1. kazile's Avatar
    Hey guys,

    i recently read something about the SAR values of the 920, which shook me up.
    I wonder why wpcentral did not mention it yet - at least i couldn't find an article about that.
    Now i've cancelled my pre order because i'm concerned about that possible radiation level, which seems not to be "up to date", if you compare it to other phones.

    Am I the only one with that kind of concerns?

    cheers

    some detailed reports
    WP8fan likes this.
    10-17-2012 03:24 AM
  2. hailst0rm's Avatar
    Not "up to date" compared to what? It looks about average to me.
    10-17-2012 03:54 AM
  3. SnailUK's Avatar
    If the phone was remotely dangerous, nobody would certify it.

    To be honest, almost all the hardware of the phone is off the shelf stuff shared by many other phones, so i'd be supprised if it was that much different to the 8X, Ativ S, and various Android phones.
    10-17-2012 04:03 AM
  4. kazile's Avatar
    hm, my posting of the website with an nive overview has to be checked by a mod.
    next try:
    smartphonesarlevels(dot)info, for example.
    unfortunately there are brand new phones listed. there might be better rankings.

    the thing is, that nobody can say, if your cell phone is dangerous but it seems to be better, if the radiation level is as low as possible. there are no long-term studies made yet regarding the potential risk when using a high SAR phone.
    WP8fan likes this.
    10-17-2012 04:16 AM
  5. mmacleodbrown's Avatar
    If the phone was remotely dangerous, nobody would certify it.

    To be honest, almost all the hardware of the phone is off the shelf stuff shared by many other phones, so i'd be supprised if it was that much different to the 8X, Ativ S, and various Android phones.
    This +1
    10-17-2012 04:55 AM
  6. Jaybotics's Avatar
    If the phone was remotely dangerous, nobody would certify it.

    To be honest, almost all the hardware of the phone is off the shelf stuff shared by many other phones, so i'd be supprised if it was that much different to the 8X, Ativ S, and various Android phones.
    This +1.

    I'm sorry you cancelled your preorder, lol.
    10-17-2012 05:24 AM
  7. anon(5335899)'s Avatar
    So a well renowned institution sets up a scale which will tell you that a device is well withing suspected levels (there still is not a shred of proof any radiation from your phone can put you at risk of anything).

    The 920 tests to a well acceptable and safe level which might be a bit higher then some, but still well within safe parameters and you panic? You serious or just trolling.

    Eating a burger at mcDonalds would pose a bigger risk of getting sick here..
    Xsever and tissotti like this.
    10-17-2012 06:15 AM
  8. Xsever's Avatar

    Eating a burger at mcDonalds would pose a bigger risk of getting sick here..
    Amen to that! :D
    10-17-2012 06:47 AM
  9. kazile's Avatar
    I searched the site and found 2 articles of George Ponder about SAR radiation:
    LG Quantum leads the pack in radiation safety
    and
    Cellphone Radiation: The WHO's take on things
    The popularity of those articles goes against 0. The ammount comments to those articles or the ammount of articles itself regarding that topic is vanishing low compared to reports of new unibody colours, larger screens and so on.
    Thinking of that background it is no suprise, that i'm beeing asked if I would like to troll.

    It is irritating, that the Lumia 900 with its value of 1.49, or the 920 with 1.36, or the Motorola Defy with its 1.52 (to mention a non wp phone) do not bring up questions, why the values are so high compared to devices like galaxy s3 (between 0.43 and 0.53), the s2 ( between 0.3 and 0.7) or my Omnia7 (around 0.6 i think) for example.

    You can not say, that anything under 1.6 is not harmful, anything above this threshold is, nor why the threshold is placed at 1.6, but it sounds to me, like it would be better, if the threshold is as far away as possible.
    Although you cannot just say that my Omnia7 is less harmful to me than an Lumia 920 would be.
    It seems like no one likes to talk about that topic - neither cell phone manufacturers nor most of the people. Even those manufacturers offering phones with low SAR values don't mention it as a reason to buy their phones. Wired....
    10-17-2012 07:12 AM
  10. devize's Avatar
    It seems like no one likes to talk about that topic - neither cell phone manufacturers nor most of the people. Even those manufacturers offering phones with low SAR values don't mention it as a reason to buy their phones. Wired....
    That's because most people don't care.
    WP8fan likes this.
    10-17-2012 08:06 AM
  11. gsquared's Avatar
    I noticed the very same thing when looking at the 920 specs a few days back. Harmful or not I am also courious as to why the Nokia phones are so high.
    WP8fan likes this.
    10-17-2012 08:29 AM
  12. Yakkaimono's Avatar
    According to the FCC if the SAR level is below 1.6 W/Kg the phone is safe and people have nothing to worry about.

    1.6W/Kg is the maximum for USA and Australia
    2 W/kg is the maximum for Europe

    Funny thing here is that europe says 2 W/Kg is fine. And everyone should know that european regulations are almost always much stricter on these things than USA so since the 920 is well below 2W/Kg and 1.6 W/kg why should anyone be talking about it? Just because other phones have lower sar levels doesn't make the 920 a radiation hazard.

    I personally never cared about all that sar level stuff. There are much more hazardous things in our everyday life.
    Xsever and palandri like this.
    10-17-2012 08:51 AM
  13. DungMasterFang's Avatar


    Problem solved.
    10-17-2012 08:55 AM
  14. Panathas's Avatar
    There stands "maximum simultanious sar value = 1.36" That means, that this is the upper maximum right?
    If i get it rigth, when you use your lumia as a wifi router, you get 1.31 ??
    So could this 1.36 be the maximum value, if you use the phone as a router and doing other stuff?
    I think the maximum value, if you hold it on your head in normal use is 1.15 ? I'm not an expert and have no time to read all the article, just looked on the table. Can someone confirm or disprove?
    10-17-2012 09:06 AM
  15. kazile's Avatar
    You can hardly state, that there are hazardous things in our everyday life, if you never cared about all that sar level stuff.

    I think the manufacturers of low SAR phones do not advertise with that fact, because they know, that a thing which emits radiation, can never be 100% safe.
    Those one who are producing high SAR phones just say, that their phones fulfill the requirements - thats it.

    You can not be sure how the tresholds of 1.6 and 2.0 W/kg are estimated or which pressure group is responsible for that.
    OK, i won't say radiation hazard to any phone, but it seems not to be an disadvantage, if a phone has the half or third SAR level than a competitive one. From a medical point of view. It is possible to manufacture phones with a low SAR value. It is sad that not everybody is trying that.

    The carefreeness of some people is fascinating, as so their confidence in the authoritites.
    10-17-2012 10:36 AM
  16. palandri's Avatar
    ..and with that said, thread closed. Kazile you expressed your thoughts on it and others have expressed their thoughts on it. There is no use in arguing any more.

    If we let threads like this go any longer fights break out.
    10-17-2012 10:44 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD