Please also notice that last year's toxicology study actually shows a statistical significance of brain and heart cancer risk from intermittent daily whole body exposures of GSM & CDMA cell phone radiation exposures for 20 months @ 1.5 watts/kilogram (below the current SAR standards promulgated by the FCC in the 1980's). For some reason (see npt fact sheet for some pros & cons) the FCC remains reluctant to change these standards in light of this study's recommendation to do so based on caution, as other European societies have done since as early as the 1950's. Perhaps it will require a US court case where the jury award's damages for wrongful death against a cell phone manufacturer awarded to the relatives of that individual for the FCC to connect the dots and realize that our low power electrochemical bodies do not require only heat or ionization to be impaired. Such a change may be inconvenient to our increasingly wireless dependent society, but we should at least consider making this change before such a death is court proven. Again, (see side bar at top of blog) this is also like 2nd hand smoke, as it affects us all whether we use wireless or not and our government continues to allow this to go on.
I heard from a reliable source that OET56E3 (17 pages), which is available by googling 'Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields' may be an incomplete updated draft of E4 (38 pages). My feeling (since there is no publication date or title page) is that E3 must be an aborted draft of OET56 composed around 1990 which was superseded by OET56E4 (noting that edition 3 should come before edition 4, E3's vast incompleteness and the fact there are no dates newer than 1989 referenced within E3). Too bad the wording of OET56E3 (as far as it covers is more cautionary) was not used in the OET56E4 (the probable most current version). E4 thus shows some back sliding as far as human safety goes-the opposite of what the toxicology study recommends.
I also searched on FCC’s publication site ‘Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 56’ reverse date order 8670 entries, 867 pages and found nothing on the subject until September 2, 1999 page 66, entry 669 -Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields OET56E4-there was no E3 or for that matter any earlier entry back to 1936. Thus the FCC has lost any record of the date of OET56E3 unless I spend the time to searching the remaining 8000 entries to find out that this reliable source is in fact correct after-all.
oet56e4.pdf |
055699.full.pdf |
oet56e3.pdf |
160530_ntp_side-by-side_rev.pdf |