I mean, Trump said wind turbines cause cancer too. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!
Well they do kill Birds. Maybe they cause cancer in the manufacturing of them? A lot of oil is used in making them.
The larger wind turbines have a powerful magnet, about 2000 lbs of the rare earth metal neodymium. Not a very green solution. As the article states, the UV in sunlight is a potent ionizing radiation where as normal levels of radio waves are not. Also, flying commercial aircraft exposes one to higher than normal levels of cosmic rays. I am not too worried about my headphones, which I use rather infrequently anyway. Besides, doesn’t the user assume the risk of any activity anyway?
Hmm...DED’s article is the first I heard about this.
Really? Where have you been hiding. Scientists have warned that potential health risks of chronic EMF exposure include cancer, genetic damages, neurological disorders, learning and memory deficits, and reproductive issues, among others.
Have you been using them a lot? It would explain much...
Hmm...DED’s article is the first I heard about this.
Really? Where have you been hiding. Scientists have warned that potential health risks of chronic EMF exposure include cancer, genetic damages, neurological disorders, learning and memory deficits, and reproductive issues, among others.
Even if that's true, by counting suspicious deaths we can already put an upper bound on the number of people killed per year by AirPods. Tobacco kills 19,000 per DAY, AirPods would be killing under 1 per YEAR. Is that safe enough for you? Yes or no? What level of safety do you require in a commercial product, 100%?
Thanks for ignoring Newton’s law of physics. The strength of the radiation of emf absorbed is inversely proportional to the distance from the AirPods to the brain cells and around the axis between two ears. Also, Bluetooth shares the same range of radio frequency spectrum as Wi-Fi and microwave oven.
The MRI photo below indicates where the brain tumour developed into the size of a golf ball. Exactly between two ears.
Also, flying commercial aircraft exposes one to higher than normal levels of cosmic rays.
Outer space is filled with two main threats: electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and cosmic rays. Most people are unaware that cosmic rays are exclusively *particles* that travel >1% the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Massive_cosmic_rays_compared_to_photons ... which says "In current usage, the term cosmic ray almost exclusively refers to massive particles – those that have rest mass – as opposed to photons, which have no rest mass, and neutrinos, which have negligible rest mass." The earth's atmosphere does absorb much EMR and earth's geomagnetic field protects primarily from intra-solar and somewhat from extra-solar cosmic rays. But the situation is different and more complicated with particles. Indeed, the atmosphere itself CAUSES "secondary cosmic rays" (by definition there are no secondary cosmic rays in space as they are caused by interaction with the atmosphere) which means the LOWER you are in the atmosphere the MORE secondary cosmic rays you experience. Being in an aircraft puts you above a large quantity of secondary cosmic rays and the roof of the aircraft provides some additional protection from primary or secondary cosmic rays. The main threat in an aircraft is EMR X-Rays which would indeed be higher in a flying aircraft, and those are not "cosmic rays".
Thanks for ignoring Newton’s law of physics. The strength of the radiation of emf absorbed is inversely proportional to the distance from the AirPods to the brain cells and around the axis between two ears. Also, Bluetooth shares the same range of radio frequency spectrum as Wi-Fi and microwave oven.
The MRI photo below indicates where the brain tumour developed into the size of a golf ball. Exactly between two ears.
First mistake: it's inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance, not the distance. So the center of the brain is TEN TIMES further from the wireless AirPods than the left and right sides of the brain, which means there is TEN TIMES TEN (which is 100) less radiation in the center of the brain from the AirPods than from the edges of the brain. So the LAST place you would expect to see a tumor is in the MIDDLE of the brain. That's the second mistake. There is 100 times as much radiation 1cm away form an AirPod than there is 10 cm away. So you're 100 times more likely to see tumors close to the ear, not far away from it. Thanks for ignoring Newton's laws of physics, twice. I'll ignore your third error because it pales in comparison to these errors.
Thanks for ignoring Newton’s law of physics. The strength of the radiation of emf absorbed is inversely proportional to the distance from the AirPods to the brain cells and around the axis between two ears. Also, Bluetooth shares the same range of radio frequency spectrum as Wi-Fi and microwave oven.
The MRI photo below indicates where the brain tumour developed into the size of a golf ball. Exactly between two ears.
First mistake: it's inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance, not the distance. So the center of the brain is TEN TIMES further from the wireless AirPods than the left and right sides of the brain, which means there is TEN TIMES TEN (which is 100) less radiation in the center of the brain from the AirPods than from the edges of the brain. So the LAST place you would expect to see a tumor is in the MIDDLE of the brain. That's the second mistake. There is 100 times as much radiation 1cm away form an AirPod than there is 10 cm away. So you're 100 times more likely to see tumors close to the ear, not far away from it. Thanks for ignoring Newton's laws of physics, twice. I'll ignore your third error because it pales in comparison to these errors.
Apologise for being simplistic. Thanks for pointing out the first mistake. The keyword is "inversely proportional". Square is important in the equation. About the rest of your saying is true, only when you’re using only one Bluetooth device. However, AirPod and other brand of wireless in-ear earbuds are actually 2 Bluetooth devices. My fault that I jumped too quickly and forgot to mention the two AirPod earpieces are forming a closed and directional magnetic field and your head is enclosed within the field between 2 AirPod earpieces.
In a nutshell, your head is packed between 2 radio-emitting sources. Am I make it clearer?
"Yet across the last decade, we haven't seen any evidence that the EMF these devices use has any significant association with cellular damage or cancer"
This statement and most of the rest of the article is literally pathetic and naive. Typically you are focusing on a outdated area of concern... Forget about the radiation aspect, there is growing evidence that it is in fact the pulsing of this technology that is possibly causing cells to mutate.
To simply say, there is no evidence is not true. There is MOUNTING evidence of damage all wireless technology has serious long term danger - which is just now becoming evident.
Let me tell you, this is just the beginning as like smoking it takes 30 years to establish clear links. We are about 20-25 years, so the next 5 years will be interesting.
As for 5G, god help us all.
Thanks for ignoring Newton’s law of physics. The strength of the radiation of emf absorbed is inversely proportional to the distance from the AirPods to the brain cells and around the axis between two ears. Also, Bluetooth shares the same range of radio frequency spectrum as Wi-Fi and microwave oven.
The MRI photo below indicates where the brain tumour developed into the size of a golf ball. Exactly between two ears.
First mistake: it's inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance, not the distance. So the center of the brain is TEN TIMES further from the wireless AirPods than the left and right sides of the brain, which means there is TEN TIMES TEN (which is 100) less radiation in the center of the brain from the AirPods than from the edges of the brain. So the LAST place you would expect to see a tumor is in the MIDDLE of the brain. That's the second mistake. There is 100 times as much radiation 1cm away form an AirPod than there is 10 cm away. So you're 100 times more likely to see tumors close to the ear, not far away from it. Thanks for ignoring Newton's laws of physics, twice. I'll ignore your third error because it pales in comparison to these errors.
Apologise for being simplistic. Thanks for pointing out the first mistake. The keyword is "inversely proportional". Square is important in the equation. About the rest of your saying is true, only when you’re using only one Bluetooth device. However, AirPod and other brand of wireless in-ear earbuds are actually 2 Bluetooth devices. My fault that I jumped too quickly and forgot to mention the two AirPod earpieces are forming a closed and directional magnetic field and your head is enclosed within the field between 2 AirPod earpieces.
In a nutshell, your head is packed between 2 radio-emitting sources. Am I make it clearer?
That's not how any of this works, though. If there was a correlation to what you're speaking about, there'd be a multifold increase in this particular tumor location, and there isn't.
And, like I said, the SAR, and RF overall, from wired Walkman headphones from the eighties, is way, way higher. And, big drivers in basic earphones = big magnetic fields. We'd have seen this decades ago.
The tobacco industry claimed smoking was "part of a healthy lifestyle" back in the day. I think any reasonable person has to understand that placing anything with an electronic radiating source against your skull is not natural. The question remains do years of exposure eventually cause ill effects to the user. Getting back to the tobacco industry which made heaps of profits by suppressing that research can we expect history won't repeat itself especially with so much money being made selling cell phones and related accessories?
Those of you who cite “scientific studies” from the paid for corrupt “science” industry live in Lala Land, Sleeping Beauties.
Same BS has been going on for decades re Microwave Ovens.
Slow death, happens decades later, Doctor - another white cloak “scientist” - says “died of (part of the body) Cancer.
Cancer is a multi billion dollar industry and it’s becoming the Horse-rider of the Apocalypse identified as the Plague, it’s an accelerating Pandemic. More than 99, and counting, holistic doctors were murdered, anybody who threatens this industry of Death gets erased. And y’all think uttermost bribed corrupt scientists would produce “studies” who would go against the Cancer industry?!
BTW, the inexistence of studies or the opinion of scientists don’t give a rat’s ass to the truth and your health. Stop expecting others to watch over and protect you, to them only money matters... and keeping themselves alive.
Keep drinking your beers and watch football/soccer, you’re doing fine... nothing to see here...
The real danger is FACEID and its IR projector. Keep firing radiation at the skin on your face for 10-20 years. Giant tech coverup.
Those of you who cite “scientific studies” from the paid for corrupt “science” industry live in Lala Land, Sleeping Beauties.
Same BS has been going on for decades re Microwave Ovens.
Slow death, happens decades later, Doctor - another white cloak “scientist” - says “died of (part of the body) Cancer.
Cancer is a multi billion dollar industry and it’s becoming the Horse-rider of the Apocalypse identified as the Plague, it’s an accelerating Pandemic. More than 99, and counting, holistic doctors were murdered, anybody who threatens this industry of Death gets erased. And y’all think uttermost bribed corrupt scientists would produce “studies” who would go against the Cancer industry?!
BTW, the inexistence of studies or the opinion of scientists don’t give a rat’s ass to the truth and your health. Stop expecting others to watch over and protect you, to them only money matters... and keeping themselves alive.
Keep drinking your beers and watch football/soccer, you’re doing fine... nothing to see here...
The real danger is FACEID and its IR projector. Keep firing radiation at the skin on your face for 10-20 years. Giant tech coverup.
If you go to the supermarket once every two weeks for 30 minutes, or to any big-box store, the infrared exposure from the overhead lights is 100x more than if you unlock your phone 15 times a day. If you spend 15 minutes in the sun, you also get 100x more IR exposure that that same 15 unlocks a day over a week.
AppleInsider said: Anywhere you can reach a WiFi or cellular signal or can feel the sun on your skin, you're getting far more EMF exposure than having AirPods in your ears.
We know this because WiFi and Bluetooth use the same radio frequencies, but at wildly different intensities. Carrying the same data payload, WiFi uses about 40 milliwatts of power at the same rate as Bluetooth does broadcasting just 1 mW. That's of course why Bluetooth can lose its signal in a few feet, while WiFi can blast through walls and around your entire house.
In the case of sunlight, you're also exposed to ionizing radiation, the type that is actually known to cause cancer and other damage. The radio energy produced by electronics like AirPods is non-ionizing.
You touched on it a bit in other areas of the article, but distance is a huge factor here. So, you can't just say the thing across the room puts out more power than the thing right up against your ear.
Also, while ionizing radiation is certainly a concern, we're also concerned about other impacts you won't measure in that way.
That suggests that using AirPods to answer calls involves dramatically less exposure to EMF than holding your phone to your ear.
But, when I answer a phone call on my iPhone, I probably have it against head for a few minutes, not all day long (like many might with AirPods). Certainly, if you're talking on the phone for hours at a time, you're better off with AirPods than holding the phone against your head.
AppleInsider said: When you open up WiFi settings and your phone can detect a dozen or more various networks, that demonstrates that you are effectively always bathing in the same EMF frequencies used by BLE, except at higher intensities than AirPods can produce. And even WiFi networks are not the strongest EMF sources we're exposed to on a regular basis.
Again, the distance problem. You'd have to do the math for each to determine which is higher in terms of impact on you.
AppleInsider said: So writing about the "cancer threat of AirPods" is as asinine as being concerned about the potential of cancer risk from your nickel bracelet while laying in the sun smoking cigarettes.
But, I don't lay out in the sun smoking cigarettes either. I also have dramatically cut down my intake of any kind of processed foods. etc. The point here is trying to reduce the kinds of things that have negative impact (or might have). What is in question is whether it does. We don't know. So, until we do, it might be better to err on the side of caution.
But raising alarm about issues that lack any supporting evidence draws attention away from issues that are real.
Ahh, but prior to direct medical evidence that smoking caused cancer, someone could have certainly been within reason to question filling ones lungs with small particulates. That's why the whole 'it isn't ionizing radiation' thing misses the point. We now know the cell is orders of magnitude more complex than we did just a decade or two ago. There is communication going on in there (and between cells), and a high complexity of control and decision making riding above simplistic DNA (or corrupted DNA) = outcome.
AppleInsider said: Anywhere you can reach a WiFi or cellular signal or can feel the sun on your skin, you're getting far more EMF exposure than having AirPods in your ears.
We know this because WiFi and Bluetooth use the same radio frequencies, but at wildly different intensities. Carrying the same data payload, WiFi uses about 40 milliwatts of power at the same rate as Bluetooth does broadcasting just 1 mW. That's of course why Bluetooth can lose its signal in a few feet, while WiFi can blast through walls and around your entire house.
In the case of sunlight, you're also exposed to ionizing radiation, the type that is actually known to cause cancer and other damage. The radio energy produced by electronics like AirPods is non-ionizing.
You touched on it a bit in other areas of the article, but distance is a huge factor here. So, you can't just say the thing across the room puts out more power than the thing right up against your ear.
Also, while ionizing radiation is certainly a concern, we're also concerned about other impacts you won't measure in that way.
You absolutely can measure at any given point away from an emitter, and say if the thing across the room puts out more power than the thing right up against your ear. That's what instrumentation is for. There's a big difference between what something is radiating or broadcasting, and what's being received by the target. You're right that distance is a big factor -- but it's not like Dan was talking about the exposure on Mercury versus AirPods in your ears.
The sun is delivering higher RF to you, right now, even in your house, than those AirPods will, by a lot, despite its distance to you. We're fully aware that the sun is far away and is doing this. We're also aware that the AirPods aren't.
By all means, take what precautions, and risk minimizations you like based on scientific principles. However, the premise of the OH NO AIRPODS WILL CAUSE CANCER articles as put forth by the Daily Mail are erroneous at best, and willfully ignorant and misleading to readers at worst. House wiring puts out more RF than AirPods or an iPhone do, and I don't see that anyplace. God help you if you start and drive your car, then, I guess.
Tell the Daily Mail and others that this isn't ionizing radiation. We aren't the ones missing the point. This entire concept, and a false equivalency to it, chaps my ass. Yahoo and the Daily Mail have people they can call to explain it, and they either didn't, or couldn't be bothered to do so.
Wikipedia considers The Daily Mail to be an unreliable source and is banned from being used as the sole source for citations.
LOL, which is ironic because Wikipedia is also certainly an unreliable source of information.
corrections said: So wearing sunscreen is far more of a concern than wearing AirPods, which operate far below the SAR limit ...
That might well be. I avoid sunscreen too! And, SAR limit is kind of what is being questioned.
22july2013 said: Even if that's true, by counting suspicious deaths we can already put an upper bound on the number of people killed per year by AirPods. Tobacco kills 19,000 per DAY, AirPods would be killing under 1 per YEAR. Is that safe enough for you? Yes or no? What level of safety do you require in a commercial product, 100%?
The problem is... we don't know. What if we find, say the massive increase in depression, is at least partly caused by the exposure to EMF? How many deaths then, are related? It could be having a massive impact, or little.
22july2013 said: Outer space is filled with two main threats: electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and cosmic rays. Most people are unaware that cosmic rays are exclusively *particles* that travel >1% the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Massive_cosmic_rays_compared_to_photons ... which says "In current usage, the term cosmic ray almost exclusively refers to massive particles – those that have rest mass – as opposed to photons, which have no rest mass, and neutrinos, which have negligible rest mass." The earth's atmosphere does absorb much EMR and earth's geomagnetic field protects primarily from intra-solar and somewhat from extra-solar cosmic rays. But the situation is different and more complicated with particles. Indeed, the atmosphere itself CAUSES "secondary cosmic rays" (by definition there are no secondary cosmic rays in space as they are caused by interaction with the atmosphere) which means the LOWER you are in the atmosphere the MORE secondary cosmic rays you experience. Being in an aircraft puts you above a large quantity of secondary cosmic rays and the roof of the aircraft provides some additional protection from primary or secondary cosmic rays. The main threat in an aircraft is EMR X-Rays which would indeed be higher in a flying aircraft, and those are not "cosmic rays".
There are also impacts that weren't previously known. For example, I recently saw a study on space travel that makes it questionable whether humans will ever make it to Mars. The problem is that the radiation and rays you'd be exposed to in space travel (once outside the earth's protection) destroy our gut bacteria ecosystem so dramatically that if you did make it there, you'd die within months.
But, more to the point of this article, nature is complex. A decade ago, we weren't even thinking about the gut's microbiome and impact on our health. The scientists would have measured the exposure and done some kind of direct cell-damage calculation and said it was OK.
True, though one can have some common sense in these areas without being a degreed specialist.
Mike Wuerthele said: You absolutely can measure at any given point away from an emitter, and say if the thing across the room puts out more power than the thing right up against your ear. That's what instrumentation is for. There's a big difference between what something is radiating or broadcasting, and what's being received by the target. You're right that distance is a big factor -- but it's not like Dan was talking about the exposure on Mercury versus AirPods in your ears.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm an only ham radio guy, and did RF testing on monitors early in my career (though I've probably forgotten 95% of what I knew back then ). I just meant that you can't simply state that the AirPod is X and the WiFi Router (across the room) is Y, so Y is more than X.
I'm also not opposed to Daniel writing this article. It clearly sounds like the article it is critiquing was in error (in many ways). But, I'm also opposed to using incomplete and somewhat outdated science to counter concerns by saying... it has been proven to be safe.
Yes, we certainly can't eliminate everything or take away all risk. But, we can control what we add to our lives. The sun is going to be there, but I don't have to smoke a cigarette (and wish the neighbors wouldn't either), or eat factory farmed processed meats, etc. So, I have a least a bit of control in what things I add to my life.
True, though one can have some common sense in these areas without being a degreed specialist.
Not seeing much of that here, mostly unfounded assumptions that there must be harm that should be avoided in both the AirPods and Face ID tinfoil hat crowd. We're bombarded by all kinds of radiation all day long from many, many sources (natural or not). There's no hard evidence that either of the things discussed are more harmful than walking down the street, so I choose to not make up FUD where it's not warranted.
Comments
As the article states, the UV in sunlight is a potent ionizing radiation where as normal levels of radio waves are not. Also, flying commercial aircraft exposes one to higher than normal levels of cosmic rays. I am not too worried about my headphones, which I use rather infrequently anyway.
Besides, doesn’t the user assume the risk of any activity anyway?
The media only proves this!
The MRI photo below indicates where the brain tumour developed into the size of a golf ball. Exactly between two ears.
Thanks for pointing out the first mistake. The keyword is "inversely proportional". Square is important in the equation.
About the rest of your saying is true, only when you’re using only one Bluetooth device. However, AirPod and other brand of wireless in-ear earbuds are actually 2 Bluetooth devices. My fault that I jumped too quickly and forgot to mention the two AirPod earpieces are forming a closed and directional magnetic field and your head is enclosed within the field between 2 AirPod earpieces.
In a nutshell, your head is packed between 2 radio-emitting sources. Am I make it clearer?
And, like I said, the SAR, and RF overall, from wired Walkman headphones from the eighties, is way, way higher. And, big drivers in basic earphones = big magnetic fields. We'd have seen this decades ago.
I presume you go outside, or shop periodically.
Also, while ionizing radiation is certainly a concern, we're also concerned about other impacts you won't measure in that way.
But, when I answer a phone call on my iPhone, I probably have it against head for a few minutes, not all day long (like many might with AirPods). Certainly, if you're talking on the phone for hours at a time, you're better off with AirPods than holding the phone against your head.
Again, the distance problem. You'd have to do the math for each to determine which is higher in terms of impact on you.
But, I don't lay out in the sun smoking cigarettes either. I also have dramatically cut down my intake of any kind of processed foods. etc. The point here is trying to reduce the kinds of things that have negative impact (or might have). What is in question is whether it does. We don't know. So, until we do, it might be better to err on the side of caution.
Ahh, but prior to direct medical evidence that smoking caused cancer, someone could have certainly been within reason to question filling ones lungs with small particulates. That's why the whole 'it isn't ionizing radiation' thing misses the point. We now know the cell is orders of magnitude more complex than we did just a decade or two ago. There is communication going on in there (and between cells), and a high complexity of control and decision making riding above simplistic DNA (or corrupted DNA) = outcome.
The sun is delivering higher RF to you, right now, even in your house, than those AirPods will, by a lot, despite its distance to you. We're fully aware that the sun is far away and is doing this. We're also aware that the AirPods aren't.
By all means, take what precautions, and risk minimizations you like based on scientific principles. However, the premise of the OH NO AIRPODS WILL CAUSE CANCER articles as put forth by the Daily Mail are erroneous at best, and willfully ignorant and misleading to readers at worst. House wiring puts out more RF than AirPods or an iPhone do, and I don't see that anyplace. God help you if you start and drive your car, then, I guess.
Tell the Daily Mail and others that this isn't ionizing radiation. We aren't the ones missing the point. This entire concept, and a false equivalency to it, chaps my ass. Yahoo and the Daily Mail have people they can call to explain it, and they either didn't, or couldn't be bothered to do so.
That might well be. I avoid sunscreen too! And, SAR limit is kind of what is being questioned.
The problem is... we don't know. What if we find, say the massive increase in depression, is at least partly caused by the exposure to EMF? How many deaths then, are related? It could be having a massive impact, or little.
There are also impacts that weren't previously known. For example, I recently saw a study on space travel that makes it questionable whether humans will ever make it to Mars. The problem is that the radiation and rays you'd be exposed to in space travel (once outside the earth's protection) destroy our gut bacteria ecosystem so dramatically that if you did make it there, you'd die within months.
But, more to the point of this article, nature is complex. A decade ago, we weren't even thinking about the gut's microbiome and impact on our health. The scientists would have measured the exposure and done some kind of direct cell-damage calculation and said it was OK.
True, though one can have some common sense in these areas without being a degreed specialist.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm an only ham radio guy, and did RF testing on monitors early in my career (though I've probably forgotten 95% of what I knew back then
I'm also not opposed to Daniel writing this article. It clearly sounds like the article it is critiquing was in error (in many ways). But, I'm also opposed to using incomplete and somewhat outdated science to counter concerns by saying... it has been proven to be safe.
Yes, we certainly can't eliminate everything or take away all risk. But, we can control what we add to our lives. The sun is going to be there, but I don't have to smoke a cigarette (and wish the neighbors wouldn't either), or eat factory farmed processed meats, etc. So, I have a least a bit of control in what things I add to my life.