Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 87
  1.    #1  
    I know this sounds silly, but to me, it's quite serious.

    As do many of you, I keep my Treo 600 in my front pants pocket. That's the reason, after all, I wanted a small phone. Also, I keep the connection to the Wireless Web on all the times (C'mon...so do you!). Anyways, I just came across this chart which lists the radiation levels of each current model cell phone. The Treo 600 is WAY WAY WAY up on the top of the list! Ack!!!

    The doctors have not been able to explain my infertility problems. I think I may have just figured it out myself. If anyone from Sprint or Palm One is out there, I would appreciate an official response to this very serious matter.

    Here is a link to the radiation level chart. Please don't forget to return to the forum and post your reply. Thanks.

    http://www.sarshield.com/english/radiationchart.htm

  2. #2  
    I don't buy it. Sounds more like an advertiser really trying to push their product.
    I think the problem with your hang-low is due to something else. Is that you purple...?
  3. #3  
    My first thought too!
    "Everyday is a Gift, A Blessing, An Opportunity!" - GM

    Phone history: Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo Centro, Pixi, Centro again, 800w, Treo 755p, Palm Pre
  4. #4  
    have no fear. the same site sells something for 19.99 that will protect you...and while you're at it, get your Treo unlocked at gsmlocker.com for a mere $150.00
  5. #5  
    There were a few good discussions a little while back pertaining to the possibility of unknown levels of photon exposure with CDMA phones.

    Here is a link to one:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...radiation.html

    Still not sure what the real risk is, however I still would not advocate people placing them in their front pocket for extended periods of time. (better to be safe than sorry....maybe still paranoid...)
  6.    #6  
    I assure you I am not trying to sell or promote anything. I have always thought that those sticker things that "shield" radiation are a crock and I am not about to buy one or promote anyone who is.

    At the same time, however, that site was recommended to me by someone at Motorolla.
  7. #7  
    Here is the best solution.

    Click
  8. #8  
    LOL...if the radiation from antennas and other highly radiated equipment on navy ships didn't fry any of my body parts, I don't think that the Treo 600 is going to do anything. And I did work near them on a regular basis for many years.

    P.S. If you ask my ex she will tell you that the radiation did affect my brain.

    cash70
    Me = Nokia 5170/Palm III > Kyocera 6035 > Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 700p > Treo 755p > Treo Pro > Palm Pre

    Wife = Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 755p > Palm Centro > Palm Pixi
  9. #9  
    here's a quote from the FDA study that finds no link between cell phones and brain cancer:


    "Many experts say that no matter how near the cell phone's antenna--even if it's right up against the skull--the six-tenths of a watt of power emitted couldn't possibly affect human health. They're probably right, says John E. Moulder, Ph.D., a cancer researcher and professor of radiation oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. It's true, he says, that from the physics standpoint, biological effects from mobile phones are "somewhere between impossible and implausible."

    They do go to say that further research is probably still needed though.
  10. #10  
    there's not enough wattage to cause problems. . . plus the frequency isn't quite optimal for cooking anyway.

    you've got a better shot at getting cancer from all the 2.4ghz wireless equipment (same frequency your household microwave uses) than you do from a 1900mhz cell phone.
    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
    "Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous

  11. #11  
    Why one would want to look retarded wearing an "ear shield" is beyond me...
  12. #12  
    I agree with everyone else. Looks pretty sketchy to me.
    http://www.firstadopter.com - where early adopters discuss great stuff first
  13. #13  
    bluetreo
    Member

    Registered: Oct 2003
    Location:
    Posts: 17


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by dgoodisi


    And aliens built the pyramids...

    Seriously I read that article very closely. Nowhere did it sat that cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage.

    All it says is "might", "possibly", and "maybe".

    And I still don't see why you would want to turn wireless mode off.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Excuse me? "Dr. Lief Salford of Lund University in Sweden... reported in June that cell phone radiation damaged neurons in the brains of young rats. The study showed cells in the parts of rats' brains that control sensation, memory and movement died after being exposed to various cell phones at different levels of radiation for two hours."

    [You can read Salford's entire article at the U.S. Government National Institute of Health web site here: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2003/6039/6039.html ]

    Maybe we're not rats, but we sure are mammals-- and as long as it remains true that "no government agency vouches they are safe" I'm not going to make MYSELF into a lab rat to test the safety of cell phones. Ask yourself this: if cell phones are safe, why is the U.S. government right now "preparing to launch a multimillion dollar investigation into potential cancer-causing or toxic effects associated with the phones" ???

    Again, I turn wireless mode OFF so I can keep the Treo in my pocket without risking testicular cancer (or if I were a woman, ovarian cancer). We have absolutely no idea what these microwave-radiating devices are doing to our bodies in the long term. The FDA says "if there is a risk from these devices-- and at this point we don't know if there is-- it is probably small." Gosh, that's reassuring!



    The stick on shields do nothing more than the stick on signal amplifiers did ! Stick it to your wallet !

    They only suck money from people who believe such nonsense. The signals from a cell phone are dangerous period.

    If you believe the US goverment would tell you the truth, at the expense of a mult-trillion dollar economy, then you must be still looking for weapons of mass destruvtion, with W and OJ.

    Use a headset for long conversations, get the antenae away from your head !
  14. #14  
    Unfortunately, some headsets channel the RF right into your ear... I don't have a URL on my Treo, but was just looking into it. I found some stuff through Yahoo (and not just on those anti-SAR product sites).
  15. Minsc's Avatar
    Posts
    967 Posts
    Global Posts
    974 Global Posts
    #15  
    The problem with SAR ratings is that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to them. Take a look at the charts sometime. You will see a wide variety of SAR levels between very similar phones, some even by the same manufacturer. There are phones with great RF performance, yet very LOW SAR levels. (The Samsung S-105 comes to mind, with its .23 rating) And, there are phones with great RF perfomance that have very HIGH SAR levels.

    Again, no rhyme or reason for it. You can look at the SAR levels for a dozen Nokia phones with virtually identical form factors, and they can be all over the map.
    Makes me question the validity of the way they measure the radiation.

    Bottom line is, as long as you're sensible about your cell phone usage, you probably have nothing to worry about.
  16. #16  
    First it was Saccharin, then Aspartame, then Cellular radiation levels....what's next Mutant Sperm Syndrome?

    Cancer or not I'm using my phone without hesitation.

    Only you can decide if you can live with the possibility of an unknown risk from cell phone use. If you are concerned, you can reduce your risk by limiting the length of your cell phone calls and using "hands-free" devices that keep cell phones away from your head and body.

    I think there's more of a chance of getting hurt in a traffic accident then worrying about cancer that one-in-four of us will get anyway. Morbid thought.....
  17. #17  
    THE FCC GUIDELINE "SAR" MAY BE THE BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL! "NO" SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) RATING Can Be Called Safe!
    To Do So Is Bad Science, Bad Judgment & Recklessly Endangering Lives!


    [About SAR] SAR tests allow an industry to set theoretically acceptable human body radiation absorption simulations. SAR Test only measure temperature (thermal) increases, rather than a cell phone's actual microwave radiation emissions a user is exposed to. SARs 101

    To date, the effects of cell phone radiation upon cells and biological mechanisms in the body are being debated worldwide, as are the SAR standards themselves. More and more proof is piling up proving EMF's very dangerous far below levels of heating (Non Thermal Effects) that are measured in SAR testing! Many organization now insist SAR is inadequate for imposing Safety Guidelines!

    View health effects found relevant to SAR levels absorbed! Click Here

    Editors Note:
    The thermal and non-thermal dividing line currently used as the basis for safety standards of radio frequency radiation exposures (SAR) is no more than a "red herring," a distraction from the publics understanding of the actual health effects of microwave radio frequency radiation and therefore our ability to protect the public.. It increasingly appears invalid to distinguish ionizing from non-ionizing radiation with respect to their health effects.

    Bottom line... Cell phone radiation in not safe for everyone! We honestly don't know who will be affected by the cell phones microwave RF Radiation exposure because everyone's DNA is different but we do know some people are affected even today!! Just as some people can die from bee stings and some don't. We just don't know if you'll be safe using a cell phone and neither does anyone else... including the FCC, FDA, the cell phone manufacturers and all the "so called experts"!

    After all, how many other products have we been told were "safe". by Industries and government alike, that later turned out to be be toxic, dangerous... even fatal?

    Will cell phones join these killers on the "Gee, we thought it was safe" list? We'd say so, furthermore no one can prove to RF Safe that they are not one of the largest newly growing health threat we face today! It may take years, even decades, before all of the research has been accumulated and the truth becomes known.

    Is the clock ticking for cell phone users? It may well be your clock ticking. Please... don't allow yourself to become a statistic!

    Do your best to stay up-to-date on the wireless EMF hazards we face today!

    If your shopping for cellular shop with us! We sell our cell phones as safe as possable!

    PLEASE Be RF Safe To Be Sure!

    See DNA damage from exposure to under so-called safe levels of cell phone radiation
  18. #18  
    Originally posted by Wood Mountain
    First it was Saccharin, then Aspartame, then Cellular radiation levels....what's next Mutant Sperm Syndrome?

    Cancer or not I'm using my phone without hesitation.

    Only you can decide if you can live with the possibility of an unknown risk from cell phone use. If you are concerned, you can reduce your risk by limiting the length of your cell phone calls and using "hands-free" devices that keep cell phones away from your head and body.

    I think there's more of a chance of getting hurt in a traffic accident then worrying about cancer that one-in-four of us will get anyway. Morbid thought.....

    Check your statistics more carefully !

    Statistics must be close to 100%, for people talking on mobile phones without headsets or speakerphones !


    Your talking car crashes, not deaths, how many people walked away from Brain Cancer ?
    Last edited by dlbrummels; 01/24/2004 at 09:06 PM.
  19. #19  
    >The Treo 600 is WAY WAY WAY up on the top of the list! Ack!!!

    The way the original post was worded, when I first read it, I thought the T600 must be number one on the list, miles ahead of the second place phone in radiation levels. But for those who don't get around to looking at the chart itself, that's not the case.

    The T600 is towards the higher end of a narrow range of radiation levels, but there are a number of phones on the list with higher levels.

    Radiation levels should be a concern for all mobile phone users, but I just wanted to make sure people didn't get the impression that the T600 was way out of bounds.
  20. #20  
    dlbrummels, I'm not sure why you're quoting a huge chunk of an anti-RF company site (the post with "RF Safe" info), unless you're involved with that company. Your post says "shop with us". So how can you irresponsibly advocate using headphones/buds when your site sells products to counteract the RF issues related to those accessories?

    This is totally not a flame, I'm just trying to understand your situation and help people get information that is as complete (if not as accurate) as possible. It's even easier to discount companies than it is to discount governments, especially with so much sensationalism surrounding the subject.
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions