Radiation Protection
- Home
- Radiation Protection
- EMR Literature Survey
- March 2009
- Introduction
- Radiation Basics
- Radiation and Health Fact Sheets
- Electricity and Health
- Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Literature Survey
- Mobile Telephones & Health
- Mobile Phone Base Station Survey 2007 - 12
- ARPANSA Environmental EME Reports
- Solar Ultraviolet Radiation
- Radioactive Waste Safety
- Radiation Protection Websites
- Radiation Emergencies
- Australian Radiation Incident Register
- Electromagnetic Radiation Health Complaints Register
- Survey of Residential Power Frequency Magnetic Fields
- Australian Solaria Regulation and Operator Training
- Reporting A Safety Concern
quick links
contact
For more information please get in touch with ARPANSA
- Phone Number+61 3 9433 2211
- Fax Number+61 3 9432 1835
- email ARPANSA
EMR Literature Survey - March 2009
By: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
Published in: Health Phys 2009; 96 (4): 504 – 514
In this paper the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recommends limits of exposure to static magnetic fields at the occupational level and for the general public. The paper contains a review of biological effects reported from exposure to static magnetic fields which serves as a basis for the rationale of the guidelines that are recommended.
The guidelines are available at: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/statgdl.pdf
The guidelines described in the current document supersede those published by ICNIRP in 1994 (available at http://www.icnirp.de/documents/static.pdf). A number of studies on the possible health effects of static magnetic fields have been published since the guidelines published by ICNIRP in 1994. These and older studies were recently reviewed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in a monograph on static electric and magnetic fields within the Environmental Health Criteria Program (available at
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/ehcstatic/en/index.html).
A fact sheet published by WHO on the effects of static electric and magnetic fields is available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs299/en/index.html
A fact sheet published by ICNIRP on the new static magnetic field guidelines is available at http://www.icnirp.de/documents/FactSheetStatic.pdf
By: Simon Arneaud and Stephen Newbery
Published in: Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services website
In this Australian study power frequency magnetic field levels of staff and students were measured in three Tasmanian schools, two of which were located close to high voltage power lines and one which was not. The measurements were part of a larger study which will include a total of nine schools. The typical exposure of Grade 1 students and teaching staff in all the schools tested was 0.06 µT. The measured magnetic field levels in the schools were not influenced by the presence of high voltage transmission lines which were located further than 30m from the schools.
The preliminary report is available at: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/news_and_media/information_from_hazelwood_school_cancer_investigations
By: Schoemaker MJ and Swerdlow AJ
Published in: Epidemiology 2009: [Epub ahead of print]
This is a case-control study investigating the risk of developing pituitary tumors in relation to cellular phone use in Southeast England. Subjects included 291 cases and 630 controls. Detailed information on cellular phone use was collected by personal interview. Pituitary tumor risk was not associated with cellular phone use overall (adjusted odds ratio = 0.9, 95% confidence interval = 0.7-1.3), with 10 or more years after first use (1.0; 0.5-1.9), or after 10 or more years of cumulative use (1.1; 0.5-2.4). Other analyses also showed no significant associations. The authors conclude that no evidence was found that the risk of developing pituitary tumors is associated with cellular phone use for the induction time periods and intensities of use observed.
By: Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K.
Published in: Pathophysiology 2009: [Epub ahead of print]
Meta-analysis of case-control studies, mostly from the Hardell group in Sweden and the Interphone study group, investigating long-term mobile phone use and the association with certain tumors. Regarding brain tumors the meta-analysis yielded for glioma odds ratio (OR)=1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.9-1.1. OR increased to 1.3, 95% CI=1.1-1.6 with 10 year latency period, with highest risk for ipsilateral exposure (same side as the tumor localisation), OR=1.9, 95% CI=1.4-2.4, lower for contralateral exposure (opposite side) OR=1.2, 95% CI=0.9-1.7. Regarding acoustic neuroma OR=1.0, 95% CI=0.8-1.1 was calculated increasing to OR=1.3, 95% CI=0.97-1.9 with 10 year latency period. For ipsilateral exposure OR=1.6, 95% CI=1.1-2.4, and for contralateral exposure OR=1.2, 95% CI=0.8-1.9 were found. Regarding meningioma no consistent pattern of an increased risk was found. Results for some other tumor types are also presented. The authors conclude that the results show a consistent pattern of an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma after >10 year mobile phone use.
By: Kohli DR, Sachdev A, Vats HS.
Published in: Indian J Cancer. 2009 Jan-Mar;46(1):5-12
Review of studies investigating mobile telephony and health including case reports, in vitro studies, population based retrospective studies and other investigations. Guidelines of exposure to radiofrequency fields in relation to mobile telephony are also reviewed. The authors conclude that with few undisputed studies indicating increased risk of brain cancer in relation to mobile phone use, current exposure standards appear to be adequate. They recommend continued valid research to resolve current uncertainties.
The article is available at: http://www.indianjcancer.com/article.asp?issn=0019-509X;year=2009;volume=46;issue=1;spage=5;epage=12;aulast=Kohli;type=0
By: Kristiansen IS, Elstein AS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kildemoes HW, Nielsen JB
Published in: Bioelectromagnetics 2009: [Epub ahead of print]
This study was a 2006 telephone survey of 1004 people investigating the prevalence, nature and determinants of concerns about mobile phone radiation. The authors conclude that the results of the study indicate that the majority of the population has little concern about mobile phone radiation while a small minority is very concerned.
By: European Coordination Action
Published in: EMF-NET website
This report reviews and evaluates published epidemiological studies on RF and health. The report concludes that on the basis of the epidemiological studies reviewed, because of the inconsistencies of results and the limitations of these studies, it is not possible to evaluate at this time whether there exists a health risk from exposure to RF radiation, particularly at the levels of concern for mobile communication. The report includes recommendations for future research.
The report is available at: http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/emf-net/doc/Reports/Report%20on%20health%20effects%20of%20RF.pdf
By: Sage C, Carpenter DO
Published in: Pathophysiology 2009: [Epub ahead of print]
The authors argue against the adequacy of current safety standards for wireless technologies (including mobile phones, cordless phones, DECT phones, WI-FI, WLAN, WiMAX, wireless internet, baby monitors, and others) which are based on thermal effects from acute exposures. The authors contend that wireless technologies may present serious public health consequences from chronic effects as documented in the BioInitiative Report. They recommend that action be taken to reduce exposures especially for the fetus and children.
By: Ruediger HW
Published in: Pathophysiology 2009: [Epub ahead of print]
Review of laboratory studies investigating the genotoxicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The review included 101 in vivo and in vitro studies, 49 of report a genotoxic effect and 42 do not. In addition, 8 studies report that RF-EMF may enhance the genotoxic action of other chemical or physical agents. The author concludes that altogether there is ample evidence that RF-EMF can alter the genetic material of exposed cells in vivo and in vitro.
Top of Page