Bluetooth health risks?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Bluetooth health risks?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    94
    Phone
    T-Mobile SDA
    Network
    Swisscom
    Location
    St. Gallen / Switzerland

    Bluetooth health risks?

    Hello guys,

    I have a concern about the bluetooth. I recently bought a bluetooth headset and suddenly found out that my dad had cancer. Now I am scared of turning bluetooth on because it works via RF. Do you know if bluetooth can be a health risk, specially if it is used constantly via a headset? Thanks guys!

    Bussilein

  2. #2
    Retired Moderator
    like.no.other
    Karim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    11,307
    Phone
    iPhone 4, Bold 9780
    Location
    Beirut
    Bluetooth is like FM radio; just different frequency.
    Does FM radio cause health risks?

  3. #3
    Member NOKIA 6630's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,013
    Phone
    Nokia 8800 Carbon Arte!
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    How the hell would Bluetooth OR FM Radio cause health risks? Talking about Bluetooth if you send things to one another could you receive a virus or could any other thing happen.

  4. #4
    Member kristof.vanriet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,248
    Phone
    Nokia 6170
    Network
    Proximus
    Location
    Belgium
    A bluetooth works on frequentie 2.45 Ghz, Gsm on 800-1900 Mhz, FM radio signals on 80-108 Mhz. But still the frequentie doesn't affect you, if it's 50 Mhz or 2,5 Ghz, it doesn't matter, our own sun transmits more signal that this...
    It's the amount of RF energy that you expose that makes if a phone/headset 'dangerous' (called SAR rating. it's allread 'proven' that analogue phone can cause cancer, but also transmit a lot of SAR.
    For GSM the limit has being set on SAR 1.6 W/kg. Some cell phones, like the Nokia 6230 has only got 0.59 W/kg while the 3310 has got 0.96 W/kg.
    More extreme cases:
    Samsung P400 1.18 W/kg and the Motorola V3688 only 0.02 W/kg...

    If you take now the SAR level of a bluetooth headset it's around: 0.1 W/kg, which is not a lot...

    here is a article about it if you are intressed:
    http://3c.nii.org.tw/3c/silicon/Hot/HealthConcerns.pdf

  5. #5
    Member Novice hiappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    277
    Phone
    N6680, 6230, 3310 & HS-4W
    Network
    DiGi, Maxis & Celcom
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    bussi, I dont think Bluetooth can cause cancer in a short term. But in a long term I dont know.

    There is no published research/journal(havent seen one) on prolonged usage of bluetooth headset effects on our body. I think we should worry more on handphone usage becoz sometime ago, I read an article in Yahoo mentioning that the handphone wave exposure have some effects(forgotten what is the effect) on lab mice.

    Or more importantly for guys, there are ppl saying keeping ur h/p near ur personal parts can affects ur fertility.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    94
    Phone
    T-Mobile SDA
    Network
    Swisscom
    Location
    St. Gallen / Switzerland
    Thank you very much to everybody who helped me out!! I am very grateful!

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1

    Interpreting SAR

    Check this site:

    http://www.bemi.se/founder/clips/cellularSAR.html

    The cellular phone has to emit radiofrequency energy at levels high enough to reach base stations (antenna towers) tens of kilometers away.

    Since the energy is emitted as a microwave ... there are concerns about the safety of this technology.

    There are reports from cell studies as well as animal studies that are most worrying.

    Among other effects the double DNA breakage is among the fundamental och disturbing findings.

    This may indicate that there may be a significant risk of developing cancer tumours, foremost brain tumours in the user of cellular (mobile) phones.

    The design of the cellular phones casing, electronic and foremost the antenna construction gives widely different near and far fields around the phone.

    It is at present time not completely clear what parameters of the field gives biological effects, however as an intermediate cautionary step one can use the simple measure of absorbed radiated energy into the tissue of the head.

    This is given as a SAR - Specific Absorption Ratio and is measured in watts per kilogram. This may not be a true measure of the biological hazard from the phone but may be used as an indication of the energy recieved into the head. See it as prudent avoidance.

    Niels Kuster, a radiation expert at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has developed a new measurement technique to measure cell-phone EMR towards the user's head. He measured 16 popular cell phone models, and published the results in the Swiss Consumer Report magazine. The table below was initiated based upon data from his study:

    (see site for ratings - http://www.bemi.se/founder/clips/cellularSAR.html )

    SAR is given as Cenelec value for average EMR exposure of user's head, measured in Watt per kg of user's body weight. (A low number means less radiated energy into the users head).

    The fact that Ericsson SH888 is given two different SAR values
    reflects the uncertainty how SAR should be measured.

    The same radiation will give different SAR values
    depending on calculation or measurement method,
    whether the ear is a lossy one or just a distancer,
    and if the SAR is calculated over 1 g, 10 g or 1 kg of tissue
    (and also the shape that region is given, eg. a cube).


    Note that Star Tac exists in various models, some have low SAR and some don?t. Also note that despite the low SAR for Star Tac many people complain of headaches or other sympthoms when using those
    (just another indication that SAR may NOT be the best way of describing health effects from cellular phones).

    ( comment from submitter: SAR is one factor, and likely,
    use of ear pieces, and length of exposure, and power output of phone to reach the nearest tower,
    are the other important factors. )


    .

  8. #8
    Bleacher Jo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,148
    Phone
    Samsung Galaxy S III
    Network
    Claro Panama 3.5g
    again motos are the worst in sar the SLVR l7 its around 1.58, europe limit i think its 1.6 barely pass and now you are telling its not measure correctly? i am so not getting a motorola. i was already push down by their horrible ui and technology and scared abit a bout their high SAR rates, now they look more unhealthy ever.

  9. #9
    Trusted Member

    [+][+]
    iPat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,105
    Phone
    Android Symbian iOS BB6 WP7
    Network
    Optus
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Infra-Red can cause some health issues......

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11
    the sound the computer makes when infra-red on connects is scary to me. Doesnt sound very healthy. I was wondering the first time i heard it if there was any risks with using it.

  11. #11
    Mocks Credibility
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    969
    do you no, that i died of bluetooth cancer (in my other life)

  12. #12
    Member Xtrasystolic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    481
    Phone
    N70, 5610XM
    Network
    Beeline GSM
    Location
    Russian Fed.
    Henny, that's impossible seeing that BT was only developed in '94

  13. #13
    Trusted Member

    [+][+]
    iPat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,105
    Phone
    Android Symbian iOS BB6 WP7
    Network
    Optus
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Henny, Great! ....Quik go use another Bluetooth device to get Bluetooth cancer again Then come back as a Sony-Ericsson fanboy!

    Wait nah.....stay here - I like you! Coz your a Nokia fan-boy!

  14. #14
    Administrator
    sidneylopsides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,141
    Phone
    Xperia Z
    Network
    T-Mobile
    Location
    Leeds! Rock on!
    I've looked into the health risks of RF many times, I can't see a reason why it would be dangerous. It amuses me that people complain of feeling ill and increased cancer when a 75W base station is installed, even though there has yet to be any evidence to support the theory.
    Near where I live (16miles exactly, and it still looks massive from here) is the tallest free-standing structure in Europe, and it's a TV transmitter, broadcasting on a frequency band that stops just under 900MHz, where mobile phones start. I'm currently writing this from memory, but if I remember correctly it has a maximum output of around 200,000W and normally transmits at half that, or maybe less. Surely if these frequencies were harmful this would cause more problems than mobile transmitters...
    There are plenty of devices running on almost the same frequency as Bluetooth, DECT phones, Walkie Talkies, WiFi, and more, you don't see people complaining about those?
    >*<<*<*

  15. #15
    Member Shivam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    309
    Phone
    Nokia N-Gage QD
    Network
    Idea Cellular
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    My cousin always keeps BT on and keeps the phone in his pocket all the time, he is doing this for years now, and hes perfectly fine

  16. #16
    founder Member
    Trusted Member
    deuxani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,370
    Phone
    iPhone 4 & 1G, Galaxy Nexus, N95, W800i
    Network
    T-Mobile
    Location
    Amsterdam
    It doesn't mean you will get cancer or something else.... At this point in time some think you might have a higher risk of getting it. That alone for me is enough reason to always be conscious about it. (Turn of bluetooth, call with the wired headset when having long phonecalls, etc)

    Btw I read an article in an german magazine which showed all the devices in our homes that emit radiation. It was quite shocking! Refrigerators, microwaves, ovens, lights, phones, televisions, etc. even when turned off. They suggested not to have a wireless router nearby your bedroom or at least turning it off during the night as it could actually influence your sleeppattern!!

    The problem is that now we don't know what kind of effect it has on us.... like many years ago smoking didn't seem bad for you!!! In the future there will be wireless internet in the air everywhere, 4G mobile transmitters, etc. A constant flow of radiation and at higher levels than now. I just can't imagine that these developments won't leave their mark on humans.

  17. #17
    Administrator
    sidneylopsides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,141
    Phone
    Xperia Z
    Network
    T-Mobile
    Location
    Leeds! Rock on!
    deuxani, in the future? What about radio, TV, phones, radar, all the communications asystems already in use, the natural background radiation, EM radiation from every electronic device etc.
    It's all down to if the radiation we are talking about is the right "type" to affect us. It has to be a frequency that doesn't just pass straight through us without any affect, like light travels through glass, also it has to be energetic enough (not wattage) to actually do something if it does interact.
    I just look at what does affect us and what doesn't, then look at where other things are relative to them. Look at a spectrum of EM radiation, visible light is much more dangerous than microwave radiation, have a look:



    Mobile phones fall right at the top end of radio, or the very bottom end of microwave depending how you look at it/what frequency you use, Bluetooth, etc is slightly higher. Now compare it to the parts of the spectrum we know cause harm.
    >*<<*<*

  18. #18
    Mocks Credibility
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Nokia_Boi
    Wait nah.....stay here - I like you! Coz your a Nokia fan-boy!
    how sweet of you

  19. #19
    founder Member
    Trusted Member
    deuxani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,370
    Phone
    iPhone 4 & 1G, Galaxy Nexus, N95, W800i
    Network
    T-Mobile
    Location
    Amsterdam
    sidneylopsides, good post!! The thing I just don't "trust" right now, is that in 5 or 10 years they might actually do find out that for instance mobile phones are causing a higher risk at cancer than we think right now. And also all the other artificial radiation we create, because we are developing more and more technology and everything is turning into wireless datatransfer. I just can't imagine that this doesn't have an effect on us humans.

  20. #20
    Administrator
    sidneylopsides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,141
    Phone
    Xperia Z
    Network
    T-Mobile
    Location
    Leeds! Rock on!
    deuxani, most wireless technology is working around the "molecular rotation" level of energy, which is actually how microwave ovens work, to cause cell damage etc, you need to be at the "Electronic Excitation" and above.
    No tests have found any evidence that long term use, 10 years etc, causes any increase in risk of cancer.
    Most of the scare seems to be from uninformed people who see the word "radiation" without a clue as to what it really means, most people seem to assume radiation=nuclear fallout effects.
    >*<<*<*

  21. #21
    Member Shivam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    309
    Phone
    Nokia N-Gage QD
    Network
    Idea Cellular
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Most of the scare seems to be from uninformed people who see the word "radiation" without a clue as to what it really means, most people seem to assume radiation=nuclear fallout effects.
    Yeah, I agree, I thought the same about 5 or 8 years ago lol

  22. #22
    Mocks Credibility
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Xtrasystolic
    Henny, that's impossible seeing that BT was only developed in '94
    no that makes scense. i was born (in this life) in 94!

  23. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1
    There is PLENTY of evidence that cell phones are far more dangerous than smoking, but cancer only starts appearing after 10 years of regular use, that's why most studies find no health risks (and those are the only studies the telecommunication industry will show us). Independant, unbiased studies have found a more than clear, definate and obvious link, here are just a few articles:

    MOBILE phones could turn out to be as damaging to health as cigarettes, a world expert says.
    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...003419,00.html

    Just five minutes of exposure to mobile phone emissions can trigger changes that occur during cancer development, according to new research.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../nphone129.xml

    Cell Phone Radiation Triggers Measurable Brain Cell Changes in Mere Minutes
    http://www.naturalnews.com/022429.html

    "Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used."
    http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2006/03/70555

    You just need to look at unbiased sources to see that cell phones are without a doubt more dangerous than smoking, I think it's only logical that blasting microwaves milimeters from your brain can only cause it severe harm as the science has confirmed to be fact.

  24. #24
    retired moderator chlettn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,566
    Phone
    5800XM
    Location
    Austria
    ch2s, yeah, we're all going to die because of mobile phone usage. Happy now?



    Quote Originally Posted by ch2s
    You just need to look at unbiased sources to see that cell phones are without a doubt more dangerous than smoking
    I hope you're living in a remote area like Greenland, hundreds of miles away from any TV broadcasting station or similar radios broadcasting services. Because otherwise you would probably be already dead from all those death-rays that constantly bombard your body for the last 50 years.

    I think it is disturbing that you call the smoking harmless (while it IS deadly, period). Go and take your alarmist crap somewhere else.

  25. #25
    Moderator
    No place like Gnome
    BrightSpark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,175
    Phone
    LG G2
    Network
    EE
    Location
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by chlettn
    yeah, we're all going to die because of mobile phone usage. Happy now?
    yeah, i kinda see things that way too . i think all these 'scientists' warning of dangers is all a load of total and complete unadulterated.........
    rubbish

    if any of it were true, i may as well lock myself in an air tight oxygen chamber and go on a life support system. i can't walk out of the house because of the dangers of an asteroid falling on my head, i can't stay in bed because of the dangers of blood sucking bed mites, i can't cross the road in case i get run over by a rampant ostrich, i can't go in the sun because of the dangers of global warming....and now i can't use me bleedin' mobile phone because some idiot scientist is sprouting crap because he's got funding for creating alarm.


    while it IS deadly, period
    that's not 100% proven either. it's a lot more complex than that.




    Quote Originally Posted by ch2s
    "Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used."
    and that disagrees with all these, for example:
    There is no evidence to suggest that mobile phone usage increases the risk of the brain tumour glioma, according to results of a study published by the British Medical Journal.

    The four-year study, carried out by the Universities of Leeds, Nottingham and Manchester, and the Institute of Cancer Research, is the biggest of its kind in the UK.
    http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/new...nuary/15139360


    Mobile phones don't give you brain tumours

    06 Feb 2008

    The much-debated question over whether excessive use of mobile phones can cause brain cancer has swung back towards the answer 'no'. While many studies over the years have returned many different verdicts, the latest one once again waves the all-clear.

    The Tokyo Women's Medical University studied patients with cerebral cancer and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that using a mobile phone would cause the condition or make it worse.
    http://www.tech.co.uk/gadgets/phones...eid=1786969656

    so it just goes to show that there's always 2 sides to every story.
    Last edited by BrightSpark; 02-03-2008 at 02:39.

  26. #26
    Administrator
    Ab ra gel nakonid
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,809
    Phone
    Windows Phone
    Network
    IR-TCI, MTN IRANCELL, Rightel
    Location
    Iran, next to the Persian Gulf
    Cell phones are deadly? fine, I prefer to use last technology & advanced devices & live short over living long time & never enjoy what technology can bring us.

  27. #27
    "Green Monster" xc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Phone
    iPhone 3G & 3G S
    Network
    AT&T
    Location
    US
    Why was this thread even resurrected from 2006?

  28. #28
    Moderator
    Still searching
    iLoveBlondes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,656
    Phone
    Back to Zn5!
    Network
    Orange
    Location
    Paaran Disen
    Quote Originally Posted by xc View Post
    Why was this thread even resurrected from 2006?
    to prove u gonna die if you will use a nokia n95
    or any other phone
    rubbish...

  29. #29
    Member t_makela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,574
    Phone
    Note3+Gear, Lumia 625
    Location
    Espoo
    Cellphones ain't dangerous! You just need to be prepared.


  30. #30
    Junior Member Nokia_Guy73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    13
    Phone
    Nokia N73 Music Edition
    Network
    Swisscom
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    how did talking about bluetooth health risks become talking about what phones can do to us?

  31. #31
    Trusted Member
    The Marketing Innov8er

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,779
    Phone
    One V, GTab 2 10.1, E71
    Network
    du
    Location
    Dubai, Emirates
    Quote Originally Posted by chlettn
    yeah, we're all going to die because of mobile phone usage. Happy now?


    agree with Robot I just want to live with hi-tech in my life..."live easily"..no matter how long..only God will decide

  32. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1

    Bluetooth is NOT like FM radio!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Karim View Post
    Bluetooth is like FM radio; just different frequency.
    Does FM radio cause health risks?
    FM radios are FM receivers, not transmitters. Mobile phones and Bluetooth headsets are transmitters and receivers. FM transmitters are miles away. Who ever made the comment is very ignorant or a disinformation agent. Most of the comments on this page sound to me like disinformation and/or stupidity.

    Science knows that microwaves in the 2.4 GHz band excite and impart energy into the atomic structure or water. Microwave ovens operate in the 2.4 GHz band (This is undisputed). I find it interesting that WiFi was licensed to operated on the 2.4 GHz band and that Bluetooth was licensed to work in the 2.4 band considering that 2.4 is know to impart energy to water. Our body is mostly water. There is no question that 2.4 GHz react with water, the only question is the extent of the effects. Additionally, one should consider that the proximity of the source of RF energy logarithmically increases the exposure to the transmitted energy. Therefore, wearing a 2.4 GHz device on your ear is putting the source of 2.4 GHz energy very, very close to the brain. We know 2.4 GHz heats water, this undisputed fact warrants caution. Unfortunately, the FDA and our governments are politically driven and in bed with corporate America. USE BLUETOOTH AT YOUR OWN RISK. Trust your instincts because you can't trust the FDA, FCC or the government to protect you. Given what we know about 2.4 GHz, it would have made more sense to license Bluetooth to operate in the 700 MHz, 900 MHz, 5.3, 5,4, 5.8 or 6 GHz band. 2.4 GHz is the one band that is known to react and impart heat to water. Think about it. It is a sad "coincidence".

  33. #33
    retired moderator chlettn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,566
    Phone
    5800XM
    Location
    Austria
    Quote Originally Posted by RF Engineer
    Given what we know about 2.4 GHz, it would have made more sense to license Bluetooth to operate in the 700 MHz, 900 MHz, 5.3, 5,4, 5.8 or 6 GHz band. 2.4 GHz is the one band that is known to react and impart heat to water. Think about it. It is a sad "coincidence".
    For somebody who calls himself "RF Engineer", you interestingly fail to see that the reaction with water IS the obvious reason why exactly the 2.4 GHz band is probably the only license-free frequency band common all over the world. And even if you use a 1mW Bluetooth headset just a couple of centimeters away from your brain, it does nothing. A human, mature brain usually weights around 2% of the total body mass. Do you really think, a power source that works with a max of 1mW can change anything about an organ that weights much more than 1kg for any person beyond kid age?

    And somehow I really doubt that state agencies are actively trying to harm/kill their citizens
    Last edited by chlettn; 22-05-2008 at 20:29.

  34. #34
    Administrator
    sidneylopsides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,141
    Phone
    Xperia Z
    Network
    T-Mobile
    Location
    Leeds! Rock on!
    The heating of water is caused by rotation of the molecules if I remember rightly, not any actual radiation effects as such.

    edit: and of course, think of the power of a microwave oven that's only a few cm from the food.
    >*<<*<*

  35. #35
    Its Just a Phone Children's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,736
    Phone
    Galaxy S2
    Network
    Vodafail
    Location
    Australia QLD
    bussi im sorry to hear that about your father
    but its doubtful that bluetooth is the cause of it

  36. #36
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1
    "Bluetooth headsets are a fairly new technology, so in-depth studies are yet to be completed about cancer risks. While many earpiece devices actually emit lower levels of radiation than cell phones, the earpiece does put the source of power closer to your brain. Public opinion seems to be divided fairly equally between those who believe Bluetooth headsets riskier than cell phones, those who believe they are safer, and a large group that thinks the question is ridiculous because the radiation levels are so low to begin with."

    http://www.wisegeek.com/do-bluetooth...use-cancer.htm

  37. #37
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by chlettn View Post
    Do you really think, a power source that works with a max of 1mW can change anything about an organ that weights much more than 1kg for any person beyond kid age?
    I do. If it's less powerful than micro-owen it doesn't matter it can't cause harm. It just a matter of time then. But considering all others electromagnetic fields surrounding us everyday one should remember that phone itself is a greater source of concern than a Bluetooth headset. But it DOESN'T mean Bluetooth is not harmful at all. IT IS.

  38. #38
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1
    sorry to resurrect an old thread, i just found this one on goole.

    in reply to the last couple posts, as to my understand is that the only reason why water heats up from microwaves is because water particles resonate (vibrate) at the same frequency, the particles vibrate against each other and via friction they heat up. it works with a microwave because we are using 800W+ sources within the distance of 20cm.

    the 70% of our body that is water may resonate at the same frequency to a (what 1mW?) cellular frequency, but does our vital organs (brain, skin, cell structure etc) resonate at?

    on the side note, how is heating the water in our body cancerous?

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts