## 3 Results  
### Descriptive Statistical Analysis  
Table 1 indicates that the variable EMF shows an average of 1.52 V/m and a standard deviation of 1.74 V/m, reflecting significant variability in exposure levels between locations. The EMF values range from a minimum of 0.00 V/m to a maximum of 39.92 V/m, suggesting that although most areas experience low EMF, some locations have much higher levels. This indicates that the majority of radiation levels are relatively low and well within  
the safe range of 28 to 61 V/m, as suggested by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Even the maximum recorded value of 39.9 V/m does not exceed the recommended maximum level. POP statistics show that on average, 174 people reside within a 10 km\({}^{2}\) area around the antenna, with a standard deviation of 144 people. The maximum number of people living in this area is 825. At first glance, an average of 17 people per km\({}^{2}\) around each antenna seems more than satisfactory. However, considering that Paris spans an area of 105.4 km\({}^{2}\), it is inevitable that the areas around each antenna would overlap. Therefore, we need to examine the distribution of the antennas on the map before reaching a final conclusion. V statistics indicate that the areas around the antennas are, on average, quite densely built-up, with a mean volume of 58.445 km\({}^{3}\) and a standard deviation of 32.177 km\({}^{3}\). The most densely built area has a volume of 306.729 km\({}^{3}\). H statistics show that the buildings around the antennas have an average height of 5.8 m, with a standard deviation of 3.2 m. The maximum height recorded in the building is 30.6 m. S statistics reveal that the total surface area built up around the antennas is, on average, 38.12 m\({}^{2}\), with a standard deviation of 26.47 m\({}^{2}\). The largest built-up surface area is 100 m\({}^{2}\). We can deduce that the areas studied are not heavily built up.  
Figure 4 is the bar chart, which illustrates the frequencies of different categories of SMOD. The \"Urban Centre\" category dominates the chart with a significantly higher count compared to the other categories.  
In Figure 5, we can observe two different aspects: first, the electromagnetic field strength distribution, and second, the distribution of electromagnetic field strength values at various points.  
Figure 6 offers a comprehensive visualization of the relationships between different variables in our dataset. It combines both histogram and scatter plots, providing a unique overview of the distributions and correlations of the dataset. The diagonal of the pair plot shows the histograms for each variable, which provides information on their distributions. The electromagnetic field (EMF) strength distribution is heavily skewed toward lower values, while the population (POP) shows a more spread-out distribution. The variable V (volume) displays a distribution concentrated around lower values but with a significant spread, indicating variability in the built-up volume around the antennas. The height (H) and surface (S) also show varied distributions, with some concentrations at lower values and notable spreads. Figure 6 illustrates the pairwise relationships between variables. There seems to be a strong positive correlation between V and H, suggesting that higher  
Figure 4: SMOD distribution.  
building volume values are associated with higher building heights. There appears to be no significant correlation between EMF and the other variables. Also, the EMF and POP plots suggest that population density alone does not directly predict EMF levels.  
Figure 5: EMF distribution.  
Figure 6: Scatterplot of the dataset variables.