Are wireless headphones a health risk?

  • 38 Replies
  • 118972 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Glenn Romaniuk

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« on: 19/10/2008 13:18:16 »
Glenn asked the Naked Scientists:

I wear wireless headphones. Specifically Sennheiser RS145. I wear these at work to listen to your shows. I work in a very quiet office environment. The volume is set very low.

I've heard stories about excessive use of cell phone and potential health risks; brain tumours etc. With wireless headphones its one way communication and is only receiving a signal. Is this any different from any other signal in my house or office and are their any health risks?

Thanks,
Glenn Romaniuk
Canada

What do you think?
« Last Edit: 21/10/2008 15:02:25 by Glenn Romaniuk »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #1 on: 19/10/2008 15:02:41 »
The only risk I can see from noise cancelling headphones is you won't hear someone yelling "look out!" sometime.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline rosalind dna

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2019
    • View Profile
Re: Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #2 on: 19/10/2008 18:25:26 »
Also if you are walking down a road with your noise cancelling headphones, you might not be aware of a car about to knock you down or crash into your car etc.

Rosalind Franklin was my first cousin and one my life's main regrets is that I never met this brilliant and beautiful lady.
She discovered the Single DNA Helix in 1953, then it was taken by Wilkins without her knowledge or agreeement.

*

Offline Glenn Romaniuk

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Re: Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #3 on: 21/10/2008 15:00:05 »
The title was incorrect. What I meant to ask was "Are wireless headphones a health risk?". The receiver is in close proximity to your head and is receiving a signal from a transmitter.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2008 15:02:46 by Glenn Romaniuk »

*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #4 on: 21/10/2008 16:29:39 »
Any danger would be from the transmitter and not the headphones unless continuous use at high volume damages your hearing.   But the transmitter is not next to your head and in any case is very low power.

There is no clear evidence of any danger from the mobile phones next to the head so I wouldn't worry at all about 'flea power devices'.

Prof Moulder is maybe the World's number one expert on the subject and he is not convinced that there is any danger at all..


http://www.mcw.edu/display/docid5175.htm

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #5 on: 24/10/2008 05:42:01 »
I'm going to jump in here.

My ex-husband had a brain tumor removed last year, and yes, it was on the side of the head against which he'd hold his cell phone. Headsets are no better - they just move the radiation to a different part of your body. So maybe you won't get a brain tumor, but does no brain tumor equal safe?

I say this as an 'electrosensitive'. I have been ill since the advent of wireless technology, especially so since the mid-90's when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed giving the cell phone industry free reign to place cell phone towers anywhere and everywhere, with no argument or accountability.

I suggest you read Dr. Robert O. Becker's "Cross Currents" and "The Body Electric". Also, B. Blake Levitt's "Cell Phones: Wireless Convenience? or Environmental Hazard?"

Also, the Bioinitiative Report below...

Bioinitiative Report:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

This article might help put things in perspective, too...

Attitudes to the Health Dangers of Non-Thermal EMFs:

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20080117_bevington_emfs.pdf

Researchers though are finding that there appear to be 'windows' of non-thermal bioeffects, so less power doesn't always equal safer. Also, the current guidelines for exposure to this radiation were based exclusively on thermal effects. In other words, if the radiation does not heat tissue, it is, therefore, safe, but every biochemical reaction that occurs within the human body involves electricity and magnetism, and each of these are very precise - not to mention the signals our brains rely on to complete these reactions.

We are truly playing with fire. And when I say this, I am not only referring to the cell phones themselves, but also to the cell phone masts that blanket this planet.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2008 05:46:25 by blaze »

*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #6 on: 24/10/2008 10:18:48 »
Fear of masts is nonsense.  The power resching a person is tiny. We have had VHF radio/TV transmissions for 60 years.  UHF for nearly 50. 

Read up an how many people die due to exposure to solar radiation particularly UV. 

Read up on how many people die due to the use of asbestos.

Read up on how many people are killed in or by motor vehicles.

Read up on how many have been PROVED to have died due the radio frequency transmissions..

 

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #7 on: 24/10/2008 16:29:59 »
Oh, I get it. You're one of those who say something isn't so because there's no 'proof'. I imagine you're a cell phone user, too, huh? - one whose life would completely collapse if you couldn't phone your mom to ask her which brand of cornflakes to buy at the store because they both are on sale?

Did you ever think that maybe those who have had the 'proof' have an economic reason or some other reason not to share it?

And I'm not singling out cell phone signals either. I'm against wireless internet, power lines, AM/FM radio, radar, you name it - why? Because I've been affected by these frequencies since the day I was born, and I've even measured my exposures with the aid of an electrosmog detector to prove that these signals were indeed the cause of my symptoms - and they are.

The only difference today is there is no let-up - the concentration is so great that my body (and yours) has absolutely zero opportunity to heal. For one thing, these signals prevent me from sleeping, but that's just the beginning.

So please don't compare this radiation to the sunshine - they're not the same. And why aren't cell phones allowed to be used in hospitals or at the gas pump or by those who have defibrillators? I'd even go so far as to blame one or more of these frequencies on Colony Collapse Disorder among the honeybees and the dying bats in the northeastern U.S. These signals are LETHAL, unless, of course, you've been bred to be germ- and virus-free, and even then you might be screwed...

Cross Currents by Dr. Robert O. Becker (pages 194-197)

In the early 1980's, the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine funded a very large, very expensive study at the University of Washington, under the direction of Dr. Arthur W. Guy. In this study, rats were continuously exposed to high frequency microwaves of 2.45 gigahertz (with one gigahertz equaling one billion hertz) at approximately 0.5mW/cm2, twenty times lower than the "safe" thermal level. The exposures lasted for as long as 25 months, and 155 different measures of health and behavior were collected.
 
This appeared to be a well-designed study that would finally answer the question of whether there were any potential hazards to human beings from chronic exposure to microwave radiation. According to Guy, "The results revealed few differences between the exposed and control rats, and those differences for the most part were either not statistically significant or came and went, suggesting that they may be due to chance."
 
However, one striking observation was noted: "Primary malignant tumors developed in eighteen of the exposed animals but in only 5 of the controls." Guy hastened to explain that the incidence of cancers even in the experimental group was actually lower than normally expected for the strain of rat used in the experiment. He suggested that no hasty conclusions should be drawn, and that a "consensus among most investigators that the only strong evidence for the hazards of microwaves is found at high levels of exposure" was still valid.
 
The project was wide reported in the press and discussed in scientific meetings, and it was the subject of a major article in the September 1986 issue of Scientific American (from which the quotes have been drawn). A significant aspect of the experiment was not reported either in that article or in the popular press - but at the scientific meeting at which the results of the study were first reported, it was revealed that all of the animals used, both experimental and control were gnotobiotic (a term meaning germ and virus free). This circumstance alone was responsible for a major part of the $5 million cost of the project.
 
To produce gnotobiotic animals, the young must be delivered by cesarean section under the strictest possible sterile operating-room conditions (much more stringent than those in use in operating or delivery rooms for people). Following delivery, the animals must be raised and then housed in totally sterile environments for the entire duration of the experiment. This type of environment is akin to the decontamination rooms used to house the astronauts after they returned from the moon, or the "bubbles" within which children born without immune systems are housed.
 
The use of gnotobiotic animals seems to be not only totally unnecessary, but undesirable as well. Neither we nor the laboratory rat normally live in a sterile world, devoid of bacteria or viruses. On the contrary, we live surrounded by uncountable numbers of organisms. We generally do not get sick unless we are injured and bacteria enter the body through the wound, or unless our immunity is inadequate and we get a communicable disease or infection. An experiment on germ- and virus-free animals has no relevance to the real world.
 
The point becomes even more apparent when two established facts are considered. First, present evidence shows that at least 20% of human cancers are caused by viral infection, and the percentage is considerably higher in animals. Therefore, animals that are maintained in a germ- and virus-free state have an incidence of cancer that is much lower than expected. Second, it is well-established that exposure to any abnormal electromagnetic field produces a stress response. If the exposure is prolonged, the stress-response system becomes exhausted, and the competency of the immune system declines to below normal. In such a state, animals and humans are more susceptible to cancer and infectious diseases.
 
One can only conclude that the experiment at Washington was deliberately designed to sharply reduce the incidence of cancer and infectious diseases in the exposed animals. There can be no other reason for the requirement that the animals be gnotobiotic.
 
Therefore, if we knew the facts in advance, and we wanted to set up a "scientific" project to expose animals to microwaves for a long time but were required to get negative results, we would have only one choice - to use germ- and virus-free test animals. Being gnotobiotic, both the unexposed control animals and the exposed experimental animals would be protected against the usual dangers of infection and cancer. In Guy's study, the fact that the experimental animals had a lower-than-normal incidence of cancer was totally expected. What was unexpected and highly significant was that even with this protection, the cancer incidence in the animals exposed to microwaves was four times that in the control animals.
 
The well-designed experiment that should have "proved" that microwaves are safe fell into a trap, and the nature of the trap is revealed by the types of cancer that occurred in the experimental group. These were mainly limited to cancers of the pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal glands; these cancers were accompanied by a significant number of pheochromocytomas, which are benign tumors of the adrenal glands. There were no significant cancers of any of the usual tissues.
 
The experiment was designed to prevent the results of stress, but the planners forgot that it would produce stress. Because stress resistance is mediated chiefly through the three glands just mentioned, we must conclude that the microwave exposure produced an extremely high level of stress - so much so that the resultant prolonged hyperactivity of these glands led to their becoming cancerous. Considering the extreme stress experienced by the exposed animals, if the animals had been normal (rather than gnotobiotic) the entire experimental group would have died of infection or cancer before the close of the experiment.
 
Some of the 155 biochemical determinations done by Guy in the course of the experiment confirm this interpretation. Plasma cortisol is one of the chemical substances produced by the adrenal glands under conditions of stress, and it was one of the substances measured in the experiment. At the start, the plasma cortisol was equal in both the control and experimental groups; in the early months of microwave exposure, however, cortisol in the experimental group was elevated above that in the control group, indicating that the experimental animals were reacting to stress. By the latter phase of the experiment, the plasma cortisol of the exposed animals was depressed below that of the controls, indicating that the stress response systems of the experimental animals had become exhausted. This result is exactly as expected for a condition of chronic stress.
 
These data, which are buried in a multivolume official Air Force report of the project, were first published in the July-August 1984 issue of Microwave News. The experiment was planned cleverly, but not cleverly enough. It clearly indicated that chronic exposure to microwaves at levels 20 times below the established safe thermal level, produced profound stress and ultimately exhaustion of the stress-response system. Because the experiment involved gnotobiotic animals, this resulted only in an increase in cancers of the stress-response glands. Had the experiment been performed under real world conditions, the result would have been catastrophic for the exposed group of animals.


*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #8 on: 24/10/2008 17:24:33 »
Utter nonsense.


*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #9 on: 24/10/2008 17:53:35 »
Quote
Oh, I get it. You're one of those who say something isn't so because there's no 'proof'.
As this is a science forum, I think the default for most people here is to say something isn't so because there's no proof.  I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, rather than on the people who don't share your experiences.

Quote
Did you ever think that maybe those who have had the 'proof' have an economic reason or some other reason not to share it?

We've discussed this on the forum elsewhere, and I disagree with you.  It's very difficult to silence all the people who are involved in this sort of research and, more importantly, there is huge competition between different companies.  If there was good evidence that mobile phones, wifi, radios etc were dangerous, there would be an almighty rush to make 'safe' versions - or more importantly - safer versions than your competitors.  The markets would force this through within weeks of the discovery of any real danger.

I haven't looked into electrosensitivity personally, but I'm interested to hear more about it - how long after exposure do you feel the effects?  What sort of effects do you feel?  All of the trustworthy research I've seen so far shows that it's a placebo, or rather nocebo effect, but it hasn't had much research, so I'm intrigued.

Please don't think I'm being unsympathetic - there's clearly something going on that makes electrosensitive people ill, but no evidence yet that it is caused by EM radiation.  I'm just interested.  In fact, there's some evidence that low-level exposure to radiation stimulates DNA repair mechanisms, and so could improve health & lifespan.  How do you feel about the research that showed that electrosensitives were just as likely to feel ill in the presence of an 'on' mobile phone as an 'off' one?  It worries me that a community with a genuine illness looking for a reason are very open to propaganda and being misled - I know there are people making money from electrosensitives, who would be very interested in denying any results which show that EM radiation is not the cause of your illness.

*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #10 on: 24/10/2008 18:11:55 »
Yes, it is some of the anti-brigade who make money by offering to an RF audit on your house and then sell you special screening curtains at a heck of a price per metre.  Some of these people claim that HAARP is Alaska is causing women in Tokyo to miscarry by bouncing microwaves off the ionosphere which is as stupid as you can get.  Not that HARRP radiates microwaves and in case they don't bounce off the ionosphere.

Tests done by a London University college and published in the BMJ found that so called electrosensitive people couldn't tell whether a mobile phone was radiating normal signals, plain carrier or no signal at all. 

""""We found no evidence to indicate that self reported sensitivity to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone signals has a biological basis. Nor did we find any evidence to suggest that the pulsing nature of GSM contributes to these symptoms. These findings agree with the large majority of previous blind or double blind provocation studies for electromagnetic sensitivity, which have found no differences in the severity of symptoms elicited by active or sham exposure to electromagnetic"""

Kings College London..  Who have also researched any possible health effects from TETRA ((digital radio system) for the Police Federation.


One loony who is also making money out of scaremongering..  Barry (Barrie) Trower claims to have be consulted by the Police Federation.  This is not the case but he has lectured to small groups of Police Officers.   Trower calims to have briefed spies (??) on the use of underwater microwave weapons (??).  Microwaves don't penetrate far (matter of mm) into water particularly sea water.  Trower is almost sensible compared to Tim Rifat.  Google.


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/886


I am a retired engineer with no vested interest all at.

You can bet that if 19 out of 20 studies can find no evidence of any harmwell effects it will be the one which does which gets reported in the press and words like 'maybe' and 'possibly' are missed out.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2008 18:39:40 by Pumblechook »

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #11 on: 24/10/2008 22:18:44 »
Right there is one of the problems - the burden of proof is on 'me'? The wireless industry is the one industry that has been allowed to release something into the environment without proving its safety first. (Non-thermal) biological effects have been reported (see the Bioinitiative Report), and just because we don't know what these effects mean long term, that does not automatically equal safe. Just the fact that the cell phone industry is now utilizing a SAR rating for these devices would indicate that there is at least some justifiable concern, at least with the phones themselves.

And my ex had a brain tumor removed - he also spent 6 years in the Navy and was exposed to radar. Now we can blame the radar for his tumor and say that it was just a freak occurrence that it occurred on the side of his head against which he'd hold his cell phone, but that wouldn't be very scientific either, because the radiation that causes brain tumors could be of a cumulative nature. And if that's the case, no human being out there today has much control over the amount of radiation he or she is exposed to in the day to day environment, nor is he able to measure individual exposures to know when he has reached his own particular threshold of exposure.

Electrosensitives, on the other hand, can tell you they have reached their threshold of exposure because they can feel these frequencies.

I would pass a test to prove I'm sensitive with flying colors, provided there was enough time allotted for me to recover in between exposures. What I am saying is that once I experience what I'll call an 'episode' or 'attack' from an exposure, the symptoms will often last hours following the exposure, so a 'new' exposure would be hard for me to distinguish from the remnants of the old exposure, unless I have recovered to baseline again.

What do I experience upon exposure to electromagnetic radiation? - I experience extreme anxiety, often coupled with profuse sweating. I cannot focus, make decisions, become confused, and my ears will 'swoosh'. My pain increases, and often times I will notice a weakening of my facial muscles. My hallmark symptom though seems to be severe tension in my jaw - so much so that I have sawed my bottom teeth down.

Since I also suffer from Lyme/coinfections, I suspect that these bugs are swimming towards the magnetite in my brain, and that is indeed what it feels like - a magnetic pull of some type. Like perhaps all of these electromagnetic fields have changed their polarity?

Initially, I'd thought chemicals and scents were involved, but I noticed that my symptoms would occur even when I'd started using unscented, natural products and avoiding chemicals like the plague. By the way, I used a cordless phone, not a cell phone, but these are equally as dangerous.

What got me thinking electricity was somehow involved was that, when my symptoms were most severe, I could point a hair dryer to the left side of my head, and my left eyelid and the left side of my mouth would droop ever so slightly every single time.

Also, before I even knew electrosensitivities even existed and before I knew I had Lyme, I kept telling family members that I always felt ill, but especially so when I'd drive my car, or when I'd get to a certain intersection or road, or in certain stores, or when my heater ran more. There is no way this could have been a placebo or nocebo effect because, at the time, I had no clue why this was happening to me, and I was still blaming scents and chemicals for my symptoms.

Once I learned about electrosensitivity and got myself a special meter and measured my exposures, all the puzzle pieces finally fell into place.

But I have been on antibiotics for 2 years so far for my Lyme, and I'm still testing positive for Lyme - and I blame the wireless boom. Lyme researchers think the spirochete that causes Lyme is special in that it can cross the blood-brain barrier, but I don't think this bacteria is special at all - I think we made it special by altering the permeability of the blood-brain barrier.

http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai1.htm

Also, if cell phone emissions can do this to a nematode, what else could it be doing to other microorganisms that inhabit us?

Mobile Phone Emissions Increase Worm Fertility:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1889-mobile-phone-emissions-increase-worm-fertility.html

Again, proven or not, these signals are lethal.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2008 22:22:45 by blaze »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #12 on: 25/10/2008 13:19:02 »
Are you taking part in any double-blind studies to help people understand this?  You really should, as electrosensitivity is new and rare, and as you've seen all of the studies so far show that EM radiation is not the cause of the illness described.  If you feel that there is a real need to worry, you should be involved in a study and pushing everyone else to be involved in a study too.

I think there's also the epidemiological data to look at - as far as I know, the advent of wireless technologies has not shown an increase in cancer or illness.  And one study (i'll try to find it later) indicated that cognitive therapy was the most successful way to treat electrosensitives, again suggesting that radiation is not the cause of the illness.

Right now, with the data we have available, we cannot conclude that "these signals are lethal".  But I hope you will find the nearest research and get involved.

I'm very interested to hear - do you ever fly anywhere?  If so, how does that make you feel?

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #13 on: 25/10/2008 17:05:51 »
I would love to be involved in some double-blind studies, but I live in the U.S, where electrosensitivity isn't even acknowledged (yet). I'm hoping that will change.

The problem with all the studies which have been done thus far is that a person who is electrosensitive requires time in between exposures to return to baseline levels. And remember, some who have participated in these studies have managed to accurately pinpont an exposure, so you can't dismiss those.

Cognitive behavioral therapy would never help a true electrosensitive. Why? Because I was experiencing these symptoms long before I had any knowledge whatsoever about electrosensitivity - before I ever even knew electromagnetic/microwave/radiowave fields were involved. I showed up in the ER numerous times due to shortness of breath, anxiety, and sweating.

Cognitive behavior therapy I believe is based on the assumption of a fear or reluctance of some type. I had no fear of cell phone towers or power lines whatsoever at the onset of my symptoms. Do I now? Definitely, but you can't label that as a psychiatric disorder when I'm telling you the fear component is new, now that I know what is causing my symptoms.

I'd walk into a closet in my bedroom, for example, and every single time I would experience anxiety and severe shortness of breath. And months later, when I'd learned about electrosensitivities, I realized that this closet is situated right between my hot water heater, furnace, A/C unit, and clothes dryer - and it measured high with my meter.

I have not been on an airplane for decades, so I can't answer that question.

I will tell you though that at the age of 20 or 21 I passed out cold in a Circuit City Superstore, and while working on a Naval base, I had some close calls, though I never lost complete consciousness those times.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #14 on: 25/10/2008 17:52:13 »
"electrosensitivity isn't even acknowledged"
There might be a reason for that.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #15 on: 25/10/2008 18:16:17 »
It's acknowledged in Sweden. Is there any reason for that? Or do scientists there think differently?

In other words, scientists in the U.S. don't acknowledge ES, and they're correct to do so. But scientists in Sweden do believe there is something to it, and those researchers are dead wrong?

Hmmm, sounds very biased to me, not very scientific.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #16 on: 25/10/2008 21:35:54 »
There's a post elsewhere that gives a reference to a study where so called electrosensitive people were found not to be sensitive.
It's possible that the Swedes are taking the view that "we will believe it until we have lots of data" whereas the others are saying "we will not believe it until there is suporting data" .

That's a political choice- nothing to do withscience or the data.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #17 on: 25/10/2008 22:01:45 »
What was that about Sweden?

A trial at Sweden's University of Uppsala's Department of Clinical Psychology took blood samples from subjects and analyzed them for indicators of stress, both before and after the test. Some subjects were secretly exposed to electromagnetic radiation, but there were neither any differences between ES sufferers and control subjects in how they reacted to it, nor were there any differences in stress among those who received radiation and those who did not.

Another such trial was performed at the Environmental Illness Research Center in Huddinge, Sweden. Half the subjects reported themselves as hypersensitive, half did not. Half received cognitive behavioral therapy, half did not. All were evaluated for stress before the study, after the study, and six months later. Just like in the other trial, subjects with perceived hypersensitivity benefitted more from cognitive behavioral therapy than did those who were not hypersensitive. There were no other significant differences among any groups.


And Germany.

A 2005 trial at the Psychiatric University Hospital in Germany found further support for the hypothesis that ES sufferers are not having a physiological response to electromagnetic radiation:

Research in Switzerland, United States and many other country all conclude that ES does not exists. 

Uinversity of Essex can find no eveidence of ES to phone masts.  Kings College, London can find no evidence of ES with a phone next to the head.


  

« Last Edit: 25/10/2008 22:28:28 by Pumblechook »

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #18 on: 27/10/2008 00:42:23 »
Okay, so when I would hold a hair dryer to the left side of my head, and every single time my left eyelid would begin to (visibly) droop, what do you suggest the cause was? A very vivid imagination?

By the way, before my hair dryer was causing symptoms - maybe 10 years prior - when I was still using a cordless phone (and yes, holding it to my left ear) - and I had mentioned to a psychiatrist that my left eyelid would sometimes droop (not realizing that this would only happen when I'd use the hair dryer or the cordless phone or otherwise be exposed), she laughed at me and said, "Everybody's face is uneven." ???!!!

I will have to read Dr. Becker's books again so that I can quote him accurately, but apparently there was one study done in which some animal was exposed to some source of EMR, and whatever blood tests were done immediately following exposure were normal - BUT, had researchers waited 3 days, they would have found significant abnormalities in the exposed compared to the controls.

And read this...

The Body Electric by Robert O. Becker, M.D. - (pages 276-278)
 
Subliminal Stress
 
After Howard Friedman, Charlie Bachman, and I had found evidence that "abnormal natural" fields from solar magnetic storms were effecting the human mind as reflected in psychiatric hospital admissions, we decided the time had come for direct experiments with people. We exposed volunteers to magnetic fields placed so the lines of force passed through the brain from ear to ear, cutting across the brainstem-frontal current. The fields were 5 to 11 gauss, not much compared with the 3,000 gauss needed to put a salamander to sleep, but ten to twenty times earth's background and well above the level of most magnetic storms. We measured their influence on a standard test of reaction time - having subjects press a button as fast as possible in response to a red light. Steady fields produced no effect, but when we modulated the field with a slow pulse of a cycle every 5 seconds (one of the delta wave frequencies we'd observed in salamander brains during a change from one level of consciousness to another), people's reactions slowed down. We found no changes in the EEG or the front-to-back voltage from fields up to 100 gauss, but these indicators reflect major alterations in awareness, so we didn't expect them to shift.
 
We were excited, eagerly planning experiments that would tell us more, when we came upon a frightening Russian report. Yuri Kholodov had administered steady magnetic fields of 100 and 200 gauss to rabbits and found areas of cell death in their brains during autopsy. Although his fields were ten times as strong as ours, we stopped all human experiments immediately.
 
Friedman decided to duplicate Kholodov's experiment with a more detailed analysis of the brain tissue. He made the slides and sent them to an expert on rabbit brain diseases, but coded them so no one knew which were which until later.
 
The report showed that all the animals had been infected with a brain parasite that was peculiar to rabbits and common throughout the world. However, in half the animals the protozoa had been under control by the immune system, whereas the other half they'd routed the defenders and destroyed parts of their brain. The expert suggested that we must have done something to undermine resistance of the rabbits in the experimental group. The code confirmed that most of the brain damage had occurred in animals subjected to the magnetic fields. Later, Friedman did biochemical tests on another series of rabbits and found that the fields were causing a generalized stress reactions marked by large amounts of cortisone in the bloodstream. This is the response called forth by a prolonged stress, like a disease, that isn't an immediate threat to life, as opposed to the fight-or-flight response generated by adrenaline.
 
Soon thereafter, Friedman measured cortisone levels in monkeys exposed to a 200-gauss magnetic fields for four hours a day. They showed the stress response for six days, but it then subsided, suggesting adaptation to the field. Such seeming tolerance of continued stress is illusory, however. In his pioneering lifework on stress, Dr. Hans Selye has clearly drawn the invariable pattern: Initially, the stress activates the hormonal and/or immune systems to a higher-than-normal level, enabling the animal to escape danger or combat disease. If the stress continues, hormone levels and immune activity gradually decline to normal. If you stop your experiment at this point, you're apparently justified in saying, "The animal has adapted; the stress is doing it no harm." Nevertheless, if the stressful condition persists, hormone and immune levels decline further, well below normal. In medical terms, stress decompensation has set in, and the animal is now more susceptible to other stressors, including malignant growth and infectious disease.
 
In the mid-1970's, two Russian groups found stress hormones released in rats exposed to microwaves, even if they were irradiated only briefly by minute amounts of energy. Other Eastern European work found the same reaction to 50-hertz electric fields. Several Russian and Polish groups have since established that after prolonged exposure the activation of the stress system changes to a depression of it in the familiar pattern, indicating exhaustion of the adrenal cortex. There has even been one report of hemorrhage and cell damage in the adrenal cortex from a month's exposure to a 50-hertz, 130-gauss magnetic field.
 
Soviet biophysicist N. A. Udintsev has systematically studied the effects of one ELF magnetic field (200 gauss at 50hz) on the endocrine system. In addition to the "slow" stress response we've been discussing, he found activation of the "fast" fight-or-flight hormones centering on adrenaline from the adrenal medulla. This response was triggered in rats by just one day in Udinstev's field, and hormone levels didn't return to normal for one or two weeks. Udinstev also documented an insulin insufficiency and rise in blood sugar from the same field.
 
One aspect of the syndrome was very puzzling. When undergoing these hormonal changes, an animal would normally be aware that its body was under attack, yet, as far as we could tell, the rabbits were not. They showed no outward signs of fear, agitation, or illness. Most humans certainly wouldn't be able to detect a 100-gauss magnetic field, at least not consciously. Only several years after Friedman's work did anyone find out how this was happening.
 
In 1976 a group under J. J. Noval at the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory at Pensacola, Florida, found the slow stress response in rats from very weak electric fields, as low as five thousandths of a volt per centimeter. They discovered that when such fields vibrated in the ELF range, they increased levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brainstem, apparently in a way that activated a distress signal subliminally, without the animal's becoming aware of it. The scariest part was that the fields Noval used were well within the background levels of a typical office, with its overhead lighting, typewriters, computers, and other equipment. Workers in such an environment are exposed to electric fields between a hundredth and a tenth of a volt per centimeter and magnetic fields between a hundredth and a tenth of a gauss.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #19 on: 27/10/2008 19:06:05 »
" A very vivid imagination?"
Yes, why not?
"she laughed at me and said, "Everybody's face is uneven." ???!!!"
Tactless of her to laugh, but she's correct.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #20 on: 27/10/2008 20:22:42 »
Okay, so when I would hold a hair dryer to the left side of my head, and every single time my left eyelid would begin to (visibly) droop, what do you suggest the cause was? A very vivid imagination?

By the way, before my hair dryer was causing symptoms - maybe 10 years prior - when I was still using a cordless phone (and yes, holding it to my left ear) - and I had mentioned to a psychiatrist that my left eyelid would sometimes droop (not realizing that this would only happen when I'd use the hair dryer or the cordless phone or otherwise be exposed), she laughed at me and said, "Everybody's face is uneven." ???!!!



Sounds like synkinetic ptosis...

Quote
Facial synkinesis is the involuntary movement of facial muscles that accompanies purposeful movement of some other set of muscles; for example, facial synkinesis may result in the mouth involuntarily closing or grimacing when the eyes are purposefully closed...other conditions that may prompt the development of facial synkinesis include stroke, birth trauma, head injury, trauma following tumor removal (such as acoustic neuroma), infection, Lyme disease, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis.
http://www.answers.com/topic/facial-synkinesis

Facial synkinesis is a neurological short-ciruit, it is triggered by other voluntary movements, e.g. tilting head or moving jaw.
It is not caused by external electric fields. If you have facial synkinesis you can confirm it is not caused by electricity:
your eyelid will droop whether or not the hairdryer is plugged in, or the cordless phone has a battery.

I don't think your experiences are due to "A very vivid imagination", they are explicable as manifestations of neurological disease,
not exogenous electric fields.
« Last Edit: 27/10/2008 20:47:59 by RD »

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #21 on: 28/10/2008 00:02:15 »
Bored chemist, my face was 'even' at the time I saw the psychiatrist, but because I'd been diagnosed with OCD, she thought I was just OCD-ing that day.

The neat thing about OCD (and what baffles researchers) is that those who suffer are very rational in that they are clearly aware of which thoughts, behaviors, rituals, etc... are abnormal and which are not. In other words, I'm not going to spend 30 minutes washing my hands or centering a picture on a wall and then announce to everyone that this is normal behavior. There is a definite awareness to true OCD that my doctors ignored.

So my psychiatrist's response to my concerns proved to me that they teach doctors in medical school that if a patient approaches them with 'psychiatric disease' (and I don't even like calling OCD that, because it's a neurological disease), then every word out of her mouth is some manifestation of this disease and not to be considered significant.

RD, my eyelid would only begin to droop when I would hold the hair dryer to my head (initially). Then, eventually I began to notice that it would do this after a drive in my car, a few minutes on my cordless phone, and then eventually even my right lid would do this as I began to grow more electrosensitive.

And I do have neurologic disease - I have chronic Lyme and multiple coinfections - and I believe these bugs were reacting to these exposures, causing my eyelids to droop.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #22 on: 28/10/2008 09:39:24 »
The neurological involvement of Lyme disease alone is sufficient to explain all of your symptoms, (including paranoia).
Your belief that EM fields are involved is false.
Before you fashion yourself a tin foil hat you should seek out a neurologist/psychiatrist who has experience of treating
the neuropsychiatric consequences of Lyme disease. You may be able to find one via the references at the end of this article.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2008 09:43:36 by RD »

*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #23 on: 28/10/2008 12:39:54 »
There isn't even much of an electric or magnetic from household wiring or appliances.

A mains lead for instance has a live and neutral wire and any magnetic field produced by current flow in the live is cancelled out by an equal current in the neutral flowing in the opposite direction.

If you were to put a clip-on ammeter over the lead which measures current by detecting the magnetic field it would show zero.   These devices have to be clipped on the live or neutral only. 

http://www.microlease.com/ProductSpecification.aspx?ProductTypeCode=AVDCM104R

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #24 on: 28/10/2008 18:29:30 »
A quick reallity check here.



One consequence of the proposition "electric fields are bad for you" is that we would have lived longer before these fields were produced.

200 years ago there was no electricity (in the conventional sense of the word).

There is good evidence from the records kept in parish registries etc that people are generally living longer than say 200 years ago. In particular fewer children are dying young.


If electricity and the magnetic effects it causes were detrimental to human health then today, bathed in EM radiation, we would live shorter lives than 200 years ago.
However we do not.

If the "theory" does not agree with the facts then it's the "theory" is wrong, not reality.

That's quite simply the end of this debate.
We can stop now and get on with something more useful.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #25 on: 28/10/2008 19:00:56 »
In the early days of radio.. early 20th century ..Sr Marconi.  There was lots of fears about 'death rays'.  These subsided not to reappear until the 1990s with the mobile phone.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #26 on: 29/10/2008 00:09:23 »
RD, you're right - my electrosensitivity does involve Lyme Disease, but not in the way you are suggesting. These spirochetes have flagella, and I believe that I can feel them swimming towards the excessive levels of magnetite in my brain caused by all this electrosmog, trying to find their way back 'home'. This is why my lower teeth are all sawed down - I had to have a bite plate made in 2000 for this - long before I was aware of my Lyme and all of this electrosmog.

If this is a science forum and cause and effect have some kind of order, in order for your assumptions to be correct, I would have had to have been aware of and concerned about electrosmog prior to grinding my teeth down. In fact, though I've done this to my teeth since I was a kid (in my sleep), it wasn't until the wireless boom took off in the latter part of the 90's that I did any damage to them. In fact, now I often find myself clenching my teeth during the day when I am awake. It is not intentional either and requires my constant attention to keep from doing this. If I think of something else, my teeth automatically bite down as if I'm not even in control of my own jaw bone.

So you tell me how a psychiatrist is going to help me? Give me drugs to sedate me to the fact that I have a type of bacteria (or rather several) that are responsive to all of this electrosmog? Several are even types that live inside the iron-rich red blood cells. Sit me down in front of a counselor who is going to reassure me that all this electrosmog is safe and that this isn't what I am feeling?

Pumblechook, I measured the magnetic field in this house with a meter. It measures anywhere from about 1.5 to over 3 milligauss 24/7 (this is not considering the higher levels near appliances). My neighbor's house measures 4 to 12 milligauss or higher (again, away from appliances). I predicted her house would be higher because I often felt worse when I would visit with her, and once I turned white and almost collapsed upon entering.

Most other homes I've measured are much lower - maybe 0.5 to 1.5, with occasional areas that run higher (up to maybe 3 or 4). But my entire home is 1.5 to over 3 milligauss all day long everywhere away from appliances - and this is without considering the microwaves from area cell phone towers. My yard on one side is 3-4 milligauss, too.

I've even turned the circuit breaker off, and the magnetic field does not go away. The only time it goes away is if the power in this entire development goes out. That tells me that it must be coming from the ground wiring, so things like Stetzer filters wouldn't help. I'm also stuck in this home because I can't think of any job I can work that will not expose me to even higher levels, since most stores and office settings would expose me to fluorescent lighting and electronics of some type, and cell phone users and the masts that enable them now rule the planet. Even a couple of errands can virtually wipe me out some days if I hit enough cell phone users. Some stores I avoid like the plague, too - like Walmart - oh my God.

Bored chemist, years ago 1 in 30 people died of cancer - today 1 in 3 do. Autism, ADHD, Chronic Fatigue, early onset Alzheimer's, super bugs - nearly every disease is on the rise, and the best part is disease is no longer limited to the elderly - it's attacking much younger generations today.

With all the money that is being spent on research, what have they really cured? Sure, they've perfected surgery, but if it can't be surgically removed and/or replaced with a synthetic something, they haven't really cured anything - but they've sure convinced the vast majority of people that we're living longer.

In 1994 I bought my daughter a kitten - after one year he began to spray the corners of the house, though no cause was ever found for the behavior. I believe now that he began this habit because he sensed danger when a cell phone antenna went up in the neighborhood.
By 1996 he was dead anyway of fatty liver disease.

Got another kitten right afterwards in 1996 - by 1998 at the age of two he was dead of FIP - basically his immune system failed.

Got another kitten, again, right afterwards, and by the age of two his kidneys were shot.

Two of my cats died in my current home - heart attacks.

I should not think something of all of these deaths???

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #27 on: 29/10/2008 00:21:22 »
Something else to consider, I lived in a home for 14 years that was found to have high levels of radon when I moved - I had to remediate it before the house sold.

Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but radon is 'radioactive gas' and I was breathing it for 14 years - in the presence of a cell phone tower which gave off radiofrequencies, so...???

*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #28 on: 29/10/2008 12:31:34 »
Radon gas is radioactive and at high levels can cause lung cancer but is it probably far less risky than smoking so I wouldn't worry. Low levels of radon actually have benefits and  can reduce the risk of cancer.   There is no connection with radio frequency transmissions.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #29 on: 29/10/2008 14:12:49 »
I often find myself clenching my teeth during the day when I am awake. It is not intentional either and requires my constant attention to keep from doing this. If I think of something else, my teeth automatically bite down as if I'm not even in control of my own jaw bone.

Stiffness or spasticity in jaw muscles his is entirely consistent with Lyme disease affecting cranial nerves which control your face.
Cranial neuritis could also explain your asymmetrical face symptom, (Bells palsy).

Quote
Lyme disease may have a latency period of months to years before symptoms of late infection emerge. Early signs include meningitis, encephalitis, cranial neuritis, and radiculoneuropathies. Later, encephalomyelitis and encephalopathy may occur. A broad range of psychiatric reactions have been associated with Lyme disease including paranoia, dementia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, major depression, anorexia nervosa, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/11/1571

If you read the above quote you will see that Lyme can cause OCD and paranoia.
EM fields are not necessary to explain your symptoms, Lyme alone can account for all of them, including your irrational belief that telephone & electric companies are responsible for exacerbating your symptoms and that there is a conspiracy to conceal their wrongdoing which includes the government: these are classic symptoms of paranoia. 
 

So you tell me how a psychiatrist is going to help me? Give me drugs to sedate me to the fact that I have a type of bacteria (or rather several) that are responsive to all of this electrosmog? Several are even types that live inside the iron-rich red blood cells. Sit me down in front of a counselor who is going to reassure me that all this electrosmog is safe and that this isn't what I am feeling?


Possible treatments for neuropsychiatric symptoms of Lyme disease would include...

1. Alternative antibiotic regime: different type(s) of antibiotic to reduce the parasite load.
2. non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication: inflammation triggered by the bacteria is what damages the nerves in spirochete infection like Lyme.
3. Anti-convulsant medication: this reduces the frequency and severity of short-circuiting in the damaged nervous system which is causing your neuropsychiatric symptoms.
4. Anti-psychotic medication to reduce paranoia.

I measured the magnetic field in this house with a meter. It measures anywhere from about 1.5 to over 3 milligauss 24/7 (this is not considering the higher levels near appliances). My neighbor's house measures 4 to 12 milligauss or higher (again, away from appliances). I predicted her house would be higher because I often felt worse when I would visit with her, and once I turned white and almost collapsed upon entering.

People with Lyme can have problems with thermoregulation and can be intolerant of heat or cold : if your neighbours house is unusually hot or cold this could explain why you felt worse soon after entering. You previously mentioned that you felt unwell when the heater in your car came on, again heat intolerance caused by Lyme could explain this, not EM fields.

Again I would suggest you seek out a neurologist or psychiatrist who has experience of treating the neuropsychiatric symptoms of Lyme disease. The links I gave previously may help you find such a physician.
« Last Edit: 29/10/2008 14:29:04 by RD »

*

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 569
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #30 on: 29/10/2008 14:24:33 »
A few milligauss is a tiny field.   The Earth's magnetic field is 500 mG.  (Half a Gauss).  The magnet in the speaker in your TV or radio is maybe 2000 Gauss.

How much have you spent on  meters?

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #31 on: 29/10/2008 15:02:22 »
Radon gas is radioactive and at high levels can cause lung cancer but is it probably far less risky than smoking so I wouldn't worry.

Where is your 'proof' that smoking is more risky than radon with regards to lung cancer? Let's start there.

Then show me your proof that cigarette smoking (alone) causes lung cancer. It's never been proven. Never. It's one of those bold scientific assumptions where circumstantial evidence is accepted as proof.

My mom developed lung cancer 5 years after she quit (late 90's), shortly after the wireless boom took off.

So my assertion is that smoking in and of itself does not cause lung cancer, but smoking in the presence of electromagnetic/microwave/radiowave radiation certainly could, but then again so would breathing in any type of pollution regularly in the presence of this radiation - so can we really just shake our finger at those cigarettes and claim to be unbiased scientists?

Here's an article from 1956. I'm choosing this article because it suggests that cigarette smoking is likely a risk factor to lung cancer, yet it implies that there might be some other exposure to some unknown something (or somethings) that might be a cofactor in the disease. I suggest you read this with EMF/RF exposure in mind, because it fits quite nicely. This might explain why lung cancer rates continue to increase, yet the number of smokers continues to decline.

I'm curious as to what will you blame when all smokers have essentially committed suicide, yet lung cancer remains?

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/smoking/cameronf.htm

...Most authorities on the subject agree that before the early years of the twentieth century, cancer of the lung was encountered rarely. In a monograph on lung cancer which was notable in its day--1912--Adler could base his review on a mere 374 cases. Today cancer of the lung takes the lives of about as many white males each year as were reported to have died of all forms of cancer combined in 1900. During the period 1930-1948, the death rate from lung cancer among men rose from 5.3 per 100,000 to 27.1--an increase of 411 per cent. Some part of this remarkable increase can be laid to better and more widely available diagnosis, but the net impact of the factor of better diagnosis is considerably weakened by noting the trends in the post-mortem experience in large hospitals over the years. Cancer of the lung was perhaps less generally recognizable forty or fifty years ago than it is today--but that was hardly true in the autopsy room. Cancer of the lung now constitutes a substantially larger proportion of the total autopsy findings than it did thirty years ago.

There are certain curious features of this increase. In the first place, whereas the curve of the death rate from nearly every type of cancer affecting chiefly adults rises steadily with increasing age, that for cancer of the lung does not. As early as 1936 the rates by age for white males showed a flattened peak between the ages of 60 and 75, after which it fell off. The peak has since become high and sharp, and for the years 1945-1948 occurs at about the ages 65 to 70, after which the rates drop abruptly. The rate curves for women show later peak death rates, tending to resemble more closely the curves for other types of cancer. The only reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is as follows: From what is known about established environmental causes of human cancer, those causes appear to require years of operation, usually not less than twenty, but sometimes longer, in order to exert their effect. The lung cancer death rate curve suggests that whatever agent (or agents) is responsible for the present increase in cancer of the lung is of recent appearance in terms of its current prevalence, did not involve men who are now beyond the age of 70, but did involve men who are 65 to 70, and in the light of the usual exposure period necessary to produce cancer, about twenty to thirty years ago. This puts the critical exposure period in the 1920s and early 1930s, when the present susceptibles were relatively young men.

The second unique feature of lung cancer death rates over the years is the growing disparity between the sexes. In the period 1933-1936, the ratio was slightly over two male deaths to one female death from this disease. In the interval 1945-1948, five men died from lung cancer for every woman dying from the same cause. In 1949 the difference had increased to six to one, and today most opinions put the male-female ratio of deaths at eight or nine to one. It would appear that more men than women have exposed themselves to whatever factors are responsible for the recent rise of this disease.

Thirdly, cancer of the lung is commoner by a factor of more than 2 among white males living in cities than it is among country dwellers. The differences are much less marked for women, but are nonetheless discernible...

I spent none of my own money on meters - my ex-husband bought me one.

RD, are you a doctor?

And it was the dead of winter when I almost collapsed upon entering my neighbor's home.

And I did not say I felt worse when the heater in my car came on - I said I felt worse as soon as the engine came on - there's a big difference between the two.

Also, I said I felt worst the more the heat would run in my home, but I kept my thermostat at no more than 68 degrees, which is actually quite chilly to some. I did not feel any effect from the unit during the summertime simply because I'd been avoiding running it!

Finally, you vacillate back and forth here - telling me my symptoms are either valid and an offshoot of Lyme, yet in the same breath you suggest I see a psychiatrist. If these symptoms are truly related to these infections of my nervous system, how would a psychiatrist be able to help me? - your only suggestion should be antibiotics to treat the infection, not a shrink or psych meds.

But you still avoid the real issue here - if these fields are promoting my infections, can you scientifically blame my infection for my symptoms? - let alone suggest that they are an offshoot of underlying phobias?

I'll say it again - my symptoms of electrosensitivity PRECEDED my knowledge of EMF/RF. I had no knowledge prior of what an electromagnetic field even was.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #32 on: 29/10/2008 16:23:48 »
And I did not say I felt worse when the heater in my car came on - I said I felt worse as soon as the engine came on - there's a big difference between the two.
Anyone know how much EM radiation an internal combustion engine produces?

Quote
Finally, you vacillate back and forth here - telling me my symptoms are either valid and an offshoot of Lyme, yet in the same breath you suggest I see a psychiatrist. If these symptoms are truly related to these infections of my nervous system, how would a psychiatrist be able to help me? - your only suggestion should be antibiotics to treat the infection, not a shrink or psych meds.

I'll say it again - my symptoms of electrosensitivity PRECEDED my knowledge of EMF/RF. I had no knowledge prior of what an electromagnetic field even was.

Well, RD is saying your symptoms are a result of the Lyme, but that you now attribute them to EM fields - so the symptoms would have come before any knowledge of EM fields.  Plus, what he actually said was:

Quote
Again I would suggest you seek out a neurologist or psychiatrist who has experience of treating the neuropsychiatric symptoms of Lyme disease.

So he didn't just tell you to see a psychiatrist, and this doesn't contradict his comments about your symptoms being Lyme-related.

As it happens, I'm wary of any forum-based diagnosis, but have you ever seen anyone about the neuropsychiatric effects of Lyme disease?  I know I would, in your situation.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #33 on: 29/10/2008 19:27:21 »
And it was the dead of winter when I almost collapsed upon entering my neighbor's home.

Going from a winter outdoor temperature to a warm house would be sufficient to upset a heat intolerant person.


I did not say I felt worse when the heater in my car came on  
I kept telling family members that I always felt ill, but especially so when I'd drive my car, or when I'd get to a certain intersection or road, or in certain stores, or when my heater ran more..

BTW vertigo can be a Lyme symptom, (cranial nerve viii), if you were affected turning your head from side-to-side at an intersection could cause dizziness and nausea.


Finally, you vacillate back and forth here - telling me my symptoms are either valid and an offshoot of Lyme, yet in the same breath you suggest I see a psychiatrist. If these symptoms are truly related to these infections of my nervous system, how would a psychiatrist be able to help me? - your only suggestion should be antibiotics to treat the infection, not a shrink or psych meds.

No “either” in my statements. Psychiatrists treat hardware and software problems. The neuropsychiatic consequences of Lyme would be a hardware problem: mental disorder occurring as a consequence inflammation of the brain caused by bacterial infection. So a psychiatrist (or neurologist) who has experience in treating Lyme disease could prescribe alternative antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, anti-convulsants and anti-psychotics, (the latter three medications can provide relief of symptoms, but not cure).


I'll say it again - my symptoms of electrosensitivity PRECEDED my knowledge of EMF/RF. I had no knowledge prior of what an electromagnetic field even was.

Yes your symptoms of Lyme disease pre-existed your Lyme diagnosis and your interest in EM fields, but this chronology does not support your hypothesis that EM fields are to blame for your illness. You have acknowledged that your previous hypothesis that chemicals in cosmetics were exacerbating your symptoms was incorrect. Your EM field theory is equally incorrect. Lyme disease alone can explain all of your symptoms, please see a physician who specializes in treating this rare condition. (The links I have posted may help you find one).
« Last Edit: 29/10/2008 19:47:34 by RD »

*

Offline turnipsock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 586
  • Beekeeper to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #34 on: 29/10/2008 22:48:35 »
A quick reallity check here.



One consequence of the proposition "electric fields are bad for you" is that we would have lived longer before these fields were produced.

200 years ago there was no electricity (in the conventional sense of the word).

There is good evidence from the records kept in parish registries etc that people are generally living longer than say 200 years ago. In particular fewer children are dying young.


Good point.

50% of road deaths occur in 30 mph zones but only 12% of road deaths occur on motorways...therefore, the faster you go the less likley you are to die.

I use my wireless headphones all the time and the only problem I have had is not hearing my mum shouting when she hadn't locked the toilet door.

My best friend died this year from a brain tumour, he was into mobile phones from the begining and was always on the phone. The tumour was on the same side the used for his phone.
Beeswax: Natures petrol tank sealant.

When things are in 3D, is it always the same three dimensions?

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #35 on: 30/10/2008 00:16:10 »
I spent 15 years on a variety of psych meds, and the only one that ever consistently helped any of my symptoms was Klonopin, which consequently, is an anticonvulsant - and towards the end there, even that one failed. Interestingly enough, fluorescent lights, which emit EMF, are known to cause seizures in some - so was the Klonopin really treating my anxiety or just some underlying seizure disorder brought on by exposure to these fields?

Klonopin only helped when my symptoms were limited to anxiety, too. Once I started experiencing sweat attacks, heat (and cold) intolerance, droopy eyelids, severe insomnia, etc... - even that one failed. I don't think it's unscientific at all for me, therefore, to suggest that EMF/RF exposure is involved, given the timeline, even if its involvement has to do with its ability to encourage Lyme.

I have to say that I find it interesting that there is a definite parallel and overlap between the symptoms of electrosensitivity and that of chronic Lyme. Are they one in the same? I've tried to tell those on Lyme forums that they are truly electrosensitive and those on EMF forums that they could be harboring chronic Lyme, yet neither side wishes to take me seriously, even though I've made the connection between the two and even measured my exposures. Each side believes in their own cause, not realizing that they are likely related.

And one theory I have - which turnipsock reminded me of - is that it is possible I become more symptomatic at intersections, waiting for the light to turn green, because I am not moving. Microwave ovens today are often made to include rotating turntables so that the food cooks evenly. So he may be right that you are less likely to die if you are moving fast, especially when you're surrounded by towers. This might also explain why I have such an increase in my symptoms when I am sleeping - or attempting to, I should say.

Turnipsock, how old was your friend? And was it a glioma? My ex survived, but he continues to use a phone - I believe he uses a headset now, but I don't believe they are much better.

You might be interested in this, too - pictures of what a cell looks like when exposed to these frequencies...

Generation X-ray (scroll to pics):

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20080508.htm
« Last Edit: 30/10/2008 01:13:27 by blaze »

*

Offline Neuroengineer

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #36 on: 03/06/2009 21:56:22 »
I read a lot of your posts, but not all, simply it's too long.

The main debate here I guess is, "Is electromagnetic radiation hazardous to your health?". I was actually searching for a completely different topic when I stumbled on this post.

First I'd like to say, unless you have formal training in Electricity and Magnetism, Electrodynamics and Neurobiology, it will be very hard for you to fully understand the problem, let alone give a sensible answer.

I am in the Neural Engineering program at Penn State and recently attended a seminar on high tension EM radiation and its influence on the brain. Similar to what you all are discussing. The conclusion from this talk was simply, "no harmful evidence".

Here's a brief explanation on EM radiation and matter:

What doesn't get absorbed by matter, goes through (hence a SAR index).
Higher frequencies of EM radiation have more energy and produce more damage to tissue when absorbed.
The power is important. Low power = low risk.
Certain frequencies will not penetrate far (they are absorbed or scattered) in tissue.
Antennas will only couple with wavelengths comparable to their length.


Brief explanation of neurons:

Neurons have a maximum firing rate based on their recovery time (order of milliseconds).
Neurons can be treated as mini-antennas due to their pole-like nature and excitability.


So to sum it up, say a neuron with axon is on the order of a micron = 10^-6 meters. To directly excite those neurons you need radiation of a similar wavelength or a frequency of about 3x10^14 Hz, maybe even 10^12 Hz = 1 THz is possible. This is far higher frequency than microwaves in cell phones.

As for "science", science is based on evidence. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it is not a fact. The best example I can think of is the "aether" and Michelson-Morley experiment.

This person who "feels" EM radiation of high frequency might be unique, but science doesn't draw conclusions based on single data points.

The experiments we are doing in the lab use certain frequencies to control brain function with wire leads stuck in the brain, but these are low frequency and localized.

Important question: The person who claims their eye 'droops' with the hairdryer, it is the same side (ipsilateral) eye as the hairdryer? The motor cortex is very complex and areas that control certain muscles are very closely crammed in a small strip of tissue that covers the brain from left to right. Furthermore, I would think that as nerves are cross innervated in the brain, moving the EM source to your LEFT side should cause a motor response on your RIGHT side. Also, the firing rate of neurons upon motor control is broad, 60 Hz which is the line frequency in the USA is a small line in this band. I am not saying that this is your imagination, but it could be psychosomatic. Especially if you are holding the hairdryer with your same-side hand.

In my professional opinion, I don't believe you can "feel" EM radiation other than what everyone else feels, despite what some people might say. Furthermore, if you don't absorb radiation, it can't hurt you because it passes through. (Coupling with an antenna causes a drop in power so this is considered absorption).

Hope this gives some insight.

GB
« Last Edit: 03/06/2009 22:51:13 by Neuroengineer »

*

Offline k8

  • First timers
  • *
  • 4
    • View Profile
Re: Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #37 on: 11/06/2014 07:48:04 »
I'm surprised that this persons experiences have been dismissed out of hand. Has no-one here heard of empirical evidence?

I would say the burden of proof would be with the company with the money to conduct trials, rather than someone experiencing symptoms.

Any educated or generally logical person, would say that we do not know for sure either way at this stage.

I have some sensitivity, so maybe I am more open minded. Mine is only mild discomfort when cells phones are turned on, unless I switch the sim card round. Many a time I have accidentally created a 'blind' experiment. e.g. not realising the phone was turned on, it was supposed to be off, feeling mild discomfort and finding it was on. I even often can feel it at most sensitivity when it is turned off, unless I take the Sim card out.
So, while it is only when pretty close to me, and is only mild discomfort, i do take the sim card out unless I really need it to minimise impact.

This is clearly not a nocebo, as, with my current knowledge of phones, it doesn't make sense why it occurs when it is switched off, and occurs when I don't realise the phone is switched on, but feel it. I wish it was just a nocebo.

Even if this persons is a nocebo, it is still partly causing it btw, as the symptoms are still happening! It wouldn't suprise me if it wasn't. I do know of someone else with a brain tumour in area where mobile phone was held (a lot). It's enough to at least question whether it could.

So, even though i'm not sensitive to wireless (as far as i know) with wireless headphones, some people experiences and studies, I'd be suspicious, and consider how important it is to have wireless headphones,  but couldn't say either way at this stage.

I do not appear to be sensitive to wireless, but that doesn't mean others are not

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Are wireless headphones a health risk?
« Reply #38 on: 11/06/2014 22:48:09 »
Wow, zombie thread resurrected after 5 years...

There's been a lot of research on these issues (from power lines, to phone & wi-fi towers, to mobile phones, to home wiring, etc.), and the results of the properly blinded studies have generally been inconclusive - i.e. no evidence of measurable health effects from EM radiation. As is often the case in controversial issues of this kind, studies by vested interests on either side will tend to support their views (biases may occur, or studies with the 'wrong' results may not be published, etc.), so you have to try and find independent, good quality studies.
 
Modern phone systems are far more efficient and transmit with much lower energy than early ones. It can't be discounted that someone with an old phone glued to their ear for many years in an area of poor cell coverage (when phone transmit power is boosted) might have some related health effect in the long term, but at present such a risk has not been seen in the statistics - people use phones and people get sick, but there's no significant correlation apparent. It seems to me that if there is such a risk, it is small enough to be swamped in the random noise of the everyday risks of living for many years, so there are far more significant everyday risks to worry about.

For a good double-blinded trial on electro-sensitivity, see this from the University of Essex, UK which concludes that whatever is causing the symptoms of the people they tested who claimed to be electro-sensitive, it's not short-term rf-emf exposure from mobile phone technology; although the subjects reported worse symptoms when they knew the transmitters were on, under blinded conditions they couldn't tell the difference. Ben Goldacre talks about the study and the response to it in his blog 'Bad Science'. It's research and comment from 2007, so predates this thread... The wikipedia article is more recent and comprehensive.