Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Any dangers of bluetooth wireless earpiece? Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
2010-01-03 06:26 PM
Costa Thanks, Mr. Epileptic101.

Did you come across in your research?

You're basically stating that you have Reflex Epilepsy, is it only triggered specifically by cell phone use only?

Wiki, states that "patients with primary reading epilepsy have seizures triggered by reading". It doesn't necessarily mean that reading is bad, or is it? Yeah, right.
2010-01-03 02:34 PM
Controversy over cellphones

I would just like to make something clear from my perspective. I was never epileptic until the year 2000, almost a year after I began using, guess what? A CELLPHONE. People who scoff at the research made on this topic scoff at people like me. Sure it may be a coincidence but I highly doubt it. The lesion that was all of a sudden found on my brain and which was causing my seizures according to doctors was on the exact same side as the ear I was using when using my phone. That is the lesion appeared on my left temporal lobe. Coincidence? I don't think so. So many people judge me when I say that this is the reason I began having seizures. Eventually, after getting another MRI done and long after I stopped using my last cellphone guess what the result were? NO LESION! Now how was it possible that the lesion disappeared? I believed it was because I immediately stopped using the cellphone. Again, people mocked me for stating that in my opinion this was the cause. So eventually, I got a cellphone again. Despite being medicated for my epilepsy even after the lesion was gone, about 3 months after having a new cellphone, guess what happened? The seizures returned. Too much of a coincidence in my opinion. Now I am not attempting to say that everybody will get seizures, but I am more than willing to say that it is possible cellphones can affect different people in different ways. I am attempting to find an alternative to using cellphones directly against my head, such as using the speakerphone feature on my phone or using bluetooth. I have yet to purchase a bluetooth, I am still doing significant amount of research on it. Your question is legitimate and in my opinion, do your own research instead of listening to everybody else on here, including myself. Ultimately, you need to make your own decision. Remember, you are far more different than the next person. Good luck on your quest!
2008-01-08 05:52 PM
what about . . .

Every scientist on the planet will point at the cells around the ear and say, 'well, here's something,' or 'nothing happening there . . .' but what about the fact that the human body, with its computer (brain) and miles of wireing (nerves), is an electrical energy field. What happenes when another energy field interacts with out bioelectrical field? Is getting angry at someone over something minor an effect of wireless technology? What about our ability to concentrate? Blame it on aspartame. If you go into the silence of your mind and truly think about such issues, perhaps you will recieve some inutitive advice. Or if you have that bluetooth headset glued to your ear, perhaps not.
2007-10-03 02:22 PM
bluetooth concerns

Ive never had problems with cellular phones held directly to the ear but bluetooth use (headsets) give me very unusal headache pains just above the ear of use. Any explanations or suggestions anyone?
2006-06-16 01:32 PM
snfraser Thanks, those are some good points. I agree that sometimes things turn out to be bad. My point is that the opposite happens as well. Many of these things turn out to be exaggerated claims, like DDT (again, proper use is different than indiscriminate spraying), or claims with no basis whatsoever, like aspartame and cancer. This cell phone thing seems similar to some of those health scares.
I should have been more specific with the breast implant thing, I meant that there is no danger of breast cancer from implants, which was the main scare and it was not supported by the scientific evidence. The fact that some might rupture is maybe a quality control issue, but the health risks otherwise are minimal (not withstanding the fact that the surgery is incredibly invasive).
I agree with minimizing the effect where possible and, importantly, where plausible. As I originally pointed out there is a real increased risk of a traffic accident talking on a cell phone while driving (supported by experimental and observational studies), whereas the risk of health effects of cell phone radiation simply don't seem plausible (because the radiation is nonionizing compared to say UV rays or x-rays) and there is no compelling scientific evidence whatsoever of any ill effects in humans. Think also of the unfounded power line health scares in the past.
My concern is that the radiation thing might distract from the driving and talking thing which I think needs more discussion from legislators. I think this discussion needs to take place, so I am glad you have taken the time to comment here.

2006-06-16 01:00 PM
57 The items you mention are not health scares (at least some of them).

Even newer breast implants need to typically be replaced every "few" (10) years. Also quite a few women had significant problems with the earlier ones. That was definitely not a "health scare" example. It is very real.

I was aware of the DDT issue and potential reintroduction for malaria control. I have several comments regarding that.

1. We are now aware of the pros and cons of the subsance, so we can do a risk/benefit analysis, which was not properly done at the introduction of DDT.

2. Better malaria control is achieved through mosquito netting soaked in an appropriate insecticide, rather than "indescrimitate spraying" of DDT.

3. I have seen many documentaries on malaria control over the past few years.

DDT is not a Health Scare. The environmental hazards have been well documented.

Similar consideration is being given to the reintroduction of Thalidomide, however, it would not be given to women of child bearing years.

The point I'm trying to make is that history has shown us many problems that arise only after years of study and sometimes only after technology "catches up" to be able to measure those effects. In the meantime, it makes good sense to minimize the effects when possible.
2006-06-16 12:32 PM
snfraser Interesting article 57, thanks.
It sounds like so many other health scares however. The article basically admits that there is no evidence of harm. That is, the weight of scientific evidence doesn't support any harm (perhaps a flawed study here and there). As you point out, some vague 'biological effect' as reported in the article is difficult to interpret. At this stage it seems to me to be a classic health scare like breats implants, power lines, aspartame, and loads of other health scares. No compelling scientific evidence that these things are harmful as reported in the media or on sketchy websites. I will definitely keep my eye on this particular story, just in case.
As an aside, I thought you might be interested to know that several editorials in some of the top medical journals (e.g., The Lancet) as well as the World Health Organization have been calling for a reintroduction of DDT to save millions of lives (no exaggeration, after banning DDT deaths from malaria in Afric jumped from a handful every year to perhaps 1 million. 500 million are estimated to contract malaria every year) from malaria in Africa. West nile virus might be a concern too. Some scientists think DDT is a classic health scare as well. Properly used it is arguably safer and more effective than the chemicals currently in use.

2006-06-16 10:01 AM
Originally Posted by 57
I also agree that people walking/driving and talking on cellphones (with or without bluetooth), or typing on their blueberries look mighty silly. These devices stopped being cool years ago and I always laugh when a group sits down at a table and all the phones/berries are put on the table in front of each person as though the device somehow defines who they are. (Oooooo, you have the new ABC, model XYZ, you are sooo cooool....)
57, I dont quite agree on your statement of "stopped being cool"... This is of course always subjective and we are each entitled to our opinions... In my case I like what Dilbert had to say this past monday:

I would also tend to think that a Bluetooth headset would be better than using the cellphone to the ear, just because its radiated power is much lower than the cell phones. A cell phone can transmit up to a watt, where a headset is in the milliwatts... and besides, they're cool
2006-06-15 05:52 PM
57 Just read a short piece in Business Week Magazine (2006.06.19) about the RF effects of cellphones. The article was written since younger and younger people are getting cellphones. The article also discussed the fact that hundreds of studies have been done using cellphones, and that over 50% of those studies showed some kind of "biological effect" from RF.

Although this neither proves, nor disproves much, it DOES show that RF (even small amounts from a cellphone) does have a biological effect (they didn't say what, some, I'm sure being minor). It should raise some concerns about the long term use of these devices.

We all know how technology often catches up to the "harm" done by things we once thought were safe - cigarette smoke, Radon, DDT, etc.

Especially for children they stated that:

- Cellphones should only be used for (real) emergencies
- Do text messaging (to keep the phone away from the head).
- Use a "headset"
- Use the speakerphone feature.
2006-06-15 11:17 AM
snfraser Careful, you are talking to a scientist here. I can't accept claims like most of the population downs as much aspartame as they can, and I can't accept 3rd hand testimony and anecdotal evidence from surgeons, especially where real research exists.
I get ya though. None of your actions should jeopardize your health except maybe driving while talking on the cell phone
Again, to keep the discussion relevant to 'wireless phones', I maintain that driving while talking on a cell phone is surely a greater health risk than holding the phone to your head.
2006-06-14 06:42 PM
I hear you but...

I am in surgical sales and know lifestyle can be the best prevention. But when a guy that sold neurosurgical equipment tells me that surgeons have run into many patients with brain tumors that have been consuming everything with aspartame because it low calorie....I tend to think maybe that could contribute to it.

If not using an electronic device next to my head constantly might lower the risk of brain tumors, I just might roll the dice and not do it rather than say it might be due to the Big Rock I drink or something else a statastician wants to point at.

Just like I'm gonna consume sweets in moderation rather than say "Its got nutrasweet or splenda in it so I can scarf down as much as I can" most of the population does.
2006-06-14 05:57 PM
can't resist, sorry

Well, I'm no brain surgeon, just a health scientist. And what the research clearly shows is that NutraSweet is only dangerous if you are a rat fed ridiculous amounts by mad scientists. No cases of cancer in humans have been linked to any of those artificial sweeteners (ask the Canadian Cancer Society, or the American one). Fat, however, is though to be the new smoking. That is, being overweight is now thought to be the leading risk factor for cancer after smoking. So being fat is a real risk, not imaginary like NutraSweet.
Anyway, just trying to bring some perspective here. This is relevant to the BT issue, since all of those things we do while driving, even if we don't use our hands, can increase the chances of a traffic accident.
Damn, I sound like my mother.
2006-06-14 04:06 PM
patman92 I gotta check into the BT car stereo thingy Arthur mentioned. I have a BT earpiece and feel like an idiot everytime I use it.... but I use it because it's better to have two hands on the wheel when I'm driving/eating/talking/smoking/applying makeup/shaving/changing stations/hang gliding/wall climbing/bowling in the van. (Makeup for those 'special' friday nights...not that there's anything wrong with that... )
2006-06-14 03:05 PM
walbern1 The only danger I can see is from somebody slapping you in the side of the head for never taking the earpiece off when you're walking around or in meetings . I find it annoying when the person is talking away and you don't know if they are on the phone or talking to you.
2006-06-14 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by snfraser
I think you are you just pulling my leg with respect to the next silent killer.
Don't know the research on eating subs while driving. Jared would say it might help you lose weight.
-shawn boss worked with neurosurgeons and they told of the hazards of Aspartame. Sucrolose or Nutrasweet is relatively new and untested, but its something like sugar that has an ion removed to change the molecular structre and make it calorie free.

The supposed downside is by doing that it is falls in the same chemical family with a lot of other known carcenogens(sp?)

I would rather be fat than dead, so I say no to Aspartame, Nutrasweet and eating subs while driving.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome