In rec.radio.amateur.policy, w2ilp@juno.COM (Robert I. Wexelbaum)
wrote:
>I just received a bulletin from the ARRL. (ARRL Bullrtin 49)
> It says that the FCC is changing the RF exposure guidelines that
>were established a year ago. The revised thresholds are:
> 500 Watts for 160 to 40 meters
> 425 Watts for 30 Meters (max. permissible power is 200 Watts)
> 225 Watts for 20 Meters
> 125 Watts for 17 Meters
> 100 watts for 15 Meters
> 75 Watts on 12 Meters
> 50 Watts on all VHF bands
> 70 Watts on 70 cm
> 150 Watts on 33 cm
> 200 Watts on 23 cm
> 250 Watts on 13 cm and above
> The change involves the HF bands (except 10 Meters) where the
>threshold was formerly 50 Watts. This should make it much easier for HF
>operators to comply without making delicate measurements.
> An FCC announcement of the change is the Officew of Engineering
>and Technology (OET) Bullitin 65. The FCC is supposed to release
>Suppliment B which will make the change official.
> The revised regulations are said to exclude most mobile stations
>from having to comply.
> The limits for 10 Meters and for VHF (2 Meters) are not being
>changed. These are bands that are commonly used for mobile operation
>Two meters is a very important ham band because of the use by all hams
>(including No Code Techs) and the use of repeaters and packet stations.
>The current limit restrictions are the most serious on two meters, where
>the use of HTs is most common. The IEEE/ANSI graph shows VHF radiation
>as being more dangerous than UHF.
> The ARRL has helped hams by partioning the FCC to provide the
>above scale of power levels. This means that stations operating below
>these levels need not be concerned with RF radiation evaluation. We can
>see a pattern to the UHF and above frequencies, where commercial
>interests seek high levels for commercial RF equipment.
> Hams should keep up with the guide lines. We should also know
>what tests are being made to determine just what, why, and how RF safety
>precautions should be taken. Lots of questions remain as to what is
>actually safe and what may be politically safe at this time. The tests
>that have been run are being challenged and I understand that testing
>continues.
> I understand that the previous "scare", which involved possible
>safety hazards from 60 Hz power line radiation has died down. I don't
>believe that any testing is continuing in the area of power line
>radiation.
> The hazard issue is complex. The thermal effects are not all
>that must be considered. Antenna variations make actual field strength
>densities hard to predict, with best evaluations possible at microwave
>frequencies.
> The RF equipment manufacturers may be where the cigarette
>manufacturers were in the 50s, or maybe it is all "Henny Penny - The sky
>is falling".
> Everybody is cautious because the future is unknown and it is
>difficult to evaluate hazards that might involve genetic damage or
>biological effects.
> Testing and RF restrictions of other nations are of interest and
>anyone who has any current information about what is happening should
>post it here.
> Keep thinking,
> Bob Wex w2ilp
>---------------------------------------------------------
Linda and Bill Sohl -- Budd Lake, NJ -- billsohl@planet.net
_______________________________________________________
The Ham-Law Mailing List. This list is for discussion and does not
purport to give legal advice.
Submissions: ham-law@altlaw.com
Subscribe and unsubscribe: listserver@altlaw.com
Use "(un)subscribe ham-law" on a new line in the text.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
|