Is using a cell phone safe?

There is no simple answer to this. The answer is : Yes and No. Cell phones emit varying amounts of radiation, so the healthy approach is to lessen your exposure to radiation. When safety labs test cell phones they measure them to see how much radio frequency level is absorbed by the body, and this is known as the SAR, the specific absorption rate. Courtesy of CNET, we have a list of phones with both high and low SAR readings.

First, you can choose a cell phone that has a low SAR reading to lessen your SAR exposure.

Second, Shield yourself. A Bioelectric Shield will deflect a significant portion of SAR.

Finally, add specific protection on every radiation item you own. We have several additional EMF protection devices that can be placed on any type of radiation producing device including your cell phone and headset.  By doing all three actions, your risk should be minimal.

*Cell phone radiation levels
By CNET staff (updated February 9, 2009)

"According to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), specific absorption rate, or SAR, is "a way of measuring the quantity of radio frequency (RF) energy that is absorbed by the body." For a phone to pass FCC certification, that phone's maximum SAR level must be less than 1.6 watts per kilogram. In Europe, the level is capped at 2W/kg while Canada allows a maximum of 1.6W/kg. The SAR level listed in our charts represents the highest SAR level with the phone next to the ear as tested by the FCC. Keep in mind that it is possible for the SAR level to vary between different transmission bands and that different testing bodies can obtain different results. Also, it's possible for results to vary between different editions of the same phone (such as a handset that's offered by multiple carriers). It's important to note that in publishing this list are we in no way implying that cell phone use is or isn't harmful to your health. While research abounds and some tests have shown that cell phone radiofrequency (RF) could accelerate cancer in laboratory animals, the studies have not been replicated. Cell phones can affect internal pacemakers, but there is not conclusive or demonstrated evidence that they cause adverse health effects in humans. Conversely, there is not conclusive or demonstrated evidence that they don't cause adverse health effects in humans. So, in short, the jury is still out, research is ongoing, and we will continue to monitor its results.

If your phone isn't listed here (U.S. customers) and you've purchased it within the last few years (the FCC Web site currently does not provide information on models certified before 1998), you can request the SAR information from the manufacturer or your carrier. You'll need the model number and FCC ID number, which is usually but not always listed in your owner's manual or under your phone's battery (you must pop the battery out). For links to the FCC's Web site, please see the More Resources section below. We'll continue to update the list as new phones are announced. "(See *Original article or if link not working Click here)

The highest-radiation cell phones are the ones you will wish to avoid. The lower the SAR, the smaller the radiation emitting from the phone.

 

10 highest-radiation cell phones (United States)*
Editors' note: When a phone is discontinued by a manufacturer or a carrier, it will be removed from this chart.

	Manufacturer and model	SAR level(digital)
1	Motorola V195s	1.6
2	Motorola ZN5	1.59
3	Motorola VU204	1.55
4	Motorola W385	1.54
4a	RIM BlackBerry Curve 8330 (Sprint)	1.54
4b	RIM BlackBerry Curve 8330 (U.S. Cellular)	1.54
4c	RIM BlackBerry Curve 8330 (Verizon Wireless)	1.54
8	Motorola Deluxe ic902	1.53
8a	T-Mobile Shadow (HTC)	1.53
8b	Motorola i335	1.53

* Source

10 lowest-radiation cell phones (United States)*
Editors' note: When a phone is discontinued by a manufacturer or a carrier, it will be removed from this chart.

	Manufacturer and model	SAR level(digital)
1	Samsung Eternity SGH-A867	0.194
2	Samsung SGH-G800	0.23
3	Samsung Soul	0.24
4	Samsung Innov8	0.287
5	Motorola Razr2 V8	0.36
6	Samsung SGH-T229	0.383
7	Nokia 6263	0.43
8	Samsung SGH-i450	0.457
9	Samsung Rugby SGH-A837	0.46
10	Samsung SLM SGH-A747	0.478

* Source

 

for updated ratings

The 20 worst cell phones according to their SAR numbers

The 20 best cell phones according to their SAR numbers

Look up your phone if not listed in the best or worse

This is an older article that explains more about the difference between RF testing and SAR testing. The conclusion is that wearing a headset is safer than sticking the cell phone right up next to your brain. As we stated above, we recommend getting a LOW SAR phone, wearing a BioElectric Shield, and adding the protections devices to your phone and using a Wired headset!

In the fall of 2000, an article was published that made newspapers all over the world! Headsets were said to INCREASE the radiation coming from your cell phone! David Carnoy, a writer for CNET, investigated this issue, and wrote the following piece. After reading it ourselves, more than ever, we feel that prudence is the best approach. Choose a low SAR rated phone, protect yourself by wearing a BioElectric Shield, and add emf neutralizers to every phone you have. The old expression: "It's better to be safe than sorry", probably holds very true in this situation.

Are Cell Phone Headsets Safe?

CNET wireless
By: David Carnoy
11/15/00

"Until recently, the underlying safety of cell phone headsets was not really a cause for concern. The common wisdom was that if you were worried about cell phone radiation and its potential health hazards, the best way to talk safely was to get a headset. But that all changed a few months ago when Which, a British consumer magazine, published a study that suggested that headsets or hands-free kits actually increased the level of radiation inside the head by up to three times. Which further exacerbated the situation on November 2, when it printed a follow-up study confirming its previous findings.

As you might imagine, the study contains a lot of technical jargon that's not exactly layman-friendly. But emerging from the technobabble are some key issues that have fueled the controversy:

ERA Technology, the independent laboratory that conducted the testing for Which, did not initially measure specific absorption rates (SAR). Instead, it set out to measure radio frequency (RF) radiation emissions. Which says it's not anti-SAR, but it questions the SAR measurement technique with regard to hands-free kits.
After Which released its first study in April, the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) commissioned its own SAR test on hands-free kits. According to the government's report, the kits reduced radiation exposure.
In response to the DTI report, Which conducted some SAR tests at the same laboratory used by the DTI. According to Which, "We found no positions where the kits gave higher readings than the phones. But we also found that the shape of the SAR test rig made it impossible to get the hands-free kit wire into the position that gave the highest readings in ERA's tests."

So Are They Safe?
Slightly baffled, I decided to call someone who'd actually tested headsets in an independent lab to get his take on all this. I contacted Dr. Jacek J. Wojcik, APREL Laboratories' CEO and president of the Spectrum Sciences Institute. His company, based near Ottawa, Canada, recently measured SAR levels for Plantronics' headsets and in the past has tested other headsets and cell phones.

Decidedly in the SAR camp, Wojcik says ERA Technology is flat-out wrong. "That lab specializes in electromagnetics. There are electromagnetic fields everywhere, but the human body does not necessarily absorb the energy."

Wojcik is unmerciful in his criticism of ERA Technology's testing methods. "They don't understand what they're doing," he says. "They're defending mistakes they made in the first study and making more mistakes." He cites a litany of problems--from the way in which the testing room was set up to the amount of salt in the gel inside the phantom head that's meant to simulate the same electrical properties as human brain tissue. "I don't know what animal they picked up," he says, "but it wasn't human."

But let's get back to the real issue: Are headsets safe? Wojcik explains that SAR is created by radio frequency current. The current couples to the head via a magnetic field that has a limited radius around the power source (the phone). Move the power source away from your head, and your noggin won't be exposed to the magnetic field. While the headset cord or wire may carry a signal, it's not significant enough to create SAR at the level of the head. Contrary to Which's suggestion that labs fail to lay out the headset cord so that it's fully extended in a natural manner, Wojcik says his lab "lays out the cord in such a way that we can scan the whole cord."

Back to the Numbers
Let's say for the sake of argument that those in the SAR community, who represent the majority view, are right, while Which's study is flawed. That still leaves us with the SAR data. Just what numbers do manufacturers have for headsets?

Well, Nokia, Ericsson, and Motorola told me that all authorized headsets and hands-free kits for their phones have been tested in labs and that all have maximum SAR levels below the FCC's designated safe limit (1.6 W/kg). However, in keeping with their SAR nondisclosure policy, the companies declined to give me the SAR levels for those units.

Jabra, which makes the popular Jabra EarSet, couldn't provide me with actual rating numbers either. Instead, the company sent me a statement saying that "[Jabra] maintains that use of the Jabra EarSet reduces the level of RF power entering the head...by a factor of ten." That may be true, but it should be noted that the "factor of ten" Jabra cites for its EarSet was derived from internal test results, not an independent lab's.

Jabra's statement goes on to say, "Other major cell phone and headset manufacturers, such as Ericsson and Nokia, have gone on record to also confirm our position. These companies state clearly that their tests, as well as those by qualified outside test laboratories, confirm that the RF radiation at the head is reduced through the use of a headset."

As far as I know, Plantronics, which makes a wide assortment of headsets for cell phones and cordless phones, is one of the few companies to publicly release its SAR test results from an independent lab. APREL tested Plantronics' headsets and found that they reduced SAR levels to practically zero in the head.

Wojcik says that results of his tests of headsets from Plantronics and other major manufacturers show that those particular models have maximum SAR levels that are significantly lower than those of the phones with which they're tested. Unfortunately, he can't reveal what companies make the other headsets he's tested. Alas, the old disclosure policy rears its ugly head again.

Getting Personal
"So based on your tests," I say to Wojcik, "if your wife were to ask you whether headsets were safe, what would you tell her?"

"Nothing," he replies.

He cautions that his labs' findings don't mean we can declare headsets to be universally safe. It simply means that the models APREL has tested are well below the FCC's designated safe level. "You know, scientists have done tests on animals, and based on those tests, the FCC has set up very stringent limits, which we use as benchmarks. Can we say headsets are absolutely safe based on those numbers? No, because nothing's absolutely safe."

Wojcik doesn't use a headset himself; he's not comfortable with the feel. But he says he was happy to discover that the belt clip he wears for his StarTac does a good job keeping the phone away from his body. Yes, that's another side of the headset equation: where you carry your cell phone. For instance, if you have the phone in your pocket while talking with an earpiece, your leg will absorb the phone's RF emissions, but that's another column for another day.

However, Wojcik discourages people from using the unproven cell phone radiation shields that are becoming more and more prevalent in the marketplace. You don't want to attach anything to the phone that might diminish its performance, he explains, because that would actually cause the phone to work harder to receive a signal and potentially raise SAR levels, nor do you want a belt clip with any metal parts that might enhance the energy emitted from the phone.

But back to Wojcik's wife: Just what would he tell her about headsets?

"I think the psychological impact is important," he says. "I mean, people get headaches just from thinking they're being exposed to radiation. So I'd tell her that if you want to wear something that makes you feel safe, by all means do it."

The moral of this story, I suppose, is that perception is crucial in this whole debate of radiation levels. In many ways, the lack of public SAR information about headsets (and by public, I mean information printed on the outside packaging) was what made headset manufacturers vulnerable to these studies, which may or may not be flawed."

May 22, 2001 5:05 PM PDT

Cell phone safety a tough call

By Ben Charny and Gwendolyn Mariano
Staff Writers, CNET News

http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phone-safety-a-tough-call/2100-1033_3-258120.html

"It's National Wireless Safety Week, which has researchers, academics, analysts and lobbyists arguing more vehemently about the potential dangers of wireless phones.

Sponsored by the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), the wireless industry's trade group and lobbying organization, National Wireless Safety Week is intended to raise awareness about the safety benefits of owning a mobile phone, underscored by a variety of mottos by carriers ranging from AT&T Wireless' "Arrive Safely" to Nextel's "Smart Drivers Talk Safely."

Not entirely altruistic, the wireless industry hopes its safety message will generate new sales and ward off unwanted legislation.

On Tuesday, two lawmakers introduced federal legislation that would ban the use of cell phones by drivers and withhold federal highway funds from states that fail to implement the ban.

No one is quite sure, however, how safe or dangerous a cell phone might be.

"We all know of crashes that occurred because some driver was distracted. We all know of fatalities. But is it two or 1,000?" said Donald Reinfurt, deputy director of the safety research center at the University of North Carolina. "The data is so inconclusive at this point."

And there are other unanswered questions. Wireless phones might be dangerous emitters of radiation with the potential to cause cancer and other ailments, or they could be as innocuous as a child's teething toy. They can be lifesavers when calling police or simply useless because emergency personnel cannot pinpoint the location of a desperate caller.

To be sure, cell phones have proven critical in saving lives amid car wrecks and other calamities. They allow a motorist to alert authorities to speeding drivers or to those who appear impaired by alcohol or drugs. Some women's groups collect unwanted wireless phones and give them to victims of domestic violence for their personal protection.

The argument over the safety of cell phones can be heard on three fronts: It's in Washington, D.C., and in the statehouses where lawmakers are struggling over whether to pass cell phone driving bans. It's in the research labs, where scientists on Tuesday released a new study addressing whether the radiation generated by mobile phones is dangerous. And it's in the corporate boardrooms of cell phone makers and service providers, who face a looming deadline to make it possible for police to locate each and every cell phone user in emergencies.

Wireless goes to Washington
The new federal legislation introduced Tuesday by Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., and Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., mirrors many aspects of similar legislation introduced within the past two years by lawmakers in 40 states.

Those 40 states have sought to ban or limit drivers' phone use. Some laws have sought to make it an extra point on a person's driver's license if a crash is caused because the driver was distracted using a cell phone. Others have wanted to ban bus drivers from using phones, or to force teenagers on conditional-use licenses to lose their driving privileges if caught using a phone while driving.

Some of the laws have proposed allowing phones in cars, but only if the phones are operated with a hands-free headset.

But since the initial rush of legislation, 14 states have outright rejected the bills. Oregon even passed a bill prohibiting its cities and towns from passing laws banning cell phone use by drivers. As of Tuesday, not one bill had been enacted into law. If not voted down, the bills have been stalled in committee and are unlikely to see the law books.

Robert Shelton, executive director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), told a House panel in early May that it would be "premature" to ban drivers' use of cell phones because of what he called a "lack of data on impact of such a distraction."

"At this point, we don't have data that show this would be the answer," he told the panel.

The data itself is a mixed bag. The NHTSA estimates that as many as 30 percent of last year's 6.3 million accidents were caused by driver inattention, and phones "are a significant safety concern," according to testimony given by Shelton to a congressional committee.

Earlier this month, the Automobile Association of America reported its own study that found accidents were more likely to be caused by a driver changing a radio station, adjusting the air conditioning, or eating or drinking than using a cell phone, the research concluded.

In fact, using a cell phone accounted

Gartner analyst Bob Egan says the persistent talk about cell phone safety is enough to make anyone worried, but common sense should reassure most people. see commentary

for 1.5 percent of all the accidents between 1995 and 1999, the study shows. Of the 10 most common driver distractions, it ranked next to last, just above smoking.

Some people still believe there will be state bans, and ultimately a national ban not unlike the one in Japan, where the use of all electronic devices while driving has been banned for at least three years.

Fran Bents, vice president at Dynamic Sciences, a research facility in Annapolis, Md., sees the data every day. Dynamic Sciences has performed more than two dozen studies in the past three years for the U.S. government's defense and civilian agencies, plus dozens of local governments and academic institutions both domestically and internationally.

The organization believes that between 450 and 1,000 traffic deaths per year are caused by cell phones. She also cites recent public opinion polls in which 85 percent of Americans say they want a ban on drivers' cell phone usage.

"The momentum isn't going away from these laws," she said. "The very fact that public opinion polls now show that the majority of citizens want this is proof enough."

Bents has testified at the same statehouses where bills have been defeated. She thinks the bills have withered because of groups like the CTIA, which has poured millions of dollars into lobbying efforts against bans.

Location is key
While congressional members debate possible restrictions on cell phone use, other safety issues centering on the phones are also getting attention.

Public dispatchers can have difficulty tracking information, such as the caller's phone number and location, from a cell phone.

In an effort to improve the quality and reliability of 911 emergency services from wireless phones, the Federal Communications Commission has been active in adopting rules for the implementation of enhanced 911 for wireless services.

Three years ago, the FCC required carriers to provide the telephone number of the 911 caller and the general location of the cell site or base station to the Public Safety Answering Point. The FCC implemented this rule as a way for dispatchers to re-establish a call if it were terminated and to get a general sense of the location of the caller.

Beginning Oct. 1, the FCC will require wireless carriers to offer technology that would identify the precise location of wireless 911 calls to within about 50 meters to 100 meters for most calls.

"We haven't selected a particular technology but have structured the rules to allow any technology that can reasonably provide the location of a handset," said Daniel Grosh, attorney in the policy division of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. "The carriers are free to use any technology that can comply with the rules."

Radiation on the brain
As cell phones become more popular, consumers are becoming more anxious to know whether the phones cause brain cancer or tumors.

Some experts say radio frequency waves emitted by the handsets could pose a risk to people because radio frequency energy, especially at high power levels, can rapidly heat biological tissue and cause health problems.

Two studies released last year by the Journal of the American Medical Association and The New England Journal of Medicine suggested the opposite: Cell phone use does not increase the risk of developing brain cancer.

Researchers of the studies concluded that cell phones weren't linked to malignant tumors and that cancer patients didn't use their cell phones substantially more than those who didn't have the disease.

In addition, a report released Tuesday by the General Accounting Office said that research to date from the Food & Drug Administration and other major health agencies "does not show radio frequency energy emitted from mobile phones have adverse health effects, but there is not yet enough information to conclude that they pose no risk."

The GAO added, however, that other studies have raised questions about possible cancer and non-cancer effects that require further investigation. The GAO said the World Health Organization is still conducting research--including additional epidemiological, laboratory and animal studies--to address the issue. The U.S. government sponsors and supports some of the research, according to the GAO.

"The consensus of the FDA and the WHO is that research to date doesn't show cell phone radio frequency to have adverse health affects," said Peter Guerrero, director of physical infrastructure for the GAO.

"But the important caveat is that there's not enough information to conclude they pose no risk," Guerrero said.

______________

What level protection do you need?