[qbnkelt]

Much ado about nothing.
Every piece of modern technology produces some sort of by product.
Alternatives...get rid of all modern technology. Ride horses. Send some signals. Buy carrier pigeons.
Or get a BT.


Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

[jimpilot]

Why do they measure it per kg? Seems like as phones get lighter they still put out the same signal strength so this number will go up with no increase is actual exposure.

[macberry33]

Why do they measure it per kg? Seems like as phones get lighter they still put out the same signal strength so this number will go up with no increase is actual exposure.

Is a very good question and I don't have a technical answer, but yes, one would think that, but for some reason competition newer phones -specifically Galaxy III- have lower SAR ratings and Samsung has had better SAR rating devices than a lot of competitors out there. So, if they can have better SAR levels I was expecting Blackberry to have improved SAR levels the way Samsung had.

If any one wants to compare Samsung and Blackbery, here two list to do so:

Samsung's SAR rating (US ratings)
Cell phone radiation levels - CNET Reviews

and

Blackberry's SAR rating (US ratings)
note: you will see that Blackberry hasn't performed very well in this field
Cell phone radiation levels - CNET Reviews

I was expecting the new Z10 device to have a much better SAR rating. But to my surprise it hasn't. Kind of a disappointment. And for me it is an important key point before buying my next phone.

I respect everyone out there there that doesn't care about SAR levels. I am glad that there is a little more awareness about it in the forum than one or two days ago. And hopefully there will be a little more awareness in Blackberry as well.

[macberry33]

Much ado about nothing.
Every piece of modern technology produces some sort of by product.
Alternatives...get rid of all modern technology. Ride horses. Send some signals. Buy carrier pigeons.
Or get a BT.

If you and others, respectfully, believe that this is nothing, I extend an invitation to read about it.
Not from me but from the US National Cancer Institute.

it is probably long but you can read some of the sentences of the following link.

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute


To round up: It took a while for the world to realize that the use of asbestos caused cancer and now there are replacements. It took centuries before we knew tobacco caused cancer and decades for the world to realized this was a wide range health problem and meanwhile tobacco companies deliberately deceived the public about smoking's dangerous effects even in a hearing before a US Congress committee. Now public can take very well informed decisions about whether to smoke or not. They now know the risks.

And since it is probably almost impossible to get rid of modern technology you can have a huge impact as a user of that technology and ask inventors and manufacturers to produce better devices in terms of the radiation they emit and the health that can be affected with its daily use.

I am sure this will evolve into an important issue sooner than later since there will be more and more wireless technology out there.

[Innovatology]

Interesting read.

Though I'm not a statistician or analytic methodologist, I've worked in market research for 15 years, so I think I have a good understanding of surveys and studies.

Most of the studies noted on that page are problematic: when comparing cancer incidence in two groups (cell phone users vs non-users), other factors will probably play a major and possibly more important role. On average, a cell phone user will have a different lifestyle than a non-user. Globally, a non-user is probably more likely to live in a rural area, have a lower income, lower education, be more religious, have a less varied diet, less access to healthcare etc. To illustrate non-scientifically: consider the cell phone penetration in New York City versus rural China, and the vastly different lifestyles. Then consider the lifestyles, as a group, of average users versus average non-users.

Likewise, the reverse may also be true: using a cell phone may have effects on income, education, healthcare, diet etc. These factors will probably also be present (though maybe to a lesser extent) in national or regional studies.

The correlation between these factors and health must be accounted for. To counteract such effects, statisticians often weight ("balance") their data, making certain "scarce" participants more important. But this introduces problems of its own, and you can only go so far. It is impossible to predict, measure and account for all these factors.

This argument can be used both for and against cell phones. I don't mean to take sides, I only mean to evaluate and clarify.

[qbnkelt]

Interesting read.

Though I'm not a statistician or analytic methodologist, I've worked in market research for 15 years, so I think I have a good understanding of surveys and studies.

Most of the studies noted on that page are problematic: when comparing cancer incidence in two groups (cell phone users vs non-users), other factors will probably play a major and possibly more important role. On average, a cell phone user will have a different lifestyle than a non-user. Globally, a non-user is probably more likely to live in a rural area, have a lower income, lower education, be more religious, have a less varied diet, less access to healthcare etc. To illustrate non-scientifically: consider the cell phone penetration in New York City versus rural China, and the vastly different lifestyles. Then consider the lifestyles, as a group, of average users versus average non-users.

Likewise, the reverse may also be true: using a cell phone may have effects on income, education, healthcare, diet etc. These factors will probably also be present (though maybe to a lesser extent) in national or regional studies.

The correlation between these factors and health must be accounted for. To counteract such effects, statisticians often weight ("balance") their data, making certain "scarce" participants more important. But this introduces problems of its own, and you can only go so far. It is impossible to predict, measure and account for all these factors.

This argument can be used both for and against cell phones. I don't mean to take sides, I only mean to evaluate and clarify.

Thank you so much for addressing so elegantly those points that I was likely to muddle.

[macberry33]

From another post in this forum
http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...0-back-766981/

6. the Z10 runs damn hot. You can fry an egg on it. CLARIFY - might be syncing/config related to new device - may settle. May be exacerbated by the metal on the backing plate (the RIM logo)

this may be related to a high SAR level. The question is if other Z10 users are feeling the same regarding the device running warm, warmer than expected or as warm as their blackberry legacy devices among other comparisons.

[macberry33]

Interesting read.

Though I'm not a statistician or analytic methodologist, I've worked in market research for 15 years, so I think I have a good understanding of surveys and studies.

Most of the studies noted on that page are problematic: when comparing cancer incidence in two groups (cell phone users vs non-users)........

Thank you for your input. While the studies completely confirms the link between cellphone use and appearance of cancer (I believe they can be related) and probably other health problems, I would say that is better to be in the safe side just in case and use better rated phone devices (SAR level)

Nevertheless, I wanted to point out that Z10 is not very good in terms of SAR rating and that Blackberry didn't do a good job on that field. And since competition are taking big steps to improve their own devices SAR ratings, I was really looking forward to big improvements from Blackberry. Unfortunately this was not the case.

My 9790 device runs warm enough for me to be concerned so I try to use it hands-free via a wired hand set or a wired hands free (not bluetooth).

I really wanted the Z10 as my new phone, but a long with some reported OS problems and the lack of "must" apps still to be developed for the Z10, its SAR rating is holding me back big time.

[Innovatology]

While the studies completely confirms the link between cellphone use and appearance of cancer

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? The US National Cancer Institute page which you yourself quoted, states exactly the opposite:

"A limited number of studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks, but most studies have found no association."

"Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly."

"to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer."

While I applaud the efforts of smartphone manufacturers to stay beneath recommended levels "just in case", I do not believe that going even lower will make any difference.

[joe.miller]

The RF emitted by cell phones, wifi hotspots, microwave ovens, power lines, etc is non-ionizing radiation. It is non-mutagenic. It cannot cause cancer. The worst it can do is make cells get warm (like a microwave oven. And that's only in extremely powerful concentrations).

That's it.

[macberry33]

on a less serious note: I told you, the SAR level of the new Z10 is still high

[macberry33]

The RF emitted by cell phones, wifi hotspots, microwave ovens, power lines, etc is non-ionizing radiation. It is non-mutagenic. It cannot cause cancer. The worst it can do is make cells get warm (like a microwave oven. And that's only in extremely powerful concentrations).

That's it.

Joe, I won't put it like black and white. I respect many of the readers that deny the connection between RF emitting devices and health problems, I hope you are right, however I believe studies tell otherwise.

By denying it won't make the problem disappear. Instead we can strongly require manufacturers to develop more health friendly equipment and help us prevent a massive health problem in the future, where tons of devices are going to be wireless.

Here my two cents, although this is probably off topic, but may be interesting for some readers:

1. Take a look at efforts of organizations around the world to start having schools free of Wi-Fi because of health concerns. Here one from Canada:
School Radiation: We've got to get wifi out of schools

2. and regarding other devices and claims you mentioned, here a list that reports biological effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity exposure


It is very interesting: 11 pages (tables) that summarize findings.

It is called "RF Color Charts". They summarize many studies that report biological effects and adverse health effects relevant for cell towers, WI-FI, �smart� wireless utility meters, wireless laptops, baby monitors, cell phones and cordless phones.

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/...lor-Charts.pdf
source: bioinitiative.org
here a sample of table results you can find in the PDF report.

[macberry33]

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? The US National Cancer Institute page which you yourself quoted, states exactly the opposite:

Innovatology: Probably my answer is off topic again, but since you have been polite and generous enough to read my post and study the given information I believe you are genuine interested on the topic. I am not trying to convince anyone here. Just make awareness and by that, asking Blackberry to improve their devices in the terms I have mentioned before.

Take the sole word cancer out of the sentence. Replace it with "biological effects and health effects and among them: cancer"

Take a quick look at this PDF that summarize many studies that report biological effects and adverse health effects relevant for cell towers, WI-FI, �smart� wireless utility meters, wireless laptops, baby monitors, cell phones and cordless phones.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/...lor-Charts.pdf

and here summaries and abstracts of studies showing biological effects of radiofrequency and cell phone radiation among other relating information
Research Summaries | The BioInitiative Report

regards

[blackberry z10]

I'm glad to see some awareness to this matter and the constructive responses. I hope that not only will blackberry start to improve the efficiency of technology, but many other companies as well. Regarding the new z10 based on the replies it is not emiting radiation but rather _____ if someone can clarify it would be appreciated. Also though the z10 levels are higher compared to other "Hot" phones will it a concern that the phone will be more likely to be in the pocket and not a holster? A simple daily effect would be helpful. Thanks to everyone for all the insight already.

[dknv9]

Some good ideas. You might be interested to know that a Mongolian sheep herder living in a Yurt has better cell phone connectivity than you'd think. Maybe better than yours. He probably has visual voice mail on his Z10 while my ROGERS Z10 does not.

Cell phones, maybe not tier 1 smart phones, are EVERYWHERE across many income types. So are HDTVS's.

Interesting read.

Though I'm not a statistician or analytic methodologist, I've worked in market research for 15 years, so I think I have a good understanding of surveys and studies.

Most of the studies noted on that page are problematic: when comparing cancer incidence in two groups (cell phone users vs non-users), other factors will probably play a major and possibly more important role. On average, a cell phone user will have a different lifestyle than a non-user. Globally, a non-user is probably more likely to live in a rural area, have a lower income, lower education, be more religious, have a less varied diet, less access to healthcare etc. To illustrate non-scientifically: consider the cell phone penetration in New York City versus rural China, and the vastly different lifestyles. Then consider the lifestyles, as a group, of average users versus average non-users.

Likewise, the reverse may also be true: using a cell phone may have effects on income, education, healthcare, diet etc. These factors will probably also be present (though maybe to a lesser extent) in national or regional studies.

The correlation between these factors and health must be accounted for. To counteract such effects, statisticians often weight ("balance") their data, making certain "scarce" participants more important. But this introduces problems of its own, and you can only go so far. It is impossible to predict, measure and account for all these factors.

This argument can be used both for and against cell phones. I don't mean to take sides, I only mean to evaluate and clarify.

[copperoak]

The "precautionary principle" should indeed be applied in cases where there is potential "cause and effect" and "confounding variables". The link between tobacco use and cancer is an excellent example.

RIM/BB, present and past, has published precautions that come with every device including keeping the unit at least 0.59 inches away from your body when "transmitting". Because your BB, or any similar device, is usually transmitting data regularly, keeping it on your person, as in your pocket, is 'probably' not the best idea (not to mention that most pockets are near our gonads!). This is one of the reasons that holsters are likely a reasonable workaround, as also indicated in BB Safety documentation, if you want to keep your device close. Skins and other non-holster cases are cool and have their utility but also more likely lead to the device being stuffed in a pants pocket. Bluetooth or earbud options are also likely a good idea.

Probably would not have made the time to write this if single and in my 20's but now much older, married, and with a kid, plus a cat, for what it's worth!

[bungaboy]

If someone is concerned about the potential of theoretical radiation from their phone. . . . Don't use it. Simple. Would you wrap yourself up in steel wool and run around on a golf course in an electric storm? I would give it a shot. But then I have connections in high places.

SMFH.

[gordo51]

Cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation. Radiofrequency radiation can be measured as Specific Absorption Rate in watts per kilogram. Ionizing radiation exposure is commonly measured in Sieverts or milliSieverts. I could not get the link to the first FCC article to work so if anyone else has trouble here is a partial quote. Note that the FCC says quoting one number for SAR is pretty meaningless

"Many people mistakenly assume that using a cell phone with a lower reported SAR value necessarily decreases a user�s exposure to RF emissions, or is somehow �safer� than using a cell phone with a high SAR value. While SAR values are an important tool in judging the maximum possible exposure to RF energy from a particular model of cell phone, a single SAR value does not provide sufficient information about the amount of RF exposure under typical usage conditions to reliably compare individual cell phone models. Rather, the SAR values collected by the FCC are intended only to ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the FCC�s maximum permissible exposure levels even when operating in conditions which result in the device�s highest possible � but not its typical - RF energy absorption for a user"

[jdhooghe]

Of course we have the usual Blackberry paranoia of Apple and Google sending agents to probably the biggest fanboy/fangirl message board on the internet. Any honest user who has used Blackberries for the last seven years gets shot down and called a troll when he/she finds the Z10 lacking, why would Apple and Google have any better luck?

And all this talk about cellphone radiation. For those of us that work with radiation as physicists or engineers would have better luck explaining this to a wall than to some of the people here. Didn't you all know that since Blackberries are infallible, instead of non-ionizing radiation, they emit thoughts of cute little puppy dogs and kittens? They also emit rainbows and where the rainbow ends, it inspires the people there to go to message boards and say, "Down with the evil Apple empire!" and makes you wear tinfoil hats and want extra security as the evil empire of Google wants your information!

[jwn66]

Meh, we'll adapt and evolve and become immune to it and we'll have super powers as well. Win Win.

[jesse_h]

Screw the radiation levels, I'm more concerned with the moderator who made a threat and personally attacked a CB member on the first page.

[scrannel]

Ah, yes... you are going to love this:

Cell phone exposure may protect against and reverse Alzheimer's disease

[zipro]

Same exact thing happens every freaking time anyone drops the "SAR" bomb in any thread. There are always at least 10 people ready to bash the post, telling everyone and their dog how stupid it is to worry about EM radiation (yes, it's still called radiation, even if some people here would like to call it "the warm fluffy stuff that comes out of our sugar-coated communications devices"). If this was the 50's, we'd get the same kind of reaction to anyone saying smoking isn't healthy. The fact is: there's still no clear evidence pointing in either direction (harmless / harmful). So while that's the case, I just don't see why we can't talk about that in a civilized manner?

Anyway - I'm not saying EM radiation is unhealthy. And I actually disagree with the OP - the Z10 has exactly the same peak SAR as the iPhone (no, 0.01 doesn't make a difference if you compare the Z10 to the iPhone) and I'd also argue that Blackberry actually made some major improvements with the Z10, considering that other BBs went up to SAR levels of 1.5 (which is .1 under the legal limit). And yes, there are phones that have significantly lower SAR levels (almost the entire Samsung range, for example, and also the Nexus 4) but the SAR level is just one thing. I find the Z10 to have exceptionally good reception. If the reception is good, the antenna output is lowered automatically. My former SGS III hat a low peak level but the reception was lousy, resulting in the output to be at or near peak almost all the time. The N4, as well, has lousy reception.

So if my Z10 works at 1/4 output strength, the SAR level is at around 0.24. If the SGS III works at peak output level, the SAR level is at 0.3. The Nexus 4's is at 0.44. So in the end, the difference is minimal. Get my point?

[macberry33]

New Galaxy IV SAR rating is 0.3 W/Kg
Samsung Galaxy S IV Radiation Level Revealed

Far lower than Z10 and its predecessor Galaxy III.

[sibeans]

on a less serious note: I told you, the SAR level of the new Z10 is still high

Wow! Too FUNNY! Got my week started!!!