specific absorption rate
robin.paulson at gmail.com
Tue Sep 2 09:56:26 CEST 2008
2008/9/2 Sarton O'Brien <roguemoko at roguewrt.org>:
> I don't know the specifics now but I looked into it years ago. The end result
> was that any mobile with an internal antenna is more damaging to human cells
> than one with an external antenna. The theory being that the transmission is
> taking place further away from your body.
> The only use I can see for the findings is to compare existing antenna models
> to pick the lowest value.
> From memory the motorola startac, like 7 years after it's release, was still
> the lowest. Ericsson tended to have the higher values with nokia falling
> somewhere in between.
> The way I see it is, there is a required/acceptable amount of power required
> to reach the nearest tower. Anything lower would be unacceptable and the
> findings then fall on the antenna design.
is the relationship as simple as:
increase the antenna size, decrease the radiation?
could an external antenna help increase battery life also?
is this something we can choose ourselves, or are there particular
requirements we should be aware of?
> Currently nearly all phones omit an antenna and therefore increase the SAR
> (and decrease the signal quality). I admit, I've never understood why an
> antenna like the startac's han't been included in newer phones. It did retract
the public values compactness over safety?
> after all. The alternative these days is to use a headset/ear piece (and
> probably leave the phone near other important parts of you body!).
someone suggested this was a bad idea, cos you're plugging the antenna
straight into the side of your head, actually making things worse
> The overall effect is that nearly all current mobile phones have a similar
> SAR, as far as I can tell anyway (give or take, usually based on the design of
> the internal antenna).
> It's been a while so thing may have changed ...
More information about the community