THE CGC COMMUNICATOR
                            CGC #530
                    Thursday,  August 1, 2002
                 Robert F. Gonsett, W6VR, Editor
     Copyright 2002, Communications General Corporation (CGC)
  This is the last in our series of Special Reports on human
exposure to RF radiation ("RFR") and the Mt. Wilson inspection
by the FCC in particular.  Since relatively few letters were
received this time around, all relevant input was published
below, regardless of length, with two exceptions:
  An e-letter not published was an anonymous report giving
detailed information on a tower recently constructed on Mt.
Wilson in alleged total disregard for climber RFR safety.
Information like that should be sent to the FCC, OSHA and/or
CAL-OSHA, see the instructions in CGC #526 under the heading
"Letter from Jerry Ulcek."  A second letter not published
contained a large attached document outlining OSHA's
expectations for tower climbers.  That material has the
potential to become a sidebar for an in-depth article on RFR,
and we hope the author will submit the material to Radio World
and TV Technology magazine, see CGC #528.
  Once again, the views expressed below are those of our
readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of CGC.  If
there are further comments on RFR, please confine them to 100
words or less for publication in our regular weekly newsletter.
  Thank you again for helping us put this RFR series together.
The roads we ventured down were unpredictable - sometimes
extraordinarily bumpy - but the journey was fascinating.  We
couldn't have done it without you.
  Here, then, are our readers' comments.
  The idea of planning a reduction in power for an upcoming
antenna project is good.  However, in reality, quite often such
niceties are not permitted.  At any moment an ice block, or an
inner connector may damage an antenna to the point where it takes
a station down.  At times like these, there is little that can be
done in long range planning.  The station that is off needs to get
back on and whoever is a contributor to excessive REF levels must
cooperate.  Remember the antenna that fails may be your own!
  General managers must be made aware that at any time, a
station at a multi-user site may be required to reduce power; it
may not be a scheduling option.  Remember, Edsel Murphy lives in
broadcasting and has a winter residence on Mt. Wilson.
  Joel Saxberg, Broadcast Consultant, BEEM CO.
  ....I have been heavily involved in some.... aspects of
the problems at Mt. Wilson.  These involve potentially harmful
exposures to tower climbers.  Although the Commission is
focusing on the public roads, the real problem is more serious.
                   SUBSTITUTE TERM FOR "RFR"
  No wonder the public is confused.  The English language
indiscriminately uses the term "radiation" to refer to the entire
electromagnetic spectrum, including both extremes, despite the
altogether different biological effects.  Qualify the term with
"ionizing" or "non-ionizing" all you want, that scary word
"radiation" is still out there.
  In our business, we use the correct term from physics, power
density.  We offer site surveys of "power density/rf exposure."
Where space permits, we write out the full word, radiofrequency.
No need to go around scaring people.
  Rick Levy, Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP, Cambridge, Mass.
  RFR is a misnomer.  Not all exposures to RF are via its
radiant mode.  RFE (RF Energy) is best, as it is descriptive of
the potential to do work or do harm, and of the energy at a
particular location under test.  RFE (RF Emission) in my thinking
is descriptive of the energy passing into space through a radiator,
and is not descriptive of the energy level at a particular
location, nor of non-radiant forms of RF exposure.  RFF (Fields)
is so-so, but less descriptive of the energetic nature to which
exposure concerns relate.  RFS (Signals) is descriptive of only
signals, while some RF is not a signal.  I vote for "RF Energy,"
and use it all the time in my testimony and analysis.
  David Maxson, Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP, Medfield, MA
  In the KLON / SBS / City of Signal Hill / City of Long Beach
dispute, and also in the Chagal / SBS / City of Torrance site
lease extension controversy, I had to give public testimony before
the respective City Councils and Planning Commissions.  By prior
agreement among myself, the attorneys, and the Washington
consultants (in this case the Carl T. Jones Corporation), we used
the word "fields" (scientifically correct but conjures up images
of meadows, trees, and flowers!).  We also liked "electromagnetic"
as opposed to "Radiofrequency".  (I did once or twice use the term
"non-ionizing" as well).
  However under your [list of suggested replacement abbreviations
in CGC #528, the term "electromagnetic fields" would] result in
"EMF" which of course is a physicist's term for "voltage."
  Fred Holub
  I believe the difference between the public and occupational
RFR limits are due to the possibility of effects due to long term
exposure to RF.  The public limits allow homes, where people spend
extended periods of time, to have a lower RFR limit than at work,
where people spend fewer hours.  It might make sense to have the
lower limit apply only to residential areas.
  Harold Hallikainen
  On the two-tier approach to RF exposure, we have had that in
Massachusetts since 1985.  Here is the rationale as I understand
  1) Public health policy may view the typical worker as tending
  to be more disease resistant than, say, a bedridden member of
  the public.
  2) Workers might be exposed to 40 or so hours per week, versus
  the homebody's potential 168 hours per week.
  3) Workers presumably have a choice in the work they take on,
  and agree to take a perceived risk greater than that of the
  general public.
  4) The worker averaging time is 5 times shorter than the general
  public time, practicably reducing the peak-to-average ratio of
  time-averaged exposures in the workplace versus those in public
  David Maxson, Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP, Medfield, MA
  RF Exposure Nonsense
  Distinguishing between lower and higher exposure limits, to
most, would normally imply a difference among individuals in their
biological susceptibility to RF energy absorption.  Not so with
the IEEE standard (C95.1-1999) where only awareness and ability to
control one's exposure are the determining criteria that permit
some to be more highly exposed than others.  This makes absolutely
no sense.
  Two possible solutions:  The standard needs to outright affirm
that the uncertainties in our knowledge of possible adverse health
effects of RF exposure demand that more protection be afforded
some people in the general public and that it is the nature of
this population, not the environment and simply awareness, that
should dictate the difference in exposure.  Or, the standard
should simply state that a single exposure limit is scientifically
justified for all, with no distinction between individuals and
with no differential risk between populations, period.
  Until our standards for RF exposure make sense, how can any of
us offer understandable explanations to antenna site workers for
why they can be more highly exposed than their family members?
Assuming a greater risk from employment is something done all the
time and it's something that most of us understand.  But, it's
time that our RF standards provide a no-nonsense basis for our
  Ric Tell, rtell@radhaz.com
                        USERS GROUPS HELP
  The land/mobile guys in the Santa Ana Mountains [Santiago
Peak, Sierra Peak, etc.] have a users group that meets yearly,
and a Board of Directors that meets more often I think.  Would
something like that help bring the Wilson/Harvard users together
on a regular basis and improve communications between broadcasters,
the land/mobile guys, the microwave operators, XM and possibly
the Forest Service?  The Santa Ana group is called the Trabuco
District Electronic Users Association.  Trabuco is the Forest
Service district where these comm. sites are located.
  I have never heard or seen the word micturition before even
though I believe I have a fairly good vocabulary to work with....
I like the way Phil Kane [used the term].
  Marvin Collins
  ....The medical profession has an enormous lexicon of code
words they've used for uncounted decades.  Only recently have
their secrets been compromised by the easy accessibility to
definitions afforded by Google and similar internet search
engines [also try http://www.m-w.com/].
  I'd rather have pruritus than an itch, any day....
  BTW, I enjoy the newsletter immensely, it's the first e-mail
I read each time it appears on my incoming list...  Thanks much
for your efforts!
  Don Beaty, K6VH, San Mateo
  The CGC Communicator is published for broadcast professionals
  in so. California by Communications General Corporation (CGC),
  consulting radio engineers, Fallbrook, CA.  Short news items
  without attached files are always welcome from our readers;
  letters may be edited for brevity.  E-mail may be sent to:
  rgonsett@ieee.org  or  telephone (760) 723-2700.
  CGC Communicator articles may be reproduced in any form provided
  they are unaltered and credit is given to Communications General
  Corporation and the originating authors, when named.  Past
  issues may be viewed and searched at http://www.bext.com/_CGC/
  courtesy of Bext Corporation.
_________________________    End   _______________________________