Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Research Finds Effects of GSM Signals on Sleep

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the get-out-of-my-brain dept.

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."

5 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Experiment looks doubtful. by kebes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:RF placebo? by nguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. Re:RTFA by kebes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Silly Question by FredMenace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  5. Re:Experiment looks doubtful. by nguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.