Radiation

[kona]

I have this very basic question about transmission of radio signals like with the Mavic and Goggles. I'd imagine since the Goggles are mostly receiving large amounts of image streaming data, and sending only a small amount of head movement, etc data, that the flux around the headband/brain is relatively small (i.e., the flux near the drone fallen of by 1/r^2). But I'm not sure how this works. Clearly if the headband containing the antennas *sent* (instead of only *receive*) streaming data it could be much worse than e.g., a cellphone.

 

[ecoleman]

Just put tin foil on your head, you'll be fine.

 

[CyberNate]

I have this very basic question about transmission of radio signals like with the Mavic and Goggles. I'd imagine since the Goggles are mostly receiving large amounts of image streaming data, and sending only a small amount of head movement, etc data, that the flux around the headband/brain is relatively small (i.e., the flux near the drone fallen of by 1/r^2). But I'm not sure how this works. Clearly if the headband containing the antennas *sent* (instead of only *receive*) streaming data it could be much worse than e.g., a cellphone.

The band is likely shielded to protect the inside. Anyway, the amount of transmit energy is tiny compared to other electromagnetic fields you are exposed to every day just walking down the street.

 

[kona]

How do you infer this? Sorry but it's not at all obvious to me and it seems obvious to you, so I thought I'd ask. For instance, the effective dose you get from your cell phone is larger than most other sources of non-ionizing radiation because of its proximity to your brain. The effects of heating surrounding brain tissue and increasing glucose metabolism are clearly established (google it, lots of medical studies on the subject).

So I'd like to understand better your statement that the transmit energy here is dramatically lower. I may just be missing something. Are you implying that unlike a cell phone this is because the headband only receives, and doesn't send, data?

The band is likely shielded to protect the inside. Anyway, the amount of transmit energy is tiny compared to other electromagnetic fields you are exposed to every day just walking down the street.

 

[CyberNate]

How do you infer this? Sorry but it's not at all obvious to me and it seems obvious to you, so I thought I'd ask. For instance, the effective dose you get from your cell phone is larger than most other sources of non-ionizing radiation because of its proximity to your brain. The effects of heating surrounding brain tissue and increasing glucose metabolism are clearly established (google it, lots of medical studies on the subject).

So I'd like to understand better your statement that the transmit energy here is dramatically lower. I may just be missing something. Are you implying that unlike a cell phone this is because the headband only receives, and doesn't send, data?

Well first of all, the Mavic uses 2.4GHz which is in the safe spectrum of EMF. It's the same that you use for your WIFI at home. There is no proven link between RF radiation and health risks.

Don't take my word, but rather go out and read existing scientific studies. Additionally, the Mavic transmitter uses low power energy, at a small fraction of a watt. The power restriction isn't even about health risks, but interfering with other radio transmissions in the same spectrum.

 

[SRJ_Mavic_PRO]

And I heard from this chicken that the sky was falling soon....

 

[CyberNate]

Well first of all, the Mavic uses 2.4GHz which is in the safe spectrum of EMF. It's the same that you use for your WIFI at home. There is no proven link between RF radiation and health risks.

Don't take my word, but rather go out and read existing scientific studies. Additionally, the Mavic transmitter uses low power energy, at a small fraction of a watt. The power restriction isn't even about health risks, but interfering with other radio transmissions in the same spectrum.

For example, here's an article:

Why Scientists Say Wi-Fi Signals Won't Give Your Kids Cancer

 

[Mavic]

Do not worry.

The frequency 2.4GHz used is about the same as your microwave

 

[CyberNate]

Do not worry.

The frequency 2.4GHz used is about the same as your microwave

Come on now! That's really going to make him feel better!

 

[erkme73]

I wouldn't take any comments here to heart. Unless it's from a bio-physicist with a PhD (and preferably and MD), with a minor in RF engineering, who hasn't accepted any grants or funding from industries dealing with RF-based equipment, I would read comments here as interesting, but unqualified speculation and rumor.

But that's just me.

 

[CyberNate]

I wouldn't take any comments here to heart. Unless it's from a bio-physicist with a PhD (and preferably and MD), with a minor in RF engineering, who hasn't accepted any grants or funding from industries dealing with RF-based equipment, I would read comments here as interesting, but unqualified speculation and rumor.

But that's just me.

RF engineer would have no idea on long term affects of RF exposure. You are talking about medical studies. Wifi and cell phones have been around long enough to establish correlation. Anyway, you could apply that logic to everything and be afraid to step out your door in the morning. This is not speculation. We are already living in EMF soup and society is not seeing a correlation to increased cancer. Now high tension power lines, that's another story.

 

[erkme73]

RF engineer would have no idea on long term affects of RF exposure. You are talking about medical studies. Wifi and cell phones have been around long enough to establish correlation. Anyway, you could apply that logic to everything and be afraid to step out your door in the morning. This is not speculation. We are already living in EMF soup and society is not seeing a correlation to increased cancer. Now high tension power lines, that's another story.

Re-read what I wrote. I'm not saying to be afraid. I'm simply saying that those who are not working in the field - both medical and academic - are uniquely unqualified to provide conclusive opinions. Even medical and 'industry cited' studies are often tainted. To deny that there are greater forces at play than simple altruistic, truth-seeking motives is naive at best - and one only needs to look at how riddled medical studies are with papers in journals that weren't even created by humans - and yet get published because the benefit various pharmaceutical companies.

I would love to believe that every study, every report, every journal or publication I read is noble, honest, and unbiased - but I think we live in a time that nearly everything we touch is tainted with influence from unseen sponsors.

I don't want to take the OP's concerns too far off topic. I just want to say I can understand his frustration with trying to find answers.

 

[kona]

Folks, let me clarify the intention of my original post. I'm not at all interested in debating whether or not RF radiation increases the chance of cancer. I'm only interested in answering the question:

"Is the flux near the DJI Goggles' headband relatively lower than around the Mavic because the headband is receiving data while the Mavic is sending data?"

Clearly if the headband is mostly receiving data the radiation density is extremely tiny, since it's typically far away from the (transmitting) Mavic and the flux decays like 1/r^2.

I'm not interested in debating whether it's dangerous to be near either of them, as I've done my fair share of reading medical literature on the topic and can always read more if I want to.

 

[dwallersv]

Folks, let me clarify the intention of my original post. I'm not at all interested in debating whether or not RF radiation increases the chance of cancer. I'm only interested in answering the question:

"Is the flux near the DJI Goggles' headband relatively lower than around the Mavic because the headband is receiving data while the Mavic is sending data?"

Clearly if the headband is mostly receiving data the radiation density is extremely tiny, since it's typically far away from the (transmitting) Mavic and the flux decays like 1/r^2.

I'm not interested in debating whether it's dangerous to be near either of them, as I've done my fair share of reading medical literature on the topic and can always read more if I want to.

Easy to answer: What is the output power of the goggle transmitter? It will be in the specs -- the FCC requires it.

Let's start there.

 

[Aeomer]

Let's put this simply.

1. 2.4GHz/5.8GHz is non-ionising. When used in consumer device digital communications, it has very low penetration into the skin - less than 1mm.
2. Microwave ovens do indeed use a similar frequency, but the power is around 900W rather than 100mW used in licence free communications. High powered transmissions are in tens of watts, not hundreds.
3. Issues with localised heating from any radio transmission do not exist unless you stand in front of a commercial telecoms transmission dish. In this case, you should be arrested before you got yourself into this position.
4. To increase safety even further, transmission use "spread spectrum" where by the frequency is modulated around the chosen transmission frequency (widening the band-width). For heating an object or causing damage, you need a fixed frequency. Modulating the frequency decreases Spectral Flux Density, which is (over simply) a measure of how much radiation you are absorbing. It also makes the signal less prone to interference.

Have you noticed how people use earpieces in an attempt to avoid "brain cancer." These earpieces act as wave guide, sending the signal directly through the thinnest part of your skull AND ensure people keep their phones in their pockets, next to their genitals. So much for brain cancer.

 

[Robbyg]

There is cause for concern by the OP.
There is a reason that the FCC has guideline charts on RF exposure times vs distance and power. The higher the frequency the more danger is involved. The question is if the shielding is present and how much RF is reaching your brain. At the distances we are talking even 500mW could be a problem if your exposure is long enough.

I don't think anyone on this forum is qualified to give you the answers you seek but I suggest if your worried, try to do further research on the subject. Personally I never planned to wear mine for long periods as most people indicate that one 20 min session is enough to create neck strain.

Rob

 

[kona]

Thanks all. Again, I'm not trying to debate the risks of RF radiation, but simply asking if this is a moot point with a device that is largely receiving. That is a very different question; sorry I can't get it across.

 

[Robbyg]

To answer your question It would seem logical that it is also transmitting all the time.

Rob

 

[CCDD]

That's it, I'm cancelling my goggles order and selling my Mavic.