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."
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
These are just a few of the questions that pop up in any thorough analysis of this experiment.
i sleep with my head in the microwave oven
a microwave oven emits less radiation density then the amounts used in this study
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
First of all, this is NOT a double-blind, placebo controlled study. Sure they used a placebo, but if it was double-blind they sure as heck would have mentioned it in the abstract. That means that the results are based more on the opinions of the people carrying out the study, since they would have known weather or not the subjects were receiving treatment or placebo. Second, unless you are equipped with sensitive antanai and receiving curcuitry, your body is quite incabaple of being affected by light with a wavelength bigger than a volkswagen beetle. (devide the speed of light by the frequency to see how large these waves really are) There is a reason radio telescopes are frikin huge. As for a microwave effect... wrong frequency, buddy. no... just.. no. also, It's not as exposing you to radio frequency is actually "adding" anything to your environment. We are being constantly struck by radio waves of every frequency, that is why an untuned radio plays static. The only difference in adding a transmittion is that the waves are made into something recognizable and put closer and brighter, but there are times when natural background radiation is even brighter than your cell phone's (aka bad reception).
I am not shouting. I am merely speaking in a voice loud enough to be heard.
the paper doesn't list any of the things that would have been required for it to be "carefully controlled"
They say they performed a "double blind controlled laboratory study" (2007 is a continuation of the 2006 work). That excludes all the possibilities you raise.
The paper is only 3 pages long, and doesn't include enough detail to reproduce the experiment precisely,
It doesn't have to; the authors have given you what they believe is the relevant detail. You'd need to find out additional details only if you can't reproduce their results with the details they have given you.
Obviously there are innumerable details with respect to running any experiment, so not every detail can be included in a scientific paper. In particular, "common practice" in the field can usually be described in short hand by using the proper terms (and referencing previous work as needed).
However, no scientist will read a paper and glibly assume that the experimenters "did everything properly" without evidence that this is so (where "evidence" is a combination of reputation, details of procedure, showing raw data, and demonstration that one understands pertinent issues). It is expected (nay, required, for high-quality science) to mention precautions taken, alternate explanations for results, shortcomings in methodology, and so forth. Omitting a critical self-analysis and details of one's procedure makes a paper very suspect. It is the job of the publishing author to convince the community that they are right, and so they must present sufficient evidence (and sufficient experimental detail) to make their case adequately. To do otherwise makes for bad science.
So, in short, while much knowledge can be presumed when writing technical papers, it is never the overriding presumption in science that everyone is doing science properly. We attack each other's work precisely to keep quality high: and if a paper does not provide sufficient detail to back up their claims, the paper is ignored until such time that further credible evidence is brought into the debate.
I think you have encountered a phenomenon that some people find very mysterious. It is usually referred to, by those who profess to understand its meaning, as a "conversation starter".
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Why is this tagged psuedoscience?
/other/ conditions that would, well, cause them to have trouble sleeping.
/preliminary/ results show that those who SAID they could detect symptoms of RF exposure had increased headaches during exposure than those that did NOT say they could detect the symptoms of RF exposure. However, it does not give a statistical analysis.
Here's a layman's synopsis:
1. 36 women and 35 men were selected for a study, and were checked by physicians to make sure that they didn't have any
2. They were then classified into two groups. One, that said they could "detect" the effects of RF radiation, and another that said they could not.
3. The group as a whole was divided into two groups, both to be strapped into the "RF Machine", however, the machine would only be on for the "RF" group, not the placebo group.
4. The study reveals a statistically significant reduction in the time that it takes for one to reach deep sleep (1/3 of an hour for those exposed, 1/4 hour for those not exposed), and that Stage 4 sleep time is also reduced (37.2 min vs 45.5 mins respectively).
5. The study also says that
Remember, this is labelled a "provocation study" that is "We're trying to narrow this down, now pick us apart." It even says that in the Discussion!
Make the dog bark more. Seriously. Get a powerful ultrasonic whistle (electronic) and either play it loudly 24/7, or joyfully engage it automatically at 3 AM daily, and especially weekends, until the dog problem resolves itself...
you are going to find it by reproducing the experiment, and they have given you a sufficient level of detail for that. Again, the discussion isn't about whether they're right, but about whether they controlled for the specific points of the poster four levels up. A flat statement of "double blind" is inadequate. Reproducing their experiment independently doesn't answer the question either. Yes, and this paper appears in a peer reviewed publication, which tells you that the reviewers were satisfied with the level of detail in the paper. That's true, but also still an appeal to authority. Without the details that satisfied those peers, we are trusting their judgement. Granted it's PIERS and not the Time Cube Monthly, so their word is probably worth something. Not as much as (say) IEEE, given that PIERS is a series of events put on by the EM Academy and its whopping 1,000 or so members specifically for the purpose of trumpeting research projects, but sure, why not, MIT seems to be willing to lend their name to it. But still, without the same level of detail the reviewers were (hompefully) privy to, your assertion that their claims of "double blind" are valid and infallible because both they said so and PIERS said so is the definition of an appeal to authority.
Who are you to second-guess them? Some random fucktard on slashdot. Is there any greater authority than that?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.