SAR values
By S21, last updated 29 Nov 2016
SAR (specific absorption rate) is a measurement of how much electromagnetic radiation is absorbed by body tissue whilst using a mobile phone. The higher the SAR value the more radiation is absorbed.
In Europe, the European Union Council has adopted the recommendations made by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP Guidelines 1998). These recommendations set a SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg in 10g of tissue. The UK Government has endorsed this limit (following a report by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones) and the five mobile phone network operators have agreed to voluntarily adopt the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure. All mobile phones on sale in the UK comply with this limit.
In the United States, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) requires all cell phones to comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg in 1g of tissue.
Click here for a list of phones with the lowest emissions.
How to reduce your exposure to phone radiation
- Do not use your phone more than necessary and keep your calls short
- Send a text instead of making a call
- Try to avoid using your phone if the signal strength is low - find a better location to make a call
- Try to use the phone outdoors rather than inside, or move close to a window to make a call
- Keep the phone (and particularly the aerial) as far as possible from your head
- Avoid touching the aerial while the phone is turned on, and keep the phone away from areas of the body such as eyes, testicles, breasts and internal organs
- Limit usage as much as possible if pregnant
- Switch off your phone when not in use
You should be aware that if the phone is receiving a very strong signal from a base station, then power output can be reduced by up to 1000 times compared with when the phone has a poor signal.
SAR Values
As SAR information is not always easy to find, we have compiled a list of SAR values for most phones available in the UK. Please note that S21 accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of this data. All data has been collected from third party sources and in each case the source of the data is referenced. You are advised to verify the accuracy of this information for yourself. Under no circumstances will S21 be held liable for any loss, injury or damage associated with the use of this data.
You should note that while the SAR values of individual phones may vary, every phone available for sale in the UK complies with ICNIRP guidelines. You should also be aware that the SAR values shown are maximum values and in practice emissions from mobile phones will normally be lower than these figures. The emissions depend on factors such as distance from a transmission mast, whether the phone is used indoors or outdoors, how close the phone is held to the ear and other operating factors. It is important to realise that a phone with a high SAR rating may actually operate with much lower emissions in practice, and conversely a phone with a lower SAR rating may operate with emissions higher than a high SAR phone in practice. You should not rely on a low SAR rating to guarantee your health.
Manufacturer
|
Model
|
SAR (W/kg)
|
Source of data
|
Alcatel
|
1010
|
1.08
|
|
Alcatel
|
Easy
|
0.87
|
|
Alcatel
|
Gumm
|
0.87
|
|
Alcatel
|
Max
|
0.87
|
|
Alcatel
|
Max1
|
0.97
|
|
Alcatel
|
View
|
0.96
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 3G S
|
1.19
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 4
|
1.18
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 4S
|
1.18
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 5
|
1.25
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 5c
|
1.19
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 5s
|
1.19
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 6
|
1.18
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 6 Plus
|
1.19
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 6s
|
1.14
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 6s Plus
|
1.14
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 7
|
1.39
|
|
Apple
|
iPhone 7 Plus
|
1.34
|
|
BlackBerry
|
9720
|
1.28
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Bold 9790
|
1.73
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Bold 9900
|
1.19
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Classic
|
1.43
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Curve 8900
|
1.01
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Curve 9300
|
1.45
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Curve 9320
|
1.56
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Curve 9360
|
1.49
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Curve 9380
|
1.47
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Passport
|
1.45
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Torch 9800
|
1.13
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Torch 9810
|
1.44
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Torch 9860
|
1.46
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Q5
|
1.38
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Q10
|
1.36
|
|
BlackBerry
|
Z10
|
1.39
|
|
Google
|
Nexus 6
|
0.531
|
|
HTC
|
Desire
|
0.752
|
|
HTC
|
Desire 500
|
0.724
|
|
HTC
|
Desire 601 Dual Sim
|
1.120
|
|
HTC
|
Desire X
|
1.590
|
|
HTC
|
One
|
1.260
|
|
HTC
|
One Max
|
0.813
|
|
HTC
|
One Mini
|
0.897
|
|
HTC
|
One S
|
1.000
|
|
HTC
|
One X
|
1.210
|
|
HTC
|
One X+
|
0.862
|
|
HTC
|
Sensation
|
0.358
|
|
HTC
|
Sensation XE
|
0.358
|
|
HTC
|
Windows Phone 8S
|
1.080
|
|
HTC
|
Windows Phone 8X
|
0.586
|
|
LG
|
G2
|
0.97
|
|
LG
|
G4
|
0.621
|
|
LG
|
Nexus 4
|
0.56
|
|
Microsoft
|
Lumia 435
|
0.58
|
|
Microsoft
|
Lumia 535
|
0.66
|
|
Microsoft
|
Lumia 550
|
0.63
|
|
Microsoft
|
Lumia 640
|
0.88
|
|
Microsoft
|
Lumia 640 XL
|
0.69
|
|
Microsoft
|
Lumia 950
|
0.60
|
|
Microsoft
|
Lumia 950 XL
|
0.56
|
|
Motorola
|
A830
|
0.69
|
|
Motorola
|
A835
|
0.55
|
|
Motorola
|
A920
|
0.75
|
|
Motorola
|
A925
|
0.65
|
|
Motorola
|
A1000
|
1.13
|
|
Motorola
|
C200
|
0.78
|
|
Motorola
|
C250
|
0.83
|
|
Motorola
|
C300
|
0.95
|
|
Motorola
|
C331
|
0.81
|
|
Motorola
|
C332
|
0.81
|
|
Motorola
|
C333
|
0.81
|
|
Motorola
|
C336
|
0.81
|
|
Motorola
|
C350
|
0.90
|
|
Motorola
|
C380
|
0.73
|
|
Motorola
|
C385
|
0.73
|
|
Motorola
|
C450
|
0.92
|
|
Motorola
|
C550
|
0.71
|
|
Motorola
|
C650
|
0.87
|
|
Motorola
|
C975
|
1.02
|
|
Motorola
|
E365
|
0.88
|
|
Motorola
|
E380
|
0.73
|
|
Motorola
|
E398
|
1.01
|
|
Motorola
|
E550
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
E1000
|
0.88
|
|
Motorola
|
E1070
|
0.89
|
|
Motorola
|
KRZR K1
|
0.59
|
|
Motorola
|
L2
|
1.33
|
|
Motorola
|
L6
|
1.33
|
|
Motorola
|
L7
|
0.95
|
|
Motorola
|
Moto G
|
0.79
|
|
Motorola
|
Moto G 4G
|
1.24
|
|
Motorola
|
MPX200
|
0.12
|
|
Motorola
|
RAZR HD
|
0.61
|
|
Motorola
|
RAZR i
|
0.85
|
|
Motorola
|
T280i
|
0.96
|
|
Motorola
|
T720
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
T720i
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
T722i
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
T2288
|
0.62
|
|
Motorola
|
T8088
|
0.445
|
|
Motorola
|
V3
|
0.62
|
|
Motorola
|
V3i
|
0.78
|
|
Motorola
|
V3X
|
0.57
|
|
Motorola
|
V50
|
1.19
|
|
Motorola
|
V60g
|
0.52
|
|
Motorola
|
V60i
|
0.38
|
|
Motorola
|
V66
|
1.17
|
|
Motorola
|
V66i
|
1.17
|
|
Motorola
|
V70
|
0.96
|
|
Motorola
|
V80
|
0.54
|
|
Motorola
|
V150
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
V180
|
0.87
|
|
Motorola
|
V220
|
0.90
|
|
Motorola
|
V300
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
V303
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
V400
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
V500
|
0.90
|
|
Motorola
|
V525
|
0.90
|
|
Motorola
|
V547
|
0.93
|
|
Motorola
|
V550
|
0.90
|
|
Motorola
|
V600
|
0.82
|
|
Motorola
|
V620
|
0.82
|
|
Motorola
|
V635
|
0.80
|
|
Motorola
|
V975
|
0.96
|
|
Motorola
|
V980
|
0.96
|
|
Motorola
|
W220
|
0.81
|
|
Motorola
|
Z3
|
1.02
|
|
Nokia
|
100
|
1.28
|
|
Nokia
|
105
|
1.48
|
|
Nokia
|
106
|
1.27
|
|
Nokia
|
108
|
1.30
|
|
Nokia
|
113
|
1.46
|
|
Nokia
|
220
|
1.14
|
|
Nokia
|
515
|
1.15
|
|
Nokia
|
1100
|
0.67
|
|
Nokia
|
2100
|
0.55
|
|
Nokia
|
2300
|
0.86
|
|
Nokia
|
2600
|
0.80
|
|
Nokia
|
2650
|
0.54
|
|
Nokia
|
3100
|
0.76
|
|
Nokia
|
3120
|
0.79
|
|
Nokia
|
3200
|
0.56
|
|
Nokia
|
3210
|
0.81
|
|
Nokia
|
3220
|
0.78
|
|
Nokia
|
3300
|
0.77
|
|
Nokia
|
3310
|
0.96
|
|
Nokia
|
3330
|
0.96
|
|
Nokia
|
3410
|
0.81
|
|
Nokia
|
3510
|
0.66
|
|
Nokia
|
3510i
|
0.83
|
|
Nokia
|
3650
|
0.72
|
|
Nokia
|
3660
|
0.75
|
|
Nokia
|
5100
|
0.48
|
|
Nokia
|
5110
|
0.69
|
|
Nokia
|
5210
|
0.62
|
|
Nokia
|
5510
|
0.74
|
|
Nokia
|
6020
|
0.52
|
|
Nokia
|
6021
|
072
|
|
Nokia
|
6030
|
0.59
|
|
Nokia
|
6100
|
0.60
|
|
Nokia
|
6110
|
0.87
|
|
Nokia
|
6111
|
0.84
|
|
Nokia
|
6150
|
0.69
|
|
Nokia
|
6210
|
0.92
|
|
Nokia
|
6220
|
0.66
|
|
Nokia
|
6230
|
0.59
|
|
Nokia
|
6250
|
0.55
|
|
Nokia
|
6310
|
0.81
|
|
Nokia
|
6310i
|
0.82
|
|
Nokia
|
6510
|
0.81
|
|
Nokia
|
6600
|
0.80
|
|
Nokia
|
6610
|
0.63
|
|
Nokia
|
6610i
|
0.63
|
|
Nokia
|
6650
|
0.64
|
|
Nokia
|
6800
|
0.61
|
|
Nokia
|
6810
|
0.82
|
|
Nokia
|
6820
|
0.72
|
|
Nokia
|
7110
|
0.90
|
|
Nokia
|
7200
|
0.36
|
|
Nokia
|
7210
|
0.63
|
|
Nokia
|
7250
|
0.60
|
|
Nokia
|
7250i
|
0.60
|
|
Nokia
|
7260
|
0.51
|
|
Nokia
|
7270
|
0.46
|
|
Nokia
|
7280
|
0.83
|
|
Nokia
|
7360
|
0.60
|
|
Nokia
|
7370
|
0.66
|
|
Nokia
|
7373
|
0.73
|
|
Nokia
|
7380
|
0.65
|
|
Nokia
|
7600
|
0.71
|
|
Nokia
|
7610
|
0.54
|
|
Nokia
|
7650
|
0.35
|
|
Nokia
|
8210
|
1.00
|
|
Nokia
|
8310
|
0.82
|
|
Nokia
|
8810
|
1.14
|
|
Nokia
|
8810i
|
0.73
|
|
Nokia
|
8850
|
0.43
|
|
Nokia
|
8890
|
0.26
|
|
Nokia
|
8910
|
0.52
|
|
Nokia
|
8910i
|
0.26
|
|
Nokia
|
9210
|
0.34
|
|
Nokia
|
9210i
|
0.34
|
|
Nokia
|
9300
|
0.07
|
|
Nokia
|
9300i
|
0.29
|
|
Nokia
|
9500
|
0.49
|
|
Nokia
|
Asha 210
|
0.69
|
|
Nokia
|
Asha 302
|
1.11
|
|
Nokia
|
Asha 503
|
1.44
|
|
Nokia
|
NGAGE
|
0.57
|
|
Nokia
|
E51
|
1.40
|
|
Nokia
|
E7
|
1.28
|
|
Nokia
|
E71
|
1.33
|
|
Nokia
|
E72
|
1.31
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 520
|
1.09
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 530
|
1.19
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 620
|
0.84
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 625
|
0.95
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 630
|
1.52
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 635
|
0.79
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 720
|
0.76
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 730
|
0.96
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 735
|
0.80
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 820
|
0.94
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 830
|
0.59
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 920
|
0.70
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 925
|
0.92
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 930
|
0.73
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 1020
|
0.82
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 1320
|
0.56
|
|
Nokia
|
Lumia 1520
|
0.72
|
|
Nokia
|
N70
|
0.95
|
|
Nokia
|
N71
|
0.38
|
|
Nokia
|
N72
|
0.76
|
|
Nokia
|
N73
|
0.92
|
|
Nokia
|
N8
|
1.02
|
|
Nokia
|
N80
|
0.48
|
|
Nokia
|
N90
|
0.29
|
|
Nokia
|
N91
|
0.67
|
|
Nokia
|
N93
|
0.69
|
|
Nokia
|
N95
|
0.58
|
|
Nokia
|
N96
|
0.91
|
|
Nokia
|
N97
|
0.66
|
|
Nokia
|
N900
|
0.80
|
|
Nokia
|
X6
|
1.11
|
|
Panasonic
|
G60
|
0.732
|
|
Panasonic
|
G70
|
0.77
|
|
Panasonic
|
G600
|
0.50
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD35
|
0.856
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD55
|
0.753
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD67
|
0.505
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD68
|
0.505
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD75
|
0.669
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD76
|
0.669
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD86A
|
0.576
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD87
|
0.633
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD88
|
0.982
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD93
|
0.72
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD95
|
0.839
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD96
|
0.759
|
|
Panasonic
|
GD520
|
0.95
|
|
Panasonic
|
P341i
|
0.459
|
|
Panasonic
|
X60
|
0.672
|
|
Panasonic
|
X70
|
0.459
|
|
Panasonic
|
X300
|
0.863
|
|
Panasonic
|
X400
|
0.555
|
|
Panasonic
|
Z70
|
0.459
|
|
Philips
|
Savy
|
1.10
|
|
Philips
|
Xennium
|
1.14
|
|
Sagem
|
MYC1
|
1.12
|
|
Sagem
|
MYC2
|
0.93
|
|
Sagem
|
MYC3
|
0.99
|
|
Sagem
|
MYX1
|
0.64
|
|
Sagem
|
MYX2
|
0.64
|
|
Sagem
|
MYX3-2
|
0.93
|
|
Sagem
|
MYX5
|
0.64
|
|
Sagem
|
MYX6
|
0.65
|
|
Sagem
|
MYX7
|
0.57
|
|
Sagem
|
MYXC1
|
1,12
|
|
Sagem
|
MYXC-3B
|
0.99
|
|
Samsung
|
A300
|
1.03
|
|
Samsung
|
A800
|
0.961
|
|
Samsung
|
C100
|
0.599
|
|
Samsung
|
C120
|
0.977
|
|
Samsung
|
C130
|
0.824
|
|
Samsung
|
Chat S3350
|
0.817
|
|
Samsung
|
Chat 357
|
0.637
|
|
Samsung
|
D410
|
0.371
|
|
Samsung
|
D415
|
0.619
|
|
Samsung
|
D500
|
0.310
|
|
Samsung
|
D600
|
0.411
|
|
Samsung
|
D800
|
0.387
|
|
Samsung
|
D830
|
0.337
|
|
Samsung
|
D900
|
0.823
|
|
Samsung
|
E300
|
0.513
|
|
Samsung
|
E310
|
0.513
|
|
Samsung
|
E330
|
0.903
|
|
Samsung
|
E350
|
0.41
|
|
Samsung
|
E390
|
0.461
|
|
Samsung
|
E400
|
0.809
|
|
Samsung
|
E530
|
0.696
|
|
Samsung
|
E600
|
0.981
|
|
Samsung
|
E630
|
0.506
|
|
Samsung
|
E700
|
0.733
|
|
Samsung
|
E710
|
1.0
|
|
Samsung
|
E720
|
0.664
|
|
Samsung
|
E760
|
0.94
|
|
Samsung
|
E770
|
0.915
|
|
Samsung
|
E800
|
0.357
|
|
Samsung
|
E810
|
0.5
|
|
Samsung
|
E820
|
0.48
|
|
Samsung
|
E900
|
0.355
|
|
Samsung
|
E950
|
0.39
|
|
Samsung
|
E950
|
0.39
|
|
Samsung
|
E1200
|
0.873
|
|
Samsung
|
E1230
|
0.806
|
|
Samsung
|
F490
|
0.411
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Ace
|
0.625
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Ace 2
|
0.498
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Ace 3
|
0.594
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Ace 4
|
0.670
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Ace Plus
|
0.839
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Apollo
|
0.575
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy A3
|
0.554
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy A3 2016
|
0.621
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy A3 2017
|
1.380
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy A5
|
0.259
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy A5 2016
|
0.475
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy A5 2017
|
1.390
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Europa
|
0.645
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Fame
|
0.831
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy J1
|
0.766
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy J3
|
0.477
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy J5
|
0.612
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy J5 2016
|
1.170
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Mega
|
0.374
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Mini
|
0.961
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Mini 2
|
0.917
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Nexus
|
0.456
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Note
|
0.209
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Note II
|
0.369
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Note 3
|
0.363
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Note 4
|
0.382
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Note Edge
|
0.329
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S
|
0.510
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S Advance
|
0.750
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S2
|
0.351
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S3 Mini
|
0.584
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S3
|
0.547
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S4
|
0.399
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S4 Active
|
0.358
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S4 Mini
|
0.332
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S5
|
0.562
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S5 Mini
|
0.968
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S6
|
0.499
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S6 Edge
|
0.594
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S7
|
0.621
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy S7 Edge
|
0.507
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Y
|
0.655
|
|
Samsung
|
Galaxy Young
|
0.742
|
|
Samsung
|
i300
|
0.742
|
|
Samsung
|
P300
|
0.973
|
|
Samsung
|
P400
|
1.18
|
|
Samsung
|
P510
|
0.897
|
|
Samsung
|
S100
|
1.01
|
|
Samsung
|
S300
|
1.14
|
|
Samsung
|
S400i
|
0.662
|
|
Samsung
|
S500i
|
0.969
|
|
Samsung
|
S3500
|
0.581
|
|
Samsung
|
T100
|
0.936
|
|
Samsung
|
U900
|
0.7
|
|
Samsung
|
V200
|
0.685
|
|
Samsung
|
X100
|
0.758
|
|
Samsung
|
X450
|
0.98
|
|
Samsung
|
X460
|
0.846
|
|
Samsung
|
X600
|
0.842
|
|
Samsung
|
X640
|
0.795
|
|
Samsung
|
X660
|
0.816
|
|
Samsung
|
X830
|
0.119
|
|
Samsung
|
Z107
|
0.63
|
|
Samsung
|
Z130
|
0.842
|
|
Samsung
|
Z300
|
0.702
|
|
Samsung
|
Z320i
|
0.641
|
|
Samsung
|
Z500
|
0.994
|
|
Samsung
|
Z510
|
0.768
|
|
Samsung
|
Z540
|
0.531
|
|
Siemens
|
C55
|
0.49
|
|
Siemens
|
C60
|
0.67
|
|
Siemens
|
C65
|
0.73
|
|
Siemens
|
CF62
|
0.75
|
|
Siemens
|
CX65
|
0.59
|
|
Siemens
|
M55
|
0.64
|
|
Siemens
|
M65
|
0.88
|
|
Siemens
|
S55
|
0.53
|
|
Siemens
|
S65
|
0.48
|
|
Siemens
|
S451
|
0.89
|
|
Siemens
|
SL42
|
0.89
|
|
Siemens
|
SL45
|
0.89
|
|
Siemens
|
SL45i
|
0.89
|
|
Siemens
|
SL55
|
0.62
|
|
Siemens
|
ST55
|
0.74
|
|
Siemens
|
ST60
|
0.47
|
|
Siemens
|
SX1
|
0.52
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia C
|
0.522
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia E
|
0.87
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia J
|
0.73
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia L
|
0.69
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia M
|
0.859
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia M2
|
0.779
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia M4 Aqua
|
0.633
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia SP
|
0.79
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia Z
|
0.48
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia Z1
|
0.773
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia Z1 Compact
|
0.74
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia Z3
|
0.712
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia Z3 Compact
|
0.897
|
|
Sony
|
Xperia Z Ultra
|
0.339
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
K500i
|
0.53
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
K700
|
0.48
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
P800
|
0.64
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
P802
|
0.64
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
P900
|
0.91
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T68
|
0.49
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T68i
|
0.38
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T200
|
0.63
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T230
|
0.74
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T238
|
0.74
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T300
|
0.80
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T310
|
0.81
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T312
|
0.81
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T600
|
0.80
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T602
|
0.80
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T610
|
0.89
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
T630
|
0.88
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
V800
|
1.05
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
Z200
|
0.94
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
Z208
|
0.94
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
TZ600
|
0.16
|
|
Sony Ericsson
|
Z1010
|
1.41
|
User questions
Sorry - questions and comments on this page are now closed.
What is the radiation rates of vivo y83?
Asked by Pratik
from India
on 28th Nov 2018
Can u say SAR of OPPO F1s??
Asked by Srilakshmi
from Indi
on 22nd Nov 2018
What is radiation level of Aqua j1 mobile? Is it harmful?
Asked by NAGESWARARAO
from India
on 13th Sep 2018
User comments
Sorry - reviews and comments on this page are now closed.
Comment by Abinashkumar
from India
on 24th Sep 2018
What about tenor e mobile phones?
Is it emits harmful
radiation?
Comment by Alin
from Bangladesh
on 6th Aug 2018
What is the sar value of lenevo z5??
Comment by Marco
from Italy
on 20th Apr 2018
Firstly hi at all.
I was looking for a new smartphone
for my girlfriend.
Now I have the Xiaomi Redmi Note 4
Global which has the follow values:
- 0,724 W/kg for the head
- 0,674 W/kg for the body
Measured on 10g of tissue (EU limit
2.0W/kg)
-0,824 W/kg for the head
-0,725 W/kg for
the body dist 5mm
Measured on 1g of tissue (US limit 1,6 W/kg)
They seem pretty good... please correct me if I am
wrong.
My questions are two:
1) My
girlfriend likes Xiaomi MiA1 and its charateristics, but it has:
-1,75 W/kg for the head
-0,76 W/kg for the body dist 5mm
Measured on 10g of tissue (EU limit 2.0W/kg)
-1,26 W/kg
for the head
-?? W/kg
An evidently higher value for
the head... But she uses the phone mainly to navigate and to take
photos.. When she talks she at most always use headphones.. Does she
have to worry however about the higher head sar value and go with
Redmi note 4? Or can she go with MiA1 cause of the almost the same
Body sar value?
2) Meanwhile the Body sar value is
evaluated at a certain distance (eg. 5mm), the Head value is evaluated
at a 0 distance from the ear. Is it right? Or am I wrong?
Thanks to all in advance
Comment by Anju
from India
on 12th Apr 2018
Mine is oppo A 37.
Comment by Suhad
from Sudan
on 13th Nov 2017
My phone Huawei I want to know it's SAR.
I am pregnant and using
my phone a lot in internet is it harmful to the baby.
Reply by M
from United Kingdom
on 16th Dec 2017
It is much safer for you and your growing baby not to use a mobile
phone, or at least limit the use as much as possible. Put a cushion
between your tummy and the phone if you really need to use it. Switch
it off when not in use and don't carry it in your pocket if on. Safety
comes first. It is better to air on the side of caution for peace of
mind. Take a good pregnancy multi vitamin and eat fresh seasonal fruit
and vegetables as well as hard boiled eggs and pasteurised milk. Dark
chocolate also good for iron.
Reply by Naresh
from India
on 25th Jun 2018
Hi,
Please dial *#07# on your mobile to know its sar
Value.
Comment by RAJASEKAR K
from INDIA
on 10th Oct 2017
10.or G SAR VALUE? Tenor mobile company from china?
please share
the SAR Value...
Comment by Joy Loveheart
from Norway
on 12th Jul 2017
I would like to know the Body Sar Value and the head Sar value for
Nokia Lumia 830 Please.
Thank you.
Warmly
Joy Loveheart
Comment by Paolo
from Italy
on 11th Jul 2017
Hello,
I would like to buy a Samsung A3 2017 here in the
EU. These are the EU and US SAR values:
US Head 0.86 W/kg
Body 0.74 W/kg
EU Head 0.34 W/kg Body 1.38 W/kg
I
can't understand the reason why the EU body rate is so high. At first
I thought that it was a mistake, but then I saw that the Samsung
website reports the same EU values.
However, the Samsung
A3 2016 model registered these SAR values:
US Head 1.31
W/kg Body 1.27 W/kg
EU Head 0.62 W/kg Body 0.49 W/kg
The US 2016 and 2017 SAR values make sense, because in both cases
the 2017 values are lower than in 2016, and in both, 2016 and 2017,
the body value is lower than the head value.
Similarly, the EU
2016 body value is lower than the head value, and the 2017 head value
is lower than the 2016 head value. The problem is of course that the
EU 2017 body value is the highest and by far.
Any explanation
about that?
Thanks
Paolo
Reply by George
from Greece
on 18th Jul 2017
Paolo,
the answer to your message lies below in the comments.
Read my post below (29th Apr 2017) about SAR measurements, Body SAR
and distance of measurement.
Essentialy, the A3 2016 model body
sar eu appears to be LOWER because it was measured at a BIGGER
distance. See the description below the sar numbers in the samsung sar
website. it was measured at "1,5cm". This is an unrealistic distance
as noone keeps his cellphone at a distance of 1,5cm (or 15mm) from his
body. Most people unfortunately put it in their pockets which
essentially makes it a distance of at most 0,5cm (or 5mm) from one's
body. This is the distance that all cellphones should be measured at.
The A3 2017 as you can see in the samsung website in the sar page, was
measured at the right distance of 0,5cm, that is why its body sar eu
appears to be high and it is high. However, this measurement, even
though it is high, it is accurate. The other measurement of the a3
2016 is essentially non-valid. It appears low, BUT IT IS NOT, since it
was measured at TRIPLE the distance (1,5cm) and SAR falls
exponentially with distance. So, to more or less (on average) get the
REAL sar value of the a3 2016 you have to triple the body sar, meaning
that its real body sar is about 3x0,49=1,47. This is High. This means
that essentially, the a3 2016 has a higher body eu sar than the a3
2017! ALWAYS CHECK THE DISTANCE AND DEMAND TO KNOW THE DISTANCE THAT
THE SAR BODY MEASUREMENT WAS DONE. It is usually mentioned below or
after the sar measurement. If it was not measured at 0,5cm (or 5mm)
the measurement is essentially non-applicable. Then you have to do the
math yourself to know the real number like i did above, depending on
which distance the measurement was done.
Also, Never carry your
cellphone in your pocket. if you have a bag, carry it in your bag.
Also, follow the safety guidelines mentioned in the messages
below.
Reply by Paolo
from Italy
on 21st Jul 2017
Many thanks George for your exhaustive reply!
Now everything is
clear, I will follow your suggestions.
Comment by vinay
from india
on 2nd Jul 2017
What is the sar level of Nokia 216?
Comment by George
from Greece
on 29th Apr 2017
Many people are not aware of a "trick" that some companies use during
their testing of the SAR of their phones. This trick is the
"distance". When you check the sar of a phone at an online website
(for example samsung's or other companies website) make sure you read
the further information about wearing it on the body. At some point it
will mention the "distance". Some companies test some of their phones
at a distance of 0.5cm or 5mm. This is the distance that cell phones
should be checked at and it is the realistic distance when someone is
carrying the phone in his pocket. However some companies test their
phones at bigger distances. Some measure them at 1cm or 10mm. And some
others at 1.5cm or 15mm. What i noticed is that when a samsung phone
registers the "body" sar measurement at below 0.7w/kg (which is
considered good) it mentions a measurement distance of 1.5cm or 15mm.
This is not that good. This means that if this same phone is measure
at the appropriate distance of 0.5cm or 5mm, its SAR is higher as it
will be at the 1/3 of the distance. Distance plays a HUGE role in sar
measurements. So see for example the samsung galaxy j3 (2016) model
SM-J320F. The EU measurements for the United Kingdom for the body SAR
is "Body SAR : 0.425 W/Kg ". Seems low yes? notice what is written
below. the "distance" measured is 1.5cm or 15mm. This is a bigger
distance than the 0.5cm or 5mm that phones should be measured. Now
notice the samsung J5 (2016) model sm-j510f. For the united kingdom
for the body sar it mentions "Body SAR : 1.17 W/Kg". This is high. Now
notice the distance mentioned below in the details. the "distance"
mentioned now is 0.5cm or 5mm. So the bigger the distance, the lower
the Sar. Now consider, what would be the body sar of the J3 (2016)
sm-j320f mentioned above, IF it was measured at the 0.5cm or 5mm. it
would be higher. Go to the LG website and check also that for the EU
measurements they test their Newer models at 0.5cm or 5mm, as they
should. And for the US sars they measure at 1cm or 10mm which is ok.
Samsung tests the US sar of some of their phones at 1.5cm or 15mm
which is a bigger distance again. The samsung and LG are just
examples. What you need to consider though is that although samsung's
numbers for body SAR may SEEM low, they appear low because sometimes
they test at a bigger distance for some of their mobile phones.
Sometimes they are high despite testing at a bigger distance. Notice
as an example the Samsung J1 (2016), model sm-j120f. For the US SAR it
has Head SAR : 1.58 W/Kg. The limit is 1.6w/kg, so as you can imagine
1.58 is VERY high. Also the Body SAR is 1.18 W/Kg measured at 1.5cm or
15mm (again at a bigger distance). If it was measured at 0.5cm or 5mm
it would be even higher. (Overall, Head SARs are supposedly measured
at same distances. What is mentioned above for the distances regards
the "body sar" measurements. So, a phone which appears to have a low
body sar, but is measured at 1.5cm or 15mm isn't really THAT low. A
phone which has a higher body sar but is measured at 0.5cm or 5mm is
more accurate and realistic in its measurement than at 1cm/10mm, and
even more so than at an even bigger distance of a 1.5cm/15mm
measurement. Just check the body sar measurement "distance" of a test
before you decide if it is low or high. Having said that, i would also
suggest that some (although Not all) models of Samsung or LG are
better in their sar measurements than other brands and also these two
companies are one of the few that have banned the use of PVC, BFR and
many pthalates and other harmful toxic substances in the creation of
their phones. Finally, use a phone when you have to. Don't use it
often. Keep the wifi and the data transfer "off" when you are not
using them. When you do make a call, use a wired (not wireless)
earpiece. Keep your calls short. Turn off your mobile phones when you
are not using them. Don't just keep them in flight mode. Other than RF
radiation (microwaves), the Screen, Processors and circuits produce
magnetic radiation too which is also harmful. Don't keep your mobile
phone in your pocket/too close to your body. Put it in a bag. Sorry
for the long message.
Reply by Angelo
from Italy
on 5th May 2017
Thanks George I really appreciate your post.
It has been very
usefull to find out something about difference SAR test methods.
I have checked the info on manuals guide about two Sony devices: X
Compact and XZ.
Their SAR values aren't low but not so high, and
SAR EU and US are different from each other, so it would make a big
difference know the distance taken into account for SAR test by
Sony.
Have you or anyone else any idea about that?
Reply by George
from Greece
on 7th May 2017
Hi Angelo.
Keep in mind that as in the example of Samsung above,
companies test their different models at different distances. So they
may test one model at 5mm and a different model at 15mm. I don't know
why that is. But you can check it out yourself if you go to samsung's
website and type the information from my first message about the 2
different samsung models. Personally i would probably not buy a Sony
phone, because their phone batteries are non-removable, and i
personally do not like that. I would probably go with an LG phone or a
Samsung.
You can find information about sony's models at
"sony mobile" website. You click on the "Support" tab. Then, you click
on a specific model for example the "x compact" that you mentioned.
then you click on "download product information". the you click on the
"download" button under the "SAR" category. For this phone, we can see
that its head eu sar is actually relatively high (1.08W/Kg). For the
EU body sar, in this phone, it was measured at 5mm (as it should) and
it measured 1.25 W/Kg, which is also relatively high. Personally, i
have yet to see a phone that was measured for eu body sar at 5mm, and
yielded a result of less than 1W/Kg. I have found only one such phone
model but i wouldn't buy it for other reasons. If anyone finds a phone
that was measured at 5mm and yielded a EU body sar result of less than
1W/Kg, please post it here.
Reply by George
from Greece
on 16th May 2017
A note on my big message above. This is actually noticeable. They
actually changed the measurement on the Samsung website for the J3
2016 model sm-j320f. As i mentioned on my previous message, the EU
body sar measurement for the United Kingdom that they had some weeks
before on the samsung sar website, for that phone, was 0.425 W/Kg, and
they mentioned below a measurement distance of 1.5cm or 15mm. Now they
have a different measurement which actually proves what i mentioned
above. The new measurement for the eu body sar is, Body SAR : 1.270
W/Kg, and look below, it now mentions a measurement distance of 0.5cm
or 5mm, which is a smaller distance. So the smaller the distance, the
more the sar. These two measurements are essentially the same phone's
sar, but measured at different distances, but as mentioned above, the
0.5cm or 5mm is the more realistic distance that phones should be
measured at. if you visit other mobile phones websites, i just
checked, for this phone, some still have the old measurement for EU
body sar of 0.425 W/Kg (some have it as 0.42 W/Kg, in just they skip
the last digit, in this case, the "5" from the 0.425) for the body
sar. The new measurement of 1.27 W/Kg for the EU body sar measurement
may be higher, and in general, high, however it is measured as
mentioned at a realistic distance of 0.5cm or 5mm. Let us hope that
mobile phone industries start producing phones with small sar and
start using more safe materials for their phone production. For the
moment, as i mentioned above and for the reasons mentioned above too,
if i had to buy i mobile phone, i would buy either an LG or a Samsung
phone, but i would First check out the sar of the phone that i would
want to buy, before i buy it. Also, make sure you follow precautions
when using a mobile phone, as mentioned above.
Comment by Rana Jayendrasinh
from India
on 7th Mar 2017
I'm using gionee v5 mobile.
Tell me about, whether it's good or
not?
Thanks
Comment by jose jacob
from INDIA --KERALA--KOCHI
on 7th Mar 2017
I use C5 experia model Sony mobile since last one year --recently I
have experienced a bad incident that after using the phone about 20
minutes continuously on a call , I gets a "Zzzz" sort of disturbing
sound from my right ear and --waited 3 days with out using phone,
thinking that this may vanish , but still persist --consulted with an
eminent ENT doctor and tested and found that I have loss of high
frequency in the right ear --kindly give an advice to recover from my
ear problem --also specific gide lines to use the same phone -please
don't ignore my request --jose jacob , my e-mail id
josejacob.engr@gmail.com
Reply by DAW
from USA
on 22nd May 2017
HI Jose, I struggle with Electro Magnetic Sensitivity (EMS). I'm not
sure what the specific problem is with your ear, but in general the
low frequency radiation emitted from phones via cellular waves,
Bluetooth, and wifi (which are often all on at the same time to
increase signal strength) cause oxidative stress/damage at the
cellular level. This happens to all people. Generally the body will
repair this oxidative damage within about 30 days if you remove the
exposure to the damage and eat, sleep, and exercise to strengthen your
health. Eating lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, healthy coconut
oil, MCT oil, avocado, and other healthy fats will also help your body
repair through its normal immune processes. Everyone is exposed, but
if you are under stress or have any immune system weaknesses due to
sickness or lack of sleep, you are more prone to have oxidative damage
that the body cannot repair.
Reply by Nick
from Greece
on 22nd May 2017
Hi daw.
I struggle with electromagnetic sensitivity too. I
imagine more people are suffering from ems but they are not aware that
the symptoms they may be experiencing are due to electromagnetic
radiation. It can take a while until someome actually realizes that
some or all of their symptoms are caused by electromagnetic radiation
exposure. Some never actually realize that and never come to find the
true source of their problems. Nevertheless, the problem isn't the
electromagnetic radiation in itself only. As you mention, a person who
is under constant (usually chronic) stress/anxiety/fear/depression
and/or has lack of sleep becomes more prone to experiencing ems. Ems
is therefore a symptom. Not really a cause. It is a symptom of the
central nervous system being/becoming overly too sensitive, which
usually occurs when someone experiences chronic
stress/anciety/fear/depression. As you effectively deal with the
overstimulation of the central nervous system, then symptoms such as
ems become less. If you bring the central nervous system to balance so
that it is not overstimulated anymore (something that takes time and
dedication), then ems goes away too. ems is a symptom of central
nervous system overstimulation/hyperactivity. Usually, people with
electromagnetic sensitivities also experience other symptoms, which
vary from person to person, like gastro-intestinal problem, food
sensitivities, fatigue, pain, and others. For those strugling with
electromagnetic sensitivities and/or other chronic ailments, i would
strongly suggest looking up "DNRS" (dynamic neural retraining
system).
Comment by SRIMANTA DE
from INDIA
on 10th Dec 2016
I need to know the SAR level of Lenovo K6 power ? Is it safe ?
My email srimantade1987@gmail.com
Comment by Jiansheng
from Peru
on 7th Dec 2016
Hello, greating
I need to know what about SAR of smart
watch DZ09 with sim.
Thank you very much
My
email: ekinsam@gmail.com
Reply by Jefferson
from Colombia
on 9th Jan 2017
Good afternoon
My ask is about the P7 TO HUAWEY.
YOU WOULD
ME, what is the SAR VALUE
THANKS
Comment by Mr.Frenky
from Italy
on 26th Oct 2016
Is there datas about huawei?
Comment by uday
from India
on 7th Sep 2016
Hi
I'm using moto g mobile frm past 2 yrs.i used my Mobile in
pant pocket,nd had a pain sensetation in my leg tigh part is this
because of sar or else heating.and I use lk anything now sufficient vt
ear problems is this of sar value of da mobile.i this moto g has 1.35
sar value.now I should do.
Comment by Joseph
from USA
on 21st Jul 2016
SAR value for one plus one?
Comment by SAR Professional (Mr. J.
from CANADA
on 3rd Jun 2016
This SAR list is not accurate at all. I have checked with other SAR
websites and SAR sources, and some of the ratings on this list is
completely off (such as the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge). So, don't trust
all the ratings here; they may be incorrect. I highly suggest
everybody take a look at a very good website, called
DeviceSpecifications. It displays the CORRECT SAR ratings (UK and USA)
for every smartphone. I work for Motorola currently, so I get insider
information about phone radiation. FYI, try to avoid buying a Motorola
smartphone (especially the Moto E 1st generation and the Moto X). They
have extremely high radiation levels, and I know this for sure.
Feel free to reply to this comment if you have any further
questions.
Reply by S21
from UK
on 3rd Jun 2016
Hi Mr J, as you can see, our list contains links to the source of data
for every value listed. In the case of the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge, the
source is Samsung's own website. The values quoted are the maximum
values for each model, based on UK versions, and using European
testing standards.
In the case of the Samsung Galaxy S6
Edge (Model SM-G925F), the
Samsung website states the following:
SM-G925F
THIS DEVICE MEETS INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR EXPOSURE TO RADIO WAVES
Your mobile device is a radio transmitter and receiver.
It is designed not to exceed the limits for exposure to radio waves
(radio frequency electromagnetic fields) recommended by international
guidelines. The guidelines were developed by an independent scientific
organization (ICNIRP) and include a substantial safety margin designed
to assure the safety of all persons, regardless of age and health.
The radio wave exposure guidelines use a unit of measurement
known as the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR. The SAR limit for
mobile devices is 2 W/kg.
Tests for SAR are conducted using
standard operating positions with the device transmitting at its
highest certified power level in all tested frequency bands. The
highest SAR values under the ICNIRP guidelines for this device model
are:
Head SAR : 0.473 W/Kg
Body SAR : 0.594 W/Kg
During use, the actual SAR values for this device are
usually well below the values stated above. This is because, for
purposes of system efficiency and to minimize interference on the
network, the operating power of your mobile device is automatically
decreased when full power is not needed for the call. The lower the
power output of the device, the lower its SAR value.
Body-worn SAR testing has been carried out at a separation distance of
1.5 cm. To meet RF exposure guidelines during body-worn operation, the
device should be positioned at least this distance away from the body.
Organizations such as the World Health Organization and
the US Food and Drug Administration have suggested that if people are
concerned and want to reduce their exposure, they could use a
hands-free accessory to keep the wireless device away from the head
and body during use, or reduce the amount of time spent using the
device."
Note:
The maximum SAR value listed above is the
value recorded for the latest version of this handset.
Earlier
versions may have different measured SAR values, which are detailed in
the User Manuals that accompany those handsets.
Comment by Michael
from Owings
on 28th May 2016
I used the phone Blackberry and Nextel for several years. I used the
phone for work and had a put 3000 minutes a month. I had a very rare
brain tumor and I think the cell phone was the cause. Be careful. I
could not stand text to the microphones at church without them picking
up noise from the radiation on the phones. After my tumor I switched
to Samsung because they are low and I also use earned if I talk more
than a few minutes.
Comment by Martin Crombie
from UK
on 9th Nov 2015
I have been using the Samsung Galaxy S6 edge for nearly 4 weeks now,
and its giving me headaches with its SAR levels. I have previously
returned other phones such as Apple iPhone3, Blackberry Bold - the S6
edge is DEFINATELY not 0.594 as listed on your main page &
Samsungs.
Phones i would recommend from low SARS are Samsung
Note 2,4 & Samsung S2 which are very useable. Perhaps because of
its metal casing the S6 edge I do believe Samsung got its SAR badly
wrong.RFSAFE.COM
Reply by Jon
from Uk
on 15th Apr 2016
Im not sure I agree with the relevance of these figures either. I know
my lg g3 and samsung s4 active devices have much bigger rf effect on
me than my old basic nokia but the stats claim to be different. Its
scientifically proven that these things have an electronic effect on
our brainwaves wether they on or off. I know with my old Motorola
phone i often used to feel or think of a person as the text came
through before actually hearing the phone.
Reply by Martin
from Uk
on 15th Apr 2016
Wow, why do you even need a phone if you have psychic powers like
that? Just use telepathy instead.
Comment by Ian MacLeod
from USA
on 6th Nov 2015
I think that 0.21 was the lowest rating I saw was a Sony Erickson
0.16, but another article stated that somehow the lower level ratings
could well cause the most damage over time. I have no way to judge the
reliability of these rating either, though.
What seems
clear to me is that cell phones, towers, etc. are ALL designed to
expose us to one level or another of dangerous, carcinogenic
radiation! I don't own one, myself, and would not. There's simply too
much likelihood of adding yet another exposure to the already
saturated human body. If we MUST use them, have a Faraday
"case".
Comment by giuseppe
from Italy
on 18th Oct 2015
what are the SAR values for Xiaomi MI4C?
thank
emanmich@tin.it
Comment by Johnny
from Malaysia
on 14th Oct 2015
Can the user of Leagoo Elite 1 advise on SAR value
Is
follow US or EU Sar value?
Head ? Body ?
Thank you.
Comment by yas
from india
on 13th Oct 2015
samsung galaxy j7 ?
Comment by Gill
from USA
on 13th Sep 2015
Hi again,
I heard that iphones have higher SAR levels,but that
this is a toss-up because they also have better reception. I
understand that it is important to have a good reception/good signal
strength, in order for the emissions to stay low while using your
phone. I have a Samsung phone,which gives me consistently good
reception,and of course it has much lower SAR levels. Am I to believe
that it would be better to have an iphone with its higher SAR levels
,if its reception is superior to my Samsung. How do I know if my
reception is good and as good as the reception of an iphone? (in our
rural area,we all use the one network,verizon)
Comment by Gill
from USA
on 13th Sep 2015
Do you think using a Pong case for your cellphone is a good idea to
reduce your exposure to radiation? Do you think theses cases work? Is
there any chance they could make the radiation exposure worse?
Thanks.
Comment by David Gee
from UK
on 10th Sep 2015
Thank you for putting out this information and for providing space for
comments. Your users may like to know that the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) which is a World Health Organisation
body that has been evaluating the evidence for cancer-causing
properties of c 900 agents (like tobacco smoke and asbestos) for the
last c 40 years evaluated the evidence on mobile phones in 2011. After
7 days of deliberation by 32 world experts they almost unanimously
decided that the radiation from mobile phones was a category 2B
carcinogen ie a "possible" carcinogen. This is in contrast to other
agents where the evidence is stronger eg the category 1 ,
"established" carcinogen for asbestos, X rays and c 35 other agents,
and the category 2A, "probable" carcinogen for c 250 agents such as
the dry cleaning chemical perchloroethylene. This conclusion was
mainly based on large 2 epidemeiological studies available ie those of
Prof L Hardell from Sweden who first noted a small brain cancer excess
in his study in 1999 but whose follow up work has since strengthened
that conclusion; and the multi country Interphone study by IARC which
found a similar but less clear excess of brain cancer in those phone
users who, as with the Hardell studies, had used the phone for more
than 10 years. The IARC conclusion was a controversial finding which,
unlike nearly all other IARC evaluations, has been challenged by many
radiation authorities in many countries. A summary of the evidence and
the controversy is available as a PDF from the European Environment
Agency website,under "Late Lessons from Early Warnings: science
,precaution,innovation", chapter 21,"Mobile phone use and brain tumour
risk:early warnings,late actions?". I have not kept up with any
evidence produced after 2012 but I would advise using ear pieces, or
loud speakers, and not in confined spaces such as cars or lifts where
the radiation tends to be higher. It may be that the evidence so far
is a statistical querk that time will show to have been a false alarm.
However,in virtually all cases studied by IARC the evidence for a
carcinogenic effect of the agents studied has got stronger with time.
My declared interest is that until retiring in 2013 I was
Senior Adviser, Science, Policy,Emerging issues for the EEA. The views
above are my own.
Comment by yash dewangan
from India
on 22nd Aug 2015
Hey, can u pls tell me the sar value of 1.59 in my lenevo k3 note is
good or not??
Comment by tuba
from india
on 13th Aug 2015
I want to buy redmi note 4g.what is its sar value.is it gud for
health.ry at tubakhan941@gmail.com
Comment by Suresh kumar
from India
on 13th Aug 2015
My linovo k3 note sar 1.590.
Comment by rakesh
from india
on 18th Jul 2015
what about HTC Desire 620G SAR ??
Comment by Jude
from uk
on 29th Jun 2015
Just bought Samsung mini s5, very disturbed to find that after holding
it in my left hand to type with right, my left hand now feels burnt.
Checked SAR. The mini s5 emissions are significantly higher than s4
(around 9 for s5 and under 4 for s4). My thoughts, experiences and
feelings about this are similar to David's of UK (although David, I
can' QUITE go for the complete conspiracy theory angle!) I am
seriously considering returning the phone to the place of purchase.
Got to take it seriously.
Comment by Shiva
from India
on 21st Jun 2015
Does radiation affects us while using internet on mobile
phones.
Comment by Hi
from Australia
on 19th Jun 2015
On the box of the HTC Desire 820, the SAR is:
Head 0.755w/kg @
10g
Body 0.555w/kg @ 10g
Comment by Manshad EM
from India
on 19th May 2015
Those who wants to know the correct SAR value of your phone,just dial
*#07# and for those who wants to know the unique IMEI number of your
phone just dial *#06#.Thanks.
Comment by Daphne Brown
from United Kingdom
on 2nd Apr 2015
Would you know what sar levels are in a vodaphone smart 4 power
is please. l was thinkin of geting one & a vidaphone tablet which
too has 1Gb of internet.
Daphne
email daphne.is @hotmail.com
Comment by Frank
from UK
on 25th Mar 2015
Beware. These values are either not accurate or they don't reflect the
danger of the phone radiations.
Use to have a Samsung Ace Plus
for a year or so and have used it without any issues. Then I bought a
Motorola Moto-G and, kid you not, first time I started using it, my
ear was literally hurting while talking. Nothing painful, just a very
annoying sensation.
I immediately bought a headset for the
moto-g and i'm using that now.
If I take the headset out and
speak normally I can feel it straight away.
Here the Moto-G has
a lower value than Ace Plus, which as far as my experience goes, is
nonsense.
Comment by shah
from india
on 9th Mar 2015
Hi I am using intex aqua power HD octa core 4000 mah. What is the
radiation value of this phone? Thanks
Comment by Le Trong Kha
from VietNam
on 4th Mar 2015
Hi s21.com!
Please update new phones add list SAR.
Thanks
Comment by yash
from india
on 23rd Feb 2015
I am using Redmi Note 4G, what is the radiation level.
Thanks,
yashbhawre11@gmail.com
Comment by Balaji
from India
on 23rd Feb 2015
Hi,
I am using Redmi Note 4G, what is the radiation level.
Thanks,
Balaji
balajin84@yahoo.com
Comment by KP
from Greece
on 16th Feb 2015
Cubot S208 SAR?
Comment by Chirag
from India
on 16th Feb 2015
Plz give me sar of Micromax canvas 2 plus.
Comment by r taylor
from uk
on 16th Feb 2015
I have just recieved a cubot s222 mobile....sar level is not mentioned
in specs,,,,but i am getting very bad headaches just useing it for a
short time.
Comment by riz
from pakistan
on 6th Feb 2015
Dear Sir
Please tell me the SAR rating of honor 6 (H60
L01) both for head and body
regards
riz
Comment by naga
from india
on 1st Feb 2015
My phone was blackberry z10
It's sar value 1.09 it's good or bad
in health please tell me my mail id was
nagabhushanam126@gmail.com
Comment by AlexBour
from Greece
on 21st Jan 2015
My htc one mini 2 has SAR value 1.46 head and 0.36 body as writen on
the box. Is it that bad? In any case I ordered a bluetooth
handsfree.
Comment by K subbireddy
from India
on 14th Jan 2015
What is the Sar for Xiamen redmi note?
Comment by Rudra
from india
on 24th Nov 2014
hi,
i want to know the sar value of sony xperia m2 dual. some
of my friends has told me that sony xperia m2 dual have hi radiation.
so please help me . thank u
Comment by sathesh
from india
on 16th Nov 2014
please tell me whether to buy blackberry Z10 ie. in case of health
wise, whether it is good to use or not. SAR value is 1.39 for
Blackberry, i am confused, till date i thought that mobile which is in
lesser cost gives more radiation and high end will emit less
radiation, kindly confirm which one to buy. money is not a matter and
model, brand, design, trend nothing is important. Health is
first,
Comment by Download38
from India
on 13th Nov 2014
please mention in list Xiaomi (Product) Hongmi 1S also,
www.mi.com/in.
Comment by Shubhankar
from india
on 4th Nov 2014
I didn't got radiation level for Motorola moto X.
Anybody know
what to do?
Comment by Arun
from India
on 4th Nov 2014
What it is for Nokia Lumia - 710? It is not visible in the above list
a
Comment by Shirish Parghi
from India
on 2nd Nov 2014
My cellphone is Samsung galaxy fame s6812 and it's SAR value is
1.08
Comment by emifax
from ITALY
on 19th Oct 2014
Any chance of having the SAR rate of an NGM Forward shake?
Thanks
Comment by Lu
from England
on 10th Oct 2014
What is the Nokia 635 sar raring?
Comment by Magdi
from Qatar
on 7th Oct 2014
what is SAR value for hisense pure 1
Comment by ganesh
from India
on 16th Sep 2014
Please share SAR value of xiaomi redmi 1s
Reply by Sathish
from India
on 25th Sep 2014
SAR value for Xiaomi Redmi 1s is 1.32 in SAR EU Rating
(2.0W/Kg)
Comment by charan
from India
on 10th Sep 2014
I really wana thank to this site. I got many suggestion for buying a
new phone, but i am looking at ear pain problems people are facing. so
looking to take a low sar value phone.
Comment by David
from UK
on 4th Sep 2014
I recently started using a Motorola Moto 4G mobile phone, having used
a Samsung Galaxy S2 for the last 2 + years.
I always turn
my phone off when not in use if it is on my person, and also keep it
as far away as possible when sleeping or at home or at work if it is
reasonable to do so. Although I work in a job where I am told I must
have my mobile phone on me all the time, I do not comply, and instead
turn it on to check every 20 - 30 minutes.
Anyway, the
reason I have been searching this issue - and this is the first site
I've looked at regarding it - is that with the Moto 4G, I can actually
feel the radiation / energy from it when texting (feel it in my hand),
especially if sending a lengthy text. I hold it as far away from my
head as possible on speaker phone when making calls.
I am
very aware of the electro magnetic radiation issue (and the many other
health related issues which bombard the modern world, many of which
could be said to be purposefully damaging), and am also very aware of
energies, since I have a keen interest in this area and practice
qigong etc.
I just wanted to make others aware of this
issue with this particular phone, and wondered if anyone else may have
noticed? It is a Google company
So perhaps in cahoots with
some evil shadowy corporations / government bodies / world banks? But
maybe I'll be dismissed as a crank by other readers. Or tracked down
and killed on the sly
! I'm joking. I think... Either way, I
can really feel a tangible negative energy feeling when holding and
using the handset. My flippancy may discredit what I say, but I must
stay positive!
One final point: how can we believe any of
the statistics, when they're all tested and reported by those who have
financial interests in the products in question? It's a bit like drug
trials, no? Or a vaccine manufacturer to run safety checks. They can
hand pick data and just present what fits their desired result /
outcome. This kind of bad science is all around these days it
seems.
Kind regards,
David
Reply by Daniel
from Scotland
on 5th Sep 2014
Hi David,
I was suffering from the same issue but to the point I was suffering from unexplained headaches. My GP referred me to a neurologist and after a CT scan advised me to sell my Motorola G to alleviate the risk of anything untoward.
I bought a Samsung e1200i which has a rating of .87 but since using, the number of headaches has vastly reduced.
There has to be something in this. I have another follow up next month so that could be interesting.
I am really plased you mentioned this. I thought perhaps it's just me....
Reply by jen
from canada
on 31st May 2016
So confusing, since moto g has a low rating.
Reply by Amirah
from Saudi arabia
on 18th Sep 2016
Hi
I am very happy to read the same signs that i started to
feel on it and i started to look for the reasons
Before 2 years
i buied iphone 6 plus with the time i felt as you saied the
electricity coming from the phone and numness in my hand and pain in
my head when i call
The problem is that i feel sever pain when
i just touch the phone
That is very bad i read in this website
to see phone that is less SAR
To buy it
By the way there
are two in my family have the same signs and one of them has epilipsy
suddenly come and the other has bad ad rare canser in the head
They are using the same i phon 6 plus and when i read in other website
i surprise this phon has higiest SAR
Thank you all for sharring
your experience.
Comment by ILIAS
from GREECE
on 9th Aug 2014
IS THERE ANY TRUSTED OFFICIAL ORGANIZATION THAT CAN INFORM PEOPLE
ABOUT THE SAR OF CHINESE PHONES?TO BE SPECIFIC I WANT TO BUY ELEPHONE
P2000 OR ELEPHONE P3000 AND THERE ARE SITES THAT MENTION THESE WITH
0.5W/KG-1.6W/KG.I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE.IF YOU HAVE ANY
INFORMATION ABOUT THE 2 PHONES PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
THANK YOU
MAIL:melanidis@yahoo.gr
Comment by Dr. Taha Jaffrey
from Jeddah-Saudi Arabia
on 31st Jul 2014
Many thanks to S21 & the participants for sharing this useful
information.
Following suggestions as preventive measures
might help to minimize the harmful effects :-
1- All Mobile
Phones to prominently display SAR Absorption Ratio and the recommended
Safe Ratio.
2- Mobile Phones to be used as a necessity
>> not as luxury.
Awareness of its harmful effects be made
compulsory in form of printed leaflets in the languages of that
country.
3- More awareness to minimize the duration of
use at one time.
4- The Cell Phones be kept as far as
possible away from the ear.
5- Cell phones be kept as far
away from human body as possible >> specially when not in use
and during sleep.
6- Special Mobile cases be introduced
which can prevent/absorb its Electro-Magnetic Radiations from
dissipating; when not in use.
7- Special precautions for
limits of use in Kids, growing females/males; pregnant women.
8- Serious considerations for restrictions of use in
Schools,Clinics,Hospitals,on-going
meetings/conferences,Religious/Prayers Sessions.
9-
Technology be used & not misused / over-used without
effecting/compromising health.
Wishing everyone good
health.
Dr. Taha Jaffrey
Primary Care
Physician.
Comment by Sumeet Katyal
from India
on 6th Jul 2014
Does that mean that lower the SAR levels, better is the instrument for
human body?
Reply by S21
from UK
on 6th Jul 2014
In simple terms, yes.
Comment by Sijith
from India
on 2nd Jul 2014
Hai I like to buy a micrimax canvas 4 may i know its correct SAR
value...
Comment by Nicola
from UK
on 24th Jun 2014
Thank you for the useful information on SAR values on your website.
You write that phones with high SAR values may operate at much
lower levels and phones with low SAR levels may operate at higher
rates. While I would not rely on a low SAR level as being safe, can I
assume that a phone with a low level is generally safer than one with
a high level?
How can I find out at what level the phone is
generally operating?
Are you saying that a phone with a low SAR
might constantly operate at the maximum (low) level quoted, while
phones with a high maximum level might actually operate at a very low
level most of the time so that In practice I might be better off
buying a phone with a higher SAR level? How would I find out?
Thanks,
Reply by S21
from UK
on 25th Jun 2014
The SAR values quoted by manufacturers are maximum operating values.
The actual value in use will depend on network strength and other
factors. Generally speaking, on average a phone with low SAR rating
will emit less radiation than one with a high rating. If you are
concerned about radiation, it would be advisable to choose a phone
with a low SAR rating, but just as important is choosing a network
that gives consistently good reception and using your phone in
locations with the best network strength - perhaps close to a
window.
Comment by Hari
from India
on 14th Jun 2014
Hi everyone,
good morning,
I'd like to buy a moto e
anybody tells me what's the actual sar value of this phone.
Reply by Sree
from India
on 25th Jun 2014
Hey in india for moto e the SAR value is 1.5W/Kg Head and 1.3W/Kg for Body
Comment by Francesco
from Italy
on 4th Jun 2014
Good Afternoon,
could you tell me SAR Value of Umi X3?
Thanks,
Francesco
Comment by Konstantoudakis Eftychios
from Greece
on 14th May 2014
Can I have please The SAR value of the Xiaomi Mi3!?
Thank
you
Comment by chinmay
from india
on 9th May 2014
can u please tell me the sar value for moto x in india. with idea
network. thanks.
Comment by Qaiser Mahmood
from Pakistan
on 8th May 2014
thanks for this informative topic.
Comment by binoy
from india
on 6th May 2014
what is the sar value of micromax canvas 2.2 a114 ?
Comment by Humayun
from K.S.A
on 30th Apr 2014
Mobile LG G-pro lite D686 dual sim what is SAR for this model,
thanks
Comment by Mary
from UK
on 12th Apr 2014
Great info on your site thank you. I only wish the details about
phones gave the SAR rating. Carphone Warehouse used to give them in
their brochures. I too find that using one for half a minute or so
with a SAR over 0.4 gives me a sore head on that side which can last
quite some time. And of course in a car it is much worse - even if my
husband next to me is using his Vodafone I am aware of the discomfort.
I tell all my friends and family to use SAMSUNG as they tend to be the
lowest. Can't think why Samsung don't publicise this fact!
Comment by David
from England
on 22nd Mar 2014
Please could you give me the SAR value (or an estimate)for an iPhone 1
and a Vodaphone Smart mini? Thank you.
Comment by h johnson
from england
on 2nd Mar 2014
thank you for this easy to find information. I have just been given a
doro liberto 810 smart phone aimed at the more mature market !can you
please tell me where a sar rating of 0.673 is low med or high . many
thanks
Reply by S21
from UK
on 3rd Mar 2014
0.673 is lower than many current phones, but all phones comply with
the legal requirements.
Comment by James H
from UK
on 14th Feb 2014
Does anyone know of any phone cases that act as good signal
attenuators?
Comment by Reader
from UK
on 30th Jan 2014
My Nokia E70 which has two models is not listed. Whilst Nokia N95 has
about five models, with SAR values of between approximately 0.4 and
0.7 and yet the table here only cites model 159 with SAR 0.58 ignoring
the other models. Information source Nokia - same as cited in the
table.
Reply by S21
from UK
on 30th Jan 2014
The values for the Nokia N95 are for the RM-159 which was the original version released in the UK. Other markets may have different versions and the SAR values may be different.
Comment by J D
from UK
on 15th Dec 2013
The Google Nexus 4 made by LG does not seem to be listed. Do you have
figures for it, please?
Reply by S21
from UK
on 15th Dec 2013
The highest SAR value for use at the ear is 0.56 W/kg. Source: http://www.lg.com/global/support/sar/sar
Comment by egg
from mars
on 3rd Nov 2013
Could you test the samsung s3500 i like to know what the sar is on
this thanks
egg
Reply by S21
from UK
on 4th Nov 2013
Hi egg, the value is 0.581 W/Kg.
Comment by Antonino
from Italy
on 19th Oct 2013
Hello I would like to know the sar value of Jiayu g4 mobile phone
thank you
a.mistret@libero.it
Comment by John Hart from UK on 12th Sep 2013
Is it possible to find the SA rates for digital landline cordless phones, please?
Reply by S21 from UK on 13th Sep 2013
We don't publish that info here. Generally speaking, we would expect the SAR
for cordless phones to be much less than mobiles, since they are transmitting
over a short distance (100m instead of several km).
Reply by George
from Greece
on 25th Apr 2017
Cordless phones are even more dangerous than mobile phones for one
Main reason. They emit strong continuous radiation, both the base And
the handset, 24/7, ALL the time, whether you talk on the phone or not.
That is, they emit strong continuous radiation, both the base And the
handset, 24/7, all the time, Even on stand-by mode. I have also
verified this information myself by using an EMF meter. That is why i
have bought a cordless phone for my mother which has a setting which
makes it emit No radiation when you don't talk on the phone (siemens
gigaset). It only emits radiation when someone calls you or you call
someone and you actually use the phone to talk. So it does Not emit
radiation while it is on stand-by. Mobile phones emit continuous
radiation when you use them to make a call OR when you have the "data
transfer" setting on. The data transfer setting is when your phone is
using the cell phone towers to receive/send data in order to use the
internet. Also obviously they emit radiation when you have the wi-fi
on. Some advice: 1) do not use a cordless phone. If you have to use a
cordless phone, use one that has a setting to make the base and the
handset emit No radiation when it is on standby like the siemens
gigaset. Do not get fooled by companies mentioning an "eco" setting.
Make sure there is a setting to also Make the cordless phone emit No
radiation during stand-by. Do not place the base or handset of the
cordless phone near your bed or anywhere near where you sit or spend
time. 2) If you have to use a mobile phone, use one with a low SAR.
Make sure the wi-fi and the data transfer are off. When you don't use
your mobile phone, turn it off completely, do not just put it on
flight mode. the phone does not only emit rf radiation (radiowaves).
Its screen, processor and circuits produce magnetic radiation too
which is also harmful and dangerous, especially when it is on/near
your body.
Comment by Dee from UK on 15th Aug 2013
This is really useful. Thank you to those who put it all together. I just wonder
if it would be too much trouble for the website to also list these in order
of SAR value, so that not only can we see the SAR rating of our current phone,
but can also easily ascertain which phone to go for if we want to buy a new
one with the lowest SAR possible.
Reply by S21 from UK on 17th Aug 2013
Hi Dee, thanks for your comments. Most of the phones listed here are now old,
so we're not sure how useful this would be.
Comment by akif from türkiye on 24th Jul 2013
are these sar values for head or body ?
Reply by S21 from UK on 25th Jul 2013
They are maximum values.
Comment by Dave from UK on 27th Jun 2013
I'm still using an old Sony Ericsson Z600 which is 10 years old. It has a very
low SARS rating 0.16 and I can't find a modern phone with the same. If I use
anything with a higher rating than that, I get headaches and the side of my
face,teeth and jaw goes numb. People laugh at me, but I'm not making it up.
Like a previous post said, they are keeping quiet about it.Just because you
are not sensitive to it, doesn't mean its not there!!
Comment by JYOTHI from INDIA on 26th Jun 2013
WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD VALUE ABOVE WHICH THE :SAR" VALUE IS HARMFULL OR WHICH
RANGE IS SAFE...
Reply by S21 from UK on 26th Jun 2013
No value of SAR has been shown to be harmful. All phones comply with the legal
limits that are set by authorities, as detailed in the introduction to this
article.
Comment by Jenny from USA on 16th May 2013
SARS rating is very important to me. Just want a phone with:1.low sars rating
2. great camera 3. easy contacts(call waiting, calls missed, caller id...) I
would like to be able to listen to UTube. What's my WOW phone?
Comment by sean from uk on 1st Apr 2013
you might be interested in this film.
http://vimeo.com/54189727
very relevant to sar rating
Comment by ron taylor from uk on 24th Jan 2013
I think sar ratings are very important,but it seems to be ignored,the same as
warnings about cigarettes were in the early days.We are sure to see an increase
in brain tumors in the coming years
I phones are particulary high in sar
THE POWERS THAT BE SEEM TO PREFER TO SHOVE IT UNDER THE CARPET///monetary concerns???
Comment by Susie L from UK on 8th Oct 2012
Me again as a follow-up to your reply to me below. WHERE exactly is the SARS
ranking for the 4 and 4S Three i-phone. It does not appear to be in the list
above or if it is, what is listed under?
Thanks,
Susie
Reply by S21 from UK on 8th Oct 2012
Hi Susie, listed alphabetically under Apple.
Comment by Susie from UK on 28th Sep 2012
I have an i-phone 3S - my contract is due to expire soon. Am considering upgrading
to a 4 or 5S, (like I usually do). On your list above of SAR rankings, it appears
to only go up to 'S' alphabetically! So I am not really sure what my Three (3)
i-phone is! I have recently had cancer so although I realise having an i-phone
with a low SAR is no guarantee, I thought I might as well go for a low one -
it might just help me psychologically!
Thank you,
Susie
Reply by S21 from UK on 1st Oct 2012
Hi Susie, we've updated the table for the iPhone 4S and 5. They have relatively
high SAR values, but obviously still within legal limits.
Comment by Daniel from UK on 10th May 2012
Does anyone actually care?
The procedures of reducing SARs seems pedantic.
Turn of phone when not in use - devotes the punt of a mobile phone
Try too use the phone out doors - lol
Crazy hippies
Comment by stelios psarrakis from greece on 21st Apr 2012
Guys...Im 15 years old and I've bought samsung galaxy ace(0,625 sar).Isnt that
degree high???:-):-)
Reply by S21 from UK on 21st Apr 2012
Stelios, you can see from the figures above that 0.625 is lower than most phones
and well below the EU limit of 2.0.
Comment by pankaj vaish from bharat on 25th Jan 2012
nice and valuable information.but please tell the harmfull effects of rf radiations
in more detail...........
SAR & Health Resources
SAR Values - independent site showing SAR ratings
Powerwatch - an independent organisation working in the field of UK Electromagnetic Field and Microwave Radiation health
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones - report by UK body examining concerns about the possible health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters (May 2000)