8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Whole Body / General

SAR versus S(inc): What is the appropriate RF exposure metric in the range 1-10 GHz? Part II: Using complex human body models

Bioeffects Seen

Authors not listed · 2010

Share:

Current SAR measurements may inadequately assess heating effects from 5G frequencies above 6 GHz.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Researchers compared two methods for measuring radiofrequency exposure safety in the 1-10 GHz range using detailed computer models of adult and child heads. They found that the traditional SAR measurement works better at lower frequencies (1-3 GHz), while incident power density is more appropriate at higher frequencies (6-10 GHz). The study recommends switching measurement methods at 6 GHz to better predict tissue heating.

Why This Matters

This research addresses a fundamental question in EMF safety standards: how do we accurately measure exposure as frequencies increase? The science demonstrates that our current measurement approach, SAR (specific absorption rate), becomes less reliable at higher frequencies where 5G and future wireless technologies operate. What this means for you is that safety standards may not be adequately protecting against heating effects from newer high-frequency devices. The reality is that as we deploy more millimeter wave technology, we need measurement methods that actually correlate with biological effects. This study's recommendation for a 6 GHz crossover point is particularly relevant given that many 5G applications operate in the 6-24 GHz range, where traditional SAR measurements may underestimate actual tissue heating.

Exposure Information

A logarithmic frequency spectrum from 10 Hz to 100 GHz showing where this study's 1-10 GHz exposure sits relative to common EMF sources.Where This Frequency Sits on the EMF SpectrumELFVLFLF / MFHF / VHFUHFSHFmm10 Hz100 GHzThis study: 1-10 GHzPower lines50/60 Hz5G mm28 GHzLogarithmic scale

Specific exposure levels were not quantified in this study.

Cite This Study
Unknown (2010). SAR versus S(inc): What is the appropriate RF exposure metric in the range 1-10 GHz? Part II: Using complex human body models.
Show BibTeX
@article{sar_versus_sinc_what_is_the_appropriate_rf_exposure_metric_in_the_range_1_10_ghz_part_ii_using_complex_human_body_models_ce1891,
  author = {Unknown},
  title = {SAR versus S(inc): What is the appropriate RF exposure metric in the range 1-10 GHz? Part II: Using complex human body models},
  year = {2010},
  doi = {10.1002/bem.20574},
  
}
DOI: 10.1002/bem.20574PubMed: 20354998

Quick Questions About This Study

SAR measures energy absorbed per gram of tissue, while incident power density measures electromagnetic energy hitting the body's surface. SAR works better at lower frequencies, but incident power density better predicts tissue heating at frequencies above 6 GHz.
These frequencies are used by 5G networks and future wireless technologies. Inaccurate measurements could mean safety standards don't properly protect against tissue heating effects from these newer high-frequency devices and applications.
Yes, researchers used both adult and 12-year-old head models at frequencies from 1-10 GHz. Both models showed similar patterns, with SAR working better at lower frequencies and incident power density more accurate at higher frequencies.
It means devices operating above 6 GHz should be evaluated using incident power density rather than traditional SAR measurements to better predict actual tissue heating effects and ensure appropriate safety limits.
Many 5G applications operate in the 6-24 GHz range where this study suggests traditional SAR measurements become inadequate. This highlights potential gaps in how we assess safety for current and future wireless technologies.