SAR simulations in SAM varying the dimensions, the distances and the age dependent dielectric parameters

Fernandez-Rodriguez, Claudio Enrique; Davis, Devra Lee; Salles, Álvaro Augusto Almeida de; Morgan, L. Lloyd

doi:10.1109/imoc.2015.7369166

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That the brains of vulnerable young children are more exposed to cell phone RFR compared to adults [ 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 ] and that children will likely use cell phones over their entire lifetime is a major concern. Moreover, the uncertainty in our basic understanding of cancer latencies [ 67 ] must be considered when comparing cell phone use with cancer trends.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The suggestions of IEEE-ICNIRP in averaging mass/volume are challenged by a series of simulations ( Figure 6 , [ 65 ]) of peak spatial SAR (psSAR) for cell phones as a function of distance to the head. Results show that both the distance of the phone from the body and cube size (or weight, 10 g to 0.01 g) influence psSAR, with smaller cubes producing larger psSARs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The irregularities in the curves stem from a mismatch between head shape and digitized voxels. ICNIRP uses 10 g, while IEEE-FCC uses 1 g. After [ 65 ].…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions

Héroux

Belyaev

Chamberlin

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1990s, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) restricted its risk assessment for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in seven ways: (1) Inappropriate focus on heat, ignoring sub-thermal effects. (2) Reliance on exposure experiments performed over very short times. (3) Overlooking time/amplitude characteristics of RFR signals. (4) Ignoring carcinogenicity, hypersensitivity, and other health conditions connected with RFR. (5) Measuring cellphone Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) at arbitrary distances from the head. (6) Averaging SAR doses at volumetric/mass scales irrelevant to health. (7) Using unrealistic simulations for cell phone SAR estimations. Low-cost software and hardware modifications are proposed here for cellular phone RFR exposure mitigation: (1) inhibiting RFR emissions in contact with the body, (2) use of antenna patterns reducing the Percent of Power absorbed in the Head (PPHead) and body and increasing the Percent of Power Radiated for communications (PPR), and (3) automated protocol-based reductions of the number of RFR emissions, their duration, or integrated dose. These inexpensive measures do not fundamentally alter cell phone functions or communications quality. A health threat is scientifically documented at many levels and acknowledged by industries. Yet mitigation of RFR exposures to users does not appear as a priority with most cell phone manufacturers.

show abstract