>
>I would suggest EVERYONE to read the actual document and not just read
>comments about this issue. It has the potential to create a 50 watt PEP power
>limit on amateur radio because greater then 95% of all hams are not going to
>bother with the requirements
and opt out for the lower limit and the exemption.
> It expressly does not preempt state regulation, so the FCC ducks the
> issue.
> Read the document- don't blow your top before you make comments on the
> reflector. The first reaction may make you so sick you may not want to
> comment.
> I sure I am glad I kept my VP2VFE license current.
>
> 73, Al
I just have a question - why was the rule adopted? Are there any actual
cases cited where radio amateurs caused harm to an individual because of RF?
Zack W9SZ
--
"You can't be optimistic with a misty optic" - Rex Luscus
>From nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) Tue Aug 6 05:21:23 1996
From: nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Subject: FCC RF Exposure Rules
Message-ID: <1372835211-92214620@BANJO.EASY.COM>
I assume we'll be hearing from our good friends at ARRL about all this?
What response are they planning? If the prospect really is as bleak as some
on this reflector have suggested (which I doubt), how come we weren't
alerted to do battle BEFORE the rules were issued? Are the rules in fact
final, or still a proposal? We should wait for a technical and political
assessment from ARRL before we press the panic button. Hopefully, that will
come promptly.
Think I recall seeing the word "guidelines" somewhere in the text - That
would sort of change things too. I can think of a few of those which don't
affect me too much!
John, NT5C.
>From needhame@3lefties.com (Earl Needham) Tue Aug 6 06:29:53 1996
From: needhame@3lefties.com (Earl Needham) (Earl Needham)
Subject: FCC Exposure Rules
Message-ID: <BMSMTP8393093466needhame@server.3lefties.com>
> From: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup), on 8/5/96 10:28 PM:
> I just have a question - why was the rule adopted? Are there any actual
> cases cited where radio amateurs caused harm to an individual because of RF?
I have a second question -- just where on the internet can I find the
entire ruling?
7 3
Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM (DM84)
Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76
Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute
Center)
>From k1iu@ids.net (Jeff Bouvier) Tue Aug 6 09:10:36 1996
From: k1iu@ids.net (Jeff Bouvier) (Jeff Bouvier)
Subject: NAQP CW - the "pse qsy" contest
Message-ID: <199608060510.BAA05185@pobox.ids.net>
>Jeff Bouvier wrote:
>>
>> Fellow contesters,
>> Some subjects are difficult to put in type without getting some
>> folks upset but that's the way it goes. I guess you can't please all the
>> people all of the time but I HAVE to unload.
>> I enjoy the NAQP CW contest very much for a few reasons:
>>
>> 1) it's a CW contest
>>
>> 2) it's low power ( a lot less broad signals on the bands)
>>
>> 3) it's 10 hours ( I turned 51 last week) :-)
>>
>> One reason I get frustrated during this contest is the constant
>> requests for qsy's to another band. I guess it was especially bad this year
>> because ( I suspect ) I was the only RI station on during the contest.
>> I started the contest late and decided not to put in a serious effort. I
>> hate to say "no" to people so I did qsy at times for some of the requests
>> and at times did not because every half dozen qso's someone would want
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>me to move to some other band. It REALLY gets old very fast. Another
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thing I
>> don't quite understand is the fact that so many are using 2 radios and they
>> have to keep asking people to qsy. I was using 1 radio (my 2nd 940
>> temporarily passed away), but whether I was using 1 or 2 radios does not
>> matter. Requests for qsy's still break up any run I may be having and I
>> really don't want to spend a contest qsy'ing every 5 minutes.
(snip)
>> 73 to all,
>> Jeff Bouvier k1iu@ids.net
>>
> Maybe the request was not for your benefit OM? --Jim/K9VFA--
>
Jim,
Yours is the only negative comment I've received. FYI some of
the qsy's would have been to my benefit. That was not the problem! The
problem was not the QUALITY of the request it was the QUANTITY of requests.
Next time you want to send out a jab please READ AND ABSORB
before you send out the message.
You could have sent the message to me privately and not cc'ed to
the reflector.
Now go to your room and read the message twice. :-)
73, Jeff Bouvier k1iu@ids.net
>From dippel@rrze.uni-erlangen.de (Dieter Dippel) Tue Aug 6 09:42:23 1996
From: dippel@rrze.uni-erlangen.de (Dieter Dippel) (Dieter Dippel)
Subject: WAEDC-Contest 1996 (Rules)
Message-ID: <104C2919A3@isis.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>
WAE contests 1996
960529/0934z DB0ABH, 960529/0835z DB0AAB, 960529/0827z DB0RBS
Transfer 29.05.96 10:32 by DL2DN @ DB0RBS.#BW.DEU.EU
From: DL2DN @ DB0RBS.#BW.DEU.EU (Herbert)
To : CONTEST @ WW
+--------------------------+ CW : 10 Aug 0000 UTC - 11 Aug 2400 UTC
| European DX Contest 1996 | SSB: 14 Sep 0000 UTC - 15 Sep 2400 UTC
+--------------------------+ RTTY: 9 Nov 0000 UTC - 10 Nov 2400 UTC
For more detailed information please write to WAEDC Committee, Box 1126,
D-74370 Sersheim, Germany (SAE/IRC).
This is the 42nd annual contest sponsored by the DARC. The activity will
be between European countries and the rest of the world (except RTTY
where everybody works everybody).
Bands:
------
3.5 - 7 - 14 - 21- 28MHz. Minimum operating time on a band is 15minutes.
A quick band change is allowed to work new multipliers.
Classes:
--------
(A) Single operator, all bands.
(B) Multi-operator, single transmitter. Only one signal may be on the air
at any given time except when new mutipliers are worked on other
bands. It is not allowed to transmit or receive QTCs parallel to QSO-
traffic.
(C) SWL.
DX packet cluster spotting is allowed in all classes.
Only 36 hours of operating time out of the 48-hour contest period are
permitted for single operator stations. The 12-hour off timemay be taken
in one, but not more than 3 periods any time during the contest and must
be indicated in the log. Off time must be at least 1 hour.
Exchange: RS(T) plus QSO number starting with 001.
---------
Points:
-------
One point per QSO. If QTC traffic (see there) is made, one point for each
complete QTC.
QTC Traffic:
------------
Additional point credit may be earned by making use of the QTC traffic
feature. A QTC is a report of a confirmed QSO that took place earlier in
the contest.A QTC can only be sent by a non-European station back to a Eu-
ropean station. (But only once and not to the station reported in the QTC.)
The general idea is that after a number of Europeans have been worked by
a DX station, a list of these QSOs can be reported back during a QSO with
another European station.
A QTC contains the time, call and QSO number of the station being reported
(i.e. 1234 DF0AA 031, which means that DF0AA has been worked at 1234 UTC
and gave serial number 031).
DX: A maximum of 10 QTCs to a EU station is allowed.
EU: You can receive a maximum of 10 QTCs from a DX station.
Your log must show on which band the QTCs were sent (outside EU) or recei-
ved (EU).
(Exception RTTY, which allows transmitting and receiving of QTCs, but not
between the same continent. The sum of QTCs sent and received between two
stations must not exceed 10.)
A station can be worked several times to complete the number of 10 QTCs.QTCs
are sent in series. 3/7 indicates that this is the third series of QTCs and
7 QTCs are being reported.
Multiplier:
-----------
The multiplier for Europeans is determined by the number of DXCC countries
outside Europe worked on each band. The multiplier for non-Europeans is de-
termnined by the number of European countries worked on each band (see WAE
country list). In the RTTY part themultiplier is determined by the number of
countries worked on the WAE/DXCC country lists.
Bonus Multiplier: Multiply your multiplier on 80 meters by 4, on 40 meters
by 3, and on 20/15/10 meters by 2.
Final score:
------------
Total QSO points plus total QTC points times the sum total multiplier from
all bands. (i.e.:(200 QSOs+100 QTCs)*80 multiplier points= 24000 final score)
SWL:
----
Only single operator, all band class may be used. The same callsign, European
or non-European, may be counted only once per band. The log must contain both
callsigns of a QSO and at least one of the control numbers. Each callsign
counts one point, each complete QTC one point (only a maximum of ten QTCs per
station). You can count up to two QSO points and two multipliers in one QSO.
The multiplier is determined by the DXCC and WAE country lists.
Club competition:
-----------------
Club members must operate within a 500km diameter and the club is required to
be a local club, not a national organization. To be listed, three entries
from a club are requested and the club's score is determined by its member
scores in the CW, SSB and RTTY part of the WAEDC. A special trophy will be
awarded by the DARC to the winning clubs from Europe and Non-Europe.
Certificates and plaques:
-------------------------
Certificates are awarded to the top scorers in each class in each country.
Continental winners will receive a plaque.
Logs:
-----
It is suggested that you use the official DARC or equivalent log forms.Submit
a dupe sheet for each band. A summary sheet showing the scoring and signed de-
claration is required. Logs may be sub mitted on a disk. The 5,25 or 3,5 inch
disk must be MS-DOS formatted (40 or 80 tracks) and the ASCII files must con-
tain all contest QSO information in the same order as the usual paper logs.
Deadline:
---------
Logs must be postmarked no later than September 15th for the CW section, Oc-
tober 15th for the SSB section and December 15th for the RTTY section.
Mailing address :
-----------------
WAEDC Contest Committee, P.O.Box 1126, D-74370 Sersheim, Germany
e-mail:
from outside compuserve: 100712.2226@compuserve.com
compuserve only: 100712,2226
WAE country list:
-----------------
C3-CT-CU-DL-EA-EA6-EI-ER-ES-EU-F-G-GD-GI-GJ-GM-GM Shetland-GU-GW-HA-HB9-HB0-
HV-I-IS-IT-JW Bear-JW Spitsbergen -JX-LA-LX-LY-LZ-OE-OH-OH0-OJ0-OK-OM-ON-OY-
OZ-PA-R1/FJL-R1/MVI-RA-RA2-S5-SM-SP -SV-SV5Rhodes-SV9 Crete-SY-T7-T9-TA1-TF-
TK-UR-YL-YO-YU-Z3-ZA-ZB2-1A0-3A-4U1 Geneva-4U1 Vienna-9A-9H
Meet YOU in WAEDC 1996!
73 Herb DL2DN @ DB0RBS.#BW.DEU.EU
>From hlserra@pwa.acusd.edu (H. L. Serra) Tue Aug 6 07:51:28 1996
From: hlserra@pwa.acusd.edu (H. L. Serra) (H. L. Serra)
Subject: 10m RF Calcs
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9608052357.A25139-0100000@pwa.acusd.edu>
The natural consequence is not only to reduce power to fall within the
limits. Brian's calculations make a powerful argument for 60ft antenna
heights (versus 30ft) with high power. This will make for some interesting
legal arguments at the various public entities controlling antenna/tower
heights. 73, Larry N6AZE
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Brian Beezley wrote:
> Here are calculated near-fields for 1500 watts key-down into a 6-element 10m
> Yagi on a 33-foot boom. This antenna has a calculated free-space gain of
> 9.24 dBd.
>
>
> Uncontrolled exposure limits: 28.9 V/m 0.077 A/m (peak or RMS?)
>
> Antenna 30' high, measurement
> point 6' above ground and
> 40' in front of antenna: 35.5 V/m 0.080 A/m peak field
>
> Antenna 60' high, measurement
> point 6' above ground and
> 80' in front of antenna for
> E and 90' in front for H: 17.8 V/m 0.038 A/m peak field
>
>
> These numbers are not encouraging because a real-world measurement could be
> many dB worse.
>
>
>
> Brian Beezley, K6STI
> k6sti@n2.net
>
>
>From ac1o@gate.net (Walter Deemer) Tue Aug 6 12:20:09 1996
From: ac1o@gate.net (Walter Deemer) (Walter Deemer)
Subject: The "Bigger Mosley Antennas" -- A Positive Opinion
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960806112009.0069ee08@pop.gate.net>
The following anti-Mosley opinion appeared on the reflector recently:
I've been a professional tower and antenna installer since 1982 and
have worked on over 100 amateur stations in western Washington. I write "Up
The Tower" in CQ Contest magazine; before that for over 4 years in the NCJ.
Also am a contester and former National Sales Manager for Hy-Gain Amateur
Products. I presented a paper at the Dayton contest forum this year on
"building a one tower station".
Having said that, I do not recommend the bigger Mosley antennas to
anyone. While they have robust mechanical designs and decent SWR, their
performance is not on a level with the TH7DX or KT34XA. The patterns are
"soft" (read little or no FB or FS) and few competitive contesters have them
in their arsenal. After my presentation above, a guy came up and asked me
why I didn't recommend Mosley antennas. I told him that that was the reason;
I didn't recommend the Mosleys. If you are interested, I can send you a copy
of my article that the Dayton presentation was based on. Send me your postal
address and I'll be happy to send you a copy. BTW, there are two local guys
that would be willing to give you a bargain on a PRO67; I can give you their
phone numbers. BTW, the performance, or lack of, is why they are selling
them.
AC1O's comments:
Well, other than wires on 80 and 160, my "antenna farm" is a Mosley PRO-96
at 80'. Now I admit that I may not be a "competitive contester", but that
is more due to the fact that at my advancing age (55) I am unable to keep up
with the Young Turks, especially in the two radio department. Despite this
handicap, my PRO-96 has helped propel me to a National High in the 1994 ARRL
10 meter contest (CW; my low power entry beat the high power winner), a #2
finish in the most recent WPX (CW, L/P) -- and I have a shot at the plaque
for the highest combined CW/SSB score, low power, in this year's ARRL DX
Contest.
The reason I picked Mosley for my Contest Antenna was because I had a TA-33
in the 1970's when I lived on the ocean in Plymouth, MA. A couple of the
locals had had TA-33's up for 15 years in a VERY windy and salty
environment, and they still worked fine after all that time. That impressed
me (and still does).
Having said that, I realize that some competitive contesters (AB6FO comes to
mind) have taken their PRO-96's down because they were not happy with them.
I also hasten to add that I have no idea if a TH7DX or KT34XA (or one of the
Force 12 jobs, which seems to be the current antenna of choice) would
perform better than my PRO-96. (Although if someone wants to take my Mosley
down and put up one of the other antennas in its place I'd be more than
happy to do some serious performance checks for them in future contests
<wink>.) Your mileage may thus vary -- but I, personally, wouldn't write
off the PRO-96 too swiftly. (It's also very comforting, during one of our
frequent Florida thunderstorms, to know that there's something SOLID flexing
itself up there, 60' over my bedroom!)
73, Walt, AC1O
--------------
WWW: http://www.4w.com/deemer; amateur radio, news, weather & financial info.
>From wb4iuy@nando.net (Dave Hockaday) Tue Aug 6 12:48:28 1996
From: wb4iuy@nando.net (Dave Hockaday) (Dave Hockaday)
Subject: RF Exposure limits
Message-ID: <199608061148.HAA21291@bessel.nando.net>
>before we all go running off to dust off old text books and slide
>rules, or to buy frequency sensitive voltmeters can someone give
On this topic of frequency selective voltmeters... Is there a standard size
rx antenna for these things (I have one without an antenna...) for
calibration to be correct, or would that be specified by the manufacturer?
Thanks
Dave Hockaday Wb4iuy
wb4iuy@nando.net
http://www.webbuild.com/~wb4iuy/teara.html
(alternate)http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3341/
http://www.RTPnet.org/~fcarc/
(alternate)http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3212/
http://www.webbuild.com/~wb4iuy/
(alternate)http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3489/
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3349/
http://www.RTPnet.org/~rdrc/
>From DOYLEPS@LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL (PAT DOYLE) Tue Aug 6 13:28:48 1996
From: DOYLEPS@LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL (PAT DOYLE) (PAT DOYLE)
Subject: RF Exposure limits -Reply
Message-ID: <s206fe81.002@LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL>
There were a few asking where the RF exposure
guidelines could be viewed. The internet address
where the FCC ET Docket No. 93-62, "Guidelines for
Evaluating the Environmental Effects of
Radiofrequency Radiation" is
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/headline/fcc96326.html.
The document is available in a downloadable
WordPerfect (.WP extension) and Adobe Portable
Document format (.PDF) version available there
(there is also access to Adobe to download the
Acrobat viewer for .PDF files). The document is
105 pages long.
KA2GSL
>From readerl@goliath.sunyocc.edu (Larry Reader) Tue Aug 6 14:46:27 1996
From: readerl@goliath.sunyocc.edu (Larry Reader) (Larry Reader)
Subject: WAE SSB - best 80 meter strategy
Message-ID: <9608061346.AA22217@goliath.sunyocc.edu>
Will be going down to Windwood in September to rebuild the antenna farm and
play in the WAE SSB. First time for me working this type of contest from a
"DX" country.
The WAE encourages trying to do real well on 80 meters by offering a "times
4" multiplier. That has motivated me to try to do very very well on 80.
My question. What's the best 80 meter strategy for a DX station doing the
WAE SSB? Where should I be? Should I stay just above 3800 or below 3790
and listen down? Is there a EU bandplan (I've been told there is but with
no details) that determines where I should be listening?
Would appreciate any advice anyone would care to offer. Please send direct
to readerl@goliath.sunyocc.edu
Thanks, in advance, for the help.
73
Larry
KE2VB
Island Villa Contest Club, Windwood, St. Croix, USVI as WP2AHW
>From 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) Tue Aug 6 15:30:15 1996
From: 71111.260@CompuServe.COM (Hans Brakob) (Hans Brakob)
Subject: FCC Exposure rule
Message-ID: <960806143015_71111.260_EHM65-1@CompuServe.COM>
There have been some questions here about when/why/where, etc.
First, this action applies to most all "high power" radiators, not
just hams.
The full R&O (over 100 pages) can be downloaded from the FCC
web site at "www.fcc.gov/oet/headline/fcc9326.html".
The effective date is January 1, 1997.
This is not a new action.... I think it first hit the street about
3 years ago, and ARRL has been arguing for amateur exemption in
their comments and reply comments to the NPRM. ARRL arguments
apparently were not sufficiently persuasive, and were diluted by
"counter" arguments from other amateurs.
Here are some excerpts from the FCC comments relative to amateur
exemption.
"83. Several parties address continuation of the
categorical exclusion for the amateur radio service. The ARRL
and the ARRL-Bioeffects Committee support prudent avoidance
and state that most of the amateur radio users do not possess
the requisite equipment, technical skills, and/or financial
resources to conduct an environmental analysis. Both the ARRL
and the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee submit that we could raise
an amateur radio applicant's awareness concerning RF energy by
placing relevant questions on the amateur license examination.
On the other hand, Dr. Wayne Overbeck and the Amateur Radio Health
Group comment that it would be inappropriate for this Commission
to exempt the amateur service automatically from all requirements
for compliance with radiation safety guidelines. Overbeck and
the Amateur Radio Health Group state that education is not
enough and suggest that we create a version of OST Bulletin No.
65 for radio amateur operations. They state this bulletin
could supplement Part 97 rules and be used by amateurs to
certify compliance with the RF exposure safety guidelines."
......
"86. Decision. We continue to believe that it is
desirable and appropriate to categorically exclude from routine
evaluation those transmitting facilities that offer little or
no potential for exposure in excess of the specified
guidelines. Requiring routine environmental evaluation of such
facilities would place an unnecessary burden on licensees.
However, we believe that some alteration of our previous
categorical exclusion policy is necessary. Several commenters
have submitted technical documentation indicating the power
levels and distances at which transmitting sources in various
services will comply with the exposure guidelines.6 Our staff
has evaluated this material and has performed analyses of its
own. Based on these studies, we now believe that in certain
cases we should no longer exempt entire services from
demonstrating compliance. Examples include high-power paging
and cellular telephone sites on relatively short towers or
rooftops where access may not be restricted. There is also
evidence that certain amateur radio facilities have the
potential for exceeding our new limits."
"159. Professor Wayne Overbeck, filing comments as an
individual, believes that few amateur operators are aware of
the electromagnetic radiation levels present near their own
amateur stations and that rather than being excluded from our
requirements, the amateur service should be subject to the
standard for "uncontrolled environments" through language added
to Part 97. Professor Overbeck points out that vast numbers of
amateurs are neither members of the ARRL nor subscribers to any
amateur service magazines and consequently these educational
sources are not sufficient to ensure adherence to our
guidelines. Because actual measurements would be financially
prohibitive for most amateur operators, Professor Overbeck
recommends that we promulgate a rule requiring amateur
operators to adopt operating and antenna-placement practices
calculated to meet the exposure limits and that they be
required to certify on their application forms that they have
read and will adhere to the guidelines for antenna placement.
Finally, Professor Overbeck suggests that we promulgate an
amateur service version of OST Bulletin No. 65 that would
include charts and tables showing required separation distances
between antennas and inhabited areas for various power levels.
He also suggests that amateurs be tested on this topic as part
of operator license examinations."
"160. Decision. The Commission expects all its licensees
to comply with the RF guidelines specified in our rules, or, if
not, to file an Environmental Assessment for review under our
NEPA procedures. After a thorough review of the comments and
the results of an FCC/EPA measurement study,9 we conclude that,
although it appears to be relatively small, there is a
potential for amateur stations to cause exposures to RF
radiation in excess of these guidelines. Amateur stations can
transmit with up to 1500 watts peak envelope power on frequencies
in specified bands from 1,800 kHz to over 300 GHz. Certain of the
emission types permitted have high duty cycles, for example
frequency or phase shifted digital signals. Amateur stations are
not subject generally to restrictions on antenna gain, antenna
placement and other relevant exposure variables. Even though
situations where exposures are excessive may be relatively
uncommon and even though most amateur stations transmit for short
periods of time at power levels considerably lower than the
maximum allowed, the possibility of human exposure to RF radiation
in excess of the guidelines cannot be disregarded. Therefore, a
blanket exemption for all amateur stations does not appear to be
justified, and we will apply our new guidelines to amateur
stations. We will rely upon amateur licensees to
demonstrate their knowledge of our guidelines through
examinations. We will also rely on amateur licensees to
evaluate their own stations if they transmit using more
than 50 watts of output power. Applicants for new
licenses and renewals also will be required to demonstrate
that they have read and that they understand our
applicable rules regarding RF exposure."
"161. We find it to be the duty of the licensee of
an amateur station to prevent the station from
transmitting from any place where the operation of the
station could cause human exposure to levels of RF
radiation that are in excess of the limits we are
adopting. We concur with the ARRL that amateur operators
should follow a policy of prudent avoidance of excessive
RF exposure. We will continue to rely upon amateur
operators, in constructing and operating their stations,
to take steps to ensure that their stations comply with
the MPE limits for both occupational/controlled and
general public/uncontrolled environments. In this regard,
we recognize and agree with the ARRL's position that the
occupational/controlled limits generally can be considered
adequate for situations involving amateur stations
considering the most commonly used power levels,
intermittent operation and frequencies involved. We
recognize that operation in the amateur radio service
presents certain unique conditions. Nonetheless, we are
concerned that amateur radio operations are likely to be
located in residential neighborhoods and may expose
persons to RF fields in excess of the MPE guidelines. We
will consider amateur radio operators and members of their
immediate household to be in a "controlled environment"
and will apply the occupational/controlled MPE limits to
those situations. Neighbors who are not members of an
amateur operator's household, are considered to be members
of the general public, however, since they cannot
reasonably be expected to excercise control over their
exposure. In those cases general population/uncontrolled
exposure MPE limits will apply."
"162. We believe that the burden for action to assure
compliance with RF exposure limits should fall on the
relatively few licensees who operate stations that can
potentially cause individuals, knowingly or unknowingly,
to be exposed to RF energy in excess of these guidelines.
We want the licensees of such stations to provide
adequately for RF safety. We do not believe, however,
that a detailed EA or other routine environmental filing
is practical or necessary. To make the complex
determination of possible excessive exposure as simple as
possible, we are specifying a threshold limit for
transmitter power that will apply regardless of frequency
used. Below 50 watts transmitter
power, the licensee will not be required to take any
action, unless requested by Commission staff pursuant to
Section 1.1307(c) or 1.1307(d) of our rules. Above this
power threshold, the licensee must perform a routine
evaluation to predict if the RF radiation could be in
excess of that allowed by the criteria listed in 1.1310.
If so, the licensee must take action to prevent such an
occurrence. The action could be in the form of altering
operating patterns, relocating the antenna, revising the
station's technical parameters such as frequency, power or
emission type or combinations of these and other remedies.
To assist with routine evaluation of exposure levels in
accordance with the guidelines, we encourage the amateur
community to develop and disseminate information in the
form of tables, charts and computer analytical tools that
relate such variables as operating patterns, emission
types, frequencies, power and distance from antennas. We
also intend to provide straightforward methods for amateur
operators to determine potential exposure levels. This
information could be included in our updated version of
OST Bulletin No. 65, or we may follow the suggestion to
develop a separate bulletin tailored for the amateur
service community. As a result of the adoption of a
transition period, which was discussed earlier, the new
guidelines will apply to amateur stations beginning
January 1, 1997. This should provide sufficient time for
the amateur community and the Commission staff to prepare
the necessary information to help amateur operators comply
with these requirements."
>From gswanson@arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW) Tue Aug 6 17:13:00 1996
From: gswanson@arrl.org (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW) (Swanson, Glenn, KB1GW)
Subject: RF safety proceeding.
Message-ID: <m0unnrc-000f4wC@mgate.arrl.org>
Here is some information from ARRL HQ on this matter:
If you want the facts regarding the RF safety proceeding,
see the following URL:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/
There you will find listed two places to go for additional information:
1) Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of
Radio Frequency Radiation
2) Measurements of Electromagnetic Fields at Amateur Radio Stations
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* People should read both documents before jumping to any conclusions. *
Here is some additional information:
-- These guidelines don't take effect until January 1, 1997.
(There is no reason for the Amateur community to panic.)
-- The ARRL is currently reviewing the (100-page-plus) document.
-- The ARRL will be reviewing the entire matter, to see * if * we (ARRL)
should seek reconsideration of any aspect of the FCC decision.
-- If you have any "substantive" input to provide, please send it to ARRL
Laboratory Supervisor, and staff liaison to the ARRL RF Safety
Committee,
Ed Hare, KA1CV, at his e-mail address: ehare@arrl.org or, via US Mail,
to:
ARRL, 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111 Attn: Ed Hare.
(Ed will no doubt be a bit busy over the coming days, so please be
patient when waiting for a reply. :-)
- - - - - - - - -
If you're interested in general information on RF safety: Refer to the
safety
sections of the 1996 ARRL Handbook and the 15th Edition of the
ARRL Antenna Book. This material offers guidelines on how to comply
with the ANSI standard referred to in the (recent) FCC Report and Order.
The ARRL Technical Information Service offers an information package
on RF safety. It includes a reprint of the ARRL handbook material, an
April 1994 QST article (by Wayne Overbeck, N6NB) and a bibliography
of articles on the subject. This package is available for $2 for ARRL
Members, $4 for non-members, post-paid. (Prepayment in required for
non-members.) Contact the ARRL Technical Department Secretary,
Bridget DiCosimo via e-mail at: bdicosimo@arrl.org or via mail at the
address above.
73, Glenn Swanson, KB1GW
Educational Programs Coordinator,
ARRL Educational Activities Department
E-mail: kb1gw@arrl.org
>From office%alltrom.eunet.ro@TGV.COM (Adrian Teodorescu) Tue Aug 6 19:34:03
>1996
From: office%alltrom.eunet.ro@TGV.COM (Adrian Teodorescu) (Adrian Teodorescu)
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <01BB83C5.EC0EA7C0@port5.Bucharest3.RO.EU.net>
From: MIKE YO3CTK ARRL member
I am a (very) new user of CT9 software. After reading the documentation =
I tried to send a SUBSCRIBE command to ct-user-request@ eng.pko.dec.com =
but it seems that I cannot go through. Maybe something is wrong with the =
address. Can someone help me with this? Thank you.
Very sorry to say that US participation in the last YO DX contest ( =
August 4, 00-20 UTC) was very low. Maybe next year propagation will be =
better.
See you in WAE!
73 Mike YO3CTK
office@alltrom.eunet.ro
|