San Francisco may have
signed cellphone radiation labels into law, but the stickers won't stick without a fight -- the Cellular Telephone Industries Association (CTIA) just filed a complain in federal district court, claiming the new law supersedes the FCC's authority to regulate radio emissions and misleads consumers into believing some phones are safer than others. As we've discussed previously, the CTIA does have something of a point. Every phone that makes it to market is
rigorously tested for cell phone radiation levels, and those that pass fall below a specific 1.6 watt per kilogram threshold already. But hey, we're all for bombarding our brains with that much less radiation, as long as our calls
stay connected and our text messages arrive on time. If only there were a label for that... Read the CTIA's full complaint at our more coverage link.
posted July 24th 2010 4:44PM
Everyone LOVES suing.
Sheesh.
@SolidSnake
lol look at blackberry....
@SolidSnake Does this chart include the new iPhone 4?
@Funkyfreshh Nokia only in left column...tells you something about the company
@Funkyfreshh nokia only in the left column...tells you something about the company
****reposting the second time...please don't delete posts Engadge!
@Funkyfreshh It would have, but the tester had his call dropped before he could report the results.
@Dirojey Not really, considering that there is no credible proof that cell phones and the radiation they emit can cause cancer or serious health issues.
@SolidSnake
I wonder where Apple is in all that?
@MbZbuGSy iphone 4 is 1.17 at the head and 0.43 Body so fair bit below 1.6. Dam and you all thought you could some here to slate it some more!
@Funkyfreshh
of course its not include iphone4. Anything that can't make any call, will not radiate your brain.
@grummy Just like most of the other phones from other manufacturers
@MbZbuGSy
The SAR ratings for pretty much all recent phones are listed on Cnet, http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602_7-291-16.html
On the list, the iPhone 4 SAR is kind of high, at least noticeably higher than the 3Gs.
But of course, PONG research has a proven case for the iPhone that reduces the radiation. One of the funniest reviews I saw was when a 'professional' tech site/blog starting railing against the Pong research case for radiation reduction as if it was a gimmick that didn't do crap, and the article rambles on and on about it not being worth anything, and then like 24 hours later, while the whole article is still available to read there's a small update at the bottom of the article that apologizes and fully acknowledges after testing that the radiation levels do in fact drop with the Pong research case. Only problem is, they're slow to production with other phone cases. They still have no android phone cases.
@Dirojey I've found nokia's to have the best reception and longest battery life as well. Quite impressive.
FIXED
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1452/72497380.png
People like to know those kinds of things, even if they're within safe levels. I like to know where my AC lies in the friendly scale, even if it's legal.
@Stratus41298 Your microwave is probably more dangerous.
A lot of people think "radiation" = bad. If you lived in a world without radiation, you would be literally blind. Because that's how sight works. Radiation, microwave, radio frequency, xray, light, and gamma rays are all the same damned thing: electromagnetic radiation. Only radiation above a very specific frequency is harmful because it can ionize and thus split DNA. CELL RADIATION DOES NOT DO THIS. The most it can do is have a very very mild warming effect.
The sun actually does emit ionizing radiation. It is far more dangerous to you than your cell phone, yet if you lived without the sun you would have vitamin D deficiency and be quite bad off.
@bradsh Excellent info, thanks!
@bradsh I don't use to stick my hear on my microwave though
Palm pixi :0 High rad levels
What dictates how much radiation a phone gives off? For example, how is the Pixi so high, and yet the Pre isn't?
the pixi dust of course.
@WestCoastG
Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I thought maybe it had to do with how much signal the phone could get. It didn't make any sense to me why one Blackberry would be among the worst and another would be among the best.
Same with the iPhone. The 3G had much worse radiation than the original, but the 3GS is better than both. The iPhone 4 is between the 3G and 3GS.
You would think that if it were possible for manufacturers to make phones with the lowest radiation without hindering something else, then all of them would do it ... whether or not the radiation actually does anything ... just to be on the safe side.
@WestCoastG Geiger Counter?
Hmm, so the storm did one thing right.
@Spaceshipped
Dang you beat me to the "first time the BB Storm is on a best of list" joke
Nokia seems to have solid engineering in this aspect. Not surprising considering the decades long experience they have in RF tech.
Effing techno hippies and their radiation.. the man who frikkin invented cellphones and cellular antennas is as old as time itself and he looks fantastic for his age. And he was around that "radiation" for over 40 years.
@max3000, my friend works in the area. they have in labs many safety measures and constant safety trainings. partially to keep people out of harms way, partially to not to fry the sensitive uber-expensive equipment they use for research.
I would actually prefer a high-powered phone where you can get a signal where low-powered (low radiation) phones can't.
@Aguiluz Low rad has nothing to do with getting signal or not
@trihy Aww, but the little stickers even look like signal bars.
I'd try to buy the phones with the high signal stickers, like the Pixi and Moto 9. ;)
@Load Ran
that's how they should have marketed the pixi. A skull and cross-bones, call it ''tumor'' people would be in lines so long it would put iphone to shame. Lol thank you dennis leary
@Load Ran lol... well... good luck with that, but dont complain if your brain get "no signal" later...
How is this a bad thing? It's not like you're being forced to buy a low radiation phone. It's like complaining about restaurants showing calories. You're pissed that you have to know that the In-N-Out meal you want to eat is 3000 calories? Boo freaking hop. If you want to eat it, no one is stopping you, just don't complain when you have health problems later.
@bernardino
I didn't read the complaint, but from the graph ... it could be due to the fact that it says "Best Phones" and "Worst Phones."
Whatever. I just pick low radiation phones just to be safe because I usually have it in my pocket next to my junk. I want kids in the future. ;)
@bernardino ".. just don't complain when you have health problems later."
The thing is, non ionizing radiation doesn't cause health problems.
@bernardino
I actually agree with you... and this is NOT a bad thing at all. Those that are complaining or against radiation disclosure want people, as a whole, to live in ignorance.
As far as "no credible proof being shown... any test can be modified to give any desire result. Does anyone, in their right mind, honestly think a test will ever be revealed showing positive proof of the damaging effects of long term cell phone exposure? There is way too much money involved. Any lab that tries to reveal this would be instantly shut down or will lose any grants or funding they may receive...
@bernardino It's bad because it is misleading. Cell phones operate via non-ionizing radiation. They don't cause health problems. Science is not on your side here, science is actually on the other side, saying that cell radiation is not dangerous.
A lot of people think "radiation" = bad. If you lived in a world without radiation, you would be literally blind. Because that's how sight works. Radiation, microwave, radio frequency, xray, light, and gamma rays are all the same damned thing: electromagnetic radiation. Only radiations above a very specific frequency are harmful because they can ionize and thus split DNA. CELL RADIATION DOES NOT DO THIS. The most they can do is have a very very mild warming effect.
The sun actually does emit ionizing radiation. If San Francisco could, they would put a big fucking warning sticker on the sun and then promptly ban it.
@SBMfromLA a cell phone emits radio waves.all it is is a fancy 2 way radio. Should giant radio towers be banned to? Tell you what, go stand out in the sun for 8 hours, then go to sleep with your cell phone in the same room. Guess which one emits ionizing[harmful] radiation then try to live without it forever. Good luck.
@bradsh
Banning the sun? Banning cell towers? Did you not read this part of my comment?
"It's not like you're being forced to buy a low radiation phone."
NO ONE IS BANNING ANYTHING. They're just showing you how much radiation each phone emits.
You whine about nanny state government but then you whine about knowing more information. Maybe I, as a consumer, don't want a "warming effect" on my brain at all; it's nice to have that information there so that I can actually make that choice. A 3000 calorie meal would probably, at worst, give me indigestion, but isn't it still a good idea to have the information there so I can take it into consideration when I make a decision?
Slap a disclaimer on the info that says "high radiation has not been proven to cause cancer" or something like that to appease the "nanny companies" and let it be. Making this information available is causing no harm.
@bradsh
Yeah, microwaves are non ionizing, but i guess you'll survive in an industrial microwave only for seconds.
The problem is that really nobody today can tell us, what longtime-effects the radiation of cellphones may have on our brain, because you know our brain is build of protein which is somewhat uncomfortable with higher temperatures. Also most phones (or W-Lan accesspoints etc.) can emit much more radiation to our brain in special circumstances (weak signal) and because of their pulsing operation.
Where said "radiation" is low energy photons with 1/10th the energy needed to denature dna, and no 10x the photons with 1/10th the energy will not do the trick either. Einstein received the Nobel prize in 1905 for proving this.
Could these microwaves heat deep tissue causing a chemical or structural change? It is not impossible, but since we are talking about intensities on the order of a watt the temperature change would be minute. And if this was true, don't go outside, sleep under blankets, get a fever, work out, or anything else that may heat your tissue.
PS: The sun emits radiation at this frequency with a similar intensity(about a quarter of a watt/m2)
It's RADIO signals. They've been flying through our brains for over a century now. When will technophiles realize that this kind of non-ionizing radiation is not dangerous?
@coolbho3000
Radio signals have been around a lot longer than the past century. The Sun emits radio waves.
I think the concern is because this form of frequency is closer to microwave frequency (which is also non-ionizing) than TV/radio frequency waves. Even though microwaves haven't been proven to cause cancer either ... the microwave oven makes people want to stay away when it's on.
It's not a surprise to see Nokia doing so good here, but it it's funny to see the "mad" 7710 from 2003.
Plus, you know, it's called NON-IONIZING RADIATION for a reason.
Studies have already been done that show being near a cell tower isn't dangerous, why would cell phones, that use the same *exact* wavelength chunk but use much less of it be dangerous at all.
This is totally misleading and will only serve to benefit the people in this world that refuse to believe in science.
@Sibuna : My only concern here is that the same kind of reason was used by the cigarretes companies, for a long, long time. I mean, the "we studied this and it's completely safe" line is not something new to hear. Take for example the whole climate change issue, it took literally decades to agree what was almost plain to see: If you heat something, it will definetely heat... I mean... if you put smoke into your lungs they will eventually go wrong... if you put too much radiation into your body for long periods of time... c'mon, man, it's not that hard to see there's a real chance here!.
I'm just saying we must be aware of possible bad effects on our health, that's all.
@Patricio Arnechino even if you don't use a cell phone, you're being bathed in radiowaves from a tower. I'm not even sure they published studies on smoking back then, or even attempted to study it. Heck even doctors were smoking. But we can live without smoking. Society moves along. Can society cope without communications technology?
*steps away from blackberry
why is everybody Frickin suing eachother