Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
the part that is 2-3mm from your ear is a speaker. the radiation devise is housed elsewhere in the box. you are attempting to determine the distance of the mechanical device, which has nothing to do with electric radiation. I would presume the electronic portion of the blutooth device is much closer, as the whole thing is only a couple inches long. the electronic transmitter in my folding cell phone is in the bottom portion of my cell phone, and at least 4 from my ear. presuming the device transmits non directionally in 3 dimensions, would not the signal reduce by the cube of the distance? if it were to transmit directionally, the square root estimate may not work. most people in my neighbor hood hold the phone about 2' away, directly in front of themselves while driving down I95. this is to transmit and view images of the telephone talkers. At 08:13 AM 12/2/2007, you wrote: Are bluetooth headphones actually closer than a cell phone against the ear? If we are talking about the difference between 1/4 inch and 1/16 of an inch, equally powerful signals would have differ by a factor 16 (ie 4 squared). The power requirement to broadcast bluetooth 30feet compared to a cell phone 1 feet is different by a factor of 90,000. Given that I would expect that the incident energy of bluetooth radiation on your body is many times (10? 100? 1000?) less than that of a cell phone. Randy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did hear her on a few show while on her book tour and noted her concern about the potential harm from cell phones and about the research on this to date. Re. bluetooth, is it definitely the case that it gives off much less radiation than cellphones? Even if so I wonder about the effect of something that close to the head, closer than even cellphones are held. But as far as the bigger picture, long-term risk, you are probably right in that cellphone use today probably wouldn't result in cancer for many years if not decades, though radiation damage is cumulative so who knows if there isn't some threshold tipping point. Randall On Dec 1, 2007 1:50 PM, Paul Meyer wrote: If anyone listened to the public health academic who wrote The Secret History of the War On Cancer some of the most quoted studies done on cell phone radiation have severe methodological flaws and even if they were good might been inadequate for assessing the brain cancer risk 20 or 30 years out (which is the appropriate scale for the development of brain cancer) One reason minors should not have cell phones except for emergency use. That said, bluetooth would seem to be a much less intense radiation source and if it had 10 times less of cancer risk than cell phones, I would not be surprised in the slightest. The same advice about avoiding cell phones for minors goes for aspartame. Randy wrote: I was in a store checking out bluetooth headsets for cell phone, ending up getting one on sale for $15. However another customer I was talking to about cell phones, etc. said that bluetooth headpieces deliver as much radiation to the head as using the cellphone directly, near your head, maybe more. Bluetooth is one thing, bluebrain is another; anyone know if this is true? If so I may well return the bluetooth and just stick to regular, corded headpiece, which is admittedly less convenient. I vaguely recall this coming up here before but can't locate the posts. Randall -- Please use new email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
IIRC, the em wave has a spherical wave front but that is the surface of a sphere not the volume, so the square law applies. If it did fall off at a cubic rate there would might be more cause concern because you the wave energy at the transmitter would be much more intense to reach the target antenna. As to Tom's question, the relationship between tranmission sources and radio waves is suspicious and being studied, but I don't know the signifigance of that. Anectdotaly, the fellows who manned the pirate radio stations in England were known to have their hair fall out. Also IIRC (perhaps not so germanely) the connection high voltage cancer is pretty established. Devra Davis author of the work in question is director of UoPitt's center for Environmental Oncology. Also, when NPR (specifically, Fresh Air in this case, interviews cranks they do tend to challenge some of their assertions, this was not that sort of interview and if I had to put money on whether it was Tom or Devra Davis who was talking out of their depth, well...) gerald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the part that is 2-3mm from your ear is a speaker. the radiation devise is housed elsewhere in the box. you are attempting to determine the distance of the mechanical device, which has nothing to do with electric radiation. I would presume the electronic portion of the blutooth device is much closer, as the whole thing is only a couple inches long. the electronic transmitter in my folding cell phone is in the bottom portion of my cell phone, and at least 4 from my ear. presuming the device transmits non directionally in 3 dimensions, would not the signal reduce by the cube of the distance? if it were to transmit directionally, the square root estimate may not work. most people in my neighbor hood hold the phone about 2' away, directly in front of themselves while driving down I95. this is to transmit and view images of the telephone talkers. At 08:13 AM 12/2/2007, you wrote: Are bluetooth headphones actually closer than a cell phone against the ear? If we are talking about the difference between 1/4 inch and 1/16 of an inch, equally powerful signals would have differ by a factor 16 (ie 4 squared). The power requirement to broadcast bluetooth 30feet compared to a cell phone 1 feet is different by a factor of 90,000. Given that I would expect that the incident energy of bluetooth radiation on your body is many times (10? 100? 1000?) less than that of a cell phone. Randy wrote: I did hear her on a few show while on her book tour and noted her concern about the potential harm from cell phones and about the research on this to date. Re. bluetooth, is it definitely the case that it gives off much less radiation than cellphones? Even if so I wonder about the effect of something that close to the head, closer than even cellphones are held. But as far as the bigger picture, long-term risk, you are probably right in that cellphone use today probably wouldn't result in cancer for many years if not decades, though radiation damage is cumulative so who knows if there isn't some threshold tipping point. Randall On Dec 1, 2007 1:50 PM, Paul Meyer wrote: If anyone listened to the public health academic who wrote The Secret History of the War On Cancer some of the most quoted studies done on cell phone radiation have severe methodological flaws and even if they were good might been inadequate for assessing the brain cancer risk 20 or 30 years out (which is the appropriate scale for the development of brain cancer) One reason minors should not have cell phones except for emergency use. That said, bluetooth would seem to be a much less intense radiation source and if it had 10 times less of cancer risk than cell phones, I would not be surprised in the slightest. The same advice about avoiding cell phones for minors goes for aspartame. Randy wrote: I was in a store checking out bluetooth headsets for cell phone, ending up getting one on sale for $15. However another customer I was talking to about cell phones, etc. said that bluetooth headpieces deliver as much radiation to the head as using the cellphone directly, near your head, maybe more. Bluetooth is one thing, bluebrain is another; anyone know if this is true? If so I may well return the bluetooth and just stick to regular, corded headpiece, which is admittedly less convenient. I vaguely recall this coming up here before but can't locate the posts. Randall -- Please use new email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
Anectdotaly, the fellows who manned the pirate radio stations in England were known to have their hair fall out. That was MI5 using some of the left over powder the CIA had made for Castro. * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
Also, my own bluetooth headphones are almost always simply *receiving*. They only transmit when I change a track or am in a call talking. Sorry, but compared to the very real danger of say, driving to the grocery store, I can't get too upset about radio waves. On Dec 2, 2007 8:13 AM, Paul Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are bluetooth headphones actually closer than a cell phone against the ear? * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
Tom, respectfully a UofPittsburgh professor of Public Health is not a crank, and her claims and arguments were quite reasonable when interviewed on NPR. I know plenty of professors who are cranks. In fact, I suspect the proportion of professors who are cranks is higher than it is in the general population. Tell me NPR does not interview cranks. Very funny. Flourescent lighting does not broadcast its energy an inch from your brain (actually I doubt the UV doesn't penetrate your skin). The issue is not distance it is power and duration of exposure. Anyone focusing on distance immediately loses creditability: sensationalism over science. Furthermore, I think that after only about 10 years of following the public exposure I have heard of studies (I don't know how large the samples) that cell phone usage increased risk of non-malignant brain tumors. Humans have been exposed to radio waves to a greater or lesser degree since 1895 (Marconi). I have not seen any studies that show people working or living around very powerful transmitters having a higher incidence of tumors. Have you? * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
If anyone listened to the public health academic who wrote The Secret History of the War On Cancer some of the most quoted studies done on cell phone radiation have severe methodological flaws and even if they were good might been inadequate for assessing the brain cancer risk 20 or 30 years out (which is the appropriate scale for the development of brain cancer) One reason minors should not have cell phones except for emergency use. That said, bluetooth would seem to be a much less intense radiation source and if it had 10 times less of cancer risk than cell phones, I would not be surprised in the slightest. The same advice about avoiding cell phones for minors goes for aspartame. Randy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was in a store checking out bluetooth headsets for cell phone, ending up getting one on sale for $15. However another customer I was talking to about cell phones, etc. said that bluetooth headpieces deliver as much radiation to the head as using the cellphone directly, near your head, maybe more. Bluetooth is one thing, bluebrain is another; anyone know if this is true? If so I may well return the bluetooth and just stick to regular, corded headpiece, which is admittedly less convenient. I vaguely recall this coming up here before but can't locate the posts. Randall -- Please use new email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
If anyone listened to the public health academic who wrote The Secret History of the War On Cancer some of the most quoted studies done on cell phone radiation have severe methodological flaws and even if they were good might been inadequate for assessing the brain cancer risk 20 or 30 years out (which is the appropriate scale for the development of brain cancer) This topic and radiation from monitors seems to bring out the cranks. In years past similar vehemence was directed to electrification and telephones. The common theme seems to be fear of invisible forces. From what I have seen, you are correct to say there have not been any good studies. However, it should be emphasized that there have not been any good studies for either side of the issue: nothing to show that there is or is not a problem. What clinches it for me are the studies that identify the various sources of electromagnetic radiation exposure. In an office environment the #1 source is fluorescent lighting. Nothing else comes close. Another big source is commercial broadasting. So my thinking is that it is not worth stressing over minor sources when I can't do anything about the major sources. * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
Tom, respectfully a UofPittsburgh professor of Public Health is not a crank, and her claims and arguments were quite reasonable when interviewed on NPR. Flourescent lighting does not broadcast its energy an inch from your brain (actually I doubt the UV doesn't penetrate your skin). Furthermore, I think that after only about 10 years of following the public exposure I have heard of studies (I don't know how large the samples) that cell phone usage increased risk of non-malignant brain tumors. What are we going to see at 20 years. And just to reiterate,I said I thought Bluetooth was a minimal risk, whereas with cell phones the jury is not in. FYI, one of the criticisms she leveled is that a widely quoted large scale study from Denmark, was designed to exclude people who had the most exposure. The subjects of the study had minutes rather than hours per day of exposure. The public perception (including myself formerly) is that cell have been given a clean bill of health. The truth is no one yet knows the long term effects of moderate to heavy use and that in general no one will until a 20 years long experiment run its course. Unfortunately, the subjects in that experiment are the public. Using the public to test health effects of products is pretty much the American way. -PJM Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If anyone listened to the public health academic who wrote The Secret History of the War On Cancer some of the most quoted studies done on cell phone radiation have severe methodological flaws and even if they were good might been inadequate for assessing the brain cancer risk 20 or 30 years out (which is the appropriate scale for the development of brain cancer) This topic and radiation from monitors seems to bring out the cranks. In years past similar vehemence was directed to electrification and telephones. The common theme seems to be fear of invisible forces. From what I have seen, you are correct to say there have not been any good studies. However, it should be emphasized that there have not been any good studies for either side of the issue: nothing to show that there is or is not a problem. What clinches it for me are the studies that identify the various sources of electromagnetic radiation exposure. In an office environment the #1 source is fluorescent lighting. Nothing else comes close. Another big source is commercial broadasting. So my thinking is that it is not worth stressing over minor sources when I can't do anything about the major sources. * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
I did hear her on a few show while on her book tour and noted her concern about the potential harm from cell phones and about the research on this to date. Re. bluetooth, is it definitely the case that it gives off much less radiation than cellphones? Even if so I wonder about the effect of something that close to the head, closer than even cellphones are held. But as far as the bigger picture, long-term risk, you are probably right in that cellphone use today probably wouldn't result in cancer for many years if not decades, though radiation damage is cumulative so who knows if there isn't some threshold tipping point. Randall On Dec 1, 2007 1:50 PM, Paul Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If anyone listened to the public health academic who wrote The Secret History of the War On Cancer some of the most quoted studies done on cell phone radiation have severe methodological flaws and even if they were good might been inadequate for assessing the brain cancer risk 20 or 30 years out (which is the appropriate scale for the development of brain cancer) One reason minors should not have cell phones except for emergency use. That said, bluetooth would seem to be a much less intense radiation source and if it had 10 times less of cancer risk than cell phones, I would not be surprised in the slightest. The same advice about avoiding cell phones for minors goes for aspartame. Randy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was in a store checking out bluetooth headsets for cell phone, ending up getting one on sale for $15. However another customer I was talking to about cell phones, etc. said that bluetooth headpieces deliver as much radiation to the head as using the cellphone directly, near your head, maybe more. Bluetooth is one thing, bluebrain is another; anyone know if this is true? If so I may well return the bluetooth and just stick to regular, corded headpiece, which is admittedly less convenient. I vaguely recall this coming up here before but can't locate the posts. Randall -- Please use new email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived -- Please use new email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
I have often wondered if those people who wander around yakking on their cellphones in the middle of stores, traffic, etc. were mindless idiots before they stuck those things in their heads, or did they become babbling fools afterwards. (When people near me start talking out loud, I make it a point to reply politely, and then they get annoyed that I am interrupting their important conversation.) Mike gerald wrote: Most people I see with bluetooth and for that matter cell phones, and in particular iphones and blackburys seem to suffer from severe brain damage. * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
Re: [CGUYS] Blue tooth radiation?
Bluetooth: Is Its Radiation Harmful? Is using a Bluetooth-enabled cell phone dangerous to your health? Not according to the experts http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2006/tc20060829_289239.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology On Nov 30, 2007 3:20 PM, Randy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was in a store checking out bluetooth headsets for cell phone, ending up getting one on sale for $15. However another customer I was talking to about cell phones, etc. said that bluetooth headpieces deliver as much radiation to the head as using the cellphone directly, near your head, maybe more. Bluetooth is one thing, bluebrain is another; anyone know if this is true? If so I may well return the bluetooth and just stick to regular, corded headpiece, which is admittedly less convenient. I vaguely recall this coming up here before but can't locate the posts. Randall -- Please use new email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived * == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in == * == the body of an email send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header X-No-Archive: yes will not be archived
