Posted - 07/05/2019 : 16:16:19
I am pretty new to this, so i have no ideia how to read my results properly.
After measuring the RF on my house, believe me, i am scared to death with the numbers i got, despite the "normal" status.
Those are the kind of readings i am getting in living areas (not all of them, but at least on two rooms).
I can only speculate, but i guess my house has been bombarbed by RF for years.
I live near a couple cell towers (800ft).
Any help would be great.
Edited by - Justin on 07/05/2019 16:18:51
Posted - 07/05/2019 : 23:51:01
| You shouldn't worry at all: the values shown on your device have a peak of 950.9 mw/m2. Now, consider that the max safe value is (rougly) 1 mw/cm2, which is equivalent to 10,000 (ten THOUSANDS) mw/m2, the scale used on your instrument. That means that the peak value measured by your istrument is barely a tenth (1/10) of the max safe value.
The other values are low too.
Posted - 07/08/2019 : 08:48:15
| That peak is kind of what you would get if you put your meter couple of inches away from the WiFi router. There's also a cell tower around here (~150ft) and it reads around 4mW/cm2 if I go out the building. But inside it's lower in some part because it's blocked by the walls. The background reading is just normal around cell towers. It's similar reading if you're few feet away from the WiFi router.
Posted - 07/12/2019 : 13:04:35
| Hi Justin,it would seem you're right to be scared by your readings.
as I wrote before -
Bioinitiative.org show irreversible genetic damage to spermatozoa
at 340 pW/cm2 = 0.033 V/M = 0.0034 mW/m2 at 2.4Ghz and 16.5Ghz.
this is a problem.
best not to sleep in such a high radiation environment as your readings show,at least.
New Salzburg 2002 precautionary indoor level is 100 pW/cm2 = 0.02 V/m = 0.001mW/m2
this is a handy guide -
Posted - 07/13/2019 : 06:26:11
| Thanks for the answers.
I could not replicate those peak readings (950 mW/m2). They must have been from other source than the tower. The peaks i am getting are about 6 mW/m2 = 6000 uW/m2 = 0.6 mW/cm2.
Those are still very scary numbers, as they were measured at my bed level.
It looks like there there is a radius about 30cm wide where i get those readings. If i move 10cm away, they will drop to the a couple hundreds uW/m2, not thousands, so i am not sure what to think about this.
Could it be some "hot spot"? Is this even possible as antennas "spread" their radiation and do not focus it, am i right?
I could have been exposed by these levels for years. Surely more than 5Y.
We have since moved to an hotel for a couple days untill we sorted things at home and now we are living only at the ground floor. So we have lost pretty much half of our house.
Posted - 07/13/2019 : 08:54:54
| I am glad you could not replicate those peak readings (950 mW/m2)
The ones you have are high enough,especially near a bed.
I just bought 10m of under carpet silver insulation material,
seems to block Rf well,good for windows,if doubled over.
you have to close all the holes though.
Maybe your 30cm are coming from a window ?
Or from wiring in the wall or floor that is also picking up RF,
and reacting to switching power supplies.
or other electrical equipment ?
a phone next door ?
as long as you sleep and sit in a lower reading area
then you can be OK,but I agree,a long time is no good.
moving out is pretty serious.
sometimes we have to take drastic action.
I will move to the countryside
good luck to you.
Posted - 02/21/2020 : 11:19:27
| I find that you don't get the true picture unless you can track the radiation over several minutes or hours, and display it in a chart.
Download your data to your computer, and display it as a graph. Unfortunately the log only shows a timestamp every three minutes. so it's not suitable for a spreadsheet program.
See this post for a solution: http://www.gqelectronicsllc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8905
Posted - 02/22/2020 : 20:36:26
| Hi Justin and All,
I'm in the USA, so that's where my perspective comes from. But I see many international visitors on the forum here too. While regulations are different everywhere, physics is the same everywhere, so most of this should be applicable to anyone.
I posted a long description in this:
about how to use this meter well, how units work, how RF readings are taken, and what the numbers mean.
I'm affiliated with the Building Biology Institute, as a student currently, which has it's roots in Europe by the way. I have a background in Electronics Engineering, and I try to base my activities on science and facts. I try to be balanced.
In regards to your title of the thread about being scared, it's understandable that you would say that. There are now plenty of facts that indicate EMF's are hazardous, sometimes very hazardous, over time. Check out the great work done over at the Environmental Health Trust:
So, one thing I'm continually asking myself is how to present the facts in a reasonable but still truthful manner.
So, should you be scared? For most people, the answer is no. As you know, living in extreme fear, or stress, or anger all the time can do more harm to you than what you're concerned about. And, you cannot change the past. You can only go forward.
Now, should you be concerned? Or even very concerned? Maybe so. But only so you can take rational action and protect your safety. Do what you can to keep your immune system strong, which helps ward off all kinds of toxic exposures. For RF, the Building Biology Institute has standardized on a unit of uW/m^2 (not anything with /cm^2) for measurement. I recommend users do the same. On the chart I have in my pocket, it says >1000 uW/m^2 peak is extreme, and the column is colored red. For reference, that would be 1 mW/m^2 on the EMF-390 if you have units set for that. The text in the document that the chart came from says remediate immediately, in that case.
Now, I go every day to eat lunch in a shopping district where I'm never out of site of a cell tower or two or three. My professional Safe and Sound Pro II RF meter reads anywhere from 3000 - 10,000 uW/m^2 peak in that area. I'd be lying if I said that didn't bother me. Even so, I don't go home and eat crackers and peanut butter for lunch. I don't hide in my house. I don't rant at the restaurant owners for exposing me to radiation, not really their fault anyway. But, what I might do is park the car where a building shields one tower. Or spend a bit less time there. Or sit a bit further back in the building away from the windows.
No offense to any smokers, but it is well known now that smoking is dangerous. Well, we're at a point now with EMF's like we were with cigarettes in the 1970's. The general public is just starting to get the message even though the scientists know it's dangerous. But, EMF is also like smoking in that it usually doesn't hurt you all at once. It does it over time.
I will say that, even though Building Biology charts do specify peak readings, I give more weight to peaks that occur repeatedly. I don't know how much credence that I'd give to that extremely high peak reading you showed us.
So, in regards to your original question, if I had a contact who lived near a cell tower, and who was consistently getting readings in the extreme zone on my chart, I would have no choice but to recommend that he get a professional analysis to document the exposure, and consider his options to either shield the exposure, and or reduce the exposure. I would base my reference on Building Biology standards, even though those are some of the most conservative in the world. By the way, I believe what shows as normal on the meter depends on where you set the alarms.
Here are two of the best books on the subject.
Hope that helps.
Ron Frazier - In training with the Building Biology Institute (https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/) to become an independent Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist (EMRS). We measure, document, analyze, and recommend mitigations for harmful EMF exposures.
All my statements are mine alone though.