Syndication

Visualizzazione post con etichetta USA. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta USA. Mostra tutti i post

venerdì 3 gennaio 2020

National Institutes of Health – agenzia governativa US per la ricerca biomedica fa il punto sulla ricerca su 5G

Importante 'news' sul sito del National Institutes of Health – agenzia governativa statunitense per la ricerca biomedica   


Michael Wyde, Ph.D.,  ricercatore presso il famoso NTP (National Toxicologic Program, ente di ricerca tossicologica che paralellamente al nostro Istituto Ramazzini hanno consolidato con sperimentazione su animali la relazione causale tra CEM e tumori)  ha analizzato la tecnologia cellulare di ultima generazione e i suoi potenziali effetti sulla salute umana.

.....

Dati alcuni dei problemi che ho appena menzionato, è difficile confrontare il 5G con le precedenti generazioni di reti wireless. Gli scienziati NTP stanno ancora lavorando per comprendere l'impatto dell'esposizione alla RFR sui tessuti biologici, indipendentemente dalla generazione.

È noto che le onde millimetriche, come quelle utilizzate nel 5G, non viaggiano tanto lontano e non penetrano nel corpo così profondamente come la RFR alle frequenze più basse utilizzate nelle attuali reti 2G, 3G e 4G. Gran parte dell'assorbimento a frequenze più elevate si verifica nella pelle.

Alle frequenze più basse, è stato dimostrato che la RFR penetra almeno tre o quattro pollici nel corpo umano. Nei nostri studi sui ratti, l'esposizione alla RFR a 900 MHz ha indotto tumori nel cuore, nel cervello e nella ghiandola surrenale. Tuttavia, la frequenza RFR alle frequenze delle onde millimetriche 5G non penetrerebbe abbastanza in profondità per raggiungere quei tessuti.

Inoltre, poiché le frequenze più elevate nella rete 5G raggiungono distanze più brevi e non penetrano nelle barriere fisiche, sono necessari sostanzialmente più trasmettitori e antenne per fornire copertura ai consumatori. Pertanto, la vicinanza dell'uomo alle antenne potrebbe aumentare, il che potrebbe potenzialmente portare a esposizioni più elevate


NTP sta valutando la letteratura esistente sulle frequenze più alte destinate all'uso nella rete 5G e sta lavorando per comprendere meglio le basi biologiche per i risultati del cancro riportati in precedenti studi sulla RFR con tecnologie 2G e 3G.

Inoltre, sono in corso lavori per sviluppare camere di esposizione RFR più piccole per studi a breve termine sui roditori che richiederanno settimane e mesi per essere completati anziché anni. Il nuovo sistema di esposizione sarà anche in grado di valutare le nuove tecnologie nel settore delle telecomunicazioni.

L'obiettivo di NTP è anche quello di ripetere gli studi sul danno al DNA nelle camere di esposizione RFR più piccole e di identificare i biomarcatori di danno da esposizione a RFR.
I biomarcatori sarebbero cambiamenti fisici misurabili, come i cambiamenti molecolari, che possono essere visti in tempi più brevi di quelli necessari per sviluppare il cancro e che potrebbero essere predittivi della malattia.

Se gli scienziati sono in grado di comprendere meglio i cambiamenti biologici negli animali, sapranno di più su cosa cercare nell'uomo.




https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2020/1/community-impact/5g-technology/index.htm

domenica 29 dicembre 2019

Agenzia FCC delle Telecomunicazioni USA favorisce il lancio dei satelliti per il 5G


SpaceX reveals stunning image of Falcon 9 launching JCSAT-18/Kacific1 to geostationary transfer orbit. The Falcon 9 will be used in 2020 for launching Starlink satellites into lower orbit.  ( SpaceX via Twitter )









La Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dovrebbe proteggere il pubblico regolando l'industria delle telecomunicazioni.

Quindi anche se

Gli astronomi continuano a avvertire che i satelliti interferiranno con la loro capacità di studiare lo spazio   e
Gli scienziati continuano ad avvertire sull'aumento della quantità di spazzatura spaziale che causa eventi catastrofici  e
Altri scienziati avvertono che esistono gravi rischi biologici e ambientali associati al fatto che il segnale wireless e il 5G vengono fatti arrivare sulla Terra dallo spazio e che il carburante per missili è altamente inquinante


questa "Agenzia federale" continua ad approvare più satelliti.
Perché?
Perché sono convinti che per gli esseri umani che hanno accesso a Internet ad alta velocità sia  più importante rispetto ai danni e pericoli noti.

vedi

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/246648/20191226/spacex-to-adjust-starlink-orbit-plans-for-faster-deployment.htm


mercoledì 25 dicembre 2019

tre recenti lavori su una notissima rivista medica USA riportano studi su relazione tra uso dei media e capacità cognitive

Nella importante rivista scientifica americana
che raccoglie lavori da tutto il mondo . Journal of  American  Medical Association, per la sezione di PEDIATRIA sono stati pubblicati, nell'ultimo periodo :


-  In un lavoro scientifico Sono state trovate associazioni variabili tra il tempo passato con i social media, la televisione          e la depressione, che sembravano essere spiegate più dal confronto sociale verso l'alto e dal rafforzamento delle ipotesi spirali che dall'ipotesi di spostamento: sono paradigmi già utilizzati da vri ricercatori. Coinvolti 3826 adolescenti.

  segui questo link

- In altro lavoro scientifico si è studiato lo sviluppo della prima infanzia in 2441 madri e bambini,  il livello più elevati di tempo di visione di video  nei bambini di età compresa tra 24 e 36 mesi sono stati associati a scarse prestazioni sul raggiungimento da parte dei bambini di traguardi di sviluppo a 36 e 60 mesi, rispettivamente.             I risultati di questo studio supportano l'associazione direzionale tra tempo dello schermo e sviluppo del bambino. Le raccomandazioni includono l'incoraggiamento una programmazione nello uso dei media familiari, nonché la gestione del tempo di visualizzazione, per compensare le potenziali conseguenze di un uso eccessivo.

segui questo link   


- In questo studio trasversale su 47 bambini in età prescolare sani, l'uso dello schermo maggiore di quello raccomandato dalle linee guida dell'American Academy of Pediatrics è stato associato a
(1) misure inferiori di organizzazione microstrutturale e mielinizzazione di tratti di sostanza bianca del cervello che supportano il linguaggio e le abilità emergenti di alfabetizzazione e
(2) corrispondenti valutazioni cognitive.

segui questo link

domenica 22 dicembre 2019

La celeberrima rivista americana READERS' DIGEST riporta un amplio articolo su telefoni cellulari e cancro

Articolo amplio e strutturato anche se 'politico' nelle conclusioni e ... reticente.

Ron Melnick, PhD, capo progettista dello studio e tossicologo senior in pensione presso il National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.  : la radiazione 5G a frequenza molto più alta non penetra negli organi interni come fa l'attuale radiazione del telefono cellulare.

 "Tuttavia, non esistono studi adeguati sugli effetti sulla salute del 5G, quindi è difficile operare con credibilità sulla sicurezza delle radiazioni del 5G." In particolare, non ci sono informazioni sul fatto che l'esposizione al 5G causi lesioni agli occhi o aumenti la suscettibilità di tumori della pelle.

"Non esiste plausibilità biologica", afferma Norman J. Kleiman, PhD, assistente professore di scienze della salute ambientale presso il Columbia University Medical Center e direttore, programma di laurea in Scienze radiologiche e tossicologia a New York City. "Se le radiazioni stanno causando danni al DNA, abbiamo bisogno di un meccanismo attraverso il quale si comprenda ciò sta accadendo e non ne abbiamo uno". Il nuovo studio è "ben fatto e aveva un numero ragionevole di animali, ma stiamo ancora grattando la testa sul perché di quei risultati. Non lo sappiamo. "
"Sono scettico nei confronti dei risultati, ma non posso escludere al 100% la possibilità che vi siano effetti", afferma. "Stiamo aspettando lo studio definitivo."


In attesa di ... studi definitivi e pronunciamenti di WHO, l'articolo dà consigli su come minimizzare l'esposizione ai telefoni cellulari!



https://www.rd.com/advice/cell-phone-radiation-damage/?fbclid=IwAR0wJTd8CpvE6JCmpkTq-XDpdkF31MYdLo9u3rMr6b39S6ZkbADJVyiVnAM


Lloyd Morgan ha commentato questo articolo in modo alquanto critico, ed ha aggiunto una breve nota di sintesi di tutti gli studi epidemiologici ad oggi pubblicati: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hxknwkxos6ms3sd/Peer%20Review%20Science%20on%20Risk%20of%20Cancers%20from%20Cellphone%20Use%2010-20-19.docx?dl=0





sabato 21 dicembre 2019

Test taroccati dell'FCC sui telefoni ?

Vi riporto un articolo di un giornalista investigativo del Chicago Tribune sulla rispondenza del SAR di alcuni telefoni cellulari.

Questo giornale ha comprato in negozio una decina di telefoni e li ha fatti testare da un laboratorio californiano che è riconosciuto dall'ente federale FCC a distanza di 5-10 mm e di 2 mm.

I risultati ottenuti seguendo le procedure deliberate da FCC sono stati disastrosi.

Da un confronto tecnico con FCC (ed alcuni dei produttori) viene fuori che i test effetutati da laboratorio di FCC sono stati fatti utilizzando dei telefoni avuti direttamente dai produttori ed utilizzando un software (non disponibile al pubblico) ad hoc!



Quali conclusioni ?

C'è già aperto una azione lagale contro FCC: vedremo cosa porterà.

_________________________________________________________________________


FCC says tests find cellphones comply with federal limits on radiofrequency radiation

By Joe Mahr, Chicago Tribune, Dec 20, 2019

Responding to a Tribune investigation that found some popular cellphone models measured above federal limits for radiofrequency radiation, the Federal Communications Commission said this week that its own testing found all eight models it evaluated were in compliance.

Responding to a Tribune investigation that found some popular cellphone models measured above federal limits for radiofrequency radiation, the Federal Communications Commission said this week that its own testing found all eight models it evaluated were in compliance.
The testing commissioned by the Tribune, conducted according to federal guidelines at an accredited laboratory in California, examined 11 cellphone models from four manufacturers. The phones were purchased new. Among other findings, the Tribune reported that all four Apple iPhone 7s tested yielded results exceeding the federal limit.
At the time, Apple disputed the results and said the lab used by the newspaper did not test the phones the same way it does.
For the FCC’s tests, Apple provided the agency with two iPhone models that the Tribune tested, according to the FCC’s report. The agency also said it collected from manufacturers “any necessary test software, RF cables, and other accessories required for testing the devices." Such software was unavailable to the Tribune’s lab when testing Apple phones.
The agency’s test of an iPhone 7 yielded a result roughly 40% below the federal limit for radiofrequency radiation.
The Tribune also had reported that an iPhone X, an iPhone 8 and a Moto e5 Play from Motorola measured above the limit under certain testing conditions.
In the FCC testing, results for the e5 Play and the iPhone X were under the limit, as were those for the iPhone XS, Galaxy S9, Galaxy J3, Moto g6 Play and Vivo 5 Mini. In all, the FCC tested 11 cellphones representing eight models. The FCC did not test an iPhone 8.
The FCC’s report concluded there was no evidence of “violations of any FCC rules” for the safety limit. “The FCC’s tests confirm that all tested sample devices comply with the FCC’s strict RF exposure guidelines,” Julie Knapp, chief of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, said in a quote provided by the agency.
Two longtime critics of the FCC’s regulation of cellphones said they were not won over by the agency’s results. They criticized the FCC for relying on manufacturers to supply most of the phones tested and the testing software.
Photo caption: Cellphones are charged and prepped for testing at the RF Exposure Lab in San Marcos, California, in October 2018. (Brian Cassella / Chicago Tribune)
Joel Moskowitz, a cellphone expert at the University of California at Berkeley, said the FCC should have a process in place to test phones off the shelf without needing manufacturers to provide anything for the testing.
If only labs working with manufacturers can test devices, he said, “then there is a serious problem with the FCC testing protocol.”
Epidemiologist Devra Davis, who founded the group Environmental Health Trust, said the FCC’s process seemed designed to pass phones that failed the Tribune’s tests.
A spokesman for the FCC said using the companies’ software was necessary to achieve accurate results. Manufacturers, he said, can request confidentiality for their devices’ technical details to protect trade secrets. The tests were conducted independently by FCC Lab engineers, he added.
Knapp’s quote states: “FCC engineers had significant questions as to whether the tests (for the Tribune) were performed properly and consistent with FCC guidance and we expressed these concerns directly to the Chicago Tribune. Because we take seriously any claims of non-compliance with RF exposure standards, the FCC tested the same device models at our labs.”
Apple declined comment this week beyond what it has previously told the Tribune. Motorola did not respond to emails but has said its phones comply with federal standards. The company previously speculated that the Tribune’s initial testing did not trigger the e5 Play’s proximity sensors. Such sensors are designed to reduce a phone’s power when it is touching or extremely close to a person, decreasing radiofrequency radiation. Samsung did not respond to an email from the Tribune.
The Tribune’s tests were conducted by RF Exposure Lab in San Marcos, California, which for 15 years has performed radiofrequency radiation testing of new electronic devices for wireless companies. The lab is recognized by the FCC as accredited to test for radiofrequency radiation from electronic devices.
Lab owner Jay Moulton said all the Tribune’s tests were done in accordance with detailed FCC rules and guidelines. He filed a 100-page report that the Tribune shared with the government and manufacturers.
After reviewing the nine-page FCC report, Moulton questioned why the agency didn’t buy all phones off the shelf, saying it gives manufacturers the opportunity to pretest phones to ensure they would pass an FCC test. He also questioned why the FCC would need special software supplied by manufacturers to complete testing.
The sensors that reduce a phone’s power when it is near a human body should be tripped during testing without needing additional software from manufacturers, he said. “I do testing for laptops that have sensors in there, and I don’t have any special software,” Moulton said.
Moulton said that after the Tribune’s story was published, he was paid to conduct similar testing by attorneys representing plaintiffs in a class-action suit against Apple and Samsung. The suit alleges that the phone makers “intentionally misrepresented" the safety of their devices. Moulton said he is not being paid to act as an expert witness for those lawyers.
In a Dec. 5 filing, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said Moulton’s lab tested an iPhone 7+, an iPhone 8 and an iPhone XR as well as the Samsung Galaxy S8, Galaxy S9 and Galaxy S10. According to the filing, Apple phones tested above the federal limit, with the highest reading coming from an iPhone 7+, at more than twice the limit.
Neither Apple nor Samsung has filed a response in court.
Debate about the safety of cellphones has raged for years. High levels of radiofrequency radiation can heat biological tissue and cause harm, but it is less understood whether people, especially children, are at risk for health effects from exposure to low levels over many years of cellphone use.
Authorities in the 1990s set the federal exposure limit based solely on the heating risks of cellphone radiation, building in a 50-fold safety factor. But some researchers — and lawyers — have questioned whether the limit is safe enough. Those questions have spawned a long-running lawsuit against phone makers, carriers and trade groups over cancer risks.
The Tribune’s testing had two phases. One tested phones at the same distance from the body as manufacturers chose for their own premarket testing: from 5 to 15 mm away, depending on the model. This phase included retests of several models after manufacturers gave feedback on the test results.
The second phase tested phones at 2 mm from the body, to represent the phone being carried in a pocket.
The FCC’s recent study did not test phones at the 2 mm distance. In the Tribune testing, only one of the cellphone models met the federal safety standard at that distance.

martedì 10 dicembre 2019

La Corte Suprema USA ha rigettato l'ultima manovra della CTIA contro la etichettatura dei cellulari voluta dalla città di Berkeley

Una grande vittoria per i diritti dei consumatori e la salute pubblica, la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti ha oggi respinto un ultima opposizione presentata dalla CTIA - The Wireless Association contro la legge sul diritto di conoscere la legge per l'uso del cellulare della città di Berkeley che il Consiglio della città di Berkeley ha adottato all'unanimità nel 2015.



Pertanto, la sentenza della Corte d'appello del Nono Circuito che conferma che la legge è costituzionale consente alla città di continuare ad applicare la legge che impone ai rivenditori di telefoni cellulari di comunicare ai potenziali clienti le linee guida di sicurezza dei produttori di telefoni cellulari per garantire la sicurezza dei consumatori.

Qui la cronistoria bit.ly/berkeleycellordinance 


domenica 8 dicembre 2019

la class action americana contro Apple e Samsung va avanti










Il laboratorio accreditato da FCC  (ente federale americano per la telefonia e comunicazioni) ha testato sei diversi modelli di smartphone nuovi di zecca a varie distanze, che vanno da zero a 10 millimetri per misurare la quantità di radiazione RF rilasciata quando si tocca o in prossimità del corpo.
Quando testato a due millimetri, l'iPhone 8 e il Samsung Galaxy S8 erano più del doppio del limite di esposizione federale. A zero millimetri, l'iPhone 8 era cinque volte superiore al limite di esposizione federale e il Samsung Galaxy S8 era più di tre volte il limite di esposizione federale.

Presentata giovedì presso il tribunale distrettuale degli Stati Uniti nel distretto settentrionale della California, divisione di San Francisco, la causa cerca di rappresentare i possessori di smartphone Apple e Samsung. La causa chiede al tribunale di ordinare agli imputati di pagare per controlli medici e danni  subiti


vedere articolo
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/12/smartphone-class-action-lawsuits-consolidated-fcc-accredited-lab-confirms-models-exceed-rf-safety-levels-up-to-500.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4a692c2a5c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-4a692c2a5c-388337783


sabato 16 novembre 2019

Scientific American lancia allarme sul 5G

La celeberrima rivista scientifica americana che dal 1845 esce mensilmente e con tiratura a livello globale è intervenuta sul 5G

NON ABBIAMO NESSUNA RAGIONE PER CREDERE CHE IL 5G SIA INNOCUO.



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/


l'articolo è del ben noto  Joel M. Moskowitz


______________________________________________________________

Successivamente è stato pubblicato sulal rivista un articolo
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/

da parte di David Robert Grimes   ricercatore su Cancro

In risposta di questo articolo ovviamente negazionista  è stata inviata alla rivista da parte di IEMFA su replica molto dettagliata

https://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/2019-11-IEMFA-Letter-to-Scientific-American-Misconception-of-5G.pdf

che non risulta ancora pubblicata .


venerdì 15 novembre 2019

Senato USA chiede risultati del sistema di controllo delle telefonate degli americani del NSA




https://www.activistpost.com/2019/11/nsa-official-refuses-to-reveal-the-success-or-failure-of-phone-surveillance.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ff5dddb3b1-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-ff5dddb3b1-388337783


Si parla del Call Detail Records (CDR) of Americans  

Il programma di registrazione dei dettagli delle chiamate ha raccolto informazioni su messaggi di testo e chiamate nazionali in entrata e in uscita per aiutare il governo nelle indagini sul terrorismo.

I sostenitori delle libertà civili stanno premendo sul Congresso per chiuderlo, sostenendo che i problemi di privacy superano qualsiasi beneficio per la sicurezza nazionale.


mercoledì 23 ottobre 2019

il 5G non è sicuro: ne parla anche la celeberrima rivista Scientific American





Ci sono innumerevoli esempi di quando "legale" non significa "sicuro".
Il 5G è uno di questi.
Il settore delle telecomunicazioni non sa nemmeno con certezza che il 5G è sicuro. A febbraio, i dirigenti delle imprese di telecomunicazioni USA  hanno reso testimonianza al Congresso degli Stati Uniti affermando di NON avere EVENDENZE SCIENTIFICHE.
Tuttavia, è legale ed economico farlo - sulla Terra e nello spazio - nonostante i crescenti avvertimenti sui rischi biologici e ambientali e che ci siano già livelli pericolosi di spazzatura spaziale 

Grazie a Scientific American per aver pubblicato un'opinione del Dr. Joel Moskowitz, "Non abbiamo motivo di credere che il 5G sia sicuro".

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

martedì 17 settembre 2019

Trump: si al controllo di massa ... altro che la Fattoria di Orwell!



Donald Trump è stato aggiornato sul programma hi-tech per raccogliere i dati di Apple Watch, Alexa e Google Home per impostare un sistema di allarme rapido per individuare segni di problemi di salute mentale negli assassini di massa prima che colpiscano.


Il presidente Trump ha continuato a evitare dettagli sulle proposte che potrebbero essere controproducenti, settimane dopo le sparatorie a Dayton ed El Paso

Ha detto che bisogna  "tenere le pistole fuori dalla mano dei malati, dei malati di mente e io sostengo anche qualcosa che ha a che fare con le malattie mentali"

La Casa Bianca è stata informata il mese scorso dalla Suzanne Wright Foundation sulla sua proposta di raccogliere dati per cercare di anticipare le stragi.
Farebbe affidamento sui dati raccolti da Apple Watch, Amazon "Alexa" e Google Home ... una sorta di  "diagnosi precoce della violenza neuropsichiatrica", ha riferito il Washington Post


Aggiungo io:  ovviamente non parla di bloccare lo scandaloso ipermercato delle armi che colpisce chiunque si reca negli USA!!!



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7428569/Donald-Trump-briefed-hi-tech-scheme-set-early-warning-potential-mass-shooters.html


sabato 31 agosto 2019

Class action USA contro APPLE e SAMSUNG !

In seguito, anche, ai risultati dei test fatti per il Chicago Reporter  dieci cittadini americani hanno avviato una class action contro ... addirittura Samsung e Apple per :  ....

"    negligenza, violazione della garanzia, frode del consumatore e arricchimento ingiusto, in cerca di danni effettivi, i costi del monitoraggio medico, la restituzione e il risarcimento ingiuntivo. "

Interessante anche vedere come è stato strutturato:

- lo samrtphone nella cultura americana
- le due aziende elettroniche commercializzano e pubblicizzano gli smartphone come sicuri anche vicini al corpo (con copie di immagini pubblicitarie ..., link a video ...)
- danni alla esposizione da radiofrequenze con riferimento agli appelli di scienziati, allo studio NTP
- sperimentazione sui telefoni  sul protocollo FCC
- test effettuati per contro del giornale Chicago Reporter che dimostrano la non correttezza della procedura che non misura il reale pericolo


Da leggere ...


Rimane sempre l'amarezza che la traduzione in Italiano della class action non porta a nessun strumento utile.   In particolare in Italia rimane il gap principale, essenziale:  chi paga i costi della ... giustizia ?!

giovedì 29 agosto 2019

Chicago Reporter: i telefoni hanno radiazioni ben oltre i limiti US

Ha avuto una certo eco nella stampa americana e così in diversi giornali nel mondo una sperimentazione eseguita da un giornalista investigativo di questo giornale con un gruppo di tecnici che hanno dimostrato come telefoni popolari come iPhone 7 determinano valori di emissione almeno doppi di quei limiti per i quali la FCC aveva dato l'autorizzazione alla vendita.

Ricordo che tutto parte dalla sperimentazione fatta in Francia che ha portato ad una presa di posizione delle autorità governative che stanno 'studiando' la problematica ...



E' stata qui contestata la metodologia di misurazione (che aggiungo parte da una visione MINIMALISTA secondo la quale gli unici problemi sono il riscaldamento del corpo, quindì attenzione  solo gli effetti termici) che ad es. prevede la misurazione a 25 mm dal corpo (cosa che normalmente è al 99% fittizia e non risponde alla realtà) e che il test è fatto su un manichino di dimensioni di un Marines americano (un bel bestione,  praticamente) ben diverso dalla corporatura di una fetta notevole degli utilizzatori attuali, continuativi degli smartphone !

Un commento successivo di Devra Davis mi è piaciuto molto: 
questo metodo di misurazione è datato 1996, quando un gallone di benzina costava 1,25 $ ed un telefono cellulare 2.000 $ pari agli ordierni 3200 $!   Quindi era utilizzato da business man, militari e per telefonate in media di 6 min, visti i costi di connessione telefonica ...     Situazione molto molto diversa dall'attuale !!! 

Vediamo cosa partorirà l'ente federale americano.




vedere news video https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/video/chicago-tribune-fcc-investigating-phone-radiation-findings/vp-AAGeXBW



We tested popular cellphones for radiofrequency radiation. Now the FCC is investigating.
By SAM ROE
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
AUG 21, 2019 | 12:27 PM
  
The Apple iPhone 7 was set to operate at full power and secured below a tub of clear liquid, specially formulated to simulate human tissue.
With the push of a button, a robotic arm swung into action, sending a pencil-thin probe dipping into the tub. For 18 minutes, it repeatedly measured the amount of radiofrequency radiation the liquid was absorbing from the cellphone.

This test, which was paid for by the Tribune and conducted according to federal guidelines at an accredited lab, produced a surprising result: Radiofrequency radiation exposure from the iPhone 7 — one of the most popular smartphones ever sold — measured over the legal safety limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators from its own testing.

The Federal Communications Commission, which is responsible for regulating phones, states on its website that if a cellphone has been approved for sale, the device “will never exceed” the maximum allowable exposure limit. But this phone, in an independent lab inspection, had done exactly that.

The Tribune tested three more brand-new iPhone 7s at full power, and these phones also measured over the exposure limit. In all, 11 models from four companies were tested, with varying results.

The Tribune’s testing, though limited, represents one of the most comprehensive independent investigations of its kind, and the results raise questions about whether cellphones always meet safety standards set up to protect the public.

After reviewing the lab reports from the Tribune’s tests, the FCC said it would take the rare step of conducting its own testing over the next couple of months.

“We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules,” agency spokesman Neil Grace said.

The Tribune set out a year ago to explore an important question: Are cellphones as safe as manufacturers and government regulators say?

Though it’s unclear whether radiofrequency radiation from cellphones can increase cancer risk or lead to other harm, that question is increasingly pressing given the widespread use of cellphones today. Many children and teenagers may face years of exposure.

The newspaper’s testing was not meant to rank phone models for safety – only 11 models were examined, and in most cases just one device was tested. Nor is it possible to know whether any of the cellphones that tested above limits could cause harm. Two of the phone manufacturers, including Apple, disputed the Tribune’s results, saying the lab used by the newspaper had not tested the phones the same way they do.

But the results of the Tribune’s investigation contribute to an ongoing debate about the possible risks posed by radiofrequency radiation from cellphones, and they offer evidence that existing federal standards may not be adequate to protect the public.

Industry officials and manufacturers emphasize that before a new model can be brought to market, a sample phone must be tested and comply with an exposure standard for radiofrequency radiation. But manufacturers are allowed to select the testing lab — and only a single phone needs to pass in order for millions of others to be sold.

Companies testing a new phone for compliance with the safety limit also are permitted to position the phone up to 25 millimeters away from the body — nearly an inch — depending on how the device is used. That’s because the testing standards were adopted in the 1990s, when people frequently carried cellphones on belt clips.

In one phase of the Tribune testing, all phones were positioned at the same distance from the simulated body tissue that the manufacturers chose for their own tests — from 5 to 15 millimeters, depending on the model. Apple, for instance, tests at 5 millimeters.

But people now often carry phones closer to the body, in their pockets, which increases their potential exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
To assess this kind of exposure, the Tribune asked its lab to conduct a second phase of testing, placing the phones 2 millimeters away from the simulated body — closer than any of the manufacturers’ own tests and far less than the maximum distance allowed by the FCC.

The 2-millimeter distance was chosen to estimate the potential exposure for an owner carrying the phone in a pants or shirt pocket. Under those conditions, most of the models tested yielded results that were over the exposure limit, sometimes far exceeding it.

At 2 millimeters, the results from a Samsung Galaxy S8 were more than five times the standard.

The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ research arm, recommended in 2012 that the FCC reassess the exposure limit and its testing requirements, saying that because phones weren’t measured while against the body, authorities could not ensure exposures were under the standard.

Seven years later — after a lengthy period of public comment — the FCC came to its conclusion. The agency announced this month that the existing standard sufficiently protects the public and should remain in place.

Few other government officials have acted in recent years to address the possible risks of radiofrequency radiation from cellphones. But in California, the state Public Health Department in 2017 issued rare guidance on how concerned consumers could reduce exposure.

Among the advice: Don’t carry cellphones in pockets.




Apple, Samsung respond
When informed of the Tribune’s test results and provided with the laboratory’s 100-page lab report, Apple disputed the findings, saying they were not performed in a way that properly assesses iPhones.

The Tribune’s tests were conducted by RF Exposure Lab, a facility in San Marcos, Calif., that is recognized by the FCC as accredited to test for radiofrequency radiation from electronic devices. For 15 years, the lab has done radiation testing for wireless companies seeking government approval for new products.

Lab owner Jay Moulton said all the Tribune’s tests were done in accordance with detailed FCC rules and guidelines.
“We’re not doing anything extraordinary or different here,” Moulton said. Any qualified lab "should be able to grab a phone off the shelf and test it to see if it meets requirements.”

Apple, one of the world’s most iconic brands, would not say specifically what it thought was wrong with the Tribune’s tests or reveal how the company measures its phones for potential radiofrequency radiation exposure.
Still, based on Apple’s feedback, the Tribune retested the iPhones in the investigation as well as an additional iPhone 7, making a change aimed at activating sensors that would reduce power.

Once again, the iPhone 7s produced results over the safety limit, while an iPhone 8 that previously measured over the standard came in under.
When informed of the new results, Apple officials declined to be interviewed and requested the Tribune put its questions in writing. The newspaper did, submitting three dozen, but Apple did not answer any of them.

Apple then issued a statement, repeating that the Tribune test results for the iPhone 7s “were inaccurate due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models.”

“All iPhone models, including iPhone 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where iPhone is sold,” the statement said. “After careful review and subsequent validation of all iPhone models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable … exposure guidelines and limits.”

Apple did not explain what it meant by “careful review and subsequent validation.”

The three Samsung phones tested by the Tribune — the Galaxy S8, Galaxy S9 and Galaxy J3 — were positioned at 10 or 15 millimeters from the body, the distances chosen by the company in accordance with FCC guidelines. In these tests, the devices measured under the safety limit.
But when the phones were tested at 2 millimeters from the simulated body — to represent a device being used while in a pocket — the exposures measured well over the standard.

Samsung, based in South Korea and one of the world’s top smartphone makers, said in a statement: “Samsung devices sold in the United States comply with FCC regulations. Our devices are tested according to the same test protocols that are used across the industry.”

FCC officials would not comment on individual results from phones tested by the Tribune. They said that although the Tribune testing was not as comprehensive as what would be required for an official compliance report, they would examine some of the phone models in the newspaper’s investigation.

Assessing the risk
Around-the-clock cellphone use represents one of the most dramatic cultural shifts in decades. In 2009, an estimated 50 million smartphones were in active use in America, according to the wireless industry association CTIA. Today, there are 285 million. Twenty-nine percent of U.S. teens sleep with their cellphones in bed with them, according to a 2019 report by the nonprofit organization Common Sense Media.

Some researchers say safety efforts have not kept pace. “These days,” said Om Gandhi, an early researcher of cellphone radiation at the University of Utah, “exposure is from cradle to grave.”

Cellphones use radio waves to communicate with a vast network of fixed installations called base stations or cell towers. These radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation, in the same frequency range used by TVs and microwave ovens.

This kind of radiation, also known as radiofrequency energy, shouldn’t be confused with ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, which can strip electrons from atoms and cause serious biological harm, including cancer.

Radiofrequency energy from cellphones isn’t powerful enough to cause ionization, but at high levels it can heat biological tissue and cause harm. Eyes and testes are especially vulnerable because they do not dispel heat rapidly.
Less understood is whether people, especially children, are at risk for other health effects, including cancer, from exposure to low-level cellphone radiation over many years — potentially decades.

When cellphones hit the market in the 1980s, authorities focused on setting an exposure limit to address only the heating risks of cellphones. Scientists found that animals showed adverse effects when exposed to enough radiofrequency radiation to raise their body temperature by 1 degree Celsius. Authorities used this finding to help calculate a safety limit for humans, building in a 50-fold safety factor.

The final rule, adopted by the FCC in 1996, stated that cellphone users cannot potentially absorb more than 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over one gram of tissue. To demonstrate compliance, phone makers were told to conduct two tests: when the devices were held against the head and when held up to an inch from the body.
A woman uses a cellphone at Lollapalooza this summer. New phone models must be tested for radiofrequency radiation before coming to market.
These testing methods didn’t address the anatomy of children and that of other vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, said Joel Moskowitz, a cellphone expert at the University of California at Berkeley.

“It was like one-size-fits-all.” Plus, he said, “I don’t think anyone anticipated the smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives.”
The devices became ubiquitous and were increasingly slipped into pockets rather than carried on belt clips. The number of scientific studies related to cellphone radiofrequency radiation soared.

Last fall, in one of the largest studies to date, the National Toxicology Program, a research group within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that high exposure to the kind of radiofrequency radiation used by cellphones was associated with “clear evidence” of cancerous heart tumors in male rats.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which shares regulatory responsibilities for cellphones with the FCC, responded to the study by assuring the public there was no danger to humans at “exposures at or under” safety limits. But the Tribune’s testing, disputed by manufacturers, found results from some cellphones over the exposure standard, particularly when tested close to the body.
Despite the changing ways people use phones, both the FCC and FDA said the current exposure limit protects the public. The agencies cite the 50-fold safety margin incorporated into the standard, as does CTIA, the industry association.

Over the limit
A half-hour drive north of San Diego, in the city of San Marcos, is RF Exposure Lab, a low-slung beige and white building that has the look and layout of a dentist’s office. Down the main hallway, past several doors, is a room with dozens of large containers labeled “Head Tissue” and “Body Tissue.”

Moulton, the lab owner, recalled how an intern once spilled some “body tissue” on himself and “freaked out because he thought it was real human tissue.” But it was just a mixture of mostly water, sugar and salt that simulates the electrical properties of the body. The liquid is used frequently at the lab, one of the few facilities in the U.S. that is accredited to test phones and other devices for radiofrequency radiation.
Different liquid mixtures are used to simulate the electrical properties of human tissue in radiofrequency radiation testing at RF Exposure Lab.
Moulton founded the lab in 2004 after serving as engineering director for chip-making giant Qualcomm. There, he said, he often wrestled with the radiation issue while helping design phones for Verizon.

The Tribune hired Moulton to conduct tests on 11 different models of cellphones, all purchased new by the newspaper. The tests took place in a 10-foot-by-10-foot room outfitted with copper screen windows to reduce electrical interference. In the middle of the room was a “phantom body,” an oval-shaped tub the size of a kitchen sink. Inside the tub was a body tissue mixture.

Moulton carefully positioned the first phone to be tested — an Apple iPhone 8 — under the phantom body so that it was 5 millimeters from the outside of the tub. This separation distance was the same gap selected by Apple in its tests and was in accordance with federal guidelines.

Using a base station simulator outside the room, Moulton placed a call to the iPhone 8 and adjusted the settings so the device was operating in the same band, frequency and channel that yielded the highest radiofrequency radiation reading reported by Apple to the FCC during the regulatory approval process — data that is available on the agency website.

The phone was now operating at full power, creating what was essentially a worst-case scenario in terms of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Typically, Moulton said, consumers do not experience exposure like this. But it could happen, he said, in limited situations, such as someone talking continuously in an area with a weak connection.
Jay Moulton preps equipment for cellphone testing at RF Exposure Lab.
A probe attached to a robotic arm moved up and down, and back and forth, in the fluid, taking 276 measurements of the radiation absorbed. After a few minutes, the probe stopped, and the results appeared on a nearby computer screen: The radiofrequency radiation level for the iPhone 8 measured 2.64 W/kg — more than double the highest value Apple reported to the FCC and well over the 1.6 safety limit.

Moulton said he was surprised. “Maybe the phone’s power sensor isn’t working,” he said. “It’s supposed to be on."

Almost all smartphones, he said, have power sensors — also known as proximity sensors — designed to detect when the device is touching or extremely close to a person. When that occurs, the phone is supposed to reduce power, decreasing radiofrequency radiation.

“Let’s see how this iPhone 7 does,” he said, picking up the next phone to be tested. He secured it 5 millimeters under the phantom body, placed a call to the phone and activated the probe.
Minutes later, the results were in: 2.81 W/kg, again over the limit. He tested another iPhone 7, getting a similar result: 2.50 W/kg.
“Still high,” Moulton said.
A probe attached to a robotic arm measures how much radiofrequency radiation from a cellphone is being absorbed by the simulated body tissue.
As more phones were tested, some results came in low. For instance, Samsung’s Galaxy S9, S8 and J3 phones measured under the standard.
But the lab had tested the Samsung phones relatively far away from the simulated body, because that’s how the manufacturer had tested the devices when seeking FCC approval.

Two Samsung phones were tested at 10 millimeters away and one at 15 millimeters — still within federal guidelines but much greater than the 5-millimeter gap chosen by Apple for its tests.
So how would the Samsung devices and other models fare when tested at a consistent distance, one even closer to the body?

The ‘pocket test'
To help answer this question, the Tribune cut out pieces of dress shirts, T-shirts, jeans, track pants and underwear and sent them to Moulton. His measurements indicated that phones carried in pants or shirt pockets typically would be no more than 2 millimeters from the body.

Moulton then conducted the same radiation tests, using the same methods and equipment. The only difference was that the phones were placed 2 millimeters from the phantom body — closer than any of the manufacturers’ own tests and much closer than the maximum distance allowed by the FCC.
Maybe, he said, the phones’ proximity sensors would kick in at this closer distance, and the radiofrequency radiation levels would drop accordingly.
But most phones still showed high levels. The four iPhone 7s tested at 2 millimeters produced results twice the safety standard. The iPhone 8 measured three times over; the Moto e5 Play from Motorola measured quadruple the standard.

And the Samsung Galaxy phones?

All three measured at more than twice the standard, with the Galaxy S8 registering 8.22 W/kg — five times the standard and the highest exposure level seen in any of the Tribune tests.

Only two phones came in under the standard in the 2-millimeter “pocket test": an iPhone 8 Plus and a BLU Vivo 5 Mini.

Moulton said he couldn’t be certain why any of the phones in the Tribune tests scored as they did.

Only the manufacturers, he said, could say for sure.
A visitor to Millennium Park in Chicago talks on a cellphone. “I don’t think anyone anticipated the smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives,” said California cellphone expert Joel Moskowitz.
A visitor to Millennium Park in Chicago talks on a cellphone. “I don’t think anyone anticipated the smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives,” said California cellphone expert Joel Moskowitz.

Seeking an explanation
Apple and Motorola disputed the Tribune’s testing protocol but declined to answer written questions.

Motorola officials did say one thing about the high exposure measurement for their Moto e5 Play, which came in nearly three times the safety limit in a 5-millimeter test at the Tribune lab: They speculated the test did not trigger the proximity sensors in that phone.

Though the Tribune’s lab had followed all FCC testing methods, the newspaper subsequently retested the Moto e5 Play, slightly altering the previous testing method to reflect Motorola’s input. The Tribune also retested a Moto g6 Play, which had scored right at the safety limit in the first test, as well as an additional model, a Moto e5.

When tested with these modified methods, the exposure results for all three phones were under the limit at the 5-millimeter distance.
Moulton said the two test results for the e5 Play indicate that its sensors may not work under certain conditions.

Motorola, which is based in Chicago, said in a statement that “all Motorola devices meet or exceed FCC requirements" but would not answer questions about its power sensors.

“Our power management techniques and expertise provide Motorola with a significant competitive advantage in the marketplace, and are therefore highly confidential,” the company’s statement said. “The Chicago Tribune’s third-party lab was not privy to the proprietary techniques from Motorola necessary to elicit accurate results.”

Rules set by the FCC require that radiofrequency radiation testing be done “in a manner that permits independent assessment.”

Motorola said that after receiving the Tribune’s test results, it had the models in question tested at its outside lab, which “found results were within the appropriate limits.” When the Tribune asked Motorola to explain how it tests its phones, the company declined. It also would not share its lab reports.
The Tribune also retested several iPhones based on Apple’s feedback. A reporter touched or grasped the phones for the duration of the tests, actions intended to activate sensors that are designed to reduce the devices’ power.
Tribune reporter Sam Roe grasps an iPhone during retesting at RF Exposure Lab in March. Apple had disputed the results of earlier tests, saying they were not conducted in a way that properly assesses iPhones.
In these tests, the iPhone 8 measured under the limit at 5 millimeters, but all four iPhone 7s did not.

In response to these results, Apple issued a statement saying the lab procedures in the Tribune testing still were improper. The company, based in Cupertino, Calif., wouldn’t say what methods were necessary.

FCC documents show that when Apple sought agency approval in 2016 to market the iPhone 7, the company promised to “take appropriate action” on any complaint “relating to the product’s compliance with requirements of the relevant standard.”

Apple, which said it validated the safety of its phones in response to the Tribune testing, would not provide any additional detail about the actions it took to evaluate the phones.

The company also wouldn’t comment on the information it provides the public on radiofrequency radiation. Consumers can find such information on their iPhones, but it’s difficult.

On the iPhone 7, for instance, a user would go to Settings > General > About > Legal > RF Exposure. There, the term “radiofrequency radiation” is not used but rather “RF energy,” a reference to radiofrequency exposure.
Around-the-clock cellphone use represents one of the most dramatic cultural changes in decades.
To reduce exposure, Apple suggests using “a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories.”
For some past models, Apple gives additional advice. Apple’s website tells users of the iPhone 4 and 4s: “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels.” The site says those phones were tested at a distance of 10 millimeters.
When Apple submitted its application to the FCC to market the iPhone 7, the company included a similarly worded radiation statement, suggesting users carry the device at least 5 millimeters from the body, records show.
But iPhone 7s eventually sold to the public did not include that advice.
When the Tribune asked Apple in its written questions why that suggestion was not included, the company did not respond.

Sam Roe is an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who writes about various topics. He was part of the reporting team that won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, and he was a Pulitzer finalist four other times. He also teaches at Columbia College Chicago and coaches baseball in Oak Park.  Email the author: sroe@colum.edu.