Amateur Radio RF exposure rules to be effective Jan. 1, 1998

The long-awaited FCC decision on RF Exposure rules for the amateur radio service were finally released in August. An excellent summary of the obligations the new rules places on individual hams is contained in October QST, pages 51 and 52. Two questions immediately will come to mind: when must individual hams be in compliance with the new regulations, and how must individual hams demonstrate such compliance. More details are provided in the QST article cited above, but in brief, here's the story.

When - The new regulations become effective Jan. 1, 1998; however, there will be a transition period for compliance by individuals, as follows.

1. New licensees after Jan. 1 1998 must be in compliance with the new regulations at the time for first licensing. The FCC is preparing a new version of Form 610, which will contain a statement to the effect that the new licensee understands and complies with the new regulations. That is, the applicant will certify compliance by the very act of signing off on the 610 application.

2. All those licensed prior to Jan. 1, 1998, will have to be in compliance with the new RF-Exposure regulations whenever a Form 610 is filed, such as for a license renewal, upgrade, or other modification. Because the same revised Form 610 as used by new license applications is used for such modifications, the act of signing off on the 610 will certify compliance.

3. All stations, new or old, must be in compliance with the new regulations no later than Sept. 1, 2000. This date must be met whether a Form 610 has been filed previously or not.

How - The full story of how each ham must determine compliance to the new regulations is too lengthy to present here; additional details may be found in the Oct. 1997 QST article. Briefly, each ham, with some exceptions, will need to perform a routine station evaluation to ensure that maximum permissible power levels, as described in the new FCC rules, are not exceeded. Those running at or below certain threshold power levels will be exempt from routine evaluations, although they will not be exempt from complying with the RF exposure levels prescribed by the regulations. The full list of the threshold power levels is given in the Table below. For example, from 160 through 40 meters routine evaluations need not be performed at output levels of 500 watts PEP or less, while at 2 meters the level that triggers an evaluation is 50 watts PEP.

Output PEP Thresholds for Routine Evaluation of Amateur Radio Stations

Band (Wavelength)     Transmitter
                      Power (Watts)
      160 m               500
       75 m               500
       80 m               500
       40 m               500
       30 m               425
       20 m               225
       17 m               125
       15 m               100
       12 m                75
       10 m                50
   6-1.23 m                50
      70 cm                70
      33 cm               150
      23 cm               200
      13 cm and up        250

RF Guidelines program is available on the Web

Ham radio: is it hazardous to your health?

This manuscript was the basis for a talk given at the RAC Convention, 1994.

Introduction:

Over the past 10 years the general public has become increasingly concerned about electromagnetic fields (EMF) and their possible effects on the human body. Numerous articles in the press have linked electric power lines and other electrical equipment such as cellular phones to cancer in particular.

After reviewing the available data, I conclude that, if EMF poses a health hazard for the ham radio hobbyist, the risk is relatively small. The effect on the typical ham radio operator is not likely to be a major problem. This is apparent when comparing EMF to the many well known, documented hazards that we face on a daily basis. However, EMF exposure does raise concerns; and further study together with "prudent avoidance," is advised. I will present a brief summary of what is currently known on this complex and rapidly expanding area of research. Then I will conclude with a rationale for appropriate, prudent behavior based on this knowledge.

Definitions:

To better understand the issues involved in EMF, we must first determine what aspects are relevant to the hobby of ham radio. EMF is usually divided into two categories, Ionizing and Non-Ionizing. Ionizing radiation involve frequencies from the ultraviolet spectrum and up. Examples include solar radiation, x-rays and radiation from nuclear explosions. The serious side-effects of ionizing radiation are well known and depend on frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure. This knowledge has led to specific public and occupational exposure standards (e.g. for x-ray technicians and employees of nuclear plants). Fortunately, your transmitter does not emit any ionizing radiation!

The second category of EMF, more relevant to amateur radio, involves frequencies in the non-ionizing spectrum. This spectrum stretches from very low frequencies to the infrared region. Examples include EMF from power lines, transformers, and electric motors and radio frequencies stretching from VLF through microwaves. Non-ionizing EMF is further subdivided into thermal or athermal. That is, does the radiation heat tissue?

The answer depends on wave-length and intensity. For example, we know that we can use relatively low-power microwaves to cook food and low-power infrared lasers to burn tissue in surgery. However, an individual situated near a high-power (megawatt) mf/hf/vhf antenna would experience biological heating (thermal effects). The ANSI (American National Standards Institute) guidelines have suggested limits for public and occupational exposure. These limits have been lowered repeatedly over the years, and they remain a topic of debate.

Application to Ham Radio:

In amateur radio we are usually concerned with lower-level radio frequencies that do not cause measurable heating to the body and are therefore classified as athermal. Currently there are no published scientific safety standards for power levels and frequencies that do not cause thermal effects. This is where most of the controversy begins! There is still not enough scientific evidence to establish what is going on here. Despite this we hear emotional statements from concerned citizens' groups and the equally polarized public-relations statements of profit-oriented multinational corporations.

The potential consequences for various groups, including amateur radio, are tremendous. If a cause-and-effect case for a health hazard can be made, the cost implications will be enormous. If you think antenna restrictions are a problem, consider the problems of having to prove that you have an EMF-compliant radio station! (we're there --ed)

A wide variety of scientific investigations from numerous sources have shown clear measurable biological effects secondary to athermal EMF. In describing these effects, the following hierarchy of biological levels is useful:

• Free radicals
• Cellular
• Tissue
• Organ system
• Whole organism
• Populations

To complicate things even more, research at the level of cells and tissues suggests that other factors besides frequency and intensity are important. EMF modulation, bandwidth and timing characteristics have all been shown to have different effects. It is apparent that certain EMF "windows" may be more important than others.

What are some of these effects? At the cellular level EMF causes measurable changes with calcium and hydrogen ions. There appear to be changes in cellular communications by way of electrochemical and enzyme pathways. These effects have been studied particularly in immune cell function (T-cells), as well as in cell growth and other types of cell recognition systems. At the level of tissues and organs, we now have evidence that the brain hormone melatonin is also affected.

All the above are certainly interesting to biologists, but how do they affect you and me? The current literature suggests that EMF probably does not cause cancer. However, it may have a role as a promoter (enhancer) of cancer by modifying the cells in the immune system that normally act to prevent or correct cancer in its early stages. In other words, cancer cells may be created by a chemical agent or ionizing radiation. Subsequently the EMF-handicapped immune system may not be as effective in identifying and destroying these cells in time to prevent further cancer cell growth.

At the other end of the hierarchy are the groups of organisms that we call populations. The study of diseases in populations is called Epidemiology. The often quoted epidemiological study, published in 1988, took as its "population" those amateurs on the 1984 FCC license file who had addresses in California or Washington State. After eliminating female names, the investigator matched 67,829 names against death records in the two states. From analyzing a substantial number of causes of death, he found that deaths from one form of leukemia and from cancer of other lymphatic tissue were higher than expected, by a statistically significant amount. Cancer of the pancreas accounted for significantly fewer deaths that expected.

It is misleading, however, to place such emphasis on a few significant results that emerge from an extensive search. None of these were highly significant, and it would be reasonable to attribute them to chance. Importantly, about one-third of the amateur radio operators who died in Washington State had occupational electromagnetic exposure together with potentially significant exposure to solder fumes and toxic chemicals, including PCBs. This study and many others like it have not measured actual cumulative EMF exposure.

They only reason that such exposures were likely to occur. What about the effects of EMF on female hams who live in Iowa? Often epidemiological studies give rise to more questions, rather than answers! Some subsequent epidemiological studies involving occupational exposures (generally much higher than hobby exposures) to EMF tend to support the atypical cancer findings initially described. These individuals were usually exposed to numerous other agents, and it appears that chemical exposure was particularly important.

The "silent key" study provides no conclusive proof of a "cause and effect" relationship between EMF and cancer. Therefore, we now know that non-ionizing, athermal, low-level radiowaves used in amateur radio do cause biological changes in the human body that are measurable at the level of cells, tissues, and organ systems. The significance, if any, of these changes remains uncertain. It currently appears unlikely that they can be directly linked to causing cancer.

Unfortunately, the possibility remains that they have a small but not yet clearly defined role in allowing other more toxic agents to cause cancer by promoting or enhancing their effects. Other effects may exist, both good and bad, that are yet to be described. I believe that, ultimately, this area of biological rather than epidemiological research will yield the definitive answers to our questions. At the same time we may also develop a better understanding of cancer and immunological diseases such as arthritis and AIDS.

When we look at the scientific evidence at the level of the organisms and populations, the possible links between EMF and disease continue to be poorly understood. Nonetheless, the evidence raises concern, particularly in those individuals with significant exposure to EMF and other potential cancer-causing agents in their occupations. More study in this area is also indicated!

Relative Risks and Prudent Avoidance

Considering all this information, it would be wise to practice "prudent avoidance." As a ham-radio-physician, I offer this advice:

• Don't smoke.
• Don't get fat.
• Eat sensibly.
• Exercise regularly.
• Wear a seatbelt.
• Wear a sunscreen in the sun.
• Wear a bicycle helmet when riding your bicycle.
• Climb your tower on sunny, windless days and use a proper climbing belt.

Paying attention to the these issues will provide a clear, measurable, and significant benefit for your long-term health. Once you have considered this advice, what about ham radio and EMF?

First, we must recognize that the ANSI guidelines apply THERMAL effects. Furthermore, they do not take into account the modulation-dependent interactions that seem to be important in athermal EMF research. In fact, there are no guidelines for ham-radio-type exposure to EMF at present. However, I certainly would agree with the following general principles:

* QRP : Use the lowest possible power as conditions permit. This is particularly important at higher frequencies and in situations where the antenna is close to the operator. The use of UHF/VHF handhelds would ideally involve a separate microphone with the radio and antenna held above your head. If this is not possible, the handheld should be kept as vertical as possible, using low power and brief transmissions (leave the long winded-lectures to 75 metre AM).

When operating HF at levels of 100 watts or less, beams should be kept at least 35 feet above the ground, and higher when using more power. On a typical suburban lot a vertical should be roof mounted (they usually work better up there in the clear anyway). Any indoor antennas should be restricted to QRP use only.

* Your linear should placed as far away from your operating position as possible. It should be reserved for "true emergencies," such as working 3Y0PI on the last day of the DXpedition as a "new one" for the DXCC Honor Roll.

* I would emphasize that special care is required when operating at microwave frequencies, as the chance of significant athermal and thermal exposure is much higher. Further, more detailed suggestions can be found in various sources, including the ARRL Handbook and the ARRL Antenna Book.

In summary, we now know that non-ionizing, low-level, athermal EMF does cause measurable biological effects. The consequences of these findings are yet to be accurately assessed, but further information will be forthcoming. Those at highest potential risk are individuals who have prolonged occupational exposure to EMF and have additional exposure to other potentially toxic agents. Although further study is needed, it appears that the risk from exposure to EMF in ham radio remains low when compared to other established health risks. "Prudent avoidance" is recom- mended.

I hope this encourages all of you to quit smoking, eat smart and exercise safely. These measures, together with prudent QRP operation and high antennas, should allow us all to discuss this topic again for many years to come!

About the author:

Dr. Rick Zabrodski has been a licensed ham since 1971. He is in private practice as a family physician and occupational health advisor to various corporate and government clients. He has dabbled in almost every aspect of ham radio over the years, but his current interests are QRP contesting, building QRP equipment and occasionally chasing DX. He has a special interest in aviation medicine and is a pilot with a preference for "silent flight" over the Canadian Rockies. VE6GK (Glider King) lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with his wife Rhonda and two children, Sarah and Adam, who plan to become hams in the near future. He can be reached at: zabrodsk@med.ucalgary.ca

Acknowledgments:

The author wishes to thank Stuart Cowan, W2LX and Dr. Ross Adey, K6UI, who both who were very helpful in providing access to the current literature and made the research much easier. Thanks to all the scientific hams and non hams who provided input via the Internet. A special thanks to Dave Hoaglin, K8JLF, who helped with the preparation of this manuscript.

Newsletter again?

As we head torwards Thanksgiving and the Winter Holidays, the rate that the days are passing seems to be getting faster.

Why, I can remember sitting in front of my PC around the end of September thinking about the October edition of the newsletter. Before I knew it, October was half over, and I was heading fast into November. Ok, who turned up the clock speed?

It's not that I haven't been enjoying Ham Radio; my tcp/ip project has kept me going (but that's another story); and some of the Shack work parties have been just that (!). Then, there's that day job that I must contend with.

So, its is with almost disbelief that I'm find myself here again looking at the November deadline (now planned for the weekend of 11/7) and have to put this edition to bed. Soon enough, getting The Summit Sentinel out will be competing with Christmas shopping, family and friends, and parties... all the things that makes this time of year personally enjoyable.

But I enjoy writing the newsletter as well. Which gets back to the issue of time racing by: Obviously, there's too much to do, see, and experience. While I'm compelled to slow down and take it all in, I find the things previosuly gone unnoticed not draw me in to take a closer look. Before I know it, I'm out of time... again!

So, for the next few hours, I commit to stay focused on getting the Newsletter out the door. However, I may be back to negotiatee next month's edition!

classifieds

Remarks by Willie Brown, Mayor

To: Emergency Communications Units - Information Bulletin
To: Emergency Management Agencies via Internet and Radio
By: Auxiliary Communications Service (ACS) of the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
EMC098 ACS & the Mayor of SF For release 9/22/98
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DISASTER COUNCIL MEETING
April 22, 1997

Remarks by Willie Brown, Mayor:

"...I must also tell you that I have been frankly fascinated with that unpaid group of people with those ham radios, the Auxiliary Communications Service. Now they are maybe the most active of all the volunteers. They are virtually over at the office every time I go over there. And I suspect that they hang out there. Now they're an interested group of people.

"It is a communication system though, that I think now covers practically every community in San Francisco, and in some cases damn near every block in San Francisco, for emergency communication purposes, which means that a wireless system that seldom if ever can be totally disrupted by a disaster is within our grasp, and we are able to use.

"Obviously the cell phones play a role in that now, but the ham radio operators are the heart and the soul and the life blood of that system. And so we do have a system that is virtually communications disruptive proof in terms of being able to do the communications that we may need to do.

"There is also, I think, a level of training enjoyed by these people to carry out their task, and some method to identify them visibly in case of a disaster when they go into their operations mode."

-----

The above was submitted to the ACS Newsletter by Peter Dunckel, from the City & County of San Francisco OES ACS.

The ACS newsletter is sent to those who indicate an interest in emergency communications by the way they respond to the ACS Web page (see below). In the issue in which the above was published, the following also appeared:

"One of the biggest concerns we have is the ability for the government to recognize the efforts of the local volunteer community BEFORE the emergency takes place. I think it's pretty safe to say that the San Francisco ACS IS recognized. Our compliments to San Francisco for a job well done!

Dave Larton, Training Officer (larton@garlic.com) Auxiliary Communications Service, Information Technology Branch Governor's Office of Emergency Services"

ACS Web page: http://acs.oes.ca.gov

FTP archive: ftp.ucsd.edu/hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming for new bulletins and ftp.ucsd.edu/hamradio/races for earlier ones. OES ACS staff manager Stan Harter :Stanly_Harter@oes.ca.gov State Chief ACS Officer Cary_Mangum@oes.ca.gov

EOM EMC098

Highlights from the ARRL Pacific Division Update -- November 1997