|
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bill
To: webmaster@rfsafe.com
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 12:27 PM
Subject: Ref to your web site
From: Warwickshire, England.
To: whoever receives my e mail.
Having come across your
web site covering RF frequencies and health ;I thought you maybe
interested in my story.
First of all I must say that I have never smoked; taken
drugs or drank. All of my life has been associated with aircraft
engineering; and from the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s; was a
ground engineer with British Airways. At some time during the
early 1980s we were issued with our own headsets and throat mics;
for cockpit communication during engine start; pushback and
departure.
These headsets had been in use for some months; during
which time they would be on the head for probably 4 hours or
more , when one afternoon they were suddenly withdrawn from
service. When asked why; we were told that they were to be
returned to London Airport for checking; as the frequency they
were operating; at could possibly be cancer forming. I should
say ; that this was some 15 years ;
before ;the doubts started with the use of mobile telephones.
In due course the headsets were returned and every one
started to use them as before. Then at some point; and for some
unknown reason; my health, which had never given me cause for
concern, started to deteriorate. This was put down to shift
work; and when my health reached a point where my very existence
was threatened! I had to give up the job that was my pride and
joy. I hoped when back to living a normal way of life;
everything would return to normal. How wrong I was..
My health continued to go down hill; and after a fairly
traumatic period ; it was diagnosed that I had cancer of the
right perotic gland. This in the immediate area where my
right throat mic came in to contact with my throat. Major
surgery and radio therapy did manage to kill it before it killed
me; but in the process I suffered terrible facial disfigurement.
Fortunately; after some 25+ facial reconstructive plastic
surgery operations; my appearance has been much improved. I tell
people that I can now pass a field of horses without frightening
them. Adding; ''well not too many.'' (Ha) Yes I still have a
sense of humor albeit a bit on the black side. Well that's my
story.
I endeavourer to bring my predicament to the
attention of my old employer; British Airways, but they denied
all knowledge of the head sets ever being a possible cause of
my cancer. I also contacted our National Radiological Protection
Board; in the late 1980s; and they said the same. So that my
concern was put on record; I then contacted the British Health
and Safety Executive; but apart from logging my concern; that
was as far as things went. As of now my life is more of existing
on a day to day level; than actually living a full and
satisfying life. I hope this maybe of some interest. With
Kind Regards to you all from England, Respectfully Yours,
Bill the Brit.
TOP
Return To Home Page
|
----- Original Message -----
To: webmaster@rfsafe.com
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 2:30 PM
Comments : In your articles
related to cell phones not compatible with "T-coil" technology
for the hard of hearing, I think a very important concept is
missing.
Pls. refer to the US FCC part 68 regulations that cross
reference to "Hearing Aid Compatibility", and you will find it
alludes to a poorly written standard EIA-504 version 1983. If
you look at the standard, from an engineers perspective,
evaluate for your self what the upper limit is for magnetic
field radiation specified. If you find an upper limit, you
would be the only one I've found who can. The key in seeing this
is that the upper limits are specified as being relative, in db,
to the reference level at 1000 Hz. And here is the chase scene:
THE reference level has no maximum and there for can float up,
allowing relative upper limits to float upwards also.
Note that this specification was revised in 1997,seven years
after I notified the FCC of this defect, and adopted by Canada
as EIA-504A of 1987. The FCC of July 1999 unfortunately ignored
the information provided to the FCC of 1990, despite my reminder
to the FCC of 1999, and the notice of July 1999 from the FCC
references a trail that leads to the old EIA 504 hearing aid
compatibility of 1983.
Note that for the EIA 504A of 1997 variant of that spec., the
magnetic field reference point at 1000 Hz is lowered to a
MINIMUM level much lower than in the EIA 504 specification of
1983. Note however that it is a minimum level, as in the 1983
EIA 504 . As such, upper magnetic field levels are 6.00 to range
upward, since the reference level has a minimum with no maximum
magnetic field specified. As such, phones made to be compliant
with the 1983 version of EIA-504 will naturally meet the 1997
version, because you can drive a truck through either
specification. They are both technologically speaking, shams,
regarding the upper limits on magnetic field emissions from
telephones for use with telecoils.
I'd like to know if anyone can find an upper limit to magnetic
field strength in either specification. Both appear to be only
limited relative to a floating reference, and hence could float
themselves.
One improvement for hearing challenged users is to receive the
signal from a remote tranceiver, using an acoustical link, or
other link that isolates the transmission from the user.
This problem also is in effect for any landline telephone that
is built to meet the FCC "Hearing Aid Compatibility" solution
suggested, BUT NOT REQUIRED, by the 1999 FCC notice. Due to an
international market, most if not all telephones are designed to
meet that US specification. If you know any that don't, please
let me know where to buy one.
That EIA-504 1983 specification restricts improvements to the
problem by the use of future technology and therefore does not
meet the originating Congressional Act. It appears there for to
be a legal sham. It was a hasty rush to a bad design.
Id recommend you consider the telecoil specification available
in the FCC part 68 regulations, and draw your own conclusions.
This is a very big societal blooper. (Its possibly in the league
of the use of lead in the Eutruscian aqueducts?)
I understand a book was published in Sydney Australia in the
early 90's that discussed this.
Hang on - you are in for a wild ride!.
Pls don't publish my email or name, there will be a landslide of
people inundating me. Such is the case when you are the
messenger. The key is in providing a non invasive
communications solution, so that people can decide for
themselves.
TOP
Return To Home
Page
|
