
We tested popular cellphones for RF radiation. Now the FCC is investigating - bookofjoe
https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cell-phone-radiation-testing-20190821-72qgu4nzlfda5kyuhteiieh4da-story.html
======
kiallmacinnes
> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
> countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options
> that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We
> continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all
> readers with our award-winning journalism.

Oh well... It likely wasn't worth reading anyway!

------
willis936
Ah, the ever present fear of non-ionizing radiation.

What appears to have happened is the Chicago Tribune decided to not follow the
test definition in order to make the testing more accurate, but not adjust the
limit accordingly. They don’t have the authority to change the test procedure
or the limit so it doesn’t matter. By inverse square law the limit can be
extrapolated to more realistic distances. However the FCC cellphone exposure
limit is laughably low compared to when non-ionizing radiation has been shown
to cause health effects [1]. Is it reasonable to make legislation around an
extrapolation of a fear that is not based on any scientific model?

It’s always nice to see reporters go the extra mile to stoke public fears of
the boogeyman.

1\.
[https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emf/#rffields](https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emf/#rffields)

~~~
DrAwdeOccarim
Exactly what I was thinking when I read the headline. Do you know of any other
real-world items the average person interacts with that releases more RF
energy? Like a toaster or power inverter in a car?

~~~
Simon_says
The Sun. But that's not a great example because it also emits other, actually
harmful, radiation.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
Yeah, non-ionizing radiation from the Sun is harmful, e.g. when you looking at
the sun via naked eyes, or forgetting to use sunscreen. But those are not
normally considered as RF.

------
dwd
And the phone-makers defense was that the phones were not tested the same way
they test in their lab in order to produce a result that meets the standard.

This smacks of the same real-world failure that brought down Volkswagen. If
you don't hold the phone in just the right way to activate the proximity
sensor it exceeds the safe limit.

~~~
yoz-y
From the articles about article (since the original is not available in EU):

\- FCC requires the test to be done at a distance no larger than 25mm \- Apple
tests their devices at 5mm \- Chicago Tribune did the tests at 5 and 2mm, the
5mm test is marginally different from what manufacturers report.

What I find weird is that the test is not completely standardized and that it
is allowed for manufacturers to self report? When we needed to have some
Ingress Protection markings we had to go through a certified body.

~~~
pwinnski
Not allowing manufacturers to self-report means staffing up _dramatically_ ,
and there is no will from anyone to balloon the number of government employees
for things like this.

------
salzig
OT: Unavailable in Europe. Why? Cause they can’t life without data hoarding.
The internet is more and more getting a strange place.

~~~
uptown
This post really drives that point home:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20776191](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20776191)

~~~
fastball
yeah, but it's on the NYT... who also use a lot of tracking.

~~~
uptown
Yup. The article mentions that and also that news sites are among the worst
offenders.

------
hauk66
>Companies testing a new phone for compliance with the safety limit also are
permitted to position the phone up to 25 millimeters away from the body —
nearly an inch — depending on how the device is used. That’s because the
testing standards were adopted in the 1990s, when people frequently carried
cellphones on belt clips.

Would be nice to see a new standard for testing this, intresting subject.

------
misterdata

      Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
    

Could someone summarize for us Europeans?

~~~
AnotherRainyDay
Article via outline - [https://outline.com/9qR95f](https://outline.com/9qR95f)

~~~
enriquto
This outline thing does not work either (at least in firefox with or without
an ad blocker).

~~~
pygy_
Try reloading the page.

It worked for me after a refresh (FF + uBlock Origin).

------
cesarb
> To reduce exposure, Apple suggests using “a hands-free option, such as the
> built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar
> accessories.”

Wouldn't a hands-free option _increase_ the exposure, since it means the phone
doesn't even have to be taken out of the pocket?

> Almost all smartphones, he said, have power sensors — also known as
> proximity sensors — designed to detect when the device is touching or
> extremely close to a person. When that occurs, the phone is supposed to
> reduce power, decreasing radiofrequency radiation.

That's the first I heard of that. I thought the proximity sensor was only to
power off and lock the screen when the phone is held to the ear, to prevent
the ear touching the screen from pressing on-screen buttons - which is why, on
all phones I've seen, the proximity sensor is right next to the speaker.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
> To reduce exposure, Apple suggests using “a hands-free option, such as ...
> headphones

I was always convinced headphones act as an antenna in most phones. Cany
anyone confirm this?

~~~
cesarb
The headphone cable is used as a receive-only antenna for longer-wavelength
signals like digital TV and FM radio. Using it is required for these features,
and won't increase the exposure since it's receive-only.

------
loxs
So does this pose any actual problem for me as a user?

~~~
jrockway
If you hold your phone 2mm away from your eyeball while using it, it could
absorb 8W of heat per kilogram of eyeball mass. Since an eyeball weighs about
8g, it might absorb up to 64mW of power. By comparison, a microwave oven
injects about 1000W, or 15,000 times more power into whatever is inside it.

(I am using the worst-case figures from the article, and they mentioned your
eye as a specific area that you should be concerned about, as it can't
dissipate heat as easily as other parts of your body.)

~~~
willis936
Importantly, the only model that shows health effects from non-ionizing
radiation is from heating. When we start hearing reports of users being burned
by their battery operated devices, then we should sit up in our seats. Until
then, it’s fear-mongering for clicks.

~~~
dwd
Actually it's not, there are biological effects seen in rats which while not
fully understood, have been replicated across more than one trial.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-
link-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-
phone-radiation-with-cancer/)

Sure rats aren't humans but that doesn't mean we're not going to be seeing the
same damage occurring at a cellular level. We may just have mechanisms that
prevent that damage becoming cancerous.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Try
[https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682...](https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-9-26)

My conclusion from that is if cells communicate via EMF internally and
externally, then this can be jammed by the right artificial EMF from the
outside. Question is if contemporary cell phones, Wifi, etc. have "the right
stuff".

TBD

~~~
dwd
Very interesting line of study.

There was a case of a cancer cluster among female staff at the Australian
Broadcasting Commission's Toowong Building that went largely unexplained.
While everyone speculated it had something to do with the radio tower there,
nothing conclusive was determined.

[https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cancer-
clusters-20130309-2f...](https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cancer-
clusters-20130309-2frwd.html)

------
kuu
Why the title does not mention Apple and iPhone 7 if this was the tested
model??

~~~
na85
If you read through to the next few paragraphs you can see they tested several
android devices also.

