As usual, I'm skeptical His paper doesn't actually provide any citation or research. So to me this looks like it is based on a lot of assumptions.
From the article:
"SAR is measured at the peak power of the phone. Given the fact that virtually all phones use the very same RF drive level (2 watts or 33 dBm) the resulting SAR measurement is only an alternative way to measure antenna efficiency."His only example is comparing 2 phones, one with high SAR (2.0) and one with low SAR (0.5) and he is trying to prove that the lower SAR phone must ramp up it's power to maintain a good signal."Conclusion: the measured SAR values of phones are indirectly a value for antenna efficiency.
Phones having a low SAR, so lower antenna performance will need more power to establish a connection to the base station, so the mean RF exposure of the user will be higher. "
Really? I'm not too sure. Because there's no proof how can I believe it?
Personally I'll stick with the hundreds of other websites that recommend a low SAR value. I find it silly that this 1 guy thinks everyone else is wrong, but in the end does any of this really matter?