<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Smartphones with the lowest and the highest radiation levels ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-22T15:28:19-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Could you cite this &amp;quot;study&amp;quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3452509]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am skeptical, at best, of the claim of the wired headset directing more energy to the ear.  I remember when it came out, and it was quickly debunked.  Could you cite a resource for the readers so that we can be sure this is the case?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3452509]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mickywi]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 08:34:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hands-free as Protection]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450348]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I was part of a similar study years ago. Another thing to keep in mind is that a wired hands-free option can often act like an antenna and direct more energy right into the ear: chose a Bluetooth set to be safe.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450348]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksbinnie]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 09:50:43 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Are U Kidding?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450265]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The amount of radio waves(that is what these &quot;RAYS&quot; are), are indeed,  increasing proportionally to the &quot;electronic&quot; gizmos that people and industry want!  Think about this, other items constantly emitting RF signals, cell towers, radio stations, electrical transmission lines, satellites, microwaves,the Sun, X-Rays and more.  Now, you want to block theses RAYS, tin foil, wear tin foil in between you and your clothes, with high lead content and I like the idea of hat's with the antenna on top provided the hat is a reflector shield to the RAYS, although fried brains are common.  It's a modern age, live with it or move to a cave in the mountains. I know, how do you recycle the &quot;high lead content tin foil&quot; and could you slowly cook yourself using the tin foil clothes, ah, how the problems mount, butt  theres gold in them thar waves :)~]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450265]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dvr666@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 06:52:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[We need to wear hats with antennas on top]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450215]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...maybe we can bring back the pointy-helmet style of the WWI-era Germans. Put the RF section in the hat, with a gain antenna on top, linked to the main phone via Bluetooth ... oops, more radiation.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450215]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mfa@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 03:58:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ever hear the phrase &amp;quot;all other things being equal&amp;quot;?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450190]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Well, that's the case here... all the phones work just fine.Some of them just fry their users brains a bit more, on account of lazy, non-optimized engineering.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450190]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 00:55:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Why No Nokia?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450168]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I was of the impression that Nokia are the best in terms of lower radiation, but Nokia phones are not to be seen in the first list. Is this study sponsored by some mobile manufacturer to gather mileage in terms of marketing? Can I publish this article in my site www.priceofmobiles.com ?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3450168]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mobileprince]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 00:28:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[other brands]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3449165]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This list claims to be the 10 highest and 10 lowest. I assume anything not listed falls in the middle.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3449165]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[FTAdmin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 14:14:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Another way?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3449103]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What if their was an antenna at the top of the phone that was shielded in the direction of the earpiece, and another antenna at the bottom of the phone that was shielded in the direction opposite the microphone. This way you could get good signal in the direction away from the brain, and you could also get reasonable signal in the portion of the device opposite that is usually held several inches away from the face.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3449103]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[colinnwn]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 12:27:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What, no Nokia ?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3448575]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It seems too much of a coincidence that the most popular make - Nokia - doesn't figure in either list. Just seems this article / research was sponsored by certain quarters with vested interests. Radiation from Mobile Phones and their towers has been a hotly debated topic for a while now, with no conclusive proof of it being strong on either side. Moreover, the jury is out on mobile phones radiations causing cancer / tumour after prolonged use (for many years). However, in these times, mobile phones are a necessity rather than a luxury. With most working people having atleast one hand phone (many have two - one for official and another for personal use), mobile phones are here to stay. Landlines are a viable alternative only for those who have a desk job, or those having a permanent place of residence (as opposed to a job requiring them to relocate often). Hence, using a handsfree or Bluetooth headset seems a more practical solution to reduce our exposure to radiation from mobile phones.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3448575]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mail2ri]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2011 05:10:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Beyond clarity]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3448406]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[So, if they deliberately block the signal in the direction of the faceplate to protect the user, the phone would be quite directional working best when the back side of the phone is facing the cell site.  Conversely, if you turned around while talking on the phone so the user is inbetween the phone and the cell site, the phone would have to increase its transmitted power in order to achieve the signal to noise ratio required at the receiver.  The ERP in the direction of the cell site would remain the same, but the input power to the transmitter would increase thus reducing battery life.  It seems to me the only way to really reduce radiation to the brain is to train the users to aim their phones towards the cell site and not through their heads!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3448406]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[junk@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 12:27:36 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Just to clarify]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3448423]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Different cell phones have different output signal patterns, as it is possible to design handsets to reduce the amount of RF going directly through the face of the phone, and therefore the face and head of the user.Cell phones are both receivers and variable-output transmitters.  The transmitter-chipset is not regulated, but the effective radiated power output power of the phone is regulated.  The measurements in the article are not 'more radiation', they are 'more radiation through the skull of the person using the phone'. Since the human brain is mostly water, the water will absorb the radiated RF energy, blocking the signal to some degree. So from an overall signal coverage and efficiency standpoint, a phone that has a lower SAR score would use LESS battery and get MORE range, as a certain percentage of the radio output would be blocked/abosrbed by the brain.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3448423]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[robo_dev]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 12:19:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Those &amp;quot;rays&amp;quot; are what makes the phone work!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3448411]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Since it is the job of a cell phone (aka Radio Telephone) to radiate energy in order to communicate, it seems to me that the BEST cell phones are the ones with the highest radiation numbers.  High radiation means the signal is getting out, and thus you get better coverage and fewer dropouts.  This is the mark of an efficient antenna.  Also, since the power level of the transmitter is limited by law, the more efficient the antenna the better the range using lower power, thus better battery life.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-344261-3448411]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[junk@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 11:50:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

