Research In Motion’s BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation, according to the latest 2010 Environmental Working Group ranking. Following the Bold 9700 are the Motorola Droid, the LG Chocolate and Google’s HTC Nexus One. The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.
The FCC’s cell phone radiation standards closely follow the 1992 recommendations of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). These standards allow 20 times more radiation to penetrate the head than the rest of the body and do not account for risks to children.
FCC standards limit the radiation absorbed by a cell phone user’s brain and body to a specific SAR (absorption rate), measured by the amount of the phone’s radiation energy (in watts, W) absorbed per kilogram of tissue (W/kg).
Current FCC regulations permit SAR levels of up to 1.6 W/kg for partial body (head) exposure, 0.08 W/kg for whole-body exposure and 4 W/kg for exposure to the hands, wrists, feet and ankles.
The BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores an overall 1.55 SAR in the new rankings. The Motorola Droid came in at 1.50 while the LG Chocolate scored a 1.46, the Nexus One ranked a 1.39 and the Apple iPhone 3G scored a 1.19.
“We at Environmental Working Group can’t be pried from our cell phones. But we’re troubled by recent studies that have found significantly higher risks for brain and salivary gland tumors among people using cell phones for 10 years or longer,” the EWG said in a statement.
The EWG also admitted that more research on the controversial topic is crucial.
Update: The EWG report is here, and EWG publishes a list of radiation delivered by all phones available in the US.
Suspended prison sentence for Craig Wright for “flagrant breach” of court order, after his false…
Cash-strapped south American country agrees to sell or discontinue its national Bitcoin wallet after signing…
Google's change will allow advertisers to track customers' digital “fingerprints”, but UK data protection watchdog…
Welcome to Silicon In Focus Podcast: Tech in 2025! Join Steven Webb, UK Chief Technology…
European Commission publishes preliminary instructions to Apple on how to open up iOS to rivals,…
San Francisco jury finds Nima Momeni guilty of second-degree murder of Cash App founder Bob…
View Comments
Where's the link to this data / study? This article is useless and pointless without any references.
The 3GS got a 1.19. The 3G got a 1.03
Here we go again. Another attempt by the US to destroy a non US company that is doing well on their turf.
First it was Toyota and now it's Blackberry.
"...to a specific SAR (absorption rate)..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
Thanks for your comments. The original EWG report is here
http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation
I have added a link in the story.
And can I say, looking at the list of phones available in the US, how good some of those names are?
You chaps have a Motorola Brute and a Samsung Slash. Over here, even the Motorola Droid gets renamed as the Milestone.
Peter Judge, Editor, eWEEK Europe UK
Has anyone else noticed that the ones that have the highest emissions are also the ones with the best reception.
Surely everyone knows today to try to keep Blackberry's and Google's on speakerphone, or connected via wire, away from the head when possible. The day will come when people will wonder 'what were they all thinking when they held those radiating phones next to their brains for hundreds of hours', the same way we wonder about people who thought smoking was healthy before 1950.
Interestingly enough I would have called the article
"Palm Pixi leaves other phones in the pixi dust in radiation ranking"
since the bold isn't the actual top, it just has a name that fits in a heading.
Theoretically, either someone is a competitor or if someone wants the price of RIM to drop for a small one day sale.
"Cell Phone Radiation Well Within Federal Guidelines and Rules" would have been a more apt headline, as the article itself states in the first paragraph.
With regard to the studies that purport to show higher risks for certain cancers among cell phone users of 10+ years, I would like to examine the methodologies of those studies.
Since the Environmental Work Group probably has a workforce somewhat older than the general population, I'd bet that it suffers a higher rate of disease (common to older people) than the general population. Only this headline writer would conclude "Working at EWG Increases Risk of Middle-aged Maladies"
The EWG is a American Lobbyist entity that needs scrutiny itself. Basing your opinion on the data it provides is possibly inaccurate due to it's reliance for funds from somewhere, but not a legitamate unbiased source. Because it is a biased organization from the legal action it has taken in the past. While there are arguements on both sides of this issue, the reality is long term exposure to average DNA degradation which forms the mathmatical calculation. Since the DNA is an entry into that equation, wild and inaccurate information can be inferred anywhere regarding this subject on both sides of this controversy. Keep that in mind when reading the posts here. As well, I have been exposed to many so called lethal doses of radiation and biochemical exposure during my armed forces stint. I may not last much longer since I am 47, but I really believe the new generation is really whiney on this. What's next and at what cost? Do you as the consumer really understand when you get the phone, what you are paying for? If there is a solution to reduce dangerous emissions as well as data that comes from an un-biased consortium, I am all for it. But do not form an opinion based on one organization.