At 10 Apr 2008 08:26:47 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Of course if you really care about exposure to radiation, use CDMA,
> which has much less radiation.

Do you care to back that up, or is this another of your "unbiased" CDMA vs.
GSM comparisons?

If you actually bother to compare the SAR ratings between GSM and CDMA
phones of the same model, where's the "much less radiation?"

Pulling some Motorola SAR Values (they often make the same phone in both
CDMA and GSM, unlike, say, Nokia) from CNet:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6620_7-....html?tag=lnav ...

You'll see, for example, that the Moto Q9 has a 1.3 W/kg in CDMA vs 1.29 in
GSM, the Razr V9 is 0.52 GSM Vs. 0.71 CDMA, the V3 0.89 vs. 1.14, the Krzr
1.07 (G) vs. 1.03 (C). All pretty close. There are a few big differences
(the old V60 was only 0.42 in CDMA but 1.26 in GSM, yet the Sprint CDMA PTT
version was also 1.26, so I don't know what's up there.)

Even outside Motorola, similar models from other manufacturers seem to have
similar SARs.

Admittedly, while MOST of the "10 highest US models" list were GSM (7 of 10),
ALL of the 10 lowest SAR phones available in the US were GSM.