recently getting worried about bluetooth headphones and EMF radiation

[Kawaii Koneko]

27 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Read the first paragraph: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiation_nonionizing/

Not all of the UV spectrum is non-ionization, UVC is ionization for example. Also, like I said, because of the photochemical effects of UVA and UVB, they are essentially ionization. They all can break chemical bonds and cause ionization. So I'm not even sure why we don't just call them all ionization at this point when they are such an equivalent. I'm no expert here so that part I don't quite get. But like I said, they can cause ionization so for all practical purposes, you might as well look at them in the same way.

 

Read all this:

https://scied.ucar.edu/ultraviolet-uv-radiation

 

https://www.livescience.com/50326-what-is-ultraviolet-light.html

 

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/uv-radiation.html

 

No offense but these links strike me as a little more credible than a simple list or paragraph from OSHA.

 

48 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

I'm not smart enough to solve this through a little research, I'm afraid. The stuff about microwaves was brought up by someone smarter in my family, who I trust. So since then, no one in my family uses microwaves anymore since I think it was five years ago. We've been happy with this decision up till now.

 

I'm repeating myself here, but it's fundamentally a trust issue. Of course there are lots of people not smart enough to make sense of what scientists do. Highlighting the difference in intelligence/knowledge doesn't change this. The problem is the deep mistrust towards "authority", which is reasonable, since lots of lying was revealed. And you don't have to be a scientist to figure out that it's not a good idea to trust in someone who repeatedly lied to you in the past.

 

So you get people who understand that they have been lied to, but can't differentiate between the liars and honest scientists, so they can't trust anybody and if doubts are raised on anything they also lack the means to verify things, since they just ain't smart enough for that. It's understandable that you get people suspicious of even vaccines. What are you supposed to do if you cannot distinguish between what's harmful and what isn't other than avoiding the stuff doubt is cast on? Would you drink a potion A says will heal you and B says will kill you when you don't have the means of telling which of them tells the truth? Even worse in case of vaccines is, that vaccines are associated with the government and the government are known liars. The guy living next door never has lied to you before and says vaccines are bad.

 

Education won't fix that. If you're not smart enough education can only get you so far. And the trust is already lost. From my perspective the situation is unfixable.

You don't need to have formal education in these particular fields to come to a conclusion. There are a lot of studies which will sum up the information for you in an understandable way and outlets which will try to take the sum of these studies to present with some sort of conclusion that you can make a decision from.

[Roswell]

2 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

So I'm not even sure why we don't just call them all ionization at this point when they are such an equivalent.

Good, so at least you acknowledge you were wrong.

 

Remember, you're the one that decided to start arguing about how people that develop melanoma could be victims of ionized radiation (as you've admitted now, that statement was incorrect). Why you've moved goalposts 50 times and continue to argue points that I never remotely came close to stating, I have no idea. Stop doubling down and arguing with logical fallacies. Move on, you learned something new, happens to everyone.

[Kawaii Koneko]

1 minute ago, Vitamanic said:

Good, so at least you acknowledge you were wrong.

 

Remember, you're the one that decided to start arguing about how people that develop melanoma could be victims of ionized radiation (as you've admitted now, that statement was incorrect). Why you've moved goalposts 50 times and continue to argue points that I never remotely came close to stating, I have no idea. Stop doubling down and arguing with logical fallacies. Move on, you learned something new, happens to everyone.

I never admitted that statement was incorrect. Never did I say that ionization radiation can't cause melanoma. Nor did I move the goalpost "50 times". It was just a slight adjustment.

 

I may have jumped the gun in regards to comparing what is essentially the same result when comparing ionization vs a photochemical response, I'll admit that. But getting all cocky and hopping on your high horse isn't going to help you win an argument anytime soon.

[Roswell]

52 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

I never admitted that statement was incorrect. Never did I say that ionization radiation can't cause melanoma. Nor did I move the goalpost "50 times". It was just a slight adjustment.

 

I may have jumped the gun in regards to comparing what is essentially the same result when comparing ionization vs a photochemical response, I'll admit that. But getting all cocky and hopping on your high horse isn't going to help you win an argument anytime soon.

There's literally no argument to win. Some person said all non ionized radiation is safe, I gave two, VERY FACTUAL examples of unsafe non ionized radiation.

 

You then decided to go on a tangent about just about everything unrelated to my statement as if you were proving some sort of inconsistency in my original statement.

 

Go ahead and read my original post in the thread, it states the following:

 

• Microwaving your cat is bad.
• Melanoma is can be caused by non ionized radiation

Do you have any factual retort to this? No? Then give it up. 

[Kawaii Koneko]

16 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

There's literally no argument to win. Some person said all non ionized radiation is safe, I gave two, VERY FACTUAL examples of unsafe non ionized radiation.

 

You then decided to go on a tangent about just about everything unrelated to my statement as if you were proving some sort of inconsistency in my original statement.

 

Go ahead and read my original post in the thread, it states the following:

 

• Microwaving your cat is bad.
• Melanoma is can be caused by non ionized radiation

Do you have any factual retort to this? No? Then give it up. 

1) I already said that UVA and UVB cause melanoma. I was never arguing that they didn't. I already admitted I jumped the gun in regards to classifying all UV as ionizing because it is on one end of the spectrum and while ionization and photochemical responses have different methods of action, they can cause similar results.

 

2) The cat example is still absurd because people generally don't experience microwaves at such an extreme level. Sure microwaving your cat is bad but you aren't giving it cancer which was kind of the theme around this whole thread and radiation, or at least what it evolved into it.

 

3) You're dragging this on for no apparent reason other than your enjoyment up on that horse. Give it a rest already and put it in the stable.

[kofman13]

ok guys chiil. so i got airpods pro and they are nice but the ANC gives me headaches so i returned them and got samsung galaxy buds and they work fine with my apple devices and are comfortable

[Bramimond]

20 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

You don't need to have formal education in these particular fields to come to a conclusion. There are a lot of studies which will sum up the information for you in an understandable way and outlets which will try to take the sum of these studies to present with some sort of conclusion that you can make a decision from.

Like I said: I do not trust that information. The same things were true for smoking. There were studies that summed up the information nicely in an understandable way but it was all lies. I cannot distinguish between lies and the truth. I would have to trust the source of the information, which I don't.

[tankyx]

 

This should do the trick OP

[tikker]

19 hours ago, kofman13 said:

ok guys chiil. so i got airpods pro and they are nice but the ANC gives me headaches so i returned them and got samsung galaxy buds and they work fine with my apple devices and are comfortable

Ah that's too bad. Was there no option to turn the ANC off? At least you found something that works for you.

[kofman13]

14 hours ago, tikker said:

Ah that's too bad. Was there no option to turn the ANC off? At least you found something that works for you.

there was option to turn off but then i would be paying $249 and not use the main feature and basically have normal airpods with silicone tips, waste of money haha

[Derkoli]

On 10/31/2019 at 5:24 PM, kofman13 said:

I was watching reviews about to get new Airpods Pro and i watched  This video and got worried. tests here video show that the EMF radiation from air pods pro is 3x the healthy limit, 100 times more than normal cheap bluetooth $20 buds... any one else worried about this? I then researched and most bluetooth headphones especially with active noise cancellation also have tons of EMF radiation. And people are using them for hours and hours a day and then i read about the effects on cells they did in tests with the emitted by bluetooth headphones and its really scary. If im using headphones only 1-2 hours a day what do you think the risks are?

Risks? none. It's non ionizing, You'll get more radiation from radon in the air/ground than you will from bluetooth headphones. Don't worry about it at all. EMF is not an issue at all, unless in extremely high doses.

[Derkoli]

On 10/31/2019 at 5:34 PM, BuckGup said:

flying in planes,

Well, flying in planes does expose you to more radiation, but the amounts are negligible.

[Derkoli]

On 11/3/2019 at 8:44 AM, Bramimond said:

I consider radiation harmful and try to avoid it.

I too like to sit in a room with no light at all.

[BuckGup]

1 hour ago, Derkoli said:

Well, flying in planes does expose you to more radiation, but the amounts are negligible.

Depends on the flight and also pilots/flight attendant 

[Kilrah]

That's the point, pilots/FAs don't die prematurely becasue of it, so the amounts are still negligible.