If airpods can cause cancer what about hearing aids with bluetooth

Hearing Aids
#1

Here’s the news about Apple airpods that says can cause cancer. What about hearing aid bluetooth?

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/airpods-cancer/?amp

Pasted below incase the link disappears ********

Over 200 scientists say AirPods could cause cancer

Mikael Thalen—

2019-03-13 12:31 pm | Last updated 2019-03-13 12:51 pm

Maurizio Pesce/Flickr (CC-BY)

The electromagnetic frequency waves could also potentially lead to neurological disorders.

More than 200 scientists are warning that wireless headphones such as Apple AirPods could increase an individual’s risk for cancer.

In a petition to the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO), the researchers, who hail from 42 different countries, point to Bluetooth technology as cause for concern.

Bluetooth, which allows data to be transferred wirelessly through the use of electromagnetic frequency (EMF) radio waves, may be especially dangerous when placed close to one’s head.

Jerry Phillips, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, tells Medium that AirPods “placement in the ear canal exposes tissues in the head to relatively high levels of radio-frequency radiation.”

Aside from cancer, the scientists add, EMF over time could also potentially cause neurological disorders and DNA damage as well.

“Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices,” the petition states. “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.”

The petition also notes the recent determination from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that EMF may be “carcinogenic” to humans.

The scientists have called on the WHO to both adopt stricter guidelines and regulatory standards regarding EMF.

“The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF,” the petition adds. “By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.”

While Apple has not responded to the scientists’ latest concerns, the company in 2016 defended its practices when the AirPods were first released.

“Apple products are always designed and tested to meet or exceed all safety requirements,” Apple spokesperson Alex Kirschner said

1 Like
#2

Is it possible? I guess but very unlikely. They have also said that about cellphones for over a decade.

#3

Three decades. I started work in the cellphone business as a tech in 1988 and it was an issue in the press back then, and intermittently since then.

#4

Consider that Bluetooth has a range of a few feet. Your cell phone has to blast out with the power to reach a cell phone tower a number of miles away. I would suggest that the risk from a cell phone is far higher than Bluetooth.

2 Likes
#5

Click through to that determination link. The others are sensationalized hysteria for click bait.
Wake me when it’s conclusive.

2 Likes
#6

If someone can find it, I’ve already published the comparative field density data for the transmission protocols.

Depending on what protocol the AirPods use (Is it a proprietary version of BLE?) you can work out your risk. It’s still a couple of orders of magnitude lower than the average cell phone burst - especially if you live in the country where the cell power is wound right up…

4 Likes
#7

I have worked around radar, and all kinds of communication equipment since the late 1960s and I am still here. Some that were in the megawatts.

2 Likes
#8

They also have similar talks about the climate, is true? Who knows, but it influences politics too much (in Europe)

#9

Global Warming-------30+ years, this winter I froze my b—s. 25 years ago, almost all doctors said do not eat butter, eat margarine. 2-3 ago they reversed and said don’t eat margarine it’s bad for you eat butter.
There is something being missed here. Quality of Life. If you are afraid of cancer from radiation, there’s a simple solution DO NOT USE Airpods, cellphones and/or other electronic devices. Throw out the microwave and the list goes on. Glad to see some here use common sense. end of rant.

1 Like
#10

There’s no ranting. Forums are for discussion. Let’s not shut the door and hear for and against points. One can determine what’s truth for himself or herself and act accordingly. Otherwise we will be jumping from butter to magraine or otherwise blindly, when such forums were not available those days. There’s a silent majority following this post.

1 Like
#11

Totally off topic. If you don’t have the capacity to understand the difference between Climate and Weather, please don’t even try to get into a discussion about radiated EMF density.

It’s a genuine concern for some people, but like with the climate, people are largely ignrorant of the figures involved. If you live near a large TV mast you’re probably getting far more RF than the average person, but the risk is low. The microwave example is also moot as your magnetron sits within a Faraday Cage.

3 Likes
#12

Look, I take this as a very sad discovery. But still not conclusive, because it is not a debate that involved the scientific medical community, although it has the potential for this from now on. It is not something impossible to believe, especially when we analyze the functioning of the cells of the human body. Like almost everything in life, it seems that everything will move to a matter of quantities. How many hours per day? These waves have an extremely high frequency, in the case of cellphones ranging from 700 MHZ to something close to 3000 GHZ. Wireless headsets often stay in the ear and smartphone calls are close to the ear only at the time of the calls and every day decreases that time that we actually use a smartphone to make a call using the cell towers. I myself have spent almost a whole day streaming audio with my hearing aids and nowadays I make few phone calls. So again, I think the discussion will now go into the quantities because one thing is to use my smartphone next to my head for phone calls 5 to 10 hours a week and something else and have my bluetooth headsets or my hearing aids streaming for 35 to 40 hours a week. The results of these exposures may be different, do not you think?

#13

If we took to heart ever thing we see and read we would have to go back to being like the caveman. And in some ways that wouldn’t be a bad thing. But really everyone just use common sense and continue with your life

2 Likes
#14

I measured the Bluetooth emissions from my trial phonak m90s using a $400 RF meter, and they are emitting strong radiation Non-Stop even when not streaming, even when my phone is off, so anyone who uses them is getting 16 hours a day of direct brain radiation. My concern is not cancer as much as other effects such as brain chemistry changes, accelerated aging, etc. That being said I love my m90s and haven’t decided whether to return them or not.

#15

Define ‘strong’. Then look at the table n the other thread with the comparison data.

#16

Yeah, those so called primitive societies are likely to have the last laugh on us all.

#17

The M90s output much less radiation than my Bose Soundsport bluetooth earbuds. But they still measure highly when within 1" of the antennae of the meter. Specific numbers below.

The meter (Gigahertz Solutions HF-35C) is not meant to be used in such close proximity, so I don’t put a lot of faith in the signal strength numbers. I just wanted to understand whether or not they are constantly transmitting or only transmitting when streaming, and the answer seems to be: constantly.

I made a video of my measurements here: https://youtu.be/zGUXy2yJYSA

I took all measurements in “peak” mode, which means it’s displaying the highest burst that occurs over a brief interval rather than the average output.

The M90s are non-detectable from 6 inches away. But at 3" they measure at around 50 uW per meter squared. When I bring them to within 1 inch from the tip of the antenna, the reading is 150 uW per meter squared when not streaming, and 350 when streaming. When I put them within millimeters of the antenna, it’s 600-1400 while non-streaming and over 2000 (max detectable threshold) while streaming.

By comparison, my Bose Soundsport bluetooth headphones (earbuds tethered by neck cord) measured at 700+ uW from 6 inches away and over 2000 uW from 3 inches when streaming. So the Bose at 6" away is the same strength as the M90s at around half an inch away. Clearly the M-90s are much lower energy than the Bose. But I wear them 16 hours a day, so that’s something to consider.

And my phone during a phone call was much, much higher: over 2000 uW from 4 feet away, and around 1300 from 5 feet away.

Even worse: my wifi router exceeded the 2000 uW threshhold from 7 feet away, and my microwave oven exceeded it from 12 feet away! If you’re worried about this stuff, don’t stand in front of your microwave, and don’t keep your router in the same room where you sleep or work!

Most of the sites discussing the dangers of bluetooth are from people selling books on how to minimize your exposure, so I put little faith in them. The 200+ scientists who signed the letter urging action are more believable, but they are not even close to any kind of a scientific consensus (in sharp contrast to, say, the consensus about climate change). Here is a good summary article that talks about some of the possible dangers other than cancer: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health - ScienceDirect

Here is a paper discussing the possible link between microwave exposure (e.g. via bluetooth) and alzheimer’s: Microwaves and Alzheimer's disease

The more you look, the scarier it gets…

But I LOVE my Marvels!!!

#18

He has likely no Marvel hearing aids (may be in real life he has) :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#19

What frequency is radar at? I think the concern here is that most wireless protocols these days are microwave frequencies.

#20

Depends on the type of radar. Radar can also scan a wide band of frequencies