# Measuring 5G EMF and using ICNIRP Guidelines

#### Mick West

Staff member
There's a lot of concern about the possible health effects of the new 5G technology. Some of this concern is driven by videos of people with "EMF" meters who show what they claim to be harmful amounts of radiation coming from the 5G cells.

But are those reading accurate? What do they mean? What are they actually measuring? It's easy to simply dismiss concerns like this - after all why would they roll out 5G if it were so obviously harmful? But I've been dismissing it without a deep understanding for a while, so I'm going to do a bit more of a deep dive into the issue of measuring 5G radiation.

First of all, let's get a bit of a baseline with some 5G measurements from experts in the field. Dr Richard Findley, an electromagnetic field exposure specialist was asked by the BBC to measure 5G on a rooftop next to a cell.

What's actually being measured here? The meter he's using is a Narda NBM 550 (cost: \$6,500). The first reading he takes is from holding the probe right up near the middle of the transmitting antenna, and taking the peak (highest) reading:

237.0 W/m2 is the peak, seemingly also expressed as a percentage: 551.6%, which is what they talk about as a percentage of "the guidelines. But 237 would be 551.6% of 42.966, which seems like an odd number for a guideline. What guideline exactly is this?

On the meter, it says "Freq 1.800000 GHz", and "STD: ICNIRPP 1998 occ." This probably refers to the document "
ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (UP TO 300 GHZ)" published in 1998
In that publication there are reference levels for occupational exposure (occ) and general public exposure:

The strength here is given in Volts/m (for electrical) and A/m for magnetic. and they in turn are given as a function of the frequency. So presumably for 400-2,000 MHz the reference power in W/m2 is 3*sqrt(f)*0.008*sqrt(f), or just 0.024f. (since 3*0.008 = 0.024, and sqrt(f)*sqrt(f) = f).

With f = 1800 Mhz, that's 0.024*1800, or 43.2, which is certainly in the ballpark of 42.966. So around 43 W/m2 seems like a good number to keep in mind for occupational exposure limits.

Then from table 7, we get 1.375*0.0037*1800 = 9.15 W/m2 for public limits, at 1.8Ghz.

But why it the meter set to 1.8 Ghz? 1.8Ghz is a common frequency in the UK, but seems to be for 4G-LTE rather than 5G.

Moving on, they take another reading from 3 meters away.

Down to 6.237, or about 14.5% of the 43 W/m3 occupational limit (from 1998).

Next, we have different measurements and different limits. In this video by Vtudio, a small handheld meter (Tenmars TM-190, cost: \$178) measures total EMF on the street below a 5G cell.

The value oscillates quite a bit, but peaks at well over 100mW/m2. But that's just 0.1 W/m2, and the limit in the previous video was 43 for occupational and 9 for public. So have the WHO put in stricter guidelines since then? Luckily Vtudio gives a reference for their figures:

Hey, it's essentially the same as the 1998 limits! So where are they get 0.1W/m2? Scroll down a little:

That's not the "maximum public exposure limit" it's the typical maximum public exposure - i.e. the upper end of typical exposure. 0.1 is not a "danger" limit, that limit is given in the same source as 9 (for the public) or 45 as an occupational limit.

So all the values measured in the Vtudio video seem well within the WHO limits.

What about other video? Here's a guy standing close to a huge microwave tower with an Acoustimeter AM-10 (Cost: \$370), which is marketed to the EMF-phobic.

He claims the µW/m2 should be close to 1 (0.000001W/m2), but gets a reading of 2994 µW/m2, or about 3mW, or 0.03W/M2, well below even the "typical peak" value of 0.1, let alone the safety limit of 9. So really it seems like he's got no idea what his meter is showing, or what the limits are.

Similarly, this lady uses an "electrosmog" Cornet ED78S (or maybe ED-88, under \$200 either way) meter.

Max value there 15 mW/m2 (0.015W/m2) again well under any limits.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Regarding the limits being from 1998 recently the ICNIRP updated them and declared 5G safe.

The International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the Germany-based scientific body that assesses the health risks of radio broadcasts, called for new guidelines for millimetre-wave 5G, the most high-frequency version of the telecommunications standard.

But in practice, that form of 5G, which is in use in the US and will be coming to Europe, still has output levels significantly below the new maximum.

Dr Eric van Rongen, the ICNIRP chair, said: “We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease.

...

Higher frequencies interact with organic tissue differently, dissipating more energy at the surface and penetrating less, which means the new standards take measurements across a smaller cross section, and specifically pay attention to the power absorbed by, rather than simply exposed to, a body.
Content from External Source
The new guidelines:

The full document is a great reference for understanding exposure, but the basic figures in the table above are exactly the same as in 1998.

#### Attachments

• ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf
746 KB · Views: 533

#### Mendel

##### Senior Member.
What they really should be measuring is the phone and not the tower -- the inverse square law makes the transmitter you have near more powerful than the one far away. Or is that not true with 5G?

#### Mick West

Staff member
What they really should be measuring is the phone and not the tower -- the inverse square law makes the transmitter you have near more powerful than the one far away. Or is that not true with 5G?
The inverse square law is true for all radiation. But towers (cells) are powerful continuous transmitters attached to structures, whereas phones are low-power intermittent transmitters that are optional. Both things are of concern to the EMF worriers, but I think with 5G the cells are especially worrying because there more of them, and they are closer to people.

Of course, in terms of radiating power, 5G tends to be less powerful than 2G/3G/4G at the source. The guy with Acoustimenter was near a multi-use tower, and the low levels he was measuring were probably mostly NOT from 5G.

#### Mick West

Staff member

The strength here is given in Volts/m (for electrical) and A/m for magnetic. and they in turn are given as a function of the frequency. So presumably for 400-2,000 MHz the reference power in W/m2 is 3*sqrt(f)*0.008*sqrt(f), or just 0.024f. (since 3*0.008 = 0.024, and sqrt(f)*sqrt(f) = f).

With f = 1800 Mhz, that's 0.024*1800, or 43.2, which is certainly in the ballpark of 42.966. So around 43 W/m2 seems like a good number to keep in mind for occupational exposure limits.
For the 400-2,000 MHz range they actually give a simple formula for power density of f/200 or f40. So for 1800 MHz (1.8 Ghz) it's 9 (public) or 45 (occupational).

These are just rough ranges, not hard limits. As the WHO says, they are somewhat analogous to expiration dates on food.

Are exposures above the guidelines harmful?

It is perfectly safe to eat a pot of strawberry jam up to the expiration date – but if you consume the jam any later the manufacturer cannot guarantee good food quality. Nevertheless, even a few weeks or months after the expiration date, it will usually be safe to eat the jam. Similarly, electromagnetic field guidelines ensure that, within the given exposure limit, no known adverse health effects will occur. A large safety factor is applied to the level known to cause a health consequence. Therefore, even if you experienced field strengths several times higher than the given limit value, your exposure would still be within this safety margin.
Content from External Source

#### Mick West

Staff member
I was interested to see an EMF meter used bt Travis Tayor on the History Channel's new Skinwaker Ranch show. Instead of 5G, he was using it on a dead cow. But the misconceptions about what the reading mean are probably related.

The meter, a Trifield TF2 (cost: \$240) is set to RF, and seems to show 0.365 mW/m2. He later gets excited when it goes to 18 mW/m2

They then use an "RF Spectrum Analyzer"on the dead cow.

Later they are on a "Mesa", and the RF meter comes out again:

The reading there looks like 5.9 mW/m2, but he says it's getting close to "dangerous levels". Later he says it's "pegging out" and incredulously states "it's in the MILLIWATTS per meter square range!!!"

The meter appears to only use that range. It's marketed at EMF-phobic people, and their sales video says:

Bringing this back to 5G, a video shows the TF2 being used in South Lake Tahoe, with much higher readings. The person attribute this to 5G cells installed in the Hotel across the road.

Remember, the public limit is 9 W/m2, which is 9,000 mW/m2, compared to just 16 here.

Last edited:

#### LardyL

##### Member
Is there anywhere on the forum to discuss whether or not the ICNIRP limits (and hence those of the EU, etc) are credible and still justified given more modern research on RFR exposure?
I'm usually sceptical of the anti-5G crowd but I've been reading some literature that details how RF radiation can cause non-thermal damage to cells and cellular processes which seems to go against the evidence that ICNIRP have used to determine risk in emf/RFR exposure.
Here is a link for consideration of the review article that piqued interest (not sure if this is allowed as it overcomes a paywall for the original article?)
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi...n70UG1zAitEVy8v2ZfDde9dFpZ76YEF0jPAVI7t9dIULQ

#### Rory

##### Senior Member.
I was forwarded an "article" from Scientific American titled "We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe" (it's actually a blog post, situated in the "Opinion" section) written by Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, addressing some of the concerns around 5G and radiation:
Since the FCC adopted the [radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits in 1998] based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe
Content from External Source
It seems fairly well presented and, if true, definitely something to look into. But...

I randomly clicked on one of the five hundred studies - fortuitously one that seemed reputable and thorough - and was surprised to read its conclusion that:
"there is no causal relationship between short-term exposure to EMFs and subjective well-being in members of the public, consistent with a growing body of literature."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25644455
Content from External Source
In a nutshell: they took the largest sample size to date; used people who reported themselves as extra-sensitive (idiopathic environmental intolerance to electromagnetic frequencies), and found that when they knew they were being exposed to emf they reported lower levels of wellbeing, and when neither they nor the researchers knew they were being exposed (double blind), they didn't - just as other reputable studies had found.

Seems like a bit of a blow to the blog writer and his group, both in terms of credibility and hypothesis.

Last edited:

#### CiscoDude

##### New Member
First off let me attest I'm not on the side of the fence that claims 5G is a health risk.
What I do find interesting tho is in the video they are not testing 5G radiation, in fact they are testing GSM aka DCS-1800. You can tell by the antenna's on that cell tower and another dead give away is the frequency the narda safety meter is set to "1.8 GHz".

If a human where to "strap themselves to that transmitter" like they say in the video they would be damn close to getting microwaved to death, a microwave operates at 2.4 GHz at 1000watts, that transmitter is 1.8 GHz at 500watts. That is why workers shut off the transmitters and wear a protective faraday suite while working in front of them. Now of course your microwave has precise antennas that work like a laser beam to direct radiation into the center while the cell towers radiate outward to cover more area so the drop off of radiation shown in this video is accurate no doubt about it.

But back to the original issue here, "Testing the Safety of 5G" 5G frequencies are 28GHz to 100GHz, phone companies own licenses for 5G with the FTC ranging from 25GHz - 39 GHz. These frequencies where not tested, nor did I see a 5G transmitter on that tower. The only correct thing I seen in this video was on the narda safety meter they had the correct probe which is the ICNIRP – 300 kHz - 50 GHz.

They also talk about 5G being non-ionizing, well neither is 2.4GHz the same frequency your microwaves uses but it still interacts with water molecules to heat something, it's obvious the "ionizing or non-ionizing" argument is totally irrelevant to the defense of 5G.

28 GHz to 39 GHz can and will penetrate deeper than your skin, it is not until 70+ GHz the energy is enough to interact with the layers of your skin and die off before fully penetrating.

Very interesting if you ask me, I'd love to hear from some experts or people who have experience in the field.

#### Mick West

Staff member
They also talk about 5G being non-ionizing, well neither is 2.4GHz the same frequency your microwaves uses but it still interacts with water molecules to heat something, it's obvious the "ionizing or non-ionizing" argument is totally irrelevant to the defense of 5G.
No, it's absolutely key. The central conflict in the EMF danger field is if non-ionizing radiation at low levels causes harm.

Non-ionizing radiation heats up water. Everyone agrees very high levels (like being inside a microwave oven, or inches from a big microwave tower) will damage tissue. At low levels (like standing close to a microwave) the amount of heating is negligible, lost in the general heat gradients of your body. But anti-EMF folk claim there are still negative health consequences of this type of radiation at low levels.

#### SolarVirus

##### New Member
A few remarks:

1)

What is "dangerous" ... is determined by the institution in charge
what we have learned from GSM & CDMA is that
many institutions will have many opinions about what is dangerous.

Since im in Europe .. i have followed that whole story about how each country
had different ideas about what the max-levels should be ..later they united.
In the end they made a deal to settle for something that all involved agreed with.
That was mostly about the mobiles (handsets).

One way of defining danger with mobile phones (handset) is its Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

For GSM-mobiles ... the max allowable SAR-level was changed at least one time ... probably because of "changing insights"
Only the fact that such "changing insight" is possible is at least ""remarkable"
ie: what was dangerous before suddenly isn't ?

So the SAR level went up later ... obviously more power (mobiles) was needed to get good coverage.
in order to allow that ... the SAR-standard needed to be upped also ... such change does not 'improve" trust.

That SAR does not include possible other longterm effects that are almost impossible to measure.
ie: DNA-modification, Psychological-effects ...etc (just naming effects that others suspect to exist)

2)

Its all about "Dose" ...... ExposureTime X Level = DOSE

let me explain dose:
Put 1000 spoons of 1 gram suger in a bowl ... you now have 1000 grams.
Put 1 x shovel of 1000 gram suger in a bowl .. you now also have 1000 grams.

ie: Being exposed to a low level ... for a looooong time might cause effects also.

3)

GSM/CDMA Base-stations ... usually have:

a) Multiple antennas ... so you have more signals then just one.
b) Each antenna may contain several "'carriers" or timeslots so you have more signals again.
c) Most base-systems transmit 24/7 all year long (signalling when no speech) (compare that to mobiles).
e) Power of a mobile is lets say 100 milliwatt (average) , base stations lets say 25 watt (average)
f) Basestations use gain antennas (8-10dB) (amplify that 25 watt a few times in a certain direction)
g) From another direction (other cell/provider) there might be a same configuration as above.

to get the dose (stress) you are exposed to ... you can add 5G to the mix.

4)

The modulation is important also (AM/FM/TETRA/GSM/OFDM/QPSK)
the more a signal pulses the more harmful it could be.
the risetime (sharpness) of such pulse plays a role also.
the envelop (waveform/energy) also.
the pulse-frequency might play a role also specially if it is close to human body frequencies (Tetra)

All meters (pics above) shown here most certainly dont take all above into account.
RF-detectors are my specialty ... i have made and designed a few.
Shown detectors will show the mix of all signals within the range they can receive ... since they most certainly dont
use bandfilters for each separate signal (\$\$\$) ... and the narda seems to have a large bandwidth too
Most of them are simple diode-detectors with a meter (Narda is similar to a \$\$\$ spectrumanalyzer)
Average total component cost for a diode-detector is around 25 \$ max
Probably most can be considered as doing "'relative" measurements (not absolute and not calibrated)
They are only usefull to findout if there is a signal and if you are getting closer to the signal-source.
(No opinion on the Narda which is clearly more advanced).

This means that even if one base-station is in accordance with the max allowable radiation-levels (not dangerous)
you could still be exposed to the sum of many signals (@different freqs) ... specially when theres a mast on your building
or one that you can see when looking out the window (on the other side of the street beaming at you)

I bet phonecompanies never do measurements on the total received RF (all freqs) in one certain location
(like the inside of your house) they may just check their own signals (for coverage compliancy) and thats it.

3)

1800 mhz showing on the Narda device on (pic on top)

Yes that doesn't look like a real 5G frequency.
1800 mhz points to the 4G LTE band
and even that seems not to be a real channel in the 4G band
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_frequency_bands

So 1800 mhz probably means "'centerfrequency" ... and a certain bandwidth would be set also
ie: 1800 mhz center and a bandwidth of 400 mhz would show signals from 1600 to 2000 mhz
much like a spectrumanalyzer would do it.

The demonstrated effect (quick level fall-off vs distance) seems correct though.

If i think 5G is dangerous ?.. i cant tell ... if we need it ? ... they will tell us.
but i know that a few people recently burned down some 20 mast (The Netherlands)
and these were not even for 5G ... immidiatly after that (last week) Vodafone decides to start rolling out
their new 5G network overhere !... in the middle of the corona-crisis while masts get burned !
i think that was totally un-needed ... why not wait a few months just to avoid more unrest.

Last edited:

#### Mendel

##### Senior Member.
let me explain dose:
Put 1000 spoons of 1 gram suger in a bowl ... you now have 1000 grams.
Put 1 x shovel of 1000 gram suger in a bowl .. you now also have 1000 grams.

ie: Being exposed to a low level ... for a looooong time might cause effects also.
This is true for stuff that accumulates, but non-ionizing EMF doesn't seem to do that.
Drink 50°C tea twenty times, nothing happens, drink 95°C tea once and scald your mouth. Sometimes it doesn't accumulate. And non-ionizing EMF damage that we are certain about is like heat!

For GSM-mobiles ... the max allowable SAR-level was changed at least one time ... probably because of "changing insights"
Only the fact that such "changing insight" is possible is at least ""remarkable"
ie: what was dangerous before suddenly isn't ?
Your argument makes it seem as if there is certainty about what is dangerous and what isn't. But that's not the case: we have high exposures we know are dangerous, and we have low exposures we think are safe, and we have medium exposures that we're uncertain about, as you said, with regard to long-term effects. As long as we are uncertain, we have to consider uncertain=dangerous even if it might not be.

Now it makes sense that with regard to long-term effects, the more time passes, the more we learn about these effects. E.g. studies done on cellphone users: do they have more brain cancers now than before we had cellphones? So as our knowledge grows, our uncertainty shrinks, and we can say "we are no longer uncertain about this, it is safe". That's just a normal learning process.

why not wait a few months just to avoid more unrest.
Who pays for the economic damage incurred by the delay? The terrorists probably won't.

#### Mechanik

##### Active Member
This means that even if one base-station is in accordance with the max allowable radiation-levels (not dangerous)
you could still be exposed to the sum of many signals (@different freqs) ... specially when theres a mast on your building
or one that you can see when looking out the window (on the other side of the street beaming at you)

I don't completely discount what I think you're saying here, but the cumulative effects of RF are refuted by the evidence.
At present, there is no scientific basis for the occurrence of acute, chronic and/or cumulative adverse health risks from RF field exposure at levels below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6. The hypotheses of other proposed adverse health effects occurring at levels below the exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6 suffer from a lack of evidence of causality, biological plausibility and reproducibility and do not provide a credible foundation for making science-based recommendations for limiting human exposures to low-intensity RF fields.
Content from External Source
This is from Health Canada and seems to be very much based on fact.

The core issue is that RF signals, in the ranges we're exposed to daily, are far too low to cause harm. The essential effect of non-ionizing radiation is heating of tissue. Microwave ovens are a classic example, but you have to be inside one to experience any personal effects. RF, in the ranges under discussion, can only cause heating, which doesn't necessarily result in damage. In the document referenced above, the 1 degree C exposure limit is far below what might be experienced by someone exercising vigorously. The governmental guidelines above appear to limit exposure to about 10% of the radiation levels required to cause harmful tissue heating and I have not seen evidence proving that anyone has measured RF levels above the limit in a non-industrial environment.

##### Member
As a new member, I have to make a few posts before they even consider taking off the training wheels. So here goes.

SolarVirus presents a lot of stuff, and it should be unpacked to see what's inside.

What is "dangerous" ... is determined by the institution in charge
what we have learned from GSM & CDMA is that
many institutions will have many opinions about what is dangerous.

This has generally always been true, I think. Anecdotally, doctors 70 years ago recommended cigarette brands, and 120 years ago the thought of ingesting radium salts mixed into water was the way to good health and vivacity. The list of what we now consider crazy goes on as far back as there are records. We're still not omniscient, and never will be. The hard thing about danger is that everyone has different perceptions of what it is, poor understanding of probability, and for many things there's little or no hard evidence one way or another. And for the US, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) was established only in 1906, over 120 years after the country was founded.

Since im in Europe .. i have followed that whole story about how each country
had different ideas about what the max-levels should be ..later they united.
In the end they made a deal to settle for something that all involved agreed with.
That was mostly about the mobiles (handsets).
One way of defining danger with mobile phones (handset) is its Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)

The EU's hard won efforts to harmonize rules between countries was an amazing and often frustrating thing to watch. I can't imagine what it was to be part of it. I'm sure there's still a lot of work to do. The US sometimes learns from our friends across the pond.

Specific Absorption Rate is one of those efforts to quantify to some extent the most obvious effects of RF radiation: deposition of heat energy into (in this case) body tissue. If you look at the equation, there's really not much more in there than that. It's watts per kilogram through a process called dielectric heating. You can read all about it here. Back in WWII, early radar testing was one of the first times humans had put a lot of RF power into a narrow beam. The story goes as recalled here. Who knows if that was the first time that there was anecdotal evidence of dielectric heating, but the story is more than mildly interesting.

For GSM-mobiles ... the max allowable SAR-level was changed at least one time ... probably because of "changing insights"
Only the fact that such "changing insight" is possible is at least ""remarkable"
ie: what was dangerous before suddenly isn't ?
So the SAR level went up later ... obviously more power (mobiles) was needed to get good coverage.
in order to allow that ... the SAR-standard needed to be upped also ... such change does not 'improve" trust.

And there used to be perception (maybe even laws written to protect the populace) that the new-fangled steam locomotive and passenger trains were dangerous to human health, not for the obvious things like getting run over or smoke inhalation, but because women's uteruses would fly out, or at a minimum, human bodies would melt. Fortunately or no, our bodies weathered the perception of 20 mph (35 kmph) being terribly destructive. Rules get set, and rules change. I think the same was true with the automobile, perceptions being that cows might stop giving milk and chickens no longer laying eggs, but I have no link for that. The point is that we as humans get crazy ideas, some good (trains, cars, and efficacious medicine) and some bad (uteruses flying, drinking radium salts, imbibing bleach). We die and we learn, those left.

That SAR does not include possible other longterm effects that are almost impossible to measure.
ie: DNA-modification, Psychological-effects ...etc (just naming effects that others suspect to exist)

Yep. I'll stress the "almost impossible to measure" part. I went through that opus of refereed journal articles, and only looked at a half-dozen randomly selected ones that claimed "effects can be either positive or negative", and like others on this thread, saw nothing that was a conclusive demonstration. However, I could have picked the wrong half-dozen articles, or maybe only because I selected ones that had authors with funny names. Dunno.
.
Its all about "Dose" ...... ExposureTime X Level = DOSE
let me explain dose:
Put 1000 spoons of 1 gram suger in a bowl ... you now have 1000 grams.
Put 1 x shovel of 1000 gram suger in a bowl .. you now also have 1000 grams.
ie: Being exposed to a low level ... for a looooong time might cause effects also.

Yep. Dose is critical here. Did you know that if you dose a human with 100% O2 (pure oxygen) they can suffer convulsions, cell death, lung damage, nausea, and more? So, unless you really know what you're doing, friends don't let friends do pure oxygen %^) Biological critters need all sorts of things that can be toxic if there's too much in their environment, and subsequently, in them. The element selenium is a cool example of that. And of course, dihydrogen monoxide (water) is another thing that can kill!

a) Multiple antennas ... so you have more signals then just one.
b) Each antenna may contain several "'carriers" or timeslots so you have more signals again.
c) Most base-systems transmit 24/7 all year long (signalling when no speech) (compare that to mobiles).
e) Power of a mobile is lets say 100 milliwatt (average) , base stations lets say 25 watt (average)
f) Basestations use gain antennas (8-10dB) (amplify that 25 watt a few times in a certain direction)
g) From another direction (other cell/provider) there might be a same configuration as above.
to get the dose (stress) you are exposed to ... you can add 5G to the mix.

And so what? Do the math. Make an arguable point.

["5G" has entered the chat room.]
Does everyone know what 5G is? It's primarily a marketing term, conjured from the long line of 2G, 3G, 4G, 4G/LTE. And it doesn't stop there. In academic and industry technical meetings and seminars, there's a firm body of 6G, and (dare I let it be known) 7G technologies. Didja ever notice that there's no "1G"? It might exist, but only as a retronym, and even 2G is arguably one of those.

5G is just LTE - there may be some new ideas in modulation, call density, whatever, but what it really brings to the world is the idea that cellular networks need to be composed of very small physical coverage zones, and that handoff for roaming devices (i.e., you and me) is a big deal and needs to be improved even more. I'm old, and I remember later generations of the "mobile telephone service", which were VHF radio networks where there was a big tower and radio base station interconnected to the POTS (plain old telephone network) usually via a human operator (remember Lily Tomlin's character Ernestine in the 60's TV show Laugh-In), and a fancy VHF transceiver in your work truck or luxury auto. The well-heeled user would pick up what looked like a phone handset, that would trigger the mobile transceiver to connect to the remote mountaintop/buildingtop base station, and out of the earpiece would come the operator's voice. You'd give them the phone number you wanted, and they'd place the call and connect you through. It was a dollar a minute back in the 60's.

Sorry, I got distracted by those fond memories.

The modulation is important also (AM/FM/TETRA/GSM/OFDM/QPSK)
the more a signal pulses the more harmful it could be.
the risetime (sharpness) of such pulse plays a role also.
the envelop (waveform/energy) also.
the pulse-frequency might play a role also specially if it is close to human body frequencies (Tetra)

How is the modulation important? Please describe.
How do more or less signal pulses have a biological impact? Evidence?
Risetime? Sharpness? I'll gladly admit that some signals look especially pointy and edgy on an oscilloscope, and pointy things can cut skin. Listen, I am as skeptical of everything as anyone, but evidence is really important.
I don't know anything about "human body frequencies", but I'm always willing to know more.

An aside: There's been a fair amount of research by private companies, researchers, and (of course) militaries on how to use microwave radiation to disperse crowds, stop aggressors, and scare the bejeezus out of the enemy. Some of it involves what you mentioned before: low pulse rates (in the Hz range), very high power, extremely focused, interesting rise times and waveforms, and some variation on radio wavelengths. I think one of the more interesting ones involved all of that, and with a beam directed at an enemy force, essentially generate very low frequency audio sounds felt by the head and body, bringing on waves of fear and nausea. Also, the ability to put voices in people's heads. But, as far as I know, no death rays yet.

All meters (pics above) shown here most certainly dont take all above into account.
RF-detectors are my specialty ... i have made and designed a few.
Shown detectors will show the mix of all signals within the range they can receive ... since they most certainly dont
use bandfilters for each separate signal (\$\$\$) ... and the narda seems to have a large bandwidth too
Most of them are simple diode-detectors with a meter (Narda is similar to a \$\$\$ spectrumanalyzer)
Average total component cost for a diode-detector is around 25 \$ max
Probably most can be considered as doing "'relative" measurements (not absolute and not calibrated)
They are only usefull to findout if there is a signal and if you are getting closer to the signal-source.
(No opinion on the Narda which is clearly more advanced).

This means that even if one base-station is in accordance with the max allowable radiation-levels (not dangerous)
you could still be exposed to the sum of many signals (@different freqs) ... specially when theres a mast on your building
or one that you can see when looking out the window (on the other side of the street beaming at you)

I bet phonecompanies never do measurements on the total received RF (all freqs) in one certain location
(like the inside of your house) they may just check their own signals (for coverage compliancy) and thats it.

I'm not going to spend time on "measurements", though I could. Most don't know what they're measuring, what radio frequency ranges they're measuring, and what demonstrable outcome there is for the supposed victim. It's like "ghost" detectors. Makes for weird TV, though.

1800 mhz showing on the Narda device on (pic on top)

Yes that doesn't look like a real 5G frequency.
1800 mhz points to the 4G LTE band
and even that seems not to be a real channel in the 4G band
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_frequency_bands

So 1800 mhz probably means "'centerfrequency" ... and a certain bandwidth would be set also
ie: 1800 mhz center and a bandwidth of 400 mhz would show signals from 1600 to 2000 mhz
much like a spectrumanalyzer would do it.

The demonstrated effect (quick level fall-off vs distance) seems correct though.

If i think 5G is dangerous ?.. i cant tell ... if we need it ? ... they will tell us.
but i know that a few people recently burned down some 20 mast (The Netherlands)
and these were not even for 5G ... immidiatly after that (last week) Vodafone decides to start rolling out
their new 5G network overhere !... in the middle of the corona-crisis while masts get burned !
i think that was totally un-needed ... why not wait a few months just to avoid more unrest.

Wow, that was an interesting read. I fail to see anything but fearmongering by innuendo. Lots of MHz numbers. Some stuff from Wikipedia, but I did that as well.

Cheers - Jon

#### marius.melinskas

##### New Member
wow, a comprehensive research I must, but what we fail to grasp in our discussions about the affects (not dangers) of 5G is the long term exposures. The labs around the world might be credible, might be not, but what they have not measured is the long term affects, which would be extremely high cost exercise. standing at the mast or near it for 5 minutes and measuring the readings is not enough. we would need to focus on the medical data as well, that should be correlated with the area where the 5G network masts were established (for testing purposes), without declaring it to the public and then start analysing the differences (if any) occurring "before 5G" and "after 5G". This would be a mammoth task for one researcher, but if we combined our efforts, created the structure of the research and distributed it to the concerned and non-concerned volunteers (for the sake of minimising the bias), then we would be able to discuss this topic better. I would raise my hand for doing the leg work as much as time would allow me...

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
7K
Replies
23
Views
11K
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Measuring the radius of Earth using Long Range Observations (LROs) Flat Earth 0
Measuring Smart Meter RF Emissions 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 1
Flat Earth debunked by measuring angles to the sun Flat Earth 38
Measuring Horizon Drop And Earth's Equatorial Bulge From Rocket Launches Flat Earth 2
Method of measuring the distance to horizon Flat Earth 1
A DIY Theodolite for Measuring the Dip of the Horizon Flat Earth 148
Measuring the distance to the moon with laser reflections and the speed of light Flat Earth 5
Measuring the Curvature of the Horizon with a Level Flat Earth 121
Proposed experiment measuring Doppler shift of the sun on a flat earth model Flat Earth 9
WTC Collapse Simulation using Unity/Besiege 9/11 135
Anti-vaxxers are using the same tactics as cults do Practical Debunking 0
Gimbal distance and Speed Range Estimates using Lines of Bearing and/or DCS UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 340
Triangle UFO Laredo, Texas - Recreated using a Drone UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 1
Claim: Martin Gugino Was Using a "Police Tracker." Conspiracy Theories 44
Google Maps Measure Distance Using Great Circle Flat Earth 0
Using railways to view curvature Flat Earth 3
Using a very long water level to measure Earth's curvature Flat Earth 16
Using pin hole lenses to debunk CGI Rebuttals of Photos of Earth Curvature Flat Earth 7
Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
FE balloon video curvature analysis using Blender Flat Earth 4
How to Show the Horizon is Below Eye Level, Using Actual Eyes Flat Earth 59
Using Mountain Ranges to Predict the Shape of the Earth Flat Earth 11
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
NASA using green screen to fake ISS experiment footage Science and Pseudoscience 14
Taurus Molecular Cloud Generator - actually an oil field firefighter Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Using comedy to reverse, or promote bunk Practical Debunking 10
Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
Video Capture using VLC ?? Site Feedback & News 8
KFC Mutant Chicken Hoax using my own Photoshop Hatchet Work General Discussion 7
Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover Flight MH17 72
Using Google Earth Identify Contrails and other Objects in the Sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Debunked: Using 13.56Mhz radio waves and HAARP to remove Methane from the Atmosphere HAARP 7
Using the term "debunking" Practical Debunking 10
Debunked: Mercedes-Benz using chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Using Campaign Finance Reform to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 25
'John Brennan Sworn in as CIA Director Using Constitution Lacking Bill of Rights' General Discussion 10
U Using drones to spray chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Debunked: "war of perception... conducted continuously using the news media" Quotes Debunked 1
Related Articles