Re: Questions re meters, please

[Guest guest]

Yes, the Trifield meter will do both electric and magnetic fields.

Yes, the 8 Ghz meter is a very good choice.

Yes, Stetzer meter is the correct unit.

Emil DeToffol

Less EMF Inc.

809 Madison Ave.

Albany NY 12208 USA

tel: +1-518-432-1550

www.lessemf.com

Questions re meters, please

> Hi

>

> If I had the following meters

>

> 1) Trifield meter (have this one already)

> 2) Acoustimeter or 8 GHZ RF meter (use to be called Cornet)

> 3) Stetzer meter

>

> and I was thus able to measure low frequency EMF fields, RF and

> microwaves, and " dirty electricity " ,

>

> would I then have covered all possible sources of exposure? (Apart from DC

> fields).

>

> (Or would I have to get an electric field meter as well?)

>

> And would the Acoustimeter or 8 GHz RF meter be the best one to buy in

> that price range?

>

> And would the Stetzer meter be the best one in that price range to test

> for 'dirty electricity'?

>

> I've given up on the farm since I am practically bedriddn there with

> fatigue and insomnia. So I'm thinking of borrowing money and getting

> (averaged-priced) meters so that I don't ever end up moving to a place

> with unexpected high levels of radiation again.

>

> Thanks in advance.

> K

>

>

>

>

>

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

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Kikkie,

The Stetzer meter is the only one for directly measuring dirty AC. It is

adequate for that job.

The Trifield is good for magnetic and electric, but useless for microwaves.

I like both the Acoustimeter and the Cornet 8Ghz meters.

I have an extensive review on my web page. In short, for the price, the

Cornet is a really good value. But it is not the best in sensitivity.

That only becomes evident when in rural areas, so for city people, it is

probably sensitive enough.

The Acoustimeter is unique in the audio detection and analysis.

The only other other wireless signal to worry about, that you did not

mention, is WiFi.

The Acoustimeter is good for that, but this last month I have been

testing the Canary Hotspotter, and it is actually more sensitive. I can

detect and identify WiFi at 2360 ft (720m).

http://seaHorseCorral.org/ehs1.html

I think that combination of meters covers all the possible exposures

that can be measured.

kikkie2004 wrote:

> Hi

>

> If I had the following meters

>

> 1) Trifield meter (have this one already)

> 2) Acoustimeter or 8 GHZ RF meter (use to be called Cornet)

> 3) Stetzer meter

>

> and I was thus able to measure low frequency EMF fields, RF and microwaves,

and " dirty electricity " ,

>

> would I then have covered all possible sources of exposure? (Apart from DC

fields).

>

> (Or would I have to get an electric field meter as well?)

>

> And would the Acoustimeter or 8 GHz RF meter be the best one to buy in that

price range?

>

> And would the Stetzer meter be the best one in that price range to test for

'dirty electricity'?

>

> I've given up on the farm since I am practically bedriddn there with fatigue

and insomnia. So I'm thinking of borrowing money and getting (averaged-priced)

meters so that I don't ever end up moving to a place with unexpected high levels

of radiation again.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your reply,

I hadn't seen your website before, and really enjoyed it.

Well, the farm was rural, so then the Acoustimeter would probably be better for

such areas?

The Canary Hotspotter looks great for wi-fi, but I think if I wanted to cover a

broader range of radiation sources, then it would still probably be better to

get the Acoustimeter (even if it's slightly less sensitive for wi-fi

specifically?).

Thanks again.

(And thanks, Emil, I'll email you re the Stetzer meter).

> > Hi

> >

> > If I had the following meters

> >

> > 1) Trifield meter (have this one already)

> > 2) Acoustimeter or 8 GHZ RF meter (use to be called Cornet)

> > 3) Stetzer meter

> >

> > and I was thus able to measure low frequency EMF fields, RF and microwaves,

and " dirty electricity " ,

> >

> > would I then have covered all possible sources of exposure? (Apart from DC

fields).

> >

> > (Or would I have to get an electric field meter as well?)

> >

> > And would the Acoustimeter or 8 GHz RF meter be the best one to buy in that

price range?

> >

> > And would the Stetzer meter be the best one in that price range to test for

'dirty electricity'?

> >

> > I've given up on the farm since I am practically bedriddn there with fatigue

and insomnia. So I'm thinking of borrowing money and getting (averaged-priced)

meters so that I don't ever end up moving to a place with unexpected high levels

of radiation again.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

kikkie2004 wrote:

> I hadn't seen your website before, and really enjoyed it.

>

Good. I aim to be helpful.

> Well, the farm was rural, so then the Acoustimeter would probably be better

for such areas?

>

For rural areas, yes the more sensitive the meter, the better.

> The Canary Hotspotter looks great for wi-fi, but I think if I wanted to cover

a broader range of radiation sources, then it would still probably be better to

get the Acoustimeter (even if it's slightly less sensitive for wi-fi

specifically?).

>

Agreed. The reason the Canary HS is more sensitive, is only because it

is so specialized, and using the actual 802.11 chip that other wifi

equipment uses.

When you stop to ponder that wifi is now the greatest risk for rural

areas, it forces a realization that the " landscape " is changing. You can

move away from the cel towers, but then along comes this menace.

> Thanks again.

>

You're welcome

[Guest guest]

You might want to include also an AM/FM radio (radio shack has one for only

~$15). On the AM mode, this can be used to detect harmonic frequencies on

electronics that you won't be able to detect with any of the other meters you

mentioned. E.g., it can be used on monitors, dimmer switches, plasma TV,

fluorescent lights, etc.

Even if RF, magnetic, electric, wireless, and GS units are low, these harmonic

frequencies can be there. I think that explains some earlier expressed

skepticism on the meters. Apparently, there are so many aspects of EMF that are

important, but can be independent.

The following doc indicates 5 different parameters of EMF's:

http://www.baubiologie.net/uploads/media/VDB_Building_Biology_Indoor_Environment\

_Checklist__english__01.pdf

It doesn't mention the wideband emissions detectable by AM radio though, so I

think that makes 6 categories of EMF.

1. Wireless (MHz / GHz) - RF meter / electrosmog meter

Cell phone, cordless phone, Wi-Fi, wireless keyboard/mouse, etc.

2. Wideband emissions - kHz, etc. frequencies - AM radio

CFL and CCFL, dimmer switch, plasma TV, fluorescent lighting, etc.

3. AC Electric - electric meter / body voltage meter / voltage tester

Unshielded wires in walls (always on), unshielded appliance wires

4. AC Magnetic - gaussmeter

from running electricity in appliances, and sometimes caused by wiring errors

5. Static Electric

Synthetic materials, low humidity

6. Static Magnetic

Magnetized steel - bed frames, mattresses, etc.

> Questions re meters, please

>

>

> > Hi

> >

> > If I had the following meters

> >

> > 1) Trifield meter (have this one already)

> > 2) Acoustimeter or 8 GHZ RF meter (use to be called Cornet)

> > 3) Stetzer meter

> >

> > and I was thus able to measure low frequency EMF fields, RF and

> > microwaves, and " dirty electricity " ,

> >

> > would I then have covered all possible sources of exposure? (Apart from DC

> > fields).

> >

> > (Or would I have to get an electric field meter as well?)

> >

> > And would the Acoustimeter or 8 GHz RF meter be the best one to buy in

> > that price range?

> >

> > And would the Stetzer meter be the best one in that price range to test

> > for 'dirty electricity'?

> >

> > I've given up on the farm since I am practically bedriddn there with

> > fatigue and insomnia. So I'm thinking of borrowing money and getting

> > (averaged-priced) meters so that I don't ever end up moving to a place

> > with unexpected high levels of radiation again.

> >

> > Thanks in advance.

> > K

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi again

Yes, fewer and fewer places to escape to now, it's all very depressing.

Somebody advised me that with the meters I wouldn't be able to identify the

source, just the presence of higher radiation vs maybe another place. So I

wouldn't with the acoustimeter be able to find out whether it was the cell phone

tower, or the TV tower, or even the high power lines? Would that be so?

If it just showed higher levels of radiation, I guess it woud be a waste of

money as I can feel the radiation anyway? Or would it still be helpful to find

out whether any given place was better than another?

Thanks

K

> > I hadn't seen your website before, and really enjoyed it.

> >

> Good. I aim to be helpful.

>

> > Well, the farm was rural, so then the Acoustimeter would probably be better

for such areas?

> >

> For rural areas, yes the more sensitive the meter, the better.

>

> > The Canary Hotspotter looks great for wi-fi, but I think if I wanted to

cover a broader range of radiation sources, then it would still probably be

better to get the Acoustimeter (even if it's slightly less sensitive for wi-fi

specifically?).

> >

> Agreed. The reason the Canary HS is more sensitive, is only because it

> is so specialized, and using the actual 802.11 chip that other wifi

> equipment uses.

> When you stop to ponder that wifi is now the greatest risk for rural

> areas, it forces a realization that the " landscape " is changing. You can

> move away from the cel towers, but then along comes this menace.

>

> > Thanks again.

> >

>

> You're welcome

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks EMRaware

I've actually been wondering about this all of yesterday. I have an AM radio

(it was absolutely quiet in that farm house) and I know it picks up stuff that

my Trifield meter doesn't.

So are there no meters for this range of EMF?

Thanks again

K

>

> You might want to include also an AM/FM radio (radio shack has one for only

~$15). On the AM mode, this can be used to detect harmonic frequencies on

electronics that you won't be able to detect with any of the other meters you

mentioned. E.g., it can be used on monitors, dimmer switches, plasma TV,

fluorescent lights, etc.

>

> Even if RF, magnetic, electric, wireless, and GS units are low, these harmonic

frequencies can be there. I think that explains some earlier expressed

skepticism on the meters. Apparently, there are so many aspects of EMF that are

important, but can be independent.

>

> The following doc indicates 5 different parameters of EMF's:

>

http://www.baubiologie.net/uploads/media/VDB_Building_Biology_Indoor_Environment\

_Checklist__english__01.pdf

> It doesn't mention the wideband emissions detectable by AM radio though, so I

think that makes 6 categories of EMF.

>

>

> 1. Wireless (MHz / GHz) - RF meter / electrosmog meter

> Cell phone, cordless phone, Wi-Fi, wireless keyboard/mouse, etc.

>

> 2. Wideband emissions - kHz, etc. frequencies - AM radio

> CFL and CCFL, dimmer switch, plasma TV, fluorescent lighting, etc.

>

> 3. AC Electric - electric meter / body voltage meter / voltage tester

> Unshielded wires in walls (always on), unshielded appliance wires

>

> 4. AC Magnetic - gaussmeter

> from running electricity in appliances, and sometimes caused by wiring errors

>

> 5. Static Electric

> Synthetic materials, low humidity

>

> 6. Static Magnetic

> Magnetized steel - bed frames, mattresses, etc.

>

>

> > Questions re meters, please

> >

> >

> > > Hi

> > >

> > > If I had the following meters

> > >

> > > 1) Trifield meter (have this one already)

> > > 2) Acoustimeter or 8 GHZ RF meter (use to be called Cornet)

> > > 3) Stetzer meter

> > >

> > > and I was thus able to measure low frequency EMF fields, RF and

> > > microwaves, and " dirty electricity " ,

> > >

> > > would I then have covered all possible sources of exposure? (Apart from DC

> > > fields).

> > >

> > > (Or would I have to get an electric field meter as well?)

> > >

> > > And would the Acoustimeter or 8 GHz RF meter be the best one to buy in

> > > that price range?

> > >

> > > And would the Stetzer meter be the best one in that price range to test

> > > for 'dirty electricity'?

> > >

> > > I've given up on the farm since I am practically bedriddn there with

> > > fatigue and insomnia. So I'm thinking of borrowing money and getting

> > > (averaged-priced) meters so that I don't ever end up moving to a place

> > > with unexpected high levels of radiation again.

> > >

> > > Thanks in advance.

> > > K

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hi,

kikkie2004 wrote:

> Somebody advised me that with the meters I wouldn't be able to identify the

source, just the presence of higher radiation vs maybe another place. So I

wouldn't with the acoustimeter be able to find out whether it was the cell phone

tower, or the TV tower, or even the high power lines? Would that be so?

>

I mostly disagree. The acoustimeter lets you hear the sound of the emf.

It is not like the Gigahertz Solutions meters, which only makes one kind

of warning sound.

If you listen to the audio samples, do you hear differences?

The more you hear them, the better you will become at identifying each

kind. It is like learning a new language.

I have two links on my page, search for " Several recording examples " in

the text, They have samples of specific types of signals.

The recordings on my page are more like " in the field " results, a mix of

several signals depending on which direction I am pointing.

When hearing cel phones and wifi and cel-towers, these are very

different from one another.

When in the city, it all jumbles together as a loud background whine and

hiss. Then it is just like being in a crowd, like at a gathering where

everyone is talking, and hearing the person next to you is the same,

they are louder yet.

TV tower, I don't know.

AM radio tower, if you get within a mile, you can sometimes listen to

the radio station on the acoustimeter. So I believe simple analog

signals come through just as they are. Therefore I think TV signals

would sound like some kind of static.

Power lines, these are not strong sources of EMF so I have not heard

anything from them. They are terrible when measuring electric field, and

magnetic field. Not microwaves.

> If it just showed higher levels of radiation, I guess it woud be a waste of

money as I can feel the radiation anyway? Or would it still be helpful to find

out whether any given place was better than another?

>

>

It definitely helps analyze places. Why wait until you get a headache to

say, bad place.

The proper meter can answer quickly, how bad, and what kind of emf.

Also, it becomes very interesting to ride up, down, and around the local

hills, the pattern of where emf can be detected, tells a lot about how

good valleys are, and which hills are blocking the source, gives direction.

[Guest guest]

Hi

OK, thanks lots again for your reply.

I think I will get one then, it should be interesting to see what it comes up

with if nothing else. And I guess if it were ever quiet anywhere (no specific

signal nor 'crowd' noise, that would be a good place to stay. (If such a

place(s) exists, that is...)

> > Somebody advised me that with the meters I wouldn't be able to identify the

source, just the presence of higher radiation vs maybe another place. So I

wouldn't with the acoustimeter be able to find out whether it was the cell phone

tower, or the TV tower, or even the high power lines? Would that be so?

> >

> I mostly disagree. The acoustimeter lets you hear the sound of the emf.

> It is not like the Gigahertz Solutions meters, which only makes one kind

> of warning sound.

> If you listen to the audio samples, do you hear differences?

> The more you hear them, the better you will become at identifying each

> kind. It is like learning a new language.

>

> I have two links on my page, search for " Several recording examples " in

> the text, They have samples of specific types of signals.

> The recordings on my page are more like " in the field " results, a mix of

> several signals depending on which direction I am pointing.

>

> When hearing cel phones and wifi and cel-towers, these are very

> different from one another.

> When in the city, it all jumbles together as a loud background whine and

> hiss. Then it is just like being in a crowd, like at a gathering where

> everyone is talking, and hearing the person next to you is the same,

> they are louder yet.

>

> TV tower, I don't know.

> AM radio tower, if you get within a mile, you can sometimes listen to

> the radio station on the acoustimeter. So I believe simple analog

> signals come through just as they are. Therefore I think TV signals

> would sound like some kind of static.

> Power lines, these are not strong sources of EMF so I have not heard

> anything from them. They are terrible when measuring electric field, and

> magnetic field. Not microwaves.

>

>

> > If it just showed higher levels of radiation, I guess it woud be a waste of

money as I can feel the radiation anyway? Or would it still be helpful to find

out whether any given place was better than another?

> >

> >

> It definitely helps analyze places. Why wait until you get a headache to

> say, bad place.

> The proper meter can answer quickly, how bad, and what kind of emf.

> Also, it becomes very interesting to ride up, down, and around the local

> hills, the pattern of where emf can be detected, tells a lot about how

> good valleys are, and which hills are blocking the source, gives direction.

>

>

>