On Wed, 07 Aug 1996 01:30:07 -0800 (PST) WOVERBECK@ccvax.fullerton.edu
writes:
>
>Now that I have read some of the messages that were posted on the
>Contest Reflector, I would like to append a short note to the end
>of my earlier message concerning the FCC's new RF safety rules.
>
>
>...I'm sure none of us would defend amateur radio operations that
>expose unknowing people to RF fields exceeding the standards
>recommended by leading technical organizations such as IEEE,
>with or without an FCC rule.
Is the IEEE a medical organization?????
Is there any reputable medical organization saying anything about this???
What is the AMAs position????
>
>Why, then, is an FCC rule needed? It is needed because many
>amateurs have been unaware of the potential hazards of RF
>fields and would have remained so if this rule had not been
>adopted. All the FCC is really asking amateurs to do is learn
>about this and make certain that their own stations adhere to
>some basic principles of RF safety.
>
>Research into the health effects of athermal RF and low
>frequency fields has perhaps reached the point where research
>into the health effects of smoking was 32 years ago, when
This statement REALLY scares me, Comparing RF to smoking!
Are we to believe that RF exposure at Amatuer power levels
causes Cancer? Gee maybe all the TV stations with ERP levels in the multi
MEGAWATT region should go off the air too!
the
>first Surgeon General's report was released. While there are
>still many unanswered questions about RF safety, organizations
>such as the IEEE and the National Council for Radiation
>Protection and Measurement are not hooting at the moon in
>recommending standards for public and occupational exposure.
>There ARE biological effects of RF energy.
>
>Let's just say that when the health questions involved here
>are better understood, it turns out that RF fields exceeding
>the current standards pose health hazards for just a small part
>of the population. Wouldn't the FCC's new rules, which will
>pose only a minor inconvenience for most of us (while greatly
>increasing awareness of the operating practices that should be
>avoided), be justified even if they save only a few lives? And
Gee, maybe some Amateur manufacturers can start selling RF condoms!
>what if it turns out that the health hazards are more serious
>than we now realize? This is not just a matter of protecting
>amateurs from themselves; the FCC acted because some amateurs
>have in fact exposed their families and neighbors to RF fields
>that leading standard-setting organizations consider unsafe.
And they now have giant propellors growing out of their heads!
>
>The new rules will NOT force most amateurs to modify their
>stations. The FCC's own measurements of RF fields at
Most Amateurs are not CONTESTERS!
amateur
>radio stations demonstrated that most of us can easily
>comply with the rules. Also, as a former communications
>attorney I seriously question the suggestion that these
>rules will cause angry neighbors to file a bunch of lawsuits.
>No sane lawyer is going to take such a case on a contingent
Who said all lawyers are sane, all it takes is ONE to win, then all hell
will break loose! I wonder if Home insurance companies will drop us? or
raise our rates? Hmm any conspiracy theorists out there?
>fee, and darned few neighbors can afford most lawyers' hourly
>rates. Besides, our neighbors don't even know about this:
>it's been virtually ignored by the popular press.
Ignorance is bliss, They will find out when the FCC tells them. That Ham
is bothering your TV? Gee maybe they're exposing you to harmful RF
RADIATION! Why you and your childrens very health could be in danger!
>
>These are some of the considerations that led me (and other
>members of the former ARRL Bio-Effects Committee) to support
>the FCC's proposed rules in Docket 93-62.
>
I'm sorry but this does not look good at all! With friends
like this, who needs......
Submitted for your consideration, Bob NW6N
p.s. seen any ozone holes lately?
>From seay@alaska.net (Jan & Del Seay) Thu Aug 8 11:12:01 1996
From: seay@alaska.net (Jan & Del Seay) (Jan & Del Seay)
Subject: Follow-up message from a "frisky dog"
References: <01I7Z60KQT76001ONT@ccvax.fullerton.edu>
Message-ID: <3209BD71.566D@alaska.net>
WOVERBECK@ccvax.fullerton.edu wrote:
>
> Now that I have read some of the messages that were posted on the
> Contest Reflector, I would like to append a short note to the end
> of my earlier message concerning the FCC's new RF safety rules.
>
> ...I'm sure none of us would defend amateur radio operations that
> expose unknowing people to RF fields exceeding the standards
> recommended by leading technical organizations such as IEEE,
> with or without an FCC rule.
>
> Why, then, is an FCC rule needed? It is needed because many
> amateurs have been unaware of the potential hazards of RF
> fields and would have remained so if this rule had not been
> adopted. All the FCC is really asking amateurs to do is learn
> about this and make certain that their own stations adhere to
> some basic principles of RF safety.
>
Your comments are well taken, although I believe you may be a
tad overzealous.
First - there are no - zero - zip scientific studies that support
the maximum exposure levels adopted at this time. The comparison
to smoking is way out of line. We knew 150 years ago of the dangers
of smoking, 15 minutes into a cigarette and every kid was aware of
problems.
With rf radiation, there are a lot of old fogies like me who have spent
50 years with their head in a transmitter being bombarded with rf,
and with the exception of not being able to type, no known ill effects.
It is a real stretch to assume that hf, vhf, and uhf exposure at
such low levels will have detrimental health effects.
It would appear that proper limits are in fact needed. However, that
should be done with a bit more study and examination of the results.
This does nothing but put amateurs (and other service users) in
jeopardy of megadollar lawsuits.
I don't need it, thank you! de KL7HF
|