Latest SAR Ratings for smartphones - Radiation Exposure

[Sevanw]

Here are the smartphones the expose you to the least amount of radiation. No surprise that Samsung continues to be some of the lowest SAR scores. Also not surprising that Chinese OEM phones have some of the highest. iPhones also continue to have some of the highest radiation exposure to the user. Most experts consider a safe SAR score to be anywhere from .10 to .50.

First up, smartphones that scored the best with the lowest exposure to radiation.

And now the smartphone who exposed users to the most radiation.

 

[Tsepz]

Wow, a certain manufacturer's entire 2018 fleet is in the bad zone.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Most experts consider a safe SAR score to be anywhere from .10 to .50.

FCC has it at 1.6, so do you have a bunch of sources for that claim, before we find our tinfoil hats?

 

[willmtaylor]

FCC has it at 1.6, so do you have a bunch of sources for that claim, before we find our tinfoil hats?

His post looks to be lifted word-for-word from the same blog that offers “unbiased” reviews and purchase links to these products.

 

[jamezr]

His post looks to be lifted word-for-word from the same blog that offers “unbiased” reviews and purchase links to these products.

View attachment 821185

Really? The links bother you? That is what you got from all that?

Here is a more mainstream phone friendly link

https://www.phonearena.com/news/Phones-with-highest-SAR-radiation-value-in-2018_id112286

 

[willmtaylor]

Really? The links bother you? That is what you got from all that?

Here is a more mainstream phone friendly link

https://www.phonearena.com/news/Phones-with-highest-SAR-radiation-value-in-2018_id112286

I said that his post was taken word for word from a blog with affiliate links. I said no more, no less. I’ll let others make validity evaluations for themselves.

 

[jamezr]

I said that his post was taken word for word from a blog with affiliate links. I said no more, no less. I’ll let others make validity evaluations for themselves.

and all i did was point that fact out to you...no more no less....
I think it all speaks for itself....

 

[willmtaylor]

and all i did was point that fact out to you...no more no less....
I think it all speaks for itself....

I’m sorry, but that’s incorrect. You implied that the affiliate links bothered me, which is a statement that I, in fact, did not make.

We can agree though, that the entire thread does indeed speak for itself.

All the best.

 

[jamezr]

I’m sorry, but that’s incorrect. You implied that the affiliate links bothered me, which is a statement that I, in fact, did not make.

We can agree though, that the entire thread does indeed speak for itself.

All the best.

I think it is correct...you tried to imply the data was somehow tainted because the blog site had links to products for sale.
The post speaks for itself....no comments about the results or what that means or anything like that instead it was indignation because the blog site had links to products on it's page......
Your post speaks for itself indeed

His post looks to be lifted word-for-word from the same blog that offers “unbiased” reviews and purchase links to these products.

 

[willmtaylor]

I think it is correct...you tried to imply the data was somehow tainted because the blog site had links to products for sale.
The post speaks for itself....no comments about the results or what that means or anything like that instead it was indignation because the blog site had links to products on it's page......
Your post speaks for itself indeed

Sources should always be considered in such instances; ‘tis folly not to.

However, I refrained from further commentary.

Be that as it may, you seem bound and determined to put words in my mouth and to have the final word, so I’ll say know more and let you go on connecting others’ dots for them.

 

[jamezr]

Sources should always be considered in such instances; ‘tis folly not to.

However, I refrained from further commentary.

Be that as it may, you seem bound and determined to put words in my mouth and to have the final word, so I’ll say know more and let you go on connecting others’ dots for them.

I agree with you...sources should always be considered. But a quick Google search proves the sources were correct.
Seems the Google SAR search took as longs as copying links in a MR post.
Here I've searched it for you
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...s-wiz.......0i71j0i131j0j0i131i67.y4X1VPItqeI

Then you seem to not want to be confronted with your own words......no need to put them in your mouth as you said...they are your own words

His post looks to be lifted word-for-word from the same blog that offers “unbiased” reviews and purchase links to these products.

 

[Sevanw]

His post looks to be lifted word-for-word from the same blog that offers “unbiased” reviews and purchase links to these products.

View attachment 821185

Lol. What's your point? You sound bitter. Did you think I did my own testing? Smh.

 

[willmtaylor]

Lol. What's your point? You sound bitter. Did you think I did my own testing? Smh.

Bitter? Why? It’s smartphone radiation testing. lol.

I just think it’s disengenuous not not cite one’s sources.

I also think single-source blog posts with skin in the game ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Sevanw]

Bitter? Why? It’s smartphone radiation testing. lol.

I just think it’s disengenuous not not cite one’s sources.

I also think single-source blog posts with skin in the game ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

But you didn't ask for a source. You went straight for discrediting data. That's why I said you sound bitter. You should be asking why does Apple continuously have some of the highest SAR ratings? How can they be at the level of Chinese knockoff OEMs?Dont get bitter, get better.

 

[willmtaylor]

But you didn't ask for a source. You went straight for discrediting data. That's why I said you sound bitter. You should be asking why does Apple continuously have some of the highest SAR ratings? How can they be at the level of Chinese knockoff OEMs?Dont get bitter, get better.

Sorry, but if you’re starting a thread, and you’re quoting a source, it’s your job to cite appropriately. Full stop.

 

[jamezr]

Bitter? Why? It’s smartphone radiation testing. lol.

I just think it’s disingenuous not not cite one’s sources.

I also think single-source blog posts with skin in the game ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

It is also disingenuous to cast shade on something without providing links to the contrary....
The time and effort it took to copy and paste the links in your first post could have been spent on a Google search that would have proved the data was correct.

Instead you chose to be snarky....

 

[Sevanw]

Sorry bub, but if you’re starting a thread, and you’re quoting a source, it’s your job to cite appropriately. Full stop.

Give it up. You got salty right off the hop. No point in trying to pretend otherwise. It's OK though, I get it. You don't like to see anything negative about Apple products. No further explanation needed. All good.

 

[willmtaylor]

It is also disingenuous to cast shade on something without providing links to the contrary....
The time and effort it took to copy and paste the links in your first post could have been spent on a Google search that would have proved the data was correct.

Instead you chose to be snarky....

No, disengenuous it is not.

It’s called being critical. Probably lazy, and sure, I’ll even give you snarky.

And if you really need links for evidence that uncited internet blogs (that themselves lack citations and contain affiliate links) can be unreliable and biased, then I have nothing further to give you. But that’s already been established.

Give it up. You got salty right off the hop. No point in trying to pretend otherwise. It's OK though, I get it. You don't like to see anything negative about Apple products. No further explanation needed. All good.

Salty? Nah!

I am sorry that you can’t cite appropriately or take criticism without it being personal though, so I’ll humbly bow out now, but no salt.

Oh, and I almost forgot, I don’t own Apple stock, so unlike your blog, I have no skin in the game! (*ba dum tss!*)

 

[jamezr]

No, disengenuous it is not.

It’s called being critical. Probably lazy, and sure, I’ll even give you snarky.

And if you really need links for evidence that uncited internet blogs (that themselves lack citations and contain affiliate links) can be unreliable and biased, then I have nothing further to give you. But that’s already been established.


Salty? Nah!

I am sorry that you can’t cite appropriately or take criticism without it being personal though, so I’ll humbly bow out now, but no salt.

Oh, and I almost forgot, I don’t own Apple stock, so unlike your blog, I have no skin in the game! (*ba dum tss!*)

You were being critical without any data to validate the criticism. It is called bias towards a brand and defending that brand even in face of good data.

Instead of looking up the facts you chose to be snarky and cast shade on data you had no reason to believe was not accurate.

It is funny how you claim the OP can't take criticism...yet you seem to be on the defensive about data casting Apple in a bad light so to speak. Maybe some blind brand loyalty?

 

[Zxxv]

Out and about in the uk I see more and more people calling on speakerphone whilst holding the phone out infront of them. Even in crowds. On busses everywhere.

 

[willmtaylor]

You were being critical without any data to validate the criticism. It is called bias towards a brand and defending that brand even in face of good data.

Instead of looking up the facts you chose to be snarky and cast shade on data you had no reason to believe was not accurate.

It is funny how you claim the OP can't take criticism...yet you seem to be on the defensive about data casting Apple in a bad light so to speak. Maybe some blind brand loyalty?

Goods grief. You gents are truly like a dog with a bone. You want links? Here:

https://www.fcc.gov/general/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...sinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/default.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sar.pdf

I.e. Your whole diatribe is almost certainly moot.

I truly hope you can learn to take the blinders off and see both the forest & the trees.

Good day and goodbye.

 

[jamezr]

Goods grief. You gents are truly like a dog with a bone. You want links? Here:

https://www.fcc.gov/general/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...sinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/default.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sar.pdf

I.e. Your whole diatribe is almost certainly moot.

I truly hope you can learn to take the blinders off and see both the forest& the trees.

Good day and goodbye.

still a little defensive....... Those links do not add anything to this topic to be honest except further prove the OPs data....

 

[5105973]

Okay the kids never talk on their iPhones like phones. They only do FaceTime conversations with each other. Do they get exposed to high SAR radiation in that use case?

FWIW I've known about these numbers for years. It's been like this through several generations of these same manufacturers. In fact I looked twice at the posting dates to make sure this wasn't thread necromancy.

I'd switch the kids over to Samsung if I could but they don't want to give up FaceTime and iMessages because half the time they are using iPads to communicate with each other as well.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Interesting reading none the less. I remember looking into this in the past. iPhones have always had high SAR ratings, but a phone doesn't just blast output all the time, only when sending data, or on a call. Topics such as these are usually on the same level as politics when it comes to people being offended and believing something, so I usually stay out of it.

People freak out over a cellphone yet get blasted with tons of radiation just by walking outside or living next to a cellphone tower. I've seen people put their face in front of a microwave (that was running) for an extended period of time and yet freak out over cellphone radiation. I've also seen people do the - put your arms up and press down on them, then place a cellphone on your heart and press down on your arms again - test to show how "cellphone radiation" affects people.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/02/02/the-truth-about-cell-phone-radiation/#308c71c1192a --- interesting read. --- Quotes this: https://www.quora.com/Do-mobile-pho...ectromagnetic-fields/answer/Inna-Vishik#aFbhv

Depending on how far you are from a cellphone tower will affect your phone's radiation output I would assume?! I assume these SAR tests know that and test cellphones with equally distant cellphone towers?

It is amazing the number of scare sites out there on cellphone radiation. Easily the vast majority of sites, even today, when I try to use a search engine to find out more information.
[doublepost=1549909107][/doublepost]https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sar.pdf

"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."

 

[5105973]

Interesting reading none the less. I remember looking into this in the past. iPhones have always had high SAR ratings, but a phone doesn't just blast output all the time, only when sending data, or on a call. Topics such as these are usually on the same level as politics when it comes to people being offended and believing something, so I usually stay out of it.

People freak out over a cellphone yet get blasted with tons of radiation just by walking outside or living next to a cellphone tower. I've seen people put their face in front of a microwave (that was running) for an extended period of time and yet freak out over cellphone radiation. I've also seen people do the - put your arms up and press down on them, then place a cellphone on your heart and press down on your arms again - test to show how "cellphone radiation" affects people.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/02/02/the-truth-about-cell-phone-radiation/#308c71c1192a --- interesting read. --- Quotes this: https://www.quora.com/Do-mobile-pho...ectromagnetic-fields/answer/Inna-Vishik#aFbhv

Depending on how far you are from a cellphone tower will affect your phone's radiation output I would assume?! I assume these SAR tests know that and test cellphones with equally distant cellphone towers?

It is amazing the number of scare sites out there on cellphone radiation. Easily the vast majority of sites, even today, when I try to use a search engine to find out more information.

If you think this topic has some scare sites try finding good objective information on 5G. I am making myself tinfoil pajamas as we speak.