Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cell Phone Radiation Emission Tests Assume Use of Belt Clip

Posted by timothy on from the like-everyone-uses dept.

jfruh writes: Most Slashdotters rightfully roll their eyes when people panic about the "radiation" put out by cell phone. But there is a germ of truth to some of the nervous talk: when the FCC assesses how much radio-frequency radiation a phone user will absorb, they work on the assumption you'll be wearing it in a belt clip, rather than putting it in your pocket as most people do. With the size of some recent phones, I think assuming use of a backpack might be just as realistic.

8 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Does not really matter. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The belt clip keeps it closer to my genitalia. So I think that is the conservative testing location.

  2. Mechanism? by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 3, Informative

    While there's a European study suggesting that using a cell phone against your head increases your risk of brain cancer (by a factor of 2 I think), there's no known MECHANISM for this, since radio waves are not ionizing radiation.

    1. Re:Mechanism? by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Note, a multiple of a small number is still a small number. https://xkcd.com/1252/

    2. Re:Mechanism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No.

      What we know is that "P implies Q", where P=causation and Q=correlation.

      The fallacy everyone points out is "Q implies P". This is the CONVERSE of the above, and its truth is NOT implied by the above. That's what makes is a fallacy.

      However, "not-Q implies not-P" is the CONTRAPOSITIVE, and its truth IS implied by the above. Therefore, lack of correlation DOES imply lack of causation. h0oam1 is therefore correct.

  3. ..and so? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm just not sure why we should care. There are no known non-thermal effects of microwaves, and the thermal energy of a cell phone just isn't enough to pay attention to-- three watts, when it's transmitting at full power.

    http://physicsbuzz.physicscent...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  4. Re: Taking a good point and stretching it. by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://gizmodo.com/5853495/yes...

  5. Complete and Utter nonsense by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seriously, this is utter nonsense.

    Is SAR testing performed in body worn configuration using the belt clip? Sure it is. It is also done and various angles.

    It is also tested against the head. It is also tested with a 1-5 mm separation distance. It is also tested with direct contact, and against the head, and extremities.
    SAR is tested in a lot of configurations. Belt clips are just one of them.
    Also, the author of the article clearly does not understand waveforms.
    Putting a phone in your pocket does NOT mean that your exposure is higher than when using a belt clip having an 8mm separation distance. In fact, it is very often the case that the slight separation yields a higher power density than direct contact. This is of course due to the wavelength of that particular frequency.

  6. Re:..and so? (too many WATTS) by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, there should not be any phones transmitting at 3 watts.
    The highest in the US is GSM in the 850 MHz band. That is 2 watts, or 33 dBm.
    Of course, nowadays most phones are using either UMTS or LTE.

    So, in the same band, or any band for that matter will have a maximum output power of 24 dBm or 251 mW. Of course, by law you can transmit up to 7 Watts in some bands, but the networks do not allow for these high power class devices, so 24 dBm is the highest you will see as a consumer.