Cell phones and radiation:
#1
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."

The phones themselves aren't necessarily harmful. It's the radiation emitted by the phones -- and absorbed by the human body -- that troubles some doctors.

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 radio frequency energy.

A quick explanation of the numbers: They refer to the "specific absorption rate" or SAR, a common benchmark that measures the rate of radio frequency energy your body gets from the phone. 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.

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.

(These lists were 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. For the group's full list of phone models, click here.)

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

Some other high-profile phones fared somewhere in the middle on the rankings. The SAR level of the Apple iPhone 4 was 1.17 W/kg (for the AT&T model; the Verizon model wasn't listed). Exposure levels for the dozens of BlackBerry models varied widely.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Mobile phones 'possibly carcinogenic' Mach 1 Club 1 8,563 06-01-2011, 06:24 AM
Last Post: Rare Pony
  Cell Carriers To Roll Out "Mobile Wallets" In Utah Mach 1 Club 2 11,202 04-07-2011, 12:58 AM
Last Post: Steven Harris
  Japans Radiation Plume! Mach 1 Club 2 9,938 03-23-2011, 09:17 AM
Last Post: 1969jimmach
  Cell phone use affects brain cell activity – study says Mach 1 Club 5 16,004 02-25-2011, 10:40 AM
Last Post: 1969jimmach
  U.S. Secretary Of Transportation Looking Into Disabling Cell Phones In Vehicles Mach 1 Club 1 9,128 11-25-2010, 02:12 PM
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
[-]
Latest Threads
What's One More Iron In The Fire!
Last Post: fram lee666
03-18-2024 06:21 PM
» Replies: 125
» Views: 238146
"Jacobra"
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
06-30-2023 11:13 PM
» Replies: 86
» Views: 150927
My old Queensland Ambulance
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
06-30-2023 11:08 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 1706
New member from San Jose, CA
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
05-09-2023 08:39 AM
» Replies: 12
» Views: 3966
Saving Seatbelts
Last Post: Jim
02-19-2023 10:23 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 9114
Sourcing new wheels
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
01-25-2023 02:34 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2003
Shaker Air Filter
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
01-08-2023 02:24 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1467
1971 Mach 1 parting out interior parts -...
Last Post: ylwhrse
12-22-2022 01:38 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 640
Painting
Last Post: Rare Pony
12-14-2022 06:24 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1971
WELCOME ALL NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCE YOURSE...
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
08-31-2022 01:36 PM
» Replies: 82
» Views: 157076
1970 mach 1 matching numbers
Last Post: Kstweeter
08-31-2022 10:31 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1087
Brake booster/servo hose length
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
08-23-2022 09:40 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 3006
New Member
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
08-20-2022 11:18 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1501
smooth window operation on 70 Mach
Last Post: CUSTOMMISER
08-15-2022 12:10 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1482
Blinkers on solid
Last Post: busted21
08-09-2022 03:58 AM
» Replies: 14
» Views: 8729
Blinkers on solid when lights on.
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
08-08-2022 12:06 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1720
351 cj running hot
Last Post: busted21
08-08-2022 12:13 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 3411
Major Winter projects
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
07-09-2022 05:12 AM
» Replies: 49
» Views: 21300
Happy Fathers Day!!!
Last Post: JTS71 Mach1
06-20-2022 02:34 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1686
1969 Raven Black 390 Looking For
Last Post: mason1958
06-11-2022 09:48 AM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 15088

>