Received August 20, 2014, accepted December 5, 2014, date of publication December 11, 2014, date of current version

December 30,
2014.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2380355

Are Children More Exposed to Radio Frequency

Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
KENNETH R. FOSTER1 , (Life Fellow, IEEE), AND CHUNG-KWANG CHOU2 , (Life Fellow, IEEE)
1 Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
2 C-K. Chou Consulting, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33322, USA
Corresponding author: K. R. Foster (kfoster@seas.upenn.edu)

ABSTRACT There has been long-standing controversy, both among scientists and in the public, about
whether children absorb more radio frequency (RF) energy in their heads than adults when using a mobile
telephone. This review summarizes the current understanding of this issue, and some of the complexities in
comparing the absorption of RF energy in different individuals from use of mobile phones. The discussion is
limited to dosimetric issues, i.e., possible age-related differences in absorption of RF energy in the heads of
mobile phone users. For most metrics of exposure, in particular those relevant to assessing the compliance
of handsets with regulatory limits, there is no clear evidence for age-related differences in exposure. For
two metrics of exposure, there is a clear evidence that age can play a factor: 1) the local specific absorption
rate (SAR), in particular anatomically defined locations within the brain, will vary with head size and hence
with age and 2) the SAR, in particular tissues, (e.g., bone marrow in the skull) can vary with age due to
age-related differences in the dielectric properties of tissue. However, these differences involve SAR levels
that are below the 1-g or 10-g peak spatial SAR (psSAR averaged over 1 or 10 g of tissue) and have no
significance for compliance assessment. Age-related differences observed in worst case simulations such as
presently considered are difficult to generalize to human populations under real-world exposure conditions
due to many variables that determine SAR during realistic usages.

INDEX TERMS Mobile phone, radiofrequency, exposure, specific absorption rate, children.

I. INTRODUCTION
For the past two decades there has been a recurring
controversy about whether children absorb more radiofre-
quency (RF) energy in their heads than adults from use of
mobile phones. This issue is significant for several reasons.
One is the need for manufacturers of mobile handsets to
demonstrate compliance of their products with regulatory
limits. Moreover, the exposure of an individual to RF energy
from use of a mobile phone is relevant to the question of
possible health effects of mobile phones.
Many websites and other media that address the gen-
eral public state that children absorb more RF energy from
mobile phones than adults, typically in support of arguments
that mobile phones pose particular health risks to children.
A search on the Internet using Google Search and the phrase
‘‘children absorb more RF than adults’’ or ‘‘children absorb
more MWR [microwave radiation] than adults’’ together
identified about 300 web pages; searching on variants of these
phrases uncovered many additional web sites. By contrast
there have been few if any recent critical examinations of
2169-3536
2014 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only.
VOLUME 2, 2014 Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
the claim that take into account the considerable technical
complexity of the issue.
This review summarizes the current scientific evidence
on this issue, focusing on studies that permit a direct com-
parison of SAR in heads of children and adults from use
of a mobile phone. The discussion below is limited to
dosimetric issues, i.e., possible age-related differences in
absorption of RF energy in the heads of users of a mobile
phone handset, principally in the context of assessment of
compliance of handsets for regulatory approval. The larger
issue, of whether the use of mobile phones poses health
risks to their users, is beyond the present scope of this
review.
The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in W/kg of body
tissue is the fundamental dosimetric quantity that is used both
by researchers and specified in national exposure limits (for a
tutorial see [1]). The SAR represents the amount of power
deposited per unit mass in tissue, and can be quoted as a
value at any particular point in tissue, or as an average over a
specified mass of tissue or over the entire body.
1497
 K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
The plain language meaning of statements such as ‘‘chil-
dren absorb more RF energy than adults from use of a mobile
phone’’ refers to total absorbed power, measured in watts.
By contrast, regulatory limits in the U.S. and other countries,
as well those of international organizations including as IEEE
and International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) (Table 1), specify the peak spatial aver-
age SAR (psSAR) averaged over 1 or 10 grams of tissue
(1g or 10-g psSAR), depending on the limit. This refers to
the maximum value of the SAR averaged over 1 or 10 grams
of tissue anywhere in the body. Depending on the exposure
limits, the SAR limits for the pinnae (the fleshy outside part
of the ear) can be the same as for the rest of the head (ICNIRP)
or a higher limit that would apply to other parts of the body
(FCC, IEEE). The shape of the averaging mass may or may
TABLE 1. Comparisons of RF exposure limits for the general public,
applicable to exposure to localized sources including mobile phones.
1498
not be specified, depending on the limit. In the assessment of
mobile handsets for compliance with the limits, the handset
would be located close to the head in a position that would
simulate real-world use. In this exposure scenario, the 1-g or
10-g psSAR would be located close to the surface of the head
and generally beneath the feedpoint of the phone’s antenna.
Other metrics of exposure such as the SAR at specific
locations within the body or the total absorbed power in the
body are not relevant for compliance assessment of mobile
phones but might be important for other purposes including
research on possible biological effects of RF energy.
II. DETERMINATES OF EXPOSURE
A mobile phone placed against the head represents a near-
field exposure situation in which the fields induced inside the
head (and consequently the SAR) to a considerable extent are
localized in the vicinity of the antenna, but a fraction of the
energy is transmitted into deeper layers of tissue. A dipole
antenna located a distance d and parallel to a plane of tissue
with feedpoint current Ifp produces a SAR at the surface of
the plane [2]:
σ µω
2 1 Ifp2
SAR = √ 1 + ccorr γpw (1)
ρ σ 2 + ε 2 ω2 4π 2 d 2
where γpw is the reflection coefficient for plane waves from
the tissue, ccorr is a correction factor of order 1, ω is the radian
frequency, and ε, σ , and ρ are the permittivity, conductivity,
and density of the tissue. For dipole antennas that are similar
in length to those used in mobile phones, the peak SAR varies
little if the tissue plane is replaced by a sphere of comparable
size to a human head [2]. In this near field exposure, the
SAR penetration depth into the tissue, defined as the distance
beneath the surface at which the SAR is reduced by a factor
of 1/e2 from that at the surface, is limited by the geometry
of the antenna and can be considerably smaller than that for
plane-wave energy incident on a tissue plane (which is about
3 and 4 cm, for muscle tissue at 1900 and 850 MHz, based
on literature values of the dielectric properties of muscle [3].)
Since the distance from the antenna of a typical mobile phone
to the head is about 1 cm or less, it is clear from Eq. 1 that
small (millimeter) variations in position of the antenna will
result in significant changes in SAR.
To date, more than 20 studies have evaluated the absorption
of RF energy in models of adult and child heads using a
study design that would allow direct comparison of SAR as
related to age, i.e., using the same computational methods
and same RF sources with numerical models of both child
and adult heads (Table 2). Nearly all of these studies used
the finite-difference-time-domain (FDTD) method. However,
the fidelity of the head models and exposure sources varied
widely. Most of the earlier studies used anatomically detailed
models for the adult head derived from MRI, CT or cryosec-
tion images of an adult human (typically, Visible Man1 ),
with child head models obtained by scaling down the adult
1 http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html
VOLUME 2, 2014
K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?

TABLE 2. Publications on SAR in children and adults head models exposed to mobile phones.

VOLUME 2, 2014 1499

 K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?

TABLE 2. (Continued.) Publications on SAR in children and adults head models exposed to mobile phones.

1500 VOLUME 2, 2014

K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
FIGURE 1. (a) Ratio of 1-g psSAR in child and adult heads reported by different investigators, for antennas or mobile phones operating at about
833-900 MHz; (b) same, 10-g psSAR, 833-900 MHz; (c) same, 1-g psSAR, 1800-1950 MHz; (d) same, 10-g psSAR, 1800-1950 MHz. For references
see Table 2.
head model. Some of the early studies used nonuniform scal-
ing of the adult head model in an attempt to simulate shape
differences in heads of children vs. adults. Many of the early
studies used modeled mobile phones in terms of simple dipole
or monopole antennas. More recent studies have compared
exposures in multiple anatomically based models derived
from MRI images of children and adults using realistic mod-
els of commercially available mobile phones derived from
digital design files. Over time, the spatial resolution of the
simulations has improved, from voxel sizes of 2–3 mm in the
earlier studies to 1 mm or less in recent simulations.
III. EXPOSURE COMPARISONS
The major focus of most dosimetric studies has been the
1-g or 10-g psSAR, as needed for compliance assessment.
Peak one-voxel SARs tend to be unreliable because of numer-
ical artifacts in FDTD calculations (the staircase effect [4])
and other exposure metrics such as local SAR or total power
absorbed in the head are not directly related to compliance
assessment but may be of interest for other purposes.
A. 1-g AND 10-g psSARs
Fig. 1 summarizes the results of the studies, in terms of
ratios of 1-g and 10-g psSARs in child to adult head mod-
els. Where possible, results were chosen for 7–8 year old
children; for studies that compared exposures from different
phones or antennas, one representative example was chosen.
VOLUME 2, 2014
Results are separately shown for antennas transmitting at
the two main frequency bands used by mobile phones,
835–900 MHz (‘‘Low band’’) and 1800–1950 MHz
(‘‘High band’’).
Overall, Fig. 1 shows similar 1-g and 10-g psSARs in
heads of children and adults (ratios of psSARs close to 1).
One notable exception was a study published in 1996 by
Gandhi et al. [5] that compared RF exposure in model heads
representing those of an adult and 5- and 10 year old children,
using monopole antennas of electrical length λ/4 or 3λ/8 at
835 and 1900 MHz (where λ is the free-space wavelength of
the radiation). The child head models were created from the
adult model (Visible Man) by scaling the voxel size by factors
of 0.63 and 0.69 in the vertical and horizontal directions,
respectively, for the 5 year old child, and 0.78 and 0.80 for
the 10 year old child. The authors reported a 53% higher
1-g psSARs in the child heads at the lower frequency
(835 MHz). Curiously, Gandhi et al. [5] found a slightly
smaller (14%) 1-g psSAR in the child head model
at 1900 MHz.
At both frequencies, the fraction of the radiated energy
from the phone that was absorbed in the head and neck was
approximately 10% smaller in the child vs. adult head models,
but the SAR averaged over the head was higher in the child
models (a consequence of smaller head size). The authors
attributed the higher 1-g psSAR in the child’s head to the
thinner pinnae in the child head models, which would place
1501
 K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
the antenna closer to the head. Also, reducing the thickness
of the pinna would reduce the absorption of RF energy in
superficial tissues, potentially increasing the SAR in deeper
tissues.
Gandhi’s 1996 study [5] attracted widespread atten-
tion, both by public and by dosimetry researchers who
attempted to reconcile these results with discordant results
from other studies. In a lengthy 2005 review of the issue,
Christ and Kuster [6] remarked that ‘‘the higher values for the
peak and 1 g average SAR at 835 MHz (in [5]) may be due to
changes in the positioning of the source caused by the thinner
ears. They are not consistent with the authors’ own findings
at 1900 MHz’’. These writers also noted that Gandhi et al. [5]
had used unrealistically small models for the children’s heads.
Data on head circumference of children [7] suggest that more
appropriate scaling factors would be 91 and 95% of the size
of adult heads for 5 and 10 year old children. ‘‘The head
dimensions of the scaled children [in [5]] correspond more to
those of a newborn than to those of a 5 or 10 year old child’’,
Christ and Kuster [6] noted.
These same authors also pointed out that Gandhi et al. [5]
had normalized the output of the antennas with different
models by keeping the output power constant (power normal-
ization) whereas other studies normalized their calculation in
terms of antenna feedpoint current (current normalization).
Christ and Kuster [6] added:
‘‘Current normalization is used to investigate the effect
of the head anatomy (size, shape, tissue distribution).
Power normalization mixes the influence of the anatomy
and the influence of the scattered field on the feedpoint
impedance. . . The latter may strongly depend on the type of
the antenna and its position to the head. . . Thus, general
conclusions independent of antenna type are much more
difficult to derive from power normalization than from cur-
rent normalization because the incident magnetic field is the
dominant source for the absorption.’’
In a later study (2002) Gandhi and Kang [8] modeled the
exposures produced by simple antennas (monopole and heli-
cal antennas) in an adult head model and in upscaled (111.1%)
and downscaled (91.9%) versions of the baseline adult head
model. The investigators reported that ‘‘the peak 1 g body-
tissue SAR calculated . . . for smaller models is up to 56%
higher at 1900 MHz and up to 20% higher at 835 MHz com-
pared to the larger [upscaled] models.’’ Because the smaller
model is comparable in size, if not shape, to the head of a
5 year old child, these differences as functions of head size
are similar in magnitude but opposite in direction, showing
higher absorption in the smaller sized heads at 1900 vs.
850 MHz, than reported by the same group in 1996. As before,
Gandhi and Kang attributed the higher psSARs in the smaller
head models chiefly to a thinner pinna in the smaller model.
Later, in 2006, de Salles et al. [9] reported age-related
effects on exposure, using anatomically based models
of heads of an adult and a 10-year old child head,
and simplified antennas (a microstrip patch antenna
and λ/4 monopole antenna) using power normalization.
1502
The investigators adjusted the dielectric properties of the
tissues for age based on dielectric data from juvenile rats. The
study found that 1-g and 10-g psSAR were 60–70% higher in
the head of a 10 year old child compared to that in the adult
head model.
By contrast, most other investigators have reported no sig-
nificant differences in RF energy absorption in child head vs.
adult head models, as measured in terms of 1-g or 10-g
psSARs [10]–[26]. For example, Schönborn et al. [10], using
anatomically accurate models for heads of children and adults
found essentially the same 1-g and 10-g psSAR in child vs.
adult heads and also the same depth of energy penetration into
the head. Martínez-Búrdalo et al. [11] computed the SARs
produced by λ/2 dipoles in adult and scaled-down adult head
models and concluded that ‘‘[1-g psSAR] and [10-g psSAR]
all trend downwards with decreasing head size’’.
B. PENETRATION DEPTH
Probably the most eye-catching result (particularly to nonex-
pert readers) from Gandhi’s 1996 paper is shown in Fig. 2
(from [5]) which compares the SAR patterns in the models of
adult and children’s’ heads. A search using Google Images
located approximately 450 websites showing the image in
Fig. 2 or some version of it, where it is typically presented
as visual proof of deeper penetration of RF energy into heads
of children compared with adults. A similar set of false-color
figure in the later (2002) paper by Gandhi and Kang [8]
showed SAR patterns in all three differently size head models
that extended about the same distance into the head. That
figure has received considerably less attention on Internet
sites compared to Fig 2 (below) from the earlier (1996) paper.
FIGURE 2. SAR pattern in adult and scaled-down head models produced
by a quarter-wave antenna radiating 600 mW at 835 MHz. From
Gandhi et al. [5]. The child heads are scaled from the adult head model by
factors of 0.69 and 0.80 in the horizontal direction, but are shown to the
same scale in this figure. The SAR pattern is shown on a logarithmic scale
giving the impression of deeper penetration of RF energy into the brain of
children, a result not supported by other studies, including Gandhi and
Kang [8]. From [5] with permission.
For two reasons, Fig. 2 enhances the visual impression of
deeper energy penetration in the child head vs. adult head
model. First, the figures are shown on the same size on
the page and consequently have different distance scales.
VOLUME 2, 2014
K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
Second, and more important, the SAR patterns are shown
using a false color display with logarithmic scaling, which
highlights the visibility of very low SAR levels deep in the
head. In Fig. 2 the lowest represented SAR levels (shown
in white) are about 0.3–0.6 % of the maximum SAR.
The SAR depth of penetration as conventionally defined
is the distance at which the SAR falls off by a factor of
1/e2 (to about 13% of its peak value). This would correspond
roughly to the transition between red to yellow in Fig. 2,
which occurs close to the surface of the head of the model.
One might alternatively consider the extent of the false
color image in Fig. 2 as representing a ‘‘depth of penetra-
tion’’ in some nonconventional sense. However, the lower
bound of a logarithmic scale, and hence the extent of the
false color image in Fig. 2, is a matter of arbitrary choice.
Indeed, some RF energy from a mobile phone propagates
throughout the entire head of the user, and, at extremely small
levels, throughout the entire body. Identifying the ‘‘depth of
penetration’’ with the lower bound of a logarithmic scale thus
introduces an arbitrary element that confuses interpretation.
Figure 2 does indicate differences in SAR deep in the brain in
the smaller vs. larger heads, but at levels that are far smaller
than those closer to the surface.
In 2005 Bit-Babik et al. [12] reported a detailed com-
parison of RF exposure in heads of children and adults,
using scaled-down adult head models similar to those used
by Gandhi et al. [5] to represent heads of children (one of
the present authors, Chou, was a coauthor of [12]). Fig. 3,
from [12], shows the 1-g psSAR as function of depth beneath
the antenna.
FIGURE 3. 1-g psSAR (835 MHz) in adult and two child head models
showing similar energy penetration depth independent of head size. Note
also the small variations in SAR in the different head models near the
side of the head opposite to the antenna. From Bit-Babik et al. [12] with
permission.
This study found only small differences in the penetration
depth of RF energy as conventionally defined and similar
1-g and 10-g psSARs in the child and adult head models.
However, deep within the head there up to 7-fold varia-
tions in SAR (although at SAR levels that are more than
one order of magnitude smaller than the psSAR) in the dif-
ferent head models, due to reflections of energy from the
far surface of the head. To the extent that comparisons can
VOLUME 2, 2014
be made, these variations are similar to the earlier results
of Gandhi et al. [5].
Bit-Babik et al. supported their results by numerical
simulation and experimental measurements on spheres of
varying size, and attributed differences in psSAR reported by
Gandhi et al. [5], [8] as resulting in part from technical
differences in the simulation. These include different post-
processing techniques used to compute locally averaged
SAR, different definitions of averaging volume, and differ-
ences in interpolation methodology.
IV. MORE RECENT STUDIES
The understanding of the issue as of the mid-2000s is
described by Christ and Kuster in their 2005 review of
14 studies that compared RF absorption in the heads of
children vs. adults [6]. These writers concluded that the
available evidence ‘‘[does] not support the assumption that
the energy exposure [measured in terms of psSAR] increases
due to smaller heads’’. However, they noted open questions
about possible variations in dielectric properties of adult vs.
children’s tissues and thickness of the pinnae as possible
factors that might contribute to age-related SAR.
Many of the early studies reviewed in [6] used head mod-
els of limited fidelity (in particular, using scaled-down ver-
sions of the adult head to model the child’s head), idealized
dipole or monopole antennas instead of realistic models of
mobile phones, and varied in details of methodology such as
the method of normalizing phone output across models.
Since the mid 2000s, progressively more extensive and
detailed studies have been conducted of RF absorption in
the head from use of mobile phones. Recent studies have
(a) examined the dependence with age of dielectric prop-
erties of tissues and its effect on SAR; (b) compared SAR
in anatomically based head models from children of various
ages and adults of varying gender and race; (c) compared
the thickness and biomechanical properties of the pinnae of
children and adults as related to differences in SAR; (d) con-
sidered the details of the distribution of SAR within the brain;
(e) used more realistic head models and more realistic models
of phones for SAR calculations, and (e) explored the effects
of variability of the morphology of the head on the SAR.
A. DEPENDENCE OF DIELECTRIC PROPERTIES
OF TISSUE ON AGE
It has long been known that both the permittivity and con-
ductivity of tissues from young animals (rats, pigs) are higher
than from mature animals due to their higher water content,
and some investigators have suggested that this will lead to
an age-dependence in SAR from use of mobile telephones.
However, current evidence is that age-related differences in
the dielectric properties of tissues do not translate readily into
differences in 1-g or 10-g psSAR (although they might result
in local variations in SAR in different tissues).
For example, Peyman et al. [27] studied the effect of age-
related differences in the dielectric properties of tissues on
the absorption of RF energy in children of age 3 and 7 years
1503
 K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
from use of walkie–talkie devices. The investigators found
no significant differences between the 1-g and 10-g psSAR
values for the children of either age compared with adults, and
they concluded that ‘‘the dielectric properties for children do
not affect significantly the 1- or 10- g averaged spatial peak
SAR as well as the penetration depth’’.
In a study published in 2006, Wang et al. [28] came to
a similar conclusion but noted that ‘‘in extreme cases’’, age
related variations in dielectric properties of tissues resulted in
variations within 10% in spatial peak SAR.
In an extensive review published in 2011, Peyman [29]
concluded:
‘‘It is the matter of reassurance that the dosimetric stud-
ies so far have not shown any significant differences in the
calculated SAR values due to higher conductivity values for
younger tissues. However, in some cases, for instance single
tissue exposure such as bone marrow, the differences can not
be neglected.’’
B. IMPROVEMENTS IN NUMERICAL
MODELS OF THE HEAD
Over the past decade, investigators in several groups have
created a wide variety of detailed head models from MRI
scans from individuals of different age, gender, and race.
What one group calls a ‘‘Virtual Family’’ has been used in
SAR studies. This family consists of two adults (a 34 year
old male and a 26 year old female), an 11 year old girl and
a 6 year old boy [30]; more recently a number of additional
numerical models of humans have become available includ-
ing models of individuals of both genders and several races.
Christ et al. [23] compared the SAR in heads of children and
adults produced by realistic models of three different phones
using age-specific head models together with age-dependent
dielectric properties of tissue based on porcine data reported
by Peyman et al. [27]. Christ et al. noted substantial variations
in 10-g psSAR in the different models, but considered these
variations to arise from anatomical variations in the models
and not specifically to differences in age.
C. EFFECT OF PINNA ON SAR
Much of the past discussion about possible differences in RF
absorption in heads of children vs. adults turned on different
interpretations of how to model the pinna in child and adult
head models, and this subject still raises controversy [31].
The pinna acts both as a spacer keeping the phone from
the rest of the head, and also as an absorber of RF energy.
Christ et al. [32] found ‘‘no major differences’’ in the thick-
ness of the pinna in adults and children of 6 to 8 years of age,
or the extent to which it is compressed under pressures that
would be typical of normal use of a mobile phone. This is
significant because one oft-cited reason for higher absorption
in child vs. adult heads is the thinner pinna in the child in head
models. This difference was a consequence of downscaling
the adult head model in some of the earlier studies, but
does not appear to reflect the actual anatomy of children.
However, Christ et al. found that compression of the pinna as
1504
would occur in normal use of a phone would result in about
60% increase in 10-g psSAR in the heads of both adults and
children.
D. DISTRIBUTION OF SAR WITHIN THE BRAIN
A number of authors have reported age-related variations in
SAR in anatomically defined parts of the brain. For example,
Christ et al. [23] reported that, compared to adults, the SAR
in the hippocampus and hypothalamus of child head models
was higher than in adult head models by factors of 1.6–3.1;
differences in the cerebellum were a factor of 2.5 and in the
marrow in the skull by up to a factor of 10. Lu and Ueno [25]
found similar differences in head models for a 34 year old man
and children aged 6 and 11. They concluded that ‘‘there is a
deeper penetration of the absorbed SAR in the child brain’’,
referring to SAR in specific anatomical structures in the brain
(as opposed to geometrical locations).
In these studies, the age-related differences in SAR were
chiefly the result of differences in head size. In the smaller
heads of children, specific anatomic structures of the brain are
closer to the surface of the head and consequently experience
a higher SAR, although at levels considerably below the
1-g or 10-g psSAR. A second factor is the higher water con-
tent of juvenile vs. adult tissues. Christ et al. [23] calculated
10 times higher SARs in the marrow of the skull when using
dielectric data for marrow from 10 kg pigs (which approxi-
mate 1–4 year old children in their state of development) com-
pared to calculations using dielectric data from fully grown
(250 kg) pigs. Similar calculations, using dielectric data from
50 kg pigs (comparable in development to 11–13 year old
children) showed much smaller differences, roughly a factor
of 2.5. Despite these differences in SAR in marrow (which
were modeled as 1 or 3 mm layers of tissue within the skull)
Christ et al. [23] considered that their study ‘‘confirms previ-
ous findings saying that there are no age-dependent changes
of the peak spatial SAR when averaged over the entire head’’.
E. EFFECT OF VARIABILITY AMONG MODELS ON SAR
In an exceptionally comprehensive study, Wiart et al. [22]
compared SARs in models of heads of six children ranging
in age from 5 to 15 years old and six adult models of different
race produced by three sources (a dipole, a model handset,
and a commercial handset) radiating at 900, 1800, 2100 and
2400 MHz. Fig. 4 shows a cumulative percent of the ratios
of the average 1-g psSARs over the adult and child heads,
for each of the three sources and frequencies as estimated
from [22, Fig. 10]. To provide a rough indication of the
variability of the results, the figure also shows cumulative
plots of the averaged SAR ratios plus and minus the standard
deviations of the averages reported in [22]. The median ratio
is approximately 1.05 (suggesting a slightly higher average
1-g psSAR in the child vs. adult head models), but
the difference is small compared to the variability in
the ratios.
The investigators also noted that ‘‘the maximum SAR in
1 g of peripheral brain tissues of the child models aged
VOLUME 2, 2014
K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
FIGURE 4. Cumulative percent of ratios of 1-g psSARs in seven child and six
adult head models, drawn from data in [22, Fig. 10]. Sources were a dipole,
a generic and a commercial mobile handset operating at 900, 1800, 2100
and 2400 MHz. The diagram shows the cumulative distribution of mean
SAR ratios (mean 1-g psSAR from the 7 child heads to that of the 6 adult
head models) at each of the three antennas at each of the 4 frequencies.
Also shown are cumulative distributions of the mean SAR ratios
plus and minus the standard deviations of the ratios as reported in [22].
between 5 and 8 years is about two times higher than in adult
models’’. This refers to SAR within the brain, which is dif-
ferent (and considerably lower) than the 1-g psSAR which is
relevant for compliance assessment, which consider maxi-
mum values anywhere in the head.
In another recent study, Keshvari and Heikkila [24] com-
pared the SAR values in the heads of children and adults,
using highly realistic models of phones (CAD models of
two commercial Nokia phones) as sources. The investigators
found ‘‘no systematic difference [related to age] between the
[ps]SAR values in different head models’’. They noted that
the ‘‘SAR distribution/variation in the head models highly
depends on the structure of the antenna and phone model,
which suggests that the type of the exposure source is the main
parameter in EMF exposure studies. . . ’’
Still more recently (2014), Adibzadeh et al. [37] reported
detailed dosimetric calculations of mobile phones in two stan-
dardized positions (‘‘tilted’’ and ‘‘cheek’’), using head mod-
els of 20 different individuals (7 female, 13 male) obtained
from computed tomography images and a standardized
‘‘generic’’ mobile phones operating at 835 and 1900 MHz.
These investigators used standard FDTD methodology (using
a commercial FDTD program from SPEAG, Zurich, Switzer-
land) and determined 10-g psSAR in the head as well as SAR
in individual regions of the brain. The investigators reported
a 4 dB (factor of 2.5) variation in the 10-g psSAR in the head
across the models. The SAR averaged over 1 cm3 at specific
locations within the brain varied by up to 107% of the mean
SAR at the same anatomically defined location across the
models. While this study was not designed to explore possible
age-related differences in absorption, it is clear that the high
VOLUME 2, 2014
level of variability in SAR in the different users resulting from
individual variability considerably exceeds the differences
between SARs in child and adult heads shown in Fig. 1.
To summarize, beginning in the mid 1990s, studies of
RF absorption from mobile phones in heads of children and
adults have continued with progressively increasing level of
detail in the models. There is a general (but perhaps not
universal) agreement among investigators on the following:
1. The depth of penetration as conventionally defined,
total absorbed power, and 1-g and 10-g psSAR pro-
duced by the same RF source under identical exposure
conditions are similar in children and adults. The dif-
ferences in 1-g and 10-g psSAR in different models
that have been reported in recent studies have been
attributed to morphological variations in the heads of
the subjects but not specifically to age differences.
2. The SAR at specific anatomical locations within the
head show age-dependent variations for two reasons.
First, in smaller heads, specific anatomic structures are
located closer to the surface. This, coupled with the
rapid falloff of SAR with distance from the antenna,
will result in higher SAR in these structures (albeit
at low levels compared to the peak SAR level which
is present near the surface of the head). Second, the
SAR in bone (skull) marrow can be significantly higher
in heads of children than adults due to age-related
differences in tissue water content. However no other
differences are reliably found that can be attributed
to age-related differences in dielectric properties of
the head. Apart from these limited exceptions, ‘‘dosi-
metric studies so far have not shown any significant
differences in the calculated SAR values due to higher
conductivity values for younger tissues’’ [29].
3. The SAR in the heads of individuals shows consider-
able variability due to morphological variations in the
head. Given this variability, most generalizations about
differential exposure in children vs. adults would be
difficult to sustain without a larger controlled study
with sufficient number of subjects to provide adequate
statistical power. No such study has been reported
as yet.
Martínez-Búrdalo et al. [11] illustrate some of the com-
plexities in comparing RF energy absorption in different head
models. They conclude:
‘‘Peak SAR 1g and peak SAR 10 g [1-g and 10-g psSAR]
all trend downwards with decreasing head size but as head
size decreases, the percentage of energy absorbed in the
brain increases. So, higher SAR in children’s brains can be
expected depending on whether the thickness of their skulls
and surrounding tissues actually depends on age. . . . The SAR
variation with the size of the head is very slight. . . ’’
These differences, however, have no implications for com-
pliance of a phone with exposure limits. The authors con-
cluded that ‘‘standard limits can only be exceeded in the
unpractical situation where the antenna is located at a very
short distance in front of the eye’’ [11].
1505
 K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
Two recent papers argue for higher exposure in children
compared with adults. A 2012 paper by Gandhi et al. with
the provocative title ‘‘Exposure Limits: The Underestima-
tion of Absorbed Mobile Phone Radiation, Especially in
Children’’ [31] states ‘‘When electrical properties are
considered, a child’s head’s absorption can be over two times
greater, and absorption of the skull’s bone marrow can be
ten times greater than adults’’. A later paper by several of
the same authors [33] (not including Gandhi) had a similarly
provocative title ‘‘Why Children Absorb More Microwave
Radiation than Adults: the Consequences.’’
Neither of these papers is a systematic review of the lit-
erature. Both papers are strongly argumentative in nature,
focused on what the authors considered to be inadequacies in
compliance testing and regulatory exposure limits for mobile
phone radiation (both topics are outside of the scope of this
review). Neither paper explains clearly in what sense the
absorption is higher. [31, Table 1] lists 12 studies, all of which
are cited in this present review. The entries in the table refer
to diverse SAR metrics including 1-g and 10-g psSAR, total
absorbed power, local SAR values, SAR averaged over the
entire brain, and exposures to parts of the body other than
the head. The authors do not consider studies that come to
conclusions inconsistent with their own.
The plain language meaning of ‘‘children absorb more
microwave radiation than adults’’ is that the total absorbed
power in the bodies of children from use of a mobile phone
will be higher than in the body of an adult. Gandhi’s own
work does not support such a claim. Gandhi’s 1996 study
[5, Table IX] shows that the fraction of the total output power
of the antenna that is absorbed by the head and neck in the two
child models was actually a bit lower than in the adult head
model. The SAR averaged over the volume of the brain was
considerably higher in the child head models. However this
average scaled almost exactly as the brain volume, indicating
that the total power absorbed in the brain was about the same
in all three head models.
V. DISCUSSION
Comparing the absorption of RF energy from mobile phones
in different subjects is a complicated and, in the public
arena, a highly politicized topic. Exposure comparisons can
be framed using different metrics of exposure, and advocacy
groups have not always been clear in specifying which metric
they are comparing.
‘‘Whether children absorb more RF energy from mobile
phones’’ has two aspects that have not been clearly differ-
entiated in previous discussions. The first is the possibility
of differences in SAR as determined in tightly controlled
simulations using handsets operating at maximum power
levels in precisely determined positions against the head,
which is appropriate for compliance assessment. The second
is the possibility of differences in exposures to children vs.
adults under uncontrolled, real-world usage scenarios. There
is almost no connection between the two exposure scenarios,
for reasons to be discussed below.
1506
A. ‘‘WORST CASE’’ SIMULATIONS FOR
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
Determining the SAR produced in the head of the user of a
mobile phone is a difficult near-field exposure problem that
is highly sensitive to small variations in methodology. The
calculated SAR depends critically on: the precise distance and
orientation of the antenna with respect to the head, the thick-
ness of the pinna and extent to which it is compressed when
a phone is placed against the head, as well as anatomical and
morphological variability in the heads of different individuals
(which may or may not be age-related). Millimeter variations
in distance from the handset to the head can introduce signif-
icant (∼20% from Eq. 1) variations in the SAR.
In earlier studies using dipoles or other simplified antennas
(as opposed to realistic electrical models of mobile phones)
the method of normalizing the radiated power across models
was also a major potential source of variability. These sources
of variability may not have been adequately controlled in
some of the earlier studies reviewed here.
In part to address such issues, the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) TC106 and the IEEE
International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety TC34 are
working jointly to develop protocols to standardize compu-
tational methods for mobile phone and other portable and
mobile communication devices, similar to standardized pro-
cedures that these groups developed for hardware-based SAR
measurements [38], [39]. Publication of these standards is
expected in 2015. These efforts will increase the consistency
of SAR calculations used for compliance assessment, but
will not address other sources in variability in SAR under
real-world exposure conditions.
Still considering worst-case simulations for compliance
assessment, other complications arise. Most of the studies
presently reviewed compared SAR levels in one adult and one
child head model (or adult head model down-sized to simulate
a child’s head). Except for a few very recent studies, they
were not designed to explore the effects of human variability
on SAR, which on the basis of [37] and other studies are
considerable.
Moreover, smartphones have become exceedingly com-
plex. Recent generation smartphones can transmit on multiple
bands, each with different exposure characteristics to the user.
Phones also incorporate Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmitters,
which are additional sources of RF exposure to the user.
To illustrate, the SAR Evaluation Report submitted to the
(U.S.) Federal Communications Commission in August 2014
for the iPhone 6 by Apple (Cupertino, CA), which is available
at the FCC Equipment Authorization Database,2 is a 193 page
document that reports RF exposures determined for: use
of the device as a phone, for data transmission as a body-
worn accessory, as a wireless router, or as an Airplay device
2 FCC ID BCG-E2816A. The SAR reports for this phone can
be retrieved from the FCC Equipment Authorization Database
(https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm) by searching
on Grantee Code: BCG and a range of Final Action Dates from January to
December 2014.
VOLUME 2, 2014
K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
to stream media to another device. For the head, separate
SAR measurements were reported when the phone was in
four precisely specified positions (‘‘left touch’’, ‘‘left tilt’’,
‘‘right touch’’, ‘‘right tilt’’) in 17 different bands representing
GSM850, GSM1900, W-CDMA, CDMA and LTE services
(not all of which would be supported by any given handset),
measured separately and in combination with Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth transmissions. The 1-g psSAR measurements var-
ied by a factor of roughly 5 for this phone, just considering
cellular-band transmissions. Comparing the exposures across
a range of models in such a complex instrument would be a
major task.
B. EXPOSURES UNDER REAL-WORLD
USAGE CONDITIONS
Compliance evaluations of handsets are performed using
handsets that are placed in precisely defined locations and ori-
entations close to the head and operating at maximum power.
To obtain reproducible results, the tolerance in locating the
handset is small, a millimeter or less. This is appropriate
for compliance assessment (which is intended to determine
maximum potential RF exposures to the user in reproducible
assessments) but has little relation to real-word usage condi-
tions, where the phone can be used in a variety of modes and
at positions that can vary considerably from those defined for
compliance assessment.
Also, in real-world use, the output of a mobile phone is
powered down by the network to the lowest levels that will
provide adequate communication (adaptive power control).
As a result, mobile phones in real-world use typically trans-
mit at a small fraction of the power used for compliance
assessment, and the power output will change on a second-by-
second basis. For example, a Swedish survey [40] evaluated
800,000 hours of voice communication on 3G networks. The
average operating level of the handsets was less than 1% of
their maximum output power (1 mW average output power
of the handset, compared to a maximum output of 125–
250 mW depending on the band). For voice calls, the W-
CDMA handsets operated at substantially lower power levels
(but higher duty cycle of transmission) than GSM handsets.
Thus, two apparently identical handsets (for example, two
iPhone 6’s configured for GSM and W-CDMA, respectively),
used for voice calls at the same time and same location with
different networks, will produce widely different SAR levels
in the user, both levels on the average far below those obtained
during compliance assessment. While this does not neces-
sarily translate to an age-dependence in the exposure to the
user, the very high variability in exposure during real-world
use means that the highly standardized, maximum power
exposure assessments used for compliance assessment will
have little predictive value for real-world exposures. At best
they may provide an upper limit to exposure, but the actual
exposure to the user of a mobile phone will under most
circumstances will be far lower.
In summary, simple generalizations found on the Internet
about ‘‘kids absorbing more RF energy than adults from
VOLUME 2, 2014
cell phones’’ aren’t supported by available dosimetry studies.
To the extent that children have different usage patterns than
adults, there may well be differences in exposure, but such
differences are likely to be at exposure levels far below current
exposure limits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Publication costs of this paper were supported by Mobile
Manufacturers Forum, who did not review the contents of this
paper before publication. The same organization supported
travel costs of one of the authors (Foster) to the BioEM
2013 meeting (Thessaloniki Greece, June 2013) to co-chair
a Workshop session together with the second author on the
subject of this paper. C-K. Chou was the Chief EME Scientist
of Motorola Solutions at the time of the Workshop, and is
presently retired.
REFERENCES
[1] C. K. Chou et al., ‘‘Radio frequency electromagnetic exposure: Tutorial
review on experimental dosimetry,’’ Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 17, no. 3,
pp. 195–208, 1996.
[2] N. Kuster and Q. Balzano, ‘‘Energy absorption mechanism by biological
bodies in the near field of dipole antennas above 300 MHz,’’ IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 17–23, Feb. 1992.
[3] S. Gabriel, R. W. Lau, and C. Gabriel, ‘‘The dielectric properties of biolog-
ical tissues: II. Measurements in the frequency range 10 Hz to 20 GHz,’’
Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 2251–2269, Nov. 1996.
[4] A. C. Cangellaris and D. B. Wright, ‘‘Analysis of the numerical error
caused by the stair-stepped approximation of a conducting boundary in
FDTD simulations of electromagnetic phenomena,’’ IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag., vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1518–1525, Oct. 1991.
[5] O. P. Gandhi, G. Lazzi, and C. M. Furse, ‘‘Electromagnetic absorption in
the human head and neck for mobile telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz,’’
IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 1884–1897,
Oct. 1996.
[6] A. Christ and N. Kuster, ‘‘Differences in RF energy absorption in the heads
of adults and children,’’ Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 26, no. S7, pp. S31–S44,
2005.
[7] A. F. Roche, D. Mukherjee, S. Guo, and W. M. Moore, ‘‘Head circum-
ference reference data: Birth to 18 years,’’ Pediatrics, vol. 79, no. 5,
pp. 706–712, May 1987.
[8] O. P. Gandhi and G. Kang, ‘‘Some present problems and a proposed
experimental phantom for SAR compliance testing of cellular telephones
at 835 and 1900 MHz,’’ Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1501–1518,
May 2002.
[9] A. A. de Salles, G. Bulla, and C. E. F. Rodriguez, ‘‘Electromagnetic
absorption in the head of adults and children due to mobile phone operation
close to the head,’’ Electromagn. Biol. Med., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 349–360,
2006.
[10] F. Schönborn, M. Burkhardt, and N. Kuster, ‘‘Differences in energy absorp-
tion between heads of adults and children in the near field of sources,’’
Health Phys., vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 160–168, Feb. 1998.
[11] M. Martínez-Búrdalo, A. Martín, M. Anguiano, and R. Villar, ‘‘Compar-
ison of FDTD-calculated specific absorption rate in adults and children
when using a mobile phone at 900 and 1800 MHz,’’ Phys. Med. Biol.,
vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 345–354, Jan. 2004.
[12] G. Bit-Babik et al., ‘‘Simulation of exposure and SAR estimation for adult
and child heads exposed to radiofrequency energy from portable commu-
nication devices,’’ Radiat. Res., vol. 163, no. 5, pp. 580–590, May 2005.
[13] P. J. Dimbylow and S. M. Mann, ‘‘SAR calculations in an anatomically
realistic model of the head for mobile communication transceivers at
900 MHz and 1.8 GHz,’’ Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1537–1553,
Oct. 1994.
[14] A. Lee, H. Choi, H. Lee, and J. Pack, ‘‘Human head size and SAR
characteristics for handset exposure,’’ ETRI J., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 176–180,
Apr. 2002.
[15] A. Hadjem, D. Lautru, C. Dale, M. Wong, V. F. Hanna, and J. Wiart, ‘‘Study
of specific absorption rate (SAR) induced in two child head models and in
adult heads using mobile phones,’’ IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn.,
vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 4–11, Jan. 2005.
1507
 K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?

[16] J. Keshvari and S. Lang, ‘‘Comparison of radio frequency energy [37] F. Adibzadeh, J. F. Bakker, M. M. Paulides, R. F. Verhaart, and
absorption in ear and eye region of children and adults at 900, 1800 G. C. van Rhoon, ‘‘Impact of head morphology on local brain spe-
and 2450 MHz,’’ Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 50, no. 18, pp. 4355–4369, cific absorption rate from exposure to mobile phone radiation,’’
Sep. 2005. Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 66–76, 2015.
[17] J. Wiart et al., ‘‘Modeling of RF head exposure in children,’’ [38] IEEE Recommended Practice for Determining the Peak Spatial-Average
Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 26, no. S7, pp. S19–S30, 2005. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the Human Head from Wireless Com-
[18] J. Wang and O. Fujiwara, ‘‘Comparison and evaluation of electromagnetic munications Devices: Measurement Techniques, IEEE International Com-
absorption characteristics in realistic human head models of adult and mittee on Electromagnetic Safety, IEEE Standard 1528, 2013.
children for 900-MHz mobile telephones,’’ IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory [39] Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields from Hand-Held and
Techn., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 966–971, Mar. 2003. Body-Mounted Wireless Communication Devices—Human Models, Instru-
[19] B. B. Beard et al., ‘‘Comparisons of computed mobile phone induced SAR mentation, and Procedures—Part 1: Procedure to Determine the Specific
in the SAM phantom to that in anatomically correct models of the human Absorption Rate (SAR) for Hand-Held Devices Used in Close Proximity to
head,’’ IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 397–407, the Ear (Frequency Range of 300 MHz to 3 GHz), document IEC 62209-1,
May 2006. Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
[20] V. Anderson, ‘‘Comparisons of peak SAR levels in concentric sphere head [40] T. Persson, C. Törnevik, L.-E. Larsson, and J. Lovén, ‘‘Output power
models of children and adults for irradiation by a dipole at 900 MHz,’’ distributions of terminals in a 3G mobile communication network,’’
Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 48, no. 20, pp. 3263–3275, Oct. 2003. Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 320–325, 2012.
[21] A. Christ, N. Chavannes, N. Nikoloski, H.-U. Gerber, K. Poković, [41] A. Hadjem, E. Conil, A. Gati, M. Wong and J. Wiart, ‘‘Analysis of power
and N. Kuster, ‘‘A numerical and experimental comparison of human absorbed by children’s head as a result of new usages of mobile phone,’’
head phantoms for compliance testing of mobile telephone equipment,’’ IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 52, pp. 812–819, 2010.
Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 125–137, Feb. 2005. [42] J. Wiart, A. Hadjem, N. Varsier and E. Conil, ‘‘Numerical dosimetry
[22] J. Wiart, A. Hadjem, M. F. Wong, and I. Bloch, ‘‘Analysis of RF exposure dedicated to children RF exposure,’’ Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., vol. 107,
in the head tissues of children and adults,’’ Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 53, no. 13, pp. 421–427, 2011.
pp. 3681–3695, Jul. 2008.
[23] A. Christ, M.-C. Gosselin, M. Christopoulou, S. Kühn, and N. Kuster,
‘‘Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users,’’ Phys. Med.
Biol., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1767–1783, Apr. 2010.
[24] J. Keshvari and T. Heikkilä, ‘‘Volume-averaged SAR in adult and
child head models when using mobile phones: A computational study
with detailed CAD-based models of commercial mobile phones,’’
Prog. Biophys. Molecular Biol., vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 439–442,
Dec. 2011.
[25] M. Lu and S. Ueno, ‘‘Comparison of specific absorption rate induced in
brain tissues of a child and an adult using mobile phone,’’ J. Appl. Phys.,
vol. 111, no. 7, pp. 07B311-1–07B311-3, Apr. 2012.
[26] M. Fujimoto, A. Hirata, J. Wang, O. Fujiwara, and T. Shiozawa,
‘‘FDTD-derived correlation of maximum temperature increase and peak
SAR in child and adult head models due to dipole antenna,’’ IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 240–247, Feb. 2006.
[27] A. Peyman, C. Gabriel, E. H. Grant, G. Vermeeren, and L. Martens,
‘‘Variation of the dielectric properties of tissues with age: The effect on the
values of SAR in children when exposed to walkie-talkie devices,’’ Phys.
Med. Biol., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 227–241, Jan. 2009.
[28] J. Wang, O. Fujiwara, and S. Watanabe, ‘‘Approximation of aging
effect on dielectric tissue properties for SAR assessment of mobile tele-
phones,’’ IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 408–413,
May 2006.
[29] A. Peyman, ‘‘Dielectric properties of tissues; variation with age and their
relevance in exposure of children to electromagnetic fields; state of knowl-
edge,’’ Prog. Biophys. Molecular Biol., vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 434–438,
Dec. 2011. KENNETH R. FOSTER (M’77–SM’81–F’88–
[30] A. Christ et al., ‘‘The virtual family—Development of surface-based LF’13) received the Ph.D. degree in physics
anatomical models of two adults and two children for dosimetric simu- from Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA,
lations,’’ Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. N23–N38, 2010. in 1971. He was with the U.S. Navy, Naval
[31] O. P. Gandhi, L. L. Morgan, A. A. de Salles, Y.-Y. Han, R. B. Herberman, Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA,
and D. L. Davis, ‘‘Exposure limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell
from 1971 to 1976. Since 1976, he has been with
phone radiation, especially in children,’’ Electromagn. Biol. Med., vol. 31,
the Department of Bioengineering, University of
no. 1, pp. 34–51, 2012.
[32] A. Christ, M.-C. Gosselin, S. Kühn, and N. Kuster, ‘‘Impact of pinna Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, where he
compression on the RF absorption in the heads of adult and juvenile is currently a Professor. He has been involved in
cell phone users,’’ Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 406–412, studies on the interaction of nonionizing radiation
Jul. 2010. and biological systems, including mechanisms of interaction and biomedi-
[33] L. L. Morgan, S. Kesari, and D. L. Davis, ‘‘Why children absorb more cal applications of radio frequency and microwave energy. In addition, he
microwave radiation than adults: The consequences,’’ J. Microscopy has written widely about scientific issues related to possible health effects
Ultrastruct., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 197–204, Dec. 2014. [Online]. Available: of electromagnetic fields. He has authored over 100 technical papers in
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005 peer-reviewed journals, numerous other articles, and two books related to
[34] U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 47 CFR 2.1093, ‘‘Radiofrequency radi- technological risk and the law.
ation exposure evaluation: Portable devices,’’ Oct. 2010. He has been active for many years on the IEEE EMBS Committee of
[35] Standard for Safety Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Man and Radiation, the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology,
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE International
and the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. He is a long
Committee on Electromagnetic Safety, IEEE Standard C95.1-2005, 2006.
[36] International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), time member of TC 95 of the IEEE International Committee on Electro-
‘‘Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and magnetic Safety and a member of the Physical Agents Committee of the
electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),’’ Health Phys., vol. 74, no. 4, American Conference of Industrial Hygienists, among many other profes-
pp. 494–522, 1998. sional activities.

1508 VOLUME 2, 2014

K. R. Foster, C.-K. Chou: Are Children More Exposed to RF Energy From Mobile Phones Than Adults?
CHUNG-KWANG CHOU (S’72–M’75–SM’86–
F’89–LF’12) was born in Chung-King, China, in
1947. He received the B.S. degree from National
Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, in 1968,
the M.S. degree from Washington University,
St. Louis, MO, USA, in 1971, and the
Ph.D. degree from the University of Washing-
ton, Seattle, WA, USA, in 1975, all in electrical
engineering. After spending a year as a National
Institutes of Health Post-Doctoral Fellow with
the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Regional Primate Research
Center, University of Washington, he became a faculty member with the
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and the Center for Bioengineering,
University of Washington, 1977 to 1985. From 1985 to 1998, he was a
Research Scientist and the Director of the Department of Radiation Research
with the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA. In 1998,
he joined Motorola, Schaumburg, IL, USA, and became the Director of
the Corporate EME Research Laboratory. He was the Chief EME Scientist
with Motorola and Motorola Solutions from 2001 to 2013, where he was
responsible for radio frequency (RF) product safety. He was retired and is
currently an Independent Consultant on EMF safety issues.
VOLUME 2, 2014
He was on the Board of Directors of the Bioelectromagnetics Society
from 1981 to 1984 and an Associate Editor of the Journal of Bioelectromag-
netics from 1987 to 2003, and served as the Chairman of the IEEE/EMBS
Committee on Man and Radiation from 1996 to 1997, the Co-Chairman of the
IEEE Scientific Coordinating Committee 28, Subcommittee 4 on RF Safety
Standard from 1997 to 2005, the Vice Chairman of the Committee 89-5 of the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) from
1996 to 1999, and a Council Member of NCRP from 1998 to 2004. He is the
Chairman of TC 95 of the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic
Safety, responsible for exposure standards from 0 to 300 GHz.
Dr. Chou has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters,
and presented over 290 conference papers and abstracts, and 220 invited
talks. He was a recipient of the First Special Award for the decade
(1970–1979) from the International Microwave Power Institute, in 1981, the
Outstanding Paper Award from the Journal of Microwave Power in 1985, the
Curtis Carl Johnson Memorial Award from the Bioelectromagnetics Society
in 1995, the IEEE Standards Medallion Award in 2005, and the Motorola’s
Global Standard Impact Award and the Highest Honor d’Arsonval Medal
from the Bioelectromagnetics Society in 2006. He is also a fellow of the
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering in 1996 and the
Electromagnetic Academy in 2007.
1509