Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED. This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

What's wrong with testing prospective Novice licensees on RF safety?
Are RF safety questions that hard? It seems like an extremely
important topic to me, and learning about RF safety doesn't seem like
an undue burden. Furthermore, RF safety is just one topic on the
written exam and doesn't have the unilateral power that the Morse Code
exams currently have. What's wrong with making the Novice question
pool 10%-20% larger given how critical this topic is and given the
need to avoid downgrading privileges of current licensees?

Admittedly, there are very few active Novices at any given moment, as
these few active ones upgrade. But the same restructuring principles
(like no downgrades) for the higher license classes should still
apply.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG

Jason Hsu wrote:
Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED. This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

What's wrong with testing prospective Novice licensees on RF safety?
Are RF safety questions that hard? It seems like an extremely
important topic to me, and learning about RF safety doesn't seem like
an undue burden. Furthermore, RF safety is just one topic on the
written exam and doesn't have the unilateral power that the Morse Code
exams currently have. What's wrong with making the Novice question
pool 10%-20% larger given how critical this topic is and given the
need to avoid downgrading privileges of current licensees?

Admittedly, there are very few active Novices at any given moment, as
these few active ones upgrade. But the same restructuring principles
(like no downgrades) for the higher license classes should still
apply.


I would hope that the people that want rf safety diminished on the
entry level tests would step up and assume responsibility for any person
that injures themselves even at the lower levels they want to grant
them. "Yes Virginia, it is possible to do terrible damage to yourself
with 100 watts!"

We have an accepted level of safety instruction and testing
established. It has been around for a few years, and appears to be
working well enough. The problem as I see it is that if we reduce this
in any way, then we are inviting controversy if people start harming
themselves with our dangerous if misused toys.

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot, or that a bike manufacturer did not tell the rider that
if if becomes dark, they should turn on their headlights, people should
be very careful about removing safety requirements.

This is especially important when the purported aim of the requirement
reduction is to introduce more children into the radio environment. As a
person that had to have multiple millions of liability insurance on
myself in my dealings with children and their parents, I can say that
with some authority. It's a scary path to go down.

Given the way that people come into the hobby these days, when the
potential ham does not have the experience with high voltages that many
of us had in the past, and given our propensity to engage in litigation,
and that some of us are trying to get children involved in the hobby, I
support *more* safety related questions on the test, to include High
Voltage as well as R-F issues.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Jason Hsu wrote:
Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED. This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

What's wrong with testing prospective Novice licensees on RF safety?
Are RF safety questions that hard? It seems like an extremely
important topic to me, and learning about RF safety doesn't seem like
an undue burden. Furthermore, RF safety is just one topic on the
written exam and doesn't have the unilateral power that the Morse Code
exams currently have. What's wrong with making the Novice question
pool 10%-20% larger given how critical this topic is and given the
need to avoid downgrading privileges of current licensees?

Admittedly, there are very few active Novices at any given moment, as
these few active ones upgrade. But the same restructuring principles
(like no downgrades) for the higher license classes should still
apply.

I would hope that the people that want rf safety diminished on the
entry level tests would step up and assume responsibility for any person
that injures themselves even at the lower levels they want to grant
them. "Yes Virginia, it is possible to do terrible damage to yourself
with 100 watts!"

The "RF Safety" questions came about with the political need
to show concern for OTHERS, not the licensees themselves.

That is one thing you CAN blame on cell phones...uneducated
paranoia about radiation...all the scare books about all sorts of
radiation, even from the big MHV power lines.

We have an accepted level of safety instruction and testing
established. It has been around for a few years, and appears to be
working well enough. The problem as I see it is that if we reduce this
in any way, then we are inviting controversy if people start harming
themselves with our dangerous if misused toys.

Folkses have been playing with lots higher-power stuff than in
bitty 1 KW hamplifiers for decades before 97.13 (c) 1 and
97.13 (c) 2 were in Part 97. [also 1.1307 (b) and 1.1310]

The +100 VDC in transformerless 5-tube AM radios is lethal
but there weren't any "rules" or even "safety statements" on
those for decades. The semiconductor era with its resulting
low supply voltages was well established before anyone made
noises about tube voltages being hazardous. Where were all
the "safety" questions in ham exams then?

You're going to have to redefine what you say about "RF
Safety" as applying to OTHERS in the immediate vicinity of
ham stations.

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot, or that a bike manufacturer did not tell the rider that
if if becomes dark, they should turn on their headlights, people should
be very careful about removing safety requirements.

They should be more careful about their attornies...

This is especially important when the purported aim of the requirement
reduction is to introduce more children into the radio environment. As a
person that had to have multiple millions of liability insurance on
myself in my dealings with children and their parents, I can say that
with some authority. It's a scary path to go down.

Are hockey sticks essential to ham radio? Are those radios to be
used on ice?

Given the way that people come into the hobby these days, when the
potential ham does not have the experience with high voltages that many
of us had in the past, and given our propensity to engage in litigation,
and that some of us are trying to get children involved in the hobby, I
support *more* safety related questions on the test, to include High
Voltage as well as R-F issues.

That's a good thought, of course, but now you are confusing
possible litigation with operating high voltage equipment.

By the way, you are reading this just a couple feet from a 24 KV
potential if you use a CRT. Do you feel "safe?" :-)

LHA / WMD

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.

--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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 -

"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:
"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 -

"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

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 -

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.