Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:56:55.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Harmful Levels of Radio-Frequency Radiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Patrick C. Crane  and
Lynne A. Hillenbrand
Patrick C. Crane
Affiliation:
National Radio Astronomy Observatory1
Lynne A. Hillenbrand
Affiliation:
National Radio Astronomy Observatory1

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Determining whether a particular radio transmitter will produce harmful levels of radio-frequency radiation at a location of interest (the “receiver,” be it a nearby home or a distant radio telescope), has two steps. The first is to determine which standard for harm applies: Section II reviews those for human exposure, for interference with electronic devices, for interference with optical and infrared astronomy, and for interference with radio astronomy.

The second step is to estimate the propagation losses between the transmitter and the “receiver.” Many factors, several highly time variable, contribute to such losses - including atmospheric refraction, diffraction by obstacles, tropospheric scattering, and atmospheric absorption - and are discussed in Section III.

Type
Radio Frequency Interference
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 112: Light Pollution, Radio Interference, and Space Debris , 1991 , pp. 258 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of the Pacific 1991

References

Bean, B.R., and Dutton, E.J. 1968, Radio Meteorology (New York: Dover).Google Scholar
Cayrel, R., Smith, F.G., Fisher, A.J., and de Boer, J.B. 1980, “Guide Lines for Minimizing Urban Sky Glow Near Astronomical Observatories,” Pub. I.A.U./C.I.E. No. 1.Google Scholar
C.C.I.R. 1986a, “Interference Protection Criteria for the Radio Astronomy Service,” Recommendations and Reports, Vol. II (Geneva: Int.Telecommun. Union), Rep.[0m 224-6,493.Google Scholar
C.C.I.R. 1986b, “Attenuation by Atmospheric Gases,” Recommendations and Reports, Vol. V (Geneva: Int. Telecommun. Union), Rep. 719-2, 167.Google Scholar
C.C.I.R. 1986c, Recommendations and Reports, Vol. II, Space Research and Radioastronomy (Geneva: Int. Telecommun. Union).Google Scholar
C.C.I.R. 1986d, Recommendations and Reports, Vol. V, Propagation in Non-Ionized Media (Geneva: Int. Telecommun. Union).Google Scholar
Crane, P.C. 1985, “The Responses of the Very Large Array and the Very Long Baseline Array to Interfering Signals”, V.L.A. Scientific Memorandum No. 156.Google Scholar
Foster, K.R., and Pickard, W.F. 1987, “Microwaves: The Risks of Risk Research,” Nature, 330, 531.Google Scholar
Gomez, M., and Breed, G.A. 1987, “RF Radiation Hazards: An Update on Standards and Regulations,” RF Design, 10,33.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, R. 1987, “Comparison of Different Methods for the Prediction of the Field Strength in the VHF Range,” I.E.E.E. Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, AP-35, 852.Google Scholar
Hufford, G.A. 1987, private communication.Google Scholar
Hufford, G.A., Longley, A.G., and Kissick, W.A. 1982, “A Guide to the Use of the ITS Irregular Terrain Model in the Area Prediction Mode,” N.T.I.A Report 82-100.Google Scholar
Longley, A.G., and Rice, P.L. 1968, “Prediction of Tropospheric Radio Transmission Loss Over Irregular Terrain: A Computer Method -1968,” E.S.S.A Technical Report ERL 79-ITS 67.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. 1987, “Reddy Kilowatt Didn’t Tell Us Everything,” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 5,10.Google Scholar
Rice, P.L., Longley, A.G., Norton, K.A., and Barsis, A.P. 1967, “Transmission Loss Predictions for Tropospheric Communication Circuits,” N.B.S. Technical Note 101, Vol. I and II.Google Scholar
Slesin, L. 1987, “Power Lines and Cancer: The Evidence Grows,” Technology Review, 90, 53.Google Scholar
Thompson, A.R. 1982a, “The Response of a Radio-Astronomy Synthesis Array to Interfering Signals,” I.E.E.E. Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, AP-30, 450.Google Scholar
Thompson, A.R. 1982b, “Frequency Protection for the Transcontinental Radio Telescope,” V.L.B.A. Memorandum No. 81.Google Scholar
Thompson, A.R., Moran, J.M., and Swenson, G.W. 1986, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy (New York: Wiley-Interscience).Google Scholar
Thompson, A.R., and Schlecht, E. 1985, “Dynamic Range and Interference Thresholds in the Front-End and IF Units,” V.L.B.A. Electronics Memorandum No. 39.Google Scholar
Vogler, L.E. 1981, “The Attenuation of Electromagnetic Waves by Multiple Knife-Edge Diffraction,” N.T.I.A Report 81–86.Google Scholar
Vogler, L.E. 1982, “An Attenuation Function for Multiple Knife-Edge Diffraction,” Radio Science, 17,1541.Google Scholar
Vogler, L.E. 1983, “Further Investigations of the Multiple Knife-Edge Attenuation Function,” N.T.I.A. Report 83-124.Google Scholar
Weinreb, S. 1987, private communication.Google Scholar