December 2010: Lowest radiation smartphones

EWG Shopping Guide: Find feature-packed smart phones with half the radiation

EWG analysis undercuts industry arguments for higher radiation limits

December 14, 2010.

Shoppers looking for smart phones with the most features don’t have to expose themselves to higher radiation levels to get what they want, a new analysis by Environmental Working Group shows.

A review of the capabilities of 80 models of the latest generation of smart phones — and the published radiation levels that industry doesn’t like to talk about — showed that some full-feature phones emit relatively low levels of radiation [see the list]. EWG’s analysis undercuts industry’s contention that feature-packed phones inevitably produce higher emissions (AP 2010).

For example, the hot-selling LG Quantum phone has a “specific absorption rate” or SAR value of just 0.35 watts per kilogram (W/kg), one-quarter of the radiation emitted by the Motorola Droid and other high radiation models. The SAR is a government-mandated measure of how much radiation is absorbed by the body.

For the past several years, industry has been pressing the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies to raise the maximum allowable SAR value of 1.6 W/kg, a safety standard adopted in 1996 based on industry’s own recommendations (IEEE ICES 2010). Industry has also fiercely opposed efforts by San Francisco and other jurisdictions to require that cell phone retailers provide consumers with easy-to-find information on each phone’s radiation output at the point of sale, arguing that calling attention to these numbers suggests that there is a health risk from cell phones that meet the federal standard.

The issue of whether cell phone use, especially by children, may increase the risk of some kinds of head and brain tumors remains unresolved (Feychting 2006; MOBI-KIDS 2009). Research to date has not produced conclusive results, but several large epidemiological studies have pointed to an increased risk for people who have used cell phones the longest (INTERPHONE 2010).

EWG’s analysis finds: More features don’t mean more radiation

EWG researchers reviewed SAR figures for 80 late-model smart phones, comparing them to 167 bare-bones phones with fewer features. Our results are good news for consumers. You don’t need to skimp on features to get a low-radiation phone:

• On average, the SAR value of a basic phone (not a smart phone) is just 5 percent lower than that of a typical smart phone (1.12 W/kg versus 1.18 W/kg).
• The feature-packed "LG Quantum Windows Phone" posts the lowest SAR of all current models in EWG's cell phone database, including the non-smart phones.
• A typical low-radiation smart phone (lowest 10 percent) posts an SAR rating less than half that (58 percent lower) of a high-radiation smart phone (upper 10 percent).

Contrary to what the cell phone industry has claimed, consumers don't have to choose between a high-feature smart phone and a low-radiation phone. EWG's analysis shows that they can have both.

Overall, we found no relationship between the number of features and the radiation level. The range of posted SAR values is nearly identical for smart and non-smart phones. The 10 percent of smart phone models with the lowest radiation rated 0.65 W/kg on average, while the lowest-radiation non-smart models rated 0.67 W/kg. At the other extreme, the 10 percent of smart phones with highest radiation levels posted an average SAR of 1.55 W/kg, while the non-smart models clocked in at 1.49 W/kg.

Phone makers may be engineering lower-radiation smart phones by using directional antennas or by changing antenna placements to reduce radiation toward the skull or other parts of the body (Wireless Galaxy 2009, Swiss Federal Office of Public Health 2009).

Even when using a low radiation phone, though, it is essential to remember that many cell phones are meant to be used in a manufacturer-provided holster. When phones are in direct contact with the head or the body, as in a pocket, the body absorbs more radiation, possibly in excess of the FCC limit (FCC 2001). Other simple steps for reducing radiation exposure include using a headset and texting instead of talking. [see all tips]

Not all manufacturers, however, are making the effort to design smart phones with lower emissions. Meanwhile, the industry’s professional association, the IEEE, is lobbying federal agencies to loosen the radiation limits. If the government goes along with that, higher emissions could become the rule.

Industry pressures FCC to relax cell phone radiation limits

The FCC set its first radiation standards for cell phones in 1996, 13 years after they were first marketed in the United States. The agency adopted the SAR limits recommended by industry (IEEE C95.1-1991 standard) to protect against high-dose thermal effects. That standard allows 20-times higher exposure to the head (1.6 W/kg) than to the rest of the body (0.08 W/kg), and it does not account for children’s higher exposure relative to body weight and greater vulnerability to radiation.

For much of the past decade, the industry has been pressuring the FCC and FDA to loosen the SAR standard to permit greater energy absorption by the head (IEEE ICES 2010; Li 2006; Lin 2006; Microwave News 2001; Silva 2002). Under the IEEE proposal, the new upper limit for exposure to the head would be 2 W/kg instead of the current FCC maximum of 1.6 W/kg (IEEE 2006). The method of measurement would also change from the more sensitive approach of measuring SAR on a one gram of tissue average to a less sensitive method based on a 10-gram average (IEEE 2006). It is well known that averaging over the larger amount of tissue results in a one-half to two-thirds lower SAR value. (Cardis 2008; Gandhi 2002).

So far the FCC has not adopted this proposal, but the agency has a disconcerting record of accepting industry recommendations without peer review by independent scientific experts (GAO 2001; Lin 2006).

References

Associated Press (AP). 2010. San Francisco passes cell phone radiation law. June 23 2010. Accessed December 10 2010 at http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/22/san-francisco-poised-cell-phone-radiation-law/.

Cardis E, Deltour I, Mann S, Moissonnier M, Taki M, Varsier N, et al. 2008. Distribution of RF energy emitted by mobile phones in anatomical structures of the brain. Phys Med Biol 53(11): 2771-83.

FCC. 2001. Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology. Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01. Supplement C (Edition 01-01).

Feychting M. 2006. CEFALO-A Case-Control Study of Brain Tumors in Children and Adolescents and Mobile Phone Use. Epidemiology 17(6): S74.

Gandhi OP, Kang G. 2002. Some present problems and a proposed experimental phantom for SAR compliance testing of cellular telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz. Phys Med Biol 47(9): 1501-18.

GAO. 2001. United States Government Accountability Office. Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues. GAO-01-545. Available: www.gao.gov/new.items/d01545.pdf [accessed December 10 2008].

IEEE ICES. 2002. Approved Minutes 4th SC4 Revision Working Group Meeting. Motorola Research Labs, 8000 W Sunrise Boulevard Ft Lauderdale, FL 33322. January 10-11, 2002 Available: grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc28/sc4/sc-4%204th%20rwg%20minutes-january%202002.pdf [accessed April 20, 2009].

IEEE ICES. 2010. Approved Meeting Minutes. ICES TC95 Meeting. Food and Drug Administration. Friday, 15 January 2010. Available: http://www.ices-emfsafety.org/meetings_archive.php [accessed December 9, 2010].

IEEE. 2006. IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. New York, NY: IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (SCC39).

INTERPHONE Study Group. 2010. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 39(3): 675-94.

Li Q, Gandhi O. 2006. Thermal implications of the new relaxed IEEE RF safety standards for head exposures to cellular telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 54(7): 3146 - 54.

Lin JC. 2006. Update of IEEE Radio Frequency Exposure Guidelines. IEEE Microwave Magazine 7/2(April): 24-26.

Microwave News. 2001. IEEE Drafts Major Relaxation of RF/MW Human Exposure Limits: Cell Phone SARs Could Be 12 Times Higher. Available: www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/s-o01issue.pdf [accessed April 20 2009].

MOBI-KIDS. 2009. Study on Communication Technology, Environment and Brain Tumours in Young People. Available: http://www.mbkds.net/ [accessed December 9, 2010].

Silva J. 2002. IEEE retreats on relaxed RF guides. RCR News January 21, 2002.

Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH). 2009c. Mobile phones. Available: http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/00673/04265/index.html?lang=en [accessed March 5 2009].

Wireless Galaxy. 2009. Antennas. Available: http://www.wirelessgalaxy.com/Antennas/Categories.asp?cmbCategories=1&PageNo=1 [accessed July 10 2009].