Personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A comparative analysis of international, national, and regional guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A worldwide overview and analysis for the existing limits of human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) is given in this paper. These reference levels have been established by different national and even regional governments, which can be based on the guidelines provided by the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and even in the United States of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as, are based on the so-called precautionary principle. Explicit reference is made to the exposure limits adopted in countries or regions, such as Canada, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and regions of Belgium (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia), where the limits are much lower than the international standards. The limits are compared to a selected set of in-situ measurements. This clearly shows that the measured values are typically very small compared to the international standards but could be somewhat higher compared to the reduced limits. Based on this observation and the reasonable assumption that the sensitivity of people to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) is the same everywhere (whole-body), we propose the idea to establish a worldwide reference limit for the general public, thus applicable in all countries, if the ICNIRP considers it appropriate. Research must continue to generate measurement data that demonstrate the levels of exposure to which we are really exposed, and with this, provide arguments to the organizations that established the guidelines, especially the ICNIRP, to evaluate whether the current limits are too much. High and can be modified when considered pertinent. To the best of our knowledge, at no time has the reference level for the general public been exceeded.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".