Tuesday, 15 March 2011 14:45

Electric and Magnetic Fields and Health Outcomes

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

In recent years interest has increased in the biological effects and possible health outcomes of weak electric and magnetic fields. Studies have been presented on magnetic fields and cancer, on reproduction and on neurobehavioural reactions. In what follows, a summary is given of what we know, what still needs to be investigated and, particularly, what policy is appropriate—whether it should involve no restrictions of exposure at all, “prudent avoidance” or expensive interventions.

What we Know

Cancer

Epidemiological studies on childhood leukaemia and residential exposure from power lines seem to indicate a slight risk increase, and excess leukaemia and brain tumour risks have been reported in “electrical” occupations. Recent studies with improved techniques for exposure assessment have generally strengthened the evidence of an association. There is, however, still a lack of clarity as to exposure characteristics—for example, magnetic field frequency and exposure intermittence; and not much is known about possible confounding or effect-modifying factors. Furthermore, most of the occupational studies have indicated one special form of leukaemia, acute myeloid leukaemia, while others have found higher incidences for another form, chronic lymphatic leukaemia. The few animal cancer studies reported have not given much help with risk assessment, and in spite of a large number of experimental cell studies, no plausible and understandable mechanism has been presented by which a carcinogenic effect could be explained.

Reproduction, with special reference to pregnancy outcomes

In epidemiological studies, adverse pregnancy outcomes and childhood cancer have been reported after maternal as well as paternal exposure to magnetic fields, the paternal exposure indicating a genotoxic effect. Efforts to replicate positive results by other research teams have not been successful. Epidemiological studies on visual display unit (VDU) operators, who are exposed to the electric and magnetic fields emitted by their screens, have been mainly negative, and animal teratogenic studies with VDU-like fields have been too contradictory to support trustworthy conclusions.

Neurobehavioural reactions

Provocation studies on young volunteers seem to indicate such physiological changes as slowing of heart rate and electroencephalogram (EEG) changes after exposure to relatively weak electric and magnetic fields. The recent phenomenon of hypersensitivity to electricity seems to be multifactorial in origin, and it is not clear whether the fields are involved or not. A great variety of symptoms and discomforts has been reported, mainly of the skin and the nervous system. Most of the patients have diffuse skin complaints in the face, such as flush, rosiness, ruddiness, heat, warmth, pricking sensations, ache and tightness. Symptoms associated with the nervous system are also described, such as headache, dizziness, fatigue and faintness, tingling and pricking sensations in the extremities, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, profuse sweatings, depressions and memory difficulties. No characteristic organic neurological disease symptoms have been presented.

Exposure

Exposure to fields occurs throughout society: in the home, at work, in schools and by the operation of electrically powered means of transport. Wherever there are electric wires, electric motors and electronic equipment, electric and magnetic fields are created. Average workday field strengths of 0.2 to 0.4 μT (microtesla) appear to be the level above which there could be an increased risk, and similar levels have been calculated for annual averages for subjects living under or near power lines.

Many people are similarly exposed above these levels, though for shorter periods, in their homes (via electric radiators, shavers, hair-dryers and other household appliances, or stray currents due to imbalances in the electrical grounding system in a building), at work (in certain industries and offices involving proximity to electric and electronic equipment) or while travelling in trains and other electrically driven conveyances. The importance of such intermittent exposure is not known. There are other uncertainties as to exposure (involving questions relating to the importance of field frequency, to other modifying or confounding factors, or to knowledge of the total exposure day and night) and effect (given the consistency in findings as to type of cancer), and in the epidemiological studies, which make it necessary to evaluate all risk assessments with great caution.

Risk assessments

In Scandinavian residential studies, results indicate a doubled leukaemia risk above 0.2 μT, the exposure levels corresponding to those typically encountered within 50 to 100 metres of an overhead power line. The number of childhood leukaemia cases under power lines are few, however, and the risk is therefore low compared to other environmental hazards in society. It has been calculated that each year in Sweden there are two cases of childhood leukaemia under or near power lines. One of these cases may be attributable to the magnetic field risk, if any.

Occupational exposures to magnetic fields are generally higher than residential exposures, and calculations of leukaemia and brain tumour risks for exposed workers give higher values than for children living close to power lines. From calculations based on the attributable risk discovered in a Swedish study, approximately 20 cases of leukaemia and 20 cases of brain tumours could be attributed to magnetic fields each year. These figures are to be compared with the total number of 40,000 annual cancer cases in Sweden, of which 800 have been calculated to have an occupational origin.

What Still Needs to be Investigated

It is quite clear that more research is needed in order to secure a satisfactory understanding of the epidemiological study results obtained so far. There are additional epidemiological studies in progress in different countries around the world, but the question is whether these will add more to the knowledge we already have. As a matter of fact it is not known which characteristics of the fields are causal to the effects, if any. Thus, we definitely need more studies on possible mechanisms to explain the findings we have assembled.

There are in the literature, however, a vast number of in vitro studies devoted to the search for possible mechanisms. Several cancer promotion models have been presented, based on changes in the cell surface and in the cell membrane transport of calcium ions, disruption of cell communication, modulation of cell growth, activation of specific gene sequences by modulated ribonucleic acid (RNA) transcription, depression of pineal melatonin production, modulation of ornithine decarboxylase activity and possible disruption of hormonal and immune-system anti-tumour control mechanisms. Each of these mechanisms has features applicable to explaining reported magnetic field cancer effects; however, none has been free of problems and essential objections.

Melatonin and magnetite

There are two possible mechanisms that may be relevant to cancer promotion and thus deserve special attention. One of these has to do with the reduction of nocturnal melatonin levels induced by magnetic fields and the other is related to the discovery of magnetite crystals in human tissues.

It is known from animal studies that melatonin, via an effect on circulating sex hormone levels, has an indirect oncostatic effect. It has also been indicated in animal studies that magnetic fields suppress pineal melatonin production, a finding that suggests a theoretical mechanism for the reported increase in (for example) breast cancer that may be due to exposure to such fields. Recently, an alternative explanation for the increased cancer risk has been proposed. Melatonin has been found to be a most potent hydroxyl radical scavenger, and consequently the damage to DNA that might be done by free radicals is markedly inhibited by melatonin. If melatonin levels are suppressed, for example by magnetic fields, the DNA is left more vulnerable to oxidative attack. This theory explains how the depression of melatonin by magnetic fields could result in a higher incidence of cancer in any tissue.

But do human melatonin blood levels diminish when individuals are exposed to weak magnetic fields? There exist some indications that this may be so, but further research is needed. For some years it has been known that the ability of birds to orient themselves during seasonal migrations is mediated via magnetite crystals in cells that respond to the earth’s magnetic field. Now, as mentioned above, magnetite crystals have also been demonstrated to exist in human cells in a concentration high enough theoretically to respond to weak magnetic fields. Thus the role of magnetite crystals should be considered in any discussions on the possible mechanisms that may be proposed as to the potentially harmful effects of electric and magnetic fields.

The need for knowledge on mechanisms

To summarize, there is a clear need for more studies on such possible mechanisms. Epidemiologists need information as to which characteristics of the electric and magnetic fields they should focus upon in their exposure assessments. In most epidemiological studies, mean or median field strengths (with frequencies of 50 to 60 Hz) have been used; in others, cumulative measures of exposure were studied. In a recent study, fields of higher frequencies were found to be related to risk. In some animal studies, finally, field transients have been found to be important. For epidemiologists the problem is not on the effect side; registers on diseases exist in many countries today. The problem is that epidemiologists do not know the relevant exposure characteristics to consider in their studies.

What Policy is Appropriate

Systems of protection

Generally, there are different systems of protection to be considered with respect to regulations, guidelines and policies. Most often the health-based system is selected, in which a specific adverse health effect can be identified at a certain exposure level, irrespective of exposure type, chemical or physical. A second system could be characterized as an optimization of a known and accepted hazard, which has no threshold below which the risk is absent. An example of an exposure falling within this kind of system is ionizing radiation. A third system covers hazards or risks where causal relationships between exposure and outcome have not been shown with reasonable certainty, but for which there are general concerns about possible risks. This lattermost system of protection has been denoted the principle of caution, or more recently prudent avoidance, which can be summarized as the future low-cost avoidance of unnecessary exposure in the absence of scientific certainty. Exposure to electric and magnetic fields has been discussed in this way, and systematic strategies have been presented, for instance, on how future power lines should be routed, workplaces arranged and household appliances designed in order to minimize exposure.

It is apparent that the system of optimization is not applicable in connection with restrictions of electric and magnetic fields, simply because they are not known and accepted as risks. The other two systems, however, are both presently under consideration.

Regulations and guidelines for restriction of exposure under the health-based system

In international guidelines limits for restrictions of field exposure are several orders of magnitude above what can be measured from overhead power lines and found in electrical occupations. The International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) issued Guidelines on limits of exposure to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields in 1990, which has been adopted as a basis for many national standards. Since important new studies were published thereafter, an addendum was issued in 1993 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Furthermore, in 1993 risk assessments in agreement with that of IRPA were also made in the United Kingdom.

These documents emphasize that the state of scientific knowledge today does not warrant limiting exposure levels for the public and the workforce down to the μT level, and that further data are required to confirm whether or not health hazards are present. The IRPA and ICNIRP guidelines are based on the effects of field-induced currents in the body, corresponding to those normally found in the body (up to about 10 mA/m2). Occupational exposure to magnetic fields of 50/60 Hz is recommended to be limited to 0.5 mT for all-day exposure and 5 mT for short exposures of up to two hours. It is recommended that exposure to electric fields be limited to 10 and 30 kV/m. The 24-hour limit for the public is set at 5 kV/m and 0.1 mT.

These discussions on the regulation of exposure are based entirely on cancer reports. In studies of other possible health effects related to electric and magnetic fields (for example, reproductive and neurobehavioural disorders), results are generally considered insufficiently clear and consistent to constitute a scientific basis for restricting exposure.

The principle of caution or prudent avoidance

There is no real difference between the two concepts; prudent avoidance has been used more specifically, though, in discussions of electric and magnetic fields. As said above, prudent avoidance can be summarized as the future, low-cost avoidance of unnecessary exposure as long as there is scientific uncertainty about the health effects. It has been adopted in Sweden, but not in other countries.

In Sweden, five government authorities (the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute; the National Electricity Safety Board; the National Board of Health and Welfare; the National Board of Occupational Safety and Health; and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning) jointly have stated that “the total knowledge now accumulating justifies taking steps to reduce field power”. Provided the cost is reasonable, the policy is to protect people from high magnetic exposures of long duration. During the installation of new equipment or new power lines that may cause high magnetic field exposures, solutions giving lower exposures should be chosen provided these solutions do not imply large inconveniences or costs. Generally, as stated by the Radiation Protection Institute, steps can be taken to reduce the magnetic field in cases where the exposure levels exceed the normally occurring levels by more than a factor of ten, provided such reductions can be done at a reasonable cost. In situations where the exposure levels from existing installations do not exceed the normally occurring levels by a factor of ten, costly rebuilding should be avoided. Needless to say, the present avoidance concept has been criticized by many experts in different countries, such as by experts in the electricity supply industry.

Conclusions

In the present paper a summary has been given of what we know on the possible health effects of electric and magnetic fields, and what still needs to be investigated. No answer has been given to the question of which policy should be adopted, but optional systems of protection have been presented. In this connection, it seems clear that the scientific database at hand is insufficient to develop limits of exposure at the μT level, which means in turn that there are no reasons for expensive interventions at these exposure levels. Whether some form of strategy of caution (e.g., prudent avoidance) should be adopted or not is a matter for decisions by public and occupational health authorities of individual countries. If such a strategy is not adopted it usually means that no restrictions of exposure are imposed because the health-based threshold limits are well above everyday public and occupational exposure. So, if opinions differ today as to regulations, guidelines and policies, there is a general consensus among standard setters that more research is needed to get a solid basis for future actions.

 

Back

Read 3162 times Last modified on Thursday, 13 October 2011 21:31

" DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content. Certain statistics have not been updated since the production of the 4th edition of the Encyclopaedia (1998)."

Contents

Preface
Part I. The Body
Part II. Health Care
Part III. Management & Policy
Part IV. Tools and Approaches
Part V. Psychosocial and Organizational Factors
Part VI. General Hazards
Barometric Pressure Increased
Barometric Pressure Reduced
Biological Hazards
Disasters, Natural and Technological
Electricity
Fire
Heat and Cold
Hours of Work
Indoor Air Quality
Indoor Environmental Control
Lighting
Noise
Radiation: Ionizing
Radiation: Non-Ionizing
Vibration
Violence
Visual Display Units
Part VII. The Environment
Part VIII. Accidents and Safety Management
Part IX. Chemicals
Part X. Industries Based on Biological Resources
Part XI. Industries Based on Natural Resources
Part XII. Chemical Industries
Part XIII. Manufacturing Industries
Part XIV. Textile and Apparel Industries
Part XV. Transport Industries
Part XVI. Construction
Part XVII. Services and Trade
Part XVIII. Guides

Radiation: Non-Ionizng References

Allen, SG. 1991. Radiofrequency field measurements and hazard assessment. J Radiol Protect 11:49-62.

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 1992. Documentation for the Threshold Limit Values. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH.

—. 1993. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH.

—. 1994a. Annual Report of ACGIH Physical Agents Threshold Limit Values Committee. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH.

—. 1994b. TLV’s, Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1994-1995. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH.

—. 1995. 1995-1996 Threshhold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH.

—. 1996. TLVs© and BEIs©. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents; Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH.

American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1993. Safe Use of Lasers. Standard No. Z-136.1. New York: ANSI.

Aniolczyk, R. 1981. Measurements of hygienic evaluation of electromagnetic fields in the environment of diathermy, welders, and induction heaters. Medycina Pracy 32:119-128.

Bassett, CAL, SN Mitchell, and SR Gaston. 1982. Pulsing electromagnetic field treatment in ununited fractures and failed artrodeses. J Am Med Assoc 247:623-628.

Bassett, CAL, RJ Pawluk, and AA Pilla. 1974. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled electromagnetic fields. Science 184:575-577.

Berger, D, F Urbach, and RE Davies. 1968. The action spectrum of erythema induced by ultraviolet radiation. In Preliminary Report XIII. Congressus Internationalis Dermatologiae, Munchen, edited by W Jadassohn and CG Schirren. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bernhardt, JH. 1988a. The establishment of frequency dependent limits for electric and magnetic fields and evaluation of indirect effects. Rad Envir Biophys 27:1.

Bernhardt, JH and R Matthes. 1992. ELF and RF electromagnetic sources. In Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, edited by MW Greene. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Bini, M, A Checcucci, A Ignesti, L Millanta, R Olmi, N Rubino, and R Vanni. 1986. Exposure of workers to intense RF electric fields that leak from plastic sealers. J Microwave Power 21:33-40.

Buhr, E, E Sutter, and Dutch Health Council. 1989. Dynamic filters for protective devices. In Dosimetry of Laser Radiation in Medicine and Biology, edited by GJ Mueller and DH Sliney. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE.

Bureau of Radiological Health. 1981. An Evaluation of Radiation Emission from Video Display Terminals. Rockville, MD: Bureau of Radiological Health.

Cleuet, A and A Mayer. 1980. Risques liés à l’utilisation industrielle des lasers. In Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité, Cahiers de Notes Documentaires, No. 99 Paris: Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité.

Coblentz, WR, R Stair, and JM Hogue. 1931. The spectral erythemic relation of the skin to ultraviolet radiation. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Cole, CA, DF Forbes, and PD Davies. 1986. An action spectrum for UV photocarcinogenesis. Photochem Photobiol 43(3):275-284.

Commission Internationale de L’Eclairage (CIE). 1987. International Lighting Vocabulary. Vienna: CIE.

Cullen, AP, BR Chou, MG Hall, and SE Jany. 1984. Ultraviolet-B damages corneal endothelium. Am J Optom Phys Opt 61(7):473-478.

Duchene, A, J Lakey, and M Repacholi. 1991. IRPA Guidelines On Protection Against Non-Ionizing Radiation. New York: Pergamon.

Elder, JA, PA Czerki, K Stuchly, K Hansson Mild, and AR Sheppard. 1989. Radiofrequency radiation. In Nonionizing Radiation Protection, edited by MJ Suess and DA Benwell-Morison. Geneva: WHO.

Eriksen, P. 1985. Time resolved optical spectra from MIG welding arc ignition. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 46:101-104.

Everett, MA, RL Olsen, and RM Sayer. 1965. Ultraviolet erythema. Arch Dermatol 92:713-719.

Fitzpatrick, TB, MA Pathak, LC Harber, M Seiji, and A Kukita. 1974. Sunlight and Man, Normal and Abnormal Photobiologic Responses. Tokyo: Univ. of Tokyo Press.

Forbes, PD and PD Davies. 1982. Factors that influence photocarcinogenesis. Chap. 7 in Photoimmunology, edited by JAM Parrish, L Kripke, and WL Morison. New York: Plenum.

Freeman, RS, DW Owens, JM Knox, and HT Hudson. 1966. Relative energy requirements for an erythemal response of skin to monochromatic wavelengths of ultraviolet present in the solar spectrum. J Invest Dermatol 47:586-592.

Grandolfo, M and K Hansson Mild. 1989. Worldwide public and occupational radiofrequency and microwave protection. In Electromagnetic Biointeraction. Mechanisms, Safety Standards, Protection Guides, edited by G Franceschetti, OP Gandhi, and M Grandolfo. New York: Plenum.

Greene, MW. 1992. Non Ionizing Radiation. 2nd International Non Ionizing Radiation Workshop, 10-14 May, Vancouver.

Ham, WTJ. 1989. The photopathology and nature of the blue-light and near-UV retinal lesion produced by lasers and other optic sources. In Laser Applications in Medicine and Biology, edited by ML Wolbarsht. New York: Plenum.

Ham, WT, HA Mueller, JJ Ruffolo, D Guerry III, and RK Guerry. 1982. Action spectrum for retinal injury from near ultraviolet radiation in the aphakic monkey. Am J Ophthalmol 93(3):299-306.

Hansson Mild, K. 1980. Occupational exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields. Proc IEEE 68:12-17.

Hausser, KW. 1928. Influence of wavelength in radiation biology. Strahlentherapie 28:25-44.

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). 1990a. IEEE COMAR Position of RF and Microwaves. New York: IEEE.

—. 1990b. IEEE COMAR Position Statement On Health Aspects of Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields from RF Sealers and Dielectric Heaters. New York: IEEE.

—. 1991. IEEE Standard for Safety Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields 3 KHz to 300 GHz. New York: IEEE.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). 1994. Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Static Magnetic Fields. Health Phys 66:100-106.

—. 1995. Guidelines for Human Exposure Limits for Laser Radiation.

ICNIRP statement. 1996. Health issues related to the use of hand-held radiotelephones and base transmitters. Health Physics, 70:587-593.

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 1993. IEC Standard No. 825-1. Geneva: IEC.

International Labour Office (ILO). 1993a. Protection from Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Occupational Safety and Health Series, No. 69. Geneva: ILO.

International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). 1985. Guidelines for limits of human exposure to laser radiation. Health Phys 48(2):341-359.

—. 1988a. Change: Recommendations for minor updates to the IRPA 1985 guidelines on limits of exposure to laser radiation. Health Phys 54(5):573-573.

—. 1988b. Guidelines on limits of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz. Health Phys 54:115-123.

—. 1989. Proposed change to the IRPA 1985 guidelines limits of exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Health Phys 56(6):971-972.

International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee. 1990. Interim guidelines on limits of exposure to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields. Health Phys 58(1):113-122.

Kolmodin-Hedman, B, K Hansson Mild, E Jönsson, MC Anderson, and A Eriksson. 1988. Health problems among operations of plastic welding machines and exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60:243-247.

Krause, N. 1986. Exposure of people to static and time variable magnetic fields in technology, medicine, research and public life: Dosimetric aspects. In Biological Effects of Static and ELF-Magnetic Fields, edited by JH Bernhardt. Munchen: MMV Medizin Verlag.

Lövsund, P and KH Mild. 1978. Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Near Some Induction Heaters. Stockholm: Stockholm Board of Occupational Health and Safety.

Lövsund, P, PA Oberg, and SEG Nilsson. 1982. ELF magnetic fields in electrosteel and welding industries. Radio Sci 17(5S):355-385.

Luckiesh, ML, L Holladay, and AH Taylor. 1930. Reaction of untanned human skin to ultraviolet radiation. J Optic Soc Am 20:423-432.

McKinlay, AF and B Diffey. 1987. A reference action spectrum for ultraviolet induced erythema in human skin. In Human Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation: Risks and Regulations, edited by WF Passchier and BFM Bosnjakovic. New York: Excerpta medica Division, Elsevier Science Publishers.

McKinlay, A, JB Andersen, JH Bernhardt, M Grandolfo, K-A Hossmann, FE van Leeuwen, K Hansson Mild, AJ Swerdlow, L Verschaeve and B Veyret. Proposal for a research programme by a European Commission Expert Group. Possible health effects related to the use of radiotelephones. Unpublished report.

Mitbriet, IM and VD Manyachin. 1984. Influence of magnetic fields on the repair of bone. Moscow, Nauka, 292-296.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1981. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Properties, Quantities and Units, Biophysical Interaction, and Measurements. Bethesda, MD: NCRP.

—. 1986. Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Report No. 86. Bethesda, MD: NCRP.

National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). 1992. Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer. Vol. 3(1). Chilton, UK: NRPB.

—. 1993. Restrictions On Human Exposure to Static and Time-Varying Electromagnetic Fields and Radiations. Didcot, UK: NRPB.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Possible health effects of exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields. Washington: NAS Press. 314.

Olsen, EG and A Ringvold. 1982. Human corneal endothelium and ultraviolet radiation. Acta Ophthalmol 60:54-56.

Parrish, JA, KF Jaenicke, and RR Anderson. 1982. Erythema and melanogenesis: Action spectra of normal human skin. Photochem Photobiol 36(2):187-191.

Passchier, WF and BFM Bosnjakovic. 1987. Human Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation: Risks and Regulations. New York: Excerpta Medica Division, Elsevier Science Publishers.

Pitts, DG. 1974. The human ultraviolet action spectrum. Am J Optom Phys Opt 51(12):946-960.

Pitts, DG and TJ Tredici. 1971. The effects of ultraviolet on the eye. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 32(4):235-246.

Pitts, DG, AP Cullen, and PD Hacker. 1977a. Ocular effects of ultraviolet radiation from 295 to 365nm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 16(10):932-939.

—. 1977b. Ultraviolet Effects from 295 to 400nm in the Rabbit Eye. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Polk, C and E Postow. 1986. CRC Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Repacholi, MH. 1985. Video display terminals -should operators be concerned? Austalas Phys Eng Sci Med 8(2):51-61.

—. 1990. Cancer from exposure to 50760 Hz electric and magnetic fields: A major scientific debate. Austalas Phys Eng Sci Med 13(1):4-17.

Repacholi, M, A Basten, V Gebski, D Noonan, J Finnic and AW Harris. 1997. Lymphomas in E-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Radiation research, 147:631-640.

Riley, MV, S Susan, MI Peters, and CA Schwartz. 1987. The effects of UVB irradiation on the corneal endothelium. Curr Eye Res 6(8):1021-1033.

Ringvold, A. 1980a. Cornea and ultraviolet radiation. Acta Ophthalmol 58:63-68.

—. 1980b. Aqueous humour and ultraviolet radiation. Acta Ophthalmol 58:69-82.

—. 1983. Damage of the corneal epithelium caused by ultraviolet radiation. Acta Ophthalmol 61:898-907.

Ringvold, A and M Davanger. 1985. Changes in the rabbit corneal stroma caused by UV radiation. Acta Ophthalmol 63:601-606.

Ringvold, A, M Davanger, and EG Olsen. 1982. Changes of the corneal endothelium after ultraviolet radiation. Acta Ophthalmol 60:41-53.

Roberts, NJ and SM Michaelson. 1985. Epidemiological studies of human exposure to radiofrequency radiation: A critical review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 56:169-178.

Roy, CR, KH Joyner, HP Gies, and MJ Bangay. 1984. Measurement of electromagnetic radiation emitted from visual display terminals (VDTs). Rad Prot Austral 2(1):26-30.

Scotto, J, TR Fears, and GB Gori. 1980. Measurements of Ultraviolet Radiations in the United States and Comparisons With Skin Cancer Data. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Sienkiewicz, ZJ, RD Saunder, and CI Kowalczuk. 1991. Biological Effects of Exposure to Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields and Radiation. 11 Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Didcot, UK: National Radiation Protection Board.

Silverman, C. 1990. Epidemiological studies of cancer and electromagnetic fields. In Chap. 17 in Biological Effects and Medical Applications of Electromagnetic Energy, edited by OP Gandhi. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sliney, DH. 1972. The merits of an envelope action spectrum for ultraviolet radiation exposure criteria. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 33:644-653.

—. 1986. Physical factors in cataractogenesis: Ambient ultraviolet radiation and temperature. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 27(5):781-790.

—. 1987. Estimating the solar ultraviolet radiation exposure to an intraocular lens implant. J Cataract Refract Surg 13(5):296-301.

—. 1992. A safety manager’s guide to the new welding filters. Welding J 71(9):45-47.
Sliney, DH and ML Wolbarsht. 1980. Safety With Lasers and Other Optical Sources. New York: Plenum.

Stenson, S. 1982. Ocular findings in xeroderma pigmentosum: Report of two cases. Ann Ophthalmol 14(6):580-585.

Sterenborg, HJCM and JC van der Leun. 1987. Action spectra for tumourigenesis by ultraviolet radiation. In Human Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation: Risks and Regulations, edited by WF Passchier and BFM Bosnjakovic. New York: Excerpta Medica Division, Elsevier Science Publishers.

Stuchly, MA. 1986. Human exposure to static and time-varying magnetic fields. Health Phys 51(2):215-225.

Stuchly, MA and DW Lecuyer. 1985. Induction heating and operator exposure to electromagnetic fields. Health Phys 49:693-700.

—. 1989. Exposure to electromagnetic fields in arc welding. Health Phys 56:297-302.

Szmigielski, S, M Bielec, S Lipski, and G Sokolska. 1988. Immunologic and cancer related aspects of exposure to low-level microwave and radiofrequency fields. In Modern Bioelectricity, edited by AA Mario. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Taylor, HR, SK West, FS Rosenthal, B Munoz, HS Newland, H Abbey, and EA Emmett. 1988. Effect of ultraviolet radiation on cataract formation. New Engl J Med 319:1429-1433.

Tell, RA. 1983. Instrumentation for measurement of electromagnetic fields: Equipment, calibrations, and selected applications. In Biological Effects and Dosimetry of Nonionizing Radiation, Radiofrequency and Microwave Energies, edited by M Grandolfo, SM Michaelson, and A Rindi. New York: Plenum.

Urbach, F. 1969. The Biologic Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation. New York: Pergamon.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1981. Radiofrequency and microwaves. Environmental Health Criteria, No.16. Geneva: WHO.

—. 1982. Lasers and Optical Radiation. Environmental Health Criteria, No. 23. Geneva: WHO.

—. 1987. Magnetic Fields. Environmental Health Criteria, No.69. Geneva: WHO.

—. 1989. Non-Ionization Radiation Protection. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

—. 1993. Electromagnetic Fields 300 Hz to 300 GHz. Environmental Health Criteria, No. 137. Geneva: WHO.

—. 1994. Ultraviolet Radiation. Environmental Health Criteria, No. 160. Geneva: WHO.

World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), and International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). 1984. Extremely Low Frequency (ELF). Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35. Geneva: WHO.

Zaffanella, LE and DW DeNo. 1978. Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Effects of Ultra-High-Voltage Transmission Lines. Palo Alto, Calif: Electric Power Research Institute.

Zuclich, JA and JS Connolly. 1976. Ocular damage induced by near-ultraviolet laser radiation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 15(9):760-764.