Showing posts with label smartphone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label smartphone. Show all posts

Thursday, October 25, 2018

iPhone XS and XR: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure

What are the SAR values for iPhone’s new smart phones? 
How should consumers use this information?

about cell phone use.

Also see: "Do iPhones emit more radiation than 
Samsung Galaxy phones?"


To reduce your exposure to microwave radiation: 
  • When communication is unnecessary, use Airplane mode.
  • When using cellular, turn off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
  • When using Wi-Fi, turn off cellular and Bluetooth.
  • When phone is powered on, never keep phone next to your body, especially during a phone call.
  • When communicating, use phone in speaker mode or a wired earpiece.
For information about wireless head sets, see my AirPods post.


Sep 13, 2018 (Updated Oct 25, 2018)

According to test reports filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for the iPhone XS Models A1920, A2099 and A2100 (FCC #BCG-E3218A) for cellular transmission is 0.90 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 0.99 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 0.99 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.35 w/kg at the head, 1.53 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.53 w/kg when used as a hotspot. (1a)

The SAR for the iPhone XS Max Models A1921, A2103 and A2104 (BCG-E3219A) for cellular transmission is 1.00 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.00 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.00 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.39 w/kg at the head, 1.52 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.52 w/kg when used as a hotspot. (1b)

The SAR for the iPhone XR Models A1984, A2107 and A2108 (BCG-E3220A) for cellular transmission is 0.90 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.10 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.10 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.41 w/kg at the head, 1.59 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.59 w/kg when used as a hotspot. (2)

All SARs reported above are averaged over one gram of body tissue corresponding to the US guidelines. The SAR values may vary by cell phone carrier. 

The SAR values listed above are for conventional cell phone communications using spectrum licensed to cell phone carriers (i.e., PCE). Apple has not yet posted the SAR values for these phones on its website. Apple will likely list slightly higher values for the head and body which represent cell phone communications using unlicensed spectrum (i.e., NII). Note that Apple does not report on its website the SARs in hotspot mode or for simultaneous transmission of cellular and Wi-Fi.

The minimum separation distance for body-worn testing was 5 mm (about two-tenths of an inch).

Outside of the United States, Apple markets other versions of these iPhone models that use different carrier frequencies. The names for these models are A2097, A2098, A2101, and A2102. The corresponding FCC IDs for these models are BCG-3232A, BCG-3233A, BCG-3234A, BCG-3235A, respectively. The SARs (averaged over 1 gram) are similar to those reported above. Note that some countries require the SARs to be averaged over 10 grams which is a more permissive test of RF exposure than averaging over 1 gram.

The SAR values for the Samsung Galaxy S8, 8 Plus, and Note smart phones were obtained at a separation distance of 15 mm (about six-tenths of an inch) from the torso so the body-worn SAR values are not comparable to those reported for the Apple iPhones. For more information see my article about Samsung smart phones.

What do SAR values mean to the consumer?

The legal limit for the SAR in the U.S. is 1.60 w/kg (averaged over one gram). In many countries the legal limit for the SAR is 2.00 w/kg (averaged over ten grams) which enables the body to absorb 2-3 times the radiation than the U.S. guideline permits.

The FCC requires that all cell phone models be tested for their Specific Absorption Rate or SAR prior to marketing. The SAR is a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by the head or the body. It is measured in a laboratory using an artificial model of a large adult male with different fluids to simulate human tissue. The SAR, which is measured in watts per kilogram, represents the maximum amount of energy absorbed in any one gram of tissue in the test model. Phones sold in the U.S. typically range in SAR values from about 0.20 w/kg up to the 1.60 legal limit. (3, 4)

The SAR test, adopted in 1996 by the FCC, was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2012. (5) The test does not reflect those who currently use cell phones, nor does it correspond to the way people use them. Today many children are cell phone users--the child’s brain absorbs twice the radiation as the adult’s brain. Moreover, the artificial head does not contain any metal (e.g., dental fillings, earrings, or eyeglass frames) which could increase the radiation absorption beyond the measured SAR in the laboratory. (5)

The FCC assumes that consumers will carry their cell phones in a manufacturer-approved holder that keeps the phone a minimum distance away from the body. However, most people do not keep their phone in a cell phone holder. For the body-worn SAR test, the FCC allows the manufacturer to choose the separation distance between the cell phone and the test model as long as consumers are informed about the minimum distance tested. However, few consumers are aware of the manufacturer’s recommended minimum body separation distance from their cell phone because this information is often difficult to find. Thus, most consumers are in the dark about precautions they can take to keep their exposure to microwave radiation below the legal limit. This prompted the city of Berkeley, California to adopt landmark legislation that requires cellphone retailers to inform their customers about the manufacturer’s safety information.

To ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the legal limit, consumers should never keep their cell phone in their pockets or next to their skin. The cell phone is not tested directly against the body because almost all cell phones would fail the SAR test as the radiation absorption increases dramatically when the cell phone is close to the body.

Is the legal limit sufficient to protect the cell phone user’s health?

Federal policies in the U.S. could lead the public to believe that all legally-marketed cell phones are safe, and that a cell phone's SAR doesn't matter as long as it meets the legal limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram. (3, 4)

However, the Environmental Working Group and experts point out that the SAR only measures the maximum microwave absorption from cell phone use that perfectly matches laboratory conditions. The SAR is not a good indicator of one’s cumulative microwave dose under naturalistic conditions.  The research evidence suggests that how one uses the phone (e.g., hands-free) and one’s cell phone carrier actually matters more than the phone’s SAR level.  (4, 6, 7)

The SAR standard was developed to protect users only from the acute effects of the heat generated by microwave radiation (i.e., the thermal effect). (5) The SAR limit does not protect users from the non-thermal effects caused by the cumulative exposure over time to cell phone radiation.

Yet, thousands of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable chemical toxins in the circulatory system to penetrate the brain. (9)

Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10)  Based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation "possibly carcinogenic" in humans (Group 2B). (11)

Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive harm and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and ADHD [attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder]) in children. (12, 13)

Based upon the weight of the evidence from several decades of research including thousands of peer-reviewed published studies, many experts worldwide have signed declarations calling upon government to adopt stronger radiation standards to protect consumers from low intensity, non-thermal exposures from radiation associated with wireless communications, and to alert consumers about how to reduce their risk of harm. (14 -16)

Recent evidence suggests that brain tumor incidence is increasing in the U.S. and other countries and exposure to cell phone radiation may be contributing to this increase. (17) More than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health have signed a petition, the International EMF Scientist Appeal, calling for stronger regulation of wireless radiation.

For tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation, see "
Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation". (18) In short, limit your use of the phone, keep the phone away from your body whenever it is powered on, use the phone hands-free, and turn off transmitters not in use (e.g., shut off Wi-Fi or use airplane mode).

References

(1a) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Smartphone. FCC ID: BCG-E3218A. Model Name: A1920, A2099, A2100. Prepared for Apple, Inc. Report Number: 12124121-S1V2. Issue Date: 8/30/2018. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-E3218A/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-Test-Report-1-of-11-3986211


(1b) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Smartphone. FCC ID: BCG-E3219A. Model Name: A1921, A2103, A2104. Prepared for Apple, Inc. Report Number: 12124122-S1V1. Issue Date: 8/30/2018. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-E3219A/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-Test-Report-1-of-10-3986223

(2) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Smartphone. FCC ID: BCG-E3220A. Model Name: A1984, 2108, 2107. Prepared for Apple, Inc. Report Number: 12162294-S1V1. Issue Date: 8/30/2018. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-E3220A/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-test-report-1-of-10-3989380

(3) FCC. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

(4) FCC. “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.” Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

(5) Joel Moskowitz. “"Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: 'Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed'.:” http://www.saferemr.com/2013/01/commentary-gao-2012-report-on-mobile.html

(6) Wolchover N. Radiation Risk: Are Some Cellphones More Dangerous Than Others? Life's Little Mysteries. June 23, 2011. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1550-radiation-risk-some-cell-phones-more-dangerous-than-others.html

(7) Environmental Working Group. EWG’s Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use: Where is EWG's cell phone database? August 27 2013. 

(8) Giuliani L. Soffritti M. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Bologna, Italy: National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer. 2010. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm

(9) Joel Moskowitz. “LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users.” Sep 20, 2013. http://www.prlog.org/12215083

(10) Joel Moskowitz. “Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use: Study. http://www.prlog.org/12216483

(11) Joel Moskowitz. “Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published.” http://www.prlog.org/12125230

(12) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm.” Nov 19, 2012.     http://www.prlog.org/12026867

(13) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children.“ http://www.prlog.org/12269207

(14) Joel Moskowitz. “Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone.html

(15) Joel Moskowitz. “Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_43.html

(16) Joel Moskowitz. “Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_4.html

(17) Joel Moskowitz. Brain Tumor Rates are Increasing in the U.S.: The Role of Cell Phone and Cordless Phone Use. 
http://bit.ly/risingtumors

(18) Joel Moskowitz. Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation  (one page handout). Undated. 
http://bit.ly/saferemrtips3

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Has the Smart Phone Replaced the Cigarette?

To see recent research on addiction to smart phones, 
social media and internet gaming: http://bit.ly/addictionsaferemr.



Consumer cultivation?



Child advocates urge Facebook to end Messenger Kids

Hamza Shaban, Washington Post, Jan 30, 2018

"More than 100 child advocates, civil society groups, medical experts and other individuals are urging Facebook to discontinue its Messenger app for kids, alleging that the software poses health and development risks to children.

Organized by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, nineteen groups, including Common Sense Media and Public Citizen, have signed a letter to Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg that will be sent on Tuesday. The initiative is the latest example of critics opposing early adoption of digital technology and is playing out amid a broader backlash against the rising influence of Silicon Valley.

The signatories said children are not prepared for online relationships and lack an understanding of privacy and the appropriateness of sharing texts, pictures and videos. Citing research that suggests a link between social media use and higher rates of depression among teens, the letter states it would be irresponsible for Facebook to expose preschool-aged children to a similar service. In addition, the signatories expressed concerns over boosting the screen time of young children and said this would interfere with crucial developmental skills such as reading human emotion, delaying gratification and engaging with the physical world."

<SNIP>


--


December 11, 2017

Is the smart phone the cigarette of the 21st century?



Yesterday cigarette companies published the following notice in major newspapers in the U.S. as part of a year-long counter-advertising campaign to comply with a Federal court order. 

What if the courts decide some day that the smart phone is the 21st century cigarette -- might we see the following smart phone ad?




July 6, 2015

During the past year, I've done several reviews of papers submitted to journals that examined smartphone addiction among young adults. The studies were conducted in different countries. The wireless industry claims to have sold more than one billion smartphones last year. Thus smartphone addiction is quickly becoming a global public health issue.  

Now for some anecdotal observations ...  Yesterday, I observed student cell phone-related behavior while walking across the UC Berkeley campus to do a lecture on the health risks of cell phones. More than half of the students I passed were carrying or connected to a smart phone. Eighteen students carried the smart phone in their hand while they walked and were not using it. Eighteen students were wearing a wired headset connected to a device in their pants pocket. I could not tell whether or how they were using this device (which was likely a smart phone) as I kept walking. Finally, seven students were on a phone call holding their smart phone next to their ear.

While waiting outside a lecture hall for the prior class to leave, I observed many undergraduates browsing their smartphones to fill the time before their next class. As the lecture hall emptied out, many students pulled out their smartphones as soon as they exited the hall. 

If we rolled the clock back to 1960, what would I have observed walking across campus?  Would many of the students I described above been smoking cigarettes?  Have we substituted one addiction for an another? Has the smart phone replaced the cigarette?

BTW, I am proud to say that the UC Berkeley campus, along with the other UC campuses, has a tobacco-free policy. I did not observe any tobacco use on my trek across campus.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, March 5, 2015


Resources

To see recent research on addiction to smart phones, 
social media and internet gaming: http://bit.ly/addictionsaferemr

Donna Vickroy, Medical Xpress, Dec 27, 2017

Cellphone usage is the new smoking. It's time to follow France's example and stamp it out
Diane Francis, Financial Post, Dec 22, 2017

Phones in schools could be banned for public health reasons in France
Julia Glum, Newsweek, Dec 14, 2017  

Does smartphone addiction show up in teen’s brains?
Dennis Thomas, CBS News. Dec 4, 2017

Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain 
Sandee LaMotte, CNN, Dec 1, 2017

Hooked on your phone? 
Brit McCandless, CBS 60 Minutes, April 9, 2017