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.

19 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Does not really matter. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pocket or clip we are talking about non-ionizing em radiation.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    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. Re:Does not really matter. by flopsquad · · Score: 4, Funny

      A belt clip is closer to your genitals than the inside of a front pocket?

      I use the iCodpiece, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    3. Re:Does not really matter. by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " Who keeps their phone in a front pants pocket?"

      People who've broken a phone by sitting on it while it's in their back pocket.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  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 h0oam1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once upon a time, almost no one had cell phones. Now, almost everyone does have them, and many use them constantly. To my knowledge, there has not been a statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain cancer between these two eras. I conclude from this that cell phone use cannot be much of a risk as a cause of brain cancer.

    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. Re: Taking a good point and stretching it. by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just use nature's pocket!

  4. Million dollar idea... by funwithBSD · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Million dollar idea... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Block both sides and it prevents annoying calls, and provides privacy at the airport.

      Though for the latter I always just wanted to get the little lead letters they used to use for marking x-rays and sew messages like "private area" or "get a real job" into my pants.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  5. ..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
    1. Re:..and so? by timholman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      What makes it particularly ironic is that the same people who fear that their cell phones are harming them are probably deliberately exposing themselves to a source of ionizing radiation every time they walk outside in the daytime, i.e. the sun - a giant nuclear reactor that kills thousands of people each year from skin cancer.

  6. Re: Taking a good point and stretching it. by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  7. Re:Taking a good point and stretching it. by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "That was an example of taking a good point and stretching it..."

    Wouldn't that be a line?

  8. 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.

  9. Re:Taking a good point and stretching it. by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Have you seen women's pants lately?"

    Only the inside.

    But seriously, 'lately'?

    Have you ever checked women's skirts, robes, dresses for the last couple of hundred years for pockets?

    That's why they invented handbags. If you ever checked a woman's purse, those wouldn't fit in any imaginable pocket anyway.

  10. I keep mine ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... in my fanny pack. So it can keep my "gun" warm.

    And by "gun" I mean gun.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. 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.

  12. Re:Taking a good point and stretching it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am pretty sure a man invented handbags.

    and used to carry them, too. The old word for a pick-pocket was a cut-purse, meaning somebody who cuts the straps on a man's purse and runs away with it. Men carried handbags. And the old word for a bag, of course, is "poke" (as in: "don't buy a pig in a poke"). When they first came up with the idea of sewing the purse right into a pair of pants, they called the result a little poke: pok-ette. Or, as we say now, pocket.