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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RF\s+Safety\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. RF Safety (score: 1): Author: edl@pacbell.net (Elliott Lawrence); Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:57:55 -0800; I had the opportunity to hear Wayne Overbeck speak to the Southern California DX Club meeting last night on the subject of rf safety and compliance with the FCC rules that become effective 1 January; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00326.html (7,592 bytes)
2. RF Safety (score: 1): Author: w5hvv@aeneas.net (Roderick M. Fitz-Randolph); Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:21:04 -0600; <<SNIP>> <<SNIP>> == Elliott, I (and I believe some others may share my feelings) have grave misgivings about the FCC levels of RF that have been established for 1 January 1998.. It is my understandi; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00337.html (8,930 bytes)
3. RF Safety (score: 1): Author: sawyers@inav.net (Steve Sawyers n0yvy); Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 21:47:48 -0600; Actually the RF levels specified are from the ANSI standard. The FCC had steadfastly stayed out of the RF safety issue for many years. They only issued their rules in response ot a directive from con; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00343.html (10,649 bytes)
4. RF Safety (score: 1): Author: westover@sneezy.sri.com (Doug Westover ); Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:36:35 -0800; Rod... I agree completely. These things start out as a piece of pseudo-science or a "feeling" which requires us to "do something". "Doing something" requires a new set of regulations and, of course,; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-02/msg00397.html (7,923 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]