Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BlackBerry Bold Tops Radiation Ranking

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the woo-top-of-the-list-awesome dept.

Cellphones 189

geek4 writes with this excerpt from eWeek Europe: "Data from the Environmental Working Group places the BlackBerry Bold 9700 as the mobile device with the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation among popular smartphones. 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."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh good (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280590)

Perhaps this means it'll get signal where I live?

Re:Oh good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280896)

First! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280606)


Loser! (2, Funny)

viraltus (1102365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280656)

You're just a Motorola Droid.

Re:Loser! (0)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280852)

This isn't the Droid you're looking for.

Move along.

Brand-name Power (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280608)

The solution? Stop putting in the Bold (tm) chunk of americium inside the earpiece. :3

Re:Brand-name Power (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280652)

Why do you hate Americium?

Re:Brand-name Power (2, Funny)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281042)

I hope this doesn't turn into a boron and predictable thread of chemistry puns.

Re:Brand-name Power (3, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281206)

I hope this doesn't turn into a boron and predictable thread of chemistry puns.

A post like that is like a big Neon sign just asking for it to happen though.

Re:Brand-name Power (4, Funny)

willworkforbeer (924558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281364)

I hope this doesn't turn into a boron and predictable thread of chemistry puns.

A post like that is like a big Neon sign just asking for it to happen though.

I zinc you guys must beryllium, like, so bored this evening.

Manganese puns get any lamer?

Re:Brand-name Power (2, Funny)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281434)

Oh, the irony of it.

Re:Brand-name Power (3, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281800)

The apparent contradiction in your statement presents an interesting antimony. Personally I think all the good puns argon, but I've lead the way before, and I will again, although I'm not nearly as good at this as my friend Nick. When he gets going nickel bark them out like he was Rin-Tin-Tin. I do feel like I have one on the tip of my tungsten... Copernicium.

Re:Brand-name Power (1)

FauxReal (653820) | more than 4 years ago | (#31282256)

As long as they're periodic, it shouldn't be too distracting.

Re:Brand-name Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31282080)

Why do you hate Americium?

Actually the BlackBery Bold is Candianum.

Re:Brand-name Power (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281132)

How else are they going to create the ionization trail all the way to the cell tower?

(A useful fact: if you point your Blackberry Bold at someone near a high voltage source, they will be struck by lighting.)

Uh (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280610)

The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.

Wait... so I guess that makes this a complete non-story?

Or maybe we should have an enthralling debate about how these devices are within legal spec.

Or perhaps it's flamebait: We're supposed to bring out the apple fanboys and where the iphone ranks.

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.

Ok, I read some of the article. I guess we can talk about how close the Blackberry is to the upper bound. It still seems like a boring, non-story.

Radiation Blues (3, Insightful)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280666)

It's flamebait for the "cell phones cause cancer" crowd: the word "radiation" is a dead giveaway.

Re:Radiation Blues (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280774)

It's flamebait for the "cell phones cause cancer" crowd: the word "radiation" is a dead giveaway.

Did someone say EVOLUTION? Well you know that - uh, what's that? Ahhh, radiATION...mmm, ok, wrong thread, I'll head back to my cave. /troll

Re:Radiation Blues (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280984)

What else would you call it? It is electromagnetic energy that radiates from the device.

By any other name (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281152)

I would probably call it "radiation", and not bother with "electromagnetic energy". I have no problem with radiation, as such. I'm just saying (in my original post) that it's a hot-button word for some people -- not me or you, but some people.

Re:By any other name (2, Funny)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281410)

Stupid people? The same people that think microwaves are a mutagen?

Re:By any other name (1)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31282250)

Or like that retard who thinks he's allergic to wifi?

Re:Radiation Blues (1, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281220)

I thought it was flamebait for why the iPhone drops 30% of calls [] .

Re:Radiation Blues (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281438)

Yeah but the iPhone doesn't kill you with cancer, it just makes you gay.

iPhone had lowest radiation (-1, Flamebait)

carlhaagen (1021273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280628)

This is obviously a plot by Steve Jobs. It can't be for real. Fanboy's have duped the data, and possibly the entire SAR research. Linux Grannies outraged; news at eleven.

Okay, guys. (1)

linuxgeek64 (1246964) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280632)

Get out your tinfoil hats! This is a life and death situation!

Re:Okay, guys. (1)

westcoast philly (991705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280864)

Unfortunately, We've already discussed the effectiveness of tinfoil hats. That would be likely to fry your noggin even faster. []

Re:Okay, guys. (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281420)

You need to take it to the next level - the tinfoil body suit is proven effective.

lol, where's the iPhone? (4, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280634)

You poor fanboys, your precious toy didn't even make the list. Weak is the signal, weak as the user.

Re:lol, where's the iPhone? (3, Funny)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280676)

Based on your id "0xdeadbeef (28836)" and the fact that you didn't RTFA, you must be old here.

Re:lol, where's the iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280808)

This is not intended to be a troll so please dont misunderstand what I'm saying - but the people I know who have an iphone do complain about the signal quality not being as good as their other (non-smart)phones. Maybe this is why?

Re:lol, where's the iPhone? (2, Informative)

dafing (753481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280860)

these people who complain about low signal strength with their iPhones, are they on AT&T? I live in New Zealand, I have a jailbroken Original iPhone running on Vodafone and it works just fine...As you know, the Original iPhone is 2G, but that shouldnt matter, if you are talking about dropped calls etc?

I believe all the iPhone troubles, to be the fault of AT&T, since nowhere else in the world do iPhones seem to have as much as trouble!

Re:lol, where's the iPhone? (2, Informative)

indiechild (541156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281068)

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence.

I've never had signal strength problems with my iPhone here in Australia, nor has anyone I know complained about it.

Re:lol, where's the iPhone? (2, Insightful)

dafing (753481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281720)

I agree, my point is, theres all this raw HATE for the iPhone, much of it from bitter people who for whatever reason cannot have an iPhone, and "the coverage sucks" is a very common complaint I hear.

The problem is not with the phone, its that damn AT&T network in the USA. I hope people remember, Apple supposedly went to Verizon first []

From what I understand, Verizon is the best US network, and the iPhone is a very desirable phone (anywhere in the world), if the two met, it would be a marvellous thing.

I know it sucks having "locked" phones, most of the world has "unlocked" phones, you can easily run any iPhone 3G or 3GS on any of the three networks here in New Zealand, just throw the sim card in, boom!

Its AT&T that sucks for reception

Re:lol, where's the iPhone? (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280998)

Wow, when I do that I get modded troll (not that I care anyway).

The iTrollerators must be sleeping, wrapped in their cozy reality distortion field. ;)

Re:lol, where's the iPhone? (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281368)

Ah, they get RDF not EMI/RFI.

Pro/Con (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280678)

Pro: Best distance from tower possible due to high TX power
Con: no kids^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Pro: no kids

not a big deal (5, Insightful)

sammykrupa (828537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280712)

Someone compiled a list, then sorted it numerically by some quantifiable characteristic.

Something came in at #1. what a surprise. this doesn't mean #1 is that that good or great or bad or harmful, as noted in the summary itself
"The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules."


Re:not a big deal (2, Interesting)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281038)

It's useful because now I have a device with a new function -- warding off the 'cell phones cause cancer!' crazies. Just wave my 9700 at them, and they'll run screaming for their tinfoil-insulated houses (which keep out the pain-causing wifi signals, of course).

Re:not a big deal (2, Funny)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281354)

Not a big deal? I for one demand that all cellphones rank below the average in terms of radiation!

Yay! pop corn faster! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280742)

It's old, but good:

Now that Rick is gone, what else can I do?

no comprende (5, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280746)

The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.

Then why is it a story?

Re:no comprende (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281012)

Well, guess who profits from this?
See, there you got the reason why this is a story.

(For the uninformed: Apple pays lots of money to have at least a story about Apple on Slashdot every week.)
(And I’m in no way saying that this would make them worse than anybody else doing it. They’re just better at it. ;)

Re:no comprende (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281030)

The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.

Then why is it a story?

Because we know from the meatpacking, pharmaceutical, and genetically modified crop industries just how much those lobbyist-paid federal regulators have (hah) public safety at heart. So we want to see the numbers and decide for ourselves.

Re:no comprende (4, Informative)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281056)

Three reasons come to mind:

1. Even though it's within limits, there are people who intentionally look for units that emit the least RF possible, so that if it does turn out there was a risk they are minimizing their risk. It's at least more rational than sleeping in a Faraday cage and suing neighbors for WiFi radiation or wearing tinfoil underwear. If you need a cell phone but have some concerns about RF exposure, picking the cell phone that emits the lowest levels of RF just seems like a rational middle ground.

2. Some will intentionally seek out phones with high RF because more RF means the radio has more juice or the antenna is more efficient, which means it'll get "more bars in more places". I know my Blackberry Curve 8310 gets awesome signal in a lot of places that iPhones don't, so I'm sure that also means it's putting out more RF and/or has a more efficient antenna.

3. If it's GSM, one of the side effects is the annoying clicky-buzzing sound every nonshielded electronic device within ten yards emits. Less RF means less of that interference.

Re:no comprende (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31282356)

Or, to put the parent posts #1 in different terms: there's a certain percentage of dead insect body parts legally allowed in our food. Just because it's all legal, doesn't negate any differentiation I make with regard to the food that has insect parts right at the legal limit versus those well under the legal limit.

Re:no comprende (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281074)

Because if you keep reading, there's something about a killer whale mauling its keeper at the end of the article. Duh. RTFA.

Re:no comprende (1)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281384)

Then why is it a story?

I know. Why would anyone want to make the most popular smartphone (among business users) look bad? It just doesn't make sense.

Attn: Fat Girls (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280760)

ok, you're fat and there's nothing you can do about it. Well, there is one thing you can do but if you could do it, you wouldn't be fat. Anyhow, you probably don't expect to get laid much but every once in a while, some guy is drunk or bored and decides to throw you a bone. So do yourself a favor and shave your cunt. Nobody likes fat girls and nobody likes hairy beavers. Guess what? Nobody likes fat girls with hairy beavers!!! So put down the ice cream and shave your vag. Thanks.

So? (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280776)

it's within legal limits.

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281394)

In PA (USA) the legal limit for driving while intoxicated was 1.0. Now it's 0.8. Legal limits change when new facts are discovered. Do you remember asbestos? Lead paint? What about cigarettes? Oh, wait, cigarettes are still legal, even though their deadly effects are well documented.

Note: I do not believe that cell phones cause cancer, but just because something is legal doesn't mean it's safe.

i'm shock that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280790)

this wasnt posted by kdawson

Just to head this off... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280792)

electromagnetic radiation != atomic radiation

"Cell phone radiation" just means that the things are electromagnetically noisy and prone to interfere with other nearby electronics through induced currents.

Re:Just to head this off... (0)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280888)

You should go stand in front of an unprotected x-ray machine or microwave for a while and tell me how your little theory works out for you.

Re:Just to head this off... (0)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280968)

WTF are you talking about? Cellphones do indeed use electromagnetic radiation, they're not beta or alpha emitters. Now, electromagnetic radiation at high enough powers can be damaging, but cellphones are completely safe. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a certified loon.

Re:Just to head this off... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281122)

The distinction is ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation.

Linky-poo, just for you. []

Re:Just to head this off... (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281562)

So, because microwaves are not ionizing, you think it would be safe to stick your head in a microwave?

Re:Just to head this off... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281578)

I have a background dealing with the exploitation of RF radiation. Five milliwats per square centimeter allowed, with a RAHAM-branded star-trek phaser with a lengthy dick-shaped attachment ensuring that I don't become sterile or get cataracts. Information enough?

Re:Just to head this off... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281686)

Yes, in the context being discussed. The point you're implying is a straw-man. You're basically comparing a heater warmed to 98 degrees with jumping into a fire.

Re:Just to head this off... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281204)

Electromagnetic radiation in any amount has effects on human biology. Many not well understood. It is not unlikely that at least some of these effects are cumulative. As every coin has two sides it seems likely that these effects cause both positive and negative effects.

I personally don't think there will ever be much for direct evidence of any ill effects. Possibly because they are not significant enough. Though I think largely because we change our technology to often to get a clear idea of what the effects are from consistent long term use. How long will you have the same phone with the same chips that is transmitting at the same frequency and maintain the same usage pattern.

Another thing I think should be considered besides just measuring the amount of em is resonance and what component elements in our bodies mite correspond to them. It is also unknown what emergent effects of quantum level interactions may be taking place.

Can I have my loon badge now.

Re:Just to head this off... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281008)

!atomic != safe

Re:Just to head this off... (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281028)


!atomic != !safe

What is your point?

Re:Just to head this off... (2, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281602)

You should go stand in front of an unprotected x-ray machine or microwave for a while and tell me how your little theory works out for you.

The 1100 watts of microwaves from your microwave are of the riht band(s) to act on the water molecules in your body. Your cell phone and other wireless devices do not use these bands. The vast majority of the EM that is emitted by these devices goes right through you without doing anything. Now I should also add that the perforated sheet of metal that lets you see through the glass also reflects the EM from the microwave and thus very little EM actually escapes because it is a faraday cage. You can stand in front of one all day long compltely uninjured. X-ray machines O.T.O.H. are shielded (for the operators) by a significant quantity of Lead. Further, microwave EM is not radiologically equivalent to X-rays as microwave EM is not ionizing. X-rays are. Big difference.

Re:Just to head this off... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280930)

What, an intelligent response?

I was tempted to say I have one cellphone that emits zero radio is old and no longer used, so it is turned off. cellphones have to emit rf in order to work. Sure, the very early ones used much higher power, but no recent ones do.

however, i hear tin foil hats make excellent antennas for some people...

Re:Just to head this off... (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281328)

Actually, "atomic radiation" includes:
* electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays)
* electrons (beta particles)
* neutrons
* He2+ particles (or alpha particles, if you prefer)

Re:Just to head this off... (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281440)

He probably meant ionizing radiation. That covers x-rays too.

This link would have been nice in the article... (5, Informative)

CliffH (64518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280796) [] -- This is the actual report site. Have a look through.

Re:This link would have been nice in the article.. (1, Informative)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281078)

This link [] would have been even better. You see they have 1.58 W/kg. You have over a dozen phones above 1.5. Somebody always has to be the highest. Actually, the model number they cite is not the worst, although the worst is still a Blackberry.

True, they are several times worst than the best; but is that meaningful? If the standard for poison X in the water is 100 ppm, and your city water has 2 ppm and mine has 20 ppm that's a factor of 10 but it doesn't mean anything if you believe that the standard is safe.

Oh, and I was wondering about the units--W/kg. It appears that they use some kind of test that measures how much a body would absorb per unit mass, which is actually pretty cool.

Re:This link would have been nice in the article.. (1)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281510)

They typically take the radiation pattern, determine the part that radiates into your head and how much power that is out of the total with respect to how much flesh it's hitting and penetrating (different penetration depth for bone, skin, etc).

They also have a pretty sophisticated series of models for different sized people, different manners of holding the phone, etc and typically use some type of average.

Re:This link would have been nice in the article.. (1)

judgecorp (778838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31282096)

Oops yes. I have added both those links to the story.

Another thing about this research is it is compiled from the manufacturers' own data - though obviously any attempt to falsify could be picked up, I don't know how many third parties have measured the radiation.

I see from the list of phones at EWG that there are phones called a Motorola Brute, and a Samsung Slash. Why do American phones always have better names? Our Droids are Milestones, for goodness sake....

Peter Judge

Sweet (1, Informative)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280798)

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

That is awesome. Now you know what cell will have the strongest possible signal!

Of course the unspoken assumption being made is that this cell phone radiation, aka radio waves, are somehow a bad thing or undesirable.

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31280892)

But what does this mean for battery life?

Re:Sweet (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281034)

I purchased a BB Curve 8330 a year ago and never (not once, honest) had a dropped call due to poor reception. Audio quality has always been consistent.

I guess the fact it ranks in at #6 of having the highest radiation level has something to do with that =) CNET has written a nice article on the subject with a chart of phones by radiation rankings.;page []

Re:Sweet (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281106)

I hate “we all know this” statements in situations that only exist because not everybody knows this.

Microwave radiation from mobile phones can by definition (=frequency=energy) not ionize anything. It can only heat things up. In case of human flesh that is 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius. (Warning: Only the rotation causes the strong heating in microwave ovens. Not the resonance or radiation energy itself.)
Do you know what Van-den-Waals bondings are? Look up their bonding energy. Now take the above quantum energy the radiation (as a function related to penetration depth e.g. into the brain, balls, etc) [like SAR], and you know if it can denature proteins.
(It’s not that hard, and quite interesting. Especially to know it for sure.)

See. That way nobody can just make (stupid) bold statements or (even dumber) take sides, without knowing shit about the topic. (Notice how I myself did not take sides but only stated mere facts based on quantum physics. You have to not accept them, to not accept this.)

Re:Sweet (2, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281298)

Did you just say that the main reason your water gets hot in the microwave is because it's going around in a circle and not the...ummm.. microwaves? Cause I'm thinking I could lower my energy bill if you're not a complete crackpot. /sarcasm

Re:Sweet (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281416)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding which part of your statement was supposed to be the sarcastic part (which words are receiving the intonation), but he's talking about the rotation of the water molecules spinning around (not the plate rotating in the oven).

Re:Sweet (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281332)

and you know if it can denature proteins.

yeah, but there seems to be something else going on, some effect on DNA. There was that one study about the 1800MHz DNA breakage, the one about the protein expression in skin cells, and the one about a protective effect against Alzheimers in mice. And those are just a few I happen to recall.

While you're right about non-ionizing radiation, we want to be careful not to say, "this isn't gamma radiation, so it has no effects".

Re:Sweet (1)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281402)

Microwaves without mode stirrers would indeed heat food. It just wouldn't heat them evenly. Even with mode stirrers, you don't get consistent constructive interference evenly enough through the chamber (and from enough angles where containers don't partially block the signal) to not require a rotating tray to put the food on. There's a reason that lots of microwaves have 1kW power draw, and that's because they deliver 500W+ of RF energy into the cavity, which is enough to close a megabit communication link across thousands of miles with antennas the size of a large pizza plate. It's nothing to laugh at and would most definitely hurt if you were in front of it. There's a reason why the Colombian drug runners that dry their product with open-door microwaves have exceedingly short lifespans.

That said, microwaves are non-ionizing, but they do enough to cause damage. Lots of S-Band RADARS have caused cancer (including lots of L-Band, UHF, etc transmitters, not to mention police RADAR guns). So, energy does count for something. I don't really worry because the intermittent transmissions up to ~3.5W (while typically being less than 1W) really probably aren't going to do that much.

So, cut people a little slack when it is already widely known in the literature that radiation at that frequency can and will cause cancer and other problems in people (at high power).

Dude... that's Rad!! (1)

v3xt0r (799856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280840)

I had been one of those mislead skeptics and paranoid anti-radiation-braintumor cellphone conspiracy theorists until I actually worked around some radiology detection systems and began randomly testing things, like cell phones.

I never got to test an iphone, which is what I have now, but my old Samsung A90 from sprint, never set off any of the detection systems, unless I had just walked-in from the outside during day time, which was due to residual radiation from just walking outside. So I quickly realized that just walking around outside in the sun, exposed me to far more radiation than my cellphone alone ever would.

It was most interesting, though, when my old CTO went in for a CT scan and was tripping-off the radiation detectors for 3 days straight thereafter.

Whooo Hooo! (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 4 years ago | (#31280868)

We're number ONE!....

Oh wait....

Blackberry's next plan (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281010)

They'll come out with one that is just exactly at the Government limit on radiation, and call it the "Zesty".

Then they'll come out with one well above the limit and call it the "Extra Crispy"

Electromagnetic spectrum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281018)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but since cell phones operate in radio frequencies, wouldn't it have to be running at massive power outputs to even potential cause damage to DNA? You would think that meter (or decimeter, or centimeter) wavelengths would have a hard time smacking a DNA molecule. Put it this way, radio visible spectrum ultraviolet, and last i checked, you had to go up to UV to worry about cancer. Could you get cancer from a really bright light, all in the visible spectrum?

AC because I forgot my password...

Re:Electromagnetic spectrum (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281276)

Any kind of DNA damage done by the frequencies used by cellphones would be due to heating, but the power levels are much too low for that to occur.

Figures (0)

xbeefsupreme (1690182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281086)

I guess that's why they call it a crackberry

Radiation yes, but non-ionizing radiation folks... (5, Informative)

Audrey23 (663718) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281088)

Folks please don't get wound up about 'radiation' from a wireless device, remember that it is only 'heating' radiation, not ionizing radiation [] . All it is going to do is warm your skin near where the phone is, or very slow cook for you microwave oven enthusiasts... Ionizing radiation like gamma rays are quite another story and will cause DNA damage, but are a wholly different type of 'radiation'. You will get more damage from standing out in the sun every day then you will from the weak signal that is emitted from your mobile. Now the fact that most mobile phones these days do not have a very efficient antenna is quite the reason that so many of them have such bad SAR values, if people could just stand having a little 'duckie' antenna sticking out of the top of the phone then we would have more efficient emission of the signal and a better SAR value. But that is not sexy and so we won't see any more antenna's like we did when cellphones first came out and so instead the phone body itself is the antenna and a good portion of the emitted signal is absorbed by the hand and head, its just the way it works... The best thing is to educate yourself and make your own decisions []

Re:Radiation yes, but non-ionizing radiation folks (0)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281306)

So you're ok with the side of your head getting slowly cooked?

Re:Radiation yes, but non-ionizing radiation folks (1)

Audrey23 (663718) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281458)

I would get more heating from standing out in the sun, please do some research, the amount of power and the duty cycle of most modern cell phones are minute in comparison to the amount of heating you get laying in the sun...

Actually. . . (3, Interesting)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281940)

Oh boy.

I can't count the number of times I've run across this particular piece of rationalization. Probably because, on the surface, it makes an emotional kind of sense.

Yes, non-ionizing radiation doesn't burn anything. But that's not the problem. Nobody is claiming it IS the problem. The only people who are convinced that anybody is claiming this as the problem simply aren't paying attention. Sorry. I don't mean to come down hard on you, but the EM spectrum is useful in electronics because it vibrates, not because it burns things. Cells, when vibrated on the EM spectrum, react. It's that simple. There is a ton of information available to anybody who wants to know what is really going on here.

Basically, it comes down to this:

Cells respond, evidently by their very nature, to coherent electromagnetic signals in the 1 to 500Hz range. They do all kinds of weird things depending on the pulse rate and power and how the Earth's magnetic field interacts with the signal. Cells have been observed to reproduce many times faster or slower than normal when exposed to different radio frequencies. -Or to open up their membrane walls allowing foreign particles to enter which would not normally be able to pass. Very low power signals can do this and a great deal more.

There are a number of observed mechanics, one of which is called, "Cyclotronic Resonance". Here's an example. . .

As I am sure you know, everything has a natural sympathetic frequency. This is understood. Cyclotronic Resonance is a type of resonance which occurs when both a radio frequency and a steady magnetic field are present. For instance, when you produce a 60Hz frequency, (as in wall-socket current), and combine it with a steady magnetic field of 0.2 Gauss, (as supplied by the Earth's magnetic field), the Lithium Ion resonates and becomes excited. It also moves on a spiral vector. The result is that any trace quantities of Lithium which happen to be in the blood stream of an organism will cease to sit still and will instead energize and move, enabling them to penetrate the blood brain barrier with greater frequency than normal. It was noted that rats exposed to these conditions exhibited behavior consistent with a medicinal dose of lithium drug as compared to the control rats. It should be noted that Lithium is the active ingredient in many anti-depressants.

That's just one small example. There are many others. But you're NOT going to read about them in the main stream press. You just won't. I'd explain why but that's a whole other post. (Typically, people who believe in the whole idea that "non-ionizing" means "Safe" also tend to have trouble believing that the media can be anything less than honest. Or that corruption exists. Or that any group might have a vested interest in mass-medicating a population. Just as one example.)

But there is some excellent information out there. -A good book on this is, "Cross Currents" by Robert O. Becker. []


Of course it is.

Good luck.


Re:Actually. . . (3, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31282052)

Oh boy, yourself.

Your post displays all the hallmarks of pseudoscience: elevated language to bamboozle the layman, accusations of censorship from the media, bald assertion of "common sense" causal connections, and a complete lack of rigorous data. A simple search-and-replace on your post could turn it into a defense of intelligent design, magnetic healing, or homeopathy: the thought process is the same. You adopt all the trappings of science without the rigor that makes the exercise worthwhile. You're no better than an alchemist.

You're not being censored by the media. Get over yourself. The mainstream media is more than happy to report on harmful substances when there's a modicum of evidence attached: see asbestos, tobacco, trans-fats, etc. That stuff sells like hotcakes! If it were discovered that cell phones were carcinogenic the media frenzy would make the Toyota debacle look like a slow news day.

There's simply no credible evidence in support of your worldview. You're the one making the outrageous claim that electromagnetic waves we've lived with for over a hundred years are actually harmful despite all the research to the contrary. Therefore, the burden falls on you to provide evidence, and your shameless unfounded assertions are seriously wanting.

Oh, and before you link to some minor study that purports to find a weak effect: your evidence needs to be strong enough to outweigh the "null hypothesis" of there being no connection. Perform enough studies and you'll get a few that show a positive result just by chance [] . Any study that purports to show a connection between cell phone use and cancer needs to:

  • Rigorously control for other risks. (Oh, look! Cell phones are correlated with cancer in our study! Never mind that all our cell phone users worked in PCB plants and our control group was a class of toddlers.)
  • Have a large enough sample size that its statistical power [] is significant. If cell phones are harmful, clearly the effect is weak and gradual. A very large study is required to reliably detect weak and gradual effects.
  • Be performed by a credible, disinterested party like a university or government lab. Would you trust a Philip Morris study on the effects of smoking, a Trojan study on the reliability of condoms, or a PETA study on the health effects of red meat? I thought not.
  • Be confirmed by an independent organization

Show me one of those and I might concede you're onto something. It wouldn't be the first time in history of science that a fringe group happened to be right. But the vast majority of these fringe groups are utterly incompetent if not downright fraudulent. That's why we ask for real evidence. If we were cro-magnons, I'm sure you'd be spreading FUD about the evil spirits that would be awakened if we kept using "fire" to cook our food.

Provide strong evidence. Put up or shut up.

I guess it needs to be said... (1)

jtollefson (1675120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281102)

Hail to our cell phone mutated Blackberry Overlords! We can only hope that they do not develop the ability to integrate their Blackberry devices into their personal beings. Their productivity and ability to stay "plugged in" at all times will fuel another 80's style boom, we'll see the resurfacing of large furry boots, bright color shirts, men in "skinny jeans", popped collars, & a small but ferverous following singing Rick Astley's "Never gonna give you up". We are so screwed.

Radiation vs. Reception (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281234)

How about a comparison between Radiation levels and reception power of the phone so we can see if the trade off is worth having lees dropped call?

Sweet! No Alzheimer's for me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31281380)

Cell phone radiation reverses Alzheimer's in mice.
See here:

Best phone for Alzheimers? (1)

TimTucker (982832) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281472)

Given the study a while back on cell phone radiation being possibly beneficial for Alzheimers patients, it seems like this information could be useful for anyone looking to try to it out for themselves: []

Here's what I think about the BB (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281474)

This is literally my experience with Black Berry's.
At first I had a old 7900, a big blue brick of a BB that worked great, I never had problems with it and it's never crashed or broke.

I move up to a BB curve 8330 and there isn't a day I don't curse the name of Rim. The phone is an electronic brick, it's a horrible phone that never works. My first 8330 had the screen just shatter on it, like totally blow up, Of course the screen is never covered by warranty because Rim knows just how crappy it was built. Being I still had a long contract left I had to buy a new 8330 from Virgin and this phone is even worse. The first problem is the battery life is horrible, it's unacceptable, a full charge yields 10 hours of battery.

The second major problem is the horrible signal strength. Now don't go quoting it's CDMA or a Bell network and it's not Rim's problem the signal is bad. It's 50% Rim's problem and 50% Virgin's problem. If the BB can't get a signal why would it use the battery as an open drain to boost the signal output does that make sense? NO, NO it doesn't, maybe to a first semester electrical or telecommunications engineer but that's about it. Before you go calling me a Troll or Flamebot or what ever else names exist, I'm currently a studying Telecommunications Engineer and I just finished a full Computer Engineering Degree, so I know what I'm talking about with signals.

I'm going to focus on why this is Rim's problem first. It's there duty to make sure if the phone can't find signal it shuts off searching or goes into an INT mode until the phone enters a signal area. I know GSM works this way and I know CDMA can work this way, I do have a full CCNA Cert and a Wireless Networking Cert. The battery should be used on min power when the phone is not in operation. The problem is when the phone is searching for a signal is keeps switching between quiescent current and transient current which will lead to power being wasted. Rim should take care to make sure this doesn't happen!

How this is Virgin's problem, they should make sure the phones they use work in all expected area's. If I sit by my window I should be getting more then 1 or 2 bars. I would also like to mention the fact that there telecommunication engineers should be one the ball and know this problem exists and either recommend Rim fixes it or fix it themselves by changing the access method to the network. If you can use CDMA you can easily change the network protocol to access on a different basis. It's basic cellular networking studies and practice, If you can use CDMA to access a network you can also use many other network access techniques. If Virgin doesn't take the time to look into this then there just as much responsible as Rim and hence we find the 50% duty shared by both sides.

Some referance links if anyone if interested: [] [] []

Those links do a fair job of explaining and backing up the points I made above. Virgin refuses to look into this problem claiming there not responsible, well I don't know how they can justify that but I haven't given up fighting that problem.

It doesn't stop there, it keeps going and starting Yesterday on the 24th of Feb my BB started just randomly restarting every variable amount of time. I tied to update the firmware, I've tried to remove the battery, I've even tried to reset the BB to default firmware and just screw my settings. Nothing works, I can't figure out anything I haven't done to try and get over this problem. Today the 25th I contacted Virgin telling them this is what happening, of course they blame the battery, then they blame the phone programming and on and on and on.

Lets cut the bull, the phone wasn't made well, the phone is broken. A fault in design is a fault in the company, this should of been picked up. Signal problems in a phone are an over sight and for a company like Rim they should of been on top of it and I don't see Rim offering to fix the problem when I've told them about it. Now we have a phone which restarts randomly, how much longer do I have to put up with the BB from hell. Do I think ALL BB's are horrible, not necessarily, I've used and seen models I think are great and probably don't suffer from these problems. The point is signal problems should NEVER exist from a cellular phone company. You can call Rim a smart phone company or what ever you want but when you get down to it there just a cell company.

Could it be just my phone, sure it can be just my phone which doesn't work. My point is if the phone was able to fail in the ways my phone has failed then problems must of occurred in either the manufacturing stage or the development stage and both stages are the duty of Rim to assure only top notch quality gets put out.

If I have to rate my over all experience with BB I get it full 33% in success which is a complete fail. In 3 phones, 2 have broke and the ratio speaks for it's self

List of Cell Phones (1)

LBt1st (709520) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281486)

CNET has a nice list of just about every cell phone model out there and how much radiation they put out. []

Click through the pages for lists by manufacture.

Cell Phone Radiation (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281750)

Is that anything like delta radiation? A tachyon field? The omega particle?

I also like this, from the summary: "the highest legal levels." Hm.

Maybe it should be called the Blackberry Bald (1)

Nicky G (859089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31281918)

Burn those hairs right off your head!

NYC has highest amount of poison in water!! (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31282234)

  • #1 602000000000000000000099 arsenic molecules per mole - NYC
  • #2 602000000000000000000098 arsenic molecules per mole - LA
  • #3 602000000000000000000097 arsenic molecules per mole - Chicago
  • #4 602000000000000000000096 arsenic molecules per mole - Miami
  • #5 602000000000000000000095 arsenic molecules per mole - Houston
  • ...

This might affect you! Visit my site to read more about this shocking news and give me ad views!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?