These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Accounting for human variability and sensitivity in setting standards for electromagnetic fields.
    Author: Bailey WH, Erdreich LS.
    Journal: Health Phys; 2007 Jun; 92(6):649-57. PubMed ID: 17495668.
    Abstract:
    Biological sensitivity and variability are key issues for risk assessment and standard setting. Variability encompasses general inter-individual variations in population responses, while sensitivity relates to unusual or extreme responses based on genetic, congenital, medical, or environmental conditions. For risk assessment and standard setting, these factors affect estimates of thresholds for effects and dose-response relationships and inform efforts to protect the more sensitive members of the population, not just the typical or average person. While issues of variability and sensitivity can be addressed by experimental and clinical studies of electromagnetic fields, investigators have paid little attention to these important issues. This paper provides examples that illustrate how default assumptions regarding variability can be incorporated into estimates of 60-Hz magnetic field exposures with no risk of cardiac stimulation and how population thresholds and variability of peripheral nerve stimulation responses at 60-Hz can be estimated from studies of pulsed gradient magnetic fields in magnetic resonance imaging studies. In the setting of standards for radiofrequency exposures, the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection uses inter-individual differences in thermal sensitivity as one of the considerations in the development of "safety factors." However, neither the range of sensitivity nor the sufficiency or excess of the 10-fold and the additional 5-fold safety factors have been assessed quantitatively. Data on the range of responses between median and sensitive individuals regarding heat stress and cognitive function should be evaluated to inform a reassessment of these safety factors and to identify data gaps.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]