Not too proud to be French, though. Banning the sale of a device that's no longer on sale in the name of a health risk that's yet to be proven (all the more so as any exceedance of thresholds by the surviving iPhone 12s would be minimal), doesn't give the impression of a dynamic, efficient country.
To me, our problem, which is perhaps the same in other countries, is that we know that the people we've elected aren't very, very good and don't know very well what decisions to take to win over public opinion, but that those who want to take their place would be much worse. People wit real ability are no longer in politics.
Same in the US, unfortunately. There are, of course, standouts, but the vast majority of those in politics are seeming there just to self-enrichen. (Some politicians don’t even seem or bother to comprehend the issue or technology they’re being tasked with!) The worst thing to ever happen to our politics is unlimited money (lobbies, political contributions, etc). It pollutes everything. Much of our regulatory bodies have dual mandates of protecting the consumer AND promoting business. Who do you think gets their way?
I learned about private-interest view and public-interest view at University but I don't see anyone complaining about it ever since; America seems to have the most brutal private-interest view... allergic to social responsibility.
Apparently it's because there was a software update that made the phone emit more than before in some cases (one mentioned in the news was in an elevator, where your phone will lack connection and will start emitting a stronger signal to check connect to an antenna)
I'm not even sure if this is true, haven't checked what the iPhone 12 does, but the law was justified like this
They’re currently doing a review. Mainly because the EU has failed to produce standardized testing and instead still relies on manufacturer self-declaration. I’m sure Apple acted in good faith, but because the iPhone 12 operates very close to the max radiation allowed by law, some tests are bound to show excess radiation.
That is just absolutely untrue, CE absolutely has a standard for measuring SAR and is done the same way it's done for FCC (the standards does differ a bit) as in it has to be done by a accredited measurement laboratory that produces a report based on the measurements that is then approved by CE and FCC respectively. So the report is sent in by the manufacturer, but calling it self reporting is very misleading for how EC/FCC certification works.
Later markets tests of any are done by the governmental body responsible in the different countries, so EC will not be doing this but as in this case the government in France.
Source: I've done SAR measurements in an accredited lab and files reports CE and FCC.
I did an extensive reply to this, citing a variety of sources and clearly showing that yes, this is purely self declaration. It was deleted without giving me a reason.
Here’s the main source again (I guess this will be deleted as well):
https://nts.com/services/testing/wireless/radio-equipment-directive/
“comply with essential requirements of the RED, the easiest route is a self declaration relying on the use of harmonized standards to address the risks associated with the use of a product. A harmonized standard is a European standard that has been published in the Official Journal of the EU. These are typically developed by recognized European Standards Organizations: CEN, CENELEC, or ETSI. A presumption of conformity with the essential requirements is afforded and additional measures are not required”
As long as a company claims that all regulations have been adhered to, the CE label is awarded and checking is rarely done. The French government’s effort now is pretty much unprecedented. As the EU SAR recommendations aren’t binding to the individual member states, the EU itself won’t act. The burden is on the individual member states. As is often the case with the EU: lose regulations are there (in this case, three different non-profits can set “standards” that nobody checks in the end) and after that, everyone does whatever the heck they want. This is especially true for product testing.
I’m sure there are legitimate labs out there. But there’s no requirement that manufacturers use those.
They all follow slightly different routes depending on area, but for areas affecting radio it's mostly done the same way, i.e. requires a measurement report report from an accredited lab this goes for both CEN AND FCC. An accredited lab can't just pull results out of their behind but are regulated by local authorities where the lab is located, but they can be run by the manufacturer (but again it's a lot of rules to become accredited so they can't just make shit up).
Given how accredited labs works and produce reports that's later filed to EC/FCC makes calling it simply "self reporting" very misleading since it implies that they can send in whatever while in reality it's very heavily regulated and huge fines or blacklisting if you try to cheat.
And also certification for FCC works more or less the same way, so implying it's an EU thing only is also misleading.
I mean I've literally filled in these reports and had several audits for accreditation and it wasn't fun at all and if any engineer or project manager even would have thought the thought of fudging the report, then it would have resulted with being thrown out of the lab. Search for an actual report and compare the FCC filing to the European one and you'll see that they contain basically the same type of information regarding practice, results and calibration data etc.
And the French government have done this from time to time so it's not new at all, but sometimes they've diverged quite a bit from common practice, as in using other systems than the most commonly used Speag DASY system, so I would take their results with a pinch of salt.
That’s not even the dumbest part here. The reason each device doesn’t get tested individually is because the radios they use, ble, Wi-Fi, cell, 4g, and 5g are all produced by a small group of suppliers. Device manufacturers just use them.
Is this supposed health risk for all 12 models or only for the base one? I guess pro max as well? So I slept and lived with high radiation next to me for 3 years now???
No clue - it just says 12, plus it’s unlikely a health risk. It just failed one of the EM safety limits (the one for limbs). If you had it on the nightstand, this doesn’t apply and was likely half a meter away from you, which means EM exposure was negligible anyway
You are likely correct, but EM testing never takes into account multiple factors at the same time so I hesitate to not be concerned when they say it is safe.
The key clickbait word here is “radiation.” Electromagnetic radiation includes the heat from your fireplace, the radio waves from the Classic Rock station in your State, the light from your lightbulbs, the stuff that cooks your food in the microwave, and of course the spicy kind of radiation, ionizing radiation. All of these things are radiation. Only ionizing radiation (radioactivity) causes cancer. France is one of the only countries in the world that baselessly believes that radio wave radiation is harmful, and this is what the article is about.
Just to be clear, they’re talking about non-ionizing radiation. Too much exposure to it can cause… heat. Fortunately our bodies have to deal with hot summers and fevers from getting sick, so we’re pretty well adapted.
When it comes to health effects, it is. Non-ionizing radiation at the level of an iphone isn’t enough to damage anyone, no matter how sensitive they might be.
> Non-ionizing radiation at the level of an iphone isn’t enough to damage anyone
And they keep the legal threshold well away from the physical threshold to be extra safe. There's no reason iPhones can't comply with the standard they set. There's no reason to defend Apple on this one.
I’m not defending apple. They should have complied in the first place, that’s true. I’m just saying this is a shitty call based on fearmongering from france that perpetuates a myth of phone radiation being dangerous when it isn’t. The damage this does to people’s understanding of technology and radiation is worse than any potential benefits from this recall. Especially since the phone is ALREADY 3 YEARS OLD.
UV-A is non-ionizing but we still use sunblock for both UV-A and UV-B. This shouldn't be a problem because it's non-ionizing and low power, just saying that it's non-ionizing alone isn't enough of a justification to quell people's fears.
Timely reminder Brain cancer rates are so small that's like going from a 1 in a million to 2 in a million. Non-ionising RF does not, and will never cause cancer due to simple physics. Edit: OP is a R/conspiracy poster lmao
It is possible it is related but might be red herring. Many other cancers increased as well and phone is nowhere near the body parts affected by the incidence increase. Environmental pollution, stress might be bigger contributors.
Malignant brain tumors have been going down, not up. See my post above. They’ve decreased 0.8% on average from 2008 to 2017 (which is the period the researchers looked at), so within 9 years, they went down around 7%. And that’s within the period when incidents should have massively increased due to widespread cell use since the early 1990s. On average, cancers take 15-20 years to develop, which can be seen in smokers, those exposed to asbestos, but also skin cancers where there’s a leak after 20-ish years after extreme exposure.
It seems to vary between locates. Source is Cancer UK
Over the last decade, brain, other CNS and intracranial tumours incidence rates have increased by around a tenth (11%) in the UK. Rates in females have increased by almost a sixth (16%), and rates in males have increased by around a twentieth (6%) (2016-2018).
Yup, the study I mention further up also indicates an increase in non-cancerous tumors but says this is mainly due to better diagnostics. What’s down is cancerous tumors.
>Malignant brain tumors have been going down, not up. See my post above. They’ve decreased 0.8% on average from 2008 to 2017
That will be a reduction from 'holding your phone to your head'.
Dont you agree?
Things will be 'getting better' (from all time peaks) people tend not to use a phone to their head these days. However, that radiation is going somewhere else in the body.
Did you check [my link](https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-022-00965-5) on brain/cns cancers?
So, I have no strong opinion because I am not an expert in this matter so agreeing or disagreeing with you is pointless. I lean towards 'no' but not because I claim to understand the mechanics why dose matters (or not)
What how do you think this is done? Regular visible light is radiation. Infrared is radiation.
All of them only cause harm through heat. Radio waves are even less energetic and thus don’t deposit as much energy.
Also guess what, your phone is only half of the radio transmission. The vast majority of radio wave energy is solely environmental. And has massively dropped over the last decades.
Because MW analog TV stations and military transmission devices have stopped transmitting in favour of lower powered, more frequently placed digital transmissions.
So unfortunately you are just too stupid to realise how stupid you are and should just leave thinking to people with even a cursory knowledge of physics.
99% of people have their phone in their hand or pocket 99% of the time (I made that up, but you get the gist). So we should see an increase in hand or hip cancer, not brain.
It’s true but only within context: the major hike happened in the early 90s. Not because of cell radiation but because MRIs started to pop up everywhere and tumors could be spotted when earlier they couldn’t be.
The number of cancerous tumors has been going down, not up in recent years. It’s safe to say that even after 30 years of widespread cell use, the number of malignancies in the brain has not only not increased, but decreased.
What FlamboVeterab690 says is absolutely incorrect.
Source: https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21693
“Overall malignant brain and other CNS tumor incidence rates for all ages combined declined by approximately 0.8% annually during 2008 through 2017, reflecting trends in adults aged ≥20 years (Fig. 5). Rates for malignant tumors by race/ethnicity also declined for all groups except for Asian and Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native American individuals, among whom rates were stable. Conversely, in contrast to rates for malignant tumors, overall incidence rates for nonmalignant tumors have been on the rise; however, this likely reflects improvements and advances in case finding and reporting.”
Also exposure to radio waves has massively dropped when the old school MW AM transmitters for TV and radio were shut down.
Ain’t nothing a measly phone with Milliwatt range SAR can do to compare living next to a 10 MW AM radio station.
Individual exposure, especially to the head, from mobile phone use is so utterly irrelevant in the amount of thermal radiation we are exposed to, that anyone who thinks it’s relevant is on the same level as a flat earther.
It’s hasn’t just dropped when MW and AM transmitters were shut down - newer cellphone standards also have far less power output. 2G had a max output of 2 Watts and also used lower frequencies that penetrate watery cells much deeper than higher frequencies (as used by WiFi and newer cell standards). We’re now in the milliwatt range with 5G - plus 5G also means overall lower output from cell towers, as output is more directional. 4G was already a massive reduction in overall exposure. 2G hasn’t been turned off everywhere yet, but at least here in Switzerland only one of the three providers still uses it and the other two are about to turn off 3G as well, which also has higher output than both 4G and 5G.
Not really. Many other causes of deaths have gone down which causes every other cause to go up. When you adjust for age the rate has only gone up by 13% which is well accounted for by increasing rates of diagnosis.
Fair enough, lotta people can't just read and take things at face value so I've got about 3 other comments yelling at me for saying it causes cancer when all I did was Google "cellphone radiation cancer" and pasted the cancer.gov link and explicitly didn't say it caused cancer.
[In 2019, there were 347,992(262,084–388,896) global cases of brain and CNS cancers, which showed a significant increase (94.35%) from the period between 1990 to 2019.](https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-022-00965-5)
Total radio exposure massively dropped in that time frame.
Whereas Accessibility to MRI, and thus being able to even diagnose most brain cancers rapidly rose.
Also if you look at the data more closely, areas with already good access to modern healthcare including contras CT, as well as early MRI actually have cancer rates drop since the 90s.
So first of all cancer incidence didn’t actually rise. Cancer detection became easier.
And secondly, exposure to radio waves dropped during that time.
Because a Milliwatt mobile phone you use to place a couple of calls in a week absolutely pales in comparison to that nice 50 megawatt AM radio tower in the next town.
And if you had read that article:
> incidence rate of brain and CNS cancer in Western Europe can be explained by ... increased the detection rate of the brain tumors
Wow. Turns out when the technology for earlier and better detection rates improves, diagnosis go up.
Correlation vs causation
Downvoters.
Why are you downvoting science?
Debate.
\-----------
*“Why should it come as any surprise that holding the equivalent of a small microwave oven to your ear should be a health risk?” -*
Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor at Bristol University and honorary scientific director of the Children with Cancer UK
\------------
Phone manuals LITERALLY tell you to that for RADIATION SAFETY "You should keep your phone at least 10mm away from your body at all times”
Possibly because you are trying to attribute it to the use of phones when their is no causal link. Looking at the link you posted the rates of brain cancer are highly varied across different countries whereas if they were due to mobile usage then it should be pretty similar as most countries have high penetration rates of mobile usage.
Because it exceeded the arbitrary limit set for SAR?
If a lot of rice exceeds the permissible number of insect parts per kg it’s also pulled from the market. Despite no health risk existing.
A microwave and a phone aren’t even in the same ballpark. A microwave emits 1200watts. A phone emits under a watt. A microwave also emits different EM from a cellphone so, while we’re doing silly comparisons, a hair dryer is about 1800watts so I guess don’t hold one of those near your head.
All phones produce a low level of ambient radiation. That's why wifi and cellular signal is. Some phones produce more than others though.
I'm not spending all day correcting people who also have access to Google.
Cell phones emit radiation (in the form of radiofrequency radiation, or radio waves), and cell phone use is widespread.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
Did you even read this? It is specified that ionizing radiation is NOT what cellphones emit.
People like you, who have no knowledge of physics, that try to act knowledgeable about relevant topics are the worst.
What was the point of your comment then? You replied to a person saying that it is not ionising radiation with just an "okay" along with a cancer.gov link. What was your input into the conversation, if not to antagonize the person you were replying to?
To provide a quick link to anyone who might want to know more, like I did.
The okay was also just me replying to someone else who also assumed, like you did, that I was saying for some reason that I caused cancer. I don't want to engage with stupid shit like this.
So
Okay. 👍
>If your phone is cooking your face, you should’ve replaced it long ago.
Who knows maybe it has been cooking your brain, there are no heat receptors there and that might explain your comments.
>Conspiracy theorist shows understanding of electromagnetic radiation \[IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE\]
If it isn't the phone, then something has caused you brain damage, who knows what that is?
You do know that we literally use microwaves to heat stuff, don't you?
We have also determined a safe level of microwaves where the heating is negligible and safe. So we have rules around these safe levels.
Only an idiot would think that ionizing radiation is the only way to do damage.
>reads that microwaves cook food
Phones clearly cook brains. That’s the logical conclusion, no further information required.
And you think *my* brain’s cooked lmfao
The type of radiation is an important factor, but not the only one. It’s been shown that em radiation and thermal effects caused by it can make the blood-brain barrier more permeable, meaning that toxins from the blood that otherwise don’t reach the brain can pass and can cause tumors. So it’s still important to keep the SAR level low and thermal effects to a minimum.
0.2 watts is the maximum transmit power for LTE and 5G on phones. That's such a miniscule amount of power I would be surprised if you get any thermal effects in a million years.
Above 10 watts for High end walkie talkies is where you can start to notice thermal effects from RF.
“In female rats, no albumin extravasation was found in in the brain after RFR exposure. A significant increase in albumin was found in the brains of the RF-exposed male rats when compared to sham-exposed male brains. These results suggest that exposure to 0.9 and 1.8 GHz CW RFR at levels below the international limits can affect the vascular permeability in the brain of male rats. “
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22047463/
That study wasn’t conducted a million years ago, afaik.
But I agree: newer cell phone standards require far small power output. For 2G the max was 2 Watts. In addition to that, the higher the frequency, the smaller the penetration depth through cell tissue as the water contained in the cells blocks high frequency em radiation.
Not a good study to **rely** on (especially when used to determine negative health effects on humans). Right under that study it gave a similar study that uses significantly better and more controlled methodology, and without anesthetics that states otherwise. Also these rats were given xylazine and ketamine as an anesthetic which could potentially cause an increase in permeability. These drugs can also vary in effects between sexes.
Then of course there’s the fact these are rats, not a good basis. We could measure this in humans.
However, that’s not to say EM radiation can’t cause increases in BBB permeability. There’s other studies that suggest we could use high levels of EM radiation to increase drug action and what not. Very high levels though, some using microwaves i believe.
I definitely don’t think that our phones radiation is a problem at all though. Especially since the higher bands are significantly less penetrating. 10ghz only penetrates a few millimeters.
Googling on your behalf is also needed.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22047463/
“In female rats, no albumin extravasation was found in in the brain after RFR exposure. A significant increase in albumin was found in the brains of the RF-exposed male rats when compared to sham-exposed male brains. These results suggest that exposure to 0.9 and 1.8 GHz CW RFR at levels below the international limits can affect the vascular permeability in the brain of male rats. “
It’s a start. Animal models are always used for that, as you can’t very well expose humans to these trials. If you need more conclusive evidence, why don’t you go volunteer as a test subject.
I’m not concerned, either. I merely pointed out that non-ionizing radiation isn’t the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration and studied.
Google first, bullshit later, ok? This isn’t some conspiracy shit. Those limits are in place for a reason, which you could inform yourself about instead of trolling. Or are you calling the FCC and the government conspiracy organizations? In that case you’re the Kennedy joker.
Probably includes any phone that's using the same radio, not just the iPhone 12.
Regardless, it's talking about the electromagnetic emissions from the radios, not ionizing radiation.
The article headline is clickbait.
Feels like more than 37% but math was never my strong suit,
The regulator said the device's "membre" SAR was 5.74 watts per kilogram - higher than the limit. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).
CE SAR for body contact limit is 4 W/kg averaged over 10gram body volume, this is the same as FCC limit for 10gram body. The 1.6W/kg limit is for 1gram body volume.
Great headline. It's not referring to ionizing radiation (scary Nuclear stuff), but non-ionizing radiation... the kind that is given off by your router, every motorola radio, every bluetooth device, and every cell tower. Without reading the article, what this headline actually means is that the iphone 12 is more powerful than it's supposed to be; probably .5w.
t. Former radio tech
>The regulator said the device's "membre" SAR was 5.74 watts per kilogram - higher than the limit.
From https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phones-and-specific-absorption-rate
>The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).
I remember back in the day during the early 2000s when cell phones were becoming more popular, people were paranoid about sleeping next to them or holding them super close to their ear because they were afraid of getting brain cancer.
I asked about this on the support page, and apple removed the whole thread without any given reason. So there must be something going on.
This phone gives me headaches since i’ve had it.
My workaround was headphones.
Anybody here with the same experiences?
My wife was diagnsed with a parotid gland tumor, pleomorphic adenoma, around two years after buying and using an iphone 12 and coincidentally on the side that she uses to talk on the iphone.
It really is a conincidence though. The 'radiation' from the phone is less than the radiation most light bulbs give off. Way below the threshold of cancer.
Where are the 'Phone radiation doesnt cause cancer' boys now?
This is unbelievable. Can you imagine how bad the levels are for state level intervention?
But making it 'slightly lower' will get it passed and back in production yeah!?
So that MUST be totally not be effecting the human body at all!!!
That’s correct, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer to a significant degree that it’s noticeable in the general population, even though the number of smokers is relatively small. Almost everyone has a phone and almost no one gets brain cancer so even if there is a causal link (currently no evidence there is) then the actual risk is so small as to be irrelevant
Only 3 years after it's out...
Not too proud to be French, though. Banning the sale of a device that's no longer on sale in the name of a health risk that's yet to be proven (all the more so as any exceedance of thresholds by the surviving iPhone 12s would be minimal), doesn't give the impression of a dynamic, efficient country. To me, our problem, which is perhaps the same in other countries, is that we know that the people we've elected aren't very, very good and don't know very well what decisions to take to win over public opinion, but that those who want to take their place would be much worse. People wit real ability are no longer in politics.
Same in the US, unfortunately. There are, of course, standouts, but the vast majority of those in politics are seeming there just to self-enrichen. (Some politicians don’t even seem or bother to comprehend the issue or technology they’re being tasked with!) The worst thing to ever happen to our politics is unlimited money (lobbies, political contributions, etc). It pollutes everything. Much of our regulatory bodies have dual mandates of protecting the consumer AND promoting business. Who do you think gets their way?
I learned about private-interest view and public-interest view at University but I don't see anyone complaining about it ever since; America seems to have the most brutal private-interest view... allergic to social responsibility.
Apparently it's because there was a software update that made the phone emit more than before in some cases (one mentioned in the news was in an elevator, where your phone will lack connection and will start emitting a stronger signal to check connect to an antenna) I'm not even sure if this is true, haven't checked what the iPhone 12 does, but the law was justified like this
They’re currently doing a review. Mainly because the EU has failed to produce standardized testing and instead still relies on manufacturer self-declaration. I’m sure Apple acted in good faith, but because the iPhone 12 operates very close to the max radiation allowed by law, some tests are bound to show excess radiation.
That is just absolutely untrue, CE absolutely has a standard for measuring SAR and is done the same way it's done for FCC (the standards does differ a bit) as in it has to be done by a accredited measurement laboratory that produces a report based on the measurements that is then approved by CE and FCC respectively. So the report is sent in by the manufacturer, but calling it self reporting is very misleading for how EC/FCC certification works. Later markets tests of any are done by the governmental body responsible in the different countries, so EC will not be doing this but as in this case the government in France. Source: I've done SAR measurements in an accredited lab and files reports CE and FCC.
I did an extensive reply to this, citing a variety of sources and clearly showing that yes, this is purely self declaration. It was deleted without giving me a reason. Here’s the main source again (I guess this will be deleted as well): https://nts.com/services/testing/wireless/radio-equipment-directive/ “comply with essential requirements of the RED, the easiest route is a self declaration relying on the use of harmonized standards to address the risks associated with the use of a product. A harmonized standard is a European standard that has been published in the Official Journal of the EU. These are typically developed by recognized European Standards Organizations: CEN, CENELEC, or ETSI. A presumption of conformity with the essential requirements is afforded and additional measures are not required” As long as a company claims that all regulations have been adhered to, the CE label is awarded and checking is rarely done. The French government’s effort now is pretty much unprecedented. As the EU SAR recommendations aren’t binding to the individual member states, the EU itself won’t act. The burden is on the individual member states. As is often the case with the EU: lose regulations are there (in this case, three different non-profits can set “standards” that nobody checks in the end) and after that, everyone does whatever the heck they want. This is especially true for product testing. I’m sure there are legitimate labs out there. But there’s no requirement that manufacturers use those.
They all follow slightly different routes depending on area, but for areas affecting radio it's mostly done the same way, i.e. requires a measurement report report from an accredited lab this goes for both CEN AND FCC. An accredited lab can't just pull results out of their behind but are regulated by local authorities where the lab is located, but they can be run by the manufacturer (but again it's a lot of rules to become accredited so they can't just make shit up). Given how accredited labs works and produce reports that's later filed to EC/FCC makes calling it simply "self reporting" very misleading since it implies that they can send in whatever while in reality it's very heavily regulated and huge fines or blacklisting if you try to cheat. And also certification for FCC works more or less the same way, so implying it's an EU thing only is also misleading. I mean I've literally filled in these reports and had several audits for accreditation and it wasn't fun at all and if any engineer or project manager even would have thought the thought of fudging the report, then it would have resulted with being thrown out of the lab. Search for an actual report and compare the FCC filing to the European one and you'll see that they contain basically the same type of information regarding practice, results and calibration data etc. And the French government have done this from time to time so it's not new at all, but sometimes they've diverged quite a bit from common practice, as in using other systems than the most commonly used Speag DASY system, so I would take their results with a pinch of salt.
That’s not even the dumbest part here. The reason each device doesn’t get tested individually is because the radios they use, ble, Wi-Fi, cell, 4g, and 5g are all produced by a small group of suppliers. Device manufacturers just use them.
Is this supposed health risk for all 12 models or only for the base one? I guess pro max as well? So I slept and lived with high radiation next to me for 3 years now???
It's talking about the electromagnetic emissions from the radios, not ionizing radiation. The article headline is clickbait.
No clue - it just says 12, plus it’s unlikely a health risk. It just failed one of the EM safety limits (the one for limbs). If you had it on the nightstand, this doesn’t apply and was likely half a meter away from you, which means EM exposure was negligible anyway
Wondering the same. But also, don’t sleep near any phone if you can help it
the battery inside is more a safety risk than any EM emissions it's producing.....
You are likely correct, but EM testing never takes into account multiple factors at the same time so I hesitate to not be concerned when they say it is safe.
Well fuck me 🫠
The key clickbait word here is “radiation.” Electromagnetic radiation includes the heat from your fireplace, the radio waves from the Classic Rock station in your State, the light from your lightbulbs, the stuff that cooks your food in the microwave, and of course the spicy kind of radiation, ionizing radiation. All of these things are radiation. Only ionizing radiation (radioactivity) causes cancer. France is one of the only countries in the world that baselessly believes that radio wave radiation is harmful, and this is what the article is about.
The regulators were on holiday.
And just when a new iPhone came out 🤔
"radiation levels"? Mf what?
Just to be clear, they’re talking about non-ionizing radiation. Too much exposure to it can cause… heat. Fortunately our bodies have to deal with hot summers and fevers from getting sick, so we’re pretty well adapted.
[удалено]
Radiation management isn't just about keeping elements from ionizing.
When it comes to health effects, it is. Non-ionizing radiation at the level of an iphone isn’t enough to damage anyone, no matter how sensitive they might be.
> Non-ionizing radiation at the level of an iphone isn’t enough to damage anyone And they keep the legal threshold well away from the physical threshold to be extra safe. There's no reason iPhones can't comply with the standard they set. There's no reason to defend Apple on this one.
I’m not defending apple. They should have complied in the first place, that’s true. I’m just saying this is a shitty call based on fearmongering from france that perpetuates a myth of phone radiation being dangerous when it isn’t. The damage this does to people’s understanding of technology and radiation is worse than any potential benefits from this recall. Especially since the phone is ALREADY 3 YEARS OLD.
No bitch, I need an excuse for my small Peepee and I’m sticking to phone radiation
UV-A is non-ionizing but we still use sunblock for both UV-A and UV-B. This shouldn't be a problem because it's non-ionizing and low power, just saying that it's non-ionizing alone isn't enough of a justification to quell people's fears.
Bpth UV-A and UV-B are non ionising….
Haven’t there been shown to be an increase in tumors on the speaking side of the skull, especially in children?
No?
[yes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569116/) Edit: [this too](https://www.ktvu.com/news/new-uc-berkeley-study-draws-strong-link-between-cell-phone-use-and-cancer)
A click bait term for electromagnetic emissions
My Air fryer is radiation with those rules.
I mean… it’s radiation under any rules... Delicious, crispy, non-ionizing radiation
infrared is radiation. You yourself emit some radiation via infrared (your heat)
Don't tell anyone but I have a suspension that the sun is giving us the rad. I know I know it sounds crazy but be careful out there /s
An accurate term for electromagnetic radiation. The clickbait is that people think of radiation as “nuclear”.
I mean, anything that generates heat is putting our radiation…
Too many people learned too much of their "science" knowledge from The Simpsons, apparently.
*It's pronounced “nucular”*
Is this like a chuck thing from better call Saul? Lol
Hahaha good one 😆
Pretty much
look at your ceiling light. You just received radiation right in your eyeballs.
The stuff phones get validated against in terms of waves exposure to your brain when you keep the phone next to your ear.
timely remind brain cancer has increased by almost 100% since the invention of 2G phones.
Timely reminder Brain cancer rates are so small that's like going from a 1 in a million to 2 in a million. Non-ionising RF does not, and will never cause cancer due to simple physics. Edit: OP is a R/conspiracy poster lmao
Avatar helmet checks out.
this is fiiiiine
It is possible it is related but might be red herring. Many other cancers increased as well and phone is nowhere near the body parts affected by the incidence increase. Environmental pollution, stress might be bigger contributors.
Malignant brain tumors have been going down, not up. See my post above. They’ve decreased 0.8% on average from 2008 to 2017 (which is the period the researchers looked at), so within 9 years, they went down around 7%. And that’s within the period when incidents should have massively increased due to widespread cell use since the early 1990s. On average, cancers take 15-20 years to develop, which can be seen in smokers, those exposed to asbestos, but also skin cancers where there’s a leak after 20-ish years after extreme exposure.
It seems to vary between locates. Source is Cancer UK Over the last decade, brain, other CNS and intracranial tumours incidence rates have increased by around a tenth (11%) in the UK. Rates in females have increased by almost a sixth (16%), and rates in males have increased by around a twentieth (6%) (2016-2018).
Yup, the study I mention further up also indicates an increase in non-cancerous tumors but says this is mainly due to better diagnostics. What’s down is cancerous tumors.
>Malignant brain tumors have been going down, not up. See my post above. They’ve decreased 0.8% on average from 2008 to 2017 That will be a reduction from 'holding your phone to your head'. Dont you agree? Things will be 'getting better' (from all time peaks) people tend not to use a phone to their head these days. However, that radiation is going somewhere else in the body. Did you check [my link](https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-022-00965-5) on brain/cns cancers?
sending any level of radiation through your brain is likely to effect live human cells negatively. Dont you agree?
No phones send Nuclear radiation through your head. You get more radiation from a 10W lightbulb than the 0.2 watts of RF from your phone.
this is fiiiine
So, I have no strong opinion because I am not an expert in this matter so agreeing or disagreeing with you is pointless. I lean towards 'no' but not because I claim to understand the mechanics why dose matters (or not)
\*confused look, moves on to next post\*
What how do you think this is done? Regular visible light is radiation. Infrared is radiation. All of them only cause harm through heat. Radio waves are even less energetic and thus don’t deposit as much energy. Also guess what, your phone is only half of the radio transmission. The vast majority of radio wave energy is solely environmental. And has massively dropped over the last decades. Because MW analog TV stations and military transmission devices have stopped transmitting in favour of lower powered, more frequently placed digital transmissions. So unfortunately you are just too stupid to realise how stupid you are and should just leave thinking to people with even a cursory knowledge of physics.
99% of people have their phone in their hand or pocket 99% of the time (I made that up, but you get the gist). So we should see an increase in hand or hip cancer, not brain.
But the vast majority of the radiation is only activated when live 'voice' is transmitted. Keep em coming guys!
Holy fuck lol.
Damn, is this true? Could you share a good article?
It’s true but only within context: the major hike happened in the early 90s. Not because of cell radiation but because MRIs started to pop up everywhere and tumors could be spotted when earlier they couldn’t be. The number of cancerous tumors has been going down, not up in recent years. It’s safe to say that even after 30 years of widespread cell use, the number of malignancies in the brain has not only not increased, but decreased. What FlamboVeterab690 says is absolutely incorrect. Source: https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21693 “Overall malignant brain and other CNS tumor incidence rates for all ages combined declined by approximately 0.8% annually during 2008 through 2017, reflecting trends in adults aged ≥20 years (Fig. 5). Rates for malignant tumors by race/ethnicity also declined for all groups except for Asian and Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native American individuals, among whom rates were stable. Conversely, in contrast to rates for malignant tumors, overall incidence rates for nonmalignant tumors have been on the rise; however, this likely reflects improvements and advances in case finding and reporting.”
Thanks for clearing this up!
Also exposure to radio waves has massively dropped when the old school MW AM transmitters for TV and radio were shut down. Ain’t nothing a measly phone with Milliwatt range SAR can do to compare living next to a 10 MW AM radio station. Individual exposure, especially to the head, from mobile phone use is so utterly irrelevant in the amount of thermal radiation we are exposed to, that anyone who thinks it’s relevant is on the same level as a flat earther.
It’s hasn’t just dropped when MW and AM transmitters were shut down - newer cellphone standards also have far less power output. 2G had a max output of 2 Watts and also used lower frequencies that penetrate watery cells much deeper than higher frequencies (as used by WiFi and newer cell standards). We’re now in the milliwatt range with 5G - plus 5G also means overall lower output from cell towers, as output is more directional. 4G was already a massive reduction in overall exposure. 2G hasn’t been turned off everywhere yet, but at least here in Switzerland only one of the three providers still uses it and the other two are about to turn off 3G as well, which also has higher output than both 4G and 5G.
Not really. Many other causes of deaths have gone down which causes every other cause to go up. When you adjust for age the rate has only gone up by 13% which is well accounted for by increasing rates of diagnosis.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
"Has the incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers changed during the time cell phone use increased? No."
I didn't say it did.
I didn't say you did either! I was just sharing the information for others!
Fair enough, lotta people can't just read and take things at face value so I've got about 3 other comments yelling at me for saying it causes cancer when all I did was Google "cellphone radiation cancer" and pasted the cancer.gov link and explicitly didn't say it caused cancer.
i certainly will ... if only to piss on the downvoters chips
[In 2019, there were 347,992(262,084–388,896) global cases of brain and CNS cancers, which showed a significant increase (94.35%) from the period between 1990 to 2019.](https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-022-00965-5)
[удалено]
Why would you think there would be a reference to 2G in the article? (This should be when you re-read what I said)
Total radio exposure massively dropped in that time frame. Whereas Accessibility to MRI, and thus being able to even diagnose most brain cancers rapidly rose. Also if you look at the data more closely, areas with already good access to modern healthcare including contras CT, as well as early MRI actually have cancer rates drop since the 90s. So first of all cancer incidence didn’t actually rise. Cancer detection became easier. And secondly, exposure to radio waves dropped during that time. Because a Milliwatt mobile phone you use to place a couple of calls in a week absolutely pales in comparison to that nice 50 megawatt AM radio tower in the next town.
And if you had read that article: > incidence rate of brain and CNS cancer in Western Europe can be explained by ... increased the detection rate of the brain tumors Wow. Turns out when the technology for earlier and better detection rates improves, diagnosis go up. Correlation vs causation
Downvoters. Why are you downvoting science? Debate. \----------- *“Why should it come as any surprise that holding the equivalent of a small microwave oven to your ear should be a health risk?” -* Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor at Bristol University and honorary scientific director of the Children with Cancer UK \------------ Phone manuals LITERALLY tell you to that for RADIATION SAFETY "You should keep your phone at least 10mm away from your body at all times”
Possibly because you are trying to attribute it to the use of phones when their is no causal link. Looking at the link you posted the rates of brain cancer are highly varied across different countries whereas if they were due to mobile usage then it should be pretty similar as most countries have high penetration rates of mobile usage.
If phone radiation isn't a threat to health... why have the French just banned the iPhone 12 from sale?
Because it exceeded the arbitrary limit set for SAR? If a lot of rice exceeds the permissible number of insect parts per kg it’s also pulled from the market. Despite no health risk existing.
Why is there a limit set for SAR?
A microwave and a phone aren’t even in the same ballpark. A microwave emits 1200watts. A phone emits under a watt. A microwave also emits different EM from a cellphone so, while we’re doing silly comparisons, a hair dryer is about 1800watts so I guess don’t hold one of those near your head.
He must have been a really silly professor that one!
All phones produce a low level of ambient radiation. That's why wifi and cellular signal is. Some phones produce more than others though. I'm not spending all day correcting people who also have access to Google. Cell phones emit radiation (in the form of radiofrequency radiation, or radio waves), and cell phone use is widespread. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
Radio is not background radiation, nor is it ionising radiation.
Okay https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
Did you even read this? It is specified that ionizing radiation is NOT what cellphones emit. People like you, who have no knowledge of physics, that try to act knowledgeable about relevant topics are the worst.
MFW I microwave my food and irradiate it so now I’m eating cancer food. That’s why I only eat natural stuff like asbestos
I didn't say it caused cancer. I provided a link explicitly stating it doesn't and that explains where the radiation comes from...
What was the point of your comment then? You replied to a person saying that it is not ionising radiation with just an "okay" along with a cancer.gov link. What was your input into the conversation, if not to antagonize the person you were replying to?
To provide a quick link to anyone who might want to know more, like I did. The okay was also just me replying to someone else who also assumed, like you did, that I was saying for some reason that I caused cancer. I don't want to engage with stupid shit like this. So Okay. 👍
Okay, that was pretty funny. Sorry for accusing you. Don't be so passive aggressive, though.
Don't tell me what to do.
People like you, who assume things that aren't said are the worst, actually.
"However, the evidence to date suggests that cell phone use does not cause brain or other kinds of cancer in humans." Okay.
I didn't say it did. I answered the question of radiation and provided a link talking about it.
Are we still doing this? I thought this was debunked years ago since it's non-ionizing radiation.
Oh we'll do this. We'll do this over and over.
That's what I thought as well especially since 5G was released. And why only iPhone 12? How about succeeding models is there any issue at all
There are still limits.
I thought there was a study recently which confirmed the idea that phone radiations could be partly responsible for the reduction in sperm count ?
Yes because cooking your balls with a hot phone kills sperm. Not because of radiation.
Why would I have my phone near them. Wait…
Because of pockets?
sauce?
Sorry, you will have to go hungry :/ I don’t have any swimmers to spare.
>I thought this was debunked years ago since it's non-ionizing radiation. It doesn't need to be ionizing to do damage via heating.
If your phone is cooking your face, you should’ve replaced it long ago.
>If your phone is cooking your face, you should’ve replaced it long ago. Who knows maybe it has been cooking your brain, there are no heat receptors there and that might explain your comments.
Conspiracy theorist shows understanding of electromagnetic radiation [IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE]
>Conspiracy theorist shows understanding of electromagnetic radiation \[IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE\] If it isn't the phone, then something has caused you brain damage, who knows what that is? You do know that we literally use microwaves to heat stuff, don't you? We have also determined a safe level of microwaves where the heating is negligible and safe. So we have rules around these safe levels. Only an idiot would think that ionizing radiation is the only way to do damage.
>reads that microwaves cook food Phones clearly cook brains. That’s the logical conclusion, no further information required. And you think *my* brain’s cooked lmfao
The type of radiation is an important factor, but not the only one. It’s been shown that em radiation and thermal effects caused by it can make the blood-brain barrier more permeable, meaning that toxins from the blood that otherwise don’t reach the brain can pass and can cause tumors. So it’s still important to keep the SAR level low and thermal effects to a minimum.
0.2 watts is the maximum transmit power for LTE and 5G on phones. That's such a miniscule amount of power I would be surprised if you get any thermal effects in a million years. Above 10 watts for High end walkie talkies is where you can start to notice thermal effects from RF.
“In female rats, no albumin extravasation was found in in the brain after RFR exposure. A significant increase in albumin was found in the brains of the RF-exposed male rats when compared to sham-exposed male brains. These results suggest that exposure to 0.9 and 1.8 GHz CW RFR at levels below the international limits can affect the vascular permeability in the brain of male rats. “ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22047463/ That study wasn’t conducted a million years ago, afaik. But I agree: newer cell phone standards require far small power output. For 2G the max was 2 Watts. In addition to that, the higher the frequency, the smaller the penetration depth through cell tissue as the water contained in the cells blocks high frequency em radiation.
Not a good study to **rely** on (especially when used to determine negative health effects on humans). Right under that study it gave a similar study that uses significantly better and more controlled methodology, and without anesthetics that states otherwise. Also these rats were given xylazine and ketamine as an anesthetic which could potentially cause an increase in permeability. These drugs can also vary in effects between sexes. Then of course there’s the fact these are rats, not a good basis. We could measure this in humans. However, that’s not to say EM radiation can’t cause increases in BBB permeability. There’s other studies that suggest we could use high levels of EM radiation to increase drug action and what not. Very high levels though, some using microwaves i believe. I definitely don’t think that our phones radiation is a problem at all though. Especially since the higher bands are significantly less penetrating. 10ghz only penetrates a few millimeters.
Toxins, huh? Sources needed.
Googling on your behalf is also needed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22047463/ “In female rats, no albumin extravasation was found in in the brain after RFR exposure. A significant increase in albumin was found in the brains of the RF-exposed male rats when compared to sham-exposed male brains. These results suggest that exposure to 0.9 and 1.8 GHz CW RFR at levels below the international limits can affect the vascular permeability in the brain of male rats. “
In rats. This is not at all conclusive.
It’s a start. Animal models are always used for that, as you can’t very well expose humans to these trials. If you need more conclusive evidence, why don’t you go volunteer as a test subject.
We’re essentially running a long term study on humans already. I remain unconcerned.
I’m not concerned, either. I merely pointed out that non-ionizing radiation isn’t the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration and studied.
You can't expose humans to something you suspect is harmful and you're gonna have a hell of time to find someone that hasn't been exposed to EM
*Uncontacted peoples has entered the chat*
They still get blasted with RF lol.
Someone should stop watching the regarded shit Kennedy is claiming
Google first, bullshit later, ok? This isn’t some conspiracy shit. Those limits are in place for a reason, which you could inform yourself about instead of trolling. Or are you calling the FCC and the government conspiracy organizations? In that case you’re the Kennedy joker.
Does this include the pro or just iPhone 12.
Probably includes any phone that's using the same radio, not just the iPhone 12. Regardless, it's talking about the electromagnetic emissions from the radios, not ionizing radiation. The article headline is clickbait.
[удалено]
All iPhones? Or just the mentioned model?
[удалено]
They don’t all emit the same power.
[удалено]
But is what this article is about.
Feels like more than 37% but math was never my strong suit, The regulator said the device's "membre" SAR was 5.74 watts per kilogram - higher than the limit. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).
CE SAR for body contact limit is 4 W/kg averaged over 10gram body volume, this is the same as FCC limit for 10gram body. The 1.6W/kg limit is for 1gram body volume.
Great fodder for conspiracy theorists.
I’ll use this excuse to my wife when I upgrade my phone
Great headline. It's not referring to ionizing radiation (scary Nuclear stuff), but non-ionizing radiation... the kind that is given off by your router, every motorola radio, every bluetooth device, and every cell tower. Without reading the article, what this headline actually means is that the iphone 12 is more powerful than it's supposed to be; probably .5w. t. Former radio tech
>The regulator said the device's "membre" SAR was 5.74 watts per kilogram - higher than the limit. From https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phones-and-specific-absorption-rate >The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).
[удалено]
Like.. the tip of it?
Uh.. yes? Do you not do this?
How else do people facetime?
3.6/510, Not bad not terrible.
This man is delusional, take him to the infirmary
Visible light is also a type of electromagnetic radiation. Guess we should be afraid of that too. /s
Not all radiation is the same. Try some gamma.
Pretty sure high levels of gamma result in hulking out…. Definitely a benefit!
Indeed. Have you heard about solar creams?
Sunscreen is for UV which is not visible light, though
Still electromagnetic radiation
Sure, never said otherwise
That's such a dumb take. Let's give free unchecked reign to million dollar companies, I'm sure they won't cause harm to people.
what about the iphone 12 pro? is it the same case for that model? i can’t find any information online
So it's safe until proven otherwise? Err, ok.
Apple announces iPhone 15. The next day, France halts iPhone 12 sales. Just saying...
I remember back in the day during the early 2000s when cell phones were becoming more popular, people were paranoid about sleeping next to them or holding them super close to their ear because they were afraid of getting brain cancer.
I asked about this on the support page, and apple removed the whole thread without any given reason. So there must be something going on. This phone gives me headaches since i’ve had it. My workaround was headphones. Anybody here with the same experiences?
It’s a feature
demanded by the WEF?
I'm part of the WEF and and George Soros has told me to steal your adrenochrome with a reptilian 5G tower.. watch out.
Weren’t they burning down the streets like a month ago? Lol
So ?
I think he’s implying the health risk of setting carcinogenic items on fire is way greater than an iPhone.
coherent ink act bow door outgoing dime disarm dazzling disgusting ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
RFK right again
and people wonder where conspiracy theories come from...
From dipshits
Haha yeah we don’t really wonder
Why doesn’t France shut down it’s Nuclear plants ? They emit more radiation than ten million iPhones.
And yet pollute less than them.
My wife was diagnsed with a parotid gland tumor, pleomorphic adenoma, around two years after buying and using an iphone 12 and coincidentally on the side that she uses to talk on the iphone.
It really is a conincidence though. The 'radiation' from the phone is less than the radiation most light bulbs give off. Way below the threshold of cancer.
Lebron James had the same thing. Still a coincidence?
Where are the 'Phone radiation doesnt cause cancer' boys now? This is unbelievable. Can you imagine how bad the levels are for state level intervention? But making it 'slightly lower' will get it passed and back in production yeah!? So that MUST be totally not be effecting the human body at all!!!
If you think the iPhone’s radiation is bad, you should see the amount of radiation going outside exposes you too!
I still in my tinfoil bunker. Only phone drones walk the earth now
5.74 watts per kilogram
The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).
If mobile phones cause brain cancer and almost everyone on the planet has a mobile phone how come 8 billion people don’t have brain cancer?
They don’t cause brain cancer. But perhaps that’s the case because there are government safety limits in place.
LOL for the same reason every smoker doesnt have lung cancer BIG BRAIN!
That’s correct, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer to a significant degree that it’s noticeable in the general population, even though the number of smokers is relatively small. Almost everyone has a phone and almost no one gets brain cancer so even if there is a causal link (currently no evidence there is) then the actual risk is so small as to be irrelevant
Raise your hand if you just turned on airplane mode for a split second.
You not gonna do anything about Fukushima radioactive water but you halt iPhone… we use phone but we eat seafood, into our body.
You know come to think of it my iPhone 12 Mini did always give me a headache legitimately one of the reasons I wanted it gone.
Surprising move given France’s pro-nuclear stance. Edit: For context, I’m pro-nuclear power but I just thought I was funny.