Indeed. Now prepare yourself for an onslaught of denial and close-mindedness…
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone X Apple iPhone X laser damage with Face ID
- Thread starter JokerABC
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed. Now prepare yourself for an onslaught of denial and close-mindedness…
Can you fully turn it off, though? I realize that you can turn off Face ID, but I believe I read that you cannot turn off the flood illuminator at all.
Welp, I hope they continue offering an SE model with only touch ID in perpetuity, or I can see myself falling off the iPhone bandwagon altogether. Between this, the security concerns, increasing reports of reliability issues and general annoyances of use, I'm officially ruling out ever getting a face ID iPhone.
Well if that's true then glad I have the 7 plus and I hope something like it or the 8 or 8 plus remains part of the lineup. Not sure that is true though as it would waste battery.
We're all ginny pigs for technology. Nobody knows the long term effects. All they really know is that using it for 1 year causes no ill health effects. Whether or not that means in 10 years you're screwed, nobody knows.
You need to have an understanding of how the studies are carried out. For example if they define ill health effects as "headaches" then they would have disclose if the X caused headaches amongst a sample. If they defined ill health effects as "causing cancerous tumours within 12 months of daily use" where daily means 1 unlock per day, and no cancerous tumours were found within 12 months amongst the sample, then they can conclude based on the study that the X causes no ill health effects.
People take the definitions to mean something different but to Apple and to regulatory bodies, the definitions are the only things that matter. If they don't like how the study turned out, they can carry out a different one that paints the tech in a better light. Been going on for a long time..
You need to have an understanding of how the studies are carried out. For example if they define ill health effects as "headaches" then they would have disclose if the X caused headaches amongst a sample. If they defined ill health effects as "causing cancerous tumours within 12 months of daily use" where daily means 1 unlock per day, and no cancerous tumours were found within 12 months amongst the sample, then they can conclude based on the study that the X causes no ill health effects.
People take the definitions to mean something different but to Apple and to regulatory bodies, the definitions are the only things that matter. If they don't like how the study turned out, they can carry out a different one that paints the tech in a better light. Been going on for a long time..
You all can put a piece of tape over the offending lasers. Just make sure it matches your tinfoil hats.
This is at the level of energy output by THE SUN, not the little phone in your pocket. Water itself is harmful if you drink too much, but obviously there's a difference.
There are three key words in the article cited. They are:
"...we don’t know..."
Everyone who's defending, or attacking, this technology needs to remember that. It's worth finding out. Studies are warranted, but panic is not. The fact that the sun can toast your skin and retinas with IR radiation doesn't mean that we're endangered by the manner and levels at which the iPhone X exposes us to IR radiation. Equally, we have no idea right now whether the iPhone X's technology could cause problems in the short or long terms.
Last edited:
I’ve sat staring, mesmerized by a campfire for hours on end more times than I can count. There’s a tremendous amount of IR being absorbed by the retinas in that scenario as well. Not saying this makes Face ID benign by comparison, just remarking that there’s been a lot of fairly ignorant exposure to IR most of us never thought to consider before the iPhone X came along, for what it’s worth.
This is possibly the stupidest post I have ever seen on this site, thanks for the laugh. Do we not teach science in school anymore? Lol.
For those that are afraid of IR, what is your plan around IR remotes, security cameras, the moon, stars, light sources, fire, and most importantly the sun?
Hell PEOPLE put off IR for crying out loud...
For those that are afraid of IR, what is your plan around IR remotes, security cameras, the moon, stars, light sources, fire, and most importantly the sun?
Hell PEOPLE put off IR for crying out loud...
I guess you know more than the scientific researchers behind the articles cited, then. Thank God for you and your unique insight.
No one’s “afraid if IR”. We’re having a perfectly reasonable discussion about a specific issue relating to a specific implementation of near-visible IR that you clearly don’t understand. At all.
The major natural source of daily IR exposure on earth is the sun. The solar spectrum reaching the earth's surface ranges from 290 to 3000 nm and includes UV radiation (UVB, 290–320 nm; UVA, 320–400 nm), visible radiation (400–760 nm) and IR radiation (760–3000 nm). The corresponding solar energy is 6.8% in the UV range (0.5% UVB, 6.3% UVA), 38.9% in the visible range and the IR spectral range constitutes about 54.3% of total solar irradiance (12). Thus, humans are exposed to significant amounts of IR radiation, with an average dose of 75 J/cm2/h.
The entire study is talking about natural exposure from the SUN, not random little lights you have in your house running off a 1.5v battery. If that was a danger, we'd all already have figured it out after decades of using IR remote controls for our TVs.
[doublepost=1516423011][/doublepost]
No, it's not reasonable at all. It's standard conspiracy theory stuff that takes something out of context and ignores all kind of other information. The dose makes the poison.
You said it better than I could, this thread is rediculous.
To folks with any scientific education at all this thread is as funny as one talking about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.
Sorry, what’s the conspiracy? We’re simply referring to a lack of scientific evidence either way. No one’s saying, “I’m absolutely certain Face ID is bad for your eyes.” You, however, are saying you’re absolutely certain it isn’t. So, where’s your evidence?
And the second study clearly isn’t talking about sunlight as it talks about flash burns and the risks to people coming into contact with IR-A as an occupational hazard - eg, arc welders.
[doublepost=1516439752][/doublepost]
You’re one of those ‘folks’, presumably? Please put an end to the debate with your evidence that Face ID is 100% safe.
What lack of science?
• IR light has been known about since 1800.
• We know the exact energy emitted per photon for each specific wavelength.
• We know the exact amount of energy required to activate a photo receptor in the eye.
• Apple knows the exact amount of energy being used to trigger the IR emitter. And even if we don't know the number at this moment, it is easy to calculate since you can just measure the amount of light it puts out. No one with a gram of sense is waisting time on it though.
• IR emitters have been used for decades now in the wide population, and we don't see an increase in people dying due to eye cancers or demons growing out of their skulls. In fact, the numbers are so low that there aren't proper statistics available.
This is about as well documented as anything can be! This is not "lack of science" or "we don't know if it is harmfull". We know the exact science. We know it isn't harmfull. Anyone not understanding that is either A. completely stupid, or B. not believing in established science, or C. a lover of conspiracy theories just because that can and also part of category A.
You’re not really getting the point, are you?
We’re not talking about IR in general, we’re talking about the very particular use of it in Face ID. Are you suggesting that the documented evidence that IR-A might damage the eye when a focused beam of it is used is... what, made up or something? A bit conspiratorial, no?
Not "a conspiracy", "conspiracy theory":
Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts.
As soon as you start ARC WELDING with your Face ID IR emitter, then yes, be concerned about it.
Are you aware the Wi-Fi works using microwaves (2.4GHz)? The same microwaves are used in a microwave oven. Does your Wi-Fi access point cook your food or fry your brain? NO, because the level of power is orders of magnitude lower in Wi-Fi than in the oven. The dose makes the poison.
And there couldn't possibly be a level of exposure anywhere in between the router and the oven that might have an effect on human tissue, could there? That's a very sweeping and not particularly relevant example. Have you got any specific figures relating to the IR output of Face ID in terms of beam focus, power, etc? No, neither have I. And even if we did have, it's simply not known what long-term short-burst exposure to it might lead to, because it's not been studied in full. Where are you getting this resolute certainty that the scientific community doesn't seem to share with you?
While we're on it, though, there is indeed some concern among public health officials and scientists that BlueTooth (ie, 2.4GHz) earbuds might prove to be an issue at some point in the future. But, yeah…
There really is no point in arguing with scientifically ignorant folks. For those on the fence that lack scientific education please do yourself a favor and do some research, take some classes and so on.
What? You are making zero sense here. IR is IR. There are tons of sources of IR in your every day life that are far, far, far, far, far stronger than the tiny bit of IR put off from your phone.
The sun provide ~550 watts of IR per square meter. If the entirety of the iPhone battery was converted to IR it would last roughly zero seconds at the sun’s amount of IR radiation per square meter.
What? You are making zero sense here. IR is IR. There are tons of sources of IR in your every day life that are far, far, far, far, far stronger than the tiny bit of IR put off from your phone.
The sun provide ~550 watts of IR per square meter. If the entirety of the iPhone battery was converted to IR it would last roughly zero seconds at the sun’s amount of IR radiation per square meter.