| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Sahim
4 Posts |
 Posted - 04/18/2025 : 23:37:15
|
How to find out about the total amount of accumulated radiation for a separate period of time?
How to measure the amount of energy accumulated over a period of time?
I sleep in the bedroom, the phone lies on the table. I want to compare 2 options:
1. WiFi router - ON, on the phone: wifi - ON, mobile data on the phone - Off.
2. WiFi router - Off, on the phone: wifi - Off, on the phone mobile data - ON.
In which variant of human body irradiation will be less in 8 hours of sleep? |
|
| Reply #1
EmfDev
2330 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2025 : 17:05:11
|
| is is very hard to quantify because they are not constant. |
 |
|
| Reply #2
Sahim
4 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2025 : 11:44:57
|
The total amount of accumulated radiation over a particular period of time can be summed up in Exel.
 |
|
|
| Reply #3
NXR71
6 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2025 : 06:36:58
|
"The total amount of accumulated radiation over a particular period of time can be summed up in Exel."
Yes, but the big question is whether it means anything. There is a massive difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation and EMF is non-ionizing radiation. Geiger counters measure ionizing radiation and there are dosimeters that read the accumulated amount. Not because the "accumulation" means you're getting radioactive but because cellular damage is known to occur in the presence of ionizing radiation. With ionizing radiation the accumulated exposure over time matters a lot with regard to ongoing cellular damage.
EMF is non-ionizing radiation and the generally-accepted effect, which may or may not be correct, is that the damage occurs from tissue heating, which ceases when no longer exposed to the fields.
I have decades of exposure to high power radio transmitters and watch my exposure but we're talking watts, hundreds of watts, thousands of watts, and when I worked on radar systems, up to 50,000 watt transmitters in the 9 GHz range. Not milliwatts or microwatts. So yes, I am very interested in this field and I think it needs more research.
As EMFDev noted in one post it really depends on the frequency more than the power levels. It is almost impossible to develop a radio receiver, which is what EMF detectors are, that work reliably on "DC to light" frequencies. It's even more impossible to build one that reliably and accurately measures the power levels at various frequencies. We're talking thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to design and accurately measure EMF levels across a wide range of frequencies.
One reason is that the antenna length matters massively. Too short or too long and the measured power levels will be inaccurate and too low. I think the best antenna for a device like these would be a fractal antenna but that information is absent from the specs. Plus, fractal antennas are so new they are still covered by a patent. For more info see: https://www.fractenna.com/
You can get an idea of the size of a fractal antenna versus their frequency range from their products page: https://www.fractenna.com/product/all.html
Because the frequency matters, a lot, I am skeptical that devices like these have any real value but I think I'm going to buy one to see if I can prove myself wrong.
That being said, I already own a couple of portable devices known as "spectrum analyzers" that cover 15 MHz through 6 GHz in various communications bands. I can see the absolute levels at any time but is it relevant to biologicals? I don't think so because I can actually see it graphically but it takes HOURS of viewing to get a good idea.
Higher frequencies in the multi-GHz range are more dangerous to biologicals than the same power levels at, for example, 50 MHz. That's why the details displayed by meters like these really matters a lot and they do not have that granularity.
As an aside, the telecommunications companies have once again corrupted technical terms in favor of marketing. "You need 5G!!!!!!" AT&T even got a regulatory action against them because they displayed "5G" when the phone really was 4G.
But 5G really comprises separate frequency bands. The ones that most phones call "5G" are NO DIFFERENT than the plain old 3G and 4G frequency bands because they are below 1 GHz.
For whatever this is worth to anyone.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The amount of accumulated radiation
