[TowerTalk]FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1
jmax@attglobal.net
jmax@attglobal.net
Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:31:40 -0700
The comments here on TowerTalk discussing the on-going
controversy between cell-phone use and cancer are
interesting, but they are also somewhat misleading.
Misleading, because ssome of those who read them here will
believe that the effects which led to the FCC's RF Safety
regulations are somehow connected to these controversial
cell-phone studies. But they aren't. The FCC standards
are based upon studies of other effects, studies that
were carried out well before the time of the cell-phone.
Another comment -
For those of you who believe that FCC regulations on RF
Safety are simply stupid, and who therefore refuse to
comply as a matter or principle, consider the following:
No matter what some of you may believe, the fact of the
matter is that the public as a whole has a *perception*
that RF is somehow dangerous and to be avoided. And the
old saw holds that perception is 99% of reality. I believe
that it's NOT in the best interests of amateur radio for
hams to give their neighbors and the general public the
idea that we don't give a damn about a matter that *they*
believe can impact their health.
It's really easy to comply. Why not just do it, and save
your arguments for the FCC!
73. Jim, W6CF
EUGENE SMAR wrote:
> TT:
> <The most recent news that I had heard of on this subject was that
there was
> some scientific evidence linking cellular phone use to certain types
of
> ephithelia cancer (I believe the study showed a significant
correlation
> between
> the side of the head where the cancer occured and which side of the
head
> the person held the phone against).>
>
> An article in a recent wireless industry trade mag (the mag is
at work
> and I'm not at the moment) states that the patients/subjects in the
study
> were asked the question about which side of their heads they held
their
> cellphones AFTER they had been diagnosed with brain cancer. The
implication
> is that the patients responded invariably with the answer the side
with the
> tumor.
>
> -Gene Smar AD3F
> -----Original Message-----
> From: W4EF@dellroy.com <W4EF@earthlink.net>
> To: TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; K3BU@aol.com
<K3BU@aol.com>
> Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1
>
> >
> >Yuri,
> >
> >The most recent news that I had heard of on this subject was that
there was
> >some scientific evidence linking cellular phone use to certain
types of
> >ephithelia cancer (I believe the study showed a significant
correlation
> between
> >the side of the head where the cancer occured and which side of the
head
> >the person held the phone against). I do not know whether or not
the study
> >proved causation. Studies of low frequency EM fields have indicated
that
> >unless you are in prolonged close "occupational" proximity to power
lines,
> there is
> >no evidence of increased risk for disease (e.g. its safe to live
next to
> powerlines).
> >All this should be put in proper perspective though. A well know
> environmental
> >pundit in California put it very well when he stated that you are
hundreds
> of time
> >more likely to die of cancer (from all know causes) or heart
disease than
> you are to
> >succumb to a disease originating from any of these very weak and
somewhat
> >dubious causal factors (e.g. the srict vegetarian who hasn't quite
smoking
> yet is
> >a good example of the thinking involved). People tend to worry
about
> insignificant
> >things that have a very weak effect (neighbor with ham radio
tower), and
> ignore
> >things that are very likely to kill them (poor fitness, diet, high
stress
> levels, lack
> >of proper preventive care, etc).
> >
> >As far as ozone depletion being an environmental myth, I think you
may be
> >suffering from somekind of ditto head political zealotry. Space
based
> millimeter
> >wave radiometers clearly show that upper atmospheric chlorine
"eats" O3.
> >Furthermore, it is known that HCFCs are a major source of upper
atmospheric
> chlorine.
> >What is in question, is whether or not the reductions in global use
of
> HCFCs will
> >have the desired effect (that is, an increase in ozone levels).
Similary,
> with global
> >warming the science clearly shows that atmospheric C02 levels have
been on
> the rise
> >for the last 100 years, and that this rise is due to industrial
activity.
> As I understand it,
> >this part is undisputed. The main and current unanswered question
is what
> will be the
> >overall effect of this CO2 rise on the earth's climate. Will it be
> cataclysmic, or it will it
> >"in the noise" compared with natural varations variations that are
beyond
> our control.
> >Science does not have a clear answer to this question yet. More
data is
> needed.
> >
> >The most dangerous thing I see out there is the emotional
reactionary
> thinking
> >that exists on both sides of these controversial issues. Ditto head
> zealouts who
> >think that all environmental policy is "hogwash" spawned by commy
pinkos
> >in black helicopters are just as dangerous as environmental wackos
who
> >think that anything that smacks of being pro-environment is good
public
> >policy. Charlatons disguised as new age healers are more than
happy to
> sell
> >you poison because Congress put them beyond the reach of the evil
pinkos
> >at the FDA. On the other hand, bozos in the California Air
Resources Board
> were
> >dumb enough to fall for the MTBE scam because it was sold as good
> environmental
> >policy. Nothing like more expensive gasoline that poisons drinking
water
> and does
> >nothing to clean up the air. When caught up in their political
enthusiasm,
> people
> >often forget that hucksters, hustlers, scam artists, and even the
well
> meaning but
> >misguided activist can appear clothed in garb of either political
extreme.
> >
> >Mike,
>
W4EF........................................................................
> .......................................
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <K3BU@aol.com>
> >To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 7:11 PM
> >Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1
> >
> >
> >>
> >> In a message dated 9/1/2000 7:57:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >> mcduffie@actcom.net writes:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > By the way, there is far more evidence that says rf damages
human
> >> > tissue, than there is that says it doesn't.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Where is it? Can you point to some valid studies besides
> >> "environmentablist's" press releases? Like there "may be" danger?
> >>
> >> You can wrap your head in 40m dipole and transmit kilowatt for
days, and
> >you
> >> will be OK. Again look at all those 90-year old farts, licensed
since no
> >> licenses were around, working around multi killowatt stations for
8 hrs a
> >day
> >> and fooling around with big amps at home, many of the alive and
QRV.
> (Just
> >> ask W8AH :-)
> >>
> >> >>Every time I see some newbie wanting to
> >> get on hf and stringing his dipole across the ceiling in the
house
> >> because he "can't" put up outside antennas, I am just that much
more
> >> disappointed in where our hobby has gone. Many of these people
are
> >> putting their ceiling dipoles right under someone else's floor,
possibly
> >> within inches of someone's children.<<
> >>
> >> Yea, because he can pass his dummied down extra license, and he
is not
> >> allowed to put up tower. What a way to feed the rebars in the
concrete
> >floor,
> >> only "light extra" can dream this up.
> >>
> >> It is amazing how people can get brainwashed by our "media". Few
> "reports"
> >> that there may be a danger, and bingo it becomes a "fact".
> >>
> >> If you want to live long, stop stuffing your body with sugars and
> >> carbohydrates, eat meat and protein, strengthen the immune system
and
> call
> >CQ
> >> 24 hours a day till your 100th birthday.
> >>
> >> It is the same hogwash as freon causes ozone holes, global
warming and we
> >> should be eating vegetarian. You can believe what you want, but
the facts
> >> speak for themselves, just the facts maaam!
> >>
> >> Yuri, K3BU
> >>
> >> --
> >> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> >> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> >> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> >> Problems: owner-towertalk@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
> >
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk@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