Value chain · CLM-1299
In plain terms
The 1982 US limit was set by taking the lowest dose at which animals' trained behaviour was disrupted, about 4 W/kg, and dividing by ten. The standard admits the factor of ten was a safety margin without a quantitative justification, and one biologist dissented on that point.
The claim as recorded
ANSI C95.1-1982 derives its limits from a whole-body-averaged SAR of 0.4 W/kg (about 144 J/kg per 0.1 h). This is an order-of-magnitude reduction from the 4 W/kg below which its subcommittee found no effects that demonstrably constitute a hazard; adverse effects of acute exposure were associated with SARs above 5 W/kg. The standard says thresholds of reversible behavioural disruption in rodents and primates fell between 4 and 8 W/kg, while the corresponding incident power densities ranged from 10 to 50 mW/cm2.
Evidence behind this: T2-the standard's own rationale section read directly; the underlying studies are cited, not held.
Scope and limits
Recomputed: 0.4 W/kg x 360 s = 144 J/kg. The standard notes that most selected reports are at or near 2450 MHz (PDF p.14) and that its select list is biased towards positive findings by design (PDF p.13). Modulation-specific effects such as calcium efflux were considered and not treated as adverse (PDF p.13). The 4-8 W/kg thresholds are for acute exposure; the standard assumes reversible acute disruption is equivalent to chronic injury (PDF p.13).
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.10: guides result in energy deposition "of about 144 joules per kilogram" per 0.1 h, "about 0.40 watts per" kilogram (W/kg). PDF p.13: reversible behavioural disruption thresholds at 4-8 W/kg (paraphrase; the text layer garbles the units); "thresholds of disruption ranged" from 10 to 50 mW/cm2 incident (paraphrase); "whole-body SARs below" 4 W/kg not associated with demonstrable hazard (paraphrase); "an order-of-magnitude reduction in the" permissible SAR to 0.4 W/kg. PDF p.14: one biological scientist dissented, and no quantitative justification for the tenfold reduction was advanced (paraphrase; the quotation is split across columns in the scan). PDF p.11: previous guides assumed only gross thermal effects (paraphrase).
Basis: W/kg whole-body-averaged SAR; J/kg per 0.1 h
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this releaseQST-023 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1299
CLM-1299, Energy Aperture, as of 1982-07-30.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.