AAWSAP DIRD, Anomalous Acute and Subacute Field Effects on Human Biological Tissues, March 2010

Text

This text came with the file. It may have mistakes. When the text and the image disagree, the image is right.

UNCLASSIFIED/}FOR: OFFIOIAL 1.tSE o••tlf
evaluation are based generally on criteria published by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., {IEEE) for localized specific absorption rate ("SAR") in
Section 4.2 of "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," ANSI/IEEE C95.l-1992.
These criteria for SAR evaluation are similar to those recommended by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)xiv.
(1) FCC Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure: 0.4 W/kg as averaged over the
whole-body and spatial peak SAR not exceeding 8 W/kg as averaged over any 1 gram
of tissue {defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube}. Exceptions are the
hands, wrists, feet and ankles where the spatial peak SAR shall not exceed 20 W/kg, as
averaged over any 10 grams of tissue.
(2) FCC Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure: 0.08 W/kg as averaged
over the whole-body and spatial peak SAR not exceeding 1.6 W/kg as averaged over
any 1 gram of tissue. Exceptions are the hands, wrists, feet and ankles where the
spatial peak SAR shall not exceed 4 W/kg, as averaged over any 10 grams of tissue
( defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube) [37].
These, then, are the current {highly summarized} internationally accepted scientific
standards for acceptance of the levels for acute injury, incorporating the "heating"
criteria of acute injury for ELF through MHz bandwidths. In one sentence: acute injury
of early burning is not likely to occur at any bandwidth in narrow or mixed frequencies
below about 1.0 W/kg or 1.0 mW/cm2 at the low end, over minutes, incident to the
human body in the near-field (feet to yards).
Although low-level and chronic effects are not of special interest to us, a recent review
by the American Cancer Society specifies the bandwidths of ELF/ RF/ Thermal / and
Noise effects from "Fields" of interest [38].
Of somewhat greater interest is the SAR versus frequency characteristics from which
one can adduce the injuries described in the preface to three antenna engineers, the
Cash-Landrum trio, and other cases. {Table Two, [1 p.281]}
Exposure of fibroblasts {cells used as sentinel cells in studies of RF and ionizing
radiation damage} to UHF Fields {849 MHz}, at high SAR levels {e.g. 10 W/kg, 1 hr}
do not result in any detectable damage. This includes endpoints of cell motility and
viability, cell cycle, cell distribution, cellular invasiveness, or cell migration. These
results hold even when exposures are extended to one hour per day for three days.
[39] Thus, in the Cash-Landrum case...one must assume that the RF and tissue heating,
clearly responsible for the erythema and burns, did not cause the cell dyscrasia and
subsequent gastrointestinal and malignant transformations; one assumes the cells DNA
damage was secondary to ionizing radiation [4,40].
Chapter Five: Cognitive and Neural Injury Mechanisms and
Effects
xiv "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86,
Section 17.4.5. Copyright NCRP, 1986, Bethesda, Maryland 20814."
16
UNCLASSIFIED/fFOA 0FFI€1A~ W&li Ql'I~¥