[Boatanchors] Tri-Phazers

[Rob Atkinson]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Ken Kaplan <krkaplan at cox.net> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> Not sure what you mean about non-ionizing radiation.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

do some investigating


Just about any
> radiation in large enough amounts can be harmful.

This is not true.

For instance,
> ultraviolet radiation can ruin your day. Infrared can harm the eyes
> (cataracts).

This has nothing to do with ham radio.


I wouldn't want to stand too close to a leaky microwave
> oven.

Ditto, for 99.9% of hams.  But the FCC applies these ridiculous
exposure b.s. to all hams even on HF with the U.S. legal limit of 1500
watts.

>I don't know if RF causes cancer but it can cause tissue heating.

"non-ionizing" means the molecular construction of DNA in a human cell
cannot be re-arranged.
The breaking of bonds in DNA is necessary for a tumor, including a
malignant one, to form.
Therefore, RF (Cell phones, ham radio, microwave ovens, power lines,
you name it) cannot cause cancer.
This is a scientific fact.  But there is money to be made suckering
the ignorant, including lawyers, politicians and the general public
which is why we have RF exposure guidelines, "studies" (which get
grant money from the gov't), and "protection devices" for cell phone
users.


> What are the ramifications of exposure to RF from a big linear at 15 or
> 10 meters? Dunno.

There are no ramifications.  Put 1500 watts into your 10 m. dipole and
take a nap next to it.

>Also didn't know that the FCC guidelines are baseless.
They are, unless you want to define "RF Exposure" as putting your
tongue on a hot antenna.


> Any documentation to back that up?

Go looking for yourself.  Don't expect me to do all the work for you.


>Not arguing, just want to learn. I
> remember that RF safety was a significant part of the question pool for
> the FCC exams.

Not when I took my exams.

>I assumed it was valid.

Welcome to the New FCC, run by CYA lawyers and politicians with
engineers and physicists shoved into the back of the room.
Don't let yourself be brainwashed -- not everything the gov't tells
you is the truth.

A concentrated field of RF at a high enough energy level (i.e.
frequency) can cause thermal heating of tissue, i.e. what a microwave
oven does, but for ham radio, especially boat anchors operating on HF
and six meters, you are not going to experience any tissue
heating--the concentration of photons needed to energize any body mass
is simply not there.   Therefore the idea that some guy operating on
160 meters or 40 or 15 meters has to obey RF exposure guidelines is
ridiculous and baseless.

The only reason it hasn't been contested is because the FCC (wisely)
has not been running around busting hams for this.  If they went and
shut down W1AW over RF Exposure, you'd probably see the ARRL suddenly
adopt a scientifically rigorous view on the issue.

73

Rob
K5UJ

>I'm not prepared to test as I'm
> all out of lab rats.

>
> 73 Ken kb7rgg
>
> On 12/19/2011 8:08 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>> Laugh but how many of you have been suckered by alternative medicine,
>> chiropractors, acupuncture, herbal remedies, magnet wrist bands,
>> homeopathic remedies and other medical quackery?  Then there are the
>> RF causes cancer suckers.   A scientifically poorly educated society
>> is causing real headaches for some professions and industries
>> including ham radio (example, the FCC's baseless "guidelines for RF
>> exposure" forced on all hams by the political and legal establishment
>> which is unable to understand or accept the concept of non-ionizing
>> radiation).
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Rob
>> K5UJ