RF Exposure limits

[D. R. Evans]

> On  5 Aug 96 at 11:22, Hans Brakob <71111.260 at CompuServe.COM> wrote:


>  1.1307(d) of this chapter.  Where the routine evaluation
> indicates that the RF radiation could be in excess of the
> limits contained in  1.1310 of this chapter, the licensee must
> take action to prevent such an occurrence.  Further information

The obvious action to take is to make the antenna higher. I wonder,
though, what one is supposed to do in places where there are strict
antenna height limits (welcome to Boulder County, folks)? Will the courts
say that it is still OK to have a strict height limit with the one way to
circumvent these limits (partially) -- QRO -- removed as an option?


--------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Evans NQ0I / G4AMJ : devans at lynx.colorado.edu
Active Member, SFWA       al019 at freenet.uchsc.edu

"Palindor Chronicles" information and extracts:
   http://spot.colorado.edu/~romigj/drevans.html
--------------------------------------------------------


>From n1ist at netcom.com (Michael L. Ardai)  Mon Aug  5 21:47:56 1996
From: n1ist at netcom.com (Michael L. Ardai) (Michael L. Ardai)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 13:47:56 -0700
Subject: RF Exposure limits
Message-ID: <199608052047.NAA04544 at netcom5.netcom.com>

On 5 Aug 1996, Ward Silver wrote:
>It looks to me like the only problem areas are at 15 and 10 meters and
>then on 80/160 where the ends of inverted vees would be close to ground
>and property edges.

I know we aren't big guns, but this sure looks like trouble for anyone with
a house-mounted (or balcony) antenna and 100W.  Actually, this will probably
also hit anyone operating mobile HF.  "Raising the tower" would be nice, but
when you live in an apartment, there isn't much tower to raise.

/mike
n1ist at Netcom.com