Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (8)
to Nokia N900 by whayong - 12 hrs, 59 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 9 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2009-11-11
, 16:49
|
|
Posts: 1,137 |
Thanked: 402 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Catalunya
|
#32
|
Originally Posted by Fargus
Or you can use one of these
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!
 |
|
2009-11-11
, 16:54
|
|
Administrator |
Posts: 1,036 |
Thanked: 2,019 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Germany
|
#33
|
Originally Posted by baksiidaa
true! carrying a fuel lighter (zippo) in your pocket gets you closer to cancer...
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.
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)
__________________
useful links for newcomers: New members say hello, New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, FAQ
useful links for newcomers: New members say hello, New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, FAQ
| The Following User Says Thank You to chemist For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-11-11
, 17:13
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#34
|
Originally Posted by chemist
Not true on either account.
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)
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.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
| The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-11-11
, 18:48
|
|
Posts: 610 |
Thanked: 391 times |
Joined on Feb 2006
@ DC, USA
|
#35
|
Originally Posted by ysss
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?
I've read at (approximately) 7W/kg or higher, it can induce behavioral change to the (animal) subjects in some tests.
__________________
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made
Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made
Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29
|
|
2009-11-12
, 00:18
|
|
Administrator |
Posts: 1,036 |
Thanked: 2,019 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Germany
|
#36
|
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...
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...
__________________
useful links for newcomers: New members say hello, New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, FAQ
useful links for newcomers: New members say hello, New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, FAQ
|
|
2009-11-12
, 00:55
|
|
Posts: 474 |
Thanked: 283 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Oxford, UK
|
#37
|
Originally Posted by eiffel
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.
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.
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.
 |
|
2009-11-12
, 01:08
|
|
Posts: 50 |
Thanked: 12 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#38
|
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
Happy to report it only has a SAR rating of 0.411 W/kg.
http://www.samsungmobile.com/sar/sar_main.jsp
| The Following User Says Thank You to JBax For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-11-12
, 01:44
|
|
Posts: 716 |
Thanked: 303 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Sheffield, UK
|
#39
|
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).
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).
|
|
2011-04-15
, 11:17
|
|
Posts: 6 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Apr 2011
|
#40
|
an updated list for 2011 showing the Lowest US Sar level devices can be see here
Last edited by Fargus; 2009-11-11 at 16:13. Reason: typo