[TenTec] 95% Shield

[Ron Castro]

Indeed, those are higher frequencies, although the absorption rate at those 
wavelengths is lower than some commonly used amateur frequencies, at least 
according to OET-65.   At radar frequencies, dish antennas can develop a lot 
of gain and ERP's get enormous, giving rise to the "microwave oven effect". 
Why did the Navy check those guys in 1958?  Who knows?  They didn't know 
much about RF back then.  When I was in the Navy in 1969, the rumor was that 
radar operators got cataracts as a result of working around the equipment, 
but we know now that that's not true.  As for the guy who was on the nuclear 
powered carrier, again, *ionizing* radiation from nuclear sources and 
*non-ionizing* radiation from RF have nothing in common except that they 
"radiate" out from a central point.  So does a light bulb.

         Ron  N6IE
      www.N6IE.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman at spacetech.com>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] 95% Shield


> Of course all of those are much higher in frequency than the HF stuff we
> have been discussing - no ?
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Cox" <jecox at tri-lakes.net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] 95% Shield
>
>
>> Way back before recorded time (1958) when I was an Aviation Electronics
>> Technician in the Navy they hauled all of us radar tech's over to the
>> hospital and inspected our eyes for tumors.
>> None found but they must have had a reason.   I recall putting my hand in
>> front of the APS-38 wave guide on the antenna to see if I had any power
> out.
>> It would get warm just like in a microwave.  I had a fellow IBMer that 
>> was
>> an Air Force Electronic Technician on one of the very high power radars
>> which had a fence around the antenna to keep the Air Force version of our
>> Navy Aviation Machinist Mates away from it.  Some one had told them that
> if
>> they stood close when in operation it would make them sterile.
>>  I had a neighbor that was involved in the bomb test in the pacific and
>> wasn't going to have any children because of worries about radiation
> damage.
>> Had another IBMer who worked most of his 4 years in the Navy on Nuclear
>> devices on the 10th or 11th deck, down by the keel, on an aircraft
> carrier.
>> He died in his 40's of Leukemia.
>>  If you are in the majority of hams you don't have to worry because you
> will
>> probably die from the complications of old age before the electro 
>> magnetic
>> radiation or nuclear radiation get to you.
>> 73, John  KC0YAI
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Jim WA9YSD" <wa9ysd at yahoo.com>
>> To: <tentec at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] 95% Shield
>>
>>
>> > Leukemia  I read the survey results From the FCC and other publications
>> > on biological effects or RFI.  No authority on the subject by a long
>> > shot.  Magnetic fields and inadequate shielding is a hazard.  Follow
>> > the ARRL publications on the distances and FCC requirements for annual
>> > testing of your station, and you cannot go wrong.  The fact that they
>> > even want us to do this should say HAY THERE IS SOMETHING TO THIS !
>> > Keep The Faith, Jim K9TF/WA9YSD
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TenTec mailing list
>> > TenTec at contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>