united States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air and Radiation &
Office of Research and
Development
402-R-95-009
March 1995
v>EPA
Summary and Results of the
April 26-27, 1993
Radiofrequency Radiation
Conference
Volume 1: Analysis of Panel
Discussions
-------
402-R-95-009
March 1995
Summary and Results of the April 26-27,
1993 Radiofrequency Radiation
Conference
Volume 1: Analysis of Panel Discussions
Prepared for
Office of Air and Radiation
and Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Under Contract
Nos. 68-DO-0102 and 68-D2-0177
-------
ii SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
DISCLAIMER
Statements, recommendations, and conclusions expressed by participants of the
Radiot'requency Radiation Conference (Bethesda, Maryland, April 26 and 27, 1993) and summarized
in this document are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Furthermore, mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Disclaimer "
Abstract .... .... v
Executive Summary ... .... £5-7
1. INTRODUCTION . ... ... 1
2. OPENING REMARKS
Margo T. Oge . . . 1
3. PANEL SUMMARIES ... 9
PLENARY PANEL: NEED FOR EPA TO FINALIZE FEDERAL
RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDELINES FOR RF RADIATION;
AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF ACTIONS ON FEDERAL, STATE,
AND PRIVATE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 11
PANEL 1: EXPOSURE AND DOSIMETRY (EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT,
DOSIMETRY, RF SHOCKS AND BURNS) 14
PANEL 2: THERMAL RESPONSES (HUMAN, ANIMAL, THERMAL
MODELING, PERCEPTION) .... .IS
PANEL 3: EPIDEMIOLOGY .... .... 21
PANEL 4a: ANIMAL STUDIES (BEHAVIOR, NERVOUS SYSTEM,
ENDOCRINOLOGY, REPRODUCTION) ... ... 25
PANEL 4h: ANIMAL STUDIES (CHRONIC STUDIES, IMMUNOLOGY,
AND OCULAR EFFECTS) ... . . 28
PANEL 5: MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR EFFECTS ... 31
PANEL 6: BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS BASIS FOR EXPOSURE LIMITS 34
4. CLOSING REMARKS
Charles Susskind ... . . . . . 37
5. SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS 39
-------
iv SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: A REASSESSMENT OF THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION: NON-CANCER EFFECTS
APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE SPEAKERS AND PANELISTS
APPENDIX C: OTHER CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
VOLUME 2: PAPERS
-------
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
On April 26 and 27, 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air
and Radiation and Office of Research and Development held a conference to assess the current
knowledge of biological and human health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and to address
the need for and potential impact of finalization of federal guidance on human exposure to RF
radiation. More than 200 people attended the conference. Attendees represented the federal
government, academia, the private sector, trade associations, the media, and the public. Plenary
papers presented at the meeting focused on current research findings on a variety of topics, including
exposure assessment, dosimetry, biological effects, epidemiology, the basis for exposure limits, and
emerging health issues. Panel discussions focused on identifying key scientific information needs for
and the policy implications of the development of further EPA guidance on human exposure to RF
radiation. This document, Volume 1, provides a record of much of the information presented at the
conference, outlines key recommendations provided to EPA by conference participants, and presents
the EPA strategy for addressing RF radiation. Volume 2, under separate cover, provides the plenary
papers presented by invited speakers.
Two key conclusions emerged from the conference: (1) there is sufficient information on
thermal exposure/effects on which to base an RF radiation exposure standard; and (2) EPA should
develop some type of RF radiation exposure guidelines. These conclusions were considered by EPA
in its decision to proceed with the development of guidelines on human exposure to RF radiation and
to develop a longer term strategy to address remaining issues. Part of this strategy has involved
creating an inter-agency work group and requesting the National Council on Radiation Protection
(NCRP) to assess several remaining issues. Information provided at the conference also was used
as a basis for EPA comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 1993 proposal to
adopt the RF radiation exposure guidelines developed in 1992 by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document describes some of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) past and
current activities concerning radiofrequency (RF) radiation. This description is a distillation of the
information provided to EPA during the April 26 and 27, 1993 RF Radiation Conference held in
Bethesda, Maryland.
HISTORY OF RF RADIATION GUIDANCE AT EPA
The Administrator of EPA is responsible for providing "guidance for all federal agencies in
the formulation of radiation standards..." (42 U.S.C. 2021 (h)). Within the scope of that responsibility,
EPA published a September 1984 document, Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (Office
of Research and Development, EPA-600/8-83-026F; this report on RF radiation (RFR) is referred
to hereafter as the "1984 RFR Report"). As a result of the findings of that report, EPA published
a July 1986 proposal in the Federal Register (Vol. 51, No. 146, pp. 26318-27339) that outlined
alternative recommendations for limiting the public's exposure to RF radiation. A July 1987 internal
EPA report, "A Reassessment of the Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation: Non-Cancer
Effects," also was prepared (hereafter referred to as the "1987 Reassessment Report").
In 1990, EPA published a draft of an assessment of the literature on the carcinogenic and
related biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) resulting from both extremely low frequency
(ELF) and RF sources. This draft, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic.
Fields (Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/6-90/005B), was reviewed by the EPA Science
Advisory Board (SAB). SAB subsequently recommended that the Agency complete the RF radiation
guidance effort. In response to this recommendation, the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
and Office of Research and Development convened a group of scientists and other experts at a
conference held on April 26 and 27, 1993 in Bethesda, Maryland, to examine the current state of
knowledge about the human health effects of RF radiation.
SCOPE OF THE CONFERENCE
The goals of the RF radiation conference were to assess the current knowledge of biological
and human health effects of RF radiation and to address the need for and potential impact of
finalization of federal guidance on human exposure to RF radiation. As part of these goals, the
Agency hoped to address the unresolved issues that arose during the development of the 1986
proposed RF guidelines, as well as to identify and address any new issues.
To help meet the goals of the conference, EPA developed six tasks for the conference
speakers and panelists: (1) review the post-1982 literature on exposure assessment, dosimetry,
biological effects, and health effects of RF radiation (10 kHz-100 GHz); (2) provide the basis for
considering modifications to the conclusions reported in the 1984 RFR Report; (3) identify
uncertainties associated with exposure assessment, dosimetry, biological effects and health effects of
RF radiation; (4) introduce and discuss emerging health issues; (5) address the biological effects basis
for exposure limits; and (6) address the need for EPA action to control exposure and the anticipated
effects of such action on the activities of federal, state, and private agencies and organizations. To
help the participants complete these tasks, EPA developed a number of questions and distributed
them prior to the conference.
-------
ES-2 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RAD1OFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFERENCE
To help set the stage for the conference, EPA selected nine topic areas for the development
of plenary papers, with each area addressing a specific aspect of potential human health effects of
exposure to RF radiation. The nine presentations (one for each topic area) covered the following
areas: exposure assessment; dosimetry; RF shocks and burns; human thermal responses;
epidemiology; animal studies; molecular/cellular studies; ELF-modulated RF radiation; and emerging
health issues.
In addition, eight panels of scientific experts were convened to discuss the scientific and policy
implications of the information presented in the plenary papers and elsewhere. The plenary panel,
which was convened during the full conference assembly following the plenary speakers, was entitled
"Need for EPA to Finalize Federal Radiation Protection Guidelines for RF Radiation; and Possible
Effects of Actions on Federal, State, and Private Agencies and Organizations.'1 Six panels met
separately to discuss the following topics: Panel 1—Exposure and Dosimetry (Exposure Assessment,
Dosimetry, RF Shocks and Burns); Panel 2—Thermal Responses (Human, Animal, Thermal Modeling,
Perception); Panel 3—Epidemiology; Panel 4a-Animal Studies (Behavior, Nervous System,
Endocrinology, Reproduction); Panel 4b—Animal Studies (Chronic Studies, Immunology, Ocular
Effects); and Panel 5—Molecular and Cellular Effects. The eighth panel, "Biological Effects Basis for
Exposure Limits," convened during the full assembly. Each of the chairs of the eight panels
summarized the panel discussions and conclusions to the full conference assembly.
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Following the conference, EPA reviewed the panel summaries and the supplementary
information provided by participants. Two key conclusions (shown in bold type below) were
identified.
(1) There is sufficient information on thermal exposure/effects on which to base a
standard. However, participants generally felt that more information needs to be
obtained on nonthermal effects.
(2) The overwhelming consensus was that EPA should develop some type of RF radiation
exposure guidelines, even if EPA does so on an interim basis only. The foremost
reason provided for this recommendation was that, since federal exposure limits for
RF radiation do not as yet exist, a number of different exposure limits currently are
being used (if at all) at the local level. Nationally based EPA exposure limits thus
would help ensure a more consistent level of public health protection while also
significantly easing the burden on industry caused by the current patchwork of
standards (e.g., a reduction in expensive litigation, an improvement in U.S.
competitiveness abroad).
EPA ACTIVITIES FOLLOWING THE CONFERENCE
EPA used much of the information provided by the conference to develop comments on the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed adoption of RF radiation guidelines. EPA
then developed a specific RF radiation strategy that included (1) creating an inter-agency work group
to help address issues associated with establishing near-term RF radiation exposure guidelines, and
(2) requesting the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) to assess one of the key
remaining issues (i.e., the influence of modulation).
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-3
EPA Comments on the FCC Proposed Adoption of RF Radiation Exposure Guidelines
Soon after the RF radiation conference (November 1993), EPA provided comments on the
FCC proposed adoption of the 1992 American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Institute for
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard (58 Federal Register 19393, April 14, 1993).
In those comments, EPA recommended that the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard be used only with some
modification. Some issues of concern to EPA included the criteria used to select studies on which
the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard is based, the possible need for more protective exposure limits at
lower and higher frequencies, the lack of a distinction between occupational and general public
exposure, the need to consider athermal effects, and the need to consider pulse- and ELF-modulated
RF radiation.
Creation of an Inter-agency Work Group on RF Radiation
EPA convened an inter-agency work group in August 1994 to address the development of RF
radiation exposure guidelines. This work group, which meets regularly, is composed of
representatives from various federal agencies, including EPA, FCC, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA). The work group provides a forum to address health and
regulatory issues pertaining to RF radiation, and provides a basis for coordination among member
agencies in their approach to RF issues. EPA expects to release RF radiation exposure guidelines
in 1995.
NCRP Study on Modulated RF Radiation
As part of its long-term strategy, EPA entered into a cooperative agreement with NCRP to
address the issue of modulated RF radiation. NCRP intends to address the potential role of this
issue in developing new RF radiation exposure limits. Factors that NCRP will consider include
frequency dependence, time-averaging, modulation characteristics (e.g., wavetrain, frequency, pulse
width, repetition rate), selection of an adverse effects basis, and use of uncertainty factors. The
NCRP assessment of these issues may result in a recommendation that EPA include additional factors
in establishing new RF radiation limits.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document, Volume 1, is organized as follows.
• Section 1—Introduction discusses the history of RF radiation guidance at EPA, the
scope of the conference, and the organization of the conference.
• Section 2—Opening Remarks, by Margo T. Oge, provides an overview of the
conference.
• Section 3—Panel Summaries describes the major discussion points, recommendations,
and conclusions of each panel.
• Section 4—Closing Remarks, by Charles Susskind, frames many of the key conclusions
reached by conference participants.
-------
ES-4 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
• Section 5—Summary and Next Steps presents the main findings of the conference and
discusses several RF radiation-related activities that have occurred following
completion of the conference.
• Appendix A—A Reassessment of the Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation:
Noncancer Effects, by Joe A. Elder, provides a focal point for much of the discussion
at the conference.
• Appendix B—Speakers and Panelists provides information on many of the key
participants of the conference.
• Appendix C—Other Conference Attendees lists the names and affiliations of the other
participants and observers.
Volume 2, under separate cover, provides the plenary papers presented by invited speakers.
-------
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is an integral part of modern society. Applications of RF
radiation include communications, transportation, manufacturing, consumer products, defense,
security, and medicine. In recent years, the number and power of RF radiation sources have
increased dramatically, and their uses have diversified substantially. The result has been a general
increase in the type and level of human exposure. This exposure, along with a growing body of
research on the potential for RF radiation health effects, has fueled significant public, scientific, and
medical concern in recent years.
This document describes some of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) past and
current activities addressing RF radiation exposure. The focus of this description is a distillation of
the information provided to EPA during the April 26 and 27, 1993 RF Radiation Conference that
was held in Bethesda, Maryland. First, a brief description is provided on the history of RF radiation
guidance at EPA, the scope of the conference, the organization of the conference, and the
organization of this document.
HISTORY OF RF RADIATION GUIDANCE AT EPA
The Administrator of EPA is charged with the responsibility of providing "guidance for all
federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards..." (42 U.S.C. 2021 (h)). Within the scope
of that responsibility, EPA published a September 1984 document, Biological Effects of
Radiofrequency Radiation (Office of Research and Development, EPA-600/8-83-026F; this report is
referred to hereafter as the "1984 RFR Report"). As a result of the findings of that report, EPA
published a July 1986 proposal in the Federal Register (Vol. 51, No. 146, pp. 26318-27339) that
outlined alternative recommendations for limiting the public's exposure to RF radiation. In general,
these limits (1) were based on exposures that could produce thermal effects in animals and humans;
(2) were generally protective against thermally related health effects; (3) stated that "RF radiation
should, for now, be treated as a non-carcinogen"; and (4) used uncertainty factors to derive proposed
exposure limits.
A July 1987 internal EPA report, "A Reassessment of the Biological Effects of
Radiofrequency Radiation: Non-Cancer Effects," also was prepared (hereafter referred to as the
"1987 Reassessment Report"; see Appendix A). EPA research on the biological effects of RF
radiation exposure stopped in 1987, and the development of RF radiation guidance stopped in 1988.
Nevertheless, numerous health issues remained unresolved at that time, including the effects
associated with low-frequency modulated RF fields; the role of RF radiation exposure in
carcinogenesis; potential effects of low-level, long-term exposure; and biophysical mechanisms.
In 1990, EPA published an external review draft of an assessment of the literature on the
carcinogenic and related biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) resulting from both
extremely low frequency (ELF) and RF sources. This draft, Evaluation of the Potential
Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields (Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/6-90/005B;
hereafter referred to as the "1990 EMF Report"), was reviewed by the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB). SAB subsequently recommended that the Agency complete the RF radiation guidance effort.
In response to this recommendation, the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air and Office of
Research and Development convened a group of scientists and other experts at a conference held
on April 26 and 27, 1993 in Bethesda, Maryland, to examine the current state of knowledge about
-------
2 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
the human health effects of RF radiation. The results of this conference would be considered in the
EPA deliberations on whether to proceed with the federal guidance initiative.
SCOPE OF THE CONFERENCE
The goals of the RF radiation conference were to assess the current knowledge of biological
and human health effects of RF radiation and to address the need for and potential impact of
finalization of federal guidance on human exposure to RF radiation. As part of these goals, the
Agency hoped to address the unresolved issues that arose during the development of the 1986
proposed RF guidelines, as well as to identify and address any new issues.
To help meet the goals of the conference, EPA developed six tasks for the conference
participants (i.e., speakers and panelists):
(1) Review the post-1982 literature on exposure assessment, dosimetry, biological effects,
and health effects of RF radiation (10 kHz-100 GHz);
(2) Provide the basis for considering modifications to the conclusions reported in the 1984
RFR Report;
(3) Identify uncertainties associated with exposure assessment, dosimetry, biological
effects and health effects of RF radiation;
(4) Introduce and discuss emerging health issues;
(5) Address the biological effects basis for exposure limits; and
(6) Address the need for EPA action to control exposure and the anticipated effects of
such action on the activities of federal, state, and private agencies and organizations.
To help the conference participants complete these tasks, EPA developed a number of
questions and distributed them prior to the conference (along with other information). These
questions are as follows:
What could be the biological and health effects basis for guidelines today?
• How well understood are RF exposure hazards such as tissue heating and heat stress
resulting from acute exposure?
The 1986 "Notice of Proposed Recommendations for RF Radiation" published in the
Federal Register stated that RF radiation should be treated as a non-carcinogen.
Should RF radiation still be assumed to be non-carcinogenic?
What is an appropriate safety factor(s) and how can safety factors be related to
uncertainties in the data base?
What is the relevance of extremely low frequency (ELF) research to ELF-modulated
RF radiation biological and health effects?
• What approach could be used to assess the relationship between continuous wave
exposure and pulsed and ELF-modulated exposure?
-------
INTRODUCTION
• What are the advantages and disadvantages in the use of dose rate (SAR) as the
effective exposure parameter?
• Are there limitations and/or deficiencies in existing voluntary RF guidelines that
should be addressed in any future EPA guideline?
Another set of questions were especially relevant to the need for EPA guidelines for RF
radiation. These questions are:
• Is there a need for EPA guidelines? Why?
• What purpose would EPA action serve? Who would be protected? Who should be
protected (that would not be protected by other standards or guidelines)?
• What might be the overall effect on the public and private sectors, and on local, state,
and federal governments?
• Is there information indicating how many locations/systems may be affected by the
revision of the IEEE/ANSI guideline for uncontrolled environmental exposure
situations that would comply with the 1982 guidelines?
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFERENCE
To help set the stage for the conference, EPA selected nine topic areas for the development
of plenary papers, with each area addressing a specific aspect of potential human health effects of
exposure to RF radiation. The nine presentations (one for each topic area) took place at the
beginning of the first day and covered the following areas:
• Exposure assessment;
• Dosimetry;
• RF shocks and burns;
• Human thermal responses;
• Epidemiology;
• Animal studies;
• Molecular/cellular studies;
• ELF-modulated RF radiation; and
• Emerging health issues.
In addition, eight panels of scientific experts were convened to discuss the scientific and policy
implications of the information presented in the plenary papers and elsewhere. The plenary panel,
which was convened during the full conference assembly following the plenary speakers, was entitled
"Need for EPA to Finalize Federal Radiation Protection Guidelines for RF Radiation; and Possible
Effects of Actions on Federal, State, and Private Agencies and Organizations." Six panels then met
separately at the beginning of the second day and were organized as follows:
• Panel 1—Exposure and Dosimetry (Exposure Assessment, Dosimetry, RF Shocks and
Burns);
• Panel 2—Thermal Responses (Human, Animal, Thermal Modeling, Perception);
-------
4 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
• Panel 3—Epidemiology;
• Panel 4a-Animal Studies (Behavior, Nervous System, Endocrinology, Reproduction);
Panel 4b-Animal Studies (Chronic Studies, Immunology, Ocular Effects); and
• Panel 5—Molecular and Cellular Effects.
In the afternoon, the eighth panel, "Biological Effects Basis for Exposure Limits," convened during
the full assembly. Each of the chairs of the eight panels then summarized the panel discussions and
conclusions to the full conference assembly. One of the panel chairs, Dr. Charles Susskind, provided
closing remarks for the conference.
Following the conference, many of the speakers and panelists provided EPA with
supplementary information (e.g., lists of relevant literature, overheads used during presentations,
analyses of data). Also, speakers provided papers based on their plenary talks. Appendix B lists the
names and addresses of the speakers and panelists.
To develop panel summaries, EPA first developed transcripts of each panel discussion. EPA
then examined the brief summaries that were presented by panel chairs at the end of the second day
of the conference, and then expanded on these summaries using the panel transcripts. This latter
step helped ensure that the summaries fully addressed the issues that are relevant to the EPA
concerns.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document, Volume 1, is organized as follows.
• Section 1—Introduction discusses the history of RF radiation guidance at EPA, the
scope of the conference, and the organization of the conference.
• Section 2—Opening Remarks, by Margo T. Oge, provides an overview of the
conference.
• Section 3—Panel Summaries describes the major discussion points, recommendations,
and conclusions of each panel.
• Section 4—Closing Remarks, by Charles Susskind, frames many of the key conclusions
reached by conference participants.
Section 5—Summary and Next Steps presents the main findings of the conference and
discusses several RF radiation-related activities that have occurred following
completion of the conference.
Appendix A-A Reassessment of the Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation:
Noncancer Effects, by Joe A. Elder, provides a focal point for much of the discussion
at the conference.
• Appendix B—Speakers and Panelists provides information on many of the key
participants of the conference.
-------
INTRODUCTION 5
• Appendix C—Other Conference Attendees lists the names and affiliations of the other
participants and observers.
Volume 2, under separate cover, provides the plenary papers that were presented by speakers.
-------
OPENING REMARKS (OGE)
2. OPENING REMARKS
Margo T. Oge*
We are all aware that extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) issues have
become increasingly significant public issues. In that regard, I would like to focus my remarks in two
areas. First, I'd like to put this conference into context. Why are we here today? Second, I'd like
to challenge you with some questions that I would like to see the participants address throughout the
conference.
We go back a long way with this issue. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
first got involved in the early 1970's. Even though we have accomplished an awful lot, we have not
finalized RF radiation guidance. EPA started with this work because we were concerned with the
thermal effects of RF exposure to the general public. The EPA Office of Research and
Development initiated work to assess not only the thermal health effects associated with RF but also
the other potential biological and health effects. They developed a report that was completed in
1984. Based on that report, the Agency proceeded to put forward guidelines.
As you probably know, EPA is responsible for recommending guidance to the president and
other federal agencies on radiation issues that affect the public health. The guidance that EPA was
proposing in the 1980's was not regulatory. It was to be guidance to the other federal agencies
having regulatory responsibility for sources of RF radiation.
The proposal we put forward laid out four options. In the first option, the Agency would do
absolutely nothing. The other three options were more prescriptive. They were basically levels of
public health protection against RF thermal effects. The document was very clear that RF was not
to be considered carcinogenic. We received a number of comments at that time. The Agency
reviewed the comments but never really proceeded to finalize those guidelines, for a number of
reasons. The most critical reason was that when we looked at priorities within the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) vis-a-vis completing the guidelines, we decided to put our efforts
into other issues that were much more critical at that time. So we put aside the RF guidance and
never completed them.
A year ago, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) gave the Agency recommendations in a risk
document that deals with the potential health effects of EMF. One of the recommendations that
they made was that the Agency finalize the guidance proposed in 1986. At the same time there were
various Congressional hearings on RF, and there was pressure put on EPA by various Congressmen
to go back and finalize the guidance. And that's why we're here today.
What we would like to do at this conference is to ask the participants and the panel members
to address two issues. First, what is the current state of knowledge of RF health effects? Second,
what EPA actions should there be in this area?
Looking at the health effects, we feel it is critical to figure out how well understood are the
acute RF exposure hazards, such as tissue heating and heat stress. We would like to know how
relevant the health effects of ELF are to RF exposure. We would like to know what safety factors
EPA ought to consider if we go forward in proposing guidance to protect the public from RF
Director, 1991-1994, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
8 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
exposure. We would like the participants to address the extent to which EPA should go forward and
set guidelines. Why do we need EPA to play a role in this area? To what extent are existing
guidelines — and there are a number of them, including the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) guidelines — appropriate to protect public health? And at this point does EPA need to go
forward with another set of guidelines from the federal government? If we do go ahead and develop
guidelines, what should the scope of those guidelines be? Should EPA guidelines just address the
potential thermal health effects from exposure to RF, or should EPA address the potential non-
thermal health effects of RF? What are the impacts of such guidelines to the public, the private
sector, the state and local governments?
We clearly understand that you are not going to be able to fully answer all of these questions,
but we welcome the dialogue that is going to start today and tomorrow at this conference. We are
going to look at the outcome of this conference to help us make some informed decisions in this
area. I'm not here today to promise you that EPA is going to go forward and finalize the guidance
or not. I am going to be personally looking at the results of this conference, after which I have to
compare what we could be doing in this area versus what we could be doing in other areas that
ORIA deals with. As you know, under today's budget constraints we have to be very careful about
how we spend our resources and what issues we are addressing. We have to address the issues that
result in the biggest benefit based on the limited resources that we can set aside.
With that, I would like to wish you two very informed days here. I hope we will learn from
you and you will learn from each other. I look forward to getting the results of this conference.
-------
PANEL SUMMARIES
3. PANEL SUMMARIES
-------
PLENARY PANEL: NEED FOR FEDERAL GUIDELINES, AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS 11
PLENARY PANEL: NEED FOR EPA TO FINALIZE FEDERAL
RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDELINES FOR RF RADIATION; AND
POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF ACTIONS ON FEDERAL, STATE, AND
PRIVATE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
Dr. Charles Susskind (Chair) Ms. Janet Healer
Dr. Robert F Cleveland, Jr. Mr. Clifford Marks
Dr. David N. Erwin Dr. John M. Osepchuk
INTRODUCTION
This panel was asked to consider the need for EPA to develop or endorse federal guidelines
tor radiofrequency (RF) radiation protection, and the possible consequences of this action. Members
of the panel were representatives from academia and both the regulating and regulated communities.
Because this panel met during the plenary session of the conference, it also incorporated significant
audience participation in its discussions.
The panel was unanimous in its recommendation that federal RF radiation exposure
guidelines are needed, and that a federal government health regulatory agency, such as EPA, is the
appropriate body to undertake such an endeavor. The panel was also unanimous in its
recommendation that EPA does not necessarily need to develop an entirely new standard or conduct
new analyses; instead, EPA could simply endorse or modify an existing standard, such as the new
ANSI/IEEE standard.
This panel's discussion was organized into the following two major topics:
• The need and approach for EPA guidelines; and
• The overall effect on public and private sectors in local, state, and federal
government.
NEED AND APPROACH FOR EPA GUIDELINES
The panel unanimously agreed that there is a need for federal guidelines to be established
by a credible, federal agency with expertise and jurisdiction in the field. Panelists cited several
reasons for this need.
• First, there are no federal guidelines that limit RF radiation exposure to workers or
the public. According to some panelists, this lack of guidance raises several safety
issues.
• Second, state and local bodies are adopting standards on their own, often without the
necessary scientific expertise. The lack of a federal standard or guideline, therefore,
has led to a patchwork of state and local regulations that has contributed to public
apprehension, controversy over the potential risks to public health from existing and
developing technology, and expensive litigation.
• Finally, in many other countries, such as Great Britain, Japan, and Germany, RF
radiation guidelines exist. Because U.S. industries are subject to a variety of
-------
12 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
inconsistent standards, they are placed at a competitive disadvantage in the
international marketplace with regard to telecommunications devices and other
technologies. New technology must often undergo denials of permits and demands
for additional safety confirmations, which are expensive and delay products, services,
and systems.
Panel members suggested that EPA fulfill this need for guidelines by making a statement
regarding the validity of existing guidelines; and/or by developing different guidelines (if indicated)
by sponsoring additional research to fill some of the gaps in existing scientific literature.
The panel felt strongly that EPA should not wait until all or most of the uncertainties about
the RF radiation issue are resolved, as long as those uncertainties are clearly identified. A guideline
supported by EPA, the panelists stated, will still be effective and helpful to all involved, even if it has
caveats, uncertainties, and unresolved issues. To address the uncertainties, the panel suggested that
EPA call the standard an "interim standard", and revise it as research clarifies and resolves issues.
OVERALL EFFECT ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS IN LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
The panelists agreed unanimously that the overall effect of an RF radiation guideline would
be to provide a scientifically sound, respected basis for regulations. This guideline, the panelists felt,
would affect all groups represented on the panel.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which licenses and authorizes
thousands of transmitters for broadcast and non-broadcast use, and has responsibilities
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate environmental
impacts on public health from these emissions, would be assisted significantly by
federal guidance. The FCC depends on health and safety organizations such as EPA
for the standards that the FCC then would enforce. FCC has suggested that EPA
endorse the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines.
• The Department of Defense (DoD) (as well as the National Weather Service and
other federal agencies) also would benefit greatly if there were federal guidelines.
The current lack of an EPA guideline and the patchwork of numerous and diverse
local regulations cost DoD and the other federal agencies in time, money, and delays
and interference with activities. A national guideline would simplify the work of DoD
and other federal agencies in this area. (The Tri-Service Panel of DoD, which
coordinates research on RF radiation health effects and safety and recommends
guidelines for DoD, has recommended the ANSI/IEEE standard for use within DoD.)
• The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which
authorizes and manages all federal government use of the RF spectrum, gave several
reasons why a federal guideline would be helpful to them. NTIA also described some
of the detrimental effects that have occurred while working without a federal
guideline. For example, the lack of federal guidelines has had costly and disruptive
effects on the telecommunications industry, and has eroded public confidence.
Furthermore, several major government systems have faced obstacles in getting
permits to install or operate telecommunications systems, leading to lengthy delays in
projects and spending extra money on additional safety studies.
-------
PLENARY PANEL: NEED FOR FEDERAL GUIDELINES, AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS 13
• Difficulties in having to develop a standard at the local level was discussed by a local
government representative. Local governments often have to make decisions without
a wide base of scientific knowledge, and face citizens with a variety of views on the
issues. The public also generally lacks information and feels that it needs guidance
from more than just the local government. For example, the public is generally
uncomfortable with allowing the local government to decide RF radiation safety
issues, which are often felt to be health policy issues that are better addressed by a
health and safety agency such as EPA.
In summary, this panel believed that federal radiation protection guidelines endorsed or
created by EPA would be beneficial to all parties involved with RF and would limit controversy,
increase public confidence, decrease litigation, and improve the position of the U.S. in the
international marketplace.
-------
14 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
PANEL 1: EXPOSURE AND DOSIMETRY (EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT,
DOSIMETRY, RF SHOCKS AND BURNS)
Mr. Edwin Mantiply (Chair) Dr. Carl H. Dumey
Dr. C. K. Chou Dr. Om P. Gandhi
Dr. Robert F Cleveland, Jr. Dr. A. William Guy
Dr. David L. Conover Dr. Ronald C. Petersen
INTRODUCTION
Panel 1 focused on exposure assessment and dosimetry issues. This panel also discussed
several issues raised by speakers — primarily Mantiply, Guy, and Gandhi (see Volume 2) — during the
plenary session. The topics on which Panel 1 focused included:
• RF radiation dosimetry;
• The relationship between continuous and pulse- and ELF-modulated RF radiation
exposure; and
• Adoption of a standard.
RF RADIATION DOSIMETRY
The panel noted the importance of RF radiation dosimetry in the assessment of biological
effects, whether thermal or nonthermal. Considered in broad terms, dosimetry was characterized as
the association of external fields with the internal fields in the tissues, and it involves the description
of all exposure parameters, and the relation to specific absorption rate (SAR), internal electric and
magnetic fields, and internal current densities.
The panel divided their discussion of dosimetry into three categories: (1) use of SAR in RF
radiation dosimetry; (2) progress in dosimetry; and (3) the need for better dosimetric methods.
Use of SAR
SAR was considered by much of the panel to apply to both thermal and athermal effects, and
was generally felt to be the most important physical quantity associated with dosimetry. The panelists
discussed several controversies, however, over the use of SAR as a means — especially the sole means
— of quantifying effects. At low frequencies, for example, most panelists felt that SAR is meaningless
since individuals may be electrocuted with negligible SARs (i.e., shocks and burns are related to
current density). Conversely, one panelist noted that SAR can be quite high with negligible levels
of current. The consensus of the panel was that all parameters (i.e., current densities, internal fields,
and SAR) should be described when discussing RF radiation effects.
Progress in Dosimetry
Significant progress was reported and discussed in the area of local dosimetry of contact
currents, nonuniform fields, multiple sources, and small sources. There are new technologies and
higher spatial resolution models to use for assessing dose. These new methods should be included
in any update of the 1984 RFR Report on the biological effects of RF radiation. Several panelists
also agreed that the 1984 RFR Report - perhaps Conclusion #3, which addressed the
-------
PANEL 1: EXPOSURE AND DOSIMETRY 15
thermoregulatory effects of RF radiation (see Appendix A) — should be updated to emphasize the
use of averaging time for shocks and burns.
Need for Better Dosimetric Methods
Several recommendations were made for improving existing dosimetric methods.
« There is a need for more spatial or three-dimensional SARs, since local SARs may
be up to 100 times higher than the whole-body average SARs.
• Develop approaches for combining local SAR criteria (e.g., for personal
communication devices) with power density limits for far-field whole body exposure.
• To help biologists address mechanisms, more emphasis must be placed on
microdosimetry.
• In general, physical scientists must work more closely with biologists in improving
dosimetric methods used in studies.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTINUOUS WAVE AND PULSE- AND ELF-MODULATED
EXPOSURE
The panel focused on the interest in an approach to assessing the relationship between
continuous wave and pulse- and ELF-modulated exposure.
Assessing Continuous vs. Pulse- and ELF-Modulated Waves Exposure
The differences between the effects from continuous and pulse- and ELF-modulated RF
radiation were discussed by the panelists. One panelist cited research that indicates that pulse-
modulated RF radiation produces effects at nonthermal SARs, while continuous wave RF radiation
at the same SARs does not produce these effects. Most panelists felt that important questions are
raised with regard to time averaged SAR and the need for different dose measures for modulated and
continuous wave RF radiation.
One of the panelists proposed an approach that may address the relationship between
continuous wave and pulse- and ELF-modulated RF radiation. This approach is based on a Fourier
series expansion of the RF radiation pulse train. The summation of the SARs found for each Fourier
series sinusoidal harmonic of the pulse train would be a way to connect to the results of exposure to
the continuous wave case. This panelist noted, however, that the validity of this approach would
depend on the interaction mechanism (e.g., the approach may not be completely valid if the response
mechanism is nonlinear), and as yet there is no information on the response mechanisms associated
with modulated RF radiation.
Linking ELF Radiation Research to ELF-Modulation of RF Radiation
A significant amount of discussion addressed ELF-modulated RF radiation issues, primarily
those related to linking ELF and ELF-modulated RF radiation research. One panelist described the
difference between the internal fields from "direct" ELF (e.g., from power lines) and fields generated
from RF radiation, where the latter fields are much greater (by as much as 100,000 times). Thus, the
panelist noted, the internal ELF fields from ELF-modulated RF radiation may be more significant
than from direct ELF. Another panelist commented that effects due to ELF-modulated RF radiation
-------
16 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
that are similar to direct ELF fields have been observed experimentally, although the results have not
been conclusive. The panelists agreed that ELF-modulated RF radiation exposure is an important
area, but that significant additional research is needed before any conclusions can be reached.
ADOPTION OF EXPOSURE STANDARDS
The panel strongly recommended that EPA adopt some form of an exposure standard, such
as the ANSI/IEEE standard. During discussion of this recommendation, the panel addressed several
issues or points, including deficiencies/limitations of the ANSI/IEEE standard, cost implications, and
performance standards.
Deficiencies or Limitations in the ANSI/IEEE Standard
The panel felt that the ANSI/TEEE standard should be updated to correct the following
deficiencies/limitations as more data becomes available.
• Averaging time for contact current. Some panelists felt that the standard's 1 second
averaging time should be used only below 100 kHz (to protect against shock), and
that a longer averaging time could be used for frequencies above 100 kHz and up to
100 MHz.
• Transient discharges. Panelists agreed that transient discharge, which is a problem
that occurs during contact with an object containing an RF voltage, results in a pulse
of current that can cause a shock or a short-term burn. Little information on
transient discharges as a function of frequency exists, however, and therefore the
standard should more clearly address limitations in protection against shocks or burns
due to transient discharge.
• Calculating SAR for a cubic shapes of tissue. Some panelists felt that there are
certain problems with calculating SAR for 1 or 10 grams of tissue in the shape of a
cube, since certain parts of the body, such as the ear lobe or the hand holding a
device, cannot be identified as cube shaped.
• Frequency cutoff. Some panelists noted that the frequency cutoff for induced and
contact currents of 100 MHz may result in certain problems (e.g., for assessing
mixtures of exposure) because the FM radio band is 88 to 108 MHz.
• Conflicting components of standard. One panelist noted that the standard allows the
possibility of compliance with electric field strength, but not with induced current limit
at some frequencies.
Cost Implications of Standard
The panel identified some of the cost implications of adopting the ANSI/IEEE standard. In
addition to the potential impact on the FM radio industry because of the 100 MHz cutoff, the body
current limitations could significantly increase the cost of AM broadcast compliance. In addition, the
panel noted, FM stations that are in compliance now with the 1982 ANSI standard may not be with
the 1992 standard.
-------
PANEL 1: EXPOSURE AND DOSIMETRY 17
Using the ANSI/IEEE Standard to Develop Performance Standards
Suggestions were made to use the ANSI/IEEE standard as a cap on environmental exposure,
and then establish case-by-case performance standards to achieve lower fields for particular sources
where it may be easy to limit exposure down to levels lower than the standard (e.g., raising the height
of radar devices on pleasure boats to reduce exposure).
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The panel discussed several of the major advantages and disadvantages of SAR. SAR was
generally considered to be the most important dosimetric quantity applicable to both thermal and
athermal effects. The panel also highlighted several areas — including contact currents, nonuniform
fields, multiple sources, and small sources — in which major improvements have taken place recently
in the field of dosimetry. Furthermore, the panel identified areas for additional dosimetry research,
such as spatial or three-dimensional SARs; combining local SAR criteria (e.g., for personal
communication devices) with power density limits for far-field whole body exposure; and
microdosimetry.
The panel addressed several issues associated with pulse- and ELF-modulated RF radiation,
including potentially lower thresholds for effects from these fields compared to continuous wave RF
radiation; the possible relevance of ELF research to effects of ELF-modulated RF radiation; and the
additional research that is needed overall. The panel also concluded that some changes were needed
in the 1987 Reassessment Report (see Appendix A), including updates on new methods for exposure
assessment and dosimetry; and an update of electric shock and burn (perhaps for Conclusion #3).
The panel also strongly recommended that EPA adopt RF radiation exposure guidelines, such as the
ANSI/IEEE standard (or some form of it).
-------
18 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
PANEL 2: THERMAL RESPONSES (HUMAN, ANIMAL, THERMAL
MODELING, PERCEPTION)
Dr. Daniel J. Schaefer (Chair) Dr. Christopher J. Gordon
Dr. Eleanor R. Adair Dr. James C. Lin
Dr. T. Whit Athey Dr. Frank G. Shdlock
Dr. Melvin R. Frei Dr. Ronald J. Spiegel
INTRODUCTION
Panel 2 addressed thermal responses to RF radiation. The discussion focused on magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) issues, such as those described in the plenary paper presented by Shellock
(see Volume 2). Panel 2's discussion is organized as follows:
MRI data;
• Frequency effects;
• Local SAR limits;
• Measurable thermoregulatory effects;
• Ambient temperature;
• General subject of setting standards; and
• Conclusions/recommendations.
MRI DATA
Panel 2 initially concentrated on MRI studies that provide human research data. The
panelists agreed that the MRI studies were helpful in characterizing thermal effects, and that
guidelines for whole body average exposure should make use of the studies. There was disagreement,
however, regarding the use of the MRI data for far field exposure scenarios. Some differences noted
in the nature of the exposure of MRI compared to typical far field exposure include the following:
• In MRI, the magnetic field vector causes induction heating, and the energy is
deposited more peripherally compared to far field exposure (at lower
radiofrequencies). This peripheral deposition allows for energy to be more easily
released to the environment.
• Most MRI systems now use quadrature excitation, which means that the magnetic
field vector is circularly polarized. The effect is that any homogeneities that might
produce hot spots tend to get "stirred," which is quite different than what is found in
a far field exposure.
• MRI exposure is acute, being no greater than approximately 2 W/kg with a duration
up to one hour. For environmental exposure to far field RF radiation, people could
be exposed for much longer periods of time.
FREQUENCY EFFECTS
The panelists agreed that any new guidelines should take into account the effect of frequency
on energy deposition. Panelists discussed several differences between effects at various frequencies
(e.g., high vs. low, resonant vs. non-resonant). One panelist noted, for example, the recent MRI data
on the peripheral heating that can occur at very low frequencies. This panelist also discussed data
-------
PANEL 2: THERMAL RESPONSES 19
on the high amount of peripheral heating relative to core heating that occurs at super resonant
frequencies (i.e., above 3 GHz), noting that this is believed to be similar to the situation that occurs
with an induced magnetic field, and that these effects may have serious implications for cardiovascular
and cardiorespiratory function.
LOCAL SAR LIMITS
Panelists discussed at length the importance of local SAR limits. This discussion addressed
issues such as the high local SARs that can occur even at low whole body average SARs and the
frequency dependence of local SARs (e.g., the potential for high local power deposition at super
resonant frequencies). Panelists agreed that local SAR limits must be addressed in addition to whole
body averages. Furthermore, many of the panelists considered an SAR of about 1.6 W/kg to be
appropriate for a local limit.
MEASURABLE THERMOREGULATORY EFFECTS
One panelist noted that effects from exposure to 0.4 W/kg are not measurable. This panelist
also cited data showing that a 1.2 W/kg whole body exposure does not appear to generate an increase
in body temperature. Some panelists noted that an increase in body temperature from RF radiation
(e.g., at 0.4 W/kg) is less than the diurnal variations of 0.5 or 1 degree or the increase obtained
through exercise or even the use of extra clothing. Other panelists, however, questioned whether
such mechanisms can be compared since exposure to RF radiation may not mobilize the
thermoregulatory responses of the body in the same manner.
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
The panel further discussed whether — because thermal responses are a function of
environmental temperature — operative ambient temperatures should be considered in SAR limits.
One panelist noted that environmental engineers use the concept of operative ambient temperature
to account for all energy sources in the environment that are affecting an organism. Such an
approach may complicate the standard, panelists noted, but the guidelines would be better suited to
different ambient conditions.
AVERAGING TIME FOR PULSE AND CONTINUOUS WAVE EXPOSURE
The panelists agreed that a standard should differentiate between pulsed and continuous wave
exposure scenarios. The panel generally felt that 15 minutes may be an appropriate averaging time
for continuous wave exposure and 100 milliseconds may be appropriate for pulsed wave exposure.
One panelist demonstrated how averaging time is crucial by providing a hypothetical exposure
scenario: if the standard were 1 W/kg and the averaging period were 10 minutes, then a 10 W/kg
exposure could occur for 1 minute with a resting period of 9 minutes (alternatively, if the averaging
period were 30 minutes, then a 30 W/kg exposure could occur for one minute).
STANDARDS SETTING
In general, the panelists agreed that EPA should develop a standard, and that, as a basic-
philosophy, the standard setting process should begin at the level of measurable thermal physiological
consequences, with a systematic application of safety and uncertainty factors. Given sufficiently large
uncertainty factors, the panelists felt, athermal effects could be addressed by default.
-------
20 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Panelists discussed four options, in terms of allowable effects, for the general approach to
setting standards. That is, the standard could allow either
(1) No demonstrable physiological effects;
(2) Measurable physiological effects but no known consequences;
(3) Minimal physiological consequences; and
(4) Adverse effects on bodily functions/organisms.
The panel ultimately decided that the standard should start at the "break point" where thermal
physiological effects are measurable; the standard should then apply safety and uncertainty factors
to regulate below the level of measurable effects. Panelists generally agreed that a safety factor of
four or five would be appropriate. To account for other uncertainties (i.e., pathologies, age, ambient
temperatures), the panelists generally agreed that a factor of 10 would be appropriate. Starting with
an SAR of about 4 W/kg (from the MRI data) as the level at which significant physiological effects
are manifested, these two adjustments led the panel to recommend a whole body average SAR
exposure limit of about 0.08 W/kg.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The panelists provided several conclusions and recommendations:
• EPA should write an RF radiation standard for environmental exposure. This
standard could be based on measurable thermal effects considerations, but with
adequate uncertainty factors. The standard should address ambient temperatures,
frequency effects, localized effects, and continuous vs. pulsed waves.
• Additional funding and research is needed on measurable thermoregulatory effects
of long term RF radiation exposure. Little data exist now, they argued, and standard
setting would have a firmer scientific foundation given more research in the area.
MRI research is useful, the panel noted, but it is not a direct substitute for long term
— especially far field — RF radiation exposure.
• One panelist argued for additional research into normalizing energy deposition by the
surface area of the body rather than by mass. If a standard used surface area and not
mass, he stated, a totally different standard would result (i.e., about five times less).
-------
PANEL 3: EPIDEMIOLOGY 21
PANELS: EPIDEMIOLOGY
Dr. Doreen Hill (Chair) Dr. Samuel Milham, Jr.
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
INTRODUCTION
Panel 3's discussions on the epidemiological evidence for human health effects of RF
radiation addressed the literature on the topic, which was introduced in the plenary presentation by
Matanoski (see Volume 2). The discussion by this panel focused primarily on results from cohort
studies of specific human populations exposed to RF radiation. Also discussed were the limitations
of the usefulness of data in the existing body of literature on RF radiation.
This summary of the panel discussion is organized as follows:
• Supplemental information;
• Recent occupational studies;
• Problems with the epidemiological data; and
• Conclusions/recommendations.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The panel first examined a list of studies (compiled by one of the panelists) to identify any
that were not included in the data compilations developed thus far (i.e., the 1984 RFR Report, the
1987 Reassessment Report, and the 1990 EMF Report). Identified as missing were the following:
• Long-term mortality studies on amateur radio operators in Washington State and
California;
• Recent Norwegian studies based on occupation;
• A study on electromagnetic pulse (EMP) workers;
• A study on heart disease;
• A study on reproductive effects on diathermy workers; and
• Thesis work on female physiotherapists.
A summary of discussions on some of these studies is provided in the next section.
RECENT OCCUPATIONAL STUDIES
The panel examined several recent epidemiological studies that examined potential
occupational exposure.*
* No specific epidemiological information on non-occupational studies was presented.
-------
22 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
• Occupational mortality studies were the first studies reviewed by the panel. A study
by one of the panelists, Milham, looked at health statistics from 1940 to 1989 in
Washington state, focusing on radio operators/telegraphers and radio and TV
repairmen. Although the population was based on small numbers, the studies showed
an increase in mortality from leukemia, hematolymphoma, and brain cancer in these
groups.
• A 1992 study by Mumm looked at people involved in BMP testing. The medical
cohort was defined by all those who had EMP medical exams because they worked
around pulsed fields. This group showed an increase in chronic myelocytic leukemia
(four in a population of 304 individuals).
• Swedish epidemiological data (from Tynes) on radio and TV repairmen, based on
census data, showed significant excess leukemia rates, but they may also have been
exposed to ionizing radiation due to older TV sets that can emit x-rays.
• In a more recent Swedish study on a cohort of workers at a Norwegian hydropower
plant, based on workers at both the power stations and at power lines, no leukemia
or brain tumors were found. Tynes questioned the difference between the previous
finding and this one (i.e, is it the actual jobs the workers perform, or are there
differences in the electromagnetic fields to which the different workers are exposed?).
• In contrast to the previous study, a study of hydroelectric workers in Washington
State has shown a large excess of non-Hodgkins lymphoma in workers in the
Columbia River power house.
• One panelist, Hill, presented data involving radar developers at MIT. This study
showed no increased risk of leukemia or brain cancer, but an unusual result of
increased risk of Hodgkins disease and gall bladder and bile duct cancer. Those who
developed Hodgkins were in a group that was determined to be subject to "low
exposure" This result is confounded by the possibility that Hodgkins may have an
infectious origin. Hill also saw an increase in cirrhosis in this population that does not
appear in the cancer data.
• A current study on reproductive effects of RF radiation on MRI technicians has
shown no effects thus far.
• Other occupational studies that were cited, including those examining ocular effects
of RF radiation on Navy personnel and a study on U.S. Embassy personnel in
Moscow, were not thought to be useful because the pathology rates were not
statistically significant.
• No studies on the ocular effects of RF radiation exposure have been conducted since
1984.
PROBLEMS WITH THE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA
The panel presented numerous criticisms about the data that show relationships between RF
radiation and cancer, leukemia, brain tumors, and other pathologies. These criticisms can be
summarized as follows:
-------
PANELS: EPIDEMIOLOGY 23
• In studies that define populations by job title, it is virtually impossible to know the
type, intensity, and duration of the RF radiation to which the population has been
exposed.
• Cohort studies of all kinds lack long-term follow-up. Many of these populations can
be studied during, and for many years after, their occupational exposure. This has not
been done for any study.
• Most previous studies have focused on 60 Hz exposure, with little attention to
frequency distributions. People in many occupations, however, are exposed to
different electrical field powers and frequencies, and in these studies, no field
measurements were provided that could elucidate the potential source and type of
radiation to which these populations were exposed. Therefore, information gleaned
from most previously published studies is not directly useful for assessing RF radiation
effects on human health.
• Most effects that have been seen from RF radiation are thermal effects. There is
little data on the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF radiation in humans. In
addition, it is difficult to determine whether effects from RF radiation exposure result
from thermal or non-thermal processes in humans.
• Studies have not been careful to delineate whether populations have been exposed
to continuous wave/non-pulsed (e.g., radio and TV signals) or pulsed (e.g., radar)
energy radiation. Results from EMP studies show that there may be significant
differences in the effects of continuous wave versus pulsed radiation.
• People in many occupations are exposed to numerous sources of RF radiation at
once, or switch jobs within their lifetimes, changing the nature of their exposure. This
makes it difficult to pinpoint the nature of the relationship between exposure and
particular pathologies. For example, many occupations (e.g., television repair) that
expose individuals to RF radiation also expose them to ionizing radiation. In addition,
it is difficult to follow the medical histories of these groups as they age. A further
complication is the difficulty of isolating normal aging processes and increased risks
of cancers such as leukemias from RF radiation exposure.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The members of Panel 3 developed four general conclusions about the epidemiological
evidence for human health effects of RF radiation:
(1) Human data are currently limited and incomplete, and in general do not indicate any
obvious relationship between prolonged low-level RF radiation exposure and
increased mortality or morbidity, including cancer. This conclusion is based on
general occupational studies and cohort studies, as well as additional studies that
focused on reproductive, neurological, and ocular effects. This situation has not
changed appreciably since 1984, when EPA concluded that too little human
epidemiological data existed on which to base an RF radiation exposure standard.
(2) The thermal effects of RF radiation are well-documented in human populations.
However, EPA cannot presently develop standards for non-thermal RF radiation,
-------
24 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
given the uncertainties that exist about the specific types of exposure to RF radiation
incurred by human populations.
(3) Some uncertainty exists about whether RF radiation should continue to be considered
a non-carcinogen. Some members of the panel felt that, because of this uncertainty,
EPA should not continue to state with certainty that RF radiation is not a carcinogen.
(4) More research, including longer-term cohort studies that incorporate careful
measurements of occupational exposure, including exposure type (pulsed vs.
continuous wave, high vs. low frequencies, etc.), duration, and information about
confounding variables (including multiple exposures) must be conducted before EPA
takes further regulatory action to control human exposure to RF radiation.
-------
PANEL 4a: ANIMAL STUDIES (BEHAVIOR, NERVOUS SYSTEM, ENDOCRINOLOGY, REPRODUCTION) 25
PANEL 4a: ANIMAL STUDIES (BEHAVIOR, NERVOUS SYSTEM,
ENDOCRINOLOGY, REPRODUCTION)
Dr. Mary Ellen O'Connor (Chair) Dr. Joseph Lary
Dr. John D'Andrea Dr. Gregory W. Lotz
Dr. John DeLorge Dr. Shin-Tsu Lu
Dr. Henry Lai Dr. Michele Marcus
INTRODUCTION
Panel 4a discussions on animal studies focused on five specific areas:
(1) general issues;
(2) behavior;
(3) nervous system;
(4) endocrinology; and
(5) reproduction/development.
Much of the discussion involved information presented in a plenary paper by Elder (see Volume 2).
The primary objective of the panel's discussion was to review and evaluate data from 1982
onwards. A second objective of the discussion was to establish whether or not there are more data
— in addition to the currently more promising information on behavior — to establish a standard.
Finally, a third objective was to provide guidance to EPA concerning the biological basis (relevant
to the areas covered by this panel) for RF radiation guidelines.
GENERAL ISSUES
The panel addressed the following general areas before proceeding to the more specific
topics.
"Athermal"/SAR issues. The panel concluded that the question of how to express
athermal interactions in terms of SAR is too complicated. They pointed out that
SAR depends on such factors as frequency and the size of the animal, and that SAR
is not very meaningful at lower frequencies.
Thermal, basal metabolic rate (BMR), and body temperature. The panel emphasized
the importance of clearly defining these terms. Some panelists discussed whether a
mechanistic shift toward a thermal phenomenon could be said to occur at ^ 100 kHz,
although they emphasized that a thermal increase does not necessarily mean that the
mechanism is thermal.
Frequencies to which SAR applies. The problem of determining how low in
frequency does the SAR concept apply was considered, and no definitive conclusions
could be reached.
Use of induced electric field as a measure of dose. The panel debated the possibility
of using induced electric field (which is proportional to SAR) as a measure of dose;
however, no clear conclusion could be achieved.
-------
26 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Long-term exposure. The panel was concerned about whether or not the 1992
ANSI/IEEE standard of > 6 minutes averaging time constituted an adequate
assessment of long-term exposure. Some panel members considered the 6 minute cut-
off to be inadequate for some effects.
Health effects versus health hazard. The importance and difficulty of differentiating
a health effect from a health hazard was stressed. For example, the panel discussed
whether or not effects on the visual system are a health effect or a health hazard.
Safety factor. The panel discussed applications for safety factors. For example, the
panel felt that a safety factor of 10 may not be appropriate for all endpoints (e.g.,
behavioral effects may require a smaller safety factor than retinal damage).
BEHAVIOR
After evaluating the impact of new studies on the effects of RF radiation on behavior, the
panel concluded that the 1982 ANSI/IEEE guideline threshold for behavior (established, according
to the panel, as 4 W/kg based on disruption of performance in small laboratory animals) was
supported by new data, and that behavior was still an important point for setting a standard or
guideline.
The panel discussed the results of studies that attempted to generalize eye injury to behavior.
It was noted that there were no changes in visual performance (as assessed by the visual contrast
sensitivity paradigm) in monkeys exposed to high peak power pulsed radiation. In addition, it was
emphasized that the visual contrast sensitivity studies were not an attempt to replicate the findings
of studies that have demonstrated retinal injury.
The panel also discussed data showing that vigilance was not disrupted by high peak power
radiation. Although some data have demonstrated decreased physical endurance and memory
impairment in rats with a paradigm utilizing a high peak power TEMPO system and two behavioral
endpoints (bisection as an operant technique and the Y maze), the panel felt that it was premature
to set a standard based on these endpoints. Previous standards, however, have not limited exposure
to high peak power radiation.
NERVOUS SYSTEM
The panel discussed data showing evidence that RF radiation can result in various
neurochemical changes (such as neurotransmitter and synaptic function), that often precede the
behavioral changes. Neurochemical effects have been reported at exposure levels as low as 0.3 W/kg
(whole-body exposure). Summary data on neurochemistry findings were presented and include the
following:
(1) Changes in the cholinergic system at 0.45 W/kg (whole-body exposure);
(2) Changes in short-term memory at 0.6 W/kg (whole-body exposure);
(3) Changes in ATPase function and energy transfer in the CNS when the cortex was
irradiated with 591 MHz at SARs down to 0.026 W/kg; and
-------
PANEL 4a: ANIMAL STUDIES (BEHAVIOR, NERVOUS SYSTEM, ENDOCRINOLOGY, REPRODUCTION) 27
(4) Interactions with chemicals, such as psychoactive drugs, at SARs as low as 0.2 W/kg.
The panel discussion also focused on the possibility that the neurochemical changes may be stress-
related.
ENDOCRINOLOGY
The panel noted that there are only a few recent studies on the endocrine effects of RF
radiation. The panel concluded that these studies contribute to the concept of stress, and confirm
previous work on the influence of RF radiation on endocrine function.
REPRODUCTION/DEVELOPMENT
The panel recognized that there were no major changes since the 1987 Reassessment Report
(see Appendix A) with regard to the reproductive effects of RF radiation. However, it was pointed
out that some studies have shown that experimental levels of RF radiation as low as 0.05 W/kg can
have effects on mouse spermatocytes. With regard to developmental effects, concerns about embryo
lethality and embryo toxicity were supported by a number of avian and mammalian studies showing
effects at 10 to 20 kHz (approximately 0.01 W/kg). Human studies were considered by the panel to
be inadequate to evaluate reproductive/developmental effects of RF radiation in humans because
exposure levels were not well characterized.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were made for research on RF radiation and animal studies:
• Conduct studies to replicate findings. The need to replicate findings became
apparent. For example, the panel noted that additional studies are needed on ocular
effects such as retinal damage.
• Conduct low-level, long-term exposure studies. Particular emphasis was placed on
these types of studies since this is a scenario most frequently encountered in human
exposure. The panel felt that chronic exposure studies also need to be conducted at
different frequencies.
• Conduct studies in more species. The panel concluded the need for studies in species
besides the rat (e.g., primate studies).
• Conduct studies comparing pulsed vs. continuous wave radiation. The panel noted
that different exposure systems (e.g., multimode cavity and circular polarized
waveguide) have produced different effects, thereby affecting the outcome of the
studies.
-------
28 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
PANEL 4b: ANIMAL STUDIES (CHRONIC STUDIES, IMMUNOLOGY,
AND OCULAR EFFECTS)
Dr. Joe Elder (Chair) Dr. Robert E. McGaughy
Dr. Ewa Czerska Dr. John C. Monahan
Dr. Henry A. Kues Dr. Ralph J. Smialowicz
Dr. Larry L. Kunz Dr. James C. Toler
Dr. Robert P. Liburdy
INTRODUCTION
Panel 4b's discussion focused on the adverse physiological effects observed in animal studies
— in particular, chronic, immune system, and ocular effect studies — following exposure to RF
radiation. The panel used the findings and conclusions of the EPA 1987 Reassessment Report as
a guide to the discussion (see Appendix A). The plenary paper on animal studies, which Elder
presented the previous day (see Volume 2), also provided a starting point for this discussion section.
This summary is organized around five major topics:
• General observations;
• Immune system;
• Ocular system;
• Chronic effects; and
• Conclusions/recommendations.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
At the outset of this session, two general observations by the panel were highlighted:
(1) Conclusion #1 in the 1987 Reassessment Report (see Appendix A) states that most
of the animal studies investigating the adverse physiological effects associated with RF
radiation exposure have used radiofrequencies between 27 MHz and 3 GHz, yet the
vast majority of studies actually have used only two frequencies — 915 and 2,450 MHz.
Extrapolating from such a discrete set of frequencies to a broad range of frequencies
is a potentially significant uncertainty that should be considered during any standard-
setting process.
(2) SAR is useful for normalizing the rate of energy absorption across the frequency
range of 0.5 MHz and 100 GHz. Some panelists felt, however, that it may no longer
be appropriate to further state — as in Conclusion #2 of the 1984 RFR Report (see
Appendix A) — that SAR is useful as a metric for evaluating the biological effects
associated with RF radiation exposure over this range, because that may imply that
the biological effect results only from the energy absorption, which may not be the
case.
EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM
The panel examined whether Conclusion #8 in the 1987 Reassessment Report — which
addresses the lack of convincing evidence for RF radiation effects on hematologic and immunologic
systems without some form of thermal involvement (see Appendix A) — needs revision. Panelists
generally felt that this conclusion should not be revised, and that there remains a lack of convincing
-------
PANEL 4b: ANIMAL STUDIES (CHRONIC STUDIES, IMMUNOLOGY, AND OCULAR EFFECTS) 29
evidence for RF radiation effects on the immune system without some type of thermal involvement.
The panel also generally felt that no revision is needed to Conclusion #8's statement that RF
radiation effects on hematologic and immunologic systems appear to be reversible.
EFFECTS ON THE OCULAR SYSTEM
The panel examined whether Conclusion #17 of the 1987 Reassessment Report relative to
ocular effects - in particular, that no data exist to support a conclusion that low level, long term
exposure to RF radiation induces cataracts (see Appendix A) — needs revision. The panel briefly
discussed the well-established observations that acute exposure to high intensity RF radiation can
induce cataract formation, and that the development of cataracts is related to a significant
temperature increase in the lens of the eye.
The panel then went on to discuss other types of ocular effects associated with RF radiation
exposure — including effects on the iris and cornea - at very low SARs. One panelist, Kues,
described research indicating that corneal lesions can result from an RF radiation-induced increase
in iris vascular permeability in primate eyes exposed to pulsed RF radiation at 2.6 W/kg or higher.
This panelist also presented data that indicated pulse length and frequency may be factors in the
corneal effects.
This panelist further hypothesized — based on some data and on current theories of cancer
promotion caused by the interaction of microwaves with melanin and the generation of free radicals
— that RF radiation effects on the cornea result from microwave interactions with the pigmented
melanin layer in the iris, which cause a cascade of effects such as the formation of free radicals, which
lead to a break down in the vasculature of the iris, which cause toxins to leak out and poison the
corneal endothelium.
The effective SAR for corneal effects was reduced by a factor of 10 — down to 0.26 W/kg or
higher — if the eye had been pretreated with one or more commonly prescribed drugs for glaucoma.
One panelist noted that these findings may indicate the presence in the population of a sensitized
subpopulation (i.e., over 1 million people in the U.S. who are being treated for glaucoma).
CHRONIC EFFECTS
The panel next addressed chronic animal studies. The panelists specifically addressed
Conclusion #20 in the 1987 Reassessment Report, which states that there is no convincing evidence
that exposure to RF radiation shortens the life span of human beings or experimental animals or that
RF radiation is a primary carcinogen (cancer inducer) (see Appendix A). Panelists felt that, in light
of recent research findings, this statement needed revision.
First, the panelists felt strongly that the issues of cancer and lifespan should be considered
separately. With respect to the influence of RF radiation exposure on lifespan, one panelist
described recent research that showed a decrease in lifespan in mice exposed at 6.8 W/kg, but no
decrease at exposures less than or equal to 2 W/kg.
With respect to cancer, the panel discussed some older research that was conducted at the
University of Washington. According to panelists, that research suggested that (1) RF radiation
exposure is associated with an increase in benign adrenal medulla tumors, and (2) there was an
overall increase in non-specific tumors across sites, although there was no increase in any specific
tumor at any given site. Panelists generally agreed that, for a variety of reasons, this research was
not conclusive.
-------
30 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RAD1OFREQUENCY FIADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
Other miscellaneous points that were discussed by the panel include the following:
• Several panelists commented on the importance of distinguishing between adverse
physiological outcomes induced by thermal effects at the microcellular level and truly
athermal adverse effects. These panelists stated that RF radiation exposure can
change cellular physiology to give the appearance of a radiation-induced change, even
though the changes observed may have been brought about by microheating effects
at the cellular and subcellular levels.
• Several panelists noted that some in vitro studies suggest a difference between effects
induced by pulsed wave exposure and those induced by continuous wave exposure.
One panelist stated that exposure to pulsed waves can cause spontaneous
transformation in human lymphocytes, while continuous wave exposure does not cause
this effect. Some panelists speculated that the pulsed exposure may be causing
microheating of cells that cannot be detected by direct measurements. Nevertheless,
panelists generally felt that EPA should differentiate between pulsed and continuous
wave exposures and establish separate exposure guidelines for them.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the conclusions described above, the panel also discussed three future research
needs.
(1) Future immunology studies should consider the current findings from the
epidemiology literature on cancers that are related to effects on the immune system
(e.g., some forms of leukemia).
(2) Future immunology studies also should be very careful with choosing the proper
animal model.
(3) A potential mechanism of action to consider when designing animal studies is the
production of free radicals from RF radiation exposure and the ability of free radicals
to produce the adverse physiological effects associated with RF radiation.
-------
PANEL 5: MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR EFFECTS 31
PANEL 5: MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR EFFECTS
Dr. Stephen F. Cleary (Chair) Dr. Theodore Litovitz
Dr. Carl F. Blackman Dr. Martin L. Meltz
Dr. Craig K Byus Dr. Mays Swicord
Dr. Kenneth R. Foster
INTRODUCTION
This discussion on molecular and cellular effects addressed many of the issues raised in the
plenary paper presented by Cleary (see Volume 2). These and other issues, however, were the
subject of much debate during the panel session.
The most deliberated issues during these discussions were the degree to which significant in
vitro low intensity athermal* effects from RF radiation have been seen, and the extent to which such
effects can be used to design future experiments, elicit mechanisms of action, or indicate potential
adverse health effects in humans or other higher-level organisms.
Panel 5's discussion centered around four main topics:
• In vitro effects under low intensity conditions;
• Use of in vitro studies;
• Relevance of ELF research; and
In vitro basis of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard.
IN VITRO EFFECTS UNDER LOW INTENSITY CONDITIONS
In the 1984 RFR Report, EPA stated in Conclusion #5 that no consistent in vitro effect had
yet been found under athermal RF radiation exposure. In the 1987 Reassessment Report on
noncancer effects (see Appendix A), this statement was revised to say that in vitro effects
subsequently had been seen that do not appear to be due to the thermalization of RF energy. Panel
5 felt that under RF radiation exposure conditions that cause general temperature increases,
numerous in vitro effects — including enzyme alterations, changes in neuronal activity, genotoxicity,
and cell killing — clearly occur. Under lower intensity athermal conditions, however, these effects
appear to be less certain. Thus, although most panel members agreed that more evidence does
indeed exist concerning the likelihood of athermal effects, some members disagreed, arguing against
drawing any conclusions on this subject.
The discussion on low intensity athermal in vitro RF radiation effects addressed the general
weight of evidence for five types of effects:
(1) Alterations in membrane ion transport and receptor binding;
(2) Changes in neuronal activity and single ion channel kinetics;
(3) Proliferation/activation effects;
(4) Transformation effects; and
1 Athermal effects are defined for the purposes of this panel as effects that occur in the presence of RF
exposures that are not associated with a temperature increase.
-------
32 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
(5) Membrane signal transduction effects.
The panel discussed the extent to which some of the effects may be the result of interactions of RF
radiation with other agents (e.g., tumor promoters), and some effects may be related to other effects
(e.g., membrane signal transduction and transformation). Also, the type and degree of effect are
believed to depend on the characteristics of exposure, such as pulsed versus continuous wave fields,
and high frequency versus low frequency.
The panel generally agreed that, given the paucity of data and/or lack of a comprehensive
review and weighing of all available evidence, specific conclusions about these relationships are
inappropriate at this time. As indicated previously, some panelists extended this concern to athermal
effects in general.
POTENTIAL USES OF IN VITRO STUDIES
The panel identified two major uses of in vitro molecular and cellular studies: (1)
characterizing mechanisms of action and (2) designing new studies. A third potential use,
extrapolating to health effects, was the subject of significant discussion and debate.
Characterizing Mechanisms of Action
The panel appeared to generally agree that one of the greatest advantages of in vitro studies
is the ability to characterize the mechanisms of action of RF radiation on molecular, cellular, and
possibly even higher level systems. Currently, there is a profound lack of understanding of
mechanisms that in vitro studies may help elucidate. One area that could benefit greatly from in vitro
studies is the controversy concerning the degree to which biological effects are the result of general
or local temperature increases. Also benefiting would be theoretical models regarding the cell plasma
membrane as the most prominent site of RF radiation interaction, compared to more direct
interactions (e.g., with the genome).
Designing Experiments
Another significant use of in vitro RF radiation studies is in the design of new studies. For
example, molecular and cellular studies can help identify precise exposure conditions of interest,
either for further in vitro studies or for in vivo studies.
Extrapolating to Health Effects
The panel generally agreed that no obvious indications of human health hazard currently can
be concluded from in vitro RF radiation research results. This was felt to be due to an inherent
limitation of in vitro studies. At present, most uses for such studies are — and perhaps only should
be — for those described previously (i.e., characterizing mechanisms, designing experiments).
According to some panel members, however, in vitro studies conceivably could even be used in the
future to make inferences concerning health effects from RF radiation — similar to the current use
of in vitro studies for chemical hazards. Another example of such a use might be in helping to
determine whether ELF- and pulse-modulated waves need to be addressed in any standard-setting
exercise.
-------
PANEL 5: MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR EFFECTS 33
RELEVANCE OF ELF RESEARCH
Some of the discussion on the relevance of ELF research addressed the results of studies that
have indicated similar molecular and cellular responses between ELF and RF radiation exposure.
Most of the discussion, however, focused on ELF-modulated RF radiation fields, and the possibility
that effects seen in these studies may highlight the relevance of ELF research to RF radiation effects.
IN VITRO BASIS OF THE 1992 ANSI/IEEE STANDARD
The panel generally agreed that the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard does not adequately include
or address in vitro effects, but rather addresses only systemic effects. Some panel members felt that,
at the minimum, a more thorough discussion of in vitro effects should have been included with the
standard, if only to more explicitly describe the assumptions used during development of the standard.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of the disagreement surrounding the issues discussed by this panel, few
conclusions/recommendations ultimately were provided. Nevertheless, concerning the unresolved in
vitro issues existing in 1987, the panel generally felt that these issues remain largely unresolved.
Furthermore, the panel noted that new issues have surfaced that would need to be taken into
consideration if EPA were to develop RF radiation guidelines. For example, the panel generally felt
that additional research and review is needed in areas such as the following:
• Low intensity athermal effects;
• Mechanisms of action;
• Effects from pulse- or ELF-modulated RF radiation;
• Relevance of ELF research;
• Replication of past studies; and
• Balancing positive and negative research results.
Finally, the panel concluded that the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard does not provide sufficient detail
concerning its use of in vitro effects research.
-------
34 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
PANEL 6: BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS BASIS FOR EXPOSURE LIMITS
Dr. Samuel Koslov (Chair) Dr. Doreen Hill
Dr. Craig Byus Dr. James C. Lin
Dr. Om Gandhi Dr. Mary Ellen O'Connor
INTRODUCTION
Panel 6 primarily addressed the overall question of whether the biological research base,
including the evidence for any effects, was adequate for developing an RF radiation exposure
standard. This discussion was organized into three categories:
• Overall approaches for a standard;
• Biological basis for a standard; and
• Conclusions/recommendations.
OVERALL APPROACHES FOR AN RF RADIATION STANDARD
Federal Involvement With a Standard
The panel generally agreed that any RF radiation standard should be in some form of
federally mandated or approved maximum exposure limits. Furthermore, the panelists agreed, this
federal involvement should be from a health and safety agency such as EPA.
Such federal involvement with an RF radiation standard, however, raised questions for some
panelists about what the standard would mean legally. They felt that a standard cannot be required
and enforced by a federal agency unless Congressional action takes place. Nevertheless, the panel
strongly felt that an agency such as EPA must be at the center of any standard development, and that
this agency must review and approve the scientific research on which the standard is based. If this
overall approach is not used, the panel felt, then the public will not accept the standard and therefore
the undesirable experiences — discussed primarily by the plenary panel — that have occurred for the
past 20 or so years with local and state standards will continue.
Degree of Consensus
Another issue on overall approaches that was discussed by Panel 6 addressed the mechanics
of standard setting. Some panelists questioned whether a consensus could be reached on a standard
in light of the significant uncertainties and debates over health effects and policy issues. Other
panelists noted that a consensus approach may result in significant data being discarded, which may
not be appropriate given the lack of data overall. These panelists felt that perhaps a perfect
consensus approach may not be desired.
Interim Standard
The concept of an interim standard was discussed as a means for addressing the uncertainty
of health effects. The panelists agreed that, as with other types of standards, a plan is needed to
modify the RF radiation standard if new information becomes available that warrants such a
modification. At first, the panel suggested, a standard-setting process should use best professional
judgment with enough margin of safety added for areas that have significant uncertainty (i.e., that are
-------
PANEL 6: BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS BASIS FOR EXPOSURE LIMITS 35
capable of producing injury if indeed the effects are true), and then should continue to reduce the
uncertainty and adjust the standard over time.
Design of Review Process
One recommendation expressed by several panelists was that any federal standards
development activities must carefully design the review process to avoid some of the problems that
have occurred during the development of some of the non-federal RF radiation standards. These
panelists felt, for example, that different criteria have been placed in the past on the selection of
papers to use during the development of these non-federal standards. They also felt that overall
there must be more willingness to accept certain publications, even though, because of reasons such
as constrained funding, the results might not have had what might be considered by some to be
adequate replication; any ensuing uncertainty resulting from such an approach can be incorporated
into the standard.
BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR A STANDARD
Relationship Between Metrics and Underlying Mechanisms
The panel discussed issues associated with various exposure measures and their implications
for underlying mechanisms. Some panelists stated that although metrics such as power density,
electric and magnetic field intensities, and SAR are useful metrics for exposure, they do not provide
information — at least directly — about underlying RF radiation interaction mechanisms. These
underlying mechanisms, these panelists stated, form the basis for an RF radiation standard that is
designed to protect against adverse health effects.
One panelist noted that the selection of exposure measures should be done with care because
of the implications they have for the assumptions about underlying mechanisms. This panelist cited
the example of the frequency independence (within a range) of a whole-body average SAR, and how
this SAR implies that effects from exposure are systemic (i.e., the whole body is involved) and occur
at any frequency. Others argued, however, that SAR is mechanism-independent and is nothing more
or less than a unit of measure.
Basis of the ANSI/IEEE Standard
The panel conducted a significant amount of discussion on the basis of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE
standard, and whether the standard can be characterized as based on a particular response. Several
panelists stated that the standard is based on a thermally-independent behavioral response to whole-
body exposure in experimental animals. Others argued that the behavioral response is simply a
reaction to a thermal increase. Still others argued that the standard is based, in a sense, on all
endpoints. These panelists noted that, because of uncertainty factors applied to the standard, even
endpoints that are questionable are incorporated.
Nonthermal Basis for a Standard
There was significant discussion concerning the question of whether there is enough evidence
to accept a standard based on athermal effects. Panelists agreed that on the basis of purely thermal
effects at higher exposure levels, there clearly are enough data at this point. Several panelists felt,
however, that there probably are effects that are not purely thermal, as well as thermal effects that
are not completely understood. The panel noted that as exposure levels decrease, uncertainty
increases and consensus becomes more difficult to reach.
-------
36 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Epidemiological Basis for a Standard
The panel briefly examined whether there is an epidemiological basis for setting a standard.
They seemed to agree that the human data is not sufficient to form a basis for standards
development.
Pulse-modulated RF Radiation
The panel agreed that pulsed wave exposure deserves special attention. They noted that the
general population is not typically exposed to high levels of this type of RF radiation, although several
subpopulations (e.g., military, special services industries) are exposed to higher levels than typically
measured in public areas. The panel felt that this area needed additional research.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The panel provided two broad recommendations:
(1) EPA should develop exposure standards or guidelines, but it may need to do so in an
interim, stepwise fashion and without using a completely consensus approach.
(2) A sufficient basis is available for setting a thermal standard. Beyond thermal issues,
EPA should acknowledge and identify the uncertainty associated with nonthermal
exposure and effects.
Concerning the general question of a biological research base, several remarks were made that
some reform of the process is needed. In particular, the funding for the last few years was described
as significantly reduced from previous levels, and is believed by most panelists to be inadequate.
Partnerships between groups such as industry, academia, and the federal government were
discussed as approaches to research that would be very useful. Several examples of partnership
approaches — such as the current DoD funding pool that would allow the use of federal laboratories
— were described.
-------
CLOSING REMARKS 37
4. CLOSING REMARKS
Charles Susskind*
The Radiofrequency Radiation Conference, held in Bethesda, Maryland, on 26-27 April 1993
was convened by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation, and Office
of Research and Development, in response to a recommendation by the EPA Science Advisory Board
that EPA should resume and complete its past efforts to develop federal guidance to control human
exposure to RF radiation. More than 200 persons attended and participated in the discussions.
The most notable result of the conference was the overwhelming consensus that it was
imperative for EPA to proceed promptly to provide guidelines on public and occupational human
exposure to RF radiation by issuing the requisite federal guidance or, preferably, by endorsing the
existing 1992 guide developed and promulgated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers and approved by the American National Standards Institute. This protection guide, known
as ANSI/IEEE C-95.1-1992, has been in the making for several years with wide participation of
experts from universities, government agencies, and industries, and its adoption by EPA is widely
perceived as a short-cut to a highly desirable goal whose attainment may otherwise take many years
more.
Adoption of voluntary standards by government agencies in whole or in part is sanctioned,
and indeed recommended, by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, as revised
in 1982, which states that such standards "will be used for federal agencies in lieu of developing and
using in-house standards when voluntary consensus standards will serve the agency's purpose and are
consistent with applicable laws and regulations."
All guidelines should state their limitations and acknowledge any remaining uncertainties. In
the present case, one such limitation is that the ANSI/IEEE 1992 protection guide is expressed in
terms of specific absorption rate, the SAR, which is to say that it is based on thermal effects, whereas
effects that may due to mechanisms other than heating have been reported, although they have not
been unequivocally shown to have adverse health consequences. Examples include the ocular effects
observed at low SARs in association with common ophthalmic drugs, and effects on processes known
to be associated with cancer.
The possible consequences of such effects must be regarded as subjects for research, as well
as a possible basis for updating and improving the protection guidance in years to come, and not as
reasons for delaying the issuance of guidance based on current knowledge with whatever
qualifications may be deemed to be necessary. Timely issuance of RF radiation exposure guidelines
will also be of inestimable value to other federal agencies, and to state and local regulatory authorities
that are now forced to select guidance from a confusing menu of diverse criteria or else to establish
criteria on their own, often with very little scientific basis or rationale for doing so.
I want to end by saying that the conference expressed full confidence in the ability of EPA
to develop the requisite guidance, stressing repeatedly that only an agency with the expertise,
authority, and public recognition of EPA can issue effective guidance, one that will be of great value
to U.S. participation in international radiation protection and telecommunication standards and
activities.
College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
-------
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS 39
5. SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
Following the conference, EPA conducted a number of RF radiation-related activities. These
activities included a review and analysis of the information provided during and after the conference,
the submission of comments on a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal to adopt RF
radiation guidelines, and the development of an RF radiation strategy. The following discussions
provide additional details on these topics.
KEY CONCLUSIONS OF CONFERENCE SPEAKERS AND PANELISTS
Two key conclusions were provided by speakers, panelists, and other attendees of the
conference.
(1) There is sufficient information on thermal exposure/effects on which to base a
standard. However, participants generally felt that more information needs to be
obtained on nonthermal effects.
(2) The overwhelming consensus was that EPA should develop some type of RF radiation
exposure guidelines, even if EPA does so on an interim basis only. Several reasons
were provided for this recommendation, the foremost being that, since federal
exposure limits for RF radiation do not as yet exist, a number of different exposure
limits currently are being used (if at all) at the local level. Nationally based EPA
exposure limits thus would help ensure a more consistent level of public health
protection while also significantly easing the burden on industry caused by the current
patchwork of standards (e.g., a reduction in expensive litigation, an improvement in
U.S. competitiveness abroad).
In addition, speakers and panelists provided numerous specific conclusions and recommendations, as
described in Section 3.
EPA used much of the information provided to develop comments on the FCC proposed
adoption of RF radiation guidelines and to develop an RF radiation strategy that includes, in the near
term, developing exposure guidelines based on established health effects and, over the longer term,
addressing modulation. These activities are described below.
EPA COMMENTS TO FCC
Soon after the RF radiation conference (November 1993), EPA provided comments on the
FCC proposed adoption of the 1992 American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Institute for
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard (58 Federal Register 19393, April 14, 1993).
In those comments, EPA recommended that the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard be used only with some
modification. Some issues of concern to EPA included the criteria used to select studies on which
the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard is based, the possible need for more protective exposure limits at
lower and higher frequencies, the lack of a distinction between occupational and general public
exposures, the need to consider athermal effects, and the need to consider pulse- and ELF-modulated
RF radiation.
-------
40 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RAD1OFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME
EPA RF RADIATION STRATEGY
Following the conference, EPA decided to develop a specific RF radiation strategy that
included (1) creating an inter-agency work group to help address issues associated with establishing
near-term RF radiation exposure guidelines, and (2) requesting the National Council on Radiation
Protection (NCRP) to assess several of the remaining issues (e.g., the influence of extremely low
frequency (ELF) and pulse modulation).
Creation of an Inter-agency Work Group on RF Radiation
EPA convened an inter-agency work group in August 1994 to address the development of RF
radiation exposure guidelines. This work group, which meets regularly, is composed of
representatives from various federal agencies, including EPA, FCC, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA). The work group developed a charter that describes their
purpose as providing a forum to address health and regulatory issues pertaining to RF radiation, and
providing a basis for coordination among member agencies in their approach to RF issues. Some
critical issues that have been discussed thus far by the work group and that may be incorporated into
the developing RF radiation guidelines include the following:
• General population versus worker exposures;
• Appropriate safety factors;
• The overall basis for the exposure limit;
• An acceptable temperature increase for a given SAR; and
• Local versus whole body exposures.
EPA expects to release RF radiation exposure guidelines in 1995.
NCRP Study on Modulated RF Radiation
As part of the its long-term strategy, EPA entered into a cooperative agreement with NCRP
to address the issue of modulated RF radiation. NCRP intends to address the potential role of this
issue in developing new RF radiation exposure limits. Factors that NCRP will consider include
frequency dependence, time-averaging, modulation characteristics (e.g., wavetrain, frequency, pulse
width, repetition rate), selection of an adverse effects basis, and use of uncertainty factors. The
NCRP assessment of this issue may result in a recommendation that EPA include additional factors
in establishing new RF radiation limits.
The RF radiation conference has generated much discussion, several recommendations, and
a large amount of data. Using these results, in concert with the inter-agency work group findings and
the NCRP report, EPA expects to develop guidelines in the near future and to continue monitoring
the research that may result in modifications to these guidelines.
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A: REASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS (NON-CANCER) A-1
APPENDIX A
A REASSESSMENT OF THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION: NONCANCER EFFECTS* **
Joe A. Elder***
This report is a reassessment, based on the literature available in May 1987, of the major
conclusions and generalizations in the EPA report entitled Biological Effects of Radiofrequency
Radiation published in 1984 (Elder and Cahill, 1984). The format of the report is as follows. Each
of the 21 major conclusions and generalizations in Section 6.1 of the EPA report are given below;
these are numbered 1984-1 to 1984-21. After each, a reassessment of the subject area is given based
on the available literature; these are numbered 1987-1 to 1987-21. The subject areas addressed in
these statements are thermal physiology; lethality; molecular, subcellular, and cellular systems;
hematology and immunology; reproduction; nervous system; behavior; visual system; auditory system;
cutaneous perception; endocrinology, physiology, and biochemistry; genetics and mutagenesis; and
lifespan. An important subject area that is not reviewed in this report is cancer; the literature on this
subject is discussed in another report.**
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND GENERALIZATIONS
1984-1. Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is a form of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation
of very low photon energies and frequencies (0-3000 GHz), as distinguished from the very high
photon energies and frequencies associated with ionizing electromagnetic radiation, e.g., X and
gamma rays. Included in the RF-radiation spectrum are AM and FM radio, UHF and VHP TV,
radar, and microwave communication frequencies. The frequency range of concern in this document
is 0.5 MHz to 100 GHz, which includes nearly all the significant sources of population exposure
except 60-Hz electrical power systems. However, there is very little information on effects in human
beings at any of these frequencies and limited data on responses of animals exposed at frequencies
above 10 GHz and below 10 MHz; most of the animal research is concentrated in the range of 900
MHz to 3 GHz.
1987-1. Revision: The latter part of the last sentence is changed to read: most of the animal
research is concentrated in the range of 27 MHz to 3 GHz.
1984-2. RF-energy absorption by biological systems is a complex function of frequency and
the dimensions, orientation, and dielectric properties of the absorber and the complexity of the
* A Report to the Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 21, 1987.
This report is published as an appendix in these proceedings because of the importance of this assessment to
the conference goal to review the post-1982 literature on biological and health effects of RF radiation. The
report was written as an internal EPA document but has been distributed to the public upon request. As the
title indicates, the report addressed noncancer effects.
** The more recent EPA report, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields
(EPA/600/6-90-005B, Review Draft, October 1990) includes a review of the literature on cancer and RF
radiation. The 1990 report may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 by requesting NTIS report #PB 91 133 231.
*** Health Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711.
-------
A-2 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
incident radiation fields. Resonant frequencies (and their related wavelengths) for an absorber are
those at which maximum RF energy is coupled into the absorbing system. Resonance occurs when
the long dimension of the absorber is approximately 0.4 times the wavelength of the incident RF
radiation, if the object is located in free space. Under these conditions, the whole-body resonant
frequency range for humans (from adults to infants) is approximately 30 to 300 MHz. In this
document, whole-body average specific absorption rate (SAR) is used to normalize the rate of energy
absorption across the frequency range, 0.5 MHz to 100 GHz, and to quantitate the relation between
biological effect and dose rate of RF radiation. SAR is the mass-normalized rate at which the energy
of an electromagnetic field is coupled into an absorbing body; the units of SAR are watts per
kilogram (W/kg).
1987-2. No revision.
1984-3. High level RF radiation is a source of thermal energy (e.g., microwave ovens) that
carries all of the known implications of heating for biological systems. At a given incident field
strength, maximal heating occurs at the resonant frequency (D'Andrea et al., 1977). In general, the
data are consistent with the hypothesis that the SAR required to raise body temperature of laboratory
animals decreases as body mass increases.
1987-3. Revision: Thermoregulatory effectors such as peripheral vasodilation, evaporation,
metabolism, and behavior are activated during exposure to RF radiation; many effectors are activated
in the absence of any measurable change in deep-body temperature. In general, the data are
consistent with the hypothesis that the SAR required to increase activity of thermoregulatory
effectors and to raise body temperature of laboratory animals decreases as body mass increases
(Gordon and Ferguson, 1984). For example, the four effectors listed above are activated in the
squirrel monkey by SARs of 0.6-1.5 W/kg (Adair, 1981; Adair and Adams, 1980ab, 1982) whereas 5.3-
29 W/kg are required for the mouse (Gordon 1982, 1983, 1984; Ho and Edwards, 1977).
High-level RF radiation is a source of thermal energy (e.g., microwave ovens) that carries all
of the known implications of heating for biological systems. At a given incident power density,
maximal heating occurs at the resonant frequency (D'Andrea et al., 1977; Lotz, 1985).
Thermoregulatory effectors activated in mammals during RF radiation exposure at levels that produce
heat stress are similar to those which respond to high ambient temperature. Because of heating by
RF energy absorption, dose rates of 3.6-7 W/kg are lethal to rats, rabbits, dogs, and rhesus monkeys
exposed for 1-4 h at normal laboratory conditions of temperature and humidity.
1984-4. In most of the animal studies that report a biological effect of RF radiation,
exposures occurred at ambient temperatures of 20 to 25°C and relative humidities of 50 to 70 percent.
At more thermally stressful conditions, e.g., higher ambient temperature and the same or higher
relative humidity, the experimental results show that lower SARs cause a similar biological effect.
For example, Rugh et al., (1974) found that the lethal dose of 2450-MHz radiation for mice was
inversely related to the temperature-humidity index. Gage (1979) showed that a 2450-MHz exposure
at 22°C resulted in a reduced behavioral response rate in rats at 3 W/kg, but that similar exposures
at 28°C caused reduced rates at 1, 2, and 3 W/kg.
1987-4. No revision.
1984-5. No consistent biological effect has yet been found with molecular and subcellular
systems exposed in vitro to RF radiation other than effects occurring at SARs that cause general
temperature increases. Conclusions regarding effects of in vitro exposure of higher-order biological
systems, such as single cells and brain tissue, are given below.
-------
APPENDIX A: REASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS (NON-CANCER) A-3
1987-5. Revision: Molecular, subcellular, and cellular systems exposed in vitro to RF
radiation are affected at SARs that cause general temperature increases. An example is enzyme
activity which increases as the temperature of the solution is increased until thermal denaturation of
the enzyme occurs. In addition to the thermal effects, there are in vitro effects on molecular, sub-
cellular, and cellular systems, especially the cell membrane, which do not appear to be due to
thermalization of RF energy. Examples include (1) modification of the structure of soluble and
membrane-bound proteins that apparently affect receptor binding on the cell surface (Liburdy, 1982;
Liburdy and Wyant, 1984), (2) effects at specific temperatures on ion transport across the cell
membrane in both whole cells and membrane systems (Cleary et al., 1982; Fisher et al., 1982; Allis
and Sinha-Robinson, 1987), (3) chain-length-dependent microwave absorption by DNA (Swicord et
al., 1983), and (4) frequency-specific alterations in growth rate of yeast cells (Grundler et al., 1977;
Grundler and Keilmann, 1983). Conclusions regarding electrophysiological effects on cells and other
effects on central nervous system tissue exposed in vitro are given below.
1984-6. The electrophysiological properties of single cells, especially the firing rates of
neurons in isolated preparations, may be affected by RF radiation at SARs as low as 1 W/kg in a
manner different from generalized heating.
1987-6. No revision. The reports by Arber and Lin (1984, 1985) support the statement
above.
1984-7. In general, no changes in chromosomes, DNA, or reproductive potential of RF-
exposed animals have been reported and corroborated in the absence of significant rises of
temperature. Similarly, RF radiation does not appear to cause mutations or genetic changes in
bacterial test systems unless temperatures well above the normal physiological range are produced.
1987-7. No revision is warranted, but special mention is made of two similar studies that
examined mouse sperm cells for chromosomal aberrations. Manikowska-Czerska et al. (1985)
reported effects whereas Beechey et al. (1986) reported no effects over the same SAR range of 0.05-
20 W/kg.
1984-8. Effects on the hematologic and immunologic systems have been reported at SARs
> 0.5 W/kg; however, there is a lack of convincing evidence for RF-radiation effects on these systems
without some form of thermal involvement. Some of the reported effects of RF radiation on the
hematologic and immune systems are similar to those resulting from a stress response involving the
hypothalamic-hypophyseal-adrenal axis or following administration of glucocorticoids. In those few
cases where the reversibility of RF radiation effects on the hematologic and immunologic systems has
been examined, the effects have proved to be transient.
1987-8. No revision.
1984-9. RF radiation is teratogenic at high SARs (> 15 W/Kg) that approach lethal levels
for the pregnant animal. High maternal body temperatures are known to be associated with birth
defects. There appears to be a threshold for the induction of experimental birth defects when a
maternal rectal temperature of 41 to 42°C is reached. Any agent capable of producing elevated
internal temperatures in this range, including RF radiation, is a potential teratogen.
1987-9. Revision: The reports by Berman et al. (1982) and Lary et al. (1982, 1983, 1986)
support the above conclusions but show that RF radiation is teratogenic in laboratory animals at
SARs of 9-11 W/kg. The exception to the preceding conclusions that are based on a number of
-------
A-4 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
reports in general agreement in this subject area is the finding of terata in rats exposed at an SAR
as low as 0.0001 W/kg (Tofani et al., 1986).
1984-10. Reduced fetal mass seems to occur consistently in rodents exposed during gestation
to teratogenic levels of RF radiation, or at SARs somewhat less than those which cause death or
malformation.
1987-10. No revision. The reports by Berman et al. (1984) and Marcickiewicz et al. (1986)
support the statement above.
1984-11. There is evidence that exposure of rodents during gestation to RF radiation may
cause functional changes later in life. For example, Johnson et al. (1978) observed lower body weight
at weaning and in young adult rats exposed at 2.5 W/kg for 20 h/day during 19 days of gestation, and
Chernovetz et al. (1975) found increased postnatal survival of rats exposed at 38 W/kg for 10 min
during gestation.
1987-11. No revision.
1984-12. Permanent changes in reproductive efficiency have been directly associated with RF-
radiation exposures that caused temperatures in animal testes greater than 45°C. At temperatures
of 37 to 42°C mature sperm may be killed with a temporary loss of spermatogenic epithelium.
Irradiation of rats at an SAR of 5.6 W/kg, which produced a core temperature of 41 °C, resulted in
temporary infertility.
1987-12. No revision.
1984-13. Neurons in the central nervous system (CNS) of experimental animals have been
reported to be altered by acute high-level and by chronic low-level exposures (> 2 W/kg). Pulsed
RF radiation may have a potentiating effect on drugs that affect nervous system function. Some of
the early reports of RF-radiation effects on the blood-brain barrier (BBB) at SARs < 2 W/kg have
not been substantiated by later investigations.
1987-13. No revision. The reports by Frey and Wesler (1983, 1984), Lai et al. (1983,
1984abc, 1986ab, 1987), and Thomas et al. (1979) support the statement that RF radiation, especially
pulse-modulated radiation (SAR = 0.1 0.6 W/kg), may have a potentiating effect on drugs that
affect nervous system function. The reports by Ward et al. (1982), Ward and Ali (1985) and Williams
et al. (1984) support the statement on the blood-brain barrier.
1984-14. An increased mobilization of calcium ions occurs in brain tissue exposed in vitro to
RF radiation, amplitude modulated at frequencies recorded in the electroencephalogram (EEG) of
awake animals. The response appears to be based on the intensity of the electric field within the
tissue, which can be related to SAR; the lowest effective SAR in in vitro samples is estimated to be
0.0013 W/kg. Calcium-ion efflux is a nonlinear effect in terms of both AM frequency and field
intensity; that is, the response occurs at specific frequencies and electric field strengths. The
physiological significance of this effect has not been established.
1987-14. Revision: An increased mobilization of calcium ions occurs in brain tissue exposed
in vitro to RF radiation, amplitude modulated at frequencies recorded in the electroencephalogram
(EEG) of awake animals. The lowest effective SAR in in vitro samples is estimated to be 0.0013
W/kg. Calcium-ion efflux is a nonlinear effect in terms of both amplitude-modulated frequency and
field intensity; that is, the response occurs at specific frequencies and electric field strengths (Bawin
-------
APPENDIX A: REASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS (NON-CANCER) A-5
et al., 1975; Blackman et al., 1979, 1985; Dutta et al. 1984). Amplitude-modulated RF fields have
also been shown to cause changes in calcium-ion efflux (Adey et al., 1982) and the EEG of live
animals (Takashima et al., 1979).
1984-15. Some types' of animal behavior are disrupted at SARs that are approximately 25 to
50 percent of the resting metabolic rates of many species. For example, changes in locomotor
behavior in rats occur at an SAR of 1.2 W/kg, and alterations in thermoregulatory behavior in squirrel
monkeys occur at an SAR of 1 W/kg. Decreases in other operant or learned behavioral responses
during exposure have been found at an SAR of 2.5 W/kg in the rat and at 5.0 W/kg in the rhesus
monkey. The reported behavioral alterations appear to be reversible with time.
1987-15. No revision.
1984-16. Changes reported in endocrine gland function and blood chemistry are similar to
those observed during increased thermoregulatory activity and heat stress, and are generally associated
with SARs > 1 W/kg. Exposures of sufficient intensity to produce whole-body heating produce an
increase in heart rate similar to that caused by heating from other sources. Changes in whole-body
metabolism have been reported following exposures at thermal levels (-10 W/kg), and brain energy
metabolism is altered at levels as low as 0.1 W/kg following irradiation of the exposed surface of the
brain of anesthetized animals.
1987-16. Revision: Changes reported in endocrine gland function and blood chemistry are
similar to those observed during increased thermoregulatory activity and heat stress, and are generally
associated with SARs > 1 W/kg. Exposures of sufficient intensity to produce whole-body heating
produce an increase in heart rate similar to that caused by heating from other sources. Frequency-
dependent changes in brain energy metabolism have been reported following irradiation of the
exposed surface of the brain of anesthetized animals (Sanders and Joines, 1984). The effect of RF
radiation on whole-body metabolism, a thermoregulatory effector, is included in 1987-3.
1984-17. A single acute exposure of the eye to high-intensity RF radiation, if applied for a
sufficient time, is cataractogenic in some experimental animals. In the rabbit, the animal most often
used in ocular studies, the cataractogenic threshold for a 100-min exposure is 150 mW/cm (138 W/kg
peak absorption in the lens). The cataractogenic potential of microwave radiation varies with
frequency; the most effective frequencies for cataracts in the rabbit eye appear to be in the 1- to 10-
GHz range. Cataracts were not produced in primates exposed acutely to RF-radiation conditions that
caused cataracts in lower mammals such as the rabbit. The absence of cataracts in the primate is
attributed to the different facial structure that caused a different pattern of adsorbed energy in the
eye. No cataracts have been reported in rabbits after whole-body, far-field RF-radiation exposures,
even at near-lethal levels (SAR = 42 W/kg for 15 min). No data at present support a conclusion that
low-level, chronic exposure to microwave radiation induces cataracts in human beings, although some
studies have associated ocular-lens defects with microwave radiation exposure.
1987-17. No revision in the statement on cataracts and other ocular-lens effects is warranted.
An effect on another part of the eye has been reported by Kues et al. (1985) who found that
exposure of the primate eye to pulsed RF radiation (average SAR = 2.6 W/kg) caused death of
corneal endothelial cells.
1984-18. Pulsed RF radiation in the range 216 to 6500 MHz can be heard by some human
beings. The sound associated with the "RF hearing" varies with pulse width and pulse-repetition rate
and is described as a click, buzz, or chirp. The threshold for human perception of this effect is
approximately 40 uJ/cm (incident energy density per pulse). The most generally accepted mechanism
-------
A-6 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
for the RF-auditory sensation is that the incident pulse induces a minuscule but rapid thermoelastic
expansion within the skull, which results in a pressure wave that is conducted by the bone to the
cochlear region of the ear.
1987-18. No revision.
1984-19. For the broad range of frequencies between 0.5 MHz and 100 GHz, cutaneous
perception of heat and thermal pain may be an unreliable sensory mechanism for protection against
potentially harmful RF-radiation exposure levels. Many frequencies deposit most of their energy at
depths below the cutaneous thermal receptors.
1987-19. Revision: For the broad range of frequencies between 0.5 MHz and 100 GHz,
cutaneous perception of heat and thermal pain may be an unreliable sensory mechanism for
protection against potentially harmful RF radiation exposure levels because (1) RF energy can be
absorbed below the cutaneous thermal receptors and (2) adverse effects occur at temperatures below
the threshold (45°C) of thermal pain.
1984-20. There is no convincing evidence that exposure to RF radiation shortens the lifespan
of human beings or experimental animals or that RF radiation is a primary carcinogen (cancer
inducer); however, (1) few studies have used longevity or cancer incidence as endpoints, and (2)
human studies have lacked statistical power to exclude life shortening or cancer. There is evidence
from one group of investigators that chronic exposure to RF radiation (SAR = 2 to 3 W/kg) resulted
in cancer promotion or co-carcinogenesis in three different tumor systems in mice; the incidence of
cancer was comparable to that observed in mice exposed to chronic stress conditions only.
1987-20. The statement on the effect of RF radiation exposure on the lifespan of
experimental animals remains valid.
The literature on cancer and RF radiation is reviewed in another EPA report.**
1984-21. Human data are currently limited and incomplete but do not indicate any obvious
relationship between prolonged low-level RF-radiation exposure and increased mortality or morbidity,
including cancer incidence.
1987-21. The literature on cancer and RF radiation is reviewed in another EPA report.**
Revision: Mathematical models of thermoregulatory responses in human beings can be used
to predict RF exposure conditions which may cause undesirable temperatures in the body. At
conditions such as those that occur in heat-wave episodes, whole-body SARs of 1-4 W/kg at 70 MHz
are estimated to cause an undesirable core temperature (39.2°C) in healthy human beings in one hour
(Durney et al., 1978). A more sophisticated model predicts significant temperature increases in
various parts of the human body at a whole-body SAR of 2.25 W/kg at 80 MHz and an ambient
temperature of 30°C (Spiegel et al., 1980).
Spiegel (1982) has also modeled the thermal response of the human being in the near-zone
of a 45 or 200-MHz antenna. The lower frequency antenna was located 18.6 cm in front of the
human body and the other antenna was placed 10 cm in front of the face. The 45 MHz frequency
represents the resonant frequency for an adult human being (electrically grounded) and the 200 MHz
frequency is near the resonant frequency (375 MHz) of the head (Hagmann et al., 1979). In a
thermally neutral environment (30°C, 30% relative humidity), high RF power produced temperature
increases in various body regions that are clearly hazardous. For example, at 200 MHz (400 W
-------
APPENDIX A: REASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS (NON-CANCER) A-7
antenna input power), a whole-body SAR of 2.44 W/kg caused a 5°C rise in neck temperature to the
critical temperature of 42°C where protein denaturation and other adverse cellular effects occur. At
45 MHz (600 W antenna input power), a whole-body SAR of only 0.64 W/kg produced 42°C in the
ankles. In all mammals tested, the threshold temperature (42°C) of cellular injury is below the
threshold (45°C) of thermal pain (Hardy et al., 1967).
The limitations in knowledge of the effects of RF radiation on blood flow, sweating, and
vasodilation, lead to the concluding remarks on the combined RF-heat-transfer models. The
physiologic responses incorporated into the models are those of humans exposed to high ambient
temperatures and/or exercise, but not to RF-radiation. Thus, the models calculate physiologic
responses to RF-radiation exposure as if the responses are the same as those of humans subjected
to natural forms of heat stress (e.g., exercise and/or radiant or convective heat). At this time, the
similarity of response between RF-radiation exposure and heat stress from exercise or exposure to
high ambient temperature or febrile responses is under debate because of the uniqueness of RF-
energy absorption within the body. Nevertheless, the models are useful approximations for predicting
hazardous core and localized temperatures in the human body exposed to ambient conditions that
exist both in the work place and in the environment.
SUMMARY
The conclusion of the 1984 EPA report on the Biological Effects of Radiofrequency
Radiation is as follows: The review of the currently available literature on RF radiation provides
evidence that biological effects occur at an SAR of about 1 W/kg; some of them may be significant
under certain environmental conditions. Based on the review of the literature available in May 1987
on noncancer effects, it is concluded that exposure to RF radiation causes biological effects at SARs
above and below 1 W/kg; some of the effects which occur at about 1 W/kg may be significant under
certain environmental conditions. The biological significance of the effects which occur at SARs
below 1 W/kg including those which occur at specific temperatures different from the physiological
temperature range, specific frequencies or at specific amplitude-modulation conditions is not
established.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This multidisciplinary assessment of the literature was made possible by the combined
expertise of a team of EPA scientists whom I have been privileged to work with on this and other
tasks. My colleagues (and their area of expertise) who assisted in the preparation of this report were
Joseph S. Ali (dosimetry), John W. Allis (cellular and subcellular systems), Ezra Berman
(reproduction and development), Carl F. Blackman (genetics and biophysics), Michael I. Gage
(behavior), Christopher J. Gordon (thermophysiology), Charles G. Liddle (lifespan and physiology),
Diane B. Miller (neurobiology), James R. Rabinowitz (mechanisms), Ralph J. Smialowicz
(immunology and hematology), Ronald J. Spiegel (RF modeling), and Thomas R. Ward (blood-brain
barrier). All of these scientists made significant contributions to this report. The author gratefully
acknowledges these contributions and genuinely appreciates the expert advice and other assistance
generously provided by his colleagues during the writing of this report.
This report has been subjected to the scientific peer review procedure of the Health Effects
Research Laboratory. The conclusions are those of the author, therefore the report does not
necessarily reflect the views of the Agency.
-------
A-8 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
REFERENCES
Adair, E.R. 1981. Microwaves and Thermoregulation. In: USAF Radiofrequency Radiation
Bioeffects Research Program A Review, J.C. Mitchell, ed. Review 4-81, USAF School of
Aerospace Medicine, San Antonio, Texas, pp. 145-158.
Adair, E.R. and B.W. Adams. 1980a. Microwaves Induced Peripheral Vasodilation in Squirrel
Monkey. Science, 207:1381-1383.
Adair, E.R. and B.W. Adams. 1980b. Microwaves Modify Thermoregulatory Behavior in Squirrel
Monkey. Bioelectromagnetics, 1:1-20.
Adair, E.R. and B.W. Adams. 1982. Adjustments in Metabolic Heat Production by Squirrel
Monkeys Exposed to Microwaves. J. Appl. Physiol., 52(4):1049-1058.
Adey, W.R., S.M. Bawin, and A.F Lawrence. 1982. Effects of Weak Amplitude-Modulated
Microwave Fields on Calcium Efflux from Awake Cat Cerebral Cortex. Bioelectromagnetics,
3:295-307.
Allis, J.W. and B.L. Sinha-Robinson. 1987. Temperature-Specific Inhibition of Human Red Cell
Na+/K+ ATPase by 2,450-MHz Microwave Radiation. Bioelectromagnetics, 8:203-212.
Arber, S.L. and J.C. Lin. 1984. Microwave Enhancement of Membrane Conductance: Effects of
EDTA, Caffeine and Tetracaine. Physiol. Chem. Phys. Med. NMR, 16:469-475.
Arber, S.L. and J.C. Lin. 1985. Microwave-Induced Changes in Nerve Cells: Effects of Modulation
and Temperature. Bioelectromagnetics, 6:257-270.
Bawin, S.M., L.K. Kaczmarek, and W.R. Adey. 1975. Effects of Modulated VHP Fields on the
Central Nervous System. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 247:74-81.
Beechey, C.V., D. Brooker, C.I. Kowalczuk, R.D. Saunders, and A.G. Searle. 1986. Cytogenetic
Effects of Microwave Irradiation on Male Germ Cells of the Mouse. Int. J. Radiat. Biol.,
50:909-918.
Berman, E., H.B. Carter, and D. House. 1982. Observations of Syrian Hamsters after Exposure to
2450-MHz Microwaves. J. Microwave Power, 17(2):107-112.
Berman, E., H.B. Carter, and D. House. 1984. Growth and Development of Mice Offspring After
Irradiation in Utero With 2,450-MHz Microwaves. Teratology, 30:393-402.
Blackman, C.F., J.A. Elder, CM. Weil, S.G. Benane, D.C. Eichinger, and D.E. House. 1979.
Induction of Calcium-Ion Efflux from Brain Tissue by Radio-Frequency Radiation: Effects
of Modulation Frequency and Field Strength. Radio Sci., 14(6S):93-98.
Blackman, C.F., S.G. Benane, D.E. House, and W.T. House. 1985. Effects of ELF (1-120 Hz) and
Modulated (50 Hz) RF Fields on the Efflux of Calcium Ions from Brain Tissue In Vitro.
Bioelectromagnetics, 6:1-11.
-------
APPENDIX A: REASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS (NON-CANCER) A-9
Chernovetz, M.E., D.R. Justesen, N.W. King, and I.E. Wagner. 1975. Teratology, Survival, and
Reversal Learning after Fetal Irradiation of Mice by 2450-MHz Microwave Energy. J.
Microwave Power, 10(4) :391-409.
Cleary, S.F., F. Garber, and L.M. Liu. 1982. Effects of X-band Microwave Exposure on Rabbit
Erythrocytes. Bioelectromagnetics, 3:453-466.
D'Andrea, J.A., O.P. Gandhi, and J.L. Lords. 1977. Behavioral and Thermal Effects of Microwave
Radiation at Resonant and Nonresonant Wavelengths. Radio Sci., 12:251-256.
Durney, C.H., C.C. Johnson, P.W. Barber, H. Massoudi, M.F. Iskander, J.L. Lords, D.K. Ryser, S.J.
Allen, and J.C. Mitchell. 1978. Radiofrequency Radiation Dosimetry Handbook, 2nd ed.
Report SAM-TR-78-22, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas. 141 pp.
Dutta, S.K., A. Subramoniam, B. Ghosh and R. Parshad. 1984. Microwave Radiation-Induced
Calcium Ion Efflux from Human Neuroblastoma Cells in Culture. Bioelectromagnetics, 5:71-
78.
Elder J.A. and Cahill D.F. 1984. Biological Effects of Radiofrequencv Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA-600/8-83-026F. Available from National
Technical Information Services, Report No. NTIS PB-85120848, Springfield, VA.
Frey, A.H. and L.S. Wesler. 1983. Dopamine Receptors and Microwave Energy Exposure. Journal
of Bioelectricity, 2:145-157.
Frey, AH. and L.S. Wesler. 1984. Morphine Effects Appear to Be Potentiated by Microwave
Energy Exposure. Journal of Bioelectricity, 3:373-383.
Fisher, P.D., M.J. Poznarsky, and W.A.G. Voss. 1982. Effects of Microwave Radiation (2450 MHz)
on the Active and Passive Components of Na+ Efflux from Human Erythrocytes. Radiat.
Res., 92:411-422.
Gage, M.I. 1979. Behavior in Rats after Exposures to Various Power Densities of 2450 MHz
Microwaves. Neurobehav. Toxicol., 1:137-143.
Gordon, C.J. 1982. Effects of Ambient Temperature and Exposure to 2450-MHz Microwave
Radiation on Evaporative Heat Loss in the Mouse. J. Microwave Power, 17:145-150.
Gordon, C.J. 1983. Influence of Heating Rate on Control of Heat Loss from the Tail in Mice. Am.
J. Physiol., 244:R778-R784.
Gordon, C.J. 1984. Effect of RF-Radiation Exposure on Body Temperature: Thermal Physiology.
In: Biological Effects of Radiofrequencv Radiation, J.A. Elder and D.F. Cahill, eds. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency publication EPA-600/8-83-026F. pp. 4-1 - 4-27 (NTIS PB-
85120848).
Gordon, C.J. and J.H. Ferguson. 1984. Scaling the Physiological Effects of Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation: Consequences of Body Size. Int. J. Radiat. Biol.,
46:387-397.
-------
A-10 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Grundler, W., and F. Keilmann. 1983. Sharp Resonances in Yeast Growth Prove Nonthermal
Sensitivity to Microwaves. Phys. Rev. Lett., 51:1214-1216.
Grundler, W., F. Keilmann, and H. Frohlich. 1977. Resonant Growth Rate Response of Yeast Cells
Irradiated by Weak Microwaves. Phys. Lett., 62A:463-466.
Hagmann, M.J., O.P. Gandhi, J.A. D'Andrea, and I. Chatterjee. 1979. Heat Resonance: Numerical
Solutions and Experimental Results. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Techniques, MTT-
27(9):809-813.
Hardy, J.D., H.G. Wolff, and H. Goodell. 1967. Pain Sensations and Reactions. Hafner Publishing
Co., New York, New York. Chapter X.
Ho, H.S. and W.P. Edwards. 1977. Oxygen-Consumption Rate of Mice under Differing Dose Rates
of Microwave Radiation. Radio Sci., 12(6S):131-138.
Johnson, R.B., S. Mizumori, and R.H. Lovely. 1978. Adult Behavioral Deficit in Rats Exposed
Prenatally to 918-MHz Microwaves. In: Developmental Toxicology of Energy-Related
Pollutants. D.D. Mahlum, M.R. Sikov, P.L. Hackett, and F.D. Andrew, eds. DOE
Symposium Series 47, Washington, DC, pp. 281-299.
Kues, H.A., L.W. Hirst, G.A. Lutty, S.A. D'Anna, and G.R. Dunkelberger. 1985. Effects of 2.45-
GHz Microwaves on Primate Corneal Endothelium. Bioelectromagnetics, 6:177-188.
Lai, H., A, Horita, C.K. Chou, and A.W. Guy. 1983. Psychoactive-Drug Response is Affected by
Acute Low-Level Microwave Irradiation. Bioelectromagnetics 4:205-214. [See also Erratum
by authors in Bioelectromagnetics, 6:207 (1985).]
Lai, H., A. Horita, C.K. Chou, and A.W. Guy. 1984a. Ethanol-Induced Hypothermia and Ethanol
Consumption in the Rat are Affected by Low-Level Microwave Irradiation.
Bioelectromagnetics, 5:213-220.
Lai, H., A. Horita, C.K. Chou, and A.W. Guy. 1984b. Effects of Acute Low-Level Microwaves on
Pentobarbital-Induced Hypothermia Depend on Exposure Orientation. Bioelectromagnetics,
5:203-211.
Lai, H., A. Horita, C.K. Chou, and A.W. Guy. 1984c. Microwave-Induced Post-Exposure
Hyperthermia: Involvements of Endogenous Opioids and Serotonin. IEEE Trans. Microwave
Theory and Techniques MTT-32:882-887.
Lai, H., A. Horita, C.K. Chou, and A.W. Guy. 1986a. Effects of Low-Level Microwave Irradiation
on Amphetamine Hyperthermia and Blockage by Naloxone and Classically Conditionable.
Psychopharmacol., 88:354-361.
Lai, H., A. Horita, C.K Chou, and A.W. Guy. 1986b. Low-Level Microwave Irradiation Attenuates
Naloxone-Induced Withdrawal in Morphine-Dependent Rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav
24:151-153.
Lai, Hv A. Horita, C.K. Chou, and A.W. Guy. 1987. Low-Level Microwave Irradiations Affect
Central Cholinergic Activity in the Rat. J. Neurochem., 48:40-45.
-------
APPENDIX A: REASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS (NON-CANCER) A-11
Lary, J.M., D.L. Conover, E.D. Foley, and P.L. Hanser. 1982. Teratogenic Effects of 27.12 MHz
Radiofrequency Radiation in Rats. Teratology, 26:299-309.
Lary, J.M., D.L. Conover, and P.H. Johnson. 1983. Absence of Embryotoxic Effects from Low-Level
(Nonthermal) Exposure of Rats to 100 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation. Scandinavian
Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 9:120-127.
Lary, J.M., D.L. Conover, P.H. Johnson, and R.W. Hornung. 1986. Dose-Response Relationship
Between Body Temperature and Birth Defects in Radiofrequency-Irradiated Rats.
Bioelectromagnetics, 7:141-149.
Liburdy, R.P. 1982. Novel Separation of Protein and Lymphocytes by Liquid Gel Chromatography
During Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation. Anal. Biochem., 122(1):148-158.
Liburdy, R.P. and A. Wyant. 1984. Radiofrequency Radiation and the Immune System. Part 3. In
Vitro Effects on Human Immunoglobin and on Murine T- and B-Lymphocytes. International
Jounal of Radiation Biology, 46:67-81.
Lotz, W.G. 1985. Hyperthermia in Radiofrequency-Exposed Rhesus Monkeys: A Comparison of
Frequency and Orientation Effects. Rad. Res., 102:59-70.
Manikowska-Czerska, E., P. Czerski, and W.M. Leach. 1985. Effects of 2.45 MHz Microwaves on
Meiotic Chromosomes of Male CBA/CAY Mice. J. Heredity, 76:71-73.
Marcickiewicz, J., B. Chazan, T. Niemiec, G. Sokolska, M. Troszynski, M. Luczak, and S. Szmigielski.
1986. Microwave Radiation Enhances Teratogenic Effect of Cytosine Arabinoside in Mice.
Biology of the Neonate, 50:75-82.
Rugh, R., E.I. Ginns, H.S. Ho, and W.M. Leach. 1974. Are Microwaves Teratogenic? In: Biologic
Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, P. Czerski, K. Ostrowski, M.L. Shore,
C. Silverman, M.J. Suess, and B. Waldeskog, eds. Polish Medical Publishers, Warsaw, Poland.
pp. 98-107.
Sanders, A.P. and W.T. Joines. 1984. The Effects of Hyperthermia and Hyperthermia Plus
Microwaves on Rat Brain Energy Metabolism. Bioectromagnetics, 5:63-70.
Spiegel, R.J. 1982. The Thermal Response of a Human in the Near-Zone of a Resonant Thin-Wire
Antenna. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., MTT-30:177-185.
Spiegel, R.J., D.M. Deffenbaugh, and J.E. Mann. 1980. A Thermal Model of the Human Body
Exposed to an Electromagnetic Field. Bioelectromagnetics, 1(3):253-2070.
Swicord, M.L., G.S. Edwards, J.L. Sagripanti, and C.C. Davis. 1983. Chain-Length-Dependent
Microwave Absorption of DNA. Biopolymers, 22:2513-2516.
Takashima, S., B. Onaral, and H.P. Schwan. 1979. Effects of Modulated RF Energy on the EEG
of Mammalian Brains. Radiat. Environ. Biophys., 16:15-27.
Thomas, J.R., L.S. Burch, and S.S. Yeandle. 1979. Microwave Radiation and Chlordiazepoxide:
Synergistic Effects on Fixed-Interval Behavior. Sci., 203:1357-1358.
-------
A-12 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Tofani, S., G. Agnesod and P. Ossola. 1986. Effects of Continuous Low-Level Exposure to
Radiofrequency Radiation on Intrauterine Development in Rats. Health Physics, 51:489-499.
Ward, T.R., J.A Elder, M.D. Long, and D. Svendsgaard. 1982. Measurement of Blood-Brain Barrier
Permeation in Rats During Exposure to 2450-MHz Microwaves. Bioelectromagnetics, 3:371-
383.
Ward, T.R., and J.S. Ali. 1985. Blood-Brain Barrier Permeation in the Rat During Exposure to
Low-Power 1.7-GHz Microwave Radiation. Bioelectro-magnetics, 6:131-143.
Williams, W.M., W. Hoss, M. Formaniak, and S.M. Michaelson. 1984. Effect of 2450 MHz
Microwave Energy on the Blood-Brain Barrier to Hydrophilic Molecules. A. Effect on the
Permeability to Sodium Fluorescein. Brain Research Reviews, 7:165-170.
-------
APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE SPEAKERS AND PANELISTS B-1
APPENDIX B
CONFERENCE SPEAKERS AND PANELISTS
Dr. Eleanor R. Adair
John B. Pierce Laboratory, Inc.
290 Congress Avenue
New Haven, CT 06519
Dr. T. Whit Athey
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
12721 Twinbrook Parkway
Rockville, MD 20857
Dr. Carl F. Blackman
Health Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dr. Craig V. Byus
Division of Biomedical Sciences
Department of Biochemistry
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Dr. C.K. Choii
Department of Radiation Research
City of Hope National Medical Center
1500 East Duarte Road
Duarte, CA 91010
Dr. Stephen F. Cleary
Department of Physiology
Medical College of Virginia
Virginia Commonwealth University
P.O. Box 551, MCV
Richmond, VA 23298-0551
Dr. Robert F. Cleveland, Jr.
Office of Engineering and Technology
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20554
Dr. David L. Conover
National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226
Dr. Ewa Czerska
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
1953 Middlebridge Drive
Silver Spring, MD 20906
Dr. John A. D'Andrea
Naval Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory
Naval Air Station
51 Hovey Road
Pensacola, FL 32508-5700
Dr. John DeLorge
Naval Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory
Naval Air Station
51 Hovey Road
Pensacola, FL 32508-5700
Dr. Carl H. Durney
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Utah
3032 Merrill Engineering Building
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Dr. Joe Elder
Health Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dr. David N. Erwin
Tri Service EMR Panel
Armstrong Laboratory
8308 Hawks Road
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5324
-------
B-2 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Dr. Kenneth R. Foster
Department of Bioengineering
School of Engineering and Applied Science
University of Pennsylvania
240 South 33rd Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6392
Dr. Melvin R. Frei
Department of Biology
Trinity University
715 Stadium Drive
San Antonio, TX 78212
Dr. Om P. Gandhi
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Utah
3080 Merrill Engineering Building
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Dr. Christopher J. Gordon
Health Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dr. A. William Guy
Bioelectrical Consulting
18122 60th Place, NE
Seattle, WA 98155
Ms. Janet Healer
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
Dr. Doreen G. Hill
Energetics
1366 Moyer Road
Annapolis, MD 21403
Dr. Samuel Koslov
Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20723
Dr. Henry A. Kues
Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20707
Dr. Larry L. Kunz
Immunotechnologies and Pathobiology
NeoRx Corporation
410 West Harrison
Seattle, WA 98119
Dr. Henry Lai
Department of Pharmacology and Center for
Bioengineering
School of Medicine and College of
Engineering
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Dr. Joseph M. Lary
Centers for Disease Control
Department of Health and Human Services
4770 Buford Highway, NE
Atlanta, GA 30341-3724
Dr. Robert P. Liburdy
Bioelectromagnelics Research Facility
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of California-Berkeley
1 Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA 94720
Dr. James C. Lin
Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science
College of Engineering
University of Illinois at Chicago
1120 Science and Engineering Offices
Chicago, IL 60680-4348
Dr. Theodore Litovitz
Vitreous State Laboratory
Catholic University of America
200 Hannan Hall
Washington, DC 20064
-------
APPENDIX B: CONFERENCE SPEAKERS AND PANELISTS B-3
Dr. Gregory W. Lotz
National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226
Dr. Shin-Tsu Lu
Ogden Bioservices Corporation
6 Montgomery Village Avenue
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Mr. Edwin Mantiply
National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1504 Avenue A
Montgomery, AL 36115-2601
Dr. Michele Marcus
Division of Epidemiology
Emory University School of Public Health
1599 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30329
Mr. Clifford Marks
Seattle Planning Department
600 4lh Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski
School of Hygiene and Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
615 North Wolfe Street
Baltimore, MD 21205
Dr. Robert E. McGaughy
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Martin L. Meltz
Department of Radiology
University of Texas Health Science Center
7703 Floyd Curl Drive
San Antonio, TX 78284-7800
Dr. Samuel Milham, Jr.
Washington State Department of Health
2318 Gravelly Beach Loop, NW
Olympia, WA 98512
Dr. John C. Monahan
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Dr. Mary Ellen O'Connor
Department of Psychology
University of Tulsa
600 South College Avenue
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
Ms. Margo Oge
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. John M. Osepchuk
Research Division
Raytheon Company
131 Spring Street
Lexington, MA 02173
Dr. Ronald C. Petersen
Bell Laboratories AT&T
600 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636
Dr. Daniel J. Schaefer
Medical Systems
General Electric Company
P.O. Box 414
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Dr. Frank G. Shellock
R & D Services
2311 Schader Drive, Suite 107
Santa Monica, CA 90404
(also Department of Radiological Sciences,
UCLA School of Medicine)
Dr. Ralph J. Smialowicz
Health Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dr. Ronald J. Spiegel
Health Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
-------
B-4 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Dr. Charles Susskind Dr. James C. Toler
College of Engineering Bioengineering Center
University of California-Berkeley Georgia Institute of Technology
Berkeley, CA 94720 400 10th Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30332
Dr. Mays Swicord
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
-------
APPENDIX C: OTHER CONFERENCE ATTENDEES C-1
APPENDIX C
OTHER CONFERENCE ATTENDEES
Approximately 150 other people (i.e., in addition to the speakers and panelists) attended
EPA's April 26 and 27, 1993 Radiofreqruency Radiation Conference that was held in Belhesda,
Maryland. These attendees represented a wide range of organizations, including international,
federal, state, and local governments/groups; academia; the private sector;
trade/professional/environmental associations; and the general public. Furthermore, the conference
was covered extensively by the television, radio, and print media.
below.
Many of these other conference attendees, and their organizations (if known), are listed
Attendee
Yahya Akyel
Patricia Axelrod
Elizabeth Balcer-Kubiczek
Charles Barna
Howard Bassen
Jim Beddard
J. P. Blanchard
Robert Blank
William Boivin
Aviva Brecher
John Brewer
Christine Brito
Michael Buccigrossi
George Carlo
Candy Castle
John W. Cavilia
Steven V. Chiusano
Bill Clark
Harvey D. Cohen
Jules Cohen
Cilie Collins
S.C. Crawford
Larry Cress
Robert Damiano
John Davidson
Christopher C. Davis
Evan B. Douple
S.K. Dutta
Steven Einhorn
Kenneth S. Eisenberg
Elizabeth Ellis
Wagih Z. Fam
David E. Farrand
Organization
Ogden BioServices Corp.
University of Maryland, School of Medicine
Multi-National Business Services, Inc.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Naval Medical Research and Development Command
Bechtel Corporation
R & B Enterprises
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National
Transport Systems Center
U.S. Air Force
Bearco, Inc.
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Health and Environmental Sciences Group
McCaw Cellular Communications
Travelers Insurance Company
U.S. Department of Defense
Tennessee Valley Authority
Midwest Research Institute
Jules Cohen and Associates
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
MPH Industries, Inc.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Loral Microwave Narda
U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
University of Maryland, Electrical Engineering Department
National Academy of Sciences
Howard University, Department of Biology
Burson-Marsteller
Bearco, Inc.
Electronic Industries Association
U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters
-------
C-2 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Attendee (cont'd)
Maurice Foushee
James Futch
Thomas D. Gallacher
Paul Gehrmann
Diana Giammarco
Lynne Gillette
Michael Ginevan
Zory R. Glaser
David Glassman
Daniel Gluck
Melissa Julia Gluck
Robert Goldberg
Ricardo Gonzalez
Robert D. Greenberg
Martin Halper
G. H. Harrison
Dwight Heasty
Paul Heroux
Susan Hersemann
Charles W. Hicks, Jr.
Edward L. Hunt
Dave Janes
Ana Gutierrez Johnson
Ronald Kaczmarek
Sharon Katz
John J. Keller
William P. Kirk
K. Jack Kooyoomjian
Terry Kues
John M. Kusek
Emanuel Landau
Sean P. Lannon
John A. Leonovitch
A, George Lieberman
Daniel E. Lilly
Gregory Liposchak
Carol Lippincott
Eugene Lipsky
Gary R. Login
Garner Lowe
Ilmar Lusis
Organization (cont'd)
National Capital Planning Commission
State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services, Office of Radiation Control
The Boeing Company
IBM Corp.
Biotechnology, Inc.
U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Step 5 Corporation
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Medical
Devices and Diagnostic Products
Travelers Insurance Company
The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory
Information Ventures, Inc.
University of Puerto Rico, Department of Radiological
Sciences
U.S. Federal Communications Commission
U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Radiation
Studies Division
University of Maryland, School of Medicine
Eldyne, Inc.
McGill University, School of Occupational Health
Health and Environmental Sciences Group
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
Risk Analysis Corporation
U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration
Electronic Industries Association
The Wall Street Journal
PA Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of
Radiation Protection
U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board
Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Lab
Kustom Signals, Inc.
American Public Health Association
Datawaze, Inc.
Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of
Law Enforcement Standards
Travelers Insurance Company
Rayethon Company
Ketchum Public Relations
International Medical Equipment, Ltd.
Beth Israel Hospital, Harvard University, Department of
Pathology
U.S. Department of Defense
Lockheed Corporation
-------
APPENDIX C: OTHER CONFERENCE ATTENDEES C-3
Attendee (cont'd)
Dan Lyle
Charles Lynk
Joyce Malleck
Johnna Matthews
Stewart Maurer
Paul McClashey
Dinah D. McElfresh
Michael E. McKaughan
Nancy McVeker
Karl Mendenhall
Bill Miller
Ray Millington
DeLee F. Minner
Patrick Moyroud
A.S.M.I. Nazar
Jeremy Nobel
Mark Oivm
Bill Orlando
Alakananda Paul
Carl S. Pavetto
Chuck Peltier
Peter Poison
Elliot Poston
Tim Powers
Thomas G. Raslear
James Repace
Allen Rose
Lee Rosen
William Ruppert
Robert Schell
Robert Schneider
Richard B. Shepard
Riaz A. Siddiqui
Louis Slesin
David H. Sliney
Jeff Snyder
Marilyn Sommer
Robert A. Stark
Richard R. Strickland
Organization (cont'd)
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Radiation Biology
Branch
Motorola
Motorola
Burson-Marsteller
New York Institute of Technology, Department of
Electrical Engineering
Electromagnetic Energy Policy Alliance
U.S. Coast Guard Academy
Sun Sentinnel
U.S. Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
Environmenlal Priorities, Inc.
Motorola
Howard University, Department of Physiology and
Biophysics
Computer Chronicles
Howard University, Department of Biology, Molecular
Biology Laboratory
Harvard School of Public Health, Department of
Environmental Health
O'Connor, Cohn, Dillon, & Barr
Nuero Magnetic Systems
Howard University, Electrical Engineering Department
Mission Research Corp.
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Ausa Research
National Institute of Health, Division of Research Grants
Burson-Marsteller
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Department of
Microwave Research
U.S. EPA
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Institute of Health, Division of Research Grants
Kustom Signals
State of Maine, Radiation Control Program
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of
Surgery
GE American Communications
Microwave News
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Laser
Microwave Division
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
BEMS
Naval Surface Warfare Center, White Oak Detachment
Loral Microwave Narda
-------
C-4 SUMMARY AND RESULTS OF THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CONFERENCE: VOLUME 1
Attendee (cont'd)
Paul Strudler
Carl H. Sutton
John Thompson
Larry Toburen
Tynes Tore
Paul D. Tveten
Barry Umansky
Steven Vipavetz
Pamela Vossenes-Fernandez
Paul Wagner
Donald L. Walker
Edward Washburn
Dorothy Wellington
Kelly Williams
Bary Wilson
John Wykoff
Robert Yacovissi
Gary Zeman
B.C. Zook
Organization (cont'd)
National Institute of Health, Radiation Study Section,
Division of Research Grants
Medical College of Wisconsin (Neurosurgery), VA Medical
Center
U.S. Coast Guard
National Academy of Sciences
Cancer Registry of Norway
Navy Environmental Health Center
National Association of Broadcasters
Naval Sea Systems Command
American Public Health Association
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Motorola
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Epidemiology and
Health Surveillance, Environmental Safety and Health
National Association of Broadcasters
Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratory
MBH Industries
Department of the Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
AT&T Bell Labs
George Washington University
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before comp/etinel
1. REPORT NO. 2
402-R-95-009
4.TITLE ANOSUBTITLE
Summary and Results of the April 26-27
Radiofrequency Radiation Conference
Volume 1: Analysis of Panel Discussions
7. AUTHOR(S)
USEPA
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
OAR/ORD
USEPA
401 M St. , SW
Washington, DC 20460
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
USEPA
401 M St . , SW
Washington. DC 20460
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
5 REPORT DATE
< 1993 5/95
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3
a. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Nos. 68-DO-0102 and
68-D2-0177
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT On April 26 and 27, 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air
and Radiation and Office of Research and Development held a conference to assess the current
knowledge of biological and human health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and to address
the need for and potential impact of finalization of federal guidance on. human exposure to RF
radiation. More than 200 people attended the conference. Attendees represented the federal
government, academia, the private sector, trade associations, the media, and the public. Plenary
papers presented at the meeting focused on current research findings on a variety of topics, including
exposure assessment, dosimetry, biological effects, epidemiology, the basis for exposure limits, and
emerging health issues. Panel discussions focused on identifying key scientific information needs for
and the policy implications of the development of further EPA guidance on human exposure to RF
radiation. This document, Volume 1, provides a record of much of the information presented at the
conference, outlines key recommendations provided to EPA by conference participants, and presents
the EPA strategy for addressing RF radiation. Volume 2, under separate cover, provides the plenary
papers presented by invited speakers.
Two key conclusions emerged from the conference: (1) there is sufficient information on
thermal exposure/effects on which to base an RF radiation exposure standard; and (2) EPA should
develop some type of RF radiation exposure guidelines. These conclusions were considered by EPA
in its decision to proceed with the development of guidelines on human exposure to RF radiation and
to develop a longer term strategy to address remaining issues. Part of this strategy has involved
creating an inter-agency work group and requesting the National Council on Radiation Protection
(NCRP) to assess several remaining issues. Information provided at the conference also was used
as a basis for EPA comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 1993 proposal to
adopt the RF radiation exposure guidelines developed in 1992 by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
17 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Development of Radiofrequency
Radiation Exposure Standards and
Guidelines
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. I DENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. CO? ATI Field, Group
19 SECURITY CLASS i r/us Repnrri 2^ NO OF 3AoES
40
20 SECURITY CLASS , Tins pu?i- 22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R.v. 4-77) PREVIOUS ED, T.QN , s OBSOLE T E
------- |