karen wrote
Hi Laura, I was wondering the same thing but my personal experience with meters is that they are for the most part useless: telling me what I cannot control since most of my exposures are involuntary. Plus, the point of this 5G network is to blanket every inch of space so it will be everwhere. As for trying to avoid intensities, I don't think that will help much either since extremely low levels have adverse effects, even for non hypersensitives as we are supposed to tune into our environement for cues to stay alive and healthy.
If I never bought the meter I wouldn't be here talking about it. Intensities do matter.. even though low fields can cause big issues too, high fields cause issues for sure.
I have to keep monitoring my home as wifis get turned on around me. One day I woke up and my lower leg nerves were tingly and I couldn't feel part of my leg.. turns out that night the neighbor forgot his outdoor wifi on, which he had been turning off for me when not in use. My nerves still have not recovered fully. I have to measure before I sleep and if there is a signal I have to sleep elsewhere.
Recently a neighbor got a 802.11AC router, so the meter was good to tell me which neighbor, so I have to try to talk to them now, maybe it has a power adjustment, or they can move it somewhere away from any windows.
Plus, meter is good to show that shielding is at least doing something, and which areas/stores to avoid, for those who don't feel things instantly. Sometimes I get better and I don't feel anything any more, so the meter is the only thing keeping me from big exposures which would make the feeling come back.
5G meters are being developed as we speak, so there will be meters, but they may cost a lot.
Another thing to consider, is that our meters are already 5G compatible to some degree:
http://www.tmonews.com/2017/06/t-mobile-cto-urges-fcc-3-5ghz-band-5g/So 5G may end up to be mostly below 20ghz..
Even things like a tree would already disrupt the signal. Doesn't make sense. 3.5ghz and 600mhz sounds more realistic... maybe they'll add some 20+ghz in certain places with fallback to 3.5 and 600.
It's still in the testing stages, so things can change any time. I wouldn't be surprised if more companies start pushing for more lower frequencies, like t-mobile just did. 20ghz+ and millions of antennas isn't easy or cheap, and if trees make somebody's download slower, they won't be very happy with it.
Locked
