Testing commissioned by the Chicago Tribune suggests that Apple's iPhone has radio frequency broadcasts slightly above a legal limit...
It isn't clear why the lab wasn't aware of a proximity sensor in an iPhone that at this point is three years old. AppleInsider has emailed the lab asking that, and some other questions, about the testing.
After the initial results were shown to Apple the company advised the lab how to make sure the proper sensors were active, specifically the proximity sensor. The lab did so and retested, just as they did with the Moto phones whose manufacturer made the same retesting request with active proximity sensors. Result? "After making the change, this model (iPhone 7) still emitted too much RF radiation". I expect the lab will give you the same answer as they gave Apple and the Tribune, but looking forward to perhaps a more thorough reply to your inquiry.
FWIW the Moto's results improved significantly after turning on their proximity sensors. For whatever reason the iPhone 7 did not even tho Apple's suggested changes for the testing were used.
Testing commissioned by the Chicago Tribune suggests that Apple's iPhone has radio frequency broadcasts slightly above a legal limit...
It isn't clear why the lab wasn't aware of a proximity sensor in an iPhone that at this point is three years old. AppleInsider has emailed the lab asking that, and some other questions, about the testing.
After the initial results were shown to Apple the company advised the lab how to make sure the proper sensors were active, specifically the proximity sensor. The lab did so and retested. Result? "After making the change, this model still emitted too much RF radiation". I expect the lab will give you the same answer as they gave Apple and the Tribune, but looking forward to perhaps a more thorough reply to your inquiry.
Testing commissioned by the Chicago Tribune suggests that Apple's iPhone has radio frequency broadcasts slightly above a legal limit...
It isn't clear why the lab wasn't aware of a proximity sensor in an iPhone that at this point is three years old. AppleInsider has emailed the lab asking that, and some other questions, about the testing.
After the initial results were shown to Apple the company advised the lab how to make sure the proper sensors were active, specifically the proximity sensor. The lab did so and retested, just as they did with the Moto phones whose manufacturer made the same retesting request with active proximity sensors. Result? "After making the change, this model (iPhone 7) still emitted too much RF radiation". I expect the lab will give you the same answer as they gave Apple and the Tribune, but looking forward to perhaps a more thorough reply to your inquiry.
FWIW the Moto's results improved significantly after turning on their proximity sensors. For whatever reason the iPhone 7 did not even tho Apple's suggested changes for the testing were used.
Your points are addressed in the article, and it wasn't just the Moto that improved, the iPhone 8 did also.
It's good that they retested after they got the feedback, but they shouldn't have had to retest at all because they didn't know or engage the proximity sensors. This is their bailiwick, after all.
For what it's worth, a bucket of tissue is insufficient. There's supposed to be a skin analog as well, and I wanted to be sure that there was one because it wasn't clear from the pictures provided that there was one there.
Testing commissioned by the Chicago Tribune suggests that Apple's iPhone has radio frequency broadcasts slightly above a legal limit...
It isn't clear why the lab wasn't aware of a proximity sensor in an iPhone that at this point is three years old. AppleInsider has emailed the lab asking that, and some other questions, about the testing.
After the initial results were shown to Apple the company advised the lab how to make sure the proper sensors were active, specifically the proximity sensor. The lab did so and retested. Result? "After making the change, this model still emitted too much RF radiation". I expect the lab will give you the same answer as they gave Apple and the Tribune, but looking forward to perhaps a more thorough reply to your inquiry.
Doesn't mean it's gonna kill you. The issue concerns the difference between actual results compared to FCC procedures, and what the law allows for RF transmission in a licensed handset. None of that is in the article you linked TMay.
If the level of radiation isn't pertinent to human health anyway then perhaps the FCC shouldn't be testing for it. Since they are it should mean something. A better search you could do is why the FCC decided on the limits they did. Was it arbitrary, or based on some scientific evidence, or parroting some other agencies regulations, or? That would actually be a helpful link for you to search up.
Testing commissioned by the Chicago Tribune suggests that Apple's iPhone has radio frequency broadcasts slightly above a legal limit...
It isn't clear why the lab wasn't aware of a proximity sensor in an iPhone that at this point is three years old. AppleInsider has emailed the lab asking that, and some other questions, about the testing.
After the initial results were shown to Apple the company advised the lab how to make sure the proper sensors were active, specifically the proximity sensor. The lab did so and retested. Result? "After making the change, this model still emitted too much RF radiation". I expect the lab will give you the same answer as they gave Apple and the Tribune, but looking forward to perhaps a more thorough reply to your inquiry.
Doesn't mean it's gonna kill you. The issue concerns the difference between actual results compared to FCC procedures, and what the law allows for RF transmission in a licensed handset. None of that is in the article you linked TMay.
If the level of radiation isn't pertinent to human health anyway then perhaps the FCC shouldn't be testing for it. Since they are it should mean something. A better search you could do is why the FCC decided on the limits they did. Was it arbitrary, or based on some scientific evidence, or parroting some other agencies regulations, or? That would actually be a helpful link for you to search up.
Skipping a research step. Justifications behind limits and why there are set are here in this ancient document. The reasoning for the limits are mostly the same.
Testing commissioned by the Chicago Tribune suggests that Apple's iPhone has radio frequency broadcasts slightly above a legal limit...
It isn't clear why the lab wasn't aware of a proximity sensor in an iPhone that at this point is three years old. AppleInsider has emailed the lab asking that, and some other questions, about the testing.
After the initial results were shown to Apple the company advised the lab how to make sure the proper sensors were active, specifically the proximity sensor. The lab did so and retested. Result? "After making the change, this model still emitted too much RF radiation". I expect the lab will give you the same answer as they gave Apple and the Tribune, but looking forward to perhaps a more thorough reply to your inquiry.
Doesn't mean it's gonna kill you. The issue concerns the difference between actual results compared to FCC procedures, and what the law allows for RF transmission in a licensed handset. None of that is in the article you linked TMay.
If the level of radiation isn't pertinent to human health anyway then perhaps the FCC shouldn't be testing for it. Since they are it should mean something. A better search you could do is why the FCC decided on the limits they did. Was it arbitrary, or based on some scientific evidence, or parroting some other agencies regulations, or? That would actually be a helpful link for you to search up.
Skipping a research step. Justifications behind limits and why there are set are here in this ancient document. The reasoning for the limits are mostly the same.
For other readers begin with paragraph 48 for explanations on the "why". Paragraph 62 explains the "why's" specifically applying to mobile phones... back when they were "bag phones". Seriously.
BTW, read paragraph 71... Even 25 years ago they were concerns stated with the FCC that they were not properly accounting for RF when devices were used/stored very close to tissue as mobile phones are today. The FCC chose to ignore those concerns and apparently still does.
I said this before when this topic keeps coming up. Before you freak out about radio waves from phone, keep in mind every day just walking outside your are bombarded with radio waves from DC to light and you are hit with all levels of intensity. Just living every day you are at risk of being hit with radiation. There are lots of sources of radiation which will not go away.
The fact that radiation exist is not the question, it's the levels of radiation. Just because there's already water on this planet doesn't mean you should drown yourself in it.
Most people will dismiss investigating this issue on their own and just put trust in authorities. They will be the first to go.
Testing commissioned by the Chicago Tribune suggests that Apple's iPhone has radio frequency broadcasts slightly above a legal limit...
It isn't clear why the lab wasn't aware of a proximity sensor in an iPhone that at this point is three years old. AppleInsider has emailed the lab asking that, and some other questions, about the testing.
After the initial results were shown to Apple the company advised the lab how to make sure the proper sensors were active, specifically the proximity sensor. The lab did so and retested. Result? "After making the change, this model still emitted too much RF radiation". I expect the lab will give you the same answer as they gave Apple and the Tribune, but looking forward to perhaps a more thorough reply to your inquiry.
Doesn't mean it's gonna kill you. The issue concerns the difference between actual results compared to FCC procedures, and what the law allows for RF transmission in a licensed handset. None of that is in the article you linked TMay.
If the level of radiation isn't pertinent to human health anyway then perhaps the FCC shouldn't be testing for it. Since they are it should mean something. A better search you could do is why the FCC decided on the limits they did. Was it arbitrary, or based on some scientific evidence, or parroting some other agencies regulations, or? That would actually be a helpful link for you to search up.
Skipping a research step. Justifications behind limits and why there are set are here in this ancient document. The reasoning for the limits are mostly the same.
For other readers begin with paragraph 48 for explanations on the "why". Paragraph 62 explains the "why's" specifically applying to mobile phones... back when they were "bag phones". Seriously.
BTW, read paragraph 71... Even 25 years ago they were concerns stated with the FCC that they were not properly accounting for RF when devices were used/stored very close to tissue as mobile phones are today. The FCC chose to ignore those concerns and apparently still does.
While we addressed this in the story, it's important to note that nonoccupational SAR exposure limit is set at 1/50 what's already conservatively considered to be safe. It's not like we're in a situation here where there's a giant difference in exposure or a public health hazard.
Testing commissioned by the Chicago Tribune suggests that Apple's iPhone has radio frequency broadcasts slightly above a legal limit...
It isn't clear why the lab wasn't aware of a proximity sensor in an iPhone that at this point is three years old. AppleInsider has emailed the lab asking that, and some other questions, about the testing.
After the initial results were shown to Apple the company advised the lab how to make sure the proper sensors were active, specifically the proximity sensor. The lab did so and retested. Result? "After making the change, this model still emitted too much RF radiation". I expect the lab will give you the same answer as they gave Apple and the Tribune, but looking forward to perhaps a more thorough reply to your inquiry.
Doesn't mean it's gonna kill you. The issue concerns the difference between actual results compared to FCC procedures, and what the law allows for RF transmission in a licensed handset. None of that is in the article you linked TMay.
If the level of radiation isn't pertinent to human health anyway then perhaps the FCC shouldn't be testing for it. Since they are it should mean something. A better search you could do is why the FCC decided on the limits they did. Was it arbitrary, or based on some scientific evidence, or parroting some other agencies regulations, or? That would actually be a helpful link for you to search up.
Skipping a research step. Justifications behind limits and why there are set are here in this ancient document. The reasoning for the limits are mostly the same.
For other readers begin with paragraph 48 for explanations on the "why". Paragraph 62 explains the "why's" specifically applying to mobile phones... back when they were "bag phones". Seriously.
BTW, read paragraph 71... Even 25 years ago they were concerns stated with the FCC that they were not properly accounting for RF when devices were used/stored very close to tissue as mobile phones are today. The FCC chose to ignore those concerns and apparently still does.
While we addressed this in the story, it's important to note that nonoccupational SAR exposure limit is set at 1/50 what's already conservatively considered to be safe. It's not like we're in a situation here where there's a giant difference in exposure or a public health hazard.
In addition to all the good points presented I the article and comments, you’d think the researchers/journalists at the Chicago Tribune would be curious to shove a few phones from Samsung, Hauwei, and other brands in their test rig. A bit of intellectual dishonestly and perhaps click baiting to focus only on iPhone. I bet they’d have been forced to address the rig config and methodology if they found the same levels across every major brand.
How do you know they didn’t? If the issue is their results with the iPhone, then that’s what they talk about.
Why would they hide that fact? They can just as easily said they tested this, that and the other thing and only the iPhone tested above the rated standard. Is that really hard to do? Or they just wanted to focus on the iPhone only.
"Sample cellphone tower that you can probably see from your house right now"
The towers pictured are not traditional cell towers, and have little to no cellular on them. You have a bunch of UHF/VHF (the yagis and the dipoles), a couple of colored patches (which could possibly be cellular, but are more likely Part 15 PTMP), and a lot of microwave point-to-point links (the dishes). [Edit: Upon further inspection, there appear to be a some on the left tower about 2/3's up that could be for 1900-2100MHz LTE and a couple of scattered omni's similar to those in the photo below.]
Most cell towers (that I can probably see from my house) have an array of 2-4 patch antennas on each side, with the "sides" typically arranged in a triangular pattern, and the exact number of antennas dependent on the number of frequencies and companies colocated on the tower, something like this.
In addition to all the good points presented I the article and comments, you’d think the researchers/journalists at the Chicago Tribune would be curious to shove a few phones from Samsung, Hauwei, and other brands in their test rig. A bit of intellectual dishonestly and perhaps click baiting to focus only on iPhone. I bet they’d have been forced to address the rig config and methodology if they found the same levels across every major brand.
How do you know they didn’t? If the issue is their results with the iPhone, then that’s what they talk about.
Why would they hide that fact? They can just as easily said they tested this, that and the other thing and only the iPhone tested above the rated standard. Is that really hard to do? Or they just wanted to focus on the iPhone only.
AI obviously wanted to focus on the iPhone 7.
In the Tribune article it was pointed out that the iPhone 8, Galaxy S8 and a couple of the Moto's also exceeded permitted levels in the first test. I think the AI article mentions it too and you simply missed reading it?
After the first test results both Apple and Motorola questioned whether the proximity sensors were turned on in their handsets as its under a separate setting. After making those adjustments the phones were tested again and the Moto handsets and the iPhone 8 passed with flying colors. The iPhone 7 still did not, nor did the Galaxy 8.
All the other phones, the iPhone 8 Plus, Samsung Galaxy S9, and J3, and the BLU Vivo5 Mini were good to go in the initial test.
I said this before when this topic keeps coming up. Before you freak out about radio waves from phone, keep in mind every day just walking outside your are bombarded with radio waves from DC to light and you are hit with all levels of intensity. Just living every day you are at risk of being hit with radiation. There are lots of sources of radiation which will not go away.
Most people will simply indulge in wishfull thinking. It feels scary to even think that our phones can cause cancer and it feels much better to simply dismiss and even ridicule such a notion beforehand. Reality does not care what we believe. Reality exist whether we believe in it or not.
There is a very scary reality about high frequency microwave radiation coming from our wireless devices and Macs. How many of us can really bare to look at this issue objectively?
No, we indulge in wishful thinking and simply chose what feels best and ignore the notion of danger.
We're sitting in a train and we can only see to the sides, while the train is heading towards the end of cliff, all the while fighting for the best window seats.
And we'll keep on denying any warnings, and even manage to tell ourselves that we're clever in doing so.
I said this before when this topic keeps coming up. Before you freak out about radio waves from phone, keep in mind every day just walking outside your are bombarded with radio waves from DC to light and you are hit with all levels of intensity. Just living every day you are at risk of being hit with radiation. There are lots of sources of radiation which will not go away.
Most people will simply indulge in wishfull thinking. It feels scary to even think that our phones can cause cancer and it feels much better to simply dismiss and even ridicule such a notion beforehand. Reality does not care what we believe. Reality exist whether we believe in it or not.
There is a very scary reality about high frequency microwave radiation coming from our wireless devices and Macs. How many of us can really bare to look at this issue objectively?
No, we indulge in wishful thinking and simply chose what feels best and ignore the notion of danger.
We're sitting in a train and we can only see to the sides, while the train is heading towards the end of cliff, all the while fighting for the best window seats.
And we'll keep on denying any warnings, and even manage to tell ourselves that we're clever in doing so.
Good luck to all of us.
Being that you're calling it "high frequency microwave radiation," I'm not certain that you're looking at it objectively. There are zero emissions from wireless devices and Macs in the microwave range. And, even microwave frequencies aren't inherently dangerous.
While microwaves are contained in the spectrum of all RF, RF is not even remotely all microwave.
And before you ask, yes I do have a great deal of formal training in exposure control, not just to RF, but ionizing radiation as well.
Don't Panic 3Ghz to 300Ghz is Microwave. WiFi 5Ghz is in the Microwave spectrum. What's really sarcastic, is that Microwave ovens, at 2.45ghz, are not in the Microwave spectrum. They are called Microwaves because hype is always more important than technical accuracy. The reason Microwave ovens work so well is that their RF energy, 450 times as powerful as the max emissions of a cellphone, is both continuous, and all bottled up, so it reflects around inside the oven until it is absorbed by the food. Unlike a communications transmission, it doesn't just expand outwards in a spherical pattern, it stays inside and bounces. Much of the 900watts emitted by the oven actually gets to the food. A cellphone is not in a shielded (bottled-up) enclosure, so the energy only gets one chance to be absorbed into the human, before it is off into the wild. The only energy which hits the human, is that energy which happened to go out of the phone in the direction of the human, and which actually gets snagged by the substance of the human. Think of it this way: if the human absorbed all of the 2 watts (maximum) the cellphone put out, the cellphone signal wouldn't reach the cell-site, but it does reach the cell-site.
Cellphones put out power in short bursts at a power range from 0.02 to 2watts. Short bursts cause less heating than continuous power.
What is really interesting to me, is how little energy it takes to get a receiver to hear the cellphone. A cellphone puts out something on the order of 1000000000 times as much energy as the receiver needs to hear it. Because of the inverse-square (spherical radiation) of the transmitted signal, very little energy from the cellphone goes in the direction of, or gets as far as the antenna of the receiver which needs to hear it. Receivers are really good at detecting the weak signal.
There is so much misinformation in this space. But it is also fascinating.
For most of us, if we are interested in learning more about how radios work, getting connected with the radio hobbyists is a good direction. Check out http://tarpn.net/t/faq/faq_amateur_radio.html
Naturally occurring radio waves are fine in proper doses, but that doesn’t automatically mean that ‘artificially’ produced radio waves are benign, especially at relatively close proximity.
Huh?
What's are naturally occurring radio waves?
You mean like solar radiation, or radiation from naturally occurring radio isotopes?
In addition to all the good points presented I the article and comments, you’d think the researchers/journalists at the Chicago Tribune would be curious to shove a few phones from Samsung, Hauwei, and other brands in their test rig. A bit of intellectual dishonestly and perhaps click baiting to focus only on iPhone. I bet they’d have been forced to address the rig config and methodology if they found the same levels across every major brand.
I think they did include some models from Samsung, and felt no such compunction.
It doesn't matter how much of a non-issue this is in the real world. Expect armies of ambulance-chasing lawyers to assemble and start filing class-action lawsuits against Apple because some nobody in the middle of BumF*ckinstan got sweet-talked and convinced to be the plaintiff in a frivolous lawsuit.
Comments
FWIW the Moto's results improved significantly after turning on their proximity sensors. For whatever reason the iPhone 7 did not even tho Apple's suggested changes for the testing were used.
Readers digest version; no risk.
It's good that they retested after they got the feedback, but they shouldn't have had to retest at all because they didn't know or engage the proximity sensors. This is their bailiwick, after all.
For what it's worth, a bucket of tissue is insufficient. There's supposed to be a skin analog as well, and I wanted to be sure that there was one because it wasn't clear from the pictures provided that there was one there.
If the level of radiation isn't pertinent to human health anyway then perhaps the FCC shouldn't be testing for it. Since they are it should mean something.
A better search you could do is why the FCC decided on the limits they did. Was it arbitrary, or based on some scientific evidence, or parroting some other agencies regulations, or?
That would actually be a helpful link for you to search up.
For other readers begin with paragraph 48 for explanations on the "why". Paragraph 62 explains the "why's" specifically applying to mobile phones...
back when they were "bag phones". Seriously.
BTW, read paragraph 71...
Even 25 years ago they were concerns stated with the FCC that they were not properly accounting for RF when devices were used/stored very close to tissue as mobile phones are today. The FCC chose to ignore those concerns and apparently still does.
"Sample cellphone tower that you can probably see from your house right now"
The towers pictured are not traditional cell towers, and have little to no cellular on them. You have a bunch of UHF/VHF (the yagis and the dipoles), a couple of colored patches (which could possibly be cellular, but are more likely Part 15 PTMP), and a lot of microwave point-to-point links (the dishes). [Edit: Upon further inspection, there appear to be a some on the left tower about 2/3's up that could be for 1900-2100MHz LTE and a couple of scattered omni's similar to those in the photo below.]
Most cell towers (that I can probably see from my house) have an array of 2-4 patch antennas on each side, with the "sides" typically arranged in a triangular pattern, and the exact number of antennas dependent on the number of frequencies and companies colocated on the tower, something like this.
In the Tribune article it was pointed out that the iPhone 8, Galaxy S8 and a couple of the Moto's also exceeded permitted levels in the first test. I think the AI article mentions it too and you simply missed reading it?
After the first test results both Apple and Motorola questioned whether the proximity sensors were turned on in their handsets as its under a separate setting. After making those adjustments the phones were tested again and the Moto handsets and the iPhone 8 passed with flying colors. The iPhone 7 still did not, nor did the Galaxy 8.
All the other phones, the iPhone 8 Plus, Samsung Galaxy S9, and J3, and the BLU Vivo5 Mini were good to go in the initial test.
And we'll keep on denying any warnings, and even manage to tell ourselves that we're clever in doing so.
Good luck to all of us.
And before you ask, yes I do have a great deal of formal training in exposure control, not just to RF, but ionizing radiation as well.
3Ghz to 300Ghz is Microwave. WiFi 5Ghz is in the Microwave spectrum.
What's really sarcastic, is that Microwave ovens, at 2.45ghz, are not in the Microwave spectrum. They are called Microwaves because hype is always more important than technical accuracy.
The reason Microwave ovens work so well is that their RF energy, 450 times as powerful as the max emissions of a cellphone, is both continuous, and all bottled up, so it reflects around inside the oven until it is absorbed by the food. Unlike a communications transmission, it doesn't just expand outwards in a spherical pattern, it stays inside and bounces. Much of the 900watts emitted by the oven actually gets to the food. A cellphone is not in a shielded (bottled-up) enclosure, so the energy only gets one chance to be absorbed into the human, before it is off into the wild. The only energy which hits the human, is that energy which happened to go out of the phone in the direction of the human, and which actually gets snagged by the substance of the human. Think of it this way: if the human absorbed all of the 2 watts (maximum) the cellphone put out, the cellphone signal wouldn't reach the cell-site, but it does reach the cell-site.
Cellphones put out power in short bursts at a power range from 0.02 to 2watts. Short bursts cause less heating than continuous power.
What is really interesting to me, is how little energy it takes to get a receiver to hear the cellphone. A cellphone puts out something on the order of 1000000000 times as much energy as the receiver needs to hear it. Because of the inverse-square (spherical radiation) of the transmitted signal, very little energy from the cellphone goes in the direction of, or gets as far as the antenna of the receiver which needs to hear it. Receivers are really good at detecting the weak signal.
There is so much misinformation in this space. But it is also fascinating.
This looks like a good chart.
https://www.itstactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Radio-Frequency-Spectrum.jpg
For most of us, if we are interested in learning more about how radios work, getting connected with the radio hobbyists is a good direction. Check out
http://tarpn.net/t/faq/faq_amateur_radio.html
What's are naturally occurring radio waves?
You mean like solar radiation, or radiation from naturally occurring radio isotopes?
I think they did include some models from Samsung, and felt no such compunction.