Pages:

Author

Topic: Radiation Free Air-Tube Headphones (Read 5207 times)

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 29, 2013, 12:02:38 AM

"Amplification" was your word, not mine.

Sorry for strawmaning. Let me rephrase my question. Can you prove that wearing wired headphones increases the radiation exposure to your head? If anything, I would expect it to decrease the radiation exposure, because the wire is absorbing the radiation.

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 29, 2013, 12:02:38 AM

Funny how taking simple precautions about a subject that has no consensus yet (your words) either way is "retarded" (your words). A rational cautious person might call that inconclusive and err on the side of caution, but I guess that is "retarded". Funny how you like this argument when it suits you, but not the other way around.

A rational person wouldn't randomly protect himself from non-existent dangers. There's no plausible mechanism why non ionizing radiation would damage your brain cells and there's no conclusive evidence that cell phone use is tied to increased instances of cancer. Hell, I can probably argue that a "rational cautious person", according to your logic should wear tinfoil hats while on a trans-Atlantic flight to reduce ionizing radiation exposure.

Of course, this is all under the assumption that WIRED HEAPHONES INCREASE YOUR RADIATION EXPOSURE, which you have yet to prove.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

"Amplification" was your word, not mine. Funny how taking simple precautions about a subject that has no consensus yet (your words) either way is "retarded" (your words). A rational cautious person might call that inconclusive and err on the side of caution, but I guess that is "retarded". Funny how you like this argument when it suits you, but not the other way around.

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 28, 2013, 07:17:13 AM

Unless you have issues with reading comprehension you will find the only claim I made is that earphones will channel radiation towards your skull. The rest were questions. So yes, you did reaffirm my statement.

HOW DOES THAT EVEN WORK? You know what focuses radiation into a small area? SATELLITE DISHES! I have yet seen a wire that can amplify radio signals. And rightfully so, BECAUSE ANTENNAS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. YES, antennas can absorb radiation and convert it to electrical energy and vice versa. But that does not mean a random piece of can absorb EM energy from your cell phone, convert it to electrical waves, then magically redirect all the energy to a specific place (your head). According to this logic, your precious faraday cages wouldn't work either, because they would just absorb the radiation, and reboardcast it back.

Of course, this is all under the assumption that cell phone radiation is even dangerous.

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 28, 2013, 07:17:13 AM

no, the 3.5mm jack isn't connected to a transmitter. why the hell would you think that?

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 28, 2013, 07:17:13 AM

I'll just leave these here: Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201

http://www.emrnetwork.org/research.htm

Hey, if you want to quote studies, I can do that too.

In 2006 a large Danish group studied about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer

The 13 nation INTERPHONE project – the largest study of its kind ever undertaken – has now been published and did not find a solid link between mobile phones and brain tumours.[21]

As you can see, there is no consensus on the dangers of EM radiation. But they, these studies don't matter because the only studies that matter to you are the ones that support your point.

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 26, 2013, 07:43:55 AM

As far as tinfoil hats, I guess the World Health Organization wears them too...

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS
www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

You do realize that iarc =/= WHO, right?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

Quote

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: piit79 on May 27, 2013, 07:41:08 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 26, 2013, 09:28:35 PM

Go take a grade school tutorial on how radio waves propagate. It is not my job to fix the failings of your so called educators. The fact is EM waves travel better with minimal resistance along metal wires. Earphones are composed of metal wires that terminate in the ear. This is fact.

Have you ever considered that some of these questionable sources of carcinogens may have more than 1 level of risk? Your argument is still a strawman.

I am a licensed amateur radio operator (M0WTF here

Quote from: grue on May 27, 2013, 08:19:07 PM

I find it retarded that placing a piece of metal near your head can increase the EM radiation your head receives. Tell me, why is it that a piece of metal can seemingly absorb energy at will and redirect it to a specific place? Antennas either absorb or emit radiation. Whenever it's emitting radiation, the radiation radiates in all directions (unless the antenna is directed like with satellite dishes).

The metal is not just near your head, it is directly connected to a transmitter. I don't know if you are aware but metal will channel EM radiation, yes in all directions, even into your skull because it is in your ear.

I'll just leave these here: Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201

http://www.emrnetwork.org/research.htm

piit79

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Time for Plan ฿

Quote from: cp1 on May 27, 2013, 07:56:45 PM

The frequency is the only thing that matters. Frequencies above (or equal to) those of UV light cause cancer. It's that simple.

OK, I'm out of here

I said what I needed to say.

cp1

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Stop using branwallets

Quote from: cp1 on May 27, 2013, 07:56:45 PM

The frequency is the only thing that matters. Frequencies above (or equal to) those of UV light cause cancer. It's that simple.

holy crap you get more EM radiation at a higher frequency with a 60 W lightbulb (assuming 5% lightbulb efficiency and 100% antenna efficiency).

No, light bulbs output visible and infrared radiation. And perhaps some 60Hz line noise. None of which cause cancer because all of those are lower frequency than UV radiation.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Is there some way to clear out the condensation that tends to build up inside air tubes (and ultimately prevents you from understanding any speech even if the volume is maxed out)? Experienced that problem with the "Secret Service" coiled tubes.

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 27, 2013, 05:49:56 PM

Thank you for affirming my statement. As some one who clearly knows the scientific basis behind radio wave propagation, do you agree that it is not only the wattage of the output, but also the FREQUENCY at which the signal is modulated which can have effects? Frequency is a very important component of this that was completely omitted.

Quote from: piit79 on May 27, 2013, 06:14:17 PM

Well, I don't quite see where I affirmed your statement

You just choose to see it that way.

The frequency possibly matters if the intensity of the radiation is significant - like at least a few watts right at your head for extended periods of time. (Regardless of the fact that any link between EM radiation and any disease is yet to be identified.)

My whole point was that in this case the intensity of the radiation is absolutely negligible.

Anyway, as I said, I don't mean to troll. If it makes anybody feel any better by all means go and buy the headphones. I'm just trying to debunk any false claims. People are very gullible these days and common sense seems to be a rare commodity

he's listening through an agreement filter. anything that remotely affirms his beliefs gets through, everything else doesn't. Undecided

You can be sure that he'll ignore this post:

Quote from: cp1 on May 27, 2013, 07:56:45 PM

The frequency is the only thing that matters. Frequencies above (or equal to) those of UV light cause cancer. It's that simple.

holy crap you get more EM radiation at a higher frequency with a 60 W lightbulb (assuming 5% lightbulb efficiency and 100% antenna efficiency).

cp1

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Stop using branwallets

The frequency is the only thing that matters. Frequencies above (or equal to) those of UV light cause cancer. It's that simple.

piit79

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Time for Plan ฿

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 27, 2013, 05:49:56 PM

Quote from: piit79 on May 27, 2013, 07:41:08 AM

I am a licensed amateur radio operator (M0WTF here

) so I like to think I know a thing or two about radio waves.

@TECSHARE, your argument is that ordinary headset picks up the EM radiation from the phone and re-transmits it as EM nearer to your head. That is true. However both of these processes (EM -> electric current, AC -> EM) are extremely lossy (as the headset will inevitably be a non-resonant and very inefficient aerial). Say the headset might pick up 1/100 of the EM radiated by the phone (-20 dB) and then re-radiate 1/100 of it as EM again (-20 dB). The result is that, overall, just 1/10,000 (-40 dB) of the original EM is re-radiated near your head. Combine that with the fact that typical modern phone's RF power is less than 1 W - in that case, a mere 100 uW (micro watts, or millionths of watt) would be re-radiated near your head.

Well, I don't quite see where I affirmed your statement

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: piit79 on May 27, 2013, 07:41:08 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 26, 2013, 09:28:35 PM

I am a licensed amateur radio operator (M0WTF here

bitcoinarnold

member

Activity: 63

Merit: 10

lol at these scams, just as bad as the "balance bracelets" with bs-ios

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: bennybong on May 27, 2013, 02:34:57 PM

I was thinking well you know, mother Russia and all that... maybe they are useful around high nuclear fallout areas, Chernobyl?

Okay nah I'm just f*cking with ya. Grin

take some RadAway or Rad-X Tongue

bennybong

hero member

Activity: 682

Merit: 500

I was thinking well you know, mother Russia and all that... maybe they are useful around high nuclear fallout areas, Chernobyl?

Okay nah I'm just f*cking with ya. Grin

ISAWHIM

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

I keep my phone in my jock-strap... will this protect me from testicular cancer from EMF if I use the earbud?

How about EMF from powerlines... from AM/FM broadcats towers... from space/sun... from my dashboard... from my EMF-emitter implanted in my heart, on my wrist, in front of my face (computer-screen), in my pocket (another WiFi/3G tablet)?

I'll stick with my foil helmet and vest and underwear! It is cheaper and makes me look like a space-man

threeip

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

not that you would know grue Wink

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: threeip on May 27, 2013, 11:54:46 AM

So I would have more risk of cancer by say sitting next to my router or catching an electric bus to work?

you get more non-ionizing radiation from sitting next to a light bulb. Tongue

threeip

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: piit79 on May 27, 2013, 07:41:08 AM

Combine that with the fact that typical modern phone's RF power is less than 1 W - in that case, a mere 100 uW (micro watts, or millionths of watt) would be re-radiated near your head.

So I would have more risk of cancer by say sitting next to my router or catching an electric bus to work?

piit79

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Time for Plan ฿

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 26, 2013, 09:28:35 PM

I am a licensed amateur radio operator (M0WTF here

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: grue on May 26, 2013, 07:53:08 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 26, 2013, 05:49:08 PM

You know that cell phones have to broadcast for you to be able to connect to the network right? Antennas can be used for sending waves as well as receiving them.

so your argument is:
radio waves -> piece of wire -> Huh

-> radio waves into your brain. Something is off about that. Probably something involving a massive loss of EM energy when going from electrical energy to EM energy and vice versa.

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 26, 2013, 05:49:08 PM

So you listed other things that may cause cancer, that some how means that EM radiation doesn't? Like I said previously you have a gross misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts.

You claimed that since it's on the list of possibly carginogenic substances, it should be avoided. It's retarded to avoid EM radiation on that basis because other mundane things are on that list. Therefore, if you're avoiding EM radiation on the basis of it being on the list, you should avoid ripened fruits, just to be consistent.