A Guide To Mobile Phone Radiation So You Don’t Fry Your Brains

@Hooray4Zoidberg: Well, if my rudimentary understanding of science and radiation is correct, then your boys should be developing superpowers any day now.

@Pookiewood: You do realize the top ten are the ten phones with the LOWEST radiation levels, right?

bkendrick

Great, I keep mine in my front pants pocket, does that mean Mr. Happy is gonna be Mr. Tumor?

maven2k

@jetRink:

Just took my Blackberrry off my hip on set on my desk...far..far.. away.

bonedog73

Aha, cool, I'm getting tumors for Christmas. Nokia 5310 Xpressmusic has a score of 1.25W/kg.

@Barry99705: 10mW at a frequency that doesn't penetrate into skin well vs. 2W at lower frequencies with better tissue absorption... I know which I'd rather take.

dingus

I've been fretting about this for over a year now!

[www.nytimes.com]

Bluetooth headpieces FTW!!!!

David Mascarenhas Watkins

My old Treo 650 always got bottom of the charts on these lists. It could make a speakerphone GSM-chirp at 10 feet. But my Cuato sure loved its solid reception.

dingus

@Barry99705: That bluetooth headset only needs to transmit a signal about a meter. The cellphone needs to send a signal about a kilometer. The power difference between the two is huge.

I've been a big fan of speakerphone/shouting. Currently I am not at Hulk levels yet.

SuperTuna

@Geisrud: You're the kind of nerd i like :-)

WOW Not one HTC Device on the top ten. Could be number 11 though!! LOL! Dang AT&T phones are killing people!! :p It'd be interesting to see why it seems GSM phones are higher than CDMA.

Pookiewood

Umm... Verizon is oddly absent from the top ten list.

Can you hear me now with that brain tumor?

@rrwakc: i ment will addopt or die

So you're saying we should all walk around with a 2.4Ghz radio stuck in our ears? Sounds like a worse idea than occasionally having a phone up to our head every now and then.

Class C hazmat suit won't do much good against your phone.

cellphones are relatively new thing give us 2-3 generations and the body will die.

P.S. we have a tree with wifi antenna on for 3 years now and the branches are dry from lower part of antenna to the top

Hmm, only 1 out of 10 best phones is CDMA. Interesting.

Yankees368

I assume this is brain tumors, what I'm more concerned about is ball tumors since my phone spends the majority of it's time right next to the boys. Where's the report on that?

Hooray4Zoidberg

The FCC or somebody should've been warning about this way more from the beginning. It's not like any intelligent person doesn't already know it, but with the great mass of humanity being idiots, well, that's a lot of radiation to be constantly attached to your body.

Leave it on the desk when you're at work. Leave it on a table or counter when you're at home. You don't need instant access to the goddamn thing 24 hours a day. And if you use it often, use an earpiece. It's just common sense.

@Curves: And I usually stuff mine in my front pocket or if I'm at the beach it goes into my Speedo.

IndustrialJones

@wkm001: The measurements relate to the Watts of energy absorbed per kilo of body tissue. It has nothing to do with the phone weight.

AmphetamineCrown

The SAR limit is in the US is 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1g of tissue. Everywhere else in the world it is 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10g of tissue. The US has the most strict standard in the world.

@Curves: do you mean every fat woman you know? Because the only women I know who do that are big girls.

Scott Jackson

@Yankees368: It is partially due to the fact that CDMA is a constant wave signal and GSM is burst

I don't understand the units of measurement. Watts/Kilogram. Who gives a shit how much the phone weighs. The radiation is the only thing you care about.

wkm001

@FriarNurgle: As someone using Verizon and with a brain tumor I can hear you perfectly. That said, we are all carrying around mini microwave ovens in our pockets, and whether your device is listed at the top or the bottom of the list the risk is likely similar.

More frightening to me is that every woman I know (including myself), at one time or another, carries her cell phone in her bra.

@maven2k: Shit, so do I.

Can you hurt me now? - Verizon's original slogan.

(No wonder they have better coverage, all that power frying your cells...hence cell-phone...)

SigmundTheSeaMonster

@David Mascarenhas Watkins: Yeah but I keep my phone in my front pocket when I use my blueteeth. I'ld rather a brain tumor then a prostate tumor.

MikeSWelch

@maven2k: Mr. Tumor and the Tumorettes won't be happy...

aec007

@dingus:
"Open your mind, and buy me a bluetooth!"

@Scott Jackson: Surprised you know any women at all.

well but the phone is as big as the rat...its like when i hold a microwave on my ear all the time

@Monty: Don't forget the microwave radiation we are saturated with from DirectTV, GPS and ComSATS...

Everyone seems to forget the power those units need to cover a continent...

SigmundTheSeaMonster

Brings an image from a Popular Science article several years back to mind. The old this a rat's brain...this is a rat's brain after cell phone exposure. Any questions?

ts-x

@Curves: That's it! No More.
From now on I want to see nothing but tin foil bras! or some thing like this....

aec007

@Bandit: Yes, our lifespan is increasing. Cancer rates are low in undeveloped parts of the world since people live significantly shorter lives.

The longer you live the more likely you are to develop cancer.

No link to phones at all.

@maven2k: Either that or Mr. Happy is going to be Mr. Shorty : )

Tru-Mann

The incidence of cancer in our world is WAY up over the historic rate. And cancer is virtually unknown in undeveloped areas of the planet. Coincidence?

@maven2k: Mr happy is gonna have to change his name to Mr reducto.

FULL BRAZILIAN

@AmphetamineCrown: You handled that much more politely than I ever could have.

thegreatfratsby

Yup that is why all japan have tumors!

hahaa I love the pic.

@FuzzysFriedChicken:
Well then, that's one thing you people do right.

@Hooray4Zoidberg: Lol my thoughts exactly. Although I do always keep it with the screen against my leg. Keeping the battery/antenna facing away from your body is supposed to significantly reduce the amount of radiation you get

@AmphetamineCrown: Respect and stars to you for being polite and not condescending.

@Bandit: No not a coincidence. People in under-developed areas can't afford hotdogs.

@maven2k: Free vasectomy

jamjen

@FuzzysFriedChicken: Exactly - you don't die of cancer when a) You die due to preventable disease (malnutrition, cholera, infections, etc.) b) there aren't enough doctors/equipment to diagnose cancer. There's an argument that more people in the third world die from cancer than is thought, just no diagnosis.

jamjen

@CSX321: Oh no he di'nt!

@bkendrick: LOL Whoa!

Pookiewood

Ah-ha! This explains why the iPhone gets such *glowing* reviews!

CSX321

Could someone help me understand this?

According to the EWG database, the Sprint Katana DLX (my wife's phone) has 1.21 W/kg at the ear and .26 W/kg when worn on the body in "PCS Mode."

However, in "Cellular CDMA Mode," the same phone rates .29 W/kg at the ear and .17 W/kg on the body.

According to Wikipedia ([en.wikipedia.org]) "Sprint converted their PCS network to CDMA technology."

So how can I tell which network she is using? I checked this against Cnet's review of the Katana DLX and they say the FCC's SAR rating for thins phone is 1.21.

shadowplay

@Bandit: Yes?

In lots of the world cancer goes undiagnosed and untreated, and anyway, the life expectancy is lower so people are less likely to get it in their lifetimes.

Cancer is a tricky bitch to study. Broad generalizations about it are often wrong.

I work in the cellphone industry (I mean, before I was laid off) and have witnessed SAR tests; not that it makes me any expert. I am personally leery of phone radiation, so I carry my phone in my side pocket; never in my shirt pocket. With me, it's not a matter of the data, it's just a matter of caution: I don't want a powerful RF generator pressed against my goodies for 8 hours a day.

That being said, my gut feeling is that much of the stuff published about brain cancer caused by phones (and power lines) is luddite scare-mongering. Here's a compilation of skeptical viewpoints about it: [www.skepdic.com]

My take is to err on the side of caution, but don't worry too much about it. Or, you can always buy a "SAR Shield" ([www.sarshield.com]) for just $19.99. Operators are standing by!

so, bluetooth has no radiation???

yogibimbi

I'm gonna be so pissed when I get cancer from my phone...

SadhikaEurypylus

@.- -. --- -. -.-- -- --- ..- ... / .. ... / .-.. . --. .. --- -.: What do you mean "you people"? :)

jconstance

@shadowplay: I read the article. The way I interpret it, the existing network is CDMA.

The original idea of PCS (Personal Communication Service) was that the FCC allocated spectrum at 1900MHz for an all digital voice/data service.

CDMA is just an encoding standard (another one is GSM) and the data encoding standard like PCS sit on top of that. What I think the article means is that Sprint continued marketing under the brand "Sprint PCS" while swapping out PCS for a newer data standard on top of their CDMA network like EV-DO.

In short, your wife's phone will always be running at the lower power level.

@FuzzysFriedChicken: Thanks for the response. Is there a way to know when/how often a phone uses the 1900 band?

shadowplay

@shadowplay: the number on CNet shows the highest number of any single test -- that is the offical 'SAR Number'.

The test cases have the phone tested in all bands and several different positions, and the overall worst score is the SAR number.

In this case PCS mode is highband (1900) CDMA phone call.

Why is it that people are afraid of cellular frequencies, but not bluetooth?

yeti

@Bandit: I think you have to account for differences in life spans and detection rates if you want to compare the "developed" world to other areas or historical rates. If you don't have CT scans, MRIs, constant mammograms, colonoscopies, and prostate exams, you aren't going to realize/record that what killed someone was unchecked cancer. And, if you're dying because of bad water, bad nutrition, constant warfare, etc, you're less likely to live long enough to get cancer. For all we know, "old age deaths" from times before x-rays, proper autopsies, and the like could actually be cancer deaths.

kagekiri

@aec007:

@aec007:

@ts-x: This picture gets passed around the internet. Just so people don't get confused, those aren't "tumors" in the photo, although I'll grant the darkened areas aren't a good sign. This photo was from a 2003 study by Leif Salford of Lund University Hospital in Sweden. The results haven't been replicated and even Salford cautions the study might not apply to real-world cell phone use. IMHO circulating photos like this out of context is scare-mongering, because people will assume that normal use of a cellphone will make *their* brain look like this. For all we know, it could be the partially-cooked brain of a microwaved rat. I'm all about being cautious, but I personally don't like people circulating scary photos like this (not talking about this particular poster, but websites along the lines of "www.cellphones-are-scary.com").

2.4Ghz radio is too low of a frequency to cause cancer. This is a scientific fact. Look up ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation and the photoelectric effect. Too low a frequency, no ionizing effect, no cancer. E = hf says these people are panic-mongering idiots.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Punkey

@The Analrapist: Half Analyst Half Therapist: lol
i'm totally imagining a bunch of women clucking frantically around cubicles with a falling paper backdrop

@yeti: I have a spectrum analyser for 2.4GHz radio bands and I checked out some BT gear on it... Wi-fi is pretty weak compared to a cel phone, but compared to Wi-fi, Bluetooth barely shows up as a smattering of background noise.

So I'd wondered the same, but looking at it, BT is really negligible. You will literally get more radiation in the same frequency band by standing in the same room as a properly working microwave oven while using it.

@ts-x:

nikko1221

@Bandit: And third world chain smokers and asbestos miners live into their 90's? Improbable?

nikko1221

@yeti: The gist is that BT only needs low power levels since it talks to your nearby phone. The phone itself transmits at relatively high power levels to reach the cell tower. With a BT headset you keep the handset's transmitter far away from your head.

This is great news I work in an office with almost all women and they believe anything to the 10th power so this article will work wonders, let the fear mongering begin. MMUUUUUuhhhahahaa

The Analrapist: Half Analyst Half Therapist

@maven2k: Tumor's make things bigger, that's right much bigger

The Analrapist: Half Analyst Half Therapist

@Curves: Apparently Gizmodo has you covered on the subject already...
[gizmodo.com]

aec007

@fuchikoma: Depends on the Bluetooth. Class 1 can radiate up to 100 milliwatts. This puts it 2 dB HIGHER power than a wifi router.

I don't think there is any health risks, just pointing out that all bluetooth devices aren't super low power.

and if you DO use a headset you will get butt and thigh cancer. Lose...

Russell Lynn

You know what gives you cancer? Worrying about this kinda crap.

PaddyDugan

@thegreatfratsby: agreed.

stre

@kagekiri: Wow... you really laid the smackdown. I love how you go through some of the many confounding factors behind that statistic, beautifullly done. Logic FTW.

EventHorizon

Meh, its either next to my head or next to my junk. The purpose of both of those is to get laid. Phone facilitates this.

So tis a cycle....

archercc

@fuchikoma: I feel sorry for you. But thanks for the info!

let me see, i keep my phone on a car seat or in a holster on my side, i use a headset, do i worry about the radiation from thet? or the 220rads a day i am getting for cancer of the throat?

i dont think i am at all worried about my phones radiation out put right now

corhou99