Andrew Huberman· PhD
in terms of electromagnetic fields there it's just it's uh you know the energy levels are way way out of the range where I would be worried about this
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
in terms of electromagnetic fields there it's just it's uh you know the energy levels are way way out of the range where I would be worried about this
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I mean I I think the energy levels involved are so tiny that uh you know ionizing radiation aside we're way out of the realm of ionizing radiation that people would worry about you know tumor causing EMF Fields even just the electromagnetic field itself as is very well described in a Bluetooth frequency range the power level are tiny in these devices
he said that the amount of uh radiation coming from those Bluetooth headphones >> is considerably lower than >> the sort of radiation that you're exposed to all day every day. So he wasn't concerned.