I was noting that Today, all Radio hams, and indeed anyone who sends out
transmissions from Long wave to whatever have to comply with the fact that
members of the public cannot be subjected to more than a certain field
strength for a given period. Apparently there are various calculators out
there to test the viability of aerials for these parameters at various
wattages.

It occurred to me that if you lived close to a large commercial
transmitter, you could be in a so called danger area. I say so called, as
apart from microwaves, I don't think the research exists to suggest anything
untoward will happen to you under normal conditions. It was also mentioned
that in addition, high power chargers as for fast EV charging could be
dangerous to those having heart pacemakers and other medical devices. Nissan
in their Leaf manual state this.

So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers, and plug in internet over the
mains plugs we see everywhere? Has anyone ever worked out about the
exposure to those? In the latter case, they do actually use frequencies from
about 4Mhz to 30 mhz, put through the inefficient medium of the house mains
supply by more than one plug in device.
Now I'm not saying any of these are dangerous, just wondering whether there
is any real proof of these things being an issue for health. I once knew a
lady who lived very close to the Vatican City radio station for various
short wave frequencies, She lived there for years and lived till a ripe old
age of 92. The field strength in her home was way more than current
regulations would allow. I'm sure other stories are out there.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

What about my exposure to my laptop which is on my lap all day and much of
the evening?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

On 14/11/2022 in message <tkt9j0$1ocnm$1@dont-email.me> Brian Gaff wrote:

>I was noting that Today, all Radio hams, and indeed anyone who sends out
>transmissions from Long wave to whatever have to comply with the fact
>that members of the public cannot be subjected to more than a certain
>field strength for a given period. Apparently there are various
>calculators out there to test the viability of aerials for these
>parameters at various wattages.
>
>It occurred to me that if you lived close to a large commercial
>transmitter, you could be in a so called danger area. I say so called, as
>apart from microwaves, I don't think the research exists to suggest
>anything untoward will happen to you under normal conditions. It was also
>mentioned that in addition, high power chargers as for fast EV charging
>could be dangerous to those having heart pacemakers and other medical
>devices. Nissan in their Leaf manual state this.
>
>So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers, and plug in internet over
>the mains plugs we see everywhere? Has anyone ever worked out about the
>exposure to those? In the latter case, they do actually use frequencies
>from about 4Mhz to 30 mhz, put through the inefficient medium of the house
>mains supply by more than one plug in device.
>Now I'm not saying any of these are dangerous, just wondering whether
>there is any real proof of these things being an issue for health. I once
>knew a lady who lived very close to the Vatican City radio station for
>various short wave frequencies, She lived there for years and lived till a
>ripe old age of 92. The field strength in her home was way more than
>current regulations would allow. I'm sure other stories are out there.
>Brian

Brian Gaff wrote:

> So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers

maximum 100 mW per device?

On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 12:19:18 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
> Brian Gaff wrote:
>
> > So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers
> maximum 100 mW per device?

All those other devices have needed to comply for many years. The only
difference is that radio amateurs now have to avoid exposing anyone
outside the boundary of their property to higher levels than would be
allowed for other users at close quarters.

John

On 14/11/2022 12:01, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> What about my exposure to my laptop which is on my lap all day and much
> of the evening?
>
>

Surely, you're too old to worry about your nuts ?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:44:36 +1100, Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was noting that Today, all Radio hams, and indeed anyone who sends out
> transmissions from Long wave to whatever have to comply with the fact
> that
> members of the public cannot be subjected to more than a certain field
> strength for a given period. Apparently there are various calculators
> out
> there to test the viability of aerials for these parameters at various
> wattages.
>
> It occurred to me that if you lived close to a large commercial
> transmitter, you could be in a so called danger area. I say so called, as
> apart from microwaves, I don't think the research exists to suggest
> anything
> untoward will happen to you under normal conditions. It was also
> mentioned
> that in addition, high power chargers as for fast EV charging could be
> dangerous to those having heart pacemakers and other medical devices.
> Nissan
> in their Leaf manual state this.
>
> So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers, and plug in internet over
> the
> mains plugs we see everywhere? Has anyone ever worked out about the
> exposure to those? In the latter case, they do actually use frequencies
> from
> about 4Mhz to 30 mhz, put through the inefficient medium of the house
> mains
> supply by more than one plug in device.
> Now I'm not saying any of these are dangerous, just wondering whether
> there
> is any real proof of these things being an issue for health. I once knew
> a
> lady who lived very close to the Vatican City radio station for various
> short wave frequencies, She lived there for years and lived till a ripe
> old
> age of 92. The field strength in her home was way more than current
> regulations would allow.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

You can say the same thing about some who smoke 10 packs of fags a day
and lived till 92 too.

> I'm sure other stories are out there.

Maybe why that other child molester pope chose to retire instead of dying
on the job.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 23:01:16 +1100, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
> What about my exposure to my laptop which is on my lap all day and much
> of the evening?

Thats why you can't get it up anymore and are sterile.

On 14/11/2022 10:44, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I was noting that Today, all Radio hams, and indeed anyone who sends out
> transmissions from Long wave to whatever have to comply with the fact that
> members of the public cannot be subjected to more than a certain field
> strength for a given period. Apparently there are various calculators out
> there to test the viability of aerials for these parameters at various
> wattages.
>
> It occurred to me that if you lived close to a large commercial
> transmitter, you could be in a so called danger area. I say so called, as
> apart from microwaves, I don't think the research exists to suggest anything
> untoward will happen to you under normal conditions. It was also mentioned
> that in addition, high power chargers as for fast EV charging could be
> dangerous to those having heart pacemakers and other medical devices. Nissan
> in their Leaf manual state this.
>
> So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers, and plug in internet over the
> mains plugs we see everywhere? Has anyone ever worked out about the
> exposure to those? In the latter case, they do actually use frequencies from
> about 4Mhz to 30 mhz, put through the inefficient medium of the house mains
> supply by more than one plug in device.
> Now I'm not saying any of these are dangerous, just wondering whether there
> is any real proof of these things being an issue for health. I once knew a
> lady who lived very close to the Vatican City radio station for various
> short wave frequencies, She lived there for years and lived till a ripe old
> age of 92. The field strength in her home was way more than current
> regulations would allow. I'm sure other stories are out there.
> Brian
>
I ignored the whole thing as my G5RV runs along the boundary with my
neighbour.....so I will say I run below the power limit...load of pish

On 14 Nov 2022 at 18:12:17 GMT, "Jim Stewart ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> On 14/11/2022 10:44, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> I was noting that Today, all Radio hams, and indeed anyone who sends out
>> transmissions from Long wave to whatever have to comply with the fact that
>> members of the public cannot be subjected to more than a certain field
>> strength for a given period. Apparently there are various calculators out
>> there to test the viability of aerials for these parameters at various
>> wattages.
>>
>> It occurred to me that if you lived close to a large commercial
>> transmitter, you could be in a so called danger area. I say so called, as
>> apart from microwaves, I don't think the research exists to suggest anything
>> untoward will happen to you under normal conditions. It was also mentioned
>> that in addition, high power chargers as for fast EV charging could be
>> dangerous to those having heart pacemakers and other medical devices. Nissan
>> in their Leaf manual state this.
>>
>> So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers, and plug in internet over the
>> mains plugs we see everywhere? Has anyone ever worked out about the
>> exposure to those? In the latter case, they do actually use frequencies from
>> about 4Mhz to 30 mhz, put through the inefficient medium of the house mains
>> supply by more than one plug in device.
>> Now I'm not saying any of these are dangerous, just wondering whether there
>> is any real proof of these things being an issue for health. I once knew a
>> lady who lived very close to the Vatican City radio station for various
>> short wave frequencies, She lived there for years and lived till a ripe old
>> age of 92. The field strength in her home was way more than current
>> regulations would allow. I'm sure other stories are out there.
>> Brian
>>
> I ignored the whole thing as my G5RV runs along the boundary with my
> neighbour.....so I will say I run below the power limit...load of pish

It might make you a minute fraction of a degree warmer as you absorb the
radiation, just like being out in the sun. It can't harm you otherwise as all
these frequencies are far too low to be ionising radiation. An exception is
microwave frequencies, because water readily absorbs those frequencies as we
know, but you'd need to be stood next to a leaky microwave for it to harm, and
that's only because your eye lenses would possibly absorb the microwaves, and
having no nerves in them you wouldn't notice them heating up. Might be more
likely to get cataracts later, perhaps.

All ionising radiation is shorter wavelength than any visible light. So it's
all bollocks, just like this 5G garbage.

--
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell

On 14/11/2022 in message <tktrs8$5c3$3@gioia.aioe.org> Andrew wrote:

>On 14/11/2022 12:01, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>What about my exposure to my laptop which is on my lap all day and much
>>of the evening?
>>
>>
>
>Surely, you're too old to worry about your nuts ?

I agree they have no use nowadays but I don't want them to shrivel up and
fall off!

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists
or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.

I don't think this is much more than a mobile phone, which surprisingly,
seem not to be a problem. The old inverse square law and all of that. It all
sounds a bit like bullshit to me, I have to say. However, RF can be
dangerous, as I know to my cost brushing my arm against an aerial with 100
watt transmitter on the end. The burn was real enough, but just standing
near it? No ill effects, these two heads I have are perfectly normal. grin.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0npcizr6hfmwe00b@news.individual.net...
>
> What about my exposure to my laptop which is on my lap all day and much of
> the evening?
>
>
> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>
>
>
> On 14/11/2022 in message <tkt9j0$1ocnm$1@dont-email.me> Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>>I was noting that Today, all Radio hams, and indeed anyone who sends out
>>transmissions from Long wave to whatever have to comply with the fact
>>that members of the public cannot be subjected to more than a certain
>>field strength for a given period. Apparently there are various
>>calculators out there to test the viability of aerials for these
>>parameters at various wattages.
>>
>>It occurred to me that if you lived close to a large commercial
>>transmitter, you could be in a so called danger area. I say so called, as
>>apart from microwaves, I don't think the research exists to suggest
>>anything untoward will happen to you under normal conditions. It was also
>>mentioned that in addition, high power chargers as for fast EV charging
>>could be dangerous to those having heart pacemakers and other medical
>>devices. Nissan in their Leaf manual state this.
>>
>>So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers, and plug in internet over
>>the mains plugs we see everywhere? Has anyone ever worked out about the
>>exposure to those? In the latter case, they do actually use frequencies
>>from about 4Mhz to 30 mhz, put through the inefficient medium of the house
>>mains supply by more than one plug in device.
>>Now I'm not saying any of these are dangerous, just wondering whether
>>there is any real proof of these things being an issue for health. I once
>>knew a lady who lived very close to the Vatican City radio station for
>>various short wave frequencies, She lived there for years and lived till a
>>ripe old age of 92. The field strength in her home was way more than
>>current regulations would allow. I'm sure other stories are out there.
>>Brian
>
>

I do recall, when I worked for Decca Radar, one engineer forgot a magnetron
was on and the waveguide was not terminated. It started to cook a sandwich
in his pocket, before the swr switched it off on a safety circuit. I never
followed it up but that is the sort of thing you don't want near your nuts
or leg for that matter.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0npcyzb734x0c00g@news.individual.net...
> On 14/11/2022 in message <tktrs8$5c3$3@gioia.aioe.org> Andrew wrote:
>
>>On 14/11/2022 12:01, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>>What about my exposure to my laptop which is on my lap all day and much
>>>of the evening?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Surely, you're too old to worry about your nuts ?
>
> I agree they have no use nowadays but I don't want them to shrivel up and
> fall off!
>
> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists
> or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.

The point is, how close are you to its aerial. Apparently the reason for
some of them having more than one aerial is to make it almost impossible to
get dangerously close to all four, well mine has four.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:jteq20Fnt7oU1@mid.individual.net...
> Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers
>
> maximum 100 mW per device?

Its not just hams, since the extension to LF frequencies, it covers things
like community radio stations, you know a scaffold pole on the roof of a
care home etc as well, apparently.
Luckily many now either use fm or very low power AM on Medium wave I
suppose.
I remember seeing one which had a guyed scaffold pole on top of what looked
like a wine bottle as an insulator.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"John Walliker" <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5cee48f-10e0-417b-81af-f081cfb2205an@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 12:19:18 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>> > So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers
>> maximum 100 mW per device?
>
> All those other devices have needed to comply for many years. The only
> difference is that radio amateurs now have to avoid exposing anyone
> outside the boundary of their property to higher levels than would be
> allowed for other users at close quarters.
>
> John

Don't change the subject. I know its hard to prove a negative and all of
that but if it were common you would see clusters of illness around high
power transmitters surely?
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.1vmv4auzbyq249@pvr2.lan...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:44:36 +1100, Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I was noting that Today, all Radio hams, and indeed anyone who sends out
>> transmissions from Long wave to whatever have to comply with the fact
>> that
>> members of the public cannot be subjected to more than a certain field
>> strength for a given period. Apparently there are various calculators
>> out
>> there to test the viability of aerials for these parameters at various
>> wattages.
>>
>> It occurred to me that if you lived close to a large commercial
>> transmitter, you could be in a so called danger area. I say so called, as
>> apart from microwaves, I don't think the research exists to suggest
>> anything
>> untoward will happen to you under normal conditions. It was also
>> mentioned
>> that in addition, high power chargers as for fast EV charging could be
>> dangerous to those having heart pacemakers and other medical devices.
>> Nissan
>> in their Leaf manual state this.
>>
>> So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers, and plug in internet over
>> the
>> mains plugs we see everywhere? Has anyone ever worked out about the
>> exposure to those? In the latter case, they do actually use frequencies
>> from
>> about 4Mhz to 30 mhz, put through the inefficient medium of the house
>> mains
>> supply by more than one plug in device.
>> Now I'm not saying any of these are dangerous, just wondering whether
>> there
>> is any real proof of these things being an issue for health. I once knew
>> a
>> lady who lived very close to the Vatican City radio station for various
>> short wave frequencies, She lived there for years and lived till a ripe
>> old
>> age of 92. The field strength in her home was way more than current
>> regulations would allow.
>
> The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
>
> You can say the same thing about some who smoke 10 packs of fags a day
> and lived till 92 too.
>
>> I'm sure other stories are out there.
>
> Maybe why that other child molester pope chose to retire instead of dying
> on the job.

On 14/11/2022 20:31, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2022 at 18:12:17 GMT, "Jim Stewart ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/2022 10:44, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>> I was noting that Today, all Radio hams, and indeed anyone who sends out
>>> transmissions from Long wave to whatever have to comply with the fact that
>>> members of the public cannot be subjected to more than a certain field
>>> strength for a given period. Apparently there are various calculators out
>>> there to test the viability of aerials for these parameters at various
>>> wattages.
>>>
>>> It occurred to me that if you lived close to a large commercial
>>> transmitter, you could be in a so called danger area. I say so called, as
>>> apart from microwaves, I don't think the research exists to suggest anything
>>> untoward will happen to you under normal conditions. It was also mentioned
>>> that in addition, high power chargers as for fast EV charging could be
>>> dangerous to those having heart pacemakers and other medical devices. Nissan
>>> in their Leaf manual state this.
>>>
>>> So what of all these unbreakable wifi routers, and plug in internet over the
>>> mains plugs we see everywhere? Has anyone ever worked out about the
>>> exposure to those? In the latter case, they do actually use frequencies from
>>> about 4Mhz to 30 mhz, put through the inefficient medium of the house mains
>>> supply by more than one plug in device.
>>> Now I'm not saying any of these are dangerous, just wondering whether there
>>> is any real proof of these things being an issue for health. I once knew a
>>> lady who lived very close to the Vatican City radio station for various
>>> short wave frequencies, She lived there for years and lived till a ripe old
>>> age of 92. The field strength in her home was way more than current
>>> regulations would allow. I'm sure other stories are out there.
>>> Brian
>>>
>> I ignored the whole thing as my G5RV runs along the boundary with my
>> neighbour.....so I will say I run below the power limit...load of pish
>
> It might make you a minute fraction of a degree warmer as you absorb the
> radiation, just like being out in the sun. It can't harm you otherwise as all
> these frequencies are far too low to be ionising radiation. An exception is
> microwave frequencies, because water readily absorbs those frequencies as we
> know, but you'd need to be stood next to a leaky microwave for it to harm, and
> that's only because your eye lenses would possibly absorb the microwaves, and
> having no nerves in them you wouldn't notice them heating up. Might be more
> likely to get cataracts later, perhaps.
>
> All ionising radiation is shorter wavelength than any visible light. So it's
> all bollocks, just like this 5G garbage.
>
totly plus ssb is not a constant signal

Well, that is how domestic microwaves were 'invented'
when someone working on radar noticed that a choccy
bar in his pocket had melted. (or so the story goes).

Andrew

On 15/11/2022 08:58, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I do recall, when I worked for Decca Radar, one engineer forgot a magnetron
> was on and the waveguide was not terminated. It started to cook a sandwich
> in his pocket, before the swr switched it off on a safety circuit. I never
> followed it up but that is the sort of thing you don't want near your nuts
> or leg for that matter.
> Brian
>

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 20:01:05 +1100, Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The point is, how close are you to its aerial. Apparently the reason for
> some of them having more than one aerial [routers] is to make it almost
> impossible to
> get dangerously close to all four, well mine has four.

Nope, its so the router can be other than omnidirectional
so that it can be electronically rotated so that the signal
level can be directionally improved.

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote

> Don't change the subject. I know its hard to prove a negative and all of
> that but if it were common you would see clusters of illness around high
> power transmitters surely?

That was a JOKE, Joyce.

Don't laugh, see if I care.

And stop calling me Shirley, Bruce.