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.
Scientists who know what they're talking about have not. Einstein got the Nobel prize for showing that the energy of photons depends on the frequency. Photons of the frequencies we're talking about have way too little energy to break chemical bonds, and so there is no plausible mechanism for them to cause genetic damage or cancer. Nevertheless, there have been enormous studies looking for health effects of low frequency EMF over the years, some involving the whole population of countries. None have shown any evidence whatsoever of health risks.
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.
Microwave photons have way too little energy to break bonds and cause genetic damage -- their only effect on tissue is to heat it. As the article points out, the power output of these headphones is one milliwatt, and only a small fraction of this is absorbed. The brain is actively cooled by blood flow. It's unlikely that 1 milliwatt of heating is even detectable, let alone damaging. Nothing is impossible in science, but some things are implausible.
This type of thread always ends up reminding me of this insightful cartoon about the internet: https://xkcd.com/386/ As the comments on this topic show, there are lots of people who are really, really wrong.
fastasleep said: 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.
Maybe overall (here), but I think I've been clear that we don't know (ie: there must be harm). It's quite possible those other sources we're bombarded with are harming us as well.
My primary concern with these devices is the time most people spend with them and the distances involved. I don't wear a WiFi router on my head, or put my bed under a cell tower. I suppose we'd have to do the math, but even a much lower signal millimeters from typically an exact spot over many hours per day might add up to more.
The problem is, I've learned way too much in the last few years (part of it the hard way through personal experience) about recent advancements in biology, as well as a lot of the 'no hard evidence' stuff around food, nutrition, environmental toxins, etc. There is incredible corruption, as well as a lot of lack of knowledge and misinformation in the medical industry as well as within the government bodies that regulate a lot of this stuff.
What I know, is that measuring direct cellular or DNA damage from RF literally heating up the cell or changing DNA, etc. isn't covering the potential harms. Unfortunately, that's the direct evidence you're talking about.
normm said: Scientists who know what they're talking about have not. Einstein got the Nobel prize for showing that the energy of photons depends on the frequency. Photons of the frequencies we're talking about have way too little energy to break chemical bonds, and so there is no plausible mechanism for them to cause genetic damage or cancer.
Yeah, except that just scratches the surface of how cells and our body could be impacted. Einstein was a while ago (in terms of scientific understanding). My gosh, it wasn't a whole lot more than a decade ago that most scientists (wrongly) thought most of the DNA was junk.
Actually, the title of this article is highly misleading, but why the heck would a Tech company that is FORCING folks to go wireless want to highlight any potential risk to an exposure, one that will NEVER be proven due to the unethical nature of conducing a randomized controlled trial involving an exposed group vs a group that is not exposed. Anyone, anyone? Of course they can get away with saying "confounding factors" night and day. Notice how the tech companies are saying "safe" rather than, "we don't know for sure." They don't know for sure. My father is an oncologist and, though an observer and not a controlled study, has seen an increased rate of tumors in kids' heads and on the side of the head where folks hold their phones. ( And it's true that holding your phone up to your head is worse than wireless headphones..BUT worse than bluetooth DIRECTLY in your ear?) We don't know yet. We don't know because not enough time has passed, so why risk it? The research already acknowledges that its not ionizing radiation as a mechanism of action for health effects. The proposed mechanism of action involves alteration of chemical pathways on a cellular level- such as calcium channels...possibly due to the emitted heat. We don't know for sure The other REAL key thing to remember is that CLOSENESS to the human body REALLY matters. Meaning a device, right in the ear, directly close to your brain, probably isn't a good thing. ( See Yale University study's on pregnant mice and cell phone exposure and also review the epidemiological data showing increased risk of health problems, including cancers, for folks who live closer to cell phone towers. )
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".
I appreciate the more detailed explanation, thank you. Just don’t fly near two colliding neutron stars, and you’ll be fine. Tricky thing, quantum physics is!
Comments
My primary concern with these devices is the time most people spend with them and the distances involved. I don't wear a WiFi router on my head, or put my bed under a cell tower. I suppose we'd have to do the math, but even a much lower signal millimeters from typically an exact spot over many hours per day might add up to more.
The problem is, I've learned way too much in the last few years (part of it the hard way through personal experience) about recent advancements in biology, as well as a lot of the 'no hard evidence' stuff around food, nutrition, environmental toxins, etc. There is incredible corruption, as well as a lot of lack of knowledge and misinformation in the medical industry as well as within the government bodies that regulate a lot of this stuff.
What I know, is that measuring direct cellular or DNA damage from RF literally heating up the cell or changing DNA, etc. isn't covering the potential harms. Unfortunately, that's the direct evidence you're talking about.
The research already acknowledges that its not ionizing radiation as a mechanism of action for health effects. The proposed mechanism of action involves alteration of chemical pathways on a cellular level- such as calcium channels...possibly due to the emitted heat. We don't know for sure The other REAL key thing to remember is that CLOSENESS to the human body REALLY matters. Meaning a device, right in the ear, directly close to your brain, probably isn't a good thing. ( See Yale University study's on pregnant mice and cell phone exposure and also review the epidemiological data showing increased risk of health problems, including cancers, for folks who live closer to cell phone towers. )