Wireless headset safe?

[Turnips]

How safe for your health is using wireless headsets most days?

Im looking for a new headset, I liked the sound of not having any wires for a cleaner look and more movement and since there on your head for a few hours a day I was just wondering before I buy if any health problems can develop from having a wireless receiver on your head.

[tlink]

there is no scientific proof of it posing any affect to health, the transmitter is way too underpowered for that. they generally are less powerfull than wifi routers and cellphones.

[Heavygun1450]

I have hated every wireless headset I have had. Get a wired one like the Hyperxcloud revolver

[ThinkWithPortals]

7 minutes ago, Turnips said:

How safe for your health is using wireless headsets most days?

Im looking for a new headset, I liked the sound of not having any wires for a cleaner look and more movement and since there on your head for a few hours a day I was just wondering before I buy if any health problems can develop from having a wireless receiver on your head.

There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to support that a wireless receiver affects health.

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to support that a wireless receiver affects health.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[79wjd]

There is no evidence, however, I have some personal biases against it. I used bluetooth headphones for a month straight (2-4 hours a day), and I ended up getting cancer with the focal point being a lymph node directly beneath the transmitter. 

 

With that said, I don't really believe that the bluetooth headphones were the cause since if bluetooth caused cancer it would basically be a pandemic....but if you're susceptible then it might exacerbate the issue? 

[ThinkWithPortals]

39 minutes ago, zMeul said:

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Well, let's see. The most likely threat of a wireless headset (if there was one) would be ionizing radiation. A Bluetooth headset emits 1/1000th the ionizing radiation of the average smartphone. Using a headset is actually less likely to cause afflictions like cancer then just using a phone.

[zMeul]

45 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Well, let's see. The most likely threat of a wireless headset (if there was one) would be ionizing radiation. A Bluetooth headset emits 1/1000th the ionizing radiation of the average smartphone. Using a headset is actually less likely to cause afflictions like cancer then just using a phone.

or there's the other possibility - the numbers are just wrong

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/#

Quote

Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25-million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation starting in utero, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats. The results, which were posted on a prepublication Web site run by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, are poised to reignite controversy about how such everyday exposure might affect human health.

 

[ThinkWithPortals]

21 minutes ago, zMeul said:

or there's the other possibility - the numbers are just wrong

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/#

 

Well, if the entire human population of the Western world starts sprouting cancerous brain tumours, we'll know what's to blame. But in the mean time, hows about we keep using wireless devices?

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Well, if the entire human population of the Western world starts sprouting cancerous brain tumours, we'll know what's to blame. But in the mean time, hows about we keep using wireless devices?

I try not to sleep with them in the bed

[Antibanana]

Given that the limited battery,  you cannot keep using the wireless headsets for a very long time. No need to worry a lot.

[79wjd]

53 minutes ago, Antibanana said:

Given that the limited battery,  you cannot keep using the wireless headsets for a very long time. No need to worry a lot.

5-8 hours at a time is still MORE than enough to pose a health risk IF bluetooth does have any harmful effects. 

[chodemonger]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

5-8 hours at a time is still MORE than enough to pose a health risk IF bluetooth does have any harmful effects. 

That's totally and absolutely true, but only if bluetooth does actually have harmful effects, but the fact that bluetooth signal is so low energy it has barely any capacity to damage cells in your body, means that it is not dangerous at all. The signal of something like an x-ray or gamma radiation (high energy radiation) would not even pose a significant risk at the magnitude of a bluetooth sender/receiver.

[ttoks]

17 hours ago, zMeul said:

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The "radiation" from wifi devices is not the same radiation that people think of for causing cancer, only ionising radiation (radiation with enough energy to strip electrons from an atom) are dangerous, this is what's caused by say nuclear fallout or smoking (interesting side note, smoking tobacco is so carcinogenic because it naturally contains polonium and lead, both of which are radioactive), cell phone signals, wifi headsets ect are all under .5 watt and emit electromagnetic radiation of which visible light is included, and yes yes high energy electromagnetic radiation can ionise atoms, but only ultraviolet and above cause damage faster then your body can repair it, as I said high energy radiation, wifi isnt dangerous at all, your exposed to more dangerous ionising radiation from the potassium in a banana or sleeping next to your partner then you'll get from having a wifi receiver next to your face for an entire 24 hour day. 

[Lubi97]

I am currently using the Corsair Gaming H2100.

Even though the design of the new Corsair "trampstamp" might be a little off, I really love the freedom you have while using a wireless headset. It is great for skype and the the like.

It uses 2.4GHz instead of Bluetooth, so there should be nor worries there, if you don't want bluetooth for some reason.

 

(The padding on the ears is some kind of soft cloth-like fabric and not artificial leather, like you see on some other devices. I had some difficulties before with a bad one, but after getting a replacement everything is fine.)

[zMeul]

49 minutes ago, ttoks said:

The "radiation" from wifi devices is not the same radiation that people think of for causing cancer, only ionising radiation (radiation with enough energy to strip electrons from an atom) are dangerous, this is what's caused by say nuclear fallout or smoking (interesting side note, smoking tobacco is so carcinogenic because it naturally contains polonium and lead, both of which are radioactive), cell phone signals, wifi headsets ect are all under .5 watt and emit electromagnetic radiation of which visible light is included, and yes yes high energy electromagnetic radiation can ionise atoms, but only ultraviolet and above cause damage faster then your body can repair it, as I said high energy radiation, wifi isnt dangerous at all, your exposed to more dangerous ionising radiation from the potassium in a banana or sleeping next to your partner then you'll get from having a wifi receiver next to your face for an entire 24 hour day. 

riight, that's why lab rats got cancer from wireless devices

[ttoks]

11 minutes ago, zMeul said:

riight, that's why lab rats got cancer from wireless devices

your labrats probably got cancer from being bred with almost no immune system so that they reliably get sick enough to be useful in a lab

[zMeul]

10 minutes ago, ttoks said:

your labrats probably got cancer from being bred with almost no immune system so that they reliably get sick enough to be useful in a lab

mine!??!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/#

[Awob Abob Bob]

There is no proof that using wireless headsets are bad for you, so go for it 

[tlink]

fuck ignore this. im a moron.

Edited September 12, 2016 by tlink
i fucked up

[79wjd]

4 hours ago, chodemonger said:

That's totally and absolutely true, but only if bluetooth does actually have harmful effects, but the fact that bluetooth signal is so low energy it has barely any capacity to damage cells in your body, means that it is not dangerous at all. The signal of something like an x-ray or gamma radiation (high energy radiation) would not even pose a significant risk at the magnitude of a bluetooth sender/receiver.

Over an extended period (5+ hours a day, multiple days a week), even xrays/gamma rays will pose a health risk.

1 hour ago, Awob Abob Bob said:

There is no proof that using wireless headsets are bad for you, so go for it 

There is also no proof to the contrary, however there is proof that exposure to even low level cell phone radiation can be a potential risk. 

[chodemonger]

36 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Over an extended period (5+ hours a day, multiple days a week), even xrays/gamma rays will pose a health risk.

 

Thats true, but not at the levels that bluetooth signal is transmitted at, even when near the antenna (non-receiver)  for the device. Couple that with the less harmful lower wavelengths of the signals and the damage to the body is less than negligible.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, chodemonger said:

Thats true, but not at the levels that bluetooth signal is transmitted at, even when near the antenna (non-receiver)  for the device. Couple that with the less harmful lower wavelengths of the signals and the damage to the body is less than negligible.

Feel free to say that WHEN there has been enough time for meaningful testing to actually be done.

 

Had this been asked a year ago, I would still have been skeptical, but less paranoid. However, I've since had some experiences that tend to prove that they're not nearly as safe as you make them out to be. 

[chodemonger]

25 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Feel free to say that WHEN there has been enough time for meaningful testing to actually be done.

 

Had this been asked a year ago, I would still have been skeptical, but less paranoid. However, I've since had some experiences that tend to prove that they're not nearly as safe as you make them out to be. 

Man if you switched on a light on the other side of the room, you would be hit with a higher intensity, more concentrated dose of electromagnetic radiation than from any kind of radio wave or bluetooth controlled device. Visible light has many times the capacity (at least 100x) to change cells in your body (break down cell walls/raise temperature are the only two effects that radiation can have on objects) than the photons released by even the most high energy radio wave emitters. As for meaningful testing, if you were to reduce the amount of bluetooth signal you put your body through, it would only reduce the amount of radio wave radiation that your body experiences by about 5%, due to the constant radio activity in built up areas and so any testing on this small difference would be next to meaningless.

[79wjd]

4 hours ago, chodemonger said:

Man if you switched on a light on the other side of the room, you would be hit with a higher intensity, more concentrated dose of electromagnetic radiation than from any kind of radio wave or bluetooth controlled device. Visible light has many times the capacity (at least 100x) to change cells in your body (break down cell walls/raise temperature are the only two effects that radiation can have on objects) than the photons released by even the most high energy radio wave emitters. As for meaningful testing, if you were to reduce the amount of bluetooth signal you put your body through, it would only reduce the amount of radio wave radiation that your body experiences by about 5%, due to the constant radio activity in built up areas and so any testing on this small difference would be next to meaningless.

There's also more differences there than just the amount of energy (for example, wave lengths). 

 

You also have to keep in mind that people will use Bluetooth headphones for hours a day and that it will be highly focused. Like I said earlier, I used bluetooth headphones heavily for a month and I just coincidentally got cancer with the largest tumor being directly beneath the transmitter? I find that to be a bit too much to just be a coincidence. It might not cause cancer (as you would have a pandemic if that were the case), but it could easily exacerbate a condition in someone who has a genetic predisposition to cancer.