How can I make a more time & cost effective search for a location to recover from an RF injury or avoid getting RF injured?
Often radio frequency radiation health level site evaluators couch their recommendations by stating their own measuring equipments sensitivity and frequency ranges may be inadequate and consequently their clients will feel symptoms of disease in spite of not being able to detect any radiation that are attributable to these symptoms. Additionally these experts cannot give much accuracy in the way of viable preliminary recommendations for a specific location and then the injured party can be charged for what is now an unnecessary onsite evaluation when such charges and further evaluation can often be eliminated by using RF coverage mapping software[i] and 3-D geographic information mapping technology[ii] in concert with freely available antenna data downloadable on the internet which virtually avoids most costly field work[iii]. This increasingly challenging situation begs use of state of the art equipment and knowledge in order to serve the best interests of those growing numbers injured by our world’s burgeoning anthropogenic creation of unnatural, unhealthy and often life threatening radio frequency radiation, dirty electricity/grounding, and/or magnetism. All of which can be now for the first time be accurately measured/modeled using your own body's unique antenna at a particular site you want to investigate.
Most important however is: 1. immediately placing a moratorium on the use of radio frequency radiation until adequate non-thermal safety standards for the entire spectrum is promulgated. 2. In the meantime any areas where RF levels remain safe need to be immediately designated as habitation areas suitable for those already injured &/or sensitized by RF. 3. Right now, my company RF Site Evaluations can uncover often hidden but suitable areas for your particular injury or sensitivity then measure and propose further improvements until adequate safety standards for RFR, dirty electricity/grounding, and magnetism are implemented.
[i] http://lrcov.crc.ca/main/
[ii] http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/main/get-started/choosing-the-3d-display-environment.htm
[iii] http://www.antennasearch.com/;
www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/antenna-structure-registration-asrn-records-within-radius
How I Got Started In this Line of Work
Like most humans, during much of my baby boomer era American life, I was born blind to the dangers of what has become burgeoning growth of radio frequency radiation. My first inkling of a career interest in environmental atmospheric biophysics as it pertains to human health, started in 1960 at age 6 with a summer long family drive to the west - particularly during my family’s week long stay in the San Fernando valley with friends, while my father attended an academic political science conference in LA. Every morning that week in Sepulveda, our family woke to what we conjured as real oobleck, a thick greenish substance pervading the lower troposphere that was so lugubrious that my asthmatic little brother could not breathe[MT1] , and which I soon realized was automotive smoke in the form of fog – called SM_OG something that it was not only palpably visible, but suffocating & dangerous to all of our health, especially those who were genetically sensitive. As many boomer dads, my father was often at work during the time I attended school as a child, while my precocious feminist mom who also had a career in that patriarchal era which had to be coupled with juggling my rearing (my dad made more money during the day and it was easier for my mom to work all hours). Thus being more a typical adaptable boy, I took it in stride to being with her at the health research lab by day - where upstairs was the Liquid Crystal Institute and where the adjoining building under construction was a Physics, Computer and Earth Science Research facility and where everywhere - I developed academic relationships with the professors, inventors & builders – these became my friends and toys. Transitioning from being the product of a Dr. of Political Philosophy and Theory and a Dr. of Biochemistry (as much of my mom’s career was spent doing research in the healing arts) I expanded my purview into physics. My extracurricular passions for audio, radio, video, computers and physics flourished with those close extra-familial relationships with scientists/inventors/builders in helping to develop the LCD, efficient solar panels, while my mom’s interest spread from nutrition to blood to mitochondria to chlorophyll to heart to thyroid research. In 1977, I was eventually rewarded with a doctorate in chemistry[MT2] (before any BS) for helping many graduate students with their doctorates. However my education and foci was much broader than that, so I set out on my own for a degree in atmospheric physics working with Tiros Microwave (50-60 GHz) Scanner (JPL) Data and helping create an accurate satellite global surface temperature data set starting in 1978[MT3] . This has of course become a work in progress (thousands of pages) and hopefully if the Earth remains survivable will continue many lifetimes before someone(s) can finish my naively intended original thesis topic proposal on ‘The Unintended Anthropogenic Causes and Nature of Earth’s Climate Change’ –a field so scary that it has become much maligned misunderstood and/or still completely denied. If I felt I could change my topic to a significant tiny aspect to some sort of human caused weather change early enough perhaps I could have still defended and received a doctorate (in atmospheric physics), surely an honorary one in chemistry should be enough credentialing for my life however. Then a little over 3 years ago my use of a low SAR Samsung smart phone suddenly became threat to my own life and that would be the wakeup call that would suddenly change my focus to the invisible threat of burgeoning anthropogenic sub-optical radiation. Some 8 years ago, as a general building contractor in order to hear phone conversations averaging 3 to 4 hours a day while directing concrete floor jackhammering in front of me, I was apparently over-exposed to 800-2500 MHz GSM cell phone radiation. To keep an eye on the loud work going on in front of me, while both directing that work and setting up work by cell for the following days; I used a technique of resting my phone on my neck behind my ear, because it enabled enough noise reduction for me to succeed in both tasks. Unbeknownst to the real dangers of cell phone radiation - really because of an impasse in implementing new safety standards since 1996, a fast growing fibroid tumor (from the size of a pea to the size of a softball in less than a month) quickly blocked my trachea and esophagus, forcing emergency surgery. I - like many of you still today, chose to use an FCC approved low SAR Samsung cell phone, which I naively thought was safe because I did not realize how compromised our government has become in promulgating safety standards, especially in regards to the FCC’s regulation of booming Telecom industry. During 3 years of my recovery I met my wife (also similarly injured though by 17 smart meters foisted on her life) I created my one of a kind start-up: RF Site Evaluations and Abatement a turnkey - siting to punch-list contracting business.
[MT1]I now have asthma from working as a California Smog Check Inspector and Smog Check Repair Technician to reduce Smog in autos from 1977-present
[MT2]1977 Kent State University
[MT3]University of Alabama, Huntsville It should be noted that before I got on board all the polar data > 70 ͦ was thrown out and the making the early predictions point to an ice age!
In lieu of the promulgation of healthy sub-thermal non-ionizing safety standards it behooves everybody to have us checkout the ambient radiation where you live & sleep, travel and work - Email Phone or purchase this preliminary site evaluation today! Now Only $150!
What is RF radiation?
RF radiation stands for radio frequency radiation licensed in US by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) between 3 KHz and 300 GHz and which is mostly human made because the Earth has a magnetosphere/ionosphere that protects all life from harmful levels of RF coming from space. To some this is synonymous EM(F) or electromagnetic frequency(ies) which span(s) the entire spectrum from >0 Hz (cycles per second) up to hard gamma rays at over 300 EHz and includes all radiation including ionizing, optical and sub-optical radiation. A wide range of technologies produce non-ionizing radiation, including telecommunication technologies that produce radio-frequency (RF) emissions.
The US legislature has authorized the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to adopt regulations on certain sources of non-ionizing radiation, although DEEP has not done so to date (4/2019). It has also adopted legislation barring the use of technologies using non-ionizing radiation in traffic law enforcement, otherwise there is little other control or standards currently exercised by DEEP except the by FCC licensing which seems to have exempted any control by state and local authorities as well as other relevant federal health (FDA NTP AHRQ CDC ATSDR HRSA HIS NIHASH OSHA NIOSH etc.), Regulatory (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and environmental agencies (OFC OEC OFPTS CSB RSPA etc.) since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
However before the Telecom act of 1996, federal law created a number of prior standards on non-ionizing radiation emissions, including those designed to protect the public and workers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established guidelines for RF exposure (licensing). It certifies wireless devices and all cell phones that are sold in the United States must comply with its antiquated RF guidelines. It also regulates RF emissions from transmitters, including cell phone towers. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also established safety standards for exposure to non-ionizing radiation in the workplace.
While federal laws generally do not preempt state law or local standards, if a facility used to provide wireless service (e.g., a cell phone tower) meets the relevant FCC licensing requirements, states and municipalities may not regulate the facility on this basis.
A new International IEEE standard coming down the approval pipeline recognizes a form of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
Standard Details
The interactions of electromagnetic fields with biological systems are by their very nature extraordinarily variable. The standard addresses this variability in the research database and presents as seamlessly as possible exposure limits to protect human beings against established adverse health effects from exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 0 Hz to 300 GHz. These exposure limits are intended to apply generally to persons permitted in restricted environments and to the general public in unrestricted environments. These exposure limits are not intended to apply to the exposure of patients by or under the direction of physicians and medical professionals, as well as exposure of informed volunteers in medical or scientific research studies and might not be protective with respect to the use of medical devices or implants.
Sponsor Committee SASB/SCC39 - SCC39 - International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety
Status Active
Board Approval 2019-02-08
Additional Resources Details
Pars Approved PAR
Historical Base Standard C95_1-2005
Working Group Details
Working Group TC95/C95.1 Rev. WG - SCC39/Technical Committee 95/C95.1 Revision Working Group
Working Group Chair Marvin Ziskin
Sponsor Committee SASB/SCC39 - SCC39 - International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety
IEEE Program Manager Jennifer Santulli
Existing Standards Superseded
C95.1b-2004 - IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz - Amendment 2: Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) Limits for the Pinna
Superseded by IEEE Std C95.1-2005 This Amendment will clarify the standard by specifically defining additional portions of the human body, e.g., the outer ear (pinna), as extremities subject to similar specific absorption rate (SAR) limits as extremities already defined, e.g., hands, feet, wrist and ankles
Superseded
C95.1-2005 - IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz
Recommendations to protect against harmful effects in human beings exposed to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz are provided in this standard. These recommendations are intended to apply in controlled environments and for general population exposure. These recommendations are not intended to apply to the exposure of patients by or under the direction of physicians and medical professionals. (The PDF of this standards is available at no cost. "IEEE Get Program" grants public access to view and download individual PDFs of select standards at no charge. Visit http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=10830 for details.)
Active
C95.1a-2010 - IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz Amendment 1: Specifies Ceiling Limits for Induced and Contact Current, Clarifies Distinctions between Localized Exposure and Spatial Peak Power Density
This amendment to IEEE Std C95.1-2005 specifies ceiling values for induced and contact current requirements, clarifies distinctions between ?localized exposure? and ?peak power density. (The PDF of this standard is available at no cost compliments of the GETIEEEC95 program located at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/browse/standards/get-program/page/series?id=82)
NERC CIP & Smart Grid: How do they Fit Together?
On the surface, North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) cybersecurity standards and the implementation of the smart grid appear to be complementary and interrelated. Both deal with the expansion and integration of advanced information technologies and communications into utility operations. Smart grid technologies deal with controlling customers’ electricity use and broadly impact the reliability and efficiency of power distribution as electricity applications become ever more embedded in daily lives and critical business operations. Thus, the smart grid needs to be made secure from invasive cyberthreats, misuse and careless operations. The NERC CIP cybersecurity standards are the most visible reference model for how this system integrity should be achieved for advanced power grid operations, and thus would appear applicable to all smart grid infrastructure.
In practice, however, these initiatives are often less well-aligned, even disconnected. Some separateness is definitional; some deal with real technological differences and some with differences in regulatory treatments. There is no absolute need to coordinate many of the near-term smart grid and NERC CIP initiatives, but utilities can benefit from applying common practices across these areas, both short term and long term. In addition, policymakers can help these important initiatives reinforce each other rather than conflict.
Contrasts in Several Areas
The relationship between smart grid and NERC CIP depends a lot on how smart grid is defined. Broader definitions of smart grid encompass most all applications of computer and communications technologies to improved grid operations, including backbone transmission systems and associated substation automation and phasor-management systems. More narrow definitions emphasize applications such as advanced-metering infrastructure (AMI), demand response (DR) and distribution outage management (OM)—all dealing more at the distribution level of the power system. AMI is the most visible of the smart grid initiatives, involving smart meters, residential gateways, home area networks and direct interaction with customer power usage.
By statute, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) mandates on NERC CIP standards are applicable only to the bulk electrical system (BES). With the current Phase 1 standards, many utilities further interpret the applicable “critical assets” as involving only the higher levels of the transmission hierarchy—the largest substations serving the high-voltage backbone of the transmission network. So the most visible smart grid initiatives (distribution-focused) vs. mandated NERC CIP compliance (BES) largely apply to different parts of the power system, and, in many cases, to different operating companies.
This separation of the CIP and smart grid initiatives is exacerbated by the efforts of many utilities to minimize the scope of NERC CIP compliance, even to the point of total avoidance, spurred on by the punitive orientation of the NERC CIP compliance framework. Minimizing the scope of CIP compliance involves minimizing the number of critical substations and avoiding the classification of critical assets as cyber-assets by not having dial-up or routable (IP protocol) connections to critical substations. To avoid costly CIP compliance obligations such as upgrades to substation physical security, some utilities disconnect existing dial-up or IP-based connections to substations or use legacy non-routable protocols to communicate with substation devices. This strategy might be called a CIP-avoidance strategy. It stands in sharp contrast to the spirit of smart grid and related stimulus legislation that specifically promotes pervasive use of open-architecture, IP-based communications.
NERC CIP also focuses primarily on utility-owned and -operated assets, particularly head-end systems and substation assets. By contrast, smart grid systems, particularly AMI and demand management applications, can include customer-owned devices and customer-operated communication networks. AMI and DR applications can deal with customer-specific proprietary information and consumer privacy issues not generally part of NERC CIP. AMI wide-area and neighborhood-area networks also often use third-party wireless communications services to connect with customer meters and gateways.
These wireless service providers will also need to participate in any comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. Such hybrid architectures raise security issues not directly addressed in current CIP standards such as authentication of meters, assurance of meter firmware integrity and managing authorization for demand-management commands to customer-owned devices. Standards development occurs differently for CIP and the non-BES areas of smart grid . While NERC cyber-standards began as a voluntary industry initiative, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 chartered FERC to create more rigorously defined standards and to establish enforcement mechanisms complete with audit procedures and a significant fine structure for noncompliance. To date, smart grid initiatives outside the BES have escaped this heavier hand. Market pressures almost certainly will force utilities to implement effective cybersecurity protections for such services that potentially impact customer privacy and even control of customer-owned assets. Such market-driven incentives, however, will leave greater flexibility in establishing standards for threat-management solutions.
An example of a smart grid industry-driven security framework is the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Security (AMI-SEC) Task Force, operating as part of the Utility Communications Architecture International Users Group (USCIug). In a collaborative effort including the DOE, FERC, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and many utilities, AMI-SEC recently issued a requirements document and is working on common specifications for securing AMI system elements.
Commonalities and Potential Shared Opportunities
With the various contrasting factors, is there still a need for alignment or coordination among these initiatives? Why should utilities coordinate efforts, and how? There are several positive answers:
- Cybersecurity learning curves are similar;
- Many areas of threat overlap where process and technology best practices can commonly apply;
- Opportunity exists to share a common wide-area communication infrastructure, presuming that compliance issues do not interfere; and
- The potential for regulatory alignment, avoiding duplicative compliance structures and standards development activities exists.
One area where security best practices will align from the start is head-end operations. For example, AMI and SCADA central system operations will draw heavily on similar enterprise IT system security best practices. Typical elements include the physical and electronic security perimeters for central systems, use of firewalls, server virus protection, network and host intrusion-detection systems, software and patch management, and secure system access management.
Establishing a secure access-management system (AMS) infrastructure is a major investment area for NERC CIP. AMS deals with personnel profiling and authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) of each access event. AMS challenges include integration with enterprise AAA-related systems such as RADIUS, Microsoft Active Directory and RSA SecurID, integration with legacy substation devices (often with custom vendor/client applications from Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories Inc., General Electric Co., ABB and others), and keeping the access process simple for end users (rather than becoming an encumbrance to remote access). Systems such as CrossBow secure access-management software developed by Bow Networks, which were originally designed as productivity tools for remote substation device access, meet these three challenges while providing NERC CIP compliance-management tools.
Some utilities already are leveraging a secure AMS for more general use beyond CIP compliance. With smart grid, the number and dispersion of intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) will increase significantly. More IEDs will be deployed at distribution substations, within the distribution plant and at industrial customer sites. A common, secure AMS would assist remote-device administration, increasing operations and engineering staff productivity. A common AMS between smart grid and CIP would also pre-position the utility for stricter security-compliance guidelines should they come into place beyond the BES domain in the future.
Another immediate opportunity is to share wide area network (WAN) infrastructure among substations and control centers across traditional substation automation and newer smart grid applications. While some AMI systems will use cellular carrier services or other third-party wireless services for WAN communications, many other utilities will implement private communications networks to backhaul communications from utility-owned neighborhood area networks, both private wireless networks and broadband power line systems. A private AMI backhaul infrastructure typically will use substations as concentration points. This provides an opportunity for using a shared, IP-based communications infrastructure among AMI, SCADA and other applications. Because the AMI applications will be IP-based, such shared substation networks will often become subject to CIP compliance. Substation-ready networking products exist and are capable of combining legacy and IP networking, quality-of-service provisions for sharing networks among operational and nonoperational applications, and essential perimeter and access security functions required for CIP.
A potential constraint on sharing a WAN would be a regressive CIP-avoidance strategy that intentionally limits IP connectivity to substations to meet the July 1 Phase 1 CIP deadlines. Phase 2 NERC CIP standards are already being drafted, which likely will drive NERC CIP applicability down further throughout the transmission hierarchy, creating more points of potential overlap among CIP critical substations and AMI backhaul points. In the near term, options for utilities to move forward with WAN deployments while still minimizing CIP scope exist. Utilities could deploy IP-based networks to substations for AMI backhaul and not link in CIP critical cyber-assets. This approach prepares utilities for full CIP compliance when provisions are more flexible or when more time to address full-compliance requirements exists. Similarly, utilities could deploy WAN technologies that use non-routable protocols techniques (e.g., SCADA frame forwarding) as an immediate network modernization step, but they should ensure that any such technologies are capable of simple upgrades to IP networking and CIP compliance as substation requirements evolve.
A final area for coordinated smart grid and CIP activity is ongoing standards setting. NERC CIP Phase 2 standards are now being drafted. They likely will be made more broadly applicable within transmission systems but may set different levels of threat for different kinds of assets and provide some greater flexibility for lower-risk situations. Important for smart grid integration, this might create more flexibility at lower levels of the transmission hierarchy where more overlap likely exists with backhaul applications for AMI, DR and OM. Phase 2 standards may also take a more systems-oriented approach, more closely examining how devices and systems are interconnected within an enterprise with associated, more indirect and complex paths for cyberattacks. This system’s orientation could expand CIP into areas of smart grid not usually thought of as impacting BES reliability.
As mentioned, cybersecurity standards activities for AMI and other areas typically outside BES operations are commonly set via open industry groups and voluntary adoption rather than a FERC/NERC mandate. Utilities can help align different standards and identify potential conflicts by becoming involved with industry initiatives where there are participants knowledgeable in NERC CIP developments. Also, these industry initiatives must be visible to policymakers and demonstrate that the DOE, NIST and other experts are helping shape smart grid policies. Confidence in these standards may preempt more heavy-handed NERC CIP-like compliance measures for non-BES applications.
NERC CIP and the smart grid have many common themes and objectives toward modernization of utility communications and automation systems. They also have many contrasting issues and often involve different individuals within utilities and, in some cases, different operating organizations altogether. The learning curve is too steep, the resources too precious and the time too short to not leverage common elements where practical.
How do smart grid and NERC CIP fit together? One must understand the differences and commonalities. Cybersecurity is an essential element of all smart grid initiatives. NERC CIP is a good start to defining cybersecurity strategies, and it is being refined constantly. But it applies to only part of smart grid operations. More attention is required in all areas. Utilities, technology suppliers and policymakers all have roles to accelerate the delivery of a secured, next-generation utility network.
What is Ionizing radiation?
A form of radiation, which includes alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, neutrons, high-speed electrons, high-speed protons, and other particles capable of producing ions. Compared to non-ionizing radiation, such as radio- or microwaves, or visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light, ionizing radiation is considerably more energetic. When ionizing radiation passes through material such as air, water, or living tissue, it deposits enough energy to produce ions by breaking molecular bonds and displace (or remove) electrons from atoms or molecules. This electron displacement may lead to changes in living cells. Given this ability, ionizing radiation has a number of beneficial uses, including treating cancer or sterilizing medical equipment. However, ionizing radiation is potentially harmful if not used correctly, and high doses may result in severe skin or tissue damage. It is for this reason that the NRC strictly regulates commercial and institutional uses of the various types of ionizing radiation. Radiation, as used in 10 CFR Part 20, does not include non-ionizing radiation (see also 10 CFR 20.1003).
What is Sub-Optical Radiation?
It is any invisible radiation with longer wavelengths than the human eye can see. Because the FCC leaves out potentially harmful invisible radiation below 3 KHz and above 300 GHz not covered by FCC licensing standards (such as the NRC leaves out ultraviolet light out of theirs), I have chosen to broaden both the frequency and sensitivity ranges that I cover to test and abate with this more appropriate description, because research shows there are health dangers that exist where regulatory agencies have stopped looking and I do not want to have my government omit the possibility of making any regulations that may impact the good health and wellbeing of its citizens. While all of this sub-optical radiation may be invisible, it can be still often be sensed and cause health problems to a significant number of humans and other biologies. We have had the hubris in the past too often believing what we can’t see won’t hurt us- this is where I choose to specialize.
|
RF Site Evaluations is an Active California Licensed General Contractor 836411: Mark Taylor, Owner E-mail: [email protected] Phone SoCal (951) 506-2473 NoCal (916) 222-0472 It should be noted that all California EMF abatement and new work done by lump sum pricing above $600 requires an appropriate California Specialty License C10 - Electrical Contractor, C33 - Painting and Decorating Contractor, C46 - Solar Contractor, C-7 - Low Voltage Systems Contractor, or a (B) General Building Contractor, if 2 or more specialties are part of the job (which is most often the case C10 & either C7, C33, and/or C46 ). If I encounter the rare job that requires only one specialist costing more than $600, I am required by law to sub-contract that job to the appropriate specialist. Currently (10/22/2019) most single specialists charge at least $1000 in California and most of them are unlicensed by the State of California and thus all of their work work is unprotected by law. Mark Taylor has a Bachelors in Environmental Studies, a Doctorate in Bio Chemistry and is currently working toward a Doctorate in Atmospheric Physics |