iPhone 11 Pro said to emit twice the FCC's legal limit for RF radiation

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    tobiantobian Posts: 133member

    I've said it before, I don't want a Navy search radar in my bedroom, but to call this level dangerous or injurious in any way is irresponsible and straight wrong.

    It's not just about radiation level, heating up the tissue is least of a concern. It's about the frequency the most, and our DNA vulnerability to certain freqs. It means that some 1.6 watts/kg SAR of 2,4GHz signal is practically harmless, while 5 watts/kg SAR @ 2,4GHz makes you just a headache by heating up your brain. On the other hand some 1 watt/kg SAR or even less @ 10GHz can damage the DNA - not because of the level, but the frequency. Yes, RF more or less causes cancer.
    cat52
  • Reply 22 of 28
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,516administrator
    tobian said:

    I've said it before, I don't want a Navy search radar in my bedroom, but to call this level dangerous or injurious in any way is irresponsible and straight wrong.

    It's not just about radiation level, heating up the tissue is least of a concern. It's about the frequency the most, and our DNA vulnerability to certain freqs. It means that some 1.6 watts/kg SAR of 2,4GHz signal is practically harmless, while 5 watts/kg SAR @ 2,4GHz makes you just a headache by heating up your brain. On the other hand some 1 watt/kg SAR or even less @ 10GHz can damage the DNA - not because of the level, but the frequency. Yes, RF more or less causes cancer.
    Absolute, total, nonsense. Nothing you said here is even remotely true. And, we're not talking about 10Ghz, are we? AND, on top of that, the X-band legal limits in this mythical super-damaging 10GHz frequency you propose are about the same as 5Ghz --and are well higher than the 1W/kg over 1cc you cite causes damage.

    Source: I have formal training as I have previously discussed at AppleInsider at least twice, and there is no reproducible scientific evidence to back up your statement.
    edited February 2020 MplsPthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 28
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,211member
    tobian said:

    I've said it before, I don't want a Navy search radar in my bedroom, but to call this level dangerous or injurious in any way is irresponsible and straight wrong.

    It's not just about radiation level, heating up the tissue is least of a concern. It's about the frequency the most, and our DNA vulnerability to certain freqs. It means that some 1.6 watts/kg SAR of 2,4GHz signal is practically harmless, while 5 watts/kg SAR @ 2,4GHz makes you just a headache by heating up your brain. On the other hand some 1 watt/kg SAR or even less @ 10GHz can damage the DNA - not because of the level, but the frequency. Yes, RF more or less causes cancer.
    Sorry but no. RF does not cause cancer. That theory has been tested and debunked over and over for nearly thirty years. It has no more basis than the BS about vaccines causing autism. It isn't true, never was true, and no amount of repeating will make it true.
    thtMplsPwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 28
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 253member
    "no demonstrable health danger to the public at all"  

    That's also what the Chinese govt say about the coronavirus.
    cat52
  • Reply 25 of 28
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,516administrator
    wozwoz said:
    "no demonstrable health danger to the public at all"  

    That's also what the Chinese govt say about the coronavirus.
    That's also not true.
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 28
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,679member
    If you have some wacko conspiracy theories about RF radiation, DNA or cancer, please stop hijacking the conversation and take your foil hats to another forum.
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 28
    tobiantobian Posts: 133member
    DAalseth said:
    tobian said:

    I've said it before, I don't want a Navy search radar in my bedroom, but to call this level dangerous or injurious in any way is irresponsible and straight wrong.

    It's not just about radiation level, heating up the tissue is least of a concern. It's about the frequency the most, and our DNA vulnerability to certain freqs. It means that some 1.6 watts/kg SAR of 2,4GHz signal is practically harmless, while 5 watts/kg SAR @ 2,4GHz makes you just a headache by heating up your brain. On the other hand some 1 watt/kg SAR or even less @ 10GHz can damage the DNA - not because of the level, but the frequency. Yes, RF more or less causes cancer.
    Sorry but no. RF does not cause cancer. That theory has been tested and debunked over and over for nearly thirty years. It has no more basis than the BS about vaccines causing autism. It isn't true, never was true, and no amount of repeating will make it true.

    Okay, I am sorry for that absolute statement, I understand the rage. But let's conclude we can't say simply Yes or No. International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO) classifies RF fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans, linking increased risk of glioma brain cancer to long term RF exposure. And this is based on number of trusted research papers. I pay attention not to consume commercial research sponsored by the industry. It's the same like "burning fossil fuels does not cause global warming" thesis.. it indeed does too, the only question is in what proportion.
    edited February 2020 wozwoz
  • Reply 28 of 28
    hentaiboy said:
    I call bs and/or clickbait. Any serious manufacturer knows about how to design and produce a conform product.
    Just like VW and its emissions testing, right?

    /s
    That’s about test detecting and defeating by adapting engine control and therefore emissions. I think you would be slightly more on topic with Samsung’s test detection and increasing processor speed. 
    In the alleged case it is claimed that the devices simply are non conforming. Not that they detect and defeat a given test. 
Sign In or Register to comment.