A necessary response

[WOVERBECK at ccvax.fullerton.edu]

NT5C at easy.com wrote:

>I hope you're well satisfied with the genie you have let out of the bottle.
>Too bad you couldn't swallow your pride, and let ARRL deal with the FCC.

This assumes a sequence of events that is the opposite of what 
really happened.  The former ARRL Bio-Effects Commitee and I 
as an individual filed formal comments with the FCC concerning 
the RF safety issue *first*.  The firing and mass resignation
(which I don't intend to discuss here or anywhere else--that's
ancient history) occurred *later*.  We based our comments on
the best available medical evidence and urged the FCC to
follow what we believed to be the right course of action on 
this (most members of that committee were medical doctors 
with a professional interest in RF safety as a health issue).

As for me letting the genie out of the bottle, that assumes 
I have more influence at the FCC than any one individual 
could have.  By 1993 it was clear that the genie was going 
to get out of the bottle.  What I did was to recognize the 
inevitable and suggest ways the FCC could apply its RF safety 
rules without requiring heavy-handed enforcement or costly 
environmental reviews and field measurements in the amateur
radio service.

One of the ironies in this is that when I was on the legal
staff of the National Association of Broadcasters I worked on
the broadcast industry's response to an earlier FCC rulemaking
proposal on RF safety.  One of our main goals then was to get 
uniform federal standards--not widely varying legal require-
ments imposed on us on a piecemeal basis by various local and 
state governments.  In the long run, I think amateur radio
will be better off with uniform, scientifically based federal
standards, too.

73,


Wayne Overbeck, N6NB

>From jholly at hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback)  Wed Aug  7 21:50:01 1996
From: jholly at hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback) (Jim Hollenback)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:50:01 -0700
Subject: RF Exposure! Who will enforce it?
References: <199608071936.PAA12629 at vixa.voyager.net>
Message-ID: <9608071350.ZM11583 at hpwsmjh1.cup.hp.com>

On Aug 7,  3:36pm, AA8U wrote:
> Subject: Re: RF Exposure! Who will enforce it?
>
> >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!
>

That is, of course, if you give the wrong answer. You do run 50 watts, no?
Then you are in compliance. Now the fancy lawyer has to prove you run more
than 50 watts, probably by making the expensive measurements. And if they
don't turn out right, they don't have a case.

73, Jim, WA6SDM
jholly at cup.hp.com

>From slazar19 at sgi.net (Spike Lazar)  Wed Aug  7 22:16:50 1996
From: slazar19 at sgi.net (Spike Lazar) (Spike Lazar)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: "peers" is that a fruit?
Message-ID: <199608072116.RAA09635 at orion.bv.sgi.net>


>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?

****************************snip from W3LPL******************************

Dear Frank,

Your are absolutely correct, the "peers" have taken over the reflector. I
yearn to read any posting from any contester. (Skoch.aol where are you when
we need you?)

By the way, does anyone know the ARRL's snail mail address, or can I run
more than 100 watts to my butternut mini quad without melting the insulators?
and finally can I use anchovie paste to keep my paddle from fish tailing
and if I can will this enhance my ability to be a tailender?

Sincerely yours,
dr. Bafoofnik 

p.s., Hi All,  Look for me in the Hoboken Qso Party!


>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Wed Aug  7 12:03:11 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 04:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: More info: RF Safety..
Message-ID: <199608071103.EAA00505 at desiree.teleport.com>

>Also - any legal beagles have any idea what liability we have if
>our next door neighbor develops cancer, or if his son has a low
>sperm count? Are we going to be at that kind of risk?
>de KL7HF

What if their existing cancer suddenly disappears after the CQ WW?  Can we
bill them for implementing a cure?

Seriously now, who is going to check to see if any of us comply with any of
these RF exposure rules?  The FCC can't even issue vanity call signs without
major screwups.  They certainly can't seem to do much about all the crap
that goes on on the two meter repeaters across the country.  Where are they
going to get the manpower to check your field strength?

Stan  w7ni at teleport.com


>From DKMC at chevron.com (McCarty, DK 'Dav)  Wed Aug  7 22:30:14 1996
From: DKMC at chevron.com (McCarty, DK 'Dav) (McCarty, DK 'Dav)
Date: 07 Aug 1996 14:30:14 PDT
Subject: RFE
Message-ID: <CPLAN065.DKMC.863030140096220FCPLAN065 at ION.CHEVRON.COM>


From: McCarty, DK 'David'
To:  OPEN ADDRESSING SERVI-OPENADDR
Subject:  RFE
Date: 1996-08-07 16:18
Priority:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Would someone knowledgeable please explain the effects of RF exposure which
the FCC/EPA are trying to avoid?  Explain the result of exposure just beyond
the thresholds which have been set.

I'm not able to surf the internet just yet, and I'm not confident I would
understand what I'd be reading if I did download all this FCC/EPA study
stuff.

In our litigious society, I am wondering just what my neighbors might decide
to claim against me and my elevated GP's on the rooftop.

It seems to me that there are at least a few reasons for the way so many of
us are taking this as such a threat:

1.  It is unknown territory for most of us.  Stronger E-fields have always
been the GOAL not the enemy of the contester, hi.

2.  It's another great lever for neighbors and neighborhoods to use against
us and our antennas.  This seems to be another nail in the coffin for HF
enthusiasts who live anywhere near anybody else.

3.  It's not just an aggravation to a neighbor caused by his appliances
responding poorly to legal RF, it is our RF making his KIDS SICK!  We can
all imagine the kind of nightmares this may bring, even when in compliance,
even with no radio connected to the antenna!

Maybe we can all calm down and cheer up once we study the subject.
 Meanwhile, on with those antenna projects!  November is coming on fast!

Dave K5GN
dkmc at chevron.com


>From hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver)  Wed Aug  7 23:22:00 1996
From: hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RF Exposure
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960807143125.15003B-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>


While I'm not up on the whole debacle with the League's advisory group,
the issue of the application of RF limits to amateur radio and other
groups not previously covered has been building for some time.  At least
the FCC got some real data to work with...would you have preferred
arbitrary standards?  Maybe something suggested by the manufacturer's
associations?

I don't think it's an issue the ARRL can "stall" and exemption sounds
unlikely.  As we have seen with some of the numbers posted here in the
past few days, these standards are not terribly limiting.  As an engineer
who must regularly evaluate compliance performance, there would seem to be
a great amount of latitude to the limits with respect to duty cycle,
modulation, etc.  The ARRL should be working to include all of the
ameliorating effects into their soon-to-be-published exposure guidelines. 

As the number of low-power, consumer wireless services continues to grow,
the Amateur Service had better be prepared to deal with a whole new group
of interference and exposure issues.  It is not enough to wish for an
exemption or that manufacturers will suddenly produce equipment designed
with a real-life RF environment in mind.  If fair and equitable standards
can be established, they may (in the long run) work to our benefit in
establishing that we are NOT a threat or hazard.

This is not to say that exposure standards are necessarily a great
thing...we are under enough pressure from technological know-nothings with
housefuls of electronic crap without a load of compliance requirements
added to the stew.  The points about hostile attorneys (just as equally
ignorant of physics as their clientele) are certainly to be taken
seriously.  As private individuals, we have only limited resources with
which to protect our avocation from abusive attacks.

It is getting to the point where I feel that we are going to have to ask
the question of the FCC, "Do you want to have a viable Amateur Service, or
not?"  If the answer is yes, then there has to be some set of legal
mechanics established that will 

(a) recognize the physical requirements for antennas and transmitters,

(b) make accomodations for the financial and technical limits of private
individuals in the arena of compliance to standards, and 

(c) provide some preemptive legal relief from noxious and arbitrary zoning
restrictions and covenants.

Without these three fundamentals, I don't see how the Amateur Service can
survive in its present form, especially at MF, HF, and low-VHF
frequencies. 

This reminds me very much of the first few chapters of "200 Meters and
Down" in which the amateurs very narrowly avoid being legislated away to
appease military and commercial interests.  Interests they later served
very well.  Without an industry champion, such as the Marconi Company was
for amateurs after WWI, our long-term viability appears to be tied to the
success of the ARRL in establishing a regulatory and legal climate in
which the amateur can exist without extreme expense or hardship.  I wish
them well.

73, Ward N0AX


>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills)  Wed Aug  7 23:31:01 1996
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:31:01 -0500
Subject: More info: RF Safety..

	>The FCC can't even issue vanity call signs without
	>major screwups.  They certainly can't seem to do much about 
        >all the crap that goes on on the two meter repeaters across 
        >the country.  Where are they going to get the manpower to 
        >check your field strength?

I guess the simple answer is that if your neighbors cared about vanity 
calls and the other stuff, it would have been fixed by now.  Your 
neighbors *will* care about RF limits, and we all have about 300 non-ham 
neighbors for every ham one.  It only takes one ham to be kicked off the 
air because of exceeding RF field limits for it to become the favorite 
way of getting those nasty towers next door taken down.

One wonders why this sort of stuff is imposed on us at a time when the 
Republican majority is weakening all our other protections - air and water 
quality, land development and so on.   Oh well.

Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu


>From t.morrison at liant.com (Tom Morrison)  Wed Aug  7 18:34:00 1996
From: t.morrison at liant.com (Tom Morrison) (Tom Morrison)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:34:00
Subject: RF Exposure Rules - N6NB's Comments
Message-ID: <9608072238.AA02731 at rmc.liant.com>

John Warren wrote:
>Wayne Overbeck N6NB wrote:

>    >With the LM-470 fully extended, the readings on the FCC's
>   >high-priced instrumentation were miniscule!

>And therein lies the problem Wayne. We don't all have access to HIGH-PRICED
>instrumentation to demonstrate our compliance when our neighbors (and their
>HIGH-PRICED attorneys) discover your new rules, and use them to batter us
>over the head. It's the "IRS" problem - They can just CLAIM we're guilty,
>then we have to PROVE we're innocent!
[snip]

Indeed, and in John's case, the neighbors will be those that have moved into his
"force field" in what used to be countryside, despite ample evidence of radio
activity.

Where is the grandfathering typical in situations like this?  John, to extend
the example, might have purchased another 150' swath of then unimproved land
around his property had these new rules been in force, but that option is now
not available.  Last time I looked, John's house was not mounted on wheels; he
can't just drive to a more isolated spot.

And all this, folks, without a single shred of evidence of damage, beyond
atypical or contrived examples.  But somehow 3 watt 900 MHz brain heaters are
exempted.

Don't drain any "wetlands", Wayne.  Despite all your excellent work in years
gone by, I think you may have developed a watchdog group.

73, Tom K5TM

PS to NT5C:  Part of the problem, however, is that the attorneys appear to cost
the neighbor N O T H I N G.  Don't blame it all on Wayne.



Tom Morrison, T.Morrison at liant.com
Liant Software Corporation
512-719-7019  FAX:512-719-7070  WWW: http://www.liant.com/



>From ki4hn at nando.net (Jim Stevens)  Wed Aug  7 22:45:28 1996
From: ki4hn at nando.net (Jim Stevens) (Jim Stevens)
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 17:45:28 -0400
Subject: More Vanity Call Info
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960807214528.0068a8ac at mailhost.nando.net>

I've updated my Vanity Call info to attempt to show all
Contesters that have gotten Vanity Calls.  Check out my
page for the data.

Tree, check it out to see some free advertising.

73, Jim, KI4HN
email -- ki4hn at nando.net
WWW   -- http://www.webbuild.com/~ki4hn  -> vanity call info


>From n6ig at netcom.com (Jim Pratt)  Wed Aug  7 23:41:10 1996
From: n6ig at netcom.com (Jim Pratt) (Jim Pratt)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: More info: RF Safety..
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9608071508.A10015-0100000 at netcom6>

On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Stan Griffiths wrote:

> Seriously now, who is going to check to see if any of us comply with any of
> these RF exposure rules?  The FCC can't even issue vanity call signs without
> major screwups.  They certainly can't seem to do much about all the crap
> that goes on on the two meter repeaters across the country.  Where are they
> going to get the manpower to check your field strength?
> 

They're not...YOU ARE!  As has been stated, it will be up to you to prove 
that you are not at fault when the neighbor's attorney knocks at your 
door.  The FCC has just provided the ammunition for the attorneys and the 
angry neighbors to utilize.


> Stan  w7ni at teleport.com
> 
> 

>From softcom at voyager.net (Joseph S. Holstein)  Thu Aug  8 14:44:28 1996
From: softcom at voyager.net (Joseph S. Holstein) (Joseph S. Holstein)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 06:44:28 -0700
Subject: Email database
References: <XFMail.960722172041.foggie at dtx.net>
Message-ID: <3209EF3C.73AF at voyager.net>

Are you doing the database of contesters ? If so you may add me; do
you want additional information ?

73 joe, n8ea




foggie wrote:
> 
> hey all;
> I am trying to put together a searchable database of contesters That will
> (hopefully) be incorporated into a web page that I am putting together.
> Additionally it will be using the MSQL database under linux, so it will
> (should?) be searchable under that for linux users. At any rate if you all
> could send me your address, and any other pertinent details (remarks) I will
> put this together.
> 
> Now if someone would let me port a good contest logger to Linux I'd be happy.
> :) (hint hint tree)
> 
> 73,
> Al - kk5zx