[UK-CONTEST] QRO

[Fred Handscombe]

I'm getting worried!

TWO sensible messages already today

Well done Ian and Bob

73 FRed
G4BWP

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Henderson" <bob at 5b4agn.net>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] QRO


>
>> Ian GM3SEK wrote:
>>
>> Colin, is that really the quality of thinking by which we are to be
>> regulated?
>>
>
> I share Ian's concern.
>
> It is really sad that where once stood science stands hysteria.  Such is 
> it
> wrt radio waves.
>
> Merely that the words radiation and radio come from the same origin and 
> can
> be used in the same sentence appears enough to spark the hysteria.  Nobody
> seems to care that for a very very long time the differences between
> ionising and no-ionising radiation have been fundamentally understood.  We
> all know that ionising radiation can comprise a significant threat to life
> whereas non-ionising radiation is a pre-requisite for its very existance.
> Without non ionising radiation there would be no radio but that wouldn't
> matter because there would be no warmth from the sun either and 
> consequently
> no life on the planet.
>
> Non hysterical concerns over the potential risk from radio waves relate
> purely to the tissue heating effect of non-ionising radiation.  These
> concerns are grounded in the same science which gives rise to our concern 
> to
> use a fire-guard to keep children out of the fire and pan guards to keep
> them from being scalded.  Anyone who has ever used a microwave oven knows 
> of
> the tissue heating effect of rf radiation.  It is absolutely clear that 
> too
> much rf energy can be harmful to humans through tissue heating.  For the
> non-hysterical, it is all about understanding the effects of quantum.
>
> Unless physics has changed unrecognisably whilst I've been busy getting on
> with life, there are two very elementary formulae which when applied will
> derive the quantum effect.
>
> E=hc/lambda determines the relative energy in a wave based upon wavelength
> and I=1/(d squared) determines energy levels based upon distance from
> source.
>
> Even with my rusty maths, I can see that at a point only 10 metres from an
> antenna radiating 1500 Watts on a wavelength of 10 metres the energy level
> available for tissue heating will be several orders of magnitude less than
> that of a mobile phone radiating 1 Watt on 1800 MHz and held to the ear, 
> say
> 2 cm from the skull.  Recent studies, I believe have concluded there to be
> no evidence to support claims that mobile phones carry any radiation risk 
> to
> their users.
>
> I know, I know, I am preaching to the converted BUT I would be very
> concerned about any proposal to grant licenses to use 1500 Watts based 
> upon
> a station being located one mile or more away from the nearest neighbour.
> Such would be a truly arbitrary act on the side of hysteria and would lend
> credence to the unscientific nonsense spouted daily about health risks 
> from
> radio waves.
>
> For everyone's sake, let's bring back the science.
>
> Bob, 5B4AGN
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>