Month: January 2021

iPhone 12 not consumer safe?

Oh my! I read that Apple has acknowledged a potential safety risk surrounding the use of its iPhone 12 series of products. In addition, Apple has also published a workaround for the “damage” caused by the interaction of its MagSafe products and iPhone 12’s. For me, the issue has to do with FCC regulations regarding consumer products and their safety when used in “customary and ordinary ways”.


A quick bit of history about FCC certifications may be called for here. Back in the dawn of consumer electronics, the FCC required that all components undergo safety testing, and radiation testing and that sample units be supplied for verification by the FCC and licensed safety labs. As the volume of products increased, these requirements were gradually relaxed in order to foster innovation and speed new products to market. At that time, commercial products (ones used in non-public exposure) were required to meet Class A certification (the laxest standard) while products aimed at consumers required Class C certification (much more stringent standards and far more testing). Class B certification was in between the two and was to apply to products used by professionals who understood the risks and how to manage them or use products of that type safely. In another move to foster innovation and reduce the cost to bring products to the American consumer market, the requirement for meeting Class C certification was altered to allow Class B devices to be marketed to the masses.


Today, the FCC allows products to be verified as meeting a specific safety class by type matching; that is, if your new product is similar to one that was previously approved or verified by any means, that new product can also be considered as verified as meeting the same safety class. So, the new iPhone 12 series products meet Class B standards by this very process. I see two issues already where this may not be appropriate. First, the magnetic field created by the iPhones may exceed safety standards by a considerable amount, and second, some of the new phone signal types (5g, 5g wideband, etc.) may also not be safe under certain circumstances.


What caught my attention was that Apple came out in response to consumer questions and suggested that folks with certain medical devices like pacemakers or insulin pumps should keep their iPhones at least 6″ distant from any such device at all times. The second point of interest for me regards an issue with the iPhones and the new MagSafe accessories. In a similar warning, Apple warned folks that exposure of the leather cases to the interaction of iPhones and the MagSafe accessories may damage the leather or any similar materials and to keep any such materials 6″ from the phones or accessories (and to replace their phone cases with units made of different materials). Realize that human skin is just one such material and I read that as “keep these products at least 6″ from your skin at all times to reduce the risk of injury to your skin.”


How serious is this? Well, if you feel any warming of skin near where you wear your phone (or any other consumer device), and particularly if the device isn’t itself warm to the touch, you definitely should be concerned for your long term health. If your medical device issues warning beeps when your phone is brought near it, no matter how occasionally, you definitely should be concerned. Neither of this kind of event should be acceptable at any time and should result in Apple products being reduced to Class A certification at best.

Personally, I suspect that this admission by Apple clearly identifies that their new products are NOT appropriately safe for consumer use, that their response is a clear statement of these products not meeting Class B standards, nor meeting any of the FCC’s categories for certifiable products. In particular, where medical devices (wearables or implanted) are concerned, those devices have reason for primary bandwidth and interference protection from all other devices and the Apple products are clearly violating this protection given customary use of these products (ie, wearing them on a hip or in a pocket or tucked into clothing) in my opinion. With luck, the FCC will review its approval of these products and cause some modifications for user safety.

Modern advances for transportation?

Technological advances in automobiles and particularly in aides for the driver have enjoyed some significant advances of late. While many advances may have been aimed at making a driverless car possible; some could also improve the safety and ease of driving. Take, for instance, a cruise control that can be set to follow the car in front of you and a lane maintaining system that can keep your car centered in a specific lane. Combine these two and it sounds like you could get in position, set the controls, and take a nap on your way to a destination.

We may still be a bit away from the time when auto-driving cars are common let alone dominating the morning commute, but the technologies to make that possible are real if not matured. By setting up cars to form a network so they can exchange data: relative position, speed, obstacles, and planned path, the future seems attainable. The fly in the ointment would be older cars in the “pack” that can’t share and agree upon who goes where. Oh! And let us not forget the unanticipated factors of weather, animals, landslides, rocks in the road, etc. All of that will take some serious development to manage.

Back to the current advances. I have seen advertisements for cars that have “following” modes for the cruise control; presumably, that would maintain a preset distance between your vehicle and whichever vehicle happens to be directly in front of you. I have also seen advertisements for cars (same brand and others) that have a lane holding system (keeps the car centered in a given lane). Finally, a system that would let you set your cruise control on your RV and ease back to grab a beverage. I am not certain our current level of sophistication will allow such features to be used safely. Admittedly, both could make driving considerably safer if the driver remains alert and in a position to override the automatic features; but, how alert will a driver remain if their continuous input is not needed?

It looks to me like a lot of computer power and sophisticated programming will be required to take the next steps in semi-automation and full automation of vehicle operation. I believe the computer power is available and can be made small enough and rugged enough to survive vehicle operation; but, getting the software matured sufficiently to hand all (or almost all) possible situations safely is going to take some time and some changes to our highways, streets, and our expectations. I also look forward to improvements in the various sensors, locating devices, and cameras to help bring us through the next steps.

Safety of modern transmitting devices?

It continues to amaze me that supposedly learned folks will vilify comparatively safe modern conveniences when others which have a far greater potential for impacting health are ignored.  For instance, the power meter or water meter that transmit a very short distance (very low power) only occasionally when compared with your cell phone which is in continuous contact with a tower 1-5 miles away (higher transmit power).


Dating back to the 1930’s and 1940’s the Navy was doing research on exposure to high-frequency signals.  They were concerned that putting radar on ships and smaller craft would put crew members in danger or that perhaps RADAR could be used as a weapon against enemies.  Fortunately, they were unable to develop an efficient weapon; but, they also determined that exposure to radiation in the mid bands (700mhz to 1ghz) had little to no impact on skin, internal organs, or brain tissue.  One of their findings (since repeated) was that high power transmissions at close range could warm the skin and, if continued, the internal organs as well.


In order to protect us, the FCC has restricted the amount of power that handheld devices and household devices (cellphones, wifi routers, IOT devices) may transmit with an eye to preventing the type of exposure that could warm the skin even in contact.  The potential for trouble begins when you start to expose living tissue to higher frequency signals like the 2.4ghz, 5ghz (high-performance routers), and the 100ghz and higher used in the newest 5G devices.  Sadly, the further above 1ghz (1000mhz) the signal gets, the more energy it carries, and the less we know about the long-term effects of exposure to it.


The higher energy in the signal (5G wideband for instance) greatly enhances its ability to carry data (speed and reliability) making its use a highly sought-after practice as demands for ever faster and more reliable internet dramatically increase.