Airpods And Headache/Ear Pain

[Korican100]

I've decided to auction mine off before even openen them due to concerns with the TX power level these things use. I use Bluetooth devices, including headphones, all the time and I'm not worried the least bit about those - but these things use BT class 2 or 3, which means the transmit power is at 10 or 1mw max respectively - which is, indeed, very low and almost not measurable on SAR measuring devices.

However, Apple in their infinite wisdom have decided to make the W1 chip that's in the Airpods (and some Beats cans) a Bluetooth class 1 device. Class 1 devices can transmit at up to 100mw - so the Airpods potentially output an EM field that's up to 100x stronger than that of a regular bluetooth headset. To put this into perspective: 100mw is what a WiFi access point uses - and nobody in his right mind would put one of these on each side of the head for hours a day. A regular phone on the LTE network transmits at 125mw - not much difference there, either.

I fail to see the reasoning behind this move - nobody needs bluetooth earbuds that have a range of close to 70 meters. Apple also doesn't give us RF exposure info and guidlines for the Airpods, which is weird, as every other device all the way down to the Apple Watch is listed on their RF page.

According to the FCC filing for the Airpods (https://fccid.io/document.php?id=3118442), the SAR rating for these is 0.466 - which is nearly double that of, say, a Google Pixel XL phone.

I buy bluetooth headsets to lower the RF exposure I get from my phone for crying out loud, not to increase it.

Anyway, I believe that would explain the headaches some people seem to get from them.

You can literally sleep next to a powerful wifi router and it would do you no harm for the rest of your life. They transmit less harmful energy than a lightbulb. And im sure you are surrounded by those pretty much most of your days.

 

[BorderingOn]

Was about to say just that. And while @BorderingOn's reasoning makes a lot of sense, it is based on one assumption: That mobile phones are 100% safe. Assuming that phones are 100% safe, there is no or little reason to fear Bluetooth headphones. But if phones are even slightly dangerous, then it is completely unknown how dangerous Bluetooth headphones are. Especially as you usually carry your phone in your pants' pocket or in a bag but you might be wearing your (both) AirPods 12 hours or more each day.

Never assumed phones are completely safe but I see controversy around the buds with no concern about the elephant in the room. And while it's true the buds are in your ears, the phone is often in a pocket near reproductive organs all day.

 

[Coffee50]

Is the concern that AirPods communicate with each other? (Versus other Bluetooth headphones that just use one)

What if someone just used one? Would that be the same as a other Bluetooth headphones?

 

[TurboPGT!]

Is the concern that AirPods communicate with each other? (Versus other Bluetooth headphones that just use one)

What if someone just used one? Would that be the same as a other Bluetooth headphones?

Who said the AirPods communicate with each other?

Gahh I don't know why bother. This thread is garbage and needs to be deleted.

 

[glenohumeral]

Never assumed phones are completely safe but I see controversy around the buds with no concern about the elephant in the room. And while it's true the buds are in your ears, the phone is often in a pocket near reproductive organs all day.

Not all cells are made alike...

Germ cells aren't as sensitive as neurons in the brain and they are often resectible should the tumor arises anyway.

You can't expect to live and have normal functioning body when you have to resect a part of your brain off...

That's where the concern comes from.

Also, you can mitigate this issue by holding your phone slight away from your head or by using speakerphone mode, but you can't do that with your headphone by design.

 

[BorderingOn]

Not all cells are made alike...

Germ cells aren't as sensitive as neurons in the brain and they are often resectible should the tumor arises anyway.

You can't expect to live and have normal functioning body when you have to resect a part of your brain off...

That's where the concern comes from.

Also, you can mitigate this issue by holding your phone slight away from your head or by using speakerphone mode, but you can't do that with your headphone by design.

We've had cell phones for decades now. Has any study shown a definitive link?

 

[jcmoney10]

Since I wasn't able to actually sell the Airpods (not as popular as they seemed here in Switzerland), I decided to open and test them with the EM meter I purchased some time ago when I set up our Unifi APs. There's one problem I've encountered: due to the W1 sensor's capability to detect when the AirPods are inside the ear, it's relatively hard to get them to play when they're not (which is necessary to measure the EM field) worn. I had to trick them a bit.

Now these numbers are hardly scientific - first of all, the EM meter I have isn't a professional one - its purpose was to identify WiFi dead spots in the house so I could properly place the APs - for that it doesn't need to be very accurate. Plus I lack the skills to test anything like this professionally, so this is merely anecdotal.

The bad news first: the EM field directed at the skull is indeed higher than with my Jabra sports headphones that I've been using for a while now. The good news, however, is that the part that actually goes into the ear (and thus bypasses the skull bone) is very well shielded. When measuring in direct contact with the actual bud, field levels were about the same as the Jabra's. The AirPods clock in at around 250-850 microV/m2 (depending on the angle of measurement - the part perpendicular to the head is around 850, the top part is lower) when measured at the buds and on the side facing the brain, while the Jabra also emits around 850. However, both AirPods emit the same EM field strength (which is a bit surprising, i thought only one of them is connected to the iPhone via bluetooth). With the Jabra, only the one with the transmitter in the right bud emits a significant EM field, while the left one is connected via wire and emits around 50 microV/m2. The Jabra is also very well shielded - on the outside-facing part of the bud, the EM field maxes out at around 1900.

The part where I guess the antenna sits in the Airpods (the small downward facing stick) emits beyond the 2000 mcroV/m2 my EM meter is capable of measuring - and it does so in all directions, including towards the neck / jaw.

So in review, it's more complicated to measure these things than I'd thought - but it's clear that in combination, they emit more than double as much EM radiation towards the head than the reference model I used. That's because both AirPods have a measured EM field of around 850 microV/m2 inside the ear and between 1900 and (over) 2000 microV/m2 on the outside part of the device at the back of the buds and the antenna respectively.

They do not transmit at 20 dBm (100 mW) as is the max for Bluetooth Class 1, however. According to the FCC filing, they max out at 12.5 dBM (17.8 mW), which is still almost double that of a normal Bluetooth Class 2 headset. Due to their excellent shielding, the exposure on the parts that are inserted into the skull is comparable to that of regular headsets, except that with regular bluetooth headsets, only one of the buds contains a transceiver, while with the AirPods both of them do.

And coming back to the FCC filing: the SAR value of 0.466 is reached when the measuring equipment touches the rear of the device (the one facing away from the skull). The front touch SAR is 0.028 (measured over 1g of tissue) or 0.010 (measured over 10g) - both of which are very low compared to what a regular mobile phone emits. And this confirms my observations that the device is excellently shielded towards the head.

Now what any of this means in terms of health beats me. Although I might come across as such, I'm actually not in the alarmists' camp - I've been using wireless devices for years for a variety of purposes, from headsets over phones all the way to home automation. I became interested in the topic because I have small children and I'd like to be able to make informed decisions when it comes to pretty much anything. If I can have the same functionality at lower RF exposure with certain products, I choose those, that's all.

I really appreciate this post, and while it might not be scientific, it allows us to gain a little more insight as to what's going on. My two biggest take away a from your findings:

1. The radiation directed towards the head is actually much smaller than previously thought. The .4 w/kg on the back end of the device is still rather high comparatively, but it seems to be somewhat shielded from the head.

2. The fact that both Airpods produce the same EM strength seems to suggest what I had thought all along, and that's that both connnect to the phone rather than one AirPod connecting and then transmitting the signal through your head to the other one. This has been a point of concern for a handful of people out there.

Great post!

 

[Lennyvalentin]

Do you think it's the Bluetooth radiation or something?

There is no such thing. To begin with, the electromagnetic radio-frequency spectrum used by bluetooth has no biological effect on human tissues, also, the transmitters have incredibly low power - which they would have to have, if they're to run for five hours on a tiny tiny battery, alongside a CPU microcontroller, some accelerometers, IR proximity detectors and an audio codec/amp.

So don't worry about bluetooth. Anyone saying it causes...whatever, they're either trying to con you for some reason (selling you a belief system, a book or a snakeoily gimmick of some sort), or they're unscientific and/or clueless and/or paranoid kooks. Or all of the above.

 

[glenohumeral]

There is no such thing. To begin with, the electromagnetic radio-frequency spectrum used by bluetooth has no biological effect on human tissues, also, the transmitters have incredibly low power - which they would have to have, if they're to run for five hours on a tiny tiny battery, alongside a CPU microcontroller, some accelerometers, IR proximity detectors and an audio codec/amp.

So don't worry about bluetooth. Anyone saying it causes...whatever, they're either trying to con you for some reason (selling you a belief system, a book or a snakeoily gimmick of some sort), or they're unscientific and/or clueless and/or paranoid kooks. Or all of the above.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Health Organization sponsored a review of the research by 31 experts and declared radio-frequency radiation "possibly carcinogenic to humans," based primarily on cell phone radiation research.

In 2012, the General Accountability Office issued a report calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review the cell phone radiation standards that were adopted in 1996 and to revise cell phone cell phone testing procedures to resemble who currently uses phones and how they are used.

In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics called upon the FCC to adopt cell phone radiation standards and testing procedures that protect children's health and reflect current patterns of use, and provide meaningful consumer disclosure about the potential risks from cell phone radiation

In 2013, the cities of Boston and Philadelphia in an official filing with the FCC criticized federal agencies for a "pass-the-buck" attitude with regard to protecting consumers from cell phone radiation.

In 2014, the California Medical Association issued a resolution calling for "new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research.
"

In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal calling on governments to adopt more stringent regulation of wireless radiation (including Wi-Fi) and issue precautionary health warnings (http://EMFscientist.org).

In May 2015, the city council in Berkeley, California unanimously adopted a landmark cell phone "right to know" ordinance. The law requires cell phone vendors to distribute an official notice to customers which informs them that the phone's manufacturer has set a minimum body separation distance to
ensure that the user's cell phone radiation exposure does not exceed the federal limit. The City was sued by the CTIA, the wireless industry lobbyist organization.

In June, 2015, an investigative journalist at Harvard, published an exposé of the FCC, "Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates." The chair of the FCC is the former CTIA president, and the current CTIA president is a former FCC commissioner.

In September, 2015, Consumer Reports published an article that explains cell phone radiation risks and recommends that users reduce their exposure. Consumers Union calls on government to strengthen cell phone radiation regulations, for manufacturers to display prominently "steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation," and for cell phone users to adopt safety measures.

For more information about the health effects from exposure to wireless radiation see my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety web site at http://saferemr.com.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.

Director, Center for Family and Community Health

School of Public Health

University of California, Berkeley

 

[Lennyvalentin]

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

2.4GHz RF transmissions CAN'T affect human tissues. Impossible. It does NOT cause cancer. End of story.

If these radio transmissions could cause cancer, we would have to throw out our entire understanding of physics.

 

[glenohumeral]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

2.4GHz RF transmissions CAN'T affect human tissues. Impossible. It does NOT cause cancer. End of story.

If these radio transmissions could cause cancer, we would have to throw out our entire understanding of physics.

Did you even read the rest of what I wrote?

It's not just one guy from ivory tower

 

[bhodinut]

2.4GHz RF transmissions CAN'T affect human tissues. Impossible. It does NOT cause cancer. End of story.

That's the frequency of a microwave oven. It can damage human tissue. I've read about people where the interlock failed on the door. May not cause cancer but it will burn/destroy tissue at high enough levels.

 

[jcmoney10]

I've seen a few articles posted on this thread that seem to come from sites that have a clear agenda. What I mean by this is that they seem to only exist for the purpose of reporting on one topic (cellphone radiation) and seem more bloggish in nature. While some of the information in these articles may come from reputable studies, they can sometimes get twisted to fit the narrative of the site. It's hard to take sites like this seriously because they are creating the world they want to see.

When doing research on topics such as these, it's best to either go to the source directly and read the actual study, or try and find reputable sites that don't have a specific point of view they are pushing. Also, pay attention to the article itself. When doing a quick google search on "AirPod safety" you will see a number of articles from all over with headlines declaring Bluetooth unsafe, but if you look closely, many of these sites are citing the same source. You may have 15 different articles talking about the dangers of AirPods, making it look very scary, but in reality they are just requoting the same study or person 15 times.

For those of you intested in some more indepth analysis of cellphone/Bluetooth safety check out these links:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/07/27/jnci.djr285.full

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no...r-what-mother-jones-and-consumer-reports-say/

 

[ulinerg]

"The iPhone will communicate via Bluetooth directly with the right earbud, which will send a separate Bluetooth signal to the left earbud. This means the radiation carrying the signal will pass directly through the user's brain."

DIRECTLY through your BRAIN like a "LASER".

Jokes aside, I've had mobile phones which fried my ears off.

Hey with no ears how do the AipPods fit?

 

[Macalway]

It's interesting about that study about bluetooth, breaking down the brain blood barrier that filters toxins. So in effect, the toxic bluetooth lets in all the other toxins.

Get the trend here?

 

[niploteksi]

Hey with no ears how do the AipPods fit?

I use over ear headphones and I use duct tape to hold them in place.

 

[kis]

It's interesting about that study about bluetooth, breaking down the brain blood barrier that filters toxins. So in effect, the toxic bluetooth lets in all the other toxins.

Get the trend here?

In all fairness, said study was conducted in 1975 when cell phones barely just became available. There were follow-ups on this and some managed to replicate the findings while others couldn't. It's unclear if that study really found anything or whether it was just a fluke. Based on this study, it was long feared that the recent rise in dementia cases was cell-phone related, but that doesn't seem to be the case as the latest UK numbers from the last two years indicate that the number of dementia cases has suddenly and sharply declined and nobody knows why. Brain cancer cases have also not been on the rise (at least not when the higher life expectancy is taken into account). There was a sharp rise in the 80s but that can be attributed to the general availability of CT scans - before they couldn't be properly diagnosed. So if anything is going on, it hasn't manifested itself yet. Mobile phones became omnipresent in the late 90s. That's almost 20 years - we should be seeing increases by now but there's no indication that's happening. Of course there are cancers that take up to 30 years to develop.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

That's the frequency of a microwave oven. It can damage human tissue.

No, 2.4GHz microwaves interact strongly with water molecules, which heat up and in turn denatures proteins in food. Microwave ovens don't target human tissues as such.

To cause cancer, you need to damage DNA and/or cellular proteins in specific ways. IE, knocking out/around atoms in the molecules without damaging the entire structure. 2.4GHz bluetooth transmitters completely lack the energy required to accomplish this.

 

[glenohumeral]

No, 2.4GHz microwaves interact strongly with water molecules, which heat up and in turn denatures proteins in food. Microwave ovens don't target human tissues as such.

To cause cancer, you need to damage DNA and/or cellular proteins in specific ways. IE, knocking out/around atoms in the molecules without damaging the entire structure. 2.4GHz bluetooth transmitters completely lack the energy required to accomplish this.

Youd be really naive to think that only ionizing radiation can cause cancer...

There are literally infinite ways to cause cancer and its not always as direct as damaging DNA


For example, something as beign as HOT beverage stress on the esophagus is scientifically, and undisputively proven to cause squamous cell cancer.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

For example, something as beign as HOT beverage stress on the esophagus is scientifically, and undisputively proven to cause squamous cell cancer.

I never said only ionizing radiation causes cancer. UV light from our sun is one of the most common non-ionizing radiation causes of cancer.

Heat does cause cellular damage, which could have any number of repercussions. Do note that heat causes damage by destroying proteins and DNA in the cells. Cancer doesn't erupt magically; it happens when the ordinary functions of the cell's protein machinery is disrupted, through direct DNA damage or protein damage, or say, heavy metals, chemicals, free radical damage and so on. Or potentially heat, as you mention.

A battery-powered BT transmitter however is on the order of 100,000-1000.000th the power of a microwave oven or thereabouts - an airpod simply CAN'T produce any heating strong enough to cause tissue damage, or even enough for you to even feel it. If it did, that tiny battery would run down in a few minutes at most.

And as mentioned, 2.4GHz EM waves don't interact particularly strongly with human tissues - they can't disrupt normal cell functions and as such don't cause cancer. We know this; physics tells us so, and alarmist internet weblinks be damned.

All they do is shake about water molecules a teensy tiny bit, in the case of bluetooth-power level transmissions.

 

[John25]

I picked up a pair of AirPods tonight and after 30 minutes of use I experienced this weird headache. It's like a slight tension on the side of the head. I'm hoping this isn't a constant thing because I like everything else about the AirPods!

 

[jcmoney10]

I picked up a pair of AirPods tonight and after 30 minuted of use I experienced this weird headache. It's like a slight tension on the side of the head. I'm hoping this isn't a constant thing because I like everything else about the AirPods!

This is my exact problem! Its taken me a while to truely explain it, but it's likes a slow building pressure on the sides of my head. I'm not sure what to make of it, as I don't think it's "radiation" related (otherwise my phone would give me the same issue). I thought it might be the size of the headphones, but I seem to get the headache regardless of whether I wear them deep in my ear or if I wear them loose and barely in.

At this point I'm not sure what to do. I don't want to return them because I love them and they are fantastic(outside of the headache of course), but at the same time using them is becoming increasingly difficult. I've tried just about everything I can think of.

 

[dotnet]

I haven't experienced any headaches from AirPod use yet, but I sure have from reading some of these AirPod threads...

 

[caligurl]

OK..... so I don't know if it's related but I tried again with the EarPods on a phone call. I immediately noticed the "buzzing" in the background. I started feeling the headachy feeling coming on so I switched to my LG's. NO buzzing!?

Is the "buzzing" because the EarPods are better at picking up sounds and the LGs aren't as good so I'm not hearing it (but also not getting the headaches!?)

 

[jcmoney10]

OK..... so I don't know if it's related but I tried again with the EarPods on a phone call. I immediately noticed the "buzzing" in the background. I started feeling the headachy feeling coming on so I switched to my LG's. NO buzzing!?

Is the "buzzing" because the EarPods are better at picking up sounds and the LGs aren't as good so I'm not hearing it (but also not getting the headaches!?)

Do you mean EarPods or AirPods?