06-02-2006, 10:00 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Which Phones Make Your Head Glow?
According to the FCC, a phones SAR rating is "a value that corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed in the head of a user of a wireless handset. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg)" I'm not really sure what that means. Per kilogram of what? Phone, brain matter? It would seem having a fat head would make you less susceptible to this radiation which, by the way, has not been shown to have any harmful effects on your gray matter. The safety of those around you while you drive and talk, however, is not in any way assured.
So, back to the point of this article, which is to show you a bunch of numbers so you can go "hmmm..." but not really glean anything useful unless you know the difference between an Ohm, Watt, Volt, Amp and know how to measure all of them in picoseconds. (The particularly astute among you will know I made some of that up.) CNet has made a list of the lowest SAR rated phones in the US, which includes a few Windows Mobile devices, and the 10 phones voted most likely to to cause you to lose memory as cells are slowly cooked by the low powered microwave you talk on every day, most of which are Motorola phones, and one Palm Treo 650, all scoring above 1.50 striving to hit the maximum "safe" level of 1.6 W/kg. Other phones of interest:
� Palm Treo 700w - 1.26
� Palm Treo 700p - 1.48
� HTC Wizard - Way low, three values given at .233, .184 or .079, depending on what radios are on.
� HTC Universal - Unknown. Not for sale in the US so they didn't need FCC approval I guess. No telling what that beast is pumping out. 
� HTC Tornado - Levels between .59 and .83
So, I have no idea what all that really means, and be honest, you don't either, but those PalmOS devices sure do crank out the juice. 8O That's my new leave-them-bewildered comment at the counter as someone reaches for a Treo 700p. "Hey, great device, but it approaches the maximum safe radiation dose allowed by the FCC, and almost 20% more radioactive than this Treo 700w, and the 700w can actually multitask." :devilboy:
|
| |
|
|
|
06-02-2006, 10:49 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 81
|
|
"that beast" is pumping out 0.172
__________________
"May the potato be with you!"
|
| |
|
|
|
06-02-2006, 12:42 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 10
|
|
The PPC-6601 (WM2003SE), which is what I have, is listed as having the lowest SAR. It also has better reception than any other Sprint phone I have owned, which suggests that you do not need to have a high SAR to have good reception.
Mick
|
| |
|
|
|
06-02-2006, 02:43 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 47
|
|
I think it is typical that CDMA phones do pump out those radiation. That's the characteristics of the transmiision network.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-02-2006, 07:52 PM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 301
|
|
This issue is why I'm shopping for a bluetooth headset. I figure that even if Samsung has set the power level all the way up to "Deep Fry" I'll be OK if it's not actually next to my head...
|
| |
|
|
|
06-02-2006, 08:32 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sooby77
I think it is typical that CDMA phones do pump out those radiation. That's the characteristics of the transmiision network.
|
Hmm? CDMA, if anything, tries to reduce power output to the minimum required. If you look at the ten-highest CNET link, many of the phones listed are GSM.
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
06-03-2006, 12:43 AM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3
|
|
First, as Janak pointed out, a lot of modern cell phones tend to be intelligent in their output levels (dead batteries drive paying customers nuts just as much as no connection [same result]). Just what's needed to do the job; ramp up or down as needed.
Second, the highest output levels (ERP: Effective Radiated Power) of these phones are nada in reality for adults. Try standing atop a busy RF site and getting your PDA wiped clean from the saturation of RF energy; that's something to worry about. The levels are set so as not to adversley impact children (who shouldn't need/have one anyway, but whatever) who have developing immune systems. Most people don't even realize their phones are working all the time; as they pass from cell-to-cell the phone is polled by the site, even when you are not making a call, but the power use is very low.
Third, the whole trick to cell phone systems is reception sensitivity and selectivity, not transmitter power. The receivers in our cell phones and at the cell sites are truly modern marvels. Between that and the uber-plotted site locations for maximum connectivity for the biggest mass of people, you should all be very thankful.
Lastly, GSM is the way to go when selecting a phone. Oh, and I wouldn't consider ANY cell phone service to actually be called 'microwave' [think about the nomenclature] transmissions, more like 'point-to-multipoint UHF'.
Anyway, no one is getting their brains zapped by cell phones. The energy and frequency just aren't enough.
Richard Driskill
Electromagnetic Spectrum Authority, retired
|
| |
|
|
|
06-03-2006, 02:32 AM
|
|
Editorial Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,411
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rich2741
Oh, and I wouldn't consider ANY cell phone service to actually be called 'microwave' [think about the nomenclature] transmissions, more like 'point-to-multipoint UHF'.
|
Oh, I don't know about that. It's reasonable well accepted that microwave, when it comes to RF thought, spans 300MHz to 300GHz, which does span UHF, SHF and EHF. UHF being at the bottom there. Of course when most folks think of microwave they think of the oven which operates at around 2.4GHz, which would be UHF if you made a radio at that frequency. My JasJar has an operating mode at 2.1Ghz, not that far of of what we use to cook stuff. Even the low end 850MHz is within the label microwave.
Not that I am concerned about my phone's radiation, but calling it microwave, though capitalizing on the connotation, is accurate. I'd just file this away so if I have a problem with cancer at some point, I have someone to sue
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-03-2006, 06:06 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,466
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Johnson
This issue is why I'm shopping for a bluetooth headset. I figure that even if Samsung has set the power level all the way up to "Deep Fry" I'll be OK if it's not actually next to my head...
|
And what makes you think that a BT radio (2.4Ghz) is just more than slightly better? Where-as a phone might at some point be returned to your belt when not in use...(lead jockstrap anyone?) you are keeping the head set in your ear semi permanently...lower levels but more prolonged exposure...
The above is pure sarcasm. Meant to amuse but not much else, it should in no way ever be considered scientific or even objective.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-04-2006, 05:51 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 70
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rich2741
Lastly, GSM is the way to go when selecting a phone.
|
huh??
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
