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

81–90 of 171 posts

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

#81

Post by lima »

avian wrote: post #47
jcims wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676010/ 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 mob…

If your phone emits any non-trivial amounts of RF power at 100 kHz-1MHz frequencies, regardless of whether this comes from intermodulation products or something else, it doesn't pass existing EMC regulations and can't be legally sold to consumers. This is something that is already (or should be, in theory) rigorously tested for everything that's put on the consumer market (from your cheapest USB charger to your iPhon…

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

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

#82

Post by vel0city »

kempbellt wrote: post #70
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.

I don't doubt that psychosoma and hypochondria play a role in many cases, but I will posit a couple of scenarios for you to ponder. You can sense heat, can't you? If your phone is really warm in your pocket, will you notice? Higher output from the radios = more electricity flowing = more heat generation. You will likely notice this. On another note, do you have eyes? They are sensitive to various frequencies of elect…

The maximum amount of power emitted from a WiFi radio in the US as regulated by the FCC is 0.071W. You're not realistically going to notice much heating from WiFi. Have you ever tried to cook something on the antenna of your WiFi? Try putting a cup of water next to your WiFi router and measure the temperature difference. You'd need massively super-human levels of sensitivity to begin to notice any warming effects. Sure, if you crank the output up to a few dozen watts you'll definitely start feeling the effects of RF. Get it a few dozen watts higher and you'll be at risk of getting RF burns after some prolonged exposure. Get it several hundred watts higher and you're cooking a dinner in the metal box.

As for possibly almost seeing things like WiFi, that's also pretty preposterous. WiFi operates at 2.4 or 5.8GHz. Your eyes start to get sensitive EM waves at about 4000000000GHz (lower end of what is commonly called visible spectrum). Even if you were at the ultra extreme low end of sensitivity, you still wouldn't really be anywhere near the frequency range required.

So for your example of standing in a fire or having a spotlight on your face, you'd need for it to be a practically room temperature fire or a millionth of a candle spotlight. The scales you're comparing to are just silly to the point of being meaningless.

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

#83

Post by moftz »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #73
gus_massa wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you cover the green leds with tape mask, or get version with an accurate fake blinking patterns.

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 college, all of my electronics were in my bedroom as well as the communal router. I taped off as many LEDs as I could (even the router wall wart had a big blue light) and disconnected any LEDs that had leads (like inside a PC case). There were only a few instances of LEDs that I actually needed so those got white electrical tape over them to diffuse the light or swapped to red if the tape diffused it too much to see.

I don't mind having a nightlight on when I sleep, I think it helps me fall asleep quicker rather than pitch black but bright blue lights that fill the fucking room with light are the devil. I have much less electronics in my bedroom now since I now have personal space other than my bedroom to put stuff.

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

#84

Post by jcims »

avian wrote: post #47
jcims wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676010/ 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 mob…

If your phone emits any non-trivial amounts of RF power at 100 kHz-1MHz frequencies, regardless of whether this comes from intermodulation products or something else, it doesn't pass existing EMC regulations and can't be legally sold to consumers. This is something that is already (or should be, in theory) rigorously tested for everything that's put on the consumer market (from your cheapest USB charger to your iPhon…

But we're talking about what happens after that GHz RF is absorbed by the tissues/fluids in the body. That becomes much more complex. It's not unlike the laser attack on MEMS microphones or a crystal radio powering a speaker in the audio range after receiving AM RF at 1Mhz.

Realistically we've been beaming our brains for decades now without a glut of brain tumors, but we might just be getting lucky, and if we don't know what to look for it could bite us later.

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

#85

Post by blowski »

meekstro wrote: post #71
meekstro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#86

Post by jjoonathan »

meekstro wrote: post #77
mopsi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turn your wifi off in your house at night and see if you sleep any better. This needs to be a blind test, e.g. you track your sleep quality over a longer period of time while a script turns wifi off on random nights.

You could just try it. Turn off the electrical stuff before you go to bed but hey everyone has freedom of choice.

Placebos work. If that's what you want, cool. If you want to figure out if RF affects sleep, that's cool too, but you'll need to double blind the experiment. Because placebos work.

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

#87

Post by dboreham »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #73
gus_massa wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you cover the green leds with tape mask, or get version with an accurate fake blinking patterns.

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.

The worst design is where the light is initially off but turns on when some condition arises (e.g. battery fully charged). You fall asleep in total darkness only to be woken up at 3am by the brilliant light of "your phone is charged now".

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

#88

Post by function_seven »

meekstro wrote: post #77
mopsi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turn your wifi off in your house at night and see if you sleep any better. This needs to be a blind test, e.g. you track your sleep quality over a longer period of time while a script turns wifi off on random nights.

You could just try it. Turn off the electrical stuff before you go to bed but hey everyone has freedom of choice.

Right, but you wouldn't know if your sleep improved because the wi-fi is off, or if it improved because you have greater peace of mind just knowing that the wi-fi is off.

These are different things. A blinded test would eliminate the peace of mind component and allow you to determine if there's a physical effect from the wi-fi being on or not.

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

#89

Post by avian »

lima wrote: post #81
avian wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your phone emits any non-trivial amounts of RF power at 100 kHz-1MHz frequencies, regardless of whether this comes from intermodulation products or something else, it doesn't pass existing EMC regulations and can't be legally sold to consumers. This is something that is already (or should be, in theory) rigorously tested for everything that's put on the consumer market (from your cheapest USB charger to your iPhon…

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.

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

#90

Post by grecy »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #55
meekstro wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't it tested at 2mm if that is the standard useage? Why rely on a model? 20,000 phones are being sold an hour. Why not buy 200 phone's off 200 shelves and test them comprehensively at 0 mm, 1mm, 2mm, 3mm ..... The cost to volume sold is completely negligible and it is useful consumer information as 3 percent of the population is electrosensitive. An estimated 30 million people suffer from Myalgic Encephalomyel…

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.

It's interesting how certain you are. What you mean to say is "we've never seen scientific evidence that Electrosensitivity is real, therefore as we currently understand it can't be".

Much like the Earth going around the sun, bacon causing cancer, BPA in plastic being bad (and now the substitutes too) etc. etc.

It's always not true until we discover it is.

Post reply on HN