QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940781.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 27.1 KB

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 94 22:37:18 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #781
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Tue, 12 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  781

Today's Topics:
                     2M opening to Hawaii de CA.
                             6M Warnings
                         BIOEFFECTS ALL OF 9
                    Does CW as a pre-req (2 msgs)
                  Does CW as a pre-req REALLY Work?
                    For Washington Hams re Towers
          Repeater frequencies in IO, MN, MI et IL (2 msgs)
                       th78e and antenna tv !!!

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 12:33:22 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!pstc3![e-mail]
Subject: 2M opening to Hawaii de CA.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] writes:

> Oh am I jazzed!  I just worked Hilo, Hawaii on 2 meters via our club repeater
> here in Sonoma County, CA.  The first time I worked Hawaii and it was VHF!

Upgrade to General and you can work people even farther away than that.


MD
--
--   The best way for Bill Clinton to keep his
--   legal fees down is to keep his zipper up.
--

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 14:26:56 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!ukma!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!bolt.gsfc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: 6M Warnings
To: [e-mail]

Watch TV Channel 2 or 3! Listen to 28.885 for real DX info.also. There also
may be a local 2 meter simplex freq as we have here in DC area. Dick W1DGA

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 11:50:00 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!psgrain!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu![e-mail]
Subject: BIOEFFECTS ALL OF 9
To: [e-mail]

                                                   June 1, 1994


George S. Wilson, III, W4OYI
1649 Griffith Avenue
Owensboro, Kentucky  42301


Dear Mr. Wilson:

The ARRL Bio-Effects Committee writes this letter to detail the series
of events leading up to what has developed into an unnecessarily
difficult situation to all parties involved.  It is not without a certain
degree of sadness and disappointment that the Committee feels required
to do this recounting, but we feel that the record has become unclear,
and it is only appropriate that a correct account be established.

The current membership of the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee was appointed
by Larry Price, W4RA, in January, 1990 with the distinctive charge of
revitalizing organized amateur radio's concern for the limitation of
potential bio-effects hazards that might arise from the participation of
individuals in the hobby of amateur radio.  The members of the Committee
were W. Ross Adey, M.D., K6UI, David Rodman, M.D., KN2M, Thomas Rozzell,
Sc.D., WB4ZTT, Samuel Milham, M.D., and Ivan Shulman, M.D., WC2S as
Chairman.  Wayne Overbeck, Ph.D., J.D., N6NB was appointed as Board
Liaison.  Since that time, the Committee has worked to re-write virtually
all the sections pertaining to bio-effects hazards in all the ARRL
publications offered to the public.  In addition, the Committee has
monitored and reported to the Board on current projects that the
Committee has been involved in, including the FCC-EPA study of field
strength measurements at various amateur radio installations in
Southern California.

In January, 1992 the Chairman of the Bio-Effects Committee wrote to you
regarding the appointment of Wayne Overbeck as a full Committee member,
as he was no longer on the Board as a Vice-Director.  The Chairman also
wrote regarding the appointment of a new Board Liaison.  The Chairman
received no direct response from you in this matter, but was later
advised that Mr. Overbeck had been appointed to the Committee after
much deliberation.

The Chairman had not been consulted nor advised as to Mr. Price's
appointment as Board Liaison until April, 1992, when a copy of a letter
that was sent to an amateur expressing concern regarding the safety of
amateur radio operation arrived at the Chairman's desk over the
signature of Mr. Price, speaking for the Committee.  The Chairman voiced
his objections to Jay Holladay, W6EJJ, concerning this unilateral action
on the part of Mr. Price, as being an inappropriate role for the Board
Liaison to take without consultation with at the least the Chairman of
the Committee.  The Chairman heard nothing further regarding this
matter.

In April, 1992, QST published a photograph and description of an antenna
disguised as a curtain rod as a "cute" item to show the cooperative
effort of a ham and his new bride.  This was not accompanied by any
disclaimer as to the inadvisability of the risks of the operation of such
a station due to potential bio-effects issues.  When the Committee
objected to this, a letter from the Chairman was published in QST with
the headline "Indoor Antenna:  RF Hazard?", with the question mark
implying to the Committee that there was editorial doubt as to the
veracity of the observations expressed in the letter on behalf of the
Committee.  The last word on this matter was had by the original
operator, W6REF in a letter headlined "Bioeffects Overkill," criticizing
the stance of the Chairman as being unreasonable because the power
levels being generated at this installation were not known.  Such an
editorial disregard for the basic tenets that the Committee has
espoused seems rather cavalier and inappropriate.  The less than subtle
captioning of each of these letters, and the lack of editorial insight
into the entire issue was very disturbing.

Early in 1993, the FCC issued Docket 93-62, an NPRM regarding the
adoption of the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 guidelines on bio-effects.  One
would expect that the ARRL, as the largest representative of amateur
radio operators in this country, would seek the broadest base of opinion
from which to develop a position in this matter.  Certainly, one would
expect that the Bio-Effects Committee would be the appropriate body
within the ARRL from which the League would seek such counsel.  Even as
of this late date, no such request for information from the Bio-Effects
Committee has been made.

Failing to receive such an invitation to provide the League with
information and advice in this very important matter, members of the
Bio-Effects Committee developed a document suggesting a position to be
taken by the League in what the Committee expected to be a filing before
the FCC.  This was sent to the League in November, 1993.  The Chairman of
the Bio-Effects Committee received absolutely no response from the
League on this issue.  Mr. Overbeck received a communication from the
League acknowledging receipt of the document, but nothing further was
heard by any member of the Bio-Effects Committee after that time.

Because of the importance of this matter, and because nothing was sent
to advise the authors of the document of a position the League was going
to adopt, and because no further input from the Committee had been
solicited, and because a deadline in January, 1994 was rapidly
approaching, and because of their deep personal and professional
concern regarding the importance of this issue, some members of the Bio-
Effects Committee made an independent filing to the FCC as individuals,
specifically indicating that they were not speaking from their position
as members of the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee, but as private citizens.

In February, 1994, the Chairman of the Bio-Effects Committee received a
call from Jim Maxwell, W6CF advising that he had been appointed to the
position as Board Liaison.  Again, the Chairman of the Committee had not
been consulted regarding this appointment, not did he receive the
courtesy of formal advisement of this from anyone at the League other
than Mr. Maxwell himself.

On February 16, 1994, a meeting was held between Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Holladay
and the Chairman of the Bio-Effects Committee, reviewing concerns
expressed at League headquarters regarding the FCC filing by members of
the Committee.  During this meeting, a long series of MCI communications
was reviewed, at which time several issues were clearly established.

1.   There had never been a request from anyone at the League for the
     opinion of the Bio-Effects Committee, soliciting input on the NPRM
     in question.

2.   After receipt of the unsolicited comments of the members of the
     Bio-Effects Committee in November, 1994, there was never a reply
     to the Chairman of the Committee, nor was there any further
     communication with the Committee by anyone at the League
     regarding the position to be adopted by the League in their filing.
     Specifically, no draft of the League's filing was sent to the
     Committee for comments nor review.  The Committee was kept
     completely in the dark with regard to the League's filing and was
     not informed in any manner as to any position to be adopted by the
     League in this matter.

3.   Other issues regarding the complete failure of League management
     to consult with the Committee on proposed QST articles, such as
     the piece on pacemakers published last year, as well as the episode
     with the aforementioned antenna were documented.

4.   The complete lack of consultation on the appointment of Board
     Liaison was documented, including the absence of the common
     courtesy of a formal letter from anyone at the League regarding
     these appointments.

5.   Regret and dismay was expressed to the Chairman regarding these
     shortcomings and it was stated that these events should not have
     occurred.

At the close of this meeting, a positive feeling of trust and
understanding between the parties appeared to have been established,
and Mr. Maxwell expressed a clear desire to improve the communications
between the League and the Chairman and members of the Bio-Effects
Committee.  It is clear however, that this feeling was not reciprocated by
others at the League.

On March 1, 1994, the Chairman and the members of the Committee who
signed the independent citizen's filing received a FedEx letter, with your
stamped signature advising us of your distress in the entire matter of
our filing.  In the letter you made several statements which strike the
members of the Committee as deserving of comment.

While the members of the Committee have no problem with the desire of
the League to appear to apeak with one voice on matters before
governmental agencies, it is absolutely clear to all except for you, that
our filing was "as individuals, and not as representatives of the League".
As evidence to support the contention that it is a rather peculiar view
to see this filing as a separate voice of the League, is the report by
Fred Maia in his W5YI Report of February 1, 1994, clearly restating that
these members were speaking as individuals, and not as the ARRL Bio-
Effects Committee itself, nor on behalf of the League.

Further adding to the aggravation of members of the Committee is your
statement that "members cited their membership on the Committee to
bolster their competency to speak to the subject".  That you should feel
that Drs. Adey or Milham or any other member of the Bio-Effects
Committee need the ARRL to establish or burnish their credentials and
competency to speak to anyone on this subject is outrageous and
insulting.

The absence of a report to the ARRL Board in July, 1993 is an irrelevant
issue.  In the form letter sent to Committee Chairmen by Mr. Sumner,
there is no demand for such a report, and indeed there is no stated
charge in any document to support a contention that such a report is
mandatory.  The Chairman of the Committee is fully aware that reports to
the Board can be useful, but the then current activities of this
Committee had not changed from the previous report.  Furthermore, as
clearly established above, there was no request from the League nor the
Board to provide anyone with any information regarding the NPRM, so the
Committee had not addressed the issue at that time.

The connection between the filing and your decision to dismiss Mr.
Overbeck from the Committee is lost on all of the members of this
Committee.  The full and sole responsibility for the authorization of the
"independent filing" is that of the individual who happens to be the
Chairman of the Bio-Effects Committee and not that of Mr. Overbeck.  As
such, it should fall to that individual to bear the full burden of that
decision.  That Mr. Overbeck is, in the opinion of the Committee itself,
the member best able to put the scientific thoughts and concepts of the
Committee in legal terms does not place him solely responsible for the
actions that follow the expression of those ideas.  It appears that the
decision to dismiss him is based upon matters which accompanied the
reluctance of individuals at the League to appoint him to the Committee
in the first place.  Furthermore, these appear to relate to events that
occurred outside this Committee, and that preceded this appointment by
several years.  In our opinion, these prior events should have nothing to
do with the current situation.

It should be noted that those members of the Committee who signed the
filing were not aware of, and had never been advised of any League policy
regarding the independent expression of the views of Committee members,
particularly in the absence of any objection expressed to our filing by
anyone at the League.  Furthermore, Mr. Holladay himself was at a loss to
provide the Chairman of the Committee with any formal charge by the
League for an ARRL Committee of its duties, until such a document was
sent to the Chairman long after the February 16 meeting.

The Committee does feel that the strength of its membership and the
authority with which its members are internationally acknowledged to be
experts in this field has been ignored by the League in matters of
concern.  In fact, your term "window dressing" may well be appropriate.
There can be no reason other than a desire for "window dressing" to
explain the complete absence of any request from the League for
information from the Committee regarding this NPRM, the most important
governmental proposal that the League has ever had to address on this
subject.  It appears only logical that the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee
might well have been among the first sources of in-house assistance that
League officials would have consulted in this matter.  As further events
have proved, this was not to be the case.  The subsequent lack of any
substantive communication from the League to the Committee once the
Committee's document had been received by the League in November
further supports the contention that the views of the Committee have
been regarded as superfluous and unwelcome, and perhaps even a liability
to any League filing.  Furthermore, despite recent promises to improve
communications between the League and the Committee, the Committee has
even been excluded from the development of a League response during the
recently concluded time for reply comments on this NPRM.

Since receipt of your March 1 letter, the Chairman of the Bio-Effects
Committee has had repeated communications with Messrs. Holladay,
Maxwell, Heyn and Olson in an effort to find a common ground to enable to
committee to function once again.  The Committee feels that despite the
good offices and the best efforts of the aforementioned individuals, the
absence of any willingness on your part to directly engage in a dialogue
with the Committee to be very disturbing, and is seen as evidence of your
lack of understanding of the strong feelings which have been aroused by
your actions and those of the League in matters pertaining to the
Committee.

Regardless of expectations that the Committee might immediately respond
to your March 1 letter in an angry or non-constructive manner, the
Committee has instead patiently waited for any sign that some degree of
understanding and a desire for a positive resolution of this matter on
the part of the League or yourself might be forthcoming.  Numerous
discussions have been held between the Chairman, members of the
Committee and Mr. Maxwell.  We have refused to be drawn into a situation
where a favorable end result might be impossible.  Apparently, we have
waited in vain, as nothing appears to have changed.

The only hopeful sign of progress came on the evening of May 1, 1994, when
the Chairman of the Committee received a call from Mr. Olson indicating
that the Chairman could expect a call from you shortly thereafter,
suggesting that you wished to discuss this more directly with the
Committee.  This information was further corroborated by Mr. Maxwell
about a week later.  As of this date, a month later, no such telephone call
has been received.

The members of the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee plan to continue to
contribute to an understanding by amateur radio operators of the issues
relating to the potential bio-hazards of our activities as radio
operators, and as such will remain active in our continued review of
information and research in this field as it becomes available.  We plan
to remain available to any and all amateur radio operators who seek our
counsel.  We further plan to continue to speak out in matters that
concern us as individuals and as private citizens as they pertain to our
deep and fundamental interest in amateur radio.

We will however, not allow our names to be subject to the political
machinations and narrow views of individuals who seek to use us for their
own aims or as "window dressing" for you or the League.  It would be
unfortunate for all amateur radio operators to suffer the
repercussions of such a short-sighted view of things, particularly when
they may result in long-term negative consequences to amateur radio as
a whole.  There has been a loss of confidence on the part of the members
of the Committee in that you, as President of the League, are clearly not
concerned with the continued successful functioning of this Committee,
unfettered by extra-scientific and parochial influences.  In addition, it
is felt that your actions have subjected both the scientific as well as
personal integrity of the members to serious compromise.  There appears
to be no reason that individuals who serve as unpaid volunteers to the
League should be subject to such abuse.

We have considered the consequences of our resignation both as
individuals and as a Committee as a whole.  We stand together united in a
common view that you do not see importance of this Committee as
originally constituted, that under your leadership, the League has
ignored the important resources that the Committee has to offer to all
of amateur radio, and that you personally fail to understand the issues
of personal integrity that this entire situation has raised.

Therefore, it is with the deepest of regrets that we find that we must
submit our resignations as the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee forthwith.

 [Signatures by Chairman Shulman of all members]

cc:  Fried Heyn, WA6WZO
     Jay Holladay, W6EJJ
     Jim Maxwell, W6CF
     Tod Olson, K0TO
     David Sumner, K1ZZ

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 12:37:52 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!pstc3![e-mail]
Subject: Does CW as a pre-req
To: [e-mail]

In article <2vtve0$[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (James Carter) writes:

|> 1. If this is true then how do they get away with no-code HF in Japan???

We could opt out of our START treaties by just saying so too.

The US already has no-code HF access. 27mhz.

|> 2. We're in the computer age now and manual code is no longet needed.

Computers don't receive code very good.

|> 3. I also think before long no-code no-code licenses will outnumber all
|> others. It's just a matter of time.

Probably. The US population today always wants something for nothing.
In this case, an amateur license with no work required.


MD
--
--   The best way for Bill Clinton to keep his
--   legal fees down is to keep his zipper up.
--

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 11:39:44 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!cs.umd.edu!news.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!iplmail.orl.mmc.com!mccartney![e-mail]
Subject: Does CW as a pre-req
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Alan Wilensky) writes:
>JS>Because the IRU treaty that governs ham radio operations worldwide
>JS>forbids it for now.  Until the treaty is changed, knowledge of morse
>JS>code is required to access frequencies below 30MHz.

1. If this is true then how do they get away with no-code HF in Japan???

2. We're in the computer age now and manual code is no longet needed.

3. I also think before long no-code no-code licenses will outnumber all others. It's
   just a matter of time.

0  0 000  0 0  000   00  0  0 | James A. Carter   | [e-mail]
0 0  0  0 0 0  0  0 0  0 00 0 | FCC Lic. KD4PON   | These views are my own and
00   0  0 0000 000  0  0 0 00 |                   | are in no way connected
0 0  0  0   0  0    0  0 0 00 | Martin Mariettia  | to MARTIN MARIETTIA.
0  0 000    0  0     00  0  0 | Orlando, FL 32855 |             Thanks Jim

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 12:30:24 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!pstc3![e-mail]
Subject: Does CW as a pre-req REALLY Work?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Joe Salemi) writes:

|> Well, sorry you're so cynical about a system that's been working and
|> working well for 10 years.

Working well. Guess it all depends on your definition of "well".

|> Have you ever actually been a VE?  I am,
|> and I know that the vast majority are honest and care about what they
|> do.

Yes, I was a VE, for a little while. Now I can't be part of a system
which I despise.

|> Instead of advocating trashing the
|> whole system, why not join it and work inside it to make sure it's
|> honest?  It's not going to change anytime soon.

There is no way to "work inside" it. And, the FCC has made abundantly
clear that they have no interest in the amateur radio service anymore.
Why should I care?


MD
--
--   The best way for Bill Clinton to keep his
--   legal fees down is to keep his zipper up.
--

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 13:06:21 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!ilium!gdls.com![e-mail]
Subject: For Washington Hams re Towers
To: [e-mail]

Last week I purchased a home in Enumclaw, King County.  Changing jobs is
the reason for going there.

In travelling the area in search of a house I did not see one ham
antenna, or one tower, although there are 83 hams in Enumclaw, and I
found out later 8 on my street!  I thought this kind of strange, but let
it pass.  I talked to the building department in Enumclaw about towers,
and they said that I could do whatever I wanted, they didn't care.  But
we found out that although the home has an Enumclaw address, it's really
in King county.  I got the phone number of the King County building
department, but it's been continually busy.

Question I have is are there any county-wide restrictions on towers in
King county?  Is there anything else that I should know?

Appreciate any information.  See you on the air.

73

Bill

en, KF0YJ, DN-70-EE

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 11:55:01 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr![e-mail]
Subject: Repeater frequencies in IO, MN, MI et IL
To: [e-mail]

 Hi !

 I'll be travelling this summer (between July 23rd and August 15th) in the
nothern part of the US [Des-Moines, Minneapolis, Chicago and Detroit].

 I have had my TH 78E modified, the CTCSS unit installed and I've received
the reciprocal permit.

 I am therefore interested in knowing the frequencies and access tones of
the UHF repeaters in the area. I seldom do VHF, but I might be interested
also.

 Thanks, Vince.

 PS : Is it possible to buy a cheap 13.8 V power supply, in order to charge
the batteries ? Of course I've got one, but it works with 220 V.

--
F1RCS - Worldwide Friendship through Amateur Radio
ENST, Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications, Paris

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 14:25:14 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr![e-mail]
Subject: Repeater frequencies in IO, MN, MI et IL
To: [e-mail]

William J. Turner ([e-mail]) wrote:

: I have no idea where "IO" is, but Des Moines is in IOWA (IA).

: As for freqs in the DSM area, try 443.400+ (PL 151.4).  This one seems
: to get the most activity here.  Other repeaters I know of include
: 443.500+, 444.050+, 444.150+, 444.350+, 444.500+, 444.575+, 444.625+.

: These may not all be in Des Moines, but in surrounding areas, also.  I
: believe they are all open repeaters.  (If any require a PL tone, it is
: 151.4)

 Ok, thanks. I thought the code for Iowa was IO and not IA :-)
 BTW, what is the shift for US repeaters ? 1.6 MHz ?

 Vincent
--
F1RCS - Worldwide Friendship through Amateur Radio
ENST, Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications, Paris

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1994 07:12:37 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!scorpion.ch.intel.com![e-mail]
Subject: th78e and antenna tv !!!
To: [e-mail]

In article <2vqss5$[e-mail]>,
Fabio MUCINGHIA II Morandi <[e-mail]> wrote:
>i have a problem !!!
>a man that live near my house, say that, when i tal with my radio, him
>tv is disturb !!!! is it possible ???? Fabio (IW2HNP)

Hi Fabio, is his TV FCC approved?... just kidding. You did not say what
frequency you are on but if you are on HF, get a low-pass filter for you
and a high-pass filter for him. It is possible that the design of his TV
is so bad, nothing you can do can help. I wait until all my neighbors go
to sleep and then work DX.

Good Luck and 73, KG7BK, [e-mail]

------------------------------

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #781
******************************