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.
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.
"people are really clever at catching on to subtle clues like experimenter's face"
They must be REALLY clever to be able to do that in their sleep.
Kevin Smith on Prince
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.
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.
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.