A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

<i>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, what might be a safe amount of RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2 millimeters.</i><p>They mean to say that you should expect a power about 6 times higher, (5^2 &#x2F; 2^2). This is rubbish.<p>The square of the distance model is for a pair of points. Phones in pockets at such closed distances are more closely modeled by a pair of infinite planes where the power falls off not at all. The real result will be in between, but very much closer to 1 than 6.

&gt; The SAR limit is primarily concerned with a phone’s thermal effects—essentially, the power is limited to 1.6 W&#x2F;kg to ensure that no one is burned by using their phone.<p>I should be worried about the heat generated from my phone? I thought maybe there was some issue with RF and my cells, but this seems like a complete nonissue to me. Am I being foolish for writing this off? The only time my phone is going to burn me is if the battery explodes, which doesn&#x27;t seem to be a pervasive issue. So probably not. As someone else pointed out this is a marketing ploy.

This an advertisement for their RF phone cases. In the article the premise is refuted.

If the only possible negative effect is &quot;burns&quot;, then it&#x27;s easy to verify that people all over the world aren&#x27;t getting burned by their phones, no? Testing and standards are still important, but it doesn&#x27;t sound like there&#x27;s some nefarious hidden effect we may just not know about.

&gt; That said, while the Tribune and Penumbra both used off-the-shelf phones, the FCC largely tested phones supplied by the manufacturers, including Apple.<p>This speaks to a method that can be used to game the system. What prevents manufacturers from providing phones that are somehow different from the off the shelf versions? I&#x27;m not suggesting that&#x27;s happening here. Just that the testing process is easily hacked.

To everyone who keeps repeating &quot;it&#x27;s non-ionizing radiation, so any other effect than thermal is impossible&quot;:<p>1. saying something is impossible is not a scientific statement<p>2. RF is capable of specifically affecting enzyme reactions, random example: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubs.rsc.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;content&#x2F;articlelanding&#x2F;2014&#x2F;nr&#x2F;c4nr00407h#!divAbstract" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubs.rsc.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;content&#x2F;articlelanding&#x2F;2014&#x2F;nr&#x2F;c4nr0...</a>

Are they talking about the radiation from the Wi-Fi or cell radios? I would think that modern phones have very low duty cycles on those radios. The other radiation, e.g. from the clocking of the circuits should be extremely low, otherwise our batteries wouldn&#x27;t last so long.

I suspect this has something to do with the inferior intel modem that was used during the Qualcomm debacle. One of the main advantages of the next iPhone will be returning to a Qualcomm modem that isn&#x27;t rubbish.

I was confused by the &quot;3.8W&#x2F;kg&quot; number. This Chi Trib article helped: it details &quot;the federal safety limit, which is 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over one gram of tissue.&quot; and explains how a former Qualcomm engineer did the testing.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chicagotribune.com&#x2F;investigations&#x2F;ct-cell-phone-radiation-testing-20190821-72qgu4nzlfda5kyuhteiieh4da-story.html#nt=interstitial-manual" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chicagotribune.com&#x2F;investigations&#x2F;ct-cell-phone-...</a>

I have posted this in the previous post that came up about this but I am quite concerned that the idustry may be currently self certifing its devices and getting phones past FCC regulations that do not meet the requirements just like Boeing and the FAA. We need proper funding for the FCC so they can do that job and not some industry paid company with a conflict of intrest.

In my case the phone has never been in my pocket while in use. The phone may occasionally ping the cell tower. Otherwise it is just listening in standby mode, in plain words, not transmitting. The premise of the article is weak. In my opinion the article was not suitably vetted by <i>Spectrum</i>.

EMR meters measure Volts&#x2F;meter (V&#x2F;m), milliwatts per square meter (mW&#x2F;m²), and milliGauss (mG).<p>How do you convert to watts&#x2F;kilogram?<p>Maybe measure the surface of my cross-section, multiply by mW&#x2F;m², divide by my weight?<p>I have a Cornet ED88T, a GQ-390, and a Tenmars on order.

If the phone has a strong wifi signal but a very poor cell signal, will it emit a lot of RF still?

my father occupationally used to measure RF output from mountaintop cell repeaters. he was always pushing back on operators for pushing just a little outside the limits so they could pick up more calls.