View Poll Results: Do You Feel That Cell Phone Radiation Is Harmful Enough to Care?
Yes 4 40.00%
No 4 40.00%
Not Really Sure/Still Researching 2 20.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply

[RADIATION] Note 1 vs 2 vs 3, CNET+Samsung Official Results

26th February 2014, 05:53 PM   |  #1  
lmike6453's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Phila
Thanks Meter: 318
 
709 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2010
More
Introductory:
Hello all, cell phones produce radiation just in case you did not know. These radiation levels are measured in a value called SAR(Specific Absorbtion Rate) and it literally is the measurement of just the bottom line of what the human body absorbs, rather than just the amount that it radiating(ha, get it?) around the device. Radiation is bad in the human body where it is directly related to certain issues, including directly reducing bone density in the body. I am posting this as an accurate informational thread where you can draw your own conclusions based off of facts.

SAR Levels:
SAR, which stands for Specific Absorbtion Rate, levels fluctuate depending on numerous factors, in which we must go over in order to accurately understand. The key thing to understand is that the further the device is from your body, the levels begin to diminish by the milimeter(mm).
For a phone to receive an FCC certification, the device cannot have a SAR level of more than 1.6 watts per kilogram in the US, and 2.0 in Europe.

Galaxy Note Series Tests by Samsung:
Let's take a look at the Note series in order to keep this sequential and easier to remember from a timeline fashion of perspective. The Galaxy Note 1 was released first(obviously) and is the model number SGH-I717 for reference. Taken from Samsung's website directly, here are the Note 1 results, including the way that they perform their own measurements:


You can see in this writing the methods that are used for testing, and that the body specific SAR tests have the device at 1.0 centimeters(CM), equivalent to 10 millimeters(mm) away. Keep this in mind and we'll touch up on this later.

And here are the Note 2 specific values:


And here are the Note 3 specific values:


So as you can see the comparisons above, the Note 3 effectively produces 153% more Head SAR than the Note 2, and 196% more Head SAR than the Note 1!
I would calculate the Body SAR differences but we have a big problem with Samsung's specific tests...they test these values with the device 1.0 CM(or 10mm) away from the body. This Body SAR calculation is useless to you if your phone presses against your body at 0 mm away!

Let's think...why would Samsung measure in this fashion at 1.0 CM away? Well the Note 3 produces 1.28 Body SAR at 1.0 cm away, so the big question is what would it produce at 0 mm away/ AKA in your pants pocket? Maybe it would exceed the FCC limitation of 1.6?

CNET Testing:
Now let's take a look at a recent test performed by CNET on 1/16/14 to see what they have found in differences in the Note series in particular:

The above is literally all of the information they posted where it is tough to tell how the test was performed and/or what body part it was performed against. By comparing the numbers, it seems as though they tested the head only since it matches the Head SAR values by Samsung.

But there is only but one main discrepency...the Note 3 reads 0.63 SAR value by Samsung, while CNET tested it at 0.9 SAR. Which one holds true?

Device Model Top Charts:
As you can see in the following results, our devices do not hold the highest SAR values compared to the worst out there *ehem* Motorola!


And here are the lowest SAR values amonst all devices. Keep in mind how the Note 2 is 4th lowest.


Theorycrafting:
I researched more into studies being performed per the distance of an object from humans and have found some interesting results.
Here is a model of the human head for reference, spefical model for SAR testing:


And here is are one test's results from testing the SAR levels after altering different distances:


This is just me tipping the iceberg to not go on and on.

Shifting gears toward current events, check out 2/14/14's event of the Army buying 7,000 Note 2's for its troops HERE
The reason why I feel that this is relevant is that they definitely would not want to have their troops being exposed to radiation levels higher than other devices. What makes more sense though is that they tested it for quite some time before it was rolled out, but who knows?

General Radiation Reduction Techniques:
-Consider a cell phone radiation reduction case, Google Pong research to get started since I'm probably not allowed to post links
-Consider buying a device with low SAR levels
-Keep the device out of your pocket or anywhere where it is directly against your skin. Even a hip holster might help keep it a few cm away, or carry it in a purse/backpack.
-Use speakerphone as often as possible to keep the device far from your head.
-Devices use the most radiation when beggining and ending calls. Pull the phone away from your head, even if just a few centimeters, when beginning and ending calls.
-Devices also use high radiation when "hunting for a signal". This occurs when your device has no signal, and needs to omit more power consistently to find one. So keep it away at these times.
-Bluetooth uses less radiation, but overall can be more damage from keeping it on your head for long periods of time. LOSE THE BLUETOOTH!
-Text instead of calling whenever it is applicable/feasible
-Don't sleep with the device near your head....think about it, 6+ hours of it so close to your head...

-Last things I wanted to mention are beefing up on certain things you eat.
a.) Eat seaweed, it's very powerful against radiation
b.) Look for natural supplements that particularly repair already damaged cells in your body from radiation. They are alpha lipoic acid and vitamins C and E


Conclusion:
Considering all of the above along with knowing that we are the guinea pigs for long term cell phone radiation, I strongly feel that it's best to consider SAR levels when purchasing a device. The SAR levels are obviously increasing with each new model being released and should be monitored closely.

It seems to show as being a factor toward brain tumors and bone density loss in only 1 of 2 legs in people(where they always kept their cell phone in the same pocket). I did not go much into detail here about these particular researches/tests, but I would recommend to now start looking into the tests performed for "decade-long cell phone radiation exposures". Imagine us after 50 years of exposure, and please feel free to comment here.

Your voice and opinions matter in this world, and you should speak up since you have a right to your own opinions, and I will respect it no matter what. I will post this across multiple forums that it belongs in and moderators, please let me know if I happen to post this in a forbidden section. Don't censor truth, and let the thread live.

Thank you for your time reading all of this and I hope it helps. If so, please rate the thread 5 stars and hit Thanks solely to promote the spreading of the word.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lmike6453 For This Useful Post: [ View ]
26th February 2014, 05:54 PM   |  #2  
lmike6453's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Phila
Thanks Meter: 318
 
709 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2010
More
reserved
26th February 2014, 08:03 PM   |  #3  
Azeazezar's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag ಠ_ಠ
Thanks Meter: 170
 
333 posts
Join Date:Joined: Aug 2011
More
I read the whole thing but i didn't see anything that worried me.
Besides that you advocate eating supplements and seaweed.

Seaweed can be toxic and supplements are not needed and probably unhealthy unless your diet is unbalanced.

Natural medicine is probably a bad idea.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/lif...ht-5059742.php
26th February 2014, 08:24 PM   |  #4  
lmike6453's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Phila
Thanks Meter: 318
 
709 posts
Join Date:Joined: Dec 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azeazezar

I read the whole thing but i didn't see anything that worried me.
Besides that you advocate eating supplements and seaweed.

Seaweed can be toxic and supplements are not needed and probably unhealthy unless your diet is unbalanced.

Natural medicine is probably a bad idea.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/lif...ht-5059742.php

Thank you for for posting and yes, I agree that supplements are only necessary if it is lacking within the diet...I should have included that part about the supplements, but assumed that was universal knowledge.

Seaweed however, I politely disagree with you on the general fact of "toxic". I'm sure there's a point of "too much of anything is bad for you", but in general, here is some basic information showing that seaweed is good LINK
26th February 2014, 10:39 PM   |  #5  
Azeazezar's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag ಠ_ಠ
Thanks Meter: 170
 
333 posts
Join Date:Joined: Aug 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmike6453

Thank you for for posting and yes, I agree that supplements are only necessary if it is lacking within the diet...I should have included that part about the supplements, but assumed that was universal knowledge.

Seaweed however, I politely disagree with you on the general fact of "toxic". I'm sure there's a point of "too much of anything is bad for you", but in general, here is some basic information showing that seaweed is good LINK

I didn't say kelp cant be part of a healthy diet. I am saying that you can not know where it comes from and kelp from polluted parts of this planet can be rather unhealthy. In moderation you are probably fine. Its the same thing with herbal supplements really, but with the added risk of you not getting the herbs labeled.

What i would be more interested in would be a study of a few rats with cell-phone levels of radiation applied to them.
O, look. i found just that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18782606

Also, if there would be huge increase in brain tumors, i think we would have noticed by now.
The 14 years old 3310 Has a similar sar value as the note 3: 0.96 W/kg (head)
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Top Threads in Galaxy Note GT-N7000 General by ThreadRank