SAR value iphone 6 GSM

It doesn't seem to be there yet... I'm also eager to know.

If it's lower than my iPhone 5, it's an instant purchase for me. If it's higher, it's a no go. As simple as that. My health first.

Since no one really knows what the SAR value means in terms of health why would it matter?

When we don't know much about stuff that can affect our health, I don't know for you, but I prefer being much more conservative.

If Samsung can come up with phones with a SAR-value of 0.50, I don't see why Apple can't, and I don't see myself buying another phone that I cannot put in my pocket, like my iPhone 5, because it exceeds the standards.

But is that value good or bad? Will you wipe out your future progeny at that level or will slightly lower than that do it?

Non-smartphones have a much lower SARS so if you are truly concerned with your health I would think you would go with one of those.

I take it you do not have a Galaxy S 5? It's rating is 1.6.

I take it you used the number that made the iPhone look way better than the Galaxy ? If you compare apples to apples, it's far from being the case :

iPhone 5

Head : 1.18 W/kg, Body : 1.18 W/kg, Simultaneous transmission : 1.57 W/kg

Galaxy S5

Head: 0.63 W/kg; Body: 0.82 W/kg; Product specific use: 0.82 W/kg; Simultaneous transmission: 1.59 W/kg

Look, I'm far from being a Galaxy lover, but if I can give them one thing, that indicator scores much, much better than Apple, who's supposed to care a lot more about our health.

I have no idea what's dangerous and what's not. It all depends on people's receptivity to radio-frequencies, to the frequency of use, probably even to the genes and whatnot, and it's something that happens on long term. If there are values that are prohibited, it's for a reason. And for as long as I or the whole humanity does not know this information, I'll remain careful.

I hope someone will post it here when they find out. It is important to me too.... and isn't it obvious Deggie that those of us interested in low SAR levels want the lowest SMARTPHONE possible? It isn't an unreasonable request. I don't want a low SAR dumbphone. I just want a smartphone with a lower SAR.

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

http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

With the second link you can check it yourself when the FCCID is known which would be this Friday.

Read the guide first and when checking SARS use the European or FCC reports but don't cross-compare them. Given the insignificant difference of the levels of various phones that are under the FCC limit there won't be a major absorptions difference unless you are holding the phone to your head about 8 hours per day every day.

I would suspect the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus will be higher than the iPhone 5 due to the added LTE bands and the larger antenna in the larger phone. All the iPhones since the iPhone 4 went up in SAR absorption due to the antenna the came up with. As other brands copy this they will also increase and as they add newer radio chipsets with world LTE bands their numbers will also go up. Of course none of them will equal what you will receive with one airplane flight or even come close to what you are absorbing if you have a microwave oven and WiFi in your house and at your work as well as how many microwave relays and cell towers are near your house. Unfortunately I haven't found any SARS ratings for routers, extenders, TVs, or microwave ovens.

So when it is released check the number with the above link and you will have your answer.

The FFC ID of the 4.7-in is BCG‑E2816A according to : http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Models

The full report is very long, it can be found here : http://fccid.net/document.php?id=2360809#axzz3DQW5PkOy

I might be an engineer, this thing isn't my field of expertise. I'll interpret it as I can, but will wait until Apple posts the numbers.

In the meantime, I do believe it goes like this, according to page 8 :

Head : 1.18 W/kg

Body : 1.18 W/kg

Simultaneous : Head 1.51 W/kg, Body 1.58 W/kg

The permitted limit is 1.6 W/kg.

The iPhone 6 Plus is slightly worse.

All of this data is very high, in fact equal to or higher than my iPhone 5 as I also expected... which means I'll wait another year.

Apple's numbers had better be the same as the FCCs.

I think you might be waiting awhile once LTE Advanced makes it here I would expect the numbers to go even higher.

If you want to be conservative you should never use any cell phone - ever. And also don't live in a city. Or use a microwave oven, or live near someone who does. Or fly in a commercial airplane. You get more x-ray radiation exposure on one 6 hour flight than you get in a year on the ground, including dental x-rays and routine other diagnostic procedures. There is no meaningful research on what is safe and what is not safe for cell phones despite years of trying. As there has been no increase in any medical problem that can be directly or indirectly tied to cell phone use over the past 30 years it's reasonably safe to say that SAR doesn't matter. Keep in mind that SAR is directly tied to quality of the connection. So the lower the SAR the worse the phone will perform. And there is not one SAR number for a phone; the value will vary with signal strength over a 10 to 1 range. If you live in a weak signal area your exposure will be that much higher than in a strong signal area.

Rather than be concerned about a non-issue like cell phone radiation exposure, which is non-ionizing, worry about real health risks like air quality, water quality, or just crossing the street.

Lawrence Finch wrote:

Rather than be concerned about a non-issue like cell phone radiation exposure, which is non-ionizing, worry about real health risks like air quality, water quality, or just crossing the street.

And wear sunscreen.

Lawrence Finch,

you are TOTALLY wrong!

There are tons of scientific publication confirming intensive mobile phone users at higher risk of brain cancers (just the first link I got with Google: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/13/intensive-mobile-phone-users-high er-risk-brain-cancer-study).

Moreover the level of SAR for the Iphones is always "sensationally" higher than the Samsung top level mobiles (as David Pelletier has already clearly explained in his response to Deggie) and I have never heard about a lower performance of the Galaxy compare to the Iphone.

So, the big question is still that one: how is it possible that a Galaxy SAR parameter is 50% less than that one of the Iphone?

I wasn't aware that the term "ton" measured how much research that was available. What I find doing a search is a study supposition that there could be a link but no link itself or any supporting research at this time. I'm also not aware of the scientific term "sensationally" higher.

First of all,

My reply was to Lawrence Finch who wrote: "There is no meaningful research on what is safe and what is not safe for cell phones despite years of trying".

Again, there are TONS of scientific publication confirming the link between a higher risk of brain cancer and the exposure to the electromagnetic field generated by a mobile; you know what: "that's the research, baby, the research! and there's nothing you can do about it. Nothing!"

Anyway, you and your friends are still avoiding one of the main point of the discussion: how is it possible that a top level Galaxy SAR parameter is 50% less than that one of the Iphone? What is the technical justification considering that an Iphone has not a better performance of a Galaxy in terms of connection?

PS I hope will not come out a consideration like: "... the Earth is already immersed in a natural electromagnetic field, why are you worried for this stupid SAR?"

Problem is, this is a tricky subject, because everybody has a cellphone today.

Let me make a parallel here. If I had invented and produced a 100% electric car 15 years ago, with much better performance than the Nissan Leaf, Tesla, etc. that we have today, and for a fairly reasonable price... what do you think would have happened ? The oil companies, we all know how nasty they are. They would have bought me, and would have shredded every last part of my engineering plans, and would have crushed every single car that I have produced. Well, this example happened, and it's called the EV1 car.

Now, if I discovered that cellphones are very dangerous to human cells and are a cause of say, breast cancer and male sterility (because a few girls put their phone in their bra, and a lot of guys put it in their pocket), and made a paper on it, what do you think would happen ? Cellphone companies are just a little less nasty than oil companies, but you bet they would have bought me for an incredible amount of money to give them my paper and destroy every bit of file left of it.

Don't get me wrong here : I'm not stating that this is without a doubt a conspiracy, and that we do know cellphone radiations are bad but cellphone companies do their best to hide it, and more especially because there is a ton of money to make by hiding the truth. All I'm saying is that this is a legitimate possibility, because the same thing has happened in the past with the EV1 car.

The problem is, I'm still rather young, and this is a potentially high health issue that can cause me an illness that has chances to be incurable. So yes, pardon me, but I'm being particularly cautious about the SAR value.