Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+RF\s+exposure\s+limits\s+in\s+reality\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+RF\s+exposure\s+limits\s+in\s+reality\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] RF exposure limits in reality (score: 1): Author: jsb@digistar.com; Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:11:35 -0400 (EDT); Does anyone have any information as to "real life" exposure limits for adults, children and newborns at various frequencies? I've seen the generic exposure limit ratings that the FCC publishes for di; /archives//html/Amps/2004-08/msg00201.html (7,829 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] RF exposure limits in reality (score: 1): Author: Vic Rosenthal <vic@rakefet.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:21:55 -0700; jsb@digistar.com wrote: Does anyone have any information as to "real life" exposure limits for adults, children and newborns at various frequencies? I've seen the generic exposure limit ratings that; /archives//html/Amps/2004-08/msg00202.html (8,210 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] RF exposure limits in reality (score: 1): Author: "Harold B. Mandel" <ka1xo@juno.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:45:59 -0400; Dear Jason, While on rooftops and on towers working with the cellular BTS antennae we are required to wear NARDA RF detectors that beep when the radiation gets to them. In training to qualify for RF; /archives//html/Amps/2004-08/msg00205.html (9,450 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] RF exposure limits in reality (score: 1): Author: jsb@digistar.com; Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:51:42 -0400 (EDT); That's a great link - will keep that one bookmarked. I agree - my grandfather ran a KW all through my mother's childhood operating CW and she turned out ok - hi - albeit 40 and 20 meters. The thing i; /archives//html/Amps/2004-08/msg00206.html (8,788 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] RF exposure limits in reality (score: 1): Author: Vic Rosenthal <vic@rakefet.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:07:08 -0700; jsb@digistar.com wrote: The thing i'm confused about is the difference, and I mean the REAL difference, between controlled and uncontrolled environments. My dipoles are at around 35 to 38 feet off th; /archives//html/Amps/2004-08/msg00207.html (8,744 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] RF exposure limits in reality (score: 1): Author: W8AV@aol.com; Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:25:59 -0400; The difference between controlled and uncontrolled exposure is not the mode per se. Uncontrolled exposure is exposure of members of the general public to levels of nonionizing radiation that are in; /archives//html/Amps/2004-08/msg00209.html (9,454 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] RF exposure limits in reality (score: 1): Author: "RICHARD GEORGE" <k6kwq@msn.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:52:08 -0700; Buy the ARRL book on RF exposure. It is being used as an industry standard. Unless yor running a Kw for more then 7 minutes at a time at the distance you describe you are OK. It is not accumalative.; /archives//html/Amps/2004-08/msg00211.html (8,730 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]