Posts

RF frequencies at convoy to Canberra

Video was sent to us of an RF meter from EPIC campgrounds at the convoy to Canberra showing spikes in frequency. When shown this, we didn’t know enough about RF to understand what it was showing so we consulted external experts to explain if the levels seen on the video were dangerous.

The measuring device appears to be a Trifield Meter Model TF2 set to RF mode (dial to the right). In this mode the device is measuring in milliwatts per square meter (mW/m2) up to 19mW/m2 which can also be seen on the screen. The manufacturers specifications can be found here: https://www.trifield.com/product/trifield-emf-meter/.

In the video the meter can be seen recording levels of up to 19 milliwatts per square meter, spiking only once at the 19.999mW/m2 limit. You’ll notice that the person recording the video mistakenly interprets the reading as spiking at twenty-thousand mW/m2, not twenty (or 19.999) as it actually reads.

The standard for exposure to Radiofrequency fields is given by ARPANSA: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/rps_s-1.pdf

Schedule 3 on page 30 shows that the maximum exposure to RF frequency in the 6 GHz range (the maximum frequency detection of the meter) is 10 watts per square meter. 1 watt is equal to 1000 milliwatts. This means that the safe exposure to RF at the highest frequency that can be detected by the meter is 10,000 milliwatts per square metre, far above the 19 milliwatts detected by the meter.

You can see the presence of a phone cause spikes in the meter here (at 2:02):

It’s possible that even the person filming the original video with their phone so close to the meter could have been causing some of the meter spiking, in addition to the larger than usual amount of phones and signals in the area due to the thousands of campers at EPIC park.

In either case, the energy levels seen on the meter are 0.19% of the ARPANSA exposure levels. Many people have sent us this video and asked us to investigate, this is what those investigations found.

/by

ASIO confirms anti-mandate protesters not violent extremists

, ,

The mainstream media tries to falsely paint anti-mandate protesters as extremists. Its the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s job to monitor people who are actually violent extremists. They told me what we already know. Protest and political dissent against mandates is completely lawful and it is only a small fringe element who take advantage of the whole group to push violence. The overwhelming majority of anti-mandate protesters are law-abiding peaceful people.

Transcript

Thank you very much Senator Keneally. Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you all for appearing today. Recent public statements from you indicate ongoing issues of interference by foreign nationals in Australia, including attempts to influence the electoral process. Is this considered to be an ongoing threat from that identified foreign power?

As I said, in my threat assessment centre there are multiple countries. So this threat is real. It happens at all levels of government, local, state and federal. And that threat continues. In fact, espionage and foreign interference is now supplanted terrorism as our country’s principle security concern. And that’s not to take away from the terrorism threat.

Are the identified risks. Well, you just told us they’re serious, very serious.

They are.

Right throughout all levels. From your public, changing the topic slightly. From your public statements, why are so many everyday Australians opposed to mandated COVID-19 vaccinations? They’re opposed to the mandating, not to the vaccinations necessarily. Why are they being monitored?

Well, that’s not my remit. That’s nothing to do with me in terms of whether people are opposed to mandates or want to get vaccinated. That’s not a violent extremism problem that doesn’t fit within my head security. So we don’t monitor or follow those people. If those people also happen to be violent extremists promoting communal violence or politically motivated violence then they would get my full attention. But if they’re not in that category as I said in my speech last week,

“The vast majority of these protestors we’re seeing at the moment are not violent and they’re not violent extremists.”

Mike Burgess, Director General of Security Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Senate Estimates 14 February 2022

That’s very pleasing to hear that confirms pretty much exactly what the AFP commissioner said just an hour or so ago. But the press has perhaps taken a slant on that. So thank you for clarifying that. And having been at the protests on Saturday, people are just excellent. Why would you consider? Okay. You’ve eliminated that. You said in your recent security annual threat assessment that you do not have a problem with people holding opinions. And would only intervene when these opinions involve promoting violence. You’ve just confirmed that again. What evidence links everyday Australians exercising their right to peaceful protests to being considered domestic terror extremists? I take it that’s a media exaggeration.

Well no, in terms of protest protests, its lawful public dissent is totally appropriate and right for people to do, but actually if people are preparing for or advocating acts of violence then they do fall into my agency’s remit and we will watch them carefully to understand what they’re up to and with our police partners work to stop them from harming Australians.

Yeah. There is a small element just about every group who takes advantage of the group.

There certainly is.

Thank you. No, I don’t need to answer… ask the seventh question. Everything’s covered. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by

Did the police use Long Range Acoustic Devices at the Convoy to Canberra?

, ,

There has been many attempts to paint anti-mandate protesters as extremists. It’s not true and even the Federal Police have said so. At the protest some people were concerned about the appearance of possible Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) and whether they were used or not. We didn’t get an answer back straight away but the police will have to give me an answer on notice.

Transcript

[Senator Keneally] Yeah, at this point.

[Speaker] Thanks Senator Keneally. I ask Senator Roberts, who’s just got a couple of minutes of questions.

Thank you. And Mr Kershaw is it?

[Kershaw] Kershaw, yeah.

Thank you all for appearing today, and before I ask my questions, I just want to thank you for the work you do and your AFP and work. And also the liaison with the State Police in Queensland and the ACT. I was at the protest; very proud of the behaviour of the people and so pleased that, and I agree with you, those groups were infiltrated by a couple of people, and that’s very small, so I appreciate that. Quickly, these questions are coming from a constituent: In relation to the Convoy to Canberra protest activity at Parliament House just last weekend, pictures of the day appear to show some types of devices at the front of Parliament House in between the entry to Parliament and Parliament lawns where the protest was in fact occurring. Can you confirm whether the AFP had long-range acoustic devices at Parliament House on Saturday?

That would be something that is our police methodology, which we would have to look at some sort of public interest immunity claim, Senator.

Is there any, surely it’s in the public interest to know whether or not they were there, without delving too much into it?

If I could take that on notice, I’d have to get advice.

Okay. I’d be happy. I understand. I’d be happy for that. And also, if you could tell us what type they were, please.

Sure.

And can you confirm whether or not they were used at any point?

Sure.

Thank you very much. And thank you, Chair.

/6 Comments/by