## 3 Results and Discussion  
The measured electric fields were then assessed for compliance with the occupational and general public reference levels of the ICNIRP guidelines [1] and the ARPANSA standards [4]. Overall, the average electric field levels for various marine vessel's transmitters were in the range of 0.55-7.99 V/m (AM) and 0.47-3.70 V/m (GM). These fields were below the ICNIRP guidelines, 28 V/m [1], and the ARPANSA limits, 27.4 V/m [4], for maximum general public exposure. Figures 2-4 show the levels of the electric fields from the marine ship transmitters using box plots with a median and interquartile range. The T-bars (whiskers) were extended to 1.5-times the height of the box (IQR). A \"+\" symbol depicts a value more than three IQRs from the end of the box (the extreme outlier). A few points with high electric field strengths that exceeded the ICNIRP and the ARPANSA limits for the general public were observed on the bridge roof, as in Figure 2; nevertheless, the occupational limits were respected everywhere. Thus, this complies with the occupational and general public reference levels of the ICNIRP guidelines and the ARPANSA standards. Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for the electric field measurements of the different levels of the ship. The mean EF levels were significantly (6.321 V/m) higher on the bridge roof compared to the other levels of the ship. This is obvious as all of the transmitters were mounted at Location Nos. 9-12, and this corresponds to Figure 2. The 75 th percentile of the EF measurements was also high (9.377 V/m) on the bridge roof level, and the percentage of measurements above 27.4 V/m were slightly high (3.41%) at this level. The electric field levels were significantly lower in the upper deck level compared to the bridge deck level. Despite that, the general public has no access to the bridge roof at Location Nos. 9-12; therefore, the bridge roof data were assessed for compliance with the occupational reference levels (61 V/m), while upper deck and bridge deck data were assessed by the general public reference levels (28 V/m). All of the measured electric field data were compared to the lowest limit of the respective reference levels, as indicated in Table 4.  
Figure 2: Electric field level measurement of the bridge deck, upper deck and bridge roof using box plots with a median and interquartile range. The T-bars (whiskers) were extended to 1.5-times the height of the box (inter quartile range, IQR). A “+” symbol depicts a value more than three IQRs from the end of the box (the extreme outlier). The ICNIRP and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) limits for the general public were exceeded on the bridge roof; nevertheless, the occupational limits were respected everywhere. above 27.4 V/m was also slightly high (4.54%). The electric field levels were also significantly higher in Location Nos. 9-12 compared to the others. This is obvious, as all of the transmitters were mounted on the bridge roof. Figure 3 shows the electric field variation based on the locations that are described in Table 2 and the values obtained from Table 6.  
Table 7 shows the electric field levels of various scenarios that are described in Table 3. The mean EF levels were significantly (6.734 V/m) high in Scenario I, when the radar X-band, radar S-band, satellite communication (Sat-Com C), AIS navigation and VHF fixed (IC-M505) were switched on. The 75 th percentile of the EF measurements was also high (12.352 V/m) in Scenario J, where the radar X-band, radar S-band, satellite communication (Sat-Com C), AIS navigation and VHF fixed (Sailor 6006) were switched on. The percentage of measurements above 27.4 V/m was slightly higher (8.33%) than in Scenario I. The electric field levels were also significantly higher in Scenarios H-K compared to the others.