Is long term blutooth speaker harmful for health?

[Mahbub]

So I use a Tribit Xsound Go Bluetooth speaker as my primary speaker for my desktop, although I use it with an aux cable the Bluetooth is always on by default, I work on PC for long hours, so I am curious to know that long term sitting near a Bluetooth device is safe or not. Please help.

[emosun]

4 minutes ago, Mahbub said:

so I am curious to know that long term sitting near a Bluetooth device is safe or not.

the frequency that bluetooth operates at has nothing to do with human safety in any way shape or form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

 

Quote

Bluetooth uses the radio frequency spectrum in the 2.402 GHz to 2.480 GHz range,^[160] which is non-ionizing radiation, of similar bandwidth to that used by wireless and mobile phones. No specific harm has been demonstrated, even though wireless transmission has been included by IARC in the possible carcinogen list. Maximum power output from a Bluetooth radio is 100 mW for class 1, 2.5 mW for class 2, and 1 mW for class 3 devices. Even the maximum power output of class 1 is a lower level than the lowest-powered mobile phones.^[161] UMTS and W-CDMA output 250 mW, GSM1800/1900 outputs 1000 mW, and GSM850/900 outputs 2000 mW.

 

[rippy4500]

This type of thing is perfectly safe.
All wireless signals transmitted by bluetooth, wifi, etc. are incapable of doing anything to us.

Turning it off when not in use would save some power but would make no difference to anything else.

[imreloadin]

I mean if you crank up the volume on it you could damage your hearing. That's the only way it could cause harm to you though.

[Agall]

1 hour ago, Mahbub said:

So I use a Tribit Xsound Go Bluetooth speaker as my primary speaker for my desktop, although I use it with an aux cable the Bluetooth is always on by default, I work on PC for long hours, so I am curious to know that long term sitting near a Bluetooth device is safe or not. Please help.

Electromagnetic sources have two major variables, the frequency and magnitude. The frequency is what differentiates gamma rays from visible light, the magnitude being like a total quantity of the sources. Just the two major variables for sinusoidal waves.

 

Bluetooth is no where close to the magnitude or frequencies required to cause health issues.

 

Outside of nuclear decay and extremely high magnitude sources like radar or radio stations, most electromagnetic emitters simply don't have the energy necessary to cause direct issues. This does include not sticking your extremities inside a microwave being one of the most common potentially harmful EM source which really just does a good job at depositing energy into water molecules.

 

Even with most radioactive sources, unless the decay chain has some sort of x-ray or gamma ray, its not high enough energy to damage cells/DNA. The problem occurs with high magnitude but that's a total energy deposition issue like with radar.

[Middcore]

Why would it be harmful? Who is telling you this?

[Dillpickle23422]

2 hours ago, Mahbub said:

So I use a Tribit Xsound Go Bluetooth speaker as my primary speaker for my desktop, although I use it with an aux cable the Bluetooth is always on by default, I work on PC for long hours, so I am curious to know that long term sitting near a Bluetooth device is safe or not. Please help.

you're fine. 

[Erioch]

I guess it could explode or something...

 

This is a joke thread, right?

[LogicalDrm]

Radiotation you get from every micro-meal you eat is more harmful. Or the flatscreen radio device you help near your vital organs daily.

[wanderingfool2]

To @Mahbub yea it's generally safe to be around all day, not really too much more dangerous than a lot of the other stuff you are around by sitting at your desk.  [Actually the act of sitting/standing at the desk is likely to cause more harm than anything else].

 

5 hours ago, emosun said:

the frequency that bluetooth operates at has nothing to do with human safety in any way shape or form.

The biggest beef I have with people who say some frequency is safe is it really doesn't take into account of everything.

 

Non-ionizing radiation is exactly that, non-ionizing...doesn't mean in the right form/intensity it can't be harmful.

 

Microwaves operate at ~2.45ghz, a very similar frequency to Bluetooth, and yet if you had a walk in microwave it can very much kill you by exposing yourself to one.  Intensity with frequency matters, not just the frequency.  The thing that frequency does is essentially indicate what type intensity you will need [where when you start hitting into the non-ionizing versions you need a lot less intensity].

 

UV light spectrum is still technically partially in non-ionizing, and those ones can trigger reactions that lead to cancer...albeit not as bad as the UV ionizing portion but still something.

 

 

With that said, the frequency and intensity of a speaker is no where near enough to make a statistical difference to the modern lives we live.  You are probably more likely to develop harmful effects simply by sitting in a room with artificial light than you are with Bluetooth.

[aggie113]

Lol, the only time I've been worried about someone hurting themselves with a wireless device was a contractor in Afghanistan that used a satphone every morning for a long phone call.  Never even pulled the antenna out on the thing :)

[BrandonLatzig]

It would be harmful if for some reason it would be thrown at you, so just insure that never happens
maybe tape it down

[Lurking]

22 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

To @Mahbub yea it's generally safe to be around all day, not really too much more dangerous than a lot of the other stuff you are around by sitting at your desk.  [Actually the act of sitting/standing at the desk is likely to cause more harm than anything else].

 

The biggest beef I have with people who say some frequency is safe is it really doesn't take into account of everything.

 

Non-ionizing radiation is exactly that, non-ionizing...doesn't mean in the right form/intensity it can't be harmful.

 

Microwaves operate at ~2.45ghz, a very similar frequency to Bluetooth, and yet if you had a walk in microwave it can very much kill you by exposing yourself to one.  Intensity with frequency matters, not just the frequency.  The thing that frequency does is essentially indicate what type intensity you will need [where when you start hitting into the non-ionizing versions you need a lot less intensity].

 

UV light spectrum is still technically partially in non-ionizing, and those ones can trigger reactions that lead to cancer...albeit not as bad as the UV ionizing portion but still something.

 

 

With that said, the frequency and intensity of a speaker is no where near enough to make a statistical difference to the modern lives we live.  You are probably more likely to develop harmful effects simply by sitting in a room with artificial light than you are with Bluetooth.

I'm curious if a microwave oven hurts just by the heat generated in your body. Or if radio waves (if we could exclude heat generated) themselves cause damage.

 

In the 1990s when cell phones near the head were suspected, I only saw references to the locally higher temperature (brain near ear) if you have the phone at your ear. I never saw anything substantial from the actual waves.

 

I use BT headset all day. But since it is receiving (except in phone calls) I assume BT generated bear my head is tiny. And they are wired, so the actual BT thing is near my chest or neck. Unlike those ear-only pieces.

 

OP: only 5G causes COVID. Everything else is safe /s

[ThankGodItsFriday]

On 3/14/2024 at 2:10 AM, Mahbub said:

So I use a Tribit Xsound Go Bluetooth speaker as my primary speaker for my desktop, although I use it with an aux cable the Bluetooth is always on by default, I work on PC for long hours, so I am curious to know that long term sitting near a Bluetooth device is safe or not. Please help.

Oh, boy! The "Bluetooth is dangerous" conspiracy! I love me a good conspiracy, because while it often separates the "I believe everything I read!" crowd from the "I am a skeptic for life!" crowd, I tend to dig deeper to find the truth. Here's what I know:

 

From what I understand, Bluetooth is not going to be harmful unless you bombard your body with high concentrations of the radio frequencies, which can happen - it's one of the reasons I stay away from wireless earbuds; I just don't take that chance. Usually, though, it would have to be a poorly made device, and one that does not meet regulations that would keep it within safe frequencies and low electromagnetic radiation levels.

 

IMO, Bluetooth things that you don't wear are usually safest, as they don't stay in contact with the body for long. This includes speakers, keyboards, mice, smartphones, tablets, and laptops. Even in regards to Bluetooth things you wear, usually people complain about other problems that are not directly related to Bluetooth, such as exploding lithium batteries or chafing materials.

 

Although it's been considered "possibly carcinogenic", Bluetooth has been heavily examined and tested. While its reliability varies, it's not any more dangerous than the 2.4GHz WiFi that most homes still use.

 

If you still have concerns, I say do some internet research. Just be aware that opinions can vary wildly.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Lurking said:

I'm curious if a microwave oven hurts just by the heat generated in your body. Or if radio waves (if we could exclude heat generated) themselves cause damage.

Well I would say it's energy compared to head that potentially could hurt...of course that energy is effectively heat.  The only reason why I would say energy though is because it can cause electrical effects as well.

 

Honestly though, my assumption is that it was always the direct heating of a small portion that causes an issue but I freely admit I don't know enough to give an answer.  All that I know is that non-ionizing radiation is still linked to damaged DNA so through some mechanism there is a way to cause damage [which is all I really need to know].  With that said, intensity does matter so I could add that as a caveat to what I just said above.

 

3 hours ago, Lurking said:

In the 1990s when cell phones near the head were suspected, I only saw references to the locally higher temperature (brain near ear) if you have the phone at your ear. I never saw anything substantial from the actual waves.

I mean I think a problem is we are exposed to so much stuff it's just pennies on the dollar in regards to anything.  It would be very difficult to actually do a proper study in regards to the effects because if there are effects it so minuet that we can only conclude that it's mostly safe or that it's not significant enough to avoid usage.

 

2 hours ago, ThankGodItsFriday said:

Although it's been considered "possibly carcinogenic", Bluetooth has been heavily examined and tested. While its reliability varies, it's not any more dangerous than the 2.4GHz WiFi that most homes still use.

Prop 65...pretty much everything according to California causes cancer [including bacon]

[LogicalDrm]

3 hours ago, Lurking said:

I'm curious if a microwave oven hurts just by the heat generated in your body. Or if radio waves (if we could exclude heat generated) themselves cause damage.

 

In the 1990s when cell phones near the head were suspected, I only saw references to the locally higher temperature (brain near ear) if you have the phone at your ear. I never saw anything substantial from the actual waves.

Both are fairly well shielded at this point. So if those protections would be taken away, it could be harmful with really long-term exposures. But overall, even my post is bit sarcastic. Here in Southern Finland, background radiation from Radon in bedrock is the biggest radiation anywhere ever. Next biggest are any X-rays taken, and most people will have atleast one of those in their lifetime (during dental care).

 

I read fairly recent research on mobile phone radiation. Its still there and still long exposures would be a issue. But that would mean having one strapped next to vital organs and constantly communicating for hours on hours. No one is using them like that anymore.

[ThankGodItsFriday]

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I mean I think a problem is we are exposed to so much stuff it's just pennies on the dollar in regards to anything.  It would be very difficult to actually do a proper study in regards to the effects because if there are effects it so minuet that we can only conclude that it's mostly safe or that it's not significant enough to avoid usage.

Maybe use Linus' Faraday room?

 

[WildDagwood]

On 3/14/2024 at 12:23 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

To @Mahbub yea it's generally safe to be around all day, not really too much more dangerous than a lot of the other stuff you are around by sitting at your desk.  [Actually the act of sitting/standing at the desk is likely to cause more harm than anything else].

 

The biggest beef I have with people who say some frequency is safe is it really doesn't take into account of everything.

 

Non-ionizing radiation is exactly that, non-ionizing...doesn't mean in the right form/intensity it can't be harmful.

 

Microwaves operate at ~2.45ghz, a very similar frequency to Bluetooth, and yet if you had a walk in microwave it can very much kill you by exposing yourself to one.  Intensity with frequency matters, not just the frequency.  The thing that frequency does is essentially indicate what type intensity you will need [where when you start hitting into the non-ionizing versions you need a lot less intensity].

 

UV light spectrum is still technically partially in non-ionizing, and those ones can trigger reactions that lead to cancer...albeit not as bad as the UV ionizing portion but still something.

 

 

With that said, the frequency and intensity of a speaker is no where near enough to make a statistical difference to the modern lives we live.  You are probably more likely to develop harmful effects simply by sitting in a room with artificial light than you are with Bluetooth.

I mean, they specifically stated:

 

On 3/14/2024 at 6:13 AM, emosun said:

the frequency that bluetooth operates at has nothing to do with human safety in any way shape or form.

Which, obviously, isn't operating at a level any where near your microwave example. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but I think your response is a bit of an over-complicated one (and not what's being discussed), based on what was said.

 

Your info, given to the wrong person (paranoid), could easily "validate" their fears (not logically, obviously, they never are), but at least you try to confirm the same sentiment in there as well.

[wanderingfool2]

51 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

Which, obviously, isn't operating at a level any where near your microwave example. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but I think your response is a bit of an over-complicated one (and not what's being discussed), based on what was said.

Looks up Bluetooth operating frequency of 2 - 2.485 Ghz.

Looks up a classical microwave oven frequency 2.45 Ghz

 

Congratulations on not doing a basic Google search before making a bold claim.  The claims that FREQUENCY i.e. non-ionizing radiation is somehow inherently safe for humans which is the massive misconception which gives the whole anti-tech/wifi/etc stuff their power by making bold statements like what yours is and statements that a frequency doesn't have any health consequences.

 

The simple fact is there is a relationship between the frequency and the power (intensity) that determines whether something is safe for humans.  Frequency can just determine the mechanism of damage.

 

1 hour ago, WildDagwood said:

Your info, given to the wrong person (paranoid), could easily "validate" their fears (not logically, obviously, they never are), but at least you try to confirm the same sentiment in there as well.

There are far too many people who use a blanket statement that non-ionizing information is safe.  It's like arguing truth by using a false fact; it should not be done.  

 

 

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

Both are fairly well shielded at this point. So if those protections would be taken away, it could be harmful with really long-term exposures

haha, well if the protections were to be taken away it wouldn't take really long-term exposure...it probably just takes you a minute standing next to the thing before there are consequences.

 

They are well shielded, but it's still amazing at how many modern microwaves still leak out radiation...sure not a whole lot but enough to make some of my devices lose connection when nearby.

 

I mean we probably get exposed to more simply by eating a banana but still :p

[Caroline]

Well, there's no scientific evidence to back or refute that claim, but the answer is most likely no.

 

Can't believe a omnidirectional bluetooth TX/RX that works in the milliwatt range is being compared to a microwave oven that uses thousands of watts and dumps waves in an unidirectional manner into a refractive container, seriously what the hell guys do I really have to explain how a microwave oven works? I thought we were over that already.

 

I won't even go into all the "5G is harmful" pseudoscientific crap written by Karens who have "done their research" by reading facebook posts.

 

@Mahbub current knowledge and understanding of things suggests bluetooth is not harmful in any way to the human body. I don't use it, or any wireless technology, but my justification is performance, and I don't mind one or two wires more behind my desk. My speakers have bluetooth as well but I've never used it.

[Lurking]

Looks like using BT should give you legal access to weed in most states

https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/mu1zf6/south-park-microwaving-your-balls

[WildDagwood]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Looks up Bluetooth operating frequency of 2 - 2.485 Ghz.

Looks up a classical microwave oven frequency 2.45 Ghz

 

Congratulations on not doing a basic Google search before making a bold claim.  The claims that FREQUENCY i.e. non-ionizing radiation is somehow inherently safe for humans which is the massive misconception which gives the whole anti-tech/wifi/etc stuff their power by making bold statements like what yours is and statements that a frequency doesn't have any health consequences.

 

The simple fact is there is a relationship between the frequency and the power (intensity) that determines whether something is safe for humans.  Frequency can just determine the mechanism of damage.

 

There are far too many people who use a blanket statement that non-ionizing information is safe.  It's like arguing truth by using a false fact; it should not be done. 

The point you were making was about intensity of similar frequencies, which is why I stated that you weren't wrong. However, at no point did they say that under all circumstances is it safe.

On 3/14/2024 at 12:23 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Microwaves operate at ~2.45ghz, a very similar frequency to Bluetooth, and yet if you had a walk in microwave it can very much kill you by exposing yourself to one.  Intensity with frequency matters, not just the frequency.  The thing that frequency does is essentially indicate what type intensity you will need [where when you start hitting into the non-ionizing versions you need a lot less intensity].

But way to get butt hurt/hostile and move the goal post.

 

Taking something safe and then saying "but if you crank that to 11 it's not" is disingenuous to the conversation as you're arguing about something irrelevant to it. It's a fact in itself, but doesn't really hold a place here, unless you're presenting it as "fun fact", which you weren't.

[wanderingfool2]

27 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

But way to get butt hurt/hostile and move the goal post.

 

Taking something safe and then saying "but if you crank that to 11 it's not" is disingenuous to the conversation as you're arguing about something irrelevant to it. It's a fact in itself, but doesn't really hold a place here, unless you're presenting it as "fun fact", which you weren't.

You are the one using the wrong terminology and using the same dumbing down argument that so many people use when talking about non-ionizing ration [and some of the science youtubers have even talked about no matter what intensity it will never become ionizing which while true sets a terrible standard of believing that non-ionizing radiation isn't bad]

 

38 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

The point you were making was about intensity of similar frequencies, which is why I stated that you weren't wrong. However, at no point did they say that under all circumstances is it safe.

On 3/14/2024 at 3:13 AM, emosun said:

the frequency that bluetooth operates at has nothing to do with human safety in any way shape or form.

It's like talking about Botox treatments and then someone coming in saying that botulism toxins are fine.

The frequency only determines the intensity; which isn't mentioned in the post.  So it brings on a whole bunch of people who somehow feel that the frequency that bluetooth operates at poses no danger.

 

Again, a microwave  oven and bluetooth operates at pretty much the same frequency.   It's not moving the goal posts, it's a simple fact.  So that makes the statement that the frequency has nothing to do with human safety 100% wrong.  The power that it operates at is the correct terminology...but the use of frequency, and specifically non-ionizing radiation is tossed around far too often and again it brings up issues when people use that as an excuse.

[WildDagwood]

28 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You are the one using the wrong terminology and using the same dumbing down argument that so many people use when talking about non-ionizing ration [and some of the science youtubers have even talked about no matter what intensity it will never become ionizing which while true sets a terrible standard of believing that non-ionizing radiation isn't bad]

 

It's like talking about Botox treatments and then someone coming in saying that botulism toxins are fine.

The frequency only determines the intensity; which isn't mentioned in the post.  So it brings on a whole bunch of people who somehow feel that the frequency that bluetooth operates at poses no danger.

 

Again, a microwave  oven and bluetooth operates at pretty much the same frequency.   It's not moving the goal posts, it's a simple fact.  So that makes the statement that the frequency has nothing to do with human safety 100% wrong.  The power that it operates at is the correct terminology...but the use of frequency, and specifically non-ionizing radiation is tossed around far too often and again it brings up issues when people use that as an excuse.

People deserve at least a little courtesy in conversation, Jesus Christ, guy.

 

I don't know how you can feign ignorance and think they were referring to anything other than Bluetooth devices, or the technology, will you, and not the frequency specifically, since that was what the entire conversation is about. It honestly comes off as being deliberately combative cause if people wanted to talk about the actual science behind it, it wouldn't be in a thread like this.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

26 minutes ago, WildDagwood said:

People deserve at least a little courtesy in conversation, Jesus Christ, guy.

 

I don't know how you can feign ignorance and think they were referring to anything other than Bluetooth devices, or the technology, will you, and not the frequency specifically, since that was what the entire conversation is about. It honestly comes off as being deliberately combative cause if people wanted to talk about the actual science behind it, it wouldn't be in a thread like this.

 

4 hours ago, WildDagwood said:

Your info, given to the wrong person (paranoid), could easily "validate" their fears (not logically, obviously, they never are), but at least you try to confirm the same sentiment in there as well.

You are essentially saying people who read mine could validate their fear; and yet the person I originally responded to was the one who make the FACTUALLY WRONG STATEMENT; and I was clearing things up.

 

Safe operating power DOES NOT mean a safe frequency, which point blank is what the statement I responded to said...so you are the one feigning ignorance because if you read what I said I noted that LOTS OF PEOPLE MAKE THE MISTAKE OF FREQUENCY/NON-IONIZING to mean not dangerous.  Letting that falsehood perpetuate is wrong, and should be corrected.

 

You want to know what this thread is about, it's about a person who is worried about the effects of it, to make a blanket statement of the FREQUENCY is wrong because if the OP googled they could easily figure out that lets say microwaves are the same frequency.  Like I said, the statement should be that bluetooth is safe to use OR that the power output of bluetooth makes it a safe technology to use.

 

Bluetooth and the operating 2.4GHz range hasn't be demonstrated to be safe, just demonstrated to be most likely safe or if there is a cause it's so low that it's not able to be easily detectable.

 

It's like if someone is talking about lightyears as a time measurement in a topic.  The simple fact is the statement I was refuting was a claim of the safety OF THE FREQUENCY NOT THE POWER.