Follow-up message from a "frisky dog"

Wed Aug 7 02:30:07 EDT 1996

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.

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 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 
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.

The new rules will NOT force most amateurs to modify their
stations.  The FCC's own measurements of RF fields at 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
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.

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.

>From donovanf at sgate.com (Frank Donovan)  Wed Aug  7 18:52:40 1996
From: donovanf at sgate.com (Frank Donovan) (Frank Donovan)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: KC1SJ's Criticism of the W1AW/3 IARU Operation
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960807133817.9209A-100000 at jekyll.sgate.com>

Jim,

I see you have now revealed your identity...

In an anonymous message to the Contest Reflector last month, you made a
thinly veiled criticism of the W1AW/3 IARU operation this year.  No other
such criticisms were forthcoming on the reflector by any of the other
participants in the IARU contest.

Could you share the basis of your criticism with me, the other members of
the W1AW/3 team and your peers on the Contest Reflector?  I hope you agree
that anyone willing to place anonymous criticism on the reflector should
also be prepared to defend it publicly on the reflector.

Please also describe some of your significant achievements as a contester
so that we might better understand the validity of your criticism.

73

Frank
W3LPL
donovanf at sgate.com

>From merchant at silcom.com (Stephen Merchant)  Wed Aug  7 20:36:34 1996
From: merchant at silcom.com (Stephen Merchant) (Stephen Merchant)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 12:36:34 -0700
Subject: NAQP Rules in QST...
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960807123643.347fe5da at silcom.com>

N1PBT  wrote:
>
>>Did anyone else notice that QST had the NAQP exchange listed as signal
>>report and QTH rather than name and QTH?

The rules got messed up everywhere this time around.  They're incorrect in
both QST and CQ magazines.  <My incorrect statement of operating hours last
week came from reading the CQ version instead of engaging my brain.>

Correct rules are available in the NCJ and on the NCJ homepage at
http://www.waterw.com/~ncj/na_qso.html.

Also you can request an e-mail version from w9nq at ccis.com or
merchant at silcom.com.

See everyone in the Internet Sprint this weekend <shameless plug (tm).>

73, Steve W6EMS
merchant at silcom.com

>From aa8u at voyager.net (AA8U)  Wed Aug  7 20:36:40 1996
From: aa8u at voyager.net (AA8U) (AA8U)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:36:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RF Exposure! Who will enforce it?
Message-ID: <199608071936.PAA12629 at vixa.voyager.net>

>Geez! The FCC can hardly enforce the rules they have now. How are they going 
>to enforce this new pile of bull paper?
>
>73, K8Joe"Palooka"
>
Hi Joe,

I suspect the enforcement will be a direct result of lawyer involvement. I
don't fear the FCC as much as my neighbor's attorney......Even if I am in
compliance, proving it could be expensive, especially if they don't like the
answer they get. 

I am going to wait to see what happens. May be a way to make some extra cash
with the spectrum analyzer and calibrated dipole kit! 

73,
Bruce
AA8U  ZK1AAU
aa8u at voyager.net