OBJECTIVES: Both the public perceptions, and most published epidemiologic studies, rely on the assumption that the distance of a particular residence from a base station or a broadcast transmitter is an appropriate surrogate for exposure to radiofrequency fields, although complex propagation characteristics affect the beams from antennas. The main goal of this study was to characterise the distribution of residential exposure from antennas using personal exposure meters. METHODS: A total of 200 randomly selected people were enrolled. Each participant was supplied with a personal exposure meter for 24 h measurements, and kept a time-location-activity diary. Two exposure metrics for each radiofrequency were then calculated: the proportion of measurements above the detection limit (0.05 V/m), and the maximum electric field strength. Residential address was geocoded, and distance from each antenna was calculated. RESULTS: Much of the time, the recorded field strength was below the detection level (0.05 V/m), the FM band standing apart with a proportion above the detection threshold of 12.3%. The maximum electric field strength was always lower than 1.5 V/m. Exposure to GSM and DCS waves peaked around 280 m and 1000 m from the antennas. A downward trend was found within a 10 km range for FM. Conversely, UMTS, TV 3, and TV 4&5 signals did not vary with distance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous limiting factors entailing a high variability in radiofrequency exposure assessment, but owing to a sound statistical technique, we found that exposures from GSM and DCS base stations increase with distance in the near source zone, to a maximum where the main beam intersects the ground. We believe these results will contribute to the ongoing public debate over the location of base stations and their associated emissions.
OBJECTIVES: Both the public perceptions, and most published epidemiologic studies, rely on the assumption that the distance of a particular residence from a base station or a broadcast transmitter is an appropriate surrogate for exposure to radiofrequency fields, although complex propagation characteristics affect the beams from antennas. The main goal of this study was to characterise the distribution of residential exposure from antennas using personal exposure meters. METHODS: A total of 200 randomly selected people were enrolled. Each participant was supplied with a personal exposure meter for 24 h measurements, and kept a time-location-activity diary. Two exposure metrics for each radiofrequency were then calculated: the proportion of measurements above the detection limit (0.05 V/m), and the maximum electric field strength. Residential address was geocoded, and distance from each antenna was calculated. RESULTS: Much of the time, the recorded field strength was below the detection level (0.05 V/m), the FM band standing apart with a proportion above the detection threshold of 12.3%. The maximum electric field strength was always lower than 1.5 V/m. Exposure to GSM and DCS waves peaked around 280 m and 1000 m from the antennas. A downward trend was found within a 10 km range for FM. Conversely, UMTS, TV 3, and TV 4&5 signals did not vary with distance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous limiting factors entailing a high variability in radiofrequency exposure assessment, but owing to a sound statistical technique, we found that exposures from GSM and DCS base stations increase with distance in the near source zone, to a maximum where the main beam intersects the ground. We believe these results will contribute to the ongoing public debate over the location of base stations and their associated emissions.
Authors: J Breckenkamp; M Blettner; J Schüz; C Bornkessel; S Schmiedel; B Schlehofer; G Berg-Beckhoff Journal: Radiat Environ Biophys Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Peter Gajšek; Paolo Ravazzani; Joe Wiart; James Grellier; Theodoros Samaras; György Thuróczy Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Martin Röösli; Patrizia Frei; John Bolte; Georg Neubauer; Elisabeth Cardis; Maria Feychting; Peter Gajsek; Sabine Heinrich; Wout Joseph; Simon Mann; Luc Martens; Evelyn Mohler; Roger C Parslow; Aslak Harbo Poulsen; Katja Radon; Joachim Schüz; György Thuroczy; Jean-François Viel; Martine Vrijheid Journal: Environ Health Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Emma Chiaramello; Marta Bonato; Serena Fiocchi; Gabriella Tognola; Marta Parazzini; Paolo Ravazzani; Joe Wiart Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Corentin Regrain; Julien Caudeville; René de Seze; Mohammed Guedda; Amirreza Chobineh; Philippe de Doncker; Luca Petrillo; Emma Chiaramello; Marta Parazzini; Wout Joseph; Sam Aerts; Anke Huss; Joe Wiart Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gregor Dürrenberger; Jürg Fröhlich; Martin Röösli; Mats-Olof Mattsson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 3.390