But are those reading accurate? What do they mean? What are they actually measuring? It's easy to simply dismiss concerns like this - after all why would they roll out 5G if it were so obviously harmful? But I've been dismissing it without a deep understanding for a while, so I'm going to do a bit more of a deep dive into the issue of measuring 5G radiation.

First of all, let's get a bit of a baseline with some 5G measurements from experts in the field. Dr Richard Findley, an electromagnetic field exposure specialist was asked by the BBC to measure 5G on a rooftop next to a cell.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2t1dUCyE0I

What's actually being measured here? The meter he's using is a Narda NBM 550 (cost: $6,500). The first reading he takes is from holding the probe right up near the middle of the transmitting antenna, and taking the peak (highest) reading:

237.0 W/m2 is the peak, seemingly also expressed as a percentage: 551.6%, which is what they talk about as a percentage of "the guidelines. But 237 would be 551.6% of 42.966, which seems like an odd number for a guideline. What guideline exactly is this?

On the meter, it says "Freq 1.800000 GHz", and "STD: ICNIRPP 1998 occ." This probably refers to the document "

ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (UP TO 300 GHZ)" published in 1998

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf

In that publication there are reference levels for occupational exposure (occ) and general public exposure:

The strength here is given in Volts/m (for electrical) and A/m for magnetic. and they in turn are given as a function of the frequency. So presumably for 400-2,000 MHz the reference power in W/m2 is 3*sqrt(f)*0.008*sqrt(f), or just 0.024f. (since 3*0.008 = 0.024, and sqrt(f)*sqrt(f) = f).

With f = 1800 Mhz, that's 0.024*1800, or 43.2, which is certainly in the ballpark of 42.966. So around 43 W/m2 seems like a good number to keep in mind for occupational exposure limits.

Then from table 7, we get 1.375*0.0037*1800 = 9.15 W/m2 for public limits, at 1.8Ghz.

But why it the meter set to 1.8 Ghz? 1.8Ghz is a common frequency in the UK, but seems to be for 4G-LTE rather than 5G.

Moving on, they take another reading from 3 meters away.

Down to 6.237, or about 14.5% of the 43 W/m3 occupational limit (from 1998).

Next, we have different measurements and different limits. In this video by Vtudio, a small handheld meter (Tenmars TM-190, cost: $178) measures total EMF on the street below a 5G cell.

The value oscillates quite a bit, but peaks at well over 100mW/m2. But that's just 0.1 W/m2, and the limit in the previous video was 43 for occupational and 9 for public. So have the WHO put in stricter guidelines since then? Luckily Vtudio gives a reference for their figures:

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index4.html

Hey, it's essentially

*the same as the 1998 limits!*So where are they get 0.1W/m2? Scroll down a little:

That's not the "maximum public exposure limit" it's the typical maximum public exposure - i.e. the upper end of typical exposure. 0.1 is not a "danger" limit, that limit is given in the same source as 9 (for the public) or 45 as an occupational limit.

So all the values measured in the Vtudio video seem well within the WHO limits.

What about other video? Here's a guy standing close to a huge microwave tower with an Acoustimeter AM-10 (Cost: $370), which is marketed to the EMF-phobic.

He claims the µW/m2 should be close to 1 (0.000001W/m2), but gets a reading of 2994 µW/m2, or about 3mW, or 0.03W/M2, well below even the "typical peak" value of 0.1, let alone the safety limit of 9. So really it seems like he's got no idea what his meter is showing, or what the limits are.

Similarly, this lady uses an "electrosmog" Cornet ED78S (or maybe ED-88, under $200 either way) meter.

Max value there 15 mW/m2 (0.015W/m2) again well under any limits.