Smartphones investigate

Radiation threats: The 10 most potentially hazardous smartphones

Based on new research, learn the 10 smartphones that emit the most radiation, the 10 that emit the least radiation, and a few quick safety tips.

Based on new research, learn the 10 smartphones that emit the most radiation, the 10 that emit the least radiation, and a few quick safety tips.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the scariest unknown technology risks of this decade is the issue of radiation from cell phones. There's still an open question about whether long term exposure to these mobile devices will cause damage or disease to human beings.

The Environmental Working Group has a comprehensive new study (download the full report as a PDF) that surveys the scientific research on cellphone heath risks and provides radiation data for most of the current cellphones in use. Here's how the EWG explained the mission of its study:

We at Environmental Working Group are still using our cell phones, but we also believe that until scientists know much more about cell phone radiation, it's smart for consumers to buy phones with the lowest emissions. The U.S. government ought to require cell phone companies to label their products' radiation output so that consumers can do the numbers at the point of sale. It doesn't, so EWG has created this user-friendly interactive online guide to cell phone emissions, covering over 1,000 phones currently on the market.

The EWG study looks at all mobile phones, but since smartphones are becoming a standard tool for businesses and IT professionals, I've drilled down and looked at the list from a smartphone perspective. I've broken out the 10 smartphones that produce the most radiation, the 10 that product the least amount of radiation, and a list of the radiation ratings of some of the most popular smartphones that did not make either of those two lists.

When you look at these lists, keep in mind that the EWG has also included some older models that are no longer being sold but are still used by many workers and consumers. Also note that "W/kg" stands for watts per kilogram, a measurement for power density.

The 10 smartphones with the highest radiation

  1. T-Mobile MyTouch 3G (1.55 W/kg)
  2. Blackberry Curve 8330 (1.54 W/kg)
  3. Palm Treo 600 (1.53 W/kg)
  4. T-Mobile Shadow (1.53 W/kg)
  5. Palm Treo 650 (1.51 W/kg)
  6. Blackberry Curve 8300 (1.51 W/kg)
  7. Blackberry Bold 9000 (1.51 W/kg)
  8. Sony Ericsson P910a (1.50 W/kg)
  9. HTC SMT 5800 (1.49 W/kg)
  10. BlackBerry Pearl 8120/8130 (1.48 W/kg)

The T-Mobile MyTouch 3G, an HTC smartphone powered by Google Android that debuted to lots of fanfare this summer, topped the list of the worst radiation offenders. However, other popular smartphones dominated the list as well, especially BlackBerries and Treos. The BlackBerry Curve, the best-selling smartphone on the market in 2009, was a close second on the list, and it was joined in the top 10 by its cousins, the BlackBerry Pearl and the BlackBerry Bold.

The 10 smartphones with lowest radiation

  1. Nokia 9300i (0.21 W/kg)
  2. Nokia 7710 (0.22 W/kg)
  3. T-Mobile MDA Wiza200 (0.28 W/kg)
  4. Samsung Impression SGH-a877 (0.35 W/kg)
  5. Nokia 9300 (0.44 W/kg)
  6. Samsung Propel Pro SGH-i627 (0.47 W/kg)
  7. Samsung Gravity SGH-t459 (0.49 W/kg)
  8. BlackBerry Storm 9530 (0.57 W/kg)
  9. Nokia E90 (0.59 W/kg)
  10. Nokia N96 (0.68 W/kg)

Nokia, with five models in this top 10, and Samsung with three, were clearly the winners in terms of smartphones that emit the least amount of radiation. It's also interesting to note that although both of these companies produce dozens of different models, neither of them had a single model that made the list of the worst radiation offenders. The surprising member of the low-radiation club was the BlackBerry Storm (RIM's first touchscreen device) since so many of the other popular BlackBerries were on the high-emitters list.

Other notables, from lowest to highest

If there's another phone you'd like to look up, here is the full list. Also, when seriously evaluating any smartphone on any of these lists, make sure you click through and look at the EWG page with the details of the phone's radiation emissions using different connections and doing different activities. The number listed is the maximum radiation rating, but it can be deceiving in some cases until you look at the whole picture.

For example, the iPhone 3GS has a rating of 1.19 W/kg, which is a middle-of-the-pack rating. However, 1.19 is its maximum radiation level, which only happens when it is connected in UMTS 1900MHz mode. In its other four modes, it averages 0.63 W/kg, which is more consistent with the lower tier of radiation emitters.

Safety tips

As part of the report, the EWG also provided eight safety tips for cellphone users who are concerned about radiation. Here is a quick list of the tips. You can click through to the original list for more detail on each of the items.

  1. Buy a low-radiation phone
  2. Use a headset or speaker
  3. Listen more, talk less
  4. Hold phone away from your body
  5. Choose texting over talking
  6. Poor signal? Stay off the phone
  7. Limit children's phone use
  8. Skip the "radiation shield"

The EWG also offers a one-page PDF that lists all eight of these tips along with a further explanation of each. IT professionals might consider distributing this PDF to employees who use company cellphones or posting it on the corporate intranet. Of course, you should consult senior management and your legal department before distributing something like this since it involves employee health.

See also: Are cell phones safe? Researchers still uncertain (CNET)

Bottom line

While there isn't conclusive scientific evidence proving that cellphones cause illnesses or diseases in humans, the EWG report does point to research that has shown links between prolonged cellphone use and  brain cancer, salivary gland tumors, migraines and vertigo, and decreased male sperm count (from carrying a cellphone in the pocket).

A lot more research still needs to be done, but in the meantime it makes sense for mobile manufacturers to limit cellphone radiation whenever possible and for users to be aware of which phones produce the most radiation so that they can take steps to limit radiation exposure as a precautionary step.

UPDATE 09/14/2009, 9:00 AM EST: I got a note from Daniel Van Hoy, a broadcast engineer, who wrote, "There is a big difference between 'ionizing' and 'non-ionizing' radiation... Cell phones, radios and TV transmissions emit non-ionizing radiation that has a longer wavelength, lower frequency and lower overall energy per photon than UV light, X-rays and gamma rays (a form of radioactivity), which are known as ionizing radiation because they have enough power to eject an electron from its orbit and leave behind a charged ion that can damage cells and tissues." I verified this information to be correct. There's also more on ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation from the U.S. EPA.

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

184 comments
tweekintommy
tweekintommy

i dont know why but when i saw this on the news i thought what if radiation is whats killing man kind i know it sounds crazy but, READ THIS! what if having too much radiation for so long the earth freezes like the last ice age long enough to cool down????????????? what do u think??? like all the diffrent types of radiation at the same time that long... and maby the reason we have the earths rotation like the sun commeing and going for a curtian amount of time?? who knows.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Nokia is certainly doing their best to keep the rads down. Knowing the magnitude of difference certainly makes it easier to keep choosing them over the others.

mota1951
mota1951

Could I have some authentic information (with source for counter-checking) about effects of proximity to transmission towers (micro-wave towers) of cell phone companies on human health? Thank you

ElectricSense1
ElectricSense1

I think smartphones are here to stay, but people need to made more aware of the dangers of using them. Speaking as someone who went from being completely normal to completely electro sensitive 8 years ago I can tell you cell phones are dangerous and smartphones particularly see http://electricsense.com/422/smartphones-not-such-a-bright-idea for more information on this issue.

verdadero2006
verdadero2006

When I was a child shoe stores used x-ray machines to determine if the shoes you selected were a good fit. We used to play with these machines looking at our toes and wiggling them just to marvel at the fact that we could actually see our toes. No one ever developed cancer or radiation poisoning from these machines but someone conducted tests that conclusively proved they were not safe. I wonder how many people suffer from poorly fitting shoes as a result of this. Now we have the phone fright and I will bet anything that there is no real danger here either but being human and naturally afraid of things we do not understand we will pass legislation "controlling" this pseudo danger just as we have about so many other things we fear.

FGriffin
FGriffin

Having worked for a company who manufactured their own radios, transmitters, receivers etc. I was involved in the EMR testing for our transmitting devices. I was shocked to find out that in very close proximity (3/8th of an inch) that a cell phone transmitting at a quarter of a watt put out more EMR than our 200 watt medium whip transmitters. The problem is not about the power, but rather the length of the antenna and its proximity to your body. In the case of a cell phone, you know the answer to the proximity question. The government will never admit that living under a high tension power line causes negative health effects, because the liability will bankrupt the country. At some point, however, I believe that cell phone manufacturers will be forced to provide some level of directional shielding on their devices when enough people (like 1) have won a verdict against a manufacturer.

georgeou
georgeou

The concern over cancer is all based on the exploitation of people's ignorance of science. We have 50 years of data from people who work with high power nonionizing electromagnetic fields who have not shown any higher rate of cancer. We have tests from a Danish study with 420,000+ cell phone users who showed a slightly lower rate of cancer than people who don't use cell phones. The American Cancer Institute put up a very detailed explanation why the preponderance of the evidence overwhelmingly indicate no dangers. http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/half-truths-on-cell-phone-dangers/

bevkieny
bevkieny

Thanks for the list. I just purchased the newest Blackberry Tour 9630 which is not rated on the least hazardous list. I looked in the safety book on the website to find this information. I want to pass on the numbers as well as the interesting disclaimer and established safety level for your info/comment. The highest SAR value tested on the ear is 1.43/g and 1.72/kg. The highest SAR Value listed in their safety guide on the extremities is 0.53/g and 0.48/kg. (To achieve these low numbers the disclaimer states...it must be used in their approved RIM holster with the clip. This clip on the holster keeps the smart phone the required inch away from contact with the body. And if you do not use their protective holster you should always be holding it at least the that far away from your body.) FYI - It appears that this meets the safety limit defined in the * footnote on page 21, which I have pasted below. * In the United States and Canada, the SAR limit for mobile devices used by the public is 1.6 watts/kg (W/kg) averaged over 1 gram of tissue for the body or head (4.0 W/kg averaged over 10 grams of tissue for the extremities - hands, wrists, ankles and feet). The standard incorporates a substantial margin of safety to give additional protection for the public and to account for any variations in measurements. ** In Europe, the SAR limit for mobile devices used by the public is 2.0 watts/kg (W/kg) averaged over 10 grams of tissue for the body or head (4.0 W/kg averaged over 10 grams of tissue for the extremities - hands, wrists, ankles and feet). The standard incorporates a substantial margin of safety to give additional protection for the public and to account for any variations in measurements. The long-term characteristics or the possible physiological effects of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic fields have not been evaluated by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL).

JCitizen
JCitizen

Look - - - we live in a corrosive world N'Kay? Cr@p we are being nuked from space every minute of the day, from cosmic radiation. I don't hold any phone to my head, not because of radiation but because I like speaker phone use - my truck has voice hands-free cell service - I never carry a phone in my pocket, I don't hold them near my head. I could care less anyway. Who want's to die in an old folks home anyway? Pansies!

zarino_tong
zarino_tong

The unit is a bit strange for cell phone. For radioactive materials, I can understand the amount of energy should refer to the per unit weight. But for cell phone, what weight was used to calculate the result? The weight of the cell phone as a whole? The weight of the antenna? or the part that emit radio wave? If so, was battery included when measuring the weight then?

Jostlehim
Jostlehim

This report seems to be based upon extremely dodgy science, picking and choosing the reports that might back up their case. A large amount of the studies they quote are from the Interphone report, which has not been published in a final form. Looking at the results of this report, the majority of the studies do not allow any conclusions to be drawn. Although they might appear to show some correlation, the reverse correlation also falls within the 95% confidence interval. Although I would not normally look to Wikipedia as a source, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health gives quite a good summary of the state of play, quoting finalised published studies. Unfortunately, the alarmism of this article quoting a dodgy report by a pressure group has caused me to question the technical sanity (or at least the scientific literacy) of the author of the blog. A little more scepticism and analysis before regurgitating the output of press releases please!

Brian.Walters2
Brian.Walters2

To "Jane Doe", since most of what I have heard and read on this subject the ladies tend to be most vocal, radiation equals nuclear bombs or Chernobl type power station melt-down levels of ionising radiation. The public don't really understand the difference. In a previous employment I had many occasions where I had to climb aerial towers where transmitters were still actively radiating about 400 watts of 4 metre VHF (the average human being is about a half wave long at 4 metres), and apart from the third leg sticking out of the top of my second head, it did me no harm at all. I was also asked to undertake a health and safety evaluation of RF equipment used to test the radar transparency at 12 GHz of radome nosecones used on airliners using the published methods and criteria issued by the UK National Radiological Protection Board and I came to the conclusion that even if the operator looked directly down the waveguide end (not recommended), at the milliwatt power levels in use no harm would occur. The whole argument is the product of the lack of understanding between ionising and non-ionising radiation. Regards, Brian Walters GW3YSP

david
david

There is no conclusive proof that night lights cause ankle cancer either but maybe you can run a scary report full of FUD to convince people to be worried about that as well. Maybe we can all start wearing tin foil in our socks just in case. After all, night lights give off over 3 times the energy as a cellphone AND it IS ionizing radiation. Things must be slow over at Tech Republic when you start running scare stories about problems for which there still is no proof after over 10 years of research.

CrowdedCranium
CrowdedCranium

I wonder which is worse, a 10 minute call or the hydrogen bomb tested 50 years ago? Need fear in your life? Relect on how much deadly pulse energy waves pierce your private parts standing in front of the trusty old microwave oven while you wait for your Orvil Redenbacher bag to balloon. whooooaaaaoooooo feel the deadly radiation creeping up your spine activating the tingler. er, no that was Vincent Price. Matinee horror to collect a nickel for the viewing. pffft.

J.A.F.O.
J.A.F.O.

It is important to note that Samsung and Nokia devices generally have the poorest network performance, therefore their great RF emission status as it pertains to this report. The "lobby's" line is that this is non-ionizing radiation, thus it is safe. What is not being discussed here is that most US carriers operate on the 800 and 1900 MHz bands (700 MHz is being implemented now for broadband data) and that the 1900 band is more "dangerous" than the lower bands. Think UHF/VHF TV on the lower bands that was beaming throughout our homes in the analogue TV days. My advice to avid users is to keep the device away from your person as much as possible (i.e. in your pocket) and don't keep a bluetooth headset on your head so much. The Bluetooth is probably more dangerous than the device itself, as it is in constant communication whether the device is uplinked or not.

Mabrick
Mabrick

The only reason this is "an issue" is people who don't really understand the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum keep bringing this issue up. There are many more ways to accumulate EM energy that are for more dangerous than a cell phone. You can start with your microwave. You can include cathode ray tubes in TVs and monitors (where DID you think the term ray came from?) and yes, the infamous smoke detector of old. How about radon in your basement? If you have a basement you should have it checked. There are others including the possibility of thorium in your face because of your car windshield which is far more potent then the cell phone in your ear. The point is, you get more damage from an afternoon in the sun than you do from your cell phone. It is a NON ISSUE to anyone who takes the time to understand it. BTW, pasting that highly technical response was disingenuous at best. How about simply telling people that when their cell phone gives them something that looks like a sun burn they should worry. Otherwise, they should be far more concerned about the sun burn!

dbecker
dbecker

We do well to be much more concerned about the transformational content being transmitted by the radiation. Especially text messaging, which tends to reduce us all to supercilious extras trapped in a juvenile Disney Channel Movie starring empty headed twits. LOL. ROFL. ;). Ugh! The sooner we run out of hafnium and rubidium, predicted to be gone by 2017, the primary necessities for making those itty bitty pixel screens creating devastating eye strain, the better off we will be, since we will be unable to make viable cell phones any more. Unfortunately, some brilliant fool will find alternatives and propagate negative IQ inducing radiation to create an even shallower end to the gene pool. Hopefully, by that time, we will have discovered highly saleable popular technology which will cause extremely rapid degeneration causing all civilization to collapse and end the problem permanently.

FortBragg_Surfgoddess
FortBragg_Surfgoddess

Well at least my Goggle G1 was not on either list. Best part is... No exchange server connection!!! My time is my own... If you want me 24/7 then pay me 24/7 I think.

willm
willm

Why not rate the undesirable radiant output as effective watts per square meter, and using the hemisphere that the body (and head) is located in? I'm not too concerned with the phone's output as a function of its weight, unless I am missing something crucial here... that is saying something like, "how bright the light bulb is as a function of its weight." Cell phones emit microwaves, which can be thought of as light we cannot see. Just how bright is that light and how much of its is shining on me? After all, what we want is to reduce the microwave exposure going into and through our head and neck and increase the output on the opposite side of the phone, as we talk, that transmits our data to a cell tower.

vucliriel
vucliriel

This disease affects just about every professional field... You know it's a disease when no one even blinks about the absurd warning on practically every plastic packaging bag "Putting this bag over your head may suffocate you!" and other ineptitudes or scares to "protect" people from that dreadful condition called "common sense"... No wonder this declining empire produces 10 times more lawyers than engineers... 'How many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb' is a sad joke because it's all too real as problems don't get solved anymore but discussed to death by paralysis... Maybe we should ask ourselves 'how many people does it take to bring an empire of 330 million to its knees and ruin the life of its people and bring its economy down' and the sad answer would most probably be be '2973'... There is always going to be some idiot with power who will rule that the world is flat, that it was created in 7 days and any intelligent design originating from man is evil. The problem is, in our present day and age the common sense that was so prevalent at the time of our forefathers because they were first and foremost dealing with real life an death issues, and that would otherwise protect us from these absurdities, is disappearing fast, eroding individual rights and freedoms as it 'protects' them from their personal responsibilities...

georgeou
georgeou

Sounds like you understand just enough to be dangerous. What you're talking about is field density and not an absolute quantity of energy. The cell phone still emits very little total energy. The fact that you can find a small fraction of a watt per centimeter squared shouldn't scare anyone. The length of the antenna doesn't actually amplify the power, it simply refocuses the energy that would normally radiate spherically into more of a flat pancake which concentrates the energy more. Now if this concentrated energy were high enough to cause burns to tissue, that would obviously be an immediate health problem. With a SAR value of 1.6 watts/kg, the maximum concentrated energy can only heat up a few grams of tissue 1.3 degrees Celsius over the period of one hour of continuous usage. But the typical human body has 70,000 grams of mass so the heat would disperse much faster than it would accumulate at this low intensity, being overly concerned with maximum worst-case SAR values is probably unjustified. http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/sar-ratings-are-not-a-measure-of-radiation/ As for EMF threats and power lines, I think you need a new tinfoil hat. We have 50 years of science that shows no statistically significant health related issues even for the employees that work on the power lines unless they managed to fall off the tower or get themselves electricuted. Directional antennas are easy to build without the need for shielding in cell phones, but no one wants to use a phone that has to be manually oriented a certain direction. Besides, the safety implications of people walking down the street backwards or being forced to turn their heads and phones while driving are far more severe.

JCitizen
JCitizen

in a sea of fear! Thanks George!

RipVan
RipVan

But I wanted something based in open source, so I selected myTouch. Figures!! Well, I never texted on my old phones, and I am now. So maybe I'll just do that more often. (Once I figure out how to stay in my own lane, that is.)

DNSB
DNSB

How about being shot by a jealous spouse as you hurl your 97 year old body out a window?

georgeou
georgeou

Watt per kg tells you how much a Cell phone can heat up 10 g of tissue. It's not much to be worried about since even at maximum power after one continuous hour of usage, we're talking about roughly one degree rise in temperature in 10 g of tissue. That heat is diffused 10000-fold after spreads out through the body and effectively goes to zero when it leaves the body through sweat evaporation. If it's a cold day, it will just keep you slightly warmer. The concern over cancer is all based on the exploitation of people's ignorance of science. We have 50 years of data from people who work with high power nonionizing electromagnetic fields who have not shown any higher rate of cancer. We have tests from a Danish study with 420,000+ cell phone users who showed a slightly lower rate of cancer than people who don't use cell phones. The American Cancer Institute put up a very detailed explanation why the preponderance of the evidence overwhelmingly indicate no dangers. http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/half-truths-on-cell-phone-dangers/

robo_dev
robo_dev

Bluetooth uses only 1mw, versus around 400mw for most 3G phones. Also, a Bluetooth headset is not in 'constant communication', as it only periodically polls the handset, to save power. (sniff, hold, park modes). Don't forget, too, that the device is frequency hopping, so it's not putting out that wee-little 1mW on any one frequency, it's jumping around.

dina04
dina04

Just like the tobacco companies have hidden the dangers of smoking, so does the cell industry. Money talks and idiots die. People will not give up something they love regardless of damaging their health. Amazingly parents buy these dangerous phones for their children--clueless. Why even take a chance? Profit driven only, never concerned with safety and risk. We pay them to hurt our health!

wdewey@cityofsalem.net
wdewey@cityofsalem.net

We will just start mining old dump sites which usually contain higher concentrations of metals than most mines do. Bill

ewing.le
ewing.le

I agree that the purchasers of cell phones and other personal electronic devices should have radiation intensity level information and its peak wavelength or frequency (both in-use and stand-by modes) stated by the manufacturer. Because most of these are held near the head or carried in a pocket the normal radiation field at the surface of the device would be a good point of easy comparison. This together with the maximum field in any direction should be sufficient. The problem with the current list is that it very likely DOES NOT refer to radiation at all, but to the batteries in the cell phones. Watts/Kg is the typical way to rate the power to weight capacity of batteries, not EM radiation. As you correctly observed the stated measurements make no sense as a radiation intensity, or radiation power density (that would be W/cm^3). I know it looks like a mixture of MKS and CGS units, but W/cm^2 is a very common unit as is W/cm^2/sr for radiance.

wdewey@cityofsalem.net
wdewey@cityofsalem.net

The weight of the cell phone is not used to calculate W/KG. It is how much energy is absorbed by an object (in this case a persons head). So think about it as how much energy your head is absorbing. Bill

salisburyw
salisburyw

I suspect that for the general user who is not a scientist or math guru, that the relation between radiation density and the weight of the device is more useful than a more scientifically precise measure such as watts per square meter -- just because it is something that the consumer can more easily relate to -and- it still relates to a measure of density. [BTW, how many m^2 are there between the ear and the brain?]. It also seems to me that comparable analogies of this measure could be a gun hurling a relatively small projectile into an object versus a small child hurling a marble at the same object -- which will do the most damage? The issue relating microwave cooking versus cell phone emission seems to overlook the issue of "light diffusion" as distance increases. I vaguely recall a story some years ago about a grandmotherly type lady trying to dry her pet poodle by placing it in a microwave over -- needless to say the poodle didn't survive the experience. There seems to be a credible relation between that and the "high density of cell phone emission and smalll distance between the cell phone and critical body parts -- at least enough to ask that more serious studies be done -and- the questions to be taken seriously -and- appropriate precautions to be implemented until the questions are resolved. [BTW, are the general consumers serving as unwitting experimental objects, since the type of illnesses being discussed take decades to show there effects?] The question of shielding cell phone emission is an interesting aspect of the issue -- the transmission strength automatically increased by the device because it detects that the connection is not "getting out". The suggestion to direct the radiation away from the body should be actively pursued. ["Think responsibly" -or- have a "designated thinker" :)] That's my 2 cents worth. Have a good day.

LocoLobo
LocoLobo

I don't weigh out X grams of phone to hold to my head. I use exactly 1 cell phone at a time. The real question is how much total radiation am I absorbing from that phone? And how dangerous is it really?

vucliriel
vucliriel

What a perfect quote, that applies so well to those in our society who are deemed experts but in reality have no facts to base thier opinions on... I'm definitley writing this down!!! Brilliant!!! Two Thums Up!

JCitizen
JCitizen

There, I said it because you were too nice. I really miss your posts here George. Don't worry I don't worship anyone on this earth anyway! I just really appreciate some common sense once and a while! Fortunately that hasn't left TR completely yet!

JCitizen
JCitizen

A guy would probably die quicker getting run over trying to play with the cell phone in the car!!

RipVan
RipVan

...save the idle, rich criminals from themselves and from kontaminating us!

dbecker
dbecker

Like Sony's "organic" LCDs. About the right size right now for a cell phone, but who wants to pay $5,000 for one? Not to worry, even this will pass. Our only hope is that the vast masses of people will be too poor to afford the technologies, once the current administration in the United States gets done with us. And that, dear friends, will end the dangers of radiation of cell phones, except for folks like us who will still be required to carry them.

willm
willm

Thanks for the clarification... that makes a LOT more sense! In that brief list of the top 10 "best" and worse, there is an amazing difference in the microwave radiation dose one gets. Yowch. Although the total wattage may be (arguably) low, and "some studies" have shown that DNA and protiens are "not affected" at these energy levels, one must still recall the chemsitry notion of "activation energy"... ... To force a chemical change (reaction) to occur, one must exceed that energy level, that threshold.... HOWEVER, statistically speaking, this "barrier" is not truly a static value (or we would not have the corresponding "tunneling efect" in electronics, for example), so, to make a long story short, a given amount of microwave radiation less than the activation energy WILL statistically cause, but perhaps to an *exceedingly small degree*, an activation to occur (a chemical bond to break). The closer the radiant energy level gets towards that "activation energy" threshold, the more bonds WILL be broken, albeit still a statistically miniscule number... ... BUT, it might only take ONE fractured DNA strand to be be "fixed" or copied by reverse transcriptase and coded with an error and become a cancerous mutation! So, proceeding on that theory, minimize both the duration of exposure AND the watts per kilogram! And, don't use that phone while you drive!!! 'Nuff said.

LocoLobo
LocoLobo

Skimming through the original article. (42 pages?!) It says, "Biological effects caused by radiofrequency radiation depend on the rate at which the energy is absorbed by a particular mass of tissue, calculated as specific absorption rate, or SAR, and measured in watts per kilogram (W/kg)." That makes more sense.

vucliriel
vucliriel

If you look at the way our society has evolved in the past 40 years, you'll notice that 'Common Sense' has been quietly and INSTITUTIONALLY EXCISED from our basic values. Why? Simply because in our litigious society, it is simply dismissed: just look at what manufacturers must print on their plastic packaging... Thank God we have lawyers to warn us that putting a plastic bag tight over our heads can suffocate us! Isn't it great to live under the 'Rule of Law(yers)'?... NOT!

JCitizen
JCitizen

I bet my Nokia would survive the fall though! HA! :^0

dina04
dina04

has his price. My vote means nothing to him. Isn't it un-Patriotic to vote AGAINST health care for every American?

DNSB
DNSB

Just wondering where you obtained your cellphone with the 11 inch diagonal screen? I seem to remember the Sony XEL-1 had that screen size. Might be a bit difficult to fit into the average pocket. On a more serious note, the Zune HD has an OLED display. Add the phone circuitry and you'd have a pretty decent iPhone clone with an app store coming real soon now.

JCitizen
JCitizen

Just goes to show, there is a threat every time you turn around! Now that CRT PC screens are going by-by, the cry-babies have to find something else to wring their hands over. Next, they'll be suggesting lead lined helmets for cosmic rays from Alpha Centuari! I bet I got more radiation from drinking milk during the atmospheric nuclear test phase, than I'll get from micro-waves for the rest of my life. I doubt the FCC is going to jump on this band wagon. I'd lay odds that I get more rads from weather radar 24/7/365 than this! Not to mention police radar and dental Xrays. Did I mention cosmic rays from space? ;)

DNSB
DNSB

Just for a laugh, check out the radiation levels from a coal fired power plant. For some strange reason, I found it rather humourous that such a plant can produce levels of radiation that would have any nuclear power plant being shut down yet the anti-nuclear energy crowd aren't out there protesting. See http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html for more information. So far off topic, I can't even remember what the topic was anymore...