Download
national international standards for worker public exposure to nir n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR WORKER & PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NIR PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR WORKER & PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NIR

NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR WORKER & PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NIR

164 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR WORKER & PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NIR

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR WORKER & PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO NIR Elizabeth Kelley, M.A. International NIR & Health Workshop Porto Alegre, Brasil, May 18 & 19, 2009.

  2. EHS miscarriages brain tumors cancers radio wave sickness cancers screen dermatitis electrocution Technological Advances RFID Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) to Radio Frequency (RF) smart meter WiFi, WiMax exposure ? Long-term Health Effects? 2000’s CFL 1980’s cell phone 1970’s computers 1950’s 1940’s television 1920’s radar ~1900 radio “wireless” electricity 1900 2000 time

  3. National & International EMF StandardsUsing 2 GHz as the Reference Frequency

  4. U.S. FCC EMF/RFR Public and Worker Exposure Guidelines 2 GHz + Short-Term Long-Term General Public Workers

  5. 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

  6. International standard setting critique Define the Precautionary Principle as science-based 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. European Parliament: EMF ResolutionApril 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

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. Interim precautionary measures Switzerland, 1999; Italy, 2003; Liechtenstein, 2008 Defines places withsensitive 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

  13. 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

  14. Boulder, Colorado, USAAmerica’s 1st “Smart Grid” City

  15. Electrosmog reflection Antennas on Buildings (Kitchen, 2001) Fire Station 101 shadow region Power Density (micro/m2) 0.28 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.07 W/m2 50 100 200 300 m Distance (m)

  16. Time of Adjustment: Paradigm Shift duck or rabbit? “The very existence of science depends on vesting the power to choose between paradigms . . . ” —Thomas Kuhn

  17. 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)

  18. Choosing an “appropriate “ strength of evidence for action isan 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?

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. The Gaia hypothesis is being tested