensus about RF and ELF radiation health effects you need to determine, according to your understanding of the risk, the levels that you would like to follow.

EMF standards in ISRAEL

The standards here(Israel) are ICNIRP standards. There are also recommendations from the ministry of environment protection which are lower, but there are only recommendations.

The Recommendations

For RF 10% or ICNIRP 40-100uW/cm2, nice reduction (90% knock off from ICNIRP allowed levels) but still very very very very high. According to this standard and recommendation, the deployment of RF emitting devices is allowed almost everywhere and in whenever the RF tests (that are usually done using slow meters) show results lower than the recommendation.
The Safety distances from a cellular antenna are only a few meters, and cell phone antennas are sometimes installed as far as 10 meters from apartments, office buildings & other buildings.
Usually, whenever this recommendation is crossed, it is overlooked and the ICNIRP standard is then being used.
In schools, there is a regulation (from the ministry of education) to keep the RF levels as low as 1% of ICNIRP (4-10uW/cm2), which is also very high and still allow WIFI deployment and the use of wireless devices inside the schools (when tested with the wrong slow equipment). Usually, the 1% regulation is not used in official tests and documents, but even if it would be used the levels will be lower than 1% and still problematic (as the bioinitiative report shows that the bioeffect level of RF is as low as 0.003uW/cm2).

For ELF magnetic field, The Ministry of Environment Protection(MEP) recommendation is not to pass a daily Average of 4mG, and a yearly Average of 2mG. Both can’t be measured and are calculated according to the outcomes and predictions of the tests (number of exposure hours for each day, number of exposure days in a year, level of exposure when not in the main exposure place). The outcome of the existence of such rather low recommendations is that for the ELF Magnetic field, lower exposure levels are kept and if an official licenses professional tester will see levels higher than 2mG he will usually report them as “Not Good”. But still, exposure can become high for a worker (8 hours of 10mG is considered “OK” as the Yearly and Daily Averages are lower than recommended, and the assumption is that outside the working place the exposure of the worker is lower than 1mG) .
On the other hand, the Electric company in Israel regards the old ICNIRP standard of 1000mG to be “AOK”.
I might say that there is a kind of good infrastructure for regulation here in Israel. The field of EMF is lead by Prof’ Stelian Gelberg who leads the Noise and Radiation department in the Ministry of Environment Protection and who (kind of) acknowledge EHS and health effect for low EMF (both RF and ELF Magnetic). But he will not change the standard as long as the WHOs’ EMF PROJECT will not do so (and you know who run that, right?).
So as long as the official standards(not the recommendations) are high, everything is possible as far as deploying new RF emitting infrastructure and to further damage the health of people.

Official EMF Tester – showing you it is AOK

For doing RF and ELF safety surveys you need to have a license from the Ministry of Environment Protection which then regulates your work and reports. Most professional testers will think of levels of up to 2 uW/cm2 as close to nothing,. On the other hand, most professional testers will report levels of higher than 2mG as problematic. These testers are usually working with low sample rate meters, and usually use average functionality in RF. Most of the professional testers don’t know or understand EHS, and if they do know about it, most will consider it as not caused by EMF.
Please see – https://www.norad4u.com/measure/problems-limitations-in-profesional-tests/

Output level tracking for cell towers

In Israel, there is an automatic level report system for cell phone towers. Both for RF power output from most cellphone towers and antenna and also several 24X7 RF measuring devices(sampling rate once per 2 seconds) that are deployed in hot problematic places. But as long as the high standards are being enforced it produces “ALL OK” reports and is served as a means to calm the public down and to show that there is nothing to fear from.