Cellphones emit varying levels of radiation, depending on make and model. (Lisa Poole/Associated Press)The technology news site CNET has compiled two interesting lists showing which cellphones give off the most and the least radiation.
In publishing the information, CNET editors note the data aren’t meant to imply that cellphone radiation poses a risk, nor is it meant to say that the phones are safe. As I recently reported in my Well column last week, the data on cellphone safety is mixed, although a few recent international studies have suggested a link with three types of brain tumors. The Food and Drug Administration also says there’s not enough information to determine conclusively whether cellphones are safe or unsafe.
The charts focus on the specific absorption rate, or SAR, of a cellphone, which is a way of measuring the quantity of radio frequency energy that is absorbed by the body, according to CNET.
For a phone to pass F.C.C. certification, that phone’s maximum SAR level must be less than 1.6 W/kg (watts per kilogram). In Europe, the level is capped at 2 W/kg, while Canada allows a maximum of 1.6 W/kg. The SAR level listed in our charts represents the highest SAR level with the phone next to the ear as tested by the F.C.C. Keep in mind that it is possible for the SAR level to vary between different transmission bands and that different testing bodies can obtain different results. Also, it’s possible for results to vary between different editions of the same phone (such as a handset that’s offered by multiple carriers).
Four Motorola phones top the list, with the V195s putting out the maximum 1.6 W/kg. The popular BlackBerry Curve 8330 rounds out the No. 5 spot. To see the full top 10 list, click here.
The list of lowest-radiation cellphones includes the LG KG800 and the Motorola Razr V3x, which put out 0.135 W/kg and 0.14 W/kg, respectively. To see all the lowest radiation phones, click here.
If you don’t see your phone on the list, the site includes lists of cellphones by brand name. My iPhone was listed under “other” brands, but I was interested to learn that its SAR number is 0.974.
Comments (112) E-mail this Share
Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Newsvine Permalink Related
Brain Surgeons and CellphonesTracking Cellphone Driving LawsGood Question: Do Cellphones Affect Fertility?Cellphone Users Slow Traffic 112 comments so far...
1.June 11th,
2008
4:36 pm TPP, why should anyone really care? You’re not buying this idiocy that cell phones cause brain cancer, are you???
Between this and your vaccine/autism kick, I think you’ve been reading too much Joseph Mercola. This serves only to whip up unproductive anxiety and to take away the spotlight from prevention issues that really have a solid medical and scientific basis.
— Posted by jack
2.June 11th,
2008
4:46 pm I would be most appreciative if you would do a little research on the issue of using earpieces (not Bluetooth). Do they increase, decrease, or have no effect upon the amount of radiation to the brain. Thanks so much, karen in portland
— Posted by karen berry
3.June 11th,
2008
5:27 pm I think using the word “radiation” is unnecessarily alarmist and will make people think of atomic radiation, which is not produced by cell phones. Many kinds of energy travel as radiation: sound, heat, light, cosmic ray particles, and the electromagnetic waves we use for communication.
How about the more neutral and perfectly accurate “radio waves” or “radio wave energy”?
— Posted by Brian R Stanley, MD
4.June 11th,
2008
6:42 pm Ditto the need for data on earpieces and Bluetooth.
— Posted by Senalishia
5.June 11th,
2008
6:53 pm As Donnie Brasco would have said, forgetaboutit!
Here is, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, one easily avoidable and definitely lethal source of radiation exposure:
“The effective doses from diagnostic CT [computer tomography] procedures are typically estimated to be in the range of 1 to 10 mSv. This range is not much less than the lowest doses of 5 to 20 mSv received by some of the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs.”
This is what one gets (5 to 10 mSv) while having abdominal CT scan for virtual colonoscopy, angiography, or routine “body scan” in the name of cancer and heart disease prevention.
According to the same source, “A CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (abbreviated mSv; 1 mSv = 1 mGy in the case of x rays.) may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000. This increase in the possibility of a fatal cancer from radiation can be compared to the natural incidence of fatal cancer in the U.S. population, about 1 chance in 5.”
This information is provided by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and analyzed in depth on my site.
Cell phone me worry? Nope…
Konstantin Monastyrsky
— Posted by Konstantin Monastyrsky
6.June 11th,
2008
7:09 pm Is there a comparable list for cordless phones?
FROM TPP — I don’t know of one although perhaps readers do. I dont’ think we have cordless phones at our ear nearly as much as cell phones.
— Posted by Peter Silverman
7.June 11th,
2008
7:12 pm Cell phone users face more danger plowing into a light pole while driving than they do from the booga booga of cell phone radiation. If this story is, in fact, true, then the people whose brains get cooked from their cell phones a) did not lose much and b) deserved it for driving the rest of us crazy with their yapping in theaters and restaurants.
— Posted by G H Waite
8.June 11th,
2008
7:22 pm What happens to truth when an unreliable source parrots a thought-to-be reliable source? The “in-depth analysis” is sure to be a nightmare.
That being said, with a greater than 1 in 5 risk personally (due to some youthful indiscretions) I’m not too concerned about a theoretical risk from a source without a known mechanism of injury (I’m referring to medium- and long-wave radiation here) like my cellphone.
