 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / May 2008Electromagnetic Radiation Warnings
It's now proven that cell phone usage can damage the baby: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/warning -using-a-mobile-phone-while-pregnant-can-seriously-damage-your-baby-830352.html The satellite internet dish transmits higher frequencies and power. The antenna is much more directional than a cell phone antenna. Cell phone users know when they use the phone so exposure can be controlled. A pregnant woman may not know if a internet satellite dish is in use in the RV park and exposure would most certainly affect the fetus. It would be beneficial and prudent for the VSAT users to place "Electromagnetic Hazard" placards in the vicinity of their antenna. It would warn people to stay a distance away, reducing the chances of injury. People with pacemakers would be safer too. Manufacturers should include several placards in their kits so users can display them. Currents system users can purchase placards and display them. Such signs are available here: http://www.compliancesigns.com/RF_Microwave.shtml As always we must worry about those who poo-poo such things and go about exposing others without their knowledge. Legislation is needed that has teeth. Perhaps the RV park can be viewed as a workplace and OSHA rules apply. People do work there and they can be exposed too. Maybe RV park operators can supply the placards as an interim measure until full compliance is gotten from RV operators. >It's now proven that cell phone usage can damage the baby: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >operators can supply the placards as an interim measure until full >compliance is gotten from RV operators. You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a satellite dish. you deserve to have Darwin take care of you.  SignatureFrank Tabor Tempus Fugit > You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and > so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a > satellite dish. you deserve to have Darwin take care of you. Frank - there's no need to get upset! <g> It's just a Troll who's shilling for its website. <DG> Hadn't you noticed the line with the URL in it? <G> SignatureI used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. >> You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and >> so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Hadn't you noticed the line with the URL in it? <G> Not really. It just tripped my trigger. Between Harry the Propane Whore and Shithead O'Shay, this place is really turning into a cesspool. SignatureFrank Tabor Tempus Fugit >>> You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and >>> so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Whore and Shithead O'Shay, this place is really turning into a > cesspool. The only time I ever see anything from either one of them (or their numerous sycophants) is when someone else quotes them. Try setting a filter based upon the names as well as upon the e-mail address. They morph often. SignatureI used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules. >>>> You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and >>>> so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >They morph often. Oh, I have plenty of filters. That was a new one that got through. SignatureFrank Tabor Tempus Fugit > You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and > so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a > satellite dish. you deserve to have Darwin take care of you. Frank, I think the problem at hand is people who put their dishes on the ground. If it is up high there isn't much of a problem unless the signal is bouncing off of a nearby RV. Pregnant women should be especially careful. I've had a few problems with Ham radio operators in RV parks. Their signals come through the wires on my speakers and sometimes the dashboard instruments read funny. Those transmitting microwave dishes are more of the same. These people should take some responsibility for their transmissions. I realize it is just a few that do this but it hurts everyone. Some people use these type of mounts for transmitters: http://www.pplmotorhomes.com/parts/tv-antennas/satellite-dish-tripod.htm . I Marvin 22' Calypso Cascade >> You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and >> so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >22' Calypso Cascade What you don't understand is that you would have to insert your body parts into the beam between the feedhorn and the dish to get enough microwave radiation to do any harm. Except that as soon as you do this, the transmitter will shut down. The sat is only 1 watt. This is a non issue. SignatureFrank Tabor Tempus Fugit >>> You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and >>> so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > this, the transmitter will shut down. The sat is only 1 watt. This > is a non issue. I didn't realize it is safe to stand right in front of the dish while it is transmitting and that the only danger is between the feedhorn and dish. That makes it a non-issue. Thanks for the information. Marvin Marvin, Rather than listen to bad advice, read the information direct from the manufacturers of the antennas. Comtech: http://www.comtech.ca/pdfs/com_VSAT_1.pdf Requires a safety zone of over 15 feet for their dishes on the ground: "A good satellite station installation will ensure the following: When ground mounted (free standing base) a recommended Safety Zone (Fig 2) of approx 5.5M in front of the antenna is to be established. When Pole Mounted the zone can be decreased. A recommended distance of not less than 3M (Fig 2)." George Ayers > Marvin, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > George Ayers George, I didn't see anywhere on the site that their dish "requires" a safety zone of 15 feet. It is a "recommended" Safety Zone, and 5.5 meters would be much closer converted to 18 feet. It also says how directional the beam is, so the the 5.5 meters they are referring to as far as any RF Radiation hazard would be along and near the course of that beam, which is climbing at an angle based on distance from the satellite. The site did say: Comtech utilizes a larger dish size and a small amplifier size which significantly reduces any safety risk EVEN at the focal point of the antenna Although the dish may appear to be pointing at a building the actual radio path is 22 degrees higher than the optical appear (sp) of the dish pointing. Translation, what RF radiation hazard exists is relatively low level and directly in the beam the equivalent of a 25 watt business or mobile Police / Fire radio transmitter on a car or truck. From a tripod, the beam would be over the head of a very tall person 7', from a distance of 5 feet from the dish. They also do say "The actual frequencies being transmitted are in the 12 and 14 GHz range and are themselves not a safety issue." These are considerably higher frequencies than VHF or cell phone. Dave >>>> You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and >>>> so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Marvin We had some problems with a ham radio operator here in the neighborhood. He was intefering nightly with television, baby monitors, stereos and even cable tv. When confroted his attitude was that it is our problem and we should fix it. Fix it we did - we got ham radio antennas banned by both the homeowners committee and the city council. When he finally saw the writing on the wall he made token efforts to fix the problem but it was too late. He took down all the towers, wires and assorted crap and within a year he moved away. It is a matter of time for ham radio to completely disappear kids today are into computers and video games rather than wrapping wires around milk cartons and throwing showers of sparks. That is the one good thing about internet over powerlines, the noise from the powerlines are enough to blank out ham radio reception. If you can't ban ham radio in your area, internet over powerlines is the next best thing to get rid of them. >We had some problems with a ham radio operator here in the neighborhood. He >was intefering nightly with television, baby monitors, stereos and even [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >blank out ham radio reception. If you can't ban ham radio in your area, >internet over powerlines is the next best thing to get rid of them. Federal Law PRB-1 prohibits the laws you speak of. Any ham in the city can bring an action against the city and get the ordinance/law overturned. Either that or you are blowing smoke. The FCC has RULED that unless it can be shown the ham is operating with unapproved equipment or otherwise illegal, it is up to the person affected to find the cure. 99% of home electronics do not meet FCC interference standards, That is fact. had you pulled that on me, I would be on you like stink on a skunk. BTW, I wrote my Law School research paper on PRB-1. I have been a ham since 1956. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>We had some problems with a ham radio operator here in the neighborhood. >>He [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Not true. Convenants are voluntarily entered into and the ham operator forfeits those rights. If what you said were true, then wouldn't federal law trump state law, then why did this happen: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/02/27/4/ Note the article says: "HR 2774 is similar in intent to HR 1478, the proposed legislation now in Congress that would apply the limited federal preemption known as PRB-1 to CC&Rs on a nationwide basis." You can read about PRB-1 here: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/local/prb-1_program.html . It is not a universal license for hams to put antennas anywhere. As far as 99% of home electronics not meeting FCC interference standards - you are lying. Is that emission or susceptibility standards? Intentional or non-intentional radiators? There are NO FCC susceptibility standards for home electronics, only emission standards of which all electronics sold in the US must meet. Read 47 CFR sometime. A further note is that ham radio equipment built by the radio amateur has no requirement for any type of emission/safety testing for operation on the air. It is the only type of radio equipment exempt from testing. 99% of hams lack the equipment, training or know how to perform FCC compliance testing and receive approval. 99% of home built ham gear would not pass FCC part 15. Any form of lightning arrestor on the transmitter would immediately disqualify any amateur radio transmitter should it be tested. The only reason ham operators get away with this is because of political lobbying. >>>We had some problems with a ham radio operator here in the neighborhood. >>>He [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >trump state law, then why did this happen: >http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/02/27/4/ You stated "we got ham radio antennas banned by both the homeowners committee and the city council" Changing the city ordinances would violate PRB-1. As to CC&R's, were the ham living under those oppressive fascist "rules", would be right to move out. >Note the article says: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/local/prb-1_program.html . It >is not a universal license for hams to put antennas anywhere. Nowhere have I said it was. I said it pre-empted laws that unnecessarily restrict the installation of antennas. CC&R's are not laws, they are fascist rules. >As far as 99% of home electronics not meeting FCC interference standards - >you are lying. Is that emission or susceptibility standards? Intentional or >non-intentional radiators? There are NO FCC susceptibility standards for >home electronics, That is the point. NO SUSCEPTIBILITY STANDARDS. That is why the FCC places the burden on the owner of the sh.t stereo. >only emission standards of which all electronics sold in >the US must meet. Read 47 CFR sometime. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >lack the equipment, training or know how to perform FCC compliance testing >and receive approval. All commercial ham equipment (probably 99% +/- of that in operation today) MUST BE CERTIFIED (TYPE ACCEPTED). Otherwise It cannot be sold in this country. Home brewed equipment (the other 1 +/- percent) is not so required. Of the 3000+ hams I personally know, not one uses home brew gear except on rare occasions (shows, show off, exhibitions, etc.). Home brew gear just cannot compete with inexpensive commercially available equipment, and few are willing to go to the expense to duplicate it. 99% of home built ham gear would not pass FCC part 15. Can you cite authority for that statement? >Any form of lightning arrestor on the transmitter would immediately >disqualify any amateur radio transmitter should it be tested. Where did you come up with that cockamamie idiotic idea? Again, please cite authority. >The only >reason ham operators get away with this is because of political lobbying. My guess is that you couldn't learn Morse Code (when it was a requirement) and resent those of us that can and did. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>>We had some problems with a ham radio operator here in the neighborhood. >>>>He [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>>We had some problems with a ham radio operator here in the neighborhood. >>>>He [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > the ham living under those oppressive fascist "rules", would be right > to move out. You realize that almost all high powered ham radio transmissions >~100 watts inherently violate FCC emission levels. No way the harmonic levels can comply. >>Note the article says: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nowhere have I said it was. I said it pre-empted laws that > unnecessarily restrict the installation of antennas. No you didn't. CC&R's are not > laws, they are fascist rules. We agree on something. >>As far as 99% of home electronics not meeting FCC interference standards - >>you are lying. Is that emission or susceptibility standards? Intentional [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That is the point. NO SUSCEPTIBILITY STANDARDS. That is why the FCC > places the burden on the owner of the sh.t stereo. If there are NO SUSCEPTIBILITY STANDARDS then the FCC has NO SUSCEPTIBILITY STANDARDS and there is nothing to meet. Nice try lawyer. >>only emission standards of which all electronics sold in >>the US must meet. Read 47 CFR sometime. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > home brew gear except on rare occasions (shows, show off, exhibitions, > etc.). You personally know 3000+ hams and not a single one uses home built gear. I know many using Heathkit rigs, they're homebuilt. Lots of homebrew linears out there too. Lying again? >Home brew gear just cannot compete with inexpensive > commercially available equipment, and few are willing to go to the > expense to duplicate it. > 99% of home built ham gear would not pass FCC part 15. > > Can you cite authority for that statement? All high power ham transmitters fail FCC emissions regardless of where it is made. Care to wager on it? Check the FCC levels for out of band signals and calculate how many dB below a 100 watt carrier they would have to be. Ain't gonna pass. Be you own authority, calculate it yourself. I'm not even going to get into shielding, non compliance due to modification, etc. >>Any form of lightning arrestor on the transmitter would immediately >>disqualify any amateur radio transmitter should it be tested. > > Where did you come up with that cockamamie idiotic idea? Again, > please cite authority. Note the PIM (passive intermodulation distortion) on the gas discharge arrestor: http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/brochures/lightningprotectionbrochure.pdf http://www.telegaertner-hci.com.tw/pdf/Coax_PDF/03-N%E9%80%A3%E6%8E%A5%E5%99%A8.pdf About 65-70 dB PIM with gas discharge arrestors (the type most frequently used by radio amateurs). 1KW = 60 dBm ---> PIM = 0.1 watts, way above FCC limits. If you don't understand how this relates to field intensity (V/m) in standard FCC test setups, tell me the type of transmitting antenna, I'll calculate the antenna factor and tell you by how much the transmitter+antenna fail the FCC emissions. >>The only >>reason ham operators get away with this is because of political lobbying. > > My guess is that you couldn't learn Morse Code (when it was a > requirement) and resent those of us that can and did. Again nice try. It's obvious what your experience and knowledge is. Unlike you, there is no need for me to resort to ad hominen attacks or calling things cockamamie. Facts are verifiable. You and a few others have done an excellent service for the amateur radio community. I stand by what I've said: almost all high powered transmitters driven into antenna fail FCC emissions. Lightning arrestors (gas discharge) generator harmonics and intermods that drive the transmitter further out of compliance. Almost all stations can be shut down because of failing FCC compliance - all you need is a calibrated antenna and spectrum analyzer. Have you ever looked for yourself? It's too bad you killfiled me before you could read my reply. Fear does strange things to people. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Here are the tested specs of a Yaesu rig: http://www.sgcworld.com/2020article3.html At 28.5 MHz the 2nd harmonic is down 64 dB with 20 watts tx power. The power content in the second harmonic is then 8 uW (8 microwatts) at 57 MHz. The FCC limits for intentional radiators is given here: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr15.209.htm For 30-88 MHz the limit is 100 uV/m @ 3meters. 100uV/m is a power density of ((100e-6)^2)/377 = 26.5 pW/m^2 The total area on a 3 meter radius sphere is 4*pi*R^2 = 113m^2 , 113 sq meters. The total power on the sphere at the FCC field strength limit is then 26.5 pW/m^2 * 113 m^2 = 3 nW or 3e-9 watts. The power of the Yaesu exceeds this by (8e-6)/(26.5e-12) or over 300,000 times the legal limit. It is not compliant, the signal coming out of the antenna has harmonic levels too high. Check the calculations yourself, I may be in error but I don't think so. You've been a ham for 50+ years and you never realized this? You're a lawyer, written thesis about amateur radio and were never aware this? Didn't any of your 3,000 personal friends who are hams tell you about this? The Yaesu rig is "type accepted", not a home built rig. It's only 20 watts, care to see how well larger power rigs do? The bottom line is, if a ham rig is causing interference and the plaintiff knows what to complain about he will win, not the ham. PRB-1 doesn't help one bit. That 64 dB number is about the same value as the passive intermodulation distortion of gas filled lightning arrestors, now do you see why they cause trouble? The testers of the Yaesu called the rig's harmonic performance "good". If this is true, then one would have reason to believe that a vast majority of "type accepted" rigs have similar characteristics, that is, they don't meet FCC. Regards, Seth >Here are the tested specs of a Yaesu rig: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >Seth Seth, I'm a ham and an EE. At first I thought you were full of it but then you supported your claims and I did some checking myself. I can't argue with data sheets and find no errors in your calculations. One thing to keep in mind is that the antenna affects the radiated harmonic levels, the 2nd most likely would be lower but the third most likely would be higher. The tidbit about the lightning arrestor is an eye opener, the information about the transmitter non-compliance is stunning. It would be extremely prudent for any ham to promptly and courteously address interference issues and avoid having to get the FCC involved. I almost wish you hadn't divulged that information because it gives anyone with determination to shut down a ham site the means to do so. Being a good citizen is what keeps amateur radio going. I also would like to apologize to you for the bad behavior exhibited here by another ham. That person is in the smallest minority, most hams are quite personable and very sensitive to their public perception. Hams do perform a necessary public service in times of emergency and are very civic minded. 73's Larry Stone Thanks for the kind words Larry. One thing of further note from the FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-53A1.html Says the following: 3. Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not subject to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing. Like I said, amateur radio transmitters do not meet FCC emission regulations. There is no such thing as "Type Acceptance" for them. JD makes things up as he goes along, he is a troll. Ask any of his 3,000 personal friends. Seth >>>We had some problems with a ham radio operator here in the neighborhood. >>>He [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > law trump state law, then why did this happen: > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/02/27/4/ Does not apply. OP said they (who ever that might be) got the antennae banned by the homeowners association. This indicates to me that there was a change in the covenants or whateverf rinky-dink rules that association might have. New restrictions would not apply to existing structures. > Note the article says: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for home electronics, only emission standards of which all electronics > sold in the US must meet. Read 47 CFR sometime. I think you misunderstood his meaning. What was meant by "home electronics" were those in the home, such as computers, televisions, etc. not electronic devices built at home. > A further note is that ham radio equipment built by the radio amateur has > no requirement for any type of emission/safety testing for operation on > the air. It is the only type of radio equipment exempt from testing. 99% > of hams lack the equipment, training or know how to perform FCC compliance > testing and receive approval. 99% of home built ham gear would not pass > FCC part 15. I would take umbrage with this statement. The majority of the hams I know or have known took great pride in the efficiency and cleanliness of their equipment and its output signals. If you read my post you would see that I stated that the FCC would inspect the ham equipment in the event of a complaint. The ham himself then gets a copy of the results along with any recommendations by the inspector. > Any form of lightning arrestor on the transmitter would immediately > disqualify any amateur radio transmitter should it be tested. The only > reason ham operators get away with this is because of political lobbying. Why in God's name would anyone put a lightning arrestor (whatever that might be) on a transmitter.??? What function would that serve? Such a device on the antenna would make sense. Dave D >I think you misunderstood his meaning. What was meant by "home electronics" >were those in the home, such as computers, televisions, etc. not electronic [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >the antenna would make sense. >Dave D Seth is a babbling idiot. His post displays a remarkable lack of knowledge of amateur radio OR the laws/statute pertinent thereto. He has been killfiled here as unworthy of reading time. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > Why in God's name would anyone put a lightning arrestor (whatever that > might be) on a transmitter.??? What function would that serve? Such a > device on the antenna would make sense. > Dave D The lightning arrestor is a non linear device that "trips" when the voltage across it exceeds a certain level. It's function is to divert the current from a lightning strike (or induced by a lightning) away from expensive electronic gear into the ground. The best place for such a device is at the point of entry of the transmission cable into the building. It should also be close to ground. They are used on transmitters, receivers, power lines, cable lines etc. The current needs to be diverted into the earth, that is difficult to do at the antenna. The characteristics of how it trips determines the amount of intermodulation and harmonic distortion it creates. Hams typical use gas discharge tubes and if you're old school, air gaps (which do not work on coaxial lines). I hope this is helpful and if you have any other questions I'll try my best to answer them. Regards, Seth > I've had a few problems with Ham radio operators in RV parks. Their > signals come through the wires on my speakers and sometimes the dashboard > instruments read funny. > Marvin More than likely the problem lies with the wiring/equipment in your rig. Ron >I think the problem at hand is people who put their dishes on the ground. If >it is up high there isn't much of a problem unless the signal is bouncing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >22' Calypso Cascade The 'problems' you have experienced from ham transmissions are YOUR problem to resolve unless you can show illegal operation or uncertified equipment. My gear causes soem noise in my RV electronics which are miserably shielded and protected. It is up to me to fix the RV stuff, not the ham gear. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** | > You are so full of sh.t your eyes are brown. If you're pregnant and | > so f.cking stupid to climb up and put your belly inside the beam of a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | people should take some responsibility for their transmissions. I realize it | is just a few that do this but it hurts everyone. Some people use these type of mounts for transmitters: | http://www.pplmotorhomes.com/parts/tv-antennas/satellite-dish-tripod.htmI The problem with your speakers and instruments is with the design/shielding of the audio system and the instruments in your RV not with the HAM equipment. I don't know about the current products but Delco has a history of serious problems with susceptibility to RF interference. RF does not penetrate water well so the potential impact on an fetus is a non issue. FWIW RF will only generate heat and one watt in the volume of amniotic fluid will not be measurable. . > Frank, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 22' Calypso Cascade Marvin There is a very simple solution to your problem. The next time you get interference from a Ham op, get his call sign and file a complaint with the FCC. They will send a tech out and check over his equipment and either pass or fail it. If it fails, they will tell him what steps to take to correct his problem. If it passes, they will contact you and suggest you have your equipment checked. They will even provide the required forms. Of course you will have to pay for the EE's time and the parts etc. for the fix.... DaveD >Marvin >There is a very simple solution to your problem. The next time you get [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >DaveD Well stated. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.