Living with mobile phones and their radiation

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The recently reposted article http://www.sott.net/articles/show/152196-Mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-
Flashback: Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'
about the research on the neglected influence cellphones can have on health gave rise to efforts in the direction of finding out, if I could at least minimize the impact in my own life, because it is not realistic that one can completely avoid using or being exposed to cellphones or other pieces of electronics with similar effects. Below follows the reflections.

In the transcript there is mentioned a four meter safety distance. Could one substantiate that by measuring the levels of radiation at varying distances and directions from the phone during standby and when communicating? And are the radiation levels the same as in 98 when the transcript about the four meters came out.

Would anyone know, if someone has done the research or where one might be able to buy measuring technolgy or how much it would cost.

About the harmful effects on health from exposure there probably is a range of susceptibility. Some will be able to talk on phones all their lives without much effect, others are not be so resistent.

Some told me that Blue Tooth helps to lessen the radiation, but my cell phone is an old Nokia 3410, so without Blue Tooth, what I have been doing since I first noticed the damaging influence is to plug in an earphone. That is a bit unhandy to fiddle with all the wires, which often do not last long, but what to do?

Most of the time when not in use and when at home, I put it away so that it is not so close. Similarly
when I walk and need to have it along, I put it in a bag.

What the article made me think about is where I place the phone in the flat. I manage to put it four meters away from me, but on closer inspection it was probably close to the neighbour behind the wall. And if there had been people above or below, how close would it have been to them?

Have you ever noticed how the computer speakers, or is it the netconnection is interfered with, if an sms gets sent or a call is in progess. Sometimes one hears it on TV or the radio too, whem somebody close to the studio electronics gets a buzz on his cell. A friend told me his flash or diskette does not save information well, if a cellphone is active and too close.

When I am in line in the shop or in the bus and the phones are in use, how does that influence us. Or should I ask how, much do I contribute to the environment by having my cell switched on in public or crowded places. These are ethical questions. And should I aim for a profession and living environment where I am less exposed to cell radiation? This could be a question about life path.

With the above thoughts in mind I recalled the service provider has an electronic secretary service that can receive calls, when one is out of reach, or occupied, or if one on in fact wishes to redirect all calls to the electronic answering machine.

On the website of the provider the codes were explained. And to make it easier instead of going through the Menu and Settings and Call Divert etc. I put the codes into the mobile phone address list giving them numbers for names so they are easy to access and I do not have to scroll much. I guess with a better machine one could give them voicetags too. And next to the address entry for activating the codes, there are the codes to cancell the programming.

So this flashback article about cellphone is about to improve my life. I can now switch on the call divert options I like EASILY. And if I switch off the phone and divert is on, in the morning I can take out the numbers that called in the night even if they did not leave a message.

For the answering message I have skipped a long introduction. The message is simple: "SMS or leave message" No name or excuses for not being around. People will know me from the voice.

Any more ideas?

Here is the quote from the transcripts:
980815 said:
Q: (L) This guy thinks that there is a rather limited number of aliens, and that people ought to get together and resist this threat because our numbers are greater. Is that, in fact, correct?
A: Not point. The question of the hour is: what is the motive?
Q: (L) Okay, what is the motive?
A: Build a house step by step, and when it is finished, you can move into the neighborhood and out of the motel.
Q: (L) Oh jeez. So, these are a bunch of aliens hanging out in 'motels' waiting for their house to be built. That does not sound good.
A: Many of you have recently become "bedazzled" by the "information superhighway," and its accompanying computer hardware. Gee, we wonder why?
Q: (L) Well, you told us to network. We have been networking like crazy, digging up information, reading and comparing. Yes, there is a ton of garbage out there, but if we don't ask, how will we know?
A: Point was: who is manipulating thee? Not so much you specifically, but the others? So many kids and kids-at- heart are thunderstruck by techno-sensory toys. Those cellular phones, those pagers and the Christmas toy computers... They are like, so cool!
Q: (L) So what are you implying about these techno toys?
A: Ponder.
Q: (L) Give me a clue. A word, something to point me in the right direction.
A: Fuzzy jello-brained kids.
Q: (L) Are you saying that pagers and cell phones, and techno toys that kids get for Christmas can have effects on them that turn their brains to jello?
A: In a figurative sense. All this technology represents a Brave New World. Like Huxley said: Woe is to those who have been led to eat their brains for lunch.
Q: (L) My kids have pagers. Are pagers, in particular...
A: What do you think comprises the signal content?
Q: (L) I don't know. What does comprise the signal content?
A: Microwaves.
Q: (L) What do these microwaves do to the individual?
A: Contour brain cell structure.
Q: (L) Do they emit a signal continuously, or only when they are being used?
A: Wave cycle low to high.
Q: (L) Well, that's not good. How close does the pager have to be to you to have this effect?
A: Four meters. Cell phones too and television and computer screens can be transmitted through thusly.
Q: (L) Is there any kind of device that we can build or purchase that can emit a blocking signal?
A: Knowledge protects.
Q: (L) When you say 'contouring brain cell structure,' what would be evidence or results of such effects?
A: Increasingly narrow outlooks and being unable to employ discriminatory thinking.
Q: (L) Confusion?
A: No. Just lack of depth and breadth to one's mental and psychic abilities.
Knowledge protects, implies awareness and resistance. Are computers and cellphones on the same level? If there is a choice between working on a computer and using a cell phone, I prefer the computer, how about you?
thorbiorn
 

Rabelais

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Cell phone popped corn and hard boiled eggs made a recent internet splash, along with lurid graphics depicting the tumors that were now allegedly thriving in your head. Oh the fear. Then comes the debunking, by snopes no less:

_http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp

There, now that this "urban legend" is put to rest we can all go out and buy the newest and even more powerful wireless gadget. See, they won't give you brain tumors like those tinfoil hat wearers warned. The rest of that stuff that they natter on about; 911, comets and asteroids, psychopaths, etc, is probably all bunk too.

Pay no attention to the "lack of depth and breadth" in your "mental and psychic abilities". Its just all in your head. That Krispy Kreme sign cum cell tower, across the street from that church steeple cum cell phone tower are harmless and were put there solely for our convenience... aesthetically and tastefully blended into your surroundings. No more "dropped calls".

Its no matter that your thoughts are no longer your own, at least you need not worry any further about that silly cell phone tumor nonsense... or any of the rest of that Chicken Little stuff.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
An interesting collection of excerpts, links and comments can be found on this site:

http://iddd.de/umtsno/60krebs5.htm

in on several other web pages linked:

http://iddd.de/

The text is partly in English, partly in German (with pieces in Polish as well, but only once ine a while).
 

manitoban

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
treesparrow said:
Mobile phone radiation is a possible cancer risk, warns WHO

A review of published evidence suggests there may be some risk of cancer from using a mobile phone

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/31/mobile-phone-radiation-cancer-risk

So the WHO finally came clean about cell phones and cancer, just at the time that radiation from Japan is spreading all over the world and no doubt there will be a huge increase in cancers and related illnesses.
 

mb

The Living Force
manitoban said:
[So the WHO finally came clean about cell phones and cancer, just at the time that radiation from Japan is spreading all over the world and no doubt there will be a huge increase in cancers and related illnesses.
Only a little, at least according to the New York Times version. Acknowledging a risk on a par with drinking coffee is not exactly coming clean. But it is helpful to draw attention to the risks. My observation is that most people I see using cell phones still routinely hold the stupid things next to their skulls.
 

manitoban

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Megan said:
manitoban said:
[So the WHO finally came clean about cell phones and cancer, just at the time that radiation from Japan is spreading all over the world and no doubt there will be a huge increase in cancers and related illnesses.
Only a little, at least according to the New York Times version. Acknowledging a risk on a par with drinking coffee is not exactly coming clean. But it is helpful to draw attention to the risks. My observation is that most people I see using cell phones still routinely hold the stupid things next to their skulls.

Yes, it's definitely not exactly coming clean, but my thought was more about the announcement timing - they've known it for years but why now? Could it be that they are trying to divert attention from the cancers that will be caused by radiation from breached nuclear reactors? That's not to say cell phones don't cause cancer, they do, but denying the nuclear cause may be more important to the PTB.
 

mb

The Living Force
manitoban said:
Yes, it's definitely not exactly coming clean, but my thought was more about the announcement timing - they've known it for years but why now? Could it be that they are trying to divert attention from the cancers that will be caused by radiation from breached nuclear reactors? That's not to say cell phones don't cause cancer, they do, but denying the nuclear cause may be more important to the PTB.
I don't know. I heard a researcher talking about the risk on NPR (US National Public Radio). Her research had uncovered some "unusual" things going on in living tissue in response to cell phone radiation. It didn't exactly prove anything, but she personally said would use a headset rather than than wait and find out what it means.

The information we have about headsets isn't exactly clear either, but if you are going to use a cell phone it is a good idea to take precautions. The greatest concern, I think, is the lifetime exposure for people who start using cell phones when they are children.

As for radiation exposure, there have been media stories about it occasionally so it is not entirely hushed up. Increased amounts of radioactive iodine have turned up in California kelp, something I often have with breakfast. I like to "age" it for a week or two to be safer, and I am cutting back on the amount I eat. The best thing might be to avoid it, I suppose. Most of the kelp I eat comes from Maine, though (east coast).
 

3DStudent

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Exposed to multiple cell phones

Hello all, I wanted to network about this, because it is of concern to me. Last week I was wiping the memory on a bunch of cell phones at work, over 100. I did this just a little Wednesday, and most of Thursday and Friday. It wasn't until Friday that I remembered the WHO declaring the effects of cell phones, that it clicked what I was doing.

I had about 10 of them in front of me at a time, and they all had full bars. I don't think they transmitted any data though, as I remember that British Intelligence guy said that standby calculator functions were relatively ok.

But I did get fatigued and a headache while doing this. I had some NAC with me so I took one on Friday, and I had a bottle with about 2 grams of vitamin C that I drank. I did a sauna session for the first time in a while yesterday and tried to put my head in the last 5 minutes. I should have done less phones at one time, but I remembered the effects of what I was doing kind of late, and just tried to get it over with quickly.

Yesterday I had some sharp pains in my left forehead and temple every so often. It also feels like my temple is more sore than the other side. I'm not totally freaking out, because the pain has gone away, but I still feel like a pressure or sensation on that left area of my head. I'm thinking I'll wait a bit and see if that goes away before I go to the doctor. Any comments are appreciated.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Re: Exposed to multiple cell phones

3D Student said:
Hello all, I wanted to network about this, because it is of concern to me. Last week I was wiping the memory on a bunch of cell phones at work, over 100. I did this just a little Wednesday, and most of Thursday and Friday. It wasn't until Friday that I remembered the WHO declaring the effects of cell phones, that it clicked what I was doing.

I had about 10 of them in front of me at a time, and they all had full bars. I don't think they transmitted any data though, as I remember that British Intelligence guy said that standby calculator functions were relatively ok.

But I did get fatigued and a headache while doing this. I had some NAC with me so I took one on Friday, and I had a bottle with about 2 grams of vitamin C that I drank. I did a sauna session for the first time in a while yesterday and tried to put my head in the last 5 minutes. I should have done less phones at one time, but I remembered the effects of what I was doing kind of late, and just tried to get it over with quickly.

Yesterday I had some sharp pains in my left forehead and temple every so often. It also feels like my temple is more sore than the other side. I'm not totally freaking out, because the pain has gone away, but I still feel like a pressure or sensation on that left area of my head. I'm thinking I'll wait a bit and see if that goes away before I go to the doctor. Any comments are appreciated.

EM radiation is getting very hard to avoid these days. Living in an apartment building is annoying; even if your own space is clear of microwave broadcasters, the person in the apartment next to yours might have a wireless router buzzing away directly behind the wall at the head of your bed. Riding a city bus might expose you to a dozen people texting or playing with their iPhones, etc.

The four meter danger zone as indicated by the C's is useful to keep in mind. I sleep with my head toward the interior of the room, not against a wall. Not just because one doesn't always know what's on the other side, but also because walls will often have running between plaster sheets electrical wiring, which presents a similar problem.

I recommend to everybody who is interested three things: 1. Awareness. Read up on the subject and understand the risks. 2. Take immediate cautions which are possible, and 3. start to guide your life toward a strategic enclosure which takes EM radiation into account.

In your case, point number 2 might include learning how the cell phones you work with function, reading their manuals to see how they broadcast, if they do so when 'off', etc., and then if you cannot be re-assigned to another job, set them up to wipe and then leave the room.

Point 3 for you might include starting to look for work where you are not exposed to microwave pollution at all, and adopting a lifestyle where you can avoid cell phones and wifi, etc.

Robert O. Becker demonstrated in some of his studies that cancer cells increase their growth rate significantly when exposed to certain frequencies and power levels of EM radiation, but even so, I tend not to think that brain cancer is the big issue with EM pollution, and that if it comes up, it is the result of many years of thoughtless exposure along with other poor health practices, (eating bad food, not sleeping enough, lack of exercise, etc.) It should be noted that a few cells in the human body will go cancerous as a natural result of life, (cosmic radiation and simple sunlight can blast DNA), but that our immune system is in fact quite well-adapted to dealing with this problem. I think what has happened is that the frequency of cells going cancerous has risen a lot over the years as a result of pollution of various types, (not the least of which being nuclear testing!), and that our diet and general state of health has deteriorated, and so there is a greater chance of a weak immune system being caught off guard and cancer cells getting a toe-hold.
 

3DStudent

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks for the info Woodsman. I totally lacked the awareness and forgot that it would be a greater than normal exposure. I could try sleeping differently, but it would feel awkward. I've thought about getting silk pajamas to take a break from EMF at night. As for looking for different work, I just got the job and I think this task would be a rare occurrence.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Below are a few comments on Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a figure that tells something about the radiation that is absorbed by the body from a working cell phones under the worst circumstances. In this post, I did not manage to get much beyond a discussion of SAR, what it is, how it is measured, why the values can differ between regions, and where to locate the SAR values for your phone if you are interested.

In this article Top 10 Best Mobile Phones For Poor Reception Areas, they say about SAR
The SAR or Specific Absorption Rate is a value required by the FCC by cellphone manufacturers. It records the amount of radio-frequency energy or RF that emits from the device. Some research has shown that higher SAR values indicate a poorly operating antenna, which leads to reduced reception quality. If you're in the market for a new phone, read about the SAR value. A low value may point to a better antenna design and less radiation near your body.
In this article by by Priya Pathak from India Today published on September 17, 2017, one finds:
What is SAR?
When electromagnetic waves are received and transmitted there is a loss of some per cent and this lost percentage of electromagnetic waves is absorbed by the tissues around it. SAR value is the rate at which the body absorbs this lost electromagnetic waves.
In What Is SAR (Specific Absorption Rate)? by Hussain Kanchwala updated on: 4 Jan 2021, there is:
Generally, when a device is sent for a SAR evaluation, the device is placed against a representation of a human head in a talking position. The main motive of the SAR testing is to determine highest radiation levels from the smartphone in the worst-case scenario. Measurements are taken at various distances between the phone and the body—to simulate the way we hold our phones in real life using robotic arrangements. The largest value obtained from this experiment defines the SAR value of the tested cell phone.
The equipment that is used to measure SAR values
Here is an example of the equipment used:
DASY8 Module SAR / APD is optimized for demonstration of compliance with local and whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR) limits from 4 MHz to 10 GHz and the absorbed power density (APD) from 6 GHz to 30 GHz. The module scans the field in the entire or in a sub-volume of a phantom filled with tissue simulating liquid and determines the peak spatial SAR directly without any approximation. It is the most accurate SAR tool available on the market and considered as the gold standard in compliance testing.
A company that offers SAR testing using the above equipment:
SAR Testing
Eurofins E&E North America’s SAR facility is fully equipped with a Schmid & Partner Engineering AG (SPEAG™) DASY professional system.
[...]
The DASY is capable of evaluating products for SAR to all the global SAR standards for both head and body-worn devices.
Eurofins has the accreditation’s and experience to efficiently and cost-effectively perform Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) Testing up to 6GHz for the United States, Canada & Europe
Another company that is recognized as capable of such test for a company explains:
Intertek provides Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) Testing on portable and mobile telecommunications equipment. Your product will be tested with state-of-the-art equipment, using cutting edge technology, providing you with accurate and dependable RF exposure measurements.
Returning to, What Is SAR (Specific Absorption Rate)? by Hussain Kanchwala one finds that the SAR values are measured differently for products in the US and India, and in Europe:
Now, in the United States, phones need to have a SAR value below or at 1.6 W/kg, taken over the volume containing 1 gram of tissue mass. In Europe, the SAR limit is 2 W/kg, but it takes into consideration a sample size of 10 grams of tissue. A few years back, India switched from the EU limits to the US limits for mobile handsets. TEC SAR laboratory is responsible for carrying out SAR testing in India.
What may a SAR report include?
The case does not involve a cell phone, but a hearing aid from the company Oticon but may give an idea of what a report may include. It is a bit like the physics report that some may have done in school. In one place, there was some mathematics regarding how SAR is defined:
FCC test report Oticon N01.png
By now it is clear from having read about the testing equipment, the way they describe SAR in the advertisement and the report, that the body is modelled as a liquid. Further, in the report one learns what the liquid is:
FCC test report Oticon N01-tissue.png
It is possible to model the amount of energy absorbed, and even then some individuals have more or this tissue and less of that, but not what that energy does to the tissue, beyond heating up the body when it is absorbed, as if that was the only consideration. For that another kind of research is needed.

About the limits and the units
A limit of 2W/kg means that a sample of 10 gram should not absorb more than 0.02 W or 20 mW. It does not sound of much. 1 Watt is 1 Joule per second. One gram of fat holds 36,000 Joules and one gram of carbohydrate contains 16,000 Joule, though even such a tiny amount of energy can have effect if it is concentrated as it happens in a laser. Another way of understanding a measure of say 1W/kg is that the span of an hour, it will add up to 3600 W, or in about four and a half hour as much as one gram of carbohydrates. If during a day, hours are spent on the phone, it will add up to something. How the body with proteins, DNA etc will react to that will be different from person to person, and different form a solution that simulates the mere amount of absorbed energy.

In Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You published by the FCC, they write:
What SAR Shows The FCC requires that cell phone manufacturers conduct their SAR testing to include the most severe, worst-case (and highest power) operating conditions for all the frequency bands used in the USA for that cell phone. The SAR values recorded on the FCC’s authorization and in the cell phone manual to demonstrate compliance with Commission rules indicate only the highest single measurement taken for each frequency range that the particular model uses. FCC approval means that the device will never exceed the maximum levels of consumer RF exposure permitted by federal guidelines, but it does not indicate the amount of RF exposure consumers experience during normal use of the device. While only the maximum SAR values are used for FCC approval, all test reports submitted by the manufacturer are available in full for public inspection on the Commission’s website.
And further down:
What SAR Does Not Shows

The SAR value used for FCC approval does not account for the multitude of measurements taken during the testing. Moreover, cell phones constantly vary their power to operate at the minimum power necessary for communications; operation at maximum power occurs infrequently. Consequently, cell phones cannot be reliably compared for their overall exposure characteristics on the basis of a single SAR value for several reasons (each of these examples is based on a reported SAR value for cell phone A that is higher than that for cell phone B):
• Cell phone A might have one measurement that was higher than any single measurement for cell phone B. Cell phone A would, therefore, have a higher reported SAR value than cell phone B, even if cell phone B has higher measurements than A in most other locations and/or usage configurations. In such a case, a user generally would receive more RF energy overall from cell phone B.
Cell phone A might communicate more efficiently than cell phone B, so that it operates at lower power than cell phone B would under comparable conditions. Consequently, a user would receive more RF energy overall from cell phone B.
The highest value from cell phone A might come from a position which the user seldom or never employs to hold a phone, whereas that user might usually hold a phone in the position that resulted in the highest value for cell phone B. Therefore, the user would receive the highest RF exposure that cell phone B delivers but would not receive the highest RF exposure that cell phone A delivers.
The above reads as if the SAR does not say much, because SAR values were measured by laboratory equipment under artificial circumstances.

GSMarena writes
Although the SAR is determined at the highest certified power level, the actual SAR level of the device while operating can be well below the maximum value. This is because GSM phones are designed to operate at multiple power levels so as to use only the power required to reach the network. In general, the closer you are to a wireless base station antenna, the lower the power output of the device and vice versa.
The "closer you are to the wireless base station"? If one only considers one's own phone, but what about the energy from the communications between the tower and other users, or is that without importance for the amount of energy absorbed by the user? Although the FCC and GSMarena points leave us with the impression that there are many variables, we might still like to find the SAR value for our phone.

Finding the SAR value for a phone.
As mentioned in the FCC document, the SAR values can be found in the manual for the phone, although I actually don't know if they are published for all countries in the world. Some brands might also include them in the specifications on their support sites, but even so, the SAR values differ between regions:

An example of how the SAR values differ between regions
The website Devicespecifications.com gives for Samsung Galaxy S20 SD865:
Head SAR (EU) 0.279 W/kg
Body SAR (EU) 1.525 W/kg
Head SAR (USA) 0.76 W/kg
Body SAR (USA) 1.01 W/kg
GSMarena lists similar values for Samsung Galaxy S20 under "Miscellaneous", but for some other brands they are not listed.

If you have an Android, you might access the SAR value by dialing *#07*, as suggested by Priya Pathak in the article from India Today. The shortcut works for Motorola Moto E7i Power, but not for the Samsung S20, or an old Samsung S4 so it can only be some models and brands.

A good source of information about SAR values (relevant to the EU) for both current and old models is, the German Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, but if you do not know German, you may need to find a way to translate the page. They have a number of articles about electromagnetic fields, and publish a list with SAR values for many phones. The latest update was in December 2020, so newer phones are not there. On the page you can select by brand, among those still sold (Aktuelles Modell) and among those no longer sold (Auslaufmodell). If you use the list, it might be helpful to know that the abbreviation k.A. corresponds to no information, perhaps there is only a strict requirement for the value near the heard? The German pages mentions:
The Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) has been collecting the SAR values of the cell phones available on the German market from the manufacturers of cell phones at regular intervals since 2002.
In the SAR search you will find - if available - the SAR values for
  • Talking on the phone with the cell phone to the ear
  • Operation while wearing the cell phone on the body
From their list with statistics, the following image presents the distribution among current models in their database:

Cell phones SAR values distribution.png

Searching in the list for low radiation phones gave the following result, which has "on the ear" in the left column and "on the body" in the right column.
Hersteller/TypSAR-Wert (am Ohr)SAR-Wert (am Körper)
Archos - Oxygen 57Aktuelles Modell0,180,5
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
Archos - Oxygen 63Aktuelles Modell0,230,46
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
Bea-fon - AL250Aktuelles Modell0,130,44
Bea-fon - C260Aktuelles Modell0,220,24
Bea-fon - C60Aktuelles Modell0,460,5
Caterpillar - CatS30Aktuelles Modell0,290,4
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Caterpillar - CatS50Aktuelles Modell0,40,42
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Gigaset - Gigaset GS290Aktuelles Modell0,460,44
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
Gigaset - Gigaset GS290Aktuelles Modell0,460,44
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
Globalstar - GSP-1700Aktuelles Modell0,010,35
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Panasonic - KX-TU329Aktuelles Modell0,280,49
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Panasonic - KX-TU339Aktuelles Modell0,280,49
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Panasonic - KX-TU349Aktuelles Modell0,280,47
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Phicomm - CLUE LAktuelles Modell0,430,49
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Samsung - Galaxy J3 (2016) DUOS (SM-J320F/DS)Aktuelles Modell0,480,43
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Simvalley Mobile - SPX-26 QuadCore 5.0Aktuelles Modell0,30,38
Simvalley Mobile - SPX-34 OctaCore 5.0Aktuelles Modell0,270,4
Sony Mobile - Xperia E5 (F3311)Aktuelles Modell0,460,46
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Sony Mobile - Xperia E5 (F3313)Aktuelles Modell0,380,45
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Sony Mobile - Xperia XA (F3111)Aktuelles Modell0,470,47
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
Wiko - U FEEL LITEAktuelles Modell0,40,49
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
ZTE - AXON ELITEAktuelles Modell0,170,49
(Messabstand: 1,5 cm)
ZTE - Blade L8Aktuelles Modell0,350,37
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
swisstone - SC 530Aktuelles Modell0,230,45
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
swisstone - SC 700Aktuelles Modell0,10,33
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
Stand vom: 15.12.202
If there are 765 current phones, and 25 are low SAR phones, then that is around 3 %. To get an idea of what high SAR values are, a different search yielded:
Allview - P7 ProAktuelles Modell1,82k.A.
Motorola - motorola edgeAktuelles Modell1,791,68
(Messabstand: 0,5 cm)
Allview - X4 SoulAktuelles Modell1,65k.A.
Whether you have a phone listed with a high or low SAR, and do not know how the phone reacts in practical situations, there are suggestions on the web about how to reduce the exposure.
 

Attachments

  • Good antennas 2021.png
    Good antennas 2021.png
    28.1 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:

Roadhizzy

Padawan Learner
Learn to pour Orgonite and "gift" all of the towers in the area.

Simple recipe is 50% metal shavings in Resin (epoxy/bondo etc) with a quartz point in the center to transduce the energy. Piezoelectric solidstate device
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In the last post, I was left with the impression that SAR as a measure of performance and safety had its limitations.
Below is a discussion of a paper that analyzes phones to find out which phones have efficient receivers and capable transmitters. It does not enter into a discussion of SAR, but I have entered the data for the tested phones.

Through a link in and article, WHICH TYPE OF SMARTPHONE GETS THE BEST RECEPTION? one can find the research by Professor Gert Frølund: Mobile Phone Antenna Performance 2016 published with the support of the Nordic Council of Ministers. The report was updated two years later in Mobile Phone Antenna Performance 2018 supported by the Danish state agency for energy.

Antenna quality and differences in reception and transmission between different mobile phones
Here are some interesting findings from this research by Gert Frølund from Aalborg University, which used a setup different from that used to measure SAR, and in fact does not even mention SAR in this report. To compensate, I have added SAR values to the list of phones tested, with links for reference.

You will read later on that the Doro 7070 is the phone with the best receiver and transmitter for ordinary calling, though not for data. It happens to also be the phone with the highest average SAR value (1.4 W/kg), compared to about 0.8 W/kg for the Samsung models. For this reason, I can not agree completely with a page like Smartphones with the best antennas which claims the research shows: "The higher the mobile radiation (SAR value), the worse is the quality of the mobile antenna."

The phones tested in the paper
DevicePhone model
1 SAR 1.16 W/kg; 1.63 W/kgDoro 7070
2 SAR 0.96 W/kg; 0.99 W/kgHuawei P10
3 SAR 1.14 W/kg; 1,20 W/kgHuawei P10 lite
4 SAR 0.76 W/kg; 1,26 W/kgHuawei P20 Pro
5 SAR 0.49 W/kg; 1.30 W/kgHuawei P9 lite mini
6 SAR 1.37 W/kg; 1.39 W/kgiPhone 7
7 SAR 1.32 W/kg; 1.36 W/kgiPhone 8
8 SAR 0.99 W/kg; 0.99 W/kgiPhone 8 Plus
9 SAR 0.92 W/kg; 0.95 W/kgiPhone X
10 SAR 0.99 W/kg; 0.99 W/kgiPhone XS Max
11 SAR 0.36 W/kg; 1.78 W/kgNokia 7 plus
12 SAR 1.33 W/kg; 1.38 W/kgOnePlus 6
13 SAR 0.32 W/kg; 1.27 W/kgSamsung Galaxy S8
14 SAR 0.37 W/kg; 1.18 W/kgSamsung Galaxy S9
15 SAR 0.29 W/kg; 1.35 W/kgSamsung Galaxy S9+
16 SAR 1.07 W/kg; 1.43 W/kgSony Xperia XA2

The receiver performance is evaluated in terms of the so-called Total Isotropic Sensitivity (TIS) for each frequency band. The lower the value of the TIS, the smaller the signal required by the phone for operation and the better the phone is at receiving in weak signal areas. Note that TIS is a negative number and -97 dBm is smaller than e.g. -90 dBm.
dBm is explained in the Wiki
dBm dB(mW) – power relative to 1 milliwatt. In the radio field, dBm is usually referenced to a 50 Ω load, with the resultant voltage being 0.224 volts.[62]
Should it be necessary to make the distinction, the number of decibels is written with additional significant figures. 3.000 dB corresponds to a power ratio of 10^3⁄10, or 1.9953, about 0.24% different from exactly 2, and a voltage ratio of 1.4125, 0.12% different from exactly √2. Similarly, an increase of 6.000 dB corresponds to the power ratio is10^6⁄10 ≈ 3.9811, about 0.5% different from 4.
This means that the difference in a signal with -78 dBm and -81 dBm is that the latter represents an effect that is almost half. If the increase is 6 dBm then close to four times more. If there is a difference of 10 dBm it would be 10^(10/10)=10 times, if it is 17dB then 10^(17/10)=50 times etc.

The German agency for radiation protection write in Tips for users of Smartphones and Tablets that the communication between the cell tower and phone is calibrated to use the least amount of energy, but how it is achieved differs. With the GSM protocol, the communication begins with the strongest signal that is then tuned down, while it for UMTS and LTE system works the opposite way. In other words, the phone would adjust the power to the need of the situation.
For the transmitter performance, the evaluation is in terms of the so-called Total Radiated Power (TRP). The higher the TRP, the stronger signal at the base station, and the better the connection.

The phones are also measured in free space, i.e. with no phantom hand or head present. By comparing the results obtained with and without the phantom present, the robustness of the antenna to the user’s influence can be seen. The difference between phantom present and free space is often called body loss.
The body loss is then the energy lost to the body, or can we say absorbed by the body or clothes? If a phone has a strong transmitter, it can potentially radiate more energy. If one is interested in absorbing little energy, one would like to know from which phone one absorbs less energy.

What was measured
All the values of measured receiver sensitivities (TIS) and transmitter powers (TRP) are listed in the tables below. The values are averages over all directions and both polarisations, for the so-called Total Isotropic Sensitivity (TIS) for receivers and Total Radiated Powers (TRP) for transmitters, defined in the CTIA test plan [CTIA18]. The values are in logarithmic scale, as customary for these measurements, and given in dBm values (dB above 1 mW). The best phone for receiving has the smallest value of TIS, i.e. the more negative number, since it requires the smallest signal for a satisfying connection. In contrast, higher values of the TRP means a stronger signal at the base station and a better connection. For data services TIS is measured and a bandwidth of 10 MHz is used for the LTE 700, LTE800 and LTE1800, and 20 MHz for LTE2600, as specified in the CTIA standard. The phones are sorted according to the performance in the most important system and band; GSM900 for the ability to transmit in the case of telephony.
The setup positions
mobilephonetest2018_1.png
Transmitter power (TRP) for the right hand:
mobilephonetest2018_2.png
The GSM900 was the most important band in 2018 in the country the report was done, but it may be different now and for other locations.

Transmitter power (TRP) for the left hand:
mobilephonetest2018_3.png
One could take the two above tables and then list the phones with the data for left hand, right hand. One could then calculate the actual energy transmitted for each position and find the difference by subtracting. This difference would be the energy that was lost just by changing the hand that holds the phone. Perhaps, some weaker phones would actually not deposit so much energy in absolute numbers as comparatively stronger phones, even if it can be called a design flaw to have a large difference between left and right.

What might differences mean for the reach of the phone? The iPhone 8 had a reading in the GSM900 band of 17.4 dBm in the right hand, and 10.5 dBm in the left hand. Since we are dealing in logarithms, this means that the phone transmits five times less energy to the tower when held in the left hand, which then could mean that more energy is captured or deflected by the hand. If the usual distance law applies, which it may not because of local obstructions and a moving user, but if it does, the intensity of a beam diminishes with the inverse of the distance from the tower squared. If twice further away, then the energy will be 1/(2^2)=1/4 or around a quarter per area unit. If this is really so, then the iPhone8 held in the left hand would reach correspondingly less by more than half compared to being held in the right hand.? I don't know what other considerations apply, but one should be able to reach the tower from further away with the right hand than with the left. One could even ask if the average women with a smaller hand can reach the tower from further way than the average man when using the same hand to hold the phone? And, does it happen a child can call home, but the connection goes, when adults pick up their phone? And, do people who are well nourished with BMI 30+ have more problems when they call, than those with a BMI in the emaciated range of 15. Of course, in many places, such possible differences would not show up because of the extensive coverage, but in areas in the countryside with poor coverage?


Next, the paper moves into data reception using the right hand.
mobilephonetest2018_4.png
From the experience with using left and right hand for calls, it might be expected that the differences would be similar with data transmission, but it was not mentioned. Notice next the improvements when the communication of data takes place in free space. The reception is better, more so in the LTE700 and LTE800 frequencies.

mobilephonetest2018_5.png
The points, I mentioned above as commentary are repeated in the discussion and the conclusion, though there are also additional points:
Discussion
From the table with the free space performance results it is clear that all phones perform very well if not used next to the human head and hand. Free space is the situation when the phone is used in, e.g., a hands-free installation. In addition, the performance of the worst performing phones is actually very good in free space.

The results clearly show that the performance of the different models vary considerably. Most variation is observed for the case of telephony while a significantly smaller variation is seen in the case of data services.
The variation among the phones for telephony depend mainly on the frequency bands. The largest variation is for the lower frequency bands with some 12-16 dB variation for the different systems and left or right hand usages. For the high bands the variation is some 8-10 dB.
It would be interesting to know if the phone one has is better when held in the right hand or the left hand.
The performance variation between left hand and right hand usage is very large for several cases. This shows that the antenna and/or the location of the antenna in some phones is not designed well.

The differences between free space and the hand-head results for the best phones are only some 6 dB. For the worst preforming phones the difference is some 16-18 dB at the GSM900 band. The worst performing phones typically only have very bad performance at one side of the head. A 17 dB reduced TRP performance is equivalent to a reduction of the received power at the base station of 50 times or, in other words, the phone must transmit with 50 times as much power to obtain the same power level at the base station.
Phones are getting better
The absolute performance is improved compared to the earlier study in 2016 [Ped16]. The best performing phones transmit some 2 dB more in the present study over all bands and systems compared to the 2016 study. The worse performing phones perform some 3 dB better across all bands and systems compared to the 2016 study. For the UMTS2100 system, the improvement is some 8 dB in the present study compared to the 2016 study.

For data services, the variation among the phones is lower than for telephony and always less than 5 dB, with only one exception in only one system and band, the UMTS900. The variation in free-space is only some 3 dB for the low bands (700, 800 and 900 band) and some 5 dB at the high bands.

The absolute performance and the spread in performance for data service is significantly better than in the last study in 2016 [Ped16]. The best phones are in average over the bands and systems some 1 dB better in the present study compared to the 2016 study. The worst preforming phones are for most bands some 4 dB better in the present study than in the 2016 study.
There are also differences in how well voice calls are handled by the data frequencies
The LTE system is designed for data only and initially it was not possible to make telephony calls. Later, a feature was included in the LTE standard called Voice over LTE (VoLTE). This feature is now used in many LTE networks and if enabled in the network and supported by the phone the data channels are used for telephony similar to services as Skype calls etc. The VoLTE service has not been tested in this study as not all phones support this feature and further it is possible to disable the VoLTE feature in the phone. Often the call-drops are fewer when not using VoLTE for the calls. In [DiP18] the VoLTE performance is investigated in details and it is seen that also very large variations is found in the case of VoLTE calls.
Though the phones are overall getting better, the following is actually worrying, considering the researcher had the phones given to him for the purpose of research, or were they added as a test, to see if he did his job?!?
All phones were initially tested in free space to ensure that they were fully functioning. As a result, 2 more phones were acquired as there were problems with the initially acquired phones. One phone model did only work at one of all its LTE bands where the second acquired phone of the same model did not show this problems.
If two out of 16 were only partially working, how many of the phones people buy actually only work partially, like 90 % of what they were designed to do? I'm sure many users would not notice, myself included.

Conclusions
For telephony a very large variation in the communication performance was found among the tested mobile phones. Up to 16 dB variation was seen which is even more that found in the previous investigations [Ped12, Ped13, Ped16].

The absolutely best phone for telephony is the Doro 7070 phone. The Doro has the best performance for all frequency bands and for both sides of the head. The Doro transmit some 3 dB better than all other phones in all bands and at both left and right side of the head, with only one exception. The extra 3 dB means doubling of the transmitter power, which is exceptional. The Doro is a feature phone and not a full smartphone. The best smartphones for telephony are the Samsung S8, S9 and S9+.

For several phones the telephony communication performance depends strongly on which side of the head the phone is used. Up to 10 dB variation in the low band (iPhone 8 plus) and up to 9 dB for the high band (iPhone 7) are seen.

Variation among phones for data service is significantly lower than for telephony. The variation is also significantly lower than what was seen in the earlier investigation [Ped16]. The absolute performance is also significantly better in the present study than in the 2016 study. For many phones the difference caused by the hand holding the phone compared to free-space is only 2-3 dB. All in all a very positive development in data service performance is observed. For the low bands, which generally provide the best coverage, the best phone for data calls is the Samsung S9+ and the worst is the iPhone XS Max.

Main conclusion is that the variation in communication performance among the tested mobile phones is very large and will result in a very large variation in perceived coverage. Earlier it has been demonstrated that a 7 dB difference in phone performance can results in a large reduction in coverage [Erst12]. It is recommended that a standard is set for the minimum accepted communication performance or at least the test results for each phone should be publicly available in order to guide the consumers when buying mobile phones.
One can discuss the quality of phones, though what the research also showed was that hands free actually is a good help for many phones.
 
Top Bottom