[HN Gopher] SAR Values of Commercially Available Mobile Phones
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       SAR Values of Commercially Available Mobile Phones
        
       Author : belter
       Score  : 41 points
       Date   : 2023-05-28 14:20 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bfs.de)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bfs.de)
        
       | mmastrac wrote:
       | TIL
       | 
       | SAR = Specific Absorption Rate
       | 
       | From the FCC's SAR testing page:
       | 
       | > SAR testing uses standardized models of the human head and body
       | that are filled with liquids that simulate the RF absorption
       | characteristics of different human tissues. In order to determine
       | compliance, each cell phone is tested while operating at its
       | highest power level in all the frequency bands in which it
       | operates, and in various specific positions against the dummy
       | head and body, to simulate the way different users' typically
       | hold a cell phone, including to each side of the head. To test
       | cell phones for SAR compliance, the phone is precisely placed in
       | various common positions next to the head and body, and a robotic
       | probe takes a series of measurements of the electric field at
       | specific pinpoint locations in a very precise, grid-like pattern
       | within the dummy head and torso. All data for each phone
       | placement are submitted as a part of the equipment approval test
       | report for final authorization. However, only the highest SAR
       | values for each frequency band are included in the final
       | authorization to demonstrate compliance with the FCC's RF
       | guidelines.
        
       | FollowingTheDao wrote:
       | SAR Values are useless because of what they measure and how they
       | measure them.
       | 
       | First, they are only concerned about thermal changes and it is
       | well know now that RF-EMFs have non-thermal effects on
       | biology(1).
       | 
       | Second, the SAR levels were set using non-pulsed EMFs, and that
       | makes a difference in the biology of RF-EMFs effects(2).
       | 
       | (1)
       | https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/97810032...
       | 
       | (2) https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92
        
         | daneel_w wrote:
         | For those who read and understand these publishings, are there
         | any indications of roughly what wattage (and distance from such
         | transmitting antenna/panel) the EMF/EMR starts becoming a
         | problem?
        
           | FollowingTheDao wrote:
           | There's a problem from looking at it from only a wattage
           | perspective since whether the EMFs are pulse or not is also
           | important.
           | 
           | Also, the effect on any individual might be related to
           | several variables, including genetics, current load of
           | oxidative stress, or other exogenous factors.
           | 
           | What they are trying to do is find people who truly have
           | electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome and look at them
           | for biological markers. They're not solely interested in the
           | power because they know there are variables that make people
           | more sensitive than other people.
           | 
           | This was found true in leukemia studies and overhead
           | powerlines in the 90s. They found people with certain
           | genetics that were more susceptible to leukemia from those
           | low frequency EMFs.
        
             | EdwardDiego wrote:
             | Really? Because IIRC, the relationship was more poverty
             | related than actual EMF related. Living under powerlines is
             | unattractive, so houses under powerlines attract people who
             | can't afford to live elsewhere.
             | 
             | But, if you've got citations on that one, I'll happily read
             | them.
        
               | FollowingTheDao wrote:
               | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.2754
               | 2
        
         | gjsman-1000 wrote:
         | It's scary how in the news lately, there are some things
         | brewing that we thought were safe that _just might not_ be.
         | Another one my family is watching is that Fluoride being
         | potentially dangerous (a classic conspiracy theorist
         | stereotype) is back in the news and a lawsuit against the EPA
         | has been allowed to proceed.
         | 
         | https://www.salon.com/2023/03/16/health-officials-delayed-re...
        
           | cubefox wrote:
           | Also clothes made out of synthetic fiber shed household dust,
           | microplastics, which we breathe in, and which could be
           | responsible for all kinds of illness. I'm a lot more
           | concerned of getting cotton clothes (carpets, blankets) in
           | the future.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | fock wrote:
         | so, as you assume the existence of malvolent non-thermal
         | effects: would you be so kind and point out their mechanism?
         | 
         | And also, if there is a mechanism: what do people do to verify
         | that mechanism? There should be a way to verify that without
         | self-selected human populations and crappy papermills as cited
         | by you.
        
           | superkuh wrote:
           | You're right. It's just that the only people who click to
           | comment on stupid articles like this are the
           | "electrosensitive" mentally ill and RF engineers. And there's
           | more mentally ill than RF engineers. In the past they'd be
           | obsessing over ghosts or something but now radio is the
           | invisible thing people don't understand and latch on to.
           | 
           | There's no non-thermal mechanism confirmed in any reputable
           | journal and the user above is not going to provide anything
           | other than hand waving about two photon effects (laughable)
           | or "gap junctions" and extracellular potential woo-woo.
        
             | FollowingTheDao wrote:
             | > It's just that the only people who click to comment on
             | stupid articles like this are the "electrosensitive"
             | mentally ill
             | 
             | What if EMFs are causing the mental illness? This will be
             | relevant later in this comment.
             | 
             | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S08910618
             | 1...
             | 
             | > There's no non-thermal mechanism confirmed in any
             | reputable journal
             | 
             | Is Pubmed not reputable?
             | 
             | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=EMFs+non-
             | thermal+effec...
             | 
             | Is Elseveir not reputable?
             | 
             | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383
             | 5...
             | 
             | The ideas behind how this happens seem to be solidifying
             | around EMFs affecting Voltage Gated Ion Channels:
             | 
             | https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/n
             | y...
             | 
             | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143
             | 4...
             | 
             | And hey, regarding the mental illness, you know what the
             | number one gene linked to mental illness effects? The
             | Voltage Gated Calcium Ion Channel (CACNA1C)
             | 
             | https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/44/5
             | /...
             | 
             | "Large-scale genome-wide association studies have
             | consistently shown that genetic variation in CACNA1C, a
             | gene that encodes calcium voltage-gated channel subunit
             | alpha1C, increases risk for psychiatric disorders. "
        
               | nulld3v wrote:
               | Did you read some of those PubMed articles? Some of them
               | have comments that really question the validity of their
               | findings.
               | 
               | For example: I see Pall has written a bunch and this one
               | in particular has quite a few "sus" comments:
               | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29573716/
               | 
               | The article is a meta study but there are several
               | comments from the authors of the original studies
               | indicating that they believe Pall did not interpret their
               | study correctly.
        
               | FollowingTheDao wrote:
               | I never said there were no poor researchers, or any
               | unanswered questions. I am merely pointing out the fact
               | that the science is nowhere near settled.
               | 
               | But one thing you can't do is deny my experience of
               | electromagnetic, hyper sensitivity syndrome. And you also
               | can't deny my genetics.
        
               | fock wrote:
               | Citing yourself
               | 
               | > First, they are only concerned about thermal changes
               | and it is well know now that RF-EMFs have non-thermal
               | effects on biology(1).
               | 
               | > Second, the SAR levels were set using non-pulsed EMFs,
               | and that makes a difference in the biology of RF-EMFs
               | effects(2).
               | 
               | Ah, the science is nowhere settled. I would recommend you
               | start using the appropriate verbs in the future instead
               | of making factual statements!
        
             | fock wrote:
             | Yes, I know the stories, I'm fighting a tiny faction in a
             | micro-eco-party on it...
             | 
             | The worst thing is, how the community behind this (50/50
             | crooks and then some old, methodologically not up-to-date
             | people...) essentially practices information laundering in
             | an exemplary fashion: 1) start with crappy experiments in
             | papermill annexes, 2) make a review on those leaving out
             | any where replication was found to be "hard" and
             | misinterpreting 0-results and go up a bit in credibility of
             | your publisher, 3) go on spam on hackernews/with your local
             | environmental group 4) don't answer questions 5) stop
             | answering questions.
        
           | Gnarl wrote:
           | Oxidative-stress and formation of free-radicals via erratic
           | activation of voltage-gated cell-membrane ion channels.
           | Pulsed and polarized fields most biologically active. The
           | above linked papers give a good intro to this field of
           | research.
        
             | fock wrote:
             | So now you can start predicting outcomes of new experiments
             | with your new physics? Right? Would you mind telling me
             | about those too?
        
       | CamperBob2 wrote:
       | Isn't it about time to stop pretending thay there might be
       | something hazardous about athermal levels of RF radiation? After
       | 100 years I think we'd have seen consistent biological effects in
       | the population if there were any to be observed.
        
         | redeeman wrote:
         | its blindingly obvious that there is no somewhat immediate BIG
         | problems, but who knows?
         | 
         | But as a thought experiment, what would realistically happen if
         | irrefutable evidence came on the table that RF to the levels of
         | what phonetowers, other peoples cellphones within say... 5
         | meters distance etc, had negative health effects.
         | 
         | Would people be able to demand all RF to that level be stopped?
         | could they sue those who do it? (tv stations, phone towers,
         | regular cellphone owners)
         | 
         | if those working as regulators saw the reports, and had a
         | chance to suppress or recommend we cease all modern
         | communication, what do we realistically expect them to do?
         | 
         | I think its beyond naive to think that anything would be
         | changed before a solution/fix were to exist, and it also seems
         | very naive to think that anyone who presents evidence of
         | substantial negative effects would be allowed to publish
         | anywhere of consequence.
        
           | Gnarl wrote:
           | Really? No one in cities can sleep properly - and the
           | headaches.
        
         | stracer wrote:
         | > After 100 years I think we'd have seen consistent biological
         | effects
         | 
         | Does ionizing radiation have only consistent biological
         | effects? If not, why RF must have only consistent effects?
         | 
         | Effects may be varied, just like stochastic effects of ionizing
         | radiation.
        
           | CamperBob2 wrote:
           | After 100 years, the burden of proof is on your side of the
           | fence. No one can prove a negative.
        
         | jlarocco wrote:
         | I don't know if that's the best argument.
         | 
         | People used lead for pipes, drinking glasses, and other things
         | for thousands of years before realizing the negative effects.
        
           | Aeolun wrote:
           | Is there any reason to suspects it's any different from
           | standing outside on a sunny day?
        
             | FollowingTheDao wrote:
             | Yes. The difference between man-made EMFs and natural EMFs
             | are that man made are polarized and natural EMFs or
             | unpolarized.
             | 
             | Also, the wave lengths of man-made EMFs are nonexistent in
             | the natural world, and for the majority of human evolution.
        
               | CamperBob2 wrote:
               | Never mind "not even wrong," that's not even right.
        
           | CamperBob2 wrote:
           | Yes, before the scientific method (and trial lawyers) were
           | things. We've been paying more attention lately, in case you
           | haven't noticed. There's no 'there' there.
        
       | alentred wrote:
       | I honestly don't want this comment to seem like another "all hail
       | Apple", but it is somewhat reassuring that almost all recent
       | iPhones are consistently in 0.95-0.99 range, emphasis on
       | consistency.
        
       | gavaw wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
       | josephcsible wrote:
       | Is there any evidence of actual harm correlated with high SAR
       | values?
        
         | azalemeth wrote:
         | Independent of mobile phones and treating SAR as the
         | electromagnetic phenomenon it actually is, _hell yes_. This is
         | what ultimately limits certain types of MRI experiment -- you
         | don 't want to cook the patient. The details are complex and
         | involve solving Maxwells equations, and optionally the bio heat
         | equation to model blood flow.
         | 
         | There are plenty of examples of cooking things with large
         | amounts of RF/mmWaves. The physics is very well understood. For
         | some specific examples, have a look at
         | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469254/, which
         | talks about fields burning the inside of brains, or
         | https://www.ajnr.org/content/34/5/E47, in which an unfortunate
         | girl was burnt by her (silver containing) bra.
         | 
         | Are there any documented cases of a mobile phone causing
         | problems? I don't know of any offhand, but SAR is real and the
         | models that predict it very well validated.
        
           | EdwardDiego wrote:
           | Yep, high power RF can cook you, it's why radio engineers try
           | not to expose their crotch or head to focused microwave
           | transmitters when climbing a tower. But these are signal
           | sources of a far higher power output than a cellphone.
        
           | josephcsible wrote:
           | Obviously sticking your head in a running microwave oven or
           | something like that would be bad for you. But using that to
           | say the SAR values from cell phones are dangerous would be
           | like saying that warm water is more dangerous than cold water
           | since boiling water is known to be dangerous. So let me
           | clarify my original question: is there any evidence of actual
           | harm at the highest SAR values of any cell phone?
        
       | eisa01 wrote:
       | Speaking of Germany, whenever I visit my phone battery drains
       | much faster than elsewhere
       | 
       | This is likely due to the poor reception, which would mean my
       | handset has to send a stronger signal to the base station -> more
       | exposure to non-harmful RF, but given this German institute they
       | do seem to care?
       | 
       | Would this be an example of someone shooting themselves in the
       | foot by somehow limiting the transmission power from the cell
       | sites? Or am I mistaken?
        
         | daneel_w wrote:
         | Part of it can be that, yes, and you can somewhat confirm it by
         | taking note of whether or not your phone constantly has fewer
         | bars of reception. But what affects this more are domestic
         | cellular grid configurations telling phones how often they
         | should announce their presence to base stations. With the
         | advent of 3G the beacon rate of handsets in the grid is vastly
         | higher than during the 2G era. What you're noticing is that
         | your phone is "checking in" with the grid - turning its
         | transmitter portion on and letting the grid know it's online
         | and available - a lot more often than back home.
         | 
         | As another datapoint to this I've visited Malta several times
         | the past 3 years, and on every visit I notice that my phone
         | (compared to in Sweden) drains notably less battery.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-05-28 23:02 UTC)