Even despite this reduced allowable emission the iPhone is barely out of compliance, they will need to reduce power less than 10% or simply get another few millimeters farther away.
The french disagree with this standard and specify the limits at 0mm and 5mm separation, which obviously increases absorption. However, they did not increase the absorption limits accordingly.
Thus, actually most phones are out of compliance with the new french regulations (ANFR describes it as "a large proportion of phones" as being out of compliance, sounds like de-facto it's almost all). Since the EU is more of an advisory body and allows individual countries to set such limits individually, the EU has issued an application restriction which prohibits their usage in France (presumably until manufacturers patch TX power limits downwards as Apple will most likely do).
I guess you can describe that as an "EU limit" since it's an application restriction approved by the EU, but it's not the same limit as applies in the rest of the EU, it's a local application restriction issued at the request of french regulatory bodies applicable only in france.
https://www.anses.fr/en/content/exposure-mobile-telephones-c...
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ANFR-Data-PDF-SAR-Eur...
https://www.anfr.fr/en/anfr/news/all-news/detail-of-the-news...
I can get behind removing the ambiguity of manufacturer-chosen testing distances and officially specifying this at 15mm. Or if you think that's unrealistic then 5mm and 0mm also make sense, but if you move the emitter closer you're gonna get a stronger signal and the SAR threshold should be adjusted accordingly. Which the french didn't do, because they're low-key catering to the "phones cause cancer" wackos here for political play.
But this isn't just an apple thing and there will be a patch reducing your signal strength for android too, most likely. iphones just get lots of media play.
again though it's all a matter of how you design the test. if the source comes closer, the output is going to go up. using the same number but way closer than everyone else is actually using a lower number than everyone else.
again, I'm OOP and (while I'm not a doctor) my take is that the scale of cellphone ownership is far too big (at 4x+ these french emission limits, per the ANFR charts) for these to be reasonable decisions. cellphones at the customary frequency bands and emissions levels just are not that much of a health hazard, or else there would have been observable results bounded by the sample size (large). And really there are practical technical limits to how much power it's worth pounding out before you overwhelm the cell site or drain your battery in an hour. It's optimal for everyone if noise floors are low.
Can you link a source?
but there's no particular reason to think that this new, effectively lower absorption limit correlates to any particular health risk, or that it's a relevant threshold for absorption now that you've moved the phone closer.
the fact of the matter is, if there was some major absorption risk from phones, we'd have seen an abrupt spike in cancer rates in the 2000s when like 90% of the population suddenly started carrying a phone against their body for 16 hours a day. The world’s greatest (and ethical!) A/B test lol.
The evidence is already in, just from weight of mass public usage. At least at these frequencies and transmit powers.
Whether a few milliwats of that type of warming are actually cause for concern I don't know, but even if it's bogus, that doesn't mean that regulators will not be enforcing legal maximums anyway.
>In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi.
>Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage.
>More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.
> The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven.
What is an "information-gathering component"? What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values, which definitely is a thing for some, but not all of the mentioned transmission technologies: Especially 3G and some versions of Wi-Fi use DSSS or other spread-spectrum techniques which are not pulsed, unlike TDMA.
I could even see an argument being made for "pulsing" making a difference and maybe another measure than the EIRP being needed (just like how the linear-no-threshold model for the effects of radiation on organisms might be a simplification of what's actually going on), but then it doesn't help to just throw a bunch of wildly different wireless technologies, using greatly varying transmission powers from 10 mW to 2000 mW, into a single bag and call them "very different from microwave ovens" without describing what that means.
I assume they mean each pulses at a different frequency range, the information is gathered or clumped up around its own band.
You can assume modern articles repeat themselves and say the same thing several times. I suppose this is the first useful instance I've seen... or is it?
> What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values
I'm definitely not an expert but I can share my layman view on the topic.
Equivalent isotropic radiated power is just power.
If you strike an object it makes a sound, it vibrates at it's own frequency. Sometimes it dampens quickly sometimes it sticks around. Like say a bell, a wine glass or a tuning fork.
It takes very little energy to push a swing and keep it going. It will eventually get rid of the energy though friction but much slower than you can gently push it up to speed. You can't push the swing at some random frequency, you have to match it exactly (1/2 or 1/4 would also work of course) just like you cant shatter a whine glass if your voice doesn't match the frequency. You can make a hell of a lot of noise (power) without shattering any wine glasses.
EIRP would be like trying to destroy the glass with just decibels.
All parts of our body big and small vibrate too, with all the liquid it dampens quickly and there is very little for magnetism to hook into but if the frequency matches exactly (or some octave of it) it doesn't seem a stretch of the imagination that one can have an effect without much power. The power just needs to exceed dampening.
With dental fillings the effect is well known.[1][2] Say mercury spreads around the body, would that have no effect on reception?
Sorry to butcher the topic, I'm just trying to picture how it might work. There are plenty of (strange[3]) studies and 5000 scientists who agree it's just bad for our health.
And of course the addicts who don't want to hear any of it :)
[1] - https://www.bradfordfamilydentist.ca/lucille-ball-heard-spie...
Oh right, i did't think about the penetration depth.
Both frequency and amplitude matter; reductive arguments like this will convince neither laypeople nor people with some understanding of physics.
I can’t find a study because the internet is full of blog spam saying your microwave oven has shielding that keeps emissions to a safe level (of course), and studies looking at microwave radiation exposure near the cell phone limit, not 1000x higher, which is roughly what your microwave does if the shielding is missing or the safety interlock is broken.
That and interfering with wifi.
[1] https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cance...
The study mentioned by the person in the above article exposed rats and mice to levels far above any SAR limits, and across their entire body. The study authors themselves say it is not representative of human exposure. And even then, they found that male rats lived longer than their normal lifespans when exposed.
https://tools.niehs.nih.gov/newsreleases/index.cfm/detail/85...
Imagine it says "It's not like there are high speed neutrons flying around".
I'm fairly certain that no iPhone model to date emits gamma radiation, though.