Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 76 of 76
  1. #61  
    George,

    It is awesome to have you contributing to this forum. Now you sound like a guy we can put some confidence in!

    Could you please shed some light on statements made by organizations like RFSafe.com? The statements seem valid, but I never quite trust someone who is making statements that create a necessity to buy the products being sold. Sure, they could just be making it easy for people to protect themselves, but I'm always skeptical. (Supposedly the Wall Street Journal has given them glowing reviews, but I have been unable to find them.)

    RFsafe articles

    1. Corded headsets increase radiation exposure

    2. Faraday Effect: Increased RF radiation inside a vehicle (trapped radiation)

    3. Researchers at Sweden's Lund University prove cell phone brain damange

    4. DNA Damage From Cell Phone Radiation

    5. Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory (University of Washington in Seattle) show DNA damange from cell phone usage

    Is this all hype or is there any truth to it? I'm assuming you'll tell me it's all hype - at least that's what I'm hoping!

    I'm especially interested in the "studies" on corded headsets concentrating radiation in the head and the "Farady Effect" of radiation increasing in a car.

    Thanks for all of your input.
  2. #62  
    I keep mine in my front pocket (while using bluetooth headset), hoping that it will have the added benefit of radiation induced birth control.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by mobileman
    Umm sorry, but the CDMA version is still very high. The lowest 650 is the gsm running on the 1900 frequency (tmobile). That gives you a sar of about .94. The sprint reading is 1.43. Cingular is 1.51.
    Cingular uses both 1900 and 850, both in some markets, in others it is just on freq. band. So it would only be the reading for Cingular you quote above if you are on a 850 Mhz tower.
    Treo 650 GSM
  4. #64  
    god, I'm so glad I didn't get the Cingular 650. What's the big difference between the GSM 650 and the Sprint 650 that would cause that much greater radiation levels, anyway???
  5. holmes4's Avatar
    Posts
    982 Posts
    Global Posts
    984 Global Posts
    #65  
    Different frequency, different modulation type.
  6. #66  
    if anybody happens to get cancer due to their phone it's comforting to know that a palm app is available to help

    http://www.treocentral.com/content/Stories/547-1.htm
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Exciter
    This is not good. GSM Treo 650 has a SAR Level of 1.51

    Ten highest-radiation cell phones (U.S.)

    What a piece of ****!
    Treo 700p, 650p 600p, 300p, IIIc, III, Vx, USR Palm Pilot, Newton Message Pad 130, Newton Message Pad 120, (Was there a MP 100?), HP Calculator, Pencil and Paper, Chisel and Rock ....
  8. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by varoomba
    George,

    It is awesome to have you contributing to this forum. Now you sound like a guy we can put some confidence in!

    Could you please shed some light on statements made by organizations like RFSafe.com? The statements seem valid, but I never quite trust someone who is making statements that create a necessity to buy the products being sold.
    Thank you for the compliment.

    Devices that "help" with RF fall in three camps:

    1) Headsets which keep the antenna far from the brain (the obvious solution) -- any headset does this.

    And by the way when the phone is on stand by the fields are so much lower than in a call. So the only thing I do is use a headset and not put the phone on my lap.

    2) Little "diodes" or "stickers" or "chips" ... they are all of course completely ... well ask the manufacturer if ANY meter that YOU can hold in your hand will show a difference. They all talk about "their lab research" but can you see the needle go down with your eyes? No. Not a single device.

    3) The plates and extensions to the antennas and other "surface treatments" to the phone. The problem with those devices is that when the phone sees interference it jacks up the amount of RF it puts out. So these manufacturers set up lab experiments and they measure 1 spot and they might see the needle go down. But RF is like a cloud, and when the phone gets upset by feeling intereference it can put out 2, 3 to 5 times more RF trying to compensate. In other words, the phone companies spend a lot of time optimizing things and here comes a third party adding plates and such. And those can backfire in my opinion.

    RF is a very complex issue. An RF antenna is $ 10,000 and the phone sends energy to space and also to ground (your hand). The RF cloud is dynamic, complex, moving, fluffy, and any instrument you insert changes it.

    Manufacturers always try to keep the battery lasting as long as possible, minimizing RF output. When a protective device affects reception the phone's crude compensation algorithm always jacks up the power to insure better reception.

    And again, the SAR readings change with slight angle adjustments. I consider them irrelevant as they are quite arbitrary, sensitive to angles of the phone vs. the head. If you are concerned about SAR use a headset. But to be concerned with SAR and use a low SAR phone is to miss the point. A headset brings the SAR to almost 0.

    So messing with the phone is in my opinion opening Pandora's box.
    Last edited by mgauss; 02/19/2005 at 01:53 AM.
  9. Exciter's Avatar
    Posts
    344 Posts
    Global Posts
    366 Global Posts
       #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by mgauss
    Thank you for the compliment.

    Devices that "help" with RF fall in three camps:

    1) Headsets which keep the antenna far from the brain (the obvious solution) -- any headset does this.

    And by the way when the phone is on stand by the fields are so much lower than in a call. So the only thing I do is use a headset and not put the phone on my lap.

    2) Little "diodes" or "stickers" or "chips" ... they are all of course completely ... well ask the manufacturer if ANY meter that YOU can hold in your hand will show a difference. They all talk about "their lab research" but can you see the needle go down with your eyes? No. Not a single device.

    3) The plates and extensions to the antennas and other "surface treatments" to the phone. The problem with those devices is that when the phone sees interference it jacks up the amount of RF it puts out. So these manufacturers set up lab experiments and they measure 1 spot and they might see the needle go down. But RF is like a cloud, and when the phone gets upset by feeling intereference it can put out 2, 3 to 5 times more RF trying to compensate. In other words, the phone companies spend a lot of time optimizing things and here comes a third party adding plates and such. And those can backfire in my opinion.

    RF is a very complex issue. An RF antenna is $ 10,000 and the phone sends energy to space and also to ground (your hand). The RF cloud is dynamic, complex, moving, fluffy, and any instrument you insert changes it.

    Manufacturers always try to keep the battery lasting as long as possible, minimizing RF output. When a protective device affects reception the phone's crude compensation algorithm always jacks up the power to insure better reception.

    And again, the SAR readings change with slight angle adjustments. I consider them irrelevant as they are quite arbitrary, sensitive to angles of the phone vs. the head. If you are concerned about SAR use a headset. But to be concerned with SAR and use a low SAR phone is to miss the point. A headset brings the SAR to almost 0.

    So messing with the phone is in my opinion opening Pandora's box.
    They sell a product called Wire Guard . A ferrite clamp that you install on your corded earpiece. Does it do what they claim? Thanks!
    Treo 650 unlocked & locked with Cingular
  10. #70  
    You might be able to buy round ferrite cores at the electronic surplus stores for around a few cents. They are used to keep PC cables from radiating too much RF to pass FCC certification, so they might work on cell frequencies by looping the headset cable through a few times near the plug. YMMV.
  11. #71  
    People, people, people.....LISTEN.....I truly think that your chances of dying from the radiation emitted by your cellphone is lower than the odds of getting hit by a person in their car whilst using their cellphone.....
    Regards,

    2smart4phone
  12. #72  
    2smart is correct - the odds of getting cancer from a cell phone are statistically non existent. Any study producing cancer in rats from cell phone radiation has not been able to be repeated because they are generally poorly done. You stand a much higher risk of developing cancer if you spend just a few seconds in the sun. A very good paper on the physics and chemistry of the possibilities is here:

    http://www.radres.org/rare_151_05_0513.pdf

    Long story short - driving to work is millions of times more dangerous than using your cell phone for a lifetime. (I'm an actuary )
  13. Minsc's Avatar
    Posts
    967 Posts
    Global Posts
    974 Global Posts
    #73  
    MGauss, can you explain why SAR levels (generally speaking, not just for Treo's) seem to be slighly higher for CDMA handsets vs. GSM?
    According to the spec, CDMA phones at their MAXIMUM power setting can only put out 200 milliWatts of power. (much, much less when in a decent coverage area) This is very minimal power, and just a fraction of what GSM phones emit. I *think* most GSM phones crank out around 1 Watt on average.

    Yet despite this fairly considerable difference in power output, there seems to be no similar relationship to the SAR levels. Is this just more proof that SAR is unreliable??
  14. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
    #74  
    No I cannot explain it. I'm an expert in making gauss meters, not in SAR RF testing (different PhDs). But I do think that SAR is an arbitrary test, in many ways: the angles, the distances, the frequencies, the jelly, the type of phone call they use, the reception at the SAR site, all these things make SAR testing suceptible to one variable changing things.

    From a common sense point of view, most phones work similarly at a certain range, meaning the energy required for the transmission is similar. And most phones (all) emit the energy at the tip of the antenna, and the field strenght drops very quickly with distance.

    So bottom line the solution is a headset. Plain and simple. If you use a headset and put the phone away from your lap, you are OK.

    Any other issues are irrelevant: protection devices, SAR, ferrites, ring modes, GSM vs. CDMA, all those things still make it so that if you hold the phone to your head you are getting quite a bit of mW/cm2 onto the brain. And with a headset you just don't.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by superjimbo801
    I keep mine in my front pocket (while using bluetooth headset), hoping that it will have the added benefit of radiation induced birth control.
    maybe that is why palm one is heading to china
    Naveen

    Current:Cingular 8525 w/Faria R32

    Next Phone:
    Something from HTC because Palm sucks, so I want a Touch Pro, Touch HD, or a Treo Pro.
  16. Minsc's Avatar
    Posts
    967 Posts
    Global Posts
    974 Global Posts
    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by mgauss
    No I cannot explain it. I'm an expert in making gauss meters, not in SAR RF testing (different PhDs). But I do think that SAR is an arbitrary test, in many ways: the angles, the distances, the frequencies, the jelly, the type of phone call they use, the reception at the SAR site, all these things make SAR testing suceptible to one variable changing things.

    From a common sense point of view, most phones work similarly at a certain range, meaning the energy required for the transmission is similar. And most phones (all) emit the energy at the tip of the antenna, and the field strenght drops very quickly with distance.

    So bottom line the solution is a headset. Plain and simple. If you use a headset and put the phone away from your lap, you are OK.

    Any other issues are irrelevant: protection devices, SAR, ferrites, ring modes, GSM vs. CDMA, all those things still make it so that if you hold the phone to your head you are getting quite a bit of mW/cm2 onto the brain. And with a headset you just don't.

    Ok, thanks. I think your last paragraph sums it up though.
    I was perusing through some technical research on cell phone radiation a few weeks back, and there was a scientist who was mentioning that even holding the phone just slightly further away from your head than normal can reduce the radiation considerably. I think he was saying for every couple inches it gets reduced by a factor of 10 or so....
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions