Thanks so much for watching! If you would like to hear more about radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing), please check out: ruclips.net/video/uABlBIYtLPI/видео.htmlsi=0ooHbY-j9fIz0aLL
My only criticism is that ear pods sound like crap no matter what brand how how much you pay for them. If you want good sound, you need good headphones!
Hi i am a senior in high school and want to go into the nuclear field, in the navy (submarine officer). My question is if you would know how transferable that would be afterwards and if you have any friends or colleagues that went that path.
@@fredashayNo. Sennheiser’s Bluetooth earbuds are way more than "good". I picked that brand just because I happen to know that company has made top-quality headphones for decades. There may be mediocre brands that cost more which people buy for the name or whatever, but not these.
"now you could argue that visible light is the most dangerous form of radiation there is, because of what people see and how it influences their mind to make questionable decisions" - i'm amazed by the smartness of this thought
When I worked IT for an elementary school I had to write up a report to mollify parents worried about this and I used the same argument that visible light is thousands of times more energetic than microwaves.
Wow, and how do you sleep afterwards? Or are you really so uneducated on the subject and yet you are in a position of authority that dumb people will get as a reliable source? Check any scientific paper of the influence of low frequency electromagnetic fields on melatonine productio and maybe about the importance of said melatonine in your body in the fight against natural cancerous formations. THen i know is pretty hard but try to do 1+1 (just and hint, the resoult is not 11)
13 дней назад
Visible light can penetrate your skin far better than low power microwaves in the 900 to 5ghz range that mostly bounce off..
Being concerned about the hidden dangers in your life is human nature, but at some point, you need to step back and reevaluate whether the "danger" you are looking for is just an invisible undetectable fire-breathing dragon hidden in the garage.
@@WR3ND You joke.. but that's basically what happened in the tests. Thankfully blutooth has orders of magnitude less power outputs than microwaves, .00025W versus 1100W. So they're very safe.
10:30 - I read that study, which showed male rats were the ones affected. There was a second study just months (maybe a year) later that showed it was _female_ rats affected. And that study showed that the control group got more overall cancer than the ones being bombarded!
What they probably missed is that, it was probably the ration/food they were giving the rats that gave them the cancer, not the radiation they were exposed too, skin has some ways to protect itself from radiation, insides do not.
@@Argoon1981if they fed them the stuff they produce for typical supermarkets/grocery stores then definitely. They're paid not to tell you that though, like when they recommend smoking.
Bluetooth emits about 0.0025 watts on average. Cellphones are around 0.1-0.2 watts. Both around 2.5GHz. Which is around the same frequency of your microwave oven. Yet standard microwave ovens are 1100 watts. So with that said... I'd be more worried about standing outside in the sun without sun screen (1000 watts per square meter reaching the ground), than using common electronic devices.
It's just that the trend to sometimes shun technology gets in the way of the rumors as well. It's a bit of social science as well when translating how such scares even originate. I remember my mom telling me to use my phone less because of the radiation lol. And being a biomed student, and having studied radiation effects on humans, I told her what I had learned and for once, she actually understood and learnt from me lol
@@john_titor1 confounding that conclusion is that vitamin D is a powerful antioxidant and those can lower the risk of cancer, compared to those who are vitamin D deficient. Yep, it's that complex.
@@spvillano But im pretty sure the study they were referencing has been thoroughly debunked, as they failed to take into account the fact that those who are more likely to get exposure to the sun are more likely to be more physically active. Additionally, they still had higher cancer rates compared to those who avoided the sun and did not smoke. What did happen, was they had a SMALL decrease in cardiovascular deaths. Of course, this goes back to the fact that the sun exposure group was significantly more likely to have higher levels of physical activity. So it's not really all that complex.
Ham radio operator here. One of the things we learn when getting a license is RF exposure. The 'doctor' didn't fully explain RF exposure. It's safety exposure is calculated by both exposure time, distance from source and frequency. The human body absorbes RF differently depending on frequency. As in the frequency of transmission, not time exposure.
I used to work in satellite communications and we used transmitters that radiated 6 to 14 GHz at up to 8000 watts. There was no danger of cancer, as microwaves are far below the frequency of ionizing radiation, but there was a real danger of heat damage, since those frequencies would vibrate the water molecules in you, creating heat. The risk wasn't in the frequency, but the very high amplitude.
@@Charles-A because he uses his credentials to talk about RF exposure when he appears to know little about it. His doctorate is not in RF. That's why. Because someone has an expertise in one field does not make him one in all fields. And over the past few years we've been overwhelmed with experts telling us what to do and believe. Rule by experts has got to be pulled back, a lot. Now you know both why I said it and why I question this.
@@glynnetolar4423 he is not talking from authority deriving from his credentials. He explained what field he works on and based his presentation on evidence he gathered from different studies and explained it as best as he could in a simple manner . He is still a doctor
Thanks for doing this. People are so clueless about what is in the air around them. Ive learned what I know about nuclear stuff from my science teacher during the late 80’s, when the Cold War was still going and it was a serious risk. That and people like you, and I’m thankful for you sharing with us all. Now, I do know a bit about radios of all types and electronics. What cracks me up is that cell, radio and TV towers are blasting all of us all the time! I live about ~ 20 miles from a radio station that puts out 100,000 watts! Anyway, the thing I noticed he missed is this. Your cell phone is broadcasting the signal, the ear buds are just receiving it! Unless you’re talking on them ( using the microphone ), they are putting out next ZERO radiation. Even then it would just be from the slightest amount of power being used to power them. The cell phone is what’s putting the radiation out, so if it’s in your pocket, your foot is getting just as much radiation from it as your head would be. Bluetooth is everywhere, it’s just another radio signal is a pre-used frequency range, within pre-used power amounts. All those devices are not doing anything that hasn’t been going on for decades!
So nuclear stuff isn't a serious risk anymore? AFAIK the nuclear arsenals are still there, and nuclear power plants sometimes go boom. Furthermore, we still have no viable long-term storage for nuclear waste. I can see several risks.
@@eskileriksson4457Storage was figured out decades ago, and you don't NEED long term storage (what are you defining as long term?) anyway because of radioactive decay. Do you know what a half-life is? Even in the event of a massive dirty bomb wiping out a small country, the land would be completely safe within one or two generations. The radiation from the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki faded away decades ago, and you can visit literally anywhere in Chernobyl safely except for the room where the molten isotope fuel spilled into. Even brief exposure around the Sarcophagus is fine. All the wildlife has been back since you were probably a baby.
@@eskileriksson4457 and that is why you keep recycling the “spent” fuel. This removes the spent parts and retain those that are still “hot”. This gets combined again and used again. So, the parts left to be stored are minimal and way less dangerous. When done well, so not by anyone using a russian design, it’s a lot safer than most methods we use. That’s a proven fact, the stats prove it out.
@@chadro_g1145 A proven fact would be if anyone actually had made fourth gen reactors work. Sadly, that's not the case. Despite a lot of countries trying, ever since the fifties. The stats, so far, are a lot of experimental reactors, and no success.
I have grown over years to love radiation specifically radioactivity and ionizing radiation and have been learning a ton! I now own a dosimeter, a spectrometer, and numerous radioactive sources. You’re a big part of why this happened and thank you so much!
Thank you for the reacts, and getting the big channels too. Also Doctor Mike didn't explain that cells naturally can get cancer too, genetic or mutation (light=energy, unstable isotopes, environments, ect,.) Our cells go through apoptosis, a programed cell death at the right time, the telomeres in the DNA strand should start that process, other cells can take care of such before a mutation can make such problems. Normally we get cancer and get rid of it, before it becomes, the Cancer we know of that damages people's tissues, organs, bones, brain, anything that has cells. It's when our cells don't fight back and think it's a normal cell, is when Cancers take effect that we know of. People found that decreasing the response to inflammation of the Lueka-11 (I forget the name, something like so) stops the cascade of damage done to cells, and less chances of speeding aging. This has an effect of the cells being coded right or not as well. They are testing for genetic inflammation diseases, but seems promising for slowing down old age as well. If the code has been damaged, mutations take place, most of the time it's harmless. But the numbers of cells x our ages x our mass = Cancer does effect us, while whales aren't effected nearly as much, and mice have too short of a life normally for cancers to have a mass effect like we have on humans.
Hey Bro you have great knowledge about cancer . I am form india I also study about different kinds of carcinogens and cancer in class 12th( higher secondary school). I want to know you also study about cancer in you school or are you doing any type of graduation related to biologyb
wow and in the middle of all this where you forget about melatonine, his natural role in the prevention of cancer spreading and the effect of EMF on it's production?
There's a standing in joke in biology about the most toxic substance that's commonly and actively avoided by cells. Oxygen. Toxic as all hell, destructive to DNA and cellular structures and get around 1% O2 saturation, cells are badly stressed by its presence. And lacking it, the cells do that dead thing. Yeah, the entire body actually actively works to reduce oxygen concentration to individual cells, it really can be that harmful in excess. Hence, Paracelsus' saying, "The dose makes the poison". Microwaves are nonionizing, doesn't make high power microwaves harmless, but also doesn't make micropowered devices harmful or the sun would've rendered this planet sterile billions of years ago. It's hitting us daily with those same frequencies. Think of the much higher energy IR, great for warming your hands, but that doesn't mean you stick your hand inside of a fucking fire on a cold day.
@@trentondickey9061 there are of cause the spectrum expansion.... sort of. But that was used in 4G as station links. So its kind of a sort of kind of but not really new.
@@matsv201 right. I wasn't on the science side too much. I was climbing the tower hanging antennas but I was like if i can do that 6 days a week. You next to a phone is nothing
Yet if you search up the dead bushes that are next to these towers look if it does that overtime what is it doing to your brain 24/7 with different strength of frequency who knows they probably turn it up at night full power 5g at might is probably equivalent to sticking your head in a microwave on lowest setting
People emit emf that’s how EKG’s work. They pick up on the electrical fields emitted by the beating heart. EEG does the same for the brain. Listening in on the electrical field emitted as your neurons fire.
EKG/ECG captures the electric signals which are ionically conducted, not from the radiation. There are superconducting sensors which can capture the magnetic field too. And although very experimental, there is a machine which can remotely (10cm) capture the electric field of a human, mostly the signals emitted by the heart. But we do emit pretty powerful, like 100W ?THz radiation too, in the thermal range. Interestingly that may be too used for diagnostics in the future.
We are surrounded by radio frequencies all day and (almost) everywhere. This is why you can pick up dozens of radio stations in your car. What I want to know is the mechanism where non-ionizing radiation could cause damage to cells. It doesnt pass the sniff test to me.
I mean a microwave is non ionizing but it'd still cook you if you put your hand in and bypassed the door switch. But that's a lot more energy. A microwaves power supply would also kill you if you touched it where you probably won't even feel the supply to the Bluetooth transmitter.
"Non-ionizing radiation causing damage to cells" is basically the entire principle behind microwave ovens, but this also means that unless you are literally being boiled alive, whatever radio/microwaves you're being exposed to is at a safe level
@@igorbednarski8048 yup. I don't see how heating up cells could cause cancer but I am no cellular biologist. Especially at such low power. Let's say warming up cells.
Before even starting this video, I'm pretty sure the answer is going to be something along the lines of, if radio waves and microwaves are carcinogenic, then anybody not living in a cave completely devoid of light should start breaking out in instantly fatal tumors any second
not even that is safe, literally the entire universe is suffused with a baseline of microwaves. the CMB (cosmic microwave background), all places everywhere at all times. if microwaves could kill us, life wouldn't have evolved.
I don't quite understand how if your only argument is "higher frequency = more dangerous" and the frequency is still lower than visible light would make sense.
I would say it is a generalization. Higher frequency electromagnetic (EM) wave, X-rays ... are more likely to cause an ionizing event. UV can cause damage, like dimerization of DNA, but there are chemicals more likely to absorb certain ranges of wavelength, like color. Longer EM, like microwaves, excite atoms. The microwave oven is tuned to be near the resonance frequency of water. Not exactly, otherwise its penetration depth would be limited. FYI: The military has tested ones at the resonance frequency that make you feel like you have been set on fire with very little damage, probably because the exposure is so short since everyone runs away. So radio waves damage by thermal effects. If the heat is removed faster than the energy is deposited, no effect, else, there is cooking going on. Another point, there is more radiation then EM; there are beta, alpha particles (electrons and helium nuclei) neutrons, neutrinos and others. One will not hear about neutrinos since even though they may have very high energy, they are unlikely to interact with what we know as matter.
Because it's the nature of quantum mechanics. The frequency of an EM wave is directly correlated to the amount of energy carried by each individual photon in that wave ("quanta"). *Individual* photons must have sufficient energy to ionize an atom; the energy does not get accumulated across multiple collision events, so even a very strong source of radiation doesn't cause ionization as long as its frequency isn't exactly the atom's threshold frequency or higher.
The big question is how are these studies even performed, you're not gonna rope someone into ditching smartphones for 10 years for a study no matter how much you're paying them, i think so long as the question remains it SHOULD be labelled as a potential carcinogen, precisely because there is no decisive evidence to the contrary, and when it comes to human lives we tend to prefer to be overly cautious cause in the past too many lives were cut short by things like lead poisoning or asbestos. Lives that might've been saved if someone asked first what concrete evidence do we have this stuff is safe
This reminds me way back in the day a cop sued a radar speed gun company for getting testicular cancer. And yes, I'm aging myself it was 1991 and lived in Kansas and was a year out of high school. His name was Thomas R. Malcolm.
@@smugwendigo5123 I am better left Kansas in August 2000, only problem is went the wrong way and ended up in Oklahoma. But looking on the brighter side of life I now have 1 Adopted, One biological, 2 I talk to weekly, and 2 other I raised kids. Couldn't be prouder of any of them for what they have become. If someone said that to me in 1999 I would have told them they were on shrooms. Not everyone can grow up to be an engineer
Another thing to keep in mind about medical research using rats is that they almost always use rats that have been bred to have an incredibly high natural rate of tumors. While this is designed to make true statistical effects easier to detect, it can also result in more random differences between groups. Statistical significance matters.
connection between mobile phone usage and risk of cancer might as well just be related to the fact that people who use phones more are less physically active. which means worse overall health
@@matsv201 yeah, prob not in the 90s However not sure how it correlates with wealth of those people, like people who could afford a phone could have TVs more often and spend more time at home, alternatively get something that disrupts their sleep
@@lool8421 most of that research is from the 80s and 90s. By the 00 most lossed intrest in it. Probobly because we have yet to se a huge poåulation wide spike of brain cancer. And we would have seen that if it was the case. The statsrical data is really sensetice.
The longest living people on the planet lived very sedentary lives. Explain to me how exhausting your nervous system and heart rate for no reason other than vanity is healthy.
As a physicist, whenever I hear about worries about radio frequency emission, the thing that comes to mind is that we are emitters of infrared radiation at much higher powers and individual photon energy levels than anything that our technology like cell phones (limiting ourselves to ones that we actually sit next to) consistently produces. We are a little over 300 K, and the peak of our blackbody radiation spectrum is around 10 μm, or 30 THz. That means that the individual photons that we and our environment produce just by being warm are between 10,000 and 10,000,000 times as energetic as those produced by our cell phones and other RF technologies. And the total power is much, much greater, with typical cell phone emission powers being around a Watt or less, while a human emits many Watts of blackbody radiation (even neglecting blackbody radiation emitted and reabsorbed inside the body, a significant fraction of the heat we lose to the environment is through blackbody radiation, and a human is roughly a 100 W heater... literally take 2,000 kcal, convert to Joules, and divide by the number of seconds in a day, and you find that a human must be emitting around 100 W into their environment to remain at constant temperature). We are exposing ourselves to more power just by being at room temperature than we would if we embedded cell phone transmitters in our heads (so that all the energy they emit goes through our bodies), and the energy of the individual photons is orders of magnitude more than what come from cell phones, Bluetooth, and similar devices. For radio emissions to matter, you would need a specific resonance where some random frequency that we just happen to use was exactly right to cause chemistry to happen... but that makes no sense, because chemical energies are typically in the hundreds of THz and above (which is how visible light is visible and why ionizing radiation is at the energies that it's at and a million other things), and while outliers can exist, an outlier by 5 orders of magnitude or more strains belief.
1:24 I'm gonna go one step even further and point out that our very bodies rely on and generate EM fields. Extremely small ones, but without manipulating charges, your body cannot function.
I just want to point out that technically, non-ionizing radiation can cause ionization through multi-photon collisions/absorptions. It's just you need extremely high photon/energy density to actually get these sorts of ionization events to happen with any regularity, so you won't need to worry about them in any practical system.
I'm pretty sure the original studies talking about it as a potential carcinogen were based off cell phones which put out a different frequency and higher power than current devices. So even if they were harmful at the time we've moved to a different band and lowered the power significantly.
Worth noting that the radio waves and microwaves that phones use are further from ionizing radiation than the visible light produced by their screens is.
give him some slack dude. Just because you're a doctor doesn't mean you know the precice ins and outs of radiation physics. He's not a radiologist and he didn't say anything that's dangerously wrong.
My professor who was and still is the Dean of the Electrical Engineering Department of my school was among the researchers who helped implement Bluetooth technology with many major companies. When people in our class asked if it was safe, his response was "Whats published in the papers is published, but you won't see me using wireless earphones". As a side note he also explained to us why trees are the enemy of WiFi 6... or was it Bluetooth? He also was one of the people responsible for making color television possible while still being able to broadcast black and white. His team discovered a way to simultaneously send signals that support both formats. Plus he was involved with landing our peeps on the moon. Man is old but wicked smart. Was there for when Oracle split into the major companies we see today. Basically, this dude knows what he is talking about and is the source of ALOT of info relating to telecommunications. Man was among the few who actually created the whole damn industry.
@@GoldSrc_ Prof. Snutz, plenty of published works. You can find a lot of his telecommunications research and proofs on IEEE. If you don't have access to IEEE research papers, then you shouldn't be talking to me about your views on telecommunications or its safety.
You mentioned the inverse square law, but you left out an important point, that is the source is a point source. So for a non-point sources, this is not true until the distance is far enough to treat it as a point source. In infinite plane with a uniform emission of radiation will have the same radiation level everywhere, regardless of the distance from the source.
@@jackyboyslim1379 The inverse square law is based on the physics of a sphere with the source being at the center, See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law. As the distance increased, the area covered increased by the square, A = pi * r^2, so the total number of photons are constant but the area is larger, thus the inverse square. When one is close to a radiator that it is not a single point, the radiator can be modelled as numerous points, with the intensity at any spot distance as the sum (or integral) of these point sources. The area of a stove is not a point source if you are near it and the heat is fairly uniform over the area being heated. Across the room, it is close to a point source. Observing collimated sources, that is looking at only parallel tracks, also do not follow the inverse square law, since they a blocking the photons that are not parallel. The example of a infinite plane of uniform intensity is a case where the intensity is equal everywhere because summing up the contribution of all the point sources making up the plane add up to the same value. Principles of Optics by Max Born and Emil Wolf. This classic text covers the propagation of light in various forms, including plane waves.
@@jackyboyslim1379 If you imagine a pinhead that's emitting radiation, the radiation expands in a sphere out from that pinhead, so the inverse square law is as written. However if you then imagine a metal rod that's radioactive across the whole bar, and it's quite long in the XY plane, then you have radiation arriving at you from all points across the bar. Imagine drawing a line from the top of the bar to you, the middle of the bar to you, and the bottom of the bar to you, and the same for each point over the length of the bar, each point source obeys the inverse square law by itself, but you then have to add the individual points up again. Distance still helps, just not as much, as there's still radiation expanding into in the XZ plane that you're not in. Now if you imagine it's an entire wall you're standing in front of and it's all radioactive, then you're basically being exposed to the same amount of radiation you would be if you were standing right next to it (less what's absorbed by the air between you and the wall). It's the same as the bar, imagine drawing a grid on the wall and drawing lines from each point on the grid to you, again each point obeys the inverse square law, but you have to then add each point together, and for that situation, the effects essentially cancel out. Shielding will still help, and air does absorb some types of radiation. If you're standing in front of a wall that's emitting only alpha radiation, the air alone will absorb the radiation and drop that to insignificant amounts by the time it gets to you.
The difference in signal strength is likely due to one of the two pods being the main communicator to the paired bluetooth device and the 2nd pod is just paired to the 1st pod.
HF (High Frequency) is frequencies from 3 megahertz to 30 megahertz, VHF (Very High Frequency) is from 30 megahertz to 300 megahertz, UHF (ultra high frequency) is from 300 megahertz to 3 gigahertz.
Thanks for doing this video! These kind of theories came out of nowhere and started causing panic about wireless devices supposedly causing cancer. Even my parents think that I will get cancer by using my headphones everyday haha. It's good to have this kind of explanations by profesionals and experts in the field to debunk these panic-inducing theories, since they start spreading rapidly on social media and the target audience is anyone who would just consume this sourceless or outdated information without a second thought.
2:55 Maybe in this part Dr Mike want to say high energy ( E = H×fre) because he already said that frequency = Energy. You can see the power of 10 ( which represent frequency) increases form left to right on that Diagram. You can see on ionizing radiation side, frequency is in the range of 10^ 16 to 10 ^ 21 which is on high number mean high frequency or you can say high energy EMF wave I know high frequency mean 3 to 30hz ( acc to Google) but maybe Dr Mike doesn't know about this. He just spoke about high frequency which mean high energy
This is why it’s important to consider the speaker and the intended audience when critiquing claims: Dr Mike is a physician, not a physicist and he’s making it for the general public, who are also not physicists (for the most part). There’s no reason to assume he means the specific “HF” bandwidth when he says high frequency is ionizing…nor is there a reason to assume most people watching his video are thinking that. If Dr Mike was giving a presentation to a room of physicists or engineers, I’d be far more critical of his use of terminology, but he’s not so I think he presents the information in a fairly decent manner considering the audience he’s going for (such as parents freaking out that their kids will be harmed by their headphones)
An important thing to mention as well is that you're generally a pretty fair distance from your router. You're more likely to be close by the microwave, but even if you're a couple yards away you will be okay for that short amount of time. However, you shouldn't put your head close to the machine while it's running, because microwaves are NOT shielded in any way and the thin plastic door is doing nothing. The good part is that the radiation from the magnetron travels in a specific direction (right to left), which is not pointed at you, and the waves don't retain their energy over much distance. Taking a step back to avoid potential stray exposure is just good practice.
@@helloweener2007 That's false. A microwave will set off a multimeter or a Geiger counter through the door. You can easily find videos of tests showing this.
@@bloodleader5 Yes of course. You can set off a Geiger counter anywhere. You know how much Radon comes out of the soil (in mountain areas) and accumulates in houses. I am pretty sure that youi can measure some diffrence but how much of a difference is it? And was the microwaven oven OK or broken? One can destroy the protection a little bit for making a scrae baiting video. The radiation exposure of a microwave oven is 5 mW per cm² or 50 W per m².
@@helloweener2007 Like I said, there are tons of videos. Old microwaves, new ones, different wattages. Look it up for yourself since Google deletes any comments with links, find any one you like if you feel like cherrypicking. You made the claim that nothing leaks, but that's a lie. All microwaves leak a small amount of radiation through the front while they're running, and the claim about the wavelength being stopped by the thin plastic door is just plain wrong. The reason people aren't exposed much is because the magnetron (basically an EMF gun) is pointed sideways inside the machine and not forwards, and the waves only retain energy for a few feet. All it would take is changing the direction and increasing the wattage by not a huge amount to make something that's a practical hazard. There's also a separate source of radiation inside the machine when it's not running or even plugged in, which is the thorium that's used in the magnetron. If you're in contact with the machine then you're also catching some of this, but you would have to be in the box for it to be significant in a short exposure time. Rays from the thorium that hit your food fortunately run out of energy within a few minutes, so by the time you're eating it the food is close to zero. This ought to be common knowledge because it's just how the appliance works. I mean, manufacturers even have warning labels telling you not to stand next to the thing while it's on. And really, the small chance that your machine might be poorly built or malfunctioning should be enough reason to follow this advice, unless you put blind faith in mass production quality control or in regulations.
Interestingly, when electricity via light bulbs were first introduced (according to "Absolute History"), they had no idea how to use electricity safely. So they had things like "a table with live wires running through it that guests poked light bulbs into" Or "different Wattage and Voltage from every electrical provider" Or "Plug everything into your light bulb's socket, which is dangling from the ceiling with NO insulation" They didn't have fuses. But they DID use gas lighting as well. You can imagine explosions happened every now and then.
One thing that might be of interest as a potential link between people who use their cellphone more, is that electronic devices and plastics off-gas chemicals that cause cancer. You have that near your mouth more often, you're more likely to inhale cancer causing toxins... Similarly, for people who buy news cars, they will likely have a correlated risk of certain cancers, as that 'new car smell' is actually toxic off-gassing
You say that High Frequency EMF is from 300 MHz to 3 GHz. I think that is incorrect. High frequency would be between 3 MHz and 30 MHz. 300 MHz to 3 GHz is called Ultra High Frequency. Between these two bands you would find the Very High Frequency band from 30 MHz to 300 MHz.
2:40 that’s just objectively wrong, “high frequency” is 3-30Mhz, not 300-3000, that is “ultra high frequency” for completeness(in MHz and only the common ranges): 0.03-0.3 low frequency 0.3-3 medium frequency 3-30 high frequency 30-300 very high frequency 300-3000 ultra high frequency 3000-30000 super high frequency and NONE of these are ionizing, visible light STARTS at 400 000 000 and that’s also not ionizing
The FCC having guidelines on how to reduce EMF makes sense in the broader role. The EMF of that level might not be harmful to humans, but they still can cause issues with electronic devices. Some of the actual cases that I know of is usb 3 speeds scrambling GPS signal within a short range, HDMI at specific resolutions ruining the wifi and bluetooth within a few centimeters of it (it does matter on extra small devices like the raspberry pie) and some SSD or pcie interfaces that makes touch screen unresponsive if you happen to place your phone right on top of where it's placed in your laptop (yes, my laptop does that). Another one that is technically EMF is the laptop hinge position sensor getting tricked if you place a magnet (like the speaker of a phone) at an exact position, but I'm not considering that interference as it's technically working as designed.
Big difference in terminology. In layman's terms, High Frequency just means "higher than another kind", while the ITU has specific allocations ranging from ELF to EHF, covering the ranges from 3Hz to 300GHz. In that sense, HF is often taken to mean between 3MHz to 30MHz, or about halfway between AM and FM car radio.
As a healthcare professional, I think this is a great video. An important note. The massive hole in the ozone layer above Australia, which may be allowing a significantly large amount of UVc through compared to other countries, may be one of the reasons why Australia has one of the highest rates of skin cancer per capita. In Australia you BURN in a way not seen in other countries! Be safe
1:35 I wish we had a different word for those things, because people hear radiation and instantly think the nuclear meltdown type of radiation. Sunlight is radiation, I don't see those same people that panic over 5G avoid the sun, in fact I'm pretty sure sun radiation is objectively dangerous for you, and not in a negligible way. Same thing happens with Cancer, scientists find a correlation, publish that, people see that and for some reason don't know the difference between correlation and causation, and go into panic over nothing and spread that to others as if it's a fact.
On the topic of medical claims from non-statistically significant data - I'm certainly not an expert, but I do remember talking about things like this in some experimental design and research ethics classes from university. Medical research is extremely frequently limited by an inability to ethically gain strong statistical data. Health-related research is typically constrained by an inability to enforce experimental conditions upon subjects, especially if the researchers have reason to suspect that the experimental conditions could be harmful to the health of the participant. Hypothetically, if you're researching the health effects of heavy radio wave exposure, the experimental design for a high power study would be something like requiring all participants to wear some sort of suit at all times, where half the suits contain metal mesh layers to block RF exposure while the other half don't. Or you would have the participants sit next to high powered antenna and amplifier setup, where half of the amps are secretly connected to a dummy load that doesn't produce any radio transmissions, but would still mimic any sounds one might hear from an amp being on to blind the participants and experimenters to whether it's a placebo or not. The problem is that, for the first setup, you could never get enough participants or enforce participation in something like that, and the second setup, if you suspect that it may increase the risk of cancer, you just can't do that. They're left with the main options being experimentation on other animals or observational studies where they have little choice but to just try to figure out how much somebody might have been exposed to RF waves and ask them for any health problems, and try to see if there's any real link. These types of studies are fundamentally unable to establish causative relationships, and even for the sake of establishing correlations, almost always suffer from large margins of error. The net result is that the field of medical research is forced to operate in an area of much less conclusive evidence than you could get researching most other things, and medical publication being plagued with studies with false positive conclusions and a difficulty in gaining enough data to conclusively demonstrate that those false positives are really false. Add onto this the general public's greater interest in their own health meaning that there's a lot more sensationalized reporting, and a lot more money prompting motivated research and the spread of misinformation than you get in most other scientific fields. For the most part, doctors do the best they can to parse through the data, but it should be unsurprising that many doctors still fall into rabbit holes conclusions established off weak data or bad science. A little anecdote on why observational studies can be so hard - When I worked at a computer and electronics store, at one point I had a guy come in and talk to me about radio equipment. I don't remember the bulk of what we talked about, but we were in the DIY electronics area, and he was talking about shielding his house from RF. I had extensive training in networking tech, in cellular service, in computer parts, and a personal interest in robotics and electronics, and had plenty of prior experience regarding radio communications from having done robotics for years on a diy level and involved in high school and college clubs/classes. I had even previously modified an RC sailboat toy to be a drone that could autonomously navigate by GPS and send telemetry back to a laptop on shore, with a ~1 mile range. I think it's fair to say that, while I wasn't technically an expert, I was vastly more knowledgeable about all things radio wave communication than the average person. I didn't realize it at first, but this guy was decidedly less knowledgeable on this stuff than the average person. The way the conversation started, I thought that he was talking about getting a lot of crosstalk and interference from bluetooth, wifi, and other 2.4 / 5 GHz communications - something that absolutely can happen. There are a limited number of channels within the general 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz classifications, and while devices can often switch exactly which band they use, too many can reach a point where they can no longer reliably communicate. Even without reaching the limit of different channels, high powered transmitters can make it much harder for devices to parse data from lower powered transmitters, like a wireless mouse sometimes being inconsistent if it or its usb receiver is too close to a wifi access point or antenna. These things aren't common to deal with, but in the position I was working, the niche exceptions were the things I commonly dealt with - if people went home and their wireless mouse worked fine, they didn't come to ask me about problems regarding their wireless mouse. It's very possible that this predisposed me to lending credence to what he was saying he was experiencing, and looking to link it to a possible uncommon issue that he didn't have the knowledge or experience to recognize the cause of. As such, it legitimately took me about half an hour to realize that this guy was mainly just accidentally saying things that were close to real things, and actually he was just claiming to have a lot of interference from other wifi and radio signals in his house because he had tinnitis, didn't realize it, and had come to believe that the high pitched whining was him hearing wifi. I can only imagine how hard it is to accurately figure out how much people are exposed to RF signals when you probably get plenty of people like this guy, who have don't know what you're talking about, or what they're talking about.
“High Frequency” is normally 3-30MHz. Goes back to the early days of radio. 30-300MHz is Very High Frequency, above 300MHz the terminology depends on the standard used.
There were a number of research papers released by the Chinese about biologic medicines used to treat IBD, the most effective medications ever developed for this group of conditions, these research papers found that they didn’t work and that they weren’t very effective at all. Why was this? The medications were too expensive and so rather than tell the citizens that they couldn’t afford them they instead lied to the citizens and said that they didn’t work whilst also releasing papers promoting diet based treatments and natural traditional Chinese remedies that definitely did not work. Science is a very powerful tool if abused or manipulated and unfortunately it is far too easy to publish papers and research and make it appear credible these days, you can find or create a paper to back up any point of view and a lot of scientists will just write a paper based on what they are told to write. Finding and correlating multiple sources was always important but it is even more important now, something the media and everyday people ignore when they cling to one singular study as proof.
I always laugh when people complain about EMF and then we ask them: Do you use hair dryers? An electric powered alarm clock that is next to your head 8 hours a day? Microwave ovens? Space heaters or resistant heat? An electric blanket?
The microwave is the only one that's really a consistent comparison there, to be fair. A hair dryer or a heater isn't actually sending radiation in any specific direction, all it's doing is turning a fan which blows the warmed air at you. All the emissions are confined to the wires and coils which both are looped circuits and are never physically close to you anyway. In an electric blanket, the coil warms the insulation (a type of EMF shielding) which in turn warms a very heat-conductive barrier material, which then warms the much less conductive blanket fabric, which then warms your skin by touching it. As before, literally the only thing you're catching is heat. With a microwave oven, though, it doesn't create or move heat; they contain a device called a magnetron, which is basically an EMF gun, and it emits high-powered waves which excite particles within objects as the waves pass over them. Excited particles become energetic and some energy is converted to heat *inside* the food. The lucky thing is the magnetron is pointed sideways, and not at you, because if you stood close enough directly in front of its emissions then it would literally cook you too, and damage DNA. Remember that microwave ovens originated as a downscaled version of experimental military microwave weapons, haha. It's wrong to say that your countertop appliance cannot cause harm, but rather, the waves are traveling perpendicular to your position and lose their energy after a couple feet so as long as you don't sit there with your head pressed against the machine or open the door and reach inside while it's on then nothing will happen.
Sorry to correct a small error/Inaccuracie in relation to the electromagnetic field: A direct current does not have an electromagnetic field, just a magnetic field; it is only in alternating current that you have an electromagnetic field. Sorry for being picky :)
One of the funniest arguments I've ever seen about Bluetooth was a mom who said she doesn't let her kids use Bluetooth headphones cause of the radiation but proceeds to fly cross country with those same kids every 6 weeks for doctors visits and supposedly "detox" that radiation exposure from the flight lmfao like I know the amount of radiation from a flight is basically negligible but that's just not how radiation works you can't just magically detox it you've already absorbed the dose and it's done the damage it's going to do.
To be overly pedantic just for the entertainment value, you can technically remove radiation from the body, but the program for that is pretty much known as simply "being healthy". Your waste cycles, cell regeneration, and macrophagy are all involved in removing material from your organs, which would include both irradiated cells and cells with genetic copying errors caused by the radiation. The problem is that telling people "get water and electrolytes, get nutrients, support your immune system, avoid oxidative stress, avoid disease and injury" doesn't sound cool and homeopathic enough. And well, if you get a high acute rad dose all those body processes slow WAY down, so the more irradiated you get, the worse you are at clearing it out... Also funny is that real life RadAway would just be diuretics, so like... equally as effective as a saline IV or just drinking alcohol. The best thing you can do is literally wait a long time and pee a lot. What a great "detox", haha.
"High Frequency" or HF as a radio term of art is 3 MHz to 30 MHz. 30 to 300 MHz is "very high frequency" (VHF). 300 MHz to 3 GHz is "ultra high frequency" (UHF). These names are from the early days of radio, and today HF is one of the lower frequencies that you're likely to encounter. Microwave usually means somewhere in the GHz, 1 to maybe 100 GHz. This includes bluetooth, wifi, and some of the cellular bands, while other cell bands are in UHF or even VHF. I think in this case, he meant (more precisely) EMF of a high enough frequency can be ionizing. Of course microwave and visible are not high enough frequency, but both are well above "high frequency" as it is used in radio.
A collab between you and Dr. Mike would be pretty awesome, tbh. (also, English is Dr. Mike's second language--he's fluent, but he does occasionally make mistakes or miss things)
This video is scienception! 🥰 A nuclear scientist exploring questions raised in another nuclear scientist’s inquiry into non-nuclear non-scientific claims 🤔😅 Exploring a topic by logically and scientifically analyzing and evaluating claims and conclusions using logic and reasoning. This type of inquiry is highly educational 😎
we can boil this down using a microwave, to boil water pretty much all frequencies under visible light provide LITERALLY ZERO DNA damage(the factors below that are 100% on chemical carcinogens and 0% on radiation) it gets dangerous once you hit UVB above UVB you can begin to have minor celular damage including DNA damage so you literally have to get into frequencies of a few THZ, or >1,000,000,000,000 hz to reach DNA damage, which is NOT POSSIBLE with ANY current technology(besides light bulbs, which are still in the safer lower THZ bands, or specific UVC lamps that are often misused in public gatherings because of the amazing look) so no, there is literally no such thing as "death rays" or "cancer beams" that do not utilize massive power levels(more than 1000w or about more than a microwave directly on your flesh as the inverse square law makes it somewhat safe to be in a room with an unshielded microwave emitter as long as you are a few meters away) or that do not use actual radioactive secondary products(uranium and thorium that we find naturally is 100% safe unless you eat it, you can have a brick of U-238 under your pillow and be not much worse than a frequent flier in cancer risk) what is dangerous is intentional sources of radiation from decaying matter, or things that use so much power you can't make them small enough to hide, or devices that make UVb/UVC for sterilization and you know that the radioactive matter that is dangerous is impossible to hide from a geiger counter, emitters that are dangerous based on energy input are difficult to hide and keep powered long enough to cause enough heating to harm you, and the UVB/UVC is blocked by a piece of cloth there is no danger of anything if it doesn't show up on a geiger counter or make you feel uncomfortably hot LONG BEFORE it is dangerous so bluetooth/wifi/cellular is 100,000% SAFE, if you feel hot you simply sweat those extra few mw of heating(or your body produces less intentional heating from chemical metabolism) so no, the only danger in using a bluetooth headset is if it either distracts you(noise canceling headphones can be a bad idea if you need your hearing to be aware of surroundings) if the volume is turned up way too high(which can be accidental as many pieces of content are far too quiet, so you turn the global volume up, then an ad comes on with 200% of content volume(which is common and should be illegal) and suddenly you have double the sound, which can cause small amounts of hearing damage as the content was so quiet you had to crank it up) or simply if you jam it into your ear wrong or otherwise misuse the device(it is not ideal for ppe or for any other purpose than private listening of audio content where being able to hear your surroundings is non-critical) or in my case my headphones don't perfectly fit my ears and glasses, causing slight pressure that can over a long listening session cause discomfort from the pressure on my head, though that can be fixed by taking off the headphones and going to do literally anything else with them off your head and no, the headphones are literally incapable of emitting enough to harm me, the battery is MAYBE 300-600mah(charges from a 5v 500ma charge port in 24 hours runtime by default with noise canceling on and a charge in less time than it takes to cook a meal, there is no point in modification there is something to be said about the default wifi router transmit power, but that is more about interference and security concerns it is actually a good idea to tune your router power limiter to barely reach the extremes of your coverage zones, and if you need a non-circular shape to get another router and place it in the center point of a new area and wire it in, tune both so they barely overlap and can't be detected outside your property, your neighbors will thank you from the lack of interference and your security will be higher as it is unlikely a person can sneak onto your wifi and spy on you sadly my apartment is sub-optimal and the router placement is sub oiptimal, so I can't tune it down and cover my apartment ideally if I was able to place the wireless access point in the center room I could tune the transmit power low enough to actually matter, sadly the fiber inlet is not something I can re-route and the existence of my computers placement makes it hard to move it, though if I had a spare network cord long enough I could place the router in the other room, run 2 cables there(one for the existing switch, the other for the wan input) then place the switch where the router is now guess that is my goal once I buy a spool of cat5e, run two permanent lan cables for ideal router placement
Your physics is impeccable. I could not find any mistakes in your explanations. Microwaves, although not ionizing, can kill you. I remember an incident on an old navy ship where a klystron was used as the microwave source for a radar system in the 300KW range. A tech had his forearm inside the waveguide when a full powered radar pulse came through. The bones in his forearm exploded because the energy from the pulse flash boiled the water in his arm and turned the bones into pipe bombs.
When I think of High Frequency (HF) radiation, I think of 3-30 MHz and 300 MHz - 3 GHz would be Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) so light must be instant death. 🤣
I think this is waste of time and resources. I disagree with Dr. Mike. In a world where funding is limited, it makes sense to pull the plug on something like this and direct the funding elsewhere.
Good earbuds that have noise canceling features and volume cut off pass through work as ppe depending on the level of needed hearing protecting just like regular ear plugs. Top end ear buds can preform better than average ear plugs. But that does require the upper end of ear buds.
The concern people are raising about phones and bluetooth leading to cancer is essentially the same classical theory that Einstein dispelled with his paper on the photoelectric effect. If the individual photons don't have enough energy to free the electrons, it doesn't matter how many there are or how long they are being exposed, the electrons aren't ionized because of their spectral gaps. Shit's quantum, not classic. Another great reaction video!
I've heard that wifi can potentially damage the blood-brain barrier, although this is substantially harder to quantify than the ionization effects at different wavelengths. The studies are inconclusive
"Radiation" is a concept that many people don't understand, and therefore fear. There are so many actually dangerous things our there, but people will focus on the invisible non-issues. I tell you what I do when I go for a walk with my earbuds... I turn the noise cancelling off; because I want to be able to hear that car coming up behind me, as I guarantee you, being struck by a moving vehicle is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than any radiation used to transmit the audio signal from my phone to my ear buds.
I mean, if you were to pass out while eating a lot of ice cream from a vessel big enough for your face and enough sweet, sticky cream (sorry not sorry) then you could potentially drown and the cause could potentially be the ice cream itself. Or I guess a simpler option is an ice cream induced heart attack while swimming. Anyway...
I like to go by the proverb dose makes the poison. Even oxygen can be dangerous if the amount is too high. It doesn't suddenly mean oxygen is bad for you. Same with potential radiation from our electronics. The amounts we're exposed to on a daily basis is to small to be of any real risk.
Sometimes I just want to create a transmission protocol based on ionizing stuff so people finally realize what would it take to do it. Imagine having to yell to your phone from some distance because it emits gamma rays. Lead based microphones lol.
People are more often right-handed so they hold cellphones with their left-hand and work with the right. Even with earpods it's probably more usually putting in one in that opposite ear so your righthand and eyesight is clear for less risk of injury... (About the left ear being more seductive to radiation)
For me, the rating should be a complete 0, not .01 or anything, because they don't have a mechanism. If you can't even properly state how the effect you're claiming is even THEORETICALLY possible, why should I give it any benefit of what little doubt it can live in?
FWIW, current gen Apple Airpods and Galaxy Buds use Bluetooth LE Audio which is essentially a one way protocol. Regular bluetooth requires that every packet transmitted from the source (cellphone) is acknowledged by the bluetooth device (ear buds in this case). With BLE no acknowledgement is necessary which reduces latency and means that the bluetooth device is not transmitting anything most of the time. Thus little or no Rf energy emitted "in the ear canal" other than when using the controls on the device. Now I personally am not afraid of non-ionizing radiation so it doesn't matter to me, but if does to you, then choose BLE capable earbuds and rest easy.
Bluetooth is of no concern to me, but thinking about TMS is interesting in that there is an obvious and sometimes permanent effect on the brain. It is not full EMR, but a simple magnetic field, but nonetheless, could there be a micro effect from the magnetic transducers in your earbuds that is harmful?
Bluetooth gave me pain in my cervical vertebrae. Maybe it won't give me cancer but it still hurts. I don't see what a nuclear engineer would know about such low frequency radiation anyway, x rays and gamma rays are more their area of expertise.
Thanks so much for watching! If you would like to hear more about radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing), please check out: ruclips.net/video/uABlBIYtLPI/видео.htmlsi=0ooHbY-j9fIz0aLL
My only criticism is that ear pods sound like crap no matter what brand how how much you pay for them. If you want good sound, you need good headphones!
@@fredashay people who have the money to buy fancy bluetooth headphones probably buy them for the fashion and not the audio quality 💀
Hi i am a senior in high school and want to go into the nuclear field, in the navy (submarine officer). My question is if you would know how transferable that would be afterwards and if you have any friends or colleagues that went that path.
@@fredashayNo. Sennheiser’s Bluetooth earbuds are way more than "good". I picked that brand just because I happen to know that company has made top-quality headphones for decades. There may be mediocre brands that cost more which people buy for the name or whatever, but not these.
@@bsadewitz Okay. I love Sennheiser headphones! So, okay, maybe they make good earbuds, too.
"now you could argue that visible light is the most dangerous form of radiation there is, because of what people see and how it influences their mind to make questionable decisions" - i'm amazed by the smartness of this thought
Im definitely using
@@idris4587 me too :)
I'm not sure I would necessarily say the smartness one because it just sounds weird. But it is certainly an interesting way of looking at it.
@borttorbbq2556 Fair I think i would use with others in the know how of physics instead of people who actually think microwaves are gonna kill us
@@idris4587 microwaves are dangerous because they can burn you but they wont give you cancer or autism like some people say they do 💀
When I worked IT for an elementary school I had to write up a report to mollify parents worried about this and I used the same argument that visible light is thousands of times more energetic than microwaves.
Wow, and how do you sleep afterwards? Or are you really so uneducated on the subject and yet you are in a position of authority that dumb people will get as a reliable source?
Check any scientific paper of the influence of low frequency electromagnetic fields on melatonine productio and maybe about the importance of said melatonine in your body in the fight against natural cancerous formations. THen i know is pretty hard but try to do 1+1 (just and hint, the resoult is not 11)
Visible light can penetrate your skin far better than low power microwaves in the 900 to 5ghz range that mostly bounce off..
The argument is the equivalent of saying:
"lightbulbs are dangerous because if you put enough of them in a small enough space, they can cause burns!"
it's scary they were allowed to have children
@@kenetickups6146 nice to see eugenic is still doing so well.
Being concerned about the hidden dangers in your life is human nature, but at some point, you need to step back and reevaluate whether the "danger" you are looking for is just an invisible undetectable fire-breathing dragon hidden in the garage.
I mean the invisible undetectable fire breathing dragon hidden in the garage did burn down my neighbor's house and toppled my mango tree.
@mikechiu9767 is that fire breathing dragon related to Wintergatan's ?
The invisible undetectable fire-breathing dragon in my neighbors garage burnt their house down around 10 years ago.
@@Draconicfish2679 We were probably from the same neighborhood 😂
I mean if you literally cook your rats with radio waves I'm sure they will show signs of stress. lol
Don't microwave your pets in the microwave oven: science.
@@WR3ND You joke.. but that's basically what happened in the tests. Thankfully blutooth has orders of magnitude less power outputs than microwaves, .00025W versus 1100W. So they're very safe.
@@taemien9219 I'm dead serious. The joke is the "science."
@@WR3ND I gotchee
@@taemien9219 Cheers.
10:30 - I read that study, which showed male rats were the ones affected. There was a second study just months (maybe a year) later that showed it was _female_ rats affected. And that study showed that the control group got more overall cancer than the ones being bombarded!
What they probably missed is that, it was probably the ration/food they were giving the rats that gave them the cancer, not the radiation they were exposed too, skin has some ways to protect itself from radiation, insides do not.
Regression to the mean
@@Argoon1981if they fed them the stuff they produce for typical supermarkets/grocery stores then definitely. They're paid not to tell you that though, like when they recommend smoking.
Bluetooth emits about 0.0025 watts on average. Cellphones are around 0.1-0.2 watts. Both around 2.5GHz. Which is around the same frequency of your microwave oven. Yet standard microwave ovens are 1100 watts. So with that said... I'd be more worried about standing outside in the sun without sun screen (1000 watts per square meter reaching the ground), than using common electronic devices.
30 year longitudinal study found that non smoking sun avoiding people and smokers that got lots of sun had similar high risks for cancer.
@@se7enspac3s Lol what? That's 100% not true... both of those factors are known to vastly increase cancer risks.
It's just that the trend to sometimes shun technology gets in the way of the rumors as well. It's a bit of social science as well when translating how such scares even originate. I remember my mom telling me to use my phone less because of the radiation lol. And being a biomed student, and having studied radiation effects on humans, I told her what I had learned and for once, she actually understood and learnt from me lol
@@john_titor1 confounding that conclusion is that vitamin D is a powerful antioxidant and those can lower the risk of cancer, compared to those who are vitamin D deficient.
Yep, it's that complex.
@@spvillano But im pretty sure the study they were referencing has been thoroughly debunked, as they failed to take into account the fact that those who are more likely to get exposure to the sun are more likely to be more physically active. Additionally, they still had higher cancer rates compared to those who avoided the sun and did not smoke. What did happen, was they had a SMALL decrease in cardiovascular deaths. Of course, this goes back to the fact that the sun exposure group was significantly more likely to have higher levels of physical activity. So it's not really all that complex.
Ham radio operator here. One of the things we learn when getting a license is RF exposure. The 'doctor' didn't fully explain RF exposure. It's safety exposure is calculated by both exposure time, distance from source and frequency. The human body absorbes RF differently depending on frequency. As in the frequency of transmission, not time exposure.
I used to work in satellite communications and we used transmitters that radiated 6 to 14 GHz at up to 8000 watts. There was no danger of cancer, as microwaves are far below the frequency of ionizing radiation, but there was a real danger of heat damage, since those frequencies would vibrate the water molecules in you, creating heat. The risk wasn't in the frequency, but the very high amplitude.
Why even type 'doctor' between quotes? He is a certified doctor.
@@Charles-A PhD maybe, not medical doctor.
@@Charles-A because he uses his credentials to talk about RF exposure when he appears to know little about it. His doctorate is not in RF. That's why. Because someone has an expertise in one field does not make him one in all fields. And over the past few years we've been overwhelmed with experts telling us what to do and believe. Rule by experts has got to be pulled back, a lot. Now you know both why I said it and why I question this.
@@glynnetolar4423 he is not talking from authority deriving from his credentials. He explained what field he works on and based his presentation on evidence he gathered from different studies and explained it as best as he could in a simple manner . He is still a doctor
I started calling them Radiation burns and ya, it made me take them a lot more seriously.
Small correction: Planck's radiation law assumes a blackbody emitter, the Planck-Einstein relation E = hf does not.
Thanks for doing this. People are so clueless about what is in the air around them. Ive learned what I know about nuclear stuff from my science teacher during the late 80’s, when the Cold War was still going and it was a serious risk. That and people like you, and I’m thankful for you sharing with us all.
Now, I do know a bit about radios of all types and electronics. What cracks me up is that cell, radio and TV towers are blasting all of us all the time! I live about ~ 20 miles from a radio station that puts out 100,000 watts! Anyway, the thing I noticed he missed is this. Your cell phone is broadcasting the signal, the ear buds are just receiving it! Unless you’re talking on them ( using the microphone ), they are putting out next ZERO radiation. Even then it would just be from the slightest amount of power being used to power them. The cell phone is what’s putting the radiation out, so if it’s in your pocket, your foot is getting just as much radiation from it as your head would be. Bluetooth is everywhere, it’s just another radio signal is a pre-used frequency range, within pre-used power amounts. All those devices are not doing anything that hasn’t been going on for decades!
So nuclear stuff isn't a serious risk anymore? AFAIK the nuclear arsenals are still there, and nuclear power plants sometimes go boom.
Furthermore, we still have no viable long-term storage for nuclear waste. I can see several risks.
@@eskileriksson4457Storage was figured out decades ago, and you don't NEED long term storage (what are you defining as long term?) anyway because of radioactive decay. Do you know what a half-life is? Even in the event of a massive dirty bomb wiping out a small country, the land would be completely safe within one or two generations. The radiation from the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki faded away decades ago, and you can visit literally anywhere in Chernobyl safely except for the room where the molten isotope fuel spilled into. Even brief exposure around the Sarcophagus is fine. All the wildlife has been back since you were probably a baby.
@@eskileriksson4457theres already long term storage
@@eskileriksson4457 and that is why you keep recycling the “spent” fuel. This removes the spent parts and retain those that are still “hot”. This gets combined again and used again. So, the parts left to be stored are minimal and way less dangerous.
When done well, so not by anyone using a russian design, it’s a lot safer than most methods we use. That’s a proven fact, the stats prove it out.
@@chadro_g1145 A proven fact would be if anyone actually had made fourth gen reactors work. Sadly, that's not the case. Despite a lot of countries trying, ever since the fifties. The stats, so far, are a lot of experimental reactors, and no success.
In my statistics classes, it was, when ice cream sales go up at the beach, shark attacks go up. 🙂
Wow! Gonna run out and get some ice cream tomorrow, as I'd love a nice shark steak. ;)
I have grown over years to love radiation specifically radioactivity and ionizing radiation and have been learning a ton! I now own a dosimeter, a spectrometer, and numerous radioactive sources. You’re a big part of why this happened and thank you so much!
Just built a radiation spectrometer from plans on CERN's outreach website.
Bluetooth radioactive. Sounds like some crazed crap Trump and MAGA would say.
Or a doctor of osteopathic medicine
man americans really are obsessed with trump
This is my first time visiting this Channel. Being an engineer myself, I appreciate the visible light joke so much that I couldn't help but subscribe.
Thank you for the reacts, and getting the big channels too.
Also Doctor Mike didn't explain that cells naturally can get cancer too, genetic or mutation (light=energy, unstable isotopes, environments, ect,.) Our cells go through apoptosis, a programed cell death at the right time, the telomeres in the DNA strand should start that process, other cells can take care of such before a mutation can make such problems. Normally we get cancer and get rid of it, before it becomes, the Cancer we know of that damages people's tissues, organs, bones, brain, anything that has cells. It's when our cells don't fight back and think it's a normal cell, is when Cancers take effect that we know of.
People found that decreasing the response to inflammation of the Lueka-11 (I forget the name, something like so) stops the cascade of damage done to cells, and less chances of speeding aging. This has an effect of the cells being coded right or not as well.
They are testing for genetic inflammation diseases, but seems promising for slowing down old age as well.
If the code has been damaged, mutations take place, most of the time it's harmless. But the numbers of cells x our ages x our mass = Cancer does effect us, while whales aren't effected nearly as much, and mice have too short of a life normally for cancers to have a mass effect like we have on humans.
Hey Bro you have great knowledge about cancer . I am form india
I also study about different kinds of carcinogens and cancer in class 12th( higher secondary school). I want to know you also study about cancer in you school or are you doing any type of graduation related to biologyb
wow and in the middle of all this where you forget about melatonine, his natural role in the prevention of cancer spreading and the effect of EMF on it's production?
This is pretty common knowledge
@@BresciGaetano Did you mean melanin?
There's a standing in joke in biology about the most toxic substance that's commonly and actively avoided by cells. Oxygen.
Toxic as all hell, destructive to DNA and cellular structures and get around 1% O2 saturation, cells are badly stressed by its presence.
And lacking it, the cells do that dead thing.
Yeah, the entire body actually actively works to reduce oxygen concentration to individual cells, it really can be that harmful in excess.
Hence, Paracelsus' saying, "The dose makes the poison". Microwaves are nonionizing, doesn't make high power microwaves harmless, but also doesn't make micropowered devices harmful or the sun would've rendered this planet sterile billions of years ago. It's hitting us daily with those same frequencies.
Think of the much higher energy IR, great for warming your hands, but that doesn't mean you stick your hand inside of a fucking fire on a cold day.
These discussions are like those from 4G and 5G, nonsense. And 6G is just around the corner. This will go on for years to come.
4G and 5G have identical radiation. The only diffrance is protocol and modulation. From a emf spectrum there is no diffrance.
@@matsv201EXACTLY LOLLL. I can not get people to understand.
@@trentondickey9061 there are of cause the spectrum expansion.... sort of. But that was used in 4G as station links.
So its kind of a sort of kind of but not really new.
@@matsv201 right. I wasn't on the science side too much. I was climbing the tower hanging antennas but I was like if i can do that 6 days a week. You next to a phone is nothing
Yet if you search up the dead bushes that are next to these towers look if it does that overtime what is it doing to your brain 24/7 with different strength of frequency who knows they probably turn it up at night full power 5g at might is probably equivalent to sticking your head in a microwave on lowest setting
People emit emf that’s how EKG’s work. They pick up on the electrical fields emitted by the beating heart. EEG does the same for the brain. Listening in on the electrical field emitted as your neurons fire.
EKG/ECG captures the electric signals which are ionically conducted, not from the radiation.
There are superconducting sensors which can capture the magnetic field too.
And although very experimental, there is a machine which can remotely (10cm) capture the electric field of a human, mostly the signals emitted by the heart.
But we do emit pretty powerful, like 100W ?THz radiation too, in the thermal range. Interestingly that may be too used for diagnostics in the future.
We are surrounded by radio frequencies all day and (almost) everywhere. This is why you can pick up dozens of radio stations in your car. What I want to know is the mechanism where non-ionizing radiation could cause damage to cells. It doesnt pass the sniff test to me.
I mean a microwave is non ionizing but it'd still cook you if you put your hand in and bypassed the door switch. But that's a lot more energy. A microwaves power supply would also kill you if you touched it where you probably won't even feel the supply to the Bluetooth transmitter.
@@TheAkashicTraveller a microwave oven has an effect similar to infrared radiation, except it is mainly water molecules that are heated up.
@@TheAkashicTravellerI mean we are 70 percent water, so yeah
"Non-ionizing radiation causing damage to cells" is basically the entire principle behind microwave ovens, but this also means that unless you are literally being boiled alive, whatever radio/microwaves you're being exposed to is at a safe level
@@igorbednarski8048 yup. I don't see how heating up cells could cause cancer but I am no cellular biologist. Especially at such low power. Let's say warming up cells.
Before even starting this video, I'm pretty sure the answer is going to be something along the lines of, if radio waves and microwaves are carcinogenic, then anybody not living in a cave completely devoid of light should start breaking out in instantly fatal tumors any second
not even that is safe, literally the entire universe is suffused with a baseline of microwaves. the CMB (cosmic microwave background), all places everywhere at all times. if microwaves could kill us, life wouldn't have evolved.
I don't quite understand how if your only argument is "higher frequency = more dangerous" and the frequency is still lower than visible light would make sense.
I would say it is a generalization. Higher frequency electromagnetic (EM) wave, X-rays ... are more likely to cause an ionizing event. UV can cause damage, like dimerization of DNA, but there are chemicals more likely to absorb certain ranges of wavelength, like color. Longer EM, like microwaves, excite atoms. The microwave oven is tuned to be near the resonance frequency of water. Not exactly, otherwise its penetration depth would be limited. FYI: The military has tested ones at the resonance frequency that make you feel like you have been set on fire with very little damage, probably because the exposure is so short since everyone runs away. So radio waves damage by thermal effects. If the heat is removed faster than the energy is deposited, no effect, else, there is cooking going on.
Another point, there is more radiation then EM; there are beta, alpha particles (electrons and helium nuclei) neutrons, neutrinos and others. One will not hear about neutrinos since even though they may have very high energy, they are unlikely to interact with what we know as matter.
Because it's the nature of quantum mechanics. The frequency of an EM wave is directly correlated to the amount of energy carried by each individual photon in that wave ("quanta"). *Individual* photons must have sufficient energy to ionize an atom; the energy does not get accumulated across multiple collision events, so even a very strong source of radiation doesn't cause ionization as long as its frequency isn't exactly the atom's threshold frequency or higher.
what
The big question is how are these studies even performed, you're not gonna rope someone into ditching smartphones for 10 years for a study no matter how much you're paying them, i think so long as the question remains it SHOULD be labelled as a potential carcinogen, precisely because there is no decisive evidence to the contrary, and when it comes to human lives we tend to prefer to be overly cautious cause in the past too many lives were cut short by things like lead poisoning or asbestos.
Lives that might've been saved if someone asked first what concrete evidence do we have this stuff is safe
Electric blankets and heating pads sitting in the corner just laughing
This reminds me way back in the day a cop sued a radar speed gun company for getting testicular cancer. And yes, I'm aging myself it was 1991 and lived in Kansas and was a year out of high school. His name was Thomas R. Malcolm.
Honestly this just reminds me of that scene in Super Troopers.
I'm sorry you lived in kansas please get better soon
@@smugwendigo5123 I am better left Kansas in August 2000, only problem is went the wrong way and ended up in Oklahoma. But looking on the brighter side of life I now have 1 Adopted, One biological, 2 I talk to weekly, and 2 other I raised kids. Couldn't be prouder of any of them for what they have become. If someone said that to me in 1999 I would have told them they were on shrooms. Not everyone can grow up to be an engineer
Another thing to keep in mind about medical research using rats is that they almost always use rats that have been bred to have an incredibly high natural rate of tumors. While this is designed to make true statistical effects easier to detect, it can also result in more random differences between groups. Statistical significance matters.
2:17 this is just the energy of a single particle, not the black body energy
Nice to watch a grounded in reality exploration of things by someone with some knowledge. Keep making your videos.
Ayeeee. Loved this one T. Folse. Big fan and subscriber of Dr. Mike and You.
connection between mobile phone usage and risk of cancer might as well just be related to the fact that people who use phones more are less physically active. which means worse overall health
That probobly was not true in the 90s when those studies was carried out.
Also.. brain cancer.
@@matsv201 yeah, prob not in the 90s
However not sure how it correlates with wealth of those people, like people who could afford a phone could have TVs more often and spend more time at home, alternatively get something that disrupts their sleep
@@lool8421 most of that research is from the 80s and 90s. By the 00 most lossed intrest in it. Probobly because we have yet to se a huge poåulation wide spike of brain cancer.
And we would have seen that if it was the case. The statsrical data is really sensetice.
The longest living people on the planet lived very sedentary lives. Explain to me how exhausting your nervous system and heart rate for no reason other than vanity is healthy.
Before GTA 6 we got nuclear + doctor 😂
As a physicist, whenever I hear about worries about radio frequency emission, the thing that comes to mind is that we are emitters of infrared radiation at much higher powers and individual photon energy levels than anything that our technology like cell phones (limiting ourselves to ones that we actually sit next to) consistently produces. We are a little over 300 K, and the peak of our blackbody radiation spectrum is around 10 μm, or 30 THz. That means that the individual photons that we and our environment produce just by being warm are between 10,000 and 10,000,000 times as energetic as those produced by our cell phones and other RF technologies. And the total power is much, much greater, with typical cell phone emission powers being around a Watt or less, while a human emits many Watts of blackbody radiation (even neglecting blackbody radiation emitted and reabsorbed inside the body, a significant fraction of the heat we lose to the environment is through blackbody radiation, and a human is roughly a 100 W heater... literally take 2,000 kcal, convert to Joules, and divide by the number of seconds in a day, and you find that a human must be emitting around 100 W into their environment to remain at constant temperature). We are exposing ourselves to more power just by being at room temperature than we would if we embedded cell phone transmitters in our heads (so that all the energy they emit goes through our bodies), and the energy of the individual photons is orders of magnitude more than what come from cell phones, Bluetooth, and similar devices. For radio emissions to matter, you would need a specific resonance where some random frequency that we just happen to use was exactly right to cause chemistry to happen... but that makes no sense, because chemical energies are typically in the hundreds of THz and above (which is how visible light is visible and why ionizing radiation is at the energies that it's at and a million other things), and while outliers can exist, an outlier by 5 orders of magnitude or more strains belief.
This dude is going to be blown away by what happens when you stand next to a microwave when it's running.
Dude gonna be blown away by what happens when you stare into a floodlight for too long.
1:24 I'm gonna go one step even further and point out that our very bodies rely on and generate EM fields. Extremely small ones, but without manipulating charges, your body cannot function.
I just want to point out that technically, non-ionizing radiation can cause ionization through multi-photon collisions/absorptions. It's just you need extremely high photon/energy density to actually get these sorts of ionization events to happen with any regularity, so you won't need to worry about them in any practical system.
I'm pretty sure the original studies talking about it as a potential carcinogen were based off cell phones which put out a different frequency and higher power than current devices. So even if they were harmful at the time we've moved to a different band and lowered the power significantly.
Worth noting that the radio waves and microwaves that phones use are further from ionizing radiation than the visible light produced by their screens is.
Being a board certified doctor and saying that high frequency EMFS are ionizing radiation is insane and even government sources say they aren't.
I think he’s using “high” as a relative term. High means like uv b and up?
give him some slack dude. Just because you're a doctor doesn't mean you know the precice ins and outs of radiation physics. He's not a radiologist and he didn't say anything that's dangerously wrong.
@@jimmysyar889 but it doesn't and a simple Google search will tell you that.
@@Jordan_C_Wilde than don't make a video on it.
My professor who was and still is the Dean of the Electrical Engineering Department of my school was among the researchers who helped implement Bluetooth technology with many major companies.
When people in our class asked if it was safe, his response was "Whats published in the papers is published, but you won't see me using wireless earphones".
As a side note he also explained to us why trees are the enemy of WiFi 6... or was it Bluetooth? He also was one of the people responsible for making color television possible while still being able to broadcast black and white. His team discovered a way to simultaneously send signals that support both formats. Plus he was involved with landing our peeps on the moon.
Man is old but wicked smart. Was there for when Oracle split into the major companies we see today.
Basically, this dude knows what he is talking about and is the source of ALOT of info relating to telecommunications. Man was among the few who actually created the whole damn industry.
Give us his name, because if he published this is easily verifiable.
I call BS.
What's his name?
Even deans of EE departments can become crackpots.
@@GoldSrc_ Prof. Snutz, plenty of published works. You can find a lot of his telecommunications research and proofs on IEEE. If you don't have access to IEEE research papers, then you shouldn't be talking to me about your views on telecommunications or its safety.
You mentioned the inverse square law, but you left out an important point, that is the source is a point source. So for a non-point sources, this is not true until the distance is far enough to treat it as a point source. In infinite plane with a uniform emission of radiation will have the same radiation level everywhere, regardless of the distance from the source.
What's the difference between a point source and non point source. I stll might not understand after you explain.
@@jackyboyslim1379 The inverse square law is based on the physics of a sphere with the source being at the center, See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law. As the distance increased, the area covered increased by the square, A = pi * r^2, so the total number of photons are constant but the area is larger, thus the inverse square.
When one is close to a radiator that it is not a single point, the radiator can be modelled as numerous points, with the intensity at any spot distance as the sum (or integral) of these point sources. The area of a stove is not a point source if you are near it and the heat is fairly uniform over the area being heated. Across the room, it is close to a point source.
Observing collimated sources, that is looking at only parallel tracks, also do not follow the inverse square law, since they a blocking the photons that are not parallel.
The example of a infinite plane of uniform intensity is a case where the intensity is equal everywhere because summing up the contribution of all the point sources making up the plane add up to the same value.
Principles of Optics by Max Born and Emil Wolf. This classic text covers the propagation of light in various forms, including plane waves.
@@jackyboyslim1379a point source emits waves in the shape of a sphere, expanding outwards, starting from a pinprick point.
@@jackyboyslim1379 If you imagine a pinhead that's emitting radiation, the radiation expands in a sphere out from that pinhead, so the inverse square law is as written.
However if you then imagine a metal rod that's radioactive across the whole bar, and it's quite long in the XY plane, then you have radiation arriving at you from all points across the bar. Imagine drawing a line from the top of the bar to you, the middle of the bar to you, and the bottom of the bar to you, and the same for each point over the length of the bar, each point source obeys the inverse square law by itself, but you then have to add the individual points up again. Distance still helps, just not as much, as there's still radiation expanding into in the XZ plane that you're not in.
Now if you imagine it's an entire wall you're standing in front of and it's all radioactive, then you're basically being exposed to the same amount of radiation you would be if you were standing right next to it (less what's absorbed by the air between you and the wall). It's the same as the bar, imagine drawing a grid on the wall and drawing lines from each point on the grid to you, again each point obeys the inverse square law, but you have to then add each point together, and for that situation, the effects essentially cancel out.
Shielding will still help, and air does absorb some types of radiation. If you're standing in front of a wall that's emitting only alpha radiation, the air alone will absorb the radiation and drop that to insignificant amounts by the time it gets to you.
your space heater is a multi THz high powered radiation emitter.
The difference in signal strength is likely due to one of the two pods being the main communicator to the paired bluetooth device and the 2nd pod is just paired to the 1st pod.
HF (High Frequency) is frequencies from 3 megahertz to 30 megahertz, VHF (Very High Frequency) is from 30 megahertz to 300 megahertz, UHF (ultra high frequency) is from 300 megahertz to 3 gigahertz.
Absolutely.
Thanks for doing this video! These kind of theories came out of nowhere and started causing panic about wireless devices supposedly causing cancer. Even my parents think that I will get cancer by using my headphones everyday haha. It's good to have this kind of explanations by profesionals and experts in the field to debunk these panic-inducing theories, since they start spreading rapidly on social media and the target audience is anyone who would just consume this sourceless or outdated information without a second thought.
2:55 Maybe in this part Dr Mike want to say high energy ( E = H×fre) because he already said that frequency = Energy. You can see the power of 10 ( which represent frequency) increases form left to right on that Diagram. You can see on ionizing radiation side, frequency is in the range of 10^ 16 to 10 ^ 21 which is on high number mean high frequency or you can say high energy EMF wave
I know high frequency mean 3 to 30hz ( acc to Google) but maybe Dr Mike doesn't know about this. He just spoke about high frequency which mean high energy
This is why it’s important to consider the speaker and the intended audience when critiquing claims: Dr Mike is a physician, not a physicist and he’s making it for the general public, who are also not physicists (for the most part). There’s no reason to assume he means the specific “HF” bandwidth when he says high frequency is ionizing…nor is there a reason to assume most people watching his video are thinking that. If Dr Mike was giving a presentation to a room of physicists or engineers, I’d be far more critical of his use of terminology, but he’s not so I think he presents the information in a fairly decent manner considering the audience he’s going for (such as parents freaking out that their kids will be harmed by their headphones)
Microwave oven: 2.45 GHz
Wireless LAN: 2.4 GHz
Microwave oven: 1,000 W
Router: max 100 mW
An important thing to mention as well is that you're generally a pretty fair distance from your router. You're more likely to be close by the microwave, but even if you're a couple yards away you will be okay for that short amount of time.
However, you shouldn't put your head close to the machine while it's running, because microwaves are NOT shielded in any way and the thin plastic door is doing nothing. The good part is that the radiation from the magnetron travels in a specific direction (right to left), which is not pointed at you, and the waves don't retain their energy over much distance. Taking a step back to avoid potential stray exposure is just good practice.
@@bloodleader5
The metall net in the door is protecting.
Microwaves have a wave lenght of about 12cm and can't pass through it.
@@helloweener2007 That's false. A microwave will set off a multimeter or a Geiger counter through the door. You can easily find videos of tests showing this.
@@bloodleader5
Yes of course. You can set off a Geiger counter anywhere. You know how much Radon comes out of the soil (in mountain areas) and accumulates in houses.
I am pretty sure that youi can measure some diffrence but how much of a difference is it?
And was the microwaven oven OK or broken? One can destroy the protection a little bit for making a scrae baiting video.
The radiation exposure of a microwave oven is 5 mW per cm² or 50 W per m².
@@helloweener2007 Like I said, there are tons of videos. Old microwaves, new ones, different wattages. Look it up for yourself since Google deletes any comments with links, find any one you like if you feel like cherrypicking. You made the claim that nothing leaks, but that's a lie. All microwaves leak a small amount of radiation through the front while they're running, and the claim about the wavelength being stopped by the thin plastic door is just plain wrong. The reason people aren't exposed much is because the magnetron (basically an EMF gun) is pointed sideways inside the machine and not forwards, and the waves only retain energy for a few feet. All it would take is changing the direction and increasing the wattage by not a huge amount to make something that's a practical hazard.
There's also a separate source of radiation inside the machine when it's not running or even plugged in, which is the thorium that's used in the magnetron. If you're in contact with the machine then you're also catching some of this, but you would have to be in the box for it to be significant in a short exposure time. Rays from the thorium that hit your food fortunately run out of energy within a few minutes, so by the time you're eating it the food is close to zero.
This ought to be common knowledge because it's just how the appliance works. I mean, manufacturers even have warning labels telling you not to stand next to the thing while it's on. And really, the small chance that your machine might be poorly built or malfunctioning should be enough reason to follow this advice, unless you put blind faith in mass production quality control or in regulations.
Visible light is brainwashing!!! - I love it ♥
Interestingly, when electricity via light bulbs were first introduced (according to "Absolute History"), they had no idea how to use electricity safely. So they had things like "a table with live wires running through it that guests poked light bulbs into" Or "different Wattage and Voltage from every electrical provider" Or "Plug everything into your light bulb's socket, which is dangling from the ceiling with NO insulation" They didn't have fuses. But they DID use gas lighting as well. You can imagine explosions happened every now and then.
1:46 we can see a wider range of light 370-750 ish depending on how pedantic you want to be.
One thing that might be of interest as a potential link between people who use their cellphone more, is that electronic devices and plastics off-gas chemicals that cause cancer. You have that near your mouth more often, you're more likely to inhale cancer causing toxins... Similarly, for people who buy news cars, they will likely have a correlated risk of certain cancers, as that 'new car smell' is actually toxic off-gassing
You say that High Frequency EMF is from 300 MHz to 3 GHz. I think that is incorrect. High frequency would be between 3 MHz and 30 MHz. 300 MHz to 3 GHz is called Ultra High Frequency. Between these two bands you would find the Very High Frequency band from 30 MHz to 300 MHz.
Yeah I knew something sounded off when he said HF up to 3 GHz
Then its ultra mega plus high freqvency.... ooh sorry.. "mm wave" not at all cool name.
You are absolutely 100% correct.
2:40 that’s just objectively wrong, “high frequency” is 3-30Mhz, not 300-3000, that is “ultra high frequency”
for completeness(in MHz and only the common ranges):
0.03-0.3 low frequency
0.3-3 medium frequency
3-30 high frequency
30-300 very high frequency
300-3000 ultra high frequency
3000-30000 super high frequency
and NONE of these are ionizing, visible light STARTS at 400 000 000 and that’s also not ionizing
5:28 realistically, the biggest damage the airpods can do is generate sound coming from dumb yt and tiktok videos :)
The FCC having guidelines on how to reduce EMF makes sense in the broader role. The EMF of that level might not be harmful to humans, but they still can cause issues with electronic devices.
Some of the actual cases that I know of is usb 3 speeds scrambling GPS signal within a short range, HDMI at specific resolutions ruining the wifi and bluetooth within a few centimeters of it (it does matter on extra small devices like the raspberry pie) and some SSD or pcie interfaces that makes touch screen unresponsive if you happen to place your phone right on top of where it's placed in your laptop (yes, my laptop does that). Another one that is technically EMF is the laptop hinge position sensor getting tricked if you place a magnet (like the speaker of a phone) at an exact position, but I'm not considering that interference as it's technically working as designed.
FCC main role is to make sure all devices work in synergy.. they have bassicalt no health role.
8:54 it is surprising how many laws and regulations are based on studies that include that three word phrase
Big difference in terminology. In layman's terms, High Frequency just means "higher than another kind", while the ITU has specific allocations ranging from ELF to EHF, covering the ranges from 3Hz to 300GHz. In that sense, HF is often taken to mean between 3MHz to 30MHz, or about halfway between AM and FM car radio.
As a healthcare professional, I think this is a great video.
An important note. The massive hole in the ozone layer above Australia, which may be allowing a significantly large amount of UVc
through compared to other countries, may be one of the reasons why Australia has one of the highest rates of skin cancer per capita.
In Australia you BURN in a way not seen in other countries!
Be safe
1:35
I wish we had a different word for those things, because people hear radiation and instantly think the nuclear meltdown type of radiation.
Sunlight is radiation, I don't see those same people that panic over 5G avoid the sun, in fact I'm pretty sure sun radiation is objectively dangerous for you, and not in a negligible way.
Same thing happens with Cancer, scientists find a correlation, publish that, people see that and for some reason don't know the difference between correlation and causation, and go into panic over nothing and spread that to others as if it's a fact.
To someone who works in the radio field, High Frequency (HF) refers to signals between 3-30 MHz.
On the topic of medical claims from non-statistically significant data - I'm certainly not an expert, but I do remember talking about things like this in some experimental design and research ethics classes from university. Medical research is extremely frequently limited by an inability to ethically gain strong statistical data. Health-related research is typically constrained by an inability to enforce experimental conditions upon subjects, especially if the researchers have reason to suspect that the experimental conditions could be harmful to the health of the participant. Hypothetically, if you're researching the health effects of heavy radio wave exposure, the experimental design for a high power study would be something like requiring all participants to wear some sort of suit at all times, where half the suits contain metal mesh layers to block RF exposure while the other half don't. Or you would have the participants sit next to high powered antenna and amplifier setup, where half of the amps are secretly connected to a dummy load that doesn't produce any radio transmissions, but would still mimic any sounds one might hear from an amp being on to blind the participants and experimenters to whether it's a placebo or not. The problem is that, for the first setup, you could never get enough participants or enforce participation in something like that, and the second setup, if you suspect that it may increase the risk of cancer, you just can't do that. They're left with the main options being experimentation on other animals or observational studies where they have little choice but to just try to figure out how much somebody might have been exposed to RF waves and ask them for any health problems, and try to see if there's any real link. These types of studies are fundamentally unable to establish causative relationships, and even for the sake of establishing correlations, almost always suffer from large margins of error. The net result is that the field of medical research is forced to operate in an area of much less conclusive evidence than you could get researching most other things, and medical publication being plagued with studies with false positive conclusions and a difficulty in gaining enough data to conclusively demonstrate that those false positives are really false.
Add onto this the general public's greater interest in their own health meaning that there's a lot more sensationalized reporting, and a lot more money prompting motivated research and the spread of misinformation than you get in most other scientific fields.
For the most part, doctors do the best they can to parse through the data, but it should be unsurprising that many doctors still fall into rabbit holes conclusions established off weak data or bad science.
A little anecdote on why observational studies can be so hard - When I worked at a computer and electronics store, at one point I had a guy come in and talk to me about radio equipment. I don't remember the bulk of what we talked about, but we were in the DIY electronics area, and he was talking about shielding his house from RF.
I had extensive training in networking tech, in cellular service, in computer parts, and a personal interest in robotics and electronics, and had plenty of prior experience regarding radio communications from having done robotics for years on a diy level and involved in high school and college clubs/classes. I had even previously modified an RC sailboat toy to be a drone that could autonomously navigate by GPS and send telemetry back to a laptop on shore, with a ~1 mile range. I think it's fair to say that, while I wasn't technically an expert, I was vastly more knowledgeable about all things radio wave communication than the average person. I didn't realize it at first, but this guy was decidedly less knowledgeable on this stuff than the average person.
The way the conversation started, I thought that he was talking about getting a lot of crosstalk and interference from bluetooth, wifi, and other 2.4 / 5 GHz communications - something that absolutely can happen. There are a limited number of channels within the general 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz classifications, and while devices can often switch exactly which band they use, too many can reach a point where they can no longer reliably communicate. Even without reaching the limit of different channels, high powered transmitters can make it much harder for devices to parse data from lower powered transmitters, like a wireless mouse sometimes being inconsistent if it or its usb receiver is too close to a wifi access point or antenna. These things aren't common to deal with, but in the position I was working, the niche exceptions were the things I commonly dealt with - if people went home and their wireless mouse worked fine, they didn't come to ask me about problems regarding their wireless mouse. It's very possible that this predisposed me to lending credence to what he was saying he was experiencing, and looking to link it to a possible uncommon issue that he didn't have the knowledge or experience to recognize the cause of. As such, it legitimately took me about half an hour to realize that this guy was mainly just accidentally saying things that were close to real things, and actually he was just claiming to have a lot of interference from other wifi and radio signals in his house because he had tinnitis, didn't realize it, and had come to believe that the high pitched whining was him hearing wifi.
I can only imagine how hard it is to accurately figure out how much people are exposed to RF signals when you probably get plenty of people like this guy, who have don't know what you're talking about, or what they're talking about.
The most profound medical research seems to happen during wartime when ethics are already out the window.
“High Frequency” is normally 3-30MHz. Goes back to the early days of radio. 30-300MHz is Very High Frequency, above 300MHz the terminology depends on the standard used.
Baffling? That's how funding works. That's how we got reports that things do/don't cause cancer, or prevent aging.
There were a number of research papers released by the Chinese about biologic medicines used to treat IBD, the most effective medications ever developed for this group of conditions, these research papers found that they didn’t work and that they weren’t very effective at all. Why was this? The medications were too expensive and so rather than tell the citizens that they couldn’t afford them they instead lied to the citizens and said that they didn’t work whilst also releasing papers promoting diet based treatments and natural traditional Chinese remedies that definitely did not work.
Science is a very powerful tool if abused or manipulated and unfortunately it is far too easy to publish papers and research and make it appear credible these days, you can find or create a paper to back up any point of view and a lot of scientists will just write a paper based on what they are told to write. Finding and correlating multiple sources was always important but it is even more important now, something the media and everyday people ignore when they cling to one singular study as proof.
I always laugh when people complain about EMF and then we ask them: Do you use hair dryers? An electric powered alarm clock that is next to your head 8 hours a day? Microwave ovens? Space heaters or resistant heat? An electric blanket?
The microwave is the only one that's really a consistent comparison there, to be fair. A hair dryer or a heater isn't actually sending radiation in any specific direction, all it's doing is turning a fan which blows the warmed air at you. All the emissions are confined to the wires and coils which both are looped circuits and are never physically close to you anyway. In an electric blanket, the coil warms the insulation (a type of EMF shielding) which in turn warms a very heat-conductive barrier material, which then warms the much less conductive blanket fabric, which then warms your skin by touching it. As before, literally the only thing you're catching is heat.
With a microwave oven, though, it doesn't create or move heat; they contain a device called a magnetron, which is basically an EMF gun, and it emits high-powered waves which excite particles within objects as the waves pass over them. Excited particles become energetic and some energy is converted to heat *inside* the food. The lucky thing is the magnetron is pointed sideways, and not at you, because if you stood close enough directly in front of its emissions then it would literally cook you too, and damage DNA. Remember that microwave ovens originated as a downscaled version of experimental military microwave weapons, haha. It's wrong to say that your countertop appliance cannot cause harm, but rather, the waves are traveling perpendicular to your position and lose their energy after a couple feet so as long as you don't sit there with your head pressed against the machine or open the door and reach inside while it's on then nothing will happen.
Sorry to correct a small error/Inaccuracie in relation to the electromagnetic field:
A direct current does not have an electromagnetic field, just a magnetic field; it is only in alternating current that you have an electromagnetic field.
Sorry for being picky :)
13:30 No. 5G fluctuates very different from house current or 3G for example. Dr Mike is correct here.
5G “fluctuates” a lot less than 3G, because the most inefficient thing you can do with an RF power amplifier is having a waveform with a crest factor.
I'm always interested in the heating effect that these products cause. Is the cause still unknown?
Are you talking about joule heating?
2:41 Im inferring that Dr Mike means High Frequency = higher than visible light = ionizing.
One of the funniest arguments I've ever seen about Bluetooth was a mom who said she doesn't let her kids use Bluetooth headphones cause of the radiation but proceeds to fly cross country with those same kids every 6 weeks for doctors visits and supposedly "detox" that radiation exposure from the flight lmfao like I know the amount of radiation from a flight is basically negligible but that's just not how radiation works you can't just magically detox it you've already absorbed the dose and it's done the damage it's going to do.
To be overly pedantic just for the entertainment value, you can technically remove radiation from the body, but the program for that is pretty much known as simply "being healthy". Your waste cycles, cell regeneration, and macrophagy are all involved in removing material from your organs, which would include both irradiated cells and cells with genetic copying errors caused by the radiation.
The problem is that telling people "get water and electrolytes, get nutrients, support your immune system, avoid oxidative stress, avoid disease and injury" doesn't sound cool and homeopathic enough. And well, if you get a high acute rad dose all those body processes slow WAY down, so the more irradiated you get, the worse you are at clearing it out...
Also funny is that real life RadAway would just be diuretics, so like... equally as effective as a saline IV or just drinking alcohol. The best thing you can do is literally wait a long time and pee a lot. What a great "detox", haha.
"High Frequency" or HF as a radio term of art is 3 MHz to 30 MHz. 30 to 300 MHz is "very high frequency" (VHF). 300 MHz to 3 GHz is "ultra high frequency" (UHF). These names are from the early days of radio, and today HF is one of the lower frequencies that you're likely to encounter. Microwave usually means somewhere in the GHz, 1 to maybe 100 GHz. This includes bluetooth, wifi, and some of the cellular bands, while other cell bands are in UHF or even VHF. I think in this case, he meant (more precisely) EMF of a high enough frequency can be ionizing. Of course microwave and visible are not high enough frequency, but both are well above "high frequency" as it is used in radio.
A collab between you and Dr. Mike would be pretty awesome, tbh. (also, English is Dr. Mike's second language--he's fluent, but he does occasionally make mistakes or miss things)
This video is scienception! 🥰 A nuclear scientist exploring questions raised in another nuclear scientist’s inquiry into non-nuclear non-scientific claims 🤔😅 Exploring a topic by logically and scientifically analyzing and evaluating claims and conclusions using logic and reasoning. This type of inquiry is highly educational 😎
we can boil this down using a microwave, to boil water
pretty much all frequencies under visible light provide LITERALLY ZERO DNA damage(the factors below that are 100% on chemical carcinogens and 0% on radiation)
it gets dangerous once you hit UVB
above UVB you can begin to have minor celular damage including DNA damage
so you literally have to get into frequencies of a few THZ, or >1,000,000,000,000 hz to reach DNA damage, which is NOT POSSIBLE with ANY current technology(besides light bulbs, which are still in the safer lower THZ bands, or specific UVC lamps that are often misused in public gatherings because of the amazing look)
so no, there is literally no such thing as "death rays" or "cancer beams" that do not utilize massive power levels(more than 1000w or about more than a microwave directly on your flesh as the inverse square law makes it somewhat safe to be in a room with an unshielded microwave emitter as long as you are a few meters away) or that do not use actual radioactive secondary products(uranium and thorium that we find naturally is 100% safe unless you eat it, you can have a brick of U-238 under your pillow and be not much worse than a frequent flier in cancer risk)
what is dangerous is intentional sources of radiation from decaying matter, or things that use so much power you can't make them small enough to hide, or devices that make UVb/UVC for sterilization
and you know that the radioactive matter that is dangerous is impossible to hide from a geiger counter, emitters that are dangerous based on energy input are difficult to hide and keep powered long enough to cause enough heating to harm you, and the UVB/UVC is blocked by a piece of cloth
there is no danger of anything if it doesn't show up on a geiger counter or make you feel uncomfortably hot LONG BEFORE it is dangerous
so bluetooth/wifi/cellular is 100,000% SAFE, if you feel hot you simply sweat those extra few mw of heating(or your body produces less intentional heating from chemical metabolism)
so no, the only danger in using a bluetooth headset is if it either distracts you(noise canceling headphones can be a bad idea if you need your hearing to be aware of surroundings) if the volume is turned up way too high(which can be accidental as many pieces of content are far too quiet, so you turn the global volume up, then an ad comes on with 200% of content volume(which is common and should be illegal) and suddenly you have double the sound, which can cause small amounts of hearing damage as the content was so quiet you had to crank it up)
or simply if you jam it into your ear wrong or otherwise misuse the device(it is not ideal for ppe or for any other purpose than private listening of audio content where being able to hear your surroundings is non-critical)
or in my case my headphones don't perfectly fit my ears and glasses, causing slight pressure that can over a long listening session cause discomfort from the pressure on my head, though that can be fixed by taking off the headphones and going to do literally anything else with them off your head
and no, the headphones are literally incapable of emitting enough to harm me, the battery is MAYBE 300-600mah(charges from a 5v 500ma charge port in 24 hours runtime by default with noise canceling on and a charge in less time than it takes to cook a meal, there is no point in modification
there is something to be said about the default wifi router transmit power, but that is more about interference and security concerns
it is actually a good idea to tune your router power limiter to barely reach the extremes of your coverage zones, and if you need a non-circular shape to get another router and place it in the center point of a new area and wire it in, tune both so they barely overlap and can't be detected outside your property, your neighbors will thank you from the lack of interference and your security will be higher as it is unlikely a person can sneak onto your wifi and spy on you
sadly my apartment is sub-optimal and the router placement is sub oiptimal, so I can't tune it down and cover my apartment ideally
if I was able to place the wireless access point in the center room I could tune the transmit power low enough to actually matter, sadly the fiber inlet is not something I can re-route and the existence of my computers placement makes it hard to move it, though if I had a spare network cord long enough I could place the router in the other room, run 2 cables there(one for the existing switch, the other for the wan input) then place the switch where the router is now
guess that is my goal once I buy a spool of cat5e, run two permanent lan cables for ideal router placement
Your physics is impeccable. I could not find any mistakes in your explanations. Microwaves, although not ionizing, can kill you. I remember an incident on an old navy ship where a klystron was used as the microwave source for a radar system in the 300KW range. A tech had his forearm inside the waveguide when a full powered radar pulse came through. The bones in his forearm exploded because the energy from the pulse flash boiled the water in his arm and turned the bones into pipe bombs.
When I think of High Frequency (HF) radiation, I think of 3-30 MHz and 300 MHz - 3 GHz would be Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) so light must be instant death. 🤣
Rats doing research, Imagin that. :)
Can’t wait to see you react to the new NileRed video, it has atomic in the title
If bluetooth headphones were hazardous, I'm certain I would be dead by now.
I think this is waste of time and resources. I disagree with Dr. Mike. In a world where funding is limited, it makes sense to pull the plug on something like this and direct the funding elsewhere.
Good earbuds that have noise canceling features and volume cut off pass through work as ppe depending on the level of needed hearing protecting just like regular ear plugs. Top end ear buds can preform better than average ear plugs. But that does require the upper end of ear buds.
The concern people are raising about phones and bluetooth leading to cancer is essentially the same classical theory that Einstein dispelled with his paper on the photoelectric effect. If the individual photons don't have enough energy to free the electrons, it doesn't matter how many there are or how long they are being exposed, the electrons aren't ionized because of their spectral gaps. Shit's quantum, not classic. Another great reaction video!
It's only radioactive is when something spontaneously emits radiation. Bluetooth doesn't do that. You need to power it up.
“It's only radioactive is when there’s something spontaneously to sell to viewers”
I've heard that wifi can potentially damage the blood-brain barrier, although this is substantially harder to quantify than the ionization effects at different wavelengths. The studies are inconclusive
"Radiation" is a concept that many people don't understand, and therefore fear. There are so many actually dangerous things our there, but people will focus on the invisible non-issues.
I tell you what I do when I go for a walk with my earbuds... I turn the noise cancelling off; because I want to be able to hear that car coming up behind me, as I guarantee you, being struck by a moving vehicle is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than any radiation used to transmit the audio signal from my phone to my ear buds.
They ARE hearing protection, insofar they block most of outside sound, and have noise reduction functions built in.
Hey man I love your videos! I watch them all the time
I appreciate that!
@@tfolsenuclearno problem!
I mean, if you were to pass out while eating a lot of ice cream from a vessel big enough for your face and enough sweet, sticky cream (sorry not sorry) then you could potentially drown and the cause could potentially be the ice cream itself.
Or I guess a simpler option is an ice cream induced heart attack while swimming.
Anyway...
At 7:35 I thought you were going to go with icecream sales making summertime happen.
I like to go by the proverb dose makes the poison. Even oxygen can be dangerous if the amount is too high. It doesn't suddenly mean oxygen is bad for you. Same with potential radiation from our electronics. The amounts we're exposed to on a daily basis is to small to be of any real risk.
Sometimes I just want to create a transmission protocol based on ionizing stuff so people finally realize what would it take to do it.
Imagine having to yell to your phone from some distance because it emits gamma rays.
Lead based microphones lol.
People are more often right-handed so they hold cellphones with their left-hand and work with the right. Even with earpods it's probably more usually putting in one in that opposite ear so your righthand and eyesight is clear for less risk of injury... (About the left ear being more seductive to radiation)
I use my headphones as hearing protection... but that's because they're hearing protection with blue tooth built into them😂
16:53 I only had 1 airpod in on the left😂
For me, the rating should be a complete 0, not .01 or anything, because they don't have a mechanism. If you can't even properly state how the effect you're claiming is even THEORETICALLY possible, why should I give it any benefit of what little doubt it can live in?
1:10 theyre using ai to read data from hdmi cables, and can see what you see
this is the topic I find most interesting.. so many have zero understanding about ionizing radiation. its like a flat earther subject.
Actually there are earplug-based headphones that provide 23+ NRR while limiting the output volume to 80db
FWIW, current gen Apple Airpods and Galaxy Buds use Bluetooth LE Audio which is essentially a one way protocol. Regular bluetooth requires that every packet transmitted from the source (cellphone) is acknowledged by the bluetooth device (ear buds in this case). With BLE no acknowledgement is necessary which reduces latency and means that the bluetooth device is not transmitting anything most of the time. Thus little or no Rf energy emitted "in the ear canal" other than when using the controls on the device. Now I personally am not afraid of non-ionizing radiation so it doesn't matter to me, but if does to you, then choose BLE capable earbuds and rest easy.
Excellent video, good work Tyler. Thanks for posting.
16:33 the left one has higher RF emission due to its reception from the Ios Device as well as beaming data to the other pod as a relay unit
Bluetooth is of no concern to me, but thinking about TMS is interesting in that there is an obvious and sometimes permanent effect on the brain. It is not full EMR, but a simple magnetic field, but nonetheless, could there be a micro effect from the magnetic transducers in your earbuds that is harmful?
Bluetooth gave me pain in my cervical vertebrae. Maybe it won't give me cancer but it still hurts. I don't see what a nuclear engineer would know about such low frequency radiation anyway, x rays and gamma rays are more their area of expertise.