Ofcom's EMF consultation


G8JBJ John
 

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ



M0TOT Alex
 

To John GM8JBJ,

 

Yes, 7 meters for 500 Watts. For us lesser mortals, who operate at only 100 Watts the ‘exclusion-zone’ appears to be 3 meters. The latter distance for my household  is fine, except for the  pigeons and  our chimney sweep as the antennas are on top of the roof!

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Regards

 

Alex. M0tot

 

From: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io> On Behalf Of G8JBJ John
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:08 PM
To: Msars@groups.io
Subject: [Msars] Ofcom's EMF consultation

 

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

 

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

 

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.

 

 

It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

 

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

 

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

 

73s, 

 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919

Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ

 


G8JBJ John
 

And very timely, I just got the Ofcom licence update email about the EMF change.

John


 

John Berry

Director, TimelessTime Ltd
Mob. 07553 250 919


TimelessTime Ltd
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ
Tel: 01450 372 274
Kingfisher House, Hurstwood Grange, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH17 8QX
Tel. 01450 372 274
Twitter: @TimelessTimeLtd



On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 14:34, M0TOT Alex via groups.io <panda.henderson=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:

To John GM8JBJ,

 

Yes, 7 meters for 500 Watts. For us lesser mortals, who operate at only 100 Watts the ‘exclusion-zone’ appears to be 3 meters. The latter distance for my household  is fine, except for the  pigeons and  our chimney sweep as the antennas are on top of the roof!

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Regards

 

Alex. M0tot

 

From: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io> On Behalf Of G8JBJ John
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:08 PM
To: Msars@groups.io
Subject: [Msars] Ofcom's EMF consultation

 

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

 

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

 

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.

 

 

It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

 

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

 

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

 

73s, 

 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919

Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ

 


G3WYN Ken
 

GA John. Well it seems that the panic may well be over. Using their calculator and assuming that I'm running 400W on 3.740 Mhz and 14,345 Mhz from my doublet and delta loop the separtion distances look like 3.9 and 6.38m .If I use the average power method of calculation these distances reduce to 1.95 and 3.19m and no one is getting their head within these distances from either of my antennas. Meantime I'm going to ignore all this until the RSGB or Ofcom write to me telling me I'm  doing something wrong. 73 es take care,  Ken

On 03/03/2021 13:07, G8JBJ John wrote:
Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ


G1TDL Mike
 

It seems that Ofcom can email me the new conditions, but couldn’t email me the consultation document. 

/\/\ike G1tdl
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 13:07, G8JBJ John <john.berry@...> wrote:

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ



G4UDU Phil
 

If anyone would like some “Light Reading” - here is the full documentation ………


Phil G4UDU




On 3 Mar 2021, at 15:45, G1TDL Mike <mike@...> wrote:

It seems that Ofcom can email me the new conditions, but couldn’t email me the consultation document. 

/\/\ike G1tdl
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 13:07, G8JBJ John <john.berry@...> wrote:

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ





G1TDL Mike
 

Just keep calm and carry on......

/\/\ike
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 20:06, G4UDU Phil <pgodbold@...> wrote:

If anyone would like some “Light Reading” - here is the full documentation ………


Phil G4UDU




On 3 Mar 2021, at 15:45, G1TDL Mike <mike@...> wrote:

It seems that Ofcom can email me the new conditions, but couldn’t email me the consultation document. 

/\/\ike G1tdl
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 13:07, G8JBJ John <john.berry@...> wrote:

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ





M7AOE Ray
 

​Years ago BBC World service was transmitted from Crowborough with the transmission powerful enough to interfere with most electrical appliances in the town. However the frequency employed was too low to effect living organisms and no associated health problems were reported. As radio hams use a similar frequency I can't see that our transmissions would ever effect the human body.


From: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io> on behalf of G1TDL Mike <mike@...>
Sent: 03 March 2021 20:35
To: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Msars] Ofcom's EMF consultation
 
Just keep calm and carry on......

/\/\ike
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 20:06, G4UDU Phil <pgodbold@...> wrote:

If anyone would like some “Light Reading” - here is the full documentation ………


Phil G4UDU




On 3 Mar 2021, at 15:45, G1TDL Mike <mike@...> wrote:

It seems that Ofcom can email me the new conditions, but couldn’t email me the consultation document. 

/\/\ike G1tdl
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 13:07, G8JBJ John <john.berry@...> wrote:

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ





G8JBJ John
 

OK, I don't think we can be quite so sure about effects - yet. But I think we also need to dispel myths.

The basis of a lot of thinking and international standards such as ICNIRP is precaution. It is known that non-ionising radiation affects humans. That's why we use it for cancer treatment - because it has a heating effect in tissue. It also has a molecular effect and that's less well understood.

But, we've been using electromagnetic waves around us for years. We regularly stick a half Watt UHF transmitter to our ears. Though we wouldn't do that if we recalled the thermogram of heating in the brain that results. On the other hand, it probably improves up some folks' thinking! It's generally agreed in the science world that exposure has not been with us long enough to tell if there is a lasting effect on humans.

There's no evidence yet that illustrates a causal link between disease and casual exposure. So the notion that amateur transmissions are dangerous is probably wrong. But we don't know for sure.

So, in situations where effects are known, and the scientific community is not unanimous in the view that there is no danger, policy makers are wise to use the precautionary principle. And that's what's happening here.

The people who need to worry are those with simultaneous multiple transmissions - the mobile phone operators. 50 channels each 1kW EIRP continuous need to sum the power. And that does demand a reasonable exclusion zone. But the cellular folk have been working with this for many years now. Cellular operators do risk assessments and measurements to discharge their H&S obligations. They also limit the time for which technicians can work on site with stations powered up.

From what I've seen, it's about precaution, reasonableness and record keeping. I view it like H&S assessments at work. Unless you're doing things that sail close, or there are changes, you do it once a year and it takes five minutes. Ofcom will never police it, but a breach could be a reason to close you down if a neighbour complains - and it might give a neighbour with an angst grounds to complain.

I'll be interested to see the next RadCom with the next edition of the guidelines.

Any other views?

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ



On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 07:36, M7AOE Ray <rayxl@...> wrote:
​Years ago BBC World service was transmitted from Crowborough with the transmission powerful enough to interfere with most electrical appliances in the town. However the frequency employed was too low to effect living organisms and no associated health problems were reported. As radio hams use a similar frequency I can't see that our transmissions would ever effect the human body.


From: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io> on behalf of G1TDL Mike <mike@...>
Sent: 03 March 2021 20:35
To: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Msars] Ofcom's EMF consultation
 
Just keep calm and carry on......

/\/\ike
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 20:06, G4UDU Phil <pgodbold@...> wrote:

If anyone would like some “Light Reading” - here is the full documentation ………


Phil G4UDU




On 3 Mar 2021, at 15:45, G1TDL Mike <mike@...> wrote:

It seems that Ofcom can email me the new conditions, but couldn’t email me the consultation document. 

/\/\ike G1tdl
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 13:07, G8JBJ John <john.berry@...> wrote:

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ





M0WVE Merv
 

I have an Inverted L and the bottom end slopes down to the ground level in a postage stamp garden so with my 100W it is going to be impossible to get a 3m exclusion zone.


Frustrated in Lindfield

Merv
M0WVE


G3WYN Ken
 

Mervyn, Surely a  12 foot pole at the bottom end would  raise the end more that 3m and that should do the trick? Ken

On 04/03/2021 14:21, Merv M0WVE wrote:
I have an Inverted L and the bottom end slopes down to the ground level in a postage stamp garden so with my 100W it is going to be impossible to get a 3m exclusion zone.


Frustrated in Lindfield

Merv
M0WVE



M0XYF Berni
 

An excellent science-based and unemotional summation from John.

To be honest, I'm not confident that the parameters that I've put into the RSGB spreadsheet are actually representative of my setup. I not sure my knowledge is quite up to scratch. What I am fairly sure about is that at 40m, 80m and 160m, the little box that I was hoping would give me some reassurance turned red, meaning that I've got an awful lot more learning and research to do.

At the end of the day, if I feel that any of my antenna systems is marginal in terms of harmful radiation, I'm probably just going to stick it another 5m in the air. Sorry neighbours. I'd rather get a call from the planning officer than the radio police.

I think John is right about the likelihood of Ofcom paying us all a visit. Not going to happen unless a hostile neighbour sees a report about the new regulations on the evening news. How exactly will Ofcom measure the radiation or judge its effect? I'll be interested to read the final wording of the licence condition. It all feels way too fluffy. I need a clear set of unambiguous criteria and a demonstrable testing or evaluation process. If I simply have to produce a piece of self-certified compliance documentation, then this is all a complete waste of time.

What I really don't understand AT ALL is that if any amateur were to get a knock on the door, they could instantly become a QRP station. There is no longer a requirement to log your QSO's or power levels used, and I don't. Does that make me a bad operator? Probably.

As is often the case, there are two elements to this. The responsible consideration of the long-term health of the locals, and the avoidance or otherwise of Ofcom's scrutiny and judgement.

I wouldn't like to be the one responsible for writing the new section of the Foundation manual, that's for sure.

Berni M0XYF


On 04/03/2021 08:23, G8JBJ John wrote:
OK, I don't think we can be quite so sure about effects - yet. But I think we also need to dispel myths.

The basis of a lot of thinking and international standards such as ICNIRP is precaution. It is known that non-ionising radiation affects humans. That's why we use it for cancer treatment - because it has a heating effect in tissue. It also has a molecular effect and that's less well understood.

But, we've been using electromagnetic waves around us for years. We regularly stick a half Watt UHF transmitter to our ears. Though we wouldn't do that if we recalled the thermogram of heating in the brain that results. On the other hand, it probably improves up some folks' thinking! It's generally agreed in the science world that exposure has not been with us long enough to tell if there is a lasting effect on humans.

There's no evidence yet that illustrates a causal link between disease and casual exposure. So the notion that amateur transmissions are dangerous is probably wrong. But we don't know for sure.

So, in situations where effects are known, and the scientific community is not unanimous in the view that there is no danger, policy makers are wise to use the precautionary principle. And that's what's happening here.

The people who need to worry are those with simultaneous multiple transmissions - the mobile phone operators. 50 channels each 1kW EIRP continuous need to sum the power. And that does demand a reasonable exclusion zone. But the cellular folk have been working with this for many years now. Cellular operators do risk assessments and measurements to discharge their H&S obligations. They also limit the time for which technicians can work on site with stations powered up.

From what I've seen, it's about precaution, reasonableness and record keeping. I view it like H&S assessments at work. Unless you're doing things that sail close, or there are changes, you do it once a year and it takes five minutes. Ofcom will never police it, but a breach could be a reason to close you down if a neighbour complains - and it might give a neighbour with an angst grounds to complain.

I'll be interested to see the next RadCom with the next edition of the guidelines.

Any other views?

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ


On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 07:36, M7AOE Ray <rayxl@...> wrote:
​Years ago BBC World service was transmitted from Crowborough with the transmission powerful enough to interfere with most electrical appliances in the town. However the frequency employed was too low to effect living organisms and no associated health problems were reported. As radio hams use a similar frequency I can't see that our transmissions would ever effect the human body.


From: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io> on behalf of G1TDL Mike <mike@...>
Sent: 03 March 2021 20:35
To: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Msars] Ofcom's EMF consultation
 
Just keep calm and carry on......

/\/\ike
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 20:06, G4UDU Phil <pgodbold@...> wrote:

If anyone would like some “Light Reading” - here is the full documentation ………


Phil G4UDU




On 3 Mar 2021, at 15:45, G1TDL Mike <mike@...> wrote:

It seems that Ofcom can email me the new conditions, but couldn’t email me the consultation document. 

/\/\ike G1tdl
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 13:07, G8JBJ John <john.berry@...> wrote:

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ





M0NCJ Chris
 

Is anyone wondering why a sudden concern about the unlikely health hazards of Amateur Radio.



Chris  M0NCJ


From: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io> on behalf of G1TDL Mike <mike@...>
Sent: 03 March 2021 20:35
To: Msars@groups.io <Msars@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [Msars] Ofcom's EMF consultation
 
Just keep calm and carry on......

/\/\ike
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 20:06, G4UDU Phil <pgodbold@...> wrote:

If anyone would like some “Light Reading” - here is the full documentation ………


Phil G4UDU




On 3 Mar 2021, at 15:45, G1TDL Mike <mike@...> wrote:

It seems that Ofcom can email me the new conditions, but couldn’t email me the consultation document. 

/\/\ike G1tdl
The Homestead
Burgess Hill
RH15 0RQ

On 3 Mar 2021, at 13:07, G8JBJ John <john.berry@...> wrote:

Phil, Merv, you beat me to it. Sending now anyway...

Hi, I just wondered if anyone has read the consultation and responses? I was prompted by the article in this month's RadCom.

The consultation responses and a statement are at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf. I notice this is dated October 2020, and I haven't looked for anything more recent.


It seems generally all benign - though I do need to give it a second read and follow the RadCom series. I guess RSGB expect that most of us will be able to compare our installations with their standard configurations (Stage 1 in the article), and tick the box.

If I'm interpreting right, 500 Watts at HF needs a safety distance of 7 metres from the antenna. The important point from the consultation is that Ofcom has rejected the argument that family can be excluded since they can be told not to go close. Interesting seeing the arguments. 

Anyway, no issue at this QTH, but I do wonder what would have happened in Newick, where my neighbours would have come routinely within 7m of the ends of the doublet. I'm sure I've contributed on occasion to their barbecue cooking. Here, I've already warned Sue not to go into the bottom 2m of the polytunnel!!

What does anyone else think? Anyone with problems complying? 

73s, 

John GM8JBJ


 

John Berry


Mob. 07553 250 919
Willowburn, Kirkton, Hawick, Scottish Borders, TD9 8QJ