vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
EPA-520/2-77-008
May 1978
Radiation
Radiofrequency Radiation Levels And
Population Exposure In Urban Areas
Of The Eastern United States
-------
Office of Radiation Programs Technical Publications
Mom'onizing Radiation
Publications of the Office of Radiation Programs are available from
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Soringfield, VA
22161. Current prices should be obtained directly from NTIS using the
indicated NTIS Order number. Single copies of some of the publications
listed below may also be available without charge from the Office of
Radiation Programs (A'J-461), 401 M St., SW Washington, DC 20460.
EPA ORD/SID 72-3 Reference Data for Radiofrequency Emission
Hazard Analysis (NTIS Order No. PB 220 471)
EPA-'OR-1 73-2 Environmental Exposure to Nonionizing Radiation,
(Available NTIS only, -Order No. PB 220 851)
EPA-520/2-73-301 Nonionizing Measurement Capabilities: State
and Federal Agencies (Available NTIS only,
Order No. PR 226 778/AS)
EPA-520/1-74-005 RF Pulse Spectral Measurements in the Vicinity
of Several' ATC Radars (NTIS Order No. PB 235 733)
f/-•'••-5'j/2-7^-000. An Evaluation of Satellite Communication Systems
as Sources of Environmental Microwave Radiation
(NTIS Order No. PB 257 138/AS)
•j:-.'•'":••'-' "5-1 An Analvsis of Broadcast Radiation Levels in
Hawaii (NTIS Order No. PB 261 316/AS)
OK-, :.~>,~' 7£-l Radiation Characteristics of Traffic Radar Systems
(NTIS Order No. PB 257 077/A.S)
'.••' :';1.:'~> 76-2 A Measurement of RF Field Intensities in the
Immediate Vicinity of an FM Broadcast Station
Antenna (NTIS Order No. PB 257 698/AS)
'2-76-003 An Examination of Electric Fields Under EHV
Overhead Power Transmission Lines (NTIS Order
No. PR 270 613/AS)
77-2 An Investigation of Broadcast Radiation Intensities
at Mt. Hilson, California (NTIS Order No. DR 275
040/AS)
An Analysis cf Radar Exposure in the San Francisco
Area (NTIS Order No. PB 273 188/AS)
-------
50272-10]
r DOCU
PAGE
4. Title and Subtitle
1. REPORT NO
EPA-520/2-77-008
2.
3. R
Radio-frequency Radiation Levels and Population
Exposure in Urban Areas of the Eastern United
States
5- Report Date
May 1978
7* Author(s)
T.W. Athey, FU\^ell,J,N, Hankin, D.L. Lambdin, E.D. Mantiply,
9. Performing Organization Name and Address afld D.E,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Office of Radiation Programs
9100 Brookville Road
Silver Spring, MD 20910
6.
8. Perforrmng Organization Rept. No
Agency
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No
I 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
9100 Brookville Ro^d, _Sj1ver Spring, MD 20910
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report & Pertod Covered
Technical Report
14
15. Supplementary Notes
18, Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
As part of a program to determine the need for environmental radiofrequency
exposure standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began measuring
levels of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation in urban areas of the United States
in October 1975. By October 1976 surveys in seven selected cities of the Eastern
United States had been completed, namely, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Miami, New York,
Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. This report describes the measurement system,
presents a summary of the environmental measurements, and gives one method of
predicting population exposure from the environmental measurements.
Environmental data were collected with a van mounted system consistina of
antennas, a spectrum analyzer, and a minicomputer. Measurements were made in seven
frequency bands between 0.01 and 900 MHz in which pilot studies had indicated that
the most significant environmental exposures occur. Environmental data were collect
ed at 193 sites in the seven cities. Values of power density integrated over the
frequency range from 55 to 900 MHz generally fall into the range between 0.001 and
1.0 microwatt per square centimeter (yW/cm2) with a median site value of about
0.01 pW/cm2. A model was developed which can be used to extrapolate the measured
data to other points within the seven cities. Estimates of population exposure
were obtained by combining this model with an automated population data base.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
U.S. EPA LIBRARY REGION 10 MATERIALS
RXOQDOaDTDO
C. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release unlimited
19. Security Class (This Report)
Unclassified
20* Security Class (This Page)
Unclassified
22. Price
(See ANSI-239.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTlS-35)
Department of Commerce
\
-------
Technical Report
EPA-520/2-77-008
RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION LEVELS AND POPULATION EXPOSURE IN
URBAN AREAS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
T.W. Athey, R.A. Tell, N.N. Hankin, D.L. Lambdin,
E.D. Mantiply, and D.E. Janes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
Electromagnetic Radiation Analysis Branch
9100 Brookville Road
Silver Spring, MD 20910
-------
11
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Radiation Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute en-
dorsement or recommendation for their use.
-------
PREFACE
The Office of Radiation Programs of the Environmental Protection
Agency carries out a national program designed to evaluate population
exposure to ionizing and nonionizing radiation, and to promote develop-
ment of controls necessary to protect the public health and safety.
This report summarizes the results of environmental measurements of
nonionizing, electromagnetic radiation that were made in seven major
metropolitan areas of the eastern United States. Readers of this
report are encouraged to inform the Office of Radiation Programs of
any omissions or errors.
W. D. Rowe, Ph.D.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs
-------
iv
RADIOFREQUEMCY RADIATION LEVELS AND POPULATION EXPOSURE IN
URBAN AREAS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
ABSTRACT
As part of a program to determine the need for environmental
radiofrequency exposure standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency began measuring levels of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation
in urban areas of the"United States in October 1975. By October 1976
surveys in seven selected cities of the Eastern United States had been
completed, namely, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Miami, New York,
Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. This report describes the measurement
system, presents a summary of the environmental measurements, and gives
one method of predicting population exposure from the environmental
measurements.
Environmental data were collected with a van mounted system
consisting of antennas, a spectrum analyzer, and a minicomputer.
Measurements were made in seven frequency bands between 0.01 and 900 MHz
in which pilot studies had indicated that the most significant envi-
ronmental exposures occur. Environmental data were collected at 193
sites in the seven cities. Values of power density integrated over the
frequency range from 55 to 900 MHz generally fall into the range between
0.001 and 1.0 microwatt per square centimeter (yW/cm2) with a median
site value of about 0.01 yW/cm2. A model was developed which can be
used to extrapolate the measured data to other points within the seven
cities. Estimates of population exposure were obtained by combining
this model with an automated population data base.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface i i i
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vi
•
Introduction 1
Equipment 2
Measurements 4
Population Exposure 6
Significance of Levels 8
Summary 9
References 11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
Page
1 Antennas used for environmental radio-frequency
measurements 13
2 Summary of overal1 system errors 14
3 Environmental surveys 15
4 Power densities at 193 urban sites ' 16
5 Metropolitan area definition 23
6 Radiofrequency radiation standards 24
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Block diagram of measurement system 25
2 Radiofrequency detection equipment and
minicomputer inside van 26
3 The FM radio spectrum at a site in Atlanta ... 27
4 The lower VHF television band spectrum at a
site in Philadelphia 28
5 The upper VHF television band spectrum at a
site in Atlanta 29
6 The VHF land mobile band spectrum at a site in
Mi ami 30
7 Distribution of power densities at 193
measurement sites 31
8 Distribution of field strengths as a function
of distance from Miami FM radio transmitters . 32
-------
VI1
Numoer Page
9 Relative field strengths from Miami FM radio
transmi tters 33
10 The field strength model 34
11 The fraction of the population in seven
eastern cities exposed at various power
densities 35
12 The fraction of the population exposed
at various power densities in Boston 36
13 The fraction of the population exposed
at various power densities in Atlanta 37
14 The fraction of the population exposed
at various power densities in Miami 38
15 The fraction of the population exposed
at various power densities in Philadelphia ... 39
16 The fraction of the population exposed
at various power densities in Chicago 40
17 The fraction of the population exposed
at various power densities in New York 41
18 The fraction of the population exposed
at various power densities in
Washington, DC 4?
-------
RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION LEVELS AND POPULATION EXPOSURE IN
URBAN AREAS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
T.W. Athey, R.A. Tell, N.N. Hankin, D.L. Lambdin,
E.D. Mantiply, and D.E. Janes
U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency
Office of Radiation Programs
Electromagnetic Radiation Analysis Branch
9100 Brookville Road
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
I. INTRODUCTION
As a part of a program to determine the need for environmental
radiofrequency exposure guidance, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency began measuring levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic
radiation in urban areas of the United States in October 1975. By
October 1976 surveys in seven selected cities of the Eastern United
States had been completed, namely, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Miami,
New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. This paper describes
the measurement system, presents a summary of the environmental
measurements, and gives one method of predicting population exposure
from the measured data. The measurement system (1), and summaries
of the site (2) and population exposure (3) for Atlanta, Boston,
Miami, and Philadelphia have been previously described.
Environmental data were collected with a van-mounted system
consisting of antennas, a spectrum analyzer, and a minicomputer.
Measurements were made in the seven frequency bands between 0.01
and 900 MHz where pilot studies had indicated that the most siqnificant
environmental exposures occur (4). Environmental data were collected
at 193 sites in the seven cities. Values of power density integrated
over the frequency range from 46 to 900 MHz generally fall into the
range between 0.001 and 1.0 microwatts per square centimeter (uW/cm2)
with a median site value of about .02-.03 yW/cm2. A model was
developed which can be used to extrapolate the measured data to
other points within the seven cities. By combining this model with
an automated population data base, estimates of population exposure
were obtained for the seven cities and will be presented.
-------
II. EQUIPMENT
A block diagram of the measurement system is shown in figure 1.
Basically, the system is composed of a scanning spectrum analyzer with
several different types of antenna systems, depending on the particular
band of interest, interfaced to a minicomputer data acquisition system.
This instrumentation concept was proposed for spectrum engineering
applications by the Joint Technical Advisory Committee (5) and studied
by Hagn, et^ al_. (6) for spectrum occupancy, compliance, and electro-
magnetic compatibility applications. Several systems of this type are
being used for spectrum management (7, 8, 9). Signals from the antenna
are processed by the spectrum analyzer and analog amplitude information
is digitized and input to the minicomputer where it is subsequently
processed with data correction and analysis routines. The spectrum
analyzer is controlled by the computer through trigger signals, while
other signals under program control provide for other events such as
antenna switching.
Detection Hardware
The principal detection equipment consists of a Hewlett Packard
spectrum analyzer mainframe with variable persistence display and a
number of plug-in radio-frequency sections to provide a total detection
range from 20 Hz to 18 GHz. Normally the narrow band signal peak height
is taken as the received signal's power.
The data acquisition system is configured around a Varian Data
Machines central processing unit (CPU) with a 750 nsec cycle time and
32000 16-bit words of core memory. A 123000 word, fixed-head, disk
provides high speed mass storage for the system operating software,
programs, and data. Additional mass storage is provided by a dual-head,
flexible disk unit. A large screen CRT is used to display alphanumeric and
graphic data while a standard ASR-33 teletype is the main input device for
the operator. To facilitate interfacing to other instruments, a console
is provided for access to various hardware features of the system which
include a 13-bit resolution analog-to-digital converter (ADC) multiplexed
to 16 channels, two digital-to-analog converters (one with 14-bit and
the other with 10-bit resolution) for outputing voltages, single-bit
inputs for sensing the status of various events, and program-controlled
switches.
Connection to the spectrum analyzer is accomplished via the interface
console. A trigger signal is developed by one of the digital-to-analog
converters, and the analog amplitude signal from the analyzer is read in
through one of the ADC's multiplexed channels.
-------
Figure 2 is a photograph of the system as it appears in the
measurement van. The radiofrequency detection equipment is in the rack
to the left and the data acquisition system is beyond the operator. A
hardcopy unit provides finished paper copies of the CRT display.
Antennas
Table 1 lists the different antennas used with the system in the
different monitoring bands. Most of the antenna systems were designed
to be omnidirectional so that the amplitude of all signals in a band can
be obtained, regardless of direction to the source. The antennas were
also designed to be responsive to the significant polarization components
in the various bands.
System Calibrations
Each antenna employed for routine monitoring was calibrated across
its intended frequency by referencing it, indirectly to a set of National
Bureau of Standards (NBS) calibrated, standard dipoles. This was accom-
plished by first using the NBS antennas to calibrate a set of Singer
tuneable dipoles which cover the frequency range of 30 to 1,000 MHz, and
then using the Sinqer dipoles at appropriate frequencies to calibrate,
by the comparison technique, the system monitoring antennas.
These calibrations were carried out with the antennas in their
normally used position on the van. The calibrating field was established
with a dipole antenna at a distance of 600 feet. Antenna calibration
data were recorded at appropriate frequency intervals for each system
for maximum signal strength, i.e., main lobe alignment. In the case of
orthogonally constructed dipoles, measurements were individually performed
for each dipole in the array.
For the horizontal, orthogonal dipoles, it is necessary to obtain
the radiation pattern for each dipole. These patterns were obtained
with the antennas mounted on the van at the antenna range and turntable
of the Institute for Telecommunications Science (U.S. Dept. of Commerce)
near Boulder, Colorado. The patterns from the two dipoles may then be
added to obtain the overall pattern for horizontally polarized signals.
This composite pattern is not completely uniform for all directions, but
the average over all angles is within 2.2 dB of the extremes. The
maxima of the composite pattern are obtained at the points where the
individual dipoles have their maxima, these latter points being referenced
(indirectly) to the standard dipoles. The difference between the composite
maxima and the angular average response is incorporated into the overall
antenna factor.
-------
Table 2 provides a summary of the total uncertainties measured for
the overall system. The total system uncertainty consists of these
components: the basic calibration accuracy of the NBS standard dipoles,
the uncertainty due to using the Singer dipoles at frequencies between
calibration points, the uncertainty associated with the fitting of a
functional form to the measured calibration curves for the monitoring
antennas, an uncertainty due to the angular dependence of the_antenna
system being used, and a system conversion uncertainty which is a measure
of the spectrum analyzer-computer system's ability to accurately detect,
plot, and record radiofrequency signal levels. Each of these factors
are provided in Table 2 and show that the system has a total uncertainty
no greater than 2.5 dB. The angular dependence error also includes a
factor for a slight variation of the angular dependence upon frequency.
The whole measurement system described here is installed in a
27-foot Travco van for portable operation. A pneumatic, telescoping
mast attached to the rear of the van is used for elevating the antennas
to their standard measurement heights. Two separate 6 KW electric
generators are used for power, one unit dedicated to instrumentation,
and the other to utilities.
III. MEASUREMENTS
Environmental surveys were carried out in seven cities in the
Eastern United States during 1975-6. These cities are listed in Table 3
with the dates of the survey and the number of measurement sites. The
measurement sites were selected primarily on the basis of population
distribution, i.e., sites which cover the most heavily populated areas.
Additional criteria were the geographic area to be covered and the
distribution of source of radiofrequency radiation.
The seven discrete bands defined in Table 2 were monitored at most
of the sites. Previous results had indicated that these bands cover all
of the most environmentally significant .sources (4). After the first few
metropolitan surveys, the two land mobile bands were found to be relatively
insignificant as environmental radiofrequency radiation sources. Therefore,
these two bands were only monitored at about one-third of the sites
during the last few surveys.
At each measurement site a number of scans, 25-50, are taken in
each band with the antennas at approximately 6.2 meters above ground,
and the rms average of the electric field strength spectra is computed.
In the land mobile bands, the signals are intermittent, and in these cases
the maximum values obtained at each frequency are also saved and displaved
-------
as "peak" spectra. After the data for a band have been collected, the
total power density in the band is calculated. When measurements at a
site have been completed, the location is marked on a U.S.G.S.
(7.5 minute) map, and the geographic coordinates are determined to
within one second (about 30 meters).
Examples of system output for several bands are shown in
figures 3-6. These represent actual environmental data collected during
the first few field trips. Figure 3 shows the FM band for a site in
Atlanta. All system calibration factors are included so that the absolute
field strength of any signal is obtained. The dynamic range capabilities
of the system are illustrated in this figure, the highest levels being a
factor of 106 greater than the lowest, the total dynamic range is about
eight orders of magnitude (80 dB).
Figure 4 is an example of data collected in the lower half of the
VHF-TV bands (channels 2-6). Only channels 3 (60-66 MHz) and 6 (82-88
MHz) are on-the-air at this site in Philadelphia. Part of the FM band
is shown from 88-96 MHz, but these signals are not included in the power
density total for this band. Figure 5 shows the upper half of the VHF-
TV band at another location. An example of the VHF land mobile band is
shown in Figure 6.
Data were collected at 193 sites in the seven metropolitan area
surveys. Table 4 shows for each site, the power density in each of the
seven bands and the total power density summed over the upper six frequency
bands. The 0-2 MHz band is not included in the total because it is not
covered by the ANSI and OSHA standards and is not directly comparable to
the results from the higher frequency bands. There are significant
differences in total power density between the various sites within each
city. The values typically range over five orders of magnitude, from
about .0001 to 10 yW/cm2.
The fraction of sites at which the total power density exceeds any
given value is shown in figure 7. Since the sites were not chosen
solely on the basis of population density, the population exposure curve
will not coincide with this one. However, it does permit a comparison
of the relative significance of the different bands. The distribution
of power densities for several of the bands is also shown in figure 7.
The land mobile bands are seen to contribute the least exposure of the
bands considered. The UHF television transmitters, in spite of having
the highest effective isotropic radiated power, are not as significant
as a class as the FM radio and VHF television bands.
-------
IV. POPULATION EXPOSURE
By population exposure to nonionizing radiation is meant the
number of people exposed at various levels of power density. Two kinds
of information are required to obtain the population exposure: the
distribution of the population and the distribution of power densities
in the area of interest. There are inherent limitations on accuracy
and completeness with which these two distributions can be determined
as will be discussed, but valuable information may still be obtained
on population exposure in spite of the limitations.
There is only one automated population data base available at
present and this is the U.S. Census Bureau's "Master Enumeration List
with Coordinates" (1970) which consists of data from 250,000 Census
Enumeration Districts (CEDs). Each data record contains the state code,
county code, housing count, population count, and geographic coordinates
of the approximate centroid of population for the CED. When using this
data base one assumes, for exposure calculations, that all the population
of a district is concentrated at the centroid. There is no information
on actual occupancy or daily movement of the population in this data base.
If the population data base described above is used, then the best
estimate of population exposure would result if measurements were made at
each CED centroid in an area of interest. Since there may be several
thousand districts in an urban area, this is clearly not feasible. With
the present measurement system, whose measurement rate is limited by the
changing of the antennas, a maximum of about 40 sites can be surveyed
during a two week field study. Therefore, another approach is required.
The approach we have developed which seems to get the most from
our measurement capability is basically an extrapolation of the measure-
ments we made to other nearby points of interest. First, it was observed
that the measured data from each source tended to generally fall along a
parabola when plotted as Log (power density) versus Log (distance) as
shown in Figure 8. Furthermore, the shape of the parabola was approximately
the same for all sources, regardless of source parameters, differing from
source to source only by an additive constant. A suitable parabola for
fitting the data from all the individual sources was found to be
E (dBuV/m) = - 20 (Log D)2 - 10 Log D + A
where D is the distance in miles and A is the additive constant. When
the points from each individual source of Figure 8 are fit group by group
to this equation, and every group of points is plotted on the same graph,
there is a good fit as shown in Figure 9 for the Miami data.
-------
To determine the field strength at any point such as a CED centroid,
in an area where measurements have been made, the three measurement
sites nearest the point of interest are determined. From the data
measured at these three points, a parabola is fitted to the points.
Substitution of the distance from the source to the point of interest
into the expression for E yields the required field strength estimate
for the source at that point (See Figure 10). The individual source
contributions can be appropriately summed to get the total power density
at that point. When this approach is applied to each CED centroid in an
area of interest, the population of each CED can be assigned the exposure
of its centroid, and the population exposed at the various levels can be
accumulated. There will be a fairly large variance for any individual
field strength calculation, but when the model is applied to large
numbers of CEDs, the resultinq population exposure estimates should be
valid.
This method for estimating population exposure was applied to each
CED in the seven metropolitan areas where measurements have been completed.
The total population in these areas is about 28 million. Figure 11
shows the fraction of the total population that is exposed to the power
density values indicated on the horizontal axis. "Zero" on the horizontal
scale corresponds to 1 microwatt per square centimeter, and -3 corresponds
to 1 nanowatt per square centimeter. The median power density value is
about .01 microwatt per square centimeter, with about 1% of the population
exposed at levels above 1 microwatt per square centimeter.
The population exposure curves for each of the seven cities are
shown in Figure 12-18. The median exposure values range from about
.002 yW/cm2 for New York up to about .02 yW/cm2 for Boston. For all of
the cities, the exposure of 98 to 99 percent of the population is less
than 1 yW/cm2.
The fraction of the population in each city which is exposed at any
level is somewhat dependent on the definition of the city boundaries.
The selection of the boundaries was somewhat arbitrary in this study,
j_. e_., they do not conform to any standard metropolitan area definitions.
In each case a rectangular area bounded by a pair of latitudes and
longitudes was chosen. Table 5 shows the definitions of the area
included in the population exposure calculation for each city.
The population data base only has information on where people
reside and cannot reflect the daily movement of the population. The
field strength model, being based on unobstructed measurements 6 meters
-------
above ground, cannot give precise information on the exposures people
receive inside dwellings. Therefore, "population exposure," as used in
this report, means "the number of people residing in urban areas where
an unobstructed measurement 6 meters above ground would fall in the
indicated power density range."
We cannot extrapolate the population exposure results to fewer
numbers of people because of the basic limitations of resolution in the
population data base and the field strength measurements. However,
these results do describe the electromagnetic environment for the great
majority of the people residing in urban areas of the Eastern United
States. Any further refinement will require investigation of particular
situations and individual counting of people. It should be reemphasized
that our measurements were taken in a selected number of bands, but
these are the bands that we believe to be the most important. Other
sources may be of importance for small numbers of people, but these also
will have to be studied on an individual basis.
V. SIGNIFICANCE OF LEVELS
Radiofrequency radiation protection standards have exposure limits
which differ widely between countries. These limits are summarized in
Table 6 for the following four countries: the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia,
Poland, and the United States (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16).
The existing occupational standards of the world can be generally
classified into three groups on the basis of their exposure limits. In
the most conservative group are the standards of the U.S.S.R. and
Czechoslovakia with limits generally in the range of tens of microwatts
per square centimeter. In the second group are the standards of Poland,
Sweden, the Bell Telephone Labs (U.S.), and the N.V. Phillips Co. of the
Netherlands with limits in the range of hundreds of microwatts per
square centimeter up to about one milliwatt per square centimeter. In
the third group with limits of tens of milliwatts per square centimeter
are the standards of the U.S. and most of Western Europe. Canada, under
a proposed standard (17), would have limits belonging to the middle
group.
In the United States the principal standard is that of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) which was reaffirmed with
minor changes in 1974 (13). The Department of Defense has had similar
standards since about 1953 (14), but a higher limit was adopted in 1975
for the frequency range below 10 MHz where the previous standards,
including ANSI, did not apply (15). Another recommendation is that of
the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
(16). In 1971 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
adopted the ANSI standard as a national consensus standard (18) and it
is now the legal standard for occupational exposure in the U.S. above
10 MHz.
-------
Standards for exposure of the general public are generally about a
factor of ten (in power) more restrictive than the occupational standards.
At the present there is no general public health or environmental
standard in the United States, although the ANSI occupational standard
is usually followed. The microwave oven standard (19) is not a personnel
standard like those already discussed, but is rather a limit on the
leakage from a device. The limit for new ovens is 1 mW/cm2, measured
five centimeters from any point on the oven. Ovens in service are
allowed to degrade in leakage performance to levels no greater than 5
mW/cm2. At one meter from the oven, a level of 1 mW/cm2 (at five
centimeters) would be reduced to 2.5 yW/cm2. Although not directly
comparable to the personnel standards, the microwave oven standard
should probably be considered with the most conservative group of
standards.
Compared with any of these standards, the median levels of exposure
measured in the urban environmental surveys are quite low. The residential
levels for 98-99 percent of the population would appear to meet even the
very restrictive Soviet standard. The highest levels measured with the
van system in the seven cities was about 10 yW/cm2.
For the one percent of the population which is potentially exposed
at the highest levels, such as people who reside or work in tall buildings
near high-power broadcast transmitters, exposures may range up into the
tens of microwatts per square centimeter or higher (20). these higher
exposure situations must be studied on an individual basis to obtain the
actual levels and the numbers of people who are affected.
VI. SUMMARY
A system for making environmental measurements of nonionizing
radiation with a precision of 2.5 dB has been developed. The system
consists of several antenna systems with a spectrum analyzer interfaced
to a minicomputer data acquisition system. The system is installed in a
27-foot van for portable operation.
Environmental surveys have been completed in seven eastern metropolitan
areas and the results from measurements at 193 sites were presented.
The power density values range over five orders of magnitude, from .0001
to 10 yW/cm2, with a median value of about .02 yW/cm2. The data show
that FM radio and VHF television transmitters are the most significant
environmental sources of nonionizing radiation.
A model for population exposure was discussed and it was applied to
the seven areas where measurements have been made. The results show
that about 98-99% of the people reside in areas where the levels
-------
10
are less than 1.0 yW/cm2. The median exposure level is about .01 yW/cm2.
These levels are quite low compared to the ANSI and OSHA occupa-
tional exposure guides of 10000 yW/cm2. Apparently, even the very
restrictive environmental guideline of 1 yW/cm2 proposed in the Soviet
Union would be exceeded only for one or two percent of the population
in these seven metropolitan areas. The actual levels at which these
one or two percent of the people are exposed will have to be determined
by examining exposure conditions on a case-by-case basis.
-------
11
REFERENCES
1. Tell, R.A., N.N. Hankin, J.C. Nelson, T.W. Athey, and D.E. Janes. An
Automated Measurement System for Determining Environmental
Radio-frequency Field Intensities, II, in Measurements for the
Safe Use of Radiation (Fivozinsky. S.P., ed), pp 203-213, National
Bureau of Standards Special Publication 456, Washington, DC (1976).
2. Janes, _D.E., R.A. Tell, T.W. Athey, and N.N. Hankin. Radiofrequency
Radiation Levels in Urban Areas, in Special Supplement in biology
to Radio Science, SS-1: 49-56 ~^
3. Janes, D.E., R.A. Tell, T.W. Athey and N.N. Hankin. Nonionizing
Radiation Exposure in Urban Areas of the United States, in
Proceedings of the IVth International Congress of the International
Radiation Protection Association, editor, G. Bresson, Vol. 2,
pp 329-332, April 1977.
4. Tell, R.A., N.N. Hankin and J.C. Nelson. HF Spectral Activity in
the Washington, DC Area, Radiation Data and Reports, 15 (9) 549
(1974). ~~
5. Joint Technical Advisory Committee. Spectrum Engineering - The
Key to Progress, Joint Technical Advisory Committee of the IEEE
and Electronics Industry Association, IEEE, New York, NY, 1968.
6. Hagn, G.H., S.C. Fralick, H.N. Shaver, and G.E. Barker. A Spectrum
Measurement-Monitoring Capability for the Federal Government,
Stanford Research Institute Report, Project 8410 [available from
NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151 as PB 203 062], 1971.
7. McMahon, J.H. Capability of the FCC Mobile Monitoring Van, IEEE
Publication 73CH0817-7VT-A-Z, IEEE, New York, 1973.
8. Barghausen, A.F. and L.G. Hailey. Radio Spectrum Management
System, in Proceedings of 1974 Electromagnetic Compatibility
Symposium, pp 140-145, IEEE Publication 74CH0803-7EMC, IEEE,
New York, 1974.
9. Matheson, R.J. Radio Spectrum Measurement-Current Applications
and Experience, in Conference Record, 1976 International Symposium
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, IEEE Publication 76-CH-1104-9EMC,
IEEE, New York, 1976.
10. State Committee on Standards of the Council of Ministers of the
USSR. Occupational Safety Standards, Electromagnetic Fields of
Radiofrequency General Safety Standards. USSR GOST 12.1.006-76
(effective Jan. 1977 through Jan. 1982).
-------
12
11. Marha, K. Maximum Admissible Values of HF and UHF Electromagnetic
Radiation at Work Places in Czechoslovakia, in Biological Effects
and Health Implications of Microwave Radiation (symposium pro-
ceedlngs), p. 188, Bureau of Radiological HeaTth (BRH/DBE 70-2),
1970.
12. Korniewicz, H.R. "Complex System of Protection Against Radiation
Hazard Established in Poland," International Symposium of Biological
Effects of Electromagnetic Waves, October 30-November 4, 1977,
Airlie, Virginia, U.S.A.
13. American National Standards Institute. Safety Level of Electro-
magnetic Radiation with Respect to Personnel, ANSI C95.1-1974,
IEEE, New York, 1974.
14. U.S. Army. Control of Hazards to Health from Microwave Radiation,
U.S. Army Technical Bulletin TB MED 270 (Air Force Manual AFM
161-7), 1965.
15. U.S. Air Force. Radiofreguency Radiation Health Hazards Control,
AF Regulation 161-42, 7 November 1975.
16. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Threshold Limit Values of Physical Agents Adopted by ACGIH for
1970, ACGIH, 1970.
17. Health and Welfare Department of Canada. Recommended Installation
and Safety Procedures for all Open Beam Microwave Devices.
RPB-SC-11, 1976.
18. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Standards,
National Consensus Standards and Established Federal Standards,
Federal Register, 3_6 (No. 105), 10522 (1971).
19. Bureau of Radiological Health. Code of Federal Regulations,
42CFR78.212, "Performance Standard for Microwave Ovens."
-------
13
TABLE 1
Antennas Used For Environmental
Radio-Frequency Measurements
FREQUENCY
(MHz)
USE
ANTENNA
0-2
54-88
88-108
150-162
174-216
450-470
470-806
VLF Communications and AM
Standard Broadcast
Low VHF Television Broadcast
FM Broadcast
VHF Land Mobile
High VHF Television Broadcast
UHF Land Mobile
UHF Television Broadcast
Active Vertical Monopole
Two Horizontal Orthogonal
Dipoles
Three Orthogonal Dipoles
Vertical Coaxial Dipole
Two Horizontal Orthogonal
Dipoles
Vertical Coaxial Dipole
Horizontal Polarized
Directional Log Periodic
-------
14
TABLE 2
Summary of Overall System Errors (dB)
Band
AM
Low VHP
FM
Low LM
NBS
Dipole
1.5 dB*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Singer
Dipole
N/A
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.5
1.1
Curve
Fit
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.2
Angular
Dependence
0.5
2.2
1.8
0.8
2.0
1.1
1.0
System
Conversion
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Resulting
RMS Error
1.6
2.5
2.1
1.6
2.3
2.0
2.0
UHF
* Referenced directly to NBS field strength meter (Rhodes and Swartz
type HFH). The system as now configured is limited to detecting
changes in RF level no smaller than 0.25 dB which is a limitation
imposed by the resolution of the ADC.
-------
TABLE 3
Environmental Surveys
City Survey Period Sites Surveyed
Boston 10/13-10/25 1975 9
Atlanta 12/08-12/19 1975 16
Miami 2/09- 2/20 1976 16
Philadelphia 5/24- 6/05 1976 31
New York 8/16- 9/01 1976 40
Chicago 10/11-10/22 1976 41
Washington * 40
* Various times during 1975-76, but mainly in July, September, and
October of 1976.
-------
TABLE 4
Power Densities at 193 Urban Sites
Power Density by Band
Site
No.
**
B01
B02
B03
B04
B05
B06
B07
BOS
B09
A01
A02
A03
A04
A05
A06
A07
A08
A09-
A10
All
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
M01
M02
M03
M04
Description
Location
Needham Heights
Prudential Ctr.
Boston Common
Haughton Pond
Wellesley
Arlington Hgts.
Franklin Park
Mater town -MBCC
Maiden Hospital
Piedmont Park
Maddox Park
Collier Park
College Park
Lakewood Park
Exchange Park
Cobb City
Parkview Plaza
Treasure Island
Fernbank Center
CDC
Civic Center
Georgia Tech
Henderson Rd Pk
Doraville
Bolton Hospital
Peacock Park
Pace Park
Pepper Park
NW 209th St.
North
Latitude
42 18 12
42 20 51
42 21 13
42 12 30
42 18 43
42 24 51
42 18 10
42 22 16
42 25 42
33 47 19
33 46 17
33 46 07
33 39 20
33 42 03
33 42 27
33 54 12
33 44 48
33 46 37
33 46 44
33 47 48
33 45 57
33 46 39
33 52 08
33 54 05
33 49 14
25 43 32
25 47 39
25 53 51
25 58 01
West
Longitude
71 13 09
71 04 57
71 04 01
71 05 48
71 15 48
71 10 50
71 05 18
71 12 40
71 05 20
84 22 38
84 25 30
84 30 24
84 27 03
84 23 49
84 15 11
84 29 12
84 19 41
84 14 40
84 19 05
84 19 38
84 22 45
84 23 59
84 13 28
84 16 43
84 27 30
80 14 26
80 11 12
80 13 25
80 12 12
(yW/cm2,
0-2
*
.068
*
.14
*
*
*
*
*
.94
.020
.0083
.0022
.012
.077
.038
.034
.029
.026
.071
.056
.084
.089
.063
.011
.040
.15
.058
*
LVHF
.53
.0023
.0047
.0075n
.32
.012
.0097
.12
.0061
.21
.0024
.0029
.lln
.017
.0011
.0036
.054
.0056
.051
.046
.066
.016
.0035
.0040
.0039
.023n
.18n
.0039
.099
HVHF
.009
.0035
.021
.088n
.017
.022
.046
,.050
.014
.0089
.0011
.53n
.90n
.024
.0053
.0015
.023
.0066
.010
.0037
.0027
.0019
.0031
.016
.62n
.050n
.0040
.066
.18
except n=nW/cm2,
FM
.51
.0072
.023
.0039
.080
.12
.016
.067
.011
.17
; .0093
.0046
.34n
.018
.0028
.0061
.023
.012
.040
.101
.049
.21
.013
.0069
.0084
.0018
.064
.035
.22
UHF
.020
.88n
.0035
.013n
.011
.14
.10
.074
.21
.086
.0033
.87n
.0039
.054
.0017
.0079
.013
.0017
.0025
.039
.066
.073
.0053
.0041
.0041
.0057n
.012n
.0031
.0029
p=pW/cm2)
LLM
.013n
.66n
.063n
.04p
*
*
*
*
*
-.05n
, .24n
.006n
.26n •
.17n
.004n
.OOln
.0002
.OOln
.02n
.06n
.0012
*
*
*
.OOln
.OOln
.068n
.10n
*
HLM
B
.060n
.0021
*
*
**
*
*
*
.19n
.09n
.OOln
.OOln
.39n
.002n
.OOln
.0004
.02n
.02n
.03n
.0003
*
*
*
.002n
.005n
.69n
.Olln
*
TOTAL
1.2
.015
.054
.0040
.43
.29
.18
.31
.052
.47
.016
.0089
.0055
.11
.011
.019
.11
.026
.10
.19
.19
.030
.025
.031
.017
.0019
.069
.11
.50
CTl
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
Power Density by Band
Site
No.
M05
M06
M07
M08
M09
M10
Mil
Ml 2
M13
Ml 4
Ml 5
M16
P01
P02
P03
P04
P05
P06
P07
P08
P09
P10
Pll
PI 2
P13
P14
PI 5
PI 6
P17
.Description
Location
Tarn i ami Park
Bird Drive Park
Poinciana Park
Grapeland Park
Flamingo Park
Matheson Hamm.
Walker Park
NW '42nd Ave
Greynolds Park
Diplomat Mall
Westgate Mall
Bayfront Park
Domino Lane
Port Royal Rd.
Aliens Lane
Ridge Ave.
E.,'Pk. Res 'veil"
16th & Morris
Connie Mack
Ind. Mall
Logan Circle
Bala-Cynwyd
Horticult. Hall
ECRI
Fern Hill Park
Hunting Park
Broad St.
Aramingo St.
Post Off. Annex
North
Latitude
25 44 45
25 43 59
25 50 24
25 47 16
25 46 56
25 40 41
25 50 50
25 56 21
25 56 44
25 59 11
26 07 16
25 46 23
40 02 39
40 03 33
40 02 44
39 59 36
39 58 53
39 58 57
39 59 47
39 57 03
39 57 31
40 00 17
39 58 59
40 07 09
40 01 13
40 01 01
40 02 09
39 58 52
39 55 07
West
Longitude
80 22 20
80 18 40
80 14 24
80 15 23
80 08 18
80 15 39
80 18 02
80 16 09
80 09 23
80 07 47
80 12 02
80 11 09
75 14 12
75 14 24
75 12 35
75 11 22
75 11 26
75 09 38
75 10 00
75 09 00
75 10 19
75 13 22
75 12 32
75 15 44
75 10 03
75 08 09
75 08 15
75 07 06
75 10 58
(yW/cm2, except n=nW/cm2,
0-2
.035
.94
.033
.046
*
.034
.036
.30
.025
.021
.036
.20
.67
.16 :
.052
.016
.0067
.021
.0033
.0059
.0027
.041
.056
.054
.0082
.018
.0093
.016
.0076
LVHF
.lln
.048n
.011
.lln
.089n
.032n
.21n
.0035
.026
.012
.40n
.23n
.70
.64
.096
.0059
.0082
.0017
.97n
.27n
.99n
.033
.0024
.30n
.0023
.0041
.025 '
.12n
.43n
HVHF
.83n
.72n
.32n
.0023
.29n
.lln
.0022
.056
.044
.0080
.0018
.58n
.27
.13
.033
.0012
.022-
.0025
.0088
.64n
.7 On
.0068
.0032
.0017
.0016
.012
.031
.0012
.0024
FM
.0038
2.17
.0040
.0032
.013
. 2n
.043
.034
.059
.033
.0037
.054
.73
1.5
.11
.020
.017
.027
.016
.038
.041 ,
.097
.016
.0014
.0047
.0050
.022 '
.0074
.045
UHF :~-
.71n-
.097n
.38n
.43n
.'01 6n
.020n
.14n
.92n
.41n
.0012
.0012
.018n
.043
.27
.034
.042n
,57n
.0045
.0042,
.20n
.0012
*
.45n
.0014
.21n
.0051
.011
.0033
.0022
p=pW/cm2) (
LLM
.034n
.025n
.028n
.42n
,006n
*
.Olln
* - •
.17n
.009n
.025n
.0089
.05n
*
*
.0055
*
*
*
.039n
*
.018n
*
*
.027n
*.
*
*
.48n
HLM
.OOln
.027n
.006n
.068n
.023n
.03p
.002n
.022n
.055n
.095n
.020n
.0026
.lln
*
*
.029n
* * '•
*
*
.096n
*
.0026
*
*
J5n
*
*
*
.039
TOTAL
.0055
2.2
.016
.0065
.013
.0010
.045
.094
.13
.054
.0071
.066
1.7
2.5
.27
.033
.047
.036
.030
.039
.044
.14
.022
.0048
.0090
.026
.089
.012
.051
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
Power Density by Band
Site
No.
P18
PI 9
P20
P21
P22
P23
P24
P25
P26
P27
P28
P29
P30
P31
NO!
N02
N03 .
N04
N05
N06
N07
MOB
N09
N10
Nil
N12
Ml 3
N14
N15
N16
Description
Location
Navy Yard
Conshohocken
Lancaster Ave.
Lawrence Pk Ctr
Morris town Hosp.
Pennypack Park
Wissinoming Pk.
Holy Redeemer
Highland School
Feasterville
Filter Plant
Bridgewater
Pathmark Center
Norwood Park
Riverside Park
Central High
Essex Green Ctr
Mt. Pleasant St.
Channel 68 Tower
Central Pk, So.
Central Pk. N.
Ft. Tryon Park
Randall's Is.
Battery Park
Foley Square
E. River Pk.
McCarrey Park
Ft. Green Pk.
Prospect Park
Flatlands
North
Latitude
39 53 28
40 04 54
40 01 04
39 57 39
40 07 55
40 04 43
40 01 24
40 06 35
40 07 22
40 08 30
40 02 22
40 05 46
39 54 31
39 53 04
40 47 37
40 44 32
40 47 41
40 47 16
40 47 39
40 46 21
40 47 35
40 51 48
40 47 59
40 42 14
40 42 59
40 43 08
40 43 15
40 41 23
40 40 09
40 37 35
West
Longitude
75 10 17
75 18 23
75 19 06
75 2V 21
75 20 49
75 02 42
75 04 15
75 05 04
75 07 23
75 00 09
74 59 59
74 55 03
75 05 55
75 17 34
73 58 37
74 10 42
74 15 19
74 15 15
74 14 09
73 58 36
73 57 38
73 56 00
73 55 29
74 10 58
74 00 11
73 58 31
73 57 04
73 58 37
73 58 04
73 55 39
(pW/cm2,
0-2
.013
.028
.0069
.0026
.11
.0021
.0086
.0013
.0023
.73n
.046
.0056
*
.0027
.042
.018
.025
*
*
*
.085
.10
.068
.036
.031
.31
.32
.0056
.0092
.0086
LVHF
.13n
.017
.35n
.0011
.82n
.12n
.097n
.13n
.0016
.039n
.074n
.048n
.31n
.35n
.28n
.027n
.lln
*
*
.032
.0090
.24n
.0031
.77n
.0071
.010
.14
.0010
.0012
.42n
HVHF
.33n
.0097
.39n
.0072
.0040
.25n
.0013
.14rr
.0041
.13n
.0012
.37n
.0074
.85n
.0011
.083n
.27n
*
*
.016
.058
.10n
.021
.36n
.0065
.011
.19
.0042
.0011
.0017
except n=nW/cm2,
FM
.47n
.015
.78n
.0023
.070n
.15n
.69n
.35n
.0051
.095n
.26n
.13n
.042
.29n
.43n
.25n
1.9
4.6
*
.080
.018
.31n
.0026
.0010
.0048
.012
' .25
.0017
.63n
.48n
UHF
*
.016
.38n
.10
.0047
.93n
.74n
.27n
.0471
.32n
.056
.0015
.039
.39n
'.002n
.006n
.030
.26n
.35
'.039n
.006n
.039n
.0036
*
.033n
' .49n
.092n
.36
.33n
.10n
p=pW/cm2)
LLM
*
.015n
*
.002n
*
*
.023n
*
*
.004n
*
*
.Olln
*
*
.071n
.14n
*
*
*
.019n
*
*
.OlOn
*
.070n
*
.93n
*
.003n
HLM<
*
.009n
*
.008n
*
*
.015n
*
*
.068p
*
*
.32n
*
*
.018n
.25n
*
*
*
.Olln
*
*
.009n
*
.041n
*
.040n
*
.003n
TOTAL
.00093
.058
.0019
.11
.0096
.0015
.0029
.00089
.058
.00065
.058
.0020
.089
.0019
.0018
.00046
1.9
4.6
.35
.13
.085
.00069
:030
.0021
.018
.034
.58
.36
.0033
.0027
OC
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
Power Density by Band
Site
No.
Ml 7
Ml 8
N19
N20
N21
N22
N23
N24
N25
N26
N27
N28
N29
N30
N3T
N32
N33
N34 .
N35
N36
M37
N38
N39
N40
COT
C02
COS
C04
COS
C06
Description
Location
Fort Hamilton
Linden Blvd
Shore Pkwy
Yankee Stadium
Fordham Univ.
Fordham Radio
Van Cortland Pk
Cunningham Park
Great Neck
Flushing Meadow
Aqueduct
Forest Park
Belmont Park
White Plains Rd
Throgs Neck
Pel ham Bay Park
Woodmere
WIOK-FM
Grand Ave Sch.
Mitchel Park
Clove Lakes Pk
Willowbrook Pk
Tottenville
Great Kills Pk
Buckingham Ftn
Kennedy Expy Mil
Kennedy Expy 46C
Devon & Harlem
Lincoln Ave.
Devon Ave.
North
Latitude
40 36 21
40 39 37
40 35 02
40 49 38
40 51 35
40 51 24
40 53 32
40 43 51
40 46 54
40 44 09
40 40 37
40 42 19
40 42 34
40 49 31
40 49 47
40 52 11
40 38 22
40 41 09
40 41 05
40 43 38
40 37 01
40 36 15
40 30 08
40 32 37
41 52 32
41 53 47
41 55 51
41 59 49
42 01 58
41 59 48
West
Longitude
74 01 42
73 53 10
73 55 48
73 55 50
73 53 17
73 52 54
73 53 48
. 73 46 23
73 43 09
73 50 15
73 49 40
73 50 21
73 43 31
73 51 34
73 48 54
73 47 49
73 44 31
73 36 34
73 36 45
73 35 47
74 06 53
74 09 36
74 15 47
74 07 35
87 37 14
87 39 28
87 41 31
87 48 43
87 46 06
87 45 02
(yW/cm2, except n=nW/cm2,
0-2
.020
.0055
.012
.062
.011
*
.049
.033
.029
.057
.014
.012
.0052
.0095
.16
.23
.0093
*
.028
.011
.017
.028
.0043
.020
.0042
.014
.034
.098
.094
.042
LVHF
.015n
.0011
.27n
.0018
.13n
*
.80n
.19n
.41n
.0023
.50n
.0016
.055n
.50n
.10n
.26n
.18n
*
.027n
.17n
.87n
.26n
.012n
.27
.017 •
.0071
.016
.16n
.095n
.43n
HVHF
.083n
.0013
.0055
.0029
.26n
*
.0069
.0020
.42n
.071
.0033
.52n
.0033
.0014
.96n
.0027
.0015
*
.13n
.63n
• .0012
.38n
.015n
.0023
.0059
.15
.16
.27n
.86n
.57n
FM
.051n
.55n
.61n
.0020
.027
.12
.83n
.42n
.57n
.0068
.0010
.59n
.35n
.24n
.095n
.48n
.30n
.22
.052
.14
.0015
.48n
.041n
.42n
.43
.17
.098
.0013
.59n
.0032
UHF
.084n
.37n
.0018
.082n
.023n
*
.69n
.36n
.23n
.026
.36n
.042n
.37n
.84n
.35n
.0010
.0013
*
.76n
.033
.0035n
.16p
.23p
.0029
.0016
.042
.031
.0011
.0024
.090n
p=pW/cm2)
LLM
*
.01 On
*
*
.Olln
*
*
.01 On
*
*
.0086n
*
*
.73p
*
.64p
.0018n
*
*
*
*
.57p
*
*
.017n
*
*
*
.0084n
*
HLM
*
.OOln
*
*
*
*
*
.006n
*
*
.0079n
*
*
.0020n
*
.OOlln
.016n
*
*
*
*
.0012
*
*
.26n
*
*
*
.0036n
*
TOTAL
.00023
.0033
.0082
.0068
.027
.12
.0092
.0030
.0016
.11
.0052
.0028
.0041
.0030
.0015
.0044
.0033
.22
.053
.17
.0036
.0011
.000068
.0059
.46
.37
.30
.0028
.0040
.0043
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
Power Density by Band
Site
No.
C07
COS
C09
CIO
cn
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17'
CIS
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
Description
Location
Add i son
Belmont
WXRT
O'Hare
Grand & Inland
Lake & Mill
Diversey & Mill
Federal Bldg.
Proviso West
!-1004 Maple St.
Near Sacremento
1-90 at Ashland
Water Tower
Canal & Jackson
Lake & Randolph
North Ave. Beach
Cermak Rd.
35th & Pershing
Ryan Expy #7
1-94 near 115th
Calumet Park
Rainbow Park
Science Museum
Planetarium
119th & Western
Greenoak Center
Ford City Ctr.
North
Latitude
41 56 53
41 56 18
41 56 17
41 58 36
41 55 58
41 55 58
41 55 34
41 52 44
41 50 10
41 52 12
41 52 25
41 52 31
41 53 49
41 52 39,
41 53 07
41 54 46
41 51 10
41 49 49
41 45 58
41 41 01
41 43 22
41 45 12
41 47 26
41 51 57
41 40 38
41 43 07
41 45 26
West
Longitude
87 43 08
87 45 15
87 45 02
87 53 39
87 54 59
88 00 04
88 00 29
87 37 48
87 54 06
87 48 12
87 42 42
87 40 01
87 37 23
87 38 21
87 37 20
87 37 30
87 38 08
87 37 51
87 37 34
87 36 08
87 31 30
87 32 43
87 43 49
87 36 33
87 41 00
87 44 25
87 44 28
(yW/cm2,
0-2
.085
.33
.045
.20
.22
.15
*
*
.005
.047
.025
.019'
.0011
.017
.15n
.0076
.0088
.014
.012 .
.011
.011
.010
.0076
.015
.014
.017
.028
LVHF
.0032
.27n
*
.072n
.017n
.020n
*
.0020
.13n
.13n
.0028
.013
.091 •
.0049
.089
.20
.015
.011
.35n
,046n
.27n
.0050
.16n
.072
.024n
.022n
.16n
HVHF
. .015
.0013
*
.038n
.14n
.56n
*
.0063
.58n
.0011
.025
.20
.084
.46
.014
.019
.41
.12
.013
.0026
.0025
.026
.56n
.11
.21n
.0011
.65n
except n=nW/cm2,
FM
.037
.41
10.9
.0020
.0040
.013
2.5
4.4
.65n
. .0012
.021
.21
.18
.43
.69
.19
.35
.079
.0020
.76n
.0012
.0024
.58n
.26
.27n
.28n
.47n
UHF
.0056
.16n
*
.32n
.15n
.77n
*
.0028
.0018
.23n
.0093
.10
.0090
.0058
.022
.036
.041
.020
.0050
.011
.0014
.014
.16n
.025
.071n
.0012
.73n
p=pW/cm2
LLM
*
.0032n
.012n
.0042
*
*
*
*
.0022n
*
*
*
.091n
*
*
*
.031n
*
*
*
*
*
.070n
*
*
.67p
*
)
HLM
*
.013n
.0079n
.029n
*
*
*
*
.040n
*
*
*
.39n
*
*
*
.48n
*
*
*
*
*
.0013n
*
*
.20n
it
TOTAL
.061
.41
10.9
.0067
.0043
.014
2.5
4.4
.0031
.002
.058
.52
.36
.90
.82
.45
.82
.23
.020
.014
.0053
.043
.0015
.47
.00058
.0028
.0020
ro
o
-------
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
Power Density by Band
Site
No.
C34
C35
C36
C37
C38
C39
C40
C41
W01
W02
W03
W04
W05
W06
W07
W08
W09
W10
Wll
W12
Ml 3
W14
W15
W16
W17
W18
W19
W20
W21
W22
W23
Description
Location
71st & Western
63rd & 73rd
Cicero Ave
Pershing
Grosse Point
Loyola U.
Add i son
Fullerton
9100 Brookville
Sibley Hosp.
NBS • ,
Holy Cross Hosp.
Waterside Mall
Fessenden St.
Westwood
Somerset Hts.
Willow Lane •*
Jones Br & Wise
Locust Hill
Grosvenor & 355
Flanders & 355
Montrose & 355
Congress. Plaza
Edmonston & 355
Beall Ave & 355
Red! and & 355
Gaithersburg
Brink & 355
Clarksburg-355
Urbana-355
Brentwood Park
North
Latitude
41 45 51
41 46 40
41 49 18
41 49 24
42 03 53
42 00 02
41 57 00
41 55 05
39 00 22
38 56 12
39 08 09
39 00 51
38 52 08
38 57 18
38 57 53
38 58 07
38 58 54
38 59 49
39 00 38
39 01 25
39 02 20
39 03 11
39 03 16
39 04 05
39 05 13
39 06 53
39 08 40
39 12 23
39 14 50
39 20 38
38 54 32
West
Longitude
87 40 58
87 46 12
87 44 08
87 40 55
87 40 33
87 39 30
87 38 21
87 38 09
77 03 07
77 06 38
77 12 55
77 02 12
77 01 09
77 04 55
77 06 11
77 05 31
77 05 29
77 05 47
77 05 47
77 06 15
77 06 25
77 06 55
77 07 32
77 08 14
77 09 05
77 09 48
77 12 12
77 14 49
77 17 48
77 22 31
76 59 47
(yW/cm2,
0-2
.075
.019
.054
.039
.013
.013
.011
.012
.23
.0033
*
*
.23n
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.065
LVHF
.58n
.035n
.89n
.0017
.086n
.032n
.028
.060
.0025
.20
*
.0019
.0037
1.49
.81
.088
.087
.025
.012
.0024
.98n
.0023
.0017
.88n
.0012
.42n
.044n
.056n
.0056n
.01 On
.021
HVHF
.0029
.38n
.0058
.0034
.47n
.052n
.080
.15
.010
.012
*
.011
.087n
.77
.19
.097
.13
.010
.0013
.0035
.42n
.0079
.0020
.lln
.0030
.17n
.060n
.015n
.014n
.036n
.028
except n=nW/cm ,
FM
.0018
.30n
.0035
.0081
.0014
.68n
.10
.32
.033
. .21
.12n
.042
.0071
1.19
.79"
.27
.13
.13
.025
.0047
.0047
.0047 '
.0024
.30n
.0018
.30n
.13n
.088n
.038n
.56n
.018
UHF
.0025
.56n
.0012
.54n
.43n
.0061n
.013
.073
.066
.046
*
.89n
.054n
.026
.40
.18
.016
.54n
.058
.0023
.0054
.0075
.041
.0049
.013
.13n
.70n
.048
.094n
.34n
.011
p=pW/cm2)
LLM
*
*
*
.0020n
.52p
*
*
.021n
.008n
*
*
.029
.84p
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.020n
HLM
*
*
*
.026n
.0037
*
*
.37n
.008n
*
*
.0042
.0053n
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.18n
TOTAL
.0078
.0013
.011
.014
.0024
.00077
.22
.60
.11
.46
.00012
.056
.011
3.5
2.2
.63
,36
.17
.097
.013
.011
.022
.047
.0062
.019
.0010
.00093
.00021
.00015
.00095
.078
-------
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
Power Density by Band
Site
No.
W24
W25
W26
W27
W28
W29
W30
W31
W32
W33
W34
W35
W36
W37
W38
W39
W40
Description
Location
G.W. Pkwy.
Grant Square
Great Oaks Ctr
Aspen Hill
Montgomery Mall
Tysons Corner
Little River
Baileys X-roads
Riggs & Univ.
Duval High
Prince Geo. Hosp
Andrews AFB
Phelps Corner
Cameron Station
National Mall
Nat. Airport
Halls Hill
North
Latitude
38 55 36
38 56 38
39 03 03
39 04 47
39 01 25
38 55 08
38 49 54
38 50 53
38 59 01
38 59 24
38 55 32
38 49 04
38 48 20
38 48 33
38 53 20
38 51 01
38 53 48
West
Longitude
77 06 58
77 01 24
76 58 47
77 04 24
77 08 39
77 13 06
77 12 12
77 06 48
76 58 48
76 50 11
76 55 29
76 53 30
76 58 31
77 07 22
77 01 06
77 02 33
77 07 43
(yW/cm2, except n=nW/cm2,
0-2
.0075
.013
.0025
.0050
.21
.0066
.0047
.0026
.033
.58n
.0082
.0026
.0024
.0033
.018
.0044
.16
LVHF
.38
.052
,34n .
.21n
.0087
.038
.61n
.0075
.0012
.52n
.043
.0070
.0080
.74n
.0015
.0049
.0014
HVHF
.054
.016
.0011
.0012
.0068
.061
.77n
.0052
.30n
.26n
.0024
.0015
.023
.068n
.93n
.019
.0062
FM
.27
.050
.40n
.0013
.011
.047
.0032
.0094
.0025
.57n
.024
.0051
.0097
.0014
.0068
.0080
.20
UHF
.024
.0049
.0040
.0016
.077
.12
.0020
.0024
.0012
.0076
.0045
.0015
.0051
.14n
.34n
.017
.024
p=pW/cm2
LLM
*
.034n
*
.0018n
.018n
.012n
.52p
*
.23p
.08p
.028n
.0037n
*
.OOlln
.OOlln
.012n
.085n
)
HLM
*
.038n
*
f08p
.13n
.0013
.0045n
*
.012n
• IP
.0074n
.2p
*
.0018
.023n
.12n
.0013
TOTAL
.73
.12
.0058
.0043
.10
.27
.0066
.025
.0052
.0089
.074
.015
.046
.0041
.0095
.049
.23
* Band not measured at this site.
** B = Boston
A = Atlanta
M = Miami
P = Philadelphia
N = New York
C = Chicago
W = Washington
ro
ro
-------
23
City
Boston
Atlanta
Miami
Philadelphia
New York
Chicago
Washington
TABLE 5
Metropolitan Area Definitions
Boundaries
Latitude Longitude
42° 09' - 42° 30'
33° 30' - 34° 00'
25° 30' - 26° 12'
39° 5V - 40° 12'
40° 30' - 41° 00'
41° 42' - 42° 06'
38° 44' - 39° 08'
Population
71° 00' - 71° 24' 1960000
84° 12' - 84° 36' 1220000
80° 06' - 80° 30' 1660000
74° 57' - 75° 24' 3410000
73° 36' - 74° 18' 12270000
87° 30' - 88° 00' 4740000
76° 48' - 77° 20' 2520000
-------
24
TABLE 6
Radio-frequency Radiation Standards
BAND
Above 300 MHz
(power density
in mW/ciri2)
30-300 MHz
(field strength
in Volts/meter)
10-30 MHz
EXPOSURE
TIME
(hours)
24
8-10
2
.33
.10
2 min.
24
8-10
2
.33
.10
2 min.
24
.1-10 MHz
24
8-10
2
.33
.10
min.
a In the 30-50 MHz band, 10 V/m is allowed,
b In the 3-30 MHz band, 20 V/m is allowed.
c No standard or standard not applicable.
USSR
.01
.10
1.0
1.0
1.0
5a
50b
COUNTRY
CZECH.
.0025
.025
.10
.60
2.0
6.0
1
10
40
240
800
2400
5
50
200
1200
4000
12000
5
50
200
1200
4000
12000
POLAND USA
ANSI AIR FORCE
.01
.20
.40
.98
1.79
3.1
7
20
40
98
179
300
7
20
40
98
179
300
20
70
280
1000
1000
1000
10
10
10
10
30
197
197
197
197
336
197
197
197
197
197
336
c
c
c
c
c
10
10
10
10
30
197
197
197
197
336
197
197
197
197
197
336
434
434
434
434
752
-------
25
HORIZONTAL POLARIZATION
TURNSTILE
VERTICAL POLARIZATION
DIPOLE
RP SWITCH
HIGH PASS FILTER
RP INPUT
SPECTRUM ANALYZER
ANALOG SWITCHING VOLTAGE
ANALOG AMPLITUDE DATA
SCAN TRIGGER
SCAN TIME SIGNAL
DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM
Figure 1. Block diagram of measurement
system.
-------
26
Figure 2. Radio-frequency detection equipment and minicomputer
inside equipment van.
-------
FM AVERAGE FIELD STRENGTH
ATLANTA
120-
«
•
110-
i
i
•
t
100-
•
t
90-
<
dBwV/M !
80-
i
t
70-
«
4
<
«
60-
4
1
50-
«
40 I
••
w
•
»
»
r
*
•
.
I
J
J •— ,
! 1
I
^i-
— ~j
I
-.
I
In
1,
i , ,
88 92 96
L
H ]
j
I
1
100
I
I
dj
, 1,...
T" ~1
104 10
FREQUENCY (MHZ)
Figure 3. The FM radio spectrum at a site in Atlanta
-------
120
110- -
100- -
90- -
dBMV/M
80- -
70' •
60- •
50-
LOW VHP TV AVERAGE FIELD STRENGTH
PHILADELPHIA
46
56
66 76
FREQUENCY (MHZ)
ro
oc
86
96
Figure 4. The lower VHP television band spectrum at a site in Philadelphia
-------
110 -T-
30
170
HIGH VHP TV AVERAGE FIELD STRENGTH
ATLANTA
180
190 200
FREQUENCY (MHZ)
210
IV)
I
220
Figure 5. The upper VHP television band spectrum at a site in Atlanta.
-------
dBMV/M I
20
150
152
VHP LAND MOBILE AVERAGE FIELD STRENGTH
MIAMI
154 156
FREQUENCY(MHZ)
158
CO
o
-------
31
z
g
.998
.99
.95
.90
.80
.70
.60
.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
.05
.01
.002
• TOTAL
O FM RADIO
" VHF-TV v
• LAND MOBILE * e° "
• O •
• v o. • -
.• *o • •
y
• v O •
• V 0 •
m „ o
.0 .
vo .
• 0
V *
• ov
• ov
- mo*
" .'* "
o .*
-
1 1 1 1 1 II
.993
.99
.95
.90
.80
.70
.60
.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
.05
.01
.002
O.OO.i ;j l 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
S (POWER DENSITY IN^w/cm2|
0.1
Figure 7. Distribution of power densities at 193 measurement sites
(for clarity, not all points are plotted).
-------
32
MERSURED FIELD STRENGTH - HlflrtI
M..
ft..
rt..
otuv/n
o..
Bt. .
49..
A » 89. 3312*
8 —17. 2876
C —It. 32f 1
.2 1 4X67891 2 3 43678918 29 38
OISTfiNCE FROM TRflNSMITTER (MILES)
Figure 8. Distribution of field strengths as a function of distance
from Miami FM radio transmitters„
-------
33
MEASURED FIELD STRENGTH - MIAMI FM
•04.
Ti
MMV/N
M
914.
I < I I I I I I I I I f I 1 I I I I I If
.2 . 3.4. S67»91 2 3 43«79918 20 3*4
DISTANCE FROM TRANSMITTER (MILES)
H-H
3*4490
Figure 9. Relative field strengths from Miami FM radio transmitters.
The points from each transmitter are fit as a group to
the given parabola.
-------
34
FIELD STRENGTH MODEL
100
90
a
5 80
c
fe
D
£ 70
oc
u
UJ
E - -10(log D)2 - 20 log D + C
C = [EH. + 20 E log D± + 10 E (log
I
I
2 5 10 20
LOG D ( D = DISTANCE IN MILES )
Figure 10. The field strength model.
-------
35
FRACTION OF POPULATION EXPOSED AS A
FUNCTION OF POWER DENSITY
CO
VI
.5
UJ
UJ
_J
1-
Q
UJ
to
o
Q.
X
UJ
z
g
u
1C
u_
C|TIES: BOSTON
.99
.95
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.05
.01
ATLANTA x
MIAMI x
PHILADELPHIA x
NEW YORK
CHICAGO
WASHINGTON x
x
X
— X
X
_ X
»
-
-
-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
_5 -4-3-2-1 0 1 2
LOG S; S = POWER DENSITY IN^W/CM'
Figure 11. The fraction of the population in seven eastern
cities exposed at various power densities. Zero
on the horizontal axis corresponds to one microwatt
per square centimeter, -1 corresponds to 0.1 microwatts
per square centimeter, etc.
-------
36
FRACTION OF POPULATION EXPOSED AS A
M
VI
Cfl
UJ
01
_J
1-
O
01
c/>
O
0.
X
UJ
2
O
1-
o
cc
.99
.95
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.05
.01
FUNUIIUIM Ur ruvven ucivoi i i
~ X
CITIES: BOSTON x
_ X
X
— X
_ X
— X
X
_ X
X
—
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-4
-3
—2
-1
LOG S; (S=POWER DENSITY IN
Figure 12. The fraction of the population exposed at various
power densities in Boston.
-------
37
FRACTION OF POPULATION EXPOSED AS A
FUNCTION OF POWER DENSITY
(0
VI
UJ
>
UJ
1-
Q
UJ
O
a.
X
UJ
Z
o
o
-------
38
FRACTION OF POPULATION EXPOSED AS A
FUNCTION OF POWER DENSITY
CO
VI
to
UJ
>
UJ
,
<
a
01
(/>
O
0.
x
UJ
Z
g
o
u_
.99
.95
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
4
.3
.2
.1
.05
.01
x
x
CITIES: MIAMI x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 J
5 -4 -3 -2 -1
LOG S,(S=POWER DENSITY IN
Figure 14. The fraction of the population exposed at various
levels in Miami.
-------
39
FRACTION OF POPULATION EXPOSED AS A
FUNCTION OF POWER DENSITY
03
VI
V)
~
LU
>
LU
—I
1-
Q
LU
O
Q.
X
LU
2
O
1-
u
cc
.99
.95
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.05
.01
X
_
x
CITIES: PHILADELPHIA
X
X
X
.
.
X
.
X
X
.
M
ii 1 i I 1 1 1
5 _4 -3 -2 -1
LOG S; (S=POWER DENSITY IN
0
Figure 15. The fraction of the population exposed at various
levels in Philadelphia.
-------
40
FRACTION OF POPULATION EXPOSED AS A
FUNCTION OF POWER DENSITY
CO
VI
CO
—I
Ul
>
ij
1-
^
Q
LJJ
CO
o
D.
X
LLJ
z
g
CJ
cc
LL
.99
.95
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
4
.3
.2
1
.05
.01
X
X
CITIES: CHICAGO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
1 . . 1 1 . , ,
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
LOG S; (S=POWER DENSITY IN
Figure 16. The fraction of the population exposed at various
levels in Chicago.
-------
41
FRACTION OF POPULATION EXPOSED AS A
FUNCTION OF POWER DENSITY
C/5
VI
w
UJ
UJ
t-
^
O
UJ
w
O
a.
X
UJ
2
g
CJ
E
u.
.99
.95
.9
.8
.7
.6
5
.4
.3
.2
1
.05
01
A
X
X
CITIES: NEW YORK x
.
X
X
X
X
•
X
-
.
_
"
-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0
LOG S; (S=POWER DENSITY IN MW/CM2)
Figure 17. The fraction of the population exposed at various
levels in New York.
-------
42
FRACTION OF POPULATION EXPOSED AS A
FUNCTION OF POWER DENSITY
(f)
VI
co
UJ
UJ
_J
l_
^
D
UJ
0
Q.
X
LU
2
g
L.
0
^
QC
u.
.99
.95
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.05
.01
A
CITIES. WASHINGTON X
X
X
_ X
— x
_ X
—
~ X
—
— x
—
—
I I I I I I I
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
LOG S (S=POWER DENSITY IN MW/CM2)
Figure 18. The fraction of the population exposed at various
levels in Washington, D.C.
ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978--720-235/6135
-------
ORP/EAD 78-1 A Comparison of Measurement Techniques to
Determine Electric Fields and Magnetic Flux
Under EHV Overhead Power Transmission Lines
(NTIS Order No. pending)
ORP/EAD 78-2 An Analysis of Radiofrequency and Microwave
Absorption Data Hith Consideration of Thermal
Safety Standards (NTIS Order No. pendina)
QRP/EAD 7R-3 Measurements of Radiofrequency Field Intensities
in Ruildinns With Close Proximity to Broadcast
Stations (NTIS Order No. pending)
ORP/EAD 78-4 Near-Field Radiation Properties of Simple Linear
Antennas With Applications to Radiofreouency
Hazards and Broadcasting (NTIS Order No. pending)
ORP/EAD 78-5 Population Exposure to VHF and 1JHF Broadcast
Radiation in the United States (NTIS Order No.
Deriding)
------- |