SAR value iphone 6 GSM

You are one of those conspiracy guys, aren't you? You don't believe "big media" (whatever that it) you get your news from the internet. You may also be a truther for all I know.

If you had invented a highly efficient electric car 15 years ago you would be fabulously wealthy and you wouldn't be wasting your time posting here. And no all the people in the oil companies are not nasty, including some at the top. Easy to call them that when you don't know them. The EV1 was a failed project at GM that they mishandle and wasted multi-millions of shareholders dollars. Eventually it became the Volt. More wasted money. Oil companies could care less about the EV1, they knew it was a failure from the start. The problem we currently have will all mobile electronics is there has been no great breakthrough in battery technology which hasn't kept up with everything else. There also is no car that runs forever on a drop of water and no perpetual engine.

David,

You do not know what you are talking about. Regardless, if you believe that the iPhone is unsafe, then is would behoove you to buy another product. End. Of. Story.

@deggie : Not that I don't believe big media, but if you bring the subject and really want my opinion, they were doing a better job back in the days. They were much more objective and they used to do a complete research before publishing an article. Today the top editors are all after the money and they realized that sensationalism and having exclusive news (aka being the first to publish something) was the way to bring money home. Sensationalism doesn't mean everything they say is wrong though. I may have an opinion about something and still be right about it. So it doesn't make newspaper information wrong or right, in the sense that it doesn't change the essence of the content, but it changes the container to display it, and it affects what the population is inclined to believe.

As I said, I'm not saying this is necessarily a conspiracy here, but since there's a HUGE money sign behind the question, I have the right to ask myself the question.

About the EV1, you're way too optimistic about humanity and the oil companies man ! If I were one of these top heads, with distorted minds of moneymakers such as theirs, of course I would buy and kill such a revolutionary project in a heartbeat, because it would be a threat and destroy my business in no time. And that's what happened ! Even today, we have a hard time making a car with the specs of the EV1. And once again, I'd like to bring you on the right track because you're interpreting things that I never said, which are that "everybody who works at an oil company is nasty". There are people there just having a regular job with a regular salary, like you and I do, but in other domains. What I think though, is that when there's billions of dollars in the game, the heads at the top will do anything to get it even if they have to cheat.

Remember that sentence and it'll put every one of your thoughts in perspective : Money rules this world. This is the fundamentals of capitalism my friend. It might be the only system that truly works out there, history has proven it a countless number of times, but it has its amount of flaws. Some things are the right things to do - such as preserving the environment - but the ideas that are pro-environmentalist and that generate money at the same time are only a few, as opposed to just do whatever you want with the pollution. Why ? Because it's a limitation and limitations usually represent losses of money. Same thing with the iPhone. If the criteria would be 0.5 W/kg of 1 g of tissue, it might cost more to Apple to research a different antenna scheme and build a phone with this spec.

@carl wolf : Telling someone he "doesn't know what he's talking about" without backing up your argument is a plain free attack and it doesn't lead this discussion anywhere. There are probably hundreds of studies out there that show there might be a danger, and thousands that say the opposite. All of them are based (or try as hard as they can to base themselves) on scientific facts, and the concept behind science is to bring the truth to people.

I'm not the only one thinking it's harmful, and you're not the only one thinking it's not, but both clans have scientific papers to back their points. So clearly, there's someone between us who's right and someone who's wrong. If you know so much more than me about the subject, why don't you bring more information to the table ? I, for one, brought you the breast cancer topic, which I read on the national news in Canada no more than two weeks ago.

Again, there were no specs making the EV1 a great car, it was an utter failure. Any oil company exec who would have paid money to kill it would have been retired. And they didn't buy it, squelch it or anything.

David Pelletier wrote:

which I read on the national news in Canada no more than two weeks ago.

And, of course, newspapers are unbiased. They have no reason to sensationalize scientific papers, thereby distorting them. I mean, why would a newspaper what to inflame and excite the public?

@deggie : The EV1 had a battery capacity / energy efficiency that no other car can match 15 years later, and you call that no spec ... ? You should take a look at the documentary "Who killed the electric car".

@Meg : Did you even read what I said up there about sensationalism ? I brought up the subject even before you did. And while we're at it, the national news have a minimum level of credibility to maintain. If that scientific research was trash and poorly supported, they wouldn't have brought it up.

On the same note, the amount of breast cancer is increasing. Just take a look at the statistics from your government (i.e. Statistics Canada here). How do you explain that ? Could it be that cellphone radiation is one amongst various other causes, or are you closed enough to refute it right away ? If anything, by saying that we shouldn't believe the media, you're miles ahead in front of me in being cynical and conspirationist.

I don't mind deggie answering for me while I was at the Pearl theater watching Uncle Vanya. We sometimes agree 😉

You didn't answer his comment. TON is not a scientific measure. If you have actual references to published, peer reviewed studies that support your claims please post them. I am an electronics engineer and I follow all of the published research. My original statement stands. There have been no published studies that show any connection between cell phone use and any illness, but there have been many studies that show no connection. I'll find them if you like. The most telling one is that there has been no increase in the overall incidence of brain cancer in the past 30 years, which goes back before the time that cell phones have been in use. If there were a connection you would see an increase in the overall incidence, and that simply is not the case.

But if you truly believe what you post you would be a fool to use ANY cell phone, as no study has ever demonstrated that one SAR level is safe and another is unsafe.

The SAR is simply irrelevant. It was invented as a marketing gimmick. Phones radiate non-ionizing electromagnetic waves, at extraordinarily low power levels (0.5 watts maximum).

@Lawrence

There is a universal concept that every community should practice: the precautionary principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle).

The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.

USA, European Union and other countries fixed for this purpose a parameter, SAR, to limit and control the absorption of energy by the human body when exposed to a radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic field. So, even if I respect your opinion (I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it), I must "stop" you when you say that SAR is simply irrelevant because, as you wrote, there are controversial studies... at least.

Anyway, In this website we are simply asking: What is the SAR value for the Iphone 6?

@Carl

If we are discussing here is because we love all the Apple systems, the OS, the applications, the design, etc. but pondering about the significantly higher value of the SAR of the Iphone compare, for ex., to the Samsung Galaxy, it is a sacrosanct consideration. The comparison is pertinent because the performance in terms of connection are equivalent.

So, Apple, just do it, give us the best SAR in the market!

Clearly, you and others are unhappy with whatever answer you receive and you simply want to argue a point. Terrific.

Honestly,

You gave us a breath-taking contribute to the discussion... howling to the wind.

Long life and prosper!

No, the EV1 did not have revolutionary battery power that was beyond anything of today. That was pure puff put out by GM to try to prop their stock up at a time they were bleeding money. GM had enough money to stand up to any oil company and besides that any oil company could have turned around and used the technology for themselves since they have a product with a finite life. And any of the more than 100 engineers could have waited for patent expiration and used the technology themselves. They could have gone to Europe and used it. Why didn't they? Because there was no such technology. Still isn't.

And no I didn't see it but I do know car guys that have.

You also believe all those Monsanto documentaries, right?

And as was said at the very start it is available at the FCC and it has been posted here.

David Pelletier wrote:

And while we're at it, the national news have a minimum level of credibility to maintain. If that scientific research was trash and poorly supported, they wouldn't have brought it up.

I'm not inclined to used text abbreviations here in the forum but, in this case, I'll make an expectation: ROTFLMAO! You're faith in national news and it's ability to report science is ......charming.

joeItaly wrote:

@Lawrence

There is a universal concept that every community should practice: the precautionary principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle).

The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.

Universal concept, what does that mean? It is not a scientific concept but a political one. It is not possible to prove a negative, not possible to prove that something does no harm. "Scientific consensus" is also a mostly useless phrase in this context as it is incredibly vague. Even if you take the popular meaning of "a general agreement" what percent does that mean? 51%? 99%? Something in between? If so, what?

What is the SAR value for the Iphone 6?