Meaning of mast and self-assessable

[VK4BLP]

Not sure of the height above roof line, but I'm thinking the council was talking 8.5m as in the same height as two storey house.

What I would like to hear from people is the right way to approach the developers at a sit down meeting about allowing this to go ahead. Ideas and suggestions, points to bring forward, what I should take along, etc.

Perhaps even a argument of it restricting my interests and lifestyle ?

One of the things that the tin foil hat people next door were trying to say that there's been no long term studies on the effect of EMR from Amateur Radio affecting peoples health, so we don't really know how 'dangerous' it is, could be countered with the facts of the large majority of AR operators have been involved in this hobby for 50+ years, and there's no reports of AR having any affect on them, unlike studies on mobile phones and the apparently documented harm from them.

[VK4BLP]

Tower covenants in Queensland require reading of the relevant State act that over rides local regulations. Also note that in many jurisdictions the original covenants are usually only binding on the original purchaser. If you could find a way to change owner ship to a trust for example and avoid state stamps it may be cheaper than running up solicitor bills...

Personally - I would make sure it fell into the exclusions under the State Planning Code OR make it in such a way that it is NOT a permanent structure eg guyed to 1M concrete cubes that are transportable in nature and as such do not come under the building codes..

Just wondering how a estate covenant can be overcome, as that's what is stopping me at the moment.

Or a way to approach the covenant people with a full 'facts and figures' to overcome their scare of the unknown.

As far as covenant only binding on the original purchaser, well we were forced in to signing the covenant to buy the block off the previous owner, lest we wouldn't be able to buy the block.

[VK4TI]

Tower covenants in Queensland require reading of the relevant State act that over rides local regulations. Also note that in many jurisdictions the original covenants are usually only binding on the original purchaser. If you could find a way to change owner ship to a trust for example and avoid state stamps it may be cheaper than running up solicitor bills...

Personally - I would make sure it fell into the exclusions under the State Planning Code OR make it in such a way that it is NOT a permanent structure eg guyed to 1M concrete cubes that are transportable in nature and as such do not come under the building codes..

Just wondering how a estate covenant can be overcome, as that's what is stopping me at the moment.

Or a way to approach the covenant people with a full 'facts and figures' to overcome their scare of the unknown.

As far as covenant only binding on the original purchaser, well we were forced in to signing the covenant to buy the block off the previous owner, lest we wouldn't be able to buy the block.[/quote]

how about http://www.vklogger.com/forum/viewtopic ... 8&start=45 for a start ?
or maybe http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/ ... 61-180.pdf

[VK4TS]

The structure is excluded under Queensland Planning Codes -

The reference is

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGI ... ldgR06.pdf

Work for particular non-load bearing devices

(1) This section applies to building work for any of the following
devices if they are non-load bearing—
(a) an aerial;
(b) an antenna;
(c) a satellite dish with a maximum diameter of 900mm;
(d) a flagpole, mast or tower, outside areas covered by
airport Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Standards (O.L.S.)
of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.Schedule 1
Building Regulation 2006
Current as at 1 July 2014 Page 69

(2) The building work is prescribed if the device is no more
than—
(a) if the device is attached to a building or structure—3.5m
above the building or structure; or
(b) if the device is detached from any building or
structure—10m above the device’s natural ground
surface.

[VK4BLP]

The structure is excluded under Queensland Planning Codes -

The reference is

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGI ... ldgR06.pdf

Work for particular non-load bearing devices

Current as at 1 July 2014 Page 69
(b) if the device is detached from any building or
structure—10m above the device’s natural ground
surface.

Interesting comments, but it doesn't fix the covenant issues by itself (although does give some facts).

Here's a photo that the council took whilst and council office held up a 6m pipe higher up the block to give a visual cue to how high a 10m tower would look visually from the road (you'll need to click on the link, as the image is too big for the forum).

http://www.oih.com.au/images/tower1.png

I actually thought it would stick up a lot higher than the photo indicates.

[VK4WDM]

I am a public health professional, not in the EMR field, but I do know a lot about how public health risks are assessed. I just did a search of the world's largest pubic health data base" "PUBMED" using the keywords: public health, health, amateur radio and ham radio. Your neighbor is right, very few studies have been done, but in the public health field, that means that either 1. There are not enough subjects to make the study worthwhile or 2. the chances of turning up something significant is so low that the study is not worthwhile and the funds would be better spent elsewhere. Given that there are about 3 million hams world wide number one is obviously not true.

There were a couple of studies done in the 1970's (see link) below, and there appeared to be a slight significant increase in some cancers, but as the author of the linked article points out, the significance of the findings are questionable and there are a lot of confounding factors. These findings were in the hams themselves who were in close proximity to the the transmitters. The fact that the studies have not been repeated, or importantly no studies have been done in close family members of hams, even in this day and age when there is increased concern about EMR, strongly suggests that the experts don't see AR emissions as being of much importance.

Unfortunately, in my experience, once people get it into their head that something is a "risk" it is very hard to convince them otherwise. often they won't even believe the results of well-structured scientific studies that disprove the risk.

Having said all that, we do have to satisfy the EMR requirements as laid down by the ACMA, but looking at your photograph, it is obvious that the separation distance required is going to be easily met.

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technolo ... 910031.pdf

73

Wayne VK4WDM

[VK6OX]

Gotta love human nature....or should that be "human ignorance".

[VK4BLP]

Having said all that, we do have to satisfy the EMR requirements as laid down by the ACMA, but looking at your photograph, it is obvious that the separation distance required is going to be easily met.

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technolo ... 910031.pdf

Thanks for the link.

To be fair, the house to the right of mine is NOT the problem. He works on mobile phone towers and when told the details of what I'm wanting to put up he was more than happy to let me.

Here's picture from the back of the house :-

http://www.oih.com.au/images/tower2.png

It shows the problem neighbours house in the right of that shot... guessing some 60 metre from the tower slab, which you can see in the foreground where that roofing sheet is. The tower is my emulation of the 'one man tower'.

[VK2HRX]

snip...I just did a search of the world's largest pubic health data base" "PUBMED" using the keywords: public health, health, amateur radio and ham radio. Your neighbor is right, very few studies have been done, but in the public health field, that means that either 1. There are not enough subjects to make the study worthwhile or 2. the chances of turning up something significant is so low that the study is not worthwhile and the funds would be better spent elsewhere. Given that there are about 3 million hams world wide number one is obviously not true.

There were a couple of studies done in the 1970's (see link) below, and there appeared to be a slight significant increase in some cancers, but as the author of the linked article points out, the significance of the findings are questionable and there are a lot of confounding factors....snip ...Wayne VK4WDM

Maybe it needs a Cochrane review?

[VK4TI]

snip...I just did a search of the world's largest pubic health data base" "PUBMED" using the keywords: public health, health, amateur radio and ham radio. Your neighbor is right, very few studies have been done, but in the public health field, that means that either 1. There are not enough subjects to make the study worthwhile or 2. the chances of turning up something significant is so low that the study is not worthwhile and the funds would be better spent elsewhere. Given that there are about 3 million hams world wide number one is obviously not true.

There were a couple of studies done in the 1970's (see link) below, and there appeared to be a slight significant increase in some cancers, but as the author of the linked article points out, the significance of the findings are questionable and there are a lot of confounding factors....snip ...Wayne VK4WDM

Maybe it needs a Cochrane review?[/quote]A simple self assessment using the available tools proves his install will be safe , even safer as the antenna gets raised ?

[VK3ZAZ]

Below is a reprint as I am not qualified to give any legal opinion nor would I even try..

Who enforces restrictive covenants?
The land owners who benefit from a restrictive covenant are responsible for enforcing the covenant. Local councils are not responsible for this.
If there is a breach of a restrictive covenant, the person who owns land benefiting from the covenant can take action through the courts against the owner of land subject to the covenant.

One way to remove or vary a restrictive covenant
There are three main ways to remove or vary a covenant:
1.By applying to the Supreme Court for an order under section 84 of the Property Law Act 1958.
2.By amending the planning scheme under Part 3 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
3.By applying for a planning permit under Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

If you want to remove or vary a covenant under any of these procedures, you should obtain your own expert legal advice about the option best suited to the particular circumstances of the case. Likely costs, which may be substantial, should be taken into account before starting any action.

You could ask VK5GF I think his location is subject to restrictions like above.

[VK4BLP]

That's just it, the tower would've been around 60m from the tin foil hat people, and more than likely 20 metres higher than their living room, and in my case about 15 metres from the inside of the house and at least 12 metres above it.

Using emrcalc, as long as I stayed outside of 4.something metres of the end of the yagi at the same elevation using 14.18 mhz, it was safe.

We might say height is might, but height also makes it safer too.

[VK4BLP]

How to remove or vary a restrictive covenant

There are three main ways to remove or vary a covenant:
1.By applying to the Supreme Court for an order under section 84 of the Property Law Act 1958.


2.By amending the planning scheme under Part 3 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.


3.By applying for a planning permit under Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

More information about options 2 and 3 are provided below.

If you want to remove or vary a covenant under any of these procedures, you should obtain your own expert legal advice about the option best suited to the particular circumstances of the case. Likely costs, which may be substantial, should be taken into account before starting any action.

Thank you for your comments. I would be interested in the more information of those options 2 and 3.

The Planning and Enviroment Act 1987 , is that a National act or a specific state act ?


Edit: just did a google search, and it's a Victorian act, not National or Queensland one.

[VK3ZAZ]

That's just it, the tower would've been around 60m from the tin foil hat people, and more than likely 20 metres higher than their living room, and in my case about 15 metres from the inside of the house and at least 12 metres above it.

Using emrcalc, as long as I stayed outside of 4.something metres of the end of the yagi at the same elevation using 14.18 mhz, it was safe.

We might say height is might, but height also makes it safer too.

I would no more rely on a calculation than go to the moon.
Beg borrow or buy a monitor if its that critical.
Comments like tin foil hat people show the absolute ignorance of amateurs to the effects of emr on the human body.
And its why we lost the high power permit on HF.
Ostriches..

[VK4BLP]

I would no more rely on a calculation than go to the moon.
Beg borrow or buy a monitor if its that critical.
Comments like tin foil hat people show the absolute ignorance of amateurs to the effects of emr on the human body.
And its why we lost the high power permit on HF.
Ostriches..

I labelled them that because they were overtly paranoid about the whole thing. You weren't listening to her on her mobile phone almost hyperventilating/talking hysterically to me making irrational statements such as "it is going to affect my unborn baby", "my kids will be harmed by your radio", "we will have to sell and lose $200,000 on our home", "your radio is going to make us all sick". I simply could not get a word in with her talking incessantly about those and other statements.

I understand your reluctance to rely on a calculation tool, but that's all I have at present to check these things out. There's no real point in borrowing or buying a monitor if I can not do real tests, i.e. antenna up on a tower in the proposed tower location. If it would make any difference I would.

I don't doubt there is some effect that EMR can do on the human body, but when you follow regular safe practices with our hobby, there should not be any real issues to us, and since we are going to be the closest to the transmitter site, we are the more likely to be affected by EMR, and I sure as hell will be making sure I don't "nuke" myself nor anyone in my house in the operation of my hobby.

[VK2GOM]

Calm down everyone. EMR calculations are still all just wet finger in the wind theoretical. Nothing has been proved yet regarding EMR and the human body. If it had been, we would have rigid set in stone global rules.

As someone pointed out to me, operating a 200A arc welder throws off all sorts of radiation from UV through to microwaves at the human body, which is generally less than 50cm from the arc. Yet that's not regulated...

73 - Rob VK2GOM / GW0MOH

[VK4TS]

Well said Rob

[VK2AVR]

What I would like to hear from people is the right way to approach the developers at a sit down meeting about allowing this to go ahead. Ideas and suggestions, points to bring forward, what I should take along, etc.

Science and fact. Do an EMR level 2 compliance audit on your proposal and work out the safe distance. Then work out the field strength 60 metres away and you will have an extremely small number.

Perhaps even a argument of it restricting my interests and lifestyle ?

That's an emotional argument. Her "safety" trumps your unusual hobby. You can easily prove that there is negligible exposure risk using cold hard maths.

One of the things that the tin foil hat people next door were trying to say that there's been no long term studies on the effect of EMR from Amateur Radio affecting peoples health, so we don't really know how 'dangerous' it is, could be countered with the facts of the large majority of AR operators have been involved in this hobby for 50+ years, and there's no reports of AR having any affect on them, unlike studies on mobile phones and the apparently documented harm from them.

In addition to your EMR compliance report above, work out the field strength for typical devices at typical distances. Some interesting things to look at might be:

* TV/FM broadcast transmitter, living nearby (this is completely legal and no cancer link has been proven)
* Power lines a short distance away (especially if you can equate this to how far they are from her house)
* Mobile phone held to the side of the head for a 10 minute chat (probably you would use SAR for this rather than field strength, can the others be turned into SAR?)

The EMR requirements are very conservative, they are basically a cautionary approach to make sure that levels are low enough not to be an issue. In the absence of any defined "harmful" level it seeks to minimise exposure using mathematically applied common sense.

I reckon if you worked out the total EMR exposure over 24hrs just from background sources you'd find that an intermittently used transmitter 60m away wouldn't even register. Ask her (or estimate) how many minutes per day she spends on her phone. Do the sums. Don't present the evidence to her, present it to the developers.

[VK2MUS]

one tends to forget in the argument about radio waves and health is that they are there no matter if you put an aerial up or not - if you do put an antenna up and say run a receiver and decode JT65 signals or psk signals or ssb signals etc etc they do not go away once you turn off the receiver and lower the antenna - so the tin hat should be worn all the time not just when there is a amateur radio operator, a cb operator , a fire truck operator or even a council worker operator - so the debate is not so much the antenna but the power levels used and this applies to received signals as well as transmitted signals so the argument on the antenna is really a non event what is important to the developers is the look of the estate - your argument then is simply does the erection of the tower down grade the 'estate' the developers should understand that you can put a tower up using a trailer and they would have no control neither would the council as the tower is not attached to the ground or the buildings and is 'mobile' so rather then a tower sitting in a trailer in front of the house can they come up with a solution that might make a fixed ground tower less visible. The EME debate has nothing to do with the current situation as you will be operating within the guidelines of the law - visual impact is the major concern to over come.

John

[VK2AAH]

Calm down everyone. EMR calculations are still all just wet finger in the wind theoretical. Nothing has been proved yet regarding EMR and the human body. If it had been, we would have rigid set in stone global rules.

As someone pointed out to me, operating a 200A arc welder throws off all sorts of radiation from UV through to microwaves at the human body, which is generally less than 50cm from the arc. Yet that's not regulated...

73 - Rob VK2GOM / GW0MOH

Sorry Rob, I swore I was going to ignore you in future but your comment truly entitles you to Life Membership of the Flat Earth Society.

Not proven? Have you been living in a cave? I can give you names of people, including fellow amateurs and professional radio techs, who have either died or are dying from the effects of EMR.

One Police tech here in NSW who sat on top of a covert antenna while running 25W...he died from the RF exposure- proven in Court. The NSW Police paid out on that...

I have met riggers told to work on towers with live broadcast antennas who complained to me about how they were having eye problems and headaches... I could only shake my head when they told me their employer wouldn't provide a Radman. That was back in 2000... now the employer would be in deep poo.

And an ol' mate of mine suffering terminal Leukemia after climbing a tower at Bega thinking the FM broadcast antenna had been turned down while he worked on his array. Tell his family that it hasn't been proven...

Steve VK3ZAZ demonstrates the responsibility that comes from years working in the RF industry. Your ignorance has the potential to kill fellow amateurs who follow your "lead". RF exposure is no big deal, if managed properly, but it becomes a big deal when people like you downplay or deny it is even real. Wake up Rob.

And Trent... you want higher power levels and you agree with Rob? I'm shocked and disappointed... I thought you had more brains than that.



Richard Cerveny
VK2AAH