Skip to main content
PMC home page
Nature Portfolio logoLink to Nature Portfolio
. 2012 Feb 29;22(3):304–315. doi: 10.1038/jes.2012.13

Comparative international analysis of radiofrequency exposure surveys of mobile communication radio base stations

Jack T Rowley 1,*, Ken H Joyner 2
PMCID: PMC3347802  PMID: 22377680

Abstract

This paper presents analyses of data from surveys of radio base stations in 23 countries across five continents from the year 2000 onward and includes over 173,000 individual data points. The research compared the results of the national surveys, investigated chronological trends and compared exposures by technology. The key findings from this data are that irrespective of country, the year and cellular technology, exposures to radio signals at ground level were only a small fraction of the relevant human exposure standards. Importantly, there has been no significant increase in exposure levels since the widespread introduction of 3G mobile services, which should be reassuring for policy makers and negate the need for post-installation measurements at ground level for compliance purposes. There may be areas close to antennas where compliance levels could be exceeded. Future potential work includes extending the study to additional countries, development of cumulative exposure distributions and investigating the possibility of linking exposure measurements to population statistics to assess the distribution of exposure levels relative to population percentiles.

Keywords: EMF, environmental monitoring, personal exposure

Introduction

It is estimated that over 90% of the global population has access to mobile networks and that there were 5.3 billion mobile subscriptions at the end of 2010.1 Services are provided by a network of radio base stations and it was estimated that there were over 1.4 million installed globally in 2006 (ref. 2) with a 2008 industry analyst report projecting 4.7 million base stations at the end of 2010, with annual growth of about 200,000.3 In addition to growth in subscribers, there has also been a rapid evolution in mobile radio technology.4 Risk perception studies show that some communities, members of the general public, academics and politicians have concerns about possible health effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy transmitted by mobile phones and wireless networks.5

In an effort to provide public information and allay community concerns, regulatory agencies and academic institutions have undertaken extensive measurement surveys of the environmental levels of RF energy in locations near the individual transmitter sites of mobile networks and made the results publicly available. The World Health Organization (WHO) also recommends on-going work to characterize population RF exposure and notes that this would be particularly useful for global exposure assessment in view of the upcoming WHO health risk assessment for RF fields.6 There have been limited efforts to compile and compare survey data between countries7, 8, 9 and each found that RF exposures in publicly accessible areas were typically many thousands of times below the levels recommended in international human exposure guidelines.10 A recent cumulative distribution analysis of UK measurements (a subset of the same data used in our study) reported a median exposure level of 0.0037 μW/cm2 with 5th and 95th percentiles of 1.3 × 10−5 μW/cm2 and 0.11 μW/cm2, respectively.11

The aims of our research project were to build on the earlier analysis and:

  1. Compile a summary of key characteristics of national measurement surveys of public RF exposures from radio base stations in a large sample of countries.

  2. Investigate similarities or differences between the results of various national RF surveys and different technologies or frequency bands (where sufficient information was available).

  3. Investigate any chronological trends in the exposure data where individual national surveys may have been conducted over a number of years.

Methods

Two primary criteria were applied to the selection of RF measurement surveys for inclusion in this study:

  1. The data had to be accessible, either from published sources (journal or website) or freely supplied on request from the owners of the data. The vast majority of data (over 99.6%) has been sourced from government agencies, universities or independent research institutes.

  2. The survey instrumentation used for the measurements was capable of frequency/service differentiation and the data reported per mobile technology and service band of interest or, at a minimum, the total level across all the mobile phone bands present.

Where possible we asked for the raw measurement data and if this was not available then we asked for summary information (minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, number of points and measurement years). It was also important that the data were available as field strength levels rather than as percentage of relevant human exposure standard as the specific service frequency was not always available for conversion purposes. We obtained data on the extensive Italian national measurement program,12 but we do not yet have access to the software needed to analyze nearly 50 million measurement samples and intend to include the results in a future publication. Table 1 summarizes the sources of the surveys for 23 countries, their main characteristics and expands the abbreviated names of the mobile technologies. The US data set was unique in that a majority of the measurements were made on rooftops and buildings within close proximity of the transmitting antennas. All other data sets were primarily ground-based measurements around towers or elevated installations.

Table 1. Countries from which data were sourced, the years over which the surveys were carried out, the number of data points, the measurement method and the types of services measured.

Country Code Years of survey data Total number of data points Method of measurement Types of services surveyeda Reference
Australia AU 2000 13 Narrowband CDMA800, 13,14,15
          GSM900/1800, WCDMA  
    2003 663      
Austria AT 2000 233 Narrowband GSM900/1800 7, 8, 16, 17
    2006 491 Narrowband GSM900/1800, WCDMA  
Belgium BE 2000–2002 380 Narrowband GSM900/1800 18, 19
    2009–2010 482 Narrowband GSM900/1800, WCDMA  
Canada CA 2001/2002 and 2004 686 recovered but many more values measured Narrowband AMPS800 and PCS1900 20,21,22
Egypt EG 2009 276 Broadband Broadcast, GSM900/1800, WCDMA 23
France FR 2001–2007 2000 approx. Narrowband GSM900/1800, WCDMA 24, 25
Germany DE 2003 (Bavaria) 1073 Narrowband GSM900/1800 26, 27
    2001–2008 (Numerous States) 1867 Narrowband GSM900/1800, WCDMA 28,29,30
Ghana GH 2007–2008 50 Narrowband GSM900/1800 31
Greece GR 2003–2009 174 Narrowband GSM900/1800, WCDMA 32
Hungary HU 2000 80 Narrowband GSM900/1800 7
Ireland IE 2003–2009 15,048 Narrowband GSM900/1800, WCDMA 33
Japan JP 2008b 40 averages analyzed but many more data points measured Narrowband CDMA and WCDMA 34, 35
Malaysia MY 2005 and 2009–2010 128 Narrowband GSM900/1800, WCDMA 36
      9 Narrowband   37
Netherlands NL 2009–2010 273 Narrowband GSM900/1800, WCDMA 19
New Zealand NZ 2003–2009 214 Broadband Broadcast, GSM900/1800, WCDMA 38, 39
Peru PE 2007 75 Narrowband GSM1900 40
South Korea KR 2007–2009 9755 Narrowband Broadcast, GSM900, PCS1900, WCDMA 41, 42
Spain ES 2002–2008 4827 Narrowband GSM900 43
Sweden SE 2000 31 Narrowband Broadcast, NMT, GSM900/1800, WCDMA 7
    2000–2007       44
Switzerland CH 2004–2006–2008 29 Broadband and Narrowband Broadcast, GSM900/1800, WCDMA 45,46,47,48,49,50,51
Thailand TH 2005 12,770 Narrowband GSM900/1800 52,53,54
    2007 956 Broadband GSM900/1800  
United Kingdom UK 2001–2010 135,536 Narrowband ETACS, GSM900/1800, WCDMA 55
United States of Americac,d US 2003–2009 1127 Broadband Broadcast, AMPS800, CDMA800 and PCS1900 56
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AMPS, advanced mobile phone system; CDMA, code division multiple access; ETACS, extended total access communications system, a variant of AMPS; GSM, global system for mobile; NMT, nordic mobile telephone; PCS, personal communications services; WCDMA, wideband CDMA.

a

Broadcast (FM radio and television). The number following the system acronym refers to the frequency band of operation of the system.

b

The Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has collected data for 2006, 2007 and 2008, but unfortunately the data for 2006 and 2007 does not contain summary tables of data.

c

Data for San Francisco, California.

d

The US data set was unique in that a majority of the measurements were made on rooftops and buildings in close proximity of the transmitting antennas. All other data sets were primarily ground-based measurements around towers or elevated installations.

There are four general methods of assessing exposure levels to RF fields. These methods include narrowband and broadband measurements,57 personal RF dosimeters and theoretical calculations. In this study, we have collected and reported only broadband and narrowband measurements. Personal RF dosimeters have been used to assess personal exposure in population samples,58 however, we did not use data from these measurements because they have limited sensitivity, are affected by coupling with the body of the wearer and assess individual exposure rather than exposure at a location.59, 60 Theoretical calculations have also not been used as they generally over-estimate actual levels because of the use of worst case assumptions.

In brief, broadband instruments, which have frequency responses typically several hundred kilohertz up to several gigahertz, can be used to measure the total RF power across the frequency bands covering FM radio/TV broadcast and radio base stations, but frequency- or channel-specific information is often not available or not easily obtained. As a general comment for comparisons purposes such as presented here, broadband measuring instruments have limitations because of their lack of frequency selectivity and also because they are designed to indicate higher levels relative to the various exposure limits and are used closer to RF sources than other measuring techniques such as narrowband instruments. Often, however, the contribution from a specific source can be assessed because a dominant source can be identified through proximity or by switching sources on and off to measure their contribution to the total RF background. Broadband instruments have a sensitivity threshold to electric fields above the equivalent of 0.01 μW/cm2.61

Narrowband or frequency-specific instruments have higher sensitivity and are able to discriminate between the various RF sources. However, it can also be difficult to directly compare narrowband measurements from different surveys as the operational parameters of the spectrum analyzers or frequency selective receivers may be different. For example, differing resolution bandwidths and peak hold or time averaged modes can be selected. The survey techniques can also be different, e.g., is an area scanned and only the peak field reported or are the levels spatially averaged in some manner, are single polarizations or isotropic responses reported? The total RF field from narrowband surveys is found by summing the power density of the exposure across the frequency band of interest. Narrowband instruments can typically detect electric fields 4–5 orders of magnitude below broadband instruments but this is very dependent on the amount of amplification and the signal processing involved in the setup.

There have been significant advances in both broadband and narrowband instrumentation over recent years, which have addressed the issues of size, portability and isotropic response of the instrumentation and the choice between the two types of instrumentation is now one of cost and purpose. For the purpose of demonstrating compliance of a particular installation, broadband measurements may be sufficient. However, measuring particular sources or their contribution to the total background generally requires some means of identifying the various frequencies present and is particularly true of complex sites with multiple transmitters and services, and in urban areas.

Results

In Table 2, the data have been pooled by country, year (where the annual data are available) and by wireless technology (generally only for narrowband measurement surveys). We excluded Ghana and France from the analysis due to incomplete survey information, so analysis was based on 21 countries. The statistical values calculated for each data set are minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation. Note that data are presented as absolute power density levels in the units of μW/cm2—the levels are not relative to the respective human exposure limits for RF fields, which vary by frequency.10 A total of 175,547 data points were collected in this study but due to incomplete information and problems of interpretation only 173,323 points (98.7%) were included in the analysis.

Table 2. Summary statistics for the measurement survey data by country, mobile technology and year (where available).

Country Code Year Cellular technology No. of pointsa Minimum (μW/cm2) Maximum (μW/cm2) Average (μW/cm2) Standard deviation (μW/cm2)
AU 2000 GSM900 13 5.00E−04 7.20E−02 2.47E−02 2.29E−2
  2003 CDMA 119 3.00E−07 3.72E−02 3.55E−03 6.66E−03
    GSM900 355 4.80E−07 7.03E−01 1.89E−02 5.92E−02
    GSM1800 51 8.01E−06 4.25E−01 1.79E−02 7.22E−02
    WCDMA 138 1.50E−06 7.60E−02 6.16E−03 1.18E−02
    Total 663 4.80E−07 7.03E−01 3.75E−02 1.02E−01
AT 2000 GSM900 197 1.60E−08 1.34E+00 2.86E−02 1.27E−01
    GSM1800 36 4.30E−06 1.35E−01 9.63E−03 2.44E−02
    Total 233 1.60E−08 1.34E+00 2.57E−02 1.17E−01
  2006 GSM900 226 <1.00E−06 2.14E−01 4.30E−03 1.79E−02
    GSM1800 226 1.00E−06 4.75E−01 4.64E−03 3.54E−02
    WCDMA 39 <1.00E−06 7.30E−03 5.43E−04 1.51E−03
    Total 491 <1.00E−06 4.75E−01 9.03E−03 4.11E−02
BE 2000 GSM900/1800 178 5.61E−04 4.06E+00 2.40E−02 5.84E−01
  2001 GSM900/1800 132 8.59E−05 4.24E+01 6.43E−01 4.04E+00
  2002 GSM900/1800 70 3.21E−03 1.03E+02 2.54E−01 1.30E+01
  2000–2002 Total 380 8.59E−05 1.03E+02 2.69E−01 6.12E+00
  2009–2010 GSM900 180 1.17E−04 3.93E+00 2.27E−01 5.25E−01
    GSM1800 160 1.57E−05 1.22E+00 3.66E−02 1.21E−01
    WCDMA 142 3.82E−05 1.23E−01 8.31E−03 1.93E−02
    Total 482 1.57E−05 3.93E+00 9.94E−02 NA
CA 2003 AMPS 143 1.11E−04 6.42E−02 7.59E−03 1.27E−02
    PCS1900 143 1.63E−05 2.54E−02 1.61E−03 2.68E−03
    Total 286 1.63E−05 6.42E−02 4.60E−03 9.67E−03
  2004 AMPS 200 4.47E−05 3.80E−02 1.79E−03 4.73E−03
    PCS1900 200 2.69E−04 3.02E−02 7.73E−04 2.50E−03
    Total 400 4.47E−05 3.80E−02 1.28E−03 3.81E−03
EG 2009 GSM900/1800 276 3.00E−02 1.15E+00 4.12E−01 2.15E−01
FR 2001–2004b GSM900 NA NA NA 9.23E−02 NA
    GSM1800 NA NA NA 9.23E−02 NA
    WCDMA NA NA NA 1.30E−03 NA
  2004–2007 GSM900 NA NA NA 1.12E−01 NA
    GSM1800 NA NA NA 4.68E−02 NA
    WCDMA NA NA NA 1.40E−02 NA
    Total 01-07 ∼2000 — — — —
DE 2003 GSM900 517 3.06E−07 1.51E−01 3.91E−03 1.34E−02
    GSM1800 556 1.62E−07 5.59E−01 2.49E−03 2.53E−02
    Total 1073 1.62E−07 5.59E−01 3.17E−03 2.04E−02
  2002–2008 GSM900/1800 1867 2.7E−07 7.15E+01 7.33E−01 NA
    WCDMA 464 2.40E−06 2.79E+01 3.59E−01 NA
GH 2007 GSM900 50 1.00E−06 1.00E−03 NA NA
    GSM1800 50 1.00E−06 1.00E−02 NA NA
GR 2003–2005 GSM900 26 3.74E−05 1.86E+00 2.27E−01 5.35E−01
    GSM1800 and WCDMA 26 2.45E−05 2.76E+00 3.22E−01 6.79E−01
    Total 52 1.77E−04 3.78E+00 5.49E−01 1.12E+00
  2006 GSM900 32 1.29E−05 1.85E+00 1.34E−01 3.51E−01
    GSM1800and WCDMA 32 6.88E−05 6.60E−01 1.15E−01 1.72E−01
    Total 64 8.17E−05 1.90E+00 2.49E−01 3.89E−01
  2007 GSM900 38 3.16E−05 1.85E+00 1.43E−01 3.56E−01
    GSM1800 and WCDMA 38 1.61E−03 1.08E+00 1.59E−01 2.76E−01
    Total 76 1.64E−03 2.18E+00 3.02E−01 5.34E−01
  2008 GSM900 39 6.20E−05 5.19E+00 2.52E−01 9.21E−01
    GSM1800 and WCDMA 39 2.86E−04 1.92E+00 2.31E−01 4.33E−01
    Total 78 3.48E−04 6.87E+00 4.83E−01 1.23E+00
  2009 GSM900 39 2.19E−04 1.25E−01 1.73E−02 2.93E−02
    GSM1800 and WCDMA 39 9.46E−04 1.02E+00 7.49E−02 1.73E−01
    Total 78 1.99E−03 1.03E+00 9.23E−02 1.82E−01
  2003–2009 GSM900 174 1.29E−05 5.19E+00 1.50E−01 5.33E−01
    GSM1800 and WCDMA 174 2.45E−05 2.76E+00 1.73E−01 3.78E−01
    Total 348 8.17E−05 6.87E+00 3.23E−01 7.95E−01
HU 2000 GSM900 57 5.78E−03 1.28E+00 1.37E−01 2.39E−01
    GSM1800 9 1.08E−02 1.31E−01 4.19E−02 4.62E−02
    Total 66 5.78E−03 1.28E+00 1.24E−01 2.25E−01
IE 2003–2004 GSM900 6670 1.00E−07 4.93E+00 4.05E−02 1.59E−01
    GSM1800 6139 9.01E−08 4.55E+00 2.35E−02 1.79E−01
    WCDMA 3 1.23E−05 4.54E−05 2.74E−05 1.67E−05
    Total 12,812 9.01E−08 4.93E+00 3.23E−02 1.69E−01
  2005–2006c GSM900 79 1.06E−06 1.82E+00 1.43E−01 2.91E−01
    GSM1800 79 4.24E−08 5.30E+00 1.91E−01 7.43E−01
    WCDMA 72 1.30E−07 5.07E−01 1.57E−02 6.54E−02
    Total 230 4.24E−08 5.3E+00 1.19E−01 4.73E−01
  2007c,d GSM900 230 4.48E−07 5.27E+00 8.87E−02 5.08E−01
    GSM1800 146 9.55E−08 6.29E−02 5.11E−03 1.05E−02
    WCDMA 187 9.58E−07 3.56E−01 1.70E−02 4.49E−02
    Total 563 9.55E−08 5.27E+00 4.32E−02 3.28E−01
  2008 GSM900 235 2.39E−06 1.88E+01 2.26E−01 1.29E+00
    GSM1800 139 1.06E−06 8.53E+00 1.54E−01 9.98E−01
    WCDMA 194 3.42E−06 4.86E+00 9.57E−02 4.40E−01
    Total 568 1.06E−06 1.88E+01 1.64E−01 1.00E+00
  2009 GSM900 279 3.14E−06 1.66E+01 2.76E−01 1.24E+00
    GSM1800 173 1.01E−05 3.50E+00 8.14E−02 3.03E−01
    WCDMA 269 2.47E−06 1.17E−01 5.14E−03 1.36E−02
    Total 721 2.47E−06 1.66E+01 1.28E−01 7.91E−01
  2003–2009e GSM900 7548 1.00E−07 1.88E+01 6.29E−02 4.23E−01
    GSM1800 6725 4.24E−08 1.63E+01 3.17E−02 3.14E−01
    WCDMA 775 6.63E−08 1.41E+01 6.20E−02 6.28E−01
    Total 15,048 4.24E−08 1.88E−01 4.89E−02 3.92E−01
JP 2008 CDMA800 20 1.02E−06 2.37E−03 3.49E−04 5.85E−04
    WCDMA 20 1.38E−07 7.41E−04 1.59E−04 2.10E−04
    Total 40 1.38E−07 2.37E−03 2.54E−04 4.44E−04
MY 2005 All mobile frequencies 9 9.16E−02 2.10E+00 4.88E−01 6.59E−01
  2009–2010 All mobile frequencies 128 2.00E−07 2.00E−01 9.30E−03 NA
  Total All mobile frequencies 137 2.00E−07 2.10E+00 4.08E−02 NA
NL 2009–2010 GSM900 101 4.53E−05 9.42E−01 3.93E−02 1.14E−01
    GSM1800 97 1.41E−05 6.40E−01 2.10E−02 6.95E−02
    WCDMA 75 2.98E−05 1.49E−01 8.25E−03 2.11E−02
    Total 273 1.41E−05 9.42E−01 2.43E−02 NA
NZ 2003–2004f All mobile frequencies 57 4.00E−02 3.60E+01 1.58E+00 4.79E+00
  2005f All mobile frequencies 58 1.00E−02 2.15E+01 1.46E+00 3.08E+00
  2006f All mobile frequencies 45 3.00E−02 7.17E+00 1.62E+00 1.71E+00
  2007f All mobile frequencies 40 7.00E−02 1.70E+01 2.15E+00 3.72E+00
  2008f All mobile frequencies 14 7.00E−02 1.82E+00 6.78E−01 5.34E−01
  2003–2008f All mobile frequencies 214 1.00E−02 3.60E+01 1.6E+00 3.44E+00
PE 2001–2004 GSM810–GSM900 295 6.68E−11 1.57E+01 5.56E−01 1.75E+00
    PCS1900 75 2.15E−05 6.12E+00 1.01E+00 1.16E+00
    Total 370 6.68E−11 1.57E+01 5.38E−01 1.65E+00
KR 2007 TRSg 57 1.06E−06 1.73E+00 1.67E−01 3.27E−01
    CDMA 158 2.65E−07 5.39E+01 1.30E+00 5.79E+00
    GSM1800 969 9.55E−06 4.95E+00 3.90E−01 7.14E−01
    WCDMA 4 2.65E−07 2.65E−07 2.65E−07 0.00E+00
    Total 1188 2.65E−07 5.39E+01 4.99E−01 2.23E+00
  2008 TRSg 82 2.65E−07 1.61E+00 3.40E−01 4.02E−01
    CDMA 542 9.55E−06 8.37E+00 4.54E−01 9.71E−01
    GSM1800 875 1.30E−05 7.37E+00 2.74E−01 6.00E−01
    WCDMA 2285 1.70E−05 8.86E+01 2.45E−01 1.96E+00
    Total 3784 2.65E−07 8.86E+01 2.84E−01 1.59E+00
  2009 TRSg 118 2.65E−07 1.80E+00 3.03E−01 3.31E−01
    CDMA 348 1.30E−05 4.57E+00 3.86E−01 7.07E−02
    GSM1800 682 1.70E−05 1.38E+01 3.64E−01 8.77E−01
    WCDMA 3635 6.63E−06 2.25E+01 3.46E−01 8.29E−01
    Total 4783 2.65E−07 2.25E+01 3.51E−01 8.19E−01
  2007–2009 TRSg 257 2.65E−07 1.80E+00 2.85E−01 3.59E−01
    CDMA 1048 2.65E−07 5.39E+01 5.59E−01 2.40E+00
    GSM1800 2526 9.55E−06 1.38E+01 3.43E−01 7.28E−01
    WCDMA 5924 2.65E−07 8.86E+01 3.07E−01 1.38E+00
    Total 9755 2.65E−07 8.86E+01 3.43E−01 1.39E+00
ES 2002h GSM900 3818 8.10E−03 1.18E+00 1.02E−01 1.73E−01
  2003h GSM900 264 6.00E−03 5.35E+00 6.05E−01 9.40E−01
  2004h GSM900 149 1.00E−03 6.01E+00 6.47E−01 1.09E+00
  2005h GSM900 149 1.50E−02 3.35E+00 6.96E−01 8.40E−01
  2006h GSM900 149 1.00E−03 3.44E+00 6.36E−01 8.59E−01
  2007h GSM900 149 5.00E−03 3.55E+00 5.29E−01 8.24E−01
  2008h GSM900 149 5.00E−03 5.61E+00 6.47E−01 1.17E+00
  2002–2008 GSM900 4827 1.00E−03 6.01E+00 5.37E−01 9.11E−01
SE 2000 GSM900 31 1.00E−07 2.74E−01 2.27E−02 5.64E−02
  2001–2004 GSM900 68 1.59E−04 5.03E+00 2.57E−01 8.66E−01
    GSM1800 61 8.02E−05 2.57E−01 2.42E−02 4.64E−02
    WCDMA 34 1.30E−04 1.38E+01 4.63E−01 2.36E+00
    Total 163 8.02E−05 1.38E+01 2.13E−01 1.21E+00
  2005–2007 GSM900 91 3.51E−06 1.49E+01 3.58E−01 2.02E+00
    GSM1800 87 1.57E−07 1.19E+01 2.02E−01 1.30E+00
    WCDMA 89 1.25E−06 8.67E−01 2.74E−02 1.04E−01
    Total 267 1.57E−07 1.49E+01 1.97E−01 1.40E+00
  2001–2007 GSM900 159 3.51E−06 1.49E+01 3.14E−01 1.63E+00
    GSM1800 148 1.57E−07 1.19E+01 1.29E−01 9.98E−01
    WCDMA 123 1.25E−06 1.38E+01 1.48E−01 1.25E+00
    Total 430 1.57E−07 1.49E+01 2.03E−01 1.33E+00
  2009–2010 GSM900 30 1.00E−03 1.16E+00 1.91E−01 2.93E−01
    GSM1800 30 2.03E−04 1.13E+00 1.26E−01 2.29E−01
    WCDMA 30 1.80E−03 5.27E−01 1.06E−01 1.53E−01
    Total 90 2.03E−04 1.16E+00 1.41E−01 NA
CH 2004 GSM900/1800/ WCDMA 18 5.97E−03 4.41E−01 9.69E−02 1.14E−01
  2006 GSM900/1800/ WCDMA 20 1.17E−02 4.83E−01 1.50E−01 1.25E−01
  2008 GSM900/1800/ WCDMA 20 2.23E−02 5.27E−01 1.60E−01 1.28E−01
  2004–2006 GSM900/1800/ WCDMA 58 5.97E−03 5.27E−01 1.37E−01 1.24E−01
TH 2005 GSM900 6385 4.07E−04 3.02E−01 4.72E−03 1.28E−02
    GSM1800 6385 8.91E−04 1.38E+00 1.42E−02 3.56E−02
    Total 12,770 4.07E−04 1.38E+00 9.45E−03 2.72E−02
  2007 GSM900 and GSM1800 906 1.00E−02 9.12E+00 1.20E−01i 8.9E−02i
UK 2001 ETACSj 6250 3.29E−11 8.81E−02 3.91E−05 1.50E−03
    GSM900 6310 1.21E−10 6.36E−01 2.05E−03 1.89E−02
    GSM1800 6370 5.16E−09 7.48E−01 5.74E−03 3.18E−02
    Total 18930 3.29E−11 7.48E−01 2.63E−03 2.16E−02
  2002 GSM900 7320 4.32E−10 1.59E−01 6.49E−04 5.04E−03
    GSM1800 14,638 8.32E−10 1.10E+00 1.08E−03 1.26E−02
    Total 21,958 4.32E−10 1.10E+00 9.39E−04 1.07E−02
  2003 GSM900 6400 1.33E−09 2.25E−01 6.55E−04 6.15E−03
    GSM1800 12,800 7.43E−10 6.25E−01 9.63E−04 9.70E−03
    Total 19,200 7.43E−10 6.25E−01 8.60E−04 8.68E−03
  2004 GSM900 3960 5.55E−10 2.35E−01 1.12E−03 7.29E−03
    GSM1800 7900 8.58E−10 4.96E−01 1.30E−03 1.22E−02
    Total 11,860 5.55E−10 4.96E−01 1.24E−03 1.08E−02
  2005 GSM900 4789 2.65E−13 2.38E−01 1.00E−03 5.68E−03
    GSM1800 7910 1.22E−09 3.52E−01 9.44E−04 6.51E−03
    WCDMA 1540 5.66E−06 1.68E−02 1.07E−04 7.36E−04
    Total 14,239 2.65E−13 3.52E−01 8.73E−04 5.88E−03
  2006 GSM900 1659 3.16E−07 1.51E−01 4.52E−04 4.48E−03
    GSM1800 1657 6.81E−07 5.15E−02 3.99E−04 2.32E−03
    WCDMA 1659 7.21E−06 3.32E−02 2.21E−04 1.56E−03
    Total 4975 3.16E−07 1.51E−01 3.57E−04 3.05E−03
  2007 GSM900 2340 1.36E−10 2.22E−01 1.09E−03 8.37E−03
    GSM1800 2340 5.92E−11 1.32E−02 1.21E−04 7.31E−04
    WCDMA 2338 2.37E−10 1.22E−02 8.29E−05 5.57E−04
    Total 7018 5.92E−11 2.22E−01 4.30E−04 4.89E−03
  2008 GSM900 3160 1.29E−10 7.25E−02 3.03E−04 2.24E−03
    GSM1800 3200 5.80E−11 6.22E−02 1.45E−04 1.37E−03
    WCDMA 3070 2.51E−10 3.11E−02 1.46E−04 1.10E−03
    Total 9430 5.80E−11 7.25E−02 1.99E−04 1.65E−03
  2009 GSM900 4070 3.21E−07 9.91E−02 5.91E−04 3.33E−03
    GSM1800 4150 5.86E−07 6.22E−02 1.90E−04 1.40E−03
    WCDMA 4070 5.41E−06 3.23E−02 1.49E−04 8.73E−04
    Total 12,290 3.21E−07 9.91E−02 3.09E−04 2.15E−03
  2001–2009 ETACS 6250 3.29E−11 8.81E−02 3.91E−05 1.50E−03
    GSM900 40,008 2.65E−13 6.36E−01 9.43E−04 9.09E−03
    GSM1800 60,965 5.80E−11 1.10E+00 1.39E−03 1.38E−02
    WCDMA 12,677 2.37E−10 3.32E−02 1.40E−04 9.90E−04
    Total 119,900 2.65E−13 1.10E+00 1.04E−03 1.12E−02
US 2003 All mobile signals 196 2.00E−02 1.00E+01 7.00E−01 1.33E+00
  2004 All mobile signals 67 6.60E−02 1.20E+01 9.29E−01 1.83E+00
  2005 All mobile signals 159 3.60E−02 2.80E+01 7.75E−01 2.42E+00
  2006 All mobile signals 189 1.90E−02 5.60E+01 2.32E+00 7.10E+00
  2007 All mobile signals 279 1.90E−02 7.00E+01 1.40E+00 5.51E+00
  2008 All mobile signals 138 1.90E−02 3.00E+01 1.87E+00 4.85E+00
  2009 All mobile signals 99 2.20E−02 3.00E+01 1.25E+00 3.28E+00
  2003–2009 All mobile signals 1127 1.90E−02 7.00E+01 1.36E+00 4.26E+00
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ETACS, extended total access communications system; NA, not available or not reported; TRS, trunked radio system.

a

The number of points reported is the number of data points available for analysis and may not be the actual number of data points in the survey given the difficulties of recovering early records.

b

The French Report lists internal and external measurements but only the external measured values have been reported in this Table.

c

In 2005, 2006 and half of 2007 the Irish records only contained the maximum signal strength recorded.

d

In the second half of 2007 the Irish reports included all of the measured signals and it is these values that are recorded in the above Table.

e

These totals include all measurements including those from the first half of 2007 which is why some of the totals do not match.

f

These measurements are the maximum measured values.

g

TRS 851–867 MHz.

h

The values reported and used in the analysis are the mean values for each of the 52 Provinces of Spain except for 2005 where only the mean values for each of the 19 autonomous communities were reported.

i

The mean and standard deviation were calculated assuming a normal distribution.

j

ETACS 917–933 MHz.

Figure 1 compares the survey results across the 21 countries. We calculated a global average across all measurements, weighted by the number of points per country, as 0.0567 μW/cm2 as indicated by the lower dotted line in Figure 1. The weighted average was calculated as shown in Eq. (1):

graphic file with name jes201213e1.jpg

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Minimum (•), maximum (•) and narrowband average (•), broadband average (○) or mixed narrowband/broadband average (▪) of all survey data for each country with the number of measurement points for the country in brackets. For comparison, the global weighted average marked with dot–dashed line through (◊) and the ICNIRP reference levels for the public at 900 and 1800 MHz are also plotted.

Where the country-weighted average was based on the number of measurements for each radio technology relative to the total number of measurements. There was approximately three orders of magnitude difference between the mean values for the country data sets. Two key factors may explain the difference in mean levels. First, the use of broadband versus narrowband instruments—not surprisingly the broadband measurements yield the highest average values and the narrowband measurements the lowest average values. Second, the choice of measurement location was not standardized between countries (most were at ground level except the USA which included a large number of rooftops). Measurements in Germany near 11 different GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications—typically refers to 2G or second generation systems) and 3G (third generation) base station types (urban, rural, indoor, outdoor, etc) found that the exposure varied by three orders of magnitude due to choice of measurement location.62

In Figure 2, the results of the annual surveys for the UK and the USA are plotted with the annual averages for Spain, Greece and Ireland. These countries were selected because of the number of years surveyed and also to allow a comparison of trends between narrowband (UK, ES, GR, IE) and broadband (US) measurements. The very limited variation year on year between surveys in the same country is striking in Figure 2. During the period of the UK measurements subscribers grew from 42.9 million to 77.5 million (81%) and for the US from 50.9 million to 283.1 million (456%)63 and 3G technologies were deployed but average exposure measured in the surveys remained largely unchanged. This is probably indicative of the within-country similarities with respect to survey methodology, survey equipment, mobile network structure and the choice of measurement location. The UK averages are 2–3 orders of magnitude lower than those for Spain, Greece and Ireland and we believe this is due to very low reported sensitivity of the UK measurements and differences in proximity to the antennas. The US measurements included many rooftops and other locations around the immediate vicinity of base station antennas. Measurements on rooftops close to the antennas would reveal readings that could be significantly higher, and exceed reference levels for the public directly in front of transmitting antennas.64 The general survey approach in the US is to spatially average the RF fields over the height of a person, typically taken as 1.8 m. Also in the US, measurements are generally made to identify the contour of the maximum exposure level for the public as it may also apply to workers on the rooftop who have not been trained and not aware of their exposure. Finally, we note that while the mobile technologies are deployed nationally throughout the US, the measurements are for one city only.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Minimum (•), maximum (•) and average of the narrowband measurements for the UK (•), Spain (▪), Greece (▴) and Ireland (⧫); and the broadband measurements for the US (○), with the year of measurement data on the horizontal axis. Note that not all years were available in all countries. For comparison, the ICNIRP reference level for the public at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz are included.

Figure 3 compares exposure by technology averaged for 16 countries and all available years from data measured using narrowband survey techniques. It is clear from this graph that, apart from the Mobile 800 MHz band (limited measurements in Canada and the UK only) and the GSM1900 (early deployment in Canada in 2003) and excluding current LTE (Long Term Evolution or 4G–4th generation system) with very limited deployment, all of the technology averages are within about a factor of 10 of 0.1 μW/cm2.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Minimum (•), maximum (•) and average (•) for each wireless technology. For comparison, ICNIRP reference levels for the public at 900 and 1800 MHz are also plotted. Mobile Other refers to mobile technologies either not identified in the source survey or not included (e.g., PDC) in one of the other mobile technologies categories. All Mobile is the result of averaging over all mobile technologies. Only narrowband measurements (from 16 countries) could be used. The weighted averages for all available measurement years for each country were then averaged over the number of countries with measurements for each mobile technology. The figure in brackets on the horizontal axis label is the number of countries for which measurements were available for each technology.

Discussion

This large-scale international comparative analysis of the results of RF exposure surveys of mobile communications networks has a number of limitations. Caution must be observed in comparing absolute values between countries because of differing measurement instruments (e.g., narrowband spectrum analyzers or broadband survey instruments) and the criteria for selecting the measurement locations was not standardized between countries. In addition, our study does not allow any conclusions in regard to the percentage of the total population exposed to RF signals from base stations though it seems likely that this will have increased over time as networks were expanded to meet coverage obligations in license conditions. However, a number of observations in respect of the types of base stations surveyed and the locations at which measurements were made are clear from the results.

Mobile networks comply with RF exposure limits

From an inspection of each of the figures, it can be seen clearly that, irrespective of the year the survey was performed or the country the survey was conducted in, all the survey data complied with the ICNIRP Guidelines10 and the US Federal Communication Commission Rules65 by a very large margin irrespective of the service band. The global average in Figure 1 at 0.073 μW/cm2 is more than 7000 times below the most restrictive ICNIRP reference level for the public relevant to these mobile communication services (400 μW/cm2 at 800 MHz). It can also be inferred from Figure 1 that the introduction of arbitrary low exposure limits would mean that many base stations would need to be reworked in some way to achieve compliance. In response to the adoption by the Salzburg (Austria) city council of a policy of 0.1 μW/cm2 in 2001, the Swiss communications regulator commissioned measurements of GSM services and concluded that it would be very difficult to achieve exposure values lower than 10 μW/cm2 without substantial economic consequences (Coray, Krähenbühl, Riederer, Stoll, Neubauer and Szentkuti, 2002).

Broadband measurements are higher than narrowband measurements

For reasons previously discussed, a priori it would be expected that broadband measurements would typically yield higher values than narrowband survey measurements. The narrowband measurements are made on a single channel usually a pilot channel, whereas the broadband measurements see all the active traffic channels, as well as other RF sources, within their measurement bandwidth. There are ways to adjust narrowband measurements of single pilot channels to account for the effects of live traffic channels or indeed fully loaded base stations.33 For GSM signals the relationship is:

graphic file with name jes201213e2.jpg

where Emax is the maximum electric field, EBCCH is the GSM broadcast control channel, and N is the number of traffic channels. If N is unknown then it is taken as equal to 4, for a doubling of the E-field (4 times in power density).

For WCDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access—3G) signals the relationship is:

graphic file with name jes201213e3.jpg

where Emax is the maximum electric field, EWCDMA is the WCDMA pilot control channel, Pmax is the maximum possible WCDMA power and PP−CPICH is the power of the pilot channel. Typically, PP−CPICH transmits with a constant power at 10% of Pmax, this leads to a threefold increase of the E-field (10 times in power density).

Application to pilot channel measurements of the factors derived from Eqs. 2 and 3 allows extrapolation to the maximum RF exposure level and should improve the agreement between narrowband and broadband measurements, provided no other significant RF signals are present. These extrapolation factors explain some of the variation between the narrowband and broadband measurements in Figure 1, but not the large differences for the UK in Figure 2, which we believe are more due to differences in the proximity of the measurement point to the base station and instrumentation with a measurement sensitivity threshold in the region of 10−11 μW/cm2.

Similar mobile technologies mean similar exposure levels

There is a perception among some stakeholders that the installation of more base stations will lead to higher levels of RF in the environment. This is not the case as shown by Figure 2, which demonstrates that despite the increasing number of base stations and deployment of additional mobile technologies, the environmental levels have remained essentially constant. This would be expected as these levels are generally driven by technology needs to provide a certain signal strength to maintain service quality. It should be noted that measurements were generally taken to characterize RF exposure in the vicinity of a specific base station rather than to obtain a profile of exposures either by individuals58 or geographically.19 It is reasonable to assume that population exposure to RF exposure from mobile networks has become more ubiquitous as geographic coverage has grown and in-building coverage increased in importance.

Exposures from mobile networks are similar to broadcast services

The average exposure at ground level from mobile communication technologies seen in Figure 3 is similar to that reported for broadcast services in a narrowband measurement survey of mobile communications and broadcast services in three European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden) involving 311 locations spread over 35 areas19 and a 200 person dosimeter survey in Eastern France.60 From an historical perspective, measurements of VHF and UHF broadcast services from 486 locations distributed throughout 15 large cities in the USA, which collectively represented ∼14,000 individual measurements, reported a median exposure level of 0.005 μW/cm2.66

New surveys confirm existing exposure information

As is evidenced by Figures 1,2,3, exposures at ground level in public areas are a small fraction of the exposure limits and the levels vary little between countries, technologies and over time. Some countries have established fixed area RF monitoring systems,67 but we argue based on our data that such schemes provide little new information to stakeholders in comparison to targeted surveys of a sample of existing base stations. It could be further argued that post-installation surveys provide limited new information in relation to typical exposure levels. A more efficient approach to demonstrating compliance to local governments and impacted communities would be for the network operator to provide a numerical assessment before obtaining permit for the installation of the base station.

Conclusion

Our analysis of base station RF exposure surveys is based on over 173,000 data points from 2000 onward, across 23 countries (21 included in the analysis) and five continents. Across all countries, years and technologies RF exposures at ground level were only a small fraction of human RF exposure standards. Importantly, there has been no significant increase in the RF exposures at ground level in public areas near base stations since the widespread introduction of 3G services, which had 940 million subscribers at the end of 2010, out of a total of 5.3 billion subscribers.1 Flat projections for voice traffic, the exponential growth in data and regulatory decisions allowing 2G spectrum to be reused for 3G services may see replacement of GSM with WCDMA. Figure 2 suggests that average exposure will not change and policy makers should be reassured by these results. Based on the existing data set it seems unlikely that further measurement surveys will provide substantially different exposure data. In addition, for the locations and types of installations in the original surveys post-installation measurements at ground level for compliance purposes are unnecessary. There may be areas on rooftops and immediately in front of base station antennas where compliance levels could be exceeded and such areas need assessment.64 Although the average exposure at ground level is low, the wide variation (nine orders of magnitude) between the lowest and highest measured levels provides warning against the adoption of arbitrary RF exposure limits, which could adversely affect provision of mobile communication services.

A challenge for this type of analysis is differing measurement equipment, criteria for selection of the measurement location, settings of measurement equipment and survey methodology. Development of uniform guidance based on technical measurement standards would improve comparability of the results. Where the raw data are available, potential future analysis could include calculation of cumulative exposure distributions and investigation of the ability to combine exposure distributions with geographical and population density data to assess the distribution of exposure levels relative to population percentiles. We plan to conduct additional comparative analyses for those countries in our current data set that provide information on the RF exposures from other radio services such as broadcast television and radio. We intend to continue this work with the addition of the results of RF surveys from other countries, with data for additional years and for new mobile technologies.68 We would welcome opportunities to cooperate with other researchers.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the following individuals and organizations listed by country: Dr. Stuart Henderson and Dr. Lindsay Martin, Australian Radiation and Nuclear Protection Agency, Australia; Dr. Johannes Tomitsch, European Centre for Environmental Medicine, Austria; Josette Gallant, Industry Canada and Dr. Art Thansandote, Health Canada; Hosuk Kang, Korea Radio Promotion Agency and Professor Jeon-Ki Pack, Chungnam National University, Korea; Dr. Christian Bornkessel, IMST GmbH, Germany; Dr. H.-Peter Neitzke, ECOLOG-Institut GmbH, Germany; Matthias Meier, Independent Consultant, Germany; Martin Gledhill, Ministry of Health, New Zealand; Dr. Victor Cruz Ornetta, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Capacitación de Telecomunicaciones, Peru.; Nisakorn Manatrakul, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand; Robert D. Weller, Federal Communications Commission, USA; Richard Lee and Eileen Shields, Department of Public Health, San Francisco, USA. In addition the following industry sources assisted in identifying sources of the public information listed by organization: Dr. Sami Gabriel, Vodafone Group R&D, UK; Dr. Joe Wiart, Orange Labs, France; Dr. Teruo Onishi, NTT DoCoMo, Japan; Peter Hidber, Forum Mobil, Switzerland; Sherif E Issa, Mobinil, Egypt; Thomas Barmüller, Mobile Manufacturers Forum. We also thank Mr. Derek Hitt for many hours of data reductions; Ms. Sandra Henderson for assistance with data entry; Professor Colin Thompson, Emeritus Professor Mathematics, University of Melbourne for assistance with the statistics and Mr. Ray McKenzie, Telstra for discussion on presentation of data. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

DISCLAIMER

The views are solely those of the authors.

Funding was provided by the GSM Association for the work of Dr. Joyner and by way of employment of Dr. Rowley.

References

  1. International Telecommunications Union. ITU estimates two billion people online by end 2010, Press Release, 19 October 2010. http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/ press_releases/2010/39.aspx (accessed 19 December 2010)2010
  2. World Health Organization. Base stations and wireless technologies, Fact Sheet No. 304. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/ fs304/en/index.html (accessed 19 December 2010)2006
  3. ABI Research. Mobile Networks Go Green: Minimizing Power Consumption and Leveraging Renewable Energy. ABI Research: New York; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  4. ICNIRP. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Statement on EMF-Emitting New Technologies. Health Phys. 2008;94 (4:376–392. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000304155.41715.73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kristiansen I.S., Elstein A.S., Gyrd-Hansen D., Kildemoes H.W., Nielsen J.B. Radiation from mobile phone systems: is it perceived as a threat to people's health. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009;30 (5:393–401. doi: 10.1002/bem.20484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. World Health Organization. WHO research agenda for radiofrequency fields. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/agenda/ en/index.html (accessed 19 December 2010)2010
  7. Bergqvist U., Friedrich G., Hamnerius Y., Martens L., Neubauer G., Thuoczy G., et al. Mobile telecommunication base stations—exposure to electromagnetic fields. Report of a Short Term Mission within COST 244bis, 2001. ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/ist/docs/ka4/ cost_244_base_station_emf.pdf (accessed 17 February 2012)2001
  8. EIS-EMF (European Information System on Electromagnetic Fields Exposure and Health Impacts). Country Reports on EMF and Health: Sources, Regulations, and Risk Communication Approaches, Final Report, European Commission Joint Research Centre, February 2005. http://ec.europa.cu/health/ph_projects/2002/pollution/ fp_pollution_2002_frep_01.pdf (accessed 17 February 2012)2005
  9. Rowley J.Wireless Networks—Regulatory Good PracticeIn: Repacholi E.v.D. M.H., Ravazzani P. (Eds.).Proceedings of the International Workshop on Base Stations and Wireless Networks: Exposures and Health Consequences World Health Oragnization, Geneva, Switzerland; 145–156.2005 [Google Scholar]
  10. ICNIRP. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz) Health Phys. 1998;74 (4:494–522. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mann S. Assessing personal exposures to environmental radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Comptes Rendus Physique. 2010;11 (9–10:541–555. [Google Scholar]
  12. Troisi F., Boumis M., Grazioso P. The Italian national electromagnetic field monitoring network. Ann Telecomm. 2008;63 (1–2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Henderson S.Australian Radiation and Nuclear Protection Agency (personal communication),2010
  14. Henderson S.I., Bangay M.J. Survey of RF exposure levels from mobile telephone base stations in Australia. Bioelectromagnetics. 2006;27 (1:73–76. doi: 10.1002/bem.20174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Line P., Cornelius W.A., Bangay M.J., Grollo M.Levels of Radiofrequency Radiation from GSM Mobile Telephone Base Stations, ARPANSA Technical Report 129, 2000. http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/eme/rfrep129.pdf (accessed 11 March 2010)2000
  16. Tomitsch J.European Centre for Environmental Medicine (personal communication),2010
  17. Tomitsch J., Dechant E., Frank W. Survey of electromagnetic field exposure in bedrooms of residences in lower Austria. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31 (3:200–208. doi: 10.1002/bem.20548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. BIPT (Belgian Institute for Postal services and Telecommunications). GSM Measurements. http://www.bipt.be/ (accessed 5 February 2003)2003
  19. Joseph W., Verloock L., Goeminne F., Vermeeren G., Martens L. Assessment of population exposures to RF from emerging wireless technologies in different environments. Health Phys. 2012;102 (2:161–172. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e31822f8e39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gallant J., Thansandote A.Industry Canada and Health Canada (personal communication),2010
  21. Health Canada. Report on: Measurement of Cellular Base-station Emissions Using a Newly Developed RF Field Mapping System. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/ cell_base_stations/abstract-resume-eng.php (accessed 19 December 2010)2003
  22. Nguyen B., Mohabeer S., Lai V., Lander E.Evaluation of Electromagnetic Field Intensity in the City of Toronto. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09392.html (accessed 11 March 2010)2002
  23. El Messeiry M., Issa S.E.The Cairo EMF Project (personal communication),2010
  24. ANFR (Agence Nationale des Fréquences). Mesures de champs électromagnétiques en France: Synthèse2007. 1974.
  25. Wiart J.Orange Labs (personal communication),2010
  26. Neitzke H.-P.ECOLOG-Institute, Germany (personal communication),2010
  27. Neitzke H.P., Osterhoff J., Peklo K., Voigt H. Determination of exposure due to mobile phone base stations in an epidemiological study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2007;124 (1:35–39. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncm371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Bornkessel C.Institut für Mobil- und Satellitenfunktechnik (IMST GmbH), Germany (personal communication),2010
  29. IZMF (Informationszentrum Mobilfunk). Wissenschaf(f)t Vertrauen. http://www.izmf.de/download/downloads/Broschuere_Wissenschaf_Vertrauen.pdf (accessed 11 March 2010)2009
  30. Wuschek M., Bornkessel C., Manteuffel D., Schubert M., Schmidt P.Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Minimierung von Mobilfunkimmissionen: Auf Messdaten und Simulationen basierende Optionen und Beispiele, Abschlussbericht für das Bayerische Landesamt für Umweltschutz, Regensburg, 2004. http://www.lfu.bayern.de/strahlung/fachinformationen/ emf_minimierung_schirmung/ (accessed 11 March 2010)2004
  31. Amoako J.K., Fletcher J.J., Darko E.O. Measurement and analysis of radiofrequency radiations from some mobile phone base stations in Ghana. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009;135 (4:256–260. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncp115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hermes Project Greece. http://hermes.physics.auth.gr/en/desc (accessed 18 February 2012)2010
  33. COMREG (Commission for Communications Regulation). Ireland http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/nir.554.444.html (accessed 11 Mar 2010)2010
  34. Japanese MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications). Years 2006, 2007 and 2008. http://www.tele.soumu.go.jp/j/sys/ele/body/report/index.html (accessed 11 March 2010)2010
  35. Onishi T.NTT DoCoMo, Japan (personal communication),2010
  36. Keow M.A., Radiman S. Assessment of radiofrequency/microwave radiation emitted by the antennas of rooftop-mounted mobile phone base stations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2006;121 (2:122–127. doi: 10.1093/rpd/nci373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Yusof Mohd A., Rozaimah Abd R., Mohd Anuar M., Amirul Nizam Mohd T.Microwave Radiation from Mobile Telephone Base Stations Proceedings of the International RF and Microwave Conference12–14 September.IEEE, Putrajaya, Malaysia; 386–389.2006 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gledhill M.Ministry of Health, New Zealand (personal communication),2010
  39. Ministry of Health. (New Zealand). http://www.nrl.moh.govt.nz/faq/nrlvodafonemonitoringproject.asp#results (accessed 18 February 2012)2010
  40. Cruz Ornetta V. Taller “Aspectos Técnicos Y Regulatorios Relativos A Los Efectos De Las Emisiones Electromagnéticas No Ionizantes” IX Reunión Del Comité Consultivo Permanente II. Comision Interamericana De Telecomunicaciones (Citel): San Salvador, El Salvador; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  41. Korea Radio Promotion Agency . http://korpa.or.kr/online/sub02/sub02_91.jsp (accessed 18 February 2012)2010
  42. Suk K.H.Korea Radio Promotion Agency (personal communication),2010
  43. MITC (Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo). http://www.minetur.gob.es/telecomunicaciones/Espectro/ NivelesExposicion/Paginas/Informes.aspx (accessed 18 February 2012)2010
  44. Anger G., Trulsson J.Spectral measurements of radio frequency electromagnetic fields between 60 MHz and 3.4 GHz. The years 2001 to 2007 in Sweden, SSI Rapport: 2008-13, Swedish Radiation Protection Authority. http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/Global/Publikationer/Rapport/ Stralskydd/2008/ssi-rapp-2008-13.pdf (accessed 11 March 2010)2008
  45. Forum Mobil. (Switzerland). http://forummobil.org/userdocs/documents/PM%20Streetparade.pdf (accessed 18 February 2012)2004
  46. Forum Mobil. (Switzerland). http://www.forummobil.ch/de/das-forum/medienmitteilungen/geringe-strahlenbelastung- durch-mobilfunk-1267432768 (accessed 11 March 2010)2006
  47. Government Council of the Canton of Zürich. Joint Press Release Zurich Department of Waste, Water, Energy & Air and Forum Mobile: “Mobile-limits respected—sensitive places and major events”, 08/235-03, Communications Department of the Government Council of the Canton of Zürich, Switzerland,2008
  48. Hidber P.Forum Mobil, Switzerland (personal communication),2010
  49. Kanton Zurich. Immissionsmessungen NIS—Strahlenbelastung durch Mobilfunk und andere Quellen (2009-2010). http://www.awel.zh.ch/internet/baudirektion/awel/de/luft_asbest_elektrosmog/ elektrosmog/messungen.html , 2011(accessed 18 February 2012).
  50. Woweries K. Bericht Langzeit-Immissionsmessungen im Kanton Zürich, doc 2/24. Inventis AG, Zürich; 1974a. [Google Scholar]
  51. Woweries K. Bericht Langzeit-Immissionsmessung Streetparade, doc 1/22. Inventis AG, Zürich; 1974b. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hanprated N.Electromagnetic Radiation Intensity Profile from Mobile Phone Base Stations and Subjective Symptoms among Office Workers. MSc thesis, Mahidol University, Thailand,2007
  53. Manatrakul N., Thansandote A., Gajida G., Lemay E., Chancunapas P., JP M. Measurements of ground-level emissions from mobile Phone base stations in Bangkok using a low-cost RF field measurement system. Asian J Radiol. 2005;XI (III:181–188. [Google Scholar]
  54. Manatrakul N.Ministry of Public Health, Thailand (personal communication),2010
  55. OFCOM. United Kingdom Office of Communications: Mobile phone base station audits. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/sitefinder/audits/ (accessed 18 February 2012)2010
  56. Lee R., Shields E.Department of Public Health San Francisco, USA (personal communication),2010
  57. Trinchero D. Exposure assessment procedures in presence of wideband digital wireless networks. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009;137 (3–4:236–242. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncp256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Joseph W., Frei P., Roösli M., Thuróczy G., Gajsek P., Trcek T., et al. Comparison of personal radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure in different urban areas across Europe. Environ Res. 2010;110 (7:658–663. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2010.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Blas J., Lago F.A., Fernández P., Lorenzo R.M., Abril E.J. Potential exposure assessment errors associated with body-worn RF dosimeters. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007;28 (7:573–576. doi: 10.1002/bem.20355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Viel J.-F., Clerc S., Barrera C., Rymzhanova R., Moissonnier M., Hours M., et al. Residential exposure to radiofrequency fields from mobile-phone base stations, and broadcast transmitters: a population-based survey with personal meter. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66 (8:550–556. doi: 10.1136/oem.2008.044180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Narda Safety Test Solutions GmbH. E-Field Probe: EF0391—Measuring electric fields from 100 kHz to 3 GHz using instruments in the NBM-500 family. http://www.narda-sts.de/pdf/hochfrequenz/DS_EF0391_EN.pdf (accessed 18 February 2012)2009
  62. Bornkessel C., Schubert M., Wuschek M., Schmidt P. Determination of the general public exposure around GSM and UMTS base stations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2007;124 (1:40–47. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncm373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wireless Intelligence. Market Data. https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/ (accessed 18 February 2012)2011
  64. Alanko T., Hietanen M., Nandelstadh P. Occupational exposure to RF fields from base station antennas on rooftops. Ann Telecomm. 2008;63 (1–2:125–132. [Google Scholar]
  65. FCC. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines for evaluating the environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation, ET Docket 93-62. Federal Register. 1996;61 (153:41006–41019. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tell R.A., Mantiply E.D. Population exposure to VHF and UHF broadcast radiation in the united states. Proc IEEE. 1980;68 (1:6–12. [Google Scholar]
  67. Oliveira C., Sebastijo D., Carpinteiro G., Correia L.M., Fernandes C.A., Serralha A., et al. The moniT Project: Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure Assessment in Mobile Communications. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine. 2007;49 (1:44–53. [Google Scholar]
  68. Coray R., Krähenbühl P., Riederer M., Stoll D., Neubauer G., Szentkuti B. NIR Exposure of Salzburg. Federal Communications Commission (ComCom),; 1974. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES