A worldwide overview and analysis for the existing limits of human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) is given in this paper. These reference levels have been established by different national and even regional governments, which can be based on the guidelines provided by the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and even in the United States of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as, are based on the so-called precautionary principle. Explicit reference is made to the exposure limits adopted in countries or regions, such as Canada, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and regions of Belgium (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia), where the limits are much lower than the international standards. The limits are compared to a selected set of in-situ measurements. This clearly shows that the measured values are typically very small compared to the international standards but could be somewhat higher compared to the reduced limits. Based on this observation and the reasonable assumption that the sensitivity of people to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) is the same everywhere (whole-body), we propose the idea to establish a worldwide reference limit for the general public, thus applicable in all countries, if the ICNIRP considers it appropriate. Research must continue to generate measurement data that demonstrate the levels of exposure to which we are really exposed, and with this, provide arguments to the organizations that established the guidelines, especially the ICNIRP, to evaluate whether the current limits are too much. High and can be modified when considered pertinent. To the best of our knowledge, at no time has the reference level for the general public been exceeded.

This article discusses the contention in the commented-upon paper that Brillouin precursors generated by 5G New Radio (5G NR) and other cellular systems are a possible cause of tissue damage at deeper layers of tissue than the power penetration depth of the carrier frequency. The original theory for Brillouin precursors from pulsed radiofrequency signals (RF-EMF) and speculation about their possible health effects dates back to the 1990\'s and was based on studies of the propagation of very short (nanosecond) ultrawide-bandwidth RF pulses through water. This assumption is not correct for cellular telephone signals due to their narrow bandwidth. The commented-on paper provides no alternative rationale as to why Brillouin effects should cause tissue damage from RF-EMF radiation from cellular and other communications systems. Other inaccuracies in this paper concerning thermal responses of tissue to RF-EMF are also noted.

The current global roll-out of 5G infrastructure is designed to utilise millimetre wave frequencies (30-300 GHz range) at data transmission rates in the order of gigabits per second (Gbps). This frequency band will be transmitted using beamforming, a new introduction in near-field exposures. The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has recently updated their guidelines. We briefly examine whether the new approach of the ICNIRP is satisfactory to prevent heat damage and other adverse bio-effects once millimetre wave 5G is included, and we challenge the use of surface-only exposure assessment for local exposures greater than 6 GHz in part due to possible Brillouin precursor pulse formation. However, this is relevant whether or not Brillouin precursors occur from absorption of either 5G or future G transmissions. Many significant sources conclude there is insufficient research to assure safety even from the heat perspective. To date, there has been no published in vivo, in vitro or epidemiological research using exposures to 5G New Radio beam-formed signals.

This review considers issues related to interpreting the mixed legacy of >300 papers published during the past three decades on possible genotoxic effects of exposure of human and animal tissues to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The main paper reviews the evolution of consensus guidelines for genotoxicity testing and the increasing emphasis on systematic reviews for evaluation of scientific studies for use in health risk assessments. An Appendix considers some issues in assessing the bioeffects literature by examining a subset of genotoxicity publications that employed the comet assay. While most studies found no statistically significant effects of exposure, a significant minority of studies (chiefly, in vivo studies) reported statistically significant effects of exposure. The quality of the studies was highly variable; while several studies were meticulously done and documented, none of these studies were compliant with currently accepted guidelines such as those of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Evaluation of the studies using risk of bias (RoB) criteria showed that, in this sample of studies, higher quality studies were less likely to find statistically significant results than those of lower quality.
The authors conclude that statistical significance should be only one consideration in evaluation of bioeffects studies. Simply listing \'statistically\' significant effects identified using null hypothesis testing and the criterion p < 0.05 for statistical significance is misleading and uninformative in assessing health risks of exposure. A careful synthesis of evidence is needed, including assessment of study validity, biological significance of reported effects, and coherence of study results with those of other related studies.The authors recommend that all future RF genotoxicity studies intended for use in human health risk assessments and evaluations of the literature should be done in compliance with accepted quality guidelines, i.e. OECD or equivalent guidelines for genotoxicity screening studies and PRISMA or other accepted guideline for reviews of the literature. The positive studies in this group should be redone with tighter quality control to establish the reliability of the findings.

The currently promulgated RF exposure guidelines and standards cover the entire range of RF radiation and apply predominantly to restrict RF-induced short-term heating and in guarding against raising tissue temperatures, including the 5G frequencies. There are substantial abnormalities in these putative health safety protection guidelines and standards. Some of the safety limits are irrelevant, debatable, and absent of scientific justification from the standpoint of safety and public health protection. Also, the cellular mobile 5G technology is hailed as a speedier and more secure wireless communication technology than its predecessor systems. The key supporting architecture uses millimeter-wave (mm-wave) and antenna array technology to achieve better directivity, lower latency, and elevated data transmission rates. For radiation protection, it is not obvious whether the health effects of 5G mm-wave radiations would be analogous or not to radiations from previous generations (which was classified as possibly carcinogenic in humans by IARC). The interaction of mm-waves with the structure and function of pertinent cellular elements and cutaneous neuroreceptors in the skin are of special concern. The current scientific database is inadequate at mm wavelengths to render a trustworthy appraisal or to reach a judgment with confidence.

The wide-open side of an open magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system allows a patient to easily contact the patient assistant during MRI scans. A wide-open-shaped magnet is highly effective when interventional procedures are necessary. Patient assistants can provide comfort by holding a part of the patient\'s body. Because current regulations or guidelines are concerned with only patient radio frequency (RF) safety, investigations on the safety of patient assistants exposed to high-magnetic field MRI (up to 1.2 T) are required. In this study, five different poses of patient assistants were numerically simulated at a 1.2 T open MRI system to determine the impact of poses on the RF exposure level. The 10-g averaged specific absorption rate (SAR) levels were analyzed for the poses of each patient assistant wearing gloves. Compared with the patient, up to 29.8% of the patient SAR was observed in the patient assistant. When the patient assistant wore latex gloves, a 63.7% reduction in the 10-g averaged SAR level was observed, which could be a remedy to minimize possible RF hazards. To prevent possible RF hazards during MRI scans, certain clauses regarding the patient assistant\'s poses or wearing gloves must be added to the existing MRI screening forms.

Workers in occupational settings are usually exposed to numerous sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and to different physical agents. Risk assessment for industrial workplaces concerning EMF is not only relevant to operators of devices or machinery emitting EMF, but also to support-workers, bystanders, service and maintenance personnel, and even visitors. Radiofrequency EMF guidelines published in 2020 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) may also be indirectly applied to assess risks emerging from EMF sources at workplaces by technical standards or legislation. To review the applicability and adequacy to assess exposure to EMF in occupational settings in the European Union, the most current ICNIRP guidelines on radiofrequency EMF are reviewed. Relevant ICNIRP fundamentals and principles are introduced, followed by practical aspects of exposure assessment. To conclude, open questions are formulated pointing out gaps between the guidelines\' principles and occupational practice, such as the impact of hot and humid environments and physical activity or controversies around ICNIRPS\'s reduction factors in view of assessment uncertainty in general. Thus, the article aims to provide scientific policy advisors, labor inspectors, or experts developing standards with a profound understanding about ICNIRP guidelines\' applicability to assess hazards related to radiofrequency EMF in occupational settings.

In March 2020, ICNIRP (the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) published a set of guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). ICNIRP claims this publication\'s view on EMF and health, a view usually termed \"the thermal-only paradigm\", is consistent with current scientific understanding. We investigated the literature referenced in ICNIRP 2020 to assess if the variation in authors and research groups behind it meets the fundamental requirement of constituting a broad scientific base and thus a view consistent with current scientific understanding, a requirement that such an important set of guidelines is expected to satisfy. To assess if this requirement has been met, we investigated the span of authors and research groups of the referenced literature of the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines and annexes. Our analysis shows that ICNIRP 2020 itself, and in practice all its referenced supporting literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE, and some of them being ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves. Moreover, literature reviews presented by ICNIRP 2020 as being from independent committees, are in fact products of this same informal network of collaborating authors, all committees having ICNIRP 2020 authors as members. This shows that the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suited as the basis on which to set RF EMF exposure limits for the protection of human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings, and would therefore need a particularly solid scientific foundation. Our analysis demonstrates the contrary to be the case. Hence, the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance.

In this paper, we review the literature on three important exposure metrics that are inadequately represented in most major radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure guidelines today: intensity, exposure duration, and signal modulation. Exposure intensity produces unpredictable effects as demonstrated by nonlinear effects. This is most likely caused by the biological system\'s ability to adjust and compensate but could lead to eventual biomic breakdown after prolonged exposure. A review of 112 low-intensity studies reveals that biological effects of RFR could occur at a median specific absorption rate of 0.0165 W/kg. Intensity and exposure duration interact since the dose of energy absorbed is the product of intensity and time. The result is that RFR behaves like a biological \"stressor\" capable of affecting numerous living systems. In addition to intensity and duration, man-made RFR is generally modulated to allow information to be encrypted. The effects of modulation on biological functions are not well understood. Four types of modulation outcomes are discussed. In addition, it is invalid to make direct comparisons between thermal energy and radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. Research data indicate that electromagnetic energy is more biologically potent in causing effects than thermal changes. The two likely functionthrough different mechanisms. As such, any current RFR exposure guidelines based on acute continuous-wave exposure are inadequate for health protection.

This paper presents a series of electromagnetic field measurements performed on the campus of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in order to assess the compliance of radiation levels of cellular base stations and WiFi access points with international guidelines. A calibrated, broadband and isotropic probe is used and recommendations of International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are followed up throughout measurements. More than 300 outdoor and indoor locations have been systematically chosen for measurements. The recorded data are post-processed and compared with the guideline of International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Measured power densities of WiFi access points are low and do not exceed 1% of the level allowed by ICNIRP. For cellular base stations, measured power density is usually low outdoors, but reaches up to 16% of the allowed radiation level in publicly accessible indoor locations. Comprehensive exposure assessment, as recommended by ITU, has been performed to estimate the maximum possible radiation of one indoor base station. It is concluded that precautionary actions have to be taken by university authorities to limit the presence of students in close proximity to specific indoor antennas. Moreover, comprehensive exposure assessment is more likely necessary for indoor base stations whereas such assessment is not usually required outdoors.