Literature DB >> 21638216

Comparative health risk assessment of electromagnetic fields.

Norbert Leitgeb1.   

Abstract

Comparative health risk assessment of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has been performed in their entire frequency range from static fields until ionizing radiation. Due to considerable change of physical and biologic interaction and the nature of potential adverse health effects comparison was based on the carcinogenic potential of environmental EMF exposure levels. There was a need for sophisticated discrimination of levels of evidence as well as the available database. Conclusions were based on a synoptic view to results of different scientific approaches such as theoretical and biologic interaction modeling, evidence for accumulative effects, in vitro and in vivo investigations and epidemiologic studies. The comparative assessment revealed significant differences of objective results and public risk perception, and puts EMF risks into perspective. It highlights the necessity for individual's responsible behavior in terms of prudent avoidance. The comparison indicates where risk awareness might merit priority. This is not restricted to the UV range but includes also other exposures such as to nocturnal light or within infrared cabins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21638216     DOI: 10.1007/s10354-011-0884-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr        ISSN: 0043-5341


  16 in total

Review 1.  Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields.

Authors: 
Journal:  IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum       Date:  2002

2.  Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 7.196

3.  Magnetic emission ranking of electrical appliances. A comprehensive market survey.

Authors:  N Leitgeb; R Cech; J Schröttner; P Lehofer; U Schmidpeter; M Rampetsreiter
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  Fluorescent lighting and malignant melanoma. International Non-ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 1.316

5.  Comments on "Extremely low frequency electric fields and cancer: assessing the evidence" by Kheifets et al.

Authors:  Louis Slesin
Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.010

6.  Guidelines on limits of exposure to broad-band incoherent optical radiation (0.38 to 3 microM). International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.316

7.  Light-at-night, circadian disruption and breast cancer: assessment of existing evidence.

Authors:  Richard G Stevens
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 8.  Exposure to electromagnetic fields and the risk of childhood leukaemia: a review.

Authors:  J Schüz; A Ahlbom
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 0.972

9.  ICNIRP statement--Protection of workers against ultraviolet radiation.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.316

10.  ICNIRP statement on far infrared radiation exposure.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.316

View more
  2 in total

1.  Experimental model for ELF-EMF exposure: Concern for human health.

Authors:  C D'Angelo; E Costantini; M A Kamal; M Reale
Journal:  Saudi J Biol Sci       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 4.219

2.  Is There a Connection Between Electrosensitivity and Electrosensibility? A Replication Study.

Authors:  Renáta Szemerszky; Mónika Gubányi; Dorottya Árvai; Zsuzsanna Dömötör; Ferenc Köteles
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2015-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.