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.
Law Firm Sues Apple and Samsung, Claiming Phones Exceed Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Levels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
UV at the shorter wavelength range (UV-B and C ~100-315) IS ionizing radiation. Remember, ionizing radiation simply means the radiation is carried by a wave with enough energy to pop electrons off an atom.
EMF can mean a bunch of things. In this case I think it was shorthand for “electromagentic field”.
RF (radio frequencies) are made of frequencies that at any sensible amplitude (power) can not possibly carry enough energy to be ionizing. They are in all sense, “harmless”.
Does anyone else feel their phone vibrate in their pocket...
Only to pat their pocket and realize their phone is on their desk?
ANYONE?
Only to pat their pocket and realize their phone is on their desk?
ANYONE?
I suppose if you have a lot of cesium in your cells, then UVB might cause you some problems, but for biological purposes ionizing generally means 10eV or higher (~120nm or less) and that is firmly at the high end of UVC. Very little if any UVC reaches the earths surface. Sunburn and skin cancer are caused by non-ionizing UVB.
If EMF means electromagnetic fields then the statement I commented on was still nonsensical. Xrays also form electromagnetic fields. It doesn't matter what end of the spectrum you're talking about...
RF is not in all senses harmless-- that's the whole point of SAR and MPE testing. Get this ionizing/non-ionizing nonsense out of your head. It's an overly simplistic view of the world. Yes, ionizing is bad, but it's not the only bad.
And because people can't seem to understand nuanced arguments, I'll repeat that I'm in no way saying that your iPhone is giving you cancer.
Last edited:
Even the authors had to say results are “equivocal”. In fact, the control group had a lower survival rate than ANY of the experimental groups. It is still baffling why the title of the article was not supported by the results. Their conclusion was uncertain.
Attachments
Last edited:
iPhone provides enough quality of life benefit to outweigh any risk. I don’t wish to return to the stone age even if it did extend my life.
UV-B is considered ionizing. UV-A is not. RF cannot carry enough energy to split nucleotide bonds. Unless we are talking colossally-massively-outrageously high amplitude RF, that is just how it is.
UVB is considered ionizing by who in what context? The FCC considers photons over 10eV to be ionizing from a biological perspective. The WHO says 12.4eV. Both are firmly in the UVC range.
https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
https://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/keynote3ng.pdf
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission specifically calls UV non-ionizing (but X-rays ionizing, so it's not because they're looking at particles rather than EM):
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/ionizing-radiation.html
If you are saying that sunburn and skin cancer are caused by ionization, we have an argument.
https://www.bioscience.org/1997/v2/d/soehnge/3.htm
UV causes DNA lesions by photochemical reaction, not ionization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine_dimer
So, while I agree UVB may be classified as ionizing from a purely chemical perspective, from a biological perspective it's the non-ionizing UVA and UVB that do the harm.
Yes, RF is non-ionizing. There is no argument there. It doesn't take ionization to cause tissue damage, that's just how it is.
Last edited:
The world worked together and banned CFC, unfortunately some nations with rogue individuals have started producing it again.
[automerge]1575686993[/automerge]
When did I specifically state radio, I said harm. Now if you consider RF harmful well I have a news for you there are other bigger problems. Use BT or no RF device to keep you safe. Not taking sides just pointing out that every individual is in potential harm everyday. One could get into an auto accident but people still drive cars or take public transportation or walk.
While there maybe a risk with RF there are protective measures one can take to minimize exposure.
You have a choice while in other news the US has been considering to increase exposure limits for radioactive substances. :-S
Last edited:
It surprises me how many people here disapprove of this lawsuit because "there's no proof it harms humans".
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not interested in rolling the dice with radiation just because some companies can't abide by the rules.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not interested in rolling the dice with radiation just because some companies can't abide by the rules.
Last edited by a moderator:
It sounds like this lawsuit could be based on erroneous interpretation of near field measurements. While they very well could have measured a strong field value (especially at some unrealistic and ridiculously close range like 2mm), the likelihood is that the power contained in that field is probably well within FCC power radiation limits. Getting more technical, they were measuring rapidly decaying evanescent fields, not radiating fields. If they want to make a claim that fields containing zero power can somehow cook people's brains, then they will be fighting an uphill battle because the science says otherwise.
Haha, good one.
Lets see if anyone figures out where that's from.
Pretty sure everyone that reacted to it saw the TV Series.
Radiation can cause tissue damage either through heating or ionizing. Clearly, RF is non-ionizing. So then the issue is whether or not some amount of RF is capable of heating tissue enough to damage it or precipitate some chemical reaction. In order for that to happen the RF needs to be strong enough to overcome the capacity of the tissue to dissipate heat. Most tissue is water based (humans are 60% water) which dissipates heat extremely rapidly -- apart from certain resonant frequencies associated with water molecules. An iPhone simply isn't blasting anywhere near enough RF energy to heat up a human cell or overcome that cell's ability to dissipate heat. Increase the power of the iPhone by 10,000 or 100,000 and then maybe there would be an issue.
In regards to EMF and the people saying it's safe. I will leave this here.
Though it's only for the logical intelligent people out there
Though it's only for the logical intelligent people out there
While it is interesting to discuss the finer points of UV (and thank you for linking information; UV-B/C is considered the margin of ionizing), really the question is whether RF can be dangerous at the amplitudes used by mobile phones. At this wavelength certainly not by breaking molecular bonds. I am also not aware of any significant absorption by organic materials (although I know little about 5G spectrum). Or put another way, a microwave oven is tuned specifically to the frequency absorbed by water and most microwaves output at around 1000W. Even if the phone were to pour all of its energy into a single “blast”, the resulting transmission power would be about 1-2 W... and not at a frequency known to be well absorbed by the body. Even if this transmission power could be maintained longer than that, it simply is not enough to add enough energy to significantly change any chemistry in the body.
Last edited:
I'm sure that all those $500/hour legal types will be using phones made by other companies. Anything but the companies named in the lawsuit. The same has to go for their computers etc etc etc. They have to be seen to be squeeky clean.
The rub could be that those alternatives are worse...
Watched and not particularly impressed. She claims that cell phones use the same frequency as microwave ovens and the only difference is power. This is incorrect, they operate at different frequencies (though both are classed in the microwave spectrum). Furthermore, the claim that the cell phone can “heat up the brain” is preposterous. Even if a mobile phone transmitted enough power to heat the body (which it does not, I mean come on use some sense here, the battery is only ~3000maH), the body has this thing called blood and like a liquid cooled heat sink, it can carry away heat to closely maintain temperature. The rest was similar hysterics and junk science.
Thanks for your reply.
As I said, I only want logical people to watch, so cheers for being such.
The only interesting point I have come across was from 2 of my local doctors.
-They have both said, that in the last 20 years, they have seen a huge increase of brain tumours on the side of the head where patients use their phones,
-An increase in tumours around the shirt pocket areas of business men.
I also think it's suspect that "apparently" the government used a large heavy male as the reference point for RF exposure tests.
Uh, not to be snarky, but did you even read my post or the study itself? Your attached screenshot shows the results in mice. As I said, results were equivocal in all mice and in female rats. However, there was a clear association between exposure and cancers in male rats.
As I further said, this is not a reason to freak out about cellphone radiation. It is a good reason to keep an eye on further studies, and to hold manufacturers to the already established exposure guidelines.
[automerge]1575706712[/automerge]
American regulators largely abandoned the precautionary principle because they considered it too much of a burden on businesses to prove the safety of new products. Now we just wait for people (sorry, “consumers”) to start complaining of harm before applying any sort of scrutiny.
Last edited:
Having done quite a bit of EMC testing in my time, it is the manufacturer that typically specifies the software and test set up on the transmitter side - the FCC does not check the code that sets, for example, power backoff.
[automerge]1575707175[/automerge]
Different frequencies, different modulation forms (which appear to have some effects in lab conditions (in vitro)) and I guess that the total integrated dose is higher now due to the omnipresence and ubiquity of mobile devices.
I don't think that non thermal effects of RF radiation are acutely detrimental (obviously) but having read the literature since the early 2000s I would not hastily rule out the possibility of negative effects. But like everything (including water) -It is the dose that makes the poison...
Last edited:
I really don't like this weird phenomenon when people read up a single wikipedia article or were informed about a single aspect of a complex matter ("non-ionizing radiation") and think they now know everything about that topic, even more so than active researchers in the very field. Then they go out, roll their eyes "Well, science has shown that...". It is so incredibly annoying. Unapologetic ignorance is honestly so much easier to handle than dogmatic half knowledge.
I'm not saying that is any way proof that thus iPhones emit harmful radiation, but there are certainly mechanisms that are poorly understood and deserve a high level of attention and research. Using a smartphone these days is pretty much mandatory and even when just a tiny fraction of all people using smartphones experience adverse effects, that is still a huge number of people. We have every reason to be careful and honestly pretty trivial reasons to crank up our phone's antennae. We don't want to tell people that suffer from health issues that they do so because people thought it's sometimes annoying when you lose your signal. That is not at all how we should set up our priorities.
Warming your hand with a hand warmer is a fundamentally different process from warming it with microwaves. The warmth of a hand warmer enters the body via diffusive processes from the outside, something our body is well-adapted to. We have mechanisms such as sweating or regulating blood flow in our skin to adapt to that. Microwaves on the other hand are very penetrative, so you'll heat up your body from the inside. That is something the human body is well-adapted to. Whereas your skin can carry excess heat away pretty effectively, some random cell in your brain can't really do anything about it except wait for diffusion and blood flow to carry the excess heat away.
I'm not saying that is any way proof that thus iPhones emit harmful radiation, but there are certainly mechanisms that are poorly understood and deserve a high level of attention and research. Using a smartphone these days is pretty much mandatory and even when just a tiny fraction of all people using smartphones experience adverse effects, that is still a huge number of people. We have every reason to be careful and honestly pretty trivial reasons to crank up our phone's antennae. We don't want to tell people that suffer from health issues that they do so because people thought it's sometimes annoying when you lose your signal. That is not at all how we should set up our priorities.
Last edited:
Do you have proof of that?
because you are most probably right, but the entire point here is nobody really knows.