I wonder, Lucien, what EMg and EF levels you would say are safe for prolonged exposure (1 month)
I cannot say, as I have not carried out a relevant, controlled, reproducible, statistically significant study. I could quote or link to studies by others, but they would probably show confirmation bias, i.e. I would tend to link preferentially to studies that agree with my own views, so it is better that I don't.
Re. the sources you mention, ICNIRP I would tend to trust in general, due to their transparency. They have rigid operating principles to help maintain impartiality, e.g. they do not accept funding from makers of electrical or electronic equipment or shielding products. Their commission members must be academics who are not employed by commercial organisations etc.
EMwatch.com I would not consider an impartial source of information. It appears to be one individual or company whose identity is not explicitly stated, who is a provider of services e.g. surveys, and is a seller or promoter of protection products. I will save my thoughts on the content of the website and some of the links on it.
emf.org does not seem to be relevant.
Returning to your original questions, I would say that they are extremely difficult to answer in a meaningful way since they have to be interpreted in the possible context of you being highly sensitive to EM fields, but without any indication to what extent. For example, your first question supposes that high levels of EM fields were responsible for your symptoms during those two events, however the field strengths you later mention are not abnormally high.
I do not think anyone can give truly relevant and dependable advice regarding your specific experiences via a web forum. Hence, in my previous post, I limited my comments to a general but firm caution, having researched for my own interest and found a prevalence of misinformation.
[automerge]1594598794[/automerge]
OK, the extra questions are easier to answer.
Fields add in well-defined ways. Further details are required about them to know what the interaction will be, e.g. phase and orientation in space. They can add to create a stronger field, cancel out completely, or most likely result in a different spatial arrangement of a field somewhat stronger than either. But not much stronger; they don't 'multiply' and become huge.
I do not understand 'naked electric current', sorry.
Incident RF energy could have come from all sorts of places but it's most unlikely at the field strengths we would normally consider significant. If someone is pointing the feedhorn of a microwave transmitter through the ceiling, then yes. A cell tower down the road, probably not a big deal.
No, EM radiation cannot 'attract' other radiation. As above, it is a trivial matter to calculate how multiple sources will interact, a much more difficult matter to be able to precisely characterise those sources spatially and temporally.
Mr Nunes and DPG - HUGE THANKS for your input.
