Database Develop

The Eventual Regression Of Technology

Good speaking to you all
Has anyone wondered if all the technology in the world will regress? Of course it is improving a lot now but if you think about it...
When the fossil fuels finish, there will be no energy to make or run high tech devices, no electric cars or fossil-based cars, no power to run TVs or your everday household equipment, etc.
Energy from solar panels and windmills will simply not be able to cope with the electrical demand which is why people will stop using more high tech equipment and eventually regress..
And with the growing technology at the moment things need more power... like the PS3 or updated graphics cards...
quite frankly I think we have screwed ourselves, we will eventually go back to an old lifestyle like the 1960s... only the richest will be able to afford fuel to run their cars, the rest of people will use horses... industrial work will quickly slow down and agricultural farming will rise sharply.
With barely any power (and at the moment no way to safely make enough renewable energy to cope), the prices will soar significantly and people will simply not be able to pay for it.
If technology these days is progressing a lot then why have we still not found a safe renewable source of energy that can be used to replace fossil fuels?
Places like the middle east who posses most of the fuel will probably stop wanting to sell fossil fuels to the America, Britain and other more economically developed countries. They will, as any other country would, want to save it for themselves. This will make the price for each barrel soar significantly
In a couple of decades I predict we are going to reach our peak, after that we will regress.
Has anyone else thought about this? I mean it is a known problem that we are going run out of fossil fuels and so far the whole world in concentrating on saving the planet from carbon emmissions and not whats going to happen to the people!

New energy sources will be used/created. After all, relying on stuff burning is a bit backwards.
But why not use fossil fuels until they run out? What would be the point in leaving it all underground when it has such a valuable use, and is no use left alone?
We already have engines running on non fossil fuels, bio-diesel, soar, alcohol, hydrogen... which will all get cheaper and more efficient.
Infant technologies always cost more, until reliability, economies of scale, popularity, problem solving etc are long past. Compare air travel today to 100 years past, this same example is also good for supposing that we can't even imagine what future technologies will be.
I am not worrying about anything.

Thanks for your reply
Most means of energy being created these days is based on fossil fuels being burned from the start. For example, nuclear powerstations start off with fossil fuels.
The fossil fuels are the quickest way to get energy. You mine it and burn it without having to go through too complicated procedures, and you produce a lot of energy. When this runs out, prices for energy will rocket sky high because it will take longer to produce more energy using other methods. This will then mean that less people will be buying games consoles, computers, etc. Most of the electrical industry will slow down which plays a big part in business as most goods these days are electrical.
Even with new energy methods, it is just not going to be able to cope with the demand.
Now this might sound cruel but I am not worried at all. In fact if anything I want technology to regress because then this would mean that we will learn to control our lives without depending on something, and life will be a lot less stressful. Ever heard someone say 'the good old days?' well it seems that they might be back in the form of a new era.
But who knows, I might just be going through a phase and am wanting to blame something for my stressful life!

prank1 said:
Thanks for your reply
Most means of energy being created these days is based on fossil fuels being burned from the start. For example, nuclear powerstations start off with fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Things change, using my previous example, first heavier than air flight 1903, first space flight 1957, first manned space flight 1961 (OK so space flight's not cheap but it goes to show the advance of technology). Another good example would be cars or even better (considering this site and you signature) - Moore's law!
The fossil fuels are the quickest way to get energy. You mine it and burn it without having to go through too complicated procedures, and you produce a lot of energy. When this runs out, prices for energy will rocket sky high because it will take longer to produce more energy using other methods.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And therefore other sources of energy will become more cost effective. When is the average estimate (no one can prove anything here) for when fossil fuels will run out? Because I am confident that solar panels (for example) covering large areas (Sahara) would be very cheap (even allowing for losses during transportation). And when these technologies become a 'must, requirement, necessity' rather than a 'lets pander to the green, tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, it's-good-advertising' stereotype, companies will focus more on them, research will advance quicker, costs will drop sooner, co-operation between them etc, will force them to drop the then cheapest option, and make a new cheapest option. The current advert for the Toyota Prius in the UK is basically saying 'we built it 10 years ago, before it was fashionable!' nothing about it's capabilities. (And why doesn't anyone make a Diesel hybrid? that's a genuine question)
This will then mean that less people will be buying games consoles, computers, etc. Most of the electrical industry will slow down which plays a big part in business as most goods these days are electrical.
Even with new energy methods, it is just not going to be able to cope with the demand.
Now this might sound cruel but I am not worried at all. In fact if anything I want technology to regress because then this would mean that we will learn to control our lives without depending on something, and life will be a lot less stressful. Ever heard someone say 'the good old days?' well it seems that they might be back in the form of a new era.
But who knows, I might just be going through a phase and am wanting to blame something for my stressful life!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

bbobeckyj is on the right path. We aren't being forced to find reliable alternatives yet. When more companies convert or explore more efficient ways to create new energies more consumers will use them, creating less of a need to charge significant large prices. (Economies of Scale). Producers will focus on more sales and a lower profit margin to make it more affordable for everyone to convernt. Not to mention government subsidies to help with the conversion process.

prank1 said:
The fossil fuels are the quickest way to get energy. You mine it and burn it without having to go through too complicated procedures, and you produce a lot of energy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I forgot to mention.
Arguably that whole sentence is incorrect!
Take that argument to its logical conclusion and simplified - A wind turbine (t) on your roof vs a Diesel generator (g)
Some things are similar. You have to buy both, prefabricated. You must install both. (t-3 points/g-3points)
Some things are dissimilar. You only have to buy fuel for one (t0/g1). You have to maintain/service one a lot more frequently (t0/g1). You have to (get someone else, and pay them to do so) dig raw fuel out of the ground(t0/g1), transport it(t0/g1), refine it(t0/g1), transport it(t0/g1), store it(t0/g1), burn it (t0/g1)(requiring outside input - you), handle the waste products(t0/g1), pay tax(t0/g1)... and then use the electricity it generates
Not so quick, not uncomplicated
I make that t3/g13 in this admittedly one sided polemic

modern coal powerplants dont work like your avarage bbq grill so it's nowhere that simple
it's made into coal dust and blown at the fire by machinery
and yeah a mill can drive a turbine which is what the gas explosion also drives so it's more simple with wind if you wanna get down and dirty
but agreed that solar power is a bit complex but then as are nuke plants
diesel engines can run on pilfer oil with if one add some filters (may smell a bit of a deepfrier though)
some does it and it runs as long on the liter and is co2 neutral
some farmer here wanted to grow his own fuel but to use what one grew oneself
the here here required him to reg himself as an oil company for it to be legal pretty silly

Test Proves I-Phone 4 Reception Issue Is No "Illusion"

http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/...why-consumer-reports-cant-recommend-iphone-4/

I hate to defend the iphone but....
Most phones have similiar issues. Even on the nexus we all love. I lose 3G/cell signal all the time when I cover the lower half of my phone. This is something common on all nexus unless you have 100% awesome signal.
I think this is why this has not been discussed on this part of the forum
1) This is supposed to be about the Nexus One, not the iphone
2) All of us N1 owners know the N1 also has radio problems.
That being said, I'll still say the nexus is the overall best phone there is.

jz9833 said:
I hate to defend the iphone but....
Most phones have similiar issues. Even on the nexus we all love. I lose 3G/cell signal all the time when I cover the lower half of my phone. This is something common on all nexus unless you have 100% awesome signal.
I think this is why this has not been discussed on this part of the forum
1) This is supposed to be about the Nexus One, not the iphone
2) All of us N1 owners know the N1 also has radio problems.
That being said, I'll still say the nexus is the overall best phone there is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with everything you said, including the last part about the overall superiority of the N1.

table: -75dBm
hand in front of me: -85dBm
next to my ear: -79dBm
That's my N1
But the news is for iPhone not for Nexus so not relevant dor this part of the forum (or any else i guess)

I dont know why people keep saying "this is common among all phones"
No its NOT.
1. You are never in direct contact with the actual antenna on other phones.
2. It usually takes a full grip to replicate this on other phones. Even then loss is not as significant as you are still merely muffling a signal not physically shorting the antenna process.
The iphone merely needs the gap bridged for it to dramatically lose signal to the point of dropping calls almost instantaneously.
The issues the N1 had were getting and maintaining a fix on 3G signals. A far cry from dropping endless calls because you were holding it wrong.

xManMythLegend said:
The issues the N1 had were getting and maintaining a fix on 3G signals. A far cry from dropping endless calls because you were holding it wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, there are plenty of reports of a dramatic drop in signal strength when you cover the back of the N1 with your hand. Not exactly the same thing as iPhone 4, but still a signal issue caused by antenna placement, so definitely in the same ballpark.

bigmout said:
No, there are plenty of reports of a dramatic drop in signal strength when you cover the back of the N1 with your hand. Not exactly the same thing as iPhone 4, but still a signal issue caused by antenna placement, so definitely in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, it's not even close to the same issue. On the N1, you can muffle the antenna a bit; on the iphone 4, you can actually electrically short it out.

MaximReapage said:
Again, it's not even close to the same issue. On the N1, you can muffle the antenna a bit; on the iphone 4, you can actually electrically short it out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This smacks of rationalization to me. People report dropped calls as a result of how they hold the phone. Whether it's because the antenna is "muffled" on the N1 or "shorts" on the iPhone, the result is the same from the user's perspective. In fact, the iPhone issue is arguably less of a problem because you can solve it with a case. I love my Nexus One, but I don't think we do ourselves any favors as consumers by rationalizing the phone's shortcomings.

Ummm...how is this related to Nexus One general?

jz9833 said:
I hate to defend the iphone but....
Most phones have similiar issues. Even on the nexus we all love. I lose 3G/cell signal all the time when I cover the lower half of my phone. This is something common on all nexus unless you have 100% awesome signal.
I think this is why this has not been discussed on this part of the forum
1) This is supposed to be about the Nexus One, not the iphone
2) All of us N1 owners know the N1 also has radio problems.
That being said, I'll still say the nexus is the overall best phone there is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The issue with the iPhone isn't that it has signal attenuation when held normally. All phones do indeed have that problem. The issue is the amount of attenuation. The iPhone 4 loses about 20 decibels of signal when held normally, the N1 loses 5-10 decibels, which doesn't mean that the iPhone loses 4 times as much signal. Decibels are an exponential metric, 10db loss is a tenfold increase/decrease, 20db is a hundredfold increase/decrease. If you use the "death grip" on the iPhone, you might see a 30db loss, yeah that's 1000x. That's why a lot of people didn't even realize that phones did this until now, the iPhone is particularly bad at this phenomenon.

There's a workaround to avoid losing signal when talking, and it's applicable with ALL phone with antenna at the bottom:
Just hold the phone top part when talking and keep hand off the bottom, but it's not possible when doing internet or messaging, or email.
When holding the phone for messaging, try to spread out fingers.

Sounds like Apple is trying to start a new FAD LoL...hope it doesn't catch on!

mingkee said:
There's a workaround to avoid losing signal when talking, and it's applicable with ALL phone with antenna at the bottom:
Just hold the phone top part when talking and keep hand off the bottom, but it's not possible when doing internet or messaging, or email.
When holding the phone for messaging, try to spread out fingers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
which is ridiculous and something a consumer shouldnt have to do. Its very annoying to not be able to hold my phone how it naturally feels to while watching/listening to anything streaming.
its really not that hard to fix this, just make a vertical antenna that way you address the heath hazard of an antenna next to your ear, and still not sacrifice much signal.

Wow, another feature that Apple will try to pass off as being first. HTC was the first to have dropped signal, dammit!!
(Tongue in cheek, guys. I realize the seriousness of the iP4's reception woes is much worse than the N1's.)

ATnTdude said:
The issue with the iPhone isn't that it has signal attenuation when held normally. All phones do indeed have that problem. The issue is the amount of attenuation. The iPhone 4 loses about 20 decibels of signal when held normally, the N1 loses 5-10 decibels, which doesn't mean that the iPhone loses 4 times as much signal. Decibels are an exponential metric, 10db loss is a tenfold increase/decrease, 20db is a hundredfold increase/decrease. If you use the "death grip" on the iPhone, you might see a 30db loss, yeah that's 1000x. That's why a lot of people didn't even realize that phones did this until now, the iPhone is particularly bad at this phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are reports of a 20dBm loss in signal strength from the way you hold the Nexus One:
If you go to Settings -> About Phone -> Status you will see a display for "Signal strength". When my phone is sitting on the desk, the signal stays consistent. However, the second I touch my phone, the signal drops up to as much as -20 dBm. I am able to replicate this test every single time, whether the signal is incredibly strong or weak.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google's "solution" was basically the same as Apple's -- i.e., hold the phone differently.

Weird, my Nexus One is just fine...........................
WRONG FORUM. Who cares.

Thread moved to OT.

what i specifically want to know is WHY is the nexus' antenna so sensitive compared to other phones. all my nokia phones would lose signal too when covering the antenna, but it seems like nokia and other phones use a moving average to calculate signal strength, over a period of the last 10 secconds or so. so that when the signal is blocked, it takes a few seconds to even start to drop. but the nexus almost seems to give dBm in real time, with no moving average at all. cause the dBm can drop intantly when blocking the antenna.
this is why i try to say that HTC just uses different bars, but the signal reception is no worse than other phones. it just shows in real time.
anyway i was at ATT store yesterday, and all 4 iphone 4's drop from 5 bars to 1 bar just by touching the lower left side. not even squeezing, just lightly pressing it. all 4 units. so what are these new phones doing with antenna that causes them to be so sensitive?
also, about the nexus, we have to think that because the nexus is only 9mm thick, the internal antenna is only seperated from our hand by barely 1 mm or so. so we too are detuning the antenna. its not a short like iphone, but close to it.

Consumer Reports confirms iPhone 4 antenna problems
By Nilay Patel posted Jul 12th 2010 1:30PM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/consumer-reports-confirms-iphone-4-antenna-problems-and-so-do/

Enough about the iPhone in the Nexus forum. Please!

Health, Tethering, and your Nook Color.

Hi folks,
I have a more "health" related question. I have recently started to just leave my tethering turned on my HD2. I've found that I use that device less and less now that I bring my NC with me wherever I go.
My question is, as a result of this, I leave my HD2 in my pocket or backpack nearby constantly. Having said that, how much radiation is being given off by having the phone constantly tether data to the NC?
Any ideas?
Cheers.

No more than having a cell phone in your pocket turned on to receive phone calls.

If your 'nads start to shrivel up, then it's not healthy.

I doubt it is much... BUT I did hear some news jockeys on the radio talking about a similar issue... their answer, don't keep the radiation device near the testes!

PoisonWolf said:
Hi folks,
I have a more "health" related question. I have recently started to just leave my tethering turned on my HD2. I've found that I use that device less and less now that I bring my NC with me wherever I go.
My question is, as a result of this, I leave my HD2 in my pocket or backpack nearby constantly. Having said that, how much radiation is being given off by having the phone constantly tether data to the NC?
Any ideas?
Cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 Not much more than just a standby signal...but you can always compare...
http://cellphones-radiation-ratings...YearAnnounced=0&XmOS=0&XmBluetooth=0&bEmail=0

Cell phone radiation is non-ionising, i honestly can not think, in terms of our current understanding of physics, how that may cause harm to you, or your nads.
The only thing that radiation can really do is warm it up a bit if it gets absorbed, it can not damage cells or DNA, it simply does not have enough energy.

liam.lah said:
Cell phone radiation is non-ionising, i honestly can not think, in terms of our current understanding of physics, how that may cause harm to you, or your nads.
The only thing that radiation can really do is warm it up a bit if it gets absorbed, it can not damage cells or DNA, it simply does not have enough energy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, you are part right... part wrong... gama radiation is "large" and does not penetrate deeply... cannot go through paper... but direct on you skin can cause radiation poisoning effects and cell death... think of sun skin leather effect.
Beta is low energy radiation that can penetrate deeply and cause more serious effects... it is "smaller" and requires more to stop it.
But, the part you are correct about is the AMOUNT of either radiation cellular devices put out it miniscule compared to other things... especially things like the sun.
The sun tan one gets is more damaging to their overall health than cellular devices raditaion....
But, as I understood the OP question to be how much more hazardous is leaving tethering enabled than not... my original response stands... it is no more damaging than leaving a phone active and in one's pocket.
Would I do it... NO... that's why I have a holster for my phone... keeping the alpha's, beta's and gamma's away from the nads.
I do keep tethering enabled.... as it is the same effect as to whether tethering is enabled or not.

Thank you for that information. I will keep it farther away from the valuables then.
DizzyDen said:
Actually, you are part right... part wrong... gama radiation is "large" and does not penetrate deeply... cannot go through paper... but direct on you skin can cause radiation poisoning effects and cell death... think of sun skin leather effect.
Beta is low energy radiation that can penetrate deeply and cause more serious effects... it is "smaller" and requires more to stop it.
But, the part you are correct about is the AMOUNT of either radiation cellular devices put out it miniscule compared to other things... especially things like the sun.
The sun tan one gets is more damaging to their overall health than cellular devices raditaion....
But, as I understood the OP question to be how much more hazardous is leaving tethering enabled than not... my original response stands... it is no more damaging than leaving a phone active and in one's pocket.
Would I do it... NO... that's why I have a holster for my phone... keeping the alpha's, beta's and gamma's away from the nads.
I do keep tethering enabled.... as it is the same effect as to whether tethering is enabled or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

DizzyDen said:
Actually, you are part right... part wrong... gama radiation is "large" and does not penetrate deeply... cannot go through paper... but direct on you skin can cause radiation poisoning effects and cell death... think of sun skin leather effect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure where i am wrong, The mobile phone emits neither gamma, beta or alpha radiation. It emits longer waves closer to radio.
Also, Gamma radiation is extremely short wave, and penetrates deeply you need things like lead or concrete to stop them, The ones that do not penetrate well are Alpha particles, you have them mixed up.
Again, there is no known mechanism in which the radiation from a mobile phone can damage you, unless the radio was cranked up to an impossible amount and literally heated you up.

High radiation level

Saw this article in my Google feed, I think it's worth sharing
https://www.gizchina.com/2019/02/08...ones-emitting-high-radiation-as-per-a-report/

Lol.
I mean I dont use my phone for calling (which is weird), so the radiation level shouldnt be too high for me
And if I am calling someone I always speak to other people on speaker.
I think that they dont care about optimizing the protection because it would cost money.
But what do I really know

I don't worry about it, since I use hands free or BT 99.99% of the time.
Plus, some of those SAR graphs are a bit out of line with reality.

I'm worried as well. Enough to switch to Note 9.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Not too worries. Very small amount if those readings are accurate and there are a hundred of things that could kill me at any moment when I step out of the house.

Is this only for phone calls?

Lol this is funny

You've ever thought of the radiation of lightbulbs and neonlights? Now there's an issue that should make you worry. What about the electronic ignition and injection of your car? You're sitting right next to it!
Or... relax! It's the same radio waves that are surrounding us all day, anywhere you go. Stop the hysteria

amunarjoh said:
You've ever thought of the radiation of lightbulbs and neonlights? Now there's an issue that should make you worry. What about the electronic ignition and injection of your car? You're sitting right next to it!
Or... relax! It's the same radio waves that are surrounding us all day, anywhere you go. Stop the hysteria
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree.
From the article.
"German certification for environmental friendliness only permits phones with 0.60 or less SAR value. That puts every phone in the above list under a red flag."
That includes the iPhone.
But like a previous poster said.
I rarely keep the phone on my body.
When I'm talking it's usually over BT. Has the OP looked into radiation of BT headsets? Just say'n.
But for my it's BT in the car.
As a kid, I sat in front of CRT televisions.
I used oscilloscopes with CRT displays.
I used old fashioned walkie talkies.
I think there are bigger things to worry about.

Eh, I've lived long enough.

I used my first Motorola cellphone back to 1993. You know the big thing like a brick. At that time, cellphones were mainly to calls. I never felt any uncomfortable at all.
Let it be.
Sent from my ONEPLUS 6T using Tapatalk

Zero f***s given here about all of this.

lolwut

OnePlus 5, 5T, 6 and 6T are all in the list, pretty poor.
MarcoLK said:
Lol. I think that they dont care about optimizing the protection because it would cost money. But what do I really know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Skimping everywhere possible.
Sure, there are iPhones in the list but not flagship models. Interesting that there are no Samsung phones listed and also interesting to see the Pixel 3 making an appearance.
Basically the list is full of cheap a$$ hardware.
It may not be a deal breaker but if there are 2 equivalent phones and one has a lower radiation level I will choose it and I think it speaks to the overall quality of the product.

Who needs some tinfoil?

Hubird said:
OnePlus 5, 5T, 6 and 6T are all in the list, pretty poor.
Skimping everywhere possible.
Sure, there are iPhones in the list but not flagship models. Interesting that there are no Samsung phones listed and also interesting to see the Pixel 3 making an appearance.
Basically the list is full of cheap a$$ hardware.
It may not be a deal breaker but if there are 2 equivalent phones and one has a lower radiation level I will choose it and I think it speaks to the overall quality of the product.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree with that, i don't care much about radiation level but seeing it's all the low quality phone that are on the top of the list and mostly samsung phone on the very end, i think it says a lot.
this is weird by the way because i live in poor signal reception area and all the xiaomi, oneplus i had had all a lot of difficulty to connect to the network, when on the other hand most of the samsung i had managed to works much better.

I haven't had a good laugh in a while, thanks OP.

Lebrun213 said:
this is weird by the way because i live in poor signal reception area and all the xiaomi, oneplus i had had all a lot of difficulty to connect to the network, when on the other hand most of the samsung i had managed to works much better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was recently in a poor signal area in Bali, I had my OP6T and the person I was with had a Note 8, both had the same simcards in them and my OP6T struggled to get any reception whereas the Note 8 was consistently better, still poor but better and at least it was usable usable.
Disappointing really, if we are going to be irradiated we should at least get kiss ass reception.

Hubird said:
I was recently in a poor signal area in Bali, I had my OP6T and the person I was with had a Note 8, both had the same simcards in them and my OP6T struggled to get any reception whereas the Note 8 was consistently better, still poor but better and at least it was usable usable.
Disappointing really, if we are going to be irradiated we should at least get kiss ass reception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree, that's why i found it to be weird.
Chinese using cheap ass antenna, it's legit because we all know they got to cut cost one way or another but then why does it irradiate more ?
i wish there were samsung quality phone with oneplus rom on that, would be perfect device

Deleted

SAR value

Isn't there anyone a bit worried about the high SAR value(radiation) of the s10?

Looking at the attached link, there are worse phones.
I haven't had any issues with my S8+, which is similar and both are within allowable limits.
https://www.devicespecifications.com/en/model-sar/f0d64f1d

mab71 said:
Isn't there anyone a bit worried about the high SAR value(radiation) of the s10?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is directly from the FCC,
"ALL cell phones must meet the FCC’s RF exposure standard, which is set at a level well below that at which laboratory testing indicates, and medical and biological experts generally agree, adverse health effects could OCCUR."

Tel864 said:
This is directly from the FCC,
"ALL cell phones must meet the FCC’s RF exposure standard, which is set at a level well below that at which laboratory testing indicates, and medical and biological experts generally agree, adverse health effects could OCCUR."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values

mab71 said:
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Worrying? Did you read the post by @Tel864? Level well below that causes health effects. We're fine.
Tel864 said:
This is directly from the FCC,
"ALL cell phones must meet the FCC’s RF exposure standard, which is set at a level well below that at which laboratory testing indicates, and medical and biological experts generally agree, adverse health effects could OCCUR."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

mab71 said:
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you vegan?

mab71 said:
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hold your breath there is carbon monoxide in the air, brace yourself for 5G, oh and the zombie apocalypse is coming
Seriously yes we are living in a toxic world, adapt we must.....

mab71 said:
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Keep in mind that those values are from tests conducted on mice and according to some experts, you would have to keep the phone to your ear 10 hours a day for months to even have a chance of getting harmful radiation.
One warning though, I would keep you mouse off the phone as much a possible because we know how they love to talk.

Tel864 said:
Keep in mind that those values are from tests conducted on mice and according to some experts, you would have to keep the phone to your ear 10 hours a day for months to even have a chance of getting harmful radiation.
One warning though, I would keep you mouse off the phone as much a possible because we know how they love to talk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any link to verify this?

Non ionizing radiation, yeah not concerned. The only way cellular radiation hurts you is the warning it can cause, and the power levels needed are orders of magnitude larger to appreciably raise your tissues temperature.

I think u guys don't know about the exynos versions... All of them have near the limit values..

European Union - 2.0
US - 1.6
If the numbers bother you then don't buy the phone. It's been deemed safe because those numbers are well below the danger levels. If the phone is taped to your head then you have a problem, if not, the sky isn't falling and the phone is safe.

Tel864 said:
European Union - 2.0
US - 1.6
If the numbers bother you then don't buy the phone. It's been deemed safe because those numbers are well below the danger levels. If the phone is taped to your head then you have a problem, if not, the sky isn't falling and the phone is safe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U act as if u know everything... The radiation levels indicated are not only for head but also body distance from the phone.. So if people play games for hours or put the phone in their pockets for a long time there is bound to be some effect.
Nobody's asking u not to buy the phone... It's your head and body. No need to talk about the sky falling.

mab71 said:
U act as if u know everything... The radiation levels indicated are not only for head but also body distance from the phone.. So if people play games for hours or put the phone in their pockets for a long time there is bound to be some effect.
Nobody's asking u not to buy the phone... It's your head and body. No need to talk about the sky falling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But again, it's non-ionizing radiation. You would get more of this type of radiation living close to an airport than having the phone in your pocket.

mab71 said:
I think u guys don't know about the exynos versions... All of them have near the limit values..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was surprised to see this but to my another surprise huawei is doing so good with huawei mate 20 pro with sar value of head:0.40, body:0.96
Even the p30 pro has head:0.67, body:0.99 which is well below the limit. Samsung is just getting greedy their phones have head sar low but body sar is way too high.
Looking forward to s11, note 10, mate 30 pro
---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------
mab71 said:
U act as if u know everything... The radiation levels indicated are not only for head but also body distance from the phone.. So if people play games for hours or put the phone in their pockets for a long time there is bound to be some effect.
Nobody's asking u not to buy the phone... It's your head and body. No need to talk about the sky falling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
100% agree :good: