Oh well... It likely wasn't worth reading anyway!
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 . 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.
* distance for test no greater than 25mm
* MUST NEVER exceed radiation limit.
They tested below 25mm and found it broke the limit. They then put it into "lab testing mode" after advice from the manufacturer, but that's exactly the same problem as car emissions cheating. It's still over the limit if a sensor isn't tripped. But regulation doesn't say it can go over the limit in any situation.
I'm not basing Apple here (they were not the only ones breaking the rules)... Just pointing out that the phone manufacturers adjusted the testing definition, not the lab. Manufacturers decided they only need to follow the legal limits if the phone is close to your ear. This doesn't appear in the test definition.
I'm also not saying the regulation is bad, I'm not qualified to say what radiation limit is harmful. But if that's the issue, manufacturers should push too raise the limit... Not cheat on tests because they think the limit is to restrictive. The FCC is HUGELY pro-business right now.
On the cdc.gov resource you provided, I clicked on the link about "NIEHS research on possible health risks from cell phones". There I read this:
The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones resulted in:
- Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
- Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
- Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
I get that this study involved higher levels than what my cell phone should be exposing me to, "mice are not humans", etc., etc. But then here come some journalists saying my phone emits much higher radiation than I thought... are they really just evoking a bogeyman and nothing more? I'm not sure.
It takes a lot to win over my skepticism on a variety of topics -- particuarly when large corporations stand to gain or lose billions of dollars hinging on whether their product is GRAS or not -- and I suspect many others are the same.
I'd be very grateful for links to additional research on the topic of cell phones and non-ionizing radiation, if anyone has good ones to share.
Essential mechanisms of biological cells work via EMF, in addition to what is known so far.
My question: Could it be "jammed" by external EMF?
Comparing the power density in the microwave spectrum of phones to the sun is reasonable. Should there be recommendations that people stay indoors because of the adverse health risks associated from non-ionizing microwave radiation from the sun?
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.
- 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.
The FCC should be testing the major phones and a random sampling to ensure companies don't just lie on the paperwork.
What this has highlighted is that the testing that kept pushing the debate out further is sounding like a sham. It doesn't address that people carry their phone in their pockets, and many don't hold it the prescribed way when they use them. The manufacturers' tests would also be conducted in places with excellent coverage, not the worst case situation where you're only getting one bar.
Also if they ask you "what data do you have on me?" and "can you delete the data you have on me?", you respond and respect their request like a reasonable human being - it's their data after all.
It's... really just not a big deal for small-time projects. The whole total compliance thing is a CYA thing but in reality even if you did anything wrong, you'd be contacted about it first in order to resolve it. You could then deal with whatever issue came up (didn't tell users about X? start telling them.) and move on with your life. It's only if you ignored warnings and kept being shady that it'd escalate.
At some point, the cognitive, operational, and risk burden of serving the EU can easily exceed the value of doing so.
A website, by default, is available everywhere. That they go to great lengths to exclude certain people based on ip geolocation is extremely offensive.
Would be nice to see a new standard for testing this, intresting subject.
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.
It worked for me after a refresh (FF + uBlock Origin).
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.
My instant thought was legal has seen a problem. You don't go suggesting ways to minimise exposure if it's a non issue and as safe as we've always been told.
I guess step one to reduce legal liability is put the onus of safety onto the user so they share some of the responsibility, or so you can announce that there is a problem but we've been warning you for years.
When told to don't panic, it usually means you have a fair reason to.
I was always convinced headphones act as an antenna in most phones. Cany anyone confirm this?
Otherwise something like this is used:
(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.)
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.
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".
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.
And money, don't forget that lawyers always capitalize on anything for which they can drum up popular support. https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/22/apple-radiofrequency-ra...