Regardless of whether it’s a serious health risk or not, that others can lower it without penalty when lower is surely better to be on the safe side is still a consideration, no? If you can have lower radiation, surely you should do it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[Merged] Why is Phone 8 still having high SAR levels?
- Thread starter rangemogger
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Also it's well known that high SAR levels cause crop circles. Is there any truth to the rumor that John Titor brought the iPhone X back with him from the year 2036?
I guess my question would be why the SAR rating is so much higher than other phones. Aren't they using the same Qualcomm or Intel modems as other phones?
Is that you, Donald?
Hello ,
I hope that SAR levels are "ridiciculis" but afraid not , is the same problem with microwaves . I don´t know your knowledge about cancer , but you should know that is an acumulative risk as the sun radiation .
On the other hand the antenna is always on ,that means sendining radiation.
I hope that SAR levels are "ridiciculis" but afraid not , is the same problem with microwaves . I don´t know your knowledge about cancer , but you should know that is an acumulative risk as the sun radiation .
On the other hand the antenna is always on ,that means sendining radiation.
SAR has not been linked to cancer agreed, but climate change is not pseudoscience in any way.
Radiation is a very broad term. Microwaves are not the same thing as solar radiation (where UV is the main problem). UV radiation induces DNA base changes, which sometime go uncorrected or end up actually breaking when corrected.
I know what spectre is , but microwave , radiofrecuency and UV are part of the "electosmog" concept.The main problem , IMO , is the lack of long term reserch .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health
[doublepost=1506519583][/doublepost]I think all cellphone makers must improve the antenna insulation , but all are raising SAR levels , including Samsung.
https://www.rfsafe.com/samsung-cell-phones-rated-lowest-radiation-cell-phones/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health
[doublepost=1506519583][/doublepost]I think all cellphone makers must improve the antenna insulation , but all are raising SAR levels , including Samsung.
https://www.rfsafe.com/samsung-cell-phones-rated-lowest-radiation-cell-phones/
There's been plenty of research. RF haven't been proven to be carcinogenic or otherwise harmful
All right , in the next 40 years will have the real answer . I would like you are right and I´m wrong.
Here’s a thought then, if it is a complete non issue then why are there SAR limits at all?
Send me your iPhone and I will remove the SARS and add it to my phone and then send your phone back with no more SARS
What, you think the US government whose single purpose is not to get in the way of profiteering no matter the cost to its people would have an unneccessary regulation? You only have to look at what they allow in food to realise that’s untrue...
While the token answer right now is "No, cellphones and low SARs levels can't cause cancer", it isn't exactly a settled subject. I'm not saying cellphones do cause cancer, but over the last 10 years or so, more and more "studies"( I put studies in quotations because if you study anything long enough you can find what you want to find) have come out suggesting there might be a link. Most of the time, the link is a slight % increase among people who are heavy users for many years. Because more and more people are drifting towards texting, FaceTime, and other forms of communication other than calling we never see a concrete link between cellphones and cancer as the way we use them are ever changing.
With that being said, if there is a link, bluetooth usage might be what exposes it. With just about every major phone manufacture now doing away with the headphone jack, we are being forced to adopted bluetooth headphone technology. While the SAR is much lower in many cases, the length of time used is, by design, much longer. Headphones are meant to be used for long hours, therefore if there is some sort of cumulative response it will be bluetooth headphones that force it rather than cellphones.
With that being said, if there is a link, bluetooth usage might be what exposes it. With just about every major phone manufacture now doing away with the headphone jack, we are being forced to adopted bluetooth headphone technology. While the SAR is much lower in many cases, the length of time used is, by design, much longer. Headphones are meant to be used for long hours, therefore if there is some sort of cumulative response it will be bluetooth headphones that force it rather than cellphones.
There’s also the fact to consider that carrying a mobile phone in your pocket has been linked directly to low sperm quality in men...
Doesn't work that way. We have had this technology long enough a pattern would already have arisen.
Cellphones produce non-ionizing radiation. Only ionizing radiation is harmful.
That said I want my phone to put out as much signal as possible so the tower can receive it better! So I consider high SAR levels to be a feature.
That said I want my phone to put out as much signal as possible so the tower can receive it better! So I consider high SAR levels to be a feature.