Bluetooth safety – Any expert in the room?

[BucklingSpring]

I've done my researches and most of the credible studies say EMF radiations are bad for your health. Ok that's a given.

Some will even say how much you can safely absorb without too much concerns.

What I'd like to know is if there is any serious science behind the protective devices available on the market.

They all look like bull**** - here's a couple just for the sake of argument.

http://www.emf-health.com
http://www.earthcalm.ca/
http://www.blockemf.com/

I mean give me a break… Amongst all that junk, is there something real somewhere?

[BucklingSpring]

I hold my PS3 controller against my brain and feel nothing.  

My DiNovo Mini I keep in my lap as a form of birth control.

Feeling nothing is the first stage of more serious problems.
After that you will start to put things on your lap for birth control.

Amongst all the safety tips, they say keep the devices off critical organs.
(Brain, liver, genitals, etc...)

Worst then birth control is having a 3 eyed monkey. No she didn't fall in love with an alien probe. DiNovo would be the only one to blame.

[kps]

Just make sure your full-body conductive mesh suit is properly grounded, and you'll be fine.

[BucklingSpring]

Right - I was hoping for something serious. My faith is faiding out and you guys are not helping.

I miss the early days of Internet when there was more good stuff than junk. Now there is so much noise, it is becoming harder and harder to distinguish between both.

Fist of all, you search for something and you get a sh!t load of unrelated hits. Then once you are able to spot what you want, it is spoiled by pseudo reviews of fake experts.

I spent few hours researching about EMF. Enough to get a good idea of where we stand today. Schools are banning the wireless technologies, government agencies are starting to regulate. Words of caution every where. Even the industry is starting to lower the power and respond to the health concerns.

I was really wondering if any of the deflectors/shields were working or even helping. If you cut the EMF, you cut the signal as well. So how do you get the phone or Bluetooth device working while reducing the EMF exposure at the same time?

[BucklingSpring]

Just make sure your full-body conductive mesh suit is properly grounded, and you'll be fine.

Does the Faraday cage even works in this case?

[woody]

Does the Faraday cage even works in this case?

With small enough gaps - yes.

[BucklingSpring]

God bless freedom of speech

[BucklingSpring]

With small enough gaps - yes.

Ok but it is not very practical.

[keyb_gr]

Bluetooth? The stuff with like what, a few mW of RF power?

If you're afraid of that, you ought to be even more afraid of WLAN (same frequency range, more power). Cellphones even more so, depending on where you live (bad reception --> RF is cranked up).

And "protective" devices, well... usually protect the manufacturer's bank account.

If you feel like protecting from radiation, better keep your cellphone in a shirt pocket. And don't live <=50 m away from a 380 kV power line.

If there is anyone who would be exposed to high RF levels, it would have to be amateur radio operators. (Some are crazy enough to keep a transmitting shortwave loop in the shack, ouch. That's some serious B field there.) They are usually more busy "RF-proofing" electronic devices though.

[BucklingSpring]

Bluetooth? The stuff with like what, a few mW of RF power?

Yep with a ear plug that rubs against the brain. Proximity is key to the problem.

As for potential risks. You are absolutely right. That's why schools are starting to ban Wireless and WiFi.

Btw I'm not asking for opinions on risks. I simply wonder if any of the gadget currently available works.

[majestouch]

BucklingSpring, did you find any studies that show a statistically significant correlation of an elevated rate a particular malady which is attributed to EMFs?

[instantkamera]

This is a SUPER interesting topic. Unfortunately I have nothing to add, but Ill bump in the hopes that someone else does.

[BucklingSpring]

BucklingSpring, did you find any studies that show a statistically significant correlation of an elevated rate a particular malady which is attributed to EMFs?

Absolutely! But since it was for personal reference only. I didn't bookmark them.

The more recent the more interesting. Concentrate in the past year and Look for SAR level and health.

But there is so much money involved, I noticed what I call the "Tobacco Syndrome". Where the scientific community is split between money and health. The rich scientists say there's nothing wrong with high SAR levels. The poor ethical ones are dying of SAR exposures ;-)

Not only I suspect but I predict (mark my words) that it will take many years. Just like it with tobacco. But sooner or later and after very expensive class actions there will be irrefutable proofs of health hazards.

Today, the flood of contradicting results makes it very difficult to take an educated position on either one or the other.

I chose caution. Better be safe than sorry.

[BucklingSpring]

Trying to research this topic off the InterToobs is like researching radiation from watching the movies.

Exactly! I like your way better of explaining it than mine (previous post).
Much less wordy and much more fun. Maybe I take it too seriously.

I think we are saying the same thing.

[BucklingSpring]

kinda ignored that like I ignore pseudo-science off the Internet.

Right. But there is real science out there. These guys are on Internet too.

The junksters are copying the scientific jargon even faster than the scientists themselve. It's crazy.

I want the truth. A rare luxury these days.
It's frustrating.

[instantkamera]

sorta on topic, this is neat:

http://xkcd.com/radiation

[Findecanor]

The frequency bands used by cell phones and bluetooth are next to or the same as microwave ovens (that info is some that you can find on Wikipedia).
The legal thresholds for RF radiation are set after how much heat is created -- not after how much current that is induced in living tissue. There are scientists that claim that the induced current can damage DNA.
That is all I know, sorry. I will attend a seminar on this topic next Thursday. By then I should be able to tell you more.

All the people that I have heard of that have developer allergy against electric devices are people who have exposed themselves to extraordinary amounts of radiation. There have been electronics engineers, early adopters of cell phones (NMT, that radiated more than modern cell phones do), etc.

[instantkamera]

dont be hatin'

[instantkamera]

so does nancy grace:

[woody]

You forgot:

Right.

[Quest-]

Bluetooth uses the same frequency as most wireless networks, ~2400mhz. Most bluetooth devices i have seen are very low powered and don't exceed 10 meter coverage. Wireless networks on the other hand... I can receive about 70 of them in my room with a sensitive adapter and a standard 2dbi antenna. I once drove a small circle in my town with a laptop scanning networks, i found about 800 of them...

But as far as i know it is still not proven that non-ionizing radiation can be harmfull. Personally i do take my precations, dont sleep with a phone near my bed, use a wired network etc.

So bottom line is: Worry more about wireless networks, worry a lot more about cellphones (they use a lower frequency ~850mhz wich is alot more penetrating and reaches further distances) and worry less about bluetooth.

Edit: also, faraday cages are awesome, as long as you ground them and don't use any wireless technology inside them, it would bounce of the cage and make it a lot worse.

[BucklingSpring]

I will attend a seminar on this topic next Thursday. By then I should be able to tell you more.

Cool! Keep us posted.

[DaemonRaccoon]

I live within 8 miles of  the only nuclear plant in my state. There's been talks of adding a second reactor there recently as well.

[kps]

I live within 8 miles of  the only nuclear plant in my state.

[instantkamera]

something that was already posted in this thread

Already posted...

[Findecanor]

I am back from professor Bertil Persson's lecture. It was mostly about non-thermal effects of radiation in the GSM bands (900 and 1800 MHz) on brain cells.
Bluetooth is around 2450 Mhz. 3G is slightly higher.
The work presented was much of Persson's teams' own, and that of other researchers within the same field.

The conclusion is that GSM signals are harmful to brain cells, and even at levels 1/1000 of the legal limits in Europe.
We got to see PET scans of humans using GSM phones, with a green blob at the area of tissue that was next to the antenna. Quite horrific stuff.
We were shown a study where a PET scan measured the distribution of glucose in the brain. When a GSM phone was used, the amount of glucose tripled!
Prof. Persson's team had also exposed rats to GSM radiation at various intensities and intervals and the cut up their brains or subjected them to behavioural tests to measure the effects on memory.
The studies could not show that microwaves did break DNA strands, but it did show that radiation can affect the way that the cell processes DNA, making it produce excess amounts of certain proteins.
It was shown conclusively that GSM phones at less than 1/10 of the radiation of a normal cell phone has the ability to kill rat-brain cells by breaking down the brain-blood barrier, causing albumen from the blood to get into the cell.
The behavioural tests showed that rats that had been exposed to GSM radiation did suffer memory loss. There were two control groups in this study that were not radiated: one was allowed social interactions and the other was denied. Interestingly, enough, the group that was denied any social interactions suffered worse than the group of socially active radiated rats.

Knowing what I know now, I can tell you that holding a cell phone to your head is something to be avoided. It is safer to avoid cell phones altogether and try to live far away from any cell phone tower, but it should not be done at the expense of social interactions with other people.

A Bluetooth headset should emit radiation a thousandth of the power of that of a cell phone. The research presented was also for lower frequencies, however, so it did not really tell anything about BT. It is probably much better than holding the cell phone next to your head, but a wired headset is probably much safer.

I could post a longer report later, with slides and photos that were shown at the lecture.

[BucklingSpring]

The conclusion is that GSM signals are harmful to brain cells, and even at levels 1/1000 of the legal limits in Europe.
(...)
A Bluetooth headset should emit radiation a thousandth of the power of that of a cell phone. The research presented was also for lower frequencies, however, so it did not really tell anything about BT. It is probably much better than holding the cell phone next to your head, but a wired headset is probably much safer.

I could post a longer report later, with slides and photos that were shown at the lecture.

Thank you so much for your time and post!!!

Like for all the rest, I've seen contradicting results with wired headsets. Some say it's better, some say it's worst (antenna effect).

Do you have any data regarding the distance between the phone and the head?

Is it all permanent damages or some can be recovered?

[Findecanor]

Prof. Persson's team did radiate one rat, then waited 50 days before killing it and slicing up the brain. The nerve damage was still as high as in a rat that had been recently radiated.

For a long time, the word was that all brain damage was permanent, but more recently there have been findings that neurons could regenerate like other cells. I am a bit confused about the issue.

[gilgam]

Nothing can be said right now, there are some in vitro evidences but the in vivo studies are animals only and it is hard to decline them to human.

The cellphone is way more powerful than bluetooth (class 3 is 1 mW, class 1 is 100mW), and my conviction is there will be a lots of problems in some distant future (say 10-30 years) as the most exposed people to GSM grow up, and some cancer rise up.
But this is a personnal conviction, a serious study on morbidity/mortality rate would be very long and expensive and neither GSM companies nor health state agencies want to fund it.

The power of a GSM is 2-4 W, and is stuck at your head, the emitting power is relative to the square of distance so WIFI with 100 mW is way less dangerous if there is danger.

Life is dangerous, so does barbecue, solar light, but no solar light too, plastic (component in PBT much more than ABS) drugs, food ...

It depends on time and intensity of exposure.

Best way is to avoid cell phone on your head, use bluetooth (much less power) or better wired headphones, switch it off at night, or put it away for you brain (2-3 m is a safe distance) etc.

Better way : discard your cellphone, but it has become so widely used ...

[BucklingSpring]

For a long time, the word was that all brain damage was permanent, but more recently there have been findings that neurons could regenerate like other cells. I am a bit confused about the issue.

Thanks again for your intervention.

[Findecanor]

... and my conviction is there will be a lots of problems in some distant future (say 10-30 years) as the most exposed people to GSM grow up, and some cancer rise up.

That was prof Persson's belief too.

I saw a segment on TV the other day about cancer victims in the Ukraine, in the area around Chernobyl. People who were exposed to the fallout from Chernobyl back in '86 develop signs of cancer now, 25 years later.

[gilgam]

Indeed

We use to say that it takes 10 years to get a 1 cm tumor, but there are some faster one like Small Cells cancer that is way faster say 1 year, 5 years survival rate less than 1%, median survival time 9 months...
very bad news

[woody]

... switch it off at night, or put it away for you brain (2-3 m is a safe distance) etc.

No need to do that - it's mostly listening, with only few packets sent at long intervals. That's for normal mode, excluding wifi, cellular data transfer, etc.

[Voixdelion]

I miss the early days of Internet when there was more good stuff than junk. Now there is so much noise, it is becoming harder and harder to distinguish between both.

Fist of all, you search for something and you get a sh!t load of unrelated hits. Then once you are able to spot what you want, it is spoiled by pseudo reviews of fake experts.

Surely you jest.  I remember those days of aol as being highly polluted with garbage and idiocy for almost everything but the black hat discussion groups.  I used to load pages 20 at a time even on 56k dialup because I knew the majority would be useless and it was easier to sort through em closing them as I sifted through.

though possibly it is worse now and its just that I've managed to hone my skills at finding the wheat amongst the chaff to a point that I don't see the garbage as much.  I do keep my google results listing 100 at a time for just that purpose.

[Voixdelion]

I wonder if any of this is affecting my vegetable garden... Last year I got some carrots that looked like the ones from that episode of Gilligans Island with the radioactive seeds.  Each one looked like a set of udders and my zucchini and grapevine did some weird things as well.  Grape leaves that were wrinkled and contorted, mutant zucchini that merged with the stem of the plant... stuff like that.