11–20 of 171 posts
This speaks to a method that can be used to game the system. What prevents manufacturers from providing phones that are somehow different from the off the shelf versions? I'm not suggesting that's happening here. Just that the testing process is easily hacked.
I suspect this has something to do with the inferior intel modem that was used during the Qualcomm debacle. One of the main advantages of the next iPhone will be returning to a Qualcomm modem that isn't rubbish.
Testing phones from 5 millimeters away from the body may seem close, but for anyone carrying their phone in a pocket, the distance is closer to 2 millimeters. Because wireless power falls off exponentially with distance, what might be a safe amount of RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2 millimeters. They mean to say that you should expect a power about 6 times higher, (5^2 / 2^2). This is rubbish.…
Testing phones from 5 millimeters away from the body may seem close, but for anyone carrying their phone in a pocket, the distance is closer to 2 millimeters. Because wireless power falls off exponentially with distance, what might be a safe amount of RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2 millimeters. They mean to say that you should expect a power about 6 times higher, (5^2 / 2^2). This is rubbish.…
> The SAR limit is primarily concerned with a phone’s thermal effects—essentially, the power is limited to 1.6 W/kg to ensure that no one is burned by using their phone. I should be worried about the heat generated from my phone? I thought maybe there was some issue with RF and my cells, but this seems like a complete nonissue to me. Am I being foolish for writing this off? The only time my phone is going to burn me…
They both carry energy that is turned into heat when absorbed by your body.
https://cdn.instructables.com/FF5/5DDL/GLL4ZIC0/FF55DDLGLL4Z...
This is in contrast with ionizing radiation, which causes chemical changes to the materials of your body when it hits you. That kind of radiation is above the visible spectrum when made of photons, or made of different atomic particles
Testing phones from 5 millimeters away from the body may seem close, but for anyone carrying their phone in a pocket, the distance is closer to 2 millimeters. Because wireless power falls off exponentially with distance, what might be a safe amount of RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2 millimeters. They mean to say that you should expect a power about 6 times higher, (5^2 / 2^2). This is rubbish.…
The somewhat related study mentioned in the article was much more interesting in terms of "phones in pockets".
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjem/248/3/248_169/_art...
Testing phones from 5 millimeters away from the body may seem close, but for anyone carrying their phone in a pocket, the distance is closer to 2 millimeters. Because wireless power falls off exponentially with distance, what might be a safe amount of RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2 millimeters. They mean to say that you should expect a power about 6 times higher, (5^2 / 2^2). This is rubbish.…
I wonder if we shall take exposure density into consideration? If RF is emitted in all directions, the closer the phone to the body, the same amount of RF will be received by a smaller area of skin?
The most basic example from electrostatics: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesht.h...
> That said, while the Tribune and Penumbra both used off-the-shelf phones, the FCC largely tested phones supplied by the manufacturers, including Apple. This speaks to a method that can be used to game the system. What prevents manufacturers from providing phones that are somehow different from the off the shelf versions? I'm not suggesting that's happening here. Just that the testing process is easily hacked.
There is nothing stopping the FCC from confirming their test results with retail units. Plus, the risk from cheating is enormous. It’s a lot easier in the long run to just design properly working phones.
Testing phones from 5 millimeters away from the body may seem close, but for anyone carrying their phone in a pocket, the distance is closer to 2 millimeters. Because wireless power falls off exponentially with distance, what might be a safe amount of RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2 millimeters. They mean to say that you should expect a power about 6 times higher, (5^2 / 2^2). This is rubbish.…
So it is doubly incorrect... They are completely misusing the word exponential to mean quadratic which is already incredibly annoying, but it is not even quadratic, it is constant.
> The SAR limit is primarily concerned with a phone’s thermal effects—essentially, the power is limited to 1.6 W/kg to ensure that no one is burned by using their phone. I should be worried about the heat generated from my phone? I thought maybe there was some issue with RF and my cells, but this seems like a complete nonissue to me. Am I being foolish for writing this off? The only time my phone is going to burn me…
Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy (or that the thermal effects are in some way significant). The actual scientific evidence for this is minimal though.
Essentially EM fields alternating in the low to medium frequency bands (~100khz-1mhz) can disrupt cell processes by physically jiggling the polar molecules that make up portions of miotic spindles/microtubules. Among presumably other things this effect is being investigated as a cancer fighting mechanism called 'tumor treating fields'.
The carrier frequency of mobile phones is obviously far beyond the range in question, but there could be signal modulation components that alternate RF power levels in this frequency range.
