Wire America: Irrelevancy of FCC RF Microwave Radiation Exposure Guideline
Andrew Marino, PhD, JD: Biological Hazards of RF Microwave Radiation Exposures
Link to NCRP Report No. 86
Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation
National Council on Radiation Protection
7910 Woodmont Avenue
Bethesda, MD, 20814
From recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection, issued April 2, 1986
NCRP Report No. 86: Chapter 17, starting on p. 275:
“The RF Electromagnetic energy dose was labeled Specific Absorption (SA), and the dose rate was labeled Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). This nomenclature, which is specifically applicable to dosimetric measures of RF Electromagnetic fields, was devised by NCRP as a more suitable terminology than the generic terms of dose and dose rate, which carry for many individuals connotations of ionizing radiation . . .
Rates of absorption of RF Electromagnetic energy can differ radically within the volume of an organism; there is both clinical and experimental utility in determining SAs and SARs in discrete organs or tissues of interest. Distributive dosimetry was pioneered by A. W. Guy (Guy, 1971b; Guy et al., 1968, 1974), who used the thermographic camera in studies of biologically simulating models and of cadavers of laboratory animals. This work revealed that the distribution of SARs is a highly complex function of many variables: carrier frequency; zone of irradiation; field polarization; electrical properties of tissues; and mass, geometry, and momentary orientation of the biological target . .
In those cases in which . . . there are highly intense, focal concentrations of absorbed RF Electromagnetic energy in the body (i.e., electromagnetic ” hot spots”), this knowledge should supersede the whole-body value and lead to a corresponding reduction in the permissible level of exposure . . . A response by an organism to RF Electromagnetic radiation may have a thermal basis, an athermal basis, or a combined basis. Determination of which of these three classes of causation is operative in a given context rests upon appropriate experimentation and inference, not on presumption . . . There is no intent to define [RF Electromagnetic radiation] exposure criteria solely in terms of SAR. Consideration is also given to other factors . . . [including] the possibility of severe deviation from uniformity of energy deposition, especially at the spectral extremes of frequency, as well as possible modulation- and carrier-frequency-specific biological responses . . .
In spite of the shortcomings of the data, it is necessary to proceed prudently with the process of exposure control through the setting of standards, while exercising appropriate caution and fully informing the worker and the public of the limits of knowledge as a review of the data . . . indicates that behavioral disruption (Section 12) appears to be the most statistically significant end point that occurs at the lowest observed SAR.
Thresholds of disruption of primate behavior were invariably above 3 to 4 W /kg, the latter of which has been taken in this report, as well as by ANSI, as the working threshold for untoward effects in human beings in the frequency range from 3 MHz to 100 GHz.
[A] safety margin has been taken as a factor of 10 for occupational populations, and the fundamental SAR exposure criterion of 0.4 W/kg is established for frequencies from 3 MHz to 100 GHz. The fundamental criterion arrived at in this report, a whole-body-averaged SAR of 0.4 W /kg averaged over any 6-min exposure period, does not differ from that chosen by ANSI . . . this value is proposed as a limit only for occupationally exposed individuals, and new lower levels of averaged exposure are proposed for members of the general population . . .
Because limited data are available to establish the relation between the biological effects of CW and pulsed sources, the decision has been made to [ignore the effects of pulsation and modulation and] continue the traditional usage of health-protection practices in controlling exposures to RFEM fields.
. . . the sensitivity of aged individuals, of pregnant females and their concepti, of young infants, or of chronically ill persons is not known. . . .it is recommended that there be an averaged exposure criterion for the general public that is set at a level equal to one-fifth of that of occupationally exposed individuals. The time base by which to average the limiting SAR for occupational exposure is 0.1 h (6 minutes). For exposure of the general population, an averaging period of 0.5 h (30 min) is recommended . . . the 30-min time-averaging period is responsive to some special circumstances for the public at large. Examples are transient passage by the individual past high-powered RFEM sources, and brief exposure to civil telecommunications systems. . .
The time averaging of and the limits on power densities and SARs as provided in the criteria in this report preclude circumstances in which excessive instantaneous peak-power levels can occur. There is, therefore, no need to specify a limit on peak power, as such . . . A report (Kunz et al., 1985) . . . linking RF electromagnetic radiation exposure with cancer, indicated that 18 out of 100 Sprague-Dawley rats exposed for life under specific-pathogen-free (SPF) conditions to 2.45-GHz pulsed fields at SAR levels of 0.2 to 0.4 W/kg suffered from malignant neoplastic lesions . . . additional work in these important areas is required.”
In 2021, 35 Years Later, the Wireless World Irrevocably Changed
The U.S. Courts of Appeals (DC Cir.) accepted and based its Aug 13, 2021 ruling on 27 volumes of scientific evidence concluding multiple significant biological damages caused by pulsed, modulated RF electromagnetic radiation exposure at power levels that are millions of times lower than the RF electromagnetic radiation exposure guidelines recommended by NCRP Report No. 86. The judges considered the 11,000+ pages of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence evidence (see links listed, below) in their ruling in Case 20-1025, Environmental Health Trust, et al. v FCC and a issued a mandate to the FCC: Vol-1, Vol-2, Vol-3, Vol-4, Vol-5, Vol-6, Vol-7 Vol-8, Vol-9, Vol-10, Vol-11, Vol-12, Vol-13, Vol-14, Vol-15, Vol-16, Vol-17, Vol-18, Vol-19, Vol-20, Vol-21, Vol-22, Vol-23, Vol-24, Vol-25, Vol-26 and Vol-27.
“. . . we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio-frequency [microwave] radiation. It must, in particular,
(i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines, (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”
This ruling means that FCC Order 19-126/19-226: Targeted Changes to the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation is not in force, the FCC’s attempt to “formalize the appproach” to extend the SAR/MPE to frequencies above 6 GHz failed and the entire matter was remanded back to the FCC in August 2021. The FCC has done nothing to date to sufficiently respond to the Aug 13, 2021 U.S. Court of Appeals mandate.
As one can read in FCC Order 19-126/19-226 Pararaph 120:
“¶ 120. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on expanding the range of frequencies for which the RF exposure limits apply; (noting that exposure limits are already in effect from 100 kHz to 100 GHz) on incorporating into our rules localized exposure limits above 6 GHz in parallel to 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 WPT devices. Although we terminated the Inquiry noticed in ET Docket No. 13-84‡ above,315 there are some proposals on which we seek comment in this NPRM that stem from matters discussed in that proceeding,316 some of which overlap with the issues identified immediately above.317“
- † — Note a key foundational problem: even though the FCC writes in FCC Order 19-126/19-226 “exposure limits are already in effect from 100 kHz to 100 GHz”, those limits were merely mathematical projections derived from data used to establish the “localized exposure limits already established below 6 GHz.” Therefore, there can be no basis for any FCC RF microwave radiation exposure limit above 6 GHz, until the FCC completes the court-mandated work in the 8/13/2021 ruling in Case N0. 20-1025: Environmental Health Trust v FCC. The judges mandated the FCC must evaluate 27 volumes of scientific evidence (11,000+ pages) showing biological harms from RF microwave radiation and then explain how the FCC RF microwave radiation guideline adequately protects against harmful effects of exposure to RF microwave radiation before it can expand RF microwave radiation exposure guidelines above 6GHz.
- ‡ — The FCC’s decision to terminate the Inquiry in ET Docket No. 13-84 was vacated and remanded to the FCC in the ruling in Case N0. 20-1025: Environmental Health Trust v FCC
- 315 — See supra Section III.
- 316 — See RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3570-89, paras. 205-52.
- 317 — The comments from that proceeding will not be included in the instant docket, as the overwhelming majority of those comments are unrelated to the issues raised in this docket and those that are relevant here are typically intermingled in the same filings as unrelated comments. Parties should refile in this docket any information or comments that they deem to be still relevant to the specific proposals in this docket.
Conclusion: In 2023, There is No FCC RF Microwave Radiation Exposure Guideline for Frequencies Above 6000 MHz
SAR was derived from studies that only looked at pulsed RF Electromagnetic radiation up to to 5,800 MHz (see the data below). There is no basis to extend that guideline to frequencies above 6,000 MHz. That is one reason why the U.S. Courts of Appeals mandated the item back to the FCC. If the FCC was confident that their RF microwave radiation exposure guideline already extended to frequencies above 6,000 MHz, then there would have been NO NEED for FCC Order 126/226.
Comparison of Power Density and SAR Thresholds for Behavioral Disruption
This, unbelievably, is the basis for our National RF-EMR Exposure Guidelines
|Species & Conditions||CW 225 MHz||Pulsed 1,300 MHz||CW 2,450 MHz||Pulsed 5,800 MHz|
|NR – PFD||n/a||100,000,000 µW/m²||280,000,000 µW/m²||200,000,000 µW/m²|
|NR – SAR||n/a||2.5 W/kg||5.0 W/kg||4.9 W/kg|
|SM – PFD||n/a||n/a||450,000,000 µW/m²||400,000,000 µW/m²|
|SM – SAR||n/a||n/a||4.5 W/kg||7.2 W/kg|
|RM – PFD||80,000,000 µW/m²||570,000,000 µW/m²||670,000,000 µW/m²||1,400,000,000 µW/m²|
|RM SAR||3.2 W/kg||4.5 W/kg||4.7 W/kg||8.4 W/kg|
- CW = Continuous Wave | PFD = Power Flux Density | SAR = Specific Absorption Rate
- NR = Norwegian Rat | SM = Squirrel Monkey | RM = Rhesus Monkey
What was the “Behavioral Disruption?”
- Five monkeys and eight rats were irradiated with RF-EMR exposures at higher and higher doses, until . . . the lab animals became unresponsive: they could no longer seek and eat their food.
- After the animals were significantly maimed, the scientists then . . . stuck a thermometer up their butts and measured the animals’ core body temperature.
- The truth: Lots of disruption of biology happens on the way to heating: cell membranes leak, proteins vibrate/distort, leading to all kinds of errors, as established in the evidence cited above (the 27 volumes of evidence in the FCC’s and US Court of Appeals records).
- California is bound by the ruling in Case 20-1025, Environmental Health Trust, et al. v FCC; this ruling cannot be ignored.
W. Scott McCollough, the attorney that won
Attorney W. Scott McCollough’s Second Answer