Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the Apple Watch safe to wear?
- Thread starter viachicago22
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The NY Times article in question has been deeply condemned as garbage, shameful, and based on zero evidence:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/18/8252087/cell-phones-cancer-risk-tumor-bilton-new-york-times
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/18/8252087/cell-phones-cancer-risk-tumor-bilton-new-york-times
It's as safe as working at Foxconn...
Oops, relax it's just a little humor.
Apple didn't achieve the amazing success they currently enjoy without making user safety a very high priority. It's hard to imagine just what people are thinking when they dream up some of the questions here.
Oops, relax it's just a little humor.
Apple didn't achieve the amazing success they currently enjoy without making user safety a very high priority. It's hard to imagine just what people are thinking when they dream up some of the questions here.
Is the Apple Watch safe to wear?
I am not concerned one bit, we live in a world where you are exposed to microwave signals you don't even know exist on a daily basis. I am buying a S/S 42MM version as soon as it's available, as long as they make a band to fit my large wrist?
I am not concerned one bit, we live in a world where you are exposed to microwave signals you don't even know exist on a daily basis. I am buying a S/S 42MM version as soon as it's available, as long as they make a band to fit my large wrist?
You should never focus on pron. Pron is the root of all that is wrong with the world today.
Why do they say cell signal is harmful, but bluetooth is not? (Protip: neither are at power levels used in portable devices)
Cellular ranges from 700mhz to 2,200mhz depending on your carrier.
Bluetooth is 2,400mhz.
Radiant light from the incadescent bulb in your kitchen is giving off 500,000,000 mhz
Yes. It's the latest line of Luddite haute couture. Hey, just because one exhibits an irrational fear of technology doesn't mean one can't look modern doing so.
I would think the watch is totally safe, and that's coming form someone who is incapable of using cell phones without them being tethered and three feet form my face.
Are electromagnetic waves completely harmless to the human body? Probably not, they do change cells in the body, that's a fact, but so does the sun, magnets, oh and everything we eat turns to glucose, glucose causes damage to organs at even normal levels, so vegetables are not harmless..lol
There have been a lot of people who worked in extremely high electromagnetic fields or around radio towers who lived into their 90's.
Nothing is really safe, I'm sure if I moved to Montana away from all the pollution I would be healthier but then you are far from medical help and the bears! Don't forget the bears!
Heck, oxygen damages the body!
Stop breathing
Stop eating
Stay out of the sun
All those things are slowly killing humans.
There have been a lot of people who worked in extremely high electromagnetic fields or around radio towers who lived into their 90's.
Nothing is really safe, I'm sure if I moved to Montana away from all the pollution I would be healthier but then you are far from medical help and the bears! Don't forget the bears!
Heck, oxygen damages the body!
Stop breathing
Stop eating
Stay out of the sun
All those things are slowly killing humans.
The NY Times public editor has apologized for the article and added a list of corrections to the original article.
The whole public perception problem comes about because engineers and scientists use the word "radiation" in its widest meaning of "to radiate outward".
Unfortunately, many people don't realize that's how it's being used, and only associate the word "radiation" with potentially harmful sources e.g. nuclear.
Perhaps it would help to always use a less dangerous sounding phrase, such as "radio waves"
Unfortunately, many people don't realize that's how it's being used, and only associate the word "radiation" with potentially harmful sources e.g. nuclear.
Perhaps it would help to always use a less dangerous sounding phrase, such as "radio waves"
"Extremely high," "electromagnetic fields."
I think a big problem with news media and public discussions about cell phones, wifi, power lines etc. and cancer is a loose understanding of the concepts involved.
What we're really talking about is photons.
Photons are called "electromagnetic radiation" because of their nature. Photons are particles, but they are also waves. Photons move through space as two perpendicular waves, one is an electric field and the other is magnetic. But a photon is discrete. Standing next to a radio tower will produce more photons, but the electronic and magnetic fields are the same.
People who mention "ionizing" vs "non-ionizing" radiation are quite on point, and likely understand more about photons than most people (especially news media). What does that mean? Each photon has an energy level. Visible light is right in the middle of the energy level spectrum. Untraviolet has higher energy, and infrared has lower. At the far ends of the spectrum, x-Rays have a ton of energy, radio waves are some of the weakest (though their weakness means long wavelengths, and long wavelengths makes them great for transmitting data).
At a certain point, photons' energy can affect sub-atomic particles. UVB is strong enough to knock electrons off of certain molecules, including DNA. Destroying DNA causes can sometimes lead to restructured DNA which grows uncontrollably. That's cancer.
While certain non-ionizing photons can't change DNA, they are still harmful. Take UVA for instance. It can't change DNA, but it can break apart other molecules in cells. When cells are repairing damage by replicating, DNA is doubled and exposed, lending more chances for UVB to damage DNA.
However, radio waves cannot damage cells, nor can it affect DNA. Radio waves are non-ionizing, low energy photons. Being closer to a radio wave transmitter increases the number of photons you absorb, but it doesn't change their energy levels.
I could go on and on about this, but honestly this post is 4x longer than I intended from the start. People need to understand this stuff before they get worried about "electromagnetism" and cancer risks.
Wether it's a fact or not depends on the frequency/energy level of the waves in question. Microwaves as used by wifi and bluetooth can't affect the molecules of our cells. All that can happen is they shake around the water molecules in our bodies a little bit, causing a tiny amount of localized heating, but this is not dangerous. Wifi radios, and BT in particular, have tiny levels of transmitter power, and is further subject to the law of inverse squares, meaning when doubling the distance betwen subject and the emitter, absorbed power doesn't halve; it quarters...
Now, that said, there are electromagnetic waves which are quite harmful. High-frequency EM radiation in the x-ray, and particularly gamma ray bands are quite lethal in higher doses. But wifi radios can't emit those, so no problem really.
