Erdreich L S, Klauenberg B J
Exponent, New York, NY 10170, USA.
Health Phys. 2001 May;80(5):430-9. doi: 10.1097/00004032-200105000-00003.
Radio frequency radiation exposure standards vary in origin, development process, legal status, and in the actual exposure limits. To identify the sources of differences in limits, we evaluated technical aspects of eight standards that included supporting information on the scientific data and rationale. Comparisons were made among the standards by examining the scope of the underlying database, the rationales for safety factors and other issues underlying exposure limits in the energy-deposition range (0.1 MHz to 10.0 GHz) and in the surface-heating range (about 10 or 15 GHz to 300 GHz). The framework for this assessment was based on the methods recommended by the scientific and regulatory organizations for developing health-based exposure limits. General guidelines for performing risk assessments for threshold acting agents have been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Canada's Environmental Health Directorate, and the International Program on Chemical Safety of the World Health Organization. This general methodology was applied to radiofrequency radiation for this assessment. Because these methods strive to identify scientific issues and separate them from risk management or policy, they provide a basis for evaluation of standards in this paper. This distinction can provide a foundation for the longer-term goal of global harmonization of radio frequency radiation standards. Each of the standards evaluated in the energy-deposition range was found to use the same basic restriction, based on biological data and a 10-fold safety factor, yet explanations reflect different interpretations of the underlying biological data. Rationales differ for the magnitude of the safety factor, for the circumstances of exposure, for the nature of sensitive populations, and for the presumed health status of the individuals for whom the basic restriction is applicable. In the surface-heating range, broad variability in exposure limits are seen in the limit itself, as well as in the approach to time averaging and frequency dependence. Averaging times differ among standards, as do tissue geometries for defining partial-body exposures. The differences in approaches to develop the standards do not completely explain differences among the exposure limits, and methods for computing exposure limits from basic restrictions are not always defined. This analysis suggests harmonization of standards will require more detailed review and coordination of biological and engineering data and of policy options.
射频辐射暴露标准在起源、发展过程、法律地位以及实际暴露限值方面存在差异。为了确定限值差异的来源，我们评估了八项标准的技术方面，其中包括有关科学数据和基本原理的支持信息。通过检查基础数据库的范围、安全系数的基本原理以及能量沉积范围（0.1兆赫兹至10.0吉赫兹）和表面加热范围（约10或15吉赫兹至300吉赫兹）内暴露限值的其他相关问题，对这些标准进行了比较。该评估框架基于科学和监管组织推荐的制定基于健康的暴露限值的方法。美国环境保护局、加拿大卫生部环境卫生局以及世界卫生组织国际化学品安全方案已经制定了对阈值作用剂进行风险评估的一般指南。这种一般方法被应用于本次射频辐射评估。由于这些方法致力于识别科学问题并将其与风险管理或政策分开，它们为本文评估标准提供了基础。这种区分可为射频辐射标准全球协调这一长期目标奠定基础。在能量沉积范围内评估的每项标准都基于生物学数据和10倍安全系数采用了相同的基本限制，但解释反映了对基础生物学数据的不同解读。对于安全系数的大小、暴露情况、敏感人群的性质以及适用基本限制的个体的假定健康状况，基本原理各不相同。在表面加热范围内，暴露限值本身以及时间平均和频率依赖性的方法存在广泛差异。不同标准的平均时间不同，定义局部身体暴露的组织几何形状也不同。制定标准方法的差异并不能完全解释暴露限值之间的差异，并且从基本限制计算暴露限值的方法也不总是明确的。该分析表明，标准的协调将需要对生物学和工程数据以及政策选项进行更详细的审查和协调。
