By B.N. Frank
Last August the Chicago Tribune published a report that 11 smartphone models exceeded federal RF safety levels. This led to Fegan Scott law firm starting a class action lawsuit. Two lawsuits have also been filed against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because they refuse to provide adequate RF exposure safety guidelines, limits, and testing (see 1, 2). This puts us all at risk for exposure related conditions and illnesses (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) – especially children (see 1, 2). In fact, no “safe” level of cell phone radiation has still been scientifically determined for children or pregnant women.
Regardless, companies continue to make and market smartphones and other wireless devices to everyone – including children (see 1, 2, 3, 4) – even though tech industry insiders tend to NOT give them to their own kids.
Thanks to Scientists4WiredTech for reporting more about this:
RF-EMR Exposure Test: iPhone 11 Pro Exceeds FCC Limit
The test, conducted by Penumbra, also highlights problems with the U.S. FCC’s wireless safety regulations
A test by Penumbra Brands to measure how much radiofrequency energy an iPhone 11 Pro gives off found that the phone emits more than twice the amount allowable by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC measures exposure to RF energy as the amount of wireless power a person absorbs for each kilogram of their body. The agency calls this the specific absorption rate, or SAR. For a cellphone, the FCC’s threshold of safe exposure is 1.6 watts per kilogram. Penumbra’s test found that an iPhone 11 Pro emitted 3.8 W/kg.
Ryan McCaughey, Penumbra’s chief technology officer, said the test was a follow up to an investigation conducted by the Chicago Tribune last year. The Tribune tested several generations of Apple, Samsung, and Motorola phones, and found that many exceeded the FCC’s limit.
Penumbra used RF Exposure Labs, an independent, accredited SAR testing lab for the tests (The Tribune also used the San Diego-based lab for its investigation). Penumbra was conducting the test, which also included testing an iPhone 7, to study its Alara phone cases, which the company says are designed to reduce RF exposure in a person.
McCaughey clarified that Penumbra supplied RF Exposure Labs with one iPhone 7 and one iPhone 11 Pro for the tests — phones the company had purchased off the shelf. He attributed not testing more phones to the cost of purchasing multiple iPhones. While the Tribune and Penumbra both used off-the-shelf phones, the FCC largely tested phones supplied by the manufacturers, including Apple.
S4WT Comment: Hmmmm . . . why did Apple do that? Consumers buy their phones off the shelf.
Joel Moskowitz, a researcher at UC Berkeley who studies the health effects of wireless radiation, points to one of two possibilities. According to him, one option could be that there’s a systematic problem with RF Exposure Lab’s testing methods. Alternatively, he says, when Apple provided phones to the FCC for the follow-up investigation, “it would be easy to dummy the phone with a software update” and ensure it didn’t put out enough power to exceed the SAR limit.
Apple declined to comment on the record for this story.
There may be uncertainty in which results carry weight, but McCaughey and Moskowitz both agree that the FCC’s RF exposure testing is woefully out of date. McCaughey points out that the limits were set well before the invention of smartphones, and reflect what the FCC deemed safe 25 years ago.
“The FCC limits are over 20 years old,” says McCaughey. “Some might argue that the limit is antiquated at this point.”
The SAR limit is solely about a phone’s ability to heat tissue — essentially, the power is limited to 1.6 W/kg to ensure that no one is burned by using their phone.
S4WT Comment: Hmmmm . . . we wonder why? SAR is Specific Absorption Rate (in Watts), which only evaluates the rate of exposure, not the total exposure over time, which is measured by SA or Specific Absorption (in Watt-seconds). No other toxin is evaluated by the rate of exposure. Every other toxin considers the total dose of toxin. Is measuring only the rate of exposure and not the total exposure to a toxin scientifically sound? No, it is not. We are arguing about nonsense. SAR is irrelevant nonsense.
Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom
Q: Why are SAR measurements not applicable to the live brain?
Dr. Andrew A. Marino —> https://youtu.be/a2PNFEdmYok?t=96
Because the health hazards associated with mobile phone fields have nothing to do with heat. So it makes no sense to say, “I have a really great way of measuring heat” when the measurement of heat is irrelevant to understanding health hazards. Any measurement that you make that has no connection with what you’re interested in is just a waste of time.
SAR can produce a lot of data and when the calculations of SAR are done they can produce beautiful pictures but the pictures are arbitrary and the measurements are meaningless. It’s quite clear that that’s the case.
A phone’s SAR is determined by placing the phone between 5 and 15 millimeters from a tray of dummy fluid designed to approximate the consistency of the human body. While the phone broadcasts, a probe on the end of a robotic arm moves across the fluid and pokes it at different points, measure the absorption rate at each location.
S4WT Comment: What? No solution of water, sugar and salt can say anything about the effects of pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) (positive or negative) on live tissue. Think this through.
Just for testing thermal effects, the test may be inadequate. “The dummy fluid is homogenous, unlike the body,” says Moskowitz. The dummy fluid also doesn’t consider accessories like metal jewelry, which can affect how and where people absorb RF energy. And by testing only for thermal effects, the FCC isn’t considering other potential health effects, like decreasing sperm counts.
More fundamentally, the SAR test doesn’t accurately replicate how most people interact with their phones. Testing phones from 5 millimeters away from the body may seem close, but for anyone carrying their phone in a pocket, the distance is closer to 2 millimeters. Because wireless power falls off exponentially with distance (by the square of the distance), what might be a safe amount of RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2 millimeters.
S4WT Comment: What? But what if none of these RF-EMR exposure levels are safe? What then? Turn off the antennas on smart phones nearly all the time and limit the Effective Radiated Power (ERP) or small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTF) infrastructure to that which provides phone service only (Limit ERP to no higher than 0.1 Watts ERP, which provides voice calls and five bars on a cell phone up to ½-mile away).
McCaughey offers some best practices for anyone looking to decrease their RF exposure: Use wired headphones for calls, and don’t carry your phone in a pant pocket. He also suggests to be aware of places with poor reception. “If you have one bar or something, it’s going to turn the power way up,” he says.
Ultimately, however, what’s needed most is for more robust and comprehensive RF exposure testing from the FCC. But don’t hold your breath for that to happen any time soon. “The matter of changing the limit is more complicated,” says McCaughey. “It’s hard to define what’s a safe limit. There’s no consensus on what safe limits are.”
S4WT Comment: Display some basic courage and common-sense: limit the Effective Radiated Power (ERP) or small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTF) infrastructure to that which provides phone service only (Limit ERP to no higher than 0.1 Watts ERP, which provides voice calls and five bars on a cell phone up to ½-mile away).
Activist Post reports regularly about biological and environmental risks associated with digital, electronic, and wireless technology. For more information, visit our archives.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.