[DX] Re: RF Safety

[ROBERT WANDERER]

Very similar to the EPA wanting the cars' exhaust to be cleaner than the air going in! And
trucks and buses belch pollutants by the zillions of ppm without the EPA saying "boo!"

I ran the program and found I was okay too, although on 10M I had to invoke the "50% duty
cycle" to stay "clean." However, I was assuming lossless cable (well, 9913 almost is).

I lived in the middle East; never stand downwind of a camel! (But in this case it's his (or her)
nose we've concerns about.

73, Bob AA0CY (ex 4X6FY)

----------
From:  Roderick M. Fitz-Randolph[SMTP:w5hvv@aeneas.net]
Sent:  Saturday, February 15, 1997 12:21 PM
To:  Elliott Lawrence
Cc:  towertalk@contesting.com
Subject:  [DX] Re: RF Safety

<<SNIP>>

>Wayne gave the following website to input station configurations with the
>comparison against the FCC levels as the output.
>
>http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/rfsafety
>
>I checked my station parameters: maximum power level, antenna gain and
>distance to various points  both on and off my property.  I satisfy the
>FCC compliance levels. It was really very easy.
>
>Enjoy.
>
>vy 73
>Elliott WA6TLA
>
<<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 understanding that this was NOT based on a
study utilizing real-life examples of empirically determined hazardous
effects but rather on what might have the "potential" for hazard.  I
perceive the moment in the not too distant future when the "Chicken
Littles" of safety will continue to lower the levels until there is no
practical way in which to maintain radio as amateur radio operators
have for years past.... much the same way that 25 micrograms of lead
per deciliter of blood was once considered acceptable; then it was
lowered all the way to 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood;
and I understand that there is a push on (if it hasn't already
occurred) to lower it to 5 micrograms per deciliter even though there
were no adverse effects on the human body when the acceptable level was
at 25 micrograms.

Sometimes the efforts of bureaucracies to maintain themselves in
business causes "acceptable" levels to be lowered... and lowered...
and lowered.

Is the "presently acceptable" levels of rf simply the nose of the camel
in the tent?

Something to consider.

I would like to hears some responsible responses.  Leave the flames in
the fireplace.

73, Rod

Roderick M. Fitz-Randolph
w5hvv@aeneas.net
79 Highland Hills Cove,
Jackson, TN  38305
(901) 661-9278 (Phone - Between 10 AM and 9 PM)
(901) 664-7539 (FAX - any time of day or night)


-------
Forwarded via the Internet DX Mailing List.

Submissions: dx@ve7tcp.ampr.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe requests: dx-REQUEST@ve7tcp.ampr.org
DX info on the Web: http://ve7tcp.ampr.org/DX/



--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 K7LXC@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & N4VJ / K4AAA