Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

2018-04-06 Thread John Woodgate
** Gary Stuyvenberg Sr. EMC Engineer Thompson Consulting On Wed, 4/4/18, John Woodgate<j...@woodjohn.uk> <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> wrote: Subject: Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

2018-04-05 Thread John Woodgate
Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018, 3:59 PM As is usual with these things, about 20% of the words are justified, the rest are not, or vice versa. For exa

Re: [PSES] [SPAM?] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

2018-04-05 Thread gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com
org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Non-Ionizing_Radiation_Protection *** Gary Stuyvenberg Sr. EMC Engineer Thompson Consulting On Wed, 4/4/18, John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk> wrote: Subject: Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Stand

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

2018-04-04 Thread John Woodgate
As is usual with these things, about 20% of the words are justified, the rest are not, or vice versa. For example, in the first citation, the first 7 words are not justified by any peer-reviewed research reports, the rest are largely true. In the second citation, the first 14 words are