http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
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!]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/ 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.]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
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..]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
The iPhone would be doing terribly, but everyone knows you can't get a signal in San Francisco anyway.]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/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.]]>Jun 16th 2010 6:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 6:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
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.]]>Jun 16th 2010 8:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
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.]]>Jun 16th 2010 9:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 9:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
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. ]]>Jun 16th 2010 10:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 10:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
Well if they do this for Cell phones I would love to see what Ear Pieces do... they radiate too...]]>Jun 16th 2010 12:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
Check it out the FULL LIST that should have been displayed by Engadget:

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?allavailable=1]]>Jun 16th 2010 1:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
More bars == better phone reception :)]]>Jun 16th 2010 1:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 3:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 4:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
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.]]>Jun 16th 2010 6:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/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...]]>Jun 16th 2010 9:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
or are they talking about nuclear radiation or something?]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 6:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Oh, and a higher output drains your battery faster :)]]>Jun 16th 2010 6:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
If San Fran wants to secede from the Union, that's fine with me.]]>Jun 16th 2010 8:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/]]>Jun 16th 2010 9:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
"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.]]>Jun 16th 2010 9:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
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]]>Jun 16th 2010 9:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
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. ]]>Jun 16th 2010 9:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1452/72497380.png]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/lol!]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
Fucking Win!!]]>Jun 16th 2010 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
later people realised all the most interesting phones had higher radiation levels.]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
Oh sure..., just right before soap.]]>Jun 16th 2010 8:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/where to start....]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Mostly the uneducated people who pluralise* words they shouldn't

* Grammar Nazis should google 'ise ize' before responding to this]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/ *Clears throat*

.......Foxcon]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/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.]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Jun 16th 2010 5:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/Movie to follow in a year!]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-passes-cellphone-radiation-law-to-confuse-consumer/
This is exactly what the old saying "Better safe than sorry" is supposed to address, isn't it ?
]]>Jun 16th 2010 5:59AM