Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Latest SAR Ratings for smartphones - Radiation Exposure

Sevanw

Sevanw

Suspended
Original poster
Here are the smartphones the expose you to the least amount of radiation. No surprise that Samsung continues to be some of the lowest SAR scores. Also not surprising that Chinese OEM phones have some of the highest. iPhones also continue to have some of the highest radiation exposure to the user. Most experts consider a safe SAR score to be anywhere from .10 to .50.

First up, smartphones that scored the best with the lowest exposure to radiation.
Least.PNG


And now the smartphone who exposed users to the most radiation.
Most.PNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: alxz1194, koigirl, Mendota and 5 others
willmtaylor said:
I said that his post was taken word for word from a blog with affiliate links. I said no more, no less. I’ll let others make validity evaluations for themselves.
Click to expand...
and all i did was point that fact out to you...no more no less....
I think it all speaks for itself....
 
willmtaylor said:
I’m sorry, but that’s incorrect. You implied that the affiliate links bothered me, which is a statement that I, in fact, did not make.

We can agree though, that the entire thread does indeed speak for itself.

All the best.
Click to expand...
I think it is correct...you tried to imply the data was somehow tainted because the blog site had links to products for sale.
The post speaks for itself....no comments about the results or what that means or anything like that instead it was indignation because the blog site had links to products on it's page......
Your post speaks for itself indeed
His post looks to be lifted word-for-word from the same blog that offers “unbiased” reviews and purchase links to these products.
Click to expand...
 
jamezr said:
I think it is correct...you tried to imply the data was somehow tainted because the blog site had links to products for sale.
The post speaks for itself....no comments about the results or what that means or anything like that instead it was indignation because the blog site had links to products on it's page......
Your post speaks for itself indeed
Click to expand...
Sources should always be considered in such instances; ‘tis folly not to.

However, I refrained from further commentary.

Be that as it may, you seem bound and determined to put words in my mouth and to have the final word, so I’ll say know more and let you go on connecting others’ dots for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot, T'hain Esh Kelch and BigMcGuire
willmtaylor said:
Sources should always be considered in such instances; ‘tis folly not to.

However, I refrained from further commentary.

Be that as it may, you seem bound and determined to put words in my mouth and to have the final word, so I’ll say know more and let you go on connecting others’ dots for them.
Click to expand...
I agree with you...sources should always be considered. But a quick Google search proves the sources were correct.
Seems the Google SAR search took as longs as copying links in a MR post.
Here I've searched it for you
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...s-wiz.......0i71j0i131j0j0i131i67.y4X1VPItqeI

Then you seem to not want to be confronted with your own words......no need to put them in your mouth as you said...they are your own words 🙂
His post looks to be lifted word-for-word from the same blog that offers “unbiased” reviews and purchase links to these products.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota, Tsepz and willmtaylor
willmtaylor said:
Bitter? Why? It’s smartphone radiation testing. lol.

I just think it’s disengenuous not not cite one’s sources.

I also think single-source blog posts with skin in the game ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

But you didn't ask for a source. You went straight for discrediting data. That's why I said you sound bitter. You should be asking why does Apple continuously have some of the highest SAR ratings? How can they be at the level of Chinese knockoff OEMs?Dont get bitter, get better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota and iSilas
Sevanw said:
But you didn't ask for a source. You went straight for discrediting data. That's why I said you sound bitter. You should be asking why does Apple continuously have some of the highest SAR ratings? How can they be at the level of Chinese knockoff OEMs?Dont get bitter, get better.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but if you’re starting a thread, and you’re quoting a source, it’s your job to cite appropriately. Full stop.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BlankStar, eltoslightfoot, T'hain Esh Kelch and 1 other person
willmtaylor said:
Bitter? Why? It’s smartphone radiation testing. lol.

I just think it’s disingenuous not not cite one’s sources.

I also think single-source blog posts with skin in the game ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
It is also disingenuous to cast shade on something without providing links to the contrary....
The time and effort it took to copy and paste the links in your first post could have been spent on a Google search that would have proved the data was correct.

Instead you chose to be snarky....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota, torana355, iSilas and 1 other person
jamezr said:
It is also disingenuous to cast shade on something without providing links to the contrary....
The time and effort it took to copy and paste the links in your first post could have been spent on a Google search that would have proved the data was correct.

Instead you chose to be snarky....
Click to expand...
No, disengenuous it is not.

It’s called being critical. Probably lazy, and sure, I’ll even give you snarky.

And if you really need links for evidence that uncited internet blogs (that themselves lack citations and contain affiliate links) can be unreliable and biased, then I have nothing further to give you. But that’s already been established.

Sevanw said:
Give it up. You got salty right off the hop. No point in trying to pretend otherwise. It's OK though, I get it. You don't like to see anything negative about Apple products. No further explanation needed. All good.
Click to expand...
Salty? Nah!

I am sorry that you can’t cite appropriately or take criticism without it being personal though, so I’ll humbly bow out now, but no salt.

Oh, and I almost forgot, I don’t own Apple stock, so unlike your blog, I have no skin in the game! (*ba dum tss!*) 😛
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot, T'hain Esh Kelch and BigMcGuire
willmtaylor said:
No, disengenuous it is not.

It’s called being critical. Probably lazy, and sure, I’ll even give you snarky.

And if you really need links for evidence that uncited internet blogs (that themselves lack citations and contain affiliate links) can be unreliable and biased, then I have nothing further to give you. But that’s already been established.


Salty? Nah!

I am sorry that you can’t cite appropriately or take criticism without it being personal though, so I’ll humbly bow out now, but no salt.

Oh, and I almost forgot, I don’t own Apple stock, so unlike your blog, I have no skin in the game! (*ba dum tss!*) 😛
Click to expand...
You were being critical without any data to validate the criticism. It is called bias towards a brand and defending that brand even in face of good data.

Instead of looking up the facts you chose to be snarky and cast shade on data you had no reason to believe was not accurate.

It is funny how you claim the OP can't take criticism...yet you seem to be on the defensive about data casting Apple in a bad light so to speak. Maybe some blind brand loyalty?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota, rhinosrcool, iSilas and 1 other person
jamezr said:
You were being critical without any data to validate the criticism. It is called bias towards a brand and defending that brand even in face of good data.

Instead of looking up the facts you chose to be snarky and cast shade on data you had no reason to believe was not accurate.

It is funny how you claim the OP can't take criticism...yet you seem to be on the defensive about data casting Apple in a bad light so to speak. Maybe some blind brand loyalty?
Click to expand...
Goods grief. You gents are truly like a dog with a bone. You want links? Here:

https://www.fcc.gov/general/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...sinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/default.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sar.pdf

I.e. Your whole diatribe is almost certainly moot.

I truly hope you can learn to take the blinders off and see both the forest & the trees.

Good day and goodbye.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot, T'hain Esh Kelch, three and 1 other person
willmtaylor said:
Goods grief. You gents are truly like a dog with a bone. You want links? Here:

https://www.fcc.gov/general/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...sinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/default.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sar.pdf

I.e. Your whole diatribe is almost certainly moot.

I truly hope you can learn to take the blinders off and see both the forest& the trees.

Good day and goodbye.
Click to expand...
still a little defensive....... Those links do not add anything to this topic to be honest except further prove the OPs data....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota and Sevanw
Okay the kids never talk on their iPhones like phones. They only do FaceTime conversations with each other. Do they get exposed to high SAR radiation in that use case?

FWIW I've known about these numbers for years. It's been like this through several generations of these same manufacturers. In fact I looked twice at the posting dates to make sure this wasn't thread necromancy.

I'd switch the kids over to Samsung if I could but they don't want to give up FaceTime and iMessages because half the time they are using iPads to communicate with each other as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamezr and BigMcGuire
Interesting reading none the less. I remember looking into this in the past. iPhones have always had high SAR ratings, but a phone doesn't just blast output all the time, only when sending data, or on a call. Topics such as these are usually on the same level as politics when it comes to people being offended and believing something, so I usually stay out of it.

People freak out over a cellphone yet get blasted with tons of radiation just by walking outside or living next to a cellphone tower. I've seen people put their face in front of a microwave (that was running) for an extended period of time and yet freak out over cellphone radiation. I've also seen people do the - put your arms up and press down on them, then place a cellphone on your heart and press down on your arms again - test to show how "cellphone radiation" affects people.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/02/02/the-truth-about-cell-phone-radiation/#308c71c1192a --- interesting read. --- Quotes this: https://www.quora.com/Do-mobile-pho...ectromagnetic-fields/answer/Inna-Vishik#aFbhv

Depending on how far you are from a cellphone tower will affect your phone's radiation output I would assume?! I assume these SAR tests know that and test cellphones with equally distant cellphone towers?

It is amazing the number of scare sites out there on cellphone radiation. Easily the vast majority of sites, even today, when I try to use a search engine to find out more information.
[doublepost=1549909107][/doublepost]https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sar.pdf

"Many people mistakenly assume that using a cell phone with a lower reported SAR value necessarily
decreases a user’s exposure to RF emissions, or is somehow “safer” than using a cell phone with a
high SAR value."
 
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot, I7guy and 5105973
BigMcGuire said:
Interesting reading none the less. I remember looking into this in the past. iPhones have always had high SAR ratings, but a phone doesn't just blast output all the time, only when sending data, or on a call. Topics such as these are usually on the same level as politics when it comes to people being offended and believing something, so I usually stay out of it.

People freak out over a cellphone yet get blasted with tons of radiation just by walking outside or living next to a cellphone tower. I've seen people put their face in front of a microwave (that was running) for an extended period of time and yet freak out over cellphone radiation. I've also seen people do the - put your arms up and press down on them, then place a cellphone on your heart and press down on your arms again - test to show how "cellphone radiation" affects people.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/02/02/the-truth-about-cell-phone-radiation/#308c71c1192a --- interesting read. --- Quotes this: https://www.quora.com/Do-mobile-pho...ectromagnetic-fields/answer/Inna-Vishik#aFbhv

Depending on how far you are from a cellphone tower will affect your phone's radiation output I would assume?! I assume these SAR tests know that and test cellphones with equally distant cellphone towers?

It is amazing the number of scare sites out there on cellphone radiation. Easily the vast majority of sites, even today, when I try to use a search engine to find out more information.
Click to expand...
If you think this topic has some scare sites try finding good objective information on 5G. I am making myself tinfoil pajamas as we speak. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota, Peterg2, I7guy and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back