AirPods on blast for 'microwaving' your brain—and it’s worth a look at the science behind why people think so
Key Takeaways
Patient Insights
"Why can't it be damaging long term to have an electrical, battery charged, probably magnetic and bluetooth signal sending device one inch away from your brain? Because the industry and Apple says so?" — Reddit user @head_sense_8442
"I think it's funny when people worry about their puny bluetooth headphones, but don't give a thought about their cellphone in their pocket, or if they happen to be sitting next to their wifi router at home." — Reddit user @travelinmatt76
The most recent wild health claim circulating on social media alleges that AirPods are "microwaving" our brains.
To bolster their argument, proponents often quote a letter from 2015, which was signed by more than 250 scientists and talked about the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).[]
@brianboxerwachlermd Reply to @vannessabucio better safe than sorry #airpods #braintumor #doctorsoftiktok ♬ original sound - Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler, MD
However, on closer inspection of the letter, it is evident that it primarily called for more research in this field, and it did not specifically target AirPods, which only entered the market in 2017, after the original letter was released.
Lending fuel to the fire, some studies conducted in animal models have demonstrated biological changes in response to high doses of radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Admittedly, these exposures were much higher than the levels humans experience with day-to-day wireless devices. So, how do these findings translate to real-world use?
The thing about non-ionizing radiation
To grasp the science, we need to revisit the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation—such as X-rays—has sufficient energy to remove tightly bound electrons from atoms, and can cause damage to cells and DNA. Non-ionizing radiation, emitted by AirPods and similar wireless devices, does not have this energy.
Thousands of articles have been published on the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. An in-depth review of the literature by the WHO staunchly concluded that “current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.”[]
Board-certified Utah physician John Lowe MD, notes: "AirPods, as well as other wireless devices, release non-ionizing radiation at fairly low-power density levels. So, there could be no concern about ionizing the cells."
Federal limits
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) quantifies the rate at which RF energy is absorbed by the body. In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) limits SAR values for wireless devices used near or against the body to 1.6 W/kg averaging over one gram of tissue.[]
According to the FCC, all wireless devices being sold in the US must pass FCC testing to confirm they stay within safety limits at maximum power. If a device sold differs from the tested version, the FCC can revoke approval and take enforcement measures.
Apple, AirPod’s creator, has previously addressed these concerns. In an email to Reuters, the company stated that all their devices comply with all "applicable safety requirements." Apple further noted that the RF emissions of AirPods and AirPods Pro are "more than two times below applicable limits for radio frequency exposure."[]
The reality of EMF risks
Despite decades of research, the health risks of low-level RF radiation remain largely theoretical. "Current research mainly indicates that non-ionizing radiation from such devices hasn’t been conclusively linked to any health risks," board-certified surgeon Mark Anton, MD, tells MDLinx.
Dr. Lowe adds, “There are still some issues associated with localized heating or RF energy tissue irritation. These impacts are quite small and are well below the levels of being harmful.”
A recent study exposed mice to 2650 MHz electromagnetic radiation (EMR) at a whole-body specific absorption rate (WBSAR) of 2.06 W/kg for 4 hours daily over 28 days—levels far exceeding those from typical AirPods or Bluetooth headsets. While no significant effects on spatial memory were observed, increased anxiety-like behavior was noted.[]
Audiologist Ross Cushing, AuD, states, “Even though current research shows no significant risk, for those concerned about radiation, I would encourage variety in their choice of headphones by alternating with wired devices.”
To protect hearing, especially in younger users, he recommends following the 60/60 rule: “Keep volume below 60% and limit listening to 60 minutes at a time.” For AirPods specifically, the Hearing feature in Apple’sHealth app can help track exposure and sound levels.
What this means for you
The fear-mongering around AirPods is wildly overblown and cherry-picks data from extreme animal studies that fail to reflect real-world use in humans and ignores the overwhelming evidence showing no harm. Advise your patients to not confuse low-energy radiation with high-energy. They must understand that while no technology is without risk, the safety margins built into modern devices are robust.