Message-Id: <20030902120153.YUNL1780.imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net@[68.212.98.93]>

Mike Freeman wrote:
   >Wish FCC had never imposed those silly requirements.  I contend that
   >there's no truly valid scientific proof that RF under the
   >conditions one normally encounters it in amateur operations causes
   >harm to humans or any other living (or inanimate, for that matter)
   >thing.  This is especially so at HF.  Oh well.

Agreed, but knees were jerking in response to the chicken littles.
Hence our government had to do something.

NOw at vhf and higher I might be a little concerned.  STill I guess I
should do the calculations when I put up my tri bander on this
townhouse building later this month.

MOre fun with government regulations I guess.  REcently been some
discussions about other government regs on a local repeater around
here.  A guy who moved out of the area wants to set up a remote base
coming in on 2 meters and out on 440 so he can work his favorite local
NEw Orleans uhf machine mobile from his new home qth.  Was explaining
to him how you can't do that according to rules because controlling an
auxiliary link on 2 meters is verboten.  HE and his son argue that
there's no difference between an auxiliary link and a repeater, but
the FCC says there is.

GUess I'd better see if I can find the formulae for those calculations
in plaintext somewhere.

73 de nf5b





Richard Webb

Electric Spider Productions
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania