Mark Keith wrote:

Occasional AB Listener wrote in message

Another problem is the potential health risks associated. Could a
substantial increase in RF exposure -- especially around the household
-- contribute to the rise in cancer-related diseases?

NO! The rf levels are too low. Any worry of that is silly. The only
REAL worries, are about how bad that mess will trash the HF and LOW
VHF bands. I've already come up with my plan, if my receiver is
assaulted by this unwanted rf in the area. It's simple. If my radio is
assaulted by BPL leakage, I'll just assault the *******s right back.
I'll turn my beam towards the power line, crank up my henry to full
power, and blow and go. I'll put that frigging BPL system on hold!
They will have so many data errors, a dial up connection will look
attractive. In order to "cure" their newfound problem, they will have
to clean up the leakage. If they want to keep me out, they will have
to keep themselves within. Very simple solution I think...



Then I guess the concerns raised by the Amherst Alliance in Federal
Communications Commission Docket No. 03-104: Broadband Transmissions
Over Power Lines (May 23, 2003;
http://www.amherstalliance.org/filin...-powerline.doc), may just
be hype. In page 10 of the Inquiry, the citizens' advocacy group
petitioned the following to the FCC:


If BPL transmissions are ever authorized at all,
they should be authorized only after:

(1) The potential for interference with radio astronomy,
shortwave radio equipment, Amateur Radio Service
equipment and CB Radio equipment has been tested and
measured, in experiments involving actual users of the
affected frequencies; And

(2) The potential effects of BPL electromagnetic radiation
on the health of exposed humans and animals has been
fully assessed; And

(3) To the extent necessary for the protection of equipment
and living things, effective and appropriate
countermeasures, such as possible shielding of power
lines, have been identified, evaluated and implemented.


I agree with the inevitability that massive interference will be created
on most HF and VHF frequencies if or when BPL is implemented. I hope
the naysayers in Europe and Japan who claim that BPL could cause
long-term adverse health conditions are merely making an issue out of a
non-issue. If this technology is going to be here to stay (it may not
because of the complaints posed by ham/SWL operators relating to RF
interference), then I want to be assured that my family and I will be
safe from any potential health risks involved.




Occasional AB (Art Bell) Listener