Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Droid X SAR

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    180
    Phone
    Droid DNA
    Carrier
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0

    Droid X SAR

    Hi everyone,

    I did some searching on this forum and a bunch of other forums and got a bunch of conflicting information. If this was posted somewhere else on this forum somewhere, I would really appreciate it if you could please point me in the right direction.

    I know that it doesn't mean much but since I am a huge hypochondriac, I would really prefer to use a phone with a low SAR (1.0 or below). I was wondering if anyone happens to know (for sure) what the SAR of the Droid X is? I saw one source that said the body SAR is higher than the head SAR, which to me, wouldn't really make sense.

    This is probably the deciding factor for me - if the SAR is low, I am going to buy this phone.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,965
    Phone
    Samsung Galaxy Nexus
    Carrier
    Rogers
    Feedback Score
    0
    You can goto the FCC website and see the SAR results. GO HERE

    This was taken from another site and I didn't bother verifying it but I assume its about right
    Moto X = Head - .76, Body - 1.38
    The Milestone/Droid had a fairly bad SAR rating as well so I don't imagine the Droid X would be all the good either.

    Have you looked into BT headsets? Perhaps not the best solution but many people seem to recommend it for those that are concerned about radiation levels.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    180
    Phone
    Droid DNA
    Carrier
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Thanks!

    I am surprised that the body is higher than the head SAR. Do you have any ideas why this might be? I always assumed that the body SAR is when the phone is not in use (in a pocket or something).

    Would you happen to have the FCC ID or a link to the SAR tests for the Droid 2 (if they are even out yet)?

    Thanks again!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,455
    Phones
    Nokia E72 / Motorola Milestone
    I9000M, Desire, V9x
    KRZR K1, V9 Euro, V9, V8...
    Carrier
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    If you are big on having low SAR rating phones, Samsung is pretty much the industry leader the past few years with their phones overall.


    The may not be as good as Motorola (especially with reception) but for whatever reason they seem to do better with SAR ratings compared to the competition.


    Then again a reliable Bluetooth headset (like my personal fav the Motorola H715) will probably also give you peace of mind...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Downtown Chicago
    Posts
    3,260
    Phone
    Motorola Atrix HD Maxx / iPhone 5 (backup)
    Carrier
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhell View Post
    Thanks!

    I am surprised that the body is higher than the head SAR. Do you have any ideas why this might be? I always assumed that the body SAR is when the phone is not in use (in a pocket or something).

    Would you happen to have the FCC ID or a link to the SAR tests for the Droid 2 (if they are even out yet)?

    Thanks again!
    SAR is always tested with the phone transmitting at the highest power level, whether it is at the head or on the body.

    But really you shouldn't be worried. The US and Europe test their phones differently and Europe allows approximately 4 times higher SAR values than what are allowed in the US. If there aren't any major health issues there, I wouldn't be too worried.
    Seems like it is cool to have these in your sig?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    180
    Phone
    Droid DNA
    Carrier
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Thanks again everyone! I am still a little bit confused about why the body is so much higher than the head, since it is usually the reverse (perhaps antenna location)? When I feel my brain starting to heat up, I will put the person on speaker

    Either way, I think I am going to go for it (if I can actually find a store that has them in stock).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,455
    Phones
    Nokia E72 / Motorola Milestone
    I9000M, Desire, V9x
    KRZR K1, V9 Euro, V9, V8...
    Carrier
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhell View Post
    Thanks again everyone! I am still a little bit confused about why the body is so much higher than the head, since it is usually the reverse (perhaps antenna location)? When I feel my brain starting to heat up, I will put the person on speaker

    Either way, I think I am going to go for it (if I can actually find a store that has them in stock).

    Why not just use Bluetooth?


    Motorola H715 call quality (very loud too) is just as good as the phone.


    It's a cheap headset and very easy to operate...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    180
    Phone
    Droid DNA
    Carrier
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    BTW, for anyone who cares, it is actually 1.43 at the head and 1.41 at the body according to Verizon: http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/s...edPhoneId=5369

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Western NY
    Posts
    6
    Phone
    HTC Eris
    Carrier
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0

    MOTO SARs tend to be high. WHy take a chance?

    The Science is not all in on SAR. The radiation could still pose a risk. Droid X (around 1.4 head AND body) near the max for FCC regs. It is especially odd that the body rating is as high as for the head, unlike most phones. Most guys carry their phones in a front pocket... The iPHone4 and my Eris are closer to about 1.2 head, .75 body. Even the Incredible does better than the Droid. From a scientific point of view, no one knows the relative potential of harm - or not - of any amount over another. E.g., we don't know if 1.2 is much better than 1.4. But all other things being equal, why go with the higher levels, especially 1.4 vs. .7 for the body value.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Downtown Chicago
    Posts
    3,260
    Phone
    Motorola Atrix HD Maxx / iPhone 5 (backup)
    Carrier
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by myrowd View Post
    The Science is not all in on SAR. The radiation could still pose a risk. Droid X (around 1.4 head AND body) near the max for FCC regs. It is especially odd that the body rating is as high as for the head, unlike most phones. Most guys carry their phones in a front pocket... The iPHone4 and my Eris are closer to about 1.2 head, .75 body. Even the Incredible does better than the Droid. From a scientific point of view, no one knows the relative potential of harm - or not - of any amount over another. E.g., we don't know if 1.2 is much better than 1.4. But all other things being equal, why go with the higher levels, especially 1.4 vs. .7 for the body value.
    There is nothing linking cellular radiation to any health effect. The EU recently published a 20 year study that couldn't draw any conclusions. With cellular radiation, the effect seen is tissue heating. This is non ionizing radiation, it cannot destroy DNA. The heating caused by cellular radiation is low enough that standard bloodflow prevents tissue heating more than a fraction of a degree (your skin heats and cools more from showering and swimming). Substantial RF doesn't make it into the brain to cause heating there (even if it did, your blood would cool it).

    When the SAR standard was set, the based measurements off the heating of the eyeball. There is no blood flow through the center of the eye, therefore heat cannot easily be removed. It is set at what is assumed to be a safe level for your eye, the most sensitive part to RF heating.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    180
    Phone
    Droid DNA
    Carrier
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mandrsn1 View Post
    There is nothing linking cellular radiation to any health effect. The EU recently published a 20 year study that couldn't draw any conclusions. With cellular radiation, the effect seen is tissue heating. This is non ionizing radiation, it cannot destroy DNA. The heating caused by cellular radiation is low enough that standard bloodflow prevents tissue heating more than a fraction of a degree (your skin heats and cools more from showering and swimming). Substantial RF doesn't make it into the brain to cause heating there (even if it did, your blood would cool it).

    When the SAR standard was set, the based measurements off the heating of the eyeball. There is no blood flow through the center of the eye, therefore heat cannot easily be removed. It is set at what is assumed to be a safe level for your eye, the most sensitive part to RF heating.
    Agreed - I don't really think "radiation" is the correct term to use here since people tend to associate that with nuclear wars and powerplant melt downs. The SAR amount is also very misleading since most phones very rarely send out that much energy anyway (the SAR is the maximum amount of energy, not the average amount of energy).

    I obviously did a lot of thinking about this and even with the higher SAR, I decided to go with the Droid X since there are many ways of reducing SAR exposure. I ordered a bluetooth headset (most of which have a SAR around .10). I will keep the phone away from my body when possible since SAR drops off dramatically as the distance increases. Of course, there are times when I need to hold the phone to my head but what can I do? Of course, limiting exposure is the best thing to do in general and my hope is that the 300-500 minutes a month that I use, won't heat my brain up too much

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    546
    Phones
    Samsung Galaxy SII 4G
    Samsung Galaxy SII 4G
    Carrier
    Virgin Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    1.4 to the head or body is building cancer.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Downtown Chicago
    Posts
    3,260
    Phone
    Motorola Atrix HD Maxx / iPhone 5 (backup)
    Carrier
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhell View Post
    Agreed - I don't really think "radiation" is the correct term to use here since people tend to associate that with nuclear wars and powerplant melt downs. The SAR amount is also very misleading since most phones very rarely send out that much energy anyway (the SAR is the maximum amount of energy, not the average amount of energy).
    Radiation is the correct term for RF energy that comes from an antenna. It is completely unrelated to the radiation from a nuclear power plant or nuclear bomb.

    Remember this too, very little RF energy makes it into your brain. When SAR testing is done, they don't account for the fact that skin, fat, bone, and brain all have different RF properties. When you stack layers like this it makes RF penetration even harder. Therefore the SAR measured is still higher than you will ever experience in real world use.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    323
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mandrsn1 View Post
    There is nothing linking cellular radiation to any health effect. The EU recently published a 20 year study that couldn't draw any conclusions. With cellular radiation, the effect seen is tissue heating. This is non ionizing radiation, it cannot destroy DNA. The heating caused by cellular radiation is low enough that standard bloodflow prevents tissue heating more than a fraction of a degree (your skin heats and cools more from showering and swimming). Substantial RF doesn't make it into the brain to cause heating there (even if it did, your blood would cool it).

    When the SAR standard was set, the based measurements off the heating of the eyeball. There is no blood flow through the center of the eye, therefore heat cannot easily be removed. It is set at what is assumed to be a safe level for your eye, the most sensitive part to RF heating.
    Yes I am with you. There are also a lot of factors that can cause cancer aside from SAR or radiation such as the food we ingest, polluted air we breathe and products we use to our body but of course it wouldn't hurt to be extra cautious but honestly, I have never heard of anything that does relate cellular radiation to any health effect

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1
    Feedback Score
    0

    Red face sar 1.49 droid x do you still have the droid ?

    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhell View Post
    Hi everyone,

    I did some searching on this forum and a bunch of other forums and got a bunch of conflicting information. If this was posted somewhere else on this forum somewhere, I would really appreciate it if you could please point me in the right direction.

    I know that it doesn't mean much but since I am a huge hypochondriac, I would really prefer to use a phone with a low SAR (1.0 or below). I was wondering if anyone happens to know (for sure) what the SAR of the Droid X is? I saw one source that said the body SAR is higher than the head SAR, which to me, wouldn't really make sense.

    This is probably the deciding factor for me - if the SAR is low, I am going to buy this phone.
    are you have any problems with ichy skin as you talk on it ..or after
    i have been doing lot of research on it..would like to know
    the droid x is the highest sar rating in all the phones they do not need to do this

    am getting a Iph 4 soon 1.17: sar rating



    http://www.sarshield.com/english/rad...t-motorola.htm

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 02-06-2011, 11:00 AM
  2. should i get droid x, wait for droid 2 or stick with droid
    By wvcellphoneman in forum Droid X and X2
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-14-2010, 01:28 AM
  3. Droid Eris vs. Droid Droid for alltel
    By NebraskaX24 in forum ALLTEL
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-04-2010, 08:58 AM
  4. FS: Two Android Phones- Motorola Droid (Verizon) and HTC Droid Eris (Cricket)
    By qipengart in forum Non GSM phone Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 10:46 AM
  5. Replies: 261
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 01:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks