Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions

Source: www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/7/5398

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(7), 5398; doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075398
Received: 20 January 2023 / Revised: 17 March 2023 / Accepted: 31 March 2023 / Published: 4 April 2023

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Sciences and Engineering: A Look at the Surrounding Environment or Environment and Engineering for a Sustainable Future)

by Paul Héroux 1, Igor Belyaev 2, Kent Chamberlin 3, Suleyman Dasdag 4, Alvaro Augusto Almeida De Salles 5, Claudio Enrique Fernandez Rodriguez 6,Lennart Hardell 7, Elizabeth Kelley 9, Kavindra Kumar Kesari 10, Erica Mallery-Blythe 11,12,13,Ronald L. Melnick 14,15, Anthony B. Miller 16,Joel M. Moskowitz 17 and on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) †

1. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1G1, Canada
2. Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 814 38 Bratislava, Slovakia
3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
4. Biophysics Department, Medical School, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul 34700, Turkey
5. Graduate Program on Electrical Engineering (PPGEE), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre 90010-150, Brazil
6. Division of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Federal Institute of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS), Canoas 92412-240, Brazil
7. Department of Oncology, Orebro University Hospital, 701 85 Orebro, Sweden
8. The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, 702 17 Orebro, Sweden
9. ICBE-EMF and International EMF Scientist Appeal, and Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Tempe, AZ 85282, USA
10. Department of Applied Physics, School of Science, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland
add Show full affiliation list www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/7/5398#
† Membership of the Working Group is provided in the Acknowledgments.


Abstract

In the 1990s, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) restricted its risk assessment for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in seven ways: (1) Inappropriate focus on heat, ignoring sub-thermal effects. (2) Reliance on exposure experiments performed over very short times. (3) Overlooking time/amplitude characteristics of RFR signals. (4) Ignoring carcinogenicity, hypersensitivity, and other health conditions connected with RFR. (5) Measuring cellphone Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) at arbitrary distances from the head. (6) Averaging SAR doses at volumetric/mass scales irrelevant to health. (7) Using unrealistic simulations for cell phone SAR estimations. Low-cost software and hardware modifications are proposed here for cellular phone RFR exposure mitigation: (1) inhibiting RFR emissions in contact with the body, (2) use of antenna patterns reducing the Percent of Power absorbed in the Head (PPHead) and body and increasing the Percent of Power Radiated for communications (PPR), and (3) automated protocol-based reductions of the number of RFR emissions, their duration, or integrated dose. These inexpensive measures do not fundamentally alter cell phone functions or communications quality. A health threat is scientifically documented at many levels and acknowledged by industries. Yet mitigation of RFR exposures to users does not appear as a priority with most cell phone manufacturers.

Keywords: cellular phone; SAR; cancer; electromagnetic hypersensitivity; radiofrequency radiation; antennas

See the link at the top for the full paper and see also:
www.mdpi.com/search?q=electromagnetic+hypersensitivity .



Lees verder in de categorie Artikelen | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie