Subject:  (Ozaktas) RF/MW meter, reply to Scherer (fwd)
Date:     Wed, 23 Sep 1998 064059 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:14:24 +0400 (EET DST)
From: Haldun Ozaktas 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: RF/MW meter, reply to Scherer

>Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:10:12 +0000
>From: "Wolfgang W. Scherer" 
>Our radio technology already had in the 70s radio receivers with  a 
>sensitivity of 0.5 microvolt  out of a FM antenna coil on a printed 
>circuit board with about 4 cm^2
>we can measure much less  today 
>but the environmental EM "noise" in North American cities is already 
>in the high microwatts as I have pointed out long ago.

I am not talking about technological advancements in meters.
I am simply talking about commercial availability of practical
and cheap meters which are of some use. This is the case for
ELF Gaussmeters, but not for RF/MW meters.

I do not know about really dense downtown areas, but if you
are not truly close to major sources including FM/TV and
cell towers, the ambient is likely less than 0.1 microW/cm^2.
Can anyone improve on this statement?

>The argument is not 
>how sensitive and complex  the measuring devices are or could/should 
>be BUT HOW MUCH EXPOSURE REGULATIONS  ALLOW

I would advocate 0.1 microW/cm^2 as an interim standard.
But since that is not going to happen, we have to take care
of ourselves. Reliable, affordable meters are the key to knowledge
and self-protection. In the short term, it is needed to get
meaningful instruments in the hands of as many people as possible.

>With what we know today from
> microwave research , epidemiological reserach,
> and direct laboratory experiments
> permanent exposure limits should be in the nanoWatt range
> -  not the milliwatt range - 
> a difference  of 1 to a Million!!!

I am willing to put up with 0.1 microW/cm^2 even for children,
pregnant people and the elderly. nanoW/cm^2 seems too difficult.
Does anybody live in a place where RF/MW exposure is so low?
It seems unattainable in a city. 0.1 microW/cm^2 seems attainable
and there are few effects reported in that range.

>My neighbour John Evans has promoted the best remedy:
>bombarding our politicians and "experts" with all the negative 
>evidence until they do their job -
>Greetings
>Wolfgang
>Wolfgang W. Scherer

Regulation is too slow. It may (or may not) work in Australia or Canada 
or Sweden or Denmark, but it is not going to help us in the USA
or Turkey or Korea. Free market approaches to safety are also important.
Set voluntary standards, advertise, educate. Give people knowledge
and tools to measure. The manufacturers will follow. This will
not solve all problems, but will solve some much quicker in the
short term and have a positive impact.

Haldun



Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html