Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 01 November 2007 11:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Donaldson
Apologies if someone else has posted this already

The formal notification that the EMF Directive is to be postponed has now appeared on the HSE website

Proposal is that it will be delayed until 30 April 2012

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ra.../nonionising/electro.htm
Admin  
#2 Posted : 02 November 2007 10:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By BB
I am not surprised this has been canned for the time being.

From my early and somewhat scant considerations of this EU Anoraktive, it appears fatally flawed from the outset and it appears to only really address the short term health effects from EMF.

The limit values suggested would render some types of equipment unusable (inc MRI machines and some welding equipment). When studying the anecdotal evidence, I would be surprised to find anyone who could pin an acute episode on EMF exposure, except in the case of the obvious sources - RF generators etc.

Either way, I still think the chronic effects are more worthy of consideration and we all know how flaky the evidence on this is.

Any HPA/NRPB scientists out there? I stand by to be corrected!

Admin  
#3 Posted : 05 November 2007 12:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Homer
The politics of health and safety!

The ICNIRP committee worked for years setting the levels they determined as necessary to prevent acute effects and issued their guidelines in 1998.

These were the basis for the Directive set in 2004 to take effect by 2008.

Now it seems someone has bothered to read the guidelines in detail and discovered the wide implications they have. Whoops.

Better delay it then!!!!!!!!!

It is a bit late in the day to say the levels that were set are too restrictive, that should have been done much earlier. The NRPB were solidly behind their own guidelines but the EU effectively took the ground out from under their feet.

Now we see an inconvenient Directive being challenged. If there are effects to guard against, then we should bite the bullet and find solutions. If there are no effects to bother about, why did we get into this mess in the first place?

Having monitored research for the last 15 years or so, the research clearly shows there are effects at high levels, hence there is a need to restrict access where these levels may be approached. The ICNIRP guidelines use safety factors of around 5. This value may be too high. ICNIRP stated the application of these safety factors were for individual governments to determine as it was their right to decide what levels their people were exposed to. Acceptance of the Directive took away this flexibility.

Now it looks like the problems associated with MRI will stop the protection of other workers for another 4 years beyond 2008.

If you think your company will not have any problem with compliance, then think again. It is possible for the switchrooms in office blocks to be non-compliant. It is not just in industry where problems exist.

If you want to see photographs of a non-compliant switchroom, email me direct.

garry@ieee.org

Of course there are many who believe the ICNIRP guidelines are too slack, but these are usually the overhead line and mobile phone base station protest groups.

The real problem we are seeing played out here is where the introduction of valuable new technologies out-paces the creation of safety guidelines.

If a line is not drawn somewhere, we will never have a legal framework of emf protection for our workers. If MRI is seen as the sticking point, then exclued medical applications. This has been done before.

Garry Homer
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.