📢 Brian has offered to reply to your questions and comments below, during this weekend (July 2-3). Commenting is at bottom.
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Since 2019, I’ve been telling colleagues in the EMF space, “We need an affordable 5G millimeter-wave meter!”

We need to replace assumption with facts. To give people the ability to see exactly their mm wave exposure. To be able to then link exposure to observed symptomology. And to bring together a community of people reporting their 5G mm wave readings all over the world.

Well, that time is now here. And you’ll be amazed at what the initial readings are uncovering:

5G EMF Freedom Monitor, with Brian Hoyer (Interview: 30 June 2022)

ORDERING THE METER

Brian’s team at Shielded Healing are offering free worldwide shipping and a $50 discount. You can either go to ShieldedHealing.com and use the code LAUNCH, or the link below. The $50 discount will be available in perpetuity; the free shipping is just for the next 50 meters that are spoken for.

Note: The exact meter range & applications are explained in the interview. Another bit of exciting news is that you will be able to upgrade the meter later for even higher bandwidth ranges, in real-time as the technology is developed. This introductory offer is for those of us who have been waiting for the ability to actually test millimeter wave radiation for ourselves… without spending 10s of thousands of dollars.

>> FM5 Complete EMF Freedom Monitor (5G): Order Now

BRIAN’S 2022 5G WEBINAR – LIVESTREAM & REPLAY

While this new Webinar is TODAY at 4pm PST, the replay is available if you miss the livestream. No cost. If you want to go further, the course that Brian offers is excellent.

>> Access the webinar: 3 Troubling Myths About 5G & Electro-Pollution

WANT BRIAN’S TEAM TO MAKE YOUR HOME EMF-SAFE?

The Shielded Healing Team travels all over the U.S. testing homes and offices. They also test RVs, tiny homes, custom vans or any place you call home. If you are building or remodeling, they provide a full consultation service to help you get shielded right from the ground up.

>> Learn more about home consultations with Shielded Healing

  • Aren’t they just going to get away with this, too? Some of us are still sick from Fukushima. All they did, was stop testing for it.

    • This is why we need to test everything ourselves. I bought a Geiger counter after Fukushima because I didn’t trust anything anyone was saying. :-). Same thing goes with EMF.

      We have utility companies lying to us often about whether you have a smart meter. One time I was performing an EMF assessment at a customer’s house when the utility guy came to install a new smart meter. He told her that she already had a smart meter and I had just tested it and it wasn’t a smart meter!

      Some manufacturers also tell us that you can disable WiFi or Bluetooth and it often appears in the software that this is the case. Often it is not disabled and is still transmitting. Sonos speakers, Roku devices, etc. are some of the devices that we’ve seen issues in regards to the settings. Also WiFi Routers.

      Always have to test ourselves to know for sure.

  • That is not affordable for me and probably for many. Such a shame but in my world I don’t have an extra k to spend. I’m not sure who you are addressing when you state finally affordable?

    • Diane, here’s a review I did last summer for 3 other good, economical EMF meters that I recommend, with price ranges between $150 and $385: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWrEm6Feo90

      But they don’t do millimeter waves, i.e. they only test up to 8 GHz. This is a very significant difference.

      This meter is by far the most inexpensive one on the market that tests for millimeter waves. Actually between 8x and 100x cheaper than anything else. At $950, it’s still an investment, yes, but it’s a very worthwhile one for many, who see the immense value in making visible the invisible; and sharing data of readings, toward reaching a critical threshold of awareness of this. (Otherwise, we are ALL left in the dark.) The point is that people who want to invest an amount less than the cost of a car, can now directly test for 5G millimeter waves for the first time ever. This is huge!

      In any case, we can learn much value info from Brian in this conversation — especially the testing video clip in the middle of the interview, which gives a lot of insight into the directional nature of 5G/mmw (compared to 4G), and the huge exposure in particular when downloading. Cheers.

      • Hi everyone, maybe people/families/friends/communities could get together and invest in a meter collectively…Perhaps Mr Del Sol this is something you could promote on your website to enable as many people as possible to benefit from the device. Thank you for your work! Blessings of good health and liberty to all! Wendy

    • Yes, the meter sounds amazing and really needed, especially here in the UK as my electrosensitives fb group is over 2,000 now! But not only our health has deteriorated but we also have a 20% import tax on top of the $999 price + shipping and handling. It’s just way out of our paypackets. We need help over here as time is running out fast !!!

      • Hi Loren, maybe if there are enough folk in your group who live nearby you could get together and share the cost of a meter…Blessings of good health from one electro-sensitive to another 😊

        • Hi Wendy Lea. All life is electromagnetic and therefore electro-sensitive. The difference is whether it’s ‘overt’ or not. A danger exists with the ES such as you when reducing exposure mitigates the symptoms, in thinking harm has stopped. Biological effects continue with any exposure, can occur within seconds, hours, days or years, but don’t always make themselves ‘known.’ Please see my main comment for more on this. Best wishes to you.

      • Hi Loren. I deeply empathize with your plight. All of us (and all life) are sensitive to these fields, whether it ‘shows’ or not. That’s the real danger, tragedy, and downright evil of it. But even in those ‘not’ ES, it will eventually show, and may already be, but be unrecognized for what it is – even life threatening illness! Please see my main comment, and may I suggest you check out https://www.activistpost.com/2020/12/giving-life-the-electric-chair-the-plain-physics-biophysics-of-phone-wifi-radiation.html

    • Hi Diane, there might be other people in your community who are able to invest in one. Do you have a local group of like minded people to share resources with?

    • Hi Diane. With all the radiation around and through us, how much testing do we need to know we’re exposed 🙂 Power is only one factor of several as well. Please see my main comment.

  • Can you please provide any test/comparison data available showing the accuracy of the meter?

    Thank you.

    • Hi Jay!

      The manufacturer of course assures me they have developed an accurate meter and they have done the testing in this area and are still putting together the marketing on the data for the meter. Right now I don’t have the +/- dB specs. I have some other info though.

      The meter shows units in microwatts per meter squared. The smallest unit is 1 microwatt. This is for both bandwidth ranges.

      That is a very sensitive reading and I’m sure you would agree it is useful, especially being that it’s very affordable for measuring these mmWaves as well. Even detecting them at this point is much better than not knowing anything at all. The RF from 40MHz to 10 GHz is one of the better meters I have used. Many only go up to 8 GHz or don’t capture pulses very well. Sensitivity is important for testing final shielding applications and results or perhaps finding a low area but not as important for finding sources which is the bulk of what most people are going to use it for.

      I personally have a different approach with RF measurement devices than what many EMF engineers and building biologists do. I do appreciate their dedication to accuracy and many manufacturers giving people access to accurate meters.

      I understand the principles behind accuracy with RF meters and sensitivities along the bandwidths, frequency response curves, testing in a lab, etc.

      The issue I have with some of the principles in RF engineering is that 1) we don’t live in a lab environment and 2)our bodies aren’t the size of an RF antenna in a meter. The goal with measuring RF for reasons of health should not primarily be accuracy or even field strength which are based off of industry and technology standards with signals communicated from one device to another…but first and forememost the presence of RF that is not naturally occurring at all. That doesn’t mean that I do not like or value accuracy or field strength Just that I’m more interested in whether the frequency is there at all and if it is affecting the human body and causing a biological response.

      The human body will react to a frequency much differently than an antenna in a meter so accuracy becomes much less important if the antennas on our body have different resistance than a metal antenna and are different sizes. The reason the meters are accurate has much to do with the size and shape of the antennas that are inside of them. I hope that makes sense.

      Many studies show that frequency could have just as much biological impact as field strength or more. Keeping that in mind the detection of a frequency in a certain range becomes important regardless of the field strength. Most of the time when we’re out testing we know what frequency we are testing for and if we are picking it up with a broadband meter then it will be a good indication of what works to avoid it, shield it or stop it and what doesn’t. So for me and my philosophy of creating healthy spaces the information you are requesting is definitely valuable to have but not vital to a meter being essential as a tool to help people.

      Regardless, I will let everyone know when I find out more information and make the updates on the website!

      I hope this response helps answer some of your deeper questions about taking RF measurements and in regards to this meter.

      • Brian: ¨The manufacturer of course assures me they have developed an accurate meter and they have done the testing in this area and are still putting together the marketing on the data for the meter.¨

        Who is the manufacturer? Are they reputable?
        Rather than assurances from a manufacturer I would rather see a 3rd party test the meter against other meters designed to detect MM waves and to see the comparative results.

        Brian: ¨The issue I have with some of the principles in RF engineering is that 1) we don’t live in a lab environment¨

        True, but as you state in your video, out in the field there are going to be other sources of radiation that can confuse the interpretation of readings.
        The point of the lab tests, when properly designed are to offer a shielded environment (free of interference from other sources of radiation), where technicians can isolate certain frequencies and test the ability of detection of different measurement devices.

        What this could look like is having a well shielded room that is tested to be free of RF radiation. Then the technicians would acquire the actual 5G antennas and a phone or other device intended to interact with the 5G antenna. Using the actual equipment used by telecom companies would offer a more realistic assessment of how the technology works as opposed to just a transmitter that uses MM waves. Then this room would be filled with the different industry standard meters for measuring MM waves along with the new meter and comparative results would be recorded to analyze performance differences.

        Brian: ¨ So for me and my philosophy of creating healthy spaces the information you are requesting is definitely valuable to have but not vital to a meter being essential as a tool to help people.¨

        I actually do not really understand what you are saying here Brian. Having the results that Jay is asking for is essential for knowing if the product actually performs well compared to what else is available. What is someone actually paying for? How accurate is the meter?

        More comments below….

        • Hi Luke. I just saw this comment of yours. You’re on the right track, for sure, in terms of testing this product. But the isolation procedure is also a problem at the same time, when it comes to correlating power density with harm, precisely because tests and studies can’t possibly even approximate field conditions. That’s what Electric Chair is about: Unpredictable, uncontrollable exposure variability. Again, would value your take on it. You can leave a comment there too.
          Pax

  • This is in NO WAY “affordable”… I thought it was going to be around $150 & not $999… We’re in a ‘crisis’ you know?

    • Hi Trev, 2 years ago 5G/MMW meters cost $20,000 to $200,000. This meter is $949 with the coupon code. Relatively, this is a HUGE breakthrough in making the ability to test MM waves accessible to more people. But you’re right, it’s still an investment.

    • Hi Trev! See my other comment on this. Affordable is admittedly a very relative term. Is a $1K house affordable? A $1K Car?

      All other meters that measure this range start at $8K and go up to over $60K.

      There are other meters that are cheaper that measure lower frequency ranges but the parts for this meter are expensive and it’s why all of the other monitors that measure this range are super expensive.

      I’d recommend finding a few other people interested. We may have a rental option in the future as well.

      • I know but as I said, It’s far too expensive for us who are on a small pension… After paying all my utility bills I’m left with £50 a week so $999 is way beyond my budget… Cheers

        • I didn’t disagree with your point about price. I agree with you. What I’m saying is that measuring is of limited usefulness, since there is no safe exposure level – especially not when gauged by power level alone (much more to this crisis).

    • Hi Trev,

      You can find a cheaper meter to detect much of the so-called 5G spectrum using a good quality meter designed to detect sub-6GHz frequencies.

      See this article by Safer Living Technologies (SLT):
      https://safelivingtechnologies.com/how-to-protect-yourself-from-5g/

      I consider SLT a trustworthy source for meters for the following reasons.

      1) People in the Building Biology community seem to consider them a trustworthy source.

      2) I had several phone conversations with the staff from Safer Living Technologies awhile back. What they disclosed is that they do have a laboratory that they use to conduct tests of various meters. The person I spoke with told me that many meters on the market do not perform as the manufacturers claim.

      They stated that Gighertz Solutions makes the best meters that they have found and that is why they distribute their meters. He also said that the performance of the Gigahertz Solutions meters was better than the Safe & Sound brand of meters that they manufacture. But the person stated that their Safe & Sound meters are still of a high quality and much cheaper than the Gigahertz Solutions meters. They also consider the EMFields brand of meters to be in a similar class to the Safe and Sound. (EMFields meters are made by Alasdair Philips of Power Watch https://powerwatch.org.uk/ – you can search for interviews with Alasdair online to get a sense of his character and the meters that he makes…) Good quality, accurate, sensitive and adequate for most people´s uses.

      The Gigahertz Solutions meters are for those who are interested in more professional applications.

      I initially had called the Safer Living Technologies company to inquire about a RF meter that I saw Dr. Magda Havas (https://magdahavas.com/) using in a video. I shared with them the claimed specifications by the manufacturer printed in the Less EMF catalog (https://lessemf.com/) and the SLT person told me that the claimed sensitivity and accuracy was very unlikely as those specifications were much better than laboratory grade equipment that costs 10´s of thousands of dollars.

      In the past Less EMF carried a wider range of meters and did not seem to have much quality control or verification of manufacturer´s claims. I no longer see the meter that Magda was using in their catalog today.

      For those wanting to specifically avoid ground-based (space is another issue) 5G, it seems that if 5G is an on-demand type of radiation one can avoid areas where high band 5G is deployed – stadiums, arenas, convention centers, some downtown streets, metro stops, airports, college campuses, etc. and avoid using 5G enabled technologies. This, plus a quality meter designed to detect up to 8 or 10 GHz should be sufficient.

      For Brian:
      In your video where you have a bunch of meters laid out on the car hood, you do a demonstration of 5G and the new meter. You state that once the phone is in 5G mode the new meter is picking up on the radiation but the other meters were not detecting the 5G transmissions.

      What would be helpful is to have you do several side by side comparisons with meters that can detect sub-6GHz frequencies and the new meter to help determine how much more the new meter is able to pick up. Or if other meters are sufficient.

      • Luke, on that last question here are you saying I should use the 40MHz-10GHz setting on the FM5 meter compared with the others? If so I agree that would have been good to show in the video or a future video.

        My issue right now is that I don’t live close enough to these to the 5G mmWave networks to test the mmWaves but I could do a video comparing those sub 6GHz bandwidths for sure.

        I also like Safe and Sound meters but wouldn’t consider +/- 6dB to be the gold standard on accuracy which is what the Safe and Sound Pro 2 is. If the reading is 1000 uw/m2 that means it could be 150 or 4000, which is a big difference. Gigahertz solutions is better for sure but accuracy has always been an issue with affordable meters and also as stated elsewhere by both me and Peter it is debatable as to whether power is even a contender for the most important issue concerning human health.

        Most in the industry use the meters to simply help detect and determine what the sources are so a solid strategy can be developed to eliminate or reduce the exposure as much as possible. Power is important in this sense because as you get closer to the transmission it tells you the direction of the source…but for that purpose accuracy really isn’t that important. Sensitivity is though. The ability to hear the frequencies being detected and for a reading to show up so you can determine what it is and where it is.

        Ultimately I think it would be nice to have a meter that is accurate, sensitive, and has all the features we all want. The more information the better. I hope we can provide more information as it becomes available.

        Perhaps we can get a frequency response curve assessed so we can know at what frequencies this meter is most sensitive to and where it would be the most reliable. Regardless I do believe in it’s current design that it is a valuable tool for its price point which is why I was quick to promote it after testing it for just a short while.

        I think it’s good to have it under scrutiny by experts so the company looks to improve it further. I think the free market should do its work and I even hope there is competition and another meter comes out that can measure this at a similar price point. Perhaps if that happens they can address some of the concerns that people have. So far this is the most affordable option people have so they aren’t in the dark or waiting for a building biologist to come to their house with their $10K-$50K meter.

        By the way I’ve enjoyed your comments and I think both you and Peter have helped me to think deeper about this and also to realize that I need to talk more about these issues because I have a different take on a lot of assumptions in the building biology and EMF world. Helping people is why I got into this and I think sometimes we get caught up in the engineering aspects and forget about the practical application of what to do about it. I like to focus on the practical application and melt that into the idea of how we can recreate a more biologically friendly environment for our families in our homes.

        Teaching habits is part of that. Avoiding certain tech is part of that. Shielding is definitely part of that as well. Peter’s article is a great summary of biological mechanisms that we need to be paying attention to and although I’m more optimistic than he is in the article I do think that his article is spot on and I might have that opinion if I weren’t involved in the EMF and solutions space interacting with people every day. If you haven’t read his article please do. It’s very good! https://www.activistpost.com/2020/12/giving-life-the-electric-chair-the-plain-physics-biophysics-of-phone-wifi-radiation.html

        • Hey Brian,

          This is a bit long, but here goes.

          You: ¨The RF from 40MHz to 10 GHz is one of the better meters I have used. Many only go up to 8 GHz or don’t capture pulses very well.¨

          Brian, I can think of two types of tests that you could do outside of a laboratory that could provide useful information.

          1) One is a comparison of the new meter to other popular meters within the 40 Mhz – 10 Ghz range. You said that you were happy with the performance of the new meter in this range. How does it compare to other meters in this range? Details please.

          This would probably require video recording of all of the meter readings simultaneously as it would be difficult to track what is happening with a half dozen or so meters simultaneously.

          If the new meter performs well, then it might indicate that perhaps the meter may also have a good mm wave module? Not proof. But a potential indication of quality.

          2) The other test that you could do has to do with the initiation process in the low to mid-band.

          My understanding is that the 5G small cell antennas are dormant until activated by a 5G cell phone (or other 5G device). That the initial transmission to activate the 5G small cell is transmitted from the phone in the mid or low-band (better penetration?). Then once the phone and 5G small cell do a ¨handshake,¨ if the connection is good, the mm wave transmission can commence. Is this actually how it works? If so….

          Test:
          Does the initial connection from the 5G enabled phone in the low or mid-band have a unique voice signature (in the way that WiFi or Bluetooth does)? Or does it have some other distinct reading?

          If so, which sub-10 Ghz meters can detect this?

          I ask because if the voice signature is distinct in the initiation process (or in an ongoing way), then one of the less expensive meters could be used to detect the initiation process (or ongoing use) of 5G mm waves and allow you to know if mm waves are likely to be in use in the area. This would be an indirect way of looking for mm wave transmissions.

          ¨You: Perhaps we can get a frequency response curve assessed so we can know at what frequencies this meter is most sensitive to and where it would be the most reliable.¨

          I agree. This would be good to know.

          Accuracy:

          You: ¨I also like Safe and Sound meters but wouldn’t consider +/- 6dB to be the gold standard on accuracy which is what the Safe and Sound Pro 2 is. If the reading is 1000 uw/m2 that means it could be 150 or 4000, which is a big difference. Gigahertz solutions is better for sure but accuracy has always been an issue with affordable meters and also as stated elsewhere by both me and Peter it is debatable as to whether power is even a contender for the most important issue concerning human health.¨

          Isn´t it a variation of 250 to 4000 for the 1000 uw/m2 reading?

          Yes, I see your point. It has been a long time since I looked at their specs.

          Thinking back to the conversation years ago, it was more about sensitivity of the Safe and Sound antennas. For example, the person that I spoke with talked about how many of the meters that claimed to test up to 8 Ghz could only reliably capture transmissions up to 6.5 Ghz. The person on the phone stated that the Safe and Sound meters have a high degree of sensitivity within their claimed range, unlike many other meters.

          I agree that power is not the most important factor, within a certain threshold.

          Obviously living in the countryside where there is no cell phone reception is going to be infinitely more safe than living in a city. But within proximity (perhaps within line-of-sight of radiation sources: phones, towers, etc.) the situation is complicated.

          There are cancer cluster studies (for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21741680/) that seem to demonstrate a clear relationship between the power density from the source (cell tower) and a range of 500 meters. After that distance the incidence of cancer drops off. Presumably this is the RF but it could also be the dirty electricity generated by the cell tower and dumped onto the adjacent electric grid. This type of study would support the idea that the higher the power, the greater the harm.

          Arthur Firstenberg cites many studies that show that reduced power (i.e. greater distance) actually show greater biological damage. (https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/The-Most-Dangerous-Technology-Ever-Invented-Part-Two.pdf)

          The Leif Salford experiments that Arthur cites actually indicate that ¨safer cell-phone etiquette¨ like holding a cell phone further from your head (say a meter away using an airtube headset) may actually be more harmful than holding it up close to your head.

          The Environmental Health Trust advises:

          ¨Do not hold the phone up to your head. Instead use a speakerphone or airtube.¨

          and

          ¨Keep cell phones and wireless devices at a distance away from your body.¨

          (Source: https://ehtrust.org/educate-yourself/when-do-phones-give-off-higher-radiation/)

          This advice by EHT may actually be more damaging and certainly is not safe.

          I do not know the weight of the evidence, if the studies that Arthur cites are an exception to the rule or (more likely) indicate that the effects of the power is a variable that is difficult to predict. Arthur has concluded that increasing distance (i.e. reducing power) does not matter for any device you are going to use. It is all bad news.
          (https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf)

          It seems that in some situations if the power is higher it will be more harmful. In other situations if the power is lower it will be more harmful, depending on the frequency and other variables.

          Martin Pall also points out that along the electromagnetic spectrum we have certain frequencies that initiate a lot of biological activity, but then if you move up or down the spectrum the biological effects drop off. Making predictions difficult. Higher frequency does not necessarily mean more harm. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ATQF8omdI)

          Additionally, Martin Pall identifies other variables:

          ¨One of those considerations comes from our knowledge that pulsation pattern, cell type, polarization and frequency can all influence biological effects and that there are exposure windows that produce much larger effects than are seen with either lower
          or higher intensities. Our knowledge of these factors mean that it is possible for the telecommunications industry to foster any number of studies where it is unlikely that statistically significant evidence of effects will be seen.¨

          and

          ¨Furthermore there are intensity “windows” that produce maximum biological effects, such that both lower and higher intensities produce much less effect [5,8,9]. These window effect studies clearly show that dose-response curves are both non-linear and non-monotone, such that it is difficult or impossible to predict effects based on relative intensity even when all other factors are the same¨

          (https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards–dr-martin-l.-pall–eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf)

          Some types of cells are effected by certain expressions of radiation while other cell types appear to be unaffected by that same form of radiation.
          I have also heard about variations in biological damage being caused by angle of impact from waves and whether or not the waves are direct or indirect (reflected).

          Peter´s great article also goes more in depth about the polarization and charge factors. (https://www.activistpost.com/2020/12/giving-life-the-electric-chair-the-plain-physics-biophysics-of-phone-wifi-radiation.html)

          We also have varying effects from organism to organism (insects, birds, humans, etc.). There may also be more factors that science is not aware of as well.

          Both Arthur and Martin stress the importance of pulsation. The more data and bandwidth, the more pulsation and the more damage. Generally speaking, the ¨smarter¨ the technology, the greater the damage.

          So with that in mind, since RF meters are designed to detect primarily frequency and power density one has to wonder if the thresh-hold established by Building Biologists (only focused on power density with the meters, the supposedly safe green light reading) has any reliable validity in biological reality.

          I can imagine a highly pulsed transmission in a positively charged antagonistic RF frequency, but with low power (Building Biology ¨safe¨ green light), wreaking biological havoc…

          By the way who established the Building Biology standards, what is their process and how often are those standards updated?

          The chaotic electrosmog storm of constantly changing variables in power, frequency, charge or polarity and pulsation as one moves through our modern technological world makes it impossible to know what is actually happening to us and other living things.

          I do not think there is a scientist in the world that really has a handle on this. Even if we screened all of the current body of research (removing poorly constructed studies) and dumped the rest into an artificially intelligent computer, I doubt we would have a clear picture of an incredibly complex and shifting electromagnetic picture.

          As time has gone on the thresholds for what is considered biologically safe has continued to drop (in terms of power level) while the IndustrialGovernt(s) continue to increase the upper limits.

          I will save everyone the conclusion (years from now) and avoid waiting for the results of the next several decades of research. The safe threshold level will need to be lowered until we turn everything off. Then we will have a safe level of EMR.

          If we aim to preserve life we need to dump all wireless tech for sure.

          That means the power grid too.

          While some of you might believe that a decentralized home based power system is a solution. For example, maybe you are imagining a DC based system (no dirty electricity generating inverters) with shielding for electric and magnetic fields or perhaps you are imagining some break through ¨zero-point¨ free energy device. After reading the books Dirty Electricity by Dr. Sam Milham (http://www.sammilham.com/) and The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg (https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-invisible-rainbow/) it seems that electricity and biology do not mix.

          If farming has brought about a reduction in the size of humans and a 10% reduction in brain size (https://phys.org/news/2011-06-farming-blame-size-brains.html), just imagine what has happened to humans since the advent of industrialization and electricity. If we could look at the epigenetic multi-generational consequences of using electricity, I expect that the end result is extinction. Plus, any society willing to mine and manufacture all of the electronics used to maintain technological society will be willing to commit all forms of atrocities and desecrations on the Earth. Such societies destroy themselves.

          So where does that leave us? Going back to a way of life that existed 300 years ago?

          Probably not good enough. With the advent of agriculture humans began to domesticate plants and animals (i.e. dominate and control other species). Domestication of plants and animals created a shift in the consciousness of humans that led to slavery and patriarchy. Nope, still not good enough, we´re still caught up in the pathological mental matrix of civilization.

          Many will scoff at the idea of returning to the life-way of our ancestors. That is fine. These nay-sayers are destroying themselves and self-selecting for removal from the gene pool.

          If there is a future for humanity, it will be for the Anastasias that reside in the forest and live in nature. (https://www.ringingcedars.com.au/)

          —————————–

          Ditch the tech or die. (maybe I´ll get this statement tattooed across my forehead as a final message to humans).

  • Wanted to provide some context for the cost on this new mmWave meter…

    The price on this is affordable in the context of what has been available with measuring millimeter waves. $1K in the context of equipment measuring in this frequency range is VERY affordable.

    Basically the price of mmWave meters in this category are the same price range as buying a brand new car ($8K-$60K). If a brand new car came on the market for $1K and worked just as good or better than the other cars it would definitely be considered “affordable”.

    It’s not something everyone can afford to purchase but it is something that a few interested families could collectively purchase and share as a community. This is how we need to come together and help one another with everything that is going on. I hope if you can’t afford this meter and need to or want to measure this in your neighborhood that you can find a few more interested parties and talk to them about splitting the cost.

    Hope that helps!

  • Sorry for the length here, but this isn’t a simple, black/white issue. First of all, the talk here concerns mostly frequencies – called “carrier” frequencies, which themselves are not the culprit of harm. Pulsing for efficient signal transmission, and signal modulation for information, both in the ELF range (3 to 3000 Hz) are. That’s common to all carriers. Power meters tell us nothing about that. Nor about other key factors in the field involved in harm. Their usefulness is limited.

    There’s a potential exception with MMW carriers above 10 GHz, where transmission bursts might lead to short temperature spikes. The point, however, is that constant, 24/7 irradiation from 4G and down for the last 3 decades is a far worse threat. Effects are cumulative. This is mentioned in the vid, and why 5G ‘hysteria’ can be a dangerous distraction.

    The commonly/conveniently ignored fact is, power density alone is inadequate for determining safety. It’s use as a guideline is a convenience and a dodge by IEEE, FCC and Industry. The wireless perpetrators know the great variability and complexity posed by the sum of all factors creates an impossible situation. So they just keep it simple-y deadly, and the idea SEEMS to make sense. EMF scientists as a whole, however, are playing along, which is also concerning.

    A question about the meter vid is that the 5G phone is between meter and tower. IF MMW operates with directed narrow beams as the techies say, after the phone reaches a base station, there should be no radiation behind, off to the side, or even on it. Beaming is shown as Brian moves away from phone, but what would have been telling is to position the meter between phone and base station to see the difference, if any. That would probably confirm nasty ‘leakage.’

    Twenty million microwatts/meter2 is high (low isn’t provided, nor is the duration of that level). And that was a short distance behind and to the side of the phone. Strange.

    FCC limit for exposure at reception is measured in milliwatts/centimeter2 (it’s 1mw/cm2). First, to get to centimeter2, divide by 1000, giving 20,000 microwatts. A meter is 1000 cm, so dividing again, we get 20 mw/cm2 – twenty times FCC limit, which is based on tissue heating, and averaged over 30 minutes: From a SINGLE device…

    Heating level is important. That’s where carrier-specific effects (all) begin (microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz – close to WiFi – but at 600-1200 watts). Below heating, however, power density level, and changes in it, are less of a concern than changes in the chaos of puls/mod and other events happening in the real world, none of which are taken into account in studies and testing. Again, power meters are not telling.

    Heating level is a complex question due to variables, including frequency, spikes, power, and exposure time. And with MMW, whether skin is exposed, since MMW is easily blocked, even by leaves and heavy rain. This (and limited travel distance) is the very reason for numerous antenna installations – to re-direct blocked signals. Without this, 5Gmmw would fail utterly.

    SAR rating is USELESS to gauge exposure safety – another FCC ploy. I’m still looking for a way to convert, or relate, SAR ratings to power density in watts. Anyone?

    5G mobile is not yet in wide use. But there’s enough that if phones were putting out 20 MW spikes, and if that’s a heating level, we’d be hearing screams about burned hands, or maybe ears, from 5Gmmw phones, no?

    But the overall concern I see with 5Gmmw ‘hysteria,’ is that it’s like worrying about a wildfire a mile away while your house is already burning down. And 2G-4G has been doing that for 3 decades – more than enough without 5Gmmw to do us in. Moreover, the greater concern by far is for ecosystem, not humans. Another critical shortcoming of the ‘safety’ community overall.

    2G-4G was the “Crisis” we needed to “Stop.” Because, despite claims from such as BioInitiative and Building Biology, there is no known safe level of exposure – for all life forever – especially because, as noted, power density alone is scientifically inadequate tor setting safety limits.

    Also, the more we protect humans, the worse it gets for the ecosystem, because it encourages continued use and existence of wireless systems. And, by the way, there is no way to use your (any) phone safely. Safer is not safe, and ultimately pathological/fatal.

    Also, due to complexities of field exposures, I must disagree with Josh that meters are going to allow correlation of MMW with symptomologies. Impossible, because very few if any people aren’t constantly exposed simultaneously to myriad EMFs (2G-4G pass right through and impact every cell in the body), not to mention untold chemical exposures – with which EMFs interact/synergize, by the way. So the overall effect of our techno-toxic way of life on ecosystem and myriad, common human pathologies is HUGE.

    The only way to isolate is in a controlled environment, and that becomes virtually meaningless due to field complexities. It’s a lose/lose situation. Maybe what we really need to do is deal with this massive addiction to technomasturbation? 🙂

    A final point is, it’s not just the radiation that’s devastating the planet, but the entire abusive, toxic process, from mining on, of ‘merely’ creating all this gadgetry — before it’s even turned on. Not to mention disposal and the tons and tons of plastic used. If you really look at it, it’s a form of mental illness, because it’s ultimately suicidal. Society is quick to identify suicide as mental illness in the individual, but mighty slow when it comes to the “normalized” collective kind.

    • Hey Peter! Thanks for your post. I agree with much of what you said and even said a few similar things in this thread. You have added a lot of valuable information and context to this topic.

      I agree that there are many variables so it is nearly impossible to define “one cause” relating to symptoms since we have so much that is bombarding us from EMF, mold, metals, other toxins, etc.

      I have also observed that many people get different symptoms based on different frequency exposure as well. I don’t think what Josh said about mmWave detection helping on that front is off point. I think detecting when these waves are emitting and pains that we may have after using tech can be correlated.

      Here’s an example… PEMF is used therapeutically at specific frequencies to illicit bone healing, increased blood circulation, and even with stem cells to illicit healing responses in those areas of the body… and people feel positive symptoms from those types of EMF therapies. The same can be said of detrimental pulses of RF in certain frequency ranges causing anxiety or heart palpitations (Warren Woodward documented this with an EKG and I have had dozens of customers and friends who experience consistent heart palpitations with smart meters or pulses from cell phones at 900 MHz). This doesn’t mean everyone will get these symptoms because each person has various exposures that could contribute to this symptom BUT there can be perfect storms of environmental or internal toxins in the body causing people to be more susceptible to certain frequencies and thus causing symptoms because of that.

      I think you’d agree that detecting these frequencies and knowing when they are transmitting and what the radius is, etc. is an important step in determining healthier habits with this technology.

      Again thanks so much for sharing your knowledge and connecting some dots on here for people. It really adds to the discussion and I believe will help people understand better.

      Wishing you Best of Health!

      Brian

      • Brian, thanks for your reply. In suggesting that carrier frequencies are involved, you note PEMF. Yes, specific frequencies are used, but that’s “P for pulsed.” Try it without the pulses and see what you get 🙂 Carrier frequency involvement may seem to be involved, but isn’t.

        Interesting to consider is that with pulsed energy the same thing may be happening in the case of harm or healing. In healing, the biosystem is being shaken up, shaken, say, out of a dysfunctional, fixated homeostasis, then allowed to reset itself in more harmony and balance. In harm, the shaking never stops and actually creates additional disruptive fields. The system cannot reset. That’s why there are treatment time limits. If you left the person under healing influence permanently, great harm would occur.

        Also, “dozens of customers and friends who experience consistent heart palpitations with smart meters or pulses from cell phones at 900 MHz).” That’s two widely different frequencies resulting in the same thing (no cell phone I’m aware of uses 900 MHz – that’s cordless/DECT phone). But as you say, “pulses.” Carriers remain virtually constant. Puls/mod varies tremendously. You would need to remove all signal variability, and still get symptoms, to prove carrier has anything to do with it.

        And it’s not only about the panoply of exposures, but about the individuality of the, well, individual 🙂 There is obvious sameness, but wide disparity in susceptibility. Same for all other species. This is revealed clearly in the “EHS” victims – a misleading term. All life is electromagnetic and thus electromag sensitive, not hyper. The difference is whether it’s overt or not.

        So, when such folks “reduce exposure” and their symptoms abate, they often conclude that harm has stopped. No such thing. Harm never stops as long as one is exposed to the radiation.

        The limits suggested by BioInitiave and the BB people are in the category of “as far as we know,” not the Precautionary Principle. Or even in the admission that science may not be advanced enough to reveal all. This happened to BioInitiative between 2007 and 2012.

        The frequencies of carriers themselves are too high to have biological effects. Puls/mod is very low frequency. In 2G it is 217 Hz, in 3G, 4G, 5G it is 100 Hz. These frequencies “shake, rattle and roll” all charged and polar biological elements throughout the body, disrupting regulatory and metabolic processes. Because: They are artificial, pulsed and, especially, polarized.

        Thus, I must respectfully disagree that detecting/knowing and radius (2G-4G and 4G5G, not so much MMW) is all that much useful. For one thing, the radii of the noted Gs overlap to maintain coverage, so near-impossible to get outside it. But the point, for ecosystem survival and human health, is not to determine healthier habits with this tech (healthier is not healthy any more than safer is safe :-), but to get rid of it — or perish. There are no other choices.

        Anyone who (fully) understands the consequences of use – especially harm to the environment – and persists in that use for self-involved reasons loses, in my view, any right or claim to health, while participating in a dire threat to all life on earth.

        Unfortunately, full understanding has been a challenge to come by with the EMF scientist community overall capitulating to disaster by appealing to criminalized official agencies for what can’t exist, based on power density alone. And not one, except Olle Johansson, has ever stood up and said, hey, maybe we don’t know everything and maybe there is no way to live with it.

        May I suggest you take a look at “Giving Life the Electric Chair — The Plain Physics & Biophysics of Phone & WiFi Radiation” https://www.activistpost.com/2020/12/giving-life-the-electric-chair-the-plain-physics-biophysics-of-phone-wifi-radiation.html and see what you think?

        It’s written at a very basic level so not to turn off non-techies, but the references are all science-paper quality.
        Pax.

        • Thank you PeterT for your comments.

          Unfortunately the epitaph for humanity (and many other living things) may read:

          ¨But I needed my cell phone for (fill in the blank…)

          1) Work
          2) Emergencies
          3) To talk to my family¨

          It is disappointing that so many in the EMF awareness movement are cell phone users. As the only sane thing to do once one learns of the harms by these technologies is to throw them away and stop giving money to the telecom industry. The industry that is putting up towers all over the Earth and in space, irradiating everything.

          In addition to Olle, Martin Pall and Arthur Firtenberg have also given stark warnings, making it clear that we can choose between abandoning the tech or extinction.

          • Thanks, Luke. You hit the nail as well. And really, it’s not just wireless, but almost all, or all, advanced technology per se – what I call the techno-toxic consumer orgy. Not just the effect of it, either, but the entire process of getting to the point of use, beginning with rape/poisoning of earth to processing, manufacture, packaging, distribution and final disposition. I mean, there’s actually pride of our system of waste “management,” instead of deep shame of our waste 🙂

            There’s an article you might like to check out “Advanced Technology: Does Society’s Obsession Reflect a Form of Collective Mental Illness?”
            https://www.activistpost.com/2020/07/advanced-technology-does-societys-obsession-reflect-a-form-of-collective-mental-illness.html

        • I understand what you are saying. I just brought PEMF up for the example of biological change from EMF with pulses. I didn’t mean to suggest that carrier frequency was the main culprit just noting what frequency the pulses were that caused that particular symptom. Other frequencies with similar pulses didn’t always produce the same symptoms. We know from Becker’s and Pall’s work (and others) that the 60 Hz modulation causes similar effects whether it’s an electric, magnetic, or wireless frequency on the cellular level but there are symptom levels and areas of the body that could be affected more dependent on the frequency and carrier wave (length of the wave). Would a 12 inch wave affect tissues wrapped in a 12 inch conductive myelin sheath more than a 2 inch wave? What waves penetrate more deeply? There are many considerations.

          3G Bands use 850-860 MHz and that’s what I was referring to by the cell phone pulses in the 900 MHz range. It’s close enough that the pulses at that frequency were causing similar effects.

          I personally think that detecting the most intense radius is one piece of useful information for people to have but first and foremost it is important to know if it is ON or OFF and what actions you can take to avoid certain exposures.

          I know not everyone is going to agree on everything and I value the input from RF engineers and building biologists. I approach the entire EMF field from a health practitioner and clinical standpoint by asking people how they feel, valuing symptomology and physical signs from the body, working with doctors who have been dealing with these issues for a long time, and also looking at lab numbers improve or decline based on EMF and other environmental variables.

          Many of the recent comments I see on here have valid questions about measuring devices and what is valued from their perspectives. I don’t agree that relying on meters that are over $10K is the only solution. The cheaper ones listed in this article aren’t even very sensitive. The Wavecontrol I believe goes down to 1 v/m with the mmWave probe. That means you could have a very significant exposure and that expensive meter may not even pick it up at all.

          One thing I do agree on is that field strength is NOT the only marker to look at when measuring EMFs.

          The point ultimately is to avoid exposure which is nearly impossible to do and function in today’s society…

          And after that last sentence ^ I started skimming through your article.

          It is very well written and I love how you have documented everything in there. Great job.

          And I see that you have a health practitioner background as well so you likely understand this more from the perspective I’m sharing here.

          I agree with nearly 100% of your article. I just have experience in the health industry and putting in solutions for EMF that have informed my opinion on whether we can improve our health outcomes through reduction of EMFs and mitigation. Admittedly your article is mostly all about wireless radiation. We work to mitigate artificial light sources, 60 Hz electric and magnetic, EMI/harmonics, as well as wireless. Perhaps I misunderstood part of the conclusion or the intent though. I have hope and have seen major impacts putting in wireless shielding for people and recommending healthier lightbulbs, etc.

          I think anecdotal evidence can be abused but as it accumulates at some point it becomes clinical evidence and then can also become epidemiological if the sample gets to that size.

          On the article… I agree 100% except I may have more hope and experience to base that hope off of. I do think there are many areas where technology needs to be halted for the sake of health but until that happens I do believe that there is much we can do to protect ourselves and prevent a lot of damage.

          One of the tools we need as new technologies emerge is the ability to detect it. First and foremost to detect the presence of it and then we can have debates about pulses, waveforms, field strength, accuracy, etc. But if we can’t even detect it at all then we can’t change habits or make any correlations whatsoever. That’s the point of having a consumer level more affordable EMF meter that has a good enough sensitivity to measure the presence of that frequency range from 24GHz-32GHz where Verizon is using this tech (they are the largest carrier and have deployed the most so it’s a perfect place to start).

          • Thanks for the kind words about “Electric Chair.” You note that you skimmed it, which may or may not have been problematic.

            Don’t forget, the 60 Hz cycle is on a low-frequency range the same as telecom WiFI puls/mod. The wave questions, however, are still secondary to that. I’m not use of the cutoff “point,” but at least through the lower GHz region, at least up to 8, the waves pass right through people with ease, so the question of penetration is moot. There may be many considerations as well, but the only one not of mere academic interest, is whether a biosystem is getting ELF puls/mod. No matter what else is happening, that by itself is enough to do life in.

            As I see it, the premise and evidence in “Electric Chair” must be refuted for the overall gist of your reply to hold. That is, there is no safe exposure limit, period. Thus, reducing exposure is futile, and is especially offensive if those attempting it are using wireless. It also relegates measuring to interesting, but of very limited value – and that value would be if levels reach the heating point (I’m desperately trying to find out what that is in w/M2 – any idea?). But before heating, the stuff is terminally pathological.

            IF a safe level exists, there’s no way to establish it via testing and studies, neither of which even approximate real-world conditions, where **exposure variability and synergy** with people’s toxic-chemical loads can and do occur. That variability involves all output from vertically oriented antennas for commercial radio, digital TV, fire, police, and mobile-phone base stations. Not to mention everyone else’s phones and WiFI devices (I have to check to see if smart meters ‘count’ as well).

            The greatest threat by far, however, is to ecosystem, not humans. Reducing exposure to humans usually means worsening eco-threat by encouraging continued use. Thus, main emphasis should be on quitting, not measuring, at the consumer/use level. Are these aspects noted in the promotion of the meter?

            I concur wholeheartedly with the work on artificial light – a biggie (especially with the LED and CFL nonsense, and both are highly toxic chemically) – and the 60 Hz issue, dirty electricity and so on. But 1) none of that presents the threat to ecosystem that wireless does, and 2) there’s one thing about wireless energy these other threats don’t share – digitalization. Life is analog.

            I don’t want to be too Machiavellian about this, but even if we could protect ourselves in any meaningful way by reducing our own exposure, maybe we should just let the chips fall instead until the harm becomes so obvious that no more denial and excuses – as Luke noted – will fly. If ecosystem goes down before that, however, it won’t make any difference. And I know of no one that can predict that. So for survival, we should work on the “later today” premise 🙂

            Based on that, we don’t even have time to stand around measuring (or even to be bandying this about). All effort should be aimed at communicating the fact that the literature is beginning to burst with dire warning about harm to environment. We may already be to late. Thus, focus on humans is literally a waste of time, except to exhort them to QUIT — IF they want the planet to continue to support life as we know it.

            Given the foregoing, I have to take issue with “One of the tools we need as new technologies emerge is the ability to detect it. First and foremost to detect the presence of it and then we can have debates about pulses, waveforms, field strength, accuracy, etc.” As you say, “avoiding exposure is nearly impossible to do and function in today’s society…” We’re exposed to “whatever” is the point. We don’t have to pinpoint it. On one level, it’s all the same: Artificial, digitalized, polarized, pulsed, modulated microwave radiation in the ELF range. Period.

            Since there’s no safe level – for all life forever – in the long run, even if effective to a degree, all measuring and jumping through mitigation hoops will do is worsen the coming agony. Elimination is the only logical pursuit, and the only meaningful response to the threat. The major impacts you’ve seen might be deceptive in that, apparent or not, biophysics tells us, harm can proceed absent overt symptoms.

            The main challenges are extreme artificial dependency/obsession/addiction. People are carrying what they perceive to be their lives around with them, and some probably wouldn’t quit even if they had no doubt about the danger to Earth – even to their kids and pets. The tacit agreement of society’s adult sector: “We agree to poison and sicken Nature, fetuses, kids (and ourselves) for money.”

            After all, our technomasturbating way of life in general has already ‘normalized’ earth liquidation/destruction for profit, convenience, comfort and entertainment — under the auspices of “natural resources.” I call it the Idiotized Society: Conditioned dependence for survival and prosperity on pathological, self-destructive and ultimately suicidal ways and means. The Grand Oxymoron. The rather concerning part is, it’s no accident, but policy being carried out for nefarious purpose. That alone should be getting our hackles up.

          • Peter asked: ¨It also relegates measuring to interesting, but of very limited value – and that value would be if levels reach the heating point (I’m desperately trying to find out what that is in w/M2 – any idea?). But before heating, the stuff is terminally pathological.¨

            Again from Arthur Firstenberg, his reply:

            ¨There is always some heat, what varies is how much. FCC regulations were designed to prevent heating by more than one degree Celsius. Cell phones were allowed to expose you to an SAR of up to 1.6 W/kg. For millimeter waves, this has changed and the regs for those frequencies now permit partial body heating of up to five degrees Celsius. Supposedly this is safe because mm waves aren’t supposed to penetrate more than a half inch or so, which is also not true because they are using phased arrays which penetrate deeply.¨

          • Thanks again, Luke!

            Not sure where A. gets some of his info. Current, published FCC limit says 1.6 https://www.fcc.gov/general/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

            I wouldn’t doubt there’s always some heat (meaning, produced by the radiation), because you can bet they’re pushing the limit. They rely on blood circulation to remove it, but estimate that blood fails above a certain level.

            My question was not about the temperature, but about the alleged power density level that would cause the temp rise. Difference there. Of course, there are many variables. FCC sets for 30 minutes exposure, power averaged – which allows for spikes that can heat.

            Phased arrays don’t necessarily penetrate deeply – there is a condition, but it’s not based on power, but on a data transmission rate which hasn’t been reached yet, albeit close. A bit complicated.

            I’m just putting the finishing touches on a new piece about 5G. It will be explained in detail. If you’re interested, keep an eye out at activistpost.com/tag/peter-tocci Most of my stuff is archived at that link.

    • Peter asked: ¨I’m still looking for a way to convert, or relate, SAR ratings to power density in watts. Anyone?¨

      I asked Arthur Firstenberg, his reply:

      ¨First, power density tells you very little about harm, since there is in general not a dose response. Less power does not mean safer.

      1 W/kg (SAR) is about 20 mW/cm2 (in adult male humans).¨

      • Thanks Luke! I’m aware of power density inadequacy. What A. said is correct, but requires qualification – it’s not true across the board. But it does put into question WTF EMF scientists think they’re doing recommending and petitioning for new guidelines based on it! One possibility is that jobs/careers are more important than the truth.

        I’ve written an extensive article on wireless, arguing that there is no safe exposure limit – especially based on power density alone, but even if one existed theoretically, there’s no way to establish via testing and studies Giving Life the Electric Chair — The Plain Physics & Biophysics of Phone & WiFi Radiation https://www.activistpost.com/2020/12/giving-life-the-electric-chair-the-plain-physics-biophysics-of-phone-wifi-radiation.html

        Note: “Life,” not just humans. Greatest threat by far is to ecosystem. All efforts by humans to “reduce exposure” only increase the environmental threat exponentially. I’ve asked several prominent EMF scientists to please refute “Electric Chair.” Not one reply. It seems they’re all too busy or “above” anything written by a reporter and not published in a journal… And they might not want their name on record confirming the argument 🙂

        Arthur might also have mentioned that SAR is useless, too – maybe even more so than power density level 🙂 Info included in “Electric Chair.”

        The SAR/density equivalence is interesting. He seems to be the only one on the planet who can, or has, made the calculation 🙂 I know him well enough to ask to see his calculation, so no need on your part.

        Everyone I’ve asked says in effect – “Can’t get there from here” 🙂 There is no formula, apparently. IF it’s accurate, however, and since the “safe” whole-body SAR limit is 1.6 W/kg, that would work out to about 32 mW/cm2. Milliwatts, now.

        Scientists who believe in power density are calling, for example, for .003-.006 MICROwatts/cm2. So 1.6 SAR would be 32,000 μW/cm2. I haven’t been able to find what the heating level is on which the FCC limit of 1mW/cm2 is based, but I’m guessing that 20 mW would be frying people and 32 evaporating them 🙂

        Thanks again.

  • copy/paste of my post/q on Josh’s Telegram canal for Brian:

    Hi Josh,
    Thanks for the info.

    Is this new meter able to measure the 5G dynamic beam-hopping technology (whether sub-6GHz or mmW)?

    In the EU 5G rollouts are so far largely sub-6GHz (for max coverage and penetration). The available meters that we all use and know well, measure the sub-6GHz frequencies BUT are unable to measure the dynamic beam-hopping 5G tech. With 5G tech in the mix, these meters only provide a partial picture of the actual radiation levels.

    In fact, the Swiss government officially says that the dynamic beam-hopping 5G tech cannot be measured directly, so they’ve provided a very complex and complicated method to estimate 5G radiation (yes, estimate only). The Swiss government uses this estimate method to “ensure” compliance of radiation limits. Despite the “estimate only”, the Swiss government increased the radiation level limits 12/2021. A civilian is unable to use the estimate method as it requires input from the telcos (which they do not need to provide to civilians). In Switzerland we’ve lost the possibility to independently check the actual radiation levels.

    I’m sure the military can measure dynamic beam-hopping 5G tech. It sure would be great if we could too!

  • Hi Josh and Brian,

    I forwarded this article to a friend who is a Building Biologist and this was his frank reply:

    ¨Yeah, I’ve seen it. Our group has already researched the shit about it and it’s crap. Those two merchandizing hucksters, Nick and Brian, are good marketers but don’t know shit about what’s ailing the injured and how to fix it. I’d go into it but suffice to say that $1,000 won’t get you into a mid to low band rf meter let alone something that can sort through the higher frequency bands. Stay away.¨

    Thoughts?

    Has the performance and sensitivity of this meter been compared to a gold standard (i.e. a high quality meter used for detecting mm waves).

    Perhaps this meter can detect some of the frequencies in the mmw band but if it is not very accurate or misses most of the radiation, there is the risk that it can give a false sense of security.

    Luke

    • Also, for the sake on constructive dialogue we can ignore the statement above: ¨Those two merchandising hucksters, Nick and Brian, are good marketers but don’t know shit about what’s ailing the injured and how to fix it.¨

      This statement implies that Nick (Josh) and Brian are misleading people and are motivated by making money. I do not feel that this is the case as I believe both individuals are sincerely interested in helping people. Josh with his documentary video Take Back Your Power and the 5G Summit as well as ongoing work in the EMF space has done a lot to teach about ¨what´s ailing the injured and how to fix it.¨ I do not know Brian as well but he seems to have built a successful business around helping people remediate their homes.

      That statement is unfair, inaccurate and inappropriate.

      But it does bring up the question of due diligence on the part of Brian and Josh. Brian admits that he has only done very limited testing with the new meter and has not provided any third party laboratory performance data. It does not seem clear who the manufacturer is and if they are reputable.

      It does seem premature to be promoting and selling the meter.

      • “My name is Bernie, I am responsible for the wholseale of the FM5. Thank you for your inquiry, please find the tech data and retail conditions below and attached.

        Technical data for the FM5

        FM5 Base – Basic unit (can be upgraded with the millimeter wave module):
        40 MHz to 10 GHz
        RRP approx 500.00 USD

        Millimeter Wave Module (MM Wave Module):
        The FM5 has a slot for MM Wave Modules on the top of the unit.
        MM Wave Module can be installed at a later date or purchased already installed on the meter, will be exchangeable with future modules!
        First available MM Wave Modul:
        25 to 32 GHz (VZ28 – Verizon 28 GHz, also some older People-Counting Technology)
        RRP Base with MM Wave Module installed approx. 1000.00 USD
        Other MM Wave applications:
        Adaptive cruise control (ACC) : older models 20 GHZ and higher (up to 24 GHz?), now mostly 76 to 81 GHZ
        People-Counting Technology: now mostly 60 GHz radar

        More modules to be developed. Next planned modules are 39 / 40 GHz, and then 60 and 90 GHz. Is a work in progress really, we will develop new modules as the need arises. It is a balance between cost, availability of parts and what the demand is out there.

        Attached please find the pricing structure.

        Please let me know if you have any questions.

        Best wishes
        Bernie”

        [note from moderator: 1) I added bold emphasis on upgrade plans from the wholesaler. 2) this post originally contained a compilation of several anonymous-type comments collected from people who had not intended their comment to be posted here, so that part has been redacted. Anonymous commenting is not allowed on this site. Thank you.]

        • Some things that would be good to sort out regarding the new meter:

          The devices engineers use to measure radio frequency radiation in the mm wave band are tens of thousands of dollars, professional grade spectrum analyzers and oscilloscopes. The problems with consumer grade instruments like this are many. To get a true reading requires an instrument that has a very fast sample rate, and even when that is concentrated in a very narrow band of the spectrum they can still miss the incredibly short but powerful spikes of radiation. There are meters that can take a wide range of the spectrum and miss almost everything.

          A friend of mine has one, an Aaronia spectrum analyzer. He tells me that ¨It works best when focused in a very narrow band. It is useful for identifying the actual frequency of the transmission.¨

          So the question I have is how does the new meter stack up against the lab grade equipment?

          Has the manufacturer paid for third party tests?

          Just because the new meter has flashing lights or makes noises when the other meters that test in the sub-8/10 Ghz range are quiet, does not indicate how much of the mm wave radiation the new meter is able to catch.

          This is important for shielding applications. If I am wanting to create a space that is free of mm waves and the meter is only responding to 10 percent of what is out there and I use the meter to verify that I have made a low mm wave safe space. But the meter only picks up 10 percent of what is present, I may believe that I have made a space ¨safe¨ when in reality I have not.

          Do we have a real technological breakthrough here or is the manufacturer just trying to cash in on the fear around 5G?

          Who is the manufacturer?

          Typically reputable meters have their own website and brand.

          Is this the first meter made by this manufacturer or do they make other meters? If they make other meters, are the other meters any good? What is the reputation of the manufacturer?

          For future modules for the meter (the upgrades) will it be necessary to open it up and switch out the modules to get a reading over 39/40, 60, and 90 Ghz bands?

          It would be annoying and maybe not the most practical to have to carry around a pile of modules and disassemble the meter and swap modules to detect the different frequencies in one location. Plus, the time between readings (while disassembling and reassembling the meter) would cause one to miss a lot.

          So will the future upgrades to the meter be able to read 40 Mhz – 10 Ghz, 25-32 Ghz, 39/40 Ghz, 60 Ghz, and 90 Ghz simultaneously?

    • He said he did the research but apparently didn’t look at the specs. 40MHz-10GHz setting covers mid and low band 5G and the 24-32GHz covers Verizon’s high band 5G. Also, he says he researched but he didn’t even test the meter and doesn’t have one…yet has a very strong opinion about it. All red flags to me. His comments are charged and I hope I can change his mind through our work with this and further testing after we get more units here to the United States.

      Future antenna updates may cover AT&T in the 37-40GHz range high band and as other tech comes out the manufacturer hopes to continue updating.

      Orem Miller is actually very excited about this meter and he teaches and certifies nearly all the building biologists in the United States. He’s been doing so for decades now. I’ve been emailing back and forth with him about it.

      Josh and I are trying to be very clear in the presentation and on the Shielded Healing website about what the meter detects and what it does not.

      I agree that it’s possible any meter can miss radiation, especially if you don’t know what you are testing and what the frequency is. Right now nobody is able to test anything in that frequency range without spending the same money they would on a new car though.

      I can see plainly that mmWaves are coming from the phone at a much higher strength than the tower. When 5G is off on the phone we don’t detect anything on the meter.

      We will be posting videos testing all of this with the meter so not everyone has to buy one. People can sit back and let us professionals duke it out if they want. :-).

      I’m just really surprised about all the pushback on this. I think there could be an absolutely perfect meter that comes out and it would have the same pushback unless it’s coming from the people that are being so critical.

      I wasn’t aware of any animosity toward myself or Nick before the comments on this thread. Nobody has said anything to me or challenged me on what I teach, sell, etc. I try to have the utmost integrity in everything that I do. If this building biologists has an issue I’d love him to email me and I could set up a time to talk with him privately or with Orem.

  • I think it’s very important for everyone to know that the mmwaves used in ‘5G’ are on-demand and beam-formed. This should be front and center regarding this meter, otherwise, the general public will not use it correctly.

    This is going to make it very challenging, even with a good meter, to obtain accurate measurements of those waves.

    Anyone who purchases this meter should have ample training on how to pick up these beams, and know that being on-demand, will mean they’re there sometimes, and sometimes not.

    The public should also know that since these waves are on-demand, their exposure may not be what they think it is, even if they’re lucky enough to catch the beam, which they most likely will not.

    Finally, I don’t see the usefulness in this meter given that ‘5G’ does not work in isolation. It must have ‘4G’ to function well. Thus, if your meter can detect ‘4G’, which almost all RF meters do, then you can extrapolate your exposure.

    All of this means to me, a certified Electromagnetic Specialist, that the meter has very limited value. Some may have a very specific reason to measure the mmwaves, in which case, maybe you’ll catch the beam and maybe not, but otherwise, I think it’s a bit too soon.

    • Thanks Cathy for weighing in on this point. I agree.

      How practical is the instrument?

      Many of the phone companies seem to be moving to the mid-band (presumably for better penetration) and since the mm waves are supposedly directed beam formed and on demand, one is going to miss most of what is out there unless the meter operator just happen to put the meter in the beam.

      I assume that people who are concerned with 5G are not going to own 5G enabled devices. So the concern would be exposures from other people or devices. This will be difficult to detect because one would have to have the meter out and be in a location where they are concerned about exposure at just the exact moment when a 5G phone, self-driving car, or 5G drone happens to pass.

      But people who are concerned about EMFs should avoid cities anyway.

      • Yes exactly Luke. Though to be fair, many people can’t avoid cities, and even in the ‘country’ we often measure fairly high EMF’s. There are numerous reasons why. It takes a lot of due diligence to really know what you’re dealing with.

  • Electromagnetic specialist collaboration.

    A project that would be helpful would be to have the people who have and know how to operate mm wave meters start a public thread where they outline how the 5G system works, what frequencies are used, how to measure and reduce exposure.

    Probably among the Building Biology and electromagnetic specialist community there is a pretty good collection of different mm wave detecting meters.

    We could develop testing protocol and the meter owners can make videos and share the data, doing similar tests with different meters.

    5G Ground
    Can someone actually break down how the 5G ground system works?

    Knowing how it operates is relevant to understanding what we are looking for and how we can develop detection strategies.

    I have two pieces of information: that the mm wave small cell antennas are dormant and on demand (not constantly on). The other piece of info is that the mid-band or low-band are used to establish the initial connection.

    This is my assumption of how the system works:

    The 5G enabled device (cell phone or whatever) sends out a transmission to ¨wake up¨ any 5G small cells in the area using either the low or mid-band (which?).

    Question: Do the small cells periodically send out transmissions ¨looking¨ for 5G enabled devices? If so, how frequently do they do so? Such transmissions would presumably use the low or mid-bands for better penetration and would have to be omnidirectional.

    More likely I would think that the small cell towers are dormant until activated in order to reduce power consumption.

    So once the 5G phone ¨wakes up¨ the nearest 5G small cell and they do the ¨hand shake¨, if the connection is good (no barriers like trees between the phone and the small cell tower), then the higher spectrum millimeter wave data dump can commence.

    If the connection is poor or the user of the phone goes behind a barrier (say a brick wall) during a transmission, then the phone would presumably drop down into the mid or low-band frequencies to increase penetration. If this was still not effective then I assume the phone would just revert to using 4GLte and ¨communicate¨ with the big cell towers.

    Can anybody verify if this is how it works?

    5G Space

    It would also be good to know how the space system works from a technical point of view too.

    ¨Yes, they will be aiming focused beams from space. However, the beams from space will be 8, 15, or 50 miles in diameter by the time they reach the earth, depending on the altitude of the satellites. And once there are satellites above every spot of ground, the electrical properties of the atmosphere will be altered and there will not be any escape from that even if you are not in a main beam.¨ Arthur Firstenberg, email communication.

    ¨A 5-million-watt beam from 700 miles away will produce a power level of only 13 picowatts (trillionths of a watt) per square centimeter on the ground¨
    (https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/planetary-emergency/)

    ¨some of whose beams will have an effective power of up to ten million watts.¨
    (https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/441449-Low-Earth-Orbit-Satellites.pdf)

    ¨AST & ScienceThis company, based in the U.S., is designing its satellites to communicate directly with cell phones… using more than 83,000,000 watts per beam.¨
    (https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Update-on-Satellites.pdf)

    Are there meters sensitive enough to pick up the ¨footprints¨ of these beams from space?
    What frequencies are we talking about here, from space?

    Tests:

    5G SPACE
    Can we detect the mm wave beams from space using a meter on the ground?
    To determine if a neighbor, for example, in a rural area has a Starlink internet connection in the area?

    DORMANT 5G CELLS?
    Do the 5G small cells actually stay dormant or do they elicit periodic transmissions looking for 5G enabled devices?

    The carrier for a particular 5G small cell could be identified. Then using meters designed to detect transmissions in the mid and low-band and meters also used for detecting the appropriate frequencies in the mm wave band, the meters could be placed near (how near?, near/far field) the 5G small cell for say an hour on four different sides of the tower. By monitoring the low and mid-band we should be able to distinguish between the 5G small cell ¨seeking¨ other devices (i.e. noticeable transmission spikes in only the low to mid-band at consistent time intervals) and activation by a 5G enabled device (a transmission in the low to mid-band followed by a transmission in the mm wave spectrum). This would confirm that the towers really are dormant or if they have some activity.

    CLOTHING
    If rain and leaves can block mm wave transmissions, what kind of clothing is sufficient to block mm wave transmissions?

    Another test that could be done is to do a test like Brian did with the phone but to put single layer fabrics between the phone and tower with a meter on the tower side and a meter on the phone side (the clothing placed in a way to block a direct line of radiation from the phone from reaching the meter on the tower side and visa-versa. Cotton t-shirts, jeans type fabric, thick leather jackets, etc. Trying a collection of different materials to identify which, if any, provide significant blocking capabilities for mm waves. This information would obviously be useful if one is passing through an area where mm waves are in use.

    Also, it would be good to see how the different shielding fabrics perform. Since the hole space in the metallic mesh used in RF shielding fabrics corresponds to the size of the wave that the fabric is designed to block, as we get higher up the electromagnetic spectrum (mm waves), do more mm waves pass through the current fabrics that are in use? Or do the current fabrics still work well? And are there cheaper fabrics (thick cotton curtains for example) that are effective for blocking mm waves?

    LEAKAGE and BEAM WIDTH
    Peter: ¨A question about the meter vid is that the 5G phone is between meter and tower. IF MMW operates with directed narrow beams as the techies say, after the phone reaches a base station, there should be no radiation behind, off to the side, or even on it. Beaming is shown as Brian moves away from phone, but what would have been telling is to position the meter between phone and base station to see the difference, if any. That would probably confirm nasty ‘leakage.’¨

    Brian, next time, please put the phone on something non-metallic (like a wooden stool), the metal car hood is going to send RF all over the place, making an actual understanding of the radiation radius in a typical use situation inaccurate. People are generally holding their phone and not using it on top of a metal surface. The metal surface may account for the 20-foot (7 meter)? radius of leakage with waves reflecting off the hood.

    It would be good to set up a series of tests in different parts of the country using the same basic formula, testing different service providers and frequencies:

    Radius/leakage test:
    Choose a location 100 meters from an identified 5G small cell with direct-line-of-sight, no obstructions.
    Place a 5G phone 1 meter from the ground (a typical height for use) on a wooden stool or similar object.
    Once activating the 5G function, walk around the phone to detect the radius and take readings at various distances from phone to determine leakage.

    Beam width test:
    Once the radius is determined, find say, three different distances to pass between the direct line between the phone and tower.
    If the phone is 100 meters from the tower and the detectable leakage radius is 4 meters (or whatever), the meter could be passed through the beam at 25, 50, and 75 meter distances from the tower.
    Placing the meter directly between the 5G small cell and the phone.
    This should give us an idea of the beam width and if it spreads out much over distance.

    What would actually be done with this information would depend on what someone is trying to accomplish but it would give us a better understanding of the parameters for 5G.
    The information would give us ideas to reduce exposures and inform mitigation strategies.
    Just confirming that the towers are always dormant unless activated would mean that the system is less dangerous. Not that we do not need to get rid of RF radiation but just that we can know how the system actually works and to not have fears about things that do not exist (e.g. 5G towers transmitting omnidirectional mm waves 24/7).

    I am sure that other folks can come up with other tests and considerations.

    The main idea is to create a forum where people can collaborate, share testing strategies and mitigation approaches.

    • There is really not a good collection of mmWave meters in the EMF professional community. It’s more a collection of information and theory.

      I purchased an mmWAve meter a few years ago the beginning of 2019 (the SAF one from 26-40GHz) and found hardly any exposures testing all around LA, Austin, and Dallas. At the time I obviously didn’t have my own mmWave enabled device to test it with. Now people do.

      As professionals we can over time afford to spend more money on the fancier equipment but often it’s not needed to make a good recommendation. If we can just verify where the exposure is coming from and what initiates the signals we can give good recommendations. Still if someone asks you if a tower is emitting signals you can’t tell them with 100% certainty that it is or isn’t without testing.

      This particular meter doesn’t have to be everything everyone needs as far as the mmWave spectrum but it is something.

      Any RF meter can make people worried if they don’t understand the readings. This isn’t due to mmWaves alone. There’s also always the danger of people having false sense of security with ANY RF meter. I carry multiple meters with me that measure the same types of EMFs to every assessment to confirm readings and that the equipment is working properly.

      I like the ideas on what to test and that’s what I definitely plan to do myself and in collaboration with other professionals. We can’t do any of that type of testing without affordable meters to test with though. Even if you have an expensive one and spent $50K on it you still only have one and can only test one location.

      To test properly, the way that these small cells with beam forming MIMO tech operate, multiple meters are needed to be placed around the tower with multiple people monitoring.

      This all will be interesting but the most basic information that people need and the most basic reason for purchasing the meter or using it is to show them how to best use the technology if they choose to use it OR to show them how they can avoid large exposures if they are around those that do use it. There’s a huge spectrum of people to help and not everyone is going to just stop using technology but they still deserve help and compassion.

      We have to start somewhere with mmWaves and this meter isn’t perfect (first products in a market usually are not) but it’s a huge leap forward in confirming or disproving what we’ve been told in regards to 5G mmWaves. Testing in the 28GHz range makes sense because it’s the largest mmWave rollout so far with the largest company (Verizon). Making a meter that can change modules later if needed to include other ranges is also a great step.

      Perhaps some skeptics will just need to wait for more specs and more testing to come out before they feel comfortable with it. I’ve tested it and am excited to be helping with this project. I think overall it is a huge win and will reveal much that we need to know to help people and prevent harm.

    • I have received a couple of replies to my questions:

      Arthur Firstenberg:

      ¨The small cells are constantly scanning the environment searching for devices. I do not believe they are ever off. But yes, the scanning frequencies are lower and not millimeter waves. Different companies can use whatever frequency they please, there is no standard.

      The satellites work the same way as the ground-based antennas, using the same frequencies, except they have the capability to serve a lot more customers per satellite. Harder or impossible to detect because the signal at earth’s surface is so much weaker than the signals from ground-based antennas.¨

  • Watch on YouTube:
    "Take Back Your Power"

    Download Free Guide

    >