Comparing the Power Output

So many 'news' sources online will compare the UV radiation of an incandescent lightbulb to the radioactive output of plutonium as if the output levels of these two things can even be indicated on the same data chart. The "radiation" power output level of the incandescent bulb is infinitesimally small when compared to legitimately dangerous radioactive particles.

I will attempt to chart the power output of devices often clumped in with one another in comparison conversations with no regard to normalizing the data in order to compare apples to apples. There are differences in spectral density measurements at different operational frequencies and I've calculated these for the common cellular networks (T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T) based on this Wikipedia entry.

The FCC RF Exposure Guideline document doesn't get into specifics, but gives estimations for typical cellular tower sites. I used my previous blog on Smart Meters and their power output for the links for mW to W calculators, and this Field Strength Calculator tool by Compliance Engineering (a EMC testing laboratory in Australia) just to see if there was any difference in the numbers when represented in V/m since Lloyd Burrell of ElectricSense has the opinion that we should use V/m instead of W/cm2. I found no difference in the chart data rankings using either numerical representation of the data as you can see in these charted data comparisons. The chart line shape (and the charted difference between the values) is equivalent regardless of which way the data is represented.

This document by the FCC "Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" is a bit dated (1999) but shows the mathematical formulas used to derive spectral density metrics for many different types of devices.

I plotted the following devices: Microwaves, Smart Meters, Indoor Wi-Fi Access Points, four common cellular frequencies used today as well as a modern DECT 6.0 cordless phone.

Here is the table version of the data I gathered:

	W/cm2	V/m	mW/cm2
Microwave	0.0000005	1.37	0.0005
1920–1930 MHz DECT Cordless Phones	0.0000179	8.21	0.0179
Smart Meters	0.000018	8.24	0.018
WiFi Indoor	0.000063	15.41	0.063
100-400MHz	0.0002	27.46	0.2
400MHz	0.0002	27.46	0.2
500MHz	0.00025	30.7	0.25
600MHz	0.0003	33.63	0.3
T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T 700MHz	0.00035	36.32	0.35
800MHz	0.0004	38.83	0.4
T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T 850MHz	0.000425	40.03	0.425
900MHz	0.00045	41.19	0.45
1000MHz	0.0005	43.42	0.5
1100MHz	0.00055	45.54	0.55
1200MHz	0.0006	47.56	0.6
1300MHz	0.00065	49.5	0.65
1400MHz	0.0007	51.37	0.7
1500MHz	0.00075	53.17	0.75
1600MHz	0.0008	54.92	0.8
T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T 1700MHz	0.00085	56.61	0.85
1800MHz	0.0009	58.25	0.9
T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T 1900MHz	0.00095	59.85	0.95
2000MHz	0.001	61.4	1
FCC Limits Cellular	1.6	2456.01	1600

It is difficult to read the charts when including the FCC limits on cell tower output levels as that value (1.6W/cm2) is nearly 200% higher than the average spectral density measured at cell towers operating in the 1900MHz frequency spectrum (.00095W/cm2). The chart on the left includes the FCC limit and the chart on the right shows the graph of the common "wireless" devices used as comparative items in EMF articles.

I get frustrated when I come across people on the internet claiming to be experts and in the same breath they compare a cordless phone to a microwave to a cell phone agains your head for hours at a time. Just because these things operate "wirelessly" does not mean they all pose the same threat level. This is akin to saying that a house cat is as dangerous as a lion because they're both felines.

You may have noticed that I have not focused on localized exposure to cell phone signals, meaning carrying your cell phone close to your person or having your cell phone next to your head for long periods of time spent talking on the phone. These exposure levels are represented in measures of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). I am not a mathematician and as such, I've found no way to correlate the power output/spectral density measurements in W/cm2, mW/cm2, V/cm2 to a SAR value. Mobile phones undergo SAR testing in a laboratory environment where the phone is placed near a representation of a human head and SAR absorption rates are measured at different frequencies and positions in which the phone could be held by the user.

The audio quality of the following video is terrible, but the explanation of how SAR testing is performed is quite good.

In the years I've carried a cell phone on my person, the first 6 were only intermittent (only having the cell phone when I was on call) and I'd carry it in my handbag. Since I've had a personal phone, I occasionally carry it in my back pocket, but more often than not - it's in my handbag. When I have long conference calls, I use wired earbuds and sit the phone on my desk. My friend Sam has developed a rash/burn on his upper thigh after many years of carrying his cell phone in his front pants pocket. I do not discredit the potential harm from long term exposure to cell phone signals, but let's not start wearing space blankets! There's a big difference between a psychological ailment and a physiological ailment even if they're both physically debilitating.

If you are curious what the SAR test show for your model of cellphone, you can find this information on the manufacturer's website. Here are links to a few major makes and models.

• Apple
• Samsung
• Motorola
• LG

Smart Meters: Now With More Data and Less FUD

Recently I read a news article about two mothers who were arrested on their property as a result of them blocking access to their utility meters in order to prevent the utility company from replacing their analogue utility meter with a digital "smart meter". The mothers are members of the Naperville Smart Meter Awareness group (NSMA), and NSMA has a federal lawsuit pending against the City of Naperville regarding the installation of the smart meters in the city. NSMA is concerned that the smart meters will affect health, security and privacy.

NSMA also objects to the Naperville Department of Public Utilities referencing a document created by the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) titled "Health Impacts of RadioFrequency from Smart Meters" as evidence that smart meters pose no threat to public health. They claim that the CCST document has numerous flaws and does not address whether the current FCC guidelines are sufficiently protective of health considering current levels of RF exposure (which includes ambient levels from other devices), and the cumulative effect over time. The NSMA group also cites nuclear physicist Daniel Hirsch's commentary on the CCST data as an indicator that the smart meter radiation levels could be 100 times more exposure than cell phones.

I began to do some research, starting with looking up the FCC ID of our smart meter [FCC ID: R7PER1R1S4]. The information I found states it is made by Landis+Gyr and is called the Focus-2. The data that I found on the L&G Focus-2 unit via the FCC testing data states the average RF output power is ~16dBm (which is equivalent to 40mW) when operating in the 902.1-927.9MHz frequencies. The L&G Focus-2 UtiliNet endpoint has an integrated loop antenna, located on the PCB surface layer on the reverse (non-component) side of the assembly. According to the FCC test report, the antenna has a typical gain of ~3dBi.
From the UtiliNet Endpoint User Guide:

UtiliNet is a comprehensive wireless data communications solution that utilizes spread-spectrum radios in the 902-928 MHz area of the radio spectrum to provide reliable network answers for remote telemetry or distributed control applications. UtiliNet radios combine three important technologies: a mesh architecture for peer-to-peer communications and true networking functionality, asynchronous spread spectrum frequency hopping for maximum use of bandwidth, and packet switching for guaranteed message transfer and automatic store-and-forward routing. 

The communication language/protocol used between the UtiliNet smart meters (mesh nodes) is the Device Control Word (DCW) language. Typical application information requests are radio configurations, radio queries, data collection, communication to end devices, protocol translation and peer-to-peer control.

I did my own research to verify the data for whole body SAR being used in these reports. Sometimes the SAR value was expressed in microwatts (μW/cm2), other times it was expressed in watts (W/cm2). Luckily there's a couple of handy websites that'll do the conversion for you. Microwatts to Watts and Watts to Microwatts.

The CCST report contains the following chart showing the values they've used to calculate the threat level of the smart meter radiation output:

The report by Daniel Hirsch commenting on the CCST report contains the following chart showing the numbers he's used to calculate the threat level of smart meter radiation output.

I have a few issues with the wording and the data used in Mr. Hirsch's report. These following two paragraphs precede the chart above in his report and the wording used strongly suggests his chart is not using definitive values.

It is strongly recommended that CCST revise its Draft Report and conduct actual measurements of cell phone, microwave oven, and SmartMeter RF cumulative whole body power densities. If measurements aren’t made, then rigorous calculations correcting for cell phone and microwave oven duty cycles and whole body exposures should be made. 

A summary figure below shows how rough estimates of the effect of those corrections suggest SmartMeters may produce cumulative whole body exposures far higher than that of cell phones or microwave ovens. 

His repeated use of qualifying words (summary, rough, suggest, may) gives the impression that he is not making a definitive conclusion with the data being displayed in the chart. The problem I have with this is that Mr. Hirsch's chart is being used as factual evidence to the risk of exposure to smart meters.

I took it upon myself to find neutral Internet sources documenting the radiation output for microwaves, the L&G Focus-2 smart meter (since this is the one installed outside my residence), the iPhone 5, Samsung GT-I9500 and the FCC limits for RF exposure. Below is the chart I've compiled presented on the left in microwatts and on the right in watts.

Here are the links to the sources I used for the data represented in my chart shown above:

iPhone 5 radiation testing 1.18W/cm2
Samsung GT-I9500 radiation testing 1.55W/cm2
L&G Focus-2 smart meter .000018W/cm2
Maximum microwave oven leakage data .0000005W/cm2
FCC limits for RF exposure (FCC 13-39 3/29/2013) .08W/cm2 - 1.6W/cm2

Mr. Hirsch also expressed concern that the duty cycle of the smart meters wasn't represented  accurately in the CCST report. His report assumes a 100% transmit duty cycle for the smart meter output (that is to say that the smart meter is transmitting/generating signal 100% of the time).

As I began to read about the L&G Focus-2 smart meter installed where I live, I realized I could use the Metageek WiSpy 900x to view the frequencies the smart meter operates (902-928 MHz). I made a few recordings indoors and outdoors in hopes of picking up the transmissions from the smart meter. I wanted to see if I could ascertain how often the smart meter was transmitting, and for how long. In this video clip, I start off with the outdoors recording. I was positioned at a distance of 6 inches from the plastic cover to the smart meter. There were intermittent bursts of RF energy detected, but there did not seem to be a predictable, repeatable pattern to the transmissions. The second half of the video is the recording that was taken indoors, approximately 10 feet from the wall where the smart meter is installed. The RF energy detected indoors was not as strong as the signals picked up when positioned closer to the smart meter.

The RF energy bursts detected by the Metageek Wi-Spy 900x were very brief and did not use up a large portion of the available spectrum. Duty cycle utilization was minimal, given the short transmission windows. It is clear that the L&G Focus-2 is continually powered on with electricity, but that the smart meter is not transmitting continuously, nor is it utilizing a 100% duty cycle.

The videos page of the Naperville Smart Meter Awareness website features an Infowars segment where one of the ladies who was arrested for attempting to prevent the installation of the smart meter on her home is interviewed.

There are a lot of statements made in this video that I take issue with, but I'll keep this post focused on smart meters. This Infowars video segment references this article from Watchdog News Daily titled "Health Hazards Linked To Utility Meters". Personally, I'm dubious of any news site with pop-under advertisements, but I'll let it slide this time for sake of research. 

Joe Esposito from Owasso, Okla., had a smart meter installed on his home in 2011 as part of a pilot program developed by the Public Service Company of Oklahoma. Even though he asked that a meter not be installed on his home, Esposito found one mounted on the side of his house when he came home from work. 

It was then his health problems started. Esposito started experiencing dental problems, from aching teeth to a constant tingling sensation. He also started to experience aches in his leg which only got worse at night. 

After watching a video titled “Smart Meters & EMR: The Health Crisis of Our Time” by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, Esposito followed the advice in the video and installed some lead sheeting around the meter on the outside of his house. The results were dramatic. He had the first good night’s sleep in months and the pain in his leg was gone. Additional protection inside the home added later gave relief from many of his other symptoms. As an experiment, he would sometimes sleep without the protection and his pains would return.

This article features a correlation/causation between smart meters and health effects which references a video by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, but there is no link to the video in the article. I found a link to the video on StopSmartMeters.org.uk under the title "Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt – Smart Meters & EMR: The Health Crisis Of Our Time"

Dr. Klinghard makes the case that the increase in chronic medical conditions is related to the increasing electromagnetic radiation exposure (at the 6 minute mark in the video), he then takes his correlation to using the estimated number of wireless subscribers and comparing those numbers to the rise in Autism statistics. Correlation does not indicate causation, and I caution everyone to dig a little deeper when absolute statements are made with little regard for documenting information sources. It would appear that Dr. Klinghard has a vested interest in finding EMF exposure as the cause for multiple health symptoms as his personal website sells products that claim to reduce your exposure to EMF radiation.

Alice / Jan Svankmajer

At this point I'm stopping my research into the FUD that is out there about smart meters. I could go down this rabbit hole for untold iterations and still get back to the same conclusion I made several paragraphs ago.

The data I gathered clearly indicates that the RF output of smart meters (at least the L&G Focus-2 meter) is well below the FCC limitations and does not use 100% of the duty cycle when the smart meter is transmitting. I saw nothing in the spectrum analysis capture I performed that caused me to be concerned about the RF energy being transmitted by the smart meter installed at my residence. If you're wondering what your smart meter is or isn't doing, you can see it for yourself with a Metageek Wi-Spy 900x.




P.S.     I wish that Dr. Klinghard would say how much data I could store on his Computer Harmonizer K. Dwell Stick. For just a few dollars more, I can get a Kingston 128GB USB 3.0 Data Traveler on Amazon. The Kingston might even work as a noise filter or a protective pendant, but I'm sure of one thing it'll do - store a lot of data.