Basic problems of diversely reported biological effects of radio frequency fields.
The large differences in RF safety standards are due to different philosophical approaches to public health standards development, different scientific approaches and interpretations of the scientific data, and different jurisdictions in various countries. In this paper, the origin of these differences is explored. The emphases are on the basic problems of why reported biological effects of RF fields are controversial, and how the general public can be misinformed. While there are differences in approaches and methods, science should converge and not diverge in finding the threshold level for exposure to EMF that is not adverse to human health. As the progress in technology continues and human beings are enjoying an increased quality of life, it is essential for scientists to ensure that safety is not compromised. More importantly, it is the responsibility and moral obligation of scientists and the media to bring "verified" information to the public. Scientists must conduct well-designed studies and to report the results in a clear and detailed manner, so other independent investigators can repeat the study or explore further. Mistakes must be minimized and stopped at the first level of scientific research.
Chou
C K
CK
Corporate EME Research Laboratory, Motorola Florida Research Laboratories, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. ck.chou@motorola.com
D000818:Animals; D001921:Brain / Q000528:radiation effects; D002415:Cats; D040421:Cell Phone / Q000592:standards; D002478:Cells, Cultured / Q000528:radiation effects; D004569:Electroencephalography; D004574:Electromagnetic Fields / Q000009:adverse effects; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011634:Public Health; D011846:Radio Waves / Q000009:adverse effects; D051381:Rats; D012016:Reference Values; D012106:Research; D012449:Safety / Q000592:standards; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D013696:Temperature; D014944:World Health Organization