Extreme High Wifi radiation Peaks on FP3. Deal breaker?

Discuss
1

I am just getting to know my recently bought FP3. Was really happy with it.
With the increasing radiation in this world I decided to buy electrosmog meter. It is running 24/7 in my living room. After I started to use the FP3 I started to noticed a lot of red indicator lights.

I wonder if it came from the FP3. So I tested it and it gives me peaks in de 800MHz range the 1700 MHZ rangen 1900 MHZ and the 2400 MHz range. The highest I measured was 1800 mw/m2 which is extremely damaging to all living things. It seems to cycle through these frequencies every few minutes. A radiation expert once told me these peaks are like exposing the cells of the body to a flamethrower.

I wonder if there are people on this forum with a technical background who can put these findings in perspective.

I never tested these extreme values with my Iphone. If I don’t find an explanation I will definitely sell the FP3.

2

So is Mhz and mw/m2 the same? I have no idea how to Interpret such Values nor do I really care. Normally FP3 are said to have a low SAR value. The SAR value is measured in W/kg so not sure how to compare with your values

FP values at ear (Ohr) during calls and wearing at the body while on

Screenshot_20220629-195457_Browser
Screenshot_20220629-195457_Browser1080×2160 148 KB

Older IPhone Values

Screenshot_20220629-195656_Browser
Screenshot_20220629-195656_Browser1080×2160 139 KB

Those values are from German Agency for radiation protection

Max SAR should be 2 as defined by this organization

1 Like
3

Radiation has two properties frequency and amplitude.
You have measured both.

The higher the frequency the more energy there is but the less distance it travels

So 2400 has three times the energy that 800 but the power drops at the square root of distance so if one mesurement for both is taken at 1m at 2m the 800 will be 4 times weaker and the 2400 will be 9 times weaker. Also the 2400 will sink to gravity quicker and that can reduce it;s power by a further 3 fold.

Now the very high frequencies can cause radiation damage to the human body, plants etc.

The sun’s red frequency is 420,000,000MHz so is ridiculously more power full
When the sun shines it produces on average 1KW per square metre.

So 1.8W/m2 is very little at a very low frequency.

A microwave may use a 1KW at 2400MHz to ccok food let’s say 100cm

Routers and phones produce only a couple of watts compared.

There is a lot of talk about radiation from phones but I consider it well outside of perspective.

So 1.8W/m2 at 2400MHz compared to 1000W/m2 at 420,000,000MHz is hardly worth the worry. In fact worrying is probably thousands of time more damaging to health.

3 Likes
4

The MHz is the frequency of the signal. https://www.icnirp.org/en/frequencies/radiofrequency/rf-emf-100-khz-300-ghz.html from the same website you quoted.
10 mw/m2 and higher is considered damaging and some even say that is way to high cause radiation has a cumulative effect. Here you can find the different values https://beperk.dobs.com/images/stories/Varia/omrekeningstabel_Volt_Watt.pdf

A group of international scientist have warned strongly against the dangers of radiation.
https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/EU-5G-Appeal-13-09-2017.pdf

5

Thank you very much for your explanation Amoun. Why do you think international Scientists warn against radiation? Like here https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/EU-5G-Appeal-13-09-2017.pdf
and these German doctors here https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Freiburger-Appell-20-10-2002.pdf
Possibly creating cancer https://stralingsbewust.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/WHO-IARC-EMF-possibly-carcinogenic-31-05-2011.pdf

Interesting blog I think 5G 60 ghz and oxygen absorption

And this extensive study is also very interesting THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT 2012 A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

6

Sorry, but that’s not true at all.
There is not a single evidence that non-ionizing radiation harms human cells. The only thing that could be observed during the last decades was a weak warming of the skin.
So if you have cold in winter it could help a veeery little bit to hold your phone near to your body. It could warm your skin by 0.05 °C or 0.1°C :slight_smile:

7 Likes
7

Yes that is what the industry who makes the money wants us to believe.
If you are really interested I would suggest diving into this material more deeply.
You could check out some of the links I sent in my reply to Amoun.
This is one of them. THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT 2012 A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

8

I haven’t read any of the links you show. My experience is working in the Royal Navy as a Radio Electrician around GHz signals of immense strength for radar. Sure we switched of the radar to climb the masts but that’s it.

People make money from other people’s attention, what a ‘waste’ of attention :slight_smile:

Sure pollution is a technical term for unwanted, as is waste.

One person’s waste is another’s resource, there is no actual waste.

My view is that probably all the links would reveal unwanted and irrelevant information, expressed to gather concern and effectively 100% :poop:

Note that if it wasn’t for ‘damage’ to our cells there would be no mutation and it’s that mutation that produced mankind, we are still mutating from radiation but as mentioned the damage from sunshine has billions of times more effect than that of a mobile phone in your pocket all day, or a router in the room 24/7

The only issues are a slight warming possibility if held against any part of the body, as pointed out it has no ionising or cell effect.

When the network signal is low the phone pumps out more power to search.
Compare the heat from the phone with a bad signal and the heat when you are close to the transmitter. They play together ~ more radiation from the network, less from the phone, less from the transmitter more from the phone.

Once you adopt the road that all around you is damaging it is then worth looking at what is inside, the fear and stress.

Extra Low Frequencies ~ Radio frequencies they are all relative.

There was a chap in England, Rugby who lived near a 15KHz BBC Radio1 transmitter that could be picked up in New Zealand. It was so powerful he laid wiring in his attic and ran his electricity from the EMF in the air, until he was caught.

15KHz or 420,000,000,000KHz ???

Remember the sun provides 1KW/m2 which I am using to charge my batteries.

Certain frequencies will resonate with certain objects and some will resonate with cells making them vibrate and get warm. X-rays are so energetic and so small that then can and do rupture skin cells.

If you cut your hair to all the same length you will pick up a lot of the same frequency and despite it not causing skin cancer it is a bit like brain washing. :thinking:

5 Likes
9

Thank you very much Amoun. So all these doctors and scientist are thriving on fear? I am also a great fan of the reality of experience/perception instead of believes and theories.
This is a nice example Experiment shows how dangerous wifi EMF frequency is when in close proximity to living organisms.

10

Sorry I won’t follow any of your links but leave you to your beliefs.

My opinion is based on maths and my own experience not other poeple’s calculations and prophecies.

Have a good evening and much more

:om:

5 Likes
11

I have already dealt with this subject in detail. There is no scientific evidence at all for your belief in harmful non-ionizing radiation.
But there is evidence for the harmful effects of nocebo :wink:

6 Likes
12

Thank you for your time and input Amoun. I don’t follow anything myself. Like to investigate things for myself. That in itself is an ever ongoing process :wink:

1 Like
13

As you wish. Thank you for your contribution.
Have a nice evening.

p.s. sounds pretty scientific to me :wink: Scientists, Led by Karolinska Institute’s Olle Johansson, PhD, Recommend Global Governments Adopt New Exposure Guidelines for Electromagnetic Radiation—Pointing to Biological Hazards and Risks to the Genetic Code from Unchecked Proliferation of Wireless Technologies

1 Like
14

@RFH
There were many doctors who said tobacco doesn’t hurt health so a scientist can also be wrong :wink: Moreover, there are rules to respect by the phone industries for decades now and they are stronger and stronger in terms of human health protection. There was no big problem before so there should be even less after

1 Like
15

Please don’t confuse Science and Scientists!
You’ll always find misled individuals in any field, nobody is right 100% of the time. But the cumulative scientific evidence clearly points at non-ionizing radiation having no negative impact on humans apart from heating tissues. The heating effect in turn is directly related to the amount of energy being transferred. The amount of energy a phone is capable of transmitting is already strongly limited by its power supply and I don’t see any reason to worry about it. In addition, as already pointed out before, the energy per area transmitted has an inverse square relationship with distance. (Double distance to the source means a quarter of energy per area, etc.)
Strong Microwave sources - like Microwave Ovens - on the other hand clearly have a harmful effect on us purely based on the amount of energy they can output and the heating caused by that. That is why they are shielded. Also, the stuff you want to heat has to be really close to the transmitter, not at the other end of the room - even unshielded that would not work.

Regarding your “sources”: When taking a look at the (few!) supporters of these claims you’ll notice that most have no expertise in EMF but are simply doctors or public health officials. A medical doctor is not necessarily a scientist and they might have little to no formal education in the scientific method or EMF in particular - at least you cannot read that from the credentials they present in their statements. They are misleading the public by using their impressive sounding titles to suggest expertise, but in reality their opinion in this specific matter is likely only marginally more valid than any random person’s - with occasional exceptions of course.
They are further misleading the public by claiming that several hundred “expert” supporters worldwide would be a lot when in reality it is a fringe opinion with the vast majority of people and in fact real experts in the field not sharing their views - not unlike “expert” climate change deniers.

Then there is the separate issue of your generic “electrosmog meter”: If this is indeed the name it is sold by, it already has pseudoscience written all over it. I don’t doubt that it measures something, but it probably does not mean what is claimed or what you expect.

Edit: Softened some statements about MDs not being scientists. This was not meant as an offense to MDs, but was simply meant to point out that there is a difference between those two groups. There is overlap, of course, but you can’t assume that “MD equals Scientist”, especially in the more fringe “alternative” medicine area that seems to make a good share of supporters judging from my brief look at the statements linked.

11 Likes
16

Do you have a link to the vendors/manufacturers of that meter, and to its specs?
For my own part, I only got a degree in maths and theoretical physics, and judging from the above, I fear there’s not a lot I might add to this conversation at this time.
But I’m willing to take this over to another forum where I’m with a decent group of MDs, EEs, and more, and then come back to you.

BTW: Did I get it right that you were happy with an iPhone for a long time, and are now doubting the FP for its EMR?

3 Likes
17

Hi and welcome to the forum.

Thanks for your concern. I see you’ve only been on the forum since 21st May, so this topic must be up your street so to speak

Thanks again

All the best

2 Likes
18

Thank you very much rpnid for your interest in the subject. Yes indeed, I am considering to sell the FP because of the high radiation. I would be very interested in learning from what you might discover. I bought this meter Cornet ED88TPlus5G.
I am under the impression, in general, that many people have a pre conceived idea based on their presumed knowglegde. To me there is nothing absolute about knowlegde. I always like to investigate any hypothesis, which in IMHO is the basis of science. Reality might not concur with any scientific idea about it. Scientific investigation is often times triggered by raw observation. The previous response I gave with the plant growth experiment is a good example.

19

While your general statement may be true, your conclusions seem to be faulty: Just because we don’t know everything to the last detail and will likely never do so, it does not mean that all bets about reality are off and we can just believe whatever we want to be true to be reality.
As disappointing as it might be: If you’re not an absolute expert in the respective field, the chances of drawing the right conclusions from any given observation are minimal. This is why I go with the scientific consensus on this matter.
Current scientific consensus is that there is no correlation between non-ionizing radiation and the health outcomes you seem to believe exist. Here is a brief comment on the petition that your main sources seem to be related to: Scientists Sign Petition Warning about EMF | Science-Based Medicine I agree with the points made there.
Also keep in mind that it is not enough to come up with some way of explaining your most recent observation in a vacuum. This explanation also has be be largely in line with everything we know about the world so far. If claims about EMF made in the articles you linked were true, it would go against a lot of established observations and I’m pretty sure the problem would be so big that nobody could ignore it just because “Big Something” wants to keep it under the rug.

Just out of curiosity: How many other phones have you measured with your meter under the same conditions? The reality of the matter is that for any phone to function it will have to send out some sort of radiation. So I’d be surprised if others are going to do significantly better on your scale. The limits in those “SBM” guidelines seem to be so impossibly low that probably just solar wind alone is enough to exceed them.
Another issue: Serious scientific measurement equipment has to be checked and calibrated regularly and probably costs more than the ~200 bucks they charge for that particular one.
Serious equipment for taking such measurements looks like this: EMI test receivers | Rohde & Schwarz

The reference (“SBM”) values used by people who explain that meter on youtube seem to come from “Institut für Baubiologie und Ökologie”, a private German entity with no real scientific credentials and questionable positions around “electrosmog”. Some background in German here: Institut für Baubiologie und Ökologie – Psiram

10 Likes
21

Ill advised to post email addresses on a public forum

RE my private message;

I have just sent @RFH the contents of your post by private message so you can delete the emails :slight_smile:

2 Likes