Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

The 10 smartphones that emit the most radiation

By | September 14, 2009, 3:00am PDT

Summary: Based on new research, learn the 10 smartphones that emit the most radiation, the 10 that emit the least radiation, and a few quick safety tips.

One of the scariest unknown technology risks of this decade is the issue of radiation from cell phones. There’s still an open question about whether long term exposure to these mobile devices will cause damage or disease to human beings.

The Environmental Working Group has a comprehensive new study (download the full report as a PDF) that surveys the scientific research on cellphone heath risks and provides radiation data for most of the current cellphones in use. Here’s how the EWG explained the mission of its study:

We at Environmental Working Group are still using our cell phones, but we also believe that until scientists know much more about cell phone radiation, it’s smart for consumers to buy phones with the lowest emissions. The U.S. government ought to require cell phone companies to label their products’ radiation output so that consumers can do the numbers at the point of sale. It doesn’t, so EWG has created this user-friendly interactive online guide to cell phone emissions, covering over 1,000 phones currently on the market.

The EWG study looks at all mobile phones, but since smartphones are becoming a standard tool for businesses and IT professionals, I’ve drilled down and looked at the list from a smartphone perspective. I’ve broken out the 10 smartphones that produce the most radiation, the 10 that product the least amount of radiation, and a list of the radiation ratings of some of the most popular smartphones that did not make either of those two lists.

When you look at these lists, keep in mind that the EWG has also included some older models that are no longer being sold but are still used by many workers and consumers. Also note that “W/kg” stands for watts per kilogram, a measurement for power density.

The 10 smartphones with the highest radiation

  1. T-Mobile MyTouch 3G (1.55 W/kg)
  2. Blackberry Curve 8330 (1.54 W/kg)
  3. Palm Treo 600 (1.53 W/kg)
  4. T-Mobile Shadow (1.53 W/kg)
  5. Palm Treo 650 (1.51 W/kg)
  6. Blackberry Curve 8300 (1.51 W/kg)
  7. Blackberry Bold 9000 (1.51 W/kg)
  8. Sony Ericsson P910a (1.50 W/kg)
  9. HTC SMT 5800 (1.49 W/kg)
  10. BlackBerry Pearl 8120/8130 (1.48 W/kg)

The T-Mobile MyTouch 3G, an HTC smartphone powered by Google Android that debuted to lots of fanfare this summer, topped the list of the worst radiation offenders. However, other popular smartphones dominated the list as well, especially BlackBerries and Treos. The BlackBerry Curve, the best-selling smartphone on the market in 2009, was a close second on the list, and it was joined in the top 10 by its cousins, the BlackBerry Pearl and the BlackBerry Bold.

The 10 smartphones with lowest radiation

  1. Nokia 9300i (0.21 W/kg)
  2. Nokia 7710 (0.22 W/kg)
  3. T-Mobile MDA Wiza200 (0.28 W/kg)
  4. Samsung Impression SGH-a877 (0.35 W/kg)
  5. Nokia 9300 (0.44 W/kg)
  6. Samsung Propel Pro SGH-i627 (0.47 W/kg)
  7. Samsung Gravity SGH-t459 (0.49 W/kg)
  8. BlackBerry Storm 9530 (0.57 W/kg)
  9. Nokia E90 (0.59 W/kg)
  10. Nokia N96 (0.68 W/kg)

Nokia, with five models in this top 10, and Samsung with three, were clearly the winners in terms of smartphones that emit the least amount of radiation. It’s also interesting to note that although both of these companies produce dozens of different models, neither of them had a single model that made the list of the worst radiation offenders. The surprising member of the low-radiation club was the BlackBerry Storm (RIM’s first touchscreen device) since so many of the other popular BlackBerries were on the high-emitters list.

Other notables, from lowest to highest

If there’s another phone you’d like to look up, here is the full list. Also, when seriously evaluating any smartphone on any of these lists, make sure you click through and look at the EWG page with the details of the phone’s radiation emissions using different connections and doing different activities. The number listed is the maximum radiation rating, but it can be deceiving in some cases until you look at the whole picture.

For example, the iPhone 3GS has a rating of 1.19 W/kg, which is a middle-of-the-pack rating. However, 1.19 is its maximum radiation level, which only happens when it is connected in UMTS 1900MHz mode. In its other four modes, it averages 0.63 W/kg, which is more consistent with the lower tier of radiation emitters.

Safety tips

As part of the report, the EWG also provided eight safety tips for cellphone users who are concerned about radiation. Here is a quick list of the tips. You can click through to the original list for more detail on each of the items.

  1. Buy a low-radiation phone
  2. Use a headset or speaker
  3. Listen more, talk less
  4. Hold phone away from your body
  5. Choose texting over talking
  6. Poor signal? Stay off the phone
  7. Limit children’s phone use
  8. Skip the “radiation shield”

The EWG also offers a one-page PDF that lists all eight of these tips along with a further explanation of each. IT professionals might consider distributing this PDF to employees who use company cellphones or posting it on the corporate intranet. Of course, you should consult senior management and your legal department before distributing something like this since it involves employee health.

See also: Are cell phones safe? Researchers still uncertain (CNET)

Bottom line

While there isn’t conclusive scientific evidence proving that cellphones cause illnesses or diseases in humans, the EWG report does point to research that has shown links between prolonged cellphone use and  brain cancer, salivary gland tumors, migraines and vertigo, and decreased male sperm count (from carrying a cellphone in the pocket).

A lot more research still needs to be done, but in the meantime it makes sense for mobile manufacturers to limit cellphone radiation whenever possible and for users to be aware of which phones produce the most radiation so that they can take steps to limit radiation exposure as a precautionary step.

UPDATE 09/14/2009, 9:00 AM EST: I got a note from Daniel Van Hoy, a broadcast engineer, who wrote, “There is a big difference between ‘ionizing’ and ‘non-ionizing’ radiation… Cell phones, radios and TV transmissions emit non-ionizing radiation that has a longer wavelength, lower frequency and lower overall energy per photon than UV light, X-rays and gamma rays (a form of radioactivity), which are known as ionizing radiation because they have enough power to eject an electron from its orbit and leave behind a charged ion that can damage cells and tissues.” I verified this information to be correct. There’s also more on ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation from the U.S. EPA.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic. He writes about the products, people, and ideas that are revolutionizing business with technology.

Disclosure

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner has nothing to disclose. He doesn't hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic, an online trade publication and peer-to-peer community for IT leaders. He is an award-winning journalist who examines the latest trends and asks the big questions about the technology industry. He previously worked as an IT manager in the health care industry.

You can also find him on Twitter, , Facebook, and at JasonHiner.com.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
59
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The 10 smartphones that emit the most radiation
MeganLo 17th Jan
Not all cell phones have the same radiation.Today's cellphone emits significantly less radiation then previous models sold 5 or 10 years ago. . I would recommend the usual steps for decrease of EMF radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health and it wouldn't be bad idea to have some EMF protection that will also reduce EMF radiation our bodies are exposed to (http://personalbioprotector.com/index.html).
0 Votes
+ -
BT rules
brianpeterson@... 14th Sep 2009
But one cannot text wehn driving!

How many of your thoughts can be expressed with 160 characters?
0 Votes
+ -
HTC Touch Pro for me!
Grayson Peddie 14th Sep 2009
happy

I love it! happy

Hmm... I wonder how much the HTC Touch Pro2 will emit the radiation? happy
0 Votes
+ -
HTC Touch Pro for me!
ICUR12 14th Sep 2009
Now that several carriers have started selling it, I looked too, but it isn't listed.
0 Votes
+ -
Pity it runs Windows Mobile...
HypnoToad72 14th Sep 2009
The HTC TP is the same thing as the AT&T Fuze. It also drove me toward the iPhone because it is slow and buggy (even after the May 2009 ROM update) and because neither HTC or AT&T is willing to make a PROPER video driver specific for the Qualcomm chipset...

Never mind Windows Mobile being the slowest of the mobile OS lot (well duh, it's a modified version of Windows 98...)

grin
0 Votes
+ -
Pity? For whom?
[deXter] 1st Oct 2009
While I admit that WM isn't the most attractive and structured/managed mobile platform, it is amongst the most powerful, if not *the* most powerful platforms there is. It's second only to Android, in terms of flexibility and customizability.

The "slowness" you notice is probably the UI addons/mods tacked on by the operator/distributor. But the cool thing is, you could do away will all that crap, and change the UI to something more responsive/to your liking. Thanks to the windows heritage, you can tweak the startup services, disable unnecessary devices (like STK or A2DP if you don't use it), remove items from the startup folder, defragment the registry, tweak the cache settings etc...

Not that I'm saying that you should have to do it, I know most people will respond by saying that, but then, if *I* were you, I'd rather do it than not even have a choice. Because that gives me power. The feeling that you are in control over how the OS looks, feels, performs. The iPhone doesn't do that.
0 Votes
+ -
When I first got my phone I kept it in my pants pocket most
of the time, after a couple months I noticed a "twinge" or
tingle feeling at the skin on my thigh...I then started to think
about what these devices do and their radio transmissions,
etc... at that point I began keeping the phone away from my
body and carry it by hand and leave it sitting around when I
don't use. The twinge in the leg went away...
0 Votes
+ -
I used to get the same sensation
Michael Kelly 14th Sep 2009
from having my key ring, which holds about 15 keys, in my left pocket. The act of sitting down and standing up all day long kept changing the amount of pressure they would apply to my thigh. Putting these keys on a belt clip made the twinge go away for me too.
0 Votes
+ -
do you work all day long
infoz 14th Sep 2009
Near a microwave transmitter?

Metal objects can increase the nearfield intensity:

"It has been found that the introduction of a pair of metalframed spectacles can, in certain cases, cause an increase in field levels by up to approximately 20 dB, a significant perturbation of the incident microwave field which should be accounted for in the setting of safety standards relating to acceptable levels of incident power."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/81443086506g6106/
0 Votes
+ -
Yup
rdhalsteatzd 14th Sep 2009
My left hip was doing something similar. Doc asked if I carried my billfold in my hip pocket. He said that one of the most common ailment he was seeing were men carrying items in their hip pockets that pressed on the nerves creating a tingling or ache. BTW, the pressure wasn't from money:-))
0 Votes
+ -
That "twinge"
dbell5 18th Sep 2009
I have a co-worker friend that I have seen on at least three occasions, reach for his belt-clip mounted cell phone, realize nothing's happening, put it back, and *then* it started ringing.
Discounting psychic powers, it's quite possible he was sensing the initial exchange with the switch.
Not sure there's any danger, but if nerves are stimulated...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The 10 smartphones that emit the most radiation
The Management consultant 14th Sep 2009
I am curious about mobile broardband dongles? How do these compare?
0 Votes
+ -
That makes a big difference in the adverse effects radiation has on your brain.
0 Votes
+ -
Curious:
fieldingbandolier 14th Sep 2009
Do the phone's handling of issues like wireless internet and bluetooth make any difference? Does turning optional data services (wireless networking and bluetooth) reduce radiation output?
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that most BT headsets give off MORE radiation than even the phones themselves.
Maybe we should all have shoe phones with bluetooth headsets. Our heel bone is one of the most dense in the body, and it keeps the radiation away from your torso and head. Walking motion could be used to recharge the battery.
0 Votes
+ -
+1
callandor87 Updated - 14th Sep 2009
+1!! That's really creative, but I can't help
laughing at the idea! xD
0 Votes
+ -
Ah, Get Smart already...
fieldingbandolier 14th Sep 2009
did that, didn't they?
0 Votes
+ -
As Max would say...
Aragorn_z 14th Sep 2009
...missed it by that much! lol
I use a bluetooth headset (Jawbone) ~ has there been any info released regarding the radiation from a headset? Can using a bluetooth headset lower or possibly eliminate the concern about radiation from the handset (BB Curve in my case)?
0 Votes
+ -
Bluetooth
infoz 14th Sep 2009
First question: "Yes"
Second question:
Depends on which Class of Bluetooth and what you do with the handset. Wear a Class 3 and clip the handset to your belt, and the answer is "No;" otherwise, the answer is "maybe." do you measure the realtime exposure from your wireless communications and your surroundings? That's what other radiation workers do ... measure their exposure as part of their exposure management plan.
0 Votes
+ -
Back when....
LapDRx 14th Sep 2009
There were Analog Cells (pre smartphone era) that when used got really hot, Headaches ensued, and all the sudden people were getting brain tumors. I remember a Nokia 8 something... tiny SOB, but I cooked an egg on it in 2 minutes when the speaker went out on it (I called 611 and just let it sit). These things were probs then and I'm sure they are newer ones that are too. I am not a nature person, but anything man made made now a days is going to either hurt ya or kill ya, or need other man made products to reduce its side effect.
0 Votes
+ -
We seem to be entering an era where the cell phone is the primary phone and the land line is secondary. So, all of the sudden, this topic seems more important.
0 Votes
+ -
enough to enslave the owner give total control to Microsoft. soon you to will be wearing a certified for windows Mobil sticker happy
0 Votes
+ -
Curious about W/kg
gmeader 14th Sep 2009
Watts pre Kilogram
This is a measure of the "Specific absorbtion rate". 1.6 W/kg is the max allowed by FCC for cellphones in USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate
0 Votes
+ -
I would like to know more. Does the 'radiation level' only occur when transmitting, and is this the same as 'when talking'? What about bluetooth? Put it this way, if the device is not being used as a phone and not being talked into, and Bluetooth is off, what happens to the 'radiation level'?

Peter
0 Votes
+ -
Smartphones radiation effects
bobruss1@... 14th Sep 2009
At last! Not only a reason to have (especially drivers) limit the length of conversations, but finally a real use for the tinfoil hat as a shield between the phone and one's head. LOL
0 Votes
+ -
ionizing and non-ionizing radiation
schmidtd@... Updated - 14th Sep 2009
There is a big difference between types of radiation, but the problem is too much of anything is probably bad for you. It isn't like the EM spectrum is being under utilized.

The biological research may need to be examined more, but if we are seeing any correlation, basic safety steps are worth while. All photons have a chance of interacting with chemicals and chemical reactions, even if the probability is low.

I understand neutrinos have a low probability of interaction also, but if you expose your detector to enough, it will find them.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, I don't see the point of the added note in the article about ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation. It doesn't change anything. What is the point being made?
0 Votes
+ -
Not sure If I believe either!!!!
Jibbits Jr 14th Sep 2009
First, cell phones have not been around for a full human life cycle(ie 75-76 years). With this being said how could anyone fully research the overall effects of cell phone radiation. Not to mention gentic effects, if any, on progeny.

Second, as for the ionizing radiation statement.... The Gov't did hand out smokes to its own soldiers. I am gonna have to say that they could be wrong about the effects of the radiation. Hmmm our government wrong naaaah!

FEI,
There is no regualtion at all for how much radiation a cell phone can emmit. NONE!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Cellphones and smart phones are radios
rdhalsteatzd 14th Sep 2009
There shouldn't be much of a regulation or limit as Cellphones and Smart phones are after all a combination transmitter and receiver along with some sophisticated electronics in a tiny box. They are intentional radiators/transmitters and must transmit a signal to work. The stronger the signal the better they work in less than ideal locations. In many areas it may be some distance to a tower, or you may need to reach a tower farther out because the close in ones are all busy. Each cell on a tower is limited as to the number of simultaneous calls it can handle and that is not a large number. That is why in emergencies you quickly get "all circuits are busy". If there's ever a disaster, do not count on cell phones to be of much use for more than a few hours.

How have they figured the current non ionizing limits? They used a simulation of the human head and subjected it to various levels of RF radiation at different frequencies and measured the heating. They then set duty cycles for each mode of transmission. Based on that and the expected "on time" the FCC came up with signal strength limits or conversely for transmitters they came up with allowable distances from antennas with specific radiated power to people. They also created two zones, the protected and unprotected. For high power transmitters the antennas are usually high with the towers enclosed by fences (The protected area) The area outside the fences is called the unprotected area and has much lower allowable signal strengths. The power from cell phones and the calculated transmit time is such that they are well below the exposure limits.

IOW there is no proof that the allowable exposure is too high, too low, or if it's even a *potential* problem.
0 Votes
+ -
cost benefit
zclayton3 14th Sep 2009
Looking at radiation from phones is questionable. More people are likely injured from near miss traffic fatalities of TWD. Lotsa people are probably saved by a quickly placed emergency call. As a friend of mine said, worrying about the emissions of a cell phone is a lot like worrying about whether the life boats on the Titanic had low sodium rations in them.
0 Votes
+ -
Strange measure of power density
mattcoda 14th Sep 2009
Can you explain the choice/meaning of the power density metric? The watts is straight forward, it's the power emitted by the phone, does the mass (kg) refer to the phone's mass? That seams deceptive. If that is correct then an area or volume power density makes much more sense.

A logical power/area density would use a reference area (standard for all phones) and would be measured at the surface of the phone placed against the head.

For volume a standard reference volume that would enclose all the phones might make sense.

Frankly, if my supposition of W/kg above is correct (mass of phone) then it's a pretty meaningless metric.
0 Votes
+ -
What about devices using WIFI?
Godrunner 14th Sep 2009
What about radiation from devices like an iTouch using WIFI? I am visually impaired but find an iTouch to be really handy, although I use it really close. I have wondered.... well, I use monitors of all sort very close actually!
"Walking In Motion" WIM...Look out RIM!
0 Votes
+ -
F.U.D. factor
Narg 14th Sep 2009
Fear, Uncertanty, Doubt.

Sad that modern journalism can't survive unless they are scaring the crap out of you. Usually with data that doesn't actually ad up to anything in the end.

I call Shinanigans!
0 Votes
+ -
Yup, SOS
rdhalsteatzd 14th Sep 2009
Some one resurrects this subject about once a year and then rehashes everything from the year before. (And here it's not even April first)
0 Votes
+ -
Industry standard is watts per Kg? You sure it's not watts per some unit of area or volume? W/Kg is a meaningless number except for sales figures and only tells you how much radiation a phone puts out versus it's weight. The real number they should be looking at is "power density" or the EFFECTIVE radiated power. The amount of radiated power compared to the weight of the unit has absolutely nothing to do with RF safety. Indirectly it has a lot to do with how long you can use the phone before having to recharge the battery.

For meaningful units and safety levels check the FCC's guidelines. Which BTW the more power the better signal you put out and are less likely to have your signal drop out. With the FCC's figures and methodology we are at least looking at meaningful numbers even if a safe level has not been determined.

Search using "RF safety levels and how they are calculated" for a start. That will bring up many valid links.

As we are using "non ionizing radiation" the only thing we are interested in is the heating effect on human tissue as that is all it does. A cell phone or smart phone transmits a very low level signal, and I'd not even consider it to be a problem unless you are the type who goes around with the phone glued to their ear for hours on end. Then I'd worry more about the heating effects in my eyes as they have very poor cooling.

Me, I want the phone that gives me the most power out. W/Kg is only a measure of the phone's efficiency or more properly how well it is constructed or maybe how modern the construction. Newer is lighter and smaller. If a phone puts out 1 watt it doesn't matter if it weighs one gram or 10#, it's the power with which we should be concerned. IOW, more is better and I'm not going to spend hours talking on it.

Besides, I'm used to using hand helds that deliver 5 to 10 watts to the antenna in the frequency range where heating is most pronounced. Now that is getting into an area of concern.
0 Votes
+ -
I stand corrected
rdhalsteatzd 15th Sep 2009
I stand corrected on the W/Kg measure, but it was never defined in the article and I avoid Wiki for technical information.

However I'll stick with the comments on radiation limits. No one knows if it's a problem of not. The only *indications* that it might be are from vastly over exposed insects.

OTOH maybe if we panic enough users they'll quit using the things while driving.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not physics it's FUD
tonymcs@... 14th Sep 2009
Not this old turkey again.

Woah. This is a note-worthy information. It just came in right time, when I am looking at buying a new device.

Thanks for sharing this.

Cheers'
Vijay Raj
MS-MVP [Setup-Deploy]
Weblog: www.msigeek.com
0 Votes
+ -
Units (hmm, not sure they work here)
FlyingsCool 15th Sep 2009
I'm wondering about your units. I don't think my brain cares how heavy the phone is. What's going to matter to my brain is the total energy flowing into it, I'm thinking how many watts/sec it's receiving.

Also what direction the energy is flowing is going to matter, too. If the head side of the unit is shielded and reflecting the energy away from my head, then that's going to make a difference, too. What does the energy field look like?

W/kg is going to make lighter phones look worse than they are, and heavier phones look better.
0 Votes
+ -
Electromagnetic radiation.
clareJ 15th Sep 2009
Electromagnetic radiation is from long wavelengths like AM broadcast radio signals to very short wavelengths like gama rays. The shorter the wavelength the greater the energy. Gama and xrays are call ionizing radiation. For non-ionizing radiation the important thing to remember is energy transfer. In order to have efficient energy transfer an object has to electrical properties similar to the wavelength of the radiation. The radiation results in heating of the tissue in a human body. Cell phones do not represent a hazard to the body in general but there may be structures inside the head that are of the right electrical wavelength to represent a hazard for long term exposure. I personally think the duty cycle and power transfer are low enough that I am not worried.

Your cell phone when it is powered up transmits frequently even when you do not talk on it. That is how you can be located when outside your home cell. Therefore, I am not sure that you are safe just by not talking on your cell phone.

When you are at the office or in the car take your cell phone out of your pocket and put it on your desk or on the seat next to you. One foot of separation dramatically reduces the energy transfer versus a few millimeters when the phone is in your pocket.

The FCC, the scientific community are well aware of the risks of
electromagnetic radiation.

I don't understand the numbers in the article. Without proper explanation of what the units actually mean the numbers are just noise.

If I have a 5 gram radio that puts out 5 watts and 5 kilogram radio that puts out 5 watts, the important figure is the 5 watts, not the mass of the radio.

0 Votes
+ -
Not buying it...this is FUD
eMJayy 15th Sep 2009
Sorry, but they're going to have to do better than that. I've yet to see them demonstrate in any way a mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can be made to damage DNA. That is, after all, what we're really talking about when we talk about cancer, because cancer is simply a manifestation of DNA damage to cell regulating genes.

Ionizing radiation has been shown to damage DNA by knocking electrons out of cellular molecules, resulting in very reactive species that directly damages DNA and other essential molecules and cell structures by covalently (permanently) bonding to them. That's how ionizing radiation does damage to tissue. All they've been talking about is the heating effect of microwave radiation on tissue, as if a fraction of a degree Celcius of heating to a minute area of tissue is supposed to be biologically significant.

What I find really appalling is how they've managed to create alarm by throwing supposed cell phone cancer risk figures out there without ever establishing to the public how low the incidence of gliomas actually is in the first place. It's your typical media FUD that I see all the time when the media releases "new medical studies'. For example, they'll report to you that doing such and such will increase your risk of getting X disease by 15%...but they don't tell you that your overall disease risk was only 3% to begin with. So a 15% increase risk for something that which already carries a very low risk is still a very low risk and doesn't actually change the overall incidence of the disease. Studies done on low-incidence diseases are rarely conclusive to begin with (due to the low number of study subjects available for the study). Gliomas only make up 2% of ALL incidence of cancers...but they'll never tell you that.
0 Votes
+ -
transmitting antenna
odiug 15th Sep 2009
What about the powerfull transmitting antennas which are everywhere in our cities, perhaps on the top of our building? Does any of you have a clue?
0 Votes
+ -
Transmitting antennas
rdhalsteatzd 15th Sep 2009
Yes, there are guidelines and regulations for all transmitters exceeding 50 watts as far as RF exposure at the frequency they use. There are on-line calculators where you enter the antenna gain plus the power into the antenna along with the height of the antenna. From that you can calculate the allowable limits for both the controlled and uncontrolled areas. IOW the antennas must be far enough from people that the exposure limits will not be exceeded. The power density can be calculated or measured to prove conformity.

The allowable distance varies with frequency with (IIRC) the maximum heating from RF in the 150 MHz range. IOW more distance is required from the antenna to meet RF exposure limits in this region compared to other ranges for a given Effective Radiated Power.

0 Votes
+ -
radiation causes cancer - not a news flash
stenman@... 15th Sep 2009
Radiation causes cancer whether it is from the sun or a cell tower or other source. The incidence of lower head cancers with cell phone usage is well documented and considering the relatively short period of roughly 10 years where there has been widespread cell phone usage, it should be cause for alarm and the prudent person will use a headset.

Of course there are those who will ignore the evidence just like all the cigarette smokers and people using chewing tobacco, and all the people that still going to tanning salons. Intelligence is quite variable across the population as evidenced by people's behavior.
0 Votes
+ -
All Radiation causes cancer?
rdhalsteatzd 15th Sep 2009
The heat from your furnace is radiation in the infrared range. Radiation starts at low frequencies (sound), to ultrasonic, to infrared, to very low frequency RF through the super high frequencies. Beyond there we find Infrared, visible light, Ultraviolet and then the ionizing radiation such as X-Rays and on into high energy particles.

If all radiation and particularly cell phones cause cancer, please list a creditable link to a recognized study showing a proven link between cell phone use and cancers.

0 Votes
+ -
"Activists" release report...
rdhalsteatzd 15th Sep 2009
And there, ladies and gentlemen went the report's credibility.
I am glad that iphone did not make it to the top 10 !!!
-Krispon
Not all cell phones have the same radiation.Today's cellphone emits significantly less radiation then previous models sold 5 or 10 years ago. . I would recommend the usual steps for decrease of EMF radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health and it wouldn't be bad idea to have some EMF protection that will also reduce EMF radiation our bodies are exposed to (http://personalbioprotector.com/index.html).

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix