"Bluetooth" Headset Safety

Tanya · Guest

Hello, Can you please advise whether the new "bluetooth" functionality of headsets are "RF safe"?

John · Guest

As long as the wireless industry refuses to do logical health effect studies RF Safe will not suggest new technologies that have NO support backing claims the technology is safe. MANY studies have shown that 2.4 GHz exposure (Bluetooth RF Levels) disrupt biologic systems more so than GSM, TDMA and PCS even though the power levels are lower the frequency used for Bluetooth is much higher. I’ll provide more on this topic later Smile

GaryH · Guest

I found this doing a search.

Depends on the wattage that you pump into the 2.4 GHz range and your distance from the antenna. The only way to kill a cat with a WAP11 (~80 mw output) would be to beat the cat with it (caution, this may break your antenna). On the other hand, you put the same cat in a microwave oven (2.4 GHz @ ~300-500 watts) and dinner is ready in a matter of minutes. The 2.4 GHz range is close to the resonant frequency of water (put a cup of water in the microwave to see this in action!). Since humans are mostly water, it makes sense to limit exposure. The FCC limits exposure to 5 mw/cm^2 and I think Canada's upper limit is 1 mw/cm^2. Either way, you're well within safe limits with 2.4 GHz consumer products - your AP and wireless cards won't likely keep you warm in the winter, let alone cook your cat Wink

Anyway, here are a couple of good links: Wireless Network Access Point Set Up Guide (Appendix B : Health & Safety): http://www.esoterraka.com/twcn/nodes/setup/appendix_b.html Amateur Radio RF Safety Calculator - http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/ Whew! Is it getting warm in here? Loran loran@oldcrank.com Forrest English wrote: > Evo's is interested in some information regarding health concerns of > 2.4Ghz radio waves. I've done some googling and looked at the FCC page, > but I've not found anything that really discusses it more than 'at low > levels there is no danger'. I was hoping for somthing a little more in > depth than this. > > So, does anyone have any good resources they've come across? > > -- > Forrest English > http://truffula.net/~forrest > > Ashland's Wireless Internet Project > http://ashlandwifi.net > > CONSUME. OBEY. I LOVE THE USA. > > PGP Key: http://truffula.net/~forrest/pub.key > 8EC5 F031 E8BC 1BA7 B572 5C32 BAF4 2073 F96C 06AC

Guest · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:25 pm Post subject: 2.4Ghz Health & Safety

Appendix B : Health & Safety
The range of frequencies for 802.11b is located within the Industrial Scientific and Medical (ISM) band. The frequencies we'll be using start at 2.4Ghz and increase from there in marginal increments. These frequencies are called microwaves; although sometimes they are said to be radiowaves, but technically the radio spectrum has lower frequencies. The ISM band is not known to be part of the ionization range, which means they are not known to break down the bonds that keep your biological make up together. In short, you won't grow a third arm, or become sterile, because these devices and their respective radiating bands do not have enough power, nor is it of the right frequency, to disrupt your DNA. Only ionizing frequencies can disrupt such things.

When any two frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum match, they will act upon each other with a potential for energy transferral. Imagine a person swinging on a swing is representative of one frequency, or cycle. Now introduce another person (or frequency), who begins to push the person on the swing. If the two frequencies are similar, the "pusher" will transfer the most amount of power possible to the swinger at each available opportunity. The more dissimilar the frequencies, the more wasted energy in the transfers; the push is weak, or at the wrong time.

ISM band frequencies do have physical effects. The 2.4Ghz frequency, for example, is really close to the frequency of the natural resonance of water. Technically speaking, this means that such frequencies can, in effect, warm you up (probably because you're made mostly of water). Don't be alarmed -- many studies have determined what Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) are safe and not damaging to human tissue. This explains the shielding built into every microwave oven -- without it, the SAR you'd receive from it would be dangerous.

In Canada we have something called Safety Code 6 (SC6) which limits output power on any device to well within safe limits -- such that the SAR is within safe levels no matter how close, or how far, you are from an antenna or power source. SC6 is similar to America's FCC rules in its intentions. Because of SC6, your pet poodle "Fifi" will not be unusually warm if she sits by (or even on) your base station, and the same goes for you. Please, don't sit on your base station, you'll only end up breaking it.

Always read the safety instructions that come with ANY electronic device, or peripheral. There are many dangers associated with misuse of electronic equipment, and as a result, it is possible to fry little Fifi if you overpower your device, or do something foolish like tinkering with its amplification. Play safe, and if you do not know what you are doing, don't start messing around.

In conclusion, these frequencies and their associated energy levels are not of the right type to disrupt things like your DNA; hence they are considered safe and non-ionizing. Torontonians who doubt this should probably be living in a Faraday cage, because that little building called the CN Tower is constantly spewing out frequencies really close to what we are using, only at powers of magnitude up to 1000 times in factor!

DISCLAIMER: TWCN does not employ any physicists, scientists, or health care practitioners.

Further Reading
You may be interesting in the following links if you want to learn more on wireless health concerns:

Medical College of Wisconsin, Electrical Fields and Human Health (very good):
http://iago.lib.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-FAQ/toc.html

Key Publications on Radio Frequencies and the effect on Health by the Wireless Information Resource Center (WIRC) of Canada:
http://www.wirc.org/links/key-pub.html

United States FCC Rules Part 15 Rules and Regulations and 802.11b emissions in the ISM 2.4GHz Band:
http://www.lns.com/papers/FCCPart15_and_the_ISM_2.4G_Band.index (Tim Pozar - of the Bay Area Wireless User Group)

United States FCC Rules wrt radio frequencies:

Section 15.247 (Text Document)
Section 15.249 (Text Document)
Listing of Chapter 1 Section 15 Parts

Mike · Guest

Found this which is interesting
http://3c.nii.org.tw/3c/silicon/Hot/HealthConcerns.pdf

JohnCoates · Guest

haji · Joined: Aug 18, 2006 Posts: 0

I just recently purchased a Jabra FreeSpeak Bluetooth headset, and was looking for safety information for it.

First of all, I'm not an RF engineer, radiaologist or other clincal type. I just want to know what this thing is going to do to my brain (if anything). I don't know if SAR is useful or not...it's pretty much all we have to go by today (unless of course you decide to totally swear off personally using wireless gear & hope that the rest of the RF/uwave soup we're all swimming in isn't harmful).

I went to the FCC site https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

& looked up the FCC ID of my BT200A headset. It's FCC ID is BCE-BT200A. At first, I didn't find anything, until I figured out the "BCE" is the "Grantee Code" and "-BT200A" (as opposed to just "BT200A") is the product code they're asking for.

What I found out was that for whatever reason, this device is exempt from testing for SAR because, according to the test report:

"According to Supplement C, Edition 01-01 to OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01 this portable device is categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation because of the low power level, where there is a high likelihood of compliance with RF exposure standards."

So, no SAR testing was even done on this device, apparently.

If you read the FreeSpeak manual, in the FAQ about SAR it says:

"FreeSpeak complies with applicable safety requirements for exposure to radio waves. The radio wave exposure guidelines employ a unit of measure known as the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR. Tests for SAR are conducted using standardized methods with the phone transmitting at its highest certified power level in all used frequency bands. The SAR limit recommended by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is 1.6 W/kg averaged over one gram of tissue. FreeSpeak operates at 1% or less of a typical mobile phone's radio frequency power, and registers SAR data information that is negligible as compared with the recommended limit. "

I don't know where they got that last sentence from, since apparently there was no SAR testing done according to what I found on the FCC page. It appears that they are extrapolating their "guess" at the SAR level based on the ratio of FreeSpeak output power vs that of a cell phone. Not what I would call very scientific, especially considereing that the FreeSpeak is a lot closer to your head...in fact, it sits ~between~ your ear & head in contact with your scalp, rather than pressed up against your ear like a cellphone headset. Sure, we're only talking a few millimeters here, but when you're talking about the inverse-square law, a few millimeters can be quite significant!

So, without any empirical SAR information (whatever it's worth), it's hard to really know what the risks are.

Alfred · Guest

2.45 GHz is not the resonance frequency of water. All absorption of radiowaves by the body leads to heating.
Microwave ovens do operate at 2.45GHz, but for a number of technical and regulatory reasons. They could just as well operate at 900 MHZ or 5GHz, there is nothing magical about 2.45GHz.

(Water as a liquid does not have a sharp resonance, as a wapor there is a couple. The lowest one in frequency is at 22GHz.)

SAR_NoGood · Guest

Guest · Guest

Do bluetooth capable phones give out the bluetooth RF when they are being used just as a phone ie without a bluetooth reciever...like a headset.

Because I want to get a SE Z600 because they are very low SAR...but they are also bluetooth capable. And I am concerned about a background bluetooth RF from the handset when being used. If you get my drift.

dizzy · Guest

What I understand is that a Bluetooth device is always sending a transponder signal that searches for other Bluetooth devices. That’s the big reason I didn’t go for it. The recent change in the UK’s Nationally accepted safeguards by 80% show clearly that the hazards for biological damage maybe frequency dependent and at much lower levels than what a cell phone user is exposed to at presumably even with the lowest SAR phones available – story is here http://www.rfsafe.com/article2594.html

Regardless of what cell phone you buy if you employ the system of usage outlined with using RF Safe’s gold package, ie Air-Tube headset, WireGuard and Pocket shield your exposure level drops to nearly ambient levels.

As mentioned in this site I use a 5165 nokia phone, it has a certain kind of antenna port not found with most other cell phones that allows me to send the energy from the phone outside the car when driving to and from work everyday. (2 hours a day in the car)

It’s a great feature and worth it to me not to upgrade and lose the ability to control 100% of the radiation while I’m in my car. I use the min-mag antenna found on this site too, and it works great!

I had a Carbaby hands free, but my kids kept running down the battery playing with it so they could talk over the radio.

PS. Thanks for the site RF SAFE people! Keep up the good work!

Alfred · Guest

Alfred · Guest

Guest

That’s nice to know Exclamation

But is it easy to turn off or do you have to push a lot of buttons? And if I turn the phone off does it turn on the Bluetooth back on when I activate the phone again or will it stay off. I prefer Bluetooth stays off all the time unless I needed it, as I turn the phone off also when I don’t need it on!

Guest