Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 171 posts

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#101

Post by lima »

avian wrote: post #89
lima wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a given if said USB charger is cheaply produced in China.

Yes, you can debate how much imported (or for that matter, domestically produced) stuff is actually tested, but the fact remains that existing laws and regulations do cover this, even if enforcement is maybe lacking.

I'm an ham radio operator, and shortwave spectrum pollution is sadly a big problem despite very strict regulations.

The unfortunate reality is that the market is flooded with noisy devices, often cheaply produces overseas, that vastly exceed legal limits (chargers and other rectifiers, plasma televisions, powerline adapters, and much more).

Enforcement is difficult due to how widespread these devices are.

In many places, the noise floor is to high that long-range shortwave radio communications all but impossible.

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#102

Post by microtherion »

meekstro wrote: post #63
bananabreakfast wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electrosensitivity is not a thing. It's a disorder made up by hypochondriacs. If you said 3 percent of the population are hypochondriacs then I would believe you.

Electrosensitivity is denied by intelligent healthy people who have never dealt with unexplainable fatigue relying on statistics and body system diagnosis that is inadequate for explaining chronic complex health conditions. They're all just whinging man. Not one of them ever hoped it was all in their head and they could think their way out of it. Hacker News is a perfect subset of people lacking the perspective to co…

I'm very much in favor of researching electrosensitivity. Whatever the cause, it's undeniable that certain illness patterns are becoming increasingly prevalent.

But I'm not really seeing research from electrosensitivity proponents, and especially not double blind studies. Instead, I'm seeing requests for fairly massive accommodations (along the lines of eliminating all Wifi and Cell phone radiation within a certain radius of a person), backed by not a whole lot of scientific evidence (unless one counts "Rudolf Steiner would have said so" as scientific evidence).

And I'm not even seeing many reports of such accommodations working to the long term benefit of the sufferers. Instead, once the Wifi is gone, they seem to develop MCS, etc. To me, that would support the prior that the suffering (which itself is undoubtedly real) is likely to have endogenous rather than environmental causes.

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#103

Post by zaroth »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #60
RL_Quine wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The total energy capacity of your phones battery is clearly the limit of the output of the device. It's not much. The iPhone 11 is 7 watt hours, so 25 kilojoule. Wolfram alpha helpfully tells me this is about the same energy as burning 0.64 grams of coal or 0.66 grams of human fat.

7 watt hours is an insanely damaging amount! Basically a 7 watt bulb next to you for an hour, or exposure to a 70 watt bulb (that would cause third degree burns in seconds) for six minutes. Yes the peak output of a phone is less than 70 watt but you can do a lot of damage with that much energy.

Please explain, how is the total energy capacity of the whole battery in any way relevant to this discussion?

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#104

Post by alfanick »

jradd wrote: post #100
bananabreakfast wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electrosensitivity is not a thing. It's a disorder made up by hypochondriacs. If you said 3 percent of the population are hypochondriacs then I would believe you.

One will become electrosensitive in a dryer climate. capacitive touch is derived by galvanic response that can be impacted by pH balance and electrochemistry. potassium is used to reduce the impacts of gamma radiation (wrong band, but not irrelevent) microwaves can be lethal from a distance of 1 km (death ray) there is so much radiation in the air, to study the affects of one wave length i'd suppose you'd need multip…

Missing "References" section, the formatting of your paper could also be improved. /s

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#105

Post by jeffdavis »

triceratops wrote: post #56
_sbrk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy Some people believe vaccines cause Down's Syndrome. "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are…

"If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus." Appears to contradict "What is relevant is reproducible results." Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus?

Maybe in some degenerate form of consensus, like consensus on raw observations. If one person sees a rise in temperature during a reaction, someone else can say "nuh-uh, la la la".

Other forms of scientific disagreement happen, but those disagreements imply different predictions, and can be resolved with more experiments.

Science is a process that bootstraps broad agreements (scientific laws) from very tiny agreements (observations). The fact that a broad agreement (consensus) exists carries no weight if one lone wacky scientist can show reproducible observations that contradict it.

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#106

Post by im3w1l »

deftnerd wrote: post #76
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ISP supplied router has an option to turn the lights off, which is great as otherwise it illuminates the whole hallway. I don't get why electronics makers think their product needs to have such bright lights.

In a bright environment, a bright LED is useful. Instead they should also have a light sensor used to determine the ambient light level, and then adjust the status LED display accordingly. My Samsung TV does this with its "powered on" light. Of course, that adds to the BOM and manufacturers love shaving off fractions of a penny. Asking them to add an extra 50 cents of parts for something consumers don't think about p…

Old LEDs are fine in both bright and dark environments, too-bright LEDs are a recent (5y? 10y?) thing. I wonder if LCD could be even nicer... I don't think I've ever seen single-pixel LCD status indicator.

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#107

Post by meekstro »

blowski wrote: post #85
meekstro wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the reason. Serum ferritin is an accute phase reactant that elevates due to inflammation from acute and sometimes chronic illness or heritable genetic mutation. When someone is ill and inflamed and fatigued and they have excess serum ferritin circulating in their blood which contains 4500 iron atoms per molecule and absorbs electromagnetic radiation it interferes with their biochemistry. Why people scoff at in…

Against your one paper supporting the idea, there have been 100s of studies that do not. I’m all for science doing investigations, but we can’t accept a premise because it feels right.

What’s the fastest way to figure out the average existing fatigue levels and serum ferritin levels in the hundred studies so that I can quickly disprove my hypothesis?

I’m not saying it causes an illness I’m saying if you have a certain subset of illness it increases your fatigue. It also hurts your hands but you aint never gonna believe that ha ha. Iphone 7s are the worst.

I’m getting better and so is my tolerance to er so I’m not overly concerned about myself.

It’s the millions of other edge cases wrongly labelled as whingers by the medical system that I feel for.

ER doesn’t cause fatigue it exacerbates it in certain people. I better look at those hundreds of studies to figure out why I’m so wrong about this.

I don’t want to sell anyone a tinfoil hat or phone case and reducing exposure to er at night is great for sleep and CO2 emissions so why wouldn’t you.

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#108

Post by driverdan »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #60
RL_Quine wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The total energy capacity of your phones battery is clearly the limit of the output of the device. It's not much. The iPhone 11 is 7 watt hours, so 25 kilojoule. Wolfram alpha helpfully tells me this is about the same energy as burning 0.64 grams of coal or 0.66 grams of human fat.

7 watt hours is an insanely damaging amount! Basically a 7 watt bulb next to you for an hour, or exposure to a 70 watt bulb (that would cause third degree burns in seconds) for six minutes. Yes the peak output of a phone is less than 70 watt but you can do a lot of damage with that much energy.

> Basically a 7 watt bulb next to you for an hour, or exposure to a 70 watt bulb (that would cause third degree burns in seconds) for six minutes.

I downvoted you because this is incorrect. You're ignoring the skin's ability to dissipate heat. Brief exposure to high heat does not have the same effect as extended exposure to low heat.

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#109

Post by ColanR »

Shikadi wrote: post #96
ColanR wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus? Not in the least. "Reproducible results" represents the technical and methodological ability to confirm that an effect is real. "Consensus" is whether a political body is willing to admit that the effect is real. And we all know politics finds truth to be...

I think this is a semantic argument... If 100 independent scientists reproduce results, those results themselves are a scientific consensus, are they not?

Insofar as it's a semantic argument, it's irrelevant.

> If 100 independent scientists reproduce results, those results themselves are a scientific consensus

Not in any sense that's relevant to the discovery of new information or its verification.

Re: A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

#110

Post by tomrod »

enedil wrote: post #97
tomrod wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point! -ln(x) may (would have to check), but exp(0) = 1 and 1/0 2 is defined as positive infinity (the Real numbers are not closed under division).

No, division just isn't a total function.

I think these may be the same thing in this case.
Post reply on HN