The FCC sets lower Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), at 1.6 Watts per kilogram than the 2.0 W/kg, that many countries have adopted based on recommendations by the International Commission on Non-ioni zing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP.)
So, the FCC SAR is only marginally lower. THE IEEE revised exposure guidelines recommend 2.0 W/kg and the concerned scientists are opposed to raising it to that level.
But there are concerns that the basis for setting the SAR is not relevant to the exposure condition it supposedly protective of. The SAR is based on avoiding a “heating effect” and includes a lower safety threshold below that effect to add a protective layer.
However, there are studies demonstrating biological mechanisms of effect and adverse health consequences such as headaches, memory and concentration problems, and, brain, eye, salivary gland and ear canal nerve tumors that can occur at much lower intensity and that are not caused by heat.
Some scientists have for over a decade pointed to the need to study the amplitude and frequency modulation of the wave form at different frequencies, but particularly at those to which the general population is now constantly exposed, such as 60 hertz for electricity from different sources and 2.4-3.8 Ghz for 3G phones, WIFI networks and WIMAX. There are other wave form characteristics that could be biologically active and need to be taken into account in setting biologically based standards. A paper by Dr. Carl Blackman in the August issue of the the Journal on Pathophysiology, referenced at the end of the Porto Alegre Resolution, goes into the details.
So, using a cell phone that has a lower SAR is better and the FCC sets a stricter standard than ICNIRP countries but the assumptions underlying the SAR may still not be protective enough. Remember those “low tar” cigarettes?
Wireless Radiation Alert Network