Protection of Workers Exposed to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: A Perspective on Open Questions in the Context of the New ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines

Personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A comparative analysis of international, national, and regional guidelines

A worldwide overview and analysis for the existing limits of human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) is given in this paper. These reference levels have been established by different national and even regional governments, which can be based on the guidelines provided by the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and even in the United States of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as, are based on the so-called precautionary principle. Explicit reference is made to the exposure limits adopted in countries or regions, such as Canada, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and regions of Belgium (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia), where the limits are much lower than the international standards. The limits are compared to a selected set of in-situ measurements. This clearly shows that the measured values are typically very small compared to the international standards but could be somewhat higher compared to the reduced limits. Based on this observation and the reasonable assumption that the sensitivity of people to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) is the same everywhere (whole-body), we propose the idea to establish a worldwide reference limit for the general public, thus applicable in all countries, if the ICNIRP considers it appropriate. Research must continue to generate measurement data that demonstrate the levels of exposure to which we are really exposed, and with this, provide arguments to the organizations that established the guidelines, especially the ICNIRP, to evaluate whether the current limits are too much. High and can be modified when considered pertinent. To the best of our knowledge, at no time has the reference level for the general public been exceeded.

Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields-Different from General Public Exposure and Laboratory Studies

The designs of in vivo, in vitro and in silico studies do not adequately reflect the characteristics of long-term occupational EMF exposure; the higher exposure levels permitted for employees are nevertheless extrapolated on this basis. Epidemiological studies consider occupational exposure only in a very general way, if at all. There is a lack of detailed descriptive data on long-term occupational exposure over the duration of the working life. Most studies reflect exposure characteristics of the general population, exposures which are long-term, but at a comparably low level. Occupational exposure is often intermittent with high peak power followed by periods with no exposure. Furthermore, the EU EMF-Directive 2013/35/EU states a demand for occupational health surveillance, the outcome of which would be of great help to epidemiologists studying the health effects of EMF exposure. This paper thus aims to outline and specify differences between public and occupational exposure and to increase the understanding of specific aspects of occupational exposure which are important for long-term health considerations. This could lead to a future protection concept against possible hazards based on adequate descriptions of long-term exposures and also include supplementary descriptive features such as a "reset time" of biological systems and accurate dose quantities.