Subject: Correction to SAR of 25 phones item (Philips again!)...
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 090900 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:49:09
From: Alasdair Philips
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Correction to SAR of 25 phones item (Philips again!)
Apologies BIG ERROR here by me. Sorry. It was too late at night when
I wrote it. My brain was fazed or something.
SARs into 1g are MORE critical than SARs into 10g because they pick up
small hot spots (SARs are averaged over 6 minutes, by the way!!!).
So reverse the figures below: i.e. 1.6W/kg into 1g is approx. equivalent
to 0.8 W/kg into 10g. This USA Standard is the much stricter one.
Sorry to confuse everyone (including myself!).
Good wishes
Alasdair
At 14:19 24/09/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:35:30
>From: Alasdair Philips
>To: "Roy L. Beavers"
>Subject: Re: Update: SAR of 25 cell-phone models (Reuss)...
>
>Roy:
>This raises an interesting question in my mind - usually Neils Kuster
>works to the EU SAR Standard of SAR in any 10g of tissue. If you use
>the SAR into any 1g of tissue (ANSI/IEEE C95.1) then the SAR just
>about doubles i.e. a SAR of 1.59 below becomes about 3.2.
>
>This 'factor of two' has been known for some time and was confirmed by
>Professor Om Ghandi who talked about dosimetry at the recent Gothenburg
>conference.
>
>Vice-versa if the table below are SARs measured into any 1g then they
>can be halved for the EU standard of 2W/kg SAR into any 10g.
>
>We need to know this vital information!
>Cheers
>Alasdair
>
>
>At 09:29 24/09/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>......This is a good solid piece of intelligence..... Thanks, Chris....
>>
>>Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
>>rbeavers@llion.org.......
>>.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
>>EMF-L web-site can be found at:
>>EMF-L archives can be found at:
>>..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
>>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:25:34 +0200
>>From: Christoph Reuss
>>To: EMF-L
>>Subject: Update: SAR of 25 cell-phone models
>>
>>The Swiss consumer magazine "K-Tip" has published the SAR (Specific
>>Absorption Rate) of 25 customary cell-phone models (see table below).
>>This report is an update to a similar report 2 years ago on the
>>then common cell-phone models. Again, the measurements were taken
>>by Prof. Niels Kuster at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
>>
>>Like in the test from 1997, the price of a cell-phone badly correlates
>>with the "quality" in terms of low radiation.
>>
>>Only one model (Philips Genie 900 with extended antenna) exceeds the
>>ANSI "safety" limit of 1.60 W/kg. When criticised for high radiation,
>>some manufacturers stressed that the radiation of their products are
>>"below the safety limits", others declined to comment on the report.
>>Some commented that the SAR is an insufficient criterion to assess the
>>safety of cell-phones.
>>
>>The Editorial says that the ANSI "safety" limit is worthless. "It was
>>defined without knowing the long-term risks, and set high enough so that
>>most manufacturers can easily stay below this limit. [...] It's too
>>cheap an excuse if the manufacturers say their products' radiation is
>>below the official limit."
>>
>>The report also compares the quality of radiation warnings in the user
>>manual (*). The importer of Trium cell-phones provides a letter to each
>>customer, warning of radiation and dangers and suggesting protective
>>measures.
>>
>>The measurements found that in cell-phones with an extendable antenna,
>>the SAR is consistently lower when the antenna is extended (A) than when
>>it's not (B). The article advises users to extend the antenna while
>>talking on the cell-phone.
>>
>>The article mentions that young customers don't care about the SAR, they
>>are only interested in a "cool" design. However, many customers above
>>30 years are asking for the emissions when they buy a cell-phone.
>>
>>Cheerio,
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>P.S.: To answer Valdemar's question: The Nokia 3210 has a rather high SAR.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>SAR of 25 new cell-phone models:
>>================================
>>
>>Manufacturer: Model: SAR: (*)
>>------------- ------ ---- ---
>>Motorola Star Tac 130 (A) 0.10 +
>>Motorola Star Tac 130 (B) 0.38 +
>>Nokia 8810 0.22 --
>>Sony CMD-C1 0.55 --
>>Ericsson I8888 World 0.60 +
>>Ericsson S868 0.77 +
>>Nokia 6110 0.87 --
>>Ericsson A1018s 0.88 +
>>Ericsson SH888 0.90 +
>>Trium Galaxy (A) 0.93 ++
>>Trium Galaxy (B) 1.16 ++
>>Motorola cd930 0.94 +
>>Panasonic EB-G520 0.95 --
>>Alcatel One Touch max (A) 0.97 -
>>Alcatel One Touch max (B) 1.29 -
>>Ericsson T18s 0.97 +
>>Nokia 6150 0.98 --
>>Panasonic EB-GD70 0.99 --
>>Philips Savy 1.11 -
>>Bosch GSM 909 1.13 -
>>Nokia 3210 1.14 --
>>Motorola cd920 1.17 +
>>Nokia 3110 1.24 --
>>Philips Genie 1800 (A) 1.26 +
>>Philips Genie 1800 (B) 1.41 +
>>Siemens C25 1.33 --
>>Philips Genie 900 (A) 1.52 +
>>Philips Genie 900 (B) 2.67 +
>>Motorola v3688 1.58 +
>>Bosch GSM 908 1.59 -
>>
>>
>>SAR in W/kg
>>
>>(A) = with extended antenna
>>(B) = antenna not extended
>>
>>(*) = Warnings about possible radiation hazards
>> in the user manual:
>> -- = none
>> - = bad
>> + = good
>> ++ = very good
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Alasdair Philips, BSc(Eng), DAgE, MIAgE
>Director, UK Powerwatch, (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
>EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips, BSc(Eng), DAgE, MIAgE
Director, UK Powerwatch, (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com