- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / YSHIELD
<< . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . >>
Author Message
horsevad
Member
# Posted: 2 Jan 2016 13:22
Reply 


Hi Kim,

Thanks for your detailed answer about the grounding. I have a few more follow-up questions:

1) If I painted only one exterior wall to deflect a point source near it and not trying to achieve a faraday cage effect, does grounding matter?
2) With no ground, if I have two layers of latex paint, and someone drives a nail and hits an electric wire, will the entire surface now conduct despite the layers of latex paint and become a safety hazard?


"Yes" in both instances...

1): If the conductive structure has a form-factor and structure allowing it to resonate in frequencies comparable to the received RF it can act as both an antenna and as a transmitter. Some passive signal boosters / repeaters for wireless communication are actually constructed this way. Grounding is important; but it is likewise important to achieve the grounding in a way such that foreign frequencies doesn't cause trouble.

2): A conductive surface or structure should always be grounded to mitigate the risk of electric shock. Doing otherwise is dangerous - and probably a significant violation of local electrical code.

//Kim Horsevad

Anonymous
# Posted: 2 Jan 2016 16:51
Reply 


Hi Kim,

Thanks again for your answers. On (2), I'm wondering if the surface will conduct on the latex paint layer too. If I check on the continuity on the upper latex paint layers, will that read positive?

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 3 Jan 2016 01:43
Reply 


Hi Kim,

Thanks again for your answers. On (2), I'm wondering if the surface will conduct on the latex paint layer too. If I check on the continuity on the upper latex paint layers, will that read positive?


The shielding properties of Yshield's paint is primarily based on the conductive properties of the paint. The conductive characteristic is preserved regardless of the surface it is painted upon, and regardless of any topcoats of paint.

//Kim Horsevad

Anonymous
# Posted: 3 Jan 2016 02:10
Reply 


Kim,

I get that part. I'm asking if you applied a voltage to the top latex layer would jump across the barrier and be conducted via the yshield layer. I'm asking for safety concern....

Thanks

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 3 Jan 2016 02:15
Reply 


TKim,

I get that part. I'm asking if you applied a voltage to the top latex layer would jump across the barrier and be conducted via the yshield layer. I'm asking for safety concern....

Thanks


That would depend on the voltage and the conductive properties of the latex paint, but as the layer of paint is only a few microns thick it would not be enough to protect against mains voltage.

//Kim Horsevad

Anonymous
# Posted: 3 Jan 2016 06:45
Reply 


Kim,

Is there a solvent to remove a small section of the paint. I want to clear out an inch or two near a socket.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 5 Jan 2016 11:42
Reply 


Anonymous,

Please ask YShield about such very product specific matters like paint solvents.

Write to: info {-at-} yshield.com

note: replace {-at-} with @

Moog
Member
# Posted: 30 Jun 2016 18:33
Reply 


HI - I wrote a message in a different (technical) part of the forum - but unfortunately no answers yet. I wonder if anyone can help?

I'm currently trying to shield a bedroom with YShield HS54 which has readings up to 120uW/m2. (I have a three axis Tenmars 195 rf meter which I have used to measure this)

We are trying to protect ourselves from a phone mast 150m away (direct line of site) which is situated in a high place and seen from the corner of our house. I figured it would therefore be best to paint the two walls leading to that corner and the ceiling (to protect against the height of mast.)

The paint has dried on all three surfaces now - but to my dismay - it has made no difference to the readings - in fact may have even increased them slightly. I've been scratching my head as to why this would be. I am now wondering whether a police station TETRA radio - situated on the opposite side of the house , (about 200m away) - could be causing the high readings - and maybe even entering the room and reflecting off the walls covered in YShield? I didn't know about this before - as it was not in direct line of site - but marked on the OFCOM Sitefinder website. Should I now be considering painting all walls to produce a Faraday cage? Or perhaps just the extra wall which faces in the direction of the police station? It's quite an expensive process - so would like to keep to a minimum.

Also - as this is an upstairs bedroom - what would be the best way of earthing outside? Would it be a case of drilling a hole through the brick wall and running a wire down the outside of the house? Does the earthing pole need to be a distance away from the house?

Many thanks

JA

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 1 Jul 2016 00:00
Reply 


Moog,

On the Tenmars website it says that the meters characteristic is isotropic - meaning that it measures all directions at once.
Also, since the Tenmars has a wide frequency response, it'll be hard to determine what frequencies (and technologies, like TETRA) are contributing most to the problem. Its a fine meter for measuring your total exposure, but unfortunately not good for troubleshooting directionality problems.

To troubleshoot such problems as you're experiencing, you'll need a meter with a logPer antenna, ie.: highly directional, in order to determine exactly where the radiation is coming in from. Gigahertz Solutions make such meters. They are expensive but you should be able to rent one. What country are you in? Perhaps we can help you find one.

If there's a source of radiation coming from the opposite direction, its likely that it will reflect off the YShield painted walls and bounce back at you, increasing your readings.

Is it an apartment, with possible microwave sources (wifi, cordless phones etc.) below your bedroom? That's also something to factor in.

Re earthing: if you're in the UK, you can tap into the utility wiring earth from a wall outlet. I admit that I'm not the best at earthing techniques, so I've asked an expert. Awaiting his input.

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 1 Jul 2016 02:16
Reply 


>>Moog:

1: Based on the described distances to the RF-sources you are looking at an significant investment in terms of both material cost an labour to bring exposure values down to habitable levels.

All external walls, roof/ceiling and floor should be shielded. All external doors and windows should be shielded. Ideally, there should be no holes larger than 1/40 wavelength in the enclosure.

2: You can make directional measurements with the Tenmars 195. Place it in the center of the bottom of a large bucket made of conductive metal. Something like this flowerpot from Ikea (Link: http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10258037/ ) works well.

Turn the bucket horisontally, with the meter placed center bottom. Note the measurement values for the different directions. You will need to make several measurements at different time points, as the intensity of some of the wireless technologies varies with the number of connected users.

You should be aware that, although the Tenmars 195 is a fine instrument, its lowest sensitivity is significantly above the safe values recommended by the german building biologists. (Link: http://rf-emf.org/Publications/SBM2015---Tabular_Presentation.pdf ) This means that the Tenmars 195 cannot, in all cases, be used to fully evaluate the effectiveness of a well-designed shielding enclosure.

3: You could use the protective earthing connector in your electrical installation for grounding purposes. Your local electrical code will probably contain requirements thereof. Depending on the level of electrical noise in your installation it could, however, be preferable to establish a dedicated grounding point for the faraday enclosure. Such dedicated grounding point will minimise the amount of electrical noise from other parts of the installation reaching your shielding structure. Even though this method probably is the safest in terms of minimising electromagnetic exposure it is not the preferred technical solution, as the current requirements for protective earthing in most of the civilized world is based on the paradigm of equipotential bonding, where all electritical conductive parts of the building structure such be electrically connected.

A simple, non-technical (qualitative) method of measuring the level of electrical noise in your installation is to adjust a AM-radio such that it only receives noise. If the level of noise increases as the radio is brought closer to any part of the electrical installation there is a level of electrical noise present which preferable should be evaluated further before the protective earthing conductor is used for grounding purposes for the shielding structure.

//Kim Horsevad

Anonymous
# Posted: 2 Jul 2016 14:10
Reply 


Thanks so much Henrik and Kim for the above responses. Extremely helpful - and I'll follow your recommendations. I've ordered extra paint to continue shielding the extra external walls. Because of the positioning of the house - it's really the upstairs rooms that are the greatest problem... the downstairs rooms are protected somewhat by the lay of the land, and the readings there are much lower. The building is a detached house (UK) - so we have complete control of the building, and don't plan to have wifi.

Best
Julie Ann

Moog
Member
# Posted: 2 Jul 2016 14:51
Reply 


^ Forgot to sign in for previous post - Moog.

Moog
Member
# Posted: 2 Jul 2016 16:58
Reply 




Anonymous
# Posted: 2 Jul 2016 17:00
Reply 


Thanks so much Henrik and Kim for the above responses. Extremely helpful - and I'll follow your recommendations. I've ordered extra paint to continue shielding the extra external walls. Because of the positioning of the house - it's really the upstairs rooms that are the greatest problem... the downstairs rooms are protected somewhat by the lay of the land, and the readings there are much lower. The building is a detached house (UK) - so we have complete control of the building, and don't plan to have wifi.

Best
Julie Ann

Moog
Member
# Posted: 2 Jul 2016 17:24 - Edited by: Moog
Reply 


Sorry for my duplicated messages above.... (I tried to write another post - spent half an hour writing it, then all the text disappeared when I clicked 'post message' When I tried to go back - it re-posted my previous message!) :O

Anyway - I was hoping someone may be able to answer another query.

We recently bought a new house. We knew very little about mobile phone mast exposure at the time - but noted that there was one very close to the property.

We commissioned an electro-magnetic survey to check whether we were making a wise purchase - or whether we might be putting ourselves at unnecessary health risks.

We chose a UK company, from Manchester, who said on their website they used biological building standards to check levels - and that they would advise against any house purchases that put the inhabitants at risk according to strict guidelines. I was more concerned about this than my partner - but we agreed we would base our purchasing decision on the advice offered in the survey.

The survey found levels around 38uW/m2 in the upstairs rooms. My Tenmars 195 meter has since shown much higher readings (often > 100uW/m2) - but I thought this was perhaps because they had used much more accurate / expensive equipment.

The survey findings stated that they considered the slight concern range of 0.1-10uW/m2 to be relatively safe. It also states that because there were a total of 5 masts within the local vicinity - that those safe levels should be multiplied by 5 to reach an upper safety exposure level of 50uW/m2. Therefore the upstairs readings of 38uW/m2 were completely safe.

Because I had agreed with my partner that we would buy the house if the survey said everything was OK - we went ahead. But over time, with the more I read about mobile phone mast exposure - I'm worried we have been completely duped by a surveyor who hasn't adhered to biological building standard - and perhaps didn't even know what he was talking about.

His remedial advice suggested painting just one wall to protect against the closest mast... but as my post above shows - we are finding painting 3 surfaces still isn't enough.

It's all very upsetting - and I'm guessing we would never stand any chance of being compensated for his bad advice? The house purchase is proving to be a very expensive mistake. :(

I guess I really want to know whether it's true that the safe limit should be multiplied by the amount of masts in an area? Are there any experts in the UK who could provide a more accurate survey / advice?

Best
Julie Ann

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 3 Jul 2016 04:17
Reply 


I guess I really want to know whether it's true that the safe limit should be multiplied by the amount of masts in an area? Are there any experts in the UK who could provide a more accurate survey / advice?


The exposure reference values used in both SBM2015 and the ICNIRP schemes represent the highest allowed measurement for the dominant frequency.

You should _definately_ not multiply any reference value by any constant. They are to be regarded as absolutes.

Do you have a copy of the original survey report? The difference between the company measurement and the reading on the Tenmars could readily be explained through different measurement protocols.

Henrik or Agnes will probably be able to advise regarding accurate surveys.

//Kim Horsevad

Moog
Member
# Posted: 3 Jul 2016 12:21
Reply 


Hi Kim
Yes I have a copy of the survey in PDF format - should I send it on?

We chose this particular company because they stated on their website that they would advise against any house purchase if the levels were unsafe according to strict biological building standards. (We didn't know what this was at the time - just that it was much stricter than our own governments)

We accepted the survey as an expert guide at the time, and went ahead with our house purchase based on the advice (because we knew virtually nothing about EMR at that point - I was simply wary of purchasing a house that was visibly close to a mast, and whether it might affect the house value in future) When I questioned the guy who carried it out on the logic of multiplying safety limits by the amount of masts in the area - he maintained that was simply the correct thing to do... that he had worked in the industry for years and was very experienced. He couldn't explain 'why' just that it was fact - and I shouldn't question his expertise.

It is only after spending time there that we are now devastated we have bought a house that may prove difficult to live in. I feel dizzy, I get pressure in my head, I get tinnitus. I keep trying to tell myself it may all be psychological - that I'm somehow imagining these effects....but after leaving the property the symptoms begin to fade.

I feel so upset that this man took our money - and has given us an inaccurate report which has such huge implications.

All we can do now is try to find ways of minimising the damage.

Many thanks for your responses...really appreciate it.

Julie Ann

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 3 Jul 2016 13:32
Reply 


Hi Kim
Yes I have a copy of the survey in PDF format - should I send it on?


If you could post the two paragraphs describing the measurement devices used and the measurement protocol used in the survey it would be helpful for understanding the discrepancies between yours and the surveyors readings.

It is only after spending time there that we are now devastated we have bought a house that may prove difficult to live in. I feel dizzy, I get pressure in my head, I get tinnitus. I keep trying to tell myself it may all be psychological - that I'm somehow imagining these effects....but after leaving the property the symptoms begin to fade.


The symptoms are definately not psychological, and should never be treated as such. At present there are some 20000 scientific results demonstrating or indicating bioreactivity of microwaves in non-thermal intensities.

//Kim Horsevad

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 3 Jul 2016 14:05
Reply 


Moog,

After a software upgrade on the Mast-Victims server we've been experiencing the problem you noted (posts disappear). I sincerely apologise for that and I'm working on fixing it.

You can send the survey PDFs to: henrik {-at-} mast-victims.org
(replace {-at-} with @)

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 3 Jul 2016 22:11
Reply 


Hi Julie Ann,

So sorry to hear about your experience, sounds like the same company that ripped us off some years back.

EG.

Arthur
Member
# Posted: 4 Jul 2016 15:53 - Edited by: Arthur
Reply 


That multiplying thing has to be pure nonsense. So, if a given level of radiation is harming you and comes from one mast, that is a problem. If the same level is found and 5 masts are responsible for it, everything is OK? WTF? Actually if doesnt matter if is a DECT phone or a smart meter also piling in. Normally you will have a mix of things, and also the other forms of electropollution. The bearable level is given by the human body, mind and soul, not by the aggressors. I suppose!? Even me with my humble meter would have advise you better I think and for free or a tip.

I wouldnt buy any home close to a mast, period. Even if it is directional and not very powerful and you are in the not-so-bad side things can change, and indeed it might put a future buyer off. Sorry about your mistake, great story! Those symptoms are classics, dont have a bit of a doubt!

So it seems like there are cowboy electropollution consultants too! You have to be your own doctor, your own consultant, your own everything...

If this guy measuring worked indeed for the industry he may be under the influence of disinformation that they are giving their workers, so that they install and maintain the masts with a more or less clear conscience. If it was clear in every worker's mind that they were killing people maybe that would bring an uncomfortable environment among the work force.

Arthur
Member
# Posted: 4 Jul 2016 16:35
Reply 


Nice trick with the metal bucket, Kim! :)

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 4 Jul 2016 19:56
Reply 


I have been sent a copy of the survey report mentioned in above posts.

I have several comments:


1: Measurement devices
The report contains no information about the measurement devices used.
The report contains no information about the antennas used.
The report contains no information about the frequency response curve for the used measurement devices

Such omission of vital data is highly problematic, as it makes the collected data worthtless in any kind of scientific approach.


2:Measurement protocol
The report contains no specification of the measurement protocol used in the survey


3: Sample frequency
The report contains no information about the sample frequency for the measurement devices used

This means that the reader has no practical way of knowing whether the instruments used has a sufficiently high sample frequency to satisfy the Shannon-Nyquist theorem for the evaluated wireless signals.


4: Average values
One of the graphs (p2) contains a average value; but the graph itself shows measurement values across several rooms. This means that the average value is calculated on the basis of readings taken in several rooms. A average value calculated in this manner has very little relation to the real exposure experienced by the inhabitants of the house; as the short (nano-second) peaks used in modern wireless transmission mathematically are weighted rather low (due to their extremely short duration) in such a average value.


5: Multiplication of safe values

I have never encountered any other survey method in which the safe values are multiplied by the number of exposure sources. I have no idea where such a weird concept origins from; but it must be based on the (now obsolete) paradigm of heat based effects.

Furthermore I have never encountered any scientific result which could lend even remote credibility to such an idea. The idea somehow reminds me of the swedish solution to the radioactive reindeer after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986: They multiplied the safe values by a factor ten!



//Kim Horsevad

Moog
Member
# Posted: 4 Jul 2016 20:58
Reply 


HI Kim
Thanks so much for the feedback on the report. (And thanks Henrik for passing it on) It makes me so upset that companies like this can make money from such bad advice. And the worrying thing is that many more people may find themselves in a similar situation to ourselves. I would really like to take some kind of action against this company - even if just to warn others of their inaccurate surveys... but I'm really not sure what I can do. I'm guessing there are no legal channels to pursue - as the levels in the report would still be much lower than our government safety guidelines.

Arthur
Yes - I really wish I had known all this before we purchased. We only found out about the mast about a week before we were due to exchange contracts on the house... We knew very little about the risks at that point, the survey was very last-minute, and the vendor was pressuring us to complete. We had hardly any time to look into the situation - and I've only been able to research more about it since. So we're not very happy about things. But now we have to try to make the best out of a bad situation. The house itself is absolutely lovely - it is just this one issue that is getting us down.

On a positive note - today we painted the third exterior wall in the bedroom with YShield. The paint hasn't yet had much time to dry - but the readings were encouraging. Not as low as we would ideally like - but approximately one tenth of the previous readings. We still need to shield the windows - so hopefully when we do this it will improve things further.

So glad I found this forum!
Many thanks

JA

Aussie
# Posted: 20 Jul 2016 13:37
Reply 


Hi, I am considering to purchase Ysheild products for my own house to protect EMR. What I have a question to this product is a only one thing.. whether or not I would have any problem to use internet or wifi inside house. If this paint disturb or make any chance lower to have any internet access in the house I may need to think about it again.
Thanks again for your answers in advance.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 20 Jul 2016 14:40
Reply 


Aussie,

The idea of using YShield products is to prevent EMR getting inside your house.

If you want to place an EMR transmitter, like a WI-FI access point inside the house, then there's no point trying to shield from outside EMR - because WI-FI emits EMR continuously.

So for having internet connection inside a EMR shielded house, you can and should use a cabled (ie: non-wireless) connection. If you have an existing WI-FI enabled access point from your internet service provider, then you can disable its WI-FI signal (ask your ISP) and run an ethernet cable from the access point to your computer.

Bikewriter
# Posted: 29 Aug 2016 01:40
Reply 


Potential for Remediation - Mitigation of Symptoms

You might want to consider the impact of general detoxification to your symptoms. There is a wealth of science now that suggests that people that have been exposed to toxins (including, but not limited to EMF), can experience symptoms long after the source of one or more toxins have been eliminated.

Several doctors and medical researchers have published excellent youtube videos and books that describe the impact of toxic exposure on the ability of people to recover from illness in general.

I have been very impressed by the work of Dr. Russell Jaffe, Chris Shade (Ph.D.), and others. Worth checking out, IMHO.

Note: I am not a doctor and am not offering medical advice. I do not sell any medical products or supplements, and am not a health professional. I am a cancer patient, and am always seeking information about ways to restore my strength and general health after some devastating treatments.

EMMESS
# Posted: 29 Aug 2016 02:40
Reply 


I have about 8 cell phone towers on the roof of my building in NYC. I am four floors below them and have seven 72" windows that face the tower side. I do my preventive naturopathic healthcare with the Asyra computer program, so i can take the various materials and test them prior to executing the job. This might be of interest to your company. EMF have shown up as a stressor, not surprisingly. I have a number of questions I have not seen on the blog.

1. If I use metal venetian blinds that cover over the entire window, ie. set onto the window frame extending beyond the glass, will this effectively block the cellular waves? When I put my cellphone in a metal box it blocks transmissions.
Would convex or concave facing out be better? Would painting the outside with Yshield help? Maybe just deflecting is better (maybe not for my neighbors across the street)? Maybe you should be working with blind manufacturers. I resist the idea of film on my windows. How do they react with cleaning products and acid rain? Also wonder if this bouncing around of internal EMF waves would not be helped by opening windows and blinds slightly? How long each day would be recommended if so?


2. What device would you recommend for accurate measuring? I have a tri-field meter.

3. Stingray (by Harris) is our government's latest overpriced superhigh frequency toy that can remove encryption keys to further invade our privacy and Stingray is used without any constitutional accountability being a new development, ahead of the law or so the "law" maintains. I personally find this offensive. I am the kind of person who has my entertainment devices on a surge protector and keep it switched off when not in use. CFL bulbs mess me up. So cell towers and Stingray invasion really irk me. I want to build a computer closet work station farther from the windows. My thought is the window side wall should be metal shielded but other walls should absorb the computers EMF. I do not use wi-fi, I stick to a DSL cable (is this a factor?). Should the modem be kept outside of the closet? I am concerned about this "uncomfortable" feeling people are reporting because it is such a small enclosed space. Can I make a small Faraday cage with mesh EMF blocking product? I am trying to use deflection, blocking, and absorption to balance it somehow. I am also wanting to secure my computer. What are your thoughts?

Having used some cutting edge naturopathic medicine for decades I would like to suggest that the folks who are experiencing discomfort would find carbon based homeopathic remedies to be contraindicated for them but would find silica to be comforting. It is a cheap test. Bioron Silica can be found in any health food store. Germany probably has a version of Asyra, which is produced in England. It may just go against their biological matrix. I go to a water spring in a town where a US Silica mine is located for this very reason. I can test this idea on the Asyra program but it would only be conclusive for me. Interesting idea though. Are there any Ysheild retail sellers in NYC?

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 30 Aug 2016 12:56
Reply 


1. If I use metal venetian blinds that cover over the entire window, ie. set onto the window frame extending beyond the glass, will this effectively block the cellular waves?

Although venetian blinds made of conductive metal would dampen the incoming microwave radiation somewhat a proper solution would require a considerably more meticulous approach.

All external walls, roof/ceiling and floor should be shielded. All external doors and windows should be shielded. Ideally, there should be no holes larger than 1/40 wavelength in the enclosure.

Before you embark on shielding projects you need to acquire the means to make actual measurements. A Trifield is useful for many projects - have used one extensively back when I was installing antennas, but the sensitivity range of the Trifield is not the best when used to evaluate shielding projects.

You will need a measurement device capable of measuring down to the safe exposure ranges published by the german building biologists. You can find a tabular overview of the values here:

http://rf-emf.org/Publications/SBM2015---Tabular_Presentation.pdf

3. Stingray (by Harris) is our government's latest overpriced superhigh frequency toy that can remove encryption keys to further invade our privacy and Stingray is used without any constitutional accountability being a new development, ahead of the law or so the "law" maintains. I personally find this offensive.

There is nothing special about the stingray. It is just a piece of equipment mimicking the function of a cell-tower, thereby forcing the nearby phones to connect to it instead of the normal cell-towers - and thereby enabling a man-in-the-middle attack on the used encryption. Such devices can readily be made with amateur equipment - there is nothing special about either hardware or software.

Regarding the "constitutional accountability": Both Denmark an the US is founded upon a constitution; but it seems that the levels of freedom stipulated in these documents are politically nullified with such systematic degree that they largely have lost their original meaning. Any interpretation of the word freedom should include the structural ability to refuse to have ones own home invaded by microwave radiation.

//Kim Horsevad

ecowise
# Posted: 14 Sep 2016 18:50
Reply 


I think that the problem with some/all these people is that they did not use a zero voc top coat, but used a toxic finish( vinyl paint?!!!) , you should recommend a top coat of only zero voc paints, which are plentiful.

<< . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . >>
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 community script miniBB™ © 2001-2020