FCC Says iPhone Didn't Exceed Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Levels

[MacRumors]

iPhones from Apple and smartphones from Samsung did not violate FCC rules on maximum radiofrequency exposure levels, the FCC said today (via Bloomberg).

Back in August, an investigation launched by The Chicago Tribune suggested that some of Apple's iPhones were emitting radiofrequency radiation that exceeded federal safety limits.

The FCC's testing results for iPhone and other smartphones​

The newspaper hired an accredited lab to test several smartphones, including Apple's iPhones, according to federal guidelines and found that some of Apple's iPhones violated federal guidelines.

Apple at the time disputed the results and said that the testing was inaccurate "due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models."

"All iPhone models, including iPhone 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where iPhone is sold," the statement said. "After careful review and subsequent validation of all iPhone models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable ... exposure guidelines and limits."

In response to the investigation, the FCC promised to do its own testing of smartphones from Apple and Samsung, and the FCC's testing disagrees with the findings from The Chicago Tribune.

The FCC tested the iPhone 7, the iPhone X, and the iPhone XS using models that were purchased from the open market and those provided by Apple. No FCC test showed the results that The Chicago Tribune got from its independent testing.

All sample cell phones tested by the FCC Laboratory, both grantee-provided and FCC- purchased samples, produced maximum 1-g average SAR values less than the 1.6 W/kg limit specified in the FCC rules. Therefore, all tested sample devices comply with the FCC RF radiation exposure general population/uncontrolled limits for peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue as specified in 47 CFR Sn. 2.1093(d)(2), and these tests did not produce evidence of violations of any FCC rules regarding maximum RF exposure levels.

Full results from the testing can be seen in the document released today by the FCC. [PDF]

After The Chicago Tribune's report went live, law firm Fegan Scott launched its own investigation and last week said that its laboratory also found that iPhones exceeded the federal safety limits for radiofrequency radiation.

Fegan Scott filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming to use "actual use conditions" in its test, rather than "conditions set by manufacturers." The FCC modeled its testing after the testing done by The Chicago Tribune, evaluating the iPhone by using a fluid-filled head and body replica and testing RF absorption at the highest possible smartphone power levels.

The law firm did not provide details on its testing methods and it is not clear if the case will progress now that the FCC's research and testing has worked out in Apple's favor.

Article Link: FCC Says iPhone Didn't Exceed Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Levels

 

[Velin]

Litigation = over.

 

[D.T.]

My testicles say otherwise ...

 

[Baymowe335]

Of course they don’t. Ridiculous premise.

 

[rosegoldoli]

apple wins

 

[ChrisNH]

Noozepaper people are just garbagemen with slightly better clothes. They had a biased 'conclusion' that they needed someone to help them 'prove.' 'Bob's Pretty Good Testing Laboratory' gave them what they needed, and off they went.

 

[Orlandoech]

Hahahaha, who trusts the paid FCC? HAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

 

[Dragonmount]

This whole conspiracy reads like a plant from foreign forces to limit western influence in future technologies.

 

[haunebu]

Crappy Intel modem in the iPhone XS emitting way too much.

 

[realtuner]

Crappy Intel modem in the iPhone XS emitting way too much.

Except it’s not.

Who wants to bet those idiotic lawyers don’t drop their lawsuit and will claim the FCC numbers are wrong?

 

[twocents]

Main counterargument is it's in Apple's best interest to keep their customers healthy and living longer to buy more products. Pumping out hundreds of millions of radiation emitting devices would undercut that

 

[coumerelli]

"These aren't the results you are looking for"

 

[now i see it]

perhaps the iPhones pass a specific test, but obviously they DO emit harmful radiation when kept close to the body. The iPhone hasn't been vindicated. It's still hazardous to hold it close regardless of what the FCC tests shows.

Source:

Apple warns customers to never use or carry an iPhone in your pocket - Consumers For Safe Phones

…..or you may be exposed to radiation that exceeds the federal safety limit Apple has issued a safety warning in every iPhone user manual – but, they deceptively printed it in tiny print and located it in a section where no one will see it. Yep, it’s in yours! Go take a look in …

www.consumers4safephones.com

 

[GreenPixel]

perhaps the iPhones pass a specific test, but obviously they DO emit harmful radiation when kept close to the body. The iPhone hasn't been vindicated. It's still hazardous to hold it close regardless of what the FCC tests shows

Obviously? On what basis do you think this is so obvious? I have seen zero evidence to support any claim that iPhones emit ionizing radiation. (Because they don’t.)

 

[840quadra]

Better luck filing a complaint and lawsuit over the mass and heft of the new Max models. TSA may even consider them a weapon. ?

kidding if it isn’t obvious

 

[Vjosullivan]

Main counterargument is it's in Apple's best interest to keep their customers healthy and living longer to buy more products. Pumping out hundreds of millions of radiation emitting devices would undercut that

That argument never seemed to both cigarette manufacturers.
[automerge]1576792332[/automerge]

... It's still hazardous to hold it close regardless of what the FCC tests shows ...

Evidence for this claim?

 

[lazyrighteye]

perhaps the iPhones pass a specific test, but obviously they DO emit harmful radiation when kept close to the body. The iPhone hasn't been vindicated. It's still hazardous to hold it close regardless of what the FCC tests shows

The only thing that is obvious here is the paper's desperation.

 

[Vjosullivan]

This whole conspiracy reads like a plant from foreign forces to limit western influence in future technologies.

No. It really doesn't. It reads like a newspaper decided (quite legitimately) to do its own investigations into mobile phone radio frequency emissions and compare their results with the FCC. They found that some phones appear to exceed those levels. Perhaps not surprising since lab testing is not as exact science as the public want to believe and a lot of statistical analysis (the most fragile form of maths) is involved.

Naturally, the manufacturers who lost out objected to the results because they already had FCC approval.

The FCC re-examines their figures and/or re-performs the tests and finds that their results are consistent and that mobile phone emissions are within limits.

So, it turns out that democracy is alive and working. Everybody is doing their job correctly and mobile phones are currently meeting their current legal requirements.

No need for stupid conspiracy theories and invisible "foreign forces".

 

[konqerror]

I have seen zero evidence to support any claim that iPhones emit ionizing radiation. (Because they don’t.)

To nitpick, non-ionizing radiation can be just as hazardous. Stick your head in a microwave oven. For ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, it's all down to the scientifically accepted safety limits.

Everybody is doing their job correctly and mobile phones are currently meeting their current legal requirements.

Not at all. The original test lab and professional engineers that produced the paper's results should face sanctions and possibly a loss of their accreditation and license. They did a faulty measurement and signed off on it. If they report something as way too high, by a factor of 2-3, how do we know that they aren't going report something too low by the same factor?

Basic professional ethics: incorrect results and conclusions weaken the public's confidence in science and engineering. Just look at vaccines.

Perhaps not surprising since lab testing is not as exact science as the public want to believe and a lot of statistical analysis (the most fragile form of maths) is involved.

There isn't much statistical analysis involved, just characterization of uncertainty. If the uncertainty was such that a wrong conclusion was probable, then the measurements should be repeated, or a different method devised, until an incorrect conclusion was improbable. At the very least, the conclusion should be "we don't know" not "the iPhone is unsafe".

Use of statistical techniques does not justify error. Quite the opposite, statistics gives you the tools so that instead of stating a firm conclusion, you can state what the chances of an erroneous conclusion are.

 

[Baymowe335]

Crappy Intel modem in the iPhone XS emitting way too much.

Post some evidence or don't post this nonsense.

 

[coolfactor]

Despite being "safe", long-term exposure of any form of radiation must have an effect, and likely affects different people in different ways. I'm not saying that using a mobile phone is risky, but to say that risk is "zero" for everyone in every circumstance is a copout. Those that sleep for 8 hours with their phone next to their heads are putting themselves at a potential risk. Nobody can dispute that. Radiation is radiation.

 

[RogueWarrior65]

Another ambulance-chaser bites the dust.

 

[nt5672]

Not sure who to believe here, the corrupt government (maybe "bought government" is a better term), or the corrupt scare mongering media?

 

[ElectricPotato]

Hahahaha, who trusts the paid FCC? HAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I'm sure they are as effective as the FAA.

 

[Vjosullivan]

The original test lab and professional engineers that produced the paper's results should face sanctions and possibly a loss of their accreditation and license. They did a faulty measurement and signed off on it.

If you have evidence that their measurements were faulty then you should publish it. Otherwise, you claim is indistinguishable form fan-boy talk.

Basic professional ethics: incorrect results and conclusions weaken the public's confidence in science and engineering. Just look at vaccines.

The vaccine fiasco was demonstrated to be faulty science and dodgy inferences. This has not been demonstrated for the phone radiation tests where the only disagreement is in the levels of emissions measured. Only evidence counts; either you have some or you don't.

There isn't much statistical analysis involved, just characterization of uncertainty.

That would be statistics then. All statistical analysis is prone to errors and interpretation and the difficulty of differentiating one from the other. Tim Harford's BBC podcast series "More or Less" is an excellent insight into the whole subject.

If the uncertainty was such that a wrong conclusion was probable, then the measurements should be repeated, or a different method devised, until an incorrect conclusion was improbable.

Agreed, except that if the lab tests were based on the FCC tests and the results were different then the FCCs results and conclusion have also been thrown into doubt and are equally suspect. Hence the legitimate need for the FCC to revisit their own tests.