Mstattedcanvas

Q: I watch causing Wrist and arm numbing and pain?

Hi everyone,

 

i'm on day 6 of using my i watch, which i love, however for the past 4/5 days is have been experiencing numbing and a tingling sensation on my arm.

It's actually very painful on my wrist at this point.

I decided, on day 4, to try it on my right arm. About 2 hours later I started experiencing the same thing.

I own the Stainless Steel I watch with the Milanese Loop.

 

Was wondering if anyone else experienced the same thing?

Although I absolutely love it because it has been very helpful for me in the gym I think i will be returning it.

 

Would like to hear anyone else's input.

 

Thanks

Apple Watch

Posted on May 6, 2015 7:10 AM

Close

Q: I watch causing Wrist and arm numbing and pain?

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

first Previous Page 11 of 13 last Next
  • by eliotb,

    eliotb eliotb Jan 2, 2016 3:23 PM in response to KiltedTim
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 2, 2016 3:23 PM in response to KiltedTim

    Could you provide links to this research?

  • by KiltedTim,

    KiltedTim KiltedTim Jan 2, 2016 4:04 PM in response to eliotb
    Level 9 (55,448 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 2, 2016 4:04 PM in response to eliotb

    eliotb wrote:

     

    Could you provide links to this research?

    What, is google down or something?

  • by eliotb,

    eliotb eliotb Jan 2, 2016 4:24 PM in response to KiltedTim
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 2, 2016 4:24 PM in response to KiltedTim

    No, obviously not KiltedTim,

    I was just curious to know what studies in particular you referring to when you stated 'The idea that 'emissions' from personal electronic devices can cause symptoms such as those described has been proven to be complete bunk', or whether you were just over generalising without drawing on specifics.

  • by KiltedTim,

    KiltedTim KiltedTim Jan 2, 2016 4:32 PM in response to eliotb
    Level 9 (55,448 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 2, 2016 4:32 PM in response to eliotb

    If you want to see the proof, go find it yourself. Lawrence has already provided several references.

  • by eliotb,

    eliotb eliotb Jan 2, 2016 5:07 PM in response to Lawrence Finch
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 2, 2016 5:07 PM in response to Lawrence Finch

    Thanks Lawrence. I appreciated the links you shared as I was unfamiliar with ‘Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies’. None of those studies specifically address wearable technology or the resulting pain experienced by some Apple Watch owners here. They tend to focus on headaches, fatigue and other more psychological responses, but also recognise that further research is needed into this field.

    I am very interested in this area of study, although only recently. I spent the past ten years ridiculing those who felt there were possible health risks associated with prolonged exposure to low-level, non-ionising radiation. However, after finally deciding to evaluate the reasons I had for presupposing the absolute safety of EMR, I realised that I really didn't have any firm foundation.


     

    I had always referenced the Interphone Study as absolute proof that EMR didn't pose a health risk. It cost $24,000,000 to perform, was conducted by IARC across 13 different countries and was the largest study every undertaken to see if mobile phone use increased the risk of certain tumours. It found that ‘overall, mobile phone use did not increase the risk of glioma or meningioma, and that, in fact, a decrease in risk was observed[!]’. It seemed to hard to argue with that… until I actually looked into this study in more depth. Participants were restricted to 30-59 years olds and did not include children who absorb much more radiation; a regular user was defined as someone who made at least one phone call each week for six weeks!; 25% of the funding came from the mobile/wireless industry; it treated cordless phone users as ‘unexposed’ and the list goes on.

     

    Even Dr Elisabeth Cardis who headed this study even thought it was severely flawed: “In my personal opinion, I think we have number of elements that suggest a possible increased risk among the heaviest users, and because the heaviest users in our study are considered the low users today, I think that’s something of a concern’.


     

    Also Appendix 1 and 2 to the Interphone study were published separately (very unusual in scientific publications) and actually showed an 84% increase rise of meningiomas for those who used a phone for 1640 hours or more contradicting their reporting on their own study. And yet most government health boards still refer to this flawed study, despite IARC going on to classify EMR as a class 2b possible carcinogen based on a literature review.

     

    I have spent considerably longer than 5 minutes on Google over the past year and wanted to share a few of the studies that made me rethink my evaluation of the safety of this technology (I shared these in response to another thread here and they were deleted without warning so I’m not sure how long they will remain viewable here); all of them prove biological effects through non-ionising radiation.  I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the following as I think this is an important discussion for those heavily involved in the tech industry to have (without resorting to ridicule and name calling like KiltedTim). At present I am simply applying the precautionary principle and reducing my exposure to EMR but still use an iPhone 6s Plus, iPad Pro, Macbook Pro etc, albeit mostly on a wired network (yes even my iOS devices!). I really do hope that more definitive studies prove beyond all doubt in my mind that the technology is safe (especially as I would love an Apple Watch), but currently I think the pendulum is swinging more and more in the opposite direction (about 70% of the studies listed on the ARPANSA literature review show impacts on health).


     

    Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa In Vitro (source: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006446)


     

    Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647)


     

    2.45 GHz radiofrequency fields alter gene expression in cultured human cells. (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16107253)

     

    MAPK activation by radio waves (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267311/)


     

    Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans (source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X15003988)


     

    The last study above by Alexander Lerchl confirms a 2010 study that found the same thing. Exposure to low level EMR promotes tumour growth (does not cause it) and the lower the frequency, the greater the promotion. If you look into Lerchl or Jacobs University, they are very reputable and he was one of the greatest defenders of the technology until completing this study.

  • by BSLTRL,

    BSLTRL BSLTRL Jan 2, 2016 5:57 PM in response to Lawrence Finch
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 2, 2016 5:57 PM in response to Lawrence Finch

    Mmmmmm, the same man who accused me of reading unfounded ideas on the net is now providing links to them. How profound and ubiquitous.

  • by Lawrence Finch,

    Lawrence Finch Lawrence Finch Jan 3, 2016 6:53 PM in response to eliotb
    Level 8 (37,947 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 3, 2016 6:53 PM in response to eliotb

    We've gotten way off the subject of wrist pain, into an area that's rather fuzzy at the moment, and probably not appropriate for this venue. I found this article quite valuable, especially for the long list of references to follow up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity. It does include references to studies on cell phones and cancer. The larger studies tend to show no statistically significant correlation. I prefer to use as sources published, peer-reviewed research, preferably not sponsored by any organization with an agenda. While these are harder to find, they exist. For me the most telling statistic regarding cancer is a long term longitudinal study that we have all been unwitting participants in. Cell phones have been around since the late 1980's, and became common around 1990. Roughly 35 years of cell phone use. 35 years is long enough to see hidden trends; if there is a correlation between cell phones and gliomas (the "risk" most often cited) then you would expect to see as a correlation a significant increase in gliomas in the world population, lagging the use of cell phones by a number of years, but still one that is statistically significant. That is not the case. The actual incidence of glioma and related tumors has remained relatively steady throughout that period. And it's still extremely rare. Your greatest risk from using a cell phone is being hit by a car crossing the street because you were distracted reading or sending a text message. In NYC this is the most common cause of pedestrian accidents.

     

    Most of the papers you linked to (thanks for those) all refer to in vitro studies; it's a long way from the petrie dish to living organisms. I agree with the authors that more research needs to be done, but I don't expect these results to be replicable in vivo.

     

    I also don't take NIH or WHO pronouncements all that seriously, because they are frequently opinions from committees rather than actual, well conducted studies, but more importantly because there is a huge amount of political manipulation in the publications of government agencies, both overt interference from political appointees that manage the agencies and concern that if the agency publishes something that angers members of Congress or other funding sources it could affect their future funding (and frequently has).

     

    Regarding the  Watch (and other wearable technologies), I do not doubt that some people have real symptoms of the type that are described in the subject of this thread. I also am certain that whatever is causing those symptoms has nothing to do with RF energy emitted by the device. Millions of people are using wearable technology, from Fitbits (both wrist worn and clipped to shirts), Nikes, Garmins, Pebble and other watches, etc. What all of these have in common is they communicate using BlueTooth LE ("low energy"). If the problem was RF emissions there would be a percentage of users of these devices that report similar symptoms, but I haven't seen any. BlueTooth LE emits 3 milliwatts. Contrast that with WiFi, which emits 30 mw (10 times) or cellular energy, which will be 60 to 600 mw (20 to 200 times) depending on signal strength. BlueTooth, WiFi and cellular data all use the same general microwave bands, with cellular the lowest frequencies (800 to 2100 Mhz), and WiFi and Bluetooth at 2,600 Mhz (newer WiFi technologies also have a 5,000 MHz band). Perhaps one doesn't wear a phone as close as a watch, but most people carry it in a pocket or hold it in their hand when using it, so even though signal penetration varies as the square of distance, the one or two inch difference will not overcome the 20 to 200 times signal strength (or even the 10 times for WiFi). If the cause of these symptoms were RF emissions then you would certainly have them from a cell phone also.

     

    There was a post from a neurologist early in this thread (or perhaps a different one) who said he recognized the symptoms, and that they were purely mechanical. There are several possible explanations that are more believable than RF energy. And they may be different for different people. Examples include people who aren't use to wearing any watch; changing the angle you hold your wrist when viewing it; the simple fact that you are going to raise your arm to look at the watch much more often than you would with a conventional watch; keeping the band tighter to get a better heart rate reading, and the shape of the back of the watch which may apply more pressure to the back of the wrist than a conventional watch.

  • by Lawrence Finch,

    Lawrence Finch Lawrence Finch Jan 3, 2016 6:57 PM in response to BSLTRL
    Level 8 (37,947 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 3, 2016 6:57 PM in response to BSLTRL

    BSLTRL wrote:

     

    Mmmmmm, the same man who accused me of reading unfounded ideas on the net is now providing links to them. How profound and ubiquitous.

    I didn't post anything "unfounded" - all of my links were to published, peer-reviewed and generally accepted research studies. You, on the other hand, haven't provided any relevant references.

  • by KiltedTim,

    KiltedTim KiltedTim Feb 5, 2016 7:09 AM in response to Lawrence Finch
    Level 9 (55,448 points)
    Mac OS X
    Feb 5, 2016 7:09 AM in response to Lawrence Finch

    <Edited by Host>

  • by Lawrence Finch,

    Lawrence Finch Lawrence Finch Jan 3, 2016 7:06 PM in response to eliotb
    Level 8 (37,947 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 3, 2016 7:06 PM in response to eliotb

    Re your deleted post on censorship.

     

    There are 2 ways a post can be removed. If a moderator decides that a post violates Terms of Use he or she will delete the post. This applies most frequently to posts that include personal attacks. It does not include negative comments about Apple, as you can quickly see if you read a lot of threads. Normally moderators do not monitor the forum (it's just too big a job and too small a staff); instead, they depend on users at level 2 or higher (150 points), who have a button to report a post. The report does not remove the post; all it does is alert a host to review it. If a host removes your post you will get an email explaining why it was removed.

     

    If a post of yours disappears and you do not get a notification your post was "collateral damage" - the way the forum software works, if a post is removed by a host all posts that were responses to the removed post also disappear. In this case you will not be notified.

  • by Lawrence Finch,

    Lawrence Finch Lawrence Finch Feb 5, 2016 7:07 AM in response to KiltedTim
    Level 8 (37,947 points)
    Mac OS X
    Feb 5, 2016 7:07 AM in response to KiltedTim

    KiltedTim wrote:

     

    You might as well give up. <Edited by Host>

    Tim, your point is taken, but I don't see eliotb falling into the category of "nut job". He (I assume, he) has presented a cogent discussion with relevant references. While I don't agree entirely with his interpretation, he's presented a rational position that should be taken seriously. On the whole, you're right, however. We can continue discussing in The Lounge, if there's more to say.

     

    Happy New Year!

  • by eliotb,

    eliotb eliotb Jan 5, 2016 2:16 PM in response to Lawrence Finch
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 5, 2016 2:16 PM in response to Lawrence Finch
    I didn't post anything "unfounded" - all of my links were to published, peer-reviewed and generally accepted research studies. You, on the other hand, haven't provided any relevant references.

    Very true Lawrence.

  • by eliotb,

    eliotb eliotb Jan 5, 2016 2:22 PM in response to Lawrence Finch
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 5, 2016 2:22 PM in response to Lawrence Finch

    Lawrence. Thanks very much for your willingness to engage and for your well thought out response. I too like to use sources published by independent scientists in peer-reviewed journals (see previous links).


     

    I tried to find ‘the lounge’ to continue this discussion but failed to do so, so I apologise for responding here (perhaps you could point me in the right direction?). I did attempt to respond to a more relevant thread but my response was removed without explanation from there. Before responding to your well made points, I did want to state that two days ago I purchased an Apple Watch sport edition with the blue band and gold body. I absolutely love it, and whilst mostly keeping it in Flight mode and appreciating it simply as a beautiful timepiece, it is an incredible piece of technology with much more functionality than I had been led to believe by many of the online reviews.


    I partly agree with you about the history of mobile phone use and lack of discernible increase in brain cancer. I was only referring to the Interphone study to demonstrate why I was forced to reevaluate my belief in the safety of the technology. In Australia, ARPANSA and The Australian Cancer Council both reference this study specifically to prove there are no health effects at all, and these are the two bodies I had always relied on as authorities on health. However, despite your statement that cell phones became supposedly common in 1990, it was still rare for non-business men to own one and not practical to travel with them so I really don’t think you can start from here (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Annual_Cell_Phone_Subscripti ons_-_United_States_1985_to_2010.jpg. Also as they were not smart devices, the nature of use was entirely different and these devices were not permanently in a pocket or on a wrist.


     

    I think modern day use of the technology in a ubiquitous manner really started with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 (this was the case for me - I had never used a phone before this for anything other than calls and texts, and did not even have mobile data available to me. The iPhone was an era defining moment and one I will never forget) which then led to an exponential uptake in smart devices (see http://www.smartinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Mobile-stats-vs-desktop- users-global-550x405.png). While I agree that the cancer causing potential of these devices is not at all proven, it needs to be stated that it can take a decade or more for tumours to be detected by the body before being able to be identified in blood tests (https://www.angio.org/cancer-may-grow-undetected-for-a-decade-or-more/). Based on our current 24/7 connected use of the technology, we still have years to go before this can be verified, or a trend identified.


    Lastly, In vitro studies are still very credible means of research and play an important role in the scientific study of disease. Whilst I agree there are disadvantages (hard to extrapolate findings back to organism in its entirety), there are ethical issues associated with using in vivo methods to investigate a range of negative health effects on human beings directly (reduced sperm motility, DNA fragmentation, accelerated cancer growth, reduced blood/brain permeability, activation of disease causing signalising cascades etc). In vitro has the advantage of more detailed analysis of specific components. I also drew specific attention to an In Vivo test that replicated previous findings from 2010 thus demonstrating that the results were most definitely replicable In Vivo, and need to be taken more seriously than is currently done. I found it interesting that despite the standing of the University that carried out this research and the implications of the results, it received absolutely zero coverage in the mainstream media.


     

    Totally agree about the number of factors leading to some users discomfort - I can imagine the urge to flick your wrist up is very very tempting! (although I don’t discount the radiation itself entirely - but I’m on the fence here). I tested this myself and couldn’t notice any difference at all whether it was in flight mode or not after two days use.


     

    Whilst it might not seem like it, I suspect this is the only area of disagreement you and I are likely to have, and I hope we can continue to engage on issues we are more in agreement with elsewhere (that Apple products are incredible; iOS is the best platform for mobile etc).

     

    I sincerely appreciate your logical train of thought and friendliness.

  • by BSLTRL,

    BSLTRL BSLTRL Jan 6, 2016 10:51 AM in response to Lawrence Finch
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 6, 2016 10:51 AM in response to Lawrence Finch

    It looks as though you are relying on research from within "Wikipedia" stating that it is a reliable resource, Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. Plus the research you provided is on cellular phones  RF, brain tumors, and cancer, which may relate but we don't know. Yes, cellular phones have been around for a long time, however wearing this technology on the wrist has not. As I suggested in a previous post, there is not enough research done on the watch phones to come to a resolute conclusion that issues are not being caused by them. It is MY interpretation, as I also suggested before, that the watch I bought does cause me issues. I don't need to provide resources for something that:

     

    1. Hasn't been researched

    2. For me, and apparently others, physically has produced adverse affects

     

    I don't need Mr. Kilt and Mr. Finch telling me I have medical problems because they don't have a clue about me or who I am. They can advocate for the technology all they want, but don't dismay and disregard others because they are having issues. Everyone is different...no one is the same.

first Previous Page 11 of 13 last Next