Subject: Secret Cell-Phone EMR Figures published ! (fwd)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 031356 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
Interesting report from Switzerland. Has any report of this type
ever appeared elsewhere???
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:51:55 +0100
From: Christoph Reuss
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: emfguru@hotmail.com
Subject: Secret Cell-Phone EMR Figures published !
Hi all
Niels Kuster, a radiation expert at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
(my alma mater), has developed a new measurement technique to measure
cell-phone EMR towards the user's head. He recently measured 16 popular
cell phone models, and published the results in the Swiss Consumer Report
magazine (see table at end of this message). His method was developed
for the industry, and is acknowledged by health authorities and industry.
Of course the publication of these figures wasn't welcomed by the industry,
who omits EMR figures in their ads. The manufacturer of the least-polluting
cell phone was even prevented from advertizing the fact that their cell
phone emits 5 times lower EMR to the user's head than other cell phones.
A large tabloid paper then interviewed various 'celebrities' on the topic
and on their cell phone usage, among them a beauty-queen who said that she
doesn't worry about EMR and that she's using her cell phone often (after all,
beauty-queens are known for their scientific knowledge..). It turned out
later that she has a PR contract with a large cell phone manufacturer !
Kuster revealed that cell phone manufacturers invest more money in the
design of a 'popular' *look* of cell phones than in a low-EMR design.
The industry usually uses cheapo antennae that cost less than 1 dollar each,
while spending millions for a 'nice-looking' product design. However,
the cost / type of the antenna (and how it is built into the cell phone)
is crucial for low EMR emission towards the user's head. But people rather
buy 'nice-looking' cell phones, especially when their EMR isn't specified
in the ads.......
BTW, the price of the various cell phone models is pretty uncorrelated
with their EMR: Calculating a correlation between price and EMR yields
a low r=-0.1831, and the link is anything but significant (p=0.5).
In other words: There are cheap low-EMR cell phones (with 'ugly'-looking
design but expensive and well-constructed antenna), and expensive high-EMR
cell phones (with award-winning outer design but bad antenna).
Cheers,
Chris
___________________________________TABLE___________________________________
Cell phone
Manufacturer Model EMR*
Hagenuk Global 0.28
Motorola StarTac 0.33
Sony CM-DX 1000 0.41
Nokia 8110i 0.73
Motorola d160 0.81
Sony CMD-Z1 0.88
Ericsson GF788 0.91
Ericsson GH688 0.95
Panasonic EB G500 0.98
Sharp TQ G700 1.01
Philips Genie 1.05
Nokia 1611 1.06
Philips Diga 1.06
Ascom Axento 1.25
Bosch M-Com 906 1.32
Ascom Elisto 1.33
* Cenelec Value for average EMR exposure of user's head, measured in Watt
per kg of user's body weight.
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html