- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Health / Protection against 4G/LTE
Author Message
Emma
Member
# Posted: 18 Oct 2016 17:15
Reply 


I am seeking advice about shielding protection specific to 4G. I live in a rented house in France where there are the following frequencies on the nearby masts approx 1-2 km from our house :
LTE 811 to 821 MHz
LTE 852 to 862 MHz
LTE 2515 to 2535 MHz
LTE 2635 to 2655 MHz
LTE 1765 to 1785 MHz
LTE 1860 to 1880 MHz

There are about 4 masts. We live in a hilly location. Our house is positioned in a valley so we have some protection but not on all sides. The 4G was upgraded extensively recently and since then we have not slept well.

The canopy we bought from Aaronia last year is not working for us now. When we use a materials like Biologa (Picasso) that seems to help, but its not breathable.

I would really appreciate any advice or recommendations re materials? We cannot use paint as it is a rented house.

Thanks

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 19 Oct 2016 09:53
Reply 


Emma,

The data-sheet for the Aaronia fabric shows 50dB attenuation (99,999%) from ~1000 MHz all the way to ~2250MHz, and above that, drops only slightly.

Looking at the data-sheet for the Biologa fabric, it says it has a 40dB (99,99%) attenuation at 800MHz and 50dB at 2600MHz (99,999%).

At such high attenuations, 40-50dB, the difference is usually negligible.

Perhaps you should be looking for other, closer, sources of microwaves - like nearby Wi-Fi or cordless phones of neighbours?

Really, the Aaronia fabric seems to have better overall shielding performance. I'm wondering whether the Aaronia fabric, looking very light, could have been worn and damaged from a year of use? Also, its often stated for silver-based fabrics that washing with ordinary enzyme-based washing liquids can negatively affect screening performance, and so such silver fabrics must be washed only with non-enzyme detergents. Could that be the case?

Also, having some measurements from within the house - and ideally: both inside and outside the shielding fabric - would really help in assessing the situation. Try and find an independent measuring expert or a place to rent a meter.

In France, try contacting Next-up and/or Robin des Toits for advice.

If it was me, I'd paint anyway and just make sure to coat the shielding-paint with the original colours so the job wasn't visible.

An idea for removable shielding, could be to cover the outside of the house, facing the masts, with a surface of fine-mesh metal net. You could even spray paint it to match the wall colour.

Anyone else have ideas?

Emma
Member
# Posted: 20 Oct 2016 13:16
Reply 


Thanks Henrik for your reply and advice. Much appreciated. Just to answer some of your questions.

We are situated on our own grounds and away from neighbours. I don't think it is the neighbours wifi/dect phones.

I was surprised that the Aaronia shield did not work. We bought it last December and have not washed it. We were away for a while and did not use it for about 2 months so it should not be damaged. I am beginning to think that 4G is very hard to protect against.

We have the Cornet ED85EX and the measurements are at the lowest -58/-59dbm. So, they are not too bad. But, the 4G has been upgraded by 3 different companies on the 4 nearby masts. Since then , we seem to be really affected by it. The masts are hitting us from all 4 directions within 2 km . It is due to the hilly environment and we are in a valley.
To get precise measurements, we are going to avail of a governmental measurement service here in France.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 20 Oct 2016 14:38
Reply 


Emma,

Thanks for your follow-up information. This case is a tricky one that I'll have to think about and ask some experts opinions. Your measurements are so low. Also: have you considered causes related to building-biology - like, for example mold? Exposure to mold can mimic electrohypersensitivity symptoms.

An important note on official/governmental measurement services:
I'm sure they have the best intentions - but mostly you'll realise that they have a "thermal only" understanding of the radiation issue. This meaning that they'll only reckon the radiation to have acute (short-term) thermal heating effects and thus only measure average values over a 6 minute period. Although that view is at least 20 years scientifically outdated, governments keep upholding it for, what I must assume, are political/economical reasons.
To get measuring results that are biologically relevant, you must measure signal peaks and not just average. Ideally: measure in "peak hold" mode over a longer timespan then 6 minutes, so that you register the worst-case signal strengths. By design, the signal strengths from mobile-masts vary quite a bit over time and because of the pulsed nature of the signals, average results will underestimate.

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 25 Oct 2016 20:43 - Edited by: horsevad
Reply 


We have the Cornet ED85EX and the measurements are at the lowest -58/-59dbm.

Without knowing the antenna factor of the relevant measurement unit it is impossible to deduct the actual exposure values from the posted values.

dBm denotes a measurement in decibels referenced to a milliWatt. Your measurement is therefore solely a measurement of the RF energy captured by the antenna connected to the measurement unit.

You should be able to configure the Cornet to show measurement values either as power flux density (W/m2) or as field intensity (V/M). Either of these measurements will enable us better understand your described situation.

Remember to measure in Peak-mode. The average values (or lowest values) are useless in determining possible biological reactions to RF-eksposure.

Predicted values - extrapolated from the information you provided in earlier postings - would be between 100 and 200 uW/m2, which is entirely sufficient to effect serious adverse health reactions. If your measured values are significantly larger than these values you might have an undiscovered microwave-source closer.

Are the canopies you described equipped with a floor covering? If not, they are utterly useless in shielding microwaves in the frequencies used for LTE.


//Kim Horsevad

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 26 Oct 2016 01:58
Reply 


horsevad,

Excellent points, thanks.

Emma,
In the Cornet user guide, you'll find how to switch it to mW/m2 unit.

If you don't have the manual, here's a quick instruction (from memory):

Enter the setup menu by pressing both black buttons and let go of them simultaneously.

Once in the menu:

Press "mode" button (the top black one) once to select: "1) mW/m2".

Press "hold" button (the other black one) once to toggle mW/m2 mode.

Press "mode" to scroll through the menu items until you're back at the top "(EXIT) SysSettup" item and press "hold" button to exit menu. Now the meter shows mW/m2.

To read the highest peak value, note the "MAX" value at the bottom of the display. The following value, marked "A" is average.

Note: if you want to keep the meter in mW/m2 mode (or whatever mode you select) then, before exiting the menu, scroll to "7) WR EEPROM" item and press "hold" button to save the settings.

Emma
Member
# Posted: 30 Oct 2016 15:14
Reply 


Thank you both. I really appreciate your advice.

The readings are:

V/M max = 1.709

uW/m2 0.2523-0.45

mW/m2"Max = .0711

uW/m2 = .3999


We were not using the grounding mat, although we had grounded the canopy. But we will try a different set up using the grounding mat and we will hope for the best.

Best Regards
Emma

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 30 Oct 2016 17:13
Reply 


There seems to be a significant inconsistency in your measurements.

The value specified for the electrical field intensity measurement (1.7 V/m) equals a power density of 7751 uW/m².

The value specified for the power density measurement (0.0711 mW/m²) equals an electrical field intensity of 163 mV/m.

If the value specified for the electrical field intensity measurement is correct you have a microwave source closer than the LTE antennas listed in earlier posting.

The specified value for the power density measurement is, however, in quite close agreement with expected values (as stated earlier).

To further explore the issue you could take several measurements in the same timeframe and post all the measured values. Such a series of measurement would enable a more thorough analysis - which in turn could be used as a basis for a more detailed assessment of the reliability and validity of the measurements.

--

To achieve shielding by the use of a canopy structure the shielding material should thoroughly encapsulate the area that is to be shielded. Think of a Faraday-cage.

If the floor is missing in the Faraday cage it will have no readily measureable effect.

There should be continuous electrical contact between the material shielding the floor and the material shielding the sides in the canopy. Ideally no opening should be larger than 1/40 wavelength.

Grounding is done to remove the possibility of RF-energy re-radiating from the shielding material. Grounding has _no_ effect on the shielding properties.


//Kim Horsevad

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on web forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2024