www.Electromagnetichealth.org and co-author with Magda Havas, PhD

“It is important consumers realize that the SAR value, while providing information for comparison purposes between phones, is very limited in its usefulness as a measure of ‘safety.’ We are greatly concerned that people may be turning to the EWG database in droves not understanding just how limited a measure the SAR value is.”

Why is the SAR value not an accurate measure of safety?

1. The SAR value is only comparing the isolated heating effect of different phones and does not give an indication that a cell phone is ‘safe.’
2. The power, or heating effect, of the phone is only one of many possible factors impacting cell phone ‘safety.’ Exposures to the radiation from the cell phone at non-heating levels have been linked to many serious biological effects, and the SAR value is not capturing anything about these harmful non-thermal exposures.
3. SAR values are reported to the FCC by the manufacturer and have been known to vary from the reported number by a factor of two across models of the same phone.
4. The SAR value varies with the source of exposure and the person using the phone. For example, if you are in a rural area or in an elevator or a car, where the cell phone uses more power, your brain will get a greater exposure from the higher power required in these instances. Under certain conditions, the SAR value can be 10-100 times higher than reported.
5. Holding the phone in a slightly different way can actually render the worst SAR value phone better than the best SAR value phone.
6. SAR values have been created based on simulations of exposure in a plexiglass head filled with fluid, not a human head, and many scientists consider them to be inaccurate and irrelevant at determining actual biological effects.

One of the worst deficiencies of the SAR value is that it only considers the thermal impact of cell phone usage, and it is very likely that the non-thermal effects of chronic cell phone exposure are more biologically damaging.

As Rees points out, and I wholeheartedly agree:

“Physical distance of the phone from your brain, and less usage of the cell phone overall, more so than simply choosing a phone with a lower SAR value, is probably a far better insurance policy.”

I would also add to Rees’ statement — do not use a cell phone within an enclosed area, such as a car, train or plane, or within three feet of small children.

Remember, the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, just like smoking and lung cancer. Are you really willing to risk the chance of developing brain cancer because you don’t want to sacrifice the minor inconvenience of using your cell’s speaker phone, or using a safe headset?

A video by Electromagnetichealth.org, filmed at Columbia University Law School at a presentation on Wireless Hazards, explains how wireless radiation creates cognitive problems, damages DNA, diminishes fertility, causes disorientation and navigation difficulties for birds, bees and other wildlife, and may contribute to Bee Colony Collapse, which, if not reversed, may jeopardize the future of life on earth.