Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 127
    vadimyuryevvadimyuryev Posts: 169member
    http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

    They could have placed it in Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
    or Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.

    But they ruled Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.

    "This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals."

    "Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence."

    That was back in 2011, just before 4G started to get implemented.


    In my opinion, there wouldn't be so many people concerned about Wi-Fi and Cell Phone radiation if it was 100% safe, even if all of those people aren't "scientists."

    Opinion #2: Not many are willing to go Amish, including me. 

    Opinion #3: There are so many things in our daily lives that have the capability to cause cancer, including preservatives/chemicals in food and hygiene/skin-care products, that even if this wireless radiation was causing health issues like cancer, there are much bigger fish to blame it on. 

    Either way, they'll give you a fat dose of more chemicals or zap you with some more radiation. Ironic, isn't it? 
    cgWerksfastasleep
  • Reply 62 of 127
    Anyone interested in founding their opinion on hard science instead of swallowing whole the opinions of Mike Wuerthele (or anyone else) might like to browse the 5000 or so scientific studies here: http://justproveit.net/studies. There is one heck of a lot of peer reviewed science out there demonstrating the interference of non-natural electromagnetic radiation with the normal functioning of biological processes and I suggest it is time to inform ourselves and think for ourselves. Industry insiders are going to tell you what they want you to hear.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 63 of 127
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    finickity said:
    There is one heck of a lot of peer reviewed science
    Unfortunately, peer review doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore. Only the objective physical reality of nature–shown to be reproducible–matters.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 64 of 127
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,320administrator
    finickity said:
    Anyone interested in founding their opinion on hard science instead of swallowing whole the opinions of Mike Wuerthele (or anyone else) might like to browse the 5000 or so scientific studies here: http://justproveit.net/studies. There is one heck of a lot of peer reviewed science out there demonstrating the interference of non-natural electromagnetic radiation with the normal functioning of biological processes and I suggest it is time to inform ourselves and think for ourselves. Industry insiders are going to tell you what they want you to hear.
    And there is way, way more that demonstrates the lack of interference. I'm familiar with the source you linked. You couldn't have picked a more agenda-based collection source if you had tried - which I expect you did.

    Think for ourselves, indeed.

    It's also pretty funny how you think I'm an "industry insider."
    edited May 2018 fastasleep
  • Reply 65 of 127
    I think this article does a disservice to AI readers by presenting one man's opinion as the gospel, more or less, while brushing away a lot of recent studies as not belonging to the category of 'science' this particular author will accept as valid. And, this bias reflects right in the title.

    Indeed, the entire article isn't a genuine attempt at exploration or questioning of a very complex topic, but a declaration of a position the author has taken, because of what constitutes 'bad' science, in his personal opinion. That, right there, is a disservice to AI readers.

    The article starts by referring to the usual red herring in all the arguments about cell phone radiation:
    First and foremost, RF radiation is not the same as ionizing radiation generated by decay of radioactive isotopes, and from the sun itself. This isn't Radiation Physics 101 in 1000 words, so in short, RF lacks the energy that ionizing radiation has to break chemical bonds, ionize atoms, and damage DNA.
    However, many recent studies have dwelt on the non-thermal health effects of long term exposure to non-ionizing radiation. Dr. Martin L. Pall of Washington State University has done important research (probably pioneering?) research on the exact biological mechanism through which non-ionizing radiation may be causing lasting damage to human health. To summarize, the non-thermal effects of radiation from electrical devices are real and probably work by causing mitochondrial damage. 

    To summarily dismiss such studies or imply they are non-science or bad science, as the author does in multiple comments doesn't seem to me to reflect the so-called 'scientific method' the author supposedly follows. 

    More recently, two long term studies have shown an increase in specific types of tumour, with the authors concluding that they are most likely caused by cell phone radiation. The first of these is in the U.K and involves a study of humans; the second is in the U.S and involves a study of the effects of cell phone radiation on rats and mice under the National Toxicology Program.

    Needless to say, vested interests deny the validity of both these studies. The NTP study's results were almost whitewashed by the FDA and the American Cancer Society, but a scientific review panel revised their stand when they found that male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed a form of heart tissue tumour that's extremely rare in rats - the kicker that made the panel change their stand is that this rare form of heart tissue tumour has also been found in people using cell phone at high power settings:

    National Toxicology Program senior scientist John Bucher said the heart tissue cancer that developed in male rats is the same type of cancer that has been seen in some people who have used cellphones at the highest power settings for years.

    "The fact that this tumor type was the same really drew our eye to it," Bucher said. "And also they were some of the strongest findings from a numerical standpoint."

    Finally, on the subject of the 2011 IARC/WHO study, to which the author alludes in one of his comments, not many know that the Ramazzini Institute, which is highly respected for the quality of its medical research, is urging the IARC to revise its categorization of cell phone usage from possibly carcinogenic to probably carcinogenic.

    So, my point is that, like many others have pointed out, this is far from a subject on which the final word has been said. For the author to suggest otherwise and to declare the matter as 'settled science' is, to put it mildly, irresponsible and a gross disservice to AI readers.
    edited May 2018 ruomacgWerkswozwoz
  • Reply 66 of 127
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,752member
    talkingheadguy said:
    Yours is a typical argument made by non-scientists. "We need to worry about it because -- who knows?"
    More like... we've seen this movie before.
    And, it isn't like it's some crazy wild concept that it would be having an impact... the question is whether it's negative, neutral, or positive in outcome.
    So, it isn't 'who knows' but 'we don't know enough yet.'

    maestro64 said:
    The radiation you get hit from standing outside without human generated RF is greater than what you get from your cell phone or WiFi.
    ...
    Your smoke example it not a good one, since smoke from tobacco is not naturally occurring in our environment...
    It isn't really a one-to-one comparison though. Again, if I'm understanding, you're talking about radiation strengths and absorption and high-energy particles and such. If you take an EMF strength meter and just stand outside, you'll get some amount of signal. If you hold it next to your cell phone or an Apple AirPod, you'll get a WAY higher signal strength, especially from my understanding, the AirPods (like 10x the phone!).

    Cell phone signals aren't naturally occurring either. Yes, I may get some exposure to smoke from a wild-fire (like I did last year in northern BC!) or something like that, but adding 2nd hand smoke or actually smoking a cigarette is additional (and more concentrated/direct). I can't get away from all radiation, or even all man-made radiation, but I can control my exposure to devices right in my proximity, especially pressed right up against my body.

    MacPro said:
    The problem with internet research is you can always find what you want.  Just try looking up vaccines' dangers. 
    Some vaccines do have dangers... they just aren't always what some of the anti-vaxxer groups think they are. The real questions are more around who is taking the vaccines and whether the rewards outweigh the risks... and how important it is to put the safety of the whole above the safety of individuals.

    (It's anecdotal evidence, but I've watched my son have mild seizures now twice after vaccination. I've also had doctors tell me it's impossible that gluten, dairy, artificial colors impact my son's behavior in the way it does... over and over again. I don't think it is that they don't mean well, but they just aren't up on the latest information and science. We've had to dig in far beyond the training of most doctors, to help our family.)

    StrangeDays said:
    I think you probably don’t know any scientists. Great strawman, tho. “Scientists don’t understand science! They’re pushing an agenda!” 
    Umm... try some reading comprehension one of these days, please. I said most scientists don't have any philosophy of science under their belts. Philosophy of science is what determines what science is/is not.

    StrangeDays said:
    You’re making an appeal to ignorance. It’s a logical fallacy. You lose the argument until you can prove your assertion. We don’t have to do it for you, and our not doing so doesn’t bolster your position. It’s still a worthless assertion until you can support it. That’s how logic works in debate. 
    No, actually the opposite. The claim being made is that it isn't harmful. Until the research has been properly done, such an assertion can't be made, logically. I'm saying that we should err on the side of caution, since the research hasn't been done, and it is reasonable to assume there will be an impact. What we're waiting for, is data on whether it is positive, neutral (enough), or negative, and what the magnitude is.

    tallest skil said:
    Unfortunately, peer review doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore. Only the objective physical reality of nature–shown to be reproducible–matters.
    Yep, that's the issue. It isn't that there is ZERO data, it's more that it isn't conclusive yet... and that's in as much as the system can be trusted.
    edited May 2018 gatorguy
  • Reply 67 of 127
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,273member
    georgie01 said:
    There are countless examples of people claiming science says some indisputable fact and then later science discovers it was wrong. This is as much a part of science as are the correct things it discovers. People so quickly forget this because they’re so desperate to believe in science, and completely forget ‘science’ is not fact but humanity’s attempt to study fact and therefore prone to continuous and unavoidable errors (some we may never discover).

    I have no idea whether wireless frequencies are unhealthy, but I do know the more we change our environment the more likely it will be unhealthy to us. Structured radio waves designed to carry human information are not natural and we should at least be cautious and not make claims about the science behind it as if that means anything concrete.

    It’s not a matter of being desperate to “believe in science.” Science doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not. Science is just a methodology for looking at and understanding the world around us. New discoveries do indeed topple old paradigms, but less often than you imply. Most people who are sure they’re going to disprove a current theory fail to do so. (If they’re serious tests, those failures actually are what validate the theories they fail to disprove.)  With or without science, we are left making judgements on the best information we have. The thing about science is that its use of structured, logical thinking that is continually subject to further analysis and questioning has a real tendency to provide a more useful set of “best information” than do non-scientific observations and speculations. So scientific testing and analysis of the effects of radio waves on human biology is going to be better information than a subjective assertion that man-made radio waves are “not natural” and therefore ‘bad.’

    Dismissing scientific findings as useless because they are “not concrete” is simply a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what science does.  Your chance of being hit by lightening in the US in a given year is one in 700,000. That means a few hundred people are hit by lightening every year, about ten percent fatally. So should you ever go outside? The science says, generally speaking, all other things being equal, go on outside. You’re not very likely to be hit by lightening, but that science is “not concrete.” Not only is there still a chance you could be hit by lightening, but it’s possible there could be errors in those statistics, and they don’t account for your specific location or for current weather conditions. On the other hand, while lightening seems like it would be dangerous, it’s also “natural,” so maybe you’ll be o.k. anyway.
    edited May 2018 fastasleep
  • Reply 68 of 127
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,320administrator
    I think this article does a disservice to AI readers by presenting one man's opinion as the gospel, more or less, while brushing away a lot of recent studies as not belonging to the category of 'science' this particular author will accept as valid. And, this bias reflects right in the title.

    ...

    So, my point is that, like many others have pointed out, this is far from a subject on which the final word has been said. For the author to suggest otherwise and to declare the matter as 'settled science' is, to put it mildly, irresponsible and a gross disservice to AI readers.
    Did you read the article?

    One more time: feel free to refute this. Nothing you've said does, and nothing you've linked does:

    "Are you in utterly and absolutely zero danger from RF or EMF? Scientifically, there is no way to exclude the possibility absolutely —but you're in some form of danger every minute of every day from one thing or another.

    To put things in perspective, you are in far, far more danger from a lifetime exposure to the ionizing radiation produced by the radon gas in your basement or from getting cancer from sun exposure, than you are from living in the same neighborhood as a cell tower, with twenty Wi-Fi routers surrounding your chair, and actively talking to somebody on 5G on your iPhone with it velcroed to your head for that whole life. And, the risk from the radon-laden basement is relatively low.

    If you're still worried about it, don't sit on your router, and use your speaker function on your iPhone.

    Studies continue, and will until the sun blacks out, because people are very bad at risk assessment even when given the data. But, science is true if you believe it or not. So, use that router, and get that mesh network going without fear. Break out the cell phones, and don't worry about using them."
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 69 of 127
    kipowsky said:
    cgWerks said:

    What is in question here, is precisely whether it does hurt us or not. We don't know yet. The right studies haven't been done.
    What are the right studies?

    Maybe these recent ones could help:

    Rats exposed to 2.45GHz of non-ionizing radiation exhibit behavioral changes

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29153770

    Effects of mobile phone radiation (900 MHz radiofrequency) on structure and functions of rat brain.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24861496

    2.45 GHz Microwave Radiation Impairs Learning and Spatial Memory

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26396154

    Effects on hormones of pregnant rats

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26578367

    (source: http://truthallergy.com/we-are-being-zapped/)

    wozwoz
  • Reply 70 of 127
    Mike, thank you for this article, which keeps well-reasoned and balanced perspective almost to the end, but then falls prey to a common error when you write, "science is true if you believe it or not." No, "science" is not a conclusion, but rather an enquiry — a never-ending process of observation, hypothesis, testing, peer review, etc., which never reaches a final conclusion. Most significant conclusions the scientific process reaches are later improved upon, thereby showing the previously-accepted conclusions to be less true — or in some cases entirely wrong (see Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”). There are countless reasons that scientific theories once considered "proven" are later disproven, and one of the common ones in the arena of testing and measurements is that at any given point there's only so much that we know how to test — only so many clues that we know to look for or have the capacity to measure. A true and good scientist remembers that we don't know how much we don't know, and thus would never claim anything to be "proven" one way or the other, but rather would say, “the highest quality current research seems to suggest X," and leave it at that. Lay people (and, even more so, "scientists" themselves) evaluating scientific assessments need to understand that there is no "proof" in science; proof exists only in mathematics. Science at its best can steer us closer to the truth, but it can never prove that we've arrived there. Regarding the science on the impacts of RF radiation on health, it's early yet. None of this tech has been around long enough (at this level of saturation) for us to have a strong body of very long-term data, so it will be interesting to watch this space 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 years from now. Bottom line: it’s fair enough to say that the highest quality current research hasn’t found strong evidence of health risks from typical levels of RF exposure for most people, and that in itself should be reassuring to the masses who aren’t going to give up their iPhones anyway but might’ve made themselves sick by worrying about it. But to take that step further to say “science is true if you believe it or not” is to urge people to put blind faith in a process that is often helpful but never perfect and, more to the point, known to be very vulnerable to human limitations — and not infrequently fatally flawed (after all, DDT was "proven" safe, until it wasn't).
    cgWerks
  • Reply 71 of 127
    Cece DoucetteCece Doucette Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Massachusetts is leading the nation with eight bills to address wireless radiation and public health. Please consider starting this important conversation with your own public servants, most of whom are not aware there are biological risks with wireless technology. At the top of the following link, you will find an Executive Summary as well as an EMF Points of Confusion vs. Fact sheet to share with them and start the education process. Thank you for your time and consideration. https://sites.google.com/site/understandingemfs/ma-emf-bills
    finickitywozwoz
  • Reply 71 of 127
    ruomaruoma Posts: 3member
    I think this article does a disservice to AI readers by presenting one man's opinion as the gospel, more or less, while brushing away a lot of recent studies as not belonging to the category of 'science' this particular author will accept as valid. And, this bias reflects right in the title. .

    So, my point is that, like many others have pointed out, this is far from a subject on which the final word has been said. For the author to suggest otherwise and to declare the matter as 'settled science' is, to put it mildly, irresponsible and a gross disservice to AI readers.
    Amen!

    On top of that, the general defensiveness and know-it-all vibe the author’s follow up comments emit is very disappointing, being an admin and representative here. Sorry dude, it just is. 

    To reiterate the EU 5G warning, here is a link to the full letter, signed late 2017 by more than 180 scientists and doctors from over 36 countries, pleading for a revision of the old and outdated WHO conclusion by funding new, impartial and transparent research.

    https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
    edited May 2018 finickitywozwoz
  • Reply 73 of 127
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,320administrator
    Alright then. You all cite these studies, assuming that I haven't read them, none of which have an iota of proof that there is any appreciable increase in danger to humans or any increase in risk at all -- which is the entire point to the last four paragraphs that you're all ignoring.

    Who among you who are posting are going to stop using your iPhones, and move to a yurt in the middle of Siberia to avoid RF and put your money where your mouth is? Who is all wired, and have taken steps to eliminate RF exposure to yourself from AC to DC power adapters? 

    How about coffee -- do you not drink that? Do you live in brick houses? Do you have cinderblock construction? Is your house more than 30 years old? Do you live in a valley, or in New England at all? How about downwind of Yosemite, or near the San Andreas? Do you drive more than five miles a week? Do you take walks, more than two miles a week? Do you have trees within 50 feet of your house? Do you live in an apartment with neighbors or roommates? Are you over 40 if you're a male, and over 45 if female? Do you live within 20 miles of a coal plant or mine? How about within two miles of a nuclear plant? How about in the landing or takeoff path of an international airport? All of these things have exposure risks to assorted dangers far, far greater than that of wi-fi or 5G.

    And then there's the standbys: overweight, bad diet, smoker, second-hand smoke, or high-risk professions, all of which are four or five orders or magnitude more risk each than wi-fi or 5G.

    So: Why is this hill the one you want to die on? If I am defensive, and if I am a so-called "know it all," it is because some of you are reading what you want, and ignoring the rest, both here, and with the scientific literature you're making sure I know about.
    edited May 2018 fastasleep
  • Reply 74 of 127
    ruomaruoma Posts: 3member
    Who among you who are posting are going to stop using your iPhones, and move to a yurt in the middle of Siberia to avoid RF and put your money where your mouth is? Who is all wired, and have taken steps to eliminate RF exposure to yourself from AC to DC power adapters? How about coffee -- do you not drink that?

    Do you live in brick houses? Do you have cinderblock construction? Is your house more than 30 years old? Do you live in a valley, or in New England at all? How about downwind of Yosemite, or near the San Andreas? Do you drive more than five miles a week? Do you take walks, more than two miles a week? Do you have trees within 50 feet of your house? Do you live in an apartment with neighbors or roommates? Are you over 40 if you're a male, and over 45 if female? Do you live within 20 miles of a coal plant or mine? How about within two miles of a nuclear plant? How about in the landing or takeoff path of an international airport? All of these things have exposure risks to assorted dangers far, far greater than that of wi-fi or 5G.
    That’s not the point. Of course you’re going to die of something and there’s a myriad of factors that might contribute to that and you might never know which one did it. But I did make a conscious effort to quit smoking 15 years ago due to it being “unhealthy”. And I do make a conscious effort to use the speaker on my iPhone whenever the thing get’s so hot next to my ear that I feel the imprint of it for a while after. Wether it’s going to kill me, or wether I’ll get lung cancer or not if I start smoking again is not the point. 

    I have the right to choose my own indulgence, good or bad. But I’d like to know if it’s good or bad, which I ultimately might never know, as “science” is only true until they figure out they were wrong 20 years down the road.

    The point is: the tech is too new to have conclusive data, so you shouldn’t claim it does. 
    cgWerks
  • Reply 75 of 127
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,752member
    Alright then. You all cite these studies, assuming that I haven't read them, none of which have an iota of proof that there is any appreciable increase in danger to humans or any increase in risk at all -- which is the entire point to the last four paragraphs that you're all ignoring.
    I'm not ignoring the last 4 paragraphs, but in context of the headline and the rest of the article, the last 4 paragraphs are more of a 'this has a tiny possibility of being in error, but it's more likely you're a science denier, so go ahead and trust science and enjoy your WiFi' statement.

    The point I (and others) are trying to make, is that the standards you're using to claim it is safe are only part of the story, based on old standards from before what we now know about genetics and how cells work. Heck, we don't even know if cancer is the ill we're looking for. The studies to investigate this further have only begun and are showing varied results (and they'll be harder to do, because they aren't looking for something simple like cell damage or DNA corruption).

    Mike Wuerthele said:
    Who among you who are posting are going to stop using your iPhones, and move to a yurt in the middle of Siberia to avoid RF and put your money where your mouth is? Who is all wired, and have taken steps to eliminate RF exposure to yourself from AC to DC power adapters? 
    I've stopped using BT ear-phones. I try to use speakerphone or a wired headset with the phone laying on a desk while talking on the phone. I actually make the extra effort to go into settings (since Apple botched Control Center) to turn off my WiFI and/or cell (I almost never have BT on) when I'm not needing them (i.e.: bunches of times per day).

    No, I'm not going to go live in a Faraday cage, but I can certainly have some impact on the most important man-made RF in my environment... the stuff right on my body or extremely close to it.

    Mike Wuerthele said:
    All of these things have exposure risks to assorted dangers far, far greater than that of wi-fi or 5G.

    ... all of which are four or five orders or magnitude more risk each than wi-fi or 5G.

    So: Why is this hill the one you want to die on? If I am defensive, and if I am a so-called "know it all," it is because some of you are reading what you want, and ignoring the rest, both here, and with the scientific literature you're making sure I know about.
    Well, based on the assessment criteria you're using, which is what we're questioning. If newer research finds they are causing some problem, then maybe these other things aren't far worse. And, maybe we're not talking about death but some other undesirable thing.

    That said, I don't think one has to eliminate every possible risk before trying to eliminate some.

    I can't speak for the others, but the reason I responded is because I've been concerned about this issue in the past, but in part because of the title and tone of the article. You're making it sound as if someone is concerned about this - with a not-100% disclaimer - that they are some kind of science denier or conspiracy theorist.

    I like your work Mike, and the article was well done... I just think it was a bit 'over the top' in terms of the certainty and claim. I get that you're well trained and researched in this stuff, but based on what I believe is only part of the story. Yes, I think you're right that it is safe based on the concept of DNA corruption and direct cell damage. We agree there.
    edited May 2018 ruoma
  • Reply 76 of 127
    ClarityToSeeClarityToSee Posts: 34unconfirmed, member
    While all the studies have been focused on the physical impact of the electromagnetic radiation, I believe the real skeletons are on the psychological side, where barely any studies have been conducted. I can personally attest from experience that I can form much clearer and coherent thoughts when I am away from electronics and Radio Frequency induced areas. 
    When it comes to the harm from the Sun, the dangers are simply overblown. After all, if you are looking for evidence, we have hundreds of millions of years of safely evolving under the Sun to our current state of becoming Human. Nothing else has this length of a proven safety record. You can even say that Sun is a giver of life of all kinds and types, without which nothing would be existent. 
    gatorguy
  • Reply 77 of 127
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    nht said:
    I was once told an old sea story how some folks used to warm themselves by being near the beam path of a DDG radar...
    Not wrong. That said, assuming it's the AN/SPQ-9B, they're looking at about .5c - 1c whole body on that, which is still not enough to cause a problem. The SPY-1 is a little more intense.
    These guys were pretty old so could have been anything. Maybe even older than a Spruance.
  • Reply 78 of 127
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Taking the first study they exposed the rats at 7.88 W/m2.  That’s a few orders of magnitude higher than what 100mW WiFi router will generate even if you stick the antennas up your ass next to a lot of y’all heads.
  • Reply 79 of 127

    Who among you who are posting are going to stop using your iPhones, and move to a yurt in the middle of Siberia to avoid RF and put your money where your mouth is? Who is all wired, and have taken steps to eliminate RF exposure to yourself from AC to DC power adapters? 
    I've put an electronic timer on my wifi so that it turns off overnight. I use my iPhone on speaker. And I have moved my wifi base station away from my work desk. These 3 small changes massively reduce my daily EMF exposure. A few small changes can make a big difference.  I also sold my AirPods they were putting out huge amount of EMF constantly. 
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 80 of 127
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,320administrator

    Who among you who are posting are going to stop using your iPhones, and move to a yurt in the middle of Siberia to avoid RF and put your money where your mouth is? Who is all wired, and have taken steps to eliminate RF exposure to yourself from AC to DC power adapters? 
    I've put an electronic timer on my wifi so that it turns off overnight. I use my iPhone on speaker. And I have moved my wifi base station away from my work desk. These 3 small changes massively reduce my daily EMF exposure. A few small changes can make a big difference.  I also sold my AirPods they were putting out huge amount of EMF constantly. 
    For the record, AirPods SAR at full power, at max range from your connected device (right around 18 feet away from the iPhone) is 0.466 watts per kilogram averaged over one gram. With the iPhone about three feet away, that drops to about 0.01 watts per kg, probably because of the shape of the RF propagation. It doesn't start increasing again until about 12 feet away from the connected device.

    And, it's not constant. it's only when the AirPods are talking back to the iPhone. When listening to music and not making Siri requests, it's no greater than any other Bluetooth headset at about 0.01 watts per kg regardless of iPhone range. Wired headphones with 30mm drivers are about 0.07 watts per kg.

    As far as the rest of your changes, that falls under ALARA, which I spoke about in the article. Time, distance, shielding.
    edited May 2018 cgWerks
Sign In or Register to comment.