Base Stations and Networks: T he WH O V iewpoint

D r Colin R oy D irector NIR Branch A ustralian R adiation Protection and Nuclear Safety A gency

WWHHOO WWoorrkksshhoopp oonn HHeeaalltthh EEffffeeccttss aanndd MMaannaaggeemmeenntt ooff RRFF FFiieellddss MMeellbboouurrnnee,, AAuussttrraalliiaa 1177--1188 NNoovveemmbbeerr 22000055 INTERNATIONAL EMF PROJECT Workshop on Base Stations and Wireless Networks Geneva, Switzerland, 15 - 16 June 2005

Scope and Objectives: Mike Repacholi Technology -The Mobile Revolution: Mike Walker -International standardization of wireless technologies & EMF: Kevin Hughes -Assessment of human exposure from wireless devices : Niels Kuster -Modulated RF: Mechanistic viewpoint & health implications: Peter Valberg Health Effects & Exposure Assessment -A review of non-thermal health effects: Bernard Veyret -Base stations and electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms: Elaine Fox -Studies on base stations & telecommunications towers: Anders Ahlbom -Dosimetric criteria for an epidemiological bs study: Georg Neubauer -Personal RF Exposure Assessment: Joe Wiart -Laboratory and Volunteer Trials of an RF Personal Dosimeter: Simon Mann -Occupational exposure to bs antennas on buildings: Kjell Hansson Mild -Policy options - a comparative study in 5 countries: O. Borraz/ D. Salomon Workshop on Base Stations & Wireless Networks Day 2

Policy options -Current national government responses in Russia: Youri Grigoriev -The Swiss regulation and its application: Jürg Baumann -Current Government responses in New Zealand and Australia: David Black -Current national government responses in Italy: Paolo Vecchia -Local decision-making: possible options Paolo Vecchia Stakeholder session -The EC coordination action EMF-NET : Paolo Ravazzani -Epidemiologic studies on mobile phone base stations: Norbert Leitgeb -Wireless Networks - Regulatory good practice: Jack Rowley -Necessities-public acceptance of mobile phone infrastructure: Eva Marsalek -Panel discussion on policy options: A Peralta Risk perception and communication -Understanding Public Responses to Precautionary Action Advice: J. Barnett -Strategies for risk communication on base stations: Ortwin Renn -Conclusions and recommendations Workshop on Base Stations & Wireless Networks

Scope and objectives - to answer the following questions:

•• What are the current and future wireless technologies? •• What RF exposures do people receive from these technologies? •• Is there evidence of health effects from long-term, low-level RF exposures? •• What further research is needed, if any? •• What international standards exist or are being developed? •• What have national authorities done in response to this issue? •• How can we provide effective communication to all stakeholders on this issue? •• What policy options can be recommended for national authorities? Workshop on Base Stations & Wireless Networks

The expected outputs from the workshop were:

•• Compilation of presentations on the WHO EMF WebPage •• Rapporteur report summarising the conclusions & recommendations •• Proceedings of key papers •• Peer-reviewed journal publication •• Fact or information sheet for the general public •• Brochure for local authorities with practical advice related to mobile phone base stations and wireless networks. TTeelleeccoommmmuunniiccaattiioonnss tteecchhnnoollooggyy

M obile telephony 1G - the first cellular m obile com m unication system s 2G - developm ent of digital m obile com m unication system s (GS M ) 3G - new est digital m obile com m unications technology (U M T S 4G -(or beyond 3G) the next system in the technology

T ET R A (T errestrial T runked R adio) WLA Ns (Wireless Local A rea Networks) Bluetooth U WB (U ltra-wideband) R FID (R adiofrequency identification devices) D ECT (D igital enhanced cordless telecom m unications) O ther sources Mike Walker, Vodafone, UK, ”The mobile revolution‘ —more than 1.4 billion people, or 20% of the global population, have a mobile phone, and 2 billion people in the world have yet to make a phone call. When that call takes place it will most likely be on a mobile phone not on a fixed line. This represents an unprecedented expansion of personal communications technology that requires extensive networks of - commonly called base stations“. History of the mobile phone: • 1970s when Bell Labs developed the Advanced Mobile Phone Standard (AMPS) that initiated the cellular revolution • 1980s when the Nordic Mobile Telephone standard was deployed in the Scandinavian countries • Current model which includes video games, playback, email access, internet browsing, video telephony, high speed data access and music downloads. WWiirreelleessss CCoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn

Currently- infrared, bluetooth, memory cards and USB interconnecting devices

Future - further near-field communications, such as WLAN, UWB and wireless USB For base stations the concern for design and deployment is with the "3 Cs": Coverage - Capacity- Capability and in particular how far - how fast. Coverage -The local is the radio access to the network Capacity -Each base station has capacity limited by spectrum bandwidth -Spectrum is limited and needs to be re-used across network -Interference from such re-use is a critical network design factor Capability -There are physical limits to how far & fast you can transmit a bit Source: Dr Kevin Hughes, ITU Source: Mr Tominaga, Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs & Communications TTeecchhnnoollooggyy FFrreeqquueennccyy RRaannggeess

Frequency z z z H z Hz z Hz kH z H M z H G z kH k 0 MH M 0 GH G 0 TH 1 10 10 1 10 10 1 10 10 1

ITU band VLF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF

TETRA WLANs

Bluetooth

UWB Static Infrared fields Cellphones radiation

Cordless phones RF fixed links

Radiolocation and radionavigation Satellite uplinks

Radar

Electronic article surveillance and RF identification

km km km km m m m m m m 0 0 0 1 00 10 1 m m m 0 0 1 1 00 10 1 10 1 1 Wavelength MMoobbiillee pphhoonnee aanntteennnnaass

Sector antennas transmit & receive voice & data signals to & from mobile phones

Dish antennas transmit and receive data to and from other fixed installations. MMiiccrroo-- && ppiiccoocceellllss

Wall-mounted microcell base station

Picocell base station in shopping centre

Source: NRPB-W62 Cooper et al. EExxppoossuurree aasssseessssmmeenntt

Broadband measurement equipment • hazard meters - simple & convenient means of measuring electric field strength • but no frequency selectivity • not very sensitive meaning Narrowband instrumentation • spectrum analyser & antenna appropriate to the frequency band under test • equipment is sensitive& frequency selective • expensive and bulky Personal dosimeter • body-worn instrument to sample and store a person‘s exposure over time and with the capability to separate exposures by frequency band • frequencies associated with radio, TV, , wireless LANs, cordless phones, and a variety of other sources in the home or environment

SAR measurement • Determination of the actual energy absorbed in the body (SAR or Specific Absorption Rate) can be undertaken by sophisticated modelling or measurement using phantom models filled with simulated tissue. BBaassee SSttaattiioonn MMeeaassuurreemmeennttss ((mmiiccrroocceellll))

Terraced row of multi-storey buildings 1 Pavement 2 Antenna (4.8 m AGL) 3 Pavement Road Terraced row of multi-storey buildings 0 10 m

• The base station was connected to a single antenna mounted on the face of an exterior wall of a building (see plan) • The base station operated in the GSM900 band • Total radiated power of 2.5 W • Located 4.8 m above ground level. LLooccaattiioonn 11

Miscellaneous Local VHF/UHF microcell 0.7% 0.3%

Other base stations 99.0%

At Location 1 total exposure was 0.030% of the ICNIRP reference level LLooccaattiioonn 22

Other base Miscellaneous stations VHF/UHF 2.2% 0.7%

Local microcell 97.1%

At Location 2 total exposure was 0.17% of the ICNIRP reference level LLooccaattiioonn 33

Local Other base microcell stations 0.8% 6.8%

Miscellaneous VHF/UHF 92.4%

At Location 3 total exposure was 0.080% of the ICNIRP reference level HHuummaann eexxppoossuurree

Niels Kuster, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ”Assessment of human exposure by electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices in home and office environments‘

Exposure assessment (SAR determination) and the development of a compliance procedure were described. For the devices tested it was found that: •• Worst-case peak spatial SAR values were close to public exposure limits e.g., IEEE802.11b and Bluetooth class I devices •• Maximum incident field exposures at 1 m can significantly exceed those of base stations (typically 0.1 - 1 V m-1) and at very close distances the derived reference levels are exceeded •• The recommended procedure for evaluation of exposure and demonstration of compliance is dosimetric evaluation under worst- case conditions. AAsssseessssmmeenntt ooff ddeevviicceess AAsssseessssmmeenntt ooff ddeevviicceess PPeerrssoonnaall ddoossiimmeettrryy

Joe Wiart, France Telecom, France, ”Personal RF exposure assessment‘ Simon Mann, Health Protection Agency, UK, ”Laboratory and volunteer trials of an RF personal dosimeter‘

• need for a good personal RF dosimeter or PEM has been often discussed

Requirements for a good PEM include:

• Being small, light and wearable • Capable of measuring exposure over the entire spectrum • Good precision as environmental levels will be very close if not lower than the detection limit. • Instrument had many positive attributes, discussion centred on the need for further development, eg battery life, cumulative exposure of multiple sources with similar and different frequencies. • Another problem was the frequency channels; eg although FM \TV \GSM \UMTS were covered, there were no channels for TETRA\ DECT\ WIFI. SSuummmmaarryy

The way people use mobile phones has changed significantly over the last 30 years •• Commercial drivers to use spectrum efficiently and to maximise battery life work to reduce transmit power

•• User actions are more effective in controlling exposure from their handset than comparisons between different products‘ compliance-based SAR numbers •• Design of network impacts handset power - hence SAR •• GSM is spectrum efficient œ but 3G is better, enabling higher data rate services for similar power •• Demands for coverage & capacity increase number of base stations

Deployment issues could remain a problem T hank you