|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - 04/16/2018 : 09:04:53
What is the safe RF range for human exposure?
|11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - 08/18/2020 : 17:04:29
SSmith, and all, I want to take a little side trip here with a metaphor. I'm not being silly, I just want to make a point.
How safe is it to get near a black hole? Bear with me. As you might imagine, the answer is ... it depends. It depends on how big the black hole is, how strong its gravity, whether it's moving, how strong your space ship is, how good your engines are, how much distortion of your reality you can accept, how many dangerous symptoms you can accept, and how NEAR that near actually is, etc. OK, let's come back to Earth. The safe range for human RF exposure (or other EMF's too) depends on lots of things including how strong is the signal, how repetitive is the signal, what frequency is the signal, how susceptible are you to it (which varies widely), how safe do you want to be, what symptoms and dangers can you put up with, how long will you be exposed, and how often will you be exposed, etc.
Now, I'm not trying to evade your question, nor am I trying to say it cannot be answered. I just want to illustrate that there are always caveats. It's the same with "safety standards". In typical human fashion, we cannot agree on anything, and the standards are all over the map. There is a wide variation on what standards committees, government bodies, and industry feel is "safe". And none of those might agree with your personal definition of "safe". Having said that I will say that there are tens of thousands of studies and articles that talk about the safety of EMF's, and a huge number of those indicate that biological damage can occur at far lower levels than normal standards. If you follow the money, there is an exponentially HUGE incentive to make RF products more functional, in more places, with fewer dropouts, and more bandwidth ... all of which makes them universally less safe. So, the real question is what is safe enough. I am being trained by the Building Biology Institute, and I promote those standards. But, those are very conservative numbers, and hard to achieve. I am not personally sensitive to EMF's, and hope to stay that way. I have a cell phone and a tablet. But, if I were sensitive, or when I get clients that are, I would have to be much more restrictive. Still, I try to use those devices in a way that minimizes my exposure. I discuss Building Biology Standards in much more depth in the posts below.
mjh, and all, Please note that you CANNOT accurately measure RF signal strength at a distance less than 3 wavelengths. This is because you're in the "near field" where the EF and MF components of the RF haven't reliably merged yet. To get accurate numeric measurements, you must be in the far field. This is also discussed in the mentioned post. THAT means, if you're measuring a cell phone radiating as low as 600 MHz or .6 GHz, you have to be 5' (feet) or more away from it. If you're measuring WiFi or Bluetooth or a microwave oven at ~ 2.4 GHz, you have to be 15" (inches) away from it to get accurate numbers.
In terms of 5G, this is a still developing moving target. But 5G cellular (which is not the same as 5GHz wifi) stands for fifth generation. It is a new set of features and capabilities. Those features and capabilities can operate on low band, mid band, or high band frequencies. For those operating on low and mid band frequencies, a meter such as the GQ EMF-390 will measure the RF since it's below 8 GHz or 10 GHz. However, for high band, which starts around 24 GHz and up depending on who you talk to, or for the proverbial millimeter wave stuff, which starts around 30 GHz depending on who you talk to, meters such as the GQ EMF-390 will NOT measure those components since they're beyond the meter's range.
PS, microwave ovens are NOT safe (enough) to be around. If you use one at all, LEAVE the room when it's on. Nor are cordless phones. Decommission them. Nor are wireless baby monitors. Decommission them. Nor are Bluetooth headsets. Avoid if possible. Bluetooth to your car speakers isn't quite so bad, but bluetooth devices radiate whether on a call or not.
PPS, the levels that the GQ EMF-390 defines as high can be changed in the menu under, I think, alert levels.
Please see the posts below for more info. Hope this helps.
How to sweet talk your GQ EMF-390
EMF-390 - Help me, i am scared with this.
||Posted - 07/06/2020 : 09:23:55
To test if it really is your phone, you can turn off your phone and check if it is still happening.
||Posted - 07/02/2020 : 20:19:50
EmfDev: yes we have a smart meter but it's on the other side of the house on the far side of garage so I don't think we should have a problem with it this far away. I have to get pretty close for it to cause a reading on the meter.
||Posted - 06/29/2020 : 09:02:41
mjh, you are right it should be RF frequency. Check if you have any smart meter installed in your house.
||Posted - 06/28/2020 : 16:22:30
Regarding 5-G. I hear it cited that the problem is that its range is 30Ghz to 300Ghz. This is an RF frequency...correct? So if we are trying to pick up and damaging effects of 5-G we should use RF scale not EMF...correct?
My 4g phone sitting next to my bed was hitting spikes of 500 mW/M2 at like 4:30am. Phone was totally idle and would hit these random spikes then go back down to ambient range. My EMF-390 meter was 18 inches from my phone and my phone was about 3 feet from my head. This seems pretty high for my phone being idle and at this time in the morning. There is not any 5-G in my neighborhood yet but I wonder what kind of reading to expect when it does arrive.
||Posted - 05/11/2019 : 22:37:02
Yes, these values are amazingly high as the standards setting bodies are miainly taking the industry view. eg. head of FCC in America is a telecoms lobyist appointed by Obama after giving a large donation to his political campaigning!
||Posted - 05/10/2019 : 12:28:56
All those levels seem very high.
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.
New Salzburg 2002 precautionary indoor level is 100 pW/cm2 = 0.02 V/m = 0.001mW/m2 from modern pulse modulated ,microwave broad band above 1Ghz.
||Posted - 02/13/2019 : 10:36:53
Hi LeeE, the normal medium high is a reference by GQ. Not from the above table.
||Posted - 01/23/2019 : 08:40:09
Are these the values that have been used to determine "Normal", "Medium". "High" etc levels as displayed by the EMF-380V2 meter?
||Posted - 05/06/2018 : 15:00:32
Maximum Permissible Exposure number form the FCC (2007)
||Posted - 04/25/2018 : 11:16:01
It depends on the frequency.
Basically, a microwave leaks around 10mw/cm2 few cm away give or take so you can make that as a reference (unhealthy). or you can measure RF few cm away your WiFi router also those values are not healthy.
This article will give you a more specific answer.