Radiation Level (SAR value) of AirPods Pro

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.

If you are worried over radiation, your iPhone or Android cell phone inside your pocket pose a greater danger than an airpod in your ear.

I have measured carefully many dozen of these devices and Bluetooth units emit far lower radiation than their main transmitters.

Not to alarm you more, but an electric toothbrush emits EMF radiation en par with microwave ovens and electric vacuum motors.

martialmarv wrote:

Thanks for your answers.

Especially pwh_!

For now I will stay away of the AirPods, even though I really would like to buy them. At least until Apple releases any official information about it.

I'm not sure why you're responding to me. I think this is a ridiculous tempest in a teapot. AirPods are not dangerous.

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".

deggie wrote:

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.

That's the part I find most amusing.

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.

The classes established have a very wide range, just because the AirPods (and every other BT IEM) are in the class does not mean they emit that level. Just like if you are in an age range of 25 - 69 it doesn't mean you are 69.

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?

Well, I thought it was pretty much covered. However, now I will point out that 0,093 wh is not the total energy you can get from the battery, because it can't be allowed to go to zero, and it stops charging slightly short of 100%. I don't know by how much, but my SWAG is that the useable energy is around 0,08 wh.

That plus the fact that there is no scientific basis behind SAR. The limit is a number pulled out of the air (or somewhere else that I won't say in this family-friendly forum) by people who don't know much about the subject. No reputable research has been done to determine how different SAR values can affect heath, if they can at all. And I doubt that the RF fields from cell phones and Bluetooth devices have any affect on heath regardless of the published or unpublished values.

By the way, what is the source for the airpod SAR value?

EDIT: found: https://fccid.io/BCG-A2032

The SAR value for mobile phones is given for the maximum transmission power. With the airpods as well (100 mW)?

100 mW is, as we derived, just a theoretic value.

And another thought: can the SAR value be higher than the maximum transmission power?

Can 0,1 W warm the body with 0,5 W/kg?

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

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.

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.

hasefa wrote:

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.

This is a user-to-user forum. You're not addressing Apple here. Apple is not going to respond to you here. If you are not happy with your AirPods and you bought them from Apple within the last 14 days, return them.