Timothy Schoechle, Ph.D a FCC: i limiti di esposizione sono sbagliati per gli effetti non-termici

Innanzitutto chi è questo Schoechle ?               

Dr. Schoechle è un consulente internazionale in ingegneria informatica e delle comunicazioni e in

sviluppo di standard tecnici. Attualmente ricopre il ruolo di segretario del gruppo di lavoro ISO / IEC SC25 1, il comitato internazionale per gli standard per il sistema elettronico domestico ed è co-editore tecnico di numerosi nuovi standard internazionali relativi alla smart grid, incluso un nuovo progetto sulla sicurezza informatica gateway, privacy e requisiti per l'elettronica di consumo e le applicazioni Internet-of-Things (IoT). 

Ha inoltre ha ricoperto il ruolo di segreteria di gestione e interscambio dati SC32 ISO / IEC, 2006-2015, e attualmente partecipa a una serie di organismi di normalizzazione nazionali e internazionali relativi alla smart grid e alla smart città tecnologia e questioni politiche.

...

Il Dr. Schoechle era un co-fondatore di BI Incorporated, attualmente una società da $ 1 miliardo a Boulder, in Colorado, uno sviluppatore pioniere della tecnologia RFID. Ha conseguito un M.S. in ingegneria delle telecomunicazioni (1995) e un dottorato in politica della comunicazione (2004) dell'Università del Colorado, Boulder.

Questo grande esperto di comunicazione dati, di smart-grid (che include anche gli ... smart meter), di RFID, IoT, etc etc ...  scrive al FCC

1. I limiti esistenti  [vedi quelli dell'ICNIRP ]  sono inadeguati perché non considerano in campo debole (non termici) effetti su sistemi e processi biologici. 

L'intera inchiesta FCC presenta un problema già ALLA PARTENZA:   si basa su un'ipotesi fallace e obsoleta che gli effetti termici siano l'unico rischio.

vedete il testo

2. Well below the threshold of thermal RFR effects, the inquiry needs to consider weak

field (non-thermal) effects, including the difference between long term and short term

exposures, and that because of the adaptive characteristics of biological systems, one can

switch from gain to loss by changing the modulation, the frequency, or the time delay

between pulses as well as the presence of reactive oxygen—all of which have not been

adequately taken into consideration by the FCC.

3. If existing limits are not adequate for weak field (non-thermal) effects, it makes little

sense to simply extend these limits to frequency ranges above 6 GHz.

4. It makes little sense to further weaken thermal limits by relying on effective power alone.

Dropping SAR-based limits excludes consideration of absorption into the body that

should be accounted for by SAR with the additional consideration of duration of

exposure as well as more sophisticated measures of impact on bodies and cells.

5. Averaging power over time is inadequate and deceptive because it does not deal with

peak power, is still based on the assumption that the only mode of potential harm is

heating (e.g., SAR or MPE), does not consider weak field (non-thermal) effects on

biological systems and processes, and does not deal with effects over time, or with long

term exposure effects.

6. The 19-126 inquiry and the FCC exposure guidelines are largely based on assumptions

and theoretical models rather than on experimental evidence or testing. Exposure limits

should be based on empirical science (i.e., verifiable by observation or experience rather

than theory or pure logic). “Increased emphasis on long‐term exposures may require

refining the concept of dose to more flexibly combine exposure time and field intensity or

energy absorbed.” (Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020, p. 4). “What is missing in the current

guidelines or regulations are guidelines for long-term exposure to weak EMF” (p. 5).

7. The Commission should request the FDA and/or other agencies with appropriate health

science competence to pursue or undertake establishment of actual safety standards based

on actual animal or human safety testing, recommendations, or guidelines for both short

term and long term RFR exposures and emissions as proposed by Barnes & Greenebaum,

2020, p. 4-5). The FCC should recuse themselves from the process of setting human

RFR exposure guidelines due lack of expertise.

8. “Limits on the time for operations of base stations and exposures in adjacent living

spaces are not controlled by the user and must be set by competent authorities, based on

scientific evidence. It is likely to be difficult to specify times when exposures to RF

signals are zero or below some limit. What will be needed is being able to say with some

certainty that exposure below a given level has not been shown to cause changes in body

chemistry above some level” (p. 5).

9. “A starting point might be current levels from TV and radio stations that are large enough

to give signal‐to‐noise ratios around 20 dB (100‐fold) with typical receiving systems.

Currently, mean values for the population's exposure to these systems are estimated to be

around 0.1 V/m and peak exposures range up to 2 V/m, which exceed current exposure

limits for a small fraction of the population” (p. 5).

10. Consumers are entitled to informed consent to risk. The public should be educated about

the real risks involved in using cellphones and being near cell antennas big or small as

well as the risks of being exposed to RF radiation in general. It is the responsibility of the

FCC to inform the public openly and accurately. The FCC has not done so in this

proposed rulemaking.