• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION EXPOSURE

datsun66

Active Member
Apr 10, 2005
251
15
48
Lewistown, Montana
WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF ENERGY?

Biological effects can result from animal or human exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load.

At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects have sometimes been referred to as "non-thermal" effects. Several years ago research reports began appearing in the scientific literature describing the observation of a range of low-level biological effects. However, in many cases further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, there has been no determination that such effects constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether changes in safety limits are needed to protect human health. (Back to Index)

CAN PEOPLE BE EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION AND MICROWAVES THAT COULD BE HARMFUL?

Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. However, there may be situations, particularly workplace environments near high- powered RF sources, where recommended limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases, restrictive measures or actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy. (Back to Index)

CAN RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CAUSE CANCER?

Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF and microwave exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated. In fact, other studies have failed to find evidence for a causal link to cancer or any related condition. Further research is underway in several laboratories to help resolve this question. The Food and Drug Administration has further information on this topic with respect to RF exposure from mobile phones at the following Web site: www.fda.gov/cdrh/phones/index.html . (Back to Index)

WHAT RESEARCH IS BEING DONE ON RF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS?

For many years research into possible biological effects of RF energy has been carried out in laboratories around the world, and such research is continuing. Past research has resulted in a large number of scientific publications on this topic. For many years the U.S. Government has sponsored research into the biological effects of RF energy. The majority of this work has been funded by the Department of Defense, due, in part, to the extensive military interest in using RF equipment such as radar and other relatively high-powered radio transmitters for routine military operations. In addition, some U.S. civilian federal agencies responsible for health and safety, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have sponsored and conducted research in this area in the past (although relatively little civilian-sector RF research is currently being funded by the U.S. Government). At the present time, most of the non-military research on biological effects of RF energy in the U.S. is being funded by industry organizations such as Motorola, Inc. Relatively more research is being carried out overseas, particularly in Europe.

In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established a program called the International EMF Project that is designed to review the scientific literature concerning biological effects of electromagnetic fields, identify gaps in knowledge about such effects, recommend research needs, and work towards international resolution of health concerns over the use of RF technology. The WHO maintains a Web site that provides extensive information on this project and about RF biological effects and research ( www.who.ch/peh-emf).

The FDA, the EPA and other federal agencies responsible for public health and safety have worked together and in connection with the WHO to monitor developments and identify research needs related to RF biological effects. Most recently, the FDA has entered into an agreement with the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) to conduct a research program into the potential health effects of mobile phones. More information about this can be obtained at the FDA Web site: www.fda.gov/cdrh/phones/index.html. (Back to Index)

WHAT LEVELS ARE SAFE FOR EXPOSURE TO RF ENERGY?

Exposure standards for radiofrequency energy have been developed by various organizations and countries. These standards recommend safe levels of exposure for both the general public and for workers. In the United States, the FCC has adopted and used recognized safety guidelines for evaluating RF environmental exposure since 1985. Federal health and safety agencies, such as the EPA, FDA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have also been involved in monitoring and investigating issues related to RF exposure.

The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields were derived from the recommendations of two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Both the NCRP exposure criteria and the IEEE standard were developed by expert scientists and engineers after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to RF biological effects. The exposure guidelines are based on thresholds for known adverse effects, and they incorporate appropriate margins of safety. In adopting the most recent RF exposure guidelines, the FCC consulted with the EPA, FDA, OSHA and NIOSH, and obtained their support for the guidelines that the FCC is now using.

Many countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP safety limits are generally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE, with a few exceptions. For example, ICNIRP recommends somewhat different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure due to such devices as hand-held cellular telephones. One of the goals of the WHO EMF Project (see above) is to provide a framework for international harmonization of RF safety standards.

The NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP exposure guidelines identify the same threshold level at which harmful biological effects may occur, and the values for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) recommended for electric and magnetic field strength and power density in both documents are based on this threshold level. The threshold level is a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value for the whole body of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg). In addition, the NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines are different for different transmitting frequencies. This is due to the findings (discussed above) that whole-body human absorption of RF energy varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF energy most efficiently when the whole body is exposed. For devices that only expose part of the body, such as mobile phones, different exposure limits are specified (see below).

The exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The actual values can be found in either of two informational bulletins available at this Web site (OET Bulletin 56 or OET Bulletin 65), see listing for "OET Safety Bulletins." (Back to Index)

WHY HAS THE FCC ADOPTED GUIDELINES FOR RF EXPOSURE?

The FCC authorizes and licenses devices, transmitters and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government. However, the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Major RF transmitting facilities under the jurisdiction of the FCC, such as radio and television broadcast stations, satellite-earth stations, experimental radio stations and certain cellular, PCS and paging facilities are required to undergo routine evaluation for RF compliance whenever an application is submitted to the FCC for construction or modification of a transmitting facility or renewal of a license. Failure to comply with the FCC's RF exposure guidelines could lead to the preparation of a formal Environmental Assessment, possible Environmental Impact Statement and eventual rejection of an application. Technical guidelines for evaluating compliance with the FCC RF safety requirements can be found in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 (see "OET Safety Bulletins" listing elsewhere at this Web site).

Low-powered, intermittent, or inaccessible RF transmitters and facilities are normally "categorically excluded" from the requirement for routine evaluation for RF exposure. These exclusions are based on calculations and measurement data indicating that such transmitting stations or devices are unlikely to cause exposures in excess of the guidelines under normal conditions of use. The FCC's policies on RF exposure and categorical exclusion can be found in Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's Rules and Regulations [(47 CFR 1.1307(b)]. It should be emphasized, however, that these exclusions are not exclusions from compliance, but, rather, only exclusions from routine evaluation. Transmitters or facilities that are otherwise categorically excluded from evaluation may be required, on a case-by-case basis, to demonstrate compliance when evidence of potential non-compliance of the transmitter or facility is brought to the Commission's attention [see 47 CFR 1.1307(c) and (d)]. Everyone who uses a radio for commutation should remember the fact be it ham or CB radio. Just some thoughts.
 

QRN;
The reason I posted this topic is to help some of the so called big strappers running over legal limit amps trying to fry them selfs with
enough rf to cook hot dogs in there hands.
Just some education to help prevent brain damage or sterilization. Is it too late? Who knows. :cry:
 
Good info datsun. I just thought i would throw in another link that goes along with the same idea you were looking to get across.I don't know for sure if it is too late for brain damage but from what I hear on ch. 6 when the band is open I know it is far too late for some. :LOL: As for the sterilization,well maybe that's a good thing. :LOL: ;)
 
datsun66 said:
WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF ENERGY?

<snip>

At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven.

<snip> (Back to Index)

CAN PEOPLE BE EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION AND MICROWAVES THAT COULD BE HARMFUL?

Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature.

<snip> (Back to Index)

CAN RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CAUSE CANCER?

Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF and microwave exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive.

<snip> (Back to Index)

<snip>

The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF energy most efficiently when the whole body is exposed. For devices that only expose part of the body, such as mobile phones, different exposure limits are specified (see below).

The exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The actual values can be found in either of two informational bulletins available at this Web site (OET Bulletin 56 or OET Bulletin 65), see listing for "OET Safety Bulletins." (Back to Index)

<snip>

Everyone who uses a radio for commutation should remember the fact be it ham or CB radio. Just some thoughts.

WHAT INDEX ARE YOU REFERRING BACK TO; Typically, it's a good idea to give credit for and a link to the article that you copy and paste lest it looks like you have plagiarized the writings of someone else.

I don't disagree with you but, I think you should take your grinding wheel and axe on the CB Shoot-out circuit and preach to them there; do you think that Bluegill, T-Bird or that crowd pays any attention to these websites?

And, as far as brain damage from High Power RF, it's too late; I fried my brain on drugs long ago. As far as RF (and Marijuana!) causing sterility, that's just too much BS, I have 5 kids under 18 years of age. I wish RF did cause reproductive problems maybe I would have more cash in my pockets right now!

Just my opinion but, the high power radio operator has more to worry about in reference to high voltage and instant death than a possible slow death from RF radiation poisoning.

.
 
The 'simple' solution to HF RF exposure is that if you're close enough to touch the antenna, you're too close. For VHF/UHF you wanna add at least another arms length to that solution. Unless you're talking about radar and things like that, and then you just don't get in front of the antenna. That holds true for most of the 'reasonable' power level outputs. For higher outputs than is typical or reasonable, 'Simon' says step back a few steps. Helps if you tape a small flouresent(?) bulb to your eyebrows. When it lights up it means your too close. For radar, the first sign is that the chocolate bar in your pocket melts. The next sign is the lens of your eyes sort of frosting over. At that point, you're too late anyway.
- 'Doc
 
How about these so called Comp operators running 15 to 20k+ and 15 alternators in their mobiles this can not be good on the human body even at low freqs with a radiator a couple of feet off the ground.HMMMMMM
 
DZ302 said:
How about these so called Comp operators running 15 to 20k+ and 15 alternators in their mobiles this can not be good on the human body even at low freqs with a radiator a couple of feet off the ground.HMMMMMM

Tell all your friends with the Big Trucks, that the prize for the 3-Alternator AC class $1000 at the shoot-out in Cincy.

.
 
You Know whats funny imagine if you will years ago when they didnt think about this as if it wasnt a concern or they plain just didnt know I can imagine a household of bald neighbor kids :shock: Its crazy how some frequencies are more dangerous than others when it comes to the radiation factor. Its wild how this is all figured out and how the nature of this works.
 
DZ302 said:
How about these so called Comp operators running 15 to 20k+ and 15 alternators in their mobiles this can not be good on the human body even at low freqs with a radiator a couple of feet off the ground.HMMMMMM

Most of them don't have brains anyway.
 
Can't say it's nothing to worry about, as long as you ~keep~ it in perspective. The simple fact is that the higher the frequency the more dangerous it CAN be. Not that it's all that dangerous if you use some common sense. If you don't use some 'common sense', getting in/out of a bath tub will kill you a lot quicker.

A very 'general' rule of thumb is that if it's not expensive, it probably won't hurt you, sort of. Not very smart to get within arms reach of HF antennas, and they will let you know if you're too close (RF burns). Then again, if an HF antenna (other than a mobile one) is very close to where you would normally be, it isn't exactly the 'best' you can have to start with, right?
VHF stuff. Other than a mobile or HT, the same thing applies except more so, sort of. If it's possible to 'jump' and touch it, it's too close.
UHF stuff. This is where it starts to get sort of "iffy". Best to stay away from antennas on UHF, especially microwave/radar type stuff. If they are directional, best not to get in front of them. Radar is a very good example. Did you know that aircraft do NOT turn their radar on until off the ground (unless the pilot is a real idiot)? If he gets caught at it more than once, I'd bet he never does it again - lol! Police radar? Forget it. Unless you aim it between your eyes at 0.5 mm range for several hours, there's no problem. And who in their right mind is going to stick his head in a microwave oven? The 'catch' there is the "in their right mind" thingy, and in some cases, maybe they ought to?
- 'Doc
 
If you walk around an antenna which is radiating 2k and your close enough you will get burned one way or another. next time you feel the urge do it with a meter. Depending on the frequency is how long it will take for you to go bald or things start dropping of lol.
This is why there are rf exposure tables. But there are people who think I can't see it it won't hurt you. Good Luck.
 
As an RF worker my employer makes a little bit of effort to make us aware of non-ionising radiation.

Basicaly the amount of transmitted power is where you start.
Low powers aren't an issue, but high powers can cause burns which can have a bit more of a perminant effect.

Second is the distance, inverse square law applys. The more distance you have between you and the signal source the less effect it has squared.

The next aspect is the frequency.
If the frequency is low, then the wavelength is long and the energy can pass through the human body with little attenuation.
If the frequency is high, then the wavelength is short and the energy will be reflected off the human body with little absorbsion.

This is the princple of a microwave oven using S band. The wavelengths are not too long and not too short, but are absorbed well by most foodstuffs.

The last aspect is the resonant aspects of the human body.
The whole body acting as an antenna, 1/4 wavelength, 5/8 wavelength etc. Limbs also can act as fractional wavelength antennae. So wavelengths that best suit these dimensions of the human body are of particular concern. About 100MHz (FM band) is about right for most people. But it isn't just one frequency, it's a very large range of frequencies.

Finally, I have medical implants (lots of them) and each one makes me like a tuning fork for a whole range of other frequencies and I'm assessed every couple of years for my suseptibility to RF fields.
People with pacemakers and other similar medical instruments are also prone to the effects of large EM fields.

This is a link to ARPANSA which is the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
This is one of the documents that is a very comprehensive guide to non ionising radiation exposure industry standards.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rps/rps3.pdf
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.