The first affordable MM Wave tester is here… and the results are staggering

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).