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.)

What You Still Don’t Know about the $25 Million US National Toxicology Program Study

/

In 2024, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced it had no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on human health.

They wanted to find out the US if exposure to radiation from 3G phones can cause the development of malignant cancers. They studied this in lab rats.

Finally, on November 1, 2018, they published their report.

In case you have not read this landmark study, here is a summary of what researchers found:

  • 6% of the male rats exposed to the highest dose of cell phone radiation developed malignant schwannomas in the heart, while 2 to 3% developed gliomas in the brain.

Researchers conclusion? “Clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage from wireless radiation.

—The NTP study took about 10 years to complete in 2018.

Did you know it had taken that long? It started out studying the existing wireless technology used in phones (3G). But the time the study had ended, industry and consumers were moving on to 4G.

—Some did not believe that wireless radiation could cause cancer.

The study had massive detractors. Was such a study was even worth the while?

“The NTP has now shown what no one believed was possible before the project started. The assumption has always been that RF radiation could not cause cancer,” he said, “Now we know that was wrong.”—Ron Melnick told Microwave News.

—The study conclusions would have meant updating FCC’s outdated 1996 standards.

NTP researchers communicated the initial findings to the relevant regulatory agencies, including the FDA and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which sets the legal limits for wireless radiation. They had not updated its guidelines since 1996. That’s when we were still using 2G.

But they were not interested to update their guidelines.

—The NTP study sounded the alarm on Schwannomas.

Schwannomas cancer were extremely rare.

Schwannomas are basically what makes your cell’s myelin sheath. It insulates nerve fibers and speed the conduction of electrical impulses.

But it so happened that these same malignant tumors of the heart were also found in another large cell phone rat study published that same year in 2018.

This latter study was carried out at the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy.

—Researchers decided to publish a follow-up study, or what they excluded from the first study.

Researchers had also found that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage. They evaluated DNA damage in three regions of the brain, the liver, and in blood cells in rats and mice. These findings were removed at an earlier timepoint from the ongoing 2-year toxicology study.

They published this second article in October 2019.

DNA damage, if not repaired, can potentially lead to tumors.

This work was included in NTP’s published Technical Reports, but this study includes analyses of the data in the supporting information not included in the Technical Reports.

—Researchers wanted more detailed studies.

The goal of subsequent studies is smaller “mechanistic” studies to understand biological changes related to RFR that could be causing cancer.

—FCC have not explained their current guidelines either.

This is related.

Because at the time, the FCC hasn’t complied with a court-ordered mandate to explain how the agency determined that its current guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of exposure to wireless radiation.

—This was government-funded.

It begs the question. Why does it fall to the government to prove harm or no harm? the biological effects of the telecommunication industry’s products.

“[Research] is what the industry should be doing on their dime and using their expertise and their predictions as to where the technology is going.”—Dr Bucher

—Bureaucracy stalled research findings.

FDA to study RFR “because they’re the agency charged with making recommendations to the FCC with respect to the biological aspects of the need for regulation.”

This is in the USA. But similar bureaucratic challenges exist in every government.

—The NTP eventually shut down the studies.

You would have thought they’d be motivated to find out more. After all, EMF exposure are increasingly exponentially and the effects are profound.

No.

In January 2024, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced it had no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on human health — even though the program’s own $30 million study, which took about 10 years to complete in 2018, found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage.

This article interviews Dr Bucher, a former senior scientist in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) NTP division.

“By the time we would come out with the next generation of studies’ industry would be on to something else. “The government has always been way behind the technologies that are being developed in the telecommunications industries.”—Dr Bucher

—The NTP study reveals how difficult it can be to conduct such studies.

Studying wireless radiation’s biological effects is no small feat.

EMFs as a phenomenon is completely differently from say, drug or environmental chemicals.

NTP scientists had to work with toxicologists, statisticians, geneticists, pathologists, and animal care staff, etc. They also had to work with electrical engineers and experts in wireless radiation to design and build the exposure systems and monitor the exposures used in these studies.

—The final report is redacted.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) refuses to reveal nearly 2,500 pages of records related to the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) decision to shut down its research on how wireless radiation affects human health.

Resources and References:

  • NTP’s first paper published on the website. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones

  • NTP’s second paper evaluated DNA damage in three regions of the brain: Smith-Roe, S.L., Wyde, M.E., Stout, M.D., Winters, J.W., Hobbs, C.A., Shepard, K.G., Green, A.S., Kissling, G.E., Shockley, K.R., Tice, R.R., Bucher, J.R. and Witt, K.L. (2020), Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environ Mol Mutagen, 61: 276-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.22343


This Real-Life Study on Emfs Will Blow Your Mind

/

You know that wireless radiation from molbile devices are not the best for your health. You’re also concerned about the wireless infrastructure that exist in the urban landscape all around you. After all, we live in an electromagnetic soup in a urban technological society

 One Scientist in Japan Was Able to Conduct a Real Life Experiment

In 2014, Japanese physician Tetsuharu Shinjyo conducted a groundbreaking before & after study that points to a critical issue affecting global health.

The study focused on the residents of a condominium in Okinawa, where cell phone antennas had been operating on the roof for several years. The people living there were exposed from 1998 to 2009 to the radiation from mobile phone base station antennas installed on top of their condominium.

To accomplish this, in January and November 2009, 107 of 122 inhabitants were interviewed and underwent medical examinations. The first examination was carried out while the base station was in operation, the second examination three months after the base station antennas were removed once and for all.

A total of 122 individuals from 39 of the 47 apartments were interviewed & examined.

Before the antennas were removed, the health issues among the residents were alarming:

  • Chronic fatigue: 21 individuals

  • Dizziness, vertigo or Meniere’s disease: 14 individuals

  • Headaches: 14 individuals

  • Eye problems (pain, dry eyes, repeated infections): 17 individuals

  • Insomnia: 14 individuals

  • Chronic nosebleeds: 10 individuals

 

However, after the removal of the antennas, the results were striking:

  • No cases of chronic fatigue in the building

  • No one experienced nosebleeds anymore

  • No one had eye problems

  • Only two individuals still had insomnia

  • Only one individual still had dizziness

  • Only one individual still had headaches

  • Conditions such as gastritis & glaucoma also resolved

 

These clinical symptoms pretty much vanished after the mobile antenna was removed.

Like the residents of that building before the study, the majority of the people in the world today do not know that their acute and chronic illnesses are in large part caused by electromagnetic pollution. They do not talk to each other about their health problems & are unaware that they are shared by many of their neighbours.

The Researchers Conducted This Study Independently and It Took Five Years to Publish

This study is rare because the conducted this research without outside funds in order to maintain neutrality and avoid pressures from external sources. It took almost five years before had his paper published in a journal.

"We live today with a number of devastating diseases that do not belong here, whose origin we do not know, whose presence we take for granted and no longer question. What it feels like to be without them is a state of vitality that we have completely forgotten. . . . These are the diseases of civilization, that we have also inflicted on our animal and plant neighbors, diseases that we live with because of a refusal to recognize the force that we have harnessed for what it is. The 6o-cycle current in our house wiring, the ultrasonic frequencies in our computers, the radio waves in our televisions, the microwaves in our cell phones, these are only distortions of the invisible rainbow that runs through our veins and makes us alive. But we have forgotten. It is time that we remember."—Arthur Firstenberg

book a free discovery call

What You Should Know about Wireless Radiation: Health Impacts on Babies and Children

/

Wireless radiation is just one form of electromagnetic fields (or EMFs).

These are invisible waves of energy emitted by electronic devices like WiFi routers, cell phones, and baby monitors.

You can’t see them, but these EMFs are how your iPad and all mobile devices connects to the cell tower.

You cannot sense these as with other pollution such as smog, noise pollution, but your body is definitely sensitive to these fields.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to wireless radiation.

Children are more vulnerable to wireless radiation and cell phone radiation because they have smaller heads, they have thinner skulls, and they have developing brains. Research shows that children absorb higher levels of wireless radiation.

Wherever you are using your wireless device, this radiation is being absorbed into your body, quite intensely, whenever it’s nearby. So, if it’s in your head, you’re going to get high levels of absorption of the non-ionizing radiation into your head and brain. If it’s near the abdomen and you’re pregnant, your body will receive that radiation as will your developing baby.

Wireless radiation is linked to a wide range of symptoms.

Before it even becomes an acute disease, Some studies of people living near cell towers have also confirmed an array of health complaints, including dizziness, nausea, headaches, tinnitus and insomnia, from people identified as having "electromagnetic hypersensitivity."

Wireless radiation is considered a carcinogen.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, cited troubling but uncertain evidence in classifying wireless radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

In 2018, a study by the federal government that was nearly two decades in the making found “clear evidence” that cellphone radiation caused cancer in lab animals. A major study in Italy produced similar results.

The main reason for this new classification was its linked to gliomas.

Cellphone radiation was classified a “possible carcinogen” in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, a conclusion based on human epidemiological studies that found an increased risk of glioma, a malignant brain cancer, associated with cellphone use.

Gliomas are the most common CNS tumors in children and adolescents; it is usually a fast-growing cancer that affects your child's brain or spinal cord.

Leukaemia and brain cancer are BOTH among the top five most common childhood cancers in most countries that track such statistics, from Singapore, Malaysia in the tropics to the UK, across Europe.

In fact, leukaemia and brain cancer account for more than half of all childhood cancers. Check out the population statistics in countries such as the UK, Germany, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia. By contrast, these cancers are rare in adults.

While these childhood cancers are rare and have high overall survival, it remains the first cause of death from

disease in children and adolescents. Can you imagine what the leading factor to such cancers are?

They’ve been concerned for a long time.

“They” being the many official institutions. For example, before the WHO’s 2011 official declaration, between 2008 and 2011, the European Union Parliament and the Council of Europe passed multiple resolutions against the “early, ill-considered, and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves.”

The European parliaments’ advice for an exposure level was called A.L.A.R.A. (as low as reasonably achievable). (How low is still up to you to achieve as there are no standard regulations.)

Many medical associations in North America and Europe have also issued public statements to warn about the serious health risks associated with using wireless devices. Among them, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote:

Wireless radiation is linked to autism and spectrum disorders.

A majority of studies that have looked at something called oxidative stress have found an effect. Now oxidative stress can lead to inflammation and more inflammation can lead to a lot of other health implications.

Dr. Martha Herbert documented in her publications, looking at autism and ADHD, there is inflammation in the brain. With electromagnetic fields, there are studies showing inflammation as well.

Many clinicians, doctors, and health professionals have found reducing electromagnetic fields can help with kids who have behavioral problems or have autism and other health issues. It’s been a way to impact or reduce electromagnetic fields that can support the child’s resilience.

Wireless radiation can cause behavioural problems in children.

If you are pregnant and exposed to cellphone radiation, your baby could be born susceptible to behavioural issues. A Yale study in 2012 found hyperactivity and reduced memory in mice exposed to cellphone radiation in the womb, consistent with human epidemiological research showing a rise in behavioral disorders among children who were exposed to cellphones in the womb.

The researchers exposed the pregnant mice to radiation from a muted and silenced cell phone positioned above the cage and placed on an active phone call for the duration of the trial. A control group of mice was kept under the same conditions but with the phone deactivated (such as being on “airplane mode”).

After the mice were born, researchers conducted psychological and behavioral tests, as well as measured their brain electrical activity.

“We have shown that behavioral problems in mice that resemble ADHD are caused by cell phone exposure in the womb. The evidence is really, really strong now that there is a causal relationship between cellphone radiation exposure and behavior issues in children. — Dr. Hugh Taylor, the author of the mouse study and chair of the obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences department at the Yale School of Medicine”

Concerned scientists are advocating for education around possible harms of wireless tech and how it should be used with care around children.

The BabySafe Project was conceived jointly by Dr. Devra Davis of Environmental Health Trust and Patti and Doug Wood of Grassroots Environmental Education after attending a conference in Stonington, Connecticut — it was where Dr. Hugh Taylor of Yale School of Medicine presented the results of his important study on fetal exposures to cell phone radiation. https://www.babysafeproject.org/science

Your child may already be suffering from EMF

A case in Canada saw three young children with an environmental intolerance, medically known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). They regularly suffered with symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, concentration and memory problems, anxiety, abdominal pain, nosebleeds, ringing in the ears, and more. These symptoms were otherwise unexplainable.

In May of 2012, to accommodate children with EHS and to provide choice for parents who want to heed health warnings to reduce exposure for children who are most vulnerable, the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils (BCCPAC) called for a moratorium on Wi-Fi in schools.

EMFs health impacts begin pre-conception.

Higher levels of exposure could reduce sperm quality in men and increase miscarriage risk in women. The two miscarriage studies, conducted by Kaiser Permanente and funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, are particularly interesting because they're some of the only ones to date that actually measured EMF exposure in subjects using a magnetic field monitoring device.

"We took [913 pregnant women] and asked them to wear the monitor for the duration of their pregnancy. Studies right now aren't using the meters because most of them are focusing on cancer. Cancer can take 20 years to develop—you can't measure your exposure from 20 years ago, so in those cases, you just ask how much the person uses their cell phone." — reproductive epidemiologist De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, the principle investigator on both studies (one published in 2002, one published in 2017).

Any safety regulations is out of date.

Any safety data is so out of date, it is not even funny.

No standards even consider the impact to a pregnant woman, as that research didn’t exist 25 years ago.

For example, the US Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, based on an adult male and they don’t even consider a child’s developing brain. They last adjusted its woefully outdated health standards for wireless radiation a quarter-century ago, well before wireless devices became ubiquitous, heavily used appliances synonymous with modern life.

5G wireless radiation is a new beast.

Until now, most of us use the second-, third-, and fourth-generation cell phones (2G, 3G, 4G) that emit radiofrequency in the frequency range of 0.7-2.7 GHz.

Fifth-generation (5G) cell phones are anticipated to use the frequency spectrum up to 80 GHz.

That’s an astounding leap!


I hope this compilation of research and studies will help you make a more informed decision about Wifi and its use in your family.

Resources & recommendations

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.


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.