In today’s modern world, mobile phones have become an essential part of daily life, but growing concerns about their potential health impacts, particularly related to radiation, have sparked widespread interest. As a result, many people are seeking information on how mobile phone usage might affect their health, leading to a surge in social media posts discussing issues like mobile phone radiation and its possible risks. These posts, however, often contain a mix of fact, speculation, and misinformation, fueling the ongoing public debate on the subject.
Social Media Posts
A viral post circulating on social media has raised concerns about mobile phone radiation, specifically ranking ten popular phones by their SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) values. The post suggests that, according to the German Federal Office of Radiation Protection, the Motorola Edge emits the highest radiation (1.79 W/kg), while the ZTE BLADE V10 has the lowest (0.13 W/kg). The post also highlights that Samsung phones are “green phones” with low SAR values, implying they are safer for users. This fact-check examines the authenticity of the shared SAR data, addresses common misconceptions, and provides clarity on what SAR values indicate.
In previous years, similar claims about SAR values have circulated on social media.
We decided to do a fact-check on this.
Fact Check
Here’s an analysis of the SAR values cited in the viral post, compared with verified data from manufacturer sources and reliable websites:
| Rank in Viral Post | SAR values cited in the viral post (W/kg) | SAR values with verified data (W/kg) | |
| 1 | Motorola EDGE | 1.79 | Motorola edge series; Head SAR0.88 W/kg to 1.41 W/kg and Body-worn SAR values range from 1.25 W/kg to 1.45 W/kg. |
| 2 | ZTE AXON 11 5G | 1.59 | 1.59 |
| 3 | ONEPLUS 6T | 1.55 | 1.552 |
| 4 | SONY XPERIA XA2 PLUS | 1.41 | 1.41 |
| 5 | Google PIXEL 3 XL | 1.39 | 1.39 |
| 6 | Google PIXEL 4A | 1.37 | 1.37 |
| 7 | oppo RENO 5G | 1.36 | 1.11 |
| 8 | SONY XPERIA XZ1 | 1.36 | 0.92 |
| 9 | ONEPLUS 6 | 1.33 | 1.33 |
| 10 | Google PIXEL 3 | 1.33 | 1.33 |
| HUAWEI MATE 20 PRO | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
| IPHONE 13 PRO | 0.99 | 0.99 | |
| IPHONE 12 | 0.98 | 0.98 | |
| SAMSUNG GALAXY S21 ULTRA | 0.71 | 0.77 | |
| ZTE BLADE V10 | 0.13 | 0.127 |
Claim 1: Did the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection report these SAR values As Mentioned in Social Media Posts ?
Yes, the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, BfS) monitors and provides information on the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values of mobile phones. The BfS maintains a database of SAR values, which helps consumers make informed decisions regarding radiation exposure from smartphones. See here
Thus, the SAR values in the post were based on the BfS database. However, those values differ from manufacturers’ details and some other sources.
Claim 2: Motorola Edge emits 1.79 W/kg SAR
According to the Motorola Mobility LLC official website, the Motorola Edge series has Head SAR values ranging from 0.88 to 1.41 W/kg, while Body-worn SAR values range between 1.25 to 1.45 W/kg. See here
I. A. Julia Rudorf, the Press Officer at the Federal Office for Radiation Protection explained that“ the SAR values of the Motorola Edge mobile phone model you mentioned correspond with the SAR list of the BfS. From a radiation-protection standpoint, there is no cause for concern.
This model also does not exceed the maximum SAR value of 2 watts per kilogram recommended by the ICNIRP. The differences between the values on the BfS website and the manufacturer’s pages arise from differences in the reporting standards between Europe and the USA.
She further explained, “While in the USA the SAR value is determined according to the guideline OET65/C of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) it follows the EU standard EN 62209-1 in Europe (application case “phone call with the mobile phone at the ear”). Therefore, both values are correct and do not give cause for concern.”
Moreover, Higher SAR values do not mean greater health risks: Phones rarely operate at maximum power levels, meaning that real-world RF exposure is often far lower than the measured SAR value. A phone’s SAR value represents the worst-case scenario during testing. In everyday use, phones adjust their power to the minimum needed for communication. Thus, SAR values reflect peak usage, not typical exposure.
Claim 3: ZTE AXON 11 5G emits 1.59 W/kg SAR
Verified data confirms that the ZTE AXON 11 5G has a Head SAR value of 1.59 W/kg. Thus, the claim is accurate. See here
Claim 4: ONEPLUS 6T emits 1.55 W/kg SAR
The ONEPLUS 6T has an official SAR value of 1.552 W/kg. The claim is accurate. See here
Claim 5: Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra has low SAR (0.71 W/kg)
The Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra has a SAR value of 0.77 W/kg, slightly higher than the viral claim of 0.71 W/kg. See here
Thus, the claim is mostly accurate, but with a small discrepancy.
Claim 6: ZTE BLADE V10 emits 0.13 W/kg, the lowest SAR
The ZTE BLADE V10 has a SAR value of 0.127 W/kg, confirming it as one of the lowest-emission phones. Claim is accurate. See here
Claim 7: iPhone 12 and 13 Pro have moderate SAR values
The iPhone 12 has a SAR value of 0.98 W/kg, and the iPhone 13 Pro has a value of 0.99 W/kg. See here. The claim is accurate. See here
Claim 8: OPPO Reno 5G and Sony Xperia XZ1 emits 1.36 W/kg
The post claims a SAR value of 1.36 W/kg for both OPPO Reno 5G and Sony Xperia XZ1. But verified data show those 1.11 W/kg and 0.92 W/kg. See here ,here and here
Thus, the viral post falsely exaggerates the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values of the OPPO Reno 5G and Sony Xperia XZ1, potentially misleading users about the devices’ safety regarding radiation exposure. Despite the exaggeration, both phones remain within acceptable limits for radiation safety.
Claim 9: Higher SAR values imply greater health risks
Higher SAR values do not necessarily indicate greater health risks. Phones rarely operate at maximum power levels in real-world usage, meaning actual radiation exposure is often much lower than the measured SAR value. Furthermore, SAR testing simulates worst-case scenarios, ensuring phones meet regulatory standards for RF safety under the most extreme conditions.
Moreover, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandates that mobile phones sold in the U.S. must have a SAR level at or below 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). This limit is determined over a volume containing a mass of 1 gram of tissue that absorbs the most signal. This means that any phone with a SAR value below 1.6 W/kg complies with the safety standards established by the FCC. Read here.
Also, In the European Union, the standards are set by CENELEC and follow the IEC 62209-1 guidelines. For mobile phones, the SAR limit is 2 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 10 grams of tissue. Similar to the U.S. standard, this ensures that any mobile device with a SAR value below 2 W/kg is considered safe for consumer use. Read here
Thus, the viral claim regarding the health risks of phones with higher Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values is misleading because the SAR values mentioned in the post are below the established safety limits set by regulatory authorities.
Claim 10: Samsung phones are “green phones” due to lower SAR values
Many Samsung models, including the Galaxy S21 Ultra (0.77 W/kg), have lower SAR values, supporting the idea that they are generally safer with lower emissions. Thus, this claim is reasonable, though labeling phones as “green” based solely on SAR values may be an oversimplification, as multiple environmental factors should also be considered.
Long-term health effects
The long-term health effects of mobile phone radiation remain a subject of ongoing scientific inquiry. While Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values measure radiation exposure, studies on potential serious health risks, such as cancer, are inconclusive. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classify radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” citing limited evidence linking RF exposure to certain brain tumors. However, both organizations stress that current data doesn’t definitively confirm a causal relationship. The COSMOS study, a large cohort investigation into mobile phone use and long-term health outcomes, has yet to find clear evidence linking mobile phone radiation to significant health effects. Nonetheless, continued research is crucial to fully understand any potential risks. (Source)
Follow us and stay up to date with our latest fact checks.
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Google News | TikTok
Conclusion
In conclusion, the viral post raises awareness about mobile phone radiation, but several of its claims are either exaggerated or partially misleading. The Motorola Edge series, for example, does not have a SAR value as high as claimed, and differences in reported values can be attributed to regional testing standards. More exactly, differences in the reported values arise from variations in testing standards between Europe (EN 62209-1) and the U.S. (FCC OET65/C). While the viral post uses BfS data as a reference, not all the listed SAR values align with verified sources from manufacturers. While SAR values are an important metric for radiation exposure, they are not indicative of actual health risks in everyday use due to power management features in modern smartphones.
All of the phones mentioned, regardless of their SAR values, comply with the regulatory limits set by the FCC (1.6 W/kg) and the EU (2 W/kg). Consumers can rest assured that their devices meet stringent safety standards.
Informed decision-making requires not just focusing on SAR values but also considering other environmental and health factors when choosing a mobile phone.
Title:Viral SAR Rankings: Separating Fact from Fiction in Mobile Phone Radiation
Written By: Fact Crescendo TeamResult: Missing Context
