Hi Doug:
For reliable safety data on non-ionizing radiation,
check out the following web pages:
1. http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/comar.htm
This is the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation, COMAR.
Probably has the most reliable information on body
susceptibility to non-
There were several postings to this forum on this topic in
December 1996. Rich Nute listed 16 references.
U.S. levels for non-ionizing radiation have always been based
on short term exposure and the thermal heating of internal
tissues. Russia used a limit about two orders of magnitude
lower base
Hello Group,
I am seeking information on non-ionizing radiation, primarily for workplace
safety. I am not actually concerned about the on-going controversy dealing
with low-level radiation (VDTs, overhead lines, etc.). This is not to say I
don't care, but I am currently interested in high-l
Jim,
I agree with Peter in that much care must be given to the anticipated
interpretation of any symbol, but especially those relating to safety.
As Peter said "The general understanding of the meaning [of the symbol] is not
always obvious." This would be especially true for any newly in
For ON we have used filled circle with "rays" i.e. similar to IEC
417/BS6217 symbol 5056 but filled solid
For OFF an open circle and no rays
For flashing same as 5435 but without the corner flashes
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Eichner [SMTP:jeich...@statpower.com]
> Sent: Thursday, Jun
According to DHL they only use pressurised holds.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ing. Gert Gremmen [SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 6:42 PM
> To: James, Chris; rbus...@es.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: Altitude
>
> I am not in the business of producing e
PSNet & Jim,
Developing symbols to represent something is not a simple task, nor
one which should be done casually. The symbols in IEC 417 (or the
companion ISO standard) are agreed by consensus as to their meaning.
The general understanding of the meaning is not always obviou
7 matches
Mail list logo
