Which Has More Radiation -- Wired Headset or Bluetooth Headset?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YoCheeseHead

Member
Jan 19, 2000
158
0
0
Hey you engineers. Does anyone know which is more dangerous in terms of electromagnetic radiation emitted:

(1) Wired headset, or
(2) Bluetooth headset?

Note on wired headset: A cellphone can emit up to 2 watts of radiation when in use. Use of a wired headset can capture some of the radiation emitted from the antenna, and direct it up the wire and through the ear at the brain. In some configurations, use of a wired headset can result in greater radiation exposure than use of no headset at all (e.g., in the case of clamshell phones where the antenna points away from the user).

Note on bluetooth: Bluetooth operates at .001 watts. But here the headset is smack right next to the brain. Of course, using a BT headset lets me leave the phone a foot or two away--since radiation energy drops off exponentially with distance, this significantly reduces the radiation from the phone.

BT is 2.4 ghz I think. SprintPCS which I use is somewhere around 1.9Ghz (CDMA)


Thanks!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Y

YoCheeseHead

Member
Jan 19, 2000
158
0
0
Dead serious. There's a history of brain cancer in my family, so I am trying to minimize the damage without giving up the cell phone completely. Besides what do you care--quit threadcrapping.
 
T

ThisIsMatt

Banned
Aug 4, 2000
11,820
1
0
Originally posted by: YoCheeseHead
Dead serious. There's a history of brain cancer in my family, so I am trying to minimize the damage without giving up the cell phone completely. Besides what do you care--quit threadcrapping.
Click to expand...
It looks like it may have already started to set in!
 
ViRGE

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: YoCheeseHead
Dead serious. There's a history of brain cancer in my family, so I am trying to minimize the damage without giving up the cell phone completely. Besides what do you care--quit threadcrapping.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, it's just that everything I've read says the radiation is minimal, to the point where you'd be worse off flying. Anyhow, to answer the question, I would think you'd be better off with the wired set, since the majority of energy is directed along the semi-shielded cable, and not sent out every which way.
 
M

MercenaryForHire

Lifer
Jan 31, 2002
40,819
2
0
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting
Click to expand...

I do. There's more ambient "radiation" from your local radio station, satellites, power wiring, and corded phone than any of that crap.

And if you believe that "OMGZ CELL PHONES CAUSE BRAIN TUMOURS" garbage, I have a bridge to sell you.

- M4H
 
SKORPI0

SKORPI0

Lifer
Jan 18, 2000
18,469
2,409
136
Holy necro thread...... ;)

Cell Phone radiation levels

What it all means

A cell phone's SAR, or its Specific Absorption Rate, is a measure of the amount of radio frequency (RF) energy absorbed by the body when using the handset. All cell phones emit RF energy and the SAR varies by handset model.
For a phone to receive FCC certification and be sold in the United States, its maximum SAR level must be less than 1.6 watts per kilogram. In Europe, the level is capped at 2 watts per kilogram, while Canada allows a maximum of 1.6 watts per kilogram.
The SAR level listed in our charts represents the highest SAR level measured with the phone next to the ear as tested by the Federal Communications Commission. Keep in mind that it is possible for the SAR level to vary between different transmission bands (the same phone can use multiple bands during a call), and that different testing bodies can obtain different results. Also, it's possible for results to vary between different models of the same phone--as in the case of a handset that's offered by multiple carriers. CNET lists the exposure for voice calls only; the SAR for data use can differ.
Click to expand...
20highestradiationcellp.png
 
MiniDoom

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
71
SKORPI0 said:
Probably did a searched for topic. Remember 7 yrs. back the WHO did not consider use of a cell phone a "potential" health risk. Times have changed.
Click to expand...

has this been confirmed? all i see on the headlines is "Radiation from cell phones may cause cancer". Well no shit, we knew this was a possibility all along. Can they tell us if it does or does not...
 
frostedflakes

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Just seems like they're caving to political pressure by conceding to the loonies that cell phones *may* increase the risk of cancer, despite the mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise. Their argument is basically that it's too early to know for sure, so we're just going to assume that it could increase the risk of cancer, even though we could just as easily assume that it doesn't. I guess with potential public health issues like this, though, it's better to err on the side of caution.

My understanding is that the vast majority of studies have found no significant correlation between cell phone use and increased risk of brain cancer, nor has anyone discovered a mechanism by which microwave radiation could cause cancer. Microwave radiation is non-mutagenic and could not directly cause cancer, although it does heat tissue so in theory maybe this heating effect could do something to do change the behavior of cells that results in higher risk of mutations and cancer. But like I said I'm not aware of any theory currently that can explain exactly how heating could increase the risk of brain tumors.
 
B

Bryf50

Golden Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,429
51
91
Lol just look at the title of the article.
WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk

Real definitive. Now if it said "WHO:Cell phone use increases cancer risk" there would be something to worry about.
 
DrPizza

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
ShiggityS said:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html

Consider the bridge sold.
Click to expand...

The bridge isn't sold. Cell phones have NOT been shown to cause cancer. One particular research team has been able to show a connection a few times, however, everyone else doing research has found nothing. In fact, they found a 40% increase in one particular type of cancer. Yet, no one else has found a link. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Wasn't there a single epidemiological study of leukemia rates and power lines that set of an entire cottage industry of people making money off the fear mongering?

Speaking of fear mongering, I saw the CNN article earlier today. Disgraceful journalism. Zero journalistic integrity. The WHO places the *CANCER RISK* of cell phones in the same *cancer risk* as lead and exhaust fumes. As in, "hmmm, beats us, maybe, but there's no conclusive proof." However, CNN says "OMG OH NOEESSSS! Cell phones are in the same danger category as lead and exhaust fumes."

Further, everyone is waiting for a biophysical mechanism for the development of cancer from the output of cell phones. To date, as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been one. "Magic! Cell phones cause cancer by magic!" That's pretty much where they're at right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom