https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/id:1401296.6809799895/rid:d8620bb87779f037779c692f8af14737

--------

SAR is a misleading red herring

I fully agree with Alasdair that the SAR is a misleading red herring - my opinion is based on Robert Kane's book.

Alasdair Philips adds even more reasons to doubt the SAR. I think the FCC is objectively right but from the wrong reasons. Their interest looks more of the industry (plus the first picture of the gallery of the Washington's Post article showed something too..) than really checking into what's right and wrong with the SAR otherwise they would recommend the public to measure power density. The SAR keeps the industry in control because only the industry (or researchers) can measure it in the lab while the public is not aware of the option to measure power density independently.

Iris Atzmon


----- Original Message -----

From: Alasdair Philips
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 1:28 PM
Subject: RE: FCC changes cellphone safety advisory

Surprisingly I would agree with the FCC. I have long thought that peak SAR was a rather misleading "red herring".

Some of the lowest peak-SAR phones actually have a higher total SAR into brain tissue than the much higher peak-SAR handsets - it is just spread out a lot more through the brain tissue. Generally low SAR phones are less efficient at getting their signals out to the base station and so regularly work at a much high transmit power to compensate. Peak-SAR (the thing used for SAR rating) is just the highest value recorded for any 1 g of brain tissue (USA) and 10 g (Europe). It does not represent in any way the total SAR into the user's brain.

Handsets have a power-control range of over 1000-fold in the power they transmit - they are told what power they need to transmit at by the basestation during the start of the phone call when the handset works at full power for the measurement to take place. Efficient handsets then turn their power down by often over 100-fold!

So SAR ratings are not really the issue and I think the FCC change is an appropriate one.

Choosing a low peak-SAR handset was really a diversionary exercise by the thermal effects only brigade, in my opinion. It missed the point of non-thermal concerns completely. If the problem of brain cancer or other effects turn out to be non-thermal effects, then all handsets have a problem and choosing a low SAR handset will not help and might, in fact, be worse.


Alasdair Philips
Powerwatch



http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=FCC
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=FCC
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=safety+guidance
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=safety+guidance
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=non-thermal
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=non-thermal
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=brain+cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+cancer