Good EMF meters cost around $150 to $280, while there are a bunch of free (or nearly free) apps on the Google Playstore claiming to do the same (or nearly the same).
Are These EMF Apps Good Enough to Replace Standalone EMF Meters?
wisdomtooth on 01/08/2018 - 08:49
Comments
It can also detect magnetic fields, which is what most of the apps I looked at do.
It can also detect magnetic fields
But magnetic fields come in different wavelengths and frequencies.
Is there a specific one you're trying to "detect"?
But magnetic fields come in different wavelengths and frequencies.
So do radio and electric fields.
But, yeah, I want to see how much we're subjecting ourselves to at home. Especially the children.
I was a little worried about this a few people including me have asked Dr Karl about RF radiation and he said there is no evidence it does any harm and there is nothing to worry about. Dr Karls word is good enough for me.
206% of what, @Soluble? Are you referring to benchmarks against the various standards in the app? Which one? Some are clearly over the top (e.g. BioInitiative 2012) and others clearly waaaay over the bottom (e.g. US FCC).
Either way, your question would be better framed in actual physical units.
Comes back to the question as to why you're trying to sniff frequencies. Interference?
If so you're best to utilise the device suffering said interference. E.G. using a radio to find FM or AM deadspots, using your phone to find wifi or 3G/4G deadspots, camera to find bright ilghts and dark shadows (though your eyes are also rather effective at this frequency!) and so on. The fact that they're tuned to a band makes them ideal for finding issues in that band.
The "device" suffering the interference is my own body (and of my family). So, following your argument, it seems the phone apps might just work, since the phone is tuned to pick up precisely the bands with most traffic (4G, Wifi, bluetooth…), no?
50Hz will massively dominate those frequencies, unless you don't have electricity in your house.
Was looking into this myself recently, the best EMF meters I found (at the consumer level I mean) were the Emfields Acoustimeter at around $600 or their Acousticom at around $300. The acousticom is basically the same meter minus the LCD readout.
Here's a couple of reviews (you can also look them up on amazon)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHlxObcg96o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=070mtuDWBbw
I don't see how your phone would have the detection hardware onboard to give you a precise EMF reading to the same degree that a dedicated meter would. Then there is EMR and dirty (transient) power to be aware of too but I'm not sure what your goal in all this is. :)
I don't see how your phone would have the detection hardware onboard to give you a precise EMF reading to the same degree that a dedicated meter would.
Why not? It's got sensors precise enough to read actual data in the EMFs, doesn't it? Presumably, reading field strength is a much simpler task, no?
No idea. The dedicated meters also have direction finding capabilities.
Here yo go, found this for you.
Why not? It's got sensors precise enough to read actual data in the EMFs, doesn't it?
God save us from those with a little knowledge…
I never professed to be an expert in this field, @HighandDry. If I were, I probably wouldn't be asking the question.
Now, ad hominems aside, care to educate us?
@wisdomtooth: I hate to repeat myself… so I won't. But I didn't use an ad hom. An ad hom would be if I said "You're a uni student and therefore your argument has no merit."
My comment above was more along the lines of "You don't seem to know enough."
Granted - I don't either, which is why I didn't really elaborate, but regarding:
It's got sensors precise enough to read actual data in the EMFs, doesn't it? Presumably, reading field strength is a much simpler task, no?
The answer to this is a categorical "No, it's not." Here's a rough outline on Quora of what Wifi and mobile signals actually are (and so what your smartphone radios are tuned to pick up):
https://www.quora.com/Are-mobile-signals-FM-and-are-wifi-sig…
Note that it's not as simple as just picking them up - these signals are modulated and so your phone's radio is set up and calibrated to pick up and decode these signals (and only these signals). That's why you have phones with different bands, some phones can use CDMA and some can't, and why there are a plethora of wifi standards, the new ones of which older phones aren't able to connect to.
"You don't seem to know enough."
I hate to repeat myself too: If I did, I probably wouldn't be asking the question.
I asked:
It's got sensors precise enough to read actual data in the EMFs, doesn't it? Presumably, reading field strength is a much simpler task, no?
You answered:
The answer to this is a categorical "No, it's not."
And then said:
Note that it's not as simple as just picking them up - these signals are modulated and so your phone's radio is set up and calibrated to pick up and decode these signals (and only these signals).
Go figure…
I'd be getting a meter myself, if I were you, mate, bc your logic circuitry is definitely broken. 😄
Lol. Apps don't come with hardware - so it'd at the very least be restricted by your phone's actual specs.
And no, I don't think a $100+ piece of professional equipment can be replaced by a free app.
Except, of course, that we literally $100s for our mobile phones precisely bc they contain all the electromagnetic sensors they now have, including for radio (Wifi and 4G), magnetic fields (gyroscope) and for light (cameras). And that's not even mentioning the accelerometer and fingerprint reader!
An EMF meter is a very specialised sensor, one that isn't needed in your mobile. I'd be annoyed if I was paying extra money to have unnecessary stuff in my phone.
I'm not seeing how any of the hardware you listed can serve as a specialised EMF meter, especially with zero calibration for that purpose.
@Switchblade gave us a very compelling argument above as to why the sensors in your phone are quite specialised to detect the EMF frequencies we're subjecting ourselves most to.
@wisdomtooth: That's not true at all. Even as Switchblade says:
The fact that they're tuned to a band makes them ideal for finding issues in that band.
And conversely utterly useless for anything outside of those confined bands. In terms of energy, no - the bands your mobile phone uses is very much on the lower end. You get more radiation from things like the SUN, microwave ovens, UV lighting, and even bananas.
Though you also say:
The "device" suffering the interference is my own body (and of my family).
HAHAHAHAHAH Yeah okay. Sorry, but there have been literally dozens of studies that show zero appreciable effects of low-energy EM radiation on the human body. Here's a good summary from the WHO:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/09-071852/en/
In conclusion, our review does not indicate an association between any health outcome and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from MPBSs at levels typically encountered in people’s everyday environment. The evidence that no relationship exists between MPBS exposure and acute symptom development can be considered strong according to the GRADE approach16 because it is based on randomized trials applying controlled exposure conditions in a laboratory.
@wisdomtooth: And your link is from 2011…
Here's the current WHO page on EMFs:
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.
By the way, the 2B carcinogen classification in your link? Same danger as coffee or pickles. Hope you don't eat either of those.
a $100+ piece of professional equipment can be replaced by a free app.
As an electrical engineer, I assure you that an "EMF meter" is not by any stretch "professional equipment".
It's a sham for extracting money from rubes.
This is a device at a similar price point that actually does something scientific: https://www.seeedstudio.com/RF-Explorer-model-2.4G-p-924.htm…
Tinfoil is cheaper. 😉
😜
Using a phone to detect EMF's? Might want to start with the EMFs the phone is emitting ;)
True, but the apps also work with the phone in airplane mode. In fact, that's one very good way of measuring how much the phone does emit, with 4G, bluetooth and wifi turned on and off.
PSA: OP thinks radio waves are harming him and his family. /end PSA
Serious question : since you seem to believe that radio emf is harmful, what are you going to do about it?
It's everywhere around us.
In the office, at shopping malls,etc..Are u going to stop using mobile phones, wifi and microwave at home?
Here are a few suggestions on how to cut down on EMF exposure, @OzFrugie.
Here are some more I can think of:
- Don't charge your laptop while using it.
- Reduce your wifi router transmit power (use powerline wifi extensions instead, if your house is big).
- Completely turn off the wifi before going to bed.
- Always prefer using an earphone instead of the phone directly placed against your head.
- Use an EMF blocking canopy, especially over cribs and kids' beds (which usefully also dub as a mosquito net).
- Never let kids around a microwave when it's operating (and don't stand around either).
- Turn off AC outlets at night, and whenever not in use.
- Cover walls with EMF paint and windows EMF fabric.
@wisdomtooth:
you're off your rocker, mate
a. all those things are harmless
b. you'll never be able to reduce your EMF exposure even to 50% of normal unless you go live in the woods
Results
The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited2 among users of
wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate3 to draw conclusions for
other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures
mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the
risk; however, *one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased
risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day
over a 10‐year period).*ONE STUDY, no source provided. I would like to see this one study, and its data, whether the data was skewed or not. (maybe they live near Chernobyl or other surrounding factors)
From the same document, 2 'Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent
and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or
confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC
Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐
term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important
to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. "More research needs to be done - said every research organization who needs funding
Do your own research and digging before jumping into conclusions.
Or every time you are sick, you will think you have cancer, since almost every medicine will have **Nausea, Vomitting or Diarrhoea" as potential side effects.More research needs to be done - said every research organization who needs funding
Of course. Same with climate change. Difference is: there are very simple steps one can take to minimise EMF exposure. Saying it's pointless to attempt to mitigate EMF exposure as one would never be able to fully eliminate it, unless if moving into the wilderness, completely away from civilisation, is like saying it's pointless to wear sun blockers and protective clothing, as the only way to completely eliminate UV exposure (which is also an EMF, btw) is to move to the bottom of a very long cave. It's just plain stupid.
I am in the industry. The equipment we used are Narda from Germany. It has a spectrum analyser and different probes.
The calibrated set that we used actually costs more than 50k.
The items one may purchase on eBay are cheap for a reason. They’re inaccurate and cheaply made. We use equipment that costs >70 times than what John and Jane would pay.
I'm waiting for a decent X-ray vision app to come out.
IS it what we can use to find ghosts?
You talk about wanting to protect yourself and your family from EMF waves, yet you're not willing to fork out the cash to get a trustworthy instrument and would rather comtemplate whether a mobile app which costs next to nothing on a device which was not built for such a purpose would do the same thing.
Ever heard of "the right tool for the job"?Just exactly how serious are you about protecting your and your family? Your health is not even worth $200 to you?
I read a thread like this and weep for our science education.
There are specialized apps that can do it but only for the frequencies supported by YOUR mobile operator as the OS don't keep scanning for frequencies used by other operator.
Nemo Handy is a popular app, at 2:53 you can see the signal levels of your operator.
https://youtu.be/mgj5WX-m1ioSource: I'm a Telco engineer
*Believes EMF is harmful.
*Exposes themselves to EMF by posting this.
*Post was an attempt to justify cheaping out on 'EMF protection' hardware.
*Ironic contradictions.Believes EMF is harmful.
So does the WHO.
Post was an attempt to justify cheaping out on 'EMF protection' hardware
As one might do with any insurance. As with everything else, matter of cost-benefit. In the case of protection products and services, the benefit is the risk reduction.
Exposes themselves to EMF by posting this.
Matter of how much. Cumulatively. Not either-or. Not like black-or-white. The butt of irony is all yours.
So does the WHO(iarc.fr).
Again. ONE STUDY indicates it, no source provided.
You are taking one statement way out of context.What "ONE STUDY" are you talking about?? This is the conclusion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in the World Health Organisation!
no source provided.
Do you always have trouble identifying hyperlinks? o.0
Here is the url: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
And this is what it says:
Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.
Background
Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices. The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally.From May 24–31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries has been meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These assessments will be published as Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs, which will be the fifth volume in this series to focus on physical agents, after Volume 55 (Solar Radiation), Volume 75 and Volume 78 on ionizing radiation (X‐rays, gamma‐rays, neutrons, radio‐nuclides), and Volume 80 on non‐ionizing radiation (extremely low‐frequency electromagnetic fields).
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long‐term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children.
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields:
- occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves;
- environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and
wireless telecommunication; and - personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones.
International experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data.
Results
The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited2 among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate3 to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).Conclusions
Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.""Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐ term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. "
The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete list will be published in the Monograph. It is noteworthy to mention that several recent in‐press scientific articles4 resulting from the Interphone study were made available to the working group shortly before it was due to convene, reflecting their acceptance for publication at that time, and were included in the evaluation.
A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online.
For more information, please contact
Dr Kurt Straif, IARC Monographs Section, at +33 472 738 511, or [email protected]; Dr Robert Baan, IARC Monographs Section, at +33 472 738 659, or [email protected]; or Nicolas Gaudin, IARC Communications Group, at [email protected] (+33 472 738 478)
Link to the audio file posted shortly after the briefing: http://terrance.who.int/mediacentre/audio/press_briefings/
About IARC
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization. Its mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. The Agency is involved in both epidemiological and laboratory research and disseminates scientific information through publications, meetings, courses, and fellowships.possibly carcinogenic
You know what else is possibly carcinogenic? Red meat, processed meat, alcohol, and more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782753/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/08/15/17-carcinogenic…Do you consume any of those? Maybe you should stop consuming them too then. Maybe you should stop breathing too, since you don't know if the air you're breathing is clean enough to not be carcinogenic…
@koganei:
There's a 100% correlation with people who have died from cancer have come into the chemical dihydrogen monoxide.
Gasp!The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).
There.
You know what else is possibly carcinogenic? Red meat, processed meat, alcohol… Do you consume any of those? Maybe you should stop consuming them too then.
Who told you I do? I do eat red meat and drink alcohol, but do keep it to a minimum. Now, processed meat I definitely don't consume; that'd be just stupid. What's also stupid is to make this into an either or choice rather than a matter of risk mitigation.
There's a 100% correlation with people who have died from cancer have come into the chemical dihydrogen monoxide.
Your chemistry is top notch, @cwongtech, but unfortunately your statistics are crap — that's not how correlation is calculated. You'd have to include the cancer rates of people who haven't had any contact with water, which is of course 0/0, i.e. undetermined.
Now, processed meat I definitely don't consume
So you've never had ham, bacon, salami, or like, a chicken nugget…? You know what would be really stupid? If you don't even know what processed meat is…
@wisdomtooth: You said consuming processed meat is stupid, and since you HAVE had it before, you're stupid.
But keep trying to redeem yourself, mate.
@wisdomtooth: My point is, this is one of those stupid things. To think that an app that costs next to nothing could do as good a job as a proper instrument. Also refer to my other comment about how much your family's health is worth to you. So stop doing it.
Once you've minimised your exposure by doing all the steps you mentioned in your other comments already, how's knowing the EMF levels going to help you anyway? You can't do anything more unless you remove the source of the EMF completely.
Once you've minimised your exposure by doing all the steps you mentioned in your other comments already, how's knowing the EMF levels going to help you anyway?
How else am I supposed to minimise them, @koganei?? One can't manage what one can't measure.
@wisdomtooth: Like I said, by doing all the things you've already said in your other comments…
Once you've done them all, you can't do any more, so that's MINIMISED…@koganei: It stands to reason one ought to devise mitigation strategies where the highest risk is to be found. And it's pretty obvious we can't see where the risk is without measurement. This is what this post is about. So why all the knee-jerk negging??
It looks like a lot of people have been trying to be helpful. I also think you have been dismissive of a lot of the help. I think that you are severely lacking in physics knowledge.
Here are a few things to look at, and research, to help answer your original question.
1) acma frequency allocation chart to get a better idea of what RF spectrum is comprised of
2) frequency ranges of the receivers and trancievers of the mobile phone that you are using. If you can't get the specifications for hardware of your phone then look up similar hardware that does have published specifications. One caveat is that you need to make sure that for hardware such as the 3/4G tranciever you check the bands that only your phone and chipset supports.
3) find out what RF May be of concern to focus on it
4) look up what frequency ranges are supported by EMF detection devices
5) confirm sensetivity and selectivity of both your mobile phone's hardware and of EMF detection devices
6) get an understanding of propagation ranges of various RF, including physical object penetrationTo answer your original question you need to know what frequencies are of concern. You need to know what your frequencies your mobile phone can pick up. You need to know what frequencies EMF detectors (or any other specialised hardware) can pick up. You need to know how well the hardware can pick up the frequencies that you are interested in. Very importantly, you need to know what is actually out there in RF spectrum. You need to know how well different subsets of RF propagate and absorb in physical objects. After all of that you may get a good idea of whether you have any control over some/any/none/all of RF that you are exposed to, and how much of it you are exposed to.
It looks like a lot of people have been trying to be helpful.
Yes, they have. E.g. @squashy, @EightImmortals, @bobbified…
I also think you have been dismissive of a lot of the help.
Nope. It's those who've come here to mock the question who've been dismissive.
I think that you are severely lacking in physics knowledge.
Sure enough. I've come here to ask, not to answer.
To answer your original question you need to know what frequencies are of concern.
Incidentally, those are precisely the ones our mobile phones are built to pick up: 4G, wifi, bluetooth…
Nope. It's those who've come here to mock the question who've been dismissive.
This is dismissive.
😄
If you are mainly concerned about 4G, WiFi and Bluetooth then have you done research on:
*Steps 5 and 6 of my post?
*Step 4 of my post?
*How EMF devices show you a final score? Is it a single score? Multiple scores with individual scores for different frequency ranges?
*How is the app displaying a score? Single score? Separate scores for different frequency ranges?Additional questions to ask about the score output by EMF device or the app:
*How useful is it to see a single score if it's not helping you identify the exact frequencies of concern?
*What does the score look like? Is it based on a scale? What is that scale based on and how authoritive is it?What is the research so far telling you?
- How EMF devices show you a final score? Is it a single score? Multiple scores with individual scores for different frequency ranges?
- How is the app displaying a score? Single score? Separate scores for different frequency ranges?
"Scores"? "Single"? Wut?? ¿o.0?
The apps show EMF strength, in physical units (e.g. mG, 𝜇T, V/m, etc). For various frequency bands, of course.
- How useful is it to see a single score if it's not helping you identify the exact frequencies of concern?
Answered.
- What does the score look like? Is it based on a scale?
What "score"?? What are you talking about?? Did you even download the apps to see what they show?
I came here to ask, not to be asked. I'm not selling apps, mate.
@wisdomtooth:
To me it looks like you are writing that the apps are good enough for you. So to me it looks like you have your own answer. Is there still an unanswered question?@g1: Don't know what gave you that idea — that is precisely my question. What I've confronted are those who've come here to, rather than answer this question, simply mock it and dismiss it as "tinfoil conspirationism".
At the very best, a phone can only detect the frequencies that it operates - ie, the mobile network and wifi frequencies.
There would be many frequencies that the phone cannot detect due to hardware limitations.