ArticlePDF Available

Human Radio Frequency Exposure Limits: an update of reference levels in Europe, USA, Canada, China, Japan and Korea


Abstract and Figures

Compliance with human exposure limits for electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is a significant health and safety issue to regulators, service providers and wireless equipment suppliers. The recent exposure limits are reported. The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and the power-density (PD) reference levels in European countries, USA, Canada, China, Japan and Korea are compared and contrasted. The allowed SAR cellular handsets’ exposure limits for localized heating are more restrictive in the USA, Canada and Korea (1.6 W/kg), relative to others (2 W/kg). Even the averaging is more restrictive: averaged over 1 g in N. America and Korea, versus 10 g tissue in ICNIRP 1998 and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006. Europe in general follows the ICNIRP 1998 PD levels from base stations. Despite the (non-mandatory) EU Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC, some EU countries adopt more restrictive thresholds. USA and Japan are the most liberal countries, adopting in 300–1,500 MHz power- density 4/3 of the ICNIRP1998 and IEEE 2006 levels. On 13 March 2015, Health Canada revised the 2009 PD limits (that were identical to the USA), and published more restrictive reference levels. There is no scientific reason to use different exposure limits in different countries. Some explanations of the different limits are provided.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Human Radio Frequency Exposure Limits:
an update of reference levels in Europe,
USA, Canada, China, Japan and Korea
Haim Mazar (Madjar)
RF Spectrum Management and Engineering, ATDI, Warsaw (not published yet at EMC Europe 2016 Wroclaw) ,
AbstractCompliance with human exposure limits for
electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is a significant health and
safety issue to regulators, service providers and wireless
equipment suppliers. The recent exposure limits are
reported. The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and the
power-density (PD) reference levels in European
countries, USA, Canada, China, Japan and Korea are
compared and contrasted. The allowed SAR cellular
handsets’ exposure limits for localized heating are more
restrictive in the USA, Canada and Korea (1.6 W/kg),
relative to others (2 W/kg). Even the averaging is more
restrictive: averaged over 1 g in N. America and Korea,
versus 10 g tissue in ICNIRP 1998 and ANSI/IEEE
C95.1-2006. Europe in general follows the ICNIRP 1998
PD levels from base stations. Despite the (non-
mandatory) EU Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC,
some EU countries adopt more restrictive thresholds.
USA and Japan are the most liberal countries, adopting
in 3001,500 MHz power- density 4/3 of the ICNIRP1998
and IEEE 2006 levels. On 13 March 2015, Health Canada
revised the 2009 PD limits (that were identical to the
USA), and published more restrictive reference levels.
There is no scientific reason to use different exposure
limits in different countries. Some explanations of the
different limits are provided.
Keywords ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, Canada Safety
Code 6, EMF, ICNIRP 1998, ICNIRP 2010, IEEE C95.1-
1999, Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), power-density.
The proliferation of cellular base stations and wireless
fixed installations around the world, the public dislike
of large antenna structures and the concern in some
countries against EMF exposure has led to
constraining legislations and regulations to ensure
protection of the public. Some countries adopt
restrictive limits (lower RF thresholds), that are at
odds with those of the international community. The
EMF levels continue to increase due to the operation
of more wireless systems. The International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP) 1998 Guidelines provide reference levels
New WHO reference
for general public and occupational exposure.
Countries (and even cities) set different exposure
levels around base stations. For example, at 1,000
MHz the allowed PD levels (W/m2) are 6.7 in USA
and Japan, 5 in ICNIRP 1998, Europe and the
Republic of Korea, 2.94 in Canada and 0.4 in China.
The case study countries represent most countries in
the world. The ICNIRP guidelines are backed by the
World Health Organization (WHO)
, and constitute
the current scientific consensuses’. Nevertheless,
national regulations have a priority status in their
countries. As influenced by social-economic-political
factors, the values adopted in each country may vary.
The ICNIRP 1998 [1] reference levels are widely
accepted worldwide and countries’, threshold are
compared to these reference levels. Additional Tables
and Figures appear in the author’s new Wiley book [2],
Chapter 9 ‘Human Hazards’. Exposure limits in
various countries are found at [3] Fig. 2. In addition to
the ICNIRP 1998 Guidelines, various institutions
define the limits for international (e.g., IEEE) and
specific regions (e.g., European Council). The paper
starts with evaluating the SAR exposure limits from
cellular handsets and wireless equipment, then details
the exposure limits from base stations above 10 MHz,
and summarizes the reference levels in a sample of
countries around the world.
A. SAR near-field versus PD far-field
The general public receives the highest exposure from
handheld devices (connected to cellular or Wi-Fi
networks), which deposit most of the RF energy in the
brain (phones) and surrounding tissues (notebooks).
Typical environmental exposures to the brain from
handsets are several orders of magnitude higher than
those from mobile-phone base stations on rooftops or
from terrestrial television and radio stations [4], [5]
and [6]. The relevant exposure limits for handsets are
those related to the localized heating, because of the
proximity of the body; whereas for base stations,
whole body effects are the limiting factor. The
exposure limits for fixed transmitters refer to the field-
strength and PD generated, whereas near-field handset
exposure limits are considered mainly by the SAR
value. The far-field signal (easily simulated and
measured) is practical to analyse EMF human
exposure, radiated from the fixed wireless base
stations. The handset is used in the proximity of the
user’s body; the body configuration, in conjunction
with the handset design, has a strong impact on the
near-field EMF and energy absorption in tissues.
B. Comparing SAR values
There are two diverse SAR and averaging levels: the
1.6 W/kg, averaged over 1 g, is based on dosimetric
considerations related to non-uniform absorption of
energy; whereas the 2 W/kg, averaged over 10 g, has a
biophysical rationale related to the eye.
. FCC, OET Bulletin 65 p. 40 and OET Bulletin 65
Supplement C p.75 specify the 1.6 W/kg;
. ICNIRP 1998 p. 509 Table 4, EC 1999/519/EC
and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006 specify the 2 W/kg.
Like USA and Canada, the Republic of Korea ( [7] and
[8]) follows SAR exposure limits, based on the IEEE
Std C95.1-1999 [9].
Table 1 compares allowed SAR in studied countries.
Table 1: Maximal SAR (W/kg) around the world
European Community,
Japan and China
Korea, USA
and Canada a
From 10 MHz to 10 GHz; localized
SAR (head and trunk)
2.0; averaged over 10 g tissue (it is also
ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006 level, p.79)
1.6; averaged
over 1g tissue
a Reference [10], the U.S. CFR 47 FCC §2.1093 Section 2, states
averaged over any 1 gram of tissue; whereas [11], Canada Safety
Code 6 Table 2, states ‘peak spatially-averaged SAR for the head,
neck & trunk
A. ICNIRP (Europe & Korea) Reference Levels
Reference [1], ICNIRP 1998 p.511, defines the
reference levels as guidelines for occupational
exposure (Table 6) and general public exposure (Table
7) to time-varying electric field (unperturbed rms
values). The 1998 guidance includes heating effects
for frequencies above 100 kHz, whereas the ICNIRP
2010 [12] guidance includes consideration of nervous
system effects only. In the range 100 kHz to 10 MHz,
the reference level relevant for protection against
nervous system effects is independent of frequency; by
contrast, the reference levels relevant when heating is
taken into account are frequency dependent, and
reduce over the range 100 kHz to 10 MHz. In order to
ensure protection against both nervous system and
heating effects, at the frequency of interest, use
whichever of field-strength is the lower.
Below 10 MHz (wavelength 30 meters), nervous
effects on human body are mostly at near-field
conditions; the reference levels are provided mainly
for the electric field-strength (V/m). Between 10 MHz
and 300 GHz, the reference levels are also provided
in PD (W/m2), to prevent excessive heating in tissue at
or near the body surface. The PD of the general public
exposure is five times lower than the occupational
exposure. The following Tables and Figures specify
the reference ICNIRP 1998 levels at different
frequencies. Table 2 specifies the ICNIRP 1998
varying electric-field and equivalent plane wave
power-density reference levels, above 10 MHz.
Table 2: ICNIRP reference levels above 10 MHz
1.375f 1/2
3f 1/2
f = frequency in MHz
2300 GHz
Fig. 1 ( [2] Fig. 9.2) depicts the ICNIRP 1998 PD
reference levels for occupational and general public
exposure above 10 MHz.
Fig. 1 ICNIRP power-density reference levels
For fixed radiating stations, the exposure limits for
general public, unperturbed and uncontrolled
environment (unlike the workers/ controlled/
occupational case) are the most relevant to the public.
Telecommunications regulators tend to focus on
public exposures, but other regulatory authorities are
often interested in worker exposures. The European
Union (EU) Directive 2013/35/EU ( [13] Annex III
Table B1) adopted ICNIRP values for exposure of
workers. The general public limits of ICNIRP 1998
(Table 7) and the European Community (EC)
1999/519/EC ( [14] Annex III Table 2) are identical,
since ICNIRP levels have been endorsed by the
European Commission's Scientific Steering
Committee [15] 2015 SCENIHR Opinion. ICNIRP
1998, 1999/519/EC and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006
for radiations from (mainly) fixed stations above 10
MHz specify closely identical exposure limits. Fig. 2
[3] depicts, that most countries adopt the ICNIRP 1998
reference levels for the public.
ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006 (p. 25 Table 9) exposure values
are similar (not to FCC) to the ICNIRP 1998 level
(fMHz/200 W/m2); at10–400 MHz the IEEE electric field
(E) and FCC are 27.5 (V/m), compared to 28 (V/m) the
ICNIRP 1998 . IEEE provides an additional equation above
100 GHz: [(90xfGHz 7,000)]/200 W/m2
Fig. 2 Map for country specific RF limit information
C. The USA and Japan
The USA and Japan regulate similarly the PD
reference levels. According to FCC 1997 OET
Bulletin 65 and FCC Code of Federal Regulations
CFR 47§1.1310 [17], the FCC is still based mainly on
the IEEE Std C95.1-1999 [9]. This standard was
revised by in IEEE C95.1-2006 [16], but not adopted
by FCC. ANSI approved IEEE C95.1-2005 in 2006,
and therefore it is designated as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-
2006. The official U.S. RF radiation exposure limits
on 8 May 2016 ( [17] Table 1 CFR 47 FCC §1.1310)
at 4001500 MHz are 4/3 less restrictive than the
ICNIRP 1998 guidelines reference levels. The
international recommended PD at 4001500 MHz is f
(MHz)/200 W/m2; at the 3001,500 MHz range, the
US (and Japan
) thresholds are f (MHz)/150 W/m2.
Despite discussions, FCC § 1.1310 radiofrequency
radiation exposure limits keeps the limits for
Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (and SAR)
limits un-changed; see NOI FCC 13-39 or R&O FCC
03-137 2013; FCC has received comments, but has not
taken further action in this proceeding.
The Japanese pamphlet
(March 2015) ( [18] p. 5)
specifies the same PD limits as FCC. The upper RF
limit in Japan is 300 GHz and not 100 GHz as in USA.
Table 3 specifies the FCC §1.1310 and Japan above 30
MHz. It details MPE limits for radiating emitters in
uncontrolled environment: general public exposure.
Japan and USA use different units than ICNIRP for PD,
mW/cm2 and not W/m2; to convert: W/m2 = 0.1 mW/cm2
Levels endorsed by K. Yoshida, Japan’s telecoms bureau,
electromagnetic environment division radio; Ministry of
Internal Affairs and Communications
Table 3:USA & Japan general population/uncontrolled exp.
Range (MHz)
(E) (V/m)
300 a1,500
1.585f (1/2)
a. Only in Japan, V/m is detailed above 300 MHz
Important to note that FCC, ICNIRP and IEEE all
have the same fundamental whole-body SAR limits;
the FCC and Japanese limits rely on reference levels
from a different model, to convert from internal SAR
to external field-strength.
D. Canada
Health Canada (HC) is the federal department
responsible for protecting the health and safety of
Canadians; HC has set limits for human exposure,
which are published in a document commonly known
as Canada Safety Code 6. On 13 March 2015 Health
Canada revised the 2009 limits (that were identical to
the USA), and published new reference levels: Canada
Safety Code SC6 (2015) [11]. The updated rigorous
SC6 science-based limits include more restrictive
reference levels in some frequency ranges, to take
account of improved modelling of the interaction of
RF fields with the human body, and to ensure larger
safety margins to protect all population, including
newborn infants and children; see HC media release.
For its part, Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada (ISED, formerly Industry
Canada) is responsible for radio-communication, and
has adopted HC’s SC6 limits, in ISED’s standards and
regulations. Table 5 ([11] Table 5) details the HCs
reference levels for PD at 10MHz–300GHz in
uncontrolled environments.
Table 4: Canada Safety Code 6, reference levels
Frequency (MHz)
Power Density (W/m2)
10 - 20
20 - 48
8.944 / f 0.5
48 - 300
300 - 6000
0.02619 f 0.6834
6000 -15000
15,000 150,000
150,000 300,000
6.67×10-5 f
The values in GB 9175 are expressed in µ W/cm2 , where
1 W/m2 =100 µW/cm2, and 0.1 W/m2 = 10 µW/cm2
Table 5 compares the exposure limits in ICNIRP 1998,
FCC §1.1310 (as in Japan) and the Canada Safety
Code SC6; it details the PD Seq(W/m2) thresholds in
uncontrolled environment at some relevant
frequencies 20 MHz–6 GHz. It demonstrates that
Canada is the most restrictive above 20 MHz and
below 6,000 MHz.
Table 5: ICNIRP, FCC §1.1310 (& Japan) & SC6 (W/m2)
20 (MHz)
30 (MHz)
8.944 / f 0.5
48 (MHz)
300 (MHz)
500 (MHz)
0.02619 f 0.6834
570 (MHz)
0.02619x f 0.6834
1,000 (MHz)
0.02619x f 0.6834
1,500 (MHz)
0.02619x f 0.6834
3,000 (MHz)
10 W/m2
0.02619x f 0.6834
6,000 (MHz)
10 W/m2
E. China
China is unique. There are two RF exposure standards
in force in China with differing limit values: a national
standard for electromagnetic radiation GB 8702-88
( [19] Table 2) formulated by the national
environmental protection agency and a second
national standard GB 9175 [20], formulated by the
Ministry of Health. In respect of base stations, the
national standard GB 8702-88 is the legal requirement;
however, in practice operators often design for
compliance with the most restrictive Ministry of
Health value from GB 9175
, in order to minimise
confusion by the public. The Chinese general public
exposure PD limit at all RF 303,000 MHz is 0.4
W/m2, according to GB 8702-88. To exemplify: the
Chinese official level at 900 MHz is 0.4 W/m2, relative
to 4.5 W/m2 ICNIRP 1998 Guidelines level; 9% of
ICNIRP 1998 PD, and 0.8% of ICNIRP 1998 field-
strength. GB 9175 standard does not include SAR
values, only field-strength limits. In standard GB
8702-88 the worker (occupational) SAR limit is 0.1
W/kg and for the public 0.02 W/kg; thus ¼ SAR limit,
compared to the whole body limits in ICNIRP, IEEE,
EU. GB 8702-88 does not contain a part body SAR
limit; that limit is covered by GB 21288-2007 [21].
F. Republic of Korea, France, the UK and Europe
The Republic of Korea [7] and [8] adopts the ICNIRP
1998 reference levels, whereas Korea follows USA
and Canada in SAR levels (IEEE C95.1-1999).
France and the UK follow officially the non-
mandatory EU Council Recommendation
1999/519/EC [13], the same exposures of human-
hazards as the ICNIRP 1998 levels. In France, the RF
human exposure levels around cellular sites are
measured by accredited laboratories and published.
According ruling décret n° 2013-1162 of 14 December
2013, every person can ask for specific measurement.
In 2004, the UK government agreed that exposures
from cellular base stations should meet the ICNIRP
1998 guidelines.
Europe addresses RF hazards at Directive 2013/35/EU
[13]; [22] details implementation report for
1999/519/EC Council Recommendation limiting the
public exposure to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300
GHz). There is a difference
in the exposure limits
among European countries, as there is no legal basis
for the European Commission, to establish public
exposure limits for base stations. In general, Northern
Europe is more aligned with 1999/519/EC, than
Southern Europe; there are no clear distinctions
between Western and Eastern European countries.
Switzerland (in the base of technical feasibility) and
Italy apply up to 0.01 ICNIRP 1998 reference level for
PD below 2 GHz. Switzerland uses ICNIRP as the
fundamental limit on total exposures, and then adds
the Installation Limit Values (ILV) layer; Switzerland
also implements precautionary exposure limitations, at
places of sensitive use, such as apartment buildings,
schools, hospitals, permanent workplaces and
children's playgrounds.
The difference in implementing RF standards is smaller
Polish exposure limit for the general public, for the RF
300 MHz300 GHz is 0,1 W/m2. As ICNIRP reference
levels above 10 MHz are 2 to 10 W/m2, the Polish
levels are 20 to 100 times more restrictive. Polish
limits are long standing and influenced by the former
Soviet status. In the past, Poland used even more
restrictive limits; two zones for exposure limits:
temporary presence and permanent presence (such as,
including houses); the first zone limit was 0,1 W/m2
and the second was 0,025 W/m2. Since about 1998,
this separation disappeared and there is only one limit
0,1 W/m2. Hungary moved from the Soviet to the
ICNIRP limits in 2004. Luxembourg reduces ICNIRP
level by 20 times; Luxembourg limits are newer.
Some European cities set more restrictive limits.
Salzburg assessment value of 1 mW/m2 (0.001 W/m2;
equivalent to 0.61 V/m); the Salzburg PD threshold is
4,500 more stringent than ICNIRP 1998 level at 900
MHz and 9,000(!) more at 1,800 MHz. The ‘Salzburg
model’ seems not to have been effective under any
point of view; it has prevented the development of
networks, with no evident health benefit for public
health; at the same time, it has not settled down the
controversies and probably has not reduced public
concern [23] p. 148. In addition to Salzburg in Austria,
Perugia and Novara in Italy limit the field-strength to
3 V/m (7.3 % ICNIRP field-strength and 0.5 % PD)
and 1 V/m (2.4 % ICNIRP 1998 field-strength and
0.06 % PD), respectively. These city policies often
have no regulatory basis.
The technical rationale for the human exposure limits
differ substantially. The national thresholds reveal the
regulator’s risk tolerability and leniency [24] Mazar
2009 p.12. It may also reflect the vulnerability to
political intervention and activist pressure, or the age
of the regulations and unwillingness to update.
Europe, Japan and China all use 2 W/kg in 10 g SAR,
for the partial body limit for mobile devices; however,
in the Republic of Korea, the USA and Canada the
limit is 1.6 W/kg in 1g. In the far-field, at 4001,500
MHz (which includes cellular transmission and UHF
TV bands), the maximum allowed PD level of
ICNIRP, Europe and the Republic of Korea for the
general public exposure is f (MHz)/200 W/m2. At the
3001500 MHz range, the US and Japanese threshold
is f (MHz)/150 W/m2, which is higher by 4/3
(200/150), compared to the ICNIRP 1998 threshold.
Like Japan, the USA seems lenient and tolerant by
allowing higher thresholds to RF exposure from the
base stations.
It is important to underline that Korean and N.
American regulations are more restrictive than
1999/519/EC and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006 in the
allowed SAR from the cellular terminal. The ICNIRP
1998 threshold, adopted by the European Community
and ANSI/IEEE is 2.0 W/kg, while the limit in Korea,
the FCC § 2.1093 and Canada Safety Code SC6 is 1.6
W/kg for the partial body; see Table 1. This position
seems more rational (at least compared to Switzerland
and Italy, dividing ICNIRP 1998 power levels up to
100), as the RF energy absorbed from the handset and
notebook is much stronger, being much nearer to the
user’s body, compared to the received signal from the
base stations ( [25] Mazar 2011 section F). The USA
and Japan are the most tolerant in regulating uncertain
risks around fixed transmitters.
Table 6 provides overall comparison: France, UK,
USA, China, Japan and Korea limits relative to the
general public ICNIRP 1998 reference levels (adopted
by EC, IEEE and ANSI): PD 5 W/m2 at 1,000 MHz,
and SAR 2 W/kg. Reference levels are calculated at f
1,000 MHz, and indicate the partial body limit for
mobile devices average SAR. Table 6 assorts the rows
by power-density (PD), descending percentage of
ICNIRP level; indicating that China (0,08 ICNIRP
level) is the most restrictive.
Table 6: Overall comparison
PD 1,000 MHz
SAR (W/kg)
=6.67; 133/%
1.6, averaged over
1g tissue
2.0 , over 10 g
& UK
=5; 100%
1.6, averaged over
1g tissue
0.02619f 0.6834
=2.94; 59%
0.4; 8%
2.0 , over 10 g
.a it is also ICNIRP and IEEE 2006 reference levels
I wish to acknowledge the contributions of Mrs.
Karina Beeke, Dr. Agostinho Linhares de Souza Filho,
Dr. Jack Rowley and Dr. Fryderyk Lewicki, who
reviewed the text and suggested valuable editions.
ICNIRP, "Guidelines for limiting exposure to
time-varying electric, magnetic, and
electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),"
ICNIRP, Oberschleissheim (near Munich),
H. Mazar, Radio Spectrum Management:
Policies, Regulations, Standards and
Techniques, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19
8SQ,: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2016.
GSMA, "Network Limits," Map for country
specific RF limit information, 21 02 2016.
[Online]. Available:
and-health/networks-map. [Accessed 21 02
WHO, "WHO International Workshop on Base
stations & wireless networks: Exposures &
health consequences," Workshop background
information and Proceedings, Geneva, 2005.
WHO, "Baan et al., Carcinogenicity of
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, The
Lancet Oncology, 12(7):624626, July 2011,"
IARC Monograph, DOI:10.1016/S1470-;
corrected on 25 June 2015, Geneva, 2011.
WHO, "NonIonizing Radiation Protection,
Part II: RadioFrequency Electromagnetic
Fields; Volume 102," International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, 2013,
Geneva, 2013.
RRA, "Regulation Status and Research
Activities on EMF Effects to Human Body in
the Republic of Korea," National Radio
Research Agency (RRA); Ministry of Science,
ICT and Future Planning , Naju-si, 2015.
MSIP, "Notification no 2015-18_TR to protect
human body against electromagnetic
waves_Korea," Ministry of Science, ICT and
Future Planning (MSIP); National Radio
Research Agency. Republic of Korea, Naju-si,
IEEE, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," IEEE Std C95.1-
1999, Washington, 1999.
FCC, "Radiofrequency radiation exposure
evaluation: portable devices," CFR 47 FCC
§2.1093, Washington , 2016.
Canada, "Safety Code 6: Health Canada's
Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines," Health
Canada, Ottawa, 2015.
ICNIRP, "Guidelines for limiting exposure to
timevarying electric and magnetic fields (1HZ
100 kHz)," ICNIRP, Oberschleissheim ,
EU, "Minimum health and safety requirements
regarding the exposure of workers to the risks
arising from physical agents (electromagnetic
fields)," European Parliament and European
Council, Brussels, 2013.
EC, "Limitation of exposure of the general
public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300
GHz)," European Council, Brussels, 1999.
S. C. o. E. a. N. I. H. Risks, "Potential health
effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields
(EMF)," SCENIHR opinion, Brussels, 2015.
IEEE, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," ANSI/IEEE C95.1-
2006, Whashington, 2006.
FCC, "Radiofrequency radiation exposure
limits," CFR 47 FCC §1.1310, Washington,
Japan, "Radio Waves and Safety," Ministry of
Internal affairs and Communications, Tokyo,
China, "Standard for electromagnetic
radiation," National environmental protection
agency , GB 8702-88, Beijing, 1988.
China, "Hygienic standard for environmental
electromagnetic waves," Ministry of Health,
GB 9175-88, Beijing, 1988.
China, "Limits for human local exposure to
electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile
phones," Chinese Standard GB 21288-2007,
Beijing, 2007.
EC, "Report from the Commission on the
application of Council Recommendation of 12
July 1999 (1999/519/EC) on the limitation of
the exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz),"
Reports for 1999/519/EC; COM(2008) 532
final, Brussels, 2008.
WHO, "Base Stations and Wireless Networks:
Exposures and Health Consequences,,"
Repacholi M., van Deventer, Geneva, 2007.
H. Mazar, "An Analysis of Regulatory
Frameworks for Wireless Communications,
Societal Concerns and Risk," Universal
Publishers; PhD thesis, Middlesex University,
London, Boca Raton Florida, 2009.
H. Mazar, "A Comparison between European
and North American Wireless Regulations,"
ITU, World Telecom, Technical Symposium
TS11, Geneva, 2011.
... Basically, the larger the transmission distance, the lower the Power Transfer Efficiency (PTE), requiring larger power in the transmitter (Tx) to fulfill the receiver (Rx) requirements, thus increasing heat dissipation, generating hazardous voltages in the Tx, and rising concerns about safety (from the electromagnetic exposure point of view) and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) limits. In [1], a proof-of-concept system was built and measured, transferring 5 mW to a 25x25mm Rx with a transfer distance of 30 cm taking into account the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits [2,3]. However, the PTE achieved in that link was only 0.09 %, thus 5.56 W were required in the Tx to deliver the 5 mW to the load. ...
... In order to verify the system safety, a SAR simulation was performed as the average over 1 g of tissue using Sim4Life, as shown in Fig. 4, while the link is working as previously described, delivering 5 mW to the load. The maximum value of SAR was 120 mW/kg which is far below the more restrictive (general public) limit of 1.6 W/kg [2,3]. ...
... Indeed, city buildings create a typical Non-Line on Sight (NLOS) scenario shadowing radar and communication signals [2]- [4]. Additionally, the transmitted electromagnetic (EM) power must be limited to avoid any harm to people [5] and electronic equipment. ...
... (1 g averaged SAR less than 1.6 W/kg) and IEEE C95.1-2005 (10 g-averaged SAR less than 2 W/kg). 24 Particularly these circumstances, the utmost 1 g average SAR values are analyzed as 0.9818 W/kg at 2.44 GHz as shown in Figure 11 respectively. To figure out the contributions, we compared the ICFP antenna performance with the recent available reported designs at ISM bands are compiled in Table 3. ...
Full-text available
Implantable coaxial fed patch (ICFP) antenna with circular polarization operating at 2.45 GHz Industrial Scientific and Medical (ISM) Band is fabricated, measured in 500 ml mimicking gel and 1.3 Kg of chicken breast tissue used for biomedical applications. The miniaturized ICFP antenna is experimentally validated and reported in this research work. The volume of the ICFP antenna is 10 × 9.2 × 2.56 mm3 features a compact size by employing meandered slots on the patch, shorting pins and defective ground structure (DGS) on the ground plane for reducing the size and enhancing the bandwidth. Moreover, introducing circular ring slots and notches on both sides of the patch achieved the circular polarization. The results exhibit good matching between the coaxial feed and the proposed antenna. In this research, the implantable structure resonates at −10 dB S11with impedance bandwidth 200 MHz (2.35–2.55 GHz) and 200 MHz circular polarized–3 dB bandwidth is observed from 2.35 to 2.55 GHz. Additionally, the specific absorption rate (SAR) value analyzed as 0.98 W/kg in a three‐layered human tissue model.
... It is the rate at which the human body absorbs energy when exposed to an electromagnetic field. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the maximum SAR limit for any 1g standard is 1.6 W/kg, and according to the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards, the maximum SAR limit for any 10g standard is 2 W/kg [29]. The calculation formula of SAR is as follows: ...
Full-text available
With the popularization of electronic products, more and more people have cervical spine troubles. This paper proposed an antenna sensor for detecting the bending state of the neck in people’s daily life. The antenna works in the 2.45 GHz industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) band. When the cervical spine drives the antenna sensor to bend, the resonance frequency of the antenna sensor shifts. Based on this characteristic, the antenna sensor can monitor the bending angle of the cervical spine wirelessly. Placing a ${2}\times {2}$ electromagnetic bandgap (EBG) array between the antenna sensor and the neck reduces the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the human body by about 90% and increases the peak gain from 2.46 dBi to 6.75 dBi. Even if the antenna sensor is bent and deformed greatly, the gain of the antenna sensor remains good. The efficiency of the antenna sensor loaded with the EBG array keep at 65%, and the sensitivity to the bending angle reaches 7.5 MHz/1°. The measured results of the fabricated antenna sensor are in good agreement with the simulated ones. The experimental results show that the proposed antenna sensor is suitable for cervical curvature monitoring.
... Other countries such as Canada, China, Italy, Switzerland, and Poland have already imposed even more stringent RF-EMF exposure limit from the mobile phones and base stations [7]. However, this is only part of the solution to the public health concern. ...
... The fact that specific and strict guidelines are required in respect of human body exposure to RFs and standardization committees the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) identify SARs and set threshold levels in different parts of the body: (i) 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 g of tissue for use against the head and 4.0 W/kg which is averaged over 10 g of tissue for use on the wrist. This cap is set for the USA, Canada, and South Korea [48]; (ii) 2 W/kg averaged over 10 g of tissue for use against the head and 4.0 W/kg which is averaged over 10 g of tissue for use on the wrist, is recognized in the EU, Japan, and China [49] [50]. ...
Full-text available
A major concern regarding wearable communications is human biological safety under exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation generated by wearable devices. The biggest challenge in the implementation of wearable devices is to reduce the usage of energy to minimize the harmful impacts of exposure to RF on human health. Power management is one of the key energy-saving strategies used in wearable networks. Signals enter the receiver (Rx) from a transmitter (Tx) through the human body in the form of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation produced during the transmission of the packet. It may have a negative effect on human health as a result of specific absorption rate (SAR). SAR is the amount of radio frequency energy consumed by human tissue in mass units. The higher the body's absorption rate, the more radio frequency radiation. Therefore, SAR can be reduced by distributing the power over a greater mass or tissue volume equivalently larger. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.15.6-supported multi-hop topology is particularly useful for low-power embedded devices that can reduce consumption of energy by communicating to the receiver (Rx) through nearby transmitted devices. In this paper, we suggest a relaying mechanism to minimize the transmitted power and, as a consequence, the power density (PD), a measure of SAR.
... Dünya Savaşı sırasında Japon Amerikan kitlesel hapsedilmesine karşı Japon radyo propagandasını; Mizuno (2013b), Japon radyo propagandası ve ABD hükümetinin II. Dünya Savaşı sırasında Japon Amerikalılara davranışı üzerindeki etkisini; Manabe (2014), Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Japonya'da çevrimiçi radyoyu; Hibino ve Shaw (2014), Japonya ve Endonezya'nın karşılaştırmalı analizi üzerinden afet sonrası kurtarmada radyonun rolünü; Madjar (2016), radyo frekansına maruz kalma sınırlarını incelemektedir. ...
... Internationally, two different standards are observed one by United States (US) and another one by the European Union (EU). SAR limit defined by US and EU is at or below 1.6 W/kg and 2 W/kg taken over the volume containing a mass of 1g and 10g of biological tissues, respectively [4]. The exposure of antenna with the human body is not only hazardous for human tissues, but also its lossy nature deteriorates its performance in terms of its efficiency and frequency detuning. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
A low-profile Koch modified monopole antenna backed with EBG plane has been proposed in this work for wearable applications of MBAN band (2.36–2.40 GHz) standards. The designed EBG-antenna is composed of a triangular-shaped microstrip antenna as a radiator and a 2 x 2 square-shaped EBG plane as a reflector to improve the isolation between the antenna and human body tissues. The free-space analysis of proposed antenna shows that it has an overall impedance bandwidth of 50 MHz centered at 2.38 GHz, a gain of 7.8 dBi and a radiated efficiency of 86%. For detailed on-body analysis and SAR evaluation of proposed design, it is tested on a 150 x 150 mm 2 -phantom composed of skin, fat, muscle and bone. The results show that the return loss and radiation characteristics of EBG-antenna remain unchanged to the loading of human body tissues with an extremely low SAR values below 0.4 W/kg and 0.7 W/kg for 10g and 1g of biological tissues with a separation of 0 mm between antenna and phantom. Thus, the designed wearable antenna topology is a prime candidate for both on and off-body communications devices.
Full-text available
Background and controlled electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on biological cells and tissues induces thermal, non-thermal, and dielectric property change. After EMR interaction with cells/tissues the resulting signal is used for imaging, bio-molecular response, and photo-biomodulation studies at infrared regime, and for therapeutic use. We attempt to present a review of current literature with a focus to present compilation of published experimental results for each regime viz. microwave (extremely low frequency, ELF to 3 GHz), to cellular communication frequencies (100 KHz to 300 GHz), millimeter wave (300 GHz- 1 THz), and the infra-red band extending up to 461 THz. A unique graphical representation of frequency effects and their relevant significance in detection of direct biological effects, therapeutic applications and biophysical interpretation is presented. A total of seventy research papers from peer-reviewed journals were used to compile a mixture of useful information, all presented in a narrative style. Out of the Journal articles used for this paper, 63 journal articles were published between 2000 to 2020. Physical, biological, and therapeutic mechanisms of thermal, non-thermal and complex dielectric effects of EMR on cells are all explained in relevant sections of this paper. A broad up to date review for the EMR range KHz-NIR (kilohertz to near infra-red) is prepared. Published reports indicate that number of biological cell irradiation impact studies fall off rapidly beyond a few THz EMR, leading to relatively a smaller number of studies in FIR and NIR bands covering most of the thermal effects and microthermal effects, and rotation-vibration effects.
Full-text available
Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) and CDK6 have a crucial role in the G1-S transition of the cell cycle by mediating the phosphorylation of the retinoblastoma protein (Rb), and so are important regulators of cell division. A phase 1 trial of PD 0332991, a novel, orally bioavailable, specific inhibitor of CDK4 and CDK6 activity in patients with advanced cancers has shown it to be well-tolerated. A subsequent multi-arm phase 2 trial is nearing completion (NCT01037790).
Full-text available
This thesis analyses how and why culture and geography influence the allocation and licensing of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum in different nations. Based on a broad study of 235 countries, an inter-disciplinary approach is used to explore regulatory frameworks and attitudes toward risk. In addition, detailed case studies of the UK, France, the US and Ecuador provide deeper insights into the main contrasting regulatory styles. Three alternative sociological theories are used to analyse and explain the results for both the in-depth and broad brush studies. The Cultural Theory of Mary Douglas and co-workers is first used to categorise countries in terms of perceptual filters. The empirical findings indicate some countries to be apparently exceptional in their behaviour. The theory of Bounded Rationality is used to investigate and explain these apparent irrationalities. Finally, Rational Field Theory shows how beliefs and values guide administrations in their RF regulation. A number of key factors are found to dominate and patterns emerge. The European RF harmonisation is unique. Following European unification, wireless regulation is divided into two major camps (the EU and the US), which differ in their risk concerns, approach to top-down mandated standards, allocation of RF spectrum to licence-exempt bands and type approval process. The adoption of cellular and TV standards around the world reflects geopolitical and colonial influence. The language of a country is a significant indicator of its analogue TV standard. Interestingly, the longitude of a country to a fair extent defines RF allocation: Africa and West Asia follow Europe, whereas the Americas approximate the US. RF regulation and risk tolerability differ between tropical and non-tropical climates. The collectivised/centralised versus the individualised/market-based rationalities result in different regulatory frameworks and contrasting societal and risk concerns. The success of the top-down European GSM and the bottom-up Wi-Fi standards reveal how the central-planning and market-based approaches have thrived. Attitudes to RF human hazards and spurious emissions levels reveal that the US, Canada and Japan are more tolerant of these risks than Europe. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and USA encourage technological innovation. A practical benefit of this study is that it will give regulators more freedom to choose a rational RF licensing protocol, by better understanding the possibly self-imposed boundaries of cultural and geographical factors which are currently shaping allocation. Academically, there is utility in undertaking a cultural and geographic analysis of a topic that is mostly the domain of engineering, economic and legal analysts.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Following the European unification, the world's wireless regulation and standardisation are divided into two major camps, Europe and North America, which differ in their approach to top-down mandated standards, licensing and harmonisation. The diverse cellular penetration and digital TV standards are derived from dissimilar coverage zones and population densities. Attitudes to RF human hazards and the regulation of licence-exempt, spurious emissions, UWB emission masks and cognitive radios reveal that the US and Canada are generally less conservative than Europe. The fundamental differences are presented, analysed and explained, and predictions outline the worldwide anticipated adoption of new technologies.
Full-text available
Radiofrequency (RF) waves have long been used for different types of information exchange via the air waves--wireless Morse code, radio, television, and wireless telephone (i.e., construction and operation of telephones or telephone systems). Increasingly larger numbers of people rely on mobile telephone technology, and health concerns about the associated RF exposure have been raised, particularly because the mobile phone handset operates in close proximity to the human body, and also because large numbers of base station antennas are required to provide widespread availability of service to large populations. The World Health Organization convened an expert workshop to discuss the current state of cellular-telephone health issues, and this article brings together several of the key points that were addressed. The possibility of RF health effects has been investigated in epidemiology studies of cellular telephone users and workers in RF occupations, in experiments with animals exposed to cell-phone RF, and via biophysical consideration of cell-phone RF electric-field intensity and the effect of RF modulation schemes. As summarized here, these separate avenues of scientific investigation provide little support for adverse health effects arising from RF exposure at levels below current international standards. Moreover, radio and television broadcast waves have exposed populations to RF for > 50 years with little evidence of deleterious health consequences. Despite unavoidable uncertainty, current scientific data are consistent with the conclusion that public exposures to permissible RF levels from mobile telephone and base stations are not likely to adversely affect human health.
This book presents the fundamentals of wireless communications and services, explaining in detail what RF spectrum management is, why it is important, which are the authorities regulating the use of spectrum, and how is it managed and enforced at the international, regional and national levels. The book offers insights to the engineering, regulatory, economic, legal, management policy-making aspects involved. Real-world case studies are presented to depict the various approaches in different countries, and valuable lessons are drawn. The topics are addressed by engineers, advocates and economists employed by national and international spectrum regulators. The book is a tool that will allow the international regional and national regulators to better manage the RF spectrum, and will help operators and suppliers of wireless communications to better understand their regulators.
In January 2015, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) published its final opinion on “Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.” The purpose of this document was to update previous SCENIHR opinions in the light of recently available information since then, and to give special consideration to areas that had not been dealt with in the previous opinions or in which important knowledge gaps had been identified