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."

Comments

Experiment looks doubtful.

[Ancient_Hacker]

They exposed the subjects to 1.4W/kg? What the **** does that mean? Do they have any idea how deep GSM band signals penetrate human flesh and bone? Did they take out and weigh the left hemisphere of the subjects? Did they use the body weight instead? Did they offer some subjects a tiger-team-style $100 if they could tell the difference between RF and no RF on? Was this a double-blind experiment? People are really clever at catching on to subtle clues like experimenter's face, little clicks, dimming lights, etc. The literature is replete with poorly designed experiments.

These are just a few of the questions that pop up in any thorough analysis of this experiment.

Re:Experiment looks doubtful.

[kebes]

The full research article (PDF) is only 3 pages long. The experimental description and discussion of results are so terse that they are barely informative. There are not enough details to know whether they handled the experiment properly or not.

In addition to the problems you mentioned, I'm worried by the fact that they don't describe in detail what they mean by "placebo." For instance, they mention "two separate rooms" in their experimental section, but don't explain why they have two rooms; if one was "real" and the other "placebo" then the variability could easily be ascribed to minor variations in the rooms (lighting, ambient sound, odor, etc.). The RF transmitter is placed immediately beside the person's head (there is a photo in the article), which worries me because they never mention measuring or accounting for audio effects: a high-pitched whine from a running device could easily explain the differences (it wouldn't even have to be consciously audible to influence the subjects).

Combined with the very large standard-deviations on their results, I'm hesitant to ascribe any significance to this finding just yet. More details, and corroborating independent verification, are definitely necessary before raising any public alarms.

Re:Experiment looks doubtful.

[Mr. Underbridge]

There's also the publishing effect - namely, articles reporting the effect of cell phone radiation upon some biological system X is so popular now that many, many researchers are examining it. If 20 people perform a study, and 1 finds a result that's statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval, the 1 study gets published...even though 1 such study out of 20 would find that result from a random system.

In the end, as a scientist I'm extremely leery of statistical correlation with no mechanism. What is the specific mechanism by which the specified radiation has the claimed effect? This is especially so with the cell phone/cancer studies, which have the very difficult job of claiming that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer. Because I've seen such bad science, I'm very skeptical of the cell phone studies in general.

Re:Experiment looks doubtful.

[nguy]

The experimental description and discussion of results are so terse that they are barely informative. There are not enough details to know whether they handled the experiment properly or not.

There are almost never enough details in any experimental scientific paper to know whether the experimenters handled the experiment properly or not.

I'm hesitant to ascribe any significance to this finding just yet

Of course, this result needs to be reproduced and strengthened; that's often the case with results like this.

However, your specific objections against this paper are unwarranted: you're basically accusing the researchers of either gross incompetence or scientific fraud, and there is no justification for that.

Re:Experiment looks doubtful.

[poopdeville]

Why is this rated insightful? Lots of people get headaches when exposed to sunlight. And burns. And heatstroke.

Re:RF placebo?

[nguy]

No, it means more than "exposed to nothing"; it means "exposed to nothing, but the subject can't tell".

Re:RTFA

[kebes]

None of those things need to be in the paper; the presumption in scientific papers is that the authors are familiar with the basic tools and methods of their research area. Unless you have a specific cause to doubt that, you have no justification for questioning their results because they did not include those details. As a practicing scientist, I can honestly say that this isn't how it works.

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.

Re:Silly Question

[FredMenace]

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".

Re:RTFA

[Dun Malg]

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. Negative. That's an appeal to authority. It doesn't matter what "they say" they did. Only an enumeration of the steps taken to make the study double blind is enough to exclude anything. If they overlooked something subtle, yet perceptible, then they would still honestly think they were conducting it double-blind, even though the weren't. That is why the results of scientific studies aren't just taken on the studier's word, but based on the published details. Peer review and all that?

Hey! Psuedoscience?

[Vegeta99]

Why is this tagged psuedoscience?

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 /other/ conditions that would, well, cause them to have trouble sleeping.

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 /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.

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!

Re:i'm safe from this effect

[Idarubicin]

a microwave oven emits less radiation density then the amounts used in this study

Er, I think you lost a decimal place (or three) there, friend.

Figure a 1000 watt microwave oven with 1 kg (about 2 pounds) of ground beef defrosting. The bulk of the microwaves emitted are absorbed by the food, giving a SAR (specific absorption rate) of 1000 watts per kilogram (W/kg). The average mass of a human head, meanwhile, is about 5 kg; that makes an SAR of 200 W/kg.

The SAR used in this study was an average of 1.4 W/kg. This low level results in minimal local heating, particularly in a well-perfused part of the body like the brain (lots of blood flowing through equals lots of capacity to draw off excess heat to the rest of the body.) On the other hand, if you were to stick your head in the microwave (after jimmying the safety interlocks) I guarantee that you would find the level of local heating to be...uncomfortable.

Re:RF placebo?

[FuzzyDaddy]

Actually, "exposed to nothing, but neither the subject nor the test administrator can tell"