Media centre
Electromagnetic fields and public health:mobile phones
Fact sheet N°193
Reviewed October 2014

Key facts• Mobile phone use is ubiquitous with an estimated 6.9 billion
subscriptions globally.
• The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly
carcinogenic to humans.
• Studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects ofmobile phone use.
• WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied healthoutcomes from radiofrequency fields exposure by 2016.

Mobile or cellular phones are now an integral part of modern
telecommunications. In many countries, over half the population use
mobile phones and the market is growing rapidly. In 2014, there is an
estimated 6.9 billion subscriptions globally. In some parts of the world,
mobile phones are the most reliable or the only phones available.
Given the large number of mobile phone users, it is important toinvestigate, understand and monitor any potential public health impact.
Mobile phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a
network of fixed antennas called base stations. Radiofrequency waves
are electromagnetic fields, and unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays or
gamma rays, can neither break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in
the human body.

Exposure levels
Mobile phones are low-powered radiofrequency transmitters, operating
at frequencies between 450 and 2700 MHz with peak powers in therange of 0.1 to 2 watts. The handset only transmits power when it isturned on. The power (and hence the radiofrequency exposure to a user)
falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset. A person usinga mobile phone 30–40 cm away from their body – for example when text
messaging, accessing the Internet, or using a “hands free” device – will
therefore have a much lower exposure to radiofrequency fields thansomeone holding the handset against their head.
In addition to using "hands-free" devices, which keep mobile phones
away from the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also
reduced by limiting the number and length of calls. Using the phone inareas of good reception also decreases exposure as it allows the phone
to transmit at reduced power. The use of commercial devices for
reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not been shown to beeffective.

Mobile phones are often prohibited in hospitals and on airplanes, as theradiofrequency signals may interfere with certain electro-medical devices
and navigation systems.

Are there any health effects?
A large number of studies have been performed over the last two
decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk.
To date, no adverse health effects have been established as beingcaused by mobile phone use.
Short-term effects

Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between
radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used bymobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and othersuperficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brain or
any other organs of the body.
A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency
fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate andblood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any
consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure toradiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating.
Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal
relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and selfreported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.
Long-term effects

Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks fromradiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between
brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers
are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to thetumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early
1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers
that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results ofanimal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term
exposure to radiofrequency fields.
Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed
or are ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort
studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. The largest
retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone,coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
was designed to determine whether there are links between use ofmobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults.
The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating
countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile
phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of anincreased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of
cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent
trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchersconcluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions
and prevent a causal interpretation.
Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a
category used when a causal association is considered credible, butwhen chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonableconfidence.

While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasinguse of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use overtime periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile
phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularityof mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentiallylonger lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on thisgroup. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children
and adolescents are underway.

Exposure limit guidelines
Radiofrequency exposure limits for mobile phone users are given interms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) – the rate of radiofrequency
energy absorption per unit mass of the body. Currently, two international
bodies 1, 2 have developed exposure guidelines for workers and for thegeneral public, except patients undergoing medical diagnosis ortreatment. These guidelines are based on a detailed assessment of theavailable scientific evidence.

WHO'S response
In response to public and governmental concern, WHO established theInternational Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project in 1996 to assess thescientific evidence of possible adverse health effects fromelectromagnetic fields. WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of allstudied health outcomes from radiofrequency fields exposure by 2016. In
addition, and as noted above, the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, has reviewed the
carcinogenic potential of radiofrequency fields, as from mobile phones in
May 2011.
WHO also identifies and promotes research priorities for radiofrequency
fields and health to fill gaps in knowledge through its research agendas.
WHO develops public information materials and promotes dialogue
among scientists, governments, industry and the public to raise the levelof understanding about potential adverse health risks of mobile phones.

1 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP). Statement on the "Guidelines for limiting exposure to timevarying electric, magnetic and electromagetic fields (up to 300 GHz)",2009.

2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard
for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1, 2005.

For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
E-mail: mediainquiries@who.int

Related link
Interphone study on mobile phone
use and brain cancer risk [pdf176kb]

The International Electromagnetic
Fields Project
Electromagnetic fields: basestations and wireless technologies
Electromagnetic fields:
electromagnetic hypersensitivity
WHO research agenda forelectromagnetic fields

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: The International EMF Project

Fact Sheet N181
Reviewed May 1998

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
The International EMF Project
Recent years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number and diversity of sources ofelectric and magnetic fields (EMF) used for individual, industrial and commercial purposes.
Such sources include television, radio, computers, mobile cellular phones, microwave ovens,radars and equipment used in industry, medicine and commerce.
All these technologies have made our life richer and easier. Modern society is inconceivable
without computers, television and radio. Mobile phones have greatly enhanced the ability of
individuals to communicate with each other and have facilitated the dispatch of emergency
medical and police aid to persons in both urban and rural environments. Radars make air
travelling much safer.
At the same time, these technologies have brought with them concerns about possible healthrisks associated with their use. Such concerns have been raised about the safety of cellular
mobile telephones, electric power lines and police speed-control "radar guns". Scientificreports have suggested that exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted from these devices
could have adverse health effects, such as cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, andadverse changes in the behaviour and development of children. However, the actual level ofhealth risk is not known, although for certain types of EMF, at levels found in thecommunity, it may be very low or non-existent.
There is also confusion about the biological effects of non-ionizing radiations (e.g radio
waves, microwaves, etc.) versus ionizing radiations such as X-rays and gamma rays.
The conflict between concerns about possible health effects from exposure to EMF and thedevelopment of electricity supply and telecommunications facilities have led to considerable
economic consequences. For example, electrical utilities in many countries have had todivert high voltage transmission lines around populated areas and even halt theirconstruction. The installation of base stations for mobile telephone systems has been
delayed or has met opposition from the public because of concerns that the RF emissions
from these base stations might cause cancer in children. In the United States, for example,
85% of the total number of base stations needed have yet to be constructed.
Measures to significantly reduce electric and magnetic fields in the environment, below
what is now commonly accepted, are costly. It has been estimated that concerns about EMF
and health are now costing the United States economy alone some US$1 billion annually.
However, if unacceptable health risks do occur, costly prevention measures will be required.
In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many Member States overpossible health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of EMF
sources, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched an international project to assess
health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, which became
known as the International EMF Project.

http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs181.html[2011/04/26 16:03:35]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: The International EMF Project

The International EMF Project brings together current knowledge and available resources of
key international and national agencies and scientific institutions in order to arrive atscientifically-sound recommendations for health risk assessments of exposure to static andtime varying electric and magnetic fields in the frequency range 0-300 GHz. This range
includes static (O Hz), extremely low frequency (ELF, >0 - 300 Hz), intermediate
frequencies (IF, 300 Hz - 10 MHz) and radio-frequency fields (RF, 10 MHz - 300
GHz).
This Project has been devised to provide authoritative and independent peer-review of thescientific literature, and identify and fill gaps in scientific knowledge by establishingprotocols for the conduct of research using compatible and comparable methodologies, andby encouraging more focused research that should lead to better health risk assessments inthe EMF domain. The International EMF Project:reviews the scientific literature on biological effects of EMF exposure;identifies gaps in knowledge requiring research that will improve health risk
assessments;
encourages a focused agenda of high quality EMF research;formally assesses health risks of EMF exposure after the required research iscompleted;encourages internationally acceptable uniform standards;
provides information on risk perception, risk communication, risk management; and,advises national programmes and non-governmental institutions.
An International Advisory Committee (IAC), consisting of representatives ofinternational organizations, independent scientific institutions and national governments
supporting the Project, provides oversight. All activities are coordinated and facilitated by
the WHO Secretariat.
International organizations supporting and participating in the Project include (inalphabetical order): European Commission (EC); International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC); International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP); International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC); International Labour Office(ILO); International Telecommunication Union (ITU); North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The scientific work is conducted by ICNIRP and independent WHO scientificcollaborating institutions, including National Radiological Protection Board (UK),
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Germany), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Food and Drug
Administration (USA), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (USA),
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (USA), National Institute forEnvironment Studies (Japan).
Over 40 national governments have contributed to or are interested in the activities of the
Project.
Scientific activities of the International EMF Project include review meetings to arrive at
health risk assessments for various types of electromagnetic fields and their specificapplication. Independent expert groups, using accepted assessment criteria, review theliterature on biological effects of EMF. These reviews are timed to allow needed research to
be completed so that the results can be included in the publications on health risk
assessments.
The International EMF Project will publish documents on risk perception, risk
communication and risk management in order to improve communications among thoseconcerned, including an increasingly sceptical public and workforce, about possible healthrisks of EMF exposure. For more information, see the Internet site of the International EMF
Project at http://www.who.int/emf

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: The International EMF ProjectAs a result of the International EMF Project, a number of monographs are expected to be
published by WHO in the Environmental Health Criteria series. They will address the healtheffects of exposure to RF, ELF and static fields, as well as risk perception, communicationand management, and public and occupational health policy.
It is expected that the Project will facilitate the development of universally acceptable
standards on limits of human exposure to EMF, standards on the measurement andcompliance of EMF emissions for various devices, and a better understanding on how best
to communicate information to the public and workers on possible risks from EMF
exposure.
___________________________________________________________________________For further information, please contact the Office of Press and Public Relations, WHO,
Geneva. Telephone (41 22) 791 2599, Fax (41 22) 791 4858, Email: info@who.int
All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features, as well as specific information on thissubject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page http://www.who.int© WHO/OMS, 1998 |Concept

http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs181.html[2011/04/26 16:03:35]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems

Fact Sheet N182
Reviewed May 1998

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems
Natural and many human-made sources generate electromagnetic energy in the form ofelectromagnetic waves. These waves consist of oscillating electric and magnetic fields
which interact differently with biological systems such as cells, plants, animals, orhuman beings. In order to better understand these interactions, it is essential to be familiar
with the physical properties of the waves which make up the electromagnetic spectrum.
Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by their wavelength, frequency, or energy.
The three parameters are interrelated. Each influences the effect the field may have on abiological system.
The frequency of an electromagnetic wave is simply the number of oscillations
which passes a fixed point per unit of time. It is measured in cycles per second, or
hertz. One cycle per second equals one hertz (Hz). Large divisions commonly used
to describe radio frequency (RF) fields include the kilohertz (kHz), or one
thousand cycles per second; the megahertz (MHz), one million cycles per second;
and the gigahertz (GHz), one billion cycles per second.
The shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency. The middle of the AM
broadcast band, for example, has a frequency of one million hertz (1 MHz) and awavelength of about 300 metres. Microwave ovens use a frequency of 2.45 billion
hertz (2.45 GHz) and a wavelength of 12 centimetres.
An electromagnetic wave consists of very small packets of energy called photons.
The energy in each packet or photon is directly proportional to the frequency of the
wave: The higher the frequency, the larger the amount of energy in eachphoton.
How electromagnetic waves affect biological systems is determined partly by theintensity of the field and partly by the amount of energy in each photon.
Electromagnetic waves at low frequencies are referred to as "electromagnetic fields"
and those at very high frequencies are called "electromagnetic radiations". According
to their frequency and energy, electromagnetic waves can be classified as either "ionizing
radiations" or "non-ionizing radiations" (NIR).
Ionizing radiations are extremely high frequency electromagnetic waves (X-rays
and gamma rays), which have enough photon energy to produce ionization (create
positive and negative electrically charged atoms or parts of molecules) by breaking
the atomic bonds that hold molecules in cells together.
Non-ionizing radiations (NIR) is a general term for that part of theelectromagnetic spectrum which has photon energies too weak to break atomic
bonds. They include ultraviolet (UV) radiation, visible light, infrared radiation,
radiofrequency and microwave fields, extremely low frequency (ELF) fields, aswell as static electric and magnetic fields.
Even high intensity NIR cannot cause ionization in a biological system. NIR,
however, have been shown to produce other biological effects, for instance, by

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems

heating, altering chemical reactions or inducing electrical currents in tissues andcells.
Electromagnetic waves may produce biological effects which may sometimes, but notalways, lead to adverse health effects. It is important to understand the difference
between the two:
A biological effect occurs when exposure to electromagnetic waves causes somenoticeable or detectable physiological change in a biological system.
An adverse health effect occurs when the biological effect is outside the normal
range for the body to compensate, and thus leads to some detrimental healthcondition.
Some biological effects can be innocuous, such as the body's reaction of increasing bloodflow in the skin in response to slightly greater heating from the sun. Some effects can beadvantageous, such as the feeling of warmth of direct sunshine on a cool day, or can evenlead to positive health effects, such as the sun's role in helping the body produce vitamin
D. However, some biological effects lead to adverse health effects, such as the pain of
sunburn or skin cancer.
The International EMF Project of the World Health Organization is addressing thehealth concerns raised about exposure to radiofrequency (RF) and microwave fields,intermediate frequencies (IF), extremely low frequency (ELF) fields, and static
electric and magnetic fields. These electromagnetic fields can produce different
biological effects that may lead to health consequences.
Intermediate frequency (IF) and Radiofrequency (RF) fields are known to produce
heating and the induction of electrical currents. Other less established biologicaleffects have also been reported.
Fields at frequencies above about 1 MHz primarily cause heating by moving ionsand water molecules through the medium in which they exist. Even very low levelsof energy produce a small amount of heat, but this heat is carried away by the
body's normal thermoregulatory processes without the person noticing it.
A number of studies at these frequencies suggest that exposure to fields too weakto cause heating may have adverse health consequences, including cancer andmemory loss. Identifying and encouraging coordinated research into these open
questions is one of the major objectives of the International EMF Project.
Fields at frequencies below about 1 MHz primarily induce electrical charges andcurrents which can stimulate cells in tissues such as nerves and muscles. Electricalcurrents already exist in the body as a normal part of the chemical reactions
involved in living. If fields induce currents significantly exceeding this backgroundlevel in the body, there is a possibility of adverse health consequences.
Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. The primary action in
biological systems by these fields is the induction of electrical charges and currents.
This mechanism of action is unlikely to explain the health effects, such as cancer inchildren, reported to occur from exposure to "environmental" levels of ELF fields.
ELF electric fields exist whenever a charge (voltage) is present, regardless ofwhether any current is flowing. Almost none of the electric field penetrates into thehuman body. At very high field strengths they can be perceived by hair movementon the skin. However, some studies suggest that exposure to low levels of thesefields is associated with an increased incidence of childhood cancer or other healthconsequences. Other studies do not. The International EMF Project isrecommending that more focused research be conducted to improve health risk
assessments.
ELF magnetic fields exist whenever an electric current is flowing. They easily

http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs182.html[2011/04/26 16:05:19]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems

penetrate the human body without any significant attenuation. Someepidemiological studies have reported associations between ELF fields and cancer,
especially in children, but others have not. Research on effects of low-level(environmental) ELF fields is currently underway, including that monitored andencouraged by the International EMF Project.
Static electric and magnetic fields. While the primary action in biological systems bythese fields is the induction of electrical charges and currents, other effects have been
established to occur that could potentially lead to adverse health consequences, but onlyat very high field strengths.
Static electric fields do not penetrate into the body, but can be perceived by skinhair movement. Except for electrical discharges from strong static electric fields,
they do not seem to have significant health effects.
Static magnetic fields have virtually the same strength inside the body as outside.
Very intense static magnetic fields can alter blood flow or change normal nerve
impulses. But such high field strengths are not found in everyday life. However,there is insufficient information about the effects of long-term exposure to static
magnetic fields at levels found in the working environment.
Safety Standards: In order to ensure that human exposure to EMF should not haveadverse health effects, that man-made EMF generating devices are safe and their use does
not electrically interfere with other devices, various international guidelines and standards
are adopted. Such standards are developed following reviews of all the scientific literatureby groups of scientists who look for evidence of consistently reproduced effects withadverse health consequences. These groups then recommend guidelines for standards foraction by the appropriate national and international bodies. A non-governmentalorganization, formally recognised by WHO in the field of NIR protection, is theInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP
has established international guidelines on human exposure limits for all electromagnetic
fields, including ultraviolet (UV) radiation, visible light and infrared radiation, as well as
RF fields and microwaves.
Electromagnetic waves are generated by natural, but mostly by human-made sources.
Their spectrum includes both ionizing and non-ionizing radiations (NIR).
Ionizing radiations (X-rays and gamma rays) have enough energy to create positive
and negative electrically charged atoms or parts of molecules by breaking the atomic
bonds that hold molecules in cells together. This effect is called ionization.
Even high intensity NIR cannot cause ionization in the biological system. NIR,
however, have been shown to produce other biological effects, for instance, by heating,altering normal chemical reactions or inducing electrical currents in tissues.
The International EMF Project of the World Health Organization deals with thehealth effects of static, extremely low frequency (ELF), intermediate frequencies(IF) and radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (0-300 GHz).
Electromagnetic waves of different frequencies interact differently with biologicalsystems, such as cells, plants, animals, or human beings. The extent they affectbiological systems depends partly on their intensity and partly on the amount ofenergy in photons.
Biological effects produced by electromagnetic waves may sometimes, but not always,
lead to adverse health effects.
_________________________________________________________________________ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems

For further information, please contact the Office of Press and Public Relations, WHO,
Geneva. Telephone (41 22) 791 2599. Fax (41 22) 791 4858. Email: info@who.int
All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features, as well as specific information on
this subject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page http://www.who.int© WHO/OMS, 1998 |Concept

http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs182.html[2011/04/26 16:05:19]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: Health Effects of Radiofrequency Fields

Fact Sheet N183
Reviewed May 1998

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Health Effects of Radiofrequency Fields
This Fact Sheet is based on the Environmental Health Criteria 137 "Electromagnetic
Fields (300 Hz to 300 GHz), World Health Organization, Geneva, 1993, and the reportof the Scientific Review under the auspices of the International EMF Project of theWorld Health Organization, Munich, Germany, November 1996.

Radiofrequency (RF) fields are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. For the purpose of
the International EMF Project, such fields are defined as those within the frequency range
10 MHz (or 10 000 kHz) and 300 GHz. Natural and human-made sources generate RF
fields of different frequency.
Common sources of RF fields include: FM radio (30 - 300 MHz), mobile telephones,
television broadcast, microwave ovens, medical diathermy (0.3 - 3 GHz), radar, satellite
links, microwave communications (3 -30 GHz) and the sun (3 -300 GHz).
RF fields are non-ionizing radiations (NIR). Unlike X-rays and gamma rays, they aremuch too weak to break the bonds that hold molecules in cells together and, therefore,
produce ionization. RF fields may, however, produce different effects on biologicalsystems such as cells, plants, animals, or human beings. These effects depend on
frequency and intensity of the RF field. By no means, will all of these effects result inadverse health effects.
RF fields above 10 GHz are absorbed at the skin surface, with very little of the energy
penetrating into the underlying tissues.
The basic dosimetric quantity for RF fields above 10 GHz is the intensity of the
field measured as power density in watts per square metre (W/m2 ) or for weak
fields in milliwatts per square metre (mW/m 2 ) or microwatts per square metre(mW/m2 ).
For adverse health effects, such as eye cataracts and skin burns, to occur fromexposure to RF fields above 10 GHz, power densities above 1000 W/m2 areneeded. Such densities are not found in everyday life. They do exist in very close
proximity to powerful radars. Current exposure standards preclude human presencein this areas.
RF fields between 10 MHz and 10 GHz penetrate exposed tissues and produce heating
due to energy absorption in these tissues. The depth of penetration of the RF field into
the tissue depends on the frequency of the field and is greater for lower frequencies.
Energy absorption from RF fields in tissues is measured as a specific absorption
rate (SAR) within a given tissue mass. The unit of SAR is watts per kilogram(W/kg). SAR is the basic dosimetric quantity for RF fields between about 1 MHz
and 10 GHz.

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: Health Effects of Radiofrequency Fields

An SAR of at least 4 W/kg is needed to produce adverse health effects in people
exposed to RF fields in this frequency range. Such energies are found tens ofmeters away from powerful FM antennas at the top of high towers, which makesthese areas inaccessible.
Most adverse health effects that could occur from exposure to RF fields between 1
MHz and 10 GHz are consistent with responses to induced heating, resulting inrises in tissue or body temperatures higher than 1C.
Induced heating in body tissues may provoke various physiological andthermoregulatory responses, including a decreased ability to perform mental or
physical tasks as body temperature increases. Similar effects have been reported inpeople subject to heat stress: for example, those working in hot environments or
suffering a prolonged fever.
Induced heating may affect the development of a fetus. Birth defects would occur
only if the temperature of the fetus is raised by 2-3C for hours. Induced heating canalso affect male fertility and lead to the induction of eye opacities (cataracts).
It is important to emphasize that most RF studies conducted at frequencies
exceeding 1 MHz, examined the results of acute exposure to high levels of RF
fields - an exposure that is not normally found in everyday life.
Other effects on the body from exposure to low-intensity RF fields, present in the living
environment, have been reported. But, either they have not been confirmed by otherlaboratory studies, or their health implications are unknown. However, these studies haveraised important health concerns about an increased risk of cancer. It is for this reason
that they are being monitored and evaluated under the International EMF Project.
Exposure to RF fields and cancer: Current scientific evidence indicates that
exposure to RF fields is unlikely to induce or promote cancers.
Cancer studies using animals have not provided convincing evidence for aneffect on tumour incidence. A recent study found that RF fields, similar to thoseused in mobile telecommunications, increased the incidence of cancer among
genetically engineered mice that were exposed near (0.65m) an RF transmitting
antenna. Further studies will be carried out to determine the relevance of theseresults to cancer in human beings.
Many epidemiological (human health) studies have addressed possible links
between exposure to RF fields and excess risk of cancer. To date these studies do
not provide enough information to allow a proper evaluation of human cancer risk
from RF exposure because the results of these studies are inconsistent. This can be
explained by differences in the design, execution and interpretation of these studies,including the identification of populations with substantial RF exposure andretrospective assessment of such exposure. The International EMF Project is
encouraging coordinated research in this area.
Exposure to low-levels of RF fields, too low to produce heating, has been reported toalter the electrical activity of the brain in cats and rabbits by changing calcium ion
mobility. This effect has also been reported in isolated tissues and cells. Other studies
have suggested that RF fields change the proliferation rate of cells, alter enzyme activity
or affect the genes in the DNA of cells. However, these effects are not well established,
nor are their implications for human health sufficiently well understood to provide a basis
for restricting human exposure.
Electromagnetic interference and other effects: Mobile telephones, as well as manyother electronic devices in common use, can cause electromagnetic interference in otherelectrical equipment. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using mobile
telephones around sensitive electromedical equipment used in hospital intensive careunits. Mobile telephones can, in rare instances, also cause interference in certain othermedical devices, such as cardiac pacemakers and hearing aids. Individuals using suchdevices should contact their doctor to determine the susceptibility of their products tohttp://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs183.html[2011/04/26 16:06:26]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: Health Effects of Radiofrequency Fields

these effects.
RF fields from natural sources have very low power densities. RF intensity from thesun - the primary natural source - is less than 0.01 mW/m 2 . Human-made sources,
which emit the majority of RF fields found in the immediate environment, can be divided
into those found in the community, home, and workplace:
Community: Most RF fields found in the environment are due to commercial
radio and TV broadcasting, and from telecommunications facilities. RF exposure
from telecommunications facilities is generally less than from radio or TV
broadcasting. A study conducted in the Unites States found that, in large cities, theaverage background RF levels were about 50 µ W/m2 . About 1% of people
living in large cities are exposed to RF fields exceeding 10 mW/m 2 . Higher RF
field levels can occur in areas located close to transmitter sites or radar systems.
Home: RF sources in the home include microwave ovens, mobile telephones,
burglar alarms, video display units and TV sets. Microwave ovens that could
potentially be the source of very high RF levels, are covered by productperformance standards which limit the amount of microwave leakage. Overall, theRF field background from household appliances is low, and of the order of a few
tens of µ W/m2 .
Workplace: Relatively high levels of exposure to RF fields can occur to workers
in the broadcasting, transport and communications industries when they workin close proximity to RF transmitting antennas and radar systems. An important
subset of these workers are military personnel. Stringent regulations controllingthe civil and military use of RF fields exist in most countries.
Safety Standards: To ensure that devices emitting RF are safe and their use does notinterfere with other devices, international standards are adopted. Exposure limits for RF
fields have been developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) - a nongovernmental organization formally recognizedby WHO. ICNIRP guidelines were developed following reviews of all the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, including thermal and non-thermal effects. The RF field limits arewell above the levels found in the living environment. The standards are based on
evaluations of biological effects that have been established to have health consequences.
The objective of the International EMF Project is to determine if the biological effects
reported from exposure to RF fields at low levels have any adverse health consequences.
If such consequences were found, this may result in a reevaluation of the limits of human
exposure.
Exposure to RF fields may cause heating in body tissues. Heating is the primaryinteraction of RF fields at high frequencies, above about 10 MHz.
A scientific review by WHO, held under the International EMF Project (Munich,November, 1996), concluded that, from the current scientific literature, there is noconvincing evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life span of humans, induces
or promotes cancer.
However, the same review also stressed that further studies are needed to draw amore complete picture of health risks, especially about possible cancer risk fromexposure to low-levels of RF exposure.
_________________________________________________________________________For further information, please contact the Office of Press and Public Relations, WHO,
Geneva. Telephone (41 22) 791 2599. Fax (41 22) 791 4858. Email: info@who.int

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: Health Effects of Radiofrequency Fields

All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features, as well as specific information on
this subject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page http://www.who.int© WHO/OMS, 1998 |Concept

http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs183.html[2011/04/26 16:06:26]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF EMF RISKS

Fact Sheet N184
Reviewed May 1998

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF EMF RISKSTechnological progress in the broadest sense of the word has always been associated withvarious hazards and risks, both perceived and real. The industrial, commercial andhousehold application of electromagnetic fields (EMF) is no exception.
Throughout the world, the general public is concerned that exposure to EMF from such
sources as high voltage power lines, radars, mobile telephones and their base stations
could lead to adverse health consequences, especially in children. As a result, theconstruction of new power lines and mobile telephone networks has met withconsiderable opposition in some countries.
In response to these public concerns shared by many governments, the World HealthOrganization (WHO) has established the International EMF Project to evaluate thebiological effects and assess possible health risks from EMF exposure. Over 40 countries
and 6 international organizations are currently involved in the Project.
Recent history has shown that lack of knowledge about health consequences oftechnological advances may not be the sole reason for social opposition to innovations.
Disregard for differences in risk perception that are not adequately reflected incommunications among scientists, governments, industry and the public, is also to blame.
It is for this reason that risk perception and risk communication in relation to EMF arealso covered by the International EMF Project.
Health Hazard and Risk: In trying to understand people's perception of risk, it isimportant to distinguish between a health hazard and a health risk. A hazard can be an
object or a set of circumstances that can potentially harm a person's health. Risk is thelikelihood (or probability) that a person will be harmed by a particular hazard.
Every activity you can think of has an associated risk. Travelling may result ina car accident, or a plane or train crash. Staying at home may not protect you
from an earthquake. Living in general is associated with many risks. There isno such thing as a zero risk.
A car is a potential health hazard. Driving a car is a risk. The higher the
speed, the more risky is the driving.
The same is true for EMF-emitting sources. Under certain circumstances,
EMF can be potentially hazardous, and the risk to a person's health depends
on the level of exposure.
Perception of risk: A number of factors influence a person's decision to take a riskor reject it. People usually perceive risks as negligible, acceptable, tolerable, or
unacceptable, and compare them with the benefits, which should outweigh the risk
by a significant margin. These perceptions can depend on people's age, sex, culturaland educational backgrounds.
Many young people, for example, find the risk of sky diving as acceptable.
Many older people do not since they perceive it as too dangerous and,

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF EMF RISKS

therefore, unacceptable.
The nature of the risk can lead to different perceptions. Surveys have found that thefollowing pairs of characteristics of a situation generally affect risk perception. The
first member of the pair tends to increase while the second one decreases themagnitude of the perceived risk:
Involuntary vs. voluntary exposure. This is an important factor in risk
perception, especially for EMF-emitting sources. People who do not use mobile
telephones perceive the risk as high from the relatively low radio-frequency(RF) fields emitted from mobile telephone base stations. However, mobile
telephone users generally perceive as low the risk from the much more intense
RF fields from their voluntarily-chosen handsets.
Lack of personal control vs. feeling of control over a situation. If people do nothave any say about installation of power lines and mobile telephone basestations, especially near their homes, schools or play areas, they tend toperceive the risk from such EMF facilities as being high.
Familiar vs. unfamiliar. Familiarity with the situation, or a feeling ofunderstanding of the technology, helps reduce the level of the perceived risk.
The perceived risk increases when the situation or technology, such as the
EMF technology, is new, unfamiliar, or hard-to-comprehend. Perception
about the level of risk can be significantly increased if there is an incomplete
scientific understanding about potential health effects from a particularsituation or technology.
Dread vs. not dreaded. Some diseases and health conditions, such as cancer,
severe and lingering pain and disability, are more feared than others. Thus,
even a small possibility of cancer, especially in children, from EMF exposure
receives significant public attention.
Unfairness vs. fairness. If people are exposed to RF fields from mobile
telephone base stations, but do not have a mobile telephone, or if they are
exposed to the electric and magnetic fields from a high voltage transmission
line that does not provide power to their community, they consider it unfair
and are less likely to accept any associated risk.
In the case of people who do not own a mobile telephone, for example, exposure to
RF fields from mobile telephone base stations may be perceived as a high risk forthe following reasons:People are faced with an involuntary exposure to RF fields;
It is unfair because the installation of these base stations exposes the wholecommunity to RF fields while only the few mobile telephone users benefit;
There is a lack of control over expansion of such networks into communities;
Mobile telephone technology is unfamiliar and incomprehensible to mostpeople;There is insufficient scientific information to precisely assess health risks; andThere is a likelihood that this technology could cause a dreaded disease such as
cancer.
Communities feel they have a right to know what is proposed and planned with respect
to the construction of EMF facilities that might affect their health. They want to havesome control and be part of the decision-making process.
Unless an effective system of public information and communications among scientists,
governments, the industry and the public is established, new EMF technologies will be
mistrusted and feared.
The development of EMF technologies should be matched by appropriate andcoordinated research into their potential consequences for health. This is one of themost important objectives of the International EMF Project established by WHO.
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs184.html[2011/04/26 16:07:19]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF EMF RISKS_________________________________________________________________________For further information, please contact the Office of Press and Public Relations,
WHO, Geneva. Telephone (41 22) 791 2599. Fax (41 22) 791 4858. Email:info@who.int
All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features, as well as specific informationon this subject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page
http://www.who.int© WHO/OMS, 1998 |Concept

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: VIDEO DISPLAY UNITS (VDUs)

Fact Sheet N201
July 1998

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTHVIDEO DISPLAY UNITS (VDUs)

Over 30 years have passed since the introduction of mass-produced
video display units (VDUs) into the workplace. These machines arealso called video display terminals (VDTs) and most commonly takethe form of computer screens. The rapid proliferation of computers haslead to a large increase in VDU use in both the workplace and at
home. It is estimated that by the year 2000, 60% of the North
American workforce will be using VDUs and more than 150 million
units will be in service worldwide.
What are VDUs?
A VDU is essentially a television-type monitor that displays information
received from a computer rather than from a broadcast signal for
television. The typical VDU creates images in a large evacuatedcathode-ray tube (CRT) by directing a beam of high-energy electrons
from the cathode onto a special phosphor-coated, glass screen. Thiscoating emits light when struck by the fast-moving electrons. The
electron beam creates the image from computer signals that control
coils, at the back of the CRT, that sweep the electrons in the verticaland horizontal directions. These coils are called vertical and horizontal
deflection coils. The electronic circuitry used to create the image gives
rise to static electric and magnetic fields, as well as low and highfrequency electromagnetic fields.
Radiation and Fields
Almost the entire electromagnetic spectrum is included in the electricand magnetic fields and optical radiation produced by VDUs. The
optical radiation emitted includes long-wavelength ultraviolet (UV),visible, and infrared (IR) radiation. Visible light forms the image that
the VDU is intended to produce. IR appears as heat dissipated by theunit. Very small amounts of UV are emitted from the tube, much lessthan that coming through the window on a winter's day.
Electric and magnetic fields are emitted in three different frequency
ranges. The horizontal deflection coils emit fields operating
predominantly in the frequency range 15-35 kHz. Extremely low
frequency (ELF) fields at 50 or 60 Hz come from the power supply,transformers and the vertical deflection coils. Finally, weak signals at
higher radio frequencies (RF) come from the VDU's interior electronic
circuitry and signals received from the computer.
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs201.html[2011/04/26 16:10:01]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: VIDEO DISPLAY UNITS (VDUs)

Static electric fields are also present, particularly when there is low
humidity, from the build-up of electric charge by electrons striking thefront of the screen. In addition, high frequency sound or ultrasoundradiation, possibly detected as a high pitch noise, is emitted fromvarious VDU components, mostly by the horizontal deflection circuits.
Very low-energy X-rays are produced inside the CRT, but the glass
screen is thick enough to completely absorb them before they escapefrom the VDU.

Health Concerns
When first introduced into the workplace, VDUs were suggested as thecause of many health complaints, for example, headaches, dizziness,
tiredness, cataracts, adverse pregnancy outcomes and skin rashes.
Many scientific studies were conducted to determine if
electromagnetic fields (EMF) could have any health consequence.
WHO and other agencies have reviewed factors, including indoor air
quality, job-related stress and ergonomic issues, such as posture andseating while using a VDU. These studies (see below) havesuggested that the work environment, and not EMF emissions from
VDUs, may be a determining factor of possible health effects
associated with VDU use. A brief review of the scientific findings
follows:
Adverse Pregnancy outcomes
Suggestions that working with a VDU could affect the outcome of apregnancy arose in the late 1970s, when several "clusters of adverse
pregnancy outcomes" were noticed in Australia, Europe and North
America. These clusters were groups of pregnant women who worked
with VDUs and who seemed to experience an unusually highoccurrence of spontaneous abortion ("miscarriage") or birth ofmalformed children. This led to many epidemiological and animalstudies being conducted in North America and Europe. Taken as awhole, these studies have failed to demonstrate any effect on
reproductive processes due to EMF emitted from VDUs. Studies havesuggested, however, that if there are effects on reproduction, they
may be related to other work factors, such as job stress.
Effects on the eye
Cataracts and other eye diseases were not found to have any link with
VDU work. Glare and reflections from VDU screens have been
identified as a source of eye strain and headaches in extreme
circumstances.
Effects on the Skin
An excess of symptoms such as skin rashes or itching has beenstudied, particularly in Scandinavian countries. However, they could
not link these symptoms to EMF emissions from VDUs. Laboratory
tests conducted on people with these symptoms showed their

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: VIDEO DISPLAY UNITS (VDUs)

symptoms were not a result of any EMF exposure.
Other Factors
Researchers have studied various factors related to the indoor work
environment. These include indoor air quality, room temperature, eyefatigue caused by improper illumination, and ergonomically improper
workstations. Some individuals have experienced headaches ordizziness, and musculo-skeletal discomfort. These are largely
preventable if proper work environment and ergonomic measures are
introduced for working with VDUs. Such measures include designingequipment, lighting and other aspects of the environment toencourage proper posture and to reduce muscular and eye strain andother stress-producing tensions.
The above conclusions are in agreement with reviews conduced by
the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP), the International Labour Office (ILO) and WHO.

Protective Measures
Fear of adverse health effects from EMF emitted by VDUs has led to a
proliferation of products supposedly offering protection from any
adverse effects of these fields and radiation. These include special
aprons, screen shields or "radiation absorbing" devices for use with
VDUs. These items have no protective effect whatsoever on VDUemissions. Even those that do reduce emissions are of no practicalvalue, since the EMF fields and radiation are only a very small fractionof exposure limits permitted in national and international standards.
Except for screens that reduce glare (causing eyestrain), protective
devices are not recommended by WHO. Use of protective devices toreduce EMF emissions is also not recommended by the ILO.

Where Can I Find More Information?
WHO's International EMF Project has a home page with links to the
WHO Fact Sheets on various aspects of EMF exposure and health.
The home page also provides further information on the Project,publications and its scientific and public information activities. You canaccess the WHO EMF home page at: http://www.who.int/emf/.
The following references can provide a more in-depth treatment of thissubject:
Visual Display Terminals and Workers' Health, WHO Offset
Publication No. 99, World Health Organization, Geneva 1987.
(Gives particular attention to non-radiation induced disorders
such as eyestrain and musculo-skeletal injuries.)
Electromagnetic Fields 300 Hz - 300 GHz, WHO Environmental
Health Criteria No. 137, World Health Organization, Geneva
1993. (Comprehensive review of the physics and biologicaleffects of electromagnetic fields emitted by VDUs.)

http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/efact/efs201.html[2011/04/26 16:10:01]

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: VIDEO DISPLAY UNITS (VDUs)

Visual Display Units: Radiation Protection Guidance,
Occupational Safety and Health Series No. 70, International
Labour Office, Geneva, 1994. (Succinct, recent overview of theissues.)Matthes, R. editor: Non-Ionizing Radiation: Proceedings of theThird International Non-Ionizing Radiation Workshop, Baden,
Austria, ICNIRP, 1996. (Contains a series of papers on NIR
protection, including VDUs.)
For further information, please contact the Office of the Spokesperson, WHO,
Geneva. Tel (+41 22) 791 2599, Fax (+41 22) 791 4858. Email: inf@who.int. All
WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features as well as other information on thissubject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page http://www.who.int/© WHO/OMS, 1998 |Concept

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency (ELF)

1/5 ページ

Fact sheet N°205
November 1998

Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency (ELF)
Everyone is exposed to a complex mix of electromagnetic fields (EMF) of different frequencies that permeate ourenvironment. Exposures to many EMF frequencies are increasing significantly as technology advances unabated and new
applications are found.
While the enormous benefits of using electricity in everyday life and health care are unquestioned, during the past 20 years
the general public has become increasingly concerned about potential adverse health effects of exposure to electric andmagnetic fields at extremely low frequencies (ELF). Such exposures arise mainly from the transmission and use of electricalenergy at the power frequencies of 50/60 Hz.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is addressing the associated health issues through the International Electromagnetic
Fields Project. Any health consequence needs to be clearly identified and appropriate mitigation steps taken if deemednecessary. Present research results are often contradictory. This adds to public concern, confusion and lack of confidence that
supportable conclusions about safety can be reached.
The purpose of this Fact Sheet is to provide information about ELF field exposure and its possible impacts on health within
the community and the workplace. Information comes from a WHO review of this subject and other recent reviews byeminent authorities.

ELF electric and magnetic fields
Electromagnetic fields consist of electric (E) and magnetic (H) waves travelling together, as shown in the diagram below.
They travel at the speed of light and are characterised by a frequency and a wavelength. The frequency is simply the numberof oscillations in the wave per unit time, measured in units of hertz (1 Hz = 1 cycle per second), and the wavelength is the
distance travelled by the wave in one oscillation (or cycle).
ELF fields are defined as those having frequencies up to 300 Hz. At frequencies this low, the wavelengths in air are very long(6000 km at 50 Hz and 5000 km at 60 Hz), and, in practical situations, the electric and magnetic fields act independently of
one another and are measured separately.
Electric fields arise from electric charges. They govern the motion of other charges situated in them. Their strength ismeasured in units of volt per metre, (V/m), or kilovolt per metre (kV/m). When charges accumulate on an object they create atendency for like or opposite charges to be repelled or attracted, respectively. The strength of that tendency is characterisedby the voltage and is measured in units of volt, (V). Any device connected to an electrical outlet, even if the device is notswitched on, will have an associated electric field that is proportional to the voltage of the source to which it is connected.
Electric fields are strongest close the device and diminish with distance. Common materials, such as wood and metal, shield
against them.
Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges, i.e. a current. They govern the motion of moving charges. Their
strength is measured in units of ampere per metre, (A/m) but is usually expressed in terms of the corresponding magnetic
induction measured in units of tesla, (T), millitesla (mT) or microtesla (µT). In some countries another unit called the gauss,(G), is commonly used for measuring magnetic induction (10,000 G = 1 T, 1 G = 100 µT, 1 mT = 10 G, 1 µT = 10 mG). Any
device connected to an electrical outlet, when the device is switched on and a current is flowing, will have an associatedmagnetic field that is proportional to the current drawn from the source to which it is connected. Magnetic fields are strongest
close to the device and diminish with distance. They are not shielded by most common materials, and pass easily throughthem.

Sources1

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs205/en/print.html

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency (ELF)

2/5 ページ

Naturally occurring 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic field levels are extremely low; of the order of 0.0001 V/m, and 0.00001µT respectively. Human exposure to ELF fields is primarily associated with the generation, transmission and use of electricalenergy. Sources and typical upper limits of ELF fields found in the community, home and workplace are given below.
Community: Electrical energy from generating stations is distributed to communities via high voltage transmission lines.
Transformers are used to lower the voltage for connections to residential distribution lines that deliver the energy to homes.
Electric and magnetic fields underneath overhead transmission lines may be as high as 12 kV/m and 30 µT respectively.
Around generating stations and substations, electric fields up to 16 kV/m and magnetic fields up to 270 µT may be found.
Home: Electric and magnetic fields in homes depend on many factors, including the distance from local power lines, thenumber and type of electrical appliances in use in the home, and the configuration and position of household electricalwiring. Electric fields around most household appliances and equipment typically do not exceed 500 V/m and magnetic fields
typically do not exceed 150 µT. In both cases, field levels may be substantially greater at small distances but they do decrease
rapidly with distance.
Workplace: Electric and magnetic fields exist around electrical equipment and wiring throughout industry. Workers who
maintain transmission and distribution lines may be exposed to very large electric and magnetic fields. Within generating
stations and substations electric fields in excess of 25 kV/m and magnetic fields in excess of 2 mT may be found. Welders
can be subjected to magnetic field exposures as high as 130 mT. Near induction furnaces and industrial electrolytic cells
magnetic fields can be as high as 50 mT. Office workers are exposed to very much smaller fields when using equipment suchas photocopying machines and video display terminals.

Health effects
The only practical way that ELF fields interact with living tissues is by inducing electric fields and currents in them.
However, the magnitude of these induced currents from exposure to ELF fields at levels normally found in our environment,
is less than the currents occurring naturally in the body.
Electric Field Studies: Available evidence suggests that, apart from stimulation arising from electric charge induced on thesurface of the body, the effects of exposures of up to 20 kV/m are few and innocuous. Electric fields have not been shown tohave any effect on reproduction or development in animals at strengths over 100 kV/m.
Magnetic Field Studies: There is little confirmed experimental evidence that ELF magnetic fields can affect humanphysiology and behaviour at field strengths found in the home or environment. Exposure of volunteers for several hours to
ELF fields up to 5 mT had little effect on a number of clinical and physiological tests, including blood changes, ECG, heartrate, blood pressure, and body temperature.
Melatonin: Some investigators have reported that ELF field exposure may suppress secretion of melatonin, a hormone
connected with our day-night rhythms. It has been suggested that melatonin might be protective against breast cancer so thatsuch suppression might contribute to an increased incidence of breast cancer already initiated by other agents. While there issome evidence for melatonin effects in laboratory animals, volunteer studies have not confirmed such changes in humans.
Cancer: There is no convincing evidence that exposure to ELF fields causes direct damage to biological molecules, including
DNA. It is thus unlikely that they could initiate the process of carcinogenesis. However, studies are still underway todetermine if ELF exposure can influence cancer promotion or co-promotion. Recent animal studies have not found evidence
that ELF field exposure affects cancer incidence.
Epidemiological Studies: In 1979 Wertheimer and Leeper reported an association between childhood leukaemia and certain
features of the wiring connecting their homes to the electrical distribution lines. Since then, a large number of studies havebeen conducted to follow up this important result. Analysis of these papers by the US National Academy of Sciences in 1996
suggested that residence near power lines was associated with an elevated risk of childhood leukaemia (relative risk RR=1.5),
but not with other cancers. A similar association between cancer and residential exposure of adults was not seen from thesestudies.
Many studies published during the last decade on occupational exposure to ELF fields have exhibited a number ofinconsistencies. They suggest there may be a small elevation in the risk of leukaemia among electrical workers. However,confounding factors, such as possible exposures to chemicals in the work environment, have not been adequately taken into
account in many of them. Assessment of ELF field exposure has not correlated well with the cancer risk among exposed
subjects. Therefore, a cause-and-effect link between ELF field exposure and cancer has not been confirmed.
NIEHS Panel: The US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has completed its 5-year RAPID
2

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs205/en/print.html

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency (ELF)

3/5 ページ

Program.The RAPID Program replicated and extended studies reporting effects with possible health implications, andconducted further studies to determine if indeed there was any health consequence from ELF field exposure. In June 1998,
NIEHS convened an international Working Group to review the research results. NIEHS's international panel concluded,using criteria established by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), that ELF fields should be considered
as a "possible human carcinogen".
"Possible human carcinogen" is the weakest of three categories ("possibly carcinogenic to humans", "probably carcinogenic
to humans" and "is carcinogenic to humans") used by IARC to classify scientific evidence on potential carcinogens. IARC
has two further classifications of scientific evidence: "is not classifiable" and "is probably not carcinogenic to humans", but
the NIEHS Working Group considered there was enough evidence to eliminate these categories.
"Possible human carcinogen" is a classification used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity
in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Thus the classification is based on
the strength of scientific evidence, not on the strength of carcinogenicity or risk of cancer from the agent. Thus,"possible human carcinogen" means limited credible evidence exists suggesting that exposure to ELF fields may cause
cancer. While it cannot be excluded that ELF field exposure causes cancer from available evidence, further focused, highquality research is now needed to resolve this issue.
The decision of the NIEHS Working Group was based mainly on the appearance of consistency in epidemiological studies
suggesting residence near power lines resulted in an apparently higher risk of leukaemia in children. Support for thisassociation was found in studies relating childhood leukaemia incidence to proximity to power lines and to magnetic fields
measured for 24 hours in homes. Furthermore, the Working Group also found limited evidence for an increased occurrence ofchronic lymphocytic leukaemia in the occupational setting.

International EMF Project
WHO's International EMF Project has been established to work towards resolving the health issues raised by EMF exposure.
Scientific reviews have been conducted and gaps in knowledge identified. This has resulted in a research agenda for the next
few years that will ensure better health risk assessments can be made. A formal task group meeting to assess the results isscheduled by IARC in 2001. WHO will then adopt IARC's conclusions and complete an assessment of non-cancer healthrisks in 2002.

International Standards
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has published guidelines on exposure limits
for all EMF. The guidelines provide adequate protection against known health effects and those that can occur when touching
charged objects in an external electric field. Limits of EMF exposure recommended in many countries are broadly similar to
those of ICNIRP, which is a non-governmental organization (NGO) formally recognised by WHO and a full partner in theInternational EMF Project. It will reassess its guidelines once the EMF Project has completed new health risk assessments.

Protective Measures
Large conducting objects such as metal fences, barriers or similar metallic structures permanently installed near high voltage
electrical transmission lines should be grounded. If such objects are not grounded, the power line can charge them to a
sufficiently high voltage that a person who comes into close proximity or contact with the object can receive a startling anduncomfortable shock. A person may also receive such a shock when touching a car or bus parked under or very near highvoltage power lines.
General public: Since current scientific information is only weakly suggestive and does not establish that exposure to ELF
fields at levels normally encountered in our living environment might cause adverse health effects, there is no need for any
specific protective measures for members of the general public. Where there are sources of high ELF field exposure, accessby the public will generally be restricted by fences or barriers, so that no additional protective measures will be needed.
Workers: Protection from 50/60 Hz electric field exposure can be relatively easily achieved using shielding materials. This is
only necessary for workers in very high field areas. More commonly, where electric fields are very large, access of personnel
is restricted. There is no practical, economical way to shield against ELF magnetic fields. Where magnetic fields are verystrong the only practical protective method available is to limit of personnel.

EMF Interference3

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs205/en/print.html

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency (ELF)

4/5 ページ

Strong ELF fields cause electromagnetic interference (EMI) in cardiac pacemakers or other implanted electromedical
devices. Individuals using these devices should contact their doctor to determine their susceptibility to these effects. WHO
urges manufacturers of these devices to make them much less susceptible to EMI.
Office workers may see image movement on the screen of their computer terminal. If ELF magnetic fields around theterminal are greater than about 1 µT (10 mG) this can cause interference with the electrons producing the image on thescreen. A simple solution to this problem is to relocate the computer to another part of the room where the magnetic fields are
below 1 µT. These magnetic fields are found near cables that provide electric power to office or apartment buildings, oraround transformers associated with power supplies to buildings. The fields from these sources are generally well below thelevels that cause any health concern.

Noise, Ozone and Corona
Noise in the form of a buzzing or humming sound may be heard around electrical transformers or high voltage power lines
producing corona (see below). While the noise may be annoying, there are no EMF health consequences associated withthese sounds.
Electrical devices such as photocopiers or any device using a high voltage to function may produce ozone, a colourless gas
having a pungent smell. Electrical discharges in the air convert oxygen molecules into ozone. While people may easily smell
the ozone, the concentrations produced around photocopiers and similar devices are well below health standards.
Corona or electrical discharges into the air are produced around high voltage power lines. It is sometimes visible on a humid
night or during rainfall and can produce noise and ozone. Both the noise levels and ozone concentrations around power lines
have no health consequence.

What should be done while research continues?
One of the objectives of the International EMF Project is to help national authorities weigh the benefits of using EMF
technology against the detriment should any adverse health effects be demonstrated, and decide what protective measures, ifany, may be needed. It will take some years for the required research to be completed, evaluated and published by WHO. In
the meantime, WHO recommends:
Strict adherence to existing national or international safety standards: Such standards, based on current knowledge, aredeveloped to protect everyone in the population.
z Simple protective measures: Fences or barriers around strong ELF sources help preclude unauthorised access to areas
where national or international exposure limits may be exceeded.
z Consultation with local authorities and the public in siting new power lines: Obviously power lines must be sited toprovide power to consumers. Despite the fact that ELF field levels around transmission and distribution lines are notconsidered a health risk, siting decisions are often required to take into account aesthetics and public sensibilities.
Open communication and discussion between the electric power utility and the public during the planning stages canhelp create public understanding and greater acceptance of a new facility.
z An effective system of health information and communication among scientists, governments, industry and the public
can help raise general awareness of programmes to deal with exposure to ELF fields and reduce any mistrust andfears.
z

References for further reading
ICNIRP (1998) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Guidelines for limiting exposure to timevarying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522.
NIEHS (1998) Assessment of health effects from exposure to power-line frequency electric and magnetic fields. Portier CJ
and Wolfe MS (eds) NIEHS Working Group Report, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National
Institute of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, pp 523. Available from NIEHS
Repacholi M and Greenebaum B (1998) Interaction of static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields withliving systems: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics (In press). (Summary report of WHO scientific review
meeting on static and ELF held in Bologna, 1997).
WHO (1997) WHO's Agenda for EMF Research. World Health Organization publication WHO/EHG/98.13, WHO Geneva.
Also available on EMF web site
4

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs205/en/print.html

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency (ELF)

5/5 ページ

For more information contact:
Michael Repacholi
Telephone: (+41 22) 791 3427
Email: repacholim@who.int

Contacts | E-mail scams | Employment | FAQs | Feedback | Privacy | RSS feeds© WHO 20105

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs205/en/print.html

2010/01/29

Fact Sheet N°226
June 1999

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND
PUBLIC HEALTH RADARS AND
HUMAN HEALTH
Radar systems detect the presence, direction or range ofaircraft, ships or other, usually moving objects. This isachieved by sending pulses of high frequency
electromagnetic fields (EMF). Invented some 60 years ago,radar systems have been widely used for navigation,
aviation, national defence and weather forecasting. Theirprimary objective is individual and collective safety andprotection.
People who live or routinely work around radars haveexpressed concerns about long-term adverse effects ofthese systems on health, including cancer, reproductive
malfunction, cataracts and changes in behaviour ordevelopment of children. A recent example has been the
alleged increase in testicular cancer in police using speed
control hand-held radar "guns".
It is important to distinguish between perceived and real
dangers that radars pose, as well as to understand therational behind existing international standards andprotective measures used today.

EMF Emissions: Radars usually operate at radio
frequencies (RF) between 300 MHz and 15 GHz. They
generate EMFs that are called RF fields. RF fields within
this part of the electromagnetic spectrum are known tointeract differently with human body.
RF fields below 10 GHz (to 1 MHz) penetrate exposed
tissues and produce heating due to energy absorption.
The depth of penetration depends on the frequency of the
field and is greater for lower frequencies. Absorption of RF
fields in tissues is measured as a specific absorption rate
(SAR ) within a given tissue mass. The unit of SAR is watts
per kilogram (W/kg). SAR is the quantity used to measurethe "dose" of RF fields between about 1 MHz and 10 GHz.

l

An SAR of at least 4 W/kg is needed to produce known
adverse health effects in people exposed to RF fields inthis frequency range.

RF fields above 10 GHz are absorbed at the skin surface,with very little of the energy penetrating into the underlying
tissues. The basic dosimetric quantity for RF fields above 10
GHz is the intensity of the field measured as power density
in watts per square metre (W/m2) or for weak fields inmilliwatts per square metre (mW/m2) or microwatts per
square metre (µW/m2).
lExposure to RF fields above 10 GHz at power densities
over 1000 W/m2 are known to produce adverse healtheffects, such as eye cataracts and skin burns.

Human Exposure: The power that radar systems emit
varies from a few milliwatts (police traffic control radar) to
many kilowatts (large space tracking radars). However, anumber of factors significantly reduce human exposure to
RF generated by radar systems, often by a factor of at least
100:
Radar systems send electromagnetic waves in pulses
and not continuously. This makes the average power
emitted much lower than the peak pulse power.
l Radars are directional and the RF energy they generate
is contained in beams that are very narrow andresemble the beam of a spotlight. RF levels away fromthe main beam fall off rapidly. In most cases, theselevels are thousands of times lower than in the mainbeam.
l Many radars have antennas which are continuously
rotating or varying their elevation by a nodding motion,
thus constantly changing the direction of the beam.
l Areas, where dangerous human exposure may occur
are normally inaccessible to unauthorized personnel.
lRadar Sources: Some of the common types of radars
encountered in daily life include:
Air traffic control radars are used to track the location of
aircraft and to control their landing at airports. They are
generally located at elevated positions where the beam is
inaccessible to persons on the ground. Typical air traffic
control radars can have peak powers of 100 kW or more, but
average powers of a few hundred watts. Under normal
operating conditions, these systems pose no hazard to thegeneral public.
Weather radars are often co-located with air traffic control
radars in remote areas at airports. They operate at higher
frequencies but generally have lower average and peak
powers. As with air traffic control radars, under normal
conditions, they pose no hazards to the general public.
Military radars are numerous and vary from very large
installations, which have large peak (1 MW or greater) andaverage powers (kW), to small military fire control radars,
typically found on aircraft. Large size radars often evoke
concern in communities living around them. However,
because its power is radiated over a large surface area, thepower densities associated with these systems vary
between 10 and 100 W/m 2 within the site boundary. Outside
the site boundary RF field levels are usually unmeasurable
without using sophisticated equipment. However, small
military fire control radars on aircraft can be hazardous toground personnel. These units have relatively high average
powers (kW) and small area antennas, making it possible tohave power densities up to 10 kW/m 2. Members of thegeneral public would not be exposed to these emissions
because during ground testing of radars access to theseareas by all personnel is prohibited. The military also use
most other types of radars described below.
Marine radars can be found on small pleasure boats tolarge ocean going vessels. Peak powers of these systems
can reach up to 30 kW, with average powers ranging from 1
to 25 W. Under normal operating conditions, with theantenna rotating, the average power density of the higher
power systems within a metre of the antenna is usually lessthan 10 W/m 2. In accessible areas on most watercraft, theselevels would fall to a few percent of present public RF
exposure standards.
Speed Control Radars are hand-held by police in many
countries. The average output power is very low, a few
milliwatts, and so the units are not considered hazardous tohealth, even when used in very close proximity to the body.

Possible Health Effects: Most studies conducted todate examined health effects other than cancer. They
probed into physiological and thermoregulatory responses,
behavioural changes and effects such as the induction oflens opacities (cataracts) and adverse reproductive outcome
following acute exposure to relatively high levels of RF

fields. There are also a number of studies that report nonthermal effects, where no appreciable rise in temperature
can be measured.
Cancer-related studies: Many epidemiological studies
have addressed possible links between exposure to RF andexcess risk of cancer. However, because of differences inthe design and execution of these studies, their results are
difficult to interpret. A number of national and international
peer review groups have concluded that there is no clear
evidence of links between RF exposure and excess risk ofcancer. WHO has also concluded that there is no convincing
scientific evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life
span of humans, or that RF is an inducer or promoter ofcancer. However, further studies are necessary.
Thermal effects: RF fields have been studied in animals,
including primates. The earliest signs of an adverse healthconsequence, found in animals as the level of RF fields
increased, include reduced endurance, aversion of the fieldand decreased ability to perform mental tasks. Thesestudies also suggest adverse effects may occur in humans
subjected to whole body or localized exposure to RF fields
sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1°
C. Possible effects include the induction of eye cataracts,and various physiological and thermoregulatory responses
as body temperature increases. These effects are wellestablished and form the scientific basis for restricting
occupational and public exposure to RF fields.
Non-thermal effects: Exposure to RF levels too low to
involve heating, (i.e., very low SARs), has been reported byseveral groups to alter calcium ion mobility, which is
responsible for transmitting information in tissue cells.
However, these effects are not sufficiently established toprovide a basis for restricting human exposure.
Pulsed RF fields: Exposure to very intense pulsed RF
fields, similar to those used by radar systems, has beenreported to suppress the startle response and evoke body
movements in conscious mice. In addition, people withnormal hearing have perceived pulse RF fields withfrequencies between about 200 MHz and 6.5 GHz. This iscalled the microwave hearing effect. The sound has beenvariously described as a buzzing, clicking, hissing or
popping sound, depending on the RF pulsing
characteristics. Prolonged or repeated exposure may be
stressful and should be avoided where possible.

RF shocks and burns: At frequencies less than 100 MHz,RF burns or shock may result from charges induced on
metallic objects situated near radars. Persons standing in
RF fields can also have high local absorption of the fields inareas of their bodies with small cross sectional areas, suchas the ankles. In general, because of the higher frequencies
that most modern radar systems operate, combined with
their small beam widths, the potential for such effects is verysmall.
Electromagnetic interference: Radars can cause
electromagnetic interference in other electronic equipment.
The threshold for these effects are often well below
guidance levels for human exposure to RF fields.
Additionally, radars can also cause interference in certain
medical devices, such as cardiac pacemakers and hearing
aids. If individuals using such devices work in close
proximity to radar systems they should contact
manufacturers to determine the susceptibility of theirproducts to RF interference.

Ignition of flammable liquids and explosives: RF fields
can ignite flammable liquids and explosives through theinduction of currents. This is a rare occurrence, andnormally of most concern where there is a large
concentration of radars, such as on board a naval ship
where measures are taken to prevent such effects.

International Standards: Exposure limits for RF fields
are developed by international bodies such as theInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP is a non-governmentalorganization formally recognised by WHO. The Commission
uses health risk assessments developed in conjunction withWHO to draft their guidelines on exposure limits. The
ICNIRP guidelines protect against all established RF healtheffects and are developed following reviews of all the peerreviewed scientific literature, including reports on cancer
and non-thermal effects. Environmental RF levels fromradars, in areas normally accessible to the general public,
are at least 1,000 times below the limits for continuous
public exposure allowed by the ICNIRP guidelines, and25,000 times below the level at which RF exposure has
been established to cause the earliest known health effects.

Protective Measures: The aim of protective measures isto eliminate or reduce human exposure to RF fields below
acceptable limits. An extensive program of measurement
surveys, hazard communication, coupled with effective
protective measures, is required around all radar
installations. In most countries, comprehensive
documentation is prepared, including an environmental
impact statement, before a radar system can beconstructed.
Following construction of the radar facility, site surveys
should be performed to quantify RF field levels in the area.
While extremely high RF field levels can be measured
directly in front of a radar, in most cases levels in publicareas are not easily measurable. In order to prevent both
workers and the general public from entering areas where
the RF levels are above the limits, both engineering andadministrative controls are used.
Engineering controls include interlocks, electronicmeans to exclude the radar pointing in certain areas,and shielding.
l Administrative controls include audible and visible
alarms, warning signs, and restriction of accessthrough barriers, locked doors, or limiting access timeto radar.
lWhen engineering and administrative controls do not
suffice, workers should use personal protective equipment
to ensure compliance with exposure standards. Conductive
suits, gloves, safety shoes and other types of personal
protective equipment for RF fields are now commerciallyavailable.
They should be used with great care, since theattenuation properties of the material used to make thisprotective equipment can vary dramatically withfrequency. Only when the attenuation properties of theequipment is known at the frequency in question canthey be used reliably.
l Special care should be exercised with RF safety
glasses since any metal may enhance local fields byacting as a receiving antenna.
l There are no exposure situations where members of
the general public need to use protective equipment for
RF fields from radars.
l In recent years, clothing and other materials haveappeared on the consumer market claiming to have RFshielding properties, and directing their claims tol"sensitive" members of the general population, such as
pregnant women. The use of these types of products is
unnecessary and should be discouraged. They offer noeffective RF shielding, and there is no need for thesedevices.
Human exposure to EMF emitted by radar systems islimited by international standards and protective measures,
which were adopted on the basis the currently available
scientific evidence. In summary:RF fields cause molecules in tissue to vibrate andgenerate heat. Heating effects could be expected iftime is spent directly in front of some radar antennas,
but are not possible at the environmental levels of RF
fields emanating from radar systems.
l To produce any adverse health effect, RF exposure
above a threshold level must occur. The known
threshold level is the exposure needed to increasetissue temperature by at least 1o C. The very low RF
environmental field levels from radar systems cannot
cause any significant temperature rise.
l To date, researchers have not found evidence thatmultiple exposures to RF fields below threshold levels
cause any adverse health effects. No accumulation ofdamage occurs to tissues from repeated low level RF
exposure.
l At present, there is no substantive evidence thatadverse health effects, including cancer, can occur inpeople exposed to RF levels at or below the limits set
by international standards. However, more research isneeded to fill certain gaps in knowledgel

For more information, see http://www.who.int/emf/

For further information, journalists can contact :WHO Press Spokesperson and Coordinator, Spokesperson's
Office,WHO HQ, Geneva, Switzerland / Tel +41 22 791 4458/2599 / Fax +41
22 791 4858 / e-Mail: inf@who.int

Press Releases 2001 | Press Releases 2002
Fact sheets | Mediacentre | En français© WHO/OMS, 2002 | Contact WHO

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency fields and cancer

1/4 ページ

Fact sheet N°263
October 2001

Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency fields
and cancer
In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project toaddress the health issues associated with exposure to EMF. The EMF Project is currently reviewing research results andconducting risk assessments of exposure to static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. WHOplans to conduct an evaluation of all health effects from ELF field exposure in 2002-3.
Whenever electricity is conducted through transmission lines, distribution lines or is used in appliances, both electric andmagnetic fields exist close to the lines or appliances. The power frequency used is 50 or 60 Hz. Use of electric power has
become part of everyday life. However, questions have been raised as to whether these and other ELF fields are carcinogenic.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) -- a specialized cancer research agency of WHO -- has recently
concluded the first step in WHO's health risk assessment process by classifying ELF fields with respect to the strength-of-theevidence that they could cause cancer in humans.
This Fact Sheet updates findings of recent reviews on the health effects of static and ELF electric and magnetic fields
conducted by IARC (June 2001), by the Health Council of the Netherlands (May 2001), and by an expert Advisory Group of
the National Radiological Protection Board in the United Kingdom (AGNIR) (March 2001).

IARC evaluation
In June 2001, an expert scientific working group of IARC reviewed studies related to the carcinogenicity of static and ELF
electric and magnetic fields. Using the standard IARC classification that weighs human, animal and laboratory evidence, ELF
magnetic fields were classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on epidemiological studies of childhood
leukaemia. Evidence for all other cancers in children and adults, as well as other types of exposures (i.e. static fields and ELF
electric fields) was considered not classifiable either due to insufficient or inconsistent scientific information.
"Possibly carcinogenic to humans" is a classification used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals.
This classification is the weakest of three categories ("is carcinogenic to humans", "probably carcinogenic to humans" and"possibly carcinogenic to humans") used by IARC to classify potential carcinogens based on published scientific evidence.
Some examples of well-known agents that have been classified by IARC are listed below:

Classification

Examples of agents

Carcinogenic to humans

Asbestos(usually based on strong evidence of carcinogenicity in humans)

Mustard gas
Tobacco (smoked andsmokeless)
Gamma radiation

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency fields and cancer

2/4 ページ

Probably carcinogenic to humans

Diesel engine exhaust(usually based on strong evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)

Sun lamps
UV radiation
Formaldehyde

Possibly carcinogenic to humans

Coffee(usually based on evidence in humans which is considered credible, but for which otherexplanations could not be ruled out)

StyreneGasoline engine exhaust
Welding fumes
ELF magnetic fields

Do ELF fields cause cancer?
ELF fields are known to interact with tissues by inducing electric fields and currents in them. This is the only establishedmechanism of action of these fields. However, the electric currents induced by ELF fields commonly found in ourenvironment are normally much lower than the strongest electric currents naturally occurring in the body such as those that
control the beating of the heart.
Since 1979 when epidemiological studies first raised a concern about exposures to power line frequency magnetic fields andchildhood cancer, a large number of studies have been conducted to determine if measured ELF exposure can influencecancer development, especially leukaemia in children.
There is no consistent evidence that exposure to ELF fields experienced in our living environment causes direct damage tobiological molecules, including DNA. Since it seems unlikely that ELF fields could initiate cancer, a large number ofinvestigations have been conducted to determine if ELF exposure can influence cancer promotion or co-promotion. Resultsfrom animal studies conducted so far suggest that ELF fields do not initiate or promote cancer.
However, two recent pooled analyses of epidemiological studies provide insight into the epidemiological evidence that
played a pivotal role in the IARC evaluation. These studies suggest that, in a population exposed to average magnetic fields
in excess of 0.3 to 0.4 μT, twice as many children might develop leukaemia compared to a population with lower exposures.
In spite of the large number data base, some uncertainty remains as to whether magnetic field exposure or some other factor(s) might have accounted for the increased leukaemia incidence.
Childhood leukaemia is a rare disease with 4 out of 100,000 children between the age of 0 to 14 diagnosed every year. Also
average magnetic field exposures above 0.3 or 0.4 μT in residences are rare. It can be estimated from the epidemiologicalstudy results that less than 1% of populations using 240 volt power supplies are exposed to these levels, although this may behigher in countries using 120 volt supplies.
The IARC review addresses the issue of whether it is feasible that ELF-EMF pose a cancer risk. The next step in the process
is to estimate the likelihood of cancers in the general population from the usual exposures and to evaluate evidence for other(non-cancer) diseases. This part of the risk assessment should be finished by WHO in the next 18 months.

International guidelines

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs263/en/print.html

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency fields and cancer

3/4 ページInternational guidelines on exposure limits for all EMF have been developed by the International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) - a non-governmental organization (NGO) in official relations with WHO and apartner in WHO's International EMF Project. While the ICNIRP guidelines for EMF exposure are based on comprehensive
reviews of all the science, the limits are intended to prevent health effects related to short-term acute exposure. This isbecause ICNIRP considers the scientific information on potential carcinogenicity of ELF fields insufficient for establishing
quantitative limits on exposure.

Some national responses
Regulatory policies for agents classified as possible carcinogens vary by country and by particular agent. The carcinogenic
evaluation and classification of an agent by IARC does not automatically trigger a national regulatory response. While
gasoline exhaust and coffee have been classified as possible human carcinogens, there has been a significant response bygovernment to reduce gasoline engine exhausts, but there has not been any effort to limit intake of coffee.
In response to increasing public concern over health effects from EMF exposure, several countries have established their own
scientific reviews prior to the IARC evaluation. Already in 1998, a working group examining the issue for the US National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) classified ELF magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The
US government agency has since recommended "passive regulatory action", described as continued information andeducation of the public and encouraging power utilities to voluntarily reduce exposure to people where possible.
In the United Kingdom, an Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation recently reported to the National RadiologicalProtection Board (NRPB) on the topic of power frequency EMF and the risk of cancer (AGNIR, 2001). It concluded thatwhile the evidence is currently not strong enough to justify a firm conclusion that EMF fields cause leukaemia in children,
the possibility remains that intense and prolonged exposures to magnetic fields can increase the risk of leukaemia in children.
Further, they provided research recommendations. The Health Council of the Netherlands, a major scientific advisory body of
the Netherlands government, reached similar conclusions.

WHO's response
While the classification of ELF magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans has been made, it remains possible that
there are other explanations for the observed association between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia.
In particular, issues of selection bias in the epidemiological studies and exposure to other field types deserve to be rigorously
examined and will likely require new studies. WHO therefore recommends a follow-up, focused research programme toprovide more definitive information. Some of these studies are currently being undertaken and results are expected over the
next 2-3 years.
WHO's EMF Project aims to help national authorities balance the benefits of electrical technology against possible healthrisks, and to help them decide what protective measures may be needed. It is especially difficult to suggest protective
measures for ELF fields because we do not know what field characteristic might be involved in the development of childhood
leukaemia and therefore need to be reduced, or even if it is the ELF magnetic fields that are responsible for this effect. One
approach is to have voluntary policies that aim to cost-effectively reduce exposure to ELF fields. This has been discussed in
the WHO Backgrounder issued March 2000.
Some precautionary measures are outlined below:
Government and industry: These entities should be cognisant of the latest scientific developments and should
provide the public with balanced, clear and comprehensive information on potential EMF risks, as well as suggestions
for safe and low cost ways to reduce exposures. They should also promote research that will lead to better informationfrom which assessments of health risk can be made.
z Individuals: Members of the general public might choose to reduce their EMF exposure by minimizing the use ofcertain electrical appliances or by increasing distance to the sources that can produce relatively high fields.
z Consultation with local authorities, industry and the public when siting new power lines: Obviously power lines
must be sited to provide power to consumers. Siting decisions are often required to take into account aesthetics andpublic sensibilities. However, siting decisions should also consider ways to reduce peoples' exposure.
z An effective system of health information and communication among scientists, governments, industry and the
public is needed to help raise general awareness of programmes to deal with exposure to ELF fields and reduce any
mistrust and fears.
z

Further reading

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency fields and cancer

4/4 ページ

AGNIR (2001) Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation, Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk ofCancer. National Radiological Protection Board (UK) 2001.
z Health Council of the Netherlands (2001). Electromagnetic fields: Annual Update 2001.
z ICNIRP (1998) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Guidelines for limiting exposure totime varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522.
z Portier CJ and Wolfe MS (eds.), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institute of
Health. Assessment of health effects from exposure to power-line frequency electric and magnetic fields. NIEHS
Working Group Report, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, NIH Publication No. 98-3981, 1998.
z Repacholi M and Greenebaum B (eds.), Interaction of static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields
with living systems: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics 1999; 20: 133-160.
z WHO Backgrounder on Cautionary Policies, March 2000z

For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
Email: mediainquiries@who.int

Contacts | E-mail scams | Employment | FAQs | Feedback | Privacy | RSS feeds© WHO 2010

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs263/en/print.html

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

1/3 ページ

Fact sheet N°296
December 2005

Electromagnetic fields and public healthElectromagnetic Hypersensitivity
As societies industrialize and the technological revolution continues, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number
and diversity of electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. These sources include video display units (VDUs) associated withcomputers, mobile phones and their base stations. While these devices have made our life richer, safer and easier, they havebeen accompanied by concerns about possible health risks due to their EMF emissions.
For some time a number of individuals have reported a variety of health problems that they relate to exposure to EMF. Whilesome individuals report mild symptoms and react by avoiding the fields as best they can, others are so severely affected thatthey cease work and change their entire lifestyle. This reputed sensitivity to EMF has been generally termed “electromagnetic
hypersensitivity” or EHS.
This fact sheet describes what is known about the condition and provides information for helping people with such
symptoms. Information provided is based on a WHO Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity (Prague, Czech Republic,
2004), an international conference on EMF and non-specific health symptoms (COST244bis, 1998), a European Commission
report (Bergqvist and Vogel, 1997) and recent reviews of the literature.

What is EHS?
EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to EMF. The
symptoms most commonly experienced include dermatological symptoms (redness, tingling, and burning sensations) as well
as neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms (fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation,and digestive disturbances). The collection of symptoms is not part of any recognized syndrome.
EHS resembles multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), another disorder associated with low-level environmental exposures tochemicals. Both EHS and MCS are characterized by a range of non-specific symptoms that lack apparent toxicological or
physiological basis or independent verification. A more general term for sensitivity to environmental factors is Idiopathic
Environmental Intolerance (IEI), which originated from a workshop convened by the International Program on Chemical
Safety (IPCS) of the WHO in 1996 in Berlin. IEI is a descriptor without any implication of chemical etiology, immunologicalsensitivity or EMF susceptibility. IEI incorporates a number of disorders sharing similar non-specific medically unexplained
symptoms that adversely affect people. However since the term EHS is in common usage it will continue to be used here.

Prevalence
There is a very wide range of estimates of the prevalence of EHS in the general population. A survey of occupational medical
centres estimated the prevalence of EHS to be a few individuals per million in the population. However, a survey of self-helpgroups yielded much higher estimates. Approximately 10% of reported cases of EHS were considered severe.
There is also considerable geographical variability in prevalence of EHS and in the reported symptoms. The reported
incidence of EHS has been higher in Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, than in the United Kingdom, Austria, and France.
VDU-related symptoms were more prevalent in Scandinavian countries, and they were more commonly related to skindisorders than elsewhere in Europe. Symptoms similar to those reported by EHS individuals are common in the general
population.

Studies on EHS individuals
A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed
to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

2/3 ページ

The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS
individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF
exposure.
It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated
to EMF. Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor
ergonomic design of computer workstations. Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in theworkplace or living environment.
There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress
reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.

Conclusions
EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms arecertainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affectedindividual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.
Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.
Physicians: Treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the
person's perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home. This requires:a medical evaluation to identify and treat any specific conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms,a psychological evaluation to identify alternative psychiatric/psychological conditions that may be responsible for thesymptoms,z an assessment of the workplace and home for factors that might contribute to the presented symptoms. These could
include indoor air pollution, excessive noise, poor lighting (flickering light) or ergonomic factors. A reduction ofstress and other improvements in the work situation might be appropriate.
zz

For EHS individuals with long lasting symptoms and severe handicaps, therapy should be directed principally at reducing
symptoms and functional handicaps. This should be done in close co-operation with a qualified medical specialist (to address
the medical and psychological aspects of the symptoms) and a hygienist (to identify and, if necessary, control factors in theenvironment that are known to have adverse health effects of relevance to the patient).
Treatment should aim to establish an effective physician-patient relationship, help develop strategies for coping with thesituation and encourage patients to return to work and lead a normal social life.
EHS individuals: Apart from treatment by professionals, self help groups can be a valuable resource for the EHS individual.
Governments: Governments should provide appropriately targeted and balanced information about potential health hazards
of EMF to EHS individuals, health-care professionals and employers. The information should include a clear statement thatno scientific basis currently exists for a connection between EHS and exposure to EMF.
Researchers: Some studies suggest that certain physiological responses of EHS individuals tend to be outside the normal
range. In particular, hyper reactivity in the central nervous system and imbalance in the autonomic nervous system need to befollowed up in clinical investigations and the results for the individuals taken as input for possible treatment.

What WHO is doing
WHO, through its International EMF Project, is identifying research needs and co-ordinating a world-wide program of EMF
studies to allow a better understanding of any health risk associated with EMF exposure. Particular emphasis is placed on
possible health consequences of low-level EMF. Information about the EMF Project and EMF effects is provided in a seriesof fact sheets in several languages www.who.int/emf/.

FURTHER READING
WHO workshop on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (2004), October 25 -27, Prague, Czech Republic, www.who.int/pehemf/meetings/hypersensitivity_prague2004/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/print.html

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

3/3 ページ

COST244bis (1998) Proceedings from Cost 244bis International Workshop on Electromagnetic Fields and Non-Specific
Health Symptoms. Sept 19-20, 1998, Graz, Austria
Bergqvist U and Vogel E (1997) Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic field. A report
prepared by a European group of experts for the European Commission, DGV. Arbete och Hälsa, 1997:19. Swedish National
Institute for Working Life, Stockholm, Sweden. ISBN 91-7045-438-8.
Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S. (2005) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies.
Psychosom Med. 2005 Mar-Apr;67(2):224-32
Seitz H, Stinner D, Eikmann Th, Herr C, Roosli M. (2005) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and subjective healthcomplaints associated with electromagnetic fields of mobile phone communication---a literature review published between
2000 and 2004. Science of the Total Environment, June 20 (Epub ahead of print).
Staudenmayer H. (1999) Environmental Illness, Lewis Publishers, Washington D.C. 1999, ISBN 1-56670-305-0.
For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
Email: mediainquiries@who.int

Contacts | E-mail scams | Employment | FAQs | Feedback | Privacy | RSS feeds© WHO 20102010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

1/3 ページ

Fact sheet N°299
March 2006

Electromagnetic fields and public health
Static electric and magnetic fields
Technologies using static fields are increasingly being exploited in selected industries, such as medicine with magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), transportation systems that use direct current (DC) or static magnetic fields and high-energy
physics research facilities. As the field strength of the static field increases, so does the potential for a variety of interactions
with the body.
The International EMF Project of the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently reviewed the health implications ofhigh static field exposure and highlighted the importance of public health protection for medical staff and patients(particularly children and pregnant women) and workers in industries producing high field magnets (Environmental HealthCriteria, 2006).

SOURCESElectric and magnetic fields are generated by phenomena such as the Earth’s magnetic field, thunderstorms, and the use ofelectricity. When such fields do not vary with time they are referred to as static and have a frequency of 0 Hz.
In the atmosphere, static electric fields (also referred to as electrostatic fields) occur naturally, in fair weather, and especially
under thunderclouds. Friction can also separate positive and negative charges and generate strong static electric fields. Their
strength is measured in units of volt per metre, (V/m), or kilovolt per metre (kV/m). In daily life we may experience spark
discharges with grounded objects or hair rising as a result of friction, for example from walking on a carpet. The use of DC
electricity is another source of static electric fields, e.g. rail systems using DC, and televisions and computer screens withcathode ray tubes.
A static magnetic field is measured in units of ampere per metre, (A/m) but is usually expressed in terms of the corresponding
magnetic induction measured in units of tesla, (T) or millitesla (mT).The natural geomagnetic field varies over the Earth’s
surface between about 0.035 - 0.07 mT and is perceived by certain animals that use it for orientation. Man-made static
magnetic fields are generated wherever DC currents are used, such as in electric trains or industrial processes such asaluminium production and in gas welding. These can be more than 1000 times stronger than the Earth’s natural magnetic
field.
Recent technological innovations have led to the use of magnetic fields up to 100 000 times stronger than the Earth’s
magnetic field. They are used in research and in medical applications such as MRI that provides three-dimensional images ofthe brain and other soft tissues. In routine clinical systems, scanned patients and machine operators can be exposed to strong
magnetic fields in the range of 0.2 - 3 T. In medical research applications, higher magnetic fields, up to about 10 T, are used
for whole body patient scanning.
For static electric fields, few studies have been carried out. The results to date suggest that the only acute effects areassociated with body hair movement and discomfort from spark discharges. Chronic or delayed effects of static electric fields
have not been properly investigated.

HEALTH EFFECTS
For static magnetic fields, acute effects are only likely to occur when there is movement in the field, such as motion of aperson or internal body movement, such as blood flow or heart beat. A person moving within a field above 2 T canexperience sensations of vertigo and nausea, and sometimes a metallic taste in the mouth and perceptions of light flashes.
Although only temporary, such effects may have a safety impact for workers executing delicate procedures (such as surgeons
performing operations within MRI units).

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs299/en/print.html

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

2/3 ページ

Static magnetic fields exert forces on moving charges in the blood, such as ions, generating electrical fields and currents
around the heart and major blood vessels that can slightly impede the flow of blood. Possible effects range from minorchanges in heartbeat to an increase in the risk of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmia) that might be life-threatening (such as
ventricular fibrillation). However, these types of acute effects are only likely within fields in excess of 8 T.
It is not possible to determine whether there are any long-term health consequences even from exposure in the millitesla
range because, to date, there are no well-conducted epidemiological or long-term animal studies. Thus the carcinogenicity ofstatic magnetic fields to humans is not at present classifiable (IARC, 2002).

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
Exposure to static magnetic fields has been addressed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection(see: www.icnirp.org). For occupational exposure, present limits are based on avoiding the sensations of vertigo and nausea
induced by movement in a static magnetic field. The recommended limits are time-weighted average of 200 mT during theworking day for occupational exposure, with a ceiling value of 2 T. A continuous exposure limit of 40 mT is given for thegeneral public.
Static magnetic fields affect implanted metallic devices such as pacemakers present inside the body, and this could havedirect adverse health consequences. It is suggested that wearers of cardiac pacemakers, ferromagnetic implants and implanted
electronic devices should avoid locations where the field exceeds 0.5 mT. Also, care should be taken to prevent hazards frommetal objects being suddenly attracted to magnets in field exceeds 3 mT.

WHO'S RESPONSE
WHO has been active in the evaluation of health issues raised by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the frequency
range from 0 to 300 GHz. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated the carcinogenicity of static
fields in 2002, and the WHO International EMF Project has recently conducted a thorough health risk assessment of thesefields (Environmental Health Criteria, 2006) where gaps in knowledge have been identified. This has resulted in a research
agenda for the next few years to inform future health risk assessments (www.who.int/emf). WHO recommends a review ofstandards when new evidence from the scientific literature becomes available.

WHAT CAN NATIONAL AUTHORITIES DO?
While there are huge benefits to be gained from use of static magnetic fields, particularly in medicine, possible adverse healtheffects from exposure to them must be properly evaluated so that the true risks and benefits can be assessed. It will take someyears for the required research to be completed. In the meantime, WHO recommends that national authorities set up
programmes to protect both the public and workers from possible adverse effects of static fields. In the case of static electricfields, since the main effect is discomfort from electric discharges to the body, it is sufficient to provide information on
exposure to large electric fields and how to avoid them.
In the case of static magnetic fields, because the level of information on possible long-term or delayed effects of exposure iscurrently insufficient, cost-effective precautionary measures may be justified to limit the exposure of workers and the public.
WHO recommends that authorities take the following measures:
Adopt international science-based standards to limit human exposure.
Take protective measures for the industrial and scientific use of magnetic fields by keeping a distance from fields thatmay pose a significant risk, by enclosing the fields, or by applying administrative controls such as staff education
programs.
z Consider licensing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units having field strengths exceeding 2 T, in order to ensurethat protective measures are implemented.
z Fund research to fill the large gaps in knowledge regarding the safety of people.
z Fund MRI units and databases to collect health information on exposure of workers and patients.
zz

REFERENCES FOR FURTHER READING
Environmental Health Criteria (2006), Static fields, Geneva: World Health Organization, Monograph, vol. 232
Effects of static magnetic fields relevant to human health (2005), Eds. D. Noble, A. McKinlay, M. Repacholi, Progress inBiophysics and Molecular Biology, vol. 87, nos. 2-3, February-April, 171-372

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

3/3 ページ

IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (2002), Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static andextremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer,
Monograph, vol. 80

Related links- Electromagnetic fields
For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
E-mail: mediainquiries@who.int

Contacts | E-mail scams | Employment | FAQs | Feedback | Privacy | RSS feeds© WHO 2010

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs299/en/print.html

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

1/3 ページ

Fact sheet N°304
May 2006

Electromagnetic fields and public healthBase stations and wireless technologies
Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed
antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist
worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology.
Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs),
are also increasingly common in homes, offices, and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As thenumber of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the population. Recent surveys
have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure
guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment. This islower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters.
There has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the RF fields produced by wirelesstechnologies. This fact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from continuous low-level human exposure
to base stations and other local wireless networks.

Health concerns
A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates to the possible long-term health effects thatwhole-body exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientificreviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found onlyin certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so
low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.
The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base station antennas is
restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures frombase stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousandsof times below international standards.
In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal fromFM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in
TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz)and because a person's height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations
have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established.
While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modern wireless telecommunications are using digital transmissions.
Detailed reviews conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations.
Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. Itshould be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presenceof base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance.
Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common
characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause.
Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed
epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters andcancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases therisk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

2/3 ページ

fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks.
Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health effects in individuals exposed to RF fields from base stations.
This is because of the difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations
from other higher strength RF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of mobile phoneusers. Human and animal studies examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF fields, such as
those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000
times higher than those associated with general public exposure from base stations or wireless networks. No consistentevidence of altered sleep or cardiovascular function has been reported.
Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from basestations and other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity", EMF has notbeen shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these
symptoms.
From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF
signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse
health effects are expected from exposure to them.

Protection standards
International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects from RF fields by theInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers (IEEE, 2005).
National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They
should restrict access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded.

Public perception of risk
Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe. Several reasons for public fear include
media announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that
there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack of control or
input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes as well as
effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process
before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability.

Conclusions
Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence thatthe weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.

WHO Initiatives
WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature, toevaluate the health effects from exposure to EMF in the range from 0 to 300 GHz, to provide advice about possible EMF
hazards and to identify suitable mitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International EMF
Project has promoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In response national governments and research institutes havefunded over $250 million on EMF research over the past 10 years.
While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations and wireless networks, research is still
being promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile
phones.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review ofcancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk
assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008.

Further Reading
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/print.html

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

3/3 ページ

ICNIRP (1998) www.icnirp.org/documents/emfgdl.pdf
IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz"

Related links- Base stations & wireless networks: Exposures & health consequences- Fact sheet: Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity- WHO handbook on "Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields"- 2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields [pdf 100kb]
For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
E-mail: mediainquiries@who.int

Contacts | E-mail scams | Employment | FAQs | Feedback | Privacy | RSS feeds© WHO 20102010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

1/3 ページ

Fact sheet N°322
June 2007

Electromagnetic fields and public health
Exposure to extremely low frequency fields
The use of electricity has become an integral part of everyday life. Whenever electricity flows, both electric and magnetic
fields exist close to the lines that carry electricity, and close to appliances. Since the late 1970s, questions have been raised
whether exposure to these extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields (EMF) produces adverse healthconsequences. Since then, much research has been done, successfully resolving important issues and narrowing the focus of
future research.
In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Electromagnetic Fields Project to investigate
potential health risks associated with technologies emitting EMF. A WHO Task Group recently concluded a review of thehealth implications of ELF fields (WHO, 2007).
This Fact Sheet is based on the findings of that Task Group and updates recent reviews on the health effects of ELF EMF
published in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), established under the auspices of WHO, andby the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 2003.

ELF field sources and residential exposures
Electric and magnetic fields exist wherever electric current flows - in power lines and cables, residential wiring and electricalappliances. Electric fields arise from electric charges, are measured in volts per metre (V/m) and are shielded by common
materials, such as wood and metal. Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges (i.e. a current), are expressed intesla (T), or more commonly in millitesla (mT) or microtesla (µT). In some countries another unit called the gauss, (G), is
commonly used (10,000 G = 1 T). These fields are not shielded by most common materials, and pass easily through them.
Both types of fields are strongest close to the source and diminish with distance.
Most electric power operates at a frequency of 50 or 60 cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Close to certain appliances, themagnetic field values can be of the order of a few hundred microtesla. Underneath power lines, magnetic fields can be about
20 µT and electric fields can be several thousand volts per metre. However, average residential power-frequency magnetic
fields in homes are much lower - about 0.07 µT in Europe and 0.11 µT in North America. Mean values of the electric field in
the home are up to several tens of volts per metre.

Task group evaluation
In October 2005, WHO convened a Task Group of scientific experts to assess any risks to health that might exist fromexposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields in the frequency range >0 to 100,000 Hz (100 kHz). While IARC examined theevidence regarding cancer in 2002, this Task Group reviewed evidence for a number of health effects, and updated theevidence regarding cancer. The conclusions and recommendations of the Task Group are presented in a WHO Environmental
Health Criteria (EHC) monograph (WHO, 2007).
Following a standard health risk assessment process, the Task Group concluded that there are no substantive health issues
related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public. Thus the remainder of this fact sheet
addresses predominantly the effects of exposure to ELF magnetic fields.

Short-term effects
There are established biological effects from acute exposure at high levels (well above 100 µT) that are explained byrecognized biophysical mechanisms. External ELF magnetic fields induce electric fields and currents in the body which, atvery high field strengths, cause nerve and muscle stimulation and changes in nerve cell excitability in the central nervous

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en/print.html

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

2/3 ページ

system.

Potential long-term effects
Much of the scientific research examining long-term risks from ELF magnetic field exposure has focused on childhood
leukaemia. In 2002, IARC published a monograph classifying ELF magnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans".
This classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less thansufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples include coffee and welding fumes). This
classification was based on pooled analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of a two-foldincrease in childhood leukaemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic field above 0.3 to
0.4 µT. The Task Group concluded that additional studies since then do not alter the status of this classification.
However, the epidemiological evidence is weakened by methodological problems, such as potential selection bias. In
addition, there are no accepted biophysical mechanisms that would suggest that low-level exposures are involved in cancer
development. Thus, if there were any effects from exposures to these low-level fields, it would have to be through abiological mechanism that is as yet unknown. Additionally, animal studies have been largely negative. Thus, on balance, theevidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal.
Childhood leukaemia is a comparatively rare disease with a total annual number of new cases estimated to be 49,000
worldwide in 2000. Average magnetic field exposures above 0.3 μT in homes are rare: it is estimated that only between 1%
and 4% of children live in such conditions. If the association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia is causal, thenumber of cases worldwide that might be attributable to magnetic field exposure is estimated to range from 100 to 2400 cases
per year, based on values for the year 2000, representing 0.2 to 4.95% of the total incidence for that year. Thus, if ELF
magnetic fields actually do increase the risk of the disease, when considered in a global context, the impact on public healthof ELF EMF exposure would be limited.
A number of other adverse health effects have been studied for possible association with ELF magnetic field exposure. These
include other childhood cancers, cancers in adults, depression, suicide, cardiovascular disorders, reproductive dysfunction,
developmental disorders, immunological modifications, neurobehavioural effects and neurodegenerative disease. The WHO
Task Group concluded that scientific evidence supporting an association between ELF magnetic field exposure and all ofthese health effects is much weaker than for childhood leukaemia. In some instances (i.e. for cardiovascular disease or breast
cancer) the evidence suggests that these fields do not cause them.

International exposure guidelines
Health effects related to short-term, high-level exposure have been established and form the basis of two international
exposure limit guidelines (ICNIRP, 1998; IEEE, 2002). At present, these bodies consider the scientific evidence related topossible health effects from long-term, low-level exposure to ELF fields insufficient to justify lowering these quantitative
exposure limits.

WHO's guidance
For high-level short-term exposures to EMF, adverse health effects have been scientifically established (ICNIRP, 2003).
International exposure guidelines designed to protect workers and the public from these effects should be adopted by policy
makers. EMF protection programs should include exposure measurements from sources where exposures might be expected
to exceed limit values.
Regarding long-term effects, given the weakness of the evidence for a link between exposure to ELF magnetic fields andchildhood leukaemia, the benefits of exposure reduction on health are unclear. In view of this situation, the following
recommendations are given:
Government and industry should monitor science and promote research programmes to further reduce the uncertaintyof the scientific evidence on the health effects of ELF field exposure. Through the ELF risk assessment process, gaps
in knowledge have been identified and these form the basis of a new research agenda.
z Member States are encouraged to establish effective and open communication programmes with all stakeholders toenable informed decision-making. These may include improving coordination and consultation among industry, local
government, and citizens in the planning process for ELF EMF-emitting facilities.
z When constructing new facilities and designing new equipment, including appliances, low-cost ways of reducing
exposures may be explored. Appropriate exposure reduction measures will vary from one country to another.
However, policies based on the adoption of arbitrary low exposure limits are not warranted.
z

2010/01/29

WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health

3/3 ページ

Further reading
WHO - World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields. Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238. Geneva,
World Health Organization, 2007.
IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static andextremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. Lyon, IARC, 2002 (Monographs on the Evaluation ofCarcinogenic Risks to Humans, 80).
ICNIRP - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Exposure to static and low frequency
electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (0-100 kHz). Bernhardt JH et al., eds. Oberschleissheim,
International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, 2003 (ICNIRP 13/2003).
ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to timevarying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522.
IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28. IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure toelectromagnetic fields, 0-3 kHz. New York, NY, IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2002 (IEEE
Std C95.6-2002).

For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
E-mail: mediainquiries@who.int

Contacts | E-mail scams | Employment | FAQs | Feedback | Privacy | RSS feeds© WHO 2010

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en/print.html

10 January 1998

March 2000

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTHCAUTIONARY POLICIESPotential health effects of man made electromagnetic fields (EMF) have been a topic of scientificinterest since the late 1800s, and have received particular attention in the last 40 years. Common
sources of these fields include power lines, household electrical wiring, appliances and motor driven
instruments, computer screens, telecommunications and broadcast facilities, mobile telephones andtheir base stations.
Public exposure to EMF is regulated by a variety of voluntary and legal limits. The most important ofthese are international guidelines drafted by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) together with various national safety standards. Guidelines are designed to avoid
all identified hazards, from short and long term exposure, with a large margin of safety incorporated
into the limit values. Actual exposure levels are nearly always far below recommended limits.
Uncertainties about EMF
Assessment of potential health risks of EMF includes numerous uncertainties. In particular, a numberof epidemiological studies suggest the existence of weak links between exposure to EMF and humandisease. The studies involve a variety of diseases and exposure conditions. However, the largest
body of evidence involves a possible increase in risk of leukaemia in children associated with
exposure to electric and magnetic fields at power frequencies (50/60 Hz) in the home. Other scientificevidence, including a large number of animal studies, does not support this conclusion, and many ofthe epidemiology studies themselves suffer from problems including inadequate exposure
assessment.
Expert committees that have reviewed this evidence have consistently found it to be too weak to be
persuasive. For example, in 1997 the US National Research Council concluded, "the current body ofevidence does not show that exposure to [power frequency electric or magnetic fields in the home]presents a human health hazard." Similarly, in its 1998 guidelines for EMF exposure, ICNIRP statedthat the "results from the epidemiological research on EMF field exposure and cancer … are notstrong enough to form a scientific basis for setting exposure guidelines." No major committee has
concluded that a hazard actually exists from low-level fields. But clearly there is considerable
scientific uncertainty as well as a high level of public apprehension about the issue.
Precautionary Policies

10 January 1998

Throughout the world there has been a growing movement inside and outside of government to adopt"precautionary approaches" for management of health risks in the face of scientific uncertainty. As aninternational health agency, WHO does not normally advise national authorities to set policies that go
beyond established knowledge. Yet within the declaration signed in London at the 1999 Third
Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health, WHO was encouraged to take into account "theneed to rigorously apply the Precautionary Principle in assessing risks and to adopt a morepreventive, pro-active approach to hazards".
Several different policies promoting caution have been developed to address concerns about public,
occupational and environmental health issues in the face of scientific uncertainty. These include:
Precautionary Principle
Prudent Avoidance
ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
The Precautionary Principle is a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a highdegree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without
awaiting the results of scientific research.
For countries of the European Union, the Treaty of Rome states that "Community policy on theenvironment … shall be based on the precautionary principle." A recent instance of adoption of the
Precautionary Principle is the European Commission's decision to ban beef from the United
Kingdom, with a view to limiting the risk of transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
The European Court of Justice ruled that this decision was justified:
In view of the seriousness of the risk and the urgency of the situation, and having regard to theobjective of the decision, the Commission did not act in a manifestly inappropriate manner byadopting the decision, on a temporary basis and pending the production of more detailed scientificinformation
Where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, the Commission
may take protective measures without having to wait until the reality or seriousness of those risks
becomes apparent.
On 2 February 2000, the European Commission approved an important communication on the
Precautionary Principle providing guidelines for the application of the Principle. According to thiscommunication, measures based on the precautionary principle should betailored to the chosen level of protection,
non-discriminatory in their application, i.e. they should treat comparable situations in a similarway,consistent with similar measures already taken, i.e. they should be comparable in scope andnature to measures already taken in equivalent areas in which all scientific data are available,
based on an examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action(including, where appropriate and feasible, an economic cost/benefit analysis),provisional in nature, i.e. subject to review in the light of new scientific data, andcapable of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidence necessary for a more

http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/EMF-Precaution.htm[2011/04/26 16:16:18]

10 January 1998

comprehensive risk assessment.
In this definition, the Precautionary Principle is "risk-oriented", in that it requires an evaluation of risk
research including cost-benefit considerations. It is clearly intended for use in drafting provisionary
responses to potentially serious health threats, until adequate data are available for morescientifically based responses.
Prudent Avoidance was initially developed as a risk management strategy for power frequency
EMF by Drs. Morgan, Florig and Nair at Carnegie Mellon University. In their 1989 report to the US
Office of Technology Assessment these authors defined Prudent Avoidance as "taking steps to keeppeople out of fields by rerouting facilities and redesigning electrical systems and appliances".
Prudence was defined as "undertaking those avoidance activities that carry modest costs".
Since 1989 Prudent Avoidance has evolved to mean taking simple, easily achievable, low costmeasures to reduce EMF exposure, even in the absence of a demonstrable risk. The terms "simple","easily achievable", and "low cost", however, lack precise meaning. Generally, government agencies
have applied the policy only to new facilities, where minor modifications in design can reduce levelsof public exposure. It has not been applied to require modification of existing facilities, which is
generally very expensive.
Defined in this way, Prudent Avoidance prescribes taking low-cost measures to reduce exposure, in
the absence of any scientifically justifiable expectation that the measures would reduce risk. Suchmeasures are generally framed in terms of voluntary recommendations rather than in terms of fixed
limits or rules.
Prudent Avoidance (not necessarily identified as such) has been adopted as policy in parts of theelectrical sector in Australia, Sweden and a few US states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, New York,
Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin). In 1997 Australia adopted a policy of Prudent Avoidance with regard to
new transmission lines, with measures described by the government as "general guidance" to be
implemented "without undue inconvenience." Measures that can be taken at "modest cost" include
routing power lines away from schools, and phasing power line conductors to reduce magnetic fields
near their rights of way.
In the United States, no national body has explicitly recommended a policy of Prudent Avoidance forpowerline fields. However, in its recent recommendations to the US Congress, the National Institutefor Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) came close, by suggested that "the power industry
continue its practice of siting power lines to reduce exposures and continue to explore ways to reducethe creation of magnetic fields around transmission and distribution lines without creating hazards.
We also encourage technologies that lower exposures from neighbourhood distribution lines provided
that they do not increase other risks, such as those from accidental electrocution and fire".
By contrast, in the cover letter to the NIEHS report to Congress, Kenneth Olden, Director of NIEHS,
recommended instead "passive regulatory action" such as "educating both the public and theregulated community on means aimed at reducing exposure…". This recommendation is somewhat
different from Prudent Avoidance in that it advocates educational measures, rather than taking actual
measures to reduce exposure.
Prudent Avoidance has not been formally adopted in the US for regulation of communications orcommercial broadcasting facilities. However, government agencies have made recommendations to
the telecommunications industry that could be considered as forms of Prudent Avoidance. In 1999
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urged the mobile phone industry to design phones thatminimize user exposure to RF fields to levels necessary for the device's function.
In Prudent Avoidance, as implemented by various countries, prudent refers to expenditures, not an
attitude to risk. It does not imply setting exposure limits at an arbitrarily low level, and requiring thatthey be achieved regardless of cost, but rather adopting measures to reduce public exposure to EMF

10 January 1998

at modest cost. There is no requirement for assessment of potential health benefits.
ALARA is an acronym for As Low As Reasonably Achievable. It is a policy used to minimize known
risks, by keeping exposures as low as reasonably possible, taking into consideration costs,
technology, benefits to public health and safety and other societal and economic concerns. ALARA
today is mainly used in the context of ionizing radiation protection, where limits are not set on thebasis of a threshold, but rather on the basis of "acceptable risk". Under these circumstances, it isreasonable to minimize risk that can be presumed to exist even at levels below recommended limits,on the grounds that what constitutes "acceptable risk" can vary widely among individuals.
ALARA has not been applied to setting public policy related to exposure to EMF. Indeed, it is not anappropriate policy for EMF (either powerline or radiofrequency fields) in the absence of any
expectation of risk at low exposure levels and given the ubiquity of exposure.
Precautionary Policies for EMF
Prudent Avoidance and other cautionary policies regarding EMF exposure have gained popularity
among many citizens, who feel that they offer extra protection against scientifically unproven risks.
However, such approaches are very problematic in their application. The chief difficulty is the lack ofclear evidence for hazard from chronic exposure to EMF below recommended guidelines, or any
understanding of the nature of a hazard should one exist. While the weight of evidence needed totrigger a cautionary policy is undoubtedly lower than that needed to set exposure guidelines, clearly ahazard must be identified and some understanding is needed of the conditions under which it is likely
to be present.
Another difficulty is the ubiquity of EMF exposure in modern society, at highly variable levels andover wide frequency ranges. It is therefore difficult to create cautionary policies that have consistency
and equity. For example, typical urban environments contain a multitude of radiofrequency
transmitters, ranging from low power communications transmitters to very high power broadcast
transmitters. It is difficult to envision a consistent and equitable cautionary policy that would minimize
radiofrequency EMF exposures from cellular telephone base stations given the presence of far higher
powered sources in the same urban area. Indeed, attempts to implement a cautionary policy forcellular telephone masts have typically been done on a piecemeal basis, with no attention to other(much stronger) sources of RF energy in the environment.
Implications for Guideline Limits
The above considerations suggest that a cautionary policy for EMF should be adopted only with greatcare and deliberation. The requirements for such a policy as outlined by the European Commission
do not appear to be met in the case of either power or radio frequency EMF; however other related
policies, such as Prudent Avoidance, may be justified.
A principle requirement is that such policies be adopted only under the condition that scientificassessments of risk and science-based exposure limits should not be undermined by the adoption ofarbitrary cautionary approaches. That would occur, for example, if limit values were lowered to levels
that bear no relationship to the established hazards or have inappropriate arbitrary adjustments to thelimit values to account for the extent of scientific uncertainty.
It is possible to introduce cautionary policies without undermining science-based standards. In 1999,
the New Zealand Government issued their RF exposure standards that follow the 1998 ICNIRP EMF
guidelines. The Ministries of Health and Environment noted that it considered the basic restrictions
and reference levels in its standard to "provide adequate protection". However, the Ministries notedthat community concerns over RF exposure might be addressed by "…minimizing, as appropriate,
RF exposure which is unnecessary or incidental to achievement of service objectives or process
requirements, provided that this can be readily achieved at modest expense". This emphasis on
reducing exposure at "modest expense" with no evidence of prospective health benefits or costhttp://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/EMF-Precaution.htm[2011/04/26 16:16:18]

10 January 1998

benefit analysis, marks this policy as a form of prudent avoidance, not an application of the
Precautionary Principle as outlined by the European Commission.
Other measures, not related to precautionary approaches, can help address public concerns, which
typically arise when new electrical facilities are proposed. These might include public input or
participation in decisions regarding siting of power lines, electrical substations or radiofrequency
transmitters. In addition, individuals can choose to take whatever measures they feel are appropriate
to their situation and circumstances. Such actions may include repositioning bedside electricalequipment, such as clock radios, or moving a child's bed to an area of the bedroom that has a lower
magnetic field. Turning off electric blankets before going to bed may also be an option. People
conducting extended mobile phone conversations could use an earphone-microphone headset(hands-free kit) and hold their mobile phone away from their bodies. Such actions should not berecommended by national authorities on health grounds but may be appropriate for individuals
depending on their perception of the risks involved.

For further information, please contact WHO Office of Press and Public Relations, Geneva. Tel (4122) 791 2599, Fax (4122) 791 4858. Email: inf@who.int. All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features as well as other information on
this subject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page http://www.who.int/ WHO's International EMF Project
maintains an updated set of fact sheets giving information about all major sources of EMF exposure. Fact sheets on key
issues have been translated into many languages and are available from WHO or on the Project home page atwww.who.int/emf

International EMF Project
Information Sheet

February 2005

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTHIntermediate Frequencies (IF)Exposure to human-made electromagnetic fields (EMF) has increased over the past
century. The widespread use of EMF sources has been accompanied by public debate
about possible adverse effects on human health. As part of its charter to protect publichealth and in response to these concerns, the World Health Organization (WHO)established the International EMF Project to assess the scientific evidence of possible
health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. The EMF Projectencourages focused research to fill important gaps in knowledge and to facilitate thedevelopment of internationally acceptable standards limiting EMF exposure.
Public concerns have ranged from possible effects of exposure to extremely low frequency(ELF) electric and magnetic fields (e.g. electricity supply including power lines) having
frequencies between 0 and 300 Hz to possible effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF)fields (e.g. microwave ovens and broadcast and other radio-transmission devices including
mobile phones) having frequencies in the range 10 MHz - 300 GHz. A large body ofscientific research in these two frequency ranges now exists. For the purpose of thisdocument, the intermediate frequency (IF) region of the EMF spectrum is defined as being
between the ELF and RF ranges; 300 Hz to 10 MHz. A relatively small number of studies
has been conducted on the biological effects or health risks of IF fields. This is due, in part,to the fact that fewer types of devices produce fields in this frequency range. But because
these devices now have a high consumer and industrial market penetration, it is important toevaluate their impact on human health. This information sheet addresses the known healtheffects of IF fields, and offers recommendations for further study.
SourcesCommon sources of IF fields can be found in the following settings:••••

Industry: Dielectric heater sealers, induction and plasma heaters, broadcast andcommunications transmitters,
General public: Domestic induction cookers, proximity readers, electronic article
surveillance systems and other anti-theft devices, computer monitors and television sets,
Hospitals: MRI systems, electromagnetic nerve stimulators, electro-surgical units, andother devices for medical treatment,
Military: Power units, submarine communication transmitters and high frequency (HF)
transmitters.

Except for medical diagnostic and treatment devices, levels of human exposure from IF
devices normally fall below limits recommended by the International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). However, workers in a few categories (e.g.
operators of dielectric heater sealers and induction heaters, some military personnel andInformation sheet: Intermediate frequencies

1technicians working near high powered broadcast equipment) may be exposed toconsiderably higher levels of IF fields.
How EMF Affects the Human Body
Several mechanisms, both thermal and non-thermal, by which electromagnetic (primarily,electric) fields can interact with biological systems are well established. The limiting hazard
will arise from the adverse effect (thermal or non-thermal) that has the lowest thresholdunder given exposure conditions. While strong fields in the upper IF range may cause
thermal damage (a relatively slow process that requires tissue to be maintained at hightemperatures for a given period of time), some of the most obvious hazards from acuteexposure to electric currents in the body may occur through membrane excitation. This nonthermal mechanism results from changes in membrane potential induced by external fields
and occurs, for example, in the stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscle cells. Anothermechanism is electroporation, which is the reversible or irreversible disruption of cell
membranes when a field induces excessive electrical potentials across them. This can
provoke tissue injury through electric shock, but is also being investigated for therapeutic
purposes by using short electric field pulses to make human tissues more permeable todrugs.
External IF fields can induce these effects inside the human body but only at field strengths
many times higher than typical environmental levels.
Reported Biological and Health Effects
Health benefits from electric and magnetic fields have been claimed since the 18th century,and pulsed EMFs in the IF range have found a place in modern medical practice for thetreatment of bone healing and nerve stimulation and regeneration. However, concern has
been expressed about possible health hazards associated with technology, both at home
and in the workplace. These concerns include worker complaints of disturbances (e.g.
swelling, prickling of fingers, headaches) and public anxiety about possible adverse healtheffects of IF fields from computer monitors and televisions. Types of research conducted so
far have included:•

Human studies: Until now, most epidemiological studies concerning IF exposure havefocused on reproductive and ocular effects from the use of computer monitors. Several
major reviews have concluded that these, with their extremely weak IF fields, do notconstitute a threat to human health and that they do not interfere with reproductive
processes or pregnancy outcomes. Also, no association between such exposure andeye abnormalities has been established. A large study on female radio and telegraphoperators showed a slight increased risk of breast cancer. However, this group of
workers is also exposed to many other factors that could explain this increased risk.
The high degree of biological variability and the multitude of EMF parameters make it
difficult to reach firm conclusions about the significance of any of these studies forhuman health. Some of the most important health hazards due to IF sources relate toindirect action of EMF. For example, EMF produced by electronic anti-theft systems
may interfere with implanted electronic medical devices (e.g. pacemakers, neurologicalstimulators).

•

Laboratory studies: Few reported cellular studies using IF fields have shown
independently-confirmed biological effects. Studies on mice have shown no morbidity,change in behaviour or lymphoma development with exposure to low-strength magnetic
field signals in the kHz range. Although a few studies of effects on reproduction anddevelopment of mice, rats, and chick embryos and a few other studies suggest thepossibility of minor skeletal anomalies; overall there is no clear evidence for increased
malformations.

Information sheet: Intermediate frequencies

2Compared to extremely low frequency fields (ELF, which includes AC power frequencies)and radio frequency fields (RF, which includes mobile phone communications), little
research has been done of the effects of IF fields. The scientific evidence is not convincingthat adverse health effects occur from exposure to IF fields normally found in the living andworking environment. This conclusion is partly based on the studies conducted with IF fields
but also on the fact that IF fields act on the body in a way similar to ELF and RF fields,
depending on the frequency of the IF field.
International Standards
ICNIRP is an independent scientific commission formally recognized by WHO that has
published guidelines on exposure limits for all EMF in the 0 to 300 GHz frequency range.
Exposure guidelines in the IF range have been established from rigorous review of thescientific literature on possible adverse health effects and by extrapolating limits from the
ELF and RF ranges, based on coupling of external fields with the body and assumptions
about the frequency dependence of biological effects.
What Should Be Done?
The scientific evidence does not suggest any health risk from IF fields at exposures below
the ICNIRP guideline levels. However, there is a need for more high quality research toaddress uncertainties in current knowledge. The following key areas have been identified
for further research:
•

•

•

•
•

Epidemiological studies: It is recommended that epidemiological studies be
considered only if pilot studies demonstrate the feasibility of gathering high quality
exposure data in appropriate highly exposed populations, thereby achieving adequate
statistical power and identifying relevant health outcomes.
Exposure evaluation: The degree and type of EMF exposure currently encountered in
occupational and domestic settings need to be better characterized. Periodic checks
must be made and documented in industrial and other occupational settings where IF
fields are used, to ensure that the equipment is operating properly and that exposure
guidelines are not exceeded.
Animal studies: Future animal studies should attempt to use exposure conditions thatare similar to human exposures from industrial and other sources, and also should
explore higher exposure levels. If specific suspect pathways are identified, these studies
could be supplemented by cell or tissue studies to clarify how IF fields affect organisms.
Biological interaction: More comprehensive understanding of the biological interaction
and hazard thresholds is required to refine exposure guidelines, particularly for pulsed
fields or fields with complex waveforms.
Dosimetry: Computer modelling techniques exist that enable the calculation of fields
induced inside the bodies of people exposed to IF fields. The most advanced of thesetechniques employ anatomically realistic computational phantoms. Such methods are
particularly appropriate in risk assessment and testing compliance of measured IF fields
with exposure limits in a consistent manner. It is important that, where appropriate,
female and child phantoms are also considered for use in such assessments.

What is the World Health Organization doing about the issue?
The WHO's International EMF Project has established a programme to review research
results and conduct risk assessments of EMF exposure. It is developing public informationmaterials, and bringing together standards groups world-wide in an attempt to harmonize
approaches to the development of EMF exposure standards. Health risks from EMF
exposure, including cancer, are being evaluated by WHO in collaboration with theInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – the specialized cancer research
agency of WHO – and by ICNIRP.

Information sheet: Intermediate frequencies

3

Further Reading
Bernhardt JH, McKinlay AF and Matthes R, editors: Possible health risk to the generalpublic from the use of security and similar devices. Report to the European Commission
Concerted Action QLK4-1999-01214, ICNIRP, 2002 (ICNIRP 12/2002).
Matthes R., van Rongen E., Repacholi M., editors: Proceedings of the International Seminaron Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range 300 Hz to
10 MHz, Maastricht, The Netherlands, ICNIRP, 1999 (ICNIRP 8/99).
Litvak E, Foster K R and Repacholi M H (2002): Health and safety implications of exposure
to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 300 Hz to 10 MHz. Bioelectromagnetics
23(1): 68-82.
Matthes R., Bernhardt J., McKinlay A., editors: Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to NonIonizing Radiation, ICNIRP, 1999 (ICNIRP 7/99 ) http://www.icnirp.org.

Information sheet: Intermediate frequencies

4International EMF Project
Information Sheet

February 2005

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Microwave Ovens

WHAT ARE MICROWAVES?
Microwaves are high frequency radio waves (radiofrequency fields) and, like visible radiation(light), are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwaves are used primarily for TV
broadcasting, radar for air and sea navigational aids, and telecommunications including mobile
phones. They are also used in industry for processing materials, in medicine for diathermytreatment and in kitchens for cooking food.
Microwaves are reflected, transmitted or absorbed by materials in their path, in a similar manner
to light. Metallic materials totally reflect microwaves while non-metallic materials such as glassand some plastics are mostly transparent to microwaves.
Materials containing water, for example foods, fluids or tissues, readily absorb microwave
energy, which is then converted into heat. This Information Sheet discusses the operation andsafety aspects of microwave ovens used in the home. More details about the nature ofelectromagnetic fields and health effects of radiofrequency and microwave fields are available in
WHO Fact Sheets 182 and 183.

ARE MICROWAVE OVENS SAFE?
When used according to manufacturers' instructions, microwave ovens are safe and convenient
for heating and cooking a variety of foods. However, several precautions need to be taken,
specifically with regards to potential exposure to microwaves, thermal burns and food handling.
Microwave safety: The design of microwave ovens ensures that the microwaves are contained
within the oven and can only be present when the oven is switched on and the door is shut.
Leakage around and through the glass door is limited by design to a level well below thatrecommended by international standards. However, microwave leakage could still occur arounddamaged, dirty or modified microwave ovens. It is therefore important that the oven is
maintained in good condition. Users should check that the door closes properly and that thesafety interlock devices, fitted to the door to prevent microwaves from being generated while it isopen, work correctly. The door seals should be kept clean and there should be no visible signsof damage to the seals or the outer casing of the oven. If any faults are found or parts of theoven are damaged, it should not be used until it has been repaired by an appropriately qualified
service engineer.
Microwave energy can be absorbed by the body and produce heat in exposed tissues. Organs
with a poor blood supply and temperature control, such as the eye, or temperature-sensitive
tissue like the testes, have a higher risk of heat damage. However, thermal damage would only

Information sheet: microwave ovens

1

occur from long exposures to very high power levels, well in excess of those measured aroundmicrowave ovens.
Thermal safety: Burn injuries can result from handling hot items heated in a microwave oven, inthe same way as items heated using conventional ovens or cooking surfaces. However, heating
food in a microwave oven presents some peculiarities. Boiling water on a conventional stoveallows steam to escape through bubbling action as the water begins to boil. In a microwave
oven there may be no bubbles on the walls of the container and the water will super-heat andmay suddenly boil. This sudden boiling may be triggered by a single bubble in the liquid or by
the introduction of a foreign element such as a spoon. People have been severely burned bysuper-heated water.
Another peculiarity of microwave cooking relates to the thermal response of specific foods.
Certain items with non-porous surfaces (e.g. hotdogs) or composed of materials that heat at
different rates (e.g. yolk and white of eggs) heat unevenly and may explode. This can happen if
eggs or chestnuts are cooked in their shells.
Food safety: Food safety is an important health issue. In a microwave oven, the rate of heating
depends on the power rating of the oven and on the water content, density and amount of foodbeing heated. Microwave energy does not penetrate well in thicker pieces of food, and may
produce uneven cooking. This can lead to a health risk if parts of the food are not heatedsufficiently to kill potentially dangerous micro-organisms. Because of the potential for uneven
distribution of cooking, food heated in a microwave oven should rest for several minutes after
cooking is completed to allow the heat to distribute throughout the food.
Food cooked in a microwave oven is as safe, and has the same nutrient value, as food cooked
in a conventional oven. The main difference between these two methods of cooking is thatmicrowave energy penetrates deeper into the food and reduces the time for heat to be
conducted throughout the food, thus reducing the overall cooking time.
Only certain microwave ovens are designed to sterilize items (for example baby’s milk bottles).
The user should follow the manufacturer's instructions for this type of application.
Misconceptions: To dispel some misconceptions, it is important to realize that food cooked in a
microwave oven does not become "radioactive". Nor does any microwave energy remain in thecavity or the food after the microwave oven is switched off. In this respect, microwaves act justlike light; when the light bulb is turned off, no light remains.
HOW DO MICROWAVE OVENS WORK?
Domestic microwave ovens operate at a frequency of 2450 MHz with a power usually ranging
from 500 to 1100 watts. Microwaves are produced by an electronic tube called a magnetron.
Once the oven is switched on, the microwaves are dispersed in the oven cavity and reflected bya stirrer fan so the microwaves are propagated in all directions. They are reflected by the metalsides of the oven cavity and absorbed by the food. Uniformity of heating in the food is usuallyassisted by having the food on a rotating turntable in the oven. Water molecules vibrate when
they absorb microwave energy, and the friction between the molecules results in heating whichcooks the food.
Unlike conventional ovens, microwaves are absorbed only in the food and not in the surrounding
oven cavity. Only dishes and containers specifically designed for microwave cooking should be
used. Certain materials, such as plastics not suitable for microwave oven, may melt or burst intoflames if overheated. Microwaves do not directly heat food containers which are designed for
microwave cooking. These materials usually get warm only from being in contact with the hot
food.

Information sheet: microwave ovens

2Oven manufacturers do not recommend operating an empty oven. In the absence of food, themicrowave energy can reflect back into the magnetron and may damage it.
Microwave oven users should carefully read and comply with the manufacturer’s instructions
because new ovens vary widely in design and performance. While most modern ovens cantolerate some food packaging made of metal, oven manufacturers generally recommend not
placing metal in the oven, particularly not close to the walls, as this could cause electrical arcing
and damage the oven walls. Also, because metal reflects microwaves, food wrapped in metal
foil will not be cooked, while food not in metal wrap may receive more energy than intended,causing uneven cooking.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
Several countries, as well as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), theInternational Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) of the Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers (IEEE) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization(CENELEC), have set a product emission limit of 50 watts per square metre (W/m2) at any point
5 cm away from the external surfaces of the oven. In practice, emissions from modern domestic
microwave ovens are substantially below this international limit, and have interlocks that prevent
people being exposed to microwaves while the oven is on. Moreover, exposure decreases
rapidly with distance; e.g. a person 50 cm from the oven receives about one one-hundredth ofthe microwave exposure of a person 5 cm away.
These product emission limits are defined for the purpose of compliance testing, not specifically
exposure protection. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP) has published guidelines on exposure limits for the whole EMF part of the spectrum.
Exposure guidelines in the microwave range are set at a level that prevents any known adverse
health effect. Exposure limits for workers and for the general public are set well below levels
where any hazardous heating occurs from microwave exposure. The emission limit for
microwave ovens mentioned above is consistent with the exposure limits recommended by
ICNIRP.

WHAT THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION IS DOING
The World Health Organization (WHO), through the International EMF Project, has establisheda programme to review research results and conduct risk assessments of exposure toelectromagnetic fields in the range from 0 to 300 GHz. Health risks from EMF exposure arebeing evaluated by WHO in collaboration with ICNIRP.
The EMF Project has a web site with links to WHO Fact Sheets on various aspects of EMF
exposure and health and published in multiple languages (for more information, see
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/fact_english.htm). The site also
provides information on the Project, its publications and its scientific and public information
activities.

Information sheet: microwave ovens

3International EMF Project
Information Sheet

February 2005

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Effects of EMF on the Environment

Levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from human-made sources have increased steadily
over the past 50-100 years. Most EMF exposures come from increased use of electricity andnew technologies. In the past decades, potential adverse effects from EMF exposure on
human health have been an important topic of research. However, little has been published
about the impact of EMF on the natural terrestrial and aquatic environment.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is addressing this issue through the International
EMF Project. One of the Project’s objectives is to provide advice to national authorities andothers on EMF health and environmental effects and protective measures or actions if
needed.
This information sheet summarizes the current scientific understanding on the effects of
exposure to EMF fields on the living environment, across the electromagnetic spectrum inthe frequency range 0-300 GHz. This range covers all frequencies that are emitted into theenvironment through use of EMF technology. Recommendations are also given for further
research to fill gaps in knowledge needed to better assess EMF environmental impacts.
IS THERE REASON TO WORRY ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF EMF?
Awareness of any environmental impacts of EMF is important to ensure the preservation ofterrestrial and marine ecosystems, which form the basis for sustainable development.
Protection of the environment and conservation of nature have become matters of greatinterest to the public, as well as to governments. Such interest is often expressed asconcern over possible environmental impacts of large technology projects, such as dams,
nuclear power plants, and radiofrequency transmitters. Several projects have been subject
to public pressures on environmental grounds, with EMF being one but not necessarily the
only issue. For example, a proposed high frequency (HF) radio transmitter for the Voice ofAmerica in Israel, which would have been the world’s largest radio station, was blocked fromconstruction on environmental grounds, in part related to concerns about potential effects ofradio frequency fields on migrating birds.
Public concern about environmental exposure to EMF has ranged from claims of reduced
milk production in cows grazing under power lines to damage to trees near high power
radars. Such concerns might also affect the development of new technology: several plans
have been proposed since the late 1960s for generating electric power in space by orbiting
arrays of solar panels. Large amounts of electricity generated by such solar power satellites
would be transmitted to sizeable antennas on the ground. In addition to overcoming
technical difficulties, this and other new technologies would have to gain public acceptance.

Information sheet:effects of EMF on the environment

1

SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE
Emissions from natural as well as artificial sources make up the EMF environment we live in.
Natural sources, which include EMF radiation from the sun, the earth, the atmosphereincluding lightning discharges, account for only a small fraction of the overall EMF emissions
in the 0-300 GHz frequency range. Human-made sources from major technologies havebecome an important component of the total EMF emissions into the environment. Relevant
sources in the environment include:






FM Radio and TV Transmitters: The strongest radio-frequency fields in most urban
areas are associated with radio and TV broadcast services (for more information, see
Fact Sheet 183). In urban areas, contributions from mobile phone base stations may
reach similar amplitudes.
Radar: Radar systems are used for a variety of tasks, ranging from navigation toaircraft and missile surveillance systems (for more information, see Fact Sheet 226).
Wide-spread penetrations are expected from vehicle anti collision radar systems.
High Voltage Power Lines: Power lines deliver electricity (usually at 50 or 60 Hz)
and may span hundreds of kilometres (for more information related to their effects onhuman health, see the WHO Fact Sheets 205, 263).
Undersea Power Cables: Undersea cables are used in Europe (especially in
Scandinavia and Greece), Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the Philippines totransfer electric power across water. These sea cables usually conduct very large DC
currents of up to a thousand amperes or more.

For most of these sources, substantial EMF only exist adjacent to the source, where they
may exceed international guidelines for limiting exposure of people (ICNIRP, 1998). These
areas are generally not accessible to the public but may be entered by fauna. Away from the
EMF sources, the fields decrease rapidly to intensities below ICNIRP’s exposure guidelines.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT STUDIES
Animals
Most studies of EMF effects in animals have been conducted to investigate possible adverse
health effects in humans. These are usually performed on standard laboratory animals used
in toxicological studies, e.g. rats and mice, but some studies have also included otherspecies such as like short-living flies for the investigation of genotoxic effects. The subject of
this information sheet, however, is whether EMF can have harmful impacts on species ofwild and domestic animals. Under consideration are:• Species, in particular certain fish, reptiles, mammals and migratory birds, which relyon the natural (geomagnetic) static magnetic field as one of a number of parameters
believed to be used for orientation and navigational cues
• Farm animals (e.g. swine, sheep or cattle) grazing under power lines (50/60 Hz) or in
the vicinity of broadcasting antennas• Flying fauna, such as birds and insects, which may pass through the main beam ofhigh power radio-frequency antennas and radar beams or through high intensity ELF
fields near power lines.
Studies performed to date have found little evidence of EMF effects on fauna at levels below
ICNIRP’s guideline levels. In particular, there were no adverse effects found on cattle
grazing below power lines. However, it is known that flight performance of insects can be
impaired in electric fields above 1kV/m, but significant effects have only been shown forbees when electrically conductive hives are placed directly under power lines. Un-insulated
un-earthed conductors placed in an electric field can become charged and cause injury or
disrupt the activity of animals, birds and insects.

Information sheet:effects of EMF on the environment2

Vegetation
Field studies of 50-60 Hz exposure to plants and crops have shown no effects at the levels
normally found in the environment, nor even at field levels directly under power lines up to
765 kV. However, the variability of parameters associated with environmental conditions
that affect plant growth (e.g. soil, weather) would likely preclude observation of any possible
low-level effects of electric field exposure. Damage to trees is well known to occur at electricfield strengths far above ICNIRP’s levels due to corona discharge at the tips of the leaves.
Such field levels are found only close to the conductors of very high voltage power lines.
Aquatic Life
Although all organisms are exposed to the geomagnetic field, marine animals are also
exposed to natural electric fields caused by sea currents moving through the geomagnetic
field. Electrosensitive fish, such as sharks and rays in oceans and catfish in fresh water, canorient themselves in response to very low electric fields by means of electroreceptive
organs. Some investigators have suggested that human-made EMF from undersea power
cables could interfere with the prey sensing or navigational abilities of these animals in theimmediate vicinity of the sea cables. However, none of the studies performed to date toassess the impact of undersea cables on migratory fish (e.g. salmon and eels) and all the
relatively immobile fauna inhabiting the sea floor (e.g. molluscs), have found any substantial
behavioural or biological impact.
CONCLUSION
The limited number of published studies addressing the risk of EMF to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems show little or no evidence of a significant environmental impact, except for someeffects near very strong sources. From current in formation the exposure limits in the ICNIRP
guidelines for protection of human health are also protective of the environment.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
Environmental studies are needed since any adverse influence of EMF on plants, animals
such as birds, and other living organisms, while important in their own right, could also
ultimately impact on human life and health. However, much of the existing work in this area
has been scattered in approach and uneven in quality. A co-ordinated research agenda that
addresses the scientific issues raised by increasing environmental EMF levels does notexist. In view of the facts discussed above, there is no urgent need to give research priority
to this field over other health topics. However, while there is a small but active research
effort in this area, it would be informative to:design bio-effects research with wildlife species in mind and aimed at identifying
their possible responses to new human-made sources of EMF energy. Appropriate
choice of species for study is very important (e.g. birds since they can enter areas ofhigh field strength),develop environmental guidelines for EMF exposure at different frequencies,
drawing on information from well-performed studies. Such guidelines might resemble
those developed for human health, but with appropriately adapted thresholds toensure that EMF levels are below those producing adverse consequences in theenvironment,

WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION?
The following references provide a more in-depth treatment of this subject:Matthes R., Bernhardt J., Repacholi M., editors: Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Living Environment, Ismaning,
Germany, ICNIRP, 2000 (ICNIRP 10/2000).

Information sheet:effects of EMF on the environment3

Foster K. and Repacholi M. Environmental Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields From
Major Electrical Technologies. EMF Project report: http://www.who.int/pehemf/publications/reports/en/env_impact_emf_from_major_elect_tech_foster_repacholi.pdf

Matthes R., Bernhardt J., McKinlay A., editors: Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to
Non-Ionizing Radiation, ICNIRP, 1999 (ICNIRP 7/99). http://www.icnirp.org



All WHO Fact Sheets are available at
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/fact_english.htm

Information sheet:effects of EMF on the environment

4