• 20 JUL 08
    • 0

    #910: Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines

    From Katharina Gustavs:

    Dear all,
    The latest revision of the Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines, including exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields, is available in English now:
    The english translation of the SBM-2008 is available online at:
    http://www.baubiologie.de/downloads/english/richtwerte_2008_englisch.pdf
    http://www.baubiologie.de/downloads/english/standard_2008_englisch.pdf
    About the origin of this precautionary standard: http://www.baubiologie.de/downloads/english/standard_questions_%202008.pdf

    Most of the recommendations are similar to the ones from 2003. However, with regard to electromagnetic radiation, changes were made in the category on AC electric fields as well as RF radiation. For AC electric fields, reference levels for potential-free measurements were introduced: < 0.3 V/m no concern, 0.3-1.5 V/m slight concern, 1.5-10 V/m severe concern, > 10 V/m extreme concern.
    With regard to RF radiation, the given reference values apply to single RF sources. The more dominant sources can be identified, the more critically the RF exposure is assessed. If just one person screams at you, that is bad enough. But if 3 or 5 or 10 different people screech at you at the same time, it becomes quite intolerable. Though sound is a mechanical wave, I find the analogy also applies to electromagnetic waves such as microwaves and radio waves quite well.
    Though there is only one set of reference ranges now: < 0.1 µW/m2 no concern, 0.1-10 µW/m2 slight concern, 10-1000 µW/m2 severe concern, > 1000 µW/m2 extreme concern; explanatory notes clearly distinguish between certain types of signals and their biological significance:
    “More critical RF sources like pulsed or periodic signals (mobile phone technology, DECT, WLAN, digital broadcasting …) should be assessed more seriously, especially in the higher reference ranges, and less critical RF sources like non-pulsed and non-periodic signals (FM, shortwave, medium wave, long wave, analog broadcasting …) should be assessed more generously, especially in the lower reference ranges.”

    Best regards,
    Katharina

    Katharina Gustavs
    Building Biology Environmental Consultant (IBN), Canada

    Leave a reply →

Photostream