| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Sahim
7 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
2333 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2025 : 17:05:11
|
| is is very hard to quantify because they are not constant. |
 |
|
| Reply #2
Sahim
7 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
9 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.
|
|
|
| Reply #4
Sahim
7 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2025 : 22:27:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by NXR71
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.
The problem with the regulations and your mistake is that you limit the effects of radio frequency to only thermal heating. And you ignore all other effects of radio frequency on the body as if they do not exist. This is the same as saying that the sun only affects light, ignoring heat, photosynthesis, gravity. |
Edited by - Sahim on 06/22/2025 22:29:58 |
|
|
| Reply #5
NXR71
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2025 : 09:04:23
|
As I noted, I have decades of experience, over a half-century, with transmitters from a few hundreds of kilohertz to almost 10 GHz with exposure to all of them. Zero health effects so far, RF-related or not. If cumulative RF exposure was a real problem I'd expect that me and people who worked in the same fields would all be exhibiting negative effects and we don't.
No reputable study I've ever read has shown that the radio frequencies we all are exposed to in the course of our lives has detrimental effects. Many are based on theoretical effects at frequencies and power levels no person ever experiences and extrapolated to apply to the entire population. And we've all seen how many of those types of "studies" have been retracted in recent years.
If you know of a decent study please post a link or where I can read it.
Sunlight actually is an excellent example of why the frequency matters as much as or maybe more than the amplitude. Because sunlight, like RF, is comprised of a wide range of frequencies at wide ranges of power densities due to different atmospheric absorption of different frequencies. Some frequencies are seen and some unseen but sensed like infrared and ultraviolet. But it's still non-ionizing radiation.
Remember, even sound waves can be radio frequencies if you hook an antenna up instead of a speaker. One great example of that are the VLF communications systems used to communicate with submarines underwater. Those are as low as 14 KHz and young people can hear that frequency, but not when an antenna is used instead of a speaker. ELF submarine communications frequencies are even lower than that.
The now-discontinued Omega navigation system I used to work on operated on radio frequencies as low as 10.2 KHz. Even my aged ears can hear that, if the transmitter was connected to a speaker instead of an antenna.
We've all been exposed to radio waves since before we were born, as has everyone who ever lived.
That old saying of "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they are not." may be applicable here. More study is needed either way. |
Edited by - NXR71 on 06/23/2025 09:05:31 |
|
|
| Reply #6
Sahim
7 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2025 : 05:15:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by NXR71
No reputable study I've ever read has shown that the radio frequencies we all are exposed to in the course of our lives has detrimental effects.
The most authoritative study is my body. I constantly have a very bad headache because the radio tower is 100 meters outside my window. I am irradiated with a power of 20 mW/m² 24/7. When I move to another place where the tower is 650 meters away, The radiation power drops to 0.03 mW/m² - then my headache does not hurt.
First, you divided the impact of radio frequency into thermal heating and non-thermal.
Then into ionizing and non-ionizing.
A rather primitive approach to complex and unstudied phenomena.
If you say that non-ionizing radiation does not affect people in any way, then remove the door from the microwave oven and warm your hands in it when it is frosty outside. Then you will see the real impact of radio frequency. Your palms will not only warm up, but also get sick. Not only the frequency, but also the amplitude matters, right? And the amplitude and frequency that is currently irradiating all of humanity is unnatural. It is too high and stronger than the natural background, which means it requires millions of years of evolution for all living things on the planet to adapt. Your health is not yet an indicator of the absence of negative effects of radio waves on all living things. You cannot know what disease you will get tomorrow. But maybe you already have symptoms of various diseases and you do not associate them with radio radiation? All research in this area is blocked and bought out by radio monopolies around the world, because radio communication brings huge profits. Humanity is not far-sighted and behaves like small children. |
|
|
| Reply #7
NXR71
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2025 : 19:13:45
|
Understood. Do you know what frequencies the radio tower operates on? I worked as a radio station engineer where the field strength was way over 10 volts per cubic meter, because that was as high as the field strength meter registered and the meter got pegged out if we turned it on in the office. (We used the field strength meter to assure the phasing on our directional antenna array was pointed in the correct direction so we didn't violate our license.We drove around our coverage area and recorded the measurements at certain spots.)
A friend worked at a company that housed a 44,000 watt transmitter. Occasionally a bunch of us would go out to the field surrounding the tower at night, because the tower was the antenna, and we would take 8 foot long fluorescent light tubes out of their dumpster and shove it through the chain link fence that was about 5 feet from the energized tower. That was close enough to cause the fluorescent light tubes to light up and we could withdraw the tubes and run around the field over a hundred feet from the tower and the tubes remained lit.
This was before Star Wars came out so we kind of invented the light sabre. :) When we smacked the tubes together the phosphors inside remained lit up as the tubes broke like a million fireflies. People driving by on the road always stopped and pointed because they couldn't see us in the dark, just the tubes.
I have no idea what power densities we were exposed to but it was enough to light a fluorescent tube.
"If you say that non-ionizing radiation does not affect people in any way, then remove the door from the microwave oven and warm your hands in it when it is frosty outside."
You know I never wrote that and that I wrote the opposite. Not cool and you damage your credibility with statements like that. |
Edited by - NXR71 on 06/24/2025 19:15:36 |
|
|
| Reply #8
gpapnet
Greece
5 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2025 : 05:23:18
|
I'd go with option 2 (WiFi off, mobile data on) for lower overall radiation exposure while sleeping. WiFi routers emit constant signals, especially at night when you're not moving and are close by. Phones with mobile data on do emit radiation too, but usually in bursts, and the level depends on signal strength, if your mobile signal is strong, radiation tends to be lower.
Still, if you’re really trying to reduce exposure as much as possible, best bet is: router off, phone in airplane mode, and keep it a bit farther from your bed.
|
|
|
| Reply #9
NXR71
9 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2025 : 15:18:44
|
And if you live in an apartment or another multi-family building you have no idea what your neighbors are doing. Their wi-fi router could be on the other side of your bedroom wall. Almost nothing you do will help with the total exposure other than moving. "Almost" because you could add shielding in the way of copper screening on your exterior walls, ceiling, and floor, all bonded together, and that'll do it.
At one employer we built a shielded room using window screening soldered together to see how it worked and it actually worked remarkably well at the frequencies we were concerned with. |
|
|
| Reply #10
Sahim
7 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2025 : 22:21:59
|
The house where I live has many apartments. The Wi-Fi scanner shows up to 30 Wi-Fi around my apartment from top to bottom. But their total radiation is much less compared to one cell tower, which is located 100 meters away. I measured it. I sewed curtains that protect against radio radiation. These curtains are made of fabric that transmits light well. The curtains resemble thin tulle. I will hang the curtains in front of the window, and put the phones on the windowsill. This way, the phones are not shielded by the curtains and they will have a strong signal with the tower. The curtains will protect the bedroom from the radio tower and from my phones. Soon I will install the curtains and measure the radiation with and without them.
Do the curtains need to be connected to ground? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The amount of accumulated radiation
