High-permeability shielding materials prevent r jTismametctel from oats A oe : itor enclosures interference from driving * zfs aaetby sensitive circuits crazy. lecromageticinererenc from power é Ins, song magnets, rotors, ond JENIFER, LIKER 75 her mnt ard comptes. Vie rset eat Instlions ndude medic, edvaon, The stil Cnc tng ies hei Gol, sonatas ioe ) = are exposed to magnetic fields to 20 gos. agnetc shielding protects electronic ‘They ore custom made or available off the shel, aes ‘pained o mh mos mart, and const ftv ference include permanent magnets, layers of MuMetal and on opfonal lar guard. transformers, motors, solenoids, and cables. eg Ninnechseprovides pathroundeen, Medium peroesbilty material are vsally Magnetic fold Ta determine the a9- five arcasto deflect magnetic Mix In addi- used with high-permeabilty materials and proximate magnetic field in he sbield tion, shielding may contain magnetic fux ave values of 12500 to 150,00 with ast ‘sound component that generates ux. uration pont of abot 15,500 gauss. High- ‘The ability to conduct magnetic lines of saturation materials have permeability rang- = oe forces called permeability, and ina mag- ing from 200 to 50,000 with saturation eric shil, th degree of pemmeabityisex- points beween 1,000 and 21,000 gauss. For example, shield 1.5 in in diameter presed numeri, The Standard or base line i fee space with arating of B/H Curves ‘one, compared to shield _, HIGH-PERMEABILITY MATERIALS “7 materials which range ae from about 200 to 10,000 ‘300 200100. 50 40 30 20 30,000 Shs hand rwoba- sicneeds. One prevents strong field radiation from sources such as transformers, magnets, and motors. The second shields instruments and Sovies from magnetic fields in an environment or prevents emanation from ote sources Three ener pes of matenals are used frthese— high permeability, medium Permeability, and high ‘tration zal : See 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 (0.005 0.007. 0.05 0.10 ‘mum valve of 80,000 at Mi H (oorsied 5 De Ya 6,000 lagnetizing force, H (oersteds) maximan of | Thao fx deni inthe el B, othe mogneting foe, amecie fh city of he mca tsb 30 ee acl oman Reaneonddnapins eon spond en gauss after heat treating Flux deristy, B (gauss) 7,000) 3,000) 41000) 3000) 2,000) 4,900 "709 +09] 409} ‘309| 200] 100 70 50 4% 30 20 ine MACHINE DESIGN MAY'7Y 1998 hita:/ “we machinedesian.conHLECTRONIC! “22° ratio (60 Hz) © HIGH-PERMEABILITY MATERIAL made of material 0.06 in. thick infield of 80 gauss has flux density of 2,500. = foerind Ta | 25x15x80 SAL S80 2.500 gauss Shield thickness: For selection of shield thickness for fields of ess than 2 gauss, Lt A shield 1.5 in. in diameter witha perme ability of 80,000 and attenuation field of 1,000 to 1.0 would need shield 0.019-in. thick. ~ Shield inickness (in) ~ sarin neste by pea ae tic pit. ‘accent fu .000%1.5 changes in terution rats: 80,000 = 0.019 in, _Efiient shielding: When considering the price of materials, maintaining the correct thickness keeps costs to a minimum. The rmagnette-stelding sisial ust have a initial permeability of at least 80,000, othe ise the shield thickness is compromised. ‘When a strong field is encountered, thickness canbe selected that develops max imum permeability in the material. For in- stance, flux density inthe shield of2,300t0 2,500 gauss produces maximam permeabil= ity in the material To determine the required thickness Permeability versus 3 ~ frequency ear S 25H, B For aseuse of scale, shield 6 longand 1.5 in, in diameter in an 80-gauss field re~ quires shield 0.06 in. thick; 0 O02 OTA BS BI1O 3 5710 - 9050 100 Ba Frequency (kHz) Thee wih which ematril ondcs motes oa oasura of is 1.25%1.5x80 hk Gre siky wii the sic in gus hip//w.octnedsgncom MAY71, 1998 — MACHINE DESIGN = 0.06 in, pene nmi precy aed ay compared to free a ‘space with crating of one. High-permeabily shielding materia, such the aly Fle uemuation. To dctrmine the t | ronge fom 200 350,000 over orelotvely wi raquany ange ‘tenuation of a field (ratio), — x, act ate WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK. a Did you find this article interesting? Using the above factors, the attenuation Here, a flux density of 0.0057 gauss is Circle 811 field sound tobe 14,000 fora shielding, present within the cheld when afield of 80 | _Do'you vant more information rater with pemeabiliy of 350,000. gaussexiss outside the shield and an ten onthistopic? Cirle 812 — ation of 4,000 hasbeen achieved: Comment via e-mails S10! xa imdeditora;penton.com a ‘What related topies would ou tike 0 - 82 0.0057 gauss seecovered? What additional informe Flux density: To determine the Mux den- 14,000 fp { Soon pe would you id we? 7997 was a tuming point in the search for the possible effects of electric and magnetic fields on health. Tiree major studies were published lie. the largest epidemiological study ‘on the question of cancer in children land magnetic folds, and the first two longeterm animal laboratory studies. For the first time, the awaited results are reassuring In all the developed countries, electric ity has been part of our lives for a long time. Each and every one of us at home, and at work, are exposed to weak electic and magnetic fields that fare created by electric appliances, their domestic supply circuits, and the transmission and distribution networks, that supply consumers with electricity. Inese elas are Weak. Typical re ential magnetic fields ate approxi- mately 0.1 7 in North America, and perhaps slightly lass in Europe. Variations between one home and another are considerable and can eas- ily vary from 0.05 to 0.5 jT. Regional variations seem to be more pro- nounced than variations throughout time due to the dally or seasonal fiuc- tuatune UF elect. Ouerants flowing through earthing systems would ‘appear to have a dacsive effect on the ‘ambient domestic field In some cases, (general electric appliances produce fields of @ few hundred uT but their short-term usage and very low range mean that they narely contnbute to the overall exposure. Regarding transmis- sion and distribution tines, carying high currents, their influence ie only perceptible in the homes immediately ‘adjacent to electricity uty property. The dosimetric data colectea trom ssoveral hundred people reveal aver- ‘age exposures of approximately 0.10 EDITORIAL by Dr M. PLANTE, in the name of Mr. P. SARMA MARUVADA, chairman of Study Committee 36 (Power System Electromagnetic Compatibility) 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields and health: major progress ‘and intensities of about 1 10 2.5 nT for the most exposed electricity workers. [5.227% 89 snteaton fe tt epidemiological study, that suggested there was a relationship between child ‘cancer and exposure to a residential magnetic: field, opened a very \wideapread debate. The atudy chowed that a heavy density of power cables was more frequently found around the homes of children having suffered from ‘cancer than around the homes of a ref- ference group. Investigators then sug- (gested that the magnetic field created by ie cure fuming i se ables could be the explanation. To begin With this observation met with surprise ‘and scepticism. It was the start of seri- fous scientific questioning that was doubly justiied. Fisty, because of the lack of toxicological data enabling the assessment of the _cancerogenic potential of the fields, but above all due to the importance of the potential health problem it raised, i. ffields as low as 02 1T could double the cancer fisk for children, the number of cases that could be attibuted to magnetic fields then becomes high. And, me magnetic fields are cancerogenic at this intensity, what isthe risk for work: ls 10 times as high. was clear mat the apparent harmless nature of the fields was not a satistactory answer. “The exploratory and fragile features of this frst epidemiological study were ‘ot sufficient to reject the hypothesis raised. Responsibly was also com- mitted at several levels in particular for ‘electricity companies. Therefore, the work had to be carried out. But how lhuuld we pruse? ‘The study of the carcinogenicity of a ‘chemical or a physical agent ike 60 Hz magnetic fet Is essentially based on ‘wo complementary approaches, both of equal importance, .e., epidemiologl- cal studies undertaken directly on exposed populations in their living environment, and. long-term animal laboratory studies. The former have the advantage of directly studying tne population in its ‘real environment, so that in the presence of convincing and repeated results, we ean confirm the ccancerogenic effect of the agent in {question upon man. It is thanks to epi- demiological studies that today, asbestos, cigarette smoke and thtty or 's0 other products are recognised as Confirmed cancerogenic agents. methodological limits. Epidemiology is ‘not an experimental science, and the possibilty of bias and confounding fac- tors is high. The epidemiological approach to environmental causes of ‘cancer is often not very sensitive or specific, an existing effect with a low range can be overlooked just as we can easily altibute a cancerogenic effect by error to an agent that is not Ccancerogenic. Regarding long-term ‘animal laboratory studies, they have become an essential tool to study can- ‘corogenicty. This approach enables the continuous observation of animals subjected to the agent studied for a Asusie use sandard protcls that | cables around homes? Probably, shee | workers exposed in eet comps seals nfuorce the ess to be saly | tne sources ‘of flis ise the | insty of exposure, and tne access Send, such as det and genet | fore, and algo because the vations | {0 relately consistent pepltons of Sects, The pfolem arg wth te | tvoughou me are not vey mated, | workers, caeuly tues, fer Seraplaton cf tne roc otaod | We must ot og that ost cases of | ungve cpporunty to dee! a possible wan anmale for humane is consider | leuaoma in chfen occu at an | canoerogenc efec. For te. vast Sy leone bythe use of mre tan | ety age, Between 4 and, whch | major of cancers, no association has 2 fea wins sapnu tat, | enaieisvensoatle estnten ef re | ween trout tie Several sen Senet Tho proscive vaio ote | patonposre, Showed sight hight nske ot foot bland or anal igh, at vcuptegener a | louraomia and brain cance, but the ios abe naan caremome | te mea ear ote | erent rene! tet ae one procuts have loo had 2 canto: to otain » | Tre roaly coat, and the om fone fect on ibrsoy ens. |fetote sata! power To G8 | Trae trate sa, a ona Thais ence byte cove gona | 0", wideorad sues, (tae | StS eo expire tobe kad prow otmammnasandme err | AMARC and ene Swedeh) hve | ora lty of the cancerous, transformation | measured in the homes of children sut- | In spite of availability of particularly iarmerbe, on ie coal OCB fering from leukaemia was different | high research credits for investigators, apy, athe begiring of te 1808, | fom ato eterence cnofen Mesut, | tht erable te est reseaten tech many epidemiological studies were | None revealed a significant statistical | niques available to be used, all the epi- Underaken, bah fr people ing | ascociaion wh the elds measured, | demologeal wor carted ott date sig ssriy monensin ae, | Sheet cus, pastes in hay too? | tore te wore wring a concer tribution lines, and exposed electricity | is the largest epidemiological study | genic effect of magnetic fields to be company workers. Unfortunately, ani- | carried out to date, on the subject. | maintained. itis true that the statistic mal studies were not undertaken | Over 600 cases of lymphoblastic | weight is always limited in these sur- Iredaty. was no untlne bepm | leukaemia in chien (Ihe most fe: | ve, and over enables ory oss fing of te 10808 that they com | quont cancer beboon the age of 0 | biy oa low tka the most posed rmnoed thd" 1s) wore Wertied nine | popitons to be excuded, but Hie . fmorcan state, Incetgatrs mew | prosody ie bsoomng. ver and tured he magnet ld in he homes, | lower, Here we are atthe Wns of he stu of magnate fs as 2 | Shon ater the agnosis of the de. | detection o epidemiology pots, cage ot cancer nc | 0 aie he dgnons of he de ‘ exer neue ge toanong, oni | $28: TOY alo examined te cable start. How can a low range risk for | rious association between the pres- [ite site 1887, 90 lonp teen Saar soeou mal ce eee fence of lines around homes and can- | Wl animal studies ended. Both followed nen exposure levels are gener | cor ng appeared. Regarding the | standard protocols designed specifi- Alvi (ass han 1x7, and thre ae | magnet tels” measures slighty | call tote te canceregeic ptt no ftorerce populations exert ot | Reher ae were road a the homes | Inthe rst sy, Canada, group exposure? Firstly, we tried to check it | of children suffering from cancer than | female rats were exposed to 4 diferent ‘the association between child cancer | in the reference homes, but the differ- | levels of fields, the highest being ‘and cables around homes, for various | ence was not statistically significant. In | 2,000 \T. The exposure lasted 20 Populations, was real. In @ surprising | aadition, there were few ‘signs to show | hours a day for 2 years, i.e. the life manner, the aesociation, although Pet | mar ine nsk increases witn ne level ot | expectancy of ine animal, The Seconda, constant, was noted several times. !S | exsosure, which is a much sought | carried out in Japan, was similar, but the presence of lines around homes | ater characteristic to validate a possi- | the maximum fields were 5,000 uT and the cause of the effect noted or simply | ie causal relationship. The high num- | the study concemed both males and the indirect sign of another environ- | ber of cases and the quality of the | females. At the end of the exposure ‘mental exposure? methods used, in particular for the | period, all the tissues and organs were Cute eat on, tail became nec: | assessment he expen to mag. | tampled end examne for malignant tecaryt measure magove feds n | fete ete make te study the Moet | oF Benign tumour ne cose ot homes. It cleary appeared thatthe | accurate one publehed fo date. The | tumours was compared fo reernoe densty of power ines realy iftuereed | fe isnt closed, Soon he resus of | gtoups tat nee ot exposed. Tho the lve fade ade tomes, | te cle sinter esearch tee, one | tnue ave reat tes tere Corelaion was mporect and’ ony | Canadian, a ove Enlah each car: | no sic’ ference inthe coeur Sxplaned par ot the cnadrabie var | fd ou wih simiar protocol, shoud | rence of tour watever te lve shone ebseved from one nome to | be valle exposure, In adon, grea tony Stier ee cotmporty measure . Sipe wate absorp fot so tnt of tlds more rpreserave of sumpton andthe nea ate of te real ‘expecure to whe cron | JP, ung this pero, several esearch | animal were normal, These are ve————_—_— EDITORIAL sitivity ofthis approach and the special ‘ontext where epidemiological studies ‘approach the limit of their detection capabiltis. A similar study using mice (male and female) is being under taken, ~ Are these results coherent with all the ‘ciontic data rolating tothe bialagieal effect of electric and magnetic fields? he cell studies show that the effect of fields on a living collis dispersed ‘and of ow intensity. No confirmed and Feproductle cell ettect appeared tor fields less than a few tons of uT which is nearly one hundred times higher than the normal levals of human expa- sure. The noted effects are of low intensity, and dificult to observe, ‘somewhat as if the fields were a weak stimulus to which the cell adapts with- ‘out harmful consequences. These effects seem to have a site of action that ie the call membrane, where inter- actions between the cell and its envi- ronment take place. The fields show ‘no direct effect on the genetic material in the nucleus of the cell. The lack of mutagenic elfects, the dispersed nature, and the low range of the effects noted to a high level of expo- sure, as well as the absence of effects that can be measured for human expo- sure, are all factors in favour of the ‘absence of cancerogenic potential. ‘Animal experiments confirmed the harmless nature of prolonged expo- sure to relatively high levels to be con- firmed. However, two series of obser- vations merit further attention: Some studies revealed a drop in the noctur- nal secretion of melatonine, a hormone produced by the pineal gland of the brain, that plays an important role in the contral of the biological citeadian rhythms. Some animal studies also ‘suggest that high intensity magnetic fields (60 to 100 1) can increase t effect of recognised cancerogenic products. In both cases, the instabilty ff the results, and the difficulty of repeating them from one laboratory to another, as well as the incerttude around ‘their extrapolation to human situations, give them avery limited usage in the overall assessment of ccancoregericiy The study of the cancerogenicty of environmental factors is not easy. Coneictent epidemiological results ‘noted in various populations, in geo- graphically distinct places, are no doubt the best indication. The long- term animal studies also offer ev- dence, the biology of cancer in animals and humans being very similar. The last twenty years have enabled the studies necessary for the assessment ‘of the cancerogenicity of magnetic fields to be undertaken for both of these aspects. The results obtained to date are reassuring. The indications ‘upholding the hypothesis of a cancero- {genic etfect are very low. amough the ‘complete absence of a risk can not be proved, the indications upholding the hhypathocie that falde are not panna (genic are now more and more numer- (us. The few studies whose results are ‘expected soon will perhaps enable us. to remove the fears that arose twenty years ago now.JWG 36.01/06 A SUMMARY OF STANDARDS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE TO ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS AT POWER FREQUENCIES B,J. MADDOCK, Joint Working Group 36.01/06 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1, INTRODUCTION 2, PHYSIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS | 2.1. Cell stimulation 2.2. Perception of tissue currents 2.3, Surface effects 2.4, Contact currents, 3, RELATION BETWEEN CURRENT DENSITY AND FIELD 4, EXPOSURE STANDARDS 5. COMPARISON OF SELECTED ‘STANDARDS 5.1. Introduction Members of the Joint Working Group 9601/06 (May 1997): R. CONTI, F. HIRSCH. Bu, MADDOCK, J.C. MALE. P. PIROTTE and M. PLANTE 1. INTRODUCTION ‘The question of the possible effects on health of exposure to environmental power-frequency electric and magnetic fields has been of concem for over twenty years. particularly because of the results of some surveys which ‘seemed to link the incidence of cancer, particulary childhood leukaemia, to lv- 5.2, Induced current density 53. Critical body region 5.4, Conversion of current den- sity to field 58, Electric fields — occupa: tional | 56. Electric fields — public 5.7. Magnetic fields — occupa: | tional 5.8. Magnetic fields — public 6, CONCLUDING NEMARKS 7. REFERENCES ANNEX tion wires or transmission lines. A umber of stusies have also reported small apparent increases in the inci= dence of cancer in various ‘electrical ‘occupations, ‘The scientilic postion is complex, not least because there is no understood mechanism by which the low-strength fields. in question could affect wing material; they are far too weak to ‘cause any heating and they are inca- | molecules directly. Current knowledge is fragmentary and there are differing perceptions amongst individual scien- tists of its interpretation and sound- ‘The matter has been reviewed by var ‘ous national and international bodies (see tne paper ‘Management of tne EMF Issue" [25] for references). None ff these bodies has concluded that any adverse affects. an health trom exposure 10 low-frequency electric or ‘magnetic fields as normally encoun- tered in dally lite have been estab- lished; they regard the evidence for such effects as weak and unconvinc- ing. Several of the above bodies state that the risk of adverse effects, if it exists, is at most very small and those that comment on the matter of restric ing exposure to these fields say that factory basis for any restriction, ‘Some countries and international bod- jes have, however, considered it ‘appropriate to set standards or guide lines for exposure to low-frequency} electric and magnetic fields. Most of these are based on the available data (on well established and documented effects, primarily physiological. This being considerably above those nor- ‘mally encountered; only in a few occu- pational situations are they likely to be approached and possibly exceeded. ‘This paper summarizes the ‘standards’ (see Section 4 for definition) promu ‘gated. informal public documents Which specity field levels. It does not include general precautionary guid- lance without speciied levele (ae in ‘Sweden) and the use on an informal basis by some authorities of the IRPA (guidelines. The paper also explores Wwhy the spectied field levels are not ‘aways the same, even when based on the same level of induced current den-Bee Rar standards, a brief account is given of | 2.2 PERCEPTION OF TISSUE CUR- | and small discharges, for example to tme main physiological interactions of | RENTS clothing. Magnetic fields do not pro- low-lrequency fields with a person, duce any surtace ettects especially the effects of the currents | There is a reasonable body of data induced. since current density has | available on the thresholds for percep- become an important parameter in the | tion of currents in tissue at frequencies evelopment of exposure standards | up to about 100 kHz, though almost all, ‘and guidelines. of itis in terms of injected rather than induood ourrent (eee for example the 2.4 CONTACT CURRENTS For ‘indirect effects, that is those aris- ing from touching other objects in a rierencee hn [i}. The translation to | 12K. especially an electric fel, fis current density in the various paris of | Necessary to distinguish between momentary surtace "smut 2. PHYSIOLOGICAL i a eae mmorerhecte femal eps echargec) INTERACTIONS |_| | The oreatest senstvty is found over | and more persistent stmuation whch LL | the frequency range from about 10 Hz may be caused by the continuing flow to 500 Hz with the sensitivity above | of current (‘touch’ or ‘contact’ currents) 1 kHz falling approximately inversely | if sufficiently large. The magnitude of a 2:1 CELL STIMULATION with frequency. Smee induced curens | Gonaet euneat sepends weaty on the ‘are proportional to frequency, the sen- | size and nature of the object touched ‘The stimulation of excitable, ie. nerve | sitvty in terms of the extemal field iS | and on the impedances. to earth of ‘and muscle, cells comes about primar- | roughly constant from 1 kHz 10 | oth the object and the person touch: iy through a perturbation ofthe poten. | 100 We ing tA! power requencis, eletre ta ass ea memeane (© 0” | In tems of cent dans, te onset | fest stong enough to cave ‘sleocmtog oH) | nerve and muscle stmuston oeoe | noteeable eects ony for pects ‘hus be hrdamenl eutyn te | Tea ct ees 000mm | cose Pex To weap eau issue isthe incuces eect Neld. | Gt power equenies. At hgh levels | ment wih bare conductors, I contact Woking ntsc is quant par) nero 9000. mm. oe | cath rove inna, ina magnete lk, because fi Inemal | Wace the "noletgo' stuaton and | remedial measures, such as earthing st flaton an jet are av Tratx‘oec tts 8 coma ed | te,Peably of Rent iain and | he ober are avaabe to the magnitude of tho external mag- : rete els Tearsss of the conduct: | The occurence of dect field flcts ty ofthe tissue In cottat for exter | from Induces currents is uncommon, ta leit fee elie sauce | simpy because ete non exeral | 3. RELATION BETWEEN Tmpedance ishigh anda ‘onsant cu | hole are reeves to” preauce. ne ron stuton ares, Kis en moe | elects Such fede are rare encoun: || CURRENT DENSITY AND FIELD Straightforward to derve the induced || tered. With induced current or current current density. the intemal acter | densty as the basis, there is no funda- {eld being. dependent on the tssve | mental distinction between electric and Conduct. Despite the tissue elaine | magnetic elds except tat the curtent | The relation between the in i22"Sey ‘te now ream | eatin wine boy aes | any Sn te euro fuantiy, has become the custom to | the two cases. Currents lowing in ot | Complex epenting nol only en ‘orc in toms ofthe Indus eran | arose the rena are probably the naar te rues eae ee at ‘densty as the basic parameter charae- | cause of phosphenes, a fant fickering wih resp ody, the trend eal shruaion and oor | sensation ithe eve. These may pass | Sr'sv'tnace Ste wey. tre bore ‘ects, In part tis has arisen for his- | unnotced unless expected and are not | ton wihin at which the coment der forcal reacons. linked to the earier | thought to be detrimental. The thresh- | Sey too condemn and. or reagnetio areata interest in let, rather than | old at SO He forthe generation of | eis esecally, onthe issue conduc magnetic, es. Bhecphenes ie of the order of | wry ana is varaon win te aged over a reasonabie cross secton | Te caesponding magnetic elds of | gensty was deived as an order of Seraure of inomogeneoue arent | fe ater 10 mT ox mare. is Boss | magrtuse value. sim models are flow atthe collar level. it may need to | often used to relate tne inauced cur te saattged ever a rather larger avea, | 18s within the central nervous system | rent density, J (Aim), to the extemal at levels below 1000 mA/m®, though Say a ow hundred to avon oo | Sivas Below 1000 mann fel, (elect, Vin) oF B (magnetic, sharp a focus on regions where te ‘sat sing n currant concentrates ether for geomet fic reasons (e4. at the ampits) or | 29 SURFACE EFFECTS hecaie nf tne high ennduraty is wort noting that he level ofcurent | An electic field induces a surface | where / (Hz) is the frequency, k is @ density specied in the various stan- | charge on an exposed body and for | ‘shape factor which takes account o dards was derived as an average | stone fields this may ave rise to atn- | the size, shape and orientation of thBee} ranges up to about 5 x 10-* As/vm, | ‘investigation’ or ‘reference’ level for | Tables 1 and 2st respectively the 1 (m) is the effective radial position wathin the body and o the etfectve ts- ‘sue conductivity, typically 0.2 Sim. ita more detailed analysis is required, sophisticated models are now avail able (26, 27] for computing the cur- rents induced in the human body by extemal elecine and magnetic nels. 4, EXPOSURE STANDARDS ‘Standard’ Is used here as a general term, encompassing guidelines as well ‘as more formal regulations but not implying any particular status. Indeed, the wide variety of administrative, reg- latory and legal systems encountered often makes it dificult to determine the ‘exact standing and force ofthe various standards. They range from mere yardstcks, against which to judge a proposed installation, to obligatory requirements. However, the extent 10 which compliance is “monitored or ‘enforced is rarely clear. Some stan- {dards are specitied over a range of fre ‘quency, others just at the power fre- {quency or for power lines only. These Inet are in olfect‘omiesion’ etandarde, rather than exposure standards; they are listed in the Annex and include the recent German Federal ordinance. "Many stanaaras contain detailed quali fications; some are being revised, while others are just proposals. Of interest are Uwe rationales oF bases for the levels chosen, though these are by no means always explcity state. Some focus on limitina the current Gensity induced in a person or the cur- Tent which may flow when touching vehicles or structures poorly con: nested electrically to the ground: oth fers are concerned with limiting poten- tially unpleasant effects (e.g mictoshocks or hair vibration), while others have arisen through concems ‘about health. Some levels simply rep- resent existing field levels — the status ‘quo Nona is based on any established long-term effect on heath ‘Sometimes the important distinction is made (e.0. in the CENELEC Pre- standard (2)) between a basic restrc- tion, that is, a restriction on the quan- tity whichis directly responsible for the the field, suct a level being easier to | vlecsic and magnetic Held levels given measure and regulate but being | in the various standards. In addition, Telated to the basic restriction through | authorities in some countries use the ‘series of assumptions. The reference | IRPA guideline levels (3] on an infor- level is set conservatively, so that | mal basis, It is not clear how the polt below this level the basic restriction | cal changes in recent years have will be met in all but the most excep- | atfected the position of tne standards tional civumaianves. Cunseyuerily, | in me former czecnosiovanla ano is often possible to allow exposure to | USSR. fields above the reference level, pro- vided it can be shown that the basic | The status and underlying basis of restriction is observed. ‘each standard are indicated in terms of TABLE 1. Species Levels for Elect Fields at Power Frequencies — kVim (me) fra sie | ese | |S Coecnonivaia 6) % S| en Semary 8) on | "eo omar aes 21.93 90,20 igor area ai or | c sais st 008 8 fi Ftd 0,1 ‘te | 15,20 8 | ey Sraeamatiz iy |" we ae |" ores a a % ee | ¢ Usk acer ts) 3 @ é Ussaie sa 8 | em Eth eriesign | "wo |“ IRPA [3] 10" | 101030 G c (enn es ee} é | ce ‘A 50H except RPA (5060 Hs) and ACIM (6D Ha), Whare level fr 16 He ae speci, ey ‘ago rom ine sara tee tes awa atS0 He Cntaton otintuces Curent aeny pronase Dect regarang te exposure ol workers tops! ages anne. ‘Gatetne or reconnencnnsn ‘ean concem er posse ee, (reel, rolton oes, te Wn ga tee Peciploncteexcscarges crag seasons ‘Sipser cometnas i ace 1s Proscar, 4 for up toa few hows por day anc can be exceeded oa lew meute (up © 20kVim for § mous ‘cst per dy prondesprecautore are ake fo revert nec conte, 1 Gadget (hous pe we ay spose = BLE Tr © Satmaeh 0 ahs SO xVM, "though te erat mirretaton ts fom ors betwee tere sinaadewnch use ‘exposure area (conotog areas of serime expeste) 62 and howsiay rapes. © “xpasure area 2 (anger exposure or area whae eg rent harmali expect) 1 areas oF envionment n when «may resonay be expected el mamas othe puble wa ‘Scoraa sorcae por oe ay. 1 leases inwmen excoture may reasorabiy be assumes minum dances of bung: to even power nes re als soeces { Rtmapper we're ar ones, hori sees ae td fe tore pray. Sapenang on Suraton nurs pe work yt expose = SOE-2 or between 5 and 20 KV Estroon 20 ane 25 vm. ony 1 menses expnure = parmied ‘atowssctore would nave 1 be cated ut equrements mat olor excecing each of hese fou 1224 nour ey day — ns resco anes open spaces n whch member! he caer bone pr eusdausy bo especies io Spess sabia aro eda) Sak as en ‘teas. rowtg grounds an hee 1 Buble“ Fes! veconmenoaton (apa binding ornance being consdees: econo! — Ip inary pees woreBER Ly el TABLE 2, Speciid Levels or Magnatic Fels at Power Frequencies — mi (ms). Public | Occupations! | status | Bani hos seinen | asinA 6 c esr on oe 8 é eee 8 06, 0.85, 4294 OR c txposure area 2* ‘ase oR é way onw.90 ° f Pond 28) ost. = 8 é Sonera 12,19 oa oe eo | ok NRPS 4 $3 $8 ae | & Usa ACG) : é 6 Usa rao7e | | w CENELEC (2) 8, 0 we | psa |e Gaui ozcnace | *0 é treats ome | “asisee S é IGN 2) oh 05 & é | 2150 He except RPA (160) and ACGIM (60 Hs). Where ev for 1, Mae speci, ney © iminton induc Curent dona Go Sonate Bite tegen ne exbosure of worker pia gents faex Wy), @ Gaceine er recormnastion eaan cones pose oct, Chae sae rguatonoroneres, olen wi tg oc. Retrnasornvatgaton ives may sometimes bo exceeded (8 et) 5. Sanaa sometmes wi eal 2s Presanaar. SF ase voues seam to have ben devetapes prmany or slecicte weg, | or wpa fw hove pe ay and canbe exceed to fw mans (01 2000 oS mines n SEAR? Stay Bodo plsauoe arses ome sunoc aubing eects facto! Soo} ‘Seren Aus) ‘Puma epee uaton 2 nour pr work ay Taper te (eanolad area or arse exponurs)—8, and howsayreepectvay. ‘apres a'? Rgertme exzosure or reas wree ros pected tat embers to pubic wil ‘Sends seas parte cy. ‘cases much exposure may reasonably be assumed 0 be ite tof hours pray. ‘into detaner of lang 0 overhand powe Ines are also spectes. ‘iperang on aratn t expesuevom 1 hours por mor oo) ‘rove attons wou have Yo De cared oxo regoements met Belre exceeding each of nese 1 24 hs pw doy — th econ spa oem spices wien member cle gee | io2 tan easy fa exes! spe 9 near at te Gy sch a eos ‘BES Ratha puna ora ee rw wot ay Free Rrnedton (aly tag onnance bang conse; ozgana — ‘Spy endng promeono woe «SACLE? Re rr et yor dev! ot rr azz 00 = HA where bd Seren RATES TARA TERS sae SS a Sree ny several broad categories: in reality, | the external field to a level not exceed- tiete aie finer distinetions, depending | ing 10 mAlm2. Thie provides a concic- fon the reguiatory arrangements of the | erable margin below the level (of the particular state or country and on the | order of 1000 mA/m?) at which stimula- factors which led to the formulation of | tion of nerve and muscle tissue occurs. the standard, Poliical and social fac- | The IRPA guidelines state that tors may play a role as well as scien- | ‘endogenous current densities in the tiie ones. Other restrictions, notably on | body are typically up to about the oling of buldinge, are alee come. | 12mAlm2, although they ran he minh times imposed. higher during certain functions’ [3]. Many of the standards are based on | As the Tables show, levels for public various factors, than those for occupa tional exposure. Some authorities argue that, for effects which exhibit an onset threshold (as for cell stimulation) fo for standards in which the basic restriction ie euificiently cautious, this distinction is unnecessary. In some instances, the permitted field level ‘depends on the duration of the expo- ‘sure. Since no ‘doselresponse’ rela- tionships have been established, the ‘basis for this appears to be largely one ff convenience in bridging the transi- tion from essentially unlimited permit. ted exposure to none. To put the levels in the Tables into ‘context, it may be noted that the elec trie and magnetic fields encountered in fa variety of situations range up to (and may occasionally exceed) the folowing values: Under large transmission lines 40lVim 04 mT in industry (including electric power) 20kvIm 2mT ose to appliances OSkVIm 1 mT as a background’ feldin buildings (0.1 kVIm 0.008 mT ‘Typical fields are much lower. 5, COMPARISON OF SELECTED STANDARDS Vv_etfj} $7 ee 5.1 INTRODUCTION ‘The field levels specified in the various ctandarde vary markedly, avan those derived from the same current density. ‘This section attempts to determine the crigin ofthis variation for the five stan- ards (IRPA, CENELEC, NAPB, BFE, ACGIH and ICNIRP)" which contain reasonably detailed rationales. It will “TRA iterations Rasaton Proteton Asso- ENELEC : Comte ewropeen ge Nomatsaton NAPE" Noon! Raslogea! Protection Beart roseeechah oar Feemecranit eee a ooBek Ly bbe shown that the two main reasons for the diferences are the diferent conversions of current density to field and the use of various additional, somewhat arbitrary, reduction factors, Four of these standards (CENELEC, NAPB, BFE and ICNIRP) permit the field levels to be exceeded provided that the epecified current. dancing ‘which are considered the basic restic- tions, are not exceeded. ‘The Australian standard is the same as that of IRPA, while the Italian (pub- lic only) and the Austrian standards ‘speciy the same as IRPA, ‘The specified current densities, the {quoted equivalent field levels and the field levels finally used inthe five stan- dards are comparod in Tables 3 and 4 “Equivalent field’ is the field given or implied in the rationale of each stan- dard as being equivalent to the current ensity spected for the group of per ‘sons considered. 5.2 INDUCED CURRENT DENSITY Al six standards start from an induced fcument density of 10 mAlm? at 50160 Hz. NAPB makes no reduction for pub- lic exposure on the basis that this level ‘s sufficiently conservative for all per Sons. APA und ICHIRP veiw Ue level by a factor ofS for public exposure because the general public comprises Individuals ofall ages, susceptibility and heath, and who are possibly unaware Of the exposure, which itsel! could be for 24 hours per day over a lifetime. The origin of the magnitude of thie factor ic ‘obscure; it may derive from that used at ragofrequencies for a power reduction, CENELEC chose a factor of 25 — cose to ¥, the factor used for the reduction of the field levels at raciotre- (quencies. BFE uses a reduction factor Of 5 for exposure area 2 (areas where longer-ime exposure occurs or where fields are not normally expected). 5.3 CRITICAL BODY REGION There are some diferences in the region of the body for which the eure rent density is of concem: IRPA — head and trunk; CENELEC — head ‘and heart recion: NRPB — head, neck ‘nd trunk; BFE — head and hear; ACGIH — body; ICNIRP — central nervous system tissues in the head el ‘TABLE 8, Comparison of specied current densities. equvalent elect {quoted or mpi) and species lacie eles J Equivatent, |» | mike | Start | See | sala oy a ania » | a e | 8 ’ cbiize cnn » | = » | oF congas secret | a | wer | noe | an 1 pao o | os = ot ate ol] os rs oar e | 3 : 1 rou urs er Wonk ay. “TABLE 4. Comparison of spectad current densities, equvalent magnetic eles (quoted or implied) and speciieg magnetic Hels, 3, | equvaien | shone | eorzena mime mT mT ‘aT TRA able. 2 5 ‘ on (CENELEC ‘ccupatonal 0 18 16 ube 4 ose oes NAPE al 10 16 16 {FE (occupational) ' xoosure area 10 424 azuzsse | 136 exposure ares 2 2 ose ose acai ‘occupations 10 on 1 oNIRP pubic 2 on on nou nur er wok ay. fences in the derived field levels are | 21 to 30 KVim, except for the BFE | standard for which the conversion attributable to these differences. 5.4 CONVERSION OF CURRENT DENSITY TO FIELD ‘The unperturbed electric feld quoted by each standard as equivalent to 1OmA/m? does not vary greatly appears tobe 66.7 kV. ‘The variation is much greater for the ‘magnetic field — from less than 11 mT up to 5 mT (see Table 4) — and stems from the use of afferent models for the body. IRPA, CENELEC and NAPB 2! se @ simple spherical model. RP.Ree AT} 0.2 Sim which implies a radius of | otfects from contact currents under all (0.064 m for 5 mT. CENELEC uses 0.04 for the product of radius and con- ductivity, @.9. @ radius of 0.2 and a cconductivty of 0.2 Sim, while NRPB fives these two latter values incivigu- ally. BFE does not give details of its ‘model but for a conductivity of 0.2 Sim, Dradive af 0078 m is implied ACGIH Uses an ellipsoidal model with ‘radi’ of 0.85, 0.2 and 0.1 m and a conductivity of 0.2 Sim. The rather large semi- Tajor axis accounts forthe low value of magnetic field estimated as equiva- lent to 10 mAlm? — 0.71 mT at 60 Hz ‘or 0.86 mT at 50 Hz. ICNIRP quotes various authorities to justi even lower ‘equivalent magnetic felis — 0.42 mT ‘at 60 Hz and 0.5 mT at 50 Hz. 55 ELECTRIC FIELDS — OCCUPA- TIONAL, IRPA: the equivalent field (25 kV) is raised slightly to 30 kVim for shor- term exposures but reduced to TOKVim for whole-day exposure because of ‘limited knowledge about the possible effects of long-term expo- CENELEC: the equivalent field (20 Keim) is used for shor-term exposures but reduced to 101m tr expocures over 8 hours “o avoid the posstity of increased dscomiort and stress’ from surtace charge effects. INRPB: the investigation level is set at 12 kVim ‘based on avoiding eects of crc charge on the surface of the aa BFE: for exposure area 1 (contolled ‘areas or shortstime exposure), 30 kVim ‘ure to iit secondary effects while for wole-day exposure 21.3 kVim is spec- ied and is said to be equivalent to 3.2 mArm®. ‘The reasons tor choosing this lovel are not clear. For exposure area 2, 6.57 Vim is species, equiva: lent to 1 mam, despite the curent density limit bsing 2 male ACGIH: the equivalent field (25 kVim) is used, although since this value is independent of frequency from 0 to 100 H2, its basis cannot be primarily cone of induced current density ICNIRP: the equivalent feld (25 kVim) is reduced to 10 kVim at SOHz and 8.3 kVim at 60 Hz to allow a sufficient possible conditions” 5,6 ELECTRIC FIELDS — PUBLIC IPA: the equivalent field (5 kVim) is sed for continuous exposure. 10 KVim 's given for exposures up to a few hours per day, DUC me reason Tor ms reiax- ation does not appear tobe stated. ICNIRP: the level set is half the occu- ational level “lo prevent adverse effects for more than 90% of exposed individuals” CENELEC: 10 kV/m, slightly lozs than the equivalent field of 12 kVim, is used. NAPB: 12 kV/m i again used since no distinction is made between occupa- tional and public exposure, 5.7 MAGNETIC FIELDS — OCCUPA- TIONAL IRPA: the equivalent Held (5 mt) 1s used for up to 2hours per work day but is reduced by a factor of 10 to O5mT for whole-day exposure "because of the sparseness of data on long-term exposures’ and because itis. “a limitation which can be accepted \wanout great articury im most occupa- tional environments cof a few hours per day. For continuous fexpasuie, the lavel is reduced by a fac: tor of 10 to 0.1 mT, despite par of the rationale for reducing the current den sity level to 2 mam? having been to allow for continuous exposure. CENELEC: the equivalent field (0.64 mT) is chosen. NAPB: 1.6 mT is again used since no distinction is made between occupa- tional and public exposure, ICNIRP: reference levels are set at a factor of 5 below the values set for ‘occupational exposure. 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS ‘The various ceneral standards con: coming electric and magnetic fields at [power frequencies are summarized in this document. Their status and scope vary greatly. Most of the more recently published standards are based on lim- fing the current density induced in pectic regions of the body to a level Well below that a which established, Physiological ettects occur Examination of the Tables reveals @ wide spread in the field levels spectied by the various organizations involved. CENELEC and NRPB: the equivalent | This divergence rellects the diferent fied (1.6 mT) is chosen. BFE: for exposure area 1, the equiva- lent field (4.24 mT) is chosen for expo- sures up 10 1 hour per day, 2.55 mT (6 mArm#) for 2 hours per day and 1.36 mT (82 mA/m2) for whole work- ing-day exposure. For exposure area 2,0.424 mI 1s specitiad (equivalent to ‘1'mA/m®) although the current density limit is 2mAm?, The rationale for ‘choosing thase particular reduced lev cls of current density is not clear. ACGIH: the value trom the ellipsoidal ‘model is rounded up to 1 mT at 60 Hz (1.2 mT at 50 Hz) ICNIRP: the equivalent field derived | from the iterature (0.5 mT at $0 Hz) is used. 5.8 MAGNETIC FIELDS — PUBLIC IRPA: the equivalent field (1 mT, Le. equivalent to the public current density bases chosen, the uncertainty in the magnitudes and significance of many ot hese bases, teint intra tions of tentative scientific data, the tuncenainty in deriving fiec levels trom the bases (such as current density) in the face of the wide range of situations Tien t0 be anccuntaved. the insaition of vatious reduction or ‘safety’ factors, ‘and even the different poltical and social perspectives of the organiza- lions. Also, one should not necessaily ‘expect a formal regulatory standard to ‘adopt the same field levels as an advi- sory guideline. A guideline may or may ot take account of the economic and social consequences of the implied restrictions; a standard which requires compliance normally must do co. A (guideline can be expressed in fairly general terms leaving some factors 10 local judgement and common sense: & regulation has to be more precise ar explicit. Finally, @ regulation has to : applicable to all situations, howeBy Tek RUT) to take account of the very consider- ‘able etfor which could be associated with controling occasional and ‘momentary high exposure, 1 REFERENCES Feterences [1] to [3] ana [25] [27] are in ‘he text while [to [28] are nthe tables. [1] BJ. Maddock, Standards or exposure to electne and magnetic lds at low frequencies. paper 17, Intemational Commission on Occupational Health Pars, October 1992 [2] Human exposure to electromagnetic fide — Lowtequency (0 H to 10 NH), European Premancard ENV 50166-1, CENELEC, Brussels, 1995 [9] Intern guigeines on tts of exposure 0.50160, Hz_electic and magnetic ‘ead: Imternatanas Non tonaing roe ‘ton’ Commitee of the Iniatonal agate” Protecion — Assocabon, Heath Physics, 58, 113-122, 1900 [4] Interim guideines on limits of exposure to 50100 Hr eleenc and. magnetic Holes (1989), "Natonal Health” and Meacal Research Councl, Cancers, [5] Lowtequency electric and magnetic folds — ermissle its of exposure forthe protection ol persons inthe trex {Quen range 0 He to 30 kz. Austrian Stancara $ 1119, 1994 (r German) [el Protection against the influence of flectneal Hels In the closeness. of flectel vansmision systems for 750 kV and above, CSN 33 2040, Prague, 1979 (in Czech) {6} Roguaton for ealety and neath pro= {eeton inthe workplace for exposure to slectnc, magnete or electromag: nets felis, Berulsgonossenschaft der Feinmecnanik und Elektrotechnik, | {18} Environmental Het dane 1995 (in German) [6] Maximum ints of exposure to electric land magnetic Holds generated at the fated power frequency. (50. Hz) in indoor and outgoo: environments, Decree ofthe Prime Minister, Gazzetta Uffeale dela Repubbdiea’ talana, 1104, 1992 (in taka) 10) Order of ha Cou of Minar date "November 1980 nthe mater o! ‘etaied prnciles of protocton against ‘orionizng elecromagnetic radiation harmful. people andthe envio. ‘mont Law Gaze, no.25. tert 101, pe. 277-278, 17 November 1960 (i Polish, [nt] J. Ariszowski and A, Piatowicr Enects of electromagnetic elds ‘caused by EHV ovemead power ines, CGIGRE S036, Warsaw, 1989, (12) Biolosical ettects of elecromannetic fois, part 2 frequency range 10 Hz 1 4300 kit, Report of a Working Group, Enwronment Text Series No. 21 Swiss Federal Ofice for Environment. Forests ano Countysioe. YSUWAL) Beme, 1999 (in German) 119] Limit values in the workolace 1996, ‘Scrweersche Unialvesicnerungs: anctat (SUVA), Luzem (in German), {14) Board statement on restictons on human exposure to siaic and time vaneng elecromagretic fields and radiion, Documents of the NAPE, 4, 58, 1983. 15} Threshold mt values (TLV) and bio- leoieal excosure indices, Amencan Conference of Governmenial Inaustal Hygienists, Cicinnat, 1995-96, [16] Electric feds of industial trequency, USSR Oficial State Standard GOST 121.0284, Moscow, 1984 (in Pus sin) [17] Proposat for @ Council Directive onthe Imunimom heat and ate raciee ‘ments regarding the exsosure of work fers the sk. arising fom physical ‘gens, OJ No C-250, 329, 19.8.94 CCrtena 69: Mag: netic Hels, World Heath Organizaton, Geneva. 1987, 119) Electic and magnetic Hels. Florida Depanment of Enuronmertal Regula tan chapter 17-274. 1989. (20) Montour Beige. F.88-900 (20 Avr 1988)(a French) Hl Oninanea of Garman Federal Emis ‘Sion Contr! Act. 1096 [22] Technical standard fr electrical faci ties, Anile 112, Ministry of Intema tonal Trade and inde. span. 1073 (inJapanese} (23) Sanitary standards and reguiatons for protectng the population from the ects of an elene eld proguced by industraltrequency ac. overhead Wanemission ines, USSR Ministy of Heath, Moscow, 1984 (in Fussian} {24} Statement of inter policy on mag; note feds of major elecine vensms ‘Son facile, Stato of New York Pubic Sensee Conmason, September 1 [25] Management of the EMF issue / Ges- tion de 1 question des champs élec tmqves et maonetoues, CIGRE WiG36.06, “Electra No. 168, 120-137, 1996, [26] P. Baraton and 8. Hurzer, Magnet- fly inguoed curente mn the human body, IEC publleaton, 1995 127} 0. Botauscio and A. Cont. Magnet cally and elctrcaly induced cuents imuman Seay moves oy sur wecvo: magnetic elds, paper presente at the ISH Symposium, 1997 [28 Order of the Ministry of Heath, 23 December 1994 (in Pals) {29} Guidetnes for imting exposure tp ‘umewaryng electre, “magnetic, an tslncromagnatic alts (up 19 300 GH), Intemational Commission ou non-ion: ‘ang’ Radaton Protection, Heath Physics, 74, 494-522, 1998JWG 36.01/06 Electric fields associated with power-supply installations formed the focus for the early apprehensions ‘ABOUT POSSIDIE effects ot tell UF low-frequency fields. Because of this historical development, many of the early electric-ield standards were set specifically in the context of overhead power lines and do not relate to other field sources. They are theretore essentially emission rather than expo- sure standards and are listed in Table 5, There is one recent addition — the German Federal ordinance, which also applies to associated transformer and ‘switchgear installations and to the sup- plies for electric traction systems. This, Crinence requires existing. inctalla tions to comply by 2002, though some ‘exceptions seem possible. Levels are given for various areas of ‘applicability: general, at road cross- ings, in readily accessible or inhabited areas, and outside the right-of-way. ‘There are further qualfications in sev- eral cases, The right-of-way Is @ cor dor of defined width within which the fine vune. This concept, whioh uoually arises in a quasi-legal context, in con- rection with granting permission for the line and its subsequent construc tion and maintenance, is used in only some countries. Other restrictions, notably on the siting of buildings, are ‘leo sometimes imposed. In the former USSR, the area along the line where the field exceeds {TRVim i defined a @ sanitary protec tion zone and within this itis forbidden, for example, to site dwellings, public buildings or petrol stations, of 10 park vehicles. Several other countries. in ‘easter Europe have standards some- what similar to that in the former Czechoslovakia. A previous guideline of 8 kV/m in North Dakota has lapsed. oe ‘TABLE 5, Spectied Levels for Eletic Fields trom Overhead Power Lines — KVim (ms). General] Road | Accessipie | cage of [siaws | baste crossings | or inhabited | rightot-way USA Flora [19] | 10,8" 2 o | ap Mionesota 8 L | oH Montana 7 1 o | PH Now Jersey 3 6 |e Now Yor ne | one ye tie (Oregon ° o | P Belgium 20) 0 7 5 of # Ceochosiovanie(o]] 15 | 10 ; s | eH Germany (21), 8 o}¢ ‘Japan 22) 2 oO] P USSR (23) 2o.15¢| 10 st o | PH TABLE 6. Specti Levels fr Magnetic Fels trom Overnead Power Lines — mT (ms) Edgeot | Accessibieor | Status | Basis rightotway | inhabited aras USA Florida (19) 0.02, 0.015" ‘Now Yor 28) ‘02 ro °° Germany (21) on ° ‘eaatonoinaiced Get aes Suicelnee tesmmendaton Heath concer posse ects Liter sscteabon by auton sgpromg ine constucton ‘rate nae rpaaon or eee en wi pa eee Preston Spare aschargs ot mging cere ‘Sanda, smotmes wi gs force 40 KY ard 290 4V Ings especvey fev ape tndevapecieey «formar US8A reguaton . *naveady-acceseble and uninabaes ares respecivey hates ad balun areas repecively "ie ensang ord teen erento rere ean (0m 03a 5 Soar ere no nak o danger o persons tom elcosate naucton eft: dees rot app 10 ieatone where pecans aera present suche pad tls, es ans woods ¢ & 8 8 ‘There are fewer standards specifically | only to new lines and have set field for power-ine ‘magnetic fields (see | values comparable to those encoun- | Table 6). The two in the USA apply | tered for existing ines.