That's a good point actually. CDMA devices tend to have higher SAR ratings than non-CDMA. Since all iPhone 6s support the CDMA bands, those are probably the ratings we see. Those of us who are on AT&T and T-mobile probably see lower SAR values IRL
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Radiation levels for IP6 off the charts
- Thread starter mackinmike
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a good point actually. CDMA devices tend to have higher SAR ratings than non-CDMA. Since all iPhone 6s support the CDMA bands, those are probably the ratings we see. Those of us who are on AT&T and T-mobile probably see lower SAR values IRL
I don't know about bend gate and 6+ iPhones bending but I'm sure my willy has bent since keeping my iPhone in my pocket. Should I take it to an Apple Store and have a genius look at it? I'm sure it's got a curve to it. Could it be the radiation? I could post pictures if it helps.
/jk
/jk
I have been thinking about this.
Your title is way wrong. A SAR rating of 1.59 is under the legal limit. That is the absolute definition of "ON THE CHART" Actually any SAR rating is on some chart.
At least say something like "Barely Misses Legal Limit"
But that wouldn't get as many thread views as a sensationalist, fear-mongering title like it is now...
So for those who are concerned, wouldn't it help to turn on airport mode when not expecting to need wi-fi or make/receive a call? That's also useful when you want to keep your alarm functioning, e.g. "Siri, wake me at 2 o'clock" or use phone as an iPod. I turn on airport at night with phone near me in bed (tmi). It's nice cause my phone won't buzz me awake for any reason other than the alarm and then the next day when I turn airport off I get all these little beeps and buzzes alerting me about this and that.
Yeah but that feature has turned out to be a nightmare for me cause if I activate that, I'll forget and then won't get people's calls and then they get mad at me. Reason being I can still use the phone myself so I don't realize/remember people can't reach me. Does that make sense? With airport mode, I can't make calls or check emails or anything so I'm forced to turn it back off. Maybe on the new phones there's some sort of thing that reminds you "do not disturb" is still on but I haven't tried it yet to see. Thanks though!
You can set a time for it to be on. Mine is set 10pm-7.30am
Also when you have it switched on you can see the do not disturb moon shape in the top of screen next to battery
DND is not something you activate or not regularly. Set a schedule in settings.
I never worry about such when going to bed.
I work in a Radiology dept, and everyone gets confused about radiation, the simple answer is that you get blasted in the sunlight by a hell of a lot more of ionizing radiation than you imagined, and as an aside, pilots and flight attendants get a huge dose (relatively speaking) because they spend so much of their time at altitude with much less of the planet's atmosphere to absorb radiation.
They've never been able to find an increase in cancer from their increased exposure (to ionizing radiation-the bad kind). One of the axioms in industries that deal with radiation is that there's no "safe" level of ionizing radiation, it's all bad.
Radiation generated by phones in non ionizing, it doesn't scramble the DNA in your cells, it just raises the temp a tiny tiny amount and that is negligible because of the dynamic nature of your brain's pre existing temperature controls (blood flow). I work with interventional neurologists, where we put catheters into people's brains and modify blood flow to aneurysms and tumors, etc, you'd be shocked at the sheer volume and rate at which your brain gets blood, it's actually pretty amazing.
Also, just an aside, who uses a phone for calls any more? My phone is rarely close to my head any more in the first place.
They've never been able to find an increase in cancer from their increased exposure (to ionizing radiation-the bad kind). One of the axioms in industries that deal with radiation is that there's no "safe" level of ionizing radiation, it's all bad.
Radiation generated by phones in non ionizing, it doesn't scramble the DNA in your cells, it just raises the temp a tiny tiny amount and that is negligible because of the dynamic nature of your brain's pre existing temperature controls (blood flow). I work with interventional neurologists, where we put catheters into people's brains and modify blood flow to aneurysms and tumors, etc, you'd be shocked at the sheer volume and rate at which your brain gets blood, it's actually pretty amazing.
Also, just an aside, who uses a phone for calls any more? My phone is rarely close to my head any more in the first place.
I don't see what Edison being a jerk has to do with that. You think that if Edison had been a nicer person, the x-ray might have been less dangerous?
Plenty of people died at the time due to radiations, including Marie Curie.
The point is that at the time, radiations were thought to be harmless - actually, they were thought to be beneficial, a lot of people would sleep with radium under their pillow for instance. Now, we know them to be harmful.
Likewise, asbestos was thought to be harmless throughout the 20th century - Canada still had active mines in 2009. Yet, now we know asbestos to be dangerous...
In the early 20th century, tobacco was thought to be a good drug - China still have pro-tobacco advertising not a long while ago.
And throughout the 20th, people in the USA have believe that hydrogenated oils where a good and healthy thing, since they were of vegetal origin...
It's not a discussion on Mr Edison personality or of the difference between the different kind of radiation. But it's a discussion about science being an ongoing progress and thus by nature limited in its understanding of the natural laws. The trust is that we don't really know where how harmful or not is continuous exposure to low intensity radiofrequency radiations for decades, because that level of constant exposure didn't exist ten years ago...
The radiation is real
I belong to a rare group who bothers about Specific Absorption Rating. A long time ago when cellphones could only text and call I had a old Nokia 8210 which was a great phone, that was my first phone. It was my precious so I always kept it in my front pants pocket however I was always experiencing this aching sore where the phone was. The soreness was similar to a sore muscle when you had over worked it and also a little warmness to it. Coincidentally the ache was exactly where the phone was, in that small area of my thigh. The ache would slowly alleviate when I removed the phone.
The iPhone 3G was my first of two iPhones and I did not bother about SAR when I bought it. I used it for almost a year with no complaints except for the battery so I got a 9700 which was known for exceptional battery life. However I was getting headaches on the right side of my temple after every single phone call which lasted a few minutes. I flipped through the enclosed booklets and what do you know, SAR value was sitting at 1.5X shy of the limit.
Previous iPhones did not carry such high SAR values in the past so it was never a concern for me but now that the 6 is as bad as my old Blackberry I may give this phone a miss. I currently use a Nexus 5 since launch and recently I have been using it heavily for a game app and coincidentally I have been experiencing the sore aches in my palms. I thought to myself that the antennas couldn't be at the bottom of my phone because usually it runs along the sides or top but what do you know, teardown suggests the antennas are at the bottom of the phone.
It may or may not cause cancer as some might suggest but it is real enough to cause me discomfort. This radiation is real and it can produce readings during SAR testing so that is enough for me to be careful about.
I belong to a rare group who bothers about Specific Absorption Rating. A long time ago when cellphones could only text and call I had a old Nokia 8210 which was a great phone, that was my first phone. It was my precious so I always kept it in my front pants pocket however I was always experiencing this aching sore where the phone was. The soreness was similar to a sore muscle when you had over worked it and also a little warmness to it. Coincidentally the ache was exactly where the phone was, in that small area of my thigh. The ache would slowly alleviate when I removed the phone.
The iPhone 3G was my first of two iPhones and I did not bother about SAR when I bought it. I used it for almost a year with no complaints except for the battery so I got a 9700 which was known for exceptional battery life. However I was getting headaches on the right side of my temple after every single phone call which lasted a few minutes. I flipped through the enclosed booklets and what do you know, SAR value was sitting at 1.5X shy of the limit.
Previous iPhones did not carry such high SAR values in the past so it was never a concern for me but now that the 6 is as bad as my old Blackberry I may give this phone a miss. I currently use a Nexus 5 since launch and recently I have been using it heavily for a game app and coincidentally I have been experiencing the sore aches in my palms. I thought to myself that the antennas couldn't be at the bottom of my phone because usually it runs along the sides or top but what do you know, teardown suggests the antennas are at the bottom of the phone.
It may or may not cause cancer as some might suggest but it is real enough to cause me discomfort. This radiation is real and it can produce readings during SAR testing so that is enough for me to be careful about.
Is anyone else concerned with iPhone 6/6+ radiation levels?
http://www.saferemr.com/2014/09/iphone-6-sar-radiation-levels-and.html?m=1
Radiationgate? In all seriousness, does anyone else find it a bit concerning that Apple is pushing the limits for SAR levels here?
http://www.saferemr.com/2014/09/iphone-6-sar-radiation-levels-and.html?m=1
Radiationgate? In all seriousness, does anyone else find it a bit concerning that Apple is pushing the limits for SAR levels here?
Most all phones have antenna at the bottom, this is very standard. Even in call mode, the iPhone likely uses the lower cellular antenna exclusively to maximize distance from the head.
All the way back to the original iPhone. Notice where the black window is for cellular antenna... the bottom. This is an industry norm.
Attachments
The recommended level is set, the 6 is under that level, no story here...
On the plus side Apple has pushed the phone to the limit and not left anything on the table
On the plus side Apple has pushed the phone to the limit and not left anything on the table
Tesla suggested it could be dangerous, but of course Edison (like the jerk he was) didn't want to listen to that. I though you knew that. And if you didn't notice, I said exactly the same thing about how radiation was viewed to be beneficial. The point is, NOW that we know the difference we must not confuse different kinds of radiation and compare x rays to iPhones. That's laughable. If that was true everybody would be dead already.
Actually, no, I didn't, thanks for the anecdote. Edison has star status in the US it seems but much less so in Europe. So, I knew more about Marie Curie death by radiation than about Edison kirks.
But, but there are still a lot of things we do not know now... Just like we didn't know things a few decades ago. Or, worse, how we knew things but tried to hide them (for tobacco or asbestos for instance).
Especially since it's so difficult to have reasonable studies about the effects of telephones, between the industry lobbying and funding researches, neo-luddites opposing them by principle... Besides, studying the effect of a low intensity event over decades is by nature difficult and long.
What I'm saying is that science only knows what it knows. Because we have no definitive proof that phones are harmless (and no proof that they are harmful either), it only means that we don't really know and that being on the side of caution is a good idea..
The definition of phone has changed for a lot of people. We used to call because there was no other alternative.. Now we use instant messaging, email, etc. A phone is no longer synonymous to calling someone up and talking.
Arguably instant messaging can be done on an iPod, but iPod only has WiFi connectivity meaning you would be unreachable outdoors. On top of that, whatsapp is only supported on iphone, which is the messenger I use most frequently, because it requires a phone number.
Iphone is also my only phone, I need a phone to be contacted for work, insurance, family who don't use smartphones etc
Not because someone doesn't use the phone app frequently means it is unnecessary to have one.
Or you could look at it another way- there have been numerous scientific tests done that indicate no harmful effects (statistically insignificant), and some anecdotal reports that there may be some effect. All data points to 'no harmful effect', but there is always a possibility that something unexpected may arise or something was unaccounted for.
That's not the same as "we don't really know". It's more like saying, "We studied this long and hard, and what we know indicates that the emitted frequencies have no ill effect on human beings". Now, you can take that knowledge and say, "But... maybe something escaped the research, so I'll choose to believe that their conclusions are wrong and act accordingly because cancer is really scary". And that's fine too, but let's not imply that it's all just a mystery as to whether or not the data points in a certain direction.
Nope. The limit is set such that anything below is considered within legal limits, and even that limit is set significantly lower than what has been agreed to be safe. Also note that the EU limit is higher (2.0W/kg average over 10g of actual tissue), which is unusual in that they tend to be more cautious and restrictive about these things.
Put another way: If the speed limit on a road is 55 MPH, and I clock you driving 54.9MPH, should I have the cops pull you over and give you a stern lecture about how you speed was "off the charts" and that you should really slow it down?
Last edited:
I see your point but we are talking about cancer risk here which is a bit more serious than getting a speeding ticket
It's not just the fact that they are below the legal limit, Apple does not seem to be factoring the lowering of SAR levels into the design of their phones...vs other OEMs that are. As a consumer, I just find that a bit unsettling.