Personal Protection Monitor
Comparison Chart
Datasheet for the Nardalert S3 Personal Monitor
RSI's review of the FieldSense vs. Radman
If a worker going to an antenna site is wearing an appropriate frequency detecting RF Personal Protection Monitor, then with proper training they could be performing a limited hazard assessment each time they visit the site. Example: A technician goes to a site 6 times and the monitor doesn't sound an alarm in a certain area, but on the 7th visit the monitor sounds an alarm. The technician would know there was a problem. What is done after that point would depend on the technicians training and company policy.
Even units with limited frequency ranges can be very effective in alerting the user of potential RF sources. If those sources fall within the monitor's frequency range (i.e. a stand-alone cell phone site at 900 MHz using a PPM with a frequency range of 50 MHz to 2 GHz.) then with appropriate training the limited range PPM would be appropriate.
From the OSHA view point, a hazard assessment must be performed to determine the proper Personal Protection Equipment (PPE). (29 CFR 1910.132)
At an antenna site this hazard assessment would involve everything at the site, such as RF from all contributors, toxic plants, chemicals, falling objects and so on.
For RF exposure personal monitors, Frequencies would need to be known for all transmitters contributing to the ambient RF at the site even though they may not be those of the company doing the work. In this way the worker could chose the appropriate PPE for the site. A Personal Protection Monitor with an upper limit of 2.5 GHz would not be appropriate at a site where there was 8 GHz microwave transmitters present. From a practical sense this would be like sending a worker into an oxygen deficient atmosphere with a dust mask.