Apple watch gives pain on the wrist?

You should return it. You can't change what the watch is made of now. Tell Apple WHY you are returning it and move on. No one knows they have lettuce between their teeth unless someone tells them. Say nothing, and they have no clue they need to take an action. Going around to everyone at the party telling other guests about the lady with the lettuce in her teeth is useless, and unfair to the person who should know this.

I have an Radio Frequency meter because we moved to a rental that's several blocks from a cell tower and I wanted to check the levels in the house. The signals from almost all transmitting devices definitely fluctuate--you can easily see this on the meter. And so far it corresponds with the amount of traffic carried. And yes, WiFi is a radio frequency. And WiFi and Cell phones are in the microwave range of RFs.

We have an Apple router, various Macs, an Apple Watch, iPads, iPhones, etc. These emit often wildly fluctuating readings, and there are certain actions that will spike the reading of a device from anywhere from 2 to over 200 watts (the biggest spikes were the iPhone 6 Plus and the router consistently outputs a lot of RF). The biggest spikes I've thus far measured came from taking the iPhone out of Airplane Mode (I've had it spike upwards of 260 watts) and for the first couple minutes it will remain high (anywhere from 3 watts to 80) while it retrieves data like mail, texts, weather info, etc. Then it will fall back down to below one watt until I use it for data or voice. The Apple Watch generally has not exceeded 2 or 3 watts. Often it is over 1 watt, and would dip to about 300-600 milliW (0.3-0.6 watts) when it was not actively being used. As a possible benchmark, building biologists set the "safe" zone at no more than 100 milliW (0.1 watt).

[I'm sure everyone has opinions about this standard--I'm just relaying the info for people's consideration. There are lots of places in our house that is well below 100mW even with excellent cell and WiFi coverage, and we have about 7-10 other WiFi networks around us from the neighbors so it's not an impossible standard.]

Furthermore, because the RF intensities are logarithmic in distance to the source, there is a sizeable drop-off in exposure just by stepping a little ways back from an smaller RF source. (For larger RF sources, even a couple blocks makes a remarkable difference in the readings.) So even a few steps can make quite a difference. Again, don't take my word for it--this can easily be tested with the meter.

Out of curiosity, I've just tested the BlueTooth in my car with my iPhone. My meter is unidirectional, so I had the antenna pointed directly at the radio (the phone was not in the antenna's range). I don't know much about BT radiation (whether it's considered RF or not), but I can tell you that like the iPhone, the RF reading spiked for a minute or two before settling down. When the car was running, but the radio was off, the levels were about 30-50 mW (0.03-0.05 watts). When I turned on the radio, it spiked quite high and fluctuated in a high zone (between 5 and 80 watts, or 5000 to 80000 mW). So this might be one possible data point for you, Wongster.

For those who are interested, I have found this article: http://www.newsweek.com/iphone-6-bendgate-apple-says-your-iphone-shouldnt-go-you r-pocket-avoid-273313

And there was a FoxNews article (I know, hardly the model of journalistic objectivity but read it first before passing judgment) that also discusses this: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/10/20/experts-why-wearable-tech-could-pose-heal th-risks/.

In the latter article, the author cites Joel Moskowitz who is the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the UC Berkeley Prevention Research Center School of Public Health. Moskowitz mentions that the upper SAR limit for devices is currently 1.60. However, according to Moskowitz, that standard was set as a safety precaution for acute exposure. So that safe exposure limit may need to be much lower for chronic exposure. I suppose if you want, you can test the veracity of the citing by contacting Moskowitz. Folks can still disregard what he says as fear-mongering, but then we run into the danger of selective evidence and being just as skewed as the folks we may see as whacked-out.

We love our Apple devices. I doubt my husband will give up his beloved watch any time soon. I also think that people need to do what's right for them. If something doesn't feel right to you, whatever the reason may be, then do what you need to get back into a healthier place for you. And I think people should be allowed to do this without judgment from those who haven't walked in their shoes.

Your measurements are totally bogus. There is no way an iPhone can put out 200 watts. It's battery capacity is only 10 watt-hours!!!!!

Even Apple cannot violate the laws of physics.

So we can safely discount everything you have posted. It's clear that the instrument you used is defective.

Electrical watt-hours, battery power, etc. is NOT the same as Radio Frequency. Voltage is measured by one type of meter, like a voltimeter or a multimeter. Radio Frequency is a different type of field and requires a different type of meter to measure. Magnetic is yet another type of field that requires yet another kind of meter. These are quite easy to look up.

Sure. It's absolutely a possibility that the meter is defective or that there's a conversion that's off. But the only way to know is to get a hold of meter and find out for yourself. I tend to not discount the readings because I get similar readings to those that other people get for many of the other devices I've measured.

Also, there's plenty of things said and written which is off in one way or another but to then discount the whole thing is not any more objective than buying everything hook line and sinker.

Can you present your credential is electrical engineering, radio, etc. here so we can compare them to Lawrence? Or is this one of those situations where someone with no training to actually use a complex meter is trying to use it and interpret it?

Yes there are lots of fields and there are many, many more subsets of those field. There are many types of radiation. The sun emits many types of fields at a much higher level than anything you have mentioned.

No one is "buying" anything except you and some others here. WiFi and Bluetooth emit non-ionizing radiation. There have been blind tests conducted and people could not accurately identify when the field was present and when it was off.

I am an electrical engineer, who has specialized in radio frequency design and engineering for 40 years from broadcast through microwave. I hold patents on microwave devices. I know what I am talking about. You do not. Power is power. If you have only 10 watts at your disposal before the battery dies you cannot radiate 200 watts, at least not in this universe and its laws of physics.

What you just said is absolute BS, beginning to end.

The absolute maximum that an iPhone can radiate in the cellular bands is 600 milliwatts (0.6 watts), by law, as well as laws of physics. And it will only radiate that much if the cell site signal is very weak (below 1 bar). With 5 bars its radiated output is 50 milliwatts (0.05 watts). The maximum that it can radiate over WiFi is 30 milliwatts (0.03 watts). And the maximum that radiates over Bluetooth is 10 milliwatts (0.01 watts). The Apple watch is limited to 3 milliwatts (0.003 watts) over Bluetooth, as it is a Bluetooth 4 Low Energy device.

To expand on my credentials (per Deggie's request), Google AN/SPN-41. I designed it; the first microwave landing system for aircraft carriers, first installed in 1970, and still in use by the US Navy. Then google MSBLS (Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System). This is the same technology as the AN/SPN-41, but adapted to land the Space Shuttle Orbital Vehicle. I also hold a patent for an advanced antenna for this application. These technologies operate in Ku Band, which is 26 GHz. You might also google TACAN. I did not develop it, but I was involved in the design of the first automated test system for it. TACAN operates in the 960-1200 MHz band, which is in the middle of the cellular bands.

Okay. That's good to know. You'd then be a great resource for clearing this up.

I'd be interested if you could post your own measurements of your devices. I think since this is a forum where folks are trying to help one another, measurements you post would be helpful in clearing up a lot of confusion. I probably did a conversion wrong or something, but having measurements made by someone qualified would be a great help to a lot of people.

I'm not trying to challenge anyone. I'm trying to understand more about the complex world we live in. And I am certainly more than willing to hear out the different folks who have some knowledge to impart. I don't doubt the studies that you mention. But there are also brain surgeons who have gone on record saying that after what they've seen, they won't let their kids use cellphones. There are other studies that show an increase in various cancers within a certain radius of cell masts. But again, no long term studies so everyone is just left in limbo.

There is lot of other anecdotal evidence, and because it is anecdotal it is often discounted. But then you gotta wonder, when does that evidence accumulate enough critical mass...to the point that we have to concede that some parts of the population may be having legitimate issues? After all, history has plenty of examples of things that were discounted at one time, based on existing evidence and knowledge, but then it turned out to be true...and usually only after enough people said something.

Sorry...just realized that I did not address BT directly. Again, like I say, don't know much about this. I reported what the fluctuations measured by my meter--and yes, perhaps it's defective or I didn't convert it right, so again, Lawrence Finch's measurements would be really helpful here.

Yes, you are trying to challenge with your opinions. But you aren't posting any facts.

You are posting in the Apple Watch forum. It does not have a cell radio so what does that have to do with brain surgeons and cell phones? Maybe it is because since you can answer calls on your Watch you don't have to put the phone next to your head so you thing this is a good thing?

Anecotal really isn't evidence. It should be discounted. And anecdotal evidence will never reach critical mass. Even those things that you say were discounted at one time were actually proven by science. The problem is science has looked at WiFi and BT emissions and studied it and not found it to be harmful. They've studied vaccines and don't show them to cause autism. But some people persist ONLY based upon anecdotal evidence.

As far as this thread about the Watch there is in fact a very simple solution. Anyone who believes it is causing them pain, tingling, migraine headaches, psoriasis, gout, etc. should return them and stay away from them.

While there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, it is a mistake to call it "evidence." Virtually all of it is subjective, and most of it has no basis in science and is not reproducible. There is also a lot of real scientific evidence that is not anecdotal. Some of it is retrospective (meaning it is gleaned from analyzing public data or data from other studies), and a lot of it is prospective (meaning data collected to test a hypothesis). Thus far none of the real scientific studies, either prospective or retrospective, have found any correlation between cell phones, WiFi, Bluetooth and any medical condition. The largest retrospective study is still going on: Cell phones have been in widespread use for roughly 30 years. Yet in those 30 years there have been no increases in any medical condition that could be even remotely associated with cell phones. The biggest non-event was in brain tumors, which have actually decreased since cell phone use became common.

Hundreds of prospective studies have been done, examining the health of cell phone users, categorizing users by how much they use the phone and how they use it. There have been some correlations, but none of them have anything to do with radiation. People who text constantly tend to develop orthopedic problems with their fingers (duh!). The same problems that computer gamers have, and that typists had in earlier generations.

Studies go back much further than cell phones. Cell phones operate in the microwave region of the spectrum. This is a "non-ionizing" portion, unlike X-Rays, cosmic rays, or even sunlight. Microwave use goes back to the early 1940's, when RADAR was invented independently by Great Britain, the US, Japan and Germany. Since the end of WW II the effect of microwaves on animals and humans has been studied almost continuously. The only measurable ill effects of microwaves are due to heating caused by stimulation of the fluids in the body. The same effect that makes microwave ovens work. And unless the heating was intense (as in a microwave oven) it caused no permanent damage. When the DEW (Distant Early Warning) line of high power RADAR was deployed in Alaska in the early 1950's operators would warm themselves by standing in front of the rather massive, high power antennas that were designed to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union.

The studies of effects of non-ionizing radiation on animal life, from any portion of the spectrum from 60 Hz power lines through 50,000 watt broadcast stations to cellular and RADAR frequencies are almost universally negative.

The current SAR standards are based on the warming effect. And even then, they are arbitrary, and based primarily on politics, not science. And it's pretty clear that the scientific knowledge of most politicians is between zero and some negative number.

But if you are concerned anyway, then you should not use any cell phone or electronic device.

Thanks, Lawrence. That's an info-packed summary, and I'll do some homework. If you want to help me out and post links to some of the studies, that'd be great. And if you got an RF meter, perhaps you can figure out what was wrong with my measurements if you're so inclined.

Frankly, I'd love to think that all of these emissions do squat to our bodies. It's hard to even remember what it was like before these devices came out--not even my 18 year old remembers corded phones.

Still, I admit that the jury is still out for me and it will probably take a lot more researching, reading, checking a lot of different sources, etc., before I come to a conclusion that I feel comfortable with. That's just the way it goes for me.

Lawrence Finch wrote:

And it's pretty clear that the scientific knowledge of most politicians is between zero and some negative number.

Quote of the day, I think. 😁

For what it is worth...

I contacted someone who is versed in these meters. And he corrected me. So what I read is milliWatts is microWatts. So the measurements from the previous post was off by factor of 1000. Big difference and a newb mistake.

The levels read on the meter are well within what the government set as safe in this country. On the other hand, it is well above what some other countries consider safe. Some folks state the safe level for RF exposure should be no higher than .1000 milliWatts for chronic exposure, and the Apple Watch has, in the samplings I took, produced measurements over .3000 at rest and over 1.000 while in use. Anyone concerned should purchase a meter themselves and measure their devices--as opposed to relying on anyone else's measurements.

If the Denmark study published in 2011 is what Lawrence is referring to, it can be found here: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387. It's widely cited. The general comment on this study say that further research is needed because the study used cellphone subscriptions as opposed to actual usage (which is difficult to measure). Frei, the one who conducted the study, says that the book isn't closed on this one.

And then a final counterbalance can be found here: http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

There are a list of studies that (at least from the ones I've read) seem to weigh against existing safe exposure levels in this country. While I haven't run up the creds on all of these authors, there is a PhD from Columbia, a neurologist and senior prof from a Lund University (Sweden), some researchers from Chinese Universities, and a PhD/MD at Harvard.

There are a lot of conflicting studies out there. So if you're concerned, I guess we just need to keep our ears to the ground on this one....

No, there are not a lot of conflicting studies out there. There is NO study that I am aware of that show non-ionizing radiation causes any type of damage.

If you believe any of this (and you obviously have already formed your hypothesis) you should not get a Watch, not have any small electronics, move somewhere where there is no cell coverage, microwave relays and power lines, and build a house underground.

For what it is worth...

I contacted someone who is versed in these meters. And he corrected me. So what I read is milliWatts is microWatts. So the measurements from the previous post was off by factor of 1000. Big difference and a newb mistake.

The levels read on the meter are well within what the government set as safe in this country. On the other hand, it is well above what some other countries consider safe. Some folks state the safe level for RF exposure should be no higher than .1000 milliWatts for chronic exposure, and the Apple Watch has, in the samplings I took, produced measurements over .3000 at rest and over 1.000 while in use. It's possible that ambient radiation was registered in these readings. Anyone concerned should purchase a meter themselves and measure their devices--as opposed to relying on anyone else's measurements.

If the Denmark study published in 2011 is what Lawrence is referring to, it can be found here: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387. It's widely cited. The general comment on this study say that further research is needed because the study used cellphone subscriptions as opposed to actual usage (which is difficult to measure). Frei, the one who conducted the study, says that the book isn't closed on this one.

And then a final counterbalance can be found here: http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

There are a list of studies that (at least from the ones I've read) seem to weigh against existing safe exposure levels in this country. While I haven't run up the creds on all of these authors, there is a PhD from Columbia, a neurologist and senior prof from a Lund University (Sweden), some researchers from Chinese Universities, and a PhD/MD at Harvard.