How damgerous are those EMF antennas?

[Makrosky]

I'm soon moving out of my flat and into a new one . The new one has those two emf towers /antennas, that are about 50m away . Do you think those are dangerous in terms of EMF damage ?
I can only live close to the city for my job as I dont own a car, so some level of EMF will be unavoidable.
I'll attach two pictures of it.
Thank you !

If the radiation from those mthfuckrs get to your house, you are screwed. STAY AWAY AT ALL COSTS. It is extremely bad for health. Don´t play with that.

It also depends on the orientation. It might be that they don't emit directly to your place. Only way to know is with an EMF meter, which is always good to have anyway (Cornet one is good) but you are not going to be able to catch up all frequencies specially 5G. I wouldn't take the risk.

Stay away from strong EMFs man, really. I had the worst time of my life by living at 150-200m from those kind of towers in direct line of sight with only a wall as protection. Avoid it like the plague. Stay away please.

Cheers

 

[Makrosky]

That's what peat said when I asked him the same question as in the OP .

"Aluminum foil or wire screens on the walls between the towers and your room would be protective. Drapes and curtains containing shielding fibers are available."

No no no no!!!! Ray is wrong there.

In theory yes, aluminium foil blocks it, but it doesn't work at a practical level. It is even worse. I have experienced it and there are also papers discussing this. It makes the electromagnetic signals to bounce wildly or even concentrate with more strength at some points. There is no way to escape, only a faraday cage.

What Ray describes MIGHT work only in a scenario where the unique source of EMF is the antenna and you are not sorrounded by anything else, like in the countryside. But in a urban scenario, no way.

Stay away from those my man.

 

[Kayaker]

It makes the electromagnetic signals to bounce wildly or even concentrate with more strength at some points.

Did you come to this conclusion after measuring with an EMF meter? Also, what if there is a case in which a router is on a specific side of the wall?

 

[Makrosky]

Did you come to this conclusion after measuring with an EMF meter? Also, what if there is a case in which a router is on a specific side of the wall?

I did measure it. I felt it also very clearly. And it is even published in at least one paper. It happens.

 

[Kayaker]

I did measure it. I felt it also very clearly. And it is even published in at least one paper. It happens.

So wearing faraday fabric under one's hat wouldn't be beneficial?

 

[Makrosky]

So wearing faraday fabric under one's hat wouldn't be beneficial?

For that I am not sure since the body (I guess! GUESS) won't make the signal bounce but rather absorv it. So the total net absorption would be less.

But it is a lost battle I think. The goal should be:
- Remove the most gross offending devices. Router and electric outlets close to places where you spend time, specially bed.
- Improve health so you don't suffer so much from EMF.
- Live life otherwise you will end up living isolated in the countryside.

 

[Kayaker]

For that I am not sure since the body (I guess! GUESS) won't make the signal bounce but rather absorv it. So the total net absorption would be less.

But it is a lost battle I think. The goal should be:
- Remove the most gross offending devices. Router and electric outlets close to places where you spend time, specially bed.
- Improve health so you don't suffer so much from EMF.
- Live life otherwise you will end up living isolated in the countryside.

Wikipedia strongly pushes the notion that electromagnetic sensitivity syndrome is fictitious, likely because of $ in the wireless industry. If a person experiences disproportionately strong or long brain fog in response to a weak or short EMF exposure, wouldn't that be proof of an allergy of some sort to EMF?

 

[Makrosky]

Wikipedia strongly pushes the notion that electromagnetic sensitivity syndrome is fictitious, likely because of $ in the wireless industry. If a person experiences disproportionately strong or long brain fog in response to a weak or short EMF exposure, wouldn't that be proof of an allergy of some sort to EMF?

It has been discussed in the forum extensively. Bad effects from EMF are real, there are hundres (if not thousands) of papers describing it.

 

[UG Krishnamurti]

No not at all lol Radio frequency & Microwave Meters
Any high frequency one one in the link above is good but if on a budget at least buy the Cornet 88T plus.

Hey @RealNeat, @Perry Staltic
I've found a decent property to buy with a wonderful house but the cell tower is around 370m away from the property.
The only device I can get my hands on is this one: LINK

Do you think it will offer any value to measure the radiation with it? It has good reviews but on aliexpress....

I asked Ray about the distance between the cell tower and he said: "I think that’s a safe distance."

 

[Perry Staltic]

Hey @RealNeat, @Perry Staltic
I've found a decent property to buy with a wonderful house but the cell tower is around 370m away from the property.
The only device I can get my hands on is this one: LINK

Do you think it will offer any value to measure the radiation with it? It has good reviews but on aliexpress....

I asked Ray about the distance between the cell tower and he said: "I think that’s a safe distance."

I don't know anything about that meter. I wouldn't worry about it. That tower is pretty far away. I have to be pretty close to them before I see the signal spike. I agree with Ray

 

[UG Krishnamurti]

I don't know anything about that meter. I wouldn't worry about it. That tower is pretty far away. I have to be pretty close to them before I see the signal spike. I agree with Ray

Interesting, thanks.

The other problem I have with the property is the soil which you can see in the picture. It is just a few meters across from my property. It looks like they are doing monoculture crops and probably spraying pesticide. I've yet to confirm that information.

If that was true, I think living next to it would be extremely dangerous, would you agree?

 

[Perry Staltic]

Interesting, thanks.

The other problem I have with the property is the soil which you can see in the picture. It is just a few meters across from my property. It looks like they are doing monoculture crops and probably spraying pesticide. I've yet to confirm that information.

If that was true, I think living next to it would be extremely dangerous, would you agree?

Depends. My parents lived next to a farm field that was several hundred acres, and they never had a problem and lived to a ripe old age. I'd find out what they grow and maybe talk to the people to see what and how they spray. Does the property have well or municipal water?

 

[BearWithMe]

I don't know anything about that meter. I wouldn't worry about it. That tower is pretty far away. I have to be pretty close to them before I see the signal spike. I agree with Ray

You don't know anything about anything.

Every study I have ever read on the topic says that the "dangerous zone" is 500m around the tower. People living 500m and closer to the tower have significantly higher incidece of cancer, depression, headaches, sleep problems....

As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft (∼500 m) from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft (∼50 m). Several of the papers previously cited indicate that symptoms lessen at that distance, despite the many variables involved. However, with new technologies now being added to cell towers such as Wi-Max networks, which add significantly more power density to the environment, setback recommendations can be a very unpredictable reassurance at best. New technology should be developed to reduce the energy required for effective wireless communication.

Canadian Science Publishing

To summarize the epidemiological studies of Pearce, the research has documented 80% of conditions of harmful neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer to people dwelling at distances in less than 500m from the cell site (“Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers”).
Pearce’s data points out that living near cell tower base stations may harm people’s health. Consequently, residing close to less than 500m from the cell tower sites might affect human health.

(PDF) Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers

PDF | The use of cellular phones is now ubiquitous through most of the adult global population and is increasingly common among even young children in... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

 

[Perry Staltic]

You don't know anything about anything.

Every study I have ever read on the topic says that the "dangerous zone" is 500m around the tower. People living 500m and closer to the tower have significantly higher incidece of cancer, depression, headaches, sleep problems....

OK, I was just replying about what I've seen on my meter.

 

[UG Krishnamurti]

Does the property have well or municipal water?

It does not have dig out well but the owner informed me that on his property there is a place for a well because there is HQ water underneath.

Every study I have ever read on the topic says that the "dangerous zone" is 500m around the tower. People living 500m and closer to the tower have significantly higher incidece of cancer, depression, headaches, sleep problems....

I've read that from a few different places too and therefore I was surprised about Rays answer - although it was not an assertive answer.
Do you think measuring radiation with an EMF meter would offer any value or you would only specifically stick to the studies you've mentioned?

What if the readings were low or "safe"?

I also asked Pedro DoAmaral and he said: "Safe imo and you can always rig your place up to reduce issues. Use an EMF meter to get a reading close to the tower And then in your house. And outside your house.
If it reads wild, then prob not a good idea"

 

[BearWithMe]

It does not have dig out well but the owner informed me that on his property there is a place for a well because there is HQ water underneath.

I've read that from a few different places too and therefore I was surprised about Rays answer - although it was not an assertive answer.
Do you think measuring radiation with an EMF meter would offer any value or you would only specifically stick to the studies you've mentioned?

What if the readings were low or "safe"?

I also asked Pedro DoAmaral and he said: "Safe imo and you can always rig your place up to reduce issues. Use an EMF meter to get a reading close to the tower And then in your house. And outside your house.
If it reads wild, then prob not a good idea"

The radiation might come from many sources, not just towers. The towers might have different power output, the antennas might be focused to different angles, the surroundings might or might not scatter or reflect the signal, too many variables to make a guess without measuring the radiation.

You will have very, very hard time searching for a property without cell tower near. Sometimes I doubt there are any safe places left.

 

[UG Krishnamurti]

The radiation might come from many sources, not just towers. The towers might have different power output, the antennas might be focused to different angles, the surroundings might or might not scatter or reflect the signal, too many variables to make a guess without measuring the radiation.

You will have very, very hard time searching for a property without cell tower near. Sometimes I doubt there are any safe places left.

So at the end it comes down to measuring radiation at different part or the day, at least, to see if there are any spikes or "scattering" as you called it. The cell tower is surrounded by some forest which could potentially reduce the radiation hopefully...