The operation of 200 mW transmitters is unlawful in many developed nations. Their use may expose talent to dangerous RF levels. How would you feel about a multi-million dollar lawsuit for reckless use of wireless mikes?
Whether a danger actually exists is not the point. It's a legal issue.
Most developed countries have prescribed limits for human exposure to RF radiation. This is determined by Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) testing. If your TX, irrespective of power, complies with that spec, you are probably immune from future litigation risk.
Take this scenario for example:
Ten years down the track, an actor develops cancer; their lawyer could argue that you exposed them to undue, and unlawful, exposure and sue you for everything.
If your TX complied with the SAR regulations of the time, your defence could be that the Government determined the standards and you fully complied with them. If that level was later proven harmful, then the Government got it wrong. You could not be reasonably expected to know what ‘safe exposure’ was. I rest my case Your Honour.
On the other hand, if your transmitter did not comply with mandated standards, it could be argued that you ignored safety standards and exposed their client to reckless, excessive or unnecessary, exposure to RF that you knew, or should have known, was unsafe. What would your defence then be?
I once worked on a reality program where contestants were fitted with high power transmitters for seven weeks. At 24/7, that is over 1,100 hours of exposure immediately adjacent to vital organs, kidneys, liver and bowel, etc. Was that safe? Who knows? Were the transmitters compliant to any exposure standard? No.
If one of those contestants developed cancer, at any future time, an ambulance chaser might convince a judge, and/or jury, that exposure to unlawful and unnecessary RF radiation could be the cause.
How can I know if my transmitter complies?
If your gear bears a C-Tick label, chances are it does. If not, contact the dealer, importer or manufacturer, and ask them to email you a statement of compliance to a SAR standard. If they make some excuse for not responding, be suspicious - very suspicious. While the full compliance report may contain intellectual property, which they may rightfully consider 'commercial in confidence', they should divulge what standards were met.
Here is an example of how they might respond.
Dear Sound Mixer,
For Australian and New Zealand markets, the following standards have been met in respect to your transmitter:
1 ETSI EN 300-422-2 08/2000 Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio Spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless Microphones in the 25MHz to 3GHz frequency range - equivalent to (or exceeding) AS/NZS 4268:2003 Radio Equipment and Systems - Short Range Devices with exception to EIRP requirements1
2 Radiocommunications (Electromagnetic Radiation – Human Exposure) Standard 2003 (EMR requirements)
That is my standard response to enquiries. Your mileage may vary.
The second paragraph is the one that ensures your purchase complies to an approved standard.
Look specifically for the terms Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) or Human Exposure. If not evident, just spare a thought for the lawsuits brought about by cigarette smoking and exposure to asbestos.
What are the chances that RF exposure causes cell mutations leading to cancer? I am not qualified to speak on this but the FCC website states the following:
CAN RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION CAUSE CANCER?
Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated. Many other studies have failed to find evidence for a link to cancer or any related condition.
How long did it take to join the dots between smoking and lung cancer, or Asbestos and Mesothelioma?
Tobacco has been chewed and smoked since the time of Christ. Christopher Columbus introduced it to Europe and by 1600 it was in wide use; and even a monetary standard! By 1700, it had developed into a major industry. For a century or two, it was commonly thought that chimney soot or smoke was linked to lung cancer. Perhaps it was? Around the same period, people were burned at the stake for witchcraft or heresy. Circumstantial links are often difficult to prove, or disprove.
Wikipedia has an interesting correlation graph showing a 20 year gap between the uptake of smoking and an increase in lung cancer. It took another 40 years to convince the Surgeon General of the link between the two.
How long have we had mobile 'phones and 200 mW wireless mikes?
Whether a danger actually exists is not the point. It's a purely legal issue.
If you use transmitters that are non-compliant you may not succumb to a nasty disease, but instead a nasty lawsuit.
Do you feel lucky?
Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for heresy (a charge that was eventually overturned in a 'nullification trial') but was later elevated to martyrdom and sainthood. You win some, you lose some - I guess!
© 2009 Microphone Magic