iPhone ranks poorly in cellphone radiation comparison
Although the data is far from conclusive, it increasingly seems like long-term mobile usage is having negative impacts. But not all handsets were created equal, which has me wondering exactly how good or bad Apple’s game changing smartphone really is.
Like a lot of people, the folks at the Environmental Working Group are concerned about the often conflicting data available about cellphone use and cancer.
Recent studies find significantly higher risks for brain and salivary gland tumors among people using cell phones for 10 years or longer. The state of the science is provocative and troubling, and much more research is essential.
Unlike most of the over 4 billion cellphone users, however, the group is acting by gathering data about the radiation levels that the more than 1,000 mobiles available on the market.
That said, of the 238 of so devices listed on the group’s site, where does the only phone that matter land? Well, the iPhone 3GS is neither good nor horrible, holding down the 123rd position with a rating of 0.52 – 1.19 W/kg.
Overall, the average rating (calculating using only each device’s highest number) for all devices listed is 1.14 W/kg, whereas the average for the Top 10 is 0.463 W/kg.
And, who’s got the top rated phone? It’s the Samsung Impression (SGH-a877) which is also offered by AT&T.
So, do you think there should be stronger oversight of wireless devices? Personally, I’d like see industry and government get out in front of this issue rather than letting it become another tar baby, such as tobacco or coal…
What’s your take?
Related posts:
September 27th, 2009
The evidence and simple physics argues against health problems due to cell phones – here’s a 2009 National Cancer Institute fact sheet:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/cellphones
The data supports, at most, tiny health effects, and are most consistent with no effect.
September 28th, 2009
When are you going to stop using stupid, misleading headlines?
Headline: iPhone ranks poorly
Text: iPhone is right in the middle of the pack and its emissions are within 5% of the average for all phones.
How about real content and then headlines that match? Is that too much to ask?
September 28th, 2009
My Take?
My ‘take’ is that your article is pure sensationalism; especially the title, which, if one actually reviews the data, is totally inaccurate!
September 28th, 2009
The iPhone is known to be one of the worst and one reason is that it has so many functions that those that have entered the trance mode can’t put it down. Also, the American Cancer Society and the WHO are too severely compromised by money from the telecom industry to have any credibility at all. At a recent conference of scientists in Washington D.C. the representative from the American Cancer Society was nearly tarred and feathered and called “amoral” for the stand that the ACS takes. Many people erroneously look to them for information but should look towards the hundreds of sites that post the latest scientific results like: http://www.wirelesswatchblog.com