Patroclo
|
2010-07-03
, 13:51
|
Posts: 275 |
Thanked: 46 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#1
|
|
2010-07-03
, 14:05
|
|
Posts: 175 |
Thanked: 99 times |
Joined on May 2010
|
#2
|
|
2010-07-03
, 14:19
|
|
Posts: 4,384 |
Thanked: 5,524 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
|
#3
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ysss For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-07-03
, 14:22
|
Posts: 275 |
Thanked: 46 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#4
|
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.
|
2010-07-03
, 14:27
|
Posts: 1,096 |
Thanked: 760 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
|
#5
|
|
2010-07-03
, 14:31
|
|
Posts: 4,708 |
Thanked: 4,649 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Bulgaria
|
#6
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Bundyo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-07-03
, 14:50
|
|
Posts: 175 |
Thanked: 99 times |
Joined on May 2010
|
#7
|
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.
|
2010-07-03
, 16:00
|
|
Posts: 1,296 |
Thanked: 1,773 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Budapest, Hungary
|
#8
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Venemo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-07-03
, 16:31
|
Posts: 307 |
Thanked: 157 times |
Joined on Jul 2009
@ Illinois, USA
|
#9
|
|
2010-07-03
, 16:42
|
Posts: 35 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Finland
|
#10
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Kegetys For This Useful Post: | ||