Do the latest iPhones have almost 6x more cancer-causing radiation than competing brands?

[samcraig]

http://healthycures.org/apple-iphone-rejects-app-to-measure-radiation

"Apple’s iPhone 6 Plus is bigger, but this is no excuse for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) radiation exposure levels that are only .01 under the FCC’s legal limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). Although Apple’s phones are catching up to Android’s in terms of size, Apple is still nowhere near catching up with Samsung in regards to phone radiation safety."

This write up is clearly biased in tone - but if the stats are accurate, I do think Apple should take SAR ratings more seriously.

 

[Alrescha]

but this is no excuse for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) radiation exposure levels that are only .01 under the FCC’s legal limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg).

"The FCC in the US sets the strictest SAR limit in the world."

from: http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/cancer/cellphone.php

A.

 

[samcraig]

"The FCC in the US sets the strictest SAR limit in the world."

from: http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/cancer/cellphone.php

A.

That doesn't negate the fact that Apple's latest devices are far behind other manufacturers in this area.

 

[Alrescha]

That doesn't negate the fact that Apple's latest devices are far behind other manufacturers in this area.

It negates the idea that this is anything to be concerned about.

A.

nb: one of the folks responding in the comments to your article points out that the graphs in the article completely contradict the claims. Also worth mentioning is that six times (in all caps, with exclamation points) a tiny, tiny number is still a tiny, tiny number.

also: Police, fire, and ham radio operators have been using hand-held radios which transmit many times the total power of a cell phone for decades and decades - with no notable health problems.

Last but not least: "cancer-causing"? Who says?

 

[samcraig]

It negates the idea that this is anything to be concerned about.

A.

nb: one of the folks responding in the comments to your article points out that the graphs in the article completely contradict the claims. Also worth mentioning is that six times (in all caps, with exclamation points) a tiny, tiny number is still a tiny, tiny number.

I don't disagree at all. And I said specifically that the article written seemed very bias in tone. But I do think there's merit in striving to reduce SAR exposure if it's possible. I don't think Apple doesn't care. It's probably just not a priority given that they are within compliance.

 

[Tech198]

That doesn't negate the fact that Apple's latest devices are far behind other manufacturers in this area.

What is this *really* about ? Is this abut the lowest of SAR, or the fact u'r one of those users that thinks RF radiation from wi-fi is a bad idea, and if so, then they'll be no use conniving u.

To me, its low,, may not be "as low" as other phones, who knows, BUT to get around that, we have blue-tooth products... so, there is no big deal anyway.

Its only when SAR gets high we gotta start worrying.. but why would anyone wanna introduce a high SAR level on everyone ? Someone will definitely feel the itch if that ever happens.

 

[maflynn]

My uneducated opinion on this, is that Apple is within the regulations, but those numbers are still too high for my liking. It doesn't seem like the non plus vs. the plus doesn't change the results much either.

 

[nightcap965]

There is no plausible hypothesis for how mobile phone RF radiation could cause tissue damage. None. I'm sorry ignorant people get worked up over it, but the fact are simple. There is no ionizing radiation, and there is no oscillating radiation like in microwave ovens.

RF radiation below the visible spectrum, which includes the frequencies used by mobile phones, is not ionizing radiation and so has no potential to damage living cells or break any chemical bonds. Microwave ovens operate at a frequency just above mobile phones, and work by oscillating an extremely powerful field, causing water molecules to rub against each other and create heat. Mobile phones are at least three orders of magnitude weaker. Mobile phone radiation is too weak to move water molecules, and do not oscillate to create friction.

There are no other alternatives for how the RF radiation in a mobile phone can cause harm.

 

[I7guy]

My uneducated opinion on this, is that Apple is within the regulations, but those numbers are still too high for my liking. It doesn't seem like the non plus vs. the plus doesn't change the results much either.

There are varied opinions is cell phone frequencies contribute to brain cancer, regardless though, I try to use bluetooth headsets or ear buds as much as possible. It's safer and more comfortable.

 

[nightcap965]

There are varied opinions is cell phone frequencies contribute to brain cancer, regardless though, I try to use bluetooth headsets or ear buds as much as possible. It's safer and more comfortable.

Say rather, there are various uninformed opinions. The science is quite clear; cell phone frequencies do not and cannot contribute to brain cancer. If they could, there would have been an explosion in cancer rates. There hasn't been.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098028/

 

[samcraig]

I don't concern myself generally. Although given the option or preference. Harmful or not - I would prefer to have lower ratings. The truth is - many things once thought safe are not and things thought dangerous are not.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Say rather, there are various uninformed opinions. The science is quite clear; cell phone frequencies do not and cannot contribute to brain cancer. If they could, there would have been an explosion in cancer rates. There hasn't been.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098028/

That pretty much ends the discussion.

 

[BenTrovato]

Say rather, there are various uninformed opinions. The science is quite clear; cell phone frequencies do not and cannot contribute to brain cancer. If they could, there would have been an explosion in cancer rates. There hasn't been.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098028/

The science is not clear at all actually. Data exists which "conclusively" shows that cell phone radiation does not cause cancer. Conversely data also exists which proves cell phone radiation causes cancer. Since both sets of data exist, the results are inconclusive. If you want to speak science, that's how the science goes. The official line, is that they don't actually know if it does cause cancer or if it doesn't. Knowing that, you are free to put that LTE radio next to your brain and hope for the best

 

[Sedulous]

Bunch of FUD from the tinfoil hat crowd.

 

[gnasher729]

http://healthycures.org/apple-iphone-rejects-app-to-measure-radiation

"Apple’s iPhone 6 Plus is bigger, but this is no excuse for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) radiation exposure levels that are only .01 under the FCC’s legal limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). Although Apple’s phones are catching up to Android’s in terms of size, Apple is still nowhere near catching up with Samsung in regards to phone radiation safety."

This write up is clearly biased in tone - but if the stats are accurate, I do think Apple should take SAR ratings more seriously.

The SAR is 1.18 when held 5mm from the head. It is close to 1.60 if mobile phone, WiFi and Bluetooth are used simultaneously. That excludes any situation where you are away from WiFi (not at home, or at work, for example). And it would be most unlikely that WiFi is running all the time. Even if you download a 100 MB document WiFi will only be active for maybe 50 seconds if your WiFi is slow. So close to 1.58 is the maximum, but by ar not the typical value.

If you are worried, the obvious solution is to not hold the iPhone against your ear, but hold it in front of you where you can see the screen. But remember that the legal limit is a limit that is _safe_. 1.6 watts per kilogram is _safe_. It's like a bridge that is rated for 10 tons; using a 9.9 ton truck is safe. It won't even collapse if you put 20 tons on it. "10 tons" means "there is absolutely no way imaginable that 10 tons of weight could damage this bridge", not "one pound more and it collapses".

You might also check if the numbers for other phones are just for the phone, or for phone plus WiFi.

 

[Tech198]

I read the topic heading again... That sounds like an ad.

 

[Alrescha]

I read the topic heading again... That sounds like an ad.

Yes, the more cynical side of me suspects that the whole reason for this thread is to display that clickbait headline.

A.

 

[samcraig]

Yes, the more cynical side of me suspects that the whole reason for this thread is to display that clickbait headline.

A.

I have nothing to do with the article. I just grabbed the headline - which is clearly link bait - but the thread itself wasn't created as such.