Electromagnetic Details?

I’m interested in this phone primarily to limit my exposure to electromagnetic fields while not being totally disconnected from the world. A focus on low SAR is a huge step in the right direction, but I’d like some further details if they are available. For example:

  • Do you have an antenna radiation diagram? (i.e. does it aim away from the head?)
  • When I’m not using the phone, how often (and for how long) does the phone check in with the tower/network? Are these settings user-adjustable?
  • When I miss a call, does the phone itself record the voicemail (so that I can listen offline)?
  • Do you have any comparative measurements you can share? Example, how much RF energy is measured 1m away compared to an iPhone?
  • Can I fully disable bluetooth?

Me too! This is my primary focus too. And the plug-in internet thing.
Great questions! Following :slight_smile:


@pxt Thank you for reaching out. Below you will find the answers to your questions:

  • antenna radiation diagram- I’ve reached out to my team about this- waiting to hear back.

  • If you just want to be connected to a network at set intervals, that’s totally possible. There is a “connection frequency” setting in the phone, which enables you to set how often you would like your phone to connect to the network. There is even an option for NEVER :slight_smile:

  • Since phone calls & voice mails are handled by your network provider, Mudita does not store any voice mails. In order to retrieve your voice mails, you will need to connect to your network provider.

  • If you’re interested to find out home the SAR value of Mudita Pure compares to, let’s say, an iPhone, or any other phone model, we provide a handy SAR checker. This way you can see how a conventional smartphone (or even a feature phone) stacks up when compared to Mudita Pure: https://mudita.com/community/sar-checker/

Hopefully, I have answered all your questions. If you need any clarification, please do not hesitate to reply to this thread.


Would you please suggest how to convert the SAR readings that you indicated to uW/M2 as these are the measurements provided by Safe and Sound Pro II meter? https://safelivingtechnologies.com/products/safe-and-sound-pro-ii-rf-meter.html:
Some specs from Mudita:

  • Within impulse max 1 V/m
  • During a call it averaged between 30 to 100 microW/m2"

Please, i would like to obtain also radiation diagram.


@mv123 Unfortunately, there is no linear conversion between SAR(W/kg) to Electric Field (W/m2 or V/m). The methodology of measuring SAR is very specific in laboratory conditions and it is intended to be measured in the nearfield. The device you’re referencing was designed to measure ambient radio frequency / microwave signal. Specifically, the Safe and Sound Pro II is dedicated to far-field measurement. This means, that the Safe and Sound Pro II is much more of an indicator of what frequencies are present in your environment rather than what a device emits and how that specific frequency is absorbed by the tissue. It’s not like converting km/hr to feet/second- which are both a measure of speed- just at different units. SAR measurement and Electric Field measurement are two different things.
The SAR value of Mudita Pure was tested at Verkotan Oy (a FINAS and ILAC accredited testing laboratory) in Finland. It is widely considered one of the best laboratories in the world for these types of tests. Below you can find some information about Mobile SAR & the testing process,



Thank you urszula for the information.

Regarding SAR vs Energy Density (uW/m2) measurements: I do understand the differences and believe both are of critical importance. In a nutshell, SAR is what happens when you hold a phone to your head. Measuring the near field makes sense for people that use their phone in that manor. However, many of us never ever hold a phone to hour heads. Thus, what matters to us is the energy density created in the far field and how often the phone transmits that energy.

You can measure that using meters like the Safe and Sound Pro 2 in an otherwise quiet RF environment. Ideally, you’d be able to tell us the uW/m2 when it connects to a tower or when I engage in a call.


@pxt & @kamilb, both of you also inquired about the radiation diagrams. I’m going to tag our team member @Wojciech_Cichon regarding this, because he can better explain this topic.

Hi guys! For all of you asking about the all the specifics, we have uploaded the FCC & CE SAR reports to out website. You can check them out.

FCC SAR Report | CE SAR Report


My last phone’s SAR was 0.14 but I also learned that low SAR rating could mean that it has to work harder to pick up signals. I still got headaches but not as bad as using the speakerphone on my brother’s old iphone. I had a headache lasting 3 days…like something was drilling into my head. Hopefully, the pure will not give me headaches. I’ll see once the Dec shipment rolls out. Fingers crossed.


@Joyce We hope you will LOVE using you Mudita Pure. However, we would like to hear feedback from you regarding your experience.

1 Like

I would also like to see further details in regards to the phones electromagnetic radiation levels under different scenarios.
Whilst SAR is certainly an (horrendously outdated and inefective) ‘industry standard’ when it comes to radiation and phones, in practicality most people heavily interested in EMR are far more interested in exposure levels measured in Volts per Meter (V/m), and in microwatts per square meter (μW/m2). One of the major reasons for this is that the SAR standard does not really factor in non-thermal effects from RF Fields and these have been shown in hundreds of studies (such as in the BioInitiative ) to have negative health impacts.

RF based EMR levels measued in (V/m) or (μW/m2) are more useful of showing ‘realistic’ levels of exposure when using / carying the phone around on a day to day basis. I.E. it would be good to know average levels emitted when the phone is simply sitting in your pocket, or when sending an SMS at arms reach, or how far and in what direction the RF radiation fields are and at what levels when making a phone call, etc.

I hope that Mudita have done some comparisons between their phone and other phones on the market using V/m or μW/m2 measurements during their internal electrical engineering tests ? Reasonably accurate measuring instruments are available for between $500 and $5000 which hopefully wouldn’t be too big of an investment for a startup such as Mudita to have made.
I would have a guess that some of the first YouTube reviews we see of the phone will be centered around these sorts of tests, as this is marketed as a fairly unique low radiation type phone its going to be very interesting how it performs.

I’m looking forward to receiving the Pure, as an early backer :smiley:
Also hopefully looking forward to not having to use a Blocsock anymore prodivding that the typical / average RF exposure levels from the Pure are low enough.


Loving your policy when it comes to transparency guys!

1 Like

Hello all,
I’m wondering if Mudita has an update on any tests they have done for power density as described by other commenters? or the radiation diagrams?

I’m also wondering - what are Mudita’s thoughts on the lower dosage wreaks more havoc scenario? Please see the information below.

There is No Dose Response for Microwave Radiation
The selling of cell phones is, and always has been, based on lies and deception. The biggest lie is that they are “low power” devices and that this makes them safe. That is a double lie. It is a lie because they are not low power. If you put a cell phone – any cell phone – in your hand or next to your body, you are being blasted by more microwave radiation from your phone than you are getting from any cell tower, and by ten billion times as much microwave radiation as you are getting from the sun, the Milky Way, or any other natural sources. The exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission reflect this reality: cell towers are permitted to expose your body at a specific absorption rate of 0.08 watts per kilogram, while cell phones are allowed to expose your brain at a specific absorption rate of 1.6 watts per kilogram, which is twenty times higher.

And it is a lie because low power devices are not any safer than high power devices. The reason for this is that electromagnetic fields are not toxins in the ordinary sense, and the rule in toxicology that a lower dose is a safer dose does not apply to microwave radiation. As Allan Frey wrote in 1990:

Electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance to living beings like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances, the greater the dose, the greater the effect – a dose-response relationship. Rather, living beings are electrochemical systems that use low frequency EMFs in everything from protein folding through cellular communication to nervous system function. To model how EMFs affect living beings, one might compare them to the radio we use to listen to music… If you impose on the radio an appropriately tuned EMF or harmonic, even if it is very weak, it will interfere with the music. Similarly, if we impose a very weak EMF signal on a living being, it has the possibility of interfering with normal function if it is properly tuned. That is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a toxicological model.

The most thorough investigation of the blood-brain barrier effect, which Frey discovered in 1975, was done at Lund University in Sweden beginning in the late 1980s with various sources of microwave radiation and later, in the 1990s and 2000s, with actual cell phones. They found not only that there is not a dose response, but that there is an inverse dose response for this type of injury. They exposed laboratory rats to what is now called 2G cell phone radiation, and then they reduced the power level of the radiation ten-fold, a hundred-fold, a thousand-fold, and ten thousand-fold. And they found, to their surprise, that the greatest damage to the blood-brain barrier occurred not in the rats that were exposed at full power, but in the rats that were exposed to phones whose radiation was reduced by a factor of ten thousand! This was the equivalent of holding a cell phone more than one meter away from your body. The leader of the research team, neurosurgeon Leif Salford, warned that non-users of cell phones were being damaged by their neighbors’ cell phones, and that this technology was

the world’s largest biological experiment ever.

In a further set of experiments, published in 2003, Salford’s team exposed young rats to what is now called a 2G cell phone, just once for two hours, either at full power, or at two different levels of reduced power, and sacrificed them 50 days later to examine their brains. They found that a single exposure to an ordinary cell phone operating at normal power had permanently destroyed up to 2% of almost all the rats. Damaged neurons dominated the picture in some areas of their brains. When the power of the phone was reduced ten-fold it caused brain damage in every rat. When the power of the phone was reduced one hundred-fold, this type of permanent brain damage was observed in half of the exposed animals.

In still further experiments, published in 2008, they exposed rats to a cell phone for two hours once a week for a year, still using what is now called a 2G cell phone. The exposed rats suffered from impaired memory, regardless of whether they were exposed at an SAR level of 60 milliwatts per kilogram or 0.6 milliwatts per kilogram. In other words, reducing the power level by a factor of one hundred did not make the cell phone less dangerous.

The lack of a dose response has been reported over and over.

Physicist Carl Blackman spent much of his career at the Environmental Protection Agency figuring out why not only particular frequencies but also particular power levels of RF radiation cause calcium to flow out of brain cells. Ross Adey at UCLA, Jean-Louis Schwartz at the National Research Council of Canada, and Jitendra Behari at Jawaharlal University in India reported the same thing. Geneticist Sisir Dutta, studying the same phenomenon at Howard University in 1986, found peaks of calcium flow at SAR levels of 2 W/kg and 1 W/kg, and also at .05, .0028, .001, .0007, and .0005 W/kg, with some effect all the way down to .0001 W/kg. The effect at 0.0007 W/kg SAR was quadruple the effect at 2.0 W/kg, in other words a 3,000-fold reduction in power level resulted in a 4-fold increase in calcium disturbance. The frequency was 915 MHz, the same frequency that was later to be used for cell phones.

Maria Sadchikova and her Soviet colleagues, in the 1960s and 1970s, examined hundreds of workers exposed to microwave radiation on the job, and consistently found that the sickest workers were the ones who were exposed to the lowest , not the highest power levels.

Igor Belyaev, at Stockholm University, found that genetic effects occurred at specific frequencies and that the magnitude of the effect did not change with power level over 16 orders of magnitude, all the way down to 0.000000000000000001 watts per square centimeter, a level that is one quadrillion times lower than what a cell phone delivers to one’s brain.

Dimitris Panagopoulos, at the University of Athens, found that fruit flies exposed to a cell phone for just one minute a day for five days produced 36 percent fewer offspring than flies that were not exposed at all. When he exposed them to the phone for six minutes a day for five days, it reduced the number of their offspring by 50 to 60 percent. And the maximum effect occurred when the cell phone was about one foot away from the flies, not when it was touching the vial that the flies were in. In further research, he showed that the effect is due to DNA damage and consequent cell death caused by the radiation.

In another experiment, Panagopoulos’s colleague, Lukas Margaritis, exposed fruit flies to various frequencies of RF radiation at exposure levels ranging from 0.0001 watts per kilogram to 0.04 watts per kilogram, and found that even a single exposure to any of these frequencies at any of these power levels for just 6 minutes caused a significant amount of ovarian cell death.

And in further research, Margaritis’s team exposed fruit flies to a cell phone either once for 6 minutes, once for 12 minutes, 6 minutes a day for 3 days, or 12 minutes a day for 3 days. Under each condition the phone tripled to sextupled the amount of ovarian cell death. And then this team tried other sources of microwave radiation for between 10 and 30 minutes per day for up to 9 days and found that each of them reduced the number of offspring by between 11 and 32 percent. The cell phone and the cordless phone had the greatest effect, but the WiFi, the baby monitor, the Bluetooth, and the microwave oven also substantially reduced the fecundity of the flies.

The effects on insects are so obvious that even a high school student can easily demonstrate them. In 2004, Alexander Chan, a sophomore at Benjamin Cardozo High School in Queens, New York, exposed fruit fly larvae daily to a loudspeaker, a computer monitor, and a cell phone for a science fair project and observed their development. The flies that were exposed to the cell phone failed to develop wings.


Kind of on the same topic as Joice brought up. I do (and my family members) have headaches and other symptoms from high EMF phones lasting even when I hand up. What is your return policy, how soon are you launching and what carriers would support the phone in the US?

I have Revere 3 3G, which Verizon will cut after December 31. I tried many “newer” flip phones, disabled all of these extras, but still get a reaction…headaches and other symptoms that last even after I hang up. The radiation is just tooooo high, with your Safe and Sound Pro II, the levels are in 100,000 (even with layers of reflective material), my 3G is 2,000-5,000 I’m kind of urgently in need of a replacement by the end of the year, and cannot find it.


I have an idea, since a few people are asking for the measurements to be in uw/m2, why can’t you buy Safe and Sound Pro 2 or Gigahertz Solutions and do tests and show us the “live” results? Ideally you can have people from Safe Living Technologies verify the soundness/accuracy of the way you set up the tests. I consulted from the US with them and purchased the equipment for personal use. I shared with Zack from Safe Living Technologies your original way you conducted the tests and he suggested that it is NOT optimal way to test. That way, customers will know and be assured what they are buying, less returns and more towards actually being transparent vs just stating on the site. It just make sense.


By the way, what is the return policy for the US customers?
Are you shipping the phones from Europe to the US customers?


@mv123 We have a 14 day return policy. If for some reason, you would like to return Mudita Pure, you can do so with 14 days of receiving it.

1 Like

thanks for posting this. I really hope Mudita responds to these messages about providing video results of testing with the devices you listed. I have those same devices too, but would much rather see Mudita do it for all and publish.

I was under the impression that power density would be the most meaningful way of measuring emissions from a wireless device in terms of how much it will impact someone who feels the effects of EHS. Do agree with that statement, and if so, why does Mudita focus on SAR instead of power density measurements? If you do not agree with that statement, why? thank you.

1 Like

@Felicia_Hobert We focused on SAR because it is a parameter that we can compare with all products on the market, it also has a specific measurement method so we can reliably refer to it.