“iPods can cause cardiac implantable pacemakers to malfunction by interfering with the electromagnetic equipment monitoring the heart, according to a study presented by a 17-year-old high school student to a meeting of heart specialists on Thursday,” Debra Sherman reports for Reuters.
“The study tested the effect of the portable music devices on 100 patients, whose mean age was 77, outfitted with pacemakers. Electrical interference was detected half of the time when the iPod was held just 2 inches from the patient’s chest for 5 to 10 seconds,” Sherman reports.
“The study did not examine any portable music devices other than iPods, which are made by Apple Inc.,” Sherman reports.
MacDailyNews Take: Well, isn’t that conveeeenient? For safety’s sake, you’ll probably want to keep iPod also-rans away from pacemakers, too.
Sherman continues, “Jay Thaker, lead author of the study and a student at Okemos High School in Okemos, Michigan, concluded that iPod interference can lead physicians to misdiagnose actual heart function. Thaker, whose father is an electrophysiologist and whose mother is a rheumatologist, said he asked his dad about a potential interaction between pacemakers and iPods.”
“‘We looked online but didn’t see anything. Then, one of his patients asked him if there would be a problem, so (my father) put me in touch with Dr. Krit (Jongnarangsin),’ Thaker said in a telephone interview,” Sherman reports.
Sherman, “Jongnarangsin, a long-time friend of Thaker’s father, is the senior author of the study and an assistant professor in the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine at the University of Michigan. ‘Most pacemaker patients are not iPod users,’ Jongnarangsin said. For that reason, he said, it is unclear how often iPods cause misdiagnosis. ‘This needs to be studied more,’ Jongnarangsin added.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: This is actually a valuable study. Imagine an iPod shuffle clipped to the shirt or an iPod or iPod nano in a shirt pocket right over a pacemaker!
The American Heart Association recommends:
If you have an artificial pacemaker, be aware of your surroundings and the devices that may interfere with pulse generators:
Home appliances
• CB radios, electric drills, electric blankets, electric shavers, ham radios, heating pads, metal detectors, microwave ovens, TV transmitters and remote control TV changers, in general, have not been shown to damage pacemaker pulse generators, change pacing rates or totally inhibit pacemaker output.
• Several of these devices have a remote potential to cause interference by occasionally inhibiting a single beat. However, most people can continue to use these devices without significant worry about damage or interference with their pacemakers.
• Power-generating equipment, arc welding equipment and powerful magnets (as in medical devices, heavy equipment or motors) can inhibit pulse generators. Patients who work with or near such equipment should know that their pacemakers may not work properly in those conditions.
Cellphones
• Cellphones available in the United States (less than 3 watts) don’t seem to damage pulse generators or affect how the pacemaker works.
• Technology is rapidly changing as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is making new frequencies available. Newer cellphones using these new frequencies might make pacemakers less reliable. A group of cellphone companies is studying that possibility.
Medical equipment
• Carry a wallet I.D. card with you. Equipment used by doctors and dentists can affect your pacemaker, so tell them you have one.
• Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) uses a powerful magnet to produce images of internal organs and functions. Metal objects are attracted to the magnet and are normally not allowed near MRI machines. The magnet can interrupt the pacing and inhibit the output of pacemakers. If MRI must be done, the pacemaker output in some models can be reprogrammed. Discuss with your doctor the possible risks and benefits before you undergo MRI scanning.
• Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a noninvasive treatment that uses hydraulic shocks to dissolve kidney stones. This procedure is safe for most pacemaker patients, with some reprogramming of the pacing. You’ll need careful follow-up after the procedure and for several months to be sure your unit is working properly. Patients with certain kinds of pacemakers implanted in the abdomen should avoid ESWL. Discuss your specific case with your doctor before and after the treatment.
• Radiofrequency (RF) ablation uses radio waves to manage a wide variety of arrhythmias. Recent studies of patients with implanted pacing systems measured the units before, during and after RF catheter ablation. They showed that most permanent pacemakers aren’t adversely affected by radio frequencies during catheter ablation. A variety of changes in your pacemaker can occur during and after the treatment. Your doctor should carefully evaluate your pacing system after the procedure.
• Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is used to relieve acute or chronic pain. Several electrodes are placed on the skin and connected to a pulse generator. Most studies have shown that TENS rarely inhibits bipolar pacing. It may sometimes briefly inhibit unipolar pacing. This can be treated by reprogramming the pulse generator.
• Diagnostic radiation (such as screening X-ray) appears to have no effect on pacemaker pulse generators. However, therapeutic radiation (such as for treating cancerous tumors) may damage the pacemaker’s circuits. The degree of damage is unpredictable and may vary with different systems. But the risk is significant and builds up as the radiation dose increases. The American Heart Association recommends that the pacemaker be shielded as much as possible, and moved if it lies directly in the radiation field. If you depend on your pacemaker for normal heart pacing, the electrocardiogram (ECG) should be monitored during the treatment, and your pulse generator should be tested often after and between radiation sessions.
• Dental equipment doesn’t appear to affect pacemakers adversely. Some patients may feel an increase in pacing rates during dental drilling.
• Electroconvulsive therapy (such as for certain mental disorders) appears to be safely used in patients with pacemakers.
• Short-wave or microwave diathermy uses high-frequency, high-intensity signals. These may bypass your pacemaker’s noise protection and interfere with or permanently damage the pulse generator.
More information: American Heart Association – Pacemakers
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Escaport” for the heads up.]
ya, but ipods are compatible with ipacemakers, right?
I can just imagine it late June early July, ‘iPhone gives you brain brain tumor!
Well, as long as they don’t interfere with my microwave…
I was going to comment that pacemakers come with lots of warning about all kinds of devices that could cause them to operate improperly. So most likely the iPod is no exception but isn’t the only mp3 player that would probably cause such a problem for people with pacemakers.
Dumbest FUD I have ever read. iPod doesn’t transmit or receive RF, microwave, or any other kind of radiation. If devices like this affect your pacemaker, you need an upgrade! Or a cabin deep in the woods of course.
BTW, I know it’s an added precaution, and am not trying to be insensitive. To single out the iPod, though, is just silly. I guess it goes along with being king of the hill!
This is the part I like, “Most pacemaker patients are not iPod users.” D’oh!
They need to conduct a study 40 or 50 years from now when the 18-35 demographic grows up for any real significance.
Hmmmmm, so that was why grand dad was so . . MOVING to the BEAT, last night!!!! He clipped my shuffle to his shirt and shortly he was hopping all over the place and in time to the music TOOO!!
And you know that grand dad never had any talent before this.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
en
That only happens when you play Celine Dion recordings.
Play something with a good beat and you’re smokin’.
@Big Al,
Close, but I think I’ve got it! You must only play songs with a backbeat that coincides in frequency with your desired heart rate. Brings a new meaning to “syncing”, no?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”oh oh” style=”border:0;” />
iPod is the de facto music player, so naturally its the named product.
Not too difficult to engineer an answer if this really is a serious issue.
I’d guess that a layer of thin foil inside a pod would shield it nicely.
As a doctor, I feel I should comment. There is a big difference between a patient being paced by their pacemaker and the EKG being uninterpretable because of electrical interference, as this article implies. That is merely a nuisance to the Cardiologist trying to read the EKG. However, having a defibrillator (this function is now often “wrapped” into the pacemaker) go off and shock the patient because of electrical interference from an iPod is an entirely different matter and doesn’t seem to be implied by the article.
BUT, it does say in the article that one pacemaker stopped working all together – that IS a big deal.
Just to clarify.
@DJ
I like your comment, but isn’t iPod already a leader in RF shielding already? The Nano is in an all aluminum housing, the iPod w/ video has a steel backing. Shuffle? Perhaps it might need RF shielding in place, but no more than any competing device. You covered that though, in saying, “iPod is the de facto music player, so naturally its the named product.”, as I mentioned about being “king of the hill” above. Good night all!
Always have Motorhead on the favorites list just incase they need a jumpstart.
OK, first off..
Cubert, you’re a doctor?
Second, this quote from Jobs today
‘”I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that was the case, Microsoft would have great products.”
Hah!!
When my mother-in-law received her pacemaker/defibulator she and her husband were extremely paranoid about being in our house. We have Mac’s, WiFi, iPods, Cell Phones, TVs, etc.
She’s since learned to just not hold the stuff up to her chest & she’s fine… Heh.. Its not “just an ipod” issue but any electronic device may potentially effect those devices if held within CLOSE proxcimity. Just don’t carry it in your shirt pocket & you’re fine.
Be Still My Heart!
So if a tiny battery powered device like an iPod can do this from up to two inches away, what about the interference from an actual computer? I know Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connections on their own are pretty low powered, certainly a lot less than a mobile phone, but combined with other electronic pollution what would be the total effect? Has anyone run that study?
Are those Microsoft pacemakers?
Actually, I’d be more worried about cell phones to tell you the truth. My RAZR makes my iPod 5G go NUTS when it rings anywhere within a foot of the iPod: volume goes up/down, songs change by themselves, backlight comes on, etc. I’m sure many of you have heard your car speakers or computer speakers go all a-buzz when the RAZR checks back with the “mothership” or sends/receives a call.
That being said, of course iPod gives off a tiny bit of ER. Pacemaker owners should be aware of this, as with any other device. Here’s some pretty standard wording from the FCC statement in the iPod manuals:
“FCC Compliance Statement
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC
rules. Operation is subject to the following two
conditions: (1) This device may not cause
harmful interference, and (2) this device must
accept any interference received, including
interference that may cause undesired
operation. See instructions if interference to
radio or television reception is suspected.
Radio and Television Interference
This computer equipment generates, uses, and
can radiate radio-frequency energy. If it is not
installed and used properly—that is, in strict
accordance with Apple’s instructions—it may
cause interference with radio and television
reception.
This equipment has been tested and found to
comply with the limits for a Class B digital
device in accordance with the specifications in
Part 15 of FCC rules. These specifications are
designed to provide reasonable protection
against such interference in a residential
installation. However, there is no guarantee that
interference will not occur in a particular
installation.”
“Most pacemaker patients are not iPod users.”
Tell that to Dick Cheney.
…hey…
Give Dick Cheney 2 iPods !!!!!!
I have this “Big Ass” magnet that I want you to strap to your chest and walk around with and see if it messes up your pacemaker. Better yet, I have a giant digital clock I will but on a necklace and you can look freak’n gangsta with and see if you are still kick’n by the end of the night.
Get real. Some jackass lawyer will see this headline and go “old folks home” shopping now.
Stupid is as stupid does.
As long as it doesn’t affect my alien brain implant, thank Smorg.
Smorg-a-dee-doo-dah!
Smorg-a-dee-aye
My oh my what a wonderful… uh, yeah.
The reason they only used iPods is because the students were smart enough to avoid buying the iPod wannabes in the first place.
So who says the only place for the iPod is “two inches from the pacemaker”? Put the iPod in your pocket or mount it on your belt. Potential problem resolved. If only they were all this easy…. Like how we’re to deal with the hearing loss by all those playing at high volume.
Hmmmm is it just me? Or if I had a pacemaker, I’m not sure I’d hold electronic devices close to where my heart/pacemaker was…
I actually had a science project based on TENS in the tenth grade of high school. Holy crap, I’ve been a nerd all my life.
“My oh my what a wonderful… uh, yeah.”
The proper line is “My oh my what a wonderful 010010100110111101100010011100 . . .day! Everybody!
I was also told that if I need ice I should wear pants but there is no ice machine. We must patiently wait.
I have 5 docs in my family with one cardiologist and one cardiothoracic surgeon. Of course, I’m the one who isn’t a doc. I’d say offhand, that they must be referring to iPods with harddrives, as they are more likely to create a magnetic field, due to the spinning platter within electrical current. Anyhow, just don’t put your iPod in your chest pocket, while having a EKG! {which of course doesn’t happen as you’re barechested when getting an EKG} otherwise, how would you get a misdiagnosis?
Little ado about nothing.
Yeah, pants are really over-rated.
Why do people worry about the little things that might, under the right circumstances, cause a problem, instead of the really big items that could easily kill them? Pacemakers for example, are given to people with heart conditions. Most (not all, but a wide majority) people with heart conditions have poor hearts because they didn’t eat right or exercise. They should spend some quality time worrying about their diet and exercising instead of giving a second thought to something that might possibly affect their pacemaker a little.
These aren’t the people most likely to be wearing an ipod next to their chests while doing something strenuous anyway.
MDN Magic Word: food, as in: If you ate the right kinds and amounts of food and you exercised regularly, you probably wouldn’t need that pacemaker!
TMF
Ya think Jesus would want some of Jamie Lee in a denim bikini?
TT: Praise be.
“Thank you, baby Jesus”.
Well, that sucks. She was clothed, but still more dangerous to a pacemaker than an iPod, I bet…..
Are they sure it’s not the rabid dancing the ipod causes one to do that makes the pacemakers fail? Seriously if an iPod can do this what the fu.. can a mobile phone do. Hell lot more radiation associated with them, I don’t care what the scientists say.
To all those posters who made fun of this article Hahahabloodyha. Real funny isn’t it and what makes you such experts?
Now at times I’ve been irked by some of MDN’s little quips but this time they’ve acted responsibly when they say:
“…a valuable study. Imagine an iPod shuffle clipped to the shirt or an ipod or ipod nano in a shirt pocket right over a pacemaker!” Good one MDN!!
However I can’t say the same of many of the posters on this one.
1. Be stilll my beating heart. First you make a joke of the out of the story with your alias.
2. You think people in their fifties don’t use ipods. What do you mean by this, people in their fifties don’t use computers and can’t see the importance of portable music? We were the ones who purchased the Walkmans and we didn’t stop listening to music. And as Cubert said that if one person’s pacemaker stops because of this then it is a concern.
It is a concern and if you spent any time in a heart ward you’d know what I’m talking about.
3. I don’t have a pacemaker but I saw a lot of people in heart wards who did and increasingly they are younger younger.
4. I’m 53 and I have two ipods and most of the music I listen to is current punk music (Sum 41, A.F.I., Yellowcard, Anti-Flag etc.) and I have two ipods and my wife turns 48 this year and she has an ipod mini. My sister is 58 and she finally bought an ipod. And when I was ordering this computer two and a half years ago I saw a real old guy (in his seventies) buy an ipod. Likewise if you open your eyes you’ll see us boomers with our ipods.
5. In my family we have heart conditions, bypasses, stent operations and some have diabetes. I fall in the heart condition category with two arteries being stented after a heart attack. As I said before I haven’t had a pacemaker installed but I don’t take any of this lightly and maybe just maybe this explanation might just get you to change your attitude.
6. And to most of the other posters who criticised this article or made fun of it you’ve missed the whole point of the report. In medicine you have to err on the conservative side and if there is a potential issue then patients and companies who manufacture “mp3” players have to be made aware of this. It’s just common sense. Apple would be taking this on board and may take steps to improve the shielding (as one responsible poster has noted). And Apple is a responsible company.
5. I hope many of you never ever experience heart problems because if you had (as I have) then you never ever make fun, ridicule or make light of such issues.
6. When I see my local doctor and cardiologist I’ll be telling them about this because they need to know this. No actually I’m not waiting on this one, MDN’s reporting will be emailed ASAP.
7. Anything that come from The Heart Foundation (American, British, Australian etc) is gospel as far as I’m concerned) and many of you just don’t cut the mustard as medicos.
8. Yes medical knowledge is not an exact science and as time goes on more and more knowledge is gathered. Yes some earlier warnings are no longer relevant and at other times Heart Foundations issue new information. This is a medical responsibility. And if one person with a pacemaker is affected by a portable music player then it is is an issue. If this is a potential problem then patients need to be aware of this. It may prove to be nothing but then again it may be a problem.
Again a big thank you to MDN for publicising this I will be sending you a email to personally thank you for the information
…said he asked his dad about a potential interaction between pacemakers and iPods.”
The Dad’s reply?
Well maybe son but I think holding a lit stick of dynamite against the pacemaker is a more serious issue to consider.
This article has DUH written all over it.
Nonsense. I have a pacemaker and I’m just f-bbbbbbbbb…
They had to use iPods for the study because the 17 year old kid couldn’t find enough of any other kind of portable music player to make the study have more than one or two patients.
so Ballmer was right about his 85 year old grandfather not using an iPod…but I’m thinking that his pacemaker ain’t gonna fly w/ a Zune either.
TT,
Yes.
Same goes for knifes!
that´s not a question of iPod but wrong taste of music.
Pacemaker problems? No more Kelly Clarkson for ya, dude, we switch you to a healthy dose of Slayer.
SCNR
I guess common sense isn’t so common, eh?
Walter chillum –
in defense of all us that post on this site… we come to this site ’cause we like Macs and all things apple, plus we’re all cynical bastards who love to ridicule those who speak against our adopted second (or third, or first) religion.
expecting anything else in this forum would be silly. right?
MW: expect…. LOL!
If electrical devices of this nature can cause problems like this then it is valuable information but to only test the iPod and single it out by name is irresponsible. It somehow implies that the iPod is different in some fashion and operates in a different way so as to cause problems. Of course, as with many other articles, using the iPod name is an attention getter and make a story seem far more important.
Don’t try to defend the largest demographic in the history of the world to some punk gang bangers with a collective IQ of a kumquat and tracks between their toes. Darwinism will get rid of them soon enough.
“Dumbest FUD I have ever read. iPod doesn’t transmit or receive RF, microwave, or any other kind of radiation”
Every electronic device does this as a side effect of it’s operation.
There are standards for the levels of emissions and immunity. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_compatibility for a better description than I can give in a short space.
“iPod is the de facto music player, so naturally its the named product.”
Each device has it’s own profile of emissions, it’s possible that iPods could cause this and other players may not.
“I’d guess that a layer of thin foil inside a pod would shield it nicely.”
Dealing with EMC issues is usually a bit more complicated than that. Many consumer electronics devices already include a sprayed conductive layer inside the case, or shielded internal components to meet EMC requirements, but that’s just one technique. Usually you will have to tweak the unit’s design to reduce emissions.
This is complete bullshit, and I can’t believe it was published.
A 50% chance of there being interference is no better than CHANCE. In science we call that statistically insignificant. This paper doesn’t prove jack, and it is extremely irresponsible for it to be getting this much attention.
Walter Chillum,
You say that “Anything that come from The Heart Foundation (American, British, Australian etc) is gospel as far as I’m concerned” yet it appears that you pay little attention to their advice when it doesn’t suit your agenda.
All heart foundations recommend reasonable diets and regular exercise, and most of the people you’ve seen in heart wards are obese. They got fat and their heart conditions because of their own gluttony and laziness, and now they’re straining our medical system.
We live on an overpopulated planet as it is. We shouldn’t be wasting resources trying to save people whose injuries and diseases are self inflicted with full knowledge of the consequences. Every penny spent on these people would be much better spent helping the homeless or the poor in third world countries.
Quick! Send a CASE to Dick Cheney…
oh, but he IS a case…
Or, better yet… get a few dozen iPod users to surround him and twiddle their click-wheels to find the sweet spot.!
Damn. That won’t work, someone would have to find his bunker first.
Psychopaths don’t have hearts.
As a former Apple fanboy, I watch the reaction of the community with interest when bad news comes out about Apple. The response to this article was predictable. Had this study singled out the Creative Zen players, the Apple fans would be bragging that people should have bought an iPod because it couldn’t possibly have this problem, since Apple would have engineered it out. But since it mentions the iPod, they make sure we all realize that the problem isn’t JUST the iPod but all the other players on the market, too. Wouldn’t do to have someone think there’s a problem with the iPod that other players don’t share.
Similarly, I laugh at the latest Apple TV commercial for the Mac. Macs don’t have “bloat”, huh? Ever looked in the factory build for a Mac Pro? Disk space wasted with a trial copy of Microsoft Office, a Chess game, Comic Life software, Grapher, umpteen million printer drivers, tons of extensions for hardware not even installed in the box, and localizations for every language on Earth. The typical PC or Mac comes loaded down with a lot of crap the average user will never run. As an example, I think I’m the only Mac user at our company who’s ever used the built-in Perl language, rsync, or any of a number of other command line items loaded into OS X. Just as we reformat and reload every Windows PC that comes in the door to eliminate any bloat, we do the exact same thing with the Mac, for the same reason. The Mac simply isn’t “superior” when it comes to bloat. Just like Windows and Linux, there are plenty of reasons why the Mac sucks!
@EMC…although you are right in EM emmisions in electrical devices, in case you haven’t noticed, the iPod has a metal case which can act as a Faraday cage thus reducing or eliminating the emmision. Therefore, in all due respect to Walter Chillum as I realize heart problems are a serious subject, this article is bogus and should be ridiculed for its irresposibility. As a scientist and editor of science publications, this would never pass muster.
Cheesy “Monk” episode plot detected. Quick, somebody call the MythBusters!
Just my $0.02
“A 50% chance of there being interference is no better than CHANCE. In science we call that statistically insignificant. This paper doesn’t prove jack, and it is extremely irresponsible for it to be getting this much attention.”
Great! How about I give you a revolver, half the chambers loaded, you spin the cylinder, point it at your heart and pull the trigger. Does 50% sound like good odds now?
“@EMC…although you are right in EM emmisions in electrical devices, in case you haven’t noticed, the iPod has a metal case which can act as a Faraday cage thus reducing or eliminating the emmision.”
Yes I had noticed, and there is an explanation. Firstly Faraday cages block out static electrical fields and effectiveness against electromagnetic radiation depends on the design.
On a device like the iPod, the cage is not complete as you have holes in it like the LCD window, click wheel and so on, and a nice antenna in the form of ear buds.
That’s enough to be a problem with radiated emissions and noise immunity.
So your comment on reducing rather then eliminating emissions is correct.
Having read the article, and being the child of a cardiologist, two questions come to mind: 1. if an iPod/cellphone can affect the pacemaker, doesn’t that speak to issues with the inherent shielding (or lack there of) of both devices being inadequate and 2. as has been recently commented on by the Aviation industry (as an example) cell phones on flights do not (apparently) interfere with the functioning of aeroplanes. Therefore, in either case, are we either overhyping the issue and also, why would a person having an iPod so close to their pacemaker in the first place (I carry mine in my pant pocket or in my hand, not in a shirt pocket or on the band/strap of my backpack/satchel.
Having a pacemaker implanted only 1 year ago, and also being a religious user of an iPod, I can identify with both concerns, even though I am only 55 (they didn’t test my age group). However, keeping in mind all the warnings I received at the time of implant regarding electronic devices, I am not dumb enough to even test this theory to understand its validity. There are so many other places to attach or wear an iPod, why even tempt potential problems? Nowadays, an electronic device is an electronic device. Just put the thing some place else, and enjoy the best of both worlds!
As a “doctor” or a liar? What a pathetic lack of understanding of the fundamentals of scientific investigation you have. I pray for your patients, moron.
You have made a clinical decision regarding the safety of the iPod without knowing how the experments were conducted, the types of devices were used, the make and manufacture of the pacemakers, or the model of iPod(s) used.
A news blurb certainly does not qualify this report as having the same credibility as a peer-reviewed article from a respected journal. Additionally, there are no other independent reports that either support or refute these data or conclusions. Without additional studies, it would be unprofessional to make broad-based recommendations. What a complete ass you are.
“BUT, it does say in the article that one pacemaker stopped working all together – that IS a big deal.”
A trend of one? There is no clinical or statistical relevance to a trend of one. Tell me, how many lines can be drawn from a single data point, dumbass?
Cubert, you are a pathetic ass.
@WC
Please note @webmaster apprentice’s response to your post, and add this perspective to it – Those who post here are often extra cynical when a perfectly good product is “conviently” picked out of a crowd of products, in this case just because its an Apple product, and held up as the new public enemy no. 1.
Reading between the lines of the article (just barely between) it sounds a lot like Windows lovin’, Mac hating daddy put sweet little daughter up to this innocent little task, and daddy’s wildest dreams came true – He did his part to make Apple look like the devil incarnate.
So I think that’s where the attitude really comes from – the realization that this kind of naked propaganda can’t be taken seriously – so we don’t.
Have a lovely and peaceful day.
What a moron, you are!
A 230-grain bullet traveling a 960 fps would likely have greater “interference” than a radio wave of unspecified signal strength or wave length, dumbass. I can’t believe that you can eat and breathe at the same time.
…And as you can see, some of us can’t spell either.
IPod’s may not be carried by people with Pace Makers, YET, because people tend to prefer the technology they are familiar with by the typical heart attack age. However, today’s IPod users do need to realize they too will get older and still be surrounded by their generation’s technology, so even if all your grandparents have died and you don’t visit any elderly people, you may someday be at personal risk. Keep this study in mind..
The people who should be most concerned are nursing home workers and families who care for elderly members in their home. No one wants to be responsible for a loved one’s death or hospitalization on suspicion of a heart attack. I urge all users of electronics to be aware of the issue this study just barely touches–the risk to pacemakers. Microwaves today are better shielded not because of foresight but because some people had pacemaker troubles around the old ones.
@EMC
I had thought of the ‘incomplete’ shell with regards to the Faraday cage but considering that it was only one face exposed and that even there I believe there is a foil shield, the emmisions would be severrely reduced (but you are right, not eliminated). At what point is this low level significant? God knows that in comparison, other mp3 devices like the Zune (low % of that causing any problems though) and phones etc which do not carry metal casings would be ticking time bombs…..
Yeah, some folks misspell, others simply can’t think at all. No comparison, eh, Peebody?
Holy Crap! I’m with TT… Cubert’s a Dr.?
What’s this world coming to. First TT and C1 kiss and make nice, and now Cubert is a Dr.??? What’s next? Dogs and Cats living together? Windows on a mac?… oh wait…
fergit it.
All the medical practitioners that I know describe themselves as “physicians”. None call themselves “doctors”. Only a moron or a liar would use the word “doctor” when “physician” is the ubiquitous and customary expression.
Hey, Cubert, are you reading this?
How do iPods affect penile implants? That could make or break my weekend.
Sheesh! A 17-year-old, watched no doubt by a beaming dad seeing visions of his child winning a Nobel prize, declaring the iPod a danger to 77-year-olds with heart pacemakers! I think putting iPods into the hands of those geezers (Sorry, grandpa, just kidding!) is a danger to the iPod rather than the other way around. Could it be that the problems the Nano supposedly had some time back were due to the devices being adversely affected by pacemakers installed in their owners’ hearts?!!
For the record, I am a proctologist and my head is always in my work. As you can see, I am performing an autoinspection of my colon. I have perfected the technique!
Re: several comments about cellphones:
Pacemaker manufacturers suggest that cellphones should not be placed within a few inches of a pacemaker.
My surgeon asked whether I was right- or left-handed (I’m right- ); then placed my pacemaker on the left side and told me to use my cellphone with my right hand.
Also: Mostly (but not entirely) RF interference does not “de-program” or harm the pacemaker; just interferes with its operation while the interference exists. Common medical advice: if something interferes with your pacemaker, just move away!! (D’oh).
Uh…holy crap Cubert, you are a doctor? Wow….so am I.
Wonder how many more on here are.
Cripes I write like Yoda!
“I had thought of the ‘incomplete’ shell “
if you’re confident in your theory, drill a hole in your Microwave oven’s door, put your eye up to it and turn the oven on. After you fry your eyeball, you’ll understand the effect of a hole in the Faraday cage on emissions.
The LCD window on an iPod is big enough to be a problem. You already intuitively know it transmits electromagnetic radiation at some frequencies because you can read the screen.
“At what point is this low level significant?”
At the point where it interferes with operation of other devices like pacemakers. Most EMC specs specify the maximum levels of emissions of a device, across a frequency range, and the level of immunity to outside signals that it must have.
“God knows that in comparison, other mp3 devices like the Zune (low % of that causing any problems though) and phones etc which do not carry metal casings would be ticking time bombs…..””
Not necessarily. As I said, it’s device specific. You can design a PCB which has very low emissions and requires less screening by being careful with board layout, adding appropriate filters and screening of components on the board itself. You can also conductively coat the inside of a plastic enclosure.
In general you can’t ship any device unless it passes the right tests for that class of device. However EMC is a tricky beast, and seldom does any product pass on the first try. Therefore most products which ship are the result of a design failing EMC then being modified to the point where it meets the appropriate standard. However any given product may have failed at different frequencies. Product X may have strong emissions at frequencies which affect pacemaker model Y, product Z may not.
To all those posters who made fun of this article Hahahabloodyha. Real funny isn’t it and what makes you such experts?
Likewise to the high school student who produced the article. I don’t care what her parents’ occupations are, this issue needs serious, competent study and peer review by seasoned medial professionals before establishing it as fact.
IMO it’d be very, very interesting to see what other kinds of devices could potentially cause pacemaker malfunction. I rather doubt there’s something magically bad with just the iPod…
Gotta love today’s guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
The LCD window on an iPod is big enough to be a problem. You already intuitively know it transmits electromagnetic radiation at some frequencies because you can read the screen.
Is it worse than sitting in front of a CRT screen, a couple feet from the business end of an electron gun?
Again, I’d love to see a study of other devices that could cause interference.
“Is it worse than sitting in front of a CRT screen, a couple feet from the business end of an electron gun?”
The front of a CRT shields you from the dangerous X radiation and there are specifications to limit the magnetic fields around CRTs.
So is the iPod more of a problem? Yes, if it stops your pacemaker from working properly, you potentially die.
It’s not the effect of the electromagnetic radiation on your body that’s the problem, it’s the effect of that radiation in disrupting the pacemaker’s function.
Another example would be if the iPod interfered with the ABS system on your car. The radiation wouldn’t kill you, it’d be the impact with a solid object brought on by brake failure that would.
Hence the more mission critical a device, usually the higher the level of immunity that is required.
But even that has it’s limits. To take it to a extreme, very few non military devices today are designed to withstand the effects of a HERF gun or the EMP from a nuclear explosion.
“Again, I’d love to see a study of other devices that could cause interference.”
Just about any improperly designed electronic device could. That wouldn’t make it any less bad that an iPod does.
The web master should remove frivolous comments, as this is a serious subject.
Those who want to criticize the 17 year old reseacher, they should remember the senior author of the report Dr. Krit Jongnarangs is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine at the University of Michigan. That amounts to better than peer revied. Teenagers don’t get to present in front of national medical conferences alone. The 17 year old should be thanked for thinking of the potential problem.
The article itself already lists other tested devices and the American Heart Association maintains current advice. Those of you with less computer experience don’t remember when it was common for mail order PC’s to cause even TV and radio interference because they were Class A devices and not meant for home use. The FCC distinguished between Class A (office use) and Class B (home use) devices for exactly the interference reason.
For the commentator who distinguished between those using doctor and physician, the context is different. Calling a Catholic priest father is not inconsistent with also formally addressing them Very Reverend. However, not ever doctor is a physician, Many medical reseachers are not practicing physicians but pure researchers with degrees like Ph.D. in Biophysics, Biochemistry, Biomechanics and even unrelated fields like Logic.
This MacDailyNews Article is merely a subset of other reports internationally on this same study. People who want the full story should look at the Proceeedings of the Heart Rhythm Society’s 28th meeting.
I HAVE HAD A PACE MAKER SINCE 6/06 AND ALSO A IPOD THAT I USE DAILY.FOLLOW UP TESTS HAVE ALL BEEN UNEVENTFUL, AND PACE MAKER FUNCTION HAS NOT SKIPPED A BEAT.WILL BE 85 IN A FEW MONTHS..
FCG
Dear Walter L. Johnson,
an assistant professor is a non-tenured, junior scientist, trying to establish him/herself. Assistant professors are under an immense pressure to publish (publish or perish), churning out as many papers as they can.
To even suggest that the opinion of such a junior researcher weighs more than a peer review conducted by an scientific journal establishes you as completely ignorant about proper scientific procedure.
I am not saying that these findings are worthless. Nobody can tell. We are lacking the information on the exact experimental setup that only a regular publication can provide. But to say is has to be true, because , ‘Gee-whiz, the man’s an assistant professor’, is asinine.
“Well, isn’t that conveeeenient? For safety’s sake, you’ll probably want to keep iPod also-rans away from pacemakers, too.”
Wow. I’m genuinely impressed. Any other time, MDN would just as soon have nothing but the Ipod referenced in a story about mp3 players. But NO, as soon as it’s putting the Ipod in a negative light, all of a sudden it’s “Oh, well let’s include all other players, too.” Real bright move, guys.
Let’s face it “ipod” is an umbrella term for all mp3 players. That goes for negative stories, too.
To hagar57
It was no doubt the Assistant Professor who added the qualifications to the report. However, I take issue with your characteristic of Assistant Professors. I have a son at an international recognized university (name isn’t my privelege to release since he isn’t involved in this discussion). He is a graduate student in Bio Physics, and I can tell you that you are in general correct about publish or perish, but in the sciences that actually starts in graduate school. He already has his name on five papers as a contributor and his three years to go. Even though he has changed research projects it will still be a few months before the paper where he is the lead author is published.
Even an entry level Assistant Professor has from four to six years of research experience, and none would put their name on a dubious paper. It would put at risk their chances for full professorships and in some cases would cause outright dismissal, if the research was considered sloppy. I actually find Assistant Professors often more credible than tenured full professors with yellow archives.
Besides there already is a body of scientific investigations and published peer review reports. The idea that an iPod 2 inches from the chest over a pacemaker is truly novel information is false.
The American Heart Association concluded based on such studies that:
“Tell physicians, dentists and other health professionals that you have a pacemaker. Physicians or dentists need to know that you have a pacemaker. Tell them about it before you have any work done. Notify the doctor or nurse where you work. Modern pacemakers have built-in features to protect them from most types of interference produced by other electrical devices you might encounter in your daily routine. Household appliances such as microwave ovens, televisions, radios, stereos, vacuum cleaners, electric brooms, electric blankets, electric knives, hair dryers, shavers, gardening machinery, toasters, food processors and can openers won’t affect your pacemaker. Most office and light shop equipment such as computers, typewriters, copy machines, woodworking shop tools and metalworking tools also pose no risk to your pacemaker.”
Few people, unless they fall asleep with an iPod or carry it over the battery under the skin are at significant risk, and then only if they have high demand usage.
However, this limited study is valuable because, when engineers get careless, all kinds of electronic interference are possible. If every electronic device manufacturer, including pacemaker manufacturers, built their devices to Defense Department Tempest Standards for shielding interference wouldn’t be a problem for anyone. (The Tempest standard was designed to prevent spying by decoding computer activity from its electronic emissions.) Cell phones would also not still be suspect by some scientists as a source of brain cancer. As it is I would expect an EMP pulse nuclear weapon to destroy pacemakers along with computers.
Do a Google Search if you want to see all the varied published reports on this study. The MacDaily article on the subject is a mere subset of what has already been written.
Incidentally, published research is often old research. Going through multiple drafts, rechecking research, collaboration, having peer review, waiting lists for publication, etc. all delay eventual publication. The various symposia, etc. provide ways to share information much sooner. Indeed my son is lead author on a paper whose research and writing has already taken more than a year.
This iPod report is little more nor less than an explicit invitation to further research and a caution for design engineers, and as such it has a proper niche and is a contribution to medicine. It may be published in a peer reviewed journal in another year or so would be my guess. Peer reviewers might even elect to do confirming studies if they have the time.
Remember that the early microwave ovens leaked microwaves. It wasn’t until that leakage was found to affect pacemakers that engineers redesigned microwaves and federal regulations were imposed. As a result modern microwave ovens are no threat to pacemakers (unless you put one inside).
Anyone who contributes to knowledge that leads to safety enhancements is doing everyone a favor.
To Gentile,
I hope you noticed the limitations of the study and also read more details in other reports, because unless you run a device proximate to your pacemaker while being monitored it is unlikely an occasional questionalbe reading would be worth your doctor’s comments. Physicians look closely for trends. Having been on a heart monitor myself, I notice things the monitoring nurse didn’t. I asked and she said they were normal transient events that everyone has. You should expect normal results during routine monitoring, but normal is not perfect.
For those who feel cheated not to have a medical journal reference and for those who think electronic interference with pacemakers is a brand new finding see how bad it used to be before federal regulations and smarter engineers at:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1500678&pageindex=1
People need to know that just cause you have a pacemaker doesn’t mean your in your 50’s.Even baby’s get fitted with them.