211–220 of 309 posts
Apple has denied those findings. > Apple said it had provided ANFR with multiple Apple and independent third-party lab results proving its compliance with all applicable SAR regulations and standards in the world. https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-disputes-french-fin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To put "millions" into perspective based on the value of Apple, that is less than a dollar to the average American. Of course, a company doesn't get that large by giving out money with no push back. Just some perspective.
If someone asked me for a dollar in an unpleasant and totally unfounded manner, I’d probably give it to them, even if it was inconsequential.
I love my Apple Watch ultra, because with cellular I can use it as a phone – a very lightweight phone without social media distractions. But I have to say I am a little bit uneasy about having a cellphone strapped to my arm. Someone with physics knowledge please calm me down?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very roughly, yes it is. 1-(4/5.74) = 30.3% It is possible however that this SAR violation only applies to certain bands or that the cell tower already is requesting a lower transmit power. Therefore there is a good chance users don't see much impact.
As someone who bought a 1k+$ phone from Apple i would be pissed if they dropped upload speed by that much. Surely there has to be an SLA that they have to uphold. No?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are these labs accredited? Sounds like France has a problem with some labs or possibly an accreditation organization I guess.
If the labs use a round robin method for validation of their testing methods the quality of their measurements should be high, shouldn’t they? In other words, who is validating apple’s labs?
For example, in my direct experience (not with phones, but networking gear), the way the product is placed in the test fixture and the way cables are dressed has an impact on emissions and measurements. In one scenario, as a product engineer supporting equipment through a certification lab, I had the mandate to pass with a 3 dB margin from the company I worked for, but, after days of testing and failing, it was decided that the equipment under test could pass with cables routed in a special way (which was not uncommon for normal customer use) and with quasi-peak detection (i.e. averaging the emission peaks) that ended up below the regulatory (FCC for example) passing below the regulatory mask/level by a fraction of a dB. I have always wondered whether a different test lab, without support from product engineers, would pass the same test. I think the answer in "no".
Edit: Quasi-peaking was not a dirty trick that was pulled to pass certification. It was an acceptable method of measuring emission power suggested by the lab technicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> France has a huge "cellular EM waves are bad" movement What ?
Sounds similar to the '5g rollout caused covid' movement in the states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this sounds familiar it's because accredited labs made a similar claims about the iPhone 7/8 and then again the iPhone 11. In each case it was the lab using an incorrect methodology. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happened here. There is a canyon of technical knowhow between RF engineers and testing labs.
> There is a canyon of technical knowhow between RF engineers and testing labs. Why aren't testing labs hiring RF engineers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the labs use a round robin method for validation of their testing methods the quality of their measurements should be high, shouldn’t they? In other words, who is validating apple’s labs?
I have taken products through this sort of testing in a previous life. There are many hard-to-replicate factors that influence test results. For example, in my direct experience (not with phones, but networking gear), the way the product is placed in the test fixture and the way cables are dressed has an impact on emissions and measurements. In one scenario, as a product engineer supporting equipment through a certif…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France has a huge "cellular EM waves are bad" movement so I wouldn't trust them about this either. It's weird that they are the only country where these iPhones seem to misbehave.
> France has a huge "cellular EM waves are bad" movement What ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France has a huge "cellular EM waves are bad" movement so I wouldn't trust them about this either. It's weird that they are the only country where these iPhones seem to misbehave.
Well if it was for the "cellular EM waves are bad" movement as you put it they would have a problem with most cellular phones and not specifically with the iPhone 12 don't you think?
(Q3)
>In the current state of knowledge, the Agency's work does not demonstrate a causal link between exposure to waves emitted by mobile communications and effects on health.
>However, some publications suggest a possible increase in the risk of brain tumors, in the long term, for intensive users of mobile phones, which is why the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has classified radiofrequencies as “possible carcinogenic”.
>Furthermore, the latest ANSES expert opinions have revealed, with limited levels of proof, various biological effects in humans or animals, some of which had already been reported in a previous expert opinion published in 2009: they can concern sleep, male fertility in animals or even cognitive performance.
https://www.anses.fr/fr/exposition-ondes-electromagnetiques-...
So again, it's a different pov. And it's weird that no other country came up to the same conclusion as of now. Q7 is also funny as they recommend not using your phone a lot to avoid em exposure, which is true but in context is obviously implying that there is harm from said exposure.