RF limits in Canada
Tim S. Ellam
TELLAM at mccarthy.ca
Tue Aug 6 18:30:50 EDT 1996
In this country, Industry Canada(the regulatory body) expects amateurs to comply with Saftey
Code 6 or "Limits of Exposure to RadioFrequency Fields at frequencies from 10khz-300Ghz"
published by Health Canada.
Saftey Code 6 limits exposure to RF fields for persons other than "RF Workers" to no greater
magnetic filed strength of 2.19/f for frequencies from 1mhz to 30mhz when averaged over a
0.1hour period.
In practical terms I know of no amateur who has ever bothered to perform this calculation nor
has Industry Canada ever attempted to enforce this code against an amateur. There is one
documented case in which Industry Canada did perform the appropriate testing of an
amateur station due to lobbying by neighbours and found that in a "typical" amateur
installation running 100 watts to a yagi at 65' and in a "typical" urban enviroment it was
unlikely Safety Code 6 would be violated. However, at 1kw the amateur in question came
very close to the code limits!
The difficulty with any RF exposure limits is to find a practical method for an amateur to say
with some authority they meet any "limits"! RF exposure limits have become the latest tool for
neighbours to challenge tower installations in this country.
Tim VE6SH
RAC GC
one of the many "import Canadians" as defined by USA Today!!
>From gswanson at arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW) Tue Aug 6 23:20:00 1996
From: gswanson at arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW) (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 18:20:00 -0400
Subject: Ed Hare's call sign:
Message-ID: <m0unu1p-000f6IC at mgate.arrl.org>
Ed's call is KA1CV, not KC1.
I'm now going to "retire" from this issue. HI
73 and GL in the fall (contests).
--Glenn, KB1GW
>From seay at alaska.net (Del Seay) Tue Aug 6 21:59:04 1996
From: seay at alaska.net (Del Seay) (Del Seay)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 13:59:04 -0700
Subject: More info: RF Safety..
References: <m0unsoR-000f4wC at mgate.arrl.org>
Message-ID: <3207B218.6B1B at alaska.net>
Does anyone on the net have any idea what criteria was used to
determine the "Safe Levels" of exposure?
The last scientific discussions I watched regarding rf exposure
determined that there were no studies that showed a definitive
reason for concern.
I know that the U.S. Government did ask for guidelines, but it would
be interesting to know how they arrived at these results.
Also - any legal beagles have any idea what liability we have if
our next door neighbor develops cancer, or if his son has a low
sperm count? Are we going to be at that kind of risk?
de KL7HF
>From wtill at awinc.com (Bill Till - VE5FN) Tue Aug 6 21:31:00 1996
From: wtill at awinc.com (Bill Till - VE5FN) (Bill Till - VE5FN)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 96 13:31 PDT
Subject: Wasps
Message-ID: <m0unsms-0002EWC at mail.awinc.com>
Something I learned many years ago as a farmer who came in contact with
wasps fairly regularly was that the pain and swelling can be taken out of a
wasp sting quite effectively by swabbing the stung spot with a rag or a wad
of cotton wool soaked in rubbing alcohol. I have no particular allergy to
insect stings, but without this treatment, I do get lots of pain and local
swelling. If I get an alcohol soaked swab on the sting reasonably quickly,
very minor swelling and pain results.
I once applied gasoline to a sting when I stirred up a nest and got stung a
couple of times and the only suitable fluid available was some tractor gas.
It hurt like hell for a minute, but I had no swelling or reaction.
I carry a small bottle of rubbing alcohol and a wad of cotton wool in my
vehicle all summer. It doesn't take much room in a toolbox or backpack either.
This stunt even seems to help those who have a fairly strong reaction to
stings. I have a couple of family members whose eyes will swell almost shut
after a sting and if the alcohol is applied quickly and copiously, they
don't get much reaction. I have never seen it applied to anyone who has an
extreme anaphylactic reaction, though. A fast trip to the nearest hospital
is still the answer there, I suspect, but if there is no other alternative,
this alcohol trick may be a lifesaver.
Another thing that is nice to know when going to counterattack a wasp's nest
is that they cannot fly when the temperature is below 45F. This fact may not
be too helpful except up here in the cool north. It does mean that they can
often be sneaked up on in the cool of the early morning.
>From an old farm boy from the Canadian prairies.
73
Bill - VE5FN
>From kl7y at alaska.net (Dan Robbins) Wed Aug 7 02:02:12 1996
From: kl7y at alaska.net (Dan Robbins) (Dan Robbins)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:02:12 -0800
Subject: RF Exposure limits
Message-ID: <9608070102.AC25049 at alaska.net>
>
>
AA6TY wrote:
>
>3 dB loss. On a good day, you won't even notice the
>half S-unit difference. If anything, it will encourage
>the design of higher efficiency antenna systems.
>
I once did an experiment to this effect. On 20 meters, running 1200 W out
on CW I was able to start a pileup of Europeans and have it grow. I then
cut power to 600 w output and the pileup faded until I reached the point of
calling CQ repeatedly with only occasional answers. Put the power back to
1200 watts out and the pileup gradually returned. Cut the power again and
the callers wilted. I agree that sometimes a 3 dB power cut won't make any
difference. Other times it will make all the difference in the world. When
your signal is close to the general background QRM/QRN level, a small power
change one way or the other can make a huge change in rate. The difference
can be just amazing.
Dan KL7Y
>From oddball at prairienet.com (Dean Feistamel) Wed Aug 7 04:18:32 1996
From: oddball at prairienet.com (Dean Feistamel) (Dean Feistamel)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 20:18:32 -0700
Subject: Score for NAQP CW
Message-ID: <32080B08.248E at prairienet.com>
Can anyone or everyone tell me if W9NQ will take your NAQP scores
again this year by eamil?
I have sent them before but I have moved with a lot of changes in the
past year, but can't find his email address.
Thanks to everyone in advance
Dean AA9JY (oddball)
>From floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) Tue Aug 6 23:11:51 1996
From: floydjr at Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 19:11:51 -0300
Subject: NAQP CW 96 Scores II
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960806221151.275729fa at interpath.com>
NAQP 96 CW
Raw Scores
Compiled by
>> WA4ZXA <<
floydjr at interpath.com
Date posted: 08/06/96
CALL SCORE QSO'S MULTI
------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE OPERATOR
KM9P 177,310 745 238
NM5M 150,021 711 211
K0RF 149,100 700 213
VE3EJ 132,060 620 213
N4OGW/9 123,004 644 191
AD5Q 118,300 650 182
K7UP (KN5H) 115,478 638 181
K1ZX 115,000 599 192
W5NN (KB5YVT) 114,211 631 181
NA5Q 114,145 617 185
K5GA 113,883 609 187
KF3P 111,328 568 196
AC1O/4 110,048 608 181
N5DX 109,824 572 192
WA2SRQ 108,519 593 183
KC4ZV 107,835 553 195
AB4RX 105,138 594 177
W1WEF 103,713 573 181
K4PQL 102,869 535 193
N0AT 100,040 611 164
N0AX 99,288 591 166
AA6KX 99,224 628 158
AA3B 98,484 566 174
K1VUT 96,492 561 172
AB6FO 95,004 546 174
N4YOS 92,017 551 167
N6TV 91,512 558 164
K9BG 90,825 525 173
WB5B 90,100 530 170
WR3O 87,348 502 174
NX1H 81,836 499 164
KM0L 79,707 489 163
AB5LX 78,186 498 157
AA4NC (KI4HN) 77,989 467 167
K0RC 75,604 461 164
WA6KUI 75,198 453 166
WF3T 74,998 487 154
N5CT/7 72,065 497 145
KK9W 68,310 495 138
AA0OB 67,896 492 138
WA8YRS 67,200 448 150
AA9AX 64,684 412 157
WA0I 63,840 456 140
N8AAT 56,400 400 141
WD4AHZ 54,576 379 144
W5ASP 54,496 417 130
K8NZ 53,802 366 147
KB8N 52,272 403 129
WN3K 52,122 357 146
K7NPN 47,795 395 121
AC4ZO 47,190 363 130
N5RP 43,896 354 124
KE7GH 43,200 450 96
KG5U 39,625 317 125
WB0OLA/7 (@N9ITX) 36,296 349 104
AE0M 34,542 342 101
W7MAP 31,800 256 100
W6MVW 18,900 210 90
AL7PT 15,738 183 86
KK5ZX 14,000 175 80
K0EJ 9,900 165 60
KJ6HO 4,800 96 50
MULIT-OP
WB5VZL (@W5KFT) 158,108 841 188
N2NU 145,920 760 192
TEAM SCORES
Coast-to-Coasters 473,243
Latex Rookies 142,292
OPERATORS IN MULIT-OP
WB5VZL KT5V,N5HD,WB5VZL
N2NU WW2Y,KZ2S,N2NU,K2WI
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE NO ATTACHED FILES!!!
73's Jim
**********************************************************
* Jimmy R. Floyd (Jim) Thomasville, NC *
* *
* Amateur Call: >> WA4ZXA << *
* Packet Node: >> N4ZC << *
* Internet Address: >> floydjr at interpath.com << *
**********************************************************
>From AA6KX at postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Bruce Sawyer) Wed Aug 7 02:23:09 1996
From: AA6KX at postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Bruce Sawyer) (Bruce Sawyer)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 01:23:09 +0000
Subject: More info: RF Safety..
Message-ID: <19960807012307.AAA1140 at LOCALNAME>
At 08:59 PM 8/6/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Does anyone on the net have any idea what criteria was used to
>determine the "Safe Levels" of exposure?
>The last scientific discussions I watched regarding rf exposure
>determined that there were no studies that showed a definitive
>reason for concern.
>I know that the U.S. Government did ask for guidelines, but it would
>be interesting to know how they arrived at these results.
>Also - any legal beagles have any idea what liability we have if
>our next door neighbor develops cancer, or if his son has a low
>sperm count? Are we going to be at that kind of risk?
>de KL7HF
>
Go to the FCC web site you've seen listed here and pull down FCC/OET
ASD-9601. This is a 56 page report which documents tests the EPA did at
various amateur sites to determine what constituted "reasonable" radiation
levels. After reading this thing, you can't help but be struck by a couple
of observations:
(a) They didn't just pull those numbers out of the air in the "Report and
Order" they adopted last Friday. A lot of study went into this thing.
(b) Your tax dollars at work. This is what EPA beauracrats do to justify
themselves.
As somebody else already commented, "Thank you, N6NB, for protecting us from
ourselves."
-AA6KX
>From syam at Glue.umd.edu (De Syam) Wed Aug 7 03:00:03 1996
From: syam at Glue.umd.edu (De Syam) (De Syam)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: FCC Exposure rule
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960806215235.14562B-100000 at z.glue.umd.edu>
On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Earl Needham wrote:
>
> Thank you , Dr. Overbeck (N6NB). Please continue to protect us from
> ourselves.
>
In this connection, it may be interesting to recall that Wayne Overbeck
was once the Secretary of the ARRL Advisory Group on RF Exposure which
was set up to advise the ARRL Board of Directors on this subject.
At some point the ARRL Board and the group of advisors came to a
disagreement, and the former ARRL president, W4OYI, fired Overbeck and
his group en masse...
Perhaps sometimes it's better to keep a frisky dog inside the house
rather than forcing him to go outside where he can bite the neighbors...
Very 73,
Fred Laun, K3ZO
>From jdowning at intelenet.net (John Downing) Wed Aug 7 03:04:47 1996
From: jdowning at intelenet.net (John Downing) (John Downing)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:04:47 -0700
Subject: ARRL CAC input sought
Message-ID: <01BB83CA.29C79A00 at downing-1.intelenet.net>
Hi Bob,
I've given a little more thought to this ten minute M/S rule issue. First
let me point out that my perspective is that of a Caribbean Multi-Single
entrant. From the DX side the entire ARRL DX contest boils down to one
thing: QSO rate. The only "rare" multipliers are Yukon, NWT, and, depending
on band D.C. and PEI. So I never QSY mults to another band although
I may set up a schedule with them to meet at another time. To win the thing
one must keep the Qrate above 160 per hour in recent years and close to
200 per hour in years where the solar flux is more amenable to contesting.
There is simply no time to QSY mults! Obviously, from the W/VE side rates
are lower and multipliers are more plentiful and thus, more valuable, so moving
the mult may be a more advantageous strategy.
Come to think of it since the W/VE side and the DX side are really two separate
mutually dependent contests, there's actually no reason why the rules should
be the same for each group. Food for thought.....
In looking through the last five ARRL DX contest logs from V31DX I found that
I never changed bands more than 4 times per hour and that was only in the
middle of Saturday night/Sunday morning when the pickings get slim!
Any rule change must be undertaken with the following in mind:
1) Does it make the contest more or less fun for the entrants?
2) Does it encourage or discourage new entrants?
3) Does it add to the cost / hassle to be competitive?
4) Is it easily enforceable?
5) Does it encourage real single transmitter operation so that a couple
of hams can head off to some island with a minimal amount of stuff
and put in a contest winning score - like our friends at PJ0B?
The current 10 minute rule makes it hard to move to a new band to test propagation.
For example, at sunrise moving up with the MUF only to find you worked the only guy
on ten meters and there you sit, stuck for ten minutes (one of those great moments in
contesting)! Or the reluctance to move to 160 after 30 or so multipliers have been
accumulated there because of the scarcity of contest stations there. Some would
argue that band change timing separates the best from the pack (and that may be
true) but it does reduce activity on some of the chancy bands like 10 and 160. The
proposed 10 change per hour removes some of that risk. I think band activity will
increase somewhat so it seems to me that the fun factor may go up.
The current 10 minute rule is subject to endless interpretation - such as listening time
which is unenforceable. The 10 change per hour rule is more easily understood by the
non legal beagles who just like to contest so that seems OK also.
So it seems to me that this proposal is a step forward in simplifying the contest.
Mikey likes it!
cheers,
John
N6YRU / V31DX
The Cuba Libre Contest Club
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list