Cell Phone Radiation Excites the Brain

frostilicus2 writes "The Register is reporting that Italian researchers have shown that radiation from mobile phones can excite the brain's cortex. A region that is "responsible for many higher faculties". They even claim that such an effect could be beneficial to some conditions."

Comments

Ummm

[suso]

They even claim that such an effect could be beneficial to some conditions.

Counterpoint, so does that mean that in other conditions it is harmful. Like causing you to drive like a moron.

Re:Ummm

[thebdj]

Counterpoint, so does that mean that in other conditions it is harmful. Like causing you to drive like a moron.

You know, studies have actually been mixed in regards to this. Mythbusters even attempted to replicate a study that was performed; however, I was a bit skeptical of their approach since it relied on asking questions during the cell phone section that would require some degree of actual thinking and/or decision making. Most conversations I have had on a cell phone, even those not done while driving, have hardly required much thought. The calls I typically make are fairly normal conversation with either my mother or one of my friends.

I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone since I drive one handed anyway, and I believe that for most phone conversations the drivers are no worse then those who are smoking, playing with the radio, or eating while they drive. In fact, I would not be surprised to find people are as poor at driving with a hands-free set for their phone as they are holding the phone. In reality, I think the worse distractions do not come from the phone, but from people who may be in the car. I cannot count the number of times I see the person driving take their eyes of the road in front of them to look at the wife, girlfriend, son/daughter, or other individual riding in the car with them. Maybe it is just me, but this is far more dangerous then having a conversation and keeping your eyes on the road.

Re:Ummm

[MyLongNickName]

Most conversations I have had on a cell phone, even those not done while driving, have hardly required much thought.

Maybe not. But there is that rare occasion where you suddenly need 100% brain power to make a quick decision. If you are engrossed in a phone conversation, it ain't there. Sorry. I should not be subject to your lack of attention on the road.

And how do you drive with a cell in your hand? Turn signals are NOT optional despite popular opinion. When you are actually driving, do you take you "free hand" off the wheel to use it? Or do you just changes lanes, and leave it to everyone else to just deal with it?

Re:Ummm

[mrogers]

My guess is that it's the brain, not the hands, that makes you more likely to have an accident while talking on the phone. When I'm on the phone, especially during a long call, I tend to notice a change in my spatial awareness: I become less aware of the space around me, and more aware of the space around the person I'm talking to, particularly if they're in a place with a lot of background noise or a place I can easily visualise.

Good spatial awareness is essential for safe driving, and as you pointed out a lot of people drive with one hand anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if the accident rate was equally high for people using hands-free phones. You could test this theory in a driving simulator by asking one group of subjects to perform a spatial awareness task (eg matching rotated shapes) and a second group to perform a verbal task (eg listening comprehension).

Re:Ummm

[wbean]

I live in the city and spend a lot of time walking around. I have reached the point where if I see a driver on a cell phone I assume that they will not see me and I stay well out of their way. They are in a little world of their own with very little awareness of what's around them.

The NY Times had an interesting article on this recently (Times Select subscription required). Researchers put video cameras in cars and collected information about what was going on in the car in the seconds before an accident. The result was that "driver inattention was the overwhelming cause of the crashes in the study."

My own opinion is that conversations inside the car are less distracting than cell phone conversations because the second party to the converstation is aware of the situation outside the car and knows when to shut up or to wait for an answer. The person on the other end of the cell phone conversation doesn't have this extra input and so the conversation doesn't have the natural breaks for heavy traffic that an in-car converstation would have.

Re:Ummm

[drinkypoo]

How about we be realistic and accept the fact that if you are driving you aren't going to be looking at the body language of your passenger

If we are realistic, we can't accept that, because we know it's not true. We've been watching people talking to their passengers, even in the back seat, and turning around to listen to them. We've seen women turn around to smack their kid while driving in rush hour traffic. We've seen a wide range of human stupidity, and lack your faith in humanity, because we are not morons.

Lots of people WILL do that. Some people can handle talking on the cellphone while driving - if something happens they will drop the phone and if it ends up flying out the window or getting lost with the cheetos under the seat, so be it. Some people can't. If you would advocate banning one thing, then you should advocate banning all these things, and only allowing passengers on public transportation. All other travel should be done using single-person vehicles.

I don't happen to believe that, but here's another thought; I have [had - crashed it, while I was doing nothing but driving, BTW] an S-class mercedes. It comes with no cupholders, ostensibly because they want you to think about driving, and not drinking something. However, in the really real world, people who are parched are distracted, and not having a cupholder means I have to do extra work to support my beverage. Meanwhile, they gave me an ashtray and cigarette lighter, because smoking is apparently a god-given right. How is smoking not distracting?

Basically, people will do distracting things while driving, and yes, talking to a passenger is one of those things.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't anyone yet addressed the question I find most baffling?

What the hell is so important that you have to make a phone call while driving? I can understand using it to try and find a close parking space to a friend, or maybe trying to find someone whom you're giving a ride to, but people on the road are having 20+ minute conversations.

Seriously people, hang up the damn phone.

Where's the control group?

[quokkapox]

Talking on the cell phone will activate your cortex. Ok. So where's the control group that talked on a wired phone instead and showed a lower level of cortical activity?

Sounds like a report designed to secure more $

[DavidBorgioli]

It is an interesting article but way too short to tell us anything. With just 15 subjects the sample group is likely way too small to draw any conclusions. It may be enough however to secure more research money.

Pseudo-science

[Anonymous Coward]

No no, cell-phone radiation doesn't cause brain cancer - see, it's actually good for you! It sounds like the same kind of PR tactics climate-change "skeptics" employ - just causing doubt and confusion around an issue - and putting it out in the popular press. I wonder who is publicizing these results?

Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid

[r00t]

Dude, you're trying to kill a cancer in a reasonable amount of time.

The cell phone is chronic exposure. It damn well better not come even remotely close to the level needed for killing a large chunk of tissue deep inside the head.

Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid

[RocketRainbow]

No, microwaves can penetrate the brain with very little trouble at all. It's basically transparent to them, but every now and then a microwave will be absorbed by a molecule and heat it a little.

And then your brain cools itself back down the same way it would if it were a hot day outside.

Obviously it's theoretically possible that a lot of microwave photons could cause a lot of damage by heating the brain to the point where chemical change occurs. Your brain can cool itself quite comfortably if the hotspots don't heat up at a rate any more than 1K per hour - I've never actually heard of anyone checking that this is so, but I would expect that this was part of the initial safety testing when cell phones were first introduced.

(Note that microwaves haven't enough energy to ionise the brain like your gamma or X rays do - they work by heating molecules rather than by ripping the electrons off an atom to change the chemical structure.)

A river in egypt

[Scrameustache]

I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone

I don't care if you believe pixies will magically steer your car away from accidents. I'm telling you: People driving with cell phones drive worse than without the cell phone.

This isn't an opinion, nor a belief, it's an observation.

Driving while distracted varies by individual

[davidwr]

The more distracted you are the worse off you'll be able to react in an emergency.

Distractions come in many flavors besides cell phone use. Noisy kids in the back seat. Changing the radio dial. Unexpected construction signs. Flashing billboards. Other drivers honking. A news bulletin on the radio.

It is each driver's responsibility to know how much each distraction will impair him and how much impairment he can handle given traffic and road conditions.

On familiar road with little or no traffic and no uncontrolled intersections you can afford a lot more distraction than in the middle of a congested urban street where drivers may be making sudden stops and turns.

A new cellphone user may funble with it, have a hard time finding the buttons, and be otherwise distracted. An experienced user may be able to dial and carry on a "non-thinking" conversation with little or no impairment. Some drivers may even be able to carry on "deep thought" conversations without putting themselves or others at risk.

Know your limits. Respect them. For your sake and the sake of others.

Re:Aural Exciter

[khallow]

Assuming the story is for real, it doesn't mean that WiMAX is responsible, but rather that people are blaming WiMAX for health problems that cropped up then. After all, people will become unhealthy even under normal circumstances. Here, we have no comparison of the symptoms to what would normally occur nor any indication of how much exposure to radio frequencies these people are getting. My take is that this sounds like a mix of natural illness and hysteria gussied up as the WiMAX threat. It's the typical, uncritical tripe you get from newspapers.