> Apple said it had provided ANFR with multiple Apple and independent third-party lab results proving its compliance with all applicable SAR regulations and standards in the world.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-disputes-french-fin...
In each case it was the lab using an incorrect methodology.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happened here. There is a canyon of technical knowhow between RF engineers and testing labs.
Why aren't testing labs hiring RF engineers?
If so, were they banned?
I do find this difference to be surprisingly large, it's not like the threshold is 4W/kg and Apple claims they measured 3.9 and France claims they measured 4.1... But what do I know.
Of course, a company doesn't get that large by giving out money with no push back. Just some perspective.
Even despite this reduced allowable emission the iPhone is barely out of compliance, they will need to reduce power less than 10% or simply get another few millimeters farther away.
> The mobile phones were tested by an accredited laboratory, which allows the ANFR to ensure that the SAR values comply with European regulation.
First you declare it yourself, then later they may or may not inspect it themselves.
This way the government can sometimes save money by not doing inspections, in the long run cheater will always get caught.
But I have to say I am a little bit uneasy about having a cellphone strapped to my arm.
Someone with physics knowledge please calm me down?
As for those telephones that are already in use, Apple must adopt all necessary
corrective measures to bring the telephones into conformity as soon as possible,
otherwise, Apple will have to recall the equipment.Either humans are unique and non-animal, or we and all our works are as natural as anthills and bird nests.
I’m not sure what it would think about iPhone 12 regulations. I suspect it would consider that a bit of a niche detail.
Anyone using a case thicker than ~2mm will probably sufficiently reduce the surface SAR to bring it into compliance.
One might imagine a software update that asks if you're using a case. If you choose yes, nothing happens. If you choose no, then peak transmit power is reduced by 1dB (which will reduce upload speeds ~20%, and may reduce range too)
I'd really like to know what bands its speaking on when exceeding the values (2G/LTE-x).
The user-visible effect will probably be a reduction in upload speeds (by about 30% in most cases).
The main reason there are such power limits is because electrical devices are tested to withstand certain levels of interference from external sources.
Mobile phone vary their transmitting power depending on how close they are to the tower, so they do not jam other signals and it allows them to save power. Most of the time they are operating at a fraction of their peak power, where maximum power output is only used to ping towers when signal is lost.
I'm sure Apple did some measurments in an approved laboratory. /s
The french disagree with this standard and specify the limits at 0mm and 5mm separation, which obviously increases absorption. However, they did not increase the absorption limits accordingly.
Thus, actually most phones are out of compliance with the new french regulations (ANFR describes it as "a large proportion of phones" as being out of compliance, sounds like de-facto it's almost all). Since the EU is more of an advisory body and allows individual countries to set such limits individually, the EU has issued an application restriction which prohibits their usage in France (presumably until manufacturers patch TX power limits downwards as Apple will most likely do).
I guess you can describe that as an "EU limit" since it's an application restriction approved by the EU, but it's not the same limit as applies in the rest of the EU, it's a local application restriction issued at the request of french regulatory bodies applicable only in france.
https://www.anses.fr/en/content/exposure-mobile-telephones-c...
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ANFR-Data-PDF-SAR-Eur...
https://www.anfr.fr/en/anfr/news/all-news/detail-of-the-news...
I can get behind removing the ambiguity of manufacturer-chosen testing distances and officially specifying this at 15mm. Or if you think that's unrealistic then 5mm and 0mm also make sense, but if you move the emitter closer you're gonna get a stronger signal and the SAR threshold should be adjusted accordingly. Which the french didn't do, because they're low-key catering to the "phones cause cancer" wackos here for political play.
But this isn't just an apple thing and there will be a patch reducing your signal strength for android too, most likely. iphones just get lots of media play.
but there's no particular reason to think that this new, effectively lower absorption limit correlates to any particular health risk, or that it's a relevant threshold for absorption now that you've moved the phone closer.
the fact of the matter is, if there was some major absorption risk from phones, we'd have seen an abrupt spike in cancer rates in the 2000s when like 90% of the population suddenly started carrying a phone against their body for 16 hours a day. The world’s greatest (and ethical!) A/B test lol.
The evidence is already in, just from weight of mass public usage. At least at these frequencies and transmit powers.
Whether a few milliwats of that type of warming are actually cause for concern I don't know, but even if it's bogus, that doesn't mean that regulators will not be enforcing legal maximums anyway.
[1] https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cance...
All radio is non-ionizing EM, far lower frequency then visible light, thermal, etc. UV, Xrays, and gamma rays are in the opposite direction, higher frequency. Radio cannot do anything except minor amounts of heating, and at milliwatts of transmission power and inverse square law that's REALLY minor amounts of heating. There is no link to any sort of health effects from indirect distant exposure by far, far stronger things like radar or people working at AM/FM radio transmitters, nor any plausible theoretical one (though of course one should be careful with raw high power stuff that could create enough heat to cook, as well as the high voltage components that power it). Just in terms of natural exposure we face endless things that cause vastly stronger thermal effects.
I don't know if that's enough to calm you down, or if the entire planet going to massive wireless usage in the span of a decade and over a decade later no discernible significant related physical health effects (mental/social effects aside here, which are real but software not hardware) makes you feel better, but if nothing else don't get scammed by people who lump all "RADIATION!!" together as if the photoelectric effect and quantum mechanics was never discovered. Nor get hyperfocused on some specific tiny but "new" seeming device while ignoring the ginormously bigger ones around you take for granted and never think about (rightly in most cases).
All of the EM radiation emitted by a phone is very very far down in the non-ionising range. That means it can't directly damage the atoms/molecules in your body, it will just be heating those atoms/molecules a bit.
Wifi is 2.4GHz, 5GHz or 6GHz
Bluetooth is 2.4GHz
3G/4G/5G are in the same kinda range, with the exception of mmWave 5G which is up around 30GHz.
Infrared starts around 300GHz, then there's the whole visible light spectrum, and it's only once you get into ultra-violet around 3PHz (yes, Petahertz) that you reach the ionising band, where the radiation imparts enough energy into your constituent atoms/molecules that electrons are broken free. These free electrons will then damage your cells/DNA.
So far, there is no evidence that anything in the parts of the spectrum that are licensed for phones/wifi/bluetooth/etc are at all dangerous to humans.
1. https://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/cancer/cellphone.php....
Can someone eloborate what the difference is between celluar connections and other wireless tech like headless phones or watches? Is there any difference except strength etc.
Never believed it before, but suddently the thought of wireless technologies being bad gave me a reality check and I realized I have never questioned it.
In terms of radio energy, bluetooth is the lowest, then wifi and then cellular.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230912-france-orders-ap...
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagn....
Where does cancer come in?
[1]https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... [2]https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-ph...
A government having a regulatory limit on device emissions and a device failing that test is orthogonal to "phones cause cancer"
It may be unnecessarily low, but it's certainly not a mark of shame for EU citizens specifically.
(Not that I trust the WHO, but just saying)
The EU isn't a super-state and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity. On a technical level, each country ratifies and applies their own laws in their own ways.
Given this, other countries could act on this too, but it's the French regulator who has chosen to do so.
Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms...) of the EU, and while the EU isn't a true federal superstate union yet, but there's enough similarities that the EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were.
While the majority of EU directives are enforced by member states, the EU can enforce itself via several routes (e.g. there is now an EU public prosecution, and the EU parliament can vote to apply sanctions on its own members for non-compliance (e.g. Hungary).
True whatever that means :)
> and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity.
It is. EU law as a whole is ultimately applied by an entity, the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is overarching, over national courts, over national governments, and over EU bodies.
Then within EU law, you have several branches and distribution of who has authority etc. Primary EU law is the foundational basis (some would say a "constitution" effectively even though the word has been a political minefield) and does provide some "overarching entity" in some areas.
Then within Secondaru EU law, you have regulations, orders, directives, etc. Many regulations and orders have an EU overarching entity, and in many cases the European Commission has a central role.
> On a technical level, each country ratifies and applies their own laws in their own ways.
That is a gross mischaracterisation and overgeneralization of EU Directives.
EU Directives as a general rule* don't have "direct effect" in a Member State. They set a goal agreed at the EU level, and the Member State are bound to implement the means in their national laws to reach the goal. That usually (but not always) means at a national level the adoption of a legal act by national Parliament.
*as a general rule because as always there are exceptions.
The other countries radio regulation agencies have either not made the same measures, not measured the iPhone emissions at all, or have not yet decided what they were going to do.
- EU ratification - national implementation - national enforcement
The ratification is typically accompanied by an implementation deadline (usually in years) so there'll be cases of some countries following EU regs earlier than others.
Finally there's enforcement which is entirely in the hands of nation states pretty much - just because something is written in statute doesn't necessarily always translate to actual action.
The bulk of replies to my comment are hilarious to read: ass-talking conspiracy theories presenting zero factual understanding of how RF regulation in the various markets takes place.
"Free iPhone 15's" is unlikely the direction Apple would take. ;)
> The way things are, the totality of all things in the physical universe and their order, especially the physical world in contrast to spiritual realms and flora and fauna as distinct from human conventions, art, and technology.[0]
Without this exception "natural" loses all meaning; nothing would be considered artificial because everything inevitably comes from the earth.
There was a similar case recently where Sweden's equivalent decided to test a bunch of models of EV chargers and found some lacking.
In general, outside of these random tests, "they check the paperwork, not the thing itself" is correct.
For example, in my direct experience (not with phones, but networking gear), the way the product is placed in the test fixture and the way cables are dressed has an impact on emissions and measurements. In one scenario, as a product engineer supporting equipment through a certification lab, I had the mandate to pass with a 3 dB margin from the company I worked for, but, after days of testing and failing, it was decided that the equipment under test could pass with cables routed in a special way (which was not uncommon for normal customer use) and with quasi-peak detection (i.e. averaging the emission peaks) that ended up below the regulatory (FCC for example) passing below the regulatory mask/level by a fraction of a dB. I have always wondered whether a different test lab, without support from product engineers, would pass the same test. I think the answer in "no".
Edit: Quasi-peaking was not a dirty trick that was pulled to pass certification. It was an acceptable method of measuring emission power suggested by the lab technicians.
If I bring my car to the testing to the accredited testing company in Germany, they test the exhaust fume profile and give me a certificate if it’s within range. I cannot just run my own testing regime and self-issue that.
Apple wants to sell things in France.
Apple submits the devices to some France-certified labs who do the test.
They get an “OK” stamp, and the lab is responsible if there was a mistake in the testing.
If the labs belong to Apple, then there’d just be an obvious conflict of interest, right?
Nobody in the government cares about the iPhone 12. And concerning the current government, I’m pretty sure they are all owning iPhones, they all would love a selfie with Tim Cook and don’t even know what DAS is.
You are welcome
Imagine it says "It's not like there are high speed neutrons flying around".
I'm fairly certain that no iPhone model to date emits gamma radiation, though.
"These limit values result from the work of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP. In 1998, the ICNIRP ruled in view of the state of available scientific knowledge and only retained the proven effects of exposure to waves, in particular the heating of tissues."
The regulation specifies a test that measures frequencies up to only 10GHz, which is far below ionizing radiation frequencies.
The study mentioned by the person in the above article exposed rats and mice to levels far above any SAR limits, and across their entire body. The study authors themselves say it is not representative of human exposure. And even then, they found that male rats lived longer than their normal lifespans when exposed.
https://tools.niehs.nih.gov/newsreleases/index.cfm/detail/85...
I can’t find a study because the internet is full of blog spam saying your microwave oven has shielding that keeps emissions to a safe level (of course), and studies looking at microwave radiation exposure near the cell phone limit, not 1000x higher, which is roughly what your microwave does if the shielding is missing or the safety interlock is broken.
That and interfering with wifi.
- companies engaged in government contracts would rather continue to be engaged in government contracts than have them be terminated
- politicians would prefer to say they spent your taxpayer dollars on something that caused a change which “benefited” you, rather than say they spent them on something that had no perceptible impact
- there exist technicians engaged in testing who believe the above two are true, and have the capacity to make micro-decisions in testbench setup that can affect the general bias of the results
That all said, based on the other commented here it seems french politicians took EU guidelines for 5mm exposure and demanded those same number at 0mm. So it really is the french politicians wanting to ban the phones.
It is possible however that this SAR violation only applies to certain bands or that the cell tower already is requesting a lower transmit power. Therefore there is a good chance users don't see much impact.
Linked to SNR, maybe, but that's not the same thing as max TX power unless you're standing right at the edge of the cell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theore...
There's a log here, so it doesn't even seem linear to SNR.
Would SNR increase linearly to TX power?
I don't know.
What makes you think that?
It's even better because it's not available anymore exactly because of that reason :). You cannot get it in any (online) Apple Store, be it French or not.
again though it's all a matter of how you design the test. if the source comes closer, the output is going to go up. using the same number but way closer than everyone else is actually using a lower number than everyone else.
again, I'm OOP and (while I'm not a doctor) my take is that the scale of cellphone ownership is far too big (at 4x+ these french emission limits, per the ANFR charts) for these to be reasonable decisions. cellphones at the customary frequency bands and emissions levels just are not that much of a health hazard, or else there would have been observable results bounded by the sample size (large). And really there are practical technical limits to how much power it's worth pounding out before you overwhelm the cell site or drain your battery in an hour. It's optimal for everyone if noise floors are low.
Can you link a source?
I honestly don't think it matters who has funds to do what... :) The "natural health" industry is a multi-billion dollar industry as well, and is a much more insidious than the telco industry if you ask me.
>In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi.
>Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage.
>More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.
> The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven.
What is an "information-gathering component"? What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values, which definitely is a thing for some, but not all of the mentioned transmission technologies: Especially 3G and some versions of Wi-Fi use DSSS or other spread-spectrum techniques which are not pulsed, unlike TDMA.
I could even see an argument being made for "pulsing" making a difference and maybe another measure than the EIRP being needed (just like how the linear-no-threshold model for the effects of radiation on organisms might be a simplification of what's actually going on), but then it doesn't help to just throw a bunch of wildly different wireless technologies, using greatly varying transmission powers from 10 mW to 2000 mW, into a single bag and call them "very different from microwave ovens" without describing what that means.
I assume they mean each pulses at a different frequency range, the information is gathered or clumped up around its own band.
You can assume modern articles repeat themselves and say the same thing several times. I suppose this is the first useful instance I've seen... or is it?
> What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values
I'm definitely not an expert but I can share my layman view on the topic.
Equivalent isotropic radiated power is just power.
If you strike an object it makes a sound, it vibrates at it's own frequency. Sometimes it dampens quickly sometimes it sticks around. Like say a bell, a wine glass or a tuning fork.
It takes very little energy to push a swing and keep it going. It will eventually get rid of the energy though friction but much slower than you can gently push it up to speed. You can't push the swing at some random frequency, you have to match it exactly (1/2 or 1/4 would also work of course) just like you cant shatter a whine glass if your voice doesn't match the frequency. You can make a hell of a lot of noise (power) without shattering any wine glasses.
EIRP would be like trying to destroy the glass with just decibels.
All parts of our body big and small vibrate too, with all the liquid it dampens quickly and there is very little for magnetism to hook into but if the frequency matches exactly (or some octave of it) it doesn't seem a stretch of the imagination that one can have an effect without much power. The power just needs to exceed dampening.
With dental fillings the effect is well known.[1][2] Say mercury spreads around the body, would that have no effect on reception?
Sorry to butcher the topic, I'm just trying to picture how it might work. There are plenty of (strange[3]) studies and 5000 scientists who agree it's just bad for our health.
And of course the addicts who don't want to hear any of it :)
[1] - https://www.bradfordfamilydentist.ca/lucille-ball-heard-spie...
Oh right, i did't think about the penetration depth.
Both frequency and amplitude matter; reductive arguments like this will convince neither laypeople nor people with some understanding of physics.
Being irradiated by hundreds of watts of direct sunlight is fine for a short while (and causes skin cancer in the long term!), hundreds of watts of microwave radiation for the same duration is already pretty bad, and the only good thing about hundreds of watts of hard gamma radiation is that you don't have to worry about the long-term effects too much.
With mobile devices, we're talking about dozens or at most hundreds of milliwatts of microwave radiation though; there might be some effect, but I personally doubt it would be significant enough to worry about – earlier cell phones used way higher power levels, and I'm not aware of any link to cancer there. And they've been around for a while!
Last time I read up on it, the heating effect of holding any metal or plastic slab to the side of your head dominates any additional heat transfer from the EM radiation, even for fairly deep tissues.
None of this "oops arsenic wallpaper is actually bad" "oops asbestos is actually bad" "oops lead in fuel is actually bad" "oops microplastics could actually be bad" stuff.
And we do care about walking in sunlight, it's called sunblock/suncream. People that spend their lives in a lot of sunlight are at higher risk for skin cancer, have you never seen what someone's skin looks like after a career of working outdoors?
As a Kiwi I guess I'm just more aware of the Sun; thanks to the rest of the world we have a huge ozone hole above us so our UV levels can get pretty mad around 11:00-13:00 in Summer.
If history is any indicator it's a good idea to be more cautious than less
Now one testing lab in France says that one particular phone is slightly (less than 10%) higher than those already very conservative, cautious limits.
Most likely scenario: the testing lab used the wrong methodology. This is what happened in France many times previously.
Also possible: the testing lab is right, some phones are slightly out of compliance. They're still safe. The radiation levels are still way below levels that are even theoretically harmful.
That only prosecutes the misuse of EU funds (and perhaps the EU VAT border regime?) and even then only with cooperation with local prosecutors. In addition, the EU prosecutors are from the participating member states - several EU members are not yet participating.
> EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were.
It's very far from that; notably health-and-safety enforcement is largely in the jurisdiction of members states.
That's not an "Americanism". It's a principle of the separation of powers and I imagine it dates back to the "Europeanianist" Englightenment.
---
It is an Americanism because the term implicitly assumes two things:
1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved.
2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized.
Then, consider that other-countries-that-are-not-the-US do exist, many of those are liberal democracies that arguably function better than the US for various scores - and of those very few (if any?) of those are modelled on the US’ system. While some other countries have a US system but score poorly overall (e.g. Liberia).
It is demonstrable that deep separation between the agents of the government - and the state - is unnecessary for a functioning liberal-democracy today: many countries using the Parliamentary system have an executive cabinet and an executive PM role which, under the US system, is considered part of the legislature - and the US is hardly the best example of “separation” of the judiciary when you consider how explicitly political the judge appointment process is - and the volume of politically-motivated and arbitrary SCOTUS rulings over the past 120+ years.
———
I understand that (non-crackpot) political-scientists would agree that judicial independence alone is far more important to a functioning democracy than a system that constantly pits an executive President against the legislature whenever their political party affiliation differs.
Don’t get me wrong: accountability is of paramount importance; I just want to communicate that having “separate but co-equal branches of government”, “separation of powers” (and other thought-terminating-cliches from middle-school civics class) is both unique to the US - and is demonstrably unnecessary for a functioning liberal democracy.
> 1. That the government is split into branches, following how the US system evolved.
> 2. That executive power must be confined to a single branch, also how the US is organized.
I'm pretty sure these principles are originally French. The American system was built around these principles as well, but calling them American is a whole new level of Americentrism.
Separation of powers into three branches is basically a prerequisite for belonging to the EU, as it is considered a basic requirement for a democracy.
For that matter, the US and France are probably two of the modern democracies that have the least separation between these powers (on paper).
The origin of the principle is literally European, but all right, you have an agenda, have fun :-)
Anything that includes France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, will inevitably drag everyone else one way or another.
Maybe so, but whatever it became wouldn't be the EU and wouldn't include most of the current members states. It's obviously still an impossibility, as there is no appetite in any of those four countries for a federal EU.
"Smartphone radiation tests have so far led to 42 sales stops in the country. It is the first time Apple has been affected by such a move."
From https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-disputes-french-fin...
(Q3)
>In the current state of knowledge, the Agency's work does not demonstrate a causal link between exposure to waves emitted by mobile communications and effects on health.
>However, some publications suggest a possible increase in the risk of brain tumors, in the long term, for intensive users of mobile phones, which is why the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has classified radiofrequencies as “possible carcinogenic”.
>Furthermore, the latest ANSES expert opinions have revealed, with limited levels of proof, various biological effects in humans or animals, some of which had already been reported in a previous expert opinion published in 2009: they can concern sleep, male fertility in animals or even cognitive performance.
https://www.anses.fr/fr/exposition-ondes-electromagnetiques-...
So again, it's a different pov. And it's weird that no other country came up to the same conclusion as of now. Q7 is also funny as they recommend not using your phone a lot to avoid em exposure, which is true but in context is obviously implying that there is harm from said exposure.
The “some publications” nonsense would literally require overturning century-old radio physics. Some publications will always find everything to be carcinogenic; this is how statistics work.
In the real world, thermal radiation can’t ionise. (Cell phones may be carcinogenic due to their materials and the behaviours they induce.)
What ?
I'll concede that - certainly.
> Separation of powers into three branches is basically a prerequisite for belonging to the EU, as it is considered a basic requirement for a democracy
The EU is concerned more with judicial independence, not constitutional separation-of-powers: most EU countries (and especially its founding and early members) do not have separation strictly along judicial/legislative/executive boundary lines: The UK, Germany, Spain, and others all have an executive parliament; France and the US are in the minority here.
1. Let's not count the UK because it's the earliest democracy, and also is the messiest one (no written Constitution...) and also it's not the earliest or current member of the EU.
2. What exactly is an 'executive parliament'? My understanding is that in parliamentary democracy, the parliament chooses the executive, but the executive powers lie solely with the executive (government), and the parliament in itself does not have any direct executive function. It can only legislate, not execute. Certainly that's the case for Germany and Central European parliamentary systems I know a little bit more of. Might be different in the US but we are talking about the EU now.
Sorry - I was being sloppy and made-up a term that at-the-time made sense to me but I didn't proofread my post...
But I was referring to any parliamentary system where executive power is held by (a subset of) the members of that parliament (i.e. how the PM's cabinet's members are MPs) - basically what Canada and the UK has, for example.
There has never been even a hint of a popular federal movement in any of the countries which you mentioned, so I don't think I am.
> EU federalism was born in France and remains strong in the other three countries I mentioned - it might not be a clear majority at the moment, but it's definitely a popular idea among large swaths of the population.
That's a bold claim that I'm sure you'll be able to back up?
Honestly, I think you've allowed your own preferences and wishful thinking to cloud your judgement here.
It depends on your definition of "popular movement", but there have been plenty of popular leaders arguing for federalization, from Briand onwards. Just recently: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/german-...
> a bold claim that I'm sure you'll be able to back up?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14651165221101505 - this paper explicitly sets out to find non-federalist views, reporting that 44% hold "traditional" views (federalists and separatists), which would indicate federalism is about 20-25% of the population - that's a "large swath", in my book. And that's pure-federalism; the generic support that can likely be turned is much higher.
I mean, that's just a random source. The news focus on anti-europe trends these days because, for so long, pro-europe ones were the mainstream default.
Having 2 doctor parents and some amount of experience in the field of hypnosis, I can say these sort of things happen all the time to people.
Now those same people are complaining if they only have a 3G connection because they're out of 4g range :)
5g isn't really a thing in the Netherlands yet because of some deal with Inmarsat that has a base station there and is worried about interference.
Regardless, the hard core has won because the Euro is now a cornerstone of EU policies, whether the non-EZ countries like it or not. Every project, every accounting in the Union is now done in Euros.
Denmark has a real opt-out. They chose not to adopt in a referendum.
> Most of them have a clear political will to join the eurozone.
No they absolutely don't have that. Even leaving out Sweden and Denmark - it's a toxic political issue in Czechia even though de facto euro is widely used in the business. And while Hungary has currently no chance to fulfill the technical conditions, there is also no political will to join until Orban is in power (and that will be a long time). The ruling party in Poland (PiS) is also explicitly against the euro, as is majority of the population.
> the hard core has won because the Euro is now a cornerstone of EU policies
The Euro won through merit - it just makes sense to use a common currency in the common market.
I know. My sentence was meant to highlight how Sweden is de-facto in a similar position, if not de-jure.
> it's a toxic political issue in Czechia even though de facto euro is widely used in the business.
Translation: it's happening no matter what.
Hungary and Poland are currently suffering from backwards political headwinds. In the past they would have happily joined (but couldn't). But again, like in Chzechia, it's basically happening de-facto no matter what. Once sanity prevails, governments typically find that having multi-currency systems is a headache.
As I said, you've either blinded yourself or you're intentionally dishonest.
https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/c...
> Cancer incidence across Europe has risen by approximately 50% over the past two decades from 2.1 million to 3.1 million cases between 1995 and 2018 in Europe.
Hmmm...
Why did you stop quoting it there?
> There are several factors that help to explain the increase in incidence: population growth, population ageing, exposure to risk factors, improved screening and improved outcomes in other diseases (meaning that more people are reaching an advanced age, leaving them at risk of cancer). The incidence of different cancer types varies widely between different European countries, due to these factors.
There are better epistemic standards available than "numbers went up so my hobby horse causal ideal is doing it" despite its popularity on social media.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/16/health/early-onset-cancer...
Better screening could be a factor.
Also, population growth doesn't matter for a *rate*.
Like irradiation from telecoms signals, maybe.
High power radio transmissions have been used since the 40s.
Besides, there are numerous of other sources of radiation that is much stronger, including visible lights. You should ban visible light before you ban mobile phones! This stuff is ridiculous,
Epidemiological studies tracking humans over time aren't controlled and will at best show a correlation worth studying, lab animal studies aren't great analogs given all the confounding factors and environmental differences with humans in real life, and unless the cancer causing agent acts quickly a controlled human study is likely impossible as controlling variables over years simply won't happen at scale.
Also the idea that visible light should be banned because radiation is an asinine argument meant to just badger without actually making a point.
We'd also likely notice things like - lots of people getting a sort of rectangular shaped cancer right under their pants pocket ;)
But.. that happens all the time? The link between excessive solar exposure ("tanning") and cancer is extremely well documented.
I've seen some really compelling research looking into diet changes that may impact risk of skin cancer, specifically an increase in saturated fats helping to reduce risk. The idea is that saturated fats are envloved in the process of your body turning UV into vitamin D. With more saturated fats in your system the UV has effectively has a job and is processed by the body.
My point is simply that the body is complex, cancer generally develops over years, and trying to narrow down a common link strong enough to claim causation is tricky if not impossible.
...which you do.
> My point is simply that the body is complex, cancer generally develops over years, and trying to narrow down a common link strong enough to claim causation is tricky if not impossible.
That sounds like weasel language to try to muddy the waters to me. If it's tricky or impossible to nail down the effect must be small, and probably not worth caring much about.
You cited cases, not a rate.
Ergo the increase in cases means an increase in rate.