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."
where subjects were exposed either to 884 MHz GSM radiation or placebo.
Did they give them one of those plastic phones filled with Pez candies?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Well to an extent I did. I've been out in the middle of nowhere to the extent that you couldn't get a cell phone signal if your life depended on it (and sometimes it does!) and there is an odd sense of quiet.
I know it sounds nuts but on a windy night even with the trees moving it still seems more quiet but in an almost impossible to define way. Like there is something that you can't put your finger on NOT there.
I always thought it might be either radio singles or high pitch EM radiation from all the fun toys I have around it (yes, including a Wireless Router). So I'm not complaining, and I can sleep fine, but at the same time this study doesn't shock me at all.
These are just a few of the questions that pop up in any thorough analysis of this experiment.
Whoever applied that tag needs to die. I hate you. Can't get it out of my HEAD.
But what about us CDMA users?
I don't think we sleep well because we're mostly on Verizon...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
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.
No, it means more than "exposed to nothing"; it means "exposed to nothing, but the subject can't tell".
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?
I have 2 dogs & I was buying a large bag of Pal at Big W and standing inline at the check out.
A woman behind me asked if I had a dog.
On impulse, I told her that no, I was starting The Pal Diet again although I probably shouldn't because I'd ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IV's in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Pal nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry & that the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a guy who was behind her.
Horrified, she asked if I'd ended up in the hospital in that condition because I had been poisoned. I told her no; it was because I'd been sitting in the street licking my balls and a car hit me.
I thought one guy was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard as he staggered out the door.
Stupid b*tch...why else would I buy dog food??
You "have occasionally slept with my phone under my pillow to use as an alarm" and "did NOT sleep as well."
I've noticed I don't sleep as well when I have a small brick under my pillow. Especially if I think it might ring.
- If you don't normally use an alarm clock but a specific need for one to wake up for a specific event, you were possibly preoccupied with the next day's event.
- You may have had an uncomfortably strange lump under your pillow.
- Were you at home, or on the road or in a hotel? Most people sleep "differently" when not in their own bed.
- Does your phone emit an ultrasonic whine?
- You might subconsciously be worried about the RF you believe you are exposing yourself to.
- If you had a hand beneath the pillow while you slept, it might have made contact with the unfamiliar texture of the phone.
There are a lot of very plausible reasons that don't involve a two-second-handshake-pulse-every-9-minutes, emitting a maximum of 600mW of RF energy near your head.You could try your own experiment -- have someone randomly set your phone to either "airplane mode" or "regular mode" while you continue to use it as an alarm clock. In the morning they'd have to restore your phone to regular mode so you wouldn't know which way you slept with it. They would record their settings while you recorded your sleep patterns. After a month or so, correlate the two and figure out if RF made any difference in your sleep.
John
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 think he responds faster if you call him "Captain", rather than "Capitan"
</obvious>
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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!
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
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.
~Idarubicin
Actually, "exposed to nothing, but neither the subject nor the test administrator can tell"
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
How else am I supposed to mow my hedges? It's a time honored technique handed down from grandpaw lefty and refined by uncle stumpy.
What could go wrong?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
</obvious>
Just don't call him "Catpain". I hear he hates that almost as much as I do.
But then again, I could be wrong.
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.