http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Tiikkaja, Maria,Aro, Aapo L.,Alanko, Tommi,Lindholm, Harri,Sistonen, Heli,Hartikainen, Juha E.K.,Toivonen, Lauri,Juutilainen, Jukka,Hietanen, Maila Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute 2013 Safety and health at work Vol.4 No.3
Background: Cardiac pacemakers are known to be susceptible to strong electromagnetic fields (EMFs). This in vivo study investigated occurrence of electromagnetic interference with pacemakers caused by common environmental sources of EMFs. Methods: Eleven volunteers with a pacemaker were exposed to EMFs produced by two mobile phone base stations, an electrically powered commuter train, and an overhead high voltage transmission lines. All the pacemakers were programmed in normal clinically selected settings with bipolar sensing and pacing configurations. Results: None of the pacemakers experienced interference in any of these exposure situations. However, often it is not clear whether or not strong EMFs exist in various work environments, and hence an individual risk assessment is needed. Conclusions: Modern pacemakers are well shielded against external EMFs, and workers with a pacemaker can most often return to their previous work after having a pacemaker implanted. However, an appropriate risk assessment is still necessary after the implantation of a pacemaker, a change of its generator, or major modification of its programming settings.
Maria Tiikkaja,Aapo L. Aro,Tommi Alanko,Harri Lindholm,Heli Sistonen,Juha E.K. Hartikainen,Lauri Toivonen,Jukka Juutilainen,Maila Hietanen 한국산업안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 2013 Safety and health at work Vol.4 No.3
Background: Cardiac pacemakers are known to be susceptible to strong electromagnetic fields (EMFs). This in vivo study investigated occurrence of electromagnetic interference with pacemakers caused by common environmental sources of EMFs. Methods: Eleven volunteers with a pacemaker were exposed to EMFs produced by two mobile phone base stations, an electrically powered commuter train, and an overhead high voltage transmission lines. All the pacemakers were programmed in normal clinically selected settings with bipolar sensing and pacing configurations. Results: None of the pacemakers experienced interference in any of these exposure situations. However, often it is not clear whether or not strong EMFs exist in various work environments, and hence an individual risk assessment is needed. Conclusions: Modern pacemakers are well shielded against external EMFs, and workers with a pacemaker can most often return to their previous work after having a pacemaker implanted. However, an appropriate risk assessment is still necessary after the implantation of a pacemaker, a change of its generator, or major modification of its programming settings.