[TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1

Maurizio Panicara i4jmy@iol.it
Sat, 2 Sep 2000 17:37:06 +0200

There are not scientific studies that could proof dangers or benefits by
strong RF fields, at least up to the microwave region.
On a real scientific prespective, evidence based studies do not issue any
accettable theory until an acceptable explaination to the evidence exist.
Medicine (imperfect science) accepts evidence and takes a point but this
point often change when new datas "proof" the previous statements were not
There exist laws referred to constant exposure (people) with no time limits
or to professionals that issue a relation between exposure and level as well
as is very possible that individual sensitivity (and harm) is largely
variable. (One of my friend, without anything else than himself, proved to
be much more sensitive than others beeing able to determinate if a 100 Mhz
10 W ERP carrier is on or not 10 WL away)
The law valid in the region where I live establishes that's not harmful a
constant field of 60 Vm (Volt/meter) below 3 MHz and 20 Vm up to 30 Mhz, but
then issues a single safety limit of 6 Vm at any frequency in correspondence
of residential areas.
Other laws are stricter an others less stringents with those limits but
sooner or later limits will converge.
The nature of amateur activity and the power involved make me convinced that
risks are probably minimal and we are not harmful to anyone (sometimes we
are to ourselves) but health is and remains something where is better not to
play with.
Incidentally, in the HF region and below, metal structures (i.e cars) or
concrete totally shield or at
least largely decrease exposure to field and field itself decreases
geometrically, but neighbours, often with a 2W 1GHz cell phone 3cm off their
brain are
rarelly prone to understand explainations and think the risk by hams has to
be eliminated since they don't lose anything with that.
In a situation where all is still so neboulous and someone has always to
find out a guilty to keep quiet a population that's not, reasonable rules
are probably at Hams advantage rather than against.

Mauri I4JMY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>; <ag0n@arrl.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1

> The only documented form of damage comes from heating. Even a
> kilowatt on 27 MHz concentrated in a small area, like a buttock or
> hand, has therapeutic effects rather than harmful effects.
> The FDA actually approves use of RF energy as therapy for burns,
> lesions like bedsores, and other soft-tissue injuries.
> One of the doctors I worked with was head of the national group of
> Physicians investigating the effects of EM fields on tissues, and
> was very clear in telling me the only potential danger is when RF
> fields are so intense they actually cause cell temperatures to rise.
> 73, Tom W8JI
> w8ji@contesting.com

FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com