EMF / RF Exposure Guidelines: Understanding International, National and Regional Exposure Limits for RF-EMF

More people suffer with some form of EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity).

Federal Governments, Regional Governments and Local Governments need gain awareness and take action to lower acceptable microwave radiation exposure levels.

Most countries follow the guidelines set by the WHO’s International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for radiofrequency electromagnetic exposure. However, these are based only on thermal effects, and completely neglects the possibility of non-thermal effects.

A growing number of countries have developed their own safety limits to be stricter and err on the side of caution, given growing evidence of harm.

EMF Exposure Guidelines  

EMF Exposure Guidelines in Singapore are under the jurisdiction of Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) who works with the National Environment Agency (NEA) to ensure radio frequency (RF) radiation safety requirements from mobile phone base stations are met in Singapore.

They do not have independently established guidelines for magnetic field or electric field exposure. They take guidance from the WHO’s International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)’s guidelines1 for RF radiation. They state that EMFs levels in Singapore are “well below the limits specified by international safety standards by the WHO”, which is 830 mG or 83,000 nT (Magnetic Field) or 5000 V/m (Electric Field) for a 24-hr period. Note that these guidelines are based on short-term acute exposure. We still do not have guidelines that protect the public from long-term low level exposure.

Based on epidemiological studies and cause-effect relationships, which are in turn based on laboratory experiments, suggest that exposure to magnetic fields and electric fields should be thousands of times lower.

In Malaysia, EMF Exposure Guidelines are under the jurisdiction of Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). They follow the WHO’s ICNIRP.

The UK follows the WHO’s ICNIRP. National Radiological Protection Board (now absorbed into PHE) reviewed the EMF literature in 2004, stating “the results of epidemiological studies, taken individually or as collectively reviewed by expert groups cannot be used as a basis for restrictions on exposure to EMFs.”

This paper gives worldwide overview and analysis for the existing limits of human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF). Most different national and even regional governments follow the guidelines provided by the recommendations of the World Health Organisation’s International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

International reference levels and BioInitiative Limit for exposure to RF waves, distinguishing between occupational and general public exposure. (Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118124)

However, many countries have chosen to adopt stricter exposure limits based on scientific research. Their limits are many times lower than the international standards.

These countries include: Canada, Austria, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and regions of Belgium (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)

India reduced its allowable levels to one-tenth of previous limits based on health and environmental concerns on 1 September 2012. EMF exposure limits is under the jurisdiction of Communications & Information Technology.

In Taiwan, EMF exposure limits is under the jurisdiction of Environmental Protection Administration of the Executive Yuan, R.O.C.(Taiwan). The effective dose limit for radiation workers is set at 50 mSv per year, according to the Ionizing Radiation Protection Act. For the general public, exposure limits are generally lower and vary based on specific regulations.

In Austria, the Austrian Medical Association has developed a guideline for differential diagnosis and potential treatment of unspecific stress-related health problems associated with electrosmog.

The EU adopted the WHO-ICNIRP recommendations in its Council Recommendation of 1999 (EU-Ratsempfehlung 1999). In April 2009, a resolution of the European Parliament called for a review of the EMF limits.

Building Biology Standards for EMF / RF Exposure Limits

Building Biology recommendation are based on the precautionary principle.

Note that exposure levels accepted in many countries far exceed these guidelines as well as the recommendations of the Bioinitiative Report (prepared by a group of international scientists).

The Building Biology difference takes into account your personal environment. If several sources of risk with elevated exposure levels are identified for a single or for different standard points, the overall risk should be rated as more severe.

In 2024, Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines for Sleeping Areas underwent a thorough revision, and new tools for assessing additional indoor risk factors were introduced for some Standard points.

Building Biology guidelines: Any risk reduction is worth it. Nature is the ultimate standard.

Do you know your area’s exposure limits? Contact me.

References and Resources:

International, National and Regional exposure limits for RF-EMF. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118124

Flawed assumptions of the WHO ICNIRP RF-EMF Exposure Limits. [Download image.]

Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome) Consensus paper. (Download).

EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. (Download.)

The ICBE-EMF 2023 paper published in the journal Environmental Health states, “the current exposure limits set by ICNIRP and FCC are based on invalid assumptions and continue to present harm to public health. (Download.)

The Bioinitiative Report. Section 4: Evidence for Inadequacy of the Standards. (Download.)

Standard of Building Biology Measurement Technology SBM 2024, including the Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines for Sleeping Areas 2024. (Download.)

How Safety Standards for Cellphone Severely Neglects Human Biology

Do you know what levels of wireless radiation your phone has to emit to be considered lethal, or at least cause burns?

Sam the Military Man and Microwave Radiation

Let me tell you a story about SAM.

SAM is the specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM) meant to represent the standard human head.

But SAM was created in 1989 and he was not made to be average.

He was made to be a representative of the very top 10 percent of army recruits in the US military.

As microwave radiation as a military weapon progressed throughout 1970s and 80s, the military wanted a model to test the effects of microwave radiation on humans that they were observing in real life. So SAM was to be the test mannequin to see how much microwave radiation a body could absorb while making a cell phone call.

SAM became the standard for the specific absorption rate (or SAR) for cellphone radiation in humans.

The Problem with SAM

But some people began to point out that testing mobile phones on a plastic dummy isn't the same as in human body.

For one, the ear of a plastic dummy is not like a human ear of cartilage -- in fact, it is highly absorbant liquid.

SAM’s head size only represents roughly 2% of the human population and 0% of children.

Furthermore, the measurement, ‘SAR’ is still only based on thermal-induced effects (i.e., heating effects) and therefore disregards numerous health hazards, such as the effects on the blood brain barrier (BBB), neurotransmitters and autophagy which have all been well documented.

How do you use your phone? Against your ear?

Where do you actually keep it when you’re out all day — against your hip bone in your pocket? Or tucked in a bra? It goes on and on…

In fact, the phones themselves violate the SAR standard!

SAM was used to test early phone models. The outcome of those early proceedings was that a person cannot absorb more than 1.6 watts of energy per kilogram of body weight.

By now phones are on the 4G of wireless technology.

We Are Not SAM

Now, meet the man whose research inspired the SAM campaign. Professor Om P. Gandhi, Emeritus Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering with the University of Utah, taught courses on biological effects of antennas, RF and microwave electromagnetic fields for over 50 years.

A world expert on how mobile phone radiation penetrates the human brain, Prof Ghandhi was once a consultant to major cell phone companies.

In March 2012, his study was published in the journal Electromagnetic Biological Medicine, it shared how The SAR for a 10-year old is up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model and MRI scans of children between 5 and 8 years of age.

He wrote:

"It was found approximately 2 times higher SAR in children compared to adults. When electrical properties are considered, a child’s head’s absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skull’s bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults."

“It is a fact that humans of all sizes and ages from children to older individuals are using cell phones, and testing for compliance testing for a 220 lb., 6 feet 2 inch tall adult male underestimates the actual energy absorbed by up to a factor of two, thus releasing into the market telephones that would not pass if a proper safety compliance testing method was used.”

He realised these findings were being manipulated...and how the SAM testing standard were an abuse of the SAR ratings.

Prof Gandhi became deeply disillusioned at the unconscionable lack of industry regulation and zero liability of cell tower companies and cell phone makers on human health.  Gandhi refused to work with them any longer.

SAM and SAR Cannot Tell You How Much Radiation You Absorb

The highest SAR was set relative to the heat produced by RF radiation.

Worse, the highest SAR is set well below the level of radiation that would endanger a user’s health.

Prof Ghandi embarked on a mission with other scientists and concerned advocates to share this knowledge. This work sparked the WE ARE NOT SAM movement.

We Are Not SAM movement is not based on opinion - it's backed by thousands of scientific studies and the leading independent scientists from around the world have a lot to say about this testing dummy called SAM.

The SAR specification on a phone can only tell you the highest measurement taken for each frequency reached by the device, and not how much radiation you absorb.

So now you know, there is zero biological science behind mobile phone safety testing. You are exposing yourself regularly to harmful levels of wireless radiation every time you use a wireless device. It is now in your hands to share about this knowledge and protect yourself and your loved ones.

https://www.instagram.com/wearenotsam/

References and Notes:

• https://www.instagram.com/wearenotsam/

• You can read Prof Gandhi’s paper here. Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han YY, Herberman RB, Davis DL. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. Epub 2011 Oct 14. PMID: 21999884.

• Prof Gandhi was a fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering in 1997. He was the Chairman of the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Utah, from 1992 to 1999, the President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society from 1992 to 1993, the Co-Chairman of the IEEE SCC 28. IV Subcommittee on the RF Safety Standards from 1988 to 1997, and the Chairman of the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation from 1980 to 1982.