Book of Abstracts - EBEA 2003 [antikvár]

6''' International Congress of the European Bioelectromagnetics Association 13-15 November 2003 Budapest, Hungary PL-1 THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN HEALTH POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT OF WHO RECOMMENDATIONS ON EMF DR M.H. REPACHOLI AND DR T.E. VAN DEVENTER World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland INTRODUCTION The World Health Organization (WHO) is the United Nations scientific health body and has been assessing health risks for over 50 years. With its mandate to provide national authorities with sound advice based on the best available science, and using methodology that has been recognized and accepted world wide, WHO is the logical agency to conduct health risk assessments of new and emerging technologies, especially those that emit electromagnetic fields (EMF). Biological effects and possible health consequences of exposure to EMF need to be assessed according to an appropriate set of guidelines. Through the International EMF Project, WHO is collaborating with its specialized agency on cancer research, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (lARC), and other international organizations, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), governmental agencies and independent research institutions, to assess health effects of exposure to static and time varying electric and magnetic fields in the frequency range 0 - 300 GHz. The main objectives of the Project are to identify gaps in knowledge, establish a research agenda to enlarge the scientific database and complete reviews of the literature in a manner that leads to scientifically defensible conclusions on possible health risks from EMF exposure. This paper provides infonnation on how the Internationa! EMF Project conducts evaluations and particularly the criteria for evaluating scientific reports and assessing health hazards from EMF exposure. ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISK In its constitution WHO defines health as the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. It is thus important to identify whether EMF-induced biological effects can be considered a hazard to human health. Living systems respond to many stimuli as part of the process of living; such responses are examples of biological effects. Interactions leading to measurable biological effects that remain within the range of physiological compensation of the body and do not detract from the physical and mental well-being of humans should not be considered as hazardous. Interactions that lead to biological effects outside the normal range of compensation of the body may be an actual or potential health hazard. The time course of the effect should be determined, i.e. under what conditions the effect disappears af^er cessation of exposure, or if exposures are additive even after a rest period, or whether effects are permanent, such as the induction of cancer. Reports of subjective effects (symptoms without concomitant signs - reactions that are difficult to measure quantitatively, e.g. headaches) are useful for identification of health consequences only if the studies are conducted in a truly scientific manner, are shown to be statistically significant and a direct causal relationship is demonstrated. Subjective effects, if substantiated, can detract from the physical and mental well being of a person, and should therefore be considered a health hazard. If it is determined that certain EMF exposure conditions exist that have a finite probability of being unsafe for even a very small part of the population, this should be addressed. SCIENTIFIC DATABASE The database used to evaluate whether exposure to any physical or chemical agent produces a carcinogenic risk has been described by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (lARC, 1995). A similar database can be used for determining any risk to health from EMF exposure. The International EMF Project has worked to establish a database of high quality studies that can be assessed by WHO using accepted health risk assessment methodology. Literature for review should have been published in scientific peer reviewed journals, and should thus be free of most common deficiencies in methodology, analysis and conclusions. Unfortunately, the rigour of peer review varies widely among scientific journals. While peer-review adds confidence in the study results, health risk assessment requires additional review to evaluate study design, conduct and analysis of each report, and to compare them with the results of other studies. Peer-reviewed reports not published in scientific journals may be considered, but conference abstracts are of little value in health risk assessment as they generally receive no prior peer review, contain sparse information useful for a proper evaluation, and cannot be considered as the final outcome of an experiment until all results are available and properly analysed. For health risk assessments, the database needed includes a range of study types. A summary is given here, but more details can be obtained from I ARC (1995), Repacholi and Cardis (1995) and Repacholi (1998).