Value chain · CLM-0036
In plain terms
The 1980 American assessment said people living or working near the receiving site, outside its exclusion boundary, would generally be exposed to much less than 0.1 milliwatts per square centimetre, and that anyone entering the site for work could be exposed to up to 23, the level at the centre of the site, unless precautions were taken. It treated space workers as a separate case with much higher exposure.
The claim as recorded
The November 1980 DOE and EPA environmental assessment lists three basic exposure situations, two of them on the ground: a non-occupational case outside the exclusion boundary at generally much less than 0.1 mW/cm2, and an occupational case in which persons entering the rectenna site could be exposed to up to 23 mW/cm2, and perhaps higher if reflections are considered, unless suitable safety precautions are invoked; the third is space workers, who would be occupationally exposed to considerably higher power densities, of the order of W/cm2, if their space suits do not include adequate shielding.
Scope and limits
Historic evidence of how the design was assessed in 1980, never evidence of compliance now. The source states a conditional exposure, not a requirement: it says workers "could be exposed ... unless ... invoked". It does not mandate precautions, and this claim may not be read as the 1980 assessment imposing a control. The quotation is at PDF p8, printed 1-2. The power densities listed on that page are attributed there to USDOE and NASA (1978), so they are 1978 reference-system figures reported in 1980.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
Verbatim, SRC-086 p8: "(a) People may be nonoccupationally exposed for long periods to power densities generally much less than 0.1 mW/cm2 because they reside or work in population centers near a rectenna site but outside the exclusion boundary of the rectenna. (b) Persons entering the rectenna site for occupational reasons could be exposed to power densities of up to 23 mW/cm2 (and perhaps higher if reflections are considered) unless suitable safety precautions are invoked."
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
- Supersedes
- CLM-0021 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0036
CLM-0036, Energy Aperture, as of 1980-11.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-086
- CLM-0020The original 1978 design set the beam at 230 watts per square metre in the middle of the receiving site, about one twenty-third of that at...CLM-0024The American standard of the day allowed 100 watts per square metre averaged over six minutes. The US had no separate limit for the public...CLM-0153A 1980 US government environmental assessment argues, without a formal calculation or test, that an aeroplane's metal body would shield...CLM-1005The 1980 assessment explains where the 10 milliwatt limit came from: a heating threshold of 100 divided by a safety factor of ten. It also...CLM-1006In 1980, by the US assessment's figures, the Soviet limit for the general public was two thousand times lower than the American 10...CLM-1007The 1980 assessment worked out that a full American deployment would raise the microwave background everywhere in the country to about...CLM-1008The 1980 documents give the beam's strength at the satellite, on failure, and above and below the receiving panels. The summary and the...CLM-1009The 1980 programme tested bees because of pollination. Early results showed no effect at the beam's strength, and one preliminary report...More on the source page.