Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, SC, USA

2022 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 864

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, SC, USA Tarmo Koppel, Lennart Hardell. Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, SC, USA. World Academy of Sciences Journal 4(3):23. 2022. doi: 10.3892/wasj.2022.157. Abstract The present study aimed to characterize the wireless infrastructure and public exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, including the sub-millimeter wave 5G, in the city center of Columbia, SC, USA. A downtown measurement route was designed to cover popular outdoor areas, including business, recreational and shopping areas. The route was measured five times during different days and times. An exposimeter, was used to cover all the main civilian wireless broadcasting and downlink sources in frequencies 88-5,850 MHz. The measurement route at the streets and squares calculated 1.240 V/m as a mean exposure (total as a sum of all frequency bands) and 6.867 V/m as all times maximum. The most common contributors to the exposure budget were bands FM US, 14DL, 27DL, 25DL and 66DL - mainly indicating 4G. The exposure levels were found to be 12-16% lower during weekends as compared to business hours (P<0.001). The spatial analysis of the field distribution revealed 15-20 hotspot areas. A number of hotspots were found where cell phone base station antennas were mounted on top of the utility poles and therefore positioned at low levels, close to street level. On the whole, the findings of the present study suggest that cell phone base station antennas should be distinct and noticeable, as this would assist individuals who need to limit their exposure by distancing themselves from RF sources. Excerpt In conclusion, in the city of Columbia, SC, USA, the present study determined that the highest exposure areas were due to two reasons: i) Cell phone base station antennas on top of high-rise buildings provide good cell coverage reaching far away, but creating elevated public exposure to the RF RMFs at the immediate vicinity; and ii) cell phone base station antennas installed on top of the utility poles have placed the radiation source closer to humans walking on the street level. RF exposure levels from mobile phone base station antennas near the street level reached high levels. It is thus recommended, that all such close proximity transmitters should be labeled with relevant signs to warn of high RF exposure in the area (24). Cell phone base station antennas should be distinct and noticeable so that people who need to limit their exposure, have been given a chance to do so by distancing themselves from the RF sources. Considering the current trend of cell phone service providers expanding their 5G network, more utility pole base station antennas are expected. Consequently, the public exposure is also likely to increase in the coming years. Open access paper: spandidos-publications.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · Route measured five times during different days and times

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

A downtown route in Columbia, SC was measured five times with an exposimeter covering 88–5,850 MHz. Mean total exposure along streets/squares was 1.240 V/m and the all-times maximum was 6.867 V/m; exposure was 12–16% lower on weekends than during business hours (P<0.001). Spatial analysis identified 15–20 hotspot areas, including locations where base station antennas were mounted on utility poles near street level; the most common contributors were FM US and several downlink bands mainly indicating 4G.

Outcomes measured

Outdoor RF electric field strength (V/m) across 88–5,850 MHz
Mean total exposure (sum of bands) along route
Maximum total exposure (all times) along route
Weekend vs business-hours exposure difference
Spatial hotspot identification
Main contributing frequency bands (FM, downlink bands indicating 4G)

Limitations

No health outcomes assessed (exposure characterization only)
Measurement route limited to downtown outdoor areas; may not generalize to other locations or indoor environments
Exposimeter frequency coverage stated as 88–5,850 MHz; abstract mentions sub-millimeter wave 5G but does not report measurements above 5,850 MHz
Number of measurement points/locations and detailed protocol not provided in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "Route measured five times during different days and times"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Outdoor RF electric field strength (V/m) across 88–5,850 MHz",
    "Mean total exposure (sum of bands) along route",
    "Maximum total exposure (all times) along route",
    "Weekend vs business-hours exposure difference",
    "Spatial hotspot identification",
    "Main contributing frequency bands (FM, downlink bands indicating 4G)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A downtown route in Columbia, SC was measured five times with an exposimeter covering 88–5,850 MHz. Mean total exposure along streets/squares was 1.240 V/m and the all-times maximum was 6.867 V/m; exposure was 12–16% lower on weekends than during business hours (P<0.001). Spatial analysis identified 15–20 hotspot areas, including locations where base station antennas were mounted on utility poles near street level; the most common contributors were FM US and several downlink bands mainly indicating 4G.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "No health outcomes assessed (exposure characterization only)",
    "Measurement route limited to downtown outdoor areas; may not generalize to other locations or indoor environments",
    "Exposimeter frequency coverage stated as 88–5,850 MHz; abstract mentions sub-millimeter wave 5G but does not report measurements above 5,850 MHz",
    "Number of measurement points/locations and detailed protocol not provided in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency",
    "RF-EMF",
    "5G",
    "exposimeter",
    "base station",
    "downlink",
    "4G",
    "hotspots",
    "outdoor measurements",
    "Columbia South Carolina",
    "utility poles",
    "public exposure"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.55,
      "reason": "Includes discussion of 5G network expansion and implications for public exposure; recommends labeling close-proximity transmitters."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "reason": "Exposure measurement study relevant to guideline/policy discussions, though no guideline comparison is provided in abstract."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3892/wasj.2022.157
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library