Apple is separating the new smartphones into its usual low-cost versus high-cost categories, with big differences between the two models coming down to the camera, display, and battery life.
iOS 13 & watchOS 6 Now Available
Chicago Tribune Claims iPhone Radiofrequency Radiation Levels Measured Higher Than Legal Safety Limit in Tests
The Chicago Tribune recently launched an investigation into the radiofrequency radiation levels output by popular smartphones, and found that some of Apple's iPhones are allegedly emitting radiofrequency radiation that exceeds safety limits.
According to the newspaper, it contracted an accredited lab to test several smartphones according to federal guidelines. iPhones were secured below clear liquid formulated to simulate human tissue while probes measured the radiofrequency radiation the liquid absorbed.
Several iPhones measured over the legal safety limits in the tests, but the worst performer was the iPhone 7. Its radiofrequency radiation exposure was over the legal limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators.
The iPhone X was slightly over limits in some tests, as was the iPhone 8, while the 8 Plus stayed within the legal range. iPhones were tested twice after Apple provided feedback on the testing method. The modified test "added steps intended to activate sensors designed to reduce the phones' power."
In these modified tests, where a reporter held the iPhone to activate the sensors in question, the iPhone 8 was under the 5mm limit, but the iPhone 7 models were not. Apple disputed the results found by The Chicago Tribune and said that the lab did not test the iPhones in the same way that Apple does, though Apple would not specify what was done wrong in the testing. Apple also said the modified testing had been done wrong.
Apple officials declined to be interviewed, and asked The Chicago Tribune to submit questions in writing, which were not responded to ahead of publication. Apple later shared a statement that again said the testing was inaccurate "due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models."
Both the FCC and smartphone manufacturers test all new smartphones before they're able to be released to the market, making sure devices comply with exposure standards for radiofrequency radiation. The Chicago Tribune claims that this is problematic because just one phone needs to pass and manufacturers are allowed to select the testing lab.
While tests can be conducted from up to 25mm away, The Chicago Tribune used the distance that manufacturers choose for their own tests. In Apple's case, that's 5mm. A second test was also done at 2mm to simulate the way most people carry their phones.
It's worth noting that testing was done in a way to simulate the worst possible exposure conditions.
Apple tells customers worried about radiofrequency radiation exposure to use a hands-free option, and on some iPhone models, such as the iPhone 4 and 4s, Apple has recommended carrying the devices at least 10mm away from the body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below tested levels. Apple made a similar suggestion with the iPhone 7 when submitting documentation to the FCC, but allegedly did not go on to inform customers about the 5mm distance recommendation.
The FCC plans to do additional testing on smartphones to follow up, which should give more insight into the safety of smartphones. For more on the testing procedures and the results, The Chicago Tribune's full report goes into much more detail and is well worth reading for those who are concerned.
According to the newspaper, it contracted an accredited lab to test several smartphones according to federal guidelines. iPhones were secured below clear liquid formulated to simulate human tissue while probes measured the radiofrequency radiation the liquid absorbed.
Several iPhones measured over the legal safety limits in the tests, but the worst performer was the iPhone 7. Its radiofrequency radiation exposure was over the legal limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators.
The iPhone X was slightly over limits in some tests, as was the iPhone 8, while the 8 Plus stayed within the legal range. iPhones were tested twice after Apple provided feedback on the testing method. The modified test "added steps intended to activate sensors designed to reduce the phones' power."
In these modified tests, where a reporter held the iPhone to activate the sensors in question, the iPhone 8 was under the 5mm limit, but the iPhone 7 models were not. Apple disputed the results found by The Chicago Tribune and said that the lab did not test the iPhones in the same way that Apple does, though Apple would not specify what was done wrong in the testing. Apple also said the modified testing had been done wrong.
Apple officials declined to be interviewed, and asked The Chicago Tribune to submit questions in writing, which were not responded to ahead of publication. Apple later shared a statement that again said the testing was inaccurate "due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models."
"All iPhone models, including iPhone 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where iPhone is sold," the statement said. "After careful review and subsequent validation of all iPhone models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable ... exposure guidelines and limits."The FCC, meanwhile, said that it is going to be doing its own testing over the next couple of months.
"We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules," agency spokesman Neil Grace said.Smartphones from Samsung, Motorola, and Vivo were also tested, and most of these also demonstrated radiofrequency radiation levels that exceed FCC guidelines in The Chicago Tribune's testing.
Both the FCC and smartphone manufacturers test all new smartphones before they're able to be released to the market, making sure devices comply with exposure standards for radiofrequency radiation. The Chicago Tribune claims that this is problematic because just one phone needs to pass and manufacturers are allowed to select the testing lab.
While tests can be conducted from up to 25mm away, The Chicago Tribune used the distance that manufacturers choose for their own tests. In Apple's case, that's 5mm. A second test was also done at 2mm to simulate the way most people carry their phones.
It's worth noting that testing was done in a way to simulate the worst possible exposure conditions.
The phone was now operating at full power, creating what was essentially a worst-case scenario in terms of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Typically, Moulton said, consumers do not experience exposure like this. But it could happen, he said, in limited situations, such as someone talking continuously in an area with a weak connection.The Chicago Tribune says that its testing was not meant to rank phone models for safety, and in the limited testing, only 11 models were examined. In many cases, just one device was tested, and even then, the paper says it's not known whether the cellphones found to be above the limits even have the potential to cause harm.
Apple tells customers worried about radiofrequency radiation exposure to use a hands-free option, and on some iPhone models, such as the iPhone 4 and 4s, Apple has recommended carrying the devices at least 10mm away from the body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below tested levels. Apple made a similar suggestion with the iPhone 7 when submitting documentation to the FCC, but allegedly did not go on to inform customers about the 5mm distance recommendation.
The FCC plans to do additional testing on smartphones to follow up, which should give more insight into the safety of smartphones. For more on the testing procedures and the results, The Chicago Tribune's full report goes into much more detail and is well worth reading for those who are concerned.
[ 184 comments ]
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
5 weeks ago
what're YOU smoking? Green-certified doesn't make their radiation "magical" or "GOOD", as you say.
I think you missed the sarcasm
5 weeks ago
No one here will care but I have actually worked in the SAR field and have observed these tests being done. This story is almost certainly ginned-up for clicks. There is a specific methodology that must be applied consistently for the results to make sense. By their own admission, they deviated from the international standard. Phones are tested before they are released and tested again afterwards throughout their availability. Click bait.
5 weeks ago
even if this is true it DOESN'T matter. Iphone radiation is the cleanest and purest radiation there is and many would argue that it is actually GOOD for your health
5 weeks ago
"Smartphones from Samsung, Motorola, and Vivo were also tested, and most of these also demonstrated radiofrequency radiation levels that exceed FCC guidelines in The Chicago Tribune's testing."
This is the most telling part of this story. Something's not right. Either all manufacturers allow their phones to slip over the limit, or the testing conditions may not be correct.
This is the most telling part of this story. Something's not right. Either all manufacturers allow their phones to slip over the limit, or the testing conditions may not be correct.
5 weeks ago
Reading the Chicago Tribune has been proven to affect intelligence in a negative way...
5 weeks ago
Fun fact. If your iPhone is in your pocket and gets a notification, it actually transmits far higher-frequency radiation via its ****ing display.
Radio frequencies are non-ionizing; they simply aren't high-energy or high-frequency enough to be a problem. Look at the spectrum ('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum#/media/File:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg'), this isn't rocket science. You see X-Rays and Gammas? That ****'s dangerous. Ultraviolet? Also kinda dangerous, which is why we wear sunscreen. Under that, the only dangers are with intensity. A laser can burn you, but it's not gonna give you cancer. Same with microwaves. The intensity of what can go in and out of your 2-8w pocket brick isn't gonna be worth writing home about unless your battery shorts.
Much like most radiation (including the actually dangerous, ionizing type), the "federal exposure limit" is probably based on an arbitrarily measurable number rather than any real clinical studies. Man are we a stupid species.
Fun fact: the federal radiation limit for tritium in drinking water is ~700 Bq/L. We tried finding an actual carcinogenic link on mice ('https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/public-health-goal/phgtritium030306.pdf') drinking the stuff at 1,110,000,000Bq/L (yes, that's billion) and couldn't find any DNA damage. Not cancer, mind you, we couldn't find any DNA damage whatsoever. At people-scale, that's roughly 260,000,000 Bq/L. A 1-banana-a-day-equivilant is about 7,000 Bq/L. Federal hasn't changed, though.
Radio frequencies are non-ionizing; they simply aren't high-energy or high-frequency enough to be a problem. Look at the spectrum ('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum#/media/File:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg'), this isn't rocket science. You see X-Rays and Gammas? That ****'s dangerous. Ultraviolet? Also kinda dangerous, which is why we wear sunscreen. Under that, the only dangers are with intensity. A laser can burn you, but it's not gonna give you cancer. Same with microwaves. The intensity of what can go in and out of your 2-8w pocket brick isn't gonna be worth writing home about unless your battery shorts.
Much like most radiation (including the actually dangerous, ionizing type), the "federal exposure limit" is probably based on an arbitrarily measurable number rather than any real clinical studies. Man are we a stupid species.
Fun fact: the federal radiation limit for tritium in drinking water is ~700 Bq/L. We tried finding an actual carcinogenic link on mice ('https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/public-health-goal/phgtritium030306.pdf') drinking the stuff at 1,110,000,000Bq/L (yes, that's billion) and couldn't find any DNA damage. Not cancer, mind you, we couldn't find any DNA damage whatsoever. At people-scale, that's roughly 260,000,000 Bq/L. A 1-banana-a-day-equivilant is about 7,000 Bq/L. Federal hasn't changed, though.
[ Read All Comments ]
Burst Mode refers to when the camera on your iPhone captures a series of photos in rapid succession, at a rate of ten frames per second. It's a great way to shoot an action scene or an unexpected...
Apple's Portrait Mode has become a popular way of taking impressive shots using a depth-of-field effect known as bokeh, allowing iPhone users to shoot a photo that keeps the subject sharp with a...
Apple has redesigned the native Camera app on the iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro to make space for the various additional shooting options available in its new flagship phones, and one particularly...
Apple's massive launch week has come to a close, with the iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max, and Apple Watch Series 5 all debuting on Friday. And as if that wasn't enough, Thursday...
With the arrival of the iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max, Apple has introduced an optional new camera feature in iOS 13 that's designed to allow you to correct the alignment of...
For this week's giveaway, we've teamed up with AnyTrans to offer MacRumors readers a chance to win one of Apple's new iPhone 11 Pro Max devices and a lifetime AnyTrans license.
For...
Due to Apple seeding the iOS 13.1 beta prior to the public release of iOS 13, upgrading to a new iPhone may be a bit trickier this year.
In a support document, Apple has provided instructions...
Apple today the golden master version of an upcoming tvOS 13 update to developers, one week after seeding the eleventh beta and more than three months after unveiling the tvOS 13 software at the...
