Top 20 Cell Phones With The Highest And Lowest Radiation


The ability to communicate is important in today’s mobile society. One communication option is a cell or mobile phone. This offers you different features and opportunities that have been incorporated and evolved in everyday living for most individuals. But in a world where more people have access to a cell phone than a toilet, we have to question: could our phones also be harming us?  

According to research from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, certain cell phones or mobile devices may be exposing us to harmful levels of electromagnetic radiation.


Published in the Biochemical Journal, the study found that a single use of certain cell phones for just 15 minutes can trigger brain cell changes associated with cancerous cell division.

CNET presents the five phones with the highest radiation.

The FCC mandates that all cell phones must be tested for their specific absorption rate (SAR) – the rate of which radiation from the phone is absorbed into your body. The maximum level that the FCC allows is 1.6 watts/kg of flesh.


Top 20 Highest Radiation Cell Phones
(maximum possible SAR level from phone)
Cell phone brand and type SAR level Carrier
1. Motorola Droid Maxx 1.54 Verizon
1a. Motorola Droid Ultra 1.54 Verizon
3. Alcatel One Touch Evolve 1.49 T-Mobile
3a. Huawei Vitria 1.49 Metro PCS
5. Kyocera Hydro Edge 1.48 Sprint
6. Kyocera Kona 1.45 Sprint
7. Kyocera Hydro XTRM 1.44 Metro PCS
8. BlackBerry Z10 1.42 Verizon
9. BlackBerry Z30 1.41 Verizon
9a. ZTE Source 1.41 Cricket
9b. ZTE Warp 4G 1.41 Boost
12. Nokia Lumia 925 1.4 T-Mobile
12a. Nokia Lumia 928 1.4 Verizon
14. Sonim XP Strike 1.39 Sprint
14a. Kyocera Hydro Elite 1.39 Verizon
16. T-Mobile Prism 2 1.385 T-Mobile
17. Virgin Mobile Supreme 1.38 Virgin
17a. Sprint Vital 1.38 Sprint
19. Sprint Force 1.37 Sprint
20. Huawei Pal 1.33 Metro PCS
 Top 20 Lowest Radiation Cell Phones
(maximum possible SAR level from phone)
Cell phone brand and type SAR level Carrier
1. Verkool Vortext RS90 0.18 Unlocked
2. Samsung Galaxy Note 0.19 T-Mobile
3. ZTE Nubia 5 0.225 Unlocked
4. Samsung Galaxy Note 2 0.28 Verizon
5. Samsung Galaxy Mega 0.321 AT&T
6. Kyocera Dura XT 0.328 Sprint
7. Pantech Discover 0.35 AT&T
8. Samsung Galaxy Beam 0.36 Unlocked
9. Samsung Galaxy Stratosphere II 0.37 Verizon
10. Pantech Swift 0.386 AT&T
11. Samsung Jitterbug Plus 0.4 Great Call
11a. Jitterbug Plus 0.4 Great Call
13. LG Exalt 0.43 Verizon
13a. Samsung Galaxy Note 2 0.43 Sprint
15. HTC One V 0.455 US Cellular
16. LG Optimus Vu 0.462 Unlocked
17. Samsung Galaxy S Relay 4G 0.47 T-Mobile
17a. Samsung Rugby 3 0.47 AT&T
19. HTC One Max 0.5 Sprint
20. LG G2 0.51 T-Mobile























Source: Lynn La and Kent German, “Cell Phone Radiation Levels,”, Jan. 16, 2014

Did your phone make either list?

GET DAVID'S FREE E-COURSE: The Essentials To Living Nutrition, Performance & Detox.

PLUS Receive The David Avocado Wolfe BestEver Newsletter, Videos, Health & Lifestyle Strategies, Blog And Video Updates, and more!

Isidro Iturralde - November 17, 2015

What about iPhones? It seems like that is the one most people would like to know about. and Especially the difference between the different generations iPhone 4, 5, 6 is there a difference in radiation for S model or Plus model?

    PAOKARATRELA . - September 1, 2016

    eye phones are at ~1 SAR LVL

Andrew Rudden - November 17, 2015

Like most cell phones, both new iPhone models have several transmitters that can simultaneously emit microwave radiation, which includes cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth radiation. When all these transmitters are turned on, the SAR value is 1.58 for the iPhone 6 and 1.59 for the iPhone 6 Plus

    Curious - November 18, 2015

    Interesting. Do you have a source for this?

      Andrew Rudden - November 18, 2015

      It wouldn’t let me post the source. Try copying the full comment and pasting to google you should be able to find it.

Yams - November 19, 2015

This is hardly new research. This study was done in 2007. Don’t you think they would have been able to find more hard information about this (whether the activated cell processes actually increased cancer rates) within the past almost decade?
Also, this article is not written in good faith if you don’t supply a link to the study you are talking about.
This is a bunch of fear mongering.

    Amy Unruh - June 6, 2016

    Fear mongering? Considering what they’ve just discovered about Tylenol after 20 years of study, fear mongering is hardly a legitimate accusation.

Melina - May 25, 2016

I have an old LG verizon flip phone. I don’t think it is on the list.

Raul J. de Vera, Jr. - May 27, 2016

I wonder if they are studies made for users of bluetooth connected headphones or earpieces (don’t know know what they are called)?

dirkbruere - May 28, 2016

Those thermograms are misleading. If you simply hold your hand to your ear you will get the same result

MilgramExperiments - May 31, 2016

SAR values are just for heating plastic heads filled with a chemical solution. This thought proccess started after Herman Schwann, back in the early 50’s, heated Beagle dogs up until cooking them to death with this type of exposure. I would like to think we are more advanced in thought and technology to compare our brains, relying on small bits of electrical activity, with a form of salt solution and plastic. Smart phones radiate day and night, especially if you have WiFi, Bluetooth, and location services on. “Not connected” just means your WiFi is still sending a signal to find a router.

Click here to add a comment

Leave a comment: