Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection andEMF RF standards. New conditions of EMF RF exposure and guarantee ofthe health to population.
Prof. Yu. Grigoriev
Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
Federal Medical Biophysical Centre, FMBA, Moscow, Russia.
E-mail profgrig@rambler.ru
HUU

In Russia at estimation of criteria of electromagnetic safety for the population anddevelopment of standards the greater role is played constantly working scientific forum RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION(RNCNIRP).
RNCNIRP was created 11 years ago (1997) at Russian Academy of Medical Science(RAMS) within the framework of the Russian scientific commission on radiation protection(RSCRP). RSCRP acts as the chair of RNCNIRP.
The structure of RNCNIRP includes 40 specialists, of whom 38 are qualified scientists
and 2 members are representatives from the Ministry of health. RNCNIRP is a scientific andindependent organization, and does not have financial sponsors.
The Russian EMF RF standards.
The standards in Russia are federal and compliance is obligatory. The standards (SanPiN)
are issued by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.
The recommendations of RNCNIRP are considered by the Ministry of Health of theRussian Federation when setting standards. Last RF EMF SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03 (safetystandard) on mobile communications was issued by the Ministry of Health of the RussianFederation in 2003.
Max. Permissible level for the frequency range 300 MHz – 300 GHz: 10 µW/cm2 (0.1W/m2) has been recommended by this standard. Except for that at this SanPin the following
recommendations have been made: use of mobile telecommunication devices for those under 18or pregnant should be restricted.
Foreign standards and standards of Russia (characteristic of conception).
My point of view of the basic hygienic postulate:"The hygienic standards are for the protection of the population, taking into accountfactors potentially harmful to health, and with the obligation of taking into account typicalprevalence of these factors in the general population".
Let us consider existing International standards and how these standards conform to thispostulate.
Now the International standards are worked out by ICNIRP, IEEE, CENELEC and someother national and international Commissions. All three organizations have determined thestandards some years ago and continue to use EMF RF standards on the basis of THERMAL,
ACUTE and PATHOLOGICAL effects only (ICNIRP Guidelines 1998, IEEE Standard C95.12000 and CENELEC EN 50166-2.2000.
However these foreign standards contradict real conditions of RF EMF exposure for thegeneral population.
- The population is not typically exposed to THERMAL levels in the workplace or ineveryday life.
- The establishment of a threshold level on pathological effects makes the assumptionthat in an organism compensative or adaptive reactions will be in effect. We strongly disagreewith this assumption!
- People very rarely have contact with ACUTE exposures in everyday life.

All populations in the world have daily contact with low levels of RF EMF and arechronically exposed!
Unfortunately there are no publications that present ways of extrapolating from thevarious existing standards recommendations to properly assess real environmental conditions forthe population. There are currently no proposals on how to estimate danger by using existing
International standards recommendations: from acute influences to chronic exposure, and fromthermal levels to non-thermal levels.
Methodology of Russian standards has other opposite principles. In Russia other opposite
principles are based on real conditions of EMF exposure of the population:- Non-thermal levels- Chronic exposure- An establishment of “working level“(Yu. G.), instead of threshold level.
Consideration of the presence of processes of adaptation in conditions of chronic
influence, instead of a direct pathological effect. Database for standardization: results of thesupervision in conditions of an industry (1950 onwards - 60 years) and chronic exposure
experiments etc.
In 2008 has been finished joint It is Russian-Franco experiment, which has confirmed
earlier the received results in the USSR at chronic EMF RF exposure on animals - at chronic
EMF RF exposure with small not-thermal intensity (up to 500 μ W/cm2) development
immunology effects. Below the primary goals and results of this experiment are briefly
presented.
1. The study was conducted using the methodology of the original experiments conductedin the USSR (Vinogradov and Dumansky 1974, 1975, Shandala and Vinogradov 1982) and theagreed Protocol of the Bordeaux-Moscow Project on “Confirmation studies of the Russian dataon immunological effects of microwaves” (Statement of work, 2006). Autoimmunity wasevaluated using the original methodology, developed in the USSR (Vinogradov and Dumansky
1974, 1975, Shandala and Vinogradov 1982). This original methodology was a complement
fixation test (CFT), however, our study was expanded to include modern ELISA test. The
Russian study was conducted in accordance with WHO recommendations on EMF biologicalresearch.
2. The results of our immunology study using the CFT and ELISA tests generally
confirmed the results of the Soviet research groups on the possible induction of autoimmune
responses (formation of antibodies to brain tissues) and stress-reactions from long-term nonthermal level of RF exposure (30-day exposure for 7 hours daily for 5 days per week at a power
density of 5 W/m2 – non-thermal level of EMF exposure)..
3. The results of our teratology study suggest possible adverse effects of the blood serumfrom exposed rats (30-day exposure for 7 hours daily for 5 days per week at a power density of 5W/m2) on pregnancy, foetal and postnatal development in rats in agreement with the earlier
results of Shandala and Vinogradov .
We consider that processes of compensation at some situations can become critical andcan lead to disturbance of health. / Griroriev Yu., Shafirkin A., Vasin A., 2004).
M. Reprcholy (2008) confirms that our position is real: «Annoyance or discomforts
caused by EMF exposure may not the pathological per se but, if substantiated, can affectthe physical and mental well being of a person and resultant effect may be considered as ahealth hazard».
As a result of available divergences in methodology of EMF RF standardization for today
we have essential divergences in levels MPL (Fig. 1).

100001000

ICNIRP Guidelines,
general public exposure
SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190–03,
general public exposure

100

101
100

1000

10000

1000001000000

Frequency, MHz

Unresolved problems.
It is necessary to pay attention to following actual problems without which decision it is
impossible to estimate electromagnetic safety for the population.
- Problem of accumulation of effect. If at chronic EMF RF exposure there is an
accumulation of adverse bioeffects, ICNIRP concept « acute exposure is a basis of EMF RF
standardization » there is an illusion.
- Remote somatic effects and cancer. The remote somatic effects have special attention
for an estimation of health hazard of children of EMF mobile communication.
- Problems of adaptation and compensation of functions in conditions of repeated andchronic Problem of indemnification of functions in conditions of repeated and chronic exposures.
- Estimation of the influence of simultaneous exposure to various frequencies.
- Estimation of the role of signal modulation.
- Coordination of the criterion to establish a threshold or appropriate “working level".
- Problem of changing reactivity and appearance of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
Сhildren - new group of risk.
The necessity of development of the standards for children, as new group of risk.
The potential risk to children’s health is very high and is a completely new problem. В этойсвязи, очень важная констатация WHO:
"CHILDREN ARE DIFFERENT FROM ADULTS. Children have a uniquevulnerability. As they grow and develop, there are "windows of susceptibility": periods when
their organs and systems maybe particularly sensitive to the effect of certain environmentalthreats". WHO, Backgrounder N 3, 2003. 5p.
Modern children will use mobile phones for longer periods than adults of the presentgeneration because they started to use mobile phones at an early age and will continue use themwhen they became adults.
RNCNIRP (April, 2008) has let out already the third decision on possible danger EMF
RF for children: “CHILDREN AND MOBILE PHONES: THE HEALTH OF THE
FOLLOWING GENERATIONS IS IN DANGER” (2008). In this decision it has been paid
attention of scientific community, Ministry of Health and controls by the country, that for thefirst time in history, we face a situation when most children and teenagers in the world arecontinuously exposed to the potentially adverse influence of the electromagnetic fields (EMF)from mobile phones. Radiation directly affects human brain when people use mobile phones.
Сhildren and teenagers became the target group for the marketing the mobile communications.
The current safety standards for exposure to microwaves from the mobile phones havebeen developed for the adults and don’t consider the characteristic features of the children’sorganism. The WHO considers the protection of the children’s health from possible negative
influence of the EMF of the mobile phones as a highest priority task. This problem has also been
UU

confirmed by the Scientific Committee of the European Commission, by national authorities of
the European and Asian countries, by participants of the International scientific conferences on
biological effects of the EMF.
Potential risk for the children’s health is very high:─ the absorption of the electromagnetic energy in a child’s head is considerably higher
than that in the head of an adult (children’s brain has higher conductivity, smaller size, thin skullbones, smaller distance from the antenna etc.);
─ children’s organism has more sensitivity to the EMF, than the adult’s;
─ children’s brain has higher sensitivity to the accumulation of the adverse effects underconditions of chronic exposure to the EMF;
─ EMF affects the formation of the process of the higher nervous activity;
─ today’s children will spend essentially longer time using mobile phones, than today’sadults will.
According to the opinion of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection, the following health hazards are likely to be faced by the children mobile phone users
in the nearest future: disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning andcognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems, increase in sensitivity to the stress,increased epileptic readiness.
Expected (possible) remote health risks: brain tumors, tumors of acoustical and vestibular
nerves (in the age of 25-30 years), Alzheimer’s disease, “got dementia”, depressive syndrome,
and the other types of degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain (in the age of 50 to 60).
The members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
emphasize ultimate urgency to defend children’s health from the influence of the EMF of themobile communication systems.
The children using mobile communication are not able to realize that they subject theirbrain to the EMF radiation and their health – to the risk.
Необходимо обратить Ваше внимание на очень важное положение: « It is impossible
to use data obtained on adults for children».
It is necessary to develop standards for local exposure conditions of the head brain and acorresponding study. There are no studies of chronic EMF-RF exposure of the head brain,including developing brains. It strange and unexpectedly, but it so!
Have we got the guarantees of the health for the population including children?
Our conclusion:
1. The available scientific basis for developing standards does not correspond to modern
conditions of RF EMF exposure in the population (population and mobilecommunication).
2. The existing standards (Foreign and Russian) have become outdated – modern
accumulative RF EMF exposures have changed considerably.
3. The existing standards can not guarantee the safe, healthy development of the nextgeneration.
In Russia this situation corresponds to the phrase "The train had gone".
In this very critical situation rather optimistically looks, but it is difficultly explainable
the view point of MMF (Mobil Manufactures Forum) «We believe that there is a strong scientificbasis for all consumers to have confidence in the safety of mobile phones». (MMF. View point,mobile phones and children, January 2008)
It is necessary to emphasize that the brochure is devoted to a problem mobile phones andchildren and has been published in 2008.
It’s necessary:

1.

To accumulate knowledge for preparation of new standards. To carry out appropriate
research: for example, to study the repeated RF EMF exposure during several years on
the head brain of the adult user, teenagers and children, since seven years of age.
2. To put forward more rigid requirements from the industry.
3. Actively to introduce a precautionary principle. The thesis that mobile communication isabsolutely safe is both premature and potentially dangerous. It is necessary to spend
appropriate effort explaining the possible risks to the general population, including
parents and children: the mobile phone is not a toy, it requires care and it is important tobe well-informed.

REFERENCES
1. Griroriev Yu.G, Shafirkin A.V., Vasin A.L. (2004). To perfection of the methodology of anormalization of electromagnetic fields RF//. RNCNIRP, ANNUAL BOOK – 2003. Moscow,
108-150
2. Repacholy M.H. (2008). Health based standards and precautionary measures in EMF.
RNCNIRP, ANNUAL BOOK – 2008. Moscow, 17-33.
3. CHILDREN AND MOBILE PHONES: THE HEALTH OF THE FOLLOWINGGENERATIONS IS IN DANGER. RNCNIRP. Moscow, Russia .14 April 2008.
4. MMF. View point, mobile phones and children. January 2008.