Showing 1 of 407 conversations about:
WildMurph
128
Feb 15, 2018
bookmark_border
After learning how disruptive low-energy frequencies (I.e. bluetooth) could possibly be on organisms, I sadly am phasing my bluetooth headphones out. The idea of strapping an RF device onto the side of my head no longer appeals to me. I've been looking at mid-level IEM's for the past 2 weeks. I have to say I'm pretty intrigued by these.
Here's some research on bluetooth/RF if anyone is interested. I am becoming skeptical of the longterm (decades of use) safety of RF devices. http://jeb.biologists.org/content/early/2016/03/24/jeb.132878 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24360572
Feb 15, 2018
RyanMaz
9
Feb 15, 2018
bookmark_border
From the full article:
"Summary statement [:] Antarctic crustaceans use a geomagnetic compass for orientation on the sea-land axis. This ability is lost after exposure to extraordinarily weak radiofrequency magnetic fields (2 nT). " Unless you are a crustacean or a bird of some kind, I wouldn't worry about RF frequencies disrupting human navigation. Humans, amongst other mammals, do not have the ability to sense earth's magnetic field. It's partly why GPS is so useful, when it works.
Unfortunately I am unable to give insight to these earphones, so don't let that dissuade your decision making.
Feb 15, 2018
WildMurph
128
Feb 15, 2018
bookmark_border
I'm not concerned with navigation..... it's all about the activation of voltage-gated pathways in the body. Specifically calcium channels. And RF's ability to effect those gateways.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24360572 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
Feb 15, 2018
RyanMaz
9
Feb 15, 2018
bookmark_border
Murph,
The first article you posted dealt with how radio frequencies (RF) disrupted krill orientation. Their control showed that this species of krill naturally navigated themselves towards the sea from the beach by aligning their path with the corresponding magnetic field in that direction. RF were shown to disorient them, making them unable to travel as easily.
The two articles you listed dealt with low frequency fields. Bluetooth operates at a much higher frequency than the fields tested in these articles.
From the abstract of Cui Y. et al.- "Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) causes various biological effects through altering intracellular calcium homeostasis. The role of high voltage-gated (HVA) calcium channels in ELF-EMF induced effects has been extensively studied. However, the effect of ELF-EMF on low-voltage-gated (LVA) T-type calcium channels has not been reported. In this study, we test the effect of ELF-EMF (50 Hz) on human T-type calcium channels transfected in HEK293 cells."
And from the abstract of the other article- "The direct targets of extremely low and microwave frequency range electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in producing non-thermal effects have not been clearly established. However, studies in the literature, reviewed here, provide substantial support for such direct targets."
Feb 15, 2018
JesseJames
8
Feb 15, 2018
bookmark_border
And the winner is!
Feb 15, 2018
WildMurph
128
Feb 15, 2018
bookmark_border
IMO there is plenty of demonstrable evidence that RF frequencies (of many different types) can have effects on the body. Will they kill you? Probably not. Are they 100% safe? Probably not. More research needs to be done. You are correct that that effects have not been clearly established. But for me? There is enough evidence against RF (and accompanying EMF) that I don't really want to strap a bluetooth device on both sides of my head for many hours a day. I wish the studies existed to say with full certainty. But I'm not keen on being Sony's guinea pig lol.
Feb 15, 2018
frivoflava29
105
Feb 15, 2018
bookmark_border
Nothing is 100% safe. If you drink too much water you'll die. Countless people have been exposed to these frequencies, even on a daily basis, and they aren't getting sick and dying. Life is short, pick your battles.
Feb 15, 2018
WildMurph
128
Feb 15, 2018
bookmark_border
I agree. There are so many battles to pick from! And yes, countless people use these products. But these countless people might also be enduring greater levels of free radical damage then those that do not. For me, the upside of going wireless is not as big as the downside of possible damage at a cellular level. We used to use lead in pencils and paint for a long time before we realized even small amounts of lead caused huge repercussions in the body in the 1950's, and even after we knew, no laws were passed until the 70's. Now, obviously EMF/RF frequencies and Lead are completely different things and aren't necessarily an accurate comparison. But, in my mind, there is enough evidence to suggest that RF might indirectly affect us. And yes drinking too much water can kill you... Which is why I filter my water and only drink a necessary amount =)
Feb 15, 2018
Dirty_Hairy
24
Feb 16, 2018
bookmark_border
Please, read it again. So far there is no documented problem to worry about. What is considered safe, has been measured and if you buy a radio device, it had to pass certification to ensure it's in the limits.
That article is not about low-energy but low-frequency, the test is very specific, and does not show the real impact on health. On top of that, Bluetooth has so low power that it can hardly have any impact on you. If you really want to have a reason to be scared, 50/60Hz is what you have in your power lines (depending on country). Effectively this is the frequency of pretty much all the AC adapters. Think about it when using vacuum cleaner or hair dryer. Yet, I won't bother, as there has been no peer-reviewed research demonstrating destructive effect of such appliances.
I wouldn't scare people if I hadn't got a good reason to. Fear is the enemy of peace and knowledge. Can I say with 100% certainty that electrical stuff has no bad impact on health? Of course not! But at the same time I can point to no data that would make me run around cutting the wires + I have no power over all the radios in my neighborhood. Of course, if you have cardiac pacemaker, contact your doctor. In contrast to humans, they are sensitive to electromagnetic fields.
Feb 16, 2018
WildMurph
128
Feb 16, 2018
bookmark_border
I see what you are saying, and I totally agree. I'm not scared nor am I trying to scare people. However, I do believe that even weak RF can and probably has small subtle effects on our bodies (that we probably don't even know yet). And you're right those studies don't prove what I was saying. But they give good indication that RF at certain strong frequencies show large measurable changes. The weaker one's like Bluetooth? The jury is still out. I don't see enough evidence to convince me yet. I find myself not wanting to strap an RF device onto the back of my ears or on my brainstem. We're adults. If you want to do that it's fine with me! I simply have decided to go "old school". Hell, we don't even understand the intricacies and nuances of our own bodies yet. I'm involved with the health industry and it's staggering how little we even know. And for that reason, I am erring on the side of caution. But you make a good point, about them being relatively safe. But relatively safe isn't good enough for me. Another fair point for me to make is that I will still probably wear bluetooth during specific athletic tasks (they're just too damn convenient!) However, I wear headphones for anywhere from 6-8 hours a day. Multiplied by 250 workdays a year and I'm looking at anywhere from 1500-2000 hours of low frequency RF devices strapped to one of the most sensitive part of our bodies. I don't really like that idea.
I went back and edited my original comment so it's less authoritative and more on the side of we don't know. =)
Feb 16, 2018
MDLux
3
Feb 16, 2018
bookmark_border
Hey man I understand your point of view, however The PubMed article referenced had nothing to do with Bluetooth which is a much, much higher frequency waveform in the MHz range so about a 100 times shorter wavelength. The 50Hz range is not a radio wave in common tongue.
Also the effect mentioned on T channels should not be of concern. T channels in nerves are not truly understood, but Ca efflux is not how neuronal action potentials work. Heart or Smooth muscle sure, but earphones are too far away from your heart or esophagus for the EMF to cause concern.
Lastly I don't think you understood the PubMed article, because there is a glaring mistake and contradiction within the abstract published. I'll try to access it at work tomorrow if I have time. Should be an interesting read.
I'm not knocking you for your choice, but please don't misquote an article claiming your view is backed up by science.
Feb 16, 2018
Dirty_Hairy
24
Feb 16, 2018
bookmark_border
Thanks for clarification.
On my side I can add that it's difficult to find an electronic device that's closer to the brain than IEMs and hearing aids :)
Nonetheless these NuForce IEMs look so good and pairing them with a Bluetooth receiver would make them even more versatile.
Feb 16, 2018
WildMurph
128
Feb 16, 2018
bookmark_border
This post was never about making a White/Black statement. This comment was simply introducing a couple of articles that have shown RF can be dangerous, coupled with an article about how they are now seeing that higher frequencies (ie Bluetooth) even if they are less powerful can have seemingly negative effects on small organisms. I leave the rest open to the conclusions of the reader. And every single time someone says "We don't understand that so you shouldn't be concerned with it" I become concerned with it lol.
I am very interested in the article you are referencing. If you want to post it when you have time, I am certainly open to reading it. And if you can prove to me Bluetooth is 100% safe and long-term heavy regular use has absolutely NO effects on my body in the long-term, I'll be super stoked. You are in fact the first person to claim that we know enough to deem it authoritatively safe. I need the evidence you have, because all the evidence I have seen thus far has basically said, "It appears to be safe" or "We couldn't find any issues", which both could mean they are looking for results in the wrong places.
That is all =)
Feb 16, 2018
WildMurph
128
Feb 16, 2018
bookmark_border
This is true. If I were truly concerned with any/all exposure to EMF, I would give up music via Headphones for good! Not gonna happen.
Feb 16, 2018
View Full Discussion