No surprises from one of our favorite “Captured Agencies.” Old obsolete exposure limits reaffirmed and with the FCC, not only is the ear connected to the ankle bone but in terms of RFR exposure limits, it IS the ankle bone. Re. more cautious limits for kids and pregnant women? Fugettaboutit. FYI the referenced The American Association for Justice was formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is a nonprofit advocacy and lobbying organization for plaintiff's lawyers in the United States. AAJ's stated mission is to "promote a fair and effective justice system."
From: Joel M. Moskowitz PhD [[hidden email]]
"The FCC has no health expertise and relies upon Federal health agencies, especially the FDA, for advice about RF exposure limits. However, these agencies have lacked the requisite expertise to provide this guidance as their radiofrequency (RF) health experts retired or took industry jobs. In the past decade, these agencies have failed to monitor the vast and growing body of peer-reviewed research that documents adverse health effects from low-intensity exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Rather, the Federal government has increasingly relied upon advice from engineers and scientists with conflicts of interest and industry lobbyists.
The FCC announced that the commission will soon reaffirm its radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the Commission adopted in 1996. These obsolete limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats and monkeys exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us only from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure. Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits in 1996 based largely upon research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
The scientists who signed this appeal constitute the vast majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior." From: Joel Moskowitz. We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe. Scientific American, Oct 17, 2019.
FCC Maintains Existing RF Exposure Limits
Paul Kirby, TR Daily, Dec 4, 2019
Reprinted with permission of TR Daily
FCC Proposes to Maintain Current RF Exposure Safety Standards
Description: The Commission has accordingly promulgated rules that set limits for RF exposure and, through the years, has created a framework to ensure compliance with these limits
Comment Date: [30 days from publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date: [60 days from publication in the Federal Register]
Related Posts on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
International Perspective on Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation
FCC-19-126A1.docx (536K) Download Attachment
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|