[CW] Updated Radio Frequency Exposure Rules Become Effective May 3

[David Ferrington, M0XDF]

I would advise you keep PDF copies of the results.
73 de David, M0XDF
-- 
I believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man. It is
us. -Konrad Lorenz, ethologist, Nobel laureate (1903-1989)

> On 15 Apr 2021, at 19:02, Donald Chester <k4kyv at charter.net> wrote:
> 
> No need to document anything.  Just plug a few numbers into the calculator at the link below and see the result:
> http://hintlink.com/power_density.htm <http://hintlink.com/power_density.htm>
>  
> With the vast majority of  amateur HF installations, even those lackadaisical over the so-called “legal limit”, there is virtually zero risk of exceeding the alleged RF safety  limits if the targeted person is physically more than a few feet away from the  radiating element of the antenna.  Any effective HF antenna will likely be farther away than that from its height above ground level. 
>  
> What I am most concerned about is that misinformation accompanying this announcement will provide HOA control freaks and others afflicted with ADS (antenna derangement syndrome) more ammunition in their quest to prohibit outdoor antennas of any description. Conversely, the people at greatest risk would be those living in a house with “stealth” antennas hidden away in the attic or otherwise adjacent to living space.  
>  
> Don k4kyv
>  
> From: cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net> [mailto:cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net>] On Behalf Of Steve WD8DAS via CW
> 
>  
> That's one of the most important questions, Doc, and the ARRL announcement did a weak job of covering that point.  
>  
> As far as I can tell no filing would be needed, just an analysis of your station(s) covering every antenna and every band at highest possible power levels for each.  
>  
> Another question:  Did anyone actually do a study of amateur stations to see if the exemption was a mistake and this change is really needed?  I doubt it, or if someone did I bet it is full of assumptions.  I'd expect that 99.9% of amateur stations lack any real risk of significant RF exposure, but  now everyone still has to do the analysis and document the results.
>  
> In my opinion the few at-risk hams are VHF-and-up enthusiasts, with the increased body absorption and higher gain antenna issues.  But most of those operators usually like their antennas way up high - where no people are - further reducing the number who have an exposure risk.  
>  
> Seems like there is an insignificantly-small fraction of the amateurs who even have any chance of being over the limits, yet 100% are going to have to document their status. Absurd.  A lot of fooling around to stop that one guy from running 1500 watts into a microwave dish pointed into his own apartment building.
>  
>  
> Steve WD8DAS
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net <mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net>
> CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/ <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/>
> Unsubcribe send email to
> cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net <mailto:cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net>
> Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net <mailto:cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net>
> Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html <http://www.qsl.net/donate.html>
> 
> =30=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/attachments/20210415/9587c90a/attachment-0001.html>