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

iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

anfr.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–309 of 309 posts

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#301

Post by kube-system »

hankchinaski wrote: post #300
kube-system wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who chooses not to do something over a 0.000000001% risk is either irrationally bad at math and statistics or needs to get some help with their anxiety. Experts would call things with a 0.000000001% risk "extremely safe" because in comparison to other daily risks inherent to existing as a human, that number is much much lower. The risk of dying in a car in the US is 12,890,000 times higher.

The problem with academics and people that reason this way is that they put themselves on a pedestal and assume that their model represents reality 1:1 with a zero margin of error. You must trust the model otherwise you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place. I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want.…

> I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place.

We're talking about the most studied food additive in history. There isn't a single study or single model we're talking about here, it's a large body of evidence.

> I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision.

Then be comfortable making your decision that way. There's no need to misrepresent scientific consensus to justify a dislike for aspartame.

The fact of the matter is that "aspartame causes cancer" is a claim which is not supported by any rigorous science by anyone with any "model".

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#302

Post by 6510 »

lxgr wrote: post #255
6510 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cance... >In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of mod…

Sorry, but the quoted article seems a bit dubious to me: > The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven. What is an "information-gathering component"? What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged)…

> What is an "information-gathering component"?

I assume they mean each pulses at a different frequency range, the information is gathered or clumped up around its own band.

You can assume modern articles repeat themselves and say the same thing several times. I suppose this is the first useful instance I've seen... or is it?

> What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values

I'm definitely not an expert but I can share my layman view on the topic.

Equivalent isotropic radiated power is just power.

If you strike an object it makes a sound, it vibrates at it's own frequency. Sometimes it dampens quickly sometimes it sticks around. Like say a bell, a wine glass or a tuning fork.

It takes very little energy to push a swing and keep it going. It will eventually get rid of the energy though friction but much slower than you can gently push it up to speed. You can't push the swing at some random frequency, you have to match it exactly (1/2 or 1/4 would also work of course) just like you cant shatter a whine glass if your voice doesn't match the frequency. You can make a hell of a lot of noise (power) without shattering any wine glasses.

EIRP would be like trying to destroy the glass with just decibels.

All parts of our body big and small vibrate too, with all the liquid it dampens quickly and there is very little for magnetism to hook into but if the frequency matches exactly (or some octave of it) it doesn't seem a stretch of the imagination that one can have an effect without much power. The power just needs to exceed dampening.

With dental fillings the effect is well known.[1][2] Say mercury spreads around the body, would that have no effect on reception?

Sorry to butcher the topic, I'm just trying to picture how it might work. There are plenty of (strange[3]) studies and 5000 scientists who agree it's just bad for our health.

And of course the addicts who don't want to hear any of it :)

[1] - https://www.bradfordfamilydentist.ca/lucille-ball-heard-spie...

[2] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795328/

[3] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35057520/

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#303

Post by wirrbel »

OnACoffeeBreak wrote: post #215
wirrbel wrote: post #195

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…

Thanks for the technical explanation. For a regulatory system however I would assume it’s important that a third-party that follows a standardized procedure can reproduce low emissions, otherwise who could verify that numbers were not forged?

If I bring my car to the testing to the accredited testing company in Germany, they test the exhaust fume profile and give me a certificate if it’s within range. I cannot just run my own testing regime and self-issue that.

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#304

Post by andromeduck »

quitit wrote: post #165
fh9302 wrote: post #22

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...

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.

See Louis Rossman, Linus Sebastian & gang.

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#305

Post by toyg »

closewith wrote: post #298
toyg wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has never been even a hint of a popular federal movement in any of the countries which you mentioned It depends on your definition of "popular movement", but there have been plenty of popular leaders arguing for federalization, from Briand onwards. Just recently: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/german-... > a bold claim that I'm sure you'll be able to back up? https://journals.sagepub.com…

Your source doesn't at all support your claim. Meanwhile, there is no indication in any polling that any of the countries you mention have even single-digit support for federalisation. As I said, you've either blinded yourself or you're intentionally dishonest.

Lol, keep talking. Meanwhile, actual federalists continue doing the work set up by Brand, Schuman, De Gasperi etc, almost a century ago. For example: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#306

Post by fennecfoxy »

garyfirestorm wrote: post #123
xoa wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone with physics knowledge please calm me down? All radio is non-ionizing EM, far lower frequency then visible light, thermal, etc. UV, Xrays, and gamma rays are in the opposite direction, higher frequency. Radio cannot do anything except minor amounts of heating, and at milliwatts of transmission power and inverse square law that's REALLY minor amounts of heating. There is no link to any sort of health effects…

Sun! It emits far more radiation than anything else and we don’t care about walking in sunlight.

I don't believe that low frequency would have adverse affects but I would like them to _really_ look into higher frequencies (as we approach microwave) just so, you know, we actually know if it's bad or not.

None of this "oops arsenic wallpaper is actually bad" "oops asbestos is actually bad" "oops lead in fuel is actually bad" "oops microplastics could actually be bad" stuff.

And we do care about walking in sunlight, it's called sunblock/suncream. People that spend their lives in a lot of sunlight are at higher risk for skin cancer, have you never seen what someone's skin looks like after a career of working outdoors?

As a Kiwi I guess I'm just more aware of the Sun; thanks to the rest of the world we have a huge ozone hole above us so our UV levels can get pretty mad around 11:00-13:00 in Summer.

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#307

Post by Schiendelman »

agmm wrote: post #226
Schiendelman wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want caution on something WITH a causal link - don’t eat cooked food!

Just to be clear, I don't think that low-power EM radiation poses a health risk. I am just saying that if you are worried about it (like OP is) you can simply reduce your exposure to it. Doing so is relatively easy and has a minimal quality of life impact. As others have mentioned, low-power EM radiation in the frequency range used by cellphones is non-ionizing, so it can't cause cancer or severe health issues in the…

My point is that if OP cares about those risks, they'd prioritize other higher risks first, and they'd run out of quality of life long before they got to this one.

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#308

Post by xenonite »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #306
garyfirestorm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sun! It emits far more radiation than anything else and we don’t care about walking in sunlight.

I don't believe that low frequency would have adverse affects but I would like them to _really_ look into higher frequencies (as we approach microwave) just so, you know, we actually know if it's bad or not. None of this "oops arsenic wallpaper is actually bad" "oops asbestos is actually bad" "oops lead in fuel is actually bad" "oops microplastics could actually be bad" stuff. And we do care about walking in sunlight…

..oops sun screen is actually bad too (Octocrylene is the latest problematic newcomer), and would need a very thick application to get the claimed effectiveness.

Re: iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation

#309

Post by piuantiderp »

boc wrote: post #207
piuantiderp wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? There is merit to it. Or are you waiting for a newspaper release to tell you it is well-supported?

We’d have already seen a massive spike in cancer if it was true.

Why a spike? Cellphone usage has been a gradual increase, just like cancer incidence rates
Post reply on HN