Six independent experiments of common design were performed in laboratories in Canada, Spain, Sweden, and the United States of America. Fertilized eggs of domestic chickens were incubated as controls or in a pulsed magnetic field (PMF); embryos were then examined for developmental anomalies. Identical equipment in each laboratory consisted of two incubators, each containing a Helmholtz coil and electronic devices to develop, control, and monitor the pulsed field and to monitor temperature, relative humidity, and vibrations. A unipolar, pulsed, magnetic field (500-microseconds pulse duration, 100 pulses per s, 1-microT peak density, and 2-microseconds rise and fall time) was applied to experimental eggs during 48 h of incubation. In each laboratory, ten eggs were simultaneously sham exposed in a control incubator (pulse generator not activated) while the PMF was applied to ten eggs in the other incubator. The procedure was repeated ten times in each laboratory, and incubators were alternately used as a control device or as an active source of the PMF. After a 48-h exposure, the eggs were evaluated for fertility. All embryos were then assayed in the blind for development, morphology, and stage of maturity. In five of six laboratories, more exposed embryos exhibited structural anomalies than did controls, although putatively significant differences were observed in only two laboratories (two-tailed Ps of .03 and less than .001), and the significance of the difference in a third laboratory was only marginal (two-tailed P = .08). When the data from all six laboratories are pooled, the difference in incidence of abnormalities in PMF-exposed embryos (approximately 25 percent) and that of controls (approximately 19 percent), although small, is highly significant, as is the interaction between incidence of abnormalities and laboratory site (both Ps less than .001). The factor or factors responsible for the marked variability of inter-laboratory differences are unknown.

This COMAR Technical Information Statement (TIS) addresses health and safety issues concerning exposure of the general public to radiofrequency (RF) fields from 5G wireless communications networks, the expansion of which started on a large scale in 2018 to 2019. 5G technology can transmit much greater amounts of data at much higher speeds for a vastly expanded array of applications compared with preceding 2-4G systems; this is due, in part, to using the greater bandwidth available at much higher frequencies than those used by most existing networks. Although the 5G engineering standard may be deployed for operating networks currently using frequencies extending from 100s to 1,000s of MHz, it can also operate in the 10s of GHz where the wavelengths are 10 mm or less, the so-called millimeter wave (MMW) band. Until now, such fields were found in a limited number of applications (e.g., airport scanners, automotive collision avoidance systems, perimeter surveillance radar), but the rapid expansion of 5G will produce a more ubiquitous presence of MMW in the environment. While some 5G signals will originate from small antennas placed on existing base stations, most will be deployed with some key differences relative to typical transmissions from 2-4G base stations. Because MMW do not penetrate foliage and building materials as well as signals at lower frequencies, the networks will require “densification,” the installation of many lower power transmitters (often called “small cells” located mainly on buildings and utility poles) to provide for effective indoor coverage. Also, “beamforming” antennas on some 5G systems will transmit one or more signals directed to individual users as they move about, thus limiting exposures to non-users. In this paper, COMAR notes the following perspectives to address concerns expressed about possible health effects of RF field exposure from 5G technology. First, unlike lower frequency fields, MMW do not penetrate beyond the outer skin layers and thus do not expose inner tissues to MMW. Second, current research indicates that overall levels of exposure to RF are unlikely to be significantly altered by 5G, and exposure will continue to originate mostly from the “uplink” signals from one’s own device (as they do now). Third, exposure levels in publicly accessible spaces will remain well below exposure limits established by international guideline and standard setting organizations, including ICNIRP and IEEE. Finally, so long as exposures remain below established guidelines, the research results to date do not support a determination that adverse health effects are associated with RF exposures, including those from 5G systems. While it is acknowledged that the scientific literature on MMW biological effect research is more limited than that for lower frequencies, we also note that it is of mixed quality and stress that future research should use appropriate precautions to enhance validity. The authorship of this paper includes a physician/biologist, epidemiologist, engineers, and physical scientists working voluntarily and collaboratively on a consensus basis.

This study examined radiofrequency (RF) emissions from smart electric power meters deployed in two service territories in California for the purpose of evaluating potential human exposure. These meters included transmitters operating in a local area mesh network (RF LAN, ∼250 mW); a cell relay, which uses a wireless wide area network (WWAN, ∼1 W); and a transmitter serving a home area network (HAN, ∼70 mW). In all instances, RF fields were found to comply by a wide margin with the RF exposure limits established by the US Federal Communications Commission. The study included specialised measurement techniques and reported the spatial distribution of the fields near the meters and their duty cycles (typically <1 %) whose value is crucial to assessing time-averaged exposure levels. This study is the first to characterise smart meters as deployed. However, the results are restricted to a single manufacturer's emitters.

Tests conducted to date at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) indicate that wireless charging of the Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority's (CARTA) downtown shuttle bus, currently operating with off-board battery charging technology, offers significant improvements in performance and cost. The system operates at a frequency of 20 kHz and a peak power of 60 kW. Because the system's wireless charging is expected to occur during a nominal 3-min charging period with passengers on-board, the magnetic and electric fields associated with charging were characterised at UTC's Advanced Vehicle Test Facility and compared with established human exposure limits. The two most prominent exposure limits are those published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Both organisations include limits for groups who are trained (workers in specific industries) to be aware of electromagnetic environments and their potential hazards, as well as a lower set of limits for the general public, who are assumed to lack such awareness. None of the magnetic or electric fields measured either within or outside the bus during charging exceeded either the ICNIRP or the IEEE exposure limits for the general public.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been collecting broadcast signal field intensity data for over 2 years to estimate population exposure to this form of nonionizing radiation. Measurement data have been obtained at 373 locations distributed throughout 12 large cities and collectively represent approximately 11,000 measurements of VHF and UHF signal field intensities. The VHF and UHF broadcast service is the main source of ambient radio frequency exposure in the United States. A computer algorithm has been developed which uses these measurement data to estimate the broadcast exposure at some 39,000 census enumeration districts within the metropolitan boundaries of these 12 cities. The results of the computations provide information on the fraction of the population that is potentially exposed to various intensities of radio frequency radiation. Special emphasis has been placed on determining the uncertainty inherent to the exposure estimation procedure, and details are provided on these techniques. A median exposure level (half of the population is exposed to greater than the median level) of 0.005-/z W/cm 2 time-averaged power density has been determined for the population of the 12 cities studied, the cumulative population of which represents 18ø7o of the total United States population. The data also suggest that approximately 1 ø7o of the population studied, or about 380,000, is potentially exposed to levels greater than 1/z W/cm 2, the suggested safety guide for the population in the USSR. Alternative techniques of using the measurement data to estimate population exposure are examined, and future extensions of this work are discussed. BACKGROUND The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)is presently gathering information pertinent to the development of guidance to federal agencies within the United States concerning limitations on radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) exposure of the general population. This information consists of both detailed descriptions of the biological effects of RF and MW energy in experimental test animals and man, and normally encountered environmental exposure levels throughout the country. This report provides detailed information on the results of our environmental measurements program and presents our most current estimates of population exposure based on these measurement data. It is pertinent to describe the general approach used by the EPA in collecting these data; in the first instance, numerous and widely distributed measurement points, generally selected on the basis of population distributions, located throughout many U.S. high-density metropolitan areas have been used to determine ambient exposure levels of RF and MW energy. These This paper is not subject to U.S. Copyrigiit. Published in 1982 by the American Geophysical Union. POPULATION EXPOSURE TO BROADCAST RADIATION 45S 50 40 m 30 o • 20 z 10 DISTRIBUTION OF UNCERTAINTIES IN EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS 373 SITES POWER DENSITY ERROR FOR POINTS NOT PLOTTED 33.2 33.7 34.4 38.5 42.7 49.1 66.5 ß ß ß ß ß ß : : : ...