Bitcoin Forum

Anti-Radiation stereo headset offers 100% protection
against EMF and RF radiation. High quality speaker and
microphone deliver excellent sound quality.

Bitcoins accepted

http://www.ukuna.com/

Jesus F. Christ. You think anybody here will go for this crap? I certainly hope not.

@ piit79
it's not crap.. so worry about yourself

Yeah, right.

You know what? They actually look quite cool. I just don't understand why use the false advertising.

@ piit79

excuse me! what are u talking about?
what is your bases for "false advertising"?
what is your problem?

What radiation is it protecting from that ordinary headset isn't? That's all I'm saying.

Anyway, I do not mean to troll. I'm just allergic to baseless claims.

Everything have radiation. Even if this earphone somehow absorbed it, it really wouldn't make any difference.
Earphones don't particularly emit more radiation, say than your hand or that chair next to you.

@ piit79

look. it does.
if you would have read the product description, you would have known what it does.
It purpose is to save your head from mobile radiation (i guess you need one ;) )
I have sold many of those.
Zero return.
Nobody returned it!!

You can justify it any way you want but it is as useless as DVD rewinder.

@ vitalemontea

look, friend, i am not here to justify anything. especially to people who haven't done any research!
this product is not for you or piit79
this product is for intelligent people only. people who care about themselves and know what they want
so, don't waste your time with it..look for something suitable for you
it is a free world after all  8)

it's for dumb people bro

I think what you are saying is "By using this set of earbuds, you will not expose yourself to the radiation which you would expose yourself if you held a cellphone up to your face or used a Bluetooth transmitter that was stuffed in your ear".  The FCC and whoever else approves those levels of radiation to be within permissible limits, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies the relevant Electromagnetic Field (EMF) radiation as possibly carcinogenic (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf).  The FCC has also decided to review its assessment scale (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/business/fcc-to-study-health-effects-of-cellphone-radiation.html?_r=0) to decide whether the ratings should be changed.  The current standard is < 1.6 Watts per kilogram (averaged over one gram of tissue) (http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Q12).

The FCC has also addressed the specific question of "DO "HANDS-FREE" EAR PIECES FOR MOBILE PHONES REDUCE EXPOSURE TO RF EMISSIONS?  WHAT ABOUT MOBILE PHONE ACCESSORIES THAT CLAIM TO SHIELD THE HEAD FROM RF RADIATION? (http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Q13)

On that point:


Anyway - I'm going to come out as stating this as a simple fact: These headphones are not capable of blocking radiation.  They are however capable of preventing exposure to radiation to your brain at close range from the use of cellphone directly, pressed against your head.  If you want to use a headset for that purpose, then these headphones will block your exposure to that radiation at a rate that is precisely equal to any other wired headset.  Maybe marginally more if they are EMF shielded at a greater-than-average rate - but it is up to you to decide whether you are concerned about cellphone radiation in the first place, and whether any tech used in this particular headset "shields" any more radiation than any other set of headphones.

It's the same type of tech that they use in headphones they put on you to communicate with you in say, an MRI or CT scan, where having a magnet, or anything else metallic wouldnt work.  The sound is delivered to the ear by way of tube conducting the soundwaves from a speaker located away from the ear.

"shielding" would be an overstatement.  Moving an electrified coil away from your head... that it does.

Not an endorsement from me, but it's not a load of crap either.

I went outside one time. Did you know they have a big nuclear ball of fire just spewing radiation at us out there? This needs to be remedied.

That is why I think of solar panels as thermonuclear collection plates.  :)

I would like to see certification papers supporting this claim.

You really can't resist it can you Grue? Do you think anyone cares about your opinion on the hundreds of market places threads you do this to?

As far is the item concerned I am willing to bet that English is not the first language of the seller (if I am incorrect I apologize), and his "false advertising" is actually a completely understandable grammatical issue even for a native speaker.

What this doesn't do: Block all radiation

What this does do: Limit the amount of radiation traveling along the metal wire directly into your ear by creating an air gap which will create more resistance.

Anything plugged directly into your cellphone can act as an antennae and can direct the cell phone's network signal radiation more directly into your skull. Air-tube headphones are considered one of the best methods of reducing this type of cell phone EM radiation exposure to the skull after using a bluetooth (which itself emits radiation but on a much weaker level). A wired headset tho is still safer than holding your phone directly to your head while in use. I don't think the OP intended any deceit yet simply made a mistake in communication. Anyone who wishes to reduce cell phone radiation to ones head, this product will do that.

More or less exactly what I was saying.  I didn't realize that this was using an air tube rather than conductive media - obviously, that would reduce any radiation even in comparison with a standard wired headset.

What I was getting at was a) Moving the phone away from your head reduces radiation getting to your head.  If it's touching your body, it doesn't reduce radiation getting to your body, just your head.

b) Any wired headphone reduces the radiation.  There's some argument about how much cellular signal gets channeled through a normal wired headset up to your ears anyway, but it is less than holding the phone to your head.

There's nothing wrong with using these, just as long as you understand what exactly they propose to do and how they do it.  I didn't fully understand, but now I get it.  They *ARE* offering an additional advantage over a standard el cheapo wired headset.

There's more radiation exposure from the ground than you could ever get from a cell phone.  And then we burn coal and get it in the air.  It's also in all produce, and from the sun.  Cell phones are as dangerous as microwaves.

+1 haha

He did say 100% protection, so that implies at least 99.5% protection against "radiation". Regardless, bad english is not an excuse for making false claims.

true

I'm pretty sure that antennas don't work that way.

I'm not going to even bother disputing the "dangers" of cellphone EM exposure. But how exactly does using a wired headphone w/ microphone cause more radiation exposure than bluetooth?

These have as much benefit as the "purified quartz" my GF has in front of her LCD to absorb radiation  ;D. A harmless gimmick so I let her have her fun.

 You don't see how mounting what is functionally an antenna directly to your head might channel the EM radiation to it? I am not sure all the explaining in the world could fix your lack of understanding of basic scientific concepts.


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

But antennas do not work that way. They convert radio waves into electricity. That's it. They don't relay or amplify radio signals (that's a job for satellite dishes). Unless your 3.5mm jack is plugged into a radio transmitter, I wouldn't be worried.

I debunked that in the other thread. there are much more mundane things that are considered "POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC". If you're going to avoid cell phones, you might want to avoid ripened fruits as well.

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 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 have no understanding of science if you think cell phones can cause cancer.  Go look at the EM spectrum and see where cell phone frequencies lie.

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

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.

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 :) ) 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.

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. :P

not that you would know grue  ;)

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

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.  ;D

take some RadAway or Rad-X :P

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

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.

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 :)

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

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Felder_um_Dipol.jpg) (unless the antenna is directed like with satellite dishes).

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

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

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

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.

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.

OK, I'm out of here :) I said what I needed to say.

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.


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

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.

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

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#cite_note-Sch.C3.BCzetal2006-19)

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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#cite_note-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.

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

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

"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.

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.

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.