“Cell phone users — a group that, these days, means practically everybody — are no doubt concerned about Tuesday’s news that the World Health Organization (WHO) classifies cell phones as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans,'” Brandon Griggs reports for CNN. “But when it comes to radiation levels, all phones aren’t equal. Below are lists of the models available from major carriers that emit the highest and lowest levels of radiofrequency energy.”
“A quick explanation of the numbers: They refer to the ‘specific absorption rate’ or SAR, a common benchmark that measures the rate of radiofrequency energy your body gets from the phone,” Griggs reports. “The lower the number, the lower the radiation exposure. For a phone to be certified by the FCC and sold in the U.S., for example, its maximum SAR level must be less than 1.6 watts per kilogram.”
“But keep in mind that these are only ballpark figures. Your actual exposure will depend on how you use your phone, your carrier and network-specific conditions. For example, when your connection is weak, your cell phone needs to send out more radiation to reach the cellular tower,” Griggs reports. “And there’s still no conclusive evidence that a phone with a higher SAR level poses a greater health risk — or any health risk at all — than a model that emits less radiation.”
Griggs reports, “The SAR level of the Apple iPhone 4 was 1.17 W/kg (for the AT&T model; the Verizon model wasn’t listed).”
Full article here.
Environmental Working Group
Lowest radiation levels:
1. LG Quantum (AT&T): 0.35 watts per kilogram
2. Casio EXILIM (Verizon Wireless): 0.53 W/kg
3. Pantech Breeze II (AT&T, AT&T GoPhone): 0.55 W/kg
4. Sanyo Katana II (Kajeet): 0.55 W/kg
5. Samsung Fascinate (Verizon Wireless): 0.57 W/kg
6. Samsung Mesmerize (CellularONE, U.S. Cellular): 0.57 W/kg
7. Samsung SGH-a197 (AT&T GoPhone): 0.59 W/kg
8. Samsung Contour (MetroPCS): 0.60 W/kg
9. Samsung Gravity T (T-Mobile): 0.62 W/kg
10. (tie) Motorola i890 (Sprint); Samsung SGH-T249 (T-Mobile): 0.63 W/kg
Highest radiation levels:
1. Motorola Bravo (AT&T): 1.59 W/kg
2. Motorola Droid 2 (Verizon Wireless): 1.58 W/kg
3. Palm Pixi (Sprint): 1.56 W/kg
4. Motorola Boost (Boost Mobile): 1.55 W/kg
5. Blackberry Bold (AT&T, T-Mobile): 1.55 W/kg
6. Motorola i335 (Sprint): 1.55 W/kg
7. HTC Magic (T-Mobile): 1.55 W/kg
8. Motorola W385 (Boost Mobile, U.S. Cellular, Verizon Wireless): 1.54 W/kg
9. Motorola Boost i290 (Boost Mobile): 1.54 W/kg
10. (tie) Motorola DEFY (T-Mobile); Motorola Quantico (U.S. Cellular, MetroPCS); Motorola Charm (T-Mobile): 1.53 W/kg
Lists compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a lobbying group that advocates on behalf of public health and the environment, based on data provided by the phone manufacturers. The data are up to date as of December, which means some newer models aren’t listed. The group’s full list of phone models here.
[Attribution: MacNN. Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
Related article:
W.H.O. classifies mobile phone use as ‘carcinogenic hazard’ – June 1, 2011
WHO = Al Qaeda
I think Roger Daltry might disagree 🙂
=:~)
We won’t get fooled again.
Damned straight macsilvio! We need to get rid of all these government agencies and international organizations so that corporations can poison us all without fear! Long live the polluters, poisoners, and irradiators!
The WHO warning classifies cellphone radiation as a risk on par with caffeinated coffee and pickles. The point is that the WHO warning is bound to incite fear and hysteria from people who do not look beyond the headline. Without context, WHO’s warning is irresponsible. Remember, cellphone radiation, caffeinated coffee, and pickles. I don’t see people freaking out about caffeinated coffee or pickles like they are doing over cellphone radiation.
That medium radiation would be enough to cause radiation sickness in Android and eventually kill it stone cold dead.
well for something this awesome I’d like to upgrade to ‘large’ please.
we ain’t getting outta here alive people. death is all around us all the time.
1,000,000,000 WAYS TO DIE !!!!
I think it would be cool to see Apple address this. Get the next version of the iPhone at the lower end of the list.
There is no need to. The raditation a cell phone emits is non-ionizing (unlike x-rays). Also, there is still no proof that they cause brain tumors since they are very rare and no data exists that says left handed people get left brain tumors or right handed people get right brain tumors. It’s all just bullshit.
Agreed. The big problem is that researchers might be expert in this or that field but, unless they are also trained statisticians, they are not at all qualified to make pronouncements and conclusions. It’s such a widespread problem I’m surprised no one has set out to challenge all manner of research conclusions.
Besides, mention of “watts per kilogram” should give the game away. An idiotic and meaningless unit.
95% of the time, my iPhone is in my front pocket. Hell, the radiation is practically a contraceptive!
All they have to do is drop that magic word “radiation” and the ignorant public goes into a panic.
Only Snake Plissken can shut down the world.
And in other news, W.H.O forgot to mention in their report that the sun is a possible carcinogen with an absorption rate of 16.4 W/kg. or about ten times the worst rate of cell phones. W.H.O is considering banning the sun and suggests that we live underground and risk radon poisoning or alternatively, suggest we sleep indoors during the day and only go out at night.
Those bastards owning Android phones are living underground already…right in mom’s basement.
As someone who actually works with Radiation (Medical imaging) and has some training in Radiation Biology, let me drop a few points to consider regardless of your take:
1- In general, most cancers result from a long term exposure to the agent that is the culprit. For example, you do not get sunburned today and skin cancer tomorrow. The overwhelming number of cell phone users have not been using them or using them heavily for a long period of time.
2- In general, fractionated doses are ‘better’ (read less bad) than fewer larger doses of the same total quantity.
3- In general, the absorbed dose is more important than the radiated dose. Radiation follows the inverse square law and distance reduces the quantity. Example- a given flashlight that would be painfully bright at one foot from your eyes might be tolerable at a 6 foot distance. Otherwise, it’s not what leaves the antenna- it’s what gets to the vulnerable tissue.
4- Not all structures in the body respond to radiation equally. Cells with higher rates of cell activity tend to be more sensitive to the harmful effects of radiation. Also, more dense structures such as bone scatter more radiation than less dense structures.
5- In general, not all wavelengths have the same effect upon human cells/tissues. Higher frequency tends to give more penetration compared to lower frequency.
Apply these bits of generalized knowledge as you inform yourself about thus issue. I myself use the speakerphone or earbuds as much as possible- just to be safe. Not medical advice- just a comment.
I hope I got the cookies in a low shelf without dumbing things down too much.
You neglected to be more specific about the effects of ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation. The former is clearly damaging. I have not seen any conclusive data regarding radio frequencies.
You did, however, nail the condescending concluding statement.
mmmm, cookies
Sorry, Brandon Griggs, but I am not concerned.
I see the T-Mobile Gravity T is listed in the ten lowest group. Perhaps that is why is it such a POS. In addition, its touch screen is absolutely terrible.
Wow, thanks for that radiation course 101, RDF. As a low-shelf resident, I now feel better prepared to discuss the issue. But someone forgot to tell you that even dumb girls aren’t called ‘cookie’ anymore. Tee hee.
Oh, wait. Never mind. Feminism, Shemininism. When you’re dumb, sometimes being a cookie is all ya got. 🙂 lol
A hot, chewy cookie is the best.
Where is the study on the bluetooth ear-set and the cell phone kept in the jean pocket or the belt holster disturbingly close to the family jewels and the prostrate?
RDF appears rather pompous, dismissive, self-congratulatory, with an unrealistically elevated sense of self worth, disdain for others to day. As the narcissistic personality style is all about angrily discounting the other to bolster an internal self-loathing, I am afraid this may be a rather customary stance for this individual. Just state your point respectfully and skip the condescending, hurtful parts, please. somehow it distracts from the basic message yo are apparently trying to convey.
Doesn’t seem like anything other than an general explanation of a rather arcane subject. The cookie phrase is widely used in the south to remind people to avoid jargon and presumption when discussing things either complex or not widely known. The KISS rule in broadcasting/journalism.
There are several presumptions and therefore distractions, in the typical arguments that we need to be careful about:
Cancer is often the center of discussion, as if that is the only condition that could result from exposure to this energy. Just because something has not been shown to cause cancer does not mean it is innocuous. e.g. A leaky blood brain barrier (BBB) caused by microwaves and the resulting neurodegeneration can have nothing do with cancer and a lot to do with neurological deterioration.
The other issue that it is commonly assumed and implied in attempts to be helpful such as the EWG guide is that if there is a problem, then a higher exposure, must be more damaging than a lower exposure. But researchers have discovered just the opposite – at least in rats. i.e that the weaker fields are more biologically harmful.
“The most remarkable observation in our studies on the effects of microwaves on the BBB is the fact that the lower SAR values (around 1 mW/kg) give rise to more pronounced albumin leakage than the higher SAR values. If increase in dose had led to increased response, we feel that the risk of cellular telephones, base-stations, and other RF-emitting sources could be managed by reduction of their emitted energy. The indications from our study that the weakest fields are the biologically most harmful, poses a complicated problem…The weakest exposure level showed the greatest effect in opening the BBB (blood brain barrier), and in neuron damage and death.” Eberhard et al (2008).
I absolutely cannot post on this thread.
I feel the need to add this… I’m not sure where I stand on all this or what to believe, but I just keep thinking about back when no one thought cigarettes were harmful. It took years and years to realize that they are in fact harmful. We can’t avoid everything but cell phones have only been around (more popularly) in the last 10-15 years, so who knows really what it’s doing to us.