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!
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...
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.
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:
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. )
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.