New Conducted Electrical Weapons: Electrical Safety Relative to Relevant
Standards
Dorin Panescu, PhD, Fellow IEEE, Max Nerheim, BSEE, MSEE,
Mark W. Kroll, PhD, Fellow IEEE, Michael A. Brave, MS, JD, Sr. Member IEEE
Introduction: We have previously published about TASER®
conducted
electrical weapons (CEW) compliance with international
standards. CEWs deliver electrical pulses that can inhibit a person’s
neuromuscular control or temporarily incapacitate. An eXperimental
Rotating-Field (XRF) waveform CEW and the X2
CEW are new 2-shot electrical weapon models designed to target
a precise amount of delivered charge per pulse. They both can
deploy 1 or 2 dart pairs, delivered by 2 separate cartridges. Additionally,
the XRF controls delivery of incapacitating pulses over
4 field vectors, in a rotating sequence. As in our previous study,
we were motivated by the need to understand the cardiac safety
profile of these new CEWs. The goal of this paper is to analyze
the nominal electrical outputs of TASER XRF and X2 CEWs in
reference to provisions of all relevant international standards
that specify safety requirements for electrical medical devices
and electrical fences. Although these standards do not specifically
mention CEWs, they are the closest electrical safety standards
and hence give very relevant guidance.
Methods: The outputs of several TASER XRF and X2 CEWs were
measured under normal operating conditions. The measurements
were compared against manufacturer specifications.
CEWs electrical output parameters were reviewed against relevant
safety requirements of UL 69, IEC 60335-2-76 Ed 2.1, IEC
60479-1, IEC 60479-2, AS/NZS 60479.1, AS/NZS 60479.2, IEC
60601-1 and BS EN 60601-1.
Results and Conclusion: Our study confirmed that the nominal
electrical outputs of TASER XRF and X2 CEWs lie within safety
bounds specified by relevant standards.
KeywordsCardiac, CEW, Fibrillation, Safety, Standards, TASER.
I. INTRODUCTION
The conducted electrical weapon (CEW) is a less-lethal law
enforcement, military, and civilian force option. These weapons,
such as TASER®
CEWs, deliver trains of low-charge,
very short duration electrical pulses designed to temporarily
inhibit a person’s neuromuscular control through motor-nerve
mediated neuromuscular activation. We have previously published
about CEW operation, performance and safety [1].
D. Panescu is Chief Technical Officer, Vice President R&D, HeartBeam,
Inc. (e-mail: panescu_d@yahoo.com). Dr. Panescu is a paid consultant to
Axon Enterprise, Inc. (Axon), [formerly TASER International, Inc.
(TASER)].
M. Nerheim is Technical Fellow and Vice President of Research at Axon
(e-mail: max@axon.com).
M. W. Kroll is an Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (e-mail: mark@kroll.name). Dr. Kroll
is a consultant to Axon, and a member of the Axon Scientific and Medical
Advisory Board (SMAB) and Corporate Board.
M. A. Brave is Manager/Member of LAAW International, LLC, and is an
employee of Axon, Director of the Axon Science and Medical Research
Group, and legal advisor to the Axon SMAB and the Axon Training Advisory
Board (e-mail: brave@laaw.com).
All authors have served as expert witnesses for Axon or law enforcement.
A previous Expert Panel report stated “Because the electrical
characteristics and outputs of CEW devices are variable
and evolving, each CEW device must be tested on its own
merit to assess performance as well as the ability to induce
neuromuscular incapacitation and adverse physiological and
health effects.” Similarly each CEW waveform must be tested
on its own merits in regard to relevant safety standards [2].
We focused on analyzing the performance of 2 new next
generation “Smart-Weapon” CEWs, the eXperimental Rotating-Field
(XRF) waveform and the X2 CEWs [3, 4]. In conducting
the study, we referred to relevant electrical safety
standards [5 – 12]. Earlier production samples of the X2 CEW
were analyzed in our previous publication [1]. This study analyzes
the most recent X2 CEW. Both the XRF and X2 CEWs
target a precise amount of delivered charge per pulse. They use
electronic circuits to measure the charge delivered by the previous
pulse. The targeted charge delivery of the next pulse is
then controlled accordingly so that it is tightly adjusted toward
the specified charge value. Both CEWs use 2 cartridge bays in
order to provide for immediate back-up shots. The XRF drives
electrical stimuli along 4 field vectors in a rotating sequence,
as shown in Fig. 1. The dart numbers correspond to the cartridge
bay number. First pulse of the sequence is delivered between
darts 1+ and 1-. Second pulse of the sequence goes from
dart 1+ to dart 2-. Third pulse is applied between darts 2+ and
2-. Fourth pulse crosses from dart 2+ to dart 1-. Then the sequence
repeats itself. There are 11 pulses per second (pps) delivered
across each of the 4 vectors. Hence, under normal operation,
each dart fires at a rate of 22 pps.
Figure 1. Rotating pulse-drive sequence for the XRF CEW (figure
shows an illustration of a CEW, not the actual XRF CEW).
978-1-5090-2809-2/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 2185
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:47:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The rotating pulse-drive sequence is designed to increase the
efficacy of the XRF weapon. Even when XRF is deployed
from a closer distance to a subject, the cross vectors #2 (darts
1+ to 2-) and #4 (darts 2+ to 1-) are likely to have a dart spread
greater than 30 cm, a distance which has been empirically
found to produce a more efficacious motor-nerve mediated
muscular lock-up [13].
Table I provides a summary of measured electrical output
parameters and other factors for these CEWs. A 600  noninductive
load was connected to the device output. Their typical
output current and voltage waveforms are shown in Figs. 2
and 3, respectively. The nominal TASER XRF and X2 normaloperation
electrical output parameters were reviewed against
relevant safety requirements of UL 69, IEC 60335-2-76 Ed
2.1, IEC 60479-1, IEC 60479-2, AS/NZS 60479.1, AS/NZS
60479.2, IEC 60601-1 and BS EN 60601-1 [5 – 12].
TABLE I. Output parameters of TASER XRF and X2 CEWs.
The UL 69 requirements cover electric-fence controllers
used only for the control of animals [5]. The IEC 60335-2-76
Ed 2.1: 2006 standard deals with the safety of electric-fence
energizers and with means by which wires in agricultural, domestic
or feral animal-control fences may be electrified or
monitored [6].
Figure 2. TASER XRF and X2 CEW current waveforms.
Standards IEC 60479-1, IEC 60479-2, AS/NZS 60479.1,
AS/NZS 60479.2 describe effects of electrical current on human
beings and livestock [7 – 10]. The 60479-1 series (IEC or
AS/NZS) describes the effects of DC and sinusoidal alternating
currents with frequencies between 15 Hz and 100 Hz passing
through the human body [7, 9]. The effects of non-sinusoidal
currents of higher frequencies are covered by the 60479-
2 series (IEC or AS/NZS) [8, 10].
Figure 3. TASER XRF and X2 CEW voltage waveforms
The IEC 60601-1 standard stipulates accepted regulatory requirements
for the safety of electrical medical devices [11].
The corresponding European Norm (EN) version has similar
scope and requirements [12]. As published previously, our
testing and analysis methodology was consistent with CEW
testing performed by others [14 – 21].
II. METHODS
1. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard for ElectricFence
Controllers, UL 69 10th
Ed, 2009.
Requirements of earlier UL 69 editions are consistent with
those cited in the 2009 Edition [5]. UL 69 also covers portable
and permanently mounted electric-fence controllers with
peak-discharge or sinusoidal-discharge output for indoor or
outdoor use, including battery-operated controllers intended to
operate from battery circuits of 42.4 V or less, line-operated
controllers, combination controllers intended to operate from
either a battery or a line circuit, and photovoltaic module battery
operated controllers. These requirements do not cover
electric-fence controllers for the continuous (uninterrupted)
current type or intermediate equipment, such as a converter, a
rectifier, or the like, that is sometimes used between the primary
source of supply and an electric-fence controller and that
is investigated only as part of a complete controller.
The UL 69 standard load consists of a non-inductive 500 
resistor with an adjustable parallel capacitor of  2 F adjusted
for maximum output. The capacitor can be neglected for our
purposes as it consistently lowers outputs with the short XRF
and X2 pulse. At 2 F capacitive loading, their peak mainphase
voltages drop from over 1000 V to only about 30 V. In
order to assess worst case scenarios, we evaluated the waveforms
shown in Figs. 2 and 3, without using a capacitive load.
Parameter XRF X2
Open-circuit peak voltage [kV] 50 52
Pulse voltage (main phase) [V] 770 560
Peak Main Phase voltage in typical load [kV] 1.7 1.2
Peak Main Phase current in typical load [A] 2.8 2
Energy delivered in typical load [J/pulse] 0.098 0.069
Power into 600 ohm load [W] 2.15 1.3
Net charge in the main phase [µC] 64 62
Impulse duration [µs] 50 66
Pulse rate [pulse/s] 22 19
Aggregate average current (net charge*pps) [mA] 1.4 1.2
Total delivery duration [s] 5 5
On-demand delivery termination Yes Yes
Charge metering Yes Yes
Smart Probes Yes Yes
Integrated EVIDENCE.com Yes Yes
Trilogy Logs (pulse, event, and engineering logs) Yes Yes
Optional Auto Shut-Down Performance Power
Magazine (APPM)
Yes Yes
2186
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:47:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
In its Fig. 22.1, the standard shows the relationship between
current (mA) versus impulse duration (ms) (see Fig. 4 for details).
UL 69 defines the impulse duration as the interval of
time which contains 95% of the overall energy. The 95%-energy
durations for XRF and X2 are 30 µs and 44 µs, respectively.
The equation indicating this relationship is:
Current (mA) = 2000 × (Duration (ms)) −0.7
For impulse with a duration of 0.03 ms (XRF) and 0.044 ms
(X2), the equation yields:
I impulse_UL_limit_XRF = 23283 mArms
I impulse_UL_limit_X2 = 17807 mArms
Abnormal, rapid-fire, operation restrictions are specified as:
Current (mA) = 2000 × (Duration (ms))−0.7
×(pps)−0.5
Figure 4. UL 69: Current vs. impulse duration graph.
The variable pps represents the pulse repetition rate, expressed
in pulses per second (pps). Section 23.2.3 of the standard specifies
these restrictions when the interval between adjacent
pulses drops below 0.75 s and requires that the device shall
interrupt the output within 3 min. Both XRF and X2 automatically
interrupt output after 5 s. Utilization of the optional Auto
Shut-Down Performance Power Magazine (APPM) prevents
the CEW trigger from being held back continuing discharge
and requires reactivation of the trigger to reinitiate discharge.
For impulse durations of 0.03 ms (XRF) and 0.044 ms (X2)
and for repetition rates of 22 pps (XRF) and 19 pps (X2):
I repetitive_UL_limit_XRF = 4964 mArms
I repetitive_UL_limit_X2 = 4085 mArms
2. IEC 60335-2-76, Ed 2.1: Household and Similar Electrical
Appliances—Safety—Part 2—76: Particular Requirements
for Electric Fence Energizers, 2006.
In section 3.118, the standard defines “standard load [6]:
load consisting of a non-inductive resistor of 500 ± 2.5  re-
sistor.”
In section 22.108, the standard calls out that an energizer output
characteristic shall be such that (see Fig. 5 for details) [6]:
- The pulse repetition rate shall not exceed 1 Hz;
- The duration of the impulse shall not exceed 10 ms;
- For energy-limited energizers, the energy/pulse in the 500 
load shall not exceed 5 J/pulse;
- For current-limited energizers the output current in the standard
load shall not exceed 15,700 mArms for impulse duration
of not greater than 0.1 ms;
- If the pulse repetition rate becomes greater than 1.34 Hz
(rapid fire), the discharge energy per second into a load consisting
of a non-inductive resistor of 500  shall not exceed
2.5 J/s (i.e. 2.5 W) for a period not exceeding 3 min, within
which the device shall interrupt its output.
Figure 5. IEC 60335-2-76: Impulse duration vs. output current.
3. IEC 60479-1 & -2: Effects of Current on Human Beings
and Livestock, General & Special Aspects, 2005 – 2007.
The IEC 60479 standard deals with effects of electrical current
on human beings and livestock [7 – 10]. IEC 60479-1 describes
the effects of sinusoidal alternating currents with frequencies
between 15 Hz and 100 Hz and of direct currents
passing through the human body, respectively [7, 9]. The effects
of non-sinusoidal currents of higher frequencies are covered
by IEC 60479-2 [8, 10]. Section 11.4 of IEC 60479-2 describes
the thresholds of ventricular fibrillation (VF) for impulses
of short duration. It states that “for 50% probability of
fibrillation, Fq is of the order of 0.005 As (i.e. 5 mC).” Fq is
defined as the charge of the impulse. Figure 20 of section 11.4
of IEC 60479-2 describes requirements for region C1, which
the standard lists as “no fibrillation” (shown in Fig. 6). Section
11.2.2 and Fig. 18 of IEC 60479-2 define IBrms as being Ipeak/√6
for currents approximated as being mostly unidirectional impulses
of short durations.
2187
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:47:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The requirements of standards AS/NZS 60479.1 and
AS/NZS 60479.2 are similar to those of the corresponding IEC
versions, IEC 60479-1 and IEC 60479-2 [9, 10].
Figure 6. IEC 60479-2: Risks of ventricular fibrillation.
4. IEC 60601-1: Medical electrical equipment. General requirements
for basic safety and essential performance.
2005, including corrigenda up to August 2012.
The 60601-1 international standards stipulate accepted regulatory
requirements for the safety of electrical medical devices
[11, 12]. Among many other requirements, the standard
also sets the allowed threshold for the patient leakage current
for medical devices that have direct contact to patients’ heart.
Citing from the standard, we learn that:
“The allowable value of PATIENT LEAKAGE CURRENT
for TYPE CF APPLIED PARTS in NORMAL
CONDITION is 10 µA which has a probability of 0.002 for
causing ventricular fibrillation or pump failure when applied
through small areas to an intracardiac site.
Even with zero current, it has been observed that mechanical
irritation can produce ventricular fibrillation. A limit of 10
µA is readily achievable and does not significantly increase
the risk of ventricular fibrillation during intracardiac proce-
dures.”
While the 10 µArms limit does not apply to TASER XRF or X2
CEWs, as they are not medical devices and do not deliver an
intracardiac charge, the rationale behind the 0.002 probability
of VF induction is relevant to CEW applications. Although a
10 µArms CF patient-leakage current is deemed to have a 0.002
probability (1 out of 500) of causing VF or pump failure in
humans, the standard accepts this value as being safe. Regulatory
agencies, such as the United States (US) Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) or the Germany-based Technischer
Überwachungs-Verein (TUV), certify electrical medical devices
as being safe for use in intracardiac clinical procedures
if they comply with this patient leakage current limit. Intracardiac
procedures carry the highest risk for patients. Therefore,
by accepting requirements of IEC 60601-1, or the equivalent
BS EN 60601-1, these regulatory agencies accept that a 0.002
probability of causing VF represents an extremely low risk.
III. RESULTS
1. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard for ElectricFence
Controllers, UL 69 10th
Ed, 2009.
Table II presents relevant output parameters of the TASER
XRF and X2 CEWs with respect to previously discussed requirements
of UL 69. Comparatively, the XRF and X2 CEW
output range is also illustrated in Fig. 4.
TABLE II. XRF and X2 CEWs vs. UL 69 limits.
XRF CEW X2 CEW
Duration [ms]
(at 95% of impulse energy)
30 s 44 s
UL limit I impulse_UL_limit 23283 mArms 17807 mArms
Measured main-phase I impulse_max 2830 mA 2030 mA
UL limit I repetitive_UL_limit 4964 mArms 4085 mArms
Measured I repetitive_rms 2265 mArms 1564 mArms
2. IEC 60335-2-76, Ed 2.1: Household and Similar Electrical
Appliances—Safety—Part 2—76: Particular Requirements
for Electric Fence Energizers, 2006.
Table III presents relevant output parameters of the XRF and
X2 CEWs with respect to previously discussed requirements
of IEC 60335-2-76, Ed 2.1. Comparatively, the XRF and X2
CEW output range is also illustrated in Fig. 5. Both CEWs deliver
far less energy per pulse than the 5 J/pulse limit required
by the standard, 0.098 J/pulse and 0.069 J/pulse, respectively.
Based on the 95% of energy duration, the energy/second levels
for the XRF and X2 CEWs are 0.093 J * 22 pps = 2.04 J/s and
0.065 J * 19 pps = 1.24 J/s, respectively.
TABLE III. XRF and X2 CEWs vs. IEC 60335-2-76 limits.
XRF CEW X2 CEW
Duration [ms]
(at 95% of impulse energy)
30 s 44 s
IEC limit I impulse_IEC_limit 15,700 mArms 15,700 mArms
Measured main-phase I im-
pulse_max
2830 mA 2030 mA
IEC limit Energy repeti-
tive_IEC_limit
2.5 J/s 2.5 J/s
Measured Energyrepetitive 2.04 J/s 1.24 J/s
2188
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:47:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3. IEC 60479-1 & -2: Effects of Current on Human Beings
and Livestock, General & Special Aspects, 2005 – 2007.
The main phase net charge of XRF and X2 CEWs was measured
to be 64 µC and 63 µC, respectively. These values are at
least 50 times lower than the threshold indicated by IEC
60479-2 for a 50% probability of VF induction. Even if considering
IBrms equal to the peak main phase output current of
the XRF and X2, 2.8 A and 2 A, the output operating point
continues to fall within the “no fibrillation” region C1 (Fig. 6).
But, as explained above, the actual IBrms can be approximated
as 2.8 A/√6 and 2 A/√6 or 1.14 A and 0.82 A, for the XRF and
X2 CEWs, respectively. At impulse durations of 0.05 ms, for
the XRF, or 0.066 ms, for the X2, IEC 60479-2 specifies the
limit of the C1 region at approximately 6 A (XRF and X2
CEW output range shown in Fig. 6 for comparison). Consequently,
the electrical parameters of XRF and X2 CEWs are
well within the “no fibrillation” region C1, as specified by IEC
60479-2. Even the peak electrical currents delivered by XRF
and X2 CEWs during their arc phases (5.3 A and 3.1 A, respectively)
fall in the “no fibrillation” region C1. For clarification,
when delivered to a 600  load for a full 5 s cycle, the
actual root-mean-squared (RMS) value of the output current
of a XRF CEW was measured at 60 mArms. Similarly, for a full
5 s cycle, the X2 CEW the output current RMS value was
47 mArms. Thus, according to the IEC 60479-2 criteria, an impulse
from a XRF or X2 CEW has very remote chances, if any,
of directly inducing VF in a human. With a sequence of pulses,
the VF threshold may decrease (see section 9.2 of IEC 60479-
2) [8, 10]. Example 1, shown in Fig. 14 section 9.2,2, page 26,
discusses the VF risk of a train of 4 very short current pulses,
similar to those put out by TASER CEWs. The IEC 60479-2
concludes that “the risk of ventricular fibrillation in this case
could be considered low [8].” In light of this Example, considering
the narrow impulse duration (50 µs and 66 µs) and short
duty cycle (< 0.2%) of XRF and X2 CEWs, the IEC 60479-2
standard confirms that a series of pulses delivered by these
CEWs would not increase the risk of VF relative to that associated
with one impulse.
We conclude that the XRF and X2 CEWs electrical outputs
are within the “no fibrillation” region, as defined by IEC
60479-2.
4. IEC 60601-1: Medical electrical equipment. General requirements
for basic safety and essential performance.
2005, including corrigenda up to August 2012.
By accepting IEC 60601-1, or the equivalent BS EN 60601-
1, regulatory agencies accept that a 0.002 probability of causing
VF, or of 1 in 500 events, represents an extremely low risk.
The reported theoretical VF risk with CEWs is much lower.
Between 2011 and 2016, there were approximately 180,000
X2 CEWs sold in the United States [4]. At the time of this
article, the XRF CEW has not yet been released. Previous statistics
gathered from the field use of TASER CEWs show an
average of 0.55 field uses/year/sold CEW [22]. Hence, we estimated
that, to-date, there have been approximately 235,000
field uses of Smart–Weapon CEWs. None of these have been
confirmed to result in cardiac arrest. While, at this time, the
field use numbers are too low to support statistically significant
conclusions, the trend is supportive and consistent with a
very high safety profile of better than 0.0000043. At least preliminarily,
the observed safety risk of Smart–Weapon CEWs
(i.e. less than 0.0000043) is at least 470 times smaller than the
IEC 60601-1-accepted VF risk of 0.002.
IV. DISCUSSION
The relevant sections of all standards discussed above reflect
electrical requirements concerning cardiac safety of subjects
exposed to CEW currents. Indicative of the importance
of this topic, others have studied it as well.
Nimunkar and Webster also determined that the X26 CEW
electrical parameters fall within relevant safety limits of UL,
IEC and AS/NZS standards and within those of a new proposed
electrical standard for testing the safety of pulsed electric
devices [20]. Adler et al. described a detailed methodology
for testing TASER CEWs [21]. Their protocol was based on
experience of testing 6000 TASER CEWs in affiliated labs.
They referenced the IEC 60479-2 electrical safety standard [8]
and used it to compare the measured TASER CEW electrical
output parameters. According to their results, even after accounting
for device-to-device variability, the measured
TASER CEW output parameters fell well within the safety
limits prescribed by IEC 60479-2 [21].
The relevance of these results and findings is that CEWs
which meet safety requirements of the standards discussed
above are more likely to exhibit a low risk of inducing fatal
cardiac conditions. Other standards, such as ICNIRP, IEEE,
FCC, may be important as well [23 – 25]. However, such
standards focus more of radiofrequency absorption by human
body, electromagnetic compatibility or immunity, or on effects
of electromagnetic fields on the human body, rather than on
cardiac safety of pulsed electric devices. For example, Table 1
of ANSI/IEEE C95.1 – 2005 provides basic restriction to electric
field intensity in the heart at frequencies below 5 MHz. Per
finite element studies published previously, we believe previous
and new CEW models meet these basic restrictions [24,
26]. However, unlike UL, IEC, AS/NZS, EN and BSI standards,
the ICNIRP, IEEE, FCC do not provide safety limits that
can be tested directly on the output waveform of CEWs. Our
future studies will further analyze implications of such standards
to use of CEWs.
IV. CONCLUSION
The analyses above focused on the normal-operation performance
and safety of the XRF and X2 CEWs in reference to
relevant electrical safety standards. In situations when a dart
2189
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:47:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
misses the subject, the XRF CEW rotating pulse-drive sequence
shown in Fig. 1 may change. Analyses of such XRF
CEW use cases will be reported in our future studies.
Our analyses confirmed that the nominal electrical outputs
of TASER XRF and X2 CEWs, when operated under normal
conditions, lie within safety bounds specified by relevant requirements
of UL, IEC, AS/NZS, EN and BSI, standards.
V. REFERENCES
[1] D. Panescu, M. Nerheim and M. W. Kroll, “Electrical safety of
conducted electrical weapons relative to requirements of relevant
electrical standards,” Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc., vol. 1,
pp. 5342-7, 2013.
[2] Council of Canadian Academies and Canadian Academy of
Health Sciences, 2013. The Health Effects of Conducted Energy
Weapons. Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on the Medical and
Physiological Impacts of Conducted Energy Weapons. Council
of Canadian Academies and Canadian Academy of Health Sci-
ences.
[3] M. H. Nerheim, Systems and methods for an electronic control
device with date and time recording, US Patent 7,570,476, August
4, 2009.
[4] TASER International: Smart Weapons Technology. Available at
https://www.taser.com/products/smart-weapons
[5] Underwriters Laboratories, UL Standard for Electric-Fence Controllers,
UL 69 10th
Ed, 2009, Northbrook, IL: UL Laboratories.
[6] International Electrotechnical Commission, Household and Similar
Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2—76: Particular Requirements
for Electric Fence Energizers IEC 60335-2-76, Ed
2.1, 2006, Geneva: IEC.
[7] International Electrotechnical Commission, Effects of current on
human beings and livestock: Part 1 – General aspects, IEC 60479-
1, 2005, Geneva: IEC.
[8] International Electrotechnical Commission, Effects of current on
human beings and livestock: Part 2 – Special aspects, IEC 60479-
2, 2007, Geneva: IEC.
[9] Australian/New Zealand Standard™, Effects of current on human
beings and livestock: Part 1: General aspects. AS/NZS
60479.1:2010.
[10] Australian/New Zealand Standard™, Effects of current on human
beings and livestock: Part 2: Special aspects. AS/NZS
60479.2:2002.
[11] International Electrotechnical Commission, Medical electrical
equipment - Part 1: General requirements for basic safety and
essential performance, IEC 60601-1:2005+A1:2012, Geneva:
IEC.
[12] BSI British Standards. BS EN 60601-1:2010 Medical electrical
equipment. General requirements for basic safety and essential
performance. 2010.
[13] J. Ho, D. Dawes, J. Miner, S. Kunz, R. Nelson and J. Sweeney.
“Conducted electrical weapon incapacitation during a goal-directed
task as a function of probe spread,” Forensic Sci Med
Pathol, vol. 8(4), pp. 358-366, 2012.
[14] J. Southwell, “Taser X-26 safety analysis,” Biomedical Engineering
Department of The Alfred Hospital, Victoria, Australia,
2004. Referenced at http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Resources/Internet/news
and alerts/campaigns/taser/documents/Review
of the QPS Taser trial.pdf
[15] J. Southwell, “Advanced Taser M-26 safety analysis,” Biomedical
Engineering Department of The Alfred Hospital, Victoria,
Australia, 2003. Referenced at http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Resources/Internet/news
and alerts/campaigns/taser/documents/Review
of the QPS Taser trial.pdf
[16] Australian Standard, Effects current flowing through the human
body. AS 3859: 1991.
[17] M. N. Robinson, C. G. Brooks, G. D. Renshaw, “Electric Shock
Devices and their Effects on the Human Body,” Med. Sci. Law,
vol. 30(4), pp. 285-300, 1990.
[18] C. Sherry, C. Beason, G. C. Brown, et al., “Variable Taser Parameters:
Effectiveness (Muscle Contraction) and Cardiac
Safety (Ventricular Fibrillation),” United States Air Force Research
Laboratory. AFRL-HE-BR-TR-2004-0094, July 2004.
[19] M. Brave, D. R. Lakkireddy, M. W. Kroll and D. Panescu,
“Validity of the Small Swine Model for Human Electrical
Safety Risks,” Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc., vol. Aug,
pp. 2343-8, 2016.
[20] A. J. Nimunkar and J.G. Webster, “Safety of pulsed electric devices,”
Physiol Meas., vol. 30(1), pp. 101-114, 2009.
[21] A. Adler, D. Dawson and R. Evans, “Toward a Test Protocol for
Conducted Energy Weapons,” Modern Instrumentation, Vol.
2(1), pp. 7-15, 2013.
[22] J. E. Brewer, M. W. Kroll, “Field Statistics Overview,” in
TASER Conducted Electrical Weapons: Physiology, Pathology,
and Law, M.W. Kroll, J.D. Ho Eds., Springer, 2009.
[23] ICNIRP, “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time‐varying electric
and magnetic fields (1 Hz – 100 kHz),” Health Physics, vol.
99(6), pp. 818‐836, 2010.
[24] IEEE, “IEEE Std C95.1 – 2005 Standard for Safety Levels with
Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,” IEEE, New York, NY, 2005.
[25] Federal Communications Commission, “Guidelines for Evaluating
the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation,”
FCC 96-326, 1996.
[26] D. Panescu, M. Kroll and M. Brave, “Cardiac Fibrillation Risks
with TASER Conducted Electrical Weapons,” IEEE Eng. Med.
Biol. Soc., vol. 37, pp. 323-329, 2015.
2190
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:47:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.