SAR value
 

I have just a curiosity. Is there around someone, besides me of course, who is worried about sar values? Keep in mind that n900 has a value which is not too low.

Re: SAR value
 

N900 has the maximum value of 0.8, which isn't so bad.
I'm not particularly concerned, I mean even oranges can give you cancer.

Re: SAR value
 

I personally think there's a big coverup on cell phone radiation issues by the mobile phones producers, operators and the governments.
It affects the mind.

The proof is in the direct correlation between the rise of mobile phone popularity and the rise of reality based tv shows.

PS: Btw, oranges are traditionally associated with mafia hits...

Re: SAR value
 

Without the will to offend you, I have to say that you answer is rather silly. Rather than say that oranges can give you cancer, ask yourself why there is completely lack of information about sar value. They don't want to make people aware of the risk. Serious and independent studies (I mean without the financial support of the big companies) are saying just the contrary of what you are saying.
Further n900 is a tablet, so you have to keep near the eyes for a long time. wifi too is risky. But of course they are not giving the numbers.

Re: SAR value
 

maybe bad for my hands, cant remember last time i held it up to my head

Re: SAR value
 

Re: SAR value
 

What information about it should be more publicly available?
I agree to a few things, like the new law that states that the SAR value should be written on the box, and that information should be given publicly the same way as on a cigarette box. But seeing as this is soon going to happen, I'm not worrying too much.

What studies, though?

Re: SAR value
 

Last time I checked, WHO's research claimed that EM radiation doesn't affect the human body at all. (EDIT: at least, the kind of radiation that mobile phones emit, thanks for correction. Btw, it is very nicely explained in the below posts.)

Still, they said better safe than sorry, so they made up a value which every device should stay below.

BTW, the SAR value of every phone is (and must be) publicly available from the manufacturers home page as well as the authority's home page which verified it.

Re: SAR value
 

I remember reading a study which suggested that cell phone radiation absorbed by the brain when the phone is close to the head (such as while talking) can help prevent Alzheimer's disease. I **** you not.

I also have done the physics on this and I'm not worried. Human cells range in size from about ~.00076mm to ~.008mm. Human DNA is about .0000025mm wide (and MUCH longer). Ultraviolet radiation is on the order of 0.00001mm to 0.0004mm which you'll note correspond to about the size of a human cell. Human cells aren't directly resonant with ultraviolet radiation, but they are close and hence the danger posed by the powerful ultraviolet radiation of the sun.

Cell phone signals on the other hand are on the order of 158mm for the 1900 MHz spectrum and 353mm for the 850 MHz spectrum. Nowhere near the size of the human cell. This puts the human body pretty safely outside of the range of cell phone radiation being harmful. The human body is transparent to them.

Granted there could be structures within the human body that serve as decent antennae for electromagnetic energy on that wavelength, but the very low transmitted power of a cell phone, the dispersion of that power over a very wide range (effectively reducing that power even more), and the high resistance that any structure would probably have mean these structures are also not very likely to add any harm.

Re: SAR value
 

Until someone can come up with at least some plausible theory as to why I should be worried about cell phone radiation, I'm not going to worry about it. By this I mean some kind of explanation as to how it is physically possible for it to cause harm to my body.

Re: SAR value
 

Sorry, but this is totally bogus. EM radiation very well effects the human body, anything below UV should be handled very carefully. Did ya ever sit in the sun for too long and got a sunburn?
I guess u are referring to the ~GHz radiation of cell phones. In that case, the power is way too low to significantly effect the human body. The only thing that happens, tissue close to the phone warms up (similar to a microwave). Btw I guess almost everyone has a router at home and is not concerned about its radiation either.

Re: SAR value
 

didn't he just say that? of course it causes something if you look it in certain scale but no real effect can be seen within the big picture.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_...ion_and_health

Re: SAR value
 

I was referring to the point, that EM radiation is not affecting the human body. EM radiation covers anything from x-rays to FM used for radio stations.

Re: SAR value
 

I for one like to be on the safe side and use the speaker, holding the phone in front of my mouth, as often as possible. Usually I am alone when I make longer calls, I find people who have to make long calls in public places annoying !!

Re: SAR value
 

Please don't come here trying to convince me that em radiation i not nocive.
I think that just ignorance (excusable) or bad faith (unforgivable) can make someone say that.

Re: SAR value
 

I just read THIS and it says n900 is .92. I dont care though... Its my life and im going to enjoy it with my n900 :) If i die early... at least i had fun!

Re: SAR value
 

0.92 SAR US
0.80 SAR Eu
http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_n900-2917.php

Re: SAR value
 

Now we know why the iphone 4 really shouldn't be touched! I'm suprised Steve hasn't told us!:D

Re: SAR value
 

Which are the values for iphone 4?

Re: SAR value
 

http://asia.cnet.com/2010/06/10/ipho...an-iphone-3gs/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33211572/i...is-Part-1-of-5
http://i1.phonearena.com/showimage.p...=name&id=30957

Re: SAR value
 

I'm sorry!
Point taken, I wasn't correct enough for this. I edited my post to clarify.
Thanks for pointing out the mistake!

Re: SAR value
 

anyone interested in an updated list of most of the world phones us sar levels and a chart that compares them it can be seen
at http://cellphones-radiation-ratings.com

Re: SAR value
 

The evidence is mounting up, mobile phones have some cancer correlation.

Re: SAR value
 

I take it you're referring to this:

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/p...fs/pr208_E.pdf

:(

Re: SAR value
 

I think (for this thread), we need to seperate SAR to 2 issues:
1) SAR level and the impact
2) Exposure to potentially dangerous element

I noticed a lot of comments that the SAR levels on mobilephones are insignificant to fry any brain matter. And you can compare it with the worst phones to feel good. We should also be concerned with just being exposed to this "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields", and on a prolonged period. Remember, our phones are with us almost 24/7. Our microwaves and TVs are at home when we are driving, working, shopping, etc.

I still think some caution is still required. Can we really trust the publications saying how safe it is? Even FDA says milk/dairy products are good for you when some external agencies think otherwise???

Re: SAR value
 

Just saw this on the news:

Last year, results of a large study found no clear link between cellphones and cancer. But some advocacy groups contend the study raised serious concerns because it showed a hint of a possible connection between very heavy phone use and glioma, a rare but often deadly form of brain tumour. However, the numbers in that subgroup weren't sufficient to make the case.

http://techcentral.my/news/story.asp...19&sec=it_news

Maybe in future, handphones will be restricted/banned like they do for cigarattes???

Re: SAR value
 

worth doing some research into WHO guidelines for determining status as a carcinogen.......

see how many people need to get/die from cancer (with the excluson of all other risk factors) before they rate something as carcinogenic