[TowerTalk] RF safety regulations

[Tom Frenaye]

At the risk of prolonging the debate about the FCC's RF safety regulations 
requiring you to do calculations to make sure your station operates within 
the safety limits they've defined, there were some comments made by several 
people that need to be corrected.

"Thanks ARRL" was one comment, suggesting that the ARRL is to "blame" for 
the present rules.   While it may be fun to kick sand at the ARRL from time 
to time (and we've all done it), it's much more effective to do it when 
you've got your facts straight and when you do it in an effective way.   In 
this case those comments were not accurate - and a few people were engaging 
in the "time honored" tradition of shooting the messenger.

The FCC's present RF safety regulations were based on revised standards 
created by the IEEE in 1991.   FCC docket 93-142 (in 1993) was the first 
step in reviewing the new standards.   It's fun to "blame" politicians of 
any political party for things, but this wasn't a Democratic or Republican 
party issue.   For the most part, Congress doesn't understand technical 
issues like this and it's probably very good that they don't try to.   A 
fairly complete report of the history of the FCC RF safety rules changes 
was printed in January 1997 QST and is also published on the ARRL web site at:

	 http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/exposure_regs.html

In ARRL's comments to the FCC on this issue we asked that Amateur Radio be 
exempted from the regulations.   By the way, the FCC RF safety rules cover 
all radio services, not just Amateur Radio.   A couple of the reasons we 
asked for an exemption were that the characteristics of Amateur Radio on 
the air operating were that it has a low duty cycle, and that because of 
the technical nature of Amateur Radio, we had the technical training to 
understand RF safety issues.   The FCC chose not to exempt us but did 
reduce the limits, and also extended the deadline for 
implementation.    What would have happened without ARRL involvement?

In the end we have some fairly simple ways to calculate worst case 
scenarios, and for the most part 95% or more of us always operate in ways 
that present no problems under the limits the FCC has established.   Yes, 
we do have to do the calculations, and there are additional questions on 
Amateur Radio exams regarding RF safety.   Even more, as K1VR noted, we now 
have a very clear way to deal with worrisome neighbors or town zoning 
boards - we can present the calculations for proposed (or existing) 
antennas and say to them that they are in accordance with all federal rules 
on RF safety.   You can get the necessary information for free on the ARRL 
web site (or buy an even more complete book with extensive 
information).    What would have happened without ARRL involvement?

So back to the message that started this discussion (and RF safety is a 
really good topic for this reflector, though the bickering, personal 
attacks and incorrect information isn't helpful).  The FCC's deadline 
requiring all of us (in the USA) to perform those RF safety calculations 
was September 1st.   This isn't a new issue, the present FCC RF safety 
rules and this deadline have been in place for several years.   The ARRL 
has actively participated in filing comments with the FCC as opportunities 
were presented.   I think it's a good thing that ARRL got the word out (in 
50,000+ copies of the ARRL Letter e-mailed this week, along with messages 
posted to reflectors).   It isn't the FCC that is telling you about the 
deadline, but they did establish the rules.   What would have happened 
without ARRL involvement?

Hope I've made a couple of useful points.   Since more than 90% of the 
people on this reflector are ARRL members (see below), I couldn't let some 
incorrect information about the ARRL go by when we've done what I think are 
the right things on this issue all along.
					73 -- Tom

Note: The last 62 messages posted on this reflector were from 38 different 
people (two non-USA).  Of the 36 from the USA, 33 are current ARRL members 
(92%), two are previous members and one has never been a member.   Of the 
33 who are ARRL members, seven are Life Members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org   ARRL New England Division 
Director  http://www.arrl.org/
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444


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