{"id":15,"date":"2015-01-04T10:56:54","date_gmt":"2015-01-04T10:56:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scantech7.com\/emf_rf_electric_field_safety_levels\/"},"modified":"2021-12-06T09:50:20","modified_gmt":"2021-12-06T09:50:20","slug":"emf-rf-electric-magnetic-field-microwave-radiation-noise-level-safety-levels","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/emf-rf-electric-magnetic-field-microwave-radiation-noise-level-safety-levels\/","title":{"rendered":"EMF RF Electric Field Radiation Sound Safety Levels: PART 2"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"EMF<\/a>
EMF RF Radiation Frequency Spectrum Reference Poster<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum Chart – NEW<\/p>\n

Annual Radiation Dose Calculator<\/a><\/p>\n

EMF SPECTRUM CHART<\/a>\u00a0 (NEWER VERSION AS ABOVE IN PDF FORMAT)<\/p>\n

EMF SPECTRUM CHART<\/a> (OLDER VERSION PDF)<\/p>\n

ScanTech Technical Consulting operates throughout the United States but particularly in the Texas region including Dallas, Houston, Austin, Fort Worth and San Antonio.<\/p>\n

*EFFECTIVE January 1st, 2019 ScanTech will no longer perform residential testing OR consulting for homeowners \/ tenants – all services are<\/strong> COMMERCIAL ONLY. Here is a page for resources to other companies and common questions – <\/span>CLICK HERE.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MORE ADVANCED QUESTIONS ABOUT EMF & RF SAFETY LEVELS WITH REGARD TO PRECAUTIONARY GUIDELINES<\/strong><\/p>\n

The following are some excerpts from a written consultation between ScanTech and a client who was interested in electromagnetic \/ radio frequency standards. I feel that it contains enough interesting information and aspects as to how to examine what is considered “safe” with so many confusing EMF \/ Cell Phone standards and guidelines which vary from country to country and year to year.<\/p>\n

Questions are numbered in ORANGE<\/span> – the answers that follow are marked A.<\/p>\n

1. Under the section titled “Magnetic Fields – A Relative Comparison” – Just checking if the standards listed on Swedish Safety standard, California limit for Public Schools, New Swiss Standard and Maximum residential levels in CA are still current? Or have they been revised significantly?<\/span><\/p>\n

A. The Swedish Safety standard listed – there is a disclaimer of 1.0 (mG) PROPOSED by the EPA which means this has never been passed or is enforceable. (and probably never will be due to the controversial nature of having the utility companies being liable) At the most they will do is make recommendations. (and even then, reluctantly)<\/p>\n

Interestingly, when I look up the actual Swedish Safety standard, the Swedish Transmission Utility has a VOLUNTARY limit of 4 mG, but there is nothing signed into national law.<\/p>\n

Checking further I think I found where the 1 mG proposal was taken from: There is a document reference ( Document Reference: Low-frequency electrical and magnetic fields: the precautionary principle for national authorities. Guidance for decision makers. September 1996.) where it states that:<\/p>\n

“The following section considers ‘what is meant by a normal magnetic field level?’ and states that the median value for homes and day nurseries in major towns or cities is approximately 0.1 \u00b5T, (= 1 milliGauss) with 10% of homes having at least one room with a magnetic field exceeding 0.2 \u00b5T. (= 2 milliGauss)”<\/p>\n

BTW, this excerpt\/definition of a “normal magnetic field” is an observation, not a law or regulation as such.<\/p>\n

Bear in mind that 1 milliGauss is what I personally consider very close to the level concept of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) as getting this to 0 is nearly impossible if you are going to live in electrified civilization.<\/p>\n

The old Swiss Standard was 10 mG which was passed into law as of Feb of 2000 by the Bundesrat (Upper House) and the last I heard was lowered to 2.5 mG, but I am now having trouble finding anything but anecdotal references to this change. I CANNOT find any conclusive law regarding this change, but I do like the reference as a guideline for where young children are involved.<\/p>\n

The California limit for public schools are based on distance from power lines and not actual measured levels which I find to be a questionable standard. (more on my blog here: http:\/\/emfsurveydallas.com\/emf-powerlines-distance-what-is-wrong-with-this-picture\/ )<\/p>\n

As for Maximum residential levels in California , I am not sure what you are referring to as this is not listed on my page Also, I thought I did have the CA distance laws on there, but I don’t see them anymore. (if you find these, then please point them out) I did find this document, but it is a statistical breakdown, not a regulation or law:<\/p>\n

\"Distribution<\/a>
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Statistics of EMF 60 Hz Magnetic Field Strength in Homes<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

2. For section titled “ACGIH Occupational Threshold Limit Values for 60 Hz EMF, the Recommended 1996 maximum for workers by NCRP but not yet offical of 10 mG – has it been adopted since, or has it changed?<\/span><\/p>\n

A. I found a link that references that question:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/20140714084352\/http:\/\/www.hpa.org.uk\/webw\/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard\/HPAweb_C\/1195733805036?p=1158934607693<\/a><\/p>\n

“The adoption of the ICNIRP guidelines results in a reference level for exposures to 50 Hz magnetic fields of 500 \u00b5T for workers and 100 \u00b5T (1000 mG) for members of the public.”<\/p>\n

The short answer is that it appears that the British version of the National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB based in the UK starting in 1970) has adopted the 1000 mG limit, but the NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection charted by the US Congress in 1964) has not taken an official stand on this, though there is a recommendation from 1999 regarding a similar 1000 mG limit for the edge of ROW.<\/p>\n

Here is a document from 2000: (which also mentions the 1000 mG limit at the top)<\/p>\n

ncrp-draft-recommendations-emf-exposure-guidelines_1995<\/a><\/p>\n

“8.5.1 Conclusion<\/p>\n

In arriving at the proposed guidelines, the committee has considered available laboratory studies on bio-effects and epidemiological reports of health hazards from electric and magnetic field exposure. Lacking a basis for calculation of cumulative dose, these guidelines have been determined without drawing distinctions between acute and chronic exposure. They have not determined exposure levels from safety factors frequently used with other agents, nor has there been special consideration for sex, age or potentially sensitive populations, such as pregnant women, because current knowledge of mechanisms of field interactions does not allow identification of those likely to be affected. In medical diagnostic and therapeutic applications, these guidelines would exclude patients, but would apply to physicians, nurses and to all other health providers.”<\/p>\n

Incidentally, they have up to 4 different options listed in this report that are suggested limits, but what I am reading between the lines here is that they are reluctant to take a firm stand on the issue because it is politically, medically, financially polarizing.<\/p>\n

And relatedly I don’t find reference for the double asterisks on the melatonin synthesis as being critical by many scientists – does that mean many scientists are concerned 10 mG influences melatonin synthesis, and has that been updated, does the ** I can’t find refer to the research reference?<\/p>\n

The reference is from here:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.avaate.org\/IMG\/doc\/tabla_conversionAaroniaExposure_limits_for_ELECTRIC_fields.doc<\/a><\/p>\n

** Melatonin is a hormone generated in the pineal gland, controlling the day\/night rhythm. Reduced levels of Melatonin can provoke depression, agitated melancholia or insomnia, as well as well as debilitation of the immune system. Furthermore it reduces free radicals, which are aggressive molecules which are capable of mutating genotype and thus causing cancer. Thus, decreased levels of Melatonin cause an increased risk for cancer. [sic – not necessarily the views of ScanTech]<\/p>\n

As for “many scientists”, that is a subjective term. I can find references to studies which both support the link and others which suggest there is little or no link . Here are two:<\/p>\n

SUPPORT: http:\/\/www.feb.se\/EMFguru\/Research\/emf-emr\/EMR-Reduces-Melatonin.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

DOES NOT SUPPORT AS STRONGLY: http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/9933863<\/a><\/p>\n

Furthermore, I would caution using any particular value such as 10 mG as a magical value or limit of effect. Any outside energy field or environmental factor can potentially alter the biochemistry and long term effects on human health. The question is complex because you have to take into a number of other variables, holistic factors, etc. such as genetics and the individual’s body to keep biological processes in equilibrium.<\/p>\n

3. Same section as 4 – Is the Aaronia E2 recommendation from 1996 now official or has it changed (referring to the 1 mG NCRP max for private individuals)? ( I will look up Aaronia in an internet search, but I may ask you what that is if I can’t find it)<\/span><\/p>\n

A. Aaronia is an equipment manufacturer that has a vested interest in selling EMF related equipment, so while they may provide some useful reference material, I would not see them as the last word in what is safe and relevant information as far as EMF safety information.<\/p>\n

Always consider the source of any material and the potential bias.<\/p>\n

4. I found the following statement according to the 2012 Bioinitiative report. I am also attaching the link to it. LOW EXPOSURE LEVELS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH BIOEFFECTS AND ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS AT CELL TOWER RFR EXPOSURE LEVELS<\/span><\/p>\n

At least five new cell tower studies are reporting bioeffects in the range of 0.003 to 0.05 \u00b5W\/cm2 at lower levels than reported in 2007 (0.05 to 0.1 uW\/cm2 was the range below which, in 2007, effects were not observed). Researchers report headaches, concentration difficulties and behavioral problems in children and adolescents; and sleep disturbances, headaches and concentration problems in adults. Public safety standards are 1,000 \u2013 10,000 or more times higher than levels now commonly reported in mobile phone base station studies to cause bioeffects.<\/p>\n

A. To be blunt, I am not particularly impressed with the Bioinitiative conclusions or recommendations because I find the references in their conclusions to be sloppy and their attitude to be needlessly alarmist. Which five new cell tower studies? Can they at least quote some specifics and show some data\/graphs on this? (for instance, author, publication, year, volume, etc.) What frequencies in particular are they talking about? 900 MHz? 2.4 GHz?<\/p>\n

I can guarantee “bioeffects” occur with nearly any kind of environmental change such as temperature, water quality, light levels, particulate matter in the air, etc. However, the human body has an equilibrium system that compensates for a wide range of variation – otherwise we would not live nearly as long as we do on average.<\/p>\n

I even went to Section 6 and randomly pulled a paper which allegedly supported the claim of single and double strand DNA damage. In part 7 of the second paper by Dr. Lai I found this quote:<\/p>\n

“7. It must be pointed out that, consistent with previous research, not very much of the cellular and animal genetic research data directly indicate that EMF (both RF and ELF EMF) is a carcinogen. However, the data show that EMF can possibly alter genetic functions and thus it is advisable that one should limit one’s exposure to EMF ”<\/p>\n

So right there, they contradict themselves by pulling a paper that admits that there isn’t much data to support carcinogenic effects from EMF and RF fields.<\/p>\n

“May possibly alter genetic functions?” What kind of vague and unscientific warning is that? That’s like telling someone they might have a car accident next year. It is a form of speculation that is worse than useless regardless of the outcome as there is no causality link or empirical data given.<\/p>\n

5. A new suggested RFR precautionary level A reduction from the BioInitiative 2007 recommendation of 0.1 uW\/cm2 for cumulative outdoor pulsed RFR down to something three orders of magnitude lower is justified in 2012 on a public health basis.\u00a0A precautionary action level of 0.0003 uW\/cm2 to 0.0006 uW\/cm2 is suggested.<\/span><\/p>\n

A. The only way they ( Bioinitiative extremists) will be happy is if we have no RF or wireless devices at all which is completely unrealistic for a functioning technological society. Keeping all ambient RF levels in the picoWatt\/cm^2 range or less is in my opinion, delusional without any compelling evidence.<\/p>\n

6. I am concerned about this new information. Could you please share your thoughts about this?<\/span><\/p>\n

A. I actually went to the university library and pulled a few papers by one of the authors quoted in the RF Color Chart section:<\/p>\n

Referencing the 0.00034 uW\/cm2 Chronic exposure to mobile phone pulsed RF significantly reduced sperm count Behari, 2006.<\/p>\n

I could not find a 2006 paper on this, but I did find more recent papers (2008 and 2013) dealing with this subject by Bahari. For one, the power levels used on the rats were much higher than 340 picoWatts – more like 200 mW to several watts so I don’t know where this much lower number is being pulled from.<\/p>\n

Electromagnetic Frequency Graphic<\/p>\n

\"Electromagnetic<\/a>
\u00a0\u00a0 Electromagnetic Spectrum by ScanTech\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/strong>https:\/\/emfsurvey.com\/<\/strong><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Electromagnetic<\/a>
Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum Chart<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Visual<\/a>
Visual Electromagnetic Spectrum Chart NEW<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

MAGNETIC FIELDS BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Factor (tesla) SI prefix Value (SI units) Value (cgs units) Item 10 -18<\/p>\n

5\u00a0aT attotesla 50\u00a0fG SQUID magnetometers on Gravity Probe B gyroscopes measure fields at this level over several days of averaged measurements<\/p>\n

10 -15 femtotesla<\/p>\n

2\u00a0fT<\/p>\n

20\u00a0pG<\/p>\n

SQUID magnetometers on Gravity Probe B gyros measure fields at this level in about one second<\/p>\n

10 -12<\/p>\n

picotesla<\/p>\n

100\u00a0fT to 1\u00a0pT<\/p>\n

1\u00a0nG to 10\u00a0nG<\/p>\n

human brain magnetic field<\/p>\n

10 -11<\/p>\n

10\u00a0pT<\/p>\n

100\u00a0nG<\/p>\n

In September 2006, NASA found “potholes” in the magnetic field in the heliosheath around our solar system that are 10 picoteslas as reported by Voyager 1<\/p>\n

10 -9<\/p>\n

nanotesla<\/p>\n

100\u00a0pT to 10\u00a0nT<\/p>\n

1\u00a0\u00b5G to 100\u00a0\u00b5G<\/p>\n

magnetic field strength in the heliosphere<\/p>\n

10 -6<\/p>\n

microtesla<\/p>\n

24\u00a0\u00b5T<\/p>\n

240\u00a0mG<\/p>\n

strength of magnetic tape near tape head<\/p>\n

10 -5<\/p>\n

31\u00a0\u00b5T<\/p>\n

310\u00a0mG<\/p>\n

strength of Earth’s magnetic field at 0\u00b0 latitude (on the equator )<\/p>\n

58\u00a0\u00b5T<\/p>\n

580\u00a0mG<\/p>\n

strength of Earth’s magnetic field at 50\u00b0 latitude<\/p>\n

10 -3<\/p>\n

millitesla<\/p>\n

0.5\u00a0mT<\/p>\n

5\u00a0G<\/p>\n

the suggested exposure limit for cardiac pacemakers by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)<\/p>\n

5\u00a0mT<\/p>\n

50\u00a0G<\/p>\n

the strength of a typical refrigerator magnet<\/p>\n

10 -1<\/p>\n

0.15\u00a0T<\/p>\n

1.5\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

the magnetic field strength of a sunspot<\/p>\n

10 0<\/p>\n

tesla<\/p>\n

1\u00a0T to 2.4\u00a0T<\/p>\n

10\u00a0kG to 24\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

coil gap of a typical loudspeaker magnet.<\/p>\n

1\u00a0T to 2\u00a0T<\/p>\n

10\u00a0kG to 20\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

inside the core of a modern 60 Hz power transformer<\/p>\n

1.25\u00a0T<\/p>\n

12.5\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

strength of a modern neodymium\u2013iron\u2013boron (Nd 2 Fe 14 B) rare earth magnet . A coin-sized neodymium magnet can lift more than 9\u00a0kg, pinch skin and erase credit cards.<\/p>\n

1.5\u00a0T to 3\u00a0T<\/p>\n

15\u00a0kG to 30\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

strength of medical magnetic resonance imaging systems in practice, experimentally up to 8 T<\/p>\n

9.4\u00a0T<\/p>\n

94\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

Modern high resolution research magnetic resonance imaging system; field strength of a 400\u00a0MHz NMR spectrometer<\/p>\n

10 1<\/p>\n

11.7\u00a0T<\/p>\n

117\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

field strength of a 500\u00a0MHz NMR spectrometer<\/p>\n

16\u00a0T<\/p>\n

160\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

strength used to levitate a frog<\/p>\n

23.5\u00a0T<\/p>\n

235\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

field strength of a 1\u00a0GHz NMR spectrometer<\/p>\n

36.2\u00a0T<\/p>\n

362\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

strongest continuous magnetic field produced by non-superconductive resistive magnet.<\/p>\n

45\u00a0T<\/p>\n

450\u00a0kG<\/p>\n

strongest continuous magnetic field yet produced in a laboratory ( Florida State University ‘s National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee , USA).<\/p>\n

10 2<\/p>\n

730\u00a0T<\/p>\n

7.3\u00a0MG<\/p>\n

strongest pulsed magnetic field yet obtained in a laboratory, destroying the used equipment, but not the laboratory itself (Institute for Solid State Physics, Tokyo )<\/p>\n

10 3<\/p>\n

kilotesla<\/p>\n

2.8\u00a0kT<\/p>\n

28\u00a0MG<\/p>\n

strongest (pulsed) magnetic field ever obtained (with explosives) in a laboratory (VNIIEF in Sarov , Russia , 1998)<\/p>\n

10 6<\/p>\n

megatesla<\/p>\n

1\u00a0MT to 100\u00a0MT<\/p>\n

10\u00a0GG to 1\u00a0TG<\/p>\n

strength of a neutron star<\/p>\n

10 9<\/p>\n

gigatesla<\/p>\n

100\u00a0MT to 100\u00a0GT<\/p>\n

1\u00a0TG to 1\u00a0PG<\/p>\n

strength of a magnetar<\/p>\n

ADDITIONAL RADIATION MEASUREMENTS AND CONVERSIONS FOR SAFETY GUIDELINES<\/strong><\/p>\n

A large amount of material can have a very small amount of radioactivity; a very small amount of material can have a lot of radioactivity.<\/p>\n

For instance, uranium-238 has 0.00015 curies of radioactivity per pound (0.15 millicuries), while cobalt-60 has nearly 518,000 curies per pound.<\/p>\n

In the International System of units (SI), the becquerel (Bq) is the unit of radioactivity. One Bq is 1 disintegration per second (dps). One curie is 37 billion Bq, so for convenience the following conversions are given.<\/p>\n

1 MBq (27 microcuries)<\/p>\n

1 GBq (27 millicuries)<\/p>\n

37 GBq (1 curie)<\/p>\n

1 TBq (27 curies)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

RADIATION MEASUREMENTS BY TYPE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Radioactivity<\/p>\n

Absorbed Dose<\/p>\n

Dose Equivalent<\/p>\n

Exposure<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Common Units<\/strong><\/p>\n

curie (Ci)<\/p>\n

rad<\/p>\n

rem<\/p>\n

roentgen (R)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

SI Units<\/strong><\/p>\n

becquerel (Bq)<\/p>\n

gray (Gy)<\/p>\n

sievert (Sv)<\/p>\n

coulomb\/kilogram (C\/kg)<\/p>\n

CONVERSION EQUIVALENCE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1 curie = 3.7 x 10 10
\ndisintegrations per second<\/p>\n

1 becquerel = 1 disintegration per second<\/p>\n

1 millicurie (mCi) = 37 megabecquerels (MBq)<\/p>\n

1 rad = 0.01 gray (Gy)<\/p>\n

1 rem = 0.01 sievert (Sv)<\/p>\n

1 rem is abbreviation for Roentgen Equivalent Man which is an older CGS equivalent dose unit<\/p>\n

* NOTE *\u00a0 1 rem increases the chance of developing cancer by roughly 0.055%<\/p>\n

1 roentgen (R) = 0.000258 coulomb\/kilogram (C\/kg)<\/p>\n

1 megabecquerel (MBq) = 0.027 millicuries (mCi)<\/p>\n

1 gray (Gy) = 100 rad<\/p>\n

1 sievert (Sv) = 100 rem<\/p>\n

1 coulomb\/kilogram (C\/kg) = 3,880 roentgens<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

RADIOACTIVITY CONVERSION MATRIX<\/strong><\/p>\n

To convert from<\/p>\n

To<\/p>\n

Multiply by<\/p>\n

Curies (Ci)<\/p>\n

becquerels (Bq)<\/p>\n

3.7 x 10 10<\/p>\n

millicuries (mCi)<\/p>\n

megabecquerels (MBq)<\/p>\n

37<\/p>\n

microcuries (\u00b5Ci)<\/p>\n

megabecquerels (MBq)<\/p>\n

0.037<\/p>\n

millirads (mrad)<\/p>\n

milligrays (mGy)<\/p>\n

0.01<\/p>\n

millirems (mrem)<\/p>\n

microsieverts (\u00b5Sv)<\/p>\n

10<\/p>\n

milliroentgens (mR)<\/p>\n

microcoulombs\/kilogram (\u00b5C\/kg)<\/p>\n

0.258<\/p>\n

becquerels (Bq)<\/p>\n

curies (Ci)<\/p>\n

2.7 x 10 -11<\/p>\n

megabecquerels (MBq)<\/p>\n

millicuries (mCi)<\/p>\n

0.027<\/p>\n

megabecquerels (MBq)<\/p>\n

microcuries (\u00b5Ci)<\/p>\n

27<\/p>\n

milligrays (mGy)<\/p>\n

millirads (mrad)<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

microsieverts (\u00b5Sv)<\/p>\n

millrems (mrem)<\/p>\n

0.1<\/p>\n

microcoulombs\/kilogram (\u00b5C\/kg)<\/p>\n

milliroentgens (mR)<\/p>\n

3.88<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Internal EMF Notes & Calculations<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum Chart – NEW Annual Radiation Dose Calculator EMF SPECTRUM CHART\u00a0 (NEWER VERSION AS ABOVE IN PDF FORMAT) EMF SPECTRUM CHART (OLDER VERSION PDF) ScanTech Technical Consulting operates throughout the United States but particularly in the Texas region including Dallas, Houston, Austin, Fort Worth and San Antonio. *EFFECTIVE January 1st, 2019 ScanTech will … Continue reading EMF RF Electric Field Radiation Sound Safety Levels: PART 2<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":65,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"wf_page_folders":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3136,"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15\/revisions\/3136"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"wf_page_folders","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scantech7.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/wf_page_folders?post=15"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}