Radiation Level (SAR value) of AirPods Pro

Hey deggie, I completely agree with you that it’s vital to question where the data comes from so you can be happy that it’s reliable. However it looks like you missed the reference that the author gave which thoughtfully even provided an hyperlink to the source which includes the full methodology as well as results. In this case the the testing seems highly credible and was commissioned by Apple themselves. To save you re reading the article, here are the links

https://fccid.io/BCG-A2032/RF-Exposure-Info/12458150-S2V1-FCC-Report-SAR-4204549

https://fccid.io/BCG-A2031/RF-Exposure-Info/12458150-S1V1-FCC-Report-SAR-4204479

Whilst having differing value sar’s for each earpiece may seem counterintuitive, the author does quote ‘According to EE Times, the left AirPod communicates with the right AirPod using a different technology, near field magnetic induction (NFMI).’ and perhaps that gives a clue as to why there is a difference. Either way the figures are based on credible data not intuition.

What everyone chooses to do with the sar rating is up to them but IMHO this is a well written reliable article citing accurate data.

Yes, I just read your post after I wrote mine.

Here the details for the Airpods Pro:

https://fccid.io/BCG-A2084/RF-Exposure-Info/12681939-S1V2-FCC-Report-SAR-4475947

with the text

"SAR Testing was performed on the Flat Phantom for normal use for Head. Additional SAR Testing was performed on the location closest to the Antenna (Rear of the Device) of similar configuration to demonstrate compliance. This was reported as the highest SAR."

The SAR value for „head“ is 0,097 / 0,072 W/kg (left and right are a bit different) and 0,6 for „body“, means „rear of the device“.

So the interesting value is the one for „head“, right?

I said that Bluetooth and WiFi is non-ionizing and to date there is no scientific studies that show that they cause any biological damage to cells. None. And the WHO, that initially said that use of the iPhone could possibly lead to tumors withdrew their original study after there were several peer reviews and follow up studies showing that there study was flawed.

Given the low range of Bluetooth, and the fact that the headphones primarily receive a stream, not transmit one there is no chance of damage from the non-ionizing radiation. I suppose Apple could stop using Bluetooth in them and that would protect you because if they lowered the transmission they would not work.

Use wired headphones if you are that concerned.

martialmarv wrote:

Thanks, but actually I didn't want to discuss cancer risks of cell phones in this post. Just wanted to know the official radiation level of AirPods Pro.

Well, you're not going to find it in this user-to-user forum, and your probably not going to find it anywhere because there is no requirement to measure or publish SAR levels for Bluetooth devices.

This paper doesn’t answer the question for AirPod pro’s but I found it helpful as it has been updated for AirPod 2’s and is a credibily written article with sources cited. https://www.saferemr.com/2016/09/airpods-are-apples-new-wireless-earbuds.html . For AirPod 2’s they are giving figures of 0.581 sar for the right AirPod and 0.501 sar for the left. That was enough to persuade me to stay with wired earphones. Shame Apple doesn’t share this info in the technical spec’s on their website, we can only guess why. Hope that helps.

What I find amusing is everyone ignores the fact that SAR of a phone is directly tied to the phone's power output, and it in turn is directly tied to the phone's performance on the cellular network. So a phone with better performance will, almost by definition, have a higher SAR. If you want a low SAR just buy a phone that has poor performance.

And the SAR of an AirPod is totally meaningless. People in this thread are confusing magnetic fields with electrical fields (they aren't the same, as explained by James Clerk Maxwell over 150 years ago) with electomagnetic fields, with non-ionizing radiation, with ionizing radiation, with different frequencies, with power levels of different technologies. A magnetic field has ZERO SAR because magnetic fields are not absorbed. A magnetic field is what is produced by refrigerator magnets. The microwave signal in a Bluetooth device is very low power, both because Bluetooth is a low power technology and because the device is a receiver, except when using it as the microphone on a phone call.

In the document I linked above, I can find different SAR values:

The SAR value body is 0,58 and the SAR value head 0,095.

Can someone explain that?

And here the document for the airpods pro: https://fccid.io/BCG-E3309A/RF-Exposure-Info/12696946-S1V3-FCC-Report-SAR-4416086

Flozeff, in answer to your question as to where the SAR values came from, the linked document in my earlier posting that details the SAR’S for the Airpod 2’s is on the FCC’S server and is Apple’s submission to the FCC. I don’t think there’s any question about the validity of that data. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a similar document for the pro’s somewhere on that site.

Since they are Bluetooth they only emit non-ionizing radiation unlike a cellular radio so no SARS rating. They also mostly receive except when talking to Siri or on phone calls.

The Radio/Microwave radiation levels were mostly within 0.05 to 0.1 mW/cm^2 with spikes when I switch from ANC to transparent to near 0.2 mW/cm^2. I have not seen any jumps above the dangerous level beyond 0.2 mW/cm^2 during my first 2 days of use.

I also measured difference between using Android and iPhone. There were pretty similar in terms of radiation levels.

What was different is that my Android OnePlus 7 Pro needed only 40% output level to match 60% from my iPhone X.

The magnets inside the Airpods Pro will trigger spikes in some magnetic meters, but these are not dangerous in my experience and opinion as an IEEE Electrical Engineer.

martialmarv wrote:

Sorry, I replied to you mistakenly.

But thanks for your science-backed solution - helps a lot lol.

Yes, my opinion is based on science. And common sense.

The overall current data indicates that, while further study might be warranted, there is little evidence that cell phones and (by extension) Bluetooth headsets represent a danger.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

The National Cancer Insistuted says that "The most consistent health risk associated with cell phone use is distracted driving and vehicle accidents".

That site is unreliable and they don't tell what lab did the testing, nor how they tested. Their is no reason for the left and right to be different. The problem with the SARS measurement is no one can actually articulate why it should or should not be at a certain level, it is basically a made up number.

Do you know of any Bluetooth and WiFi headphone makers that post this number?

Just a few thoughts:

I think you are right about the low transmission power of bluetooth.

But: the battery in the airpod has about 0,16 Wh, what means that if they would send with 100 mW, the battery would last for 1,6 hours (provided the whole energy is used for the transmission (of course, it is not). You also need battery for the sound and the sensors, for example.

A battery life from 5 hours means the airpod uses 0,032 W (32 mW) (averaged) for everything that uses battery (except ANC in this case, with ANC the battery lasts for 4,5 hours).

without ANC: 5 hours = 0,032 W (32 mW)

with ANC: 4,5 hours = 0,036 W (36 mW)

Speaking: 3,5 hours = 0,046 W (46 mW).

// in that case, ANC uses 1/10 (0,016 Wh) of the battery life. Everything simplified of course.

I have no idea how the chip works and how much power is used for the other things. But I can imagine that transmission is the most powerful part. Are there any informations about that?

What do you think about the measuring videos? Of course there is a risk to do a lot of mistakes if you don't know what and how to measure in detail. Is there any expert in these videos?

Is it possible that the sensors cause the high radiation (I mean that they can distort the result)?

Or maybe that the airpods are not placed in the ear (what they recognize)?

Do the airpods recognize "hey siri" on the chip?

They say

"SAR Testing was performed on the Flat Phantom for normal use for Head. Additional SAR Testing was performed on the location closest to the Antenna (Rear of the Device) of similar configuration to demonstrate compliance. This was reported as the highest SAR."

Source: https://fccid.io/BCG-A2032/RF-Exposure-Info/12458150-S2V2-FCC-Report-SAR-4246049 page 14.

Airpods Pro: https://fccid.io/BCG-A2084

Sorry, I linked the wrong document in the post above.

Dear Apple,

I am a big fan of your products and I am really disappointed that you leave your customers hanging on the question, how dangerous our Air Pods 1, 2 and pro. Please formulate a clear statement. I need to use them for work, several hours a day. I need some guidance from your or need to send my products back.

Kind regards Harald