Electromagnetic radiation safety: Russian national and international regulatory frameworks for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields

Introduction: Today, the growing human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) is of serious concern to the population and the international scientific community. Sources of RF EMF in residential areas include mobile radio base stations, signal repeaters, wireless broadband access points, TV and radio transmitters, satellite earth stations, radar and radio relay stations. Launching of 5G mobile networks will further complicate the electromagnetic situation in inhabited areas, especially in megacities where the size of exposed population is the largest. In the system of measures contributing to protection of the population from adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields, standards (regulations and other documents establishing EMF permissible levels) play a significant role and lay the foundation for organizational and technical measures of protection. High importance of standards in ensuring electromagnetic safety served as the basis for our study. The objective of the study was to perform a comparative analysis of RF EMF standards for inhabited areas and approaches to setting EMF exposure levels adopted by different countries and international organizations. Methods: We reviewed of some aspects ofbiological effects of RF EMF, regulations setting EMF exposure limits in different countries and recommended by ICNIRP, and approaches to establishing those limits. Conclusions: We found a significant discrepancy in RF EMF limits adopted in different countries, the legal status and scope of regulatory documents. Differences in the methodology for the development, adoption and approval of EMF standard accompanied by differences in their legal status prevent uniform EMF standard setting.

health, environment, electromagnetic field, radio frequency range, telecommunications, risk, maximum permissible level, public policy

1. Григорьев Ю.Г., Григорьев О.А. Сотовая связь и здоровье: электромагнитная обстановка, радиобиологические и гигиенические проблемы, прогноз опасности. М.: Экономика, 2013. 573 с

2. Belpomme D, Hardell L, Belyaev I, et al. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity nonionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ Pollut. 2018; 242(Pt A):643-658. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019

3. Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, et al. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology. 2008; 19(4):523-529. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e318175dd47

4. Volkow nD, Tomasi D, Wang GF, et al. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. 2011; 305(8):808-813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.186

5. Agarwal A, Desai Nr, Makker K, et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2009; 92(4):1318-1325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.022

6. Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ Health. 2013; 28(2-3):75-84. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2013-0004

7. Saili L, Hanini A, Smirani C, et al. Effects of acute exposure to WIFI signals (2.45 GHz) on heart variability and blood pressure in Albinos rabbit. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015; 40(2):600-605. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.etap.2015.08.015

8. Grigoriev YG, Grigoriev OA, Ivanov AA, et al. Confirmation studies of Soviet research on immunological effects of microwaves: Russian immunology results. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010; 31(8):589-602. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1002/bem.20605

9. Григорьев Ю.Г., Шафиркин А.В., Васин А.Л. Биоэффекты хронического воздействия электромагнитных полей радиочастотного диапазона малых интенсивностей (стратегия нормирования) // Радиационная биология. Радиоэкология. 2003. Т. 43. № 5. С. 501-511.

10. Лукьянова С.Н. Электромагнитное поле СВЧ диапазона нетепловой интенсивности как раздражитель для центральной нервной системы. Москва: ФГБУ ГНЦ ФМБЦ им. А.И. Бурназяна ФМБА России, 2015. 201 с. II. Григорьев Ю.Г. Электромагнитные поля и здоровье населения // Гигиена и санитария. 2003. № 3. С. 14-15.

11. Шандала М.Г. Физические факторы окружающей среды в экологии мозга. // Гигиена и санитария. 2015. Т. 94. № 3. С. 10-14.

12. Lukyanova SN, Karpikova NI, Grigoriev OA, et al. Neuroeffects cumulation of repeated nonthermal intensity electromagnetic exposures. Bulgarian Journal of Public Health. 2015; Suppl., 7(2(1)):145-147.

13. Michaelson SM. Thermal effects of single and repeated exposures to microwaves - a review. In: Biologic effects and health hazards of microwave radiation. Czerski P, Ostrowski K, Shore ML, et al, editors. Warsaw: Polish Medical Publishers, 1973. 350 p.

14. Schwan HP. Principles of interaction of microwave field at the cellular and molecular level. In: Radiofrequency radiation dosimetry handbook. Johnson CC, Durney CW, editors. 1st ed., Salt Lake City, University of Utah (Report No. SAM-TR-76-35). 1976.

15. Tell RA. RF hot spot fields: The problem of determining compliance with the ANSI radiofrequency protection guide. NAB Engineering Conference Proceedings; 1990. P. 419-431

16. NCRP Report No. 086 - Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 1986. Р. 290-353.

17. /519/EC: Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz). OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59-70.

18. Health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields. European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields (2008/2211(INI)). OJEС. 137E. P. 38-42.

19. Osepchuk JM, Petersen RC. Historical review of RF exposure standards and the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES). Bioelectromagnetics. 2003; Suppl 6:S7-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ bem.10150

20. Hardell L, Carlberg M. [Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncol Lett. 2020; 20(15):1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/ ol.2020.11876