Radioactive phones get a caning by greens

"The higher the SAR the more likely you are to mutate into something more interesting or die."

With no known reported mass casualty deaths must the proof conclude that we all are mutating into something more interesting.

And I would certainly Second and HyperRadioProActively Support and Defend that Motion/Notion.

*Simple Shared Smarter Intelligence?

amanfromMars is clearly unwell. I understood that and quite enjoyed his comment.

The phenomenon observed for these phones is not radioactivity from decay of radioactive isotopes, but intentional RF emissions from the antenna for the purpose of providing communications to the user. There is much confusion between non-ionizing radiation from cell-phones, ionizing radiation from x-ray machines, and nuclear radiation from Chernobyl (and many other sources).

I have read at least one study that states that the heating effect from cell phone radiation caused participants to improve mental performance. My understanding of this type of RF radiation is that the only effect on the human body is heating, nothing else.

I hope this clears some of the confusion.

the only reason they allow the damned things is simply because it takes so long to kill the users off with various cancers, ME, ADHD, and god knows how many other degenerative illnesses which are fatal.

the IEEE and FDC have recently amended their paperwork and have now decided they cannot be held accountable for products that meet their specification that may kill or maim users. siting that they are not a medical authority and as such cannot give any guarantees that anything with their stamp on is safe for human or animal usage.

bearing in mind that mobile phones much like that artificial sweetener that got pushed through government safety checks (after all the board members got a big incentive to pass the gear) shows just how rigorous the federal government is in getting freebies for stamping boring paperwork.

the testing method was probably like this.
test 1: Naval long range radar array(the big mesh thing that sits in top of the battleships and spins round chucking out stupid amounts of RF energy)
method: place test animal at 1m from array, turn on for 10 minutes.
result: heads up, barbeque is ready :)

test 2: mobile phone
method: place test animal 1m from test unit.
result: animal still alive, bum! looks like its canteen food again.

obviously no test was done to find out if the animal was suffering from a headache or could be suffering any other health effects which would show up after prolonged periods of time.

and since the levels are soo much higher than what could occur in nature and occuring over such a short time span at varying power levels, it looks like were all gonna die out before we get a chance to mutate.

Ionising or non-ionising, because the difference really matters. Stick to hugging trees and leave the difficult stuff to the grown ups, eh?

The WHOLE POINT of a transceiver's transmission line and aerial system is to maximise transfer of energy both ways. Assuming all power management algorithms are equal, your little list will be ignored by sensible folks for its original purpose, but I'll bet you that the "most dangerous" phone on your list has the best RF performance.

...now that nearly all cellphone standards are based on CDMA at the 'physical' layer, stringent power modulation is actually a requirement. The closer the handset gets to the tower, the quieter it has to shout to avoid stomping on everyone else's signal. The further it gets from the tower, or the more occluded it is in your pants-pocket, the higher it has to turn up the juice...

Phones with legacy AMPS or original GSM support are thus going to be heavily penalized now, since the legacy modes operate (and potentially perform better) at higher powers.

If the SARs are measured at maximum output for the "worst" operating mode of the phone - there's less pressure for "legacy-free" phones to support whopping power outputs for those stranded-in-the-desert/tube/elevator situations. (Of course, this means it'd be more fair to have a 'civilization' figure as well as the worst-case numbers.)

Anyhow - yeah, it's just heating, and a fairly tiny amount of heating - take a quarter of a nightlight and spread it over a kilogram, that's the US maximum limit and most phones are fractions of that - but we don't have enough data to know completely-for-sure that extremely mild uneven heating of meat over a dozen years' time spent blathering does *absolutely* nothing.

You'd definitely get better returns on health switching all coal plants to nuclear than worrying about this, though. *Air* is carcinogenic if an oxygen molecule reaches the wrong place at the right time.

Is this article a work of parody? Perhaps some really subtle satire?

No really... I just have to ask because first is starts off grand with "radioactive phones" that "will give you enough radiation to make you glow in the dark". The goes on with this marvelous piece of... of... I don't even know what to call it but here it is: "The higher the SAR the more likely you are to mutate into something more interesting or die".

And *then*, once we have established that cell phones are ZOMFG!!! like *so* friggin' dangerous, yeah totally! ...then up pops the caveat: "none of them will agree if mobile phone energy is dangerous or not".

What ever prompted the author to print this piece of ignorant advert-in-disguise?! It's a shamless plug of the EWG with no press ethics at all apart from that hastilly tacked on note to inform us that the things he said before were made up on the spot to pad out an otherwise really boring article.

If this isn't very subtle parody, the author ought to go stand in the corner.