Hi, Kent. With respect to Item 1.5 in the Committee’s report, did the Committee recommend any suggested edits to the author, either directly or through Steve Ford? I read the draft article and, other than being unable to make out the intensity scales in the page corners, thought it was excellent. I also compared its findings with the Robert Cleveland study (in which I participated, BTW) and did not see any major inconsistencies between the two documents. With manufacturers making higher-power two-meter transceivers these days, the article presents yet another reason to use the minimum power necessary for a contact. I hope the Committee will work with staff and the author to find a way to have this modeling study published in QST. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of qtipf16 Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 4:51 PM To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:24954] Fwd: RFSC Report for ARRL Board Meeting Greetings, Attached is the latest RF Safety Committee Report. See you all next week. 73! Kent KA0LDG Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®4 -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Lapin N9GL <n9gl@comcast.net> Date:01/05/2016 12:31 PM (GMT-06:00) To: rfsc@arrl.org, lkustosik@arrl.org, ka0ldg@arrl.org Subject: RFSC Report for ARRL Board Meeting Attached is the RFSC Report for the upcoming ARRL Board Meeting. As always, comments are welcome. 73 and Happy New Year, Greg N9GL Sent from Mail <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10