Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 29
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
One birthday today, congrats!
uzzors2k (35)


Next birthdays
03/29 GrantX (34)
03/30 Adam Horden (39)
03/30 Mr.Warwickshire (23)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: Electromagnetic Radiation
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

Which RF energy source would be more deadly to the human body?

Move Thread LAN_403
ScottH
Wed Mar 15 2017, 02:05PM
ScottH Registered Member #61373 Joined: Sat Dec 17 2016, 01:45PM
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 87
1,000,000 watts @ 550 KHZ or 100,000 watts @ 100 MHZ? Lets assume a radio tower tech was working right next to a fully energized antenna on top of the mast.

Does the frequency make much of a difference? What about 10,000,000 watts @ 10 KHZ vs the other 2? I know RF heats the body, but how does the frequency play into it?
Back to top
KrowBar
Wed Mar 15 2017, 05:52PM
KrowBar Registered Member #57401 Joined: Sat Sept 19 2015, 08:06PM
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 10
The question is not particularly clear. When you refer to power levels are you talking about the TPO, the ERP, the consumed power? The frequency could certainly make all the difference. Firstly, consider that if the frequency is closer to the body's resonance, then much more of the radiated power will be absorbed. Secondly, consider that the frequency coupled with the geometry of all the surroundings will have a huge effect on the local power density. The power radiated by an antenna isn't really the parameter of interest here - it is the power density in the space occupied by the person. Think of it like being in a microwave oven (pretty much the same thing really) where you will have hot spots and cold spots that all depend on the little details and that will change with the frequency. Further, the orientation between the E-field and H-field will be quite complex in the nearfield region and the resulting effective power density field will be quite non-uniform so it's impossible to analyze without a very detailed simulation.

I think the question you are trying to ask is something along the lines of "Is is worse to stand in a 10 W/cm^2 500 kHz 'beam' or a 1 W/cm^2 100MHz 'beam'?"

In that case I think the lower power 100 MHz wave is more damaging. As an antenna, the human body is pretty well tuned to very near 100 MHz. We just aren't tall enough to effectively pick up low frequencies in the kHz or even 100 kHz range. I would expect the SAR of the 100 MHz case to be maybe 5 orders of magnitude higher for a given power density. Plugging in some numbers (assume 0.3 W/kg per mW/cm^2 @ 100MHz and 0.00001 W/kg per mW/cm^2 @ 500 kHz) you get heating of 300 W/kg for the 1W/cm^2 100MHz case and 0.1 W/kg for the 10W/cm^2 500kHz case. Neither one would be good for you, but the former would cook all the meat in your body to well-done temperatures within a matter of minutes.
Back to top
ScottH
Wed Mar 15 2017, 11:15PM
ScottH Registered Member #61373 Joined: Sat Dec 17 2016, 01:45PM
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 87
KrowBar wrote ...

The question is not particularly clear. When you refer to power levels are you talking about the TPO, the ERP, the consumed power? The frequency could certainly make all the difference. Firstly, consider that if the frequency is closer to the body's resonance, then much more of the radiated power will be absorbed. Secondly, consider that the frequency coupled with the geometry of all the surroundings will have a huge effect on the local power density. The power radiated by an antenna isn't really the parameter of interest here - it is the power density in the space occupied by the person. Think of it like being in a microwave oven (pretty much the same thing really) where you will have hot spots and cold spots that all depend on the little details and that will change with the frequency. Further, the orientation between the E-field and H-field will be quite complex in the nearfield region and the resulting effective power density field will be quite non-uniform so it's impossible to analyze without a very detailed simulation.

I think the question you are trying to ask is something along the lines of "Is is worse to stand in a 10 W/cm^2 500 kHz 'beam' or a 1 W/cm^2 100MHz 'beam'?"

In that case I think the lower power 100 MHz wave is more damaging. As an antenna, the human body is pretty well tuned to very near 100 MHz. We just aren't tall enough to effectively pick up low frequencies in the kHz or even 100 kHz range. I would expect the SAR of the 100 MHz case to be maybe 5 orders of magnitude higher for a given power density. Plugging in some numbers (assume 0.3 W/kg per mW/cm^2 @ 100MHz and 0.00001 W/kg per mW/cm^2 @ 500 kHz) you get heating of 300 W/kg for the 1W/cm^2 100MHz case and 0.1 W/kg for the 10W/cm^2 500kHz case. Neither one would be good for you, but the former would cook all the meat in your body to well-done temperatures within a matter of minutes.


In a electromagnetic field, does the electric field and the magnetic field affect the body differently? Does the electric field cook you more or the magnetic component?
Back to top
KrowBar
Thu Mar 16 2017, 03:26PM
KrowBar Registered Member #57401 Joined: Sat Sept 19 2015, 08:06PM
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 10
Hmmm. I don't have the biology background to know which is more problematic. For planer waves in the far field there is a well defined relationship between the E and H fields - you can't have one without the other, and the combined electromagnetic field transfers energy to the body (receiver antenna) which causes the cooking. Static fields are another story entirely and I'm sure there have been studies on the effects of each. A static electric field makes your hair stand on end, while a static magnetic can make you levitate: Link2
Back to top
radiotech
Tue Jun 20 2017, 09:37PM
radiotech Registered Member #2463 Joined: Wed Nov 11 2009, 03:49AM
Location:
Posts: 1546
Amateur Radio Operators in Canada are required to study Limits of Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Electromagnet Fields from 3 kHz to 300 GHz.

You should get your own Ham ticket.

Then you could talk, on your own radio, to a wide body of peers who know first hand about radio frequency.


1497994677 2463 FT179291 Safety Code Number Vi

1497994677 2463 FT179291 Safety Code Number  Vi I
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.