Hacker News Reader

Comment by willis936 | Hacker News Reader

Ah, the ever present fear of non-ionizing radiation.

What appears to have happened is the Chicago Tribune decided to not follow the test definition in order to make the testing more accurate, but not adjust the limit accordingly. They don’t have the authority to change the test procedure or the limit so it doesn’t matter. By inverse square law the limit can be extrapolated to more realistic distances. However the FCC cellphone exposure limit is laughably low compared to when non-ionizing radiation has been shown to cause health effects [1]. Is it reasonable to make legislation around an extrapolation of a fear that is not based on any scientific model?

It’s always nice to see reporters go the extra mile to stoke public fears of the boogeyman.

1. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emf/#rffields

View on HN

I don't see the deviation from FCC test definition it regulations.

Regulation: * distance for test no greater than 25mm * MUST NEVER exceed radiation limit.

They tested below 25mm and found it broke the limit. They then put it into "lab testing mode" after advice from the manufacturer, but that's exactly the same problem as car emissions cheating. It's still over the limit if a sensor isn't tripped. But regulation doesn't say it can go over the limit in any situation.

I'm not basing Apple here (they were not the only ones breaking the rules)... Just pointing out that the phone manufacturers adjusted the testing definition, not the lab. Manufacturers decided they only need to follow the legal limits if the phone is close to your ear. This doesn't appear in the test definition.

I'm also not saying the regulation is bad, I'm not qualified to say what radiation limit is harmful. But if that's the issue, manufacturers should push too raise the limit... Not cheat on tests because they think the limit is to restrictive. The FCC is HUGELY pro-business right now.

> "Ah, the ever present fear of non-ionizing radiation."

On the cdc.gov resource you provided, I clicked on the link about "NIEHS research on possible health risks from cell phones". There I read this:

The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones resulted in:

- Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.

- Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.

- Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.

I get that this study involved higher levels than what my cell phone should be exposing me to, "mice are not humans", etc., etc. But then here come some journalists saying my phone emits much higher radiation than I thought... are they really just evoking a bogeyman and nothing more? I'm not sure.

It takes a lot to win over my skepticism on a variety of topics -- particuarly when large corporations stand to gain or lose billions of dollars hinging on whether their product is GRAS or not -- and I suspect many others are the same.

I'd be very grateful for links to additional research on the topic of cell phones and non-ionizing radiation, if anyone has good ones to share.

How about https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682... ?

Laymans TL;DR:

Essential mechanisms of biological cells work via EMF, in addition to what is known so far.

My question: Could it be "jammed" by external EMF?

Non-ionising radiation can cause harm. Ask welders (burnt eyes). Get a cheap auto-darkening welding helmet, put it on and point a TV remote at it. The levels of IR in the remote are small, but the sensors still activate in the helmet.

Or taking a sunbath without using sunscreen...

Yes of course. Microwave ovens run at 2.4 GHz, and cell phones typically operate in the 700 to 1400 MHz range, so it's fair to compare microwave ovens to cell phones. The largest difference between the two is power. Power density is key. Why cellphone radiation gets a lot of attention is because the distance is so low compared to other radiation sources. However your body tells you if it's over the limit. Cell phones aren't burning users. For every study that finds a link between exposure to low levels of non-ionizing radiation and cancer in humans there is at least one that finds such a link does not exist.

Comparing the power density in the microwave spectrum of phones to the sun is reasonable. Should there be recommendations that people stay indoors because of the adverse health risks associated from non-ionizing microwave radiation from the sun?

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the headline. Do you know of any other real-world items the average person interacts with that releases more RF energy? Like a toaster or power inverter in a car?

Spark plugs release wide band RF. Many transformers do too. Quick test, walk around with an AM radio set between stations so you only hear static and put it next to various things. That is how amateur radio operators find interferening emissions.

The Sun. But that's not a great example because it also emits other, actually harmful, radiation.

Yeah, non-ionizing radiation from the Sun is harmful, e.g. when you looking at the sun via naked eyes, or forgetting to use sunscreen. But those are not normally considered as RF.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com