Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Cell phone and bluetooth devices health concerns
Old 05-17-2013, 09:50 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,531
Cell phone and bluetooth devices health concerns

Just curious if anyone here has thoughts concerning the health affects, if any from exposure to cell phone/bluetooth microwave radition ?

Recently my DW bought a bluetooth device and I started to research the health affects. Seems like there is no definitive research that points one way or another.

Just wonder what the sage people here think about the subject ?
__________________

__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-17-2013, 10:28 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
heeyy_joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Madeira Beach Fl
Posts: 1,403
The extreme hazard is when people lose awareness of their surroundings and have a bad accident/injury.
__________________

__________________
_______________________________________________
"A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do" --Bob Dylan.
heeyy_joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:42 PM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,531
Some interesting comments; Do Bluetooth® Headsets Cause Cancer? (with picture)
__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:13 PM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 8,602
Utter nonsense.
The only possible radiation health hazard would be from ionizing radiation. Cell phones (including wifi and bluetooth frequencies) emit only non-ionizing radiation, and are weak sources as well.
__________________
braumeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:34 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,531
OK, tobacco and thalidomide were also considered safe at one time and we know how well that worked out.

IMHO we don't have enough data to support either side of the equation.
__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:29 PM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
OK, tobacco and thalidomide were also considered safe at one time and we know how well that worked out.

IMHO we don't have enough data to support either side of the equation.
Well, I think only those with a financial interest claimed tobacco was safe. We see obvious cases of 'smokers cough' - reasonable people could assume that is not a good sign.

Thalidomide was not actually considered safe - the problem was they didn't test it on pregnant women, even though they prescribed it to them (the thinking was that it could not cross the placental barrier). So a serious error of omission. But it became obvious when the symptoms appeared.

But people have been trying to link cancer to various radiation sources forever, and there hasn't been any clear (or even fuzzy) connection. Never say never, but considering how common these devices are, and how some people have used much higher power devices for many years (cell phones and BT are far lower power than things like walkie-talkies), I would expect a pretty clear connection if there was a problem.

Bigger things to worry about, things that we know are problems. How about:

Swimming Injury Statistics - Swimming Pool Accidents

Quote:
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.

The most common place for a 1-4-year old child to drown is in a home swimming pool.
And we don't have to go out and do any fancy study to try to pick this out connection - the cause is obvious when a drown child is found in a pool.

That said, I'm not sure I'd want to be an outlier on the usage chart - like using one 12 hours a day 6 days a week every week of the year for years. But the risk of absorbing something bad from the plastic, or the heat and moisture build up causing an infection is probably a bigger risk than the radiation.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:35 PM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
IMHO we don't have enough data to support either side of the equation.
Actually, we do.

It has been known for about a century that ionizing radiation can be dangerous (can disrupt the DNA in our cells, causing cancer). That is the kind of radiation found in, for example, X-rays. Fortunately, we have built-in DNA repair mechanisms that take care of most of this.

Microwave radiation is non-ionizing and cannot have this effect.
__________________
braumeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:40 PM   #8
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
OK, tobacco and thalidomide were also considered safe at one time and we know how well that worked out.

IMHO we don't have enough data to support either side of the equation.
Doctors thought tobacco use was harmful long before it was proven, and there was no doubt it caused some lung disease. It took a long time to prove smoking caused cancer. The same is not the case for cell phones.
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:49 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Doctors thought tobacco use was harmful long before it was proven, and there was no doubt it caused some lung disease. It took a long time to prove smoking caused cancer. The same is not the case for cell phones.
How can you be so sure ?
__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:54 PM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,531
This comment kind of made me think a bit differently;

Like some of the other posters, I am an electrical engineer, specifically, an RF engineer. However, unlike at least one poster, I don't believe that qualifies me to make medical claims. And, I don't make the absolutely false claim that Bluetooth devices don't emit microwave radiation. They do precisely that. In fact, they use the same band that your microwave oven uses. Yes, anon25117, you need to do your research and see that Bluetooth operates in the 2.4 GHz band, not 1-2 GHz. By the way, that band is chosen because it excites water molecules so well. Our bodies are approximately 90 percent water. Without the presence of sound and thorough investigation into the affects of this radiation with your brain well within the near-field of the antenna (if you don't know what that means you *are not* an RF engineer), I have to say I am terrified of ever placing one in my ear. I admit I don't know. But neither do any of you. And we won't ever know unless this type of testing is funded and fairly performed.
__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:54 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Doctors thought tobacco use was harmful long before it was proven, ...
I got curious about the history...

Health effects of tobacco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Concern about the health effects of tobacco has a long history. As early as 1604 James I wrote A Counterblaste to Tobacco, in which he said that tobacco users were "harming your selves both in persons and goods" ...

Gideon Lincecum, an American naturalist and practitioner of botanical medicine, wrote in the early 19th century on tobacco: "This poisonous plant has been used a great deal as a medicine by the old school faculty, and thousands have been slain by it. ... It is a very dangerous article, and use it as you will, it always diminishes the vital energies in exact proportion to the quantity used - it may be slowly, but it is very sure."[23]

In 1912, American Dr. Isaac Adler was the first to strongly suggest that lung cancer is related to smoking.[24] In 1929, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published a formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer-tobacco link, based on a study showing that lung cancer sufferers were likely to be smokers.[25] Lickint also argued that tobacco use was the best way to explain the fact that lung cancer struck men four or five times more often than women (since women smoked much less).[25]

Prior to World War I, lung cancer was considered to be a rare disease, which most physicians would never see during their career.[26][27] With the postwar rise in popularity of cigarette smoking, however, came an epidemic of lung cancer.
No question that the tobacco industry fought the connection. But I don't think it's accurate for anyone to say that tobacco was considered safe by independent observers.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:58 PM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
This comment kind of made me think a bit differently;

Like some of the other posters, I am an electrical engineer, specifically, an RF engineer. However, unlike at least one poster, I don't believe that qualifies me to make medical claims. And, I don't make the absolutely false claim that Bluetooth devices don't emit microwave radiation. They do precisely that. In fact, they use the same band that your microwave oven uses. Yes, anon25117, you need to do your research and see that Bluetooth operates in the 2.4 GHz band, not 1-2 GHz. By the way, that band is chosen because it excites water molecules so well. Our bodies are approximately 90 percent water. Without the presence of sound and thorough investigation into the affects of this radiation with your brain well within the near-field of the antenna (if you don't know what that means you *are not* an RF engineer), I have to say I am terrified of ever placing one in my ear. I admit I don't know. But neither do any of you. And we won't ever know unless this type of testing is funded and fairly performed.
Who is this directed at?

One poster here mentioned that cellphones and BT are not ionizing radiation sources. They didn't say they weren't microwave radiation sources.

I don't think anyone made medical claims - they are referencing research by the medical industry.

Your response confuses me.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:00 PM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
... And, I don't make the absolutely false claim that Bluetooth devices don't emit microwave radiation. They do precisely that. In fact, they use the same band that your microwave oven uses. Yes, anon25117, you need to do your research and see that Bluetooth operates in the 2.4 GHz band, not 1-2 GHz. By the way, that band is chosen because it excites water molecules so well. ...
So let's provide some perspective to this comment ...

Of course microwave energy was chosen for ovens because it 'excites water molecules'. We call that 'heating'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state

Quote:
Excitation is an elevation in energy level above an arbitrary baseline energy state. In physics there is a specific technical definition for energy level which is often associated with an atom being excited to an excited state.

In quantum mechanics an excited state of a system (such as an atom, molecule or nucleus) is any quantum state of the system that has a higher energy than the ground state (that is, more energy than the absolute minimum). The temperature of a group of particles is indicative of the level of excitation (with the notable exception of systems that exhibit Negative temperature).
What are some alternatives for heating water in the kitchen? We could use a gas flame, or an electric coil. These are popular in the kitchen for their ability to 'excite water molecules'.

Look at this chart:




Now, that gas flame and electric coil give off (radiate) visible (and infrared) light. That chart shows us that visible light is closer to the dangerous ionizing radiation area than the radio frequencies used in cell phones and BT. So should we avoid flame and electric heating coils as well?

Did you ever live in a home in a cold climate? You might have seen 'radiators'. These things radiate energy, hence their name (and higher frequency than BT or cell phones). All day/night long, for months on end. Should we be afraid?

People get scared by terms like 'radiation', but it is all around us. Embrace it!

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:14 PM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
How can you be so sure ?
Readers Digest had stories in the late 1940s and 1950s about the dangers of smoking. They also reported on the tar etc content of various brands.
__________________
meierlde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:11 PM   #15
Full time employment: Posting here.
bjorn2bwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Western US
Posts: 690
I guess I'm doomed then.
I use a cell phone, cordless phone, walkie talkies, microwave oven, use plastic water bottles (BPA), non-stick cookware (ptfe), have silver amalgam fillings (mercury),use toothpaste (flouride), drive an old car (no airbags),and use an electric blanket (EMF). Not all at the same time of course.
__________________
How's it going to end..............
bjorn2bwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 06:21 AM   #16
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by frayne View Post
How can you be so sure ?
Read my post again. I'm not saying cell phones are safe. My point was the health issue surrounding cells is unlike the one regarding tobacco use.

In the latter, there was abundant mainstream medical opinion that tobacco use harmed the health. There is no such qualified opinion on the use of cell phones or headsets.

In addition, framing this as "either safe or harmful" leaves out other possibilities that are valid, such as "we don't know, but there is little reason to fear them". I think the greater risk from cell phones was pointed out by heeyy_joe, which is accident resulting from cell phone distraction. Not only is it well documented, it is also evident in daily life.
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 07:16 AM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,531
Thanks everyone for their respective input. I just wanted to see what some of the opinions were concerning cell phone health issues.
__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 09:25 AM   #18
Full time employment: Posting here.
bjorn2bwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Western US
Posts: 690
I'm curious -
Did you find anything in your research that caused you to change your mind on using Bluetooth?
__________________
How's it going to end..............
bjorn2bwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 09:48 AM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjorn2bgy View Post
I'm curious -
Did you find anything in your research that caused you to change your mind on using Bluetooth?
No, not really but I did find some of the comments on this link (http://www.wisegeek.org/do-bluetooth...se-cancer.htm)
that at least got me to think that some of the devices we use everday, such as cell phones may not be as safe as what we all might think.
To be on the safe side I don't think I would let my grandchildren talk on the cell unless they were using the speaker function.

The bottom line in my mind is we don't have enough research one way or another nor have these devices been in use long enough to really know of any long term detrimental effects.

Just my two cents.
__________________
A totally unblemished life is only for saints.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 09:51 AM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Amethyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,887
Unscientific/undocumented data point: my father quit smoking at his doctor's urging, several years before the landmark 1964 surgeon general's report. And Dad used to tell us that HIS father (our grandpa, who died many decades before his grandkids were born) called his cigarettes "coffin nails." This would have been in the 1920's.

Amethyst

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Doctors thought tobacco use was harmful long before it was proven, and there was no doubt it caused some lung disease. It took a long time to prove smoking caused cancer. The same is not the case for cell phones.
__________________

__________________
If you understood everything I say, you'd be me ~ Miles Davis
'There is only one success – to be able to spend your life in your own way.’ Christopher Morley.
Amethyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:31 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.