Low EMF Phone Review

I recently purchased the Low EMF phone with the Air-Flow hands free
headset from LessEMF. I'll be passing it on to a non-ES friend or
family member since I found it untenable for me. (And I don't want to
be out the 20% restocking fee with nothing to show for it.)

I found the Air-Flow headset to be very inciting. The headset's EM
field is confined tightly around the transceiver (the portion which
houses the microphone and speaker), but it measured up to an effective
60Hz 15 mG strength at its surface at lowest volume with just dial
tone present. The speaker-to-ear sound transmission tube allows the
transceiver to be realistically held a little under 10 inches away
from your body, but this is an unworkably cumbersome configuation.
Even at that range, the strong field present in the transceiver is
still inciting since it is so deep within the body's own field.

I decided to try the phone in speaker mode without the headset. The
microphone is weak so the user has to have her/his head near the
cradle (18 inches or less away in my testing). This puts the
approximate center of the main speaker field 24 inches or less away
from the user. The speaker measured up to an effective 60Hz 20 mG
strength at its surface at lowest volume with just dial tone present.
It was a less inciting configuration, but unusable because of the
weak microphone and volume had to be placed at a higher setting than
the tests to adequately hear the other person's voice, thus increasing
the speaker field strength.

I appreciate the attempt to bring a low EMF phone configuration to
market, but the EMF isn't low enough near the center of the main
sources nor able to be placed at a distance that I found non-inciting.
I'd recommend looking for a different offering. My original
Plantronics configuration that I mentioned earlier is much more
endurable field-wise for me and provides better performance.

Beau

Thanks Beau. I have been considering the LessEMF phone so this is
valuable feedback.

Cara

--- In [hidden email], "Beau" <netfarer2@y...> wrote:
>
> I recently purchased the Low EMF phone with the Air-Flow hands free
> headset from LessEMF. I'll be passing it on to a non-ES friend or
> family member since I found it untenable for me. (And I don't want
to
> be out the 20% restocking fee with nothing to show for it.)
>
> I found the Air-Flow headset to be very inciting. The headset's EM
> field is confined tightly around the transceiver (the portion which
> houses the microphone and speaker), but it measured up to an
effective present.
> It was a less inciting configuration, but unusable because of the
> weak microphone and volume had to be placed at a higher setting than
> the tests to adequately hear the other person's voice, thus
increasing
> the speaker field strength.
>
> I appreciate the attempt to bring a low EMF phone configuration to
> market, but the EMF isn't low enough near the center of the main
> sources nor able to be placed at a distance that I found non-
inciting.
> I'd recommend looking for a different offering. My original
> Plantronics configuration that I mentioned earlier is much more
> endurable field-wise for me and provides better performance.
>
> Beau

In a message dated 2/15/2005 3:08:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[hidden email] writes:


I recently purchased the Low EMF phone with the Air-Flow hands free
headset from LessEMF. I'll be passing it on to a non-ES friend or
family member since I found it untenable for me. (And I don't want to
be out the 20% restocking fee with nothing to show for it.)
This phone also did not work for me. I finally got a polycom speakerphone
(best price I found was like $250 U.S.), which has dual something or other so it
does not have the "clipping" quality that you get with almost all
speakerphones.
This is the brand of speakerphone that you see in most corporate
settings and it is usually called a conference phone. It looks kind of like a
triangle and people you are talking to cannot tell you are on a speakerphone.
However, I put an "antifatigue" mat, the kind of mat people stand on to
do the dishes, etc. under it and a tapestry in back of it, because I have
hardwod floors and a lot of glass and the phone works best if it does not have a
lot of surfaces for the sound to bounce off of.
The anti-fatigue mat (you could put a desk blotter, but this is thicker)
and the tapestry absorb some of the sound waves so they don't just bounce off
the wall or desk and this greatly improves the perfomance of the phone.
One caveat: you cannot lean into the phone when you talk. The phone
uses a computer system and generates quite a strong electric/magnetic field *if*
you are up close to it, so you do have to keep about a half foot or so away
from it.
Even with this, to be honest, I feel a small effect from the phone
(unless I'm about a foot away, and then people do know you are on speakerphone), but
it is by far the best thing I've been able to come up with.
I don't have an association with polycom, etc.
Stephanie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 2/19/2005 3:36:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, Inthepresent
writes:
Even with this, to be honest, I feel a small effect from the phone
(unless I'm about a foot away, and then people do know you are on speakerphone),
just wanted to correct my own email. I think you can be about a foot away
from the phone it and sounds like a regular phone and at about 2 feet away it
does not. Stephanie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]