Chicago Tribune Claims iPhone Radiofrequency Radiation Levels Measured Higher Than Legal Safety Limit In Tests (macrumors.com) 74
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MacRumors: The Chicago Tribune recently launched an investigation into the radiofrequency radiation levels output by popular smartphones, and found that some of Apple's iPhones are allegedly emitting radiofrequency radiation that exceeds safety limits. According to the newspaper, it contracted an accredited lab to test several smartphones according to federal guidelines. iPhones were secured below clear liquid formulated to simulate human tissue while probes measured the radiofrequency radiation the liquid absorbed.
Several iPhones measured over the legal safety limits in the tests, but the worst performer was the iPhone 7. Its radiofrequency radiation exposure was over the legal limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators. The iPhone X was slightly over limits in some tests, as was the iPhone 8, while the 8 Plus stayed within the legal range. iPhones were tested twice after Apple provided feedback on the testing method. The modified test "added steps intended to activate sensors designed to reduce the phones' power." In these modified tests, where a reporter held the iPhone to activate the sensors in question, the iPhone 8 was under the 5mm limit, but the iPhone 7 models were not. Apple disputed the results found by The Chicago Tribune and said that the lab did not test the iPhones in the same way that Apple does, though Apple would not specify what was done wrong in the testing. Apple also said the modified testing had been done wrong. The investigation also found smartphones from Samsung, Motorola, and Vivo also demonstrated radiofrequency radiation levels that exceed FCC guidelines. However, it's worth noting that testing was done in a way to simulate the worst possible exposure conditions.
The FCC said that it will be conducting its own tests over the next couple of months. "We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules," agency spokesman Neil Grace said.
Several iPhones measured over the legal safety limits in the tests, but the worst performer was the iPhone 7. Its radiofrequency radiation exposure was over the legal limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators. The iPhone X was slightly over limits in some tests, as was the iPhone 8, while the 8 Plus stayed within the legal range. iPhones were tested twice after Apple provided feedback on the testing method. The modified test "added steps intended to activate sensors designed to reduce the phones' power." In these modified tests, where a reporter held the iPhone to activate the sensors in question, the iPhone 8 was under the 5mm limit, but the iPhone 7 models were not. Apple disputed the results found by The Chicago Tribune and said that the lab did not test the iPhones in the same way that Apple does, though Apple would not specify what was done wrong in the testing. Apple also said the modified testing had been done wrong. The investigation also found smartphones from Samsung, Motorola, and Vivo also demonstrated radiofrequency radiation levels that exceed FCC guidelines. However, it's worth noting that testing was done in a way to simulate the worst possible exposure conditions.
The FCC said that it will be conducting its own tests over the next couple of months. "We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules," agency spokesman Neil Grace said.
Further proof (Score:5, Interesting)
"Apple disputed the results found by The Chicago Tribune and said that the lab did not test the iPhones in the same way that Apple does, though Apple would not specify what was done wrong in the testing. Apple also said the modified testing had been done wrong."
Further proof that Apple is doomed without Steve jobs, the source of all of their creativity. They can't even come up with a new excuse different from "you're holding it wrong"
Too bad Apple's tax avoidance schemes have left them with enough cash to fall eternally. Maybe if they went under there would be room for another player. Alas, they can blunder like this for a century at current rates.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple also said the modified testing had been done wrong.
ITYM:
Apple also said the modified testing had been holding them wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
ITYM:
sigh, subtlety is wasted on some people. That is exactly what drinkypoo said, just less deathly dull.
Old excuses work just fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Further proof that Apple is doomed without Steve jobs, the source of all of their creativity. They can't even come up with a new excuse different from "you're holding it wrong"
Why exactly would they need a new excuse? The old one apparently works just fine.
Too bad Apple's tax avoidance schemes have left them with enough cash to fall eternally.
You think Apple's tax dodging is the reason they have massive piles of cash? Here's a clue, taxes only happen on PROFITS and only take a percentage of those. Even if Apple had paid the US statutory rates without any weaseling out of them they still would have well north of $100 Billion in cash on hand as of the time I write this. For perspective that is enough cash to buy BOTH Ford and GM at their current market capitalizat
Re: Old excuses work just fine (Score:1, Insightful)
You cannot simply buy into an industry. You can try but it likely lays outside your area of expertise. Countless companies have proven this with acquisitions.
King Midas Apple is safest to just try not to touch anything.
Re: (Score:2)
But given enough cash, you can buy the entire industry. What you can't solve with money, you can solve with a LOT of money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You think Apple's tax dodging is the reason they have massive piles of cash?
No, I think that there's two reasons. One, their unwillingness to spend. Two, their tax dodging. The pile would be smaller if not for either.
That's why I kind of laugh at people who think Apple is failing.
They are clearly not failing as a company, so I hope you're not misdirecting that my way. I mention the piles of money every time I suggest Apple is incompetent as a way to make it clear that I don't think they're going to go away any time soon. But they are failing as innovators, and that's what they're known for. They need to get that back somehow or they will fail e
Re: (Score:1)
You think Apple's tax dodging is the reason they have massive piles of cash?
I thought it was because of American tax laws that they sit on a huge pile of cash. It means shareholders get capital gains instead of dividends.
Why else would they not be paying the profits to shareholders? Does Tim Cook just like to go swimming in the money-pile like Uncle Scrooge?
Or maybe he is saving up to buy Greenland?
And of course if Apple paid corporate tax, instead of funnelling their profits to tax havens, the pile would be smaller. Which is probably what GP was referring to.
Apple's cash (Score:3)
I thought it was because of American tax laws that they sit on a huge pile of cash
Not really. That's just why they keep so much of their cash overseas. It costs too much in taxes to make it sensible to repatriate it. The reason they have a huge cash pile is because they don't have anything productive they can do with it. It's relatively easy to find profitable investments and new business ventures when you are a small company. When you get to the size of Apple it becomes almost impossible. Good luck finding/making another business the size of their iPhone business with similar marg
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't go that far. They actually are doing something productive with it. Calling it "cash" is something of a misnomer; most of it is investments in one form or another (stocks, bonds, etc.). Apple actually has its own in-house investment firm [wikipedia.org] to manage its cash, and is making a decent amount of money with that money. And in a manner of speaking, they're also helping support a lot of other tech f
Cash and Cash Equivalents (Score:1)
I wouldn't go that far. They actually are doing something productive with it.
No they really aren't. I'm an accountant. When you see "Cash" in an amount bigger than what they need for working capital (which Apple is FAR beyond) then that is money that is not being put to productive use by the company. Investors would probably be literally be better off if Apple gave it back to them and they put it in an index fund. Apple is very likely not realizing a return equal to or greater than the market on that money. The only reason for the company to hold on to cash like that is if they
How is this proof or even further (Score:5, Interesting)
Radiation testing sort of depends on what you mean. Do you mean peak power, average power over a relevant time interval, peak spatial EMF, average spatial EMF.
Some sensors measure the RF field strength (EMF) at a specific antenna position and some will measure to total absorbed power inbound into an area. If you make certain assumptions of uniformity and unidirectionality these two can be related to each other. But lets give an example where they are not the same. Suppose you have two intersecting beams, for example the same beam coming back on itself after reflecting off a wall, or maybe off the corner of the iphone case. There will be nodea and valleys where the radiation emf in an antenna will reinforce and places where it cancels. So depending on where you place the detectro antenna you could see even double height values. On the otherhand if it were just a traveling wave with no reflections then the total energy per second crossing an area would be directly related to the measure antenna value.
Since reflections are hard to prescribe for testing the only reasonable way to test is by measuring the total energy absorbed by an area not with an antenna voltage.
But that too isn't quite right either. It's possible the phone ejects more energy in one direction than another. So it depends on the specs for how concentrated the total power can be spatially.
Finally theres the concentration in time. if it has ten times the power for millisecond but a duty cycle of 1 to 10 then the average power over any time longer than a milliscond is inside the spec.
I bring all this up because any given meter can be accredited for the type of measurement it is doing. But what you mean by exposure limits depends on how those limits are defined. And it's a common mistake to assume power meters based on different ways of measuring field strength and brightness are all the same. They are the same under certain assumptions but not always.
I think there's a lot of room here for apple to dispute this till the matter is reviewed by the FCC. the measurement errors could be in the lab or apple or in an incomplete or ambiguous specification.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean peak power, average power over a relevant time interval, peak spatial EMF, average spatial EMF.
Don't bother explaining reality GB, it's Apple Trashing Town.
I laugh heartily when I think of the reporter for this story even trying to understand what the hell was going on with the testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I do NOT buy into this, but since you asked, as I have asked nutty folks with "wifi allergies", here is their response:
"Voltage gated calcium channels are affected by non-ionizing radiation"
And this is the researcher and paper most cited related to the relationship:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Even assuming this is true, the only proof I'd accept is a double blind test of wifi allergy sufferers in a controlled environment. There are many different pathways in the human body that are based on electrical charge that possibly could be affected by EMF at high enough levels. But that doesn't mean it's actually happening.
Re: (Score:2)
" When does non-ionizing radiation ever cause cancer, and how."
Go look at blue light, which is non-ionizing, yet which triggers, worsens, and accelerates macular degeneration, and then try thinking more logically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When does non-ionizing radiation ever cause cancer, and how.
Radar systems can easily measure at peak in the megawatt power range, and have average pulse powers basically at kilowatt range.
When the RF field has a SAR (specific absorption rate) has a power of 1000 watts /m2 and is at a 10 GHz frequency, it will burn the skin and form cataracts at about 20 feet from the transmitter.
People working on such systems have a whole laundry list of safety precautions to go by, and presumably the other people working not that close but around the thing have it drilled into them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How is this proof or even further (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Radiation testing sort of depends on what you mean. Do you mean peak power, average power over a relevant time interval, peak spatial EMF, average spatial EMF.
The FCC's rules are quite specific about what you measure and how you measure it. As you point out, it's not a simple hook up a meter and take a single reading, there are a lot of factors that must be taken into account, documented and the exposure limits proven. This is specialized work, which is likely NOT something Apple does in house for a number of reasons. Usually this certification work is done by independent companies that specialize in doing this kind of measuring, have the necessary equipment a
Re: (Score:2)
So you think they're lying when they say 'This test, which was paid for by the Tribune and conducted according to federal guidelines at an accredited lab ...'?
Re: (Score:2)
> "you're holding it wrong"
This reminded me of the sidetalking meme
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Unethical. Squiggle/ just proved you don't know what you're talking about, but that doesn't make you unethical, just ignorant and hypocritical.
Re: (Score:1)
He'd make an excellent doctor. He's got the mentality down pat.
Re:bonkers (Score:4, Interesting)
Hold up..
The FCC certainly DOES regulate RF exposure limits.
As a ham radio operator I had to know about these limits to get my license. Commercial operators have similar requirements for the exposure limits for their systems which includes cell phone operators, which includes your handset (which is operating under the Carrier's license). The FCC has strict measurement guidelines for this sort of thing and requires proof that consumer goods meet the guidelines.
As for the point of the article, if the Chicago Tribune really has properly measured and found the limits are being exceeded, then there may be legal trouble for the handset builders... BUT... I dare say there is almost zero chance any consumer would have been harmed. Why? Because the exposure limits are exceedingly low for exposure of the general public. Safe exposure limits for folks like tower technicians or transmitter engineers are quite a bit higher, and even at those limits the risks are still pretty low. So if the phones are indeed exceeding the exposure limits for the general public, they most certainly are still not dangerous, and there is no way a cell phone will be able to even come close to the occupational exposure limits where the health risks are nearly non-existent still. So don't worry about this, unless you own stock in a handset maker who might get fined.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people walk around with their phone on speaker and held in front of them so everyone gets to listen in on their conversation or listen to whatever music is playing.
Thanks to the inverse square law, any potential damaging effects of radiation have dissipated by the time it reaches their skull.
Re: (Score:2)
You do get that my point here is that the occupational safety limits far exceed the general public exposure limits.. And I do mean FAR exceed. Your handset is required to meet the general public limits. There is very little actual risk for the occupational limits, in fact, the reason they exist is as a safety margin for people working around high intensity RF fields, just incase they do something really stupid and providing a regulated space where only people who are aware of the risk of RF exposure can g
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was wondering what this was trying to prove. Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding of how electromagnetism works?
Could a physicist or field theorist check me on this? Cell phones operate in the 800-3000MHz range. This is non-ionizing radiation meaning that it does not have the energy to dislodge an electron in an atom, and thus unable to cause the kind of harm we think of when talking about radiation. Visible light has a frequency of 430-770THz...orders of magnitude more than a cell phone an
Re: (Score:2)
The point they are making is that the phones are shown to exceed exposure limits for non-ionizing radiation that were established by a few different standards bodies and adopted by the FCC.
Non-ionizing radiation can definitely cause harm, primarily through heating effects, but these are notably different than how a layperson would think of heating (much like the term "radiation" is misunderstood). RF heating can heat certain molecules but not others, denaturing a protein for example (essentially scorching
Re: (Score:3)
I am neither, but am a Ham radio operator.
This is absolutely true. However non-ionizing radiation, in high enough power levels and close enough proximity, will absolutely transfer energy in the form of heat which can give
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately headlines sell. and details get ignored. We as a culture, and perhaps a species, are really bad at risk analysis. While we are happy to drive our cars 10mph past the posted speed limit, and most cops will not even bother you for doing this, this is more unsafe, then exceeding the FTC RF Radiation levels as much as Apple is doing.
Radiation is a boogie man scary word. But like a lot of other things in the world, such as toxins, metals, and microorganisms our body is able to tolerate a decent
Re: (Score:2)
You mind putting your hand inside a microwave oven and switching it on then. After all, the frequency is far lower than that of light.
Radiation doesn't have to be ionising to be damaging. Every biological molecule has its resonant frequency - hit that and you can cause it to fall apart if its large enough and the bonds fragile enough.
Re:bonkers (Score:5, Informative)
"You mind putting your hand inside a microwave oven and switching it on then. After all, the frequency is far lower than that of light."
You're ignoring the most important part of the equation of RF (non-ionising) power levels. Microwave ovens operate at 800-1500 watts. The average 4G phone operate at about 200 mW peak, or 0.2 watts. Time averaged output for worse case such as rural operation is about 4.4 mW or 0.0044 watts.
It's disingenuous to omit power levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's about cellular cavitation, which is how microwave radiation heats things as you rightly point out. I probably also should have included power in my rant, but as Pyramid states, 0.200 watts vs. 800 watts is still orders of magnitude less. A read a 1W laser can burn skin if it's focused tightly enough, but a cell phone is omnidirectional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.fcc.gov/general/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones [fcc.gov]
The best study showed... (Score:2)
The most comprehensive study ever done of cell phone biological effects showed that rodents exposed to cell phone showed statistically significant increase in lifespan. The effect was seen for both rats and mice, and seen for both male and female animals.
Re: (Score:2)
So naturally if drinking water is good for you, submerging yourself in a swimming pool with cinderblocks will be REALLY good for you?
Re: (Score:2)
More endurance athletes die from over-hydrating than do from dehydration. So ingesting water is good or bad for you, depending on how much and under what circumstances.
That's true of lots of things. Exercise. Ionizing radiation. Carbohydrates. In all these cases, dose makes the poison.
If we believe the result the poster is alluding to, it's probably true of cell phone radiation. The thing is, if the result the poster is alluding to is real that upends the long-held assumption that cell phone radiation
Re: (Score:2)
I can no longer sit back and allow Apple infiltration, Apple indoctrination, Apple subversion and the international Apple conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you'd find that in a controlled experiment, the cinderblocks would significantly reduce the test subjects' chances of dying from cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think cell phones are dangerous. However experiments on mice and other animals with short life spans may not be a good analog for such tests. If exposure for 30 years causes a problem, having a rodent which may live 2-3 years may not be a good test, because it would die from old age, before the effect from exposure kicks in. Granted it will be difficult to test on whales though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually NOT good if a study find some benefit to cell phone radiation for its subjects. You can't jump from a hormetic effect seen in experimental rats to the conclusions you'll experience the same effect, because (a) you're not a rat and (b) your exposure to the radiation does not resemble the experimental conditions.
What you really want is to see *no* effect. That would support our prior belief that radiation of this type and intensity can't effect mammalian cells at all. If you believe the study
Re: (Score:2)
p>What you really want is to see *no* effect.
You don't always get what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
citation needed, assertion made without proof
Re: (Score:2)
showed statistically significant increase in lifespan
And still, they continue with their efforts to take our childrens' cellphones away [slashdot.org]. Those bastards!
SAR thresholds are arbitrary anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
The limits for legal SAR values had been set somewhat arbitrarily in the first place, way back when developing some of the first RADAR systems. Researchers knew a threshold where they knew radiation caused harmful heating effects, and then they chose "safe" thresholds arbitrarily at 1/1000 of that just to be sure.
Note also that US and Europe each has a different standard for how to conduct a SAR measurement. The purpose is to make comparisons of SAR values objectively comparable (for each standard). Apparently, according to comments on MacRumors (I can't get to the original article from EU), the tests in this article did not follow either standard when conducting their tests.
"Apple Cancer Treatment Center" (Score:1)
It's all a stage in their master plan. Soon they'll start piloting cancer treatment centers in Apple Stores... which will offer financing through the new Apple Card.
Re: (Score:2)
It's non-ionizing radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
And a bunch of vendors were also guilty. Selectively ignoring facts in favor of a narrative is a national past-time.
It's not a huge shock to find cell phone vendors pushing up to the very limits of power output. The question is whether they're in violation of a spec, that is not very straightforward. I've never looked at the spec for any kind of intentional radiators, but at least for unintentional radiators there was a lot of ambiguity about how to interpret test environment and conditions that one could m
Cell phone radiation (Score:2)
It's all dark arts anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
A LOT depends on your test setup. Yes, there are standards dictating how a test should be done. Yes, there are accredited labs with all manner of calibration certifications. But in my experience, the test results can easily vary by +/-3 dB from day to day, whose test facility you are using, who is conducting the test, what they had for breakfast that morning, the phase of the moon, and all manner of ephemera.
Re:It's all dark arts anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
Often such variation just means inadequate controls. Many years back, I was working on some code for atomic clock calibration. The results were consistent M-F, but wacky on weekends. Turned out, there was a parking lot close to the lab. Full of cars, the clock ensemble behaved one way. Without all that metal hanging about, it behaved quite differently. Placing a Faraday cage around the entire lab did the trick (adjusting the calibration sw would have been much cheaper, but such is life).
I don't know enough the specifics of the testing under discussion ... but when measuring really small things, and getting consistent results is elusive (and incredibly tied to test conditions) my experience says we haven't properly identified all the critical variables, and they aren't being controlled.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for doing all that work. I realize it was regulated, but I do appreciate the people who do the design and testing for safety of equipment.
At least Apple is consistent (Score:3)
In these modified tests, where a reporter held the iPhone to activate the sensors in question, the iPhone 8 was under the 5mm limit, but the iPhone 7 models were not. Apple disputed the results found by The Chicago Tribune and said that the lab did not test the iPhones in the same way that Apple does, though Apple would not specify what was done wrong in the testing. Apple also said the modified testing had been done wrong.
So essentially they were holding it wrong.
Why all the rigmarole? (Score:2)
Apple, if you are tired of life (Score:1)
Electrocution [ladbible.com], fire [theinquirer.net], even plane crash [dailymail.co.uk], choose your manner of death. Apple has the product for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the occurrence-frequency of these events, you may want to never leave your bed
I don't know of a tablet from any manufacturer other than Apple that has taken down a plane, killing dozens of people. Apple's take on it? Let me guess: you're flying it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Electrocution [ladbible.com], fire [theinquirer.net], even plane crash [dailymail.co.uk], choose your manner of death. Apple has the product for you.
Hey wait, since when did reporting the news become flamebait? Oh right, since Apple started sending its trollmod employees out to social media sites to "shape the conversation".
Preventative measures (Score:2)
I purchased my first Bluetooth headset around 2004, that ugly Jabra, when I bought a Sony t637, fLOAts Mobile Agent was so much fun, what a great phone! Mostly I got the headset to put an end to cords getting caught in the stick shift, but it was so entirely convenient, and I thought it was cool... I've only gone without one when I had a T-Mobile G1 and, for a short period, Bluetooth didn't work in Android, remember?
But using a headset can greatly diminish any harm from phone radiation. So do it, people, ju
Re: (Score:3)
sure get an airpod with 0.5 W / kg radiation, put a microwave oven in your ear, lolz
Re: Preventative measures (Score:2)
That's the choice, Bluetooth radiation or 4G radiation. Or cords. Or speaker. Or not.
Cellphone Companies Let Rise Above the Law (Score:2)
iPhones (Score:2)
6S users: concerned, but still not upgrading (Score:1)