Cellular Phone:
SAR
Posted:
16 October 1999
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:29:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
Subject: Update: SAR of 25 cell phone models (Reuss)...
......This is a good solid piece of intelligence.....
Thanks, Chris....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:25:34 +0200
From: Christoph Reuss <creuss@bluewin.ch>
To: EMF-L <rbeavers@llion.org>
Subject: Update: SAR of 25 cell phone models
The Swiss consumer magazine "K-Tip" has published the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) of 25 customary cell phone models (see table below). This report is an update to a similar report 2 years ago on the then common cell phone models. Again, the measurements were taken by Prof. Niels Kuster at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Like in the test from 1997, the price of a cell phone badly correlates with the "quality" in terms of low radiation.
Only one model (Philips Genie 900 with extended antenna) exceeds the ANSI "safety" limit of 1.60 W/kg. When criticized for high radiation, some manufacturers stressed that the radiation of their products are "below the safety limits", others declined to comment on the report. Some commented that the SAR is an insufficient criterion to assess the safety of cell phones.
The Editorial says that the ANSI "safety" limit is worthless. "It was defined without knowing the long-term risks, and set high enough so that most manufacturers can easily stay below this limit. [...] It's too cheap an excuse if the manufacturers say their products' radiation is below the official limit."
The report also compares the quality of radiation warnings in the user manual (*). The importer of Trium cell phones provides a letter to each customer, warning of radiation and dangers and suggesting protective measures.
The measurements found that in cell phones with an extendable antenna, the SAR is consistently lower when the antenna is extended (A) than when it's not (B). The article advises users to extend the antenna while talking on the cell phone.
The article mentions that young customers don't care about the SAR, they are only interested in a "cool" design. However, many customers above 30 years are asking for the emissions when they buy a cell phone.
Cheerio,
Chris
P.S.: To answer Valdemar's question: The Nokia 3210 has a rather
high SAR.
SAR of 25 new cell phone models:
================================
Manufacturer: Model:
SAR: (*)
------------- ------
---- ---
Motorola Star Tac 130
(A) 0.10 +
Motorola Star Tac 130
(B) 0.38 +
Nokia 8810
0.22 --
Sony
CMD-C1
0.55 --
Ericsson I8888 World
0.60 +
Ericsson S868
0.77 +
Nokia 6110
0.87 --
Ericsson A1018s
0.88 +
Ericsson SH888
0.90 +
Trium Galaxy
(A) 0.93 ++
Trium Galaxy
(B) 1.16 ++
Motorola cd930
0.94 +
Panasonic EB-G520
0.95 --
Alcatel One Touch max
(A) 0.97 -
Alcatel One Touch max
(B) 1.29 -
Ericsson T18s
0.97 +
Nokia 6150
0.98 --
Panasonic EB-GD70
0.99 --
Philips Savy
1.11 -
Bosch GSM
909 1.13
-
Nokia 3210
1.14 --
Motorola cd920
1.17 +
Nokia 3110
1.24 --
Philips Genie 1800
(A) 1.26 +
Philips Genie 1800
(B) 1.41 +
Siemens C25
1.33 --
Philips Genie 900
(A) 1.52 +
Philips Genie 900
(B) 2.67 +
Motorola v3688
1.58 +
Bosch GSM
908 1.59
-
SAR in W/kg
(A) = with extended antenna
(B) = antenna not extended
(*) = Warnings about possible radiation hazards
in the user manual:
-- = none
- = bad
+ = good
++ = very good