SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the since-when-did-radio-frequency-stop-being-two-words? dept.
The Chicago Tribune recently launched an investigation into the radiofrequency radiation levels output by popular smartphones, and found that some of Apple's iPhones are allegedly emitting radiofrequency radiation that exceeds safety limits.
According to the newspaper, it contracted an accredited lab to test several smartphones according to federal guidelines. iPhones were secured below clear liquid formulated to simulate human tissue while probes measured the radiofrequency radiation the liquid absorbed.
Several iPhones measured over the legal safety limits in the tests, but the worst performer was the iPhone 7. Its radiofrequency radiation exposure was over the legal limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators.
The iPhone X was slightly over limits in some tests, as was the iPhone 8, while the 8 Plus stayed within the legal range. iPhones were tested twice after Apple provided feedback on the testing method. The modified test "added steps intended to activate sensors designed to reduce the phones' power."
[...] The FCC, meanwhile, said that it is going to be doing its own testing over the next couple of months.
"We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules," agency spokesman Neil Grace said.
Also at AppleInsider and PhoneArena.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rupert Pupnick on Thursday August 22 2019, @08:09PM
I guess if you're trying to measure in units of W/kg, you have to do something along these lines, but it's not surprising at all that you would see big differences between Apple labs and a third party test house. I mean, what's in that clear liquid, and why do they think it's a good way of simulating RF absorption in body tissue that is not at all homogeneous? Your head has bone, blood, and lots of other stuff in between.
Why not the EMI chamber approach used in industry? Just measure field strength per some solid angle volume with a calibrated antenna against some limit, and leave it at that. Is it because of near field versus far field differences?