Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

SAR rating for new iphone 3Gs

I have looked for the SAR rating for the new iphone 3Gs to see how much radiation it emits. Most phones list the SAR rating in their technical specs, but I cannot find any reference to the SAR rating of the new iphone. Does anyone know, or perhaps I overlooked something in the specs. The last version of iphone 3G was about 1.38, a not particularly good number since the maximum allowed is 1.6

Posted on Jun 8, 2009 10:15 PM

Reply
17 replies

Jun 9, 2009 7:49 AM in response to curiousjim

Very good question. I have done a bit of searching today as well and come up with nothing. Sure, it's the first day since the announcement but one would think that this piece of information would be standard in the tech specs of any phone nevertheless.

The high SAR rating of the 3G version was the reason I didn't get it and stuck to my original one (with the beautiful silver back...:) ).

Can someone please enlighten us?

Jun 9, 2009 11:26 AM in response to Randy Fast

Do people actually worry that much, especially when it's under the threshold permitted and STILL no evidence to link phones causing ill-health?

Additionally, these 'rules' on SAR are to avoid any legal implications especially as you guys in the US like to sue for the most ridiculous reasons.

Perhaps you could double or even triple the radiation levels and it still be 'okay'? It's like sell-by and use-by dates on food. These items are edible for days and weeks after the date on the carton...... it's to avoid legal implications not because it will do you any harm.

Jun 9, 2009 2:24 PM in response to rgb.brown

I would assume one is merely cautious about the effects or possible damage of SAR, just as a few renowned cancer specialists state its best to be safe than sorry and limit ones use of cell phones. There has not been enough time to fully discount high SAR levels as safe. Remember, there were hundreds of studies stating that cigarette smoke had no effect on human tissue, until many years later of course. The same could be true for cell phones.

Jun 10, 2009 7:34 AM in response to Craig Baron

Craig; that may be 'the point' to you, which is fine.

However, many do not accept the 'limit' as it stands. There is enough evidence for at least a healthy degree of caution. Long-term damage can not be shown by short-term studies.

You suggest using a bluetooth headset- but the phone still has to be on the person unless they are seated at a desk. Therefore the phone is next to the body.

Lastly, it is not conducive to healthy debate to use terms like "very silly".

Jun 10, 2009 7:49 AM in response to rimawa

Are you also concerned about having a cell phone near your body (as opposed to near your head)? Do you also research the emissions from household appliances (microwaves, cordless phones, wireless routers, etc)? In that case, "very silly" does seem to be the appropriate term.

OK, I'm done with this "debate." You should use whatever criteria you like to select your devices. I need to go check my Radon monitor now.

Jun 10, 2009 10:50 AM in response to rimawa

To be fair I can see both points here but I'm siding more with Craig purely because if you are worried about emissions from mobiles, I trust that you do not have a television, radio, microwave, routers, do not walk in the path of cell-sites or radio masts etc.

We constantly have waves travelling through our bodies and maybe more than this SAR 'recommendation'/'guideline' however we may not realise this!

The point Craig is trying to make is that the phone is under the guideline limits which are no-where near harmful! You probably endure a higher quantity of radiation emissions just walking to the shop!

I appreciate caution but not choosing a phone on this factor is barmy. In fact, why have a mobile at all if that worried?

SAR rating for new iphone 3Gs

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.