cell phone radiation top-chart
 

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone

The most dangerous phones - from higher radiation to lower:

HTC Android myTouch ---------- 1.55 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Blackberry Curve 8330 --------- 1.54 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Apple iPhone 3G ----------------- 1.39 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Samsung Omnia (SCH-i910) -- 1.31 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Nokia 5800 XpressMusic ------- 1.29 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Apple iPhone 3G S -------------- 1.19 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Palm Pre --------------------------- 0.92 W/kg H!H!H!H!
Nokia 7510 ------------------------ 0.84 W/kg *I*I*I*I
Nokia 5610 ------------------------ 0.81 W/kg *I*I*I*I
Nokia N900 ------------------------ 0.80 W/kg *I*I*I
Nokia N97 ------------------------- 0.66 W/kg *I*I*I
Samsung Impression (a877) --- 0.35 W/kg *I*I

EDIT:
Added N900 and N97. Thanks Benny1967 (according to sar.nokia.com)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

According to the FCC (link), no link has been shown between RF radiation and cancer.

As a physicist, I find the numbers telling. To cause cancer, the radiation would have to damage a DNA strand. The photon energy of RF radiation at 850 MHz is 3.5 micro-electron-volts . The energy of covalent bonds, the bonds between molecules in DNA, are on the order of 1 electron-volt--about 300,000 times the energy provided by the photon. This means that the photons from a cell phone can't break the bonds in DNA. Photons can't "gang up" to break the bonds--it just doesn't work that way.

Even at such low photon energies, it is possible for damage to be done to biological tissue with high radiation power, due to thermal heating (that's how a microwave oven works). None of the power absorption levels listed above, however, are high enough to do anything. In fact, they are roughly comparable to the amount of heat a normal person generates. If the average person consumes 2000 calories (actually kilocalories) a day, and weighs 80 kg (~180 lbs), then their heat generation is 2000 kcal/(24 hours)/(80 kg) = 1.2 W/kg (thank you Google Calculator).

Sorry for the rant, but after hearing a cancer specialist on say on TV tonight that cell phones have no proven connection to cancer I wanted to try running the numbers. If you really want to worry about what health risks your cell phone has, ask yourself how often you use it while driving.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

I've read at (approximately) 7W/kg or higher, it can induce behavioral change to the (animal) subjects in some tests.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Now that's an interesting chart. May I add three more varlues:

Nokia 6110 Navigator: 1.16 W/kg (the one I'm currently using)
Nokia N900: 0.80 W/kg (according to sar.nokia.com)
Nokia N97: 0.66 W/kg (according to sar.nokia.com)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

At those levels you might start feeling the heat--which would probably be responsible for any immediate behavioral change. Was it an immediate short-term change or something delayed or long-term?

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Nokia N900: The highest SAR value reported under this standard during product certification for use at the ear is 0.92 W/kg and when properly worn on the body is 0.82 W/kg (Nokia Source)

Thank you baksiidaa for your interesting post! I always try to explain the (non-)problem to non-scientific people using the analogy of light: A cell tower has a "big lamp", the mobile phones have "small lamps" signalling to the tower. This aren't floodlights, but only very small "LEDs" :-)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Ok, I will update the chart, thank you for the info.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

New N900 Tag Line: "Causes Less Cancer!"

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

You could also mention that cell phone photons have a millionth of the energy of visible light photons.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Now that's funny. Which information you get from sar.nokia.com depends on the country you select from the drop-down. ("location")

I, of course, selected Austria. So what they tell me is:
If you select USA, you get the same paragraph as above, plus an additional one that obviously refers to some FCC testing procedure. It reads:
(Cool. So you have three values in the U.S.)

Anyway... I don't care a lot about local peculiarities, so I'd rather take the ICNIRP value for comparison. ;)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

How many years did it take to "prove" that cigarettes are dangerous for the health? I am not implying that cell phones represent a hazard for health (I am not an expert on these matters), nor would I claim the contrary, but one should always take these assertions cum grano salis, especially when strong corporate interests are involved. Also, If I remember correctly, there was a plethora of physicians who said that smoking was ok.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Sorry, it wasn't 7W/kg. The 'behavioral change' occurs only at 4W/kg:

"“The FCC limit for the head (SAR of 1.6 W/kg) is just two-and-a-half times lower than the level that caused behavioral changes in animals (SAR of 4 W/kg),” says the representative. “Thus, the brain receives a high exposure, even though the brain may well be one of the most sensitive parts of human body … and should have more protection.”

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/...one-radiation/

Another interesting report...

"In conclusion, our preliminary results indicate that mobile phone exposure does induce behavioral changes in rats. The changes can be observed in terms of higher latency time to reach the target quadrant and less time spent in the target quadrant in the MWM test. This modification of rat behavior could either be due to microwave radiation from the phone or it could be due to vibration, or it may be linked to both. To determine which is more important further study in warranted."

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...22009000300014

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

ysss, just put your iPhone on loudspeaker and don't put it closer to the ear, it is almost close to the FCC limit... :D

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Yea.. I don't know how much 0.1 W/kg matters.. but mine is still lower than the 5800 Xpress Music =P

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

I certainly won't argue with your credentials and appreciate your information.

However, I have seen data contradicting those conclusions. Correlations have been found between heavy cell phone use and certain ailments (not limited to tumors). Significance was observed with predominant effects in the area where users had or held the phone the most.

Granted, correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, but it's reason for concern nonetheless. I think people get the wrong idea when doubts are cast on worst-case scenarios and they assume that the devices are perfectly safe. I also think it's very telling that Nokia has provided warnings about excessive use of their own products and worked to lower emissions (as indicated in the table).

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Don't forget that a cellphone automatically reduces its transmit power when it is close to the cell tower.

So in a built-up area with many cell towers you will be incurring much less radiation from your phone than in a rural area where the phone may switch itself to full transmit power.

In any case, 90% of my cellphone use is in conjunction with my N810. I don't even need the cellphone to be near my body, and I'm presuming that the bluetooth radiation from the N810 is sufficiently lower in strength that I don't need to worry about it.

Regards,
Roger

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

It's quite interesting to note that Nokia is consistently reputed to have better reception than any of the competing companies, while still having the lowest SAR values.

Also, heating power per mass unit is not exactly useful when trying to determine how 'dangerous' radio waves are. Most dangerous effects (if any) probably come from molecular resonance, changing how easily some chemical reactions happen. Research data, however, is still sadly lacking.

I for one am not going to keep an 'always online' device in my trouser pockets ;)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Nokia has very good phones and also it is keeping the radiation to a minimum. The studies on the cell phone radiation effect on the health are still incipient because usually these medical research studies are made over long periods of time, more than 10 years and the cell phones started being popular only about 14 years ago...

Thank you guys for your interest on the subject :)
Hopefully, if you found my compilation in this article good, at least beneficial for your health, you can give me a Thanks too ;)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

When I bought my first phone (Nokia 3310 and, well it was my mum who bought it for me) one of the reasons behind the purchase was that it faired better in radiation tests.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

As a cancer researcher, I'm unable to resist de-lurking for a bit of Friday afternoon pedantry. While you're generally correct that DNA damage is required the radiation could have an indirect effect e.g. stressing the cell, resulting in oxidative damage to the DNA. That being said, I've never seen any reliable data to support a radiation->cancer link. (Which doesn't mean that I'm not happy to see that the N900 has lower SAR than the N82 I'll be trading in. :) )

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

I guess I should have thrown a "to first order" in my statement somewhere, or said that it would be impossible for spherical cows to get cancer from a cell phone :).

What types of cellular (in the biology sense) stresses have been shown to have links to cancer? Would prolonged mild heating (the only apparent result of low-energy radiation) have any effect?

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

I always understood cancer to be caused by a flaw in division during mitosis (by whatever means). This is when the DNA is most vulnerable. If the random flaw happens to be in a place in the DNA that alters the code to increase reproduction and/or remove the self-destruct component, the result becomes a cancer cell.

With that said... you would need much lower levels of radiation to cause cancer over a long period of time.

This is how radiation treatment and chemotherapy work against cancer as well. Cancerous cells reproduce faster than normal cells, so when exposed to the toxin (chemo drugs are literally poison) or radiation, you're killing the cancer cells faster than the healthy ones (though doing damage to both).

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

http://dynamics.org/Altenberg/MED/CELL_PHONES/

I don't know how much of these studies/articles can be debunked (these recollection pages tend to be one-sided) but sure there's cause for some concern. Not everything is heat related.
Edit: and cancer isn't the only concern.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

As an Hygienist and HSE consultant I can't resist joining to the fray :D
The size of the body matters. The smaller the body the higher the energy absortion rate. Think about that when giving a cellular to your chidren.
A SAR over 4 W/kg is considered very dangerous. There are legal restrictions on SAR: 0,08 W/kg whole body, 2 W/kg head/chest, 4 W/kg arms
Those legal restrictions have only taken into account thermal effects.
Pulsating microwave radiation can have thermoelastic effects in the brain, even causing auditive effects.
Thermal effects are well known, but there are other possible effects: molecular resonance, polarization of ion channels in the cell membrane... the big unknown, there is almost no research data in this field
Epidemiology still does not help, it is a very new technology, and epidemiologic research needs a lot of data (read quite a few years).
This curious research paper shows brain damage in rats, with SAR as low as 2 mW/kg: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2003/6039/abstract.html
And a last word, the 291 pages long UE REFLEX report (in-vitro research): http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

How can you be so blase' when they've shown mobile phones put out enough radiation to pop corn or even worse?

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

To take the pedantry a step further...I assume you mean you've never seen any reliable data to support a link between cancer and radiation of non-ionizing energies, specifically the frequencies typically used in modern mobile phone communications? 'Cause I think I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there if you meant that statement literally as you wrote it (As will hundreds of thousands of folks involved in various atomic/nuclear attacks, experiments, and accidents over the decades).

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

I have Nokia E71 (RM-346) and it says:

This is worse than Apple iPhone 3G S yet not listed in your top 10 worst?

Source is http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiatio...one/Nokia/E71/

The US and China models are even worse:

That led me to investigate, and to find the worst phones just click here:

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiatio...=PDA&order=sar (smartphones)

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiatio...le=1&order=sar (phones)

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiatio...es=1&order=sar (includes legacy phones)

It is all sorted on radiation (W/kg).

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

latest news: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/10...ors/index.html

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Meh. You have to die of something.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

I'd rather it be by natural expiration date. ;)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

It's an interesting read and as mentioned I think the arguements are much like that of the cigarette debates in the 40/50's too. The odd thing though is that they suggest using a corded handsfree. From the studies I saw this made things worse as the cord worked like an aerial and tunnelled the RF straight though the hole in your skull (ear canal)!! Maybe speakerphone is the way to go! :)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Or you can use one of these

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

true! carrying a fuel lighter (zippo) in your pocket gets you closer to cancer...

its the same like global warming... the specialists have to proof for years what they stated after the first question to get average joe to believe something else than the yesterday news. (global warming is a problem for humanity; however, humanity has close to nothing to do with global warming, believe it or not, werent enough years to give proof for the first answer yet)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Not true on either account.

Please read the articles cited on this thread for cellphone-cancer correlations. It's very telling that industry-sponsored studies show no issues (one even disingenuously purports a cancer protection benefit!) while independent studies, including one Nokia accepted, show at the very least a suspicious correlation. More work is needed to prove/disprove causation.

As for global warming... one would have to be extremely naive to think man has no impact on climate. Vostok ice core data showed very strong evidence that temperatures and atmospheric carbon content followed very predictable cycles for hundreds of thousands of years and then spiked abruptly and significantly right at the industrial age, and still rising. That's not evidence of causation, but it's too damning to dismiss.

The real dispute isn't over man's obvious impact, but rather, what the carbon data means. Vostok shows that carbon increases LAG heat increases, which strongly suggests carbon is a red herring in the debate.

We should be focusing on airborne particulate matter, the real enemy to our lungs and environment. The focus on CO2 leads down a rabbit trail.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

If all of a sudden a heat-generating object appeared in the middle YOUR living room, would you maybe act a little differently when you found it?

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

I did research on both topics, it is good to keep an eye on SAR at least as man as you dont want to warm up your balls with your phone in your pants, and that is serious! (as long as you are going to have children) the climate thing is that climate change and global warming isnt the same, its more a part of the other, it was also stated that there is a serious issue with the tundra and the release of CO2, vostok ice core data is truely on the point but missing the whole in the end as far as I understood
thats an endless topic I guess there is so much data to look at and if someone isnt on top of it he will get proof wrong even if he's not, the deal is... noone is on top yet so both sides will proof the other wrong day after day...

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

Absolutely. People often don't realise that in a densely populated area, adding phone masts may actually reduce radiation levels because most of it comes from everyone else's phones, not masts. Adding masts reduces the amount transmitted by everyone's phones locally, despite increasing the radiation level quite close to the mast.

It's counterintuitive.

People are accustomed to thinking of masts as "transmitters" but they don't transmit all that much power, compared with a few thousand phones in the covered area.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

The phone I'm currently using is the rather dated Samsung D600.

Happy to report it only has a SAR rating of 0.411 W/kg. :)

http://www.samsungmobile.com/sar/sar_main.jsp

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

I love the design of the N900 in this respect, they really put the antenna in clever places.

With the screen facing you in landscape:

The GSM antenna is on the right, which is the bottom when you are making a call (portrait mode) which makes sense as you will probably be holding the left side (top in portrait) to press it to your ear, so it keeps it as far from your head and hand as possible.

The WiFi antenna is the top, clever again as your hands will probably be on either side of the device when using WiFi extensively so again, its further from you.

GPS is on the left, as they expect you to be holding the N900 with your right hand. This would also place it at the top if you are using it in portrait mode, again very logical if you are using portrait turn by turn navigation (should we ever get it).

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart
 

an updated list for 2011 showing the Lowest US Sar level devices can be see here