Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

FlyingDutch

macrumors 65816
Aug 21, 2019
1,319
1,205
Eindhoven (NL)
Radio frequency radiation. Wow. Sounds scary. I mean...it sounds scary if you don’t the most basic radiobiology.
Do you ?
[automerge]1575816775[/automerge]
RF radiation is harmless within limits. There are reasons why these limits were set at the respective values. Of course, the limits are well within the safety zone. But these phones seem to exceed the SAR limits not by 10, 20 or 50%. They exceed them by 300-500%, which pushes the rf exposure into areas where harm has definitely been proven.
[automerge]1575738678[/automerge]


no, as the ozone layer is destroyed by chlorofluorocarbon, which has been banned for decades. And yes, if a company still releases chlorofluorocarbon into the atmosphere, you can sue them.

The ozone layer has almost completely recovered, btw.
[automerge]1575738785[/automerge]


That is complete nonsense. In the US, phones are tested by the FCC. In most other nations of the world, the phones aren't tested by any independent or government organisation. In order to get a phone certified, it's enough for a manufacturer to submit the results of their own in-house testing.
[automerge]1575739054[/automerge]


Cancers typically take 20-30 years to develop. Smartphones haven't been around for half of that. Older network technologies use lower frequencies that are much less prone to causing cell damage. Of course, modern phones, as long as they're within the safety zone of a max SAR of 1.6 (or slightly over) don't seem to be harmful either. But if the accusations are right, we're talking 300-500% more, which pushes the phones into exposure levels that have well been documented as heating cells to over the breakage point of membranes, thus causing long-term damage.
Definitely been proven by whom ???

cant see anything even remotely “been proven” in the whole discussion.
 
Last edited:

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
8,802
11,240
As someone whose job is EMC testing & has been involved in submitting & testing equipment for the last 25 years, perhaps I can clear up some confusion about who is responsible for what.

1. The FCC (or equivalent in other countries/regions) does not usually perform the testing of a device. They will approve test houses around the globe that manufacturers can use to test their products. Here in the UK, there are a number of Accredited Labs, from companies like UL, TUV, Eurofins etc who do all sorts of EMI testing as well as lots of other services like environmental, mechanical, vibrational, chemical, biological etc. Test reports from these companies are accepted "as is" because they have robust systems & procedures for testing, documentation, etc and all their equipment calibration is traceable back to national & international standard holderslike the NPL (National Physics Laboratory) here in the UK.

2. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to mark the device with the required marks such as FCC, CE, etc. They can "self certify" if they choose. That means if they are confident that their device is compliant without having to take it outside to be formally tested, they can do so. If someone challenges this because they think the device *isn't* compliant, the manufacturer will need to provide proof as to why the device *is* compliant. Sometimes if you know all of the parts within a device & have used them in similar configurations before, it's possible to have a reasonable idea of whether or not something will pbe compliant

3. Some large companies will have their own test lab with the required equipment to do all their own testing. The kit isn't cheap, so the majority of firms who decide to do testing will use the exterior test houses I mentioned in point 1. Quite often you will do a lot of "pre-compliance" work with your own test gear to make sure your trip to the exterior test house isn't going to be a waste of time & money. Pre-compliance test kits are cheaper to buy & it can save a lot of hassle to do pre-compliance on early prototype & pilot run devices to make any changes early in the design cycle.

4. Exterior test houses are the experts at performing EMC testing. HOWEVER they are reliant on the manufacturer telling them what testing wants to be done, in what operating modes, etc. The manufacturer is usually on site during the test to set everything up in the right operating modes during the test, or in case there's a problem with something not meeting the standards. The test house will produce a test report, complete with all the data showing the tests performed, results etc. The manufacturer will then create their own DoC (Declaration of Conformity) for the countries they want to sell into. Importers can then have & use the DoC when they import products into the country for selling.

5. If the customs authority in the country where the device is imported into wants to, they can demand to see all the test documentation or proof as to whether the device is compliant with the standards that apply to that device category (e.g. IT equipment has a certain set of internationally agreed standards they need to conform to, while mobile phones have not only those standards but also others relating to "Intentional emitting devices", 4G 5G etc). The manufacturer is then liable for providing that documentation to the importer. Typically it will be in the form of a Technical Construction File (or TCF for short). A TCF is enough information for someone to manufacture the device itself.

Bottom line is that it is all down to the manufacturer. They can choose to self-certify if they have their own test lab (or feel confident enough that their device is compliant). Typically most manufacturers will do pre-compliance if they can then go to exterior test houses for formal testing. The Test House will do the testing under the instruction of the manufacturer. They can advise on what testing is required, but they are not responsiblei f the manufacturer chooses only to perform certain tests. All the test house is responsible for is that the results that their test report contains are true and accurate.

Incidentally, there's a few small differences between FCC requirements and a lot of other countries in terms of EMC requirements. The FCC looks at Emissions only (The amount of EM energy emitted from a device), while most other countries/regions also look at a devices Immunity (how much EM energy a device can be subjected to). Domestic-use devices have to meet the tougher Emissions limit (Class B). Non-domestic devices have to meet Class A, which is easier to meet. There's a lot of other tests apart from radiated emissions/immunity. There's also conducted emissions & immunity (EM emitted down the mains & network/telecoms cables), Fast Transient bursts, Static Discharge testing. It's all fun in the Compliance test world!

Thanks for such a thorough description of the process!

So, do you have a sense of what happens in a case like we're seeing? Is it sufficient for Apple to just submit their existing paperwork, or will the FCC get involved in a deeper way to have the devices retested in a more comprehensive way? If the FCC has approved them, is there any standing here or is it really a dispute between the FCC and Apple/Samsung at that point?


For anyone interested in seeing what the filings look like, go to this site:
https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid

Enter "BCG" as the Grantee Code in the first box and "-E3085A" as the rest of the product code in the second box. Yes, you need to start with the dash, for some stupid reason.

That's the iPhone7. For other devices, go to Settings:General:Legal & Regulatory and find the FCC ID for that device. Probably also starts with BCG. iPhone X is BCG-E3175A.
 

Sedulous

macrumors 68030
Dec 10, 2002
2,530
2,577
First, microwave ovens are not tuned to water. They're tuned to an ISM (industrial, scientific, medical) band that the FCC allows for high power use:
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/20...icrowaves-in-a-microwave-oven-tuned-to-water/

Commercial microwave driers are often tuned to other frequencies:
https://www.sairem.com/microwave-ra...rying/microwave-rf-drying-industrial-process/

Which are also typically ISM bands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band

Microwave ovens work by dielectric heating. Water is an electrically polarized molecule that will align itself with an electric field. If that field is inverted, the molecule tries to flip, and then again, and then again. That vibration heats the molecules. It doesn't matter what the frequency is, it's the back and forth motion that creates the heat. Other polarized molecules will heat too, but water is present in most food so it tends to be what heats the food.

So saying that tissue being water based means that it dissipates heat is exactly backwards. It's the water that's being heated.

Water questions aside, heat dissipation is a critical factor. The limits are set with specific tissues-- the eyes and testes-- in mind because those have the least blood flow and thus dissipate the least heat (not because of the water, but because of the lack of circulation):
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-tec...ision/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety#Q5


We all seem to agree that holding an open microwave oven against our heads is bad. So there is some safety limit. The question then is where should that limit be? Less than 1000W is a start.

The FCC SAR limit is 1.6W/kg for us common folk:
https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65c.pdf

That limit is based on finding in an ANSI guideline that suggested a limit of 4W/kg as a safety margin for the general population but accepting 20W/kg for "controlled environments" (basically professionals exposed as part of their work):
http://emfguide.itu.int/pdfs/C95.1-2005.pdf

This is why I'm not too worried about the levels shown in the newspaper report-- the FCC numbers are conservative enough that minor violations probably aren't an issue. The FCC numbers are also averaged over 30min, which isn't my normal use case. Still, shipping a product that isn't compliant with the law should be taken seriously and saying I'm not very worried about iPhones is very different from saying RF is harmless.

The FCC specifies their limits as averaged over 1g of tissue because they're not really concerned with your phone heating up your whole body, but are worried about it heating up certain very sensitive tissues.


Finally, there seems to be the constant confusion of near fields and far fields. When the phone is pressed to the ear, the far fields are present, but there's also near fields which can potentially be much more intense:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electri...s-spring-2009/readings/MIT6_013S09_chap10.pdf

The far field gets stronger as you get closer to the source as a function of 1/(r^2) (essentially the product of eqs 10.2.8 and 10.2.9 in the above reference). The near field gets stronger as 1/(r^5) (essentially the product of 10.2.15 and 10.2.16). Far from the antenna, the near field barely registers, but close to the antenna it dominates.

Near field shapes are also notoriously difficult to predict and model and they're very sensitive to materials close to the antenna which can lead to hot-spots.

The near field has another interesting characteristic described right after 10.2.16: it's reactive. Transmitted power from the phone is lost and drains the battery whether there is a receiver listening or not. Reactive power won't really be measured at the battery terminals-- the energy is recovered by the antenna each cycle.

All of which is to say that arguments about how much power the radio transmits don't tell you much of anything about the SAR. The SAR is driven by the near field and we don't have any datasheet spec that can tell us what the near field strength is.

So quoting transmit power numbers doesn't indicate anything about the safety of the device.


If Apple and Samsung passed FCC compliance before they shipped, I'm not too worried. Maybe they gamed the system to make the results from their golden test unit look better than a typical production unit, but it would be shocking if they pushed it so far that whatever they're actually producing is dangerous. I think it's better than even odds that the newspaper doesn't understand how to test, but if it turns out they're right then there should be a reckoning. My guess is that will take the form of tighter oversight of testing labs by the FCC for a while. I doubt Apple will lose a lawsuit because they probably followed the letter if not the spirit of the regulations.

Again, none of this supports blanket statements like "RF is harmless". Wireless charging is also RF and in that case the scenario can be very different.
In short, like I said: microwave ovens are tuned to the frequency that most efficiently is absorbed by the oxygen-hydrogen bond length in water molecules. That is why you can put a block of styrofoam or a bucket of oil in a microwave and find no significant heating.

~~~

I honestly think public alarm is fine but misplaced in this case. “Electromagnetic radiation“ sounds scary but our own bodies radiate a considerable about of “electromagnetic radiation” (albeit 1/10 that of a mobile phone). Add in the constant exposure to all sorts of radiation from the cosmos and environment... it just seems a waste of time to scrutinize mobile phone “radiation” much less try to build a class action suit around it.
 
Last edited:

ulyssesric

macrumors 6502
Oct 7, 2006
250
204
Got a feeling that I’ve seen exactly the same type of lawsuit years ago. Must be a glitch in matrix.
 

TTOZ

macrumors newbie
Sep 7, 2012
17
11
This is why my IP 8+ is surrounded by an anti radiation case.. I have no idea how effective it is.. they claim 85% reduction and have datatsheets on it.. and even 10% is better than nothing. Cell phones are what have been causing the brain cancer epidemic, believe me.. I don't use a bluetooth headpiece, I don't put the phone to my ear.. the only way I will ever take a call is on speaker, period.. It's just not worth it.. I remember in the analog days with my sony ericsson, how hot and red my head would be after a 30 minute call.. I used to say, and this was 25 years ago.. "There must be serious radiation going into our brains with these things", and from then on I tried to be sensible.. It's only gotten worse..Personally I am not even comfortable with the always on wifi in the house for the internet, but what can you do.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
8,802
11,240
In short, like I said: microwave ovens are tuned to the frequency that most efficiently is absorbed by the oxygen-hydrogen bond length in water molecules. That is why you can put a block of styrofoam or a bucket of oil in a microwave and find no significant heating.

~~~

I honestly think public alarm is fine but misplaced in this case. “Electromagnetic radiation“ sounds scary but our own bodies radiate a considerable about of “electromagnetic radiation” (albeit 1/10 that of a mobile phone). Add in the constant exposure to all sorts of radiation from the cosmos and environment... it just seems a waste of time to scrutinize mobile phone “radiation” much less try to build a class action suit around it.
?‍♂️ You seem impervious to information...

Microwave ovens are absolutely not tuned to the bond length of water. Not in short, not in long, and not like you said.

Not.

Nothing I linked to said anything close to that.

It is the opposite of true, it is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Principles
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/10/15/why-are-the-microwaves-in-a-microwave-oven-tuned-to-water/
http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Wave properties/Wave properties/text/Microwave_ovens/index.html
http://www.iapws.org/faq1/mwave.html

Styrofoam and oil don’t heat because they are non-polar, not because the microwave isn’t “tuned” to that frequency.


Earlier I linked you to an industrial microwave dryer company that offered models from 13.56MHz to 2.45GHz:
https://www.sairem.com/microwave-ra...rying/microwave-rf-drying-industrial-process/

These operate from 13MHz to 2.5GHz. A greater than 7 octave range doesn't sound like it's tuned to a narrow physical property, it sounds like they're working at various skin depths. Like actual physics would suggest.



Also, the human body doesn’t radiate 1/10th the electromagnetic energy of a mobile phone. We radiate about 100W (more if you're nekid!) just sitting on our duffs— much more than a mobile phone.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/stevens1/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Human-body_emission



“Electromagnetic radiation“ doesn’t sound even a little bit scary. It sounds like physics-speak for energy going outward. What sounds really scary to me is the argument that "there's all kinds of radiation and stuff in the world, so why care about any of them".
 
  • Like
Reactions: laz232

laz232

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2016
733
1,383
At a café near you
Sounds like the FCC needs to get they act together, a government body cannot simply rubber stamp submissions without proper testing at the end of the day it is they credibility and validity no the line.

I suspect this is different to what VW did with its emission scandal. Is Apple and Samsung circumventing the tests outlined by the FCC don't know all the details. Are other phone manufacturers complying with the FCC standard or have they been tested by independent labs. Or is this just picking on the larger two phone manufacturers.

Not taking sides, seriously would like to know.
There is no "FCC lab" just labs that are certified to meet FCC standards.
The measurements consist of agreed upon procedures - there is no FCC inspector present - at least not for the non-mobile phones tests I have done.
Test houses outside of the USA may also be certified to perform tests to FCC standards.
With the amount (number of phone models / year per manufacturer) and the intricacies of the tests there is no way a government inspector could audit the code and test details.

not sure what is involved in mobile phone tests, but assume they are similar - but more involved than - AIS (maritime) and MIL-STD-461, at least for SAR measurement.
NB these measurements are probably quite variable in absolute terms - would assume a 20-30% uncertainty in SAR measurements due to test site and mounting variation.
 

Ladybug

macrumors 68000
Apr 13, 2006
1,874
1,013
Should I wrap my iPhone in foil or rather my head? Nah, can’t ruin the aesthetics of my phone.:rolleyes::):p
1B329753-074C-4228-A0FC-5F129DD30DC7.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.