Sheila Johnston PhD
Neuroscience Consultant
10 Queen’s Mews,
London, UK,
W2 4BZ
Please note this is a summary document drawing on the expertise of the many international expert authors quoted directly and indirectly. I am only the gatherer of their statements. I acknowledge them fully.
Please note that each Specific Research Study Design (Epidemiological, Human Volunteer, In Vivo, In Vitro) can be read independently, but I would advise for full understanding that you read the complete document.
INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR QUALITY EMF (RF or ELF) RESEARCH
IEEE ICES TC-95, SubCommittees 3 and 4
ICES EMF Literature Surveillance
IEEE ICES EMF Standard Setting
ICNIRP, IARC and WHO EMF Project Collaboration
ELF Reviews: IARC-2002, ICNIRP-2003, WHO EMF Project-2005
RF Reviews: IARC-2006, ICNIRP-2007, WHO EMF Project-2008
Revision of the ICNIRP Guidelines 0-300 GHz -1998
GUIDELINES FOR QUALITY EMF (RF / ELF) RESEARCH
Replication and EMF Standard Setting Criteria
General Experimental Design Criteria
SAR as a Measure of Temperature Increase
Traditional Evaluation of Research
New Evaluation of Research: Molecular Epidemiology
The Epidemiological Study Design
Case Control and Cohort Studies
Spatial Epidemiology (Quoted from Elliott and Wartenberg, 2004)
Human RF Exposure in the Near Field
Human RF Exposure in the Far Field
Data collection and quality assurance
For Example IEEE SC-4: In Vivo Triage: 16 Screens Are Summarized Below:
International expert evaluations of the published literature are carried out according to guidelines for quality EMF (0-300 GHz) research. As technology progresses, it is our duty as scientists and engineers to continually review and monitor new findings and to update and revise our safety standards and guidelines accordingly (Chou & D’Andrea, 2003; ICNIRP, 1998; Gajšek et al., 2002; ICNIRP, 1998).
A comprehensive and critical review of the extant scientific database of electromagnetic field (EMF) published literature is updated periodically by panels of current qualified experts, as recognized by the international scientific community.
An important task of the international expert panels is to assess the relevant extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) accumulating papers (2200+ papers) for standard setting for human exposure limits to protect the population against any adverse health effects.
While exposure to EMF may cause biological effects, without any known adverse consequences, the standards are based on established threshold levels for adverse health effects, i.e., levels of exposure above which adverse health effects have been established and below which adverse health effects have not been established.
There are currently 2 international expert panels that evaluate the ever-increasing EMF literature according to criteria for quality EMF (0-300 GHz) research to set the standards and guidelines.
1. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated (IEEE)[1], International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES), Piscataway, New Jersey. ICES membership is open to all interested persons; membership of the central governing and the technical committees (TC-95 and TC-34) stands at more than 150 professionals representing 24 countries. [http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc28/]. ICES develops standards through an open consensus process that is transparent at every level. In addition to standards prescribing safety levels, ICES also develops standards and recommended practices for implementing these standards, e.g., safety programs, methods for exposure assessment.
2. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Oberschleissheim, Germany (14 members from 13 countries, see board 2004-8). [http://www.icnirp.de/]. New members are appointed by the existing members.
Although IEEE ICES standards and ICNIRP guidelines are advisory (voluntary), and carry neither a mandate for compliance nor a mechanism for enforcement, these documents frequently serve as the bases for guidelines and regulations set forth by regulatory and other agencies in diverse countries that have issued their own standards, which, in some cases, may differ substantially from those of ICES and ICNIRP.
Because of the international expertise in EMF research of IEEE ICES and ICNIRP members, it is valuable to focus attention on their processes of evaluating the relevant literature for the purpose of establishing safety criteria.
These expert panels are multidisciplinary and include, for example, epidemiologists, neurologists, biologists, toxicologists, oncologists, and psychologists who are appropriately specialized medical scientists, and physicists, engineers, and statisticians. Only peer reviewed scientific studies are included in the review. While anonymous peer review for publication adds confidence in the study results, additional review is necessary to evaluate the study design, conduct of the experiment and the statistical analyses, and to compare various aspects of the results with the results of other studies to reveal the consistency of the results. National expert reports that for the most part are not published in scientific journals may also be considered for review. But conference abstracts are of little value as they generally receive no peer review, contain sparse information, and cannot be considered as the final outcome of an experiment (Repacholi, 1998). The task of the expert panels is to assess the entire ELF and RF scientific database (2200+ papers) for standards setting for human exposure to avoid any established adverse health effects.
Subcommittee 3 and Subcommittee 4 (SC-3 and SC-4) of Technical Committee 95 (TC-95) develop standards for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields. SC-3 covers the frequency range of 0 to 3 kHz; SC-4 covers the range of 3 kHz to 300 GHz. These subcommittees review the EMF literature continuously and periodically they may publish review papers in the scientific peer reviewed literature for the purpose of updating the standards (cf. BEMS Supplement). The revision process established by the ICES is a continuing rigorous and open scientific process that is transparent at all levels and includes the opportunity for input from all stakeholders.
The EMF literature surveillance covers health effects in two separate exposure frequency ranges, 0-3 kHz and 3 kHz - 300 GHz, because adverse biological effects (associated with exposures above the exposure limits) are manifested primarily as induced in situ electric field stimulation in the lower frequency range and as tissue heating in the upper range, respectively. There is some overlap of the effects associated with induced in situ electric field stimulation and with heating in the intermediate range 3 kHz to 100 kHz (or higher for pulsed fields).
The IEEE standards are living documents and in accordance with IEEE rules must be reaffirmed or revised every 5 years. The IEEE C95 standards are based on IEEE ICES members’ anonymous peer reviews of all the published scientific studies of health effects. They provide a wide margin of safety to workers and the public from adverse health effects from exposure to EMFs. The IEEE EMF safety limits are issued as two separate standards.[2] As indicated above, SC-3 and SC-4 have independent literature review panels who evaluate the papers in a parallel process for the ranges, 0-3 kHz and 3 kHz -300 GHz, respectively. Each subcommittee independently drafts and approves the standard that applies to its frequency range.
Each standard is first balloted by the subcommittee, which requires at least 75% of the ballots returned and at least 75% affirmative ballots following ballot resolution (during which time all negative ballots, comments and changes to the draft resulting from ballot resolution are circulated to the balloting group to allow members to comment, change or reaffirm their vote). This process is repeated at the ICES Committee level after which the draft standard is submitted to the IEEE Standards Association Standards Board (SASB) Review Committee (RevCom). The SASB RevCom has oversight to ensure that due process has been afforded to all, and that the rigid IEEE SASB Rules for standards development and balloting have been followed. When satisfied, the RevCom recommends to the SASB approval of the standard. The SASB procedures provide a mechanism for appeals based on violations of the IEEE balloting process; technical appeals are referred to the Committee and Subcommittees. Once approved by the SASB, the standards are published, usually within 2-3 months.
The ELF standard (C95.6) was approved in September 2002 and published in October 2002. When C95.6 was balloted by ICES, 93% of the ballots were returned with a 90% approval.
The current RF standard (C95.1) was approved in 1991, reaffirmed in 1997, an amendment was published in 1999 and a second amendment was published in 2004.
TC-95 SC-3 was responsible for the development of IEEE C95.6-2002. During development of this standard, SC-3 was chaired by Kent Jaffa (USA) and had about 75 voluntary ELF research members from 11 countries. The results of the SC-3 review are incorporated within IEEE Std C95.6-2002.
The SC-3 review of the literature continues with Thanh Dovan (AU) and Philip Chadwick (UK) as SC-3 co-chairs. In addition, SC-3 members have published review papers in Health Physics, 83:3, 2002, from an international conference in Brussels, 2000, entitled “The EMF exposure guidelines science workshop”.
The IEEE ICES sponsored a one-day ‘Short Tutorial Course on IEEE Standard C95.6’ in June and December 2004 in conjunction with their annual and semi-annual meetings. The same short-course was presented to the Canadian Electrical Association in March 2004 and in Dublin in June 2005. J. Patrick Reilly and Kent Jaffa, both of the USA, present this short course.
TC-95 is working toward harmonisation of the C95.6 standard with ICNIRP and to that purpose, within the ELF range, J.P. Reilly has published a paper in Health Physics, “An analysis of differences in the low-frequency electric and magnetic field exposure standards of ICES and ICNIRP,” (Reilly, 2005).
A complete revision of the RF standard (C95.1-1991) by SC-4 is now in progress. The revision is based on the peer reviewed literature identified by the Literature Surveillance Working Group chaired by Lou Heynick (USA, 1978-2005) who continuously identified the literature for review. This process has been taken over by Joseph Morrissey and new papers are now entered on the WHO EMF Project website
The membership of SC-4 stands at 122 members representing 24 countries and is co-chaired by C-K. Chou and J.A. D’Andrea (both USA). Chou and D’Andrea coordinated the literature evaluation and, along with the literature evaluation working group chairs and other designated experts published 12 RF and health, review papers in, the Bioelectromagnetics journal, Supplement 6, 2003 (Chou and D’Andrea, 2003).
They have also incorporated a thorough literature review within the draft revision of IEEE Std C95.1-1991/1999. This standard has undergone a complete revision, which was approved by SC-4 in March and is now (August 2005) undergoing Sponsor (ICES) ballot. The SC4 literature evaluation process is explained in detail in Appendix A 1.6 of the IEEE Std PC95.1-2005 Briefly adapted from IEEE Std PC95.1-2005:
Working groups (WGs) evaluate engineering, epidemiology, in vivo, and in vitro aspects of the research. Additionally, a WG on mechanisms assesses the role of mechanisms of interaction in standard setting. The Engineering WG is tasked with assessment of the exposure systems, field characteristics and measurements, dosimetry, specific absorption rates, induced currents and fields, and temperature/humidity measurements. The sufficiency of the information provided in each publication, to allow a full understanding of how the experiment was performed, is paramount. The chair of each WG is responsible for providing copies of each paper to two independent reviewers, together with specially designed and approved review forms called Triages. These ‘Triage’ forms (available in Appendix A, below) are in a computer format that requires numerical scoring by individual reviewers for entry into a computerized database. When a review is completed, the reviewer gives the paper an overall technical merit rating on a 5-point scale. The rating scale is: Very High = 5; Moderately High = 4; Acceptable = 3; Low = 2; and Very Low = 1. For ratings of 1 or 2, a request is made for justification in writing by the reviewer. This is not requested for ratings of 3 and above, which are considered acceptable. Strong discordance between the two reviews of a given paper requires a third independent review. Periodically, the chair of each WG submits a summary of the reviews completed to the Chair of the Risk Assessment WG (RAWG). All of the reviews are performed by volunteers who are randomly selected from within each working group. The identification of each reviewer will remain confidential.
The ICNIRP, IARC, and WHO EMF Project expert members work in phased collaboration with each other to evaluate the EMF literature.
1. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), with their secretariat in Lyon, France, is part of the WHO. (Classifications of carcinogens: ELF, 2001). [http://www.iarc.fr/]
2. The World Health Organisation (WHO) EMF Project have their secretariat in Geneva with members from 40+ countries. [http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/]
The ICNIRP / IARC/ WHO EMF Project, EMF literature reviews cover health effects in the two separate exposure frequency ranges of 0-100 kHz and 100 kHz - 300 GHz.
The IEEE and WHO/ IARC/ICNIRP have not yet harmonized on the intermediate division between the two ranges but they may in the near future (Reilly, 2005).
On each of the two frequency ranges IARC evaluates the cancer literature, makes a classification and writes a Cancer Monograph.
On each of the two frequency ranges the ICNIRP panel reviews the biological literature and publishes its review as a Blue Book.
Consequently the WHO EMF Project panel prepares a review on each of the two frequency ranges and writes an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) Monograph.
Finally once they have fully reviewed and evaluated the literature on both the 0-100 kHz and the 100 kHz-300 GHz ranges, the ICNIRP panel will revise the EMF guidelines for limiting human exposure over the entire EMF range, 0-300 GHz, as a paper published in Health Physics (1998; 2008?).
Presently IARC has evaluated the cancer literature on ELFs and published an IARC Monograph ‘Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields’ (Vol. 80, 2002) and has made a cancer classification 2B for ELFs (19-26 June 2001). The IARC Panel (19-26 June 2001) consisted of 21 members from 11 countries and 4 observers (chosen by the secretariat) and the IARC secretariat.
Following this, the ICNIRP panel 2000-2004 (12 members, the Chair A. McKinlay, vice chair and chairman emeritus), along with invited consultants have written a review of the biological scientific literature concerning exposure to static and low frequency EMFs 0-100 kHz (2003) including dosimetry (2 members, 5 consultants), experimental investigations of EMF biological effects (of cellular, animal and human experiments)(7 members, 7 consultants), and epidemiology (2 members, 4 consultants). Their report is published as the ICNIRP Blue Book entitled Exposure to Static and Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Biological Effects and Health Consequences (0 - 100kHz), (2003).
The WHO EMF Project panel are completing their update of the previous Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) Monograph 35 on ELF Fields, (1992) including comprehensive risk assessment and policy recommendations, expected in late 2005.
After IARC completes the meta analyses of results of the 13 country Interphone Study (2000-2005) a similar progression of literature evaluations by the panels of IARC, ICNIRP and the WHO EMF Project will be initiated for RF exposures in the range 100 kHz to 300 GHz.
IARC will evaluate the cancer-related literature of the RF bands and make a classification of RF possibly in 2006 and publish an RF IARC Monograph.
Then ICNIRP will evaluate the biological science and publish an RF Blue book.
And WHO EMF Project will write an EHC Monograph on RF to update the previous EHC monograph 137.
Following the completed cycles of IARC/ ICNIRP/ WHOEMF Project evaluations of both the ELF and RF published literature, ICNIRP will update the ‘ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields up to 300 GHz’ (Health Physics 1998), possibly in 2008. Thus we may have about a 10-year cycle to update the ICNIRP EMF guidelines for limiting human exposure according to the current literature evaluation process.
The fifth international RF literature review group is the European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research- Telecommunication Information Science and Technology, (COST 281), with their secretariat in Bonn, Germany. The COST 281 science members are drawn from the 25 signatory European countries. http://www.cost281.org.
The COST 244 (1996-2000) continued on as COST 281 from 2001. The COST (281) members continuously review the scientific literature on radio telecommunications and health and report to the European Commission.
Previously, COST 244 members wrote two comprehensive reviews of the RF literature [Possible Health Effects Related to the Use of Radiotelephones: Proposals for a research programme by a European Commission Expert Group, 1996 (McKinlay); McKinlay, 1997; 1999 (Veyret)].
COST 281 members are not directly involved in setting standards; however they do advise the EC on RF health effects literature for the purpose of policy and evaluating proposals for further research funding.
The first hurdle to demonstrate quality in research is publication; papers considered for health risk assessment must be published in a peer reviewed journal.
When evaluating submitted papers for journal publication anonymous reviewers and editors may use the following criteria to comment on the technical content of the papers: Does the TITLE accurately and briefly portray the content? Does the ABSTRACT clearly convey the problem(s), findings, and conclusion(s)? Does the INTRODUCTION clearly and concisely define the problem or issue? Is the METHODOLOGY clear, complete, and adequate for the biology and dosimetry? Are the RESULTS clearly and concisely presented, making proper use of tables? Is the DATA ANALYSIS complete and valid, using appropriate statistical methods and tests, and error analysis? Is the DISCUSSION valid, relevant, and concise? Are the CONCLUSIONS drawn fully, valid and stated concisely? Are any key citations missing in the REFERENCES? Does the list include all the references used in text? (Chou, 2003)
Since the paper will have already met the publication criteria, the panel members review the paper to see if it can meet replication criteria and, if replicated, can meet the EMF standard setting criteria. Review panels approach the literature in a structured way. Panels have a chairman and section heads with their committee members representing expertise in epidemiology, in vivo (animal and human laboratory studies) and in vitro research (tissue cultures) as well as engineering/dosimetry, statistics and biophysical mechanisms of interaction. The section heads summarise their areas of review for the chairman. We base guidelines on scientific data related to adverse health effects meeting the literature evaluation criteria and we require information to be consistent from multiple studies and disciplines.
Overall criteria for general experimental design, general research priorities as well as criteria for the specific areas of research (epidemiology, human acute, in vivo and in vitro) are listed below. The review criteria are derived from numerous published papers, books and standards and guidelines and the five ICES SC-4 Triages. Some key references are listed directly below:
Papers: Hill, 1965; Blundell, 1996; Rothman et al., 1996; Cardis and Rice, 1997; Repacholi and Cardis, 1997; Repacholi, 1998; Rothman and Greenland, 1998; Repacholi and Greenebaum, 1999; Lin, 2002; Adair, 2003; Brodsky et al., 2003; Chou, 2003; Gajsek et al., 2003; Habash, 2003; Habash et al., 2003; Rushton and Elliott, 2003; Kheifets et al., 2003; Ahlbom et al., 2004; Elliott and Wartenberg, 2004; Foster and Repacholi, 2004; Feychting et al., 2005; Greenland, 2005; Johnston and Scherb, 2005.
Books: EPRI, 1994; NIEHS, 1998; IARC Vol 80, 2002; ICNIRP, 2003; Stravoulakis (Ed), 2003 (Johnston chapter, 2003); Ahrens and Pigeot, (Eds) 2005.
Standards and Guidelines: ICNIRP, 1998; IEEE Std C95.6-2002; IEEE Std C95.1-1991/1999; IEEE Std 1528-2003; Draft IEEE Std PC95.1- 2005.
Five Triages: Developed by ICES members for consistent literature review in SC-4 [listed in full in Appendix A].
Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) should be used throughout the design and conduct of any study where possible and practical, but especially with large and long-term studies (see, e.g., FDA, 1993, NTP 1992[3]).
Quality assurance (QA) procedures should be included in the protocol, including traceable dosimetry and monitoring of the programme by both a team from within the experimental staff and an independent group, as required by GLP [Repacholi et al., 1998; Repacholi and Greenebaum, 1999; Schönborn et al., 2000, 2004; ICNIRP, 2003; IEEE Std C95.6-2002; IEEE Std C95.1, 1991/1999; IEEE Std 1528-2003; Draft IEEE Std PC95.1-2005].
· It is essential for high quality research that accurate assessment of RF and ELF exposure is an integral part of all studies and that each research team include scientists and engineers skilled in traceable EMF dosimetry, in sufficient detail for replication (Triages).
· Computational dosimetry provides the quantitative link between internal dose quantities for direct effects and external fields that can be measured. (Quoted from NRPB, 2004).
· A comprehensive uncertainty[4], variability and artifact dosimetric analysis is required to achieve consistent interpretation of the results (quoted from Kuster et al., 2004; IEEE Std 1528-2003).
· In relation to dosimetry of ELF local exposures, most internal cellular effects associated with low-level ELF exposure are linked with the induced electric field stimulation and therefore the internal induced electric field should be determined in ELF research where possible [IEEE Std C95.6-2002; ICNIRP, 2003; Reilly, 2005].
· Human exposure to (external ELF) magnetic fields is measured in flux density (B) in milliTesla (mT) and magnetic field strength (H) in amps per meter (A/m) respectively (IEEE Std C95.6-2002).
Scientists are required to take responsibility for:
[Quoted from Rushton and Elliott, 2003; see also Conrads et al., 2004; Dorman, 2005; Espina et al., 2005; Gilham et al., 2005; Greenland, 2005; LaPorte, 2005]
Review of the new research proposals should give a high priority to studies with ELF and RF levels, frequencies, modulation and pulse characteristics relevant to human exposures from new technologies with endpoints relevant to human health. [Repacholi, 1998; Foster and Repacholi, 2004; Andersen, Foster, presentations, COST 281, Zurich, February 2005]
· SAR remains the major RF dosimetric quantity; modulation should not be added to a study unless adequate statistical power can be maintained [ICNIRP, 1998; ICNIRP, 2003; Foster and Repacholi, 2004; COST 281, Zurich, February 2005; DRAFT IEEE Std PC95.1-2005].
· Some research, not necessarily a full set of studies, would be warranted for new RF technologies that employ new modulation schemes (changes in peak relative to average signal level and changes in frequency content of a signal) if the potential for public exposure is high. This includes UMTS now being rolled out [Foster and Repacholi, 2004; Andersen, Foster, presentations, COST 281, Zurich, February 2005].
· In the low frequency range the standard is based on electrostimulation which is defined as induction of a propagating action potential in excitable tissue by an applied electrical stimulus; electrical polarization of presynaptic processes leading to a change in post synaptic cell activity [Quoted from IEEE Std C95.6-2002].
· In most biological experiments of low-frequency field (ELF) effects the induced electric fields are poorly known. It is necessary to improve macroscopic dosimetry and, particularly in the case of in vitro studies, also to examine the microscopic distribution of the induced electric field [Quoted from ICNIRP, 2003; see also IEEE Std C95.6-2002; Reilly, 2005].
· There is a lack of well-replicated studies that reveal the existence of biological effects or adverse health effects from low-level RF or ELF exposure below, at, and above public and occupational guideline limits [ICNIRP, 2003; COST 281, Zurich, February 2005].
· Similarly there is a lack of well-replicated studies that reveal the existence of biological effects or adverse health effects from low-level RF or ELF exposure at various durations of exposures similar to real life durations of exposure conditions including intermittent exposures [Ivancsits et al., 2005; Diem et al., 2005].
· We need to establish the human threshold SAR values where RF exposure has a biological and an adverse effect [COST 281, Zurich, February 2005; IEEE, ICES, COST 281: 2004/09 Thermal Physiology Workshop, Paris].
· We need to establish more precisely the ELF thresholds for human electrostimulation values where ELF exposure has a biological and an adverse effect in various tissues [IEEE Std, C95.6-2002; ICNIRP, 2003; Reilly, 2005].
· A future goal is to develop appropriate techniques and thermal models for accurately predicting the thermo physiological responses of human beings who are exposed to RF fields at specific frequencies, field strengths, and field characteristics and to validate some predictions with existing human exposure data [Stolwijk and Hardy, 1977; Adair and Berglund, 1986, 1992; Adair et al., 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005; Kheifets et al., 2003; Foster and Adair, 2004; IEEE, ICES, COST 281: 2004/09 Thermal Physiology Workshop, Paris]. Much data exists that describes the regulatory response changes in the human body as a function of environmental variables, work, exercise, age, fitness, clothing insulation, and other characteristics of each individual. [WHO Geneva Workshop, 2002: Adverse Temperature Levels in the Human, International Journal of Hyperthermia, Vol 19(3), 2003]. Much of this material is amenable to comparison with data derived from RF-exposed humans and animals. [IEEE, ICES, COST 281: 2004/09 Thermal Physiology Workshop, Paris].
· We need to note the modulation of RF and ELF signals exactly. Different modulations could have the same average value. Presently there is no convincing evidence that there is a difference between continuous and modulated RF signals in their effects. But we need to get more clear evidence of the different modulations. Are there separate classifications according to biological effects? Is lower or higher SAR more significant at producing effects? [COST 281, Zurich, February 2005]
· Experimental EMFs should be fully characterized and re-measured periodically. Waveform, pulse shape and timing, frequency spectrum, harmonics and transients from both continuous sources and from switching exposure systems on and off should all be measured where appropriate (Kuster, 1996; Schönborn et al., 2000; Nikoloski et al., 2005).
· Background fields, such as ambient, equipment-derived, and crossover fields from other exposure systems, are also important and need to be characterized. Time-varying and static components should be measured, as well as the polarization and directions of the fields.
· Field modulation introduced by experimental factors such as motion of sample shakers should be noted and measured whenever possible. Positioning of cultures or animals within exposure systems should be noted and randomized where appropriate (Repacholi, 1998).
· The position of humans in exposure systems should be noted and stereotaxically (3-D) defined for replication. (Excell et al., 1996, 1998; Vaul & Excell, 1999).
· Reports of SAR increases due to the presence of nonmagnetic electrodes during RF exposure of up to a factor of 16 have been reported (Angelone et al., 2004). During RF exposure while recording EEG, better modelling of the human head SAR is required (Huber et al., 2003). For instance you cannot use a plastic shell head phantom the same as for mobile phone compliance when measuring the effect of metal leads (for EEG recording) on SAR because of the insulating plastic phantom shell since there would be no electrical connection between the leads and the fluid inside the phantom. (CK Chou personal communication; for SAR modelling methodology see Angelone et al., 2004).
· Further modelling of SAR of children is required using realistic head and body phantoms for both near and far field exposures [ICNIRP, 2003; NRPB, 2004; Draft IEEE Std PC95.1-2005].
· Meta studies are required on RF effects of UMTS and 4G signals on direct and established measures of human brain function and the possible mechanisms involved, using well validated measurements [Haarala et al., 2004; HCN, 2004; Angelone et al., 2004; Kuster et al., 2004].
· In vitro meta studies investigating DNA breaks, genomics, proteomics and molecular signalling pathways during ELF and RF exposures are a priority because of remaining positive studies in the cytogenetic literature (Vijayalaxmi and Obe, 2004; Moulder et al., 2005; Obe and Vijayalaxmi, 2005. reviews).
· Possible long-term biological effects (up to 30 years; IARC, 2002; ICNIRP, 2003; Ahlbom et al., 2004; Feychting et al., 2005) from mobile phone exposure of the public require investigation and should be given priority. Cohort studies including children are recommended. (Stewart et al., 2000; ICNIRP, 2003; Ahlbom et al., 2004; Feychting et al., 2005; Moulder et al., 2005).
· The incorporation of molecular epidemiological methods to aid the investigation of mechanistic pathways and gene-environment interactions should be included. [Rushton and Elliott, 2003; see also Conrads et al., 2004; Dorman, 2005; Espina et al., 2005].
Evaluation of research literature on the effects of ELF or RF exposure is reached in a complex confirmatory interplay of human epidemiological studies, human acute studies, in vivo bioassays (animal lifetime studies), animal acute studies and in vitro tissue culture studies. Traditionally, investigations in human beings of associations between exposure levels and adverse health effects can utilize either human acute or epidemiological studies. And it was biologically plausible and prudent to regard EMF exposure studies in animals, as evidence of lack of risk or risk in humans. This was and is dependent on whether there is evidence for extrapolation of the science from animals to man, based on known functional and structural homologies [i.e. Spatial memory: Kandel et al., 2000; Kandel, 2001; Cell division: Lee and Nurse, 1987]. Traditionally, cellular research was considered as the possible source of a plausible mechanism for any biological effect due to exposure to RF or ELF signals [Repacholi and Cardis, 1997; Repacholi, 1998].
Great advances in cellular research have given us a new understanding of the interplay of cellular research of genes, proteins and cell signalling in single living cells, and the functioning of the whole human body.
For instance molecular profiling for the treatment of individual patient's tumours is currently being evaluated in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (Espina et al., 2005).
And high-resolution serum proteomic features are being implemented for various kinds of cancer detection (Conrads et al., 2004).
These molecular advances have an impact on EMF research priorities. Molecular profiling may become essential at all levels of research namely in epidemiology, human acute studies, animals studies and tissue cultures.
Molecular epidemiology is based on general epidemiology and utilizes the same designs (i.e., case control and cohort studies) as those employed by general epidemiology. However, molecular epidemiology utilizes molecular biology to define the distribution of disease in a population (i.e., descriptive epidemiology) and identify its potential etiologic determinants (i.e., analytical epidemiology) [Quoted from Dorman JS, Director, Collaborating Center for WHO Multinational Project for Childhood Diabetes (DiaMond), U of Pittsburgh; see also LaPorte RE, Director, Molecular Epidemiology and DNA Technology Transfer http://www.pitt.edu/~rlaporte/who.html]
The following sections are on specific research designs in epidemiology, human acute studies, in vivo and in vitro research designs respectively.
Epidemiologic investigations of possible associations of EMF exposure with risk of chronic disease pose unique and substantial difficulties. Among them are difficulties specific to an outcome studied, assessment of exposure, and interpretation of findings and long latency periods required to detect any cancer risk (up to 30 years), (IARC, Vol 80, 2002).
· The hypothesis must be explicitly and clearly stated before the onset of the research.
· Subjects and controls must have given informed consent.
· The method of ascertaining cases of adverse health must be stated.
· Case identification must be independent of exposure. Definition of cases should be objectively, and histologically confirmed.
· Controls should be appropriate to the specific aim and design.
· Controls must be matched (to cases) individually, on age and sex, within study region, and on the basis of frequency, and be population based –i.e. ‘representative’
· Minimization of non-response or non-participation is required to achieve the necessary sample size and minimize bias through selective non-response.
· Total number of original subjects and controls must be stated as well as those removed from the study due to non-response or death.
· An adequate population sample size must be used based on previous calculation of the statistical power. Expected number of cases must be adequate in the study populations to show a relatively small effect of exposure to EMF emissions, if there is one, for instance, from electrical power devices, or mobile phones.
· Study populations must be well defined before the onset of the research.
· Study designs should recognize that the exposure metric for possible effects of weak ELF and weak RF fields is uncertain and usually proxy. Subjects' exposures, particularly historical exposures that are often determined via surrogates, should be validated from specific measurements where possible. Data should include as much information relevant to alternate metrics as possible to aid future research. [Beaglehole et al., 1993; Bracken et al., 1993; Ahlbom, (ICNIRP), 1996; ICNIRP, 1998; IEEE Std C95.6-2002; ICNIRP, 2003; Ahlbom et al., (ICNIRP) 2004; Feychting et al., 2005; IARC, Vol 80, 2002; Draft IEEE Std PC95.1-2005; Neubauer et al., 2005; Reilly, 2005].
· The results must be calculated to evaluate the original hypothesis. It is on the basis of the stated original hypothesis that the power of the study is calculated and the size of the sample is set.
· The authors should report the basic data on which the conclusions are drawn (IARC, Vol 80, 2002).
· Post hoc comparisons on subsets of the data may be hypothesis generating only. Appropriate corrections for multiple comparisons must be applied (Keppel, 1982; Steenland et al., 2000; Johnston and Scherb, 2005).
· Meta analyses should take into consideration prior distributions for the unidentified bias parameters used in the original sensitivity-analysis model. Accounting for uncontrolled confounding and response bias under a reasonable prior (distribution) can substantially alter inferences about the existence of an electromagnetic field effect. Analyses with informative priors (distributions) for unidentified bias parameters can help avoid misinterpretation of conventional results and ordinary sensitivity analyses [Quoted from Greenland, 2003; 2005; see also Blettner & Schlattmann, 2005].
· Studies should include collection of blood samples to create a bio-bank for molecular biological studies on brain tumours and other diseases.
· In new studies, improvement of the exposure assessment is crucial. (Feychting et al., 2005). Personal monitoring systems are being developed for base site exposures.
· A cohort approach would allow studies with different types of outcomes.
· Cohort studies define an exposed and a non-exposed population. Incident diseases or causes of death in the exposed and non-exposed populations are taken from a national register. The risk measure is Relative Risk (RR) (Ahrens and Pigeot, 2005):
· Cohort studies, although not subject to selection bias, are prone to other biases, including losses to follow-up, and generally more expensive and time consuming to carry out than case control studies (Elliott and Wartenberg, 2004). [For examples see Johansen et al., (2001, 2002) and Elliot et al., Cohort study of mobile phone users (pilot study), 2002-2004, in press http://www.mthr.org.uk/research_projects/funded_projects.htm]
· Exploratory studies such as spatial epidemiology use aggregate data, such as geographic correlation studies and offer an alternative approach for generating, prioritizing, and analyzing data to address specific hypotheses of disease etiology and causation.
· Spatial epidemiology is the description and analysis of geographic variations in disease with respect to demographic, environmental, behavioural, socioeconomic, genetic, and infectious risk factors.
· Although they too are prone to biases and misclassification (Elliott and Wakefield, 2000), they are generally easier, quicker, and less expensive to conduct than case control or cohort studies.
· Sensitivity to detect areas at high risk is limited when expected numbers of cases are small.
· One example of this approach is with use of a dedicated system such as that developed by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) in the United Kingdom (Elliott et al., 1992); this has recently been adopted in other European countries as part of the European Health and Environment Information System (EUROHEIS).
· One ready means of investigating the relation of RF exposure to disease is the replication of analyses in different areas based on routine data, as is done in the United Kingdom through SAHSU and in Europe through EUROHEIS [For an example see Elliott et al., 2003-2005 Case control study of cancer incidence in early childhood and proximity to mobile phone base stations, MTHR: http://www.mthr.org.uk/research_projects/funded_projects.htm]
· Problems include the large random component that may dominate disease rates across small areas. This can be dealt with by using Bayesian statistics to provide smooth estimates of the disease risks (Elliott and Wartenberg, 2004).
· The healthy group (worker) effect can result in comparison bias.
· Recall bias occurs when cases and controls may recall exposure differently.
· Interviewer bias can arise when the interviewers may ask questions differentially.
· Selection bias could arise when sampling probability varies, and when there is loss to follow up, and there are non-responses.
· Information bias can arise from non-differential misclassification and differential misclassification.
· Confounding could be due to mixing of effects such as age, sex, and competing exposures.
· Ecological fallacy could result from uncontrolled factors related to disease and exposure [Ahrens and Pigeot, 2005; H. Scherb presentation Feb 2005 COST281, Schriesheim].
· To control for biases there should be double-blinding (subjects and investigators) where possible.
· The study should represent the population or use total ascertainment (i.e. using national registers).
· The study should use stratification of participants (for instance by age, sex, education and social economic status).
· One can counter bias by use of standardization (direct or indirect) (Ahrens and Pigeot, 2005; Scherb, 2004).
· Data on different levels of exposure, its duration and temporal location should be identified (Balzano, 1999).
· The exposure must be recorded in traceable detail for replication in multiple centres of simultaneous study. Quantifiable exposure measurement is preferred over qualitative exposure data.
· Exposure gradients should be developed.
· This dosimetry should be taken into account both at the design of the study and during analysis.
Dose must be independent of control and experimental subjects, and should be measured on an individual basis (IARC, Vol 80, 2002).
· Adequate and reliable measures of exposure for each study subject are needed.
· Categorising exposure into groups can lead to misclassification, and produces a bias towards the null hypothesis -underestimating the real effects.
· More research on validation of body-worn human RF dosimeters needs to be done before studies around mobile phone base stations are feasible (Neubauer et al., 2005).
· The authors should report the number of exposed and unexposed cases and controls in a case control study and the numbers of cases observed and expected in a cohort study and from this group the number used in the statistical evaluation of the primary hypothesis.
· Both in study design and analysis, control for confounding variables is required. Data on potential confounders should be collected for statistical analysis to minimize or subtract out the confounding factors where possible. Identification of confounding factors is recognized as difficult; there is often limited knowledge about causal factors of adverse health endpoints.
· Lack of appropriate action to reduce the impact of these sources of error can decrease the credibility and the final weight given to the results of the study. (Repacholi and Cardis, 1997).
· The methods of statistical analysis should be appropriate for the evaluation of the hypothesis of the study and clearly described.
· When sophisticated or non-standard analytical procedures are used, researchers should provide a simple descriptive analysis of the data. The number of subjects and controls, and the effects of potential confounding factors that were part of the investigation should all be reported.
· Meta analyses should take into consideration prior distributions for the unidentified bias parameters used in the original model [Greenland, 2003., 2005].
· To correct for false positives, empirical or semi-Bayes methods of adjustments for multiple comparisons (post hoc) are recommended when a large number of comparisons have been made (Steenland et al., 2000).
· In summary, we look for 9 factors or viewpoints in epidemiology, as summed up by Sir Bradford Hill in 1965, namely: Strength, Consistency, Specificity, Temporality, Biological gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experimental, evidence, and Analogy. He stressed that from these nine different viewpoints we should study association before we try causation.
· He states that no tests of significance can answer those (9) questions. Such tests can and should remind us of the effects that play of chance can create, and they will instruct us in the likely magnitude of these effects. Beyond that they contribute nothing to the 'proof' of our hypothesis [Quoted from Bradford Hill, 1965].
Please note there are several references to details in the ‘General Experimental Design Criteria’ and the ‘General Research Priorities’ above, in the details of the ‘Human Volunteer Study Design’ below.
The advantage of human volunteer experiments is that they indicate the likely response of other people exposed under similar conditions.
Disadvantages of volunteer studies include:
· the innocuous nature of the effects that can be investigated,
· the short duration of investigation,
· the small number of subjects usually examined
· the ethical constraints,
· and the subjects are usually healthy adults who may not reflect the responses of potentially more susceptible members of society (Quoted from NRPB, 2004).
· The protocol should meet the letter and spirit of all relevant regulations concerning experiments using human subjects, and have prior approval of all relevant review boards. Personnel working with volunteers require special training and oversight.
· For instance, where radioactively labelled compounds could be injected into the human subject’s bloodstream [such as in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) or Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT)] exploratory research in animals should first be considered to investigate brain areas of interest with alternate techniques, such as quantitative autoradiography (QAR) to map regional cerebral blood flow (RCBF). A RCBF study with rats exposed to RF would indicate if there is something worth looking for in humans. (Society of Nuclear Medicine Brain Imaging Council, 1996; Blodgett et al., 2005)
· Adherence to ethical rules must be indicated.
· A well-described criterion for inclusion and exclusion of volunteers is required.
· It is essential for high quality research that accurate assessment of RF and ELF exposure is an integral part of all studies and that each research team include scientists and engineers skilled in traceable EMF dosimetry, in sufficient detail for replication (Triages).
· Current ELF and RF future research should be applicable to electrical and mobile telephone systems in use. For RF research the focus should be on signal protocols in use, e.g. second, third and fourth generation signals (2G, 3G, 4G) including their modulation patterns. For radars, the frequency and pulsing regimes should be applicable to current and emerging systems. [derived from Kuster and Balzano, 1996; Schönborn et al., 2000; IEEE Std C95.6-2002; ICNIRP, 2003; Foster and Repacholi, 2004; Kuster et al., 2004; Nikoloski et al., 2005; Andersen, and Foster Presentations, COST 281 Zurich Feb 17-18, 2005; Reilly, 2005]
· Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in Watts per kilogram (W/kg) is the fundamental RF dosimetry parameter.
· Threshold responses derived from using at least 3 levels of dose and duration of exposure data where possible are sought in addition to sham-exposed controls (‘Sham/Sham’). Appropriate positive controls as well as non-RF heating controls can be very important to help assess the metric of the human response and the potential effects of RF heating should be included.
· It is necessary for replication and accurate interpretation of results that the experimental exposure setup be defined in stereotaxic coordinates for the position of the antenna in relation to the human head. It is necessary to measure, under the experimental conditions, the SAR exposure pattern from the phone antenna in the stereotaxically defined position in relation to the neuroanatomy of the (phantom) head and brain, taking into account the dielectric properties of various tissues of the typical head and neck. It is important to numerically calculate the same SAR values by the gram (1cc) through out the exposed head, brain and neck and compare these values with the experimental measurement values and thermal modelling for verification [IEEE, ICES, COST 281: Joint workshop 2004/09 Thermal Physiology Workshop, Paris].
· It is also important to measure the emissions of the exposure system and ambient room emissions in the experimental conditions. (Excell, 1996, 1998)
· Information about the internal magnetic field should be provided.
· Improved assessment techniques are needed to analyse the range of RF field exposures and absorption experienced by individuals. (Repacholi, Conference Nov ’96; Repacholi, 1998; Neubauer et al., 2005).
· The IEEE C95.1-1999 Standard for RF safety calls for spatially averaged measurements of incident power density to verify compliance with maximum permissible exposure limits. Human exposure to RF power radiated by mobile base station antennas can be assessed by means of the incident power density averaged over the body. The convenience of adopting this quantity lies in the well-behaved decay away from the antenna. (Balzano and Faraone, 1999; Faraone et al., 2000)
· Both numerical modelling and experimental measurement are important to verify whole body human exposure [Balzano and Faraone, 1999; Faraone et al., 2000; Neubauer et al., 2005].
· In the low frequency range internal electric fields are measured as in situ (in tissue) electrical forces (Volts per metre; V/m) and behaviourally as electrostimulation which is defined as induction of a propagating action potential in excitable tissue by an applied electrical stimulus; electrical polarization of presynaptic processes leading to a change in post synaptic cell activity [Quoted from IEEE Std C95.6-2002].
Scientists are required to take responsibility for:
[Quoted from Rushton and Elliott, 2003; see also Conrads et al., 2004; Dorman, 2005; Espina et al., 2005; Gilham et al., 2005; LaPorte, 2005]
Please refer to the‘General Experimental Design Criteria’ and the ‘General Research Priorities’ above and the in vivo triage below for further details.
Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) should be used throughout the design and conduct of any study where possible and practical, but especially with large and long-term animal studies (see, e.g., FDA, 1993, NTP 1992).
Quality assurance (QA) procedures should be included in the protocol, including traceable dosimetry and monitoring of the programme by both a team from within the experimental staff and an independent group, as required by GLP [Repacholi, 1998; Repacholi and Greenebaum, 1999; Schönborn et al., 2004; ICNIRP, 2003; IEEE Std C95.6-2002; IEEE Std C95.1, 1991/1999; Draft IEEE Std PC95.1-2005].
The a priori estimated statistical power of the experiment, based on prior knowledge and the number of tests planned, should be sufficient to reliably detect the expected size of the effect (often as small as 10-20%) (In vivo Triage).
1. Current and RF future research should be applicable to electrical and mobile telephone systems in use. For RF research the focus should be on signal protocols in use, e.g. second, third and fourth generation signals (2G, 3G, 4G) including their modulation patterns. For radars, the frequency and pulsing regimes should be applicable to current and emerging systems. [Derived from Kuster and Balzano, 1996; Schönborn et al., 2000; IEEE Std C95.6-2002; ICNIRP, 2003; Foster and Repacholi, 2004; Kuster et al., 2004; Nikoloski et al., 2005; Andersen, and Foster Presentations, COST 281 Zurich Feb 17-18, 2005; Reilly, 2005]
2. Environmental conditions, such as temperature, humidity, light, vibration, sound, and background EMFs, should be measured and recorded periodically. All experimental conditions should be the same for all groups, except for EMF exposure [Schönborn et al., 2004; Engineering and In vivo Triages].
2. Experimental EMF should be fully characterized and measured periodically. Waveform, pulse shape and timing, frequency spectrum, harmonics and transients from both continuous sources and from switching exposure systems on and off, should all be measured where appropriate. Background fields, such as ambient, equipment-derived, and crossover fields from other exposure systems, are also important and need to be characterized. Time-varying and static components should be measured, as well as the polarization and directions of the fields. Field modulation introduced by experimental factors such as motion of sample shakers should be noted and measured whenever possible. Positioning of animals within exposure systems should be noted and randomised where appropriate.
3. Experimental dosimetry should confirm any calculated values; measurements should be taken at multiple points in any in vivo model; should be reported in SAR (W/kg) - not simply as a field strength measure; should specify whether whole body or local SAR for animal studies; and should detail the method of measurement. (Repacholi, Conference, Nov ’96; Repacholi, 1998; International EMF Project/ ICNIRP, 1999)
4. In considering experimental studies more generally, a considerable problem in the interpretation of experiments is that many of them have given insufficient detail concerning exposure conditions. Moreover, in the case of pulsed fields when SAR values are quoted it is often unclear whether these refer to the average SAR or to the peak SAR during pulses. It is very important to make this distinction, since the peak SAR can be 1000 or more times the average value. Full details should be provided of experimental conditions including maximum SAR per pulse for pulsed radiation.
5. Failure to adequately characterize and control for experimental conditions (i.e. immobilization) with appropriate cage control animals, could significantly mask any potential effects mediated by the RF field on stress-related parameters (Stagg et al., 2001).
6. A comprehensive uncertainty, variability and artifact dosimetric analysis is required to achieve consistent interpretation of the results (Quoted from Kuster et al., 2004; IEEE Std 1528-2003)
1. The full protocol, including QA, (including double blind conditions) should be followed strictly, as should GLP provisions for monitoring this.
2. Data should be recorded contemporaneously and back-up copies kept of all electronic data.
3. No data should be discarded without valid reason (e.g. equipment failure, procedures not followed). Reasons for this should be recorded.
4. As part of the QA programme, at least one independent reassessment of all or an appropriate sample of specimens should be made, when assays require an independent judgment by the investigator (e.g., histological evaluations).
5. Where possible, samples should be stored for future reference.
· The stored data set should contain all data, and if any data are excluded from an analysis, clear, legitimate reasons for doing so should be recorded.
· Conclusions should be drawn on the basis of the hypothesis, be fully supported by the data and include all-important implications of the data set.
Scientists are required to take responsibility for:
[Quoted from Rushton and Elliott, 2003; see also Conrads et al., 2004; Dorman, 2005; Espina et al., 2005; Gilham et al., 2005; LaPorte, 2005]
Please refer to ‘General Experimental Design Criteria’ and the ‘General Research Priorities’ above and the in vitro triage below for details as well.
Traditionally, cellular research was considered as the possible source of a plausible mechanism for any biological effect due to exposure to RF or ELF signals [Repacholi and Cardis, 1997; Repacholi, 1998].
Great advances in cellular research have given us a new understanding of the interplay of cellular research of genes, proteins and cell signalling in single living cells, and the functioning of the whole human body in health and disease [Lee and Nurse, 1987; Kandel et al., 2000; Kandel, 2001; Conrads et al., 2004; Dorman, 2005; Espina et al., 2005; Laporte, 2005].
These molecular advances have an impact on EMF research priorities. Molecular profiling may become essential at all levels of research namely in epidemiology, human acute studies, animals studies and tissue cultures. We now see the incorporation of molecular methods to aid the investigation of mechanistic pathways and gene-environment interactions.
The in vitro study should test a clearly defined hypothesis, using a detailed protocol that would lead to quantitative information directly or indirectly relevant to assessment of health risk from ELF and RF exposure and allow any other independent laboratory(s) to reconstruct the study and replicate the findings for validation and allow the results be combined for meta analysis where appropriate.
Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) should be used throughout the design and conduct of any study where possible and practical (see, e.g., FDA, 1993, NTP 1992).
Quality assurance (QA) procedures should be included in the protocol, including traceable dosimetry and monitoring of the programme by both a team from within the experimental staff and an independent group, as required by GLP [Repacholi, 1998; Repacholi and Greenebaum, 1999; Schönborn et al., 2000; ICNIRP, 2003; IEEE Std C95.6-2002; IEEE Std C95.1, 1991/1999; Draft IEEE Std PC95.1-2005]
There should be well-defined exposure conditions with improved control of the exposure parameters, continuous monitoring and control of the environmental parameters, support of a double blinded study protocol, carefully characterized dosimetry including the average specific absorption rate (SAR), standard deviation of the SAR, monitoring of the temperature load, determination of the local SAR and possible temperature hotspots. (Nikoloski et al., 2005)
1. Temperature, atmosphere in CO² incubators, vibration, and stray fields from incubator heaters and fans are sources of asymmetry (differences between exposed and control samples) that are often overlooked in cell and tissue culture experiments. These must be measured with appropriate instrumentation and every effort made to ensure that any differences are minimized, except for EMF exposure of the "exposed" samples.
· The environmental requirements (e.g., stabilized temperature, atmospheric control, sterility) must be strictly fulfilled.
· All relevant technical and biological parameters must be monitored during the experiment.
· The most important technical data should be logged in order to track possible malfunctions of the system.
· All controlling and monitoring devices should be rigorously checked for interference under worst- case considerations.
· Non-disturbance of commercial services must be ensured [Burkhardt et al., 1996; Schönborn et al., 2000; Schuderer and Kuster, 2003; Nikoloski et al., 2005].
Scientists are required to take responsibility for:
[Quoted from Rushton and Elliott, 2003; see also Conrads et al., 2004; Dorman, 2005; Espina et al., 2005; Gilham et al., 2005; Keppel, 1982; LaPorte, 2005]
This is a living document and research methods are updated continually as are the IEEE ICES SC-4 Triages listed in Appendix A below.
Adair ER, Berglund LG: On the thermoregulatory consequences of NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1986, 4:321-33.
Adair ER, Berglund LG: Predicted thermophysiological responses of humans to MRI fields. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1992, 649:188-200.
Adair ER, Blick DW, Allen SJ, Mylacraine KS, Ziriax JM, Scholl DM. Thermophysiological responses of human volunteers to whole body RF exposure at 220 MHz Bioelectromagnetics. 2005, DOI 10.1002/bem.20101
Adair ER, Cobb BL, Mylacraine KS, Kelleher SA: Human exposure at two radio frequencies (450 and 2450 MHz): similarities and differences in physiological response, Bioelectromagnetics 1999, 20(Suppl 4):12-20.
Adair ER, Kelleher SA, Mack GW, Morocco TS: Thermophysiological responses of human volunteers during controlled whole-body radio frequency exposure at 450 MHz, Bioelectromagnetics 1998, 19:232-245.
Adair ER, Mylacraine KS, Allen SJ, Thermophysiological consequences of whole-body resonant RF exposure (100 MHz) in human volunteers. Bioelectromagnetics 2003, 24:489-501.
Adair ER, Mylacraine KS, Cobb BL: Human exposure to 2450 MHz CW energy at levels outside the IEEE C95.1 Standard does not increase core temperature. Bioelectromagnetics 2001, 22:429-439.
Adair RK, Biophysical limits on athermal effects of RF and microwave radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 2003, 24:39-48.
Ahlbom A (1996): Some fundamental aspects of epidemiology with reference to research on magnetic fields and cancer. In: R Matthes (Ed): "Non-Ionising Radiation". Proc.3rd Non-Ionising Radiation Workshop, 22-26 April, Baden, Austria: ICNIRP, International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, D-85764 Oberschleißheim, Germany, 17-27.
Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A; ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology, Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure, Environ Health Perspect, 2004 Dec;112(17):41-54. Review.
Ahrens W, Krickeberg K, Pigeot I, An introduction to epidemiology, in Handbook of Epidemiology, Ahrens W, Pigeot I (Eds), Springer, Heidelberg, 2005. 3-36.
Ahrens W, Pigeot I (Eds) Handbook of Epidemiology, Springer, Heidelberg, 2005.
Andersen J-B, Signal forms in wireless applications, presentation in COST281 Workshop - Do sinusoidal versus non-sinusoidal waveforms make a difference? and 8th MCM (Zurich) 2005/02/17-18. http://www.cost281.org/documents.php?node=93&dir_session=
Angelone LM, Potthast A, Segonne F, Iwaki S, Belliveau JW, Bonmassar G, Metallic electrodes and leads in simultaneous EEG-MRI: Specific absorption rate (SAR) simulation studies, Bioelectromagnetics. 2004 May;25(4):285-295.
Balmain A, Harris C C, Carcinogenesis in mouse and human cells: parallels and paradoxes, Carcinogenesis, (2000), 21(3), 371–7.
Balzano Q, Exposure metrics for RF Epidemiology: Cellular phone handsets. Radiation Prot. Dos, (1999) 83:1-2: 165-170.
Balzano Q, Faraone A, Human exposure to cellular base station antennas, IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1999, 2:924-928.
Beaglehole R, Bonita R, Kjellström T, Basic epidemiology. Geneva: World Health Organization, (1993), 175.
Bernardi P, Cavagnaro M, Pisa S, Piuzzi E, Power absorption and temperature elevations induced in the human head by a dual-band monopole-helix antenna phone, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 2001, 49: 2539 – 2546.
Bernardi P, Cavagnaro M, Pisa S, Piuzzi E, Specific absorption rate and temperature increases in the head of a cellular-phone user, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 2000, 48: 1118-1126.
Blettner & Schlattmann, Meta-analysis in epidemiology, in, Ahrens W, Pigeot I (Eds) Handbook of Epidemiology, Springer, Heidelberg, 2005, 829-858.
Blodgett TM, Casagranda B, Townsend DW, Meltzer CC, Issues, Controversies, and Clinical Utility of Combined PET/CT Imaging: What Is the Interpreting Physician Facing? AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2005 May;184(5 Suppl):S138-45.
Blundell T.L. (1996) Structure-based drug design. Nature 384 Suppl 7:23-26.
Bracken, T., Kheifets, L. and Sussman, S., (1993): Exposure assessment for power frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and its application to epidemiologic studies. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 3: 1-22.
Brodsky LM, Habash RW, Leiss W, Krewski D, Repacholi M. Health risks of electromagnetic fields. Part III: Risk analysis. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2003;31(4):333-354
Burkhardt M, Pokovi K, Gnos M, Schmid T, Kuster N, Numerical and experimental dosimetry of Petri dish exposure setups, Bioelectromagnetics (1996) 17:6 : 483 - 493
Brüske-Hohlfeld I, Scherb H, Bauchinger M, Schmid E, Fender H, Wolf G, Schmitz-Feuerhake I, Schröder H, Stephan G, Csicsaky M, & Wichmann HE, A cluster of childhood leukaemias near two neighbouring nuclear installations in Northern Germany: prevalence of chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. (2001): 77: 1: 111-116.
Cabeza R,Nyberg, L, Imaging Cognition II: An Empirical Review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2000), 12,1: 1-47.
Cardis E., Kilkenny M, International case control study of adult brain head and neck tumours: Results of the feasibility study. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 1999 83:1-2. 179-184.
Conrads TP, Fusaro VA, Ross S, Johann D, Rajapakse V, Hitt BA, Steinberg SM, Kohn EC, Fishman DA, Whitely G, Barrett JC, Liotta LA, Petricoin EF 3rd, Veenstra TD. High-resolution serum proteomic features for ovarian cancer detection. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2004 Jun;11(2):163-78.
COST Action 244bis, Chairman Veyret B, Study on an Action Plan on Possible Health Effects Related to the Use of Radiotelephones. COST Action 244bis (Project COST-STY-98-4023) Project Final Report, 1999.
COST 244 EC Chairman, McKinlay AF: Possible health effects related to the use of radiotelephones. Proposals for a research programme by a European Commission Expert Group. Directorate General XIII, Telecommunications, Information Market and Exploitation of Research, Brussels: European Commission.,1996.
COST Action 281 Recommendation on an Internationally Co-ordinated Research on Genotoxic Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation from Mobile Communication Systems http://www.cost281.org/activities/Gentox-recomm-090304AW.doc
Chou C K, Basic problems of diversely reported biological effects of radio frequency fields, Radiats Biol Radioecol. 2003 Sep-Oct;43(5):512-518.
Chou C-K, D’Andrea JA, Reviews of effects of RF fields on various aspects of human health: Introduction Bioelectromagnetics 14 Nov 2003, 24, S6:S5-S6.
D'Andrea JA, Chou C-K, Johnston SA, Adair ER, Review: Microwave effects on the nervous system, Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 2003, 6:S107-S147.
Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H, Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro, Mutat Res. 2005 Jun 6;583(2):178-183.
Dorman Janice S, Director, Collaborating Center for WHO Multinational Project for Childhood Diabetes (DiaMond), U of Pittsburgh Molecular epidemiology and technology transfer, http://www.pitt.edu/~rlaporte/who.html
Elliott P, Jarup L, Ahlbom A, Cohort study of mobile phone users (pilot study) in press http://www.mthr.org.uk/research_projects/mthr_funded_projects/elliot.htm
Elliott P, Wakefield JC, Bias and confounding in spatial epidemiology. In: Spatial Epidemiology: Methods and Applications, Elliott P, Wakefield J, Best N, Briggs DJ, Eds, 2000 Oxford University Press, Oxford, 68–84.
Spatial epidemiology: current approaches and future challenges, Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Jun;112(9):998-1006. Review.
Elliott P, Westlake AJ, Kleinschmidt I, Hills M, Rodrigues L, McGale P, et al., The Small Area Health Statistics Unit: a national facility for investigating health around point sources of environmental pollution in the United Kingdom, J Epidemiol Community Health, 1992, 46:345–349.
EPRI, Residential transient magnetic field research: Interim report, (1994), Project RP2966-07. Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute, Report TR-103470
Espina V, Geho D, Mehta AI, Petricoin EF 3rd, Liotta LA, Rosenblatt KP, Pathology of the future: molecular profiling for targeted therapy. Cancer Invest. 2005; 23(1):36-46.
Excell PS, Olley P, Jackson NN, Modelling of an arbitrarily-oriented mobile telephone handset in the Finite-Difference Time-Domain field computation method, Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Journal, (1996) 11(2), 55-65.
Excell PS, Computer modelling of high frequency electromagnetic field penetration into the human head, Measurement and Control 31(1998), (6), 170-175.
Exposure Metrics and Dosimetry for EMF Epidemiology: Proceedings of an International Workshop National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, UK September 7-9, 1998. Editor A.F. McKinlay & M.H. Repacholi. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 1999, 83:1-2. 1-193.
Faraone, A., Tay, R, Y-S., Joyner, K.H., Balzano, Q. Estimation of the average power density on the vicinity of cellular base-station collinear array antennas IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology May 2000, 49, 3:984-996.
Feychting M, Ahlbom A, Kheifets L, Emf and health, Annu Rev Public Health. 2005, 26:165-189.
Foster KR, Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter? presentation in COST281 Workshop - Do sinusoidal versus non-sinusoidal waveforms make a difference? and 8th MCM (Zurich) 2005/02/17-18. http://www.cost281.org/documents.php?node=93&dir_session=
Foster KR, Electromagnetic Field Effects and Mechanisms, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 1996,15 (4): 50-56
Foster KR, Mechanisms of interaction of extremely low frequency electric fields and biological systems. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2003, 106(4):301-10.
Foster KR, Adair ER, Modeling thermal responses in human subjects following extended exposure to radiofrequency energy. Biomed Eng Online. Feb 2004 28;3(1):4. http://www.biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/3/1/4
Foster KR, Repacholi MH, Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter? Radiation Research (2004) 162:219-225.
FDA: Good laboratory practice for nonclinical laboratory studies. Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services. (1993) Federal Register 21 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-93 Edition) Part 58, pp 245-258.
Gajsek P, Pakhomov AG, Klauenberg BJ, Electromagnetic field standards in Central and Eastern European countries: current state and stipulations for international harmonization, Health Phys. 2002 Apr;82(4):473-483.
Gandhi O, Li Q X, Kang G, Temperature rise for the human head for cellular telephones and for peak SARs prescribed in safety guidelines, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 2001, 49: 1607-1613.
Gilham C, Peto J, Simpson J, Roman E, Eden TO, Greaves MF, Alexander FE; UKCCS Investigators Day care in infancy and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: findings from UK case-control study, BMJ, 2005 Jun 4;330(7503):1294-1299. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38428.521042.8Fv1.
Greenland, S, The impact of prior distributions for uncontrolled confounding and response bias: a case study of the relation of wire codes and magnetic fields to childhood leukemia, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2003, 98, 47-54.
Haarala C, Ek M, Bjornberg L, Laine M, Revonsuo A, Koivisto M, Hamalainen H, 902 MHz mobile phone does not affect short term memory in humans. Bioelectromagnetics 2004. 25:452-456.
Habash I, Health risks of electromagnetic fields. Part I: Evaluation and assessment of electric and magnetic fields, Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2003;31(3):141-95
Habash I, Health risks of electromagnetic fields. Part II: Evaluation and assessment of radio frequency radiation.,Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2003;31(3):197-254.
HCN, Health Council of the Netherlands, TNO study on the effects of GSM and UMTS signals on well-being and cognition: Review and recommendations for further research, 28 June 2004 HCN report No U-886\EvR\RA\673-A2 publication no. 2004/13E. http://www.gr.nl/pdf.php?ID=1042
Hill A B, The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med (1965), 58:295-300.
Hirata A, Morita M, Shiozawa T, Temperature increase in the human head due to a dipole antenna at microwave frequencies, IEEE Trans. Elect. Compatibility, 2003. 45:109-116.
Hirata A, Shiozawa T, Correlation of maximum temperature increase and peak SAR in the human head due to handset antennas, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 2003 51: 1831-1841.
Huber R, Schuderer J, Graf T, Jütz K, Borbely AA, Kuster N, Achermann P, Radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure in humans: Estimation of SAR distribution in the brain, effects on sleep and heart rate, Bioelectromagnetics (8 April 2003) 24:4:262-276.
IARC Monograph ‘Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields’ Vol. 80, 2002.
ICNIRP, Exposure to Static and Low Frequency Electromagnetic fields, Biological Effects and Health Consequences (0-100 kHz), Eds Matthes R. McKinlay AF, Bernhardt JH, Vecchia P, Veyret B, 2003, Märkl-Druck, München, Germany. http://www.icnirp.de/.
ICNIRP, Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz), Health Physics, 1998; 74 (4):494-522.
ICNIRP, Non-thermal effects of RF electromagnetic fields. R Matthes, J Bernhardt and MH Repacholi, Eds, Proceedings of Munich meeting, Nov. 1996. ICNIRP Pub. 3/97. From: ICNIRP C/- Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Institut für Strahlenhygiene, Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, D-85764 Oberschleißheim, Germany.
IEEE Std 1528-2003. Recommended Practice for Determining the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the Human Head from Wireless Communications Devices: Measurement Techniques.
IEEE Std C95.6-2002, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, 0 to 3 kHz, September 2002, IEEE, New York, USA.
IEEE Std C95.1-1991/1999, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. 1999, IEEE, New York, USA.
IEEE, ICES, COST 281: Joint workshop 2004/09 Thermal Physiology Workshop (Paris) http://www.cost281.org/documents.php?node=85&dir_session=
International EMF Project/ICNIRP, Working group draft report from Erice November 1999: Review of low-level pulsed radiofrequency effects and research needs.
Ivancsits S, Pilger A, Diem E, Jahn O, Rudiger HW, Cell type-specific genotoxic effects of intermittent extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields, Mutat Res. 2005 Jun 6;583(2):184-188.
Johansen C, Boice J Jr, McLaughlin J, Olsen J, Cellular telephones and cancer--a nationwide cohort study in Denmark, J Natl Cancer Inst., 2001 Feb 7;93(3):203-7. http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jnci;93/3/203
Johansen C, Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Christensen HC, Olsen JH, Mobile phones and malignant melanoma of the eye, Br J Cancer., 2002 Feb 1;86(3):348-349.
Johnston S, WHO criteria for EMF health risk assessment, in Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. (Ed) P Stavroulakis; Springer 2003. 733-777
Johnston SA, Scherb H. Mobile phone use and acoustic neuromas. Epidemiology. 2005 May;16(3):416-7; author reply 417-8.
Kandel ER, The Molecular Biology of Memory Storage: A Dialogue Between Genes and Synapses Science (2001) 294: 5544: 1030-1038.
Kandel ER, Schwartz J, Jessell M, (eds) Principles of Neural Science 4th Edition, (2000), McGraw Hill, London, 1-1414.
Keppel G., Design and Analysis A Researcher’s Handbook 2nd Edition 1982, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, Thermal stress and radiation protection principles. International Journal of Hyperthermia, May-June 2003, 19, (3): 215–224.
Kuster, N. Dosimetric needs for laboratory and epidemiological research, In, Biological effects of non-thermal pulsed and amplitude modulated RF electromagnetic fields and related health risks, Eds: Bernhardt, J.H., Matthes R., Repacholi M.H. ICNIRP; 3/1997: 27-34.
Kuster N, Balzano Q, Experimental and numerical dosimetry. In: N Kuster, Q Balzano, JC Lin (Eds) Mobile communications safety, (1996),London: Chapman Hall pp 13-64.
Kuster N, Schönborn F, Recommended Minimal Requirements and Development Guidelines for Exposure Setups of Bio-Experiments Addressing the Health Risk Concern of Wireless Communications, Bioelectromagnetics Oct 2000, 21:508-514.
Kuster N, Schuderer J, Christ A, Futter P, Ebert S, Guidance for exposure design of human studies addressing health risk evaluations of mobile phones, Bioelectromagnetics, 2004 Oct;25(7):524-529.
LaPorte Ronald E, Telecommunications and Disease Monitoring Director: The Centre was established to assist with the WHO global program in the area of non-communicable diseases. http://www.pitt.edu/~rlaporte/who.html
Lee MG, Nurse P. (1987) Complementation used to clone a human homologue of the fission yeast cell cycle control gene cdc2. Nature 327: 31-35.
McKinlay A. Radiotelephones and human health: A European research initiative. Radiation Research Dosimetry. 1997, 72: 3-4: 313-320.
Moulder JE, Foster KR, Erdreich LS, McNamee JP, Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review Int JRadiat Biol, 2005, 81:3:189-203.
Murchan S, Kaufmann ME, Deplano A, de Ryck R, Struelens M, Zinn CE, Fussing V, Salmenlinna S, Vuopio-Varkila J, El Solh N, Cuny C, Witte W, Tassios PT, Legakis N, van Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Vindel A, Laconcha I, Garaizar J, Haeggman S, Olsson-Liljequist B, Ransjo U, Coombes G, Cookson B, Harmonization of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis protocols for epidemiological typing of strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a single approach developed by consensus in 10 European laboratories and its application for tracing the spread of related strains. J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Apr, 41(4):1574-1585.
NIEHS (1998). Assessment of health effects from exposure to power line frequency electric and magnetic fields. NIEHS working group report. Research Triangle Park: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 1998.
Neubauer G, Röösli M, Feychting M, Hamnerius Y, Kheifets L, Kuster N, Ruiz I, Schüz J, Überbacher R, Wiart J, Study on the Feasibility of Epidemiological Studies on Health Effects of Mobile Telephone Base Stations-Final Report. FSM- Project No. A2003-9, March 2005 Copy No. 1 ARC-IT-0124 http://www.mobile-research.ethz.ch/english/projekte_e.htm; http://www.mobile-research.ethz.ch/var/pub_neubauer_pref14.pdf
Nikoloski N, Frohlich J, Samaras T, Schuderer J, Kuster N, Reevaluation and improved design of the TEM cell in vitro exposure unit for replication studies. Bioelectromagnetics, 2005 Apr; 26(3):215-224.
NRPB: McKinlay AF, Allen SG, Cox R, Dimbylow PJ, Mann SM, Muirhead CR, Saunders RD, Sienkiewicz ZJ, Stather JW, Wainwright PR, Review of the Scientific Evidence for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0–300 GHz), 30 April 2004 Documents of the NRPB: 15: 3. http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/documents_of_nrpb/abstracts/absd15-3.htm
NRPB Workshop Non-Ionising Issues, Dennis, J. A. Stather, J. Eds, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1997, 72; 3/4: 1- 336.
NTP: Specifications for the conduct of studies to evaluate the toxic and carcinogenic potential of chemical, biological and physical agents in laboratory animals for the National Toxicology Program (NTP). Attachment 2. August 1992 (Including modifications through 9/95). Available from: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental Toxicology Program, PO Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Obe G; Vijayalaxmi. Controversial cytogenetic observations in mammalian somatic cells exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic radiation: A review and future research recommendations Bioelectromagnetics. 2005 May 10
Reilly JP, An analysis of differences in the low-frequency electric and magnetic field exposure standards of ICES and ICNIRP, Health Physics, 2005, 89(1):71-80.
Repacholi MH, Low-level exposure to radiofrequency fields: Health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics (1998) 19: 1-19.
Repacholi MH, and Cardis E, Criteria for EMF health risk assessment. Radiat Prot Dosim, (1997):72: 305-312.
Repacholi MH, Greenebaum B, Interaction of static and extremely low frequency fields on living systems: Health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics, (1999) 20:3:133-161.
Rothman KJ, Chou CK, Morgan R, Balzano Q, Guy AW, Funch DP, Preston-Martin S, Mandel J, Steffens R, Carlo G, Assessment of cellular telephone and other radiofrequency exposures for epidemiological research, Epidemiol, (1996), 7:291-298.
Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Modern Epidemiology. 2nd Ed. Lippencott-Raven, 1998.
Rushton L, Elliott P, Evaluating evidence on environmental health risks, Br Med Bull, 2003; 68:113-128.
Scherb H, Methodological Issues in Epidemiology, presentation in COST281 -Are RF-fields able to raise the risk of cancer? Schriesheim, 2004/11/23. http://www.cost281.org/documents.php?node=94&dir_session=
Schönborn F, Pokovi K, Kuster N, Dosimetric analysis of the carousel setup for the exposure of rats at 1.62 GHz, Bioelectromagnetics 2004, 25:16-26.
Schönborn F, Pokovic K, Burkhardt M, Kuster N. Basis for optimization of in vitro exposure apparatus for health hazard evaluations of mobile communications. Bioelectromagnetics. 2001 Dec, 22(8):547-59.
Schönborn F, Pokovic K, Wobus AM, Kuster N, Design, optimization, realization, and analysis of an in vitro system for the exposure of embryonic stem cells at 1.71GHz, Bioelectromagnetics 2000, 21:372-384.
Schuderer J, Kuster N, Effect of the meniscus at the solid/liquid interface on the SAR distribution in Petri dishes and flasks, Bioelectromagnetics, 2003 Feb, 24(2):103-108.
Schwan H.P. Biological effects on non-ionizing radiation: Cellular properties and interactions: Ann Biomed Eng. 1988, 16:245-263.
Society of Nuclear Medicine Brain Imaging Council, Ethical clinical practice of functional brain imaging, J Nucl Med., 1996 Jul, 37(7):1256-1259.
Sreekumar A, Nyati MK, Varambally S, Barrette TR, Ghosh D, Lawrence TS, Chinnaiyan AM. Profiling of cancer cells using protein microarrays: discovery of novel radiation-regulated proteins. Cancer Res. 2001 Oct 15;61(20):7585-93.
Stagg, R0. B., Hawel, LH, III, Pastorian, K, Cain, C, Adey, WR, Byus CV, Effect of immobilization and concurrent exposure to a pulse-modulated microwave field on core body temperature, plasma ACTH and corticosteroid, and brain ornithine decarboxylase, Fos and Jun mRNA. Radiation Research, 2001, 155,4: 584–592.
Steenland K, Bray I, Greenland S, Boffetta P, Empirical Bayes adjustments for multiple results in hypothesis-generating or surveillance studies, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Sep, 9:895-903.
Stewart, Sir W., Challis, L., Barclay, L., Barton, M-N., Blakemore, C., Coggon, D., Cox, D., Fellows, J., Repacholi, M., Rugg, M., Swerdlow, A., Varma, T. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones and Health. May 11, 2000. http://www.iegmp.org.uk/ NRPB, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon.
Stolwijk JAJ, Hardy JD, Control of body temperature, In Handbook of Physiology, Section 9, Reactions to environmental agents, Ed Douglas HK, Bethesda, MD, American Physiological Society, 1977, 45-69.
UK Childhood Cancer Study Investigators (UKCCS) The United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study: objectives, materials and methods, British Journal of Cancer (2000) 82, 1073-1102.
Van Leeuwen G M, Lagendijk J J, Van Leersum B J, Zwamborn A P, Hornsleth S N, Kotte A N, Calculation of change in brain temperatures due to exposure to a mobile phone, Phys. Med. Biol., 1999, 44:2367-2379.
Vaul, J. A. Excell, P. S. The European `CEPHOS' (cellular phone standard) dosimetry project, IEE Conference Publication 1999 ISSU 461: 65-68.
Vijayalaxmi, Obe G, Controversial cytogenetic observations in mammalian somatic cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation, Review, Radiat Res. 2004 Nov, 162(5):481-96.
Wainwright P, Thermal effects of radiation from cellular telephones, Phys. Med. Biol., 2000, 45: 2363-2372.
Wang J, Fujiwara O, FDTD computation of temperature rise in the human head for portable telephones, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 1999, 47:1528-1534.
WHO Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) Monograph 35 on ELF Fields, (1992)
Yioultsis T V, Kosmanis T I, Kosmidou E P, Zygiridis T T, Xenos T D, Tsiboukis T D, A comparative study of the biological effects of various mobile phone and wireless LAN antennas, IEEE Trans. Magnetics, 2002, 38:777-780.
1. In Vivo Working Group Triage, 16 screens
2. In Vitro Working Group Triage, 17 screens
3. Epidemiology Working Group, Triage, 13 screens
4. Engineering Working Group Triage, 17 screens
5. Chair Working Group Triage 7 screens
The 5 Triages (listed below) were developed by Martin Meltz and ICES SC-4 colleagues to regularise and automate the compilation of anonymous peer review results of the literature identified by the Literature Surveillance Working Group (See also ICES SC-4, page 7).
Questions on the form include the date the paper is received by reviewer, the paper accession number, and the reviewer code number. The rating scale on each criteria is: high 3; acceptable 2; low 1; not acceptable= 0.
Briefly, there 9 criteria rating scales:
A. Reviewer rating for clarity of statement if objective, specific goals and/or hypothesis. 0-3
B. Reviewer rating for completeness of description of biological system exposed. 0-3
C. Reviewer rating for completeness of description of the time/duration of exposure and biological response. 0-3
D. Reviewer rating for completeness of description of the organs systems studied and endpoints examined. 0-3
E. Reviewer rating for confidence in the methodologies employed. 0-3
F. Reviewer rating for confidence in the completeness of the data reporting and the merit if the data analysis. 0-3
G. Reviewer rating for confidence in the conclusion of the authors. 0-3 (give a statement of the author’s conclusions)
H. Conclusion Presentation (Does the title and the abstract accurately reflect what was measured?). 0-3
I. Overall technical merit rating of the in vivo bioeffect review. 5-1
I request that the chair have this paper reviewed by the statistics WG: yes/no
Overall rating, if it is 2 or 1 your are requested to give reasons for the score.
Category score A..B..C..D..E..F..G.. Overall Score. 0-3
Study will become important to the standards setting process if independently replicated. yes/no
Relevance for human standard setting. 0-3
All the 5 Working Group Triages are attached below for your use:
1. In Vivo, 2.In Vitro, 3. Epidemiology, 4. Engineering, 5. WG Chair.
[1] The IEEE is today the world’s largest technical professional society, with more than 365,000 members in over 150 countries.
[2] IEEE Std C95.6-2002, “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, 0 to 3 kHz,” and IEEE Std C95.1-1991/1999, “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz.”
[3] Detailed guidelines on the conduct of high quality laboratory research can be found in the good laboratory practice guidance of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 1993) and in the specifications of the US National Toxicology Program (NTP, 1992).
[4] General uncertainty in measurement is defined as: The estimated amount by which the observed (measured) or calculated value of a quantity may depart from the true value. Ordinarily taken as the sum of the random errors at the 95% confidence level and the estimated upper limit of the systematic error. NOTE—The uncertainty is often expressed as the average deviation, the probable error, or the standard deviation. IEEE Std 1528-2003