On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:22:22 GMT, Bruce in Alaska
wrote:
The only reason one would need to worry about Safety, would be
if the consumer or commercial Radar Antenna, had an exposed rotating
antenna, and it could hit someone in the head, while operating.

All the notions about RF Exposure in S and Xband for Marine Radars
is nothing but Oldwives Tales, and outdated equipment, concerns.

=========================================

I hope you're right Bruce because my old boat had a 4kw scanner right
in front of the flybridge. Raytheon recommends at least 2 meters
separation and that one was right on the cusp. I never operated it
unless necessary. The jury is still out on the RF exposure medical
studies, and each new one frequently conflicts with the old depending
on who sponsored the research. Meanwhile I'll still try to stay out
of the beam of anything as much as possible.

I gotta go with Wayne on this one. I did a great study on mircrowave
exposure effects...mainly because of a microwave site near neighborhoods.
Depending on what country you choose, the allowable exposure is variable.
No two people will agree on the effects.
The problem is in trying to prove a negative.
Me? I stay as far away from RF as possible....particullarly ionizing radiation.
Eyeballs are really sensitive to RF.
Norm B

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:56:52 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:22:22 GMT, Bruce in Alaska
wrote:
The only reason one would need to worry about Safety, would be
if the consumer or commercial Radar Antenna, had an exposed rotating
antenna, and it could hit someone in the head, while operating.

All the notions about RF Exposure in S and Xband for Marine Radars
is nothing but Oldwives Tales, and outdated equipment, concerns.

=========================================

I hope you're right Bruce because my old boat had a 4kw scanner right
in front of the flybridge. Raytheon recommends at least 2 meters
separation and that one was right on the cusp. I never operated it
unless necessary. The jury is still out on the RF exposure medical
studies, and each new one frequently conflicts with the old depending
on who sponsored the research. Meanwhile I'll still try to stay out
of the beam of anything as much as possible.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:30:06 -0800, engsol
wrote:

Me? I stay as far away from RF as possible....particullarly ionizing radiation.

================================

RF and ionizing radiation are two entirely different animals. RF is
electromagnetic, ionizing is from sub-atomic particles, at least in my
laymans view of the universe...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:05:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:30:06 -0800, engsol
wrote:

Me? I stay as far away from RF as possible....particullarly ionizing radiation.

================================

RF and ionizing radiation are two entirely different animals. RF is
electromagnetic, ionizing is from sub-atomic particles, at least in my
laymans view of the universe...

There is a frequency above which RF becomes ionizing. To be honest
the work I did in that area was so long ago I just don't remember the
numbers.

In article ,
engsol wrote:

.mainly because of a microwave site near neighborhoods.

Here again if you do the math, and figure the antenna bandwidths,
and RF Paths to and from the site, you will know that there is
insignificant exposer to RF from a microwave communications site,
anywhere on the ground, or in the nearfield of the antennas.


Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @

engsol wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:05:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:30:06 -0800, engsol
wrote:


Me? I stay as far away from RF as possible....particullarly ionizing radiation.

================================

RF and ionizing radiation are two entirely different animals. RF is
electromagnetic, ionizing is from sub-atomic particles, at least in my
laymans view of the universe...


There is a frequency above which RF becomes ionizing. To be honest
the work I did in that area was so long ago I just don't remember the
numbers.

I think EM radiation has to be up the the X Ray part of the spectrum to
be ionizing.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:07:17 -0800, engsol
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:05:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:30:06 -0800, engsol
wrote:

Me? I stay as far away from RF as possible....particullarly ionizing radiation.

================================

RF and ionizing radiation are two entirely different animals. RF is
electromagnetic, ionizing is from sub-atomic particles, at least in my
laymans view of the universe...

There is a frequency above which RF becomes ionizing. To be honest
the work I did in that area was so long ago I just don't remember the
numbers.
No common radar band is ionizing. They can be hazardous if they are
powerful enough to cook you, like a microwave oven.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the ass you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:37:00 GMT, Bruce in Alaska wrote:

In article ,
engsol wrote:

.mainly because of a microwave site near neighborhoods.

Here again if you do the math, and figure the antenna bandwidths,
and RF Paths to and from the site, you will know that there is
insignificant exposer to RF from a microwave communications site,
anywhere on the ground, or in the nearfield of the antennas.


Bruce in alaska

Bruce, you're right as rain. Even considering the near field nulls
and nodes the radiation reaching the ground (at any given range)
from a dish on a tower is less than the radiation from the sun at that
frequency. The reason I brought up the neighborhood microwave site
is because I had to appear before the Portland City Council to defend
our (my company's) desire to establish one. I was the Project Manager
for the MW network, and had to "prove" there was no hazard.
Actually it was a bad post on my part, as .I didn't explain my position
very well.
Norm B

In article ,
engsol wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:37:00 GMT, Bruce in Alaska wrote:

In article ,
engsol wrote:

.mainly because of a microwave site near neighborhoods.

Here again if you do the math, and figure the antenna bandwidths,
and RF Paths to and from the site, you will know that there is
insignificant exposer to RF from a microwave communications site,
anywhere on the ground, or in the nearfield of the antennas.


Bruce in alaska

Bruce, you're right as rain. Even considering the near field nulls
and nodes the radiation reaching the ground (at any given range)
from a dish on a tower is less than the radiation from the sun at that
frequency. The reason I brought up the neighborhood microwave site
is because I had to appear before the Portland City Council to defend
our (my company's) desire to establish one. I was the Project Manager
for the MW network, and had to "prove" there was no hazard.
Actually it was a bad post on my part, as .I didn't explain my position
very well.
Norm B


Yep, reminds me of when RCA Americom wanted to build an EarthStation
for the Aurora 1 Comms Sat on Vashon Island, Washington, so they could
bring the Alaska Longlines Traffic into the ESS4 Switch in Seattle.
The neighbors went TOTALLY nuts and delayed the project for a couple of
years in the KIng County Planning Commission. Some fool got this group
together and strung it out forever. RCA even went so far as getting
Dr. Renolds from the UW Applied Physics Lab to testify on their behalf,
and that didn't satisfy them. Total foolishness, to the extreme.
They finally built the EarthStation, but had to paint the 10Meter Dish
Brown/Green so it would "Blend into the neighborhood", and that was the
only consession that they were granted in the end.


Bruce in alaska who knows the foolishness of the uneducated......
--
add a 2 before @