Bluetooth radiation/safety

[Much Ado]

What's that Chappers? My Cigar is a death tube of cancer and lung disease? What rot, I say.

 

[scienide09]

If you want a serious response, try taking some steps yourself and doing some research. As helpful as the folks on these forums can be, you have no right to complain they aren't being helpful when they don't provide the exact answer you need.

Try your local public or academic library. Ask the staff for some assistance searching the science databases. They can help you in your search.

This article might be of interest to you:
Schmid, G., D. Lager, P. Preiner, R. Uberbacher, and S. Cecil. 2007. Exposure caused by wireless technologies used for short-range indoor communication in homes and offices. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2007 124.1: 58-62. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncm245

My quick scan of the article suggests that BT radiation is well within the protection limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

 

[patrickq]

his post was one of the best in the thread. I'm fairly certain you are suffering from confirmation bias.

I always thought yours were the best

Actually, his second post was more useful, the first was just a load of ...

 

[patrickq]

If you want a serious response, try taking some steps yourself and doing some research. As helpful as the folks on these forums can be, you have no right to complain they aren't being helpful when they don't provide the exact answer you need.

Try your local public or academic library. Ask the staff for some assistance searching the science databases. They can help you in your search.

This article might be of interest to you:
Schmid, G., D. Lager, P. Preiner, R. Uberbacher, and S. Cecil. 2007. Exposure caused by wireless technologies used for short-range indoor communication in homes and offices. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2007 124.1: 58-62. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncm245

My quick scan of the article suggests that BT radiation is well within the protection limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

I have every right to comment, as I specifically asked only for relevant 'researched' info, if people don't like the fact that they can't comprehend the initial question, it's hardly my fault. If nobody has anything knowledgeable to say, then it's easy, just go on to a post that they can add value to. However, many posters seem keen to enlarge upon their general view of the world, in which case go start a thread covering that.

I'm obviously looking for more detailed info than I have been able to find so far, posting on this forum is a way to try and see if anyone has done more digging and come up with results. Suggesting I get down the library is useless, unless I get a flight to a country where there is a decent English library!

Question was simple, answers have almost exclusively missed the mark, so we end up with a thread full of irrelevance (like this reply, trying to get it back on topic). Have people got nothing better to do than post drivel (emt1 obviously!), no wonder some reach the lofty god-like posters state

 

[EricNau]

It should be noted that there are no opinions in science, just evidence.

To date, no evidence has been collected which supports the claim that Bluetooth (or other wireless devices) are dangerous. Lacking such evidence, there's no reason to assume a danger which cannot be supported.

You're free to believe what you wish, but the opinion of which you keep referring isn't necessarily correct.

 

[gelatin]

this thread makes me laugh too.
this guy is so overly defensive over this topic. people can say whatever the hell they want in here.
personally youre a joker or a hypochondriac

 

[sammich]

The answer is 41.

 

[patrickq]

This is an interesting topic. The thing about a public forum is that it is part of freedom of speech, say whatever you want. It is up to you to filter and ignore the comments from the people who don't seem to understand your point of view.

Yes, all forms of radiation (ie: radiate) obey the inverse square law. But without a quantitative constant, that doesn't help too much.

That said, you do have an interesting situation, you don't seem to want to do much in the way of the common household devices, except that phone and laptop.

There is no conclusive evidence of the effects of EM from consumer devices on living tissue. I think we've covered that here already. If this was covered up by the government/lobbyists/large corporations in anyway, we wouldn't know. But with the billions of users of these devices out there in the world there should be some connection made between these devices and any harm that they may have caused.

Regardless, what you could do is find out the power output of a typical bluetooth antenna and compare it to other devices you use often or nearby to your little one.

Solutions I have thought of as I wrote this:
1) Put your laptop in a place away from your child, get an external LCD display and a wired keyboard and mouse that way, all wireless devices can be put away from the point of usage.
2) Get 2-way satellite internet, and do away with the bluetooth with an ethernet cable.

You probably dismissed #2 straight away . But if you haven't already read literature along these lines, here are a couple of sites I found quickly.

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2143.html
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiofrequencyqa.html

Thanks for replying to topic. Freedom of speech is fine, means I'm free to reply

I thought I'd made clear, that I don't live in the type of environment that most posters on here appear to. I don't really have any common household items that I can do much about. No TV, no microwave, no air-con, etc. Only devices used near to him are incandescent lightbulbs (purely because I detest the light from compact fluorescents!), overhead fan (which might give off something), electrical wiring circuit, iPod music system. So, fairly basic stuff, I'm not a luddite, just don't like acquiring things I consider unnecessary.

Satellite service here is slower than dial-up and hugely unreliable, so have considered it. Other possibility is running a phone/dongle from USB, using extension lengths, still considering this, finding out about Bluetooth was part of the process, but didn't want to get into complete analysis of my life/environment, so that's why I thought I'd ask a simple question ... appears I was a bit naive

Thanks for the links.

 

[emt1]

Thanks for replying to topic. Freedom of speech is fine, means I'm free to reply

I thought I'd made clear, that I don't live in the type of environment that most posters on here appear to. I don't really have any common household items that I can do much about. No TV, no microwave, no air-con, etc. Only devices used near to him are incandescent lightbulbs (purely because I detest the light from compact fluorescents!), overhead fan (which might give off something), electrical wiring circuit, iPod music system. So, fairly basic stuff, I'm not a luddite, just don't like acquiring things I consider unnecessary.

Satellite service here is slower than dial-up and hugely unreliable, so have considered it. Other possibility is running a phone/dongle from USB, using extension lengths, still considering this, finding out about Bluetooth was part of the process, but didn't want to get into complete analysis of my life/environment, so that's why I thought I'd ask a simple question ... appears I was a bit naive

Thanks for the links.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.