dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
FCC Launches Inquiry Into Cell Phone Radiation
Doesn't Change SAR Threshold, Does Classify Ear As 'Extremity'
by Karl Bode 05:46PM Monday Apr 01 2013
According to the FCC, phones sold in the U.S. can't have a specific absorption rate (SAR) higher than 1.6 watts per kilogram. While there remains no clear evidence of serious health harm from wireless device use, concerns among the "electromagnetically sensitive" have run rampant in recent years. As such, there have been several calls for the FCC to update their sixteen-year-old standards (including from the GAO), and last year FCC boss Julius Genachowski stated the agency would be taking a closer look at their guidelines.

Click for full size
Nine months later and the FCC says they'll be conducting a review of their policies on RF testing. They're not changing their above-cited SAR threshold, though they are making a few smaller changes, like stating that your ear is now considered an "extremity" and is now able to absorb more radiation without running afoul of FCC rules.

The wireless industry, wary of additional regulations, was quick to issue a statement reminding everyone that the FDA, GAO, and the National Institutes of Health have all concluded that there's no health threat from cellular phone use.

Non-ionizing radiation is believed to be generally harmless in the kind of small doses delivered by cell phone, though mankind has been wrong more than a few times historically when it comes to tightly-held scientific or environmental beliefs, so it's probably good to never get too cocky. Still, much of the concern has been driven by the kind of people you might classify as crackpot-esque.

Those interested in commenting have 90 days to speak their mind over at the FCC website as the agency seeks public and scientific input on the review.

view:
topics flat nest 

JustDSL

@embarqhsd.net

Cell phone Radiation

Back in the late 70's I was one of a group of project manager working on an 800 MHz public safety radio system. The radios were belt mounted with the normal coiled cord to the microphone/speaker that was clipped to the officers epaulets as you normally see nowadays. The radio antenna was part of the microphone/receiver assembly.

The radios were something like 3 watt and it was found that there was excessive radiation to the users head. The radios were then limited to 1 watt and it was still found to have excessive radiation.

At that point the antenna were moved back to the radio unit itself and that satisfied everyone.

Now it's 30+ years latter and I'm still hearing about his issue but it's cell phone. Antenna propagation has not completely changed over the years so why is this an issue.

Thirty years ago we were worried that radiation from the antenna would fry somebodies brain like a hot dog and all we've done is take the frequency and push it more towards a microwave oven and stick it next to the brain and wonder/

NOCTech75
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA

Re: Cell phone Radiation

And after reading your post I'm left to wonder... Whut you talkin about Willis?

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 edits

said by JustDSL
The radios were something like 3 watt and it was found that there was excessive radiation to the users head. The radios were then limited to 1 watt and it was still found to have excessive radiation.

How?

Can you provide details of the study?

FYI I tend to agree given the radiation is non ionizing.

hey hey hey

@charter.com
How still put the phone to their head? Most people text now or do other things that don't require the phone being next to you head. Regardless this whole thing is BS. Your head get more radiation from the sun on a daily basis than you do a cell phone.

michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL

Re: Cell phone Radiation

Common sense goes out the window. Screw what science has to say about radiation or the doses we radiate ourselves. It's the same people who believe that tanning beds microwave you from the inside.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1
said by hey hey hey :

Your head get more radiation from the sun on a daily basis than you do a cell phone.

This is such a common (and inaccurate) response to the issue. Do you remember where you heard this? I would be interested in tracking down the source.

natedj
Elected
Premium
join:2001-06-06
Columbia, SC
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

As much as I like ...

As much as I like my cell phone, I can't help but think this is an issue. I don't feel any different when expose to my phone's radiation so i'm not sensitive to it in the least, but i don't doubt that there are some who are.

If there is evidence that the radiation causes harm, apart from the those who are super sensitive to it, I doubt that the industry will admit to it simply because of how lucrative the mobile market has become. Instead they will play the semantics game as mentioned in the article "treating the ear as an extremity", really? I mean, how far is your ear from your head, or brain for that matter.

They will say that "X" amount of watts is hazardous but "x" amount is safe, but is "x" amount really safe if you're going to be subjected to it for the rest of life since the cell phone is not going away anytime soon?

Like I said, I'm all geeked out myself with gadgets, and have been using a cell phone for about 20 years, but I can't help but think that we're sleeping with the enemy on this one. At the end of the day the people get what the people wants. They want a solid connection and that comes with a price and when the Galaxy S4 & iPhone6 hit the shelves radiation exposure will be the least researched spec that people look for.
--
Good judgement comes with experience...Experience comes after bad judgements
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: As much as I like ...

Sensitive? This has only become an issue with more and more Wifi networks being built and people that don't want towers in their "back yards".

The World Health Org has stated as well that this is NOT an issue anywhere in the world and is BS. They've conducted the study and the FCC shouldn't be spending money on crap as this since there is no proof yet, all kinds of studies that say this "being sensitive" is BS. But I bet this same people that are crying about it- could live next to a Tree Tower and wouldn't even complain if they didn't know the tree had a cell tower mounted in it.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by natedj:

At the end of the day the people get what the people wants. They want a solid connection and that comes with a price and when the Galaxy S4 & iPhone6 hit the shelves radiation exposure will be the least researched spec that people look for.

Below is a list of the top ten most popular phones and their corresponding SAR ratings.

»tawkon.com/blog/en/galaxy_sar

Position Device SAR (in W/Kg)
1 Samsung Galaxy Note II 0.171 W/Kg
2 Samsung Galaxy Nexus 0.303 W/Kg
3 Samsung Galaxy S3 0.342 W/Kg
4 Google/LG Nexus 4 0.550 W/Kg
5 HTC One S 0.687 W/Kg
6 Samsung Galaxy Ace 0.840 W/Kg
7 Apple iPhone 5 0.901 W/Kg
8 Blackberry Z10 0.970 W/Kg
9 Nokia Lumia 920 1.080 W/Kg
10 Sony Xperia S 1.370 W/Kg


probitas

@teksavvy.com

cordless phones in the house anyone?

Those have frequencies too. I'm thinking as long as no one dies from cellular use (no counting idiots that drive and talk), then it's a non issue. I'm thinking fear sells news.
Prototype5

join:2003-09-24

Re: cordless phones in the house anyone?

I think the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for cordless phones (0.01 and 0.05 W/kg) is generally much lower than cell phones (0.171 to 1.370 W/Kg). Partly because cell phones transmit over a much greater distance and partly because they contain a lot more electronics.

People have this impression that only cell towers are capable of any real radiation but you forget your cell phone must transmit with enough power to reach that same tower in the other direction and you store it a few inches from your junk and occasionally hold it against your temple.

Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2

SAR

As a matter of course, I generally use a BT headset while on my cell. It mitigates a lot of the concerns and risks that may be present, and is far more comfortable to use. Of course, it's far easier to complain than actually doing something about it.

I also use a microwave oven, but I don't stand next to the thing while in use either.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein

mackey

join:2007-08-20
kudos:6

Re: SAR

said by Juggernaut:

I generally use a BT headset while on my cell. It mitigates a lot of the concerns and risks

I wasn't aware they made a wired version of Bluetooth

/M

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx

1 edit
So you're simultaneously roasting your nuts (handset) and bluetoothing your brain?

FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: SAR

said by jap:

So you're simultaneously roasting your nuts (handset) and bluetoothing your brain?

LOL, I was just about to post what you both said. Many people are like I don't put the phone to my head because of RF poisoning (if there is such a thing) and then they go on to say they use a wireless Bluetooth headset. I just shake my head and keep walking, lol. That's like saying I hate smokers and I don't smoke myself, but every person in my house does. It negates the original purpose schmucks! LOL!

5TH
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."

Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2

Re: SAR

Bluetooth is maximum 2.5mW output. Cellular output is far higher.

Your wifi router puts out way more power than a BT does. The same with a cordless phone.

Jeesus guys, do a little research first.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein
dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB

Re: SAR

The planet itself emits lots of different kinds of waves and/or frequencies, humans would adapt regardless so meh.

Also, people would gain hearing loss first, if said issue is real, but a LOT of people would gain hearing loss from using headphones and playing loud music before something like a cell phone would ruin your hearing (since you make calls like what? A few times a day, while someone listening to music may listen with a headphone or loud speaker for hours?)...

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

Re: SAR

Then there is this bovine scatology;

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqIZDIxJgXw
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1

Re: SAR

Awww come on... that is a pretty good fake! I love the pentagon shape for effect
dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB
Fake, I saw on the bottom right something white, like a shot of someone's pants kicking the table up.

Then then edited the video with two versions and blend them in. LOL!

Popcorns don't have the explosive power to propel a table up when it's ON TOP of the table, It'd go flying first, upwards towards any direction.
Prototype5

join:2003-09-24
You are right, BT is only intended to transmit with enough power to communicate a small amount of data over a few feet. There is much much less radiation from a BT headset than a cell phone.

BT headsets have SAR ratings of 0.001 and 0.003 W/kg vs phones that are from .2 up to 1.6 W/kg max. Depending on which cell phone you use a BT headset might have a SAR rating a thousand times lower.

BT is even ~10x lower than cordless phones which are 0.01 and 0.05 W/kg SAR

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
said by Juggernaut:

Jeesus guys, do a little research first.

Thanks for replying to my tease. And to Prototype5 See Profile for supplying relative SAR values. That's a huge spread.

The wholesale dismissive postures from industry versus 'feelings' arguments from the anti crowd make me flippant, I suppose. Of course it's prudent to reduce exposure where one easily can. After reading a bit more on Bluetooth I'll likely adopt your practice.

Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2

Re: SAR

I try to use the 'Best Practices' principle in that I reduce unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful things. I mean hell, we have sunblock for the sun, right? People don't seem to be adverse to that.

Lot's of things we've been told are safe, later turn out to be the opposite. So, I just do what I can for myself using a bit of sense.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein
Prototype5

join:2003-09-24

Tree hugging hippies

I saw a T-shirt about 5 years ago a guy in a band was wearing, it said:

"The Hippies were right"

Indeed, I remember a time back before many people were concerned with things like global warming, organic foods, and environmental sustainability that most people were laughing at the hippies as mostly nutjobs.

Even if you don't believe they were right they were certainly closer to correct than most people gave them credit for.

It is likely due to other things (maybe even better detection) but I think cancer rates are generally rising. Low power wireless communication might be harmless but there is no reason not to limit exposure where we can.