At 10 Apr 2008 14:03:45 -0700 SMS wrote:

> > Do you care to back that up, or is this another of your "unbiased" CDMA
vs.
> > GSM comparisons?
>
> You can learn more about it at "http://www.mobicare.com/news.asp?idNews=4".

>

Yep- that clears it up- an unattributed, outdated page from an "under
construction" website, vs. the FCC mandated testing method SAR levels!

All your citation says about radiation is: "As far as radiation level
concerned, CDMA is the most harmless one among all existing technologies.
Of course, it transmits microwaves while on standby mode, like other
technologies do. However, CDMA technology checks 800 times per second its
transmission level. Therefore, radiation level is 10 times less than AMPS
and GSM. Smart, isn't it?"

Huh?

So if my digital car speedometer samples my speed 800 times per second I'm
going 10 times slower than if it doesn't?

Since CDMA trasmits continually at a lower output whereas GSM transmits in
bursts, albeit at higher power, I guess my dumb analog would be that GSM
is like having a series of X-Rays taken, vs. the continuous low-level
fallout of CDMA! ;-) At the end of the call, we've both absorbed the same
amount of radiation, hence the similar SAR values between GSM and CDMA
phones.