> On 5 Aug 96 at 11:22, Hans Brakob <71111.260@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 1.1307(d) of this chapter. Where the routine evaluation
> indicates that the RF radiation could be in excess of the
> limits contained in 1.1310 of this chapter, the licensee must
> take action to prevent such an occurrence. Further information
The obvious action to take is to make the antenna higher. I wonder,
though, what one is supposed to do in places where there are strict
antenna height limits (welcome to Boulder County, folks)? Will the courts
say that it is still OK to have a strict height limit with the one way to
circumvent these limits (partially) -- QRO -- removed as an option?
--------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Evans NQ0I / G4AMJ : devans@lynx.colorado.edu
Active Member, SFWA al019@freenet.uchsc.edu
"Palindor Chronicles" information and extracts:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~romigj/drevans.html
--------------------------------------------------------
>From n1ist@netcom.com (Michael L. Ardai) Mon Aug 5 21:47:56 1996
From: n1ist@netcom.com (Michael L. Ardai) (Michael L. Ardai)
Subject: RF Exposure limits
Message-ID: <199608052047.NAA04544@netcom5.netcom.com>
On 5 Aug 1996, Ward Silver wrote:
>It looks to me like the only problem areas are at 15 and 10 meters and
>then on 80/160 where the ends of inverted vees would be close to ground
>and property edges.
I know we aren't big guns, but this sure looks like trouble for anyone with
a house-mounted (or balcony) antenna and 100W. Actually, this will probably
also hit anyone operating mobile HF. "Raising the tower" would be nice, but
when you live in an apartment, there isn't much tower to raise.
/mike
n1ist@Netcom.com
|