Human radio frequency exposure limits: An update of reference levels in Europe, USA, Canada, China, Japan and Korea
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compliance with human exposure limits for electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is a significant health and safety issue to regulators, service providers and wireless equipment suppliers. The recent exposure limits are reported. The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and the power-density (PD) reference levels in European countries, USA, Canada, China, Japan and Korea are compared and contrasted. The allowed SAR cellular handsets' exposure limits for localized heating are more restrictive in the USA, Canada and Korea (1.6 W/kg), relative to others (2 W/kg). Even the averaging is more restrictive: averaged over 1 g in N. America and Korea, versus 10 g tissue in ICNIRP 1998 and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006. Europe in general follows the ICNIRP 1998 PD levels from base stations. Despite the (non-mandatory) EU Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC, some EU countries adopt more restrictive thresholds. USA and Japan are the most liberal countries, adopting in 300-1,500 MHz power-density 4/3 of the ICNIRP1998 and IEEE 2006 levels. On 13 March 2015, Health Canada revised the 2009 PD limits (that were identical to the USA), and published more restrictive reference levels. There is no scientific reason to use different exposure limits in different countries. Some explanations of the different limits are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it