Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Use Tied To Changes In Brain Activity
Takichi writes "The New York Times is reporting on research linking cell phone use and increased metabolism, with high statistical significance, in the areas of the brain close to the antenna. The study was led by Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and is published (abstract) in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The impact, good or bad, of the increased stimulation is speculative, but this research shows there is a direct relationship between cell phone signals and the brain that warrants further study."
The impact, good or bad, of the increased stimulation is speculative (...)
I'm speechless!
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
I bet you the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics this isn't true.
The link to not [POPUP] reading this post and getting cancer isn't fully [AD] analyzed and might be actually both ways. Also we're [BANNER] not sure why would a post prevent or cause cancer. Technically [POPUP] we're just at the start. We'd appreciate if someone funds our study into the [AD] posts-cancer link.
I hope you feel better informed. Thanks for your time.
Every once in a while a study shows up telling us that cell phones and other devices are either good or bad. Sure, it does have an impact on our bodies, but I would like to find out more info than "Well it does something...".
Here we go *again*.
Why bother?
With all that electromagnetic pollution our great-grandchildren will be born with at least three arms anyway.
Too lazy to RTFA, did they move the antenna away from the speaker, or is it possible that the sound waves or even the brain interpreting the sound from the ear, is responsible for the increase?,
There is not enough data at the moment to give any acurate stats'
Cell phones are making us smarter and here's the proof! I always knew that first world countries excelled due to an unknown unfair advantage!
I find myself wondering if listening for an hour also effects the part of the brain located near the ear. I wonder if there was any control for this, such as comparing the brain scans of people who talk on a land line for an hour.
The end of the abstract points out that no clinical significance of this finding is known.
It seems to me that the result could be caused by the slight heating of the brain due to absorption of some of the RF energy. I wonder what would happen if they re-did the study but used earmuffs instead of cell phones.
how many times have you thought your phone vibrated when it actually didn't? our brains are wired for sensory attention and unfortunately cellphones are causing a lot of false positives! we're hooked!
I've lost count of the time I've looked at my mobile seconds before it is about to ring.
This is completely unscientific, but I am convinced my brain has "learned" to recognise the
electromagnetic interference caused by the phone just before its about to ring or receive a message.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
The lives of insects scurrying around in darkness are measured in days, the lives of trees basking in sunshine are measured in centuries.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I have two teenagers both with cell phones and I haven't seen either one of them actually on a "phone call" in years. I rather suspect the practice is coming to and end for the next generation anyway.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
(or both?)
The article fails to mention that the areas closest to the ear are also the areas associated with speech and auditory processing, but the figure in the NYT story is very unclear about the specific location in which the "increased metabolism" occurs. Could it be that there's a 7% increase in metabolism in that part of the brain because the subjects are listening? Or perhaps because they're ignoring the looped recording? (i.e., Could that be the brain's dev/null for speech?)
Furthermore, the one paragraph that might answer those questions is poorly worded and -given the kind of mendacity we've unfortunately become used to these days- suspiciously so. There are only three sentences that describe methodology:
How horrible is that? Does the third sentence really mean that the increased activity is not correlated to whether the phone is on?? Or did the author really mean "Whether the sound was on or off" instead? No editor worth his or her salt would have let that slip by. Or is this a verbatim quote from the report? If so, this should not have passed peer review. If that sentence accurately reflects the methods and results, then the real conclusion is that we should all be attaching antennae to our heads, forget the transmitters.
All in all, I say FAIL to the NYT (and probably also to JAMA and the NIH but the NYT failed so hard I can't tell).
I can see the fnords!
Statistical significance is a binary phenomenon, and there is no such thing as "high statistical significance."
That's like claiming that a result is "extremely true" because the contradiction you get by assuming it is "absolutely crazy".
Significance is not and never has been an in indicator of the probability of a theory, It's only an indication that you've passed the an extremely low threshold to make a claim (i.e. your claim is not plima facie absurd).
This study involved computer based analysis using PET scan data*. Similar studies have often been shown to have overstated or no real statistical significance**. With only 47 participants this study has, in my eyes, about the same validity as the average undergrad study.
Unfortunately tomorrow it will be in all the newspapers to prove that cell phones cause cancer (ironically this study was done with ionising radiation, whose cancer causing effects are well known).
* I am a pysch student and these studies are the ban of my existence. They mostly have the same validity for studying human behaviour as the old method of making shit up based on observation. However they seem much more "sciency" to funding committees.
** http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
A major decrease in brain activity has been linked to using phones' "SMS" feature.
The phones were on mute at the time of the study. And there was a switched-off phone strapped to the other side of their head. Supposedly this stopped the participants from knowing which was on, but the experiment lasted 50 minutes, so I'd imagine the "on" phone would be hotter if nothing else.
these are their haydays. up to 400$ per post. their 'employers' are more desperate to deceive than ever.
the question of course is if there is any health significance to minutely cooking your brain. the human body can take certain mechanical, chemical, thermal, radiation, or other abuses, with constant exposure, resulting in no changes whatsoever. while at the same time, other types of the same kind of abuses, to the tiniest of degrees, have serious health consequences
the only thing you can really say is beware anyone who can say for certain that the effect is completely harmless, or definitely harmful. they are liars. the simple truth is, no one knows
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This constantly comes up over and over again with no results whatsoever. It's akin to the "cell phones give you brain cancer" yet with now like 300 million cell phones in the US the incidence of brain cancer has not risen. It's BS!
i worked on a tour boat. i would go on the roof of the boat, and lie out in the sun... right under the rotating radar. i said i was a dumb teenager. i wonder if my testicles produce viable sperm...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It seems to me that a warm antennae would heat the area around it. Heat dilates blood vessels and increases blood flow, which looks like higher metabolic rate.
As a control, they could have people hold a warm object like a heating pad close to their heads and check for the indicators of increased metabolic rate.
And how exactly that has to do with the article? If you read the abstract, they took the subjects, put a cellphone near each ear. Measured the metabolism of brain tissue (using PET-FDG) when both were OFF and when only the right phone was ON. The phones were muted at all times. This way they got control values of one ear against the other and of the same region when the cellphone was ON versus OFF.
Now re-read your comment and try to apply it to the research.
They did a seemingly well-designed research with a very elegant setup. Nice results, and even they do not assume any adverse effect of the finding. The researchers only report what they found. No unsubstantiated assumptions or FUD.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
"scans, which measure brain glucose metabolism, ... show a 7 percent increase in activity in the part of the brain closest to the antenna."
Sweet !!!
Start holding the cell phone in front of my gut. That should increase that metabolic rate, too, right?
I reject your assertions a plioli.
Too much to hope for: That more than a billion people could be wiped out from cell-phone use. And who would be the first to go? Chatty, useless people who spend all their time talking on the phone and doing nothing useful.
"Oh hi, I'm on a bus"... As if that bit of information is so important, that it must be shared with the caller... and everyone else on the bus listening to this useless person blathering away on a cell phone.
Oh if only! To quiet the world. To end resource waste. To bring the population of the planet down to a reasonable, sustainable number. I remember when there were only 3 billion. There was room to breathe.
Now we are heading towards 9 billion before 2050. There will be wars, famine, water rationing, and massive disasters based on us ravaging the planet in search of resources to sustain such a number.
If only cell-phones could kill a few billion. That would be an amazing way to get out of the disaster we are headed towards. But alas, it's too much to hope for.
We're going to need a good, sustained, nuclear exchange before we really have some progress in that area. And unfortunately, that's just going to leave even less resources for the survivors. Cell phones would have made a great way to kill off a lot of people without damaging the rest of the planet. Ah well.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Replace "cell phone use" with "wearing a hat" or "doing a crossword puzzle" or "seeing an attractive jogger while driving" or "playing BioShock". Don't lots of things increase the brain's metabolism? So what? My brain needs all the metabolism it can get! So the evil plot goes like this: 1) Show cell phones do something to your brain. 2) Become media darling. 3) Get on Dr. Oz. 4) Profit!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
A while ago I was reading an article about these brain activity scans. It was saying that it is not really known what is measured in these scans. And it was said that it is likely that these scans just show an increased blood flow, which is a reaction to increased heat. The purpose of this blood flow is to cool that part of the brain down. So the brain scans just show the increased cooling activity of the blood flow in active brain parts, not the activity itself.
It is known that mobile phone radiation causes a slight heating. So it would make sense if the brain reacts with increased cooling by a stronger blood flow.
I did not read TFA though.
"After 50 minutes brain scans showed increased consumption of glucose, or sugar, in the areas of the brain near the activated cell phone." Cells hungry for glucose... hmm... you mean similar to cancer cells?
The 'increased metabolic rate' noted is trivial, and generally below the level of normal system variation (or variations tied to autonomic processes that we're not comprehensively aware of...ie 'static noise').
You can get an order of magnitude more metabolic change in the visual processing centers by opening your eyes, for example. Temperature changes, interest level, even something as transient boredom can cause the metabolic rate in specific areas of the brain to fluctuate wildly.
In fact, just the warmth generated by an operating cellphone on that side of the head could have caused this spike.
-Styopa
>director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
Not to go all ad-hominem, but I'm just supposed to take some political hack's word for it?
Also: 47 people in the study.
not_large_enough_sample_and_no_controls_in_experiment.pdf.jpg.txt.bat
Bad science leads to scare mongering at best.
--
BMO
This should be interesting for what happens next. James Burke said in Connections "Gut reaction is all you have to go on when you don't understand something and it's almost always dangerously wrong." This study is flawed in many ways and inconclusive in all ways but one. But no amount of scientific explanation and reality checking will prevent ignorant and uninformed people from drawing the wrong conclusions, making judgments, and passing laws based on those conclusions.
While I certainly don't side with the poster you replied to, I would've been happier if it were double-blind. As it was, the *researchers* knew which phone was on and which wasn't. They should have simply randomly switched one phone on, and not standardised on the right.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Whenever I see an accident, or some driver being a prick, there's almost /always/ a phone involved.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Maybe they were holding it wrong?
Why are they getting the phone that close to their brain? I can't see the keys to type when I hold the phone there. And I can't read the responses either! Someone doesn't know how to use their phone right.
Quantum Entanglement.
Slashdot featured a related story a few weeks back: Research Finds That Electric Fields Help Neurons Fire.
All matter is subject to quantum field effects. Human bodies are composed of matter. Is it really such a stretch to wonder if humans really do experience entanglement all the time, such as when you think about someone just before they do call?
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
You know some quack is going to pick up on the "increased metabolism" bit and within weeks we will be seeing infomercials and kiosks at the mall pitching the new "cell phone diet", clinically proven to boost your metabolism (and lighten your wallet). Why eat right and exercise when you can talk your way thin?
Do any Neurologists read /. ?
Would a 2.4 micromole per minute change in glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole region be of any practical significance? What is the expected value and what is considered "normal" (perhaps not in the statistical sense) variation for glucose metabolism you'd see in a PET scan in this part of the brain in general?
I get that the study shows that it is statistically significant (they use a two sample t-test and some version of ANOVA for multiple comparisons, hopefully they used repeated measures ANOVA since that's more appropriate (but maybe regression with mixed effects would be even more appropriate still) since at least some subjects are in both groups by their randomized crossover design.
I'm just curious if this is a case of a result that is statistically significant, but not really of any practical significance or if 2.4 micromoles per minute change from expectation would be something that alarmed a Neurologist after looking at a PET scan for this region.
Obviously you did not see much of the report. They did have a control group. The control group were given cell phones but the cell phones were turned OFF! They were told to hold the cell phones up to their ear as in they were having a cell phone conversation.
I think the end of the article deserves more prominence:
[Dr. Volkow] said the research should not set off alarms about cellphone use because simple precautions like using a headset or earpiece can alleviate any concern.
“It does not in any way preclude or decrease my cellphone utilization,” she said.
I didn't see anywhere where the researchers controlled for just general EM from the device that is "on", not specifcally RF at either 850Mhz or 1900Mhz (which they should also differentiate between). Does this happen when *any* electronic device, particularly those with CPUs, clocks, inductors, etc is on near the head?
BTW, neurons are exquisitely sensitive to small variations in activity and firing rate of neighboring neurons. So the fact there is apparently NO PERCEPTUAL effect to these reported metabolic changes implies a certain lack of significant to the changes.
>>this research shows there is a direct relationship between cell phone signals and the brain that warrants further study."
OK, I didn't ready the article, but a real control would consist of heating that side of the head to the same amount as is caused by the cell phone. Cell phone radiation is manifested as heat and could causes a slight increase in temperature in the proximity of the phone. A real control would swap out the phone for a heating device. Additionally, since the sound is coming in one ear and not the other, we must also account for activity due to sound processing in only one section of the brain.
I really hope the researchers considered this and are not a bunch of yahoos.
I find a few issues with the paper itself: First, they claim that the E-field created drops off as 1/r^3 and use the far field approximation, akin to a dipole. However, a cell phone is not a dipole, and at the ranges in consideration, the field is likely to drop off more like 1/r. In addition, a look at their plots of the field with time, shows that there is a nearly uniform difference between the on and off measurements' points. While I can't claim that the results are false, I must take issue with the physics presented.
So what side of the brain is speech localized.
Then what side of the brain was the phone on.....
and then what side of the head is the ear that is listening.
I have a question for the learned science boffins of slashdot: Would the part of the head closest to the antenna actually absorb more radiation than the other parts of the head? Doesn't the vast majority of the radiation just pass right through us without being absorbed? If that is the case, then wouldn't all regions of the brain be receiving approximately equal amounts of radiation during this study? Thanks in advance for educating me.
Sous le feu des Ondes (2009) [52 min - Documentary]
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)