Cell Phone Use Tied To Changes In Brain Activity

Unsure by MikeDirnt69 · 2011-02-23 01:11 · Score: 3, Funny

The impact, good or bad, of the increased stimulation is speculative (...)

I'm speechless!

--
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br

Re:Unsure by somersault · 2011-02-23 01:24 · Score: 1, Informative

It doesn't look like they even used a control group of people doing nothing, people just talking, people talking with the phone on the other side of their head, etc. From the pics all you can tell is that basically a lot of the brain is more active after an hour on the phone, not just the spot next to the antenna. Why are researchers so clueless?

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Unsure by somersault · 2011-02-23 01:27 · Score: 1

Hmm okay actually having read the article and not just looking at the picture, the results are more interesting, but I'd also like to know what happened if they tried the same thing with the left phone rather than the right. It could be something as simple as the phone gets warmer, increasing the rate of chemical reactions on that side of the brain.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Unsure by ColdWetDog · 2011-02-23 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is a real disconnect between the single picture and the article text. The picture posted in the NYT shows increased diffused uptake, perhaps a predominance on the right side (the side with the active cell phone) but it's anything but obvious. From all of the chatter surrounding the article, I hope to hell that the actual quantitative results are better founded and the picture just isn't very useful.

TFA claims that the study is high quality and if they can get reasonable results from 47 people, they had to see a substantive difference. Still and all, it's a relatively easy experiment to repeat and I assume that is in progress as we speak. I'd like to see some better controls (both left and right active, a determination of how repeatable the fMRI values are in a given person over a couple of hours just to name two off the top of my head).

As everyone has been taking great pains to note, this doesn't show anything but a putative effect of putting an active cell phone next to your head - it's neither good nor bad and it's not necessarily due to the radio emissions (that's an assumption).

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Unsure by vlm · 2011-02-23 01:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

It could be something as simple as the phone gets warmer, increasing the rate of chemical reactions on that side of the brain.
From TFA (stolen from another AC):

They said the activity was unlikely to be associated with heat from the phone because it occurred near the antenna rather than where the phone touched the head.
Not relevant. Microwave amplifiers are not known for high efficiencies. So most of the battery energy goes into heating the handset circuit board up. The rest goes into the antenna, of which some fraction will go into simple thermal RF tissue heating (see radio-diathermy or just diathermy).
Dumping a couple milliwatts of RF generated thermal energy into the side of your head has about the same effect as dumping a couple milliwatts of natural gas generated thermal energy into the side of your head, in other words something measurable but irrelevant, compared to sunlight, etc.
Curious they used cellphones. You'd think cordless would be similar power level, frequencies, and much cheaper, but probably not as good for scare mongering and FUD...

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Unsure by commodore6502 · 2011-02-23 02:13 · Score: 5, Informative

>>>It doesn't look like they even used a control group of people doing nothing
Yes they did.
>>>people just talking
Yes they did.
>>>people talking with the phone on the other side of their head
Yes they did.
It helps if you actually READ the article, since the researchers tested the phone on both sides of the head, with the phone turned off, and with the phone turned on, and observed the brain only reactived with the phone turned on (and on whichever side it was located).
>>>Why are researchers so clueless?
They are not.
You however are.
Sorry but you posted the post, and I'm just responding in kind.

--
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Re:Unsure by somersault · 2011-02-23 02:32 · Score: 1, Informative

Yeah, I might one day learn to RTFA properly. Still, they only tested with the phone on the right side switched on, they didn't do the left. Considering it was far more than just the part near the antennae that was active after the hour with the phone on, I think it would have been better to test both sides, maybe even try the phone at the front too.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Unsure by GooberToo · 2011-02-23 02:54 · Score: 1

Well thankfully we know the report is completely bogus because repeatedly over the last decade various slashdotters have rabidly and repeatedly insisted, despite lots and lots of evidence to the contrary, this is impossible because all of the radiation is completely blocked by skin and therefore impossible to interact with anything other than skin.
Goes to show what has become common today, popular ignorance is still ignorance.
Re:Unsure by foobsr · 2011-02-23 04:03 · Score: 1

quote from TFA: "Dr. Volkow said that the latest research is preliminary and does not address questions about cancer or other heath issues, but it does raise new questions about potential areas of research to better understand the health implications of increased brain activity resulting from cellphone use."

And what further conclusion do you think one could draw if one did a test with the 'left side switched on' as well?

IMHO, this is obviously piloting for a broader approach to raise funds.

CC.

--
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Re:Unsure by somersault · 2011-02-23 04:43 · Score: 1

And what further conclusion do you think one could draw if one did a test with the 'left side switched on' as well?
To see if the effect really was strongest at the point closest to the antenna, or if that was just a coincidence.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Unsure by c6gunner · 2011-02-23 05:18 · Score: 1

*facepalm*
Hey, look, there goes jesus on a triceratops!
Re:Unsure by dmmiller2k · 2011-02-23 05:19 · Score: 1

To quote further from TFA:

“The dogma in the cellphone community says that it doesn’t do anything. What she’s shown is that it does do something, and the next thing to find out is what it’s doing and whether it’s causing harm.”
So it's not that it's neither good nor bad, it's that we don't know which yet.

--
"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
Re:Unsure by JonySuede · 2011-02-23 05:51 · Score: 1

The heat from the phone could have some effect, just like the heat from a laptop on a lap decrease the sperm quality

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:Unsure by rgbatduke · 2011-02-23 06:03 · Score: 1

I'm suspicious even before RTFA (and remain so afterwards) for two very simple reasons.

* Correlation is not causation; to demonstrate causation it really helps to have a physically plausible mechanism.
* There is no physically plausible mechanism. The total power radiated from a cell phone is between 1 and 4 watts. No more than a third of this (more likely a quarter) goes in the direction of "the head", so call it a watt. The skin depth is little more than the depth of the human skin, meaning that one has exponential attenuation going into the tissue. The Wikipedia page that examines this question suggests that the total power per kilogram that actually makes it through the human skull is maybe a microwatt per kilogram, and that only at the very surface of the brain on that side because it isn't like the attenuation stops or anything.

To put this in perspective, a flashlight emits a total power in watts that is comparable to that of a cell phone. The energy comes out in a roughly blackbody curve (for an incandescent bulb) and is directionally focussed by a mirror. The skin depth for its radiation is also very short (although one can certainly see some radiation through human skin, as in the thickness of the eyelid). You are at exactly the same risk holding a flashlight up to your head as you are using a cellphone. Oh, wait, you are at greater risk -- directional power vs dipolar, as much or more power to begin with, and it still isn't enough to measurably warm even the surface of the skin at point-blank range.

If you want something risky, try sunlight. Approximately a KW per square meter, it dwarfs the output of both cell phone and flashlight (you can't even see the beam of a flashlight directed as an object at ten or twenty centimeters in direct sunlight). It has lots of nice high frequency ionizing radiation (UV) that can actually cause cellular damage on a quantum scale, where cell phone radiation at most causes water molecules to wiggle a bit. It clearly goes right through eyelid-thickness skin; it is painful to lift one's head to the sun so that sunlight falls directly on the closed eyelids because so much leaks through. It is known to actually increase cancer rates, something repeated studies have been unable to demonstrate for cell phones. I'll believe that cell phones can actually cause meaningful changes in brain activity/temperature only when I get to design the study that does it and when the physics of the effect is at the very least plausibly hypothesized.

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Re:Unsure by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-02-23 06:22 · Score: 1

To anticipate comments by others:

Yes, I invoked Godwin's Law. But in this case it is entirely justified. Since the study did not control for obvious possible alternate causes, in this case correlation really does not imply causation -- at all. Not even a little.
Re:Unsure by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-02-23 06:26 · Score: 1

"Goes to show what has become common today, popular ignorance is still ignorance."
This study does absolutely nothing to show that the increased brain activity is caused by radio waves. It could just as easily be due to the sound entering only one ear. If they had controlled for such obvious alternate causes, this "study" might have actually demonstrated something interesting. But since they didn't... it didn't.
Re:Unsure by icebike · 2011-02-23 07:44 · Score: 1

And apparently no control group talked on a land line (wired either).

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Unsure by daenris · 2011-02-23 07:52 · Score: 1

Actually they didn't use a separate control group, or switch the sides of the phones. Here's the relevant bit from the actual paper:

All participants had 2 scans performed on separate days using PET with 18FDG injection under resting conditions. For both scans 2 cell phones, one placed on the left ear and one on the right, were used to avoid confounding effects from the expectation of a signal from the side of the brain at which the cell phone was located. For one of the days both cell phones were deactivated (“off” condition). For the other day the right cell phone was on (activated but muted to avoid confounding from auditory stimulation) and the left cell phone was off (“on” condition). For the on condition the cell phone was receiving a call (from a recorded text), although the sound was muted. The order of conditions was randomly assigned, and participants were blinded to the condition. The mean time between the first and the second study was 5 (SD, 3) days.
Subjects had a phone at each ear, but only the right phone was ever on. They were scanned twice, once with the right phone on and once with both phones off. The order for whether they were scanned first in the "on" or "off" condition was randomized.
Re:Unsure by daenris · 2011-02-23 08:42 · Score: 1

I don't think you know what Godwin's Law is...
Re:Unsure by neurocutie · 2011-02-23 09:15 · Score: 1

no control for RF vs just being "on" (e.g. in airplane mode)... may have nothing to do with wireless/RF radiation at all...
Re:Unsure by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-02-23 11:10 · Score: 1

My apologies. I do know what Godwin's Law is, but I momentarily got it confused with that other saying... some law or other, I forget what it was labeled, stating that sooner or later in just about any thread on Slashdot, somebody will say "correlation does not imply causation".

If there isn't a name for it, there should be. But in this case I was fully justified in bringing the principle up.
Re:Unsure by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-02-23 11:13 · Score: 1

Funny, too, that somebody modded my original comment "Troll". How is that in any way trolling?

Probably just some modder who doesn't like me. There are a few such.
Re:Unsure by ogl_codemonkey · 2011-02-23 11:19 · Score: 1

They did say the sound was muted, actually.
Re:Unsure by Meski · 2011-02-23 16:33 · Score: 1

Increased metabolism?

Cell phone use linked to weight loss!!
Re:Unsure by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-02-23 19:39 · Score: 1

I replied to this once already, but Slashdot seems to have misplaced my reply. Weird.

Yes, you are correct. I did not see "(sound muted)" the first time I read the abstract.

It is too bad, in a way. I was all set to point out that while the brain activity was correlated to the EM field strength, it would likely have also correlated strongly with auditory processing, since a lot of it happens in the temporal lobe right by the ear.

Ah, well. At least it shows that I was practicing my critical thinking.
Re:Unsure by foobsr · 2011-02-23 23:24 · Score: 1

Fine, I see the point.
CC.

--
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Re:Unsure by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-02-24 02:17 · Score: 1

They are taking a stepwise approach to the subject. Perhaps a lot of us are expecting too much at one time. Immediately from looking at what was studied, I saw things that might need changed or added. This isn't a condemnation of the test, more like ideas for follow on studies.
That they found effects is not at all surprising. After all, when using a cell phone, you are immersing your head in the near field of a few watts of RF energy. There almost cannot be no effect. Likely candidates are warming, less likely is cellular disruption. At the bottom of the list is the RF causing cancer. It isn't impossible, but not very likely, as this is not ionizing radiation.
I would not be at all surprised if there were detrimental effects caused by self immersion in the near field of a low power RF device operating in the GigaHertz region. As conjecture, I might look to interference in the thought process, and perhaps a slowing of reflexes. Cancer? Despite the publicity effects, I suspect that one is a non starter.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Unsure by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-02-24 02:51 · Score: 1

Better read TFA Jane. The audio was muted. It's one study, and scientific studies build up a step at a time. The article does indeed show some effect, which is not surprising at all, given what we know already about RF energy. What the study doesn't say is what the results of that RF/tissue interaction is. That is for future studies.
Future studies will likely include studies of the effect with audio included, power levels, duration times and their effects. This study was a baseline, and as such is very useful.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Unsure by drfireman · 2011-02-24 06:58 · Score: 1

The part of the temporal lobe they found was in/near the temporal pole, which is not particularly related to hearing.
Re:Unsure by drfireman · 2011-02-24 07:04 · Score: 1

Actually, they did use a reference condition with another device that didn't involve radio waves. It was a cell phone turned off. This is a much more appropriate control than what you suggest, and is a pretty good control for this study. Listening to recordings on headphones would be a very poorly chosen control condition, for obvious reasons.
Re:Unsure by drfireman · 2011-02-24 07:05 · Score: 1

Actually, both researchers and and the NIH are reasonably clever, for the most part (and they're the same people, by the way). The clueless people are idiots who have no scientific training or experience whatsoever and think they can offer appropriate scientific criticisms of a study they haven't read.
Re:Unsure by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-02-25 05:17 · Score: 1

Better read the rest of the thread. I already knew that.
Re:Unsure by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-02-25 05:51 · Score: 1

I'll try especially hard to read the posts that haven't been made yet.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Unsure by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-02-25 14:13 · Score: 1

The post I referred to was made more than 7 hours before yours.

Probably not by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-23 01:14 · Score: 1

I bet you the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics this isn't true.

Re:Probably not by sabt-pestnu · 2011-02-23 10:45 · Score: 1

It entirely depends on your definition of radiation, I guess. Electro-magnetic field radiation (strength) is what they found correlated with brain glucose metabolism.
As opposed to gamma ray radiation induced by positron emission, the factor used to detect said brain glucose metabolism.
I wonder if they considered possible interactions between the tomography equipment and the radio-frequency fields of the cell phones. There may be none, but I know so little I am free to speculate impossibilities...

If you miss this post you'll get brain cancer! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-23 01:17 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

Re:If you miss this post you'll get brain cancer! by commodore6502 · 2011-02-23 02:01 · Score: 1

Yes this is a POOR article. The Summary I submitted was better:
LINK - http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/70134/title/Cell_phones_may_affect_brain_metabolism
"47 participants had pairs of Samsung cell phones strapped to their heads, one on each side. The phone on the left ear was turned off, while the one on the right received a 50-minute recorded message. This phone was kept muted so that the subject didnâ(TM)t know which phone was on, and also to prevent stimulation of the brainâ(TM)s hearing center.
"A few minutes after the call, a PET scan revealed that brain regions next to the working phone had higher levels of glucose metabolism. âoeThe human brain is sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted from cell phones,â says study coauthor Nora Volkow of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in Bethesda, MD. The increase in brain metabolism observed in the experiment may be an underestimate, because cell phones emit more radiation when a person is talking.

--
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Re:If you miss this post you'll get brain cancer! by tobiah · 2011-02-23 06:48 · Score: 1

The sciencenews article was shorter and better explained the research paper, but what I'd really prefer is to be able to read that paper. Anyone have a link for a free version?

--
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -

Nothing new... by Mad+Giraffe · 2011-02-23 01:17 · Score: 1

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...".

Re:Nothing new... by Kilrah_il · 2011-02-23 02:15 · Score: 1

Well, usually science starts with finding something and then finding what it does and later why it does that. You usually don't find a single study that finds a phenomenon, shows its effects and what causes it. When you do find such a study, we usually criticize it for bad science and jumping to conclusions.
The researchers at this study found some nice results (scientifically speaking) and dis not resort to FUD to garner more attention. It's now up to further studies to find out the effects of these findings and what causes them.

--
Whenever in an argument, remember this.

Meh by lennier1 · 2011-02-23 01:18 · Score: 2

Why bother?
With all that electromagnetic pollution our great-grandchildren will be born with at least three arms anyway.

Re:Meh by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-02-24 02:56 · Score: 1

Nope. There is a huge difference between ambient RF and near field immersion. Even a small RF source can have strong local effects. The power decreases as the square root of the distance. So at a few watts right against the head is a whole lot more powerful than much higher wattage further away.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Could it be something else? by w_dragon · 2011-02-23 01:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

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?,

Re:Could it be something else? by Zakabog · 2011-02-23 01:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

The call was muted to avoid any issues with the sound causing an increase in brain activity.
What i'd like to know is how close was the phone to the ear? They said the part of the brain closest to the antenna showed the increase in activity but if the phone is that close to the head then it seems entirely possible that it was affected by the heat ahone generates in a 50 minute phone call.
I feel like they should redo the experiment, actually do something where the antenna is seperate from the phone body and next to the brain. Also why not test multiple scenarios, left phone on in a call, right phone on in a call, both phones in a call, both phones off, both phones on, etc. This experiment just tested both phones on, both phones off and right phone on. It seems kind of half assed.
Re:Could it be something else? by spikenerd · 2011-02-23 01:52 · Score: 4, Informative

They were quite deliberate to point out that they used a phone with the antenna in the mouthpiece, so that it would be separated from sources of heat, and that the the increased consumption of glucose was measured in regions near the antenna, and not so much near sources of heat. They claimed this was a significant point because the FDA's current position is that heat is entirely responsible for all reactions that have yet been measured. (Disclaimer: I'm just repeating stuff from articles about it--I didn't read the actual study.)
Re:Could it be something else? by commodore6502 · 2011-02-23 02:07 · Score: 1

>>>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?,
Too lazy to AYQ.
(shrug)
Okay fine. The sound was muted. It said that ITFA.

--
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Re:Could it be something else? by xded · 2011-02-23 02:17 · Score: 2

it seems entirely possible that it was affected by the heat ahone generates in a 50 minute phone call [...] they should redo the experiment, actually do something where the antenna is seperate from the phone body and next to the brain.
The problem would then be that the microwaves themselves will generate heat in the brain, leading to some metabolic perturbation.
Supposing our body does not contain "rectifying" biological structures (an "organic diode") able to work at nanosecond time constants, can we please stop discovering dielectric heating and investigate whether the heating itself affects our brain?
Re:Could it be something else? by CyberDruid · 2011-02-23 02:56 · Score: 1

There should have been a placebo group holding an equally hot phone not making any calls, just to rule out stuff like: heat, the actual holding of the phone, psychological effects, etc. Everything is better when it is double-blind. I didn't read the article, though :).

--
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
Re:Could it be something else? by ymgve · 2011-02-23 09:05 · Score: 1

Maybe it was actually caused by the phones being muted? Since the you're so used to hearing something when a phone is placed against your ear, and you often spend a moderate effort trying to separate the sound from the phone from background noise, maybe the lack of any sound at all made their brains try extra hard to listen for the expected sound.
A nice control would be some non-cellphone device that looked and acted like a phone, could be either muted or not, but only played a pre-recorded message and didn't produce any EM radiation.

Wait One hundred years by jwlnewsome · 2011-02-23 01:23 · Score: 1

There is not enough data at the moment to give any acurate stats'

Cell phones are making us smarter! by fezzzz · 2011-02-23 01:24 · Score: 2

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!

Re:Cell phones are making us smarter! by sakdoctor · 2011-02-23 01:31 · Score: 1

First world countries? You don't travel much do you.
Phones conquered the entire planet years ago.
Re:Cell phones are making us smarter! by fezzzz · 2011-02-23 01:34 · Score: 1

Need money to talk a lot.
Re:Cell phones are making us smarter! by dodobh · 2011-02-23 03:54 · Score: 1

Only if your cellphone rates are stupidly high.

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Re:Cell phones are making us smarter! by rubycodez · 2011-02-23 04:55 · Score: 1

I have shocking news for you, the ubiquidous cell phones in the poorest SE asian countries have more features than the average U.S. one, and the carriers don't charge extra for things like texting. What was prohibitively expense was a land-line phone, over $400 to install with its battery backup/power conditioner and the need to run new line (phone companies refuse to use the tangled mess of decades gone by). We're getting raped over here by the major carriers. It sure is funny to see a peasant pulling a wooden cart selling farm produce door-to-door, wearing the hat and robe that hasn't changed for centuries, have a current pop ring tone suddenly erupt from inside their garment. Even more so for monks with traditional couple thousand year old clothing. I have a picture of one with cell in one hand and Coca-cola in the other. haha!
Re:Cell phones are making us smarter! by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-23 08:11 · Score: 1

...which is especially true in a lot of 3rd world countries (Africa, Caribbean, some South American countries)

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Cell phones are making us smarter! by 0111+1110 · 2011-02-24 08:32 · Score: 1

Name some countries outside of Africa where cell phone use is not ubiquitous. I'll start. Cuba. North Korea maybe? Probably Myanmar (Burma). Surely there must be more. Maybe some of the 'Stans?

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

maybe the heat? by Dr.+Tom · 2011-02-23 01:28 · Score: 1

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.

"Knowing when its about to ring" by polyp2000 · 2011-02-23 01:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by circletimessquare · 2011-02-23 01:45 · Score: 1

at night or dusk, i will walk by street lights and they will flicker on or off
i think i've turned into an RF generator
all kidding aside, the street lights DO flicker on or off as i near them. i'm sufficiently spooked about it

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-23 01:48 · Score: 1

It kinda sounds like you are a witch....
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by chichilalescu · 2011-02-23 01:56 · Score: 1

it was kind of funny in my home town. I would walk at night along a street, and the lights would turn off as I got under them, then back on again. my father told me later that they sometimes turn some of the lights off intermittently, to save power. that kind of took the romance out of thinking about it...

--
new sig
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by gTsiros · 2011-02-23 02:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

and do you count the times where you look at your cellphone without it ringing later on?

--
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by john83 · 2011-02-23 03:05 · Score: 1

My understanding is that the lights overheat. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/966/can-some-people-extinguish-streetlamps-by-means-of-their-bodily-emanations

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by Bobtree · 2011-02-23 03:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by iter8 · 2011-02-23 03:48 · Score: 1

You're not the only one who notices this phenomenon, but some people think it's confirmation bias.
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by thisisauniqueid · 2011-02-23 06:25 · Score: 1

This is known as the availability heuristic, and is a cognitive bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic It's related to "I hit every red light on the way here" and "this is a lucky casino, look at all these people winning".
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by thisisauniqueid · 2011-02-23 06:26 · Score: 1

Exactly. Or do you count the times where it rings without you looking at it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by SleazyRidr · 2011-02-23 07:06 · Score: 1

I used to live in Australia, and never noticed that. I then moved to the US and started noticing that happen. Maybe the US constructs their lights using something that is sensitive to a person's RF.
Do you also have problems using battery-powered watches?

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by mbessey · 2011-02-23 07:51 · Score: 1

It's much more likely that you're just hearing some lower-frequency harmonics from the RF. Something similar to what causes cell phones to create noise on a radio or a speakerphone, even when they're just sitting idle next to it.
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by DMUTPeregrine · 2011-02-23 19:40 · Score: 1

Sometimes "I hit every red light on the way here" really does happen. I kept track on my old daily commute, and about once a week (most often on a Wednesday) I would hit either every red or all but the first (out of 14 lights). Probably just due to timing of when I had to go to school on Wednesdays being in a higher traffic period.

--
Not a sentence!
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by frenchbedroom · 2011-02-23 23:03 · Score: 1

Looks like a valid claim for the JREF's million dollar challenge.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Get your ability tested under a proper scientific experimental protocol and you could win a cool million dollars. Who knows, if you're right we may discover wonderful things about the human brain. If you're wrong, well, you're wrong, and it's ok not to have a special power.
Re:"Knowing when its about to ring" by thisisauniqueid · 2011-02-24 08:33 · Score: 1

Yes, if the time it takes you to get between the lights (due to traffic) is greater than or equal to the timing between light phases, then of course you will hit every light. Good point :-)

Using Your Head by lazarus · 2011-02-23 01:34 · Score: 1

Does anyone actually hold a cell phone up to their head anymore? I certainly did from the early 1990s to about 2005 or so. But now? Using it in the car where I am is illegal so I've got a hands-free there. Often when I am travelling I will communicate via e-mail or text message (because they are the cheaper options). And when I am at my desk I use Skype more than anything else for both chat and calls (so I can still have both hands free for taking notes). I can't remember the last time I used my cell phone in the traditional sense (holding it up to my head for a call).

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.

Re:Using Your Head by drinkypoo · 2011-02-23 02:17 · Score: 1

Loads of people still talk on the phone for hours, holding it. I can't stand that either and I have a variety of hands free kit to prevent it as well. But judging from all the dipshits I've seen walking down the sidewalk all funny while talking on the phone, or driving like an asshole while talking on the phone (I look at the face of every driver it's convenient to look at in an attempt to gauge their emotional state, so I see if they're holding a phone to their head, and virtually everyone driving while holding up a phone is driving like a dumbshit) I'd say that the practice of holding up a phone and talking is still quite common. Seriously, if people don't even use hands free in the car, I guarantee they don't use it anywhere else.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Using Your Head by lazarus · 2011-02-23 02:27 · Score: 1

Good point. I warrant that the Slashdot crowd probably uses a cell phone in this manner less frequently than the general public. May be a good topic for a poll.

--
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Re:Using Your Head by rubycodez · 2011-02-23 05:00 · Score: 1

I hate cell phones so much, I average two cell calls a day, and spend less a minute. My 300 minutes per two months at $30 card have piled up to 2500 minutes thus far. My wife has 7000. I don't use phone to text, browse, take pictures or play games. The alarm is handy but other than that it's just a goddamn telephone to be shunned and marginalized.

Crappy Study or Crappy Reporting? by bughunter · 2011-02-23 01:35 · Score: 1

(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:

Each study subject was fitted with a cellphone on each ear and then underwent two 50-minute scans. During one scan, the cellphones were turned off, but during the other scan, the phone on the right ear was activated to receive a call from a recorded message, although the sound was turned off to avoid auditory stimulation. Whether the phone was on or off did not affect the overall metabolism of the brain, but the scans did show a 7 percent increase in activity in the part of the brain closest to the antenna.

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!

Re:Crappy Study or Crappy Reporting? by TheSync · 2011-02-23 05:46 · Score: 1

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.
The procedure was "Cell phones were placed on the left and right ears and positron emission tomography with (18F)fluorodeoxyglucose injection was used to measure brain glucose metabolism twice, once with the right cell phone activated (sound muted) for 50 minutes (âoeonâ condition) and once with both cell phones deactivated (âoeoffâ condition). "
I don't understand why they only turned on the right cell phone RF. It seems to me that you would want to randomize whether it was the right or left cell phone.
I personally am not too worried about the results of this study, but it is a bit odd and some more work should be done.
Re:Crappy Study or Crappy Reporting? by drfireman · 2011-02-24 07:12 · Score: 1

I've read the JAMA article. They report effects in the temporal pole, which is in the temporal lobe, but not that part that's associated with auditory processing. There are also frontal lobe effects, not too near the part of the frontal lobe that's directly involved in speech. It's also hard to argue that the effect is due to listening, because subjects didn't know when the phones were on or off, and for the results to have worked out, they'd have to have been listening more when the phones were on than off.
The confusing paragraph you cite is easy to explain. There's a difference between "overall" effects and local effects. They found effects localized to where the phone was, but not overall effects in the whole brain. This is just a sloppy way of pointing out that the effects they found were localized to where the cell phone was.

PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by the_raptor · 2011-02-23 01:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-23 02:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

With only 47 participants this study has, in my eyes, about the same validity as the average undergrad study
47 is actually a very large number for a PET study, where scanning each participant costs a few thousand dollars. Typical PET & fMRI studies scan between 10-20 participants. As always, reliability comes from replication.
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by Smegoid · 2011-02-23 02:33 · Score: 2

With only 47 participants this study has, in my eyes, about the same validity as the average undergrad study.
I'd love to know what kind of experimental psychology you do that typically runs so many hundreds of participants that you see 47 subjects as equivalent to an undergrad project.
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by gTsiros · 2011-02-23 03:02 · Score: 1

(ironically this study was done with ionising radiation, whose cancer causing effects are well known).
wait, what? how did they get the cellphone to emit ionizing radiation?!

--
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by gTsiros · 2011-02-23 03:26 · Score: 1

i'd say 50-100 grand is a small price to pay if we are to even get closer to a conclusion about whether a device used by billions of people is a significant health risk or not.

--
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by Dog-Cow · 2011-02-23 03:48 · Score: 1

* I am a pysch student and these studies are the ban[sic] of my existence.
Then why are you still here?
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by CheetoNards · 2011-02-23 04:41 · Score: 2

I believe the parent was referring to the PET scan used to determine brain activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Safety
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by AdamHaun · 2011-02-23 04:51 · Score: 1

I think he's talking about the PET scan.

--
Visit the
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by tlhIngan · 2011-02-23 05:22 · Score: 1

i'd say 50-100 grand is a small price to pay if we are to even get closer to a conclusion about whether a device used by billions of people is a significant health risk or not.
Problem is, we're no closer to that conclusion than we are before.
All we know is there's *some* effect. Whether it's good for us, bad for us, we don't know, and the study doesn't attempt to even answer it, other than saying "further study is required". Not that it was a waste of time or money, since it shows the brain is somehow responding to something, but what, and its effects, are unknown. Perhaps to be studied later.
This is actually kind of important, since a lot of devices are containing cell modems in it (e.g., Kindle, nook, tablets), and while users may not hold their devices to their heads, they may rest them on their chest whist carrying a baby or a child, so the baby's head may be getting a dose of that cell signal.
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by obliv!on · 2011-02-23 06:11 · Score: 1

You have no idea what you're talking about. The abstract clearly illustrates their type I probability as at most .05 which is pretty standard.

Using other figures from the abstract I approximate their type II probability using the following
approximate critical t value (from the t-table in Wackerly's Mathematical Statistics) 1.96 for 46 df

t confidence interval
4.2 = 2.435 + 1.96*se
implies se = .9005
since se = std.dev./sqrt(n) (recall n=47)
std. dev. = 6.1736 (approximately)

The effect size (d) is approximately .3934 under equal variance

This leads to the following approximate power
For a One-Tailed (Directional) Hypothesis
Observed Power: 0.778
For a Two-Tailed (Non-Directional) Hypothesis
Observed Power: 0.671

They had a directional hypothesis (mu phone on greater than mu phone off) and since I'm only using approximate values, numbers from their abstract, and I assumed by their use of ANOVA that equal variance was satisfied (so I used the same value for both) that that .778 is pretty close to the standard .8. So I'm willing to bet their experimental design was such that it their power is actually at least .8 and that the difference is from my rounding and approximation and not actually using their recorded standard deviations (since I didn't see them in the abstract and I don't have access to the JAMA article itself).

If any methodological challenge can be had from just reading an abstract (which seems unlikely since all of their methods are not expressed in it) its that they don't explain which version of ANOVA they used (it would seem repeated measures is most appropriate and a quick review of other studies suggests they likely used this, but since they don't say it explicitly its possible they used another ANOVA). One might also question why a regression model with mixed effects wasn't used given the repeated measures and potential for significant mixed effects in longitudinal study, but given the relationships between ANOVA and regression it isn't really a fatal flaw.

Now posting that ridiculous (see *) Science News article could only have one of a few purposes: (1) You're a Bayesian and you're rejecting a frequentist approach to this study. (2) You're against the use of all statistics based on their uncertainty versus deterministic/certain models from mathematics. (3) You think compounding errors effects this study. If I'm missing you're real point please feel free to elaborate it.

If (1) I'm not going to dive into the pro/con's of Bayesian vs Frequentist, but I will say Bayesian models are built off of Frequentist its not like they were independently developed in a vacuum. As such while Bayesian methods act generally under different assumptions they do inherit and are confined by some of the same restrictions as frequentist models. A real problem is that Bayesian models work well when you can effectively incorporate prior knowledge (as in domain specific knowledge) which a Statistician isn't likely to have, and how realistic do you really think it is to teach scientists Bayesian methods when they all require some understanding of frequentist models that they already have shown they don't fully understand?

If (2) well if you have a neat proof for PvsNP that P=NP tucked away you might want to get on with submitting it and claiming your million dollar prize and possible fields medal if not other accolades or if you have many previously unpublished exact methods please publish them we're at a point where computing power could actually do the necessary calculation and that too could possibly net you a fields medal and more. Since most methods used are based on maximum likelihood, most powerful test, or some other "at least this good" type method you don't need to fear the uncertainty and without a way to map probabilistic methods to deterministic ones meaningfully an
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by dcollins · 2011-02-23 07:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

"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."
I don't think any of those things mean what you seem to think they mean. *
(1) On PET scan data not having "validity" -- skeptical. Citation needed.
(2) On the linked article of science paper statistical shortfalls -- there are some good cautionary points in that article. The article does not say that similar studies have been shown to have "no real statistical significance" (in fact, just the opposite). I challenge you to point out specific statistical pitfalls (from your linked article) of which this abstract runs afoul? Because I don't see any.
(3) 47 participants is perfectly reasonable, since the accepted number for a t-test as done in the study is considered to be 30 or more (hence generating an approximately-normal sampling distribution of sample mean results, per the Central Limit Theorem, assuming no outliers found in the obtained data). The strength of the evidence obtained is reflected in the calculation of P = 0.004 (which is super, super low, i.e., enormously significantly significant), not by your hand waving about what should count "in your eyes".
* I'm a lecturer in college statistics.

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by mbessey · 2011-02-23 08:01 · Score: 1

PET scans involve injecting radioactive sugar into the bloodstream of the person being tested.
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by drfireman · 2011-02-24 07:28 · Score: 1

Do you have some basis for saying that 47 participants is too few? If you think you do, then I urge you to do some more careful reading of your texts on power analysis. And I specifically urge you to read some of the many fine articles by statisticians on the evils of retrospective power analysis. The bottom line of all this is that once the study is done, and there are findings, it doesn't matter if it had too few subjects. Either the statistics are valid or they're not. In this case, they're... well, they're close enough to valid that I'll give it to them. No study is perfect, but it's at best misleading to describe a study as invalid because it doesn't have some arbitrary number of subjects.
If I'm doing you an injustice, and you have some legitimate reason to suspect that their methods have in inflated false positive rate, then please post more details, I'm always happy to learn new things.
I will agree, though, that imaging studies don't tell us nearly as much about human behavior as many people seem to think, although the worst offenders are not studies like this, but cognitive studies that make unsupported claims about what processes underly patterns of activation. And of course you're right that news outlets are likely to jump on this to make some kind of unsupported point about cancer.
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by drfireman · 2011-02-24 07:41 · Score: 1

I think your third point misses the point. 47 participants probably is reasonable, but there is no such thing as an "accepted number for a t-test" without some prior estimate of the effect size you're looking for and the expected variability. All that said, there is absolutely no point in arguing about an observed effect on the basis of its prior power (aka retrospective power analysis). Once you have the results, the only thing that matters is whether or not the statistics were done correctly (and then, of course, what you're going to make of it, etc.). I know you know this, but it bears repeating.
Also, I believe p=0.004 is the uncorrected p value. Brain imaging studies generally pay a heavy price in terms of correction for multiple comparisons. In this case, the corrected p value was 0.05, which just meets the normal arbitrary standard. From my quick reading, the more impressive (statistically) result is the relationship between the electric field magnitude and the change in signal associated with on vs. off. That came in at 0.001, uncorrected.
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by dcollins · 2011-02-24 17:42 · Score: 1

I actually disagree with a lot of what you just wrote there.
I'll take one very clear-cut point -- "the corrected p value was 0.05" is false; you're misreading the abstract. It says, "Design, Setting, and Participants... P .05 (corrected for multiple comparisons) were considered significant." So that's the threshold picked in the design stage, prior to the experiment being carried out, as being significant (as you would expect). At the end, when the experiment was actually run, the observed P-value (after all corrections) was indeed found to be P=0.004. Since that's less (a lot less) than the initially chosen significance threshold, the results are declared to be "significant".

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Re:PET/MRI and statistics are poor bed partners by drfireman · 2011-02-24 23:57 · Score: 1

I agree that this is a very clear-cut point. The abstract simply does not say whether or not that p value is corrected. The article does. I refer you specifically to table 2, which provides the corrected p values for both of the ROIs. It lists them both as 0.05. I apologize if I'm reading this wrong, but I can't fathom what the basis could be for your disagreement, unless you were forced to guess without access to the full article.
If you're going to dispute my other two points, then I'm comfortable with that. There's a tidy little literature on the stupidity of retrospective power analysis. So far as I know, there's no opposing literature whatsoever. But of course academic statisticians are argumentative, so I'm sure you can find someone to disagree with just about anything, even if no one (to my knowledge) has been willing to make the point in a decent journal.
I'd also be shocked if you could get a knowledgeable statistician to sign on to the view that there's an accepted adequate number of observations for a t-test without any other details about the study. A simple power analysis seems like it would dispute that pretty readily (I won't insult anyone by posting numbers, at least not yet). But since you haven't made any argument, I can't really argue the point.

In a related story... by DoofusOfDeath · 2011-02-23 01:40 · Score: 1, Funny

A major decrease in brain activity has been linked to using phones' "SMS" feature.

Re:or maybe by FTWinston · 2011-02-23 01:47 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Other explanations? by FTWinston · 2011-02-23 01:48 · Score: 1

The phone was muted; they weren't listening to it

well duh, this is how a microwave oven works by circletimessquare · 2011-02-23 01:50 · Score: 1

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

reminds me, when i was a dumb teenager by circletimessquare · 2011-02-23 01:53 · Score: 1

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

Re:or maybe by Kilrah_il · 2011-02-23 02:12 · Score: 1

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.

All I read is: by drunkennewfiemidget · 2011-02-23 02:31 · Score: 1

Start holding the cell phone in front of my gut. That should increase that metabolic rate, too, right?

Re:All I read is: by rubycodez · 2011-02-23 05:04 · Score: 1

you could have one with phones in crotch and ass area set to alarm with vibrate, and sell them in sex shops.
Re:All I read is: by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-23 08:23 · Score: 1

Put the slap-chop in the taint area so that you can do squats and slap-chop things at the same time!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Replace "cell phone use" with... by cvtan · 2011-02-23 02:58 · Score: 1

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.

"Brain activity?" by Zorpheus · 2011-02-23 03:07 · Score: 1

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.

FUD...as usual by argStyopa · 2011-02-23 03:31 · Score: 1

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

Who? by bmo · 2011-02-23 03:33 · Score: 1

>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

Gut reaction by RogueWarrior65 · 2011-02-23 03:33 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Depopulation: Wouldn't it be great? by Legion303 · 2011-02-23 03:42 · Score: 1

"And who would be the first to go? Chatty, useless people who spend all their time talking on the phone and doing nothing useful."

I like the cut of your jib.

Re:or maybe by goose-incarnated · 2011-02-23 03:42 · Score: 1

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.

Changes for the worse. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2011-02-23 04:01 · Score: 1

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?

Was it an iPhone? by mu51c10rd · 2011-02-23 04:04 · Score: 1

Maybe they were holding it wrong?

Re:Insects and trees by Yvan256 · 2011-02-23 04:10 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is "Solar Power FTW!".

arms too long? by cof · 2011-02-23 04:19 · Score: 1

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.

entanglement is more likely by nido · 2011-02-23 04:21 · Score: 1

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

Re:entanglement is more likely by c6gunner · 2011-02-23 05:54 · Score: 1

Deepak Chopra strikes again.
Re:entanglement is more likely by LateArthurDent · 2011-02-23 06:45 · Score: 1

Quantum Entanglement.
Slashdot featured a related story a few weeks back: Research Finds That Electric Fields Help Neurons Fire.
How is "research finds that electric fields help neurons fire" related to quantum entanglement? You don't need quantum mechanics to describe electromagnetic fields. Maxwell came up with his equations long before there was such a thing as quantum theory.

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?
Yes. Yes it is.

The Cell Phone Diet by techwreck · 2011-02-23 04:36 · Score: 1

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?

Any Neurologists care to comment? by obliv!on · 2011-02-23 04:45 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Any Neurologists care to comment? by neurocutie · 2011-02-23 08:27 · Score: 1

the metabolic change in and of itself is inconsequential. But the fact that, if true on face value, there *is* a difference means that *something* *may* be going on. What it is, may well also be unimportant... or not... this finding, if it holds up at all, is just the beginning... Personally, I am not sure that sufficient controls were done to be absolutely sure that the effect, if real, is due to RF radiation.

Re:Insects and trees by Culture20 · 2011-02-23 05:15 · Score: 1

people with faster metabolisms get more done, use their phone more often. people with slow metabolisms are sloths.

The lives of insects scurrying around in darkness are measured in days, the lives of trees basking in sunshine are measured in centuries.

Parent isn't offtopic, it's just written too poetically for one moderator to understand.

Re:doesn't surprise me... by tobiah · 2011-02-23 06:37 · Score: 1

I have the same experience..

--
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -

Cutting to the chase by Jonathan+A · 2011-02-23 06:53 · Score: 1

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.

RF or just EM? (airplane mode?) by neurocutie · 2011-02-23 07:09 · Score: 1

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.

Re:No Relationship? by nsaspook · 2011-02-23 07:39 · Score: 1

>>this research shows there is a direct relationship between boobs and the brain that warrants further study."

I suspected that all along.

--
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.

Re:doesn't surprise me... by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-23 08:13 · Score: 1

I used to think it was some kind of anticipatory false-positive response until I started to get the feeling when I knew my phone wasn't in my pocket.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Insects and trees by losfromla · 2011-02-23 08:34 · Score: 1

queen ants live for over ten years. The workers scurrying in and out of sunlight, less than a year. Males that mate with the pre-fertilized (soon to be pregnant) female live long enough to mate, they mate in sunlight.

--
Only I can judge you.

Re:Insects and trees by losfromla · 2011-02-23 08:35 · Score: 1

forgot the important part, the queen lives out the non-mating part of her life in utter and complete darkness.

--
Only I can judge you.

Re:Other explanations? by green1 · 2011-02-23 09:14 · Score: 1

weren't listening? or were listening to silence? most phones still put out some low volume "white noise" while muted, did they control for that?

From the paper by perlhacker14 · 2011-02-23 11:17 · Score: 1

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.

More radiation absorbed on one side -- really? by coldsalmon · 2011-02-23 17:28 · Score: 1

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Cell Phone Use Tied To Changes In Brain Activity

134 of 191 comments (clear)