Bluetooth Cancer Research

[pcmodem]

Folks,
Before I start using a Bluetooth headset on a regular basis, has anyone seen any research on Bluetooth exposure?

Unlike a cell phone that one uses for a few minutes here and there, for Bluetooth I'd potentially be using a headset actively for hours, which is a much larger and therefore more risky exposure.

Additionally, from an engineering standpoint, what wavelength and frequency, etc., does Bluetooth use?



Thanks,
PCM

 

[InlineFour]

i think a lot of business men wear their bluetooth headset from morning until they get off work. no problems there.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Whoa, I've never even heard rumors about exposure to bluetooth having adverse effects. Bluetooth uses frequencies around 2.4 GHz. Gosh, I hope all those years growing up with a 'transister radio' glued to my ear didn't give me brain cancer. "It is NOT a tumor."

I'd be more concerned about crossing the street.

 

[pcmodem]

Originally posted by: InlineFour
i think a lot of business men wear their bluetooth headset from morning until they get off work. no problems there.

Note that I am not saying that Bluetooth exposure is potentially cancerous.

I'm just wondering if anyone has done research as to potential long term health effects, or even speculation based on similar research.

Most forms of cancer have a 10 to 20+ year inception before observable effects.



Thanks,
PCM

 

[Aluvus]

Cell phones have much greater transmit power. A typical cell phone might be around 1 W. The highest possible bluetooth transmit power is 100 mW (0.1 W), and I believe a device like a headset is much more likely to be 2.5 mW or 1 mW.

Years of studies have yet to find any solid link between cell phones and cancer. And Bluetooth transmits substantially less power. Not a significant risk.

 

[WackyDan]

WiFi is 2.4ghz, Many household cordless phones are also 2.4Ghz..... as is bluetoothe. Many things beside those have shared that spectrum for some time.

 

[Atheus]

Phones/bluetooth don't give you cancer - those frequencies are non-ionizing and do not mutate DNA. Anything else you might might hear is crap.

You see people complaining about mobile phone masts going up in their neighbourhood - they don't realise the energy coming from the phone next to their head is much greater than the energy coming from the main antenna because of the rate radio waves deplete over distance, and having a mast close to you actually _decreases_ the radiation you recieve as the phone dosn't have to use all it's transmit power to reach it. And it doesn't matter anyway because the radiation is _not_ dangerous!

This stuff really ****** me off in case you didn't notice

 

[corkyg]

Bluetooth headphones do not emit any RF energy or signal. They are receivers! So, even if you don't have them on your head, you are still receiving the same amount of RF energy transmitted by any and all sources beyond your control. The question really is moot. Your cell phone poses a much greater threat, and there have been legal cases involving them, but changes have been made to reduce the risk.

There really is nothing to research on a receiver.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: corkyg
Bluetooth headphones do not emit any RF energy or signal. They are receivers! So, even if you don't have them on your head, you are still receiving the same amount of RF energy transmitted by any and all sources beyond your control. The question really is moot. Your cell phone poses a much greater threat, and there have been legal cases involving them, but changes have been made to reduce the risk.

There really is nothing to research on a receiver.

OP is asking about headsets, which both transmit and receive.

 

[corkyg]

Are you sure? Unless he is a constant chatterbox, the amount of transmission time would not warrant the expense of a research study. There are many extant studies already on cell phones, and the threat is no longer significant.

This is about as much as there is:

BT

Bottom line - he has a choice - and there is no confirmed dasta one way or the other.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: corkyg
This is about as much as there is:

BT

The author of that page is confused about the subject.

For example, despite the fact that this is supposed to be a page about cell phones, there's a spurious paragraph about ionizing (nuclear) radiation

Additionally, he mentions the Lai and Singh work on DNA damage, stating how replication would be important. Then fails to mention that replication of the experiment has not shown the same results (and also that further research has shown that the euthenasia method used by Lai & Singh may have actually caused the DNA damage they were detecting).

Also mentioned are "numerous studies presenting irrefutable evidence about the health risks", but no clue as to what these studies actually showed, or how good the research was.

Overall, there is no convincing evidence that non-ionizing radiation at the levels used by wireless communications are either definitely harmful or totally safe. However, failure to demonstrate evidence of harm, despite a relatively long exposure history and the application of sensitive methods - should, at least, prove reassuring. Though, despite this, a precautionary approach seems sensible.

Bluetooth transmissions are orders of magnitude less powerful than a cell phone - so any potential effect is likely to be signficantly less severe.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: Mark R
[Bluetooth transmissions are orders of magnitude less powerful than a cell phone - so any potential effect is likely to be signficantly less severe.

Thanks! That is the essence of what I have been saying.