Re: Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley, CA

[Guest guest]

I have a test report of the TES92.

It states *Totally misleading results*.

Over the frequency range, the values go up and down several times.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton

Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

I am hoping to hear from anyone who has taken street level ambient /Background

RF readings in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley.

My Tes-92 is reading between 600 to 2000 µW/m2 on various street locations in

SF,OAK/BKY, while my Cornet meter is reading between 15 to 60 µW/m2 at the same

respective locations.

I am very curious to know whether readings from your meter(s) are closer to my

Tes-92 or Cornet. I just don't know which of my 2 meters are closer to the

truth.

The Tes-92 itself specifies that at 500 Mhz, it would over-state measurements

greatly. But would there be such a large amount of 500MHz RF's at street level?

I wonder.

Also, I got a constant 4000 µW/m2 reading when near a fire station. I wonder

why. I don't think they use 500 Mhz, and even if they do, the signal shouldn't

be so constant, right? There should be RF only when they are actively talking,

which shouldn't be all the time.

Comments from anyone having any insight on any of the above would be

appreciated.

Thanks,

Ann

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Did you check your mail? I wrote to you there, did it go through?

>

> I am hoping to hear from anyone who has taken street level ambient /Background

RF readings in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley.

>

> My Tes-92 is reading between 600 to 2000 �W/m2 on various street locations

in SF,OAK/BKY, while my Cornet meter is reading between 15 to 60 �W/m2 at the

same respective locations.

>

> I am very curious to know whether readings from your meter(s) are closer to my

Tes-92 or Cornet. I just don't know which of my 2 meters are closer to the

truth.

>

> The Tes-92 itself specifies that at 500 Mhz, it would over-state measurements

greatly. But would there be such a large amount of 500MHz RF's at street level?

I wonder.

>

> Also, I got a constant 4000 �W/m2 reading when near a fire station. I

wonder why. I don't think they use 500 Mhz, and even if they do, the signal

shouldn't be so constant, right? There should be RF only when they are actively

talking, which shouldn't be all the time.

>

> Comments from anyone having any insight on any of the above would be

appreciated.

>

> Thanks,

> Ann

>

[Guest guest]

It's possible that " fire stations " have some kind of cordless base- from

something like walkie talkies....the base would pulse/ transmit constantly.

The newer cordless phones and the walkie talkies are very similiar as far as the

base goes..and those base's where the handsets are charged

are extremely powerful. They have been compared to a mini cell tower!

Lizzie

From: charles@...

Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:32:44 +0200

Subject: Re: Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

I have a test report of the TES92.

It states *Totally misleading results*.

Over the frequency range, the values go up and down several times.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton

Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

I am hoping to hear from anyone who has taken street level ambient /Background

RF readings in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley.

My Tes-92 is reading between 600 to 2000 µW/m2 on various street locations in

SF,OAK/BKY, while my Cornet meter is reading between 15 to 60 µW/m2 at the same

respective locations.

I am very curious to know whether readings from your meter(s) are closer to my

Tes-92 or Cornet. I just don't know which of my 2 meters are closer to the

truth.

The Tes-92 itself specifies that at 500 Mhz, it would over-state measurements

greatly. But would there be such a large amount of 500MHz RF's at street level?

I wonder.

Also, I got a constant 4000 µW/m2 reading when near a fire station. I wonder

why. I don't think they use 500 Mhz, and even if they do, the signal shouldn't

be so constant, right? There should be RF only when they are actively talking,

which shouldn't be all the time.

Comments from anyone having any insight on any of the above would be

appreciated.

Thanks,

Ann

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi Ann,

knowemf wrote:

> Also, I got a constant 4000 µW/m2 reading when near a fire station. I wonder

why.

Police and fire do use the 450-460 Mhz public frequencies.

I have a thick paper book listing what frequencies are used by which

departments for use by scanners.

> the signal shouldn't be so constant, right? There should be RF only when

they are actively talking, which shouldn't be all the time.

>

No, it shouldn't be constant, UNLESS it is the staffing headquarters for

Dispatch. Then it would be near constant radio traffic.

[Guest guest]

Remember that Cornet instrument is 1-axis. TES92 is 3 axis.

One axis meter only " looks " in one direction, 3-axis meter picks up form all

directions, so it will always read higher when there are multiple signals.

Also note that digital signals are tricky to measure as the timing of pulse

peaks to quiet periods can vary widely. Different meters will report the

result differently, even if the peak " strength " is the same. Sometimes very

differently.

Add to that, when multiple digital signals are present, the peaks will not

be aligned. So they don't add up linearly. To the meter, it will look like

one signal with more frequent pulses. NOT the same number of pulses, just

stronger. This adds additional error.

Emil

Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

I am hoping to hear from anyone who has taken street level ambient

/Background RF readings in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley.

My Tes-92 is reading between 600 to 2000 µW/m2 on various street locations

in SF,OAK/BKY, while my Cornet meter is reading between 15 to 60 µW/m2 at

the same respective locations.

I am very curious to know whether readings from your meter(s) are closer to

my Tes-92 or Cornet. I just don't know which of my 2 meters are closer to

the truth.

The Tes-92 itself specifies that at 500 Mhz, it would over-state

measurements greatly. But would there be such a large amount of 500MHz RF's

at street level? I wonder.

Also, I got a constant 4000 µW/m2 reading when near a fire station. I

wonder why. I don't think they use 500 Mhz, and even if they do, the signal

shouldn't be so constant, right? There should be RF only when they are

actively talking, which shouldn't be all the time.

Comments from anyone having any insight on any of the above would be

appreciated.

Thanks,

Ann

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Tetra is in the 400+ range which will be broadcasting from the firestation.

From: Emil at Less EMF Inc <lessemf@...>

Subject: Re: Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

Date: Wednesday, 29 June, 2011, 14:51

 

Remember that Cornet instrument is 1-axis. TES92 is 3 axis.

One axis meter only " looks " in one direction, 3-axis meter picks up form all

directions, so it will always read higher when there are multiple signals.

Also note that digital signals are tricky to measure as the timing of pulse

peaks to quiet periods can vary widely. Different meters will report the

result differently, even if the peak " strength " is the same. Sometimes very

differently.

Add to that, when multiple digital signals are present, the peaks will not

be aligned. So they don't add up linearly. To the meter, it will look like

one signal with more frequent pulses. NOT the same number of pulses, just

stronger. This adds additional error.

Emil

Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

I am hoping to hear from anyone who has taken street level ambient

/Background RF readings in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley.

My Tes-92 is reading between 600 to 2000 µW/m2 on various street locations

in SF,OAK/BKY, while my Cornet meter is reading between 15 to 60 µW/m2 at

the same respective locations.

I am very curious to know whether readings from your meter(s) are closer to

my Tes-92 or Cornet. I just don't know which of my 2 meters are closer to

the truth.

The Tes-92 itself specifies that at 500 Mhz, it would over-state

measurements greatly. But would there be such a large amount of 500MHz RF's

at street level? I wonder.

Also, I got a constant 4000 µW/m2 reading when near a fire station. I

wonder why. I don't think they use 500 Mhz, and even if they do, the signal

shouldn't be so constant, right? There should be RF only when they are

actively talking, which shouldn't be all the time.

Comments from anyone having any insight on any of the above would be

appreciated.

Thanks,

Ann

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

:

Many thanks. I would be most grateful if there is any way you can provide a

link to that test report on the Tes-92 which mentioned.

thanks again,

Ann

>

> I have a test report of the TES92.

> It states *Totally misleading results*.

>

> Over the frequency range, the values go up and down several times.

>

> Greetings,

> Claessens

> member Verband Baubiologie

> www.milieuziektes.nl

> www.milieuziektes.be

> www.hetbitje.nl

> checked by Norton

>

>

>

> Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

>

>

> I am hoping to hear from anyone who has taken street level ambient

/Background RF readings in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley.

>

> My Tes-92 is reading between 600 to 2000 µW/m2 on various street locations

in SF,OAK/BKY, while my Cornet meter is reading between 15 to 60 µW/m2 at the

same respective locations.

>

> I am very curious to know whether readings from your meter(s) are closer to

my Tes-92 or Cornet. I just don't know which of my 2 meters are closer to the

truth.

>

> The Tes-92 itself specifies that at 500 Mhz, it would over-state

measurements greatly. But would there be such a large amount of 500MHz RF's at

street level? I wonder.

>

> Also, I got a constant 4000 µW/m2 reading when near a fire station. I

wonder why. I don't think they use 500 Mhz, and even if they do, the signal

shouldn't be so constant, right? There should be RF only when they are actively

talking, which shouldn't be all the time.

>

> Comments from anyone having any insight on any of the above would be

appreciated.

>

> Thanks,

> Ann

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

I did sent it to you.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton

Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

>

>

> I am hoping to hear from anyone who has taken street level ambient

/Background RF readings in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley.

>

> My Tes-92 is reading between 600 to 2000 µW/m2 on various street locations

in SF,OAK/BKY, while my Cornet meter is reading between 15 to 60 µW/m2 at the

same respective locations.

>

> I am very curious to know whether readings from your meter(s) are closer

to my Tes-92 or Cornet. I just don't know which of my 2 meters are closer to

the truth.

>

> The Tes-92 itself specifies that at 500 Mhz, it would over-state

measurements greatly. But would there be such a large amount of 500MHz RF's at

street level? I wonder.

>

> Also, I got a constant 4000 µW/m2 reading when near a fire station. I

wonder why. I don't think they use 500 Mhz, and even if they do, the signal

shouldn't be so constant, right? There should be RF only when they are actively

talking, which shouldn't be all the time.

>

> Comments from anyone having any insight on any of the above would be

appreciated.

>

> Thanks,

> Ann

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear :

Thank you VERY MUCH!! That is exactly the report I was hoping to find

somewhere.

It all makes sense now. The measurement difference between the Tes-92 and

Cornet is large but not immerse when tested against a 900 MHz phone, ie, when no

other signals can be present. But in most locations where there can be multiple

frequencies, the Tes-92 is reading 600 µW/m2 when the Cornet is reading 30µW/m2.

As that report indicates, the Tes-92 is indeed very inaccurate at most

frequencies.

That said, even the Cornet is registering a huge amount near the fire station.

I can see a mast on the station's roof. There are cells that look just like a

typically telco cells - those rectangular white blocks.

Now, if there is a only a similar report on the Cornet . . .

In any event, thank you very much again!

Ann

> >

> > I have a test report of the TES92.

> > It states *Totally misleading results*.

> >

> > Over the frequency range, the values go up and down several times.

> >

> > Greetings,

> > Claessens

> > member Verband Baubiologie

> > www.milieuziektes.nl

> > www.milieuziektes.be

> > www.hetbitje.nl

> > checked by Norton

> >

> >

> >

> > Ambient /Background RF level in San Francisco, Oakland

/Berkeley, CA

> >

> >

> > I am hoping to hear from anyone who has taken street level ambient

/Background RF readings in San Francisco, Oakland /Berkeley.

> >

> > My Tes-92 is reading between 600 to 2000 µW/m2 on various street

locations in SF,OAK/BKY, while my Cornet meter is reading between 15 to 60 µW/m2

at the same respective locations.

> >

> > I am very curious to know whether readings from your meter(s) are closer

to my Tes-92 or Cornet. I just don't know which of my 2 meters are closer to

the truth.

> >

> > The Tes-92 itself specifies that at 500 Mhz, it would over-state

measurements greatly. But would there be such a large amount of 500MHz RF's at

street level? I wonder.

> >

> > Also, I got a constant 4000 µW/m2 reading when near a fire station. I

wonder why. I don't think they use 500 Mhz, and even if they do, the signal

shouldn't be so constant, right? There should be RF only when they are actively

talking, which shouldn't be all the time.

> >

> > Comments from anyone having any insight on any of the above would be

appreciated.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Ann

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------------

> >

> >