CELL PHONES & RADIATION LEVELS...

[soloist]

Cell phone users -- a group that, these days, means practically everybody -- are no doubt concerned about Tuesday's news that the World Health Organization (WHO) classifies cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

The phones themselves aren't necessarily harmful. It's the radiation emitted by the phones -- and absorbed by the human body -- that troubles some doctors.

But when it comes to radiation levels, all phones aren't equal. Below are lists of the models available from major carriers that emit the highest and lowest levels of radiofrequency energy.


A quick explanation of the numbers: They refer to the "specific absorption rate" or SAR, a common benchmark that measures the rate of radiofrequency energy your body gets from the phone. The lower the number, the lower the radiation exposure. For a phone to be certified by the FCC and sold in the U.S., for example, its maximum SAR level must be less than 1.6 watts per kilogram.

But keep in mind that these are only ballpark figures. Your actual exposure will depend on how you use your phone, your carrier and network-specific conditions. For example, when your connection is weak, your cell phone needs to send out more radiation to reach the cellular tower.

And there's still no conclusive evidence that a phone with a higher SAR level poses a greater health risk -- or any health risk at all -- than a model that emits less radiation.

(These lists were compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a lobbying group that advocates on behalf of public health and the environment, based on data provided by the phone manufacturers. The data are up to date as of December, which means some newer models aren't listed. For the group's full list of phone models, click here.)


Lowest radiation levels:

1. LG Quantum (AT&T): 0.35 watts per kilogram
2. Casio EXILIM (Verizon Wireless): 0.53 W/kg
3. Pantech Breeze II (AT&T, AT&T GoPhone): 0.55 W/kg
4. Sanyo Katana II (Kajeet): 0.55 W/kg
5. Samsung Fascinate (Verizon Wireless): 0.57 W/kg
6. Samsung Mesmerize (CellularONE, U.S. Cellular): 0.57 W/kg
7. Samsung SGH-a197 (AT&T GoPhone): 0.59 W/kg
8. Samsung Contour (MetroPCS): 0.60 W/kg
9. Samsung Gravity T (T-Mobile): 0.62 W/kg
10. (tie) Motorola i890 (Sprint); Samsung SGH-T249 (T-Mobile): 0.63 W/kg



20 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 Zine ZN5 1.59
3. Motorola Rival 1.59
4. Kyocera Jax S1300 1.55
5. Motorola VU204 1.55
6. RIM BlackBerry Curve 8330 (Sprint) 1.54
7. RIM BlackBerry Curve 8330 (U.S. Cellular) 1.54
8. RIM BlackBerry Curve 8330 (Verizon Wireless) 1.54
9. Nokia E71x 1.53
10. Pantech Matrix 1.52
11. LG Rumor 2 1.51
12. RIM BlackBerry Bold 1.51
13. HTC SMT5800 1.49
14. Sony Ericsson W350a 1.48
15. T-Mobile Dash 3G 1.47
16. Samsung Instinct 1.46
17. Samsung Spex SCH-R210 1.46
18. Kyocera X-tc 1.45
19. Motorola i576 1.45
20. Motorola Adventure V750 1.45

-CNN/CNET-


direct link to highest chart

direct link to CNN

[Frong]

Yeah, I love this - they "might" be carcinogenic. "Might." You know, kind of like how the same institute says coffee "might" be carcinogenic. You know what actually IS carcinogenic? Living. Just being on the Earth at all automatically exposes you to a certain degree of radiation, which causes damage to living cells over time. Some of that damage results in mutations that develop into cancer for some people. That's an indisputable scientific fact. Until some equally indisputable evidence is found to prove that cell phone use reliably does cause higher rates of cancer, these people should quit fearmongering and leave us the hell alone.

[Nakor]

Cells have been shown to cause or not cause cancer so many times now it makes one's head spin. The key line seems to be here:

And there's still no conclusive evidence that a phone with a higher SAR level poses a greater health risk -- or any health risk at all -- than a model that emits less radiation.

So why did we need a press release warning us that they do then?

[Frong]

So why did we need a press release warning us that they do then?

We don't. That's why I find the entire matter moronic. People who make scientific proclamations without any proper scientific evidence deserve a boot to the head.