Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1.    #1  
    The Treo 300 has an SAR of 1.46 W/KG. Max Allowed by FCC is 1.60. Hmm...

    https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...fcc_id=O8FNYNY
  2. #2  
    No, that's not right. Here it is from the link...

    Power output listed as EIRP. Body-worn SAR compliance is limited to the holster as tested for this filing. End-users must be informed of the body-worn operating requirements for satisfying RF exposure compliance. This filing is only applicable to PCS-1900 MHz operations. The highest reported SAR values are - Head: 0.76 W/kg; Body-worn: 0.58 W/kg; Hand: 2.37 W/kg.

    So the highest SAR at the head is .76. The number you quoted was total output watts.

    -m
  3. #3  
    The highest reported SAR values are - Head: 0.76 W/kg; Body-worn: 0.58 W/kg; Hand: 2.37 W/kg.

    So the highest SAR at the head is .76.
    Wow 2.37! I thought that I was getting arthritis in my hand - actually, I'm frying it!

    Dunc
  4. #4  
    Anybody know if that's a good or bad amount for our hands to be taking? I mean maybe that's OK for the hand .

    We may all be wanting more than a "retention bonus" a few years from now .
  5. #5  
    The radiation to the hand is entirely harmless, though everyone's free to worry about it if they wish!
  6. #6  
    I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Though, if it is entirely harmless why are they bothering (being forced) to post the value?
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by Dunc
    I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Though, if it is entirely harmless why are they bothering (being forced) to post the value?
    Called freedom of information. Because we have a right to have the information easily accessible.
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by Dunc
    I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Though, if it is entirely harmless why are they bothering (being forced) to post the value?
    Because there is a lot of bad science out there.
  9. #9  
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The highest reported SAR values are - Head: 0.76 W/kg; Body-worn: 0.58 W/kg; Hand: 2.37 W/kg.

    So the highest SAR at the head is .76.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  10. #10  
    I'm not an engineer, I just try to make sense of the available data, such as it is. It appears to me, in any event, that the FCC code in the original message/link on this thread is mistakenly attributed to the 300. If you go to http://www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid/ and enter o8f - the first 3 digits of the code for your Treo device (which you'll find in your SIM card compartment) designating Handspring-, and click "start search", you'll see the series of Handspring devices. My reading given the grant dates is that NYNY is for the 180, NYNY2 is the 270, and the last one -LON- is for the 300. I can affirm that o8fNYNY2 is the FCC code on my 270.

    The Grants read as follows for the 3 models:

    Treo 180 (o8fNYNY): "The highest reported SAR values are - Head: 0.76 W/kg; Body-worn: 0.58 W/kg; Hand: 2.37 W/kg."

    Treo 270 (o8fNYNY2): "The highest reported SAR values are - Head: 0.396 W/kg; Body-worn: 0.235 W/kg"


    Treo 300 (o8fLON): The highest reported SAR values are - Head: 1.4 W/kg; Body-worn: 0.877 W/kg

    I don't know why they don't include hand numbers for the latter two, but I don't like it. You jump to your own conclusions. The 2.37 figure is high and I don't buy the "meaningless" claims above. The head figures reported for the 300 are twice as high as for the 180 and more than 3 times as high as the for the 270. My reading of the early and limited research that is available -most coming out of Europe- is that none of these radiation levels for body parts affected are harmless -its a matter of relative harm, and I always opt for the phones that get the lower ratings. If we need or want to use these wonderful devices, some of us will choose to make sense of the limited (not bad) science that is made available to us through the quick and limited reviews done by "our" government for the manufacturers. Caveat emptor. Best to all.
    You may be right; I may be crazy. But, the Treo may be just the device I've been looking for.
  11. #11  
    Hey if you all believe the treo will give you brain cancer, then I have a 'radio wave blocker' that I can sell you for 39.99. Your health and very existance is worth 39.99 right?
  12. #12  
    So what are our options then?
    Is there any definitive study as to what levels are considered "tolerable"?

    I tried to make sense of the correspondence at:
    https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...&fcc_id=O8FLON

    but never could find anything definitive.

    Can we trust the FCC -- that they wouldn't have allowed the phone to come to market if it were unsafe? (In general, I guess I'm too trusting? :-) )
    Doug
    Doug

Posting Permissions