looks like one of you guys with the written instructions on sending plain
text would be good for this list again!  It sure helped me when you sent it
out before and it could be used again!!
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields


> 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
>
>
>