Why do these phones have 2 different SAR ratings?

[androidloveryes]

hi
on this site https://www.phonemore.com/specs/samsung/galaxy-s7-edge/sm-g935p/
us sar is 1.03 and 1,59

while on this site i see reading of 0.64 n 0.38.? they seem like the same phone why different mesures?

tx

 

[mustang7757]

while on this site i see reading of 0.64 n 0.38.?

Where did you see this ? .64 n .38

 

[androidloveryes]

Compare | Device Specs | PhoneDB - The Largest Phone Specs Database
here

 

[mustang7757]

Compare | Device Specs | PhoneDB - The Largest Phone Specs Database
here

Could be a typo in first link

 

[androidloveryes]

it says same thing here https://www.entumovil.cu/web/devices/2306/detalles/
-------------

i also see difference for the 935 v here https://forums.androidcentral.com/e...NatCd%3DUS%26languageCode%3DEN&token=CheOTgfX
http://phonedb.net/index.php?m=devi...837.9913.9849.9927.9795.10282.9859.10295.9336

https://www.rfsafe.com/sar-rating-c...-levels-vs-samsung-galaxy-s6-edge-sar-levels/
https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s7_edge_(usa)-7961.php#g935v
https://www.phonemore.com/specs/samsung/galaxy-s7-edge/sm-g935v/

 

[Mooncatt]

I personally wouldn't concern myself with that rating. It came about after the claims of phones causing cancer started to spread, despite those claims never being verified.

 

[androidloveryes]

I personally wouldn't concern myself with that rating. It came about after the claims of phones causing cancer started to spread, despite those claims never being verified.

Hi moon cat,
I imagine there is a part of you that has a need for safety?
i invite you to invest time and you wiil find abundant research that it causes lots of cancer and many other stuff
https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/
dont be fooled by the bias of industry lobbying they are in conflict of interest.
I feel it is a very big concern
i know it may confront your beleives but read the link summary and tell me after what is you opinion

 

[B. Diddy]

There has not been any conclusive evidence to date. Some studies suggest a link, but that does not mean there is definite causation.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html

Based on the evidence (or lack thereof so far), it seems reasonable to take some basic precautions, like trying not to spend your entire day with your phone glued to your ear. But I'd go as far as saying the SAR differences between devices aren't a big factor.

 

[Rukbat]

Phones don't radiate ionizing radiation, so they can't cause cancer. With most police officers having the radio antennas near their heads for the last 3 or 4 decades, most police deaths would have been due to cancer if radio waves caused cancer. (Cellphones transmit about 1/8 the power of police radios [or less - police radios transmit 5 Watts or more - cellphone output - when you're fr from the nearest tower - is only about 0.75 Watt], so would have 0.3 times the effect if they caused anything more than surface warming.)

There's been medical literature about the situation since the 1930s (radio was used as a means of diathermy since at least that far back).

The whole concept of SAR was invented to allay the fears of people who didn't know anything about the subject but connected the words "radiation" and "cancer" and needed reassurance that cellphones wouldn't cause cancer.

(One probable reason for the differences in the numbers are that the SAR is very different between 600MHz (Band 71) and 2100MHz (Band 66). It's a 3.5:1 frequency difference so, with nothing else considered, that's a 12.25:1 difference in absorption [with 2100MHz being absorbed less, since higher frequencies can't penetrate human skin as easily as lower frequencies].) You can't compare ducks and duct tape just because the names sound alike, but that's what you're doing - comparing 600MHz, 2100MHz and ionizing radiation (X-rays and Gamma rays). X-rays are electromagnetic radiation, the same as AM radio, cellphones and the light coming from a lightbulb. But you don't see SAR for lightbulbs because no one has started yelling about lightbulbs (or campfires - they also give off electromagnetic radiation - so does lightning - so do fireflies). SAR is strictly a marketing thing, it has no basis in reality.

Show one medical study, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, showing a connection between light (which is a much higher frequency than cellphone radiation and penetrates skin a lot better) and cancer, and people who understand physics and biology will begin to take the whole thing seriously.

 

[Golfdriver97]

I think this is all concern over nothing. Assuming for a moment that radio waves did cause cancer, I think we would have stopped listening to the radio a long time ago, along with television.

 

[androidloveryes]

Phones don't radiate ionizing radiation, so they can't cause cancer. With most police officers having the radio antennas near their heads for the last 3 or 4 decades, most police deaths would have been due to cancer if radio waves caused cancer. (Cellphones transmit about 1/8 the power of police radios [or less - police radios transmit 5 Watts or more - cellphone output - when you're fr from the nearest tower - is only about 0.75 Watt], so would have 0.3 times the effect if they caused anything more than surface warming.)

There's been medical literature about the situation since the 1930s (radio was used as a means of diathermy since at least that far back).

The whole concept of SAR was invented to allay the fears of people who didn't know anything about the subject but connected the words "radiation" and "cancer" and needed reassurance that cellphones wouldn't cause cancer.

(One probable reason for the differences in the numbers are that the SAR is very different between 600MHz (Band 71) and 2100MHz (Band 66). It's a 3.5:1 frequency difference so, with nothing else considered, that's a 12.25:1 difference in absorption [with 2100MHz being absorbed less, since higher frequencies can't penetrate human skin as easily as lower frequencies].) You can't compare ducks and duct tape just because the names sound alike, but that's what you're doing - comparing 600MHz, 2100MHz and ionizing radiation (X-rays and Gamma rays). X-rays are electromagnetic radiation, the same as AM radio, cellphones and the light coming from a lightbulb. But you don't see SAR for lightbulbs because no one has started yelling about lightbulbs (or campfires - they also give off electromagnetic radiation - so does lightning - so do fireflies). SAR is strictly a marketing thing, it has no basis in reality.

Show one medical study, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, showing a connection between light (which is a much higher frequency than cellphone radiation and penetrates skin a lot better) and cancer, and people who understand physics and biology will begin to take the whole thing seriously.

Maybe the idea of the so loved cel device being harmfull is too hard to accept for some. Maybe the real sience(not the industry lobbyist) are not know enough. Gentlement read this site and than tell me if you still feel the same.

meanwhile does anyone can
SM-G935F as mesures different for us ans europe versions. if i buy a europe version , unlock it , will it work in america and
secondly will it keep the europe model caracteristic or the phone will automatically adapt to the us version caractéristics?
Maybe the phone is physically the same or maybe they are different ..
https://www.devicespecifications.com/en/comparison/1c2365d4f

golfdriver, when you say is it because you feel sad of not being able to rely on what governement says or because you have not done you research?
I see over simplification in you statement so i ask myself if you are speaking from a emotivo non science back place. right amount, right day time , right lenght, not washing your skin 24 h after exposure , diversifying the area spots prevents cancer. by the way radio traditionnal and cell phone are not the same wave plz researche instead of asuming it is painfull to read and may mislead others. It is in your right to believe that the concern is for nothing but that is a believe going against what health science independently financed show. that is for golf driver https://www.eleanorsteinmd.ca/blog/wifi-exposure-risk

if this in not enough Occupational Exposure to RFR and Cancer

A thorough 2018 review of studies by Peleg et al (2018), looking at occupational exposure to radiofrequency (RF) and hematolymphatic (HL) cancers (leukemia, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma and plasma cell tumors) consistently revealed a highly elevated risk of cancer in military and electrical workers exposed to RF. The Israeli study looked at studies from Poland, Belgium, as well as Israel. Overall, hematolymphatic cancers were found in 40% of patients with 23% expected. A small study of employees exposed to RF in the Israeli defense industry showed a 60% frequency of hematolymphatic cancers vs 17% expected. Peleg notes, “Overall, the epidemiological studies on excess risk for HL and other cancers together with brain tumors in cellphone users and experimental studies on RFR and carcinogenicity make a coherent case for a cause-effect relationship and classifying RFR exposure as a human carcinogen (IARC group 1).”, nerve cells and in vivo rodent studies have found that low power radio frequency (microwave) electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) from wireless devices can alter DNA, promote cancer growth and act as a co-carcinogen

from https://mdsafetech.org/cancer/ . do you agree the health studies are clear now? people saying cellphone use is not a cause for cancer usually are people unaware of what conflict of interes mean in science publication, usually unaware that hte pro cell emp studies dates back a while and or are done by non healh professional(ie ingeniors ) , they are mostly attached to their cell phone and dont want to imagine reducing its use , they usually are unaware fda and governement strongly pussed by pharmaceutical pressions and industry pression.. most importantly i see them rarely search who finance the studies and rarely read BOth studies On both side to see their flaws and the limitation of their point of view. On a scale of 1 to 10 nhow much do you appreciate the time i spend to share education with you?

 

[davidnc]

Maybe the idea of the so loved cel device being harmfull is too hard to accept for some. Maybe the real sience(not the industry lobbyist) are not know enough. Gentlement read this site and than tell me if you still feel the same.

I read it and still feel the same as I did before I read it . Which was that is over hyped, about causing cancer.

 

[mustang7757]

I read it and still feel the same as I did before I read it . Which was that is over hyped, about causing cancer.

I think that's one spec of the phone most wouldn't even pay attention.

 

[lucianus_luciferus]

Duplicate thread?

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/to...5&share_fid=4950&share_type=t&link_source=app

Cell phone radiation?

 

[Golfdriver97]

golfdriver, when you say is it because you feel sad of not being able to rely on what governement says

Strawman argument. Nowhere did I say anything about the government.

because you have not done you research?

Strawman argument. I haven't done any research, but I'm also using common sense.

I see over simplification in you statement so i ask myself if you are speaking from a emotivo

Attack the ideas, not the person.

 

[B. Diddy]

do you agree the health studies are clear now?

Nothing is "clear" if you're picking and choosing your sources -- and your sources are by no means considered in the mainstream of scientific thinking. (And when I say "mainstream," I mean the general consensus among independent experts who have rigorously reviewed the best evidence to date.) The bottom line is that there is still no absolutely conclusive evidence, and although there are some studies suggesting a weak link, that is still by no means a smoking gun. I'm sure research will continue in this field, but that research will most likely take many more years to complete, since the outcome in question takes many years to manifest, if at all. So if you want to take precautions, then by all means, do so. We don't have to agree with you, and we don't have to force you to agree with us.

 

[androidloveryes]

Nothing is "clear" if you're picking and choosing your sources -- and your sources are by no means considered in the mainstream of scientific thinking. (And when I say "mainstream," I mean the general consensus among independent experts who have rigorously reviewed the best evidence to date.) The bottom line is that there is still no absolutely conclusive evidence, and although there are some studies suggesting a weak link, that is still by no means a smoking gun. I'm sure research will continue in this field, but that research will most likely take many more years to complete, since the outcome in question takes many years to manifest, if at all. So if you want to take precautions, then by all means, do so. We don't have to agree with you, and we don't have to force you to agree with us.

i agree

 

[androidloveryes]

Strawman argument. Nowhere did I say anything about the government.



Strawman argument. I haven't done any research, but I'm also using common sense.



Attack the ideas, not the person.

hi
i dont attack neigther the person or idea. i confront the idea. i do it to help you cause i felt you were dodging your responsability but that is just a projection of what i saw in general with this kind of comment. you are free to keep statuquo it is ok ..... but resist to 5 g hahaha
nothing personal all help, notice i asked questions most of the time.

 

[mustang7757]

hi
i dont attack neigther the person or idea. i confront the idea. i do it to help you cause i felt you were dodging your responsability but that is just a projection of what i saw in general with this kind of comment. you are free to keep statuquo it is ok ..... but resist to 5 g hahaha
nothing personal all help, notice i asked questions most of the time.

Looks like everyone has a different view on this, anything wrong with that?

 

[androidloveryes]

diversity is good. to help the community here is soem conclusion
each cie test their phone differently so waste of time to compare unless it is a third party testing several with same tester .

also samsung is the way to go espacially note apparently for los sar.