Outdated ANSI and IEEE Standards
More than four years ago the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared cellphone radiation is a Group 2B (possible) Human Carcinogen substantially based on scientific studies which found statistically significant risks of brain cancer and a hearing never tumor called an acoustic neuroma.
An industry consultant’s response: “Dr. Meir J. Stampfer, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and a consultant to the cellphone industry. ‘In science, unlike math, we can’t have absolute certainty, but in the scheme of things, this is not a health risk I would be concerned about at all.’” [NY Times, June 6, 2011]
In 1985 the United States government adopted an exposure limit from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI-an industry & military organization), ANSI C95.1-1982 Exposure Limit Standard. In 1996 the U.S. government adopted (updated from the ANSI Standard) the IEEE C95.1-1991 Exposure Limit Standard. IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is substantially an industry and military organization.
Please view the PDF below to see the history of how these two standards were created, based on the actual text of these two standards.
Summary of Key Findings (within ANSI and IEEE Standards):
- The authors understood that the mean (average) SAR value ignored “hotspots” which can be many-fold higher than the mean SAR.
- The authors were aware of the existence of “modulation-specific effects, such as efflux of calcium ions” (resulting in harmful effects on cells), but because the authors were mostly military and/or associated with corporations with a vested interest in promoting microwave radiation, they chose, in effect, to ignore these results.
- The authors were aware that other characteristics of the exposure such as modulation frequency and peak intensity may pose a risk to health.
- There is no 5-fold “safety level” for the general public.With the IEEE Standards, the general public’s exposure was reduced 5-fold compared to electrical workers. However, the allowed averaging time was increased 5-fold for the general public compared to electrical workers and the end result was that the the total allowed absorbed radiation is identical. In effect this change negates the so-called 5-fold “safety level” for the general public.