iPhone XR FaceID - health/studies?

[mpavilion]

Just FYI, certain wavelengths of IR light can certainly damage eyes:

The use of furnaces, powerful heating and drying processes and high powered LED's which use IR can result in cataracts developing and flash burns to the cornea - these are the main biological effects of IR-A radiation due to temperature rise in the tissue. But IR-A radiation wavelengths are close to the visible light wavelengths and are transmitted to a small extent to the retina; permanent retinal damage can occur if the source is high powered (produces heat) and the exposure is prolonged. As wavelengths increase into the IR-B and IR-C regions the radiation is no longer transmitted to the retina but corneal flash burn injuries can still be caused.
(https://warwick.ac.uk/services/heal...ance/non-ionisingradiation/infraredradiation/)


Far Infrared (1400 nm - 1 mm)

Most of the radiation is transmitted to the cornea.

Overexposure to these wavelengths will cause corneal burns.
(https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/laser/training/laser-biological-hazards-eyes)​

 

[LoveToMacRumors]

did any one read/hear about some scientific study about faceID impacts on health? Do we know it is perfectly save to get eyes bombarded hundreds of times per day by infrared beams?

Any links to studies? Artickes (scientific), etc...

To be fully honest, when I use animoji for a long period of time, my eyes hurt. Which is why i disabled faceID, just using plain old passcode

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

You know, just wait till these people learn about the X-RAY exposure increase when taking a flight, maybe that will reduce the amount of flights taken and help climate change.

Seriously, science is becoming less and less understood as the gap between fact and fiction creates ambiguity, giving rise to pseudo-science conspiracy theory. In this case, there is no scientific study (Ambiguity), and so people are free to insert their own deluded 'opinions' (Fiction) without direct counter as there is no hard specific evidence against. It's a sad state of affairs, people shouldn't need a hard scientific study to understand these things, they should be taught how to understand the area as a whole and form a logical conclusion. Not just "Well I feel this therefore you cannot be right" - explanation, bias initiated placebo effect; "But more IR light cannot be good for you" - so if it's not good for you, it must be bad for you - there is also 'has no effect' category here.

Honestly there's no argument left here, people will believe what they want because they value personal opinion over evidence. And you cannot argue with a personal opinion as people treat this as a personal insult, people are too tied to their opinion to ever consider another point of view.

Sad sad world, stay in school kids!

 

[adamhenry]

UV is harmful to your eyes and everyone should mitigate it with quality sunglasses. How many people do?https://www.preventblindness.org/how-can-uv-rays-damage-your-eyes

 

[mpavilion]

You know, just wait till these people learn about the X-RAY exposure increase when taking a flight, maybe that will reduce the amount of flights taken and help climate change.

Seriously, science is becoming less and less understood as the gap between fact and fiction creates ambiguity, giving rise to pseudo-science conspiracy theory. In this case, there is no scientific study (Ambiguity), and so people are free to insert their own deluded 'opinions' (Fiction) without direct counter as there is no hard specific evidence against. It's a sad state of affairs, people shouldn't need a hard scientific study to understand these things, they should be taught how to understand the area as a whole and form a logical conclusion. Not just "Well I feel this therefore you cannot be right" - explanation, bias initiated placebo effect; "But more IR light cannot be good for you" - so if it's not good for you, it must be bad for you - there is also 'has no effect' category here.

Honestly there's no argument left here, people will believe what they want because they value personal opinion over evidence. And you cannot argue with a personal opinion as people treat this as a personal insult, people are too tied to their opinion to ever consider another point of view.

Sad sad world, stay in school kids!

I take the opposite view. General scientific knowledge among the general populace — especially when it comes to product safety — has likely increased from 50 years ago, when doctors appeared in cigarette ads and smoking was marketed not only as safe, but even healthful.

It’s true that there is a lot of speculation and misinformation online, and there is a new danger of being led astray by misinformation, or finding validation of something you may believe (or want to believe) that isn’t true.

But I don’t view it as a negative that people are less trusting of the idea that “It must be safe because it’s marketed as safe” — at least for something like this, as opposed to other things (that I won’t get into here) for which there are exhaustive studies supporting their safety, and which provide great societal benefit (as opposed to unlocking your phone slightly faster)

I’m honestly not entirely convinced that even cell phone radiation is 100% safe, though the studies seem generally encouraging and I’ve obviously decided to accept the risks and keep a phone pressed against my body most of the time.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

I take the opposite view. General scientific knowledge among the general populace — especially when it comes to product safety — has likely increased from 50 years ago, when doctors appeared in cigarette ads and smoking was marketed not only as safe, but even healthful.

A difference is that there is now a lot of speculation and misinformation online, and it’s easy for people to find validation for things they may believe (or want to believe) that aren’t true.

But I don’t view it as a negative that people are less trusting of the idea that “It must be safe because it’s marketed as safe.”

I think you're confusing marketing with science though. Cigarettes are a notorious example of marketing being more powerful than scientific evidence, at the time there was plenty of scientific support that smoking was harmful, they knew it was bad for you when they first discovered smoking in South America hundreds of years ago; it was an example of drowning out truth with glossy marketing campaigns, which at the time wasn't illegal - which is why this stuff is today. Cigarette companies still hire scientists to work for them, but from a business perspective. They need to know that people smoking their cigarettes won't drop dead immediately, as this is bad for business.

I'm not suggesting people trust marketing, they should form their own opinions. Just don't mix the two together as the same criteria. Apple are not saying it's safe to use in marketing, which should cause a suspicion if they did. IR use in this technology hasn't been magically invented, it has a long history going back to Newton's studies of light - and as I mentioned these applications are certified safe by medical bodies. If one doesn't trust these bodies then fine, nothing can be done to argue that, but I would suggest people to understand what the option is if you do not trust - do you trust the ranting man on the internet over thousands of people with hundreds of years of combined experience and education?

One method, opinion, study, or whatever may prove to be incorrect when followup analysis is conducted. This is what science is about, the understanding that there is no such thing as 100% correct, only probability - which is increased through repetition and strengthened through peer review. Opinion on the other hand, is a single point of view with no evidence other than a firm belief - I find this dangerous, whilst scepticism is perfectly healthy, people should have the ability to change their minds as they encounter more evidence - again strengthening an opinion.

I mean heck, if it wasn't for all these scientists, we wouldn't even be typing on this forum and sharing a debate would we. If everyone just rejected everything they didn't fully understand, we'd be sat in a cave burning witches (Exaggerated example...).

Anyway I'm out, far too many of these threads crop up around here and I just find it sad. I'm sure people can and will take offence at what I say, I just wish there wasn't so much ambiguity giving rise to conspiracy and nonsense. Although I will point out this kind of thought generally comes from only the one country, so there's still hope.

 

[mpavilion]

I think you're confusing marketing with science though. Cigarettes are a notorious example of marketing being more powerful than scientific evidence, at the time there was plenty of scientific support that smoking was harmful, they knew it was bad for you when they first discovered smoking in South America hundreds of years ago; it was an example of drowning out truth with glossy marketing campaigns, which at the time wasn't illegal - which is why this stuff is today. Cigarette companies still hire scientists to work for them, but from a business perspective. They need to know that people smoking their cigarettes won't drop dead immediately, as this is bad for business.

I'm not suggesting people trust marketing, they should form their own opinions. Just don't mix the two together as the same criteria. Apple are not saying it's safe to use in marketing, which should cause a suspicion if they did. IR use in this technology hasn't been magically invented, it has a long history going back to Newton's studies of light - and as I mentioned these applications are certified safe by medical bodies. If one doesn't trust these bodies then fine, nothing can be done to argue that, but I would suggest people to understand what the option is if you do not trust - do you trust the ranting man on the internet over thousands of people with hundreds of years of combined experience and education?

One method, opinion, study, or whatever may prove to be incorrect when followup analysis is conducted. This is what science is about, the understanding that there is no such thing as 100% correct, only probability - which is increased through repetition and strengthened through peer review. Opinion on the other hand, is a single point of view with no evidence other than a firm belief - I find this dangerous, whilst scepticism is perfectly healthy, people should have the ability to change their minds as they encounter more evidence - again strengthening an opinion.

I mean heck, if it wasn't for all these scientists, we wouldn't even be typing on this forum and sharing a debate would we. If everyone just rejected everything they didn't fully understand, we'd be sat in a cave burning witches (Exaggerated example...).

Anyway I'm out, far too many of these threads crop up around here and I just find it sad. I'm sure people can and will take offence at what I say, I just wish there wasn't so much ambiguity giving rise to conspiracy and nonsense. Although I will point out this kind of thought generally comes from only the one country, so there's still hope.

You lost me at the end — “only the one country”? That sounds outright prejudicial (and, from what I’ve seen, absolutely false).

 

[mpavilion]

One more relevant link, on Samsung’s iris scanning technology (which focuses the IR directly into the eye):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...-say-iris-scanner-causing-eye-discomfort.html

 

[Newtons Apple]

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]
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!

LOL! If you think it is harming you, do not use it. Simple as that!

You are also guessing! What ever you do do not read the ingredients to your food or you will not eat that either.

“10 years down the road” you will realize that you can drive yourself nuts trying to avoid everything you think might hurt you. Best of luck!

 

[StellarVixen]

Have you heard of that guy who went blind for aiming a TV remote into his eyes?

Yeah, that's right, it never happened. Same with Face ID.

 

[jagolden]

I’m just a regular guy...Apple should be the one providing evidence to support their claims. Ya know, they are the first trillion dollar company. There’s over 70 pages on MacRumors of people who are complaining about the X/XS/XS Max giving them headaches...is that just made up too?

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/eye-strain-while-using-iphone-x.2085427/

Also, I’m sure you think that AirPods aren’t bad for you either. Funny thing, Apple lists RF exposure for all products...except for the AirPods...which are Class 1 BlueTooth. Are you going to call me a liar until I do some more research?

https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/

You’re the one making the claims, therefore it is up to you to provide the evidence of what you "believe".

 

[ghsDUDE]

You’re the one making the claims, therefore it is up to you to provide the evidence of what you "believe".

I provided sources for you. There’s a 70+ page thread of people making claims that the phone hurts their eyes. Whether it’s from the poor PWM implementation of OLED or Face ID is undetermined.

Therefore, it’s not up to “me” to investigate...it’s up to Apple.

I’ll be sticking with my boring 8 Plus for as long as I have to until they look into it.

 

[-M4-]

Have you heard of that guy who went blind for aiming a TV remote into his eyes?

Yeah, that's right, it never happened. Same with Face ID.

Not blindness, but IR is associated with increased cataract risk.

That said, it clearly states in that article that it requires high-intensity exposure, which is not the case for FaceID. In fact, another study found that even steel workers dealing with IR utensils don’t have much increased risk.

I provided sources for you. There’s a 70+ page thread of people making claims that the phone hurts their eyes. Whether it’s from the poor PWM implementation of OLED or Face ID is undetermined.

Therefore, it’s not up to “me” to investigate...it’s up to Apple.

I’ll be sticking with my boring 8 Plus for as long as I have to until they look into it.

IR does not cause nerve damage nor strain, all it can do, in high-intensity exposures, is increase the risk of lens heat damage, leading to cataracts. This does not, however, cause pain.

People feeling stressed eyes, headaches and other related symptoms have them due to the PWM. It is known to cause those. Many devices using PWM have been reported to cause those symptoms, so it should be easy to search for this.

 

[Plett]

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.

Good point, and it is more interesting than that really. Looking at anything producing heat exposes your eyes to infrared light. The fact of the matter is that your eyes themselves produce infrared light. So we have a few million years of evolution behind us looking at infrared light and here we are.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I provided sources for you. There’s a 70+ page thread of people making claims that the phone hurts their eyes. Whether it’s from the poor PWM implementation of OLED or Face ID is undetermined.

Therefore, it’s not up to “me” to investigate...it’s up to Apple.

I’ll be sticking with my boring 8 Plus for as long as I have to until they look into it.

As someone who has come from an 8+ and reads books / news for HOURS on end.... really? The Xs Max is far more pleasant to read on ... and I've spent 5 HOURS non-stop reading on it. I find it a lot easier to read, especially at night.

 

[Ipadfever]

LOL! If you think it is harming you, do not use it. Simple as that!

You are also guessing! What ever you do do not read the ingredients to your food or you will not eat that either.

“10 years down the road” you will realize that you can drive yourself nuts trying to avoid everything you think might hurt you. Best of luck!

You missed the entire point , I was trying to say too much of ANYTHING is most likely not good!!!!!!!! Read carefully!

 

[mpavilion]

Have you heard of that guy who went blind for aiming a TV remote into his eyes?

Yeah, that's right, it never happened. Same with Face ID.

Weird analogy. Who aims a TV remote into his eyes for hours a day (or ever; except for a few incidental times over the years)?

I assume Face ID isn’t harmful; but if someone has concerns/questions about potential harm caused by direct, long-term IR exposure, you’re basically saying — “One cigarette per year won’t kill you, so neither will two packs a day!”

 

[Newtons Apple]

You missed the entire point , I was trying to say too much of ANYTHING is most likely not good!!!!!!!! Read carefully!

No you missed my point!

 

[MBHockey]

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?

I did not use that argument. I was more commenting on the fact that you've already said nothing will change your mind. You made a statement based on a hunch about something that you are not an expert on and are not willing to hear the scientific argument behind it. That's stupid.

 

[jagolden]

I provided sources for you. There’s a 70+ page thread of people making claims that the phone hurts their eyes. Whether it’s from the poor PWM implementation of OLED or Face ID is undetermined.

Therefore, it’s not up to “me” to investigate...it’s up to Apple.

I’ll be sticking with my boring 8 Plus for as long as I have to until they look into it.

People making “claims “ is not scientific proof of anything. Just sounds like more baseless complaints.

 

[neteng101]

If y'all believed in science you wouldn't dare step outside in the sunlight. There's probably a bazillion more things you wouldn't dare do too. Wine is good for you, no wine is bad for you, no wine is good for you. Egg is good, egg is bad... ugh... science is no more arbitrary than anything else in life. Just live life people, and do everything in moderation.

 

[HEK]

If y'all believed in science you wouldn't dare step outside in the sunlight. There's probably a bazillion more things you wouldn't dare do too. Wine is good for you, no wine is bad for you, no wine is good for you. Egg is good, egg is bad... ugh... science is no more arbitrary than anything else in life. Just live life people, and do everything in moderation.

What you describe is not the scientific method. Cherry picked statements taken from any single study made by news to make news is in no way science.

Science is a rigorous REPEATED series of studies/experiments examining the validity of a hypothesis. Reviewed critically for flaws by piers. Experiments with various approaches looking at the issue in question from various angles.

Once a repeatable consensus is shown one can begin to accept or reject the hypothesis in question. This process is NOT OPINION, not sound bites to sell a position or encourage likes or readership.

Real science require critical thinking critical analysis and most of all repeatable experimental result. A one sentence excerpt from a single study means next to nothing.

This is why you are seeing such a back and forth reporting. I never see correlation, statistical significance, details of methodology, pier analysis regarding any of these headline rants.

All a bunch of noise, many times to sell a point.

I can set up a study to supposedly prove just about anything. That is not science.

 

[neteng101]

Science is a rigorous REPEATED series of studies/experiments examining the validity of a hypothesis. Reviewed critically for flaws by piers. Experiments with various approaches looking at the issue in question from various angles.

Just because a series of experiments is exhaustive and peer reviewed still doesn't mean that science is proven fact. When you need to run a bazillion experiments it shows that you can't totally prove a point factually - so all science is merely hypothesis backed up with evidence to help prove the hypothesis, but that still doesn't make it 100% factual. 99.999% is still not good enough.

Science is flawed!

 

[akash.nu]

Just because a series of experiments is exhaustive and peer reviewed still doesn't mean that science is proven fact. When you need to run a bazillion experiments it shows that you can't totally prove a point factually - so all science is merely hypothesis backed up with evidence to help prove the hypothesis, but that still doesn't make it 100% factual. 99.999% is still not good enough.

Science is flawed!

I like this type of arguments. Should we all pack our bags and move to the Stone Age then? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[HEK]

Just because a series of experiments is exhaustive and peer reviewed still doesn't mean that science is proven fact. When you need to run a bazillion experiments it shows that you can't totally prove a point factually - so all science is merely hypothesis backed up with evidence to help prove the hypothesis, but that still doesn't make it 100% factual. 99.999% is still not good enough.

Science is flawed!

Science was good enough to get you that phone in your hand. Locate you correctly via gps and receive this messages wirelessly.

Not so flawed!