Antenna on the outside. Dangerous?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by Mjmar, Jun 24, 2010.

  1. Mjmar macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #1
    I can't help but be skeptical about placing my skin directly on an antenna that's sending out radiation for hours a day. Is anyone else concerned?
     
  2. Built macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    Talk to gagoots. He has it all figured out. :D
     
  3. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #3
    I bet it would be no worse considering that the plastic backing of the 3G and 3GS aren't blocking the radiation exactly( if it was, how would you ever get a signal?).
     
  4. Gagoots macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    #4
    Careful. I started a thread like this and people got really upset.
    I even had one moron flexing his biceps and calling me skippy, LOL.

    But its something to think about.
     
  5. Gagoots macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    #5
    Oh Hi, Biff. How'd the audition for Sha-Na-Na go?
     
  6. BobHail macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    #6
    Didn´t you know, radiation is good for you. Apple is so loving. :apple:
     
  7. Small White Car macrumors G4

    Small White Car

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #7
    The radiation from the 3GS reached the towers just fine. Clearly that plastic back wasn't stopping it.

    So how is this really any different?
     
  8. PNutts macrumors 601

    PNutts

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, US
    #8
    And for all the engineers out there this is a rhetorical question. :D
     
  9. Mugambo macrumors 6502

    Mugambo

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    #10
    Apple changes AT&T's radio waves into a magically refreshing waves which cleanse your aura forever. Thats what Steve calls "magical"
     
  10. -aggie- macrumors P6

    -aggie-

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Where bunnies are welcome.
    #11
    Another I’m going to get cancer from radiation thread. For those that think ANY radiation is a problem, well then, they’re going to be scared, and any arguments aren’t going to matter. The fact is minimal amounts do nothing to you. For ionizing radiation, the ICRP adopted a straight line approach from zero (increasing radiation is proportional to damage), because it was easier to just assume that. The science doesn’t defend that assumption though. BTW, this is what I do for a living, so believe me or not, but at least read the literature from reputable sources before spouting crap that isn’t true.

    It’s even more ludicrous to talk about radiation to the hand being an issue. I saw that in another thread today. Cell damage to the skin is much harder to achieve, which is why the limits are 10 times larger.
     
  11. Krevnik macrumors 68040

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #12
    That's the big catch 22. Plastic isn't any better than bare exposure. It's a bit like holding up a piece of cardboard to protect yourself from the impending tsunami.

    And keep in mind 'radiation' in this sense is not quite the same as 'radiation' in the nuclear bomb/reactor sense. It's all about the amount, and energy of the particles in question. A reactor spews high energy neutrons, electrons and photons (and the occasional high-energy helium nucleus). These are extremely high energy events, and so exposures can be quite low, but the energy levels we are talking about make up for it.

    In the case of radio signals, these are always photons, and are fairly low energy particles. With photons the energy in the photon can be measured by its frequency, and these phones operate up through the 2.4Ghz band. To give you an idea, visible light is in the 300Thz range, and x-rays start at about 300Phz.

    So each photon emitted from these phones is carrying a lot less energy. But that's not the whole story. The fact that we hold these devices to our head is the main point of concern. It's not fully clear exactly what sort of effect these levels of exposures have. And there are upper limits in the US and Europe on the sort of exposure a device like this can create, which are usually placed well below what is currently considered dangerous.

    Another thing to consider is that the radio is never fully active. It isn't as if it is constantly sending out information all day and night. It has transmit and receive phases, and the % time actively sending is usually referred to the duty cycle if my old EE courses are still there in my brain right. You will see higher duty cycles if you are actively uploading/downloading or using the phone to make a call, but as phones share time slots in towers, I wouldn't expect you to see extremely large duty cycles (Assuming you have 100 phones using a single tower equally, the max duty cycle for any phone is 1% for transmission, but this is probably not an accurate number, but neither would large numbers like 10% or higher). Add that with a 0.75-1W transmission power, and you aren't looking at particularly high exposure numbers.

    I'd expect the exposure levels to be similar to the 3GS. Sure the antenna is more exposed, but the transmit power can actually be a bit lower as a result, evening it out. The exposed antenna really helps when receiving data from the tower, access point or GPS satellites, as it strengthens reception (which is passive, not active).
     
  12. Built macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    Good info.

    I think I need to go into the "tin foil hats" manufacturing business. I think I could probably make a killing off this forum alone.

    Thanks to krevnik for a great, detailed post, too.
     
  13. the-oz-man macrumors 6502

    the-oz-man

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    #14
    Weren't cell phones for over a decade made with the antenna on the outside of the phone. I didn't take the time to grab a few google images, but just look at the picture history of cell phones. Besides, all studies but done by cell phone companies and independent research say there is no correlation to cell phone use and any type of cancer.
     
  14. DineshD macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    #15
  15. Krevnik macrumors 68040

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #16
    And as we get better tech, the energy required to reach towers goes down too. Car phones were in the 3W range, and modern cellphones are getting under a watt. You are safer now with a modern phone than you would be with one of those older ones on your head.

    If these numbers are accurate, it also points out that it doesn't seem to affect the SAR numbers too much, which is what I'd expect. Either way, the iPhone sits pretty low compared to the two droids. The Evo does pretty decent on the head test too.
     
  16. shrimpdesign macrumors 6502a

    shrimpdesign

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    #17
    So you want the protection and security of … plastic?
     
  17. AbSoluTc macrumors 68040

    AbSoluTc

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    #18
    You might want to get rid of every electronic device you have in your house. :rolleyes:
     
  18. -aggie- macrumors P6

    -aggie-

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Where bunnies are welcome.
    #19
    For those that are married, you might also want to get a divorce, since your spouse gives off radiation while sleeping next to them.:eek: Also, no flying anywhere…you guessed it radiation. :eek: Oh, and people living in Denver are screwed….might as well put a gun to your head and end it now.:eek: Shoot, for that matter, you might want to get in a rocket and leave earth due to the background radiation. Damn, but then you’ll be screwed by the cosmic radiation from the sun.:eek: Don’t even get me started on getting X-rays and CT scans!! OMFG!!!!:eek: What to do??!!:eek:
     
  19. thornguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #20
    No because when you touch it, it quits working.
     

Share This Page