902.25 Eye (Cornea) Eye (Cornea) 55.22577827 1.395291738 Eye (Lens) Eye (Lens) 35.83742161 0.485505536 Eye (Sclera) Eye (Sclera) 55.26453569 1.167700652 Eye (Vitrous Humor) Eye (Vitrous Humor) 68.9012762 1.636828013 Eye Lens (Cortex) Eye Lens (Cortex) Eye Lens (Nucleus) Eye (Lens) 35.83742161 0.485505536 906 Eye (Cornea) Eye (Cornea) 55.20970349 1.39690462 Eye (Lens) Eye (Lens) 35.83048041 0.486486304 Eye (Sclera) Eye (Sclera) 55.25445624 1.169114155 Eye (Vitrous Humor) Eye (Vitrous Humor) 68.90032939 1.637940143 Eye Lens (Cortex) Eye Lens (Cortex) 46.5617139 0.795202252 Eye Lens (Nucleus) Eye (Lens) 35.83048041 0.486486304
This is a 902.25 MHz signal penetrating a typical eye that came from a bank of 9 Itron Smart Electric Meters & 8 Itron Smart Modules which were installed 2008 in a condominium meter shed.
902.25 Eye (Cornea) Eye (Cornea) 55.22577827 1.395291738 Eye (Lens) Eye (Lens) 35.83742161 0.485505536 Eye (Sclera) Eye (Sclera) 55.26453569 1.167700652 Eye (Vitrous Humor) Eye (Vitrous Humor) 68.9012762 1.636828013 Eye Lens (Cortex) Eye Lens (Cortex) Eye Lens (Nucleus) Eye (Lens) 35.83742161 0.485505536 906 Eye (Cornea) Eye (Cornea) 55.20970349 1.39690462 Eye (Lens) Eye (Lens) 35.83048041 0.486486304 Eye (Sclera) Eye (Sclera) 55.25445624 1.169114155 Eye (Vitrous Humor) Eye (Vitrous Humor) 68.90032939 1.637940143 Eye Lens (Cortex) Eye Lens (Cortex) 46.5617139 0.795202252 Eye Lens (Nucleus) Eye (Lens) 35.83048041 0.486486304
This is a 902.25 MHz signal penetrating a typical woman's finger that came from a bank of 9 Itron Smart Electric Meters & 8 Itron Smart Modules which were installed 2008 in a condominium meter shed.
DIELECRIC PROPERTIES OF HUMAN FINGER@ 902.25 MHz
dry skin conductivity :0.8675
dry skin permittivity :41.39
wet skin conductivity :0.8455
wet skin permittivity :4.607
tendon conductivity :0.7193
tendon permittivity :4.582
bone cortical conductivity :0.1436
bone cortical permittivity :1.245
bone cancellous conductivity :0.3405
bone cancellous permittivity :2.078
bone marrow conductivity :0.04027
bone marrow permittivity :5.504
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
[dry sk:wet sk:tend:wet sk:Bcort:Bcal:Bcal:Bmar:Bcal:Bcal:Bcort:wet sk:tend:wet sk:wet sk:wet sk:wet sk:dry sk]
On 03/19/21 An Emergency Court Injunction Filed To Stop Dehabilitating 'Over The Air Reception Devices' (OTARD)
CHD Files Emergency Injunction to Stop Rule Allowing 5G Antennas on Homes. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on Thursday 03/19/21 filed a motion for emergency relief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asking the court to stay the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Over-the-Air Reception Devices” (OTARD) Rule Amendment before it goes into effect on March 29 2021. The motion is part of CHD’s petition, filed on Feb. 26 2021, challenging the rule amendment. CHD is opposing an amended rule allowing private property owners to place fixed point-to-point antennas supporting wireless service on their property and, for the first time, to extend wireless data/voice services, including 5G, to users on neighboring properties. The rule purports to facilitate fast deployment of mesh Wi-Fi networks, 5G and the ground infrastructure for SpaceX satellites, especially in rural areas. The amended rule allows the installation of radiation-transmitting antennas on homes while preempting all state and local zoning authority. No permit is required, homeowners’ association and deed restrictions and any other state laws are preempted. The focus of CHD’s motion for emergency relief is the FCC’s preemption of federal and state civil rights laws that protect the disabled and their rights for accommodations. People who are adversely affected will have no right to object to the installation of these devices, even though they will be involuntarily exposed to harmful radiation in their homes. A motion for stay requires that the movants demonstrate: (a) likelihood of success on the merits in the case; (b) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm; (c) the balance of interests favors an injunction; and (d) a stay is in the public interest. In its motion, CHD claims that if the amended rule goes into effect, petitioners and many others who developed radiation sickness (electro-sensitivity EHS effecting ~5% of World Population) or other sicknesses caused or aggravated by wireless technology radiation (effecting another ~5% of World Population for Total of effecting ~10% of World Population), will suffer immediate, irreparable and, for some, life-threatening injuries. Many will be driven out of their homes, but nowhere will be safe for them, not even rural areas. CHD argues petitioners are likely to win the case because the amended rule violates substantive and procedural due process rights, and is unlawful and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, and because of the irreparable harm to many, the court should grant the stay pending a final decision in the case. Petitioners include a family physician and mothers of four children who are sick from wireless radiation.
CHD’s April letter to the FCC was joined by 6,231 people who declared that they and/or their children are sick from wireless radiation. Eleven affidavits were filed in support of the motion, providing evidence of widespread sickness and even death in adults and children. Three of the affidavits were filed by experts, including Beatrice Golomb, M.D., Ph.D., whose 2018 paper showed that the “mystery sickness” suffered by U.S. diplomats was likely caused by pulsed radio-frequencies The petitioners in the March 18 filing experience the same sickness and symptoms brought on by exposure to wireless technology. Following the request of the U.S. Department of State to advise officials on the “mystery” sickness of the U.S. diplomats, in December 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) published a report, “An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies,” confirming Golomb’s findings regarding the diplomats. Riina Bray, medical director, Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Canada — the first hospital clinic in the world to specialize in radiation sickness, wrote to the court that seven doctors in the clinic had already diagnosed more than 400 patients with the condition, and they have a long waiting list. In addition to having a medical degree, Bray has a degree in chemical engineering and a master’s in pharmacology/toxicology in the area of drug addiction and neuro-toxicology. In her affidavit, Dr. Toril Jelter, a California pediatrician treating 100 patients, including children, who suffer from radiation sickness, wrote about the improvement she is seeing in children with neuro-developmental conditions after the families remove wireless devices from their house. The effects of wireless radiation on children, especially those with preexisting conditions, was confirmed recently by the Swiss government’s expert committee on electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation, BERENIS. In January 2021, the committee published an extensive evaluation of the scientific literature and concluded that exposure could cause or worsen several chronic illnesses, and that children and people with immune deficiencies or diseases are especially at risk. “Injunctions are very difficult to obtain,” said Dafna Tachover, director of CHD’s Wireless Harms and 5G Project. “However, the grave and immediate harm and injustice that will be caused to many if this rule goes into effect is intolerable. For those who are sick, this motion is literally a battle for their right to exist. We had to file this motion no matter what the chances are.”
CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said: “By eliminating due process and civil rights protections, the FCC has shown that it will silence any evidence of wireless harms that threatens its wireless agenda. FCC is sacrificing the health of adults and children on the altar of Telecom profit taking. Removing people’s disability accommodations even in their own homes is morally and legally indefensible.” CHD’s lead attorney for this case is Scott McCollough, a telecommunications and administrative law attorney with 35 years’ experience. Mr. McCollough also represented CHD in its previous and ongoing case against the FCC. The first case, filed in February 2020, challenges the FCC’s obsolete health and safety guidelines regarding 5G and wireless radiation. Oral arguments in the case were heard in January 2021. The case is now awaiting the court’s decision.
Prior to filing of the March 18 motion, CHD filed an administrative motion with the FCC to stay the rule amendment from going into effect until a decision in the case. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which lobbied for the rule amendment, opposed the motion. However, the FCC hasn’t ruled on the motion, and therefore, CHD filed a motion for an emergency injunction with the court.
Immediately after the filing of the motion to stay the rule amendment, the court appointed a three-judge panel to decide on the motion, comprised of Judith W. Rogers, Judge Robert L. Wilkins and Judge Neomi Rao. The court ordered the FCC to file its response on March 23. CHD will be able to file a reply to the FCC’s response on March 24. A decision is expected before March 29, when the rule is supposed to go into effect.
Below is a Danish legal opinion on 5-G along with the initial CHD injunction, FCC's response (on behalf of the Telecom Industry's' 5-G), and CHD's response to FCC's response.
FCC may have to revise the 1996 exposure limits of their currently allocated spectrum 9kHZ-275GHz because of health! -see USCA Case #20-1025 heard at DC Appellate Court 1-24-21
The petitioner's brief for Mr. W. Scott McCollough's masterful oral argument below is alone 11,190 pages (in 27 ~ 414 page volumes), while the pages of evidence he refers to vastly overwhelm this amount with over 2,000 peer reviewed studies having been submitted that amply demonstrate biophysical harm to humans at up to 8 magnitudes lower levels than current 1996 standards allow for.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST; CONSUMERS FOR SAFE CELL
PHONES; ELIZABETH BARRIS; THEODORA SCARATO
CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE; MICHELE HERTZ; PETRA BROKKEN;
DR. DAVID O. CARPENTER; DR. PAUL DART; DR. TORIL H. JELTER; DR.
ANN LEE; VIRGINIA FARVER, JENNIFER BARAN; PAUL STANLEY, M.Ed.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petition for Review of Order Issued by the
Federal Communications Commission
DEFERRED JOINT ORAL ARGUMENT BRIEF APPENDIX
VOLUMES 1-27 12,113 pages total
Edward B. Myers
Law Office of Edward B. Myers
14613 Dehaven Court
North Potomac, MD 20878
Counsel for Petitioners 20-1025
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Children’s Health Defense
1227 North Peachtree Pkwy #202
Peachtree City, GA 30269
W. Scott McCollough
McCollough Law Firm, P.C.
2290 Gatlin Creek Rd.
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
Counsel for Petitioners 20-1138
'Movie' of oral arguments
Below is the unofficial transcript of the oral arguments
Link to download all key oral argument documents as Scribd flags many erroneously with copyright infringement:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST ET AL. V. FCC KEY DOCUMENTS
Jan 18, 2021
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST ET AL. V. FCC
Full Opening Brief of Petitioners, August 14, 2020
FCC Reply Brief to Petitioners, September 22, 2020
Petitioner’s Reply to the FCC and Addendum to Petitioners Reply to the FCC, October 19, 2020
Link to all documents in case such as studies and court cases referenced
INDEX TO DEFERRED APPENDIX
Download PACER Volume 1: Volume 1 Includes FCC Resolution of Notice of Inquiry Order and Notice of Inquiry
Download PACER Volume 2: Includes FCC; Comments & reply of the CTIA The Wireless Association & Mobile Manufacturers Forum ET Docket No. 13-84
Download PACER Volume 3: Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 2)
Download PACER Volume 4: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 3)
Download PACER Volume 5: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7Part 4) Research Compilation; Abstracts ofOver 600 Studies Published BetweenAugust 2016- August 2019, Dr. Joel Moskowitz; 2019 (Tab 8 Part 1)
Download PACER Volume 6: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of Over 600 Studies Published BetweenAugust 2016- August 2019, Dr. Joel Moskowitz; 2019 (Tab 8 Part 2) Research Compilation; Abstracts of 15 New Studies, Dr. Joel Moskowitz Ph.D., 2016, Research Compilation; Studies and Documents; City of Pinole, CA
Download PACER Volume 7: Includes US Exposures Limits – A History of Their Creation, Comments and Explanations; Eng. Lloyd Morgan, Biosystem & Ecosystem; Birds, Bees
and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’: Effects of Mobile Radio and Wireless Communication.Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., 2007, Cancer; IARC Monograph: NonIonizing Radiation Part 2: RF EMFs,
2013 (Tab 13 Part 1)
Download PACER Volume 8: Includes BioInitiative Comments, Cancer; IARC Monograph: NonIonizing Radiation Part 2: RF EMFs, 2013 (Tab 13 Part 2), NTP; Commentary on the utility of
the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects.
Environmental Research. Dr. RonMelnick; 2019 and more…
Download PACER Volume 9: Includes BioInitiative-Modulation; Section 15:Evidence for Disruption by Modulation Role of Physical and Biological Variables in Bioeffects of Non-Thermal Microwaves for Reproducibility, Cancer Risk and Safety Standards, (2012 Supplement), Bio Initiative Working Group; Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF); 2014, Organizations; Environmental
Working Group Reply Comments and more…
Download PACER Volume 10:BioInitiative-Mechanisms of Harm; Percent Comparison Showing Effect vs No Effect, DNA (Comet Assay), 2017 and Free Radical (Oxidative Stress), 2019, Bio Initiative Working Group; Epidemiological Studies, RF fields epidemiology, Comments by Drs. Lennart Hardell, Fredrik Soderqvist PhD. and Michael Carlberg, MSc. Section 184.108.40.206 Epidemiological Studies (Exhibit B); 2014, BioInitiative Author; Statement of Prof. Martin Blank PhD., PhD.; 2016, and more…
Download PACER Volume 11: Dr. Paul Dart MD. (Petitioner) Comments, The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields, Problems and Solutions, Prof. Andrew Goldsworthy;2012, Dr. Richard Meltzer Comments, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure: ACautionary Tale, Dr. Donald R. Maisch Ph.D. Comments, Biological Effects from RF Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure, based on the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and the Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances; Dr. Ron M. Powell, PhD.; 2013 and more…
Download PACER Volume 12: Organizations – Cyprus Government; Neurological and behavior effects οf Non-Ionizing Radiation emitted from mobile devices on children: Steps to be taken ASAP for the protection of
children and future generations. Presentation Slides; 2016, Organizations; Austrian Medical Association, Environmental Medicine Evaluation of Electromagnetic Fields; Dr. Jerd Oberfeld MD.; 2007, Organizations; The American Academy of Pediatrics, Letter to the FCC; 2013 and more…
Download PACER Volume 13: Organizations; Appeal to the FCC Signed by 26,000 People and Organized by the Environmental Working Group, 2013 (Tab 68 Part 2), Organizations; Freiburger Appeal –
Doctors Appeal; 2002, Organizations; Benevento Resolution, The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), 2006, Organizations; The Porto Alegre Resolution; 2009 and more…
Download PACER Volume 14: Mechanisms of Harm; Meta-Analysis, Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med (Yakymenko et al).; 2016, Mechanisms of Harm; Blood Brain Barrier; Increased Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days after Exposure to the Radiation from a GSM-900 Mobile Phone. Pathophysiology (Nittby,
Salford et al); 2009, Mechanisms of Harm; DNA Damage; Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures; Dr. Paul Dart MD.; 2013 and more…
Download PACER Volume 15: Prenatal & Children; Doctors and Scientists Letters on Wi-Fi in Schools, Dr. Devra Davis PhD., President of
Environmental Health Trust (Petitioner) Comments, Children; Letter to Montgomery County Schools, Prof. Martha Herbert MD., PhD.; 2015, Neurological – Children; A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Environ Health Perspect. (Foerster et al); 2018, Prenatal & Children; Cell phone use
and behavioral problems in young children. J Epidemiol Community Health. (Divan et al); 2012 and more…
Download PACER Volume 16: Prenatal & Children; “Cell Phones & WiFi – Are Children, Fetuses and Fertility at Risk?”; 2013, Prenatal & Children; Safe Schools 2012, Medical and Scientific ExpertsCall for Safe Technologies in Schools,Prenatal & Children – Stem Cells; Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives (Markova, Belyaev et al); 2010, Radiation Sickness – Children; Angela Tsiang Comments and more…
Download PACER Volume 17: 5G; FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler ‘The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World’; 2016, 5G; Letter to House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology;
Angela Tsiang; 2016, 5G; Ask Congress to Vote No, We Are The Evidence Fact Sheet; 2016, 5G; 5G Spectrum Frontiers -The Next Great Unknown Experiment On Our Children, Compilation of Letters to
Congress; 2016, 5G;What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless and “Small” Cells and more…
Download PACER Volume 18: Cell Phones; Research Abstracts of Over 700 Studies Showing Health Effects from Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation; Prof. Henri Lai ,(Tab 142 Part 2), Cancer – Brain Tumors; Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with the use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health. (Hardell and Caarlsberg); 2013 , Cancer-Brain Tumors; Mobile phone use and brain tumor risk: early warnings, early actions? (Gee, Hardell Carlsberg) (Chapter 21 of Report: “Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution”); 2013, Jullian Gehman Esq. Comments and more…
Download PACER Volume 19: Dr. Joel Moskowitz PhD. Reply Comments, Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S., Cancer – Children; Cell Phone Radiation: Science Review on Cancer Risks and Children’s Health; Environmental Working Group; 2009, Cell Phones – Plants; Review: Weak Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From Mobile Phone Radiation on Plants. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine (Malka N. Halgamuge); 2016, Testing; Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body. IEEE Access. Prof. Om P.
Gandhi PhD.; 2019, Testing – Children; Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research. (C. Fernandez et al); 2018 and more…
Download PACER Volume 20: Industry Influence; World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – a Hard Nut to Crack (Review). International Journal of Oncology. Prof. Lennart Hardell
MD. PhD.; 2017, Industry Influence; Business Bias As Usual: The Case Of Electromagnetic Pollution. Prof. Levis, Prof. Gennaro, Prof. Garbisa, Industry Influence; Prof. Martha Herbert MD PhD., Harvard Pediatric
Neurologist Letter to Los Angeles Unified School District; 2013, Industry Influence; The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Donald
Maisch PhD.; 2009 (Tab 172 Part 1)
Download PACER Volume 21: Industry Influence; The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Donald Maisch PhD.; 2009 (Tab 172 Part 2), Industry Influence; Illusion and Escape: The Cell Phone Disease Quagmire. Dr. George L. Carlo PhD., JD.; 2008, Industry Influence; Quote of Prof. Henry Lai PhD from NY Times Article about Percent of Negative
Studies Funded By Industry; 2013, Industry Influence; Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health. Christopher Ketcham, GQ; 2010 and more…
Download PACER Volume 22: US Agencies; US Naval Medical Research Institute. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency
Radiation; 1971 (Tab 185 Part 2), US Agencies; US Department of Labor Comment, Radiation Sickness; Exemption for Fire stations, California Assembly Bill No. 57 (2015), codified at Cal. Gov. Code 65964.1, Radiation Sickness – Firefighters; Susan Foster Comments, Radiation Sickness; Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Dr. Erica MalleryBlythe; 2014 and more…
Download PACER Volume 23: Radiation Sickness; Brent Dalton Comments, Radiation Sickness; Elizabeth Barris (Petitioner) Comments, Radiation Sickness; Olemara Comments, Radiation Sickness;
Melissa White Comments, Radiation Sickness; Carol Moore Comments, Radiation Sickness; Michele Hertz (Petitioner) Comments and more…
Download PACER Volume 24: Radiation Sickness; Catherine Morgan Comments, Radiation Sickness; Angelica Rose Comments, Radiation Sickness; Brian J. Bender Comments, Radiation Sickness;
Maggie Connolly Comments, Radiation Sickness; Gregory Temmer Comments, Radiation Sickness; Bernice Nathanson Comments, and more…
Download PACER Volume 25: Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Twelve People; 2013, Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Nine People; 2013, Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Twenty People, Collected by
StopSmartMeters; 2013, Radiation Sickness: Doctor’s Diagnosis Letter for Peter Rose; 2010, Radiation Sickness; Doctor’s Diagnosis Letter for Steven Magee, European Manifesto in support of a
European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) and more…
Download PACER Volume 26: Individual Rights; R. Paul and Kathleen Sundmark Reply Comments, Individual Rights & ADA; Cynthia Edwards Comments, Individual Rights; Diana Ostermann
Comments, Individual Rights; BC Human Rights Tribunal approves smart meter class action, Citizens for Safe Technology, and more...
Download PACER Volume 27
These "results show that, by decreasing the wavelength, waves emitted from towers in 5G and higher technologies could have more effect on evolutions of DNAs within cells. This is because dermatologic cell membranes act as an antenna for these waves. They are built from charged particles,such as electrons and atoms, and could emit or receive waves. On the other hand, an antenna could only take waves in which their lengths are not greater than its size. Thus, a cell membrane could take millimeter waves in 5G technology. These waves could pass the membrane and interact with biological matters within a cell. If wavelengths of 5G waves be equal or less than the size of a nucleus, they can pass the nuclear membrane and interact with DNAs. These DNAs are built from hexagonal and pentagonal bases and, by their motions, some holes emerge.
These holes are filled by hexagonal and pentagonal extra bases which are constructed by cells. These bases could join to each other and form some viruses such as Coronavirus. It is concluded that in the next generation of mobile technology, emitted waves of towers will have more effects on biological cells.In this research, we have shown that new generation mobile technology, like 5G, could have the main role in constructing various types of viruses, such as Coronaviruses, within a cell. Some wavelengths in these technologies are smaller than the size of biological cells and could pass the cell membrane and enter the nucleus. These waves could be taken by dermatologic antenna, transfer to host cells, interact with DNAs and move them. A DNA is formed from charged particles and, by its motions,electromagnetic waves emerge. These waves produce hexagonal and pentagonal holes in liquids within nucleus and the cell. To fill these holes, bases are produced. These bases join to each other and can construct viruses like Coronaviruses.".
How long have we known that 5G (millimeter waves) are dangerous? See this ranging 43 year old Russian Study Summary that was declassified in the US 8 years ago.
OPEN LETTER FROM PHYSICIANS & PSYCHOTHERAPISTS TO GERMAN CHANCELLOR ABOUT THE DANGERS OF 5-G (TRANSLATED)
Open Letter to the Chancellor
We doctors and psychotherapists oriented towards environmental medicine see a connection between radio interference, immunodeficiency and global epidemic.
We call for drastically reducing the burden of high-frequency exposure that is spreading worldwide!
The inhabitants of the globe are currently experiencing an extensive wave of diseases due to the SARS Corona Virus 2. Elderly people (with often deficient vital substances) and those with previous illnesses or with a weakened immune system (e.g. due to the vitamin D deficiency, which is particularly prevalent in winter and spring) are particularly at risk. The losses in human life and the consequences for the economy and employees due to the politically prescribed massive contact restrictions cannot be estimated, nor can the psychosocial consequences.
We, the undersigned doctors and psychotherapists, consider two other factors to be significant in addition to the above. In addition to the degree of infectivity of the virus, the susceptibility of the “host” plays a role, that is, specifically how well the immune system works and whether specific virus antibodies are missing or have already been formed. In prevention and therapy, the most important thing is to prevent a weakening of the immune system and, in addition, to strengthen the immune system therapeutically. Immune
system damage occurs, for example, from widespread toxins, malnutrition, some medications, air pollution and certain lifestyle factors (alcohol, nicotine).
In addition, there have been new harmful environmental influences for the past two decades, the effects of which we have seen more and more frequently in our medical and psychotherapeutic work. It is about the constant exposure to mobile communications (cell phones and smartphones and the associated base stations) and similar technologies with pulsed radio frequency (WLAN with the frequencies 2.4 and higher than 5 GHz, DECT cordless phones, baby phones, tablets, Bluetooth, " Intelligent "measuring systems - so-called" smart meters ", radar, etc.).
There is already a wealth of research results on the radio-operated devices mentioned and the previous mobile radio standards 2G (GSM), 3G (UMTS), 4G (LTE), which for the most part turned out to be unsettling. According to the opinion of many industry-independent experts, pulsed high-frequency technology is now considered to be one of the causes of numerous health problems (e.g. sleep disorders, headaches, behavioral disorders, depression and exhaustion), due to increased production of free radicals ("oxidative stress") (inter alia: Yakymenko 2016)
Furthermore, scientific research is available on changes in the heart rhythm, changes in gene expression, changes in metabolism, the development of stem cells, the development of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairments, DNA damage, effects on general wellbeing increased number of free radicals, learning and memory deficits, impaired sperm function and quality (see the list of scientific studies in: International Scientist Appeal
2015, Appeal: Stop 5G: Firstenberg 2018).
Influences of high-frequency signals on the immune system were also determined (infection cluster near base stations, Waldmann-Selsam 2005) (Grigoriev 2012, Szmigielski 2013, Moskowitz 2020). In addition to undisturbed melatonin production (Reiter, Robinson
1995), vitamin D3 is crucial for the functioning of the immune system. The docking point for vitamin D3 (vitamin D receptor, VDR) is inhibited by mobile radio so that it cannot develop its immunoregulatory effect (Kaplan 2006, Marshall 2017) .
Man is a bioelectromagnetic being, the living cells have electrical potentials (in the millivolt range) on the cell membranes. Their function can be disturbed by low-frequency electrical fields and radio. A weakening of the cell membrane potential demonstrably leads to different clinical symptoms.
The Radiation Protection Commission (German: SSK) had already determined in 1991 that radio radiation below the limit values increases the calcium transport through the cell membrane (SSK 1991). Independent scientists are currently discussing the existence of voltage-dependent calcium channels, which, irritated by weak electromagnetic fields, can cause negative effects in the cell (Pall 2018). In a study by the Agricultural University of Wuhan, China, Bai and colleagues report that coronaviruses in the pig's intestinal epithelium increased the influx of calcium and thus promoted virus replication; The infection can be inhibited by special drugs, the calcium channel blockers (Bai 2020).
A summary of the current scientific knowledge can be found in Diagnose Funk (NGO)
(Diagnose: Funk 15.04.2020).
5G is already under construction in major German cities and in individual rural regions. A letter from Transport Minister Scheuer and Environment Minister Schulze from the beginning of April clearly shows what is required of the politically responsible persons in cities, municipalities and rural districts: "You have to help find the location for the new mobile radio systems and ultimately support the planned transmitters on site" (Südkurier 2020). Three different frequency ranges are used here: around 700 megahertz (used for large events), around 3.6 gigahertz (smart cities), around 26 gigahertz (indoor supply, supply networks). (German Federal Government 2017). This increases the antenna density and thus the
radiation exposure of the population many times over. We consider the introduction of 5G and the disregard for the precautionary principle, to be highly risky, as no risk assessment has been carried out, disregarding the precautionary principle, and the few existing studies show highly questionable results. The persistently repeated reference by the industry and the authorities to the supposedly “safe limit values”, which were laid down in the 26th BImSchV,
is misleading. The ICNIRP eV (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), on whose recommendation to politicians the limit values are based, is biased because of its proximity to industry (ICNIRP and EPRS 2020, Starkey 2016 on SCENIHR 2015). The limit values relate only to short-term warming by mobile radio and do not offer protection to the population.
In our view, the current situation with the dangerous SARS coronavirus 2 requires decisive action.
We doctors again appeal to all those responsible in government and healthcare:
1. Stop 5G!
2. Reduce the ubiquitous forced radiation of the population!
3. Educate the population comprehensively about the harmful effects of mobile radio and the other high-frequency technologies mentioned here!
4. Stop the dominant influence of the ICNIRP and the mobile radio lobby on the radiation protection commission, federal office for radiation protection and government! Instead of promoting state-of-the-art cell phone expansion and the cell phone industry, as before, it is now a top priority to support the health of the population, their ability to work and care by all means.
For the health of all of us!
Aschermann, Christine, Dr. med., Nervenärztin, Psychotherapeutin Bergmann, Wolf, Dr. med., Facharzt für Allgemeinmedizin, Homöopathie Dohmen, Barbara, Fachärztin für Allgemeinmedizin/Umweltmedizin Foerster, Hans Christoph, Dr. med., Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin
Hecht, Karl, Prof. em. Prof Dr. med. habil., Experimentelle und klinische pathologische Physiologie, Neurophysiologie Kammerer, Michaela, Fachärztin für Allgemeinmedizin
Kern, Markus, Dr. med., Facharzt für Psychosomatische Medizin
Krout, Monika, Dr. med., Fachärztin für Allgemeinmedizin, Elektrobiologin Mutter, Joachim, Dr. med., Facharzt für Umweltmedizin und Hygiene Röttgers, Gabriele, Dr. med., Ärztin für Allgemeinmedizin
Waldmann-Selsam, Cornelia, Dr. med., praktische Ärztin
Bai, D. et al.: Porcine deltacoronavirus (PDCoV) modulates calcium influx to favour viral replication. Virology 2020:
Deutsche Bundesregierung 2017: 5G-Strategie: https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/098- dobrindt-5g-strategie.pdf?k blob=publicationFile
Diagnose: Funk https://www.diagnose-funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=1550
EPRS/Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Europäischen Parlaments: Auswirkungen der drahtlosen 5G Kommunikation auf die menschliche Gesundheit, Febr. 2020
Firstenberg, A. 2018: Internationaler+Appell+Stopp+von+5G+auf+der+Erde+und+im+Weltraum.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b8dbc1b7c9327d89d9428a4/t/
Grigoriev, Igor, Evidence for Effects on the Immune System Supplement 2012, Immune System and EMF RF, in
Bioinitiative Report 2012, Section 8
ICNIRP: https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/structure-membership/index.htmlfrühere Mitglieder z.B. 2004-2008 https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/doc/statutes.pdf
Marshall, Trevor G.,Trudy Rumann Heil, Electrosmog and autoimmune disease, in Immunol. Res. 2017;
Pall, Martin, 2018: 5G als ernste globale Herausforderung in: https://kompetenzinitiative.com/broschueren/
Moskowitz, Joel M., Übersicht mehr als 80 Studien: 5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health? https://
Reiter, Russell J., Jo Robinson: Melatonin – your body`s natural wonder drug, New York 1995, Bantam Books
SSK 1991: Schutz vor elektromagnetischer Strahlung, in: Bundesanzeiger Nr. 43, 03.03.1992
Starkey, Sarah, 2016: Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non- ionising Radiation, in Rev Environ Health 2016; 31(4): 493–503, de Gruyter
Südkurier Nr. 80, 04.04.2020, Kunigkeit, Kommunen sollen`s richten, Werbung um Akzeptanz von
Szmigielski S.: Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures, Sci Total Environ. 2013 Jun 1;454-
Waldmann-Selsam, C.: Dokumentierte Gesundheitssschäden über den Einfluss hochfrequenter elektromagnetischer Felder, 1.Auflage 2005
https://www.diagnose-funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=784 und Fachgespräch im Bundesamt für
Wissenschaftler-Appell 2015 https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
Yakymenko, Igor, Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation in: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Volume 35, 2016 - Issue 2 und Stellungnahmen https://www.diagnose- funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=1001
Zothansiama, M. Z., Miriam Lalramdinpuii, Ganesh Chandra Jagetia. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations, in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine Volume 36, 2017 - Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1080/h15368378.2017.1350584
Revised version: 19.04.2020 Contact: Christine Aschermann
Translated into English by Hans Karow and Marcus Schlüschen, Canada. Sincerest thanks to them!
FCC is oblivious to the 70 years of science proving EMF's non-thermal harm with latest 5G proposed update to standards-it's your chance now to set them straight.
Aside from some specific 5g frequencies relating to the military's crowd dispersal weapon there is not much new for 5g in terms of protection from harm in this proposal.
Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/06/2020
This document has a comment period that ends in 46 days. (05/21/2020)
Federal Communications Commission
Comments are due on or before May 6, 2020, and reply comments are due on or before May 21, 2020.
85 FR 19117
19117-19126 (10 pages)
47 CFR 1
47 CFR 2
47 CFR 18
ET Docket No. 19-226
as of 04/05/2020 at 10:15 am EDT
Start Printed Page 19117AGENCY:Federal Communications Commission.
SUMMARY:In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on expanding the range of frequencies for which its radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits apply; on applying localized exposure limits above 6 GHz in parallel to the localized exposure limits already established below 6 GHz; on specifying the conditions and methods for averaging the RF exposure, in both time and area, during evaluation for compliance with the RF exposure limits in the rules; on addressing new RF exposure issues raised by wireless power transfer (WPT) devices; and on the definition of a WPT device.
DATES:Comments are due on or before May 6, 2020, and reply comments are due on or before May 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES:Interested parties may submit comments and replies, identified by ET Docket No. 19-226, by any of the following methods:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Martin Doczkat, email: firstname.lastname@example.org of the Office of Engineering and Technology Electromagnetic Compatibility Division; the Commission's RF Safety Program, email@example.com; or call the Office of Engineering and Technology at (202) 418-2470. For information regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2991 or Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), ET Docket No. 19-226, FCC 19-126, adopted November 27, 2019 and released December 4, 2019. The complete text of the document is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Fridays in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of the document is also available electronically on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology or by using the search function on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) web page at https://fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or on the FCC's Electronic Document System (EDOCS) web page at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs. Alternative formats (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
Comment Filing ProceduresPursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-DisclosePursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this NPRM shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission Start Printed Page 19118has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisAs required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (“RFA”), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. The Commission requests written public comment on this IRFA. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response to the NRPM and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995The NPRM contains proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general Public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
SynopsisI. Introduction1. This NPRM focuses on developing a record encompassing RF exposure limits and compliance issues raised by recent developments in technology that have changed the way wireless devices are used, frequency bands of operation, how supporting wireless infrastructure is deployed, and how RF sources are assessed for compliance with the Commission's existing RF exposure limits. These recent developments include using millimeter-wave and submillimeter-wave frequencies for mobile applications, devices that can time-average their power output to increase transmission efficiency, adaptive array antennas used by fluctuating multi-beam sources, and devices that can transfer power wirelessly. These and other similar applications of RF energy being developed raise questions as to how to determine compliance with the RF exposure limits. This NPRM seeks comment on the Commission's proposals to apply RF exposure limits in additional frequency ranges beyond those currently specified in the Commission's RF exposure rules; on applying localized exposure limits above 6 GHz, in parallel with the existing localized exposure limits below 6 GHz; on specifying the conditions and methods for averaging RF exposure, in both time and area, during evaluation for compliance with the rules; and on addressing new issues raised by WPT devices.
2. This NPRM proposes methods and seeks comment on how to best incorporate new RF technologies, new methods and techniques for RF transmission, and new usages for a variety of spectrum bands into the Commission's preexisting exposure framework. In particular, on the topic of body-worn spacing during testing of cell phones, the Commission continues to strive to ensure that such spacing represents realistic values for present-day technology and common usage. As part of this effort, the Commission explores the issue of approval for equipment using new methods and technologies.
A. Extension of Exposure Limits to Additional Frequencies3. The Commission's existing RF exposure rules provide for evaluation of the specific absorption rate (SAR) exposure level within the frequency range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz, and for evaluation of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) field strength and power density within the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The standards for localized SAR that are normally applied for testing compliance of consumer devices operating below 6 GHz were derived from the whole body limits; the Commission currently employs a similar derivation to apply localized limits where appropriate for testing consumer devices above 6 GHz. However, this approach is not formalized in the Commission's rules. Previously, the Commission sought comment on whether it should establish specific exposure limits and protocols outside the frequency ranges presently used for evaluation of SAR and/or MPE. Further, some inductive wireless chargers operate at frequencies below 100 kHz, and Commission staff have been approached by parties seeking guidance on how to determine compliance for wireless car chargers generally operating at similarly low frequencies.
4. The Commission is aware of three existing guidelines for RF exposure that extend to frequencies below 100 kHz: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1Hz—100 kHz) (2010); Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz (IEEE Std C95.1-2005) and Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz (IEEE Std C95.1-2019); and Health Canada Safety Code 6--Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz (2015). While these guidelines are aimed at prevention of electrostimulation due to electric fields induced internally within the human body in the presence of an external electromagnetic field outside the body and have similar values for limiting the internal electric field (Ei), they have different approaches to the dosimetry used to derive their respective MPE limits on external fields from those Ei values. The Commission seeks comment on the significance of the difference between these guidelines.
5. While each of the standards appears to provide appropriate Ei guidelines, the ICNIRP 2010 guidelines are the most widely accepted from an international perspective. The Commission proposes to adopt limits on Ei similar to the ICNIRP 2010 guidelines into its rules for frequencies between 3 kHz to 10 MHz. The Commission does not propose to apply these guidelines below 3 kHz. The Commission seeks comments on these proposals and other relevant and authoritative standards that commenters deem appropriate for consideration.
6. The Commission proposes to overlay ICNIRP 2010 electrostimulation limits for Ei on its existing SAR limits for frequencies between 100 kHz and 10 Start Printed Page 19119MHz. Because of the fast response time of neural stimulation relative to heating, it is appropriate to apply electrostimulation limits without time averaging (in addition to time-averaged SAR limits) to fields at frequencies well above 100 kHz. This proposal would place Ei alongside SAR as a co-primary limit between 100 kHz and 10 MHz (i.e., both Ei and SAR limits must be met between 100 kHz and 10 MHz). The Commission does not propose to amend or extend its MPE limits on external fields. By not amending or extending MPE limits on external fields, the Commission's policy that MPE limits are secondary remains intact. Guidance on how to comply with both limits within this frequency range may be developed as necessary for particular applications. The Commission proposes that its policy on recommended best practices for evaluation techniques to comply with both Ei and SAR in the frequency range between 100 kHz and 10 MHz should be contained in its Bulletins and in other supplemental materials, such as the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory's Knowledge Database (KDB). The Commission seeks comment on these proposed numerical limits and on the guidance for demonstrating compliance with such limits.
7. Although the radio spectrum is managed up to 3,000 GHz (3 THz), the Commission's exposure limits are currently specified only up to 100 GHz. The Commission is unaware of any reason the limits should be different above 100 GHz. As frequency increases up to 3,000 GHz (3 THz), body penetration is reduced and ultimately approaches zero. Accordingly, there is no reason to expect that thermal effects will effectively change at the increasingly higher frequencies. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to extend the same constant exposure limits that presently apply from 6 GHz to 100 GHz up to an upper frequency of 3,000 GHz (3 THz), which is considered to be the upper bound of existing radiofrequency bands. Starting at 300 GHz or a wavelength of 1,000 micrometers (µm), standards have been developed for lasers primarily for application in industrial settings. In an effort by standards bodies to match the laser standards, RF limits have been increased at millimeter wave frequencies; however, the Commission does not feel it is appropriate to relax its limits at higher frequencies for exposure from consumer communication devices, considering the already minimal skin depth at 100 GHz. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to extend its existing exposure limits to 3,000 GHz (3 THz) to stay ahead of the possibility of technologies being introduced that are nascent or unknown today. The Commission notes that most of the services being contemplated in the Spectrum Horizons proceeding in ET Docket No. 18-21 operate within the 95-275 GHz frequency range, but there may be other potential applications or services being contemplated above this frequency range. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Specifically, it seeks comment on the frequency range over which these proposed limits would apply.
B. Localized Exposure Limits for Higher Frequencies8. New technologies that employ techniques such as adaptive array antennas created by fluctuating multi-beam sources create complex energy fields that present challenges for current RF measurement methods. Because portable devices are being developed for operation at higher frequencies for future 5G services, the Commission proposes a localized exposure limit above 6 GHz of 4 mW/cm2 averaged over 1 cm2 for the general population, applicable up to the upper frequency boundary of 3 THz, and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission notes that both the ICNIRP guidelines and the IEEE standards specify a spatial maximum power density of 20 times the whole-body MPE limit (e.g., between 3 and 10 GHz), generally averaged over 1 cm2. The Commission proposes a localized exposure limit above 6 GHz for occupational settings of 20 mW/cm2 averaged over 1 cm2, which is consistent with the typical ratio of 5:1 for the occupational limits relative to the general population limits. The Commission tentatively concludes not to adopt an extremity limit at this time.
9. The proposed general population localized power density value of 4 mW/cm2 matches the exposure limit specified at 6 GHz in the IEEE Std C95.1-1991 standard referenced in the Commission's rules. Based on planar models, this standard suggests that a power density of 4 mW/cm2 just above 6 GHz is consistent with the Commission's 1-gram SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg at 6 GHz. Also, the thermal perception threshold at frequencies approaching 100 GHz for large areas of exposure is indicated at about 4 mW/cm2. Maintaining 4 mW/cm2 across the entire frequency range of 6 GHz to 3 THz will avoid any potential discontinuity between SAR and power density limits at 6 GHz, while also preventing the possibility of perception of warmth at higher millimeter-wave frequencies. The Commission seeks comment on all elements of this proposal, and on whether its lower-power exemptions above 6 GHz should be changed for a localized power density limit in this frequency range.
10. Recognizing the ongoing work in standards bodies to establish an in-tissue power density in lieu of free-space power density—analogous to SAR below 6 GHz—the Commission also seeks comment on whether it should instead adopt such a limit, and if so what that limit should be, or if it should withhold consideration of an in-tissue power density limit until after the standards have been published at a later date. Commenters may also propose other approaches for determining appropriate exposure limits at higher frequencies, with an analysis and justification for using any such protocol.
C. Averaging Area for Higher Frequencies11. In the 2016 Spectrum Frontiers R&O and FNPRM, the Commission acknowledged as reasonable a spatial averaging area of 20 cm2 for power density above 10 GHz—as provided by ICNIRP for a whole-body exposure limit. However, as the Commission continues to consider this issue, it finds little support in the technical literature for specifying a large averaging area with respect to the whole-body limit when an averaging area for a spatial maximum limit for localized exposure is stipulated. Moreover, ICNIRP maintains an averaging area of 1 cm2 for spatial maximum power densities over the frequency range of 10 GHz to 300 GHz. There is growing consensus that a range of from one to a few square centimeters would be a more appropriate averaging area for localized spatial maximum power density limits rather than the much larger values (20 cm2 or 100 cm2) that are provided for the whole-body limits in recent published versions of technical standards, e.g., ICNIRP and IEEE.
12. For the reasons noted, the Commission proposes a 1 cm2 averaging area to be applicable to localized exposure conditions where the averaged power density would not exceed 4 mW/cm2 for the general population (20 mW/cm2 for occupational settings). The 1 cm2 area is approximately the same size as any of the surfaces of a 1-g cube used for portable device SAR evaluation below 6 GHz in the Commission's rules, and the Commission notes that this is the guidance that the FCC Laboratory currently offers for pertinent equipment authorizations. The Commission invites comment on this proposal. It also seeks comment on whether it may also be Start Printed Page 19120appropriate to specify a spatial peak limit coupled with this 1 cm2 averaging area to avoid significant excursions under actual non-uniform exposure conditions on a millimeter scale. The Commission is aware that this 1 cm2 averaging area is generally smaller than the actual size of antenna arrays being contemplated for use by millimeter-wave portable devices, and it seeks comment on whether this factor presents insuperable or significant difficulties, and on other technically valid and practical alternatives.
D. Transmitter-Based and Device-Based Time-Averaging13. Recent technology has been developed to allow for the optimization of the time-averaged transmit power of a device over a predefined time window, using past transmit power levels as a reference to determine the maximum time-averaged SAR over that period. Based on the device's own management of time-averaged SAR, a maximum allowable transmit power for a future fixed time interval would be determined. The device would then operate at a power equal to or less than the maximum allowable transmit power, depending on factors such as the amount of data to be transmitted and network conditions. The device would either back off from a higher transmit power to a lower power when the calculated time-averaged SAR approaches the SAR limit, or the device could transmit at a higher power when the device gains an additional margin between the calculated time-averaged SAR and the SAR limit. The recent generation of wireless devices (e.g., 4G LTE) transmit in short bursts that are variable depending on operational network and user demands. The Commission's current rules for source-based time-averaging do not account for the variable nature of such transmissions. The technology being developed utilizes both the power level and the time-averaging duration in a dynamic manner, depending on the operating conditions of the device, to determine SAR compliance in real time. For example, a device could temporarily increase power to accommodate a high upload rate and/or poor propagation conditions, and then reduce power during less demanding periods based on the available SAR margin for the designated time-averaging period.
14. The Commission proposes that such active accounting and control of the instantaneous output power of the device be defined as device-based time averaging in its rules, because the Commission expects, especially for portable devices with multiple transmitters, that the cumulative transmissions from all RF sources in the device be accounted for in the SAR margin calculations. The Commission recognizes that a device may have a plurality of RF sources, some of which might be power-controlled by the device and others which might not, and so it seeks comment on how to reliably and predictably distinguish any such device from a conventional device intending to be certified under its existing source-based time-averaging rules.
15. The Commission seeks comment on whether to permit this device-based time averaging where the instantaneous transmit power and duration of each transmission burst can be managed by the device over some time period in a way that will ensure compliance with the RF exposure rules. It also seeks input as to what specifications it should adopt that will confirm compliance and be applied clearly and consistently to devices coming on the market. The Commission proposes to allow a practical extension of its existing “source-based” definition in its rules to include “device-based” time averaging. The Commission proposes to add this definition to distinguish such a device from those devices already being authorized, and recognizes its responsiveness and applicability to an individual RF source while compliance is ultimately controlled by the device itself, based on the device tracking transmission bursts and power levels over time.
16. It is unclear how SAR measurement results based on static conditions at certain power levels may be applied to support device compliance for dynamic conditions where both operational and user exposure conditions are continuously changing. It will be necessary to select the various parameters for applying source-based time-averaging to non-periodic transmissions that are random and dynamic, which can be influenced by device operating configurations, network and propagation conditions, and user operating conditions to ensure that the final measured exposure values still provide sufficient margins for various use configurations. The Commission seeks comment on the range and type of parameters that should be considered to apply the proposed time-averaging principles. For example, is it possible to develop one or more standard transmission sequences that would reasonably replicate typical operating conditions? Alternatively, would the averaging be demonstrated through modeling of the device's software or firmware, and how would this modeling be implemented? How will the Commission determine that the device software and/or firmware achieve compliance? The Commission seeks comment on the above and any other factors as they may relate to consideration of device-based time-averaging in the equipment authorization process.
17. With respect to the appropriate time-averaging period, the Commission notes two references for specifying time-averaging limits: (1) The ICNIRP standard that provides for averaging over 6 minutes at 10 GHz, and reduces to 10 seconds at 300 GHz on a complex basis; and (2) the IEEE standard that provides for an averaging time of 25 minutes at 6 GHz, dropping to 10 seconds at 300 GHz. However, since the Commission does not limit temporal-peak SAR or power density, all of the energy available in a time-averaging period could be deposited in an instant, resulting in a well-defined temperature rise, yet still be compliant with the rules. Thus, using the extended time-averaging periods of 6 or 30 minutes as set forth in the Commission's rules in other contexts, or either of the alternative time windows specified by ICNIRP and IEEE, could allow for inappropriate temperature rises in extreme cases when intense exposure occurs for only a brief period. By reducing the time-averaging period, the maximum possible temperature rise can be limited to a reasonable magnitude. The potential temperature rise (ΔT) due to an impulse exposure is proportional to the product of the allowed continuous-spatial-peak SAR (SARcsp) and the time-averaging period (Δt), so that a maximum time-averaging period (Δt) can be calculated from a specified temperature rise (ΔT) from Δt = c·ΔT/SARcsp where c is the specific heat of tissue. SARcsp at higher frequencies occurs at the skin surface, and it is dependent on the SAR or power density limit (for this calculation 1.6 mW/g or 4.0 mW/cm2), as well as the depth of energy absorption into tissue. In turn, the depth of absorption is frequency-dependent. Determination of SARcsp was approached with standard calculations using a planar model of uniform dry skin. Based on this approach, 100 seconds is a supportable averaging time up to about 3 GHz, with smaller averaging times down to one second at higher frequencies. This would permit a device to actively track its RF emissions while limiting potential temperature rise in tissue due to an impulse to a value of about 0.1°C, less than would be perceptible by the general population. Therefore, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on the following Start Printed Page 19121maximum time windows to be allowed for any frequency for devices seeking to implement device-based time averaging techniques:
Proposed Maximum Averaging Times for Device-Based Time-Averaging
Frequency (GHz)< 2.92.9-7.1257.125-10.510.5-15.415.4-2424-3737-5353-95>95
Time (seconds)10049271474321In deriving this table, as a matter of simplicity and practicality, the Commission considered the bands and bandwidths it expects will be utilized for various types of devices and services, and developed distinct parameters for each frequency range. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and whether it has best delineated these frequency ranges for the purpose of time-averaging limits. Any comment should include a rigorous technical analysis in support of the position that is advocated.
E. Wireless Power Transfer Devices18. Definition. WPT devices have been authorized for several years under the Commission's Part 15 rules or Part 18 rules, depending on whether any communication functionality is provided between the transmitting unit (TU) and the receiving unit (RU). These new and enhanced WPT products will seek an ubiquitous position in modern households and workplaces, and will require unique considerations in the equipment authorization process. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to define WPT devices under Part 18 of its rules as follows: A wireless power transfer (WPT) device is a category of Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) equipment which generates and emits RF energy for local use by inductive, capacitive, or radiative coupling, for transfer of electromagnetic energy between a power transfer unit (TU) and receiving unit(s) (RU) of a WPT system.
19. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed definition. Is there an alternative definition that would better reflect the technological developments in this area? It also seeks to allow non-communications feedback—for example, the RU modulates its resistance to create a “feedback” to the TU to indicate its charge level—as being compliant with Part 18 rules. Based on the distinction between locally-operated wireless power transfer equipment and wireless power transfer equipment that operates at a distance, should the Commission also consider a separate definition for wireless power transfer equipment that provides for the charging of receiving units located at a distance from the transfer unit, as this type of equipment may not meet the above proposed definition for “local” operation? The Commission invites comments and input on these issues.
20. Locally operated wireless power transfer systems. Part 18 allows the use of potentially unlimited power if a device operates within a designated Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) frequency band, so long as the device operates “locally.” Because the Commission's rules do not define what would constitute “local” usage, measurement and compliance challenges arise in assessing wireless power transfer devices that provide charging of receiving units located at a distance from the wireless power transfer transmitting unit. The Commission seeks comment on whether the term “local” should be defined in terms of distance between the transmitting and receiving units. If the Commission defines “local” based on this distance, what is the maximum distance between the transmitting and receiving units that should be considered as “local” operation?
21. The Commission notes that the International Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR) is considering a definition for the primary device of a wireless power transfer system that states that the term “local” is used differently in the context of wireless power transfer from other ISM devices: “for the case of WPT systems that operate inductively, `local' may imply that the separation distance between the primary (TU) and secondary (RU) WPT devices should not be greater than 50 centimeters (cm).” Based on CISPR's proposal, should the Commission use 50 cm as the maximum distance for wireless power transfer devices that operate “locally” (excluding wireless power transfer at-a-distance devices, as discussed below) under Part 18?
22. Wireless power transfer at-a-distance. The Commission seeks comment on a suitable definition and operating parameters for wireless power transfer devices that provide charging of receiving units located at a distance from the power transfer unit (i.e., 50 cm or greater), with future developments intended at distances suitable for room-size operation, and while the RU is in motion. This would cover wireless power transfer devices that do not meet the definition of a locally operated wireless power transfer device, i.e., within a proposed maximum distance between the transmitting and receiving unit(s) as discussed above. Should the Commission consider the size and coherence of the electromagnetic field created, rather than its distance from the transmitting unit? The challenge with these types of wireless power transfer devices is that charging at a distance can create an RF field distribution in three dimensions with an undefined or varying beam shape depending on the design. Moreover, the location of maximum RF exposure will be an area where various beams intersect, and the direction/location and intensity of the beams can change with the location of the target receiving unit(s). Instead—or in addition—should the size and/or shape of the maximum field determine whether the energy is used in reference to the distance between the transmitting unit and any receiving unit(s)? What parameters should be used for such a consideration?
23. The Commission further seeks comment on what factors it should consider to ensure that the RF beam from the transmitting unit is closely concentrated at the receiving unit, such that RF energy along the path(s) does not exceed the applicable RF exposure limit for any human that may be situated along the path(s), or create the potential for harmful interference to other services. How should the Commission evaluate compliance of wireless power transfer at-a-distance devices with potential movements of humans in the RF field and the potential for very close proximity of the receiving unit to humans? The Commission believes that these devices should comply with its rules under all operating conditions, including movements of people around and in the field. Should the Commission propose to establish frequency bands and power limits specifically for wireless power transfer at-a-distance devices either under Part 15 or Part 18 of its rules, including operation in designated ISM frequency bands (instead of allowing unlimited power in these bands, as Part 18 currently permits)? If the Commission establishes power limits, what should be the basis for such limits, and should any consideration be given Start Printed Page 19122to potential harmful interference to other non-part 18 devices, given the popularity of these ISM frequency bands for consumer devices? With respect to the potential for harmful interference from wireless power transfer devices to active medical devices that may be worn or implanted (e.g., body worn insulin pumps, implantable cardiac pacemakers, implantable deep brain stimulators (DBS), spinal cord stimulators, and the like), what mitigation techniques should be required?
24. Finally, the Commission seeks input on the following issues: Under what category of spectrum use should the Commission consider wireless power transfer, e.g., either ISM under Part 18, Part 15, or new rule part? What radio frequency bands are most suitable for wireless power transfer? What steps are required to ensure that radiocommunication services, including the radio astronomy service, as well as active medical devices, as indicated above, are protected from wireless power transfer operations?
25. Certification. Under Part 18, wireless power transfer equipment is currently authorized pursuant to the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) rules (formerly the Declaration of Conformity rules), with the option to use the Certification rules.
26. Because of the continuing evolution of wireless power transfer technology, and the potential use at higher power and in closer proximity to humans, the Commission proposes to require wireless power transfer equipment for both consumer and non-consumer applications to be subject to its Certification rules. Certification will allow the Commission to ensure that a wireless power transfer device complies with its RF exposure rules which may be achieved by determining whether the device qualifies for an RF exposure exemption, or whether a routine RF exposure evaluation is required. The FCC Laboratory presently provides guidance that requires applicants for authorization of wireless power transfer devices to consult with the FCC Laboratory on measurement procedures prior to equipment authorization, but exempts certain low-power wireless power transfer devices from this requirement (KDB Publication 680106). These low-power wireless power transfer devices include those that operate on frequencies below 1 MHz, at power levels less than 15 watts, only in mobile device exposure condition (>20 cm from the body), and only use single primary and secondary coils in close proximity. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a rule to exempt such low-power wireless power transfer devices from requiring certification and instead allow them to continue to be authorized using its SDoC procedure. In addition, are there other criteria the Commission should consider when exempting wireless power transfer devices from the certification requirement and, if so, what are they, and why?
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. The Commission requests written public comment on the IRFA, which is contained in Appendix C to the NPRM. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments provided in this NPRM.
28. In the IRFA, the Commission noted that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies of the Federal Government to evaluate the effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment. To meet its responsibilities under NEPA, the Commission has adopted requirements for evaluating the environmental impact of its actions. One of several environmental factors addressed by these requirements is human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters, facilities, and devices.
29. The NPRM proposes to amend Parts 1, 2, and 18 of its rules relating to the compliance of FCC-regulated transmitters, facilities, and devices with the guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy. Specifically, the Commission is proposing to make certain revisions in its rules that it believes will result in more efficient, practical and consistent application of its RF exposure compliance procedures. The NPRM seeks to develop a record that will enable the Commission to meet the challenges presented by evolving technological advances not resolved in the previous RF exposure proceedings. The NPRM seeks comment on expanding the range of frequencies for which the RF exposure limits apply; on applying localized exposure limits above 6 GHz in parallel with the localized exposure limits already established below 6 GHz; on specifying the conditions under which and the methods by which the limits are averaged, in both time and area, during evaluation for compliance with the rules; and on addressing new issues raised by Wireless Power Transfer devices.The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 203, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), 403; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; and Section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104.
30. The Commission identified the small entities to which the proposed rules would apply as being made up of entities from the following categories: International Broadcast Stations; Satellite Telecommunications Providers; All Other Telecommunications; Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations; Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems; Mobile Satellite Earth Stations; Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite); Licenses Assigned by Auction; Paging Services; 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services; 1670-1675 MHz Services; Wireless Telephony; Broadband Personal Communications Service; Advanced Wireless Services; Narrowband Personal Communications Services; Lower 700 MHz Band Licensees; Upper 700 MHz Band Licensees; 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees; Specialized Mobile Radio, 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees; 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees; Private Land Mobile Radio; Fixed Microwave Services; 39 GHz Service; Local Multipoint Distribution Service; 218-219 MHz Service; Location and Monitoring Service; Rural Radiotelephone Service; Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service; Aviation and Marine Radio Services; Offshore Radiotelephone Service; Multiple Address Systems; 1.4 GHz Band Licensees; Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees; Future 24 GHz Licensees; Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service; Television Broadcasting; Radio Broadcasting; Auxiliary, Special Broadcast, and Other Program Distribution Services; Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service; Amateur Radio Service; Personal Radio Services; Public Safety Radio Services; IMTS Resale Carriers; and Wireless Carriers and Service Providers.
31. The proposed rules in the NPRM do not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. The proposals being made in the NPRM may require Start Printed Page 19123additional analysis and mitigation activities regarding compliance with the Commission's RF exposure limits for certain facilities, operations, and transmitters, such as some wireless base stations, particularly those on rooftops, and some antennas at multiple transmitter sites. In other cases, current analytical requirements are being relaxed. The Commission also sought comments on potential alternatives.
Statement of Authority for the Actions Proposed32. Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), 403; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; and section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 18
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Proposed RulesFor the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposed to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, and 18 as follows:
PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE1.The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S. C chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted.
2.Section 1.1307 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definition of “ Device-based time averaging” to paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
*****(b) * * *
(2) * * *
Device-based time averaging is where the instantaneous transmit power and duration of each transmission burst is managed by the device over some specified time-averaging period to ensure compliance with the RF exposure limits.
*****3.Section 1.1310 is revised to read as follows:
Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits.(a) Between 3 kHz and 10 MHz (inclusive), internal electric field limits as set forth in paragraph (f) of this section shall be used to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b). Specific absorption rate (SAR) shall be used to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b) within the frequency range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz (inclusive). Power density (PD) shall be used to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b) for the frequency range above 6 GHz.
(b) The SAR limits for occupational/controlled exposure are 0.4 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of 8 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body treated as extremities, such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit for occupational/controlled exposure is 20 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). The PD limits for occupational/controlled exposure are 5 mW/cm2, as averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average PD of 20 mW/cm2, averaged over any 1 cm2. Exposure may be averaged over a time period not to exceed 6 minutes to determine compliance with occupational/controlled SAR limits.
(c) The SAR limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure are 0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body treated as extremities, such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit is 4 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). The PD limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure are 1 mW/cm2, as averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average PD of 4 mW/cm2, averaged over any 1 cm2. Exposure may be averaged over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes to determine compliance with general population/uncontrolled SAR limits.
(d)(1) Evaluation with respect to the SAR and/or PD limits in this section must demonstrate compliance with both the whole-body and peak spatial-average limits. Evaluation with respect to both the SAR and PD limits in this section and in § 2.1093 of this chapter, as well as the internal electric field limits in this section where applicable, shall be done using technically supported measurement or computational methods and exposure conditions in advance of authorization (licensing or equipment certification) and in a manner that facilitates independent assessment and, if appropriate, enforcement. Numerical computation of SAR must be supported by adequate documentation showing that the numerical method as implemented in the computational software has been fully validated; in addition, the equipment under test and exposure conditions must be modeled according to protocols established by FCC-accepted numerical computation standards or available FCC procedures for the specific computational method.
(2) The limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) listed in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) of this section, which have been derived from whole-body SAR limits, may be used instead of whole-body SAR and/or PD limits as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b), except for portable devices as defined in 47 CFR 2.1093 as these evaluations shall be performed according to the SAR and/or PD provisions, and internal electric field provisions where applicable, in § 2.1093 of this chapter.
(3) The MPE limits listed in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the SAR and/or PD limits as set forth in paragraph (a) through (c) of this section and in § 2.1093 of this chapter, and the internal electric field limits listed in Table 2 to paragraph (f) of this section are for continuous exposure, that is, for indefinite time periods. Except for internal electric field, as described in (f) of this section, exposure levels higher than the limits are permitted for shorter exposure times, as long as the average exposure over a period not to exceed the specified averaging time in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) of this section or source-based time averaging requirement of §§ 2.1091(d)(2) and 2.1093(d)(5) for general population exposure is less than the limits. Detailed information on our policies regarding procedures for evaluating compliance with all of these exposure limits can be found in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” and in supplements to Bulletin Start Printed Page 1912465, all available at the FCC's internet website: http://www.fcc.gov/rfsafety and in the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB) (https://www.fcc.gov/kdb).
Note 1 to Paragraph (d):SAR is a measure of the rate of energy absorption due to exposure to RF electromagnetic energy. These SAR limits to be used for evaluation in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are based generally on criteria published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for localized SAR in Section 4.2 of ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992 These criteria for SAR evaluation are similar to those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.5. Limits for whole body SAR and peak spatial-average SAR are based on recommendations made in both of these documents.
(e)(1) Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) sets forth limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1)—Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
Frequency range (MHz)Electric field strength (V/m)Magnetic field strength (A/m)Power density (mW/cm2)Averaging time (minutes)(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
1,500-3,000,0001.030f = frequency in MHz. * = Plane-wave equivalent power density, electric and magnetic field strengths are root-mean-square (rms).Note 2 to Paragraph (E)(1):The MPE limits in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) of this section are based generally on criteria published by the NCRP in NCRP Report No. 86, Sections 17.4.1, 220.127.116.11, 17.4.2 and 17.4.3 In the frequency range from 100 MHz to 1500 MHz, these MPE exposure limits for field strength and power density are also generally based on criteria recommended by the ANSI in Section 4.1 of “ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992. Peak spatial-average PD limits of 4 mW/cm2 for general population/uncontrolled exposure and 20 mW/cm2 for occupational/controlled exposure in the frequency range from 6 GHz to 300 GHz are generally based on criteria recommended at 6 GHz by the ANSI in Section 4.4 of ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992, and on thermal perception thresholds at frequencies above 6 GHz.
*****Note 3 to paragraph (F):Internal electric field shall be used to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b) within the frequency range of 3 kHz to 10 MHz (inclusive). Internal electric fields shall be determined as a vector average in a contiguous tissue volume of 2 × 2 × 2 cubic millimeters. Internal electric fields induced by electric or magnetic fields including transient or very short-term peak fields shall be regarded as instantaneous values not to be time-averaged.
Table 2 to Paragraph (F)—Limits for Internal Electric Field
Frequency range (MHz)Internal electric field strength (rms) (V/m)(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
0.003-10135ff = frequency in MHz.Note 3 to paragraph (f):Internal electric field limits in Table 2 to paragraph (f) of this section are generally based on guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in “ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Human Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz).”
Note 4 to § 1.1310:Sources cited in this section. 1. ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992 . “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,”, copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, New York 10017. 2. “ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Human Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz),” Published in Volume 99, Issue 6, Pages 818-836, copyright 2010 by the Health Physics Society and available at http://www.icnirp.org. 3. NCRP Report No. 86 “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS4.The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
5.Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile devices.
*****(d)(1) Applications for equipment authorization of mobile RF sources subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. In general, maximum time-averaged power levels must be used for evaluation. All unlicensed personal communications service (PCS) devices and unlicensed Start Printed Page 19125NII devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure.
(2) For purposes of analyzing mobile transmitting devices under the occupational/controlled criteria specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter, time averaging provisions of the limits may be used in conjunction with maximum duty factor to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under normal operating conditions.
(3) Such time averaging provisions based on maximum duty factor may not be used in determining exposure levels for devices intended for use by consumers in general population/uncontrolled environments as defined in § 1.1310 of this chapter. However, either “source-based” time averaging, based on an inherent property of the RF source, or “device-based” time averaging based on an inherent capability of the device in direct control of the RF source, is allowed.
*****6.Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices.
*****(d)(1) Applications for equipment authorization of portable RF sources subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. In general, maximum time-averaged power levels must be used for evaluation. All unlicensed personal communications service (PCS) devices and unlicensed NII devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure.
(2) Evaluation of compliance with the SAR limits can be demonstrated by either laboratory measurement techniques or by computational modeling. The latter must be supported by adequate documentation showing that the numerical method as implemented in the computational software has been fully validated; in addition, the equipment under test and exposure conditions must be modeled according to protocols established by FCC-accepted numerical computation standards or available FCC procedures for the specific computational method. Guidance regarding SAR, PD, internal electric field, and MPE measurement techniques, where applicable, can be found in the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB). The staff guidance provided in the KDB does not necessarily represent the only acceptable methods for measuring RF exposure or RF emissions, and is not binding on the Commission or any interested party.
(3) For purposes of analyzing portable RF sources under the occupational/controlled SAR criteria specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter, the time averaging provisions of these SAR criteria may be used to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under normal operating conditions.
(4) The time averaging provisions for occupational/controlled SAR/PD criteria, based on maximum duty factor, may not be used in determining typical exposure levels for portable devices intended for use by consumers, such as cellular telephones, that are considered to operate in general population/uncontrolled environments as defined in § 1.1310 of this chapter. However, either “source-based” time averaging, based on an inherent property of the RF source, or “device-based” time averaging based on an inherent capability of the device in direct control of the RF source, is allowed, as described in paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(5) Visual advisories (such as labeling, embossing, or on an equivalent electronic display) on portable devices designed only for occupational use can be used as part of an applicant's evidence of the device user's awareness of occupational/controlled exposure limits. Such visual advisories shall be legible and clearly visible to the user from the exterior of the device. Visual advisories must indicate that the device is for occupational use only, refer the user to specific information on RF exposure, such as that provided in a user manual and note that the advisory and its information is required for FCC RF exposure compliance. Such instructional material must provide the user with information on how to use the device in order to ensure compliance with the occupational/controlled exposure limits. A sample of the visual advisory, illustrating its location on the device, and any instructional material intended to accompany the device when marketed, shall be filed with the Commission along with the application for equipment authorization. Details of any special training requirements pertinent to limiting RF exposure should also be submitted. Holders of grants for portable devices to be used in occupational settings are encouraged, but not required, to coordinate with end-user organizations to ensure appropriate RF safety training.
(6) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits defined in § 1.1310 of this chapter apply to portable devices intended for use by consumers or persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment and may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. No communication with the consumer including either visual advisories or manual instructions will be considered sufficient to allow consumer portable devices to be evaluated subject to limits for occupational/controlled exposure specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter.
(7) “Device-based” time averaging, based on an inherent capability of the device in direct control of the RF source(s) within a device, is permitted if the protocols established to track the instantaneous transmit power over a time averaging period not to exceed the values listed in Table 1 for the specific operating frequencies of each transmitter have been validated against available FCC procedures for the “device-based” time averaging method to be used by the device.
Table 1 to Paragraph (d)—Maximum Averaging Times for Device-Based Time Averaging
Start Printed Page 19126
*****PART 18—INDUSTRIAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT7.The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 4, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307.
8.Amend § 18.107 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
*****(k) Wireless power transfer (WPT) equipment. A category of ISM equipment which generates and emits RF energy for local use by inductive, capacitive or radiative coupling, for transfer of electromagnetic energy between a power transfer unit (TU) and receiving unit(s) (RU) of a WPT system.
*****9.Add § 18.123 to read as follows:
Transition Provisions for Wireless Power Transfer Equipment.All wireless power transfer equipment that are manufactured, imported, marketed or installed on or after [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] shall comply with all the provisions for wireless power transfer devices of this part.
10.Amend § 18.203 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
*****(d) Wireless power transfer equipment shall be authorized under the Certification procedure prior to use or marketing, in accordance with the relevant sections of part 2, subpart J of this chapter.
11.Amend § 18.207 by adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
*****(e) * * *
(6) For wireless power transfer equipment, a statement confirming compliance for radio frequency radiation exposure in accordance with the requirements in 47 CFR 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093, as appropriate. Applications for equipment authorization of RF sources operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
*****[FR Doc. 2020-06966 Filed 4-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
PUBLISHED FRI, MAR 20 20203:37 PM EDT
Here’s what to expect from private space companies in 2020 and beyond
SpaceX got a key government license last week, federal filings reveal, as the company clears a regulatory hurdle that moves it closer to offering a new high-speed internet service from space.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has authorized SpaceX to begin rolling out as many as 1 million of the ground antenna the company will need to connect users to its Starlink satellite internet network. Starlink is SpaceX’s plan to build an interconnected network, or “constellation,” of about 12,000 small satellites, to provide high-speed internet to anywhere in the world. The company has launched 360 Starlink satellites in the past year.
The license details that each ground antenna is 0.48 meters in diameter, or just under 19 inches across.
“It looks like a UFO on a stick,” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said in an interview earlier this month. “It’s very important that you don’t need a specialist to install. The goal is for ... just two instructions and they can be done in either order: Point at sky, plug in.”
Starlink is intended for about the 3% “hardest to reach customers” for telecommunications companies, in rural areas where “5G is really not well-suited,” Musk said. SpaceX intends Starlink to have a high-speed connection for any users, with latency below 20 milliseconds.
Starlink competitor OneWeb may face bankruptcy OneWeb, a SoftBank-backed competitor of Starlink, is also in the middle of launching its own global satellite constellation. But Bloomberg reported on Thursday that OneWeb is considering filing for bankruptcy, with the report saying the company is facing a cash crunch. OneWeb has raised $3.4 billion to to fund its satellite network, but CEO Adrián Steckel told CNBC in a February interview that the company “is always raising” money.
“We’re constantly raising capital,” Steckel said, just after the company’s second launch. “We’re not being public about what we’re raising. When the time comes we’ll make an announcement.”
SpaceX has likewise been steadily raising funds, including $500 million in a round this year. Musk noted in the March interview that there are “zero” similar satellite efforts “that didn’t go bankrupt,” referring to companies that fell short of building networks in the early 2000s.
“We just want to be in the ‘not bankrupt’ category, that’s our goal,” Musk added.
Subscribe to CNBC PRO for exclusive insights and analysis, and live business day programming from around the world.
Role of 5G in the Coronavirus Epidemic in Wuhan China
– by Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Washington State University
Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in China, was chosen to be China’s first 5G “smart city” and the location of China’s first smart 5G highway. Wuhan is also the center of the horrendous coronavirus epidemic. The possible linkage between these two events was first discussed in an Oct. 31, 2019 article entitled: “Wuhan was the province where 5G was rolled out, now the center of deadly virus” https://5g-emf.com/wuhan-was-the-province-where-5g-was-rolled-out-now-the-center-of-deadly-virus/
The question that is being raised here is not whether 5G is responsible for the virus, but rather whether 5G radiation, acting via VGCC activation may be exacerbating the viral replication or the spread or lethality of the disease. Let’s backtrack and look at the recent history of 5G in Wuhan in order to get some perspective on those questions. An Asia Times article, dated Feb. 12, 2019 (https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/02/article/china-to-launch-first-5g-smart-highway) stated that there were 31 different 5G base stations (that is antennae) in Wuhan at the end of 2018. There were plans developed later such that approximately 10,000 5G antennae would be in place at the end of 2019, with most of those being on 5G LED smart street lamps. The first such smart street lamp was put in place on May 14, 2019 (www.china.org.cn/china/2019-05/14/content_74783676.htm), but large numbers only started being put in place in October, 2019, such that there was a furious pace of such placement in the last 2 ½ months of 2019. These findings show that the rapid pace of the coronavirus epidemic developed at least roughly as the number of 5G antennae became extraordinarily high. So we have this finding that China’s 1st 5G smart city and smart highway is the epicenter of this epidemic and this finding that the epidemic only became rapidly more severe as the numbers of 5G antennae skyrocketed.
Are these findings coincidental or does 5G have some causal role in exacerbating the coronavirus epidemic? In order to answer that question, we need to determine whether the downstream effects of VGCC activation exacerbate the viral replication, the effects of viral infection, especially those that have roles in the spread of the virus and also the mechanism by which this coronavirus causes death.
Accordingly, the replication of the viral RNA is stimulated by oxidative stress:
J Mol Biol. 2008 Nov 28;383(5):1081-96. Variable oligomerization modes in coronavirus non-structural protein 9. Ponnusamy R, Moll R, Weimar T, Mesters JR, Hilgenfeld R.
Other aspects of viral replication including those involved in the spread of the virus are stimulated by increased intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i, oxidative stress, NF-kappaB elevation, inflammation and apoptosis, each of which are increased following EMF exposure. The first citation below shows an important role of VGCC activation in stimulating coronavirus infection.
Virology. 2020 Jan 2;539:38-48. Porcine deltacoronavirus (PDCoV) modulates calcium influx to favor viral replication. Bai D, et al.
J Virol. 2011 May;85(9):4234-45. Distinct severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-induced acute lung injury pathways in two different nonhuman primate species. Smits SL, et al.
Cell Calcium. 2018 Nov;75:30-41. NAADP-dependent Ca2+ signaling regulates Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus pseudovirus translocation through the endolysosomal system. Gunaratne GS, et al.
J Virol. 2011 May;85(9):4234-45. Distinct severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-induced acute lung injury pathways in two different nonhuman primate species. Smits SL, et al.
Proteome Sci. 2011 Mar 8;9:11. Proteomic analysis of chicken embryonic trachea and kidney tissues after infection in ovo by avian infectious bronchitis coronavirus. Cao Z, et al.
Res Vet Sci. 2015 Jun;100:12-7. Serum biomarkers of oxidative stress in cats with feline infectious peritonitis. Tecles F, et al.
J Infect Dis. 2008 Mar 15;197(6):812-6. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency enhances human coronavirus infection. Wu YH et al.
J Virol. 1998 Jun;72(6):4918-24. Transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus induces programmed cell death in infected cells through a caspase-dependent pathway. Eleouet JF, et al.
The predominant cause of death from this coronavirus is pneumonia. Pneumonia is greatly exacerbated by each of those five downstream effects of VGCC activation, excessive intracellular calcium, oxidative stress, NF-kappaB elevation, inflammation and apoptosis. The first of the citations listed below shows that calcium channel blockers, the same type of drugs that block EMF effects, are useful in the treatment of pneumonia. This predicts that EMFs, acting via VGCC activation, will produce increasingly severe pneumonia and therefore 5G radiation as well as other types of EMFs may well increase pneumonia deaths.
Zheng et al. 2016 Preadmission Use of Calcium Channel Blockers and Outcomes After Hospitalization With Pneumonia: A Retrospective Propensity-Matched Cohort Study. Am J Ther. 2017 Jan/Feb;24(1):e30-e38.
Fang et al. 2017 Pneumolysin-Dependent Calpain Activation and Interleukin-1? Secretion in Macrophages Infected with Streptococcus pneumoniae. Infect Immun. 2017 Aug 18;85(9). pii: e00201-17.
Fettel et al. 2019 Sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) induces potent anti-inflammatory effects in vitro and in vivo by S1P receptor 4-mediated suppression of 5-lipoxygenase activity. FASEB J. 2019 Feb;33(2):1711-1726.
Liu and Shi. 2019 Calcium-activated chloride channel regulator 1 (CLCA1): More than a regulator of chloride transport and mucus production. World Allergy Organ J. 2019 Nov 29;12(11):100077.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(45):e13087. N-acetylcysteine improves oxidative stress and inflammatory response in patients with community acquired pneumonia: A randomized controlled trial. Zhang Q, et al.
Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 18;8(1):15393. Surfactant protein D attenuates acute lung and kidney injuries in pneumonia-induced sepsis through modulating apoptosis, inflammation and NF-?B signaling. Du J, et al.
Curr Neurovasc Res. 2020 Jan 28. MicroRNA (miR)-429 promotes inflammatory injury by targeting kruppel-like factor 4 (KLF4) in neonatal pneumonia. Zhang L, et al.
Life Sci. 2019 Jul 1;228:189-197. Long noncoding RNA SNHG16 targets miR-146a-5p/CCL5 to regulate LPS-induced WI-38 cell apoptosis and inflammation in acute pneumonia. Zhou Z, et al.
These all argue that 5G radiation is likely to greatly exacerbate the spread of the coronavirus and to greatly increase the lethality of the infections produced by it. The good news is that it is likely that those of us that live in areas with no 5G radiation and who avoid other EMFs wherever possible will probably escape much of the impacts of this prospective global pandemic. It is highly probable that one of the best things Wuhan can do to control the epidemic in the city is to turn off the 4G/5G system.
Mark Taylor is concerned with the unprecedented proliferation (>4 magnitudes in <7 years) of sub-optical levels of anthropogenic radio frequency (RF) radiation which severely impact the health of all life forms on Earth. This is even more dangerous than second hand cigarette smoke - perhaps as dangerous as lead poisoning was at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire.