|
|
|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|

07-10-2014, 10:01 AM
|
 |
Jigsawed
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,190
|
|
|
Five phones with high radiation.
Whether this makes sense or not, I do not know.
Probably the next 40 years we might have definitive results on the effect
of cell phone usage.
For what its worth 5 phones with the highest SAR - Specific Absorption Rate, within the legal
limit.
http://www.yahoo.com/tech/if-youre-c...281813979.html
Last edited by Dondilion; 07-10-2014 at 10:04 AM.
|

07-10-2014, 12:19 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
|
|
|
Also good to keep in mind that the RF pwr level out of your phone is regulated by the cell towers. If the tower is receiving at a low level, it sends a command to your phone to crank up it's transmit. This is why your battery doesn't last very long when you are somewhere remote with poor coverage.
Shielded environments will also increase your phone transmit level- inside a car, in a metal building, tucked between the fat rolls of an obese person, etc.
Obviously, the higher the transmit level, the higher the absorption rate. I assume this testing was done with the phones forced to max power out.
__________________
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
|

07-10-2014, 12:24 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 11,348
|
|
|
Samsung antenna design puts them well down in undesirable radiation, Motorola Droid was worst.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
|

07-10-2014, 02:08 PM
|
 |
Jigsawed
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,190
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy
Also good to keep in mind that the RF pwr level out of your phone is regulated by the cell towers. If the tower is receiving at a low level, it sends a command to your phone to crank up it's transmit. This is why your battery doesn't last very long when you are somewhere remote with poor coverage.
Shielded environments will also increase your phone transmit level- inside a car, in a metal building, tucked between the fat rolls of an obese person, etc.
Obviously, the higher the transmit level, the higher the absorption rate. I assume this testing was done with the phones forced to max power out.
|
Thanks for the insight.
|

07-10-2014, 02:44 PM
|
 |
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
|
One of the reasons (among many) that we don't have them.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|

07-10-2014, 03:08 PM
|
 |
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 26,554
|
|
|
If one is concerned about this (I'm not), a bluetooth earbud will solve the problem.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|

07-10-2014, 03:53 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
|
|
|
Bluetooth earbuds would get the RF away from your skull, but if the phone's in your pocket, your body is still absorbing the signal to the tower, which is in the 900MHz range.
When you turn on Bluetooth, your cell is now also transmitting at ~2.45GHz, although at a much lower power level. Note that if it's a two way Bluetooth device (has a mic) the earbud device is also transmitting at 2.45GHz.
So, Bluetooth is a good idea, as long as you set the phone down several feet away, but that makes staying mobile pretty clunky- every time you want to move to another room, you have to go pick up the phone and find a spot to set it in the next location.
Between health concerns, privacy concerns, ID theft concerns, addiction concerns, and the loss of face to face interpersonal interaction, and the highway robbery plan rates, I'd love to see people shun them. I don't think it will ever happen though.
Personally, if I didn't need it for work, I'd not have one. Some day...
__________________
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
|

07-10-2014, 04:07 PM
|
 |
Jigsawed
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,190
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy
Between health concerns, privacy concerns, ID theft concerns, addiction concerns, and the loss of face to face interpersonal interaction, and the highway robbery plan rates, I'd love to see people shun them. I don't think it will ever happen though.
Personally, if I didn't need it for work, I'd not have one. Some day...
|
I feel it for my grand daughter....she is glued to this thing 24/7...geez!
|

07-10-2014, 04:26 PM
|
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dondilion
Whether this makes sense or not, I do not know.
Probably the next 40 years we might have definitive results on the effect
of cell phone usage.
For what its worth 5 phones with the highest SAR - Specific Absorption Rate, within the legal
limit.
http://www.yahoo.com/tech/if-youre-c...281813979.html
|
Does it matter?
Does anyone still talk on the phone?
Not many I know.
|

07-10-2014, 04:55 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
Does it matter?
Does anyone still talk on the phone?
Not many I know.
|
Your cell phone is still transmitting RF, regardless if you are talking on it or texting, or surfing the net. Even when the display is off and it's sitting in your pocket, RF is transmitting keep alive signals back to the tower.
Only when in airplane mode, or with the battery removed, is it no longer a transmitter.
__________________
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 AM.
|