Advertisement

How New RFR Standards will Impact the Broadcast and Telecommunications Industries

  • Richard A. Tell
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 274)

Abstract

Despite the controversial nature of whether radiofrequency radiation (RFR) poses the potential for adverse health effects in exposed individuals, there has been no lack of development of RFR exposure standards in recent years. During the last ten years, no less than an average of one new guideline or standard has been issued each year. Regulatory activities in the United States,1,2 Canada,3 the United Kingdom,4 Australia,5 Germany,6 China,7 and Czechoslovakia8 exemplify this prolific generation of new and, very commonly, more stringent and complex standards.

Keywords

Federal Communication Commission Very High Frequency American National Standard Institute Broadcast Station Uncontrolled Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. IEEE C95.1-1991. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017 (1991).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ANSI Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991. American National Standards Institute, Inc., 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017 (1992).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Safety Code-6. Limits of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields at Frequencies from 10 kHz-300 GHz. Minister of National Health and Welfare, Canada, Publication EHD-TR-160 (1991).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guidance as to Restrictions on Exposures to Time Varying Electromagnetic Fields and the 1988 Recommendations of the International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee. National Radiological Protection Board, UK, Report NRPB-GS11, May, p 22 (1989).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maximum Exposure Levels — Radio-Frequency Radiation — 300 kHz to 300 GHz, Part 1. Australian Standard 2772.1-1990, published by the Standards Association of Australia, Standards House, 80 Arthur Street, North Sydney, N.S.W., Australia (1990).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sicherheit bei elektromagnetischen Feldern Grenzwerte für Feldäen zum Schutz von Personen im Frequenzbereich von 0 bis 30 kHz Anderung 1. VDT 0848 Teil 4 A1, Deutsche Elektrotechnische Kommission im DIN und VDE (DKE), Germany, November (1990).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Regulation on Protection from EM Radiation. Issued by the State Environmental Protection Bureau, China, Document GB 8702-88 (1988).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Order of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic dated 3 October 1990 concerning the protection of health from the adverse effects of electromagnetic radiation, Czechoslovakia, No. 408/1990 Sb (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.H. Hall, An Estimate of the Potential Costs of Guidelines Limiting Public Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Broadcast Sources. Technical report prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under EPA-DOE Interagency Agreement A-89-F-2-803-0. Report No. EPA 520/1-85-025, UCRL Report 53562, July, 2 volumes (1985).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Support to the Environmental Protection Agency, Nonionizing Radiation Source Analysis. Prepared by the Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis Center, Annapolis, Maryland 21401. ECAC Report ECAC-CR-82-093 prepared by F. H. Tushoph and V. P. Nanda, September (1982).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cellular telephone radiation blamed for brain tumor, Microwave News, Vol. XII, No. 3, pp 1, 11, May/June (1992).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Ryan, Cellular scare could delay wireless-comm growth, FCC to revise EMF standards, Electronic Engineering Times, February 8 (1993).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.J. Keller, McCaw to study cellular phones as safety questions affect sales, The Wall Street Journal, January 29 (1993).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ANSI. Safety levels with respect to human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz. American National Standard C95.1-1982, American National Standards Institute, September 1 (1982).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Regulations governing fixed facilities which generate electromagnetic fields in the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz and microwave ovens. 105 CMR 122.000, Code of Massachusetts Regulation, Vol. 2/3, No. 379. Effective October 1, 1983 (1983).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nonionizing radiation frequency range from 10 kHz to 100 GHz. 440 CMR 5.00, Department of Labor and Industries, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Recently redesignated 453 CMR 5.00 (1986).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    An ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding radio and television transmission towers. Ordinance No. 330, Multnomah County, Oregon, adopted July 20,1982, effective August 19, (1982). 18. Radio and television broadcast facilities ordinance. Ordinance No. 160049, the City of Portland, Oregon, adopted August 19, 1987, effective September 19, (1987).Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    O.P. Gandhi, I. Chatterjee, D. Wu and Y-G Gu, Likelihood of high rates of energy deposition in the humans legs at the ANSI recommended 3-30-MHz RF safety levels, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 73, pp. 1145–1147 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 20.
    K. Jokela and L. Puranen, Theoretical and measured electric and magnetic field strengths around the dipole curtain antennas at the Pori short-wave station, Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, P.O. Box 268, SF-00101 Helsinki, Finland (1988).Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    E.D. Mantiply and N.N. Hankin, Radiofrequency Radiation Survey in the McFarland, California Area. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/520/6-89/022, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193, September (1989).Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    K. Tokushige, Y. Kamimura, Y. Yamanaka and Y. Shimizu, Measurements and estimations of electromagnetic field strength of radiation on the ground near a HF broadcast station. Transactions of the Japan Institute of Radio Engineers, Vol. 34, No. 173, December, pp. 211–220 (1988).Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    R.A. Tell and E.D. Mantiply, Population exposure to VHF and UHF broadcast radiation in the United States. Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 68, No. 1, January, pp. 6–12 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 24.
    R.A. Tell and N.N. Hankin. Measurements of Radiofrequency Field Intensity in Buildings with Close Proximity to Broadcast Stations. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nevada 89114. Report ORP/EAD-78-3, August. (1978).Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    An Investigation of Radiofrequency Radiation Levels on Lookout Mountain, Jefferson County, Colorado September 22–26, 1986. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nevada 89114. Report prepared for the Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, February (1987).Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Induced Currents in the Spokane, Washington Area June 29-July 3, 1987. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193. Report EPA/520/6-88/008 prepared for the Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, (June 1988).Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    An Investigation of Radiofrequency Radiation Levels on Healy Heights Portland, Oregon July 28–August 1, 1986. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nevada 89114. Report prepared for the Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, January (1987).Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    R.A. Tell, Induced Body Currents and Hot AM Tower Climbing: Assessing Human Exposure in Relation to the ANSI Radiofrequency Protection Guide. Report prepared by Richard Tell Associates, Inc., 6141 W. Racel Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89131, for Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology, Washington, DC 20554, October 7, [National Technical Information Service accession number PB92-125186] (1992).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    R.C. Petersen, Levels of electromagnetic energy in the immediate vicinity of representative microwave radio relay towers, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Communications. Boston, Massachusetts, June 10, pp. 31.5.1-31.5.5 (1980).Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    R.C. Petersen, Microwave frequency radiation power densities from 4 GHz and 6 GHz radio relay, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Communications. Boston, Massachusetts, June 10, pp. 31.1.1-31.1.3(1980).Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    K.H. Joyner, V. Lubinas, M.P. Wood, J. Saribalas, and J.A. Adams. Radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposures from mobile phones, in: Proceedings of Eighth International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association, Montreal, Canada, May 17-22, pp. 779-782 (1992).Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Testicular cancer cluster among police radar users, Microwave News, Vol. XII, No. 2, pp.7-8, 10, March/April issue (1992).Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    R.C. Baird, RJL Lewis, D.P. Kremer, and S.B. Kilgore. Field Strength Measurements of Speed Measuring Radar Units. National Bureau of Standards report NBSIR 81-2225 prepared for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, May (1981).Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    P.D. Fisher, Microwave exposure levels encountered by police traffic radar operators. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 35, No. 1, February, pp. 36–45 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 35.
    EPA. Federal Radiation Protection Guidelines; Proposed Alternatives for Controlling Public Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation; Notice of Proposed Recommendations. Federal Register, July 30, 1986, Vol. 51, No. 146, pp. 27318-27339 (1986).Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    P.C. Gailey and R.A. Tell, An Engineering Assessment of the Potential Impact of Federal Radiation Protection Guidance on the AM, FM and TV Broadcast Services. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report EPA 520/6-85-011. Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193, April, [National Technical Information Service accession number PB85-245868] (1985).Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    R.W. Adler and S. Lamont, Numerical Modeling Study of Gain and Downward Radiation for Selected FM and VHF-TV Broadcast Antenna Systems. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonionizing Radiation Branch, Las Vegas, NV 89114, by AGL, Inc., P.O. Box 253, Pacific Grove, CA 93950. EPA technical report EPA-520/6-85-018, March 15 (1984).Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    EPA DRAFT Background Information Document for Radiation Protection Guidance to Limit Exposure of the General Public to Radiofrequency Radiation. Draft report prepared by the Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 6 (1983).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. Tell
    • 1
  1. 1.Richard Tell Associates, Inc.Las VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations