Safety - HF radio and children
Submitted: Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:14
ThreadID:
47567
Views:
4855
Replies:
10
FollowUps:
10
This Thread has been Archived
Mike Harding
Responding to another thread made me realise that I have never seen mention of this issue on Ex Oz and as, I suspect, the other thread will have a very low readership I thought it worth starting a new thread.
Radio Frequency (RF) energy, in high powers (and even low ones – cell phones?) can have an adverse effect upon people – children are at greater risk in this area than adults.
Radios intended for VKS737 have a maximum power output of 100W – this is a significant level of RF power and I would ensure children (and adults?) are not within 25m of the antenna when I was transmitting – because of the cage effect of the vehicle _short_ transmission whilst on the move would be less of an issue but keep them infrequent and SHORT.
This area of science is far from fully understood but we know brain tumours and eye cataracts can be caused by RF exposure.
Near field RF exposure is not my area of specialisation so I would welcome more info. from anyone who has done research into it.
Mike Harding
PS. Even 4W UHF CB antennas should not be approached closer than a few metres whilst transmitting.
mike_harding@fastmail.fm
Reply By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:18
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:18
My Sat phone has a warning about standing within 1 metre the aerial but the curly cord on the hand piece is less then a metre long :))
AnswerID:
251646
Reply By: Footloose - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:44
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:44
Mike, the Australian Radiation Protection Standards are published here
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rps/rps3.pdf
There is an overview here
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/eme/fact4.pdf
Using Table 7 (page 12) in the standard the limit for occupational
exposure averaged over any 6 minute is 1000/f-sqrd.
So if I assume a 10 metre long antenna, then at 1 metre distance the
area is 10 x 3.14 x 1 x 1 = 31 sq. m.
If 100w voice is averaged to 30 watts and there is 50% transmit and
50% receive then the average power will be 15 watts and so the
average power flux density will be 15/31 or 0.5 watts / sq m.
The safe limits are
2 MHz - 250 w/sq m
5 MHz - 40 w/sq m
7 MHz - 20 w/sq m
10 MHz - 10 w/sq m
Hope this helps.
AnswerID:
251651
Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:55
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:55
Hi Jim
I think the big problem is that no one really knows what _are_ safe levels of exposure to RF.
No way would I routinely stand 1m from an HF antenna putting out 100W, would you?
Mike Harding
FollowupID:
512734
Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:05
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:05
I didn't want to get into a deep technical discussion on this one Jim because it's far too complicated and will depend upon individual installations but keep in mind that a vehicle mounted (or indeed any practical) antenna will not have a spatially uniform energy distribution. The following is a quote from an "internet friend" of
mine who did his PhD in this area and has worked for the past 20 years as a consultant in the field:
---------------------
An ATAS [antenna] mounted on a bonnet outside the window at 100W can put field
strengths inside the vehicle in the 25 to 50V/m area, sufficient to make it a no go area for military personnel.
---------------------
Mike Harding
FollowupID:
512735
Follow Up By: Footloose - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:03
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:03
Mike, this isn't an area of expertise for me either. But those figures you quote are surprising, as suspect that problems are related to both frequency and time exposed.
FollowupID:
512747
Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 23:15
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 23:15
Hmmm, these calculations look familiar.
FollowupID:
512873
Follow Up By: Footloose - Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:09
Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:09
Mike, they should! I didnt lay claim to em :))) (although now that I read it, cut and paste has a lot to answer for)
FollowupID:
512904
Reply By: WillyWish - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 10:48
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 10:48
Does that mean that 5w handheld UHF's are potentially unsafe in terms of RF energy that they output from the antenna which is usually only a few cms from your head??
AnswerID:
251668
Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:31
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:31
GSM mobile phones have a maximum output, iirc, of 2W - it will usually be much less than that. A 5W UHF signal close to the brain is probably not a "Good Thing" :)
I suggest that you normally keep the hand-held on low power setting (will improve battery life about 3 or 4 times) and only use high power if you need to and then for short periods.
I'm not trying to induce paranoia here; it's about being aware of the issue and exercising common sense - particularly with children who's bodies are still in the developing phase.
Mike Harding
FollowupID:
512750
Reply By: Member - bushfix - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:03
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:03
G'day Mike,
this was my field for a few years in the nineties. We worked to Australian Standards AS2772.1/2 (1988) and AS 1188 (1990) it is a controversial area indeed, especially at the time as mobile phone technology was beginning to ramp up. i was responsible for carrying out surveys on all sizes of radio and tv transmitters. HF was not involved but it was one of the more complicated and dangerous frequencies we were aware of. we were always required to exercise extreme care.
RF radiation is non ionizing, i.e. it will not break molecular bonds in the body. However, it can heat it up the body tissue and can also give you nasty burns if you come into direct contact with radiating equipment, which could be induced or transmitting. As
well as working on the ground and in transmitter buildings, I was required to climb towers and masts to measure two different exposure boundaries - Occupational (8 hrs) and Non-Occupational (24hrs)
Our equipment, of course, had to be strictly maintained, regularly calibrated by the Australian Radiation Authority, and checked before every operation.
I do not know if HF products such as Codan and Barrett and their associated equipment, are sold with warning, I assume they should be, but that does not mean they have warnings on those areas one may be exposed to. eg. leaning against a roo bar while the HF antenna next to you is being used for transmission by someone in the car. Indeed, pacemakers are a concern that RF users should be aware of.
kind regards,
Jeremy.
AnswerID:
251671
Reply By: The Landy - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:32
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:32
Interesting topic, however I suspect I should be more concerned about all the Radio/TV/Mobile antennas popping up around our cities than the occasional use from the HF.
Is there any detail on the exposure from a time perspective?
AnswerID:
251676
Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:45
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:45
>I should be more concerned about all the Radio/TV/Mobile antennas
Radio energy follows an "inverse square" law - providing you don't live next door to a TV transmitter (and I wouldn't) it shouldn't be a problem.
As for mobile phone cells... generally produce low power - however (details from memory) given the high incidence of cancers developed by people working on the 7th floor of an RMIT building, immediately below a mobile cell(s) the question remains open...?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation
-------------------
Doubling the distance from a transmitter means that the power
density of the radiated wave at that new location is reduced to
one-quarter of its previous value.
----------------------------
>Is there any detail on the exposure from a time perspective?
No. That's the problem - no one actually understands the full implications of the issue.
I'll probably be dead from alcohol poisoning before RF gets me but if my children were still small I'd keep them away from unnecessary exposure, after all doing so can't do any harm, can it...?
Mike Harding
FollowupID:
512753
Reply By: Shaker - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:41
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:41
It must be a worry on yachts then, usually the backstay is the HF aerial which can be only 3 or 4 feet from the helmsman, in fact on some yachts, you can steer & lean against the backstay!
AnswerID:
251677
Reply By: Sarg - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 22:18
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 22:18
Well if that is the case, I should have been dead years ago; fried beyond recognition.
AnswerID:
251802
Reply By: Member - Mike DID - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 23:09
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 23:09
In these days of legal liability, I assume that any Government safety guidelines will have a good safety margin.
Here are some tables taken from the Australian Communications Management Agency website.
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/stds_compliance/electromagnetic_radiation/licensee_book/amateur%20radio.pdf
HUMAN EXPOSURE TO EMR: ASSESSMENT OF AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ACA REQUIREMENTS
100 watt voice transmissions on SSB have an average power of 20 watts (see page 3 of 18)
TABLE 2a HF Bands (page 6 of 18)
Estimated distances (in metres) from transmitting antennas necessary to
meet [ACA-EMR] power density limits for general public exposure.
Frequency - Power=25watts
2 MHz - - - - 0.3 metres
4 MHz - - - - 0.5 metres
7 MHz - - - - 0.8 metres
14MHz - - - - 1.0 metres
TABLE 4. Omnidirectional HF quarter-wave vertical or ground plane antenna (estimated gain 1 dBi) (page 8 of 18)
Frequency - Power=25watts
4 MHz - - - - 0.5 metres
7 MHz - - - - 0.9 metres
14MHz - - - - 1.1 metres
TABLE 5. Horizontal half-wave dipole wire antenna (estimated gain 2 dBi) (page 8 of 18)
Frequency - Power=25watts
4 MHz - - - - 0.6 metres
7 MHz - - - - 1.0 metres
14MHz - - - - 1.3 metres
So I will continue to feel safe having any part of my body at least a metre away from an HF antenna while I am transmitting on VKS737 frequencies.
AnswerID:
251816
Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 23:59
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 23:59
And the scientific basis from which these numbers were derived is...?
That's the problem Mike, no one knows what, if anything, is a safe level.
Mike Harding
PS. Frankly I wouldn't trust the ACMA to tie my shoelaces.
FollowupID:
512883
Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:42
Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:42
ACMA have wriiten these guidelines based on the exposure limits in AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998 Radiofrequency fields - maximum exposure levels 3 kHz to 300 GHz.
www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_1833
The safe EM levels in Australia have been developed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency based on the multiple overseas studies.
Site Link.
Until someone comes up with something better, I'll follow their guidelines.
FollowupID:
512899
Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:14
Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:14
You know... when I initiated this post I _never_ thought it would be a contentious issue?
Mike: no one knows. The last three times the IEEE have issued guidelines in this area they have reduced the exposure levels each time. The World Health Organisation preface their report with “what is known at this time”.
$millions have been spent on the cell phone/health question and _still_ there is no definitive answer.
If we take the numbers you have quoted above I assume you would be happy to be pushing out 100W with your 10 year old standing 1m away from the antenna - _all the time_, not just passing through occasionally? I'd say any parent who did that was out of their mind.
As I said previously; I'm not trying to generate paranoia - I just think people should be advised there are health risks associated with RF energy and it can do no harm (nor is it an onerous task) to ensure children are not routinely exposed to high power RF. I mean... you don't allow them too close to a fire, do you...?
Mike Harding
FollowupID:
512905
Reply By: Member - Mike DID - Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 23:20
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 23:20
At 450 MHz and 10 watts continuous transmission and a 6dB gain antenna, the safe distance is 1.2 metres.
At 50 watts (some Amateur Transceivers) and 9 dB gain antenna the safe distance is 3.7m. Don't mount the antenna on the mudguard or bullbar ! The roof is the only safe place !
AnswerID:
251819
Reply By: Robin Miller - Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 09:56
Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 09:56
Hi Mike
Very aware of radiation issues and observed the damage, however I don't put the normal 4wd HF installation down as a serious risk.
While all radiation exposure should be minimized I class it as less harmfull than a mobile phone held against the ear.
The radiation risk is related to how likely it is to be able to be concentrated into a field such that a voltage gradient can be established across something as opposed to an absolute level, and this in turn is frequency related.
Its hard to focuss HF power , or to "resonate it into part of the body" compared to UHF and beyond.
Robin Miller
AnswerID:
251863