Radiation Free Air-Tube Headphones

[grue]

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.

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).

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. 

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

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).

[TheButterZone]

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.

[cp1]

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

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.

[piit79]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

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.

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

[grue]

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.

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.

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

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.

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/

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]

"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]

"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.

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.