The grand challenge: use of a new approach in developing policies in the area of radiation and health

The lack of international and national health policies to protect persons with self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), known also as an idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) or a microwave sickness, is not considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) as being caused by the exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF). EHS is not recognized as a disease anywhere in the world. Some studies have roughly estimated that 1-10% of the population might experience some form of EHS. However, because of the lack of diagnostic criteria for EHS, these estimates might be either under- or over-estimates. Because the vast majority of human population is exposed to EMF, the possibility of developing EHS from the EMF is a substantial public health issue that should be dealt with globally, even if the individual risk of developing EHS might be small. The WHO recognizes that the symptoms experienced by the EHS persons might be severe and might significantly hamper everyday life. However, after a broad analysis of international and national documents, there seems to be currently no effort to develop health policies for the dealing with EHS, no matter what causes it. National governments, follow the opinions of the WHO and the EMF safety standards setting organizations, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (IEEE-ICES), are not developing any practical health policy advisories for self-declared EHS sufferers. However, symptoms experienced by the self-declared EHS persons affect their well-being and, according to the Constitution of the WHO, are a health problem. Hence, independently of what causes EHS symptoms, this admitted well-being-impairment should be dealt with globally by developing an uniform health policy. Furthermore, WHO, ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES should be advocating and supporting research that would generate a reliable scientific evidence on what are the possible cause(s) of EHS. Without such research there is not possible to develop diagnostic methods as well as any possible mitigation approaches. There is an urgent need for the WHO to advocate for the national governments to urgently develop a comprehensive and common EHS health policy.

Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS)

Part of the population considers themselves as sensitive to the man-made electromagnetic radiation (EMF) emitted by powerlines, electric wiring, electric home appliance and the wireless communication devices and networks. Sensitivity is characterized by a broad variety of non-specific symptoms that the sensitive people claim to experience when exposed to EMF. While the experienced symptoms are currently considered as a real life impairment, the factor causing these symptoms remains unclear. So far, scientists were unable to find causality link between symptoms experienced by sensitive persons and the exposures to EMF. However, as presented in this review, the executed to-date scientific studies, examining sensitivity to EMF, are of poor quality to find the link between EMF exposures and sensitivity symptoms of some people. It is logical to consider that the sensitivity to EMF exists but the scientific methodology used to find it is of insufficient quality. It is time to drop out psychology driven provocation studies that ask about feelings-based non-specific symptoms experienced by volunteers under EMF exposure. Such research approach produces only subjective and therefore highly unreliable data that is insufficient to prove, or to disprove, causality link between EHS and EMF. There is a need for a new direction in studying sensitivity to EMF. The basis for it is the notion of a commonly known phenomenon of individual sensitivity, where individuals' responses to EMF depend on the genetic and epigenetic properties of the individual. It is proposed here that new studies, combining provocation approach, where volunteers are exposed to EMF, and high-throughput technologies of transcriptomics and proteomics are used to generate objective data, detecting molecular level biochemical responses of human body to EMF.

Extremity Exposure with 99mTc - Labelled Radiopharmaceuticals in Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine

BACKGROUND

Extremity exposures may raise the risk of cancer induction among radiographers involved in the preparation and administration of technetium-99m labelled radiopharmaceuticals.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate finger doses on radiographers at a South African tertiary hospital.

METHODS

Adhesive tape was used to securely fix a calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) on fingertips and bases of ring and index fingers of both hands of five radiographers who prepared and administered technetium-99m labelled radiopharmaceuticals. Rubber gloves were worn to avoid TLD contamination. TLDs doses were read with a Harsaw TLD Reader (Model 3500) after a week.

RESULTS

Five radiographers prepared and administered technitium-99m labelled radiopharmaceuticals (activity range; 78.20 GBq - 132.78 GBq during a one-week measurement period). A radiographer handling 132.78 GBq received 4.74±0.52 mSv on both hands; 5.52, 4.55, 5.11 and 4.60 mSv on the fingertip of the index finger of the dominant hand (FIDH), fingertip of the ring finger of the dominant hand (FRDH), fingertip of the index finger of the non-dominant hand (FINDH) and fingertip of the ring finger of the non-dominant hand (FRNDH), respectively. The respective doses received on the finger bases were 4.50 mSv, 4.60, 4.21 and 3.48 mSv. The radiographer handling 78.20 GBq received 0.85±0.18 mSv on both hands, 1.04, 1.17, 0.77 and 1 mSv for the FIDH, FRDH, FINDH and FRNDH, respectively, while respective doses for the bases were 0.8, 0.9, 0.6 and 0.8 mSv.

CONCLUSION

The extremity exposures were below the annual limit (500 mSv). However, the use of syringe shields could still reduce the finger doses further.