The FCC guidelines for SAR testing are not only outdated but deeply flawed, as demonstrated in court and supported by evidence of misclassified radiofrequency radiation (RFR) health risks. SAR testing is often dismissed as the only way to differentiate phones, but this is far from true.
The FCC’s body test guidelines allow a separation distance of 5-15mm to account for holster width, creating inconsistencies in the results. For instance, Apple tests at 5mm, Google at 10mm, and Samsung at 15mm. Applying the inverse square law, it’s evident that SAR levels cannot be compared across manufacturers as an apples-to-apples comparison. This outdated standard fails to account for modern usage scenarios and the real-world exposure risks users face.
Moreover, some phones, like Samsung’s S models, have their cellular antennas at the bottom, while the SAR sensor measures exposure at the ear. This means that “lower SAR” readings could mislead users into thinking their exposure is minimal when, in reality, the radiation is absorbed elsewhere—potentially in more vulnerable areas without the protection of a skull.
The academics who support these outdated FCC guidelines are complicit in misclassifying RFR health risks. By prioritizing profits over public safety, they harm children and families, perpetuating an ideology that neglects the proven non-thermal effects of radiation exposure. Their support enables dangerous corporate practices and leaves the public defenseless against the real hazards of wireless technology.
It’s time to demand accountability from both the FCC and the academic community that props up these antiquated standards. We must ground our safety measures in modern science, ensuring protection for future generations. RFR health risks are not theoretical—they’re proven, and ignoring them perpetuates harm on a massive scale.
If my post is offensive to anyone, I’m not sorry. After a quarter of a century of posting online politely, it isn’t getting the point across. The for-profit pay-for-science model hasn’t been called out at its sources. The true intent of these people hides behind paper titles and their name titles. People aren’t questioning the individuals behind the papers because they trust titles and institutions blindly due to mainstream media support, all funded by the wireless industry.
More attention should be paid to what allowed the misclassification of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) health risks to persist and reinforce itself for over three decades. That blame is on the pay-for-scientific opinion/research dirtbags who publish to defend the wireless industry position for profit- so many need to be exposed, named, and held accountable.
