Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Chicago Tribune Claims iPhone Radiofrequency Radiation Levels Measured Higher Than Legal Safety Limit in Tests

Rickinsav said:
That's what VW said....
Click to expand...

VW's tests weren't wrong. VW wrote software to detect the tests and operate differently under those conditions.

By the way, they weren't the first. They copied similar cheating around 2000 by several different engine manufacturers. It was an industry-wide thing.

Tofupunch said:
Wait, these guidelines of 10mm or 5mm away from the body is while using it to make phone calls, or just...always??
Click to expand...

It's phone transmitting in pocket. Reasonably, your phone will always be transmitting periodically due to data. There's a separate head measurement that's not covered here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raybo and barbu
I7guy said:
The latter, similar to VW. This test is in no way standardized. It’s up to the manufacturer to determine the parameters.
Click to expand...

From the linked story, "This test, which was paid for by the Tribune and conducted according to federal guidelines at an accredited lab".
 
quietstormSD said:
Anyone using an iPhone 7 should have upgraded to a newer iPhone by now.
Click to expand...
With mobile phone technology being a fair bit more mature in recent years compared to the earlier years devices perform better and last longer these days.
 
Since Tim Apple and Donald are such good friends, Timmy should get him to give one of his infamous quotes to this report:

39DF05E1-F87D-449B-8B1B-FBADC933D118.gif
 
mytdave said:
The electromagnetic radiation emanating from your iPhone is a minuscule fraction of the radiation dose you get by stepping into the sunshine, or from that broadcast TV antenna down the block from your apartment, which is belting out EM waves measured in megawatts. Your phone will not kill you or give you cancer or scramble your brain - all urban legends.
Click to expand...

While you're right on the gross statements, the broadcast TV antennas tend to be much, much further away from you than your phone. Radiation intensity diminishes with the square of distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martyimac and Nebulance
It's always fun to watch the forums react to under-researched scientific articles... Yes, non-ionizing radiation can harm you. Specifically by heating your tissues (which is why they measure it that way). Most of your body is fine because your blood distributes the heat, but eyes and testes are the most vulnerable.

That said, there's simply not enough information in this article to make any judgements. SAR isn't a useless measure or an example of over-regulation, but it is likely very conservative in choosing safety over radio range. Crossing the limit 2mm from your thigh isn't going to kill you. I probably wouldn't hold it less than 2mm from my eye for extended periods. If you're holding it 2mm from your testes, there are other questions I'll ask before "did you get cancer?".

The testing methods require expertise and well calibrated equipment. Compliance is also an expensive and sometimes challenging endeavor when you're trying to put a gigabit radiophone in people's pockets, so there's probably some amount of effort expended by manufacturers to get under the line by playing the test. I'm sure that's why some manufacturers test at 5mm while others at 10mm, for example. Since it's all near field at that range, there's not a simple relationship between distance and power.

There is also unit to unit variations, along with the likelihood that manufacturers will try to test units that are carefully produced before the push to mass volume. There's also the fact that incidental damage over the life of the product will change these numbers. SAR measures watts per mass of tissue. Temperature is raised when exposed to watts over time. So safety relies on assumptions about how long the exposure period is. All of this helps explain the conservative limits.

To me the interesting question here is: are manufacturers systematically exceeding the regulated limits on production devices? If so, there needs to be a reckoning-- don't avoid the law. If not, or if they're just getting as close to the line as they can and sometimes spilling over, then I'm not terribly concerned. The FCC has said they're going to look into it. The article has done its job and I can go back to sleep until we see an FCC report.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire, mw360 and jpn
apolloa said:
Ooh Apples slammed door response here would imply guilt...
This is going to be interesting....
Click to expand...

don't think so.
unless that news organization is trying to shake down apple (for political reasons).

typical of these kinds of stories is that the organization that published the story realizes their information process was flawed or biased after knowledgable people writing in their comments (like this forum in this case has also contributed to general awareness levels of how these things actually work).
also, it takes money to followup consistently.
so the story is a one hit wonder.
without followup.
bet its like this with this Tribune story.

there are only a few good paper/digital news organizations left, and the Tribune is not part of one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
I7guy said:
I either use AirPods or my cars built in BT. Not only is it better in reducing the SAR it’s also better than holding the phone to your ears.

As far as the test result, reproducing the test means reproducing the test exactly.
Click to expand...

I haven't held a phone to my head in YEARS, simply because I don't view my phone for talking that way. It's more of a computer, that happens to be a phone.

Always Bluetooth or speaker. I advise you to do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
nsayer said:
While you're right on the gross statements, the broadcast TV antennas tend to be much, much further away from you than your phone. Radiation intensity diminishes with the square of distance.
Click to expand...

The higher frequencies tend to have more path loss in real-world situations. A cell phone effectively drops off to between the third and fourth power in an urban environment. Lower frequencies tend to be closer to square.

Then biological and resonance effects get thrown in there. For example, the FM broadcast band is right where your body couples effectively to a wavelength so the effective absorption is much higher there.
 
Last edited:
konqerror said:
Put your head in a microwave oven and tell me it's a non-issue.



No, the margin of safety on IEEE limits at high frequencies, which are adopted by most governments, is estimated to be 10-50, by power. That means at the worst case, the safety limit is 1/10 that where harmful effects are observed.

At low frequencies, not relevant for cell phones, it's from 9-100. See IEEE Std C95.1-2005 section 1.3.1
Click to expand...

... whose conclusions were based on total guesses and null result cancer studies.

Again, there is no evidence of health effects for these frequencies at this power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpn
Apparently most popular cell phones exceed radiation limits OR the Chicago Tribune hired a irresponsible lab. I would bet on the latter. Wonder how well the Chinese phone producers would fair with this Lab?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
realtuner said:
Curious why the iPhone was tested at 2mm and 5mm but the Samsung phones were tested at 2mm and 10mm (or 15mm). Shouldn’t these tests be standardized in some way?

Also, does the FCC test devices themselves or do the manufacturers test them and provide their results to the FCC (which accepts them and maybe spot checks random samples to verify the manufacturer numbers)?
Click to expand...
Do you really think the FCC will do what is best for you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: locovaca and jpn
This study is bogus. I’ve been using iPhones for the last 10 years, and I still can’t shoot webs from my wrists.
 
So they found this in more than just iPhones but the headline makes it appear like it’s iPhone specific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpn
LawJolla said:
It's sad that people don't understand the difference between ionizing radiation and electromagnetic radiation. They lump "radiation" as one term. There is no harm from electromagnetic radiation at these levels (or 100x these levels) at this frequency.
Click to expand...

Safety legal limit. That's the only phrase I care about.
 
Tofupunch said:
Wait, these guidelines of 10mm or 5mm away from the body is while using it to make phone calls, or just...always??
Click to expand...
It’s not really a guideline, but a test result. It is tested in simulated tissue at that distance with the radio at maximum power. The “guideline” would essentially be that if it passed the test it is safe to use.
 
Whether or not you believe the measured radiation is dangerous, the Tribune tests were done to federal standards by an accredited test lab. The same required tests performed on the same devices by this lab and Apple yielded difference results: one passing, the other failing. It is reasonable to ask why.
 
Listen up folks,

In my opinion, this is a real problem.

It ultimately comes down to trust.

Whether it's the wonderful slow down feature Apple never told us about or now maybe this, if we can't trust the devices we buy you can rest assure I won't be as enthusiastic about them if at all.

Apple better fix this or they can count my business going elsewhere.

The future looks dim.
 
I blame Intel. Every iPhone I’ve owned since Apple started forcing Intel modems on AT&T users has had absolutely awful signal. I wouldn’t doubt the antennas are heavily boosted just to try to keep up with Qualcomm’s performance.

I can’t use my phone in any large store anymore and my battery drains far faster when I’m out of my house.

I have to download all of my podcasts before a 2 hour drive as I’m guaranteed to hit a few dead zones.

I switched to an HTC phone a while back and I never had any problems with signal. I couldn’t fully get used to Android though.
 
So basically just a FUD piece by hack journalists that dont understand science. RF drop off exists so to have a standard you have to have a distance, the FCC's is x at 25mm. if you half that the signal is 4 times higher. You can use different distances and the same number.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back