RF Exposure Rules - N6NB's Comments

[Jerry Fray]

Douglas L. Klein wrote:
> 
> 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!
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > John, NT5C.
> 
> Hey, I resemble that remark about the IRS.
> 
> Doug, WD8AUB (IRS Internal Revenue Agent)
> 
> P.S.  There is a bunch of negative press about the IRS, especially
> during the crunch of an election year, and the budget and deficit
> crisis.
> 
> If only people (USA anyway) could look at IRS as a necessary tool to
> ensure that everyone pays only their fair share of taxes.  And that your
> neighbor or whoever - lacking your good conscience - pays none, making
> Congress enact higher taxes on you to make up for it.
> 
> Sorry for the bandwidth.  Couldnt help putting in my 2 cents worth.


You've GOT to be kidding right?????????????

38 percentile and rising! :-(

Jerry

>From hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver)  Thu Aug  8 07:13:46 1996
From: hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 23:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Follow-up message from a "frisky dog"
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960807220938.16137C-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>

On Wed, 7 Aug 1996 WOVERBECK at ccvax.fullerton.edu wrote:

> 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.

No, this is not so.  The FCC is making a rule.  It does not matter a whit
what the FCC is or is not "really" asking.  The rule has the force of law,
with all of the interpretive and argumentative madness that is prevalent
in the courts today.  Is the EPA "just really asking" the chemical
industry to learn about chemical exposure and "adhere to some basic safety
principles"?  I don't believe that the chemical industry will agree with
that premise at all. 

Completely overlooked, apparently, is the difference between chronic and
intermittent exposure.  Positing exposure limits for nearly-continuous
exposure to 800-900MHz energy from a cellular transmitter or broadcast
transmitter is the correct thing to do.  Putting amateurs in the same
basket, when their operation is highly intermittent and with a
substantially lower duty cycle, is not correct.  Perhaps this can still be
worked into the guidelines in some way.

> There ARE biological effects of RF energy.

I must agree.  I have consulted for physicians developing instruments for
the study of biological effects at the cellular level.  There is
*something* going on and there are a lot of ideas floating around. 
However, I must come back to the chronic vs. intermittent exposure
discussion.  If intermittent exposure to high RF fields caused
irreversible and damaging effects, there would be very few old ham
operators, broadcast engineers, etc.  Chronic exposure to high field
levels is entirely different and it could very well be that even low field
strengths could have a significant effect over the long term.

While the new rules allow for compensation with respect to duty cycle and
modulation, over what period is the compensation to be made?  The duration
of the transmission, most likely.  If I transmit for an hour a day, what
happens during the remaining 23?  If the rules incorporate this sort of
compensation, please direct me to the appropriate reference.

> 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?

If lives are lost because ham radio operators have been hounded off the
air by over-reaching regulation and are thus unavailable in emergencies,
what then?

> 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.
> 

Again, I don't think these organizations have set the levels based on a
consideration of typical amateur operating practices.

> 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.

Who's talking about neighbors?  We're talking about local-level government
bodies that have shown an astounding lack of technical savvy, yet manage
to prevail in many regulatory struggles because they have the werewithal
to pursue the case far longer than individuals. 

> 
> 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.
> 

Are we in opposition, just because our own ox is being gored?  I'm
wrestling with this as I don't want to just "pooh-pooh" safety concerns
that may very well have some validity.  I see the hobby under undeserved
attack from interests that would willingly use any pretense, including
safety concerns, to prevail. 

73, Ward N0AX


>From hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver)  Thu Aug  8 07:18:27 1996
From: hwardsil at wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 23:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Lawyerphobia
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960807231447.16137D-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>


Broadcasters also have a lot of money and political clout, Wayne.  It is
also naive to think that local government is not looking to the Federal
agencies to set standards which they may then adopt into local ordinance.
Local government generally sees the benefits from broadcasting, both
financially and socially.  Do they see the same from amateurs?

I don't see a looming catastrophe, I see a slow strangulation of the
hobby.

73, Ward N0AX


>From k6sti at n2.net (Brian Beezley)  Thu Aug  8 11:44:58 1996
From: k6sti at n2.net (Brian Beezley) (Brian Beezley)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 03:44:58 -0700
Subject: Lawyerphobia
Message-ID: <199608081044.DAA05667 at ravel.n2.net>


N6NB:

>Nowhere do the new rules create a private cause of action
>(i.e., a right to sue) for exceeding the RF safety standards.
>In fact, only two months ago the ninth circuit U.S. Court of 
>Appeals ruled that the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction to 
>enforce its own rules.  The ninth circuit held that the courts 
>may not entertain lawsuits alleging violations of FCC rules.
>(see Wilson v. A.H. Belo Corp., 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 15328)
>If somebody sues alleging a violation of the new FCC rules,
>that lawsuit will be a prime candidate for an early dismis-
>sal.

K6STI:

Are you implying that a neighbor who believes that radiation from my contest
station is injuring his health has no legal recourse?


Brian Beezley, K6STI
k6sti at n2.net


>From rdidonna at tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna)  Thu Aug  8 13:32:36 1996
From: rdidonna at tacarlson.com (Rich DiDonna) (Rich DiDonna)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:32:36 -0400
Subject: Lawyerphobia
Message-ID: <01BB8504.8BF6EEC0 at Uche.tacarlson.com>

Even if one could not sue an amateur for violating a FCC rule, couldn't one
still sue an amateur for dammages linked to a viewed infraction of the law.

It would, in the minds of some, be similar to traffic accidents.  Like
the FCC's enforcement of its regulations, the police are the only ones who
may legally enforce traffic laws (private citizens may not sue you for 
speeding).  However, should an accident be caused by your perceived
violation of the law through speeding, then you are liable to be sued before
a civil court. . .

Seems that minor infractions of exposure rules might set some amateurs
to a LOT of trouble

Rich KI6ZH
----------
From: 	Brian Beezley[SMTP:k6sti at n2.net]
Sent: 	Thursday, August 08, 1996 8:18 AM
To: 	WOVERBECK at ccvax.fullerton.edu
Cc: 	cq-contest at tgv.com
Subject: 	Re: Lawyerphobia


N6NB:

>Nowhere do the new rules create a private cause of action
>(i.e., a right to sue) for exceeding the RF safety standards.
>In fact, only two months ago the ninth circuit U.S. Court of 
>Appeals ruled that the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction to 
>enforce its own rules.  The ninth circuit held that the courts 
>may not entertain lawsuits alleging violations of FCC rules.
>(see Wilson v. A.H. Belo Corp., 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 15328)
>If somebody sues alleging a violation of the new FCC rules,
>that lawsuit will be a prime candidate for an early dismis-
>sal.

K6STI:

Are you implying that a neighbor who believes that radiation from my contest
station is injuring his health has no legal recourse?


Brian Beezley, K6STI
k6sti at n2.net