Radiation level on Captivate

[ZDroid1]

The iPhone 4 radiation level (SAR) is 1.17 W/kg, which is about average for a smart phone.

The radiation level (SAR) for the Samsung Captivate is 0.42 W/kg, which is VERY low for a smart phone and even for dumb phones.

For comparison, the radiation levels for the HTC aria hover around 1.4 W/kg, and some Blackberries are even as high as 1.6 W/kg. The highest limit set by the FCC is 1.6 W/kg, beyond which the phone wouldn't be allowed to be sold in the United States.

 

[jhego]

Nice to know, thanks.

 

[jbk317]

This was great news when I saw the SAR value of the Captivate for the first time.
I look at the radiation level of all my phones. Its kind of a screening process. I really wanted the Incredible but the SAR was too high for me. The radiation level on the Captivate was perfect. Most Samsung phones have very low SAR ratings.

 

[NOSintake]

This is good to hear, especially seeing as how my old Q9H was somewhat high.

 

[ZDroid1]

I initially wanted to get the Aria, because it's an Android and it's so small. But I went on the FCC website and read the radiation levels on it, and was disappointed. Call me paranoid, but better safe than sorry.

The FCC documents on the Aria actually state that the radiation levels with the WiFi turned on actually exceed the safety regulations (1.6 W/kg), but for technical reasons (the distance between the two antennas in the phone), they allowed it to pass.

The Motorola Backflip is as high as 1.3+ W/kg!

If enough people start making their decisions based on SAR levels, or at least add the SAR levels to their list of things they consider when they purchase a phone, then maybe cell phone manufacturers will make an extra effort to reduce radiation output.

Nokia, for example, on their own website, admit that they consider the SAR test a FAIL/PASS test. If it's below 1.6 W/kg, then they're not going to waste any time or effort to make it lower, since that is the maximum allowed by the FCC. I find that attitude disappointing.

It would be one thing if this was tough to accomplish (you know, uncertain risk vs. certain benefit), but phone manufacturers like Samsung have proven that it's possible to make a LOADED smartphone, with all sorts of features, and keep it below 0.5 W/kg. So I see no reason for any phone to be barely below the 1.6 maximum.

 

[Intervenient]

Very cool

 

[rlb4]

The SAR is probably low because the radio is supposedly weak.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Go stand against a brick wall thats been heated all day by the Sun, and you will receive more radiation than if you worked inside a nuclear plant. Phone radiation levels are insignificant to humans. If you're worried... use a bluetooth device.

 

[mjgunn]

I'd trade some extra radiation for better reception.

 

[Android_J]

I'd trade some extra radiation for better reception.

Exactly. For all we know, the lower radiation is simply a result of running the radios at a lower power level. Perhaps to increase battery life? And come to think of it, the Captivate doesn't exactly have stellar radio/gps reception.

 

[ZDroid1]

Higher radiation does not necessarily correlate with a better signal. There are many factors involved.

The radiation test is a stress test, subjecting the phone to a weak signal, to force it to expend more energy to maintain the connection, which allows the tester to measure the maximum level of radiation produced in the process.

It's possible that, as some of you believe, the Captivate is designed to simply give up, or it just loses the connection before the radiation gets too high. But it's also possible that the iPhone and the Aria produce more radiation to maintain the same signal strength in the same conditions because they're not designed as well. I'm inclined to think the latter is true given my experience with my Captivate and my wife's iPhone 4.

 

[ZDroid1]

By the way, I don't think it's true that Samsung weakened their radio strength to improve battery life. The strength of the radio signal is not constant. It's progressive, increasing, and thus expending more energy, only as needed, to maintain the connection with the tower. So typically, it doesn't spend more energy than it needs to.

 

[rlb4]

I'm inclined to think the latter is true given my experience with my Captivate and my wife's iPhone 4.

How does the Captivate compare to the iphone in signal strength, holding its signal and call quality? I have an iphone 3G and get alot of dropped calls.

 

[ZDroid1]

My wife's phone does drop calls, but she says the problem is minimal. My Captivate has yet to drop a call since I got it on Tuesday. So I'd have to say that it's slightly better than the iPhone 4 or her previous iPhone 3G in our particular case.

So as far as the radiation discussion, if it is true that the Samsung phone has a weaker signal to reduce the radiation level to less than half that of the iPhone, I'm not seeing it.

 

[Android_J]

By the way, I don't think it's true that Samsung weakened their radio strength to improve battery life. The strength of the radio signal is not constant. It's progressive, increasing, and thus expending more energy, only as needed, to maintain the connection with the tower. So typically, it doesn't spend more energy than it needs to.

You're assuming that the radio is allowed to go max power. If Samsung limited the max power to the radio, i.e. 10 milliwatts vs 50 milliwatts (just numbers pulled out of thin air to make a point) then the radio will indeed be weaker and be less of a drain on the battery.

I have no hard evidence but circumstantial evidence shows that:

• Signal seems to be weaker vs other phones.
• Signal seems to drop faster when held vs other phones (though nowhere near as bad as iPhone 4).
• aGPS is slow to locate/track and can be off by quite a bit. aGPS uses cell towers for triangulation. A weak radio can lead to slow triangulation and erroneous locating.
• Low radiation vs other smartphones: Samsung aren't exactly known for great RF reception. It's hard to believe that Motorola, HTC, etc. don't have the know-how to design a low radiation phone and Samsung does. So why are these other smartphones, which probably use the same or similar radio chip, putting out so much more radiation?

BTW, my phone's stats show that I had 10% "time without signal" yesterday. I usually get 3 bars with my other phones here and 5 bars (lol) with iPhone.

 

[ZDroid1]

Android_J, I admit that your logic makes sense. I guess it is possible that Samsung reduces their signal to improve battery consumption while Motorola and HTC push their signal strength to the maximum limit allowed by the FCC radiation regulations intentionally to improve call quality. I personally like Samsung's approach because I care about the radiation issue.

 

[Snow_Fox]

I sometimes wonder if we aren't over concerned with radiation in our lives..

I mean.. radiation from the sun does keep our planet moving around to some degree.. x.x

 

[kylec]

This is awesome news considering i only put my capticate down to work, drive, or sleep. Lol

 

[Jirv311]

I sometimes wonder if we aren't over concerned with radiation in our lives..

I mean.. radiation from the sun does keep our planet moving around to some degree.. x.x

I agree. I'm still waiting for evidence or any proof at all that radiation from a cell phone has caused anyone any problems.

 

[jbk317]

I agree. I'm still waiting for evidence or any proof at all that radiation from a cell phone has caused anyone any problems.

There will never be any "proof" of anything scientific, only evidence to support a hypothesis. Nothing can ever be scientifically proven. Notice the only time you ever hear the word "proven" in a drug commercial is regarding those BS weight loss drugs, because they don't come from legitimate sources.
Right now, no, there is no hard evidence. But then again, the effects of a carcinogen can take decades to manifest themselves.
I would say that it would be wise to be cautious about this issue. I wouldn't go out and buy a 1.6 w/kg phone simply because there is no conclusive evidence.
Also, please buy a headset with a microphone.