[MBY77]

Hallo Everybody,

 i am new to this Forum and about to make my first post!

I want to start by saying that i am very excited about the upcoming Nokia 920. I can't wait to get my hands on one of them, actually I would really want to buy one!

There is just one thing I am wondering about, and I am guessing none know yet, but I would be curious as to hear your opinion.

I wonder why the Nokia Phones always have such high SAR ratings compared to the current Samsung line up! I know that the values are still way below critical limits, but here in Germany values above 1 W/kg are already considered very high. The last Nokias were quite bad, and for me the SAR rating is a buying criteria has i am somewhat hypersensitive to EM-radiation (or lets say hyper paranoid )

I am sure this is one criteria many people are aware these days, and Samsung always get the edge for me with their ultra low ratings in the 0.3 range, where as Nokia is always above 1 W/kg. It would be a real downer for me if the new Lumia is in the same range!

Anyone around from Nokia mind answering why this is the case!? In terms of connectivity Samsung phones which i have had with very low SAR rating never ever had antenna issues. And the iphone with considerably high SAR values does have connection problems, so no valid point here to have high SAR ratings.

Looking forward to your Answers

Thanks

[zcbm]

I totally agree with your views on SAR values!

It looks like the Lumia 920 will have a SAR value of a little over 1W/kg:

allaboutwindowsphone.com/flow/item/15771_Global_Lumia_920_gets_FCC_cert.php

[MBY77]

Thats a shame, there goes my decision to buy a lumia! I really dont understand these engineering drawbacks! Why can a company which has entered the mobile market much later than nokia, such as samsung produce phones with such low SAR values! but nokia which should have tons of know how in the actual wireless communication technology make Deathtraps! I mean SAR ratings above 1 W/kg should be baned for high end phones! I really didnt wanna go for the Ativ S, so looking forward to get on to the sinking ship, loved the lumia and its great innovative tech! but such high SAR values are no go, my 4 year old HTC Diamond II has 0.5 W/kg!

Thanks for the info though...to bad really sad now

[psychomania]

The 920's SAR values are well within the recommend maximum although recent studies have shown that Even higher doses do not cause any health risks.

If you really want a Lumia 920 I suggest you put your paranoia aside, read some of the more recent articles about SAR and make a decision based on feature and style rather than an insignificant number.

[MBY77]

in a sense you are right, but i wouldnt totally disregard that number. it is one of the criteria! ok no body is perfect, and a low SAR value between 0.3-0.6 would have been really really great! the regulations say 1.6 W/kg and i think 1.4 isnt way below that. I am well aware of the controvery among scientific literature, after all i myself am in the field of scientific research (maybe the source of my paranoia)...

I really would love to know why Nokias Lumia series has such "high" radiation exposure values! it would be great if one of the engineers would explain to me, how this choice is made, and why there is such a great spread between the brands. Samsungs and HTC usually have really low radiation exposure, Nokia, Apple, Sony always are at the limit.

My decision based on style, features and quality goes to Nokia no question, but my decision based on that one little stupid number that makes me feel good holding the phone to my head doesn t go to the lumias!

I wish i would make a pedition to make the nokia engineers aware of this fact! Anyone else feel this way?

[psychomania]

I'm sure nokias engineers are more fully aware of SAR than any us. You won't get an official response from them here because it isn't actually an issue or a problem. It cannot be changed as the 920 is already in production.

Good luck with whichever phone you choose, I'll be enjoying my Lumia 920 fully aware that its SAR value is not an issue.

[halobolola]

I don't even know what 'SAR' means, but im assuming its the radiation the phone gives out?

You shouldn't worry, If it is below the legal limit. If you are conscious of it, but want a lumia, why not use a hands free kit?

[rayhipkiss]

---

halobolola wrote:

I don't even know what 'SAR' means, but im assuming its the radiation the phone gives out?

---

 SAR stands for specific absorbtion rate and pertains to the amount of radiation absorbed by the person when using the phone. The problem is, the media created a frenzy a while ago but nothing was ever proven.

Ray.

[MrOddJob]

@ MBY77

Personally I’m not to interested in the SAR’s ratting on the different mobile phones but I also take anything the experts tell me as safe with a pinch of salt, there have been many many products that in the past where considered safe and then later found to be hazardous or unsafe. So you just have to take currant knowledge that the devise is safe and hope that they have really don’t the research to protect us all, after all there used to promote cigarettes as healthy (an extreme example I admit), I respect your own criteria as to what you look for in a mobile devise and if the SAR’s ratting is the most important to you I'm glad that you have this forum to air your own point of view. Good luck with which ever phone you choose to buy in the future.

[mkaa]

As easy as it would be, I don't think SAR number alone are a very good way of estimating the radiation exposure you might get from your phone. There are multiple issues with the system, especially when looking at the FCC test in europe. I don't think the whole system is intended as a measure of "how good a phone is" but simply as  a stardard to gap the maximum exposure.

In real life there are multiple issues with the system like:
-The results are max levels at max broadcasting power. It does not tell you how much of that power the phone typically uses. A phone with better reception might rarely use the max power.
- At least the FCC results are at least partly done on frequencies that are not even in use in Europe (and probably vice versa). For example, according to the FCC report the Lumia 920 reached it's peak head SAR value on WCDMA 1900 network, which is not even in use in Germany where the OP leaves. The differences between frequencies are notable, even withing the same WCDMA band (different channel, about 15% in case of Lumia and WCDMA1900), let alone different bands.
- Differences are also big depending on small things, such as how you hold your phone. Again, the max value Lumia 920 got (0,923W/kg, the larger total includes WLAN) was reached holding the phone on your right cheek. Hold it in your left cheek, and we are down to 0,695W/kg, a very notable drop.
Changes like this are not specific to Nokia but happen on every brad, because the values change with even a slight change in the phones orientation.

In other words, the SAR reading that's on the paper might not tell you anything about how much exposure you get using your phone, your way in your network. Therefore I would not use the SAR values as a too strong of a guide as to which phone to buy. We all know short term exposure doesn't do anything, so the max value is really not what is important.

I'd rather pay attention to the way I use it, e.g. use HF in long calls, vary the phone from side to side every now and then when speaking on the handset for long, not keeping the phone right next to my head when I sleep and so on. I think that is much bigger thing than a small difference in the momentary maximum output.

[dasfjsdf]

my experience. higher sar value equals better reception

[simphonique6760]

Dear MBY77,

I have finally found someone who selects phones based on the SAR value! I always consider the SAR value of phones before purchasing a handset as I am extremely sensitive to the radiation. However, there were a series of events which have left me sceptical about the SAR value declared on paper.

I used to own handset models such as Nokia 6760, C7 and 6600i. All have SAR values below the value of 1W/kg. However, they have left me so giddy even short calls of 1 to 2 minutes duration were made. The C7 also left a burning and painful sensation to my earlobes. The other nokia model which left me extremely giddy was the Nokia 5800.

Many samsung handsets have low SAR values declared. So, I did decide on using 2 of the samsung galaxies models. However, after 5 to 10 mintues, the giddiness just comes.

Now I am using a Nokia 701. It has a SAR value of 1.08W/kg. I feel perfectly fine even after 30 minutes of communication with the headset against the earlobe. Other Nokia models that were very comfortable for myself to use were 7270, 6101, 6610i, 6230i, N95, N73 and 6300. No giddiness were experienced at all even though I have made calls with duration of 30 minutes. I do miss those phones.

I guess some of the people who have replied to your post are indeed correct; the SAR values declared should not affect your choice of phones. If need be, just borrow a handset from a friend to test it out.

Best regards!!!

[mobilexp]

I am surprised that this topic hasn't received more attention.  I was excited about the release of the Nokia Lumia 820 and 920 but the SAR values are a concern.  I have tried the Lumia 820, 920 and HTC 8x.  Both the Lumia's run warm/hot while the HTC 8x runs cool.  And for someone who never gets headaches, I began getting headaches at the end of each day using the Lumias.  Did not experience headaches with the HTC.  Also keep in mind that the Lumia 920 has something like 16 antennas all around the phone.  As one user mentioned, that might be great for reception, but probably not so good for your head.

Whether high or low SAR values for the phones are correct, the impact of SAR does seem to make a difference as I experienced with the Lumia phones.  The HTC 8x was not my first choice but I'll be going with it for a number of reasons incuding the SAR rating.  Disappointed as I really wanted to love the Lumia 920.  It's also disappointing that Nokia would release a flagship phone with such a high SAR rating.  I hope someone at Nokia takes this seriously as they develop their next phones.

[paulheu]

There is no issue here.

The SAR levels are a safe ceiling and _any_ value below it is no cause for concern.

Instead of concerning yourself with the values for these phones maybe you should educate yourself on the meaning and reasons for SAR and why the levels are set as they are.

[Emk_mani]

In SAR point of view i hate nokia. They are not at all caring abt this and keep on releasing new models with out sense.

[paulheu]

No idea what your point is here. All Nokia devices are safe and WELL within the SAR specs. Please make sure you know what yo are talking about before you open you mouth.

I guess you would also judge a car as **bleep** because it will go 65 where it can go 80 safely.

[adrianhughes]

Hi Emk_mani,

obviously you did not read this thread through, please put your paranoia aside.

[psychomania]

Careful Paul and Adrian, you don't want people getting their tin foil hats in a twist over your comments

[paulheu]

Well as these are typical 'one post wonders' I'm not really that concerned about it really.

[adrianhughes]

*Takes deep breath*

Has a point really, been somewhat of a worked-up atmosphere of late, so will just chill and let it all go.