In order to gain an FCC license, a phone's maximum Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) level must be less than 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). In 2000, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) ordered cell-phone manufacturers to place labels on phones disclosing radiation levels. In actual fact, that information is obtainable thru the phones FCC ID Number.
To find the specific absorption rate of your phone, you can visit this FCC Web site: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/
Your phone should have an FCC identification (FCC ID) code. Type that code in the correct fields and the site should offer information on your device.
I tried it on my own phone, and the SAR report can be found under the DETAIL button on the search results. There was a Certificate of Compliance (SAR Evaluation) PDF file published by an independent 3rd party test house. My phone was listed as follows:
0.276 W/kg Cellular GSM Head SAR
0.299 W/kg Cellular GSM GPRS Body SAR
0.178 W/kg PCS GSM Head SAR
0.331 W/kg PCS GSM GPRS Body SAR
0.005 W/kg Bluetooth Body SAR
The highest SAR number was about 1/5 the FCC limit.
This FCC website link should be in any pamphlet, if one were published.
Also, any such pamphlet should stress that multiple studies have not conclusively shown a connection between cell phone radiation and any specific cell damage.
All of the above information does not mean I am in favor of what the City of San Francisco is doing. I am not in favor of it. I think they have bigger problems to solve. But if they want to provide factual information about SAR, instead of scare tactics, then do it right.
The judge has done a good thing to keep away those institutions trying to create undue fear among the mobile users about the potential( may not be supported by the adequate research) health hazards.
many a times it has been the that one reasearch contradicts other and the consumer is left confused .
I'm not that sure your examples are instructive.
First off, all those mistakes you mention were expected to be benign and were only subject to rudimentary testing. RF has been thought to be potentially dangerous and has been through orders of magnitude more testing.
Secondly, the testing levels required today far exceed those of twenty+ years ago.
Thirdly, DDT probably does not deserve all the bad rap it got. DDT is still used in many parts of the world - primarily to combat malaria.
It's always a big problem when science gets politicized. All of these things are pretty complex issues and we do have a choice to not use anything until definitive and unarguable science has classified that thing. In a modern world, that simply isn't realistic.
We depend on technology for pretty much everything. Our federal regulatory agencies do miss quite a few things (some pretty big), but that's because we're all learning all of the time. For all of the misses, I think there are a lot more hits. On balance, we have a pretty safe modern world. Do cell phones increase the chances of developing cancer? It's hard to say with so much of the published information coming from people with an agenda. From the best that I can interpret out of the morass is that cancer death rates have been going down steadily for quite some time.
If someday they are found to promote cancer, it will likely be a case of increasing your chances of getting certain types by a few percentage points. Given that minimal impact, how many people would be willing to give up their phones?
Duane's right. If a cell phone posses any health risk at all, it becomes only one of a myriad of risk factors. A huge number of studies over many years would be required to rule out all the other factors to be able to assess the true risk of cell phone usage. In the meantime, give me a call.
Most of the "alarmist" reaction was in my opinion related to studies of cancer clusters vs distance from certain RF TOWERS in San Francisco.
Then came the edict to add smart meters to every house (essentially a radio talking to the electric company, but dumping radiation into your house), plus all the new wireless networks plus radiation from mining, including COAL which when burned emits radiation as well as soot.
The trigger was most likely the cancer clusters as distance from that major cell tower increased, the cancer rate decreased.
I will try to find the link to that particularly scary medical study. But of course, any bad news is bad for business. Personally, I prefer wired ear buds to radiating ear phones for long listening (like music or conference calls), as radiation falls off as the square of the distance, so any distance from your mobile stuff and your head is a good thing, even small air gap. So gather the weight of evidence, and work on options for educated users. With all the drug side effect warnings on TV, people are numb to health warnings and figure life is risky..but you have to live it. Our job is to make sure that new technology is fully characterized, and modern brain scanner (also a source of radiation) can see things better now days. For example, hockey "enforcers" dying in three's due to multiple concussions, proven to be medical problem, and NHL ignoring it as fans love fights? What is the right thing to do? Just talk about it, let the public and the players work it out. Is the pay worth the risk? Should glatiators like boxers be encouraged to risk brain damage just to make a living? Should more powerful cell towers and phones pressed against our heads be judged by an old standard of acceptability ignoring additive effects from other sources of radiation? Life is risky. Be informed. Get off the grid is this worries you.
This is silly. Put the money into educating people about the risks of talking/texting while driving. Put the enforcement into preventing those things. You will certainly save more lives that way. Based on the studies done, it may well be 100% more efficient use of money.
As in, you will save many lives this way, you will save few to none by screaming about cell phone "radiation".
Since the federal government is beholden to big business, the court's decision is not surprising. The non-thermal, non-ionizing biological effects of EMF are not studied in the US. There is no clear theoretical damage model, so no proposed studies get past peer review, so no theoretical models are developed.
You need some evidence of harm before you run off and do a lot of statistical studies, testing and theoretical work. Do you know anyone harmed by cell phone emissions? Not likely. Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but you need some indication that it's worth doing the studies, and I don't think we've seen much in the way of injuries reported. Hence, no real interest in spending a lot of money investigating a non-starter.
But DDT is ok to spray on crops... the denial of prudent DDT use hasn't helped anyone in any way. Third-world countries need the darned stuff. Ditto for cyclamates: banned out of foolishness. The government makes both bad calls and good calls.
Why is everybody so certain, that method for evaluating risk levels from Cell-phone radiation (absorption of wave energ as heat...)has any merit at all? Influence of RF carriers with all acompanying harmonics from myrad of different sources, interferring in human body cells, can effectively jam the intracellular communication links... This would be much more serious condition than simple heating of tissue, and if I may add - much more probable one.
Isn't anyone concerned that now "freedom of speech" means the freedom to not warn users of possible (but uncertain) health risks?
I'm inclined to agree that the ordinance was "over the top", but so is striking it down on 1st amendment grounds.
It's just a warning, after all, that people would quickly learn to ignore just like all the other warnings.
The City of San Francisco can hardly be considered an authority on cell phone radiation risk. The FCC, on the other hand, is empowered to assess risk of radio usage, and if not the FCC, perhaps the FDA. In short, there are other agencies that are authorized to weigh in on the issue. If every local governmental authority required its own warnings, where would we be? There are so many issues wrong with San Francisco grandstanding over this that it can hardly be discussed in a brief note. Even if one wished a local government to get involved in something that it has neither expertise nor a real mandate to interfere in, this particular issue is fairly clear: there doesn't seem to be enough evidence of harm to get very excited. If we are to start issuing warnings for "possible (but uncertain) health risks, we may as well just all go home. San Francisco's Chicken Little department should just calm down.