8 ms·

Phones Emitting the Most Radiation

50 points by ausjke 8y ago

ShorsHammer 8y ago
Eating a banana entails more radiation exposure if this is something you live in fear of. World Health Organisation: > A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use FDA: > the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of radiofrequency energy exposure FCC: > There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems National Cancer Institute: > Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electrom... https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu... https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/
- sigi45 8y ago
  Bananas have different radiation than mobile phones. Atomic vs. Electromagnetic
  - ShorsHammer 8y ago
    Bananas give off ionizing radiation which has been extensively proven to be dangerous for humans in large enough doses. The radiation from phones is non-ionizing and from my previous comment you'll see even the most cautious health agencies in the world aren't willing to claim it's harmful. Suggest you look at the xkcd chart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#Radiation_exposure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#Radiation_e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_...
    - ohiovr 8y ago
      Forget for a moment the proported damage allegedly caused by cell phone radiation. Can you think of other kinds of real radiation that can indeed cause harm to living tissue besides ionizing radiation?
      - pasta 8y ago
        Ever seen that glowing ball in the sky?
        ohiovr 8y ago
        Or lasers, standing in front of a radar installation, getting fried by a giant toaster. Take a tiny piece out of you and cook it in a microwave then put it back. Harmless? What if it came from your central nervous system?
        ShorsHammer 8y ago
        Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_...
        emsy 8y ago
        If you've ever taken antibiotics, I think I have bad news for you...
        kakarot 8y ago
        A phone and a microwave aren't comparable. A microwave contains an extremely focused emitter. It's the difference between staring at an LED light and a Class 3B or Class 4 laser. That laser will burn right through your cornea but you could affix the LED directly to the surface of your eye without any measurable ill effect.
        ohiovr 8y ago
        Take your phone and tape it to your head with it ringing day in and day out every second of every day. How long will you live?
  - cwmma 8y ago
    Bananas emit both beta particles (e.g. electrons) and gamma rays
- anders_p 8y ago
  I don't eat a banana whenever I have 5 minutes of idle time during the day though ;)
  - justinjlynn 8y ago
    Missing the point is not a substitute for cleverness. (unless the ;) indicates the statement was meant in jest only, in which case: well, alright then - Poe's law has ruined me)
- scotty79 8y ago
  So since this is all not harmful then essentially on this chart more is better. Can you expect stronger reception from more radiating phone?
  - cies 8y ago
    "Stronger reception" is a combination of tx and rx connectivity. More radiation is only a possible indicator for the sending side of the tx connectivity.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    These figures are for radiation absorbed by an anatomical model, not the total radiation emissions. A phone with a higher SAR may simply have a less effective radiation pattern, directing less energy into free space and more energy into the user.
    - wlesieutre 8y ago
      Is that "into the user" as measured when holding it up next to your head and talking into it?
      - jdietrich 8y ago
        Yes. SAR testing uses a model of the head, with the phone held next to the ear. On a smartphone, you're essentially measuring the amount of energy coming out of the screen side of the device. When the device is being used handheld, this is effectively wasted energy, because most of it will be directed towards the sky rather than towards the horizon.
- yosito 8y ago
  As a frequent flyer with a family history of melanoma, those links make me want to go see my dermatologist.
thesaint 8y ago
So if yours is at the top of the list you are assured the best chance of quality chat?
BuildTheRobots 8y ago
"'Clear evidence' of mobile phone radiation link to cancers in rats, US health agency concludes" I think the truth is more complicated than "nah, it's fine..." - also, bear in mind a class 1 mobile phone (3g) could be putting out 2 watts of power [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20181101184440/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mobile-phone-cancer-radiation-rats-tumours-research-science-toxicology-study-a8612641.html https://web.archive.org/web/20181101184440/https://www.indep... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-ph... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.h... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm
- raynr 8y ago
  I'm not a scientist and it's difficult to parse these things sometimes but from the links you posted it looks like, despite the headlines, the takeaway is still "nah, it's fine..."? They put rats and mice through 9 hours of 10m on, 10m off high power radio exposure over their entire body. For the rats, the exposure started from when they were in the womb. After all of that, only the male rats were found to have a higher incidence of heart tumours. The male rats also lived longer due apparently to fewer kidney problems. In female rats and the mice of both sexes, evidence of any cancers were "described as "equivocal", meaning there were measurable increases in molecules sometimes linked to cancer but no actual evidence." I'm not trying to start anything and I think more research is always good, but based on those linked articles the substantive conclusion still seems to be that it's fine? I don't understand how the conclusion from those articles is that there is "clear evidence" that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer. Can someone explain this to me?
  - remote_phone 8y ago
    The point is, if there is no effect from ionizing radiation, then there would not have been an effect no matter what the dose of RF was. But there was a statistically relevant relationship between heart tumors and RF exposure. So now that we know there is a relationship, the task is to dial down the RF radiation and see at what levels it’s not safe.
eqqn 8y ago
Interesting to see the W/kg measurement all over the place between the same manufacturer and same series phones. Huawei P8 Lite 0.39, Huawei P8 - 1.72. It doesn't seem to be a manufacturing requirement for some, as long as it is below a certain threshold. Pricing, release dates, amounts of SIM cards supported have little correlation at a glance.
tekproxy 8y ago
Turn the screen brightness down.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
rplst8 8y ago
E-M radiation is NOT the same as ionizing radiation.
- CyberDildonics 8y ago
  It is all electro-magnetic radiation, just at different frequencies.
  - rplst8 8y ago
    All dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs.
- beckler 8y ago
  So lets lay it all out there. E-M radiation is non-ionizing, but you can still get burned by it. One of the few major safety topics you'll learn in getting an HAM radio license is about RF burns. However, you have to use a fairly large amount of wattage (like more energy than a cell phone can even hold), and you have to stay located very close to the antenna. So it is _possible_ to receive a burn from a device emitting non-ionizing radiation, but you will not develop cancer from it. The wavelength is just too low to damage your DNA. https://mirion.s3.amazonaws.com/cms4_mirion/files/images/content-images/learning-center/what-is-radiation_002.jpg https://mirion.s3.amazonaws.com/cms4_mirion/files/images/con...
  - 13years 8y ago
    However, there are possible links with burn damage to cancer. https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20180206/hot-tea-linked-to-esophageal-cancer-risk#1 https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20180206/hot-tea-linked-to...
weinzierl 8y ago
This is just a collection of published maximum SAR values. The FCC has an excellent article [1] about the reasons why these numbers are completely unsuitable to estimate radiation exposure a user receives from a particular phone model. [1] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rat...
yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
So everybody here is focusing on the health angle. But what I want to know is: is this a list of the phones that will always get the best reception?
netjiro 8y ago
Meh. The largest single radiation source in most peoples' everyday environment are probably the ubiquitous H.sapiens ambulating all around them, emitting in excess of 100W per unit at around 12 micron wavelength. The things people are afraid of. Makes me sad.
t0mbstone 8y ago
"Watts per kilogram" Why does the weight of the phone have anything to do with radiation emitted? By this measure, you could have an extremely heavy phone that emitted a high amount of radiation, but it would be on the end of the list?

50 points by ausjke 8y ago

Eating a banana entails more radiation exposure if this is something you live in fear of. World Health Organisation: > A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use FDA: > the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of radiofrequency energy exposure FCC: > There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems National Cancer Institute: > Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electrom... https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu... https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/

sigi45 8y ago
Bananas have different radiation than mobile phones. Atomic vs. Electromagnetic
- ShorsHammer 8y ago
  Bananas give off ionizing radiation which has been extensively proven to be dangerous for humans in large enough doses. The radiation from phones is non-ionizing and from my previous comment you'll see even the most cautious health agencies in the world aren't willing to claim it's harmful. Suggest you look at the xkcd chart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#Radiation_exposure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#Radiation_e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_...
  - ohiovr 8y ago
    Forget for a moment the proported damage allegedly caused by cell phone radiation. Can you think of other kinds of real radiation that can indeed cause harm to living tissue besides ionizing radiation?
    - pasta 8y ago
      Ever seen that glowing ball in the sky?
      - ohiovr 8y ago
        Or lasers, standing in front of a radar installation, getting fried by a giant toaster. Take a tiny piece out of you and cook it in a microwave then put it back. Harmless? What if it came from your central nervous system?
        ShorsHammer 8y ago
        Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_...
        emsy 8y ago
        If you've ever taken antibiotics, I think I have bad news for you...
        kakarot 8y ago
        A phone and a microwave aren't comparable. A microwave contains an extremely focused emitter. It's the difference between staring at an LED light and a Class 3B or Class 4 laser. That laser will burn right through your cornea but you could affix the LED directly to the surface of your eye without any measurable ill effect.
        ohiovr 8y ago
        Take your phone and tape it to your head with it ringing day in and day out every second of every day. How long will you live?
- cwmma 8y ago
  Bananas emit both beta particles (e.g. electrons) and gamma rays
anders_p 8y ago
I don't eat a banana whenever I have 5 minutes of idle time during the day though ;)
- justinjlynn 8y ago
  Missing the point is not a substitute for cleverness. (unless the ;) indicates the statement was meant in jest only, in which case: well, alright then - Poe's law has ruined me)
scotty79 8y ago
So since this is all not harmful then essentially on this chart more is better. Can you expect stronger reception from more radiating phone?
- cies 8y ago
  "Stronger reception" is a combination of tx and rx connectivity. More radiation is only a possible indicator for the sending side of the tx connectivity.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  These figures are for radiation absorbed by an anatomical model, not the total radiation emissions. A phone with a higher SAR may simply have a less effective radiation pattern, directing less energy into free space and more energy into the user.
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    Is that "into the user" as measured when holding it up next to your head and talking into it?
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      Yes. SAR testing uses a model of the head, with the phone held next to the ear. On a smartphone, you're essentially measuring the amount of energy coming out of the screen side of the device. When the device is being used handheld, this is effectively wasted energy, because most of it will be directed towards the sky rather than towards the horizon.
yosito 8y ago
As a frequent flyer with a family history of melanoma, those links make me want to go see my dermatologist.

thesaint 8y ago

So if yours is at the top of the list you are assured the best chance of quality chat?

BuildTheRobots 8y ago

"'Clear evidence' of mobile phone radiation link to cancers in rats, US health agency concludes" I think the truth is more complicated than "nah, it's fine..." - also, bear in mind a class 1 mobile phone (3g) could be putting out 2 watts of power [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20181101184440/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mobile-phone-cancer-radiation-rats-tumours-research-science-toxicology-study-a8612641.html https://web.archive.org/web/20181101184440/https://www.indep... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-ph... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.h... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

raynr 8y ago
I'm not a scientist and it's difficult to parse these things sometimes but from the links you posted it looks like, despite the headlines, the takeaway is still "nah, it's fine..."? They put rats and mice through 9 hours of 10m on, 10m off high power radio exposure over their entire body. For the rats, the exposure started from when they were in the womb. After all of that, only the male rats were found to have a higher incidence of heart tumours. The male rats also lived longer due apparently to fewer kidney problems. In female rats and the mice of both sexes, evidence of any cancers were "described as "equivocal", meaning there were measurable increases in molecules sometimes linked to cancer but no actual evidence." I'm not trying to start anything and I think more research is always good, but based on those linked articles the substantive conclusion still seems to be that it's fine? I don't understand how the conclusion from those articles is that there is "clear evidence" that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer. Can someone explain this to me?
- remote_phone 8y ago
  The point is, if there is no effect from ionizing radiation, then there would not have been an effect no matter what the dose of RF was. But there was a statistically relevant relationship between heart tumors and RF exposure. So now that we know there is a relationship, the task is to dial down the RF radiation and see at what levels it’s not safe.

eqqn 8y ago

Interesting to see the W/kg measurement all over the place between the same manufacturer and same series phones. Huawei P8 Lite 0.39, Huawei P8 - 1.72. It doesn't seem to be a manufacturing requirement for some, as long as it is below a certain threshold. Pricing, release dates, amounts of SIM cards supported have little correlation at a glance.

tekproxy 8y ago

Turn the screen brightness down.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rplst8 8y ago

E-M radiation is NOT the same as ionizing radiation.

CyberDildonics 8y ago
It is all electro-magnetic radiation, just at different frequencies.
- rplst8 8y ago
  All dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs.
beckler 8y ago
So lets lay it all out there. E-M radiation is non-ionizing, but you can still get burned by it. One of the few major safety topics you'll learn in getting an HAM radio license is about RF burns. However, you have to use a fairly large amount of wattage (like more energy than a cell phone can even hold), and you have to stay located very close to the antenna. So it is _possible_ to receive a burn from a device emitting non-ionizing radiation, but you will not develop cancer from it. The wavelength is just too low to damage your DNA. https://mirion.s3.amazonaws.com/cms4_mirion/files/images/content-images/learning-center/what-is-radiation_002.jpg https://mirion.s3.amazonaws.com/cms4_mirion/files/images/con...
- 13years 8y ago
  However, there are possible links with burn damage to cancer. https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20180206/hot-tea-linked-to-esophageal-cancer-risk#1 https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20180206/hot-tea-linked-to...

weinzierl 8y ago

This is just a collection of published maximum SAR values. The FCC has an excellent article [1] about the reasons why these numbers are completely unsuitable to estimate radiation exposure a user receives from a particular phone model. [1] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rat...

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago

So everybody here is focusing on the health angle. But what I want to know is: is this a list of the phones that will always get the best reception?

netjiro 8y ago

Meh. The largest single radiation source in most peoples' everyday environment are probably the ubiquitous H.sapiens ambulating all around them, emitting in excess of 100W per unit at around 12 micron wavelength. The things people are afraid of. Makes me sad.

t0mbstone 8y ago

"Watts per kilogram" Why does the weight of the phone have anything to do with radiation emitted? By this measure, you could have an extremely heavy phone that emitted a high amount of radiation, but it would be on the end of the list?