Thread
:
Are RF safety questions too hard for the proposed new Novice exam?
View Single Post
#
11
April 15th 04, 08:08 PM
Len Over 21
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:
Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED.
That's not in the RM-10867 Petition for Rule Making I downloaded.
Novices are currently allowed to transmit up to 200W on 80m, 40m, 15m,
and 10m. Under the proposal, Novices would be restricted to 100W on
80m, 40m, and 15m and 50W on 10m. Also, Novices are currently allowed
to transmit on 1270-1295 MHz but would be banned from that band in the
proposal.
What can I say? The ARRL wants to "put Novices in their place"
and be nice subservient little serfs to the mighty morsemen of the
membership...from the impression they've always shown me.
If there's nit-picking needed (I think not) then in the final Report &
Order that MAY be issued, FCC will pick up on all the fly specks
and separate it from the pepper. IF and only IF ARRL will rule as
the "final winner" after no less than 18 petitions in one year's time.
Don't you think it's unfair to current Novices to cut their privileges
just so that the new Novices won't have to be tested on RF safety?
Just WHICH "RF safety" thing are you thinking of?
If it's personal "RF safety" then it is a matter of whether an
individual wants to either suicide or achieve bodily harm...about
the same as whether or not they won't have accidents climbing
a tower or tree putting up that "DX-winning super antenna."
If it's about the OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPOSURE "RF safety,"
then I think it is a lot of hooey as a result of mass paranoia of
cell phones next to the head or the ugliness of MHV power
lines spoiling orderly farm land or fear of unspecified fearsome
RADIATION boogeythings. Okay, that's the LAW [97.13 in
case you haven't looked it up yet or haven't heard of Part 1].
Maybe the LAW is a good thing, maybe it's a lot of extraneous
nonsense that doesn't need Federal Regulations (!) in a form of
Witless Protection Program.
Back in Junior High basic electricity shop class in 1947 I and
all classmates learned the "left-hand rule" (for right-handers)
which said "keep the left hand in the pocket if you have no
choice about turning the power off and working with the right
hand...that keeps a circuit from going through your heart."
Since we'd all had basic biology by then, that made a lot of
sense. Later at Fort Monmouth Signal School in 1952 a radar
basics instructor stuck a ball of steel wool on a bamboo pole
in front of a live 1 MW search radar beam. The steel wool
burned. Steel wool doesn't burn by itself. Class duly
impressed, lesson learned in a few seconds. Wasn't any
Federal Law on RF exposure then in any radio service.
Between 1953 and 1956 I worked IN an HF RF field of about
100 to 200 KW total RF energy, lived IN that field for five
months, 24/7. At least 600 others did also in that time at
that same station, not to mention all the civilian farmers living
IN that same field. Given same conditions at different sites
around the world, tens of thousands have been exposed to high
levels of RF. Nobody got cooked, fried, or rare. Was no LAW
on RF exposure then or in any radio service. Was so until the
1990s and the Big Radiation Paranoia time.
If there is so much "worry" over personal safety, do you think
any public safety agency of any kind can arrest and prosecute
a suicide? [go ahead, make my day...] Worry instead about
using your mighty amateur knowledge in TEACHING others
about electrical/RF safety, common sense in live circuits, etc.
If there is so much "worry" over Other People's RF safety, then
I'd suggest you or anyone else get a prescription for a
tranquilizer from your personal physician. That MD can't cure
legislated paranoia but it will make you feel better. It also might
give you and others some tranquility to look into more meaningful
radio subjects and quit trying to separate legal fly specks from
paranoia pepper.
LHA / WMD
Reply With Quote