From the last time this was posted, radio frequency radiation, not nuclear radiation.
It's an important distinction.
RF strength violations have more to do with the signal range and possible interference with other signals than health impacts.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
144 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
2712 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And the people this article is targeting isn't the people that could bother to learn the difference.
Explaining ionization to someone who doesn't grasp the concept that atoms are too small to see without special laboratories isn't easy.
Yeah
rADiaTiOn!!1!
The sun packs ionizing electromagnetic waves it heats up our whole planet with, and that gives us cancer. But that wouldn't make a good headline I guess.
Which is why "spurious emission" is the proper term to use.
The point where you can call it a "radiation hazard" when talking about RF is if it's at the point where RF Burns are a possibility which a phone is just not capable of.
Non ionizing so they mean it heats your pocket too much?
Just thought of hot pockets.
I like my balls al-dente
I am gonna leave this until someone has a better answer:
It means it doesn't interact with tissue in a way that can cause cancer.