A few days ago, news broke that Apple and Samsung were being sued because of a report by the Chicago Tribune
But, a paper published by the New Zealand Medical Journal states that “any potentially harmful biological effects are more commonly seen in low-quality scientific studies”
They also argued that these studies lack any kind of scientific consistency when it came to the results
A few days ago, news broke that Apple and Samsung were being sued because of a report by the Chicago Tribune. In that report, a team of researchers found that the radio-frequency radiation exposure from devices released by the two companies was over the legal safety limit. Obviously, this caused a lot of trouble for the two tech giants.
A class-action lawsuit was filed in the US and claimed that the radiation emitted by Samsung and Apple devices exceeded the legal limits set by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). 3 Apple devices, the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 and, iPhone X, were included in that report. As far as Samsung were concerned, the Galaxy S8 and Note8 were both on the list as well.
But, as it turns out, in a report by Cnet, a paper published by the New Zealand Medical Journal states that “any potentially harmful biological effects are more commonly seen in low-quality scientific studies”. The team of researchers at the NZMJ argue that many of the studies that claimed that these types of sensationalist reports are of low quality but are still published because of the attention they draw. You can read the entire paper, here.
They also argued that these studies lack any kind of scientific consistency when it came to the results, plus the wave of negative press that accompanies these kinds of reports make for clickable headlines. Like Apple and Samsung have argued, these researchers also cite inaccurate testing as a major flaw in these kinds of reports.
Follow Us
Digit NewsDesk
Digit News Desk writes news stories across a range of topics. Getting you news updates on the latest in the world of tech. View Full Profile
