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.
iPhone 8/Plus How can one protect self from emf?
- Thread starter Ucshade
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
UV rays are generally considered to be ionizing radiation, though. Wikipedia notes that âThe boundary between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation in the ultraviolet area is not sharply defined because different molecules and atoms ionize at different energies. The energy of ionizing radiation starts between 10 electronvolts(eV) and 33 eV and extends further up.â So, we generally treat all UV as ionizing, as a result. Plus, since energy imparted by a wave is a function of frequency and not transmitted power, youâd be hard pressed to use this as an argument that man made radio waves are a source of significant human harm by the same mechanisms. Besides, between the radio spectrum we use and UV, thereâs the whole visible spectrum of light and infrared. If youâre going to claim that it doesnât matter that radio frequencies are non-ionizing and they can still cause cancers, you need to provide a mechanism whereby visible light doesnât cause cancers. Also, if RF caused cancers in the same mechanism as UV light, weâd expect surface cancers like melanoma to be the result, not deep tissue cancers like brain cancer.I would suggest digging a little deeper into the scientific literature and studies on EMFs. There is a lot out there that suggests otherwise to what you are stating, from very well educated, very well known, very respected individuals or groups in their fields.
By the way, we can easily can poke holes in a lot of these huge, very well known organizations:
The CDC says: What causes sunburn, skin cancer, and sun sickness? Ultraviolet Rays.
The Mayo foundation says: What do Ultraviolet Rays consist of? Non-Ionizing Radiation
But that's funny. The FDA states: "there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans."
Around and around we go.
So which reputable organization are we going to believe? They contradict each other all the time, and the science itself contradicts itself all the time. There's a lot of reputable science out there that suggests low energy EMFs are actually harmful. This suggested that between 1.5 to 5 percent of childhood leukemia can be attributed to ELF-EMFs: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412013002110
Another Source:
Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz
During the use of handheld mobile and cordless phones, the brain is the main target of radiofrequency (RF) radiation. An increased risk of developing glioma and acoustic neuroma has been found in human epidemiological studies. Primarily based on these findings, the International Agency for...www.spandidos-publications.com
Sources:
UV Radiation Safety
Protect yourself and others from the sun with a hat, shirt, and sunscreen (SPF 15+) all year.www.cdc.gov
Sunburn - Symptoms and causes
www.mayoclinic.org
Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?
The weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems.www.fda.gov
Edit: Also, from one of your links: âSAR ranged from 0.144 to 0.4 W/kg [of body mass in rats]â. Letâs assume an average weight for humans of around 150 pounds or 68kg. Taking the upper end of that range, and youâd need 27 watts of full body exposure to cause the sorts of full body exposure the article is talking about. Thatâs on the order of magnitude of a cell phone base station, thereâs really no way to fit that kind of amplification circuitry into a hand held radio (least of all a cell phone, which usually max out at somewhere around 0.5mW). (And remember, thereâs the whole issue of the inverse square law and signal strength to account for.)
Finally, cell phones have been in frequent use for over three decades by this point (and handheld VHF/UHF radios for closer to six to eight), and weâve been using RF broadcasting for well over a century at this point. If these technologies caused a substantial increase in human cancers in practice, there should be very strong evidence by now.
Last edited:
Both are actually correct. Ultraviolet is the boundary between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation in the usual definition. Radiation at the short end of UV wavelengths is most definitely ionizing (e.g., UVC and XUV), while longer wavelength UV isn't (UVA) in the usual sense of the word (ionization is a complex process that can happen at under a variety of energetic condition depending on the atoms or molecules involved). The physics is sound, it's language that's lacking nuance here.
And in studies that were double-blind, people claiming EMF sensitivity could not tell if a wifi router next to them was on or off, even after extended exposure.
Every time this conversation comes up thereâs so much misunderstanding on both sides of it...
To start, the fields from a cell phone can generally be considered safe by all known measures. Thatâs not to say there isnât another under-researched mechanism for harm, but for the known sources of harm cell phones are typically at least an order of magnitude below the risk threshold. The primary source of concern with radio waves in these bands is dielectric heating effectsâ basically the same way a 1200W microwave makes popcorn. The regulatory standards take the parts of the body most sensitive to heating (the retina and the testes), and gives a wide safety margin beyond what is known to cause harm. There are different models for head and hands, because theyâre less worried about your hands. The reason the retina and testes are particularly sensitive is because there is very limited blood flow through those organs making it harder for them to dissipate heat.
The reason your phone wonât hurt isnât because the radiation is non-ionizing. UV-A and UV-B can be harmful, leading to burns and cancer, and theyâre both non-ionizing (unless you have a lot of cesium in your cells, but I suspect that makes UV your second biggest problem). The highest frequencies of UV-C can be ionizing, but is effectively blocked by the atmosphere.
The reason a microwave heats water has nothing to do with the 2.4GHz frequency. Water is a polar molecule and will heat in any high frequency field.
Electromagnetic energy is modeled as both a wave and a packet/particle (photons). The energy of each photon is a function of its wavelength. The number of photons is a function of the transmit power. There are fewer photons per Watt for high frequency transmissions. The energy delivered by a phone is absolutely a function of the transmit power.
That said, the power levels of concern are not the transmitted power, which is what youâd measure far from the phone, but the near field power which will be much, much higher. This isnât the same as the inverse square law, its a different field that doesnât propagate. That is why the device is tested based on its heating effect, not itâs transmit power.
Sunlight is not much stronger than the power coming from your phone. Sunlight is 1kW per square meter. Your pupil is a couple mm acrossâ so your retina is not seeing much sunlight and your eye responds to restrict the light as it gets brighter. The eye has no such reaction to radio. Generally, in polite society, peopleâs testes see less sunlight than their retinas.
Where sunlight does become a problem is total thermal loading, leading to heat stroke.
The FCC SAR limits are about an order of magnitude below levels known to do harm, and are averaged over 30minâ itâs less a function of peak power exposure and more the total power absorbed over a relatively long time.
To start, the fields from a cell phone can generally be considered safe by all known measures. Thatâs not to say there isnât another under-researched mechanism for harm, but for the known sources of harm cell phones are typically at least an order of magnitude below the risk threshold. The primary source of concern with radio waves in these bands is dielectric heating effectsâ basically the same way a 1200W microwave makes popcorn. The regulatory standards take the parts of the body most sensitive to heating (the retina and the testes), and gives a wide safety margin beyond what is known to cause harm. There are different models for head and hands, because theyâre less worried about your hands. The reason the retina and testes are particularly sensitive is because there is very limited blood flow through those organs making it harder for them to dissipate heat.
The reason your phone wonât hurt isnât because the radiation is non-ionizing. UV-A and UV-B can be harmful, leading to burns and cancer, and theyâre both non-ionizing (unless you have a lot of cesium in your cells, but I suspect that makes UV your second biggest problem). The highest frequencies of UV-C can be ionizing, but is effectively blocked by the atmosphere.
The reason a microwave heats water has nothing to do with the 2.4GHz frequency. Water is a polar molecule and will heat in any high frequency field.
Electromagnetic energy is modeled as both a wave and a packet/particle (photons). The energy of each photon is a function of its wavelength. The number of photons is a function of the transmit power. There are fewer photons per Watt for high frequency transmissions. The energy delivered by a phone is absolutely a function of the transmit power.
That said, the power levels of concern are not the transmitted power, which is what youâd measure far from the phone, but the near field power which will be much, much higher. This isnât the same as the inverse square law, its a different field that doesnât propagate. That is why the device is tested based on its heating effect, not itâs transmit power.
Sunlight is not much stronger than the power coming from your phone. Sunlight is 1kW per square meter. Your pupil is a couple mm acrossâ so your retina is not seeing much sunlight and your eye responds to restrict the light as it gets brighter. The eye has no such reaction to radio. Generally, in polite society, peopleâs testes see less sunlight than their retinas.
Where sunlight does become a problem is total thermal loading, leading to heat stroke.
The FCC SAR limits are about an order of magnitude below levels known to do harm, and are averaged over 30minâ itâs less a function of peak power exposure and more the total power absorbed over a relatively long time.
Last edited:
Place it in a Faraday case/cage/box.
It will stop all EMF from the phone (and to the phone).
You wonât be able to make any call, but can still use it as a music player, as long as you have downloaded the music in advance đ
Alternatively you could get a pair of headphones with a long lead and your phone at 2m distance at all time.
Bluetooth will not do as they have their very own EMF đŽ
/s
Bottom line is that if you are worried about EMF, you should probably not carry an EMF sourceâŚ
⌠or take it out of Airplane Mode only to make brief calls when needed, with a wired set of headphones (any length will be better than holding the phone to your temple).
Personally I keep my phone in my trousers front pocket (I stopped caring about my fertility long ago), and make all calls either hands free or with Bluetooth headphones as I donât care for a warm phone touching my head.
Last edited:
Just to add- again- the inverse square law which means if you are texting the phone's distance from your body means you are getting virtually no emf to your body.
Also to mention again, the earth itself generates emf: almost everything does, and although low frequency, it's still disruptive if you are only interested in what is theoretical rather than what it likely to matter practically. Biggest output I've measured is on a gas main - which meant the level was high standing next to a gas cooker and that was at waist height.
Also to mention microwave ovens. The screens in them prevent microwaves passing but they are screens meaning other frequencies can pass and if you measure emf around microwave ovens you will see high readings. It's why they disrupt wifi.
The choke in fluorescent lights , which could be near your head, can also give out a large whack (also disrupt wifi and powerline connectors). Electric fans, hairdryers...
So please don't worry about it. Many many things more likely to kill you. Air pollution, Radon seeping through the floor, crossing the road....
Also to mention again, the earth itself generates emf: almost everything does, and although low frequency, it's still disruptive if you are only interested in what is theoretical rather than what it likely to matter practically. Biggest output I've measured is on a gas main - which meant the level was high standing next to a gas cooker and that was at waist height.
Also to mention microwave ovens. The screens in them prevent microwaves passing but they are screens meaning other frequencies can pass and if you measure emf around microwave ovens you will see high readings. It's why they disrupt wifi.
The choke in fluorescent lights , which could be near your head, can also give out a large whack (also disrupt wifi and powerline connectors). Electric fans, hairdryers...
So please don't worry about it. Many many things more likely to kill you. Air pollution, Radon seeping through the floor, crossing the road....
Last edited:
Research in this area is very limited - who is going to fund it who doesn't have a vested interest in proving that it isn't real? A lot of long term Covid symptoms are similar to those which EMF and other environmental illness patients have been experiencing for decades. That is one fortunate result of Covid, finally lots of money is now going to research these (immune system?) failures.
If you test people who aren't sensitive you are going to get negative results. Luckily the numbers of people who fall into this category are very small and are difficult to find.
Believe what you want. The individuals which I met took blind tests which caused symptoms at very specific frequencies. I did as well. Certain frequencies produced symptoms. Glad to refer you to the clinic where these people are treated so you can find out for yourself.
That doesn't prove that they aren't EMF sensitive. Often EMF sensitive individuals have symptoms at specific frequencies, so a negative result just testing for the handful that a router produces means nothing.
Nope, most RF emitters tend to emit over a great range of frequencies (various processors, chips, and electrical noise spewed all over the radio spectrum, which is why Part 15 devices exist and why even devices that donât seem to put out RF as part of their operation are still Part 15 devices), but they try to minimize how much of that gets leaked out into the surrounding area. If youâre right by the router, though, youâre probably getting many more frequencies than just 2.4GHz or 5GHz.