There are many products available that advertise they can reduce SAR levels from 40-70%. The following is my analysis of the efficacy of these claims in light of the current standards and what they morally actually should be today and given that the problem of toxic levels of FCC allowed radiation have been known to generally to exist for almost a half a century -- but also given the proviso that any reduction of ambient anthropogenic radiation is better than none given that in the actual situation a particular device is used the current standards may actually be exceeded (as is so often the case) when more precise measurements can be made cheaply (something I specialize in).
SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) is a modeled/robotic thermal measurement methodology performed by an independent Federal Communication Commission (FCC) approved Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB) determining whether or not a mobile device can be legally sold in the USA by means of a Grant of Equipment Authority (GEA) by the FCC. This measurement is specified by FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) in Bulletin 65 C (1997). It is a measurement of the absorption of the heating energy component of a mobile device's radio frequency radiation emissions caused by the vibration/spiraling/movement (the microwave effect) of molecules inside a phantom's fluid sack that is designed to dielectric ally model either a human head or body tissue cross section.
This FCC specification is supposed to represent the maximum potential of the tissue heating inside the body &/or head caused by a specific mobile product under controlled laboratory conditions (an anechoic chamber is not at all how our environment is today), but may not accurately represent how an individual may actually be using the device or the surrounding environment in which it is being used (which could be said of all of the other test measurement methodologies promulgated by the FCC). The first major problem is this model represents only one size body/head (a 1950's average male military serviceman), one uniform dielectric fluid (w/o any layer differences IE skull, 3 dermal layers....etc.) for that body/head, and one distance from the device to that body/head with a much generalized approximation of the conditions of use of a particular mobile product. This model’s universal assumptions in no way take into account any of the specific human’s systems that may be affected at the allowed radiation levels other than the generalized absorption radio frequency radiation power leading to cellular heating that potentially lead to cell death (the microwave oven effect). It is well established that human bodies vary considerably in size and dialectical layer thickness interfaces (bone is conductive, pure water is absorbing & fat is in between), while more often than not the actual location and distance to the user’s skin is less than the distance specified by the OET. Finally, the informational content, carrier wave formats, and interplay with bio-chemical/neurological signaling are not even considered as stated above--the only "real" concern in this standard is generalized heating rates that can cause cellular death.
The fact remains since 1997, there have been no new considerations made to any health issues for levels of electromagnetic radiation occurring at any lower levels than these FCC-OET-SAR standards in spite over 20,000 peer reviewed research papers demonstrating these ubiquitous FCC excluded health affects--including multiple ones leading to severe disabilities and even death. Further, these SAR standards are the sole basis for all the other environmental health & safety limits promulgated by the FCC (such as Maximum Permissible Exposure-MPE for portable and base station devices) It’s hard to imagine during these 30 years there has been no movement in these standards, but apparently it has all been created by the exemption to the environment and health and safety given in the 1996 Telecommunication Act. Considering the history of the corporate proliferation of microwave transmitters in our environment, should we only depend the telecommunications industry to look after our health and should we continue to elect and support leaders that do not believe in supporting our health and environment?
My take today (and many others using the precautionary principle) believe that a standard of 1 Nano-watt per cubic centimeter (-90dBm) would be a more appropriate standard as this represents the normative natural emissions maxim before the wireless revolution.
To better demonstrate my point that there has been longstanding environmental concern for sub-thermal effects for non-ionizing radiation exposures I insert here EPA concerns expressed in 1972 and published (but not easily enough available in the cloud) in 1973. Within this statement is the realization that even in 1972 levels of radiation from what was then considered essential military and public uses could not be made safe.
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE RADIO SPECTRUM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENVIRONMENT: A SUMMARY
Presented at the Session on Environmental Exposure to Non-ionizing Radiation, November 14, 1972. (excerpt of the entire summary made after graphical evidence is shown for what sources of radiation existed in back in 1972 that was between 30MHz and 300Ghz--the entire span of FCC coverage)
Nature of Environment Impact
As alluded to earlier, the users of the radio spectrum have an environmental impact of two major varieties. The first concerns the impact that a new communication-electronic system has on the operation of existing communication-electronic systems. The second concerns how a communication electronic system effects may impact on man. The first type of environmental impact is termed electromagnetic compatibility. In this case the impacted environment consists of all other communication electronic equipment which may be susceptible to functional modification by the radio energy of other communication electronic equipment. In other words, the emissions from various radio transmitters may be received unintentionally by communication electronic systems which were not intended to be receptors of such radio emissions. These unintended received emissions may be of sufficient magnitude or character that they prove deleterious to the ability of the receptor to actually receive its intended information carrying signal.
Therefore, it is becoming increasingly necessary that there be a comprehensive analytical study of the impact of any new radio system before its introduction into the radio environment where it intends to operate. Such an analysis way also include a determination as to whether the existing communication-electronic systems in the environment will do harm to the functioning of the new system. In the near future it will become a matter of policy that a new user of the radio system will not be permitted to operate, until he has given conclusive proof that such compatibility does exist.
Needless to say, the ensuring that there are capabilities within the Federal Government to perform such analyses and that such analyses are being performed in the most congested parts of the radio spectrum are becoming an increasingly large part of the spectrum management process. Another name for these analytical studies preliminary to implementation of a new radio system is spectrum engineering. Inevitably, if it appears that a radio system cannot satisfactorily operate and yet there is a sufficient demand for its information transfer function, remedial actions must be taken to permit the new system to operate. These remedial actions may take the form of additional filters, improved antennas and/or a decrease in the amount of emitted power. These modifications are predicated on conforming to a set of boundary conditions between the new system and the existing systems which will permit their mutual coexistence.
The second form of environmental impact is biological. This, of course, concerns the potential of radio energy to have biologically deleterious effects. This concern is increasingly being considered as one requiring environmental protection. As you may know, the Environmental Protection Act of 1970, Section 102, requires that Federal agencies file environmental impact statements. Already several such statements have been filed in connection with major Government communication-electronic systems and considerable research has been undertaken to ascertain the nature of these potential impacts. Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission has recently issued a Notice of Inquiry to ascertain what form of requirement it should place upon its licensees in connection with environmental impact. Furthermore, there are increasing instances of public concern being raised over the potentially deleterious effects of radio energy, and our uncertainty with regard to the nature of these effects is giving rise to heightened fears associated with the increasing population of radio transmitting equipment.
Therefore, it has become a matter of some urgency to come to grips with the nature of this biological impact in order to establish the necessary boundary conditions which on the one hand will be protective of health and on the other hand permit the functioning of telecommunication systems. In response to the need to adequately define this problem, the Office of Telecommunications Policy (OTP) has advising it the Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council. Almost a year ago, this Council recommended a program for coordinating efforts within the Federal Government with respect to research dealing with the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. The OTP approved this program and subsequently forwarded it to the various participating Government agencies and organizations for implementation. You will hear more about where we stand on this effort later in this program. What boundary condition or conditions will establish the basis for a meaningful protection guide in the area of potential and real biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, particularly those emanating from Federal Government radio communication facilities?
The answer is at present unknown.
Today when confronted with the need for stating some form of number for protective purposes we fall back on the number of 10 μw/cm². The fact of the matter is that we are uncertain as to the biological effects of electromagnetic energy because we have not been systematically looking for the effects, particularly those which may occur over long periods of time at low levels. We have not performed the adequate experiments; we do not have the necessary dosimetry to know what we are measuring, and we have not investigated the low level effects of non-ionizing radiations in anywhere near a fashion which is commensurate with the variety of modulation forms presently employed by communication electronic equipment. Meanwhile we are continually confronted, particularly in highly exposed governmental positions, to an increasing number of public incidents and fragmentary evidence that in fact, non-ionizing electromagnetic energy does cause some effects at levels below 10 μw/cm². It is incumbent upon the community who is knowledgeable about the various aspects of this problem, including both electronic and medical disciplines, to initiate the necessary research projects leading towards its resolution.
Formulation of Protection Guides in Relation to Radio Spectrum Use and Policy
There is no question that the juxtaposition of public health concerns, with the concerns of achieving national goals through the utilization of various kinds of radio telecommunication emissions, poses national policy problems. There may in fact be a problem of real concern to public health. Support for such a view may be found in a recent law of the Peoples Republic of Poland where a safe level of exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is considered to be in the order of 10 μw/cm² fully one thousand times less than the presently accepted U.S. standard.
On the other hand, were the United States to follow such a protection guide literally, we would probably create an even more hazardous situation for passengers on airplanes as the radars used in air traffic control would have to be turned off because they would not be able to conform to such a standard. Furthermore, our space program would be put into jeopardy and we would probably not be able to have broadcasting radio and television network systems similar to those we have today.
Should this disparity in protection guides present you with any great concern, let me also point out that in this same public law of the Peoples Republic of Poland there is an Article 10 which essentially states that the communication-electronic systems under the purview of the Ministry of the Interior and Defense need not pay any attention to it.
Finally, in addressing the relationship between environmental impact and management of the radio spectrum, I would like to make a special appeal to the medical people among you to exert particular effort in providing the necessary medical description of the deleterious effects that low-level non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation may cause. The radio spectrum is to a large degree managed by people who have electrical engineering or telecommunication engineering backgrounds. And, while they and their colleagues are competent in developing techniques for measuring levels of radio energy, they are dependent upon you for providing an adequate description of the effects that such energy may cause to the human body. At present we are deficient in this understanding and therefore I appeal to you to help us solve it.
Thank you,
Donald M. Jansky, M.S.E., Office of Telecommunications Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.