EVOLUTION OF PROTECTION STANDARDS: CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES Paolo Vecchia National Institute of Health...
ICNIRP Statement GENERAL APROACH TO PROTECTION AGAINST NON-IONIZING RADIATION Health Physics 82:540-548 (2002) www.icnirp....
FUNDAMENTALS OF ICNIRP GUIDELINES <ul><li>Procedures and criteria are defined  a priori </li></ul><ul><li>Restrictions are...
REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE <ul><li>All  published studies are taken into consideration </li></ul><ul><li>The evid...
DIFFERENT PROTECTION SYSTEMS <ul><ul><li>Depending on the effects the appropriate system is chosen: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul...
ESTABLISHED EFFECTS OF RF FIELDS <ul><li>Absorption of electromagnetic energy </li></ul><ul><li>Increase of body temperatu...
THRESHOLD-BASED APPROACH Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010 Exposure level Established health effects Reduction factor “ Sa...
ICNIRP Guideline GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (UP TO 30...
ICNIRP STANDARDS AND MOBILE PHONES <ul><li>Handsets All mobile phones on the market comply with basic restrictions on loca...
CRUCIAL QUESTIONS <ul><li>Are guidelines for RF fields outdated? </li></ul><ul><li>When will the guidelines be revised? </...
WHY TO REVISE A STANDARD? <ul><ul><li>New scientific data (new effects, change of thresholds, refinement of dosimetry)  </...
NOT REASONS TO REVISE SCIENCE-BASED  STANDARDS <ul><ul><li>Social pressure (either by the public or industry)  </li></ul><...
HOW TO REVISE A STANDARD? <ul><li>Depending on the evaluation of the literature, the guidelines may be subject to: </li></...
WHEN TO REVISE A STANDARD? <ul><li>The revision of a standard is a long process that involves different bodies: </li></ul>...
RF FIELDS Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010 ICNIRP 2009  (confirmation statement) ICNIRP 2009 IARC 2011 WHO 2012 (?)
RF STATEMENT 2009 Health Physics www.icnirp.org Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
CONFIRMATION OF ESTABLISHED EFFECTS <ul><li>It is the opinion of ICNIRP, that the scientific literature published since th...
EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS <ul><li>ICNIRP recently published a review of the scientific evidence on the health effect...
ICNIRP ON THE INTERPHONE STUDY <ul><li>The subsequent publication of the Interphone study has added greatly to the volume ...
CONCLUSIONS (PERSONAL VIEWS) <ul><li>ICNIRP standards protect against all established adverse effects of RF exposure </li>...
[email_address]
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Evolution of protection standards

572 views
478 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
572
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evolution of protection standards

  1. 2. EVOLUTION OF PROTECTION STANDARDS: CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES Paolo Vecchia National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy Chairman of ICNIRP Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  2. 3. ICNIRP Statement GENERAL APROACH TO PROTECTION AGAINST NON-IONIZING RADIATION Health Physics 82:540-548 (2002) www.icnirp.org Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  3. 4. FUNDAMENTALS OF ICNIRP GUIDELINES <ul><li>Procedures and criteria are defined a priori </li></ul><ul><li>Restrictions are based on science . </li></ul><ul><li>No consideration for economic or social issues </li></ul><ul><li>Only established effects are considered </li></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  4. 5. REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE <ul><li>All published studies are taken into consideration </li></ul><ul><li>The evidence is weighed based upon: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scientific quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Replicability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistency </li></ul></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  5. 6. DIFFERENT PROTECTION SYSTEMS <ul><ul><li>Depending on the effects the appropriate system is chosen: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health threshold based system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequate for established threshold effects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Optimization system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequate for no-threshold known hazards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Precautionary measures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequate for suspected hazards </li></ul></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  6. 7. ESTABLISHED EFFECTS OF RF FIELDS <ul><li>Absorption of electromagnetic energy </li></ul><ul><li>Increase of body temperature (general or local) </li></ul><ul><li>Thermal effects (with threshold ) </li></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  7. 8. THRESHOLD-BASED APPROACH Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010 Exposure level Established health effects Reduction factor “ Safe” exposure Threshold of effects Exposure limit
  8. 9. ICNIRP Guideline GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (UP TO 300 GHZ) Health Physics 74:494-522 (1998) www.icnirp.org Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  9. 10. ICNIRP STANDARDS AND MOBILE PHONES <ul><li>Handsets All mobile phones on the market comply with basic restrictions on local absorption of RF energy (individual limits) </li></ul><ul><li>Base stations Exposure levels in the environment are orders of magnitude below reference levels (environmental limits) </li></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  10. 11. CRUCIAL QUESTIONS <ul><li>Are guidelines for RF fields outdated? </li></ul><ul><li>When will the guidelines be revised? </li></ul><ul><li>Will the protection system change in the future? </li></ul><ul><li>Will exposure limits change in the future? </li></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  11. 12. WHY TO REVISE A STANDARD? <ul><ul><li>New scientific data (new effects, change of thresholds, refinement of dosimetry) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New technologies (revision of reduction factors, possibility of relaxation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outdated rationale </li></ul></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  12. 13. NOT REASONS TO REVISE SCIENCE-BASED STANDARDS <ul><ul><li>Social pressure (either by the public or industry) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different regulations issued by national or local authorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time passed since last revision </li></ul></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  13. 14. HOW TO REVISE A STANDARD? <ul><li>Depending on the evaluation of the literature, the guidelines may be subject to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Global revision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Refinement/clarification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confirmation </li></ul></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  14. 15. WHEN TO REVISE A STANDARD? <ul><li>The revision of a standard is a long process that involves different bodies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Review of science ICNIRP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation of carcinogenicity IARC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Global risk evaluation WHO-ICNIRP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Update of standards ICNIRP </li></ul></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  15. 16. RF FIELDS Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010 ICNIRP 2009 (confirmation statement) ICNIRP 2009 IARC 2011 WHO 2012 (?)
  16. 17. RF STATEMENT 2009 Health Physics www.icnirp.org Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  17. 18. CONFIRMATION OF ESTABLISHED EFFECTS <ul><li>It is the opinion of ICNIRP, that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields. </li></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  18. 19. EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS <ul><li>ICNIRP recently published a review of the scientific evidence on the health effects of radiofrequency exposure from mobile phones. We found the existing evidence did not support an increased risk of brain tumours in mobile phone users within the duration of use yet investigated. </li></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  19. 20. ICNIRP ON THE INTERPHONE STUDY <ul><li>The subsequent publication of the Interphone study has added greatly to the volume of evidence available. ICNIRP believes on preliminary review of the results, however, that they do not change the overall conclusions . </li></ul><ul><li>ICNIRP therefore considers that the results of the Interphone study give no reason for alteration of the current guidelines . </li></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  20. 21. CONCLUSIONS (PERSONAL VIEWS) <ul><li>ICNIRP standards protect against all established adverse effects of RF exposure </li></ul><ul><li>The scientific evidence is consolidated and risk evaluations are unlikely to change </li></ul><ul><li>A balance is needed between updating and stability of standards </li></ul><ul><li>Most probably, the next revision of RF guidelines will not undermine the adequateness of present limits </li></ul><ul><li>Relevant modifications of basic restrictions and reference levels are unlikely to occur in the future </li></ul>Quito, Ecuador, 26-27 August 2010
  21. 22. [email_address]

×