Filter
Top Products
Safety
82
to the body while in use, and the
use of hands-free devices. For
more information about SARs,
see the FCC’s OET Bulletins 56
and 65 at http://www.fcc.gov/
Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/
Documents/bulletins or visit the
Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association website at
http://www.ctia.org/consumer_
info/index.cfm/AID/10371. You
may also wish to contact the
manufacturer of your phone.
Can I minimize my RF exposure?
If you are concerned about RF,
there are several simple steps
you can take to minimize your
RF exposure. You can, of course,
reduce your talk time. You can
place more distance between your
body and the source of the RF,
as the exposure level drops off
dramatically with distance. The
FDA/FCC website states that
“hands-free kits can be used with
wireless phones for convenience
and comfort. These systems reduce
the absorption of RF energy in the
head because the phone, which is
the source of the RF emissions, will
not be placed against the head.
On the other hand, if the phone is
mounted against the waist or other
part of the body during use, then
that part of the body will absorb
more RF energy. Wireless phones
marketed in the U.S. are required
to meet safety requirements
regardless of whether they are
used against the head or against
the body. Either configuration
should result in compliance with
the safety limit.” Also, if you use
your wireless phone while in a
car, you can use a phone with an
antenna on the outside of the
vehicle. You should also read
and follow your wireless phone
manufacturer’s instructions for the
safe operation of your phone.
Do wireless phones pose any
special risks to children?
The FDA/FCC website states that
“the scientific evidence does not
show a danger to users of wireless
communication devices, including
children.” The FDA/FCC website
further states that “some groups
sponsored by other national
governments have advised that
children be discouraged from
using wireless phones at all”. For
example, the Stewart Report from
the United Kingdom [“UK”]
made such a recommendation in
December 2000. In this report
a group of independent experts
noted that no evidence exists that