[Boatanchors] Safe radiation question

[Glenn Little WB4UIV]

A tech was working on a high power shortwave transmitter.
It had a problem in the final tube enclosure.
He defeated the interlocks and entered the enclosure while the 
transmitter was at high power.
He found and fixed the problem.
That evening he went to the emergency room for internal discomfort.
Two days later he was dead, he had cooked most of his internal organs.
RF even at low frequencies is dangerous.
Treat it with respect.
Do not look into a piece of coax attached to a 1KW UHF transmitter 
unless you want to loose your vision.
A lot of what the ARRL publishes is poor, example their grounding book, 
many errors.
OET 65 defines where the radiation boundaries should be for safety.
The limits are set for a reason.
They are on the cautious side.

73
Glenn
WB4UIV


On 2/16/2019 8:49 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> Get as close as you want.  The whole thing with "RF Exposure" at HF
> and ham power is 100% B.S. concocted by the European nanny state and
> like minded bureaucrats here with law and sociology degrees.*  To
> their shame, the ARRL has gone along with this scam rather than
> demanding FCC provide scientific proof that non-ionizing radiation at
> shortwave and medium wave will affect DNA or cause tissue heating.
> Guys made and make careers at megawatt shortwave broadcast plants and
> never had a problem.  For ham, RF burn is the risk but that's an
> injury and not a "health risk."
>
> *It's a scam because junk science researchers with degrees in other
> than scientific fields conduct on-going "studies" that are always
> inconclusive and end by stating more "research" is needed.  Some have
> made careers doing this, mostly over the cell phone scare, but stop
> and think:  there are millions and millions of cell phones in use
> world wide and have been now for at least 25 years.  Where are all the
> brain cancer cases?   If there were something to this, there would be
> an increase in brain cancer cases, but statistically, there's no
> signature rising above the regular incident noise level.  Any
> noticeable rise in any health problem correlated to RF and you'd have
> the news media shouting about it night and day.  Where's the hysteria
> apart from 15 seconds in a newscast after the WHO issues a new
> inconclusive study.
>
>> I tried a Google search but couldn't seem to
>> find anything conclusive.
> You answered your question.  Now search radon exposure and lung cancer
> and observe the search result.   See, there's actually something to
> that, provided the level of radon is high enough.
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
> ______________________________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
>
> List Administrator: Gary Harmon, K5JWK
> ** For Assistance: gharmon at idworld.net **
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Little                ARRL Technical Specialist   QCWA  LM 28417
Amateur Callsign:  WB4UIV            wb4uiv at arrl.net    AMSAT LM 2178
QTH:  Goose Creek, SC USA (EM92xx)  USSVI LM   NRA LM   SBE ARRL TAPR
"It is not the class of license that the Amateur holds but the class
of the Amateur that holds the license"