|
Vintage Amateur and Military Radio Amateur/military receivers and transmitters, morse, and any other related vintage comms equipment. |
|
Thread Tools |
4th Mar 2021, 3:40 pm | #41 | |
Octode
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire, UK.
Posts: 1,572
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Quote:
I do hope this is for all Europe and not just the UK. But on a lighter note if you run the calculator you could well find you are within safe limits anyway, So when it becomes formalised and a requirement, do the calc, print off the bits of paper, add a few words and you could be covered! Adrian |
|
4th Mar 2021, 4:11 pm | #42 |
Octode
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oxfordshire/Bucks borders, UK.
Posts: 1,604
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
I use about 20 watts at home and my antenna is on my roof, possibly 1db losses in the coax, then 5.5db of gain from the antenna, so I'm probably alright, but will have to see how this affects me in real terms. If I'm mobile I only use a hand held to see who's on repeaters wherever I am, so thats 5 watts if the radio is putting the full amount out.
__________________
Avometer, vintage Fluke and Marconi collector. Also interested in vintage Yaesu and KW. |
4th Mar 2021, 4:21 pm | #43 |
Heptode
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newmarket, Suffolk, UK.
Posts: 612
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
|
4th Mar 2021, 4:30 pm | #44 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,867
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Quote:
Convenient. That ought to protect people. David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done |
|
4th Mar 2021, 4:52 pm | #45 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wiltshire, UK.
Posts: 13,996
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
I think that if the calculations _do_ show risk of potential exposure above acceptable limits then it would be wise to identify these as part of the risk-assessment and document suitable remediation actions.
This sort of thing: Risk: Visitors to back door may come within 4 Metres of antenna/feeder. Response: Cease transmitting when there are visitors at back door. Consideration: Visitors are unlikely to stand at back door for six minutes. If you can show you have taken 'reasonable steps' to comply with the regulations then life becomes a lot easier. |
4th Mar 2021, 5:11 pm | #46 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Penrith, Cumbria, UK.
Posts: 3,687
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Quote:
Now... Microwave ovens, mobile telephones, Wi-Fi and other consumer devices are covered, emission-wise, by their respective regulations and protection to the consumer is based upon the understanding of the instructions and warnings provided with the appliance. *The ICNIRP guidance to which I refer is only for RF workers. Public RF levels are much more restrictive, as members of the public do not have to undertake RF awareness courses, medical examinations related to working with RF, and whose disposition varies from the sick, the lame and the lazy to the fit and the super fit. Joe Public also comes in all shapes and sizes. RF surveys are strictly and rigorously undertaken at transmitter sites with particular attention and remedial action applied to public boundaries so that the public level is NEVER exceeded. A radio amateur is NOT an RF worker, but is a member of the aforementioned Joe Public, who has studied, been examined and earned permission to use RF for hobby purposes. But is still Joe Public. So Joe Public, the radio amateur may be admitted to hospital for a condition brought about by exposure to RF through his own misunderstanding. It is only right, therefore, that those who use RF are expected to know a little about its effects and levels - not just upon themselves, but upon members of the public who might be around their equipment. It is wrong to expect professional transmitter operators to make their sites safe for Joe Public when amateurs can emit RF on similar levels without giving a toss about the physiological effect upon the child next door or the baby in a pram at the traffic lights. A late friend of mine used a Yaesu FT208 2-metre hand held regularly for years on its whip and died, in his 50s of a double brain tumour. I'm not convinced it was unrelated. Out of curiosity I once put our RF survey monitor kit at car-roof level, above the drivers' door, with a 5/8 mag-mount in the centre of the roof and drove it with 25 Watts on 2 Metres. Surprise, surprise... It exceeded - although not by a lot - the ICNIRP level for electric field strength. Better safe than sorry.
__________________
Regds, Russell W. B. G4YLI. |
|
4th Mar 2021, 5:32 pm | #47 |
Pentode
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Camberley, Surrey, UK.
Posts: 145
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
I've only just seen this thread and I can't see any mention of the RSGB version of the spreadsheet which is much more amateur friendly, but will still need some more work. It can be downloaded from the RSGB website.
Peter G4DJB |
4th Mar 2021, 10:20 pm | #48 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: near Reading (and sometimes Torquay)
Posts: 3,094
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
I mentioned it. But it is a "work in progress" so not in the final form yet.
In fact I understand that it will probably not be a spreadsheet in its final form. Quote:
Could this be the start of shorter overs? |
|
4th Mar 2021, 11:08 pm | #49 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Penrith, Cumbria, UK.
Posts: 3,687
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Quote:
As far as RF workers are concerned, those at particular risk include pregnant women; those with passive medical implants; those with external medical devices... In a working RF environment that has been surveyed, this isn't a problem as their transmitting employers are mindful of frequency, power level and duration of exposure: they are told where they can and can't go. But in the public arena things may be different. I wouldn't think so. Maybe looking around, if stationary-mobile (as it were, so to speak), before keying up, to conduct a mental risk-assessment. I suppose OfCOM are duty-bound to address the anomaly of those who aren't RF workers but members of the public who are in command of EMF-emitting equipment that may, in some circumstances, prove hazardous to others. If ensuring that radio amateurs are EMF aware by having to complete a simple spreadsheet, then surely it is a small price to pay to continue enjoying their hobby? I might turn it around and say forthcoming legislation actually empowers radio amateurs and will enable them, once they have documented their EMF emissions, to challenge the nebby neighbour (there's always one) who confronts them 'about that monstrous aerial in your garden and what's it doing to my kids, etc...'
__________________
Regds, Russell W. B. G4YLI. |
|
4th Mar 2021, 11:09 pm | #50 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 3,687
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
|
4th Mar 2021, 11:30 pm | #51 |
Nonode
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worcestershire, UK.
Posts: 2,533
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
A quickie. What is the most power produced by mobile phone up against the skull and the duty cycle?
Thanks, Steve
__________________
https://www.radiocraft.co.uk |
4th Mar 2021, 11:52 pm | #52 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Penrith, Cumbria, UK.
Posts: 3,687
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
The data I have for a GSM mobile suggests an output of 0.002 to 0.25 Watts. Don't know the duty cycle.
__________________
Regds, Russell W. B. G4YLI. |
5th Mar 2021, 2:29 am | #53 |
Octode
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watford, Hertfordshire, UK.
Posts: 1,270
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
I don't go on the air much nowadays and the gear I have takes up a lot of room.
If this proposal goes through I will put a hammer through my TS940, TS440, Ten-Tec and various VHF/UHF Gear and send the bits to land-fill. I live in a block of flats with neighbours within my RF Bubble and trips to set up antennas in the park for HF operation will no longer be possible. The hobby is not the same as it was anyway so I will not miss it and I might make a few bob flogging the RF test gear and ATU's, 73's Les G4CNH
__________________
Whether the Top Cap is Grid or Anode - touching it will give you a buzz either way! |
5th Mar 2021, 11:57 am | #54 |
Octode
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Owston Ferry, North Lincolnshire, UK.
Posts: 1,701
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Hi Top Cap, If you do actually decide to cease the amateur hobby you would be better selling your equipment. At least that way you will get some financial benefit.
Now at the risk of playing Devil's advocate! What about the motorbike Police Officer, would he have to get off his bike and stand 4.5 or more metres away from it in order to use his bike mounted transmitter? He would most likely be less than 1 metre away from it while riding the bike. Then there are those WWII airworthy aircraft a lot of which don't have any metal skin or metal framework that could act as a Faraday cage to possibly protect the aircrew. Likewise would a passenger aircrafts fuselage protect the occupants with the Faraday cage principle or not, especially if the aerial earthing becomes resistive? I feel that a lot of this will depend on the actual transmission frequencies. I'm just glad that I am not involved with any of the potential legal issues from all of this latest requirement. Dave |
5th Mar 2021, 12:04 pm | #55 |
Nonode
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Spalding, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Posts: 2,858
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
I seem to recall back in the 60s C&G exam syllabus, your aerial must not cross a road, footpath or someone else's property. Oh, spark transmitters were forbidden as well!
Still stands today. Rob
__________________
Apprehension creeping like a tube train up your spine - Cymbaline. Film More soundtrack - Pink Floyd |
5th Mar 2021, 12:30 pm | #56 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Newcastle, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Posts: 11,553
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
I used to work in North Shields early on in my 'career' and on the way home there was a block of houses facing a busy main road. Somehow, the owner of one of them had managed to rig up a very long longwire (all nicely done, with insulators etc at each end) going from the front of the house, over the road to a handy telegraph pole. I often wondered how they had done that - at three in the morning, perhaps?
|
5th Mar 2021, 12:48 pm | #57 |
Octode
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire, UK.
Posts: 1,572
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
For any motorcyclist or radio user, do not forget the duty cycle is over 6 minutes and a police motorcyclist is unlikely to be transmitting constantly mainly bursts of a few seconds, also as he is not general public when operating the TX will probably come under different levels.
I have operated HF mobile in an open top car, only when parked up. Some would say it has has fried my brain, but I tend to think it's just age. I do tend to drop down to 50 watts peak and the radiation pattern from the mobile whip will possibly be upward around 30 degrees. so I may not be in the main field, but if mobile operators do not need to do the exercise that is good, I will just have to park away from others in the open somewhere. Adrian |
5th Mar 2021, 12:49 pm | #58 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: W.Butterwick, near Doncaster UK.
Posts: 8,932
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Yes, I have a very useful telegraph post but on the other side of the road. Satan get behind me!
__________________
G8JET BVWS Archivist and Member V.M.A.R.S |
5th Mar 2021, 4:44 pm | #59 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wiltshire, UK.
Posts: 13,996
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Quote:
Long-gone are the days of them using VHF/UHF Pye Westminsters, Marconi 690s etc - these days police bikes/cars don't generally exhibit any external antennas like they used to. Doing a bit more calculation using the Ofcom spreadsheet [which I find easier to use than the RSGB one] for frequencies above 10MHz it looks like I'm in the clear - my VHF antenna is something like 12 Metres above ground, the feedpoint of the 12AVQ I use for 14/21/28MHz is 8 Metres high. [with a vertical, should we measure height to the feedpoint, or height to the centre of the radiating-element? If the latter then add another 2 metres to the 12AVQ's effective height]. The calculators and suchlike don't seem to be designed for work below 10MHz - shich is where, if anything, I am more worried, since the horizontal part of my inverted-L for those bands is at points only 5 Metres above ground, and the feedpoint is in a box bolted to the shack windowsill. Wonder if I could claim the vertical part of the inverted-L is a 'single wire feeder' ?? Last edited by G6Tanuki; 5th Mar 2021 at 4:50 pm. |
|
5th Mar 2021, 8:13 pm | #60 |
Hexode
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Featherstone, West Yorkshire, UK.
Posts: 386
|
Re: OFCOM re: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Here is my tuppence worth on safe RF levels, but not for the same service.
In the late 80's, my company went into radio microphones, MPT regulations, and overseen by the Radio Communications Agency. The RA were quite firm, 2mW for a hand held device, and 10mW for a body worn transmitter; any more was dangerous we were told. Years later, along came mobile telephones, but they seemed to be able to write their own regulations, so along came their SAR measurements for power. Was the RA wrong? |