In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Jason Hsu wrote:
Under the ARRL's proposal, current Novices will have certain
privileges REDUCED. This opposes the sensible concept of avoiding
automatic downgrades for any license class. The reason for stricter
power limits is to avoid the need for RF safety questions in the new
Novice exam.

What's wrong with testing prospective Novice licensees on RF safety?
Are RF safety questions that hard? It seems like an extremely
important topic to me, and learning about RF safety doesn't seem like
an undue burden. Furthermore, RF safety is just one topic on the
written exam and doesn't have the unilateral power that the Morse Code
exams currently have. What's wrong with making the Novice question
pool 10%-20% larger given how critical this topic is and given the
need to avoid downgrading privileges of current licensees?

Admittedly, there are very few active Novices at any given moment, as
these few active ones upgrade. But the same restructuring principles
(like no downgrades) for the higher license classes should still
apply.

I would hope that the people that want rf safety diminished on the
entry level tests would step up and assume responsibility for any person
that injures themselves even at the lower levels they want to grant
them. "Yes Virginia, it is possible to do terrible damage to yourself
with 100 watts!"

The "RF Safety" questions came about with the political need
to show concern for OTHERS, not the licensees themselves.

That is one thing you CAN blame on cell phones...uneducated
paranoia about radiation...all the scare books about all sorts of
radiation, even from the big MHV power lines.

We have an accepted level of safety instruction and testing
established. It has been around for a few years, and appears to be
working well enough. The problem as I see it is that if we reduce this
in any way, then we are inviting controversy if people start harming
themselves with our dangerous if misused toys.

Folkses have been playing with lots higher-power stuff than in
bitty 1 KW hamplifiers for decades before 97.13 (c) 1 and
97.13 (c) 2 were in Part 97. [also 1.1307 (b) and 1.1310]

The +100 VDC in transformerless 5-tube AM radios is lethal
but there weren't any "rules" or even "safety statements" on
those for decades. The semiconductor era with its resulting
low supply voltages was well established before anyone made
noises about tube voltages being hazardous. Where were all
the "safety" questions in ham exams then?

You're going to have to redefine what you say about "RF
Safety" as applying to OTHERS in the immediate vicinity of
ham stations.

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot, or that a bike manufacturer did not tell the rider that
if if becomes dark, they should turn on their headlights, people should
be very careful about removing safety requirements.

They should be more careful about their attornies...

This is especially important when the purported aim of the requirement
reduction is to introduce more children into the radio environment. As a
person that had to have multiple millions of liability insurance on
myself in my dealings with children and their parents, I can say that
with some authority. It's a scary path to go down.

Are hockey sticks essential to ham radio? Are those radios to be
used on ice?

Given the way that people come into the hobby these days, when the
potential ham does not have the experience with high voltages that many
of us had in the past, and given our propensity to engage in litigation,
and that some of us are trying to get children involved in the hobby, I
support *more* safety related questions on the test, to include High
Voltage as well as R-F issues.

That's a good thought, of course, but now you are confusing
possible litigation with operating high voltage equipment.

By the way, you are reading this just a couple feet from a 24 KV
potential if you use a CRT. Do you feel "safe?" :-)

LHA / WMD