- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / Deciding between the Cornet ED85EXS and Cornet ED88T.
Author Message
Jason12
Member
# Posted: 5 Jul 2017 22:01
Reply 


I am currently deciding between these two meters. My prime concern are a couple of cell-phone towers that are metres away from my house. I've discovered that the towers in my country of residence have frequency bands between 800 to 2300 MHz. I am trying to get a meter that can hopefully help me monitor my exposure on an active basis.

Which of the two meters would best suit my purpose? The ED88T is new and 'apparently' takes better stock of the digital bursts (still not completely sure what that means.) Meanwhile the ED85EXS is more expensive, which makes me assume that it's better and/or more sensitive. It's also singularly meant to measure RF radiation. However, I read an Amazon review that said the antenna that comes with the ED85EXS isn't particularly good for measuring cell tower emissions and that I would have to purchase a separate antenna. Again, I can't verify the claim since I am not as well-versed with the topic as some of you are. Hopefully, someone who has actually bought the product and tested it out in full can chime in.

If I understand correctly, with both these meters I don't have to make any long-drawn calculations and the RF readings will be calculated from all four cardinal directions by the device itself, rather than me having to sum them up on my own. Please correct me if I am wrong here. Also, I had a government-official come to my building and take a test of the readings. It was between 3 milliwatts/metre-square and 3.4 milliwatts/metre-square. Do these readings sound particularly worthy of conern to you? They are well below the government guidelines from what I understand.

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 6 Jul 2017 01:45
Reply 


The ED88T is a very fine instrument. The bar-graph allows very detailed measurement of time-varying signals.

The ability to use external antennas (the ED85EXS) is only worthwhile if you actually have the means to measure the antenna factor in order to fully calibrate the instrument for each antenna. It is not required, nor desirable for ordinary use.

A single-axis instrument actually gives you further options for pinpointing unknown sources than a isotropic antenna. For normal use there are no need to sum the readings - just use the largest value obtained.

The exposure value stated (3mW/m²) is actually a rather significant exposure. Mitigating actions are strongly warranted.

You can use the guidelines presented here to evaluate your exposure readings.

//Kim Horsevad

Jason12
Member
# Posted: 6 Jul 2017 19:44
Reply 


Yes, it does seem that the ED88T would be best suited for my needs. I only wish to gauge my exposure-levels for the moment and will probably invest in the Gigahertz HF35C soon. I hope the ED88T has accurate readings and is sensitive enough. I'm not really looking for to-the-dot precise readings; just something that can help me rule out the possibility of over-exposure.

My understanding was that 3 mW/m² is way below the government limit, and isn't cause for serious concern. Won't I be correct in saying that most countries have limits about ten times higher than that? I know that most people here suffer from electromagnetic sensitivity and are dissatisfied in general with current limits. I too wish to reduce my exposure levels down to 0.5-0.7 mW/m² in the near future.

horsevad
Member
# Posted: 6 Jul 2017 23:52
Reply 


The ED88T is very sensitive - and fully on par with the HF35C as far as sensitivity goes. Gigahertz instruments can, however, be officially calibrated, which is rather troublesome with the Cornets.

Yes, 3mW/m² is below most regulatory limits.

The regulatory limits are based on thermal effects. The regulatory limits affords no protection against a-thermal effects.

You can find the basis for the official regulatory limits here

If you read it closely, you will see that there are no attempt to publish limits which would actually protect against a-thermal effects.

---

0.5 mW/m² is still way to high. Aim for less than 0.1uW/m² (as proposed by the german building biologists as an empirically determined threshold for an exposure situation which should pose "no concern".



//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 chat forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2022