"...to be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European Union guidelines [...] keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases , belt clips, or holders that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8″) separation between iPhone and the body."
This laptop is amazingly slow but I'm sure you could find the iphone manuals online, the fcc (and other) exposure and measurement documentation, perhaps the actual measurement lab report mentioned in the article and lots of RF exposure research.
If you want to know if your brain is getting fried that is. If you don't want to know or if searching is to challenging it is probably to late already :P
Another example would be “USA struggling to cure millions from cancer”. Accurate, but implies that this is different from the status quo.
Lets imagine I ran a national news network, and I wanted to systematically portray people with blue eyes as criminals.
I would downplay and not report crimes of people with brown eyes, but I would report every crime someone with blue eyes commits, and ensure that "Blue eyes" is in the headline.
I would then report on the victims and report they had brown eyes. If the victim didn't have brown eyes, I wouldn't mention the colour, and let people make their own assumptions.
This would all be accurate, but it would also be massively fake.
Of course that would be crazy, yet that's exactly what happens every day in the media.
The article is specifically about iPhone 11 pro (which is one of the newest phones from Apple). What's so sensationalist about it to demonstrate potential health hazards using a newly launched phone at an expensive price point?
> because it's not just the iPhone 11 pro
I don't understand the emphasis here, is it somehow okay because everyone else is doing it?
> The Tribune found that the iPhone 7 similarly had double the rate of radiation that the FCC deems safe for use and other smartphone makers, like Samsung and Motorola, also exceeded the safety threshold.
The article talks about how the FCC put limits in place before we all used cell phones, but it seems that the double radiation thing is not at all times, rather when the phone is under some sort of heavy load (guessing: searching for service or during a call?). Either way, it seems it's an issue:
> …World Health Organization has classified RF radiation as a possible carcinogenic to humans since 2011 and the National Institutes of Health has found "clear evidence" in animal studies that RF radiation causes cancer.
Although no direct links are given to the "clear evidence," other than effects on rodents