Comparative Analysis of Electric Field Strength, Magnetic Field Strength and Power Density around the Cell Phone Towers of Varying Characteristics with a Proposed Classification Facilitating Research on Human Population.
electric field
electromagnetic field
exposure evaluation
magnetic field
measurements
public health
radiation
radiation detection
radio waves
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 10 2022
29 10 2022
Historique:
received:
26
08
2022
revised:
20
10
2022
accepted:
26
10
2022
entrez:
11
11
2022
pubmed:
12
11
2022
medline:
15
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The continuous exposure of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cell phone towers may possibly have an influence on public health. Each cell phone tower is unique in terms of number of antennas and its associated attributes; thus, the radiation exposure varies from one tower to another. Hence, a standardized method for quantifying the exposure is beneficial while studying the effects of radiation on the human population residing around the cell phone towers. A mere collection of data or human samples without understanding the cell phone tower differences may show study results such as an increase or decrease in biological parameters. Those changes may not be due to the effects of EMF radiation from cell phone towers but could be due to any other cause. Therefore, a comparative study was designed with the aim of quantifying and comparing the electric field strength (EF), magnetic field strength (MF) and power density (PD) on four sides of cell phone towers with varying numbers of antennas at 50 m and 100 m. Further, an attempt was made to develop a PD-based classification for facilitating research involving human biological samples. Through convenience sampling, sixteen cell phone towers were selected. With the use of coordinates, the geographic mapping of selected towers was performed to measure the distance between the towers. Based on the number of antennas, the cell phone towers were categorized into four groups which are described as group I with 1-5 antennas, group II comprising of 6-10 antennas, group III consisting of 11-15 antennas and group IV comprised of towers clustered with more than 15 antennas. The study parameters, namely the EF, MF and PD, were recorded on all four sides of the cell phone towers at 50 m and 100 m. One-way ANOVA was performed to compare the study parameters among study groups and different sides using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0. The mean MF in Group IV was 2221.288 ± 884.885 μA/m and 1616.913 ± 745.039 μA/m at 50 m and 100 m respectively. The mean PD in Group IV at 50 m was 0.129 ± 0.094 μW/cm
Identifiants
pubmed: 36361036
pii: ijerph192114157
doi: 10.3390/ijerph192114157
pmc: PMC9653978
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Arch Dis Child. 2006 Apr;91(4):361-6
pubmed: 16551794
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2013 Jun;155(1):25-31
pubmed: 23179188
Occup Environ Med. 2006 May;63(5):307-13
pubmed: 16621850
J Radiol Prot. 2006 Jun;26(2):199-211
pubmed: 16738416
Radiat Res. 2008 May;169(5):561-74
pubmed: 18494173
Offentl Gesundheitswes. 1991 Aug-Sep;53(8-9):409-14
pubmed: 1837859
Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Oct;29(7):579-82
pubmed: 18412140
Oncol Lett. 2019 Nov;18(5):5383-5391
pubmed: 31612047
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;6(1):54-9
pubmed: 27011934
Br Med Bull. 2003;68:157-65
pubmed: 14757715
Biomed Environ Sci. 2010 Jun;23(3):199-207
pubmed: 20708499
Indian J Exp Biol. 2012 Dec;50(12):889-96
pubmed: 23986973
Am J Mens Health. 2019 Jan-Feb;13(1):1557988318816914
pubmed: 30526242
Electromagn Biol Med. 2017;36(3):295-305
pubmed: 28777669
Bioelectromagnetics. 2005;Suppl 7:S98-S106
pubmed: 15931683
Mutat Res. 1997 Dec 12;395(2-3):209-14
pubmed: 9465932
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Nov 30;18(23):
pubmed: 34886365
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 29;17(13):
pubmed: 32610554