6 ms·

I believe you added an extra "/kg" on emission.

• ummonk 8y ago
  No, he's pointing out that even (watts emitted)/(kgs of body region that is expected to absorb) is an over-estimate of watt/kg absorption.
• hwillis 8y ago
  Nope- It's a technical elision. An 80 kg man in an open field next to a 80 W transmitter is exposed to 1 W/kg, and absorbs microwatts/kg. Ionizing radiation is treated much more rigorously, and thickness and and frontal area are used to calculate the actual dosage, but for EM sources the wattage/kg is not unusual as a metric. It's useful for nearby transmitters, where exposure is focused on a single part of the body, vs simply being exposed to 80 watts of incident power.
  • IshKebab 8y ago
    > An 80 kg man in an open field next to a 80 W transmitter is exposed to 1 W/kg, and absorbs microwatts/kg. That's not at all how it works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate#Mobile_phone_SAR_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate#Mobil...