sar

The wireless industry's lobbying arm has stepped up its attack on a recent San Francisco ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to display a handset's specific absorption rate, or SAR.

Just three weeks after it said it would no longer hold its autumn trade show in the city, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) on Friday filed a lawsuit to block enforcement of the legislation.

The suit (PDF), filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, accuses the city of unlawfully interfering with the "FCC's exclusive, congressionally derived authority" of radio frequency emissions from cell … Read more

Forgive us for not posting this blog lately, as we've been a little busy with a certain Apple handset. But this is a good week to be back, since a selection of notable handsets passed through the gates of the Federal Communications Commission. Not only did we see the Samsung Epic 4G Galaxy S phone, but also the rumored RIM Blackberry 9300, a couple of Nokia devices, and a new HTC smartphone.

Because the FCC has to certify every phone sold in the United States--not to mention test its SAR rating--the agency's online database offers a lot … Read more

Industry groups naturally tend to protect their own, and after playing with San Francisco for several years the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) is now taking its ball and going home.

On Tuesday, the association said in a statement that it would no longer hold its autumn trade show in San Francisco after this year's event in October. CTIA, which represents the wireless industry in the United States, is not happy that the city's Board of Supervisors recently voted to require cell phone manufacturers (PDF) to display the specific absorption rate (SAR) for each handset sold.

"Rather than inform, the ordinance will potentially mislead consumers with point of sale requirements suggesting that some phones are 'safer' than others based on radio frequency emissions," the statement said. "In fact, all phones sold legally in the U.S. must comply with the Federal Communications Commission's safety standards for RF emissions. According to the FCC, all such compliant phones are safe phones as measured by these standards."

Though the CTIA is correct that a lower SAR phone isn't necessarily safer, it's ironic that in the process of accusing San Francisco of oversimplifying the issue, the CTIA is doing the exact same thing. Yes, all phones sold in the United States must conform to FCC standards (a SAR of 1.6 watts per kilogram or lower), but there is still no scientific consensus that cell phone radio frequency is or is not harmful. That's a fact CTIA should face, whether it likes it or not. … Read more

There's nothing like Apple's iPhone to get the rumor mills churning. Today, for example, the iPhone 4 passed through the FCC's certification database for the second week in a row. In the filing you'll find the standard paperwork about the phone's specific absorption rate, plus a diagram of its rear face. All things considered, it's pretty boring stuff including the attached request for confidentiality.

This morning Patently Apple posted the June 4 request and speculated that perhaps Apple was trying to hide technical details from the public. Indeed, that is what's happening here, … Read more

This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to require cell phone stores in the city to post the specific absorption rate (SAR) of each handset sold. Though manufacturers and carriers typically list a phone's SAR in its user manual, San Francisco is one of the first places to require them to do so.

Though there's no scientific consensus that cell phone radiation is harmful--even from the long-awaited Interphone study--we encourage consumers to be informed about the issue and know the SAR for their handsets. That's why I've updated our gallery of the 20 phones sold in the United States with the lowest SAR. … Read more

With all the Samsung Galaxy news this week it's no surprise that Galaxy models are beginning to sneak through the Federal Communications Commission's certification process. In the last few days we've spotted the Galaxy 3, the Galaxy Beam, and what should be an upcoming Galaxy model for T-Mobile.

Because the FCC has to certify every phone sold in the United States, not to mention test its SAR rating, the agency's online database offers a lot of sneak peeks to those who dig. And to save you the trouble, Crave has combed through the database for you. … Read more

On the day it was announced to the world, Apple's iPhone 4 cleared the Federal Communications Commission approval process. That means Apple can sell its latest handset in the United States.

It also means that now we have a specific absorption rate data for the phone. The FCC's Web site appears to be on the fritz for the moment, but, according to PhoneArena, the iPhone 4's highest at ear SAR rating for voice calls is 1.17 watts per kilogram (FCC ID BCG-E2380A). Once the FCC's Web site is back up, we'll peruse the documentation … Read more

On Call runs every two weeks, alternating between answering reader questions and discussing hot topics in the cell phone world.

Q: I saw that the long-awaited Interphone study finally came out. I'm concerned about the issue and was looking forward to the findings. Given its mixed results, have you changed your position on cell phone radiation? - Jose

A: As you note, Jose, the International Agency for Research on Cancer finally published the results of its Interphone study on May 17. The $24 million study attempted to determine whether long-term cell phone use leads to an increased risk of … Read more

Last December, just as I returned from covering the first flight of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Seattle, I learned that a longtime friend was diagnosed with brain cancer. He had collapsed that day at work and was in the hospital awaiting immediate removal of his tumor. Needless to say, it was a distressing few days, but the surgery was successful and he was back home by Christmas.

About a month later he called me with a question. He hesitated before asking and, frankly, I felt a lump in my throat, because I knew what was coming. "So, do you think there really is a connection between cell phones and brain cancer?" he asked. "I figured that you'd know more about this than I do." Unfortunately, I couldn't answer him, and I may never be able to do so.

For background on cell phone radiation, see CNET's cell phone radiation charts

Though he was hardly the first person to ask that question, this time it came from someone who really cared about the answer. He was searching for an explanation for what had happened to him; he wanted to make sense of it and understand how cancer had come into his otherwise carefully organized life. I felt bad that I couldn't reply, but I just don't know if there is any link between cell phone radiation and cancer risk. Though studies on the subject abound, none can tell us conclusively whether mobile radiation does or does not adversely affect your health.

I realize that may not be what you want to hear, but science can't conform to human emotion and our desire to find an answer quickly. Single scientific studies (the good ones, at least) investigate and often suggest causal relationships between one thing and another based on their findings, but it can take years of exhaustive research before studies actually prove anything (if they do at all). And when you throw in a bunch of studies that seem to contradict each other, you wind up with a lot of confusion.

Perhaps? Just take the Interphone study, for example. Started in 2000 by a group of 13 countries, to date the study remains the largest body of work on the subject. Many hoped that it would offer some solid guidance, but that hasn't been the case. Not only did researchers disagree on how to interpret the data, some health advocacy groups decried that the mobile industry had partially funded the effort. Some participating have reported that the study found a link between long-term cell phone use (10 years or more) and increased brain cancer risk, but the final results have yet to be published.

Consider also Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, who published a controversial memo in 2008 that cautioned his staff against frequent cell phone use. Herberman acknowledged that the ongoing research remained controversial, but said there was sufficient data to be concerned. He was criticized, however, for basing his conclusions on unpublished data from the Interphone study.

Perhaps not The cell phone industry continues to point to other studies that show no risk. According to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), the industry's lobbying group in Washington, "impartial groups, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the American Cancer Society, and the National Institute of Health, have all concluded that the scientific evidence to date does not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the use of wireless phones."

That may sound better, but keep in mind that the industry has an interest in assuring you that cell phones are safe. Similarly, studies can be flawed and can be published by someone eager to get their name in print. So again, think about the issue carefully; we don't know with certainty that there is a risk, but we don't know that there isn't one. So don't panic and don't bury your head in the sand. You may scoff that I'm even writing this column, but I'd be irresponsible not to. Research has to continue, and I hope that we get it from impartial sources (if they exist). … Read more