Loaded-Gun.Com - Anti-Social.Com's Rejects!
General Category => Politics, Philosophy, News and/or Current Affairs => Topic started by: Tru on September 14, 2009, 07:04:22 AM
-
Latest information on cell phone safety and including comparative radiation levels list for all cell phones.
If you use your cell quite often or have been wondering about the latest health related research this information may be of interest to you.
Full Report.
http://www.ewg.org/project/2009cellphone/cellphoneradiation-fullreport.pdf (http://www.ewg.org/project/2009cellphone/cellphoneradiation-fullreport.pdf)
Quick List.
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?allphones=1 (http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?allphones=1)
Safety Guide.
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/8-Safety-Tips (http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/8-Safety-Tips)
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 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)
My old LG C2000 is actually fairly high at 1.01 W/kg but is still much less than the top offenders.
-
Thanks to Emp. :)
Two things things:
1) Measuring power output of a device by the device weight punishes lighter devices who output at the same level as other devices. Any given cell phone will not dramatically change in size or weight during your ownership of the product, thus there will be no change in power output (which is not the number which is varying in this comparison) from the device. Producing a measurement with weight being a primary factor has no relevance to the overall output of the device.
2)
This "report" uses some extremely iffy language in it. Note how it quotes some of the same studies from the two articles below, but fails to call out the "gotchas" of the testing/surveying procedures.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2006/12/8366.ars (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2006/12/8366.ars)
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/01/8705.ars (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/01/8705.ars)
Largest amongst the "gotchas" would be the fact that many studies require the person WITH brain cancer to report upon which side of the head they most often used the cell phone. Even the meta-analyses which Hardell does are still dependent upon the same inherent flaw in validation.
-
1) Measuring power output of a device by the device weight punishes lighter devices who output at the same level as other devices. Any given cell phone will not dramatically change in size or weight during your ownership of the product, thus there will be no change in power output (which is not the number which is varying in this comparison) from the device. Producing a measurement with weight being a primary factor has no relevance to the overall output of the device.
I thought the same thing when I first saw cell phones rated that way. However, it's not a measure based on the mass of the phone, rather:
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 certainly makes more sense. SAR is still not an interesting measure, anyway, because they're using a consistent quantity of something to simulate a human body. Since human bodies are not consistent throughout, I'm still not inclined to believe the measure is a valid one.
also, it would be interesting to determine if people with bigger heads are more inclined to get cancer. :)
-
because they're using a consistent quantity of something to simulate a human body. Since human bodies are not consistent throughout, I'm still not inclined to believe the measure is a valid one.
They admit this in the report, that the method may not be entirely valid and that more work needs to be done to validate the measurements. But that it's the best method they have so far.
-
Dead humans on life support would be better. Just stick probe in the brain and maybe one on the other side of the head.
-
Well even if it isn't perfect as far as simulating human tissue it does provide a valid method of comparing radiation levels between different phones at least.
-
shouldn't you just compare the total radiation?
-
I keep my phone under my taint while driving. I have my windows down and my stereo up, so I won't hear the thing go off. I put it on vibrate and stuff it up under my nuts.
-
I keep my phone under my taint while driving. I have my windows down and my stereo up, so I won't hear the thing go off. I put it on vibrate and stuff it up under my nuts.
Also done this.
-
Phone fags
OMG I think I might try that. NOT, maybe, what if...
-
Phone fags
OMG I think I might try that. NOT, maybe, what if...
Faggotry or not, who gives a fuck. It makes my balls feel good.