Radio and smartphone is different use case. Smartphone is kept in pocket 0mm away from body. Time will tell.
Last edited by a moderator:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
France Orders End to iPhone 12 Sales Over Radiation Level Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
@Sami13496 you wont get much love here since Apple n1 revenue generator is dangerouse deadly devices;
recommend that you start reading the manual of your IOS device if you own one, and derive your own conclusions.
good info can be found over at https://www.microwavenews.com/ if you care to your health.
personally think that no manmade microwave emitter is safe to use, and as with most of us, it took me some to find out.
still using phone sparingly,since it is needed nowadays sometimes even for basic things like opening an account somewhere in the pampa. lets see how this progresses; people that say that those devices are safe to use are either illinformed, in bad faith, or downright stupid.
recommend that you start reading the manual of your IOS device if you own one, and derive your own conclusions.
good info can be found over at https://www.microwavenews.com/ if you care to your health.
personally think that no manmade microwave emitter is safe to use, and as with most of us, it took me some to find out.
still using phone sparingly,
Last edited:
How much more time. Cell phone es started to be deployed in the late 70s early 80s. 50 years is not enough? Guess we’ll wait till 100.
This isn't a safety concern. It's a minor discrepancy on a standard that is very, very conservative in favor of human safety. The standard is well over an order of magnitude below anything having a measurable health impact and then mitigated even further.
It is a legal concern though-- if a device is violating the limit it's out of compliance. Even if it's not dangerous, there has to be a declared limit somewhere and that limit needs to be enforced.
Granted, I'm reading a translation, but what I get in English isn't that they tested on release but that Apple self reported on release and they are now testing again and finding a discrepancy. There's no suggestion that Apple falsely reported.
As you say, this is far from dangerous. 1.6dB can just as easily be a methodology difference, unit to unit variation, manufacturing differences from their component suppliers or something else. A software change isn't likely because it would require Apple to retest and resubmit in most jurisdictions unless they thought their change was neutral and it turned out not to be.
You'll need to give an example of this as pertains to RF. I can't think of one. Given that we've been working with radios for over a century now, I think they've had time. These phenomena are fairly well understood. The last time I looked at this in depth, the standards were written in 2005, they were revised again in 2019 but the changes were mostly an effort to harmonize standards. There weren't any substantive changes to the permitted levels.
Has the nature of electromagnetics or human physiology changed in the last decade? The latest standards revision I'm finding is 2019. Maxwell laid the foundation of electromagnetics 150 years ago this year (an anniversary that deserves more recognition, I feel). Marconi was doing his work 130 years ago. Westinghouse was demonstrating microwave cooking 90 years ago.
Everything else you're saying is mostly that nobody has proven to your satisfactionthere isn't a problem-- as long as someone, anyone, hedges that there might possibly be an undiscovered link you seem convinced there is. That's not a sound foundation for regulation.
So the FCC is political and the FDA is hedged and 2020 conclusions are out of date... I think you're suffering from an overly strong prior leaving you unable to synthesize new information.
It's worth linking to this again given how little response it received:
The kilograms here are kilograms of human flesh. The more mass there is, the slower it heats up and heating is the concern here. Put a bigger steak in the same microwave oven and it takes longer go cook.
It’s not pseudoscience, it’s regular science. The problem is heating of tissues, particularly the eyes and testes where blood flow is limited. You probably wouldn’t put your head in a microwave oven, so you know there’s a safety threshold somewhere. The question is where. The document I link above gives the rationale for the thresholds they use in Annex B.
People need to get over this ionizing/non-ionizing thing. Most skin cancers happen because of non-ionizing radiation (not from radio waves, but non-ionizing bands of sunlight). In the case of RF, the concern is dielectric heating similar to what a microwave does.
The body has the ability to dissipate a certain amount of power so there is a difference between high power for a short time if the power is more than your body can dissipate through blood flow, and low power where your body can self regulate. It’s like a pool with a hole in it— as long as you don’t fill it faster than it drains out the water won’t rise. Sitting in front of a match for hours won’t warm you as much as sitting in front of a camp fire for 10min.
This is different than with something like ionizing radiation where half the power for twice as long has the same probability of a high energy photon slicing through your DNA.
But in this case we’re not talking about far fields, we’re typically talking about near fields which are much, much stronger than the radiated power and also fall off at much higher gradients (~5th power of distance).
It is a legal concern though-- if a device is violating the limit it's out of compliance. Even if it's not dangerous, there has to be a declared limit somewhere and that limit needs to be enforced.
Granted, I'm reading a translation, but what I get in English isn't that they tested on release but that Apple self reported on release and they are now testing again and finding a discrepancy. There's no suggestion that Apple falsely reported.
"the data is initially provided by manufacturers, who must obviously comply with the standard."
As you say, this is far from dangerous. 1.6dB can just as easily be a methodology difference, unit to unit variation, manufacturing differences from their component suppliers or something else. A software change isn't likely because it would require Apple to retest and resubmit in most jurisdictions unless they thought their change was neutral and it turned out not to be.
You'll need to give an example of this as pertains to RF. I can't think of one. Given that we've been working with radios for over a century now, I think they've had time. These phenomena are fairly well understood. The last time I looked at this in depth, the standards were written in 2005, they were revised again in 2019 but the changes were mostly an effort to harmonize standards. There weren't any substantive changes to the permitted levels.
Has the nature of electromagnetics or human physiology changed in the last decade? The latest standards revision I'm finding is 2019. Maxwell laid the foundation of electromagnetics 150 years ago this year (an anniversary that deserves more recognition, I feel). Marconi was doing his work 130 years ago. Westinghouse was demonstrating microwave cooking 90 years ago.
Everything else you're saying is mostly that nobody has proven to your satisfactionthere isn't a problem-- as long as someone, anyone, hedges that there might possibly be an undiscovered link you seem convinced there is. That's not a sound foundation for regulation.
So the FCC is political and the FDA is hedged and 2020 conclusions are out of date... I think you're suffering from an overly strong prior leaving you unable to synthesize new information.
It's worth linking to this again given how little response it received:
The kilograms here are kilograms of human flesh. The more mass there is, the slower it heats up and heating is the concern here. Put a bigger steak in the same microwave oven and it takes longer go cook.
It’s not pseudoscience, it’s regular science. The problem is heating of tissues, particularly the eyes and testes where blood flow is limited. You probably wouldn’t put your head in a microwave oven, so you know there’s a safety threshold somewhere. The question is where. The document I link above gives the rationale for the thresholds they use in Annex B.
People need to get over this ionizing/non-ionizing thing. Most skin cancers happen because of non-ionizing radiation (not from radio waves, but non-ionizing bands of sunlight). In the case of RF, the concern is dielectric heating similar to what a microwave does.
Their facts are wrong.
I completely agree with your main point, but a few things I’d question.
The body has the ability to dissipate a certain amount of power so there is a difference between high power for a short time if the power is more than your body can dissipate through blood flow, and low power where your body can self regulate. It’s like a pool with a hole in it— as long as you don’t fill it faster than it drains out the water won’t rise. Sitting in front of a match for hours won’t warm you as much as sitting in front of a camp fire for 10min.
This is different than with something like ionizing radiation where half the power for twice as long has the same probability of a high energy photon slicing through your DNA.
It dies off with the square of distance regardless of gain, the gain is just a multiplier up front. It does depend on environment though— it assumes free space, so no reflectors or waveguides in the far field.
But in this case we’re not talking about far fields, we’re typically talking about near fields which are much, much stronger than the radiated power and also fall off at much higher gradients (~5th power of distance).
Sure, but if you're texting wouldn’t that act as a parabolic reflector focusing all that power onto a small part of your brain lobotomizing the wearer? Ah, wait, I see your point now…
But mining and refining copper consumes enormous amounts of energy and chemicals. Recycling uses less of each. And before you go into there being limited copper in the world, remember it’s not all in circulation yet and unrecycled copper essentially gets put back in the ground.
France says the radiation exceeds the regulated level— that’s not exactly the same thing.
You don’t stop using words because people don’t understand them. I don’t expect France to stop speaking French just because I don’t understand it…
Last edited:
Homo Correctus: Paul Brodeur Sues ‘American Hustle’ to Set the Record Straight
“I’m a great believer in the documentary evidence,” says the former New Yorker writer.
observer.com
Masses started using them in the late 90’s early 2000s. From 70-90’s when few businessmen used is not enough sample. So I’d say we have 20 max 30 years of data. 15 years with smartphones. I don’t think thats enough for determine long time effects.
There is a population going back many years that could be studied. (And that is when cell signals were analog and pushed more power through the antenna) If there was some correlation to health after all this time there would be more than studies which contradict one another.
Those studies have been done and found no correlation but the fears still come up.
oldie but goldie
translated into english
WLAN Strahlung beeinflusst das Wachstum von Kresse - Elektrosmog und Gesundheit
chülerinnen einer neunten Klasse aus Jütland, Dänemark erregten mit einem Experiment zur Wirkung von WLAN Strahlung internationales Interesse.
www.elektrosmog-und-gesundheit.de
translated into english
WLAN Strahlung beeinflusst das Wachstum von Kresse - Elektrosmog und Gesundheit
chülerinnen einer neunten Klasse aus Jütland, Dänemark erregten mit einem Experiment zur Wirkung von WLAN Strahlung internationales Interesse.
www-elektrosmog--und--gesundheit-de.translate.goog
oldie but goldie
WLAN Strahlung beeinflusst das Wachstum von Kresse - Elektrosmog und Gesundheit
chülerinnen einer neunten Klasse aus Jütland, Dänemark erregten mit einem Experiment zur Wirkung von WLAN Strahlung internationales Interesse.www.elektrosmog-und-gesundheit.de
translated into english
WLAN Strahlung beeinflusst das Wachstum von Kresse - Elektrosmog und Gesundheit
chülerinnen einer neunten Klasse aus Jütland, Dänemark erregten mit einem Experiment zur Wirkung von WLAN Strahlung internationales Interesse.www-elektrosmog--und--gesundheit-de.translate.goog
You're basing your world view on uncontrolled, unscientific experiments done by 9th graders on cress seeds...
Why is it that when people doubt the scientific consensus, the references they provide always have nuggets like this in there:
"Professor Johansson and his Belgian colleague Professor Marie-Claire Cammaert will now repeat the experiment under controlled, scientific conditions"
I'm guessing if Prof. Johansson's experiments reproduced the results, we wouldn't still be seeing links to a decade old science fair project.
Their hypothesis, by the way? Teenagers can't concentrate in school because of Wifi exposure.
Yeah, I've got the idea that I'm debating with someone who will disregard the careful analytical work of thousands but take the unsupported ravings of a few fringe characters as gospel.
You're free to make your own decisions about how to use technology, but the more evidence you share the more confident I am that I don't need to follow your lead.
