OK, Joel, just had to get that one in.  Probably more too. Howie, K9KM ________________________________ From: Joel Harrison <w5zn@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 12:54:46 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18086] Re: National Safety Council reply Howie - THANKS!!!   I unintentionally left that important item off my short (but in means complete) list!   ZN   ________________________________ From: Howard Huntington [mailto:howard_huntington_k9km@ymail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:38 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18086] Re: National Safety Council reply Joel said     (tower work, working on the high voltage supply for the big amp, etc.!) and of course RF Safety.  For years we have had the usual sidebar in QST articles, test questions that relate to RF Safety, and the OET 65 standards for Maximum Permissible Exposure that we all certify that we understand and comply with when we renew.  We must continue to do our part to maintain awareness of these issues. Howie, K9KM ________________________________ From: Joel Harrison <w5zn@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 10:51:02 AM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18079] Re: National Safety Council reply Hi Marty,   Appreciate the comments.   I don't believe anyone is suggesting or will suggest we change our policy based on Ms. Froetscher's suggestion. I certainly am not. I was very pleased to see her comment that NSC's pursuit would be based on factual, scientific evidence and none suggested there was an issue related to amateur radio.    I do believe, though, that promoting safety in all of our activities is something we must continue to do. A side note along those lines - I was pleased to see the recent short QST article on tower safety. While not related to the specific topic at hand, I believe we have a responsibility as the national organization to promote safety in all of our amateur radio activities, as we have done many times in the past.   I do agree with her, regardless of an individual's ability to multi-task, that performing any activity while operating a motor vehicle that could distract from the primary objective (in this case, operating a motor vehicle) does contain some risk. Of course, that equally applies to any activity you are performing and especially activities related to amateur radio (tower work, working on the high voltage supply for the big amp, etc.!)   73 Joel W5ZN       -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 2:45 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18077] Re:National Safety Council reply Hi, Joel.   While I'm pleased to learn that NSC is not looking to promote laws prohibiting Amateur Radio mobile operation any time soon, I'm not sure that discouraging mobile operation other than in "disaster emergencies" is consistent with our - or at least my constituents' - position on the use of Amateur equipment while driving.  Some people can multi-task well and others cannot.  A blanket policy along the lines suggested by Ms. Froetscher is, IMHO, not a suitable substitute for the exercise of individual judgment and would be inapproriate.   73,   Marty N6VI ----- Original Message -----

From: Joel Harrison To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:18 PM Subject: FW: National Safety Council reply

  You will recall I recently sent a letter to the National Safety Council expressing concern that Amateur Radio operators may be impacted by the flurry of legislation aimed at distracted driving, primarily for cell phone use.   Attached is a response I received from NSC President Janet Froetscher. I appreciate her quick and factual response and I'm pleased to see NSC shares our position on distracted driving, especially in regards to the use of amateur radio equipment.   73 Joel W5ZN