Limits...
International and national expert group evaluations: biological/health effects of radiofrequency fields.

- Int J Environ Res Public Health (2014)

Bottom Line: Data reported in peer-reviewed scientific publications were contradictory: some indicated effects while others did not.This paper is a compilation of the conclusions, on the biological effects of RF exposures, from various national and international expert groups, based on their analyses.In general, the expert groups suggested a reduction in exposure levels, precautionary approach, and further research.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX 78299, USA. vijay@uthscsa.edu.

ABSTRACT
The escalated use of various wireless communication devices, which emit non-ionizing radiofrequency (RF) fields, have raised concerns among the general public regarding the potential adverse effects on human health. During the last six decades, researchers have used different parameters to investigate the effects of in vitro and in vivo exposures of animals and humans or their cells to RF fields. Data reported in peer-reviewed scientific publications were contradictory: some indicated effects while others did not. International organizations have considered all of these data as well as the observations reported in human epidemiological investigations to set-up the guidelines or standards (based on the quality of published studies and the "weight of scientific evidence" approach) for RF exposures in occupationally exposed individuals and the general public. Scientists with relevant expertise in various countries have also considered the published data to provide the required scientific information for policy-makers to develop and disseminate authoritative health information to the general public regarding RF exposures. This paper is a compilation of the conclusions, on the biological effects of RF exposures, from various national and international expert groups, based on their analyses. In general, the expert groups suggested a reduction in exposure levels, precautionary approach, and further research.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of environmental agents in different categories, based on the “weight of scientific evidence”.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4199025&req=5

ijerph-11-09376-f001: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of environmental agents in different categories, based on the “weight of scientific evidence”.

Mentions: The core portfolio of IARC’s activities is the program on monographs. For this, the agency seeks scientists with significant peer-reviewed scientific publications/expertise who will serve as members in working groups (WG), search all peer-reviewed scientific literature, prepare a critical review, discuss and combine all relevant information to evaluate the weight of evidence of the agent in question cause carcinogenesis in humans. The final consensus evaluations/analyses were placed in one of the following five categories (groups 1, 2-A and 2-B, 3 or 4; Figure 1). Group 1: Carcinogenic (sufficient evidence in human epidemiological/clinical studies irrespective of other evidences). Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic (limited evidence from human epidemiological/clinical studies, and sufficient evidence from the animal investigations. Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic (limited evidence from human epidemiological/clinical studies and inadequate evidence in animal models). Group 3: Not classifiable (inadequate evidence from human epidemiological/clinical studies as well as inadequate evidence from animal studies). Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic (lack of evidence from both human epidemiological/clinical and animal studies). Thus far, IARC has classified a total of ~970 agents (113, 66, 285, 505, and 1, in the groups 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4, respectively, monograph volumes 1-109). The complete list can be down-loaded from the Internet [17].


International and national expert group evaluations: biological/health effects of radiofrequency fields.

- Int J Environ Res Public Health (2014)

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of environmental agents in different categories, based on the “weight of scientific evidence”.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4199025&req=5

ijerph-11-09376-f001: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of environmental agents in different categories, based on the “weight of scientific evidence”.
Mentions: The core portfolio of IARC’s activities is the program on monographs. For this, the agency seeks scientists with significant peer-reviewed scientific publications/expertise who will serve as members in working groups (WG), search all peer-reviewed scientific literature, prepare a critical review, discuss and combine all relevant information to evaluate the weight of evidence of the agent in question cause carcinogenesis in humans. The final consensus evaluations/analyses were placed in one of the following five categories (groups 1, 2-A and 2-B, 3 or 4; Figure 1). Group 1: Carcinogenic (sufficient evidence in human epidemiological/clinical studies irrespective of other evidences). Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic (limited evidence from human epidemiological/clinical studies, and sufficient evidence from the animal investigations. Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic (limited evidence from human epidemiological/clinical studies and inadequate evidence in animal models). Group 3: Not classifiable (inadequate evidence from human epidemiological/clinical studies as well as inadequate evidence from animal studies). Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic (lack of evidence from both human epidemiological/clinical and animal studies). Thus far, IARC has classified a total of ~970 agents (113, 66, 285, 505, and 1, in the groups 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4, respectively, monograph volumes 1-109). The complete list can be down-loaded from the Internet [17].

Bottom Line: Data reported in peer-reviewed scientific publications were contradictory: some indicated effects while others did not.This paper is a compilation of the conclusions, on the biological effects of RF exposures, from various national and international expert groups, based on their analyses.In general, the expert groups suggested a reduction in exposure levels, precautionary approach, and further research.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX 78299, USA. vijay@uthscsa.edu.

ABSTRACT
The escalated use of various wireless communication devices, which emit non-ionizing radiofrequency (RF) fields, have raised concerns among the general public regarding the potential adverse effects on human health. During the last six decades, researchers have used different parameters to investigate the effects of in vitro and in vivo exposures of animals and humans or their cells to RF fields. Data reported in peer-reviewed scientific publications were contradictory: some indicated effects while others did not. International organizations have considered all of these data as well as the observations reported in human epidemiological investigations to set-up the guidelines or standards (based on the quality of published studies and the "weight of scientific evidence" approach) for RF exposures in occupationally exposed individuals and the general public. Scientists with relevant expertise in various countries have also considered the published data to provide the required scientific information for policy-makers to develop and disseminate authoritative health information to the general public regarding RF exposures. This paper is a compilation of the conclusions, on the biological effects of RF exposures, from various national and international expert groups, based on their analyses. In general, the expert groups suggested a reduction in exposure levels, precautionary approach, and further research.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus