Radiation Level (SAR value) of AirPods Pro

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

I measured the EMF levels on my Airpods Pro and they were at all angles under 3 milligauss using a TriField Meter.

As a point of reference, an iPhone X registers 5 - 8 milligauss during phone calls. So use your bluetooth headphones.

@Deggie, that is not true. Both Bluetooth and cellular are non-ionizing!

The problem with in-ear Bluetooth headsets is that they are so close to the brain and may "escape" dense bone. Therefore, the radiation affecting the brain may be higher with in-ear Bluetooth headsets compared to a phone even though the phone has an overall higher emission.

Apple please protect your customers!

[Edited by Moderator]

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.

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:

Anway, this discussion won't come to a solution until there are any officially published values. You say Airpods Pro emit low radiation, when I google I find testimonials that say the opposite.

And when I Google I find testimonials that say the Earth is flat and that aliens abduct humans. Testimonials prove nothing. And are more often than not total BS. If you have links to any real properly conducted research I would love to see them.

Here's a statistic to think about: Hand held cell phones have been in use for 25 years. Over that same 25 year period the incidence of brain cancer has declined. So clearly cell phones prevent brain cancer. No? BTW, the facts are correct. The correlation may not be.

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.

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?

Another interesting fact: if you compare the Airpods Pro with the Libratone Track Air+ (transmit power < 3mW), they last with a battery capacity of 0.2 Wh (Airpods Pro: 0.16 Wh) specified max. 6 hours (compared to the Airpods: 5h or 4.5h with ANC)). Either Libratone needs the energy for something else or the Airpods transmit with a lower power in average than assumed (source for the details of the Libratone Track Air+: https://fccid.io/Y2SLTI800).

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.

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 think the bogosity factor in that number approaches 1.

Why? Because the output of a BT device when transmitting is 0.01W. So how can the SAR value be any higher than 0.01 w/kg?

No more information from any side? No more measurements or something?