Pre ranks well among radiation-emitting smartphones 15
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 9:03 am EDT 
We found out way back in May via the FCC that the Pre would not put out so much radiation to boil your brains, but recently the Environmental Working Group culled the databases to find out how all these phones stacked up against each other. The numbers above are a sampling of the most popular smartphones in the United States right now, and as you can see above, the Pre ranks near the bottom (with only the BlackBerry Storm pulling a lower score). And that’s a good thing, as with the specific absorption rate, smaller numbers are better.
Essentially, the SAR measures the amount of electromagnetic (radio) energy put off by by a phone during use. SAR is measured in watts/kilogram. Most smartphones do receive high, but poor, marks in comparison to their dumbphone brethren, but when you’re sporting 3G radios and bluetooth and WiFi and all sorts of fancy high power chips and processors you’re going to be emitting all sorts of radiation anyway.
For the record, the United States limits SAR ratings to 1.6 W/kg, while the EU sets the bar at 2.0 W/kg. If you’re interested in seeing how the Pre stacks up against other phones out there, you can head over to the EWG website and search their database.
Also, we should note that some of the information on the EWG website may not be completely accurate or complete. For instance, the Palm Pre page lists the phone for both Sprint and Verizon. We contacted EWG for clarification and they confirmed for us that Verizon’s listing on that page is indeed an error (for now, of course).
15 Comments
Darn! I could use a good brain fry......
This is a bit disappointing.
1. The fact that "cel phone radiation" causes brain damage is 100% bull. Cel phones generate non-ionizing radiation, which is harmless.
2. Emitting less radiation means less performance in poor coverage area. It's simple physics; when you're far from the tower, you need to put out more power to retain a strong connection.
So basically, all this "study" proves is that the Palm Pre's radio isn't that great a performer.
Hmm... so THAT explains why my high-radiation iPhone had such terrible coverage! Thanks for clearing that up. (Tongue firmly placed in cheek)
That was an issue with the communication algorithm between the iPhone and the tower. If I remember correctly it had nothing to do with the actual strength of the connection.
I wonder if there are any big differences between CDMA and GSM.
It's true, the stronger the signal, the better the coverage. Bad coverage might also be caused by a bad or defective antenna on the recieving part
Oh man, Zorinlynx, you are WAYYY of boundary here. My brother is a microwave engineer and he and I have talked about this ALOT. Non-ionizing radiation is NOT absolutely harmless.
Microwaves are non ionizing, so I dare you to bypass the lock on your microwave and stick your head in......
Sunlight is also NON ionizing. I dare you to lay on a beach for 2 days straight and see how you feel.
Non-ionizing radiation is not "harmless" as you claim. It's not mutagenic where it changes the cells, but still can be very bad for the human body.
#2. Less radiation doesn't mean less performance. Receivers do NOT require transmission to pick up a good signal. Your incoming signal strength is not in relation to your outgoing signal strength. Your tower performance has to do more with your location, the antenna and lastly the receiver circuitry in the receiver.
Same reason applies that you can take a hand held radio right UNDER a radio tower for a station you listen to and have lousy signal yet a mile away you have perfect signal to the same station. Like real-estate.... Location, location, location.
Ask any licensed amateur radio operator to explain basic antenna theory.
Now, back to the brain fry.....
Sorry, but UV radiation is ionizing, at least the stronger UV. Sunburn and DNA damage come from the ionizing portion of UV.
#1 Microwaves may be non-ionizing, but they cause heating when they are absorbed by water. Hence sticking your head in a microwave will hurt, but only because your head is being heated up by the sheer 1kW+ of energy being absorbed by it.
The sub-1W output of your celphone won't cause enough heating to make a difference and is harmless.
#2 UV radiation IS ionizing. Look it up.
You should probably do a little research before spouting off like a know-it-all and making a fool of yourself.
Ionizing radiation (UV, X-ray, and up) has atomic scale wavelengths which can knock out DNA pairs.
The visible spectrum (light you see) is about 1000 times larger.
Microwaves that heat stuff are molecular scale wavelengths, which vibrate water molecules to heat.
Radar, which gets slung all over the world at higher powers than a cell phone, is lower than that with longer wavelengths.
And with wavelengths about a MILLION times longer than visible light we have radio waves, at 1-10 meters. That's what cell phones use.
You get more "radiation" from a lamp, or the sun. Please stop spreading this junk pseudoscience. All it does it give credit to the control-happy frauds pushing this garbage.
Thank God cause until my new case arrives, I'm keeping my phone in my pants pocket, close to where the "boys" are. I would prefer less radiation in those parts.
I hope they update this chart when the GSM Pre is available...
You should add that the BlackBerry Curve on your graph is for the 8900. The 8300 (T-Mobile, ATT) and 8330 (Sprint, Verizon, other CDMA) are in the high range of 1.5.
did anyone else notice that it said sprint / verizon?
Works with these carriers
Sprint *, Verizon Wireless
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?query=palm+pre&p...
Anybody read?
"Also, we should note that some of the information on the EWG website may not be completely accurate or complete. For instance, the Palm Pre page lists the phone for both Sprint and Verizon. We contacted EWG for clarification and they confirmed for us that Verizon
Emitting as little radiation as needed is good for battery life.
As far as cancer goes, there is no conclusive link between cell (or wifi) signals and cancer. Just about every study done concludes with "no clear link found, but more study is needed." There is a lot of contradictory information out there. I have yet to see anyone provide a convincing mechanism for cell phone radiation to cause cancer.
Am I saying that cell phone radiation absolutely positively does not cause cancer? No. I'm just saying the evidence we have so far has me not worried about this.
Also, remember that if we pretend for the sake of argument that cell phone radiation causes cancer, then the cell phones of yore (that is, analog cell phones) used significantly higher amounts of radiation than today's cell phones. Cancer (typically) takes decades to develop. That means odds are that it would be the analog cell phones that caused it, not today's lower power digital cell phones.