Bluetooth headsets have become quiet popular the past year due to the obvious convenience and “cool factor” that wireless companies are promoting. However, the question so many people are asking is whether they are safe? That is what this article explores.
To begin, the following two videos will help you see what Bluetooth radiation (next to the brain) sounds like when measured by a RF meter:
The above video is measuring Apple Airpods on standby mode. When music/data is being transmitted to the headsets, the exposure is greatly increased.
The second video shows how RF is emitted from a Beats Bluetooth headsets.
To be continued. . .
Joan Kirkby
How about a blue tooth mouse and/or key board?
Jeromy
Hi Joan,
They are not good. Your computer is constantly emitting Bluetooth as well to communicate with them. I’ll upload a video soon showing this.
Jeromy
Jeromy
Here is the video of a Bluetooth keyboard/mouse:
https://youtu.be/d6jSRND913c
Asker
How would you compare the relative PRO/CON of BT headphones versus a far more powerful smart-phone being on or very near one’s body (with or without wired headphones)?
With wired headphones, could the wire bring the more powerful EMFs/EMR from the phone to near the head?
Finally, when talking about biological effects of EMFs, I think it is important to remember that biological impacts of sub-visible EMFs are highly dependent on specific frequencies — are you able to say whether you think that the EMF frequency-power impacts from BT headphones are better or worse than from a much more powerful (and usually higher-frequency, and broader frequency spectrum) smart-phone on or very near the body (with or without wired headphones)?
Thank you.
Jeromy
Thanks for your questions. I’ll answer them in order:
1.) The first objective is to have as little microwave technology next to the head and reproductive organs as possible. Thus, I would never want to see a cell phone or bluetooth headset next to the brain.
Is a cell phone a stronger RF source than say an AirPod BT headset? Of course. However, people erroneously think the BT headsets are thousands of times less powerful. This is false. The SAR (specific absorption rate) of a new iPhone is approximately 1.6 W/Kg. The SAR of AirPods is 0.466 W/Kg. This is 1/3 of the exposure of an iPhone, not thousands of times less.
For the numbers referenced above, see this article by Joel Moskowitz at UC Berkeley:
https://www.saferemr.com/2016/09/airpods-are-apples-new-wireless-earbuds.html
2.) Yes, there is some evidence that a wired headset will act as an antenna and conduct some of the RF from a cell phone to the brain. Is this worse than putting a cell phone to the head? Probably not. However, out of precaution, I always recommend an air-tube headset and/or speaker phone for cell phone calls. I talk about simple cell phone safety tips here:
https://www.emfanalysis.com/headsets/
3.) BT actually radiates at approximately 2.4 GHz (similar to WiFi). Most cellular frequencies (3G and 4G) are in the 1.5 GHz to 2.3 GHz bands.
You are correct in that every frequency can have a specific impact on our biology. It is much more complicated than that though. Multiple parameters are at play including frequency, pulsation patterns, power, polarization and whether windows exist where effects can be more significant at lower power levels.
This is complicated research on important questions, but government and industry have little reason to put money toward studying something that could be such an inconvenient truth. Here are some studies on this question:
https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/blackman-modulation-2009.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
With the evidence that we now have on the biological impacts of microwave technologies, it is reckless for industry to be encouraging people to put wireless transmitters next to their brains. It is a classic example where 20 years from now, people will be saying “What were they thinking?”
Jeromy
Lou
Thanks, Jeromy,
Yes — I see your responses… Thanks so much for taking the time to respond, and to supply references.
A few notes, taking your responses in order:
(1) the TRANSMITTER power (Peak) of a typical BT headset literally is about 1/1000th the strength of that of a typical cellular phone. AirPods might be a good example, in some sense, but they are not typical.
Also, MANY BT headsets have their transceivers on the cord, rather than on the earpieces — moving the transmitters farther from the head area.
MORE importantly, the PEAK transmission, as well as normal operating levels, of a typical cell phone probably is 100-1000 times as strong as that of a typical BT headset.
Which raises my main question — would it be better to put the cell phone away entirely away from the body, whenever possible, and use a BT headset (with transmitter on the cord) instead?
(2) I believe the majority of studies show that a wired headset carries virtually no (undetectable) levels of RF to the head, especially if there is an inline RF filter.
The large, bulky transceiver for air-tube headsets may be just as powerful as those on the cord of a BT headset — do you know of any studies showing otherwise?
(3) It sounds like we see the same shortcoming to the state of research, in terms of matching specific frequencies to biological mechanism — over-all power meters are misleading, I feel, and carrier frequency range might say something, but not nearly enough.
I agree with your final conclusion, and about the categorical concerns about strong RF in the microwave range.
However, two things:
(a) Microwave frequencies describe a fairly large band in the EMF spectrum — lumping in ANYTHING that uses that band would be a good use of the precautionary principle, but also might be a little heavy-handed, until we understand whether or not PARTICULAR frequencies are the ones to care about
(b) I think evidence (epidemiological and direct) of carcinogenic effects of cell phones might be stronger for other parts of the body than for the brain.
Which gets back to my main question — would it be better to put the cell phone away entirely away from the body, whenever possible, and use a BT headset (with transmitter on the cord) instead?
Thanks, again.
Jeromy
Lou,
Thanks for your response. Here are some thoughts on your points:
1.) Many of the BT headsets with the antenna in the cord will have the transmitter right on the neck/brain stem. I don’t see how this is any better? It may reduce the odds of a GBM, but could cause cancer/neurological problems in the neck region.
SAR is a more accurate measure of how much RF is actually being absorbed by biological tissue. However, even that is inadequate as it doesn’t take into consideration all the non-thermal effects of RF exposure.
I just can’t see any instance where using a BT headset is wise. With what we know, the odds are just too great that heavy users are setting themselves up for an injury later in life. Keeping you cell phone away from the body is also wise. I know many people who rarely use them anymore, including myself, and then only for an occasional text message.
The final results of the $30 million NTP study released today make the reason clear:
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-final-rf-report
2.) The audio device on an air-tube headset does not emit RF. It receives the data via a cord and then sends the audio via the vacuum tube. Seems like you are comparing apples to oranges?
3.) It would take a $30,000 spectrum analyzer to do some of the testing you describe. The RF meter in the videos above does an adequate job of showing viewers that there is RF being emitted from their Bluetooth headsets. They videos were also filmed in an environment where the Bluetooth was the only RF source around. For people to hear the invisible, it makes more sense that there is an energy in the air, right next to their brain, that many studies now show is dangerous. I think that is a net benefit for the health of humanity.
4.) The research shows whole body effects and an increasing amount of evidence that GBMs are rising. Perhaps you saw this data out of the UK the past year:
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/gbm-frontal-and-tempral-lobes
Most of the long-time researchers I have talked to and read about in this field say that there is likely no safe level of pulse-modulated RF for human beings. We have got ourselves in a pickle with our reliance on, addiction to and consequent belief that RF is safe. For now it will be up to each of us to make the decisions for ourselves, and our families, that we will have to live with 10-20 years from now.
My best,
Jeromy
Linda Harris
Hello Jeromy,
I came across this thread and am continuing a comparison I was asking you about on regular email. I don’t have the technical understanding to talk about this as writer above, but I want to compare using my wireless connection of my Ipad as I move around my house for phone calls, but using it with a air tube headset and additionally an extension cord, to using my cellphone on same setup. Does it matter which as far as possible long term biological effects? (older generation, maybe 3G)
Richard Talada
Bluetooth earbuds connecting wire hung near my heart sent my
heart into ventricular tachycardia. The local EMTs saved me by
using their portable AED.
Heart inspections, both blockage and electrical checks were ok.
I ended up with a pacemaker and defibrillator implant, because
no heart problem was found to correct .
I’d be happy to explain the details to anyone interested. Contact
me via email or phone.