EMF Radiation Testing: ‘Smart’ Meter and Cell Phone (VIDEO)
Posted on:
Wednesday, October 17th 2018 at 3:15 am
Written By:
Josh del Sol Beaulieu
Originally published on www.takebackyourpower.net
Are 'smart' meter radiation emissions safe - or not? This video measures the pulses from a 'smart' meter and a cell phone.
In this video, I measure the pulsed emissions from a ‘smart’ meter and a cell phone. This is previously unreleased footage, taken a couple of years ago.
Similar to testing results from many other researchers & experts, these results showed that the ‘smart’ meter microwave pulses are hundreds of times higher than the “extreme concern” threshold as set by the Building Biology guidelines.
I should be clear that while this is not a scientific-grade test, the results we got are generally aligned with tests performed by many researchers and safety advocates worldwide. The reason why lay-persons are the ones undertaking these tests is because every ‘official’ test of ‘smart’ meter emissions that I have seen employs inapplicable scientific methods (e.g. “time-averaging” of exposure) or inadequate context or conclusion (e.g. “safe according to the FCC”).
Our testing results are below, followed by a summary about the scientific significance of this amount of radiofrequency* (RF) radiation exposure, and recent developments in the grassroots movement for safety.
* – For our purposes at this time, we will consider the terms radiofrequency (RF), electromagnetic frequencies (EMF), and microwave radiation as being generally synonymous.
Radiofrequency (RF) Testing Results
In these tests I used a Cornet ED75 Electrosmog tester. (The newer Cornet ED88T is available in the Take Back Your Power shop for $179. I encourage as many people as possible to do your own tests and share the results.)
1. ‘Smart’ meter: up to 539,000 uW/m2 (1 foot distance)
539x higher than threshold for extreme concern, per Building Biology guidelines
- Manufacturer: Landis+Gyr
- Model: FOCUS AXR-SD
- Power Output:
3 watts1.115 watts (Correction: the power output is 1.115 watts, not 3 watts. The “3W” stands for “3 wire”.) - Utility: KIUC, Kauai, Hawaii, USA
2. Cell phone: up to 1,386 uW/m2 (1 foot distance)
1.386x higher than the threshold for extreme concern, per Building Biology guidelines
- Manufacturer: Apple
- Model: iPhone 5
- Network: AT&T / 3G
- Connectivity: 3 bars connectivity
- NOTE: These tests are from a distance of approx 1 foot. This same cell phone placed on or immediately next to the body / head (or testing device) would produce an exponentially higher level of radiation exposure. I have personally tested cell phones in the range of 100,000 uW/m2 or more, from a distance of 1-2 inches. There are many variables involved, including phone make/model, connection type and bars of connectivity — not to mention distance, of course.
What do these results mean?
We observed that the strength of emissions is much stronger with this model of ‘smart’ meter than the cell phone we tested — but cell phones are much closer to the body. The ‘smart’ meter is off 99.9x % of the time but emits pulses, whereas the cell phone emits a constant stream, during a call.
The bottom line is that according to science-based safety standards, both the ‘smart’ meter and cell phone are producing unsafe amounts of radiation.
But if this is true, how can governments allow it?
Many countries’ governing agencies (such as the FCC*, Health Canada, and ICNIRP) continue to base their radiofrequency “safety” standards exclusively on thermal effects, or exposure levels which increase the temperature of tissue by a certain number of degrees. So, your body tissue would need to “begin to cook” in order for it to be considered an unsafe exposure level.
This means that thousands of studies which show biological harm from RF radiation are not even considered by the government agencies that are supposed to ensure safety.
But due to the increasing obviousness of harm from the proliferation of wireless technologies — such as the recent $25M cancer study by the National Toxicology Project — there is now increasing pressure being put on agencies to reform.
* – In the FCC’s mission statement, there is no indication whatsoever of any jurisdiction or mandated protection of men, women, and children for biological and medical harm caused by radiofrequencies. The fact that the EPA has somehow given up this responsibility is somewhat of an anomaly.
Other agencies have tried to tell us
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993: The FCC’s exposure standards are “seriously flawed.” (Official comments to the FCC on guidelines for evaluation of electromagnetic effects of radio frequency radiation, FCC Docket ET 93-62, November 9, 1993.)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1993:
“FCC rules do not address the issue of long-term, chronic exposure to RF fields.”
(Comments of the FDA to the FCC, November 10, 1993.)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1994: The FCC’s standard is inadequate because it
“is based on only one dominant mechanism — adverse health effects caused by body heating.”
(Comments of NIOSH to the FCC, January 11, 1994.)
Amateur Radio Relay League Bio-Effects Committee, 1994:
“The FCC’s standard does not protect against non-thermal effects.”
(Comments of the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee to the FCC, January 7, 1994.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002: Norbert Hankin of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, wrote:
The FCC’s current [radio frequency/microwave] exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations…. The generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified…. There are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur…. Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures.
The U.S. Department of Interior, 2014:
Study results have documented [bird] nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death…. The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.
New developments in the area of radiofrequency safety
In a new paper, “Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk” published in the journal IEEE Microwave Magazine, Dr. James C. Lin states that the results of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) cell phone radiation study suggest that current radiofrequency exposure guidelines are inadequate to protect human health:
“While complacencies abound for short-term exposure guidelines in terms of providing safety protection, an outstanding question persists concerning the adequacy of these guidelines for safe, long-term exposure to RF radiation at or below 1.6 or 2.0 W/kg. Perhaps the time has come to judiciously reassess, revise, and update these guidelines.” (pp. 22-23)
This assessment aligns with what many leading scientific researchers have been saying for years. Lennart Hardell, a Swedish oncologist and main contributor to the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has for several years been stating the WHO needs to move radiofrequency radiation from Group 2B (probable carcinogen) to Group 1 (proven carcinogen).
And just this past week, a unified group of scientists, doctors and environmental organizations has launched an emergency international appeal to stop 5G (fifth-generation wireless infrastructure) on Earth and in space. The appeal is footnoted by 123 scientific citations.
Readers may go here to sign the appeal, either as an individual or an organization.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
No comments:
Post a Comment