[BC] Life at the transmitter shack

[Broadcast List USER]

Fact is, this is not at ALL scientific.  First of all, there is no  
documentation of exposure.  Just living near, or at a transmitter  
site doesn't say anything much about the amount of exposure.

I have built stations with half-wave spaced bays, which have very low  
levels of RF at the tower and in the building.  In fact, the  
station's field would INCREASE moving away from the tower.  Then  
again, I have maintained sites with what I consider to be not state  
of the art antennas, full-spaced, on short towers that caused all  
kinds of problems, including preventing keyless entry system to work  
on my and rental cars.  Of course, AM is a different animal, and the  
distance to the tower(s) and power are nearly all that matters.

Still, we don't really know the amount or time of exposure.

AND, we don't really have a sample.  We have some very apocryphal  
data -- well not even data -- stories.  No random sample, no  
scientific data at all.

Finally, the sample, even if you could get EVERYONE, is far too small.

Richard has it right, there is absolutely no evidence.

I spent over three years 325 feet below a three-bay 50 kW Class-B  
(parallel transmitters), only a hundred feet from a 10kW tower (the 1  
kW tower was another 90 degrees further away).  I don't care what she  
says, the kid is not my son!  (Apologies to Michael Jackson).

--chip

On Mar 25, 2009, at 4:14 PM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> From: RichardBJohnson at comcast.net
> [...]
> It is unlike that conceiving female children has
> anything to do with living around RF.
> [...]
> Rest assured that even if statistical evidence
> showed no harm occurs from RF, such evidence
> will be rejected as not relevant [...]. Furthermore,
> such statistical evidence gets touted as "fact,"
> when, in fact, it is only evidence.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard B. Johnson