Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Radiation Emission Tests Assume Use of Belt Clip
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.
That was an example of taking a good point and stretching it... Even the biggest 'smart' phones are pocket phones.
Pocket or clip we are talking about non-ionizing em radiation.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
My thigh muscles might be slightly warmed. How terrible.
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.
Jeans and Khaki's that have the inside of the pocket lined with EMF blocking material. Just next to the skin, or it would block the phone from working.
Make a "pocket protector" version to use with any standard pair of pants.
it will never work... perfect for kickstarter.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
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
If they assumed a belt clip they most likely also assumed pleated polyester khaki pants.
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.
And by "gun" I mean gun.
Have gnu, will travel.
has the sheer volume of cancer risen in the United States in the last 20 years?
Also as people who are dying from other stuff decreases over time, cancer gets a crack at people who were otherwise knocked out by something else first.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Wrong!
You cannot "boost the radio" to get better reception. Reception is a function of the receiver and not one of output power. This is dictated by the gain of the antenna and receiver sensitivity. Depending on the band in use, that would be around -103 dBm TIS (Total Isotropic sensitivity).
Of course, this is an average in free space measured in a sphere. There will certainly be angles at which the performance is poor relative to the peak sensitivity.
You don't all use these: http://www.amazon.com/Cell-Pho... ????
Silence is a state of mime.
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.
Suppose some way beyond the worst case scenarios were proven, and doctors could assert, "Give up using cell phones cold turkey or you'll suffer the same health risks as smoking cigarettes." How many people heavily dependent on using cell phones would give them up? How many would be able to pry them from the fingers of their teenagers? I am guessing not many. Going out on the street whether driving, walking, or biking is also incredibly dangerous, well except maybe for Sweden eventually. But we do it anyways.
Here is the graph that should put this entire debate to rest. Even though the number of cell phones in use has skyrocketed since 1999 the incidence of brain cancer has not. If there was any causation one would expect an increase in brain cancer. That has not occurred. No correlation therefore no causation.
(please note that correlation can disprove causation but not prove causation)
It's either a use of quotes for emphasis when they should have been using either bold face or italics, or else it is offering to use the same term that the writer's source used (literaaly quoting someone else) while suggesting they would not use that terminology themselves
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No, proximity has a huge impact on harmfulness. Radiation effect is probably proportional to the inverse square of the distance (impact proportional to 1/dist^2). They should redo the test with 2mm distance from thigh skin.
WTF
I imagine there is a decent amount of time your phone is being held next to your head, right???? Why not test that!?
Seems like they are trying to avoid something here..
Can't anyone do simple arithmetic? Why not fear being illuminated by a flashlight? Ooooo, a death ray!
Non-ionizing radiation at a total radiated power order of watts. Why not worry about your microwave oven? Or turning on the lights when you come home in the evening. Or turning on the heat in your house? Or going outside on a sunny day? Or living in the mountains? Or living in a house with a concrete foundation? Or eating almost anything? Or getting hit by lightning? Or (fill in a huge, truly enormous list of things that are more plausible risk factors in human existence than cell phones even if you wear ten of them attached to a headband directly around your scalp).
Sigh. In fact, *SIGH*.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Actually, there should not be any phones transmitting at 3 watts.
Today, that is correct.
However, the first-generation analog cellular phones broadcast at a maximum of 3 watts. Only car-phones and bag-phones got that high, though.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You can hate the word all you want, but the truth is phones are quickly becoming ludicrous in size.
If they get any bigger, you can attach a handle and carry it around like a shield :|
I have a Galaxy S5 and absolutely hate its size. Seriously considering tossing it and switching back to something smaller that doesn't require a Bat Utility Belt to carry it around.
Honestly, if I could *find* a decent belt-clip for my phone (currently a galaxy S4) I would be in heaven. However, most of what I find are things that look nice but are fumbly as hell, or easily broken. Cheap plastic clips that tend to snag and snap also abound.
So the phone's in my pocket, where it mingles with my keys, often gets snagged inconveniently when I've got an important call, and may slightly affecting my fertility (not necessarily due to radiation, but heat generation is also a factor).
If anyone can recommend a decent, durable case for Samsung phones I'd be happy. Hell, I might consider upgrading if it's for a decent phone other than the one I currently have (no iDevices though, please).
Wrong! You cannot "boost the radio" to get better reception. Reception is a function of the receiver and not one of output power. This is dictated by the gain of the antenna and receiver sensitivity. Depending on the band in use, that would be around -103 dBm TIS (Total Isotropic sensitivity).
Of course, this is an average in free space measured in a sphere. There will certainly be angles at which the performance is poor relative to the peak sensitivity.
True, the phone cannot "boost the radio" to get better reception. But the phone is a bidirectional device and also has a transmitter. The phone will boost the transmission power to maintain contact with the cell tower. That will manifest itself as heat and a decrease in battery life.
Pockets and purses can have coins while backpacks can have lots of metal items. It really doesn't matter, though, as the damage likely, if any, has already been done.
With the size of some recent phones, I think assuming use of a backpack might be just as realistic.
With the ever increasing ubiquity of internet addiction, I think assuming that some phones almost never leave the owners hand might also be realistic. (And yeah... I'll confess that I'm speaking for myself, to some degree.)
It's appalling to me to thing that the media and paranoid folks out there always focus on the mostly harmless electromagnetic radiation a mobile device puts out instead of the REAL danger! Seriously, there is a specific element used in most cell phone batteries that is literally weapons grade thermonuclear bomb fuel! Why don't people ever worry about that? Governments all over the world are probably stockpiling the stuff to use in their fusion bombs!
Fear the lithium, not the EMR. Keep in mind, every phone call you make puts nuclear fuel inches from your brain... isn't that a fun thought!
Exactly.
Nobody gave a shit about the health risks of smoking until we eradicated all the other diseases that took people out first.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Now only if we were talking about a type and intensity of radiation where it would actually matter. This is about EM-band radiation, and under a watt of power.
No important difference will be noted.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
In CDMA2000 (maybe before that?), "Forward Power Control" protocol gives the phone a means to request the transmitting tower to either increase or decrease the power of its signal. So, the phone can actually "boost the radio" to get better reception, in a way.
Not so fast! The phone must actually shake hands with the tower to be able to receive a phone call, and that requires boosting the transmitter power.
So while you are technically correct, most people include successful handshake with the tower under reception.
The only way I know of today to get over about 1/4 watt today isn't with a cell phone, but a dedicated repeater(for cellular traffic). Dad's work just bought one for a truck. That can transmit at maximum power, but that's to an outside antenna.
You can also get higher powers with other bands.
My favorite is the woman using a portable phone handset because she didn't trust cellular radiation...
I don't read AC A human right
"You are wearing it wrong."
Table-ized A.I.
My main requirements for my new phone a few weeks ago were:
- should run Android
- should not be worse than my old phone (in terms of performance, android version and storage)
- should be smaller than my old phone (Samsung Galaxy S2)
I went with the Samsung S4 mini because it was on sale. But a lot of phones qualify. Just not the big flagship ones. Apparently they double as e-peens, so I predict that they will keep increasing in size until we get to size "ludicrous".
A shield strap would be nice on the bigger ones. Or they should make it like a gauntlet, like you see in some movies.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
But that tiny power can cause a lot of damage if the exposure is for many hours a day for several years. Here's a story about the dangers of microwave radiation. Calling all non-ionizing radiation safe is quite careless.
You can't just say off-hand there is no harmful effects. They need to perform studies to reach that conclusion. And the study should be done by an independent agency, not the FCC or Samsung. That would be like letting the wolves guard the hen house.
Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing
So UV is ionizing and some isn't. Now ask yourself why you needed to call someone else a moron?
I tried googling and failed. The original "portable" brick phone, the DynaTAC 8000X Was it 3W? 1.5W? Or less? For some reason I can't find the power rating.
That link tells of heating water in a microwave as opposed to a stove and watering plants with it. No experimental protocol is provided, and the only reference is a casual allusion to a five-year-old science fair project. There are several other claims, less sourced. It looks an awful lot like unreasoning paranoia to me.
In the meantime, people have looked for actual danger from cell phones, even though there's no known mechanism, and found none.
However, there's lots of things that will have more effect on you, with non-ionizing radiation and/or electromagnetic fields. House wiring comes to mind, not to mention hand-held electric appliances.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Here's a more detailed article about the dangers of microwave radiation, including cell phones:
Despite not being able to break atoms apart, non-ionizing radiation (such as microwaves) CAN cause physical alterations. For example, sunlight can damage your skin and eyes. Overexposure to radiation can affect tissues by causing molecular damage, DNA mutations, and other changes that can lead to cancer. The serious concern is, with all of this radiation surrounding us from cell and cordless phones, radio towers, satellites, broadcast antennas, military and aviation radar, home electronic devices, computers and Internet, we are all part of an involuntary mass epidemiological experiment, on a scale never before seen in the history of the human race. And the truth is that we don't really KNOW what long term, low-level (but persistent) radiation does to usâ"even the non-ionizing type.
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
Since before the days of the "motorola brick", I've used belt clips. As an amateur radio operator, I've carried walkie-talkies on my belt for years. I also volunteered as a 911-dispatcher for the sheriff's office and carried a VHF or UHF radio at times. Then when the "brick" came out, you pretty much had to carry it, if you wanted your hands free. Every cell phone I've used, I've used a belt clip. When I got my first smartphone (dell streak5) I carried it on my belt, same for the galaxy note1, and my current Huawei Mate2. It's just as natural for me, as it is for others to stuff them in their pants, or hold them in their hands. Since I use bluetooth for all my devices, I don't have to pull it out to see who is calling either.
Bag phones were semi-portable, hence the name. Per the article, some models had a maximum output of 3 watts.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You'll likely be happier if you abandon your change-counting and use the opportunity for anatomical study instead. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
but I'm curious about the brick phone, as you're holding the transmitter and antenna right up to your face, rather than in the bag, or on the car
http://www.newser.com/story/15...