Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1.    #1  
    Not to rain on the parade but I remember hearing years ago how radiation emissions from Bluetooth devices were high enough to make further development of the product unrealistic. Considering everybody is walking around with these bluetooth devices constantly hanging off their heads like the Borg has assimilated them, I wonder, are we looking at the latest solution to over-population. I'd like to hear what people have to say on the matter because a headset with WIRES never looked so appealing to me before. How does the integration of Bluetooth into the Treo 650 effect my LIFE EXPECTANCY?
  2. alee's Avatar
    Posts
    410 Posts
    Global Posts
    805 Global Posts
    #2  
    Bluetooth is a low-power, low-range radio. IIRC most Bluetooth 1.1 devices use a 4dBm Class 2 radio on 2.4GHz. WiFi is significantly more powerful at 15dBm also at 2.4GHz. As a rough comparison, cellular is around 30+dBm on 800/850/900/1900MHz.

    Numbers along won't say that much, but I would say it largely translates to a low power, low risk device.
  3.    #3  
    Sounds great. Thanks for the response! Any chance you have a URL you could tack onto that? It sounds reassuring but I'm still curious how that info translates into the actual human risk factors.
  4. alee's Avatar
    Posts
    410 Posts
    Global Posts
    805 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by illbits
    Sounds great. Thanks for the response! Any chance you have a URL you could tack onto that? It sounds reassuring but I'm still curious how that info translates into the actual human risk factors.
    Well here's a link to the core specifications for 1.1:
    http://www.thewirelessdirectory.com/...cification.htm

    For a Class 2 device, the power is listed as:
    2.5 mW (4dBm) with a 'typical range' of 20m

    The average cell phone has a maximum transmission rating of 600mW. RF shielding does protect the average user against significant exposure.

    Unfortunately the risks of RF exposure and its relation to cancer is largely debated. Since there is no uniform way to measure SAR across products, you can't even go by a chart and say "I'll just pick the device with the lowest SAR". The American Cancer Society is aware of such concerns; however, they have not acknowledged any significant findings in relation to cellular towers, nor any clear link to cellular phones.

    Given that cellular phones have significantly more power than Bluetooth radios, and given the findings are inconclusive at best for cellular risks, I would put Bluetooth as a low risk technology.
  5. #5  
    Have you ever used a cordless home phone? Enough said.
    "'Form follows function' — that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union."
    Frank Lloyd Wright
  6. wahili's Avatar
    Posts
    622 Posts
    Global Posts
    623 Global Posts
    #6  
    big companies wouldnt release dangerous stuff into the public without it being safe..
    i mean look at cigarettes, alcohol and suvs for gods sake!
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by wahili
    big companies wouldnt release dangerous stuff into the public without it being safe..
    i mean look at cigarettes, alcohol and suvs for gods sake!
    Go to your corner and stay there until you say your sorry! Bad boy! Bad!
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Hair
    Have you ever used a cordless home phone? Enough said.
    Guess I've never hung a cordless phone off my damn ear 14 hours a day for a couple years like those borg droids. Or had one in my pants so damn close to my money maker 20 hrs a day.
    Last edited by illbits; 12/09/2004 at 10:33 PM. Reason: just plain wrong
  9. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
    #9  
    Check out my RF radiation meter to measure emissions at www.drgauss.com
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by illbits
    ... my LIFE EXPECTANCY?
    Hi,

    I guess BT is the minor problem.

    I was very surprised when I saw on one of the German sites that the Treo 600 is a real "radiator".

    They measured many portable phones and made beautiful tables with SAR rates (Specific Absorbtion Rate). A phone with a rate of 0.6 W/kg is considered as "safe". The EU allowed maximum is 2.0 W/kg.

    The Tréo 600 "scores" 1.53 W/kg which is quite high compared to other phones...

    Bye,

    Ton
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by mgauss
    Check out my RF radiation meter to measure emissions at www.drgauss.com
    Well it's good to see you have a good professional meter for checking....NOT. That meter does not provide acurate measurements and it only works for 800mhz and 60 hz. That leaves out a lot. I have a professional-quality microwave isotropic radiation monitor as well as a DC/AC gaussmeter.

    That having been said. There isn't a lot of evidence of the actual dangers of electromagnetic fields and signals. They did a study a couple years ago that found no relationship between cell phones and cancer. The only studies that have found a link used animals exposed to super-high power rf emissions.

    RF radiation should NOT be confused with nuclear radiation. They are completely different. RF radiation and electromagnetic fields come from everything which uses electricity. But they're usually quite weak.

    Electromagnetic fields from power lines are governed by the inverse square law, which means, long and short, that they are very weak unless you have your face up to the wire.

    We all are surrounded by wireless networks, cordless phones, cell phones, radio transmitters, garage door openers and microwave ovens. People are not dropping dead.

    As far as I'm concerned, there is little to no danger from consumer wireless equipment.

    -Steve
    KB1IPD
  12. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by drbuzzo
    Well it's good to see you have a good professional meter for checking....NOT. That meter does not provide acurate measurements and it only works for 800mhz and 60 hz. That leaves out a lot. I have a professional-quality microwave isotropic radiation monitor as well as a DC/AC gaussmeter.

    That having been said. KB1IPD
    Well well. First of all, any concerns about electromagnetic fields and health are better served by www.microwavenews.com which is regularly mentioned in Time, CNN, 20/20 and 60 minutes.

    Microwave News is ran by Dr. Louis Slesin, an MIT PhD in Physics and that is that. Oh by the way, if you think cellular phone non-ionizing emissions are "safe" you should definitely read www.microwavenews.com it will take your breath away.

    Second, I love my 650. I am not against technology. But also not against being well informed.

    Third, my little gauss meter the CellSensor, for $ 39.95, gives a lot of information. And its 800 MHz peak is part of a wide frequency response curve which still reads all cellulars. Also, as you know high frequency readings are hard to get even in laboratories, as the meter itself changes the fields. Proof of that is many high frequency instruments are +/- 3 dB, which is a lot of variation. The CellSensor is not a professional instrument, it is an inexpensive field meter. We cannot all afford your expensive setup, which is of course better than my $ 39.95 meter.

    If you want to go crazy, check out Holaday EMF meters ($2000) and Combinova meters ($ 10000).
    Last edited by mgauss; 12/11/2004 at 02:11 AM. Reason: addition

Posting Permissions