Design Con 2015
Breaking News
News & Analysis

FCC ignoring danger?

4/12/2013 06:36 PM EDT
12 comments
NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
EREBUS0
User Rank
Rookie
re: FCC ignoring danger?
EREBUS0   4/12/2013 7:57:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, another government agency that services the abusers of the system and abandons the average citizen to the unknown risks of EM levels. I thought these agencies were set up for the public safety! Another example on how the government no longer serves a purpose in our modern society. Just my opinion.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: FCC ignoring danger?
Bert22306   4/12/2013 8:20:23 PM
NO RATINGS
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the FCC does seem to be clueless many times, about things they should be expert at understanding. Examples such as the LightSquared fiasco, and the TV "white space" impending fiasco, are obvious examples. On the other hand, I'm not sure just how much of an issue this 6X over limit measurement really is. I assume they're talking about those clustered cellular base stations we see on top of buildings. Inside the building, where people work, I'm not sure whether the levels are any higher than at home, with WiFi and cordless phones, or on the train, where every Tom, Dick, and Harry sitting close by is mindlessly texting or otherwise busy transmitting low power RF just inches or feet from you. The inverse square law is what applies to point sources such as these. Power density drops off quite rapidly as distance increases. Use of the term "600 percent" seems tailor-made for engendering that "ooooh aaaaah" reaction.

WHT
User Rank
Rookie
re: FCC ignoring danger?
WHT   4/13/2013 1:10:26 AM
NO RATINGS
EM Radiation Policy Group http://www.emrpolicy.org I lost interest after the word "family" in the second paragraph, "US workers and families are at risk of overexposure to RF at hazardous levels." Another self-promoting FUD agenda. Nothing to see there, move along.

JmmWill
User Rank
Rookie
re: FCC ignoring danger?
JmmWill   4/13/2013 7:36:52 PM
NO RATINGS
FCC, about 10 years ago, recognized the danger of such communications and set what they thought were adequately low power levels for transmitters. I hope the author is wrong, but I suspect he is right: Lousy enforcement has caused widespread violation. If the reader doubts the danger of electromagnetic exposure, it is analyzed and explained in "Biological Effects of Microwaves: Thermal and Nonthermal Mechanisms" at http://www.scribd.com/doc/45663757/Biological-Effects-of-Microwaves-Thermal-and-Nonthermal-Mechanisms, an older version of which was posted at arXiv.

svann
User Rank
Rookie
re: FCC ignoring danger?
svann   4/13/2013 11:40:03 PM
NO RATINGS
No danger to office workers but if someone goes up on the roof its a different story. Which is why they should have barriers and/or warning signs, like they said.

Wobbly
User Rank
CEO
re: FCC ignoring danger?
Wobbly   4/15/2013 3:32:43 PM
NO RATINGS
It is only a sign that the government serves a different master than it did thirty years ago. The corporate lobby has purchased the government, fair and square.

Wobbly
User Rank
CEO
re: FCC ignoring danger?
Wobbly   4/15/2013 3:34:29 PM
NO RATINGS
If the primary wage earner becomes a primary health care consumer because of exposure, that will directly affect the family.

Wobbly
User Rank
CEO
re: FCC ignoring danger?
Wobbly   4/15/2013 3:38:51 PM
NO RATINGS
It depends on the construction of the roof structure and antenna placement. Unless you actually perform field strength measurements, you cannot be sure what exposure is inside the building. Inverse square law applies, but RF propogation is not always straight line, and reflects of metal objects in unexpected ways.

przemek0
User Rank
Rookie
re: FCC ignoring danger?
przemek0   4/15/2013 8:16:51 PM
NO RATINGS
perhaps some blame is because of the darn fragmented wireless technology in the US. Every cell tower has multiple rings of antennas: CDMA, GSM, ATT, Sprint, Tmobile, Verizon---everyone has a separate transceiver so no wonder the E-M field in front of that christmas tree is huge. Everywhere else in the world they settled on one system per area (bands differ so no universal harmony yet). I think the carriers over there just settle charges for using each other's base stations---it probably just evens itself out in proportion to how many base stations each one owns. I've heard that LTE finally harmonizes the system worldwide---I am looking forward to that.

WKetel
User Rank
Rookie
re: FCC ignoring danger?
WKetel   4/21/2013 2:38:06 AM
NO RATINGS
What we have as the reason that all of the violations are allowed is a new FCC that is composed of non-technical people who are only interested in the money. It is very clear that technical reality is something that they simply do not understand. But a law degree and an MBA simply don't qualify anybody for any sort of honest employment,mwhich is why they work foir the government. So being the technically illiterate people that they are, and being paid off by some commercial folks with lots of money to pay them off with, they naturally go for the money. What else would one expect them to do? No, it is neither legal nor moral, but then that is not what is taught in law school these days.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week