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

Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,


Here we go again.....

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.


How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....

Right you are, see below:

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use

That is based on opinion ONLY. True it apparently found
support in a jury of 12, but that doesn't make it right. Many
people want "steaming hot" food...including coffee. The fact
that the old lady was so stupid as to put the cup in her croch
tells me a lot about how dumb she was.

Let's change the brew from coffee to tea. Anyone with an
ounce of brains or experience knows tea is made with boiling
water poured into a cup with a teabag. NOTE - boiling water
is the norm. Had Miss Idiot had tea in the cup instead of
coffee would she not have sued? I suspect we know the
answer to that since personal responsibility seems to be
abondoned today.

...but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

So I ask...is it OK for a cup of tea to be served to a customer
at 212 degrees...boiling water? If you were at a friend's home and that
friend made you a cup of tea which you then spilled on yourself,
would you sue your friend because the water was poured
from a pot that had just been boiling?

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

In your opinion anyway. More a case of screw the corporation
and make a few bucks when the case should have been dismissed.
If the logic is that it was too hot, then what should the temperature
threshold be for any food (i.e. tea, coffee, french fries, etc.)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice there's no temperature
threshold so designated by any governmental entity I know of.

Sorry Phil, the public opinion is not a slam dunk in support of
your legal viewpoint on this.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....
MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.
- Mike KB3EIA -

Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.

Frankly it really gets my goat about how everyone else has to have
their lives dictated by the blatent stupidity of a few.

Soapbox off :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....


Right you are, see below:


MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use


That is based on opinion ONLY. True it apparently found
support in a jury of 12, but that doesn't make it right. Many
people want "steaming hot" food...including coffee. The fact
that the old lady was so stupid as to put the cup in her croch
tells me a lot about how dumb she was.

I kind of wish that McD's would have taken the tack of printing "do not
try to hold the coffee in your crotch" on the coffee cups. simply
printing "caution, contents may be hot will not absolve them of
negligence for the people that do not know that they should not *sit on*
the cup, or try to pour it on their children.




Let's change the brew from coffee to tea. Anyone with an
ounce of brains or experience knows tea is made with boiling
water poured into a cup with a teabag. NOTE - boiling water
is the norm. Had Miss Idiot had tea in the cup instead of
coffee would she not have sued? I suspect we know the
answer to that since personal responsibility seems to be
abondoned today.

Stupidicus adoramicus



...but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.


So I ask...is it OK for a cup of tea to be served to a customer
at 212 degrees...boiling water? If you were at a friend's home and that
friend made you a cup of tea which you then spilled on yourself,
would you sue your friend because the water was poured
from a pot that had just been boiling?

And don't forget that the taste of the coffee changes with the
temperature it is brewed at. Boiled coffee is a from that some people enjoy.

I wonder if McD's is negligent re the obesity lawsuits that a
group of lawyers are working on as we speak.


http://www.banzhaf.net/obesitylinks


- mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....
MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.
- Mike KB3EIA -


Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.

My parents hot water heater is the same way. You do need to be careful,
but we should always be careful


Frankly it really gets my goat about how everyone else has to have
their lives dictated by the blatent stupidity of a few.


The bright spot in all this is that the pathetic losers do not know the
satisfaction of accepting responsibility for their own actions. They
remain lifelong victims. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and If I put a
flexible cup of hot coffee in my lap and it spills, I'm the stupid person.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.


My parents hot water heater is the same way. You do need to be
careful, but we should always be careful


We have that too, and every so often you get a cold shower because the
heating system
decided that the house was cold, and sucked all the heat out of the
unit. GRRRR!!!

Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:



In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,



Here we go again.....

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.



I always chill my coffee a bit with some ice or water from the soda
machine. Otherwise
it's too damm hot. Maybe my mouth lacks insulation or something, but my
mouth
will scald before my skin would.

ubject: Are RF safety questions too hard for the proposed new Novice
exam?
From: "Alun L. Palmer"
Date: 4/19/2004 10:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in news:20040415150839.09913.00000288
:

snip


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.

snip

LHA / WMD

Actually, it's a left hand rule regardless of which is your preferred hand,
because your heart is on your left side. (Some people's hearts are on the
right, but it's very rare).

I was taught to keep one hand in my pocket over 200V, and both hands in my
pockets over 1kV !!

Acutally, at potentially fatal amperages, it doesn't matter which hand you
grab the juice from. I've had to deal with electrocutions in which the victim
had no upper extremity contact with the source at all...they're dead
none-the-less.

Steve, K4YZ