Radiation Absorption – Simple Measurements
“To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
Modern wireless communication produces a widespread background radiation in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. From TV broadcasting in the UHF band from 400 MHz, all the way through the cellular bands, and up to wireless networking at 2.45 GHz, and beyond. In daily life we are constantly exposed to this electromagnetic radiation or “electro-smog”, and the potential longer-term damaging effects from it[1-14].
Radiation absorption devices have been invented to provide a degree of protection against these effects in the form of passive and active radiation energy absorbers placed on our cellular phones, wireless products, and/or carried about our person during normal daily activities. These devices seek to reduce the radiation impact by absorbing energy in close vicinity around us. Strong absorbing materials or active filtering are used inside these protection devices to attempt to soak up unwanted radiation.
The major problem with these devices, is if you absorb too much of the radiation then your cellular phone will no longer work correctly, drop calls, have poor reception, or be completely non-functional. Devices for such protection either measure to have very little effect, if any, on the transmitted radiation, or simply break the cellular transmission so the product cannot be used in the normal way. Neither of these options present a realistic and practical approach to providing any benefit from the effects of high frequency microwave radiation.
Our solution to this problem is to absorb a proportion of the radiation so that the correct operation of the cellular phone is not disturbed. Rather than simply absorb the radiation and do nothing with it, our solution uses the absorbed energy to generate a subtle signature imprint on the wireless signal. This signature is benefical in the restructuring of water dynamics in close vicinity. So the ETI Guardian Technology combines two useful functions into a single product.
The summary results below show the effect of measuring, in close proximity with a readily available RF Field Strength meter, on a cellular phone with and without the ETI Guardian Technology. The ETI Guardian Technology provides radiation absorption with on average, tested across many cellphones, a 25% reduction in the transmitted wireless radiation. Absorption results vary depending on the make and model of the phone between 15% and 50%. The results shown below show on average a reduction of 50% where the phone can still be used as normal. Read on to learn more about these measurements, and how to make these measurements yourself.
The recommendation from many cellular manufacturers and operators is that during a call the cellphone is not placed directly in contact with the head, but is kept a distance of about 15mm from your body both during a call, and in carrying your cellphone about with you. In practise this rarely happens, as we tend to use cellphones pressed to our ears for both convenience and best listening and talking reception.
This means useful measurements that we can make on cellphone radiation are those emitted directly through the front screen of the phone, which is often in direct contact with the ear and head, and also those emitted from the rear of the phone where our hand is also in direct contact with the cellphone.
The measurement results on this page show a 3-axis RF Field Strength Meter (Tenmars TM-195) being used to measure microwave radiation in close proximity to the front and rear surface of the phone, typical to what might be experienced when you are actually using the phone for a call. This type of RF (radio-frequency) field meter or electrosmog meter is a cost effective, and readily available method to make simple measurements of microwave radiation in the environment around you, and the wireless products you are using.
We have tested a range of such meters and found the 3-axis models to be best in getting a stable and reliable measurement of microwave field strength. The 3-axis meters measure the detected field strength in 3-planes and then present you with an average combined result. Measurement in 3-axis mode gives a better average and stable reading than attempting to measure by placing the meter at different angles around the phone on a single axis, which can produce erroneous and unrepeatable measurements. Calibration testing against a laboratory microwave signal generator, spectrum analyzer, and antenna confirms that the measured field strength is within specification for the simple capabilities of this type of hand-held field strength meter.
Wireless products such as cellular phones and Wi-Fi operate in burst transmission where the power levels change considerably before, during, and after a call. When you first receive or make a call from a cellular phone the power levels spike quite high in order to get the call established with the closest cell transmitter. Once the call is established the power levels drop considerably to a more stable level just sufficient to maintain the call, whilst preserving your battery life, and minimising the transmitted radiation. This is the important time when you have the cellular phone closest to your head.
Cellular phone field strength can be most stably measured once the call is established. Measurements during the start and finish of a call change very quickly making stable and reliable measurements more difficult. We recommend making measurements during a call which is most applicable to when you have a cellphone in closest proximity to your head and body, and that measurments from the front and back are most applicable to how you really use a cellphone.
The results below show the effect of measuring the radiation from the front surface of a cellular phone during a call both with and without the ETI Guardian Technology. The ETI Guardian Technology provides radiation absorption with on average, tested across many cellphones, a 25% reduction in the transmitted wireless radiation. The results below show on average a 50% reduction during a call where the cellphone correct operation is not adversely effected by the addition of the ETI Guardian Technology.
The results below show the effect of measuring the radiation from the back surface of a cellular phone during a call both with and without the ETI Guardian Technology. The ETI Guardian Technology provides radiation protection with on average tested across many cellphones a 25% reduction in the transmitted wireless radiation. The results below show on average a 50% reduction during a call where the cellphone correct operation is not adversely effected by the addition of the ETI Guardian Technology.
In making your own measurements of radiation field strength for cellular and wireless products we recommend the following:
Use a 3-axis RF Field Strength Meter for more stable and reliable measurements.
Make measurements during the most appropriate and more stable portions of the transmission, such as during a call for a cellular phone.
Keep all the parts of the experiment as stationary as possible to avoid erroneous readings.
Make measurements in an eletrosmog “quiet” space to avoid erroneous readings.
Always make a measure of the ambient background both before and after measuring your device.
Avoid making measurements on products that are close to or mounted on metal parts or surfaces. The metal surfaces and parts may cause a concentration of field intensity in the local region.
Use the “average” function of the 3-axis RF Field Strength Meter in order to get a more stable measurement.
We recommend the Tenmars TM-195 3-axis RF Field Strength Meter as a suitable instrument for a wide range of simple electrosmog measurements.
In summary our radiation protection measurements on cellular phones with and without the ETI Guardian Technology, show that the The ETI Guardian Technology provides radiation protection with on average, tested across many cellphones, a 25% reduction in the transmitted wireless radiation. Protection results vary depending on the make and model of the phone between 15% and 50%, and in all cases did not interfere with the correct operation of the cellular or wireless product.
1. Röösli, Martin (June 2008). “Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review”. Environmental Research 107 (2): 277-287.
2. Frei, Patrizia; Mohler, Evelyn; Neubauer, Georg; Theis, Gaston; Bürgi, Alfred; Fröhlich, Jürg; Braun-Fahrländer, Charlotte; Bolte, John et al. (August 2009). “Temporal and spatial variability of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields”. Environmental Research 109 (6): 779-785.
3. Foster, Kenneth R (March 2007). “Radiofrequency exposure from wireless LANs utilizing Wi-Fi technology”. Health Physics 92 (3): 280-289.
4. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K (March 2009). “Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases”. Pathophysiology 16 (2-3): 113-22.
5. Huber, R; Treyer V; Borbély AA; Schuderer J; Gottselig JM; Landolt HP; Werth E; Berthold T; Kuster N; Buck A; Achermann P (December 2002). “Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG”. Journal of sleep research (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 11 (4): 289-95.
6. Kramarenko, AV; Tan U (July 2003). “Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: a brain mapping study”. The International journal of neuroscience (Taylor and Francis) 113 (7): 1007-19.
7. Lönn, Stefan; Ahlbom, Anders; Hall, Per; Feychting, Maria; Swedish Interphone Study Group (2005). “Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk”. American Journal of Epidemiology 161 (6): 526-35.
8. Borbély, AA; Huber R; Graf T; Fuchs B; Gallmann E; Achermann P (1999-11-19). “Pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram”. Neuroscience Letters (East Park : Elsevier Science Ireland) 275 (3): 207-10.
9. Krause, CM; Pesonen M; Haarala Björnberg C; Hämäläinen H (May 2007). “Effects of pulsed and continuous wave 902 MHz mobile phone exposure on brain oscillatory activity during cognitive processing”. Bioelectromagnetics (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 28 (4): 296-308.
10. Krause, CM; Björnberg CH; Pesonen M; Hulten A; Liesivuori T; Koivisto M; Revonsuo A; Laine M; Hämäläinen H (June 2006). “Mobile phone effects on children’s event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task”. International journal of radiation biology (Taylor and Francis) 82 (6): 443-50.
11. “Conclusions on mobile phones and radio frequency fields”. European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2008).
12. Wilen, J; A Johansson, N Kalezic, E Lyskov, M Sandstrom (April 2006). “Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms”. Bioelectromagnetics 27 (3): 204-14.
13. Rubin GJ, Cleare AJ, Wessely S (January 2008). “Psychological factors associated with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phones”. J Psychosom Res 64 (1): 1-9; discussion 11-2.
14. Landgrebe M, Hauser S, Langguth B, Frick U, Hajak G, Eichhammer P (March 2007). “Altered cortical excitability in subjectively electrosensitive patients: results of a pilot study”. J Psychosom Res 62 (3): 283-8.
All presented Research, unless otherwise referenced or stated, is sole property and Copyright © Evolving Technology Innovations.