Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › EMF and Brain Damage?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EMF and Brain Damage? - Page 2

post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

Actually I just found this while searching mu-metal + brain...

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mind-control-TMS.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation

 

So maybe changes in magnetic flux can affect the brain? :x


To a first approximation, those use crap-ton more power then anything else you're ever likely to put next to your head.  The shape of the field is also very, very important.  Headphones don't do jack in comparison. 

post #17 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


To a first approximation, those use crap-ton more power then anything else you're ever likely to put next to your head.  The shape of the field is also very, very important.  Headphones don't do jack in comparison. 

Mmk, that makes sense. I figured they would have to use a much bigger change in flux for TMS than any headphone might induce.
 

 

post #18 of 31

This one is actually fairly easy.  Just look at the cancer rates for disc jockeys, radio talkshow hosts, air traffic controllers, airline pilots, or any other group of people who wear headsets for a living.  A lot of these people belong to unions too; so I'm sure if there were health concerns they would know about them.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by googleborg View Post

I WR0K INA MAGNET FAKTORY NADd IDnoT' HaEV BRiAN DmAMAGE!

 

That was an easy one, but it still made me laugh out loud!  tongue.gif


Edited by Mkubota1 - 3/26/11 at 12:35pm
post #19 of 31

Sorry to revive an older thread, but I didn't feel the need to start a new one.

 

I had access to a Bell Model 4180 Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Gaussmeter FW Bell 4180 ELF Meter and I love doing experiments, so I decided to test the electromagnetic fields (EMF) from a pair of Beyerdynamic DT 770 and Sennheiser HD201. I will tell you my results first, and then I will give you my take on things based on the limited research I have done.

 

I measured the sound pressure level using a Radioshack Digital meter, and then I placed the Gauss meter where your ear would sit. I zeroed the Guass meter to the ambient fields in my room, so the measured field (in milliGauss) is the excess produced by the headphones. I measured both the left and right earpiece, and as expected, got pretty much the same results. The field varied with the instantaneous sound level of the track I used. The values shown below are an average over a portion of the track.

 

Beyerdynamic DT 770

65 dB - appriximately 0 mG

80 dB - ~1 mG

90 dB - 0.5 mG (1.5 mG if you push hard into the ear pads)

 

Sennheiser HD201

65 dB - appriximately 0 mG

80 dB - ~1 mG

90 dB - 2-3 mG

 

Since I listen to my music around 65 dB, I am have nothing to worry about. But, here is my take on the issue based on a little reading I did on the Internet about this topic just to be sure my house was as safe as possible for my soon-to-be-born son. I have a scientific background, and I can usually smell bs and new-age pseudoscience pretty easily. But I am still not convinced either way.

 

My research focused on low frequency magnetic fields, primarily on the internet, and unfortunately, I didn't do my full diligence and dig into the studies cited by the sources I read. But, here is what I found.

 

I was surprised to find that the standard rebuttal, which I had always believed, that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause a biological effect except due to heating is not true. There have been many studies demonstrating biological effects (e.g., changes to cell membrane permeability) due to such fields. However, the effects at the cellular and organism levels are still not fully understood, nor have scientists established a definitive safe threshold. Most of the limited studies and sources will somewhat arbitrarily suggest safe values in the 1-3 mG (milliGauss) range. The average ambient level (i.e., away from appliances and electronics) of homes measured in several studies is in the 1 mG range. Therefore, you might surmise that long-term exposure (e.g., in locations of sleep) to higher levels of magnetic fields is abnormal. Apparently, it is the alternating magnetic field hat has the strongest biological effects (low-frequency electric fields and DC magnetic fields don't do too much apparently). Basically, my take on it is that strong low frequency magnetic fields may or may not have health effects. However, if there are simple remedies to lower your or your children's exposure (e.g., moving radiating appliances from where you spend most of your time), then why not.


Edited by helicopter34234 - 2/13/12 at 10:11pm
post #20 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicopter34234 View Post

Sorry to revive an older thread, but I didn't feel the need to start a new one.

I had access to a Bell Model 4180 Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Gaussmeter FW Bell 4180 ELF Meter and I love doing experiments, so I decided to test the electromagnetic fields (EMF) from a pair of Beyerdynamic DT 770 and Sennheiser HD201. I will tell you my results first, and then I will give you my take on things based on the limited research I have done.

I measured the sound pressure level using a Radioshack Digital meter, and then I placed the Gauss meter where your ear would sit. I zeroed the Guass meter to the ambient fields in my room, so the measured field (in milliGauss) is the excess produced by the headphones. I measured both the left and right earpiece, and as expected, got pretty much the same results. The field varied with the instantaneous sound level of the track I used. The values shown below are an average over a portion of the track.

Beyerdynamic DT 770
65 dB - appriximately 0 mG
80 dB - ~1 mG
90 dB - 0.5 mG (1.5 mG if you push hard into the ear pads)

Sennheiser HD201
65 dB - appriximately 0 mG
80 dB - ~1 mG
90 dB - 2-3 mG

Since I listen to my music around 65 dB, I am have nothing to worry about. But, here is my take on the issue based on a little reading I did on the Internet about this topic just to be sure my house was as safe as possible for my soon-to-be-born son. I have a scientific background, and I can usually smell bs and new-age pseudoscience pretty easily. But I am still not convinced either way.

My research focused on low frequency magnetic fields, primarily on the internet, and unfortunately, I didn't do my full diligence and dig into the studies cited by the sources I read. But, here is what I found.

I was surprised to find that the standard rebuttal, which I had always believed, that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause a biological effect except due to heating is not true. There have been many studies demonstrating biological effects (e.g., changes to cell membrane permeability) due to such fields. However, the effects at the cellular and organism levels are still not fully understood, nor have scientists established a definitive safe threshold. Most of the limited studies and sources will somewhat arbitrarily suggest safe values in the 1-3 mG (milliGauss) range. The average ambient level (i.e., away from appliances and electronics) of homes measured in several studies is in the 1 mG range. Therefore, you might surmise that long-term exposure (e.g., in locations of sleep) to higher levels of magnetic fields is abnormal. Apparently, it is the alternating magnetic field hat has the strongest biological effects (low-frequency electric fields and DC magnetic fields don't do too much apparently). Basically, my take on it is that strong low frequency magnetic fields may or may not have health effects. However, if there are simple remedies to lower your or your children's exposure (e.g., moving radiating appliances from where you spend most of your time), then why not.

Wow, those are some interesting findings! Thank you for the insight. smily_headphones1.gif

Are you an engineer or physicist by any chance? I'm going into bioengineering, so some of what you described is naturally intriguing to me.
post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicopter34234 View Post

Sorry to revive an older thread, but I didn't feel the need to start a new one.

I had access to a Bell Model 4180 Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Gaussmeter FW Bell 4180 ELF Meter and I love doing experiments, so I decided to test the electromagnetic fields (EMF) from a pair of Beyerdynamic DT 770 and Sennheiser HD201. I will tell you my results first, and then I will give you my take on things based on the limited research I have done.

I measured the sound pressure level using a Radioshack Digital meter, and then I placed the Gauss meter where your ear would sit. I zeroed the Guass meter to the ambient fields in my room, so the measured field (in milliGauss) is the excess produced by the headphones. I measured both the left and right earpiece, and as expected, got pretty much the same results. The field varied with the instantaneous sound level of the track I used. The values shown below are an average over a portion of the track.

Beyerdynamic DT 770
65 dB - appriximately 0 mG
80 dB - ~1 mG
90 dB - 0.5 mG (1.5 mG if you push hard into the ear pads)

Sennheiser HD201
65 dB - appriximately 0 mG
80 dB - ~1 mG
90 dB - 2-3 mG

Since I listen to my music around 65 dB, I am have nothing to worry about. But, here is my take on the issue based on a little reading I did on the Internet about this topic just to be sure my house was as safe as possible for my soon-to-be-born son. I have a scientific background, and I can usually smell bs and new-age pseudoscience pretty easily. But I am still not convinced either way.

My research focused on low frequency magnetic fields, primarily on the internet, and unfortunately, I didn't do my full diligence and dig into the studies cited by the sources I read. But, here is what I found.

I was surprised to find that the standard rebuttal, which I had always believed, that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause a biological effect except due to heating is not true. There have been many studies demonstrating biological effects (e.g., changes to cell membrane permeability) due to such fields. However, the effects at the cellular and organism levels are still not fully understood, nor have scientists established a definitive safe threshold. Most of the limited studies and sources will somewhat arbitrarily suggest safe values in the 1-3 mG (milliGauss) range. The average ambient level (i.e., away from appliances and electronics) of homes measured in several studies is in the 1 mG range. Therefore, you might surmise that long-term exposure (e.g., in locations of sleep) to higher levels of magnetic fields is abnormal. Apparently, it is the alternating magnetic field hat has the strongest biological effects (low-frequency electric fields and DC magnetic fields don't do too much apparently). Basically, my take on it is that strong low frequency magnetic fields may or may not have health effects. However, if there are simple remedies to lower your or your children's exposure (e.g., moving radiating appliances from where you spend most of your time), then why not.
Really great stuff. Out of curiosity, what does your meter say for a cell phone?
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

Something else to keep in mind about RF is how it can be dangerous.

 

The way RF can damage you body is by simple heating, the same way a microwave works.  Walking in front of a high power military search radar can cook you alive in a matter of seconds but a cell phone's RF (not the physical electronics) won't even make your ear warm.

 

This is very different from the higher energy radiation of things like X-rays and radioactive isotopes.  Those forms of radiation are called ionizing radiation and can damage your body in a very different and far more insidious way.  They don't just heat the atoms in your body, they knock electrons straight of the atoms and make them chemically recombine into different molecules.  In the very low doses you may get from a few X-rays throughout your life it won't hurt you at all.  A larger dose can do anything from mildly increasing your chances of cancer to making it a near certainty by destroying and/or mutating portions of your DNA.  A very large dose will ruin so much of your body you will die within days.

 

 

 

 

RF burns suck!!!

 

Word of caution.....most atteenas and discs on the ground and many rooftops are recievers(like the sattelitte tv stuff) so you won't fry. It's the broadcasting ones that will fry you and cause RF burns.....just helpful knowledge if somebody finds themselves in front of a gigantic disc

 

Somewhat ancedotal...

 

Somewhat related, some people have a career of fixing radio towers; others climb for fun(base jumpers especially). Tons of cash and lots o' climbing.....I figure if these guys can be around RF broadcasts for hours and get regular RF burns but still be passing on the careers to their sons then Cell phone stuff must be a drop in the bucket.

 

The people who do it can be somewhat "transient" but it would interesting to study them for health damage and DNA changes....the one guy I met did to seem to remind me of Spiderman.

post #23 of 31
There's a job title called astrophysician. They study the effects of space radiation on astronauts. Why don't we have more doctors who diagnose ELF and RF related illness? I read one statistic that said that sensitivity will cause symptoms in 3% of all people. That's why I'm going with these guys until the government gets its act together and puts all our fine researchers to work on this crucial pressing issue.
http://www.teachpeace.com/emfguidelines.htm
post #24 of 31

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sopranino View Post

There's a job title called astrophysician. They study the effects of space radiation on astronauts. Why don't we have more doctors who diagnose ELF and RF related illness? I read one statistic that said that sensitivity will cause symptoms in 3% of all people. That's why I'm going with these guys until the government gets its act together and puts all our fine researchers to work on this crucial pressing issue.
http://www.teachpeace.com/emfguidelines.htm

 

Space radiation is ionizing radiation.

post #25 of 31

I thought you might like to know...

 

One day I was testing a radio (transmitter/receiver) at work. It was a 12 Watt shortwave military radio with a built in antenna tuner.

 

The radio was obviously turned on and the antenna tuner was cranked right up to the extreme end of its adjustment, but there was no antenna connected.

 

Somehow, as I picked up the radio, I managed to operate the transmit key while the finger of one hand brushed the antenna connector.

 

The antenna tuner was set for high impedance and the RF burned a little hole through my fingernail and into my finger. Boy, did it ever hurt.

 

I looked at it under the PCB microscope, it looked like a little volcano with a black bit in the middle.

 

12 Watts. I sure was a lot more careful with the 100W radios after that.

 

I don't think mobile phones or headphones present any health hazard from EM radiation, but I do think that a solid-state amp is less likely to kill you than a tube amp...   ...and then there are electrostatics...

post #26 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki View Post

I thought you might like to know...

 

One day I was testing a radio (transmitter/receiver) at work. It was a 12 Watt shortwave military radio with a built in antenna tuner.

 

The radio was obviously turned on and the antenna tuner was cranked right up to the extreme end of its adjustment, but there was no antenna connected.

 

Somehow, as I picked up the radio, I managed to operate the transmit key while the finger of one hand brushed the antenna connector.

 

The antenna tuner was set for high impedance and the RF burned a little hole through my fingernail and into my finger. Boy, did it ever hurt.

 

I looked at it under the PCB microscope, it looked like a little volcano with a black bit in the middle.

 

12 Watts. I sure was a lot more careful with the 100W radios after that.

 

I don't think mobile phones or headphones present any health hazard from EM radiation, but I do think that a solid-state amp is less likely to kill you than a tube amp...   ...and then there are electrostatics...

I know pretty much nothing on this subject, but at my university, Professor Henry Lai does research on the radiation emitted from cell phones (cell phone radiation?) and their effects on biological systems.

 

http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/people/core/lai.html

 

post #27 of 31

Nothing in a headphone is moving the MHz or GHz so there really is no worries for RF especially the damaging kind.  Now an optical Q-Switch is a different matter.

post #28 of 31
Ok, so I assume that the ambient indoor EMF field away from electronics is 1 mG and 2.5 mG is the upper limit I consider safe. I doubt I'd understand it if someone explained it to me, but that's why I plan to read "Cross Currents" by Robert O. Becker. So the leeway I'd accept from a headphone is 1.5 mG. That may rule out orthodynamic headphones, I don't know.
post #29 of 31

Brane damnige?

post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Brane damnige?

Eys!11 I lvoe my orhtodnymcis!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › EMF and Brain Damage?