lauantai 16. toukokuuta 2020

7 Best EMF Meters and Detectors of 2020

  • + Scientific Study: RF Radiation Levels From Cellular Towers


 7 Best EMF Meters and Detectors of 2020

written by Christian March 10, 2020

I recommend EMF meters in many of the articles here on EMF Academy, and for what I think is a very good reason. If you’re here, reading this article, I’m going to assume you already have a baseline understanding that EMF radiation from devices like your cell-phone, laptop, tablet, etc is dangerous. With that understanding, the absolute best tool you can arm yourself with is a quality EMF meter, that is accurate, simple to use, and measures all types of EMF radiation. In this enormous guide, I’m going to share with you what I think are the absolutely the 7 best EMF meters and detectors you can purchase in 2020.
Don’t worry though, I’m not going to leave you stranded. I’ll also thoroughly discuss why each meter was chosen, what it’s capabilities are, and why it might be a good fit for you.
After we get done reviewing and talking about the EMF meter choices, we’ll go into a bit more depth about why an EMF meter can be such a valuable tool in your fight against EMF radiation.
Wanna Skip Ahead? These Links Will Jump You On Down:
Let’s jump right into the reviews!

7 Best EMF Meters and Detectors of 2020

Each of the following EMF meters was chosen based off of a variety of factors, including but not limited to:
  • Accuracy
  • Ability to measure all types of EMF radiation
  • Cost
  • User Friendliness
  • Features
Here are the best EMF meters in a helpful table:

Best EMF Meters and Detectors of 2020

This is a full list of the absolute best EMF and RF meters and detectors that you can buy in 2020. For Detections, RF stands for Radio Frequency, EF stands for Electric Field, and MF stands for Magnetic Field. Ratings are based on my own testing and experience.
You’ll notice that the meters are certainly not ranked just based on most expensive to least expensive, and that is for good reason. For example, the Trifield TF2 is my number one recommendation but is much more affordable than, for example, the Acoustimeter AM-10.
Although the Acoustimeter is a fantastic device, I believe the Trifield delivers a fantastic product at less than half the price. These rankings are therefore a cumulation of all of the factors bulleted above.
With that in mind, this list, although thoroughly researched and designed, is open to interpretation. I’d encourage you, if you disagree with my review or ranking, to let me know in the comments, or by emailing me personally at Christian@EMFAcademy.com and let me know your thoughts.
I was not gifted any of the devices I review in this article, nor have I communicated with any of the companies. My rankings and reviews are based entirely on my own use of the products, experience, research, and opinion.
With that mouthful out of the way, let’s talk about my first pick, the Trifield TF2

1. Trifield TF2

Trifield TF2

If you’ve been around EMF Academy long, you know that I love to recommend the Trifield TF2, and I think it’s for a good reason. The TF2 is Trifield’s follow up to the wildly popular 100XE model that had an analog needle display, but similar functionality. The TF2 brings some much-needed modernization to an already fantastic EMF meter.
I won’t go too in-depth about the product in this post, because I already wrote up a full review of Trifield TF2, however, I do want to give you a good understanding of why I love this EMF meter so much, and why it is the one I find myself using for just about everything.
Let’s start by talking about some of the features.

Trifield TF2 Features

  • Can measure all three major types of EMF radiation, including Magnetic, Electric, and Radio Frequency/Microwave radiation
  • *New* weighted mode is specifically designed to measure EMF radiation in the human body.
  • The “Magnetic” setting uses a 3-axis sensor. This allows you to get accurate readings regardless of which way you’re pointing the meter.
  • Brand new LCD display offers much more information than the 100XE was able to, making testing a breeze.
  • Since there is a digital display, there is also a backlight which allows you to get readings even in low-light settings.
  • The TF2 now has an audio output to help you hear the EMF radiation around you. This can be extremely helpful for locating sources of radiation in your home.

What Can You Measure With The Trifield TF2 EMF Meter?




TF2 EMF Meter Review

Ok, now let’s walk over some of the pros, and cons, of the Trifield TF2

Pros Of The Trifield TF2

  1. The Display – I personally love the display of the Trifield TF2 more than any of the other EMF meters on the market. It provides an enormous amount of information in a way that is simple to find and easy to understand.
  2. The Price – The TF2 is very competitively priced, and honestly is an absolute bargain for what you get. Trifield meters are famous for their construction quality, so expect to not have to replace this meter any time soon.
  3. User-Friendly – Whether you are an expert on EMF radiation (perhaps you’ve read all the content on EMF Academy 🙂 ), or you’re just starting out, the Trifield works well for both. Trifield meters have long been popular because they are very simple to operate, making them great for beginners, but also have the accuracy and functionality that professionals are looking for. I personally think with the added LCD display, and “peak” indicator, the TF2 is an even easier unit to operate.
  4. Audio – One of my absolute favorite additions of the Trifield TF2 is the audio output. Although if you’re trying to determine actual EMF radiation levels of certain things, you will want the field indicator, if you are just trying to move around your home and locate EMF radiation sources, the audio is fantastic. Using the audio, you don’t even need to look at the display. Also, since the TF2 is a tri-axis EMF meter, directionality doesn’t matter for the display, or for the audio output.
  5. Measures All EMFs – This was one of the main reasons I recommended the Trifield 100XE in the past because it measured magnetic, electric, and radio frequency radiation, when some other meters did not. If you care about EMF radiation in your home, you need to be able to measure all types of radiation.




Trifield TF2 Back

Cons Of The Trifield TF2

  1. Audio And Backlight Buttons – I found it a bit frustrating that both of these buttons can only be accessed by removing the battery cover. I think they were trying to maintain a slick and simple look by only having the dial on the front of the unit, however, I wish that they had made these two buttons easier to access.
  2. Weighted Mode – For a professional user, having weighted mode is handy. However for the average person using the Trifield TF2 to measure EMF radiation in their home or office, this option might be a bit confusing. (Pro-tip: just ignore the weighted mode unless you know a reason you need it.)

 

Where Can You Buy The Trifield TF2 EMF Meter?

The best place to get the Trifield TF2 is on Amazon. Feel free to take a minute and read through some of the 5 star reviews. However, remember that this new version hasn’t been around long, so there aren’t all that many reviews yet.
Technical Specifications
I don’t’ want to bore you with all of the specs, if you’re curious about them head over to my full TF2 review, I’ll just give you a few important highlights.
AC Magnetic ModeFrequency range 40Hz – 100KHz
3 – axis
AC Electric ModeFrequency Range: 40 Hz – 100 KHz
1-axis
Radio Frequency Radiation ModeFrequency Range: 20 MHz – 6 GHz
1 – axis
TF2 Battery Life9V alkaline battery included
Battery life with backlight off > 20 hrs
Battery life backlight on > 12 hrs





Here is a nice video showing the Trifield TF2 in action to give you an idea of how it works.

Final Thoughts On The Trifield TF2

I honestly wouldn’t rate the Trifield TF2 my absolute best EMF meter in 2020 if I didn’t truly believe in the product. I’ve used many EMF meters, and I always find myself going back to the Trifield. The price is extremely reasonable, and you honestly will love how accurate and simple to operate this device is. There are other great EMF meters on the market that we’ll talk about next, but this is my #1 choice.

2. Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter

Acoustimeter-AM-10-RF-Meter
The Acoustimeter is probably without a doubt the best Radio Frequency (RF) meter on the market. It is extremely accurate, simple to use, and preferred by professionals. However it does have its downsides, for example, it only reads RF radiation, and is not designed to read electric field or magnetic field radiation. We’ll talk more about the positives and negatives of the Acoustimeter in a second, I just want to say that if you are looking strictly for an RF meter, this is the one you need.
There is a reason that you will see the Acoustimeter AM-10 in the hands of so many professionals, it is extremely accurate and simple to use.
Let’s talk a little bit about why this might be a great meter for you.

Things I Love About The Acoustimeter AM-10

Sensitivity – To start with, the Acoustimeter is one of the most sensitive RF meters on the market, capable of reading even the smallest amounts, of the lowest radio frequencies and displaying them. Not only that, but it also has fantastic directional sensitivity. This will allow you to easily locate the direction that the largest RF radiation sources are coming from by simply moving your Acoustimeter in a circle and watching the display to see peak readings.
I have a great guide on how to see a map of every cell tower near your home. You’ll find that if you pull that map up, and locate the nearest cell tower, your Acoustimeter should show the highest readings when pointed towards it.
This demonstrates the Acoustimeter’s ability to help you locate dangerous sources of radio frequency radiation. You are also likely going to be able to locate things like your neighbor’s WiFI router, that is how sensitive the Acoustimeter can be.
Frequency Range – The next thing I really like about the Acoustimeter is its enormous frequency range that it is able to measure. For example, the Trifield TF2 is capable of reading up to 6Ghz (which for now is probably plenty) whereas the Acoustimeter can read all the way up to 8Ghz, giving you a wider range that you are able to measure.
Ease Of Use – Next, the Acoustimeter is really simple to use. There is a simple display at the top, as well as two rows of LED lights below. When using the meter, I personally like to plug in a pair of headphones into the audio jack (with or without the headphones) and use the audio to help me locate sources of RF radiation.
Once I hear some noise and know that there is RF radiation near, I primarily look at the lefthand row of LED’s, which shows the peak V/m readings.


Then once I see a spike in RF radiation from the lights, I’ll check the small LCD screen at the top to get accurate readings. If you take a look at the small screen to the right, you can see what will typically be displayed. Here is how you would read this screen:
  • The 5.29 in brackets is showing you the “peak hold” reading in V/m, which is the highest reading that has been recorded since you turned the Acoustimeter on.
  • The 2.45 is the current peak signal strength measured in V/m, which will correspond to that left row of lights.
  • The 140 µW/m2 is the average reading measured in microwatts per square meter and will correspond to the right row of lights.
Overall I find the Acoustimeter really easy to use, especially once you get a used to it.

Things I Don’t Like About The Acoustimeter

Cost – First of all, it is a fairly expensive device relative to its features. At more than double the price of the TF2 (at the time of this writing), you certainly want to make sure this is the device for you before purchasing. I’m not saying that it isn’t worth the price, because honestly for the right person it absolutely is. Just understand that you are paying for the accuracy and quality of the machine, not for bloated features.
Size – Next, the device is relatively bulky. I’m hoping that future models are designed a little bit slimmer and sleeker.
Limitation – It is unfortunate that the Acoustimeter only measures RF radiation, and not magnetic or electric. This is intended, as this meter is entirely focused on being a top of the line radio frequency meter, however it means that to measure all forms of EMF radiation you’ll need more than one meter.

Final Thoughts On The Acoustimeter 

Overall I think the Acoustimeter is a fantastic device and the best Radio Frequency meter on the market in my opinion. It’s simple to use, extremely accurate, and a very sturdy device that should last a very long time.
If you’re interested in purchasing the Acoustimeter, the best place to purchase it is right here on Amazon.

3. Cornet ED88T EMF Meter

Cornet ED88t

Other than the Trifield TF2, the Cornet ED88T might be one of the most popular EMF meters on the market. In terms of features and price, it’s actually quite similar to the TF2, but there are a few reasons I’ve ranked it a bit lower. All in all, it’s a quality meter by a great company that I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with.
Let’s jump right into talking about some of the things I like and don’t like about the Cornet ED88T.

Things I Like About The Cornet ED88T

Measure All EMF Radiation – First of all, just like any great EMF meter, the Cornet ED88T measures all three types of EMF radiation, including radio frequency, magnetic field, an electric field. This, in my opinion, is one of the most important features of a good EMF meter, as you’ll want to know the measurements of all three when measuring your home or office.
Frequency Readings – One of the reasons that many people purchase the Cornet ED88T is that it not only gives you a reading of the RF radiation in terms of signal strength like the Acoustimeter did, but will also show you the actual frequency that it is picking up in a range of 100 Mhz to 2.7 GHz. This is an extremely helpful
Radio Frequency Sensitivity – Other than the Acoustimeter, the Cornet ED88T is probably the next best meter for detecting Radio Frequency radiation. It has a similar range of 100MHz – 8GHz and appears to be extremely accurate. This is partly due to its extremely fast sampling rate of 10,000 samples/sec.
Sound Feature – I like that the Cornet does feature a sound output for Radio Frequency radiation readings, which I personally find extremely helpful when measuring radiation in a space like a home or an office.
Reading History – This is one of my absolute favorite features of the Cornet. While you’re using the meter, it displays the last 30 readings, so you can look back and find spikes after scanning a room or a home. This can be especially helpful for getting readings from things that have a tendency to pulsate, such as Smart Meters. Smart meters usually have extremely high spikes or radiation when transmitting information, however, this occurs very quickly and it can be hard to get an accurate reading. With the Histogram feature, this is a piece of cake and you can easily look back at the reading.
Ok, now let’s talk a little bit about some of the things I don’t really love about the Cornet ED88T.

Cons Of The Cornet ED88T

User Friendliness – I don’t personally feel like the Cornet ED88T is all that user-friendly. There are only a few buttons, which you would think would be a good thing, but it is not clear what they do, and I found that when first using the device I was stumbling around a bit. In contrast, I found the Trifield TF2 to be almost impossible to not use correctly, as you simply turn the large dial on the front to what you want to measure, and off you go.
I also felt like the user manual that comes with the Cornet ED88T was not all that helpful in showing you how to properly navigate the device.
Units of Measurement – I personally prefer to read magnetic fields in milliGauss, however, the primary reading number of the device is in Tesla (it does show the mG, however, it’s the smaller number below the larger Tesla number). This also can’t be changed, you’ll always be looking at the smaller number to find the milliGauss. All of the other units of measurement displays can be changed in the settings luckily.

Final Thoughts On The Cornet ED88T

The Cornet ED88T is a very popular meter and preferred by many professionals over meters and detectors like the Trifield TF2. It does have some unique functionality, like reading the frequency range of Radio Frequency. I personally don’t find it as user-friendly as the TF2, but it is an extremely high-quality meter with very similar functionality. I certainly don’t think you’ll go wrong if you purchase the Cornet ED88T.
If you’d like to purchase the Cornet ED88T you can pick it up on Amazon.

4. GQ EMF-390 EMF/RF Meter

This is an EMF meter that has really grown in popularity in 2020 and become one of the best selling EMF meters on Amazon.
The main reason that it has become so popular is the sheer amount of data that it is able to display while it’s taking readings. It can also store that data with it’s built-in flash memory. You can display all that data later and download it to your computer using free software.
One of the coolest parts of the GQ meter is that it can actually display all three readings at one. You can literally get magnetic field, electric field, and radio frequency readings displayed all at the same time.
One of the popular features of the meter is the “safety suggestion” which will display the danger based on current readings. This is great for people who don’t have a good idea of what a dangerous EMF reading is and are for instance checking out new homes.


You can of course also turn it to a more classic mode for each type of reading which will just display more information specific to that type of EMF.
If you absolutely love data, then this might be the EMF meter for you. It can do really cool things like track multiple RF radiation sources at the same time.
If you look at the image to the right you can see that the meter is displaying readings from a nearby microwave oven as well as the ambient RF radiation coming from a local WiFi router.
I can’t cover all the features of this meter in a single review, but I’ll just say that I’m glad I have it in my toolkit, and I think it will continue to be a really popular EMF meter for years to come.

5. Latnex HF-B3G Radio Frequency Meter

Latnex EMF Meter
The Latnex is a great radio frequency meter and is sort of a budget version of the Acoustimeter. Offering only radio frequency radiation detection, the Latnex does not offer a full range of detection but does some great quality for a reasonable price.
I’ll just interject here, that in my honest opinion, I don’t think there is much reason to purchase the Latnex over the Trifield TF2, considering the similar price, and extra features you get with the Trifield. 
Let’s take a look at some of the features I like about the Latnex HF-B3G.

Latnex EMF Meter Pros

Triple-Axis – The Latnex does have a triple axis radio frequency detector (the ball on the top of the device) which allows you to get accurate readings regardless of the orientation of the device.
Great Manual – The Latnex comes with a very detailed user manual (see that here) that really comes in handy. I find the manual to be even more thorough than the manuals that come with some of the higher quality meters.
Easy To Use – With a simple display and 7 nicely labeled buttons, the Latnex is a breeze to operate.

Latnex EMF Meter Cons

Only RF Readings – Obviously the largest downside of the Latnex is simply the fact that it only reads RF radiation. Like the Acoustimeter, this is how the device is designed, but it is certainly nice when the meter measure all types of Radiation like the Cornet or the Trifield TF2.
Quality – Latnex, although they make a variety of EMF meters including ones that measure magnetic field radiation, it has not been around as long as some of the other companies. This makes me doubt the reliability a little bit since it has not stood the test of time.

Final Thoughts

The Latnex is a great radio frequency meter with great reviews. However, I’d encourage you to look at some of the other options. If you’re wanting a high-quality RF meter, go with the Acoustimeter. If you’re wanting a reasonable price EMF meter that still has great RF functionality, go with the Cornet or the Trifield. That is just my honest opinion and suggestion.

6. TACKLife Digital EMF Meter

This has become one of the most popular inexpensive EMF meters in 2020, and for pretty good reason. The value you get is really good with this meter, it’s packed with cool features for a really low price.
Like most inexpensive EMF meters, this one is not able to read radio frequency radiation, and only reads magnetic field and electric field. However, it also takes ambient temperature readings.
It has a really nice digital display, an antenna with a light that lets you know if it’s currently reading data, and even a work light on the back that acts like a flashlight while your taking readings.
One of my favorite features other then the flashlight is the display light on the antenna, which actually acts as an alarm. It will be green if it’s detecting less then 4 mG of radiation, yellow if it’s detecting between 4-40 mG, and red if it’s reading more then 40 mG.
Don’t worry though, there is also a sound alarm that will give you the same data in higher sound frequencies, which you can also disable.
Overall, for the price, this is a fantastic value and a great introductory EMF meter for just about anyone.

7. Meterk EMF Detector

Meterk EMF Meter
Check out the Amazon listing here.
Next, I want to take a look at the Meterk, which is on this list primarily because it is, in my opinion, the best budget-friendly EMF meter on the market. I won’t go into too much detail about the Meterk here, as I have an entire review you can check out if you’re looking for more information. 
If you check the price on Amazon, you’ll see that this device falls FAR below the other meters we’ve talked about in this article. Now there is a reason for this, the Meterk does not have nearly the features or build quality of these other meters, however for the price, I think it is the best on the market.
This is also a fantastic EMF meter if you’re someone with little experience, that does not feel like spending a significant amount of money on an EMF meter right away. This allows you to get a feeling for how these devices work, the information they can provide you, how that information can benefit you, etc. Later down the road after you realize how important these devices are, you can opt for a bit higher quality, more feature-rich device like the Trifield or the Cornet.
Let’s talk about some of the reasons I think the Meterk is a good value for the money, and then we’ll talk about a few of the things you’ll find are missing from this EMF detector.

Pros of the Meterk EMF Meter

Price – Obviously the most obvious benefit if the Meterk EMF meter is it’s extremely low cost. There are a few reasons for this, with the largest being the fact that it is developed and manufactured in China, so they are able to produce it at a very low cost. This can also be a bit of con, which we’ll talk about below.
All-in-all though you won’t find an EMF meter on the market with reasonable functionality, and good reviews, that is less expensive than the Meterk.
Sleek Design – I have the Meterk meter, and I can tell you that it is even smaller and lighter than you would expect, in fact, it’s almost identical in size to an old Nokia brick phone, if you remember those like I do (playing snake!).
Easy To Use – The Meterk EMF meter is really easy to use. With a simple to understand LCD display, as well as a full range of buttons, it’s pretty simple to operate. It also has a nice bright green screen that turns red when readings get high. An audible alarm will also sound to alert you that you’ve encountered dangerous amounts of EMF radiation (don’t worry, you can turn the audio off if it gets annoying.

Cons of the Meterk Meter

No RF Reading – The biggest downfall of the Meterk is that it only reads magnetic and electric field radiation, not radio frequency radiation. However, this does mean that the Meterk could be a really good compliment to the Acoustimeter, which reads RF, but not electric or magnetic radiation.
Not Tri-Axis – Whereas many of the EMF meters on this list have tri-axis capability (meaning they will get an accurate reading regardless of orientation), the Meterk requires that the sensor (located on the right-hand side) is pointed towards the source of the radiation to obtain an accurate reading.
Quality – I cannot say that the Meterk is made of the highest quality. I have owned it for quite a while without issue, but it is not from a long-standing reputable company like Trifield, Acoustimeter, or Cornet. This also means that the accuracy is likely to be less reliable than these higher quality meters.


Final Thoughts On The Meterk EMF Meter

The Meterk EMF meter is without a doubt the best budget meter you can get in my opinion. Although it lacks the quality and features of the other meters on this list, it is a great choice for your first EMF meter.
Ok, now that we’ve made it through our list of the 7 Best EMF Meters of 2020, let’s talk a little bit about the reasons you might want to get an EMF meter in the first place, and why it is such a valuable tool.

Why Do I Need An EMF Meter?

There is a good reason I’m always suggesting people purchase an EMF meter once they understand how dangerous long-term exposure to EMF radiation is. With a quality EMF meter, not only can you gain a thorough understanding of the type of EMF radiation in your home, but also the amount.
Here on EMF Academy, I have all sorts of guides on how to lower EMF radiation risk in your house, such as my Whole House EMF Protection Guide. These guides offer tons of solutions to lower your exposure, but without an EMF meter, it is difficult to get a real understanding of how much radiation exposure you actually reduced.
You can use the meter to detect large exposures of magnetic field, electric field, or radio frequency radiation in your home, apply a solution, and test how much the solution reduced the risk.
EMF Meters are also fantastic for testing how well some EMF protection products work. For example, SafeSleeve (see my review) has a line of cases for cell-phones, tablets, and laptops.
These are great examples of products that you can test with your EMF meter. Simply start by making a call on your cellphone and measuring the radiation levels. Then, put your phone inside the case, and measure the radiation levels again to see how much radiation it will be protecting you from.
There are so many other reasons that you should consider getting a quality EMF meter that I can’t cover them all here, but suffice it to say that it will be one of the best decisions you make on your EMF protection journey.

What About Dirty Electricity Meters?

Dirty Electricity is an entirely different, although equally important, subject. Dirty electricity is essentially leftover electricity that was not able to be utilized because modern electronics alter the electricity they receive from the wiring in your home. This electricity then sits in your wiring, emitting large amounts of EMF radiation.
I don’t want to go into detail about this subject in this guide, but I’ll point you to the following articles:

Final Thoughts On The Best EMF Meters of 2020

Phew… You did it! If you made it here then you just read well over 5000 words about EMF meters, good for you! I hope if you’ve read this far you have all the information you need to make the best decision for YOU. That is an important point because although I rated the Trifield TF2 the best EMF meter of 2020, that does not necessarily mean it is the best option for you and for your needs. That is why I went into so much detail in this post so that you would be able to make your own decision.
Ultimately there are many good EMF meters on the market, and honestly, it can be a bit intimidating to select the right one, which was my driving force behind creating this guide. I wanted to cut out some of the confusion and fear from buying an EMF meter, and just help you to get one into your hands!
A quality EMF meter is without a doubt one of the most important tools you will ever own for the fight against EMF radiation. With the upcoming rollout of 5g and more and more smart electronics introduced around us, you can be certain that it will be a fight. You need to be armed with the right education, and the right tools.
From the bottom of my heart, I hope this guide was helpful to you. If for any reason it was not, please leave a comment, or email me at Christian@Emfacademy.com and let me know what I can do to improve it.

https://emfacademy.com/best-emf-meters-and-detectors/
___


I created and currently manage EMF Academy, one of the premier sources for EMF safety knowledge. I am so passionate about spreading this crucial information. If you need anything, just shoot me an email at Christian@emfacademy.com and I'll do everything I can to help.
_

___________







Scientific Study: RF Radiation Levels From Cellular Towers




This study presents data related to GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications)

cellular phone radiation resulting from antenna sites and towers inside residential areas in Germany. A statistical evaluation of over 200 representative high frequency field measurements is presented for the years 2001 and 2002.
Measurements were conducted at different distances and directions using a frequency selective spectrum analysis to obtain only GSM power densities following the Swiss guideline for GSM cellular phone radiation measurements. 

 Derived from this data, GSM cellular phone tower radiation is dominant in comparison to FM radio or TV emissions. 
The median power density was found to be in the range of 200 µW/m2 with the maximum level exceeding 100,000 µW/m2. A total of 25 percent of the power densities exceeds 1,000 µW/m2, which has been suggested to be the average threshold value for non-thermal biological effects. Two of the most important factors are the distance and the direct line of sight to the antenna site. At the typical residential cell tower distance of about 250 m in cities, with direct line of sight, the observed levels are in the range of 200 µW/m2.
The results show that, especially for future cellular UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) applications, there are several options to minimize additional HF radiation exposures for the population and reduce the potential risk for harmful exposures.

Introduction

The GSM technology of wireless communication produces constant pulsed microwave radiation. The cellular base stations are transmitting continuously even when nobody is using the phone. We know from a variety of scientific studies, that significant biological effects result from the non-thermal effects of extremely periodic – pulsed – HF-radiation as are utilized in the most common modern digital cellular and cordless phone systems in Germany and round the world. Official international and national standards and safety guidelines (based on ICNIRP recommendations) are still only taking into account the risk of thermal effects of high energy HF-radiation.
Most of the official HF public exposure measurements are conducted to observe the percentage of the current standard with only broadband – not frequency selective – measurements. Only in very few cases one or more percent of the (thermal) guideline value is reached or exceeded close to antenna sites. Exposure recommendations based on non-thermal effects are by far lower by many magnitudes. Frequency selective measurements are necessary to observe the cellular base station downlink frequencies and differentiate from other radiation sources as FM radio or TV transmitters. 
Therefore, very limited information is available on the exposure to cellular base station radiation in residential areas at different distances and directions to antenna sites.

The objective of this field study was to collect 
measurement data, statistical evaluation, documentation and exposure assessment for cellular phone tower radiation in Germany.
Measurements were conducted at different distances and directions, inside and outside of representative public and residential buildings. Frequency selective spectrum analysis was used to obtain GSM power densities following the current recommendations for GSM cellular phone radiation measurements.

Methods and Results

Power density measurements were performed with an Advantest R3131 spectrum analyzer (Rohde & Schwarz) and a calibrated periodic logarithmic log.per. antenna USLP 9143 (Schwarzbeck). The power density measurements were conducted under real-life conditions and only downlink frequencies of the GSM cellular base stations were measured. The antenna was directed in various orientations in order to receive local maximum power densities by peak hold measurements in respect to orientation, polarization, reflection, and interference. For each narrow band region of interest (GSM900, GSM1800) data collection was conducted for 3 x 1 min. scanning time. All measurements were conducted following VDB guideline (VDB 2002) and the Swiss BUWAL guideline (BUWAL 2002). The power density levels are given in µW/m2 (microwatt per square meter). 1 µW/m2 equals 0.1 nW/cm2 (nanowatt per square centimeter). The limit of detection was 0.001 – 0.002 µW/m2 (-70 dBm) per channel power density. The extended error is  ± 45 % (BUWAL 2002).

The measurements included a total of 272 locations (132 inside / 140 outside), 
power densities of all GSM downlink organization channels per location, summation to the maximum possible total power density, and documentation of the distance and the line of sight to the dominating antenna site. Distance profiles were taken for selected locations and different antenna heights and positions. In addition, data for FM radio, TV, DECT cordless phone and other significant HF sources were collected for comparison. Figure 1 shows a typical HF spectrum analysis overview of a location in close vicinity to an antenna site.
Figure 1: HF spectrum analysis – overview


Statistical Data and Percentiles


The percentiles for the observed power density values are presented in Table 1. Including all locations, the median distance was 150 meter (450 feet), which is in the range of typical residential distances to GSM base stations in larger cities. The 20th percentile value is 10 µW/m2 and can be considered as residential background GSM radiation level. The 50th percentile value is found at 200 µW/m2 (median). The 95th percentile is observed at 6,300 µW/m2 and can be considered as a significant exposure radiation level. The maximum value of 103,000 µW/m2 was found in a residential building in the 4th floor in line of sight and in the same height to the antenna site at a horizontal distance of 30 meter. In addition, data sets for line of sight, without line of sight, inside and outside locations were calculated separately. (see Table 1 and Figure 2 for further details)

Table 1: GSM cellular tower base station power density levels – percentiles


Total
With
line of sight
Without
line of sight
Outside
Inside
Number of measurements (n)
272
177
95
140
132
Distance in meter (median)
150
100
250
200
100
Power density in µW/m2
Mean
1,800
2,650
130
1,150
2,450
20th percentile
10
70
2
20
10
50th percentile (median)
200
430
20
200
170
70th percentile
640
1,700
70
580
640
90th percentile
3,400
5,200
280
3,260
3,770
95th percentile
6,300
8,500
610
6,490
5,330
99th percentile
23,000
25,000
1,340
12,350
32,000
Maximum
103,000
103,000
2,200
14,400
103,000


Figure 2: GSM cellular tower base station power density levels – percentiles



Figure 3: GSM cellular tower base station power density levels
– line of sight and distance

Distance, Line of Sight and Exposure Parameters

The power density values are displayed in Figure 2 in respect to line of sight / without line of sight and the distance to the antenna site. It is obvious, that especially in proximity to the antenna site (< 250 m), the GSM radiation levels are scattering due to various influencing parameters and cannot be calculated easily by using antenna power and distance models only. Table 1 shows a significant systematic difference between the percentile data from line of sight and without line of sight measurements. Figure 2 displays the separated sets of data with trend lines decreasing exponentially to larger distances with lower exposures for without line of sight measurements in the range of 90% reduction (-10 dB). In general, the radiation exposure is predominantly determined by e.g. the following parameters:
  • Distance to the antenna site
  • Line of sight to the antenna site
  • Type of the antennas, e.g. omni directional or directional antennas
  • Number, power, and orientation of the antennas
  • Capacity of the antenna site (number of channels / frequencies)
  • Vertical distance between location and antenna site
  • Type of building construction / type of window glass
  • Total reflection of the environment


Distance and Phone Tower Positions


The distance profiles were taken for selected locations and different antenna heights and positions. For high antenna positions (e.g. 50 – 90 m, pole mount position) the maximum power at ground level is reached in about 300 meter and is rather moderate. For low antenna positions (15 – 20 m, typical roof top position) the maximum power at ground level is relatively high and is reached in about 50 meter. Figure 4 shows the average (mean) density values found in distance ranges. We observed no straightforward exponential decrease by distance only. The slight increase in the distance range of 150 – 200 meter (1,480 µW/m2) can be explained by the influence of high antenna positions with maximum values shifted to larger distances.

Figure 4: GSM power density levels and distance ranges
GSM power density levels and distance ranges

Below and Close to Roof Top Positions


Directly below roof top positions (e.g. schools, preschools, homes) significant exposures in the range of a few 1,000 µW/m2 were observed due to secondary side lobes and reflections. During our data collection, the highest exposure values in the range of 10,000 – 100,000 µW/m2 were observed very close to low antenna / roof top positions at inside and outside locations in line of sight and distance < 100 meter.

DECT, TV and FM Radio


The data for FM radio, TV, DECT cordless phone and other significant HF sources show that the GSM cellular phone tower radiation is the dominating HF source in residential areas. DECT signals were detected in 60 inside locations. The maximum DECT power density levels were 0.01 µW/m2 (20th percentile), 1 µW/m2
(50th percentile) and 1,680 µW/m2 (95th percentile). High exposure levels > 1,000 µW/m2 were only detected when the DECT cordless base station was located in the same room or very close to the testing site.

Summary
The results of this study show that the GSM cellular phone tower radiation is the dominating HF source in residential areas in Germany. The median power density is found in the range of 200 µW/m2 (50. percentile) with the maximum value exceeding 100,000 µW/m2. No location reached or exceeded the official standard values for the USA or Germany.
For comparison, thermal (official threshold), other non-thermal (recommendations), and cellular tower exposure reference values are listed in the table 2 below.

Table 2: Comparison of Standard Threshold Values and Recommendations

Comparison of Standard Threshold Values and Recommendations
(electromagnetic fields, non ionizing radiation)
Total Power Density
Standards, GSM1800/GSM1900/UMTS/DECT (e.g.)
FCC/ANSI – USA
10,000,000 µW/m2
Germany, England, Finland and Japan
10,000,000 µW/m2
Belgium
1,200,000 µW/m2
Switzerland and Italy
90,000 µW/m2
Recommendations / References (e.g.)
Ecolog Study, Germany (Ecolog 2000)
10,000 µW/m2
Cellular tower radiation – significant exposure level, 95th percentile (this study)
6,300 µW/m2
Salzburg, Austria (Resolution 2000)
1,000 µW/m2
Cellular tower radiation – median level, 50th percentile (this study)
200 µW/m2
High exposure, Oeko-Test (OekoTest 2001)
100 µW/m2
EU Parliament (STOA 2001)
100 µW/m2
Cellular tower radiation – background level, 20th percentile (this study)
10 µW/m2
Low exposure, Oeko-Test (Oeko Test 2001)
10 µW/m2
Nighttime exposure, Baubiology Standard (SBM 2000)
0.1 µW/m2
Successful communication with GSM mobile phone, system coverage requirements
0.001 µW/m2
Natural cosmic microwave radiation (Maes 2000)
0.000001 µW/m2

 Therefore, in respect to recent studies and review of articles regarding non-thermal biological effect of e.g. digital pulsed GSM radiation, the stoa study concluded with a considerable concern revealing a need clear need for radio frequency safety. 

 For example, 25 % of the locations the long term exposure levels are very high above 1,000 µW/m2, which has been suggested to be the average threshold value for non-thermal biological effects. These levels are reached especially in proximity of the antenna sites, directly below antenna sites and in line of sight in a distance of < 250 m. Two of the most important limiting factors are the distance and the direct line-of-sight to the antenna site. But, in proximity to the antenna site, the GSM radiation levels are scattered due to various influencing parameters and cannot be calculated easily by using antenna power and distance models only. In general, exposures for without line of sight locations are about 90% (-10 dB) lower than those for line of sight.

In comparison to recommendations for exposure assessment (OEKOTEST 2001), the statistical data evaluation is the following (see figure 2):
  • 20 % of data in the range of low exposure below 10 µW/m2 (20th percentile, background level)
  • 25 % of data in the range of medium exposure between 10 – 100 µW/m2
  • 55 % of data in the range of high exposure above 100 µW/m2
Very few measurement data are in the range of extreme exposure 10,000 µW/m2to 100,000 µW/m2.


Conclusions


As long as the only basis for official standards for high frequency radiation are thermal effects and heating of the body tissue (ICNIRP, ANSI, IEEE, NCRP, FCC, SSK, WHO) there is no need for the industry to invest into less emitting and saver products. More and more scientists state that the view of energy absorption only is insufficient to describe the possible rf radiation effects on human health. 

 Potential biological effects need to be considered due to
  1. Non-thermal or low intensity levels of HF radiation,
  2. Chronic versus acute exposure and,
  3. Pulsed HF radiation, which is reported to be more bioactive than constant wave RF radiation.
The human body reacts more complexly than acknowledged in the thermal model and is sensitive to extreme periodic stimuli. The biological system takes the “energy” as well as the “information” which is brought by the continuous pulsed modulation pattern. Much experimental evidence of non-thermal influences of microwave radiation on living systems have been published in the scientific literature during the last 30 years – relating both to in vitro and in vivo studies – and were reviewed just recently by the STOA commission for the 
European Parliament (STOA 2001). 

 From the use of microwave wireless technologies e.g. the following non-thermal biological effects have been reported:
  • Changes in the electrical activity in the human brain (von Klitzing 1995)
  • Increase in DNA single and double strand breaks from RF exposure to 2.45 GHz (Lai & Singh 1996)
  • Increased lymphoma rates (2 fold) in transgenic mice exposed twice a day exposed to 30 minutes of cell phone (GSM) signals over 18 month (Repacholi 1997)
  • Increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier in rats (Persson 1997)
  • Production of heat shock proteins and cancer risk (French 2001)
  • Higher risk of uveal melanoma (Stang 2001)

 Other reported effects include e.g. (STOA 2001):
  • Observation of an increase in resting blood pressure during exposure,
  • Increased permeability of the erythrocyte membrane,
  • Effects on brain electrochemistry (calcium efflux),
  • Increase of chromosome aberrations and micronuclei in human blood lymphocytes,
  • Synergistic effects with cancer promoting drugs and certain psychoactive drugs,
  • Depression of chicken immune systems,
  • Increase in chick embryo mortality,
  • Effects on brain dopamine/opiate electrochemistry,
  • Increases in DNA single and double strand breaks in rat brain,
  • Stressful effects in healthy and tumor bearing mice,
  • Neurogenetic effects and micronuclei formation in peritoneal macrophage.
In this review study, a threshold of 1,000 µW/m2 was pointed out for non-thermal biological effects. For locations with any long-term exposure, a further safety factor of 10 was recommended for pulsed cellular phone radiation sources as cellular phone base stations. In this case, the power densities should not exceed 100 µW/m2. Although, the power density of the radiation used in these experiments is typically found in the head area when using a cellular phone, the information content of the radiation emitted by the latter is the same; accordingly, these results are not irrelevant to the consideration of potential adverse health effects associated with chronic exposure to cellular or cordless base-station radiation.
From the scientific point of view, adverse human heath effects of non-thermal radiation levels cannot be exactly quantified, verified, or excluded at this time. Only limited toxicological information is available in respect to the widespread use and the economical impact of the cellular phone systems in industrial nations. On one side, there is always a demand for scientific proof for human adverse health effects and dose response when establishing official economically reasonable guideline exposure threshold values. On the other side, insufficient limit of detection, insufficient dosimetry and exposure control, and industry friendly research bias the risk assessment for long-term adverse health effects, especially in the field of the cellular phone industry. That makes it clear – that by definition – official guideline standard values can only limit the consequences of adverse health effects in the frame of the economical impact.

Recommendations

We recommend to follow the principle of prevention. This includes implementation of residential exposure minimization and prevention procedures in the frame of the technical feasibility as long as the non-thermal effects are not considered in any official standard and guideline. These will include especially sensitive locations as preschools, schools, hospitals, and residential areas. So far, no other technical aspects than interferences, system coverage and system performance are taken into account.
By official definition, the cellular phone system covers an area when the signal strength of about 0.001 µW/m2 is reached. We expect that with little effort, cities, communities, and the providers will be able to significantly reduce the long term rf radiation exposures to cellular phone towers in residential areas.
Read Additional EMF RF Articles:
If you have concerns about your home, building, school, or any other structure that is close to cell towers, call the experts at EMFRF Solutions to have your location tested and advice on how to properly shield from EMF or RF radiation. Call 760-942-9400 Today!

HF-Radiation Levels of GSM Cellular Phone Towers in Residential Areas

Thomas Haumann1, Uwe Münzenberg2, Wolfgang Maes3AND Peter Sierck4
1Umweltanalytik und Baubiologie, Meisenburgstrasse 25, D-45133 Essen, Germany
2AnBUS e.V., Mathildenstrasse 48, D-90762 Fürth, Germany
3Baubiologie Maes, Schorlemerstr. 87, D-41464 Neuss, Germany
4Environmental Testing & Technology, Inc., 1106 Second Street, Encinitas CA 92024, USA
References
BUWAL 2002 Schweizer Messvorschrift für GSM-Sender 2002, BUWAL – Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft. (www.buwal.ch)
Ecolog 2000 Hennies K., Neitzke H.-P. & Voigt H., Mobilfunk und Gesundheit – Bewertung des wissen schaftlichen Erkenntnisstandes unter dem Gesichtspunkt des vorsorgen den Gesund heitsschutzes. Im Auftrag der T-Mobil. Hannover, April 2000 (ECOLOG-Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung und Bildung, Nieschlagstr. 26, D-30449 Hannover, Germany)
French 2001 French P. W., Penny R., Laurence J. A. & McKenzie D. R. , Mobile phones, heat shock proteins and cancer. Differentiation 2001, 67 (4-5), pp. 93-97.
Lai & Singh 1996 Lai H. and Singh N.P. Single and double-strand DNA breaks after acute exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Int. J. Radiation Biol. 1996; 69: 13-521. See also: Singh N.P. and Lai H. Use of the microgel electrophoresis assay to study DNA strand breaks after microwave exposure. Proc. Asia Pacific Microwave Conf. (Editor: R.S. Gupta) 1996, Vol. 1 (B1-4), pp.51-55.
MAES 2000 Maes W., Stress durch Strom und Strahlung, 4th ed. 2000, Verlag Institut für Baubiologie und Oekologie IBN, Neubeuern, Germany.
OekoTest 2001 Test “Mobilfunk-Sendeanlagen”, Öko-Test 4/2001 Germany, April 2001, pp. 32 – 40. (www.oekotest.de)
PERSSON 1997 Persson B.R.R. et al., Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication, Wireless Networks 1997; 3: pp. 455-461.
Repacholi 1997 Repacholi M.H. et al. Lymphomas in E µ-Pim 1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Radiation Res. 1997; Vol 147, pp. 631-640.
Resolution 2000 Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations – International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, Linking Science & Public Health, Salzburg, Austria, June 7-8, 2000. (www.land-sbg.gv.at/celltower)
SBM 2000 Baubiologie Maes and IBN, Standard der Baubiologischen Messtechnik SBM 2000, Richtwerte für Schlaf bereiche, in “Stress durch Strom und Strahlung”, Maes W., 4th ed. 2000, pp. 542 – 545, Verlag Institut für Baubiologie und Oekologie IBN, Neubeuern, Germany. (www.maes.de)
Stang 2001 Stang A., Anastassiou G., Ahrens W., Bromen K., Bornfeld N., and Jöckel K.H., “The possible role of radio-frequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma” in: Epidemiology 2001, Vol, 12, pp. 7-12.
STOA 2001 THE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF NON-IONISING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION, STOA – Scientific and Technological Options Assessment, Options Brief and Executive Summary, PE Nr. 297.574 March 2001, (www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/pdf/00-07-03_en.pdf)
VDB 2002 VDB-Richtlinie, Teil II A 3, draft 2002, Verband Deutscher Baubiologen e.V. (www.baubiologie.net)
von Klitzing 1995 von Klitzing L. “Low-Frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields influence EEG of man.” Physica Medica, Vol. 11, No. 2, 77-80, April-June 1995, see also von Klitzing, L. in “Elektrosmog – Wohngifte – Pilze, Baubiologie – praktische Hilfe für jedermann”, Maes W., 1st Ed.1999, Haug-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
If you have concerns about your home, building, school, or any other structure that is close to cell towers, call the experts at EMFRF Solutions to have your location tested and advice on how to properly shield from EMF or RF radiation. Call 760-942-9400 Today!
http://www.emfrf.com/rf-radiation-levels-from-cellular-towers/
__
eof

klo
Tunnisteet: ,

Ei kommentteja:

Lähetä kommentti

Tilaa: Lähetä kommentteja (Atom)

Contents of Ashley Biden’s Diary

National File Posts Contents of Ashley Biden’s Diary – Website Crashes By  Jim Hoft   Jan. 29, 2024 11:40 am  852 Comments Ashley Biden, und...