[Merged] Why is Phone 8 still having high SAR levels?

[Falhófnir]

Regardless of whether it’s a serious health risk or not, that others can lower it without penalty when lower is surely better to be on the safe side is still a consideration, no? If you can have lower radiation, surely you should do it?

 

[BeefSupreme]

Regardless of whether it’s a serious health risk or not, that others can lower it without penalty when lower is surely better to be on the safe side is still a consideration, no? If you can have lower radiation, surely you should do it?

No. I want more gamma radiation.

 

[Juan007]

Also it's well known that high SAR levels cause crop circles. Is there any truth to the rumor that John Titor brought the iPhone X back with him from the year 2036?

 

[uwdude]

I guess my question would be why the SAR rating is so much higher than other phones. Aren't they using the same Qualcomm or Intel modems as other phones?

 

[Phillyphil0302]

I place SAR into the same category as global warming. It's unproven pseudo science with arbitrary limits imposed by "experts" who have little practical knowledge on the effect of it.

Even the government (United States) says that exposure does not result in, nor is it linked to, cancer.

Is that you, Donald?

 

[Kahsheh]

I have been using Apple hard-/software since 1987, am Apple shareholder and have used iPhone since 2009, but I simply don't understand why Apple is not doing ANY thing to really lower the SAR levels of their iPhones ... compared to SAR levels of Android competition it's really embarrassing and furthermore potentially dangerous for users!?!

https://www.iphonetricks.org/iphone...rison-with-predecessors-samsung-galaxy-s8-s8/

Dear Apple, please focus also on this subject in the (NEAR) future, thanks!

Cheers from Denmark,
Henrik

Yes. I want this lowered too.

 

[Vermifuge]

Anyone with half of their not caused by cell phone cancer riddled brain should realize and understand that the OP's post is ridiculous and filled with baseless concerns and claims.

Baseless concerns and claims that are easily refuted with anecdotal and overwhelming peer-reviewed medical evidence, which you can easily find in the link that I provided.

this.

still concerned? use headphones.

 

[rangemogger]

Hello ,
I hope that SAR levels are "ridiciculis" but afraid not , is the same problem with microwaves . I don´t know your knowledge about cancer , but you should know that is an acumulative risk as the sun radiation .
On the other hand the antenna is always on ,that means sendining radiation.

 

[terraphantm]

I place SAR into the same category as global warming. It's unproven pseudo science with arbitrary limits imposed by "experts" who have little practical knowledge on the effect of it.

Even the government (United States) says that exposure does not result in, nor is it linked to, cancer.

SAR has not been linked to cancer agreed, but climate change is not pseudoscience in any way.

Hello ,
I hope that SAR levels are "ridiciculis" but afraid not , is the same problem with microwaves . I don´t know your knowledge about cancer , but you should know that is an acumulative risk as the sun radiation .
On the other hand the antenna is always on ,that means sendining radiation.

Radiation is a very broad term. Microwaves are not the same thing as solar radiation (where UV is the main problem). UV radiation induces DNA base changes, which sometime go uncorrected or end up actually breaking when corrected.

 

[rangemogger]

I know what spectre is , but microwave , radiofrecuency and UV are part of the "electosmog" concept.The main problem , IMO , is the lack of long term reserch .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health
[doublepost=1506519583][/doublepost]I think all cellphone makers must improve the antenna insulation , but all are raising SAR levels , including Samsung.
https://www.rfsafe.com/samsung-cell-phones-rated-lowest-radiation-cell-phones/

 

[terraphantm]

I know what spectre is , but microwave , radiofrecuency and UV are part of the "electosmog" concept.The main problem , IMO , is the lack of long term reserch .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health
[doublepost=1506519583][/doublepost]I think all cellphone makers must improve the antenna insulation , but all are raising SAR levels , including Samsung.
https://www.rfsafe.com/samsung-cell-phones-rated-lowest-radiation-cell-phones/

There's been plenty of research. RF haven't been proven to be carcinogenic or otherwise harmful

 

[rangemogger]

All right , in the next 40 years will have the real answer . I would like you are right and I´m wrong.

 

[joonyaboy]

Disappointing

 

[Falhófnir]

Here’s a thought then, if it is a complete non issue then why are there SAR limits at all?

 

[blairian89]

Here’s a thought then, if it is a complete non issue then why are there SAR limits at all?

Because it's a pseudoscience.

 

[Knowimagination]

Send me your iPhone and I will remove the SARS and add it to my phone and then send your phone back with no more SARS

 

[Falhófnir]

Because it's a pseudoscience.

What, you think the US government whose single purpose is not to get in the way of profiteering no matter the cost to its people would have an unneccessary regulation? You only have to look at what they allow in food to realise that’s untrue...

 

[jcmoney10]

While the token answer right now is "No, cellphones and low SARs levels can't cause cancer", it isn't exactly a settled subject. I'm not saying cellphones do cause cancer, but over the last 10 years or so, more and more "studies"( I put studies in quotations because if you study anything long enough you can find what you want to find) have come out suggesting there might be a link. Most of the time, the link is a slight % increase among people who are heavy users for many years. Because more and more people are drifting towards texting, FaceTime, and other forms of communication other than calling we never see a concrete link between cellphones and cancer as the way we use them are ever changing.

With that being said, if there is a link, bluetooth usage might be what exposes it. With just about every major phone manufacture now doing away with the headphone jack, we are being forced to adopted bluetooth headphone technology. While the SAR is much lower in many cases, the length of time used is, by design, much longer. Headphones are meant to be used for long hours, therefore if there is some sort of cumulative response it will be bluetooth headphones that force it rather than cellphones.

 

[Falhófnir]

While the token answer right now is "No, cellphones and low SARs levels can't cause cancer", it isn't exactly a settled subject. I'm not saying cellphones do cause cancer, but over the last 10 years or so, more and more "studies"( I put studies in quotations because if you study anything long enough you can find what you want to find) have come out suggesting there might be a link. Most of the time, the link is a slight % increase among people who are heavy users for many years. Because more and more people are drifting towards texting, FaceTime, and other forms of communication other than calling we never see a concrete link between cellphones and cancer as the way we use them are ever changing.

With that being said, if there is a link, bluetooth usage might be what exposes it. With just about every major phone manufacture now doing away with the headphone jack, we are being forced to adopted bluetooth headphone technology. While the SAR is much lower in many cases, the length of time used is, by design, much longer. Headphones are meant to be used for long hours, therefore if there is some sort of cumulative response it will be bluetooth headphones that force it rather than cellphones.

There’s also the fact to consider that carrying a mobile phone in your pocket has been linked directly to low sperm quality in men...

 

[jcmoney10]

There’s also the fact to consider that carrying a mobile phone in your pocket has been linked directly to low sperm quality in men...

Not sure if that's good or bad....the world could use a little less breading 😛

 

[ghanwani]

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...diation-exposure.2169316/page-2#post-27103805

 

[AustinIllini]

All right , in the next 40 years will have the real answer . I would like you are right and I´m wrong.

Doesn't work that way. We have had this technology long enough a pattern would already have arisen.

 

[aue123]

supposedly 5G causes cancer... and nobody seems to care about that

 

[now i see it]

RF Safe is in the business of selling RF shields for phones. They can't be relied on as a source of accurate information whether RF radiation from a phone is harmful or not.

 

[zorinlynx]

Cellphones produce non-ionizing radiation. Only ionizing radiation is harmful.

That said I want my phone to put out as much signal as possible so the tower can receive it better! So I consider high SAR levels to be a feature.