iPhone XR FaceID - health/studies?

[ssledoux]

The jury still seems to be out on this one, but it is something that I looked into before I got my first pair of Bluetooth earbuds a while back and then again when I bought Airpods just a couple of weeks ago.

On the one hand, there's the argument that Bluetooth signals are a very weak form of non-ionizing radiation, which means that theoretically they cannot cause any damage to cells. Consumer devices must also adhere to regulations regarding the strength of their radiation output which should, theoretically, ensure that what they emit are well below the levels that could be harmful to humans.

On the other hand, there's the argument that this technology simply hasn't been around long enough for us to be certain of the long term effects. Some argue that frequent exposure to even these weak signals could over years or decades cause damage to cells and even increase the risk of cancer. Some going so far as to suggest that wi-fi and Bluetooth radiation could be this generation's cigarettes. There's not really any evidence to support this, but some argue that such research isn't being properly funded or is outright being suppressed by the wireless telecommunication industry.

Well I wouldn’t be totally shocked if an industry making billions off a product suppressed negative information. I try not to be that much of a conspiracy theorist, but, alas, sometimes I am.

The thing about the watch is that it’s constant, and it’s right up against my skin. It hasn’t stopped me from wearing one (yet), but I DO wonder about it.

And of course with the grandbaby, his monitor is right against him as well, and you surely hate to expose them to any more crap than they are already exposed to.

I guess I need to do a bit more reading on the subject.

 

[aldo82]

Ever look at a fire in fireplace or campfire. Did that hurt your eyes, whole lot of infrared. You can’t see infrared. However you can feel it on skin.

I am stating a fact about my own experiences with the iris scanner on the note 8. I cannot see the IR from the scanner clearly but using it has a direct impact on how I feel afterwards. On the few occasions I have tried it, the feeling afterwards is consistent such that its is 100% an impact from the iris scanner. I don't know if faceID would have to same effect or not

 

[joeblow7777]

Well I wouldn’t be totally shocked if an industry making billions off a product suppressed negative information. I try not to be that much of a conspiracy theorist, but, alas, sometimes I am.

The thing about the watch is that it’s constant, and it’s right up against my skin. It hasn’t stopped me from wearing one (yet), but I DO wonder about it.

And of course with the grandbaby, his monitor is right against him as well, and you surely hate to expose them to any more crap than they are already exposed to.

I guess I need to do a bit more reading on the subject.

I know what you mean. I gave it a lot of thought before I purchased my Airpods. I'm particularly concerned because those are right on your head! But I figured, everything in moderation. I still have wired earbuds, so I don't use the AirPods all the time.

I also remind myself that while the industry does have a lot to gain by suppressing negative information, they do also have reason to want their products to be as safe as possible. Apple doesn't want to be facing a class action lawsuit if, heaven forbid, 20 years from now half the people who have used Apple Watches or Airpods end up with cancer!

 

[Newtons Apple]

This kinda reminds me if the study they just had in the EU where they found that people with lower cholesterol did not have less heart problems than one with high cholesterol. Got a lot of people wondering if our drug companies are pulling our legs while making billions. They would never allow such a study in America to hurt their sales.

 

[Dranix]

It’s funny how so many defend something they have no idea about...yet insist “the sun is worse” for your eyes.

No **** the sun is worse for your eyes...sounds like a pretty terrible way to defend Face ID.

Hopefully your eyes aren’t messed up after using it for 20+ years.

IR is WARMTH. Every heater puts out a lot more IR then the iPhone does... Or a camp fire - Do you fear sitting at a fire?

 

[-M4-]

This kinda reminds me if the study they just had in the EU where they found that people with lower cholesterol did not have less heart problems than one with high cholesterol. Got a lot of people wondering if our drug companies are pulling our legs while making billions. They would never allow such a study in America to hurt their sales.

To be fair, that study (if we are talking about the same one) has a lot of limitations and did not account for the use of meds or try to see if they changed mortality risk. We need more than one study showing the same thing to validate the findings on a wider level, or we risk having another anti-vaccine hoax like situation.

 

[Jimmy James]

Most of the comments indicate that no evidence = safe = no evidence. If that is true it is being accepted blindly, pardon the pun.

 

[ghsDUDE]

Great attitude towards science. Sounds like nothing will change your mind.

Lol...the defense of “the sun is worse for your eyes” isn’t a valid defense.

I didn’t say it was causing people to go blind....all I’m saying is more IR going into your eyes isn’t GOOD for them. How is it hard to understand that?
[doublepost=1539289894][/doublepost]

I feel that Belgium is larger than the USA

More IR going into your eyes isn’t a good thing. That’s a fact.
[doublepost=1539289979][/doublepost]

Do you even realize how much IR we are exposed to daily, but we can’t see because it’s infared?

That argument is so bad. Just because there’s IR all around us doesn’t make adding additional IR into your everyday life (aka looking at your phone) any better for your eyes.
[doublepost=1539290125][/doublepost]

I can't use the iris scanner on my note 8 because it makes me feel 'funny'. Just one use and I feel a bit spaced out afterwards and therefore don't want to use it regularly. I am interested in coming back to the iphone but face ID concerns me based on how I feel with the iris scanner.

In the case of the Samsung clearly it is directing the IR into the eye so is probably a greater intensity than faceID. But whilst IR is everywhere, faceID must still be more concentrated than background as it has to overcome the surroundings and still work in all conditions (I think it may fail in bright sunlight). Yes closing eyes is an option but not very practical.

I would like to think that faceID spreading the IR over the whole face will not affect my eyes in the same way the iris scanner will but its difficult to know. The fact that the IR scanner effects my eyes at all means that in my case at least, concentrated IR into my eyes is not good for me.

Don’t make statements like this...the trolls will say you’re wrong. How dare you accuse Apple of using something that could harm your eyes. (Sarcasm)

 

[Diorama]

Lol...the defense of “the sun is worse for your eyes” isn’t a valid defense.

I didn’t say it was causing people to go blind....all I’m saying is more IR going into your eyes isn’t GOOD for them. How is it hard to understand that?
[doublepost=1539289894][/doublepost]
More IR going into your eyes isn’t a good thing. That’s a fact.
[doublepost=1539289979][/doublepost]
That argument is so bad. Just because there’s IR all around us doesn’t make adding additional IR into your everyday life (aka looking at your phone) any better for your eyes.

If I’m an alcoholic, sucking down a six pack for lunch and a bottle of whiskey a day, I wouldn’t worry too much about the sip of communion wine I get at church.

 

[ghsDUDE]

Hey can I hijack the thread for just a moment and ask about the Bluetooth studies (if there have been any). What’s the general consensus on Bluetooth exposure? I’ve wondered about this for a couple of reasons; one - because of my Apple Watch, and two - because my grandson sleeps with a monitor on his foot that is connected to an app via Bluetooth.

Just wanna know how paranoid I need to be. ;-p

I think it’s ironic that Apple gives your the RF on every device they make...except AirPods.

https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/
[doublepost=1539290352][/doublepost]

The jury still seems to be out on this one, but it is something that I looked into before I got my first pair of Bluetooth earbuds a while back and then again when I bought Airpods just a couple of weeks ago.

On the one hand, there's the argument that Bluetooth signals are a very weak form of non-ionizing radiation, which means that theoretically they cannot cause any damage to cells. Consumer devices must also adhere to regulations regarding the strength of their radiation output which should, theoretically, ensure that what they emit are well below the levels that could be harmful to humans.

On the other hand, there's the argument that this technology simply hasn't been around long enough for us to be certain of the long term effects. Some argue that frequent exposure to even these weak signals could over years or decades cause damage to cells and even increase the risk of cancer. Some going so far as to suggest that wi-fi and Bluetooth radiation could be this generation's cigarettes. There's not really any evidence to support this, but some argue that such research isn't being properly funded or is outright being suppressed by the wireless telecommunication industry.

What frustrates me is Apple puts up RF information on all their products...except AirPods.

https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/
[doublepost=1539290664][/doublepost]

If I’m an alcoholic, sucking down a six pack for lunch and a bottle of whiskey a day, I wouldn’t worry too much about the sip of communion wine I get at church.

I wouldn’t consider unlocking your phone ~100 times a day, projecting 30,000 dots on your face with IR to be a sip of communion wine.

Also, it’s constantly scanning for most people because they have the “attention” feature enabled keeping your phone lit while you’re looking at it.

Not to mention the PWM implementation of OLEN on the newer phones. Like I said, it can’t be GOOD for your eyes.

I’ll be sticking with my 8 Plus with its non-PWM OLED screen and Touch ID.

 

[-M4-]

http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2011/902610.pdf

This is the best I could find on the issue and it dates back to 2011. It basically concludes that the IR scans don’t have enough intensity and duration for causing damage (the analogy to the wine is fairly accurate, or even worse since any amount of alcohol causes damage), but agree that there should be some sort of legislation or guidelines that put solid limits on how much they can use (does this currently exist? I have no idea).

About the PWM, that is another story altogether. If you get headaches from it, your eyes are sensitive enough for it to be causing strain in your eyes and it could lead to some acceleration of the normal visual acuity decline. Otherwise, it should be within your eyes’ tolerability range and not cause any issue at all.

 

[Dranix]

The limit is burning. An amount of ir so low you don't even feel it is below any influence. Our body can take and *generate* huge amounts of ir.

Is it really so hard to crasp that ir is warmth/heat? Any heater generates magnitudes larger amount of ir.

 

[HEK]

Infrared is heat. All warm objects radiate in infrared. Don’t look at your hot cup of coffee. Oh my god, it’s radiating infrared radiation.

Any studies that show, looking at hot cup of coffee and death in 100 years to majority of population could be connected? Folgers should be required by law to advise coffee drinkers to use insulated cups.

Just to be safe, use welding goggles when viewing smart phones. Looking at smart phones could cause brain damage. Better safe than sorry.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Infrared is heat. All warm objects radiate in infrared. Don’t look at your hot cup of coffee. Oh my god, it’s radiating infrared radiation.

Any studies that show, looking at hot cup of coffee and death in 100 years to majority of population could be connected? Folgers should be required by law to advise coffee drinkers to use insulated cups.

Just to be safe, use welding goggles when viewing smart phones. Looking at smart phones could cause brain damage. Better safe than sorry.

Your avatar picture sums it up perfectly. You win.

My farts generate quite a bit of infrared radiation... they're deadly.

 

[-M4-]

I know that IR is a low energy wavelength and that any heat generates IR. And I also agree that it’s highly unlikely that FaceID is doing any damage to your eyes for the majority of people. But I can also see why some would find it a point of concern and the need for limits on it (even if mostly-for-show limits, just like salt limits on bread in some countries).

 

[Dranix]

heat doesn't generate ir, heat *is* ir.

 

[Ipadfever]

Total nonsense unless you can provide some real evidence which clearly you cannot do. You even admit it. This topic is done!!

It’s not nonsense! What happens 10 years down the road and all these discoveries are made about ailments from this cause. You,nor I do not know the implications of this new technology in the LONG TERM! Everyone is just guessing and no one really knows!
[doublepost=1539293958][/doublepost]

Not just “more” but 1000s times more frombeing in the sun.

and the sun is so great for our skin health right?? You are not in the sun 8 hrs every single day but your sure are using your phone every single day, for 8 plus hours!

 

[-M4-]

heat doesn't generate ir, heat *is* ir.

If you want to argue semantics, I’m fairly sure heat is energy. That energy can then be emitted in many ways, IR being one.

 

[maerz001]

Lol...the defense of “the sun is worse for your eyes” isn’t a valid defense.

I didn’t say it was causing people to go blind....all I’m saying is more IR going into your eyes isn’t GOOD for them. How is it hard to understand that?
More IR going into your eyes isn’t a good thing. That’s a fact. Just because there’s IR all around us doesn’t make adding additional IR into your everyday life (aka looking at your phone) any better for your eyes.

Who says that IR isn’t a good thing?

Don’t mix things up with X-rays.

There are IR heaters with kWs of power for decades on the market. Why the hell you think that a mW IR LED can harm?

 

[chabig]

But I can also see why some would find it a point of concern and the need for limits on it...

That gives me an idea...market a homeopathic solution to minimize or reverse cellular damage caused by FaceID. I’ll make millions!

 

[-M4-]

That gives me an idea...market a homeopathic solution to minimize or reverse cellular damage caused by FaceID. I’ll make millions!

You joke, but that would sell like hot buns probably at least going by how some homeopathic products are so popular! Just gotta make sure it does absolutely nothing at a premium price, with a fancy name!

 

[BigMcGuire]

That gives me an idea...market a homeopathic solution to minimize or reverse cellular damage caused by FaceID. I’ll make millions!

Instead of <blank> rocks... face rocks!

 

[Dranix]

I propose sugar pills exposed to uv light

 

[HEK]

Your avatar picture sums it up perfectly. You win.

My farts generate quite a bit of infrared radiation... they're deadly.

Now that, i can believe!

 

[Mlrollin91]

Lol...the defense of “the sun is worse for your eyes” isn’t a valid defense.

I didn’t say it was causing people to go blind....all I’m saying is more IR going into your eyes isn’t GOOD for them. How is it hard to understand that?
[doublepost=1539289894][/doublepost]
More IR going into your eyes isn’t a good thing. That’s a fact.
[doublepost=1539289979][/doublepost]
That argument is so bad. Just because there’s IR all around us doesn’t make adding additional IR into your everyday life (aka looking at your phone) any better for your eyes.
[doublepost=1539290125][/doublepost]
Don’t make statements like this...the trolls will say you’re wrong. How dare you accuse Apple of using something that could harm your eyes. (Sarcasm)

Actually. From a logical fallacy standpoint, my argument is the most sound. You are worried about what your phone will do, but not about the other million IR waves that hit your eyes each day. As others have correctly pointed out. Your screen is far worse than IR. Visible light spectrum is far more stressful on your eyes, because its well visible. You are looking for a problem that doesn’t actually exist.