Benefit 200W amp for mobile 2M Simplex?

[bharvey2]

There is the "healthy worker syndrome" to take into account.

(People exposed to hazardous environments tend to be healthier because they tend to avoid other risks).

This is an article about the hazards of anti-nuclear activists.

Thanks
Joel

​

Health Hazards Associated with Interviewing Antinuclear Activists​ Michael Stabin, CHP Paul Frame, CHP The hazards of interviewing antinuclear activists have not, to this point, been well publicized. There are a number of hazards to be considered, all of which may result in very significant risks to the reporter during direct interviews. ​ Direct Hazards​ It is not well appreciated, but during personal interviews with antinuclear activists, reporters will be sitting close to a person with perhaps 7 million mBq of radioactivity in his/her body, much of which is 40K. Atoms of 40K emit gamma rays of approximately 1.5 million electron volts of energy in every direction, which will go ripping though the air, the body of the interviewer, and the nearby building materials and will often escape into the outside environment, where small children may be present. Further, the source of this deadly radiation inside of the antinuclear activists has an incredibly long half-life of 1,300,000,000 years, which means that these activists will remain hazardous for generations and generations to come. The bodies of these activists also contain perhaps 2,000 mBq of 226Ra, a deadly radionuclide in itself, emitting high energy gamma rays in every direction and also having a very long half-life (over 1,600 years). What is more important, however, is that when this nuclide decays, it produces 222Rn gas in the body, which passes through the bloodstream and is exhaled. Therefore, the interviewer, in addition to being exposed to the ferocious gamma rays of 40K, is being bathed in clouds of 222Rn from activists' exhaled breath. The health hazards of radon are widely known. The Environment Protection Agency estimates put the number of annual deaths nationwide due to radon exposures at between 7,000 and 30,000. The question is-- how many of these deaths are due to the constant exhalation of these activists? Of course when one is being interviewed, metabolic rates are somewhat heightened, and with all of the talking, exhalation rates will be markedly enhanced over the average. So the exhalation of antinuclear activists could conceivably account for half or more of all the radon-releated deaths in the United States, with media reporters being particularly at risk. While exhaling, antinuclear activists are also pouring out clouds of other radioactive materials. Their bodies contain perhaps 4 million mBq of highly radioactive 14C, which has an incredible half-life of over 5,700 years and is converted to CO2 in the body and exhaled, like radon. Similarly, the bodies of antinuclear activists contain perhaps 600,000 mBq of tritium (3H), a radionuclide produced in nuclear reactors. This highly toxic substance is also emitted as vapor in the breath and as well is constantly exuded from the body in sweat. With these antinuclear activists breathing and sweating all over these poor reporters, the levels of deadly radiation that they are exposed to are mind-boggling. They, their families, their children, and everyone they contact are at extreme risk from these activists-- it is apparent that protective measures must be taken. Potential Hazards​ Most antinuclear activists don't publicize this, but they are all secretly carrying around in their bodies on average about 180,000,000 atoms of plutonium! There is always a finite, if however small, chance that one of these activists could explode at any moment. If this were to happen, all of this plutonium could conceivably be spread across the entire United States. As it is well known that just a single decay of a radioactive atom can instantly induce cancer, considerably more than half of the United States population would be immediately at risk. Should two activists explode, our country could be wiped out instantly. The Appropriate Response​ As Dr. Gofman has taught us, "cancer and leukemia induction by radiation is proportional to dose right down to the lowest conceivable doses" and "it is a violation of the most fundamental human rights to impose risks (deaths) upon individuals without their consent" (John Gofman, Radiation and Human Health, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983). The risks detailed above are entirely unacceptable. Antinuclear activists should be isolated immediately for their own safely, the safety of the news media, and the safety (not to mention peace of mind) of the rest of the country. A national campaign should be mounted to warn media reporters about the possible risks of coming close to these activists. Fact sheets including the information above should be widely circulated, and the identities of known antinuclear activists should be publicized. This public menace must be stopped.

health hazards antinuclear activists

My guess would be that the most problematic issue is not the "radioactive level" of these activists but rather the "audio level"

 

[alcahuete]

I did a quick check on the safe distance from the antenna at 200W @ 146mhz and was surprised at the distance: approx six ft. min. I'd be curious how the radiation pattern under the ground plane of a vehicle roof looks.

That's the thing. All the numbers and calculators everybody is quoting is in free space. Definitely going to be WAY less RF under the metal roof. Would it be safe levels? Probably not. For 1 S-Unit, it just isn't worth the hassle.

 

[bharvey2]

That's the thing. All the numbers and calculators everybody is quoting is in free space. Definitely going to be WAY less RF under the metal roof. Would it be safe levels? Probably not. For 1 S-Unit, it just isn't worth the hassle.

That would be my thinking too. While such a setup might get your transmission further out, it won't help your reception any. Alligator mouth, is that what it's called?

 

[Lauri-CoyoteFrostbite]

.
.


Health Hazards Associated with Interviewing Antinuclear Activists

Michael Stabin, CHP
Paul Frame, CHP


************** Giggles

____________________________________________________________________________________________


Ok, ok..... So I copied and sent this off to my physicist friend ---(I happen to be one too, though nothing like her- she did a post doc at CERN using the Hadron Collider - something we need not get into, but I'm very impress'd .)

"Oh, I know the agency Michael and Paul work for !! " she wrote back ---- " I got traffic tickets from them all the time at Berkeley...."
"California Highway Patrol, No?"

"April Fool's Day was last week Lauri"

"Seriously * - this is exactly what you meant by a little knowledge can be worse than no knowledge at all. "

Anyway, Boys and Girls --this is drifting too far afield from Amoking's original question. If its alright with you all I am now going to gather up my marbles and go play something else -



Cheers! Guys............ and god-speed, Amoking !

Lauri





* Like Yeah, seriously !

.

 

[popnokick]

That would be my thinking too. While such a setup might get your transmission further out, it won't help your reception any. Alligator mouth, is that what it's called?

The reference is usually in regard to repeaters that can't be accessed in their entire transmitted RF footprint coverage. Best practice is to balance transmit coverage with receiver sensitivity via repeater antenna adjustments and transmit power levels. When a repeater is not able to receive stations within its transmit coverage it is said to be "all mouth and no ears"... like an alligator.

 

[bharvey2]

The reference is usually in regard to repeaters that can't be accessed in their entire transmitted RF footprint coverage. Best practice is to balance transmit coverage with receiver sensitivity via repeater antenna adjustments and transmit power levels. When a repeater is not able to receive stations within its transmit coverage it is said to be "all mouth and no ears"... like an alligator.

Got it. Seems like the concept is the same I just had the term associated with the wrong application. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[popnokick]

As prcguy noted very early in this thread -

Everyone will hear you better, especially at a distance. You probably will get into situations where the contacts are not reciprocal and people will hear you but you will not hear them. You might even interfere with conversations you can't hear but they will hear you.

So.... the "alligator" concept would apply here to a simplex mobile QSO, not necessarily a repeater.

 

[wyShack]

I have found that 50 watts is a good 'max' power level on VHF FM. In point of fact, the signal form a 50 watt rig to the horizon (and beyond) is S9 or better. If you are doing weak signal work, opening the squelch will help more than an increase in power over 50 watts. Let's face it, the FM satellites use under one watt and can be heard clearly.

200 watts in an FM mobile also puts you way out of RF exposure limits.

If you want longer distance go to a weak signal mode like SSB. Other than that, getting antenna higher is vastly better than more power (understand that is not feasible in a mobile).

I can hit a repeater 60 miles away with 5 watts mobile (yes it is on a mountain). Trying to 'burn' through the ground with more power just dosen't do much good.

73

 

[mmckenna]

Even big agencies that rely on VHF, like CalFire, use 50 watt mobiles. Usually repeater coverage is good enough, and simplex use is short range. 100 watts doesn't make that much of a difference.

I don't see 200 watts being much of a benefit. If longer range communications are needed, there are better choices.

 

[k7ng]

Yep. I run my personal VHF/UHF mobile radios at 15W almost all the time and jump up to 50W only rarely. I've had mobile-to-mobile simplex chats out to 12-15 miles on flat ground and even a little rise on one or both ends can double that. 50W doesn't add much. On repeaters, if I need 50W to get in, I'm probably trying the wrong one. There are exceptions, of course.

For my real job of maintaining a radio system and the user radios, 50W is mandated for the repeater channels. But I have programmed the tac channels for 5W... I get too many complaints about not being able to use a tac channel because some folks 35 miles away on a ridge talking about meeting for lunch (at 50W) denies the channel for anyone else.

 

[jhooten]

.

This may be trivial, but have you considered the radiation effects of 200 watts in close proximity to your head etc. ?
How well are you being shielded from the antenna by the truck cab, what is the duty cycle (ie: lengths of transmission time and such) you will be exposing yourself to ?

Personally I have done some rather alarming measurements of field densities in vehicles --and today I keep the V/UHF power in mine to levels below 35 watts. This maybe a little old maid-ish but when you've worked around high pwer'd stuff for a whole career you get that way.

If I can't do it with ~35 watts its not worth it.

(.....but on the plus side, at 200 watts you should be able to warm a cup of coffee on your dash-------------just kidding, just kidding ! )

Lauri


.

Would it surprise you if I told you we used to tie our C-rat cans to a long stick and hold them up in front of the feedhorn of the dish for our 5GHz microwave Troposcatter rig?

And the NMO mount on the truck for the 900 antenna has LMR-240 going to it.

 

[Lauri-CoyoteFrostbite]

Believe it ?... I certainly do

My lab used to have an Open House (before all the security concerns squelch those sort of things)--- one of the demonstrations we did was to cook hot dogs from across the room with a beam from a C- Band blow torch. I don't think we could get away with that today, security issues or no.

Lauri


.