Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: SAR Ratings: What I thought was wrong? Higher is better?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0

    SAR Ratings: What I thought was wrong? Higher is better?

    For the longest time I have been buying the phones with the lowest SAR rating due to the concern that they MIGHT cause problems in the human body in the future(Of course this is still up for debate, better safe then sorry I always say) but now I read this article that states phones with the highest SAR rating are actually the safer phones...

    http://www.eham.net/articles/24077

    Besides that site every other site I have been to says the opposite and that lower SAR phones are safer, this one contradicts it and gives a reasonable explanation. What do you think?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    173
    Feedback Score
    0
    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."
    "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. "
    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.

    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?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0
    Not sure if it matters, thats why I am looking into it more, wanted to see what others thought about this or if there are any other people arguing the point he makes. Not many people on this part of the forum it seems though sadly.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    336
    Phone
    Palm Pixi Plus
    Carrier
    Page Plus Cellular via dealer
    Feedback Score
    0
    If you are worried about radiation, use a headset or the speakerphone. And let phone rest on a table if
    available. It is my understanding that your head change when the phone is by your ear. Whether it
    cause cancer is for debate.

    My take (which could easily be wrong): if the call is quick, your body adapts, and then, fall back - nothing
    happens. But if the phone call is long, I can see your body may be affected. So have a headset to use if
    the phone call is long.

    Again, this subject is up to debate.

    Sheng-Chieh

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0

    the sar controversy

    with pleasure I read this thread...

    Be careful with earsets. The cable conducts the radiation to a great amount, it is even better and safer to use a low power Bluetooth device, you get less radiation than a two watt phone that is connected to your ear over a wire...

    The phone firmware should allow you to limit the output power. While driving around in a car or public transport t is almost all the time at maximum power, same at the start of a connection. With the old ericsson you could see this in the engineering mode...

    So you should wait to put the phone at your ear until the connection with the other pary is established, this common practise saves you a lot of radiation dose.

    and last but not least, buy a phone with a high SAR rating, Apples etc suck... Try one of those old phones with an extractable antenna, you will be overwhelmed by the gain in range at desolated areas...

    Pedro

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    A Public Bathroom
    Posts
    79
    Carriers
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    You are getting 100x the radiation from the ballast in fluorescent lamps.
    You are getting 1000x the radiation from the LCD monitor you're sitting in front of.

    This is a tempest in a teapot.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    This proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...
    Fluorecent lamps only produce magnetic fields, no electrical.

    And an LCD monitor nothing at all...

    please don't talk to the real guys, stay in your dumb playground...
    we are trying to expose a real problem here...

    the whole SAR thing is a scam !!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by aegrotatio View Post
    You are getting 100x the radiation from the ballast in fluorescent lamps.
    You are getting 1000x the radiation from the LCD monitor you're sitting in front of.

    This is a tempest in a teapot.
    Are you trolling? Because that so incorrect its not even funny. 100x, 1000x...If that was even slightly true we would be growing 3rd arms. Give me a break. This thread was made for a different purpose, it was made to figure out if Higher or lower SAR is better. Sure they might all be safe, I am just trying to figure out whats best just in case it really is dangerous and we don't find out till way later. People use to think many things were safe and later found out it was dangerous, lead paint and asbestos insulation anyone?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    173
    Feedback Score
    0
    Does anyone have the resources to test this theory? Would be nice to see some numbers, I'll ask my old college prof if I can borrow a spectrum analyzer for the weekend!

    But I agree the difference between one vs. the other is probably very small... if cell phone radiation causes health problems then we're all screwed regardless if our phone has a "better" SAR rating :P

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by strutswell View Post
    Does anyone have the resources to test this theory? Would be nice to see some numbers, I'll ask my old college prof if I can borrow a spectrum analyzer for the weekend!

    But I agree the difference between one vs. the other is probably very small... if cell phone radiation causes health problems then we're all screwed regardless if our phone has a "better" SAR rating :P
    Anything come of this? Would be interested if you found anything.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    A German magazine did the test on 30 types of telephones and the Pedro WYNS Theory was confirmed to be correct

    http://www.connect.de/ratgeber/ein-n...rm-376759.html

    and they made a list with ratings and values for SAR and what the call " a connect factor"

    also for people that do not understand german. watch the upper line in the table

    http://www.connect.de/ratgeber/3/5/2...estenliste.pdf

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by on7wp View Post
    A German magazine did the test on 30 types of telephones and the Pedro WYNS Theory was confirmed to be correct

    http://www.connect.de/ratgeber/ein-n...rm-376759.html

    and they made a list with ratings and values for SAR and what the call " a connect factor"

    also for people that do not understand german. watch the upper line in the table

    http://www.connect.de/ratgeber/3/5/2...estenliste.pdf
    So higher is better, kinda made sense....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,875
    Phones
    N/A
    Droid 2 Global
    LG VX9800 "The V" (backup)
    Carriers
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0
    So if there is an article confirming this I suppose it is right.

    My thoughts on this were, the supposition that a lower SAR phone has inferior reception is likely. With a unidirectional antenna it's a foregone conclusion, if the same RF power in yields less RF out, it's poorer. If the antenna is directional (away from the head), you would still end up with a phone that on the fringe could lose calls depending on if the back of the phone is pointed towards the cell site or not.

    Exposure? I would think in ordinary conditions actual exposure (at least with a CDMA phone) would be the same. The CDMA site is looking for a certain signal level at the site and commands phone power at 1dBm increments; so effective RF output of the phone should be the same (a phone with poor antenna would use more battery power to achieve this). The phone with poorer antenna would hit max power and drop your call before the one with a better antenna though (at this point the one with better antenna would expose you to more RF). GSM has crude power steps so I could see it "overshooting" and exposing the user to more RF, which certainly is counterintuitive, it wouldn't have occured to me if it wasn't brought up here. With the mentions of 2 watts I assume this is about GSM phones.

    Sent via the HowardForums Android app

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    Indeed, 2 watts is about GSM. That is the phone the whole world is using (the "g" stands for global :-)

    CDMa ?? only used in the states not ? Can it text ? Has it high speed data ?

    Anyhow, at a certain place within reach of the tower, the lowest SAR phone will produce more RF, use more battery than the high SAR variant, and it will have a smaller coverage at the end.

    Transmit power of the phone is determined by incoming field strenght at the cellular site, so low field makes the phone give more power, so more exposure at the same geograpical place with a low SAR phone.

    Higher battery current means also higher EMF, often forgotten. The phone pulsing power has more that the magical 400 uT magnetic field as well, did you know that !!!! (current through the PCB tracks to the phone final stage)

    The funny thing is almost nobody is aware of this (both SAR controversy as well as EMF magnetic field).

    (I can be booked for lectures...)

    Pedro M.J. WYNS

    AA9HX-ON7WP

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    A Public Bathroom
    Posts
    79
    Carriers
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Naturally I'm referring to EMF magnetic field. I am not trolling. Have fun fencing with windmills.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sprint Receives Higher CS Ratings from ACSI
    By macuser09 in forum Sprint
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2010, 01:43 PM
  2. Battery mAh ratings:
    By razorboy in forum Motorola
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-24-2010, 09:22 PM
  3. I thought I called the wrong # for Customer Service
    By blueyzfr6 in forum Page Plus Cellular
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-02-2010, 07:25 AM
  4. A question about Retentions and ratings..
    By skullan in forum TELUS Mobility
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-03-2009, 12:28 AM
  5. What does a Daily Ratings Rep. do?
    By roamer09 in forum VZW Employees and Agents Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-24-2009, 11:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks