[TowerTalk] Re: Upcoming Compliance
Roderick M. Fitz-Randolph
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:43:43 -0600
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Ward Silver wrote in regards to the upcoming RF
> I have been working on this issue a bit and can attest that the vast
> majority of installations will be in compliance by a wide margin. Problem
> areas seem to be mostly lowband dipoles low to the ground and high-gain
> VHF yagis mounted where someone could be in the main lobe. HF antennas
> mounted at reasonable heights are nowhere near exceeding exposure limits
> even at full power.
Several things pop into mind as I read this:
(1) "Problem areas seem to be mostly lowband dipoles low to the ground..."
That pretty much does away with 80 meter delta loops whose base leg
is in proximity to the ground that places it out of compliance. It
also does away with "Cloud Warmers" for contesting.
(2) "HF antennas mounted at reasonable heights are nowhere near exceeding
exposure limits even at full power".
What's "reasonable heights"... this year?... next year?.. 10 years?
That is this year (1998). When the eco-freaks turn on to the "dangers
of RF to the unborn, the bunny rabbits in the woods, and the fact(?)
that rf may be injurious to even the flora (what about all those Oak
trees and Pine trees that have rf burns from the dipoles touching limbs)?
Far-fetched? Take a look at the lead levels scare and progressively smaller
and smaller amounts that were considered to be completely safe.
At one time, 25 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood was considered safe!
At that time, there were many children that had counts of 10 micrograms of
lead per deciliter or more. What happens? The bureaucrats saw their jobs
being imperiled so they lowered the levels to 10 ug/dl. Now the National
average blood-lead level is somewhere in the vicinity of 2 ug/dl and so
there is a push on to lower it to 5 ug/dl (it may have already been put into
effect... not sure). It is only a matter of time before the bureaucrats
lower it to virtually nothing.... notwithstanding that 25 ug/dl is safe!
Why? Primarily, because the bureaucrats need to have something to do to
occupy their time so as to assure that their jobs are not scrapped.
What do you think will happen once this administrative dictum has been placed
in effect? Why, a complete new enforcement group of bureaucrats will
surely spring up to assure compliance. Slowly, at first, so as not to
many people. They will start the paper machines that turn on the Media
to the "Dangers of RF". 60 minutes and 20-20 will have a hey-day. After
awhile, the masses will be as afraid of your antenna as they are now of even
touching a cast lead bullet. Can you imagine real estate rental or purchase
aggreements having "Are you a licensed amateur radio operator?" on them?
When it becomes necessary to enlarge the bureaucratic forces (so that the
GS-12s can be promoted to GS-13s, etc., because they have so many people
working for them), it will be necessary to invoke more strict administrative
dictums.... I see fertile ground here for both EPA and OSHA and possibly
various state DNRs.
Can you imagine trying to explain to some bureaucratic "Enforcer" viewing
with great concern, distrust, and suspicion, that your Beverage antenna
(only 6 feet off the ground) is only used for receiving and that you don't
really put any rf into it? You only take rf out of it?
Think that is pure baloney? Paranoia? If you do, you haven't been around
bureaucrats and seen the way they work or have any insight to their thought
Now is the time to apply pressure to Congress to reverse this absurdity
before it becomes another unfounded, but well-entrenched, phobia shared by
the common man throughout the world. If you are not willing to find out
more about this and to write your Congressman and Senator, then you will
have only yourself to blame when it comes into full bloom.
The above was written seriously and was not intended to be taken lightly.
I am sure that there are Civil Servants and "unbelievers" that will try to
scorch my pants. My flame suit is on and waiting.
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com