[TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1

[W4EF@dellroy.com]

I think this problem is overstated. I gave it some thought when a friend of
mines tower
permit went to public hearing recently. Handwringing over potential harm
caused by
amateur antennas that are typically many feet from exposed subjects, is
easily put in
prespective when you compare it with the proximity of the typical cellular
telephone
handset. How many "peasants with pitchforks" are going to deny a ham radio
operator
his tower permit in exchange for losing the convenience of their cell
phones? Especially
when you consider that a tower generally reduces public exposure levels when
compared
to the typical stealthy attic dipole.

Of course I am assuming that the peasants are capable of making logical
conclusions. One
of the written comments that my friend received in response to the public
hearing notice for his
tower permit was from a medical doctor who was expressing concern over the
potential
"radiation fallout" from his antenna. Perhaps Cushcraft is putting depleted
Uranium in their
antennas and not telling us.

Mike,
W4EF........................................................................
.....................................


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Borowski" <rogereka@email.msn.com>
To: <Fractenna@aol.com>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1


>
> Not a bad idea when it was "suggested" to comply. Once it becomes
mandatory,
> that opens up a whole new can of worms by telling the world that this RF
> stuff IS BAD cause we NOW have a regulation that requires all Hams to
comply
> with "acceptable "SAFETY" levels". It just provides more leverage for
those
> with opposition to our antennaes and support structures. Watch the city
> attorneys and zoning boards run with this!
> -=Rog-K9RB=-
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Fractenna@aol.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 6:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] FCC RF Safety Regs Info Sept 1
>
>
> >
> > I am of the opinion that the ARRL acted very responsibly and in our best
> > interests in this matter. Invoking such a standard is a good hedge
against
> > potential future litigation--whether the suits have merit or not. It
also
> is
> > a super way of making hams more aware of their antennas and how they
work.
> >
> > It is these positive steps of late that have made me decide to rejoin
the
> > League.
> >
> > 73
> > Chip N1IR
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
>


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com