RF Safety

[Steve Sawyers n0yvy]

Actually the RF levels specified are from the ANSI standard. The FCC had
steadfastly stayed out of the RF safety issue for many years. They only
issued their rules in response ot a directive from congress that was
part of the new PCS legislation that passed in early 1996. 

Congress was worried about the +2 Ghz phones frying constituants brains.
Congress gave the FCC 6 months to come up with the rules and they just
made it. Fortunately, the FCC have been able to show some reasonableness
on the dates of implementation.

This one started in Congress, not in the FCC. They are just doing what
their boss (Congress) told them to do. Maybe Congress's boss (the
voters) need to tell Congress what to do.

de n0yvy steve

Roderick M. Fitz-Randolph wrote:
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> >Wayne gave the following website to input station configurations with the
> >comparison against the FCC levels as the output.
> >
> >http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/rfsafety
> >
> >I checked my station parameters: maximum power level, antenna gain and
> >distance to various points  both on and off my property.  I satisfy the
> >FCC compliance levels. It was really very easy.
> >
> >Enjoy.
> >
> >vy 73
> >Elliott WA6TLA
> >
> <<SNIP>>
> =======================================================================
> 
> Elliott, I (and I believe some others may share my feelings) have grave
> misgivings about the FCC levels of RF that have been established for
> 1 January 1998..  It is my understanding that this was NOT based on a
> study utilizing real-life examples of empirically determined hazardous
> effects but rather on what might have the "potential" for hazard.  I
> perceive the moment in the not too distant future when the "Chicken
> Littles" of safety will continue to lower the levels until there is no
> practical way in which to maintain radio as amateur radio operators
> have for years past.... much the same way that 25 micrograms of lead
> per deciliter of blood was once considered acceptable; then it was
> lowered all the way to 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood;
> and I understand that there is a push on (if it hasn't already
> occurred) to lower it to 5 micrograms per deciliter even though there
> were no adverse effects on the human body when the acceptable level was
> at 25 micrograms.
> 
> Sometimes the efforts of bureaucracies to maintain themselves in
> business causes "acceptable" levels to be lowered... and lowered...
> and lowered.
> 
> Is the "presently acceptable" levels of rf simply the nose of the camel
> in the tent?
> 
> Something to consider.
> 
> I would like to hears some responsible responses.  Leave the flames in
> the fireplace.
> 
> 73, Rod
> 
> Roderick M. Fitz-Randolph
> w5hvv@aeneas.net
> 79 Highland Hills Cove,
> Jackson, TN  38305
> (901) 661-9278 (Phone - Between 10 AM and 9 PM)
> (901) 664-7539 (FAX - any time of day or night)
> 
> --
> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
> Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems:                 K7LXC@contesting.com
> Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & N4VJ / K4AAA


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 K7LXC@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & N4VJ / K4AAA