Oh San Francisco, you and your progressive ways. The city just passed a law -- a first in the US -- requiring retailers to post the Specific Absorption Rates (aka SAR, the rate at which at which energy is absorbed by the body) in no less than 11-point font right next to any cellphone being sold. Sounds good as far as consumer education goes, right? And a functioning democracy demands an educated and informed electorate. But here's the thing: the jury's still out (just pick your favorite
dangerous / not dangerous study to fit your belief) on the effect of radiation at levels less than the 1.6 watts per kilogram threshold set by the FCC. As such, CTIA spokesman John Walls has a point when he says that highlighting the SAR levels might confuse consumers into thinking that some cellphones are safer than others. In other words, consumer education needs to go much further than any retail-shelf placard could possibly communicate. Well, at least the law will keep us safe long enough to walk out the door and trip over a hippie.
P.S. The image above is from the "
Get a Safer Phone" (note the wording) rankings provided by the Environmental Working Group.
posted June 16th 2010 5:13AM
Surprising too see dat dere iPhone not on the worst phones list given it has over 9000 radios in it.
@Rusty Shackleford
That's so true... apple must have slipped some money under the table.. they knew this was coming... If it was somewhere other than San Francisco they would have been screwed!
@jahkamren
I'm sure if the iPhone was anywhere near the top of the list, Engadget would've mentioned it in the title, and a few hyperlinked times in the article.
Likewise, if the HTC Evo was anywhere near the BOTTOM of the list.
@Epyon
That's true.. but in the other hand... who pays attention to this crap anyways? when I'm looking for a phone.. i don't ask a sales man what phone has the lowest radiation... It don't even cross my mind..
@Rusty Shackleford
The iPhone would be doing terribly, but everyone knows you can't get a signal in San Francisco anyway.
@Rusty Shackleford
Go to the website and STFU. They tested the iPhone 3G, and also the moto droid, Eris, Nexus One, etc. Stop being a freakin Apple fanboy just because Engadget didn't mention the world Apple nor iPhone.
@DrDr Why don't you check the site and find out yourself? The 3G actually did better than the Droid/Nexus One.
The data is suspect and not indicative of real world radiation exposure.
Based on what EWG tells on their own website:
- they use manufacturer's maximum exposure rates, which are known to be inaccurate under real world conditions
- if mfg data is unavailable, they rummage through the FCC db using FCC ID as a secondary proxy for SAR data (again mfg data)
- they perform NO tests and rely completely on varied manufacturer test protocols
As the German mobile telephone magazine 'Connect' has shown using their own lab measurements, real-world exposure varies greatly from what the manufacturers tell you and as a function of network frequency/band.
If you want more of a real life average of radiation absorption by phone model, you go to Conncect's site and check their laters 'strahlungsbestenliste' which can be downloaded for free at:
http://www.connect.de/themen_spezial/Strahlungsbestenliste_566654.html
(look under Strahlungsbestenliste connect)
The phones are ranked by their real-life measured 'normierter Strahlungsfaktor' and SAR-Wert results. The lower the figure, the safer the result and often, althoug not always, a worse reception under marginal signal conditions.
So, forget about the EWG data and get the real deal from Germans who know how to measure this stuff with a level playing field.
The lowest radiation recent GSM/UMTS phone in their listing?
Samsung S5550 (tested 6/10)
The lowest radiation recent GS/UMTS smartphone:
Samsung Omnia II I8000 (tested 1/10)
Read the PDF for more phone results.
Setting aside the fact that there is no scientific evidence to suggest cellphone radiation causes any harm to biological material on a regular basis, what matters is not the maximum radiation exposure of a cellphone, but the flux over time of that radiation and where that radiation is concentrated.
One phone may emit a maximum of only 0.5 watts, but does it non-stop 24/7, while another phone may emit 1.5 watts but does it for only seconds out of every hour, and you can tell just instinctively that you quickly accumulate more radiation from the less powerful phone. Also, what's the REAL difference in the range of these phones? Perhaps one phone might emit relatively "low" amounts of radiation, and another relatively "high", but is that range between 1.45 watts and 1.50 watts? How much of a difference does that actually make?
The fact that scientific evidence is so controversial on this issue, so equivocal, just goes to show that the effect size is so small that it probably matters very little if you're getting relatively "low" or "high" doses of the radiation.
That said, it is obvious, from many different perspectives, that we should minimize the amount and intensity of energy used, if only for the sake of battery life.
@jahkamren It should cross your mind, because the radiation will.
@Rusty Shackleford
Amazing to once again see the beginning on the comments start off with nothing but talk of the iPhone, despite this post being about phones in general.
The obsession some of you guys have with either the iPhone, or someone beating the iPhone, is unhealthy.
I usually keep my iPhone on my crotch when driving, is that bad for me?
@Rusty Shackleford
Well if they do this for Cell phones I would love to see what Ear Pieces do... they radiate too...
@Epyon
Check it out the FULL LIST that should have been displayed by Engadget:
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?allavailable=1
I'm not confused at all:
More bars == better phone reception :)
@DrDr Iphone 3GS actually has a pretty low radiation score
@Edmunn well that kinda depends on whether you've finished pro-creating :-) Seriously though, I think it does... i use Tawkon to see when my blackberry's radiation is high, and pretty much every time I'm driving radiation levels shoot up. So yes, I keep it away from my lap... especially when driving.
at least nokia is "good" in something these days ;)
Why don't they concern themselves a little more with why AT&T has completely sucky service in that city? What a bunch of doofuses.
Phones do not damage your health, SAR rates mean nothing to customers.
@Maybach +1
Plus there are no scales on that graph. A difference of a few % could take you from min to max, where max is still a tiny number of 100% absorption. Scaremongering.
@Maybach
The retired head of the UCLA physics department (http://personnel.physics.ucla.edu/directory/faculty/index.php?f_name=wong_a) begs to differ. While doing internship at his lab developing the "pong research" phone covers, meant to redirect the waves, he told me of his personal basic study which shows that a hair from the head side you talk on has significant DNA anomalies compared to one's less used side. He sees the dangers of phone radiation, peoples ignorance of such, and the establishment (ie cell companies, phone companies, FCC etc.) actively discrediting academic findings as synonymous to that of global warming. My point of view is that nothin gone change until a cancer pandemic 30 years down the road, which if we still have a private insurance plan will not be covered at all. Cause' Cash Rules Everything Around Me CREAM, get the money dolla dolla bills ya'll...
doesn't more radiation equal a better signal?
or are they talking about nuclear radiation or something?
@mrqs No, it doesn't. SAR measures power that is dissipated in the user's head. Power dissipated in your head can't reach a base station. It's that easy.
@mrqs You could be right, same phone with higher radiation has a better signal. But as these are different phones it can also mean the manufacturer just didnt care about placing the antenna in the phone well and compensates it by higher radiation. Or his cell-modules are bad etc.. Different wifi-routers also have different signal strengths, but normally they send with the maximum allowed radiation (at least here in europe).
Oh, and a higher output drains your battery faster :)
Great, another spec most people won't understand. And the only way I will ever understand it is to compare it to every other phone at the store, which seems annoying and not that useful. But I'm fairly sure that cell phone radiation doesn't harm you in the first place,
Anything supported by a "enviromental group" should be questioned. Those people are the same bunch of nitwits selling us global warming and the rest of the grand lies.
@nastro
If San Fran wants to secede from the Union, that's fine with me.
@nastro You would be foolish to think that. Many environmentalist focus on real problems such as corporations dumping toxic wastes. Do a little research into the conditions of many of our rivers before the environmentalist movement and you might be surprised to see how bad it was getting in this country.
@kabloink
"corporations are destroying the world" go cry about it, I am going to keep buying from them until an AFFORDABLE alternative comes around. Why is it that "organic" food is considerably more expensive yet lacks all the expensive chemicles found in normal produce?it's a scam.
I think it is a good idea. I hate having to go to great trouble to look up SAR information (e.g. checking user manuals) which is something that I am slightly concerned about. There is nothing wrong with more information. If users are unable to interpret this information it is their problem. It is like the Verizon ads. Others should not be penalised because some of the population are ignorant of a certain idea term as long as this confusion is not exploited.
@lexitu
Are you really that ignorant? There is no proof that this radiation is dangerous! I have been using cellphones for 14 years, I have a 3 month old son... Guess what, he has 2 eyes 10 fingers and 10 toes. I have never suffered from a headache accept for the random hang over. What you should really be worried about is the masquitos that are carrying malaria around your house
@Mentat
How long does it take to get cancer after smoking? Anyway, I never said that I believed that radiation from mobile phones was harmful. I am just thoughtful about it, and think it is of some concern because studies either way seem inconclusive. Once again there is nothing wrong with information, unless it is slanted in a way that overly influences the consumer.
FIXED*
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1452/72497380.png
@Tiptup300
lol!
@Tiptup300
Fucking Win!!
Europe had it like for ever. Welcome to the XXI century, US.
@magadget
later people realised all the most interesting phones had higher radiation levels.
@magadget
Oh sure..., just right before soap.
@magadget Who wants to be Europe. I mean, really.
This is dumb
@summerboy18
where to start....
@summerboy18 GET OUT! D=
@summerboy18
Mostly the uneducated people who pluralise* words they shouldn't
* Grammar Nazis should google 'ise ize' before responding to this
@summerboy18
*Clears throat*
.......Foxcon
Yay, my HTC Magic has tonnes of radiation, this means I get more signal right!?
@summerboy18
I had to check his history to tell whether he's just pretending to be one or actually (sadly) is one. My conclusion is the latter, but it may just be that his whole life is a lie.
Next Marvel superhero in the making!
@onlymyrailgun
Movie to follow in a year!
"the jury's still out (just pick your favorite dangerous / not dangerous study to fit your belief) on the effect of radiation at levels less than the 1.6 watts per kilogram"
This is exactly what the old saying "Better safe than sorry" is supposed to address, isn't it ?