Slashdot Mirror
Research Finds Effects of GSM Signals on Sleep
An anonymous reader writes "The effects of mobile phone radiation on sleep were studied in Sweden in a laboratory experiment where subjects were exposed either to 884 MHz GSM radiation or placebo.
The study finds that compared to placebo, in the radiation-exposed subjects there was a prolonged latency to reach the first cycle of deep sleep (stage 3). The amount of stage 4 sleep was also decreased. Moreover, participants that otherwise have no self-reported symptoms related to mobile phone use, appear to have more headaches during actual radiofrequency exposure as compared to sham exposure."
Actually you're "missing" background noise that you're otherwise used to hearing and don't notice.
For example, I live fairly close to a major highway and have for nearly the past 10 years. In the middle of that I spent a couple months living with my parents who are a mile or two from a highway that's not quite as busy (we're still in lower NY so "busy" is relative). The first morning I got up and tip-toed to the bathroom because it was SOOO quiet there.
My point: You were "missing" the noise of a zillion cars, airplanes, garbage trucks, air conditioners, trains, computer fans and hard drives, and what have you. The brain gets used to it and if that noise disappears you feel like something is missing or wrong. I highly doubt this has anything to do with RF waves in your case.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
These are just a few of the questions that pop up in any thorough analysis of this experiment.
A "thorough analysis" of an experiment begins with actually reading the paper!
The original paper is linked to at the top of the page, in PDF format. You'll find your questions answered there. Basically, the study is carefully controlled.
If you have some ideological dislike of the results (as you seem to), perhaps you should try to repeat the experiment yourself and present your results. See, reproducing experimental result is another cornerstone of science.
In the abstract, it mentions that they were exposed to an average of 1.4 W/kg. That's several orders of magnitude more powerful than anything you'd encounter outside the laboratory, which is less than 1W total. Unless you have a kilowatt tower on your nightstand, you have nothing to worry about.
Wikipedia
FCC Page
1.4 W/kg is close to the FCC limit of 1.6 W/kg. The EU limit is 2.0 W/kg.
See that "Preview" button?
That number is the "Specific Absorption Rate." Google it, and you'll get the very basic idea (wiki article is kinda useless). Cell phone handsets are regulated to 1.6W/kg in the US, 2W/kg in the EU. Anyway, a quick check of Nokia models shows a maximum exposure typically under .5W/kg, with variations per model (8800, .5; N-Gage, .35).
.97W/kg ;)
The iPhone, however, is a screaming
SIG: HUP
I don't discount that the absence of HFO is good, but that quieter than quiet feeling that you are describing is probably due to air pressure.
Also, there are probably less hard reflective objects bouncing noise around, and more humidity in the air.
Regarding the article, kinda, I always de-tune access points in homes - especially where kids are living - to an appropriate signal strength for the site. This is easily done with a laptop and quick site survey. You don't need to have 100% signal strength all the time. Better than 75% at the furthest edge of the house is fine.
My favorite AP is the venerable Linksys WRT with a custom firmware load, because you can tune the signal strength down (or up) as appropriate for the application. It comes stock set at 28mW; typical setting in homes is 7mW. I believe cell phone power is significantly lower.
Turning down the power on RF devices seems to me like common sense, as well as polite use of spectrum.
While I'm seldom one to flame, you're certainly made yourself look like a right fool to anyone who knows anything about designing a properly controlled and blinded study.
'Sham' treatment, 'mock' treatment, 'placebo' treatment are all synonyms widely used in the scientific literature to describe non-functional imitation treatments given in a blinded (or much better, double-blinded) study. It's called a 'sham' treatment because that's what it is--a fake. A knockoff. Looks the same, but doesn't do anything. The term isn't prejudicial or pejorative; it's only descriptive. Fire up PubMed and you'll find nearly forty thousand scientific papers that use the term 'sham' in their title or abstract. (For comparison, about a hundred thousand use the word 'placebo'.)
I have no comment on whether or not they've done their study correctly. A number of other posters here have identified a number of potential flaws and pitfalls in their methodology. I agree completely that they present insufficient amounts of their raw data. Nevertheless, concluding that they are biased based on the fact that they correctly use scientific jargon seems...careless. Idiot.
~Idarubicin
nor the test administrator can tell
Only if they said it was a double blind study. Otherwise, the administrator likely knew which were placebo patients. A placebo by it self does not imply ignorance of all parties involved.
It was double-blind. According to the full article, the change in sleep onset went from 0.27 hours (sham) to 0.37 hours (actual RF). And the duration dropped from 45.5 minutes (sham) to 37.2 minutes (actual RF). No idea why they changed units, but I was always taught to ignore effects smaller than 2:1 in small sample sizes. Most likely a candidate for the JIR.