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

161–170 of 171 posts

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

#161

Post by lima »

zaptidizap wrote: post #134
lima wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

I think police cars should measure it.

It can take hours to pinpoint the location of a specific transmitter with skilled equipment operators.

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

#162

Post by [deleted] »

rini17 wrote: post #159
sneak wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if we said this about the food that comes out of every new restaurant. Risk management is more than just universal risk aversion.

Yes, at least in my country, every restaurant is subject to stringent hygiene regulations and audits. Is it a problem for you?

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by labawi »

madengr wrote: post #44
jws wrote: post #4

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.…

Well you are in the reactive near-field, so the antenna will de-tune, hence the power amplifier won't see it's ideal match, and not deliver as much power. All depends on antenna design and orientation, assuming they don't use active impedance tuning. The base station also tells the phone to back-off. If the TX were running at full power, the battery will die quickly. Leave your phone in a metal, security cubby and yo…

> If the TX were running at full power ... Leave your phone in a metal, security cubby and your battery will die quickly

If the phone can't hear a network (not just faint signal like airplanes on certain heights), would it actually transmit?

I think the battery drain would be from active RX searching for networks instead of sleeping. You get a similar though probably lower effect, when in roaming without setting a fixed network - an idle phone without crapware will burn way more energy.

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

#164

Post by ColanR »

oliv__ wrote: post #140
testvox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just as a counterpoint to what everyone seems to be saying here: there most definitely is science that points towards RF fields having negative health effects for humans, and it is plentiful. The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry. https://www.emfdata.org/en

> The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry.

If monsanto could do it, then others can too. I'm impressed by how quickly everyone decided that the scientific cover-up monsanto pulled off was a one-time event that couldn't possibly happen anywhere else.

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

#165

Post by rpwverheij »

oliv__ wrote: post #140
testvox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just as a counterpoint to what everyone seems to be saying here: there most definitely is science that points towards RF fields having negative health effects for humans, and it is plentiful. The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry. https://www.emfdata.org/en

Exactly. Thank you for sharing that. I was wondering if there is a place that collects this. Not sure if you're related to the site, but when clicking through to an article the site shows german, even though Im visiting in English.

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

#166

Post by jjoonathan »

swiley wrote: post #160
deftnerd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "conspiracy" portion of my brain makes me wonder if it's possible that Apple phones have lower power levels if the location services determines that the phone is in a location with a known anechoic chamber. There can't be that many of them. Such behavior has already been shown by automobile manufacturers during the "diesel-gate" incidents.

You don’t have to do that, usually you’ll run special test firmware on the device and say that this behaves appropriately (I’ve done this for other companies) Remember that this is fundamentally a legal/social thing that involves engineering/science and not the other way around.

Right, you're supposed to test to the worst case and you get to define "worst case." Cheating would be as simple as defining a favorable "worst case."

Before the tin-foil crowd calls regulators stupid, I'd like to point out that in the absence of cheating this allows hardware engineers to do a better job & design a system that is robust to software shenanigans. That's a nice thing. Maybe we cannot have nice things, but if so, let's prove it rather than presuppose it.

I'd estimate the likelihood of cheating by looking to see if people are choosing phones on the basis of EIRP the way they choose cars based on MPG. I don't see that happening, so I estimate that the likelihood of cheating is low, and would vote to keep the cooperative model around.

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

#167

Post by manicdee »

testvox wrote: post #10
landont wrote: post #6

> 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.

In scientific endeavours we only ever find what we were looking for. If we weren’t looking for non-thermal effects in cells we won’t see them, especially if our model of a cellular mass is a lump of ballistics gel, or a computer model of a skin surface in terms of resistive and capacitative networks.

The reason the scientific evidence is minimal is that we have been using simplistic models of human bodies for RF testing.

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

#168

Post by craftinator »

lima wrote: post #101
avian wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

Or cheaply produced in the US... Most tech I've bought from Shenzhen recently has been of better quality than domestically produced equivalents

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

#169

Post by craftinator »

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?

Yes, at that point the political consensus adopts the results of rigorous scientific testing as it's new bling

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

#170

Post by craftinator »

zaroth wrote: post #103
MagnumOpus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, if you designed some custom electronics to transfer all of that energy at once, directly into your skull... Well that could be dangerous right?
Post reply on HN