Mail Archive Search: <+from:tubbyjoe@pacbell.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:tubbyjoe@pacbell.net: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (score: 1): Author: tubbyjoe@pacbell.net (Timothy-Allen Albertson-KG6IRH); Date: Fri May 16 13:20:47 2003; The issue of RF exposure is something which is solely within the jurisdiction of Foxtrot-Charlie-Charlie. Congress has passed an Act specifically preempting any state or local laws on this subject an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-05/msg00172.html (9,255 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (score: 1): Author: tubbyjoe@pacbell.net (Timothy-Allen Albertson-KG6IRH); Date: Fri May 16 13:20:50 2003; Another point I neglected to mention in my first reply was that the higher the antenna the lower the RF exposure. Such idiocy on the part of local authorities is one of the reasons I believe Congress; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-05/msg00173.html (9,303 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) (score: 1): Author: tubbyjoe@pacbell.net (Timothy-Allen Albertson-KG6IRH); Date: Tue May 20 00:58:18 2003; This is often the case when an ordinance not pertaining to RF emissions is applied in a way which impermissibly interferes with federal peremption in the area because of the matter in which it is app; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-05/msg00249.html (11,434 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] CB operator charged under new city law (score: 1): Author: tubbyjoe@pacbell.net (Timothy-Allen Albertson-KG6IRH); Date: Thu May 22 15:03:58 2003; A few years back Congress enacted legislation allowing local entities to criminalize violation of CB rules pertaining to RF transmission. The FCC then enacted CFR provisions to insure this exception; /archives//html/Towertalk/2003-05/msg00319.html (16,841 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]