- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / Mast radiation vs other sources
Author Message
wokinglad
Member
# Posted: 16 Apr 2017 23:01
Reply 


Hi everyone

Im moving to a rented flat soon and its near 2 sets of masts. One is about 80-100m away and on 3rd floor roof (im on ground floor), the other is about 30m away and is on a pole but has 2 masts which are pointing away at 90 degree angles from my house.

Now, i know its impossible to guess exactly how much radiation ill be exposed to indoors from these, but does anyone have estimates for, or carried out their own measurements of, how this sort of radiation compares to mobile phones, wifi, and other sources.

Has anyone measured radiation somewhere near a mast, then again with a phone nearby, wifi on etc, and somewhere not near a mast to see how it compares?

Thanks

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 17 Apr 2017 11:43 - Edited by: horsevad
Reply 


This can be calculated with the Friis formula:

Expected exposure values for dominant frequency for a macro cell located at a distance of 100 meters from measuring point: Power density: 14.8 mW/m² ; Electric Field intensity: 2.3V/m; Magnetic Field intensity: 6.2 mA/m

Expected exposure values for dominant frequency for a macro cell located at a distance of 30 meters from measuring point: Power density: 164.5 mW/m² ; Electric Field intensity: 7.8V/m ; Magnetic Field intensity: 20.8 mA/m

It is clearly evident from these exposure values that this place is not in any way suitable for human habitation.

//Kim Horsevad

wokinglad
Member
# Posted: 17 Apr 2017 12:38
Reply 


Thanks Kim

Can you put those figures into perspective by providing the same numbers for being in wifi hotspot or having your cell phone on the table next to you, for example?

Also, any idea on the radiation from the sides of a mast? they are pointing away from my property at 90 degree

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 17 Apr 2017 23:21
Reply 


Yes, but I will need the exact distances you want the calculation done for...

Furthermore:
WiFi units can be equipped with different antennas with different gain. If you want detailed accuracy I will also need the information about the specific AccessPoint used.

As a rough estimate I can tell that the calculated exposure values is about the double of the exposure sustained using a UMTS mobile phone in good to medium coverage.

The calculated exposure exceeds the german building biologists "Extreme Concern" threshold by two orders of magnitude!

Ideally you want values below 6.1mV/m (0.1uW/m²)

//Kim Horsevad

wokinglad
Member
# Posted: 19 Apr 2017 22:40
Reply 


Hi Kim

I dont need specific measurements, just general averages if possible.

So perhaps a phone not in use a few feet away, and also when in use close t the body, and being within a wifi zone (eg. a few metres from the router)

Cheers

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 19 Apr 2017 23:59 - Edited by: horsevad
Reply 


WiFi is easy, as the maximum allowed transmitter effect is 100mW. However, antennas are freely interchangeable, allowing the use of high-gain antennas. If we base our calculation on a standard setup, 100mW consumer unit with a standard gain=1 antenna at a distance of 5 meters the exposure values for dominant frequency would be around 318 uW/m² (346 mV/m)

Mobile phones vary transmitter effect according to coverage situation. Further complexities arise from the fact that the duty cycle of the mobile unit is determined by the information content, making specific time-averaged exposure predictions rather impossible without knowing the exact type of information transfer.

For a UMTS mobile unit in good to medium coverage you can generally expect values between 800 mV/m and 4500mV/m.

For extremely poor coverage values can exeed 71 V/m

//Kim Horsevad

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 20 Apr 2017 00:31
Reply 


horsevad,

"For extremely poor coverage values can exeed 71 V/m"

Isn't that above official guideline levels?

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 20 Apr 2017 00:50
Reply 


Yes, it is above the reference levels stipulated by ICNIPR, but:

Time-averaged measurements are highly dependent on the data throughput, as the duty cycle in several of the used modulation schemes depends on the actual amount of information transferred.

This means that a 6-min official RMS value would be significantly lower than values averaged over the actual transmissions.

The official measurement protocol is, for certain, written by people who are totally clueless about biological systems.

//Kim Horsevad

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 20 Apr 2017 08:55
Reply 


horsevad,

"The official measurement protocol is, for certain, written by people who are totally clueless about biological systems."

Totally agree! It just needed to be put in bold & underline.

wokinglad
Member
# Posted: 20 Apr 2017 14:34
Reply 


So at 100m the mast is 14.8 mW/m² which equates to 14,800u/W, whilst at 5 metres the wifi is 318 uW/m²...so the mast is ~45 times stronger than the wifi? am i correct? How do mobiles compare, you provided a different measurement for them?

Anonymous
# Posted: 21 Apr 2017 06:44
Reply 


I often read that masts put out 10 to 100watts of power, whilst phones might put out half a watt, and that due to the inverse square law the mast radiation becomes immaterial compared to the phone which is right by your body..

Anonymous
# Posted: 21 Apr 2017 06:56
Reply 


http://www.zyra.org.uk/phonmast.htm

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 21 Apr 2017 16:36
Reply 


I often read that masts put out 10 to 100watts of power, whilst phones might put out half a watt, and that due to the inverse square law the mast radiation becomes immaterial compared to the phone which is right by your body..


The above calculations are based on the Friis formula, which is derived from the inverse square law.

Exposure from antenna mast is involuntarily, whereas the phone usage is stemming from an active decision.

//Kim Horsevad

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 21 Apr 2017 16:41
Reply 



http://www.zyra.org.uk/phonmast.htm



The content of the referenced link does not reflect current scientific knowledge about biological systems.

To fully understand the possible mechanisms of interaction you need specialized knowledge from both cellular biology, electromagnetic field theory, quantum electrodynamics and molecular biology. The author of the referenced link lacks all but the electromagnetic perspective.

Sapere Aude - be brave enough to think for yourself....

//Kim Horsevad

wokinglad
Member
# Posted: 21 Apr 2017 17:35
Reply 


Hi Horsevad

Thanks for the info. Im more concerned with the *relative* risk. Im wondering if i need be worried about the masts if i spend half my day browsing on my phone (not making calls), or would that be irrational, due to the inverse sq. law.

Presumably this is correct? By 100m, the mast is, albeit 24/7, pumping out only a tiny fraction of the radiation my phone in my hand/on my desk is?

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 21 Apr 2017 19:38 - Edited by: horsevad
Reply 


Hi Horsevad

Thanks for the info. Im more concerned with the *relative* risk. Im wondering if i need be worried about the masts if i spend half my day browsing on my phone (not making calls), or would that be irrational, due to the inverse sq. law.

Presumably this is correct? By 100m, the mast is, albeit 24/7, pumping out only a tiny fraction of the radiation my phone in my hand/on my desk is?



Actually I don't think the two exposure situations can be compared by such simple means.

The exposure from the phone and the mast is both quantitatively and qualitatively different.

There are ample scientific evidence that microwaves from both antenna masts and mobile phones in non-thermal intensities conveys adverse bioreactivity. There are, however, much less scientific data on the relative comparison of the potential risk of adverse health effects between the two scenarios.

I do not know of any meaningful, biological-based, way of comparing the actual risks in the two exposure situations. And I don't think such a metod actually exists.

An antenna mast at 100 meters distance yields an exposure (measured in power flux density) similar to actual use of at UMTS mobile phone in good coverage scenarios; but I cannot tell you which of these two scenarios carries the greatest risk. Risk does not seem to correlate linearly with power density.

//Kim Horsevad

wokinglad
Member
# Posted: 2 Jun 2017 12:43
Reply 


For anyone interested, i hired an acoustimeter EMF meter for a week from healthy house.co.uk

Im pretty near a few masts and levels in my lounge are around 0.5v/m to 1v/m right by the window.

Near the wifi, a wifi enabled pc or a phone (browsing web) it goes v. high - above the max reading of 6v/m sometimes.

Standing near my laptop with wifi on it pulses between 0.8v/m and 2 or 3v/m.

My bedroom is around 0.2 to 0.4v/m, lowering to around 0.1 to 0.2v/m when i turn off the wifi in the hall.

Turning off wifi from the router and using an ethernet cable has drastically cut the radiation when using my pc from ~1 to 2 v/m down to the ambient levels in the room ie 0.1 to 0.2v/m

wokinglad
Member
# Posted: 2 Jun 2017 12:58
Reply 


I should add, the readings outside the house on the side near the masts was very high indeed both in terms of v/m and av.g microwatts, so the house seems to shield most of the mast radiation

Anonymous
# Posted: 4 Jun 2017 19:38
Reply 


The highest levels I've seen are near a working microwave. Now obviously a phone mast is on 24/7 but it seems, at least in my case, that the house itself blocks most of the radiation. Outside the levels are around 3v/m and the average uw/m2 is around 1000-2000, yet in my room it is 0.1-0.1 and 0-50 ish, respectively

Anonymous
# Posted: 4 Jun 2017 19:39
Reply 


*0.1-0.2

Moog
Member
# Posted: 11 Jun 2017 23:15
Reply 


I'm also very interested in the comparisons between different sources, and how to translate my readings. I find that I seem to be more sensitive to mast radiation (get headaches and dizziness) yet with wifi I seem relatively OK. In my home I have used Yshield and window film in a number of rooms which has cut down the nearby 4G tower (approx 150m away) and a police airwaves mast (200m away) considerably. My acoustimeter reads generally around 0.2V/m and hovers between a green light and none. I have no wifi at home, and usually keep my mobile on airplane mode when indoors. But I find I'm still feeling the effects of radiation. Yet at work - the wifi is very powerful, but mobile phone reception is poor and I seem to feel better there which confusues me. Incidentally - although the readings on my acoustimeter are visibly low - the sound is still loud in places.... more of a white noise / hissing type of sound rather than the high pitched sound that normally comes from the mobile masts. I wonder if anyone could shed light on this?

wokinglad
Member
# Posted: 12 Jun 2017 15:05
Reply 


Moog, the accoustimeters make a noise anyway even when theres no radiation,im sure i read it in the manual. Could you be feeling different at work for other reasons? Not every feeling is related to radiation :)

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 12 Jun 2017 16:43
Reply 


Moog,

The speaker-mode of the Acoustimeter is - as wokinglad rightly points out - very sensitive. You often get audio pickup of distant RF sources even though the display/LED readings don't show anything significant.

In my experience, some microwave-links on masts (the drum-shaped things that connect mast positions in a daisy-chain) can produce a loud hissing sound. Usually those microwave-links are quite directional but they are not perfect MASER's, so their beams do have some spread with distance - sometimes up to 30 degrees. So depending on your altitude relative to the mast, you might be picking up microwave-link signal.

Moog
Member
# Posted: 13 Jun 2017 19:16 - Edited by: Moog
Reply 


Hi Wokinglad and Henrik - we have a bed canopy in which the acoustimeter makes a very quiet hiss - but the white noise I'm talking about in other parts of the house is much louder than this - and maybe has some lower tones mixed in. (Very difficult to describe) I'm wondering whether our Y-shield screening paint is not so effective against the police airwaves / Tetra mast that's 200m away?
We have only been in our new house for 6 months... and this is where I've been experiencing more strange headaches than anywhere else. We have no wifi or cordless phones - but mobile masts are much closer than our previous house. In my old terraced house there was quite high readings from the neighbour's wifi and cordless phones - but no masts within 500m and I don't remember experiencing the same sort of headaches.

I guess my main quandary however - is whether shielding our new house to low green levels on the acoustimeter has created an environment that's safe enough to live in? (It may be that the headaches are either psychological or caused by something else?) We would still have the option to move back to our previous house - where I don't recall feeling the same pressure in my head - and sell the new one. (we have been renovating the old one to sell - so it's still in our possession for the time being)

For comparison:

The old terraced house has wifi/cordless phone readings which peak in the 0.5V/m range on the acoustimeter... but when I use my gigahertz solutions meter (which picks up frequencies associated more with mobile phone towers) It reads around 0.06uW/m2. (presumably because it's so far away from masts)

The new house mostly has readings between 0.1-0.5uW/m2 on the Gigahertz (or 0.02V/m on the acoustimeter) after screening - so scoring higher on the phone mast radiation but vastly less on wifi and cordless phones etc. These are indoor readings - obviously much worse in the garden where there is no shielding - but I spend much less time in my garden than in the house due to working long hours and our English climate.

I accept that whatever house we buy near the city is going to have EMR issues as the proliferation of microwave sources continues to increase... I suppose I'm just trying to establish whether one source is any worse than another - and where we would be best placed to live. I suppose we could move back to the old house and screen against the neighbour's wifi and be in a safer environment? We didn't know much about all of this before our house move - hence finding ourselves in this situation now.

I think this is a fantastic forum by the way - I'm slowly educating myself through reading about other's experiences - and really appreciate the responses I've had.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 14 Jun 2017 15:04
Reply 


Moog,

Yes, the Acoustimeter speaker-mode will produce a slight hiss when there is no/low background radiation. From the user manual, page 15:
"It still makes a noise when inside a headnet or behind my screening:
The audio section of the Acoustimeter is sensitive so even low signals can seem quite loud. Check the figures that the Acoustimeter is displaying. A 99.9% reduction of 100000 W/m2 to 10W/m2 (a 2 V/m signal reduced to 0.05V/m) will still be showing and sounding on the meter. Close to transmitting sources it is likely that you will still hear something."


YShield paint has - according to their testing report - a flat attenuation across the RF frequency spectrum (ie. it attenuates equally across all RF frequencies). You can see the image here below (from YShield website). So it shouldn't do worse on Tetra frequencies.
YShield attennuation

Regarding the symptoms worsening after shielding: there is evidence that significantly lowering your RF exposure can kickstart the immune system. The scientific paper "Electrosmog and autoimmune disease" by Prof. Trevor Marshall og colleague shows that 90% of cases who wore a RF-shielding sleeping cap, reported definite changes in their autoimmune symptoms - both ways, in that some actually felt worse for a period, probably because of shielding cap minimizing the immuno-suppressive effects of the RF.

Quote from the paper:
"When the Electrosmog in a patient's environment is reduced, the immune system tends to become more active.
This may result in immunopathology. Indeed, some patients have reported a surge in disease symptoms, occasionally an intolerable surge, after WiFi routers and cell phones have been switched off in their homes."


Which Gigahertz-Solutions meter do you have?
The directional "green" antenna on the Gigahertz meter will pick up frequencies from 800MHz (and you have to point at the source to get a proper reading). The Acoustimeter isn't particularly directional and goes from 200MHz upwards. Tetra is usually around 400MHz.

Moog
Member
# Posted: 14 Jun 2017 16:40
Reply 


Hi Henrik
We have the Gigahertz HF38B. I bought the acoustimeter afterwards when I realised it didn't cover the whole spectrum of relevant RF. The GS meter has been really useful for the directional waves from mobile masts though... and in helping us find any weak spots in the shielding.

Like I say - the hissing inside the bed canopy is much (maybe ten times) quieter than the white noise sound I was picking up downstairs. It may be that we just need to do a bit of extra screening. Perhaps some waves are getting in through a vulnerable spot and reflecting around the space. It's good to know that the YShield is effective against Tetra.

In your opinion would you say it is safer to live in a shielded detached house positioned close (150-200m) to mobile masts, (reading between 0.1-0.5uW/m2 overall after shielding), than in an unscreened terraced house over 500m away from mobile masts which reads 0.06uW/m2 on the mast spectrum, but much higher on the neighbour's wifi / cordless phones spectrum? It's such a dilemma for my partner and I. We want to make a decision based on the science of the situation rather than headaches which may or may not be connected.

Best
JA

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 PHP forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2022