ICES
International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety
Unapproved Minutes
TC95 Committee
(Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic and
Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz
1300 – 1700
Tuesday, 12 January 2016
Motorola Solutions
8000 West Sunrise Blvd
Plantation, FL 33322
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 1235 h.
2. Introduction of those Present
Each of the attendees introduced her/himself. (See Attachment 1 for the list of attendees.)
3. Approval of Agenda
Following a motion by Hatfield that was seconded by Keshvari, the agenda was approved as presented.
(See Attachment 2.)
4. Approval of June 13, 2015 TC95 Minutes
Following a motion by Ziskin that was seconded by Hirata, the minutes of the June 2015 TC95 meeting
were approved as presented.
5. ICES Chairman’s Report
Bodemann provided a brief update on the low frequency EMF regulations/program in Germany (see
Attachment 3). The goal of the program is to reduce exposures to as low as possible levels. In response
to a question regarding determination of compliance, Bodemann explained how that decision will be
made by the inspectors. Assuring compliance will be the responsibility of the owner/operator. Also,
guidance or action levels will not be included—decisions will be left to the “authorities.” Bodemann
briefly discussed the national transposition of Directive 2013/35/EU (electromagnetic fields, 0 Hz to
300 GHz) noting that EU members have to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 July 2016. He also noted that a
workshop/meeting is being planned around the time of BioEM2016 where key people from the
Commissions will be invited to discuss harmonization of standards internationally. He will inform the
committee when more information is available.
Bodemann congratulated Reilly for receiving the 2015 IEEE SA International Award “for significant
contributions in electrostimulation research and its application in harmonization of international safety
standards for exposure of humans to low-frequency electric and magnetic fields.” All enthusiastically
agreed that Reilly certainly deserved the recognition. It also was announced that Thanh Dovan, who cochaired SC3 for more than 13 years, has retired from the company where he worked and will stepping
down as Co-Chairman of SC3. Thanh was called to the podium and presented a plaque to express the
committee’s appreciation for his efforts and support over the years.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
6. TC95 Chairman’s Report
Chou reviewed his efforts to promote the ICES scope – “Promoting the safe use of electromagnetic
energy.” (See Attachment 4.) Included in his presentation was an announcement that on 26 November
2015, IEEE Std C95.1-2345-2014 was adopted as the replacement for NATO Standards Agreement
(STANAG) 2345—he thanked Klauenberg for his tireless efforts in making this happen. Chou briefly
reviewed presentations given at a number of meetings. He noted that the WHO EMF Project initiative to
move forward with a single international standard is now on hold due to budgetary constraints. However,
he is optimistic that under ICNIRP’s new leadership (Eric von Rongen), and the appointment of Akimasa
Hirata (Chairman of TC95 SC6) to ICNIRP, the prospect of increased collaboration between ICES and
ICNIRP will be enhanced. Both groups recognize that the way forward to a single science-based
international standard is collaboration – not competition.
7. Executive Secretary’s Report
Petersen presented the Executive Secretary’s Report (Attachment 5). He noted that the PARs for the
revision of IEEE Std C95.1-2005 and C95.3-2002 expire 31 December 2016—extension requests will
have to be submitted no later than 17 October in order to keep the projects alive. It was also noted that
the PAR for the revision of IEEE Std C95.2-1999 expired 31 December 2014. The statistics for the
GetProgram for C95 standards was briefly discussed. Of note was the total number of standards
downloaded over the past four years – 12, 687. Petersen concluded by pointing out that in order to
participate in sponsor balloting of IEEE standards, one must be a member of the IEEE SA. He noted that
before draft standards are submitted to IEEE for sponsor ballot, they are balloted at the TC95 level
following the same rigorous process as that of IEEE sponsor ballot process. Therefore, TC95 members
and members of the TC95 SCs and WGs who are not IEEE-SA members but desire to vote on a standard
should join the TC/SC/WG ballot groups.
8. Treasurer’s Report
Petersen presented the Treasurer’s Report (Attachment 6). He noted that as of 31 December 2015 the
balance in the ICES TC95 account was $17,497.62. Income and expenses for this meeting should not
change the balance appreciably.
9. Membership Chairman’s Report
Membership Committee Chairman Klauenberg presented the Membership Committee Report (see
Attachment 7). He welcomed the new members, two of whom were present at this meeting. He also
reviewed the current list of members noting that TC95 currently has members from 27 countries.
Klauenberg pointed out that some members were inactive and could be dropped from membership and
explained how each year those who have not actively participated are contacted to determine interest in
maintaining official membership on TC95. Those failing to respond are dropped from membership. He
reviewed some of the benefits of TC95 membership, including access to protected sections of the ICES
website, voting on committee issues at meetings and on draft standards (by e-mail), and participating in
balloting on ICES standards subject to IEEE rules. He pointed out that anyone attending this meeting
who is interested in joining TC95 should contact him at bertram.klauenberg@us.af.mil, and concluded by
reviewing TC95 membership requirements, i.e., participation, participation, participation.
10. Topic presentations
a) IEC TC106/IEEE TC 34 Update
Keshvari discussed the scope of the SCC39 TC34 subcommittees and working groups (Attachment 8).
He noted that many of the TC34 members are also members of those IEC TC106 Project and
Maintenance Teams with scopes similar to those of the TC34 SCs and WGs. He reviewed changes in
the TC 106 leadership – Mike Woods (AU) replaces Ron Petersen (US) as Chairman and Mathias
Meier (DE) replaces Thomas Fischer (DE). He also noted that the final draft international standard
(FDIS) IEC P62209-1 (SAR measurement in the head), which is essentially analogous to IEEE Std
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
1528-2013, will be distributed sometime during the next three months. Combining P62209-1 with
P62209-2 (SAR in the body) into a single standard is also progressing. Because of the similarity
between the IEC and IEEE standards, consideration is being given to combining the two IEC projects
with the IEEE equivalent into a single a dual logo standard, as was done for the four numerical
standards P62704-1 through 4. He also noted that consideration is being given to combining P62704-1
(general FDTD methods) and P62704-4 (finite element method). Keshvari concluded by noting that
the P62232 (determination of RF field strength and SAR in the vicinity of radio-communication base
stations) committee draft for vote should be distributed for comment in May 2016.
b) Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Bikson’s presentation focused on the wide use of non-invasive electrical stimulation devices for
medical and neuro-enhancement purposes (Attachment 9). He pointed out that a concern is that large
numbers of these devices are widely used and some may be dangerous. Many lack warning labels,
timers and other safety features, i.e., there are no regulatory standards. In response to a question from
Meltz, Bikson replied that he is asking ICES to consider developing a standard that could be followed
by manufacturers, e.g., providing limits and protocols for warning labels and timers. He expected
responsible manufacturers to welcome such a standard and noted that federal agencies might also have
interest in such a standard, e.g., as the basis for federal regulations. He noted that the FDA is already
looking into issues relating to electronic muscle stimulators. One concern is that many of the devices
are available to almost anyone from a number of companies that claim they do not manufacture
medical devices. Moreover, there is a paucity of clinical trials regarding effectiveness. In order to
move forward, it was agreed that Bikson would draft a recommendation to the AdCom specifying the
possible role of ICES in addressing concerns relating to these devices.
ACTION ITEM 1:
Bikson to prepare a document for consideration by the ICES AdCom pointing out concerns
associated with the use of transcranial direct current stimulation devices and what the specific
role of ICES should be in addressing these concerns. Chou, Kavet and Ziskin will participate.
c) Why are most experimental findings false?
Ziskin provided a brief presentation on the false discovery rate and misinterpretation of p-values –
specifically, that conclusion that an effect occurs in a controlled study if the p value is < 0.05 (see
Attachment 10). He described how the conclusion that a statistical analysis of the difference between
groups in a controlled experiment that shows that p < 0.05 demonstrates an effect in many cases is
incorrect. Summary conclusions and recommendations, in the form of “words to the wise,” are
included in the last slide of the presentation, e.g., an observation of p ~ 0.05 means nothing more than
“worth another look.”
d) Update on the GetProgram
Klauenberg provided an update of the DoD/IEEE-SA C95 Get Program (Attachment 11). He reviewed
the history of the agreement between DoD and IEEE SA noting that the contract runs out this April and
so far there is no agreement that DoD will further support the program. He emphasized the fact that the
IEEE C95 standards can be considered public health standards, not product standards, and should
continue to be made freely available. He discussed the many benefits of the program its impact, e.g., in
ratification of the NATO agreement to adopt IEEE Std C95.1-2345-2014 as the replacement for NATO
STANAG 2345. It was pointed out that had the standards not been freely available it is unlikely that
many of the NATO member countries would have been interested in the IEEE standards. He concluded
his presentation by asking for ideas for finding support to continue the program. Several ideas were
discussed, including the possibility of support from industry. Ideally, the goal is to find a benefactor
willing to pay the entire cost to enable the program to move forward.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
11. Subcommittee Reports
a) SC1 (Measurements and computations)
Colville discussed in detail prepared notes from the SC1 meeting. (See Attachment 12.) No action
items.
b) SC2 (Safety programs)
Haes discussed prepared notes that described in detail highlights of the SC2. (See Attachment 13.)
The following action items resulted from the SC2 meeting:
• R. Tell to circulate RF Minimal Awareness Guide to ADHOC group.
• R. Tell to circulate ideas or even the need for different low frequency signs to an ADHOC group
• R. Tell to decide what to do about IEEE Std C95.2-1999.
c) SC3 (Safety levels – 0 Hz to 3 kHz)/SC4 (Safety levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz)
SC3 and SC4 met together the previous day (11 January 2016)—Dovan and Ziskin presented the
report. Most of the discussions during the SC3/SC4 meeting related to progress on the
revision/merging of IEEE Stds C95.1-2005 and C95.6-2002. A number of issues were discussed at
the meeting including the status of the literature evaluation process, the need to move the process
forward effectively, and the increasing relevance of papers describing millimeter-wave and lowfrequency effects. The uncertainty in the SAR thresholds for animal data was discussed as was the
need for human threshold SAR data. A number of presentations were given at the SC3/SC4 meeting
on topics such as RF burns, ASC Z136 and TC95 issues at 300 GHz, and the possibility of effects of
spark discharge on cardiac pacemakers and other wearable medical devices. Ziskin concluded by
expressing appreciation to the members of ICES who were instrumental in the successful adoption of
IEEE Std C95.1-2345-2014 by NATO on 26 November 2015 as the replacement of STANAG 2345
ed. 4—especially to B Jon Klauenberg who effectively drove the project forward.
d) SC5 (Effects of EM fields on blasting operations)
Harmon reported that SC5 met the previous afternoon (11 January 2016) and pointed out that this was
the first face-to-face meeting in several years. (See Attachment 14.) The major issue discussed at the
meeting was whether or not there is a need to update IEEE Std C95.4-2002 or expand the scope of the
2002 standard and that of the subcommittee. He noted that this issue was discussed during a
teleconference in April 2015. The working group reviewed the 2002 standard and has considered it
stable. One idea is to update the front matter and proceed to initiate sponsor ballot on the 2002
standard, which would be considered a revision.
e) SC6 (EMF dosimetry modeling)
Hirata reported that SC6 met earlier in the day. (See Attachment 15.) He noted that SC6 is now
becoming more involved with modelling and dosimetry at RF frequencies. A proposed RF research
agenda was discussed at the SC6 meeting and agreement was achieved to move forward with the
agenda as proposed (slides 9 – 11). Hirata also noted that two new working groups were
established—WG2: Quantification of effects of numerical artifacts in low frequency dosimetry; and
WG3: Quantification of variability of induced current density and in-situ electric field strength.
12. ICES Website Update
Chou provided an update on the ICES website (see Attachment 16). He pointed out that compared with
2014, the number of unique visitors in 2015 increased by 62% and the “period time” (not greater than 30
minutes) a user is actively engaged the website increased by 71%. He reminded everyone, especially new
members, that they should post their bio-sketch on the website.
13. New Business
No new business.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
14. Future Meetings
The next TC95 meeting series will be held in Ghent Belgium, in conjunction with and immediately before
BioEM2016. A notice with preliminary details will be distributed mid-February.
15. Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1605 h.
List of Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Attendance List
Approved Agenda
SCC39 Chairman’s Report
TC95 Chairman’s Report
Secretary’s Report
Treasurer’s Report
Membership Chairman’s Report
IEC TC106 and SCC39 TC34 Activity Update
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): Tasks for IEEE?
Why are most positive experimental findings actually false?
Update on C96 Get Program
Highlights of SC1 Meeting (measurements and computation)
Highlights of SC2 Meeting (safety programs)
Highlights of SC5 Meeting (EM safety with respect to electric blasting caps)
SC6 Activity Update
ICES Website Statistics
Action Items From January 2016 TC95 Meeting
1.
Action Item
Assigned to:
Prepare a document for
consideration by the ICES
AdCom pointing out concerns
associated with the use of
transcranial direct current
stimulation devices and what
the specific role of ICES should
be in addressing these concerns.
Bikson (Lead)
Chou, Kavet,
Ziskin
Status
ATTACHMENT 1
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
Attendance List
TC95 (Main Committee) Meeting – 12 January 2016 – 1230-1600 h
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Last Name
First Name
Affiliation
Country
IEEE Member?
Alon
Leeor
New York University
US
Y
Bailey
Bill
Exponent
US
Y
Balzano
Q
University of Maryland
US
Y
Bikson
Marom
The City College of New York
US
Bodemann
Ralf
Siemens
DE
Y
Butcher
Matt
SiteSafe
US
Y
Chou
C-K
Independent Consultant
US
Y
Cleveland
Robert
EMF Consulting
US
Colville
Frank
US Army PHC
US
Y
Douglas
Mark
IT’IS Foundation
CH
Y
Dovan
Thanh
Retired
AU
Faraone
Antonio
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
US
Futch
James
FL Dept. of Health
US
Gettman
Graf
Ken
Kevin
NEMA
Exponent
US
Y
US
Y
Haes
Donald
BAE Systems
US
Harmon
Ray
URS Corporation
US
Hatfield
James
H&D LLC
US
Hirata
Akimasa
Nagoya Inst of Technology
JP
Joyner
Kavet
Ken
Robert
Consultant
EPRI
AU
US
Y
Keshvari
Jafar
Aalto University
FI
Y
Kihlstrom
Cory
Verizon Wireless
US
Kim
Soo
(IEEE Staff Liaison)
US
Klauenberg
B Jon
USAF Human Effectiveness Dir.
US
Meltz
Marty
Retired
US
Petersen
Ron
R C Petersen Associates. LLC
US
Y
Shelton
Wesley
AT&T
US
Y
Sliney
David
Ind Consultant
US
Tell
Ric
Richard Tell Associates, Inc.
US
Visser
Auke
Royal Netherlands Navy
NL
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
Last Name
32. Wandel
33. Wessel
34. Ziskin
ATTACHMENT 1
First Name
Affiliation
Country
IEEE Member?
Eric
Wavepoint Research
US
Marvin
Global RF Solutions
US
Y
Marvin
Temple University
US
Y
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ICES
ATTACHMENT 2
International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety
Approved Agenda
TC95 Committee
Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic
and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz
1300 – 1700
Tuesday, 12 January 2016
Motorola Solutions, South Entrance (east entrance is closed)
8000 West Sunrise Blvd
Plantation, FL 33322
1. Call to Order
2. Introduction of those Present
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of June 13, 2015 TC95 minutes
5. ICES Chairman’s Report
6. TC95 Chairman’s Report
7. Executive Secretary’s Report
8. Treasurer’s Report
9. Membership Chairman’s Report
10. Topic presentations
a) IEC TC106/IEEE TC 34 Update
b) Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation `
11. Subcommittee Reports
a) SC1 (Measurements and computations)
b) SC2 (Safety programs)
c) SC3 (Safety levels – 0 Hz to 3 kHz)
d) SC4 (Safety levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz)
e) SC5 (Effects of EM fields on blasting operations)
f) SC6 (EMF dosimetry modeling)
12. ICES Website Update
13. New Business
14. Future Meetings
15. Adjourn
Chou
All
Chou
Chou
Bodemann
Chou
Petersen
Petersen
Klauenberg
Keshvari
Bikson
Colville/Douglas
Tell
Kavet/Dovan
Ziskin/Thansandote
Harmon/Hay
Hirata
Chou
Chou
Chou
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 3
ICES TC95 meeting, 10.01.2016, Dr. Ralf Bodemann
Update EMF Regulations in
Germany
© Siemens AG 2016. Alle rights reserved.
One world, one life – we care.
Contents
• Administrative Regulation to
implement precautionary measures
for low frequency facilities
• Planning for national transposition
of EU EMF Workers’ Directive
2013/35/EU
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 2
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Need for Administrative Regulation on
Precautionary Measures for ELF Facilites
• German Ordinance for general public exposure revised end
of 2014.
• Mandates consideration of precautionary measures for
newly installed ELF facilities or relevant changes
• Scope: HV power lines and buried cables as well as
transformer stations and HV switches for
• DC Transmission Facilities (≥ 2000 V)
• Railway Grid (16⅔ Hz) (≥ 1000 V)
• General Electricity Transmission (50 Hz) (≥ 1000 V)
• Goal: Implement a standardized assessment procedure for
authorities in charge
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 3
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Zones of Affected Burden and Assessment Distances
for various ELF Facilites
HV Power Lines (incl. Railway Power Lines)
Max. Voltage
Zone of Aff. Burden
Assessment Distance
≥ 380 kV
400 m
20 m
≥ 220 kV bis < 380 kV
300 m
15 m
≥ 110 kV bis < 220 kV
200 m
10 m
< 110 kV
100 m
5m
Transformers and Switches
Zone of Aff. Burden
Assessment Distance
Transformers and
Switches ≥ 110 kV
100 m
5m
Local Grid Station
20 m
1m
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 4
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Zone of Affected Burden, Assessment
Distances, Points of Reference
(Power Lines and Buried Cables)
Inside assessment
distance:
case-by-case
assessment
Outside assessment
distance:
Projection to point
of reference
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 5
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Zone of Affected Burden, Assessment Distances,
Points of Reference
(HV Switches and Transformer Stations)
Inside assessment
distance:
case-by-case
assessment
Outside assessment
distance:
Projection to point
of reference
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 6
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Assessment Procedure at a Glance
• For each type of ELF facility, the regulation provides a conclusive list of
2-5 technical precautionary measures which need to be considered
• Implementation of precautionary measures must not lead to exposure
increase at any building inside the ZoaB
• Assessment has to consider econimical aspects.
• Precautionary measures for 50 Hz HV power lines:
optimization of distance, electric shielding, minimization of rope
distances, optimization of mast geometry, optimization of configuratoin
of conductors
• Information on each combination of facility/measure, sometimes not
very specific
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 7
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Directive 2013/35/EU:
Transposition into national law by July 2016
Directive 2013/35/EU
• Contains minimum requirements for protection of safety and health of workers
against EMF exposure
• supersedes Directive 2004/40/EG
• confirms safety philosophy for thermal effects of RF exposure (100 kHz – 300
GHz)
• Revises limit values for ELF exposure (1 Hz – 10 MHz) for non-thermal effects
(nerve stimulations) based on recent scientific reviews (ICNIRP 2010)
• must be transposed into national legislation by July 1, 2016
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 8
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Limit values EU Directive vs.
Basic Restrictions BGV B11
10000
in situ el. Feldstärke (peak) in V/m
EU-Dir Health Effect ELV
1000
EU-Dir Sensory Effect ELV
BMAS-Plan Health Effect
100
BMAS-Plan Sensory Effect
10
BGV B11 Basiswerte @ 0.2 S/m (peak)
1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
Frequenz in Hz
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 9
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Magnetic Fields
Action Values EU Directive – accepted values
exposure area 2 BGV B11
EU-Dir low action level
1000000
EU-Dir high action level
magn. Flußdichte in µT
100000
EU-Dir limb action value
BMAS-Plan low AL
10000
BMAS-Plan high AL
BGV B11 Expo 2
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
Frequenz in Hz
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 10
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Electric Fields
Action Values EU Directive – accepted values
exposure area 2 BGV B11
100000
EU-Dir low action level
EU-Dir high action level
el. Feldstärke in V/m
10000
BGV B11 Expo 2
1000
100
1,617 MHz
1500 Hz
10
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
Frequenz in Hz
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 11
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Medical Implants –
just an Action Values for static magnetic fields
Problem:
In DC drivens trains and trams, this value can be exceeded.
According to European standards, implants are immune up to 1,0 mT
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 12
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Kontakt
Dr. Ralf Bodemann
Corporate EHS Manager
CHR EHS SF RD
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
81739 München
Mobil:
+49 (173) 856 11 84
E-Mail:
ralf.bodemann@siemens.com
Intranet:
https://intranet.siemens.com/ehs
© Siemens AG 2016. All rights reserved.
Seite 13
Jan 10, 2016
Dr. Bodemann / HR EHS SF TR
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 4
TC95 Chairman’s report, January 12, 2016
ICES Mission: “Promoting safe use of electromagnetic energy”
1. On November 26, 2015, NATO adopted C95.1-2345-2014 as STANG Ed. 4. Thanks to B Jon
Klauenberg for this tireless efforts.
2. Colombi et al. (2015) published a paper pointed out big discrepancy of exposure limits for power
density above 6 GHz for future 5 G Communication products. C95.1-2005 has the most consistent
limits than that of ICNIRP and FCC.
D. Colombi, B. Thors, and C. Tornevik, “Implications of EMF Exposure Limits on Output Power Levels for 5G Devices above 6 GHz,”
IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. PP, no. 99, pp.1, Feb. 2015
3. Three presentations:
a. Safety Issues of Radiofrequency Exposure. International Broadcasting Convention,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, September 11, 2015.
b. Radio Frequency Exposure Safety Concerns: Research, Standards, Regulatory Status
and Risk Communication. EMF Risk Assessment and Risk Communication. National
Communications Commission. Taipei, Taiwan. October 17, 2015.
c. RF exposure standards and regulations. International symposium on RF fields and human
health. National Broadcast and Telecommunication Commission. N Bangkok, Thailand,
December 18, 2015.
4. Two publications: Presented at 8th International Workshop on Biological effects of Electromagnetic
Fields, Varna, Bulgaria, September 23, 2014.
a. IEEE EMF exposure and assessment standards activities. Bulgarian Journal of Public
Health, ISSN 1313-860X, Supplement Vol. VII, No. 2(1): 115-120, 2015.
http://ncphp.government.bg/files/spisanie/BG_JURNAL_2015_2_1.pdf
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 4
b. A need to provide explanations for observed biological effects of radiofrequency
exposure. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 34(3):175-179, 2015.
“Researchers should look for explanations for their own findings, and not expect
others to figure out what was the reason for their observed effects.”
5. Meeting reports:
a. IBC in Amsterdam: about 40 attended the session.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 4
b. NCC in Taiwan: about 150 attended the one day session.
c. NBTC in Bangkok: about 120 attendants with activists demanding to lower exposure
limits to 0.6 V/m as proposed in 2007 BioInitiative Report. Program, see attached.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 4
Interaction with WHO, Emile agreed to promote collaboration with ICNIRP to work
out a science based, with new Chairman Eric van Rogen (a member of ICES).
Congratulations to Aki Hirata, a newly elected member. ICES and ICNIRP should be
collaborative partners and not competitive, to work out a world harmonized standard.
6. Thursday afternoon, I will give a presentation on “IEEE ICES TC95 Exposure Standard
Activities” in ICES TC34/IEC TC106 meeting to give measurement colleagues a perspective
on the development of ICES exposure standards.
7. Encourage members to attend the Ghent, Belgium meeting in June. Attract new and young
members to join ICES.
8. Invited by BioEM2016 technical program committee to give a tutorial presentation on ICES
standards activities.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ICES
ATTACHMENT 5
International Committee on
Electromagnetic Safety
Secretary’s Report
TC95 Meeting
12 January 2016
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Plantation, FL
R Petersen
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
ICES –Administrative
Policies and Procedures (P&P):

Defines organizational structure (SCC-39)

Based on “SA Baseline P&Ps for Type 2 SCCs” (with deviations)



Revision of 2007 P&Ps accepted by SASB, December
2012
Working Group (SC) P&Ps are now Required
WG P&Ps deemed “without issue” by AudCom, June
2013
Annual Report (2014-2015):


Accepted by SASB, December 2015
Annual reports going back to 2000 are available at
http://www.ices-emfsafety.org/publications/reports/
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
ICES TC95 Standards: Status
C95.1-2005: (Safety levels, 3 kHz – 300 GHz)



Approved 2005; published 2006
PAR for revision – approved June 2010, PAR extension request
approved December 2014—expires 31 December 2016
Revision will incorporate C95.6 (Safety levels, 0 Hz to 3 kHz)
PC95.1a: (Safety levels, 3 kHz – 300 GHz)

Published May 2010

Amendment 1 (sets ceiling values for induced and contact current)
C95.1-2345-2014: (Safety levels, 0 Hz – 300 GHz)

Approved 16 May 2014; published 30 May 2014

Replaces NATO STANAG 2345
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
ICES TC95 Standards: Status
C95.2-1999: (RF energy and current flow symbols)


Reaffirmed 2005
PAR for Revision – approved November 2010; expired 31
December 2014
C95.3-2002: (RF measurements and computation: 100 kHz to
300 GHz)



Reaffirmed 2008
PAR for Revision – approved 6 February 2012; expires 31
December 2016
Revision will incorporate C95.3.1
PC95.3.1: (Measurements and computation: 0 Hz to 100 kHz)

Incorporates IEEE Std 1460

Published May 2010
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
ICES TC95 Standards: Status
C95.4-2002: (Safe distances from antennas during blasting
operations)

Reaffirmed 2008
C95.6-2002: (Safety levels – 0 to 3 kHz)

Reaffirmed 2007

Will be incorporated into C95.1 (Safety levels, 3 kHz to 300 GHz)
C95.7-2014: (RF safety programs)

Revision of C95.7-2005

Approved 12 June 2014; published 8 August 2014
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
ICES TC95 Standards: Status
1460-1996: (Measurement of quasi-static electric and magnetic
fields)

Reaffirmed 2008

Incorporated into C95.3.1

Action – Withdraw? Archive?
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
SCC39 Standards: Expiration Dates
Number
Year
Approval Date
Expiration Date
1460
1528
C95.1
C95.1a
C95.1-2345
C95.2
C95.3
C95.3.1
C95.4
C95.6
C95.7
1996
2013
2005
2010
2014
1999
2002
2010
2002
2002
2014
12/10/1996
06/12/2013
10/03/2005
02/02/2010
05/16/2014
09/16/1999
12/11/2002
03/25/2010
11/11/2002
09/12/2002
06/12/2014
12/31/2018
12/31/2023
12/31/2018
02/02/2020
12/31/2024
12/31/2018
12/31/2018
03/25/2020
12/31/2018
12/31/2018
12/31/2024
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
Get C95™ Standards
Access to the following standards at no cost has been
sponsored by the US Navy, US Air Force, and US Army:*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IEEE
IEEE
IEEE
IEEE
IEEE
IEEE
IEEE
IEEE
Std
Std
Std
Std
Std
Std
Std
Std
C95.1TM-2005
C95.1aTM-2010
C95.1-2345TM-2014
C95.3TM-2002
C95.3.1TM-2010
C95.6TM-2002
C95.7TM-2005
C95.7TM-2014
http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/
*Sponsorship of the Get IEEE C95 no-cost-to-public web access of the IEEE C95
standards does not imply that the Department of Defense nor its Component Services
endorse or are obligated in any manner to adopt the covered standards current or
future versions.
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
IEEE GetProgram: C95 Standards Download Statistics
Standard
C95.1-2005
C95.1a-2010
C95.1-23452014
C95.3-2002
C95.3.1-2010
C95.6-2002
C95.7-2005
C95.7-2014
Total
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
Total Downloads
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total
1493
0
1359
0
1029
0
902
309
4783
309
164
344
508
389
284
344
294
238
2742
329
264
322
199
494
3163
571
472
620
515
345
532
485
422
3671
3143
1634
1552
1771
1430
732
12,719
IEEE ICES
IEEE GetProgram: C95 Standards Download Statistics
Interest Category
Military User
Safety/Risk Manager
Other
Commercial User
Research Scientist
Government user
(non Military)
Academic/Student
Standards Developer
Unknown
Total
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
Total
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total
219
367
588
662
603
216
462
506
615
339
184
418
366
494
363
264
471
423
512
386
883
1718
1883
2283
1691
407
307
332
433
1479
660
163
2
3671
582
109
483
102
581
93
3111
2742
3163
2306
467
2
12,687
IEEE ICES
IEEE GetProgram: C95 Standards Download Statistics
(2015)
User
C95.1 C95.1a
C95.12345
C95.3 C95.3.1
C95.6
C95.7
(2005)
C95.7
(2014)
Total
.
academic/student
175
48
53
65
69
54
35
82
581
commercial
161
55
30
59
30
59
32
86
512
gov't (nonmilitary)
125
59
53
40
28
41
26
61
433
military
57
21
92
23
9
12
13
37
264
other
112
36
39
46
42
49
28
71
423
research scientist
119
30
41
39
30
44
26
57
386
safety/risk
manager
116
43
31
51
50
58
36
86
471
standards
developer
37
17
5
6
6
5
3
14
93
902
309
344
329
264
322
199
494
3163
Total
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
Active TC95 Project Authorization Requests (PARs)
Project
Approval Date
Expiration Date
PC95.1
17 June 2010
31 December 2016
PC95.2
8 November 2010
Expired
PC95.3
6 February 2010
31 December 2016
.
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
Changes: Interpretations
Elimination of Interpretations:
 In June 2011 the IEEE- SA Standards Board
approved a proposal to eliminate issuing
interpretations
Rationale:
 Inefficient and a risk


TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
Interpretation responses made in an attempt to clarify
ambiguous text to be derived from a process that does
not inform all materially interested parties of the
activity
Does not require consensus to be achieved through
the Sponsor balloting process
IEEE ICES
Changes: Interpretations
Solution:
 More sensible to simply funnel comments on
standards to Sponsors for handling


Any document changes would appear in a
revision amendment/corrigendum
All require PARs – an open process &
consensus through balloting
 Therefore interpretations as discrete documents
are discontinued
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
Changes: Individual Experts
Individual Expert:
 Members of the working groups who are not SA members but
contributed significantly to the development of standard could
participate in sponsor ballots if approved by the SASB as
“individual experts”
 Individual Expert category has been eliminated
 Now, only IEEE-SA Members or individuals who pay a fee are
permitted to vote on IEEE sponsor ballots
 TC95 SC/WGs follow IEEE sponsor balloting procedures at the
committee level before going to sponsor ballot
 TC95 members and members of the TC95 SCs and WGs
who are not IEEE-SA members and desire to vote on a
standard should join the SC/WG ballot groups
TC95 12 January 2016
IEEE ICES
Plantation, FL
Secretary’s Report
Questions?
TC95 12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ICES
ATTACHMENT 6
International Committee on
Electromagnetic Safety
Treasurer’s Report
TC95 Meeting
12 January 2016
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Plantation, FL
R Petersen
TC95-12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
IEEE ICES
Financial Statement: 1/1/15—12/31/15
Balance (1/1/2015)
$ 13,313.22
Income
$
$
$
7125.67
40.53
7166.21
$
$
$
$
1491.80
939.40
400.00
150.60
Total
Expenses
Total
Balance (12/31/15)
TC95-12 January 2016
Plantation, FL
June 2015 Meeting
Interest
June 2015 Meeting
Database Maintenance
Web Hosting and Update
Credit Card Processing
$2981.80
$ 17,497.62
IEEE ICES
ATTACHMENT 7
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ICES TC95 Membership Report
12 January, 2016
Plantation, FLA
Dr. B Jon Klauenberg
USAF Research Laboratory
711th Human Performance Wing
Human Effectiveness Directorate
Bioeffects Division
Radio-Frequency Bioeffects Branch
DRAFT not for circulation release
ICES TC95 Membership Report
Outline
•
•
•
•
Recent New Members
Current Membership
Maintaining Official Membership in ICES TC95
Becoming a Member of ICES
DRAFT Distribution A: Approved for public release; PA # TSRL 15-
2
Welcome Our New Members to
ICES TC95
William Mueller, St. Louis MO, accepted 30 November, 2015
Kevin Graf, Menol Park, CA, accepted 30 November, 2015
Alexandre Legros, London, Ontario, accepted 30 November, 2015
Ayman Ekram Fahim, Ismailia, Egypt, accepted 30 November, 2015
Michal Cifra, Prague, Czech Republic, accepted 30 November, 2015
Cory Kihlstrom, Avon Indiana, accepted 28 December, 2015
DRAFT not for circulation or release
3
Members in ICES TC95 (2009-2010)
Rajat Mathur, Calafornia – accepted 15 January 2009
Amnon Duvdevany, Israel - accepted 15 January 2009
Donald Farrer, San Antonio - accepted
John Brewer, USAF, Singapore- accepted
Rodney Croft, Australia - accepted 8 April 2009
Dave Cotton, Colorado – accepted 8 April 2009
Rene De Seze, France - accepted 22 April
Hiroaki Miyagi, Japan – accepted 15 July 2009
Akinasa Hirata, Japan – accepted 12 Dec 2009
Niels Smit, Netherlands – accepted 10 Feb 2010
Jin Hongbin, China – accepted 17 Feb 2010
Tamera Hay. USA – accepted 14 April 2010
Ae-Kyoung Lee, Korea – accepted 14 April 2010
Shrivastava, Devashish, USA – accepted 16 July 2010
Chungsang Ryu, Korea – accepted 16 July 2010
Kenichi Yamazaki, Japan – accepted 16 July 2010
DRAFT Distribution A: Approved for public release; PA # TSRL 15-
4
Members in ICES TC95 (2010-2013)
Daoud Attayi, Canada – accepted 5 October 2010
Martin R. Doczkat, USA – accepted 5 October 2010
Mark Douglas, Switzerland – accepted 13 January 2011
Byung, Chan Kim, Korea – accepted 8 July 2011
Shkolnikov, Yakov, USA – accepted 8 July 2011
Zhadobov, Maxim, France – accepted 8 July 2011
Christine M. Jones, USA – accepted 12 October 2011
Frank Colville – USA – accepted 17 November 2011
Sam Adhikari, USA – accepted 05 December 2011
Martin Gledhill, NZ – accepted 05 May 2012
Wes Mundy, CA – accepted 18 July 2012
Dave Dini, USA – accepted 31 August 2012
Hai Jiang, USA – accepted 31 August 2012
Ray Harmond, USA – accepted 23 Jan 2013
Bob Johnson, USA – accepted 23 Jan 2013
DRAFT Distribution A: Approved for public release; PA # TSRL 15-
5
Members in ICES TC95 (2013-2014)
Gabor Mezei, USA- accepted 29 April 2015
Valerio De Santis, ITA-accepted 5 May 2015
Suraj Sinda, USA-accepted 7 May 2015
DRAFT Distribution A: Approved for public release; PA # TSRL 15-
6
Members in ICES TC95 (2015- )
Marv Wessel Jr., USA – accepted 23 Jan 2013
Leeor Alcon, USA – accepted Feb 2013
Vijayalaxmi, USA – accepted March 2013
TV Ramachandran, India – accepted March 2013
Matt Butcher, USA – accepted November 2013
Wes Shelton, USA – accepted December 2013
Ilkka Laakso, IT-accepted 25 September 2014
Joe Bowman, US-accepted 18 Nov 2014
Auke Viser, NE-accepted 6 June 2014
Peter Valberg US-accepted 9 May 2014
Christopher Sheppard US-accepted 22 April 2014
Michael Delgato US-accepted 11 April 2014
Antonio Faraone US-accepted 6 February 2014
James Futch US-accepted 15 January 2014
Benjamin Cotts US-accepted 15 January 2014
DRAFT Distribution A: Approved for public release; PA # TSRL 15-
7
TC95 membership, January 2016 - 130 Members
27 countries
AUS - 4
BGR - 1
CAN - 7
CHE - 3
CZE -1
CHN - 2
DEU - 1
FIN - 1
FRA - 2
GRC - 4
HUN - 1
IND - 1
IRL - 4
ISR – 2
ITA – 4
JPN - 5
KOR - 4
MYS - 3
NLD - 2
NZL - 1
POL - 1
SWE - 1
SVN - 1
THA - 1
TUR - 1
GBR - 2
USA - 70
DRAFT for public release; PA # TSRL 15-
8
Maintaining Official Membership in
ICES TC95
•
Following the ICES Winter meeting each year, the
membership roles will be reviewed. Members who
joined ICES before that year, who have not attended
meetings or otherwise participated in the business
of ICES that year, will be contacted to determine if
they are still interested in maintaining official
membership in the Committee. Those failing to
respond will be dropped from the membership roles.
The membership of individuals who joined ICES
within that year will be reviewed at the end of the
next calendar year.
DRAFT Distribution A: Approved for public release; PA # TSRL 15-
9
Privileges of Official Membership
on IEEE ICES TC95
• Access to protected part of ICES Website
• E-mail notification of meetings and other events
• Permission to publically cite self as “Member of ICES TC95”
• Listing in the preface of IEEE C95 standards, if you contribute
• Inclusion in membership statistics
• Voting on committee issues at meetings and by letter (e-mail)
ballot
• Participating in ballots on ICES standards, subject to IEEE rules
To apply for membership, e-mail
Membership Chair
bertram.klauenberg@us.af.mil
10
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 8
TC106 & TC34
Activity & Progress Update
to ICES
IEEE/ICES AdCom meeting,
Jafar Keshvari
IEC TC106
• New Chairman since May 2015, Mike Wood
• New Secretary since 2015, Matthias Meier
• The 5 year Strategic Business Plan will see the internet of things, 5G and a truly
connected world. There will be a significant growth in wireless power transfer
technology towards a world where ‘everything is connected and charges
wirelessly.
• IEC TC106-D15/03 TC106 set up a working group to address wireless power
transfer systems and approved the terms of reference. Mr. Teruo Onishi was
nominated Convenor. TC106 noted Mr. Kenichi Yamazaki’s presentation on a
proposal to address contact currents (docs Stresa2015-09, Stresa-2015-10). IEC
• TC106-D15/04 TC106 set up a working group on contact currents and approved
the terms of reference. Mr. Kenichi Yamazaki was nominated Convenor. Tc 106
amended the strategic objectives and actions.
• IEC TC106-D15/05 TC106 approved the draft Strategic Business Plan and task
the secretariat to edit the draft before submitting it to the SMB.
IEC MT1 activity update
Pic from Oct 2015 meeting, Venice-Italy
IEC MT1 activity update, General
• IEC 62209-1 CDV2 (head SAR assessment std) voting
ended on 23 Jan 2015.
• CDV2 approved by 87.5%.
• ~1000 comments were received!!
• All commnets are discussed and addressed by MT1
• Technical comments which may had caused problems
during FDIS voting are avoided.
• FDIS was sent to for voting. Date of circulation 2014-1017. Closing date for voting (Voting mandatory for Pmembers) 2015-01-23.
IEC MT1 activity update…
• In IEC MT1 a new ad-hoc team is stablished to address the compliance
assessment of wearable devices such as head monuted displays or writ
watch type devices.
• Focus of the activities in IEC MT1 is on unification of part 1 and part 2
stadards.
IEC 62209-2 Activity update
• There are no major technical questions left with IEC 62209-2
• Main focuses have been:
• Tissue dielectric parameters rationale.
• Addressing comments from national committee’s.
• Harmonization with part I.
• Challenges with unification
IEC 62209 standards Timeline
IEC 62209-1 FDIS submitted on Sep 2015
Unification of parts -1 & -2 completed by
Oct 2016
FDIS of unified std finalized by the end of 2016 or
early 2017
Progress update on IEC PT 62209-3 activities
Human exposure to radio frequency fields
from hand-held and body-mounted wireless
communication devices - Human models,
instrumentation, and procedures – Part 3:
Vector probe systems
(Frequency range of 100 MHz to 6 GHz)
IEC PT 62209-3, General
• A lot of intrest from SAR instrumentation manufacturers
towards this activity.
• Intensive discussions on the definition of the vector probe and
scope of the std.
• Publishing an intrim document such as TR, TS is proposed.
• Dual logo for IEC PT 62209-3 standard.
IEC 62209-3, main items under development
• One of the focuses is to make the std as generic as possible to
allow emerging new technologies
• System validation: The goal of the validation is to ensure
uniform results within reasonable measurement uncertainties.
Different labs will be working separately and providing input to
the relevant clause
• SAR verification: Array systems are generally closed systems
for which the different parts of the system are not
independently accessible. Therefore, the verification of such a
system must be based on a comprehensive set of calibrated
sources with respect to fields that may be induced in the
phantoms.
• Verification source: It is agreed that the standard must include
requirements for the verification source, for the procedure and
for the system set up.
• Uncertainty clause, one of the most demanding part of the std.
IEC 62209-3 Timeline
IEC 62209-3 CD or TR/TS by Feb 2016
IEC 62209-3 CDV by the end of 2016
FDIS in 2017
IEEE/IEC stds update
•
•
•
•
Activity update on IEEE/IEC 62704-1 standard
Activity update on IEEE/IEC 62704-2 standard
Activity update on IEEE/IEC 62704-3 standard
Activity update on IEEE/IEC 62704-4 standard
Activity update on IEEE/IEC 62704-1 standard
(General FDTD Methods)
• IEC/IEEE 62704-1
• WG Chair: A. Christ (Brazil)
• Start date: 10/2010
• Status:
• Comments recived on CD from NC’s and IEEE/ICES TC34 committee
are addressed
• The CDV is ready to be sent for voting
• IEEE-SA Standards Board approved the extension request, 31 Dec
2016.
Activity update on IEEE/IEC 62704-2 standard
(Vehicle Mounted Antennas)
• IEC/IEEE 62704-2
• WG Chair: Goga Bit-Babik (US)
• Start date: 10/2010
• Comments recived on CD from NC’s and IEEE/ICES TC34 committee
are addressed
• The CDV is sent to IEC TC106 secretary and IEC office in Sep 2015 and
for balloting in IEEE in Dec 2015.
• IEEE-SA Standards Board approved the extension request, 31 Dec
2016.
Activity update on IEEE/IEC 62704-3 standard
(modeling of mobile phones)
• IEC 62704-3
• WG Chair: Vikass Monebhurrun (France)
• Start date: 10/2010
• Status:
• Comments recived on CD from NC’s and IEEE/ICES TC34 committee
are addressed
• Major challenge is benchmarking and how to get CAD files from
manufacturers which is under discussion
• IEEE-SA Standards Board approved the extension request. 31-Dec2017.
Activity update on IEEE/IEC 62704-4 standard
(Finite Element Method)
• IEC 62704-4
• WG Chair: Martin Vogel
• Start date: 10/2011
• Description of FEM
• SAR calculation and averaging
• Tissue modeling and anatomical models
• Uncertainty and code validation
• Status:
• Andreas Christ, the new chairman has been sucessfull in intiating the
activity. There are intrests from industry towards this project.
• Planed CD for 2016.
• IEEE-SA Standards Board approved the extension request. 31-Dec2017
ITU SG5 update
• No significant EMF activity since last update
IEC base station std activity report
Thank you, ?...
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 9
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
(tDCS): Tasks for IEEE?
Marom Bikson, PhD
Professor of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York
of CUNY
Director Neural Engineering Group of the New York Center for
Biomedical Engineering
Technology Editor, Brain Stimulation Journal
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
• A non-invasive electrical stimulation
device used for medical and neuroenhancement purposes
• Electrodes on the head apply
~2 mA for ~20 minutes (~20 V)
• Electrode position determines which brain
regions are targeted. Peak brain electric fields:
~ 1 V/m (compare implants: 100 V/m)
• In the US, while medical applications are regulated,
regulation on neuro-enactment is unclear
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
• Consumer tDCS and other variants using electrical
stimulation broadly available and used
• Some devices meet no industry / regulatory standards
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
• ~100,000 users of “consumer” and off-label
medical tDCS in 2015
• Interest fueled by media and human trials
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
• ~100,000 users of “consumer” and off-label
medical tDCS in 2015
• Interest fueled by media and human trials
Human trials on:
Depression
Pain, Migraine
Epilepsy, Stroke Rehab
PTSD, TBI, ADHD
Accelerated Learning
(DoD)
• Creativity, Vigiliance
• “Math” / “Reading”
Skills
•
•
•
•
•
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
• ~100,000 users of “consumer” and off-label
medical tDCS in 2015
• Interest fueled by media and human trials
Media coverage in:
• New York Times
• BBC
• ABC
• New Yorker
• Wired
• Guardian
• Nature / Science
• Economist…
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
• ~100,000 users of “consumer” and off-label
medical tDCS in 2015
• Interest fueled by media and human trials
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)
• Inaction: The central challenge of physicians,
scientists, regulator agencies (FDA, CE), companies in
developing regulation and use controls is lack of
engineering standards.
• Safety: Exceptional safety record in control human
trials using devices made to medical standards
confuses brooder discussion of safety.
• Such engineering standards should define the
terminology, reference standards (IEC), and terms of
use necessary for regulation and control.
• The central issue is no restricting access or safety
standards but Quality Control. IEEE (IEC) has
established standards for Quality Control.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 10
Why are most positive experimental findings actually false?
John P. A. Ioannidis: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.
PLoS Med. 2,e124 (2005).
David Colquhoun: An investigation of the false discovery rate and the
misinterpretation of p-values. R. Soc.open sci. 1:140216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140216. (2014).
Opening lines of Colquhoun Paper:
If you use p = 0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery,
you will be wrong at least 30% of the time. If, as is often the case,
experiments are underpowered, you will be wrong most of the time.
A typical experiment examines the difference between a control
group and an exposed group of animals. If the statistical analysis
of the difference shows that p < .05, the investigator concludes
that the exposure caused a bioeffect.
However, under many, if not most, experimental conditions this
will be a false conclusion. That is, there really is no bioeffect.
The reason for this false conclusion stems from the frequent
misinterpretation of what p < 0.05 means. p < 0.05 is
frequently mis-interpreted as:
p < 0.05 means: probability(effect) = 95%.
FALSE
P < 0.05 really means that if there is no effect, the probability of getting as large a
difference as found, would be less than 5%.
The key thing is that the statement p < 0.05 is a compound probability statement,
that is:
p < 0.05 means P(sig | no effect) < 0.05
TRUE
Power is the probability of obtaining a significant result if there is an effect.
That is,
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒)
POWER AND SAMPLE SIZE
Sample Size (N):
Where
𝑁𝑁 =
σ
𝛿𝛿
Zα
Zβ
=
=
=
=
=
2 𝜎𝜎 2 (𝑍𝑍𝛼𝛼 − 𝑍𝑍𝛽𝛽 )2
𝛿𝛿 2
standard deviation
minimum difference to be detected
1.645 for p = 0.05 (1 way)
- 0.842 for power = 0.80
-1.282 for power = 0.90
RULES OF CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY
P(A | B) is the Probability of A, given that B has occurred
P(A & B) is the Probability that both A and B have occurred
𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴 & 𝐵𝐵
P 𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵) =
=
𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵) · 𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴 & 𝐵𝐵)
𝑃𝑃(𝐵𝐵)
𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴
=
=
and
𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴 & 𝐵𝐵
+
𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵 𝐴𝐴) · 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴)
𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵 𝐴𝐴) =
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴 & 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝐵𝐵)
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴 & 𝐵𝐵)
𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴
𝑃𝑃 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑃𝑃 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
=
=
𝑃𝑃 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒) · 𝑃𝑃 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑃𝑃 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
1 =
1
𝑃𝑃 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 & 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
=
=
+
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 · 𝑃𝑃 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 · 𝑃𝑃(𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒)
+
𝑃𝑃 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
+
𝑃𝑃 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 & 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
+ 𝑃𝑃(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 · 𝑃𝑃 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
+
0.05 · 𝑃𝑃 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
0.05 · 𝑃𝑃(𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒)
𝑃𝑃(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
EXAMPLE
Power = 80%
P(effect) = 10%,
P(no effect) = 90%
Then
P(sig) = power · P(effect) + 0.05 · P(no effect)
=
0.80 · 0.10
=
0.08
=
0.125
+ 0.05 · 0.90
+
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
=
=
0.045
0.05 · 𝑃𝑃(𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒)
𝑃𝑃(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)
0.05 · 0.90
0.125
0.36
Experiments in which P(effect) = 10%
False Positive Rates
Power
Prob.
False Pos.
(%)
Effect (%)
Rate (%)
90
10
33
80
10
36
70
10
39
60
10
43
50
10
47
40
10
53
30
10
60
20
10
69
10
10
82
Experiments in which P(effect) = 50%
Power
Prob.
False Pos.
(%)
Effect (%)
Rate (%)
90
50
5
80
50
6
70
50
7
60
50
8
50
50
9
40
50
11
30
50
14
20
50
27
10
50
33
Experiments in which P(effect) = 1%
Power
(%)
Prob.
Effect (%)
False Pos.
Rate (%)
90
1
85
80
1
86
70
1
88
60
1
89
50
1
91
40
1
93
30
1
94
20
1
96
10
1
98
Recommendations
Avoid doing underpowered experiments
Burton, et al (2013):
We optimistically estimate that the median statistical power of
studies in the neurosciences to be between 8% and 31%.
Never, ever, use the word “significant” in a paper. If you use a
significance test, just state the p-value, and give the difference and
confidence interval.
Unless p < 0.001 don’t claim that you have made a discovery.
Alternatively, use a three-sigma rule.
An observation of p ~ 0.05 means nothing more than “worth another
look”.
All negative studies should be reported.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 11
“GET” benefits to IEEE
1. Increased awareness of IEEE-SA and International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)
expert standardization capabilities and products globally
2. International recognition of IEEE has expanded as a result of GET
a. Scientists, standards setters, compliance technicians and others have praised the free
simple access
b. Can improve international harmonization with other EMF health and safety guidelines,
Directives and standards
3. Enhances IEEE public face with regard to public health and safety and charitable portfolio
Impacts to IEEE if free access is withdrawn
1. Significant loss of users
a. International standards implementers have demanded free access, especially for
ratification of NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 2345, which was
promulgated 26 Nov 2015 covering IEEE C95.1-2345.
b. Several NATO nations have stated that they will use other standards that are no-cost
such as those offered by the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP).
2. Loss of good will and prestige garnered through “GET” no-cost access, especially international
and at NATO
3. NATO Standardization Office (previously NATO Standardization Agency) concern/desire to place
C95.1-2345TM-2014 standard in data-base. Is this a possible impact to IEEE-NATO TCA?
4. Possible loss of IEEE/ICES participants.
Impacts to public if free access is withdrawn
1. Compliance assessors will increasingly use outdated materials or chose to use other guidelines
and public health and safety will not be managed through updated IEEE/ICES standards
2. Confidence in IEEE standards will be diminished when the public can no longer access the
standard at no-cost
“GET” benefits to sponsor
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sponsorship highlighted at “GET” program web link
Expands international and recognition
Opportunity to get name recognized and “draw” new customers
Increases awareness of sponsor products
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 12
IEEE TC95 SC-1 General Committee Update:
1. The meeting of SC-1 was convened at the Sawgrass Room of the Holiday Inn, on June 10,
2016 at 0815AM. 22 members attended the SC-1 meeting.
2. Update on C95.3 Standard Review:
Mr. Frank Colville/C0-Chairman of SC-1 is currently consolidating the C95.3 standard by
combining the document sections based on the topics/paragraphs being addressed. The
original concept was to draft the standard based on the operating frequency, however, this
would result in a large amount of duplicated information. Therefore, it appears the most
practical procedure would be to combine the topics/methods/paragraphs and address the
frequency differences in sub-paragraphs. Further, the editorial review process will be
amended to review the standard.
3. Update on Industry Canada:
Mr. Antonio Faraone reported that he received information regarding Industry Canada's intent
to lower of the MPE limits across a broad frequency range. This decision appears to be
prompted by Industry Canada's concern pertaining to whole body resonance of newborn-sized
babies. Also, some IEEE members have stated that they have been contacted subsequent to
Antonio’s update.
4. Presentation and update on Spatial Averaging Working Group:
Mr. Bob Cleveland presented an update on the lack of information pertaining to spatial
averaging. Mr. Cleveland has volunteered to chair the spatial averaging working group. The
spatial averaging working group was just formed in September 2015. The first task will be to
define the primary objectives pertaining to spatial averaging. The current plan is to develop
suggested recommendations for SC-1 to consider with respect to amending the C95.3
standard to provide specific guidelines on spatial averaging.
5. Presentation entitled, "Random Thoughts about Measurement for Compliance for
Consideration by IEEE SC-1".
Mr. Ric Tell gave a short presentation on "Random Thoughts About Measurement for
Compliance for Consideration by IEEE SC-1". Mr. Tell stated that of primary importance was
the reliability of RF evaluations. Many RF evaluations currently being conducted contain a "lot
of slop". In order to improve the RF reliability, we need to calculate/measure the magnitude of
this "slop". For example, in many cases calculations apply a ground reflection factor that is
inappropriate. Mr. Tell proposed reviewing the C95.3 standard and identifying those areas that
require updates or revisions.
6. Presentation on "Uncertainties Associated with the Near Field Equation".
Mr. Ric Tell gave a presentation on the uncertainties associated with the near field equation,
4P/A. Mr. Tell mentioned that there exists data [see John Brewer and George Kizer] that
suggest that the constant "4" in the equation could actually have a large variability depending
on the antenna geometry and the antenna illumination taper. The SC-1 members agreed that
it appears that the near field equation does vary with illumination. Presently, action was
postponed on this topic due to an inability to acquire the original research documents that
produced the original equation.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 12
7. Mr. Marv Wessel discussed RF measurement uncertainties highlighting FCC enforcement
bureau techniques utilized during regulatory inspections of wireless locations. Factors that
affected the RF measurement uncertainties included:
a. Variations in the field intensity in close proximity of the emitter antennas.
b. The emitter's varying duty cycle and the variable sampling rate during RF
measurements.
c. The physical of size of the RF probes and the probe placement relative to the emitter's
antenna.
d. The unclear regulatory guidance pertaining to performing RF measurements.
8. There were no new business topics brought up.
9. The date and location of the next SC-1 meeting is scheduled for June 2, 2016 somewhere in
Ghent, Belgium.
10. The meeting was adjourned on June 10, 2016 at 11:55 AM.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
HIGHLIGHTS of Minutes SC2 – Plantation, FL;
ATTACHMENT 13
Sunday, 10 January 2016; 1300 - 1700 h
 CTO by Chair, R. Tell at 13:10; 24 in attendance.
 Discussions on:
o The Minimal information/training to qualify for exposure up to upper
tier (M. Butcher)
o Implications of the lack of RF safety program including sample FCC
NAL.
 A discussion ensued with the nuances of the signs / barriers
being a COMPONENT of an RF Safety Program, or where the
signs / barriers ARE the RF Safety Program. (M. Wessel)
o RF Minimal Awareness Guide.
 Discussion that an RF Safety Program needs to be maintained
to be effective.
 Review the language of C95.1 with the definition of RF
restricted area.
 ACTION ITEM: R. Tell to circulate RF Minimal Awareness
Guide to ADHOC group.
 The need for different warning signs for low frequency (< 3 kHz) electric
and magnetic fields?
o Static fields signs supplied by MRI/NMR manufacturers?
o We have the “no touch” sign in C95.2, but R. Tell pointed out that
this is a CNS issue, and not a touch/burn issue.
o ACTION ITEM: R. Tell to circulate ideas or even the need for
different low frequency signs to an ADHOC group.
 Specific recommendations for training opportunities for SC-2?
 New Business
o Discussion of installing barriers with 6’ of the edge of the roof, where
the fall hazard is more prevalent than the RF hazard.
o The PAR for revising C95.2 has expired. SC2 can sponsor a ballot to
IEEE/SA membership for renewal similar to the process of
reaffirmation.
 R. Tell suggested we renew C95.2 with new signs for LF fields.
 ACTION ITEM: R. Tell to decide what to do about C95.2.
o We need to attract attendees of SC2 at the meeting.
 Perhaps each SC could present special topics workshop?
 Reach out through IEEE membership locally in EU and provide
training opportunities for SC-2, or specific recommendations.
 Time and Place of Next Meeting: No decision yet if SC2 will meet.
 Adjournment at 16:00.
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 14
Ray Harmon Co-Chair
Tamera Hay Co-Chair
1.
2.
3.
4.
Meetings (Telecon 23 Apr 2015/11 Jan 2016)
Subcommittee Members
Status of C95.4-2002
Briefings
1. Issues/Concerns of Present Military Standards Related Fuels (R.Tell)
2. Military Standards HERO (R. Harmon)
5.
Next Meeting (Jun 2016 Ghent, BE)




Approved 11 Nov 2002
Reaffirmed 2008
Revision process needs to be complete and
submitted to RevCom for consideration by
Oct 2018 deadline for IEEE-SASB Dec 2018
meeting
Develop PAR

Ray Harmon

Tamera S. Hay
Vice President Science and Engineering,
Systems Engineering & Information Solutions (SEIS)
D 1-540-663-9348/C 1-540-379-5636
ray.harmon@aecom.com
AECOM
16156 Dahlgren Road, Dahlgren, Virginia 22448
T 1-540-663-9300/F 1-540-663-9488
www.aecom.com
RADHAZ Environment Characterization Group Lead
HERP/HERF RADHAZ Certifications
E3 Assessment & Evaluation Branch
NSWC Dahlgren/Code Q52
5493 Marple Rd, Suite 156
Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100
COMM: 540 653-1419
FAX: 540 653-7494
NIPR: tamera.hay@navy.mil
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 15
11 January 2016
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Florida, USA
IEEE/ICES TC95
SC6: Update
Akimasa Hirata*
Chair, SC6 of IEEE ICES TC95
LF Research Agenda (1)
Modeling of in-situ fields induction from externally
applied EMF or electric current
A.1. Measurement of Tissue Conductivity
A.2. Modeling of skin, muscle, and CNS tissue
A.3. Numerical Artifacts
A.4. Spatial averaging
A.5. Diversity of induction models among investigators
A.6. .Synaptic effects
A.7. Validation
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 2
IEEE ICES
LF Research Agenda (2)
ES modeling
B.1. Target tissue representing the PNS
B.2. dE/dx vs. E magnitude
B.3. Consistency of excitation models
B.4. Waveform sensitivity
B.5. Modeled organ
B.6. Type of neuron
B.7. Synapse model for CNS interactions
B.8. General availability
B.9. Computational artifacts
B.10. Validation
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 3
IEEE ICES
LF Research Agenda (3)
Issues related to exposure limits
C.1. Target tissue representing the PNS
C.2. Consistency of induction model for BR vs. RL/MPE
determination
C.3. Induction model specificity
C.4. Reduction Factors applied to RLs
C.5. dE/dx vs. E magnitude
C.6. Compliance tests for nonsinusoidal waveforms
C.7. Induction plus excitation model structure
C.8. Statistical models of reaction thresholds
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 4
IEEE ICES
LF Workshop (1)
0830 – 1640 h
Sunday, 14 June 2015
Chapel Hall, Asilomar Conference Center
Pacific Grove, California, USA
Opening Remark
“Rationale behind EMF Compliance Assessment Protocols,”
Andreas Christ (Research Consultant, Cabo Frio (RJ), Brazil ) and Jafar Keshvari
(Microsoft Corporation, EMF Research and Standards, Espoo, Finland )
“Measurement of dielectric characteristics of biological tissues from ELF to
MMW frequencies,” Kanako Wake, Kensuke Sasaki, and Soichi Watanabe
(National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Tokyo, Japan )
“The role of skin modelling in ELF/LF magnetic field exposure assessment based
on IEEE C95.6 and ICNIRP 2010,” Schmid Gernot (Seibersdorf Laboratories,
Austria )
“Review of ELF/LF dosimetry for magnetic field exposure in Japan,” Kenichi
Yamazaki (CRIEPI, Yokosuka, Japan
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 5
IEEE ICES
LF Workshop (2)
 “Modeling of transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES): Implications for Safety
and Efficacy,” Dennis Truong and Marom Bikson (City College New York, USA )
 “Survey of Electrostimulation models,” J Patrick Reilly (Metatec Associates,
USA)
 “Magnetophosphene perception threshold in humans exposed to ELF MF up to
50 mT – experimental data and a modelling approach,” Alexandre Legros
(Lawson Health Research Institute, Canada)
 “Insights on human response to EMF exposure obtained by combining detailed
anatomical induction models and modern neuronal dynamics models,” (IT’IS
Foundation, Switzerland )
 “Multi-scale induction and electrostimulation model with experimental
validation,” Ilkka Laakso and Akimasa Hirata (Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Japan)
 Discussion on Future Research Topics
Participants; 82 +
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 6
IEEE ICES
Some papers are solicited from the talks presented at the
IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety
Workshop held in June 2015 (Monterey, USA).
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 7
IEEE ICES
RF Research Agenda
Editorial Committee Members:
Akimasa Hirata (Nagoya Inst. Tech., Japan)
 Ilkka Laakso (Aalto Univ., Finland)
 Kenneth Foster (Univ. Pennsylvania, USA)
 Marvin Ziskin (Temple Univ., USA); SC4

ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 8
IEEE ICES
Tentative Table of Contents (1)
Electromagnetic Dosimetry
A.1. Measurement of dielectric constants and its modeling
A.2. Computational uncertainty
A.3. Dosimetry modeling at higher frequencies
A.4. Modeling of heat sensitive tissues
A.5. Validation
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 9
IEEE ICES
Tentative Table of Contents (2)
Thermal Dosimetry
B.1. Measurement of thermal constants and its
modeling
B.2. Modeling of core temperature
B.3. Stair-casing Error
B.4. Modeling of thermophysiology including age
dependency
B.5. Modeling of heat sensitive tissues
B.6. Validation
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 10
IEEE ICES
Tentative Table of Contents (3)
Items related to Limits
C.1. Threshold for skin sensation
C.2. Averaging Time
C.3. Averaging volume of SAR
C.4. Averaging area of power density (over GHz region)
C.5. Upper and lower frequencies of SAR
C.6. Issues related to product safety
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 11
IEEE ICES
Schedule
 1st
draft: February-March
 Circulated to ICES SC6 Members
 Discussed at ICES June 2016 Meeting
ICES 2016
Plantation, USA
January 12, 2016
Slide 12
IEEE ICES
Unapproved Minutes – 12 January 2016 TC95 Meeting
ATTACHMENT 16
1
ICES Analysis
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Website Analytics Charts (January 1st – December 31st) .............................................................. 2
Website Analytics Summary & Comparison ................................................................................. 2
Traffic Sources (January 1st – December 31st) ............................................................................... 2
Top Referral Sites (August 1st – October 26th) .............................................................................. 2
Top Search Terms (October 8th – January 5th)............................................................................... 3
2
1. Website Analytics Charts (January 1st – December 31st)
Top 10 Pages
Pageviews 1
Unique Visitors
Home Page
3,458
1,627
Electromagnetic Energy Facts, and a Qualitative View
1,363
1,099
Expert Reviews
721
385
TC95
582
344
TC34
383
213
Standards
346
269
About Us
320
197
Meetings
300
178
News
298
88
Reports
223
143
2. Website Analytics Summary & Comparison
January 1 – December
31st 2015
January 1st – December
31st 2014
% Change
st
Pageviews
12,554
Unique Visitors
4,020
Sessions 2
5,518
10,176
2,485
3,231
+23.37%
+61.77%
+70.78%
3. Traffic Sources (January 1st – December 31st)
Direct
Referral
Search
Percentage
20.5%
14.3%
65.2%
4. Top Referral Sites (January 1st – December 31st)
Sites
Intranet.nema.org
Standards.ieee.org
emfandhealth.com
grouper.ieee.org
facebook.com
Pageviews
491
335
233
230
109
Sessions
147
141
138
87
51
1
Pageviews: The total number of pages viewed. Repeated views of a single page are counted.
2
Sessions: The period time (not greater than 30 minutes) a user is actively engaged with your website.
3
ieee-emf.com
emfguide.itu.int
96
57
5. Top Search Terms (October 8th – January 5th)
Keyword
Electromagnetic energy facts
Facts about electromagnetic energy
Electromagnetic energy fun facts
Ieee 1528
Jafar keshvari
Ieee c95.1
Electromagnetic safety
Iec 62209
Ices standards
Ieee c95
# (Clicks)
247
107
13
13
7
7
7
5
5
49
29
30