Sidebar Sidebar
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

cababah said:
I see your point but we are talking about cancer risk here which is a bit more serious than getting a speeding ticket :cool:
Click to expand...

Speed related traffic deaths are unimportant? Yeah, okay. :rolleyes:

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.
Click to expand...

Then as a consumer, you should either better inform yourself about the danger of non-ionizing radiation (hint, no conclusive clinical data as yet that it's a problem), or if you prefer not to further inform yourself, vote with your dollars and buy something else. Then you can be less "unsettled."
 
scaredpoet said:
Speed related traffic deaths are unimportant? Yeah, okay. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Try reading again before rolling your eyes as we were talking about "speeding tickets"

scaredpoet said:
Then as a consumer, you should either better inform yourself about the danger of non-ionizing radiation (hint, no conclusive clinical data as yet that it's a problem), or if you prefer not to further inform yourself, vote with your dollars and buy something else. Then you can be less "unsettled."
Click to expand...

This is a terrible rebuttal. As you said, there isn't conclusive evidence that is universally accepted in regard to the SAR levels emitted from cell phones and cancer risk. We can each do our own research and then execute the proper judgement on how we as consumers want to handle the situation. Personally, I can't see elevated SAR levels as anything other than a bad thing.

I like the iPhone and it is perfectly acceptable for me to feel "unsettled" as a consumer with some of their design choices. Does every iPhone customer have to sell their phone and get an Android instead if they voice any criticism towards Apple?
 
cababah said:
Try reading again before rolling your eyes as we were talking about "speeding tickets"



This is a terrible rebuttal. As you said, there isn't conclusive evidence that is universally accepted in regard to the SAR levels emitted from cell phones and cancer risk. We can each do our own research and then execute the proper judgement on how we as consumers want to handle the situation. Personally, I can't see elevated SAR levels as anything other than a bad thing.

I like the iPhone and it is perfectly acceptable for me to feel "unsettled" as a consumer with some of their design choices. Does every iPhone customer have to sell their phone and get an Android instead if they voice any criticism towards Apple?
Click to expand...

What will be the symptoms day to day?

You used the word "bad."

Please describe what will perceivably happen to our bodies....
 
Bobby Corwen said:
What will be the symptoms day to day?

You used the word "bad."

Please describe what will perceivably happen to our bodies....
Click to expand...

Would you have preferred the word "harmful?" I'm not a scientist so I can't answer that question in detail. Do you think elevated SAR levels over an extended period of time are a good thing? I hope not...

Again, I'm not a radiation expert but I believe that it's negative effects are compounded over time. It's not something that you experience every day like say you are talking on your phone for 8 hours straight and start to get a headache "oh, must be the radiation"
 
cababah said:
Would you have preferred the word "harmful?" I'm not a scientist so I can't answer that question in detail. Do you think elevated SAR levels over an extended period of time are a good thing? I hope not...

Again, I'm not a radiation expert but I believe that it's negative effects are compounded over time. It's not something that you experience every day like say you are talking on your phone for 8 hours straight and start to get a headache "oh, must be the radiation"
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "good thing?"

You mean like is it healthy for you?
 
cababah said:
Yup. I mix two scoops of it in water every morning before my jog.
Click to expand...

No Im saying like, do you expect radio waves to make you healthier?

Because there is no evidence that they are un-healthy.

So by the way you put it, you made it seem like if you ask me if I think its "good" for you, and I said no, it would mean you are right about something?

Because surely its proven to not be "bad" for you.

Its like peeing in the ocean. It doesn't affect your cells on any significant level.

Human beings are highly evolved creatures and we can survive and withstand many things.

You should be worried about working out and eating correct amounts of macro nutrients on a daily basis if you want to make yourself healthier. You should not expect radio frequencies in your phone to be a source of improved health.

All we need them to be is "non-harmful." And they are.
 
Bobby Corwen said:
No Im saying like, do you expect radio waves to make you healthier?

Because there is no evidence that they are un-healthy.

So by the way you put it, you made it seem like if you ask me if I think its "good" for you, and I said no, it would mean you are right about something?

Because surely its proven to not be "bad" for you.

Its like peeing in the ocean. It doesn't affect your cells on any significant level.

Human beings are highly evolved creatures and we can survive and withstand many things.

You should be worried about working out and eating correct amounts of macro nutrients on a daily basis if you want to make yourself healthier. You should not expect radio frequencies in your phone to be a source of improved health.

All we need them to be is "non-harmful." And they are.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this conclusion or are you making it up? There are hundreds of animal studies and major human studies showing biological defects:

"...hundreds of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable any chemical toxins in the blood system to penetrate the brain. (9)

Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10) Largely based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation possibly carcinogenic in humans (Group 2B). (11)
Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive health damage and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder). (12, 13)"

http://www.saferemr.com/2014/09/iphone-6-sar-radiation-levels-and.html
 
trifid said:
Do you have a source for this conclusion or are you making it up? There are hundreds of animal studies and major human studies showing biological defects:

"...hundreds of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable any chemical toxins in the blood system to penetrate the brain. (9)

Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10) Largely based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation possibly carcinogenic in humans (Group 2B). (11)
Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive health damage and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder). (12, 13)"

http://www.saferemr.com/2014/09/iphone-6-sar-radiation-levels-and.html
Click to expand...

lol quoted from same article you linked:

"U.S. Federal policies and practices lead the public to believe that all legally-marketed cell phones are safe, and that a cell phone's SAR doesn't matter as long as it meets the legal limit: 1.6 watts per kilogram. (3, 4)"

Also Ive been using cell phones for over a decade and I feel fine. No headaches. In fact Im in the best shape of my life because I eat healthy and lift heavy weights!
 
trifid said:
Do you have a source for this conclusion or are you making it up? There are hundreds of animal studies and major human studies showing biological defects:

"...hundreds of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable any chemical toxins in the blood system to penetrate the brain. (9)

Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10) Largely based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation possibly carcinogenic in humans (Group 2B). (11)
Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive health damage and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder). (12, 13)"

http://www.saferemr.com/2014/09/iphone-6-sar-radiation-levels-and.html
Click to expand...

The problem is that you've done what people generally do in a pseudo-scientific debate (and way too often in the real thing too), which is to pick a biased source and then use its carefully selected references to prove the point.

If you look at that site you'll see that it's run by a PhD who wouldn't mind selling you a DVD of the documentary he produced on the issue. Not that there's anything wrong with a professor making money in this way, but it definitely should alert you to a potential bias.

I'm not taking a side on this one, and there's no scientific consensus that I'm aware of on RF EMR dangers. In other words it certainly could be a concern, but it also may not (and if it is there are worse offenders than cell phones in the modern world).
 
Atomic Walrus said:
The problem is that you've done what people generally do in a pseudo-scientific debate (and way too often in the real thing too), which is to pick a biased source and then use its carefully selected references to prove the point.

If you look at that site you'll see that it's run by a PhD who wouldn't mind selling you a DVD of the documentary he produced on the issue. Not that there's anything wrong with a professor making money in this way, but it definitely should alert you to a potential bias.

I'm not taking a side on this one, and there's no scientific consensus that I'm aware of on RF EMR dangers. In other words it certainly could be a concern, but it also may not (and if it is there are worse offenders than cell phones in the modern world).
Click to expand...

Fair point about the source, but lets consider what's going on here. We have some people trying to ridicule and say there is absolutely no harm in the radiation, that the entire thing is being blown out of proportion, and that everything is fine. And they post no source to back their claim.

The reason I posted that article and quote is to prove that we should be cautious and not dismissive. If you think it's biased, lets find another source. But the bottom line is I found enough references to be factual and raise my interest in the issue and that there is definitely something wrong and something to be cautious about.

This line alone I think we can all agree is troubling and should warrant more investigation:

"The FCC assumes that consumers will carry their cell phones in a manufacturer-approved holder that keeps the phone a minimum distance from the body. However, people do not reliably keep their phone away from their body in a cell phone holder. "

To ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the legal limit, consumers should never keep their cell phone in their pockets or next to their skin.
 
pish6969 said:
I am the voice of reason/common sense on these forums. She said she talks at most 2 times a month..for that, you don't need a phone.

Why you rolling your eyes at me? You think it's normal to buy a phone, pay for not only the phone but a calling plan that you don't use?

snap to reality..if not using as a phone, don't buy a phone. Of course people ulitmaltely will do what they want..sometimes they just need the voice of reason
Click to expand...

Nobody talks on their phone anymore. Welcome to the 21st century. People still want mobile data and text messaging and the ability to use their phone when they need to. It actually makes perfect sense.
 
Just saw this anti-radiation case on kickstarter and reminded me of this thread:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/613491700/safesleeve-anti-radiation-wallet-case-for-smartpho

f13ef8bc833d83dbc003e73703328438_large.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back